Developing eResearch: Challenges and Possibilities for the Social Sciences

1. Developing eResearch:Challenges and Possibilities for the Social Sciences David Thorns School of Sociology and Anthropology University of Canterbury APANZ Conference Queenstown August 4-8th 2008

2. E research a new paradigm? • “e science is a dream about the future”- collaborative environment of exchange to enhance our ability to create new forms of knowledge • Requires new “infrastructure to combine people and technologies • Challenges traditional practices • “dream and reality of experience

3. Creating the National Social Science Network (BRCSS) 2004-9 • Objectives • Create new research teams and connections and forms of collaboration • Add value to the Research Platform • Strengthen collaboration • Build Maori, Pasifica and New Settler research networks • Create new research linkages break down silos • Encourage interdisciplinary and trans disciplinary social science • Strengthen post graduate connectivity

4. In the beginning…collaborating loosely Family Centre for Social Policy

5. Network of Funded Research Programmes BRCSS Post Docs Other Funders

6. Problem Limited funds for connecting widely geographically distributed population Solution Deploy Grid and other innovative Computer Mediated Communication systems- ACCESS GRID and AVC’s Outcome creation of new networks Technological network communication infrastructue National Networking - From Vision to Outcomes – creating connectivity Socio technological network participants communicating via technology

7. Networking Links: the ‘techies’ version

8. Networking Links: “big pipes”

9. Networking links: “pipes and ports”http://www.karen.net.nz/home/

10. Networking links: working research $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Family Centre

13. Advantages of AGs • Allow participants to simultaneously share resources such as presentations, video clips, slide shows, shared whiteboard • Allow group to group meetings/discussions • Through multicasting allow many to many communication – number of sites can be considerable – constrained by physical room location and ability to cope with multiple streams

14. Reflecting and Researching on the use of the Access Grid • Researching to understand how the new medium works. Does it create new ways of collaborating? • Is it the same as or different from face to face forms of communication • What forms of collaboration does it encourage/enable?

15. Research Methodology • Grounded approach • Observations leading to development of themes • Web survey of participants in sessions • Recording sessions and annotating testing middleware – Memetic and DRS

16. What was learntCollaboration • Defined as meeting with other researchers and colleagues in order to exchange ideas and information • AG seen to benefit collaborative projects – with researchers who were spatially dispersed • A very good way to meet, discuss, work with colleagues across the nation. ……… you pop into a local room and connect up to people many miles away”. • “An opportunity to participate and see what other research is happening in New Zealand. An opportunity to see and communicate with fellow colleagues in other Universities.” • The potential for simultaneous connection and collaboration across geographical space and time zones is immense. In a country as geographically remote as ours the Access Grid promises to be a conduit for being able to attend and present papers at conferences virtually”

17. What we learntSimulation/Non Simulation of Face to Face Interaction • Support for the statement that it is possible to participate in an AG session as you would in a face to face – importance of ability to see participants body language and reactions – facial cues • Better than in a meeting because you feel as if the person is talking directly to you ... so better visuals and it 'feels' more personal” • “The face-to face environment is highly significant, permitting multiple readings of presentations and self. It is much more effective than written or email communications, or telephone, or even video conferencing that is normally limited in participants. It does require some adaptation to multiple sites and participants, but is very worthwhile.” • “We feel free to look bored, whereas [in] f2f we would feel obliged to pay more attention” • The interaction between physically distant researchers, free ranging ideas of participants, self-monitoring, local ideas and academics discussing local needs in international contexts, finding out unexpected new knowledge from disciplinary experts, the informality of exchange

18. What we learnt-Protocols • Issues that arose here were facilitation and chairing of sessions • Co-ordinating multiple sites and large groups of people • Issue of whether nodes should see themselves – who and how do they feel “part of the group” • Requiring a different interactive style formal rather than spontaneous • All sessions need an active facilitator [sic] who tells people at the beginning [sic] how to participate in that environment- hand up for signal to talk, wait till you are asked to speak to avoid speaking over the top, pause and make time for others who have not spoken.

19. Socio Technical Spaces • Talking to a wall rather than people • large number of screens for some confusing • Dependency on technicians positive and negative features • Too dependent on expertise of technical person present. They can spend their time re-arranging the pictures from each site all over the screen, while the participants have to try and make out what site in particular has gone where now! • Degree of comfort with the technology influenced view of AG as medium of communication • When the technology is working well you forget that you are not in the immediate presence of others • What other technologies that had tried/were familiar with important • Once you’re used to the set up asking a question is no more or less difficult than in a face-to-face meeting providing the technology is working on the day.

20. E Social Science Development • Part of broader E research agenda – focused on building the infrastructure for the next generation of scientific advance • US Cyber infrastructure development NSG priority • ESFRI – European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures • UK ESRC E Science 2000 and E Social Science 2004 • UK NCESS established 2004 – funding review and extended now to 2014 • Based on model of funding a Centre/Core activity and then creating a series of linked projects • NZ KAREN and the possibilities created – Road map for future development – includes Social Science – BRCSS key component as is NZSSDS • Access to more data, greater opportunities to share data and forms of collaboration across distance

21. Emerging Agenda of E Social Science Networking VRE’s High performance computing Coordination and collaboration Data Management Access and security

22. BRCSS and E Social Science BRCSS AG and AVC BestGrid NZSSDS and NZSSN Coordination and communication infrastructure BRCSS Networks Extending collaboration BRCSS VRE’s Building a sustainable infrastructure for Global and National development

23. Sustainable Infrastructure for Social Science • Remote collaborative technologies offer a way of creating a sustainable research practice linking across national and international boundaries. • Developing further these technologies and providing the necessary infrastructure critical to maintaining the momentum that has now been created • Web sites • http://avcc.karen.net.nz/wiki/About_AVCC http://www.brcss.net/ http://www.ssrc.canterbury.ac.nz/about/e_social_science.shtml