Three things colliding over the past few weeks have led me to want to try and get some ideas down. The first was a conversation – one of a set really – with Titus Brown and Dan Katz relating to the application of political economy and collective action theory to communities building research.

The second was the posting of video of a talk I gave a month or so back to our research centre, the Centre for Culture and Technology at Curtin University. In this, I tried to work through the full story of some recent thinking for the first time. I’m trying to articulate what has evolved in my thinking from a view driven by network theory that open is good, more open is better, to an understanding of where and how things have gone wrong.

The final piece was the publication of a new paper (preprint version is also available, actually its what I read so that’s what I’ll link to) by Sabina Leonelli which tackles the value of reproducibility as a concept head on. Leonelli’s work has been a big influence on my developing thinking. Two pieces are particularly relevant. The idea that data is not a thing, but is a category defined by use. That is, we can’t say whether a particular object is data, only that something is data when it is used in particular ways. This is true of many things in research, the objectivist in us wants the qualities of objects like data, methods, and knowledge itself to be eternal platonic concepts inherent in the objects themselves. In practice however these qualities only reveal themselves in certain activities.

These activities depend in turn on ‘repertoires’ another concept I’ve taken from Leonelli’s work, this time from a paper published with Rachel Ankeny. The concept here is that research communities are defined by practices and that these practices are not just learned, but displayed and internalised, in a similar manner to a musician learning repertoire as a set of hurdles to be jumped in their development. I first read this paper at the same time as I was reading Lave and Wenger’s Situated Learning and the parallel between craft learning (see also Ravetz), identity making (see also Hartley and Potts) and community had a significant resonance for me.

In the new piece Leonelli tackles the range of different, and largely incommensurate meanings that are ascribed to the concept of ‘reproducibility’. The paper tackles a range of disciplinarily bound practices ranging from computational sciences, where there is ‘total control’ (yes I could quibble about machine states and compilers but this is philosophy, let’s accept the abstraction) through to ethnography, where there is the expectation that the life experience of the researcher affects the outcome, and that a different researcher would reach different conclusions.

The article focuses on how the necessity for documentation changes as different aspects of accountability rather than reproducibility are taken into account. These concepts of responsibility and accountability for sources of variability that have implications for the claims being made seems more productive and more readily contextualised and generalised. The article finishes with a call to value ‘epistemic diversity’. That is, it is through differing kinds of cross referencing, with different sources of variability, accountability, and reliability that we can most usefully build knowledge.

All of this resonates for me because I’ve been working towards a similar end from a different place. My concern has been thinking about how to operationalise social models of knowledge production. There are a broad class of constructivist models of knowledge where validation occurs when groups come together and contest claims. I have a paper currently in review that casts this as ‘productive conflict’.

In such models the greater the diversity of groups in contact the more ‘general’ the knowledge that is created. However the more diverse those groups are, the less likely it is that such contact will be productive. Indeed it can be harmful – and in most cases involving disadvantaged groups (which is practically everyone in comparison to a professional, permanently employed, western academic) it is at the very least a significant burden and frequently significantly damaging.

In the talk I’m trying to work through the question of how such contacts can be made safe, while equally privileging the value of closing ranks, returning to community to regain strength and re-affirm identity. If diversity is a first order principle in the utilitarian goal of making knowledge, what are the principles of care that allow us to protect the communities that contribute that diversity?

Part of the argument I make is that we need to return to the thinking about network structures. Five years ago I was making the case that ‘bigger is better’ underpinned by an assumption that even if benefits flowed to those who were already well connected the new opportunities of scale would still spread benefits more widely. That seems less and less to be the case today, and the key problems appear to be ones where the benefits of locality are reduced or broken, boundaries are too readily traversed, and groups come into contact in non-productive conflict too frequently.

In the talk I discuss the need to privilege locality. This is the opposite of what most of our systems do today, both in the wider world (‘you need to go viral!’) and in academia (‘international rankings! international journals!’). Many social models draw simple lines with groups inside or outside. Even with a mental view of groups within groups and overlapping groups this tends to miss the messiness that results from non-homogenous interactions across group boundaries. Network structural analysis is harder to do and harder to visualise but it seems to me crucial to get a view of what the optimal dynamics are.

One way to frame the question of network and community dynamics is economically. That is, to ask how the differing groups and communities in contact are sustained and succeed or fail. This in turn is a question of exchange (not necessarily purely financial exchange, but there are limitations to this framing!). Models of club economics and collective action from political economy are useful here and this leads us back to the first conversation I mentioned above.

Titus Brown has been working through a series of posts, relating to the NIH Data Commons project looking at the goods produced in open source projects through the lens of commons and clubs goods. Dan Katz was raising good questions about issues of time and scale that are not well captured by the classical analysis of goods.

I have quibbles with Brown’s analyses and often with others who use this kind of goods-class analysis. However I only just realised that my issue was similar to Leonelli’s point about data. The question of what is ‘the good’ in any particular case is relational, not an absolute. Our discussion of these models tends to turn on an implicit assumption that something (prestige, code, knowledge, expert attention) is the specific good in play, something that in turn surfaces a common assumption in most classical economics that it is appropriate to assume some kind of ‘numeraire good’ that allows exchange of all the others (this is what money is for, and if there’s anything wrong with economic analysis, its money..).

This doesn’t leave me with any firm conclusions beyond some possible routes to analysis. It seems likely that simple analysis based on static descriptions of community and the environment aren’t going to give us answers. We need to understand dynamics of groups opening up and enclosing over time, what sustains them, and what they might find valuable in exchange. We need agent based modelling of the network structures these occur over, and ways of translating from local structure in networks to more ‘bright-lined’ social models of groups. We need to move beyond the simple ‘economic mathematics’ that is often developed from the the club economics of Buchannan and Olson and to develop much more sophisticated and flexible models that allow the nature of exchange and goods to change when viewed from different perspectives.

All in all it emphasises the conclusion I’d reached, that diversity is a first order principle. All forms of diversity and the more diverse the better, provided the coordination between groups is principled. There’s a lot to unpack in that word ‘principled’ but I feel like its the link to the ethical dimension I’ve been missing. I need to dig deeper into notions of ‘care’ (Moore, Priego) and ‘flourishing’ (Holbrook) to tease this out.

https://twitter.com/DonnaLanclos/status/992843570238377984

His talk, on the problems of deficit models chimed with me on issues of tacit knowledge. I’m still noodling around an underpinning theory of knowledge for my work (blog post currently has spent nearly 12 months in the draft folder). The core to the model is that (general? non-local?) knowledge is made when local knowledge is translated across group boundaries.

This draws heavily on people like Ludwig Fleck and Jerome Ravetz and indeed most social models of knowledge. Ravetz makes two critical observations. First that locally bound contextual knowledge is rooted in what he calls “craft skills” and what Harry Collins would refer to collective tacit knowledge. In our models this is language bound, context dependent, and often tacit. Second that the (attempted) transfer of this knowledge across group boundaries is lossy.

This family of versions of the facts[…]will show diversity in every respect: in their form, in the arguments whereby they can be related to experience, and in their logical relation to other facts. They will however, have certain basic features in common: the assertions and their objects will be simpler than those of their original, and frequently vulgarized out of recognition.

Ravetz (1971) Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, p234, emphasis added (1996 Edition, Transaction Publishers)

There is abstraction and generalisation, but also loss of specificity, and loss of detail. Generalisation (reproducibility amongst other things, for instance in Collins’ example of building a specific form of laser) requires that we make the tacit explicit, that we convert collective tacit knowledge, first to relational tacit knowledge and then to explicit statement.

This model works for me because I’m interested in the question of what it is in the culture the academy, or of scholars (not the same thing!) that makes it successful. Where I’m getting to is that we share a culture that provides some common practices and scaffolding which forces us to attempt to make our local knowledge more general (publication for a start) while at the same time pushing us into groups and communities that don’t share language and scaffolding so that we are forced to work at this translation process across groups. My hypothesis is that our long standing culture and practices actually manage this tension successfully and do so at all scales.

So what does this have to do with deficit models? We never talk about the deficit model within the scholarly community. We, by definition don’t have a deficit. Having the thing is how we define the “we”. Within the scholarly community we are (more or less) happy to do the work of translation of trying to explain our context for those who do not understand it because it is part of what we do. Complaints about referee #2 and “those damn scientists” aside we subscribe to a rhetoric of how much we benefit from explaining our thing, that “if you can’t teach it you don’t know it”. Making the tacit explicit – including the tools we apply to force ourselves to do it; teaching, reproducibility, data sharing, peer review – is a core part of our culture when dealing with each other.

But when we talk to outsiders we invoke deficit models. These fail (as various responders to our tweet conversation helpfully provided links to the literature on) precisely because there is not a deficit on their side, of knowledge, there is a deficit on our side of effective translation. Translation is not merely dumbing down here but the work of making concepts relevant, embedding them in local scaffolding, seeking to identify or build boundary objects that can be shared across the border between communities.

If this works then there are a couple of useful things that arise. One is that deficit model rhetoric is a signal that the boundaries of “our” scholarly community have been reached. That’s more useful than you might imagine. Defining where we start and end is not a trivial exercise. Second that working to identify and understand the cultural practices that seek to make the tacit explicit within our communities takes me to the core of my problems of interest. I’ve already speculated a little on the role of teaching here but there is more to this.

What is perhaps most interesting is that we might be able to make something positive out of the failures of deficit model thinking by using failure modes to help us understand the translation deficit. Something that I really haven’t worked out remains the challenge of resource allocation between translation focussed on a known group and that for potential users whose characteristics are as yet unknown. This again, is not a new question but one that I’ve been grappling with for a long time. This might provide a new way in.

The problem of shared infrastructures

The challenge of resourcing and supporting infrastructure is well rehearsed elsewhere. We understand it is a collective action problem and that these are hard to solve. We know that the provision of collective and public-like goods is a problem that is not well addressed by markets, and better addressed by the state (for true public goods for which there are limited provisioning problems) or communities/groups (for collective goods that are partly excludable or rivalrous). One of the key shifts in my position has been the realization that knowledge (or its benefits) are not true public goods. They are better seen as club good or common pool resources for which we have a normative aspiration to make them more public but we can never truly achieve this.

This has important implications, chief amongst them that communities that understand and can work with knowledge products are better placed to support them than either the market, or the state. The role of the state (or the funder in our scholarly communications world) then becomes providing an environment that helps communities build these resources. It is the problem of which communities are best placed to do this that I discuss in my recent paper, focussing on questions of size, homogeneity, and solutions to the collective action problem drawing on the models of Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action. The short version is that large groups will struggle, smaller groups, and in particular groups which are effectively smaller due to the dominance of a few players, will be better at solving these problems. Shorter version, publishers, of which there are really only 5-8 that matter will solve problems much better than universities, of which there are thousands.

Any proposal that starts “we’ll just get all the universities to do X” is basically doomed to failure from the start. Unless coordination mechanisms are built into the proposal. Mechanism one is abstract the problem up till there are a smaller number of players. ORCID is gaining institutional members in those countries where a national consortium has been formed. Particularly in Europe where a small number of countries have worked together to make this happen. The effective number of agents negotiating drops from thousands to around 10-20. The problem is this is politically infeasible in the United States where national coordination, government led is simply not possible. This isn’t incidentally an issue to do with Trump or Republicans but a long-standing reality in the USA. National level coordination, even between the national funding agencies is near impossible. The second mechanism is where a small number of players dominate the space. This works well for publishers (at least the big ones) although the thousands of tiny publishers do exploit the investment that the big ones make in shared infrastructures like Crossref. If the Ivy Plus group in the US did something, then maybe the rest would follow but in practice that seems unlikely. The patchwork of university associations is too disparate in most cases to reach agreement on sharing burden.

The final mechanism is one where there are direct benefits to contributors that arise as a side effect of contributing to the collective resource. More on that later.

A brief history of top-slicing proposals

The idea of top-slicing budgets to pay for scholarly infrastructure is not new. I first heard it explicitly proposed by Raym Crow in a meeting in the Netherlands that was seeking to find ways to fund OA Infrastructures. I have been involved in lobbying funders over many years that they need to do something along these lines. The Open Access Network follows a similar argument. The problem then, was the same as the problem now, what is the percentage? If I recall correctly Raym proposed 1%, others have suggested 1.5%, 2% and now 2.5%. Putting aside the inflation in the figure over the years there is a real problem here for any collective action. How can we justify the “correct” figure?

There are generally two approaches to this. One approach is to put a fence around a set of “core” activities and define the total cost of supporting them as a target figure. This approach has been taken by a group of biomedical funders convened by the Human Frontiers Science Program Organization who are developing a shared approach to funding to ensure “that core data resources for the life sciences should be supported through a coordinated international effort(s) that better ensure long-term sustainability and that appropriately align funding with scientific impact”. Important to note is that the convening involved a relatively small number of the most important funders, in a specific discipline, and it is a community organization, the ELIXR project that is working to define how “core data resources” should be defined. This approach has strengths, it helps define, and therefore build community through agreeing commitments to shared activities. It also has a weakness in that once that community definition is made it can be difficult to expand or generalize. The decisions of what is a “core data resource” in the biosciences is unlikely to map well to other disciplines for instance.

The second approach, attempts to get above the problem of disciplinary communities by defining some percentage of all expenditure to invest, effectively a tax on operations to support shared services. In many ways the purpose of the modern nation state is to connect such top-slicing, through taxation, to a shared identity and therefore an implicit and ongoing consent to the appropriation of those resources to support shared infrastructures that would otherwise not exist. That in turn is the problem in the scholarly communication space. Such shared identities and notions of consent do not exist. The somewhat unproductive argument over whether it is the libraries responsibility to cut subscriptions or academics responsibility to ask them to illustrates this. It is actually a shared responsibility, but one that is not supported by sense of shared identity and purpose, certainly not of shared governance. And notably success stories in cutting subscriptions all feature serious efforts to form and strengthen shared identity and purpose within an institution before taking action.

The problem lies in the politics of community. The first approach defines and delineates a community, precisely based on what it sees as core. While this strengthens support for those goods seen as core it can wall off opportunities to work with other communities, or make it difficult to expand (or indeed contract) without major ructions in the community. Top-slicing a percentage does two things, it presumes a much broader community with a sense of shared identity and a notion of consent to governance (which generally does not exist). This means that arguments over the percentage can be used as a proxy for arguments about what is in and out which will obscure the central issues of building a sense of community by debating the identity of what is in and out. In the absence of a shared identity it means adoptions requires unilateral action by the subgroup with their logistical hands on the budgets (in this case librarians). This is why percentages are favoured and those percentages look small. In essence the political goal is to hide this agenda in the noise. That makes good tactical sense, but leaves the strategic problem of building that shared sense of community that might lead to consent and consensus to grow ever bigger. It also stores up a bigger problem. It makes a shift towards shared infrastructures for larger proportions of the scholarly communications system impossible. The numbers might look big today, but they are a small part of managing an overall transition.

Investment returns to community as a model for internal incentives

Thus far you might take my argument as leading to a necessity for some kind of “coming together” for a broad consensus. But equally if you follow the line of my argument this is not practical. The politics of budgets within libraries are heterogeneous enough. Add into that the agendas and disparate views of academics across disciplines (not to mention ignorance on both sides of what those look like) and this falls into the category of collective action problems that I would describe as “run away from screaming”.  That doesn’t mean that progress is not feasible though.

Look again at those cases where subscription cancellations have been successfully negotiated internally. These generally fall into two categories. Small(ish) institutions where a concerted effort has been made to build community internally in response to an internally recognized cash crisis, and consortial deals which are either small enough (see the Netherlands) or where institutions have bound themselves to act together voluntarily (see Germany, and to some extent Finland). In both cases community is being created and identity strengthened. In this element, I agree with Lewis’ paper, the idea of shared commitment is absolutely core. My disagreement is that I believe making that shared commitment an abstract percentage is the wrong approach. Firstly because any number will be arbitrary, but more importantly because it assumes common cause with academics that is not really there, rather than focusing on the easier task of building a community of action within libraries. This community can gradually draw in researchers, providing that it is attractive and sustainable, but to try and bridge this to start with is too big a gap to my mind.

This leads us to the third of Olson’s options for solving collective action problems. This option involves the generation of a byproduct, something which is an exclusive benefit to contributors, as part of the production of the collective good. I don’t think a flat percentage tax does this, but other financial models might. In particular reconfiguring the thinking of libraries around expenditure towards community investment might provide a route. What happens when we ask about return on investment to the scholarly community as a whole and to the funding library for not some percentage of the budget but the whole budget?

When we talk about about scholarly communications economics we usually focus on expenditure. How much money is going out of library or funder budgets? A question we don’t ask is how much of that money re-circulates within the community economy and how much leaves the system? To a first approximation all the money paid to privately held and shareholder owned commercial entities leaves the system. But this is not entirely true, the big commercials do invest in shared systems, infrastructure and standards. We don’t actually know how much, but there is at least some. You might think that non-profits are obliged to recirculate all the money but this is not true either, the American Chemical Society spends millions on salaries and lobbying. And so does PLOS (on salaries, not lobbying, ‘publishing operations’ is largely staff costs). For some of these organizations we have much better information on how much money is reinvested and how because of reporting requirements but it’s still limited.

You might think that two start-ups are both contributing similar value, whether they are (both) for profit or not-for-profit. But look closer, which ones are putting resources into the public domain as open access content, open source code, open data? How do those choices relate to quality of service? Here things get interesting. There’s a balance to found in investing in high quality services, which may be building on closed resources to secure a return to (someone else’s) capital, vs building the capital within the community. It’s perfectly legitimate for some proportion of our total budgets to leave the system, both as a route to securing investment from outside capital, but also because some elements of the system, particular user-facing service interfaces, have traditionally been better provided by markets. It also provides a playing field on which internal players might compete to make this change.

This is a community benefit but it also a direct benefit. Echoing the proposal of the Open Access Network, this investment would likely include instruments for investment in services (like Open Library of Humanities) and innovation (projects like Coko might be a good fit). Even if access to this capital is not exclusively accessible to projects affiliated with contributing libraries (which would be a legitimate approach, but probably a bit limiting) access to the governance of how that capital is allocated provides direct advantages to investing libraries. Access to the decisions that fund systems that their specific library needs is an exclusive benefit. Carefully configured this could also provide a route to draw in academics who want to innovate, as well as those who see the funding basis of their traditional systems crumbling. In the long term this couples direct benefits to the funding libraries to community building within the academic library community, to a long game of drawing in academics (and funders!) to an ecosystem in which their participation implies the consent of the governed, ultimately justifying a regime of appropriate taxation.

Actually in the end my proposal is not very different to Lewis’s. Libraries make a commitment to engage in and publicly report on their investment in services and infrastructure, in particular they report on how that portfolio provides investment returns to the community. There is competition for the prestige of doing better, and early contributors get to claim that prestige of being progressive and innovative. As the common investment pool grows there are more direct financial interests that bring more players in, until in the long term it may become an effectively compulsory part of the way academic libraries function. The big difference for me is not setting a fixed figure. Maybe setting targets would help, but in the first instance I suspect that simply reporting on community return on investment would change practice. One of the things Buchannan and Olson don’t address (or at least not to any great extent) is that identity and prestige are club goods. It is entirely economically rational for a library to invest in something that provides no concrete or immediate material return, if in doing so it gains profile and prestige, bolstering its identity as “progressive” or “innovative” in a way that plays well to internal institutional politics, and therefore in turn to donors and funders. Again, here I agree with Lewis and the 2.5% paper that signalling (including costly signalling from an evolutionary perspective) is a powerful motivator. Where I disagree is with the specifics of the signal, who it signals to, and how that can build community from a small start.

The inequity of traditional tenders

How does all of this relate to the European Commission statement that they will tender for an Open Science Platform? The key here is the terms of the tender. There is an assumption amongst many people I follow that F1000Research have this basically sewn up. Certainly based on numbers I’m aware of they are likely the best placed to offer a cost effective service that is also high quality. The fact that Wellcome, Gates and the African Academy of Sciences have all bought into this offering is not an accident. The information note states that the “Commission is implementing this action through a public procurement procedure, which a cost-benefit analysis has shown to be the most effective and transparent tool”. What the information note does not say is that the production of community owned resources and platforms will be part of the criteria. Framing this as an exercise in procuring a service could give very different results to framing it as investment in community resources.

Such tender processes put community organisations at a disadvantage. Commercial organisations have access to capital that community groups often do not. Community groups are more restricted in risk taking. But they are also more motivated, often it is part of their mission, to produce community resources, open source platforms and systems, open data, as well as the open content which is the focus of the Commission’s thinking. We should not exclude commercial and non-community players from competing for these tenders, far from it. They may well be more efficient, or provide better services. But this should be tensioned against the resources created and made available as as result of the investment. Particularly for the Commission, with its goal of systemic change, that question should be central. The resources that are offered to the community as part of a tender should have a value placed on them, and that should be considered in the context of pricing. The Commission needs to consider the quality of the investment it is making, as well as the price that it pays.

The key point of agreement, assessing investment quality

This leads to my key point of agreement with Lewis. The paper proposes a list of projects, approved for inclusion in the public reporting on investment. I would go further and develop an index of investment quality. The resources to support building this index would be the first project on the list. And members, having paid into that resource, get early and privileged access to the reporting, just as in investment markets. For any given project or service provider an assessment would be made on two main characteristics. How much of the money invested is re-circulated in the community? And an assessment of the quality of governance and management that the investment delivers, including the risk on the investment (high for early-stage projects, low for stable infrastructures)? Projects would get a rating, alongside an estimated percentage of investment that recirculates. Projects were all outputs get delivered with open licensing would get a high percentage (but not 100%, some will go in salaries and admin costs).

Commercial players are not excluded. They can contribute information on the resources that they circulate back to the community (perhaps money going to societies, but also contribution to shared infrastructures, work on standards, dataset contributions) that can be incorporated. And they may well claim that although the percentage is lower than some projects the services are better. Institutions can tension that, effectively setting a price on service quality, which will enhance competition. This requires more public reporting than commercial players are naturally inclined to provide, but equally it can be used as a signal of commitment to the community. One thing that might choose to do is contribute directly to the pool of capital, building shared resources that float all the boats. Funders could do the same, some already do by funding these projects, and that in turn could be reported.

The key to this, is that it can start small. A single library, funding an effort to examine the return it achieves on its own investment will see some modest benefits. A group working together will tell a story about how they are changing the landscape. This is already why efforts like Open Library of Humanites and Knowledge Unlatched and others work at all. Collective benefits would rise as the capital pool grew, even if investment was not directly coordinated, but simply a side effect of libraries funding various of these projects. Members gain exclusive benefits, access to information, identity as a leading group of libraries and institutions, and the prestige that comes with that in arguing internally for budgets and externally for other funding.

2.5% is both too ambitious and not ambitious enough

In the end I agree with the majority of the proposals in the 2.5% Commitment paper, I just disagree with the headline. I think the goal is over-amibitious. It requires too many universities to sign up, it takes political risks both internally and externally that are exactly the ones that have challenged open access implementation. It assumes power over budgets and implicit consent from academics that likely doesn’t exist, and will be near impossible to gain, and then hides it by choosing a small percentage. In turn that small percentage requires coordination across many institutions to achieve results, and as I argue in the paper, that seems unlikely to happen.

At the same time it is far from ambitious enough. If the goal is to shift investment in scholarly communications away from service contracts and content access to shared platforms, then locking in 2.5% as a target may doom us to failure. We don’t know what that figure should be, but I’d argue that it is clear that if we want to save money overall, it will be at least an order of magnitude high in percentage terms. What we need is a systemic optimisation that lets us reap the benefits of commercial provision, including external capital, quality of service, and competition, while progressively retaining more of the standards, platforms and interchange mechanisms in the community sphere. Shifting our thinking from purchasing to investment is one way to work towards that.

Blog Posts: I have a few things that either need finishing or need writing, these are relatively immediate

1. Against the 2.5% Commitment – argument that fixed top-slicing of scholarly communications budgets is not the right way to think about funding infrastructure and support services. Rather we need some market-like social incentives that are internal to organisations. My proposal is a shift to thinking about budgets as investments, including the extent to which they recirculate value or money to the scholarly community.
2. The local context of peer review – I owe Hilda Bastian a more detailed response as to why, while I agree with her analysis of where the problems lie and what the optimal state is, that the studies we have of peer review don’t show what we might think. Part of the reason for trying this is that I need to make this argument in the broader context for a book (below)
3. Some hard truths on APCs, exclusion and charity – There is a received wisdom circulating that APCs are the source of all problems with exclusion. I think, while APCs have their problems that this is looking in the wrong place, in fact that APCs may surface issues of exclusion in a way that could be ultimately positive. The real risk of exclusion lies in work-flows and no-one seems to be focussed on the interaction of structural power in publishers and submission systems and the risks they pose.
4. Sketching a theory of knowledge – first step in working out the article (4 below) to get some ideas out and down

Articles: Things that really need writing, mostly have been sitting for a while

1. Institutions for productive conflict in knowledge-making – working on this at the moment. It’s not really feasible to describe the argument in a few sentences, which means I haven’t got it fully refined yet! It’s a much evolved version of parts of the argument from this paper from ElPub last year.
2. The structure of scientific evolutions – we have a theory of everything (in knowledge communications and production). It’s quite exciting, and quite simple in outline, complex in its implications. A draft of this exists but it may be a small book rather than an article. I desperately need to do the background reading to properly support the arguments.
3. A clash of peer review cultures – a kind of auto-ethnography of the experience of the peer review process for the Excellence paper. There were many weird moments when an attitude amongst the researchers involved (including editors and referees) in favour of open review clashed with the journal’s assumptions of double-blind review. Mainly blocked because I don’t know diddly squat about doing ethnography properly and need to talk to someone who does…
4. Repertoires, learning and social theories of knowledge – I’ve been using and developing an implicit social theory of knowledge that is really just a mix of notions of community from a wide range of different places. It needs to be properly fleshed out, ideally with someone who knows what they’re talking about. This is likely more review/synthesis than new ideas per se, but as far as I can tell that synthesis doesn’t exist across the silos I’ve been looking at.

Books

1. The core piece of work I need to do on the book I should be focused on. It is code-named Telling Stories with the subtitle A personal journey from the sciences to the humanities (and back). The first (very rough!) drafts of the introduction and first chapter I posted as Telling a Story and Portrait of the Scientist as a Young Man.
2. Possibly pull together a series of texts into a thing on Networked Knowledge. I put together a “book” based on old posts and reflections a few years back. That doesn’t in and of itself merit formal publication (that’s the view of the referees incidentally) but, particularly with the resurgence of interest in “federate all the things”, there are a series of texts that could be pulled together in a kind of manifesto of the technological possibilities.
3. Political Economics of Scholarly Publishing – I’ve been occasionally adding to this list of posts, and this new paper is relevant, but that work needs drawing together in some form. Might be worth seeking a grant to cover the time to finish it off properly perhaps…

That looks like a long list…