Weak Information Work and "Doable" Problems in Interdisciplinary Science

Drawing on results from two studies of information use in interdisciplinary science, this paper develops the concept of weak information work (WIW). WIW is examined in relation to a model of how different levels of research work are coordinated and a second framework that delineates dimensions of research problems. Scenarios from neuroinformatics case studies are presented to show how WIW is impacting interdisciplinary projects in brain research. Based on the integration of our results with existing frameworks for understanding scientific research problems and processes, we assert that contemporary interdisciplinary research could benefit from information systems and services devoted to supporting some lines of WIW and by transforming others into strong information work.

[1]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 1963 .

[2]  Marilyn Bohl,et al.  Information processing , 1971 .

[3]  Robert S. Taylor,et al.  Problem dimensions and information traits , 1984, Inf. Soc..

[4]  A. Strauss.  Social Organization of Medical Work , 1985 .

[5]  H. Simon.  Understanding the Processes of Science: The Psychology of Scientific Discovery* , 1986 .

[6]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Scientific discovery: compulalional explorations of the creative process , 1987 .

[7]  Joan H. Fujimura,et al.  Constructing `Do-able' Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment , 1987 .

[8]  A. Strauss.  THE ARTICULATION OF PROJECT WORK: AN ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS , 1988 .

[9]  Robert S. Taylor,et al.  Information use environments. , 1991 .

[10]  Herbert A. Simon.  Scientific discovery as problem solving , 1992 .

[11]  Ingrid Hsieh-Yee,et al.  Effects of Search Experience and Subject Knowledge on the Search Tactics of Novice and Experienced Searchers. , 1993 .

[12]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science , 1999 .

[13]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Task complexity, problem structure and information actions - Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[14]  Neil R. Smalheiser,et al.  Implicit Text Linkages between Medline Records: Using Arrowsmith as an Aid to Scientific Discovery , 1999, Libr. Trends.

[15]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Work at the Boundaries of Science: Information and the Interdisciplinary Research Process , 2001 .

[16]  C. Palmer.  Work at the Boundaries of Science , 2001, Springer Netherlands.

[17]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Scientific Collaborations at a Distance , 2001, Science.

[18]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Computer Network Use, Collaboration Structures, and Productivity , 2002 .

[19]  Geoffrey C. Bowker,et al.  ECSCW 2003 Computer Supported Scientific Collaboration (CSSC) workshop report , 2003, SIGG.

[20]  Thomas A. Finholt,et al.  Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization , 2003 .

[21]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Information at the intersections of discovery: Case studies in neuroscience , 2004, ASIST.

[22]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Subject knowledge improves interactive query expansion assisted by a thesaurus , 2004, J. Documentation.

[23]  Mary C. Whitton,et al.  Designing to support situation awareness across distances: an example from a scientific collaboratory , 2004, Inf. Process. Manag..

[24]  Barbara M. Wildemuth,et al.  The effects of domain knowledge on search tactic formulation , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[25]  Neil R. Smalheiser.  The Arrowsmith Project: 2005 Status Report , 2005, Discovery Science.

[26]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2005 .

[27]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Weak information work in scientific discovery , 2007, Inf. Process. Manag..