Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Julia S. Stewart Lowndes et al in Nature: “Reproducibility has long been a tenet of science but has been challenging to achieve—we learned this the hard way when our old approaches proved inadequate to efficiently reproduce our own work. Here we describe how several free software tools have fundamentally upgraded our approach to collaborative research, making our entire workflow more transparent and streamlined. By describing specific tools and how we incrementally began using them for the Ocean Health Index project, we hope to encourage others in the scientific community to do the same—so we can all produce better science in less time.

Figure 1: Better science in less time, illustrated by the Ocean Health Index project.
Figure 1

Every year since 2012 we have repeated Ocean Health Index (OHI) methods to track change in global ocean health36,37. Increased reproducibility and collaboration has reduced the amount of time required to repeat methods (size of bubbles) with updated data annually, allowing us to focus on improving methods each year (text labels show the biggest innovations). The original assessment in 2012 focused solely on scientific methods (for example, obtaining and analysing data, developing models, calculating, and presenting results; dark shading). In 2013, by necessity we gave more focus to data science (for example, data organization and wrangling, coding, versioning, and documentation; light shading), using open data science tools. We established R as the main language for all data preparation and modelling (using RStudio), which drastically decreased the time involved to complete the assessment. In 2014, we adopted Git and GitHub for version control, project management, and collaboration. This further decreased the time required to repeat the assessment. We also created the OHI Toolbox, which includes our R package ohicore for core analytical operations used in all OHI assessments. In subsequent years we have continued (and plan to continue) this trajectory towards better science in less time by improving code with principles of tidy data33; standardizing file and data structure; and focusing more on communication, in part by creating websites with the same open data science tools and workflow. See text and Table 1 for more details….(More)”

Citizen Science and Alien Species in Europe

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
European Commission: “Citizen Science programs aim at creating a bridge between science and the general public, actively involving citizens in research projects. In this way, citizen scientists can work side by side with experts, contributing to the increase of scientific knowledge, addressing local, national and international issues that need scientific support and having the potential to influence policy-making.
The EU Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) acknowledges the important role public awareness and active involvement of the citizens have for the successful implementation of the Regulation. Thus, Citizen Science could bring an important contribution to the early detection and monitoring of invasive alien species, as, in order to adopt efficient control measures, it is necessary to know the presence and distribution of these species as soon as possible.
With the new website section we want to disseminate information about how citizens can be involved in activities aimed at protecting European biodiversity, awareness raising, sharing news, examples and developments from the emerging field of Citizen Science.
If you are interested in becoming a citizen scientist and want to help monitor invasive alien species (IAS) in your region, you can use our App “Invasive Alien Species Europe” to report the 37 IAS of Union Concern.
Furthermore, we have compiled a list of European Citizen Science projects dealing with alien species. The list is not exhaustive and is open for improvement …(More)”.

Future Libraries

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

ARUP: “Libraries are going through a renaissance, both in terms of the social infrastructure they provide and in terms of a diversification of the services and experiences offered. In corporate environments they are playing an increasingly important role in the provision of collaborate workspace and innovation. In communities they are evolving into hubs for education, health, entertainment and work….

This report brings to light significant trends that will influence the future of public, academic and corporate libraries and outlines the implications on their design, operation and user experience. It is the result of a collective exploration through series of workshop events held in London, Melbourne, San Francisco and Sydney, attended by experts in the design and management of libraries. This piece of research presents a glimpse into the future. It explores what we may expect to see as the physical and the digital arena continues to evolve and aims to serve as a foundation for further discussion around the future role of libraries in the communities they serve….(More)”

Eliminating the Human

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

David Byrne: I have a theory that much recent tech development and innovation over the last decade or so has had an unspoken overarching agenda—it has been about facilitating the need for LESS human interaction. It’s not a bug—it’s a feature. We might think Amazon was about selling us books we couldn’t find locally—and it was and what a brilliant idea—but maybe it was also just as much about eliminating human interaction. I see a pattern emerging in the innovative technology that has gotten the most attention, gets the bucks and often, no surprise, ends up getting developed and implemented. What much of this technology seems to have in common is that it removes the need to deal with humans directly. The tech doesn’t claim or acknowledge this as its primary goal, but it seems to often be the consequence. I’m sort of thinking maybe it is the primary goal. There are so many ways imagination can be manifested in the technical sphere. Many are wonderful and seem like social goods, but allow me a little conspiracy mongering here—an awful lot of them have the consequence of lessening human interaction.

I suspect that we almost don’t notice this pattern because it’s hard to imagine what an alternative focus of tech development might be. Most of the news we get barraged with is about algorithms, AI, robots and self driving cars, all of which fit this pattern, though there are indeed many technological innovations underway that have nothing to do with eliminating human interaction from our lives. CRISPR-cas9 in genetics, new films that can efficiently and cheaply cool houses and quantum computing to name a few, but what we read about most and what touches us daily is the trajectory towards less human involvement. Note: I don’t consider chat rooms and product reviews as “human interaction”; they’re mediated and filtered by a screen.

I am not saying these developments are not efficient and convenient; this is not a judgement regarding the services and technology. I am simply noticing a pattern and wondering if that pattern means there are other possible roads we could be going down, and that the way we’re going is not in fact inevitable, but is (possibly unconsciously) chosen.

Here are some examples of tech that allows for less human interaction…

Lastly, “Social” media- social “interaction” that isn’t really social.

While the appearance on social networks is one of connection—as Facebook and others frequently claim—the fact is a lot of social media is a simulation of real social connection. As has been in evidence recently, social media actually increases divisions amongst us by amplifying echo effects and allowing us to live in cognitive bubbles. We are fed what we already like or what our similarly inclined friends like… or more likely now what someone has payed for us to see in an ad that mimics content. In this way, we actually become less connected except to those in our group…..

Many transformative movements in the past succeed based on leaders, agreed upon principles and organization. Although social media is a great tool for rallying people and bypassing government channels, it does not guarantee eventual success.

Social media is not really social—ticking boxes and having followers and getting feeds is NOT being social—it’s a screen simulation of human interaction. Human interaction is much more nuanced and complicated than what happens online. Engineers like things that are quantifiable. Smells, gestures, expression, tone of voice, etc. etc.—in short, all the various ways we communicate are VERY hard to quantify, and those are often how we tell if someone likes us or not….

To repeat what I wrote above—humans are capricious, erratic, emotional, irrational and biased in what sometimes seem like counterproductive ways. I’d argue that though those might seem like liabilities, many of those attributes actually work in our favor. Many of our emotional responses have evolved over millennia, and they are based on the probability that our responses, often prodded by an emotion, will more likely than not offer the best way to deal with a situation….

Our random accidents and odd behaviors are fun—they make life enjoyable. I’m wondering what we’re left with when there are fewer and fewer human interactions. Remove humans from the equation and we are less complete as people or as a society. “We” do not exist as isolated individuals—we as individuals are inhabitants of networks, we are relationships. That is how we prosper and thrive….(More)”.

Open Data Barometer 2016

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Open Data Barometer: “Produced by the World Wide Web Foundation as a collaborative work of the Open Data for Development (OD4D) network and with the support of the Omidyar Network, the Open Data Barometer (ODB) aims to uncover the true prevalence and impact of open data initiatives around the world. It analyses global trends, and provides comparative data on countries and regions using an in-depth methodology that combines contextual data, technical assessments and secondary indicators.

Covering 115 jurisdictions in the fourth edition, the Barometer ranks governments on:

  • Readiness for open data initiatives.
  • Implementation of open data programmes.
  • Impact that open data is having on business, politics and civil society.

After three successful editions, the fourth marks another step towards becoming a global policymaking tool with a participatory and inclusive process and a strong regional focus. This year’s Barometer includes an assessment of government performance in fulfilling the Open Data Charter principles.

The Barometer is a truly global and collaborative effort, with input from more than 100 researchers and government representatives. It takes over six months and more than 10,000 hours of research work to compile. During this process, we address more than 20,000 questions and respond to more than 5,000 comments and suggestions.

The ODB global report is a summary of some of the most striking findings. The full data and methodology is available, and is intended to support secondary research and inform better decisions for the progression of open data policies and practices across the world…(More)”.

Improving public services through open government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Tim Hughes at Involve: “As citizens, we rely on public services being accessible and high quality – to give us an education, keep us healthy, make our communities a safe place to be, and ensure our basic needs are met. Public services are critical to our wellbeing and life chances, and building stronger and more prosperous societies. Open government reforms have the potential to improve existing services, and unlock the ideas, knowledge and capacity for new solutions to societal challenges. The idea is simple – public services that are more responsive and accountable to us as citizens – and benefit from our insights, ideas, energy and scrutiny – will work better for us.

This is why, in partnership with the Open Government Partnership, we have written a new guidance paper on how to develop robust and ambitious open public service reforms.  The guidance is particularly targeted at governments and civil society developing open governments commitments through the Open Government Partnership, but should be useful to anyone interested in how transparency, citizen participation and accountability can improve public services.

The paper sets out a framework of open public service reforms, as well as guidance, recommendations, resources and case studies. We will be updating the guide over time, so please do get in touch to let us know what you think….Download the report.“

The Behavioral Evidence Hub

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About the BHUB: “There is no shortage of difficult problems in the world. Yet all too often, innovative solutions remain buried in academic research.

The B-Hub puts new tools in the hands of individuals and organizations working across the globe to improve people’s lives. The B-Hub is not an index of lengthy research papers; it’s a curated collection of innovations. Each innovation describes a behavioral product or design that has been rigorously tested in the real-world, all with a rich collection of implementation details to make replication in your own context possible.

In short, The Behavioral Evidence Hub bridges the longstanding gap between research and the real world by collecting evidence-based, behaviorally-informed solutions and bringing them directly to the people who can put them to work. The path to expansive social impact is now clearer than ever…(More)”.

Gamified Crowdsourcing: Conceptualization, Literature Review, and Future Agenda

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Benedikt Morschheuser, Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto and Alexander Maedche in International Journal of Human-Computer Studies: “Two parallel phenomena are gaining attention in human-computer interaction research: gamification and crowdsourcing. Because crowdsourcing’s success depends on a mass of motivated crowdsourcees, crowdsourcing platforms have increasingly been imbued with motivational design features borrowed from games; a practice often called gamification. While the body of literature and knowledge of the phenomenon have begun to accumulate, we still lack a comprehensive and systematic understanding of conceptual foundations, knowledge of how gamification is used in crowdsourcing, and whether it is effective. We first provide a conceptual framework for gamified crowdsourcing systems in order to understand and conceptualize the key aspects of the phenomenon. The paper’s main contributions are derived through a systematic literature review that investigates how gamification has been examined in different types of crowdsourcing in a variety of domains. This meticulous mapping, which focuses on all aspects in our framework, enables us to infer what kinds of gamification efforts are effective in different crowdsourcing approaches as well as to point to a number of research gaps and lay out future research directions for gamified crowdsourcing systems. Overall, the results indicate that gamification has been an effective approach for increasing crowdsourcing participation and the quality of the crowdsourced work; however, differences exist between different types of crowdsourcing: the research conducted in the context of crowdsourcing of homogenous tasks has most commonly used simple gamification implementations, such as points and leaderboards, whereas crowdsourcing implementations that seek diverse and creative contributions employ gamification with a richer set of mechanics….(More)”.

 

Using Open Data to Combat Corruption

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Robert Palmer at Open Data Charter: “…today we’re launching the Open Up Guide: Using Open Data to Combat Corruption. We think that with the right conditions in place, greater transparency can lead to more accountability, less corruption and better outcomes for citizens. This guide builds on the work in this area already done by the G20’s anti-corruption working group, Transparency International and the Web Foundation.

Inside the guide you’ll find a number of tools including:

  • A short overview on how open data can be used to combat corruption.
  • Use cases and methodologies. A series of case studies highlighting existing and future approaches to the use of open data in the anti-corruption field.
  • 30 priority datasets and the key attributes needed so that they can talk to each other. To address corruption networks it is particularly important that connections can be established and followed across data sets, national borders and different sectors.
  • Data standards. Standards describe what should be published, and the technical details of how it should be made available. The report includes some of the relevant standards for anti-corruption work, and highlights the areas where there are currently no standards.

The guide has been developed by Transparency International-Mexico, Open Contracting Partnership and the Open Data Charter, building on input from government officials, open data experts, civil society and journalists. It’s been designed as a practical tool for governments who want to use open data to fight corruption. However, it’s still a work in progress and we want feedback on how to make it more useful. Please either comment directly on the Google Doc version of the guide, or email us at [email protected]….View the full guide.”

Most City Employees in US Not Engaged

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Steven Bosacker and Justin Bibb at Gallup: “Falling revenues, major demographic shifts and rising citizen demands have become the new normal for city governments across the U.S. If city halls want to deliver on their promises to provide high-quality services, they’ll need to find better ways to make government run more effectively.

One big way to do that is to view every city employee as a key contributor to their success.

Every single one.

Local elected officials who treat their public workforce as anything less than their No. 1 resource are missing the boat. City employees are usually the largest line item in the budget. They know firsthand the public’s concerns because they’re on the front lines, and often they exhibit the exact depth of commitment to the community we’d want and expect from such service providers.

The problem is, only 29% of full-time local — as well as state — government workers are engaged at work, according to Gallup’s 2016 “State of Local and State Government Workers’ Engagement in the U.S.” report. This mirrors engagement for government workers at the federal level. (Among the U.S. workforce overall, 33% of employees are currently engaged in their jobs.) As a result, 71% of full-time state and local government workers are unhappy or disengaged with their jobs, and this creates a missed opportunity for city administrators to drive innovation and move their communities forward.

Gallup also finds that disengaged employees may meet their job expectations but do not expend discretionary energy or feel passion for their work.

Gallup estimates that a lack of engagement among government employees costs U.S. taxpayers an estimated $18 billion per year. That’s a high price tag for losing out on this discretionary energy. On the positive side, big productivity gains are possible when local governments fully and creatively deploy that same discretionary energy.

Many cities attempt to measure and increase their employees’ engagement and commitment to doing good work through regular employee surveys, often juxtaposed with equally important resident surveys to understand key issues of public concern. Gathering such information about what motivates and activates civil servants isn’t just cost-effective — it’s also smart….(More)”.