user requirements for virtual research environments (vres
TRANSCRIPT
User requirements for Virtual Research Environments(VREs) in Irish Higher Education institutions
Claire Rock
A minor thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirementsfor the Degree of Master of Library and Information
Studies
November 2008
School of Information and Library StudiesHead of School: Dr. Ian CorneliusSupervisor: Dr. Judith Wusteman
i
Abstract
The role of research in Irish Higher Education institutions is growing and, given that
research may be conducted across disciplines and locations, so too is the degree of
collaboration. At the same time, the range of Information and Communication
Technologies available to researchers is on the increase. Software systems known as
Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), intended to support teaching and learning, have
been available for some time in education. Similarly, Virtual Research Environments
(VREs) are intended to assist researchers by harnessing online technologies, via
formal, shared environments for collaboration. By comparison to VLEs, VREs are a
recent development in research, and are in their infancy in Ireland.
This research sets out to determine to what extent and how researchers in Irish
Higher Education institutions use VREs. The results of this project will have a practical
application, in helping to establish the user requirements for the OJAX++ VRE. This is
a next-generation collaborative research tool, using Web 2.0 technologies, being
developed by a team in Ireland’s University College Dublin. The project team is using
Agile software development methods, a central principle of which is the involvement of
users in specifying their requirements.
To determine those user requirements, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with fourteen researchers, across eleven disciplines. The objective of the
interviews was to learn about how researchers work, what tools they use, and how a
VRE could assist them in collaborating and communicating.
In addition to determining user requirements for a VRE, the results of this
research suggest that awareness and usage of VREs in Ireland is low. It also echoes
the findings of other studies indicating that Web 2.0 technologies are relatively
underused in research. One obvious reason for this is that not all researchers are
aware of these technologies and the potential benefits they can bring. Researchers
may also have actual concerns about these tools, which may be influenced by the
ii
culture within their discipline or institution. Some of these issues are outlined, so that
the OJAX++ team may take them into account, in promoting the benefits and use of the
OJAX++ VRE.
iii
Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
My supervisor, Dr. Judith Wusteman, for her encouragement and valuable assistancethroughout;
The interview participants, who gave so generously of their time and without whosehelp this research could not have been conducted. Special thanks to the participantwho agreed to be interviewed although on sabbatical leave;
My family, for their faith, encouragement and love;
My friends, old and new, for their encouragement and all the laughter;
The staff of the School of Information and Library Studies, University College Dublin.
iv
Contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................11.1 Background ..........................................................................................11.2 University College Dublin’s OJAX++ VRE project ................................21.3 Research Questions .............................................................................3
2 Literature Review.........................................................................................42.1 Ireland’s changing research climate .....................................................42.2 Web 2.0 technologies in research ........................................................52.3 Virtual Research Environments ............................................................6
2.3.1 Introduction....................................................................................62.3.2 Examples of VREs.........................................................................72.3.3 Researchers’ awareness of VREs.................................................92.3.4 User needs and disciplines............................................................92.3.5 VREs and Ireland ........................................................................102.3.6 A review of VRE user requirements research..............................11
2.4 Encouraging the uptake of Web 2.0 technologies ..............................142.5 Difficulties in relation to the literature..................................................15
3 Research Method and Design ...................................................................173.1 Purpose of research ...........................................................................173.2 Research method ...............................................................................17
3.2.1 Possible research methods .........................................................173.2.2 Chosen research method ............................................................19
3.3 Research design and application........................................................193.3.1 Sampling .....................................................................................203.3.2 Ethics...........................................................................................233.3.3 Interview schedule.......................................................................243.3.4 Data collection.............................................................................263.3.5 Transcription and data analysis ...................................................26
3.4 Critique of Research Method and Design...........................................274 Research Results ......................................................................................29
4.1 Participants’ profiles............................................................................294.2 Participants’ awareness of VREs........................................................304.3 Participants’ use of VREs ...................................................................304.4 The research process and tools used.................................................30
4.4.1 Google products and searching...................................................314.4.2 Institutional repositories, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, discussion lists
344.4.3 Social network, photo, video and slide sharing sites, annotationand tagging ................................................................................................354.4.4 Email, video conferencing and instant messaging.......................374.4.5 Office applications .......................................................................384.4.6 Other tools and standards ...........................................................39
4.5 Collaboration and sharing...................................................................404.6 Use of VLEs........................................................................................424.7 Use of VREs .......................................................................................434.8 Other things ICT might help with ........................................................45
v
4.9 Other observations .............................................................................455 Discussion .................................................................................................46
5.1 What do researchers in Irish Higher Education institutions know aboutVREs? ...........................................................................................................465.2 Do researchers in HEIs use VREs?....................................................465.3 What potential VRE services would be useful across disciplines? .....475.4 How do user requirements for VREs differ across disciplines? ..........495.5 What impact might the findings of this study have on the OJAX++VRE? 505.6 Limitations of this research .................................................................52
6 Conclusion.................................................................................................536.1 Potential for further research ..............................................................54
7 Appendices................................................................................................55A. Ethics Exemption Form ..........................................................................55B. Letter of Information and Informed Consent Form .................................61C. Interview Schedule.................................................................................63D. Code Book .............................................................................................66
8 References and Notes ...............................................................................68
vi
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Sample user requirements from other VRE research ......................13Table 3-1: Profile of participants .......................................................................22Table 4-1: Use of Google products ...................................................................32Table 4-2: Databases used...............................................................................33Table 4-3: Methods of saving search results ....................................................34Table 4-4: Use of institutional repositories, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds anddiscussion lists ..................................................................................................35Table 4-5: Use of social networking, video and slide sharing sites ...................37Table 4-6: Use of email, video conferencing and instant messaging ................38Table 4-7: Office applications used...................................................................39Table 4-8: Other software tools used, and electronic standards .......................40Table 4-9: Tools used for collaboration and sharing .........................................41Table 4-10: Reasons for non-use of VLEs ........................................................42Table 4-11: Reservations about VLEs ..............................................................43Table 5-1: General user requirements for a VRE..............................................47
- 1 -
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Research plays a large role in academic institutions, adding to human knowledge in a
variety of fields, while also raising the institutions’ profiles, attracting funding and
supporting academics’ careers. While in the past, researchers may have worked in
relative isolation, using few or no formal methods of collaboration, the research arena
is changing. Many individuals may conduct research across various locations and may
use shared infrastructure and/or tools to do so, leading to what have been called Virtual
Research Communities (VRCs) (Office of Science and Innovation 2006). Bodies that
seek to support research are looking towards the potential of online technologies to
assist, via the provision of formal, shared environments for collaboration.
One such shared environment is a Virtual Research Environment (VRE), which can
be thought of variously as:
A technological solution to provide online tools and/or services to assist
researchers; these could include social networking tools such as wikis and
blogs, and tools for communication, administration, sharing of data and access
to resources;
A means of sharing knowledge and/or data and collaborating;
A tool to support efficiency in the world of research.
While Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), such as Blackboard, Moodle and
Sakai, are now commonplace within higher education institutions for collaboration
between administration, faculty and student, Virtual Research Environments (VREs)
are a more recent development. And, despite being supported and promoted
worldwide, they are as yet relatively under-represented in the research world.
In order to successfully develop a VRE, users’ requirements must be established.
Some high-level requirements have been suggested for VREs in general, but each
VRE must be tailored to the researchers who will use it. Therefore, researchers should
- 2 -
be involved in specifying user requirements prior to development, particularly since
these may vary by discipline.
The purpose of this research is to determine user requirements for a Virtual
Research Environment from a group of Irish researchers in Irish Higher Education
institutions, in terms of how they work and would use online tools. The user
requirements gathered in this research are intended for use in the development of the
OJAX++ VRE, a project currently underway in University College Dublin (UCD).
1.2 University College Dublin’s OJAX++ VRE project
The OJAX++ project, led by Dr. Judith Wusteman of UCD’s School of Information and
Library Studies, in conjunction with Dr Lorraine McGinty of UCD’s School of Computer
Science & Informatics, with funding from Science Foundation Ireland, aims to:
“investigate how concepts from the Social Web and recommender technology can
be applied to the research environment in order to facilitate dynamic collaboration
and the sharing of ideas among researchers. It will be illustrated via the creation of
OJAX++, a next-generation collaborative research tool, using Web 2.0
technologies.” (Wusteman in press)
UCD’s existing Irish Virtual Research Library & Archive (IVRLA) repository will
serve as initial test bed for OJAX++. To develop OJAX++, the development team is
using Agile software development methods, two central features of which are its
involvement of users in the design process and the delivery of frequent iterations of
software to meet those users’ needs, in a cycle of user requirements, prototype, user
feedback, and further development. As Highsmith notes:
“Agilists don’t expect a detailed set of requirements to be signed off at the
beginning of the project; rather, we anticipate a high-level view of requirements
that is subject to frequent change...with frequent interaction between the
business people and the developers.” (2002, p. 66)
- 3 -
Four related dissertations on the topic of VREs, and related to the OJAX++
project, are being completed in 2008. These are:
The use of mashups in virtual research environments: a case study.
(Albertini 2008);
Towards increased information findability in OJAX++ - Are Virtual Research
Environments ready for tags, annotations and user-generated, collaborative
metadata? (Bjornson 2008);
The relationship between VLEs and VREs: a study. (Duggan 2008);
An evaluation of the user requirements of users of the Irish Virtual
Research Library and Archive. (Healy 2008).
1.3 Research Questions
The research questions that form the basis for this research are set out below. As
noted previously, this study has a practical application, since the results are intended
for use in the development of the OJAX++ VRE. These research questions are being
asked in the context of research in Irish Higher Education institutions.
1. What do researchers in Irish Higher Education institutions know about
VREs?
2. Do they use VREs?
3. What potential VRE services would be useful across disciplines?
4. How do user requirements for VREs differ across disciplines?
5. What impact might the findings of this study have on the OJAX++ VRE?
- 4 -
2 Literature Review
This literature review sets out to show the context in which VREs have been
introduced, by first looking at recent changes in the research arena, then at various
aspects of VRE development, before reviewing other user requirements gathering
exercises.
2.1 Ireland’s changing research climate
In 2000, the European Council in Lisbon introduced a strategy to place European
countries among the greatest knowledge-based economies in the world. Education and
research clearly have their parts to play in this and the Irish Government, in its 2006
Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (Ireland, Department of Enterprise,
Trade and Employment 2006), set out its intention to double the number of PhD
students in Ireland.
As a result of initiatives such as these, the role of research in Irish higher
education institutions is growing. Taking UCD as an example, the 2007 Report of the
President states that the University’s graduate students represented 26% of its student
population and that the “numbers of graduate research students in UCD increased
significantly to a total of 1,908 in 2006/07.” (University College Dublin 2007, p. 46).
Furthermore, the value of research contracts awarded to UCD in 2006/7, at EUR 96.3
million, represents an increase of 16% on the previous year. UCD has also confirmed
its aim to “encourage interdisciplinary research and cross-campus programmes”
(University College Dublin 2007, p. 38). This tallies with the position of one the major
public bodies funding research in this country, Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), that it
will “encourage and support cross disciplinary research” in what it terms the priority
areas of Biotechnology and Information and Communications Technology (Science
Foundation Ireland n.d., Cross-disciplinary Research, para. 2).
- 5 -
That the resulting increases in both the importance and volume of research in
Irish Higher Education institutions will require support has been highlighted by bodies
such as HEAnet, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network. In its Strategic
Plan 2004-2007 (HEAnet Limited 2007), referring to the importance for Ireland of
excelling in research, it mentioned the need for collaboration, supported by advanced
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).
2.2 Web 2.0 technologies in research
The range and type of ICT continue to grow and evolve, which in turn affects research.
As noted in Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, from University
College London’s Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research
(CIBER):
“As the information landscape is changing, so are the very processes of
research. Scholars are beginning to employ methods unavailable to their
counterparts a few years ago, including pre-publication release of their work,
distributing it through non-traditional outlets such as institutional repositories,
blogs, wikis and personal websites. They are also trying out new forms of peer
review using online collaboration.” (University College London 2008, p. 27)
Lin (2008) provides an overview of common online technologies widely
available today, such as wikis and blogs, social bookmarking and networking, video
and slide sharing websites, all elements of what has become known as Web 2.0
(O'Reilly Media, Inc. 2005). From being used in purely a social capacity, Web 2.0 tools
are now slowly but surely being used in teaching and learning, and research. Several
reports have been published in this area by JISC, the Joint Information and Systems
Committee (JISC), a public body in the United Kingdom, the mission of which is “to
provide world-class leadership in the innovative use of ICT to support education and
research.” (JISC 2008a). In Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education, Franklin and van Harmelen examine usage of Web 2.0 technologies in
teaching and learning, with a focus on four British universities, and conclude that “Web
- 6 -
2.0 is, in our view, a technology with profound potentiality for inducing change in the
HE sector.” (2007, p. 27). Anderson’s What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and
implications for education (2007) cites instances of blog, tagging and social
bookmarking in research. Anderson also notes, however, that these technologies are
not being used as much as they might be, and this idea will be revisited in section 2.4.
Terms like eResearch and eScience have, therefore, been joined by Research
2.0, “the extension of Web 2.0 tools to support academic and other research” (Lin
2008, p. 3), for purposes categorized by Lin as maintaining relationships, sharing tools
and resources, sharing publications and sharing experiences. Virtual Research
Environments are intended to assist researchers in these new ways of working, by
harnessing tools such as those mentioned above.
2.3 Virtual Research Environments
2.3.1 Introduction
The following definition of a Virtual Research Environment is provided by JISC:
“A set of online tools and other network resources and technologies
interoperating with each other to support or enhance the processes of a wide
range of research practitioners within and across disciplinary and institutional
boundaries. A key characteristic of a VRE is that it facilitates collaboration
amongst researchers and research teams providing them with more effective
means of collaboratively collecting, manipulating and managing data, as well as
collaborative knowledge creation.” (JISC 2008b)
JISC effectively leads what could be termed the VRE movement in Britain, via its
multi-phase VRE programme. Phase one of this programme ran from 2004-2007,
Phase two ends in 2009, while Phase three is scheduled to run from spring 2009 for a
period of two years (JISC 2008c). Along with Research Information Network (RIN) and
the British Library, JISC was represented in a Working Group formed by Britain’s Office
of Science and Innovation [1]. This group sought “...to explore the current provision of
- 7 -
the UK’s e-infrastructure and to help define its future development” (Office of Science
and Innovation n.d., p. 2). It strongly supported VREs, and also recommended
international co-operation in this area.
An example of such co-operation is the existence of the Knowledge Exchange, a
“co-operative effort that supports the use and development of Information and
Communications Technologies (ICT) infrastructure for higher education and research”
(Knowledge Exchange n.d.), comprising:
Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF);
German Research Foundation (DFG);
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the United Kingdom;
SURFfoundation in the Netherlands.
The development of VREs is also being advanced worldwide by other bodies. The
OSI’s Report of the Working Group on Virtual Research Communities (Office of
Science and Innovation 2006) provides a useful overview of such bodies, which
include:
The National Science Foundation, in the United States [2];
Canada’s National Research Council (NRC) [3];
Australia’s Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [4]
and its National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy
(Australia, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
2006).
2.3.2 Examples of VREs
VREs are in place across a diverse range of institutions, in fields such as history,
archaeology, biology and orthopaedics, to name but a few. A selection of VREs is
outlined below.
In 2006, an Early Modern Virtual Research Group was formed, encompassing
22 researchers across 13 UK institutions. This group employs a VRE, harnessing
communication and collaboration tools; for example, the researchers engage in
- 8 -
collaborative writing and dissemination, via a wiki (Knights 2008). A VRE at the UK
Economic and Social Research Council's (ESRC) Teaching and Learning Research
Programme was used to support three distinct projects. In two of these, the VRE
supported researchers across five teams in four universities, and researchers in two
universities and four Further Education (FE) colleges, respectively. (Laterza et al
2007).
Microsoft’s Technical Computing Group and The British Library are developing
the Research Information Centre (RIC) for bioscience. That VRE provides access to a
range of shared items, including documents, tools, applications and data sets.
Although initially aimed at biomedical researchers, the VRE architecture is intended to
allow use by other disciplines (Barga et al 2007). The Virtual Orthopaedic University
(VOEU) in Wessex in Britain includes a VRE, allowing members to “analyse data from
existing journals, investigate hypotheses, comment on reviewed articles, and even
prepare and submit articles for review.” (Wills et al 2005, The Virtual Orthopaedic
University, para. 7).
Finally, myExperiment was designed “to support scientists using workflows and
let them concentrate on being scientists and not programmers.” The project team’s
vision for the VRE was that it would be
“a ‘gossip shop’ to share and discuss workflows and their related scientific
objects, regardless of the workflow system; a bazaar for sharing, reusing and
repurposing workflows; a gateway to other established environments, for
example depositing into data repositories and journals; and a platform to launch
workflows, whatever their system.” (De Roure et al 2007, The design of
myExperiment, para. 1).
As can be seen, the uses of VREs are broad. In section 2.3.6, a number of
other VREs, developed under JISC’s programme, will be examined, from a user
requirements gathering perspective.
- 9 -
2.3.3 Researchers’ awareness of VREs
Since VREs are relatively new in the field of research, one might wonder how
much researchers know about them. The findings of a 2007 report into Researchers’
Use of Academic Libraries and their Services (Research Information Network and the
Consortium of Research Libraries 2007) give some indication. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
this study found of researchers that:
50.5% had never heard of VREs;
31% had heard of VREs but knew little about them;
13% knew something of VREs but had no first-hand experience of using any;
1% had been involved with developing and testing VREs;
2% regularly used a VRE.
In light of these figures, one of the research questions that this study sets out to
address is what, if anything, researchers from a variety of disciplines in Irish Higher
Education institutions know about VREs.
2.3.4 User needs and disciplines
“One size does not fit all.” (Laterza et al 2007, p. 260) JISC talks of VREs meeting the
needs of “target user groups” (JISC 2008b) while, as the report of the OSI’s working
group put it, “the importance of reflecting the real needs, habits, preferences and
aspirations of researchers themselves cannot be underestimated” (Office of Science
and Innovation n.d, p. 22).
Clearly, this requires that end users be involved in the development of VREs. It
also means recognising the potential for disciplinary differences, since tools may differ,
as may methods of collaborating and sharing material. Indeed, many of the VREs
referred to in section 2.3.6 exist to serve a single purpose, such as supporting
Materials Science or the Humanities, cross-disciplinary VREs appearing less common.
- 10 -
JISC’s Disciplinary Differences Report, below, suggested that the ways in which
disciplines collaborate and communicate their work may vary. Any such differences
that emerge from this study should be taken into account in the development of the
OJAX++ VRE.
“...‘harder’ disciplines were more likely to collaborate in the research process,
and be prepared to use less formal methods to disseminate results, while
‘softer’ ones were more likely to communicate work-in-progress informally but
rely on more formal means of dissemination.” (JISC 2005, p. 6)
2.3.5 VREs and Ireland
Turning to VREs in an Irish context, in 2007 two public bodies, the Higher Education
Authority (HEA) and Forfás, carried out a review of research infrastructure in Ireland
(Higher Education Authority (HEA) and Forfás 2007). However, its definition of
“research infrastructure”, while broad, did not seem to include VREs per se. This study
has also not unearthed any published Irish research in this area.
Meanwhile, there is little evidence of VREs in use in the seven Irish universities.
A simple search of their websites yielded only the following references:
A 2006 pilot in the University of Limerick (University of Limerick, Centre for
Teaching and Learning 2006). (However, this pilot did not go ahead (Risquez
2008).);
The University of Limerick’s Library’s plan to explore development of a VRE
(University of Limerick, Library & Information Services 2006);
Research into a Virtual Research Environment for Humanities in National
University of Ireland Maynooth [5].
The topic of VREs has, however, been mentioned at Irish gatherings of
information professionals, such as the 2006 conference of the Health Sciences
- 11 -
Libraries Group of the Library Association of Ireland (Brennan 2006) and the 2005 Irish
Universities Information Services Colloquium (Brennan 2005).
From this relative dearth of examples and mention, one can conclude that, by
comparison to Britain, VREs in Ireland are in their infancy. This has contributed to the
decision to develop a VRE, via the OJAX++ project. Among the related research
questions are whether researchers in Irish Higher Education institutions are using
VREs, and what might be their requirements of a VRE.
2.3.6 A review of VRE user requirements research
JISC itself (JISC 2008b) sets out high-level requirements for the development of
VREs, such as the application of standards, the need for inter-operability and the
modular nature of the components offered via a VRE, to allow users to effectively
choose from a menu the tools relevant to them. By contrast, less has been published
on actual user requirements. Indeed, this study has revealed relatively little formally
published material on the development of VREs, most of it in Britain. Despite Phase
one of JISC’s VRE programme having funded a total of fourteen projects,
comparatively little detail is available on them. Much of the documentation on VREs
comes from bodies like JISC itself, project websites and conference proceedings, less
from journals. From such materials, a number of user requirements exercises, varying
in scope, size and duration, were selected for review.
Fraser (2005), in an overview of JISC-funded VREs projects in which the University
of Oxford is involved, noted that all were firmly focussed on developing VREs to meet
user requirements. For Oxford’s IBVRE, a VRE for the Integrative Biology project
(Mascord et al 2005), work to ensure that user needs were met continued throughout
most of the project, involving nine researchers and eight research groups. A qualitative
approach was taken, consisting of one-to-one semi-structured interviews, conducted by
two interviewers, plus a focus group. Participant choice was purposive, with availability
being a practical constraint. Meanwhile, the University of Oxford’s Building a VRE for
- 12 -
the Humanities project (BVREH) (Kirkham 2007), similarly, employed one-to-one
interviews (unstructured and semi-structured) with research project groups and
individual researchers, plus a focus group. An avowed weakness of this study was that
some faculties were more heavily represented than others, others not at all, due to
other commitments and lack of interest. However, there was a clear message from
Humanities participants that they wished to be part of the process of developing a VRE,
rather than have it imposed on them. Participants also expressed concern that there
would be an attempt for ‘virtual’ to replace ‘personal’ interaction. (Indeed, the United
States National Science Foundation noted that “collaboratories” (“geographically
separate research units functioning as a single laboratory”) “do not replace the richness
of face-to-face interaction” (National Science Foundation 2002).
The University of Leed’s Embedding a VRE in an Institutional Environment
(EVIE) project (Stanley 2007) included a lengthy user requirements gathering phase,
conducted over a period of six months progressing from one-to-one interviews to focus
group to questionnaire (Sergeant et al n.d.). In the ELVI (Evaluation of a Large-scale
VRE Implementation) project (University of Nottingham n.d.), focus groups were the
preferred data collection tool.
The Collaborative Orthopaedic Research Environment (CORE) project at the
University of Southampton (Stenning et al 2005) employed semi-structured interviewing
of five individuals to elicit user requirements, followed by an online survey of seventeen
respondents. (Incidentally, CORE was preceded by the VOEU referred to in section
2.3.2.) To develop the Memetic (Meeting Memory Technology Informing Collaboration)
toolkit (Memetic 2005), the Universities of Manchester, Southampton and Edinburgh
and The Open University conducted workshops, in conjunction with observation, both
live and electronic.
To develop the Virtual Environments for Research in Archaeology (VERA), the
University of Reading , in conjunction with University College London (Baker et al
2008), took a very practical approach, in that three researchers accompanied
- 13 -
researchers to archaeological digs, to observe their work. This study also employed
research diaries and interviews.
Throughout development of a VRE for use in the UK’s Economic and Social
Research Council's Teaching and Learning Research Programme, a range of methods
was used, from semi-structured and focused interviews, field observations and content
analysis to analysis of server logs. “Data collection focused not on how they might use
the VRE, but on existing patterns of collaboration and communication and the extent to
which electronic tools (email, web sites, instant messaging) played a role in these.”
(Laterza et al 2007, p. 252).
Clearly, the research methods used in these projects were mainly of a qualitative
nature. One can also see that some user requirements were common to many projects.
Table 2-1 below illustrates sample user requirements from the studies above.
VRE SAMPLE USER REQUIREMENTSIBVRE Data privacy;
Support for day-to-day activities rather than activities occurringinfrequently.
BVREH User friendly; Easy to access; Space in which to save material, for private or shared use; Tools to permit collaborative work on documents and communication tools
(Instant Messaging, video conferencing).EVIE Local administration of the environment;
Ease of including external collaborators; Access control; No requirement for hi-tech computers; Ease of use; Support; Off-campus access; Storage space; Ability to share files.
CORE Easy to use; Place to store and share resources and data; User’s computer platform not be an issue.
ELVI Shared workspace; Communication tools such as discussion fora.
MEMETIC Password controlled access; Accessible to users running a Linux computer operating system.
VERA Intuitive and user friendly.Table 2-1: Sample user requirements from other VRE research
- 14 -
At this point, it is worth noting that, although some projects use an existing open-
source application like Sakai to develop a VRE, the developers will customise the
application to meet the requirements of those who will use it.
2.4 Encouraging the uptake of Web 2.0 technologies
Despite the increasing availability of web-based tools, various studies suggest that,
while researchers are using them, uptake is slow. Hannay (2007), for instance,
suggests that few science researchers have embraced blogging. Similarly, RIN’s report
on Researchers and discovery services (2006) finds that tools such as blogs and wikis
are little employed by researchers in keeping up-to-date. This report also notes
researchers’ practice of one-to-one communication and low usage of social networking
services. Meanwhile, Franklin and van Harmelen (2007) find that, while researchers
may share much of their work, this is largely done via email rather than Web 2.0
technologies.
Studies also highlight potential barriers to usage of such tools. RIN’s report
found that a “significant minority of researchers” (2006, p. 8) was wary of email alerts
and listservs, due to information overload or irrelevance. Butler wrote of researchers’
resistance to blogs, due to their informal image, and the perceived risk of “being
scooped by rivals” (2005, p. 549). Researchers have also displayed concerns around
privacy, in relation to:
The recording of users’ search trails (Brown 2006);
The risk of personal information falling into the wrong hands (Brown 2006);
The facility to see when other users are online, and be seen (Laterza et al
2007).
A further consideration is how best to implement VREs alongside other
technologies, such as institutional and library portals and Virtual Learning
Environments. The OSI “recommend an investigation into how VREs can be linked to
- 15 -
VLEs to support the training of the next generation of researchers” (Office of Science
and Innovation n.d., p. 22). Anderson (2007) also touches on systems integration in
relation to online databases and portals, while Davies describes the topic as
“challenging” (2007, p. 646).
For new technologies to appeal to potential users, they should afford clear benefits.
(Laterza et al 2007). “Potential users must be aware of e-infrastructure, must
understand the advantages it can bring to their own research, must be willing to invest
in new skills, and must have access to the facilities and support they need for
successful adoption.” (Voss et al 2007, Uptake of e-Research, para. 1) Lai and Turban
refer to several issues which should be addressed in an organization wishing to adopt
Web 2.0 technologies:
“…it is necessary to create a receptive culture in order to prepare the way for
new practices. Second, a common platform must be created to allow for a
collaboration infrastructure. Third, an informal rollout of the technologies may be
preferred to a more formal procedural change. And fourth, managerial support
and leadership is crucial.” (Lai and Turban 2008, p. 399)
Some degree of outside promotion of VREs may also be of benefit. JISC, for
instance, supports a road show intended to introduce researchers and IT support staff
to the infrastructure, tools and resources developed to support collaboration in
research (JISC 2008d).
2.5 Difficulties in relation to the literature
One objective in reviewing appropriate literature around VREs was to establish
what other research has been carried out into users’ requirements, in an attempt to
identify any recognised best practice, both as regards what should be studied and how
best this may be done. (The latter is addressed in Chapter 3.) Worthy of note, however,
is the fact that much of the material available on VREs focuses on the uses to which
VREs are put or the technical architecture underlying them, rather than their
- 16 -
development. In addition, as regards the user requirements gathering exercises
themselves, most of the material unearthed was in the form of conference papers, and
project materials or formal reports on JISC funded VREs (hence the review’s heavy
focus on Britain), and their Method sections were, at times, rather light.
- 17 -
3 Research Method and Design
This chapter deals with the selection of a research method and details the design and
application of that method.
3.1 Purpose of research
As has been noted previously, this research has a practical application, in that the
findings are intended for use in the development of the OJAX++ VRE.
3.2 Research method
3.2.1 Possible research methods
As there are potentially several ways in which the data required for this research could
be gathered, the relevant merits and drawbacks of some main methods will now be
considered. This evaluation process was informed by referring to relevant materials on
research methods in general, and previous similar research as set out in Chapter 2
above, in addition to inevitable practical considerations.
3.2.1.1 Quantitative methods
A quantitative approach could be taken, in the form of a questionnaire, self-
administered by respondents. However, the aim of this research is not simply to
quantify usage of particular tools, for instance, but to understand how researchers work
and what tools are, or could be, used. It would be difficult to elicit sufficient detail by
simply requiring participants to complete a questionnaire, especially since the work of
researchers may vary enormously and so, therefore, may their requirements. For these
reasons, the use of questionnaires was ruled out, as contributing little to this research
at this stage.
- 18 -
It is worth noting, however, that it could be useful to incorporate a questionnaire
after interviews have been conducted and the resulting data analysed. Those findings
could inform the construction of the questionnaire, which could then be completed by
additional respondents. An advantage of such a triangulated approach would be to
validate the initial results gathered from the interviews. However, for this research, time
constraints precluded this approach, especially given that this study was conducted
during summer months, a time when researchers’ availability is uncertain and the
response rate likely to be affected.
3.2.1.2 Qualitative methods
Several qualitative tools are available for use in a study such as this, two
options being focus groups or workshops. While valuable tools, in order to be run
successfully they require considerable experience and expertise on the part of the
facilitator. In addition, scheduling such events during summer months would likely
prove difficult, if not downright impossible. Finally, while such fora would be of benefit in
obtaining feedback from a number of individuals at one time, when dealing with
participants from a variety of disciplines having no formal affiliation to this study, they
might be less successful and also of less interest to participants, given the potential for
differences in the way they work.
One-to-one interviews represent an alternative tool that will be covered in more
detail in the next section. Meanwhile, although a valuable instrument of qualitative
research, usability studies were not considered. In usability testing, “representative
users try to do typical tasks with the product, while observers, including the
development staff, watch, listen, and take notes.” (U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services n.d.) The purpose of usability testing is to gauge how well users’ requirements
have been met and to identify issues which can be resolved. Clearly, usability testing is
employed later in the development process, rather than in determining initial user
requirements.
- 19 -
3.2.2 Chosen research method
At this point, alternative research methods have been considered. Relevant studies
referred to in the Literature Review have also been taken into account. These all
suggest that the appropriate method here should be qualitative. This is further indicated
by the seeming lack of Irish research in this area, the exploratory character of this
study and the need for detail. As Creswell points out “In a qualitative study, one does
not begin with a theory to test or verify” (Creswell 1994, p. 94).
A subsequent decision was taken to conduct interviews of a semi-structured nature,
more detail about which can be found in section 3.3.3. As demonstrated previously, the
use of interviews is supported by the literature on other user requirement gathering
exercises for VRE development. As noted by Urmetzer, Baker and Alexandrov at the
2006 UK e-Science Programme All Hands Meeting “qualitative methods seem to be the
best path to pursue for the user needs gathering in the VRE programme.” (Conclusion,
para. 5). This approach is also commonplace in real-world software development: “The
most important element of an information system is people…No other fact finding
technique places as much emphasis on people as interviews.” (Whitten and
Bentley1998, p. 632). Furthermore, it is in keeping with Agile software development
methods, as employed in the OJAX++ project.
3.3 Research design and application
“A transparent report allows the reader to assess the thoroughness of the design of
the work, as well as the conscientiousness, sensitivity and biases of the researcher”
(Rubin and Rubin 2005, p. 76). This section has also been guided by Taylor and
Bogdan’s (1998) approach to detailing research method.
- 20 -
3.3.1 Sampling
As Creswell notes “The idea of qualitative research is to purposefully select
informants…that will best answer the research question.” (1994, p. 148) For this study,
a purposive approach to sampling was taken. The sample was planned, to include a
variety of participants (lecturers, tutors, Ph.D. and Masters students) engaged in
research across a number of disciplines. Representation from a range of institutions
was also sought, in an attempt to obtain a variety of perspectives, and also to reduce
possible bias.
In terms of sample size for qualitative research, Kvale advises that one should
“interview as many subjects as necessary to find out what you need to know.” (1996, p.
101). He notes that, “In current interview studies, the number of interviews tend [sic] to
be around 15 +-10. This number may be due to a combination of the time and
resources available for the investigation and of the law of diminishing returns.” (p. 102).
Taylor and Bogdan (1998) echo this, in commenting that the greater the number of
participants, the less depth of interview that is possible. Hill (1998) posits that small
sample sizes (ten to thirty) may be used when conducting exploratory research, and
where interview is the chosen data collection tool, from which large quantities of data
are obtained.
Taking these guidelines into account, a target sample size of fifteen was decided
upon. Personal contacts were approached, to seek introductions to suitable
researchers (Taylor and Bogdan 1998). Fifteen willing potential participants were
identified. Due to scheduling difficulties, it was not possible to interview three of those
individuals during the period dedicated to data collection, so replacements were
sought. This was successful, except in the case of a medical researcher who was also
unavailable at that time, which brought the actual number of participants down to
fourteen. Of these, ten were previously unknown to the researcher.
- 21 -
Table 3-1 below sets out the profile of all respondents, in terms of their role,
institution, discipline, gender, the length of time they have been engaged in research,
and whether theirs was primarily individual or group research. Staff and students were
equally represented, as were male and female researchers, while the sample had
experience of both individual and group research. This matrix also captures whether or
not the participants had previously heard of or used VREs.
- 22 -
Code Role Institution Discipline GenderNumber of years
engaged inresearch
Primarily individualor group research
Heardof
VRE?
UsedVRE?
1 Lecturer University A Library and InformationStudies (LIS) F 21 Individual Yes Yes
2 Ph.D. candidate University B ComputingM 4 Both No No
3 Research Assistant University B PhysicsF 8 Individual No No
4 Lecturer University B LanguagesM 30 Individual No No
5 Lecturer Institute ofTechnology
EngineeringM 20 Group No No
6 Tutor and Ph.D.candidate
University A FilmM 2 Individual No No
7 Lecturer University A HistoryF 10 Individual Yes No
8 Lecturer University A EngineeringM 26 Both No No
9 Lecturer University A Mathematics (Maths)M 12 Group No No
10 Ph.D. Candidate University A ComputingM 2 Group Yes No
11 Professional Researcherand Ph.D. candidate
ExecutiveManagement
Centre
Business
F 17 Both No No12 Lecturer and Ph.D
candidateUniversity A Nursing
F 22 Both No No13 Tutor and Ph.D.
candidateUniversity A Folklore
F 7 Both Yes No14 Masters student University A LIS F 3.5 Both No No
Table 3-1: Profile of participants
- 23 -
3.3.2 Ethics
UCD promotes “the ethical use of human and animal subjects in research.” (University
College Dublin 2008). As student research, this study was deemed exempt and an
Ethical Approval Exemption Form was completed before any participants were
involved. The form can be found in Appendix A.
Participation in this research was voluntary and no harm to participants was
anticipated. In advance of the interviews, the following was sent to each participant:
A letter of invitation, setting out the purpose of the interviews and explaining the
roles of both participant and researcher;
An “informed consent” form. This combined Letter of Information and Informed
Consent Form can be found in Appendix B.
At the start of each interview, participants were provided with two copies of the
consent form for their signature, one copy each for participant and researcher.
Participants were reminded that they were free at any time to withdraw from the study
and to refuse to answer any question.
The researcher committed to maintaining participants’ anonymity and
confidentiality. The identity of all participants is known only to the researcher; each
participant was assigned a unique number (assigned in order of interview), stored
separately from both interview recordings and transcripts, both of which are available
only to the researcher. All data reported in this research are anonymous, both in terms
of the participants themselves and any third parties referred to during interviews.
Furthermore, some participants provided confidential material, to illustrate a point, with
a request that it not be used in this study and that has been respected. A note of
thanks was sent to participants following interview. A summary of the results of this
research was offered to all participants.
- 24 -
3.3.3 Interview schedule
Semi-structured interviews use an interview schedule, in what Rubin and Rubin
refer to as “responsive interviewing ...the researcher is responding to and then asking
further questions about what he or she hears from the interviewees rather than relying
on predetermined questions” (2005, p. vii). Prior to interview, an interview schedule or
guide was prepared. For semi-structured interviews, this broadly outlines the type of
information sought, while allowing flexibility in terms of questions asked, for instance, in
response to participants’ previous answers, and allows for the capture of further detail
on a topic. In a semi-structured interview, Robson (2002) notes that the researcher
may approach topics in a different order, should it be more appropriate to the flow of
the interview, while the wording may also be changed to suit participants. The latter
was helpful in clarifying certain technologies for participants.
A feature of interviews over self-administered questionnaires is that the former
often employs open questions. Arksey & Knight (1999) refer to these as prompting
participants to talk freely about the topic at issue. Closed questions, meanwhile, limit
the possible answers participants may give. In this research, some closed questions
were used, generally for filtering purposes and, in some cases, were followed by open
questions, to probe further.
In drawing up a suitable interview schedule, Dr. Judith Wusteman was consulted, to
ensure the needs of the OJAX++ development team were taken into account. In
addition, advice was sought from Yuwei Lin, a VRE researcher in Britain. Feedback on
the interview schedule was also sought from three researchers not otherwise involved
with this study, and a pilot interview was conducted with one participant. Following
minor changes, the Interview Schedule was finalised and can be found in Appendix C.
The schedule comprised six sections and Conclusion, as outlined below.
Definitions of Virtual Research and Learning Environments were also available, should
any participant require them.
- 25 -
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive sought to build a profile of participants and consisted
of a mix of open and closed questions.
Section 4 was intended to obtain detail on participants’ research work and their
usage of Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
Question 11 was an open question that allowed participants to speak
freely about the typical stages of their research work (for instance, from
literature review to publication), at a high level, and what tools they use.
Question 12, a closed question, listed a number of tools of specific
interest to the OJAX++ development team. It was designed to
supplement the previous question, if those tools had not already been
mentioned. This question could also even serve to cross-check answers
to the previous question.
Question 13 was included to determine if participants required that a
VRE respect any electronic standards, for inter-operability purposes.
Section 5 sought to learn more about specific areas of collaboration in
research.
Section 6 was intended to obtain data on participants’ use of Virtual Learning
Environments, as a near relation of VREs to which most participants are likely
to have had some exposure and from which there may be lessons to be learned
in developing and implementing a VRE. This section also asked participants
about their likely use of VREs.
Conclusion provided an opportunity for participants to add to the interview
anything they felt was relevant.
- 26 -
3.3.4 Data collection
One-to-one interviews were conducted between mid-July and mid-August 2008, mainly
in participants’ offices, otherwise in local meeting rooms. With participants’ permission,
interviews were recorded in digital form, using an MP3 player, for later analysis while,
as a back-up, notes were also taken. For reasons of anonymity, these notes did not
include participants’ names.
In the introduction to each interview, participants were encouraged to query
anything that was unclear and reminded that they were not obliged to answer any
questions. Participants were also advised that interviews were likely to take up to one
hour. While that was indeed the average, actual interview duration ranged from twenty-
six minutes to one hour and forty-three minutes. (See also section 3.4.) Crucially,
participants were very generous with both their time and information. It also seems
likely that participants gave more time for an interview than they would have given to
completing a questionnaire.
3.3.5 Transcription and data analysis
The data generated during interviews are detailed and textual, most not of the sort that
readily lend themselves to statistical analysis and, due to the small sample size, are
also not statistically significant. Listening to each recording, the researcher transcribed
the interviews into a spreadsheet, to assist with later data analysis. The analysis
process sought to gain insight into how these participants work, and what tools they
use, would like to use or that might offer potential benefits to them. Codes, or labels,
were generated and applied to the data, to identify patterns, similarities and differences
alike. Outline codes were created based upon the research questions, and these were
later revised and supplemented, as additional themes emerged from the data. The
code book generated in this research can be found in Appendix D.
- 27 -
3.4 Critique of Research Method and Design
Some characteristics of the user requirements gathering exercises identified in the
literature are that they:
Continued for up to six months;
Involved more than one researcher;
Used more than one method;
Engaged with a group of users established for the project.
By contrast, this study was conducted by a single researcher and attempted to
engage participants across a number of disciplines, who had no direct involvement in
the VRE project and most of whom were therefore less familiar with the background to
this research (compared to participants affiliated to a dedicated project team). Similarly,
user requirements gathering took place not only over a shorter period of time, but also
during summer months, when availability of participants posed a problem. Finding
appropriate individuals willing to participate is, for much research, a potential stumbling
block and this proved no different in relation to this study, with the result that one
desired discipline (Medicine) was not represented. In hindsight, to better facilitate data
analysis and reporting of results, the interview schedule could have been structured a
little differently, to better group like items with like.
Qualitative research is time-consuming, in terms of preparing for and conducting
interviews, transcribing and analysing data, and documenting results. While most
interviews were of similar duration, a few were considerably longer. The researcher did
not wish to disrespect any participant nor risk losing material that might ultimately prove
relevant, by curtailing any interview.
Because the sample size in qualitative research is typically small, one must take
care in generalising results to a population. As regards reliability, the interview
schedule has been provided available, as have details on participant profile and the
interview process, enabling others to replicate the research. However, one must take
into account another feature of qualitative research, namely that an interviewer is
- 28 -
effectively an additional data collection tool, which can have an impact on such things
as obtaining participants and gaining their trust. One must also acknowledge that, by
simply being willing to take part, perhaps because they have an interest in the research
subject, participants’ inclusion may skew results. Lastly, the ‘friend of a friend’ method
of recruiting participants may also have a similar impact.
- 29 -
4 Research Results
This chapter traces the main interview topics, as reflected in the Interview schedule
(available in Appendix C). Where participants are quoted, in italics, the discipline is
indicated or, in the case of disciplines represented by more than one participant, the
participant number (#n) is shown. In tables, disciplines are grouped by “hard” or “soft”
sciences, while, in some tables, shading is used to confirm that cells are deliberately
empty.
Although this analysis is not intended to simply count participants’ responses,
counts may be given in the case of Computing, Engineering and LIS disciplines. These
disciplines were represented by two participants and counts may indicate variance.
4.1 Participants’ profiles
Researchers’ general profiles can be seen in section 3.3.1. It is also worth noting that
several participants have changed disciplines (for example, from Computing to LIS and
Science to Business) and therefore brought to interview a variety of experiences.
Participants were asked about the extent of their usage of ICT in research and
how comfortable they feel using ICT. All participants use ICT frequently and generally
feel comfortable in doing so. But they use ICT to varying degrees, as can be seen in
section 4.4. Participants also differ in their perceptions of themselves and their attitudes
to ICT. For instance, throughout the course of the interviews, two individuals described
themselves as Luddites (Languages and Film), another as a dinosaur (Physics) and a
fourth as old fashioned (Folklore). While researchers’ attitudes were not the specific
focus of this study, they may influence behaviour nonetheless. Therefore, any such
findings have been included throughout, to indicate why researchers do not or choose
not to use tools.
- 30 -
4.2 Participants’ awareness of VREs
In keeping with the literature reviewed previously in relation to researchers’ awareness,
most participants in this study did not display prior knowledge of VREs. There were
four exceptions: two lecturers, in History, and Library and Information Studies, a Ph.D
candidate in Computing and a tutor/Ph. D candidate in Folklore. In three of these
cases, the participant’s awareness of VREs came not from professional involvement
but from his/her own personal interest in such technologies, or through contact with
others interested in the area. The fourth person, from a Folklore discipline, could not
recall how she became aware of VREs.
4.3 Participants’ use of VREs
Of the individuals who had some awareness of VREs, only one, in LIS, had used
something akin to them. However, this was primarily in order to learn about them,
rather than to use them as research aids. Furthermore, the environments used were
commercial online offerings, Basecamp, Google groups and MyExperiment, only the
last of which was developed specifically for research purposes.
Two participants, in Nursing and Business, while unfamiliar with VREs,
nonetheless spoke of using electronic environments for the purposes of collaboration.
The tools used included Lotus Notes, Good Practice, Google groups and even simple
shared folders.
4.4 The research process and tools used
Participants were asked to talk about their research processes, from acquiring
information on a topic to completion of an output, in the format appropriate to their
research. The steps mentioned proved broadly similar across disciplines. Having
selected a research topic, participants spoke of seeking background information,
bouncing ideas off others, and seeking out knowledgeable people in their field. To
- 31 -
obtain materials, and filter these to arrive at relevant resources, participants employ a
wide variety of sources, including the following:
Their existing resources (kind of a rolling dynamic (Languages));
Internet search engines;
Important people in their field and their publications;
Web sites;
Blogs;
Their institution’s library catalogue, database, journals and books;
Inter-Library Loans;
Meetings and conferences;
“Grey literature” (for instance, non-scholarly publications, such as
magazines);
Specialist manuscripts.
Participants then generate their own contributions on the subject. In doing so,
they seek feedback from others. Finally, they disseminate their output, be it in the form
of articles, conference papers, input into group projects, or outputs to industry.
Participants from the “harder” sciences typically included an additional step, involving
the generation of such things as theoretical “models” (Physics), “proof of concept”
(Computing), and “pilot study”, consisting of theory and proofs (Maths).
The specific tools used by participants in this study are outlined in sections
4.4.1 to 4.4.6. Interestingly, when asking participants about the tools or applications
included in question 12, many participants requested that the researcher explain
several, while the term Web 2.0 was employed only by participants in Library and
Information Studies (LIS), History and Engineering.
4.4.1 Google products and searching
Participants were asked about their use of several Google products. A summary of
their responses can be found in Table 4-1 below. (For Gmail, however, see 4.4.4.) Use
of the Google search engine extends across all disciplines (all participants use it),
with a couple of participants commenting on its simple, clutter-free interface. By
- 32 -
comparison, Google Scholar appears less commonly used, with several participants
not having heard of it.
Participants revealed minimal usage of some other Google tools; for instance, a
single Computing participant uses iGoogle. However, an Engineering participant
expressed an intention to use this “because, now that I have my Kubuntu Linux and my
Microsoft Vista and XP, they can't talk to each other but they can have the same
igoogle” (#8). Meanwhile, the Google toolbar (included since it is required to use
Google’s web history), is perceived by two participants as slowing down one’s
machine (Nursing) and contributing to on-screen clutter (LIS).
Google GoogleScholar
Googleweb
historyiGoogle Google
MapsGoogleEarth
Computing x X (2) X (1) X (1) X (2)
Engineering x X (1) X (1)
Maths x x x
Physics x
Business x x x x
Film x x
Folklore x x x
History x x x
Languages x
LIS x X (2) X (1) X (2) X (1)
Nursing x x
Table 4-1: Use of Google products
Alternative search engines were seldom mentioned. Yahoo and Ask were the
only alternatives to Google cited, by participants from Engineering, Business and
Nursing disciplines, and Folklore respectively. An Engineering participant favoured
Yahoo’s directory approach, while Ask’s appeal was that “you could actually put in
questions....It's a question in your head, that's why you're doing it” (#13).
- 33 -
Federated search facilities (the ability to search across multiple databases
simultaneously) were not commonly recognised, and only one Computing participant
actually confirmed using them, although the Nursing participant observed that they
would be useful for cross-disciplinary research. Meanwhile, participants classed the
following (See Table 4-2) as the main databases they use:
Business Computing Engineering Folklore LIS Nursing Physics
Databasesused
ABIInformJSTORScienceDirectFactfinder
ACMIEEESpringer
Inspec OEDEEBO
LISAnetScienceDirectAcademicSearchElite
MedlineCINAHLEmbaseERICLISA
Web ofScience
Table 4-2: Databases used
Once participants have retrieved the search results they require, they spoke of
a range of methods to save those results, as shown in Table 4-3. No participant spoke
of saving the search sessions themselves; as one participant put it
“I'm not sure I fully trust it, maybe because I haven't used it....Well, I imagine I'd
be afraid that someday I'd go back to find something and everything would
somehow have been deleted, either by myself or by the system.” (#14)
Online social bookmarking tools, Delicious and Zotero respectively, were cited
only by one participant each from the fields of Computing and LIS. However, another
participant observed that these tools could bring benefits, especially if using more than
one computer, since the bookmarks can be accessed from any one.
On the other hand, another participant (Film) cited privacy as a barrier to using
such tools, while participants in LIS and Computing cited browser dependencies as a
draw-back. (A browser update may mean the bookmarking tool does not work, until it
too is updated.) Incidentally, social bookmarking brought the only mention of tagging of
online resources.
- 34 -
Sav
efi
le
Fav
ou
rite
s/B
oo
kmar
ks
Bib
Tex
Ref
Wo
rks
En
dN
ote
Co
py
and
Pas
te
Lo
ng
han
dn
ote
s
Computing X (1) X (1)
Engineering X (1) X (1)
Maths x x
Physics x x
Business x
Film
Folklore x
History x x
Languages x x
LIS X (1) X (1)
Nursing x x
Table 4-3: Methods of saving search results
4.4.2 Institutional repositories, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, discussionlists
Participants were asked about their usage of institutional repositories, blogs, wikis,
RSS feeds and discussion lists, and these results are summarised in Table 4-4. Most
participants were unfamiliar with institutional repositories, although participants from
Engineering and Nursing spoke of using the National Digital Learning Repository
(NDLR) [6]. Those who have used repositories typically access them by following a
search result from a search engine, not by accessing the repository directly.
Meanwhile, although participants across practically all disciplines have
consulted blogs, typically of “big names” in their fields, most do not contribute to them.
Reasons suggested include a desire for privacy, that content can be “too colloquial, too
conversational” (#13), and perceptions of themselves as consumers, not producers of
such content. The field of Computing was an exception, with one participant using
- 35 -
Wordpress and another planning to use a blog as a research diary. The situation in
relation to wikis is similar, with the added perception that contents may be unreliable
and biased. (Indeed, the majority of participants admitted referring to Wikipedia, albeit
as a potentially useful but unreliable resource.)
Some participants use RSS feeds, for general news and to keep up with major
players in their fields, although one user noted “I never get around to reading them”
(#1). Some participants expressed doubt as to how precise an alert could be, and
concern about the resulting likelihood of information overload. Similarly, although
discussion lists are rather more popular, participants commonly spoke of quickly
scanning and deleting most items, due to the volume of material received.
Institutionalrepositories
Blogs Wikis RSS feeds(and Readers used)
Discussionlists
ComputingX (2) X (2) X (2)
(Google reader,Mac tool)
X (1)
Engineering Xa (2) X (2) X (2) X (1)(Vista tool)
X (1)
Maths X X X(Firefox)
X
Physics X XBusiness X X XFilm XFolklore X XHistory X X XLanguages X
LIS X (2) X (1) X (1)(Thunderbird)
X (1)
Nursing X b X X(Unknown)
X
Table 4-4: Use of institutional repositories, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds and discussion lists
4.4.3 Social network, photo, video and slide sharing sites,annotation and tagging
Of these social / sharing tools, participants’ usage was largely limited to three: social
networking, photo sharing and video sharing. This was almost exclusively for personal
use, less for teaching and little for research. A notable exception was in the field of
a One participant referred to the National Digital Learning Repository (NDLR). [6]b Participant referred to the National Digital Learning Repository (NDLR). [6]
- 36 -
Engineering, where participants spoke of photo sharing and video sharing services
being used as follows:
In the search for relevant material, for example, from commercial enterprises
posting videos online;
To ask: “What's making this noise, or stuff like that. If you want to ask the
question and it involves something moving or something that needs to be
visual... “ (#5);
To display results: “I've had some of the design projects where the students
have put their results up on YouTube.” (#8)
A further use of photo sharing sites that participants mentioned was the display of
photographs from conferences. No participant spoke of using slide sharing sites, while
participants also pointed out the potential for legal or copyright issues, in using sharing
sites. Meanwhile, as noted previously, tagging/annotation was mentioned by only one
participant, in relation to social bookmarking.
As regards social networking sites, concerns expressed again include the
desire for privacy, and people’s perceptions of themselves as passive, not interactive,
plus the blurring of the line between personal and professional lives. The actual
services used are summarised in Table 4-5 below.
- 37 -
Social networking Photo sharing Video sharing
Computing LinkedIn (1)Xiaonei (1)
Flickr (2) YouTube (2)
EngineeringOrkut (1) Flickr (1)
Picasa (1)Kodak Gallery (1)
YouTube (2)
MathsPhysics Facebook
Business Facebook Facebook YouTubeViddler
Film YouTubeFolkloreHistory YouTubeLanguages
LISHi5 (1)Facebook (2)Bebo (1)
Photobox (1)Facebook (1)
YouTube (1)
Nursing Facebook Flickr YouTubeTable 4-5: Use of social networking, video and slide sharing sites
4.4.4 Email, video conferencing and instant messaging
In communicating with others, email was the most common medium used by
participants. Some participants use more than one application, as follows:
“All of my work email is forwarded to my Gmail account so I can access it
anywhere, it's handy.” (#11)
“...I had trouble last year opening it [institutional email application] in England
so...before I go on holidays, I'm actually going to forward all my email to
Yahoo...I know I'll get into Yahoo from anywhere on the planet.” (#8)
As regards video conferencing, Skype was the most commonly mentioned
application, although many participants indicated that they use only its audio
capabilities, not visual. Some participants have also used video conferencing facilities
in their institutions, but could not name them. A few participants spoke of problems
arising with such facilities, and the resulting need to have support available.
Participants in LIS and Computing also spoke of using screen-sharing applications
Glance and Breeze Meeting.
- 38 -
Instant Messaging (IM) is used by relatively few participants and almost
exclusively for personal rather than research purposes. Feelings about IM were mixed,
with some participants seeing it as a useful tool, especially when seeking a speedy
answer to a question. However, others see it as a means of wasting time, while one
participant stated “No, don't, hate it, hate people to know where I am at any moment
“(#13). A Computing participant advised that he simultaneously accesses all his IM
accounts via a single client, Gaim, commenting about other tools “If we could get that
kind of integration so I don't have to change” (#2). Further details can be found in Table
4-6.
Email Video conferencing Instant Messaging
ComputingGmail (2)Mac (1)
Skype (1)FlashMeeting (1)Skype (audio) (1)
Skype (1)Gchat (1)MSN (1)
Engineering
Gmail (1)Outlook (2)Institutional (1)Yahoo (1)
Skype (1)Unknown (2)Skype (audio) (1)
Yahoo (1)
Maths Thunderbird Skype (audio) UnknownPhysics Yahoo
BusinessOutlookGmail
SkypeUnknown
SkypeGchatMSN
Film Mac Skype (audio) SkypeFolklore Institutional
History InstitutionalYahoo
Languages Thunderbird
LIS
Thunderbird (1)Gmail (1)Institutional (1)
Skype (2)Glance for visual (1)
NursingHotmailInstitutionalYahoo
Unknown MSN
Table 4-6: Use of email, video conferencing and instant messaging
4.4.5 Office applications
In writing up research, Microsoft Office proved to be the most commonly used suite of
applications. Open Office applications were also mentioned, as was LaTeX in the
“hard” sciences. Online office suites, such as Google Docs and Zoho’s office tools,
are little used by the participants in this study, several of whom had not heard of such
- 39 -
tools. Participants in Computing and LIS observed that “buy-in” to use such tools is
required from collaborators; for instance “my co-author was a little bit suspicious about
Google docs. She didn't like the fact that Google had access to all the stuff we were
doing” (#14). Another participant observed “There's an awful lot of responsibility in
communal editing, you have to be able to roll back, you have to be able to undo what
someone has done, stupidly” (#8). Table 4-7 provides a breakdown.
MicrosoftOffice
OpenOffice LaTeX GoogleDocs
Computing X (1) X (1) X (1) X (1)
Engineering X (2) X (2) X (1) X (1)
Maths x x
Physics x x
Business x
Film x
Folklore x
History x
Languages x
LIS X (2) X (1) X (2)
Nursing x x
Table 4-7: Office applications used
4.4.6 Other tools and standardsParticipants mentioned a number of other tools they use in their research, and also
referred to some standards that apply in their fields. For details, see Table 4-8 below.
- 40 -
Other tools used Standards
Computing
SPSS (1);Eclipse (1);Rational EnterpriseSoftware Architect (1);Breezemeeting (1)
Various IEEE standards (Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers) (1);LOM (Learning Object Metadata) (1);SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) (1);IMS LD (IMS Learning Design) (1);Various Web service standards (1)
Engineering
Second Life (1);Computer AidedDesign (CAD)applications (1)
STEP (Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data)(1);IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification) (1);XML (eXtensible Markup Language) (1)
MathsMatLab;GCC;SPSS
Physics Matlab
Business
SPSS;MindManager;ReadPal;Lotus Notes
Film Film formats (35mm, various digital formats)FolkloreHistoryLanguages
LIS SurveyMonkey (1);Glance (1)
OpenSearch (1)
Nursing Ethnograph Patient record sharing (in development)Table 4-8: Other software tools used, and electronic standards
4.5 Collaboration and sharing
To exchange ideas or drafts, practically all participants use email. Indeed, a participant
from a Computing discipline observed that “the status quo is using email” (#2). Other
technologies cited were Google sites, Google groups, Google docs, My Experiment,
Good Practice, SharePoint, shared folders and groups of the sort facilitated via
institutional portals, and Skype, while face-to-face meetings and conferences, were
also mentioned. Some participants qualified their non-usage of such tools by explaining
that their collaborators are located relatively nearby.
Advantages of such tools noted were the avoidance of multiple versions of
documents in circulation and the ability of all team members to access documents
equally. See Table 4-9 for more details.
- 41 -
Em
ail
Fac
eto
face
Go
og
led
ocs
Sh
ared
fold
ers
Sky
pe
Ph
on
e
Co
nfe
ren
ces
Go
og
leg
rou
ps
Inst
itu
tio
nal
gro
up
s
Go
od
Pra
ctic
e
Computing X (2) X (1) X (1) X (1)
Engineering X (2) X (1)
Maths x x x
Physics x
Business x x
Film x
Folklore x
History x
Languages x
LIS X (2) X (1)
Nursing x x x x x
Table 4-9: Tools used for collaboration and sharing
Of the participants who peer review research papers, most do so via email.
Typically, this involves exchanging documents and either using the application’s Track
Changes feature, adding comments to the document or putting such comments in the
accompanying email. A few participants mentioned that the journals for which they act
as reviewers employ an electronic peer review system, one being Springer’s Editorial
Manager. Such systems were mentioned by participants active in both the “hard” and
“soft” sciences. However, one quibble two participants (LIS and Nursing) mentioned in
relation to the system(s) they have experienced is the lack of confirmation upon, for
instance, uploading a document and the feeling of uncertainty that this causes.
Incidentally, one participant (Maths) mentioned that funding bodies may also use an
electronic system for receipt of grant applications, citing Science Foundation Ireland as
an example.
- 42 -
4.6 Use of VLEs
Participants were asked about their use of VLEs, as near relations of VREs, given
the potential for learning something that may be of use in relation to developing a VRE.
Approximately half of the participants use VLEs: Blackboard (hereafter BB) and
Moodle only. The most common uses of VLEs are as a simple repository of course
materials and for assignment submission. However, a couple of participants have
experience of VLEs being used:
As sole means of written communication between supervisor and dissertation
student (#5);
To deliver news items via email, and pop-up messages upon login, to other
members of a group. (#14).
For some participants, VLE use is not mandated by their institutions and some
participants put forward specific reasons for not using them. These reasons are shown
in Table 4-10.
Comments
Film“I've had a little bit of a teething problem with it, so just... circumnavigate thatproblem”[by instead emailing materials to class reps, for circulation]
History
“it's something we should use but if we had a bigger group of students, we'd haveto use it, ok, but because we see them all very, very frequently...we can easilycopy and give to people...our students are graduate students, they're kind ofmotivated, they can come in to us any time and ask us if they've a problem.”
Folklore
“I like them to engage with me, I like them to ask me for what they're looking forand I send things on. Maybe that's a bit control freaky but I do like to see whichstudents are looking for material, how they're looking for it...to me BB is a bit toopassive....create some kind of engagement there...this is not distance-learning...you're here and let's engage with that here.”
Table 4-10: Reasons for non-use of VLEs
- 43 -
Furthermore, some participants displayed reservations about VLEs, as shown in Table
4-11:
Comments
Computing
“I don't think VLEs are going to last very much longer. They force everybodyto use the same, it's basically a document management system...people arecoming to Universities with their own way of doing things...The LE shouldn'tforce them [to use specific tools]” (#2)
Engineering
Talking about overlap between VLE and other platforms“I'm not sure which way that's going to go. What I suspect is going to happenis that a lot of that BB stuff will actually be done by the portal in terms ofcalendar and meetings and appointments and notices.” (#5)Talking about discussion threads“It's always ended up with nobody volunteering to moderate them” (#5)Talking about group work“The trouble with BB is that I can see students' submissions but they can't.We do team projects in the Masters, I actually have to move their files overthe common directory for them to see the other students' submission. So wejust use email now. If we have 4 students on an assignment, everybody justemails everybody and that's the end of it.” (#8)Uploading and downloading files“It's very laborious putting stuff up onto BB.” (#8)“If the students want to take copies down, they have to go in to each one anddrop it down. In this day and age, that's pretty restrictive.” (#8)
Table 4-11: Reservations about VLEs
4.7 Use of VREs
When asked whether they thought they might use VREs, participants’ views were
rather mixed. One participant commented that academics generally need to keep up to
date with technology “we need to be using as much online technology as we can if
we're going to be asking students to do the same” (Nursing). Some welcomed the
potential of new technologies to aid in their research, noting “I need to have these
things [tools] pointed out to me” (#1) and “you just told me all these things about tools I
never really knew about, so if they were all grouped together and a little tutorial about
how to use them...” (Physics). A Computing participant commented on the potential for
reducing the number of tools for which he had to remember passwords. One participant
(Maths) went so far as to describe his interview as fun and interesting, in terms of
thinking how web 2.0 technologies and a VRE might be used in research.
- 44 -
Others saw a place for VREs in larger projects, albeit a VRE which could be made
to fit the project at hand:
“the environment would need to be set up for a particular project....it would need to
be much more of a micro-environment than just the big, bigger disorganised
research community....When you use Moodle, you use it for a module and each
person uses it differently. I can see how for a particular shared research objective, it
could be useful. But you'd need to have shared objectives.” (#4)
However, participants also raised the issue of cultural influences. For instance,
within a discipline, there may be a culture of information sharing, or there may be
competition between researchers. A participant (Languages) further commented on the
need to control access to the environment “There's also a confidentiality issue...if
you're working on stuff before it goes public, there's stuff you don't want people to read
so the question of access and denying same” (Languages). Another participant noted
“there's no point you learning or using or promoting a new technology if the other
person has no interest in it” (#14). At an organisational level, the Nursing participant
observed that the use of ICT needs to be advocated by senior members of a
department or team, while a Computing participant felt that “there'd have to be a
serious carrot at the end of a stick there to get academics to change their ways... And
what's (sic) the major benefits?” (#2).
Incidentally, several participants stressed that a VRE could not replace face-to-face
interaction, and that conferences and meetings are valuable, for meeting colleagues,
new and old, sharing, understanding and so on. The Nursing participant further
cautioned “in some cases, we get concerned that the technology's going to be the
actual focus and we have to be terribly careful that it isn't the focus”.
- 45 -
4.8 Other things ICT might help with
When asked about other aspects of their research work that technology might help
with, participants mentioned the following as desirable:
Recommender technology, to assist with searching for resources (Computing);
That search results could indicate location of results (for example, x copies
available from UCD Library) (Computing);
An automated solution to recognise and/or log materials researchers have
already read, linking to their own annotated PDF versions, where appropriate.
(Computing);
The ability to run keyword searches, not simply for journals and databases but
for books (Physics).
Recommender technology already forms part of the OJAX++ project, while the other
elements mentioned above will be considered by that project team.
4.9 Other observations
Many participants spoke of using only the tools provided by their institution or installed
by default on their computers “and while I like using technology, I still am quite
traditional and I like what I know” (#14). Participants also displayed an understandable
focus on completing their work, not trying new tools “It's not that I'm trying to re-invent
or correct or improve the web or virtual research arenas....My immediate problem is
just to write my Ph.D” (#7).
- 46 -
5 Discussion
This chapter sets out to address the original research questions in the context of Irish
Higher Education institutions. In doing so, relevant literature will be revisited. Overall,
the results of this research reflected the findings of others (such as Hannay (2007),
Franklin and van Harmelen (2007) and RIN’s report on Researchers and discovery
services (2006)) that researchers’ uptake of Web 2.0 technologies is slow.
5.1 What do researchers in Irish Higher Education institutionsknow about VREs?
Few participants interviewed had heard the term VRE and most were unfamiliar with
the concept. This is in keeping with RIN’s report Researchers’ Use of Academic
Libraries and their Services (2007), suggesting that VREs are, as yet, far from common
in research in Irish Higher Education institutions, and also perhaps little discussed as a
concept within the wider research community.
5.2 Do researchers in HEIs use VREs?
Practically no participants in this study had used a VRE, based either in Ireland or
elsewhere. From this, and the few results returned by the search of Irish university web
sites, one could cautiously infer that few, if any, VREs are in use in Higher Education
institutions in this country. Furthermore, not only had these participants not used actual
VREs, but they demonstrated relatively limited usage of the sort of Web 2.0 tools that
can make up VREs.
It is interesting to consider that, by comparison with Britain, for instance, where
JISC and others are active in promoting the use of VREs in research, there seems to
be little or no championing of VREs by similar public bodies in Ireland. This could go
some way in explaining both the low profile and the low incidence of VREs here.
- 47 -
5.3 What potential VRE services would be useful acrossdisciplines?
Before attempting to answer this question, it should be remembered that this study was
conducted with a small sample. One must exercise caution in generalising results from
14 participants across 11 disciplines, since it is the statistical significance provided by a
large sample that allows one to state the existence of patterns, with a high degree of
certainty. One must also acknowledge the potential for variance within a discipline,
brought about by such things as the degree of collaboration undertaken by an
individual researcher, within the institution or with external partners, and whether a
researcher is involved in single- or inter-disciplinary research. Similarly, organisational
or cultural factors within an institution may have an impact on the way in which
researchers work, the tools they use and the requirements they may have of a VRE.
To determine what VRE services would apply across disciplines, one must
consider how researchers work and the tools mentioned by participants in this study.
However, before addressing those specifics, some overall requirements gleaned from
participants are first set out. A key factor is how easy the environment is to use. It must
also be convenient and reliable, since first impressions last; if a tool does not work the
first time, users may not give it a second chance. See Table 5-1 for more of these user
requirements.
General user requirements
Simple, clutter-free user interface
Accessibility from any location, via a wide range of operating systems
(e.g. Windows, Linux, Mac) , computers and browsers
Access control
Inter-operability, and minimal overlap, with other environments and systems
(VLEs; library systems; funding application system; peer review systems)
Training and supportTable 5-1: General user requirements for a VRE
- 48 -
Participants employ a range of tools at each stage of their research. A key
focus of the OJAX++ project is to determine what degree of integration and inter-
operability with other tools, systems and resources is appropriate. Two main
approaches are possible – provide researchers with access to the tools and services
they already use, or provide equivalents. The former method has one key advantage,
in that users are already familiar with these tools, so less promotion and training is
required. On the other hand, providing access to other tools delivering similar
functionality removes or lessens the dependence on commercial services, and allows
control over the degree of customisation of those tools, including the application of
institutional branding. This former approach is taken here, with a view to aiding users,
by presenting them with tools of which they may be aware but are not using for
research purposes.
The Google search engine is ubiquitous, so a VRE should ensure
compatibility with both this and Google Scholar. A VRE should also support Portable
Document Format (PDF) and be inter-operable with the common reference
management tools, since these appear typical means of saving search results. (The
wider subject of file formats is addressed later in this sub-section.) Since participants
revealed little use of Favourites/Bookmarks and social bookmarking, no clear-cut
choice of social bookmarking service emerged.
Although participants in this study use blogs, wikis and discussion lists, they
typically read, rather than write content. On that basis, it is difficult to suggest specific
software for blogging and wiki purpose. Social networking, photo and video sharing
sites prove rather well used, albeit mainly for personal reasons. Since Facebook, flickr
and YouTube were the services most commonly cited by participants, it would seem
appropriate to provide researchers with access to these.
Skype was identified as the most commonly used video conferencing service.
This could be supplemented by a screen-sharing application, such as those mentioned
by a couple of participants. In terms of Instant Messaging, it would be useful to
- 49 -
investigate use of the Gaim client or equivalent referred to previously, to provide a
single point of access to multiple accounts.
As regards collaboration and, specifically, the exchange of documents,
participants across all disciplines revealed that this is done largely via email and
attachments. A VRE could assist with this. The provision of a shared space would
allow users to store files, post centralised comments on drafts and so on. Such a
facility should permit easy uploading and downloading, of a wide variety of file formats.
Furthermore, it should include version control, and allow the roll-back of versions of
shared documents, in case of errors. On-screen confirmations, mentioned by some
participants as missing from some electronic submission systems, would reassure
users that they had indeed completed an action.
5.4 How do user requirements for VREs differ acrossdisciplines?
Some topics and concerns were raised by specific disciplines. For instance, privacy
concerns were raised by participants from the “softer” disciplines of Film, Folklore and
History. Similarly, the issue of controlling access to materials stored in a VRE was
mentioned by participants in Languages and History. To allay such concerns, it should
be possible to not only control access to the environment itself, but to individual files.
This would also assist with issues of copyright protection, in the case of third-party
content such as a digitised manuscript.
It is also clear that certain disciplines, notably “harder” sciences in the case of
this study, employ a variety of specialist software applications, some examples being
Matlab, SPSS, and CAD software. A VRE should be able to cater for file types from a
reasonable range of such applications. Similarly, most of the standards shown in
section 4.4.6 came from participants in the harder sciences.
Interestingly, one should not assume that “hard” sciences are necessarily more
au fait with, or receptive to, Web 2.0 technologies. As one LIS participant noted “even
- 50 -
in my background, in Computing where you would think there'd be a lot of ICT, there
wasn't “#14).
5.5 What impact might the findings of this study have on theOJAX++ VRE?
Several interesting findings that emerged from this research are likely to have an effect
on the OJAX++ VRE. For one, it became clear during interviews that participants were
reasonably unfamiliar with, and unaccustomed to using, the Web 2.0 technologies of
interest to the OJAX++ project team. In reality, habits are formed, in relation to tools
used, while participants may not have the time or incentive to try new tools.
Furthermore, there exist practical barriers to adoption of new tools. An obvious
one is that researchers may simply be unaware of what tools are available and how
they could assist them in their work. Indeed, several participants noted that, in these
interviews, they learned of tools that could potentially be of use to them. (Voss et al
2007).
Lastly, researchers may actually have reservations about these tools. For
instance, some participants in this study expressed concerns in relation to privacy,
consistent with the experience reported by Laterza et al (2007) In light of all of these
findings, the OJAX++ project team should be aware of the influence of factors such as
awareness, attitudes and culture, and recognise that, in introducing a VRE, there is
likely to be a need to “sell” the concept to researchers. This may require significant
promotion of the benefits of VREs, given web 2.0 tools themselves seem relatively
underused. This suggestion is borne out by the JISC initiative to promote VREs, via a
road show targeting researchers and IT support (JISC 2008d). It is possible that,
following such promotion, an increasing familiarity with the possibilities offered by Web
2.0 tools would generate different user requirements of a VRE. (As one participant
(Film) put it, he had not been aware of a particular piece of software but then “went and
- 51 -
bought it and my life changed.”) This is not inconsistent with Agile software
development methods, a central tenet of which is that user requirements evolve.
This study revealed some interesting findings in relation to VLEs, which may be
of use in developing and implementing a VRE. Although they exist in all institutions
featured in this study, participants displayed a number of reservations about VLEs.
Furthermore, much of their functionality is not exploited and indeed they are not even
universally used, if not compulsory. One can perhaps learn from this, and apply such
knowledge to VREs, by promoting their benefits and providing adequate training for
users. A further consideration is whether to encourage uptake of a VRE or actually
require its use. This question is one of those addressed by Lai and Turban (2008), in
the steps involved for any organisation planning to implement Web 2.0 technologies.
Echoing Anderson (2007) and Davies (2007), the issue of portal overlap was
raised, when a participant expressed concern about the potential for overlap between a
VRE and other portals and environments. UCD itself currently has an institutional
portal, a VLE, electronic library resources, the Irish Virtual Research Library and
Archive (IVRLA) and, at some point, will add an institutional repository to that array.
The OJAX++ team should, therefore, take into account what degree of integration to
attempt with these other services, and perhaps where best to provide certain
functionality. This is especially important in institutions where individuals are not solely
dedicated to research, but are also engaged in teaching duties.
Lastly, some participants indicated that they did not have the time to learn how
to use new technologies. This reinforces the general requirement identified previously
that the VRE should be easy to use, and the recommendation that the VRE should
harness existing services. If training is required, the OJAX++ project team should
provide clear and helpful materials, ideally in more than one format to cater for different
learning styles, which users can access at any time and at their own pace. In this way,
if users do not wish to, or cannot, attend a training session, they are not at a
disadvantage. Accessible support materials should be available. One could also
- 52 -
suggest that, once users log in to a VRE, it should run in the background and therefore
be available throughout the day. However, while this would seem useful for individuals
whose sole occupation is research, it is perhaps of less value to those for whom
research represents only a portion of their work.
5.6 Limitations of this research
The major constraint affecting this research was time, both in terms of the length of
time available in which to conduct this study, and the time of the year, in relation to the
availability of potential participants during summer months.
As regards research method, supplementing interviews with questionnaires would
have served to validate the results of these interviews and perhaps elicit other user
requirements. Furthermore, as noted previously, a small sample size means that one
must be cautious in generalising results from individual participants to entire
disciplines.
- 53 -
6 Conclusion
It has proven rather difficult to determine extensive user requirements for the
OJAX++ VRE, due to the relatively low usage of Web 2.0 technologies in research
revealed by participants. Basic user requirements were set out, supplemented by an
outline of functionality which the VRE should provide, and an indication of some tools
to which it should enable access. Some participants perceived the advantages that
could accrue from using some of the tools discussed in interviews, and showed interest
in using VREs, while others expressed reservations.
Nonetheless, the results of this research suggest that, among researchers in Irish
Higher Education institutions, awareness, not only of VREs but of the potential for Web
2.0 technologies in aiding with research, is relatively low. Actual use of such tools in
research is also low. Since they reflect the findings of various studies in Britain, also
showing a relatively low uptake of Web 2.0 technologies, these results do not come as
a complete surprise. Researchers in Ireland may become exposed over time to VREs
and these technologies through collaborations with research partners in other
countries. However, unlike in Britain, where JISC, RIN and other bodies are active in
this area, there seems to be relatively little drive at a national level in this country to
promote such technologies.
However, there are indications that the situation may be changing. For instance,
the OJAX++ VRE attracted funding and is being developed, while there have also been
recent movements in other Irish universities towards developing VREs. These
developments suggest that these environments may soon be seen supporting research
in this country.
- 54 -
6.1 Potential for further research
The Agile software development methods employed by the OJAX++ development team
involve an ongoing focus on user requirements. Therefore, an obvious extension of this
research, once the OJAX++ VRE has been launched, is to carry out a usability study.
(See section 3.2.1 for more details.) Such a study would test how well the VRE
performs and whether it meets the needs of actual users. Therefore, it may highlight
issues to be addressed or larger changes to be made, to meet those needs. In this
way, usability testing would provide an opportunity to check, and build upon, the user
requirements determined in this research.
Another follow-up study could consist of surveying a larger number of researchers,
to gain a broad perspective of user requirements for a VRE. The reason for this is two-
fold. Surveying researchers from a wider variety of fields could identify different user
requirements for a VRE. Also, as noted previously, a large sample size potentially
allows one to generalise findings to a larger population with greater certainty.
- 55 -
7 Appendices
A. Ethics Exemption Form
University College Dublin,National University of Ireland, Dublin
RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEEHUMAN RESEARCH SUB COMMITTEE
Document 8Human Subjects Ethical Approval Exemption Form
Version: September 2005
- 56 -
HUMAN SUBJECTS ETHICAL APPROVALEXEMPTION FORM
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLINRESEARCH ETHICS
HUMAN SUBJECTS SUB COMMITTEE
Notes for Applicants:
Directions for completing this form
Please complete all sections of this form. place your responses within the boxes provided. do not use bold type for your responses. write “N/A” in the space provided where a section or question is not
relevant to the proposed research. do not cross-reference answers (e.g. responses such as “see above”). avoid the use of jargon and unexplained abbreviations. explain technical terms.
7.1.1.1 Directions for submitting the completed form Please confirm that you have read the UCD Guidelines and Policy for
Ethical Approval of Research involving Human Subjects; Please complete the Human Subjects Ethical Approval Exemption Form
to establish that your research does not require ethical approval by therelevant Human Research Ethics Committee;
After completing this form, please submit it for signing and filing to yourHead of School or designated member of staff;
Please email the Research Ethics Office with a confirmation that youhave submitted an exemption form to your head of school and that youare requesting an official Research Ethics Exemption Reference Number(REERN): ([email protected] )
Students please note:The completed exemption form must be endorsed by the Head of the Schoolin which you are enrolled.
- 57 -
Short Title of Proposed Research:User requirements for Virtual Research Environments in Irish Higher Educationinstitutions
Principal Investigator:Claire Rock
School:School of Information and Library Studies
Telephone: Fax: E-mail:086-1539906 N/[email protected]
Funding Source and Amount (if applicable):N/A
Research Keywords (up to four):Virtual research environment collaboration
Please tick the appropriate answer to the following questions:
1. Is the proposed activity research? [ x ] Yes
[ ] No
2. Does the research involve human beings? [ x ]Yes [ ] No
If `no’ is the answer to Questions 1 and 2, the approval of the Human ResearchEthics Subjects Sub Committee is not required.
If `yes’ is the answer to Questions 1 and 2, please tick the appropriate answerto thefollowing questions:
3. Is this research likely to involve any foreseeable risk toparticipants, above the level experienced in everyday life? [ ] Yes[ x] No
4. Does this research involve any vulnerable* groups? [ ] Yes[ x] No
5. Who are the participants or informants? (include number ofpersons)
- 58 -
A combination of lecturers, post-doctoral researchers, MLitt, MA and MScstudents who engage in research, ideally from a variety of disciplines. Target: ahandful of individuals
6. Does the project involve any of the following possibilities?
a) sensitive topics that may make participants feeluncomfortable i.e. sexual behaviour, illegalactivities, racial biases, etc. [ ] Yes [
x ] No
b) use of drugs [ ] Yes [
x ] No
c) invasive procedures (e.g. blood sampling) [ ] Yes [
x ] No
d) physical stress/distress, discomfort [ ] Yes [
x ] No
e) psychological/mental stress/distress [ ] Yes [
x ] No
f) deception of/or withholding information fromsubjects at any stage of the research [ ] Yes [
x ] No
g) access to data by individuals or organizationsother than the investigators [ ] Yes [x ] No
h) conflict of interest issues [ ] Yes [
x ] No
i) ethical dilemmas [ ] Yes [ x ] No
7. Does the project fall within any of the following categories?
a) standard educational practices [ ] Yes
[x] No
b) anonymous standard educational tests [ ] Yes [x] No
c) anonymous surveys or interviews [x] Yes [
] No
d) anonymous public observations [ ] Yes [
- 59 -
x ] No
e) research involving persons elected to orcandidates for public office [ ] Yes[ x] No
f) research which uses only existing data [ ] Yes [
x] No
8. Please provide a brief description of your research in everyday orlay language under the following headings:
a. the aims and objectives of the study To gather and analyse data from selected researchers, in an
attempt to identify user requirements for Virtual ResearchEnvironments (VREs)
To fulfil the requirements for a Masters in Library and InformationStudies
b. the research designInterview and/or survey a number of researchers about theirunderstanding of virtual research environments and what services theymight use in a VRE
c. the methods of data collectionInterview and/or questionnaire
d. the proposed starting dateMay 2008
e. the proposed duration of study5 months
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned researcher have read the UCD Guidelines and Policy forEthical Approval of Research Involving Human Subjects and agree to abide bythem in conducting this research. I confirm that the information provided on thisform is correct and accurate.
Signature of Principal Investigator_________________________________________
Date / /
- 60 -
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned Head of School confirm that this study is exempt from ethicalreview.
Signature of Head of School______________________________________________
Date / /
- 61 -
B. Letter of Information and Informed Consent Form
UCD School of Information and Library Studies
Letter of Information and Informed Consent Form
Researcher name Ms Claire RockResearcher institution University College Dublin (UCD)
School of Information and Library Studies (SILS)Thesis topic User requirements for Virtual Research Environments
in Irish Higher Education institutions
Dear participant,
My name is Claire Rock and I am a Masters of Library and Information Studies studentin UCD’s School of Information and Library Studies. As part of my studies, I amrequired to complete a thesis, the title of which is “User requirements for VirtualResearch Environments” (VREs).
VREs are a relatively new development in Information and Communication Technology(ICT) in academe. They can be defined as “A set of online tools and other networkresources and technologies interoperating with each other to support or enhance theprocesses of a wide range of research practitioners within and across disciplinary andinstitutional boundaries. A key characteristic of a VRE is that it facilitates collaborationamongst researchers and research teams providing them with more effective means ofcollaboratively collecting, manipulating and managing data, as well as collaborativeknowledge creation”. Put more simply, VREs may become to research what VirtualLearning Environments (VLEs, such as Blackboard, Moodle and Sakai) are to teaching.
In this research, I will be interviewing researchers (academic staff and post-graduatestudents alike, from a variety of disciplines) in Irish Higher Education institutions toidentify how they do their research and what tools and services they use or might use.The resulting insight into researchers’ needs will be used to develop a Virtual ResearchEnvironment, providing online tools and services to assist researchers with theirresearch.
I am inviting you to take part in my research into this topic, by allowing me to interviewyou about your research practices and use or potential use of ICT. Your views arevaluable, whether you are a heavy user of ICT or not. All the information you providewill be treated in the strictest confidence and every effort will be taken to ensure
- 62 -
your participation is anonymous and confidential. No research participant will beidentified by name in the resulting materials; instead, each person will be referredto by a code.
With your permission: I will audio-record the interviews and later transcribe them, but will not share
this raw material with anyone. I may quote from interviews in my research writings. Anonymity will be
maintained. I may ask to contact you by phone or email if I have any follow-up questions
after the interview.
Your participation in this research is voluntary. If you are willing to participate, I will arrange with you a date and time suitable
for an interview of up to 1 hour in duration. At that point, I will ask you to sign toconfirm that you have read this information and consent to it.
You are free to withdraw from this research at any time without giving a reason.Similarly, you may refuse to answer any questions.
I do not foresee any risk to you in participating in my research. Upon completion of my research, I will be happy to provide you with a summary
of my findings, if you would like.
If you have any questions, now or at any stage, please contact me.
Yours truly,Claire Rock
Phone number 086 1539906Email address [email protected]
If you agree to take part in this research, I will provide and ask you to sign two copies ofthis page, so that we may each have a copy for our records.
Name (printed)SignatureDate
- 63 -
C. Interview Schedule
UCD School of Information and Library Studies
User requirements for Virtual Research Environmentsin Irish Higher Education institutions
Interview schedule
Thank you for agreeing to talk with me today. I estimate that this interview will take upto 1 hour. You are free to refuse to answer any questions or to withdraw from thisconfidential research at any time. If you have any questions, now or at any stage,please don’t hesitate to ask. Ultimately, this research will be used in building a VirtualResearch Environment and, throughout this interview, that term will be shortened toVRE.
INTERVIEWER NOTES: This guide outlines the topics to be covered in an interview. Ina semi-structured interview such as this, the order in which the questions are askedmay be varied. Similarly, it may not be necessary to pose some questions, if theinformation has already been provided in, or is deemed not relevant based on, previousresponses. Text in italics represents interviewer instructions.
Section 1: Background informationI would first like to get a little background information about you as a researcher.
1. In what institution are you a researcher?2. What is your role and discipline?3. And in which School, Faculty, College?4. For how long have you been involved in research?5. What proportion of your research do you conduct as an individual versus in
groups?6. How would you describe your research?
Probe: 6a. The methods you use and so on.7. How much would you use Information and Communication Technology (other
than email) in research?8. How comfortable do you feel in using Information and Communication
Technology (other than email) in research?
Section 2: Knowledge of VREs9. Before hearing about this research, what did you know about Virtual Research
Environments (VREs)?Probe: 9a. Can you tell me what you understood by the term?
- 64 -
Section 3: Use of VREs10. Have you ever used a VRE?
If yes:10a. Can you tell me which one(s)?10b. Can you tell me more about your use of the VRE(s)?10c. Probe: How often have you used VRE(s)?
Section 4: How research is done and whattools/services are usedI would like to understand how you conduct your research and what software tools andservices you use.
11. Can you talk me through the stages of your typical research projects, such asliterature review, data collection/analysis, publication, and tell me what softwaretools/services you use?Probe: 11a. (If unclear) Are these tools installed/downloaded on your computeror online?
12. I have a list of other technologies here, which I’d like to ask you about.(Readeach item on the list, unless it has been covered already.)
12a. Can you tell me what you know about each?12b. For the ones that you use, can you tell me their names and why and howyou use them?12c. Probe: Do you use these for social or research purposes?
Office suites, such as Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, Lotus Smartsuite Online office applications, such as Zoho, Google Docs Email Google products, such as iGoogle (customised Google home page),
Google Maps, Gmail, Google Web History, Google Scholar Social bookmarking, such as del.icio.us, Connotea, Digg, Furl Annotation, that is, adding information, such as a note, to a document Institutional repositories Blogs Wikis Search tools, such as search engines, federated searching, databases
Probe: To search what type of resources? How do you save searchresults?
RSS feeds Probe: What reader do you use? Social networking websites, such as Facebook, Bebo, MySpace,
LinkedIn Video conferencing Instant messaging Discussion lists Video sharing websites Photo sharing websites Slide sharing websites
13. Can you tell me about any electronic standards that apply in your area(s) ofresearch?13a. Probe: For instance, XML, OpenSearch, electronic signature
- 65 -
Section 5: Collaboration and sharing14. Do you collaborate or share ideas with others, locally or elsewhere, via
computer when conducting your research?If yes:
14a. Can you tell me more about how you do this?
15. Do you peer review online?If yes:
15a. Can you tell me more about how you do this?
Section 6: VLEs and VREs16. Do you use any Virtual Learning Environments (provide definition below, if
required), such as Blackboard, Moodle or Sakai?17. Do you think you would use a Virtual Research Environment, if one were
available?
Conclusion18.Are there any aspects of conducting your research that you think technology,
like the types we’ve talked about today, could help with?19. Is there anything you would like to add that you think is relevant to our
discussion?
Thank you for taking the time to talk in confidence with me today. If you’d like to receivea summary of my findings once my research is complete, I’ll be happy to provide that.
Supporting definitionsA virtual learning environment (VLE) is a software system designed to supportteaching and learning in an educational setting…A VLE will normally work over theInternet and provide a collection of tools such as those for assessment (particularly oftypes that can be marked automatically, such as multiple choice), communication,uploading of content, return of students' work, peer assessment, administration ofstudent groups, collecting and organizing student grades, questionnaires, trackingtools, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_learning_environment
A virtual research environment (VRE) is “a set of online tools and other networkresources and technologies interoperating with each other to support or enhance theprocesses of a wide range of research practitioners within and across disciplinary andinstitutional boundaries. A key characteristic of a VRE is that it facilitates collaborationamongst researchers and research teams providing them with more effective means ofcollaboratively collecting, manipulating and managing data, as well as collaborativeknowledge creation.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/vre/fvantill_day1_jiscvrecommunityevent_v0%200.pdf
- 66 -
D. Code Book
ParticipantsInstitute – participant’s institutionRole – participant’s roleDisc – participant’s disciplineYears – number of years participant has been involved in researchSolo – whether participant is engaged primarily in individual or group researchICT use – to what degree participant uses ICT in researchICT comfort – whether participant feels comfortable using ICTICT self perception – how participant perceives himself/herself
Awareness of VREsYes – participant has heard of VREsNo – participant has not heard of VREsOrigin – where participant heard of VREs
Use of VREsYes – participant has used VREsNo - participant has not used VREs
ProcessSteps – typical steps in research processSources – sources of information typically used in research process
Use of tools/standards listed in interview scheduleWeb 2.0 - Participant used the term web 2.0Use - participant uses toolsDon’t use – participant doesn’t use toolsObservations – observations about participant’s use or non-use of specifictool/servicePurpose for which tools are used
Personal – for personal useResearch – for use in researchTeaching – for use in teaching
Names – Names of other tools/services mentioned by participantStandards - Names of standards mentioned by participant
Collaboration and sharingYes – participant uses ICTNo - participant uses ICTMethods used – how participant uses ICT to collaborate / share
VLEsYes – participant uses VLEsNo – participant does not use VLEsObservations - – observations about participant’s use or non-use of VLEs
VREsYes – Participant would use VREsNo – Participant would not use VREsUnsure - Participant is unsure whether or not he/she would use VREs
- 67 -
AttitudesCultural influences
Discipline – possibly influence of discipline Co-operation – degree of co-operation with others in
which participant is engaged Sharing – culture of sharing within discipline Control access – degree of perceived need to control
access to environmentHabit – degree to which habits are formed as regards tools/servicesusedAvailability – degree to which new tools/services are availableInstitutional support – degree to which new tools/services are welcomed
ConcernsTime – perceived lack of time to find and adopt tools/servicesPrivacy – concerns about privacy in relation to new tools/servicesTechnical (browser) - concerns about browser dependency in relation tonew tools/servicesContent quality – concerns in relation to quality of content using thesenew tools/servicesPrecision/info overload – concerns about the degree to which alerts andsuch like can be tailored to user’s requirements, and the attendant riskof information overloadCopyright – concerns over copyright of materials made available vianew tools/servicesPersonal vs professional line – concern over the blurring of the linesbetween personal and professional lives
CommentsBenefits - Perceived benefits of using new tools/services
- 68 -
8 References and Notes
Albertini, A. (2008) The use of mashups in virtual research environments: a case study.Unpublished thesis (MLIS), University College Dublin.
Anderson, P. (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications foreducation. London, JISC.Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Arksey, H., Knight, P. (1999) Interviewing for Social Scientists: An IntroductoryResource with Examples. London, Sage Publications.
Australia, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2006)National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Draft. Australia, Department ofEducation, Employment and Workplace Relations.Available from: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97ACCF02-0860-484F-B200-278EB609FA20/10385/ExposureDraftforWebSiteApril06.pdf
Baker, M., Fisher, C., O'Riordan, E., Grove, M., Fulford, M., Warwick, C., Terras, M.,Clarke, A., Rains, M. (2008) VERA: A Virtual Environment for Research inArchaeology, unpublished paper presented at: 4th International Conference on e-SocialScience. Manchester Conference Centre, 18-30 June.Available from:http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/conference/programme/fri/3abaker.pdf
Barga, R.S., Andrews, S., Parastatidis, S. (2007) A Virtual Research Environment(VRE) for Bioscience Researchers. In: Dini, O., Popescu, M. (eds.) InternationalConference on Advanced Engineering Computing and Applications in Sciences,November 2007, Tahiti. Los Alamitos California, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 31-38.
Bjornson, J. (2008) Towards increased information findability in OJAX++ - Are VirtualResearch Environments ready for tags, annotations and user-generated, collaborativemetadata?. Unpublished thesis (MLIS), University College Dublin.
Brennan, N. (2006) Open Access: the Practical issues, unpublished paper presentedat: 2006 Conference of the Health Sciences Libraries Group of the Library Associationof Ireland. Kilkenny, 23-24 February.Available from: http://www.ndc.hrb.ie/attached/2392-HSLGpaper.pdf
Brennan, N. (2005) Ballrooms of Romance? Towards Collaborative Virtual ResearchEnvironments in Ireland, unpublished paper presented at: 10th Irish UniversitiesInformation Colloquium. Sligo, 2-4 March.Available from:http://www.iuisc.ie/2005/Presentations/Thursday/NIamh%20brennan.pdf
Brown, S. (2006) E-Infrastructure Strategy: Report of the Working Group on Searchand Navigation, Office of Science and Innovation.Available from: http://www.nesc.ac.uk/documents/OSI/search.pdf
- 69 -
Butler, D. (2005) Science in the web age: Joint efforts. Nature. 438 (7068), December,pp. 548-9.Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/pdf/438548a.pdf
Creswell, J. (1994) Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.Toronto, Sage Publications
Davies, R. (2007) VIEWPOINT Library and institutional portals: a case study. TheElectronic Library. 25 (6) pp. 641-647.Available from:http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do;jsessionid=8E2E4095DEDA71A6DB7DA9B9F95FD1BF?containerType=Issue&containerId=25735
De Roure, D., Goble, C., Stevens, R. (2007) Designing the myExperiment VirtualResearch Environment for the Social Sharing of Workflows. In: e-Science 2007:Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on e-Science and GridComputing, December 2007, India. Los Alamitos California, IEEE Computer Society,pp.603-610.
Duggan, P. (2008) The relationship between VLEs and VREs: a study. Unpublishedthesis (MLIS), University College Dublin.
Franklin, T., van Harmelen, M. (2007) Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teachingin Higher Education. London, JISC.Available from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/digitalrepositories/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf
Fraser, M. (2005) Virtual Research Environments: Overview and Activity. Ariadne[online], July 2005, (44), available from: <http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/fraser/>[accessed 01 May 2008].
Hannay, T. (2007) Web 2.0 in Science. CTWatch Quarterly [online], August 2007, 3 (3),available from: <http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/web-20-in-science/>[accessed 06 October 2008].
Healy, S. (2008) An evaluation of the user requirements of users of the Irish VirtualResearch Library and Archive. Unpublished thesis (MLIS ), University College Dublin.
HEAnet Limited (2007) Strategic Plan 2004-2007. Dublin, HEAnet Limited.Available from: http://www.heanet.ie/about/HEAnet_Strategic_Plan_2004.pdf
Higher Education Authority (HEA) and Forfás (2007) Research Infrastructure in Ireland- Building for the future. Dublin, Higher Education Authority (HEA) and Forfás.Available from:http://www.hea.ie/files/files/file/New_pdf/HEA%20ISBN%20Reports/Research%20Infrastructure%20in%20Ireland%20-%20Building%20for%20Tomorrow%202007.pdf
Highsmith, J. (2002) Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Boston, Addison-Wesley.
Hill, R. (1998) What sample size is “enough” in Internet Survey Research. InterpersonalComputing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century [online], July1998, 6 (3-4), available from: <http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.html>[accessed 18 September 2008].
- 70 -
Ireland, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. (2006) Strategy forScience, Technology and Innovation 2006 – 2013. Dublin, Department of Enterprise,Trade and Employment.Available from: http://www.entemp.ie/publications/science/2006/sciencestrategy.pdf
JISC (2008a) Mission and vision [online], available from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/aboutus/strategy/strategy0709/strategy_mission_vision.aspx >[accessed 01 May 2008].
JISC (2008b) Virtual Research Environments programme: Phase 2 roadmap [online],available from: <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/pub_vreroadmap.aspx>[accessed 01 May 2008].
JISC (2008c) Virtual Research Environments: VRE Programme Phases 2 & 3 [online],available from: < http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/bpvrev2.aspx>[accessed 03 October 2008].
JISC (2008d) Advanced tools and technologies for collaborative research [online],available from:<http://www.jisc.ac.uk/Home/events/2008/11/manchesterroadshow.aspx> [accessed03 October 2008].
JISC (2005) Disciplinary Differences Report. JISC.Available from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/infoenvironment/disciplinarydifferencesneeds.pdf
Kirkham, R. (2007) Building a Virtual Research Environment for the Humanities JISCFinal Report. Oxford University.Available from: http://bvreh.humanities.ox.ac.uk/files/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20JISC_Final_Report_Web.pdf
Knights, M. (2008) Virtual Research. History Today. 58 (2), February, pp. 32-33.Available from:http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=32501&amid=30252702
Knowledge Exchange (n.d.) Welcome to Knowledge Exchange [online], available from:<http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=1> [accessed 22 September2008].
Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Lai, L.S.L., Turban, E. (2008) Groups Formation and Operations in the Web 2.0Environment and Social Networks. Group Decision and Negotiation. 17 (5), September,pp. 387–402.Available from:https://commerce.metapress.com/content/121g2w134250l468/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=qlruvbmni5vv2seukdrkaqqq&sh=www.springerlink.com
- 71 -
Laterza, V., Carmichael, P., Procter, R. (2007) The doubtful guest? A Virtual ResearchEnvironment for education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 16 (3), October, pp.249 -267.Available from: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/1458273759-92674478/content~content=a782339086~db=all~order=page
Lin, Y. (2008) Research 2.0. Qualitative Researcher. (8), June, pp. 3-5.Available from:http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/qualiti/QualitativeResearcher/QR_Issue8_Jun08.pdf
Mascord, M., Jirotka, M., Sieunarine, C. (2005) Integrative Biology VRE Work Package2: Initial Analysis Report. University of Oxford.Available from:http://www.vre.ox.ac.uk/ibvre/IBVRE%20Initial%20Analysis%20Report.pdf
Memetic (2005) Report of User Requirements Workshops [online], available from:<http://www.memetic-vre.net/users/workshop/WorkshopReport.html> [accessed 22September 2008].
National Science Foundation (2002) Significance of Information Technology [online],Arlington VA, available from: <http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c8/c8s3.htm>[accessed 09 August 2008].
Office of Science and Innovation (2006) Report of the Working Group on VirtualResearch Communities for the OSI e-Infrastructure Steering Group. Office of Scienceand Innovation.Available from: http://www.nesc.ac.uk/documents/OSI/vrc.pdf
Office of Science and Innovation (n.d.), Developing the UK’s e-infrastructure forscience and innovation: Report of the OSI e-Infrastructure Working Group. Office ofScience and Innovation.Available from: http://www.nesc.ac.uk/documents/OSI/report.pdf
O'Reilly Media, Inc. (2005) What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models forthe Next Generation of Software [online], available from:<http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html>[accessed 09 October 2008].
Research Information Network and the Consortium of Research Libraries (2007)Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries and their Services. Research InformationNetwork and the Consortium of Research Libraries.Available from: http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/libraries-report-2007.pdf
Research Information Network (2006) Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour,perceptions and needs. Research Information Network.Available from: http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdf
Risquez, A. ([email protected]), 09 October 2008. Seeking information on VirtualResearch Environment in UL. Email to Claire Rock ([email protected]).
Robson, C. (2002) Real world research. 2nd ed., Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
Rubin, H.J., Rubin, I.S. (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 2nded., Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
- 72 -
Science Foundation Ireland (n.d.) Built for Science. Dublin, Science FoundationIreland.Available from: http://www.sfi.ie/uploads/documents/upload/SFI_Brochure.pdf
Sergeant, D. M., Andrews, S., Farquhar, A. (n.d.) Embedding a VRE in an InstitutionalEnvironment (EVIE). Workpackage 2: User Requirements Analysis: UserRequirements Analysis Report. University of Leeds.Available from:http://www.leeds.ac.uk/evie/workpackages/wp2/evieWP2_UserRequirementsAnalysis_v1_0.pdf
Stanley, T. (2007) Developing a Virtual Research Environment in a Portal Framework:The EVIE Project. Ariadne [online], August 2007, (51), available from:<http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue51/stanley/> [accessed 01 May 2008].
Stenning, M., Grange, S., Sim, Y. W., Wang,C., Gilbert, L., Will, G. B. (2005) COREUser Requirement Study. ECSTR-IAM05-007 Southampton.Available from: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11229/1/ecstr_iam05_007.pdf
Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. (1998) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: aguidebook and resource. 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley and Sons.
University College Dublin (2008) UCD Office of Research Ethics [online], availablefrom: <http://www.ucd.ie/researchethics/rec.html> [accessed 22 September 2008].
University College Dublin (2007) Report of the President September 2006 - August2007. Dublin, University College Dublin.Available from:http://www.ucd.ie/president/report/2007/EGLISH/2007%20President's%20Report.pdf
University College London (2008) Information behaviour of the researcher of the future.London, Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, UniversityCollege London for JISC and the British Library.Available from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf
University of Limerick, Centre for Teaching and Learning (2006) Presentation forPostgraduate Research Student Induction. Limerick, University of Limerick.Available from: www2.ul.ie/pdf/534538034.ppt
University of Limerick, Library & Information Services (2006) Library Development Plan2007 – 2011. Limerick, University of Limerick.Available from: http://www2.ul.ie/pdf/561400224.pdf
University of Nottingham (n.d.) ELVI Newsletter #1: Choosing a methodology.University of Nottingham.Available from: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~bbzijw/elvi/files/ELVI-Newsletter-1.pdf
Urmetzer, F., Baker, M., Alexandrov, V. (2006) Research Methods for Eliciting e-Research User Requirement. In: Cox, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the UK e-Science AllHands Meeting 2006 Nottingham, UK 18th – 21st September 2006. National e-ScienceCentre, pp.436-440.Available from: http://www.allhands.org.uk/2006/proceedings/index.html
- 73 -
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (n.d.) Learn About Usability Testing[online], available from: <http://www.usability.gov/refine/learnusa.html> [accessed 09October 2008].
Voss, A., Mascord, M., Fraser, M., Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Halfpenny, P., Fergusson,D., Atkinson, M., Dunn, S., Blanke, T., Hughes, L., Anderson, S. (2007) e-ResearchInfrastructure Development and Community Engagement. In: Cox, S. (ed) Proceedingsof the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting 2007, Nottingham, UK, 10th-13th September2007. National e-Science Centre, pp. 477-484.PDF available from: http://www.allhands.org.uk/2007/proceedings/
Whitten, J., Bentley, L., (1998) Systems analysis and design methods. 4th ed. NewYork, Irwin McGrawHill.
Wills, G.B., Gilbert, L., Gee, Q., Davis, H.C., Miles-Board, T., Millard, D.E., Carr, L.A.,Hall, W., Grange, S. (2005) Towards Grid Services for a Virtual Research Environment.In: Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, July2005, Taiwan. Los Alamitos California, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 863-868.
Wusteman, J. (in press) OJAX: A Case Study in Agile Web 2.0 Open SourceDevelopment. Aslib Proceedings. (submitted for publication July 2008).
NOTES
[1] Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), incorporates the Office ofScience and Innovation: http://www.berr.gov.uk/dius/science/
[2] National Science Foundation, Office of Cyberinfrastructure:http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=OCI
[3] National Research Council Canada (NRC): http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/
[4] Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations:http://www.dest.gov.au/
[5] National University of Ireland Maynooth Institute for Research in Irish Historical andCultural Traditions: http://graduatestudies.nuim.ie/prospective/AnForasFeasa.shtml
[6] National Digital Learning Repository (NDLR): http://www.ndlr.ie/