The Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (aka the Finch group) of the Research Information Network just released a report recommending that open access to scholarly publishings was the best method to increase access :

The internet has brought much better access to research results for members of the academic community. But the full benefits of the digital and online revolutions have yet to be realised, especially for business, the professions, and the general public. Many people have expressed the ambition for a worldwide open access regime. The key policy questions are how to promote that shift in an ordered way which promotes innovation and maximises the benefits while minimising the risks.

The report recommends actions which can be taken in the UK which would help to promote much greater and faster access, while recognising that research and publications are international. It envisages that several different channels for communicating research results will remain important over the next few years, but recommends a clear policy direction in the UK towards support for open access publishing. This means that publishers receive their revenues from authors rather than readers, and so research articles become freely accessible to everyone immediately upon publication.

The Final report contains over 140 pages and an interesting bibliography.

See also this recent report from the Royal Society on Science as an Open Enterprise, which focuses heavily on data stewardship and sharing.

I recently blogged about Jim Duderstadt’s opening plenary talk at the Spring 2012 Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
– well it seems that the report he mentions is now available on the National Academies Committee on the Future of the Research University website.

As I mention on Culturelibre.ca (my other blog), Jennifer Howard writes on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s «Wired Campus» blog about the very interesting report dealing with ebook publishing strategies by University presses in the USA.

The Association of College & Research Libraries has just released an updated bersion of its Characteristics of programs of information literacy that illustrate best practices: A guideline.

Worth a read: this survey of open education resources from C&RL News. It lists course initiatives, curriculum sources, databases of objects, etc.

Stephen Laster, Chief Information Officer, Harvard Business School, delivers his Viewpoint in the most receny Educause Review. Insisting on the dire financial situation of students and Universities alike, he stresses that technology offers an opportunity to solve these issues. The Learning Management Systems (LMS) as a plat-form or in the cloud….

Other articles present the top 10 technology issues Universities face as well as some functional requirements of technology applied to education.

In closing, see this article about 2012 top ten trends in academic from C&RL News.

A colleague of mine told me about Eric Mazur‘s Peer Instruction (PI) technique, recently presented at Dawson College in Montréal.

Professor Mazur teaches physics at Harvard and is also keenly interested in the effectiveness of teaching methods, such as peer instruction or just in time learning.

Here are short bibliographies generated from Library sources.

EBSCO’s Business Source Complete from peer-reviewed journals. The search query was simply for the terms “video games” industry. I picked the most interesting that touched upon “indie games” or labour issues for the past 5 years, 7 articles from about the first 40 hits.

Title: Under the radar: Industry entry by user entrepreneurs.
Authors: Haefliger, Stefan shaefliger@ethz.ch; Jäger, Peter pejaeger@ethz.ch; von Krogh, Georg gvkrogh@ethz.ch
Source: Research Policy; Nov2010, Vol. 39 Issue 9, p1198-1213, 16p

Title: User Communities and Social Software in the Video Game Industry.
Authors: Burger-Helmchen, Thierry, Cohendet, Patrick
Source: Long Range Planning; Oct2011, Vol. 44 Issue 5/6, p317-343, 27p

Title: The orchestrating firm: value creation in the video game industry.
Authors: Mikael Gidhagen; Oscar Persson Ridell; David Sörhammar
Source: Managing Service Quality; Jul2011, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p392-409, 18p

Title: Computer Hobbyists and the Gaming Industry in Finland.
Authors: Saarikoski, Petri1 petri.saarikoski@utu.fi; Suominen, Jaakko1 jaakko.suominen@utu.fi
Source: IEEE Annals of the History of Computing; Jul-Sep2009, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p20-33, 14p

Title: The business of playing games: players as developers and entrepreneurs.
Authors: Chazerand, Patrice1 patrice.chazerand@isfe.eu; Geeroms, Catherine1 catherine.geeroms@isfe.eu
Source: Digital Creativity; Sep2008, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p185-193, 9p, 1 Chart, 3 Graphs

Title: Work and Employment in Creative Industries: The Video Games Industry in Germany, Sweden and Poland.
Authors: Teipen, Christina1
Source: Economic & Industrial Democracy; Aug2008, Vol. 29 Issue

Title: Digital Consumer Networks and Producer–Consumer Collaboration: Innovation and Product Development in the Video Game Industry.
Authors: ARAKJI, REINA Y.1; LANG, KARL R.2,3,4
Source: Journal of Management Information Systems; Fall2007, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p195-219, 25p, 1 Diagram, 1 Chart, 1 Graph

Books from CLUES, Concordia University Catalogue, search on “Cultural Economy”:

>Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy [electronic resource] / edited by Andy C. Pratt and Paul Jeffcutt : Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy [electronic resource] / edited by Andy C. Pratt and Paul Jeffcutt

The cultural economy edited by Helmut K. Anheier, Yudhishthir Raj Isar ; Annie Paul, associate editor ; Stuart Cunningham, guest editor : The cultural economy / edited by Helmut K. Anheier, Yudhishthir Raj Isar ; Annie Paul, associate editor ; Stuart Cunningham, guest editor

The Blackwell cultural economy reader edited by Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift : The Blackwell cultural economy reader / edited by Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift

The Guardian’s Higher Ed blog has an interesting piece on “digital literacy” in the university classroom. Beyond skills, the post covers specific ideas from engaged faculty.

For example, Sue Thomas, professor of new media, De Montfort University has this to say about transliteracy:

Digital literacy as an important part of transliteracy: Transliteracy is the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks. It is the literacy of convergence, unifying literacies past and present across different platforms, media and cultures. This means it encompasses all kinds of communications from scratching pictures in the sand to editing photos in Instagram, or from inscribing tablets to text-messaging. When promoting digital literacy on its own, we can alienate people who are already very literate in other areas, and that’s why I prefer to take an holistic approach and be as inclusive as possible.

On April 27 2012, Concordia University Libraries hosted its 10th annual Librarian’s Forum. I like to think of this venue as an opportunity for colleagues to expose their ongoing research projects to get feedback or pointers before the completion of their research cycle. At least, that is how I approach this event with regards to my participation.

The keynote address this year was given by Gwendolyn Ebbett, the Dean of the Library, University of Windsor. Amongst other topics, she presented the forthcoming Librarians’ Research Institute, hosted by her institution and sponsored by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL). Broadly speaking, this three day event (June 11-14 2012) aims to build research capacity amongst academic librarians.

In light of these two very related events, as well as conversations with colleagues now entering the field of academic librarianship, I’ve given the issue of research some thought – incomplete and off the cuff – which I would still like to share with you.

In general, here is a simplification of the research process :
1. (Questions) Think about a problem in our field. To do this, you will have to read, think and exchange.

AKA – the literature review, participating in conferences, engaging with colleagues to identify partners. Try to work on a big issue that is bugging everyone. Think big, start small, scale fast. Don’t be afraid to change the world – you are asked to look for tension or something that is amiss

2. (Hypothesis) Make a bet about why the problem exists or try to fix it. To do this, you will have to structure, express, plan.

This is the most critical step – you have to get it right. You will also have to figure out the methodology of your project.

3. (Experiment) Measure some things. To do this, you will have to execute, document, review.

This is where the bulk of the activity occurs in your project

4. (Conclude) Rethink the problem. To do this, you will have to write, share and repeat step 1.

Project documentation is essential – without it, you cannot publish and have an impact in your field. You will also have to publish your results

Now, these generic steps provide some guidance about what needs to be done, but it makes a lot of sense to try to build a project plan articulating these points. It should fit on two pages maximum.

In the first page, you should be describe the project in a few paragraphs. This refers to point (1) above. Then, the main objectives or hypothesis should be spelled out in a few bullet points or paragraphs (see (2) above). Then, any partners or networks should be identified. All this should fit on a single page, understandable by a smart person that is not an expert in your domain.

For the second page, your project plan should address the main steps. For each step, you should determine a deadline or milestone (when the step will be completed – a date), the step’s objectives, the parameters or constraints (things to keep in mind) and the resources. Here are some generic phases to a project:

1. “Grain of sand” phase: this is the pre-conceptualization phase. You’re not sure what you want to do, still exploring without much of a goal. This phase should not last more than 2% of the overall project timeline
2. Hourglass: you are zoning in on the topic you want, you are preparing a draft project plan. This lasts about 3% of the total project resources (time/money).
3. Sandbox: You are building your research questions, working on your hypothesis and selecting your methodology. 10% of the total project resources (time/money).
4. Sand quarry: You are executing the project. 65% of the total project resources (time/money).
5. Beach: Document and write results. 20% of the total project resources (time/money).

This could happen over many years, and involve many collaborators and funding sources. Or, it could involve only you. It doesn’t matter – only the fact that you plan out your activities so you can keep an eye on the overall goal: the satisfactory completion of your research project.

You can also plan for research outputs throughout the project, for example, highlighting gaps in the literature during your lit review to feed into the hypothesis formulation or providing insight on how you have operationalized a particular methodological approach on a problem. This keeps feeding the publish-or-perish monster.

Now, I have explained this process – in French – on my other blog a few years ago. See: Étapes de la recherche, cadre conceptuel, hypothèse, cadre opératoire on CultureLibre.ca. I’ve fixed up a quick Google translate but it really does not do justice to my original French text – sorry if it sounds convoluted. I was trying to summarize the doctoral thesis writing process to a friend, but it applies to a general research protocol:

The research project (or thesis) begins with a theme and grows through the initial phases of the project, as specified Mace and Petry. The development phase consists of two steps: conceptualization (thinking about a problem to solve arising from a discrepancy between observed reality and an objective) and operationalization (the “realization” of research ). In fact, the problem is articulated through a theory or a “theoretical framework” that relates to a possible hypothesis and objectives that seek the solution (or the outcome of the research).

In the initial phases, it is essential to make (and respect!) choices in order to reach the end of our project. Indeed, we must (1) select a problem and articulate it with precision, (2) formulate the problem and most importantly, general and specific research questions, (3) define research objectives, (4) position the project in the current state of knowledge, (5) clarify the conceptual language (conceptual framework) and (6) clarify the ambitions and the limits of the project.

Moreover, “a thesis, it is not an essay.” An essay is an amalgam of theories, thoughts and opinions, proposed by an author to explore a topic in a manner of his own. An essay can be original (as a thesis for that matter), but the academic rigor is not necessarily at par (not be excluded that the rigor of the test, but there is more latitude). Often, an essay is tinged with a political choice or a moral stance on an issue. You should avoid this perspective in the thesis. Consistency and discipline are the foundation of the thesis. This is why there are many references or footnotes in a page thesis.

To present some examples of conceptual frameworks, Professor Rolland [referring to the prof in charge of a doctoral seminar I took in the Winter of 2010 at Université de Montréal Law Faculty] presents some entries the Encyclopedic Dictionary of theory and sociology of law, especially the concepts of “interpretation” by Arnaud and that of “Validity” by Ost / de Kerchove (p. 243 and following of the first volume of the collection). About validity, the authors offer the hypothesis that the validity has three aspects, the formal validity (which offers the concept of legality), the empirical validity (for effectiveness) and axiological validity (ie, legitimacy). It is often very relevant to represent the conceptual framework presented in our readings in graphic form (“topic / concept map”).

Then, it is essential to state an hypothesis and / or research goals. The hypothesis, which is a classical approach, is a “small” (hypo) thesis, that is established upfront. This is a tentative explanation, an anticipated response or predicting phenomena of reality resulting from our analytical framework, which is still plausible. It is proposed as an affirmative expression that employs the concepts of your conceptual framework. In the hypothetical-deductive context, the thesis is the sum of the hypothesis and evidence.

The research objectives are the formulation of our research intention, to describe or compare.

Moreover, the hypothesis can establish a relationship between two facts, between two concepts or between a fact and a concept that should be validated. The relationship between the two could be a causal one, an associative one (correlation, involvement, cause-effect), dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). We must delve into our hypothesis (based on the conceptual framework) to establish the operational framework on which we will base our proof.

The concepts are abstractions of reality based on a precise language. They must include all essential attributes for object classes with common properties. It is by drawing up the conceptual framework that can articulate our hypothesis into variables. These variables are then analyzed and used by our operational framework (which contains, among other things, the analytical framework).

The operational framework becomes a deepening of the conceptual framework, in line with the variables to be studied.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MACE Gordon and Francois Petry, A Guide to Developing a research project, 3rd ed., Quebec, PUL, 2000

Visually, what I describe in the long quote would look something like this:

Research Project = conceptualization + operationalization
Conceptualization (Theoretical framework):
– Problem statement (general & specific research questions)
– Conceptual Framework
– Hypothesis (or objectives)
Operationalization (Operational Framework)
– Variables (derived from hypothesis)
– Methodology
Experiment

Hope this helps 😉