Post on 21-Oct-2014
description
Facilitating collaboration: a review
Dr Hazel HallProfessor of Social InformaticsEdinburgh Napier University
http://hazelhall.org@hazelh
Presentation made at the doctoral defence of Monica Lassi, University of Borås, Sweden, 11th June 2014
Facilitating collaboration: a reviewAn opportunity to situate
Opponent Research background Institution
Work examined Research questions Four studies that develop the thesis The thesis’ contribution to knowledge
Then on to the questioning…
Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio (1614)
http://www.social-informatics.org/uploadi/editor/1158776249plakat%20ENG1.pdf
Socio-technical view
• Technology affects
people
• People affect
technology
http://hazelhall.org/publications/phd-the-knowledge-trap-an-intranet-implementation-in-a-corporate-environment/
Collaboration and LIS
1. How can collaboration be facilitated?
2. How can collaboration be stimulated?
What do members of the LIS community perceive to be (a)
benefits, (b) facilitators, (c) challenges of an LIS
collaboratory? What are the current attitudes amongst members of the LIS community towards practices of creating, sharing, using and
re-using data collection instruments? How can the social actors model
and the online community life-cycle model contribute to the understanding of perceptions and practices related to data collection instruments and a potential LIS collaboratory?
3 PhD research questions
Two theoretical models1. Online community life-cycle
Gives a perspective on designing social aspects of a collaboratory For example, with reference to interaction between actors, it reveals factors
that contribute to the success of an online community
2. Social actors model
Helps understanding of potential collaboratory actors with regards to: The context of the organisations where they work Their professional roles
Focus of the studyScientific collaboration as related to data collection instruments, e.g.
Interview guides Questionnaires Observation protocols
Specific activities related to the handling the data collection instruments
Creating Sharing Using Re-using
Thesis developmentFour studies
Each builds on the one that precedes it Each contributes to the next one
A prototype collaboratory Online facilities for collaboration Designed as part of the work
The research process is thus also a design process
Socio-technical viewTechnology affects peoplePeople affect technology
Paper 1: literature review (2010)“Identifying factors that may impact adoption and use of a social science collaboratory: a synthesis of previous research”
Analyses the literature of scientific collaboration and collaboratories Not LIS-specific, also includes material from:
Communication Studies Computer Mediated Communication Computer Science Computer Supported Cooperative Work Psychology Sociology Social Studies of Science
Paper 1: findingsSix factors are important to adoption and use of a collaboratory
3 individual factors related to: Impact of collaboratory engagement on career progress, e.g. citations Personal factors (other than those related to career progress) e.g. fun Cost of participation
3 group factors related to the extent to which: The collaboratory advances the discipline/science The collaboratory has an impact on the community it seeks to serve The cost of developing and maintaining the collaboratory represents “good
value”
http://www.informationr.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis710.html
Paper 2: empirical study on perceptions “Sharing data collection instruments: perceptions of facilitators and challenges for a Library and Information Science collaboratory”
Explores factors that may affect a collaboratory Design, adoption and use
Details current practices related to data collection instruments Creating, sharing, using, re-using
Based on perceptions of 16 interviewees from across the LIS community Benefits, facilitators, challenges of collaboratory for sharing data collection
instruments
Paper 2 findings (1): 2 main benefitsA collaboratory would be useful to the LIS community/discipline
Resources held would make it possible to build on previous work, e.g. Develop and improve a data collection tool Compare results across studies
Contributors would feel a rise in personal esteem when their tools are re-used
Paper 2 findings (2): 2 main challengesValue of tool re-use
Research is often unique: how useful is one person’s tool in another person’s work?
Need for rich meta data about the tool in question for users to determine the value of an existing tool
The opportunity to modify a shared data collection tool is not necessarily positive
Could this actually lower its value?
LIS context “Sharing resources is not in LIS culture” (p. 53) Practitioners lack time, confidence and personal incentive to become
active collaboratory users
Paper 3: prototype design (2013)Presents the design of a prototype collaboratory built in MediaWiki around “use cases”
Join the collaboratory Create a research profile
Handle data collection instruments Share one Find one Post a comment/question about one Create a new one
Volunteer to be a reviewer Provide a recommendation letter for a collaboratory member
http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-2/paper576.html#.U5nnsC-prOd
Paper 4: empirical study to evaluate design“Evaluation of a prototype collaboratory for sharing data collection instruments in Library and Information Science”
Investigates how a group of librarians perceives the prototype collaboratory
“Think aloud” sessions Semi-structured interviews on “think aloud” sessions
Examines the potential of a collaboratory for the sharing of data collection instruments in LIS
Paper 4: findingsLibrarians who tested the prototype
Encountered initial difficulties with the interface, but were confident that these could be overcome
Drew attention to high cost of participation Learning the mark-up language Working in English (not Swedish) Becoming familiar with research methods vocabulary
Liked the facility for sharing and commenting Suggested the value of a collaboratory for their end users
What do members of the LIS community perceive to be (a)
benefits, (b) facilitators, (c) challenges of an LIS
collaboratory?
Research question 1
Perceptions of an LIS collaboratory
Value Resources held would make it
possible to build on previous work
The research process would accelerate
Contributors would feel a rise in personal esteem when their tools are re-used
Researchers from other disciplines could learn from/contribute to LIS
New ways of working with LIS data collection tools could be disseminated in teaching
Challenges How do you meet the needs of
a diverse audience? How do you ensure the quality
of collaboratory content? How do you reward
participation? Benefit of participation needs
to be greater than cost Different users prefer different
rewards (e.g. time to engage, citations for esteem)
Perceptions of an LIS collaboratory
Value Resources held would make it
possible to build on previous work
The research process would accelerate
Contributors would feel a rise in personal esteem when their tools are re-used
Researchers from other disciplines could learn from/contribute to LIS
New ways of working with LIS data collection tools could be disseminated in teaching
Challenges How do you meet the needs of
a diverse audience? How do you ensure the quality
of collaboratory content? How do you reward
participation? Benefit of participation needs
to be greater than cost Different users prefer different
rewards (e.g. time to engage, citations for esteem)
What are the current attitudes amongst members of the LIS community towards practices of creating, sharing, using and
re-using data collection instruments?
Research question 2
Attitudes towards collaboratory practice
Embracing practice
Positive attitudes towards more sharing and re-use of data collection instruments
Tensions
Desire to support LIS versus the desire to maintain control of one’s own resources
Attitudes towards collaboratory practice
Embracing practice
Positive attitudes towards more sharing and re-use of data collection instruments
Tensions
Desire to support LIS versus the desire to maintain control of one’s own resources
How can the social actors model and the online community life-cycle model contribute to the understanding of perceptions and practices related to data collection instruments and a potential LIS collaboratory?
Research question 3
Theoretical models
Social actors
Empirical material too diverse and complex to categorise and generalise according to this model Different actor roles Varied organisational contexts
Online community life-cycle
Contribution to a design framework with a focus on social interaction in a collaboratory
Insight into the creation stage of the online community life-cycle model Goal established Target audience determined
Both models
• Illustrate difficulties when dealing with too
complex a target group for design
• This factor is stressed in the online
community life-cycle model – need for a
clearly defined target group
Contributions of this studyCollaboration in general
Review of the literature on the design, adoption and use of collaboratories Greater depth of coverage of the theme in a social science domain
Previous work is largely in the domain of science Focus on initial design of online collaborative space
Previous work primarily considers what affects/stimulates use
Collaboration and LIS New knowledge on the sharing of data collection instruments Inclusion of practitioners in the study Understanding of LIS community’s perceptions of the potential of
collaboratories Identification of needs of an LIS collaboratory
e.g. tailored provision, interface design
Facilitating collaboration: a review
Dr Hazel HallProfessor of Social InformaticsEdinburgh Napier University
http://hazelhall.org@hazelh
Presentation made at the doctoral defence of Monica Lassi, University of Borås, Sweden, 11th June 2014