1 / 24

Not Just Content

Supporting Community-Building and Collaboration in Digital Libraries. Not Just Content. Adam Worrall LIS 6279 Research in LIS Fall 2009 Dr. Melissa Gross. Digital libraries (DLs). Two camps (Borgman, 1999) “content collected on behalf of user communities” “institutions or services”

heba
Télécharger la présentation

Not Just Content

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Supporting Community-Building and Collaboration in Digital Libraries Not Just Content Adam Worrall LIS 6279 Research in LIS Fall 2009 Dr. Melissa Gross

  2. Digital libraries (DLs) • Two camps (Borgman, 1999) • “content collected on behalf of user communities” • “institutions or services” • Both are required • Levy and Marshall (1995) • DL as social environment • Bearman (2007)

  3. Communities and networks • Communities of practice • Lave and Wenger • Groups of “people working together on the same or similar tasks” (Brown & Duguid, 2002, p. 141) • Restricted to within a particular organization • Networks of practice (Brown & Duguid, 2002) • Not restricted; larger, broader group • May not even be aware of each other’s existence

  4. Communities and networks • Practice • Interest • Learning • Already existing • Created by DL’s efforts • Entirely online • Hybrid • Entirely offline

  5. Research problem • Existing DLs do not support well, through their content and services, the social context surrounding and within them • Should improve this support of social interactions to integrate better with social groups and communities (Lynch, 2005)

  6. Significance • Most acknowledge DLs need community • No DL without that community • Many researchers argue for need for DLs to consider social interactions • Levy and Marshall (1995) • Marshall and Bly (2004) • Lynch (2005) • Pomerantz and Marchionini (2007) • Gazan (2008)

  7. Research questions • Exploratory, pilot study • How successfully does the D-Scholarship2 digital library prototype support community-building by those users, communities, and networks that use its content and services? • How successfully does the D-Scholarship2 digital library prototype support collaboration by its users?

  8. Failures • CKESS (Bieber et al., 2002) • CYCLADES (Candela & Straccia, 2003) • Sharium model (Marchionini, 1999) • American Front Porch (AFP) (Sonnenwald et al., 1999) • Open Video Digital Library (OVDL) (Marchionini, Wildemuth, & Geisler, 2006) • Reasons: • Overly ambitious; too many methods used • Lack of funding • Unhealthy level of idealism

  9. Flawed approaches • Using external tools (Hull, Pettifer, & Kell, 2008) • Restrictive definition of digital libraries as database • Group commonality (Papatheodorou, Kapidakis, Sfakakis, & Vassiliou, 2003) • Quantitative log mining • Narrow definition of communities as those with common search query vocabulary • Physical paradigm, system-centered rather than user-centered services • Overly simplistic, anachronistic research

  10. Relative successes • Social annotations • AnswerBag(Gazan, 2008) • Web 2.0 question-and-answer site • Faced many of the same challenges as DLs • Highly successful; > 1 million users • Shows promise of social annotations method • Situated context (Bishop et al., 2000) • Examine digital library use in context of not just individual needs and behavior, but also interactions between users and others in the community

  11. Relative successes • Situated context (continued) • DeLIver (University of Illinois) (Bishop et al., 2000) • Large sample sizes, many (mixed) methods • Heavy use by graduate students and faculty • Must look at differences between groups, communities, even still individuals • Must take social context into account

  12. Further study required • Social constructionism (Tuominen, Talja, & Savolainen, 2003) • Places “the primary emphasis on discourse” (p. 564) • ScholOnto • Prototype used social constructionism theory • Provided for collaboration • Appears moribund • Conversation-based and centered • Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed, Google Wave

  13. Further study required • Wikis • Surprisingly little digital library-specific research • PlanetMath (Krowne, 2003) • “commons-based peer production (CBPP)” (Introduction) • Used wiki model with some changes • Identified five challenges • Met them well • Successful; over 2,500 entries

  14. Further study required • Wikis (continued) • Problems and issues • Often found difficult to use (e.g. Chu, 2008) • Not used for patron collaboration in physical libraries (Bejune, 2007) • Conclusions • Must educate users • Must use socio-technical approach

  15. Further study required • Social network analysis (Garton, Haythornthwaite, Wellman, 1997) • Range • Size and heterogeneity of social network • Density • How many relations and ties actually occur, compared to theoretical maximum • Measures have face validity for measuring DL community-building • No literature applying it to digital library users and/or communities

  16. Population • Users of D-Scholarship2 • Prototype of digital library for scholarly publications and gray literature • Currently under development at FSU • Testing group: 500 total • 300 upper-level undergraduates • 150 graduate students • 50 faculty members • Note no freshmen, sophomores, staff • Cannot be generalized outside of FSU

  17. Sampling • Sampling frame • E-mail addresses and roles for testing group • Stratified, systematic random sample • 200 participants • 45 faculty (oversampled) • 66 graduate students • 89 undergraduate students (undersampled) • Random number generators to be used for sampling interval, starting point

  18. Survey Administration • Pre-test • 5+ doctoral students and/or faculty from SLIS • 15 from main study sampling frame • 5 from each stratum • Identification string • e.g. “G538”, “U293”, “F941” • Letter identifies role • Three random numbers • Unique across entire sample • Kept securely, confidentially by researcher

  19. Survey Administration • Main study • Initial e-mail with letter • Study purpose • Benefits • Informed consent disclaimer • Contact information • Identification string • Link to survey web site • Further e-mails • 2 weeks, 5 weeks (modified letter stressing benefits) • Data collection finished at 8 weeks

  20. Survey Instrument • Operational measures of • Community-building • Collaboration • Both drawn partly from social network analysis • Other dimensions independently constructed • Allow for socio-technical analysis • Design and hosting • FSU-hosted, researcher-created web site • Questions grouped into pages • Not to overwhelm participants

  21. Other Considerations • Response rate • Expected to be high • Testing group already testing DL • No ethical issues • Careful pretesting • Validity and reliability • Relatively high • Social network analysis measures have high face validity • Pretest should help ensure high validity • Reliability should be high within population as defined

  22. Other Considerations • Limitations • Limited generalizability • Narrowly defined population • Further research required with other DLs • Cannot find best method • D-Scholarship2 doesn’t use all methods • Further research required with other DLs • Ethical considerations • No issues; no coercion, deception, very little risk, little to no harm, informed consent

  23. References • Bearman, D. (2007). Digital libraries. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 223-272. doi:10.1002/aris.2007.1440410112 • Bejune, M. M. (2007). Wikis in libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 26-38. • Bieber, M., Engelbart, D., Furuta, R., Hiltz, S. R., Noll, J., Preece, J., . . . Van de Walle, B. (2002). Toward virtual community knowledge evolution. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 11-35. • Bishop, A. P., Neumann, L. J., Star, S. L., Merkel, C., Ignacio, E., & Sandusky, R. J. (2000). Digital libraries: Situating use in changing information infrastructure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 394-413. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:4<394::AID-ASI8>3.0.CO;2-Q • Borgman, C. L. (1999). What are digital libraries? Competing visions. Information Processing and Management, 35, 227-243. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00059-4 • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. • Candela, L., & Straccia, U. (2004). The personalized, collaborative digital library environment CYCLADES and its collections management. In J. Callan, F. Crestani, & M. Sanderson (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 2924. Distributed Multimedia Information Retrieval (pp. 156-172). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. • Chu, S. K.-W. (2008). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review, 32, 745-758. doi:10.1108/14684520810923917 • Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html • Gazan, R. (2008). Social annotations in digital library collections. D-Lib Magazine, 14(11/12). doi:10.1045/november2008-gazan • Hull, D., Pettifer, S. R., & Kell, D. B. (2008). Defrosting the digital library: Bibliographic tools for the next generation Web. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(10). doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204 • Krowne, A. (2003). Building a digital library the commons-based peer production way. D-Lib Magazine, 9(10). doi:10.1045/october2003-krowne

  24. References • Levy, D. M., & Marshall, C. C. (1995). Going digital: A look at the assumptions underlying digital libraries. Communications of the ACM, 38(4), 77-84. doi:10.1145/205323.205346 • Lynch, C. (2005). Where do we go from here? The next decade for digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine, 11(7/8). doi:10.1045/july2005-lynch • Marchionini, G. (1999). Augmenting library services: Towards the sharium. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Digital Libraries 1999 (pp. 40-47). Tsukuba, Japan: University of Library and Information Science. Retrieved from http://www.dl.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/ISDL99/proceedings_ISDL99/isdl-1999-40.pdf • Marchionini, G., Wildemuth, B. M., & Geisler, G. (2006). The Open Video Digital Library: A Möbius strip of research and practice. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1629-1643. doi:10.1002/asi.20336 • Marshall, C. C., & Bly, S. (2004). Sharing encountered information: Digital libraries get a social life. In H. Chen, H. D. Wactlar, C. Chen, E.-P. Lim, & M. G. Christel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEECS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 218-227). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/996350.996401 • Papatheodorou, C., Kapidakis, S., Sfakakis, M., & Vasiliou, A. (2003). Mining user communities in digital libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 22, 152-157. • Pomerantz, J., & Marchionini, G. (2007). The digital library as place. Journal of Documentation, 63, 505-533. doi:10.1108/00220410710758995 • Sonnenwald, D. H., Marchionini, G., Wildemuth, B. M., Dempsey, B. J., Viles, C. L., Tibbo, H. R., & Smith, J. B. (1999). Collaboration services in a participatory digital library: An emerging design. In Aparac, T., Saracevic, T., Ingwersen, P., & Vakkari, P. (Eds.), Digital libraries: Interdisciplinary concepts, challenges, and opportunities: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (pp. 141-152). Lokve, Croatia: Benja Publishing. Retrieved from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1314/01/colis-1999.pdf • Tuominen, K., Talja, S., & Savolainen, R. (2003). Multiperspective digital libraries: The implications of constructionism for the development of digital libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 561-569. doi:10.1002/asi.10243

More Related