Open and Equitable! Impulses for (self-)critical reflection on biases in the academic system What is it all about? With its Open Science Fellows Program, Wikimedia Deutschland has been actively involved in creating an Open Science community in Germany and has helped to establish Open Science practices. While these practices promise more transparency and better academic practice as a result, the programme has also shown that it is of vital importance how science opens up to facilitate equitable collaboration and participation. The key term in this context is Knowledge Equity. Knowledge Equity can be described as a result of the conscious attempt to counteract personal, epistemic, systemic, and structural inequalities in order to ensure a fair and equal representation of people, their knowledge and their insights.[1] Ways to achieve equal representation include measures such as the deliberate centering of marginalized knowledge and the adaptation of knowledge techniques such as collection, selection, documentation, archiving, etc. The elimination of institutional inequalities and barriers restricting participation and access to decision-making processes, or a fair allocation of resources are also vital elements to counteract habitual mechanisms. In research, Open Science practices can be used in many areas to remove barriers, thus facilitating more and equitable participation in knowledge and knowledge creation. However, this is only the case if the respective point of view is taken into consideration, completed with additional (missing) perspectives and translated into potential courses of action. Why questions? The following questions are an invitation to create spaces for reflection and potential courses of action – for yourself, but also in your academic institution. Their aim is to trace, understand and counteract undetected mechanisms that cause inequalities, power and knowledge disparities and prevent people from participating without restrictions in knowledge production and distribution. “Biases” is a psychological term and describes preconceptions that are at work on a personal level. However, since biases are shaped and nurtured by systems and structures, the concept can be applied across several interconnected levels. Starting from the inside moving outwards, the following chart visualizes the immediate connection to your own context, and with that different areas and opportunities for action. The questionnaire showcases several fields of action. It does not claim to be exhaustive or to cover all areas of the academic system. It is rather to be seen as an incentive to develop your own questions. Which is why an online version invites you to continue the joint open collaboration on the document: https://lernraumfreieswissen.de/Kurs/knowledge-equity/ Epistemic Biases: What does “knowledge” mean? The following questions on epistemic biases specifically target what seems most obvious: They challenge paradigms, values and strategies, methods and theories to organize knowledge that we often use without reflecting on them, because they are so deeply rooted in our daily actions as cultural and social practices that we consider them to be self-evident and take them for granted. Epistemic Biases Knowledge and contexts - What is knowledge in your view? - What do you think are the origins of your concept of knowledge? - Can you determine the knowledge context(s) you grew up in? - And your colleagues? What are the knowledge contexts they grew up in? - What is the meaning of science as you would define it? - How does science relate to knowledge? - What inspires you in your work as a researcher? Who do you refer to? Has this changed in the course of your academic career? - In your opinion, what marks expertise? - What is objectivity in your understanding? How do you define objectivity in your scientific practice? - Is objectivity an important value for you? Do you seek to be objective? Do you believe that objectivity exists? Knowledge creation - How do you develop your research questions? What are the research methods you use? - In addition to the specifically scientific hypotheses, what are the cultural, historical or political premises and perspectives that influence your methods or research questions? - How open is your academic context to approaches to knowledge creation from other knowledge contexts? - To what extent do you involve the groups that are subject of your research in the design of your project and your research question? - In what way and to what extent do you involve amateur researchers? Structural Biases: How do systems shape knowledge? Structural biases[2] refer to complex systems – society or science being two examples – that define incentive and evaluation mechanisms regulating access to these systems and advancement within them. One example for such a mechanism is the “Journal Impact Factor” (JIF) that merely measures the citation frequency from publications in the database “Web of Science”, yet when selecting journals, it is frequently used as a universal benchmark for academic quality. In contrast to institutional biases, for example, that regulate processes through rules, statutes, etc., structural biases operate more informally, woven into a close-knit interplay of various different social power mechanisms. Structural Biases Access and barriers - What kind of influence does your family’s educational background have on your educational background? And your socio-economic background? As for your colleagues: What, in your perception, is their background? In your view, how diverse is your team in terms of educational background? - How do you assess the influence of your family’s educational and/or socio-economic background with a view to your professional goals? - Which language(s) do you speak, read and write? Are they part of your academic practice? Can you decide yourself which languages you use to read and write? What are the factors that influence your decision? Sources of knowledge - Which sources do you consult as a standard? - Which resources (search engines, catalogues, libraries) do you use for your research? - Do you also use additional and less common knowledge bases and sources in addition to the sources and research tools commonly used in your academic field? - What are the criteria you use to select who you cite in your research? - To what extent do rankings, metrics and other forms of evidence for academic reputation play a role for your selection of research you quote from? Dissemination and communication of research findings - How and where do you communicate your research? - Which media (journals, blogs, websites, etc.) do you use to publish your work? - Which target audience(s) do you reach with your scholarly communication? - What are the criteria you use to decide about where to publish and which models (e.g. Open Access) you use? Which role does reputation play in this context? How do you ascertain and assess reputation? - Who do you publish with? Where is the institutional base of the authors and how frequently have they been cited, or which publishing houses publish their work? - What do you publish? Do you also publish failed attempts or discarded ideas? - Do you consider publishing intermediate stages of your research? - How do you publish your data? - How do you publish your teaching materials? Institutional Biases: How is science framed? Institutional biases specifically refer to policies, processes and the overall working conditions and culture for researchers at the institutions where they work or that fund them. This includes guidelines for good academic practice, equal opportunities, measures for staff and career development as well as the contractual situation of staff at different stages of their career and also language barriers at the workplace. Institutional Biases Processes and structures - What processes for recruitment, career development, malpractice, etc. are in place in your institution and your area of work? - What is the design of these processes? Are they transparent and accessible and can everybody understand them? To what extent are they accepted and applied? - To what extent do these processes take different languages, groups and life plans into account? Are there any established forums in the team to address and discuss the processes? - Which independent points of contact for members of staff who have experienced academic malpractice, conflict, discrimination or abuse of power are in place? - What is the effect of fixed-term contracts on staff participation in committees and decision-making processes? Organizational culture - Does the institution or organization where you work have guidelines for good conduct, good academic practice, equal opportunities, Open Science, etc.? How are they incorporated in the daily work routine? Are these guidelines actively implemented? - How heterogenous/diverse is the structure of the teams? - Who is in positions of authority, with the power to decide about staff and funding? Is the way people work together hierarchical or heterarchical? - Is there a safe space for a discussion and feedback culture in which everyone is listened to and taken seriously? - Which languages are read, spoken and written in your institution? Can you determine yourself which language you write in, read and speak? Are translation services offered as a standard for written communication and internal events? Personal Biases: How is knowledge shaped by learning? Personal biases are predominantly based on preconscious, practised cognitive patterns drawing on what we have learned and experienced, influencing our decisions, actions and judgements accordingly. As a consequence, the assessment of individual characteristics of a person instead of their entire vita often determines decisions about funding and staff. We tend to have a preference for people similar to us; information immediately available in our memory (for example anecdotes, stereotypes and experiences) leads to the prioritization of people, work and measures.[3]In many ways, personal biases are an internalization and concentration of epistemic, systemic and institutional biases. Personal Biases Assessment of people, their research, and of information - What are the criteria you apply to establish whether to trust another academic work, a proposal or proof of qualification? - In your view, what are “hard” quality criteria? Which criteria would you summarize under this term? - How do external traits of a person (their read gender, age, name, any additional personal information, etc.) guide your assessment of their academic work? - How do geographical, social or educational background influence your assessment of a person or their academic work? - Which institutions and other criteria play a role in your assessment of a person and their academic work? - In which order is relevant information about a project or a person presented to you, for example in the context of selection committees? - In your academic context, can you recall situations in which decisions were made based on anecdotal knowledge rather than consolidated knowledge? Which techniques do you use to make decisions based on consolidated knowledge rather than "ready-to-hand" anecdotal knowledge? - How strongly do your own research hypotheses influence your judgement when assessing a research question or a project? How strongly when assessing the results of your own research question or project? - Are you familiar with quality assurance methods that exclude the unconscious consideration of personal traits and information as much as possible? In what way and to what extent do you apply such processes? ________________ List for further reading Epistemic Biases Brunner, C 2020, Epistemische Gewalt. Wissen und Herrschaft in der kolonialen Moderne, transcript Verlag, Münster. Causevic, A, Philip, K, Zwick-Maitreyi, M, Hooper Lewis, P, Bouterse S & Sengupta A 2020, ‘Centering knowledge from the margins: our embodied practices of epistemic resistance and revolution’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 22(1), 6-25. Elmessir, AM 2006. ‘Introduction’, in AM Elmessir (ed), Epistemological Bias in Physical and Social Sciences, London, International Institute of Islamic Thought, xi-xx. Faulstich, P 2011, ‘Aufklärung - Der Zugang zum Wissen und die Macht seines Gebrauchs’, REPORT Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung 02/2011. Wissen - Potenzial und Macht, 15-23. Fricker, M 2007, Epistemic injustice power and the ethics of knowing, Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York. Mignolo, W 2000, Local Histories/Global Designs. Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges and Border Thinking, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Mignolo, W 2002 ‘The Geopolitcs of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference’, in The South Atlantic Quarterly 101(1), 57-96. Mignolo, W 2011 ‘Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto’ in TRANSMODERNITY: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1(2), 44-66. Sousa Santos B de, Nunes, JA & Meneses, MP 2007, ‘Introduction: Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference’, in B de Sousa Santos (ed), Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern epistemologies, Verso, London, xix-lxii. Structural Biases Dawson, E 2019, Equity, Exclusion and Everyday Science Learning: The Experiences of Minoritised Groups, Routledge, New York. Hall, S 1992, ‘The West and the Rest. Discourse and Power’, in: S Hall & B Gieben (eds), Formations of Modernity, Polity Press in association with the Open University, London, 275-332. Mboa Nkoudou, TH 2020, “Epistemic Alienation in African Scholarly Communications: Open Access as a Pharmakon”, in MP Eve & J Gray (eds), Reassembling Scholarly Communications: History, Infrastructures, and Global Politics, MIT Press, Cambridge, 25-40. Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNET) 2017, Open Science Manifesto, viewed 2 August 2021, . Quijano, A 2000, ‘Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism and Latin America’, Nepantla. Views from South 1(3), 533-580. Traynor, C & Foster, L 2016, ‘Principles and Practice in Open Science Addressing Power And Inequality Through Situated Openness’, Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network, 13 April, viewed 2 August 2021, . Institutional Biases Ahmed, S 2020, “The Nonperformativity of Antiracism”, Meridians 19(3), 196–218. Hatch, A & Smith R 2020, “Rethinking Research Assessment: Unintended Cognitive and System Biases”, The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), viewed 2 August 2021, . Personal Biases Ogette, T 2020, Exit Racism, Unrast, Münster.[4] Tate, S & Page, D 2018, “Whiteliness and institutional racism: hiding behind (un)conscious bias”, Ethics and Education 13(1), 141-155. Principles & Theories Bourdieu, P, Passeron J-C, Nice R (translator) 1977, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (CA). Bourdieu, P, Nice R (translator) 1984, Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA). Bourdieu, P, Sapiro, G & McHale, B 1992 ‘Fourth Lecture. Universal Corporatism: The Role of Intellectuals in the Modern World’, Poetics Today 12(4), 655-669. Foucault, M, Sheridan Smith AM (translator), 1972, The Discourse on Language, In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Pantheon Books, New York. Lakoff, G & Johnson, M 1980, Metaphors We live By, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Said, E 1978, Orientalism, Pantheon Books, New York City. Smith, LT 2021, Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples, Third edition, Zed Books, London. Spivak, GC 1988, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ in C Nelson & L Grossberg (eds), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, University of Illinois Press, Urbana-Champaign, 271-313. Credits The “impulses” are the result of the trusting exchange and collaboration between the Wikimedia Deutschland Science Team and fellows and mentors of the Open Science Fellows Program run by Wikimedia Deutschland. Co-authorship & Peer Review * Anasuya Sengupta // Whose Knowledge? * Anita Runge // Mentor Open Science Fellows Program * Anna-Katharina Gödeke // Wikimedia Deutschland * Antonia Kowe // Fellow Open Science Fellows Program 2020/21 * Christopher Schwarzkopf // Wikimedia Deutschland * Dominik Scholl // Wikimedia Deutschland * Dorothee Schäfer // Fellow Open Science Fellows Program 2020/21 * Felicitas Kruschick // Fellow Open Science Fellows Program 2020/21 * Kerstin Schoch // Mentor Open Science Fellows Program * Lucy Patterson // Wikimedia Deutschland * Marie Herzberger // Fellow Open Science Fellows Program 2020/21 * Maximilian Petras // Fellow Open Science Fellows Program 2020/21 * Moritz Appels // Fellow Open Science Fellows Program 2020/21 * Naomi Truan // Fellow Open Science Fellows Program 2020/21 * Sarah-Isabella Behrens // Wikimedia Deutschland Imprint Concept & Editing * Nico Schneider // Wikimedia Deutschland * Sabine Müller // Wikimedia Deutschland Proofreading * Claudia Bergmann // Wikimedia Deutschland Translation * Angelika Welt-Mooney // Accredited translator Design * Matthias Wörle // MOR Responsible for content: * Dr. Christian Humborg // Wikimedia Deutschland The texts, graphics and layout of this brochure are published under the Conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA) published in version 4.0. Endnotes [1] Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction. (2018, December 30). Meta, discussion about Wikimedia projects. Retrieved 05:48, August 11, 2020 from https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction&oldid=18747691. [2] Systemic biases are "the normalized and legitimized range of policies, practices, and attitudes that routinely produce cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for minority populations." in: https://appd.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/meetings/2017SpringPresentations/WS22Slides.pdf cf.also https://sfdora.org/2020/05/19/rethinking-research-assessment-ideas-for-action/ cf. also research at universities, e.g. Dr. Isabel Steinhardt: Soziale Ungleichheit im Hochschulsystem, https://lernraumfreieswissen.de/lessons/prinzipien-und-barrieren-von-knowledge-equity-in-der-wissenschaft/ [3] cf. e.g. the following overviews of common biases in a work context: https://www.peoplegoal.com/blog/10-examples-of-unconscious-bias or in decision-making processes: https://neuroleadership.com/your-brain-at-work/seeds-model-biases-affect-decision-making/ and also Hatch, A. and R. Smith: “Unintended Cognitive and System Biases” (2020): https://sfdora.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/DORA_UnintendendedCognitiveSystemBiases.pdf For an explanation how biases evolve, see: https://www.anti-bias.eu/wissen/entstehung-von-bias/denkfehler-wie-unconscious-bias-entstehen/ [4] Please find additional materials on Tupoka Ogette’s training guide on the following website: https://www.exitracism.de/materialien.html.