Okay, I'll just quickly say something. So welcome to this session. First one of the afternoon sessions, we have two half an hour sessions. So what we'll do, or what the presenters want to do is take about 20 minutes to talk and then 10 minutes for questions right after each of the sessions. Is everybody happy with the session to be recorded? Yes, just to double check. Great idea. I think I'll give it to you, a way to you, Igor. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Igor Lesko. I come originally from Slovakia, but I've been living for the past 22 years in South Africa and that's where I'm coming from for this particular conference. I'm from Open Education Global, which is an international member-based organization dedicated to opening up education worldwide. And on that note, I think I'm compelled to say that I hope to see many of you at the Open Education Global Conference at Monter in October this year. But today I'm also wearing a different hat. I'm also a PhD candidate and a member of the Global OER Graduate Network. Global OER Graduate Network is a network of PhD researchers working on different topics related to open education, policies included. They are back here in the audience as well, who is part of the management team if you want to know more, please speak after the session. And today, this presentation is part of a bigger PhD research study or research that I've been working on for some time now exploring how international organizations have influenced the development of governmental OER policies from 2002 until 2019. The goal of this particular presentation today is to provide an overview of the OER policy instruments that they use by four intergovernmental organizations to influence the development of governmental OER policies, highlight the similarities and differences in their approaches, and then also report on their perceived or observed successes and challenges with their efforts. I already said what the main research question was. So I obviously have carried out a literature review, but more importantly, what's interesting for you to know is that I conducted a semi-structured interviews with international organizations and also with governmental policymakers and advisors and experts in different countries. So the data collection process was structured into two different phases. The first phase involved international organizations and that included all together these players, so in different groups. So intergovernmental organizations, the four of them, UNESCO, OERCV, Commonwealth of Learning and European Commissions, and four international and governmental organizations or associations, which was Open Education Global, Creative Commons, OER Africa, OER Asia, and also foundations, which was U.S. Foundation, Shuttleworth Foundation, and the Open Society foundations. There was a rationale for including foundations as well, which is not something that I'm going to be speaking about right now, but they are included nevertheless because of the activities in the space since 2002. During the interviews with international organizations, I mean, this on average lasted about two hours, one and a half to two hours, two respondents per organization, I focused on the rationale, so why they're actually planning to or why they're trying to support the development of governmental policies as one of the lines of action. What kind of OER policy instruments they applied and what are the sort of organizational priorities with respect to these instruments? What are the sort of collaboration patterns with other international organizations in the space? They're perceived to observe successes or challenges and their future intentions. And because the OER policy instrument is a term that I use throughout the research, just to give you a little bit of a definition. So OER policy instruments, as far as they are defined for the mind, PhD research are multiple mechanisms of influence by international organizations that can directly or indirectly affect governmental OER policy processes. And by governmental OER policy processes, I'm talking about the sort of policy cycle. So if you're thinking about agenda setting, policy formulation, and nutrition implementation, and so on. And these mechanisms of influence here are referring to discursive dissemination, standard setting, financial means, coordinate functions, and technical advice. And I will explain what that means in subsequent slides. So this is just to give an overview of the first phase of data collection. And briefly, I'm also going to tell you about the second phase of the data collection. So then you have got the most great picture about what I did in the research. So during the second phase, I have conducted interviews with governmental policy makers and advisors in 35 different countries, states, and provinces. This was close to 40 interviews. It was 11 countries in Europe, 11 in Asia, four in Africa, four in Latin America and the Middle East, and then two in North America, which includes the United States and Canada, three provinces in Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and the United States. It was Washington and California states and the Federal Department of Education. During these interviews, the focus areas were on the governmental OER policies that were adopted in these respective countries, and the perceived influence of international organizations on these policies that were adopted. Also the perceived effectiveness of the policy instruments that are used by IOC in this regard. And also, like I was asking about the recommendations. So in what way could IOs or international organizations support these processes more effectively? This is not what I'm going to be focusing on during today's presentation, but it's just to give an idea of what happened. All right, and just to kind of contextualize this behind the literature or the theoretical underpinnings, this particular research is positioned within the literature that really examines the effect of globalization on educational policy processes. The main argument there is that public policymaking is no longer confined within national boundaries. And the policy makers are increasingly interconnected with a range of different actors beyond the nation state. So this could be international organizations or other policy networks. And then the policy text production is increasingly affected by globalized discourses and process of globalization. And this is a phenomenon that is often referred to as a global education policy field or community. Now researchers did lots of case studies in this area. Revealed that international organizations affect higher education policy at global and national levels in different ways. So for example, they engage in discursive activities. They construct and disseminate ideas about higher education issues. They also assemble and maintain transnational policy networks. They also sometimes prescribe policy directions which can have both binding or non binding for the states and then monitor compliance. They provide funding. They provide direct or indirect policy or technical advice, technical assistance as well. So there's a range of actions that IOs use to realize their intentions. And all of these that have affect governmental educational policy processes as I have already explained previously, gender setting, policy formulation or implementation. So overall international organizations really have five main categories of policy instruments in hand that they can adopt or apply to influence governmental policy processes. This would include discursive dissemination, standard setting, financial means, coordinate functions and technical assistance. I'm referring to them as OER policy instruments. This framework is based on the work of Jacobi and Sanagian that I've also then adopted for my PhD research. Discursive dissemination in terms of activities. Here you can think about, again, these are IOs construct and disseminate ideas or call for support through their activities which could include policy reports or proposals, various kinds of case studies or publications. They also organize conferences or meetings or networks. They also issue policy communications which could be declarations or various kinds of statements. And I will provide some examples for each of those subsequent slides, the findings slides. In the standard setting instrument as I've already mentioned is these include conventions or recommendations, for example. I think that most of you here should be familiar with the UNESCO recommendation of 2019. Is there somebody who's not? Okay. So this is pretty much the only standard setting instrument in relation to OER that was adopted by an IGO or Intergovernmental Organization. Then you have got financial means and that's really mostly provisioning of funding. The European Commission, for example, has been doing a lot of that. The coordinate functions, that's the monitoring of the policy compliance and it's normally attached to standard setting instruments. So this can be both formal or informal monitoring procedures. So again, when we are thinking about the standard UNESCO recommendation of 2019, the monitoring process there is related to the fact that the member states need to report on the progress with the implementation of the UNESCO recommendation every 45 years. And this process is currently on point because it's now, it's been more than four years now. And the technical assistance that's various capacity building activities that IOS can engage in or they can also provide technical assistance in a sense of direct or indirect policy advice. So direct policy advice will be speaking to policy makers. For example, provisioning of model policy documents and the like, providing analytical advice. Indirect policy advice is typically incorporated within different types of publications that IOS produce. So in terms of results, right? So again, just coming back to the original questions like what kind of OER policy instruments the selected intergovernmental organizations applied to influence the development of governmental OER policies. The international activities in this space ranged from constructing and diffusing ideas about OER and related policies to providing funding, technical assistance and then also adopting standard setting instruments. But in this particular case that only refers to UNESCO. And just to give you some of the examples. So under discussing dissemination is one of the OER policy instrument category. The main focus there was on constructing and disseminating ideas about OER and related policies. They also facilitated exchange of knowledge and practices through various OER policy proposals and communications, publications, policy reports and advocacy. They also organized international conferences, meetings, networks, fora of all kinds. And just to give you an example in terms of the policy proposals or communications, you can see the Paris OER Declaration of 2012. So that's a policy communication and discursive dissemination. All the regional forums that were organized prior to the period leading up to the actual adoption of the Paris OER Declaration. In 2013, it was the opening of education communication by the European Commission. Another example is the various surveys, guidelines and publications that were done by these IGOs collectively between 2010 and 2019 specifically. Technical assistance as another category of OER policy instruments included the provisioning of indirect policy advice through publications and direct policy advice to governments and educational institutions and then also capacity building activities and the provisioning of technical infrastructure. Here the example would be, for example, UNESCO and Coal following this policy communications from 2012, they engaged in a prominent policy advice in different countries and they often collaborated together in different countries. The indirect policy advice was incorporated between different publications. For example, guidelines on the development of OER policies which was issued in 2019 or the OECD in 2015 issued another publication, OER catalyst for innovation, which is currently actually dedicated to policy. Then you have got going open policy recommendations on open education in Europe, but that was issued by the European Commission in 2017. Here I have to actually qualify, qualify that European Commission is not just looking at OER, but they're looking at open education more broadly. And so in that context, not just about OER policies but open education policies of which OER is a component. This is just a snapshot of examples. The range of instruments, examples is pretty much spans across like three or four pages in my results, but it's just a given idea. Under financial means instruments, again, this includes providing funding for projects and initiatives. As example, it is the European Commission, the Erasmus Plus funding, which has a significant amount of money available for different initiatives related to OER. And as far as the standard setting and coordinate functions instruments are concerned, much of what's going on, there is a update. I think it's going to be. I think it's the entire university totally to send the Erasmus to you. Oh, oh. Not the mic. Yeah, the period of the moment. And so the standard setting and coordinate functions instrument that includes again, the OER recommendation from 2019. So these are the examples of the OER policy instruments that the selected IGOs applied during this period to influence the development of government OER policies. In terms of similarities and differences between these IGOs, as you can see here, on the left hand side, you can see the type of OER policy instruments. And going to the right, you can see like which IGO used, which OER policy instruments are. So here you can really see that the selected IGOs collectively used all OER policy instrument categories, although like each IGO could not use all of them. So again, as an example, only UNESCO uses standard setting instrument in this arena. And those differences are dependent on the mandates of these organizations, the legal arrangements, organizational priorities, which can be changing as well. So that's really dependent, context dependent for each IGO. And for example, I don't know, European Commission does not really have the mandate to prescribe policy direction in education. It's got the support competence. OECD rarely does this as well because they really focus on the power of persuasion, so of peer pressure, rather than describing policy directions. So in terms of the organizational priorities, as far as this selected OER policies, identified OER policy instruments are concerned, between 2012 and 2016, is IGOs classified most of the OER policy instruments as having a major intermediate organizational priority. During this period, they all expanded their activities on disseminating ideas about OER, right? And this is specifically true following those communications policy proposals of communications from 2012 onwards, right? And I should also maybe just say that the OECD, there was also an intention or there was a proposal for like a stronger instrument in 2011, for potentially a declaration or a recommendation on OER, which was not successful, but the positive outcome of that was that it restarted the line of investigation into OER, which then ultimately led to, because policy makers were asking for more evidence about some of the claims related to OER, and so that's what then happened. And then in 2015, they led to the publication of OER catalysts for OER patients. Again, and so following this policy communications in 2012 and 2013, UNESCO and COAL started to focus prominently on providing direct policy advice to policy makers around the world on capacity building activities and then evidence-based advocacy, European Commission focused on applying funding OER policy instruments, technical infrastructure and research activities, and OECD as a consequence, as I already mentioned, they expanded their activities on creating ideas about OER. So these are some of the similarities and differences as far as these organizations are concerned. Now perceived, thank you. Now perceived are observed successes and challenges as far as the successes with the efforts. So here you can look at two different scopes. One is an international scope and then the other one is a national scope, government lawyer policy-making processes. So the respondents identified as far as the international scope is concerned, the respondents identified their OER policy proposals and declarations in 2011 and 2013 as managing to set international OER policy agenda and also it led to additional lines of actions for these IGOs, as I already mentioned, right? Which was a positive development. And in terms of the scope, the national scope, so here we are talking about the perceived successes of their actions on national policy-making processes with respect to OER, right? So the first example is the agenda setting, which is the first section of the policy cycle. So here, again, the respondents found that their policy proposals and also that the international regional consultations, forums and conferences and meetings that they organized that managed to set national OER policy agenda for policy makers. But the one thing that I should also mention though, that they could only establish these kinds of successes through inferences to a few national policy texts where the instruments were referenced or, you know, but they didn't really tell them much, you know, or it was through some sort of anecdotal feedback. And that's what the second part of the research that I told you about as far as those interview with government or your policy makers are concerned are so important to actually see how they perceive the effectiveness of those instruments, right? And as far as the policy formulation and implementation stages are concerned, the respective IDOs felt that the direct OER policy advice that they provided to different policy makers and the capacity building activities led to the development of national OER policies or support implementation processes of the developed or adopted national OER policies, right? And then finally, in terms of their, I'm seeing, okay, let me try this. Think like the computer for us. Luckily. It's fine. Thanks. Just have one session. Oh, no, no, no. Okay, so my only story is five plus two. Five plus two, so I'm still left then. Yeah, I'm saying a little bit. That's this one. There you go, thank you. Okay, these are the last two slides. I still have 10 minutes left because I'm starting five plus two, so I'm still good. So as far as the successes and challenges, I mean, as far as the challenges are concerned, the perceived challenges with their actions, this could be grouped into different categories of challenges and they all have like specific outcomes or consequences as they describe them. So here we are looking at organizational mandates, for example, as one challenge or changing organizational priorities or new emerging trends in education. These are some of the challenges that the policy makers or the representatives of IDOs described and their consequences that limit the ability of their respective IDOs to adopt legal OER policy instruments, as I've already explained earlier, to discarding policy directions for member states or to affect the continuation of their work on OER in general. The second group of challenges are related to lack of data or evidence about the uptake and impact of OER and open education in different countries. So researchers here take note, please, because this is something that is really a continued need for information for policy makers. And then there are even OER developments in different countries. And so what the consequence of this is really is that IDOs have got lack of clarity about the appropriate OER policy instruments they should apply, that's one. And the second is that it actually requires very nuanced and differentiated approach to policy advice in different countries, which is fine, but it requires resources. It's not something that IDOs always have. And then finally, I think this is nothing new, perhaps, in a way, those who are familiar with sort of policy work. So changes in government, bureaucrats, governmental priorities, that was another challenge identified, or misconceptions about copyright, open licenses, infrastructural challenges in different countries, or the lobbying activities by the publishing industry. So all of these need to have their own sets of consequences, for example, that the developer OER policies were not implemented or the developer OER policies were not addressing OER. And then I just want to think about the learning activities. Yeah. And that's about it for now. Thank you very much for your attention. I think we have a few minutes for questions. So a lot to digest, I know. And you make it good. Let's go ahead. So in the national policies that you looked at, what are some examples of some countries that have particularly interesting or exemplary national policies? I would be hesitant to say which ones have got exemplary ones. Because I was not actually doing analytical work about policies themselves. I'm merely looking at the inferences or the role that international organizations and other stakeholders or advocates play on these kinds of processes. And in what way they can actually make the processes more effective in open, right? But on that note, I'm looking actually, as far as the policy, governmental policy is concerned, I think that it also requires a bit of a more nuanced way of talking about policy. Yeah, because everybody keeps asking what the heck is policy? Like is this policy, is that policy, is funding policy? And I think that looking at it in terms of policy instruments is a better way of understanding like what governments are actually doing. So if you are looking at kind of stick summons, right? That these are all specific policy approaches by that the governments can take with respect to a year of an education abroad, right? So they can prescribe direction in a certain way. They can provide funding for specific activities. They can issue communications. So this would be the summons. Another example would be, I don't know, the NATO framework, not the military NATO, but which is modality instruments, authority instruments, strategies, organization instruments. So when people are looking at policies and trying to analyze them in different countries, I think they should kind of try to take the range of these instruments into account. Because I think often people look at like, is there a legislation, which is rare anyway? But as far as like some stronger policy statement, you should have a more differentiated approach to how you're looking at these different actions that governments are taking. And I could probably point you to a lot of examples that are of policies that exist out there that have a lot of room for improvement. I think... I think... But, yeah, but of course there are some successful challenges. And actually, Robert and I were speaking about this during lunch break, there are certain governments that keep supporting the movement over a sustained period of time through different needs, adopting different policies. Truman and Netherlands is one of them. Since 2006 and up to 2013. And I think the question there is, like what's going on there? Like why does the government continues to support or are open education related efforts for the justice? So I think these are the kinds of questions we can maybe start to explore in terms of when we are looking at successful policy approaches in different countries. I think British Columbia could be another one, I think. Their government has been providing funding for open education related efforts for a number of years now. So it continues to be on the agenda of policymakers. I think the question is why? I think this is something that we need to start looking at in terms of successful examples and what's working there and why. I think... Well, have you noticed and maybe had any correlation between countries that have these policies and countries where students don't have to buy their own textbooks? No, that's not something that I'm focusing on. So I would refrain from commenting on the table issues right now. And also remember my geographical spread is really wide and the policy context is really different from one country to the next. So yes, I know in the U.S. Canada, the focus is very strong on textbooks. In other countries, the policy context is quite different. And that also requires a different analytical approach is course analysis and the like. These kinds of documents. I retract my question. Do you see any sort of influence on the amount of sustainable development goals? Is that sound to feed into the talk process? In terms of... In terms of implementing the direction of policy. I mean, you can have a policy from a social justice perspective or from a business perspective. You can both want OERs, but there's a different underpinning ideology, if you will. Yeah, certainly the sustainable development both play a role in there. And also the IGOs are contextualizing their actions or justifying the further involvement with this space in the context of sustainable development goals. And where you see new developments, I think in Germany, when you look at the latest OER strategy, for example, I think sustainable development goals are featured within that specific policy document. So I think that overall, maybe just a part thing I would like to say here is that when we are doing this kind of work, when we're trying to convince governments to adopt policies, or supporting policies for our open education, I think it needs to be kind of aligned with their priorities, their national priorities. It really does require a more of a differentiated nuanced approach to what we're trying to do. So it's easy to have some model policy documents, right? And that's helpful. But I think that in terms of justify and why government needs to do this, those kinds of genetic arguments like do this because it's the right thing to do, it just doesn't resonate. It just goes blank, you know? So it does require more work on our parts also, whether you are an advocate or whatever your role is and you're trying to convince your policymaker to do something about it, like just do your homework before you study at work. Yeah. Just looking at this from an outsider looking in, is there any research or information that shows which countries are the champions for implementing policies? And would that help? Because the biggest opposition is the lobbyists against it that are about the printing of learning materials. And from an advocate standpoint, from everybody at this gathering, the lobbyists saying these countries are champions at it and these ones are excelling. And that would help the politicians want to be in that competitive race to be equal to them and help them push it to the next level. Those countries are selling, yeah. That's a tough one. I think in many countries, you do have to look at your contracts and you can even fit right to higher levels. And so it's very difficult to kind of step away from it. But I would say maybe ask for a little bit of patience due to answer your questions because at this particular moment, as I said earlier, the UNESCO is embarking on the monitoring process with the UNESCO recommendation. And I'm not sure if you read the document, but there are five main action areas. And one of them is about calling on governments to create supportive policies or policies. And so they're actually supposed to also report on these action area. And it's a survey instrument, there are always issues with survey instruments, how reliable they really are and who is filling it and all that. But in the next few months, I think we could have a fairly good overview of the most recent developments in this regard. So just as far as I know, that should be presented, the report should be presented to the General Conference in October and it should be available short afterwards for public consumption. Great, I'm afraid we'll have to cap it here but another round of applause. Thank you. Oh, I forgot to say that the code here, just in case you're wondering why the penguins are standing here on the table. Globally, our graduate network has got the penguins as the mascot, as the official mascot. So if you see any penguins floating around in the space, you can't pass the space, or you know why. Thank you for your attention. Thanks. Over to you. Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining me this afternoon. Today we're actually transitioning the conversation a little bit, we're talking a little bit of like going against the policy, I guess you could say. So a different kind of route in terms of conversation. So the topic of the conversation is opening up research through self-archiving practices. My name is Inilda Romero Hall and I am currently at the University of Tennessee Knoxville and I am the graduate coordinator of the Learning Design and Technology doctoral program. My co-authors who couldn't be here today are Josh Rosenberg who is the coordinator of the data science program at our institution. And he's also in the learning design space. And last but not least, George Bellachianos who is a full professor at Royal Roads University in British Columbia, Canada. And he is the Canada Research Chair for innovative teaching and technology. I always joke with him because I forget his really long title. So the plan for today is to talk a little bit through the introduction of the topic, then discuss a little bit of prior research that has been done related to self-archiving and the practices of sharing that scholars who in education and then discuss a little bit of our work in progress research that we have going on. Some of the results that we have had so far if you're still going through the validation process of our results. So I'm gonna talk a little bit about that and then just having a little bit of feedback and discussion. So I should start by saying that this work was actually inspired by the work of my co-authors in 2017, George did a presentation at a different conference, AECT, and he talked about whether researchers make our research available to the public. We are, all three of us are in learning design and technology and in this particular case, George was talking about how instructional designers and learning designers rely significantly in the research and scholarship that faculty publish, right? And if that scholarship is not available or freely available, it just limits their practice. So he did some initial work and was able to find out that 48% of research publics was also available to the public. So it was kind of like an initial part of the research. Then just last year, my colleague, Josh Rassenberg actually proposed to the Open Education Conference this topic of academic, how academic journals are shared in the open. And it was a very small sample of 50 journal articles that he selected randomly and he looked at whether they were available openly and he was able to find that 68% were available in their final published form, only two were available in their pre-print form. He was not able to present this research which we were really shocked and he wrote a blog post about it and this is George and I reacted to that blog post and that's just how our collaboration sort of got started. So overall, we can say that policy makers and other entities, our colleagues in universities are constantly encouraging us to search, to share our research efforts in a public manner. We have seen a significant amount of this when it comes to granting or funding agencies. So in the United States, one of the biggest funding agencies is the National Science Foundation. There are other big funding agencies in Europe, Canada as well, and one of the biggest part of grant funding is writing your dissemination plans. And a huge part of those dissemination plans is having some sort of open educational resource available for everyone, right? But there are various systemic issues that we are facing in academia that really prevent us to engage into this open scholarship practice, right? First of all, we have the issue of focusing on this prestigious journals. We are always pushed as faculty member, I am too, to go for that R1 or, I don't know what event school journals that we have to publish in because that's a criteria that our institution wants for us. And then we may be a scholars in different type of stages. So if I am an assistant professor or I'm an associate professor, I'm a full professor, I can make various determinations as to where I want to publish. If I'm gonna be judged by a tenure committee, I have to sort of like rely on what that tenure committee is what I want for me, right? So that raises some sort of, I guess, systemic issues for scholars. Then there's a tenure process and the unequal access to open access journals. So in some instances, there may be a fee that you have to pay. So for example, AERA, the American Educational Research Association, which is one of the biggest professional organizations in the United States has a journal that's called AERA Open. Their publication fee to publish OER is like 300, 400 dollars. So where are you gonna get that money to publish in that journal? That's just one example. There are others that charge even more. So again, issues that challenge whether we publish open or not. Looking at some of the limited literature that we were able to find on this topic, we were able to identify this publication by Perkins and Lowenthal in 2016 that show that as scholars, we primarily focus on the journal that we're gonna publish in based on whether, what's the aim of the journal? So if you ask any scholar, where should I have this piece that I published that I want to publish on feminist, pedagogy, and all learning environments? Where should I publish?  But Harley would say, look at the aims of the journal and also consider looking at whether it's gonna be open access or it's going to be restricted to just individuals who have access to databases. So that moral and ethical concern is really not there as a main issue for scholars. It's really like a second thought or something that we think about later on, dissemination and being open is not the number one priority. We see civil arriving as sort of like a way to help mitigate this issue of publishing in journals that are restricted, right? So myself, George and Josh all maintain our own websites. And one of the things that we are often told, all three of us is you're so generous for sharing your words so widely in your websites. But we want to make sure that our scholarship is available to all. We want to make sure that individuals who do not have access to a database are able to access our work. But prior research has been conducted and I want to highlight the fact that this prior research was done in 2010. So it's been quite a long time since this topic has been looked at. It's a touch screen. Oh, is that what it is? Okay. So it's been quite a long time since this topic of civil arriving has been looked at and what they were able to determine back in 2010 is that civil arriving was not something that everyone does. In back then about 20% of scholars practice civil arriving. So I'm curious to know based on those who are here, how many of you practice self-archiving? Okay, so that's some level there. That's pretty good. Thank you for doing that. So with that, we decided to move forward with our research, which is, again, working progress. So we took some of the work that Josh Rossenberg had already started in which he selected 50 journal articles on random. And instead, using his data science background and art coding and other things, we continue to look at the journal articles that are published by ARA, which are seven of them. And the first one that you see right here is ARA Open, which is the one that's, you have to pay a fee, but it's published open to anyone. All others are restricted just access to institutions who pay their fee. What we did is that there was a third party that was involved in the collection of this journal articles. And we accessed Google Scholar as the main database to look at the journal articles. There was some programming that is involved in there. And we used this SIR API in order to search Google Scholar and access all the journal articles of all those seven journals to determine how many of them were actually available freely on the internet through Google Scholar. So I'm gonna make the slides available, but if you want to take a look at the code or access to the code, Josh has very graciously posted the code in his own blog. And the process was actually a little bit painful. He would go try the code and then we would meet. We will look at the output that was generated from the code and we would make some determinations of things that were new or random. And then we would go through the coding process again. So what we were able to determine was that from 2010 to 2022, so we decided to select 2010 because that was at that point where in the literature they had said that 20% of journals, 20% of scholars self-archived their work. So we selected 2010 and we waited until the very end of 2022, so we ran this data earlier this year. We were able to find a total out of 3,055 journal articles, 21 and 26 were available to reserve archiving processes or methods. So a total of 70% of the journals that are published are actually available to reserve archiving methods. So that from 2010 to 2023 has increased tremendously. It shows that scholars are very interested in disseminating their work and sharing it with the public. We were able to determine through the code, sorry, let me get through this side. We were able to determine through the code for each specific journal how many articles were available. We left ARA open in there because we were aiming to have out of 539 articles, have 539 articles available, but someone there was like a discrepancy there. We're still kind of working through that, but overall you can see that there is like a variation in some of the outcomes, but not a huge discrepancy based on the different journals that are published by ARA. Another important element for us as part of this research was to see if there was a change through the time period. So perhaps we were gonna see this number be a little bit smaller here and perhaps grow a trend and growth, but the reality was that there was not really a change through the different years throughout the number of articles that have been shared have stayed pretty similar. Again, not huge discrepancies. We also thought that maybe in the year 2022, we're not gonna see that many articles that were going to be shared because it's such a recent year, but that didn't hold again. Articles were shared widely. And then we looked at specifically where people are sort of archiving their research. And of course, Research Gate is right at the top. Then we also saw quite a few publications through Sage Pop, academia.edu. Although we were, we had quite a few issues with academia.edu, we were not sure if it was because neither of us, none of us have an academia.edu account or there was some other issue with it, but maybe that could be it. And then this were the remainder of the sites where individuals were sort of archiving their work. I changed my function. Sorry? You said self-archiving, and I thought you meant having your own website. I don't have where I use Research Gate. Do you call that self-archiving? Yes, absolutely. I was sorry, I didn't understand. Yeah, so self-archiving really is any practice that allows you as an individual to search or share your own work, whether it would be your own website or using a different tool like Research Gate or others. I miss them, so I thought you meant this for yourself, you had your own website. Yeah, thank you, I appreciate you. I don't suspect more people than we have touched on and. Okay, how many of you, no, I'm curious to know how many of you use Research Gate? Okay, so, okay. Thank you, I appreciate you. Thank you, it's well called. Sorry? Anacademy.edu. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. So knowing that I suspect a few people might have- No, I appreciate you mentioning that, thank you. So in order to determine whether our programming was actually working the way we want it to work, we engage in a validation process of a hundred links because of course we can do the programming, share the results, but is it really the output that we want or is there something else that it could be giving us? So for the validation process, out of those 3000 plus articles that we were able to gather, we engage in a validation process of a hundred links, randomly selected. And that actually helped engage the assistants of our research assistants. So we did the validation comparison of the manual URLs and I'm gonna show you the spreadsheet here in a minute. So literally someone entering in Google Scholar the name of the article, do we get the exact same websites? And then we also did the validation to check what was behind those websites. Are we really being taken to a PDF of the final version of the journal or a preprint of the journal, right? Can I switch in between? I can, yeah. Thank you. Okay, so this is the output that we get through the programming that's done of Google Scholar. So running the program through Google Scholar. And here we have the source of where we're getting this article from, the format, the link, the original link that we're getting through the programming, thank you. Then we have the manual coding that was actually done by my graduate assistant Danny. Sorry, the manual looked searching Google Scholar, the article name and then the journal, the year. And then we take notes on whatever happens when we do that manual search. So through that validation process, we were able to determine in the manual search of Google Scholar that there was a 69% match between what the, when we run the code versus the manual search on Google Scholar, 31% were not the direct match. But what we found is that eight of them were actually a direct download link. So the link that was in the spreadsheet is unlikely to ever match because it's the download link to whoever's using whatever computer, right? And then in the actual search of what is behind the link are we actually getting the journal articles? All the links that were looked at were for ARA Open. So we were expecting 100% to find a link to the actual journal article. Seven of them were academia.edu links and they just provided an error when we looked behind the article. One was view at CTU, which we're not 100% sure what that stands for, but it also did not provide an article. And one led to a PDF, but that PDF was actually like a plan for the research study. It was not actual, the actual research study or the actual publication. So in total, nine of them, I hope we were not able to find the people who were the final version of the article. So overall, in conclusion, we have found that from 2010 up until now, the practice of self-archiving is increasing tremendously. Looking back at the percentage from 2010 to 70% of scholar trying to disseminate and make their research available to others, we find that to be something to be proud of as a community of scholars. We're trying to make the public aware of research. And that is tremendously important, giving all the issues that we have with misinformation and other things that are happening in our political environment. Questions that I wanna leave you with is do we continue publishing in closed journals? I'm using surf archiving as a workaround. Do we really want to continue doing that? Or do we publish in open journals without no need for doing this workaround? And we don't really have an answer to it. Those are just questions that we are currently kind of reflecting on as we think about writing this for publication in an open access journal. Here's our contact information. Again, my name is Anil de Romero-Holl and my colleagues are Josh Rassenberg and Josh Valentino. So thank you so much for having me here today. And I'm open to any questions or comments that you may have for me. I'm Kathy Esso and I've followed your work with AST for a while and I appreciate it so much. I'm a library and academic librarian and these conversations are actually happening a lot of places in librarianship and there's a lot of contemporary research that's been accomplished. And you're experiencing the same thing in distance education scholarship as people are coming in and saying, oh, now online learning is starting.  So I, and any of you that are fascinated about what she's saying, if you'll connect with your scholarly communications librarian and your institution, it's like yours might be Rachel Caldwell. Has she worked with you on this at all? No, Rachel, no. Okay, because they are all over it, the Spalcom people and they're gonna have resources and be able to point you to really the sweet spot on the literature and what you might be looking for is scholarly communications and librarianship, key words to drop in there to increase how much literature and they also will have resources that will help really even optimize your search, umpaywell.com and stuff as you're trying to find things that are accessible. They will also point you towards your institutional repositories. I don't know if that came up at all. Well, one of the things that we have struggle with is doing the search while we are in our systems. And that's really hard to be completely disconnected from our system. So when we get in meetings, we're like, well, you try it, you try it, you try it because we may not be in the system. Yeah, your library can sit down with you and help you square that away. Okay, thank you, I appreciate it. Yes. As a follow, there's another librarian or resources librarian here. I suspect part of the answer to your second question is, and it's all about money. Tom mentioned the yesterday, which is true, that there is nothing really free, you know? And I think, self, you're going to find that some institutions can afford to publish an open access because they can afford to pay the processing charges. Some institutions can't afford it, you know? And their authors and their authors can't afford it out of money at the grants. And so this is the difficult way out. There's an inequity there between those institutions that have large amounts of money and can afford to do this for funding. And journal articles are minuscule in costs in terms of what's happened to more graphs, yeah. And that is part of the answer. It's not the whole answer to your question, but it's part of it, which is why I'm pleased to see that your researchers are doing the self-reporting process because it's very much a route that makes it more affordable for them and for their institution. So that's great. Thank you. Yes, and the money, yeah, always comes back. Sorry, the question always comes back to Manny on Versailles. Yeah, OK, I think we have time for one more question, but I don't have two. Nice, Phil Johnson retired academic and then came up against this when I could be a couple from the institution that couldn't get things anymore. I felt as if I had been thrown out of the gang. But that's it. Well, seriously, I love the idea that people are increasingly active in making this stuff available to anybody that likes it. And it strikes me that you're very interested to get your take on other people's.


Hello, this is Julie Brown, and I am a law librarianship intern with the Gallagher Law Library. The topic of this video is how to reduce your search results by getting your search terms closer together. Let's start by comparing three searches done on Westlaw for criminal contempt, limiting the jurisdiction to Washington State. The first search uses natural language and Westlaw searches for the terms criminal and contempt anywhere within the document. This basic search method returns 605 cases. That's a lot of cases to comb through. The second search uses the grammatical connector slash P to connect the two terms. This search is asking Westlaw to find only those cases where the two terms occur together within the same paragraph. Our search results are now reduced to 451 cases. The third search uses the numerical connector slash 5 to connect the two terms. This search is asking Westlaw to only find those cases where the two terms occur within five words of each other. Our results are now reduced to 205 cases. By using additional filters, such as court, practice area, and decision year, you could limit these results even further. Learning how and when to use terms and connectors is a great way to limit results by getting search terms that belong together closer together. If you were looking for cases about criminal contempt of court, looking up criminal contempt might get you too many results where those terms occur anywhere within the documents. You might pull up cases where it is mentioned that a plaintiff in a civil case has a criminal history, but that the contempt order the defense is asking for is denied. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the type of criminal contempt of court you are looking for. Making the connections between your search terms clear will help narrow the total number of results you get and hopefully make those results that's more relevant. There are two main ways to connect the terms, grammatically and numerically. Grammatical connections might be something like, I want to find the term criminal within the same sentence as contempt, or I want to find the term criminal within the same paragraph as contempt. Numerical connectors might include something like, I want to find the term criminal within three words of contempt, or I want to find the term criminal preceding the word contempt within three words. Available connectors differ slightly between Bloomberg, Lexus and Westlaw, but there are ways to find out how to use connectors on each platform. To find out which connectors are available in Bloomberg from the home screen, select the blue question mark to the right of the search box. A drop down box will appear. Within that box is a shortcut list of all the popular connectors including grammatical and numerical ones. You can also select the more link on the bottom right hand corner to get additional information and examples about using these connectors. To find out which connectors are available in Lexus from the home screen, select tips, which is located just above the search bar on the right hand side. Selecting tips will pull up a new window and if you scroll down a bit, you'll come to this area called search using segments and terms in connectors. For today we'll focus on using connectors. I've highlighted the most common connectors in Lexus, but there's a link at the bottom that will take you to a list of all the other available connectors. Below the link takes you to a list of available information about how connectors work and which connectors are available. I recommend that you look at this quick reference card because that's going to take you to all of the connectors available in Lexus. I also recommend reading this connector order and priority link here because that's going to give you some additional information about how Lexus orders connectors and how it determines the priority of those connectors. In the box below I highlighted the common connectors that are used in Lexus and then there's links to more information and examples there. Basically if you know how connectors work and which ones are available you'll be a far more efficient researcher which when you find yourself practicing law for real might lead to fewer late nights in the office finishing the research for those motions you might be writing for senior attorneys. To find out which connectors are available on Westlaw from the home screen select search tips just below the search bar and a new box will appear on your screen. On the left hand side of that box choose Boolean terms and connectors which will take you to a list of the connectors used in Westlaw. I've highlighted the common ones. As you can see from the examples in Bloomberg, Lexus and Westlaw, connectors operate similarly across all three platforms but there are a few minor differences. Library guides are often a great place to go for information about legal research databases. The Gallagher Law Library has a great guide comparing the connectors between Westlaw, Lexus and Bloomberg. You can see when searching for terms in the same sentence or in the same paragraph that Lexus and Westlaw basically operate the same way but Bloomberg is a little bit different. You have to put the P before the slash or the S before the slash. The Gallagher Law Library also has some great links to training videos for Westlaw, Lexus and Bloomberg. The Drake Law Library also has an excellent guide with a great chart on this topic with many different connectors and lots of examples all in one place. In the next few minutes we're going to run through a quick example of how using connectors will help you narrow your search result sets. For this example we're going to pretend we have been inspired to learn more about whether there are any cases dealing with the Endangered Species Act and the treatment of tigers held in captivity in the United States of America. Here we are at the Lexus Advance homepage. Let's start with a basic search for the phrase Endangered Species Act and then the terms captive and variations of it and the term tiger and variations of that because what we want to do is get the phrase Endangered Species Act to appear in the same document as word variations for captive and tiger. When you run the search you get 25 results and all of these cases here don't necessarily deal with the issues of the treatment of tigers in captivity. For example if you scroll down a bit you'll find the United States v. Clark case which doesn't seem to deal with the treatment of tigers rather it deals with the sale of a tiger skin rug. There are other cases like this that don't apply. Now while it wouldn't take too long to comb through all 25 of these cases why not make the process easier? Plus it's much simpler to see what is happening to your results if you experiment using connectors with this small result set. We're going to make one simple change to our search string and that is to add this slash five which means what we're looking for are documents that include the phrase Endangered Species Act along with variations of the word captive and variations of the word tiger that appear within five words of each other. When we run this search we get eight results and I can tell you after having scrolled through these about seven of them are directly relevant to what we're looking for. I highly recommend that you play around with a search string using different connectors to see how it affects your results. Thank you for watching this video on how to get your search terms closer together. As a reminder you can find additional videos and resources at the Gallagher Law Library website which is lib.law.udub.edu. Thank you.


Our next discussant is Ilhan Tekeli, who is Professor of City and Regional Planning at Middle East Technical University in Ankara. Thank you. Today's three presentations made very clear that Istanbul is a success story. And before coming to this meeting, I was also believing that Istanbul is a success story. But I have realized in this meeting that this success is beyond my presumed level. But that this success is not result of a planning activity. Even the influence of the political actors are not seen. This is a kind of success story attributed to the emergence and rather than certain actors. And of course we can have this type of a theory. This is not a problem. But I'm looking at this type of a theory from the planner's point of view. If you have this type of a theory and if you are a planner, how you will use this theory? In this point, now I have certain questions. Because this theory doesn't show any possible approach. For me, it only says me, okay, everything good, continue in this way. In a sense, this theoretical framework doesn't provide even any framework to criticize existing way of development.  You can close the table and you can meet. Therefore we had to ask a question. Whether these theories are sufficient theories? Whether the sufficiency test will be successful? I can put the three criteria for the sufficiency test. First one, whether these explanations are sufficient? Second, using these theories, whether we can develop successful policies? Third, this is even harder, is how we can make a spatial strategic plan using these theories. Space dimension is entirely missing. Existing theoretical framework should be discussed from this adequacy point of view in order to improve our future position at least. I know it is not easy, but I will try to give one example. We have a big agglomerations, not in the Turkey, overall the world. In our theories, we don't have even in the conceptual level about the possible boundaries of these agglomerations. This is all the diseconomies, that sort of things. These are meaningless in a sense. You couldn't measure. If you couldn't measure, the growth shows us that the economies of scale, economies of agglomeration is continuing. It is not. These theoretical frameworks at least show us a conceptual level of limits we should elaborate. Then we can say that if we continue in this way and the cities grows like this, we don't know what emerges as a city or not. Today we are using other terms, endless cities, urban regions. I think we are in need of very hard questioning existing theoretical framework. I have other points, but four minutes is finished. Thank you, Ilhan, for bringing us back to the question of the way in which planners operate. Particularly at the end there, the extent or the way in which cities can be in any sense limited. Certainly the new mega cities can in any sense be limited and what they become if they are not limited. Interesting question. Our final but by no means least speaker is Nefiz Bazoglu. The former chief monitoring systems branch of the UN Habitat here in Istanbul. Thank you very much. All the presentations were very stimulating and exciting and I wouldn't agree in the least with also Dieter and Gerald on their remarks on the social capital. And the fact that they have a high potential of being endangered. Now I would like to go to the ranking of Kierney, which you have used Saskia. And I'm looking at these top ten cities aside from Istanbul. I'm looking at Washington, Brussels, New York, London, Vienna, Cairo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires. Except for Buenos Aires, I've seen, I've lived there. And I'm thinking now, what is the aspect that you were alluding to which is different in Istanbul? Istanbul is global vis-a-vis all the indicators that Kierney has used in his research. But also very local in a sense. And that local element of Istanbul, which is, I call it the character, the spirit of Istanbul, in a way maybe not in the formal sense of social capital, but in the informal sense of social capital. It has been a very strong city. It's demonstrated to have a very high community spirit, conviviality. People can look at each other while they are walking and they don't avoid their glances like they do in Washington, for example, like they can do in London, for example. And people give the liberty to themselves to just make some small talk with each other as they are sitting next to each other. These are the kinds of interaction modes that you can't find in other cities. And this is the kind of social capital which we cannot afford to lose, I think. So human flows, skill flows, intersection, yes. But also the way they interact, the mode of people interaction and community behavior is also extremely important. And this is something we should not be losing. Istanbul is a success story from the aspect of other criteria. I agree. When you look at the economic indicators, yes. It's a success story. When we look at the lifestyle indicators, like Cialar was alluding to in his paper, posh restaurants, international cuisine, designer malls, whatever, those people driving in their SUVs, whether it's necessary or not, luxurious consumption. So we have all of these. However, what we don't have actually, we are success in our local domain as well as I was just telling.  We don't want Istanbul to be... Are you done? I don't want to stop you. No, no, I mean... Keep going, but only for one more minute, then I'll allow Saskia to come back. Yeah, they look the same with standard office buildings and business districts. But there's a difference of Istanbul we shouldn't use. But the policies, I think, which is this extremely rapid and militaristic way of urban renovation and regeneration, I think we are bound to lose it. Thanks. Thank you very much. I'm sorry to have interrupted you there at the end.  Could you, as briefly as possible, respond? And then I'll ask the other two speakers very briefly to comment as well. And then we must wrap up in three or four minutes. Yes. Well, thank you for all the comments. They were very important. Let me suggest first, I never said success stories, so I'm not sure where that all came from. And I just want to clarify that my argument is precisely that the differences matter, even for global corporate actors. Third point, I agree with all the highly critical comments that were made, especially Jerry's focus on democracy. I totally agree with all of that, and I'm hoping that my account didn't suggest that I don't. I just use these occasions to explore, to discover. I don't want to be giving you what I have written endlessly about, the new inequalities, the displacements, et cetera. I took the liberty and the luxury to make an exploration, rather than let you know all the horrors that are part of the story. That is why I know success story, that you already know better anyhow than I do. Now, substance. Two minutes on substance? One minute on substance. I want to pull out two categories that were mentioned. One is this question of social capital, but the way you talked about it, not the standard sociological category. I don't want that. So I like what you said, informal, but it is a form of social capital. And the other one is something that I may have mentioned in passing, making. See, I think what you're alluding to, what you're alluding to is about the capacity to make, whether you're poor, whether you are an ecological entrepreneur, i.e. a garbage picker in the slums, because there is now an identity around that. And so what I find interesting about Istanbul is that you have the capacity to make still, I'm getting it mostly via your description right now, that there is something, the neoliberal project we know is devastating. It is devastating. I mean, I have zeroed out about that, but I just didn't want to just simply talk about that. So it seems to me, it comes back to you, what are the big challenges that are bigger than the neoliberal project? Climate change is one of them. The devastating of neighborhoods, et cetera, that then create devastations. Look at New York City with all it. That's another one. I would say that is bigger because it is all over the world. The radicalness of poverty nowadays. We're talking the globe. That is actually also one that is bigger than the neoliberal project. And then comes this notion of mind of making. We need to make. The city is a very concrete space. I love the way you were putting it. You know how the city is a very concrete space for making. You can be poor, you can make. So the problem that I see in the United States is citizens consume their citizenship. Citizens consume democracy. They don't make. And what one senses in Istanbul still is a capacity to make. Thank you very much. Well done. We agree. Excellent. Juan. Okay. I also reject the idea that I'm talking about the success history. This is a history without adjectives. So we will see in the future if it becomes a success. But now what are we seeing is a huge growth and a huge change. But the color and the quality of this growth and change is still not defined. Because we are still at the $11,000 pre-inhabitant and we will see what is going to happen in the future. Are we going to grow? Are we going to have the institutionalization democratic institutionalization enough to allow for a democratic growth? And this is something that is very important to be solved by the Turkish population, not by foreigners that we come to this country time to time. But this is a real challenge. The change, the political change that we are seeing now in Turkey for example with the idea of placing Turkey inside the European Union it's a very relevant one but it's not the only one. We are seeing other things happening in the country which are touching the soul of the Turkish identity. For example, if you ask the people these two weeks, the late two weeks, here the issue now is the Kurdish opening which is a huge question. But not in terms of solving the problem of the south-east of the country but also of arranging some kind of civic arrangements of a part of the population inside the cities. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Shagli? Yeah, well it is a success story. I believe it is because of the project. The project was very clear to make Istanbul into a global city, a good node for all the networks and perhaps even a hub for the Balkans, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the Black Sea. I mean these were all talked about. So it's a question of recognizing that there was in fact a very well spelled out project and within the confines of that project we are talking about success. Now it has to be remembered that globalization as we have been experiencing it for the last 20, 25 years is also a deepening of commodity relations, a deepening of markets, a deepening of capitalism in the old vocabulary. And within that, all these things are happening and the question that I was trying to raise was that in a context such as Istanbul, such as Turkey where these things were not yet resolved, the last few years have been witnessing a resolution of these problems. The ambiguities are now much clearer, the political situation is fairly resolved. We don't have to deal, Istanbul coalitions do not, urban coalitions don't have to deal with what they would consider the obscurantism of Ankara bureaucrats. They don't have to cope with the ambivalences of the legal infrastructure. So these are novelties that have been resolved. Now this doesn't mean that we're going to have democracy or it doesn't mean that we're going to have utopia. Not at all. I mean of course autonomous bodies are not democratic. Of course urban coalitions ride roughshod over the popular elements in the city. These of course are happening. The point I want to make is that if all the ambiguities are resolved then we are living in a new world of capitalist commodified environment. And the kinds of politics that this requires are very different from the kinds of politics which had to rely on ambivalences, had to rely on populists, had to rely on national popular policies. It's a different world. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been asked to make concluding remarks, but I will win your eternal gratitude by keeping it to a few sentences only. I think towards the end of the session, which proved to be fascinating, because in spite of the hour I don't, I saw nobody leaving the room, leaving the hall, so that is the success of the speakers and the commentators here definitely. Towards the end I think everyone became cautiously optimistic. As a project maybe Istanbul was successful but to answer a number of critical questions tossed up for instance are the residents of Istanbul is the future of the city in the hands of the residents is a clear no. Only very indirectly, maybe once every five years when they go to the polls and in Turkish local elections generally national issues or international issues are discussed rather than local issues. There is no separate local agenda. In spite of development of some participatory mechanisms during the past few years in the form of city councils and other mechanisms where there is a kind of deliberative democracy emerging but at very infancy at the moment in spite of that the average citizen is not involved and there are not sufficient mechanisms to involve them. Another question about central and local relations certainly there is a continuing tutelage of central government over local administrations in various ways and the local government laws are not liberal at all and since they cannot levy taxes and they have no control over their finances whatsoever so that's a major handicap and deficiency. The role of public corporations what we call them municipal companies or municipal economic enterprises there are 23 of them in Istanbul there is no accountability. They are outside of the control national mechanisms, court of accounts and in certain cases the directors of Istanbul greater municipality serve on the boards of these so who is controlling whom becomes a real puzzle. The question whether developers, private enterprise have greater say over than ordinary citizens or even organized citizens is a clear yes in the case of Istanbul and probably most other cities in the world. The so-called success of Istanbul and I think everyone here the Turks are generally proud of their city and quite happy living in it in spite of that the so-called successes have been sometimes coincidental but certainly eclectic not based on the deliberate plan or any of the modern management methods approaches or theories that we know of. No liberal project as a causing one devastation kind of devastation I think Turkey has the opportunity of developing certain offshoots of it and certain alternative policies because the neoliberal project in Turkey is relatively new mid-1980s before that Turkey has a very extensive history and accumulation in local government and different methods have been used there are many projects pointing out alternative ways and finally a question was asked you are very interesting comment about can Istanbul be developed for Europe? I think it's a crucial question I think Istanbul accepts most of the global values and the values of the European Union to a very large extent but the major question and probably a better way of putting it is Europe ready for Istanbul and Turkey Thank you very much all.


Instead of trying to find your ideal audience and attract your ideal audience to you, what if you work on finding yourself and being yourself, and then, and I just noticed my dog coming up here, the stairs, finding yourself, being yourself, and then letting whomever resonates with you come forth and engage with you. And then, taking notice of whome resonates with you and connecting your content more to what they're needing and wanting at this time. So the message here is instead of trying to imagine this ideal audience and having to mold yourself to them, the problem there, and I want to thank one of my viewers, Linda Palmer for finding this quote, we are stressed when we try to be somebody else, and we are relaxed when we are ourselves. And that's my encouragement to you in this video, is to continually find what it means to be your most authentic and most service-oriented self, because we have lots of selves within us, without lots of ways we can be, but find your most authentically joyful and service-oriented you, whatever that means, and I hope you won't feel like you have to copy what I do. Find a way that is joyful for you to share your content and to serve your clients, and be as you as you can, and then see who resonates with you and connect with them in your content as well.


Hello friends, I am Sanjay Gupta. In this video, I am going to demonstrate you how you can display this pattern using C programming. Before starting, you can note my information. You can follow or subscribe my YouTube channel through this link that is youtube.com slash sanjaygupta underscore tech school. You can download my Android app that's Techimus which is based on programming available at Google Play. Now coming on to the topic, first we have to understand how this pattern will be displayed on console because first we have to print space and then digits. So I am writing it like this. You can see I am replacing space with hyphen. So this hyphen is for understanding purpose. It will not display on console at console output will be printed like this digits with spaces. So now if we identify spaces and number of digits so you will count in first row four spaces and one digit is printing in second row three spaces and two digits are printing then in third row two spaces and three digits are printing fourth row one space and four digits then in fifth row zero spaces sorry zero space and five digits. So this way to print space we require these number of repetitions and for printing digits we require these number of repetitions. So if we are printing first row then a loop will be required which will print spaces four times and another loop which will print digit one time then in second row space loop will repeat three times and digits loop will repeat two times and this way all the loops will be printing spaces and digits now to control these two loops one for space and one for digit we require third loop which will be controlling which number you which number of row you are printing. So this way total three loops are required to print this pattern now I am going to implement the code here I am implementing first loop that will be responsible for identifying number of rows so this loop will identify which row we are printing now for printing spaces I am implementing second loop which is j and inside this loop I will print spaces so now you have to identify that for first row this space loop must be repeated repeated four times so now let's check it suppose value of n is five which is received through scanf as number of rows so i loop will begin from one condition is true control will be transferred to j loop so j is starting from one now check this condition I have subtracted n minus i so n is five always and i is one this time so five minus one is four so this loop will repeat four times and that that that is the requirement of our logic that in in case of printing first row space loop will be repeating four times now after this loop I am implementing another loop that is k which is starting from one it is repeating i times inside this loop I am printing k and after termination of this loop slash n will be displayed so here value of k will be displayed so first time i is one so this loop will repeat one time and that is the requirement of our logic digits loop will repeat one time only after termination of this loop new line will be displayed second time i will be increased so this i will become two then control will be transferred to this j loop which is printing spaces so this time n minus i so n is five i is two so n minus i means five minus two so it will be three so this j loop will repeat three times now and k loop will repeat two times because i is two and k will be displayed here so first time k will print one and then it will print two so this way the above mentioned loop will be displayed sorry above mentioned pattern will be displayed on console so this third loop is for printing digits now i am executing this code i am entering five as number of rows you can see the output and you can compare it with this pattern both are same so this way i have printed the required pattern with the help of c program here three loops are required first for printing row number or rows second for printing spaces in a particular row and third for printing digits in a particular row and that particular row is provided by the i loop so i hope you have understood how you can print the pattern using c programming and nested loops if you want to watch more programming related videos you can follow my youtube channel through this link that is youtube.com slash sanjay gupta underscore tech school thank you for watching this video