Award No: SES/SBE Project Title: Interoperability Strategies for Scientific Cyberinfrastructure: A Comparative Study Investigators: Geoffrey C. Bowker and Karen S. Baker Institutions: Santa Clara University & University of California, San Diego Website: Interoperability strategies of data traditionally focus on the technical but are in practice blended with organizational and community dimensions. Project Description and Outcome: Ideas The Comparative Interoperability Study considers the work of social science in partnership with the ecogeo sciences & informatics to frame, articulate, and identify the issues of data interoperability. We are a multidisciplinary team using multiple methodolgoies, ie grounded theory, action research, sociotechnical analysis, and information science techniques to conduct ethnographic analysis jointly on documents and interviews focus on development of emergent lines of research. facilitate collaborative design at interfaces with data and technology study alignments of the technical, organizational, and social in cyberinfrastructure communities We are sensitizing informatics, environmental science, and science studies communities to the need to consider in partnership the social and organizational dimensions of local work practices together with the technological through bidirectional local community dialogue. Bowker, Baker, Millerand, Ribes Sep 2005

We foreground three distinct interfaces that benefit from bidirectional dialogue: the communities we study the domains & fields we represent science studies from which we draw our analytic methods Our interdisciplinary responsibilities entail development of new types of critical engagement. We have initiated and found effective: strategic reading groups focusing on mutual conceptual development and alignment tactical design teams focusing on shared language, joint objects, and collaboratively designed data products coauthored documents, diagrams, and presentations Our interventions are in the field of collaborative sociotechnical design. Continued: Interoperability Strategies Reading Groups, a design studio, design teams, and a shared data acquition schema across diverse data type groups represent elements of the collaborative environment. Bowker, Baker, Millerand, Ribes Sep 2005

Award No: SES/SBE Project Title: Interoperability Strategies for Scientific Cyberinfrastructure: A Comparative Study Investigators: Geoffrey C. Bowker and Karen S. Baker Institutions: Santa Clara University & University of California, San Diego Website: The Design-Development-Deployment cycle is repeated within the local Enactment phase - where theory and dialogue are integrated into data practices. From Standard Design to Enactment The Comparative Interoperability Project provides a broader understanding of data management standardization processes within the deployment of a large scale information infrastructure project ‘s interoperability strategy (here a metadata standard). Alternative measurements of the standard’s success:  Enactment as an integral part of the standardization process: -> Enacting the standard requires some ‘bricolage’ to provide to the (universal) standard the (local) contextuality it needs to become a ‘used’ and shared community standard. -> The local work of enactment - which is often neglected - should be considered an integral part of each interoperability strategy project and included in resource and funding planning. “The standard is not yet successful since it requires local re-design/development/deployment activities.” (The enactment point of view) “The standard is successful since it has been adopted by the IT and domain science community.” (The design, development and deployment point of view) Bowker, Baker, Millerand, Ribes Sep 2005

The Working Group co-conveners included members from the Comparative Interoperability Project and members from the ecological data management community: Karen Baker (PAL/CCE LTER Information Manager, EML ‘Enactor’, Interoperability CoPI); Barbara Benson (NTL LTER Information Manager, LTER IM Committee Chair, EML ‘Enactor’); Matt Jones (NCEAS, EML Developer); Florence Millerand (Interoperability Post Graduate Researcher). The working group was developed as a communication mechanism between the communities involved. The diagram (see figure 1) prompted the beginning of a dialogue through the mediation of the Comparative Interoperability Project, that ends as a community publication with the 4 co-conveners as co-authors entitled Lessons learned from the Ecological Metadata Language about the Community Process of Standard Implementation.Ecological Metadata Language about the Community Process of Standard Implementation LTER Information Manager Meeting 2005 Working Group 7 Announcement By KBaker, BBenson, MJones, FMillerand Community Process & Standards Implementation WG7 August 5, 2005 (5:30-6:30pm) Montreal “This working group will provide an opportunity for information managers and developers to dialogue and reflect together on past development processes.” Figure 1: Design-Development-Deployment-Enactment cycle of standardization processes Continued: From Standard Design to Enactment Bowker, Baker, Millerand, Ribes Sep 2005

Award No: SES/SBE Project Title: Interoperability Strategies for Scientific Cyberinfrastructure: A Comparative Study Investigators: Geoffrey C. Bowker (PI), Karen S. Baker (PI), Florence Millerand, David Ribes Institutions: Santa Clara University & University of California, San Diego Website: Positions of the Social Scientist in Information System Design Projects Research Objectives: What configurations of social science involvement lead to effective collaborative work? Research Approach: Cross-case ethnographic analysis of social science participation in three large scale information infrastructure building projects: GEON, LTER and Ocean Informatics. How can we put together large-scale collaborative projects with effective social science participation? Bowker, Baker, Millerand, Ribes Sep 2005

In the planning of large scale collaborative project, where social science collaboration is included, careful consideration should be given to the production of lines of communication, venues for participatory work and the structuring of relations. Key factors affecting effective social science engagement: How is the social science team introduced and framed to the larger project? What formal and informal venues are planned for discussion, feedback and collaboration e.g organizational issues, communication issues, technological direction and planning and so on? What portions of the project are understood to be of relevance to social science research? To what extent is the role of the social scientist granted official or recognized status? Is relevant funding included in proposal? Is access to the field site secured? Are the social sciences included in the representation of the project (publications, posters, website, etc)? Continued: Positions of the Social Scientist in Information System Design Projects Bowker, Baker, Millerand, Ribes Sep 2005