Updating The Standard Model

1,261 views

Published on

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
1,261
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

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
  • Updating The Standard Model

    1. 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. 2. Problem <ul><li>The Garvey & Griffith model (1967, 1972, 1979) is frequently used as the standard model of scholarly communication in science. </li></ul><ul><li>It has several shortcomings that limit its utility in the current environment. These are due in part to the blurring of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Informal ↔ Formal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scholarly ↔ Popular </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Archival ↔ Ephemeral </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Production ↔ Distribution </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Agenda <ul><li>The standard model </li></ul><ul><li>Other suggested updates </li></ul><ul><li>Social computing technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What they are </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Why they matter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional dimensions for the model </li></ul>
    4. 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. 5. Features <ul><li>As you move from left to right </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Work is less specific, details are lost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The audience is broader, less targeted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time passes and immediacy is lost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Work is archived and retrievable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Omits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Popular communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing of datasets, modules, protocols </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><li>Formal: journal articles, books </li></ul><ul><li>Has been reviewed by peers (“certified”) </li></ul><ul><li>Is archived and retrievable </li></ul><ul><li>Is distributed widely </li></ul><ul><li>Informal: conference papers, posters, reports, hallway conversations, e-mail… </li></ul><ul><li>Typically not peer-reviewed to the same level </li></ul><ul><li>Might not be archived and difficult to retrieve </li></ul><ul><li>Provides more context </li></ul>
    7. 7. <ul><li>Scholarly: with other scientists, often within the discipline or invisible college </li></ul><ul><li>Shared background or training </li></ul><ul><li>Assertions are moderated by “it seems” and other rhetorical approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Popular: with “the public” </li></ul><ul><li>Not specifically included in the model </li></ul><ul><li>Textbooks are mentioned as the most abstract, with the fewest details, presenting “facts” in retrospect </li></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>Archival: </li></ul><ul><li>Materials are preserved indefinitely </li></ul><ul><li>Extensive infrastructure (publishing/libraries) has been developed to facilitate retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Ephemeral: </li></ul><ul><li>Only available to participants </li></ul><ul><li>Remembered or saved in notes </li></ul>
    9. 9. Agenda <ul><li>The standard model </li></ul><ul><li>Other suggested updates </li></ul><ul><li>Social computing technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What they are </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Why they matter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional dimensions for the model </li></ul>
    10. 10. E-mail, Listservs, E-journals <ul><li>Hurd (1996) suggests that changes to this system may be </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modernizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Journal-less </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unvetted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboratory </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But Kling & McKim (2000), among others, noted that nothing is inevitable </li></ul><ul><li>Most prevalent model for e-Journals is the electronic version of the print (Hahn, 1999) </li></ul>
    11. 11. Popularization Continuum <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Lewenstein (1995) suggests a sphere of science communication </li></ul><ul><li>Paul (1994) describes the use of popular works in scholarly works and vice versa </li></ul>
    12. 12. Agenda <ul><li>The standard model </li></ul><ul><li>Other suggested updates </li></ul><ul><li>Social computing technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What they are </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Why they matter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional dimensions for the model </li></ul>
    13. 13. SCTs <ul><li>My term for Web 2.0, social software, social networking </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes blogging, micro-blogging (e.g., Twitter), wikis, RSS, social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), social aggregators, social bookmarking… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Technologies that enable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social interaction online </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contributions by individual authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy linking and sharing of media </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. In Science <ul><li>Scientists are using these tools </li></ul><ul><li>Some are using these tools to do “open science” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikis as lab notebooks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open collaboration tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing presentations – while they are being revised </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. <ul><li>Defined by format, but this format supports recent changes in how science is done </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased pace </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing of data, modules, protocols </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annotation of information objects such as pictures, graphs, posters, conference presentations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computational thinking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do these tools change how science is done or facilitate/enable new ways of doing science? </li></ul>
    16. 16. Are they different? <ul><li>Mixed formal and informal </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Widely available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More easily retrieved than many journal articles </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Content is not precisely ephemeral, but might not be preserved if care is not taken </li></ul><ul><li>Certification or authority </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer review – stable text on Wikipedia? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In-links, “likes”, comments? </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Agenda <ul><li>The standard model </li></ul><ul><li>Other suggested updates </li></ul><ul><li>Social computing technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What they are </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Why they matter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional dimensions for the model </li></ul>
    18. 18. Some Additional Dimensions <ul><li>Instead of a linear model with stages, each with one or the other feature, we have diverse and multiple communication activities throughout scientific work. </li></ul><ul><li>Some dimensions are suggested: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Completeness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expected audience, actual audience </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Dimensions <ul><li>Completeness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A journal article </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A data set </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is available? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What barriers? (code, cost, intellectual, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Audience </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intended – participants </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Take Home Messages <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>New dimensions should address issues of access, completeness, and expected audience </li></ul>
    21. 21. <ul><li>Christina K. Pikas </li></ul><ul><li>Doctoral Student </li></ul><ul><li>University of Maryland </li></ul><ul><li>College of Information Studies </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>
    22. 22. <ul><li>References </li></ul><ul><li>Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers, and students . New York: Pergamon Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1967). Scientific communication as a social system. Science, 157 , 1011-1016. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>

    ×