Laura Czerniewicz Open Repositories Conference 2016 Dublin


Published on

Keynote presentation at Open Repositories Conference 2016 Dublin Ireland 14 June 2016

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • figures
    By 2014 China 2.05 and Ireland 1.52
  • (Nyamnjoh 2010, p. 69)
  • Mary meek Internet trends 2010 Mobile web usage
  • Laura Czerniewicz Open Repositories Conference 2016 Dublin

    1. 1. KNOWLEDGE INEQUALITIES A marginal view of the digital landscape Laura Czerniewicz 14 June 2016
    2. 2. THIS TALK o General inequalities of knowledge production & dissemination o The emerging complexities of the digital o Two cases of discoverability & visibility A view from the global south, a marginal perspective
    3. 3. Knowledge production and dissemination have always been fraught contested unequal
    4. 4.
    5. 5. World scaled by the number of documents in Web of Science by authors living there (2011)
    6. 6. (Florida, 2005)
    7. 7. The global south is partly geographical but it is also an imaginary
    8. 8.
    9. 9. “The global economy is a dynamic and often turbulent affair. It doesn’t produce a simple dichotomy. It does produce massive structures of centrality and marginality, whose main axis is the metropole-periphery, North-South relationship.“ (Connell 2007, 2014)
    10. 10. INEQUALITIES ACROSS AND WITHIN Hout Bay and Imizamo Yethu in Cape Town, South Africa in 2016
    11. 11. What causes inequalities in knowledge production?
    12. 12. FUNDING Research and development intensity
    13. 13. 1.53 % of GDP 1.96 % of GDP2.76 % of GDP 0.73 % of GDP FUNDING Gross domestic spending on R & D (2012) figures
    14. 14. IT’S MORE THAN THE MONEY What counts? Reward systems Legitimacy Gatekeeping
    15. 15. Genres • Journal article • Books • Book chapters • Monographs • Technical reports • Scholarly blogs • Websites • Multimodal outputs • Consultancy reports • Etc.
    16. 16. TYPES OF RESEARCH o Different types of research • Different genres • Different audiences o A typology of research types • Discovery – traditional empirical, generalizable explanations or theories • Interpretive - interpretation of phenomena not search for generalizable explanations • Applied – applied enquiry, problem solving, may include consultancy • Integrative – use-inspired basic research • Teaching and Learning – scholarship of T&L (Kell and Czerniewicz 2016; Czerniewicz and Kell 2014)
    17. 17. REWARD SYSTEMS o In South Africa the national department of education (DHET) gives universities +/- $13000 for every article published in • The Sciences Citation Index of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) • The Social Sciences Citation Index of the ISI • The Arts and Humanities Citation Index of the ISI • The International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBSS) • A list of approved South African Journals o The majority of SA universities give a % directly to the authors
    18. 18. CITATIONS o Valorisation of citation counts in academia • Citations used for promotion • Measure of reputation o Citations have their uneven geographies • Citing those from the global north • Keeping the networks closed o Altmetrics’ slow acceptance
    19. 19. ACCESSIBILITY o Research is generally not easily accessible to those in the South • works that are more easily found will likely be more frequently cited • 54% of respondents in SARUA universities said research output exists; of these 90% said that ready accessibility is hampered • Budget cuts in library subscriptions (Abrahams et al 2008)
    20. 20. CULTURE (Adams et al, 2010) Zimbabwe Malawi Tunisia
    21. 21. Who publishes? What about? What does an “international” high impact journal look like?
    22. 22. WHO GETS PUBLISHED o Of the articles published in international peer-reviewed journals • USA academics 30% • Developing country academics 20% • of which half from China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico • Sub Saharan Africa 1% of total (Hassan 2008)
    23. 23. A CASE IN POINT Authorship per country AMJ, AMR, ASQ and JIBS (2006-2010), Four high impact social science journals (Hamann, 2012)
    24. 24. Empirical focus AMJ, AMR, ASQ and JIBS (2006-2010) (Hamann,2012)
    25. 25. o At the same time Northern authors publish about the South • A study of 2 top African studies journals 1993 - 2013 found • the percentage of articles by Africa-based authors has declined • not lower submission rates from Africa but low and declining acceptance rates • Africa-based scholars are systematically cited less than others (Briggs and Weathers, 2016)
    26. 26. WHO DECIDES? “We editors seek a global status for our journals, but we shut out the experiences and practices of those living in poverty by our (unconscious) neglect. One group is advantaged while the other is marginalised.” Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet Chan,2012,/ In short, international = global north
    27. 27. WHY THIS MATTERS o Local knowledge • Needs to be available to others in similar conditions • Is a necessary and often missing contribution to global knowledge o A plurality of knowledge/s is good for science • A knowledge production & dissemination system that sidelines three quarters of the world is bad for everyone
    28. 28. “African scholars face a critical choice between sacrificing relevance for recognition, or recognition for relevance” (Nyamnjoh 2010)
    29. 29. A NETWORKED WORLD New opportunities
    30. 30. The internet changed the nature of networks by making them more inclusive and easy to participate in (Castells 1996)
    31. 31. (Lessig, 2003) For the first time in a millennium, we have a technology to equalise the opportunity that people have to access and participate in the construction of knowledge and culture, regardless of their geographical placing.
    32. 32. www.soros,org/openaccess
    33. 33. Conceptualisation Data collection Data analysis Findings Engagement Translation Protocols Literature reviews BibliographiesProposals Data sets Conference papers Audio records Images Recorded interviews Books Reports Journal articles Technical papers Notes Presentations Lectures Interviews Shared and shareable e.g. social bookmarking, Dynamic multimodal versions The rise of rich media Data Open linked, curated, shareable Metadata Multiple modes The “enhanced publication” multimodal, hyperlinked Open access mainstream Emergence of the “megajournal” New forms Modes- visual & audio lectures New genres - ebooks, open education resources Changing, extending audiences (e.g. life long learners, global reach) Two way process (e.g. citizen science) Access to all types of resources New measures of impact Altmetrics- use, downloads, bookmarking etc Open processes Increased visibility Increased collaboration Earlier access Open science Changing Scholarship (Czerniewicz, 2013)
    34. 34. New opportunities to collapse distance enable easier cross-country collaborations create possibilities for knowledge production & sharing
    35. 35. Digital affords open Digital = open Digital affords closed At each stage new layers of complexity
    36. 36. o Each stage can be analysed in terms of: • Social relations – power relations, networks & relationships • Audiences – forms of scholar-to-scholar, scholar- to- student and scholar-to-community communication • Forms – genres, platforms and modes (eg linguistic, visual, aural and multimodal) (Czerniewicz & Kell 2014; Kell and Czerniewicz 2016)
    37. 37. There is a danger that the information revolution could exacerbate sociospatial segregation (Castells, 1998) and create ‘dual cities’ of inhabitants that occupy vastly different spheres of knowledge.
    38. 38. The basics: infrastructure
    39. 39.
    40. 40.
    41. 41.
    42. 42.
    43. 43. AFFORDABILITY: IT’S THE DATA, NOT THE DEVICE o Affordability (5% monthly income) • Entry level -100MB; maturing – 500MB; connected -2GB • In Sub-Saharan Africa, 53% could afford access of only 20 MB, (enough for SMS & email)
    44. 44. The new currency: discoverability If it is not online, it does not exist If it can’t be found, it does not exist Visibility is a requirement for participation
    45. 45. Why this matters What is found online shapes what comes to be known “Visibility and invisibility in material space are increasingly being defined by prominence, ranking, and presence on the Internet” (Graham and Zook 2011)
    46. 46. SEARCH ENGINES o The primary way that content is found • By academics in all disciplines • By NGOs • By students • BY professionals (De Groote et al 2014, Catalano 2013, de Satgé, 2012, Waller 2011)
    47. 47. SEARCH ENGINES o Co-producers of knowledge o Surrogate experts o Play a role as “switchers’ between networks o Engine’s social relations invisible • Seem naturalised and normal o Not neutral • Reflect societal disparities • Shaped by algorithms (Halavais 2013; Van Dijck 2010, Rogers, 2009)
    48. 48. JerryKing,ttps://
    49. 49. ALGORITHMS o Page ranking • “collective intelligence” o Location • Internet Protocol (IP) address provides country, region, city, postal code, latitude and longitude, time zone o Social media • Includes social media, eg Facebook likes and Google + o Personalization • individual personalization, previously visited sites • profile personalization, matches users with other users with similar browsing histories
    50. 50. ALGORITHMS o Shape what is found through • prioritising, classifying, associating and filtering information o Mediate o Create filter bubbles
    51. 51. Browsers per country 2016
    52. 52. OPEN ACCESS Leveraging the power of the Internet?
    53. 53. Danger of increasingly drowning out scholarship from the global south ThankstoLeslieChanforimage UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
    54. 54. TWO CASES CC0
    56. 56. Global Inequality: Poverty
    57. 57. Global Inequality: Income
    58. 58. Global Inequality
    59. 59. THE INVESTIGATION o Premises • Poverty and inequality taken seriously in South Africa, & beyond • A great deal of work including academic research being undertaken • The outputs of this work important to many: government, academia, civil society • Access to information (data/knowledge) critical to undertake work & address issues (Czerniewicz & Wiens 2013)
    60. 60. THE INVESTIGATION o How findable is the research & work on poverty alleviation? o What is found? • Where the results come from and the extent to which South African results appeared in the searches • Which South African organisations / individuals appeared • The rankings of the results, and similarities and differences between the rankings • The similarities and differences between Google and Google Scholar results
    61. 61. THE SEARCHERS TOTAL: = 20 : Academic sector -9; Development sector -8 ; IT -3
    63. 63. FINDINGS o Google search “poverty alleviation” • No South African results • The 3 South African participants' had no localised SA based results. o Google Scholar “poverty alleviation” • One searcher had one SA result
    65. 65. WIKIPEDIA o In academia • Widely used by the general public, researchers and students • Wikipedia’s citation rates in scholarly publications consistently increasing • Papers & authors mentioned on Wikipedia have higher academic impact o In developing countries • Wikipedia zero rating in 12+ developing countries – better access (Soules 2015; Shuai et al 2013; Casebourne et al 2012; Park, 2011; Okoli et al 2010; Eijkman, 2010 Lewandowski 2010; Giles 2005)
    66. 66. One result in both Google “poverty alleviation South Africa” and Google Scholar “poverty alleviation South Africa”
    67. 67. 65% referrals to the repository link through search engines Among the top 10 search results was one which led to Wikipedia, which then led to the article itself Downloaded 2,356 times
    68. 68. Online access to single article for 24 hours at a cost of USD31.50
    69. 69. o Google Scholar Poverty Alleviation South Africa • High % published in South Africa • Many had “South Africa” in the title • Two of the top 5 results from repositories o Of the South African results • Many from 7 universities, all of which were full text • 8 of the 9 journals which appeared in the results were “green” journals allowing self- archiving
    70. 70. CASE 2: CLIMATE CHANGE A shared global problem CC-BY
    71. 71. UNEQUAL IN CAUSE….
    72. 72. …AND EFFECT
    73. 73. o Climate change • Consequences matter world wide • A new disciplinary field, scholarly communication practices not yet entrenched • Different strategies promoted by researchers from the North (mitigation) and the South (adaptation) • The ability to set research agendas critical • Do new ICT-practices help do this?
    74. 74. o Analysis climate change publications 1980 – 2013: • USA dominance of the field • Other countries from the Global North consistently in top 7 • Canada, Germany, England and France • Major shift China’s rise to 2nd place in 2013 • South Africa fallen from 15th place to 24th (Collyer, 2015)
    75. 75. An investigation into one climate change research group (CCRG) From the outside in and the inside out Has their involvement helped to redraw structurally embedded patterns of power, voice and representation? (Czerniewicz et al 2016)
    76. 76. THE INVESTIGATION o Outside in • Searching on Google Scholar • Climate change • Climate change South Africa o Inside out • Mapping the climate change group’s online presence • Interviews
    77. 77. SEARCHERS
    78. 78. o Searching for “climate change” (no South Africa) • Results largely uniform • 83% same findings and rankings • Authors found largely US and UK • No results from South Africa, Africa or any other developing countries
    79. 79. o Item ranked Number 1 • Cited 4337 x • Google Scholar 1st results always highly cited, hence ongoing cycle • Is a multi-author paper • Known to be linked to more citations • Copies appear in 5 web locations, 3 being repositories (Office of the Chief Scientist 2012; Smart & Bayer 1986)
    80. 80. o Genres • largely technical reports • only two (different) journals • technical reports are an acceptable form of research output in the climate change field • Google Scholar indexes “the sources that scholars believe to be scholarly”. (Levy 2014)
    81. 81. SEARCHING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE SOUTH AFRICA o Largely uniform results, 2 sequences o Number 1 ranked result • Nature • Cited 4000+ times • Appears online in 24 sites
    82. 82. “CLIMATE CHANGE SOUTH AFRICA” o Number 1 ranked result • South African Journal of Science o Searching techniques matter!
    83. 83. GATEKEEPING Editorial oversight of publications for 10 ten results Google Scholar searches “climate change’
    84. 84. Editorial oversight of publications for 10 ten results in Google Scholar searches “climate change South Africa” GATEKEEPING
    85. 85. GATEKEEPING Editorial oversight : countries by HDI (Human Development Index) (Northern and Southern researchers favour different strategies, different research agendas)
    87. 87. o CCRG researchers’ views • Online presence takes time, money and expertise • Hard choices regarding how to use limited resources • Tensions between what makes a contribution, what is academically rewarded, what brings in funds INSIDE OUT: CCRG ONLINE PRESENCE
    88. 88. o New opportunities and old reward systems I want the visibility and impact of our work. I have slaved over the research and the research report might just gather dust on a shelf, no-one will ever read it. I believe that the traditional metrics are limited … I know that our research reports are not captured in those systems. There are other people who look at research differently. I think things can still change. o The consequences of online invisibility So many Southern voices get lost so we have no choice but to listen to the North because there is no alternative
    89. 89. CONCLUSION
    90. 90. In knowledge creation and dissemination The online adds major complexities to the abiding global inequalities of power and resources Open scholarship is only meaningful if everyone can both access and participate
    91. 91. On a positive note
    92. 92. Active Open Source software developers per thousand internet users Study of 1.3million registered developers in SourceForge (Van Engelhardt,S; et al 2010)
    93. 93. Image:StaceyStent THANK YOU
    94. 94. REFERENCES Abrahams, L., Burke, M., Gray, E., & Rens, A. (2008). Opening access to knowledge in Southern African universities. Study Series 2008, Southern African Regional Universities Association. Retrieved from Briggs, C ; Weathers, S (2016) Gender and Location in African Politics Scholarship: the Other White Man’s Burden, African Affairs, London, first published online May 14, 2016 doi:10.1093/afraf/adw009 Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Vol. 1. 3 vols. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Malden, MA; Oxford,: Blackwell Castells, M. (1998) The Informational City is a Dual City: Can it be Reversed? In Schon, D, Sanyal, B. & Mitchell, W (Eds.) High Technology and Low-Income Communities. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Catalano, A (2013) "Patterns of graduate students' information seeking behavior: a meta‐synthesis of the literature", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 69 ( 2), pp.243 – 274 Chan, L (2012), Remapping the Global and Local in Knowledge Production, the Role of Open Access, presentation at University of Cape Town 10 August 2012, the-local-and-the-global Collyer, F. 2015. “Report For Rio, Study B Rio.” The Social Sciences and History School, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Connell, R. 2007. Southern Theory. The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, R. 2014. Rethinking Gender from the South, Feminist Studies, 40,(3): 518-539 Czerniewicz, L. (2013), “Power and politics in a changing scholarly communication landscape”, proceedings of the IATUL Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 2013, Czerniewicz, L and Kell, C; (2014) A framework for analysing research types and practices, in de Laat, M, McConnell, D, Ryberg, T & Jones, C (Editors) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Networked Learning 2014 , Edinburgh, April 2014
    95. 95. Czerniewicz, L, and K Wiens. 2013. “The Online Visibility of South African Knowledge: Searching for Poverty Alleviation.” The African Journal of Information and Communication 13: 1–12. Czerniewicz, L; Goodier, S; Morrell, R (2016) Southern knowledge online? Climate change research discoverability and communication practices, Information, Communication & Society, 2016 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1168473; Published online: 11 Apr 2016 De Groote, S; Shultz, M; Blecic, D (2014) Information-seeking behavior and the use of online resources: a snapshot of current health sciences faculty, J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Jul; 102(3): 169–176, doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.006 de Satgé, R. (2012). Assessing the need for a poverty information service. Report commissioned for the South African Treasury’s Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development, (unpublished). Florida, R (2005) "The world is spiky. 2005." The Atlantic Monthly 296 (3): 48-51. Graham, M and Zook, M (2011) Visualising Global Cyberscapes: Mapping User-generated placemarks in Journal of Urban Technology, 18 (1): 115-132, Special Issue: ICT and Global Urban Networks Volume Doi 10.1080/10630732.2011.578412 Halavais, Alexander. 2013. Search Engine Society. Polity Press. Hamann, R (2012) Balancing the academic terms of trade: The paradox of publishing in top-tier journals from the periphery (working paper) Hassan, M, 2008, One World of Science, Editorial, Science Vol. 322 – 24 Horton, R (2003) “Medical journals: evidence of bias against the diseases of poverty” Commentary ., The Lancet, Vol 361, 1 March 2003 (2014). State of Connectivity (2014): A Report on Global Internet Access. Kell, C and Czerniewicz, (2016, in press) Visibility of Scholarly Research and Changing Research Communication Practices: A Case Study from Namibia in Esposito, A (Ed) Research 2.0 and the Impact of Digital Technologies on Scholarly Inquiry, IGI Global
    96. 96. Lessig L (2003) , An information society: Free or feudal? International Telecommunication Union, World– WSIS-PREPCOM-2, Levy, S (2014) The Gentleman Who Made Scholar , Backchannel, who-made-scholar-d71289d9a82d, Oct 17, 2014 Meeker, M (2016) Internet Trends Report, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers ,1 June 2016, KPCB_INTERNET_TRENDS_2016_PAGE Nyamnjoh, F. (2010). Open Access and open knowledge production. The African Journal of Information and Communication 10: 67-72, Retrieved from AJIC10-Nyamnjoh.pdf. Office of the Chief Scientist. 2012. “Health of Australian Science.” Canberra: Australian Government. Rogers, Richard. 2009. “The Googlization Question and the Inculpable Engine.” In Deep Search: The Politics of Search Engines Beyond Google. Edison USA: Transaction Publishers. Shuai , X; Jiang , Z; Liu , X; Bollen , J (2013) A comparative study of academic and Wikipedia ranking , Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, ACM New York, NY, USA pp 25- 28 Smart, J, and A Bayer (1986). “Author Collaboration and Impact: A Note on Citation Rates of Single and Multiple Authored Articles.” Scientometrics 10: 297–305. Soules, A (2015) "Faculty perception of Wikipedia in the California State University System", New Library World, Vol. 116 Iss: 3/4, pp.213 - 226 von, Engelhardt, S; Freytag Andreas, and Schulz Christoph ( 2013). "On the Geographic Allocation of Open Source Software Activities." International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE) no. 4 (2):25-39. doi: Van Dijck, José. 2010. “Search Engines and the Production of Academic Knowledge.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (6): 574–92. Waller, V. (2011). Not just information: Who searches for what on the search engine Google? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 62(4), 761-775. Wiley