Advertisement

Three Gaps in Opening Science

  • Gaia MosconiEmail author
  • Qinyu Li
  • Dave Randall
  • Helena Karasti
  • Peter Tolmie
  • Jana Barutzky
  • Matthias Korn
  • Volkmar Pipek
Article

Abstract

The Open Science (OS) agenda has potentially massive cultural, organizational and infrastructural consequences. Ambitions for OS-driven policies have proliferated, within which researchers are expected to publish their scientific data. Significant research has been devoted to studying the issues associated with managing Open Research Data. Digital curation, as it is typically known, seeks to assess data management issues to ensure its long-term value and encourage secondary use. Hitherto, relatively little interest has been shown in examining the immense gap that exists between the OS grand vision and researchers’ actual data practices. Our specific contribution is to examine research data practices before systematic attempts at curation are made. We suggest that interdisciplinary ethnographically-driven contexts offer a perspicuous opportunity to understand the Data Curation and Research Data Management issues that can problematize uptake. These relate to obvious discrepancies between Open Research Data policies and subject-specific research practices and needs. Not least, it opens up questions about how data is constituted in different disciplinary and interdisciplinary contexts. We present a detailed empirical account of interdisciplinary ethnographically-driven research contexts in order to clarify critical aspects of the OS agenda and how to realize its benefits, highlighting three gaps: between policy and practice, in knowledge, and in tool use and development.

Keywords

Open Science Open research Data Digital curation Research Data management Collaborative research practices Research Data practices Open Data policy Ethnographic approach 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been possible thanks to the engagement of many scholars, the CRC “Media of Cooperation” organization board and the IT service provider with whom we have worked with and learned from. The findings in this paper originate from the project INF funded by a grant of the DFG (SFB 1187).

References

  1. Abbott, Daisy (2008). What is Digital Curation? DCC briefing papers: Introduction to curation. Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Available online: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/what-digital-curation. Accessed 13 February 2019.
  2. Arzberger, Peter; Peter Schroeder; Anne Beaulieu; Geof Bowker; Kathleen Casey; Leif Laaksonen; David Moorman; Paul Uhlir; and Paul Wouters (2006). Promoting access to public research Data for scientific, economic, and social development. Data Science Journal, vol. 3, pp. 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher, Andrew; and Lori M. Jahnke (2013). Curating the ethnographic moment. Archive Journal, no. 3. Available online http://www.archivejournal.net​/​essays/​curating-​the-​ethnographic-​moment/. Accessed 13 February 2019.Google Scholar
  4. Bechhofer, Sean; David De Roure; Matthew Gamble; Carole Goble; and Buchan Iain (2010). Research objects: Towards exchange and reuse of digital knowledge. In FWCS 2010. Proceedings of The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science, Raleigh, USA, April 26, 2010. Nature proceedings. 6 pages.Google Scholar
  5. Bietz, Matthew J.; and Charlotte P. Lee (2009). Collaboration in metagenomics: Sequence databases and the Organization of Scientific Work. In I. Wagner, H. Tellioğlu, E. Balka, C. Simone and L. Ciolfi (eds): ECSCW 2009. Proceedings of the 11 th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vienna, Austria, 7-11 September 2009. London: Springer London, pp. 243–262.Google Scholar
  6. Bietz, Matthew J.; Eric P. Baumer; and Charlotte P. Lee (2010). Synergizing in cyberinfrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnholtz, Jeremy P.; and Matthew J. Bietz (2003). Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. In M. Pendergast, K. Schmidt, C. Simone and M. Tremaine (eds): GROUP'03: Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Sanibel Island, Florida, 9 – 12 November 2003. New York: ACM Press. pp. 339–348.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, Libby (2012). Using archived qualitative data for teaching: Practical and ethical considerations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgman, Christine L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 1059–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowker, Geoffrey C. (2005). Memory practices in the sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Broom, Alex; Lynda Cheshire; and Michael Emmison (2009). Qualitative researchers’ understandings of their practice and the implications for Data archiving and sharing. Sociology, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1163–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadiz, J. J.; Anop Gupta; and Grudin Jonathan (2000). Using web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In W. Kellogg and S. Whittaker (eds): CSCW’00: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2–6 December 2000. New York: ACM Press, pp. 309–318.Google Scholar
  13. Carlson, Samuelle; and Ben Anderson (2007). What are Data? The many kinds of Data and their implications for Data re-use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 635–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caton, Hiram (1990). The Samoa reader. Anthropologists take stock. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  15. Chang, Yuan-Chia; Hao-Chuan Wang; Hung-kuo Chu; Shung-Ying Lin; and Wang Shuo-Ping (2017). AlphaRead: Support unambiguous referencing in remote collaboration with readable object annotation. In C. P. Lee, S. Poltrock, L. Barkhuus, M. Borges and W. Kellogg (eds): CSCW’17. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Portland, Oregon, USA, 25 February – 01 March 2017. New York: ACM Press, pp. 2246–2259.Google Scholar
  16. Choi, Joohee; and Yla Tausczik (2017). Characteristics of collaboration in the emerging practice of open Data analysis. In C.P. Lee, S. Poltrock, L. Barkhuus, M. Borges and W. Kellogg (eds): CSCW’17. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Portland, Oregon, USA, 25 February – 01 March 2017. New York: ACM Press, pp. 835–846.Google Scholar
  17. Corti, Louise (2007). Re-using archived qualitative data – Where, how, why? Archival Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dachtera, Juri; Dave Randall; and Volker Wulf (2014). Research on research. In M. Jones, P. Palanque, A. Schmidt and T. Grossman (eds): CHI’14. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, Canada, 26 April – 1 May 2014. New York: ACM Press, pp. 713–722.Google Scholar
  19. Dallas, Costis (2007) An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds): ICHIM’07. Proceedings of the International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Available online: http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/dallas/dallas.html. Accessed 13 February 2019.Google Scholar
  20. Dallas, Costis (2016). Digital curation beyond the “wild frontier”: A pragmatic approach. Archival Science, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 421–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DFG (2010). Principles for the Handling of Research Data. Available: https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/ download/archiv/Allianz-Principles_Research_Data_2010.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2019.
  22. Eberhard, Igor; and Wolfgang Kraus (2018). Der Elefant im Raum. Ethnographisches Forschungsdatenmanagement als Herausforderung für Repositorien. Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards, Paul N.; Matthew S. Mayernik; Archer L. Batcheller; Geoffrey C. Bowker; and Christine L. Borgman (2011). Science friction: data, metadata, and collaboration. Social studies of science, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 667–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edwards, Paul N.; Steven J. Jackson; Melissa K. Chalmers; Geoffrey C. Bowker; Christine L. Borgman; David Ribes; Matt Burton; and Calvert Scout (2013). Knowledge Infrastructures: Intellectual Frameworks and Research Challenges. Ann Arbor: Deep Blue.Google Scholar
  25. Erickson, Ingrid; Kristin Eschenfelder; Sean Goggins; Libby Hemphill; Steve Sawyer; Kalpana Shankar; and Katie Shilton (2014). The ethos and pragmatics of data sharing. In CSCW’14. Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 15 February – 19 February 2014. New York: ACM Press, pp. 109–112.Google Scholar
  26. Eschenfelder, Kristin; and Andrew Johnson (2011). The limits of sharing: Controlled data collections. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. European Commission (2016). H2020 Programme. Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/ h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2019.
  28. European Union (2010). Riding the wave. How Europe can gain from the rising tide of scientific data. Final report of the High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=707. Accessed 13 February 2019.
  29. European Union (2015). Access to and preservation of scientific information in Europe. Report on the implementation of Commission Recommendation C(2012) 4890 final, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/openaccess/ npr_report.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2019.Google Scholar
  30. Faniel, Ixchel M.; and Trond E. Jacobsen (2010). Reusing scientific Data: How earthquake engineering researchers assess the reusability of colleagues’ Data. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fecher, Benedikt; and Sascha Friesike (2014). Open Science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling and S. Friesike (eds): Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. London: Springer, pp. 17–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fecher, Benedikt; Sascha Friesike; and Marcel Hebing (2015a). What drives academic data sharing? PloS one, vol. 10, no. 2, e0118053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fecher, Benedikt; Sascha Friesike; Marcel Hebing; Stephanie Linek; and Armin Sauermann (2015b). A reputation economy: Results from an empirical survey on academic Data sharing. DIW Berlin Discussion Paper, no. 1454.Google Scholar
  34. Freeman, Richard; and Jerome Crowder (2016) Abstract: Digital files and the future of anthropological data: Ethics and organization. In ORGANIZE THIS!: Data management for anthropology in the digital age, preserving our evidence for future discovery. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2016 American Anthropological Association, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  35. Gillies, Val; and Rosalind Edwards (2005). Secondary analysis in exploring family and social change: Addressing the issue of context. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 6, no. 1, Art. 44.Google Scholar
  36. Gitelman, Lisa (2013). “Raw data” is an oxymoron. Infrastructures series. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gooch, Amanda J. (2014). Data storage and sharing: A needs assessment survey of social science researchers and information professionals for developing a Data management curriculum. A Master’s Paper for the M.S. in L.S degree. School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  38. Gupta, Shivam; and Claudia Müller-Birn (2018). A study of e-research and its relation with research data life cycle: A literature perspective. Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1656–1680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Halskov, Kim; Nicolai Brodersen Hansen (2015). The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 74, pp. 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hedges, Mark; Tobias Blanke; Stella Fabiane; Gareth Knight; and Eric Liao (2012). Sheer curation of experiments: Data, process, provenance. Journal of Digital Information, vol. 13, no. 1. https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/5883. Accessed 06 April 2019.
  41. Hedstrom, Margaret (1997) Building record-keeping systems: Archivists are not alone on the wild frontier. Archivaria, vol. 44, pp. 44–71. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/viewFile/12196/13210. Accessed 07 April 2019.Google Scholar
  42. Hey, Anthony J. G.; Stewart Tansley; and Kristin M. Tolle (eds) (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
  43. Jackson, Steven J.; Paul N. Edwards; Geoffrey C. Bowker; and Cory P. Knobel (2007). Understanding infrastructure: History, heuristics and cyberinfrastructure policy. First Monday, vol. 12, no. 6. https://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1904/1786. Accessed 06 April 2019.
  44. Jirotka, Marina; Charlotte P. Lee; and Gary M. Olson (2013). Supporting scientific collaboration: Methods, tools and concepts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 22, no. 4–6, pp. 667–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karasti, Helena; and Karen S. Baker (2004). Infrastructuring for the long-term: ecological information management. In HICSS’3. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2004, Hawaii, USA, 5–8 January 2004. IEEE. 10 pages.Google Scholar
  46. Karasti, Helena; Karen S. Baker; and Florence Millerand (2010). Infrastructure time: Long-term matters in collaborative development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 377–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Karasti, Helena; Karen S. Baker; and Eija Halkola (2006). Enriching the notion of Data curation in E-science: Data managing and information Infrastructuring in the long term ecological research (LTER) network. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 321–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kelder, Jo-Anne (2005). Using someone Else's Data: Problems, pragmatics and provisions. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 6, no. 1. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/501. Accessed 06 April 2019.
  49. Kervin, Karina; Robert B. Cook; and William K. Michener (2014). The backstage work of Data sharing. In S. Goggins, I. Jahnke, D. W. McDonald and P. Bjørn (eds): Group’14. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, 09 – 12 November 2014. New York: ACM Press, pp. 152–156.Google Scholar
  50. Kitchin, Rob (2014). The data revolution. Big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Korn, Matthias; Marén Schorch; Volkmar Pipek; Matthew Bietz; Carsten Østerlund; Rob Procter; David Ribes; and Robin Williams (2017). E-infrastructures for research collaboration. In C.P. Lee, S. Poltrock, L. Barkhuus, M. Borges and W. Kellogg (eds): CSCW’17 companion. Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Portland, Oregon, USA, 25 February – 01 March 2017. New York: ACM Press, pp. 415–420.Google Scholar
  52. Kroes, Neelie (2012). Opening science through e-infrastructures. (Speech-12-258) Available at: https://www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-258_en.pdf. Accessed 07.01.2019.
  53. Lee, Charlotte P.; Paul Dourish; and Gloria Mark (2006). The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. In P. Hinds and D. Martin (eds): CSCW’06. Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 04 - 08 November 2006. New York: ACM Press, pp. 483–492.Google Scholar
  54. Lindley, Siân E.; Gavin Smyth; Robert Corish; Anastasia Loukianov; Michael Golembewski; Ewa A. Luger; and Sellen Abigali (2018). Exploring new metaphors for a networked world through the file biography. In R. Mandryk, M. Hancock, M. Perry and A. Cox (eds): CHI’18. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21 – 26 April 2018. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  55. Lord, Philip; and Alison Macdonald (2003). e-Science Curation Report: Data curation for e-Science in the UK: an audit to establish requirements for future curation and provision. The JISC Committee for the Support of Research (JCSR).Google Scholar
  56. Marshall, Cathy; and John C. Tang (2012). That syncing feeling: Early user experience with the cloud. In DIS‘12. Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 11 – 15 June 2012. New York: ACM Press, pp. 544–553.Google Scholar
  57. Marshall, Catherine C.; Ted Wobber; Venugopalan Ramasubramanian; and Terry Douglas B. (2012). Supporting research collaboration through bi-level file synchronization. In T.A. Finholt, H. Tellioğlu, K. Inkpen and T. Gross (eds): GROUP’12. Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, 27 – 31 October 2012. New York: ACM Press, pp. 165–174.Google Scholar
  58. McDonald, John (1995). Managing records in the modern office: Taming the wild frontier. Archivaria, vol. 39, pp. 70–79. https://archivaria.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12069/13047. Accessed 07 April 2019.Google Scholar
  59. Murray-Rust, Peter (2008). Open Data in Science. Serials Review, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. OECD (ed) (2007). Annual Report 2007.Google Scholar
  61. Oßwald, Achim; and Stefan Strathmann. (2012). The role of libraries in curation and preservation of research data in Germany: findings of a survey. In IFLA World Library and Information Congress 78th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, 11 -17 August 2012. 10 pages.Google Scholar
  62. Pampel, Heinz; and Sünje Dallmeier-Tiessen (2014). Open research Data: From vision to practice. In S. Bartling and S. Friesike (eds): Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. London: Springer, vol. 40, pp. 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pasquetto, Irene V.; Ashley E. Sands; and Christine L. Borgman (2015). Exploring openness in Data and science: What is "open," to whom, when, and why? In Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–2Google Scholar
  64. Rader, Emilee (2009). Yours, mine and (not) ours: Social influences on group information repositories. In D.R. Olsen, R.B. Arthur, K. Hinckley, M.R Morris, S. Hudson and S. Greenberg (eds): CHI’09. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 04 – 09 April 2009. New York: ACM Press, pp. 2095–2098.Google Scholar
  65. Reilly, Susan (2012). The role of libraries in supporting data exchange. In IFLA World Library and Information Congress 78th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, 11 -17 August 2012. 7 pages.Google Scholar
  66. Ribes, David; and Thomas A. Finholt (2009). The long now of technology infrastructure: Articulating tensions in development. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ribes, David; and Charlotte P. Lee (2010). Sociotechnical studies of cyberinfrastructure and e-research: Current themes and future trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rolland, Betsy; and Charlotte P. Lee (2013). Beyond trust and reliability: Reusing data in collaborative cancer epidemiology research. In A. Bruckman, S. Counts, C. Lampe and L. Terveen (eds): CSCW’13. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, San Antonio, Texas, 23 – 27 February 2013. New York: ACM Press, pp. 435–444.Google Scholar
  69. Scaramozzino, Jeanine M.; Marisa L. Ramírez; and Karen J. McGaughey (2012). A study of faculty Data curation behaviors and attitudes at a teaching-Centered University. College & Research Libraries, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simonsen, Jesper; and Toni Robertson (eds) (2013). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge international handbooks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Strauss, Anselm (1985). Work and the division of labor. The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–19.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Strauss, Anselm L.; and Juliet M. Corbin (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  73. Taylor, John M. (2001). The UK e-science programme [Powerpoint presentation], e-science London meeting.Google Scholar
  74. Tenopir, Carol; Suzie Allard; Kimberly Douglass; Arsev U. Aydinoglu; Lei, Wu; Eleanor Read; Maribeth Manoff; and Mike Frame (2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PloS one, vol. 6, no. 6.Google Scholar
  75. Treloar, Andrew; and Cathrine Harboe-Ree (2008). Data management and the curation continuum: How the Monash experience is informing repository relationships. In VALA 2008: The 14th Biennial Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, 5 – 7 February 2008. http://www.vala.org.au/vala2008-proceedings/vala2008-session-6-treloar/#Google Scholar
  76. Thomas, David R. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 237–246.Google Scholar
  77. Tsai, Alexander C.; Brandon A. Kohrt; Lynn T. Matthews; Theresa S. Betancourt; Jooyoung K. Lee; Andrew V. Papachristos; Sheri D. Weiser; and Shari L. Dworkin (2016). Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Science & Medicine, vol. 169, pp. 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. UK Data Archive (2014). Qualitative data collection ingest processing procedures (8th ed.).Google Scholar
  79. van den Eynden, Veerle; Gareth Knight; and Vlad Anca. (2016). Open Research: practices, experiences, barriers and opportunities. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive.Google Scholar
  80. Voida, Amy; and Elizabeth D. Mynatt (2006). Challenges in the analysis of multimodal messaging. In P. Hinds, and D. Martin (eds): CSCW’06. Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 04 - 08 November 2006. New York: ACM Press, pp. 427–430.Google Scholar
  81. Voida, Stephen; W. Keith Edwards; Mark W. Newman; Rebecca E. Grinter; and Nicolas Ducheneaut (2006). Share and share alike: Exploring the user interface affordances of file sharing. In R. Grinter, T. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries and G. Olson (eds): CHI’06. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 22 – 27 April 2006. New York: ACM Press, pp. 221–230Google Scholar
  82. Wallis, Jillian C.; Elizabeth Rolando; and Christine L. Borgman (2013). If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. PloS one, vol. 8, no. 7, e67332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wulf, Volker; Volkmar Pipek; David A. Randall; Markus Rohde; Kjeld Schmidt; and Gunnar Stevens (eds) (2018). Socio-informatics. A practice-based perspective on the design and use of IT artifacts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Yoon, Dongwook; Nicholas Chen; Bernie Randles; Amy Cheatle; Corinna E. Löckenhoff; Steven J. Jackson; Abigail Sellen; and François Guimbretiére (2016). RichReview++: Deployment of a collaborative multi-modal annotation system for instructor feedback and peer discussion. In D. Gergle, M.R. Morris, P. Bjørn and J. Konstan (eds): CSCW‘16. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, San Francisco, California, USA, 27 February – 02 March 2016. New York: ACM Press, pp. 194–204.Google Scholar
  85. Zimmerman, Ann (2007). Not by metadata alone: The use of diverse forms of knowledge to locate data for reuse. International Journal on Digital Libraries, vol. 7, no. 1–2, pp. 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations