Upload
vincent-smith
View
3.658
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A presentation given by Daphne Duin and co-authored with David Self, Simon Rycroft, Dave Roberts & Vincent Smith at the EDIT general meeting, Carvoeiro, Portugal. Dec. 15-17, 2009.
Citation preview
Online taxonomy: Why do people engage?
Daphne Duin*, David Self, Simon Rycroft, Dave Roberts & Vincent Smith
EDIT stakeholder liaison officer *
EDIT General Meeting December 16, 2009
OverviewOnline taxonomy and why people engage. The example
of the Scratchpads
Users of technology and innovations
Scratchpads
Results survey
Summary / further research
Introduction
“You can't just ask customers what they want and then try and give it to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.”
(Steve Jobs, Apple Inc., in The Guardian 25 June 09)
Users studies and observed attitudes among technology designers
“[designers attitudes can be summarised as…] there is no point asking users what they want because they themselves don’t know”
(Steve Woolgar, 1991)
“User-centered innovation processes offer great advantages over the manufacturer-centered innovation developments systems (…)”
(Eric von Hippel, 2005)
Introduction
“Scratchpad users are also our developers”(Vince Smith, 2009)
The Scratchpad project and users
User-innovators are willing to engage because (cf. Von Hippel):
They are looking for exactly the right product They have relative small user community with heterogeneous needs Their technologies require a great deal of user context information To avoid agency costs For the enjoyment and learning of innovating Contributes to long term sustainability of the product
Your data1
Published & reviewedon your site
3Uploaded &
tagged
2
What is a Scratchpad?A website for you & your community
AntsBeesBeetlesBig-headed flies
BlackfliesCiliatesCockroachesDragon TreesDung BeetlesFalse ButtonweedFlat worms
HolometabolaLeaf-miner FliesLiceLichens of BermudaMalvaceaeMegalastrum fernsMilichiid fliesMosquitoesMossesNannotax fossilsNepticuloid mothsPalms
Polychaete worms
Scratchpads: an ecosystem of communities
http://scratchpads.eu/
Current Scratchpad users
Sites 114 (July 09) (now 130+)
Pages 170K
Users approx. 1500+
Maintainers 99 +
Maintainers institution:EDIT 48%Non EDIT 48%Don’t know 3%
Women 28 %
Men 71 %
Current Scratchpad users
Countries maintainers are based(tot pop, J uly 2009)
United Kingdom; 38
United States of America; 21
France; 5
Germany; 5
Berlgium; 3
Sweden; 2
Australia; 2Switzerland; 2
The Netherlands; 2Denmark; 2
Canada; 5
Vietnam; 1
Slovakia; 1
Cotsa Rica; 1
Argentina; 1
Greece; 1
Brazil; 1
India; 1
Italy; 1
La Réunion; 1
Macedonia; 1
Taiwan; 1
Finland; 1
SURVEY: introduction
To capture user needs To improve users (social) engagement and sense of ownership with the project To increase the usage and utility of the Scratchpads as a
research platform for natural history researchers To identify the technical and social barriers to adoption Results will be used to:
• Guide development of the Scratchpads and associated tools• Identify policy, institutional & infrastructural issues• Identify the sociological implications of new technologies
Why a survey?
Who is behind the survey? A team effort
SURVEY: introduction
Survey questions provide:
Insight into the “profile” of Scratchpad users
Understand their motivation to engage with the project
Understand the impact of the Scratchpads for users
Understand the barriers of use
Provide a user perspective on the biodiversity informatics landscape
SURVEY: methodology
Participants in survey: site maintainers / initiators
Semi-structured interviews by a trained sociologist
Mixture of open and closed questions
Number interviewed Scratchpad maintainers 46
Number of sites 60
SURVEY: the users (1)
Population vs respondents
Subjects sites
Age
Country
Position
Uses other virtual research tools 81%
Of which
Use them on a daily basis 91%
Of which
Collaborate by using these tools with > 10 people 50%
Estimate community size (off line) 74% > 2
SURVEY: the users (2)
SURVEY: the users (3) What we know about the respondents
97%
88%
76%
68%
50%
50%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Personal communication
Peer reviewed journals
Conference presentation
Conference proceedings
Monographs
Email lists (outside institution)
Wiki’s and Blogs
Most important communication channels to disseminate work
SURVEY: the users (4) Plans to continue to use site in future: 93%
Contribute to other people’s SP: 83% (no) vs 18% (yes)
Different roles in Scratchpad community: 87% carry out admin. work
22%
56%
66%
80%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Active) when itcomes to involving
(new) people
(Active) in editingother peoples or your
own content
An (active) contributorwhen it comes to
technical maintenance
(Active) contributorwhen it comes adding
new content
Contributions to site
SURVEY: the users (5) How they heard about the Scratchpads
How the word spread
67%
20%
7%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Brought to attention bysomeone from theScratchpad team
Came across bycoincidence
While searching onlinefor a data solution
Recommended by aScratchpad user
SURVEY: motivation (1) Why they signed-up
Motivation to register
24%
2%
20%
37%
17%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Needed a tool forcollaborative work
pratices
Needed acommunication tool
Out of bioinformaticinterest
For datamanagementpuposes
Other
Quotes from interviews:
(…) “needed a facility to enable taxonomists to come together and discuss before work has been formalised”
“Always had an intention to make work available to a wider audience then just research collaborators”
“Looking for a place on the web to store morphological characters on. Tried using morphbank but it didn't work out”
“Mostly to see what the Scratchpad system was like. To see advantages and disadvantages for expert databases”
“Like to apply for money from EDIT. Best way to get funded is to get electronic access for all material, e.g. Scratchpad”
SURVEY: motivation (2) Why they signed-up
SURVEY: impact (1)
7%
17%
64%
12%
5%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Built into grant publications
Meetings
Publications
Evidence that site has inspired others/otherproducts
Presentations
There were no spin offs (yet)
Scratchpad spin-offs
SURVEY: impact (2) Actual uses of sites
33%
40%
7%
17%
67%
62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
For communicatingreseach
Individual data archiving
Individual blog
For data sharing
As shared bibliographicreference tool
Group blog or notebook
Uses of site
33%
40%
7%
17%
67%
62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
For communicatingreseach
Individual data archiving
Individual blog
For data sharing
As shared bibliographicreference tool
Group blog or notebook
Uses of site
SURVEY: impact (2) Actual uses of sites
33%
40%
7%
17%
67%
62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
For communicatingreseach
Individual data archiving
Individual blog
For data sharing
As shared bibliographicreference tool
Group blog or notebook
Uses of site
SURVEY: impact (2) Actual uses of sites
SURVEY: impact (3) According to users Scratchpad(s) help them …
26%
10%
38%
7%
12%
64%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
To communicate research
To learn about otherpeople and their work
Technical advantages(data presentation/use)
To communicate personalopinions on field of work
To archive/organize datafor personal use
To distance work withothers
To meet new people
Benefits of Scratchpads
SURVEY: impact (3) According to users Scratchpad(s) help them …
26%
10%
38%
7%
12%
64%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
To communicate research
To learn about otherpeople and their work
Technical advantages(data presentation/use)
To communicate personalopinions on field of work
To archive/organize datafor personal use
To distance work withothers
To meet new people
Benefits of Scratchpads
SURVEY: impact (3) According to users Scratchpad(s) help them …
26%
10%
38%
7%
12%
64%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
To communicate research
To learn about otherpeople and their work
Technical advantages(data presentation/use)
To communicate personalopinions on field of work
To archive/organize datafor personal use
To distance work withothers
To meet new people
Benefits of Scratchpads
Do people collaborate?
NB: 60 sites from the sample are managed by 46 peopleThe 30 sites with active members are managed by 24 people
SURVEY: impact (4)
Number of active members per siten=number of sites
28
2
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 to10 10 >
Do people collaborate?
NB: 60 sites from the sample are managed by 46 peopleThe 30 sites with active members are managed by 24 people
Number of active members per siten=number of sites
28
2
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 to10 10 >
SURVEY: impact (4)
Maintainers level of acquaintance with active members at start
SURVEY: impact (5)
8%
38%
63%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Know by name only
Met before
Work together
Maintainers level of acquaintness with active members
SURVEY: impact (6) Publishing work in progress
No
Yes No, but I intend to in the future
67%
Published work in progress publicly or on member section
10%
24%
67% of the respondents publish work in progress (on closed, member areas or publicly) with the following motivations:
[Some examples]
To make data available to students To collectively work on species descriptions To identify research gaps, like info. on undescribed species To get input from people before publication To work collectively on interactive key’s that need constant
updating To increase visibility of work/project So others can edit raw data
SURVEY: impact (7)
22 participants do this publicly !
Barriers to publishing work in progress
24% of the respondents said they are not publishing work in progress because:
Problems setting up a private area on their site Feel uncomfortable to sharing untested hypotheses Information on the site are books chapters waiting to get
published (copyright restrictions?)
SURVEY: barriers (1)
Barriers to creating an online community
SURVEY: barriers (2)
“Protecting the data from misuse. There is a problem of getting people involved due to intellectual property rights and copyright (i.e. with images)”.
“[my] site needs to be perfect before inviting others”
“Too few people with the same level of interest”
Some examples:
SURVEY: barriers (3) Barriers to achieving initial goals
22 respondents said their site(s) are not achieving the all goals they had set because…
82%
45%
23%
9%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Lack of time tomaintain the site(s)
Lack of time todevelop the
necessary skills
Lack of generalcomputer literacy
Don't know how tomotivate my
community to join in
Concerns that mydata wil be misused
Barrieres to achieve goals set
Barrier “lack of time”, perhaps related to lack of…?
Technical support
Yes, 26%
Don't know, 9%
No, 65%
Yes, 32%
No, 68%
Part of job evaluation
SURVEY: barriers (4)
Why users engage and how
According to the respondents:
“They are willing to engage because they know someone who uses them”
“The Scratchpads offer specific benefits for specific problems in collaboration (community building), communication, because of impact, because of technical accessibility, features for data management”
Scratchpads offer multiple ways to engage: • As a visitor (active or passive user)• As a “community of one” (for self publishing)• As a community member (either active or passive)• As an active site maintainer / leader
SURVEY: summary (1)
Surprised by…
“Respondents are publishing “work in progress” on their site(s) because they see multiple benefits doing this”.
SURVEY: summary (2)
SURVEY: summary (3)
Possible questions
• Is their institutional support for users who take up new technologies? Will this make difference for users?
• Getting research communities involved: What are the factors leading to successful and active collaboration?
• Can we use knowledge in offline successful research communities and translate this to an online setting?
• What are the views and practices on publishing work in progress within the taxonomic community?
• Use alternative methodologies that are better equipped for analysing social barriers (experimental setting; ethnographic studies etc.)
Further research
With thanks to...
• All the survey participants
• Christine Hine (Dept. of Sociology, Univ. of Surrey)
?