Bob ran a panel with current PhD Candidates (4th and 5th years) and professors, asking: What makes a good Information Science dissertation?
Each of the current students told the story of how they picked their topic. The professors then shared their expectations for a dissertation. (more…)
I3M is a iSchool research organization that specializes in MIS areas of study. It undertakes research projects shaped by research partners and the faculty associates. Note that the research is directed by a “mutually-driven” agenda.
Primarily, the discussion circled around models for partnership or collaboration between academia and industry… (more…)
Thank you all for an engaging and provocative discussion. This will be a short summary of the major points. Comments are open to all comers.
A Summary:
Bob and Karine gave quick five minute introductions each.
Bob asked how you measure success in information schools. He suggested that impact was one important measure. Bob also present an initial list of stakeholders to the iSchool. Each stakeholder was listed with a way they measured the school.
Karine emphasized the importance of boundaries to help define an iSchool community. For example, it is the emphasis on information that defines us. She also recognized the developing nature of the iSchool and discussed pros and cons of firm boundaries in such a case.
These two introductions opened the room to a number of discussions. I saw two major questions:
(Q1) What is an iSchool (or our iSchool)?
(Q2) What are metrics of our school? What should they be?
Here are some answers from the room:
To (Q1) on identity:
- Information is a vague term and must be connected to People and Technology.
- The future shape of the school is still being defined. Chosen ethics or politics may help define the school.
- We should caution against becoming so undefined and amorphous lest the school itself disappear. This is a trap. (Reference other departments that were so interdisciplinary that they lost definition and disappeared).
- We have a hard time articulating who we are.
- We need a common purpose. With a common purpose, these questions of metrics will align themselves.
- We should have a set of “problem spaces”.
This is a good, non-contentious way of defining ourselves.
This will help define”Information – People – Technology”.
This will help communicate with external stakeholders.
- We do not want a school separated into knowledge silos.
- The nature of our community (welcoming, etc… ) is important to our definition as an iSchool.
- Our interdisciplinarity is important to our definition as an iSchool.
T o (Q2) on metrics:
- There is a difference between external metrics (i.e. how outside stakeholders see us) and internal metrics. External metrics allow us to communicate to the University, prospective students, etc…
- The school’s developing nature make it difficult to define metrics. Conversely, a metric may constrain the development of the school.
- The school’s interdisciplinary nature makes it difficult to produce one metric. The number of publications or the kinds of systems produced by one faculty member does not translate as a metric for another faculty member.
- The school’s internal metrics, such as the tenure process, are healthy. For example, the tenure process does take into account the impact that faculty has had on the surrounding local community or local businesses.
- Proposed measurements, based on our interdisciplinary nature:
- In response to these measurements, a comment was raised: well, these metrics don’t fit with faculty in our school who do research alone and who don’t collaborate.
- We need a portfolio of metrics, not one general set for the school.
