Our next pair might share an interest in engaging the public, but from the perspective of their different domains of history, science, and art. Jen Eleven is director of science at Pioneer Works in Brooklyn, and also associate professor of physics and astronomy here at Barnard, right across the street. And Tweetay Howe is general manager of Mahookey in Wellington, New Zealand. And I believe, Jenna, you're going to go first. Thank you. Thank you. One of the things I imagined when I became a university professor was having all of this incredible crossover between disciplines. And it's not a reality, sadly. It's actually very hard to connect outside of your own floor of a building, let alone your department. So I'm in physics and in astronomy. I float around. But I love the idea that I've been invited to speak in the architecture. The architecture department only took me 10 years to get an invite. But I'm glad to be here. I'm not on 120th Street since most of my life takes place on 120th Street right by Pupin. I'm out here in Red Hook in Brooklyn. I don't know. I have people visited Pioneer Works. I'm just curious. Pioneer Works is a cultural center. We really struggle to define it. We meet all the time to discuss our mission statement. And lately I've been trying mission statements that rely on ecclesiastic metaphors like the church. And then I later intend on taking out like the specific words and replacing them with something else. It feels like more than a community center is a place where we break bread, where we discuss ideas, where we make art, where we listen to music and sometimes just chill out in the garden. This is an image of the main hall. It's three stories high. Pioneer Works was an old ironworks factory. It looked like this when Dustin Yellen, the founding of the artist who bought it, founder of Pioneer Works, when he first started working on it with Gabriel Florence, who's the founding artistic director. It was from the 1800s, mid-1800s. It was used as an ironworks factory to build railroads primarily. And even though it's right on the water of Red Hook, it didn't have to do with shipping for reasons that I'm not sure I fully understand. So it was hit by Sandy, actually, midway through the renovation. And so that set them back a year. But if you're wondering how long or how old Pioneer Works is, that's about how old it is since Sandy, a year after that. It opened its doors. And Dustin, it's a very organic process. There was definitely cart before the horse is how we do everything there. It was not a hard open. We did not finish the building. It was opened to artists when it could be. It was open for gallery spaces when it could be. And we've just been kind of working to piece it together. This is, on the side flank of the space you saw before, the catwalks that house the artists' studios. So the artists are now by nomination. They come in for three months to six months, very rarely longer. And they now have their own spaces. Those used to be just kind of open spaces. And again, we've only just started to finish enclosing the artist's spaces. A fair fraction of the building still doesn't have heat or AC, which can be quite extraordinary in New York swings of weather. Again, this is the main hall.  There's this real plasticity to the space. Right now we're preparing for the Haiti exhibit, which opens tonight, Poteau Ponce, which was curated by Gabriel Florence. And it's a group show of Haitian artists. I think it's really the only show of its kind that I know of. And so this whole space is completely transformed. New walls, new rooms, dark rooms, video rooms, big exhibition spaces. One of my favorite things to do there is to look out onto the gallery and see, watch things come and go. These are the science studios. So when we first started building the science studios on the third floor, it was only about a year and a half ago that we finished the science studios. So I came in as the founding director of sciences there, and this huge space on the third floor had still not been finished. We had plywood stapled down the floors. There was no heating, no AC. We didn't have a lot of electrical, but it was this 3,500 square foot gloria space. This is it just after we finished. A couple people gave us a couple items of furniture. It was very sparse, but you can see some of the original architectural elements of the triangle here and some of the beams on the ceiling, but the rest was replaced, the floors. This is the, these are the windows that look out onto the gallery space. So we have this extraordinary view of the river, the garden, Manhattan, the Brooklyn bridges, and the gallery space. So that's on the third floor. So we started sciences there with kind of different aims. One was very public facing. What can we do in terms of engagement for the community and an external audience? And the other was very much internal ambition, and that's where we're growing in some sense the slowest, which is how do we bring artists in, I'm sorry, scientists Freudian in residence, two pioneers to actually work on science. We're very much not about sci art. We are not about bringing scientists to become mediocre artists, you know, and explore there. They're like, you revive their youth. It's really scientists come and do science. We have glassboards where they write their equations. We work on biology. We work on astrophysics, work on black holes. Scientific controversies is, sorry, let's see if I can get that going. Oh, I guess not. I don't know. It doesn't like that slide. Scientific controversies is one of our signature public facing series. I actually started it on a whim before I was director of sciences when I was a friend of the space.  And so I thought, you know, it would be a lot more fun if I have two guests on stage. It was just a fully formed idea. I've done so many events. I've done so many talks. I just knew I wanted two guests on stage, completely extemporaneous conversation, both scientists. It wasn't a debate. I didn't want anyone to try to win. I wanted there to be a sense of exploring unsolved problems, like how we really do it when we're sitting over coffee and we're talking about things we don't know the answer to. And sometimes you stop and you say, whoa, you're right.  Other times you say crazy stuff you're not sure is true. And I wanted to get the scientists to the point of being able to do that on stage. And so that started scientific controversies. The first event, this is Black Holes, which was recently we did in July. Over 1,000 people showed up. I have no idea why we have the attendance we have. I really don't. But it's, I really don't, it's staggering, but you can see it's pretty packed there. There's a lot of collaborative dimensions, even to the events. I have an artist friend who makes SCICON-limited edition patches, which have become kind of like a collector's thing. We have a DJ artist, Ezekiel Way Muhammad, who opens most of our shows with visuals and music. We have photographers who take tin-type portraits of the scientists who come through. So we have a photography series. So it becomes this really multi-dimensional experience. The first event we did, this is just showing some others. This is Nick Lane and Caleb Scharf, who's actually here at Columbia, on the question of are we alone? And you can see how packed it is. This was Dark Matter. Elena Priele is actually also a Columbia physicist. I draw on my people. That's Peter Fisher, who is the head of MIT's physics department. So we get some very big people. George Church, who is an absolute genius of genetics from Harvard. What was the question we did there? Genetic manipulation. And there's also Siddhartha Mukherjee, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his book, The Emperor of All Malities. So the guests we're getting, again, we can't really exactly explain, but they come, they have a great time. And the events are really quite packed. This is Feng Zhang, another geneticist from MIT. And you see one of the things that I think is really interesting about our audience is that they feel that our guests are coming to their house. I'm not sure how else to explain it. That instead of, you know, having a ticket, going to symphony space, not to knock symphony space, and going home is a very different experience than walking into some place where you're going to spend three hours drinking, listening to music, hanging out in the garden, and then meeting the guests who spoke, like, on the ground. And there's a real interaction. And our guests have been very generous about doing that. So PsychonCon have created our first signature public-facing program. But we also do conversations. This is Richard Dawkins talking about the tyranny of socks. He doesn't believe that socks should come in pairs. He thinks you should just get, like, a bag of socks. And so he reaches into his drawer every day.  If he doesn't, I have a pretty good picture of he and I toe to toe with, I'm wearing torn tights and he's wearing mismatched socks. The reason why Richard is in conversation, so these are things, you know, curatorially we think about a lot, as opposed to just dominating the stage, because Lord knows Richard Dawkins can hold a stage, is because I feel like very famous people start to repeat themselves. And one of the things about forcing him to be in conversation was to force him to say things that were different than what he always says. And it's one of our most widely viewed videos that we've ever posted. There's Lawrence Krauss talking on stage with members of the audience. And again, there's this real casualness and comfort. When Dawkins came, people were, like, shouting to him, like, hey, Richard, how you feeling? I mean, it's just a really different atmosphere. Ray Weiss, who's a very dear friend won the Nobel Prize last season, last October, he came to speak in a conversation about five days after he won the Nobel. So I did not schedule that accidentally. That was extremely intentional. I was 90% sure he was going to get the Nobel Prize. Werner Herzog has come to screen in our small science studios. We did a very small screening of one of his films and kind of has become a very close friend of the space now. So the egregious name dropping is just to indicate that despite the fact that we're remote, it's really hard to get to Red Hook, that we're kind of rough around the edges. We make production mistakes. You know, we're not very polished. We don't have 10 producers on every event. That there's something about the process and the vibrancy of the process that people have been willing to play, basically. Our author series, we feature a lot of authors. I'm going to go kind of quickly into the background, but Leland Melvin, you know, he only put authors on stage who can absolutely dominate the stage. And this guy totally dominated the stage. We try to think with our events, how do we also reach out to the community. So we donated 150 of the Young Readers edition of Leland's book, which is very inspirational about how he became an astronaut and actually made it to space, despite very severe obstacles. We gave those to some of the local schools. We have to admit we are part of a wave in this neighborhood, which has been quite isolated. And it's confusing for us too. We're trying to do the best we can, but a lot of those kids came, and it was really beautiful. It was the first time that they came to Pioneerx and they got their book signed by Leland. And so that was really wonderful. So this is just to show our engagement. Finally, I want to say we always have astronomy in the garden. This is, again, kind of our naivete. Like, we don't always know what's going to be successful here. So I, being affiliated here as a professor here, one of the astronomers donated a couple of the telescopes to me, and I stuck them in the garden thinking, you know, no big deal, have a couple of telescopes. If we don't have the telescopes out, people get irate. It doesn't matter if it's like cloud cover raining. I try to explain you can't see anything. We didn't drag them down the three flights of stairs, but they go crazy. So we decided on the eclipse, which was August 21st. It was just last year. I'm kind of losing my perspective on time. To open up the garden for viewing of the partial eclipse, I figured it wouldn't really be a huge event. Again, we're very remote who's going to come out. I had like 150 solar viewing glasses. The garden was going to open at one because that's when transit of this eclipse started. It was total eclipse in parts of the world, but partial here. We had 4,000 people descend on the space. We had no idea. I got a call from Gabriel at 9 in the morning saying the line has started. What is going on? So the line wrapped around the entire block of pioneer works and doubled. It got to the point where we absolutely could not accommodate people. We started bringing scopes out onto the street. And so now we have this reciprocity with the Amateur Astronomers Association of New York, and they bring telescopes down to almost all of our events.  It's kind of calming. Okay. And then finally, second Sundays is the entire building. We'll have it this Sunday if you happen to be free from 4 till 10. The entire building is activated and we've started to do more things in the science studios. So these are Barnard students guiding people on how to genetically modify bacteria so they fluoresce. We do super geeky things like that. Somebody said I was in the longest beer line and when I finally got to the front, I found out it was a genetics experiment. So we get these crowds for this. In the Airstream here, which we have in our garden, we do things like VR. This is Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson. She's a marine biologist who works with me in the science studios and she set up this really beautiful VR of the oceans. So I don't know what's the punchline. The punchline is we have an event also next Thursday. It'll be our 16th scientific controversies event on Swarm Intelligence. We're going to talk about bees, ants, robots, AI, humanity, you know, the easy stuff. And I hope to see people down there. And I think, you know, what I'm really looking forward to talking to my partner in crime tonight about is why these things work because I really, I would love to understand it myself. Thank you. Kia ora and warm greetings from New Zealand, everyone. I'm Tui and, as they said, I've come all the way from New Zealand to be here today. Thank you so much for having me. So today what I'm going to talk about is our approach and some, a little taster of the philosophy that underpins the National Museum of New Zealand's Business Accelerator and Innovation Program, Mahuki. So Mahuki is an indigenous or Māori word. It means perception, to see beyond the usual, to see what others can't see. And it was, and that's a really great fitting concept for entrepreneurs and innovators who do need to see beyond. And it was beyond the usual for Te Papa, which is the name of our museum, to set up a business accelerator, and in doing so to embrace quite a commercial structure where we take equity in promising that come through that program in exchange for the seed funding and the delivery of the program. So going into our third year of operation now, we've constantly evolved our model, like Rick talked about, to ensure that Mahuki continues to deliver value back to the teams that participate, but also back to our parent organisation. Also to the sector, to Papa, as the National Museum is mandated in our act to provide leadership to the wider culture and heritage sector in New Zealand, and also back to taxpayers as we receive government funding. So Mahuki was originally set up to provide commercial and innovation leadership to the culture and heritage sector. And there was an informal goal that we had that we were going to help make to Papa famous for digital in the world. In New Zealand, we're a long way from all of our export markets. It was 26 hours on the plane to get here, and we have this, we can do anything kind of mentality, and sometimes because we don't know any better. And that's a massive plus, actually. And we have, I guess, a high degree of optimism. And Mahuki is focused on two key areas. So the first is experience solutions. So we're interested in the ways and we call for ideas from teams to participate in our programs in which technology can help us tell our nation's stories in new and exciting ways. And also that can be shared beyond the physical walls of the museum. Innovation that will help us grow and retain our audiences. So one of the things about culture institutions is the way that we measure ourselves or benchmark ourselves is actually audience numbers. So the number of people that come through the door. It's a rude, rudimentary measure, but it is one that is the one that we often go back to. So we're interested in all the realities, audio, holograms, we've had interactive portraits, gamification, and so on. Secondly though, we're interested in enterprise solutions. And that sometimes surprises people. So cultural institutions are complex businesses that beyond their core mission encompass a range of commercial activities. Ticketing, insights and analytics, collection management, catering, retail, event management, collection digitisation, and so on. These revenue generation activities are absolutely critical to our day-to-day operational funding and survival, let alone trying to get any other money and to do anything new and fantastic. So we call for ideas from the teams that will help us run our business more efficiently or help us make more money. But we are also interested in supporting ideas that are about making the world a better place. So we've called this Gaia, or the Earth Mother, or in Māori, the indigenous language, she would be called Papatūinuku. It's an image from our photography collection and she sits in a world besieged by climate change, pollution and so on. So Mahuki is interested in those ideas that will do good, good for the planet, good for communities, and good for culture. Just as an aside, I've got some postcards at the top there of some of these images if you'd like them and there are little Easter eggs in them for those of you that are up for finding them. As the National Museum, though, we're not just interested in the what we do, we are also really interested in the who, just as the others have spoken about. So ensuring that the teams that we work with reflect the diversity of society, but also honour the bicultural foundations that New Zealand is built on and that our museum takes very, very seriously. So, and I'm just aware I'm going to say these figures and they don't sound the scale of things in New Zealand. It's quite different to here, but over the three years that we've been operating, we've grown our female participation from 22 to 40%. Māori and Pasifika, which are the two largest, I guess, people of colour groups, from 20 to 40%, and then other ethnicities, we've also grown to around 20%. So I realise that doesn't add up, but that's across the different years. So I guess in an ethnically diverse city like New York, maybe that doesn't seem so special, but what's special about it back home in New Zealand is that we are a mainstream programme. So a way in which our country, it tends to address those different ethnic groups is to set up specific programmes for them. We're not a specifically targeted programme, we're a mainstream programme, and us being able to achieve those kind of results in our programme has actually really influenced our government agency to start demanding similar results from our colleagues. So one of the challenges for New Zealand is our population size, so around four million. And there was a concern, and actually it's founded that New Zealand, we have way more initiatives and programmes than we do have entrepreneurs and innovators to actually fill them all up. Because when we get on to something, we really go for it. But my response to that is that I think that we've only just begun to scratch the surface and unleash the potential of some of those demographic groups. And that's why we have developed a few seed programmes. The first of which is, we call it magnitude seven. So it's our seed programme to kind of plant these ideas of entrepreneurship, mainly in those marginalised communities or audiences that aren't participating. And to build a sales pipeline that will go on to participate in our business accelerator. It was also positioning that we settled upon for those sort of Indigenous groups to be revealing how their own rich heritage and connection to their culture is an asset in a commercial context. And here's just a couple of... We always do the obligatory programme photograph on our stairwell. This one was pretty special. This is one that we ran in partnership. Oh, gosh, I better hurry, I've got two minutes. So it was very special. At the bequest of one of our partners, the Pacific Business Trust, we developed a new programme, we call it Royata. Royata is also a Māori word for the Milky Way. And so this programme is for product-based businesses where we help build their capability, but we also inspire them by connecting them with their culture, with the national collection, and then we connect them with our retail. And this is just a picture of some of the people that have participated. So in some cases, the work that we've done in those seed programmes has been life-changing. It has been about supporting the creation of sustainable businesses, or it's about an individual that's gone on to secure high-value employment. And we measure all of those. But what I'd like to keep in mind alongside pursuing these social and cultural objectives is that we always bring it back to maintain our commercial rationale. Te Papa hopes for a commercial return on our initiatives and the investment that we've made on some of the teams. Te Papa also really values the community engagement aspect. But the commercial focus has helped us really focus our activities towards tangible outcomes and fast-failing ideas that are not commercially sustainable. So one of the key ways that we measure our success commercially is what we call deployment. So the number of commercial agreements, pilots or proof of concepts that our teams secure with customers in the first case in the cultural and heritage sector. So this is starting to ramp up for us. This is just an example. That's actually our Prime Minister in the red dress there. And if you didn't know, our Prime Minister is 37. She's just had a baby. And so in some cases we're sitting at about 25 deployments of so far from the teams that ranges from major exhibitions to software licensing and so on. So the reason I'm sharing this with you is that if Mahuki had only ever been a program to make cool technology stuff, I think ultimately we would be facing challenges to our long-term survivability because there are a lot of ways to bring cool innovation or to make cool stuff in an organisation when we could buy it. And especially something like an innovation lab can be a luxury when the core museum business feels underfunded. So this is a dilemma faced by lots of organisations not just in the cultural and heritage sector but how do you do core business, current business, but then also be innovating for the future. So it's something that we've had to really evolve our value along the way to make sure that we keep delivering that value back to Te Papa. So to kind of try to wrap it up into a couple of moments of truth I guess what has guided us along our journey is to focus on what produces value and to do this all the time to be constantly assessing that to stay agile and lean so that we're able to take up opportunities. And then also that the future in our mind is about the interplay between social, cultural and commercial. Those three things add a layer of complexity but it's enabled us to straddle different worlds and deliver broader impact and value back to New Zealand. So I just wanted to end with a little something outside the box so maybe one of the underpinning philosophies that we use in our work and it's an indigenous leadership framework called Wayfinding. When my ancestors first travelled to New Zealand they did so by drawing on a range of frameworks and reference points and they travelled very long distances their understanding of star navigation the migration patterns of birds the way in which clouds and water patterns changed as they passed landforms they relied on about right estimation it wasn't about dead reckoning about mostly heading in the right direction most of all they drew on their faith and belief that there was beautiful land to be found at the bottom of the earth in one of the most distant places. Sometimes the way it's talked about is that in a sense they were calling the island to them akin to the way that we might travel in a train where actually the world is moving but feels like we're standing still. So what is required for us to thrive in a fast paced and hugely dynamic future coming towards us drawing from lots of different places and thinking alongside traditional Western frameworks that value precision measurement and certainty all of those frameworks are important for the future but actually we think that the frameworks and that's what we're trying to build into our programs drawing from all of those is important because in our view the future is crazy and just when you think you've got it sorted it goes and changes on you and this framework certainly from an indigenous point of view also references back to storytelling some museum and cultural institutions are vessels for stories communities are connected by our stories and stories are the energy for innovation so in our work we aim to reveal each individual's special story how their unique cultural story is a major asset and how they have a valuable contribution to make in this world so let your story shine bright do good in the world and be prosperous. I was thinking how given in architecture school how has the physical environment of pioneer works shaped the way that you deliver your program or the way that you've evolved I think it's a great question I think the physicality of the space is actually crucial there is something you know I made this kind of mocking reference to ecclesiastic but there is something of the magnificence of the building when you walk in that is so moving and the flexibility of the space the fact that the entire space is transparent even the science studios there is not one room that's completely blocked out there are glass walls partial walls to every room in the space sometimes that can be a little annoying if you want to take a nap or something but there is a sense of always being able to see everybody else and I think it has consequences that are hard to assess but that's also the garden being it's a 20,000 square foot garden that's actually on an old parking lot that was just filled with rubble and dirt and now it has a willow tree that's enormous it contributes to something about the welcoming and inspirational aspect of the space and your space I'm not sure if I had a complete sense of physicality the unique thing about our space is that it's co-located with the National Museum so we are what's called back of house so it means we're hidden away the public can see us because like a lot of startup spaces we have a bright pink neon sign or other spaces have neon but not necessarily pink and so but what's really magical about it is and I talk about the magic is that we can be talking about going to do some customer research and let them loose in the museum to actually go and observe ought to be inspired by the nation's treasures so that co-location alongside being co-located with the Tupapa staff is actually really amazing one thing I have for you it's kind of a question for one of the things that just blows me away about America is just just how many of you there are and even where you go people in 4,000 people just absolutely blows my mind so what does it take for US people to coexist don't you hear the swearing on the train it's not that easy every time I meet someone who I found out lives in my neighborhood but I never met before I always wonder did I jostle them on the one train did I curse them but there's a certain way in which I think we become invisible to each other here and yet I think we spot our sub-cultural associations it's much more likely that I will know somebody from this world than I would know somebody who lives in my building and it's a strange adaptation I think to try to cope with it at that level but we're also I think completely overtapped with demands for our attention because of the energy of the city and the number of things going on and you sometimes feel like you're competing with the entirety of New York City for I don't know what bodies time I'm not sure attendance and that can be quite exhausting so we're also thinking more about smaller scale events that are just really small and intimate just 50 people you know up in the science studios for small screening just not always everything so big is it the opposite problem for you that the diffusion of space between people is a challenge I mean New Zealand's physically big in comparison obviously to the population yeah there's a lot of space and and what does that create I think there's just a lot of really beautiful nature seeing Lord of the Rings it's absolutely like that so I think it's really interesting because something like Rick talked about the space actually in the Accelerator when we're trying to get the teams together we actually want density we want them close we want them a bit of jostling because that's sort of a little bit of tension actually really works but then as human beings when we're out of there we want clear space sorry and it might be an unfair question so one of the things it's really it goes back to something before I really loved how you talked about race and you talked about people of colour what about does people of colour cover indigenous people of America I'm not as a scientist I have very unusual attitudes towards race I mean clearly race is a very strong sociological concept very real very strong implications but scientifically it does not have a lot of basis and so I think I'm like the last person to ask we can tell genetically regions of the world but there really is not a well-defined genetic or scientific notion of race and I think it's getting blurrier and blurrier and that could be a wonderful thing or a terrible thing because obviously socially we think it's very clear and sort of absurdly false that it's clear what is clear is that we have certain attitudes baked into our structures but they're based on a false idea they're based on false concepts I don't know maybe afterwards other people would be able to speak to it more I mean for you the indigenous population is clearly very important in a lot of your work I see so many of the names being motivated by that and there is when I've been in New Zealand a really tremendous respect for the origins of the country and the indigenous population so I've been always start the book festivals with some kind of honouring of the original notions of the cosmology of New Zealand and the genesis of New Zealand and it seems like that's very important in your work in particular or is that sort of a general New Zealand attitude? Yeah look it's not everyone doesn't feel that way but definitely I think that New Zealand is I was just thinking when you said that actually what that provides for us is a country of shared ritual I don't know if you guys are into rugby and you see our sports team do the haka beforehand it's a way that we sort of all bond together but coming back I love what you said about race and the scientific basis for that and even as Māori indigenous people we are not all one people and we fight amongst each other all the time so sometimes what we say is even within those groups are you an ocean person or are you a mountain person are you a river person or a forest and then that's a really great way of getting all peoples to identify coming back to what they have two minutes left I wanted to should we open for questions what do you think people want to ask questions well salute to both of you for the way you guys handle a program of monument programming my question is along the lines what drives or missives do you guys use at Pioneer Works to determine the type of civic or community engagement surrounding your program and that community can be conceptual like the scientific community the physical community of Brooklyn cultural community Tui Tui mentioned how they use or storytelling and that was their aim to push their program forward but at Pioneer Works I know you have the scientific controversies but then along the lines you also have the Port-au-Prince exhibit surrounding Haiti what kind of missives do you guys use to handle your program the truth is because it's such a young space such a young concept it's been very personality driven this is the truth Gabriel was fascinated with Haiti and spent a lot of time hand picking those artists and it was his own personal passion to do that project there's no mandate from anybody there's no very little hierarchical character Dustin Yellen Gabriel and I all share one office in the science studios that's become like our headquarters so it's not as though we have a mandate or a mission for the sciences it's been very much driven by my own personal experience so one thing that you could worry about one thing that's good about that is you have a strong curator identity and program and very clear ideas everybody on the team might not understand why you're making the calls you're making but you know there is something thematically very powerful and it does build something identifiable one of the drawbacks is you don't have enough voices thrown in and so we are growing we now have a new community organizer who's helping us expand beyond what our sort of intuitions are and I've hired more scientists to think about how to engage in the community in different ways so part of it is strong curation and then also listening to other voices so that you don't kind of fall in on yourself Tui can you elaborate a little bit more on using storytelling how you guys go about that do you work with writers of so what types of writers screenwriters or anything like that how do you actually implement storytelling with everything else you have going on yeah so the museum itself works with lots of different storytellers and we have our own team of writers one of the things about writing is that we do have two national languages so it's always bi-cultural but I think coming back to what we mean by storytelling it's that so you know what will we be doing when the robots take over our jobs and we are driving in our driverless cars we'll probably be consuming more content more stories stories for us as the future but also stories for indigenous people well my indigenous peoples it's actually the way that we are an oral culture so that's the way that we communicated and shared where we'd come from and where we're going so the idea behind really focusing in on stories is that that is something that actually you intrinsically have inside you and it's valuable and honour it and then it's not just that it's valuable it's also commercially it could lead to something one of the things I get people to do is I'm new to the museum sector and people will bring out object items and I'll look at them and in my mind I'm going is that it it looks a bit tatty what have they done to it they kind of messed it up a bit and then they start talking about it and they talk about where it came from and what it meant to those people of that time I'm like oh my god you've had that experience beyond the object itself so it's actually I think for all human beings it's the story that we wrap around things is where all the gold is


Hi. Welcome everyone to our session about framing open educational practice from a social justice perspective. I'm Mahabeli from the American University in Cairo, here in Egypt. And with me are Catherine and Rajeev. Sure. I'm Catherine Cronin from the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Ireland. And good morning. I'm Rajeev Jangiani. I work at the Quantlin Polytechnic University, British Columbia, Canada, and I'm coming to you this morning from the traditional unceded ancestral lands of the Squamish First Nation. And this workshop is based on an article that the three of us have co-authored and I'll put the link to that in the chat in case folks want to check it out later. And we're going to hoping to sort of get us all going on thinking about the same concepts that are in that article. Before you get started, how are you guys feeling today? I feel like with the pendant that I always want to check on people. Some days are better than others. Some days were more hopeful than others and some days were frazzled. How are you feeling today? Can you tell us in the chat better than yesterday? Coffee plays a big role. I'm usually not a coffee drinker. Now I drink coffee and tea like three or four times a day.  If it's your morning and you need a minute to go get some coffee or tea, you can take time to do that. Okay. Okay. All right, I'll move on from here. Just to let you know, these slides are Google slides and they're open, I think open for commenting over here. And you can keep that. And I think, I don't think we added them to the session on the OE Global site, but we can do that later in the day. Another question. What brings you to this session? What are you most interested in? Other than the fact that people love Catherine Rajiv and me, of course. I'm seeing that a lot of people are in the document, so I guess that's a good sign that people are able to open it. Social justice, how to make an OEP inclusive. College interest in promoting social justice and OER. Here's Seattle apply ideas to slightly different context. Okay. Interest social justice and to reconnect with Catherine. There's always more listening to do. Yeah. I'm just going to move on because I need to mute myself because it's noisy around me. Go ahead. Okay. I added this this beautiful quote at the start of the paper. It's at the start of the presentation rather it's from a paper called a wake up call equity inequality and covert 19 emergency and remote teaching and learning. And it's written by 15 South African scholars, Laura turn you which is the lead author. And we included this because one of the things Mahat Rajiv and I spoke about in preparing for this was that we wrote this paper pretty much immediately prior to the covert 19 crisis emerging in our lives. So, you know, we intended it as a convergence of some of our respective work in the area of OEP with an explicit social justice focus. And we were we were wanting to respond and build on some really valuable work that we had encountered which will share in the presentation. But of course, since then, since the paper was published, you know, all of our lives have just changed dramatically. And some of us more than others of course. So, you know, we just wanted to recognize the fact that as people and parents and partners and daughters and sons and friends. The lives have changed so much but also as students and teachers and agents of change in our institutions and perhaps in our communities. We, we perhaps see clearer now the multiple and coexisting forms of inequality in higher education certainly. So, you know, we're, we're sharing some thoughts that we wrote in the paper. And really, we invite all of the, all of your interpretations of that, you know, in for your own context, you know, wherever you find yourself. And we hope that really, we can just expand the work today with you all. So, thanks. Thank you Catherine and just picking up on that I think it's interesting to me when you think about the context in which this people was written of course as Catherine right he says building on and converging a lot of our work and building on the work that we've had to love and admire from from treasured colleagues, but many ways over the last nine months I think many of us across the world have witnessed the growing importance the growing urgency of questions around social justice about equitable access for example. In a sense, I think some of the conversations in here. Perhaps the context has become a little more apparent to folks for whom it was perhaps a little less apparent some time ago as as through the covert crisis I know institutions across the world have seen, you know, in many cases increases in the adoption of basic open educational resources. But of course, even with the best of intention sometimes the use of free digital resources, instead of addressing inequities can end up exacerbating those very inequities. And so perhaps this conversation, which needs to continue becomes a little more important. The paper was already written building on a few things. One is with a desire to, as it says provide a more inclusive typology of open educational practices. As many of you will know and we'll talk about soon. There are many different approaches they have been many different approaches to try and understand and articulate what we be exactly encapsulates. And this builds in part on work by maha in published in 2017 I think, which talked about three sort of typologies on the one hand, we'll look at content centric to process centric in one as one dimension, or sort of one axis. And then the teacher centric to learn a centric as another sort of access. And then, of course, those that are primarily pedagogical to those that are primarily social justice focused. Because of course people again enter this through different lens through a different doorway with a different intention, perhaps. And then the other piece of work that we're building on very explicitly is of course the important work of Cheryl Hutchinson Williams and Henry Trotter. This is a paper which Cheryl gave a keynote at we global last year in Milan about about a social justice framework for open educational resources, building on that very much as well. In which they themselves built on Nancy Fraser social justice framework, which articulates economic cultural and political dimensions along which you can evaluate open educational resources in this particular case. And it's out a lens or framework by which you can understand that a particular resource in their case and of course extending it to practice in our case could be neutral. It could be even negative in terms of the impact it has along one of those particular dimensions. But in many cases, we go in with the intention of positive benefits we hope for benefits, but we often end up in the ameliorative benefit, where it's positive, but it's not quite the same as truly being transformative for example, and we'll talk about how this shapes open educational practices as well but certainly both my housework and Cheryl and Henry's work are absolutely pivotal in and leading us to this work. So what we're planning to do in the workshop will talk a little bit about different understandings of OEP and clarify a little bit more our model. And we're going to try to apply our model using a group annotation thing which is hopefully going to be in a quick interactive activity will give you a five minute break to stretch or get a drink. And then we hope to do more interaction in breakout rooms where you take a particular open educational practice, and you analyze it with the model, and then we share back to the larger group and we're hoping that what comes out of that is something that we can do something with together afterwards. So for the first part we're all together in the same room. So I want to ask you in the chat to say how you understand OEP and then we'll share. You can either define open educational practices or open pedagogy or just write key terms that come to your mind. So we're going to talk about this just before Catherine and Raji take us through a set of existing definitions are out there. Students as creators rather than consumers of content, letting students take over various ways. Thinking of every person as a collaborator and co-creator. Every person is a nice term I think. Me to the topic, sure. Welcome. Everyone is creators. It's very interesting that that's the focus. Everyone has a similar focus in terms of like who's creating that's a really good one. Okay. Go ahead Catherine. Okay. We just have a few slides here with some of the key definitions that we used as really kind of just foundation stones for for for acknowledging and building on in terms of our own paper so one is a definition of my own which is fairly simple and that OEP is a broad descriptor of practices that includes the creation, use and reuse of OER, as well as open pedagogies and open sharing of teaching practices. And that is the kind of as opposed the subtext of this definition is that OEP in my experience and in my research is always inclusive of OER but goes beyond even the use creation and reuse of OER and includes open pedagogies and open sharing of teaching practices. So, we often say that open pedagogy is included in the umbrella of OEP. So for those of you who are practitioners of open pedagogy, it's included in this maybe broader umbrella of OEP. You know, I have had colleagues say to me sometimes that they didn't feel that OEP includes their work, you know, if they're not currently teaching but they're working say in, you know, supporting colleagues or so on or reflecting on their own practice. And we very much central to our work was this particular definition from Cheryl and Henry, as Rajiv has already mentioned, that OEP, that undergird OER are individual and collaborative and here that, you know, Cheryl and Henry are really specific about the creation, retention and distribution of OER through and they specify the practices open pedagogies, crowdsourcing, open peer review, and the use of open technologies. And again, we'll say more about this paper because this was central really to our entire thesis for this paper, but I just want to acknowledge the work that both Henry and Cheryl did here. Thank you, Catherine. And moving from a couple of those really important definitions of OEP to another term, open pedagogy, that of course it is perhaps even looser and even more understandings of this. There is one that Robin and I have been playing with and I think in some sense I'm seeing the reflections of people's, some of many of the comments in the chat in this as well. We're sort of pointing to two different things. On the one hand, the sort of the intention is what you can see is the access oriented commitment to learner driven education on the one hand, but also understanding the open pedagogy as a process of designing architectures and using tools for learning that allows students to shape the public knowledge comments of which they are a part. And of course this is this is a definition or one understanding of it that we that we've placed on the open pedagogy notebook in part because it reflects a lot of the work around renewable assignments on the one hand that are perhaps narrow and more specific, but then more broadly, sort of the, the agency that's coming through in Stacy's comment in the chat as well. But as that is one approach. Also want to point to yet another treasured colleague, Sarah Lambert from Australia, who in her very very helpful important work over here defines defines this as defines open education as the development of free digitally individuals and experiences, primarily by and for the benefit and empowerment of non privileged learners who may be underrepresented in education systems or marginalized in their global context. And so you'll see the very sort of explicit focus on on on social justice in Sarah's definition. And in part this comes from she's sort of harking back to and she reviews many many definitions of open education. But harks back to the 2002 declaration around open educational resources by UNESCO, which really talked about it being for the benefit of those who are marginalized in some ways. And so this phrase of by and for non privileged learners maintains that original intention as Sarah lays out. And really the active participation by developing countries and the marginalized, rather than what we sometimes sees the sort of neocolonial practices of the global north doing things to and for those that they consider disadvantaged. And I'm quoting directly from Sarah's paper over there which I really encourage you to read. She's doing extraordinary work. And so, one of the things that I think was important for us was to build on this typology here. And I developed this technology originally to talk about open pedagogy but it also applies to open educational practices so in our paper we're using it for open educational practices. One of the things that I think was happening early on with open pedagogy is people trying to define it in non inclusive ways. In order to not be anything about anything right, but I didn't think that it was anything about anything because there are certain themes within open educational practices that they have in common, even though they may be different across different axes. And this technology supposed to also help us look at different OEP than say oh these ones are similar and that and these ones are different and that but they all have undergirding openness in different ways. So, Rajiv kind of mentioned these briefly earlier is that OEP can be more content centric or more process centric. You know the ones that are very very focused on OER maybe more content centric, but others like open pedagogy often may have nothing to do with OER but maybe about the way we interact on the open web, for example. It can also be more teacher centric or learner centric because if a teacher is choosing the open textbooks then it's just a teacher using content that is open. But the learners themselves are not like what all of you were saying in terms of learners co-creating knowledge. There's some open practices that are not about learner agency, right. But you could do them with learner agency. I don't think one is good or bad it's just that we have to recognize that some open practices don't give learners agency. And then this one is really important to us I think because sometimes people talk about open as if it automatically means social justice is happening but it doesn't. Something can be a good pedagogical practice it may be empowering for all the learners in your classroom but if those learners are either all from the dominant group or are mixed but you don't give more power to those who are marginalized then it's a good pedagogical practice but it may not necessarily be promoting social justice. And then within the pedagogical frame something that's not in our paper but we're realizing is really important during the pandemic to recognize that the pedagogical includes cognitive behavioral and effective aspects. And a lot of people who don't know e-learning in the way most of us do who don't know about the community of inquiry model who don't recognize that social and emotional learning can happen online. The professors in our universities are focused on the cognitive learning and they're completely ignoring the effective aspects. And that's also an important part of the pedagogical right and it and when there is no social justice the need for the effective become stronger because students have more more effective needs right. And on the social justice front we're going to explain the model a little bit more Nancy Frazer's model of economic cultural and political because again social justice has all these different dimensions. And again a lot of open practices were focused on the economic only and sometimes in an ameliorative way that only fixes a problem one at a time rather than in a transformative way that fixes it on a systemic level. And again this new neutrality and negativity can happen for one group over another. And so we're also going to talk about other than the economic aspect we're going to talk about the cultural and political again Cheryl Hodgkinson Williams and Henry Charter applied this to their model for open educational practices that relate to creating OERs whereas our paper is taking it to open educational practices beyond the ones that work directly with OER. And so who wants to say the first one I want to say the last one is that okay. Rajiv you go. Sure, and I guess before diving into these you can see the dimensions within Nancy Frazer's framework. I'm again just going to quote from from her work over here because she conceives of social justice as parity of participation. Right, so it's two things as both an outcome where all the relevant social actors participate as peers in social life, but also as a process in which procedural standards are followed in fair and open processes of deliberation as she writes. So, I think where it's really helpful again is in distinguishing between responses to these injustices that are perhaps. We'll see sort of merely affirmative or millerative and those that are truly transformative so on the economic dimension, for example, reducing the cost, let's say of of education by adopting open textbooks just to talk about we are for a moment. In place of commercial textbooks is a positive right but if a millerative response, I think in this model, but transformative responses would do more to address the root causes of economic inequality, such as you know providing stable power supply, adequate access to functional computing devices, affordable stable connectivity in rural areas, government or institutional funding to create an adapt and disseminate OER. So it would be deeper in a way. So it's so it's so over here as you can see on the slide. It's really about giving access to those who could not otherwise access the learning experience. But if you leave the experience unchanged. That's not quite the same thing. That's the first and I think Catherine over to you. Yeah. Actually, if you want to give another example of cultural and then I'll just come in with something just at the end. Sure. Yeah. And, yeah, and so I think over here. The economic, maybe just the one thing I'll say is when we talk about economic injustice it's maybe useful to think about it in terms of economic maldistribution, as the injustice we're trying to tackle on the cultural dimension. It's often about cultural misrecognition is what Cheryl and Henry right about. And so on the cultural dimension, you know one could use OER and do harm. So for example, that's a sort of a North American example. And so it's easy for me to reach for is when there was a early on there was an astronomy open textbook that was published as wonderful open textbook for for the North American context. Great, we've solved that let's move on to different another gap in a way I was hold on. This guy might look a little bit different from the Southern Hemisphere. It's another way of sort of, it's a very simple way of sort of understanding that no, no, no, not quite, not quite the same thing and so you know we can look at translating we are into local languages as a step towards an ameliorative response for example, towards better cultural recognition, but again a truly transformative response I think would include remixing we are to remixing we are critically to engage with and challenge as Cheryl and Henry right hegemonic perspectives. I don't know what you wanted to say because I think Reggie covered the cultural shall I cover the political and then you can comment after that. So, so beyond recognizing the perspectives of minorities and marginalized groups the political injustice is about involving those normally without access in the redesign and going back to that aspect of parity of participation. I mentioned earlier, and this parity of participation is about not including minorities but giving them the power to shape everything from beginning to end it's not about. These are the rules this is how you're going to get the funding this are you going to spend it now decide what you're going to do with it but actually giving them the right to choose how they want to go about designing the entire process and sometimes. It means that funders need to give a lot of, for example funders need to give a lot of freedom to folks who are getting the money to decide where the priorities are, rather than what usually happens when funding comes from the north down to the south. With directives of where to go and how to do it. And the other aspect of it is how do you empower those, or how do you ensure that those making those decisions have the power, not to reproduce internalized oppression. So, for instance, for example, when you ask students to give students the agency to create their own open textbook is that students have to use material that is already openly accessible that material may not represent indigenous few points because it doesn't exist with those licenses right now. And so they will end up reproducing hegemonic whites, Western, northern perspectives because that's what's available to them that's what they've been taught is the can and that's what they've been taught it's valuable knowledge. So you need to reframe the entire conversation sometimes to achieve this political justice or reframing of this period and period of rights. Yeah, thanks, my heart. I just wanted to add that we know this is, you know, the, the way we use this framework is necessarily simple, you know, we reduce it, you know, to its simple elements whereas you know there is so much complexity in Nancy framework, obviously. But what we found even through our own work in working through the examples as we wrote the paper was was isolating each of these axes separately and considering them led to some aha moments you know just led to some productive conversations, even amongst ourselves So, you know, we just want to admit that, you know that we are using it in a very simple way and there's much more complexity in the work itself. And also perhaps that you know many people acknowledge that the final element which was the last one that Nancy Fraser added to her first two elements has been acknowledged as perhaps the defining form of injustice today and and certainly many of the conversations we've had this year have been about that particular form of injustice. Thanks. All right. Sorry about that. I don't think we meant it to be like this but anyway, this one, this slide. All right, so for the next few parts we're going to stop talking a lot. Oh hi Tanya. I'm at you and we're going to do a couple of interactive activities so the first one will be going through some of these and going through the typology and asking you to use the zoom annotation to say where you think they lie and then we're going to have a discussion about some of them. But also, after the break, we're asking you if you want to go and dig a little bit deeper into each of these and imagine how can you take this kind of open educational practice and move it towards more social justice. So the part before the break is about saying where it lies on the typology, and then after the break it would be about how can we make these practices more socially just what would be be doing. And so what we're going to ask you to do we're going to come back to this list again later is that if you're interested in talking about a particular one of these, if you could rename yourself on zoom and put the number before your name. So if I wanted to talk about mooks, I would rename myself and I would be for my habit. And then that number at the beginning is going to help me put you guys in breakout rooms together. So that people are in the same room can be talking about the same topic and will give you a Google form to fill so that we can sort of curate everything that comes out of it and come back to the room and discuss it. So, yeah, so if you could rename yourself if you don't know. Okay, I'll jump in since my husband Mike is off. We also are creating a quiet room so if you want to explore these ideas but you're not particularly interested in going through a particular task related to any one of the first nine items. There'll just be a quiet room if you just want to to hang out there. You can put 11 if you want to stay in the main room and we know some people have to leave early so people some people already said that to us. So you can just put a 12 there and then we won't be worried that you forgot your number. And maharajib do you want to say anything about 13 or 14. Oh yeah 13 or 14 is just people want to talk about something different than the list. Like if there may be a couple of people here are working on a project together and they want to go off on their own and talk about it. You can let us know and we'll create a room for you. So if you can't if you don't know how to rename yourself I could rename you. I think a host can probably rename you so I'm going to go back once I'm going to stop sharing the screen, and maybe Catherine or a chief can share screen for the next portion. And then I'll people who haven't renamed themselves that have written something in the chat, I will rename you. Again renaming yourself is through the participants list. It's a right click or sorry maharajib. It's a right click or a control click on your name if you haven't renamed yourself before so just mousing over your, your name on your image in zoom. And then kind of control click if you're on an Apple or right click if you're on a Windows machine, and then you can actually edit your actual name because if they're in the chat sometimes they get lost for us but if you actually rename yourself in zoom it's it's easier to do the breakout room allocation. I saw that just suggested a 13th topic structuring ways of learning physically so I've added it to this slide and I'm going to add it to the later slides, Catherine, in case people want to join that one. You can you can rename yourself up to a point, and then after the break, just settle on something. Alright, Catherine Rajeev one of you share the screen. And I'll rename people who are missing. Are you okay to do that I'm just having little connection difficulties here I keep getting messages. For the next part we're going to be using zoom annotation so as soon as Rajeev shares his screen hopefully. Have you guys used zoom annotation before it's once someone is sharing their screen it's as you're viewing this person's screen. You can't find the slides I think. Oh no no I've got it is just my my second monitor had about 50 different things on top I needed to find. Alright, here it comes, I think. It's really cute, actually I really like it because we're seeing something else Rajeev go. You're going to see at the top of your screen is going to say you're viewing Rajeev Janganis screen and then there's a view options. And there's a little arrow, and then under that arrow there's something called annotate. And within the annotation there's something called a stamp which you can put a star or a heart or a tick, or something like that. I think yeah we've used it quite a few times I like using it. It's a cool way to pull people visually. So yeah so when we do that we're going to really quickly see if there's a lot of disagreement in the room as to where each thing lies, or if most people agree on the same thing and then the more disagreement there is the more likely we are to have a conversation about it and discuss why we can see your zoom screen. Am I mind, I'll move you back over. Almost there. I may have to just stop and reshare. Just a sec. But I'm really proud of this group because almost everyone renamed themselves I am so proud, like really, this is maybe the first time I've had such a good. Yes, Bravo everyone. There is someone who's now number three and has no name. So that's a little bit worrying. All right, yeah, so student author textbooks. Where would they lie. I think we need to. Oh sorry we have to do this every time but anyway. So now where do you think is do you think this is more content centric or process centric of the practice. If you're on a laptop or a computer you should be able to find the annotate the way I told you if you're on on an iPad or a phone, it's going to look like a little pencil icon but then you won't find this stamp option so I'm going to I'm going to use this option so you can do it looks like like this. Hey, I'm going to erase my stamp. I want to put it here. And is it more teacher centric or more learners. It's okay we can keep going, or maybe we can just go yeah, all the way. So where'd you guys find it. Oh, you can't seem to be able to annotate. Oh wait, let me see if that's something that I have to turn on. Yeah, I don't know so probably the settings we forgot to tell the open the way global people. Yeah, my keeps disappearing to I keep creating one and I'm the host. And my keeps appearing that's very strange. So you're putting one but then it's disappearing. Oh, what about if you use, can you use the the arrow or the can you do this one. Oh, yes. That seems to work. Okay. I'm seeing sort of jumping around. Yeah, what's different people putting it so most people are in the process centric side of this one. What about the learner versus teachers. Some people are saying content. So with someone like to explain how they were okay let's not. Okay, forget about the annotation maybe one person can talk about it and others can say. What someone like to say. Hi, so maybe I can talk a little bit about. Thanks one. So, we, in Cape Town we have a digital open textbooks project at the moment. And we have been approaching this project through a social justice lens so even when we selected grantees we had criteria around the grantees considering curriculum transformation and students. Inclusion in processes around the textbook. We didn't specify how students should be included so just to focus on the student author. And it's extremely interesting how people have two examples where the pedagogy was completely changed to include students as content creators in the textbooks. And what we also found, which is interesting is that students were used for quality assurance so there was a lot of feedback from students so authors would would let students read a chapter and and get their opinions from them through surveys or through interviews. So we have an interesting aspect that that maybe to that process so so I would say it's in the content certainly in the process of, of, of bringing students in. And so it's quite complex. So if we had to talk about social justice and and having it having a kind of more transformed approach, we would be then thinking about really these kinds of approaches where students are creating the content and giving feedback and drawing in more students. And we have a couple of exemplars of this that are really really interesting. Yeah, so that's kind of what I, yeah, learn a century. And the pedagogical social justice I'm not that sure that I understand the third thing that well. Okay, so so you're talking about a pedagogy. Are you talking about pedagogy for social justice. No, I'm talking is it is it a good, is it a good pedagogy that promotes learning versus it is a good pedagogy that promotes social justice. It can be pedagogy can be empowering students, but not representing marginalized views or involving marginalized students. So this is actually one of those things and blender thank you for for what you said and I really enjoyed your session the other day. And, and one of the things here is, yeah, yeah, you can all say that 10 people are doing student author textbooks, but some of them can be more process centric than others giving students like you said more control more. There's a lot of things to do with it. And it's, it is probably one of the things that's clearly learner centric, but then again you can also make it more social justice oriented if you're giving students, either from marginalized populations or trying to make sure that the resulting textbook represents marginalized viewpoints, then you can orient it towards social justice more. And what we're trying to think about here is that whatever the term student author textbook might mean in the, in the abstract, what can we do to what would we do to make sure that it does more social justice work, rather than just sound good that it's doing giving some learners some agency. And can I just add, and I had this, we had some great debates, even amongst ourselves and we we took out every instance of the word versus in the paper because the, although we're presenting these as kind of two end points is very much a continuum and it's, it's really about a tool for reflection for one's own practice. So, you know, if there's a way that you're conceptualizing to do something like a student author textbook, this is just a way for you to think about it in a way that perhaps you may not have before you may have been focused on other aspects of it. And, and just simply by reflecting where you might fall on, on these various continuum can help you think of other ways that you might be able to do it and that's really all, all we found that the tool helps to enable. So really it's definitely not a binary. It's not an either or and you know, in cases where it's both context and process centric you might land yourself right in the center and then, you know, think about the fact is that where I want to be, you know, or could I maybe move it more one way or the other. So, you know, again, a reflective tool really. Maybe I want to make another comment about this particular one before we move on to another one, and we don't have to do all of them. We're going to do a few of them just as an example to help us think before we move to the, to the break and then the breakout. One comment as well while folks are thinking is I think part of the interesting thing working with folks across institutions as people discover this kind of approach as well is, I often find that that sometimes people come in with a particular understanding of this would be really great for skill development for my students in this way. And it often doesn't doesn't initially occur, for example that this could be designed or oriented to serves to support social justice. And sometimes it's, it's another way right it comes in because people are motivated. So it's often the starting point that people start to sort of realize additional possibilities and dimensions off. But I think it takes that intention and understanding in many cases to do this deliberately and also to do it in a way that, that, you know, I think the framework helps to helps me as I think about designing learning experiences for example that that we've done intentionally instead of hoping, assuming, oh yes, it's a, it's a, it's an added bonus as opposed to no, this is the primary, this is the primary goal over here. Right. One of the things that also Sarah Lambert talks about I think in her work is, you know, empowerment in and of itself or giving agents in itself in and of itself does not promote social justice necessarily right and that's important to think about.  So if you're a teacher educator, if you're a teacher educator, then your teachers may all be white, for example, but modeling participatory approaches to them so that they can then apply them with their learners that you've still got a purpose there it's just not directly the social justice purpose in that particular context in that setting. It's helping them become more aware of something so it may be that you can, in a particular context it's okay that that's your limit but you just need to recognize that limit and be explicit about it. Okay, Wikipedia editing is one of my favorite ones. Let's have some oral discussion around it since the. Okay, so we have some stuff here. And I'm seeing several people in the document, who would like to share out loud, or in the chat of course. You're not a quiet group. Are you thinking really deeply.  I'll say something. I, you know, both of these examples I think I'm just thinking about you know when I think about social justice I really think about action, and, and, you know, the process of creating an action is very different than the process of creating either a wicked content, whether that contents of Wikipedia page or a textbook. And I, sorry, I'm thinking, you know, you guys are generating a lot of thoughts so this is definitely not a fully coherent thought at this point but I, you know, I'm just thinking more about like how I talk a lot about entanglements right how do we get people out in the world and bring the world in. And, and I'm not, you know, so all of these pieces I need to me still feel like we're on the content side, maybe learner centric me but still teacher because it's my. It's not my students to do. And on the pedagogical side and you know, I think, for me it's about how do we, how do we leap across into into that action. Action focused kinds of things and how do we get our students there, wherever there is. I left your use of the term entanglements and this, you know, this, and you're also putting them out into the world in a pretty tricky place. There's a few comments in the chat about this like just, just a rally saying the students got blocked from Wikipedia, because I think there's if you start doing this kind of thing without having Wikipedia editor involved in helping you out that kind of thing can happen. I'm just going to read out a couple of things and then I'd love to hear from you. And then Francis is talking about marginal voices and content critiquing process can be used to silence alternative process can be subvert inherent power play. And if you've tried to edit certain things in Wikipedia or create a new by biography account. And you've had it deleted before this has happened to me. It's a very difficult thing to do. It's not a very democratic process in this in that sense. It's a question of quality but who decided what the standards of quality are kind of problematic. And Caroline is talking about representation and imbalance within the Wikipedia community of mostly white man being the editors and things like that. Yeah, just briefly I mean I think you're right in talking about who who tends to be the editors moderators in Wikipedia as a good example of where this is a type of approach a type of exercise where the platform, the context is already so skewed in so many ways in terms of, and that's why you see so many Wikipedia editathons for example that are intentionally designed to deserve social justice by looking at representation of let's say women scientists and biographies about them is one example of one that I see fairly frequently. But I think the sort of not that any platforms neutral but Wikipedia is particularly obviously not neutral perhaps. But, but also I think the guidance that comes from groups like the wiki education foundation, for example, can often point people to a starting point or an approach that that leads people to start in a particular direction. But I think the concerns that are being raised are very, very true. Michelle you want to go. Yeah, I was just going to share one of my favorite examples from Wikipedia that I think is a nice illustration of what's possible with this. Olivia Banner who is a faculty member or was I'm not quite sure where she is now. And that she, she presented at UTA on with the Wikipedia project that she did in her disability studies course. And the way that it played out was essentially the students had a very difficult time getting changes made to the Wikipedia article that they were working on and ended up kind of grouping together to make one very minor change or just one sentence is what they were able to essentially change but it was a big change. Because it changed. Thank you, Reggie. It changed or introduced the concept that disability is very much approached, especially in the United States, and from a medical model. And so it was really opening up that conversation about the social ramifications of disability and how we approach those conversations. And so the students really got excited that even though it was just one, you know, time me sentence at the end of a paragraph they were able to introduce this concept into the discussion. And it's good that they were able to do that because I know sometimes the discussions in the back end don't end up, of course, that with a happy ending like people get pushed out there was someone who's telling me recently that they are a neurologist trying to update something that's going on in the room or is there dementia or something and there are people less credible than himself, pushing out the very credible sources so this is not even this is we're not even talking about the news trying to bring like non traditional knowledge into a space. He was bringing pretty credible, generally accepted knowledge and he was still pushed out by editors of that page. Thanks for sharing the length and shot. So we want to do one more and then take a break. You're already on the next one collaborative adaptation awesome. I find this one really, it's not quite a contrast per se but it's a, it's nice to juxtapose this alongside the Wikipedia editing, because often, I mean this is very explicitly writing in the margins right so these are, it allows for more comments from the audience at the same time, but it has its own dynamic as well. You can see this wielded in fairly subversive ways I know a very popular assignment and some high schools was when students learning about political studies in the United States were furiously annotating anything that was put up on whitehouse.gov over the last four years. Very interesting public service exercise. I think folks have experiences of seeing collaborative annotation whether I don't know folks have experience with like hypothesis but there are other tools that you can use to annotate things on the web, collaboratively where other people can see it. You can do it either publicly or with with a small group private group. Is there anyone that is in ways that are just pedagogical or more socially just by Michelle is great to have you had a kind of fascinating experience with this one once. I was doing a workshop with a bunch of people from a museum or trying to put together the info architecture for complex website and they were all doing it individually first so that we could then bring the pieces together and there was one young woman who had a notebook in front of her and she kept sighing and she was sort of frustrated it was clear and finally she said you know can I stop and use the board that's in the room the chalkboard. I said of course you know she said I asked her why and she said that the space on the page was just too small that she wasn't able to work within the physical space and show the interconnections and the cross pollination of some of the ideas the complexity of the info architecture. So she went to the board. And as soon as she did that, everybody else put their pencils down and pens down and watched, and it was this fascinating moment where I sort of was realizing the primacy of the of the physical chalkboard it takes it takes the priority of anything else in the room. And as soon as she started writing on that it became a watching activity. But then we, we shifted and pivoted to incorporating everybody's ideas on that board but it was this sort of fascinating moment where the physical comes in and fundamentally changes the way that the interactional can happen. It's a fascinating example Jess and just kind of how unintentionally in that example of how, you know, the power of just the media in that case plays a role and impacts what you're doing and I'm really trying to follow along the chat and just the examples and the discussions going on are really, you know, just a demonstration of just the kinds of things that we hope that just these, you know, admittedly simplistic characterizations facilitate. And, you know, I think we've all been perhaps ourselves are seen colleagues say you know I'm going to do this thing, you know this open educational practice collaborative annotation or editing Wikipedia. I mean I know I did it myself when I first did editing Wikipedia with students, you know, many years ago. I thought because doing this thing was going to be open and wonderful and so on, but, but lifting the hood, and thinking about these various parameters of how it's going to be open, and to whom it will be open and what that means for those individuals to be open. That really helps us to practice open more critically. So I'm really, I just want to say thank you for all the examples and comments and I think it probably is a good time maha maybe to finish the conversation here if anyone has any final comments for a short break and then, you know, everyone can work in their in their own areas that they've chosen. So we've got everyone has named so that's good. I'm just going to have one last comment if someone has and then read if I'm going to steal the sharing from you. Because I have that power. And the point where if you're making it a chat maybe you want to say that one out loud. So it goes in the recording. Yeah, it's just to note that I think this is where when Robin and I have always been thinking about this is is the sort of the public element we've not always viewed as required for open educational practice and part of that is over here, you know, having to be private in particular. I mean, to use an example, sometimes, you know, mandating public participation doesn't just strip away students agency can sometimes actively place them in danger. Give you concrete examples of place, you know, if there's a student who has, you know, moved to escape an abusive relationship if there's a student who's undocumented in the United States requiring them to leave a public digital footprint is harmful. And they may go and saying oh rah rah rah let's do public scholarship in this way with students it's going to be socially just, you know, real harm. So the critical approach over here being especially important. And then of course you can come up with more technical examples of, well if students are let's say creating ancillary ancillary instructional resources that are meant for instructors teaching a course. I have examples of where students have authored question banks, for example, and their instructors would love to use those question banks. But the student work is not public because instructors wouldn't use the question bank if it was publicly accessible, yet it is collaborative it is feeding into and surrounding an open resource. So I think again you know we can get wrapped up in technicalities and there are very technical definitions available if you want that, but I don't think this is this space. So let's, let's give folks a five minute break. I'm just going to play this. It's a countdown timer so you can keep looking at it to see if you're coming back on time. See you back in five. Okay, we just crossed the break time. So we put a slide for a quick activity. Once we come back from the break, and we forgot to decide on an activity. So tell us one thing that's on your mind right now. That would be nice. I really appreciate open imperfection amongst highly respected presenter peers. We deal with my own nervousness about presenting in a couple days. That's good to know. I once messed up the breakout rooms in a session for faculty and I said to them, you know, someone said to me it was good that you modeled messing up and recovering from that. Because that's probably going to happen to us because if you do everything perfectly and then people feel like they have to live up to that. And it's a certainty that sooner or later the technology will fail. Exactly for sure. Yeah. Okay, so folks ready to go back. Yeah, it looks like a lot of people are back.  There is a few, for some reason, oh yeah, there's a few breakout, a couple of breakout rooms that have just one person in them. So what I'll do is, when we get there. I'll just let you know before I send you out that you're alone in a room so you don't get.  So before we send you to the breakout rooms don't worry we're going to tell you what you're going to do in the breakout rooms we have a structured activity for that because I think sending people to breakout rooms without particular structure if they don't know each other can get really awkward. So far we have room one has a lot of people room to has a lot of people room three has a couple room six Francis you're on your own. So it's up to you whether you want to go and maybe there's a few people haven't chosen yet who are willing to go there room eight has some people room nine has one person Marilyn on her own and then room 13 has a couple, which I'm really happy that just suggested a topic and you have a partner for that. So, just letting people know I, and I've also done this feature if you have the updated version of zoom you can move between breakout rooms yourself, giving you agency to do that. So, hopefully that's good. I'm just trying to figure out if this is the right form so let me just check if this is the right link before more imperfection. Just for you Josh. Yay, it's the right one. All right. Rajiv or Catherine you want to walk us through it. And I'll scroll. Go ahead Rajiv. I'm just. Yeah, so I think just looking at at the screen that my sharing. I mean you'll see it's directly related to the framework we've been talking about but you know hopefully once you get into the room spend a little bit of time to make sure you understand who each other are. But we would need one person from each breakout room to serve as the sort of reporter entering information into the form although you can all have the screen open on your own computers. You will have to settle on one specific OEP and of course you've already done that in some way but but sort of articulate the way in which you're envisioning that because you may be understanding that differently to start with. And then really using those axes that we talked about, and it's a little bit more of a scale than a binary over here but of course you know we'd love to have it stretch out so it was a line and you can draw something. Google Forms doesn't quite give us that that but articulating whether you think at the end of your discussion. OEP is more content centric process centric teacher centric learning centric, primarily pedagogical focused or social justice focused, and then down from there. You'll see a couple of additional questions. One is if it is pedagogical focused, whether it is addressing one or more of the cognitive behavioral affective domains in terms of the the pedagogy. It's social justice focused or more social justice focused, which of those dimensions and it could be more than one, right, you can often address more than just the economic dimension. And then pushing it further in terms of whether it is neutral negative ameliorative or transformative as well down those dimensions so hopefully you'll see this is a very direct reflection of the framework that we've been talking about, but but really digging out to see where things are at, and then of course, further seeing how you could push this in a direction that would lead it to be more socially just instead of where it's starting from. So how could you tweak it how could you deliberately oriented in a way to make it more socially just even more imperfection. I love it. This one is this one is there twice. There's a lot, there's a lot wrong with this form but I'm fixing it right now it's going to be. This is so fun this is just reminds me of like you know, sewing the costume at the last minute when you're in the wings waiting for the curtain to go up it's brilliant it's exactly what you need to do. Okay, it should be good enough. If you discover something else wrong with it just let me know. I would say that the idea of doing it in this way of a form, which might seem a bit of an arcane way to do this just means that it will, it will populate a big Google spreadsheet. And that when all the groups come back will everyone will be able to just see what ideas everyone else came up with so that's that's the intention behind that design. So, any questions before we send you out we're going to send you out for 20 minutes and if you feel like we'll try to jump between the breakout room so if you need more time will will will move you. Francis I can move you to eight. And my heart's Lena am I going to stop. I'm going to stop the recording I'm assuming for the breakout room portion. Yeah, otherwise it's just a blank screen. Okay. So folks, again, like I said you can move yourselves. If you have the latest version of zoom or you can come back to the main room I'm going to be here most of the time. And I can move you to different rooms if you need to, if you find yourself unable to move yourself. And if you haven't renamed yourself I'm here and I'll send you wherever you need to go. All right. Okay, so 20 minutes to begin with and then if we feel like people need a little bit more time will will increase the time a little bit. All right, how does one oneself.