CNI Spring Task Force Meeting | April 7, 2009

1. EthicShare: A Model for Virtual Research Communities Frazier Benya, Center for Bioethics, U of MN John Riedl, Computer Science, U of MN John T. Butler, University of Minnesota Libraries Kate McCready, University of Minnesota Libraries CNI Spring Task Force Meeting | April 7, 2009

2. EthicShare Project Staff: • Principal Investigators: Wendy Pradt Lougee (Uof MN Libraries) Jeffrey Kahn (U of MN Center for Bioethics) & John Riedl (U of MN Computer Science) • Project Director : Kate McCready (U of MN Libraries) • Technology Lead: John Butler (U of MN Libraries) • Collections : Cecily Marcus (U of MN Libraries) & Frazier Benya • (U of MN Center for Bioethics, grad student); Stephen Hearn • Developers: Chad Fennell (U of MN Libraries), David • Naughton (U of MN Libraries), Bill Tantzen ( U of MN Libraries) • & Tony Lam (U of MN Computer Science grad student)

3. EthicShare inaNutshell • Online research environment for information discovery and collaboration for practical ethics scholars and students • Based at: the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics, Libraries, and Department of Computer Science & Engineering • Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the • National Science Foundation, Council on Library and Information Resources

4. EthicShare Framework

5. EthicShare Partnerships • Data: • National Library of Medicine - PubMed & Catalog data • OCLC – WorldCat data • Network Services: • OCLC – Registry Services • University Centers: • Georgetown University – Bioethics Thesaurus • Governance and Presentations at Societies by Partners from: University of Virginia, Indiana University- • Bloomington, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis and Stanford University

6. EthicShare Development History • 2004 Scholarly Communications Institute: Held at the Council on Library and Information Resources for Bioethicists. • (Background – Bioethics Scholars are primarily humanities faculty (philosophy, theology) but the field also pulls from law, policy, medicine and public health.) • 2005-2006 U of M Libraries Research: Studied the research behaviors and methodologies of scholars in the humanities and social sciences • Identified “gaps” in the research process • What solutions would support the advancement of a field? • Would collaborative tools serve the needs of serious scholars? • “Helping Hands” project: NSF funded U of MN - Computer Science and Bioethics exploring how to encourage • participation in collaborative tools.

7. EthicShare Development History • 2006-2007 EthicShare Planning Project: • Assessment of a field • Site visits and surveys • Prototype of site • 2008-2009 EthicShare Pilot Project: • Build a “collection” of high quality, focused materials aggregated from a variety of source material providers • Development of a community-supported environment • Engage the community in the development process • Developing process and technology models for the development of virtual research community • environments.

8. Initial Tool and Feature Selection • Planning Grant: • Identifying and tuning collaborative technologies for a specific community of researchers • How do you know what you don’t know? Bioethics Scholars didn’t use collective work sites or technologies. • Held 5 site visits – • U of Minnesota • University of Indiana • University of Indiana – Purdue University – Indianapolis • University of Virginia • Georgetown University

9. Site Visits – Early 2007 • Presentation of Social Features • EthicShare team created a presentation of successful web-based tools and features from various sites for bioethics faculty and graduate students to see. • Discussion of Features • During and after the presentations we discussed the reaction of these features and the idea of implementing them within the bioethics community • Survey of Interest/Knowledge • Asked the participants to complete a 10 minute survey at the end of this presentation to formalize their opinions.

10. http://www.citeulike.org/

14. http://www.youtube.com

16. EthicShare Survey Summary Report • “Social” features weren’t “very important” but rated well when “somewhat important”, “important” and “very important” were totaled: • Get Updates via Email/RSS about New Content (77%) • Get Recommendations of Resources (68%) • Ability to Share Your Work With your Colleagues (76%) • Ability to Review a Resources (79%) • Community Discussion Space (79%) • Add Resources to the Site (71%)

17. Engage and Evaluate - Iterative Design Beta Testing - Feedback Loops

18. Engage and Evaluate - Iterative Design EthicShare Site Demo

32. Altruism, Selfishness, and Contributionon the Social Web GroupLens Research University of Minnesota John Riedl

33. Bowling Alone (Amazon reviews)

34. Messages • Community-maintained Artifacts of Lasting Value • Key Research Challenges • Attract contributions • Maintain quality • Achieve agreement

35. Tags scale: • Library of Congress: 20M books in 200 years. • www.librarything.com: 22M books in 3 years. • Tag draw relevance from “the wisdom of crowds”

36. Tag Selection Algorithms “The Quest for Quality Tags” S. Sen, F. Harper, A. LaPitz, J. Riedl GROUP 2007

37. RQ: How can a tagging system show users tags they want to see?

38. Tag Prediction Random baseline: 21% Implicit features: • number of applications (39%) • number of users (51%) • number of searches for a tag (44%) • number of users who searched for a tag (48%) • length of tag (42%) Moderation-based features: • global average rating for a tag (59%) • user-normalized global average rating for a tag (62%) • tag reputation (57%) Hybrid combinations: logistic regression, decision trees (67%)

39. Research Questions • Can folksonomy be encouraged? • Showing users more tags leads to more vocabulary reuse • How much convergence is valuable?

40. Motivating Participation by Displaying the Value of ContributionRashid, Ling, Tassone, Resnick, Kraut, RiedlCHI 2006, Montréal

42. What Theory Tells Us… • Collective Effort Model • People will contribute more if: • They believe their effort is important to the group • They like the group • Smaller is Better • Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1980 • People feel greater concern when the reference group they’re part of grows smaller. • Specificity Matters • Small & Loewenstein, 2003 • Specific identity of those helped is important in drawing people’s support.

43. VOICE 2 Screen shot Numerical values are represented by smilies Who the contribution helps Value of each contribution

44. Self-report Self 3.87 All MovieLens 3.13 Similar Group 2.97 Dissimilar Group 2.94 Control 2.68 Want Smilies on the regular interface? Results Behavioraldata Self 7.2% All MovieLens 10.2% Similar Group 15.8% Dissimilar Group 5.9% Control 7.4% Probability of rating a movie

45. Altruism, Selfishness, and Contributionon the Social Web GroupLens Research University of Minnesota John Riedl

46. Adoption & Sustainability

47. Adoption & Sustainability • Community/User Engagement • Economic structure and strategies • Technology framework • Sustainable: valued, reliable, and persistent

48. Rogers, then Moore

50. Sustainability – Economic Structure • Economically sustainable academic resources require: • Recognition of benefits • Incentives for decision-makers to act • Selection • Efficiency • Appropriate organization and governance • -- Brian Lavoie (Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access)