- Aug 2016
Borgman on terms used by the humanities and social sciences to describe data and other types of analysis
humanist and social scientists frequently distinguish between primary and secondary information based on the degree of analysis. Yet this ordering sometimes conflates data, sources, and resources, as exemplified by a report that distinguishes "primary resources, E. G., Books close quotation from quotation secondary resources, eat. Gee., Catalogs close quotation . Resources also categorized as primary or sensor data, numerical data, and field notebooks, all of which would be considered data in the sciences. Rarely would books, conference proceedings, and feces that the report categorizes as primary resources be considered data, except when used for text-or data-mining purposes. Catalogs, subject indices, citation indexes, search engines, and web portals were classified as secondary resources. These are typically viewed as tertiary resources in the library community because they describe primary and secondary resources. The distinctions between data, sources, and resources very by discipline and circumstance. For the purposes of this book, primary resources are data, secondary resources are reports of research, whether publications or intern forms, and tertiary resources are catalogs, indexes, and directories that provide access to primary and secondary resources. Sources are the origins of these resources.
Borgman notes that no social framework exist for data that is comparable to this framework that exist for analysis. CF. Kitchen 2014 who argues that pre-big data, we privileged analysis over data to the point that we threw away the data after words . This is what creates the holes in our archives.
He wonders capabilities [of the data management] must be compared to the remarkably stable scholarly communication system in which they exist. The reward system continues to be based on publishing journal articles, books, and conference papers. Peer-reviewed legitimizes scholarly work. Competition and cooperation are carefully balanced. The means by which scholarly publishing occurs is an unstable state, but the basic functions remained relatively unchanged. while capturing and managing the "data deluge" is a major driver of the scholarly infrastructure developments, no Showshow same framework for data exist that is comparable to that for publishing.
Borgman on the importance of scale in information retrieval. It's an interesting question for the humanities not only does large-scale introduce new methods for example just reading it also makes traditional methods more difficult EG challenges close reading. It is not enough to say (as color and others do) that they don't like distant reading. They also need to say how they propose doing the reading in a million book environment.
data and information have always been both input and output of research. What is new is the scale of the data and information involved. Information management is notoriously subject to problems of scale [bibliography removed]. Retrieval methods designed for small databases declined rapidly ineffectiveness as collections grow in size. For example a typical searcher is willing to browse a set of matches consisting of one percent of a database of 1000 documents (10 documents), maybe willing to browse a 1% set of 10,000 documents (100), rarely is willing to browse 1% of 100,000 documents (1000), and almost never would browse 1% of 1 million or 10 million documents.
this is a critical juncture in building the next generation of scholarly information infrastructure. The technology has advanced much more quickly than has our understanding of its present potential uses. Social research on scholarly practices is essential to inform the design of tools, services, and policies. Design decisions made today will determine whether the Internet of tomorrow enables imaginative new forms of scholarship and learning – or whether it simply reinforces today's tasks, practices, laws, business models, and incentives.
Borgman on the responsibility of rears to assess reliability and the ability of content creators to have control over their work:
these are exciting and confusing times for scholarship. The proliferation of digital content allows new questions to be asked in new ways, but also results unduplication and dispersion. Authors can disseminate their work more widely by posting online, but readers have the additional responsibility of assessing trust and authenticity. Changes in intellectual property laws give Pharmacontrol to the creators of digital content that was available for printed comment, but the resulting business models often constrain access to scholarly resources. Students acquire an insatiable appetite for digital publications, and then find an graduation that they can barely sample them without institutional affiliations.
Borgman on the difference between information and "stuff"
as Internet penetration and bandwidth increase, so has the volume and variety of content online. Much of it is just "stuff" – the unverified and unverifiable statements of individuals, discussions on list serves and weblogs ("blogs"), questionable advertisements for questionable products and services, and political and religious screeds in all languages, from all perspectives.
Borgman on scholars access to information in the developed world
Scholars in the developed world have 24/7 access to the literature of their fields, a growing amount of research data, and sophisticated research tools and services.
Borgman on the relationship of knowledge mobilization scholarship, similarities and differences:
once collections of information resources are online, they become available to multiple communities. Researchers can partner across disciplines, asking new questions using each other's data. Data collected for policy purposes can be used for research and vice versa. Descriptions of museum objects created for curatorial research purposes are interesting to museum visitors. Any of these resources may also be useful for learning and instruction. nevertheless, making content that was created for one audience useful to another is a complex problem. Each field that is on vocabulary, data structures, and research practices. People ask questions in different ways, starting with familiar terminology. Repurpose sing of research data for teaching can be especially challenging. Scholars goals are to produce knowledge for their community, while student schools are to learn the concepts and tools of a given field. These two groups have different levels of expertise in both disciplinary knowledge in the use of data and information resources. Different descriptions, tools, and services may be required to share content between audiences.
Borgman on the merging of primary and secondary information sources .
primary and secondary information sources long to be treated as a dichotomy, with different strands of research on each. Sociologist of science study the context in which primary data are produced, or primary archivists are concerned with how those that are captured, managed, and preserved. Researchers in the field of information studies and communication investigate how scholarly publications are written, disseminated, sought, used, and reference. Librarians select, collect, organize, conserve, preserve, and provide access to scholarly publications and print and digital form. Little research has explored the continuum from primary to secondary sources, much less the entire lifecycle from data generation through the preservation of scholarly products that set those data in context.
Borgman discusses a couple of things that are useful for me. The first is how students discover what they miss from the library after they graduate and no longer have access to journals.
The second is that this passage supplies some evidence for the claim that things that are not online no longer exist as far as such behavior is concerned.
There's some bibliography at the end of the passage covering both of these points in the print book.
Scholars seem to be even more dependent on library services for access to scholarly publications than in the past. Personal subscriptions to journals have declined substantially. Faculty and students have been known to panic when unable to access online library services, whether due to system failures or incorrect authentication settings. Students' dependence on these services becomes especially apparent when they graduate and no longer have access. Librarians learned early in the days of online catalogs that people rely on online sources, even if those sources are incomplete. Older material accessible only via the card catalog was quickly "widowed," which was a primary motivation for libraries to complete the retrospective conversion of card catalogs to digital form. The same phenomenon occurred with online access to journals. The more access that libraries provide, the greater the depth of coverage that users expect. The use of printed indexes in libraries has dropped to near zero, although printed finding aids remain popular in archives.
- Scholarly Commons
- Data publication
- Reader responsibility
- Secondary sources
- Borgman 2007
- Scholarly Commons Working Group
- Global differences
- Scholarly Communication
- Popular audiences
- Student access to journals
- Scholarly commons
- Cultural heritage
- Kitchin 2014
- Information access
- Knowledge mobilization
- Primary sources
- Search behaviour
- Jul 2016
Humanistic research takes place in a rich milieu that incorporates the cultural context of artifacts. Electronic text and models change the nature of scholarship in subtle and important ways, which have been discussed at great length since the humanities first began to contemplate the scholarly application of computing.
Methods for organizing information in the humanities follow from their research practices. Humanists fo not rely on subject indexing to locate material to the extent that the social sciences or sciences do. They are more likely to be searching for new interpretations that are not easily described in advance; the journey through texts, libraries, and archives often is the research.
Humanities scholarship is even more difficult to characterize than are the sciences and social sciences. Generally speaking, the humanities are more interpretative than data driven, but some humanists conduct qualitative studies using social sciences methods, and others employ quantitative methods. Digital humanities scholarship often reflects sophisticated computational expertise. Humanists value new interpretations, perspectives, and sources of data to examine age-old questions of art and culture.
Borgman on why we need a common effort in building a scholarly Commons
Striking contrast exists between disciplines and artifacts, practices, and incentives to build the content layer. Common approaches are none the less required to support interdisciplinary research, which is a central goal of the research. Scholarly products are useful to scholars and related fields and sometimes to scholars in distant fields as the boundaries between disciplines becomes more porous, the interoperability of information systems and services becomes indispensable.
Here is a great statement as to the need for a self-conscious commons :
The content layer of the scholarly information infrastructure will not be built by voluntary contributions of information artifacts from individuals. The incentives are too low and barriers too high. Contributing publications through self archiving has the greatest incentives and the fewest barriers, but voluntary contributions remain low. Contributing data has even fewer incentives and even greater barriers. Scholars continue to rely on the publishing system to guarantee that the products of their work are legitimized, disseminated, reserved, curated, and made accessible. Despite its unstable state, the system does exist, resting on relationships among libraries, publishers, universities, scholars, students, and other stakeholders. No comparable system exists for data. Only a few fields have succeeded in establishing infrastructures for their data, and most of these are still fledgling efforts. Little evidence exists that a common infrastructure for data will arise from the scholarly community. The requirements are diverse, the common ground is minimal, and individuals are not rewarded for tackling large institutional problems. Building the content layer is the responsibility of the institutions and policymakers rather than individuals. Individual behavior will change when the policies change to offer more rewards, and when tools and services and prove to decrease the effort required….
This is Borgman discussing the role of priority in the humanities
cultural and historical events can be reinterpreted repeatedly. Prizes are based on the best interpretation rather than on the first claim to a finding.
Borgman is discussing here the difference in the way humanists handle data in comparison to the way that scientists and social scientist:
When generating their own data such as interviews or observations, human efforts to describe and represent data are comparable to that of scholars and other disciplines. Often humanists are working with materials already described by the originator or holder of the records, such as libraries, archives, government agencies, or other entities. Whether or not the desired content already is described as data, scholars need to explain its evidentiary value in your own words. That report often becomes part of the final product. While scholarly publications in all fields set data within a context, the context and interpretation are scholarship in the humanities.
Digital Humanities projects result in two general types of products. Digital libraries arise from scholarly collaborations and the initiatives of cultural heritage institutions to digitize their sources. These collections are popular for research and education. … The other general category of digital humanities products consist of assemblages of digitized cultural objects with associated analyses and interpretations. These are the equivalent of digital books in that they present an integrated research story, but they are much more, as they often include interactive components and direct links to the original sources on which the scholarship is based. … Projects that integrate digital records for widely scattered objects are a mix of a digital library and an assemblage.
In the humanities, it is difficult to separate artifacts from practices or publications from data.
Humanities scholars integrate and aggregate data from many sources. They need tools and services to analyze digital data, as others do the sciences and social sciences, but also tools that assist them interpretation and contemplation.
What seems a clear line between publications and data in the sciences and social sciences is a decidedly fuzzy one in the humanities. Publications and other documents are central sources of data to humanists. … Data sources for the humanities are innumerable. Almost any document, physical artifact, or record of human activity can be used to study culture. Humanities scholars value new approaches, and recognizing something as a source of data (e.g., high school yearbooks, cookbooks, or wear patterns in the floor of public places) can be an act of scholarship. Discovering heretofore unknown treasures buried in the world's archives is particularly newsworthy. … It is impossible to inventory, much less digitize, all the data that might be useful scholarship communities. Also distinctive about humanities data is their dispersion and separation from context. Cultural artifacts are bought and sold, looted in wars, and relocated to museums and private collections. International agreements on the repatriation of cultural objects now prevent many items from being exported, but items that were exported decades or centuries ago are unlikely to return to their original site. … Digitizing cultural records and artifacts make them more malleable and mutable, which creates interesting possibilities for analyzing, contextualizing, and recombining objects. Yet digitizing objects separates them from the origins, exacerbating humanists’ problems in maintaining the context. Removing text from its physical embodiment in a fixed object may delete features that are important to researchers, such as line and page breaks, fonts, illustrations, choices of paper, bindings, and marginalia. Scholars frequently would like to compare such features in multiple additions or copies.
Borgman discussing the half-life of citations and humanities :
while the half-life of literature is considered to be the longest in humanities, the large comparative study discussed earlier found the shortest citation age of an average article in humanities…. [another study] also found that the usage of history articles was much more concentrated in recent publications and was the usage of articles in economics or mathematics (the three fields studied). A close inspection revealed that the use of history articles was widely scattered across countries, without the clustering around classic articles from the other two fields. Although history can be considered within the humanities or the social sciences, comparisons between these findings do reinforce others conclusions that humanists’ may read current journal articles to keep up with their fields, but rely more heavily for their research on sources not covered by journal indexes. The findings also amplify concerns about the validity of citation studies of journal literature in humanities, given the reliance on monographic and archival sources. In sum, the humanities draw on the longest literature time span of any of the disciplines, and yet have the least amount of their scholarly literature online. So far, they are the discipline most poorly served by the publications component of the content later.
Literature in the Humanities goes out-of-print long before it goes out of date, so efforts to make older, out-of-copyright books available greatly benefit these fields.
Borgman notes that the bibliographic coverage of journal literature is shallow in the humanities. The ISI Arts and humanity citation Index only goes back to 1975. In Sciences it goes back to 1900. In the social sciences it goes back to 1956. Also SCOPUS does not include the humanities.
What is interesting about this is that the humanities are the least cumulative of all the disciplines in the sense that they do not build on previous knowledge so much as we examine previous thought.
Borgman on information artifacts and communities:
Artifacts in the humanities differ from those of the sciences and social sciences in several respects. Humanist use the largest array of information sources, and as a consequence, the station between documents and data is the least clear. They also have a greater number of audiences for the data and the products of the research. Whereas scientific findings usually must be translated for a general audience, humanities findings often are directly accessible and of immediate interest to the general public.
Borgman on the different types of data in the social sciences:
Data in the social sciences fall into two general categories. The first is data collected by researchers through experiments, interviews, surveys, observations, or similar names, analogous to scientific methods. … the second category is data collected by other people or institutions, usually for purposes other than research.
Citation age of an average article is longest in the social sciences.
Borgman on information artifacts in the social sciences
like the sciences, the social sciences create and use minimal information. Yet they differ in the sources of the data. While almost all scientific data are created by for scientific purposes, a significant portion of social scientific data consists of records credit for other purposes, by other parties.
Page 187 On hyper authorship
"hyper authorship” is an indicator of "collective cognition" in which the specific contributions of individuals no longer can be identified. Physics has among the highest rates of coauthorship in the sciences and the highest rates of self archiving documents via a repository. Whether the relationship between research collaborators (as indicated by the rates of coauthorship) and sharing publications (as reflected in self archiving) holds in other fields is a question worth exploring empirically.
In the section “Description and Organization in the Sciences” Borgman discusses some of the ways in which scientific literature is better organized: for example these include uniform language, taxonomies, thesauri, and ontologies.
scientific data will not be "all digital "anytime soon, however. Substantial amounts of important "legacy data "remain in paper form, both public and private hands. Estimated 750 million specimens in the US natural storymaker history museums, for example, black digital descriptions. And effort is underway to digitize the descriptions of large-scale, using barcoding technics. Digitizing historical documents such as newspapers, handbooks, directories, and land-use records will benefit the sciences in addition to the humanities and social sciences. These records are used to establish historical patterns of weather, crop yields, animal husbandry, and so forth. And untold wealth of scientific data lies in private hands. Individual scientists often keep the records of the research career in their offices of oratories, only by storage limited only by storage space on the shelves and refrigerators, freezers, and digital devices.
Borgman, Christine L. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Scholarly communication is a rich and complex socio-technical system formed over a period of centuries. Despite new technologies and economic models, the purposes of scholarly communication have remained remarkably stable.
the sciences create a variety of objects the salt in the gray area between documents and data. Examples include Laboratorio field notebooks, slicer talks, composition objects such as graphic visualization of data. Laboratorio notebooks are often classified as data because their records research. Slides from talks, which were once ephemeral forms of communication, now our compost and competent person websites are distributed to accomplish proceedings. Graphic visualization data can be linked to scarlet documents to report research or to the underlying data.
Chapter 8 is an excellent overview of the nature of the commons its differences and similarities
Page 182 Borgman on the disciplinary differences in scholarly practice
Despite many common activities, both the artifacts and practices of scholarship very by discipline. The artifacts very as scholars make choices about the sources of data, along with what, when, where, and what form to disseminate the products of their work. Scholarly practices vary in the way that scholars create, use, and share documents, data, and other forms of information.
George Barnett, Edward think, and Mary Beth debus constructed a mathematical model of citation age to test this ordering using large data sets from each of the science citation index, social sciences citation index, and arts and humanities citation index published by the isi. In each of these three sets, the citation age of an average article reaches its peak in less than two years, with the Arts and Humanities peeking soonest parentheses 1.164 years close parentheses comma and the social sciences speaking latest parentheses 1.752 years close parentheses, contrary to expectations. The maximum proportion of citations did have the predicted ordering, with science the highest, and the Arts and Humanities the lowest. While the models presume that citation rates were stable over time a close examination of the data revealed that citation for article increase substantially over the time period of the study parentheses in science, from 12.14 per article in 1961 to 16 in 1986 God semi colon in the social sciences, from 7.07 in 1970 to 15.6 in 1986 semi colon no Citation for article data were given for the Arts and Humanities close parentheses.
Half-Life studies are used to identify temporal variations in the use of literature by discipline most such studies indicate that the humanities have the longest citation half life and the Sciences the shortest with the social sciences in between. In other words, scientific articles reference the most recent Publications and Humanities articles the least recent ones.
Pages 153 and 154
Borgman on how data Deluge affects the balance between traditional and new forms of scholarship
Changes in scholarly practices such as mining data sets can have significant influences on scholar is professional identity. Shifts in technology and funding that favor computational methods May disadvantage those whose research is based on fieldwork for instance. These transitions can create a double bind for those research areas more funding for computational modeling made me less funding for field research to collect new data. Not only does less data collected but fewer students are trained in field methods. Substantial expertise and data collection and the ability to interpret older data may be lost. Conversely those who rely on computational methods must have sufficient knowledge of how the data were collected to be able to interpret them. They do require adequate training and data collection methods.... Research Specialties that use more computational methods are seeking a balance between a steady supply of new data, avoiding duplicate or redundant data collection where possible, and training students in field research and computational methods. Thus, new technologies for producing and analyzing data may have subtle but important influences on Scholars career path.
Borgman on the challenges facing the humanities in the age of Big Data:
Text and data mining offer similar Grand challenges in the humanities and social sciences. Gregory crane provide some answers to the question what do you do with a million books? Two obvious answers include the extraction of information about people, places, and events, and machine translation between languages. As digital libraries of books grow through scanning avert such as Google print, the open content Alliance, million books project, and comparable projects in Europe and China, and as more books are published in digital form technical advances in data description, and now it says, and verification are essential. These large collections differ from earlier, smaller after it's on several Dimensions. They are much larger in scale, the content is more heterogenous in topic and language, the granularity creases when individual words can be tagged and they were noisy then there well curated predecessors, and their audiences more diverse, reaching the general public in addition to the scholarly community. Computer scientists are working jointly with humanist, language, and other demands specialist to pars tax, extract named entities in places, I meant optical character recognition techniques counter and Advance the state of art of information retrieval.
Boardman on The Change-Up brought on by the web as to the most important consideration in Source selection sharing information retrieval by scientist
One of the findings worth revisiting is the prior to the 1990s, accessibility was the most important consideration and Source selection. Has information access improved, relevance and quality became the most important selection factors, which has implications for the design of searching tools.
Borgman discusses hear the case of NASA which lost the original video recording of the first moon landing in 1969. Backups exist, apparently, but they are lower quality than the originals.
Here Borgman suggest that there is some confusion or lack of overlap between the words that humanist and social scientists use in distinguishing types of information from the language used to describe data.
Humanist and social scientists frequently distinguish between primary and secondary information based on the degree of analysis. Yet this ordering sometimes conflates data sources, and resorces, as exemplified by a report that distinguishes quote primary resources, ed books quote from quote secondary resources, Ed catalogs quote. Resorts is also categorized as primary wear sensor data AMA numerical data and filled notebooks, all of which would be considered data in The Sciences. But rarely would book cover conference proceedings, and he sees that the report categorizes as primary resources be considered data, except when used for text or data mining purposes. Catalogs, subject indices, citation index is, search engines, and web portals were classified as secondary resources.
Pages 119 and 120
Here Borgman discusses the various definitions of data showing them working across the fields
the following definition of data is widely accepted in this context: AT&T portable representation of information in a formalized manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing. Examples of data include a sequence of bits, a table of numbers, the characters on a page, recording of sounds made by a person speaking Ori moon rocks specimen. Definitions of data often arise from Individual disciplines, but can apply to data used in science, technology, the social sciences, and the humanities: data are facts, numbers, letters, and symbols that describe an object, idea, condition, situation, or other factors.... Terms data and facts are treated interchangeably, as is the case in legal context. Sources of data includes observations, complications, experiment, and record-keeping. Observational data include weather measurements... And attitude surveys... Or involve multiple places and times. Computational data result from executing a computer model or simulation.... experimental data include results from laboratory studies such as measurements of chemical reactions or from field experiments such as controlled Behavioral Studies.... records of government, business, and public and private life also yield useful data for scientific, social scientific, and humanistic research.
Pages 117 to 1:19
Here Borgman discusses the ability to go back and forth between data and reports on data she cites Phil born 2005 on this for a while medicine. She also discusses how in the pre-digital error data was understood as a support mechanism for final publication and as a result was allowed to deteriorate or be destroyed after the Publications upon which they were based appeared.
Borgman makes the point here that while there is a Commons in the infrastructure of scholarly publishing there is less of a Commons in the infrastructure 4 data across disciplines.
The infrastructure of scholarly publishing Bridges disciplines: every field produces Journal articles, conference papers, and books albeit in differing ratios. Libraries select, collect organize and make accessible publications of all types, from all fields. No comparable infrastructure exists for data. A few Fields have major mechanisms for publishing data in repositories. Some fields are in the stage of developing standards and practices to activate their data resorces and Nathan were widely accessible. In most Fields, especially Outside The Sciences, data practices remain local idiosyncratic, and oriented to current usage rather than preservation operation, and access. Most data collections Dash where they exist Dash are managed by individual agencies within disciplines, rather than by libraries are archives. Data managers usually are trained within the disciplines they serve. Only a few degree programs and information studies include courses on data management. The lack of infrastructure for data amplifies the discontinuities in scholarly publishing despite common concerns, independent debates continue about access to Publications and data.
Chapters 4 and 5 the continuity of scholarly publishing and the discontinuity of scholarly publishing
These are both useful and important chapters for the scholarly Commons working group. They discuss the things that are common across scholarly communication as well as the different functions comma and they also discuss a new technology is disrupting this common area.
Publication indicators as proxies for quality. Despite the many problems with peer review, publication indicators are used to evaluate Scholars for hiring promotion, finding, and other Rewards. Weather appropriate or not, outputs of the system in the form of data, documents, and Publications are easier to measure than are the inputs such as Scholars time, education, reading of scholarly literature, and research activities in their Laboratories and libraries. More time in the laboratory or in the library does not necessarily translate into more or better research, for example. While it is understandable that the recognition of Scholars should be based heavily on quality assessments of their scholarly contributions to their fields, it is essential to distinguish clearly between quality of scholarship and the use of indicators such as the publication form and citation counts as proxies for quality.
A discussion of fraud in the humanities involving a book on gun ownership
In one case, allegations of inadequate, and accurate, and unverifiable data to support much-publicized conclusions about the historical rates of gun ownership led to the revocation of a major book prize and the loss of the author's University position.
The book is called arming America. The Astorian is Michael Bellesaies
Borgman discussing the purpose of peer review
Pre-publication mechanisms serve as expert filters on what becomes part of the scholarly record, when doing out there researchers reading list.
The use of a publication form as a proxy measure for the quality of research productivity has distorted the peer-review system so severely that some consider it broken. Peer reviewing is an expensive process, requiring considerable time and attention of editors comma editorial board members, and other reviewers. Top journals in the sciences and medicine they put fewer than half of the submitted papers through a full P review process, rejecting the remainder on an initial editorial review, and ultimately publish 6 to 10% of the total submissions. Particularly in The Sciences, researchers are under so much pressure to place papers and talk to your journals that they submit them to the same journals, whether or not the content is appropriate.
Calls preprints a guild publishing model
Between the most public and private forms communication lies a wide range of channels and activities. Scholars communicate with each other not only through books and journals but also through manuscript, preprints, articles, abstract, reprints, seminars, and Conference presentations. Over the course of the 20th century, they interacted intensively in person, by telephone, and through the postal mail. Scholars in the 21st century continue to use those channels, while also communicating via email, dogs, and Chad. Need to send an Asian channels for written work include personal websites, preprint archives, and institutional repositories. An information infrastructure to support scholarship must facilitate these Myron means of communication. Scholars use the internet to communicate with more people, and more frequently, then was feasible in the days of paper and post. They can share much larger volumes of data and documents. The internet has led to more, faster, and cheaper communication among Scholars. Because anyone can publish online, the balance between authors, Publishers, and Librarians has shifted radically.... preserving the scholarly record is more difficult in a digital world than a print one, due to the rapid evolution of Technology, changes and intellectual property regulations, and new business models for publishing.
Communication is the essence of scholarship comment as many observers have said in many ways. Scholarship is an inherently social activity, involving a wide range of private and public interactions within the research Community. Publication comment as the public report of research, is part of a continuous cycle of Reading, Writing, disgusting, searching, investigating, presenting, submitting, and reviewing. No scholarly publication stands alone. Each new work in a field his position relative to others through the process of citing relevant literature.
Communication is the essence of scholarship comment as many observers have said in many ways.
Borgman gives bibliography of claims that scholarship is communication
discussions of digital scholarship tend to distinguish implicitly or explicitly between data and documents. Some of you data and documents as a Continuum rather than a dichotomy in this sense data such as numbers images and observations are the initial products of research, and Publications are the final products that set research findings in context.
Pages 36 and 37
Boardman discusses Merton. Lots of references here to series of citation and networks of relationships among Scholars the other references they make to each other's work
open science has been subjected to rigorous economic analysis and found to meet the needs of modern, market-based societies. As an economic framework open Science is based on the premise that scholarly information is a "public good." Public goods have two defining elements. One is that they can be shared without lessening their value; the economic term is non rival. Call David quotes Thomas Jefferson's eloquent statement in 1813 on this point: he who receives an idea from me comma receives instruction himself without lessening mine: as he who lights his paper at mine receives light without dark getting me. The second characteristic of public goods is that they are difficult and costly to hold exclusively while putting them to use semicolon the economic term is non-excludable.
it is essential however to recognize that these new opportunities do not benefit all Scholars equally. Investments That Advantage some Scholars will disadvantage others. Technological Investments made her funds from field research, travel to libraries and archives where unique materials are held, and other forms of scholarship that are less dependent on a data-intensive infrastructure.
benefits of digital scholarship are expected to approve not only to The Sciences and Technology but also to the social sciences and Humanities. They will accrue in different ways, due to the different types of data, research methods, and practices in these fields. The social sciences are becoming more data of intensive as they assemble records of computer-based communication and mine databases of demographic and economic data produced by government agencies. The humanities are building large computational models of cultural sites, digitizing archival and Museum records, and Mining cultural records that are being generated or converted to digital form around the world.
Borgman discusses the invisible College of scientists
Boardman argues that the term cyberspace was popularized by William Gibson in Neuromancer his 1984 novel
Borgman argues that the term Digital Library causes trouble because it quote obscures the complex relationship between electronic information Collections and libraries as institutions.
guessing domain names declined in Effectiveness as the ww.w grew in size, which is another example of the scaling problems of information retrieval.
I wonder if this is true. Did people really get domain names?
Paul Otlet's bibliographic networks of the 1930s were a precursor to hypertext.
See Rayward 1991 1994 Wayward & Buckland 1992
A great paragraph here on the value of interconnection
scholarly data and documents are of most value when they are interconnected rather than independent. The outcomes of a research project could be understood most fully if it were possible to trace an important finding from a grant proposal, to data collection, to a data set, to its publication, to its subsequent review and comment period journal articles are more valuable if one can jump directly from the article to those insights into later articles that cite the source article. Articles are even more valuable if they provide links to data on which they are based. Some of these capabilities already are available, but their expansion depends more on the consistency of the data description, access arrangements, and intellectual property agreement then on technological advances.
I think here of the line from Jim Gill may all your problems be technical
Great quote here on how scholarship and knowledge mobilisation have difficulties interacting.
never the less, making content that was created for one audience useful to another is a complex problem. Each field has its own vocabulary, data structures, and research practices. People ask questions and different ways, starting with the mill your terminology. The repurposing of research data for teaching can be especially challenging. Scholars goals are to produce knowledge for their Community, while students goals are to learn from the concepts and tools of a given field. These two groups have different levels of expertise in both disciplinary knowledge and the use of data and information resources. Different descriptions tools and services may be required to share content between audiences.
descriptions of Museum objects created for curatorial and research purposes are interesting to museum visitors.
Borgman on the intersection of popular Outreach / knowledge mobilisation and scholarship.
little research has explored the Continuum from primary to secondary sources, much less the entire life cycle from data generation through the preservation of the scholarly products that set those data in context.
More from Borgman on the gradual collapsing of primary and secondary sources
p. 8-actually this is link to p. 7, since 8 is excluded
Another trend is the blurring of the distinction between primary sources, generally viewed as unprocessed or unanalysed data, and secondary sources that set data in context.
Good point about how this is a new thing. On the next page she discusses how we are now collpasing the traditional distinction between primary and secondary sources.
Retrieval methods designed for small databases decline rapidly in effectiveness as collections grow...
This is an interesting point that is missed in the Distant reading controversies: its all very well to say that you prefer close reading, but close reading doesn't scale--or rather the methodologies used to decide what to close read were developed when big data didn't exist. How to you combine that when you can read everything. I.e. You close read Dickins because he's what survived the 19th C as being worth reading. But now, if we could recover everything from the 19th C how do you justify methodologically not looking more widely?
- primary sources
- Scholarly Commons
- electronic texts
- Arts and Humanities Citation index
- Public good
- Citation networks
- credit practices
- Search strategies
- digital scholarship
- Citation half-life
- Scholarly Communication
- disciplinary difference
- scientific authorship
- humanities data
- Proxies for quality
- Invisible college
- social sciences
- Digital Library
- science digitisation
- Peer review
- scholarly commons
- Data preservation
- Borgman 2007
- Scholarly Commons Working Group
- high energy physics
- citation practices
- Disciplinary differences
- secondary sources
- borgman 2007
- algorithmic criticism
- digital humanities
- digital libraries
- collaborative nature of science
- Primary sources
- distant reading
- Knowledge mobilization
- Importance of communication in science