Digital Vita: The University of Pittsburgh's Research Networking System

8/3/2019 Digital Vita: The University of Pittsburgh's Research Networking System

1/33

Digital Vita: TheUniversity ofPittsburgh'sResearch

Networking System

Titus Schleyer, DMD, PhD

Heiko Spallek, DMD, PhD

Brian Butler, MS, PhD

Linda Schmandt, MS

et al. Titus Schleyer 2011


2/33

Digital VitaTitus Schleyer et al. 2 of 33

How do scientists look for

collaborators?

ask colleague(s) and get a referral

search the literature and cold-call

use electronic systems, e.g. Community of

Science

Kraut RE, Galegher J, Egido C. Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaboration.

Hum-Comput Interact 1987-1988;3(1):31-58.


3/33


Why dont scientists use expertise

locating systems?

1. low awareness

2. incomplete domain coverage

3. outdated/sparse profiles

4. lack of critical mass

5. traditional approaches very ingrained


4/33


Scientists are not looking for a blind

date.

Collaboration

is often a long-term relationship.

requires predicting future performance.

benefits from deep knowledge about thecollaborator.

can have significant professional impact.

is sometimes hard to end.

contrast to expertise location in traditional CSCW research

Schleyer TK et al.. Conceptualizing and advancing research networking systems.

ACM T Comput-Hum Int. 2012. (in press)


5/33


With regard to collaboration, scientists

face an embarrassment of riches.

science increasingly multi- and inter-disciplinary

more collaborators through growing researchenterprise

collaborators easier to find through Google,MEDLINE, etc.

remote collaborations increasingly practical

Braun T, Schubert A. A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the

sciences 1980-1999. Scientometrics 2003 Sep;58(1):183-9.


6/33


Plenty of expertise locating systems Community of Science (www.cos.com) LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com) Innocentive (www.innocentive.com) Index Copernicus Scientists

(http://scientists.indexcopernicus.com/)

Research Crossroads(http://www.researchcrossroads.com/) BiomedExperts

(http://www.biomedexperts.com/)

VIVO(http://www.vivoweb.com/)

Direct2Experts(http://www.direct2experts.org/)


7/33


Are current systems responsive to therequirements of scientists seeking

collaborators?

Titus Schleyer 2011


8/33


Results

Titus Schleyer 2011


9/33


Ideation and concept validation


10/33


Requirements

effort balanced with perceived benefit

profiles comprehensive and up-to-date

exploit social network

model proximity assessment of compatibility, work style and other

soft traits

Schleyer TK, et al. Requirements for expertise location systems in biomedical science and

the Semantic web. Proceedings of the 3rd Expert Finder Workshop on Personal

Identification and Collaboration; 2008


11/33


Requirements (cont.)

social networks based solely on co-authorship

incomplete

accommodate preferences for privacy and public

availability of information search effectively across disciplines

facilitate non-intuitive connections


12/33


Architecture


13/33


Digital Vita live


14/33


Implementation

soft rollout beginning 10/2009

currently:

815 users at Pitt, some elsewhere

8,045 total logins

28,139 publications

4,081 grants

11,495 presentations

4,376 mentoring records

770 biosketches


15/33


Formative evaluation of DV

quantitative and qualitative

usage, attitudes, satisfaction andacceptance

outcomes short-term: biosketch generation and routing,

new research teams, efficiency gain long-term: high-impact collaborations formed,

collaborative publications, external systemutilization

Objective: assess adoption and use of DigitalVita since inception across six HSC schools


16/33


Formative evaluation of DV (cont.)

Methods a cross-sectional , purposive sample

30-minute semi-structured interviews

stratification factors: level of seniority (junior, mid-

level and senior) and level of DV use (active,moderate and low)

interviews recorded and notes taken


17/33


Data analysis

descriptive analysis of tracking data

content analysis of interviews:

general approach for managing CV

software used to manage CV different uses of DV

problems in using DV

suggestions for system improvement


18/33


Preliminary results: Quantitative

Image mommamia/flickr 2011
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/


19/33


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

-12

2010

-02

2010

-04

2010

-06

2010

-08

2010

-10

2010

-12

2011

-02

2011

-04

2011

-06

2011

-08

2011

-10

Monthly logins

Total users


20/33


User types

Super-delegate

bulk CV data entry for 5-50 people

1%

Delegate admin. support staff forcenter/dept. faculty

4%

Sole user faculty who do most workthemselves

95%


21/33


Size of CVs in Digital Vita

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1-50 51-100 101-200 201-500 >500

My Information objects

#

user

s


22/33


Sources for selected objects

Objecttype

Entry

Manual Propagatedfrom manual

Import fromMEDLINE

Poster 1,660 94 0

Journalarticle

5,464 4,942 10,264

Conferencepaper

436 63 0

Publishedabstract

2,438 627 0


23/33


Preliminary results: Qualitative

Image MGShelton/flickr 2011
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/


24/33


Motivators for updating CV

common preparation for grant submission

faculty annual evaluation

new publications and presentations

uncommon appointment to committees

change in job responsibilities

recruitment of studentsjob search


25/33


Traditional CV management

software used for managing CV Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat, Latex

problems with Word

formatting laborious

accuracy likely compromised by copying andpasting

difficult to keep track of new publications

difficult to create other documents based on CV


26/33


DV description/impressions

positive database/data warehouse

data repository/central repository

Internet-based/online/electronic

streamline/simplify CV management

versatile, flexible, efficient

negative (1 user)

unyielding/cumbersome interface disruptive


27/33


Current uses

mostly entering information into the system created CV for various purposes (5 users)

created NIH biosketches for grant (6 users)

used Search to look for people (1 user) colleague requests (2 users)


28/33


Features liked and problems

features liked automatic import of publications from PubMed

easy biosketch creation

entering information straightforward

common problems import of irrelevant publications

difficult to categorize some info (e.g. letter toeditor)

confusion about publication updates

difficult to edit/format output documents


29/33


Suggestions for improvement

reduce number of irrelevant researchinterests in profiles

import publications more accurately

interface with other Pitt systems implement recommendations

remind user to update

bold authors name in publication lists

customize CV format for each school

integrate dictation software (Dragon)


30/33


Barriers to the implementation of

Digital Vita

Well-connected researchers will outperformsystemmost of the time.

Collaboration-seeking methods and needs

evolve with scientists career. DV economizes on many tasks but adds others.

The desire for publicness differs amongscientists.

and many other problems associated withsocial networks (e.g. free ridership, differentialincentives, etc.).


31/33


Discussion

collaboration-seeking a complex activity

does not depend on solely factual

information about potential collaborators

current approaches to finding collaboratorstime- and effort-intensive

CV a good source of factual information


32/33


Project Website

http://di.dental.pitt.edu/orc/

Address of this talk

http://scr.bi/vugrGV


33/33

Digital VitaTitus Schleyer et al 33 of 33

Thank you for

your attention.Questions?

(finally!)

Titus Schleyer 2011

Documents

Digital Vita: The University of Pittsburgh's Research Networking System