Scholarly Communication and Knowledge Management in American Zoos Julia Innes Nova Southeastern University
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks CEC Theses and Dissertations College of Engineering and Computing 2006 Scholarly Communication and Knowledge Management in American Zoos Julia Innes Nova Southeastern University This document is a product of extensive research conducted at the Nova Southeastern University College of Engineering and Computing. For more information on research and degree programs at the NSU College of Engineering and Computing, please click here. Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Share Feedback About This Item NSUWorks Citation Julia Innes. 2006. Scholarly Communication and Knowledge Management in American Zoos. Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences. (602) https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd/602. This Dissertation is brought to you by the College of Engineering and Computing at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CEC Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Scholarly Communication and Knowledge Management in American Zoos by Julia Innes A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University 2006 We hereby certify that this dissertation, submitted by Julia Innes, conforms to acceptable standards and is fully adequate in scope and quality to fulfill the dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Steven Zink, Ph.D. Date Chairperson of Dissertation Committee Steven R. Terrell, Ed.D. Date Dissertation Committee Member Lloyd Davidson, Ph.D. Date Dissertation Committee Member Approved: Eric Ackerman, Ph.D. Date Dean, School of Computer and Information Sciences Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University 2006 An Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to Nova Southeastern University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Scholarly Communication and Knowledge Management in American Zoos Abstract Erreur ! Signet non défini. by Julia Innes September 2006 The researcher investigated whether frontline, tacit knowledge about zoo animals was captured by zookeepers, curators, researchers, veterinarians, and outside researchers and, if so, whether and how it was transmitted into the scholarly literature. A bibliometric analysis was done of a representative sample of peer-reviewed zoo research articles published between 1973 and 2001. This was extended to grey literature and acknowledgements statements from the same period to obtain a more global picture. Research participants were evaluated in terms of their contributions (journal articles, conference papers, or acknowledged research assistance). Changes were mapped chronologically and by profession. The participation of keepers and curators was of particular interest, as was the role of tacit knowledge and its intergenerational transmission. The role of outside researchers in zoos was examined, as was the use of zoo research by the wider scientific community, as measured through citations by non-zoo authors. Interviews with a cross-section of zoo research personnel completed the portrait of zoo research during these decades. The study found that keepers' university training did not change their status as invisible research assistants and interprofessional tensions remained high, despite higher educational levels among keepers and curators. The rise in female research participants was not proportional to the shift from mainly male to mainly female staff over time. Only a tiny percentage of zoo research was heavily cited by outside researchers. Zoo biology showed some signs of becoming an academic discipline, but continued to rely heavily on tacit knowledge. Outside collaborators quickly lost interest in zoos, due to numerous obstacles. The study conc luded that an institution's research productivity was a function of leadership, rather than size, budget or number of personnel. Minimizing the role of tacit knowledge in favor of scientific research area hurt the transmission of invaluable oral folklore, particularly among keepers. It was recommended that zoos capture their tacit knowledge base to meet their conservation goals more efficiently and respond more effectively to critics of zoos' scientific approach. Finally, mentoring programs would enable more staff to participate in research and publishing. Acknowledgements This thesis bears the mark of dozens of people who shared their stories and insights about the zoo world. I am particularly indebted to the current and former staff of Brookfield Zoo -- your generosity and kindness were my greatest motivation. My hope is that this thesis will in some small way improve zoos for both you and the animals. My thesis director, Dr. Steven Zink, provided just the right balance of criticism and empathy, and all three advisors improved this manuscript immeasurably through their keen eyesight. Thank you to Orpheus and his mistress, who kept me sane for three hectic years, and to Nancy and Guy for their calm and companionship during the final two. A special thanks goes to Steve Johnson at the Bronx Zoo, who provided me with rich historical publication data for his institution in electronic format. The 29 interviewees who shared their experiences so freely added a human dimension that made the data much more meaningful. Finally, I am deeply grateful to my parents and Bruno for believing in me all these years. Table of Contents Abstract iii List of Tables viii List of Figures x Chapters 1. Introduction 1 Problem Statement 1 Goal 2 Need for Study 2 Supporting Evidence 4 Barriers and Limitations 6 Research Questions 7 Research Question One 7 Research Question Two 7 Scope, Costs, Scheduling, and Resources 8 Summary 10 2. Review of the Literature 11 Introduction 11 Sociology of Science 13 Disciplines 15 Basic vs. Applied Science 18 Challenges to Traditional Science 23 Boundary Work 25 Scholarly Publication 28 Peer Review 29 Limitations of Peer Review 31 Grey Literature 32 Multiple Authorship 33 Acknowledgements 36 Bibliometrics 39 Citation Analysis 40 Web of Science 41 Citation Analysis Methodology 43 Problems with Citation Analysis 45 Tacit Kno wledge 48 Zoo History 52 History of Zoo Research 54 Current Zoo Research 57 Outside Researchers 61 Barriers to Zoo Research 64 Old-Style Keepers 69 Transition from Old -style to New-style Keepers 72 New-style Keepers 72 v Curators 75 Veterinarians 77 Zoo Literature 79 Tacit Knowledge in Zoos 82 Discussion 84 3. Methodology 89 Hypothesis 89 Research Methods 89 Web of Science 90 Creation of Data Set 91 Procedures 99 Citedness 103 Journal ranking 103 Leadership 103 Other Analyses 104 Interviews 105 Projected Outcomes 106 Reliability and Validity 108 Summary 108 4. Results 109 Introduction 109 Bibliometric Analysis 109 Problems and Adjustments 109 Analysis 116 Participants 116 Productivity 119 Highly Productive Individuals 125 Gender 125 Leadership 128 Participant Longevity 129 Author Affiliation 131 Outside Researchers 132 Professions 134 Keepers 137 Curators 138 Veterinarians 140 Researchers 141 Research Assistants 141 Institutions 142 Multi-authorship 147 Zoo Research Publications 149 Peer-reviewed Journals 150 Grey Literature 152 Acknowledgements 159 Examples 160 vi Highly-acknowledged Participants 165 Uncitedness 166 Citedness 166 Highly-cited Articles 171 Journal Impact Factor 173 Web of Science Analysis Tool 174 Second Generation Citations 178 Other Impact Measures 179 Interviews 180 Choice of Zoo Career/Collaboration 181 Academic Connections 182 Professional Conflicts 185 Communicating Research Results 193 Tacit Knowledge 197 Emotional Attachment 201 Perceptions of Zoos 202 Findings 203 Summary of Results 205 5. Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations, and Summary 207 Introduction 207 Conclusions 208 Recommendations 215 Summary 222 Appendices 226 A. Definitions of Terms 226 B. Zoos Included in Study 228 C. Article Productivity by Institution 232 D. Interview questions 235 E. Core Set of Zoo Researchers 237 F. Institutional Comparison Chart 241 G. Top Research Producers Ranked by Bud get 244 H. Budget Productivity by Institution (Peer-Reviewed Articles) 247 I. Budget Productivity by Institution (Research Acts) 250 J. Periodicals containing Zoo Research 253 K. Peer Reviewed Journals Containing Zoo Research 261 L. Top Ten Highly Cited Zoo Papers 273 M. Top-cited Journals 275 N. Journals Ranked by ISI Impact Factor 276 O. AZA Institutions Awarded National Science Foundation Grants 279 Reference List 280 vii List of Tables Tables 1. Science Citation Index Coverage 92 2. Example of Participant Data 102 3. Example of Zoo Participant Data 103 4. Total Population of Zoo Researchers 117 5. Comparison of Four Ranking Methods 120 6. Most Published Zoo Researchers 120 7. Top Participants by Raw Productivity 122 8. Most Productive Researchers (5+-Year Average) 123 9. Top Participants by Breadth (3 Categories) 123 10. Core Set by Profession 124 11. Sample from Core Set of Zoo Researchers 125 12. Gender Data 126 13. Top 10 Leaders in Zoo Research 129 14. Professional Distribution of Zoo Participants 135 15. Top-ranked Zoos by Keeper Participants 138 16. Top-ranked Zoos by Keeper Acts 138 17. Top-ranked Zoos by Curator Participants 139 18. Top-ranked Zoos by Curator Acts 139 19. Top-ranked Zoos by Veterinarian