Cilip What Future For Digital Information 17 Nov 09
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•339 views
1) The document discusses the research process and how it varies across disciplines like animal genetics, epidemiology, and neuroscience. 2) It also examines researchers' behaviors around information seeking, collecting and sharing data, and publishing outcomes. 3) Key findings are that researchers vary significantly by discipline, role, and institution in their information needs and practices, and that discovery and access to information still present challenges despite new technologies.
![The Role of Information in Research: a crude model ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Cilip What Future For Digital Information 17 Nov 09
Similar to Cilip What Future For Digital Information 17 Nov 09 (20)
More from Research Information Network
More from Research Information Network (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Cilip What Future For Digital Information 17 Nov 09
- 1. The Researchers’ View: Disciplinary Differences and Changing Expectations Michael Jubb Research Information Network What Future for Digital Information 17 November 2009
- 4. The Research Process: Animal Genetics
- 5. The Research Process: Transgenesis and Embryology
- 6. The Research Process: Epidemiology
- 7. The Research Process: Neuroscience
- 10. Researchers as consumers: what do they want to find and use?
- 12. Researchers in different disciplines behave differently
- 13. But per capita usage varies
- 14. Profile of journals varies too
- 15. Researchers in different disciplines behave differently
- 22. Importance of book chapters
- 23. Importance of conference presentations
- 24. What’s published and what’s submitted to the RAE
- 26. Web 2.0?
- 27. Futures?
Editor's Notes
- This an elaboration of the AHRC’s definition of the research process, based around the defining of research questions, the specification of a research context (why are these qns important and how do they relate to what we already know or understand), the specifying of research methods, and the generation of research outputs So access to and dissemination of information are the lifeblood of the research process; and fundamental to the reasons why research is funded as a public good. And researchers are both producers and users of information; but they are on the whole little interested in exploiting IP in their own work; and worried about the consequences of others (from outside the research community) seeking to exploit their IP Aside 1 : there are tensions in public policy between the support of research as a public good, and many of the measures used by Govt of the success of the UK research base, which tend to focus on things such as patenting, licensing, spin-out companies etc. But some signs of increasing interest in knowledge transfer as distinct from exploitation Aside 2: there are issues about the definition (lack of) of research in copyright law, and the distinction in particular between commercial and non-commercial research. Not wholly in agreement with BA report here, since it seems to me that there is no real distinction in the doing of the research itself; rather, it is how the results of the research are exploited once the research has been done (focus on the post-hoc activity rather than the intention of the researcher in starting off the research)