Making the concept of Web2.0 researchable: Web2.0 and Scholarly communication

785 views
738 views

Published on

Presentation to National Escience Centre conference on Web2.0

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
785
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Making the concept of Web2.0 researchable: Web2.0 and Scholarly communication

    1. 1. Making Web2.0 Researchable Web2.0 and Scholarly Communication: innovation and use James Stewart
    2. 3. Scholarly Communication <ul><li>Conducting research, developing ideas and informal communications. </li></ul><ul><li>Preparing, shaping and communicating what will become formal research results. </li></ul><ul><li>The dissemination of formal products. </li></ul><ul><li>Managing personal careers, and research teams and research programmes </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching and communicating scholarly ideas to broader communities.(based on Thorin (2003) ) </li></ul>
    3. 4. What is Web2.0?
    4. 5. Characterised by example <ul><li>Technical and content forms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E .g. blog, wiki, social networking tool, social bookmarking, peer to peer filesharing, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Particular Branded Service or Resource </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facebook </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skype </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OpenWetWare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharepoint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikipedia </li></ul></ul>
    5. 6. Web2.0 <ul><li>Way of describing certain post-dot.com bust businesses </li></ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Business &/or organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Practices – for information use and interactions </li></ul><ul><li>Expectations </li></ul>
    6. 7. “Qualities of Web2.0” <ul><li>“Openness” </li></ul><ul><li>“Usability” </li></ul><ul><li>“User creation and contribution” </li></ul><ul><li>“Massive data” </li></ul><ul><li>“Power of the ‘crowd’” </li></ul><ul><li>“Network effects” </li></ul><ul><li>Problem: None unique to Web2.0 </li></ul>
    7. 8. How to describe a Web2.0 … <ul><li>Tool </li></ul><ul><li>System </li></ul><ul><li>Service </li></ul><ul><li>Community </li></ul><ul><li>Organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Collection </li></ul><ul><li>etc </li></ul>
    8. 9. Academic archaeology <ul><li>Many of communicative and information practices characteristic of Web2.0 are characteristic of scholarly communication. </li></ul><ul><li>However, some of these forms are rather ossified! </li></ul><ul><li>Many earlier internet tools used in Web2.0 way. </li></ul>
    9. 10. Working model <ul><li>services for discovering and maintaining relationships; </li></ul><ul><li>services for sharing research objects and components; </li></ul><ul><li>services for sharing, annotating and commentating on publications and presentations; and; </li></ul><ul><li>services for documenting and sharing experiences. </li></ul>
    10. 11. Factors shaping Web2.0 in SC <ul><li>Ownership and control of scholarly products, both by scholar and institutions such as universities and publishers; </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional, individual and cultural factors shaping collaboration; </li></ul><ul><li>Technical implantation of support for Standardisation, IPR and security; </li></ul><ul><li>Epistemological issues arising in creating and implementing computer-based communication tools. </li></ul>
    11. 12. Principal issues <ul><li>Disciplinary differences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>S tructure, economics, maturity and culture. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Intellectual property and demonstration: I m portance of publication for career progression and for institutional success </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamics of socio-technical change </li></ul>
    12. 13. Academic Approaches <ul><li>Science Studies </li></ul><ul><li>Sociology of Knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Information Science/ Library Studies </li></ul><ul><li>Organisational Science (IT implementation) </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Studies </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation Studies </li></ul><ul><li>Economics </li></ul>
    13. 14. Visions and E m pirical change <ul><li>Open Access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Science </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Library ‘2.0’ </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboratories and CSCW </li></ul><ul><li>Data-driven scholarship </li></ul><ul><li>Globalisation </li></ul>
    14. 15. Disciplinary Differences <ul><li>Empirically </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of different types of formal outputs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speed of knowledge production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disciplinary cultures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collective working and competitiveness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>U ses of online systems such as preprint servers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Theoretically </li></ul><ul><ul><li>C ultures of knowledge production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>T ype of knowledge produced </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Types of primary materials/sources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>M aturity of discipline – esp. development of knowledge standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>I nterdependence of scholars </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interdsciplinarity </li></ul></ul>
    15. 16. Disciplinary Differences <ul><li>Musicology </li></ul><ul><li>Music </li></ul><ul><li>High Energy Physics </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical Physics </li></ul><ul><li>Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural studies </li></ul>
    16. 17. Institutional differences <ul><li>Institution Status </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Access to publish high ranking journals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Institutional resources and management </li></ul><ul><li>Other activities: teaching, commericalisation </li></ul><ul><li>Local network effects – critical mass </li></ul>
    17. 18. Individuals and groups <ul><li>Experience with use of existing technologies </li></ul><ul><li>E xperience with technical change </li></ul><ul><li>Age and Career stage </li></ul><ul><li>Gender </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to influence technological change </li></ul><ul><li>Community and institutional support </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations and work practices </li></ul><ul><li>“ innovativeness” </li></ul>
    18. 19. Dynamics of Tech Change <ul><li>Barriers and Drivers </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge and Information standards </li></ul>
    19. 20. RIN Web2.0 Study <ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul>
    20. 21. RIN Web2.0 Study <ul><li>Methods </li></ul>
    21. 22. What do you want to know?

    ×