QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

e-Social Science:Awareness, Support and Practice

William Dutton and Eric MeyerOxford e-Social Science Node

of UK National Centre for e-Social Science

Briefing for the Management Board of the National Centre for Research Methods, St Catherine’s College, Oxford, 30 June 2008.

Perspectives on e-Social Science

• Politics of Methodological Camps

• Research Generations

• Certainty Trough

Certainty Trough

Sample

Source N Sent N Responded Response Rate

% of sample

NCeSS List 615 141 22.9% 26.8%OII List 1761 180 10.2% 34.2%Open mailings n/a 205 n/a 39.0%Total 526 100.0%

Sample Characteristics

Disciplines (%)

54.9

5.5 4.2 3.0

15.611.6

5.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SocialSciences

Arts &Humanities

Natural andMedical

Sciences

Law ComputerSciences andEngineering

Other Don't Know /Don't Answer

% o

f res

pond

ents

How would you describe your interest in e-Social Science initiatives? (%)

29.726.8

30.4

6.8 6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very interested Interested Somewhatinterested

Not interested at all Don't Know / Don'tAnswer

% o

f res

pond

ents

Year of Degree (%)

9.3 10.312.7

24.9

42.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Before 1970 Between 1971 and1980

Between 1981 and1990

Between 1991 and2000

After 2001

% o

f res

pond

ents

Country (%)

46.8

14.117.7

4.61.9

15.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

United Kingdom North America Europe Australia andNew Zealand

East Asia Global South

% o

f res

pond

ents

Bias of the Sample

Type of Research

Type of Research (%)

14.8%

42.4%

29.8%

12.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Quantitative Some mix of both Qualitative Other/None

% o

f res

pond

ents

Researcher Clusters

Lone e-Researcher Team Player Quals Quants

User of research methods 0.47 0.34 0.74 0.18Both a user and developer 0.45 0.66 0.22 0.55Methodologist, developing or studying methods 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.27Quantitative 0.19 0.07 0.09 0.57Some mix of Quantitative and Qualitative 0.66 0.86 0.18 0.04Qualitative 0.15 0.07 0.72 0.39Never or Rarely Code or Design applications by myself 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.05Often or Always Code or Design applications by myself 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.95Sole investigator on all or most my projects 0.45 0.06 0.53 0.00Sole investigator on about half 0.42 0.07 0.23 0.00One of a team on most or all my projects 0.13 0.87 0.23 1.00

Cluster

Cluster Centers

Types of Researchers

Clusters (%)

23.026.2

29.1

12.0 9.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lone e-Researcher Team Player Quals Quants Don't Know / Don'tAnswer

% o

f res

pond

ents

Perspective (%)

7.6

43.2

33.3

9.96.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Opponents Spectators Promoters Disengaged Don't Know / Don'tAnswer

% o

f res

pond

ents

Attitudes towards e-Research (I)

Attitudes towards e-Research - Funding

51.8%

38.2% 37.3%

20.6%

51.9% 52.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

e-Research is adequately funded More funds should be targeted todeveloping e-Research

infrastructure

More funds should be targeted tosupporting e-Research project

proposals

% o

f res

pond

ents

Don't know No opinion Strongly Agree / Agree

Attitudes towards e-Research (II)

Attitudes towards e-Research - Quality and new tools

27.8%

36.8%41.1%

28.1%

8.2%

44.8% 43.2%

58.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

e-Research underminesthe quality of socialscience research

e-Research enhances mypersonal productivity

e-Research enhances myteam's productivity

Many new scientificquestions will require theuse of e-Research tools

% o

f res

pond

ents

Don't know No opinion Strongly Agree / Agree

Attitudes towards e-Research (III)

Attitudes towards e-Research - Usability

31.9%

21.3%

35.1%

17.4%

43.2%

59.9%

69.9%

20.8%

76.7%

19.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

e-Research tools arealready useful

e-Research toolsraise new ethical

issues

e-Social Science ismore hype than

reality

More training isneeded in e-

Research

Most e-Researchtools are easy to use

% o

f res

pond

ents

Don't know No opinion Strongly Agree / Agree

New questions and e-Research (II)

Many new scientific questions will require the use of e-Research tools

59.8%64.9%

48.6%

65.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lone e-Researcher

Team Player Quals Quants

Cluster (*)

% o

f res

pond

ents

Agree or Strongly Agree

Attitudes towards e-Research being more hype than reality (I)

e-Social Science is more hype than reality

22.3% 24.6%

13.1%

30.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lone e-Researcher

Team Player Quals Quants

Cluster (*)

% o

f res

pond

ents

Agree or Strongly Agree

Attitudes towards e-Research enhancing team’s productivity (II)

e-Research enhances my team's productivity

45.5%38.5%

20.0%26.7%

51.9%

32.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SocialSciences

Arts &Humanities

Natural andMedical

Sciences

Law ComputerSciences

andEngineering

Other

Discipline (*)

% o

f res

pond

ents

Agree or Strongly Agree

Indicators

Proximity (additive index): NCeSS Mailing List (Yes = 1); Access Grid (Use = +1, Organized = +2), e-Social Science (Followed eSS = +1, Involved = +2)

Uncertainty (additive index): Number of ‘Don’t Know’ responses to questions about e-Research, categorized high, medium, low

Support for e-Research (additive index): Number of positive responses to statements about e-Research (exluding ‘adequacy of funding’; and ‘new ethical issues’), categorized high, medium, low

Uncertainty by Proximity

Distant Marginal ProximateCertain 23.1 48.3 66.2 37.8Marginal 28.2 32.9 23.5 29.0Uncertain 48.7 18.8 10.3 33.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Uncertainty by Proximity (**)

Total

Total

Uncertainty

Proximity

Support by Proximity

Distant Marginal ProximateLow support 47.5 19.2 23.5 34.6Moderate Support 29.4 36.4 32.4 32.2High Support 23.1 44.4 44.1 33.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Support by Proximity (**)

Total

Support

Proximity

Total

Proximity by Perspective

Opponents Spectators Promoters DisengagedDistant 59.0 60.9 32.0 88.5 53.4Marginal 23.1 31.1 42.9 7.7 32.2Proximate 17.9 8.0 25.1 3.8 14.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Total

Proximity by Perspective (**)

Proximity

ESS PerspetiveTotal

e-Social Science and Practice

• Matching Development with Use

• Fragmentation or Diversity of Methods

Methodological Approaches

Which methodological approaches do you use in your research? (%)

60 60 59 58

35

2622 20 19 17 15 12

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Qualitativeinterview ing

Desk(screen)research

Case Study Surveyresearch

ParticipantObservation

Ethnography Historicalmethods

Simulation,computermodelling

Experiments Formal,mathematical

Webmetrics Other Clinicalmethods

% o

f res

pond

ents

Use of Tools

Use of Tools

99 96 96 94

62

3532

22

14 13 13 12 116

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

The Internetand Web

Email Wordprocessing

Internetsearchengines

Spreadsheets Online new ssources

Audiorecording andtranscription

Audioconferencingto collaborate

Audioconferencingto collect data

Conceptualtools

Videoconferencingto collaborate

Videorecording

Projectmanagement

softw are

Videoconferencingto collect data

% o

f res

pond

ents

% Often or regularly

Use of Data Sets

Use of Data Sets

56

45

2217

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Data set(s) that you havepersonally developed or

created

Data set(s) that you havedeveloped or created as part

of a team

Data set(s) acquired from adata archive

Data set(s) acquired directlyfrom a colleague

% o

f res

pond

ents

% Often or regularly

Use of Analysis Software

Use of Analysis Software

4439

2218 16 16 14 14

106

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Quantitativestatistical

Databasesoftware

Qualitative Software tointegrate two

or morequantitativedata sets

Quantitativecontentanalysissoftware

Visualizationsoftware

Modellingand

simulationsoftware

Geographicsoftware

Webmetricssoftware

Software foranalysis of

video content

% o

f res

pond

ents

% Current Use

Use of Audio Conference Devices

Use of Audio Conference Devices (%)

74

56

27

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Telephone / speakerphone Personal computer Dedicated audio-conferencingdevice (e.g., Polycom)

Other

% o

f res

pond

ents

Use of Video Conference Devices

Use of Video Conference Devices (%)

62

45

26

11 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Desktopvideoconferencing (e.g.,

Skype video)

Video-conferencingstudio

Access Grid node /room

Other Access Grid on desktop

% o

f res

pond

ents

Coding and Designing Applications

Coding and Designing Applications

45

3128

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Code or Design applicationsyourself

Ask for IT staff support fromwithin your unit or department

Obtain IT staff support fromyour institution or organization

Contract the work out, suchas to a private consultant

% o

f res

pond

ents

% Often or Always

Collaboration with other Researchers

Collaboration with other researchers (%)

85 84

70 69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Researchers from anotheruniversity or institution

Researchers in yourdepartment or unit

Researchers from anothercountry

Researchers outside yourunit, but at your university

or larger institution

% o

f res

pond

ents

Collaboration Tools

Collaboration Tools

93

27

18

9 9 84 3 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E-mail Projectwebsites

E-maillistservs

Wikis Collaborationsoftware

Messageforums

Weblogs VirtualResearch

Environments(VRE)

SocialNetworking

Sites

% o

f res

pond

ents

% Essential

Open Access

Do you post your research articles in.. (%)

59

46 4338

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A project Web site An institutionalarchive

Your personal Website

A working paperarchive

A public archive(such as SSRN,arXiv.org, etc.)

% o

f res

pond

ents

Methods by Interest in e-Social Science

N % N % N % N %Qualitative Interviews 301 57.2% 178 59.1% 100 33.2% 23 7.6%Desk research 297 56.5% 171 57.6% 100 33.7% 26 8.8%Case study 292 55.5% 181 62.0% 90 30.8% 21 7.2%Surveys 288 54.8% 170 59.0% 92 31.9% 26 9.0%Participant Observation 176 33.5% 113 64.2% 52 29.5% 11 6.3%Ethnography 131 24.9% 81 61.8% 43 32.8% 7 5.3%Historical 110 20.9% 68 61.8% 35 31.8% 7 6.4%Simulation 98 18.6% 59 60.2% 30 30.6% 9 9.2%Experiments 97 18.4% 58 59.8% 30 30.9% 9 9.3%Formal modelling 86 16.3% 48 55.8% 24 27.9% 14 16.3%Webmetrics 73 13.9% 53 72.6% 13 17.8% 7 9.6%Clinical 17 3.2% 9 52.9% 6 35.3% 2 11.8%Other 61 11.6% 38 62.3% 17 27.9% 6 9.8%Average 29.6% 60.7% 30.3% 9.0%

Interest in e-Social Science InitiativesInterested or Very Somewhat Not interestedTotal

Mean 3.9s.d. 2.3Mode 4Range 0-12

Number of methods indicated

Use of Software (I)

N %Any quantitative 205 39.0%SPSS 168 82.0%Inhouse software 35 17.1%Stata 34 16.6%SAS 32 15.6%R 32 15.6%

Use of Quantitative software

N %Any content analysis 59 11.2%Inhouse software 22 37.3%Wordstat 8 13.6%Concordance 6 10.2%TextAnalyst 6 10.2%

Use of Content Analysis Software

N %Any qualitative software 96 18.3%Atlas.ti 42 43.8%Nvivo 40 41.7%Nudist 15 15.6%Inhouse software 15 15.6%

Use of Qualitative Software

N %Any video analysis 22 4.2%Transana 11 50.0%The Observer 4 18.2%Inhouse software 4 18.2%Ethovision 3 13.6%Memetic 3 13.6%

Use of Video Analysis Software

N %Any visualizing 69 13.1%General purpose (Excel, Sigmaplo 35 50.7%UCINet 18 26.1%Pajek 16 23.2%Inhouse software 16 23.2%Gnuplot 12 17.4%

Use of Visualizing Software

N %Any webmetrics 44 8.4%Commercial (Google, Yahoo, Live 26 59.1%Webtrends 17 38.6%Inhouse software 14 31.8%Commercial traffic (Alexa) 10 22.7%Microsoft Site Analyst 6 13.6%Issue crawler 5 11.4%VOSON 5 11.4%

Use of Webmetrics

Use of Software (II)

N %Any simulation / modeling 59 11.2%Inhouse software 29 49.2%NetLogo 14 23.7%Repast 10 16.9%

Use of Simulation / Modelling Software

N %Any geographic 62 11.8%Google Maps 40 64.5%Google Earth 34 54.8%ESRI 31 50.0%MapInfo 13 21.0%Common GIS 12 19.4%Microsoft Virtual Earth 10 16.1%Inhouse software 9 14.5%Google Map Creator 8 12.9%

Use of Geographic Software

N %Any database 179 34.0%Excel 119 66.5%Access 87 48.6%MySQL 65 36.3%Inhouse software 27 15.1%SQL Server 23 12.8%Oracle 18 10.1%

Use of Database Software

N %Any integrating 68 12.9%Inhouse software 38 55.9%

Use of Integrating Software

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

e-Social Science:Awareness, Support and Practice

William Dutton and Eric MeyerOxford e-Social Science Node

of UK National Centre for e-Social Science

Briefing for the Management Board of the National Centre for Research Methods, St Catherine’s College, Oxford, 30 June 2008.