Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
Harmonising Research between South and North: Results from ROER4D’s Question Harmonisation Experiment (ROER4D)
1. Harmonising Research between South and North:
Results from ROER4D’s Question Harmonisation Experiment
Henry Trotter
Open Education Global Conference 2015 : 22 April 2015
5. Knowledge
building
Research
capacity Networking
Curation
&
Communication
1. Build an
empirical
knowledge base
on the use and
impact of OER in
education
2. Develop
the capacity
of OER
researchers
3. Build a
network of
OER scholars
4. Curate research
documents and
Communicate
research to inform
education policy and
practice
ROER4D Objectives
6. Research capacitation through Question Harmonisation
“What?” by Véronique Debord-Lazaro – Taken on August 12, 2010 - CC-BY-SA 2.0 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/debord/4932655275/
7. 4 goals:
• Harmonise our research questions, where possible, with
that of other OER studies such as OER Research Hub,
OER Asia, JISCOER, etc.
Research capacitation through Question Harmonisation
8. 4 goals:
• Harmonise our research questions, where possible, with
that of other OER studies such as OER Research Hub,
OER Asia, JISCOER, etc.
• Harmonise our research questions, where possible, across
our 12 projects
Research capacitation through Question Harmonisation
9. 4 goals:
• Harmonise our research questions, where possible, with
that of other OER studies such as OER Research Hub,
OER Asia, JISCOER, etc.
• Harmonise our research questions, where possible, across
our 12 projects
• Use this QH process to build the research capacity of our
sub-project researchers and research associates
Research capacitation through Question Harmonisation
10. 4 goals:
• Harmonise our research questions, where possible, with
that of other OER studies such as OER Research Hub,
OER Asia, JISCOER, etc.
• Harmonise our research questions, where possible, across
our 12 projects
• Use this QH process to build the research capacity of our
sub-project researchers and research associates
• Provide a model of best practices for other research for
development projects concerning QH
Research capacitation through Question Harmonisation
11. 1. Consulted 9 major OER surveys to develop a bank of potential questions…
14. 3. Shared Qs with researchers, showing how they would appear in survey form
15. 3. Shared Qs with researchers, showing how they would appear in survey form
16. 4. Engaged with researchers online via Adobe Connect to harmonise questions
15 synchronous sessions over 9 month period
17. …but to do so, we had to work out everyone’s time zones & best meeting time
http://roer4d.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ROER4D-Participants-Time-Zones-for-2014.pdf
18. …but to do so, we had to work out everyone’s time zones & best meeting time
19. …but to do so, we had to work out everyone’s time zones & best meeting time
23. 6. Harmonised concepts as part of process (via Adobe Connect & Google Docs)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iz1kVC4CYLFJBtZNm2o5ziFJKW96SjtNjhWHfTKKkbI/edit
24. 7. Piloted survey based on harmonised questions with ROER4D members and
other OER colleagues (version 1)
28. 10. Enjoined researchers to share their adaptations of the harmonised survey
for their own sub-projects via webinar sessions…
29. …and recruited some of them to share their research knowledge experience
with us next year during the bi-weekly Adobe Connect sessions
Evaluation Question:
What research skills could YOU contribute to the research capacity building?
Formulating research instrument questions (5)
• PI (research questionnaire development)
• Research Assistant (developing research instruments)
• Researcher (Scale development)
• Researcher (development of research tools)
• Researcher (instrument development)
Analysing qualitative data (2)
• PI
• Hub team (using NVivo)
Developing a conceptual framework (2)
• PI
• Research Assistant
Report writing (2)
• Hub team
• Research assistant
Writing a research question (1)
• PI
Presenting research work (1)
• Hub team
Analysing quantitative data (1)
• Mentor
31. Outcomes (positive)
1. Through extensive collaboration, deliberation and testing, we developed a set of
questions that were:
• well-harmonised with other large OER surveys
• sensitive to and adapted for the Southern context
• successful at obtaining useful data on academics’ creation and use of OER
.
32. Outcomes (positive)
1. Through extensive collaboration, deliberation and testing, we developed a set of
questions that were:
• well-harmonised with other large OER surveys
• sensitive to and adapted for the Southern context
• successful at obtaining useful data on academics’ creation and use of OER
2. The process allowed us to sharpen and harmonise our concepts, creating a
better understanding of the terms that we use across the entire project.
33. Outcomes (positive)
1. Through extensive collaboration, deliberation and testing, we developed a set of
questions that were:
• well-harmonised with other large OER surveys
• sensitive to and adapted for the Southern context
• successful at obtaining useful data on academics’ creation and use of OER
2. The process allowed us to sharpen and harmonise our concepts, creating a
better understanding of the terms that we use across the entire project.
3. It created a strong sense of community amongst the researchers that
participated, a valuable outcome given that many feel alone as OER researchers in
their contexts. (This also helped fulfill ROER4D’s third objective, which is to build a
network of OER scholars.)
34. Outcomes (positive)
1. Through extensive collaboration, deliberation and testing, we developed a set of
questions that were:
• well-harmonised with other large OER surveys
• sensitive to and adapted for the Southern context
• successful at obtaining useful data on academics’ creation and use of OER
2. The process allowed us to sharpen and harmonise our concepts, creating a
better understanding of the terms that we use across the entire project.
3. It created a strong sense of community amongst the researchers that
participated, a valuable outcome given that many feel alone as OER researchers in
their contexts. (This also helped fulfill ROER4D’s third objective, which is to build a
network of OER scholars.)
4. Increased the research capacity of many of the scholars that participated, which
was the broader objective of this question harmonisation effort.
35. Outcomes (positive)
1. Through extensive collaboration, deliberation and testing, we developed a set of
questions that were:
• well-harmonised with other large OER surveys
• sensitive to and adapted for the Southern context
• successful at obtaining useful data on academics’ creation and use of OER
2. The process allowed us to sharpen and harmonise our concepts, creating a
better understanding of the terms that we use across the entire project.
3. It created a strong sense of community amongst the researchers that
participated, a valuable outcome given that many feel alone as OER researchers in
their contexts. (This also helped fulfill ROER4D’s third objective, which is to build a
network of OER scholars.)
4. Increased the research capacity of many of the scholars that participated, which
was the broader objective of this question harmonisation effort.
5. Some researchers incorporated the questions into their surveys or interviews.
36. Outcomes (negative)
“Sad moped is sad” by Pat Joyce – CC-BY-NC 2.0 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/phatcontroller/4646443659/
40. Outcomes (negative)
1. Research capacitation was uneven
2. Technology problems
3. Too long
4. Harmonisation buy-in incomplete
41. Lessons learned
What worked? What didn’t work?
"Golden Gate Bridge SF CA North View" by Bill Ebbesen - Transferred from
en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Gate_Bridge_SF_CA_North_View.jpg
#/media/File:Golden_Gate_Bridge_SF_CA_North_View.jpg
"Tacoma-narrows-bridge-collapse". Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia
Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tacoma-narrows-bridge-
collapse.jpg#/media/File:Tacoma-narrows-bridge-collapse.jpg
44. Lessons learned
What worked?
1. Having regular sessions
2. Inviting researchers to
share their own work
3. Working collaboratively and
“openly” (within the project)
45. Lessons learned
What worked?
1. Having regular sessions
2. Inviting researchers to
share their own work
3. Working collaboratively and
“openly” (within the project)
What didn’t work?
1. The “voluntary” model
46. Lessons learned
What worked?
1. Having regular sessions
2. Inviting researchers to
share their own work
3. Working collaboratively and
“openly” (within the project)
What didn’t work?
1. The “voluntary” model
2. Initiating the process after
other key issues had already
been decided
47. Going Forward: Capacity Development beyond Question Harmonisation
“Question Mark Garden” by Dennis Brekke – CC-BY 2.0 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/dbrekke/181939582/
48. From CD1 to CD2
ITAD (Information Training and Agricultural Development)
Learning Network on Capacity Development (LenCD)
49. From CD1 to CD2
ITAD (Information Training and Agricultural Development)
Learning Network on Capacity Development (LenCD)
CD1
“A CD1 approach typically focuses on building the skills needed to produce an output
that meets today’s requirements.”
50. From CD1 to CD2
ITAD (Information Training and Agricultural Development)
Learning Network on Capacity Development (LenCD)
CD1
“A CD1 approach typically focuses on building the skills needed to produce an output
that meets today’s requirements.”
CD2
“A CD2 approach aims to build skills but also support new attitudes and behaviours,
shift institutional relationships to sustain compliance, and support new, locally-driven
policies and practices around the issues into the future.”
See: http://itad.com/capacity-development-how-should-we-reframe-it-for-the-digital-age/
51. Capacity Development 2.0 (according to ITAD)
1. Systems perspectives – see CD through lens of systems & complexity concepts.
2. Four dimensions of change – personal; relationships; collective patterns of
thinking and action; and, systems and structures.
3. Behavioural competencies – skills training can be seen as a typical activity of a
CD1 approach, but it becomes a CD2 activity when it responds to the behaviours
needed to connect individual, organisational and network levels of capacity
development. For example, how to collaborate within and between teams and
organisational boundaries.
4. Elements of an enabling environment – legitimacy (acquired or located in a
position or structure); space to operate, interact, collaborate etc.; boundary spanners
and brokers; skills to carry out technical delivery and mandated tasks effectively.
5. Digital competencies – being able to navigate through the range of tools and
activities which could be linked to a CD2 framework.
See: http://itad.com/capacity-development-how-should-we-reframe-it-for-the-digital-age/
52. CD2 – Are we there yet?
By Srdjan Marincic (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_old_road_winding_over_St._Gotthard_pass_(el._2106_m._or_6%2C909_ft.)_high_in_the_Swiss_Alps.JPG
53. Thank you
Creator: Henry Trotter – henry.trotter@uct.ac.za
“Harmonising Research between South and North: Results from ROER4D’s Question
Harmonisation Experiment: by Henry Trotter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.
Hinweis der Redaktion
https://flic.kr/p/9FK7xh
CC-BY 2.0
By Paul - https://www.flickr.com/photos/vegaseddie/
Uploaded on May 8, 2011
CC-BY-NC
By Pat Joyce
Taken on May 27, 2010
https://flic.kr/p/85AePz
Research capacitation was uneven for a variety of reasons. Some researchers:
were unable to attend due to time conflicts
were disinterested in the process
missed the point of the exercise (despite attending sessions)
did not avail themselves of support structures outside the webinars (mentors, etc.) to shore up the knowledge or concepts to which they were exposed.
2. The technology (especially Adobe Connect and our institutional broadband connections) often let us down, turning vibrant conversations into clunky, painful interactions.
3. The process took longer than anticipated.
4. Some of the sub-projects decided not to use the harmonised questions, thereby reducing the impact that the process could have had on ROER4D’s broader research ambitions.
"Golden Gate Bridge SF CA North View" by Bill Ebbesen - Transferred from en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Gate_Bridge_SF_CA_North_View.jpg#/media/File:Golden_Gate_Bridge_SF_CA_North_View.jpg
"Tacoma-narrows-bridge-collapse". Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tacoma-narrows-bridge-collapse.jpg#/media/File:Tacoma-narrows-bridge-collapse.jpg
1. Having regular sessions: the consistency of the process was crucial for creating the opportunities necessary to build research capacity and to develop a sense of community amongst participants.
2. Inviting researchers to share their own work: this allowed members to get valuable feedback and to feel “heard” by their peers.
3. Working collaboratively and “openly” (within the project): the transparency of the process – especially the network team’s creation of “public” Google docs which researchers could engage – created greater credibility and accountability, enhancing members’ buy-in.
1. The “voluntary” model: for practical and pedagogical reasons, we chose to make this a voluntary process, but this resulted in uneven attendance and interest.
2. Initiating the process after other key issues had already been decided: the process would have likely run more smoothly if it had been built into the programme from the beginning, with clear expectations and obligations laid out upfront
Since the end of the question harmonization process, we’ve continued with the regular webinar sessions, but have expanded the range of topics under discussion and the range of presenters. Thus, instead of just Cheryl and I leading a rather formal QH session, we’ve asked the researchers to share their own work or to lead a discussion on a topic that they themselves feel comfortable leading (such as quantitative data collection). That has been a great success. We’ve also asked members of the network team to lead discussions about networking, communication strategies, curation, evaluation and other topics that are important to the programme. These have also been well-attended and appreciated, especially at the stages everyone is at in their work.
I recently attended a webinar by ITAD (Information Training and Agricultural Development) through the Learning Network on Capacity Development (LenCD) and they proposed that capacity development approaches need to move beyond a sort of CD1.0 thinking to a CD2.0 thinking.
Whereas “A CD1 approach typically focuses on building the skills needed to produce an output that meets today’s requirements,”
“A CD2 approach aims to build skills but also support new attitudes and behaviours, shift institutional relationships to sustain compliance, and support new, locally-driven policies and practices around the issues into the future.”
The elements
When I reflected on where ROER4D was at with its capacity development activities after the webinar, I realized that, in many ways, we as a group had already moved on to a CD2 perspective quite organically. Once we wrapped up the question harmonization element of our capacity development approach, it freed us up to think of capacity development in much broader terms. So, even though we talk about communications, evaluation, curation, report writing, networking, data collection and other aspects of the programme in often discrete ways as if they are categorically distinct fields of action, we intuitively recognize that all of the activity in our project surrounding these different elements are also part of a broader capacity development enterprise. I don’t think we have articulated it to each other as such, but deep down we understand that all of these things contribute to a broader, holistic and sustainable capacity development approach that we have always promoted.
I think that, perhaps moving forward, while we will continue to experiment with various capacity development interventions, we will also likely expand our own understanding and discourse about what capacity development means in ROER4D. From now onward, we will see all of these activities as contributing to a fuller sense of capacity within our projects and amongst our members.
And for me, this offers an exciting new way to look at capacity development within our project and I’m looking forward to seeing how it continues until we finish it.