Exploring the factors and outcomes of collaborative information monitoring: Findings of a cross‐case analysis

Abstract

Collaborative information monitoring (CIM) involves intentional information monitoring activities pursued by a group and could help researchers keep up to date. This paper reports findings of a cross‐case analysis aimed to explore the perceived factors and outcomes of CIM. Seven cases were included in the study, representing 11 members of patient‐oriented research communities (i.e., researchers, trainees, clinicians, research professionals, managers), who have implemented projects in a dedicated CIM system called eSRAP. Data were collected with semistructured interviews, verified with system logs and CIM project documents. Data were analyzed using a deductive/inductive thematic analysis. Cross‐case analysis revealed four types of cases, those that engaged in CIM with eSRAP, without eSRAP, used eSRAP individually (i.e., did not collaborate), or did not collaborate and did not use eSRAP. Analysis confirmed theory‐based types of factors (personal, group, organizational, environmental, information sources, system, task) and outcomes (performance, behavioral, cognitive, affective, relational) and generated new subtypes. The factor specific to cases that engaged in CIM (with or without eSRAP) was group leadership. Specific outcomes were motivation and discussion. Our findings contribute to conceptualizing CIM and can inform practice by providing actionable recommendations for supporting and sustaining CIM projects.