Massively distributed authorship of academic papers

Wiki-like or crowdsourcing models of collaboration can provide a number of benefits to academic work. These techniques may engage expertise from different disciplines, and potentially increase productivity. This paper presents a model of massively distributed collaborative authorship of academic papers. This model, developed by a collective of thirty authors, identifies key tools and techniques that would be necessary or useful to the writing process. The process of collaboratively writing this paper was used to discover, negotiate, and document issues in massively authored scholarship. Our work provides the first extensive discussion of the experiential aspects of large-scale collaborative researc

Massively distributed authorship of academic papers

Wiki-like or crowdsourcing models of collaboration can provide a number of benefits to academic work. These techniques may engage expertise from different disciplines, and potentially increase productivity. This paper presents a model of massively distributed collaborative authorship of academic papers. This model, developed by a collective of thirty authors, identifies key tools and techniques that would be necessary or useful to the writing process. The process of collaboratively writing this paper was used to discover, negotiate, and document issues in massively authored scholarship. Our work provides the first extensive discussion of the experiential aspects of large-scale collaborative research.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Game Jam [4Research]

International audienceRecent years have witnessed a rise in Game Jams - organized events to create playable prototypes in avery short time frame. Game Jams offer a unique and quick way to prototype games. Beyond that, we believe Game Jams can also be seen as a design research method, situated in the research-through-design tradition, to create knowledge in a fast-paced, collaborative environment. The goal of this Game Jam is thus twofold: first, participants will use the Game Jam approach to investigate a research question; second, participants can, through actual practice, identify advantages and disadvantages of Game Jams as a research method. Hereby the Game Jam workshop provides a unique opportunity for HCI practitioners and researchers to gain experience in applying gameoriented methods for research

Theoretical Underpinnings and Practical Challenges of Crowdsourcing as a Mechanism for Academic Study

Researchers in a variety of fields are increasingly adopting crowdsourcing as a reliable instrument for performing tasks that are either complex for humans and computer algorithms. As a result, new forms of collective intelligence have emerged from the study of massive crowd-machine interactions in scientific work settings as a field for which there is no known theory or model able to explain how it really works. Such type of crowd work uses an open participation model that keeps the scientific activity (including datasets, methods, guidelines, and analysis results) widely available and mostly independent from institutions, which distinguishes crowd science from other crowd-assisted types of participation. In this paper, we build on the practical challenges of crowd-AI supported research and propose a conceptual framework for addressing the socio-technical aspects of crowd science from a CSCW viewpoint. Our study reinforces a manifested lack of systematic and empirical research of the symbiotic relation of AI with human computation and crowd computing in scientific endeavors

Women’s Work: Attributing Future Histories of the Digital in Architecture

Conventions of authorship and attribution historically excluded or erased women’s contributions to the built environment. As frequent co-authors and collaborators, women’s stories often do not fit into conventional historical narratives about how architecture is created. In response, this essay proposes a technology called “attribution frameworks”: a digital method for creating a transparent record of architectural labor. The authors argue that the integration of digital tools into architectural design offers a new space for more equally attributing, documenting, and counting labor and contributions to the discipline. This space allows for a more rich and inclusive narrative of contributions to architectural production for the future

What's the Point of Authors?

Who should be the author(s) of an academic paper? This question is becoming increasingly pressing, due to the increasing prevalence and scale of scientific collaboration, and the corresponding diversity of authorship practices in different disciplines and subdisciplines. This paper addresses the conceptual issues underlying authorship, with an eye to ameliorating authorship practices. The first part of the paper distinguishes five roles played by authorship attributions: allocating credit, constructing a speaker, enabling credibility judgements, supporting accountability, and creating an intellectual marketplace. The second part of the paper argues that distinguishing these functions helps us see that at least some of the confusions around authorship are due to tensions between these functions. The final part of the paper suggests a way to resolve these conceptual confusions, which we will call the CSWG proposal. This proposal suggests replacing authorship with a bundle of roles tailored to the functions of authorship—contributor, spokesperson, writer, and guarantor—which can be distributed in a number of different ways

Education students' use of collaborative writing tools in collectively reflective essay papers

Published version of an article in the journal: Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. Also available from the publisher at: http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP091-120Brodahl0463.pdf Open AccessGoogle Docs and EtherPad are Web 2.0 tools providing opportunity for multiple users to work online on the same document consecutively or simultaneously. Over the last few years a number of research papers on the use of these collaborative tools in a teaching and learning environment have been published. This work builds on that of Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, and Hansen (2011) expanding its case study. The theoretical framework is the same as the one underlying Brodahl et al. (2011), drawing on two learning theories, the social-constructivist learning theory and the community of practice, and their relationships to collaborative tools. The literature review is extended to cover the recent research work in the field, related to Web 2.0 technologies in higher education. The case study of Brodahl et al. (2011) involved 201 education students who had just begun their four-year initial teacher education. However, 24 students are omitted in the current work, and the result tables from Brodahl et al. (2011) accordantly updated. Disregarding particular groups of students was due to their specific local dispersion, as they conducted their entire assignment and collectively reflective essay paper at the same physical location and, with respect to this, reported the use of collaborative tools as superfluous and unwanted in their setting. Partly based on the same survey, this work presents a case study investigating education students' perceptions of collaborative writing reflective essay papers. However, where Brodahl et al. (2011) presented a solely quantitative study derived from closed-ended questions, this work incorporates the survey's open-ended questions in a qualitative analysis. The analysis also draws on the students' written reflections on their experiences. The qualitative analysis supports the conclusion of Brodahl et al. (2011) that technical problems were a major issue, mostly related to EtherPad. All but one complaint about technical difficulties stemmed from EtherPad users during a limited period of time. Other major negative feedback concerned group size; several groups pointed out difficulties with organizing the work, problems ofkeeping track when editing simultaneously, and failure to produce a unified document. Positive issues frequently mentioned are the ability to work asynchronously and from different places. Furthermore, a majority of the reports on commenting on and editing each other's work were positive, mentioning that it is an advantage to be able to correct spelling errors and bad formulations, that it is educational, that one may contribute with ideas that the others do not have, and that it improves the final text. Larger issues on the negative side were fear of insulting or misunderstanding, and difficulties because of various work modes. Also qualitative results indicate that females are more concerned with group size than males, but less preoccupied with technical difficulties. Furthermore, younger students appear more concerned about the importance of preparation and planning than older ones. The major conclusions are that EtherPad and Google Docs facilitate new ways of approaching communication, for different collaborative writing work modes as well as in different settings. However, the setting in which the tool is used exerts an influence on the way students perceive its usefulness. Recommendations derived from students' perception of factors of success for using the collaborative writing tool include the following: group size should preferably not exceed three persons; the students ought to be prepared for technical difficulties and have a contingency plan; and they should have time in advance to discuss their work mode and agree on rules for commenting on and editing each other's work