skip to main content
research-article

How Data ScientistsWork Together With Domain Experts in Scientific Collaborations: To Find The Right Answer Or To Ask The Right Question?

Published:05 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing trend in which data scientists and domain experts work together to tackle complex scientific questions. However, such collaborations often face challenges. In this paper, we aim to decipher this collaboration complexity through a semi-structured interview study with 22 interviewees from teams of bio-medical scientists collaborating with data scientists. In the analysis, we adopt the Olsons' four-dimensions framework proposed in Distance Matters to code interview transcripts. Our findings suggest that besides the glitches in the collaboration readiness, technology readiness, and coupling of work dimensions, the tensions that exist in the common ground building process influence the collaboration outcomes, and then persist in the actual collaboration process. In contrast to prior works' general account of building a high level of common ground, the breakdowns of content common ground together with the strengthen of process common ground in this process is more beneficial for scientific discovery. We discuss why that is and what the design suggestions are, and conclude the paper with future directions and limitations.

References

  1. Katrina Armstrong, J Sanford Schwartz, Genevieve Fitzgerald, Mary Putt, and Peter A Ubel. 2002. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Medical Decision Making , Vol. 22, 1 (2002), 76--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Nazem Atassi, James Berry, Amy Shui, Neta Zach, Alexander Sherman, Ervin Sinani, Jason Walker, Igor Katsovskiy, David Schoenfeld, and Merit Cudkowicz. 2014. The PRO -ACT Database Design, Initial Analyses, and Predictive Features. Neurology , Vol. 83, 19 (2014), 1719--1725.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Daniel E Atkins, Kelvin K Droegemeier, Stuart I Feldman, Hector Garcia-Molina, Michael L Klein, David G Messerschmitt, Paul Messina, Jeremiah P Ostriker, and Margaret H Wright. 2003. Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure. Report of the National Science Foundation blue-ribbon advisory panel on cyberinfrastructure , Vol. 1 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Rowland Atkinson and John Flint. 2001. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social research update , Vol. 33, 1 (2001), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Pieter J Beers, Henny PA Boshuizen, Paul A Kirschner, and Wim H Gijselaers. 2006. Common ground, complex problems and decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation , Vol. 15, 6 (2006), 529--556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. H Bhabha. 1994. The location of culture. London: Routledge. (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Matthew J Bietz, Steve Abrams, Dan M Cooper, Kathleen R Stevens, Frank Puga, Darpan I Patel, Gary M Olson, and Judith S Olson. 2012. Improving the odds through the Collaboration Success Wizard. Translational behavioral medicine , Vol. 2, 4 (2012), 480--486.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeremy P Birnholtz and Matthew J Bietz. 2003. Data at work: supporting sharing in science and engineering. In Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work. ACM, 339--348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jeremy P Birnholtz and Thomas A Finholt. 2013. Cultural challenges to leadership in cyberinfrastructure development. Leadership at a distance: research in technologically-supported work (2013), 195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pernille Bjørn, Morten Esbensen, Rasmus Eskild Jensen, and Stina Matthiesen. 2014. Does Distance Still Matter ? Revisiting the CSCW Fundamentals on Distributed Collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , Vol. 21, 5 (Nov. 2014), 1--26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670534Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, Joergen Knudsen, Morten Kyng, and Kim Madsen. 1988. Computer support for cooperative design. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM, 377--394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Nathan Bos, Ann Zimmerman, Judith Olson, Jude Yew, Jason Yerkie, Erik Dahl, and Gary Olson. 2007. From Shared Databases to Communities of Practice: A Taxonomy of Collaboratories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 12, 2 (2007), 652--672.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Richard E Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development .sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jennifer Carpenter. 2011. May the best analyst win.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. CASP13. 2018. 13th Community Wide Experiment on the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction. http://predictioncenter.org/casp13/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. CERN. 2018. CERN Annual report 2017. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2624296/files/18030409_CERN_rapport_2017EN.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Herbert H Clark. 1996. Using language .Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Herbert H Clark, Susan E Brennan, et almbox. 1991. Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition , Vol. 13, 1991 (1991), 127--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregorio Convertino, Craig H Ganoe, Wendy A Schafer, Beth Yost, and John M Carroll. 2005. A multiple view approach to support common ground in distributed and synchronous geo-collaboration. In Coordinated and Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization (CMV'05). IEEE, 121--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gregorio Convertino, Helena M Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, John M Carroll, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and Craig H Ganoe. 2008. Articulating common ground in cooperative work: content and process. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1637--1646.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Gregorio Convertino, Helena M Mentis, Alex YW Ting, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M Carroll. 2007. How does common ground increase?. In Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work. ACM, 225--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Benjamin F Crabtree and William L Miller. 1999. Doing qualitative research .sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. John W Creswell and J David Creswell. 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches .Sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social Coding in GitHub : Transparency and Collaboration in an Open Software Repository. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work . ACM , 1277--1286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. data.gov. 2019. data.gove datasets. https://catalog.data.gov/datasetGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. datarobot. 2019. datarobot. https://www.datarobot.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharon J Derry, Christian D Schunn, and Morton Ann Gernsbacher. 2014. Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science .Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Paul Dourish and Victoria Bellotti. 1992. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces.. In CSCW, Vol. 92. 107--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Klaus Fiedler, Peter Juslin, et almbox. 2006. Information sampling and adaptive cognition .Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Greg Filla. 2018. What's New with Watson Machine Learning? https://medium.com/ibm-watson/whats-new-with-watson-machine-learning-4de86aa1469dGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Eyal Gamliel and Eyal Peer. 2010. Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles. Judgment and Decision Making , Vol. 5, 1 (2010), 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. GenBank. 2019. GenBank Statistics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/statistics/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Yolanda Gil, Mark Greaves, James Hendler, and Haym Hirsh. 2014. Amplify scientific discovery with artificial intelligence. Science , Vol. 346, 6206 (2014), 171--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Google. 2019. Cloud AutoML. https://cloud.google.com/automl/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Michael E Gorman. 2002. Expanding the trading zones for convergent technologies. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (2002), 424.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Michael E Gorman. 2008. Scientific and technological expertise. Journal of psychology of science and technology (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Barbara Gray. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. (1989).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Saul Greenberg. 1990. Sharing views and interactions with single-user applications. In ACM SIGOIS Bulletin , Vol. 11. ACM, 227--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. H2O. 2019. H2O.ai. https://www.h2o.ai/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Charles Hill, Rachel Bellamy, Thomas Erickson, and Margaret Burnett. 2016. Trials and Tribulations of Developers of Intelligent Systems: A Field Study. In Visual Languages and Human -Centric Computing (VL /HCC), 2016 IEEE Symposium On. IEEE , 162--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Youyang Hou and Dakuo Wang. 2017. Hacking with NPOs: collaborative analytics and broker roles in civic data hackathons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , Vol. 1, CSCW (2017), 53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Edwin Hutchins. 1995. How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive science , Vol. 19, 3 (1995), 265--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Marina Jirotka, Charlotte P Lee, and Gary M Olson. 2013. Supporting scientific collaboration: Methods, tools and concepts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) , Vol. 22, 4--6 (2013), 667--715.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. Allen Lane.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Sean Kandel, Andreas Paepcke, Joseph Hellerstein, and Jeffrey Heer. 2011. Wrangler: Interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3363--3372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Eser Kandogan, Aruna Balakrishnan, Eben M. Haber, and Jeffrey S. Pierce. 2014. From Data to Insight : Work Practices of Analysts in the Enterprise. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , Vol. 34, 5 (Sept. 2014), 42--50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2014.62Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Norbert L Kerr and R Scott Tindale. 2004. Group performance and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. , Vol. 55 (2004), 623--655.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Udayan Khurana, Deepak Turaga, Horst Samulowitz, and Srinivasan Parthasrathy. 2016. Cognito: Automated feature engineering for supervised learning. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW). IEEE, 1304--1307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Bradley L Kirkman, Cristina B Gibson, and Kwanghyun Kim. 2012. Across borders and technologies: Advancements in virtual teams research. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Volume 2 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomas Kluyver, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, Fernando Pérez, Brian E Granger, Matthias Bussonnier, Jonathan Frederic, Kyle Kelley, Jessica B Hamrick, Jason Grout, Sylvain Corlay, et almbox. 2016. Jupyter Notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows.. In ELPUB . 87--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Arie W Kruglanski and DM Webster. 1996. Motivated closing of the mind: Its cognitive and social effects. Psychological Review , Vol. 103, 2 (1996), 263--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Robert Küffner, Neta Zach, Raquel Norel, Johann Hawe, David Schoenfeld, Liuxia Wang, Guang Li, Lilly Fang, Lester Mackey, Orla Hardiman, et almbox. 2015. Crowdsourced analysis of clinical trial data to predict amyotrophic lateral sclerosis progression. Nature biotechnology , Vol. 33, 1 (2015), 51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Anton Kühberger. 1998. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes , Vol. 75, 1 (1998), 23--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Katherine A. Lawrence. 2006. Walking the Tightrope : The Balancing Acts of a Large e-Research Project. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) , Vol. 15, 4 (Oct. 2006), 385--411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-006--9025-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Charlotte P Lee, Matthew J Bietz, and Alexander Thayer. 2010. Research-driven stakeholders in cyberinfrastructure use and development. In 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems. IEEE, 163--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Sijia Liu, Parikshit Ram, Djallel Bouneffouf, Deepak Vijaykeerthy, Gregory Bramble, Horst Samulowitz, Dakuo Wang, Andrew R Conn, and Alexander Gray. 2019. A Formal Method for AutoML via ADMM. arxiv: 1905.00424Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Airong Luo, Dick Ng'ambi, and Ted Hanss. 2010. Towards building a productive, scalable and sustainable collaboration model for open educational resources. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Supporting group work. ACM, 273--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Jessica R Mesmer-Magnus and Leslie A DeChurch. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 94, 2 (2009), 535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Andrew Monk. 2003. Common ground in electronically mediated communication: Clark's theory of language use. HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (2003), 265--289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Michael Muller, Ingrid Lange, Dakuo Wang, David Piorkowski, Jason Tsay, Q Vera Liao, Casey Dugan, and Thomas Erickson. 2019. How Data Science Workers Work with Data: Discovery, Capture, Curation, Design, Creation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Michael J Muller and Allison Druin. 2010. Participatory design: the third space in hci. human-computer interaction: Development process. J. Jacko and A. Sears. Eds. Handbook of HCI (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Fatemeh Nargesian, Horst Samulowitz, Udayan Khurana, Elias B Khalil, and Deepak S Turaga. 2017. Learning Feature Engineering for Classification.. In IJCAI. 2529--2535.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Ramon Oldenburg and Dennis Brissett. 1982. The third place. Qualitative sociology , Vol. 5, 4 (1982), 265--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. GARY M Olson and J Olson. 2016. Converging on theory from four sides. Theory development in the Information Sciences. Ed. D. Sonnenwald. Univ. Of Texas, Austin (2016), 87--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Gary M Olson and Judith S Olson. 2000. Distance matters. Human-computer interaction , Vol. 15, 2--3 (2000), 139--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Gary M Olson, Stephanie Teasley, Matthew J Bietz, and Derrick L Cogburn. 2002. Collaboratories to support distributed science: the example of international HIV/AIDS research. In Proceedings of the 2002 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on enablement through technology. South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, 44--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Gary M Olson, Ann Zimmerman, and Nathan Bos. 2008. Scientific collaboration on the Internet .The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Judith S Olson and Gary M Olson. 2013. Working together apart: Collaboration over the internet. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics , Vol. 6, 5 (2013), 1--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Judith S Olson, Dakuo Wang, Gary M Olson, and Jingwen Zhang. 2017. How people write together now: Beginning the investigation with advanced undergraduates in a project course. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) , Vol. 24, 1 (2017), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Andreas Paepcke. 1996. Information needs in technical work settings and their implications for the design of computer tools. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) , Vol. 5, 1 (1996), 63--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Susannah BF Paletz and Christian D Schunn. 2010. A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science , Vol. 2, 1 (2010), 73--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Kayur Patel, James Fogarty, James A. Landay, and Beverly L. Harrison. 2008. Examining Difficulties Software Developers Encounter in the Adoption of Statistical Machine Learning. . In AAAI . 1563--1566.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Evan Patterson, Ioana Baldini, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, and Kush R Varshney. 2018. Semantic Representation of Data Science Programs.. In IJCAI. 5847--5849.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Evan Patterson, Robert McBurney, Holly Schmidt, Ioana Baldini, A Mojsilović, and Kush R Varshney. 2017. Dataflow representation of data analyses: Toward a platform for collaborative data science. IBM Journal of Research and Development , Vol. 61, 6 (2017), 9--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Suzanne D Pawlowski and Daniel Robey. 2004. Bridging user organizations: Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS quarterly (2004), 645--672.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Roger Peng. 2015. The reproducibility crisis in science: A statistical counterattack. Significance , Vol. 12, 3 (2015), 30--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. ProACT. 2015. The DREAM Phil Bowen ALS Prediction Prize4Life Challenge, The DREAM ALS Stratification Prize4Life Challenge. https://nctu.partners.org/ProACT/Document/DisplayLatest/3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. David Ribes and Charlotte P Lee. 2010. Sociotechnical studies of cyberinfrastructure and e-research: Current themes and future trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) , Vol. 19, 3--4 (2010), 231--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Betsy Rolland and Charlotte P Lee. 2013. Beyond trust and reliability: reusing data in collaborative cancer epidemiology research. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 435--444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Adam Rule, Aurélien Tabard, and James D Hollan. 2018. Exploration and explanation in computational notebooks. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Ralph Schroeder. 2007. e-Research Infrastructures and Open Science: Towards a New System of Knowledge Production? Prometheus , Vol. 25, 1 (2007), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Ameneh Shamekhi, Q Vera Liao, Dakuo Wang, Rachel KE Bellamy, and Thomas Erickson. 2018. Face Value? Exploring the effects of embodiment for a group facilitation agent. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Klaas Sijtsma. 2016. Playing with data or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika , Vol. 81, 1 (2016), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. BF Spencer Jr, Randal Butler, Kathleen Ricker, Doru Marcusiu, Thomas A Finholt, Ian Foster, Carl Kesselman, and Jeremy P Birnholtz. 2008. 18 NEESgrid: Lessons Learned for Future Cyberinfrastructure Development. Scientific Collaboration on the Internet (2008), 331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. John Staddon. 2017. Scientific Method: How Science Works, Fails to Work, and Pretends to Work .Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Garold Stasser and William Titus. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of personality and social psychology , Vol. 48, 6 (1985), 1467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Dennis D Stewart and Garold Stasser. 1998. The sampling of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: the role of an informed minority. European Journal of Social Psychology , Vol. 28, 1 (1998), 95--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Haodan Tan, Dakuo Wang, and Selma Sabanovic. 2018. Projecting Life Onto Robots: The Effects of Cultural Factors and Design Type on Multi-Level Evaluations of Robot Anthropomorphism. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 129--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. John Thackara. 2000. Edge effects: the design challenge of the pervasive interface. In CHI'00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 199--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Trifacta. 2019. Trifacta. https://www.trifacta.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science , Vol. 185, 4157 (1974), 1124--1131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Daan Van Knippenberg and Michaela C Schippers. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual review of psychology , Vol. 58 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Joaquin Vanschoren, Jan N. Van Rijn, Bernd Bischl, and Luis Torgo. 2014. OpenML : Networked Science in Machine Learning. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter , Vol. 15, 2 (2014), 49--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Theresa Velden. 2013. Explaining Field Differences in Openness and Sharing in Scientific Communities. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work . ACM, 445--458.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Rubén Vicente-Sáez and Clara Mart'inez-Fuentes. 2018. Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of business research , Vol. 88 (2018), 428--436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  96. Dakuo Wang. 2016. How people write together now: Exploring and supporting today's computer-supported collaborative writing. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion. ACM, 175--179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. Dakuo Wang, Judith S Olson, Jingwen Zhang, Trung Nguyen, and Gary M Olson. 2015. DocuViz: visualizing collaborative writing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1865--1874.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Dakuo Wang, Haodan Tan, and Tun Lu. 2017. Why users do not want to write together when they are writing together: Users' rationales for today's collaborative writing practices. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , Vol. 1, CSCW (2017), 107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. Dakuo Wang, Haoyu Wang, Mo Yu, Zahra Ashktorab, and Ming Tan. 2019. Slack Channels Ecology in Enterprises: How Employees Collaborate Through Group Chat. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01756 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Andrew Warr. 2006. Situated and distributed design. In NordiCHI Workshop on Distributed Participatory Design, Oslo, Norway. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Etienne Wenger. 2010. Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer, 179--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Michael Woelfle, Piero Olliaro, and Matthew H Todd. 2011. Open science is a research accelerator. Nature Chemistry , Vol. 3, 10 (2011), 745.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  103. William A Wulf. 1989. The national collaboratory-A white paper. (1989).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. Ji Zhang. 2018. JupyterLab_Voyager: a Data Visualization Enhancement in JupyterLab. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How Data ScientistsWork Together With Domain Experts in Scientific Collaborations: To Find The Right Answer Or To Ask The Right Question?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!