1 / 56

CNI Spring Task Force Meeting | April 7, 2009

EthicShare : A Model for Virtual Research Communities. Frazier Benya , Center for Bioethics, U of MN John Riedl , Computer Science, U of MN John T. Butler , University of Minnesota Libraries Kate McCready, University of Minnesota Libraries. CNI Spring Task Force Meeting | April 7, 2009.

guenevere
Download Presentation

CNI Spring Task Force Meeting | April 7, 2009

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. EthicShare: A Model for Virtual Research Communities Frazier Benya, Center for Bioethics, U of MN John Riedl, Computer Science, U of MN John T. Butler, University of Minnesota Libraries Kate McCready, University of Minnesota Libraries CNI Spring Task Force Meeting | April 7, 2009

  2. EthicShare Project Staff: • Principal Investigators: Wendy Pradt Lougee (Uof MN Libraries) Jeffrey Kahn (U of MN Center for Bioethics) & John Riedl (U of MN Computer Science) • Project Director : Kate McCready (U of MN Libraries) • Technology Lead: John Butler (U of MN Libraries) • Collections : Cecily Marcus (U of MN Libraries) & Frazier Benya • (U of MN Center for Bioethics, grad student); Stephen Hearn • Developers: Chad Fennell (U of MN Libraries), David • Naughton (U of MN Libraries), Bill Tantzen ( U of MN Libraries) • & Tony Lam (U of MN Computer Science grad student)

  3. EthicShare inaNutshell • Online research environment for information discovery and collaboration for practical ethics scholars and students • Based at: the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics, Libraries, and Department of Computer Science & Engineering • Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the • National Science Foundation, Council on Library and Information Resources

  4. EthicShare Framework

  5. EthicShare Partnerships • Data: • National Library of Medicine - PubMed & Catalog data • OCLC – WorldCat data • Network Services: • OCLC – Registry Services • University Centers: • Georgetown University – Bioethics Thesaurus • Governance and Presentations at Societies by Partners from: University of Virginia, Indiana University- • Bloomington, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis and Stanford University

  6. EthicShare Development History • 2004 Scholarly Communications Institute: Held at the Council on Library and Information Resources for Bioethicists. • (Background – Bioethics Scholars are primarily humanities faculty (philosophy, theology) but the field also pulls from law, policy, medicine and public health.) • 2005-2006 U of M Libraries Research: Studied the research behaviors and methodologies of scholars in the humanities and social sciences • Identified “gaps” in the research process • What solutions would support the advancement of a field? • Would collaborative tools serve the needs of serious scholars? • “Helping Hands” project: NSF funded U of MN - Computer Science and Bioethics exploring how to encourage • participation in collaborative tools.

  7. EthicShare Development History • 2006-2007 EthicShare Planning Project: • Assessment of a field • Site visits and surveys • Prototype of site • 2008-2009 EthicShare Pilot Project: • Build a “collection” of high quality, focused materials aggregated from a variety of source material providers • Development of a community-supported environment • Engage the community in the development process • Developing process and technology models for the development of virtual research community • environments.

  8. Initial Tool and Feature Selection • Planning Grant: • Identifying and tuning collaborative technologies for a specific community of researchers • How do you know what you don’t know? Bioethics Scholars didn’t use collective work sites or technologies. • Held 5 site visits – • U of Minnesota • University of Indiana • University of Indiana – Purdue University – Indianapolis • University of Virginia • Georgetown University

  9. Site Visits – Early 2007 • Presentation of Social Features • EthicShare team created a presentation of successful web-based tools and features from various sites for bioethics faculty and graduate students to see. • Discussion of Features • During and after the presentations we discussed the reaction of these features and the idea of implementing them within the bioethics community • Survey of Interest/Knowledge • Asked the participants to complete a 10 minute survey at the end of this presentation to formalize their opinions.

  10. http://www.citeulike.org/

  11. http://www.youtube.com

  12. EthicShare Survey Summary Report • “Social” features weren’t “very important” but rated well when “somewhat important”, “important” and “very important” were totaled: • Get Updates via Email/RSS about New Content (77%) • Get Recommendations of Resources (68%) • Ability to Share Your Work With your Colleagues (76%) • Ability to Review a Resources (79%) • Community Discussion Space (79%) • Add Resources to the Site (71%)

  13. Engage and Evaluate - Iterative Design Beta Testing - Feedback Loops

  14. Engage and Evaluate - Iterative Design EthicShare Site Demo

  15. Altruism, Selfishness, and Contributionon the Social Web GroupLens Research University of Minnesota John Riedl

  16. Bowling Alone (Amazon reviews)

  17. Messages • Community-maintained Artifacts of Lasting Value • Key Research Challenges • Attract contributions • Maintain quality • Achieve agreement

  18. Tags scale: • Library of Congress: 20M books in 200 years. • www.librarything.com: 22M books in 3 years. • Tag draw relevance from “the wisdom of crowds”

  19. Tag Selection Algorithms “The Quest for Quality Tags” S. Sen, F. Harper, A. LaPitz, J. Riedl GROUP 2007

  20. RQ: How can a tagging system show users tags they want to see?

  21. Tag Prediction Random baseline: 21% Implicit features: • number of applications (39%) • number of users (51%) • number of searches for a tag (44%) • number of users who searched for a tag (48%) • length of tag (42%) Moderation-based features: • global average rating for a tag (59%) • user-normalized global average rating for a tag (62%) • tag reputation (57%) Hybrid combinations: logistic regression, decision trees (67%)

  22. Research Questions • Can folksonomy be encouraged? • Showing users more tags leads to more vocabulary reuse • How much convergence is valuable?

  23. Motivating Participation by Displaying the Value of ContributionRashid, Ling, Tassone, Resnick, Kraut, RiedlCHI 2006, Montréal

  24. What Theory Tells Us… • Collective Effort Model • People will contribute more if: • They believe their effort is important to the group • They like the group • Smaller is Better • Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1980 • People feel greater concern when the reference group they’re part of grows smaller. • Specificity Matters • Small & Loewenstein, 2003 • Specific identity of those helped is important in drawing people’s support.

  25. VOICE 2 Screen shot Numerical values are represented by smilies Who the contribution helps Value of each contribution

  26. Self-report Self 3.87 All MovieLens 3.13 Similar Group 2.97 Dissimilar Group 2.94 Control 2.68 Want Smilies on the regular interface? Results Behavioraldata Self 7.2% All MovieLens 10.2% Similar Group 15.8% Dissimilar Group 5.9% Control 7.4% Probability of rating a movie

  27. Altruism, Selfishness, and Contributionon the Social Web GroupLens Research University of Minnesota John Riedl

  28. Adoption & Sustainability

  29. Adoption & Sustainability • Community/User Engagement • Economic structure and strategies • Technology framework • Sustainable: valued, reliable, and persistent

  30. Rogers, then Moore

  31. Sustainability – Economic Structure • Economically sustainable academic resources require: • Recognition of benefits • Incentives for decision-makers to act • Selection • Efficiency • Appropriate organization and governance • -- Brian Lavoie (Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access)

More Related