Cadmore media player playing video DescribingThePracticalEquityAndParityInMetadataForPracticeResearch
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
DescribingThePracticalEquityAndParityInMetadataForPracticeResearch
Description:
DescribingThePracticalEquityAndParityInMetadataForPracticeResearch
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/2378a3e8-1d1e-405c-82ec-0a3a140677e5/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H26M44S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/2378a3e8-1d1e-405c-82ec-0a3a140677e5
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/2378a3e8-1d1e-405c-82ec-0a3a140677e5/DescribingThePracticalEquityAndParityInMetadataForPracticeRe.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=wF4wcsM288UncS%2BGOVOOPQ%2BwLWI9GZVqvTwkSqgX9og%3D&st=2024-12-26T20%3A48%3A04Z&se=2024-12-26T22%3A53%3A04Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
11 just to say we've added all of the links that were in the slides and a link to the slides themselves. In the Google Doc. You're on mute, Jenny.
It wouldn't via Zoom meeting without it. I'm two teams. Teams are forwards to switch back to Zoom. Well, thank you. For everyone who has managed to join us. I think we've got actually, we've got I think we've got even more people than we had in the recording. Hey, everyone.
And I think I've got I think I'm on an iPad now and it's dark. So I've got I've got a new picture which has. And what happens there as well. It's good, Rachel, that do we want to get started? Are we waiting for our. We've got we've got Kimberley and toddy, as Kimberley just said. There's Amanda.
Amanda and Amanda. Hello Hello. Do we want to see? A couple more folks are connecting to audio. To turnout of it looks like 37 people in the room.
So I think that this would be a great opportunity to have a good continuation of the conversation. Wonderful thank you so much, Kimberly. And for dropping the link in the chats to the notes document for us to use. Hello, everyone. I'm Amanda Wilson at the National Library of Medicine and really fortunate to be able to help facilitate, even though our panelists aren't sure, will can handle this as well, but help facilitate our continuing discussion about this topic.
So please feel free to use the chats or raise your hand and come off unmute and ask questions of our panelists today. I do see that there is a comment. In the chats already from Richard Irvin at oclc. I'm talking about musings and joy, the musing about collections versus portfolios and part of some work that might be of interest, which he linked to a Google Scholar citation.
Richard, did you want to say more about that? Hello? can you hear me? All right? Yep Yep. Yeah this was some work that we did earlier. It was more around a collection of cultural heritage materials where we were looking at relationships between the Dublin Core collection, collection level application profiles and then item level materials.
But part of the question is sort of like what is how do you model a collection? And I think a lot of what we were looking at the time is like a collection, is this sort of set of materials. But what does it mean when that set changes over time, which I think is a little bit more like what you're thinking about with a portfolio. And that's where some of this research went is like, maybe there's maybe there's something different there that's holding the identity of that thing as a portfolio that builds the relationships with the items that are members of that portfolio or collection.
Even because not all collections are finite sets either. They change over time as they get reorganized by a curator or new material comes in to an author's set of manuscripts or something like that. So those are the kinds of concepts that we were exploring again. I appreciate, I think, a little bit of what we were trying to talk about.
So I'm happy to talk about it more. But if there are other things that people talk about, I'm happy to just point that out. Yeah I'd love to hear more about what your problems are that you're working. I guess my question I mean, I guess I could. I could comment a little bit back on the collection verses. Sort of portfolio and kind of reflective first kind of capture, which is a quick punt for the next talk.
I'm also in right after this one, but in track three, all about kind of sexual and narrative capturing. So when we were talking to the British Library about their collections, they are kind of a post-hoc organization over resources. And so the concept of a collection was around kind of organizing things and creating a relationship over some things that were existing at the time.
And so a collection was a way of organizing existing things, whereas a portfolio, as you're pointing out, that they were more around kind of this open ended set of things, right? And may or may not be bounding something that had a start and an end, but wouldn't necessarily be entirely prescribed.
So the things that you were collecting together wouldn't necessarily already be known. And part of the thing about the portfolio is that you have a thing or a theme or a project or whatever. And raid is, you know, a thing that I talk about a lot because that is the kind of a really helpful general concept that you bind other stuff together along. And I like using the washing line kind of conceptual metaphor because I think it helps a lot.
People think you grab all these things, you hang them together, and that has like a continual thread running through them and it gives like this idea of being able to have this kind of timeliness as well, because people kind of understand this idea about hanging things along, this one continual kind of underpinning thread that carries the whole thing together. And that also allows you to do things like measure impact, right?
Because the things are all linked together. So especially in kind of arts, humanities, things like that, you wouldn't necessarily have the FUNDING project, you'd have bits and pieces of things and you do a workshop, you do a bit of an output. You'd have some people coming in at the start, people through there. And you know, the things that we've talked about with contributors.
And so on, it's not necessarily just a person driving things and you know, some post-doc something coming in and doing a bit of work. You would have perhaps one main person whose kind of project is. But there are people that would come and contribute. There are people who would be involved in various things throughout the work and being able to pull all of these things together.
And the places and you know, and all of these things, as we've been talking about in various sessions over the past couple of days, you know, have persistent, identified, have met state and all of this kind of stuff. And being able to capture this stuff with a chronology, you know, with this timeliness as well, helps you also be reflective. So you can stop you have this kind of describe the site, you put all these things together.
You can stop, you can reflect, you can see where the things are at the moment and then go forward. Yeah Yeah. Richard, I think the time what I'm saying is and I think, I mean, I used to work on like authoring adaptive. Lesson plans and things like that. And this kind of like looking at kind of the reflection of the place where you are according to the zone kind of past of it.
I'm not going to go down that right now, but I talk to people offline about very happily for a very long time. This is one of the problems online stuff that I really need a beer and a bar and a beat, but there's that. So yeah, I think this is part of the thing about collections where you're creating a kind of an organizational structure and a portfolio where you're kind of gathering things and you it may be open ended and you continue to do that as you move along.
And I will stop there and. They got. Thank you. Moving down in the chat, Wendy Robinson asks next. Could you talk a bit more about the collaborator issue and problems of mapping to creator or contributor and data site? What would be preferred, ideal or work best?
I feel like I'm in a lot of this back at Adam in a minute. And Rachel actually too. As knowing more detail around data, particularly but so just as a preamble and then I'll let either of them take over when they wish to. But this idea of I think we started off in the repository with the idea of creator being a reflection of author, but calling it creative because that's what that was.
And humanities research just saw themselves as not so much authors, but creators. The collaborator role was more those kind of. In the public repository at Westminster was more the kind of those other roles. So you might have video editors and curators and those kind of roles as collaborator. What was interesting throughout the project is that definitely we were hearing from certain kind of participants and contributors that actually they would two different types of collaborator.
There was the kind of creator type of collaborator, which is more of a primary role, and then the kind of not quite necessarily so significant collaborator role. So the collaborator could sit-in either place, it could be that primary kind of role or the secondary role. But then also the idea of participants and a lot of participatory research is going on in these disciplines. And so how, how you recognize those and recognizing those was really important.
So I think that gives the framing around the kind of types of contributor collaborator roles. But I think I'm thinking of hands back onto either as a more Rachel to pick up the mapping and data side because I think you're more aware of that. To jump in a bit, and I think again, it stems from the angle that in the early days of data site, there was a big focus on STEM and the traditional type of research outputs.
And it's not that what we want to do with practice research cannot be done with things like data sleight, but actually it's kind of giving more examples of how you can use it in the way that makes sense to the researchers that we're talking about. So absolutely, we can map in the kinds of collaboration and create a type roles that we're talking about. Because of the relatively minimal way in which data flight metadata was originally constructed.
But we need to make sure is that documentation and examples and the folks that we're talking to understand how that is the case purely because, like I said, you know, the documentation documentation stems from a place where we were focusing on these more traditional type outputs and even if at the time even data wasn't necessarily considered a traditional research output in that sense. But yeah, I think, I think that's where some of the work needs to kind of push forward a bit more.
Can I just add if you could reach out to Kelly stathis at data site with something, we can try to work in some examples, maybe even into the data site documentation that work with this kind of project. Thank you. I think we can note that note that down.
We're also I'm also mindful of the BLS role in its stewardship of data. So but I think that that's I think some use cases and practical examples are definitely something we need to take out to some of these communities will form part of the next phase as we go forward.
So again, I'll ask folks if you have thoughts. Feel free to come off mute or put things in the chat. But meanwhile, I'll ask a question of the panelists. I really enjoy doing the recording and kind of watching it back and then having this discussion. So as we just did that this morning, was there anything, as we were rewatching the presentations that maybe we want to elaborate on or something that maybe didn't get into the recording that we think is important?
I could always pick up on Adam's comments about us not having an artifact type at present at the British Library. And I think some of that stems from the fact that as a heritage organization we have a statutory role in stewardship of some of our collections, which are obviously, for the most part, physical. And as such, physical artifacts generally, if they're part of the collection, have to be managed within strategic institutional systems, whereas our shared research repository is very much about the research that our staff are producing.
And generally, if they were producing physical outputs, that would be then considered to be part of the collection potentially. So just to avoid any confusion, we don't really talk about physical artifacts in the repository that we have at present. So it's just our kind of weird position as a kind of heritage organization and the statutory role we have to look after our physical collections in that way.
Thank you, Rachel. I would probably have gone on for much longer in many different ways. But so I think the thing that I didn't spend as much time as I would like to have spent would have been on some of the kind of outcomes on.
Looking at how we were going to move forward with like the data and the rate work but also on. Kind of how? We had hoped to work with some of the other standards. And I think, again, we had six months and we kind of had the focus down and we had to kind of make choices. And partly some people responded more quickly than others.
So, you know, there was that, too. And I think. The as Rachel touched on already, it's not so much most often that things don't work or don't fit. And I think what I did already say is that there's a lot of being pragmatic and making sure that things are fitted into standards and that we don't.
You know, I saw I saw the exact slide already. Create yet another standard because we're worried about issues with the current standards. And I think. Some of the conversations that we've already had around looking at schema and looking at how we export things from repositories, which to be fair, some people have spent, you know, a decade of their life building and customizing schema and making sure that you can capture every nuance of something you can't generally walk up to them, say, this is amazing.
If you could just when you export that, if that entire type you could just call it other and put everything into a text field. That would be great. That's that's not being pragmatic. That's being cruel. But at the same time, there are ways to move the information there into a literal schema and to think about the ways that those are doing.
And it's the same discussions that we've been having about the country that was just before the session about ensuring that there is access and discoverability across disciplines, across global outputs. You know, it's about being able to find these things and about being thoughtful about the translation of the information in systems into the global information fabric.
And I think some of the work that we've done on looking at the schema and the discussions that we've had with the communities that hold the vocabularies and the taxonomies and for example, the resource types in data science, it's not about changing stuff drastically and it's not about asking people to move all of their things into collections, fonts or moving all of those things into.
I think that says other. It's about being thoughtful about where there are things that are entirely missing in vocabularies and taxonomies. And it's about thinking about where things just need to be matched and moved a little bit more carefully. And I think communities who are either in charge of their standards or interacting with those standards need to have those conversations thoughtfully and carefully, especially as we are otherwise having gaps and missing out on resources.
I guess probably the only other thing I'd mention and it wasn't a slide somewhere, is this kind of idea that fair, fair does not equal open talking about the Fair principles. And I think for me. It's been really interesting because the policy landscape is so focused, focused on open access, primarily journal articles, although it's kind of broadening out to data sets.
But but that idea of what fair looks like and I realize that open data is different. So open access but for those research communities. So one of the recommendations of the report was to build this open library of practice research. And and actually quite quickly, I came to the realization that it couldn't be called an open library practice research because open has connotations and that actually like respecting participant data was very important.
I mean, we talked to an education researcher, so it wasn't all arts and humanities researchers. And so I think we've got this landscape because of the history where we talk about publications, repositories and data repositories, and we have this idea of what open access looks like and just kind of really, really thinking about how we talk about these things so that when you do get to those communities, you respect the kind of form and function of that research and their participants and how you capture it in a way that means that it can be reproduced, but where it maintains and respects that integrity of how it was collected and why it was collected.
So I think that's probably the only other thing I would say. I would say we are hoping to publish our report. In the coming weeks. We're just having to get some sign off on images, actually. So so that might take a little bit longer, but we're hoping to have our findings out there soon so that we can get further comment because we do we see this as really the continuation of a discussion. And so community will come along with us and we're very happy to hear all thoughts, opinions, dissenting or otherwise.
And I guess my final thoughts was just how this kind of description or terminology, phraseology of practice research was sitting with attendees. Because I'm mindful of conversations I've had where people haven't come across it as a term before. And so I know trying to get messages out to and broaden out kind of conversations can be challenging because of that terminology and any thoughts people have on that as a description and whether there are alternatives or other kinds of.
Terms or phrases would be of interest to hear to. Thank you, Jenny. Alan, did you have anything in kind of rewatching that you wanted? I mean, I think the thing for me is actually this is not it's about building a repository that meets not just practice based research. It's about research for the whole community.
It's not whilst we focused on practice based research because stem output types are really well catered for. It's about building a schema that respects each other's research areas, research types, and enables us to build a repository, schema and function that meets and respects all of those different research types.
I think it's one of the key items for me other than what everyone else has already brought up. Thank you. Thank you. I'm looking at our time and we have about two minutes left. I see. Richard, put a question in the chat.
And I'm going to read Richard's question and see if anyone wants to respond. And then I'll just remind folks that it's to put in the chat as well or in the notes document. If there are any suggestions for any solutions or best practices for nisa coming out of this discussion to please note those for us. But anyway, I will throw it back to Richard as we close out. Does anyone want to respond to Richard's comment about what incentivization is looking like for practice research?
Yes, I think because this practice research pieces is very much around recognizing diversity of research outputs and there is more and more work going on in the landscape. And we can put in some links to some UK authored reports around responsible research evaluation, recognizing a broad range of outputs. There's work being done around narrative cves in the UK, so recognizing a range of outputs, the research excellence framework exercise in the UK, which is our every six or seven year evaluation exercise, very much focused on universities, I might add, rather than all organizations that carry out practice research, but they recognize this idea of portfolio and these non text outputs.
So, so I think there's, there is some work being done and hopefully having these international conversations means that that can be shared because there's a, there's a real equity equality, diversity issue here, the keynote here, I didn't manage to hear all of it but touched on those kinds of outputs that are not text as well. So I hope we're moving in the right direction, but but we are talking systemic culture change.
So so this is going to take decades, I suspect, to get fully embedded. It won't happen overnight. Thank you, Jenny. Thank you, Alan. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you, Adam, for this fantastic presentation and really engaging discussion.
And thanks, everyone, for your comments in the chats. And please continue to put notes in our notes documents and everyone, please have a fantastic rest of my slides. 2023 thank you, everyone. Thanks, men. Yes thanks, everyone. See you in ten, 15 minutes at the next hook. Well, at home, we were.
Segment:0 .
11 just to say we've added all of the links that were in the slides and a link to the slides themselves. In the Google Doc. You're on mute, Jenny.
It wouldn't via Zoom meeting without it. I'm two teams. Teams are forwards to switch back to Zoom. Well, thank you. For everyone who has managed to join us. I think we've got actually, we've got I think we've got even more people than we had in the recording. Hey, everyone.
And I think I've got I think I'm on an iPad now and it's dark. So I've got I've got a new picture which has. And what happens there as well. It's good, Rachel, that do we want to get started? Are we waiting for our. We've got we've got Kimberley and toddy, as Kimberley just said. There's Amanda.
Amanda and Amanda. Hello Hello. Do we want to see? A couple more folks are connecting to audio. To turnout of it looks like 37 people in the room.
So I think that this would be a great opportunity to have a good continuation of the conversation. Wonderful thank you so much, Kimberly. And for dropping the link in the chats to the notes document for us to use. Hello, everyone. I'm Amanda Wilson at the National Library of Medicine and really fortunate to be able to help facilitate, even though our panelists aren't sure, will can handle this as well, but help facilitate our continuing discussion about this topic.
So please feel free to use the chats or raise your hand and come off unmute and ask questions of our panelists today. I do see that there is a comment. In the chats already from Richard Irvin at oclc. I'm talking about musings and joy, the musing about collections versus portfolios and part of some work that might be of interest, which he linked to a Google Scholar citation.
Richard, did you want to say more about that? Hello? can you hear me? All right? Yep Yep. Yeah this was some work that we did earlier. It was more around a collection of cultural heritage materials where we were looking at relationships between the Dublin Core collection, collection level application profiles and then item level materials.
But part of the question is sort of like what is how do you model a collection? And I think a lot of what we were looking at the time is like a collection, is this sort of set of materials. But what does it mean when that set changes over time, which I think is a little bit more like what you're thinking about with a portfolio. And that's where some of this research went is like, maybe there's maybe there's something different there that's holding the identity of that thing as a portfolio that builds the relationships with the items that are members of that portfolio or collection.
Even because not all collections are finite sets either. They change over time as they get reorganized by a curator or new material comes in to an author's set of manuscripts or something like that. So those are the kinds of concepts that we were exploring again. I appreciate, I think, a little bit of what we were trying to talk about.
So I'm happy to talk about it more. But if there are other things that people talk about, I'm happy to just point that out. Yeah I'd love to hear more about what your problems are that you're working. I guess my question I mean, I guess I could. I could comment a little bit back on the collection verses. Sort of portfolio and kind of reflective first kind of capture, which is a quick punt for the next talk.
I'm also in right after this one, but in track three, all about kind of sexual and narrative capturing. So when we were talking to the British Library about their collections, they are kind of a post-hoc organization over resources. And so the concept of a collection was around kind of organizing things and creating a relationship over some things that were existing at the time.
And so a collection was a way of organizing existing things, whereas a portfolio, as you're pointing out, that they were more around kind of this open ended set of things, right? And may or may not be bounding something that had a start and an end, but wouldn't necessarily be entirely prescribed.
So the things that you were collecting together wouldn't necessarily already be known. And part of the thing about the portfolio is that you have a thing or a theme or a project or whatever. And raid is, you know, a thing that I talk about a lot because that is the kind of a really helpful general concept that you bind other stuff together along. And I like using the washing line kind of conceptual metaphor because I think it helps a lot.
People think you grab all these things, you hang them together, and that has like a continual thread running through them and it gives like this idea of being able to have this kind of timeliness as well, because people kind of understand this idea about hanging things along, this one continual kind of underpinning thread that carries the whole thing together. And that also allows you to do things like measure impact, right?
Because the things are all linked together. So especially in kind of arts, humanities, things like that, you wouldn't necessarily have the FUNDING project, you'd have bits and pieces of things and you do a workshop, you do a bit of an output. You'd have some people coming in at the start, people through there. And you know, the things that we've talked about with contributors.
And so on, it's not necessarily just a person driving things and you know, some post-doc something coming in and doing a bit of work. You would have perhaps one main person whose kind of project is. But there are people that would come and contribute. There are people who would be involved in various things throughout the work and being able to pull all of these things together.
And the places and you know, and all of these things, as we've been talking about in various sessions over the past couple of days, you know, have persistent, identified, have met state and all of this kind of stuff. And being able to capture this stuff with a chronology, you know, with this timeliness as well, helps you also be reflective. So you can stop you have this kind of describe the site, you put all these things together.
You can stop, you can reflect, you can see where the things are at the moment and then go forward. Yeah Yeah. Richard, I think the time what I'm saying is and I think, I mean, I used to work on like authoring adaptive. Lesson plans and things like that. And this kind of like looking at kind of the reflection of the place where you are according to the zone kind of past of it.
I'm not going to go down that right now, but I talk to people offline about very happily for a very long time. This is one of the problems online stuff that I really need a beer and a bar and a beat, but there's that. So yeah, I think this is part of the thing about collections where you're creating a kind of an organizational structure and a portfolio where you're kind of gathering things and you it may be open ended and you continue to do that as you move along.
And I will stop there and. They got. Thank you. Moving down in the chat, Wendy Robinson asks next. Could you talk a bit more about the collaborator issue and problems of mapping to creator or contributor and data site? What would be preferred, ideal or work best?
I feel like I'm in a lot of this back at Adam in a minute. And Rachel actually too. As knowing more detail around data, particularly but so just as a preamble and then I'll let either of them take over when they wish to. But this idea of I think we started off in the repository with the idea of creator being a reflection of author, but calling it creative because that's what that was.
And humanities research just saw themselves as not so much authors, but creators. The collaborator role was more those kind of. In the public repository at Westminster was more the kind of those other roles. So you might have video editors and curators and those kind of roles as collaborator. What was interesting throughout the project is that definitely we were hearing from certain kind of participants and contributors that actually they would two different types of collaborator.
There was the kind of creator type of collaborator, which is more of a primary role, and then the kind of not quite necessarily so significant collaborator role. So the collaborator could sit-in either place, it could be that primary kind of role or the secondary role. But then also the idea of participants and a lot of participatory research is going on in these disciplines. And so how, how you recognize those and recognizing those was really important.
So I think that gives the framing around the kind of types of contributor collaborator roles. But I think I'm thinking of hands back onto either as a more Rachel to pick up the mapping and data side because I think you're more aware of that. To jump in a bit, and I think again, it stems from the angle that in the early days of data site, there was a big focus on STEM and the traditional type of research outputs.
And it's not that what we want to do with practice research cannot be done with things like data sleight, but actually it's kind of giving more examples of how you can use it in the way that makes sense to the researchers that we're talking about. So absolutely, we can map in the kinds of collaboration and create a type roles that we're talking about. Because of the relatively minimal way in which data flight metadata was originally constructed.
But we need to make sure is that documentation and examples and the folks that we're talking to understand how that is the case purely because, like I said, you know, the documentation documentation stems from a place where we were focusing on these more traditional type outputs and even if at the time even data wasn't necessarily considered a traditional research output in that sense. But yeah, I think, I think that's where some of the work needs to kind of push forward a bit more.
Can I just add if you could reach out to Kelly stathis at data site with something, we can try to work in some examples, maybe even into the data site documentation that work with this kind of project. Thank you. I think we can note that note that down.
We're also I'm also mindful of the BLS role in its stewardship of data. So but I think that that's I think some use cases and practical examples are definitely something we need to take out to some of these communities will form part of the next phase as we go forward.
So again, I'll ask folks if you have thoughts. Feel free to come off mute or put things in the chat. But meanwhile, I'll ask a question of the panelists. I really enjoy doing the recording and kind of watching it back and then having this discussion. So as we just did that this morning, was there anything, as we were rewatching the presentations that maybe we want to elaborate on or something that maybe didn't get into the recording that we think is important?
I could always pick up on Adam's comments about us not having an artifact type at present at the British Library. And I think some of that stems from the fact that as a heritage organization we have a statutory role in stewardship of some of our collections, which are obviously, for the most part, physical. And as such, physical artifacts generally, if they're part of the collection, have to be managed within strategic institutional systems, whereas our shared research repository is very much about the research that our staff are producing.
And generally, if they were producing physical outputs, that would be then considered to be part of the collection potentially. So just to avoid any confusion, we don't really talk about physical artifacts in the repository that we have at present. So it's just our kind of weird position as a kind of heritage organization and the statutory role we have to look after our physical collections in that way.
Thank you, Rachel. I would probably have gone on for much longer in many different ways. But so I think the thing that I didn't spend as much time as I would like to have spent would have been on some of the kind of outcomes on.
Looking at how we were going to move forward with like the data and the rate work but also on. Kind of how? We had hoped to work with some of the other standards. And I think, again, we had six months and we kind of had the focus down and we had to kind of make choices. And partly some people responded more quickly than others.
So, you know, there was that, too. And I think. The as Rachel touched on already, it's not so much most often that things don't work or don't fit. And I think what I did already say is that there's a lot of being pragmatic and making sure that things are fitted into standards and that we don't.
You know, I saw I saw the exact slide already. Create yet another standard because we're worried about issues with the current standards. And I think. Some of the conversations that we've already had around looking at schema and looking at how we export things from repositories, which to be fair, some people have spent, you know, a decade of their life building and customizing schema and making sure that you can capture every nuance of something you can't generally walk up to them, say, this is amazing.
If you could just when you export that, if that entire type you could just call it other and put everything into a text field. That would be great. That's that's not being pragmatic. That's being cruel. But at the same time, there are ways to move the information there into a literal schema and to think about the ways that those are doing.
And it's the same discussions that we've been having about the country that was just before the session about ensuring that there is access and discoverability across disciplines, across global outputs. You know, it's about being able to find these things and about being thoughtful about the translation of the information in systems into the global information fabric.
And I think some of the work that we've done on looking at the schema and the discussions that we've had with the communities that hold the vocabularies and the taxonomies and for example, the resource types in data science, it's not about changing stuff drastically and it's not about asking people to move all of their things into collections, fonts or moving all of those things into.
I think that says other. It's about being thoughtful about where there are things that are entirely missing in vocabularies and taxonomies. And it's about thinking about where things just need to be matched and moved a little bit more carefully. And I think communities who are either in charge of their standards or interacting with those standards need to have those conversations thoughtfully and carefully, especially as we are otherwise having gaps and missing out on resources.
I guess probably the only other thing I'd mention and it wasn't a slide somewhere, is this kind of idea that fair, fair does not equal open talking about the Fair principles. And I think for me. It's been really interesting because the policy landscape is so focused, focused on open access, primarily journal articles, although it's kind of broadening out to data sets.
But but that idea of what fair looks like and I realize that open data is different. So open access but for those research communities. So one of the recommendations of the report was to build this open library of practice research. And and actually quite quickly, I came to the realization that it couldn't be called an open library practice research because open has connotations and that actually like respecting participant data was very important.
I mean, we talked to an education researcher, so it wasn't all arts and humanities researchers. And so I think we've got this landscape because of the history where we talk about publications, repositories and data repositories, and we have this idea of what open access looks like and just kind of really, really thinking about how we talk about these things so that when you do get to those communities, you respect the kind of form and function of that research and their participants and how you capture it in a way that means that it can be reproduced, but where it maintains and respects that integrity of how it was collected and why it was collected.
So I think that's probably the only other thing I would say. I would say we are hoping to publish our report. In the coming weeks. We're just having to get some sign off on images, actually. So so that might take a little bit longer, but we're hoping to have our findings out there soon so that we can get further comment because we do we see this as really the continuation of a discussion. And so community will come along with us and we're very happy to hear all thoughts, opinions, dissenting or otherwise.
And I guess my final thoughts was just how this kind of description or terminology, phraseology of practice research was sitting with attendees. Because I'm mindful of conversations I've had where people haven't come across it as a term before. And so I know trying to get messages out to and broaden out kind of conversations can be challenging because of that terminology and any thoughts people have on that as a description and whether there are alternatives or other kinds of.
Terms or phrases would be of interest to hear to. Thank you, Jenny. Alan, did you have anything in kind of rewatching that you wanted? I mean, I think the thing for me is actually this is not it's about building a repository that meets not just practice based research. It's about research for the whole community.
It's not whilst we focused on practice based research because stem output types are really well catered for. It's about building a schema that respects each other's research areas, research types, and enables us to build a repository, schema and function that meets and respects all of those different research types.
I think it's one of the key items for me other than what everyone else has already brought up. Thank you. Thank you. I'm looking at our time and we have about two minutes left. I see. Richard, put a question in the chat.
And I'm going to read Richard's question and see if anyone wants to respond. And then I'll just remind folks that it's to put in the chat as well or in the notes document. If there are any suggestions for any solutions or best practices for nisa coming out of this discussion to please note those for us. But anyway, I will throw it back to Richard as we close out. Does anyone want to respond to Richard's comment about what incentivization is looking like for practice research?
Yes, I think because this practice research pieces is very much around recognizing diversity of research outputs and there is more and more work going on in the landscape. And we can put in some links to some UK authored reports around responsible research evaluation, recognizing a broad range of outputs. There's work being done around narrative cves in the UK, so recognizing a range of outputs, the research excellence framework exercise in the UK, which is our every six or seven year evaluation exercise, very much focused on universities, I might add, rather than all organizations that carry out practice research, but they recognize this idea of portfolio and these non text outputs.
So, so I think there's, there is some work being done and hopefully having these international conversations means that that can be shared because there's a, there's a real equity equality, diversity issue here, the keynote here, I didn't manage to hear all of it but touched on those kinds of outputs that are not text as well. So I hope we're moving in the right direction, but but we are talking systemic culture change.
So so this is going to take decades, I suspect, to get fully embedded. It won't happen overnight. Thank you, Jenny. Thank you, Alan. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you, Adam, for this fantastic presentation and really engaging discussion.
And thanks, everyone, for your comments in the chats. And please continue to put notes in our notes documents and everyone, please have a fantastic rest of my slides. 2023 thank you, everyone. Thanks, men. Yes thanks, everyone. See you in ten, 15 minutes at the next hook. Well, at home, we were.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode