Powerpoint Presentation

transcript

c1999 twining@intertwining.org 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

Co - locateCo - lab - orateLab - oratory

Co - lab - oratory

collaboratory

Dissertation

A Naturalistic Journey Into the Collaboratory:In Search of Understanding For Prospective Participants

http://www.intertwining.org/dissertation

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?

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?

Research AgendaResearch Agenda

Phase one:Objective, document-based reality

Phase two:Subjective, experience-based reality

Phase three:Intersubjective, via Delphi technique

intertwiningintertwiningmodelmodel

PHASE TWO a subjective reality

PHASE ONE an objective reality

PHASE THREE

an inter-

subjective reality

MethodologyMethodology

Naturalistic InquiryCriteria:

•Confirmability

•Transferabilty•Audits

Let the data speak and leave a trail for others to follow...

QuestionsQuestionsObjective:What does the documentary evidence say?

SubjectiveWhat does the collaboratory experience say?

Phase three:What do Collaboratory Pioneers say?

ApproachApproachObjective:Examination of library holdings.

SubjectiveProlonged immersion in the online

environment

Phase three:Delphi Among Collaboratory Pioneers

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

Phase Two:

– site visits

– analysis of communication modes

– analysis of datatypes produced

Phase Three:– Delphi Among Collaboratory

Pioneers

– “Rules of the road”

– Skills valued in prospective participants

Phase One

an objective reality of the Collaboratory based on the

documentary evidence

What does the collaboratory, via the published account, say it is?

The Documentary Evidence

Collaboratory’s first decade 1988-1998

DocumentaryDocumentary EvidenceEvidence

Available via library intermediation:– Databases

– Catalogs

– Holdings

– Interlibrary loan

– Extraordinary actions of Librarians

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

Excludes documents NOT available via the library

uncataloged Internetunpublished papers

private correspondence

3 Foundation Documents3 Foundation Documents

Philosophical1988 - Wulf’s NSF White Paper (unpublished)

Intellectual1989 - Lederberg & Uncapher’s Report (unpublished)

Instrumental1993 - NRC’s National Collaboratories

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

14 14 16 18

Collaboratory Publications Collaboratory Publications n=86

Taxonomy ConstructionTaxonomy ConstructionTriangulated analysisfrequencies & percentages

n=861. Wulf discipline x focus

2. Haddow article type

3. Lederberg & Uncapher topic x approach

Taxonomy #1

Wulf’s (1988) Wulf’s (1988) White PaperWhite PaperPhilosophical foundation

of the Collaboratory

Discipline x Focus

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

Taxonomy #1

Discipline x Focus

CS/CEE, SBE, LIS, OTHER

Instrumentation, Colleagues, Data

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

2 4 26

2 0 1 20

CS/CCE SBE LIS OtherDiscipline of Principal Author

InstrumentationColleaguesData

Wulf taxonomyWulf taxonomy Discipline x Focus n=86

ObservationObservation

19 disciplines contribute86 publications to the collaboratory literature

Multi- or Inter- disciplinarity?Multi- or Inter- disciplinarity?

““Other” DisciplinesOther” DisciplinesChemistry Astronomy

Physics Mathematics

Psychology Government

Education Botany

Biology Medicine

Journalism

Knowledge Engineering

InterdisciplinarityInterdisciplinarityKlein (1990, 55) defines four ways:

•by example

•by motivation

•by principles of interaction

•by terminological hierarchy

“The space betweenbetween the books”

Multiple disciplines contribute to create an interdisciplinary information environment.

Taxonomy #2

Haddow (1997) Article Type

Glad tidings & TestimonyNews TypeResearch

Haddow TaxonomyHaddow Taxonomy

Type of article

Number of articles

Glad tidings & testimony 14

News-type 50

Research 22

Total 86

Haddow TaxonomyHaddow TaxonomyType of Publication by Year N=86

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Glad Tidings & Testimony

Research

News-type

Wulf X HaddowWulf X HaddowDiscipline of Research, N=22

CS/CCE SBE LIS Other

Discipline

Wulf X HaddowWulf X Haddow Focus of Research, N=22

Instrumentation Colleagues Data

Wulf X HaddowWulf X HaddowFrequencies & Frequencies & PercentagesPercentages

les th

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

Wulf X Haddow Wulf X Haddow

## of Publications, Disciplines Combinedof Publications, Disciplines Combined

2610 12

CS/CCE & OTHER LIS & SBE

Number of Total Publications, n=86

Number of Research Publications, n=22

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.

Wulf X HaddowWulf X Haddow%% of Publications, of Publications, Disciplines CombinedDisciplines Combined

CS/CCE & Other SBE & LIS

Percent of Total Publications (n=86)Percent of Total Research Publications (n=22)

(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.

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.

Taxonomy #3

Lederberg & Uncapher (1989)Intellectual Foundation

of the Collaboratory Topic x Approach

Lederberg & Uncapher TaxonomyLederberg & Uncapher Taxonomy

Topics of needed research:– Systems Architecture

– Tools & Technologies

– Users & Testbeds

Approach of research needed:

– Design

– Implementation

– Testing

“Theory” Type Theory” Type addedadded

– Construct or apply theories

– Generally specific

– Support praxis

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

Lederberg & Uncapher Lederberg & Uncapher Approach

Design Implementation Testing Theory

Type of Publication

Lederberg & Uncapher Lederberg & Uncapher Topic X Approach

Design Implementation Testing Theory

Approach

Systems ArchitectureTools & TechnologiesUsers & Testbeds

Lederberg & Uncapher X HaddowLederberg & Uncapher X Haddow

Topic of Theory Research, n=22

SystemArchitecture

Tools &Technologies

Users &Testbeds

Topic of Theory-Type Research

Lederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfLederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfTheory Research X Topic X Discipline

CS/CCE SBE LIS Other

Discipline

Systems Architecture

Tools & Technologies

Uses & Testbeds

Lederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfLederberg & Uncapher X Haddow X WulfTheory Research X Topic X Discipline

CS/CCE &Other

SBE & LISDiscipline

Users &Testbeds

Tools &Technologies

SystemsArchitecture

ObservationsObservations

(SBE & LIS) provide the

greater number of theory research publications.

The topics of theory researchare inversely proportional

between disciplines.

The disciplines make relatively equal contributions to the Collaboratory

literature

Interdisciplinarity Interdisciplinarity

The Collaboratory is an interdisciplinary environment

Toward a Toward a Grounded TheoryGrounded Theory

Qualitative content analysis of

Theory Research n=22

Qualitative Content AnalysisQualitative Content Analysis

Theory research

Topics:Topics:Systems Architecture n=5

Tools & Technologies n=7

Users & Testbeds n=10

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

Tools & TechnologyTools & Technology

Theory Research, N=7 N=7

Common themes:Equalization in communication via media

richness empowered by choice, power, openness, and sharing

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.

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.

Theoretical ThemesTheoretical Themes EnvironmentEnvironment

Absence of traditionally male(hierarchic or patriarchal)

social behaviors: individualism, dominance, competition, confrontation, mastery,

aggression, advantage, etc. (Crimshaw1986).

Collaboratory environment is antithetical to traditional (male

dominated) scientific and technological practices.

Suggests a purposively de-gendered environment, or an ungenderedness, which in many

circles (Haraway 1985) is remarkably feminist.

The collaboratory is an ungendered

technologically-enabledinterdisciplinary scientific

information environment built from a relatively equal

contribution by the hard and soft sciences

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

The TaxonomiesThe Taxonomies

Wulf discipline x focus

Haddow article type

L&U topic x type

Five categories, 27 subcategories

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

Phase Two

a subjective reality of the Collaboratory via immersion in

the online environment

Does the collaboratory exist?

Is the collaboratory as the library represents?

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”

Toward Criteria for Inclusion as a Collaboratory

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

Criteria for Inclusion

CIRAL CIRAL MatrixMatrix

CComputerized Network

Remote IInstrumentation

RResources to Support

Data AArchives

Digital LLibraries

"derivative collaboratories"

Do not meet the CIRAL criteria for inclusion, mostly

for lack of access to and remote control of instrumentation.

“derivative collaboratories”

• MIS Collaboratory at UT

• CREW Collaboratory at UMich

• Baltimore-Washington Regional Collab.

• CoVis Collaboratory

• MUDS, MOOs

Collaboratory Test Site

M2C The Materials MicroCharacterization

Collaboratory

TelePresence Microscopy Sites

DOE-Funded

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

M2C meets all the CIRAL criteria for inclusion

The collaboratory exists

Site Visit

SPARCSpace Physics and Aeronomy

Research Collaboratoryhttp://si.umich.edu/sparc

(formerly UARC)

Upper Atmospheric Space ScienceSondrestrom Scatter Radar Facility

Greenland

NSF-Funded

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

Site Visit

EECExperimental Electronic

Collaboratory at DIII-D Tokamak http://lithos.gat.com

US Atomics CorporationFission energyDOE-Funded

Communication modes and data generated are determined by:

1. instrument2. size of experiment team

Information resources and interfaces are not managed by

librarians or information professionals, but by

“collaboratory scientists”

Phase Three

an intersubjective reality of the Collaboratory via

“Delphi Among Collaboratory Pioneers”

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…’”

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.

Questions:

“What are the “Rules of the road” for the collaboratory?” (NRC

“What skills do you value in prospective participants?”

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

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.

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.

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.

FindingsFindings

Subtle but remarkable differences in preference for

balance between formal and informal communication,

and planned and fluid

experiment modes.

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)

FindingsFindings

Collaboratory Pioneers value a balance of social, technological,

and scientific skills in prospective participants over a

superior expertise in any one of them.

FindingsFindings

Collaboratory pioneers unanimously disagree that the

hard and soft disciplines have made a relatively equal

contribution.

FindingsFindings

"The collaboratory is an ungendered environment"

received a different response from

each participant.

Needed ResearchNeeded Research

1. The preliminary findings of this study need to be confirmed with more experts and in different collaboratories.

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

• 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.

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.