Advertisement

Open Science and the Research Information Literacy Framework

  • Jela SteinerováEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 676)

Abstract

The paper explores a possible framework for integration of concepts of open science and research information literacy. The factors of open science are identified, including relations with broader public and transparent information policies, practices, methods, data and publications. Models of digital scholarship are considered. The second part of the paper reports on results of a qualitative study of information behavior of 19 researchers in Slovakia. Semi-structured interviews and conceptual modeling were applied. Findings point to common methodological analytical procedures and differences in problem statements, data management and publishing strategies. Less awareness of open access, digital sources and publicity of research results was noted. Disciplinary differences are manifested mainly in publishing, procedures and evaluation of results. In conclusion, a resulting ecological framework of research information interactions and research information literacy based on understanding and sense making are proposed. Implications for researchers’ information spaces as part of knowledge infrastructure are considered.

Keywords

Open science Research information literacy Information behavior of researchers Ecological framework Research information interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The paper was developed as part of the research project VEGA 1/0066/15 Modeling of the information environment of digital scholarship.

References

  1. 1.
    Borgman, C.: Big Data, Little Data, No Data. Scholarship in the Networked World. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chowdhury, G.G.: Sustainability of Scholarly Information. Facet Publ., London (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuccala, A.: The layperson and open access. In: Cronin, B. (ed.) ARIST, vol. 43, pp. 359–396. Information Today, Medford (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OPEN Science and Research. The Open Science and Research Handbook. The Open Science and Research Initiative, 16 p., December 2014. http://openscience.fi
  5. 5.
    Science as an Open Enterprise: Science Policy Report 02/2012. The Royal Society, London (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Auckland, M.: Re-Skilling for Research. RLUK (Research Libraries UK) (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harnad, S.: Open access to research. Changing researcher behavior through university and funder mandates. JeDem 3(1), 33–41 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Talja, S.: The domain-analytic approach to scholars’ information practices. In: Theories of Information Behavior, pp. 123–127. ASIST-Information Today, Medford (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fry, J.: Considerations in adopting a disciplinary analysis of scholarly communication and information behaviours. In: ASIST European Workshop, pp. 63–78. Abo Univ., Abo (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silipigni, L., Dickey, T.J.: Towards a Profile of the Researcher of Today: What can We Learn from JISC Projects? JISC – Higher Education Founding Council for England (2009). http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
  11. 11.
    ALLEA Statement on Enhancement of Open Access to Scientific Publications in Europe. All European Academies (ALLEA), Berlin (2013). http://www.allea.org/Content/ALLEA/Statement_ALLEA_Open_Access_2013-11.pdf
  12. 12.
    ACRL Framework Information Literacy for Higher Education. ACRL 2015 Board of Directors, 1–19, 2 February 2015. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/Framework_ILHE.pdf
  13. 13.
    (Jos) van Helvoort, A.A.J.: The personal knowledge base conception of information literacy. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Špiranec, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R. (eds.) ECIL 2014. CCIS, vol. 492, pp. 31–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_4 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bawden, D.: Being fluent and keeping looking. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Špiranec, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R. (eds.) ECIL 2014. CCIS, vol. 492, pp. 13–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_2 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koltay, T., Špiranec, S., Karvalics, L.Z.: Research 2.0 and the Future of Information Literacy. Chandos, Amsterdam (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schneider, R.: Research data literacy. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R., Špiranec, S. (eds.) ECIL 2013. CCIS, vol. 397, pp. 134–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03919-0_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karvalics, L.Z.: From scientific literacy to lifelong research: a social innovation approach. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R., Špiranec, S. (eds.) ECIL 2013. CCIS, vol. 397, pp. 126–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03919-0_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vrana, R.: Promotion of scientific literacy and popularization of science with support of libraries and ınternet services. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R., Špiranec, S. (eds.) ECIL 2013. CCIS, vol. 397, pp. 324–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03919-0_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bawden, D., Robinson, L.: Introduction to Information Science. Facet, London (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Research Development Framework. Vitae, CRAC (Careers Research and Advisory Centre), Research Council UK (2010). http://www.researchconcordat.ac.uk/documents/concordat.pdf
  21. 21.
    Webber, S., Boon, S., Johnston, B.: A comparison of UK academics’ conceptions of information literacy in two disciplines: english and marketing. Libr. Inf. Res. 29(93), 4–15 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGuiness, C.: What faculty think-exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate education. J. Acad. Librarianship 32(6), 573–582 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thompson, G.B., Lathey, J.W.: An integrated model of information literacy, based upon domain learning. Inf. Res. 18(3), paper CoLIS02 (2013). http://InformationR.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC02.html
  24. 24.
    Erdelez, S., Means, T.: Measuring changes in information sharing among life science researchers. In: Knowledge Management: Nurturing Culture, Innovation and Technology, pp. 29–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steinerová, J.: Methodological literacy of doctoral students – an emerging model. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R., Špiranec, S. (eds.) ECIL 2013. CCIS, vol. 397, pp. 148–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03919-0_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Comenius University in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations