A Tale of Two Platforms: Emerging communicative patterns in two scientific blog networks

2,332 views

Published on

Invited talk given as part of the Nuffield/Oxford Internet Institute Social Netowkrs Seminar Series at Nuffield College. I thank Bernie Hogan for inviting me and Ralph Schroeder and Eric Meyer for being my hosts at OII.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,332
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,015
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A Tale of Two Platforms: Emerging communicative patterns in two scientific blog networks

  1. 1. Cornelius Puschmann School of Library and Information Science, Humboldt University of Berlin / Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) A Tale of Two Platforms:Emerging communicative patterns in two scientific blog networksNuffield/Oxford Internet Institute Social Networks Seminar Series Nuffield College, Oxford 11th February 2013 photos by http://www.flickr.com/people/7455207@N05/
  2. 2. This talkThe context of my research Framing the issue: How can we describe new forms of scholarly communication online?Tracing the evolution of two scholary blog platforms
  3. 3. in a broader sense: science and scholarship as networks of knowledge (citation networks, social networks, conceptual networks)net· workˈnet-ˌwərk in a narrower sense: hyperlinks between blogs on two scholarly blogging platforms
  4. 4. Prior and related research• Junior Researchers Group „Science and the Internet“ (University of Düsseldorf, 2010-2012)• Networking, visibility, information: a study of digital genres of scholarly communication and the motives of their users (DFG grant, Humboldt University Berlin, 3/2012-2/2015)• Open Science project (Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, 2011-)• Oxford e-Social Science Project (OeSS, 2005-2012)
  5. 5. "Scholarship in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities isevolving, but at different rates and in different ways. While thenew technologies receive the most attention, it is theunderlying social and policy changes that are most profound...This is an opportune moment to think about what we shouldbe building." (Borgman, 2008, p. xvii)
  6. 6. methods/tools data peer ication revicom mun ew How does the Internet reshape science and scholarship? funding mology relationship with the public e pisto
  7. 7. be tw a ee ma n   te collaboraon  1.0  (sharing) sc u r ien s s ts   an d   collaboraon  2.0  (contribung)am collaboraon  3.0  (cocreang) on g  s cie s n ts (Du9on,  2008)
  8. 8. How significant is social media for scholarly communication?• Internet  users  who  (some/mes)  read  blogs: • Germany:  7%  (ARD/ZDF  Onlinestudie  2011) • USA:  32%  (Pew  Internet  2010) • Japan:  80%  (comScore  2011)• Researchers  who  (some/mes)  read  blogs: • Germany:  8%  (study  „Digitale  WissenschaPskommunika/on“  2010-­‐2011) • UK:  ~7%  (study  „Impact  of  Web  2.0  on  Scholarly  Communica/on“  2009)The  acceptance  of  blogs  varies  greatly  from  country  to  country!
  9. 9. How significant is social media for scholarly communication?"How  do  you  stay  in  touch  with  colleagues?"  (survey  among  researchers  conducted  by  Bader,  Fritz  &  Gloning,  2012)  •  in  person:  96%•  phone:  49%•  audio/videoconferencing:  21%•  email:  94%  •  mailing  lists:  24%•  blogs:  4%  (law:  10%)•  scholarly  social  networks  (e.g.  ResearchGATE):  5%•  conven/onal  social  networks  (e.g.  Facebook):  5%•  Twiger:  2%•  wikis:  6%
  10. 10. Is anything new? • formal scholarly communication is a highly resilient system • acceptance and use of social media among academics remains low • but: ,pockets‘ of adoption exist in some local and disciplinary scholary communities
  11. 11. How do scholarly blogs fit it?
  12. 12. Scholarly blog research• Mortensen and Walker (2002): blogs as tools for writing and knowledge management• Walker (2006): change of usage over time• Gregg (2009): blogs as a subcultural form of expression, part of constructing a professional identity• Bar-Ilan (2004): aims of scholars inferred from form and content• Luzón (2009): use of hyperlinks in academic blogs• Kouper (2010): “virtual water cooler” for experts• Kjellberg (2010): diverse set of functions for different users• Shema, Bar-Ilan, & Thelwall (2012): what sources of research do scholarly bloggers link to?• Fausto et al (2012): systematic content-based study of ResearchBlogging.org (dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050109)
  13. 13. Aims of blog data analysis1. Exploration How can academic blogging be best described?2. Comparison to antecedent genres How do practices in academic blogging differ from practices in formal publishing?3. Comparison of platforms How do scholarly blog platforms compare? comments content language use of hyperlinks
  14. 14. Scholarly blogging platforms Scilogs ResearchBlogging Hypotheseslaunched 2007 2007 2004 type publisher publisher* publicly funded# blogs ~60 1,230 456# posts ~7,500 26,960 45,528
  15. 15. Hypotheses.org(*) Researchblogging.org(**) Hypotheses.org: disciplines of most active blogs (n=74) History SociologyPolitical Science Asian Studies Library Science other Cultural Studies Urban Studies * based on those blogs with more than 100 posts (n=74) ** reproduced from Fausto et al, 2012
  16. 16. Hypotheses.org: languages by post french other catalan german spanishportuguese english
  17. 17. Hypotheses.org: active blogs per year 400 300blogs 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  18. 18. 0 500 1000 15002004−012004−022004−032004−042004−052004−062004−072004−082004−092004−102004−112004−122005−012005−022005−032005−042005−052005−062005−072005−082005−092005−102005−112005−122006−012006−022006−032006−042006−052006−062006−072006−082006−092006−102006−112006−122007−012007−022007−032007−042007−052007−062007−072007−082007−092007−102007−112007−122008−012008−022008−032008−042008−052008−062008−072008−082008−092008−102008−112008−12 Posts per month starting 2004−012009−012009−022009−032009−042009−052009−062009−072009−082009−092009−102009−112009−122010−012010−022010−032010−042010−052010−062010−072010−082010−092010−102010−112010−122011−012011−022011−032011−04 Hypotheses.org v. Researchblogging.org2011−052011−062011−072011−082011−092011−102011−112011−122012−012012−022012−032012−042012−052012−062012−07
  19. 19. Hypotheses: blogs by number of posts 6000 5000number of posts 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1 19 40 61 82 106 133 160 187 214 241 268 295 322 349 376 403 430 rank
  20. 20. one author, 6k posts since 2003
  21. 21. Hypotheses.org: posts, links, internal links per year12000 posts links internal links1000080006000400020000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  22. 22. Hypotheses.org: mean outgoing links per blog & year 15average links per blog 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  23. 23. Hypotheses.org: outgoing links by target university/gov news blogs/wikipedia homepage
  24. 24. Hypotheses.org: incoming vs. outgoing internal links leo.hypotheses.org 250 guerre-froide.hypotheses.org 200outgoing 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 incoming
  25. 25. Hypotheses.org: self−citations vs. internal links600 internal links self−citations5004003002001000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  26. 26. Hypotheses.org: internal and self-linking (2008)
  27. 27. Hypotheses.org: internal and self-linking (2008-2009)
  28. 28. Hypotheses.org: internal and self-linking (2008-2010)
  29. 29. Hypotheses.org: internal and self-linking (2008-2011)
  30. 30. Hypotheses.org: internal and self-linking (2008-2012)
  31. 31. Network characteristicsrank betweenness centrality eigenvector centrality 1 leo 5760.6 penseedudiscours 1 2 tcp 1538.5 leo 0. 976 3 phonotheque 1175.6 tcp 0. 905 4 dhdi 956.7 phonotheque 0. 846 5 dhiha 534.2 infusoir 0. 787
  32. 32. Observations1. Different platforms are very heterogenic in terms of disciplines, languages, blogging style, ...2. Hypotheses.org has both grown over time and the blogs in it have become more closely connected3. Subgroups emerge based on different factors (topic, language, geography)4. Bloggers link to a variety of sites, but a large proportion is academic5. Self-citation is very widespread
  33. 33. Thank you for your attention!
  34. 34. Bibliography1. Bar-Ilan, J. (2004). An outsider’s view on topic-oriented blogging. Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers & posters (pp. 28–34). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1013367.10133732. Fausto, S., Machado, F. a, Bento, L. F. J., Iamarino, A., Nahas, T. R., & Munger, D. S. (2012). Research blogging: indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PloS one, 7(12), e50109. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 00501093. Gregg, M. (2009). Banal Bohemia: Blogging from the Ivory Tower Hot-Desk. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 15(4), 470–483. doi:10.1177/13548565093423454. Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a Blogging Researcher: Motivations for Blogging in a Scholarly Context. First Monday, 15(8). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/ 2962/25805. Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), A02. Retrieved from http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/ Jcom0901(2010)A02/6. Luzón, M. J. (2009). Scholarly hyperwriting: The function of links in academic weblogs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 75–89. doi:10.1002/asi.209377. Mortensen, T., & Walker, J. (2002). Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an online research tool. In A. Morrison (Ed.), (pp. 249–279). Oslo: InterMedia/UniPub.8. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS one, 7(5), e35869. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.00358699. Walker, J. (2006). Blogging from inside the ivory tower. In A. Bruns & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Uses of Blogs (pp. 127– 138). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

×