To be Young! : Youth and the Future. Proceedings of the Conference “To be Young! Youth and the Future”, 6–8 June 2012, Turku, Finland

What does it mean to be young today and what will it mean in the coming years in this rapidly changing world? What the future of youth could be and look like? The aim of the “To be Young” conference in July 2012 was to perceive and create futures through the eyes of today’s youth, adults and decision makers for the young people of the future. The course of a youth’s life, both today and toward the future covers an entire spectrum of reality. Focusing on faith in young people, their ability and determination to build an inevitably different and in many ways and hopefully improved world for us all to live in was the focal point of this conference. This book collects some of the presentations and papers presented in the conference. Articles selected in this book cover several approaches of youth research. Topics include politics, education, gender questions, futures methodologies, young immigrants just to mention a few. We thank the authors and referees for their work. The conference was organized in association with the Finland Futures Academy and the Finnish Youth Research Network. The “To Be Young” conference marked Finland Futures Research Centre’s 14th Annual International Conference and its 20th Anniversary celebrating twenty years of academic research, education and development work

Failurists: When Things Go Awry

Failure is a popular topic of research. It has long been a source of study in fields such as sociology and anthropology, science and technology studies (STS), privacy and surveillance, cultural, feminist and media studies, art, theatre, film, and political science. When things go awry, breakdown, or rupture they can lead to valuable insights into the mundane mechanisms of social worlds. Yet, while failure is a familiar topic of research, failure in and as a tactic of research is far less visible, valued, and explored within academia. In this book the authors reflect upon the role of creative interventions as a critical mode for methods, research techniques, fieldwork, and knowledge transmission or impact. Here, failure is considered a productive part of engaging with and in the field. It is about acknowledging the ‘mess’ of the social and how we need methods, modes of attunement, and knowledge translation that address this complexity in nuanced ways. In this collection, interdisciplinary researchers and practitioners share their practices, insights, and challenges around rethinking failure beyond normalized tropes. Across four sections — Section I: Digitality, Archives, and Design; Section II: Care/Activism; Section III: Creative Critical Interventions; and Section IV: Play and the Senses — the contributors bring different subjectivities, relationalities, and positionalities — rhythms reflecting the numerous material, social, and digital encounters. Each subtheme is an invitation to probe certain areas of failure in all its complexity; an invitation to sit with someone’s own lived experience of failure and how it manifests in research practice and theory. What does failure mean? What does it do? What does putting failure under the microscope do to our assumptions around ontology and epistemologies? How can it be deployed to challenge norms in a time of great uncertainty, crisis, and anxiety? And what are some of the ways resilience and failure are interrelated

How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: evidence from Italy

We investigate the question of how long top scientists retain their stardom. We observe the research performance of all Italian professors in the sciences over three consecutive four-year periods, between 2001 and 2012. The top scientists of the first period are identified on the basis of research productivity, and their performance is then tracked through time. The analyses demonstrate that more than a third of the nation's top scientists maintain this status over the three consecutive periods, with higher shares occurring in the life sciences and lower ones in engineering. Compared to males, females are less likely to maintain top status. There are also regional differences, among which top status is less likely to survive in southern Italy than in the north. Finally we investigate the longevity of unproductive professors, and then check whether the career progress of the top and unproductive scientists is aligned with their respective performances. The results appear to have implications for national policies on academic recruitment and advancement

A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science

The gradual crowding out of singleton and small team science by large team endeavors is challenging key features of research culture. It is therefore important for the future of scientific practice to reflect upon the individual scientist's ethical responsibilities within teams. To facilitate this reflection we show labor force trends in the US revealing a skewed growth in academic ranks and increased levels of competition for promotion within the system; we analyze teaming trends across disciplines and national borders demonstrating why it is becoming difficult to distribute credit and to avoid conflicts of interest; and we use more than a century of Nobel prize data to show how science is outgrowing its old institutions of singleton awards. Of particular concern within the large team environment is the weakening of the mentor-mentee relation, which undermines the cultivation of virtue ethics across scientific generations. These trends and emerging organizational complexities call for a universal set of behavioral norms that transcend team heterogeneity and hierarchy. To this end, our expository analysis provides a survey of ethical issues in team settings to inform science ethics education and science policy.Comment: 13 pages, 5 figures, 1 table. Keywords: team ethics; team management; team evaluation; science of scienc

Report on the Third Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE3)

This report records and discusses the Third Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE3). The report includes a description of the keynote presentation of the workshop, which served as an overview of sustainable scientific software. It also summarizes a set of lightning talks in which speakers highlighted to-the-point lessons and challenges pertaining to sustaining scientific software. The final and main contribution of the report is a summary of the discussions, future steps, and future organization for a set of self-organized working groups on topics including developing pathways to funding scientific software; constructing useful common metrics for crediting software stakeholders; identifying principles for sustainable software engineering design; reaching out to research software organizations around the world; and building communities for software sustainability. For each group, we include a point of contact and a landing page that can be used by those who want to join that group's future activities. The main challenge left by the workshop is to see if the groups will execute these activities that they have scheduled, and how the WSSSPE community can encourage this to happen

Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co-authors' Careers

Over the last few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for approximately more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science (WOS), we measured the productivity, impact and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of five years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct, and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, while the impact is less important for middle authors.Comment: Accepted for publication in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technolog

Cross‐campus Collaboration: A Scientometric and Network Case Study of Publication Activity Across Two Campuses of a Single Institution

Team science and collaboration have become crucial to addressing key research questions confronting society. Institutions that are spread across multiple geographic locations face additional challenges. To better understand the nature of cross‐campus collaboration within a single institution and the effects of institutional efforts to spark collaboration, we conducted a case study of collaboration at Cornell University using scientometric and network analyses. Results suggest that cross‐campus collaboration is increasingly common, but is accounted for primarily by a relatively small number of departments and individual researchers. Specific researchers involved in many collaborative projects are identified, and their unique characteristics are described. Institutional efforts, such as seed grants and topical retreats, have some effect for researchers who are central in the collaboration network, but were less clearly effective for others

Reflections on teaching: dwelling in a third space

What does it mean to teach well? What does it mean to be a good teacher? These are questions that have been asked for hundreds if not thousands of years; yet, an unequivocal answer has not been reached. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn’s (1962/1996) concept of a paradigm, it is easy to see that the field of curriculum is anything but paradigmatic. Competing philosophical, psychological, and sociological schools of thought, for example, all support differing ideas of what “good teaching” looks like, and teacher education programs often reflect this diversity of thought. The situation does not end at the borders of campuses, either. Not only must teachers aspire to live up to their own ever-evolving ideas of what it means to be a good teacher, but they must also grapple with often differing conceptions of what good teaching means to their coworkers, their school’s administration, their students, their students’ parents, and others. This dissertation is a meditation on my experiences of teaching and being taught—it is about being caught between conflicting and sometimes incommensurable ideas about what it means to teach well and how teachers can find a space to work productively and sanely in the tensions that abound. It has both personal and communal aspects and fluctuates between the subjective and social. On the one hand, it is a way to work through curricular issues I have faced as well as a way to help me think about issues I encounter in daily life. On the other hand, it is a way to share some of my experiences and insights with those in the field of education and to engage with them in a conversation about teaching. While this dissertation focuses on a recursive analysis of my teaching-learning experiences over three decades, it also attempts more. It endeavors to place those experiences within a larger social and cultural frame. In this manner, I hope a deeper understanding of what each reader—teacher educator or practitioner in the field—believes constitutes good teaching may emerge

Co-Constructing Writing Knowledge: Students’ Collaborative Talk Across Contexts

Although compositionists recognize that student talk plays an important role in learning to write, there is limited understanding of how students use conversational moves to collaboratively build knowledge about writing across contexts. This article reports on a study of focus group conversations involving first-year students in a cohort program. Our analysis identified two patterns of group conversation among students: “co-telling” and “co-constructing,” with the latter leading to more complex writing knowledge. We also used Beaufort’s domains of writing knowledge to examine how co-constructing conversations supported students in abstracting knowledge beyond a single classroom context and in negotiating local constraints. Our findings suggest that co-constructing is a valuable process that invites students to do the necessary work of remaking their knowledge for local use. Ultimately, our analysis of the role of student conversation in the construction of writing knowledge contributes to our understanding of the myriad activities that surround transfer of learning