Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=384)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research Data Management (RDM) promises to make research outputs more transparent, findable, and reproducible. Strategies to streamline data management across disciplines are of key importance. This paper presents results of an institutional survey (N = 258) at a medium-sized Austrian university with a STEM focus, supplemented with interviews (N = 18), to give an overview of the state-of-play of RDM practices across faculties and disciplinary contexts. RDM services are on the rise but remain somewhat behind leading countries like the Netherlands and UK, showing only the beginnings of a culture attuned to RDM. There is considerable variation between faculties and institutes with respect to data amounts, complexity of data sets, data collection and analysis, and data archiving. Data sharing practices within fields tend to be inconsistent. RDM is predominantly regarded as an administrative task, to the detriment of considerations of good research practice. Problems with RDM fall in two categories: Generic problems transcend specific research interests, infrastructures, and departments while discipline-specific problems need a more targeted approach. The paper extends the state-of-the-art on RDM practices by combining in-depth qualitative material with quantified, detailed data about RDM practices and needs. The findings should be of interest to any comparable research institution with a similar agenda.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines how shared affiliations within an institution (e.g., same primary appointment, same secondary appointment, same research center, same laboratory/facility) and physical proximity (e.g., walking distance between collaborator offices) shape knowledge creation through biomedical science collaboration in general, and interdisciplinary collaboration in particular. Using archival and publication data, we examine pairwise research collaborations among 1,138 faculty members over a 12-year period at a medical school in the United States. Modeling at the dyadic level, we find that faculty members with more shared institutional affiliations are positively associated with knowledge creation and knowledge impact, and that this association is moderated by the physical proximity of collaborators. We further find that the positive influence of disciplinary diversity (e.g., collaborators from different fields) on knowledge impact is stronger among pairs that share more affiliations and is significantly reduced as the physical distance among collaborators increases. These results support the idea that shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity can increase interpersonal contact, providing more opportunities to develop trust and mutual understanding, and thus alleviating some of the coordination issues that can arise with higher disciplinary diversity. We discuss the implications for future research on scientific collaborations, managerial practice regarding office space allocation, and strategic planning of initiatives aimed at promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

0.01729024 = product of:
  0.06916096 = sum of:
    0.06916096 = weight(_text_:fields in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06916096 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.21883413 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Today's society is characterized by quick technological developments and constant changes to our information environments. One of the biggest changes has been on our workplace environments where technological developments have automated work processes that were previously done by manual labour whilst new professions and work tasks have emerged in response to new methods of creating, sharing and using information. Information at Work: Information management in the workplace provides a comprehensive account of information in the modern workplace. It includes a set of chapters examining and reviewing the major concepts within workplace information, from over-arching themes of information cultures and ecologies, to strategic concerns of information management and governance, and to detailed accounts of questions and current debates. This book will be useful reading for researchers in Information Science and Information Management and students on related courses. It is also suitable to be used as an introductory text for those working in allied fields such as Management and Business Studies.

0.008647508 = product of:
  0.034590032 = sum of:
    0.034590032 = weight(_text_:22 in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034590032 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22