Posts Tagged: conference presentations

Science policy
Canadian Science: mandate update from Minister Duncan
November 29, 2017
0
, , ,
Kirsty Duncan (Canadian federal Minister of Science) gave a keynote address at the 9th annual Canadian Science Policy Conference in early November, during which she outlined the main priorities of her role and what she’s accomplished since being named two years ago. In our ongoing coverage of the keynote speeches from CSPC, this post will summarize her talk and highlight some critical questions.
Science policy
The new face of the science–policy interface
November 21, 2017
2
, , , ,
The new Chief Science Advisor position is the top job at the science–policy interface in Canada. While attending the 9th Canadian Science Policy Conference in Ottawa earlier this month, the other conference-goers and I were lucky to get a glimpse of how Dr. Mona Nemer—newly named to the job—understands evidence-based decision-making. In this week’s post, I’ll give a summary of her remarks at the CSPC and distill the main views on evidence-based decision-making that they seem to reflect.
Science policy
Is non-science non-sense?
November 15, 2017
2
, , , ,
At the beginning of November, I attended the Canadian Science Policy Conference, where one of the headline guest speakers was the new Governor General: former astronaut and currently Right Honourable Julie Payette. The Canadian science and science policy communities had an expectedly positive response to the appointment of such a scientifically minded person to this emblematic role. Her Excellency’s speech really played to the home-town crowd, too, emphasizing that science is increasingly embraced in policymaking here in Canada, and calling for science to now be increasingly embraced in society at large as well, even to the point that science would become a matter of cocktail conversation. There was a lot of controversy, though, about how Payette described the beliefs of those who have not yet been converted to our brand of discipleship, those beliefs that do not pass scientific muster. In today’s post, I’ll point out what I see as an underlying tension in her position and what a resolution might require.
Bibliometrics Science policy
Metrics: state of the alt
November 8, 2017
3
, , , , , , ,
Discussions of research having impact were for a long time limited to citation tracking, to estimate how much one piece of work influences subsequent explorations. However, with calls for research to have impact on the broader society—breaking out of the closed circle of research feeding yet more research—there’s a lot of interest in seeing how we might trace that impact pathway as it breaks through the membrane insulating the world of research. Altmetrics has held the promise of tracking just such traces. At STI 2017, several leading researchers on the topic gave valuable updates on the state of the art, and their estimation is that we should be seriously cooling it with all the hype. This post sums up the points that stuck out to me from their various presentations, and tries to outline my takeaway of what we should be learning from altmetrics.
Bibliometrics Science policy
The death of indicators
November 1, 2017
0
, , , , ,
In last week’s post, I presented some of the major points of Rémi Barré’s keynote speech at STI 2017. In brief, he divides the evolution of S&T indicators into three phases. The first phase is one of indicators promising to elucidate (and thereby improve) the inner workings of science. The second phase is one of them being co-opted into the neoliberal turn, exposing scientific research to competitive pressures that Dr. Barré identifies as pushing science into multiple crises. The third phase is a casting off of the complicity with neoliberalism, using indicators to start opening up discussions about science & technology rather than shutting them down. In this post I’ll expand on this third phase.
Bibliometrics Science policy
Indicating a neoliberal tendency
October 25, 2017
2
, , , , , ,
Continuing on from my previous discussion of impact, the second keynote speech at the 2017 Science & Technology Indicators (STI) conference in Paris was given by Rémi Barré of IFRIS, who echoed many of the points raised by Ismael Rafols. Barré’s call to action—riffing on a very traditional theme—was, “Les indicateurs sont morts! Vive les indicateurs!” Indicators are dead! Long live indicators! The call was provocative, and his talk highlighted some interesting ways in which the struggles we face in research & innovation management are symptoms of a broad and powerful trend in the political sphere: neoliberalism.
Bibliometrics Higher education Science policy
Research impact now!
September 21, 2017
0
, , , , ,
In my previous post, I laid out some history of research assessment and measurement, all so that in this post I could explore research impact assessment, which was a major topic of discussion at the 2017 Science & Technology Indicators (STI) conference in Paris. In this post, I’ll summarize the major lines of discussion I encountered at STI, use the history from the last post as a basis for diagnosing those underlying challenges, and perhaps even hint at some avenues to resolve these tensions.
Bibliometrics Higher education Science policy
A short history of research impact
September 14, 2017
2
, , , , , ,
During the 2017 Science & Technology Indicators (STI) conference in Paris, a number of discussions touched on impact assessment, which has been a topic of growing interest within the research community. That researchers are increasingly aware of impact, impact pathways and impact assessments comes as no great shock, given that the research policy community is increasingly focusing on impact as the basis for funding decisions. The discussions at STI raised some substantive concerns with the current trajectory of discussions about research impact. In this post, I’ll lay out some relevant history (as I understand it) that contextualizes current discussions about impact. In the next installment, I’ll summarize those points from STI 2017 that stood out to me as the most insightful (and provocative), drawing on the history laid out here in order to explore what I think these comments reflect about the underlying research system.
Higher education Science policy
Negotiations at the science–policy interface
June 13, 2016
0
,
In the lead-up to the last Canadian federal election, a lot of attention in the science policy community was dedicated to addressing the freedom of scientists to speak: the muzzling issue. In short, without the freedom to share results, analyses and conclusions, federal government scientists had no reasonable hope of having their work put the […]