Upload
brucelee55
View
473
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
into theinto the CollaboratoryCollaboratory
objective, subjective, intersubjective realities intertwined
joanne twining, M.L.S. Doctoral Candidate, School of Library & Information Studies
Texas Woman’s University September 6, 1999
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Co - locateCo - lab - orateLab - oratory
Co - lab - oratory
collaboratory
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Dissertation
A Naturalistic Journey Into the Collaboratory:In Search of Understanding For Prospective Participants
http://www.intertwining.org/dissertation
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Motivation for the StudyMotivation for the Study
PhilosophicalHow ideas become knowledge:
objective, subjective, intersubjective
IntellectualModeling reality creation
InstrumentalWhat are the “Rules of the Road”
for the Collaboratory?
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Problem of the StudyProblem of the Study
PhilosophicalWhat is the reality of the Collaboratory?
IntellectualHow is reality constructed in the Collaboratory?
InstrumentalWhy do scholars collaborate online?
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Research AgendaResearch Agenda
Phase one:Objective, document-based reality
Phase two:Subjective, experience-based reality
Phase three:Intersubjective, via Delphi technique
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
intertwiningintertwiningmodelmodel
PHASE TWO a subjective reality
PHASE ONE an objective reality
PHASE THREE
an inter-
subjective reality
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
MethodologyMethodology
Naturalistic InquiryCriteria:
•Confirmability
•Transferabilty•Audits
Let the data speak and leave a trail for others to follow...
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
QuestionsQuestionsObjective:What does the documentary evidence say?
SubjectiveWhat does the collaboratory experience say?
Phase three:What do Collaboratory Pioneers say?
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
ApproachApproachObjective:Examination of library holdings.
SubjectiveProlonged immersion in the online
environment
Phase three:Delphi Among Collaboratory Pioneers
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
How the Data SpokeHow the Data Spoke
Phase One:
– triangulated taxono-bibliometric analysis (n=86)
– qualitative content analysis (n=22)
– CIRAL matrix of criteria for inclusion
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
How the Data SpokeHow the Data Spoke
Phase Two:
– site visits
– analysis of communication modes
– analysis of datatypes produced
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
How the Data SpokeHow the Data Spoke
Phase Three:– Delphi Among Collaboratory
Pioneers
– “Rules of the road”
– Skills valued in prospective participants
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
into theinto the CollaboratoryCollaboratory
Phase One
an objective reality of the Collaboratory based on the
documentary evidence
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
What does the collaboratory, via the published account, say it is?
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
The Documentary Evidence
Collaboratory’s first decade 1988-1998
N=89
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
DocumentaryDocumentary EvidenceEvidence
Available via library intermediation:– Databases
– Catalogs
– Holdings
– Interlibrary loan
– Extraordinary actions of Librarians
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Search CriteriaSearch Criteria
• Keyword “collaboratory”
• No wildcards or truncation
• Excludes large, relevant, surrounding literature
• Includes only highly pertinent documents
• Focus on collaboratory as information environment
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Excludes documents NOT available via the library
uncataloged Internetunpublished papers
private correspondence
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
3 Foundation Documents3 Foundation Documents
Philosophical1988 - Wulf’s NSF White Paper (unpublished)
Intellectual1989 - Lederberg & Uncapher’s Report (unpublished)
Instrumental1993 - NRC’s National Collaboratories
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Haddow, Gaby. 1997. The Nature of Journals of Librarianship: A review. Libres 7(1). March 31. http://aztec.lib.utk.edu/libre7n1/haddow.html
Triangulating DocumentTriangulating Document
Types of journal articles::Scholarly (citations)Glad tidings, testimony, and researchNews-type articles
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
1 30
83
72
14 14 16 18
0
5
10
15
Year
Publi
catio
ns
Collaboratory Publications Collaboratory Publications n=86
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Taxonomy ConstructionTaxonomy ConstructionTriangulated analysisfrequencies & percentages
n=861. Wulf discipline x focus
2. Haddow article type
3. Lederberg & Uncapher topic x approach
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Taxonomy #1
Wulf’s (1988) Wulf’s (1988) White PaperWhite PaperPhilosophical foundation
of the Collaboratory
Discipline x Focus
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Wulf TaxonomyWulf Taxonomy
Disciplines that need to contribute Computer science (CS) Computer/communication engineering (CCE) Social, behavioral, economics (SBE)
Focus of needed research Instrumentation Colleagues Data
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Taxonomy #1
Discipline x Focus
CS/CEE, SBE, LIS, OTHER
X
Instrumentation, Colleagues, Data
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Wulf TaxonomyWulf Taxonomy
Focus Instrumentation Colleague Data Totals
DisciplinesCS/CCE 30 2 2 34
SBE 14 4 0 18
LIS 5 2 1 8
OTHER 18 6 2 28totals 67 14 5 86
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
30
14
5
18
2 4 26
2 0 1 20
10
20
30
CS/CCE SBE LIS OtherDiscipline of Principal Author
Pub
licat
ions
InstrumentationColleaguesData
Wulf taxonomyWulf taxonomy Discipline x Focus n=86
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
ObservationObservation
19 disciplines contribute86 publications to the collaboratory literature
Multi- or Inter- disciplinarity?Multi- or Inter- disciplinarity?
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
““Other” DisciplinesOther” DisciplinesChemistry Astronomy
Physics Mathematics
Psychology Government
Education Botany
Biology Medicine
Journalism
Knowledge Engineering
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
InterdisciplinarityInterdisciplinarityKlein (1990, 55) defines four ways:
•by example
•by motivation
•by principles of interaction
•by terminological hierarchy
“The space betweenbetween the books”
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Multiple disciplines contribute to create an interdisciplinary information environment.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Taxonomy #2
Haddow (1997) Article Type
Glad tidings & TestimonyNews TypeResearch
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Haddow TaxonomyHaddow Taxonomy
Type of article
Number of articles
Glad tidings & testimony 14
News-type 50
Research 22
Total 86
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Haddow TaxonomyHaddow TaxonomyType of Publication by Year N=86
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Pub
licat
ions
Glad Tidings & Testimony
Research
News-type
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Wulf X HaddowWulf X HaddowDiscipline of Research, N=22
79
3 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
CS/CCE SBE LIS Other
Discipline
Pu
blic
atio
ns
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Wulf X HaddowWulf X Haddow Focus of Research, N=22
15
6 10
5
10
15
Instrumentation Colleagues Data
Focus
Pub
licat
ions
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Wulf X HaddowWulf X HaddowFrequencies & Frequencies & PercentagesPercentages
Dis
cip
lin
e
Pu
blic
ati
on
s
% o
f T
ota
l
Pu
bli
ca
tio
ns
Re
se
arc
h A
rtic
les
% o
f A
rtic
les th
at
are
Re
se
arc
h
% o
f T
ota
l
Re
se
arc
h A
rtic
les
Re
se
arc
h a
s %
of
To
tal P
ub
lica
tio
ns
CS/CCE 34 40% 7 21% 32% 8%
SBE 18 21% 9 50% 41% 10%
LIS 8 9% 3 38% 14% 3%
Other 26 30% 3 12% 14% 3%Totals 86 22
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Wulf X Haddow Wulf X Haddow
## of Publications, Disciplines Combinedof Publications, Disciplines Combined
60
2610 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CS/CCE & OTHER LIS & SBE
Number of Total Publications, n=86
Number of Research Publications, n=22
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Relative Equality of ContributionRelative Equality of Contribution
(CS/CSS & Other) “Hard Sciences” provide the greater number of articles. MOST “Hard
Science” articles are News-type and Glad Tidings.
(CS/CSS & Other) & (SBE & LIS) contribute approximately the same number
of research articles.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Wulf X HaddowWulf X Haddow%% of Publications, of Publications, Disciplines CombinedDisciplines Combined
30
7054
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
CS/CCE & Other SBE & LIS
Percent of Total Publications (n=86)Percent of Total Research Publications (n=22)
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Relative Equality of ContributionRelative Equality of Contribution
(SBE & LIS) “Soft Sciences”provide fewer articles,
but a greater percentage of those articles are research.
Hard and Soft sciences contribute relatively equal number of research
articles.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
InterdisciplinarityInterdisciplinarity
The numbers and percentages of articles reflect that the collaboratory
is an interdisciplinary environment by example, motivation, principles of
interaction.
Wulf’s assumption of interdisciplinarity.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Taxonomy #3
Lederberg & Uncapher (1989)Intellectual Foundation
of the Collaboratory Topic x Approach
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Lederberg & Uncapher TaxonomyLederberg & Uncapher Taxonomy
Topics of needed research:– Systems Architecture
– Tools & Technologies
– Users & Testbeds
Approach of research needed:
– Design
– Implementation
– Testing
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
“Theory” Type Theory” Type addedadded
– Construct or apply theories
– Generally specific
– Support praxis
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Lederberg & Uncapher TaxonomyLederberg & Uncapher Taxonomy
Approach Design Impl. Test Theory Totals
Topic System Architecture 9 8 0 9 26
Tools & Technologies 8 11 3 4 26
Uses & Testbeds 5 12 6 11 34
Totals 22 31 9 24 86
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Lederberg & Uncapher Lederberg & Uncapher Approach
249
3122
0
10
20
30
40
Design Implementation Testing Theory
Type of Publication
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Lederberg & Uncapher Lederberg & Uncapher Topic X Approach
9 8
0
98
11
3 45
12
6
11
02468
1012
Design Implementation Testing Theory
Approach
Systems ArchitectureTools & TechnologiesUsers & Testbeds
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Lederberg & Uncapher X HaddowLederberg & Uncapher X Haddow
Topic of Theory Research, n=22
57
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
SystemArchitecture
Tools &Technologies
Users &Testbeds
Topic of Theory-Type Research
Pub
licat
ions
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Lederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfLederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfTheory Research X Topic X Discipline
n=22
3
10
1
3
1 12
1 10
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CS/CCE SBE LIS Other
Discipline
Pub
lica
tio
ns
Systems Architecture
Tools & Technologies
Uses & Testbeds
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Lederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfLederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfTheory Research X Topic X Discipline
4
5
2
9
1
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
CS/CCE &Other
SBE & LISDiscipline
Pu
blica
tio
ns
Users &Testbeds
Tools &Technologies
SystemsArchitecture
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
ObservationsObservations
(SBE & LIS) provide the
greater number of theory research publications.
The topics of theory researchare inversely proportional
between disciplines.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Relative Equality of ContributionRelative Equality of Contribution
The disciplines make relatively equal contributions to the Collaboratory
literature
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Interdisciplinarity Interdisciplinarity
The Collaboratory is an interdisciplinary environment
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Toward a Toward a Grounded TheoryGrounded Theory
Qualitative content analysis of
Theory Research n=22
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Qualitative Content AnalysisQualitative Content Analysis
Theory research
n=22
Topics:Topics:Systems Architecture n=5
Tools & Technologies n=7
Users & Testbeds n=10
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Systems ArchitectureSystems Architecture
Theory Research, N=5, N=5
Common themes: Inter- and intra-systems communication,
integration, adaptability, and independence supported by individual participation within an indivisible and cohesive whole
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Tools & TechnologyTools & Technology
Theory Research, N=7 N=7
Common themes:Equalization in communication via media
richness empowered by choice, power, openness, and sharing
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Users & TestbedsUsers & Testbeds
Theory Research, N=10 N=10
Common themesFair exchange, sharing, and commonalities, with maintenance of strong individuality within the collective, are positive.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Theoretical ThemesTheoretical Themes
Principles of ParticipationPrinciples of Participation• Integration and adaptability is necessary
and good.
• Change, choice, and personal power are requisite.
• Consensus, sharing, and exchange are positive and practiced.
• Individuality and collectivity are distinctly and respectfully maintained.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Theoretical ThemesTheoretical Themes EnvironmentEnvironment
Absence of traditionally male(hierarchic or patriarchal)
social behaviors: individualism, dominance, competition, confrontation, mastery,
aggression, advantage, etc. (Crimshaw1986).
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Theoretical ThemesTheoretical Themes EnvironmentEnvironment
Collaboratory environment is antithetical to traditional (male
dominated) scientific and technological practices.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Theoretical ThemesTheoretical Themes EnvironmentEnvironment
Suggests a purposively de-gendered environment, or an ungenderedness, which in many
circles (Haraway 1985) is remarkably feminist.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
The collaboratory is an ungendered
technologically-enabledinterdisciplinary scientific
information environment built from a relatively equal
contribution by the hard and soft sciences
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
The problem for librarianshipThe problem for librarianship
The Collaboratory is an interdisciplinary information
environment
Traditional database collections, subject category classifications, and search options do not facilitate the search for “collaboratory”
twining’s first finding violates Ranganathan’s 5th Law
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
The TaxonomiesThe Taxonomies
Wulf discipline x focus
Haddow article type
L&U topic x type
Five categories, 27 subcategories
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
How would YOU YOU search for a
a research article about implementing a testbed design for a medical
collaboratory
??Wulf discipline x focus
L&U topic x typeHaddow article type
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
into theinto the CollaboratoryCollaboratory
Phase Two
a subjective reality of the Collaboratory via immersion in
the online environment
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Does the collaboratory exist?
Is the collaboratory as the library represents?
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Alta Vista SearchAlta Vista Search
February 1998
468 hits for “collaboratory”Announcement of $350mil 5-year NSF KDI
funding for “collaboratory research”
February 1999
4,982 hits for “collaboratory”
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Toward Criteria for Inclusion as a Collaboratory
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
NRC’s NRC’s Towards a National Towards a National Collaboratory Collaboratory (1993)(1993)
Instrumental foundation of the Collaboratory
Defines the criteria for inclusion
Raises individual and institutional issues and concerns
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Criteria for Inclusion
CIRAL CIRAL MatrixMatrix
CComputerized Network
Remote IInstrumentation
RResources to Support
Data AArchives
Digital LLibraries
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
"derivative collaboratories"
Do not meet the CIRAL criteria for inclusion, mostly
for lack of access to and remote control of instrumentation.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
“derivative collaboratories”
• MIS Collaboratory at UT
• CREW Collaboratory at UMich
• Baltimore-Washington Regional Collab.
• CoVis Collaboratory
• MUDS, MOOs
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Collaboratory Test Site
M2C The Materials MicroCharacterization
Collaboratory
TelePresence Microscopy Sites
DOE-Funded
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
M2CTelePresence Microscopy Sites
Argonne National Laboratoryhttp://tpm.amc.anl.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology http://scanner.cme.nist.gov
Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://tpm.amc.anl.gov/MMC/
University of Illinois Champagne-Urbana http://cmm-sun.mrl.uiuc.edu
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
M2C meets all the CIRAL criteria for inclusion
The collaboratory exists
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Site Visit
SPARCSpace Physics and Aeronomy
Research Collaboratoryhttp://si.umich.edu/sparc
(formerly UARC)
Upper Atmospheric Space ScienceSondrestrom Scatter Radar Facility
Greenland
NSF-Funded
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Site Visit
EMSLEnvironmental Molecular Science
Laboratory Collaboratory Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in
Richland, Washington. http://www.emsl.pnl.gov:2080/dpcs/collab/
Nuclear Waste CleanupMicro- Spectroscopes
DOE- Funded
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Site Visit
EECExperimental Electronic
Collaboratory at DIII-D Tokamak http://lithos.gat.com
US Atomics CorporationFission energyDOE-Funded
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Communication modes and data generated are determined by:
1. instrument2. size of experiment team
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Information resources and interfaces are not managed by
librarians or information professionals, but by
“collaboratory scientists”
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
into theinto the CollaboratoryCollaboratory
Phase Three
an intersubjective reality of the Collaboratory via
“Delphi Among Collaboratory Pioneers”
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Delphi Technique• Toward convergence, divergence, or stasis
of opinion among experts via interative rounds
• Individual responses anonymous• Communication via intermediary
“We think… by way of ‘what I meant to say was…’”
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
STEPS:• The problem is identified • An expert panel is developed • The panel is presented the problem and
asked to respond • Responses are synthesized into a series of
statements • The synthesized statements are submitted to
the panel • The panel responds • The process continues until convergence,
divergence, or stasis is identified.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Questions:
“What are the “Rules of the road” for the collaboratory?” (NRC
1993)
“What skills do you value in prospective participants?”
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Collaboratory Pioneersn=6
Criteria for Inclusion:
• associated with a functioning CIRAL collaboratory
• "big picture" position in the collaboratory
• practicing scientist who has actively participated in collaboratory experiments for one year
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Seven “Rules of the Road
1. Be direct in your communication.
2. Get involved, get others involved in working on a problem.
3. Have a real problem that the collaboratory can help solve.
4. Understand the opportunities and limitations of collaboratory work.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Seven “Rules of the Road”
5. Stay flexible within a formal framework of meetings and experiments.
6. Make frequent contributions to collaboratory data repositories.
7. Working in a collaboratory is not the same as being physically present in a laboratory.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Skills valued in prospective participants
1. Tolerance for evolving technology and practices
2.Good communication skills
3.Experience in the scientific techniques used
4.Good to expert scientific knowledge
5.General team skills
6.Computer application and Internet competence.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
FindingsFindings
Subtle but remarkable differences in preference for
balance between formal and informal communication,
and planned and fluid
experiment modes.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Tuck and Earle (1996) group size is always a determining factor in group
communication structures
Egalitarian:working group (under 6 people)
camp (6-30 people)
Hierarchical
tribe (50-100 people)
state (100+ people)
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
FindingsFindings
Collaboratory Pioneers value a balance of social, technological,
and scientific skills in prospective participants over a
superior expertise in any one of them.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
FindingsFindings
Collaboratory pioneers unanimously disagree that the
hard and soft disciplines have made a relatively equal
contribution.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
FindingsFindings
"The collaboratory is an ungendered environment"
received a different response from
each participant.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Needed ResearchNeeded Research
1. The preliminary findings of this study need to be confirmed with more experts and in different collaboratories.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Needed ResearchNeeded Research
2. Evaluation and analysis of existing collaboratory data stores with an eye toward:
–exploiting those stores to provide automated, intelligent information flow to the collaboratory interface, and consilient, expansive studies of collaboratory work practices, and
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Needed ResearchNeeded Research
• mapping and modeling the actual work practices and information needs of collaboratory participants as they relate to
trust building according to collaboratory size toward
– informing the design of collaboratory interfaces, and
– developing a Delphi-based Collaboratory Expert System.
c1999 [email protected] http://www.intertwining.org
Needed ResearchNeeded Research3. Evaluation and analysis of extra-collaboratory information practices of collaboratory scientists as they relate to the library toward
–developing a collaboratory science library, and within it, discipline-, instrument-, and experiment-specific information resources pertinent to practicing collaboratory scientists.