Supporting scholarship as it is practiced by scholars depends on having tools which match the workflows of those scholars as they conduct research. Collaboration is an essential part of research and can occur through the stages of the research process. For early career scholars, work tends to be solo as they work on their dissertation. However, there is some evidence that their work does not occur in isolation. This is a qualitative study of early career scholars’ collaborative scholarly research workflows. It examines the role of collaboration in early career scholarly workflows, the types of tools used for collaboration, whether these tools support or hinder, and how collaborative tools support information practices and scholarly knowledge. Collaborative technology practices are seen throughout workflows and in some cases enable or hinder collaboration. There is not a strong interconnection between tools to support the scholarly workflow. This study identifies which tools are used for scholarly collaboration and the gap in functionality of tools for scholarship.
AliAKohunF (2006) Dealing with isolation feelings in IS doctoral programs. International Journal of Doctoral Studies1(1): 21–33.
2.
BakerVLPiferMJ (2011) The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to independent scholar. Studies in Continuing Education33(1): 5–17.
3.
BennettEFolleyS (2014) A tale of two doctoral students: Social media tools and hybridised identities. Research in Learning Technology22: 23791.
4.
BooteDNBeileP (2005) Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher34(6): 3–15.
CapraRMarchioniniGVelasco-MartinJ, et al. (2010) Tools-at-hand and learning in multi-session, collaborative search. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April, pp.951–960. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
7.
CarpenterJWetheridgeLTannerS (2012) Finding and Using Research Resources. Researchers of Tomorrow: The Research Behaviour of Generation Y Doctoral Students. London: British Library.
8.
CatalanoA (2010) Using ACRL standards to assess the information literacy of graduate students in an education program. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice5(4): 21–38.
9.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
10.
FavaroSHoadleyC (2014) The changing role of digital tools and academic libraries in scholarly workflows: A review. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education6(1): 6–22.
11.
FinholtTA (2002) Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology36: 73–107.
12.
Fleming-MayRYuroL (2009) From student to scholar: Social sciences PhD students’ transformation. Portal: Libraries and the Academy9(2): 199–221.
13.
GessnerGCJaggarsDERutnerJA, et al. (2011) Supporting Humanities Doctoral Student Success: A Collaborative Project Between Cornell University Library and Columbia University Libraries. Alexandria: Council on Library and Information Resources.
14.
GivenLMWillsonR (2015) Collaboration, information seeking, and technology use: A critical examination of humanities scholars’ research practices. In: HansenPShahCKlasCP (eds) Collaborative Information Seeking. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp.139–164.
15.
HarleyDAcordSKEarl-NovellS, et al. (2010) Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g. (accessed 22 November 2022).
16.
HarrisCS (2011) The case for partnering doctoral students with librarians: A synthesis of the literatures. Library Review60(7): 599–620.
HoadleyC (2012) What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In: JonassenDHLandSM (eds) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.287–300.
19.
HodsonD (1985) Philosophy of science, science and science education. Studies in Science Education12: 25–57.
20.
HodsonD (1988) Experiments in science and science teaching. Educational Philosophy and Theory20: 53–66.
21.
InceSFHoadleyCKirschnerPA (2018) A study of search practices in doctoral student scholarly workflows. In: Proceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval, New Brunswick, NJ, 11–15 March, pp.245–248. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
22.
InceSHoadleyCKirschnerPA (2019) The role of libraries in teaching doctoral students to become information-literate researchers: A review of existing practices and recommendations for the future. Information and Learning Sciences120(3/4): 158–172.
23.
InceSHoadleyCKirschnerPA (2020) Research workflow skills for education doctoral students and postdocs: A qualitative study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship46(5): 102–172.
24.
InceSHoadleyCKirschnerPA (2022) A qualitative study of social sciences faculty research workflows. Journal of Documentation78(6): 1321–1337.
JonesW (2007) Personal information management. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology41(1): 453–504.
27.
KimYCrowstonK (2011) Technology adoption and use theory review for studying scientists’ continued use of cyber-infrastructure. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology48(1): 1–10.
28.
LaveJWengerE (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
MargaryanALittlejohnAVojtG (2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education56(2): 429–440.
30.
NicholasDWatkinsonABoukacem-ZeghmouriC, et al. (2017) Early career researchers: Scholarly behaviour and the prospect of change. Learned Publishing30(2): 157–166.
31.
O’DonnellVLTobbellJ (2007) The transition of adult students to higher education: Legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice?Adult Education Quarterly57(4): 312–328.
32.
PalmerCL (2005) Scholarly work and the shaping of digital access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology56(11): 1140–1153.
33.
RempelHG (2010) A longitudinal assessment of graduate student research behavior and the impact of attending a library literature review workshop. College & Research Libraries71(6): 532–547.
34.
RempelHGDavidsonJR (2008) Providing information literacy instruction to graduate students through literature review workshops. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship53: 1–17.
Rockinson-SzapkiwAJ (2012) Investigating uses and perceptions of an online collaborative workspace for the dissertation process. Research in Learning Technology20(3): 267–282.
37.
Rockinson-SzapkiwAJHeuvelman-HutchinsonLSpauldingL (2014) Connecting online: Can social networking and other technology support doctoral connectedness?Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice11(3): 1–13.
38.
RowlandsINicholasDRussellB, et al. (2011) Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing24(3): 183–195.
39.
SaldañaJ (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
ShahC (2010) Collaborative information seeking: A literature review. Advances in Librarianship32: 3–33.
41.
singhss (2017) Academic Twitter: Pushing the boundaries of traditional scholarship. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University.
42.
SpencePRReddyMCHallR (2005) A survey of collaborative information seeking practices of academic researchers. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Sanibel Island, FL, 6–9 November, pp.85–88. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
43.
TaljaS (2002) Information sharing in academic communities: Types and levels of collaboration in information seeking and use. New Review of Information Behavior Research3(1): 143–159.
44.
YinRK (2016) Qualitative Research From Start to Finish. New York, NY: Guilford publications.
