Changing with the times

Listening to the discussions on the third day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on 26 January 2018, I was struck by the dialogue about the need for agile governance in this changing world as ‘the business world reinvents its landscape’, as demographics alter, as inequality increases, as climate change intensifies environmental risk and as technology continues to advance beyond what anyone could imagine even five years ago (2018, www.weforum.org). How can we manage the tension between efficiency for change (quick turn-around of ideas into action) and policy and regulation which should provide the stability on which we base global, national and local decisions? It might be thought that inclusive governance (involving the regulators/policy-makers with the innovators together) takes time. For those who have tried it, as noted in this forum, change could be implemented quickly and it was found the regulations were not as restrictive as had been previously interpreted, and not a great deal had to be changed to incorporate innovation and change factors into policy and regulations.

Are we adhering to our traditional ways of practice or changing with the times? What changes should we be considering in this rapidly evolving global landscape? How can we draw in the policy-makers and regulators, or are we already? Occupational therapists have been involved with the concept of inclusiveness over many years. But rather than just thinking about being inclusive in terms of our client groups and community, what about including the facilitating regulators and innovators in the health care arena to co-create together? Bringing the policy-makers and the entrepreneurs together can promote policy that advances together with technology and social change. To a certain degree, we have seen this has been taking place in the World Health Organization (WHO) and in the United Nations. Note the projects mentioned by WFOT President Marilyn Pattison (2018) in her guest editorial and the emphasis on integrating primary health care into WHO policy in the commentary by Sue Dahl Popolizio et al. (2018). As they note, change and development is happening in health and wellness globally and nationally and the role of occupational therapy in rehabilitation and in primary care can be further expanded.

This brings us to another, though related topic in our expanding global activities. Data can be very powerful and as I learned from a recent Taylor and Francis editors’ seminar, data should be more accessible, making it available and reusable for third parties. It should be shared more readily. There are now more opportunities for open scholarship to support research and innovation, providing it in a more easily reachable manner. How can occupational therapists take advantage of these opportunities? HowcanIshareit.com (http://www.howcanishareit.com/), for instance, answers some of these questions. This of course happens in conjunction with our traditional methods of publishing, as with the WFOT Bulletin.

The ways in which data are shared are changing as technology allows for more electronic media-based and graphic depictions. This worries the academics who are looking for more rigour in the research methods and data being shared. There is talk of how open metrics and data citations need a new approach. This all involves a willingness to share data at stakeholder levels including funders, subject communities, and institutions. But there is also a need for policy about data sharing, data mining, and more rigorous archiving. We are seeing the changing face of publishing, as for instance, our publisher Taylor and Francis (TandF) promotes. There must be an understanding of what is open access and what is limited or licenced access. And there must be awareness that as we open those doors, the costs fall on the author or the funder.

The WFOT Bulletin gives authors the option to publish open access via TandF’s Open Select publishing programme, making it free to access online immediately on publication. Many funders mandate publishing your research open access; you can check open access funder policies and mandates by going to the Instructions for authors at www.tandfonline.com/YOTB. An additional way of sharing is through platforms like scholarly collaboration networks, platforms that allow researchers to develop and maintain professional relationships, as well as to share information and ideas, participate in discussions and embark on collaborations. You can find out more on How can we share it (http://www.howcanishareit.com/). This approach does not preclude publication but might allow for increased collaboration and sharing in other ways.

You will also see that you are asked as an author about your sources of funding for research. Why is it important to state your funding source? Though there may be many responses to this question, conflict of interest is an important one. Since organisational bias (and pressures exerted on their researchers) may not be immediately evident, this information is important so that we can make the best judgment of the results in light of current knowledge, e.g. a study of the efficacy of an alcohol-based hand rub will be read in a different light if its funded by the National Institute for Health or Center for Disease Control (CDC), a soap manufacturer, or the maker of the hand rub. As more research becomes open access, perhaps it is even more important to know who the funders are.

As the technology and events of the world impact our profession, we must be aware of what is available to us in terms of policy development, publishing and sharing our knowledge. I am happy to be involved in traditional ways of sharing as well.

See you at the WFOT Congress in Capetown from 21–25 May 2018. Check out the website www.WFOTcongress.org to discover some of the excellent and exciting presentations and activities.