Building research communities: Virtual research environments and their users

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Senior Research ScientistOCLC Research

Building Research Communities: Virtual Research Environments and

Their Users

Universidad Carlos III of Madrid 23 April 2012

Changing Patterns of Library InvestmentChanging Patterns of Library Investment

Research GoalsResearch Goals

• Evaluate JISC-funded virtual research environment (VRE) and digital repository projects

• Goal to develop products and technologies

• Develop portrait of virtual researcher

Project Managers’ PerceptionsProject Managers’ Perceptions

• Scientists more apt to already use digital repository or VRE systems

• Those in other disciplines less inclined to use

• Need evidence of benefits


• Attitudes toward adoption vary

• Age • Discipline• Years of Experience


• Critical factors• Ease of use • Embed into workflows

• Difficult to accomplish

• Reluctant to use new technologies• Time consuming to learn• Do not know they exist


• Concern about privacy

• Want to limit shared data• Different levels of access

• Need to create a safe environment for researchers


• Very little knowledge of repositories

• Need for advocacy, promotion, publicity and marketing


• Need to identify benefits • Access

• Easier dissemination

• Broader exposure – greater impact

• Greater workflow efficiency

Common Themes:Digital Repository ProjectsCommon Themes:Digital Repository Projects

• Lack understanding• Copyright issues• Publisher and publication

agreements• Dissemination

agreements

• Need for better document management

Common Themes:Digital Repository ProjectsCommon Themes:Digital Repository Projects

• Distrust open web

• Need accurate metadata

• Want safe environment

• Need better feedback from users to developers

Common Themes:VRE ProjectsCommon Themes:VRE Projects

• Language used by developers and researchers at the different academic levels is different


• Confusion about varying requirements of data security

• Social scientists

• Private or constrained data

• Health Sciences Researchers• Need secure system

• Delicate nature of data

• Scientists• No private data


Bioinformatics Researchers

• No concerns with sharing• Open professional culture


Astronomers

• Community agreement• First 6 months

• Data belong to individual or group

• After 6 months• Data are open to

others


Chemists

• Very interested in community hierarchy• Ph.D. supervisors

want access to what

• those beneath them access

• Ph.D. students are doing


• Users’ age is factor in adopting new systems and technologies

• Archeology faculty and students were provided different electronic devices


“The students had been using different devices, such as MP3 players, text messaging on mobile phones, etc. and quickly adopted the devices. The professors were older and reluctant to use these devices.”


Twittering during meetings was very popular with computer scientists


Initial difficulty engaging some scholars in VRE chat sessions, blogs, social networks


• Social scientists • Left laptops in hotel• Provided loaner laptops at

sessions • Still reluctant to open

laptops during sessions


• Use different language

• Express things in different ways

• Still able to discuss between different groups


• Different levels of need between disciplines

“Some domains could use the infrastructure more than others…

all believe the sustainability is important…

they do not agree who should be responsible for the sustainability or who should pay for it.”


Time constraints for different types of people involved in project were very different

ConclusionsConclusions

• Attitudes vary• Demographics• Age• Discipline

• No time to learn or add processes to current workflows

• Technology• Needs to be easy to use • Embedded in workflows


• Systems need to allow for varying levels of sharing• Thoughts• Ideas• Data• Reports• Formal Papers


• Not all disciplines and researchers want to share all with everyone

• Privacy and copyright - important and misunderstood


• Institutional buy-in

• Promote systems• Simplify workflows • Wide dissemination of

work

Effective VREs and Digital RepositoriesEffective VREs and Digital Repositories

• Scholars • Know about services and

systems• Aware of benefits;

therefore, • Use services and systems

• Librarians • Involved in policy

development• Lead creation and

maintenance of metadata

•Trust in the data • Repository context – perceived trustworthiness of the

source

•Relevance of the data • User context - characteristics of the user

environment (e.g. task, experience level)

•Quality of the data• Data context - significant properties of the data that

make it fit for use

•Ease of use of the data • Delivery context – perceived effort needed to access

and get support for data

What contributes to decisions for data reuse? What contributes to decisions for data reuse?

“I think that lots of like companies and people away from my generation think that we rely and we’re obsessed with gadgets and gizmos and everybody has to buy the newest iPhone and iPad and newest everything. At the end of the day, as a student, all you really know is that is what the internet is for. How you get to it – it doesn’t matter if you don’t own a computer and you have to come to the library to use it. Um…like it’s available to you and you don’t care like how you get it.”

(WorldCat.org Focus Group Interview UKU 4th year university student)

What factors influence use of systems and services?

Current Research Current Research

Need for a longitudinal study “to identify how individuals engage in both the virtual and physical worlds to get information for different situations”

(Connaway & Dickey 2010, p.56)

• Investigation of users and their uses of WorldCat.org• Study of visitors and residents

ReferencesReferences

• Connaway, L. S., & Dickey, T. J. (2010). Towards a profile of the researcher of today: What can we learn from JISC projects? Common themes identified in an analysis of JISC Virtual Research Environment and Digital Repository Projects. [Available: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/418/2/VirtualScholar_themesFromProjects_revised.pdf]

• Wakeling, S., Clough, P., Sen, B., & Connaway, L. (2011). If we build it, will they come? Recommendations and WorldCat. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1–3. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/recommender/default.htm.

• Faniel,I., Yakel, E., McGovern, N., Fear, K., Daniels, M., Kriesberg, A. (2011, August) "Does Trust Matter?" Research Forum of the Society of American Archivists (SAA). Chicago, IL.

• White, David, and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment. 2011. Funded by JISC, OCLC, and Oxford University. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/vandr/.

Gracias!Gracias!

Lynn Silipigni [email protected]

Education

Building research communities: Virtual research environments and their users