Published on

Presentation to the Digital.Humanities@Oxford Summer School 2012.


Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The information we gathered enabled us to look at which search terms were used to find the resource (most popular (649 searches) was ‘Histpop’ showing that this project chose a good, catchy name – next most popular ‘www.histpop.org’ at 68 searches, ‘Online Historical Population Reports’ just behind at 67 searches). The top referrer sites allowed us to see important information about where visitors were coming from, and by following the URLs of the top referrer sites, the context of the link. Access statistics allowed us to see when the site was most popular, and where visitors were coming from. All of this information allows you to learn more about your users and the usage of your site.
  • British Library C19th Newspapers recorded a large number of links for a project page with no link to the actual resource. We found a number of blog sites among the links, indicating a strong blogging community surrounding C19th topics.British Library Archival Sounds project performed well, but had noticeably fewer links that the Sound Archive pages. We found that the most heavily ‘linked-to’ part of the Sound Archive was the catalogue page, where no link to the Archival Sounds project was placed. In this case, webometric analysis of the existing resource would have indicated which areas of the site were heavily linked to, useful information when deciding where to locate links to a new resource.BOPCRIS C18th PPs recorded fewer links than the BOPCRIS homepage. This may indicate that this resource was placed within a well-known and well-linked to resource, with visitors to the main homepage likely to explore the range of resources available through BOPCRIS.Wellcome Medical Backfiles project page records strong links, perhaps due to its link to the main (free) resource at PubMed Central. I should point out that the URL for the Wellcome project had changed approximately four weeks before this set of data was collected. The number of links to the Wellcome page is the number that had been added in this short period. While we were able to glean some information about the use of this site from these links, we were unable to gather any data from the PubMed Central homepage, as this is a massive and extremely well known resource for the sciences.
  • tidsrdhoxss2012

    1. 1. Impact as a process: considering the reach of resources from the start Eric T. Meyer & Kathryn Eccles Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford @etmeyer Digital Humanities@Oxford Summer School #tidsr #dhoxss 5th July 2012Slides at: http://www.slideshare.net/etmeyer/tidsrdhoxss2012
    2. 2. What is impact and why consider it? What do we mean by impact? •Reaching intended audience •Reaching new audiences •Attracting users •Attracting new usage •Enabling new research questions •Enabling new approaches to education
    3. 3. Where to begin? • Identify your audience and key stakeholders • Set your goals. What types of impact do you envisage your resource having? • What steps are you taking to ensure these types of impact? • Identify connections • What resources do you see as successful in terms of audience and impact? • Do you see your resource as part of a network of connected resources?
    4. 4. Digitisation and Impact
    5. 5. Measuring usage and impactWhat to measure? • Users • Types of use • Awareness • Citation practices • Marketing strategies • Embedding
    6. 6. TIDSR: The first usage and impact study• JISC funded project• July 2008-April 2009• Looked at five specific JISC-funded resources• Designed to test the TIDSR methods and review them for the TIDSR toolkit
    7. 7. MethodsQuantitative methods Qualitative methods• Webometrics • Interviews• Web Analytics • Focus groups• Log file analysis • User feedback• Scientometrics / • Referrer analysis bibliometrics • Content Analysis• Content Analysis
    8. 8. 100% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 7% 7% 7% 7%90% 7% Use it regularly or 18% frequently80% 22% 27% 28%70%60% Use it on occasion 35%50% 88%40% 69% Have seen it, but dont30% 63% 63% use it20% 39%10% I havent heard of it 0% HistPop BOPCRIS BL News BL Sounds Med Backfiles
    9. 9. 100% 96% 90%90% 86% 84% 82% 79%80% 76% 71% 72% 69%70% 60% 61%60% Important to my research 51% 49%50% Important to my teaching 40%40% 35% 36% Important to field 34% 33% 29%30% Would recommend20%10% 0% HistPop BOPCRIS BL News BL Sounds Med Backfiles
    10. 10.  Top Search Phrases: Histpop
    11. 11.  Perception: Specific niche community  Well known by target audience  Transforming access and usage patterns User surveys:  Embedded in educational resources  Enhanced access to primary sources ▪ ‘Histpop made it possible to do a completely different project’  Continuing education, online resources, non- traditional learners
    12. 12. Have you ever published a piece If so, how did you cite the collection? based on your work in this collection? Original version Original + URL Online version Other 46% HistPop 9% 55% 36% 0% 29% BOPCRIS 36% 36% 21% 7% 35% BL News 53% 38% 6% 2% BL 20% 38% 50% 13% 0% Sounds Med 43% 43% 48% 10% 0% Backfiles60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    13. 13. • Highest numbers for original British Library resource(analogue)• 19th Century British Library Newspapers registersstrong links for a project page• Note: Importance of comparator sites when usingwebometrics
    14. 14.  Time intensive, but productive if you are careful about what you ask! Different stakeholders:  Project team: Positive view of the work only  Broader stakeholders: While the digital project was good, it also introduced tensions in the broader setting of the library New kinds of serendipity, wide range of users
    15. 15. Engagement officer
    16. 16. • Some resources are available through multiple outlets• Webometrics can capture comparative awareness• These results show how powerful known resourcesand/or publishers can be
    17. 17.  Wellcome Medical Journals Backfiles project page records strong links, links to Pub Med for WMJB material impossible to trace
    18. 18.  Historians? (would be looking at older articles)  Not typical PubMed users  Search interface issues / limited search Clinicians? (would be looking at newer articles)  Not typically reading 100 year old articles Other users?  Paths of discovery?
    19. 19.  Majority of downloads targeted more recent material – opening up of new resources to clinicians More thorough and comprehensive searches  Historians reported more comprehensive search results (quantitative results)  Also reported increased browsing, greater serendipity, due to time saved finding articles
    20. 20. House of Commons Parliamentary Papers 48% 83% British Library Newspapers 50% 77% British Periodicals 56% 71% Old Bailey Online 36% 62% Imperial War Museum 32% 58% Archival Sounds 24% 54% BOPCRIS 27% 51% Internet Lib of Early Journals 38% 47% Historical Directories 32% 45% Wellcome Medical Journal Backfiles 29% 34% Fine Rolls 18% 31% Chronicling America 30% 17% Histpop 9% Non-UK Awareness 16% Sciper 11% 12% UK Awareness Cornell Animal Sounds 13% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
    21. 21. 50%45%40% HistPop35% BOPCRIS30%25% BL News20% BL Sounds15% Med Backfiles10% 5% 0%
    22. 22. http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/tidsr/
    23. 23. Coming this autumn….Project page: Impact of Digitised Resources http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/impact.htmlSimon Tanner’s blog post about the project http://simon-tanner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/new-approach-to- measuring-impact-for.html
    24. 24. University of Oxford Podcasts
    25. 25. Proceedings of the Old Bailey Online
    26. 26. British History Online
    27. 27. Siobhan Davies RePlay
    28. 28. http://www.rin.ac.uk/humanities-case-studiesBulger, M., Meyer, E.T., de la Flor, G., Terras, M., Wyatt, S., Jirotka, M., Eccles, K., Madsen, C.
    29. 29. The Case Studies
    30. 30. Browsing and Searching 79% Google 66% Google ScholarLibraries 59% Visit the library 55% Browse library materials online 62% Search library materials online 83% Citation chainingJournals 48% Browse printed journals 76% Browse online journalsPeers 95% Consult peers and experts
    31. 31. Reconfiguring Resources
    32. 32. “ Old Bailey Online hasn’t replaced anything for me or displaced anything for me, but it is part of this general transformation of how I do what I do.
    33. 33. “ The amount of time I now spend doing the very mechanical, laborious, time- consuming work is much smaller. You can now do things in 5 seconds which it took you 3 months to do a few years ago.
    34. 34. Transformations in Use
    35. 35. “ It’s a huge change. You can do things much more quickly, read much more widely, find connections…it’s very, very important.
    36. 36. “ With something like the Burney Collection, 5 years ago for writing an article I would need to review the newspapers, I would have gone into the British Library and done it on microfilm. 20 years ago, I would have gone into the British Library and done it with the actual paper in front of me. Now I sit at home and I do a keyword search.
    37. 37. “ Asking new questions?
    38. 38. “I’m not sure all of this raises the quality ofanybody’s work. I think it would be quite daftto pretend that all of this makes us betterscholars, or makes our books or papers of higherquality. I don’t know if that is true by anymeans, but it certainly makes it easier and Isuppose makes the quantity of stuff that you canproduce greater.
    39. 39. “What might take you several months if not yearsof research, you could do in hours, days, a week.So I think that means that it makes the natureof your research different because it allowsyou quantitative information much morequickly, which then allows you to maybethink about how you might use thatinformation differently, because you’ve gotso much more time.
    40. 40. Slides at: http://www.slideshare.net/etmeyer/tidsrdhoxss2012 Eric T. Meyer Kathryn Eccles eric.meyer@oii.ox.ac.uk kathryn.eccles@oii.ox.ac.ukhttp://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=120 http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=138 Oxford e-Social Science Project Project work funded by: