Information and Discovery in Neuroscience (IDN) Carole Palmer Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Informatics Tools for Scientific Discovery and Collaboration University of Illinois-Chicago September 4, 2003

Project logistics Personnel: Carole Palmer, Associate Professor Melissa Cragin and Tim Hogan, Doctoral research assistants Location: Information Systems Research Lab, GSLIS, UIUC Funding agency: NSF, Computer and Information Science and Engineering / Digital Technologies and Society - Grant No

Research Questions What information conditions are associated with significant progress and problems during the course of research? How does information contribute to: discoveries, breakthroughs, intellectual advancements What elements help / hinder the research process? newness, mobility, scatter, boundaries...

Concerns for Information Science Mix of information and activities supported has important influence on what new knowledge can be generated. Research communities value and apply information in different ways. Interests of researchers need to be represented to larger community of information system developers.

Focus of research program Domain analysis Fields that serve as models of information dynamics: distribution, integration, exchange, heterogeneity Interdisciplinarity Structures and strategies of information work, barriers Digital library development Customization and cross-domain inquiry and collaboration, knowledge integration

Pre-Arrowsmith associations Computational project that builds on Don Swanson’s theoretical work on “disconnected literatures” Papers that discuss potential applications of Swanson and Smalheiser’s tool identifying “new” information mobilizing scattered information easing information work across boundaries

Arrowsmith is built on the premise that discoveries might be made by linking findings from disconnected literatures. The Logic of Arrowsmith Target Literature “A” Source Literature “C” Intermediate Literatures “B” B 1 B 2 B 3 ABBC ? A C

Links to Arrowsmith project Invited by Neil Smalheiser to consider using field testing efforts to continue my studies of the role of information in advancing research and collaboration. Arrowsmith proposal Aim 1: “…test whether Arrowsmith analyses are feasible and useful for assessing research issues in field tests of neuroscientists working as part of large multi-disciplinary groups…; have investigators from large multidisciplinary groups look actively for opportunities to conduct Arrowsmith analyses that arise naturally from research carried out by their group...”

Key factors for IDN project Naturalistic test sites in compelling field extensive and complex knowledge base high level of informatics activity Monitoring of information searches represent ongoing research projects already established, therefore more awareness and less intrusive

Proposed Arrowsmith scenarios 1. Finding pieces of the puzzle in different disciplines (i.e. nutrition and psychiatry) 2. Assessing significance of finding relative to literature 3. Non-expert searching Do these fit with your lab’s work? Other scenarios? Non-Arrowsmith tasks?

Arrowsmith and scope of IDN project Range of information activities, tools and resources literature and data - gathering, using, sharing High-impact information points of progress and problems important contingencies, combinations, functionalities Boundary work information from outside core specialization or expertise modes of collaboration and information sharing

Testing previous results Modes of research relationships between information practices and strategies for building research base Major boundary work difficulties searching far afieldvocabulary learning anewcore maintenance export - Palmer, Carole L. (2001). Work at the Boundaries of Science: Information and the Interdisciplinary Research Process. Dordrecht: Kluwer. - Palmer, Carole L. (1999). "Structures and Strategies of Interdisciplinary Science." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, no. 3:

Objectives 1) Document when information is needed and used in daily research activities. 2) Develop profiles or “scenarios” of information-based advances and problems. 3) Identify effective combinations of information activities and resources. 4) Analyze boundary-crossing information work.

Methods Qualitative Interviewing project-based critical incidents Field Observation information work workspace Document Analysis citations content Arrowsmith Diary information logs search logs

Human subjects protocols Informed consent Confidentiality Data aggregation for reporting Limited use of verbatim text

Cross-case analysis We look for conditions that promote progress. Identify stages / modes of research and Assess related information sources, channels, activities - high-impact information - significant information problems - effective information combinations - levels of scatter - influence of information from subdisciplines - searching and management techniques, needs

Additional analysis Typology of information activities and key resources Articulation of information problems unique to neuroscience Profiling of requirements for transfer and exchange of information between specializations

Applications Refinements and functionalities for Arrowsmith Recommendations and requirements for new tools and resources, upgrades for existing Prioritization for digital library development federation, meta-data, and interoperability Mapping and supporting the “fault lines” of discovery New directions for national libraries and information specialists

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? RECOMMENDATIONS? (always welcome)