Observations of the Lifecycles and Information Worlds of Collaborative Scientific Teams at a National Science Lab

[amoralesg001]

Observations of the Lifecycles and Information Worlds of Collaborative Scientific Teams at a National Science Lab (2012)

Summary

The study used a mixed methodology to describe the scientific culture of scientific teams at the National High Magnetic Filed Laboratory (MHMFL). They used mixed methods of social network analysis, citation analysis, content analysis, survey, interviews, and observations at MHMFL. Through these multiple forms of analysis, their data and observations support teams that have multiple, overlapping, and nested lifestyle and informational worlds. These factors played an important role in the success and continuation of scientific team collaboration.

Key Points

• Boundaries between different teams and their informational fields (interdisciplinary knowledge) can serve as a barrier to successful and ongoing collaboration. If teams are intentional on their collaboration/interaction across different teams in and outside their own organization, those teams are more likely to be successful and grow throughout their lifecycle. If cross collaboration occurs, those institutions and organizations can bring back accurate and useful data from other teams who have done extensive research on those areas. Scientific teams are all interdisciplinary and can share useful information with the other that is beneficial for both teams -- thus, improving overall success and continuation.
  - "Our social network analysis indicated that increased disciplinary diversity positively impacts productivity. The more scientists can cross boundaries between disciplines -- within or between teams -- the greater their chances of productive, successful collaborations that advance science"

Citation

Adam Worrall, Paul F. Marty, Jessica Roberts, Kathleen Burnett, Gary Burnett, Charles C. Hinnant, Michelle M. Kazmer, Besiki Stvilia, and Shuheng Wu. 2012. Observations of the lifecycles and information worlds of collaborative scientific teams at a national science lab. In Proceedings of the 2012 iConference (iConference '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 423–425. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2132176.2132234

[maherou]

Do you know which of these authors might make a good person to begin a conversation about research software science as defined here: https://bssw.io/blog_posts/research-software-science-a-scientific-approach-to-understanding-and-improving-how-we-develop-and-use-software-for-research?

[amoralesg001]

Here is Adam Worrall's website and he speaks about his research interests: https://www.adamworrall.org/portfolio/statements/research/

[amoralesg001]

@maherou The authors of #61 could be some additional authors to begin a conversation about research software science. This article is more recent and closely relates to your article on research software science.

[elaineraybourn]

This was a good addition to your bibliography, Alex. @maherou Jay Lofstead's intern may be working on something similar this summer. You may want to ask him -- I don't recall off the top of my head.