making web2 0 researchable web2 0 and scholarly communication innovation and use n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 104 Views
  • Uploaded on

Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use. James Stewart. Scholarly Communication. Conducting research, developing ideas and informal communications. Preparing, shaping and communicating what will become formal research results.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use' - grace


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
making web2 0 researchable web2 0 and scholarly communication innovation and use

Making Web2.0 ResearchableWeb2.0 and Scholarly Communicationinnovation and use

James Stewart

scholarly communication
Scholarly Communication
  • Conducting research, developing ideas and informal communications.
  • Preparing, shaping and communicating what will become formal research results.
  • The dissemination of formal products.
  • Managing personal careers, and research teams and research programmes
  • Teaching and communicating scholarly ideas to broader communities.(based on Thorin (2003) )
characterised by example
Characterised by example
  • Technical and content forms
    • E.g. blog, wiki, social networking tool, social bookmarking, peer to peer filesharing, etc
  • Particular Branded Service or Resource
    • Facebook
    • Skype
    • OpenWetWare
    • Sharepoint
    • Wikipedia
web2 0
Web2.0

Way of describing certain post-dot.com bust businesses

Technological definition: “Web 2.0 encompasses a variety of different meanings that include an increased emphasis on user-generated content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort, together with the use of various kinds of social software, new ways of interacting with web-based applications, and the use of the web as a platform for generating, re-purposing and consuming content.’ (Anderson 2007)

  • The way technology is being driven by individuals and communities seeking to manage the explosion of information, and the move to ‘networked society’
qualities of web2 0
“Qualities of Web2.0”

“Openness”

“Usability”

“Light structures”

“User creation and contribution”

“Massive data”

“Power of the ‘crowd’”

“Network effects”

Problem: None unique to Web2.0

how to describe a web2 0
How to describe a Web2.0 …
  • Tool
  • System
  • Service
  • Community
  • Organisation
  • Collection
  • etc
approaches to web2 0
Approaches to Web2.0
  • Technology
  • Business model
  • Organisational approach
  • Individual and social practices – for information use and interactions
  • Structure of knowledge
  • Expectations
academic archaeology
Academic archaeology
  • Many of communicative and information practices characteristic of Web2.0 are characteristic of scholarly communication.
  • However, some of these forms are rather ossified!
  • Many earlier internet tools used in Web2.0 way
  • Many more well established trajectories of socio-technical change. What does Web2.0 add?
e g collaboratories
e.g. Collaboratories
  • Shared instruments
  • Community Data Systems
  • Open Community Contribution Systems
  • Virtual Community of Practice
  • Virtual Learning Community
  • Distributed Research Centre
  • Community Infrastructure project

Bos et al. (2007)

Issues of:

  • Tacit knowledge
  • Independence of scholars
  • Information Standards
  • Institutional and national barriers
  • Sustainability
working model
Working model
  • services for discovering and maintaining relationships
  • services for sharing research objects and components
  • services for sharing, annotating and commentating on publications and presentations
  • services for documenting and sharing experiences.
how do you use web2 0
How do you use ‘Web2.0’?
  • How might you define it?
  • Is it useful or distracting?
  • Is the idea of qualities useable?
  • Does Internet =Web2.0 now?
framework social shaping of technology
Framework: Social Shaping of Technology
  • Technologies emerge from complex processes of invention, implementation, failure and success
  • Many different social and technical players and objects effect outcome
  • Sources of innovation included user communities as well as producer groups
  • Non-linear process involving changes in practices, knowledge, structures and relationships
framework social learning in innovation
Framework: Social Learning in Innovation
  • Changing relationships between players in innovation as they interact and learn in the processes of invention and implementation.
  • Importance of visions and theory in promoting and aligning expectations
  • Importance of intermediaries in bringing together innovations from different communities
  • Emergence of new intermediaries
factors shaping web2 0 in sc
Factors shaping Web2.0 in SC
  • Ownership and control of scholarly products, both by scholars and institutions such as universities and publishers
  • Institutional, individual and cultural factors shaping collaboration
  • Technical implantation of support for Standardisation, IPR and security
  • Epistemological issues arising in creating and implementing computer-based communication tools.
principal issues governing the dynamics of socio technical change
Principal issues governing the Dynamics of socio-technical change
  • Disciplinary differences
    • Scholarly knowledge production
    • Structure, economics, maturity and culture.
  • Institutional differences
  • Non-academic influences – individual and broader social appropriation of Web2.0 practices and ideas
  • Many different innovation pathways
academic approaches
Academic Approaches
  • Science Studies
  • Sociology of Knowledge
  • Information Science/ Library Studies
  • Organisational Science (IT implementation)
  • Technology Studies
  • Innovation Studies
  • Economics
visions and e m pirical change
Visions and Empirical change
  • Open Access
    • Open Science
  • Library ‘2.0’
  • Collaboratories and CSCW
  • Data-driven scholarship
  • Globalisation
disciplinary differences
Disciplinary Differences
  • Empirically
    • Use of different types of formal outputs
    • Speed of knowledge production
    • Disciplinary cultures
    • Collective working and competitiveness
    • Uses of online systems such as preprint servers
  • Theoretically
    • Cultures of knowledge production
    • Type of knowledge produced
    • Types of primary materials/sources
    • Maturity of discipline – esp. development of knowledge standards
    • Interdependence of scholars
    • Interdsciplinarity
disciplinary differences1
Disciplinary Differences

Musicology

Music

High Energy Physics

Theoretical Physics

Economics

Cultural studies

institutional differences
Institutional differences
  • Institution Status
    • Access to publish high ranking journals
  • Institutional resources and management
  • Other activities: teaching, commericalisation
  • Local network effects – critical mass
individuals and groups
Individuals and groups
  • Experience with use of existing technologies
  • Experience with technical change
  • Age and Career stage
  • Reward structures and motivations
  • Gender
  • Ability to influence technological change
  • Community and institutional support
  • Collaborations and work practices
  • “innovativeness”
preliminary questions and issues
Preliminary questions and issues
  • Does the ‘openness’ and ‘emergence’ of information and knowledge standards favour emerging and interdisciplinary research, or is Web2.0 primarily taken up in areas with well established, but older IT infrastructures
  • Does Age, as a proxy for career stage play a role in adoption of Web2.0, and it is biased to youth and early career, or older and more established researchers
  • Gender is traditionally a factor in technology adoption, and is clearly an factor in disciplinary participation. Are there any unusual patterns in ‘Web2.0’ adoption
rin web2 0 study
RIN Web2.0 Study

Objectives

  • Who is using what, where?
  • What is shaping that use?
  • The implications for Scholarly Communications.
rin web2 0 study1
RIN Web2.0 Study

Methods

  • Quantitative and representative survey of UK scholarly community to discover basic use and awareness
  • 50 in dept interviews on scholarly communications and Web2.0
  • 5 case studies of promoters, developers and users of specific ‘web2.0’ services
issues
Issues
  • Many different sorts of scholarly communication
    • e.g. information searching, publishing formal outputs, coordinating
  • Web2.0 such a vague term, and not well known
  • Use of much Web2.0 maybe very limited

BUT

  • Web2.0 not a step change
  • Ask about personal changes in pratices and institutional change
  • The experiences and efforts of innovation intermediaries to stimulate change