Caryn Anderson is integration research manager for Program 4 of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia (www.ceps.edu.au/). She has been contributing to the development of integration and implementation sciences (www.anu.edu.au/iisn/) since 2003. Most recently she was doctoral studies program manager and lecturer at the Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science. She holds leadership roles in ASIS&T, including co-founding and managing the International Calendar of Information Science Conferences (http://icisc.neasist.org/). She can be reached at caryn.anderson anu.edu.au. I love standards – absolutely love ’em. Maybe it’s the hippy in me... I just want everyone to get along. Maybe it’s the accountant in me... I want everything to make sense, work together, be predictable and come out balanced with nothing left over. Maybe it’s the slacker in me... I don’t really want to have to think that hard about how things work or whether they will work, and I certainly don’t really want to DO any work if I don’t have to. Maybe it’s the commander in me... I want operations to be executed quickly, efficiently and completely. Theoretically, standards can facilitate all these things, whether they are standards for information exchange and organization or standards of social behavior. But they also have limits, and it is useful to zoom up periodically for a helicopter view of the landscapes in which standards operate. This perspective helps us to understand where and when standards work well and when alternative or multi-dimensional approaches may be called for. As information scientists, we are usually asked to develop better ways to facilitate the production, exchange and preservation of relatively defined types of information. Both technological and metadata standards are essential to our work – whether for facilitating Internet and data transfer (Z39.50) or for standardizing metadata (METS, MARC, Dublin Core, MPEG) or for electronic resource management (ERM) or any of a multitude of other critical functions. In recent years, many of us have become engaged with operations and organizations working on highly complex and multidisciplinary problems where the types, sources and uses of information are broadly defined or unpredictable including crisis response, international development and national security. To be effective in these situations, it is useful to view our roles in a broader context and take advantage of concepts and methods specifically designed to address these kinds of problems. In this way, we can expand our arsenal of approaches to managing the information needs of multidisciplinary problem-solving teams. Integration and implementation sciences (I2S) is an emerging discipline focused on the needs of researchers who seek to integrate knowledge across disciplines and stakeholder groups in approaching real-world problems. I2S brings together and develops concepts and methods in four critical domains that have been only partially and intermittently covered by different disciplinary and practice areas. I2S focuses on enhancing the following: Fresh thinking on intractable problems Integration of disciplinary and stakeholder knowledge Understanding and management of ignorance and uncertainty The provision of research support for decision-making and practice change. [1, p.2] When it comes to solving big, complex, thorny, “wicked” problems, there isn’t really anything routine or basic about them and thus it becomes difficult to come to agreement on a way forward or even how to define the
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Sep 1, 2012
Hannah Kim + 1
