Abstract
In this paper we conduct an ethnographic study of work to explore the interaction between scientific collaboration and computing technologies in the emerging science of metagenomics. In particular, we explore how databases serve to organize scientific collaboration. We find databases existing across scientific communities where scientists have different practices and priorities. We suggest while these databases appear to be boundary objects, they are better understood as boundary negotiating artifacts. Due to rapid scientific and technical innovation the tools, practices, and scientific questions change over the course of merely a few years resulting in challenges for collaboration.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., Messina, P., et al. (2003): Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel On Cyberinfrastructure. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
Birnholtz, J., & Bietz, M. J. (2003): ‘Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering’ Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 339–348.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999): Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chen, K., & Pachter, L. (2005): ‘Bioinformatics for whole-genome shotgun sequencing of microbial communities’, PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 1, no. 2, Jul, pp. 106–112.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995): Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Field, D., Garrity, G., Gray, T., Morrison, N., Selengut, J., Sterk, P., et al. (2008): ‘The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification’, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 5, May 2008, pp. 541–547.
Genomic Standards Consortium (2008): ‘Genomic Rosetta Stone’, Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://gensc.org/gc_wiki/index.php/Genomic_Rosetta_Stone
Gilbert, J. A., Thomas, S., Cooley, N. A., Kulakova, A., Field, D., Booth, T., et al. (2009): ‘Potential for phosphonoacetate utilization by marine bacteria in temperate coastal waters’, Environmental Microbiology, vol. 11, no. 1, Jan, pp. 111–125.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Grudin, J. (1989): ‘Why groupware applications fail: problems in design and evaluation’, Office: Technology and People, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 245–264.
Handelsman, J., Rondon, M. R., Brady, S. F., Clardy, J., & Goodman, R. M. (1998): ‘Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: a new frontier for natural products’, Chemical Biology, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct, pp. R245–249.
Harper, R. (1998): Inside the IMF: An Ethnography of Documents, Technology and Organizational Action. San Diego: Academic Press.
Harper, R., Procter, R., Randall, D., & Rouncefield (2001): ‘‘Safety in numbers’: Calculation and document re-use in knowledge work’ Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, New York: ACM, pp. 242–251.
Henderson, K. (1999): On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hilgartner, S. (1995): ‘Biomolecular databases: New communication regimes for biology?’, Science Communication, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 240–263.
Hine, C. (2006): ‘Databases as scientific instruments and their role in the ordering of scientific work’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 36, no. 2, April 1, 2006, pp. 269–298.
Hugenholtz, P., Goebel, B. M., & Pace, N. R. (1998): ‘Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity’, Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 180, no. 18, pp. 4765–4774.
Latour, B. (1987): Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, C. P. (2007): ‘Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 307–339.
Lutters, W. G., & Ackerman, M. S. (2002): ‘Achieving safety: A field study of boundary objects in aircraft technical support’ Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York: ACM, pp. 266–275.
Manovich, L. (2001): The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
National Center for Biotechnology Information (April 2, 2008): ‘GenBank Overview’, Retrieved February 23, 2009, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/index.html
O'Day, V., Adler, A., Kuchinsky, A., & Bouch, A. (2001): ‘When worlds collide: Molecular biology as interdisciplinary collaboration’, in W. Prinz, M. Jarke, Y. Rogers, K. Schmidt & V. Wulf (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 399–418.
Pawlowski, S. D., Robey, D., & Raven, A. (2000): ‘Supporting shared information systems: Boundary objects, communities, and brokering’ Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems, pp. 329–338.
Schmidt, K., & Simone, C. (1996): ‘Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 155–200.
Schmidt, K., & Wagner, I. (2002): ‘Coordinative artifacts in architectural practice’, in M. Blay-Fornarino, A. M. Pinna-Dery, K. Schmidt & I. Wagner (eds.), Cooperative Systems Design: A Challenge of the Mobility Age, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, pp. 257–274.
Schmidt, K., & Wagner, I. (2005): ‘Ordering systems: Coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 13, no. 5–6, pp. 349–408.
Schuurman, N., & Leszczynski, A. (2008): ‘Ontologies for bioinformatics’, Bioinformatics and Biology Insights, vol. 2008, no. 2, pp. 187–200.
Star, S. L. (1987–1989): ‘The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving’, in L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (eds.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, Vol. II, pp. 37–54.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989): ‘Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 387–420.
Subrahmanian, E., Monarch, I., Konda, S., Granger, H., Milliken, R., Westerberg, A., et al. (2003): ‘Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering design’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 12, no. 2, 2003, pp. 185– 203.
Turnbaugh, P. J., Backhed, F., Fulton, L., & Gordon, J. I. (2008): ‘Diet-induced obesity is linked to marked but reversible alterations in the mouse distal gut microbiome’, Cell Host Microbe, vol. 3, no. 4, Apr 17, pp. 213–223.
Wenger, E. (1998): Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bietz, M.J., Lee, C.P. (2009). Collaboration in Metagenomics: Sequence Databases and the Organization of Scientific Work. In: Wagner, I., TellioÄŸlu, H., Balka, E., Simone, C., Ciolfi, L. (eds) ECSCW 2009. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-854-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-854-4_15
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-853-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-854-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)