Abstract Contributing to the literature on knowledge infrastructure maintenance, this article describes a historical longitudinal analysis of revenue streams employed by four social science data organizations: the Roper Center for Public Opinion, the Inter‐university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the UK Data Archive (UKDA), and the LIS Cross‐National Data Center in Luxembourg (LIS). Drawing on archival documentation and interviews, we describe founders' assumptions about revenue, changes to revenue streams over the long term, practices for developing and maintaining revenue streams, the importance of financial support from host organizations, and how the context of each data organization shaped revenue possibilities. We extend conversations about knowledge infrastructure revenue streams by showing the types of change that have occurred over time and how it occurs. We provide examples of the types of flexibility needed for data organizations to remain sustainable over 40–60 years of revenue changes. We distinguish between Type A flexibilities, or development of new products and services, and Type B flexibilities, or continuous smaller adjustments to existing revenue streams. We argue that Type B flexibilities are as important as Type A, although they are easily overlooked. Our results are relevant to knowledge infrastructure managers and stakeholders facing similar revenue challenges.

Journal of the Association for Information Science and TechnologyVolume 72, Issue 11 p. 1454-1457 BOOK REVIEW The pandemic information gap: The brutal economics of COVID-19, Joshua Gans, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2020. 249. pp. € 51.16 (paperback). (ISBN 9783319984872) Kalpana Shankar, Corresponding Author Kalpana Shankar [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-8788-466X School of Information and Communication Studies, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandSearch for more papers by this author Kalpana Shankar, Corresponding Author Kalpana Shankar [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-8788-466X School of Information and Communication Studies, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 May 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24494Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookxLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES Chirico, F., da Silva, J. A. T., & Magnavita, N. (2020). "Questionable" peer review in the publishing pandemic during the time of COVID-19: Implications for policy makers and stakeholders. Croatian Medical Journal, 61(3), 300. 10.3325/cmj.2020.61.300 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Edwin, G. T., Klug, D. M., & Todd, M. H. (2020). Open science approaches to COVID-19. F1000Research, 9, 1043. 10.12688/f1000research.26084.1 PubMedGoogle Scholar Geiger, S., & Gross, N. (2018). Market failures and market framings: Can a market be transformed from the inside? Organization Studies, 39(10), 1357–1376. 10.1177/0170840617717098 Web of Science®Google Scholar Zunner, R. (2021, March 13). Local doctors become "vaccine ninjas," using social media to share appointment tips. WBFO. Retrieved from https://news.wbfo.org/post/local-doctors-become-vaccine-ninjas-using-social-media-share-appointment-tips Google Scholar Volume72, Issue11November 2021Pages 1454-1457 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Abstract In this commentary, the authors, an international group data curation researchers and educators, reflect on some of the challenges and opportunities for data curation in the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic. We focus on some topics of particular interest to the information science community: data infrastructures for scholarly communication and research, the politicization of data curation and visualization for public‐facing “dashboards,” and human subjects research and policies. We conclude with some areas of opportunity and need, including broader and richer data curation education in the information schools, the establishment of better data management policy implementations by research funders, the award of formal academic credit for data curation activities and data sharing, and engagement in cooperative action around data ethics and security.

In the Introduction to this special issue on the Social Informatics of Knowledge, the editors of the issue reflect on the history of the term "social informatics" and how the articles in this issue both reflect and depart from the original concept. We examine how social informatics researchers have studied knowledge, computerization, and the workplace, and how all of those have evolved over time. We describe the process by which articles were included, how they help us understand the field of social informatics scholarship today, and reflect briefly on what the future of the field holds.

In-home technologies can support older adults' activities of daily living, provide physical safety and security, and connect elders to family and friends. They facilitate aging in place while reducing caregiver burden. One of older adults' primary concerns about in-home technologies is their potential to reduce human contact, particularly from cherished caregivers. In this exploratory in situ study, we provided an ecosystem of networked monitoring technologies to six older adults and their caregivers. We analyzed the amount and content of communication between them. The amount of noncomputer-mediated communication did not decrease through the 6-week study. The content of communication coalesced into four themes: communication about the technologies, communication facilitated by technologies, intrusiveness of technologies, and fun and playfulness with the technologies. Results suggest that in-home technologies, designed with sensitivity to older adults' primary motivations, have the potential to shape and tailor important relationships in later life.

Research Methods in Information. Edited by Alison Jane Pickard. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2006. 324 pp. $25.00. (ISBN 0–262–60067–6) As in many professional fields, discussions in information studies often focus on tensions among theory, research, and practice. One aspect of this discourse, perennially, is the (somewhat artificial) researcher/practitioner divide, with its attendant disputes on the role of research-based education in a practical, skills-oriented profession. Articulating the role of research in the profession and the core of the information studies discipline has only been made more problematic by the relative novelty and subsequent proliferation of information as an important subject of study in fields as diverse as anthropology, business, and cognitive science. Furthermore, the multidisciplinary nature of what constitutes “information studies” demands familiarity with a wide array of approaches from history, behavioral and social sciences, and more recently, cultural studies. As a result, the role of research in the curriculum of information professionals often can engender contentious debate. While many texts, some even for information practitioners (e.g., Powell & Connaway, 2004), have addressed these issues, Pickard's awareness of the need for future information professionals to understand both the theory and practice of research, strong examples, and attention to the many research methods available make Research Methods in Information a welcome addition to the genre of research manuals. Many who are in the business of educating professionals would argue that even if practitioners are not expected to conduct research (even though they might very well do so in the context of program evaluation, grant writing, user studies, etc.), the professional always should be an informed consumer of it. As such, the professional ethos demands an informed engagement with the products and processes of scholarship. To these ends, Pickard's work provides a thorough overview of the most common methods information practitioner/researchers (and others in the field) are likely to need or encounter in their work. Although the cover description emphasizes the utility of the book for working professionals in library science, records management, knowledge management, and similar fields, the book is foremost a teaching text, aimed at graduate students in information programs in the United Kingdom (This last point will become germane later in this review.) The book begins by helping the reader conceptualize and begin the research endeavor, choose appropriate methods, analyze data, and present the results. There are several approaches that Pickard takes that make this book useful. She wisely brackets the necessary introduction to the major paradigms of research and their epistemological foundations into one chapter and the development of a theoretical framework into another while focusing the remainder of the book on the specifics of methods. This makes the book more useful than other canonical research manuals that interlace methodology and specific methods with theoretical framing, to the detriment of all. She also avoids regurgitating the by-now dated quantitative/qualitative debate by focusing instead on how each kind of research paradigm can be made stronger and more convincing through the researchers' emphasis on trustworthiness and rigor. Pickard helps the student through the process of thinking through why the research is being conducted. For example, she explains the purpose of a literature review and its multiple roles by walking the student through a concrete exercise in finding literature, assessing its claims, and weaving it into one's own argument. As an instructor who has often been left inarticulate and frustrated while explaining the construction of a literature review to students, I found her exercise extremely useful in surfacing techniques that had long ago become tacit for me. Most of the book is devoted to the explication of specific methods, the kinds of questions that can be answered with them, their strengths and weaknesses, and practical exercises. She makes a point of answering questions that often come up when teaching (e.g., What is the difference between ethnography and case study?) and how she has addressed such questions in her own classroom. The final few chapters of the book are devoted to data analysis and presentation, including software packages for quantitative and qualitative analysis. She focuses on the research dissertation, which perhaps is due to the British professional educational system in which Pickard teaches. An American library school or knowledge management program might demand a capstone or portfolio, which would require different presentation skills. This difference narrows the topic more than necessary; many information professionals will require a different set of presentation skills (e.g., graphs and charts, Powerpoint, and reports) than a research paper. A broader discussion of some of these issues and inclusion of some sources in the bibliography (Edward Tufte's work on data presentation and information design comes to mind.) would have been helpful. Pickard includes a brief, but important, section on research ethics. Readers outside of the British university system should remember that British research governance is not controlled by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the same way that American and Canadian universities are, and thus there is no discussion of the topic. Nevertheless, the discussion of ethics would have been strengthened enormously by more discussion of Great Britain's system of Research Ethics Committees and other considerations of institutional review (which are in flux as of this writing), even if students are not necessarily required to go through such review for their research. This systemic cultural difference appears in other guises in this chapter, such as in the discussion on informed consent; the British model is based on different underlying principles than those of the American system of informed consent (Beauchamp & Childress, 1973). Of course, research ethics is a vast subject, and there is only so much room for discussion. Thus, Pickard emphasizes those topics that will be of particular interest to students—protection of participants and data handling—but does not discuss misconduct in the collection and dissemination of data, data sharing, and authorship. Instructors outside the United Kingdom who use this text might want to supplement their discussion of research ethics with readings suited to their particular legal and institutional frameworks. A brief mention is made of some of the ethical questions raised by online research, but this subject should have been covered far more extensively. This brings up the largest weakness in the book, and it is a glaring one: the relative lack of attention paid to Web-based and other online methods. While brief mention is made of “virtual ethnography,” online focus groups, and online questionnaires, Pickard glosses over many of the issues that arise for both ethics and research reliability. For example, a number of studies have indicated that there may be differences in response rates and other indicators of research reliability between online and offline surveys (Couper, 2000; Yun & Trumbo, 2000). Information professionals also may be interested in exploring the use of social networking sites, virtual reality, and gaming environments; these are not mentioned. Unfortunately, these omissions already date the book. Despite these shortcomings, Pickard's book provides an accessible and practical manual for students (perhaps more so than for working professionals). The exercises and examples reinforce learning while the extensive bibliography invites the interested reader to further explore topics. Even experienced researchers will find this manual a useful reference.

Abstract Although the production of laboratory and field records is fundamental to the conduct of contemporary science, there has been little research into this topic in information studies. This article reports on a study in which, using ethnographic methods, the author studied recordkeeping as it is practiced in a basic research science laboratory. The process by which the record is created to reflect both personal need and professional norms is framed as a series of acts of selection, synthesis, and standardization. The article concludes with reflections on the role of deep understanding of scientific recordkeeping for other disciplines and the design of digital laboratory technologies.