Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019398764 = product of:
  0.077595055 = sum of:
    0.077595055 = weight(_text_:data in 384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077595055 = score(doc=384,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.52404076 = fieldWeight in 384, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.

0.0051730038 = product of:
  0.020692015 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Intro -- Title page -- Contents -- List of figures -- Acknowledgement -- Contributors -- Foreword: Situating the role of information in the messy and complex context of the workplace -- 1 Work and information in modern society: a changing workplace -- Economic changes and information innovation -- Information technology and its impact on people -- Fragmentation -- Information technology and its impact on organizations -- Global trends -- Work information environments -- Perspectives on workplace information -- Models of workplace information1 -- Taylor's information use environments -- This book -- References -- 2 Information activities and tasks -- Introduction -- Data, information and knowledge - the fuel that drives information work -- About work and examples of work -- The workplace -- Deconstructing work -- Conclusion -- Future directions -- References -- 3 Information culture -- Introduction -- Defining information culture -- Information culture - factors and components -- Information culture research -- Conclusions -- References -- 4 Information management -- Introduction -- Information management and the workplace -- Definition of information management -- Related concepts -- Conclusion: the future of information management and workplace information -- Note -- References -- 5 Information artefacts -- Introduction -- Theoretical underpinnings for information artefacts -- Key concepts: information source and information channel -- Use of information sources and channels -- Key concept: information tool -- Key concept: information system -- Information artefacts and information needs -- Conclusions: information artefacts, collegial inclusion and expertise in the workplace -- References -- 6 Information attributes -- Introduction -- Theoretical underpinnings -- Conclusion -- References.

0.003172234 = product of:
  0.012688936 = sum of:
    0.012688936 = product of:
      0.025377871 = sum of:
        0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025377871 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22