Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Updating The Standard Model
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Updating The Standard Model

915

Published on

Talk given at 4S Annual Meeting, October 29, 2009, Arlington, VA

Talk given at 4S Annual Meeting, October 29, 2009, Arlington, VA

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
915
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Doesn’t describe data sharing – UNISIST does
  • Of course Latour and Woolgar discuss the moderations and Fleck describes the handbook science
  • Transcript

    • 1. 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.
    • 2. 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
    • 3. Agenda
      • The standard model
      • Other suggested updates
      • Social computing technologies
        • What they are
        • Why they matter
      • Additional dimensions for the model
    • 4. 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
    • 5. 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
    • 6.
      • 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
    • 7.
      • 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
    • 8.
      • 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
    • 9. Agenda
      • The standard model
      • Other suggested updates
      • Social computing technologies
        • What they are
        • Why they matter
      • Additional dimensions for the model
    • 10. 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)
    • 11. 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
    • 12. Agenda
      • The standard model
      • Other suggested updates
      • Social computing technologies
        • What they are
        • Why they matter
      • Additional dimensions for the model
    • 13. 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
    • 14. 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
    • 15.
      • 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?
    • 16. 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?
    • 17. Agenda
      • The standard model
      • Other suggested updates
      • Social computing technologies
        • What they are
        • Why they matter
      • Additional dimensions for the model
    • 18. 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
    • 19. Dimensions
      • Completeness
        • A journal article
        • A data set
      • Access
        • Is available?
        • What barriers? (code, cost, intellectual, etc.)
      • Audience
        • Intended – participants
    • 20. 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
    • 21.
      • Christina K. Pikas
      • Doctoral Student
      • University of Maryland
      • College of Information Studies
      • [email_address]
    • 22.
      • 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

    ×