I’m attending FORCE2016, which is my first FORCE11 conference after following this movement (or group?) for awhile and I have to say, this is one interesting, thought-provoking conference. I haven’t been blogging in awhile, but I felt inspired to get a few thoughts down after the first day of FORCE2016:
- I love the interdisciplinarity of this conference, and to me, that’s what makes it a great conference to attend. In our “swag bag,” we were all given a “passport” and could earn extra tickets for getting signatures of attendees from different disciplines and geographic locations. While free drinks are of course a great incentive, I think the fact that we have so many diverse attendees at this conference is a draw on its own. I love that we are getting researchers, funders, publishers, librarians, and so many other stakeholders at the table, and I can’t think of another conference where I’ve seen this many different types of people from this many countries getting involved in the conversatioon.
- I actually really love that there are so few concurrent sessions. Obviously, fewer concurrent sessions means fewer voices joining the official conversation, but I think this is a small enough conference that there are ways to be involved, active, and vocal without necessarily being an invited speaker. While I love big conferences like MLA, I always feel pulled in a million different directions – sometimes literally, like last year when I was scheduled to present papers at two different sessions during the same time period. I feel more engaged at a conference when I’m seeing mostly the same content as others. We’re all on the same page and we can have better conversations. I also feel more engaged in the Twitter stream. I’m not trying to follow five, ten, or more tweet streams at once from multiple sessions. Instead, I’m seeing lots of different perspectives and ideas and feedback on one single session. I like us all being on the same page.
Now, those are some positives, but I do have to bring it down with one negative from this conference, and that is that I think it’s hard to constructively talk about how to encourage sharing and open science when you have a whole conference full of open science advocates. I do not in any way want to disparage anyone because I have a lot of respect for many of the participants in the session I’m talking about, but I was a little disappointed in the final session today on data management. I loved the idea of an interactive session (plus I heard there would be balloons and chocolate, so, yeah!) and also the idea of debate on topics in data sharing and management, since that’s my jam. I did debate in high school, so I can recognize the difficulty but also the usefulness of having to argue for a position with which you strongly disagree. There’s real value in spending some time thinking about why people hold positions that are in opposition of your strongly held position. And yeah, this was the last session of a long day, and it was fun, and it had popping of balloons, and apparently some chocolate, and whatnot, but I am a little disappointed at what I see as a real missed opportunity to spend some time really discussing how we can address some of the arguments against data sharing and data management. Sure, we all laughed at the straw men that were being thrown out there by the teams who were being called upon to argue in favor of something that they (and all of us, as open science advocates) strongly disagreed with. But I think we really lost an opportunity to spend some time giving serious thought to some of the real issues that researchers who are not open science advocates actually raise. Someone in that session mentioned the open data excuses bingo page (you can find it here if you haven’t seen it before). Again, funny, but SERIOUSLY I have actually have real researchers say ALL of these things, except for the thing about terrorists. I will reiterate that I know and respect a lot of people involved with that session and I’m not trying to disparage them in any way, but I do hope we can give some real thought to some of the issues that were brought up in jest today. Some of these excuses, or complaints, or whatever, are actual, strongly-held beliefs of many, many researchers. The burden is on us, as open science advocates, to demonstrate why data sharing, data management, and the like are tenable positions and in fact the “correct” choice.
Okay, off my soap box! I’m really enjoying this conference, having a great time reconnecting with people I’ve not seen in years, and making new connections. And Portland! What a great city. 🙂