Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3343413.3377969acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Workflow Analysis Perspective to Scholarly Research Tasks

Published: 14 March 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Since the appearance of digital research infrastructures in the humanities in the last decade, important efforts are being made to understand and model scholarly processes. Different methods are used in those investigations, which often result in abstract representations of research phases, taxonomies of scholarly activities, in conceptual frameworks, or in scholarly ontologies. While the aim of these representations is to inform the design of the digital infrastructures, the complexity and diversity of scholarly work pose the question about the applicability of those models for design and evaluation of research infrastructures and tools. In this paper, we explore a methodology to analyze workflows from a micro-perspective, which aims at capturing the transitions between activities. We use two scholarly projects as case studies, describe their research activities in detail by using existing ontologies and describe the connections between activities, and analyse generic transitions. We discuss what kinds of implications this approach has to evaluation and design of information systems and services to facilitate scholars' complex and varied research processes.

References

[1]
Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl. 2001. (abridg. ed.). Longman, NY.
[2]
Sheila Anderson, Tobias Blanke, and Stuart Dunn. 2010. Methodological commons: arts and humanities e-Science fundamentals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368, 1925 (2010), 3779--3796.
[3]
Smiljana Antonijevic and Ellysa Stern Cahoy. 2018. Researcher as Bricoleur: Contextualizing humanists' digital workflows. Digital Humanities Quarterly 012, 3 (Nov. 2018).
[4]
Joan C Bartlett and Elaine G Toms. 2005. Developing a protocol for bioinformatics analysis: An integrated information behavior and task analysis approach. Journalof the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56, 5 (2005), 469-- 482.
[5]
Marcia J Bates. 1990. Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing & Management 26, 5 (1990), 575--591.
[6]
Agiatis Benardou, Panos Constantopoulos, and Costis Dallas. 2013. An Approach to Analyzing Working Practices of Research Communities in the Humanities. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 7, 1--2 (Oct. 2013), 105--127. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2013.0084
[7]
Agiatis Benardou, Panos Constantopoulos, Costis Dallas, and Dimitris Gavrilis. 2010. Understanding the Information Requirements of Arts and Humanities Scholarship. International Journal of Digital Curation 5, 1 (2010), 18--33.
[8]
Peter Boot, Ronald Haentjens Dekker, Marijn Koolen, and Liliana Melgar. 2017. Facilitating Fine-Grained Open Annotations of Scholarly Sources. In DH2017 Digital Humanities 2017 Conference Abstracts. McGill University and Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada, 167--169. https://dh2017.adho.org/abstracts/198/ 198.pdf
[9]
Pia Borlund and Peter Ingwersen. 1997. The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of documentation 53, 3 (1997), 225--250.
[10]
Pia Borlund and Jesper W. Schneider. 2010. Reconsideration of the simulated work task situation: a context instrument for evaluation of information retrieval interaction. In Proceedings of the third symposium on Information interaction in context. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 155--164.
[11]
Marc Bron, Jasmijn Van Gorp, and Maarten de Rijke. 2016. Media studies research in the data-driven age: How research questions evolve. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 7 (2016), 1535--1554.
[12]
Katriina Byström and Kalervo Järvelin. 1995. Task Complexity Affects Information Seeking and Use. Inf. Process. Manage. 31, 2 (1995), 191--213. https: //doi.org/10.1016/0306--4573(95)80035-R
[13]
Norman K. Denzin. 2017. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge, Somerset.
[14]
Brenda Dervin and Michael Nilan. 1986. Information needs and uses. Annual review of information science and technology 21 (1986), 3--33.
[15]
Yrjö Engeström, Reijo Miettinen, Raija-Leena Punamäki, et al. 1999. Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UK.
[16]
John C. Flanagan. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin 51, 4 (1954), 327.
[17]
Daniel Garijo, Pinar Alper, Khalid Belhajjame, Oscar Corcho, Yolanda Gil, and Carole Goble. 2014. Common motifs in scientificworkflows: An empirical analysis. Future Generation Computer Systems 36 (July 2014), 338--351. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.future.2013.09.018
[18]
Steffen Hennicke, Stefan Gradmann, Kristin Dill, Gerold Tschumpel, Klaus Thoden, Christian Morbidoni, and Alois Pichler. 2012. D3.4 -- Research Report on DH Scholarly Primitives. Technical Report. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. https://dm2e.eu/outputs/
[19]
Rik Hoekstra and Marijn Koolen. 2019. Data scopes for digital history research. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 52, 2 (2019), 79--94.
[20]
Hugo C. Huurdeman and Jaap Kamps. 2014. From Multistage Informationseeking Models to Multistage Search Systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIiX '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 145--154. https://doi.org/10.1145/2637002.2637020
[21]
Peter Ingwersen and Kalervo Järvelin. 2005. The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Vol. 18. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
[22]
Bernard J. Jansen, Danielle Booth, and Brian Smith. 2009. Using the taxonomy of cognitive learning to model online searching. Information Processing & Management 45, 6 (2009), 643--663.
[23]
Kalervo Järvelin, Pertti Vakkari, Paavo Arvola, Feza Baskaya, Anni Järvelin, Jaana Kekäläinen, Heikki Keskustalo, Sanna Kumpulainen, Miamaria Saastamoinen, Reijo Savolainen, and Eero Sormunen. 2015. Task-based information interaction evaluation: The viewpoint of program theory. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 33, 1 (2015), 3.
[24]
Jaana Kekäläinen and Kalervo Järvelin. 2002. Evaluating information retrieval systems under the challenges of interaction and multidimensional dynamic relevance. In Proceedings of the 4th CoLIS conference. Libraries Unlimited, Greenwood Village, Colorado, 253--270.
[25]
Diane Kelly et al. 2009. Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 3, 1--2 (2009), 1--224.
[26]
Diane Kelly, Jaime Arguello, Ashlee Edwards, and Wan-ching Wu. 2015. Development and evaluation of search tasks for IIR experiments using a cognitive complexity framework. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 101--110.
[27]
Rob Kitchin. 2014. Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big data & society 1, 1 (2014), 1--12.
[28]
Marijn Koolen, Sanna Kumpulainen, and Liliana Melgar-Estrada. 2020. A Workflow Analysis Perspective to Scholarly Research Tasks-Auxiliary materials. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3626814.
[29]
Carol C. Kuhlthau. 1991. Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American society for information science 42, 5 (1991), 361--371.
[30]
Sanna Kumpulainen. 2014. Trails across the heterogeneous information environment: manual integration patterns of search systems in molecular medicine. Journal of Documentation 70, 5 (2014), 856--877.
[31]
Sanna Kumpulainen. 2017. Task-Based Information Searching: Research Methods. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 4526-- 4536.
[32]
Sanna Kumpulainen and Kalervo Järvelin. 2010. Information Interaction in Molecular Medicine: Integrated Use of Multiple Channels. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95--104. https://doi.org/10.1145/1840784.1840800
[33]
Sanna Kumpulainen and Kalervo Järvelin. 2012. Barriers to task-based information access in molecular medicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, 1 (2012), 86--97.
[34]
Sanna Kumpulainen, Heikki Keskustalo, Boyang Zhang, and Kostas Stefanidis. 2020. Historical reasoning in authentic research tasks: Mapping cognitive and document spaces. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71, 2 (2020), 230--241. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24216
[35]
Catherine Marshall and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2014. Designing qualitative research. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
[36]
Liliana Melgar, Marijn Koolen, Hugo Huurdeman, and Jaap Blom. 2017. A Process Model of Scholarly Media Annotation. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 305--308. https://doi.org/10.1145/3020165.3022139
[37]
Liliana Melgar Estrada. 2016. From social tagging to polyrepresentation: A study of expert annotating behavior of moving images. Doctoral thesis. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
[38]
Liliana Melgar Estrada and Marijn Koolen. 2018. Audiovisual media annotation using qualitative data analysis software: A comparative analysis. The Qualitative Report 23, 13 (2018), 40--60.
[39]
Carole L. Palmer and Melissa H. Cragin. 2008. Scholarship and disciplinary practices. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 42, 1 (2008), 163--212. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112
[40]
Carole L. Palmer, Lauren C. Teffeau, and Carrie M. Pirmann. 2009. Scholarly information practices in the online environment. Technical Report. OCLC Research. http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-02.pdf
[41]
Vayianos Pertsas and Panos Constantopoulos. 2017. Scholarly Ontology: modelling scholarly practices. International Journal on Digital Libraries 18, 3 (Sept. 2017), 173--190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0169--3
[42]
Daniel M. Russell, Mark J. Stefik, Peter Pirolli, and Stuart K. Card. 1993. The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 269--276.
[43]
Ricky J Sethi and Yolanda Gil. 2017. Scientificworkflows in data analysis: Bridging expertise across multiple domains. Future Generation Computer Systems 75 (2017), 256--270.
[44]
Lisa Spiro. 2009. Collaborative Authorship in the Humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. https://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/ \collaborative-authorship-in-the-humanities/
[45]
Ciaran B. Trace and Unmil P. Karadkar. 2016. Information management in the humanities: Scholarly processes, tools, and the construction of personal collections. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68, 2 (2016), 491--507. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23678
[46]
John Unsworth. 2000. Scholarly primitives: What methods do humanities researchers have in common, and how might our tools reflect this. In Symposium on Humanities Computing: Formal Methods, Experimental Practice, Vol. 13. King's College, London, 5--00.
[47]
Pertti Vakkari. 2001. A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study. Journal of documentation 57, 1 (2001), 44--60.
[48]
Joris J. van Zundert and Ronald Haentjens Dekker. 2017. Code, scholarship, and criticism: When is code scholarship and when is it not? Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32, suppl_1 (2017), i121--i133.
[49]
Barbara Wildemuth, Luanne Freund, and Elaine G. Toms. 2014. Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies. Journal of Documentation 70, 6 (2014), 1118--1140.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Images as data – modelling data interactions in social science and humanities researchJournal of Documentation10.1108/JD-08-2024-019580:7(325-345)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2024
  • (2023)In a Perfect World: Exploring the Desires and Realities for Digitized Historical Image ArchivesProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/pra2.78560:1(244-254)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2023
  • (2021)Figurations of Digital Practice, Craft, and Agency in Two Mediterranean Fieldwork ProjectsOpen Archaeology10.1515/opar-2020-02177:1(1731-1755)Online publication date: 31-Dec-2021
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CHIIR '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval
March 2020
596 pages
ISBN:9781450368926
DOI:10.1145/3343413
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 14 March 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. research information interaction
  2. research workflows
  3. scholarly primitives

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

CHIIR '20
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 55 of 163 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)52
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
Reflects downloads up to 24 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Images as data – modelling data interactions in social science and humanities researchJournal of Documentation10.1108/JD-08-2024-019580:7(325-345)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2024
  • (2023)In a Perfect World: Exploring the Desires and Realities for Digitized Historical Image ArchivesProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/pra2.78560:1(244-254)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2023
  • (2021)Figurations of Digital Practice, Craft, and Agency in Two Mediterranean Fieldwork ProjectsOpen Archaeology10.1515/opar-2020-02177:1(1731-1755)Online publication date: 31-Dec-2021
  • (2021)Interacting with digitised historical newspapers: understanding the use of digital surrogates as primary sourcesJournal of Documentation10.1108/JD-04-2021-007878:7(106-124)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2021
  • (2021)Struggling with digitized historical newspapers: Contextual barriers to information interaction in history research activitiesJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2460873:7(1012-1024)Online publication date: 24-Nov-2021

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media