e-social science as an experience technology: distance from, and attitudes toward, e-research
DESCRIPTION
Presentation for the 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester, 19 June 2008. Paper associated with this presentation available: Dutton, William H. and Meyer, Eric T, “e-Social Science as an Experience Technology: Distance from, and Attitudes Toward, E-Research" (June 19, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1150422TRANSCRIPT
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
e-Social Science as an Experience Technology:
Distance From, and Attitudes Toward, e-Research
William Dutton and Eric MeyerOxford e-Social Science Node
of UK National Centre for eSocial Science
Presentation for the 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester, 19 June 2008. Paper associated with this presentation available: Dutton, William H. and Meyer, Eric T, “e-Social Science as an Experience Technology: Distance from, and Attitudes Toward, E-Research" (June 19, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1150422
Certainty Trough
Sample
Source N Sent N Responded Response Rate
% of sample
NCeSS List 615 141 22.9% 26.8%OII List 1761 180 10.2% 34.2%Open mailings n/a 205 n/a 39.0%Total 526 100.0%
Sample Characteristics
Disciplines (%)
54.9
5.5 4.2 3.0
15.611.6
5.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SocialSciences
Arts &Humanities
Natural andMedical
Sciences
Law ComputerSciences andEngineering
Other Don't Know /Don't Answer
% o
f res
pond
ents
How would you describe your interest in e-Social Science initiatives? (%)
29.726.8
30.4
6.8 6.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Very interested Interested Somewhatinterested
Not interested at all Don't Know / Don'tAnswer
% o
f res
pond
ents
Year of Degree (%)
9.3 10.312.7
24.9
42.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Before 1970 Between 1971 and1980
Between 1981 and1990
Between 1991 and2000
After 2001
% o
f res
pond
ents
Country (%)
46.8
14.117.7
4.61.9
15.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
United Kingdom North America Europe Australia andNew Zealand
East Asia Global South
% o
f res
pond
ents
Bias of the Sample
Type of Research
Type of Research (%)
14.8%
42.4%
29.8%
12.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Quantitative Some mix of both Qualitative Other/None
% o
f res
pond
ents
Researcher Clusters
Lone e-Researcher Team Player Quals Quants
User of research methods 0.47 0.34 0.74 0.18Both a user and developer 0.45 0.66 0.22 0.55Methodologist, developing or studying methods 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.27Quantitative 0.19 0.07 0.09 0.57Some mix of Quantitative and Qualitative 0.66 0.86 0.18 0.04Qualitative 0.15 0.07 0.72 0.39Never or Rarely Code or Design applications by myself 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.05Often or Always Code or Design applications by myself 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.95Sole investigator on all or most my projects 0.45 0.06 0.53 0.00Sole investigator on about half 0.42 0.07 0.23 0.00One of a team on most or all my projects 0.13 0.87 0.23 1.00
Cluster
Cluster Centers
Types of Researchers
Clusters (%)
23.026.2
29.1
12.0 9.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lone e-Researcher Team Player Quals Quants Don't Know / Don'tAnswer
% o
f res
pond
ents
Perspective (%)
7.6
43.2
33.3
9.96.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Opponents Spectators Promoters Disengaged Don't Know / Don'tAnswer
% o
f res
pond
ents
Attitudes towards e-Research (I)
Attitudes towards e-Research - Funding
51.8%
38.2% 37.3%
20.6%
51.9% 52.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
e-Research is adequately funded More funds should be targeted todeveloping e-Research
infrastructure
More funds should be targeted tosupporting e-Research project
proposals
% o
f res
pond
ents
Don't know No opinion Strongly Agree / Agree
Attitudes towards e-Research (II)
Attitudes towards e-Research - Quality and new tools
27.8%
36.8%41.1%
28.1%
8.2%
44.8% 43.2%
58.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
e-Research underminesthe quality of socialscience research
e-Research enhances mypersonal productivity
e-Research enhances myteam's productivity
Many new scientificquestions will require theuse of e-Research tools
% o
f res
pond
ents
Don't know No opinion Strongly Agree / Agree
Attitudes towards e-Research (III)
Attitudes towards e-Research - Usability
31.9%
21.3%
35.1%
17.4%
43.2%
59.9%
69.9%
20.8%
76.7%
19.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
e-Research tools arealready useful
e-Research toolsraise new ethical
issues
e-Social Science ismore hype than
reality
More training isneeded in e-
Research
Most e-Researchtools are easy to use
% o
f res
pond
ents
Don't know No opinion Strongly Agree / Agree
Indicators
Proximity (additive index): NCeSS Mailing List (Yes = 1); Access Grid (Use = +1, Organized = +2), e-Social Science (Followed eSS = +1, Involved = +2)
Uncertainty (additive index): Number of ‘Don’t Know’ responses to questions about e-Research, categorized high, medium, low
Support for e-Research (additive index): Number of positive responses to statements about e-Research (exluding ‘adequacy of funding’; and ‘new ethical issues’), categorized high, medium, low
Uncertainty by Proximity
Distant Marginal ProximateCertain 23.1 48.3 66.2 37.8Marginal 28.2 32.9 23.5 29.0Uncertain 48.7 18.8 10.3 33.2
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Uncertainty by Proximity (**)
Total
Total
Uncertainty
Proximity
Support by Proximity
Distant Marginal ProximateLow support 47.5 19.2 23.5 34.6Moderate Support 29.4 36.4 32.4 32.2High Support 23.1 44.4 44.1 33.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Support by Proximity (**)
Total
Support
Proximity
Total
Uncertainty by Perspective
Opponents Spectators Promoters DisengagedCertain 40.5 19.7 68.1 8.7 37.9Marginal 27.0 33.7 23.5 30.4 29.1Uncertain 32.4 46.6 8.4 60.9 33.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Uncertainty by Perspective (**)
Perspetive
Total
Total
Uncertainty
Support by Perspective
Opponents Spectators Promoters DisengagedLow support 62.2 43.8 6.5 71.7 34.4Moderate Support 27.0 38.9 28.0 23.9 32.5High Support 10.8 17.3 65.5 4.3 33.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Support by Perspective (**)
Perspetive
Total
Total
Support
Proximity by Perspective
Opponents Spectators Promoters DisengagedDistant 59.0 60.9 32.0 88.5 53.4Marginal 23.1 31.1 42.9 7.7 32.2Proximate 17.9 8.0 25.1 3.8 14.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Total
Proximity by Perspective (**)
Proximity
ESS PerspetiveTotal
Certainty Trough
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
e-Social Science as an Experience Technology:
Distance From, and Attitudes Toward, e-Research
William Dutton and Eric MeyerOxford e-Social Science Node
of UK National Centre for eSocial Science
Presentation for the 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester, 19 June 2008.
Methodological Approaches
Which methodological approaches do you use in your research? (%)
60 60 59 58
35
2622 20 19 17 15 12
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Qualitativeinterview ing
Desk(screen)research
Case Study Surveyresearch
ParticipantObservation
Ethnography Historicalmethods
Simulation,computermodelling
Experiments Formal,mathematical
Webmetrics Other Clinicalmethods
% o
f res
pond
ents
Use of Analysis Software
Use of Analysis Software
4439
2218 16 16 14 14
106
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Quantitativestatistical
Databasesoftware
Qualitative Software tointegrate two
or morequantitativedata sets
Quantitativecontentanalysissoftware
Visualizationsoftware
Modellingand
simulationsoftware
Geographicsoftware
Webmetricssoftware
Software foranalysis of
video content
% o
f res
pond
ents
% Current Use
Use of Data Sets
Use of Data Sets
56
45
2217
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Data set(s) that you havepersonally developed or
created
Data set(s) that you havedeveloped or created as part
of a team
Data set(s) acquired from adata archive
Data set(s) acquired directlyfrom a colleague
% o
f res
pond
ents
% Often or regularly
Coding and Designing Applications
Coding and Designing Applications
45
3128
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Code or Design applicationsyourself
Ask for IT staff support fromwithin your unit or department
Obtain IT staff support fromyour institution or organization
Contract the work out, suchas to a private consultant
% o
f res
pond
ents
% Often or Always
Use of Software (I)
N %Any quantitative 205 39.0%SPSS 168 82.0%Inhouse software 35 17.1%Stata 34 16.6%SAS 32 15.6%R 32 15.6%
Use of Quantitative software
N %Any content analysis 59 11.2%Inhouse software 22 37.3%Wordstat 8 13.6%Concordance 6 10.2%TextAnalyst 6 10.2%
Use of Content Analysis Software
N %Any qualitative software 96 18.3%Atlas.ti 42 43.8%Nvivo 40 41.7%Nudist 15 15.6%Inhouse software 15 15.6%
Use of Qualitative Software
N %Any video analysis 22 4.2%Transana 11 50.0%The Observer 4 18.2%Inhouse software 4 18.2%Ethovision 3 13.6%Memetic 3 13.6%
Use of Video Analysis Software
N %Any visualizing 69 13.1%General purpose (Excel, Sigmaplo 35 50.7%UCINet 18 26.1%Pajek 16 23.2%Inhouse software 16 23.2%Gnuplot 12 17.4%
Use of Visualizing Software
N %Any webmetrics 44 8.4%Commercial (Google, Yahoo, Live 26 59.1%Webtrends 17 38.6%Inhouse software 14 31.8%Commercial traffic (Alexa) 10 22.7%Microsoft Site Analyst 6 13.6%Issue crawler 5 11.4%VOSON 5 11.4%
Use of Webmetrics
Use of Software (II)
N %Any simulation / modeling 59 11.2%Inhouse software 29 49.2%NetLogo 14 23.7%Repast 10 16.9%
Use of Simulation / Modelling Software
N %Any geographic 62 11.8%Google Maps 40 64.5%Google Earth 34 54.8%ESRI 31 50.0%MapInfo 13 21.0%Common GIS 12 19.4%Microsoft Virtual Earth 10 16.1%Inhouse software 9 14.5%Google Map Creator 8 12.9%
Use of Geographic Software
N %Any database 179 34.0%Excel 119 66.5%Access 87 48.6%MySQL 65 36.3%Inhouse software 27 15.1%SQL Server 23 12.8%Oracle 18 10.1%
Use of Database Software
N %Any integrating 68 12.9%Inhouse software 38 55.9%
Use of Integrating Software