Publication statistics

Pub. period:1985-2012
Pub. count:5
Number of co-authors:15


Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

Christine L. Borgman:
David S. Fearon:
Laura A. Wynholds:



Productive colleagues

Sharon Traweek's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

Sara Kiesler:59
Christine L. Borgm..:29
Lucy A. Suchman:27

Upcoming Courses

go to course
User-Centred Design - Module 1
go to course
Dynamic User Experience: Ajax Design and Usability
Starts tomorrow LAST CALL!

Featured chapter

Marc Hassenzahl explains the fascinating concept of User Experience and Experience Design. Commentaries by Don Norman, Eric Reiss, Mark Blythe, and Whitney Hess

User Experience and Experience Design !


Our Latest Books

The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam
start reading
The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities. 2nd Edition
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad
start reading
Gamification at Work: Designing Engaging Business Software
by Janaki Mythily Kumar and Mario Herger
start reading
The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad
start reading
The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam
start reading

Sharon Traweek


Publications by Sharon Traweek (bibliography)

 what's this?
Edit | Del

Wynholds, Laura A., Wallis, Jillian C., Borgman, Christine L., Sands, Ashley and Traweek, Sharon (2012): Data, data use, and scientific inquiry: two case studies of data practices. In: JCDL12 Proceedings of the 2012 Joint International Conference on Digital Libraries 2012. pp. 19-22.

Data are proliferating far faster than they can be captured, managed, or stored. What types of data are most likely to be used and reused, by whom, and for what purposes? Answers to these questions will inform information policy and the design of digital libraries. We report findings from semi-structured interviews and field observations to investigate characteristics of data use and reuse and how those characteristics vary within and between scientific communities. The two communities studied are researchers at the Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS) and users of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data. The data practices of CENS and SDSS researchers have implications for data curation, system evaluation, and policy. Some data that are important to the conduct of research are not viewed as sufficiently valuable to keep. Other data of great value may not be mentioned or cited, because those data serve only as background to a given investigation. Metrics to assess the value of documents do not map well to data.

© All rights reserved Wynholds et al. and/or ACM Press

Edit | Del

Wynholds, Laura, Fearon, David S., Borgman, Christine L. and Traweek, Sharon (2011): When use cases are not useful: data practices, astronomy, and digital libraries. In: JCDL11 Proceedings of the 2010 Joint International Conference on Digital Libraries 2011. pp. 383-386.

As science becomes more dependent upon digital data, the need for data curation and for data digital libraries becomes more urgent. Questions remain about what researchers consider to be their data, their criteria for selecting and trusting data, and their orientation to data challenges. This paper reports findings from the first 18 months of research on astronomy data practices from the Data Conservancy. Initial findings suggest that issues for data production, use, preservation, and sharing revolve around factors that rarely are accommodated in use cases for digital library system design including trust in data, funding structures, communication channels, and perceptions of scientific value.

© All rights reserved Wynholds et al. and/or their publisher

Edit | Del

Wynholds, Laura, Fearon, David, Borgman, Christine L. and Traweek, Sharon (2011): Awash in stardust: data practices in astronomy. In: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference 2011. pp. 802-804.

One of several major research initiatives into the grand challenge of data curation, the Data Conservancy (DC), funded by the National Science Foundation"s DataNet Initiative, is investigating data use, sharing, and preservation in multiple fields of science. Our group at the University of California, Los Angeles is conducting a deep case study of astronomy and astrophysics. DC partners at Cornell, Illinois, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the National Snow and Ice Data Center are studying data practices in several other science domains. The DC is a collaborative multi-sited research project that will offer new insights into data practices in an array of physical and life sciences. The mandate of the project is to "research, design, implement, deploy and sustain data curation infrastructure for cross-disciplinary discovery with an emphasis on observational data." [4]. This poster will summarize findings from the first year of UCLA"s research on astronomers and astronomy data. Our approach to studying data practices is complementary to that of our DC project partners, most of whom are surveying a broader set of fields less deeply. The UCLA team is part of Data Conservancy information science and computer science (IS/CS) team, which will share methods and findings. Our overall goal is to compare comparative data practices and data curation requirements across a range of physical and life science fields. Astronomy is considered to be at the forefront of data-driven science. Hanisch and Quinn, in explaining the development of the Virtual Observatory, wrote, "Astronomy faces a data avalanche. Breakthroughs in telescope, detector, and computer technology allow astronomical instruments to produce terabytes of images and catalogs...These technological developments will fundamentally change the way astronomy is done. These changes will have dramatic effects on the sociology of astronomy itself." [7]. Over the course of the last ten years, astronomy data projects have grown from terabyte scales to petabyte scales, and the data deluge has affected many more sciences, large and small. Long predicted by the science community [8], not only has Nature, a premier science journal, published feature sections on "big data" [2] so have Wired Magazine [1], and the Economist [5]. However, significant tensions surrounding big data projects are present in the field, as expressed by two Nature editors: "Astronomy is in an era of unprecedented change...more and more astronomy papers are showing evidence that familiarity with the essential "dirtiness" of data and models is being lost. ...Worries that the centuries-old culture of astronomy is being eroded have been voiced in the community for several years, especially in cosmology where the big-science approach now dominates." [12] Data curation of these complex digital objects presents a significant challenge facing both scientific research and scholarly record keeping institutions. Bowker and Star [14] argued that of the problems of aggregating data within an information system are reflective of the sociotechnical systems that yielded the data. Following that argument, the quest to build repositories for data becomes largely a quest to fold the practices of an established community into evolving technological solutions. Thus it is essential to study the data practices of communities whose data is to be curated. Astronomy is a rich domain in which to study data practices, and the Data Conservancy offers a diverse environment in which to compare data curation challenges across the sciences. We approach astronomy data practices with three questions: 1. What are the data management, curation, and sharing practices of astronomers and astronomy data centers, and how have they developed? 2. Who uses what data when, with whom, and why? 3. What data are most important to curate, how, for whom, and for what purposes? The first question focuses on what people do, how they manage data, and what counts as relevant research data to generate, use, keep, and discard. The second question addresses the social contexts, networks, and communities within which these practices occur. The third question focuses on specific aspects of data curation, such as deciding what data will be of future use to others, assigning responsibilities for organizing and describing datasets for use, identifying incentives and disincentives for individuals or groups to curate their data, and developing tools and services necessary to exploit those data. At the core of our astronomy case study is an analysis of the large sky surveys, as these generate massive amounts of data that fuel both inquiry and the tensions outlined above. The first year of the project has been concerned with capturing a broad perspective of the empirical and theoretical research that can be accomplished with astronomical observations, comparing data activities associated with sky surveys to other types of inquiry. Our starting point has been the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) [13], which began data capture in 2000 and recently completed its final data release of the SDSS-II project. This groundbreaking optical survey telescope and accompanying digital dataset provides distributed access to data for one quarter of the sky. We are studying the development, practices and challenges of data management and curation in the SDSS, as well as the project"s impact on astronomy. Our study of subsequent sky survey projects, such as PanSTARRS [11] and LSST [10], will offer insights to the role and value of synoptic surveys in physical science research. Our methods follow from our three research questions about data practices, social contexts, and curation requirements in these astronomy settings: 1. Examining data practices through qualitative ethnography, including in-depth interviews and site observations; and 2. Mapping the social context of projects by analyzing documents about projects and their history, and people"s networks of professional affiliations and research activities. Within the context of qualitative ethnographies, we are interviewing people who have worked in multiple roles in sky surveys and who use sky survey data in their own research. These interviewees include software developers, university faculty, postdocs, and other researchers using data from networked astrophysical instruments. We are comparing the range of curation requirements for managing large-scale archives and smaller collections of research data. We are examining the extensive documentation of the SDSS project, including an archived listserv discussion group of its builders and users. Our initial fieldwork on astronomy sites has found broad differences in curation practices and requirements between projects, data centers, academic collaborations, and domains of research. Identifying generalizable comparisons is a core challenge. We see historical and cultural changes at large and small levels, including the professionalization of data management and the role of informatics in astronomy. Adoption of computational approaches to knowledge discovery appears uneven across the astronomy community. Science-driven research has exhibited tensions with computer engineering approaches to data archives, according to some of our respondents. We are seeing considerable variation in the use of sky surveys, from scientific inquiry to calibration of other instruments. In conjunction with a considerable variation in use, we see significant diversity in what counts as data among those studying each wavelength, and between observational and theoretical approaches. Among the interviewed theoretical astrophysicists who rely on computational modeling, some archive the results of simulations, while others retain the algorithms but discard the data generated by simulations. Data archiving practices for sky surveys appear to vary widely by wavelength, partially due to differences in data volume, format and complexity. Similarly, astronomy data use may be further divided by practices of ground-based versus space-based instruments. Data practices and data curation requirements within astronomy are far less homogeneous than they may appear from the outside. Similarly, the computation- and data-intensive methods that characterize modern astronomical research are not embraced universally. Our poster will compare our initial results to those of our Data Conservancy partners' analyses of data practices in other science domains. We may see similar practices of data management and preservation practices among fields; however, early reports by DC partners at Illinois show "no field-wide norms" for sharing data among the researchers they interviewed, and diverse use of data repositories even within a research field. [3] Data practices appear to vary widely within disciplines in the physical and life sciences, and even more so between them.

© All rights reserved Wynholds et al. and/or ACM Press

Edit | Del

Kiesler, Sara, Heinmiller, Robert, Ostell, James, Traweek, Sharon and Uncapher, Keith (1990): Computer-Supported Cooperative Work in Science. In: Halasz, Frank (ed.) Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work October 07 - 10, 1990, Los Angeles, California, United States. pp. 239-240.

This panel will discuss cooperative work and communication in science. Although scientific work varies across disciplines, it shares some characteristics: communication is its principle product; ongoing interaction and cooperation is necessary (and in some disciplines such as high energy experimental physics, group research dominates); computing technology is pervasive or becoming pervasive. Hence as compared with some domains such as assembly-line manufacturing or high schools, CSCW technology seems particularly appropriate. The CSCW community has not paid much attention to the scientific enterprise and to scientific communities as cooperative work domains. Whereas there seem to be many opportunities for CSCW applications in science ranging from shared data bases to "committeeware," there are also reasons why CSCW may not develop as envisioned. Both technical and cultural aspects of science pose barriers to more "cooperative work." For instance, norms against informal publication of results and proprietary attitudes about discoveries complicate assumptions that more information sharing is better for science and scientists. The purposes of this panel are to highlight the major opportunities and problems of CSCW for science, and to discuss how social system and technical system designs might address these opportunities and problems.

© All rights reserved Kiesler et al. and/or ACM Press

Edit | Del

Suchman, Lucy A., Traweek, Sharon, Lynch, Michael, Frankel, Richard and Jordan, Brigitte (1985): Technology in Use. In: Borman, Lorraine and Curtis, Bill (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 85 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 14-18, 1985, San Francisco, California. pp. 89-91.

N/A (four papers are summarized in this panel paper)

© All rights reserved Suchman et al. and/or ACM Press

Add publication
Show list on your website

Join our community and advance:




Join our community!

Page Information

Page maintainer: The Editorial Team