1 / 19

Not Just Content

Not Just Content. Adam Worrall LIS 6279, Fall 2009 Dr. Melissa Gross 11/12/09. Supporting Community-Building and Collaboration in Digital Libraries. Research Problem. Existing DLs do not support well, through their content and services, the social context surrounding and within them

yitro
Download Presentation

Not Just Content

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Not Just Content Adam Worrall LIS 6279, Fall 2009 Dr. Melissa Gross 11/12/09 Supporting Community-Building and Collaboration in Digital Libraries

  2. Research Problem • Existing DLs do not support well, through their content and services, the social context surrounding and within them • Should improve this support of social interactions to integrate better with social groups and communities (Lynch, 2005) • Propose that problem be examined with exploratory qualitative study • Examine role a digital library prototype plays in community-building and collaboration, and if it successfully supports them, through intensive interviews LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  3. Field Setting • D-Scholarship2 • Prototype of a digital library for scholarly publications and gray literature • Currently under development and testing at FSU • Testing group: 500 total students and faculty • May be opened to broader population before end of study • Everyone at FSU • General public / other universities LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  4. Research Questions • What role does the D-Scholarship2 digital library prototype play in community-building behaviors by those users, communities, and networks that use its content and services? Is this a successful role? • What role does the D-Scholarship2 digital library prototype play in collaboration behaviors by its users? Is this a successful role? LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  5. Literature Review Additions • Baltimore Learning Community (BLC) project(Marchionini, Plaisant, & Komlodi, 2003) • Another project that tried to apply “sharium” model (Marchionini, 1999) • Intended to support creation and sharing of instructional modules amongst middle school teachers • Rarely added reflections, comments • Rarely used modules created by others • Faced number of technical issues • Progress deemed “very slow” and “arduous” (p. 132) • Cannot be considered successful LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  6. Literature Review Additions • Prairienet (Bishop, 1999) • Another digital library studied using situated context (Bishop, 1999; Bishop et al., 2000) • Web browsing, e-mail, discussion groups, collection of digital information from local organizations • Found many of the same issues identified in DeLIver • Difficult to use and learn because of lack of knowledge • Training classes, connecting problematic • Bus schedules not matching with training times • Missing or unplugged power cords • Login ID forgotten • Information behavior of users dependent on social networks LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  7. Literature Review Additions • Convergence (Star, Bowker, & Neumann, 2003) • Another promising theoretical framework • Communities of practice • “Information artifacts” (p. 244) • Information tools, systems, interfaces, devices • Convergence between: “information world” (from Chatman) • Should be “fitted to each other” (p. 244) • Three case studies; one of particular relevance • 38 research scientists and students • Convergence deepest for those with most experience in field • “Closing off” of other possibilities sometimes an issue • New members faced process of convergence that was “rarely smooth” (p. 248) LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  8. Literature Review Additions • Implications of convergence • Community-building efforts should establish, maintain, deepen convergence • Already existing communities must be supported • Can’t close off other possibilities, overlapping communities and networks • Reiterates that DLs must be considered in organizational, institutional, cultural, cognitive, situated, and above all social context • Still need for “holistic and dynamic” model, framework or theory (Star et al., 2003, p. 261) LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  9. Research Design • Intensive interviews of users of D-Scholarship2 • “Engages researchers more actively” (Schutt, 2009, p. 340) • Best choice for this particular setting • Maintain control • Less scheduling problems • Less expense • No peer pressure • Opinions and experiences obtained directly • Interviews will use critical incident technique • All interviews conducted by researcher • Expected to average 45 minutes • Unit of analysis: D-Scholarship2 itself LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  10. Participant Selection • List of e-mail addresses and roles of testing group (sampling frame) • Entire population e-mailed a letter • Purpose of study • Augments ongoing evaluation of D-Scholarship2 • Benefits • Contact information for researcher, IRB • Invitation to participate • Initial convenience sample • 24 total; at least 8 of each role expected • Further samples • Convenience, purposive, snowball sampling • At least 50 members (recommended by Flanagan, 1954) LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  11. Data Collection Procedures • Critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954; Fisher & Oulton, 1999) • Obtains “certain important facts concerning behavior in defined situations” (p. 335) • Five stages; fall into three broader areas • Operational definitions and structure • “functional description of an activity” (p. 336) • Successful community-building • Satisfying information needs of one or more users • Supporting community / network linkages • Presence of high levels of convergence • Successful collaboration • Actual solving of an information problem LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  12. Data Collection Procedures • Interview procedures • Introduction • Reminder of purpose, researcher affiliation, benefits • Thank you for participating in study • Establish rapport • Establishment of critical incident • “Think of a time within the last month when you faced a problem finding, seeking, or obtaining information, and you turned to other people to help you.” • “Tell me about this occasion and about the involvement of other people.” • Discussion should ensue • Provides background material on nature of incident LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  13. Data Collection Procedures • Interview procedures (continued) • Discussion of D-Scholarship2’s role • Gently steered there by interviewer • A few possible questions (more in paper): • “Did you feel D-Scholarship2 supported that?” • “Which features of D-Scholarship2 did you find useful during this?” • “Did you find that D-Scholarship2 caused any difficulties during this?” • Closing question • Know anyone else using D-Scholarship2 for collaboration, community-building activity (snowball sampling) LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  14. Data Collection Procedures • Interview procedures (continued) • Note taking • Careful not to disrupt participants or discussion • Video recordings of interviews • Permission given as part of informed consent • If feel uncomfortable, interviewer will ask if they wish to stop • Video recording wiped • Replaced with another participant from sample • Analysis, interpretation, reporting • nVivo software • Informed by literature • Situated context, social constructionism, convergence • Other themes that emerge entertained and welcomed LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  15. Validity and Reliability • Critical incident technique • “both reliable and valid in generating a comprehensive and detailed description of a content domain” (Fisher & Oulton, 1999, p. 115) • Validity very high • Qualitative, personal, subjective experiences • Less disadvantages than focus groups, participant observation • Use of literature to inform analysis • Use of both video recording and interviewer’s notes • Reliability reasonably high • Within given population • Subjective measures; tradeoff with validity LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  16. Limitations • May not capture all experiences • No random sampling • Impractical, cannot force users to participate (unethical) • Individual interviews • Focus groups have disadvantages in this setting • Users may withhold “failed” incidents • Confidentiality to be maintained • Narrow population and research setting • Results limited to testing group population • Potential transferability to other settings • Further research required with other digital libraries and user communities LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  17. Ethical Considerations • Informed consent to be obtained in advance • No major harm or risks expected • May feel uncomfortable as interview progresses • May choose to leave; video will be wiped • Loss of a small portion of their time • Identity, affiliation of researcher will be known • Confidentiality of participants maintained • Maintaining appropriate boundaries • Remaining safe in research setting • Not expected to be issues LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

  18. References • Bishop, A. P. (1999). Making digital libraries go: Comparing use across genres. In E. A. Fox & N. Rowe (Eds.), Digital Libraries ’99: Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on digital libraries (pp. 94-103). New York, NY: ACM Press. • Bishop, A. P., Neumann, L. J., Star, S. L., Merkel, C., Ignacio, E., & Sandusky, R. J. (2000). Digital libraries: Situating use in changing information infrastructure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 394-413. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:4<394::AID-ASI8>3.0.CO;2-Q • Fisher, S., & Oulton, T. (1999). The critical incident technique in library and information management research. Education for Information, 17, 113-125. • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358. • Lynch, C. (2005). Where do we go from here? The next decade for digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine, 11(7/8). doi:10.1045/july2005-lynch • Marchionini, G. (1999). Augmenting library services: Towards the sharium. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Digital Libraries 1999 (pp. 40-47). Tsukuba, Japan: University of Library and Information Science. Retrieved from http://www.dl.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/ISDL99/proceedings_ISDL99/isdl-1999-40.pdf • Marchionini, G., Plaisant, C., & Komlodi, A. (2003). The people in digital libraries: Multifaceted approaches to assessing needs and impact. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House, & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 119-160). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Schutt, R. K. (2009). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. • Star, S. L., Bowker, G. C., & Neumann, L. J. (2003). Transparency beyond the individual level of scale: Convergence between information artifacts and communities of practice. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House, & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 241-269). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. LIS 6472 | Fall 2009

More Related