Scholarly Communication

Listen to Episode No.6 of All We Mean, a Special Focus of this podcast. All We Mean is an ongoing discussion and debate about how we mean and why. The guests on today's episode are Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, professors at the University of Illinois, and today as well, Bradley Alger, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine. In this episode of the Focus, our topic is How the hypothesis means.What does out knowledge mean after it’s been hypothesized and tested? And what can we claim to know by having tested it? Also, just how far into the scientific enterprise does hypothetical testing reach — in other words, why are scientists writing so much when the hypotheses they test seem to be testing so little? What's all the communication about? These questions — and many, many more — make the meat of this lively discuss about meaning and the hypothesis.Listeners might be interested in my interview with Bradley Alger about his book Defense of the Scientific Hypothesis: From Reproducibility Crisis to Big Data (Oxford UP, 2019). And if you want to buy the book, go here. You can learn all about the hypothesis at The Scientific Hypothesis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Natalie Aviles, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia. We talk about how organizations shape people, and how people shape science.Natalie Aviles : "I think, in general, the more self-conscious that scientists can be about what motivates them, about what makes them happy, about what drives them — the more, then, they can try to imagine a future that satisfies not only their intellectual curiosity but helps them navigate, too, the very sort of prosaic conditions that they find themselves in on a day-to-day basis."Works referred to in the interview: Natalie Aviles. An Ungovernable Foe: Science and Policy Innovation in the U.S. National Cancer Institute (Columbia University Press 2023) Natalie Aviles. "Environing innovation: Toward an ecological pragmatism of scientific practice." (Sociological Perspectives 2023) Robin Scheffler and Natalie Aviles. "State planning, cancer vaccine infrastructure, and the origins of the oncogene theory." (Social Studies of Science 2022) Natalie Aviles. "Scientific innovation as environed social learning." (In: Inquiry, Agency, and Democracy. Edited by Gross, Reed, and Winship. Columbia University Press 2022) Natalie Aviles. "Situated practice and the emergence of ethical research." (Science, Technology, & Human Values 2018) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Wouter Lueks, faculty at the CISPA Helmhotz Center for Information Security. We talk about getting into the reviewer's mindset, and also about research collaboration outside the walls of the university.Wouter Lueks : "For first ideas, you don't need writing. You can stand in front of the whiteboard, make a couple of drawings, chat with people — and it's very engaging. But then at some point you somehow need to deal with all the nitty-gritty details — and all the nitty-gritty details typically means that your initial idea was wrong. And the only way that I have found that is reliable to figure out all the ways that you've got things wrong is actually to sit down and write out the details, you know, work on the proof or at least on an argument of how to convince somebody else that this thing you have just written down is actually secure or in the case of my research, private — in other words, just why your solution is a good solution. And it's here, I think, that the writing as a technical tool really shines."Here's the example of the scientific-societal collaborating which Wouter talks about at length in the interview. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to Episode No.5 of All We Mean, a Special Focus of this podcast. All We Mean is an ongoing discussion and debate about how we mean and why. The guests on today's episode are Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, professors at the University of Illinois, and also Gang Wang, Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois. In this episode of the Focus, our topic is what decision means.Decision is no simple matter, whether the decider in question is human or machine. In a sense, both are black boxes to us, and yet the urgency today to open the lid on A.I. is heightened because of how human-like the machine seems to be able to do decision. This is why, across disciplines, we need to convene and discuss and decide together on how to understand and use A.I. The alternative is grisly: Everyone using a tool that no one fully understands — no one using the tool in full understanding or for that matter, in any understanding at all. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Academic Librarianship: Anchoring the Profession in Contribution, Scholarship, and Service (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023) by Marcy Simons is needed now as a response to how much has changed in academic librarianship as a profession (from the smallest academic libraries to large research libraries).Much has been written recently about the status of the profession of librarianship, i.e. whether or not it should still be considered a “profession,” are the same credentials still required/enough, should things change dramatically in SLIS programs in response to the new normal, and what is the impact of hiring PhD’s in disciplines outside of librarianship.Dr. Michael LaMagna is the Information Literacy Program and Library Services Coordinator and Professor of Library Services at Delaware County Community College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can we have science without freedom of speech? Dr. Scott Atlas's professional work and personal experiences bring to light an important and often under-discussed element of speech: freedom of speech in the hard sciences. The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a host of new questions and concerns surrounding our medical system and government health agencies: as Special Advisor to the President and a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force from July to December 2020, Dr. Atlas was at the forefront of such debates. In this conversation, he discusses the importance of debate not only to science itself but also to popular trust in and support of the sciences, which since the pandemic have suffered a steep decline.Dr. Scott Atlas, MD, is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and the co-director of the Global Liberty Institute. In addition to his role in White House he has served as Senior Advisor for Health Care to several numerous candidates for President, as well as counselled members of the U.S. Congress on health care, testified before Congress, and briefed directors of key federal agencies. Before his appointment at Hoover Institution, he was a Professor and Chief of Neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center for 14 years, and he received his medical degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine. He is the author of numerous books, most recently A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America.Here is the Cochrane Library analysis on masking mentioned during the interview.Annika Nordquist is the Communications Coordinator of Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and host of the Program’s podcast, Madison’s Notes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to Episode No.4 of All We Mean, a Special Focus of this podcast. All We Mean is an ongoing discussion and debate about how we mean and why. The guests on today's episode are Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, professors at the University of Illinois. In this episode of the Focus, our topic is whether A.I. can mean.The short answer is yes, A.I. can mean... whatever we make it mean.For instance, ChatGPT does has access to text on certain kinds of subject matter, like, for example, the assembly of explosives or specifications on suicide. This kind of stuff is on the web, so ChatGPT has “read it” these subjects into its corpus. However, human programmers have applied filters telling the A.I. not to speak about these things. Nonetheless, you may be able to get to what it “thinks” about these things with some clever prompts, called “jailbreaks” in the hacker trade.But does the A.I. really think, as we humans would associate with the act of thinking? Not really, because an A.I. like ChatGPT does not think about bombs or self-destruction. It just has words about these subjects which it doesn’t itself “understand.” And on top of that, its human-programmer masters have told it not to repeat them.But whose purpose is meant to be served here, the A.I.'s or our own? In our discussion in this instalment of All We Mean, we argue, of course, for the A.I. serving the purposes of us humans. But there the questions immediately arises, which of us humans will be served? It may be that only the big stakeholders in the large Internet companies get served, and who knows what purposes they have. Perhaps they're quite content to see A.I. create the illusion of fact and consciousness, if for no other reason than to increase profits.We, on the opposite side of that, say that the technology has tremendous potential for everyone, if used in everyone's interests. For example, people who want to learn can use A.I. technologies to improve their own performance, just as people who want to discover can use A.I. technologies to communicate their findings more effectively. These are the sorts of purpose we believe A.I. can be used to accomplish, by anyone, for everyone. But, we wonder, will purposes such as these also count when the technology rests firmly in the hands of the very few, because what if they don't really care what the rest of us want?Read Bill's and Mary's multimodal grammar of A.I.And read their work on using A.I. in education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Rebecca Roache, coach and podcaster, and also Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. We talk about the application of philosophy to the problems faced by every academic every day.Rebecca Roache : "I'd say that, for many of us, we got into our particular line of research because we were interested in and energized by the topics that we were researching. But at some point along the way, we started caring too much about the measurable outputs. So, we stopped caring about just being interested and drawn in to a topic for its own sake and we started thinking about things like, 'Well, I need to publish this. I need to be able to teach this course. I need to get this degree or this grant.' So, it becomes all about the outputs. And along with that — once you start caring about the outputs, you start worrying about whether your particular outputs are good enough and so on — and all this just sort of sucks the joy out of the process. So, for any academic or researcher, there's a lot of mileage in trying to reconnect with why we're doing what we're doing in the first place. You know, fall in love with the process again. Now, I know, that's really difficult, given how much pressure we're under to produce the right sort of outputs — but, you know, if you can find space in that to reconnect with your love of the process, your love of the topic, your love of just the experience of learning and writing about that topic — I think that that can solve a lot of problems."Rebecca's fantastic podcast is called Academic Imperfectionist. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Cristiano Matricardi, Senior Editor at Nature Communications. We talk about just how closely tied are the research and the communication of the research.Cristiano Matricardi : "From my perspective, that is, as a professional editor, as someone who reads above 500 new submissions a year plus all the papers for due diligence — from my perspective, I see that too many of the submissions are trying to create good narratives to sell the work better — which is okay, sure, but we need to focus on results, and we need to ask just: 'What do you want to do with this paper? What's your reason for attempting to publish it? Is that reason to gratify or oblige the editors? Or is your reason to transfer a concept to your fellow scientists?' Because if you want really to transfer a concept to your fellow scientists, then you need to structure your narrative in a way that they'll be receptive to and in a way that will prove useful for them, that is, useful for these working scientists and not useful for just readers of journals."Of Interest:  Cristiano's podcast: On Your Wavelength How Norway is rethinking impact for scientists: NOR-CAM And how the EU is too: CoARA Nature Communications offer ECRs both training and mentoring in scholarly peer review: Open Reviewers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies.We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer.Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It’s bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it’s bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices