Updating The Standard Model

Updating the Standard Model of Scholarly Communication in Consideration of the Use of Social Computing Technologies Christina K. Pikas [email_address] Please feel free to blog, tweet, photograph, or otherwise share this presentation.

Problem
The Garvey & Griffith model (1967, 1972, 1979) is frequently used as the standard model of scholarly communication in science.
It has several shortcomings that limit its utility in the current environment. These are due in part to the blurring of:
Informal ↔ Formal
Scholarly ↔ Popular
Archival ↔ Ephemeral
Production ↔ Distribution

Agenda
The standard model
Other suggested updates
Social computing technologies
What they are
Why they matter
Additional dimensions for the model

The Standard Model Research Initiated Research Completed Preliminary Reports A& I Services Conference Proceedings Conference Reports Manuscript Submitted Appearance In “Accepted” Journal Publication A&I Services Review Articles Article is Cited Pre-prints Distributed Hurd’s (1996) representation of the Garvey-Griffith Model

Features
As you move from left to right
Work is less specific, details are lost
The audience is broader, less targeted
Time passes and immediacy is lost
Work is archived and retrievable
Omits
Popular communication
Sharing of datasets, modules, protocols

Formal: journal articles, books
Has been reviewed by peers (“certified”)
Is archived and retrievable
Is distributed widely
Informal: conference papers, posters, reports, hallway conversations, e-mail…
Typically not peer-reviewed to the same level
Might not be archived and difficult to retrieve
Provides more context

Scholarly: with other scientists, often within the discipline or invisible college
Shared background or training
Assertions are moderated by “it seems” and other rhetorical approaches
Popular: with “the public”
Not specifically included in the model
Textbooks are mentioned as the most abstract, with the fewest details, presenting “facts” in retrospect

Archival:
Materials are preserved indefinitely
Extensive infrastructure (publishing/libraries) has been developed to facilitate retrieval
Ephemeral:
Only available to participants
Remembered or saved in notes

Agenda
The standard model
What they are
Why they matter

E-mail, Listservs, E-journals
Hurd (1996) suggests that changes to this system may be
Modernizations
Journal-less
Unvetted
Collaboratory
But Kling & McKim (2000), among others, noted that nothing is inevitable
Most prevalent model for e-Journals is the electronic version of the print (Hahn, 1999)

Popularization Continuum
Communication with the press and outside of science happens at all stages of the work from the grant application through discussion of completed work after publication
Lewenstein (1995) suggests a sphere of science communication
Paul (1994) describes the use of popular works in scholarly works and vice versa

Agenda
The standard model
What they are
Why they matter

SCTs
My term for Web 2.0, social software, social networking
Includes blogging, micro-blogging (e.g., Twitter), wikis, RSS, social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), social aggregators, social bookmarking…
Technologies that enable
Social interaction online
Contributions by individual authors
Easy linking and sharing of media

In Science
Scientists are using these tools
Some are using these tools to do “open science”
Wikis as lab notebooks
Open collaboration tools
Sharing presentations – while they are being revised

Defined by format, but this format supports recent changes in how science is done
Increased pace
Sharing of data, modules, protocols
Annotation of information objects such as pictures, graphs, posters, conference presentations
Computational thinking
Do these tools change how science is done or facilitate/enable new ways of doing science?

Are they different?
Mixed formal and informal
Distribution
Widely available
More easily retrieved than many journal articles
Content is not precisely ephemeral, but might not be preserved if care is not taken
Certification or authority
Peer review – stable text on Wikipedia?
In-links, “likes”, comments?

Agenda
The standard model
What they are
Why they matter

Some Additional Dimensions
Instead of a linear model with stages, each with one or the other feature, we have diverse and multiple communication activities throughout scientific work.
Some dimensions are suggested:
Completeness
Access
Expected audience, actual audience

Dimensions
Completeness
A journal article
A data set
Access
Is available?
What barriers? (code, cost, intellectual, etc.)
Audience
Intended – participants

Take Home Messages
A new or revised model of communication in science is required to understand the interactions among ICTs, the social system of science, and how science is done.
New dimensions should address issues of access, completeness, and expected audience

Christina K. Pikas
Doctoral Student
University of Maryland
College of Information Studies
[email_address]

References
Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers, and students . New York: Pergamon Press.
Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1967). Scientific communication as a social system. Science, 157 , 1011-1016.
Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines - empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8 (3), 123-136.
Hahn, K.L. (1999). Electronic journals as innovations: A study of author and editor early adopters . Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 9926786).
Hurd, J. M. (1996). Models of scientific communications systems. In S. Y. Crawford, J. M. Hurd & A. C. Weller (Eds.), From print to electronic: The transformation of scientific communication (pp. 9-33). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (14), 1306-1320
Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25 (3), 403-436. doi:10.1177/030631295025003001
Paul, D. (2004). Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of scientific ideas. Written Communication, 21 (1), 32-68. doi:10.1177/0741088303261035

Updating The Standard Model

by Christina Pikas on Oct 30, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 14

Statistics

Updating The Standard Model — Presentation Transcript

http://scienceblogs.com	13
http://www.slideshare.net	1