1. Learning Objectives Expanded Discussion
1. Describe collaborative social adaptive This study investigated the extent to which Web When asked to compare the efficiency of email
interactive Web 2.0 technologies and 2.0 social technologies are being used by health communication and the use of the wiki for storing,
recognize the benefits and barriers of care research teams at southwestern universities. As organizing and finding information, the majority of
their use as a means of peer-to-peer health socially adaptive, collaborative Internet tools respondents indicated that the wiki was better than
communication and information management evolve, health care professionals can leverage email. Results showed that the higher the level of
for a geographically dispersed, interdisciplinary technology to enhance multidisciplinary collabora- technical savvy, the more likely a person was to use
biomedical research Community of Practice
tion, increase knowledge sharing, and improve the wiki, and this typically correlated with age
(CoP).
communication. Wikis, blogs, podcasts, and social demographics.
2. Identify commonly used open source networking tools, among others, may prove useful
and proprietary collaborative social adaptive to improve project management. As of this writing, a similar study has been
interactive Web 2.0 information management initiated for a Community-Based Participatory
systems. Currently, the communication toolset among many Research (CBPR) team developing a pilot interven-
research teams consists of face-to-face meetings, tion to allow elders to “age in place.” Preliminary
3. Evaluate the use of collaborative social photocopied minutes, and passing documents back results show that adoption and use is more likely
adaptive interactive Web 2.0 technologies and forth by e-mail. Email is the number one busi- if the project is deadline driven and has funding.
in the viewer’s organization, and, if ness social software application, with around 247
subsequently appropriate, choose one that best billion sent each day in 2009. While social net- Seven residents research teams are also using a wiki
fits the organization’s communication needs. working—meetings, conference calls, water-cooler to manage projects from conception to completion:
conversations—has always been part of organiza- protocol development, literature review, communi-
tions, collaboration has been docucentric—excel, cation, and study reporting.
Web 2.0 Social Technologies:
word, powerpoint, and email. The ubiquitous con-
nectivity of Web 2.0 participatory technologies
offer a variety of choices for teams looking to Blogs, e.g. Wordpress
implement more advanced technology for collabo- Instant messaging, e.g. Google Chat
ration, content-creation and knowledge sharing. Internet forums, e.g. PHP Bulletin Board (phpBB)
Microblogging, e.g. Twitter
To determine the adoption rate and extent of use Podcasts, e.g. The Podcast Network (TPN)
of social technologies in the biomedical research Presentation sharing, e.g. Slideshare
Community of Practice (CoP), wiki and email Photography sharing, e.g. Flickr
usage analytics were performed for each team. A Social bookmarking, e.g. Delicious
questionnaire was developed using Survey Monkey Social networking, e.g. LinkedIn
to measure CoP member perceptions about wiki Video sharing, e.g. Vimeo
Poster image and more details can be found at:
and email use. Wikis, e.g. PBworks
http://www.slideshare.net/MichelleFarabough