Socio-Cultural characteristics of usability of bioinformatics databases and tools

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 55-71

  Douglas, Conor ^a,b   Goulding, Rebecca ^a   Farris, Lily ^a   Atkinson Grosjean, Janet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Multidisciplinary research; Social sciences; Usability

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953744386     PISSN: 03080188     EISSN: 17432790     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/030801811X12941390545726     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Altman, R.B. 2004. Editorial: Building successful biological databases. Brieffngs in Bioinformatics 5: 4-5.
2. Birney, E., and M. Clamp. 2004. Biological database design and implementation. Brieffngs in Bioinformatics 5: 31-8.
3. Bolchini, D., A. Finkelstein, V. Perrone, et al. 2009a. Bett er bioinformatics through usability analysis. Bioinformatics 25: 406-12.
4. Bolchini, D., A. Finkelstein, and P. Paolini. 2009b. Designing usable bio-information architectures. In Human-computer interaction, ed. J.A. Jacko, 653-62. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
5. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Card, S.K., J.D. Mackinlay, and B. Shneiderman. 1999. Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
7. Cook-Deegan, R., and T. Dedeurwaerdere. 2006. The science commons in life science research: structure, function, and value of access to genetic diversity. International Social Science Journal 58: 299-317.
8. David, P. 2001. Path dependence, its critics and the quest for historical economics. In Evolution and path dependence in economic ideas: Past and present, ed. Pierre Garrouste and Stavros Ioannides, 15-40. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press.
9. Davis, F. 1989. Usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13: 319-40.
10. Editorial. 2009. Nature 462(7271): 252.
11. Fuch, R. 2000. Analyze this or: intelligent help for the rest of us. Bioinformatics 16: 491-3.
12. Gould, J.D., and C. Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM 28: 300-11.
13. Hardwig, J. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 88: 693-708.
14. Harris, T.W., I. Antoshechkin, T. Bieri, et al. 2010. WormBase: a comprehensive resource for nematode research. Nucleic Acids Research 38: D463-67.
15. Hart, P., and C. Saunders. 1997. Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organization Science 8(1): 23-42.
16. Heller, M.A., and R.S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280: 698-701.
17. Hine, C. 2006. Databases as scientific instruments and their role in the ordering of scientific work. Social Studies of Science 36: 269-98.
18. Hope, J. 2008. Biobazaar: The open source revolution and biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Javahery, H., A. Seffah, and T. Radhakrishnan. 2004. Beyond power: Making bioinformatics tools user-centered. Communications of the ACM 47: 59-62.
20. Katz, M.L., and C. Shapiro. 1985. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review 75: 424-40.
21. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1991. Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy 23: 105-22.
22. Konagaya, A. 2006. Trends in life science grid: From computing grid to knowledge grid. BMC Bioinformatics 7(Suppl 5): S10.
23. Lakhani, K.R., and B. Wolf. 2005. Why Hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and eff ort in free/open source soft ware projects. In Perspectives on free and open source soft ware, ed. J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam and K.R. Lakhani. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Luhmann, N. 2000. Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, ed. Diego Gambett a. electronic edn, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, chapter 6, 94-107. http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/luhmann94-107.pdf.
25. Lynn, D. et al. 2008. InnateDB: Facilitating systems-level analyses of the mammalian innate immune response. Molecular Systems Biology 4: 218.
26. Merton, R.K. 1942. The sociology of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
27. Merton, Robert K. 1973 [1942]. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations ed. R.K. Merton and N.W. Storer, 267-78. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
28. Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matt hew eff ect in science. Science 159: 56-63.
29. Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability engineering. London, UK: Academic Press.
30. Oudshoorn, N., and T. Pinch, ed. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Ouzounis, C.A., and A. Valencia. 2003. Early bioinformatics: The birth of a discipline. a personal view. Bioinformatics 19: 2176.
32. Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14: 399-441.
33. Preece, J., Y. Rogers, and H. Sharp, ed. 2002. Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley Press.
34. Rebhan, M., V. Chalifa-Caspi, J. Prilusky, et al. 1998. GeneCards: a novel functional genomics compendium with automated data mining and query reformulation support. Bioinformatics 14: 656-64.
35. Robertson, N., M. Oveisi-Fordorei, S.D. Zuyderduyn, et al. 2007. DiscoverySpace: an interactive data analysis application. Genome Biology 8(1): R6.
36. Rosson, M.B., and J.M. Carroll. 2002. Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of human-computer interaction. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37. Sine, W.D., S. Shane, and D. Di Gregorio. 2003. The Halo Effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science 49: 478-96.
38. Sulston, J., and G. Ferry. 2002 The common thread: A story of science, politics, ethics, and the human genome. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
39. Thomas, J.J., and K.A. Cook, ed. 2005. Illuminating the path: The R&D agenda for visual analytics. Richland, WA: National Visualization and Analytics Center.
40. von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Wilkie, T. 1996. Sources in science: Who can we trust? Lancet 11; 347(9011): 1308-11.