Are the personas and pathways representative?

[cassgvp]

Please review the persona and pathway pages

• Do the motivations match your experience for why you/others might want to join this community?

• Do the educational, experiential, inclusivity and motivational barriers fit with your understanding or experience with why someone might not want to engage with this community or work on this project?

• Are there any other barriers to engagement which we've not covered?

• Can you relate to some aspects of the imagined personas and pathways?

[lazaral]

I think the personas look great and are very relatable and realistic.

In my experience time is the most common barrier at all stages - I think comparing time availability to different degrees of rainy weather was absolutely brilliant :)

Just a couple ideas:

• Could there be one persona in a clinical path? I guess Huan studies clinical populations, but I thought for example Jesse also reminded me of medical students doing their first internships, and potentially Huan may be skeptical about open science in the clinical domain due to privacy concerns in healthcare.

• For Asfar's networked participations, Asfar could also speak to other postdocs at the fellowship stage about how sharing their task helped them create new external collaborations. They could also speak about how some other open science project gave them skills needed for the proposed multi-site collaborative project in their fellowship.

[cassgvp]

Comment from Verena Heise:

Persona and pathway description

• I can’t find myself there :-). I think it would be good to have a persona who’s very into Open Science and keen to contribute. Probably a PhD student or postdoc who needs support convincing their supervisor and needs more institutional help (e.g. guidelines so that they know what the regulations are around data protection) but has high intrinsic motivation.

• I think one main motivation for many is missing: issues with reliability/ replicability of results. I’d say that’s a big driver for many of us BUT Open Science is only one piece of the puzzle to increase reliability

• I’m not sure what the “Communication and teamwork” field means

• Maybe instead of the “comms and teamwork” field have something that says “Support” to indicate whether they have support from their PI or institution? That will be two of the big barriers to OS (but maybe they are not as relevant to personas)

Barriers:

• we’ve identified some of these in the WIN OS survey (the survey and survey results/ report might be something to include as part of your OS website?!): lack of incentives, lack of support (both infrastructure and PI support), ethical and legal issues. I’m not sure what to call them, maybe “External barriers” but I’d say they should be included here, too.

[TulikaN]

This is my favourite part of the website - it is beautifully done! It really emphasises that you can participate even if you are uncertain about having enough computational skills, or face other barriers. Along the lines of what @lazaral says, would be helpful to have a couple examples of positive experiences of engaging in open science. An example - like many other researchers, he/she had no/ little formal training in coding and was very hesitant to show their code to anyone else. Taking the first step and sharing with a colleague helped them to get feedback that made their coding practices a lot more efficient and now they feel much more confident about their skills.

[ludogriffanti]

I like the very concrete examples! I don't fully find myself in one persona, but can relate to some aspects of some personas and overall I think they are a good representation of the likely scenarios.

I think the persona described by Verena is a good addition: even if someone thinks they are doing great with open science can do better or is doing something not compliant with regulation and should have support.

Technical problem: the links to the single personas don't work for me.

[mjaquiery]

Using personas for thinking about engagement seems like an interesting approach to me. I quite understand the order the steps are presented in, but I might be tempted to reorder it so that the personae themselves lead the way, and the thinking about how they were constructed is pushed into the background a little: if the personae do their job then the specifics of how they are constructed will be relatively unimportant for most intents and purposes. Having the personae on the front page of the Personas and Pathways tab would be helpful, I think. Perhaps with a short profile box for each and a link to the greater detail?

I'm not in the WIN, but one thing that struck me clearly in the personae was an absence of anyone actually interested in Open Scholarship stuff! (I think Verena mentioned this, too; I haven't had much time to read this thread!) Presumably you want to engage these people and have a plan for capturing their enthusiasm to help with the project? Perhaps you have in mind ways you can make it easy and efficient for them to integrate whatever OS activities they do off their own bat with your project?

None of the personae thus far appear to discover or make first contact through any of the project outputs, or through a need to pursue OS practices due to e.g. journal requirements (I have to share data - how can I make it anonymous, where do I put it?). Is that an ambition? It seems it might provide an increasingly broad contact surface with the rest of the WIN (and beyond?) as the project develops, and particularly chimes with the desires of your personae to be contributors over mere consumers.

It's not at all clear to me what the isolated sentence about Martha's Rules on the Motivations page is doing there.

In line with some things probably mentioned already, additional barriers might come from objections from supervisors/PIs/other leaders ("your time would be better spent doing..."; "I worry that we'll get scooped if..."; "I don't think open access is important enough to aim for").

[cassgvp]

Technical problem: the links to the single personas don't work for me.

Thanks @ludogriffanti. These have now been fixed in 4ebde6778594e2c1610a1a4d30c0f0dc05e64a68

[cassgvp]

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions around new persona(s) to develop. I didn't want to go in too heavy with too many personas, but perhaps we can think about how it is structured and what impact the missing ones will have on the project planning. 🤔🤔🤔

Interesting to note that most of my thoughts have been around how to create new interest in open research. Certainly need to consider how we continue to reward and support people who are already engaged!! 🌺

[JasleenKJolly]

I love this way of presenting opportunities. I think it's also great that everyone is worried about time commitment as this is realistic!