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

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

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

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Is distributed widely Informal: conference papers, posters, reports, hallway conversations, e-mail… Typically not peer-reviewed to the same level Might not be archived and difficult to retrieve Provides more context

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

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

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

The standard model

Other suggested updates

Social computing technologies

What they are

Why they matter

Additional dimensions for the model

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)

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

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

The standard model

Other suggested updates

Social computing technologies

What they are

Why they matter

Additional dimensions for the model

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

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

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?

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?

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

The standard model

Other suggested updates

Social computing technologies

What they are

Why they matter

Additional dimensions for the model

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

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

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

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]

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

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