4.0. Persona and pathway descriptions

What imaginary characters can we create based on our descriptions of who we need and how they are motivated and how will they journey through this project?

For each of our personas, we have imagined how they might interact with the project. Our consideration of barriers to participation (educational, experiential, inclusivity and motivational) should have caught any potential sticking points in their progression.

For each persona we will model their path through the mountain of engagement.

Jump to one of the personas below to see how these people could be developed to leadership roles in our community, or read through all the examples!

• Jesse - Enthusiastic Masters student with no preconceptions of open research
• Rowan - Strong PhD student who has been warned away from open research
• Asfar - Senior postdoc with negative preconceptions but looking for career points
• Huan - Postdoc who likes the idea of open research but doesn’t think they can contribute
• Siya - Principle Investigator who thinks they are doing fine without open research

Jesse

Jesse is a Masters student. They have come to WIN and Oxford from a different University and have never heard of “open research”. They worked hard to get here, they are ambitious, and they want to make friends. They are keen to impress their supervisor and are going to every departmental meeting they can. They are worried about their workload and running our of time for their project. They are a bit overwhelmed by how much there is to learn, but want to be exposed to everything.

1. Discovery

Told about the Open WIN Community when research projects are introduced.

2. First contact

Visits the Community Repository. Tries to join Slack (via the “join us” link) but they only have a College email address. Contacts the Community Coordinator for invite link. Gets a lovely welcome message and invite link.

3. Participation

Introduces themselves on the Slack Welcome channel. Community acknowledges arrival. Jesse observes conversation and gets excited about open research and applies to attend an externally organised event.

4. Sustained Participation

Asks their supervisor if any of their project material can be shared. Unfortunately none ready. Reaches out for other ways to contribute. Not available for a documentation hack. Works with Community Coordinator or representative to create “good first issue” list.

5. Networked Participation

Finds Masters students in the Community and discusses their experience.

6. Leadership

Discusses resources for Masters students with Community Coordinator. Starts a channel in Slack relevant for their needs.

Rowan

Rowan is a PhD Student. They completed a Masters course with a WIN supervisor, and worked as a research assistant for one year before starting a PhD in a different lab. They have worked as part of a team writing ethics applications and collecting data, but now they are leading the whole process for themselves. They have made lots of friends in their time at WIN, but know they need to keep a competitive edge, so they are cautious about how much they share. They have heard people talk unfavourably about open research - it takes too much time; it brings you no personal benefits - and tend to think it’s for “someone else”.

1. Discovery

Doesn’t attend WIN presentation on Open Community. Hears about it from a friend.

2. First contact

See announcement of WIN presentation recording on WIN mailing list. Watches talk recording. Doesn’t hate it.

3. Participation

Sees announcement of documentation hack preparatory “Ask Me Anything” call. Attends. Expresses concerns about sharing research outputs taking time.

4. Sustained Participation

Joins Slack. Follows updates about documentation release. Uses shared MR protocol using community developed documentation.

5. Networked Participation

Wants to add more research outputs to their CV, so asks about how to become a named contributor.

6. Leadership

Reviews, restructures and updates Open MR Protocols documentation.

Asfar

Asfar is a postdoctoral researcher. They think they know what open research is, but they are worried that their code will be heavily criticised if they share it online. They see open research as a time suck and distraction from papers. They are often asked to support students in running the code and experiments they have written, but this is usually limited to handing over some thin notes. They will be attempting to secure a fellowship in under two years.

1. Discovery

Attends WIN presentation, because the title promotes time saving and CV boost.

2. First contact

Reviews this repository for open tasks and analysis documentation. Spots opportunity to lead some of the community decision making for career advancement.

3. Participation

Attends documentation hack. Creates material for how to contribute to open tasks repository.

4. Sustained Participation

Writes good documentation for their own tasks, shares them on open tasks repository.

5. Networked Participation

Asks others how their line managers have responded to their engagement with the community or tools.

6. Leadership

Contributes to leadership conversations about how students should be trained in programming.

Huan

Huan is a postdoctoral researcher. They have significant experience working with clinical populations and are actively engaged in both Patient and Public Involvement in research design and Public Engagement outreach. They manage a constant flow of students, and feel as though they are at capacity with their workload. They enjoy their research, but are considering looking outside of academia as the Principle Investigator track does not appeal. They like the idea of open research, but are not sure if they have much to contribute.

1. Discovery

Attends WIN presentation. Excited by the initiative but not sure what they can contribute.

2. First contact

Asks a question after WIN presentation.

3. Participation

Joins Slack. Enjoys the community discussion and welcoming environment.

4. Sustained Participation

Attends documentation hack. Enjoys training and supportive environment. Submits minor documentation edits.

5. Networked Participation

Finds others who are interested in public engagement in the community.

6. Leadership

Presents on the Open WIN Community to Public Engagement colleagues and suggests it is promoted with the general public.

Siya

Siya is an established Principle Investigator. They have had a successful academic career and feel comfortable within WIN and University of Oxford structures. They have seen the requirement for open research start to appear in different aspects of their work, for example in requirements for Research Data Management plans in grant applications, and the Research Excellence Framework reference to “research practice that supports reproducible science”, but they are yet to see where this has been truly beneficial for an individual scientist or the research filed as a whole.

1. Discovery

Hears mention of Open WIN Community in Head of Department briefing.

2. First contact

One of their students asks to attend a documentation hack.

3. Participation

One of their postdocs asks to share an MR protocol or task (nothing too controversial). They agree and attach it as supplementary information on a paper. They are a named author.

4. Sustained Participation

Discusses with lab what other outputs can be shared.

5. Networked Participation

Speaks to other Principle Investigators about how their latest paper is more “REF-able” with the added supplementary outputs.

6. Leadership

Sets lab policy or intention to make all possible outputs openly shareable. Gives team time and resources to contribute to the community.