e-Research: A Social Informatics Perspective
-
Upload
eric-meyer -
Category
Education
-
view
1.455 -
download
1
description
Transcript of e-Research: A Social Informatics Perspective
e-Research: A Social Informatics Perspective
Eric T. MeyerOxford Internet Institute
University of Oxford
Oxford e-Social Science Project
31 Oct 2008: Talk presented to the Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA
Source: S. Wuchty et al., (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science 316, 1036 -1039.
The Growth of Teams
Oxford e-Social Science Project
GAIN: Genetic Association
Information Network
34
46
58
51
39
57
Data reqs
Virtual London
Image Source: Hudson-Smith, Digital Urban Blog at http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2007/08/ordnance-survey-and-google-statements.html
GeoVUE Node & Legal Issues
Virtual London
GeoVUE Node
Image Source: Hudson-Smith, Digital Urban Blog at http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2007/08/ordnance-survey-and-google-statements.html
Open Science / Science 2.0
MapTube
JOVE Characteristics
Length of Video Articles, JOVE (n=172)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
>30 20-30 15-20 10-15 5-10 <5
Time in Minutes
Nu
mb
er o
f A
rtic
les
Views of JOVE Articles (n=172)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Vie
ws
The Pynchon Wiki: Charting Pynchon Online Activity
Community Acitivity
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jan-
06
Feb-
06
Mar
-06
Apr-0
6
May
-06
J un-
06
J ul-0
6
Aug-0
6
Sep-0
6
Oct-0
6
Nov-0
6
Dec-0
6
J an-
07
Feb-
07
Mar
-07
Apr-0
7
May
-07
J un-
07
Pynchon- l mailinglist messages Against the day Wiki edits
Anticipation
Annotation
And what’s next?
Source: Schroeder, R., & Besten, M. D. (2008). Literary Sleuths Online: e-Research collaboration on the Pynchon Wiki. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 167 - 187.
Weisenburger vs. the Wiki on Pynchon
Annotation Size
(no. of words)
Entries (topical
+ alphabetical+ page-by-page) Contributors
Book Form Annotation: Weisenburger’s
Gravity’s Rainbow162000 904 1 (22)
Wiki: Against the Day
455057 120 + 1358 + 4067
235
Comparison of book and wiki annotation efforts
Source: Schroeder, R., & Besten, M. D. (2008). Literary Sleuths Online: e-Research collaboration on the Pynchon Wiki. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 167 - 187.
Top-Down e-Infrastructure Meets Bottom-Up Research Innovation
Fitting e-Social Science Visions to the Realities
Eric Meyer & William DuttonOxford e-Social Science Node
of UK National Centre for eSocial Science
Source: Meyer, Eric T. and Dutton, William H., “Top-Down e-Infrastructure Meets Bottom-Up Research Innovation: Fitting e-Social Science Visions to the Realities " (Sept 1, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1262211. Submitted to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.
Sample
Source N Sent N RespondedResponse
Rate% of
sample
NCeSS List 615 141 22.9% 26.8%OII List 1761 180 10.2% 34.2%Open mailings n/a 205 n/a 39.0%Total 526 100.0%
Sample Characteristics
Bias of the Sample
Bias of the Sample
Year of Degree (%)
9.3 10.312.7
24.9
42.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Before 1970 Between 1971 and1980
Between 1981 and1990
Between 1991 and2000
After 2001
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Bias of the Sample
Country (%)
46.8
14.1
17.7
4.61.9
15.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
United Kingdom North America Europe Australia andNew Zealand
East Asia Global South
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Bias of the Sample
How would you describe your interest in e-Social Science initiatives? (%)
29.726.8
30.4
6.8 6.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Very interested Interested Somewhat interested Not interested at all Don't Know / Don'tAnswer
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Type of Research
Type of Research (%)
14.8%
42.4%
29.8%
12.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Quantitative Some mix of both Qualitative Other/None
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Certainty Trough or Experience Technology
Attitudes (and uncertainty) towards e-Research
52%
37%
41%
28%32%
21%
43%
17%21%
45% 43%
59% 60%
70%
19%
77%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
e-Researchis adequately
funded
e-Researchenhances
my personalproductivity
e-Researchenhancesmy team'sproductivity
Many newscientificquestionswill require
the use of e-Research
tools
e-Researchtools arealreadyuseful
e-Researchtools raisenew ethical
issues
Most e-Researchtools are
easy to use
More trainingis needed ine-Research
% o
f re
sp
on
de
nts
Don't know
Strongly agree
Source: Dutton & Meyer 2008
Evidence for Uncertainty Trough
Opponents Disengaged Spectators Promoters
7.6 9.9 43.2 33.3
Certain 40.5 8.7 19.7 68.1 37.9
Marginal 27.0 30.4 33.7 23.5 29.1
Uncertain 32.4 60.9 46.6 8.4 33.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Uncertainty by Perspective (**)
Perspective
Total
Uncertainty
Total
Proportion of sample
Source: Dutton, W.H. & Meyer, E.T. (2008). “e-Social Science as an Experience Technology: Distance from, and Attitudes Toward, E-Research“. Presentation for the 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester, 19 June 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1150422
Certainty Trough or Experience Technology
Evidence for an Experience Technology
Disengaged Opponents Spectators Promoters
Low 71.7 62.2 43.8 6.5 34.4
Moderate 23.9 27.0 38.9 28.0 32.5
High 4.3 10.8 17.3 65.5 33.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Support
Total
Support by Perspective (**)
Perspective
Total
Source: Dutton, W.H. & Meyer, E.T. (2008). “e-Social Science as an Experience Technology: Distance from, and Attitudes Toward, E-Research“. Presentation for the 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester, 19 June 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1150422
Mean 3.9s.d. 2.3Mode 4Range 0-12
Number of methods indicated
Research methods used, and interest in e-Research (n=526)
57% 56%55%
33%
25%
21%19% 18%
16%14%
3%
12%
59%58%
62%
59%
64%62% 62%
60% 60%
56%
73%
53%
62%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Qualita
tive
Inte
rview
s
Desk r
esea
rch
Case
study
Surve
ys
Partic
ipant
Obs
erva
tion
Ethno
grap
hy
Histor
ical
Simula
tion
Exper
imen
ts
Form
al m
odell
ing
Web
met
rics
Clinica
l
Other
Research Methods
Pe
rcen
tag
e o
f re
sear
ch
ers
rep
ort
ing
usi
ng
res
ear
ch m
eth
od
Research methods used
Strong Interest in e-Research
Mean overall research software tools used, based on use of tools in a given category of research software (n=526)
8.67
8.21 8.187.93 7.93 7.84
7.67
6.32
5.53
5.09
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Webmetrics Geographic Visualizing Simulation ContentAnalysis
Integrating VideoAnalysis
Database Quantitative Qualitative
Software tool category
Mea
n
Researcher Clusters
Lone e-Researcher Team Player Qual Quant
User of research methods 0.47 0.34 0.74 0.18Both a user and developer 0.45 0.66 0.22 0.55Methodologist, developing methods 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.27
Quantitative 0.19 0.07 0.09 0.57Mix of quant and qual 0.66 0.86 0.18 0.04Qualitative 0.15 0.07 0.72 0.39
Never or rarely code apps 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.05Often or always code apps 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.95
Sole investigator on all or most projects 0.45 0.06 0.53 0.00Sole investigator on half of projects 0.42 0.07 0.23 0.00One of a team on most or all projects 0.13 0.87 0.23 1.00
Cluster
Clusters (%)
23.0
26.229.1
12.09.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Lone e-Researcher Team Player Quals Quants Don't Know / Don'tAnswer
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Types of Researchers
Clusters of types of researchers by research software tool use (n=526)
3.1
4.4
1.9
3.7
4.4
0.78
0.84
0.60
0.70
0.66
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Lone e-Researchers(25.4%)
Team Players(29.0%)
Quals(32.3%)
Quants(13.3%)
Overall Sample
Clusters of Types of Researchers
Mea
n n
um
ber
of
too
ls u
sed
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Lik
elih
oo
d o
f u
sin
g a
ny
soft
war
e to
ols
fo
r re
sear
ch
Number of tools Any tools
***
**
**
*
***
**
Types of Researchers
Perspective (%)
33.3
43.2
7.69.9
6.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Promoters Observers Opponents Disengaged Don't Know / Don'tAnswer
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Clusters of researcher perspectives by research software tool use (n=526)
3.1
1.8
2.82.7
4.4
0.77
0.66 0.65
0.60
0.66
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Promoters(35.1%)
Observers(46.1%)
Opponents(8.1%)
Disengaged(10.6%)
Overall Sample
Clusters of Types of Researchers
Mea
n n
um
be
r o
f to
ols
us
ed
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Lik
elih
oo
d o
f u
sin
g a
ny
so
ftw
are
to
ols
fo
r re
se
arc
h
Number of tools Any tools
***
***
***
Use of Data Sets
Gauging the Impact of e-Research in the Social Sciences
Eric T. MeyerRalph Schroeder
Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of Oxford
Meyer, E.T., Schroeder, R. (Submitted). Gauging the Impact of e-Research in the Social Sciences. Submitted to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.
Publications in e-Research, 1996-2008, Social Sciences Compared to All Disciplines
104
56
28
134
64
154
5 / 36 / 13 / 11 / 128
300
89
289
847878
781
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008(1st 7
months) Year
So
cial
Sci
ence
Pu
bli
cati
on
s (n
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
All
Dis
cip
lin
es P
ub
lica
tio
ns
(n)
Social Sciences All Disciplines
Publications in e-Research
Publication Patterns by Discipline
Social Sciences (n=175)
Computer Science (n=749)
Fields, Citations and Authors
Table 1. Fields, Citations, and Authors in Scopus e-Research papers, 1996-2008 (n=2920)
Field
N Fields per
paper (mean)
Cited by (mean)
Authors (mean)
Wuchty et al. (mean,
1996-2000) Natural Sciences 102 1.39 2.23 5.58 ** ---
Med-Bio-Health 572 2.60 *** 2.46 4.34 4.39
Computer Science 1676 1.84 *** 1.65 4.11 2.39 ***
All Fields Combined 2920 1.52 1.71 4.05 ---
Math-Physics 703 2.59 *** 1.41 4.00 ---
Engineering 1039 1.38 *** 1.70 3.81 * 2.94 ***
Business-Economics 91 1.84 ** 1.64 3.13 *** 1.71 ***
Social Science 243 1.52 1.64 2.47 *** ---
Arts-Humanities 7 2.14 3.71 1.29 *** ---
Field intersection
Intersection of fields co-associated in Scopus e-Research sample (n=2920)Total CompSci Eng MathPhys Med SocSci NatSci ArtHum
All Fields 2920 1676 1039 703 572 334 102 7Computer Science 57.4% 44.7% 23.2% 83.5% 79.5% 33.2% 11.8% 28.6%Engineering 35.6% 14.4% 68.3% 13.2% 3.3% 8.1% 14.7% 0.0%Math-Physics 24.1% 35.0% 9.0% 5.7% 73.8% 2.4% 6.9% 0.0%Med-Bio-Health 19.6% 27.1% 1.8% 60.0% 15.9% 4.8% 2.9% 14.3%Social Science 11.4% 4.6% 1.3% 0.6% 1.6% 62.0% 2.0% 71.4%Natural Sciences 3.5% 0.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.5% 0.9% 62.7% 0.0%Arts-Humanities 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 0.0% 14.3%Note: Percentages indicate the proportion of articles in each column also identified with the discipline in the left column.The diagonal represents single discipline papers.
Publications and Interdisciplinarity
Figure 3. Map showing number of articles by field, and article interdisciplinaritySource: Data retrieved from Scopus using sample search terms; image created with Microsoft Excel .NetMap plugin
Title word clouds by discipline
Transatlantic Digitisation
World Wide Web of Humanities project
WWWoH Test Collections
Source: Meyer, Madsen, Schroeder (2008).
Usage and Impact Study of JISC-funded Phase 1 Digitisation Projects &
Toolkit for the Impact of Digitised Scholarly Resources
Eric T. Meyer, Kathryn Eccles, Christine Madsen, Ralph Schroeder, William H. Dutton, Mike Thelwall
Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of Oxford
Project 1 – Online Historical Population Reports (OHPR/Histpop)
Project 1 – Online Historical Population Reports (OHPR/Histpop)
Project 2 – British Library 19th Century Newspapers
Project 2 – British Library 19th Century Newspapers
Project 3 – British Library Sound Archive
Project 3 – British Library Sound Archive
Project 4 – British Official Publications Collaborative Reader Information Service (BOPCRIS): 18th Century Official Parliamentary Publications Portal 1688-1834
Project 4 – British Official Publications Collaborative Reader Information Service (BOPCRIS): 18th Century Official Parliamentary Publications Portal 1688-1834
Project 5 – Medical journals: the backfiles project
Project 5 – Medical journals: the backfiles project
Project 5 – Medical journals: the backfiles project
TIDSR Toolkit
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Webometrics
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Analytics
Analytics
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Log File Analysis
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Log File Analysis
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Log File Analysis
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Bibliometrics
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
Content Analysis
TIDSR Toolkit
Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage
Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,
subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires
WWWoH and TIDSR Release
Project ending event scheduled for 19 March 2009 in OxfordDetails will be provided on:
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/project.cfm?id=51
Project URLs:1. HistPop: http://www.histpop.org2. Newspapers: http://www.bl.uk/collections/britishnewspapers1800to1900.html3. British Library Sound archive: http://sounds.bl.uk/4. BOPCRIS: http://www.bopcris.ac.uk5. Medical backfiles: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD037630.html
Oxford e-Social Science Project
Oxford e-Social Science Project
Oxford e-Social Science Project
Online visibility and Gatekeeping
Source: Meyer, E.T., Schroeder, R. (Submitted). The World Wide Web of Research and Access to Knowledge. Submitted to Social Science Computer Review.
OII Teaching
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/teaching/
• Summer Doctoral Programme• MSc in the Social Science of the Internet• DPhil in Information, Communication and the Social Sciences
Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of Oxford
Eric T. [email protected]
http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/meyer
Slides available at:http://www.slideshare.net/etmeyer
Oxford e-Social Science Project