into the Collaboratory

1
into the Collaboratory

• objective, subjective, intersubjective
  realities intertwined
• joanne twining, M.L.S. Doctoral Candidate,
  School of Library Information Studies
• Texas Womans University September 6, 1999

2
Co - locateCo - lab - orateLab - oratoryCo -
lab - oratory
collaboratory
3
Dissertation A Naturalistic Journey Into the
CollaboratoryIn Search of Understanding For
Prospective Participants http//www.intertwining
.org/dissertation
4
Motivation for the Study

• Philosophical
• How ideas become knowledge
• objective, subjective, intersubjective
• Intellectual
• Modeling reality creation
• Instrumental
• What are the Rules of the Road for the
  Collaboratory?

5
Problem of the Study

• Philosophical
• What is the reality of the Collaboratory?
• Intellectual
• How is reality constructed in the Collaboratory?
• Instrumental
• Why do scholars collaborate online?

6
Research Agenda

• Phase one
• Objective, document-based reality
• Phase two
• Subjective, experience-based reality
• Phase three
• Intersubjective, via Delphi technique

7

• PHASE ONE an objective reality

intertwining model
PHASE THREE an inter-subjective reality
PHASE TWO a subjective reality
8
Methodology

• Naturalistic Inquiry
• Criteria
• Confirmability
• Transferabilty
• Audits Let the data speak
• and leave a trail for others to follow...

9
Questions

• Objective
• What does the documentary evidence say?
• Subjective
• What does the collaboratory experience say?
• Phase three
• What do Collaboratory Pioneers say?

10
Approach

• Objective
• Examination of library holdings.
• Subjective
• Prolonged immersion in the online environment
• Phase three
• Delphi Among Collaboratory Pioneers

11
How the Data Spoke

• Phase One
• triangulated taxono-bibliometric analysis (n86)
• qualitative content analysis (n22)
• CIRAL matrix of criteria for inclusion

12
How the Data Spoke

• Phase Two
• site visits
• analysis of communication modes
• analysis of datatypes produced

13
How the Data Spoke

• Phase Three
• Delphi Among Collaboratory Pioneers
• Rules of the road
• Skills valued in prospective participants

14
into the Collaboratory Phase One

• an objective reality of the Collaboratory based
  on the documentary evidence

15

• What does the collaboratory, via the published
  account, say it is?

16

• The Documentary Evidence
• Collaboratorys first decade 1988-1998
• N89

17
Documentary Evidence

• Available via library intermediation
• Databases
• Catalogs
• Holdings
• Interlibrary loan
• Extraordinary actions of Librarians

18
Search Criteria

• Keyword collaboratory
• No wildcards or truncation
• Excludes large, relevant, surrounding literature
• Includes only highly pertinent documents
• Focus on collaboratory as information environment

19

• Excludes documents NOT available via the library
• uncataloged Internetunpublished papersprivate
  correspondence

20
3 Foundation Documents

• Philosophical
• 1988 - Wulfs NSF White Paper (unpublished)
• Intellectual
• 1989 - Lederberg Uncaphers Report
  (unpublished)
• Instrumental
• 1993 - NRCs National Collaboratories

21
Triangulating Document

• Haddow, Gaby. 1997. The Nature of Journals of
  Librarianship A review. Libres 7(1). March 31.
  http//aztec.lib.utk.edu/libre7n1/haddow.html

Types of journal articles Scholarly
(citations) Glad tidings, testimony, and
research News-type articles
22
Collaboratory Publications n86
23
Taxonomy Construction

• Triangulated analysisfrequencies percentages
• n86
• 1. Wulf discipline x focus
• 2. Haddow article type
• 3. Lederberg Uncapher topic x approach

24
Taxonomy 1
Wulfs (1988) White PaperPhilosophical
foundationof the Collaboratory Discipline x
Focus
25
Wulf Taxonomy

• Disciplines that need to contribute
• Computer science (CS)
• Computer/communication engineering (CCE)
• Social, behavioral, economics (SBE)
• Focus of needed research
• Instrumentation
• Colleagues
• Data

26
Taxonomy 1

• Discipline x Focus
• CS/CEE, SBE, LIS, OTHER
• X
• Instrumentation, Colleagues, Data

27
Wulf Taxonomy

• Focus
• Instrumentation Colleague
  Data Totals
• Disciplines
• CS/CCE 30 2 2 34
• SBE 14 4 0 18
• LIS 5 2 1 8
• OTHER 18 6 2 28 totals 67 14
  5 86

28

• Wulf taxonomy Discipline x Focus n86

29
Observation

• 19 disciplines contribute86 publications to the
  collaboratory literature

Multi- or Inter- disciplinarity?
30
Other Disciplines

• Chemistry Astronomy
• Physics Mathematics
• Psychology Government
• Education Botany
• Biology Medicine
• Journalism
• Knowledge Engineering

31
Interdisciplinarity

• Klein (1990, 55) defines four ways
• by example
• by motivation
• by principles of interaction
• by terminological hierarchy

The space between the books
32
Multiple disciplines contribute to create an
interdisciplinary information environment.
33
Taxonomy 2
Haddow (1997) Article Type Glad tidings
Testimony News Type Research
34
Haddow Taxonomy

• Type of article
• Number of articles
• Glad tidings testimony 14
• News-type 50
• Research 22
• Total 86

35
Haddow TaxonomyType of Publication by Year N86
36
Wulf X HaddowDiscipline of Research, N22
37
Wulf X Haddow Focus of Research, N22
38
Wulf X HaddowFrequencies Percentages
39
Wulf X Haddow of Publications, Disciplines
Combined
40
Relative Equality of Contribution

• (CS/CSS Other) Hard Sciences provide the
  greater number of articles. MOST Hard Science
  articles are News-type and Glad Tidings.
• (CS/CSS Other) (SBE LIS) contribute
  approximately the same numberof research
  articles.

41
Wulf X Haddow of Publications, Disciplines
Combined
42
Relative Equality of Contribution

• (SBE LIS) Soft Sciencesprovide fewer
  articles, but a greater percentage of those
  articles are research.
• Hard and Soft sciences contribute relatively
  equal number of research articles.

43
Interdisciplinarity

• The numbers and percentages of articles reflect
  that the collaboratory is an interdisciplinary
  environment by example, motivation, principles of
  interaction.
• Wulfs assumption of interdisciplinarity.

44
Taxonomy 3
Lederberg Uncapher (1989) Intellectual
Foundationof the Collaboratory Topic x Approach
45
Lederberg Uncapher Taxonomy

• Topics of needed research
• Systems Architecture
• Tools Technologies
• Users Testbeds
• Approach of research needed
• Design
• Implementation
• Testing

46
Theory Type added

• Construct or apply theories
• Generally specific
• Support praxis

47
Lederberg Uncapher Taxonomy

• Approach
• Design
  Impl. Test Theory Totals
• Topic
• System Architecture 9 8 0 9 26
• Tools Technologies 8 11 3 4 26
• Uses Testbeds 5 12 6 11 34
• Totals 22 31 9 24 86

48
Lederberg Uncapher Approach
49
Lederberg Uncapher Topic X Approach
50
Lederberg Uncapher X Haddow Topic of Theory
Research, n22
51
Lederberg Uncapher X Haddow X WulfTheory
Research X Topic X Discipline
52
Lederberg Uncapher X Haddow X WulfTheory
Research X Topic X Discipline
53
Observations

• (SBE LIS) provide the
• greater number of theory research publications.
• The topics of theory researchare inversely
  proportional between disciplines.

54
Relative Equality of Contribution

• The disciplines make relatively equal
  contributions to the Collaboratory literature

55
Interdisciplinarity

• The Collaboratory is an interdisciplinary
  environment

56
Toward a Grounded TheoryQualitative content
analysis of Theory Research n22
57
Qualitative Content Analysis

• Theory research n22
• TopicsSystems Architecture n5
• Tools Technologies n7
• Users Testbeds n10

58
Systems Architecture Theory Research, N5

• Common themes
• Inter- and intra-systems communication,
  integration, adaptability, and independence
  supported by individual participation within an
  indivisible and cohesive whole

59
Tools Technology Theory Research, N7

• Common themes
• Equalization in communication via media richness
  empowered by choice, power, openness, and sharing

60
Users Testbeds Theory Research, N10

• Common themes
• Fair exchange, sharing, and commonalities, with
  maintenance of strong individuality within the
  collective, are positive.

61
Theoretical ThemesPrinciples of Participation

• Integration and adaptability is necessary and
  good.
• Change, choice, and personal power are requisite.
  
• Consensus, sharing, and exchange are positive
  and practiced.
• Individuality and collectivity are distinctly
  and respectfully maintained.

62
Theoretical Themes Environment

• Absence of traditionally male(hierarchic or
  patriarchal) social behaviors individualism,
  dominance, competition, confrontation, mastery,
  aggression, advantage, etc. (Crimshaw1986).

63
Theoretical Themes Environment

• Collaboratory environment is antithetical to
  traditional (male dominated) scientific and
  technological practices.

64
Theoretical Themes Environment

• Suggests a purposively de-gendered
  environment, or an ungenderedness, which in many
  circles (Haraway 1985) is remarkably feminist.

65
The collaboratory is an ungenderedtechnologicall
y-enabledinterdisciplinary scientificinformation
environment built from a relatively equal
contribution by the hard and soft sciences
66
The problem for librarianshipThe Collaboratory
is an interdisciplinary information environment

• Traditional database collections, subject
  category classifications, and search options do
  not facilitate the search for collaboratory
• twinings first finding violates Ranganathans
  5th Law

67
The Taxonomies

• Wulf discipline x focus
• Haddow article type
• LU topic x type
• Five categories, 27 subcategories

68

• How would YOU search for a
• a research article about implementing a testbed
  design for a medical collaboratory
• ?

Wulf discipline x focus LU topic x type Haddow
article type
69
into the Collaboratory Phase Two

• a subjective reality of the Collaboratory via
  immersion in the online environment

70

• Does the collaboratory exist?
• Is the collaboratory as the library represents?

71
Alta Vista Search

• February 1998
• 468 hits for collaboratory
• Announcement of 350mil 5-year NSF KDI funding
  for collaboratory research
• February 1999
• 4,982 hits for collaboratory

72
Toward Criteria for Inclusion as a Collaboratory
73
NRCs Towards a National Collaboratory
(1993)Instrumental foundation of the
Collaboratory

• Defines the criteria for inclusion
• Raises individual and institutional issues and
  concerns

74
Criteria for Inclusion

• CIRAL Matrix
• Computerized Network
• Remote Instrumentation
• Resources to Support
• Data Archives
• Digital Libraries

75
"derivative collaboratories"

• Do not meet the CIRAL criteria for inclusion,
  mostly for lack of access to and remote control
  of instrumentation.

76
derivative collaboratories

• MIS Collaboratory at UT
• CREW Collaboratory at UMich
• Baltimore-Washington Regional Collab.
• CoVis Collaboratory
• MUDS, MOOs

77
Collaboratory Test Site

• M2C The Materials MicroCharacterization
  Collaboratory TelePresence Microscopy Sites
• DOE-Funded

78
M2CTelePresence Microscopy Sites

• Argonne National Laboratoryhttp//tpm.amc.anl.gov
  
• National Institute of Standards Technology
  http//scanner.cme.nist.gov
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory
  http//tpm.amc.anl.gov/MMC/
• University of Illinois Champagne-Urbana
  http//cmm-sun.mrl.uiuc.edu

79
M2C meets all the CIRAL criteria for inclusion

• The collaboratory exists

80
Site Visit

• SPARCSpace Physics and Aeronomy Research
  Collaboratory
• http//si.umich.edu/sparc
• (formerly UARC)
• Upper Atmospheric Space ScienceSondrestrom
  Scatter Radar FacilityGreenland
• NSF-Funded

81
Site Visit

• EMSL
• Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory
  Collaboratory
• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in
  Richland, Washington. http//www.emsl.pnl.gov2080
  /dpcs/collab/
• Nuclear Waste CleanupMicro- SpectroscopesDOE-
  Funded

82
Site Visit

• EEC
• Experimental Electronic Collaboratory at DIII-D
  Tokamak
• http//lithos.gat.com
• US Atomics CorporationFission energyDOE-Funded

83
Communication modes and data generated are
determined by1. instrument2. size of
experiment team
84
Information resources and interfaces are not
managed by librarians or information
professionals, but by collaboratory scientists
85
into the Collaboratory Phase Three

• an intersubjective reality of the Collaboratory
  via Delphi Among Collaboratory Pioneers

86
Delphi Technique

• Toward convergence, divergence, or stasis of
  opinion among experts via interative rounds
• Individual responses anonymous
• Communication via intermediary
• We think by way of what I meant to say was

87

• STEPS
• The problem is identified
• An expert panel is developed
• The panel is presented the problem and asked to
  respond
• Responses are synthesized into a series of
  statements
• The synthesized statements are submitted to the
  panel
• The panel responds
• The process continues until convergence,
  divergence, or stasis is identified.

88
QuestionsWhat are the Rules of the road for
the collaboratory? (NRC 1993)

• What skills do you value in prospective
  participants?

89
Collaboratory Pioneersn6

• Criteria for Inclusion
• associated with a functioning CIRAL collaboratory
• "big picture" position in the collaboratory
• practicing scientist who has actively
  participated in collaboratory experiments for one
  year

90
Seven Rules of the Road

• 1. Be direct in your communication.
• 2. Get involved, get others involved in
  working on a problem.
• 3. Have a real problem that the collaboratory can
  help solve.
• 4. Understand the opportunities and limitations
  of collaboratory work.

91
Seven Rules of the Road

• 5. Stay flexible within a formal framework of
  meetings and experiments.
• 6. Make frequent contributions to collaboratory
  data repositories.
• 7. Working in a collaboratory is not the same as
  being physically present in a laboratory.

92
Skills valued in prospective participants

• 1. Tolerance for evolving technology and
  practices
• 2.Good communication skills
• 3.Experience in the scientific techniques used
• 4.Good to expert scientific knowledge
• 5.General team skills
• 6.Computer application and Internet competence.

93
Findings

• Subtle but remarkable differences in preference
  for
• balance between formal and informal
  communication, and planned and fluid
  experiment modes.

94
Tuck and Earle (1996) group size is always a
determining factor in group communication
structures

• Egalitarian working group (under 6 people)
• camp (6-30 people)
• Hierarchical
• tribe (50-100 people)
• state (100 people)

95
Findings Collaboratory Pioneers value a balance
of social, technological, and scientific skills
in prospective participants over a superior
expertise in any one of them.
96
Findings Collaboratory pioneers
unanimously disagree that the hard and soft
disciplines have made a relatively equal
contribution.
97
Findings "The collaboratory is an ungendered
environment" received a different response
from each participant.
98
Needed Research

• 1. The preliminary findings of this study need to
  be confirmed with more experts and in different
  collaboratories.

99
Needed Research

• 2. Evaluation and analysis of existing
  collaboratory data stores with an eye toward
• exploiting those stores to provide
  automated, intelligent
  information flow to
  the collaboratory interface, and consilient,
  expansive studies of collaboratory work
  practices, and

100
Needed Research

• mapping and modeling the actual work
  practices and information
  needs of
  collaboratory participants as they relate to
• trust building according to collaboratory
  size toward
• informing the design of collaboratory
  interfaces, and
• developing a Delphi-based Collaboratory Expert
  System.

101
Needed Research

• 3. Evaluation and analysis of extra-collaboratory
  information practices of collaboratory scientists
  as they relate to the library toward
• developing a collaboratory science library, and
  within it,
  discipline-, instrument-, and
  experiment-specific information
  resources pertinent to practicing collaboratory
  scientists.

102

• the end
• joanne twining
• twining_at_intertwining.org
• http//www.intertwining.org/dissertation

103
The gift from the goddess of the electronic
nuggetA BIT OF BYTES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH, BUT LEAD YOU TO SOMETHING IMPORTANTThe
Journal of Collaboratory Science
http//www.arl.org/sparc/http//www.arl.org/spa
rc/scipr.html