A qualitative study of social sciences faculty research workflows
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2021-0168 |
| Published date | 21 February 2022 |
| Date | 21 February 2022 |
| Pages | 1321-1337 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Sharon Ince,Christopher Hoadley,Paul A. Kirschner |
A qualitative study of social
sciences faculty
research workflows
Sharon Ince
University Libraries, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey, USA
Christopher Hoadley
Department of Administration Leadership and Technology, New York University,
New York, New York, USA, and
Paul A. Kirschner
Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –This paper is a qualitative study of how social sciences faculty construct their research workflows
with the help of technological tools. The purpose of this study is to examine faculty scholarly workflowsand
how both tools and practices support the research process. This paper could inform academic libraries on how
to support scholars throughout the research process.
Design/methodology/approach –This is a qualitative study case study of ten faculty members from six
research universities from the United States and Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and
recorded. Atlas.ti was used to code and analyze the transcripts; each participant was a separate case.
Descriptive coding was used to identify digital tools used for collaboration; process and descriptive coding was
utilized to examine practices in scholarly workflows.
Findings –Through case study analysis the results of this study include the role of technology in faculty
research workflows. Each workflow was grouped into four categories: information literacy, information
management, knowledge management, and scholarly communication. The findings included scholars creating
simple workflows for efficiency and collaboration and utilizing workarounds.
Research limitations/implications –The study did not observe faculty in the process of doing research
and, thus, only reports on what the researchers say that they do.
Originality/value–The research is unique in that there is almost no research on how social scientists conduct
their research workflows and the affordances/impasses of this process.
Keywords Research workflows, Faculty, Social sciences, Information literacy, Search, Information
management, Knowledge management, Scholarly communications
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
As a faculty member, one is expected to be an active researcher contributing to the field
through the carrying out of research, writing scientific papers and giving presentations at
scientific conferences, mentoring and teaching students, and pursuing and eventually
acquiring funding. In this paper, we the authors come from a position of asking how this
complicated process with many facets incorporates information, and what tools faculty
members use to support them in their work specifically in the Social Sciences. In the social
sciences, research typically encompasses drawing on prior literature, using both quantitative
and qualitative data, and collaborating with others around conceptualizing, writing and
sharing research outcomes. The processes by which faculty accomplish these activities and
the role of libraries in these processes has been dramatically transformed in the past
two decades and continues to change due to the increasing use and possibilities of
information technologies (ITs). While much research has been done on the impact of IT on
business workflows (e.g. van der Aalst and van Hee, 2004), much less work has been done to
Social sciences
faculty
research
workflows
1321
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 27 August 2021
Revised 15 January 2022
25 January 2022
Accepted 26 January 2022
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 78 No. 6, 2022
pp. 1321-1337
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-08-2021-0168
study how IT can change scholarly workflows, despite the fact that as a knowledge-intensive
sector IT’s impact on scholarship is enormous. And while much of the library and information
science (LIS) faculty information-seeking behavior (Meho and Tibbo, 2003;Mayfield and
Thomas, 2005;Shen, 2007;King et al., 2009;Rupp-Serrano and Robbins, 2013), there is much
less literature on the faculty research process (Falciani-White, 2016). As faculty have a heavy
impact on students’use of the library seeking and research help (Leckie, 1996), understanding
faculty research is crucial to the mission of the academic library to support students and
faculty (Falciani-White, 2016). This paper describes a qualitative study examining social
sciences faculty research workflows. It attempts to answer the following questions: How are
social science faculty making use of digital sources of information? How are they utilizing
technology within their research workflow?
Scholarly workflows
Workflows describe the steps or processes by which someone accomplishes their work or “...
refer to the deliberate or rational organization of any purposeful activity, typically specifying
its steps in the form of a process directed at a particular result”(Weiland, 2018, p. 283). When
thinking about research workflows, scholars may have part of their research workflow
physically in their office (i.e. books, articles, and physical reading material with or without
organization (Weiland, 2018). As we move to a much more robust online environment, these
workflows also go online or become blended. The research process may incorporate new tools
and technology as well as traditional forms, and these changes in tools may influence
longstanding practices. Schonfeld (2015) notes that nowadays, scholars may be starting from
freely available resources, working from a smartphone or accessing the library remotely.
While a review of the literature defines research workflows with a focus on particular
disciplines (see Table 1), we have chosen to define it more generically as finding, storing and
analyzing information, and writing, sharing and publishing research outputs (Favaro et al.,
2014;Ince et al., 2018,2020). Studying research workflows are important for acquiring
information that is very important for designing systems based around user needs
(Antonijevi
c, 2015;Antonijevic and Cahoy, 2018;Ince et al., 2019;Orlandi, 2019;Koolen et al.,
2020;Smith et al., 2020). In a study of faculty technology use, Bauder and Emanuel (2012) note
Discipline Author(s) Workflow
Scholars across
fields
Cooper and Reiger
(2018)
Writing, presenting, sharing, engaging, seeking feedback;
formulating research goals, questions, hypothesis; collaborating
or networking; conducting a literature review; grant writing and
fund raising; selecting data gathering and experimental methods;
collecting data, evidence, or insights; interpreting findings and
testing hypotheses; analyzing data, evidence, or insights; and
assessing findings and conducting quality control
Humanities Antonijevi
c (2015) Collect, search, analyze, write, communicate, organize, annotate,
cite, reflect, archive and share
Science Schoenfeld (2017) Research design, funding, research collaboration, lab and safety,
experiment design, data collection, analysis, writing, sharing,
submission, review and selection, publication, showcasing, and
assessment
Science Bosman and Kramer
(2017)
Discovery, analysis, writing, publication, outreach and
assessment
Science Gil et al. (2007) Pen, paper, digital cameras, email, the Web, computer software to
share information about an experiment
Table 1.
Definitions of research
workflows
JD
78,6
1322
To continue reading
Request your trial