A comprehensive investigation of researchers’ shared file management practices in cloud storage

ABSTRACT

The use of cloud storage, which provides ubiquitous and simultaneous access to files, is prevalent among researchers for their collaborative projects. This study comprehensively examined researchers’ shared file management practices in cloud storage by conducting an online survey with 534 researchers across disciplines. This study uncovered activities that needed better support and possible ways of making shared file management practices more satisfactory by identifying variables associated with satisfaction. The findings revealed different practices and showed that researchers were not active in managing shared files. Among different shared file management activities, finding/re-finding, archiving, and organizing activities needed better support. Researchers’ satisfaction was the highest when their research team had explicit rules for organizing and archiving shared files, when they organized files regularly, used location/organization of the files when finding/re-finding files, and managed shared files frequently. There were only a few disciplinary differences in researchers’ shared file management practices. Some specific design suggestions for PIM tools and applications were made based on the results. This study deepens our understanding of researchers’ shared file management practices in cloud environments, shows possible ways to enhance researchers’ satisfaction, contributes to PIM literature, and informs the design of tools that better support researchers’ shared file management.

KEYWORDS:

• Personal information management
• file management
• shared file management
• cloud storage
• collaborative research
• Human information behavior

1. Introduction

Cloud storage services such as Google Drive or Dropbox have now become an integral part of personal information management. Researchers also extensively use cloud storage for their collaborative projects (Crouzier, 2014). Obvious benefits of using cloud storage for collaboration include having access to shared files from anywhere at any time, being able to work on the same file simultaneously, and avoiding duplicated work (Bergman et al., 2014, 2019; Capra et al., 2014; Crouzier, 2014; Tang et al., 2013). However, while cloud computing supports collaboration, researchers face new challenges in managing files created, saved, and organized by multiple people with different practices, which often results in cluttered storage and delays or even failures in identifying and finding files (Bergman et al., 2019, 2020b; Berlin et al., 1993; Capra et al., 2014; Lutters et al., 2007; Rader, 2009; Voida et al., 2013). While the challenges of managing shared files have been acknowledged, the field still lacks a study that comprehensively examines how researchers manage shared files for their collaborative projects and what variables are related to researchers’ satisfaction. Understanding and supporting researchers’ shared file management in cloud storage for collaborative projects is important because it is closely related to researchers’ productivity, quality of work, and the integrity of their files.

This study explored possible ways of improving researchers’ shared file management experiences, which have been reported to be popular yet difficult, by examining researchers’ shared file management and collaboration practices, identifying specific activities that need improved support, and discovering variables that are related to researchers’ satisfaction. Further, this study investigated disciplinary differences that can provide useful information in conducting interdisciplinary projects using cloud storage, in developing applications or best practices that reflect distinct practices of the discipline, and a fuller understanding of the researchers’ shared file management practices.

2. Literature review

2.1. Personal information management in digital form

Personal information is the information a person keeps for their own use. It includes books, files, e-mails, or photos for personal use. Personal information management (PIM) is “the practice and the study of the activities a person performs in order to acquire or create, store, organize, maintain, retrieve, use and distribute the information needed to complete tasks and fulfill various roles and responsibilities” (Jones, 2007, p. 453). Since PIM is directly related to people’s daily lives, interest in PIM has been growing as an important topic both for research and technology.

Currently, digital files are one of the most common formats of personal information, and PIM researchers have investigated how people manage their digital files on personal devices. Many studies focused on understanding how people keep or archive their files (Jones, 2004; Kljun et al., 2016; Krtalić et al., 2016; Marčetić, 2015; Marshall, 2008a, 2008b; Oh & Belkin, 2011; Sinn et al., 2017), organize their digital files (Bergman et al., 2013; Boardman & Sasse, 2004; Henderson & Srinivasan, 2011; Jacques et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2005; Oh, 2012, 2017, 2019, 2021; Oh & Belkin, 2014; Whittaker & Massey, 2020) and find or re/find their files (Bergman et al., 2008, 2010, 2012, 2015; Bergman & Sher, 2023; Bergman & Yanai, 2017; Dumais et al., 2016; Fitchett & Cockburn, 2015; Jones et al., 2014; Teevan et al., 2004).

Many researchers also noted the issue of information overload (having to deal with more information than one can handle), and information fragmentation (having information in multiple formats and devices) as the main challenges of managing personal digital information (Ducheneaut & Bellotti, 2001; Grevet et al., 2014; Jones, 2004, 2008; Otopah & Dadzie, 2013; Sinn et al., 2017; Warraich et al., 2018; Whittaker, 2011; Whittaker & Sidner, 1996). These studies provide good background knowledge for understanding how people manage their digital files. However, most studies examined how general users manage files, but didn’t specifically investigate how researchers manage files.

2.2. Personal information management of researchers

Researchers extensively generate, use, and manage personal information as conducting research involves intensive interaction with information. There have been studies that examined researchers and scholars’ PIM practices with a special focus on research related files. These studies reported that researchers have a large and diverse collection of files (Al-Omar & Cox, 2013, 2016; Bussert et al., 2011; Chaudhry & Alajmi, 2022) especially in digital forms (Antonijević & Cahoy, 2014). Files were added continuously throughout the research life cycle, there were often multiple versions of files, and they were often organized by projects or tasks (Al-Omar & Cox, 2016; Antonijević & Cahoy, 2014). The increased expectation of collaborative research as well as the use of cloud storage were also noted (Al-Omar & Cox, 2016; Antonijević & Cahoy, 2014; Chaudhry & Alajmi, 2022).

Researchers recognized the importance and the usefulness of effective PIM (Akmon et al., 2011; Chaudhry & Alajmi, 2022; Warraich et al., 2018) since it is connected to integrity of files, their performance, and the use of resources including time and energy (Al-Omar & Cox, 2016; Warraich et al., 2018). However, they found managing research-related files difficult, so that their files were often poorly managed (Al-Omar & Cox, 2013). Nearly half of the researchers experienced a loss of files (Antonijević & Cahoy, 2014), they were disappointed with their file management (Al-Omar & Cox, 2016), and eager to have suggestions for better management of research related information (Akmon et al., 2011).

The main challenges of researchers’ file management included predicting the future value of information, information fragmentation, large collection size and information overload, technology obsolescence, and limited time to manage information (Akmon et al., 2011; Al-Omar & Cox, 2013; Chaudhry & Alajmi, 2022; Warraich et al., 2018; Yasmeen et al., 2019). The suggestions for improving the PIM practices included enhanced technical support, as well as training and guidelines on good information management practice (Al-Omar & Cox, 2013, 2016; Antonijević & Cahoy, 2014).

These studies help us understand the characteristics of researchers’ files and the challenges researchers have in managing research related files. However, they examined how researchers manage their personal files rather than shared files. More importantly, they investigated file management primarily in local storage, rather than cloud storage.

2.3. Personal information management in cloud storage

Since cloud computing has become a major technological trend, research on cloud computing research has increased, mainly concentrating on the technological aspects (Bayramusta & Nasir, 2016; Marshall & Tang, 2012; Senyo et al., 2018; Widjaja et al., 2019). For instance, Senyo et al. (2018) analyzed 285 journal articles on cloud computing research and found that they were mostly technical in nature and often used experiments and simulations (59.3%) rather than quantitative (13.0%), qualitative (11.6%), or mixed methods (2.5%). In PIM literature, studies have examined PIM in cloud storage. However, they primarily examined users’ intention of using cloud storage (Arpaci, 2016; Park & Kim, 2014; Tang et al., 2013) or privacy and security issues (Alsmadi & Prybutok, 2018; Arpaci et al., 2015; Widjaja et al., 2019). Therefore, little attention has been paid to how people manage files in cloud storage. In addition, these studies focused on the individuals’ use of cloud storage rather than for collaboration.

2.4. Shared information management in cloud storage

Despite the popularity of cloud storage for collaboration, little research has investigated how people manage files in cloud storage while collaborating, with a few exceptions. Early on, Berlin et al. (1993) reported the challenges of shared file management. The authors analyzed the difficulties of co-organization and found that even after developing shared categories, individuals’ varying organization habits made them categorize the same files differently. Similarly, Rader (2009) explored challenges of managing shared files and stated that: “complications arise when multiple information producers add files to a repository, because it is very difficult to both initially agree upon and then subsequently adhere to conventions for how folders should be labeled and organized” (p. 2096). In addition to this co-organization problem, the author also found that users were reluctant to make changes to the shared files, which often resulted in a cluttered repository. Voida et al. (2013) also examined users’ experiences and challenges in cloud-based information work and found that users’ (1) maintaining multiple digital identifiers, (2) using multiple cloud-based services, and (3) participating in multiple collaborations shape their experiences of information management and present challenges at the intersections of them.

Marshall and Tang (2012) investigated how early adopters of cloud storage services understand cloud storage in different ways. They found that users have different conceptual models and levels of understanding of cloud storage services which caused conflicting behavior. This was consistent with Tang et al. (2013) study that examined how participants’ mismatched conceptions limited their use of the cloud. Capra et al. (2014) also identified the varying levels of technical skills as a challenge participants encountered while managing shared files.

Bergman and his colleagues specifically examined the retrieval (i.e., finding/re-finding) of shared files in cloud storage by conducting experiments (Bergman et al., 2014, 2019, 2020a, 2020b). They found a higher failure rate for retrieving files in cloud storage than for personal local storage. Participants also preferred personal local storage over shared cloud storage when sharing files. This preference, which leads to having a separate personal space for shared files and the use of e-mails for collaboration, was also found in other studies (Capra et al., 2014; Kljun & Dix, 2012). Bergman and his colleagues also found that increased collection size, number of file versions, team size, number of days since the most recent retrieval, folder depths, and workload negatively affected retrieving files in shared storage. They also developed an add-on, which prompts users in Google Drive to organize files in folders, and found that it increased the percentage of files saved in folders and improved the retrieval success rate.

Some studies focused on deleting activity in cloud storage. Ramokapane et al. (2017) explored users’ motivations, successes/failures, coping strategies upon failure, and their needs regarding deleting files in cloud storage. In terms of shared files and folders, the authors identified two different mental models: those who believed that deletion is one sided and those who knew that deletion affects all members. Regardless, all participants used the same coping strategy, which was to not delete the files. Khan et al. (2018) conducted a study by asking participants about 10 files in their cloud storage. They found that participants had forgotten that half of the files were in the cloud, and 83% of participants wanted to delete at least one file among the presented files. These studies show that cloud users often don’t delete shared files (including unnecessary files) and forget about files, which could make cloud storage cluttered (Rader, 2009) and raise privacy and security concerns (Khan et al., 2018; Ramokapane et al., 2017).

Interestingly, Massey et al. (2014) found participants using shared storage without much problem. The four successful strategies identified by the authors were (1) creating ContentMaps that show a structure to organize shared files with active links, (2) using implicit co-organization strategies based on expertise, (3) using a task structure, and (4) using tool affordances.

These previous studies are insightful in understanding the characteristics and challenges of managing shared files in cloud storage. However, these studies often focused on a specific activity such as retrieval of shared files rather than an array of activities involved in managing shared files. In addition, different rules and norms researchers have in managing shared files for collaborative projects, which are critical in understanding their shared file management practices, have not been fully investigated. How satisfied researchers are with their shared file management and what variables are related to satisfaction are also underexamined although they are directly related to enhancing researchers’ experiences with managing shared files. In addition, while prior studies discussed some shared file activities that are challenging, there has not yet been a study that specifically identified activities that need improved support by comparatively analyzing different shared file management activities. Additionally, there is still little knowledge about similarities and differences among researchers across academic disciplines in their shared file management practices, which can provide valuable information in conducting interdisciplinary research projects using cloud storage, in developing tools or best practices for researchers in specific academic disciplines, and a more comprehensive understanding of researchers’ behaviors.

3. Research questions

To fill the gap, this research study pursues answers to the following research questions:

RQ1: How do researchers manage (create, update, organize, find/re-find, keep, delete, archive) shared files in cloud storage?

RQ2: What are researchers’ collaboration practices (rules and norms) regarding shared file management?

RQ3: How satisfied are researchers with their different shared file management activities? Which activities are least satisfactory?

RQ4: What variables are associated with researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management?

RQ5: Are there differences across disciplines in researchers’ shared file management activities or collaboration practices?

4. Methodology

4.1. Participants and procedures

Data were collected from 534 researchers at higher education institutions in the United States by conducting an online survey. Approval from an IRB was obtained before collecting data. Since this study focuses on research activities, the author recruited participants who work in doctoral universities. To compare disciplinary differences, researchers were recruited across disciplines including sciences, social sciences, and arts & humanities. To collect data, a random sample of 10 universities from the list of doctoral universities in the United States (Carnegie Classification of Institutions, 2018) was selected by using a random number generator. Then, administrative staff at the selected universities were contacted and asked to distribute the invitation e-mail with survey link to their department’s relevant listservs (faculty, postdoctoral researcher, and graduate student). The survey asked eligible researchers (i.e., those who have ongoing collaborative research projects that use shared cloud storage) to participate voluntarily. In this study, a collaborative research project is defined as a research project that is carried out by multiple researchers with shared responsibility. The recruiting process was repeated until there were enough responses from all three disciplines. In total, 350 universities were contacted, and 980 responses were collected. After deleting incomplete responses, 534 responses were analyzed. Participants’ demographic information is displayed in Table 1. Data were analyzed by performing statistical analyses including descriptive and inferential statistics.

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

Demographics		n	%
Gender	Female	313	61.3
	Male	180	35.2
	Prefer not to answer	18	3.5
Age	20s	214	41.9
	30s	152	29.7
	40s	77	15.1
	50s	47	9.2
	60s or older	21	4.1
Ethnicity	Asian	84	16.6
	Black/African American	15	3.0
	Latino/Hispanic	33	6.5
	White/Caucasian	351	69.4
	Other	23	4.6
Academic discipline	Arts & Humanities	110	21.5
	Sciences	185	36.1
	Social Sciences	214	41.8
	Other	3	0.6
Job title	Graduate Student	296	57.9
	Postdoc and other	57	11.2
	Professor	158	30.9
Role in the project	PIs/Co-PIs	226	44.1
	RAs	156	30.5
	Researchers and others	130	25.4

4.2. Research instrument: survey

The survey included seven sections. Section 1 investigated the characteristics of researchers’ collaborative projects using cloud storage. Section 2 examined researchers’ choice and use of the cloud storage platform. Section 3 looked at researchers’ collaboration practices (rules and norms) regarding shared file management. Section 4 explored researchers’ shared file management activities. Section 5 asked about ease of different shared file management activities. Section 6 covered researchers’ satisfaction with their different shared file management activities. Section 7 gathered participants’ demographic information. This paper primarily focused on the responses from Sections 3, 4, 6, and 7. At the beginning of the survey, researchers were specifically asked to answer questions based on one of their current collaborative research projects that uses shared cloud storage.

4.3. Measurement instrument

Researchers’ shared file management activities were investigated by asking their primary way of creating, updating, organizing, finding/re-finding, and archiving files in shared cloud storage. When researchers are most likely to organize files, the types of files researchers keep, delete, and archive, and the frequency of, and satisfaction with, shared file management activity were also analyzed. Most questions were measured by using multiple-choice questions. The exceptions were the frequency of and satisfaction with shared file management activity, which were measured by using 7-point Likert scale questions.

Researchers’ collaboration practices regarding shared file management were measured by using multiple-choice questions asking whether the respondent’s research team has a designated person(s) responsible for managing the files, and explicit rules, implicit norms, or none for naming conventions of files, controlling different versions of files, organizing files/folder structures for the files, keeping files, archiving files, and deleting files in the shared cloud storage.

To identify variables related to researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management, two construct variables were created by combining frequency of and satisfaction with each shared file management activity. The reliability of these variables was established using Cronbach’s alpha; each variable’s reliability was higher than .70, which is commonly acceptable in social science research.

However, a series of Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests showed that all the continuous variables including the two construct variables are not normally distributed. Thus, nonparametric statistics were used for all inferential statistical analyses.

5. Results

5.1. Researchers’ shared file management activities

5.1.1. Creating shared files

More researchers created a new file outside of the cloud storage and then uploaded it to cloud storage than created a new file within cloud storage (shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1. Primary way of creating new files (N = 525).

5.1.2. Updating shared files

Researchers’ primary way of updating shared files was updating an existing file and not changing the file name, or updating an existing file and saving it with a different file name, showing that updates to files often occur within the existing file (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Primary way of updating shared files (N = 519).

5.1.3. Organizing shared files

As displayed in Figure 3, while higher percentages of shared files were organized in folders than as a list, it was not a predominant method of organization.

Figure 3. Primary way of organizing shared files (N = 518).

Researchers were most likely to organize shared files in cloud storage when the cloud storage looks cluttered/messy. Only 5.0% of participants organized shared files regularly (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. When most likely to organize shared files (N  =  520).

5.1.4. Finding/re-finding shared files

The primary way of finding/re-finding shared files was examined by asking what main cue participants use when finding/re-finding shared files. The most frequent answer was the name of the file, followed by location/organization of the file (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Main cue used when finding/re-finding shared files (N = 523).

5.1.5. Keeping shared files

Participants were asked to select all types of files they keep in shared cloud storage for the project. The most frequent type was manuscripts/drafts for publication, followed by datasets, and analyzed data (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Types of shared files kept in cloud storage (N = 2,045).

5.1.6. Archiving shared files

Participants were asked to select all types of shared files they archive (i.e., securely storing files no longer in use for backup or historical purposes). As shown in Figure 7, the most frequent type was datasets, followed by analyzed data, and manuscripts/drafts for publication, which was similar to the top answer choices for the type of kept files.

Figure 7. Types of shared files archived (N = 1,167).

5.1.7. Deleting shared files

When asked which project files participants are most likely to delete from shared cloud storage, the most frequent answer was none, followed by files no longer in use (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Files most likely to delete (N = 516).

5.1.8. Frequency of managing shared files

The average frequency of managing files in cloud storage was 3.53 on a 7-point Likert scale, indicating that participants occasionally or sometimes manage shared files in cloud storage.

Among different shared file management activities, organizing, archiving, and deleting could be considered proactive management since they implicitly acknowledge future use. In contrast, creating, updating, and finding/re-finding shared files are more focused on present tasks, and direct use of the files, and therefore should not be considered proactive management. With this distinction in mind, the author compared the frequency between two groups. The Mann-Whitney test revealed a statistically significant difference. More specifically, the frequency of proactive management activities (n = 1,538) was lower than non-proactive management activities (n = 1,557), z = -27.88, p < .01 (see Table 2), indicating that researchers are not proactive in managing their shared files.

Table 2. Frequency of not proactive and proactive management of shared files (likert scale 1–7).

	M	SD		M	SD	n
Not proactive management activities	4.35	1.13	Updating files	4.45	1.42	522
			Finding/re-finding files	4.37	1.42	514
			Creating files	4.24	1.42	521
Proactive management activities	2.68	1.05	Organizing files	3.33	1.53	518
			Archiving files	2.71	1.63	504
			Deleting files	2.05	1.06	516

5.2. Researchers’ collaboration practices regarding shared file management

Only a small number of research teams had explicit rules for their shared file management collaboration practices. As shown in Table 3, in all seven practices, only 10.3%-16.0% of the researchers’ project teams had explicit rules. For five practices, the most frequent answer choice was not having any rules or norms, which ranged from 45.0% to 63.2%. However, in terms of organizing shared files/folder structures and keeping shared files, higher percentages of research teams had implicit norms than teams with no rules or norms.

Table 3. Researchers’ collaboration practices regarding shared file management.

	Explicit rules	Implicit norms	None
A designated person responsible for file management (N = 520)	16.0%	3.8%	53.3%
Rules or norms for naming conventions of files (N = 522)	12.3%	42.7%	45.0%
Rules or norms for controlling different versions of files (N = 517)	12.2%	35.4%	52.4%
Rules or norms for organizing shared files/folder structures (N = 521)	14.0%	45.5%	40.5%
Rules or norms for keeping files (N = 527)	15.4%	46.3%	38.3%
Rules or norms for archiving files (N = 517)	1.3%	26.5%	63.2%
Rules or norms for deleting files (N = 522)	15.1%	27.8%	57.1%

5.3. Researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management activities

As shown in Table 4, among different shared file management activities, the most satisfactory activity was creating files, followed by keeping files, and updating files. The least satisfactory activity was finding/re-finding files, followed by archiving files, and organizing files. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences, χ² (6, N = 3345) = 125.91, p < .01, η² = .04.

Table 4. Satisfaction with different shared file management activities (likert scale 1–7).

	M	SD	n
Creating files	6.08	1.25	499
Keeping files	5.93	1.34	499
Updating files	5.79	1.41	504
Deleting files	5.74	1.40	444
Organizing files	5.37	1.66	503
Archiving files	5.31	1.58	393
Finding/re-finding files	5.30	1.62	503

A construct variable created by combining satisfaction with all shared file management activities showed that researchers’ average satisfaction with shared file management in cloud storage was 5.66, showing that participants are slightly or moderately satisfied with managing shared files in cloud storage. This construct variable was used in the next section to identify variables related to researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management.

5.4. Variables related to researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management

5.4.1. Researchers’ shared file management activities and satisfaction

Three out of seven variables associated with researchers’ shared file management activities had statistically significant relationships with researchers’ satisfaction. One was when a researcher was most likely to organize files. Satisfaction was highest when participants organized shared files regularly, and lowest when participants were most likely to organize files when they cannot find the files they need (See Table 5); the lower satisfaction point is understandable because it means the problem has already occurred. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated statistically significant differences, χ² (6, N = 501) = 17.87, p < .01, η² = .04.

Table 5. Satisfaction based on when most likely to organize files (likert scale 1–7).

	M	SD	n
Regularly	5.90	1.08	26
When creating a new file	5.81	1.10	107
When there is a new task	5.79	1.17	112
When the repository looks cluttered/messy	5.67	1.18	111
When you are done with a certain task	5.63	1.20	59
Not at all	5.34	1.36	45
When you cannot find the files you need	5.01	1.27	41

Another variable that showed a statistically significant relationship was the method of finding/re-finding shared files. Satisfaction was highest when participants found/re-found files by using the location/organization of the files, and lowest when the creator of the files was used as the main cue (See Table 6). This result complements Bergman et al. (2019) findings that the use of folder structures increased the success rate in retrieving shared files. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that there were statistically significant differences, χ² (6, N = 504) = 15.15, p < .05, η² = .03.

Table 6. Satisfaction based on main cue used when finding/re-finding files (likert scale 1–7).

	M	SD	n
Location/organization of the file	5.79	1.02	142
Name of the file	5.71	1.25	267
Other	5.48	1.45	10
Date of the file	5.46	1.16	63
Format of the file	5.11	0.86	8
I don’t find/re-find any file	5.04	1.49	7
Creator of the file	4.35	1.51	7

Another related variable was the frequency of shared file management activities. The results of the Spearman correlation showed a statistically significant positive correlation between the frequency of and satisfaction with shared file management activities, r(505) = .12, p < .01. In other words, participants were more satisfied with their shared file management when they managed shared files more frequently. Other shared file management activities were not significantly associated with satisfaction.

5.4.2. Researchers’ collaboration practices and satisfaction

Two out of seven collaboration practices were related to satisfaction. Specifically, those who had explicit rules for organizing shared files/folder structures had the highest satisfaction, while those who didn’t have any rules or norms had the lowest satisfaction (see Table 7). The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated statistically significant differences, χ² (2, N = 500) = 9.41, p < .01, η² = .02.

Table 7. Satisfaction based on having rules, norms, or none for organizing files/folder structures (likert scale 1–7).

	M	SD	n
There are explicit rules	5.92	1.04	72
There are implicit norms	5.76	1.16	231
None	5.47	1.26	197

Whether a researcher’s team had rules or norms for archiving shared files was also related to satisfaction. Satisfaction was highest when the project team had explicit rules, and lowest when there were no rules or norms (See Table 8). The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated statistically significant differences, χ² (2, N = 496) = 6.61, p < .05, η² = .01.

Table 8. Satisfaction based on having rules, norms, or none for archiving shared files (likert scale 1–7).

	M	SD	n
There are explicit rules	5.97	1.06	52
There are implicit norms	5.80	1.04	134
None	5.56	1.26	310

Other collaboration practices were not related to satisfaction. Interestingly, having rules or norms for controlling different versions of a file did not have a statistically significant relationship with satisfaction, while having multiple versions of files was often reported as a challenge of shared file management (Bergman et al., 2014, 2019, 2020a, 2020b; Capra et al., 2014).

5.4.3. Summary of variables related to researchers’ satisfaction

Five out of 14 variables had statistically significant relationships with satisfaction. Notably, three of those are related to organization of shared files, underscoring that organizing files is a critical activity related to satisfaction with managing shared files. In Table 9, statistically significant variables are marked “O”, and variables that were not are marked “X”. It also displays when satisfaction was highest.

Table 9. Variables related to researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management.

Variables		Highest Satisfaction
Researchers’ shared file management activities
Primary way of creating files	X
Primary way of updating files	X
Primary way of organizing files	X
When most likely to organize files	O	Regularly
Main cue used in finding/re-finding files	O	Location/organization
When most likely to delete files	X
Frequency of file management activities	O	More frequently
Researchers’ collaboration practices
A designated person responsible for file management	X
Rules or norms for naming conventions of files	X
Rules or norms for controlling different versions of files	X
Rules or norms for organizing shared files/folder structures	O	Explicit rules
Rules or norms for keeping files	X
Rules or norms for archiving files	O	Explicit rules
Rules or norms for deleting files	X

5.5. Disciplinary differences in shared file management practices

Among the eight shared file management activities, the main cue used in finding/re-finding files had disciplinary differences, χ² (8, N = 489) = 17.96, p < .05, V = .14. As presented in Table 10, while name of the file was the most frequently used main cue for researchers in all three disciplines, it was used more by researchers in arts & humanities than other two disciplines. Location/organization of the file was the second most frequently used main cue for researchers across disciplines, but it was used more by researchers in social sciences than other two disciplines. No statistically significant disciplinary differences were found in researchers’ other shared file management activities.

Table 10. Main cue used in finding/re-finding shared files in cloud storage by disciplines (N = 489).

	Arts & Humanities (n = 106)	Sciences (n = 179)	Social Sciences (n = 204)
Name of the file	61.3%	53.6%	52.9%
Location/organization of the file	28.3%	27.9%	30.9%
Date of the file	6.6%	16.8%	12.7%
Creator of the file	3.8%	0.6%	0.5%
Format of the file	0.0%	1.1%	2.9%

χ2 (8, N = 489) = 17.96, p < .05.

Among seven collaboration practices, having rules or norms for deleting files had disciplinary differences, (χ² (4, N = 503) = 10.40, p < .05, V = .10). As displayed in Table 11, while having no rules or norms for deleting shared files was the most frequent answer for all three disciplines, the second most frequent answer was having implicit norms among science and social science researchers while it was the third answer choice for arts & humanities researchers. No statistically significant disciplinary differences were found in researchers’ other collaboration practices regarding shared file management.

Table 11. Rules or norms for deleting shared files by disciplines (N = 503).

	Arts & Humanities (n = 108)	Sciences (n = 182)	Social Sciences (n = 213)
No	64.8%	53.8%	55.4%
There are implicit norms	15.7%	31.9%	30.5%
There are explicit rules	19.4%	14.3%	14.1%

χ2 (4, N = 503) = 10.40, p < .05, V = .10.

Table 12 presents variables with disciplinary differences (marked “O”) and with no disciplinary differences (marked “X”).

Table 12. Variables with disciplinary differences.

Variables	Disciplinary Differences
Researchers’ shared file management activities
Primary way of creating files	X
Primary way of updating files	X
Primary way of organizing files	X
When most likely to organize files	X
Main cue used in finding/re-finding files	O
When most likely to delete files	X
Frequency of file management activities	X
Satisfaction with file management activities	X
Researchers’ collaboration practices
A designated person responsible for file management	X
Rules or norms for naming conventions of files	X
Rules or norms for controlling different versions of files	X
Rules or norms for organizing shared files/folder structures	X
Rules or norms for keeping files	X
Rules or norms for archiving files	X
Rules or norms for deleting files	O

6. Discussion

6.1. Not active managers of shared files

Participants were not active in managing shared files in cloud storage, evident in researchers’ collaboration practices regarding shared file management (see Section 5.2). For all seven collaboration practices, the percentages of participants whose research team had explicit rules were quite low. For researchers’ shared file management activities, participants’ not being active managers of shared files was most apparent in organizing and deleting files. Specifically, less than half of participants (48.8%) organized shared files in folders (see Figure 3). Considering the predominant use of folders in organizing personal digital files (Bergman & Sher, 2023; Bergman & Whittaker, 2016; Bergman et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2005; Krtalić et al., 2016), this result indicates that participants were not active in organizing shared files. This could be due to the well-reported challenges of co-organization (Berlin et al., 1993; Krtalić et al., 2016; Lutters et al., 2007; Marčetić, 2015; Marshall & Tang, 2012; Rader, 2009) or the interface design of some cloud storage platforms that saves files without needing to select a location (Bergman et al., 2014, 2019). In addition, only 5% of participants organized files regularly, while 9.4% of participants didn’t organize files at all, and over 30% of participants organized files when the cloud storage looks messy or when they cannot find files (see Figure 4) which further supports the observation.

A large portion (37.8%) of participants also didn’t delete shared files at all (see Figure 8) which aligns with previous studies that reported participants’ reluctance to delete shared files (Khan et al., 2018; Rader, 2009; Ramokapane et al., 2017). This could be because of a fear of deleting files other collaborators might need in the future (Rader, 2009; Ramokapane et al., 2017) or simply forgetting about the files (Khan et al., 2018). This passivity in organizing and deleting shared files highlights the difficulty of these activities and shows why managing shared files effectively is challenging.

6.2. Shared file management activities that need improved support

Among different shared file management activities, the least satisfactory activity was finding/re-finding files, followed by archiving files, and organizing files (see Table 4), indicating that they need better support. Here, possible reasons for relatively low satisfaction were analyzed by further examining behaviors, relevant collaboration practices, and statistically significant variables.

6.2.1. Finding/re-finding shared files

Finding/re-finding shared files was the least satisfactory activity (see Table 4), but also one of the top three most frequent activities (see Table 2), meaning that researchers find/re-find shared files frequently but find the process unsatisfactory. This is even more surprising because the frequency and satisfaction with shared file management had positive correlation. In fact, among the top three most frequent activities, finding/re-finding files was the only activity not in the top three most satisfactory activities, indicating that it is an essential activity that requires improved support. The results uphold previous studies that reported challenges in finding/re-finding files in a shared repository (Bergman et al., 2014, 2019, 2020a, 2020b; Massey et al., 2014).

When finding/re-finding shared files, satisfaction was highest when location/organization of the file was used as the main cue (see Table 6). However, participants often used the name of the file (52.6%) rather than location/organization of the file (28.7%) when finding/re-finding files (see Figure 5). This may explain the relatively low satisfaction with finding/re-finding file activity. This could also mean that researchers’ files were not well-organized enough to have location/organization be used as the main cue. Participants were most likely to organize shared files when the cloud archive looked cluttered (see Figure 4). In addition, only 14.0% of participants had explicit rules for organizing shared files/folder structures (see Table 3), which might contribute to difficulty and lower satisfaction in finding/re-finding files.

6.2.2. Archiving shared files

Archiving files also showed relatively low satisfaction. While the challenges of finding/re-finding shared files have been noted, less focus has been put on archiving shared files. However, the result that it was the second least satisfactory activity reveals that it also needs more attention and support.

In fact, having rules or norms for archiving files was one of the two collaboration practices that had a statistically significant relationship with satisfaction. Researchers’ satisfaction was highest when their research team had explicit rules, and lowest when their research team didn’t have rules or norms for archiving shared files (see Table 8). However, only 10.3% of participants’ research teams had explicit rules for archiving shared files, and 63.2% didn’t have rules or norms (see Table 3). When compared with other collaboration practices, the percentage of researchers whose research team had explicit rules was the lowest and the percentage of researchers whose research team didn’t have any rules or norms was the highest, possibly explaining why participants had relatively low satisfaction. Archiving shared files was the second least frequent activity among shared file management activities (see Table 2), and 15.1% of participants didn’t archive any files (see Figure 7). The low satisfaction could stem from the lack of attention given to the activity.

6.2.3. Organizing shared files

Organizing shared files has been reported as one of the main challenges of managing shared files, largely due to differing organization practices used by different collaborators (Berlin et al., 1993; Lutters et al., 2007; Marshall & Tang, 2012; Massey et al., 2014; Rader, 2009; Voida et al., 2013). This study confirmed those findings by analyzing empirical data that showed participants had relatively low satisfaction with organizing shared files.

This study found that having rules or norms for organizing shared files/folder structures had a statistically significant relationship with satisfaction. Participants’ satisfaction was highest when their research team had explicit rules, while it was lowest when there were no rules or norms (see Table 7). However, only 14.0% of participants’ research teams had explicit rules (see Table 3). Similarly, while participants’ satisfaction was highest when participants organized shared files in cloud storage regularly (see Table 5), only 5.0% of participants organized shared files regularly (see Figure 4). Organizing shared files was the third least frequent activity among shared file management activities (see Table 2), though managing shared files more frequently correlates with increased satisfaction with shared file management. These findings provide possible explanations for the low satisfaction with organizing activity.

6.3. Possible ways of enhancing researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management

There were five variables that showed statistically significant relationships with researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management (see Table 9). These results highlighted important shared file management activities and collaboration practices associated with satisfaction and uncovered some possible ways of enhancing researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management.

In the case of researchers’ shared file management activities, the results suggest that researchers want to organize their shared files regularly or at least when creating a new file. The results also indicated that using the location or organization of the files when finding/re-finding shared files and managing shared files more frequently would also improve their satisfaction.

In the case of collaboration practices, researchers would like to set explicit rules for at least organizing shared files or folder structures for shared files, and how they would archive their shared files to increase their satisfaction with shared file management for collaborative research projects.

6.4. Few disciplinary differences in shared file management practices

Not much difference was found across disciplines in researchers’ collaboration practices regarding shared file management and related activities (see Table 12). In the case of researchers’ shared file management activities, only one out of eight variables had disciplinary differences, in the main cue used in finding/re-finding files. However, the order of the most frequently used main cues was the same for all three disciplines, and the differences were only in percentages (see Table 10).

In the case of collaboration practices, only one out of seven variables had disciplinary differences: a lower percentage of arts & humanities researchers had implicit norms for deleting shared files than researchers in other disciplines. However, even in this case, having no rules or norms was the most frequent answer choice for all three disciplines (see Table 11).

These results show that in terms of shared file management and collaboration practices, interdisciplinary research projects using cloud storage would be similar to intradisciplinary projects. In addition, the best practices for researchers’ shared file management could be developed and applied to researchers across disciplines. Similarly, when developing tools for managing shared files in collaborative research projects, the products could benefit researchers in all disciplines.

7. Conclusion

Cloud computing has enabled ubiquitous personal data, shifted PIM practices, and provoked new issues. It also changed researchers’ PIM practices for collaboration. However, despite the popularity and reported challenges of researchers’ shared file management in cloud storage, the ways of improving researchers’ shared file management experiences have not been fully explored yet. This study investigated researchers’ shared file management activities, the different rules and norms they have in managing shared files for their collaborative projects, and especially how they are related to researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management in order to identify ways to enhance their experiences by conducting a large-scale study with 534 researchers across disciplines.

The findings from this study contribute to the literature on PIM, everyday life information practices, and collaborative information behavior by helping us to have a more comprehensive understanding of researchers’ current shared file management behaviors and collaboration practices. In addition, the findings also provide guidance that could enhance researchers’ experiences with shared file management. For instance, the finding that having rules or norms for organizing files/folder structures as well as archiving shared files (among other rules and norms such as controlling different versions of files) showed statistically significant relationships with satisfaction suggests that researchers will want to set rules for at least these two practices when working on collaborative research projects. While the challenges of co-organization and reluctance to delete have been reported in previous studies, no study has specifically looked at whether researchers have rules or norms for different shared file management practices and how they are connected to researchers’ satisfaction with shared file management, which is a unique contribution of this study. In a similar vein, while researchers reported increased retrieval success rates when shared files are organized into folders, a study that cross-examined an array of different shared file management activities and identified specific shared activities and practices that are associated with satisfaction has been missing. By analyzing a large amount of empirical data, this study identified specific activities that need improved support, discovered variables that had statistically significant associations with satisfaction, and made some specific suggestions based on these findings.

On a practical level, this study informs the design of tools that better support researchers’ shared file management. It revealed that researchers were not proactive in managing shared files, although active and intentional shared management activities had statistically significant associations with higher satisfaction. Thus, it would be beneficial to design a system that encourages more active shared file management, especially for activities the participants had relatively low satisfaction with or did not actively perform. For instance, for organizing shared files, a function that displays a graphical tree structure of folders in cloud storage in one place and allows users to manage the structure directly would be beneficial. A function that facilitates using consistent naming conventions would also be useful since the name of the file was most commonly used in finding/re-finding shared files. This could be done by providing an autocomplete function for the file name when users create a new file, either based on the naming convention created by researchers for their team or best practices in the field. In the case of deleting files, allowing each user to mark files that can be deleted, and then deleting the file when all members marked the file would be useful. For archiving shared files, consider a function that allows users to mark files that need to be archived either when they are working with the file or done with using the file. The function could then create a downloadable folder that includes all the marked files, which would facilitate the archiving activity.

In this study, over half of the participants were junior researchers. They were suitable participants for this study but there is a possibility of different results if there were more senior researchers among the participants. In addition, it is worth noting that sometimes the cloud storage platform is chosen by researchers’ institution rather than researchers themselves. This could have influenced the researchers’ satisfaction with their shared file management practices. In this study, an online survey was used to collect data in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how researchers across disciplines manage shared files in cloud storage and especially, what variables are related by analyzing a large sample. This method was appropriate in pursuing the research objectives and it could successfully identify the variables that had statistically significant relationships with researchers’ satisfaction. However, it couldn’t reveal underlying reasons for researchers’ current practices. Also, some participants may not have remembered their behavior correctly. This study was a part of a larger project that involved an online survey, grand tour interview, and semi-structured interview. Analyzing data from all three data collection methods will provide a richer understanding of researchers’ shared file management practices.

Future research might analyze the practices of participants whose satisfaction with managing shared files was in the top 20%. Studying their primary methods as well as their rules and norms would inform us about successful practices. It would be also useful to expand the study by investigating and comparing participants from general users of shared cloud storage and examining whether they have different shared file management and collaboration practices from researchers or not. The author will also extend this study by analyzing data from interviews that closely investigated shared file management behaviors and examined challenges and successful strategies in managing shared files in cloud storage for collaborative projects.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (#G-2021-16833).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation [#G-2021-16833].

Notes on contributors

Kyong Eun Oh

Kyong Eun Oh is an Associate Professor and the Director of the Ph.D. program in the School of Library and Science at Simmons University in Boston, USA. She studies how people manage and organize their digital files and how people use and interact with information in everyday life.