Web2.0 Intermediaries V2


Published on

The role of publishers in innovation of new \'web2.0\' services in scholarly communication

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Web2.0 Intermediaries V2

  1. 1. Bringing Web2.0 to scholarly communication: publishers as innovation intermediaries?
  2. 2. Innovation and Intermediaries <ul><li>Social Learning –Social Shaping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>multiple, overlapping cycles of development and implementation (Rip, Misa & Schot 1995), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Processes of negotiation and interaction that occur between diverse networks of players attempting to make technologies work - 'fitting them into the pre-existing heterogenous network of machines, systems, routines and culture’ (Sørensen 1996). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Much trial and error. Much relationship building and breaking </li></ul><ul><li>How and where does learning by interacting, doing, regulating etc actually happen,? </li></ul><ul><li>What are, and who creates the hybrid spaces for experimentation and debate that bring together disparate actors and technologies; create temporary experimental zones at the boundaries of different socio-technical arenas? </li></ul><ul><li>Draw on Sociology of Markets (Callon et al) and Social Network theory (Burt). </li></ul><ul><li>(Stewart & Hyyslo 2008) </li></ul>
  3. 4. Innovation Intermediaries <ul><li>Actors who create spaces and opportunities for appropriation and generation of technical or cultural products by others. </li></ul><ul><li>They are crucial in organizing user knowledge and experiences, and mediating between emerging users and producers in uncertain markets (Williams et al, 2005; Russell & Williams, 2002; Hyysalo, 2004;Pollock and Williams). </li></ul><ul><li>Play an important role in the non-technical innovation that accompanies technology development and appropriation </li></ul>
  4. 5. Intermediaries in Pick and Mix A:Technicians B : Telecoms operators C: market research and usability consultants D: retailers, advertisers E: various supply-side industry consultants F:User groups; user-developers; local experts
  5. 6. BRIDGE and the TROLL
  6. 7. Mapping intermediaries between supply and use <ul><li>Huge range of intermediaries between supply and use. Organisations and individuals. </li></ul><ul><li>Play a Bridging Role </li></ul><ul><li>Become conservative Gatekeepers </li></ul><ul><li>Intermediaries->Innovation Intermediaries </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Established intermediaries often inadequate in innovation: they fail innovation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New intermediaries emerge to bridge the gaps: but fragile and overlooked. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tend to be clustered on supply side </li></ul><ul><li>What about those on the ‘user-side’? </li></ul>
  7. 8. Functions and Activities of Intermediaries Intermediary functions (Howells, 2006) Bridging activities (Bessant & Rush, 1995) 1. Foresight and diagnostics 1.articulation of needs, selection of options 2. Scanning and information processing 2.identification of needs, selection training 3. Knowledge processing and (re)combination 3.creation of business cases 4. Gatekeeping and brokering 4.communications, development 5. Testing and validation 5. education, links to external info 6. Accreditation 6. project management, managing external resources, organizational development 7. Validation and regulation 8. Protecting the results 9. Commercialisation 10. Evaluation of outcomes
  8. 9. Example intermediaries <ul><li>End user intermediaries </li></ul><ul><li>Domestication intermediaries </li></ul><ul><li>Supply side intermediaries </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory intermediaries </li></ul><ul><li>Market building intermediaries… </li></ul><ul><li>Thin v. thick, long v. short. </li></ul>
  9. 10. Core Intermediary Activities <ul><li>Facilitation: making space to experiment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hybrid, and provisional facilities: e.g. technology, workshops, learning support etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Configuring : rules, technology, visions, knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E.g. build representations of users, select technologies, filter knowledge, build frames </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Brokering : linking and bridging between users, suppliers and other stakeholders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Seek support from external players, lobby and make representations to outside organisations. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Play a key role in non-technical innovation </li></ul><ul><li>NOT selfless - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often try to make themselves OPP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have to make themselves sustainable. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Struggle with issues of autonomy, legitimacy etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Stewart, 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Need some more ways to measure, assess effectiveness in innovation) </li></ul></ul>
  10. 11. New objects of study of Innovation intermediaries <ul><li>Academic publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Standards bodies </li></ul><ul><li>Testbeds </li></ul><ul><li>Patent Pool management firms </li></ul>
  11. 12. Web2.0 In Scholarly Communication <ul><li>What is the role of Academic publishers in the introduction of Web2.0 services and practices to the research community? </li></ul><ul><li>Are they users, technology developers, intermediaries? </li></ul>
  12. 13. What is Scholarly Communications? <ul><li>A range of formal and informal communications : </li></ul><ul><li>In developing ideas, preparing, shaping and disseminating formal results, </li></ul><ul><li>Pursuing personal careers, managing research teams and research programmes; </li></ul><ul><li>In teaching and communicating scholarly ideas to broader communities. </li></ul>
  13. 16. Context <ul><li>‘ Crisis’ in Publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Open Science Movement </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarly communication moves online </li></ul><ul><li>Globalisation of Research </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on interdisciplinary and inter-institutional research </li></ul><ul><li>Opening of Industry research (Pharma, IT) </li></ul><ul><li>Mass market adoption of ‘Web2.0’ </li></ul><ul><li>Massive diversity in scholarly practice across disciplines, countries, institutions etc. </li></ul>
  14. 17. What is Web 2.0? <ul><li>“ 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.” </li></ul><ul><li>Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Feb. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf </li></ul>
  15. 18. Web2.0 Problems <ul><li>Initially a business concept – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A set of ideas about what sort of services survived the dot.com bust and would be successful web-based business. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very fuzzy edges – empirically and conceptually defined </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Science’ and academic scholarship has long exhibited features explored in Web 2.0, but with 200+ years of history. </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison with centralised information systems, not flexible tools like email or bulletin boards </li></ul><ul><li>Web2.0 also a concept in practical development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Services not software </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ perpetual beta” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>etc </li></ul></ul>
  16. 19. Web2.0 in SC: the utopia <ul><li>Representation of the users: Highly social; constantly looking for new ideas; frustrated by existing infrastructures and institutions etc </li></ul><ul><li>Disruptive model of innovation: Web2.0 can improve and replace some practices and institutions that only exisit because past technical limitations </li></ul><ul><li>Technology deterministic model: Web2.0 can replace blind peer review, break down disciplinary and organisational barriers, make publishers and libraries redundant </li></ul>
  17. 20. Research Methods <ul><li>Review of Literature on innovation in Scholarly Communication, and on the adoption and innovation of ICTs in research </li></ul><ul><li>Survey of UK scholarly community to discover basic use and awareness. </li></ul><ul><li>50+ in-depth interviews on scholarly communications and Web 2.0. </li></ul><ul><li>Case studies of promoters, developers and users of specific Web 2.0 services. </li></ul>
  18. 21. Demographics <ul><li>1308 completed responses, representing 0.8% of target population </li></ul><ul><ul><li>confidence interval +/- 2.5% at confidence level of 95%. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Comparing sample with age, sex, position and discipline for UK academic population confirms no significant bias. </li></ul><ul><li>Three subgroups identified reflecting different degrees of adoption: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>early adopters (177, 14%) who do (at least one of) frequently : write a blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki; contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journal articles; post slides </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>occasional users (570, 44%) who do (at least one of) occasionally : write a blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki; contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journal articles; post slides </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>non-adopters (523, 40%) who never : write a blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki; contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journal articles; post slides </li></ul></ul>
  19. 22. Adoption by age <ul><li>Youngest and Oldest lowest adopters </li></ul>Adoption by position Professors leading innovators PHD students lead all categories
  20. 23. Adoption by gender Lower use by Women Adoption by discipline Computer science and bioinformatics leading innovators Otherwise very even spread.
  21. 24. Future of Peer Review
  22. 25. Impact on Scholarly Communications <ul><li>Evidence of how Web 2.0 is changing behaviour: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>production and use of ‘non-traditional’ content, such as contributing to wikis, blogs, sharing slides </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>taking part in dissemination activities beyond of core research field </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sharing of work in progress and data beyond close groups of colleagues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some crowdsourcing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>awareness and support for ‘Open Science’ </li></ul></ul>
  23. 26. Adoption/Non-adoption <ul><li>We just want Google </li></ul><ul><li>Not ‘real science’ </li></ul><ul><li>We go to the lowest common denominator </li></ul><ul><li>Too many things, no time to test them </li></ul><ul><li>We need standardised reliable tools </li></ul><ul><li>Saves so much time!; wastes so much time! </li></ul><ul><li>Local communities basis for use </li></ul><ul><li>Career concerns dominate formal publishing </li></ul><ul><li>New forms of communication – the conference slides </li></ul>
  24. 27. Innovation in SC <ul><li>Web2.0 innovation in parallel to changes in SC practices </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation environment more dynamic outside scholarly sector </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed innovation and trial processes : local communities of use, local experts. </li></ul><ul><li>Scholars frequently use tools and ideas from outside organisation. </li></ul><ul><li>Huge disciplinary differences in resources, needs and practices. </li></ul><ul><li>IT services, libraries etc struggle to support </li></ul><ul><li>Key social factors and barriers: VLEs, careers, University independence </li></ul>
  25. 28. Intermediaries in Scholarly Communication <ul><li>In SC, Users are the producers. Core intermediary roles for: </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarly societies </li></ul><ul><li>Academic publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Universities </li></ul><ul><li>Serious role of maintaining the infrastructure of scholarship : quality, debate, exchange, archive etc. </li></ul><ul><li>We are also see new players: </li></ul><ul><li>Conference organisers, </li></ul><ul><li>Discipline, University and national repositories, </li></ul><ul><li>New publishers, </li></ul><ul><li>Self-publishing websites. </li></ul><ul><li>Also: workshops, personal websites, social networking sites etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Funders influence the the ground rules: e.g. Metrics; and provide the money for all the activities, e.g. publishing </li></ul><ul><li>HOW DO THESE SERVICE INTERMEDIARIES BEHAVE IN INNOVATION? </li></ul>
  26. 29. Static/Service intermediary Innovation Activities Innovation Intermediary role Scholarly Societies Focus, shape and legitimise research communities. Publish journals, run conference Innovate to serve their community, and further core ideas and interests of members. Put pressure on publishers and funders to change regime Encourage discussion and innovation within community Create and configure new tools Academic publishers Facilitate the production and distribution of peer-reviewed journals and books Innovation to maintain market position: build the reputation of their journals and sell them Encourage discussion and innovation within market Create and configure new tools with existing products Contribute to standards High risk University Structure careers, activities, IT and physical facilities etc Give researchers access to journals – Provide training, Provide tools for SC Promote research, Set rules of local behaviour Provide training to researchers, students, librarians and IT Encourage discussion in management and research Test , buy, implement services, and provide support occasionally create original services and tools Conference Organisers Provide face to face meetings and publish proceedings Encourage attendance, gain contracts to run other conferences, gain sponsorship Provide tools to enhance conference experience Provide demonstrations to conference community. Low risk
  27. 30. The Academic Publishers <ul><li>Nature Publishing Group </li></ul><ul><li>Public Library of Science </li></ul><ul><li>10 year biographical histories </li></ul><ul><li>Take Web2.0 from ‘out there’ and try to fit it to their business and the practices of scholarly communities </li></ul><ul><li>Responding to Open Access and challenges to their business from users and funders, and innovations by other publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Developing services to support users, editors, business with practical tools, and services that way encourage radical change in practice. </li></ul><ul><li>User-side intermediaries; established service intermediaries </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation approach: Experimental </li></ul><ul><li>Response of scholars: lukewarm. </li></ul>
  28. 32. NPG:The innovative establishment <ul><li>Medium publisher. Top brand “ Nature “ </li></ul><ul><li>Switch to internet early 2000s – create a ‘platform’ </li></ul><ul><li>Professionally Edited journals. Branded and White label publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Inspired by Web outside to create version of web2 to integrate with business – for end users or for themselves? </li></ul><ul><li>Internal transformation of business </li></ul><ul><li>Open access – resistant </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Leading promotor of Web2’ – Timo Hannay </li></ul><ul><li>Recruited developer team from new media, science blogs, chemistry </li></ul><ul><li>‘ wiki’ editing – half hearted </li></ul><ul><li>Comments on articles </li></ul><ul><li>Connontea –social bookmarking half hearted </li></ul><ul><li>Nature Networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discussion of Web2.0 on Nature Networks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Nature blogs. Blog aggregator </li></ul><ul><li>Videos </li></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><li>Nature platform – rather closed idea. </li></ul><ul><li>Contribution to standards around Semantic web etc </li></ul>
  29. 33. PLOS: The radical newcomer. <ul><li>User innovation – set up by leading scientists </li></ul><ul><li>Goal of improving quality of science </li></ul><ul><li>7 conventional open access journals </li></ul><ul><li>Initial lobbying stage </li></ul><ul><li>Small team of developers </li></ul><ul><li>Experiments: </li></ul><ul><li>Comments </li></ul><ul><li>PLOS One – open ended, open access journal. </li></ul><ul><li>PLOS Currents using Google tool </li></ul><ul><li>Article Level Metrics </li></ul>
  30. 34. Role of ‘Users’ <ul><li>Who are the potential users? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All readers and contributors: Attempt to reach these users, via editorials, the website, conferences, press etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Editors (NPG) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Users can benchmark publishers efforts against best WEB2.0 services outside. </li></ul><ul><li>Developer practices: Interactive ‘Web2.0’ approach, ‘perpetual beta’, close interactions with users, exploit malleability of technologies and huge innovative effort ‘outside’. </li></ul><ul><li>Who are the innovating users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Core enthusiasts: computational biologists, chemists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resistance from Core business: Tension between traditional peer-review role (protected by editors), and innovative ideas managers and developers </li></ul></ul>
  31. 35. Publishers role in Social Learning <ul><li>Facilitation: making space to experiment </li></ul><ul><li>Yes, in journals, websites, but not much. Not focused enough </li></ul><ul><li>Too complicated, too much competition – scholars not interested in single publisher </li></ul><ul><li>Configuring : rules, technology, visions, knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Configurations not always very good – no original technology; visions strong, but too radical; not enough influence to change the rules; important contribution to discourse. </li></ul><ul><li>Brokering : linking and bridging between users, suppliers and other stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Lobbying, network building, promoting vision, but seen by many as the ‘bad guys’ </li></ul><ul><li>NOT selfless - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often try to make themselves OPP: try to maintain the position </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have to make themselves sustainable: </li></ul></ul>
  32. 36. Problematic SL diagram Innovating Scholars Publishers
  33. 37. Good intermediaries? <ul><li>Are there metrics for assessing effectiveness of intermediaries in innovation? Could they do better? </li></ul><ul><li>What did they do right, what wrong, could they do any better anyway? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Normal innovation intermediaries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited resources (unlike tech firms) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They do act as Bridges, but are self- interested </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Too embedded in system – difficult to be too radical. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The network is too rigid for them to precipitate change, but actually provide a window for experimentation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintaining their obligatory position – we cannot do without them. </li></ul></ul>