ECSCW'97 doctoral colloquium (original) (raw)

Rhythms of research

Psychological Science, 2007

Over 4 years, my staff and I amassed a wealth of data related to the psychology of work (e.g., Brett & Drasgow, 2002; Smither, 1988), and more specifically, to the psychology of work per- formed by psychological scientists doing their professional duty—publishing and reviewing. During this period, we re- ceived more than 3,850 submissions to Psychological Science and obtained more than 4,850 reviews. The collective pace with which these authors and reviewers worked provides insights into the rhythms of research.

Habits of research: five practical contributions to research training

Práxis Pedagógica, 2023

The editorial, we would like to share with you five habits that have made our research careers very important existential moments in both the personal and collective dimensions, because each of the people who have contributed here with these editorial also does so from an important place in the scientific ecosystem. In this order, the reader will find in this editorial, which will take a little more space than the one that was written, a set of habits that we invite you to read in the key of, a researcher has as a habit: “Use selection criteria of a scientific journal”, “Implement technological tools for the management of research profiles”, “Search for scientific literature in research”, “The document of memories or exegesis as a habit in research creation” and “Write collective texts”.

The Work of Research: Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through

What is Research in the Visual Arts? Obsession, Archive, Encounter, 2008

This text considers the way in which Freud's notion of working-through in the consulting room can be understood as aligned with the practices of writing, curating and looking at art. The text considers the work of George Perec, Tacita Dean and T.J. Clark.

Information practices and cognitive artifacts in scientific research. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 7, 88-100.

A cognitive ethnography study investigates information practices in experimental life sciences research. Activity analysis of collaborative research projects and cognitive artifacts revealed a series of seven cognitive information tasks performed in the lifecycle of the research project. Life scientists exhibited habituated patterns of search behavior in the institutional information ecology. Scientists have widely adopted the transparent search interfaces of PubMed and Google, rarely employing full text or specialized services for searching publications. An activity theory approach suggests explanations for interface and information use. Individual researchers in the research project context perform information tasks to locate information objects, mediated by the printed article as a primary cognitive artifact. A cycle of use shows that interface transparency mediates the pursuit of information objects through locating “opaque” cognitive artifacts. Such simple, transparent information tasks become routinized operations. Individual attention becomes focused on the artifact and information object, not the user interface.

Metaphors for Reflecting on Research Practice: Researching with People

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2003

... This is particularly true in the European context where recent European Union legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive and the Public Participation Directive, require stakeholder participation and transparency of decision making (ENDS, 2001). ...

Editorial: Collective entanglements in the doing of research

Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology

In this final issue of RERM in 2020, no less than 20 authors have participated in the materialization of four articles, which connect to each other in various ways. All of the articles focus upon productive relations, between authors, as well as between materials and people. All four articles illustrate the productiveness of moments in doing research that challenge the distinctions between researcher and researched, the concrete and the abstract, and the author and the text, arguably contrasting and adding humbleness to dominant academic structures centering the “researcher I” and its individual quest for qualifications.