We’ve kicked off by taking all the information we gathered from AGU (see our 4 previous posts) and synthesizing it down into updates for our Personas. We’ve also made a variety of frameworks out of these notes that show more progress, and that post is coming up after mine.
In the meantime, take a look at our furthur characterizations of Riley, Ira, and Parker. The biggest thing to note is that all 3 personas do have the need to collaborate, but with different groups and in different ways. Sharing and finding data are all means to a different end with each persona; Below each image, the caption describes exactly what these differences mean.
Riley’s updates mostly focused on responsibilities of running a research group which includes students and the desire to have a DOI for all of their work. Sharing work, therefore, is mostly meant to get a DOI and put Riley’s work in a stable place they can link any other papers, presentations, or resources to. Finding work now often includes tracking their students, or seeing if there’s some low hanging fruit (easy to find, relevant data) which would support their work. Riley is still the persona who is most concerned with publishing work and having academic prestige.
Ira’s updates explored a more passionate, excited side. During AGU, we identified a group of users who fit with Ira, but also exhibited a zeal for their work that we had not yet captured. Our updated version of Ira would love to find other researchers who use similar models or who work in similar geographic areas. Ira is also concerned with having a DOI for their work, they’re just not as engaged with the administrative academic tasks that come with running an organization. Having a DOI mostly means IRA can have a reliable place to put their work and share with colleagues in collaborative projects.
Parker had the fewest updates after AGU, possibly because there were few Parker’s in attendance. We have refined them to a more grounded, pragmatic scientist who is using HydroShare to do their job; They believe in working for their government organization, but they don’t have the luxury of applying for grants in researching their specific passion. Consequently, they don’t frequently explore HydroShare for other data. If data relevant to their work is there they’ll use it. Otherwise, they just need HydroShare to be a stable software tool with a low learning curve. Sharing data in HydroShare is likewise mostly a convenience for their work group.
