Presentation on theme: "E-Uptake: widening uptake of e-Infrastructure Services Marzieh Asgari-Targhi, Alex Voss, Rob Procter et al. ESRC National Centre for e-Social Science."— Presentation transcript:
e-Uptake: widening uptake of e-Infrastructure Services Marzieh Asgari-Targhi, Alex Voss, Rob Procter et al. ESRC National Centre for e-Social Science
Session Overview About the e-Uptake Project Literature Review and Fieldwork Typology and Repository of Findings Fostering e-Infrastructures From User-Designer Relations to Community Engagement
e-Uptake Led by the ESRC National Centre for e-Social Science in collaboration with the National e-Science Centre and the Arts & Humanities e-Science Support Centre. Remit: to widen the uptake of e-Research across all disciplines through research and intervention Stakeholders: existing and potential service and technology providers, researchers, funders, etc.
Overview Issues identified in the e-Science and innovation studies literature Investigation of issues and enablers through fieldwork Validation of existing knowledge and generating new findings
Existing Themes (I) The following major areas have been identified in the literature: What exactly constitutes e-infrastructure? Technology + social arrangements Can we ‘build’ infrastructures or do we ‘foster’ them? What does advanced computing offer science and engineering as well as social sciences or arts and humanities? Are there common themes? How can e-Research be ‘embedded’ in practice and in education? Integration of e-Infrastructure components into a coherent whole.
Existing Themes (II) Data and related issues; accessing, curating, protection, sharing, standardising, security and confidentiality issues, etc. Collaboration between application scientists & developers, what motivates people and how can it be made to work across distance and boundaries? Global communities: how do we maximise the use of e-Infrastructures and applications to support new forms of scientific community?
Existing Themes (III) e-Research is inherently multi-disciplinary. Funding: Attracting funding for multi-disciplinary research in e-infrastructure is difficult Organisational framework: How strategic investments and enabling policy can be combined to form an effective organisational framework? Socio-ethical issues, how do we tackle the ethical and policy issues surrounding the use of e-Research?
Existing Themes (IV) Legal issues, e.g., IPR, data protection Spectrum of architectures runs from centrally organised and controlled to networks or linked systems Managing local autonomy while providing reliable and predictable services Measuring the success of e-Research and rewarding it.
Studying Uptake, Barriers & Enablers Look beyond isolated, anecdotal, contingent or random problems Aim to uncover recurring, widespread barriers that can be overcome by targeted interventions Must reflect the diversity of the target population, their different interests and possible uses of services Must sample adopters, non-adopters and service providers
Evidence E-Uptake has conducted 50+ interviews About 25 hours of audio + questionnaire data Fieldwork continuing & approach being reviewed Interviews being transcribed and coded Metadata being applied and questionnaire data added Building up a body of evidence and a typology of findings Online repository of evidence of barriers and enablers Analysis of training requirements based on existing longitudinal data collection
Coverage So Far Underrepresentation, e.g., of research fellows Level of awareness about 68% - bias towards early adopters Next rounds of fieldwork will try to address this and will try to falsify emerging explanations of adoption processes, barriers and enablers
Training Requirements Existing training requirements data (AHM, EGEE conferences, etc. – note bias in sample…)
Training Requirements (II) Clear need for education, outreach and training on principles of e-Research Training provision currently patchy Question of timing, need to engage people when they are ready to make the next step Need to tailor interventions to different communities
Part 2: Coding, Typology, Repository of Findings
e-Research Tools Analytical approach being developed and CAQDAS tools (Atlas.ti, NVivo, etc.) considered Interested in: Non-proprietary file formats Support for collaborative work Integration of qualitative, quantitative and meta-data Dynamic online presentation in a number of different forms for different stakeholders Complex queries Semi-automatic markup, meta-data generation and anonymisation
SQUAD We are currently exploring use of SQUAD Smart Qualitative Data: Methods and Community Tools for Data Mark-Up Based on TEI – an XML application Consequently: open & extensible http://quads.esds.ac.uk/projects/squad.asp
Coding Coding scheme initially based on earlier literature review Being iteratively modified as analysis progresses Hierarchical scheme with currently 166 codes Link between formulations of barriers and evidence base [Demo visual representation…]
Gathering and Analysing Evidence Need to improve evidence gathering in the community Current JISC community engagement activities provide a snapshot Make data collection more routine Turn evidence to insight to action Use e-Research tools to facilitate this…
Embedding e-Infrastructures As e-Infrastructure matures technically, the need to address issues of uptake and embedding in working practices becomes critical.
The Nature of e-Infrastructures e-Infrastructures are complex socio-technical ensembles which are ‘fostered’ rather than ‘built’. Changing the ‘social infrastructure’ requires interventions not traditionally associated with engineering and design. These interventions are needed at different scales: local, organisational, national, international. e-Infrastructure will not be sustained unless the technical and social infrastructures are aligned.
Fostering e-Infrastructures Drawing on the findings, approaches and methods developed in other disciplines Essentially an inter-disciplinary effort. Relevant expertise exists: software engineering, social sciences (e.g., sociology, social anthropology, economics), workplace studies (as in CSCW and PD), science and technology studies, philosophy of science.
Fostering e-Infrastructures Involvement from these disciplines has often been sporadic, marginal and too late rather than fundamental and strategic. Aim for a more fundamental involvement in community engagement: studying working practices and uptake, building conceptual models and deriving policies, devising plans for widening and deepening adoption through targeted interventions, e.g., training, education, outreach, consultancy or user forums
Operationalising Lessons Learned We need to find ways to operationalise lessons learned and make them part of the normal way of working for people working in e-Research. The challenge lies in making approaches scale: from single systems to distributed infrastructures, to collaborative work in communities, Involving heterogeneous and independent actors.
Part 4: From User-Designer Relations to Community Engagement
Models of Innovation Linear: diffusion from laboratory into society – ‘build it and they will come’ Feedback and innovation in use Socio-technical systems Importance of local knowledge and practices Users as stakeholders and experts Designers as moderators/facilitators as well as technical experts Configurations
User-Designer Relations Need familiarity with the working practices and concerns of researchers Researchers need to understand what is possible, what is feasible and what is not, what the tradeoff between different options are Involves a degree of familiarity with the research domain and e- Research technologies. This can be achieved through: Training (e.g., bioinformatics, Grid literacy) Boundary spanning (e.g., researchers employed on projects) Facilitation (e.g., consultancy, focus groups, workplace studies) Shared practice (co-location, embedding, corealisation)
Issues Traditional user engagement works: in small groups in relatively homogeneous groups with (practically) aligned interests in the design of well-described systems serving well-defined purposes
Issues (II) e-Infrastructures for research challenge this: loosely coupled groups of people with only partially and temporarily aligned interests multidisciplinarity and scale of collaboration problem of identifying possible adopters and engaging them representativeness generic vs. specific functionality & support configurations, not systems
…to Community Engagement Managing user-designer relations beyond individual projects Scaling to community level Developing paths to adoption and mechanisms to facilitate uptake to widen uptake from ‘early adopters’ to the ‘interested’, to get the ‘disengaged’ interested and to convince the ‘sceptical’.
Paths to Wider Uptake Grand Challenges Capacity Computing / Grid Exceptional work Bespoke functionality Web 2.0 Social Grid Everyday work Common tools
Paths to Wider Uptake Grand Challenges Capacity Computing / Grid Exceptional work Bespoke functionality Web 2.0 Social Grid Everyday work Common tools Embedded e-Research Corealisation Routine innovation Functionality Mashup* *Charles Severance
Intervention Closing the gaps between stages of engagement: cf. EGEE Virtuous Cycle Also OSS-Watch model
Community Engagement (II) Interventions: outreach, education, training, consultancy These elements need to be tied together Lack of an obvious (single) point of contact Need a professional triage service?
Community Engagement: Mapping Establish baseline understanding of e- Science communities: people, projects, activities and relationships. e-Uptake is using web-mining to harvest information from research council websites, conference proceedings, etc, map of e-Science communities and track engagement over time.
Mixed Methods Need to employ a mixture of methods for data collection, engagement, requirements negotiation and validation Interviews establish existence of issues Design ethnographies provides detailed understanding Surveys establish relevance across a wider population Particular set of skills falls between computer science and social sciences
Programme – Project Relations Effective community engagement is expensive, therefore best done at programme level Have common approach to common issues so projects can focus in specifics Raises the questions of programme – project relations Need to coordinate between project-level and programme-level activities Sustained funding for these activities
Programme – Project Relations (II) For example: Community engagement projects have common framework of understanding Common consent process enabling data sharing Coordinated approach to identifying candididate respondents, doing interviews, managing data and analysis Common dissemination activities
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.