Open Knowledge in Higher Education (OKHE) - session 3

Open Knowledge in Higher EducationPG Cert in HE

#okhe okhe

Facilitated by Simon Bains, Katy Woolfenden, Sam Aston & Chris Millson

tinyurl.com/okhe16

Speakers for Wednesday 3 March 2016

PresentersSteven HillStephen Pinfield

PanelClive Agnew, Fiona Devine, Steven Hill, Steve Pettifer, Stephen Pinfield, Martin Weller

tinyurl.com/okhe16

National OA policy

Steven HillHead of Research Policy

Library PGCert, Manchester2 March 2016

@stevenhill

• The national policy landscape

• Finch Review/Government Policy

• Open access mandates

• Open data

• Open access requirements for future REF

• Future developments

Summary




• Open data



Summary

Image of Willetts: BIS

“The principle that the results of research that has

been publicly funded should be freely

accessible in the public domain is a compelling one,

and fundamentally unanswerable.”

Motivations for OA

Image: Public Domain

• Public-funded research should be freely available

• Long-term preference for ‘gold’ open access

• A mixed economy of ‘green’ and ‘gold’ OA is required in the transition

UK OA policy framework

• RCUK• Journal articles and conference proceedings

• Preference for ‘gold’ (inc. reuse permissions)

• Block grant funding for Article Processing Charges

• Embargo periods: 6/12 mo STEM, 12/24 mo AHSS

• Wellcome Trust/COAF• Journal articles, conference proceedings and monographs

• Preference for ‘gold’ (inc. reuse permissions)

• Funding for Article Processing Charges

• Embargo periods: 6 month

• Higher Education Funding Bodies/REF

Funder mandates




• Open data



Summary

• Open research is excellent research

• Mandates are successful

• £1.6 billion

Open Access and the REF

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/

• Maximising the reach and impact of research we fund

• Delivering a future that is ‘open by default’

• Not ‘distorting’ the system unilaterally and ideologically…

• …but fixing some of the problems in the system

Our aims

• Author engagement is essential

• We must set clear and straightforward rules

• We must be ambitious, but reasonable and flexible

Our aims

• To be eligible for the next REF, journal articles and conference papers accepted after 1 April 2016 must be:

o Deposited in a repository as the peer-reviewed manuscript (or better)

o Made accessible for read and download after 12 months or 24 months

The minimum requirements

Full policy: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/

• Exceptions apply where deposit not possible / open access not possible etc

• Benefits of OA should be extended beyond journals and conferences…

• …and in the long run include broad reuse permissions

A few more details…

Full policy: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/

• Implementation and monitoring

• Stability vs. harmony

• Ambition vs. realism

• Long-term trajectory for UK OA

Challenges

• Author engagement is possible, but is challenging

• HEIs want systems in place to notify of accepted papers

• We have granted flexibility in Y1 to deal with this

• Will review this autumn

Pinch-point: deposit on acceptance




• Open data



Summary

• Monographs and long form outputs

• ‘Technical review’ of REF implementation

• Infrastructure developments:

• Publications router

• SHERPA REF

The Future




• Open data



Summary

Thank you for [email protected]

@[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

‘Open’ Initiatives in Higher Education Institutions:

Towards an Integrated StrategyStephen Pinfield, University of Sheffield

Work developed in collaboration with Sheila Corrall, University of Pittsburgh

Originally based on work associated with the e-Infranet project, Report lead author

Lilian van der Vaart, SURF

The ArgumentThere is a strong ostensible case that the different ‘Open’

agendas...

Which have to date largely been pursued separately by different communities of practice along parallel tracks…

Share a number of common characteristics and potential benefits, which mean that…

A more coordinated approach to their development could be useful within and beyond institutions…

And this would create benefits for institutions in particular and the research community in general

Towards an Integrated Strategy

1. Background2. Definitions, types and

models of ‘Open’3. Fragmentation v.

Integration 4. Components of integrated

policy approaches5. Discussion and questions

on next steps ©Jisc and Matt Lincoln CC BY-NC-ND

Data Sources and Methods

• Review of related literature– including published policy guidance and templates

• Qualitative survey of institutional policies– limited to English-language information in public domain– intended to inform instrument development for large-scale

international survey• Policy analysis via 5W1H problem-solving method

– Why? What? When? Where? Who? How? questions used as sensitizing framework (Patton, 2002, p. 278)

‘Open’ Agendas: Background • Open approaches are gathering

momentum– bottom-up initiatives led by researchers, librarians,

educationalists, and technologists– top-down drive by policy-makers and funders

• Influences and instantiations are multifaceted– social, technological, economic, political, etc.

• Multifarious movements at different stages – typically pursued within specialist communities– relatively few efforts to think and work holistically

?** *

* ** *** *

Definitions, Dimensions, Distinctions• Interpretations of ‘Open’ vary between and within

different stakeholder and practitioner groups– especially in the commercial arena (e.g. Open Standards) and

for emergent areas (e.g. Open Peer Review)• Some transfer concepts/terms from existing practice

– Gratis and Libre “sub-species” of Open Access derived from Open Source Software community (Suber, 2012)

• Others develop their own frameworks and meanings– 4 Rs of Open Educational Resources: Reuse, Revise, Remix,

Redistribute (Wiley, 2010)• Focus may be on content (product) and/or process

– e.g. OpenSource

Open: A Simple Overarching Definition

“Open means ensuring that there is little or no barrier to access for anyone who can, or wants to, contribute to a particular development or use its output.”

(e-Infranet, 2013, p. 12, adapted from CETIS)

A Typology of OpenOpen Type Open Domain

Open Content

Open access to research publications (OA) Open dataOpen educational resources (OER; including Open CourseWare, OCW)Open bibliographyOpen source software (OSS)

Open Process

Open developmentOpen educational practices (OEP)Open peer reviewOpen science/researchOpen innovation

Open Infrastructure Open standardsOpen systems

(Corrall & Pinfield, 2014, p. 298)

Open Types and Aims• Open content – making content of various sorts

freely accessible and available for reuse e.g. publications, theses, dissertations, datasets, metadata, learning objects, computer code

• Open process – carrying out academic or business processes in the public arena

e.g. product/service innovation, software development, scientific work, peer review, pedagogical practices

• Open infrastructure – creating an interoperable technical environment for education and research

e.g. standards, systems

High-Level Open Typology

Open Infrastructure

Open Content Open Process

Open Culture


Fragmentation vs. Integration

• Open domains at various stages of evolution– from ideas to maturity

• Promoted by diverse communities of practice– often with little or no

connection between them• Initiatives managed at

different levels– institutional/consortial,

national/international

• Open types have shared theoretical foundation– commitment, principles

• Open domains face similar practical issues– IPR, business models,

sustainability• Institutions well placed

to exploit synergies– operationally, tactically,

and strategically

Convergence and Coherence of the ‘Opens’*

• Shared ethical commitment• Shared “commitment to the unrestricted exchange of information and ideas”*

• Operate under common economic principles• Efficacy

• non-subtractive, non-depletable, cumulative nature of information and non-rivalrous nature of consumption of digital information objects

• Economy of recognition – ‘competitive sharing’• Business / funding models

• Common characteristics • De facto interconnectedness

Interacting with and extending Willinsky’s (2005)* analysis of commonalities between OA and OpenSource

Relationships and Culture• Different open domains overlap, support each other,

and stimulate new forms of openness– open research data building on open access to publications

and open source software– open educational resources using open source systems

leading to shared pedagogies and peer learning• Dependencies and synergies among open domains

indicate significance of coordination and culture“Where ‘open content’ is used and produced

in ‘open processes’ within an open infrastructural setting, a culture of ‘openness’ gradually emerges”

(e-InfraNet, 2013, p. 13)

Potential Shared Benefits

• Visibility and impact

• Reuse

• Innovation and agility

• Cost effectiveness

• Quality enhancement

• Reputation and trust

Based on e-Infranet (2013);

Corrall & Pinfield (2014);

and the work of Jisc and SURF

An Evolving Model of Open

OpenContent

OpenProcess

OpenCulture

OpenInfrastructure

Policy interventions

Policy interventions


Policy Exemplars: Open Access• Shieber & Suber (2015) – provides a regularly updated and detailed overview

of key issues • The Enabling Open Scholarship initiative has provided online guidance of good

practice (EOS, n.d.)• The European University Association’s checklist is one of the most recent

guides (EUA, 2015)• The OASIS project has provided online guidance (OASIS, 2012)• Harvard University Library, Office for Scholarly Communication: model policy

(Harvard University Library, 2013)• The UNESCO report by Swan (2012) provides advice on forming a policy (and

does also mentions other ‘opens’ e.g. OER) and also outlines a typology of policies

• Early ‘What? Where? When? Why? How?’ advice from Stevan Harnad emphasising IRs (Harnad, 2006)

Policy Exemplars: Other Opens

• Open Data:– Socrata guide to open data in general online (Socrata, n.d.)– Sunlight Foundation guide (Sunlight Foundation, 2014)

• Open Educational Resources:– Creative Commons OER registry (Creative Commons, n.d.)

Policy Considerations – Why?• Policy rationale – institutional or other organisational

level– Case for integration (as above)– Common benefits (as above)– Furthering the mission of the institutiono Academic impacto Knowledge transfer / exchangeo Societal impact

• Incentives / Sanctions – motivations of different stakeholders– Especially the creation of incentives (and disincentives) for

academic staff

Policy Considerations – What?• Scope

– Open content only? ‘Open Knowledge’ policy o Types – e.g. publications: articles,

chapters , books etc– Plus other Opens? ‘Open Science’ or

‘Open Scholarship’ policy– Version(s)

• Selection criteria– An Open policy does not necessarily

mean all instances of a type are made open, there is likely to be selectivityo For immediate access o For long-term preservationo Exemptions, waivers (case-by-case,

category)– Commercial confidentiality– Sensitivity (e.g. personal data)

• Form– File types – for access, preservation

o Proprietaryo Standardso Accompanying files

– Metadata

Key question:Single policy v. Policy variation across the Opens?

Policy Considerations – When?

• Timing of deposit and release

• Embargoes– Publisher– Funder/Sponsor

• ‘Timed release’– Period– ‘On publication’

Policy Considerations – Where?

• Institutional repositories– Repository infrastructure

• Third-party repositories– Subject/disciplinary– Community

• Publisher-based archiving• Storage locus v. access route

Policy Considerations – Who?• Stakeholders and their responsibilities

– Principal Investigator– Author, creator– Head of Department/School– Support Services

o Libraryo IT Serviceso etc

• Governance processes– Oversight– Input

o Research committeeo Teaching and Learning committeeo Ethics committees

– Accountability

Policy Considerations – How?

• Degrees of openness– Libre-Gratis spectrum– Licence conditions (CC-?)o Who owns the output?o Rights retention/transfer

• Business processes, support, infrastructure

• Policy ‘status’– Aspirational– Mandatory– Variable

Typology of Open Access Policies

1. Immediate deposit, no waiver2. Rights-retention

a. Authors assign sufficient rights to policymaker

b. Policymaker already holds sufficient rights

3. Deposit within a certain period

4. Deposit if/when publisher permits

5. Voluntary

(Swan, 2012)

Policy Development Issues

• Authority and responsibility

• Funding and sustainability

• Quality assessment and control

• Timeliness and coverage

• Stakeholders and partnerships

• Inclusions and limits

The ArgumentThere is a strong ostensible case that the different ‘Open’

agendas...

Which have to date largely been pursued separately by different communities of practice along parallel tracks…

Share a number of common characteristics and potential benefits, which mean that…

A more coordinated approach to their development could be useful within and beyond institutions…

And this would create benefits for institutions in particular and the research community in general

References 1• Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Retrieved from http://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/al/pdfs/BoyerScholarshipReconsidered.pdf• Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11-20.

Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/253/238• Corrall, S., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Coherence of “open” initiatives in higher education and research: Framing

a policy agenda. In Proceedings of the iConference 2014. iSchools. doi:10.9776/14085• Creative Commons. (n.d.). OER Policy Registry/Supporting Documents. Retrieved from

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/OER_Policy_Registry/Supporting_Documents• e-InfraNet. (2013). e-InfraNet: “Open” as the default modus operandi for research and higher education.

Retrieved from http://e-infranet.eu/output/e-infranet-open-as-the-default-modus-operandi-for-research-and-higher-education/

• EOS. (n.d.). Enabling open scholarship (EOS) - Formulating an institutional open access policy. Retrieved , from http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/c_6217/en/formulating-an-institutional-open-access-policy

• EUA. (2015). EUA’s open access checklist for universities: A practical guide on implementation. Brussels: European Universities Association. Retrieved June 14, 2015, from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/Open_access_report_v3.sflb.ashx

• Harnad, S. (2006). Optimizing OA self-archiving mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How? Open Access Archivangelism Blog. Retrieved , from http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-Optimizing-OA-Self-Archiving-Mandates-What-Where-When-Why-How.html

References 2• Harvard University Library. (2013). Model open access policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Library, Office for

Scholarly Communication. Retrieved from https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/modelpolicy• OASIS. (2012). Developing an institutional open access policy. Open access scholarly information sourcebook.

Retrieved , from http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145&Itemid=298• Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• Peters, M., & Roberts, P. (2012). The virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age.

Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.• Shieber, S., & Suber, P. (2015). Good practices for university open-access policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-access_policies• Socrata. (n.d.). Open data field guide. Washington, DC: Socrata. Retrieved from http://www.socrata.com/open-

data-field-guide/• Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access• Sunlight Foundation. (2014). Open data policy guidelines. Washington, DC: Sunlight Foundation. Retrieved from

http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/• Swan, A. (2012). Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved

from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf• Wiley, D. (2010). The open future: Openness as a catalyst for an educational transformation. EDUCAUSE Review,

45(4), 14–20. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1040.pdf• Willinsky, J. (2005). The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First

Monday, 10(8). http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v10i8.1265