| Leading and Promoting the Information Field |
iConference 2015 Summary
2015 ContentsQuick Links Program Commitee 2015 Quick LinksLocation: Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa, Newport Beach, California, USA 2015 By the NumbersTotal participants: 531 Completed Research Papers: 51 Rates (listed in GBP):
2015 OrganizersConference Chair: Gary Olson, University of California, Irvine Technical Program Chairs: Diane Bailey, University of Texas at Austin; Tom Finholt, University of Michigan Papers Chairs: Madhu Reddy, Penn State University; Katie Siek, Indiana University Poster Chairs: Michelle Caswell, University of California, Los Angeles; Ricky Punzalan, University of Maryland Doctoral Colloquium Chairs: Wayne Lutters, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Volker Wulf, University of Siegen Early Career Colloquium Chairs: Ingrid Erickson, Rutgers University; Kristin Eschenfelder, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Ravi Vatrapu, Copenhagen Business School Workshops Chairs: Aleksandra Sarcevic, Drexel University; Jude Yew, National University of Singapore Sessions for Interaction and Engagement Chairs: John C. Carroll, Penn State University; Judy Olson, University of California, Irvine Doctoral Dissertation Award Chairs: Jaap Kamps, University of Amsterdam; Elizabeth Yakel, University of Michigan Social Media Expo Chairs: Shelly D. Farnham, Research Scientist, Third Place Technologies; Robert Mason, University of Washington; Andres Monroy-Hernandez, Researcher, FUSELabs, Microsoft Research Proceedings Chair: Bryan Semaan, Syracuse University Conference Coordinator: Clark Heideger, iCaucus Conference Management: Debra A. Brodbeck, University of California, Irvine Conference Social Media Director: Sarita Yardi Schoenebeck, University of Michigan Student Volunteer Chairs: Julia Haines, University of California, Irvine; Bart Knijnenburg, University of California, Irvine 2015 Program CommitteeMark Ackerman, University of Michigan 2015 AwardsThe following awards were presented at iConference 2015. Doctoral Dissertation AwardThis award recognizes the most outstanding dissertation of the preceding year. Each member iSchool was invited to submit one dissertation for blind review by a jury of Ph.D. program directors and faculty. The winner received $2,500 U.S., the runner up $1,000 U.S. Both honorees were recognized during the banquet on Wednesday, 55 March. 2015 Winner 2015 Runner Up Lee Dirks Award for Best PaperSponsored by Microsoft Research, this award is presented to the author(s) of the conference’s most outstanding completed research paper, as judged by the Papers and Program Chairs. The award includes a prize of $5,000 U.S. The award was announced during the opening plenary session on Wednesday, 25 March. This award honors the memory of Lee Dirks, long-time friend and supporter of the iConference. 2015 Winning Paper: Runners Up, in alphabetical order: Most Interesting Preliminary Results PaperThis award went to most intriguing paper in the preliminary results category as judged by the Papers and Program Chairs. The award was presented during the morning plenary session on Thursday, 26 March. 2015 Winner: Runners up, in alphabetical order: Best Poster AwardsTwo Best Poster awards were presented in 2014, in recognition of the most outstanding posters of the conference. The Best Poster Award was determined by the Poster Chairs; the Best Poster Presentation Award was determined by a vote of the participants. Sponsored by Emerald Publishing, both awards were presented at the conclusion of the second poster session on Thursday, 6 March. 2015 Best Poster: 2015 Winner Runners up, in alphabetical order: 2015 Social Media Expo: Winning Presentation Runners Up, in alphabetical order: Title: “The Police Officer Involved Homicides Database Project” Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfkTr8W8bsk Title: “TransparencyScience. Return on research investment, where do the funds go?” Scott E.Page
Wednesday morning, March 25  The topic of collective intelligence spans multiple disciplines:
information, finance, economics, political science, computer science,
ecology, sociology, psychology, and organizational studies to name just a
few. Looking across those disciplines, one finds two types of models
that purport to explain how collective intelligence emerge. The first is
based on statistical logic: errors cancel and the correct answer
emerges. The second is based on analytic logic: diverse mappings
aggregate to produce a correct mapping. The distinction between the two
models is not merely semantic. They imply different weighting schemes
and incentives.
Biography: Scott E. Page is the Leonid Hurwicz Collegiate Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics at the University of Michigan and an external faculty member of the Santa Fe Institute. Scott is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a former Guggenheim Fellow. His online course “Model Thinking” has attracted more than one half a million students. He is currently working on an interdisciplinary book on modeling. Carole Goble
Thursday morning, March 26  In principle, reproducibility underpins the scientific method. But in
practice the reuse and reproduction of scientific experiments is hard,
dependent on bundling and exchanging the experimental methods,
computational codes, data, algorithms, workflows and so on along with
the narrative. These Research Objects are not fixed, just as research is
not “finished”: codes fork, data is updated, algorithms are revised,
workflows break, service updates are released. Neither should they be
viewed just as second-class artifacts tethered to publications, but the
focus of research outcomes in their own right: articles clustered around
datasets, methods with citation profiles. Many funders and publishers
have come to acknowledge this, moving to data sharing policies and
provisioning e-infrastructure platforms. Many researchers recognise the
importance of working with Research Objects. The term has become
widespread. However. What is a Research Object if you have to actually
mint one, exchange one, build a platform to support one, curate one? How
do we introduce ROs in a lightweight way that platform developers can
migrate to? What is the practical impact of a RO Commons on training,
stewardship, scholarship, sharing? How do we address the scholarly and
technological debt of making and maintaining ROs? What do we really mean
by reproducibility anyhow? I’ll present our practical experiences of
introducing and delivering ROs in the Computational Biosciences for
several European research projects, working with publishers and funders. Biography: Carole Goble is a Professor in the School of Computer Science, at the University of Manchester in the UK. She leads a large team of researchers and developers working in e-Science, building e-infrastructure for researchers working at the lab, national, and pan-national level. She is heavily involved in European cyberinfrastructures for the Life Sciences and is currently active in linking these with the NIH BD2K Commons initiative. She applies technical advances in knowledge technologies, distributed computing, workflows and social computing to solve information management problems for Life Scientists, especially Systems Biology, and other scientific disciplines, including Biodiversity, Chemistry, Health informatics and Astronomy. Her current research interests are in reproducible research, asset curation and preservation, semantic interoperability, knowledge exchange between scientists and new models of scholarly communication. She has recently been advocating the releasing of research as Research Objects (www.researchobject.org) and is a long-established leading figure in the Semantic Web and Linked Data, chairing the International Semantic Web Conference in 2014 and co-founding the leading journal in the field. Goble serves on numerous committees, including advisory boards for Force11 and Software Carpentry, and is a State appointee to the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. At a local level she chairs her institution’s Academic advisory committees for the institutional repository and Research Data Management. In 2008 she was awarded the Microsoft Jim Gray award for outstanding contributions to e-Science and in 2010 was elected a Fellow of the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering. In 2014 she was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her Services to Science. Christine L. Borgman
Friday morning, March 27
Creating, Collaborating, and Celebrating the Diversity of Research Data
Christine L. Borgman, Professor and Presidential Chair in Information Studies at UCLA, is the author of more than 200 publications in information studies, computer science, and communication, including three books published by the MIT Press. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World, released in January 2015, follows Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet (2007) and From Gutenberg to the Global Information Infrastructure: Access to Information in a Networked World (2000), winners of the Best Information Science Book of the Year award from the Association for Information Science and Technology. She is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the Association for Computing Machinery; recipient of the Paul Evan Peters Award from the Coalition for Networked Information, Association for Research Libraries, and EDUCAUSE and the Research in Information Science Award from the American Association of Information Science and Technology; a Legacy Laureate of the University of Pittsburgh; a member of the Board of Directors of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; and U.S. Co-Chair of the CODATA-ICSTI Task Group on Data Citation and Attribution. Prof. Borgman leads the Knowledge Infrastructures Lab at UCLA with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation. Her visiting appointments include Visiting Scholar, Digital Archiving and Networked Services (Royal Academy, Netherlands), Oliver Smithies Fellow (Balliol College, University of Oxford), Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford eResearch Centre, Fulbright Professor (Budapest), and Loughborough University (U.K.).
Champions
Friends
| NEWS
FOLLOW US ON |
Research data can be viewed as scholarly products to be shared, mined, and curated – or as transient artifacts of the research process, incomprehensible without context, domain knowledge, and associated software and technologies. These two perspectives represent but one of many dimensions over which research data vary. Data are not things. Rather, they are representations of observations, objects, or other entities used as evidence of phenomena for the purposes of research or scholarship. They are created in a context, often as part of collaborative research activities. Whereas data practices vary widely across domains, disciplines, and cultures, research policy and technological infrastructures promote uniform approaches to data management. By celebrating the diversity of research data, their value and richness may be enhanced. However, that diversity poses challenges for preserving context, for stewardship, for exploiting data in collaborations across research domains, and for reuse over the short and long term.
