The announcement was made at the DREaM project workshop on 30th January 2012

For further details, please see the media release.

Here is an overview of what will be available…

Resources

From Monday morning you will be able to access resource pages for each session directly from the workshop programme. At each of these you will find the speaker’s slides, handouts, and details about how to get involved with the discussions surrounding the session throughout the day. After the event, these pages will be updated with video recordings and session summaries to help you recap.

The video recordings from the sessions and photos from the event as a whole will also be made available in the LIS DREaM community.

Discussions

Once again, we will be providing a live commentary of the event on Twitter from the @lis_dream account, using the event hash tag #lis_dream3.

If you are tweeting about the event, please include the #lis_dream3 hash tag so that others following the event can engage with you.

If you are not a Twitter user, you will be able to follow both the commentary and associated discussions through our CoverItLive session. Here you can also add your own comments without the need for any form of login or account.

If you are following online, please let us know if you have any questions at all – either about the event or the content of a specific session. If you have a question for a speaker we can relay this for you and let you know the answer that was given either via Twitter or via CoverItLive. Simply post your question in CoverItLive or tweet to @lis_dream and we will respond to you directly.

Workshop Exercise

We are pleased to announce that the workshop exercise, run by Dr Thomas Haigh, will be available for online participants. If you are following the event online and would like to take part, the exercise will be available for you to contribute between 11:30 and 15:00. Details will be released on the day.

Archiving Event Tweets

As many of you will know, the very useful Twitter archiving tool Twapperkeeper is no longer available, so we have been investigating other ways to capture the Twitter discussions surrounding the event. We will be trying out the Twitter Archiving Google Spreadsheet (TAGS) tool created by Martin Hawksey. If you have any questions about the archived tweets will be used, please let us know.

Support

Our event amplifier, Kirsty Pitkin, will be on hand to support you as you follow the event online, so if you have any problems or questions please do let her know via one of the channels described above, or by commenting on this post.

Homework

There is small “homework” task that Professor Mike Thelwall has set in preparation for his session on webometrics. If you plan to follow this session online, please watch this short YouTube video from the Department of Library and Information Science, Delhi, sign in to YouTube and leave comments, and replies to earlier comments, on the video. This should not take you more than a few minutes. The contributions will form part of the discussion at the end of Mike’s session, and include reference to the self-declared age and gender information from YouTube. The network shows whatever age and gender you enter – so Mike says that you can lie if you want to!

We look forward to welcoming you to the workshop on Monday whether you attend in person or online.

Dr Thomas Haigh

In this interview, Haigh outlines his efforts to raise the profile of information history within the history of technology world and encourage a more interdisciplinary audience to engage with debate in the field. He also explains the value of historical thinking and how this can help LIS researchers think more deeply about the ways in which they conceptualize research problems.

Dr Haigh is an Associate Professor at the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
 

What research issues will you be discussing with the workshop participants in your presentation?

The session is about historical methods for research in library and information science. During the session we’ll begin by looking broadly at what history is and why people study it. Then we’ll look at the broad new concept of “information history” proposed in recent years as a way of bring together formerly separate specialties such as library history, history of information technology, and history of information science.

One important challenge is who undertakes historical research in information history and why – should it be confined to questions and audiences within the library and information science field (the “internalist” approach) or are the opportunities within information history to engage with topics and questions of interest to much broader communities of historical scholars. This leads to another challenge: how to integrate historical insights into LIS research projects conducted by non-historians.

How have these issues affected your own research?

My own career as a researcher focused on the history of information technology has made me very much aware of the issues of disciplinary identity and culture. I began in computer science, earning two degrees from the University of Manchester. For my Ph.D. I shifted to history, earning a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. For eight years I’ve worked in the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee. As a consultant or volunteer I’ve worked on historical issues with the Association for Computing Machinery, the IEEE Computer Society, the American Society for Information Science & Technology, and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Within the Society for the History of Technology I chair the Special Interest Group on Computers, Information and Society and have worked hard to bring an interdisciplinary audience to the group’s sessions and workshops as well as to raise the profile of information history within the history of technology world. So while my research is published mostly in journals and books aimed at specialist historical audiences I’ve been constantly challenged to explain historical perspectives to non-historians and promote the value of history to technical communities.

How do you think these issues might be relevant to LIS researchers?

Historical thinking helps us to look more critically and creatively at present day issues. One of the most important historical topics is the construction of identity. The information field has never had a stable identity, and incorporates concepts and assumptions derived from different disciplines. Yet it can also be rather insular. Its composition has evolved rapidly in response to a shifting technological and institutional landscape. History teaches us to look at where ideas come from, who promotes them, and how they reflect broader historical shifts. That will help researchers to think more deeply about the ways in which they conceptualize research problems and the unexamined historical assumptions buried in their work.

Much of the presentation will be spent discussing different historical approaches relevant to information researchers, such as intellectual history, social history, and institutional history. During a group exercise, participants will be asked identify a specific historical question relevant to their personal research and work in a small group to select a specific historical approach and set of possible sources to address this question.

Where can people find out more information?

All those interested in the history of information technology are encouraged to join SIGCIS (free of charge) and use its resources at www.sigcis.org. I surveyed the literature on the history of information technology and its questions recently in “History of Information Technology,” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45 (2011): 431-487. Like most of my other writing, this is available in preprint form from www.tomandmaria.com/tom.

The case for information history more broadly was made by Alistair Black in Information history, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 40, 2006, pp. 441-473.

Dr Thomas Haigh will be presenting a session titled: Techniques from history at the third DREaM workshop at the British Library on Monday 30th January. He will also present the workshop game in his session. For full details about the workshop, please see the workshop programme.

An introduction to Hulya's work from the opening session at the DREaM launch conference

The aim of Hulya’s research was to explore the need for interactivity in the content design of meetings and conferences. She was interested in the Generation Y perspective, and to compare this to the needs of the previous generations. She wanted to find out what kind of advanced interactive technologies may be needed in conferences and meetings in order to motivate and attract the Generation Y audience. She suspected that members of this group are less responsive to basic PowerPoint presentations. Thus she hoped to find out whether there was potential at conferences for advanced audiovisual technology such as virtual reality, 3D, hologram projections etc.

The DREaM launch conference was an ideal site for data collection because of the delegate demographic in terms of age, and because the delegates were from a profession that has a tradition of conference participation. Apart from these main factors, the length and the date of the conference were ideally suited to the timing of Hulya’s research, and the venue was within easy reach for her to attend in person.

Hulya was grateful for a very warm welcome from the organisers when she arrived at the British Library mid-afternoon on July 19th. The audience had been notified of her research in the conference opening session in the morning and the delegates shown her picture.

Participation in the research was optional. When Hulya arrived she placed her questionnaires and envelopes near the exit of the auditorium so anyone interested could pick up a copy at the end of the conference. During closing remarks the audience was reminded about the questionnaire.

After the conference Hulya also appreciated help with distributing her questionnaires to a wider audience. She followed advice from the DREaM launch conference organising committee members on how to achieve this. This help was invaluable in generating further interest in the study, and in securing a high response rate to the survey.

The research findings highlight that visuals should be used extensively in meetings and conferences in order to aid the learning process of Generation Y delegates, and to keep them focused. To do this, an appropriate combination of these should be used along with other forms of data presentation such as audio, motion pictures (videos), and texts. The main reason for the necessity of high visual content is that Generation Y has been exposed to images and visual learning since early childhood. This generation is used to playing video games and surfing the Internet.

Hulya also found that Generation Y prefers a high level of interactivity (both technological and personal) and prefers that the entertainment element at meetings and conferences is also emphasised. In addition, serious games as well as interactive learning tools such as touch screen tables with a high level of graphics can be utilised for this purpose. Specialised software tailored specifically according to a meeting’s needs will encourage collaboration: Generation Y generally prefers to collaborate and co-operate. If the right design is employed, this can help bring out Generation Y’s true potential as effective collaborators and motivate the achievement of objectives of the conferences and meetings as educational events. At the same time networking and motivation elements are satisfied.

On the basis of her results Hulya advises conference organisers to understand Generation Y well and tailor their conferences and meetings accordingly. The findings have shown that there is no need for extreme changes. However, left to time, a gap will grow between the generations if attention isn’t paid to this issue now. Hulya’s research, and that of others, has shown that Generation Y is a very productive cohort, provided that it is approached the right way and given the right conditions.

Professor Peter Beresford OBE

He outlines the research approaches he plans to touch upon and explains why he feels user involvement should be important to library and information science researchers.

Professor Peter Beresford OBE is Professor of Social Policy and Director of the Centre for Citizen Participation at Brunel University.
 
 

Please tell us about the research approaches that you will be discussing in your presentation.

I shall be discussing research approaches that are concerned with user involvement, user control and collaborative approaches to research. These include emancipatory disability research, survivor research and what is called “user-controlled” research.

How have you used these approaches in your own research?

As a service user and academic researcher I have been involved in the development as well as use of such research approaches, undertaking such research from within a user controlled organisation as well as in academic settings. This includes research projects concerned with mental health, disability, end of life care, welfare reform, social work, social care and social policy.

How do you think the issues that you raise may be of particular interest to library and information science researchers?

I think user involvement approaches raise complex issues around research methodology, values, principles and practice and I am guessing that the people you are asking about want to be in touch with these and have chances to explore them.

Where can people find out more information about the issues that you will be covering?

Check out NIHR Involve’s website.This reference will hopefully also be helpful: Sweeney, A. Beresford, P. Faulkner, A. Nettle, M. Rose, D. (editors), (2009), This Is Survivor Research, Ross-on-Wye, PCSS Books.

Professor Beresford will be presenting a session entitled User Involvement In Research: Making sense of a radical new development (action research) at the third DREaM workshop at the British Library on Monday 30th January. For full details about the workshop, please see the workshop programme.

Professor Mike Thelwall

Mike Thelwall is Professor of Information Science and leader of the Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group at the University of Wolverhampton, UK. He is also Docent at Åbo Akademi University Department of Information Studies, and a research associate at the Oxford Internet Institute.
 
 
 

What research issues will you be discussing with the workshop participants in your presentation?

I will discuss webometrics – quantitative methods for analysing web-based information from an information science perspective. The talk will discuss tools to gather and process data from the web and methods to analyse the data. It will also describe methodological limitations and a number of case studies, including discussions about YouTube videos.

How have these issues affected your own research?

This talk is a survey of some of the research tools and methods developed in my research group and it is core to our research approach.

How do you think these issues might be relevant to LIS researchers?

The techniques have wide potential to be useful in information science research for issues that are either online or have an online component. The methods are particularly useful for pilot and exploratory studies to quickly get an overview of an issue from online data.

Where can people will find more information?

Publications are available on my home page including the book “Introduction to Webometrics” (2009).

Professor Thelwall will be presenting a session introducing webometrics at the third DREaM workshop at the British Library on Monday 30th January. For full details about the workshop, please see the workshop programme.

Professor Nick Moore

Professor Moore is the Managing Partner in Acumen, a research and consultancy company which explores a wide range of issues concerned with the use of information in society.
 
 

What research issues will you be discussing with the workshop participants in your presentation ?

I spent 10 or 12 years exploring the policy issues that were raised by the transition to information- and knowledge-based societies. In so doing, I began to develop a theroetical and practical approach to information policy. In my talk, I plan to describe the main features of the journey that I took, drawing out the lessons that might be applicable to others undertaking policy-related research.

How have these issues affected your own research?

It really was a process of trial and error with, looking back, the emphasis on error. Were I to repeat the exercise now, I would not do many things very differently. Working in a nationally-important policy research institute was a great advantage, although it made me very conscious of the difference between my relatively unsophisticated approach to research, compared with the high level of skills possesed by the other senior researchers. I was also helped enormously by a group of young, enthusiastic researchers.

I guess I ended the process with a much greater awareness of my own limitations.

How do you think these issues might be relevant to LIS researchers?

I hope that others might be able to learn from, and profit by, the mistakes that I made. But everyone needs to find their own way and to make their own errors.

Where can people will find more information?

I have always tried to publish quite widely and people should be able to track down a variety of books, chapters, articles and conference papers, along with 50 or so research reports – all of which will be showing their age. I keep trying to give my archive away to some body, but none seems interested. If any of the DREaM participants feels like becoming the host…

When I was more active, I maintained a website at www.acumenuk.co.uk. It is still there but in great need of updating, but it will give people a flavour of the things we were trying to do.

Professor Moore will be presenting a session entitled Making the bullets for others to fire (research and policy) at the third DREaM workshop at the British Library on Monday 30th January. For full details about the workshop, please see the workshop programme.

We are very much looking forward to being at the Online Information 2011 conference next week in London. Amongst those associated with the LIS Research Coalition who will be at Olympia are Hazel Hall, Stephanie Kenna, Charles Oppenheim and Kirsty Pitkin. Hazel and Charles are chairing sessions in the main conference. Meanwhile Stephanie will be working as an official conference tweeter using the @LISResearch account. Kirsty Pitkin, who is known to all who have attended an LIS Research Coalition organised-event as our regular Event Amplifier, is delivering a paper on the theme of event amplification.

If you have been following the RiLIES project, or have even participated in it, you will be interested to know that RiLIES will be the theme of  Hazel’s presentation on Thursday morning. Hazel will take the opportunity to give the first official account of the project’s findings. We can confirm that the final RiLIES report will be out before Christmas, but in the meantime, here is a preview of her presentation.

Dr Paul Lynch reviews his notes as the delegates eagerly await the first session of #lis_dream2

Dr Louise Cooke and Professor Charles Oppenheim

Jo Alcock's unconference half hour flip chart sheet

The most popular rating for the workshop location’s convenience, comfort and facilities, and refreshments was also “excellent”, as it was for the event administration (both before and on the day). One delegate admired the “beautiful location, comfortable room [and] delicious refreshments” and another commented on the “wonderful facilities”. The organisers were congratulated for an event that was “well-produced”.

Delegates enjoy the refreshments at Edinburgh Napier Craighouse

Given the enthusiasm for the other elements on the form, we were not surprised to see that when asked to rate the workshop as a whole, the vast majority (19 out of the 23 returns) gave this the top rating of “excellent” too. Enthusiastic comments referred to both the usefulness and the enjoyment of the day. For example, evaluation form comments included:

• I thoroughly enjoyed the day and gained a lot of knowledge about the different research methods at our disposal.
• A valuable, interesting event. Fabulous for networking and sharing knowledge. Have developed in so many areas. Many thanks.
• A thoroughly enjoyable event – lots to reflect on during the train ride home.
• Opened my mind to a range of research options that I had not systematically reviewed before.

Jenny Harbour of Healtcare Improvement Scotland shares experiences with Jo Longhurst of Devon School Library Service

Our classification of the core DREaM “cadre” members shows that the group comprises a range of participants who occupy roles in a number of sectors: six public librarians/people with policy roles closely associated with public libraries; six academic librarians; five full-time PhD students; three LIS academics; three healthcare librarians; two university researchers; one librarian who works in a government library; one librarian who works for a national library; one librarian who works for a professional body; one consultant; and one academic from another discipline. Five of these people hold PhDs and another six are either already registered for a PhD or about to register for doctoral studies. Particularly appreciated at the first workshop was the opportunity to meet and work with this “very stimulating and diverse” mix of delegates. As one remarked: “I really enjoyed the event… and meeting a variety of people from different library and information sectors”. One delegate said afterwards by e-mail that the workshop “had a very creative dynamic, which I am sure will throw up exciting avenues of research that no-one had anticipated”. This could perhaps lead to the “great things” that one of the speakers believes that the DREaM project has already started to achieve since its launch conference in July 2011.

Essentials for tweeting: the programme, power supply and access to the network

#lis_dream2 delegates discuss ethics and legal issues

Bust of John Napier at Craighouse campus, Edinburgh Napier University

Finally, we would just like to thank everyone for their participation in the DREaM project to date. We recognise that the success of the past two events is built on the contributions of all involved.

From here you can link through to each of the session presentations on:

1. Ethnography
2. Social network analysis
3. Discourse analysis
4. Research ethics and legal issues

Each session page includes associated materials such as videos of the presentations, slides and summaries.

We have also uploaded the video of delegate presentations in the unconference half hour.

Thank you to everyone who has reviewed the workshop. All contributions are now available from the workshop 2 reviews page. (The CoverItLive archive of the event also gives a good flavour of the online conversations during the day, as well as participation of remote delegates, 18 of whom addressed the workshop delegates directly over Twitter.)

We will be adding our own review, along with an analysis of the workshop feedback, soon. Watch this space!