• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
ELPUB 2010

ELPUB 2010






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    ELPUB 2010 ELPUB 2010 Presentation Transcript

    • If you build it, will they come? Ellen Collins, Research Information Network ELPUB, 16-18 June 2010, Helsinki How researchers perceive and use web 2.0
    • Overview
      • Web 2.0 and academics
      • Method
      • Usage
      • Attitudes
      • Implications
    • Web 2.0 and academics
      • Tools developed specifically for academics
      • Open knowledge agenda
      • But what is really happening?
        • Are researchers using these tools?
        • What do they think of them?
    • Method
      • Mixed methodology
        • Email survey
        • In-depth interviews
        • Case studies
    • Usage 13 % frequent users 45% occasional 39% non-users
    • Demographics
      • Adoption is associated with:
        • Being male
        • Older age
        • More senior positions
        • Maths and computer science
      • But social networking is different
    • Collaboration
    • Encouragement
    • Attitudes
    • Attitudes Likelihood that online activity will supplement peer review
    • Attitudes Likelihood that online publication will grow in importance
    • Attitudes: visibility ‘ If it increases your profile, and more people were aware of the work you did, that would be a benefit’ ‘ I don’t see why I wouldn’t also take an online recommendation [in the same way as face-to-face recommendations]’
    • Attitudes: communication ‘ You can have a conversation of more than just two-way ‘ You can talk about your research findings…and people can comment or interact without having to wait until your final output is a journal article that will appear in print’
    • Attitudes: trust Content ‘ I wouldn’t use Wikipedia or anything like that, anything that isn’t peer reviewed like that is worthless’ ‘ I have a negative attitude to using videos and blogs in research. Once it’s finished it should be published otherwise it will be anarchy in science’ ‘ It would be nice if the community felt a little less competitive and a bit more open about sharing data’ Process IPR
    • Implications
      • Single approach unlikely to have much success
      • Engagement in future, but not now
      • Intellectual property issues need to be resolved
      • Certain people are key to encouraging success:
        • Library and information services
        • Conference organisers
        • Local research groups
        • High-profile users
    • References Proctor, R., Willians, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A. and Asgari-Targhi, M. (Forthcoming) ‘Adoption and Use of Web 2.0 in Scholarly Communications’. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A . Collins, E., and Hide, B. (2010) ‘Use and Relevance of Web 2.0 Resources for Researchers’. Publishing in the Networked World: Transforming the Nature of Communication, 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing 16-18 June 2010, Helsinki, Finland. http://hdl.handle.net/10227/599 Research Information Network (2010), If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0 .
    • Contact Ellen Collins [email_address] Branwen Hide [email_address] www.rin.ac.uk