slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The case of biomedical sciences PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The case of biomedical sciences

The case of biomedical sciences

301 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The case of biomedical sciences

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Institute for Educational Technologies National ResearchCouncil of Italy EXPLORING RESEARCHERS’ DISCOURSES ABOUT PRODUCING, DISSEMINATING AND EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON THE WEB. The case of biomedical sciences Juliana E. Raffaghelli Sara Valla Stefania Cucchiara Alessandra Giglio Donatella Persico

  2. doingresearch: A changingprofession • Web development • Openness in science and education (Open Science) • Participatory culture (Jenkins et al. 2006) • New professional practices and ways of experience the academic profession (Borgman, 2007; Scanlon, 2014) • DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP (Weller, 2011) Luigi Mengato, 2007 CC

  3. New ways of doingresearch: Digital Scolarship • Search • Manage references and data • Share, Disseminate • Evaluate Open Access Social Web Open Science  Digital Scholarship Juliana Raffaghelli, CC /

  4. New ways of doingresearch: Digital Scholarship A new professoriate (Weller, 2011, based on Boyer, 1990) Social media and scholarship (Veletsianos& Kimmons, 2012) Networked and participatory scholarship is based on questioning traditions and formulating a new deontological approach to the way scientific information is produced and shared. • a) discovery (or the process of creating knowledge); • b) integration (or the creation of new knowledge across disciplines); • c) application (or the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge); • d) teaching (or the core of the University’s endeavor).

  5. Critical issues • Digital Scholarshipisstillatitsinfancyasresearchtopic (Veletsianos, 2013) • Studiesdone on earlyadopters, do not show what the majority do (Esposito, 2013) • Diversified impact of digitaltechnologies in researchpracticesacrossdisciplines (Harley, Acord, Earl-Novell, Lawrence, & King, 2010) • Youngest researchers tend to use more traditional sources and ways of knowledge building and sharing, while established researchers are sometimes eager to try new ways (Harley et al., 2010) • This finding goes against the “Millennials” hypothesis • Disentaglement (different behavior with technologies in the personal and professional life)

  6. Our case • A set of non-structured interviews with a group of 7 researchers and 3 librarians • Coming from the field of the Life Sciences and Medicine in the Italian context • Focus: exploring how our study group experience the main dimensions of Digital Scholarship - defined as the production, dissemination and evaluation of scientific information with the adoption of web tools. • Aim: identifying the learning needs of these researchers as a base for a learning design of a course on the “use of digital resources to produce, disseminate and evaluate scientific information”.

  7. METHOD & PARTICIPANTS Method Participants • Non-structured interviews, 30-40 minutes • Principles of qualitative research, whereby the phenomena studied are ill-structured, and require a work of conceptualization and categorization (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011) • Categorization of results using a grid regarding 4 areas (introduction, searching and managing scientific information, producing and disseminating scientific information, evaluating scientific information)


  9. RESULTS * Grouped in three categories derived by the foreseen course topics. * Further distributed into three outputs types: use of instruments (particularly digital ones); problems identified; training needs identified with regard to the category and its relating instruments.

  10. Discussion • Differencesbetweenyoungresearchers(thatstartedtheirresearchactivityimmediatelyaftertheirdegree) and youngprofessionalsdoingclinicalresearch (with some professionalexperience). • Less awareness on managing, disseminating and evaluating scientific information, and more on searching useful sources that addressed clinical interventions. • “Millennials” do not adopt technologies as expected at work (in line with Harley et al, 2010). • Disentanglement (Veletsianos, 2013). • The role of the institution in shaping professional skills, more than the availability of technologies. • In a “continuum” between simply using digital resources for concrete tasks, and expressing the own professional identity through the use of digital resources, we found most researchers attached to a focused (and somehow superficial) use. • Institutional and “research cultures” could promote, amongst their collaborators, the adoption of digital technologies in such a way.

  11. conclusions • Promoting Digital Scholarship should be related to such elements: • exploring contexts of intervention and existing research cultures; • going through flexible interventions, offering participants the possibility to understand the “big picture” about Digital Scholarship, • and hence deciding which are the “technical skills” to be achieved, as well as the professional profile they would like to tailor. • We assume that training activities could endow researchers with a critical awareness on their own professional activity and deontology • In this way, participatory web embedded in the concept of Digital Scholarship perfectly fits • A changing research culture requires: • Factual and conceptual knowledge related to Digital Scholarship; • Procedural and operational knowledge, practical skills, professional experience and problem management with several digital tools and in different digital spaces; • Ability to understand the context, manage interactions with other social actors, and adopt an ethical behavior that is expression of a professional project. KrishTipirneni, 2006 CC Flickr,

  12. ANY QUESTION? Korephotos, 2008 CC Thankyou! Correspondingauthor: Juliana Raffaghelli –