Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Information use in the life sciences
Information use in the life sciences
18 November 2009
By Tennie Videler
Last night I attended the launch of ‘Patterns of information use and exchange: case studies of researchers in the life sciences'. This is a report by the Research Information Network and the British Library on how information is used by researchers across life sciences. Key findings from the report include:
- Researchers use informal advice from colleagues, rather than institutional service teams, to help identify information sources and resources
- The use of social networking tools for scientific research purposes is far more limited than expected
- Data and information sharing activities are mainly driven by needs and benefits perceived as most important rather than ‘top-down’ policies and strategies
- There are marked differences in the patterns of information use and exchange between research groups active in different areas of the life sciences, reinforcing the need to avoid standardised policy approaches
My main interest was of course in the career and professional development aspects of this report. It is no surprise that it found that information needs mirror the different roles that occur in research groups. Some reluctance in sharing information was seen to be linked with the career awards tied to possession of information. Discussion in the evening was also about the fact that career development is still very tied up with publication in peer reviewed journals, with little reward for more current ways of information sharing. We also talked about the career difficulties of ‘specialist postdocs’ (sorry, this was the term that was used…) who take on a specialised role, especially in larger research groups.
RIN are just starting a similar study into information use in the humanities, see the RIN website for more information.
David Proctor18 November 2009 at 01:54 PM
permalinkreport this comment
These findings are interesting, and they're important when considering how best to organize research staff. In fact, they're encouraging insofar as they emphasize the importance of developing a collective voice for research staff and networks where we can interact. On the other hand, it's troubling that social networking tools are not widely used for scientific research; does this mean that social networks for research staff associations will fail to engage researchers? And does the failure of ‘top-down’ strategy mean that a national research staff association will be unable to nurture local associations? My own experience suggests that creating online resources is helpful but content is typically consumed passively, with little or no dialogue. However, if online resources can be used to bring researchers face-to-face in a setting that facilitates networking, it has succeeded. In addition, a national research staff association may fail to engage most researchers individually, but it will make an important contribution if it can provide advice and assistance to proactive researchers interested in developing a local association. I wonder what the outcome of the humanities study will reveal?
Nick Dickens19 November 2009 at 10:12 AM
permalinkreport this comment
I think that information use is highly dependent of the PI, the size of the group, the institution and also the field. I have an interest in data sharing, and find that data (results) sharing is very similar to this. Large (and well-funded) groups tend to share their data more freely with both colleagues and the public. Smaller groups are much more protective of their data. In the short-term it might serve them to use the data themselves but as far as my ideal of science goes, data should be shared freely and openly and it will benefit many more people. If we can promote this open attitude then I think this will also benefit people's information use habits as well. Please forgive my idealism.