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


PPT – Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 6fe1bb-OTM1N


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use


Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use James Stewart – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:77
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: JamesS190


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication innovation and use

Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly
Communication innovation and use
  • James Stewart

(No Transcript)
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) )

What is Web2.0?
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

  • Way of describing certain bust
  • 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
  • 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
  • Tool
  • System
  • Service
  • Community
  • Organisation
  • Collection
  • etc

Approaches to Web2.0
  • Technology
  • Business model
  • Organisational approach
  • Individual and social practices for information
    use and interactions
  • Structure of knowledge
  • Expectations

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
  • 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
  • services for discovering and maintaining
  • services for sharing research objects and
  • services for sharing, annotating and commentating
    on publications and presentations
  • services for documenting and sharing experiences.

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
  • 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

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Many different innovation pathways

Academic Approaches
  • Science Studies
  • Sociology of Knowledge
  • Information Science/ Library Studies
  • Organisational Science (IT implementation)
  • Technology Studies
  • Innovation Studies
  • Economics

Visions and Empirical change
  • Open Access
  • Open Science
  • Library 2.0
  • Collaboratories and CSCW
  • Data-driven scholarship
  • Globalisation

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 Differences
  • Musicology
  • Music
  • High Energy Physics
  • Theoretical Physics
  • Economics
  • Cultural studies

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Objectives
  • Who is using what, where?
  • What is shaping that use?
  • The implications for Scholarly Communications.

RIN Web2.0 Study
  • Methods
  • Quantitative and representative survey of UK
    scholarly community to discover basic use and
  • 50 in dept interviews on scholarly communications
    and Web2.0
  • 5 case studies of promoters, developers and users
    of specific web2.0 services

  • 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

What do you want to know?