Accelerating transition to virtual research organisation in social science (AVROSS) : final report

This report is the fourth deliverable of the AVROSS study (Accelerating Transition to Virtual Research Organisation in Social Science, AVROSS). The study aims were to identify the requirements and options for accelerating the transition from traditional research to virtual research organisations through e-Infrastructures. The reason for this focus is that it is clear that "soft" sciences have both much to gain and a key role to play in promoting e-Infrastructure uptake across the disciplines, but to date have not been the fastest adopters of advanced grid-based e-Infrastructure. Our recommendations to EU policy-makers can be expected to point the way to changing this situation, promoting e-Infrastructure in Europe in these disciplines, with clear requirements to developers and expected impact in several other disciplines with related requirements, such as e-Health.

[1]  Reijo Miettinen,et al.  Articulating User Needs in Collaborative Design: Towards an Activity-Theoretical Approach , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[2]  D. Wegner.  Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .

[3]  W. Bijker.  The social construction of bakelite: toward a theory of invention , 1987 .

[4]  Christopher J. Mackie.  Cyberinfrastructure, institutions and sustainability , 2007, First Monday.

[5]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  An Overview of Innovation , 2009 .

[6]  J. Law.  TECHNOLOGY AND HETEROGENEOUS ENGINEERING: THE CASE OF PORTUGUESE EXPANSION , 2018, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY STUDIES.

[7]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Social Construction of Technology , 2009 .

[8]  Alfonso H. Molina,et al.  Insights into the Nature of Technology Diffusion and Implementation: The Perspective of Sociotechnical Alignment , 1997 .

[9]  Robin Williams,et al.  The Social Shaping Of Information And Communications Technologies , 2009 .

[10]  Daniel Atkins,et al.  Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure , 2003 .

[11]  Teresa M. Harrison,et al.  Methodological and Theoretical Frameworks for the Design of Community Information Systems , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[12]  Christine Hine,et al.  New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-science , 2006 .

[13]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Computer Networks and Scientific Work , 1996 .

[14]  Rob Kling,et al.  Not Just a Matter of Time: Field Differences and the Shaping of Electronic Media , 1999 .

[15]  Marina Jirotka.  E-Research Infrastructure Development and Community Engagement , 2007 .

[16]  P. Doyle,et al.  Confidentiality, Disclosure and Data Access: Theory and Practical Applications for Statistical Agencies , 2001 .

[17]  Madeleine Akrich,et al.  A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies , 1992 .

[18]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Cyberinfrastructure for Education and Learning for the Future: a vision and research agenda , 2005 .

[19]  Z. Griliches.  HYBRID CORN: AN EXPLORATION IN THE ECONOMIC OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE , 1957 .

[20]  D. Simonton.  Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist , 2004 .

[21]  Harvey Brooks,et al.  The relationship between science and technology , 1994 .

[22]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  The Semantic Grid: A Future e‐Science Infrastructure , 2003 .

[23]  P. Wouters,et al.  Promise and practice in data sharing , 2003 .

[24]  Thomas A. Finholt,et al.  Tensions across the scales: planning infrastructure for the long-term , 2007, GROUP.

[25]  Bruno Latour,et al.  The Powers of Association , 1984 .

[26]  M. Callon.  Techno-economic Networks and Irreversibility , 1990 .

[27]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Groupware: some issues and experiences , 1991, CACM.

[28]  Katherine A. Lawrence.  Walking the Tightrope: The Balancing Acts of a Large e-Research Project , 2006, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[29]  Dirk Pilat,et al.  OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding , 2007, Data Sci. J..

[30]  Julia Lane,et al.  e-Science Investments in the Social and Behavioral Sciences at the National Science Foundation: An Overview of Projects, Programs, and Policy Issues , 2005 .

[31]  Bonnie A. Nardi,et al.  Whither or whether HCI: requirements analysis for multi-sited, multi-user cyberinfrastructures , 2006, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[32]  James Fleck,et al.  Dynamics of information technology implementation: A reassessment of paradigms and trajectories of development , 1990 .

[33]  Cory P. Knobel,et al.  Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design , 2007 .

[34]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[35]  Geoffrey C. Bowker,et al.  Promoting Access to Public Research Data for Scientific, Economic, and Social Development , 2004, Data Sci. J..

[36]  A. Beaulieu,et al.  Imagining e-science beyond computation , 2006 .

[37]  Paul Wouters,et al.  Policies on digital research data: an international survey , 2002 .

[38]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[39]  Jenny Fry,et al.  The Cultural Shaping of ICTs within Academic Fields: Corpus-based Linguistics as a Case Study , 2004, Lit. Linguistic Comput..

[40]  D. Edge,et al.  The social shaping of technology , 1988 .

[41]  William F. Aspray.  Computing research association (CRA) , 2003 .

[42]  James Stewart,et al.  Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies , 2005 .

[43]  M. Callon.  The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle , 1986 .

[44]  D. Staiger,et al.  Technology Adoption from Hybrid Corn to Beta Blockers , 2005 .

[45]  J. Fleck.  Learning by trying: the implementation of configurational technology☆ , 1994 .