Summary of the First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE1)

Challenges related to development, deployment, and maintenance of reusable software for science are becoming a growing concern. Many scientists’ research increasingly depends on the quality and availability of software upon which their works are built. To highlight some of these issues and share experiences, the First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE1) was held in November 2013 in conjunction with the SC13 Conference. The workshop featured keynote presentations and a large number (54) of solicited extended abstracts that were grouped into three themes and presented via panels. A set of collaborative notes of the presentations and discussion was taken during the workshop. Unique perspectives were captured about issues such as comprehensive documentation, development and deployment practices, software licenses and career paths for developers. Attribution systems that account for evidence of software contribution and impact were also discussed. These include mechanisms such as Digital Object Identifiers, publication of “software papers”, and the use of online systems, for example source code repositories like GitHub. This paper summarizes the issues and shared experiences that were discussed, including cross-cutting issues and use cases. It joins a nascent literature seeking to understand what drives software work in science, and how it is impacted by the reward systems of science. These incentives can determine the extent to which developers are motivated to build software for the long-term, for the use of others, and whether to work collaboratively or separately. It also explores community building, leadership, and dynamics in relation to successful scientific software

Report on the Second Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE2)

This technical report records and discusses the Second Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE2). The report includes a description of the alternative, experimental submission and review process, two workshop keynote presentations, a series of lightning talks, a discussion on sustainability, and five discussions from the topic areas of exploring sustainability; software development experiences; credit & incentives; reproducibility & reuse & sharing; and code testing & code review. For each topic, the report includes a list of tangible actions that were proposed and that would lead to potential change. The workshop recognized that reliance on scientific software is pervasive in all areas of world-leading research today. The workshop participants then proceeded to explore different perspectives on the concept of sustainability. Key enablers and barriers of sustainable scientific software were identified from their experiences. In addition, recommendations with new requirements such as software credit files and software prize frameworks were outlined for improving practices in sustainable software engineering. There was also broad consensus that formal training in software development or engineering was rare among the practitioners. Significant strides need to be made in building a sense of community via training in software and technical practices, on increasing their size and scope, and on better integrating them directly into graduate education programs. Finally, journals can define and publish policies to improve reproducibility, whereas reviewers can insist that authors provide sufficient information and access to data and software to allow them reproduce the results in the paper. Hence a list of criteria is compiled for journals to provide to reviewers so as to make it easier to review software submitted for publication as a “Software Paper.

The Regulation of E-learning: New National and International Policy Perspectives

The universe of postsecondary education is expanding. It is an era of rapid demographic and labor market changes, increased competition and shifts in institutional form (e.g., the rise of for profit degree granters, the hybrid form of nonprofit/for profit partnerships, corporate universities), and new forms of delivery driven by emerging technologies. In nearly all of these cases, the pace of innovation and establishment of new institutional forms outstrips the ability of regulators or policy makers to stay ahead of the curve.To better understand the complex interplay of public policy drivers regulating e-learning, the Center for Studies in Higher Education convened a meeting of experts in February 2006 for a preliminary examination of existing and emerging public policies that will shape its regulation both domestically and internationally. Three white papers were used as a point of departure for the discussions, which focused on the following areas: The Changing Regulatory Environment: Who, What, Why, and Where?; Finance, Investment, and the Flow of Capital; Student Access and Equity; Social Costs and Benefits from an International Perspective; and Consumer Protection and Cross-border Education. This report summarizes our conversations and recommendations for future research

The Disparity Between Scientific Consensus and American Public Opinion of Genetically Modified Organisms and Genetic Engineering

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetic engineering (GE) are accepted as safe and useful by the consensus of the scientific community. Their diverse utility has shown promise in addressing major challenges of the 21st century, including world hunger, global warming, and the prevalence of diet-related diseases (e.g. heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.). A 2014 Pew Research Center survey revealed that while 88% of scientists agreed that GM foods were safe to eat, only 37% of American consumers agreed. Furthermore, only 35% of U.S. adults trusted scientists to accurately inform the public about GMOs. To explain this disparity, I synthesize information about stakeholders in GMOs and GE, demographics linked to acceptance and denial, interpretation of scientific consensus, psychological mechanisms controlling bias, and poor practice of science. Analysis reveals that the disparity in GMO and GE perception between the scientific community and the American public was caused by bad science, foreign political agendas, profit-driven media, and psychological factors, such as intuitive expectations, soft attitudes, and the backfire effect; furthermore, I show that despite innate conduits for bias development, educated, high income, and youthful demographics will shrink the gap between scientific consensus and public opinion if GMO education and equal access to education increase

Corroding consensus-building: how self-centered public diplomacy is damaging diplomacy and what can be done about it

Public diplomacy (PD) is an activity which has become central to the analysis of modern diplomacy. Yet while there are common definitions of PD widely used internationally, practice between states has come to diverge more and more. There is disagreement in the academic literature about what should be included in PD activities, the actors, and boundaries. But there is little analysis of the effects of PD on mainstream diplomacy. This paper, written by a diplomat and sometime practitioner of PD, argues that PD is losing its connection with wider diplomacy which is based on reciprocity and consensus-building. The digital revolution has enabled PD self-promotion which diminishes the necessity for diplomatic partnering. Global rivalries are played out daily for global publics with little room for quiet reflection and compromise. Such self-centered PD has immersed itself in the confusing and divisive nature of online engagement. While the Internet has brought massive benefits and opportunities to both diplomacy and PD, the consensus-building part of true diplomatic engagement is receding. The activities of ISIS and Russia were just the first major collective challenges to diplomacy through new PD techniques. In the past, diplomacy has responded to crises and conflicts and rebuilt its options. Now PD’s chaotic and troubling evolution needs a new response. This should include partners in the non-state sector and the owners of technology platforms. The article takes a practitioner’s perspective and proposes a forum where state and non-state experts could discuss appropriate collective responses by diplomacy so it can reassert options available for consensus-building.Accepted manuscrip

Between analysis and transformation: technology, methodology and evaluation on the SPLICE project

This paper concerns the ways in which technological change may entail methodological development in e-learning research. The focus of our argument centres on the subject of evaluation in e-learning and how technology can contribute to consensus-building on the value of project outcomes, and the identification of mechanisms behind those outcomes. We argue that a critical approach to the methodology of evaluation which harnesses technology in this way is vital to agile and effective policy and strategy-making in institutions as the challenges of transformation in a rapidly changing educational and technological environment are grappled with. With its focus on mechanisms and multiple stakeholder perspectives, we identify Pawson and Tilley’s ‘Realistic Evaluation’ as an appropriate methodological approach for this purpose, and we report on its use within a JISC-funded project on social software, SPLICE (Social Practices, Learning and Interoperability in Connected Environments). The project created new tools to assist the identification of mechanisms responsible for change to personal and institutional technological practice. These tools included collaborative mind-mapping and focused questioning, and tools for the animated modelling of complex mechanisms. By using these tools, large numbers of project stakeholders could engage in a process where they were encouraged to articulate and share their theories and ideas as to why project outcomes occurred. Using the technology, this process led towards the identification and agreement of common mechanisms which had explanatory power for all stakeholders. In conclusion, we argue that SPLICE has shown the potential of technologically-mediated Realistic Evaluation. Given the technologies we now have, a methodology based on the mass cumulation of stakeholder theories and ideas about mechanisms is feasible. Furthermore, the summative outcomes of such a process are rich in explanatory and predictive power, and therefore useful to the immediate and strategic problems of the sector. Finally, we argue that as well as generating better explanations for phenomena, the evaluation process can itself become transformative for stakeholders

Thoughts on opportunities in high-energy nuclear collisions

This document reflects thoughts on opportunities from high-energy nuclear collisions in the 2020s.Comment: 10 pages, pd