Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Social media and researchers: Josipa Crnic Deakin University

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 23 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Advertisement

Similar to Social media and researchers: Josipa Crnic Deakin University (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Social media and researchers: Josipa Crnic Deakin University

  1. 1. SOCIAL MEDIA AND RESEARCHERS My presentation will provide an overview of a recent phenomenon - the use of social media by researchers as part of their work processes. Josipa Crnic josipa.crnic@deakin.edu.au Research Librarian Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  2. 2. Outline • Presentation topic • Reports • Internet statistics and trends –Web 2.0 • Social Media –Tools and usage statistics • Reports – findings –Social media and researchers • Librarians CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  3. 3. Questions I will be addressing • Are researchers using social media as part of their work processes? • What motivates researchers to use social media as part of their work? • How are they using social media? • How do they learn about social media? • How can library be a part of this space? CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  4. 4. Key reports • If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. Report published by RIN, 2010. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating- research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers • Social Media and research workflow. Report by CIBER, UCL and Emerald, 2010. http://ciber-research.eu/download/20101111-social-media-report.pdf • Social media: A guide for researchers. Report published by RIN, 2011. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/social-media-guide- researchers • Social networking sites and their role in scholarly communication. A study for the Centre for Research Communications, University of Nottingham, 2011. http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/rcs/Social_Networking_Report-Duke&Jordan.pdf • Handbook of social media for researchers and supervisors: Digital technologies for research dialogues. Report published by Vitae and Open University, 2012. http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/Vitae_Innovate_Open_University_Social_Media_Handbo ok_2012.pdf • Researchers of Tomorrow: the research behaviour of Generation Y doctoral students, Report by JISC and British Library, 2012. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/researchers-of-tomorrow.aspx CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  5. 5. The internet in our lives “Two enabling factors drive the Internet of things: the ubiquity of networks and increasingly lower prices for communications modules. These allow increasing numbers of devices to be equipped with Internet capabilities.” (OECD Internet Economy Outlook 2012 - pg. 23 http://www.oecd.org/sti/internete conomy/ieoutlook.htm) CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  6. 6. Global internet usage survey 2012 • Survey of more than 10,000 users across 20 counties. By the Internet Society • “More than 90 percent of Internet users surveyed globally indicated they use social media, with a majority (60 percent) using it daily, an increase of 10 percent over 2011.” https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/ default/files/GUIS-2012- Infographic.pdf CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  7. 7. Technology trends for 2013 • The trend is towards the tablet as the leading device – beyond that? Fred Cavazza, http://blogs.forbes.com/fredcavazza/ CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  8. 8. Social media landscape 2012 http://www.fredcavazza.net/2012/02/22/social-media-landscape-2012/ CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  9. 9. Typical web page May display one or more of these features that we’ve come to expect - in and around the content CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  10. 10. Social media usage – general stats Collated stats indicating a ranking of most popular sites around the world. * Note rise of Chinese sites: www.qq.com, http://qzone.qq.com/ and www.weibo.com (posted 1/2/13 at: http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource- how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/) • “China’s Social Media Market: Nearly a Billion Users — Mostly on Mobile” • “China Has Many 100 million+ User Social Networks For Many Purposes” • “Facebook and Twitter Will Never Dominate in China (Even If They Were Allowed There)” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/10/25/ 5-things-you-need-to-know-about-chinese-social- media/) CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  11. 11. Trends in social media usage: Nielsen report 2012 Drivers of social media growth: Increase in mobile device uptake: “more people are using smartphones and tablets to access social media” Proliferation of social media options: “new social media sites continue to emerge and catch-on” Figures are for the US but are still of value as they show a 12 month comparison – July 11 and July 12. US Social Media Survey 2012 (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2012/state-of-the-media-the-social-media- report-2012.html) CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  12. 12. CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  13. 13. The reports Now we come to the reports themselves. CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  14. 14. Summary of findings: If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. 2010 Study > 1300 researchers (UK) – attitudes and patterns of adoption of web 2.0 tools re. scholarly communication practices • Most researchers make at least occasional use of one or more web 2.0 tools • Frequent or intensive use is rare • Uptake depends on: –Fitting in with established services/practices –Not a substitute for established communication channels –Seen as having specific purposes and for particular stages of research CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  15. 15. Summary of findings: Social media and research workflow. 2010 Survey of > 4000 responses across all disciplines - worldwide Wanted to find out, amongst other things if and how social media are impacting upon the workflows of researchers • Researchers use more than one tool • Most popular tools support: collaborative authoring; conferencing; scheduling and meeting tools • Age poor predictor of uptake – used Rogers’ categories of adopters • Perceived benefits - communication internationally; faster dissemination of information; make connections outside their institution and with wider population • Greatest barriers to uptake - lack of time; problems of authority and trust; unclear benefits CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  16. 16. Summary of findings: Social media: A guide for researchers. 2011 Created as a guide – advice and case studies to highlight how social media tools can inform and support every part of the research process • Researchers as consumers and creators of information • Finding information > greater channels (following key people (twitter/blogs/); join groups – create groups) • Information comes to you – idea of ‘pull’ and ‘you get more when you give’ (participant not just a consumer) • Develop networks – filter information • Choose dissemination channels wisely – pick your social tools to fit the context –Disseminating wisely can have an impact (Eysenbach, 2011 - “Can Tweets Predict Citations?”) CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  17. 17. Summary of findings: Social networking sites and their role in scholarly communication. 2011 Survey of 117 researchers (UK) - looked specifically at social networking sites for academics including attitudes to open access . • Sites aren’t stable – they come and go • Usage is determined by need/context, i.e. email still dominates; • Researchers find out about these sites from each other – from their already existing networks - join by invitation • Registering to multiple sites is common • Poor overall awareness of repositories and their purpose amongst research students • Recommendation that repositories do more work to promote persistent locations to research output CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  18. 18. Summary of findings: Researchers of tomorrow: the research behaviour of generation Y doctoral students. 2012 Study focusing on the information-seeking and research behaviour of over 17,000 students over a 3 year period. • Gen Y - ‘digital natives’ but not ‘early adopters’ of social media • Have ‘traditional and conservative’ research working practices • Share work mainly with their peers or work colleagues • Key influences are supervisors and other academic colleagues • Widespread lack of understanding and uncertainty about open access and self-archived resources • Tools that help in finding and managing information are used most • Tools for collaboration and communication are least used • Fellow students and peers are the major influence on whether or not Gen-Y PhD students decide to use a technology application and are their main source of hands-on help CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  19. 19. Summary of findings: Handbook of social media for researchers and supervisors: digital technologies for research dialogues. 2012 The authors conducted surveys in 2011-2012 of over 105 researchers (postgrad and ECR) and over 45 supervisors Focus was on investigating “whether and how researchers are using social media in their research dialogues” • a very comprehensive overview of current tools and the purposes for which they can be employed • guidelines for evaluating and choosing appropriate tools that are fit- for-purpose • resources/guidelines to develop a social media strategy taking into account how researchers communicate • an overview of issues and concerns that act as a barrier to wider adoption of the tools CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  20. 20. Summary of findings: Handbook of social media for researchers and supervisors: digital technologies for research dialogues. 2012 • Value direct communication with their supervisors, colleagues, peers, etc… –Email stands out as a key tool • Will adopt technologies when convinced of the value to their work • They take their cues from their peers • Register with multiple tools and use them for different purposes • Recognise the importance of creating a professional profile/presence • Greater uptake by part-time and geographically distant researchers • Have concerns about copyright and long term archiving of their work • Concerned about time needed to maintain their presence on all sites • Concerned about security of material shared across social tools/cloud tools CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  21. 21. Key to successful application of technology in research dialogues is fitness-for-purpose. CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  22. 22. What I’ve learnt from the reports • Researchers have shown to be cautious when adopting social media as part of their work • Their key criteria for adoption are utility, not time consuming, and must fit in with the way they work currently • They learn from and take cues from their peers • It’s not helpful to assume gen-y are going to jump on the social media bandwagon • Need help with open access/repository issues –Need advice where to archive their work –Need help with copyright/IP issues CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
  23. 23. Assistance for librarians • The Vitae guide is a standout example of a comprehensive ‘how to’ guide to social media use for academics and researchers • There are many more valuable resources on the web, e.g. – LSE blog: Impact of the Social Sciences • includes Impact handbook and Twitter guide • Examples of ‘23 things for researchers’ training modules – Warwick: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/rex23phd11 – Oxford: http://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/23things/all-about-23-things/ – Huddersfield: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/11279/1/stone_collins_25_Research_Things.pdf CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

Editor's Notes

  • Providing an overview – about researchers’ adoption or uptake of various social media tools as part of their work processes.it’s no longer a question of should researchers use social media, but more along the lines of how they can best make use of social media tools/services in the service of their own work… to: develop better communication channels manage their own work processes more efficiently share their work across a wider audience should they choose that and many, many, more…..This is not an indepth analysis of the literature, but a brief review focussing on particular findings from several key reports from the past few years.
  • Are researchers using social media as part of their work processes? What’s the evidence (reports)Can we make generalisations re. age as factor or PhD, ECR, experienced researcher in terms of usage? (not really – e.g. Researchers of Tomorrow-2012 – age not issue with gen-Y. Better categorisation from Roger’s adoption of technology uptake behaviours, i.e. innovators/early adoptors, etc… and ‘visitors – residents’ categorisation)What motivates the researcher to use social media as part of their work? What are the drivers? What are the blocks? Has that changed over time?How are they using social media? Which categories of tools do they favour? Has that changed over time?How do they learn about social media? Key people environments – self > research team > supervisor > school/dept/faculty > wider research communityHow can library be a part of this space?Upskill > develop competence in tools > keep up with trends/research > develop own PLN > keep up with what educational technologists/educational developers are doing (model good behaviour/best practice) > share with other library staff (23 things for researchers programs) > explore 23 things for researchers > develop their own social media blueprint that goes beyond ‘social media policy’ statements
  • The reports listed were published between 2010 – 2012.Feature survey and interview data from researchers of all levels, i.e. from PhD students, to early career, to supervisors and to experienced researchers.
  • Clichés- We live in an online world - The internet is part of our personal and professional lives, etc…Basically our use of and reliance on The Internet will only continue to grow – re. ubiquity of networks and lower prices of communication modules…
  • Global Internet User Survey summary report (https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/rep-GIUS2012global-201211-en.pdf) We are using the internet in increasing numbers and as part of that – social media usage is also increasing.
  • There are many predictions re. technology trends – one that seems to be generally agreed upon is that tablet is the device of the moment and WE all continue to be enthusiastic consumers of technology!“This will be the web” (http://bradfrostweb.com/blog/post/this-is-the-web/)http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2227215
  • I like this graphic because it provides in one go – a definition of social media and the dimensions of social media.Definition – growing number of web 2.0 tools – ability to communicate with many people – constantly interact and create/co-create/recreate content through the means of a growing number of devices….The social aspect has blurred the personal and professional boundaries. The tools used personally (e.g. twitter, and facebook) are being increasingly adopted in the professional sphereFred Cavazza has been charting the rise of social media use via graphics for the past 4 years.His latest addition includes device types that clearly demonstrates how pervasive social media has become on the webIt also highlights the prominence of device types that facilitate the ease of use of social media > in particular: tablets and smart phones and other ‘alternate devices’The main players are in the centre of the wheel and the others branch out according to service/facility/functionhttp://www.fredcavazza.net/2012/02/22/social-media-landscape-2012/
  • All these embedded tools allow us to interact with the content in new ways very quickly…Communication is never fixed, ie. Send message > wait for reply > actCommunication is in real-time and ongoing across many channels….
  • What’s interesting about these statistics is that China is one country and their usage of social media and uptake of mobile technology is as great as the rest of the world combined.
  • Nielsen report – cont’d… featuring social media usage on mobile devices – growth over 12 month period.
  • I’ll look at them in chronological order – earlier to more recentAgain the timeframe is relatively small 2010 – 2012
  • Study of over 1300 researchers in the UK, designed to capture attitudes and patterns of adoption of web 2.0 tools, as part of their scholarly communication.Described web 2.0 tools (social media) not treated as separate.FindingsMost researchers make at least occasional use of one or more web 2.0 tools, for the activities of:Communicating their work; developing and sustaining networks and collaborations; for finding out about what others are doing; This study has found that frequent or intensive use is rareUptake depends on:Researchers identifying obvious benefitIdentifiying how the tools fit in with established services/practicesThey are not seen as obvious substitutes for the channels and means of communication that are already being used (and are known to work)There is an acknowledgement that the tools do have their own distinctive role for specific purposes and at particular stages of research
  • Survey of > 4000 responses across all disciplines - worldwideWanted to find out, amongst other things if and how social media are impacting upon the workflows of researchersResearchers use more than one toolMost popular tools support: collaborative authoring; conferencing; scheduling and meeting toolsUsed Rogers’ typology of behaviours related to adoption of technology to characterise and explain uptake as age alone is a poor predictor; i.e. innovator, early adopter, etc…Perceived benefits relate to: communication internationally; faster dissemination of information; make connections outside their institution and with wider populationGreatest barriers to uptake: lack of time; problems of authority and trust; unclear benefits
  • This report moves beyond surveying and reporting on usage. It is designed to be a guide, outlining with case studies, how social media can be used to help with researchers’ work and career.It clearly places social media tools as key tools to utilise in scholarly communication and describes how social media tools can inform and support every part of the research processIts value is in the layout of a ‘how to’ manual and reads as a great primerIt lists and categorises key tools – describing their purpose – uses case study snippets to good effect to illustrate key points.Introduces idea of key value to researchers as being, that researchers are both consumers and creators of information. The idea that 1 + 1 = 3 (or more)Identify knowledge > expands the channels by which you can find relevant information (following key people (twitter/blogs/); join groups – create groups Information comes to you (the idea of pull or that ‘you get more when you give’ > become a creator (participant) not just a consumer (reads posts/digest of messages/receives information)Make time to develop your networks > Use the tools to filter information (this takes time)Choose wisely how you disseminate your information (selective channels – appropriate tone within each network etc… broadcasting your work through social media will increase your visibility > increase downloads/citations/impact etc… (paper from 2011)A recent study in the Journal of Medical Internet Research has tested the premise that using social media has a direct impact on citation behaviour… it has found that if a paper is tweeted about in the first 3 days of release, that is a good indication that it is a paper of significance.“Conclusions: Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects the underlying qualities of the article that also predict citations, but the true use of these metrics is to measure the distinct concept of social impact. Social impact measures based on tweets are proposed to complement traditional citation metrics. The proposed twimpact factor may be a useful and timely metric to measure uptake of research findings and to filter research findings resonating with the public in real time.”<Eysenbach G, Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific ImpactJ Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e123, http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/>
  • This study (survey of 117 respondents from UK), looked specifically at social networking sites for academics, and their role in scholarly communication. It also wanted to survey researchers’ attitudes to open access and if use of social networking sites would effectively undermine the use of repositories for the archiving of researchers’ work. FindingsSites come and go > in the course of the research a number of sites initially identified had to be excluded from analysis bec. they no longer existed or were deemed to be relevant as academic social networking sitesUsage is determined by need/context, i.e. email still dominates; LinkedIn – high re. communicating with researchers and Twitter is on the riseVery little awareness and usage of ASN compared to email/twitter, etc…Researchers find out about these sites from each other – from their already existing networksJoin by invitationRegistering to multiple sites is common, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to continued useImpact on open access – Of concern:Poor overall awareness of repositories and their purpose amongst research studentsWhat happens to your material if a site disappears or is swallowed up by another, ie.. mendeley > ElsevierStudy recommended need for further exploration of this issue, i.e. researchers need greater institutional advice/training/assistance to make more of their work open access and to give due consideration where they deposit their work and what the implications are for future archiving; ownership of content; future reuse, etc…In this study, there are indications that if greater numbers of researchers deposit their papers on ASNs, then their value and acceptance would increase (2010 – currently, high growth experienced by academia.edu, researchgate, mendeley) Recommendation that repositories do more work to promote the fact that they can provide persistent locations to research output, as compared to social networking sites, academic or otherwise.
  • Significant study of young PhD students identified as Gen-Y and considered to be ‘digital natives’.Focusing on the information-seeking and research behaviour of over 17,000 students during the 3 years of the study. (3 annual surveys were conducted along with selected indepth interviews) Findings:Even though considered to be very competent in use of technology and social media – not early adoptersTheir concerns about using social media have to do with perceptions of validity/They’re identified as having traditional and conservative research working practices.Their work is shared mainly with their peers or work colleagues. Their key influences are from their supervisors and other academic colleaguesWidespread lack of understanding and uncertainty about open access and self-archived resourcesTools that help in finding and managing information are used mostTools for collaboration and communication are least usedFellow students and peers are the major influence on whether or not Generation Y doctoral students decide to use a technology application and are their main source of hands-on help
  • What’s important to researchers in terms of communication?Direct communication with their supervisors, colleagues, peers, etc…That can mean face-to-face, phone, email, videoconference, Skype – one-to-one or group (forums, seminars, etc…) (pg. 11)Researchers keep in mind how their supervisors work and adapt accordingly – use different media to communicate with different people (takes into account how people work) pg. 18i.e. ‘mix and match technologies to suit to suit the supervisory practices (pg. 19)Email stands out as a key tool – why? (controlled environment)Discussions are private – can be formal/informal – lengthy or quick updatesThere is a trail that is archived (private curation)Files can be shared (researcher controls who views email – to an extent, i.e. cc, bcc)Easy scheduling of meeting (synching with calendars) (pg. 11)Researchers are users of social media – they make up the millions on Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn, etc… but that is their personal/social lifeTheir professional life has different needsThey will adopt technologies where they are of value as part of their work processes. They take their cues from their peers, e.g. Researchers that work in active teams share knowledge, skills, tools to assist work processes, i.e. web 2.0 tools and social media toolsResearchers register with multiple tools and use them for different purposes,Experiment with multiple tools, and keep what works, which also leads to dormant accounts Quickly move on from tools when better ones appear and are adopted, e.g. tagging with Delicious > curating with Scoop.it; blogging > tweeting?They recognise the importance of creating a professional profile / presence Social tools are being increasingly used by part-time and geographically distant researchersResearchers view these tools as a beneficial over their career. They don’t want to have their work tied to institutions and view these sites as fullfiling their needs.What about repositoriesRaises questions about archiving your work with these sites (they are comnmerial)What rights do you retain – what about linking to your repository profile? Staff websites on institutional servers have been superseded by profiles on multiple sites for different purposesExample: Blog + academia.edu + researchgate + LinkedIn + Twitter + Facebook + Google+Ability to post your own work, be updated about the work of othersImplications for ‘open’ movement – i.e. seek feedback; open peer review; sharing of data, etc…. Ease of setting up; making changes; able to highlight different features of your work/identity etc… have functions for creating filters by which you are able to keep up to date You create entry into different groups, either by following or requesting to join, or by being invited, or by virtue of following key people/groups that then connect you to further groupsSix degrees of separation > much less through social media (Six degrees of mobilisation http://www.economist.com/node/21560977Technology and society: To what extent can social networking make it easier to find people and solve real-world problems? Sep 1st 2012?“In 2011 Facebook analysed the 721m users of its social-networking site and found that an average of 4.7 hops could link any two of them via mutual friends. A small world is now, it seems, even smaller.” Concerns expressed Intellectual property/copyright of their own work > posting to different sites > they seek advice bec. unsure what their rights are and don’t want to infringe on rights of others. Not clear about sites’ copyright/IP policies = all different = need to be checked What will happen when Mendeley/Elsevier deal goes through?Concern about time spent maintaining profile and keeping up with information > subscribing/following multiple channels of keeping up to dateMain functions for keeping up to date = online newspapers, podcasts, subs to blogs, mailing lists and discussion forums, Secondary functions keeping up with Twitter Traditional mailing lists are preferred for research-related discussion as features of daily/weekly digests allows for easy content checks when convenient and able to be saved/deleted/responded to as needed.the speed of commentary/responding on social sites seem too quick for reflectionImportant to set boundaries between personal and professional life > some researchers set up separate profiles for that purpose on the same sites, i.e. personal facebook page and prof f/b page, etc…Again needs to be maintainedExample of Thesis WhispererMultiple twitter accountsConcerns about security of material shared across social tools/cloud toolsArchivingSaving copies across multiple storage devices, just in case
  • Description of suggested tools based on their importance from respondents.Email features high on the list of several categories (echoes findings from earlier studies)
  • We need to move from ‘social media’ policies to developing our own ‘social media use’ blueprints.

×