Biomedical Research Innovation Language - Part II - Early development phase

BRIL is being built based on a series of steps. This post will outline the first step, namely the collection of artifacts that will guide the creation of the BRIL mapping language. Simply basing a mapping language on opinions of experts is, to say the least, silly. The language should be primarily based on current patterns of resource description used by researchers themselves. Our initial collection of these artifacts generated several observations:

1. Initial data collection using unstructured information: We created a wiki site where researchers can post the information about their research resources. To provide biomedical researchers with some initial structure, we asked them to structure their resources within five main areas, namely databases, analysis methods, infrastructure (e.g., clinics, software, etc), staff (e.g., research coordinators, lab technicians, etc), and experts (e.g., publications, education, funding). Our initial experience is that simply asking researchers to provide this information does not work. Researchers are too busy to spend the time filling out questionnaires and, later, keeping it up to date. Instead, resource mapping should be performed based on whatever element researchers feel are the strongest points of their environment and most likely to attract collaborations of interest to them. For example, some sites might feel that it is easy for them to recruit patients, while others might feel that they are strong in data analysis methods. We also found that expertise (publications, previous funding) is valuable, but that researchers find it easier to have visual aids that allow them to quickly evaluate a researcher or research group (for more details, see our previous post). Finally, infrastructure and staff seem to be primarily used in the evaluation of potential prospective studies.

2. Researcher education through synchronous and asynchronous methods: The value of BRIL to researchers is usually not completely evident. Most established researchers are computer literate, but few are fully aware of the potential the Web presents to enhance collaborations and the associated innovation in their fields. To date we have tried to make them aware of this need by giving a series of presentations that cover the basics of why resource mapping is important, demonstrating how their information will be displayed, and then providing education on how they can actually get their information into Web applications used to make the information available to other researchers. These presentations are then supplemented by other synchronous and asynchronous educational methods. Synchronous mechanisms include Web conferences using a combination of phone (usually VoIP) and screen sharing (usually using free mechanisms such as Yugma). Asynchronous mechanisms include wiki sites, screen casts (created with available commercial software such as Camtasia), forums, and e-mail exchange. Finally, ethnographic methods are used during situations where researchers discuss research collaborations, allowing us to understand more accurately which factors are important in their decision to initiate a collaboration.