{"title":"“常规基础设施”:社会科学家如何利用资源将定性数据存入ICPSR及其对公平和关怀的影响","authors":"Sarah Bratt","doi":"10.1002/pra2.769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study develops a grounded theory of how social scientists facilitate qualitative data deposit and the impacts on making data FAIR and CARE. Drawing from 15 semi‐structured interviews with U.S. academic social science faculty who deposited data to ICPSR, I take a resource‐centric perspective to address the need for theorizing scientists' use of resources to bridge the gap between underspecified, heterogeneous data practices and repository requirements. The two primary contributions of the study are: First, the identification of three types of resources that social science faculty use to structure data deposit routines, namely: 1) bottom‐up, 2) top‐down, and 3) borrowed resources. Second, I import a theory from crisis informatics, ‘routine infrastructuring,’ to explain how social scientists deposit data to ICPSR. Results reveal that the resources social scientists use function as ostensive routines. I argue routine infrastructuring is not only a way to enact routines but also creates routines. Findings also show ‘in‐house’ resources have a mix of beneficial and negative impacts for data FAIR‐ and CARE‐ness. This study advances the small but growing body of literature that examines routine dynamics in research groups from a resource‐centric perspective to explain qualitative data deposit to research data repositories.","PeriodicalId":37833,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Routine Infrastructuring’: How Social Scientists Appropriate Resources to Deposit Qualitative Data to <scp>ICPSR</scp> and Implications for <scp>FAIR</scp> and <scp>CARE</scp>\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Bratt\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pra2.769\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study develops a grounded theory of how social scientists facilitate qualitative data deposit and the impacts on making data FAIR and CARE. Drawing from 15 semi‐structured interviews with U.S. academic social science faculty who deposited data to ICPSR, I take a resource‐centric perspective to address the need for theorizing scientists' use of resources to bridge the gap between underspecified, heterogeneous data practices and repository requirements. The two primary contributions of the study are: First, the identification of three types of resources that social science faculty use to structure data deposit routines, namely: 1) bottom‐up, 2) top‐down, and 3) borrowed resources. Second, I import a theory from crisis informatics, ‘routine infrastructuring,’ to explain how social scientists deposit data to ICPSR. Results reveal that the resources social scientists use function as ostensive routines. I argue routine infrastructuring is not only a way to enact routines but also creates routines. Findings also show ‘in‐house’ resources have a mix of beneficial and negative impacts for data FAIR‐ and CARE‐ness. This study advances the small but growing body of literature that examines routine dynamics in research groups from a resource‐centric perspective to explain qualitative data deposit to research data repositories.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.769\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.769","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究发展了社会科学家如何促进定性数据存储及其对数据公平和关怀的影响的接地理论。通过对将数据存储到ICPSR的美国学术社会科学教师的15次半结构化访谈,我采取了以资源为中心的视角来解决科学家对资源使用的理论化需求,以弥合未明确的、异构的数据实践与存储库需求之间的差距。该研究的两个主要贡献是:首先,确定了社会科学教师用于构建数据存储程序的三种类型的资源,即:1)自下而上,2)自上而下和3)借来的资源。其次,我从危机信息学中引入了一个理论,“常规基础设施”,来解释社会科学家如何将数据存入ICPSR。结果表明,社会科学家使用的资源功能为显性例程。我认为,常规基础设施不仅是制定例程的一种方式,也是创建例程的一种方式。研究结果还表明,“内部”资源对数据FAIR - and CARE - ness既有有利影响,也有不利影响。本研究从资源中心的角度探讨了研究小组的常规动态,以解释定性数据存储到研究数据存储库。
‘Routine Infrastructuring’: How Social Scientists Appropriate Resources to Deposit Qualitative Data to ICPSR and Implications for FAIR and CARE
ABSTRACT This study develops a grounded theory of how social scientists facilitate qualitative data deposit and the impacts on making data FAIR and CARE. Drawing from 15 semi‐structured interviews with U.S. academic social science faculty who deposited data to ICPSR, I take a resource‐centric perspective to address the need for theorizing scientists' use of resources to bridge the gap between underspecified, heterogeneous data practices and repository requirements. The two primary contributions of the study are: First, the identification of three types of resources that social science faculty use to structure data deposit routines, namely: 1) bottom‐up, 2) top‐down, and 3) borrowed resources. Second, I import a theory from crisis informatics, ‘routine infrastructuring,’ to explain how social scientists deposit data to ICPSR. Results reveal that the resources social scientists use function as ostensive routines. I argue routine infrastructuring is not only a way to enact routines but also creates routines. Findings also show ‘in‐house’ resources have a mix of beneficial and negative impacts for data FAIR‐ and CARE‐ness. This study advances the small but growing body of literature that examines routine dynamics in research groups from a resource‐centric perspective to explain qualitative data deposit to research data repositories.