data – Page 31 – The Living Library

Coastal research increasingly depends on citizen scientists

Curated on March 19, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Brenna Visser at CS Monitor: “…This monthly ritual is a part of the COASST survey, a program that relies on data taken by volunteers to study large-scale patterns in seabird populations on the West Coast. The Haystack Rock Awareness Program conducts similar surveys for sea stars and marine debris throughout the year.

Surveys like these play a small part in a growing trend in the science community to use citizen scientists as a way to gather massive amounts of data. Over the weekend, marine scientists and conservationists came to Cannon Beach for an annual Coast Conference, a region wide event to discuss coastal science and stewardship.

Whether the presentation was about ocean debris, marine mammals, seabirds, or ocean jellies, many relied on the data collection work of volunteers throughout the state. A database for citizen science programs called Citsci.org, which recorded only a few dozen groups 10 years ago, now has more than 500 groups registered across the country, with new ones registering every day….

Part of the rise has to do with technology, she said. Apps that help identify species and allow unprecedented access to information have driven interest up and removed barriers that would have otherwise made it harder to collect data without formal training. Another is the science community slowly coming around to accept citizen science.

“I think there’s a lot of reticence in the science community to use citizen science. There’s some doubt the data collected is of the precision or accuracy that is needed to document phenomena,” Parrish said. “But as it grows, the more standardized it becomes. What we’re seeing right now is a lot of discussion in citizen science programs asking what they need to do to get to that level.”…While a general decline in federal funding for scientific research could play a factor in the science community’s acceptance of using volunteer-collected data, Parrish said, regardless of funding, there are some projects only citizen scientists can accomplish….(More)”

The Promise of Community Citizen Science

Curated on March 17, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Ramya Chari, Luke J. Matthews, Marjory S. Blumenthal, Amanda F. Edelman, and Therese Jones: “Citizen science is public participation in research and scientific endeavors. Citizens volunteer as data collectors in science projects; collaborate with scientific experts on research design; and actively lead and carry out research, exerting a high degree of control and ownership over scientific activities. The last type — what we refer to as community citizen science — tends to involve action-oriented research to support interventional activities or policy change. This type of citizen science can be of particular importance to those working at the nexus of science and decisionmaking.

The authors examine the transformative potential of community citizen science for communities, science, and decisionmaking. The Perspective is based on the authors’ experiences working in collaboration with community groups, extensive readings of the scientific literature, and numerous interviews with leading scholars and practitioners in the fields of citizen science and participatory research. It first discusses models of citizen science in general, including community citizen science, and presents a brief history of its rise. It then looks at possible factors motivating the development of community citizen science, drawing from an exploration of the relationships among citizens, science, and decisionmaking. The final section examines areas in which community citizen science may exhibit promise in terms of outcomes and impacts, discusses concerns that may hinder its overall potential, and assesses the roles different stakeholders may play to continue to develop community citizen science into a positive force for science and society.

Key Findings

At Its Core, Citizen Science Is Public Participation in Research and Scientific Endeavors

Citizens volunteer as data collectors in science projects, collaborate with scientific experts on research design, and actively lead and carry out research.
It is part of a long tradition of rebirth of inventors, scientists, do-it-yourselfers, and makers at all levels of expertise.
Instead of working alone, today’s community citizen scientists take advantage of new technologies for networking and coordination to work collaboratively; learn from each other; and share knowledge, insights, and findings.

The Democratization of Science and the Increasingly Distributed Nature of Expertise Are Not Without Concern

There is some tension and conflict between current standards of practice and the changes required for citizen science to achieve its promising future.
There is also some concern about the potential for bias, given that some efforts begin as a form of activism.

Yet the Efforts of Community Citizen Science Can Be Transformative

Success will require an engaged citizenry, promote more open and democratic decisionmaking processes, and generate new solutions for intractable problems.
If its promise holds true, the relationship between science and society will be profoundly transformed for the betterment of all…(More)”.

The Metric God That Failed

Curated on March 17, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Jerry Muller in PS Long Reads: “Over the past few decades, formal institutions have increasingly been subjected to performance measurements that define success or failure according to narrow and arbitrary metrics. The outcome should have been predictable: institutions have done what they can to boost their performance metrics, often at the expense of performance itself.

…In 1986, the American management guru Tom Peters popularized the organizational theorist Mason Haire’s dictum that, “What gets measured gets done,” and with it a credo of measured performance that I call “metric fixation.” In time, the devotees of measured performance would arrive at a naive article of faith that is nonetheless appealing for its mix of optimism and scientism: “Anything that can be measured can be improved.”

In the intervening decades, this faith-based conceit has developed into a dogma about the relationship between measurement and performance. Evangelists of “disruption” and “best practices” have carried the new gospel to ever more distant shores. If you work in health care, education, policing, or the civil service, you have probably been subjected to the policies and practices wrought by metric-centrism.

There are three tenets to the metrical canon. The first holds that it is both possible and desirable to replace judgment – acquired through personal experience and talent – with numerical indicators of comparative performance based on standardized data. Second, making such metrics public and transparent ensures that institutions are held accountable. And, third, the best way to motivate people within organizations is to attach monetary or reputational rewards and penalties to their measured performance….(More)”.

The Refugee Identity

Curated on March 15, 2018October 23, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Medium essay byPaul Currion: “From Article 6 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law” ) to Sustainable Development Goal 16.9 (“By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration”) to the formation of the ID2020 Alliance (whose fourth goal is to “Enable more efficient and effective delivery of development and humanitarian aid), identity has been central to the modern project of development.

Discussion of identity within the aid sector is embedded in a much larger set of political, social, economic, legal and technical discussions at a national and global level. This review will not address that larger set of discussions, but will instead focus specifically on humanitarian aid, and more specifically refugees, and more specifically still on refugee camps as a location in which identity provision is both critical and contested. It is the first output of a DFID-funded research project examining data requirements for service delivery (by UN agencies and NGOs) within refugee camps.

Given how central the issue of identity is for refugees, there is surprisingly little literature about how identity provision is implemented in the context of refugee camps.1 This essay introduces some of the critical issues relating to identity (particularly in the context of the digitisation of aid) and explores how they relate to the research project. It is accompanied by a bibliography for those who are interested in exploring the issue further.,,,(More)”.

Follow the Money: How to Track Federal Funding to Local Governments

Curated on March 14, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Research Report by Megan Randall, Tracy Gordon, Solomon Greene and Erin Huffer: “To respond effectively to state and federal policy changes, city leaders, non-profit service providers, advocates, and researchers all need accurate data on how federal funds flow to local governments. Unfortunately, those data are spread across multiple sources that are often indecipherable or inaccessible to non-experts. The purpose of this guide is to help data users navigate the patchwork of primary data sources and online portals that show how the federal government distributes funding to local governments. We drew on the literature, an inventory of online resources, interviews with local and federal officials, and Urban Institute research staff experience to catalog available data on federal-local transfers. We describe the strengths, weaknesses, and best uses of various data sources and portals and provide guidance on where users can find information to understand trends or how their community stands relative to its peers. Our guide concludes with simple recommendations for how to improve data quality, comparability, and usability at all levels of government….(More)”.

Is Distributed Ledger Technology Built for Personal Data?

Curated on March 14, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Henry Chang: “Some of the appealing characteristics of distributed ledger technology (DLT), which blockchain is a type of, include guaranteed integrity, disintermediation and distributed resilience. These characteristics give rise to the possible consequences of immutability, unclear ownership, universal accessibility and trans-border storage. These consequences have the potential to contravene data protection principles of Purpose Specification, Use Limitation, Data Quality, Individual Participation and Trans-Border Data Flow. This paper endeavors to clarify the various types of DLTs, how they work, why they exhibit the depicted characteristics and the consequences. Using the universal privacy principles developed by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this paper then describes how each of the consequence causes concerns for privacy protection and how attempts are being made to address them in the design and implementation of various applications of blockchain and DLT, and indicates where further research and best-practice developments lie….(More)”.

Could the open government movement shut the door on Freedom of Information

Curated on March 14, 2018May 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Suzanne J. Piotrowski, Alex Ingrams and Daniel Berliner in The Conversation: “For democracy to work, citizens need to know what their government is doing. Then they can hold government officials and institutions accountable.

Over the last 50 years, Freedom of Information – or FOI – laws have been one of the most useful methods for citizens to learn what government is doing. These state and federal laws give people the power to request, and get, government documents. From everyday citizens to journalists, FOI laws have proven a powerful way to uncover the often-secret workings of government.

But a potential threat is emerging – from an unexpected place – to FOI laws.

We are scholars of government administration, ethics and transparency. And our research leads us to believe that while FOI laws have always faced many challenges, including resistance, evasion, and poor implementation and enforcement, the last decade has brought a different kind of challenge in the form of a new approach to transparency….

The open government movement could help FOI implementation. Government information posted online, which is a core goal of open government advocates, can reduce the number of FOI requests. Open government initiatives can explicitly promote FOI by encouraging the passage of FOI laws, offering more training for officials who fill FOI requests, and developing technologies to make it easier to process and track FOI requests.

On the other hand, the relationship between open government and FOI may not always be positive in practice.

First, as with all kinds of public policy issues, resources – both money and political attention – are inherently scarce. Government officials now have to divide their attention between FOI and other open government initiatives. And funders now have to divide their financial resources between FOI and other open government initiatives.

Second, the open government reform movement as well as the FOI movement have long depended on nonprofit advocacy groups – from the National Freedom of Information Coalition and its state affiliates to the Sunlight Foundation – to obtain and disseminate government information. This means that the financial stability of those nonprofit groups is crucial. But their efforts, as they grow, may each only get a shrinking portion of the total amount of grant money available. Freedominfo.org, a website for gathering and comparing information on FOI laws around the world, had to suspend its operations in 2017 due to resources drying up.

We believe that priorities among government officials and good government advocates may also shift away from FOI. At a time when open data is “hot,” FOI programs could get squeezed as a result of this competition. Further, by allowing governments to claim credit for more politically convenient reforms such as online data portals, the open government agenda may create a false sense of transparency – there’s a lot more government information that isn’t available in those portals.

This criticism was leveled recently against Kenya, whose government launched a high-profile open data portal for publishing data on government performance and activities in 2011, yet delayed passage of an FOI law until 2016.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, one government minister said in 2012,“I’d like to make Freedom of Information redundant, by pushing out so much data that people won’t have to ask for it.”…(More)”

Issuing Bonds to Invest in People

Curated on March 13, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Tina Rosenberg at the New York Times: “The first social impact bond began in 2010 in Peterborough, England. Investors funded a program aimed at keeping newly released short-term inmates out of prison. It reduced reoffending by 9 percent compared to a control group, exceeding its target. So investors got their money back, plus interest.

Seldom has a policy idea gone viral so fast. There are now 108 such bonds, in 24 countries. The United States has 20, leveraging $211 million in investment capital, and at least 50 more are on the way. These bonds fund programs to reduce Oklahoma’s population of women in prison, help low-income mothers to have healthy pregnancies in South Carolina, teach refugees and immigrants English and job skills in Boston, house the homeless in Denver, and reduce storm water runoff in the District of Columbia. There’s a Forest Resilience Bond underway that seeks to finance desperately needed wildfire prevention.

Here’s how social impact bonds differ from standard social programs:

They raise upfront money to do prevention. Everyone knows most prevention is a great investment. But politicians don’t do “think ahead” very well. They hate to spend money now to create savings their successors will reap. Issuing a social impact bond means they don’t have to.

They concentrate resources on what works. Bonds build market discipline, since investors demand evidence of success.

They focus attention on outcomes rather than outputs. “Take work-force training,” said David Wilkinson, commissioner of Connecticut’s Office of Early Childhood. “We tend to pay for how many people receive training. We’re less likely to pay for — or even look at — how many people get good jobs.” Providers, he said, were best recognized for their work “when we reward them for outcomes they want to see and families they are serving want to achieve.”

They improve incentives.Focusing on outcomes changes the way social service providers think. In Connecticut, said Duryea, they now have a financial incentive to keep children out of foster care, rather than bring more in.

They force decision makers to look at data. Programs start with great fanfare, but often nobody then examines how they are doing. But with a bond, evaluation is essential.

They build in flexibility.“It’s a big advantage that they don’t prescribe what needs to be done,” said Cohen. The people on the ground choose the strategy, and can change it if necessary. “Innovators can think outside the box and tackle health or education in revolutionary ways,” he said.

…In the United States, social impact bonds have become synonymous with “pay for success” programs. But there are other ways to pay for success. For example, Wilkinson, the Connecticut official, has just started an Outcomes Rate Card — a way for a government to pay for home visits for vulnerable families. The social service agencies get base pay, but also bonuses. If a client has a full-term birth, the agency gets an extra $135 for a low-risk family, $170 for a hard-to-help one. A client who finds stable housing brings $150 or $220 to the agency, depending on the family’s situation….(More)”.

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance

Curated on March 13, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Jane Kaye et al in Human Genomics: “Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world.

The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation.

We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing….(More)”.