Presentation delivered at the doctoral defence of Monica Lassi, University of Borås, 11th June 2014. There is a full narrative to accompany these slides at http://hazelhall.org/2014/06/12/facilitating-collaboration-a-doctoral-defence-in-sweden/

1. Facilitating collaboration: a review
Dr Hazel Hall
Professor of Social Informatics
Edinburgh Napier University
http://hazelhall.org
@hazelh
Presentation made at the doctoral defence of Monica Lassi,
University of Borås, Sweden, 11th June 2014

2. Facilitating collaboration: a review
An opportunity to situate
 Opponent
 Research background
 Institution
 Work examined
 Research questions
 Four studies that develop the thesis
 The thesis’ contribution to knowledge
Then on to the questioning…

3. http://hazelhall.org/about

4. Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio (1614)

6. http://www.social-informatics.org/uploadi/editor/1158776249plakat%20ENG1.pdf

8. http://hazelhall.org/publications/phd-the-knowledge-trap-an-
intranet-implementation-in-a-corporate-environment/

9. http://hdl.handle.net/2320/13583

10. Collaboration and LIS
1. How can collaboration be
facilitated?
2. How can collaboration be
stimulated?

11. What do members of the LIS
community perceive to be (a)
benefits, (b) facilitators, (c)
challenges of an LIS
collaboratory?
What are the current attitudes
amongst members of the LIS
community towards practices
of creating, sharing, using and
re-using data collection
instruments?
How can the social actors model
and the online community life-
cycle model contribute to the
understanding of perceptions
and practices related to data
collection instruments and a
potential LIS collaboratory?
3 PhD research questions

12. Two theoretical models
1. Online community life-cycle
 Gives a perspective on designing social aspects of a collaboratory
 For example, with reference to interaction between actors, it reveals factors
that contribute to the success of an online community
2. Social actors model
 Helps understanding of potential collaboratory actors with regards to:
 The context of the organisations where they work
 Their professional roles

13. Focus of the study
Scientific collaboration as related to data collection instruments,
e.g.
 Interview guides
 Questionnaires
 Observation protocols
Specific activities related to the handling the data collection
instruments
 Creating
 Sharing
 Using
 Re-using

14. Thesis development
Four studies
 Each builds on the one that precedes it
 Each contributes to the next one
A prototype collaboratory
 Online facilities for collaboration
 Designed as part of the work
 The research process is thus also a design process
Socio-technical view
Technology affects people
People affect technology

15. Paper 1: literature review (2010)
“Identifying factors that may impact adoption and use of a social
science collaboratory: a synthesis of previous research”
 Analyses the literature of scientific collaboration and collaboratories
 Not LIS-specific, also includes material from:
 Communication Studies
 Computer Mediated Communication
 Computer Science
 Computer Supported Cooperative Work
 Psychology
 Sociology
 Social Studies of Science

16. Paper 1: findings
Six factors are important to adoption and use of a collaboratory
 3 individual factors related to:
 Impact of collaboratory engagement on career progress, e.g. citations
 Personal factors (other than those related to career progress) e.g. fun
 Cost of participation
 3 group factors related to the extent to which:
 The collaboratory advances the discipline/science
 The collaboratory has an impact on the community it seeks to serve
 The cost of developing and maintaining the collaboratory represents “good
value”

17. http://www.informationr.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis710.html

18. Paper 2: empirical study on perceptions
“Sharing data collection instruments: perceptions of facilitators and
challenges for a Library and Information Science collaboratory”
 Explores factors that may affect a collaboratory
 Design, adoption and use
 Details current practices related to data collection instruments
 Creating, sharing, using, re-using
 Based on perceptions of 16 interviewees from across the LIS community
 Benefits, facilitators, challenges of collaboratory for sharing data collection
instruments

19. Paper 2 findings (1): 2 main benefits
A collaboratory would be useful to the LIS community/discipline
 Resources held would make it possible to build on previous work, e.g.
 Develop and improve a data collection tool
 Compare results across studies
 Contributors would feel a rise in personal esteem when their tools are re-
used

20. Paper 2 findings (2): 2 main challenges
Value of tool re-use
 Research is often unique: how useful is one person’s tool in another
person’s work?
 Need for rich meta data about the tool in question for users to determine the
value of an existing tool
 The opportunity to modify a shared data collection tool is not necessarily
positive
 Could this actually lower its value?
LIS context
 “Sharing resources is not in LIS culture” (p. 53)
 Practitioners lack time, confidence and personal incentive to become
active collaboratory users

21. Paper 3: prototype design (2013)
Presents the design of a prototype collaboratory built in MediaWiki
around “use cases”
 Join the collaboratory
 Create a research profile
 Handle data collection instruments
 Share one
 Find one
 Post a comment/question about one
 Create a new one
 Volunteer to be a reviewer
 Provide a recommendation letter for a collaboratory member

22. http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-2/paper576.html#.U5nnsC-prOd

23. Paper 4: empirical study to evaluate design
“Evaluation of a prototype collaboratory for sharing data collection
instruments in Library and Information Science”
 Investigates how a group of librarians perceives the prototype
collaboratory
 “Think aloud” sessions
 Semi-structured interviews on “think aloud” sessions
 Examines the potential of a collaboratory for the sharing of data collection
instruments in LIS

24. Paper 4: findings
Librarians who tested the prototype
 Encountered initial difficulties with the interface, but were confident that
these could be overcome
 Drew attention to high cost of participation
 Learning the mark-up language
 Working in English (not Swedish)
 Becoming familiar with research methods vocabulary
 Liked the facility for sharing and commenting
 Suggested the value of a collaboratory for their end users

25. What do members of the LIS
community perceive to be (a)
benefits, (b) facilitators, (c)
challenges of an LIS
collaboratory?
Research question 1

26. Perceptions of an LIS
collaboratory
Value
 Resources held would make it
possible to build on previous
work
 The research process would
accelerate
 Contributors would feel a rise in
personal esteem when their
tools are re-used
 Researchers from other
disciplines could learn
from/contribute to LIS
 New ways of working with LIS
data collection tools could be
disseminated in teaching
Challenges
 How do you meet the needs of
a diverse audience?
 How do you ensure the quality
of collaboratory content?
 How do you reward
participation?
 Benefit of participation needs
to be greater than cost
 Different users prefer different
rewards (e.g. time to engage,
citations for esteem)

27. Perceptions of an LIS
collaboratory
Value
 Resources held would make it
possible to build on previous
work
 The research process would
accelerate
 Contributors would feel a rise
in personal esteem when their
tools are re-used
 Researchers from other
disciplines could learn
from/contribute to LIS
 New ways of working with LIS
data collection tools could be
disseminated in teaching
Challenges
 How do you meet the needs of
a diverse audience?
 How do you ensure the quality
of collaboratory content?
 How do you reward
participation?
 Benefit of participation needs
to be greater than cost
 Different users prefer different
rewards (e.g. time to engage,
citations for esteem)

28. What are the current attitudes
amongst members of the LIS
community towards practices
of creating, sharing, using and
re-using data collection
instruments?
Research question 2

29. Attitudes towards
collaboratory practice
Embracing practice
 Positive attitudes towards
more sharing and re-use of
data collection instruments
Tensions
 Desire to support LIS versus
the desire to maintain control
of one’s own resources

30. Attitudes towards
collaboratory practice
Embracing practice
 Positive attitudes towards
more sharing and re-use of
data collection instruments
Tensions
 Desire to support LIS versus
the desire to maintain control
of one’s own resources

31. How can the social actors model
and the online community life-
cycle model contribute to the
understanding of perceptions
and practices related to data
collection instruments and a
potential LIS collaboratory?
Research question 3

32. Theoretical models
Social actors
 Empirical material too diverse
and complex to categorise and
generalise according to this
model
 Different actor roles
 Varied organisational contexts
Online community life-cycle
 Contribution to a design
framework with a focus on
social interaction in a
collaboratory
 Insight into the creation stage
of the online community life-
cycle model
 Goal established
 Target audience determined

33. Contributions of this study
Collaboration in general
 Review of the literature on the design, adoption and use of collaboratories
 Greater depth of coverage of the theme in a social science domain
 Previous work is largely in the domain of science
 Focus on initial design of online collaborative space
 Previous work primarily considers what affects/stimulates use
Collaboration and LIS
 New knowledge on the sharing of data collection instruments
 Inclusion of practitioners in the study
 Understanding of LIS community’s perceptions of the potential of
collaboratories
 Identification of needs of an LIS collaboratory
 e.g. tailored provision, interface design

34. Facilitating collaboration: a review
Dr Hazel Hall
Professor of Social Informatics
Edinburgh Napier University
http://hazelhall.org
@hazelh
Presentation made at the doctoral defence of Monica Lassi,
University of Borås, Sweden, 11th June 2014