Planning the annual retreat

The annual School of Computing PhD Retreat took place earlier this week, and I am exhausted from all of the fun (and the planning!).

Traditionally, the retreat is planned and organised by a member of staff, but due to other commitments, the task was passed off to me and my co-student representative, Andreas Steyven. However, the short notice meant that we didn’t really have time to be planning a three-day retreat, so we decided to get a little creative (with the blessing of the Director of Research and another “responsible member of staff”).

With limited time both in our busy schedules before the retreat was to take place, Andreas and I decided to make the trip a bit relaxed and fun. We also knew that the rest of the students were pushed for time, so we decided to make it easy for them, too, by not giving participants anything to prepare in advance. Instead, we asked students to just show up ready to share their research in an informal environment.

We did, however, ask a couple of members of staff to run a couple of casual sessions. But as we had a “no technology” theme going, no one needed to prepare PowerPoint presentations. Instead, they were asked to share their knowledge, wisdom, and experience in a casual manner. We had staff-led discussions about preparing for the viva and the thesis process, administrative processes within the university, and a discussion about how best to utilise the PhD study spaces and collaborative research room.

We also ran two sessions that were designed to get students talking about their research in a casual manner. The idea was to help people build communication skills so that they could explain their research without preparation—and to a general audience.

On the first evening, Andreas ran a session called “Parrot Party”. For this session, we paired off with someone from outside of our research group. The first person then had three minutes to explain their research to a “listener”. After the three minutes were up, the listener had to explain the first person’s research to a member of staff. The idea is that listening is an important part of communication! (It was harder than it sounds!)

I ran the session on the second evening which was the main presentation opportunity for the retreat. It began shortly before dinner when I produced a box of random items: batteries, yarn, old phones, a tin of beans, a stuffed bear called Randolph, and an odd selection of other things I had laying around my home. The idea was that after dinner, everyone would have five minutes to present their research using at least one item from the box as a prop. Everyone had 15 minutes to look through the box before I closed the lid again. Then, after dinner, the presentations began.

Randolph was the star of the show and was used by nearly all of the presenters as a way of sharing their research. But people used several other props and mostly seemed to enjoy the challenge. Importantly, I think everyone learned new ways of thinking about how best to communicate their research. (A hard task, when you’re not given much time to prepare!)

Overall, I think it was a great retreat. I know it took some students outside of their comfort zone (presenting without PowerPoint!!) but I think it was a good experience for all of us!

Next week is another busy week as I prepare for the School of Computing PhD Research Conference, for which I am a co-chair. I suppose that means I should start thinking about my presentation. After all, I plan to win first place and I can’t do that without a bit of preparation!

A full set of data, at last!

This week marked a very exciting, very important part of my PhD research: I completed my data collection! That means I now have a full set of data from 45 participants. Which is even more exciting for me, as I have experienced a few delays in my data collection.

At this stage, my participants have been divided into three sets: Generation Y (born 1981-1997), Generation X (born 1965-1980), and Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964). It is possible that I will divvy them up into narrower age groups for some or all of my findings, but this is where the groupings are at this time. Regardless, my intentions are to analyse my data through an age-based lens. (With an open mind to considering other ways of looking at the data.)

Each participant provided three general types of data: Some general background information about their education levels, employment, and social media history; information from a week’s worth of data collection; and the responses from their interviews. The background information will be used to help me classify my findings during the analysis stage and may help to determine sub-groups within the generations or other age bands. The data from diaries and interviews, however, will largely be treated as the same type of information—at least in the beginning.

Now that I have all of my data, I need to complete the transcription of the interviews. And then it will be time to code everything up before the all-important analysis stage. I will share a bit of insight into each of these steps as I go along.

Things are certainly looking up in my world of PhD dreams… and I am feeling more and more confident about those dreams becoming a reality. And that means that I will likely be sharing a bit more of my progress and thought processes with you. But for now … it’s time to crack open a bottle of Prosecco to celebrate this great research milestone!

Write now!

Yesterday was the official Write Now! launch at Edinburgh Napier University, organised by me and my colleague, Iris Buunk. Write Now! was inspired by the successful Shut Up and Write! meet-ups organised by creative writing groups in San Francisco, something which Iris and I tried to replicate for ourselves by working in area coffee shops.

[In a hurry? Go straight to the “Why is it important?” part.]

However, we believed that—with the right support—we could create and maintain a successful writing group on the Merchiston Campus. But human support wouldn’t be enough—we wanted a small bit of financial support, too, so that we could offer tea and biscuits to our fellow writers. So we applied for a small research development grant from Edinburgh Napier University to help get us started—and thankfully, the university thought we had a good idea, too!

Importantly, other academics seem to think Write Now! is a good idea, too.

Yesterday’s launch saw 15 participants eagerly working on their academic tasks. There was work done on PhD theses and journal articles. Some people used the time to edit papers they were hoping to submit for publications. And some people used the time to fine-tune abstracts or create tables and figures for their documents.

Did they show up for the free biscuits? Maybe. But they stayed to work and the feedback indicates that they will return!

We now have enough money to fund writing sessions through to the end of the semester and are hoping that we might find further support for next year—if we can show that the investment in writing is a good investment for the university.

If you missed yesterday’s session: Don’t worry! We’ll be back next week and you’re welcome to join us!

But why is it important?
Easy: Because committing yourself to a dedicated writing time can help to prioritise the importance of writing whilst facilitating the process.

We figure that, at the most basic level, Write now! will benefit research students and academic staff who participate in the sessions. However, we also believe that this dedicated writing time will encourage participants to work on journal or conference submissions, research grants, and other academic work to help increase the university’s reach and impact within the greater academic research community.

Write now! addresses three of the four domains of the Vitae’s Research Development Framework, as dedication to the writing processes is key to the act of academic research. The primary domain to be addressed is ‘Engagement, influence, and impactin the subdomain ‘communication and dissemination’. As a key component of research is the dissemination of clearly communicated texts, it is vital to show within the university that engaging with the writing process is of great importance. To that, Write now! offers individuals the ability to spend time actively working on effective, written communications—whether in the form of writing abstracts for conference submissions, writing up the findings of an on-going research project, or disseminating findings through articles written for the press or academic blogs and other social media tools.

Additional areas being addressed are knowledge and intellectual abilities as related to creating a stronger knowledge base and developing a higher level of academic literacy and personal effectiveness as it relates to issues of personal time management and the prioritisation of workloads and related tasks.

Join us next Wednesday—and every Wednesday through June:
Triangle Restaurant
2-4 pm
Free drinks and snacks
And don’t forget your laptop (or pen and paper if you’re Old Skool like that!)

IDIMC: A winning conference

I attended the International Data and Information Management Conference in Loughborough (England) this week along with some of my colleagues from Edinburgh Napier University. The conference was a great opportunity to meet with other information science researchers—and to present my own research.

It was also a fantastic opportunity for winning! There were four potential prizes for the conference: Best paper, best poster, best 5-minute madness presentation, and a dinner quiz. And Team Napier won them all! In fact, three of the four were won by me! (I didn’t submit for the fourth, so I’m not bitter about not winning that one.)

In order of prize announcement, here’s how the awards went down:

Dinner Quiz
I was on a team with my officemate, John Mowbray. Our team (Winners or Losers, Delete As Appropriate) won by half a point. Another officemate (Iris Buunk) and my PhD supervisor (Hazel Hall) were on the second place team.

Best 5-minute madness presentation (open to PhD students)
I took this prize (which came with a £25 Amazon gift certificate) for my presentation on my PhD research. It was a quick overview of my research themes, methods, and progress to date. The winner was selected by the conference programme committee at the conference, and I was a bit surprised to have won.

Best poster (open to all)
Iris Buunk took this well-deserved prize for her poster ‘Easier, better, faster’. The winner was selected by a delegate vote at the conference. The poster was very well designed with clear, easy to understand text. It was clearly the winner! (And as I didn’t have a poster, I am not at all bitter about not winning!)

Best paper (open to all)
Much to my surprise (and excitement), the best paper award went to me (and to the paper co-authors Peter Cruickshank, Hazel Hall, and Alistair Lawson). The paper was titled ‘Personal online reputation: the development of an approach to investigate how personal reputation is evaluated and managed in online environments’.

The winner for this category was decided by anonymous peer review of all papers refereed prior to the conference. That means that the award was based on the text and the text alone. Not me as a person; not my presentation of the work. And that is such a great boost for my confidence!

(Read the full paper here or check out the presentation slides here.)

As I said, it was a winning conference. And all that winning has done wonders for my self-confidence and self-esteem. If I can keep this energy up, I’ll be back on track with my PhD submission before I know it!

Also: It really must be said that these great honours would not have happened without the guidance (and co-authorship) of my amazing set of supervisors. So to them, I extend my absolute gratitude!

[Photo credits to Hazel Hall]

I present to you … 2016!

I returned to the office this week, signalling that the New Year is now fully underway. It’s looking to be a pretty exciting (and hopefully extremely productive!) year, too.

This will be a busy year for me, as it’s the year that the bulk of my thesis will get written. (Or all of it? Let’s not hold our breath for that!) It’s also looking to be the year that I present a lot of my work at conferences and other events. (And hopefully, some of those presentations will be based on publications!)

My first presentation will be tomorrow in the form of a 1-minute madness presented at an Edinburgh Napier University School of Computing research day. It’s an easy little warm-up for the year, and a great way to remind my colleagues about my research interests (and to be reminded of theirs!).

Then next week I’ll be heading to Loughborough University (England) for the International Data and Information Management Conference (IDIMC). There, I will participate in a 5-minute madness with other PhD students to share an overview of my research on the first day. And on the second day, I will present my paper ‘Personal online reputation: the development of an approach to investigate how personal reputation is evaluated and managed in online environments’ (co-authors Peter CruickshankProfessor Hazel Hall, and Alistair Lawson).

But the presentations won’t end there!

I have also been invited as a guest speaker at CILIP’s Discover Academic Research, Training and Support Conference in Totnes, England. The conference takes place in early June and I will be talking about managing personal reputations online. I’ll share a bit more about this event in the spring.

I will also be submitting proposals for a couple of other conferences over the next year. There are three that I have in mind at the moment though I don’t know that I’ll be able to attend and present at all three. But I’ll be sure to let you know!

I am really excited about 2016 and am hoping that it’s a productive and exciting year. I’m feeling quite positive about my research and my role in academia at the moment, and I hope to keep the momentum going!

I hope your 2016 is off to an equally wonderful start!

[Photo Copyright Professor Hazel Hall taken at my 2014 presentation at the Skeptics on the Fringe line-up in the Edinburgh Fringe]

CSI Napier: Investigate, interrogate, imbibe

Last week, we held our year-end Centre for Social Informatics (CSI) meeting at Edinburgh Napier University’s School of Computing. The bi-annual meeting was an opportunity for members of the CSI team to come together to discuss our research (investigation) activities over the previous six months, with an opportunity for questions (interrogations) afterwards. And, of course, since it was so near to the start of the Christmas holidays, at the end of the meeting we toasted the end of a successful year with a bit of Prosecco (that’s the imbibe bit*).

The format of these meeting is fairly simple: Each team member is given 5 minutes to share an update on their research and engagement activities. After 5 minutes are up, there is time for other CSI members to ask questions or to share other pieces of relevant and helpful information.

Time-keeping being what it is, however, these 5-minute sessions are known to take a bit longer than 5 minutes at times. That is, of course, until our centre director (and my supervisor, Hazel Hall) showed up at last week’s meeting with a 5-minute sand-based timer. Whilst we laughed at the excitement over such a thing, I think we can all recognise that it was a great way to keep everyone from going over their allotted time. (And it worked. Mostly.)

Ideally, I would be able to share a short summary of what each member presented at the meeting. However, I wasn’t really expecting to blog about the day so I didn’t take notes. (I will do that next time though!) You can find bio pages for CSI members here though, along with information about their research.

I can share with you the information that I presented though. So here goes:

I will share larger, more detailed posts about each of these things in the coming weeks—along with a couple of other exciting stories and announcements about my PhD dreams.

If you’re reading this thinking how fantastic it must be to be part of such an interesting research group—you’re right!

And if you’re thinking you might want to join the group as a PhD researcher, you’re in luck—because there are studentships available!

Stay tuned in the New Year (and maybe before then!) for some great posts about my PhD progress!

* I didn’t imbibe. How very, very unlike me! 🙂

Data delays

I began recruiting participants for my main study in early-September. At the time, I had this silly notion that I would be finished with my data collection by the end of October. Easy-peasy, right?

Wrong.

Because that naïve notion came with the assumption that people would be so excited to participate in my study that I would have all of my participants identified and signed-up by mid-October. But by the time October came to an end, only seven participants had completed the study—less than 20% of my total sample of 45 people. (I didn’t even have all 45 participants by then.)

So… that was my first delay for my data collection.

But by that time, I had increased my participant numbers enough to where I thought I might be able to finish my data collection by the end of November—so long as I could identify a few more participants. But then, as often happens, some participants withdrew due to other commitments (whilst some just never responded past their initial agreement to participate). It happens. And It’s nothing personal, right?

By mid-November I found myself sending out more calls for participants, wondering just how I would manage to find a full set for each of my three age groups. And I realised—with great disappointment in myself—that I would have to delay my desired data collection deadline to the end of December. That’s OK though, because it’s only a two-month delay, right? And surely I won’t have to delay again, right …?

As November began to crawl to an end, I was excited to see that I had all of the Generation X participants I needed—and I even had inquiries from enough Generation Y- and Baby Boomer-aged people to complete those groups.

Yes, December was going to be my month! I just knew that by the end of December—by the end of 2015—I would have all of my data collected. And for a while, I was actually convinced that I would actually manage it; that I would actually manage to collect data from all 45 participants (15 per group).

In fact, by the 3rd of December, I had successfully completed data collection for Generation X. (Which is my generation group, so I took extra pride in my fellow X-ers for that.) By that time I also had a full set of volunteers who were on track to complete by the end of the month; by the end of the year.

However, as often happens, I lost a couple of people again. Darn! (No hard feelings; I totally understand that other things come up.)

I am now sitting on the very edge of my (delayed) goals of completing data collection by the end of 2015. I have enough volunteers (and a couple of back-ups in case there are more withdraws). I have two more interviews scheduled and another three tentatively scheduled. I also have two participants geared up to start the process next week—which might give me just enough time to get their interviews completed before the Christmas holidays.

In fact, it is possible that I will be able to complete my data collection for Generation Y before Christmas—assuming no one drops out before then. (There are only three more interviews to go for that group, two of whom might be done before next weekend.)

However, I won’t be able to complete my Baby Boomer group until the New Year as I still need one more (confirmed) participant—and two of my participants can’t begin the process until January. (I need a total of six more completed data sets for that group, though one is scheduled to complete tomorrow.)

Am I a bit disappointed with the delay? Yes, of course, I am. Not because of the participants (for whom I am ever-so-grateful) but because I didn’t anticipate the process taking so long. I’m disappointed in myself for not having started to recruit earlier and for not having developed a better way of communicating with potential participants to minimise attrition rates.

However, a PhD isn’t just about the research and the thesis. A PhD is about learning how to do academic research. It’s about making mistakes and learning from them; it’s about creating best practices for the future; it’s about trial and error and coming out on the other end as a successful researcher.

So, are my data delays a failure? No, not really. They are merely a lesson in how best to manage the process for the next time. And explaining these learnings will be a great way to pad out that 80,000-word thesis at the end of it all!

And, of course, at least I can go into the New Year fairly confident that I will have successfully completed my data collection by the end of January. I think. I hope. And I pray.

(And again, I have to say thank you to all of the people who’ve participated so far. Because without you, there would be no data. And no data means no PhD!)

Another year closer

Note: This post was originally shared on my personal blog. So please forgive me if it’s a bit more touchy-feeling than you would expect. But, as I am researching online information and personal reputation, I suppose it’s a good example of how information is shared differently for different audiences for the building and protection of personal reputation!

Another note: I am still recruiting participants, so do get in touch if you’re interested in talking about how you manage your own personal reputation with online information!

And now for the story:
Yesterday marked two years since I began my PhD studies. And that means I am another year closer to being Doctor Ryan. It’s a title I’ve longed for since I first began my bachelor’s degree all those years ago, and being this close to actually having it is pretty exciting!

The journey hasn’t been without its rough patches. But it has continued despite the bumps in the road and I expect I’ll reach the end eventually.

Of course, in a perfect world, my two-year mark would mean I am just one year away from submitting my PhD. However, the world isn’t perfect and I’ve managed to do what most PhD students do: I’ve fallen a bit behind. Part of that is due to my own low self-esteem and inability to manage my time. Part of that is because I struggled to get my head wrapped around a new discipline, as information science is not where my academic background was. And part of that was a human-related struggle with someone who helped to make my first year or so a little more (emotionally) challenging than it should have been.

However, I am confident that I will catch up at least some of that time, and I expect that my submission date will be closer to the three-year mark than to the “latest date you can submit” mark. (I hope that’s the case, at least!) It’ll just be a matter of really pushing myself to stay on task. Something that I feel is a little easier now that I’m in the fun “data collection” stage of my research.

So yeah, things are really looking up now. I am feeling more confident about my abilities. I am feeling excited about my research. And I am starting to actually believe that—one day—I will be the proud owner of a PhD. Not too bad for a stupid girl with dyslexia, huh?

As this place is meant to be a representation of all aspects of my life, I will aim to talk a little more about my PhD progress moving forward. I do admit that I have been avoiding it for a while because I didn’t want to sound whingey when I was struggling last year. (Apologies to those who suffered the whinging in person.)

Anyhow … thanks again for all of your support over the years!

A recruitment ramble

I began recruiting for my main doctoral study in September. When I did so, I had this naïve vision of finding enough participants within a few days and completing my data collection by the end of October. Though I did give myself a wee cushion, realising that some participants might not complete the study until mid-November, I had expected that I would be done recruiting people long before then.

Only the reality of participant recruitment began to present itself early on. Still, I had hoped that one or two strong social media blitzes would get me the numbers I need.

But here I am at the start of November, still trying to find more participants for my study.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a complete ghost town around here. It’s just that it’s a little (a lot?) more challenging than I had hoped it would be. And I don’t know why. I mean, it’s an exciting study, right!?

I am trying to find 12-15 people in each of three age groups:

  1. Generation Y: Born 1981-1997
  2. Generation X: Born 1965-1980
  3. Baby Boomers (or older): Born 1964 or earlier

My recruitment process has been fairly basic. I’ve created a short description of the research and a general overview of the participation activities, along with a short form to fill out for more information. From there, I send on a fuller description of participation details, along with the option of completing diaries electronically or by hand.

Once I hear back from potential participants, they are sent a second email with a consent form and diary instructions—as well as a couple other bits of information and a prompt to schedule an interview. Then there might be a couple of follow-up emails to answer questions, check in on the diary process, and confirm an interview time.

If everyone who noted interest followed through, I would have more than enough Gen-Xers and Boomers. But I would only have 11 Gen-Ys. And if everyone who is actively engaging with me completes, I would have enough Gen-Xers. But I would want another 2-3 Boomers—and twice as many Gen-Ys.

And it’s those Generation Y folks who have me stumped!

I honestly thought that younger people would be more eager to participate in a study about online information and personal reputation. I honestly thought that these people would jump at the chance to talk about how they engage with social media.

Instead, it’s people from my own generation (Go, Gen-X, go!) who seem more eager to participate. And, to a slightly lesser extent, the Boomers are noting an interest.

But then life gets in the way and people decide to withdraw from the study.

I’ve spoken with other digital researchers and have heard that they, too, have struggled with finding “younger” participants, so I know it’s not just me. But that knowledge doesn’t help me find a solution.

I am trying to reach out to the younger people I know, to ask for their help in spreading the word. And I am trying to think of clever and interesting ways to reach the Gen-Ys I don’t know. But I’m running out of ideas—and time!

Still, I’ve not given up all hope; I’ve not considered shouting defeat.

But I am—as ever—happy to hear thoughts and suggestions on recruitment in general or recruiting those young whipper-snappers! (And I’m happy to hear from potential participants, too!) And hopefully, I’ll be sharing a story in the not-too-distant future about a full set of participants.

[Note: Image by John Seidman, sourced on Flickr and used under Creative Commons License.]

Participants wanted!

I am currently recruiting for my PhD research and would love some help in building my participant list. I am recruiting participants aged 18 and older who live in the UK and use social media and social networking sites.

The study will investigate the role of online information in creating, building, and assessing personal reputations. I am using a combination of participant diaries and interviews to gather data, and aim to complete my data collection by the end of November.

Participants will be asked to keep a diary of their social media use for one week followed by an interview. Diaries can be completed by hand or electronically, and interviews can be face-to-face or via Skype.

If you are interested in participating, please visit my recruitment page.

And if you could please share this page with your connections, I would appreciate it!

And, as always, thank you for your support and encouragement as I work towards becoming Dr Ryan!

A successful RD6 review

I had my RD6 review meeting last week, and am very pleased to say that it went very well. The RD6 review is a six-month review as part of Edinburgh Napier University’s research degree framework. It is part of the larger progress review process, and is something that I tend to get very nervous about.

I will admit that I went into last week’s meeting filled with apprehension. And this is why:

I had a rather unhappy first year of review meetings due to (now resolved) conflicts on my panel. (I won’t go into the details here, but please know that my university and my supervisors were ace in helping me resolve the conflicts*.) That first year left me with such poor self-esteem that I had actually spent the better part of three months wondering if I was best to leave my PhD programme.

That first year also left me so very unsure of myself that I am still finding it difficult to be productive. I am still worried that everything I do will be unfairly criticised. (I’m OK-ish with constructive criticism, it’s the non-constructive stuff I struggle with most.) Frustratingly, that uncertainty and fear means that I sit in front of my computer unable to put my thoughts into a tangible form.

But moving on …

I spent most of July and August working on a small pilot study and the report for that made up the bulk of my review materials. I stressed and stressed about how it would be received. And, to be honest, I was preparing myself to be told there was no way I would be allowed to continue my PhD. (See? Low self-esteem!)

Anyhow, I got into the meeting expecting the worst. And when my panel chair said, “So, tell me about your pilot study” I was waiting for it to be ripped to shreds. Instead, I was met with several great follow-up questions that all led to a wonderful conversation about the next steps of my study.

It was all so very positive that I was on Cloud 9 for the next couple of days. And it’s really helped to boost my confidence—and my excitement about my research. (Though it would have been fair to have got my hand slapped for my slow progress.)

I am still struggling a bit with my self-confidence and uncertainty, but I can really feel that I’m happier now. And that’s really helping to boost my overall productivity.

As for Just a PhD, I am hoping that the return of my confidence will also signal a return of my blogging abilities… because there’s a lot of great stuff that I want to share about my fabulous PhD life!

* If any fellow PhD students are experiencing conflicts, I am happy to share my experiences in private along with the lessons I learned along the way. The biggest lesson is that you need to advocate for yourself early. Which is really hard when you’re floundering in the deep end of the PhD student pond!!

It’s pilot time!

I have finally entered the empirical research stage of my PhD, and I am so very excited about it! In fact, it’s the first time I’ve actually been excited about my studies in many, many months. (Yes, the literature review part really did drag my spirits down.)

The pilot is testing out the methods for the first stage of my empirical research. It involves a two-step process for participants. The first step is to keep a diary for one week where they will record some of their thoughts and process regarding their social media use. I will then review the diaries prior to the second stage, which will be in-depth interviews.

I have recruited eight participants and have a couple of extra people in place in case one of the first participants can’t complete the study. That means eight diaries and eight interviews to transcribe. Which is a lot of work, but it will help me to determine how much time I need to set aside for the main study.

I will be done with my data collection by the end of July. Then, I will try my best to figure out how to analyse all of it without going crazy. I expect to use NVivo for coding my data, but I tend to be a bit tactile as well, so might find myself working with hard copies of at least some of the data.

Once the pilot is done, I will be in a position to fully plan the next stages of my main study. I expect that there may be a few tweaks based on the pilot, but that’s what the pilot is for!

Stay tuned for details!

Presenting a paper: Assessing the available and accessible evidence

I spent the past week in Aberdeen* for a couple of academic conferences. It was a great experience that allowed me to meet with other information science academics and to present some of my research. And, importantly, it was an opportunity for me to learn a bit about my academic self!

This was my first time delivering a paper at an academic conference and I’m pleased to say that it went quite well—despite my self-esteem-based fears.

My presentation was based on the literature review for my PhD thesis, which concerns how online information contributes to the determination of personal reputations. I worried that my childhood speech problems would trip me up during the presentation or—worse!—that people would think my research was [enter negative descriptors here].

However, other than getting a bit flustered when I was given my “five minutes” warning, I think it went rather well. I didn’t trip over my tongue (though I did have to use my special “speech therapy reminders” for a few words) and people actually seemed interested in my research.

Overall, the week’s activities have left me feeling a bit more confident. I can better see how and where my research fits within the wider domain of information science. I can also better see how I can proceed with my research.

I made some great contacts over the week** and engaged in some wonderful conversations with some well-established academics who seemed to have a bit of enthusiasm about my research. I now have several pages of notes to transcribe—much of which will help me to finalise plans for my pilot study.

Up next is to submit an abstract for another conference and to get my pilot study approved. Then I can go off and finally collect some data. Maybe then I’ll start to feel like a real researcher!

Here is a link to my presentation slides. Please do get in touch if you have any questions about the presentation or my research in general.

* Scotland, not Washington or South Dakota
** I even met with a couple of those contacts in Edinburgh the day after the conference. It was weird playing “local guide” in Edinburgh—as an American! But I do love showing off my adopted home. My “Heartland” as a friend calls it.