1 / 31

The trouble with codified knowledge...

The trouble with codified knowledge. “Animals may be divided as follows:. (a) those that belong to the Emperor (b) embalmed ones (c) those that are trained (d) suckling pigs (e) mermaids (f) fabulous ones (g) stray dogs (h) those that are included in this classification.

waseem
Download Presentation

The trouble with codified knowledge...

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The trouble with codified knowledge... “Animals may be divided as follows: (a) those that belong to the Emperor (b) embalmed ones (c) those that are trained (d) suckling pigs (e) mermaids (f) fabulous ones (g) stray dogs (h) those that are included in this classification (i) those that tremble as if they were mad (j) innumerable ones (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's-hair brush (l) others (m) those that have just broken a flower vase (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.” Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge

  2. Claims Counterclaims

  3. A new infrastructure makes waves… • cognitive • institutional • disciplinary • …literacies…

  4. Co-Evolving Processes, Practices & Technologies for Scholarly Publishing Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media InstituteOpen University, UKsbs@acm.org Collaborative work with Tamara Sumner (U. Colorado Boulder, USA), Mike Wright (Unidata-UCAR,USA) Malcolm Story & Gary Li (Open U., UK) Continuity & Change in Scholarly Publishing25th June, 2001 Amsterdam

  5. Overview • Orientation • Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME) • Digital Document Discourse Environment (D3E) • Scholarly Ontologies Project (ScholOnto)

  6. Orientation • The broader project • tools for constructing, contesting and discovering meaning • 2 ways to use technology • (i) streamline the current model (e.g. JHEP)(ii) explore new possibilities and evaluate (e.g. Psycoloquy; JIME) • JIME as a ‘new kid on the block’ • a ‘mobile exploration vehicle’ • unique mix of review technology+process • changing forms and roles • offers both process ideas and generic technology

  7. Journal of Interactive Media in EducationAn Interactive Journalfor Interactive Mediawww-jime.open.ac.ukjime@open.ac.uk

  8. anonymous anonymous named named anonymous appointed appointed open invitation open invitation appointed author noright of reply author noright of reply author rightof reply author rightof reply author noright of reply 1-shot 1-shot conversation conversation 1-shot reviewerson their own reviewerson their own reviewers interact reviewers interact reviewerson their own reviews discarded reviews discarded reviews preserved reviews preserved reviews discarded Peer review dimensions

  9. JIME in a nutshell • conversational open peer review intrinsic to journal’s review model: the social contract

  10. JIME’s peer review model Private+Public / Conversational / Open Peer Review / Edited / Co-published with article • Reviewers assigned and named/hyperlinked • Conversational/argumentation model (web) • Hybrid 2-step process: private then public • Private emails to editor if preferred •  revision, publication + open for further comments • Intellectual trace of the article’s history

  11. JIME in a nutshell • conversational open peer review intrinsic to journal’s review model: the social contract • authors encouraged to back claims about technology with demonstrations/ walkthroughs for readers and reviewers

  12. Interactive demonstration of a CD-ROM Readers can ‘play’ with the construction of a painting, as students were encouraged to do

  13. Audio-visual slide presentation, walking the reader through a system The author introduces the multimedia system with a series of slides and commentary (streaming audio)

  14. JIME in a nutshell • conversational open peer review intrinsic to journal’s review model: the social contract • authors encouraged to back claims about technology with demonstrations/ walkthroughs for readers and reviewers • articles tightly integrated with reviews in a web document-discussion interface • edited review discussions co-published with final article

  15. JIME document user interface(generated by D3E from an HTML submission) Submission under review PrePrint or Published Peer review comments and discussion: tightly integrated + co-published

  16. JIME email alert to new review comment

  17. Author links from text to discussion

  18. JIME document user interface(generated by D3E from an HTML submission) Submission under review PrePrint or Published Peer review comments and discussion: tightly integrated + co-published

  19. d3e.open.ac.uk D3E:Digital Document Discourse Environment D3Eprint servergenerating a peer review discussion space for an ePrint archive document… “Open Sourcefrom the Open University”

  20. An arXiv eprint

  21. Peer review/commentary on an arXiv document

  22. JIME changes… • …Author’s experience • at least as much feedback as normal • typically gain an enormous amount from defending against expert peers • sometimes need to be coaxed into responding! • …Reviewer’s experience • engage in discussions with both authors and reviewers • formulate reflective contributions to debates in a timely, professional manner

  23. JIME changes… (cont/d) • …Reader’s experience • insight into how to interpret the text (esp. students) • ‘dissenting voices’ are not silenced • …the concept of a ‘Publication’ • multimedia • hypertext structures possible • content can now be distributed across the formal document and the discussion space

  24. Conversational Open Peer Review? • Pros • Rigorous, accountable quality control • At its best can promote interdisciplinary dialogue • Reviewers can debate between themselves • Works because journal Policies and Practices have evolved with the Technology • Cons • Both the technology and process are new • More resource intensive for authors and reviewers • Better for discursive, multidisciplinary fields? • Key • Technology enables new practices, but discourse analysis shows mixed evidence of changed working practices

  25. Claims Counterclaims Emergent domain model grounded in perspectives

  26. ScholOnto: Scholarly Ontologies Project • A discourse-oriented digital library server to mediate scholarly claims and argumentation (cf. link taxonomies theme) • beyond primary metadata… perspectival semantic web • literatures as conceptual networks • research documents complemented by concept maps summarising the key claims and argumentation • semantic layer over journal or eprint archives • “semantic citation links” novel forms of scientometrics and information visualizations • structural templates for peer review

  27. Other issues • “Would this work for me?…” • Hypertextual il/literacy • Framework for co-evolving policies and practices with technologies • Theories wrt. persistent discourse • D3E technical infrastructure

  28. Journal of Interactive Media in Educationwww–jime.open.ac.ukDigital Document Discourse Environmentd3e.open.ac.ukPhD on ePrints+Peer Review: deadline16th Julykmi.open.ac.uk/studentshipsScholarly Ontologies Projectkmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto

More Related