This document discusses the creation and use of a wiki to build a research community at De Montfort University. [The wiki was created] to share tacit knowledge and expertise among research students and early career researchers. However, the wiki saw little interaction from users despite many views. Lessons learned include the need for strategic integration, clear goals and vision, consideration of users' needs and attitudes, and ensuring tools fit with existing resources. The conclusion is that librarians should not force new technologies where traditional methods may be better, and that web 2.0 use should be researcher-driven.

1. Researcher Wiki: experiences,
analysis and reflections on using the
read/write web to build researcher
communities.
Nathan Rush
Assistant Librarian: Business
De Montfort University, Leicester.
Email: nrush@dmu.ac.uk

2. Aims
• Background to the project
• Demonstrate / assess the wiki
• What went wrong/right
• Lessons for the future

3. Background ... How we support
researchers
• Research Training Programme for research students :
– Mandatory course on Literature Searching and Reference
Management – must be completed before transfer to PhD.
– New optional courses offered since 2008 on Advanced
EndNote and ‘Keeping up to date’.
• Facilities
– Designated research student areas in the library
• DORA; Sconul Access; Focus Groups; Collection
Development Policies

4. Background ... How we would like to
support researchers
• Improve the university’s research web pages
• Clear from the Research Training Programme that
there was a lot of tacit knowledge, know-how and
expertise beyond the formal training provision that
would be beneficial to share. But how?
• 2008: Roberts funding for a small-scale project to
develop a wiki aimed at research students and early
career researchers drawing from content from the
wider research community and integrating with the
JSS

5. Why a wiki?
A wiki was chosen as it seemed the best way
to facilitate peer to peer learning. It is:
Collaborative
Flexible
Easy to use
Online resources all ready in existence, e.g. Resin.

6. How?
• The project was
developed during the
summer of 2008.
• Time was bought to
give me time to create
the wiki.
• Launched at the
beginning of 2008-9
academic year.
http://dmuresearcherwiki.wik.is

7. Practical
• Have a look at the
questionnaire distributed to
researchers and work
through it.
• Would you have done
anything differently?

8. Problems creating the wiki
• Software glitches
• Too much content
• Time constraints
http://dmuresearcherwiki.wordpress.com/

9. Success?
• Plenty of views but little
interaction
• Needs promoting within a
research setting
• Emphasise the value of the wiki
• Must be recommended by
academic staff
• Has been useful to disseminate
information, e.g. on REF

10. Lessons learned
• Strategic integration
– Just because we can do
something doesn’t necessarily
mean we should.
– Do the users perceive the
value or are we creating
solutions to problems that do
not exist?
– Do your new tools fit in with
existing ones?

11. More lessons learned
• Is there a clear vision? Defined goals?
• Cost and time
• Size/heterogeneity of the research community
When I share
information I want to
prompt a debate ...
Business PhD student
I’d like to think I’m
generous but ...
Humanities PhD student

12. Even more lessons learned
• Researchers’ learning lives - the 7 ages model
Attitudes and needs vary at discrete ages
Early researchers are in a transitional stage
Middle researchers become from information
producers as well as consumers
• Asking a researcher to record experiences can make
them feel vulnerable.

13. What next?
• Evaluation
Established milestones
• Consider new web pages for
researchers using wiki content
but with collaborative elements
• Look out for the RIN project on
using web2.0 to support
researchers

14. Conclusions
• Sometimes as librarians we are guilty of trying to
force web 2.0 to solve problems where a more
traditional response is more appropriate.
• There is a place for web 2.0 within IL and the
research community but it is important that its use is
driven by the researchers themselves.
• There are inherent dangers in innovating for the sake
of innovation – without clear aims.