Search results

Responding to the continuing separation of participants and researchers in LIS participatory research, a new methodology is proposed: action partnership research design (APRD). It is asserted that APRD can mitigate or remove the hierarchical structures often inherent in the research process, thus allowing for equal contribution from all.

Building on the bonded design (BD) methodology and informed by a scoping literature review conducted by the same authors, APRD is a human-centered research approach with the goal of empowering and valuing community partnerships. APRD originates from research investigating the use of participatory design methods to foster collaboration between two potentially disparate groups, firstly with adult researchers/designers and elementary school children, and secondly with university faculty and IT professionals.

To achieve this goal, in addition to BD techniques, APRD draws inspiration from elements of indigenous and decolonization research methodologies, particularly those with an emphasis on destabilizing power hierarchies and involving research participants as full partners.

APRD, which emerged from findings from previous participatory design studies, especially those of BD, is based on the premise of partnership, recognizing that each member of a design team, whether researcher or participant/user, has unique expertise to contribute. By considering participants/users as full research partners, APRD aims to flatten the hierarchies exhibited in some LIS participatory research methodologies, where participants are treated more like research subjects than partners.

The oversight of ethical conduct of research is often placed on the university institution in partnership research. How institutions ensure the ethical conduct of research varies and for research being done with Indigenous communities, communities themselves are now conducting their own research ethics reviews. However, this chapter aims to place some onus of responsibility on the researcher themselves, to develop their own moral compass when working with Indigenous communities. (Borrowing from Toombs (2012). Ethical research for indigenous people by indigenous researchers. Aboriginal & Islander Health Worker Journal, 36(1), 24–26.) notion of the moral compass, the authors will discuss their own experiences as Indigenous researchers and how a moral compass is critical even in light of the best research ethics policies.

The authors focus on the Canadian and Australian context and provide examples from their own experiences as Indigenous people, researchers, and research ethics administrators. The focus of this chapter is to highlight some of the unethical research that has been conducted on Indigenous peoples and the policy and community response to that research. The authors explore how to build better relationships through research with Indigenous peoples.

This chapter does not aim to provide a thorough review of literature on research ethics with Indigenous peoples; however, some of this literature is cited. The focus of this chapter is to share the experiences related to policy from the perspective of two Indigenous researchers.

We argue that by conducting systematic research with communities rather than on communities, community-based research (CBR) methods can both advance the study of human interaction and strengthen public understanding and appreciation of social sciences. CBR, among other methods, can also address social scientists’ ethical and social commitments. We recap the history of calls by leading sociologists for rigorous, empirical, community-engaged research. We introduce CBR methods as empirically grounded methods for conducting social research with social actors. We define terms and describe the range of methods that we include in the umbrella term, “community-based research.” After providing exemplars of community-based research, we review CBR’s advantages and challenges. We, next, summarize an intervention that we undertook as members of the Publication Committee of the URBAN Research Network’s Sociology section in which the committee developed and disseminated guidelines for peer review of community-based research. We also share initial responses from journal editors. In the conclusion, we revisit the potential of community-based research and note the consequences of neglecting community-based research traditions.

This paper aims that privacy research is divided in distinct communities and rarely considered as a singular field, harming its disciplinary identity. The authors collected 119.810 publications and over 3 million references to perform a bibliometric domain analysis as a quantitative approach to uncover the structures within the privacy research field.

The bibliometric domain analysis consists of a combined directed network and topic model of published privacy research. The network contains 83,159 publications and 462,633 internal references. A Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic model from the same dataset offers an additional lens on structure by classifying each publication on 36 topics with the network data. The combined outcomes of these methods are used to investigate the structural position and topical make-up of the privacy research communities.

The authors identified the research communities as well as categorised their structural positioning. Four communities form the core of privacy research: individual privacy and law, cloud computing, location data and privacy-preserving data publishing. The latter is a macro-community of data mining, anonymity metrics and differential privacy. Surrounding the core are applied communities. Further removed are communities with little influence, most notably the medical communities that make up 14.4% of the network. The topic model shows system design as a potentially latent community. Noteworthy is the absence of a centralised body of knowledge on organisational privacy management.

This is the first in-depth, quantitative mapping study of all privacy research.

This study aims to investigate the factors influencing the data sharing habits of psychologists with respect to academic reciprocity.

A research model was developed based on Ostrom’s (2003) theory of collective action to map psychologists’ underlying motivations for data sharing. The model was validated by data from a survey of 427 psychologists, primarily from the psychological sciences and related disciplines.

This study found that data sharing among psychologists is driven primarily by their perceptions of community benefits, academic reciprocity and the norms of data sharing. This study also found that academic reciprocity is significantly influenced by psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits, academic reputation and the norms of data sharing. Both academic reputation and academic reciprocity are affected by psychologists’ prior experiences with data reuse. Additionally, psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits and the norms of data sharing are significantly affected by the perception of their academic reputation.

This study suggests that Ostrom’s (2003) theory of collective action can provide a new theoretical lens in understanding psychologists’ data sharing behaviours.

This study suggests several practical implications for the design and promotion of data sharing in the research community of psychology.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the initial studies that applied the theory of collective action to the mechanisms of reputation, community benefits, norms and reciprocity in psychologists’ data sharing behaviour. This research demonstrates that perceived community benefits, academic reputation and the norms of data sharing can all encourage academic reciprocity, and psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits, academic reciprocity and data sharing norms all facilitate their data sharing intentions.

Enterprises build online product community to expect users to contribute: opinion sharing (content contribution) and product consumption (product contribution). Previous literature rarely focused on both. The purpose of this paper is to explain user contribution mechanism by identifying content contribution and product contribution.

This research chose Xiaomi-hosted online product community (bbs.xiaomi.cn) and Huawei-hosted online product community (club.huawei.com) where users can freely share ideas and buy products at the same time. Data were crawled from 109,665 community users to construct dependent variable measurement, and 611 questionnaires were used to verify research hypotheses.

The results indicate that both cognitive needs and personal integration needs have a significant positive impact on browse behavior; social integration needs and hedonic needs have a significant positive impact on content contribution behavior. Browse behavior not only directly affects but also indirectly influences product contribution through content contribution behavior.

Findings of this research provide community managers with useful insights into the relationship between content contribution and product contribution.

This study explains the formation mechanism of user product contribution and reveals the relationship between user content contribution and product contribution in online product community. This paper provides a different way of theorizing user contributions by incorporating uses and gratifications theory into the “Motivation-Behavior-Result” framework.

This article is intended to contribute towards furthering the understanding of researcher development as demonstrated by doctoral students' learning within scholarly communities. The article does this by reporting the findings of a study that explored the students' key learning experiences during their doctoral journey.

The 19 participants were natural science doctoral students from a top‐level research community in Finland. The data were collected through interviews that were qualitatively content analysed.

The participants emphasised the significance of participation, development as a scholar, developing specific research competences as well as learning to balance between doctoral research and other institutional tasks. They situated the key learning experiences in collaborative academic contexts such as research activities, taking courses, and academic meetings. The participants generally perceived their experiences as positive and enhancing.

Significant learning experiences identified by natural science doctoral students themselves are rarely studied. The results of the study reported in this article may be used by doctoral trainers, supervisors and students to create environments that foster students' learning and researcher development through their participation in scholarly communities.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential and durability of arts practice as research through developing a new approach to arts research that challenges the conventional association between dominant constructions of community and dominant modes of research.

A co-design approach, situated in arts practice, has been used to generate a conceptual framework that offers potential to open up the workings of communities by examining them from the standpoint of those who have everyday experience of these communities.

The paper argues that there can no longer be clearly demarcated boundaries between “academics” and “community partners” in a genuinely co-designed arts research process. Rather, there are “research partners” who share mutual recognition of skills and experiences that allow them to commit to a durable “new creative scholarship” that reflects their collective identities.

The conceptual framework celebrates the life stories of individuals at the expense of the grand metanarratives favoured by empirical sociology and mainstream humanities. The framework reflects the commitment of the authors to create accounts of communities that do justice to their collective wisdom, dynamism and connectivity, as well as their transience, their needs to transform and their responses to change, in ways that reflect the lives of those involved rather than the needs of externally imposed disciplinary regimes.

The conceptual framework is a new approach to qualitative research; its value lies in putting the participants at the heart of the research process where they not only generate narrative, but also situate, mediate and remediate it in ways that extend conventional participative research practices.

The purpose of this paper is to present a qualitative methodological model applied in the human security research in local communities as a part of a wider community‐based participatory research (CBPR).

This paper synthesizes methodological experience from four empirical researches where a qualitative model of studying the security indicators in the local communities of Serbia has been applied. The paper presents how to apply qualitative approach and indicates its potentials, and suggests how to implement the study, design the sample plan and analyse obtained data.

The research of complex phenomenon of social perception of security demands a complementary approach strategy. At the most general level, it means the application of quantitative and qualitative research methods in order to achieve an integral insight into the self‐reflection of citizens about their individual and collective security.

The methodological experience from four conducted investigations on which this paper is based, gives only an initial foundation for the creation of a successful model of security appraisal. Further elaboration of this model demands inclusion of the findings from other surveys.

The suggested model may be further developed as well as in the sense of methodological subtilization, and as a practical model for the appraisal of security condition in a local community. This would be the starting point for creating strategies and their operationalization into specific action plans, in order to improve those indicators, which are established as expressing some form of security threat in the local communities studied.

By complementary application of qualitative and quantitative research perspective (using CBPR approach), we can get profound insights into the causes and character of security threats inside communities. Through application of this approach we get deeper understanding of comparable and representative (in)security survey findings, as well as significant participant's opinions about a potential model of action for improving their security and safety.