EXPLORING RESEARCHERS’ DISCOURSES ABOUT PRODUCING, DISSEMINATING AND EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON THE WEB. THE CASE OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES

Juliana E. RaffaghelliSara Valla

Stefania CucchiaraAlessandra GiglioDonatella Persico

Institute for Educational TechnologiesNational Research Council of Italy

DOING RESEARCH: A CHANGING PROFESSION Web development Openness in science and

education (Open Science) Participatory culture (Jenkins et

al. 2006) New professional practices and

ways of experience the academic profession (Borgman, 2007; Scanlon, 2014)

DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP (Weller, 2011)

Luigi Mengato, 2007 CChttps://www.flickr.com/photos/luigimengato/4732436051/

NEW WAYS OF DOING RESEARCH: DIGITAL SCOLARSHIP

Search

Manage references and data

Share, Disseminate

Evaluate

Juliana Raffaghelli, CC/

Open Access

Social Web

Open Science Digital Scholarship

NEW WAYS OF DOING RESEARCH: DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIPA new professoriate (Weller, 2011, based on Boyer, 1990)

a) discovery (or the process of creating knowledge);

b) integration (or the creation of new knowledge across disciplines);

c) application (or the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge);

d) teaching (or the core of the University’s endeavor).

Social media and scholarship (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012)

Networked and participatory scholarship is based on questioning traditions and formulating a new deontological approach to the way scientific information is produced and shared.

CRITICAL ISSUES

Digital Scholarship is still at its infancy as research topic (Veletsianos, 2013) Studies done on early adopters, do not show what the majority do (Esposito, 2013) Diversified impact of digital technologies in research practices across disciplines

(Harley, Acord, Earl-Novell, Lawrence, & King, 2010) Youngest researchers tend to use more traditional sources and ways of knowledge

building and sharing, while established researchers are sometimes eager to try new ways (Harley et al., 2010)

This finding goes against the “Millennials” hypothesis Disentaglement (different behavior with technologies in the personal and professional

life)

OUR CASE

A set of non-structured interviews with a group of 7 researchers and 3 librarians Coming from the field of the Life Sciences and Medicine in the Italian context Focus: exploring how our study group experience the main dimensions of

Digital Scholarship - defined as the production, dissemination and evaluation of scientific information with the adoption of web tools.

Aim: identifying the learning needs of these researchers as a base for a learning design of a course on the “use of digital resources to produce, disseminate and evaluate scientific information”.

METHOD & PARTICIPANTS Non-structured interviews,

30-40 minutes Principles of qualitative

research, whereby the phenomena studied are ill-structured, and require a work of conceptualization and categorization (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011)

Categorization of results using a grid regarding 4 areas (introduction, searching and managing scientific information, producing and disseminating scientific information, evaluating scientific information)

Progressive number

Role Disciplinary Field Profile Mode of Interview

#1 PhD Student Biology and Molecular Pathology

JUNIOR - 2nd year of the PhD programme

Face to Face (FTF)

#2 PhD Student Structural Biology JUNIOR - Less than 5 years of experience, summing PhD and prior experience.

FTF

#3 Expert Librarian Medicine LIBRARIAN - Expert trainer in the issue of uses of PubMed and scientific databases

FTF

#4 Biologist, postdoctoral researcher at her 1st year

Pheripheric Neuropathy (ADVANCED) JUNIOR - Less than 5 years

Skype

#5 Specialty trainee in Genetics

Pheripheric Neuropathy JUNIOR - Less than 5 years of experience, clinical research.

Skype

#6 Expert Researcher Neurosciences ESTABLISHED RESEARCHER - Specialty concluded; 2nd year as PhD student, focus in the field of pathology of sleep. More than 6 years of experience

Skype

#7 Expert Librarian Medicine LIBRARIAN - Expert Trainer on the use of scientific databases and information sciences

FTF

#8 Expert Researcher Biochemistry ESTABLISHED RESEARCHER - 6 years of experience in the field; PhD concluded and ongoing post-doctoral research.

FTF

#9 Expert Librarian Generalist, covering several areas of STEM

LIBRARIAN - Expert trainer and manager of information science systems

FTF

#10 Specialty trainee Medicine (Pediatrics) JUNIOR - External assistant to the research team. Clinical Research

Skype

ParticipantsMethod

INTERVIEW ANALYSISInterview area

Description

For each of the following areas (except for the introduction) the questions were three-fold: a) How do you use digital technologies in your work as a researcher? b) Which problems do you see in this use? Which training needs do you identify?

Categorization of Results:

 

Introduction We started the interview with an introduction to the theme. Nowadays scientific information has grown in an exponential way, particularly in the field of biomedical sciences. Furthermore, biomedical information on the Web is endless from a quantitative point of view; as a result, it can be perceived as dispersive and fragmentary. It seems crucial to adopt strategies and tools, necessary to select the sources of biomedical information qualitatively more valid, ad to raise awareness on the use, production, sharing and evaluation of scientific information. ITD-CNR is designing a course on addressing these needs among young researchers. With this interview, we would like to have your opinion on some of the key problems found in your professional practice; possibly, we wish to explore your learning needs in connection with the problems identified.

Introducing the aims of the interviews

Searching and managing scientific information.

This area of the interview focused on the problem of producing the background for an article or research problem; the researchers were asked to explain how they search and retrieve scientific information, and how they manage this information while in the first phase of production of a piece of scientific work.

From traditional search in libraries and databases

To the use of the open web and social media where researchers share not only final products but also “raw data” and other resources for research

Producing and Disseminating scientific information.

In this area the researchers were asked to illustrate their own strategies to share their work and disseminate its results among the scientific community and the general public.

From publication in traditional ways (prestigious Journal, Co-edited Books, Monographs.)

To the adoption of open publications and social media (blogs, sector social networks, Facebook, Twitter, etc)

Evaluating scientific information

 

The last area was devoted to the problem of systems for evaluating the quality of research products. Here the researchers were asked to think about the strategies used to analyze the quality of a paper; and how they are applied to their own work; they were also invited to comment on the problem of evaluating the quality of research on a general way.

From the use of traditional bibliometric indicators, to peer-evaluation.

To the use of Altmetrics and open peer-reviewing.

RESULTS

Categories analyzed Results

Instruments used Problems Training NeedsScientific Information searching, retrieval and management

• Traditional databases (mainly PubMed)

• Top-down approach (Info search led by Research Unit Coordinators, not by the researcher)

• Young researchers: Little awareness of problems in the phase of information search

• Librarians: awarness of lack of skills for adequate information search and retrieval

• Little awareness of Open Science’s resources (from databases to references’ management systems)

• Acknowledge need of improving «data management» skills.

• Overall, improve awareness about Open Science

• Improve skills to work with data «on the cloud»

• Improve skills for collaborative management of data

Dissemination of Scientific Information

• Traditional (Journals with high Impact Factor; prestigious conferences)

• E-mail, telephone, Skype.• Top-down oriented approach

(dissemination opportunities decided by Research Unit Coordinators)

• When & how to share data• Tension regarding scientific

reputation at the beginning of the career, to disseminate in social networks or through Open Science spaces

• Improve knowledge and skills to adopt dedicated social networks (e.g. Research Gate)

• To better understand open publication and the impact on the researcher’s career.

Evaluation of Scientific Information

• Eventually, analysis of impact factor and h-index while consulting publications

• Librarians: Selection of quality journals on the basis of impact factor, support to h-index building for researchers’ career advancement

• Lack of awareness even at the level of traditional tools

• Understanding bibliometrics and altmetrics to evaluate scientific quality and productivity.

• Introduction to open peer review

* Grouped in three categories derived by the foreseen course topics.* Further distributed into three outputs types: use of instruments (particularly digital ones); problems identified; training needs identified with regard to the category and its relating instruments.

DISCUSSION

Differences between young researchers (that started their research activity immediately after their degree) and young professionals doing clinical research (with some professional experience). Less awareness on managing, disseminating and evaluating scientific information, and more on searching

useful sources that addressed clinical interventions. “Millennials” do not adopt technologies as expected at work (in line with Harley et al, 2010).

Disentanglement (Veletsianos, 2013). The role of the institution in shaping professional skills, more than the availability of technologies. In a “continuum” between simply using digital resources for concrete tasks, and expressing the own

professional identity through the use of digital resources, we found most researchers attached to a focused (and somehow superficial) use.

Institutional and “research cultures” could promote, amongst their collaborators, the adoption of digital technologies in such a way.

CONCLUSIONS We assume that training activities

could endow researchers with a critical awareness on their own professional activity and deontology In this way, participatory web embedded

in the concept of Digital Scholarship perfectly fits

A changing research culture requires: Factual and conceptual knowledge related

to Digital Scholarship; Procedural and operational knowledge,

practical skills, professional experience and problem management with several digital tools and in different digital spaces;

Ability to understand the context, manage interactions with other social actors, and adopt an ethical behavior that is expression of a professional project.

Promoting Digital Scholarship should be related to such elements: • exploring contexts of

intervention and existing research cultures;

• going through flexible interventions, offering participants the possibility to understand the “big picture” about Digital Scholarship,

• and hence deciding which are the “technical skills” to be achieved, as well as the professional profile they would like to tailor.

Krish Tipirneni, 2006 CCFlickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/krish4u/470892327/

THANK YOU!

ANY QUESTION?

Corresponding author: Juliana Raffaghelli – jraffaghelli@gmail.com

Korephotos, 2008 CChttps://www.flickr.com/photos/korephotos/2944049443/