3
edits
Talk:Social Systems: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Open Notes== | |||
Martin | |||
* Reward contributions and how they affect behavior | * Reward contributions and how they affect behavior | ||
* Collect few opinions on how the rewarding can be done, other examples and what worked or didn't work | * Collect few opinions on how the rewarding can be done, other examples and what worked or didn't work | ||
Angelina: | |||
* Questions about adoption | |||
* Regulations (for example, in USA there's data open or they don't receive money anymore), in EU there's a proposal to evaluate researchers using diff metrics, such as openness | |||
Sílvia | |||
* old incentives, what are the ones in place besides reputation? | |||
* What should we keep in mind when creating | |||
Angelina | |||
* replacing the old system would be detrimental to the adoption | |||
* transfer their merits to the new system | |||
* progressive adoption of new metrics in behavior that accommodates certain | |||
Rafie | |||
* metrics are used to "judge" researchers to allocate grants | |||
* democratically incentives, but existing structures are not democratically enough | |||
Jay (joining from the Interfaces group, adding some notes here for you) | |||
* badges from open science are a social signal of participating in a new practice (analog would be Rescognito.com for knowledge synthesis) | |||
* practical advice from studying the gamification literature may be valuable | |||
* psychological and sociological literature on volunteering and altruism may also inspire ideas (I'm trying to think from different angles) | |||
<br> | |||
* Most of the incentives are monetary (there are social) | |||
* researchers are not in a position to decide; they're put in the system | |||
* funders can probably change the infrastructure and regulations | |||
'''Q: stakeholders?''' | |||
* Researchers | |||
* grant funders | |||
* publishing agencies | |||
* Other: industry, taxpayers | |||
'''Q - change coming from which stakeholders?''' | |||
* Biggest US and European | |||
* smaller foundations, not supper novel ideas, a lot of outliers in Web3 | |||
* researcher will move to web3 in 10 to 20 | |||
* Stepwise approach, led by biggest funder | |||
*alternative view*: demonstrate the reality of sth, Web3 and Desci - opportunity to demonstrate structures and mechanisms working in a small scale, and showcasing to onboard larger organizations | |||
* start small and demonstrate value | |||
'''Push for the adoption of new systems:''' | |||
* works but not optimal: some systems work great on a small scale, but scale to promote less nice behaviour | |||
* Readiness of academia? | |||
* otoh, early adopters don't need to be big | |||
Nouran: | |||
*HCI community: the driving force is actually the academics | |||
* Tool building perspective: challenges? | |||
* Reputation & interactions in online space: how can we build better tools to help users navigate these spaces without being afraid of their reputation | |||
Martin Q - if we create spaces to allow researchers to come together away from their high reputation game, how do they tap into research initiatives and new funders and funding mechanisms? | |||
Open Questions - validate assumptions for the system that should work on a bigger scale? | |||
* how do we determine the systems that will work on a big scale without testing them on a large scale? | |||
* Valerii shares his company approach: small-scale test, update the pre-existing model + ar | |||
Open Questions? | |||
''' spec out different funding/incentive models for sustaining the work of synthesis ''' | |||
'''developing incentive mechanisms for contributions to understanding the status of the knowledge frontier''' | |||
'''incentive mechanisms for contributing and maintaining living lit reviews in both domains''' | |||