Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2022.56.3.119

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

Han, Na-eun (플로리다 주립대학교 정보학)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science / v.56, no.3, 2022 , pp. 119-152 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Community of Practice(CoP); Data Curation; Research Data Curation; Research Data Management;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2 Lazar, J. & Preece, J. (2002). Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability, and Success factors. London: Psychology Press.
3 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.
4 Leont'ev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
5 Schieffer, L. (2016). The benefits and barriers of virtual collaboration among online adjuncts. Journal of Instructional Research, 5, 109-125.   DOI
6 Tammaro, A. M., Ross, S., & Casarosa, V. (2014). Research data curator: the competencies gap. BOBCATSSS 2014 Proceedings, 1(1), 95-100.
7 Vallance, M., Towndrow, P. A., & Wiz, C. (2010). Conditions for successful online document collaboration. TechTrends, 54(1), 20-24.   DOI
8 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   DOI
9 Hashim, N. H. & Jones, M. L. (2007). Activity theory: A framework for qualitative analysis. 4th International Qualitative Research Convention (QRC), PJ Hilton, Malaysia.
10 Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper & Row.
11 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   DOI
12 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   DOI
13 Karanasios, S., Riisla, K., & Simeonova, B. (2017). Exploring the Use of Contradictions in Activity Theory Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review. Loughborough: Loughborough University.
14 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   DOI
15 Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Word. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
16 Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Massachusetts: Harvard business press.
17 Wilson, T. D. (2008). Activity theory and information seeking. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 119-161.   DOI
18 Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. California: Sage Publications.
19 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications. California: Sage Publications.
20 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   DOI
21 Kraut, R. E. & Resnick, P. (2012). Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
22 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   DOI
23 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   DOI
24 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   DOI
25 Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26 Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. California: Sage Publications.
27 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.
28 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   DOI
29 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   DOI
30 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   DOI
31 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.   DOI
32 Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, 436, 7-16.
33 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   DOI
34 OECD (2006). Recommendation of the Council concerning Access to Research Data from Public Funding. Available: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECDLEGAL-0347
35 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   DOI
36 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   DOI
37 Ilyenkov, E. V. (2008). Dialectical Logic; Essays on its History and Theory. New Delhi: Aakar Books.
38 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   DOI
39 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   DOI
40 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   DOI
41 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   DOI
42 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   DOI
43 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   DOI
44 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   DOI
45 Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.   DOI
46 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.
47 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.
48 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   DOI
49 National Research and Development Innovation Act. No. 18645.
50 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   DOI
51 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   DOI
52 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   DOI