What I like about this article is that it merges the idea of learning and research. It's set in a corporate environment, but the commentary could apply to anyone. The idea here is that companies need to be constantly learning about customer needs and how to provide for them, but it's a challenge to build this need into a learning cultujre. The bulk of the post addresses how to do that. But my takeaway is that when the information environment is rapidly changing, as it is today, the structure and methods of learning and reserach are essentially the same. You can't, for example, merely provide a series of already-solved problems when the problems are still new and unsolved. You have to give people tools and methods to approach these problems anew. Learning isn't about 'knowing the solutions', it's about 'how to find solutions'. Image: Management Primciples.
According to Ryan Holiday, "A commonplace book is a central resource or depository for ideas, quotes, anecdotes, observations and information you come across during your life and didactic pursuits. The purpose of the book is to record and organize these gems for later use in your life, in your business, in your writing, speaking or whatever it is that you do." I prefer a more digital approach to what is offered here, but it's a good structure for learning. Sharing your contributions makes it even better!
The reasoning here is that since resources for research are so limited, it makes sense for academia to partner with business, and if there are problems with the relationship (as there most certainly are) then the focus should be on making it work better, not on ending it. "We can’t blame scholars, particularly early in their careers, for seeking out the best resources and access to this data to do their work. The question shouldn’t be how to avoid working with tech companies; the question should be how best to ensure that collaborations between tech and social research." Other countries, however (those Umair Haque would say have public goods) would ensure there is public financing and support for research in the public interest, not merely for private gain.
This is a detailed and well-thought-out contribution to the future of peer review. It is definitely needed. "If the current system of peer review were to undergo peer review, it would undoubtedly achieve a “revise and resubmit” decision," write the authors. Existing publishing platforms "were designed to attract a huge following, not to ensure the ethics and reliability of effective peer review." Something new is needed. The authors propose a system where "peer review becomes an inherently social and community-led activity, decoupled from a traditional journal-based system, and instead becomes part of the commons."
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe, Click here.
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.
Copyright 2017 Stephen Downes Contact: firstname.lastname@example.orgThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.