PresentationPDF Available

Anwenden von Knowledge Co-Creation Methoden zum Aufbau von Communities am Beispiel von ProvideDH

  • June 2019
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.21553.84323
  • Conference: Österreichische Citizen Science Konferenz (ÖCSK2019)
Authors:
Enric Senabre
Enric Senabre
Enric Senabre
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Amelie Dorn at University of Vienna I Austrian Academy of Sciences
Amelie Dorn
  • University of Vienna I Austrian Academy of Sciences
Eveline Wandl-Vogt at Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW)
Eveline Wandl-Vogt
Download file PDF
Read file
Download citation

Abstract

introduction into co-creation practices and methods applied in the project PROVIDEDH against the background of open innovation (research infrastructure) at exploration space
Content uploaded by Eveline Wandl-Vogt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eveline Wandl-Vogt on Jun 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Anwenden von Knowledge Co-Creation
Methoden zum Aufbau von Communities am
Beispiel von ProvideDH
Enric Senabre1, Amelie Dorn2
1Dimmons Research Group, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
2 Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities (ACDH-OeAW)
ÖCSK2019 @ Obergurgl (AT)
27.06.2019
Anwenden von Knowledge Co-Creation
Methoden zum Aufbau von Communities am
Beispiel von ProvideDH
Eveline Wandl-Vogt2
Enric Senabre1, Amelie Dorn2
1Dimmons Research Group, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
2 Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities (ACDH-OeAW)
ÖCSK2019 @ Obergurgl (AT)
27.06.2019
Präsentiert von:
3
Einleitung
Unterschiedliche Modalitäten für Co-Creation-Prozesse in der Digital
Humanities (DH)-Forschung.
●Citizen Science in den Humanities ist im Vergleich zu anderen
Wissensgebieten noch unterentwickelt (Ferran-Ferrer, 2015; Dobreva,
2016).
●In den letzten Jahren war DH jedoch ein solides Experimentierfeld mit
Crowdsourcing, zum Beispiel in Sammlungen (Carletti et al., 2013):
a) Öffentliche Interaktion mit einer vorhandenen Sammlung im
Hinblick auf Kuratierung (z. B. Social Tagging, Bildauswahl,
Kuratierung von Ausstellung, Klassifizierung); Überarbeitung (z.B.
Transkription, Korrektur); und Lokation (z. B. Kartierung von
Kunstwerken, Zuordnung von Karten, Geschichtenerzählen von
Orten).
a) Öffentliche Entwicklung einer neuen Ressource, die zum Teilen
physischer oder digitaler Objekte wie z.B. das Dokumentieren
des Privatlebens (z. B. Audio / Video von vertrauten Gesprächen)
eingeladen wird; historische Ereignisse dokumentieren (z. B.
Familienerinnerungen); und bekannte Orte anzureichern (z. B.
ortsbezogenes Geschichtenerzählen).
4
Beispiel für DH & Crowdsourcing:
Topothek Platform & Netzwerk
Open Innovation:
Verbinden von problem solvers und problem seekers
Open Innovation:
Unterstützung verschiedener Teams bei der Erstellung
hochwertiger Forschungskonzepte mit gesellschaftlichem
Einfluss
Open Innovation:
Erleichterung von Erfahrungsinnovation und Wissenstransfer /
CERN-Technologien zum gesellschaftlichen Nutzen
Bildnachweis: Sanna Niinikoski
Open Innovation
Research Infrastructure
@ exploration space
Open Innovation
Research Infrastructure
@ exploration space
Open Innovation
Research Infrastructure
@ exploration space
11
●Tradition des partizipativen Designs (mit Ursprung in der
Aktionsforschung für die Softwareentwicklung):
○Die Teilnehmer sind die "Domain-Experten" ihrer eigenen Bedürfnisse und
Erfahrungen (Visser et al., 2005)
○Bedeutung fachkundiger Moderations- und Visualisierungstechniken
(Sanders & Stappers, 2008)
○Vom benutzerzentrierten zum gemeinschaftsbasierten partizipativen Design
(Dantec & DiSalvo, 2013)
●Notwendigkeit einer effektiven und innovativen
Zusammenarbeit in der Wissenschaft:
○Bedarf an erfolgreichen Ansätzen für Forschungszusammenarbeit und
Projektmanagement (Derrick & Nickson, 2014)
○Anpassung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse an Komplexität durch
kollaborative und interdisziplinäre Teamarbeit (Wuchty et al., 2007)
○Die fachübergreifende Zusammenarbeit erfordert eine schrittweise
Anpassung der gemeinsamen Sprache und verschiedener Tools (Jeffrey,
2003).
Bedeutung von Co-Design-
integrierenden DH-Perspektiven:
(von den Schnittstellen zur Wissenschaft)
12
Bedeutung von Co-Design-
integrierenden DH-Perspektiven:
von Schnittstellen zur Wissenschaft
Quelle: Senabre Hidalgo (2017)
13
Co-Design-integrierende
DH-Perspektiven
Quelle: Senabre (2017)
Abbildung gemeinsamer Interessen und
Bedenken zu möglichen Forschungsthemen oder
früheren Arbeiten
Bildnachweis: Enric Senabre
STEM4youth-Projekt: Citizen Science Experimente,
die in Zusammenarbeit mit Schüler.innen von weiterführenden Schulen
entwickelt worden sind
14
Co-Design-integrierende
DH-Perspektiven
Quelle: Senabre (2017)
Forschungsfragen wie „User Stories“ behandeln:
spielerisch, generativ und modular
Bildnachweis: Enric Senabre
Citizen Science Training School in Barcelona: Verbesserung der städtischen
Umweltgesundheit durch Abstimmung von Bürgerbeteiligung und
Politikgestaltung
15
Quelle: Senabre (2017)
Prototyping der Forschungszusammenarbeit als
Workflow via Bildmaterial und ikonische Sprache
Bildnachweis: Enric Senabre
Co-Design Session mit der Ceibal Foundation (Montevideo) für neue
Projekte der Bildungsforschung, Technologie und des rechnerischen
Denkens
Co-Design-integrierende
DH-Perspektiven
16
Eine Fallstudie aus den Digital Humanities im Rahmen eines Open
Innovation Frameworks im Projekt ProvideDH:
PROgressive VIsual DEcision-Making in the Digital Humanities
Case study: ProvideDH
17
Das Projekt ProvideDH
●Verstehen von Unsicherheitsquellen, die die DH-Praxis beeinflussen
können
●Entwicklung einer Reihe von Metriken, die den Grad der Unsicherheit
vermitteln, den Forschungsobjekte, Datensätze und Sammlungen
einführen, sowie die verschiedenen auf sie angewendeten Rechenmodelle
●Vorschlagen eines Frameworks, der die Unsicherheitsmetriken verwendet,
sodass jede gegebene Darstellung der Daten anhand ihres
Unsicherheitsgrades bewertet werden kann
●Vorschlagen einer Progressiven Visual Analytics-Lösung, die sicherstellt,
dass Benutzer das Verhalten und den Grad der Unsicherheit des zugrunde
liegenden Datasets in seiner Entwicklung verfolgen können
●Entwicklung einer webbasierten multimodalen Kollaborationsplattform
für die fortschreitende visuelle Analyse verschiedener DH-Sammlungen,
sowohl für Wissenschaftler als auch für Citizen Humanists
●die Bildung einer „Community of Practice“ auslösen, auf der
Geisteswissenschaftler.innen aufbauen können, um ihre Bemühungen um
praktische und qualitativ hochwertige Metriken zu verstärken
18
Co-Design-Methoden
angewendet auf DH-Forschung
(Biografik; Prosopographie)
Anwenderberichte für Tools, die sich mit
Uncertainty in der Forschung befassen: "Was wäre,
wenn / ich könnte / mit / um ..."
Bildnachweis: Enric Senabre
19
Co-Design-Methoden
angewendet auf DH-Forschung
(Biografik; Prosopographie)
„Personas“ als zentrales Element zur Vorstellung
und Verfeinerung von Möglichkeiten, die auf
effektive Forschung ausgerichtet sind
Bildnachweis: Enric Senabre
@caissarl
@esenabre
@adooorn
@PROVIDEDH
#explorations4u
Danke für Ihre
Aufmerksamkeit!
enric.senabre | amelie.dorn | eveline.wandl-vogt@oeaw.ac.at
20
21
References
●Carletti, L., Giannachi, G., Price, D., McAuley, D., & Benford, S. (2013). Digital humanities and
crowdsourcing: An exploration. Museums and the Web.
●Dantec, C. A. L., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory
design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 241-264.
●Derrick, G., and Alicen Nickson, M. A. (2014). Invisible intermediaries: A systematic review into the role
of research management in university and institutional research processes. Journal of Research
Administration,45(2), 11.
●Dobreva, M. (2016). Collective knowledge and creativity: The future of citizen science in the
humanities. In Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems (pp. 565-573). Springer
International Publishing.
●Eppler, M. J., Platts, K., and Kazancioglu, E. (2006). Visual strategizing. Università della Svizzera
italiana.
●Ferran-Ferrer, N. (2015). Volunteer participation in citizen science projects. El Profesional de la
Información,24, 6, 827-837.
●Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research
collaboration. Social Studies of Science,33(4), 539-562.
●Sanders, E., and Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1),
5-18.
●Senabre Hidalgo, E. (2018, October). Dotmocracy and Planning Poker for Uncertainty Management
in Collaborative Research: Two Examples of Co-creation Techniques Derived from Digital Culture. In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing
Multiculturality (pp. 833-839). ACM.
●Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., Van der Lugt, R., and Sanders, E. B. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences
from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119-149.
●Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., and Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of
knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Volunteer participation in citizen science projects
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2015
The purpose of this research is to assess the current state of citizen science projects and reveal the role of volunteers in the research process. This is achieved by performing a literature review and content analysis of three international and one state-owned citizen science platforms (Wikipedia, SciStarter, CitSci and Precipita) that contain more than 800 research projects. Projects have been analyzed according to four categories: the academic disciplines, the way the project is designed, the phases of the research in which volunteers participate, and the tasks they perform. The results show that projects in the arts, humanities, and social sciences disciplines are almost non-existent. In addition, in the field of natural and physical sciences, projects are fostered with a top-down approach and volunteers participate primarily in the data collection phase in order to obtain a large volume of data, thereby receiving more financing from the European Union.
View
Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2008
Designers have been moving increasingly closer to the future users of what they design and the next new thing in the changing landscape of design research has become co-designing with your users. But co-designing is actually not new at all, having taken distinctly different paths in the US and in Europe. The evolution in design research from a user-centred approach to co-designing is changing the roles of the designer, the researcher and the person formerly known as the ‘user’. The implications of this shift for the education of designers and researchers are enormous. The evolution in design research from a user-centred approach to co-designing is changing the landscape of design practice as well, creating new domains of collective creativity. It is hoped that this evolution will support a transformation toward more sustainable ways of living in the future.
View
Smoothing the Waters Observations on the Process of Cross-Disciplinary Research Collaboration
Article
Full-text available
Although both research funders and knowledge users continue to call for more and higher-quality collaboration between researchers from different disciplines, there is little evidence available to inform the structure and management of cross-disciplinary research teams. A descriptive account of cross-disciplinary collaboration is presented based on a study of a cross-disciplinary team researching natural resource degradation issues. A number of tools are identified that characterize and support the collaboration process, including the use of story-lines and metaphor, choice of vocabulary, the nature of dialogue and the role of mediating agents. Four products of collaboration are also identified: 'process', 'understanding', 'utility' and 'knowledge integration'. Conclusions focus on the implications for research programme design and the content of research training curricula.
View
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
Article
Full-text available
We have used 19.9 million papers over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.
View
Dotmocracy and Planning Poker for Uncertainty Management in Collaborative Research: Two Examples of Co-creation Techniques Derived from Digital Culture
Conference Paper
  • Oct 2018
This study is an exploratory approach to two co-creation methods derived from digital culture, applied to collaborative research ideation and management. Specifically, it describes and analyses the use of dotmocracy (from participatory design) and planning poker (from Agile frameworks) for decision-taking and uncertainty management in the early definition of collaborative research processes. The analysis, based on participant observation and facilitation in nine collaborative research settings, identifies commonalities on how some issues of uncertainty in collaborative knowledge generation contexts can be addressed by both techniques. Results point to the possibility of using dotmocracy and planning poker for articulating decision-making processes among different available options, in order to find consensus in a visual way, and at the same time to make more explicit the degree of agreement and risk perceptions in relation to scientific activities.
View
Collective Knowledge and Creativity: The Future of Citizen Science in the Humanities
Chapter
  • Jan 2016
Citizen science is a contemporary reinvention of some research practices of the past when ‘unprofessional’ researchers contributed to scientific projects led by academics; a worth-noting peak of research undertaken in this paradigm had been observed in the 19th century. In the 21st century, citizen science mostly resides in digital environments and depends upon eInfrastructures which not only provide citizens with access to research data management, but also play the role of novel scientific communication tools aiming to engage and support citizens in their research contributions. This paper’s main purpose is to introduce the concept focusing on citizen science within the Humanities where its use is still limited compared to other research domains, as well as frequently confused with crowdsourcing. We also present some initial outcomes of the user studies undertaken within the EC-funded Civic Epistemologies project featuring a set of three international focus groups and a web questionnaire; these help to understand better the current attitudes and challenges in this area. Finally the paper delves into some possible reasons for the slower uptake of citizen science in both the humanities domain and digital cultural heritage and explores to what extent such projects contribute to ‘collective knowledge’ as well as to creativity.
View
Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design
Article
Of late, there has been a renewed and reinvigorated exchange of ideas across science and technology studies and participatory design, emerging from a shared interest in ‘publics’. In this article, we explore the role of participatory design in constituting publics, drawing together recent scholarship in both science and technology studies and participatory design. To frame our discussion, we present two case studies of community-based participatory design as empirical examples. From these examples and the literature, we discuss the ways in which the concepts of infrastructuring and attachments are central to the constitution of publics. Finally, through an analysis of our case studies, we consider the differences between the practices of enabling participation and infrastructuring, calling attention to the ways that constituting publics foregrounds an engagement with authority structures and unknown futures through the participatory design process.
View
Invisible intermediaries: A systematic review into the role of research management in university and institutional research processes
  • Jan 2014
  • 11
  • G Derrick
  • Alicen Nickson
• Derrick, G., and Alicen Nickson, M. A. (2014). Invisible intermediaries: A systematic review into the role of research management in university and institutional research processes. Journal of Research Administration, 45(2), 11.
Contextmapping: experiences from practice
  • Jan 2005
  • CoDesign
  • 119-149
  • F S Visser
  • P J Stappers
  • R Van Der Lugt
  • E B Sanders
• Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., Van der Lugt, R., and Sanders, E. B. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119-149.
Digital humanities and crowdsourcing: An exploration. Museums and the Web
  • Jan 2013
  • L Carletti
  • G Giannachi
  • D Price
  • D Mcauley
  • S Benford
• Carletti, L., Giannachi, G., Price, D., McAuley, D., & Benford, S. (2013). Digital humanities and crowdsourcing: An exploration. Museums and the Web.