Royal Society: Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century

The Royal Society has released Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century. The report is in 3 parts and excerpts are as follows:

Knowledge, Networks and Nations reviews, based on available data, the changing patterns of science, and scientific collaboration, in order to provide a basis for understanding such ongoing changes. It aims to identify the opportunities and benefits of international collaboration, to consider how they can best be realised, and to initiate a debate on how international scientific collaboration can be harnessed to tackle global problems more effectively.

Part 1 maps and investigates where and how science is being carried out around the world and the ways in which this picture is changing. Important points of discussion of Part 1 are:

• Science in 2011 is increasingly global
• Traditional ‘scientific superpowers’ (USA, Western Europe, Japan)still lead the field. 
• The emergence of new players and leaders point towards an increasingly multipolar scientific world
• Science is also flourishing economic development and addressing local and global issues of sustainability.

Part 2 reveals the shifting patterns of international collaboration:

• The scientific world is becoming increasingly interconnected, with international collaboration on the rise.
• Collaboration is growing for a variety of reasons as collaboration enhances the quality of scientific research and improves the efficiency and effectiveness of that research as the scale of both budgets and research challenges grow.
• The primary driver of most collaboration is the scientists themselves.
• The connections of people, through formal and informal channels, diaspora communities, virtual global networks and professional communities of shared interests are important drivers of international collaboration.
• Collaboration brings significant benefits, both measurable (such as increased citation impact
  and access to new markets), and less easily quantifiable outputs, such as broadening research
  horizons.

Part 3 explores the role of international scientific collaboration in addressing some of the most pressing global challenges of our time.

• The global scientific community is increasingly charged with or driven by the need to find solutions to a range of issues that threaten sustainability. These ‘global challenges’ have received much attention in recent years, and are now a key component of national and multinational science strategies and many
  funding mechanisms.
• Global challenges are interdependent and interrelated.
• Valuable lessons can be drawn from existing models in designing, participating in and benefiting from global challenge research.
• Science is essential for addressing global challenges, but it cannot do so in isolation.
• All countries have a role in the global effort to tackle these challenges.

The major recommendations are as follows:

1. Support for international science should be maintained and strengthened.
2. Internationally collaborative science should be encouraged, supported and facilitated.
3. National and international strategies for science are required to address global challenges.
4. International capacity building is crucial to ensure that the impacts of scientific research are shared globally.
5. Better indicators are required in order to properly evaluate global science.

Tips on Writing a Successful Proposal for Funds

I have just gone through a post of March 3, 2011 on JISC Digitization blog. JISC funds every year a significant number of digitization projects in UK. The post presents precise but well elaborated tips to write a successful bid for a digitization project. Although the advice is focused on JISC funding matrix but I believe it is equally important for other funding proposals too. The tips are as follows:


As when buying a car we would expect it to have some basic components without much questioning (four wheels, a steering wheel, lights, seats and so on), it goes without saying that in a bid one would expect to see addressed all the relevant sections mentioned in the call (aims and objectives, methodology, project management, risks, dissemination, evaluation, sustainability and so on).

That said, the following are a number of issues that markers tended to highlight as problematic in many unsuccessful applications:

• - need for more clarity and detail on what a project is proposing to do, who is doing what, when and how. Often these things are clear in the mind of the writer but not so for an “outsider” to the project, so it’s always a good idea to have an application read by somebody else as well before submitting it;
• - importance of the proposed work: again, while this may be self-explanatory to those writing a proposal mainly because of their subject area expertise, it is fundamental that the value of a project is well articulated and a strong case made for why this particular project should be funded – as opposed to any other competitor project. For example, why is a particular collection important to digitise? Who is it for? How will it benefit teaching, learning and research? What are we missing out at the moment from this collection not being easily available? And what could users do, that they can’t do now, with the collection once it’s online and accessible to them?
• - any supporting evidence of current use or need for the proposed work will add weight to the application, and strengthen its case for funding – rather than more generic statements such as “this resource will improve teaching and learning…”;
• - impact: as a funding body, it is important for us to see that investing in a project doesn’t only benefit the institution receiving the grant – although obviously they are the main beneficiaries – but that the work is of relevance, or potential relevance, to the wider community and that through the right dissemination it can cascade through the sector, be it through case studies, exemplars, toolkits, the resource itself, technologies…Also, aligning a project strategically both within the host institution and through external links to other relevant organisations, networks and initiatives helps show that a project is well placed within its area of work;
• - stay within scope of the call: this is perhaps not one of the most common failings, but it does happen that sometimes a project is perfectly valid but it’s just not in line with the requirements and the scope of that particular call, and a lot of effort in writing the bid has been wasted.

Pakistan Research Repository

Pakistan Research Repository is a project of the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan to promote the international visibility of research originating out of institutes of higher education in Pakistan. Users are able to download the fulltext PhD theses originated in Pakistani institutions of higher education.

The aim of this service is to maintain a digital archive of all PhD theses produced indigenously to promote the intellectual output of Pakistani institutions. It provides a free, single-entry access point to view the manuscript of research executed, and distribute this information as widely as possible.
The repository which is currently being populated with content has already made the full-text of PhD theses available in high-quality digitized format, whilst a further theses are in process of digitization. Higher Education Commission has introduced a systematic mechanism for the collection and digitization of all the theses produced so far in Pakistan.

The repository offers browsing option by Subjects, Years, Type Institutions.While advance searching is also available.

You may access Pakistan Research Repository at http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/

The Transformation of Knowledge

Knowledge assumes many forms and behaves in anomalous and unpredictable ways. Unlike the tangible resources of the industrial economy, there is little shared understanding of knowledge as an economic factor despite its immense importance in the global economy. Yet the knowledge-based economy, conventionally measured by the composition of the workforce, is in flux. It is plainly characterized by an explosion of data and codified knowledge, propelled by a revolution in information and communication technologies, but the changes go much deeper.
The generation of knowledge is traditionally conceived as a process internal to single entity. But it is increasingly a product of networked entities, often differently situated yet motivated to find new solutions to specific problems, needs, and circumstances – and, in many cases, to reveal these solutions to others. Enabled by technology, knowledge moves quickly within these networks – across firms, institutions, borders, and distances. While scientific research has long been characterized by unfettered circulation of discoveries and the ability to build instantly on these discoveries, distributed models are gaining importance and becoming essential to the larger fabric of the knowledge-based economy.
There are paradoxical elements in the transformation of knowledge that are difficult to model for policymakers. Knowledge tasks and processes are both accelerating and decentralizing. At the same time, important forms of knowledge are becoming more complex and context-specific, and the span and heterogeneity of knowledge forms is increasing. Complex forms may incorporate both tacit and explicit elements, thereby becoming less like digitally codified information objects and more difficult to replicate outside of the original location.
Furthermore, there are multiple factors behind this transformation, including:

• globalization of communications and commerce;
• commoditization of ICTs (and partial commoditization of codified knowledge);
• the increasing role of scientific research in innovation;
• advanced, integrative information infrastructure;
• modularization, vertical disaggregation, and outsourcing; and
• expanded value chains and clusters with new categories of actors.

An expanding environment for creating and managing knowledge recasts a wide range of policy issues, including public investment priorities, program design, dissemination of research results, technology transfer, and the form and scope of private controls on information and knowledge. Tension arises from the fact that governments, universities, and private companies operate in different ways and under different rules, yet there are compelling reasons to encourage rapid movement of knowledge across sector and institutional borders. The open, global nature of science and the scale and scope economies of cyberinfrastructure argue for international cooperation in support of diverse users in academia, government, and industry. The success of university-industry technology transfer in the U.S., the public funding of large cross-sector teams in Europe, and the seeding of new markets for technology all reflect the importance of moving research and technology across boundaries in order to facilitate commercialization. Moreover, optimal design and exploitation of cyberinfrastructure ultimately depend on a deep, contextual understanding of knowledge and its modalities, and a case can be made that cyberinfrastructure should be explicitly open to interconnection and privatization, as was the case for the federally subsidized Internet.
More generally, a deeper understanding of knowledge is needed to support the vast knowledge-related investments, institutions, and laws throughout the economy. Although there is a practice-oriented literature on knowledge management, the microeconomics of knowledge is poorly understood. Most movements of knowledge between entities do not pass through conventional priced markets – and cannot be counted as transactions. Knowledge does not come in discrete units, and the most valuable knowledge is often the most difficult to capture and evaluate. Knowledge is continually transformed by technology, market conditions, and institutions. Just as businesses and knowledge professionals struggle to understand and manage knowledge as a strategic resource, policymakers are challenged to develop public policies that properly account for the diverse natures and uses of knowledge. Yet the growing scope, scale, and economic importance of knowledge demands an assessment that contributes not only to scientific understanding but to democratic decision-making about the future of knowledge and the policies needed to realize that vision.

Source: Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy at the National Academies, 21st and Constitution Ave., Washington, DC, 10-11 January 2005

What is Information Literacy?

Information literacy emerged as focused area in libraries and information management in recent years . The phrase has developed various meanings over the past couple of decades, However, ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards, defined information literacy:
Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to "recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information."1

 Wayne Bivens-Tatum wrote that the standards are both broad and deep and list the the basic standards as following:

1. The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.
2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently.
3. The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
4. The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.
5. The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.

 He argued:

Standards 1 and 2 are, in my opinion, the ones that librarians would typically have the most direct effect on, though often in relatively limited circumstances. Many of us in academic libraries routinely teach students how to find the kind of information they need for research, and give them suggestions on how to evaluate it which they may or may not apply.
I'm not sure who besides the student could be responsible for Standard 3, and I have no idea how that would be assessed in any broad way. What's clear from the research I've read about is that most people have trouble incorporating new information into their knowledge base and value system, especially if it conflicts with values they already hold. But a rigorous liberal education should help people get past that barrier. Regardless, Standard 3 is really quite expansive, and unless they're actually teaching an information literacy class (or a writing class, where I've worked on this with students), librarians typically aren't working with students to evaluate information in any depth or look at sources critically. This requires that both the librarian and the student have read the work.  I could be mistaken, though. How many librarians out there discuss any books or articles in depth with students and help them evaluate them critically? Pointing out how to tell primary from secondary sources or scholarly from popular articles is one thing, or doing a quick website evaluation to show that some website is biased or unauthoritative, but those are relatively superficial compared to reading and discussing works with students, and it's the reading and discussion that teaches students how to evaluate well and signals whether something has been comprehended, much less evaluated. I'll grant it can happen, and just last week I helped a student working on an essay by discussing the course reading with him and helping him generate ideas, but that's unusual.
Standard 4 is also goes beyond the level of student involvement that most librarians have. Accomplishing a specific purpose can be interpreted many ways, but the specific purpose of most students I see is writing a research essay of some kind. I help them find sources, discuss the different kinds of sources their are and what they could do for an essay, but I don't work with them in the way that instructors would, and I'm usually not in a position to know if they've accomplished their task well. When I teach writing, I do work with students to help them write research essays, which often involves seeing how students use their sources in their writing and teaching them how to use the sources more appropriately. That's work I could do as a librarian, but it's not work I normally do. Librarians who teach courses that have research components have that sort of direct role, but other than that how many do? In addition, the Standard implies that this can be done repeatedly, for any project. Given the relatively limited time most librarians have directly with students, how much would our direct teaching enable students to reach that point without significantly more guidance than we typically give?

Standard 5 is a complete washout, because no one but librarians and publishers seems to care much how information is acquired as long as it's easily acquired. I've written before arguing that the legal and economic barriers to scholarly information are incompatible with scholarly values. For example, if scholars want access to articles their library can't get for some reason, they'll go through informal and technically illegal channels to get those articles. Standard 5 says the information literate person uses information ethically and legally, but I think there are cases where scholarly ethics and copyright law conflict. The very willingness of otherwise ethical scholars to defy certain copyright laws supports my point. Though I wouldn't advocate piracy of copyrighted information to anyone, this standard contains more than just "literacy." It's an ethical injunction as much as anything, and for the other standards to be met, sometimes it might be necessary to acquire something illegally. Finding information and incorporating it into your worldview to accomplish a task isn't the same as using the information legally.

Notes

1.    American Library Association. Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Final Report.(Chicago: American Library Association, 1989.)