collaboration
cpikas | April 25, 2010 Mixed methods are always attractive, but many researchers give up because each method typically requires some epistemology which often conflicts with the epistemology of other methods. When mixed methods are done, they are often done in sequence. For example, qualitative work to understand enough about a phenomenon to develop a survey or interviewing survey respondents to get richer information about their responses. Network methods are neither quantitative* nor qualitative and it's not typical to combine them with qualitative methods - hence my interest in this piece. Of course I'm also…
cpikas | December 4, 2009In a recent post on openness and sharing in chemistry, I briefly touched on proximity to industry. This is actually somewhat nuanced and a few research studies have looked into it.
As I mentioned Birnholtz, in his dissertation [1] and subsequent JASIST article [2] describes proximity to industry as both/either being funded by a commercial or industrial organization and/or "the extent to which there is an interest by researchers or others in commercializing or otherwise profiting financially from research discoveries" (dissertation, p27). There's the myth that the research university gets all…
cpikas | August 2, 2009A quick note on the tension between sharing everything as quickly as possible and keeping things for yourself.
The thrill of collaboration when like minds come together to brainstorm and solve big problems and the egoboo of having something you created "liked" or reused should not exclude or overshadow the value of figuring things out for yourself and having something you can point to as your own.
Recent posts from Sabine and Cameron got me thinking about this a little more. There are also some excellent comments on Sabine's post.
I think it's important to go offline for a bit and to work…