Hi Folks, I've been observing this conversation for a while. One of the main purposes of the TOS group is to try to figure out how to get the academic and FOSS communities to collaborate more cleanly. In order to succeed in this effort, there must be an honest investigation of what aspects and attitudes of academia do not lend themselves to these collaborations and to see what can be done about this. I have spent time in thought and discussion about this issue and it is humbling. Mel and I have had many insightful conversations about the different cultures and how to get them to mesh.
In comparing the academic environment with FOSS communities, there are different approaches to interactions. As academics, we are trained to be "the expert" (if someone with a Ph.D. isn't the expert, then who is?? ;-) ). And we are used to being viewed as the "expert", which can be uncomfortable when we don’t have the perfect solution to a particular problem. FOSS has local experts in areas based on contributions. One main difference appears to be (FOSS folks correct me if I'm wrong) that FOSS communities lack the assumption that the "expert's" way is the right way just because they're the expert. Yes, the community pays attention to the experts, after all they have contributed value to the community, but they don't take the words as gospel as we are more likely to do in academia. The units of stature/trust differ as well. The units of trust in academia are either direct knowledge (people we know), funding and paper success, or credentials (degrees). There is a reluctance to entertain ideas from people that lack these characteristics. The units of trust in FOSS are very different, based more on community contribution and the value that the individual brings to the community. In other words, the value that I bring to academia is strongly based on my Ph.D., the funding I've brought in and the papers I've written. My value to the FOSS community is based on what I've contributed to the community and how I've helped the community. Some of this value is indirectly based on my funding and the increased visibility provided by my papers, but most of it is based on my interactions with the community and what I've been able to accomplish there. This is a roundabout way of saying that I didn't view Mel's original post about how academics approach collaboration as having anything close to "vitriol". Instead, it caused me to think about my culture. I was nodding my head at the fact that many academics are reluctant to share fundable ideas because they might get "scooped". This inhibits the free flow of ideas. I was also frowning in frustration at the need for papers as the coin of the realm for advancement and how frustrating that is. That many really good folks in academia suffer because of the narrow definition of "success" in academia. And I smiled ruefully at the reluctance of not publicizing ideas until they're fully formed and fleshed out. One of the things that I most enjoy about this group is that it makes me reflect on my situation and how to improve it. So thank you all! Heidi -----Original Message----- From: tos-boun...@teachingopensource.org [mailto:tos-boun...@teachingopensource.org] On Behalf Of Jim Bowring Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 8:02 AM To: Discussions about Teaching Open Source Subject: Re: [TOS] Seb Benthall on FOSS vs academic culture Mel - Some thoughts: 1. Most people in most communities (academy, business, opensource, civic, etc.) believe in what they do and look for ways to improve what they do. 2. When people in or out of a specific community advocate for "the best way to do things" they are bound to make little progress converting others. 3. The agile development process models for software evolved from understanding #2 both implicitly and explicitly : choose the tools appropriate for the job, remembering the adage that "a poor worker blames their tools." 4. The academy is primarily concerned with teaching undergraduates, not with research or Ph.D.s. 5. There is no generic academic culture, just as there is no generic culture for any other diverse group of professionals. 6. In Computer Science, we have no-fee conference and journal publication via ACM and IEEE Computer. 7. In my experience, Computer Science academics are willing to share code after publication. Learning how to do so effectively can be/is a goal of TOS. 8. Intellectual property rights make the world go round, whether we like it or not. 9. Lest we think ourselves too important, 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day. 10. Let's commit to improving the world together. Dissertation research idea brainstorm #1: develop a taxonomy of open source activities and conduct studies that compare and contrast these activities with their closed source counterparts in order to discover the effectiveness of each in doing X,Y, and Z. Cheers, Jim On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Mel Chua <m...@purdue.edu> wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2012 2:36 AM, "Jim Bowring" <bowr...@gmail.com >> Why the closed-minded vitriol about the academy? Positive actions >> are required! > > > Jim -- I can see how this might not have come through in my original message > on this thread, but I've found that I'm a harsh critic of the things I love > the most. If I didn't have such high regard for the academy and its power to > affect the world, and had no hope or intention of changing it for the > better, I would not be sitting in the ivory tower right now. :) > > As Seb pointed out, identifying the problems in anything is the first step > to improving them; positive actions tend to stem from visions of how > something could be better than it currently is. Since this mailing list > tends to have a lot of academics on it, my writing here tends to be skewed > more towards the "here's what FOSS does right and academia does wrong; let's > transfer goodness in that direction!" theme (perhaps sometimes unfairly so). > > Conversely, when I'm in a group of mostly-hackers, I tend to talk more about > the things that FOSS is doing wrong and academia is doing right, and argue > that FOSS should adopt those practices. For instance, FOSS projects tend to > have ridiculously high failure-and-dropout rates due to poorly designed > scaffolding (or a lack thereof), and schools are more proactive about > identifying and aiding newcomers who are struggling. I guess I should say > these sorts of things here more as well -- thanks for inadvertently pointing > that out. > > Either way, the first step to change is understanding -- and I think what > Seb and I are trying to do, as relative newcomers to the academic world (and > experienced denizens of the FOSS world) is to understand and make sense of > our new environment -- and part of that is fumbling around and saying > (seemingly) stupid things and learning from how folks respond to them. The > comments on my blog post > (http://blog.melchua.com/2012/03/07/foss-thinking-vs-academic-thinking/#comments) > have likewise been illuminating food for thought -- I totally didn't expect > this big a reaction, but hey... that's how we learn. > > Ideas for specific positive actions to take are welcome. I mean, I do need a > dissertation someday. :) > > > --Mel > _______________________________________________ > tos mailing list > tos@teachingopensource.org > http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
