Automating Google Workspace (GWS) & more with Apps Script
Social barriers at http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/attribution_workshop/
1. Social Considerations
Liz Allen
Monica Bradford
Alexa McCray
Alyssa Goodman
Elizabeth Knoll
Cameron Neylon
Judith Singer
Hideaka Takeda
Anita de Waard
Simeon Warner
2. Questions to the group:
1. In a perfect world, how would you like to be
evaluated for your work?
2. Can you list a small number (2-5) barriers in the
real world that prevent yourself and others from
evaluating your work in the ideal way?
3. A general action that could be taken to overcome
a barrier you have identified.
4. A specific action, that you could take within the
scope of your own work, to help overcome the
barriers you have identified.
3. 1. How we would like to be evaluated:
1. People in our group want the diversity of their
contributions (domain, media, types of output) recognized.
2. They want to provide input on which aspects of their work
are representative of their contribution.
3. They want to be evaluated on their influence and wider
impact.
4. They want evaluations to be appropriate and fit for
purpose.
5. They want to be able to trace the chain of their influence
6. They would like to see teamwork and leadership evaluated
and rewarded.
4. 2. Challenges
• Discrepancy between aspects that are
important and things that can be measured
• We need to start by agreeing on what it is
that we value in people.
• A first pass:
5. Some valued characteristics
• Creativity
(of people):
• Networking skills
• Influence on peers in same field
• Influence on peers in other fields
• Translational influence on policy, practice, public
• Persuasiveness
• Good taste in choosing research questions! Exciting, novel?
• Knowledge of the subject area
• Craftsmanship
• Leadership
• Generative-ness
• Original vs. curation
• Perseverance
• Productivity
6. Some issues with using these:
• Not all aspects can be quantified, or even
identified (even by the person themselves)
• Lack of clarity around reasons for assessment
and appropriate metrics: need a different set
of values for different roles/institutions/career
stages etc.
• Predictivity of these is difficult: some are
purely retrospective (verbal GREs/height!)
7. 3. Actions
• Flesh out this table and see which aspects can
be tracked/measured
• Give everyone their ORCID id and tell them to
start using it! Start to track all your activities,
thoughts, blogs etc. using this ID; collect it
• Publishers allow a space in the author’s details
for this – add microattribution?
• Use ID in workflow systems/codeshare systems
• To improve buy-in with e.g. provosts: make a
few exemplars (real) to show that these values
are an improvement – who did we miss? How
could we have found them?
8. 4. Open questions
• Is the way people are assessed (small groups
of senior, entitled ‘judges’ sitting in a room)
still a valid method of evaluation?
• Data point: UK involved ‘random public’ – very
positive responses
• Is it valid to evaluate people, rather than
‘work’, ‘group’, etc? Is this person-focused
evaluation the best way to support science?