skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Thursday, May 23 until 2:00 AM ET on Friday, May 24 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Kee, Kerk"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Abstract

    In the twenty-first century, professions are complex and difficult to define due to their fluid and interdisciplinary natures. In this study, we examined the personal career stories of professionals in the field of cyberinfrastructure (CI) to identify the narrative patterns used to make sense of CI as a boundary-spanning profession. Overall, we found that professionalization of CI is a sensemaking process of communal, retrospective storytelling. The meaning-making of CI as a profession occurred through three levels of narrative patterns: individual traits of CI professionals, situational introductions to CI, and inspirational convictions about CI. The situational level, which connected innate qualities and internal motivations with external forces to join CI as a career, was especially important to the professionalization of CI. Our findings have implications for re-examining professionalization as an ongoing sensemaking process, as well as offering guidance for recruitment and retention in critical boundary-spanning professions.

     
    more » « less
  2. Research Computing and Data (RCD) professionals play a crucial role in supporting and advancing research that involve data and/or computing, however, there is a critical shortage of RCD workforce, and organizations face challenges in recruiting and retaining RCD professional staff. It is not obvious to people outside of RCD how their skills and experience map to the RCD profession, and staff currently in RCD roles lack resources to create a professional development plan. To address these gaps, the CaRCC RCD Career Arcs working group has embarked upon an effort to gain a deeper understanding of the paths that RCD professionals follow across their careers. An important step in that effort is a recent survey the working group conducted of RCD professionals on key factors that influence decisions in the course of their careers. This survey gathered responses from over 200 respondents at institutions across the United States. This paper presents our initial findings and analyses of the data gathered. We describe how various genders, career stages, and types of RCD roles impact the ranking of these factors, and note that while there are differences across these groups, respondents were broadly consistent in their assessment of the importance of these factors. In some cases, the responses clearly distinguish RCD professionals from the broader workforce, and even other Information Technology professionals. 
    more » « less
  3. The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global emergency. Clinicians and medical researchers are suddenly thrown into a situation where they need to keep up with the latest and best evidence for decision-making at work in order to save lives and develop solutions for COVID-19 treatments and preventions. However, a challenge is the overwhelming numbers of online publications with a wide range of quality. We explain a science gateway platform designed to help users to filter the overwhelming amount of literature efficiently (with speed) and effectively (with quality), to find answers to their scientific questions. It is equipped with a chatbot to assist users to overcome infodemic, low usability, and high learning curve. We argue that human-machine communication via a chatbot play a critical role in enabling the diffusion of innovations. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    This study applies Harvey and Green’s (1993) model of quality to scholarly knowledge production. Although studies of quality in higher education have been commonplace for decades, there is a gap in understanding quality in terms of research production from stakeholders’ perspectives. This study begins to fill that gap through a qualitative interview study of quality in the knowledge production process. Stakeholders in all parts of the scholarly knowledge production process, from 17 countries, are included in the data sample. Analysis of interview data extends Harvey and Green’s (1993) model into the realm of knowledge production. Definitions and challenges of quality in producing scholarly knowledge are discussed. The findings indicate a rift between the institutional view of quality and the individual perceptions of quality, suggesting the need for institutional policies that respond to stakeholders’ perceptions of quality in scholarly knowledge production and celebrate, rather than erase, epistemic diversity.

     
    more » « less
  5. Predatory journals and publishers are a growing concern in the scholarly publishing arena. As one type of attempt to address this increasingly important issue, numerous individuals, associations, and companies have begun curating journal watchlists or journal safelists. This study uses a qualitative content analysis to explore the inclusion/exclusion criteria stated by scholarly publishing journal watchlists and safelists to better understand the content of these lists, as well as the larger controversies that continue to surround the phenomenon that has come to be known as predatory publishing. Four watchlists and ten safelists were analyzed through an examination of their published mission statements and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Notable differences that emerged include the remaining influence of librarian Jeffrey Beall in the watchlists, and the explicit disavowal of his methods for the safelists, along with a growing recognition that the “list” approach may not fully address systemic aspects of predatory publishing that go beyond the individual author's ethical decision-making agency. 
    more » « less