Electronic laboratory notebooks in practice: First findings on the consequences and benefits of digital research documentation

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.1.35

Keywords:

electronic laboratory notebooks, open science, social innovation, implementation research

Abstract

Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELN) support transparent documentation of research processes, facilitate project-based team science and scientific exchange with cooperation partners. To foster transparency, cooperation, and knowledge transfer, academic research institutions increasingly support the use of ELN. Using the example of the institutional implementation of ELN at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, this article reflects on the social innovation potential of such a project. Based on the observation that researchers need to adapt routines in order to use ELN effectively and in line with institutional goals, this article emphasizes the social character of digital research documentation and the need to create awareness of this social character at all organizational levels. Furthermore, the development of social practices must be integrated early in higher education.

References

Adam, Beatrix; Lindstädt, Birte (2020): ELN Wegweiser. Elektronische Laborbücher im Kontext von Forschungsdatenmanagement und guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis – ein Wegweiser für die Lebenswissenschaften. Köln: ZB MED – Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften. Online verfügbar unter https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:6423321/data, zuletzt geprüft am 01. 02. 2022.

BIH – Berlin Institute of Health @Charité (2021): Innovationstreiber. QUEST Center. Online verfügbar unter https://www.bihealth.org/de/translation/innovationstreiber/quest-center, zuletzt geprüft am 01. 02. 2022.

Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (2020): Wir denken Gesundheit neu. Charite 2030. Online verfügbar unter https://www.charite.de/die_charite/profil/charite_strategie_2030, zuletzt geprüft am 01. 02. 2022.

Chen, Huey-Tsyh; Rossi, Peter (1989): Issues in the theory-driven perspective. In: Evaluation and Program Planning 12 (4), S. 299–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(89)90046-3

Coles, Simon; Mapp, Lucy (2016): Conducting reflective, hands-on research with advanced characterization instruments. A high-level undergraduate practical exploring solid-state polymorphism. In: Journal of Chemical Education 93 (1), S. 131–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00071

Dirnagl, Ulrich; Przesdzing, Ingo (2016): A pocket guide to electronic laboratory notebooks in the academic life sciences. In: F1000Research 5 (2), 12 S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7628.1

EKGFuI – Europäische Kommission, Generaldirektion Forschung und Innovation (2016): Open innovation, open science, open to the world. A vision for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 104 S. Online verfügbar unter http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3213b335-1cbc-11e6-ba9a-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2, zuletzt geprüft am 01. 02. 2022.

FOSTER – Facilitate Open Science Training For European Research (2021): Open Science. Online verfügbar unter https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/115, zuletzt geprüft am 01. 02. 2022.

Freeman, Christopher; Freeman, Sandra (1992): The economics of hope. Essays on technical change, economic growth, and the environment. New York: Pinter Publishers.

Gläser, Jochen; Laudel, Grit (2016): Governing Science. In: European Journal of Sociology 57 (1), S. 117–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975616000047

Grossi, Valerio; Giannotti, Fosca; Pedreschi, Dino; Manghi, Paolo; Pagano, Pasquale; Assante, Massimiliano (2021): Data science. A game changer for science and innovation. In: International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 11 (4), S. 263–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-020-00240-2

Hörning, Karl (2001): Experten des Alltags. Die Wiederentdeckung des praktischen Wissens. Weilerswist-Metternich: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

Howaldt, Jürgen; Schwarz, Michael (2010): Soziale Innovation – Konzepte, Forschungsfelder und -perspektiven. In: Jürgen Howaldt und Heike Jacobsen (Hg.): Soziale Innovation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 87–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92469-4_5

Knie, Andreas; Simon, Dagmar (2019): Innovation, excellence und reputation. The persistence of the German science system. In: Dagmar Simon, Stefan Kuhlmann, Julia Stamm und Weert Canzler (Hg.): Handbook on science and public policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, S. 267–283.

Murtagh, Madeleine et al. (2018): Better governance, better access. Practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure. In: Human Genomics 12 (24), 12 S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-018-0154-6

Nosek, Brian; Errington, Timothy (2020): What is replication? In: PLoS Biology 18 (3), S. e3000691 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Oeij, Peter; van der Torre, Wouter; Vaas, Fietje; Dhondt, Steven (2019): Understanding social innovation as an innovation process. Applying the innovation journey model. In: Journal of Business Research 101 (8), S. 243–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.028

Owen, Richard; Macnaghten, Phil; Stilgoe, Jack (2012): Responsible research and innovation. From science in society to science for society, with society. In: Science and Public Policy 39 (6), S. 751–760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093

Palinkas, Lawrence; Aarons, Gregory; Horwitz, Sarah; Chamberlain, Patricia; Hurlburt, Michael; Landsverk, John (2011): Mixed method designs in implementation research. In: Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 38 (1), S. 44–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0314-z

Rabinow, Paul; Bennett, Gaymond (2009): Synthetic biology. Ethical ramifications 2009. In: Systems and Synthetic Biology 3, S. 99–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-009-9042-7

Reckwitz, Andreas (2003): Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 32 (4), S. 282–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2003-0401

Reinmann, Gabi (2019): Heuristiken für die Hochschullehre zur Förderung forschenden Lernens. In: Gabi Reinmann, Eileen Lübcke, Anna Heudorfer (Hg.): Forschendes Lernen in der Studieneingangsphase. Empirische Befunde, Fallbeispiele und individuelle Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 149–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25312-7_9

Schubert, Cornelius (2016): Soziale Innovationen. In: Werner Rammert, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch und Michael Hutter (Hg.): Innovationsgesellschaft heute. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 403–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10874-8_18

UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2021): UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Online verfügbar unter https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation, zuletzt geprüft am 01. 02. 2022.

Wagner, Caroline (2019): Global science for global challenges. In: Dagmar Simon, Stefan Kuhlmann, Julia Stamm und Weert Canzler (Hg.): Handbook on science and public policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, S. 92–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00014

Wetzel, Christiane; Pohlenz, Philipp; Schirmer, Daniela (2021): Wissenschaft zwischen Kooperation und Konkurrenz. Zum Potenzial kooperationsfördernder Managementinstrumente. Berlin: DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH. Online verfügbar unter https://www.duz-open.de/media/e1457f56a67a9f338c70e87ca8a4f2cf9da0ddce/f575b32f90a32b0cd866a47845aa350fb1ace900/864faa5f7dbb33de09ff38e408a2533dd5969d65/fa4cecc831775452b877479c71ce913aaf1245fb.pdf, zuletzt geprüft am 01. 02. 2022.

Published

08.04.2022

How to Cite

1.
Wetzel C, Frenzel I, Schirmer D, Pohlenz P. Electronic laboratory notebooks in practice: First findings on the consequences and benefits of digital research documentation. TATuP [Internet]. 2022 Apr. 8 [cited 2024 Mar. 28];31(1):35-41. Available from: https://www.tatup.de/index.php/tatup/article/view/6956

Funding data