e-Research: A Social Informatics Perspective

e-Research: A Social Informatics Perspective

Eric T. MeyerOxford Internet Institute

University of Oxford

Oxford e-Social Science Project

31 Oct 2008: Talk presented to the Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

Source: S. Wuchty et al., (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science 316, 1036 -1039.

The Growth of Teams


GAIN: Genetic Association

Information Network

34

46

58

51

39

57

Data reqs

Virtual London

Image Source: Hudson-Smith, Digital Urban Blog at http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2007/08/ordnance-survey-and-google-statements.html

GeoVUE Node & Legal Issues

Virtual London

GeoVUE Node

Image Source: Hudson-Smith, Digital Urban Blog at http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2007/08/ordnance-survey-and-google-statements.html

Open Science / Science 2.0

MapTube

JOVE Characteristics

Length of Video Articles, JOVE (n=172)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

>30 20-30 15-20 10-15 5-10 <5

Time in Minutes

Nu

mb

er o

f A

rtic

les

Views of JOVE Articles (n=172)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Vie

ws

The Pynchon Wiki: Charting Pynchon Online Activity

Community Acitivity

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Jan-

06

Feb-

06

Mar

-06

Apr-0

6

May

-06

J un-

06

J ul-0

6

Aug-0

6

Sep-0

6

Oct-0

6

Nov-0

6

Dec-0

6

J an-

07

Feb-

07

Mar

-07

Apr-0

7

May

-07

J un-

07

Pynchon- l mailinglist messages Against the day Wiki edits

Anticipation

Annotation

And what’s next?

Source: Schroeder, R., & Besten, M. D. (2008). Literary Sleuths Online: e-Research collaboration on the Pynchon Wiki. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 167 - 187.

Weisenburger vs. the Wiki on Pynchon

Annotation Size

(no. of words)

Entries (topical

+ alphabetical+ page-by-page) Contributors

Book Form Annotation: Weisenburger’s

Gravity’s Rainbow162000 904 1 (22)

Wiki: Against the Day

455057 120 + 1358 + 4067

235

Comparison of book and wiki annotation efforts

Source: Schroeder, R., & Besten, M. D. (2008). Literary Sleuths Online: e-Research collaboration on the Pynchon Wiki. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 167 - 187.

Top-Down e-Infrastructure Meets Bottom-Up Research Innovation

Fitting e-Social Science Visions to the Realities

Eric Meyer & William DuttonOxford e-Social Science Node

of UK National Centre for eSocial Science

Source: Meyer, Eric T. and Dutton, William H., “Top-Down e-Infrastructure Meets Bottom-Up Research Innovation: Fitting e-Social Science Visions to the Realities " (Sept 1, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1262211. Submitted to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

Sample

Source N Sent N RespondedResponse

Rate% of

sample

NCeSS List 615 141 22.9% 26.8%OII List 1761 180 10.2% 34.2%Open mailings n/a 205 n/a 39.0%Total 526 100.0%

Sample Characteristics

Bias of the Sample

Bias of the Sample

Year of Degree (%)

9.3 10.312.7

24.9

42.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Before 1970 Between 1971 and1980

Between 1981 and1990

Between 1991 and2000

After 2001

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Bias of the Sample

Country (%)

46.8

14.1

17.7

4.61.9

15.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

United Kingdom North America Europe Australia andNew Zealand

East Asia Global South

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Bias of the Sample

How would you describe your interest in e-Social Science initiatives? (%)

29.726.8

30.4

6.8 6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very interested Interested Somewhat interested Not interested at all Don't Know / Don'tAnswer

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Type of Research

Type of Research (%)

14.8%

42.4%

29.8%

12.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Quantitative Some mix of both Qualitative Other/None

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Certainty Trough or Experience Technology

Attitudes (and uncertainty) towards e-Research

52%

37%

41%

28%32%

21%

43%

17%21%

45% 43%

59% 60%

70%

19%

77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

e-Researchis adequately

funded

e-Researchenhances

my personalproductivity

e-Researchenhancesmy team'sproductivity

Many newscientificquestionswill require

the use of e-Research

tools

e-Researchtools arealreadyuseful

e-Researchtools raisenew ethical

issues

Most e-Researchtools are

easy to use

More trainingis needed ine-Research

% o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

Don't know

Strongly agree

Source: Dutton & Meyer 2008

Evidence for Uncertainty Trough

Opponents Disengaged Spectators Promoters

7.6 9.9 43.2 33.3

Certain 40.5 8.7 19.7 68.1 37.9

Marginal 27.0 30.4 33.7 23.5 29.1

Uncertain 32.4 60.9 46.6 8.4 33.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Uncertainty by Perspective (**)

Perspective

Total

Uncertainty

Total

Proportion of sample

Source: Dutton, W.H. & Meyer, E.T. (2008). “e-Social Science as an Experience Technology: Distance from, and Attitudes Toward, E-Research“. Presentation for the 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester, 19 June 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1150422

Certainty Trough or Experience Technology

Evidence for an Experience Technology

Disengaged Opponents Spectators Promoters

Low 71.7 62.2 43.8 6.5 34.4

Moderate 23.9 27.0 38.9 28.0 32.5

High 4.3 10.8 17.3 65.5 33.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Support

Total

Support by Perspective (**)

Perspective

Total

Source: Dutton, W.H. & Meyer, E.T. (2008). “e-Social Science as an Experience Technology: Distance from, and Attitudes Toward, E-Research“. Presentation for the 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester, 19 June 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1150422

Mean 3.9s.d. 2.3Mode 4Range 0-12

Number of methods indicated

Research methods used, and interest in e-Research (n=526)

57% 56%55%

33%

25%

21%19% 18%

16%14%

3%

12%

59%58%

62%

59%

64%62% 62%

60% 60%

56%

73%

53%

62%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Qualita

tive

Inte

rview

s

Desk r

esea

rch

Case

study

Surve

ys

Partic

ipant

Obs

erva

tion

Ethno

grap

hy

Histor

ical

Simula

tion

Exper

imen

ts

Form

al m

odell

ing

Web

met

rics

Clinica

l

Other

Research Methods

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f re

sear

ch

ers

rep

ort

ing

usi

ng

res

ear

ch m

eth

od

Research methods used

Strong Interest in e-Research

Mean overall research software tools used, based on use of tools in a given category of research software (n=526)

8.67

8.21 8.187.93 7.93 7.84

7.67

6.32

5.53

5.09

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Webmetrics Geographic Visualizing Simulation ContentAnalysis

Integrating VideoAnalysis

Database Quantitative Qualitative

Software tool category

Mea

n

Researcher Clusters

Lone e-Researcher Team Player Qual Quant

User of research methods 0.47 0.34 0.74 0.18Both a user and developer 0.45 0.66 0.22 0.55Methodologist, developing methods 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.27

Quantitative 0.19 0.07 0.09 0.57Mix of quant and qual 0.66 0.86 0.18 0.04Qualitative 0.15 0.07 0.72 0.39

Never or rarely code apps 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.05Often or always code apps 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.95

Sole investigator on all or most projects 0.45 0.06 0.53 0.00Sole investigator on half of projects 0.42 0.07 0.23 0.00One of a team on most or all projects 0.13 0.87 0.23 1.00

Cluster

Clusters (%)

23.0

26.229.1

12.09.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lone e-Researcher Team Player Quals Quants Don't Know / Don'tAnswer

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Types of Researchers

Clusters of types of researchers by research software tool use (n=526)

3.1

4.4

1.9

3.7

4.4

0.78

0.84

0.60

0.70

0.66

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Lone e-Researchers(25.4%)

Team Players(29.0%)

Quals(32.3%)

Quants(13.3%)

Overall Sample

Clusters of Types of Researchers

Mea

n n

um

ber

of

too

ls u

sed

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Lik

elih

oo

d o

f u

sin

g a

ny

soft

war

e to

ols

fo

r re

sear

ch

Number of tools Any tools

***

**

**

*

***

**

Types of Researchers

Perspective (%)

33.3

43.2

7.69.9

6.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Promoters Observers Opponents Disengaged Don't Know / Don'tAnswer

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Clusters of researcher perspectives by research software tool use (n=526)

3.1

1.8

2.82.7

4.4

0.77

0.66 0.65

0.60

0.66

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Promoters(35.1%)

Observers(46.1%)

Opponents(8.1%)

Disengaged(10.6%)

Overall Sample

Clusters of Types of Researchers

Mea

n n

um

be

r o

f to

ols

us

ed

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Lik

elih

oo

d o

f u

sin

g a

ny

so

ftw

are

to

ols

fo

r re

se

arc

h

Number of tools Any tools

***

***

***

Use of Data Sets

Gauging the Impact of e-Research in the Social Sciences

Eric T. MeyerRalph Schroeder

Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of Oxford

Meyer, E.T., Schroeder, R. (Submitted). Gauging the Impact of e-Research in the Social Sciences. Submitted to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

Publications in e-Research, 1996-2008, Social Sciences Compared to All Disciplines

104

56

28

134

64

154

5 / 36 / 13 / 11 / 128

300

89

289

847878

781

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008(1st 7

months) Year

So

cial

Sci

ence

Pu

bli

cati

on

s (n

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

All

Dis

cip

lin

es P

ub

lica

tio

ns

(n)

Social Sciences All Disciplines

Publications in e-Research

Publication Patterns by Discipline

Social Sciences (n=175)

Computer Science (n=749)

Fields, Citations and Authors

Table 1. Fields, Citations, and Authors in Scopus e-Research papers, 1996-2008 (n=2920)

Field

N Fields per

paper (mean)

Cited by (mean)

Authors (mean)

Wuchty et al. (mean,

1996-2000) Natural Sciences 102 1.39 2.23 5.58 ** ---

Med-Bio-Health 572 2.60 *** 2.46 4.34 4.39

Computer Science 1676 1.84 *** 1.65 4.11 2.39 ***

All Fields Combined 2920 1.52 1.71 4.05 ---

Math-Physics 703 2.59 *** 1.41 4.00 ---

Engineering 1039 1.38 *** 1.70 3.81 * 2.94 ***

Business-Economics 91 1.84 ** 1.64 3.13 *** 1.71 ***

Social Science 243 1.52 1.64 2.47 *** ---

Arts-Humanities 7 2.14 3.71 1.29 *** ---

Field intersection

Intersection of fields co-associated in Scopus e-Research sample (n=2920)Total CompSci Eng MathPhys Med SocSci NatSci ArtHum

All Fields 2920 1676 1039 703 572 334 102 7Computer Science 57.4% 44.7% 23.2% 83.5% 79.5% 33.2% 11.8% 28.6%Engineering 35.6% 14.4% 68.3% 13.2% 3.3% 8.1% 14.7% 0.0%Math-Physics 24.1% 35.0% 9.0% 5.7% 73.8% 2.4% 6.9% 0.0%Med-Bio-Health 19.6% 27.1% 1.8% 60.0% 15.9% 4.8% 2.9% 14.3%Social Science 11.4% 4.6% 1.3% 0.6% 1.6% 62.0% 2.0% 71.4%Natural Sciences 3.5% 0.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.5% 0.9% 62.7% 0.0%Arts-Humanities 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 0.0% 14.3%Note: Percentages indicate the proportion of articles in each column also identified with the discipline in the left column.The diagonal represents single discipline papers.

Publications and Interdisciplinarity

Figure 3. Map showing number of articles by field, and article interdisciplinaritySource: Data retrieved from Scopus using sample search terms; image created with Microsoft Excel .NetMap plugin

Title word clouds by discipline

Transatlantic Digitisation

World Wide Web of Humanities project

WWWoH Test Collections

Source: Meyer, Madsen, Schroeder (2008).

Usage and Impact Study of JISC-funded Phase 1 Digitisation Projects &

Toolkit for the Impact of Digitised Scholarly Resources

Eric T. Meyer, Kathryn Eccles, Christine Madsen, Ralph Schroeder, William H. Dutton, Mike Thelwall


Project 1 – Online Historical Population Reports (OHPR/Histpop)

Project 1 – Online Historical Population Reports (OHPR/Histpop)

Project 2 – British Library 19th Century Newspapers

Project 2 – British Library 19th Century Newspapers

Project 3 – British Library Sound Archive

Project 3 – British Library Sound Archive

Project 4 – British Official Publications Collaborative Reader Information Service (BOPCRIS): 18th Century Official Parliamentary Publications Portal 1688-1834

Project 4 – British Official Publications Collaborative Reader Information Service (BOPCRIS): 18th Century Official Parliamentary Publications Portal 1688-1834

Project 5 – Medical journals: the backfiles project



TIDSR Toolkit

Quantitative Measures • Webometrics• Analytics• Log file analysis• Scientometrics / bibliometrics• Content analysis of media coverage

Qualitative Measures• Stakeholder interviews (project & institutional personnel, user communities,

subject specialists, funding bodies)• Resource surveys• User feedback analysis• Focus groups• Questionnaires

Webometrics







Analytics

Analytics




Log File Analysis







Log File Analysis




Log File Analysis




Bibliometrics




Content Analysis

TIDSR Toolkit




WWWoH and TIDSR Release

Project ending event scheduled for 19 March 2009 in OxfordDetails will be provided on:

http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/project.cfm?id=51

Project URLs:1. HistPop: http://www.histpop.org2. Newspapers: http://www.bl.uk/collections/britishnewspapers1800to1900.html3. British Library Sound archive: http://sounds.bl.uk/4. BOPCRIS: http://www.bopcris.ac.uk5. Medical backfiles: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD037630.html




Online visibility and Gatekeeping

Source: Meyer, E.T., Schroeder, R. (Submitted). The World Wide Web of Research and Access to Knowledge. Submitted to Social Science Computer Review.

OII Teaching

http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/teaching/

• Summer Doctoral Programme• MSc in the Social Science of the Internet• DPhil in Information, Communication and the Social Sciences


Eric T. [email protected]

http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/meyer

Slides available at:http://www.slideshare.net/etmeyer


Education

e-Research: A Social Informatics Perspective