請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/49805
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林奇秀(Chi-Shiou Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ching-Yi Lai | en |
dc.contributor.author | 賴璟毅 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T11:49:32Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-08-24 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2016-08-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2016-08-11 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 林玉、劉京玫(2012)。資料庋用詮釋資料之探析。在陳雪華、陳光華(編著),e-Research 學術圖書館創新服務(頁123-152)。臺北市:臺大圖書館。
科技部人文社會科學研究中心(2015)。TSSCI收錄期刊名單。檢自 http://www.hss.ntu.edu.tw/model.aspx?no=67 陳雪華(2012)。導論。在陳雪華、陳光華(編著),e-Research 學術圖書館創新服務(頁1-13)。臺北市:臺大圖書館。 蔡明月(2011)。期刊影響力指標探析。教育資料與圖書館學,49(2),195-214。 Berman, F., Wilkinson, R., & Wood, J. (2014). Building global infrastructure for data sharing and exchange through the research data alliance. D-Lib Magazine, 20(1/2). doi: 10.1045/january2014-berman Blatecky, A., & Greer, C. (2012). Concept paper – Data Web Forum. Retrieved from https://www.cni.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DataWebForum_Concept_Paper.pdf Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1059-1078. Brase, J., Sens, I., & Lautenschlager, M. (2015). The tenth anniversary of assigning DOI names to scientific data and a five year history of DataCite. D-Lib Magazine, 21(1/2). Doi: 10.1045/january2015-brase Broom, A., Cheshire, L., & Emmison, M. (2009). Qualitative researchers’ understandings of their practice and the implications for data archiving and sharing. Sciology, 43(6), 1163-1180. Butler, D. (2006). Mashups mix data into global service: Is this the future for scientific analysis? Nature, 439(7072), 6–7. Carlson, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). What are data? The many kinds of data and their implications for data re-use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 635-651. Chao, T. C. (2012). Exploring the rhythms of scientific data use. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 2012 iConference. New York, NY, USA. Doi: 10.1145/2132176.2132193 Clarke, S., Harrison, A., & Searle, S. (2009). Scholarly information repository services at Monash University. Paper presented at IATUL 30TH Annual Conference, Leuven, Belgium. Clary, E. C. (2013). Data citation in data sharing articles: Do authors reference their own data? (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/record/uuid:4a336f2f-8f11-475f-9ddc-5d84177d10b5 Curty, R. G. (2015). Beyond “data thrifting”: An investigation of factors influencing research data reuse in the social sciences (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/etd/266/ Curty, R. G., & Qin, J. (2014). Towards a model for research data reuse behavior. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1-4. Doi: 10.1002/meet.2014.14505101072 Daniels, M. G. (2014). Data reuse in museum contexts: Experience of archaeologists and botanist (Doctoral dissertation). Information and Library Studies in The University of Michigan, Michigan. Data Curation Center. (n.d.). What is data curation? Retrieved from http://www.dcc.ac.uk/digital-curation/what-digital-curation Dryad. (2014a). 2014 Organizational and membership report. Retrieved from http://datadryad.org/themes/Mirage/docs/DryadAnnualReport2014.pdf Dryad. (2014b). Joint data archiving policy. Retrieved from http://datadryad.org/pages/jdap Duerr, R. E., Downs, R. R., Tilmes, C., Barkstrom, B., Lenhardt, W. C., Glassy, J., Bermudez, L. E., Slaughter, P. (2011). On the utility of identification schemes for digital earth science data: An assessment and recommendations. Earth Science Informatics, 4(3), 139-160. doi: 10.1007/s12145-011-0083-6. Economic and Social Research Council. (2015). Research data policy. Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-grant-holders/research-data-policy/ Edwards, P. N., Mayernik, M. S., Batcheller, A. L., Bowker, G. C., & Borgman, C. L. (2011). Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 667–690. European Commission. (2012). Scientific data: Open access to research results will boost Europe’s innovation capacity. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-790_en.htm Faniel, I. M., & Jacobsen, T. E. (2010a). Reusing scientific data: A research framework. Paper presented at CSCW 2010 Workshop on “the changing dynamics of scientific collaboration”, Savannah, GA. Faniel, I. M., & Jacobsen, T. E. (2010b). Reusing scientific data: How earthquake engineering researchers assess the reusability of colleagues’ data. Compute Supported Cooperative Work, 19, 355-375. Faniel, I. M., Barrera-Gomez, J., Kriesberg, A., & Yakel, E. (2013). A comparative study of data reuse among quantitative social scientists and archaeologists. iConference 2013 Proceedings, 797-800. Doi: 10.9776/13391 Faniel, I. M., Kansa, E., Kansa, S. W., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The challenges of digging data: A study of context in archaeological data reuse. In JCDL 2013 Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp.295-304). New York, NY: ACM. Faniel, I. M., Kriesberg, A., & Yakel, E. (in press). Social Scientists’ satisfaction with data reuse. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Doi:10.1002/asi.23480 Faniel, I. M., Kriesberg, A., Yakel,E. (2012). Data reuse and sense making among novice social scientists. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1-10. Doi: 10.1002/meet.14504901068 Fear, K. M. (2013). Measuring and anticipating the impact of data reuse (Doctoral dissertation). Information and Library Studies in The University of Michigan, Michigan. Fienberg, S.E., Martin, M.E., & Straf, M.L. (Eds.). (1985). Sharing research data. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Fischer, B.A., & Zigmond, M.J. (2010). The essential nature of sharing in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(4), 783–799. Gamble, M., & Goble, C. (2011). Quality, trust, and utility of scientific data on the web: Towards a joint model. Paper presented at WebSci’11 Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference. New York, NY. Doi: 10.1145/2527031.2527048 Genome Canada. (2008). Data release and resource sharing. Retrieved from http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/PDF/EN/DataReleaseandResourceSharingPolicy.pdf Gray, J. (2007). Jim Gray on e-Science: A transformed scientific method. In T. Hey, S. Tasnsley, & K. Tolle (Eds.), The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery (xvii-xxxi). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation. Hedrick, T. E. (1988). Justification for sharing of social science data. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 163-171. Henderson, T. (2015). Data citation practices in the CRAWDAD Wireless Network Data Archive. D-Lib Magazine, 21(1/2). Doi: 10.1045/january2015-henderson Huang, H., Stvilia, B., Jorgensen, C., & Bass, H. W. (2012). Prioritization of data quality dimensions and skills requirements in genome annotation work. Journal of American Society of Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 195-207. Hutchinson, J. (2015). Minimum information standards. Transplantation, 99(3), 464-465. Jankowski, N. (2009). The contours and challenges of e-Research. In N. Jankowski (Ed.), e-Research: Transformation in scholarly practice (pp.3-31).New York, NY: Routledge. Jasny, B. R., Chin, G., Chong, L., & Vignieri, S. (2011). Again, and again, and again. Science, 334(6060), 1225. Kim, J. (2013). Data sharing and its implications for academic libraries. New Library World, 114(11/12), 494-506. Konkiel, S. (2013). Tracking citation and altmetrics for research data: Challenges and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(6), 27-32. Kriesberg, A., Frank, R. D., Faniel, I. M., & Yakel, E. (2013). The role of data reuse in the apprenticeship process. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1-10. Doi: 10.1002/meet.14505001051 Kvalheim, V., Kvamme, T., & Norwegian Social Science Data Services. (2014). Policies for sharing research data in social sciences and humanities: A survey about research funders’ data policies. Retrieved from http://ifdo.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ifdo_fact.pdf Lagoze, C., & Velden, T. (2009). Communicating chemistry. Nature Chemistry, 1, 673–678. LeClere, F. (2010). Too many researchers are reluctant to share their data. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Too-Many-Researchers-Are/123749/Heidorn Luce, R. E. (2010). Grand challenges and new roles for the twenty-first-century research library in and era of e-science. In D. B. Marcum, G. George (Eds.), The data deluge: Can libraries cope with e-science? (pp. 3-15). Santa Barbara, CA: AbcClio. MacMillan, D. (2014). Data sharing and discovery. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 541-549. Mauthner, N. S., & Parry, O. (2009). Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences: On whose philosophical terms? Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 291-307. Mayernik, M. S. (2011). Metadata realities for cyber infrastructure: Data authors as metadata creators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLA, Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://beta.sensorbase.org/~mayernik/mayernik_dissertation_submitted_08June2011.pdf Mayernik, M. S., Wallis, J. C., Pepe, A., & Borgman, C. L. (2008). Whose data do you trust? Integrity issues in the preservation of scientific data. Paper presented at iConference 2008. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/15119 Mooney, H. (2011). Citing data sources in the social sciences: Do authors do it? Learned Publishing, 24(2), 99–108. doi:10.1087/20110204 Murillo, A. P. (2014). Examining data sharing and data reuse in the dataone environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1-5. Doi: 10.1002/meet.2014.14505101155 Nationa Research Council. (1997). Bits of power: Issues in global access to scientific data. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of medicine of the National Academies. (2009). Ensuring the integrity, accessibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Institutes of Health. (2003). Final NIH statement on sharing research data. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html National Research Council. (1999). A question of balance: Private right and the public interest in scientific and technical databases. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Science Board. (2005). Long-lived digital data collections: Enabling research and education in the 21th century. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsb0540/ National Science Foundation. (2011a). Award and administration guide. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_6.jsp National Science Foundation. (2011b). Grant proposal guide. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp Nature. (n.d.). Availability of data, material and methods. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/availability.html Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basic of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Niu, J. (2009). Perceived documentation quality of social science data (Doctoral dissertation). Information and Library Studies in The University of Michigan, Michigan. Niu, J., & Hedstrom, M. (2009). Documentation evaluation model for social science data: An empirical test. Paper presented at DigCCurr 2009 Conference. Chapel Hill: NC Noorden, R. V. (2013). Everything on display. Nature, 500, 243-245 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007). OECD principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/38500813.pdf Palmer, C. L., Weber, N. M., & Cragin, M. H. (2011). The analytic potential of scientific data: Understanding re-use value. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1). Doi:10.1002/meet.2011.14504801174 Peng, R.D. (2011). Reproducible research in computational science. Science, 334(6060), 1226–1227. Piwowar, H. A. (2008). Proposed foundations for evaluation data sharing and reuse in the biomedical literature. Bulletin of IEEE Technical Committee on Digital Library, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.ieee-tcdl.org/Bulletin/v4n2/piwowar/piwowar.html Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation. PeerJ, e175. Doi: 10.7717/peerj.175 Piwowar, H. A., Vision, T. J., & Carlson, J. D. (2011). Beginning to track 1000 datasets from public repositories into the published literature. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-4. Doi: 10.1002/meet.2011.14504801337 Read, E. J. (2007). Data services in academic libraries: Assessing needs and promoting services. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(3), 61-75. Research Data Access and Preservation Summit 2016. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/rdap/ Robinson-Garcia, N., Jimenez-Contreras, E., & Torres-Salinas, D. (in press). Analyzing data citation practices according to the Data Citation Index. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Doi: 10.1002/asi.23529 Rolland, B., & Lee, C. P. (2013). Beyond trust and reliability: Reusing data in collaborative cancer epidemiology research. Paper presented CSCW '13 Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer, NewYork, NY. Doi: 10.1145/2441776.2441826 Ronald, C. J. (2014). A report on the DataCite Summer 2013 Meeting. Library Hi Tech News, 31(1), 4-7. Sands, A., Borgman, C. L., Wynholds, L., & Traweek, S. (2012). Follow the data: How astronomers use and reuse data. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1). DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504901341 Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., & Taylor, K.E. (2011). The reproducibility of observational estimates of surface and atmospheric temperature change. Science, 334(6060), 1232–1233. Sayogo, D. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2013). Exploring the determinants of scientific data sharing: Understanding the motivation to publish research data. Government Information Quarterly, 30, s19-s31. Science. (n.d.). General information for authors. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/gen_info.xhtml#unpublished Scientific Data (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/sdata/about Sechrest, L., & Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 77-87. Simons, N., Visser, K., & Searle, S. (2013). Growing institutional support for data citation: Results of a partnership between Griffith University and the Australian National Data Service. D-Lib Magazine, 19(11/12). Doi:10.1045/november2013-simons Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. doi: 10.1038/163688a0. Stanley, B., & Stanley, M. (1988). Data sharing: The primary researcher’s perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 173-180 Stvilia, B., Hinnant, C. C., Wu, Shuheng, Worrall, A., Lee, D. J., Burnett, K., Burnett, G., Kazmer, M., & Marty, P. F. (2015). Research project tasks, data, and perceptions of data quality in a condensed matter physics community. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 246-263. Sulston, J. (2002). Heritage of humanity. Le monde diplomatique: English Edition LMD. Retrieved from http://mondediplo.com/2002/12/15genome Thomson Reuters. (2015). About data citation index. Web of science. Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com//products_tools/multidisciplinary/dci/about/ Uhlir, P. F., & Cohen, D. (2011, March 8). Internal document. Board on Research Data and Information, Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Academy of Sciences. Van den Berg, H. (2005). Reanalyzing qualitative interviews from different angles: The risk of decontextualization and other problems of sharing qualitative data. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/499/1074#g3 Wallis, J. C., Rolando, E., & Borgman, C. L. (2013). If we share will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. PloS ONE, 8(7), e67332. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067332 Washinton, H. G. (1984). Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: A review with special relebance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Research, 18(6), 653-694. Weber, N. M. (2013). The relevance of research data sharing and reuse studies. Bulleting of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 39(6), 23-26. Doi: 0.1002/bult.2013.1720390609 Weber, N. M., Baker, K. S., Thomer, A. K., Chao, T. C., & Palmer, C. L. (2012). Value and context in data use: Domain analysis revisited. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1). Doi: 10.1002/meet.14504901168 Wellcome Trust. (2003). Sharing data from large-scale biological research projects: A system of tripartite responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/WellcomeReport0303.pdf Wellcome Trust. (n.d.). Statement on genome data release. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002751.htm Whitlock, M. C., McPeek, M. A., Rausher, M. D., Rieseberg, L., & Moore, A. J. (2015). Data archiving. Chicago Journals, 175(2), 145-146. Whitlock, M.C. (2011). Data archiving in ecology and evolution: Best practices. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(2), 61–65. Williams, S. C. (2013). Data sharing interviews with crop sciences faculty: Why they share data and how the library can help. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Doi:10.5062/F3T151M8 Wouters, P., & Beaulieu, A. (2009). E-Research as intervention. In N. Jankowski (Ed.), e-Research: Transformation in scholarly practice (pp.3-31).New York, NY: Routledge. Wynholds, L., Fearson, D. S. Jr., Borgman, C. L., & Traweek, S. (2011). When use cases are not useful: Data practices, astronomy, and digital libraries. JCDL’ 11 Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries, 383-386. Doi: 10.1145/1998076.1998146 Xia, J., & Liu, Y. (2013). Usage patterns of open genomic data. College & Research Library, 74(2), 195-207 Yoon, A. (2014). “Making a square fit into a circle”: Researchers’ experiences reusing qualitative data. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1-4. Yoon, A. (2015). Data reuse and users’ trust judgments: Toward trusted data curation (Doctoral dissertaion) . Retrieved from https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/record/uuid:2c2268b3-88cf-4397-b038-b39e88f80d83 Yozwiak, N. L., Schaffner, S. F., Sabeti, P. C. (2015). Make outbreak research open access. Nature, 518, 477-479. Zenk-Moltgen, W., & Lepthien, G. (2014). Data sharing in sociology journals. Online Information Review, 38(6), 709-722. Zhang, J. (2011). Data use and access behavior eScience – Exploring data practices in the new data-intensive science paradigm (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://idea.library.drexel.edu/islandora/object/idea%3A3543 Zhang, J., Vogeley, M. S., & Chen, C. (2011). Scientometrics of big science: A case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Scientometrics, 86, 1-14. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0318-1 Zimmerman, A. S. (2008). New knowledge from old data: The role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(5), 631-652. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/49805 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 資料分享運動於近年來開始蓬勃發展,政府機關、學術機構與期刊出版商紛紛規定或鼓勵學者分享資料。但是資料分享的前置作業流程繁複,會耗費資料分享者不少的時間與勞力,因此現有的實徵研究也開始觀察學界的資料再用狀況,以評估資料分享的效益。本研究探討的是臺灣社會科學領域資料再用的狀況,以及社會科學學者資料再用的行為特徵。
本研究首先以內容分析法分析2011至2015年TSSCI劃分的社會、政治、教育、經濟與心理學門底下的期刊論文,分析的項目分別為(1)再用論文特徵,包含再用論文比例、年代、資料使用數量,以及資料交代狀況;(2)被用資料特徵,包含資料主題、變數主題、資料蒐集者�彙編者、資料類型以及資料與論文的年代差距。另一方面,本文以半結構式的深度訪談法訪談由前述內容分析辨識出的再用論文作者14位。訪談與分析的面向包含資料再用的動機、得知資料的管道、如何評估資料,以及獲得資料後的後續處理行為。 研究結果顯示,再用論文共有511篇,佔實徵論文數量的17.33%。在資料使用數量方面,多數再用論文僅使用1筆資料,較為不同的是經濟學門有將近一半的論文同時使用2筆以上的資料。在資料交代狀況方面,所有論文均會在正文交代資料,但是在摘要、謝辭、表格或參考文獻交代資料的論文比例均不到一半。在資料的識別資訊交代方面(包含資料的網址�DOI、題名、蒐集者�彙編者以及年代),除了資料的網址�DOI,多數再用論文會完整交代資料識別資訊。 在被用資料的特徵方面,本文一共分析了875筆被用資料。在資料主題方面,有一半左右的被用資料主題與政治、教育以及經濟有關。在被使用的變數主題上,除了與研究主題相關的變數外,社會、政治與教育學門常使用的變數多與人類社會特徵有關(例如年齡、職業、薪資以及婚姻狀態);相對而言,經濟學門常用的變數多與國家或機構組織的發展有關。在資料的蒐集者�彙編者方面,整體資料主要是來自政府機關(46.86%),其次分別為學術機構(23.77%)與民間機構(21.14%),來自個別研究的資料不到6%。在資料類型方面,整體而言,被用資料的類型是以業務資料為主(55.54%),系列調查資料次之(34.63%),屬於一次性研究的資料僅佔8.34%。在資料年代方面,社會與經濟學門使用的資料與論文的年代差距較大;相對而言,政治與教育學門使用的資料年代差距較小。 在資料使用的行為特徵方面,本研究發現(1)資料再用動機,可分為所需資料無法自行蒐集、資料具有公信力、延伸同儕研究、探索潛在研究題目以及學科領域文化的影響;(2)得知資料的管道包含學術文獻、同儕與指導教授、政府與學術機構網站、學會與調查機構的推廣以及紙本統計資料;(3)受訪者會評估問卷內容的可用性、資料分析結果是否具有發表價值、資料蒐集過程的品質、樣本代表性、資料年代以及資料易得性;(4)在分析資料前,會為資料進行描述統計、基本的資料處理,以及合併資料或補充不足的資料。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | With the increasing calls for data sharing, governments, academic institutions and journal publishers have mandated or encouraged scholars to share their research data. Data sharing is a complicated issue involving technical and social rearrangement. There are also calls for empirical examination of research data reuse activities to evaluate the outcome and benefit of data sharing. This study examined the state of data reuse in the Taiwan social sciences journals as well as the data reuse behavior of social sciences scholars.
This study employed a content-analysis approach to analyze journal articles indexed in TSSCI. Five TSSCI domains were chosen for the analysis, including sociology, political sciences, education, economics and psychology. Journal articles from 2011 to 2015 were used as the sample for this study. The analyses focused on: (1) the characteristic of the data reuse papers, i.e., proportions of data reuse papers, publishing year, amount of datasets used in each reuse paper, and data-reporting state of paper; (2) the characteristic of the reused data, i.e., the subject distribution of datasets, subject distribution of variables, origination of data, types of data, and year gap between reuse papers and used data. It also used semi-structured in-depth interviews to examine 14 social scientists’ data reuse behavior. The interviews focused on (1) the reason for data reusing; (2) channels for data seeking and discovery; (3) principles governing assessment of the found data; and (4) the preparation treatment of the data prior to its reuse. Based on the analysis, this study found 511 reuse papers published in the said period (17.33% of the total empirical papers), most of which used one dataset. Almost half of the economics papers had used two or more datasets, making it distinct from other social sciences domains. Less than half of the papers had reported data in abstracts, tables, acknowledgements and references. However, most of reuse papers had provided sufficient identification information for the data, e.g., titles, collectors, and year of data. This study also identified 875 reused datasets. It was found that half of the datasets were in economics, political sciences and education. As to the variables used in the reuse papers, sociology, political sciences and education papers tended to use variables related to social characteristics, e.g., race, salary, and gender. On the contrary, economics papers had tended to use macro-level variables relating to country or institutional phenomenon. 46.86% of the reused datasets were originated from governments, followed by academic institutions (23.77%) and corporations (21.14%). Less than 6% of the datasets were from previous individual research. More than half of the datasets were business-transaction data, followed by series surveys (34.63%) and one-time study (8.34%). The year gap between reuse papers and datasets were relatively long in economics and sociology, but shorter in political sciences and education. The interviews revealed that scholars were motivated to reuse data mainly because of the barrier to collect data on their own, good credibility of existing data, ability to extend existing research, explore potential research questions, and the influences of subject disciplines. Scholars sought data through journal articles, colleagues and advisors, websites of government agencies and academic institutions, the promotion of academic institutes and hard copy statistics data. Prior to data use, a researcher would assess the usability and quality of the data, including the collection processes, representativeness of samples, timeliness and accessibility of data. Prior to data reanalysis, researchers may also observe the descriptive statistics of the datasets and conduct the necessary data cleaning and re-processing activities. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T11:49:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-105-R02126003-1.pdf: 3001912 bytes, checksum: ca6923610eadfb783b076fdd9ac6dd8b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i
中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與研究問題 1 第二節 研究範圍與名詞定義 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 資料分享運動 7 第二節 資料再用之實徵研究 16 第三節 既有資料的尋求與再用行為 23 第三章 研究設計 35 第一節 研究方法 35 第二節 研究樣本與抽樣 35 第三節 資料蒐集與分析 40 第四章 研究結果 47 第一節 再用論文特徵 47 第二節 被用資料特徵 65 第三節 社會科學學者的資料再用行為 78 第四節 綜合討論 96 第五章 結論與建議 101 第一節 結論 101 第二節 建議 108 參考文獻 111 附錄 123 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 社會科學量化資料再用研究-以2011至2015 TSSCI期刊論文為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Study of Quantitative Data Reuse in the Social Sciences – the Case of the TSSCI Journal Articles, 2011-2015 | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 104-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張郁蔚(Yu-Wei Chang),楊東謀(Tung-Mou Yang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 社會科學,量化資料,資料再用,資料引用,資料尋求行為, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Social Sciences,Quantitative Data,Data Reuse,Data Citation,Data Seeking Behavior, | en |
dc.relation.page | 124 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201602283 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2016-08-12 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 圖書資訊學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-105-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.93 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。