Search

published

published

published

Kein Abstract vorhanden., +Sprache: eng.

Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die intersektionale Praxis kultursensibler Pflege, indem Diskurs und Praxis aufeinander bezogen werden. Methodologisch folgt der Aufsatz den im Altenheim beobachteten Akteuren, die Diskursfragmente durch konkrete Pflegepraktiken situiert übersetzen. Die im Detail analysierten Handlungskoordinationen zwischen Pflegenden und dementen MigrantInnen machen sichtbar, dass die Praxis kultursensibler Pflege durch implizite, körperlich-performative, kontextsensitive und z.T. kulturindifferente Praktiken intersubjektiver Verständigung geprägt ist. published

[Einleitung] Der vorliegende Band dokumentiert die Beiträge und Ergebnisse eines vom Rat für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsdaten (RatSWD) und dem Datenservicezentrum Qualiservice am 27. und 28. April 2018 an der Universität Bremen veranstalteten Workshops zum Thema "Archivierung und Zugang zu qualitativen Daten". Ziel des Workshops mit mehr als 50 Forschenden verschiedener sozial- und geisteswissenschaftlicher Disziplinen sowie Vertreterinnen und Vertretern von Forschungsdatenzentren war es, bisherige Erfahrungen zu evaluieren und Anforderungen für eine verbesserte Archivierungsinfrastruktur in der qualitativen Forschung zu benennen. Es ist bislang nicht selbstverständlich, dass Daten aus der qualitativen Sozialforschung außerhalb der Entstehungskontexte archiviert und in kuratierter Form für externe Sekundärnutzungen in Lehre und Forschung bereitgestellt werden. Während Archivierung und Sekundäranalysen quantitativer Daten in den Sozialwissenschaften seit vielen Jahrzehnten fest etabliert sind, ist die Diskussion um die Archivierung und Bereitstellung qualitativer Daten deutlich jünger. In Großbritannien gibt es mit Qualidata als Teil des UK Data Archives in Essex seit 1994 ein zentrales Archiv für Forschungsdaten, das ganz dezidiert auch qualitatives Material kuratiert, archiviert und für Sekundärnutzungen in Forschung und Lehre bereitstellt (Corti, in diesem Band). In Deutschland sind entsprechende institutionalisierte Archivierungsformen für qualitative Daten jedoch noch im Aufbau. Die Aktivitäten des Bremer Archivs für Lebenslaufforschung (ALLF, später Qualiservice; Kretzer und Diepenbroek, in diesem Band) und des RatSWD haben hierbei wichtige Impulse gesetzt. So untersuchte das Archiv für Lebenslaufforschung zusammen mit der GESIS bereits Anfang der 2000er Jahre die Bedarfe für ein Servicezentrum für qualitative Interviewdaten (Opitz und Mauer 2005, Medjedović und Witzel 2010, Medjedović 2014), schob gemeinsam mit Qualidata erste Studien zu Sekundäranalysen von qualitativen Daten an (Corti/Witzel/Bishop 2005) und koordinierte die ersten Vernetzungsaktivitäten qualitativer Archive in Europa (Rasmussen 2010/2011). Daneben trugen insbesondere die Aktivitäten des RatSWD und Initiativen des Wissenschaftsrates (WR) und der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) für eine verbesserte Forschungsdateninfrastruktur dazu bei, dass die Diskussion um Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer sekundäranalytischen Verwendung qualitativer Forschungsdaten und die dafür erforderliche Archivinfrastruktur auf breiterer Basis geführt wurde (Kluge und Opitz 1999; Mruck et al. 2000; Corti/Witzel/Bishop 2005; Knoblauch und Solga 2011; Hirschauer 2014; RatSWD 2015). [...]

published

"This paper is a contribution to the methodological and technical discussion of social research infrastructure. The main question is how to store and manage data in a way that meets the increasing demand for secondary data analysis in both quantitative and qualitative social science research. The first two sections focus mainly on aspects of data documentation, in particular on the unification of various documentation requirements that have arisen across ongoing projects of the SFB 882. While the aim of documenting quantitative research processes is to ensure replicability, the aim of documenting qualitative projects is to maintain the understandability and informative value of research data. In the third section a virtual research environment (VRE) is presented that provides both a generic work platform and a project-specific research platform. The work platform bundles IT resources by bringing together various tools for administration, project management, and time- and location-independent collaboration in a single environment adapted to researchers' specific work processes. The research component combines data management with further developments in social science methodologies. It provides services for the archiving and reuse of data and enables the infrastructural and methodological coordination of data documentation. We also introduce a documentation scheme for qualitative and quantitative social research within the SFB 882. This scheme considers the specific requirements of research projects within the SFB, such as different methods (e.g. panel analysis, experimental approaches, ethnography, and interview research), project work, and requirements of longterm research." (author's abstract)

This chapter describes the case study carried out at the Centre of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) at Universität Bielefeld. The aim is to provide a representative example of a research institution in the wider field of information and communications technology (ICT), with a specific focus on cognitive interaction and robotics engineering. After a brief introduction to the general structure and mission of CITEC, we will discuss the general scope of the case study, as well as how the methods presented in the introduction to this book have been applied in detail.

As the internet continuously catalyses the development of novel methods to perform research, elementary questions about future forms of research communication are being posed. One of these questions is how openness of research can be optimally exploited through the internet, in order to tackle research problems previously impossible to analyse and also in order to increase time effectiveness and cost efficiency. Hence, research is transforming constantly by capabilities of new technologies: "Collaboration is growing for a variety of reasons. Developments in communication technologies and cheaper travel make it easier than ever before for researchers to work together, the scale of research questions, and the equipment required to study demands that researcher are mobile and responsive" (Royal Society, 2011). Openness in the internet shall ease the collaboration of researchers around the globe and the sharing of resources. This is often referred to as Open Access (OA). Originally, OA activities were referring predominantly to text-based publications. More recently, topics such as Open Data or Open Science were entering the discussion. In order to adopt a neutral stance in this study, it should be noted that OA is not presupposed as an imperative requirement for research. Specific aspects of research may require access restrictions, among them quality considerations, competition, privacy and security. The question posed in this study is rather, in which parts of research is OA beneficial for research itself and in which parts could OA even being regarded as a restriction for the function of research? What makes this study unique? While other studies point out issues like communication, archival publication or data sharing, curation and re-use, our study addresses the interplay between subject specificity, OA and infrastructure. The combination of case studies provided by highly specific and renowned institutes and authored by subject experts shall shed light on the diversity of research cultures. Five different research disciplines will be thoroughly described in order to show principles of existing research infrastructures and draw conclusions for a roadmap.

This study addresses subject-specific requirements for research infrastructure with a focus on the influences of Open Access (OA). OA is treated in a broad sense covering open access to literature, open data and open science. Considering the wide variety of aspects to be analysed and the early stages of developing a general account of OA infrastructure, the study took a case-based approach and deliberately did not attempt to provide a representative account of research. In the pragmatic approach taken, six partners (institutions and organisations) were chosen to provide their subjective view on OA infrastructure. These partners are considered as exemplars of research and infrastructure institutions in a given subject area.

The findings described in the following sections of this chapter are to a large extent based on an analysis of documents available to me at the institution where I work, i.e. in the Data Management department (DM) of the German Climate Computing Centre (DKRZ, Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum), or are part of websites of other institutions in the climate research community. Additional information about aspects of the research infrastructure in climate science comes from what I could glean from the literature and by receiving answers to a questionnaire from senior scientists working at six different institutes in teams conducting research or providing service(s) in this field. In the next sections, frequent reference is made to these information sources, and many of the diagrams and figures shown have been prepared by my colleagues and by the principal investigators of large research projects for a variety of purposes. The figures include depictions of workflows, organisational diagrams highlighting collaborative aspects and easy-to-grasp displays of pathways of information, data and scientific results within the research cycle.

This study addresses the question how to characterise subject-specific requirements for research infrastructure with a focus on the influences of Open Access (OA), in the general sense covering open access to literature, open data and open science. The chapters in this study present subject-specific views on OA infrastructure for research by analysing research workflows as well as researcher behaviours. They specifically take into account two aspects, namely (i) working with literature and (ii) working with data. Throughout the preceding chapters and throughout this chapter, the topic of OA infrastructure is centred on digital resources. Even though there are many transitions between physical and digital resources mentioned – for example, between the human researcher and the computer or a digital resource, and the physical, experimental as well computational facilities – these transitions will not be addressed explicitly in most of the cases for the sake of lingual simplicity. The following sections will discuss commonalities of and differences between the different presented views on OA infrastructure and formulate recommendations for supporting the development of infrastructure (e.g. through funding initiatives) under specific consideration of the question how principles of “openness” or OA can be applied. In line with the qualitative approach of this whole study, the synthesis will be provided as an interpretative account. When comparing the chapters, the most obvious observation can be summarised in one word: diversity. Attempting to provide a synthesis, the following sections will consequently analyse the commonalities and differences. This is done first on a high conceptual level and then on a detailed, systematic case-by-case basis. Thus, the resulting qualitative, rather than quantitative, account shall inform strategic decisions for future developments with respect to conceptual rather than procedural aspects. The specific measures, programmes or plans are assumed to be the result of these strategic decisions.

Quoting the e-Infrastructure home page of the FP7 ICT Research Unit of the European Commission: "The e-Infrastructures activity, as a part of the Research Infrastructures programme, focuses on ICT-based infrastructures and services that cut across a broad range of user disciplines. It aims at empowering researchers with an easy and controlled online access to facilities, resources and collaboration tools, bringing to them the power of ICT for computing, connectivity, storage and instrumentation. This allows for instant access to data and remote instruments, 'in silico' experimentation, as well as the setup of virtual research communities (i.e. research collaborations formed across geographical, disciplinary and organizational boundaries)." In other words, e-Infrastructures support research infrastructures from the "virtual" perspective, by enabling community "actors" (researchers or their applications) to exchange their "resources" (research data and literature) by means of a controlled, regulated, digital environment. Specifically, researchers in the field of e-Infrastructure investigate solutions and methodologies enabling and facilitating the realization of e-Infrastructure platforms capable of supporting the activities of domain-specific research communities (e.g. Agriculture, ICT, Social Sciences). In general, e-Infrastructures can be considered as a combination of (i) established policies, standards and best practices and (ii) a set of technologies and tools, which together support an environment where researchers of a given domain can accomplish their daily activities in a collaborative and synergic fashion (Atkins et al., 2003; Ioannidis et al., 2005). The main purpose of this chapter is to report how researchers investigating in the area of e-Infrastructures organize their activities of "data and publication management" and themselves rely on research infrastructures to do so. Due to the early age of this field and its rather multidisciplinary computer science character, no well-established research infrastructure is available and researchers tend to follow "infrastructure-flavoured" solutions local to their organizations. As a consequence, the authors of this chapter (from the D-Lib research group at CNR, Italy and the MADGIK research group at the University of Athens, Greece) opted to approach this study by collecting a number of experiences from relevant stakeholders in the field in order to identify "local infrastructure" commonalities and "research infrastructure" desiderata. We shall first elaborate on the strategy adopted to run this investigation, based on questionnaire-driven interviews to a number of representative organizations in the field. Subsequently, we shall present the specific case narratives, before finally drawing a summary of the current status and elaborate on possible future challenges.

The social sciences and the humanities taken together contain a heterogeneous range of research disciplines. Almost all existing methods of research can be found within these two domains. Data handling (collecting, processing, selecting, preserving) and publication methods differ greatly. Attitudes in the field towards Open Access of publications as well to research data vary as well. It is not possible to cover the total fullness, and complexity, of all the disciplines within these two domains. Our observations will therefore be based upon a number of case studies. Taken together these case studies give a fairly representative picture of the domains, at least of the most common research environments. The main dividing line is between those disciplines creating empirical data, such as survey data in the social sciences and those, especially in the humanities, using existing source material, such as history or text studies. This source material can either be of an analogous or a digital nature. As will be shown in the case studies in many disciplines a mix of created and existing is often combined.

This chapter provides an overview of research data management in the health sciences, primarily focused upon the sort of data curated by the European Bioinformatics Institute and similar organisations. In this field, data management is well-advanced, with a sophisticated infrastructure created and maintained by the community for the benefit of all. These advances have been brought about because the field has been data-intense for many years and has been driven by the challenges biology faces. Science in this area cannot be done on a small scale: it is effectively a collaborative effort where data must be shared for any advances to be made. This has long been acknowledged. The HUGO (Human Genome Project) set the standards, because the demands of that project were so great that only a concerted effort across the whole genome science community would enable the achievement of that goal. It established new norms of scientific behaviour in this discipline and has influenced cultural developments in the discipline ever since. The human genome is now long-decoded, but today’s scientific questions in health sciences are no less challenging. The infrastructure, practices, standards and norms established in the life sciences can be viewed as good practice markers for those who wish to learn from what has gone before. Not everything practised in the life sciences will read across to other fields and disciplines, but many basic principles of research data management practice have been established that will transfer readily elsewhere. Perhaps most importantly, the life sciences have now reached the stage where the issues of long term planning, organisation and sustainability are now being tackled. The answers to these things are only partially worked out as yet, but some fundamental principles are being elucidated and these will be useful in a more general sense.