한국문헌정보학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science)

한국문헌정보학회 (Korean Society For Library And Information Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

연구데이터 큐레이터로 구성된 실천공동체 구축에 관한 질적 연구

Building a Community of Practice of Research Data Curators: A Qualitative Study

  • 한나은 (플로리다 주립대학교 정보학)
  • 투고 : 2022.07.17
  • 심사 : 2022.08.10
  • 발행 : 2022.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 활동이론을 주요 이론적 기반으로 활용하여 연구데이터 큐레이터로 구성된 실천공동체 구축 및 유지 활동을 포함한 실천공동체의 다양한 활동 및 해당 실천공동체가 직면하고 있는 문제점과 도전 과제, 그리고 실천공동체를 성공적으로 구축 및 유지하기 위해 필요한 요건이 무엇인지 연구하였다. 해당 연구는 다중 사례 연구 방법을 활용하여 진행되었으며, 사례 연구 방법은 문서 분석과 인터뷰 자료 분석을 포함한다. 연구데이터 큐레이터로 구성된 실천공동체의 활동에는 크게 큐레이션 활동, 교육 활동 및 의사소통 활동이 존재한다. 실천공동체에 가입하는 참여자들은 크게 기관으로 가입하는 경우와 개인 자격으로 가입하는 경우 두 가지로 나뉘며, 이들이 실천공동체에 가입하는 동기는 외적 동기에서 내적 동기까지 다양하게 파악된다. 본 연구는 연구데이터 큐레이터로 구성된 실천공동체가 갖는 3가지 유형의 모순 및 도전 과제를 파악하고 총 14가지의 성공 요인을 분석하였다. 해당 연구는 연구데이터 큐레이터로 구성된 실천공동체를 구축 및 유지하기 위한 지식 기반을 제공하며, 특정 집단을 기반으로 구성된 실천공동체의 다양한 활동들을 고찰함으로써 실천공동체 연구의 이론적 기반을 확장한다.

This study examined the activities of Community of Practice (CoP) of research data curators, including their community building and maintenance activities, by using activity theory as its main theoretical framework. The study used an embedded multiple-case study design for exploring the activities of three CoP of research data curators. The case study design used document analysis and semi-structured interviews to collect data. Besides the community building and maintenance activities, other activities were performed in the CoP of research data curators, which could be largely divided into curation activities, education activities, and communication activities. Membership was largely divided into institutional membership and individual membership, and the motives for members to join and contribute to the CoP vary from extrinsic to intrinsic motivations. Finally, we identified and categorized challenges and success indicators for CoP of research data curators as perceived by participants. In particular, we identified three types of challenges or contradictions the communities faced and 14 perceived indicators of success. This study informs the practice of research data curation by providing a knowledge base for building and maintaining a CoP of research data curators.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. National Research and Development Innovation Act. No. 18645.
  2. Aaker, J. L., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Grier, S. A. (2000). Nontarget markets and viewer distinctiveness: The impact of target marketing on advertising attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(3), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP0903_1
  3. Barriball, K. L. & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2), 328-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x
  4. Belzowski, N., Ladwig, J. P., & Miller, T. (2013). Crafting identity, collaboration, and relevance for academic librarians using communities of practice. Collaborative Librarianship, 5(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.29087/2013.5.1.04
  5. Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: a resource-based model of online social structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346-362. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.4.346.9703
  6. Cahill, D. J. (1997). Target marketing and segmentation: valid and useful tools for marketing. Management Decision, 35(1), 10-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749710160133
  7. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
  8. Coburn, E. & Johnston, L. (2020). Testing our assumptions: preliminary results from the data curation network. Journal of EScience Librarianship, 9(1), 4. http://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2020.1186
  9. Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., Androutsopoulos, I., Angelis, S., Deligiannakis, A., Gavrilis, D., Kotidis, Y., & Papatheodorou, C. (2009). DCC&U: An extended digital curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital Curation, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i1.76
  10. Cronin, B. (2008). On the epistemic significance of place. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20774
  11. Cummings, J. N. & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705055535
  12. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
  13. Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
  15. Fischer, G. (2001). Communities of interest: Learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems. In Proceedings of the 24th IRIS Conference. Department of Information Science, Bergen.
  16. Fu, H. & Stvilia, B. (2016). Knowledge curation discussions and activity dynamics in a short lived social Q&A community. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '16). New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/2910896.2925432
  17. Gannon-Leary, P. & Fontainha, E. (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors. Barriers and Success Factors. eLearning Papers, 5.
  18. Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper & Row.
  19. Hashim, N. H. & Jones, M. L. (2007). Activity theory: A framework for qualitative analysis. 4th International Qualitative Research Convention (QRC), PJ Hilton, Malaysia.
  20. Higgins, S. (2008). The DCC curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(1), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.48
  21. Hockx-Yu, H. (2006). Digital preservation in the context of institutional repositories. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 40(3), 232-243. https://doi.org/10.1108/00330330610681312
  22. Ilyenkov, E. V. (2008). Dialectical Logic; Essays on its History and Theory. New Delhi: Aakar Books.
  23. Johnston, L. R., Carlson, J., Hudson-Vitale, C., Imker, H., Kozlowski, W., Olendorf, R., ... & Hull, E. (2018). Data curation network: a cross-institutional staffing model for curating research data. International Journal of Digital Curation, 13(1), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.616
  24. Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: fundamentals and reflections. Synthesis Lectures Human-Centered Informatics, 5(1), 1-105. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00413ED1V01Y201203HCI013
  25. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1201_2
  26. Karanasios, S., Riisla, K., & Simeonova, B. (2017). Exploring the Use of Contradictions in Activity Theory Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review. Loughborough: Loughborough University.
  27. Kazmer, M. M. & Xie, B. (2008). Qualitative interviewing in Internet studies: playing with the media, playing with the method. Information, Community and Society, 11(2), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801946333
  28. Kazmer, M. M. (2010). Disengaging from a distributed research project: refining a model of group departures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 758-771. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21281
  29. Kraut, R. E. & Resnick, P. (2012). Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  30. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  31. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Lazar, J. & Preece, J. (2002). Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability, and Success factors. London: Psychology Press.
  33. Leimeister, J. M., Sidiras, P., & Krcmar, H. (2004). Success factors of virtual communities from the perspective of members and operators: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 37), Big Island, Hawaii.
  34. Leont'ev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  35. Lompscher, J. (2006). The cultural-historical activity theory: some aspects of development. Critical Perspectives on Activity: Explorations across Education, Work, and Everyday Life, 35-51.
  36. McCarthy, J. F., McDonald, D. W., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D. H., & Rashid, A. M. (2004). Augmenting the social space of an academic conference. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031615
  37. Michener, W. K. & Jones, M. B. (2012). Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data-intensive science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(2), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.016
  38. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. California: Sage Publications.
  39. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, 436, 7-16.
  40. O'Connor, C. & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
  41. OECD (2006). Recommendation of the Council concerning Access to Research Data from Public Funding. Available: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECDLEGAL-0347
  42. Sanchez-Cardona, I., Sanchez-Lugo, J., & VZlez-Gonzalez, J. (2012). Exploring the potential of communities of practice for learning and collaboration in a higher education context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1820-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.385.
  43. Schieffer, L. (2016). The benefits and barriers of virtual collaboration among online adjuncts. Journal of Instructional Research, 5, 109-125. https://doi.org/10.9743/JIR.2016.11
  44. Tammaro, A. M., Ross, S., & Casarosa, V. (2014). Research data curator: the competencies gap. BOBCATSSS 2014 Proceedings, 1(1), 95-100.
  45. Vallance, M., Towndrow, P. A., & Wiz, C. (2010). Conditions for successful online document collaboration. TechTrends, 54(1), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0359-6
  46. Van Der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, S., & Kuipers, B. (2010). Why turnover matters in self-managing work teams: learning, social integration, and task flexibility. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1168-1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344117
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Word. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  48. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Massachusetts: Harvard business press.
  49. Wilson, T. D. (2008). Activity theory and information seeking. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 119-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420111
  50. Winandy, M., Kostkova, P., de Quincey, E., St Louis, C., & Szomszor, M. (2016). Follow# eHealth2011: measuring the role and effectiveness of online and social media in increasing the outreach of a scientific conference. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(7), e191. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4480
  51. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. California: Sage Publications.
  52. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications. California: Sage Publications.