Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byCornelius Puschmann
A Tale of Two Platforms: Emerging communicative patterns in two scientific blog networks
The presentation discusses the evolution of scholarly communication online, specifically focusing on two scientific blogging platforms and their developing communicative patterns. It highlights differences in the acceptance and use of social media for scholarly communication across countries and disciplines, offering insights into the adoption of academic blogging practices. The analysis reveals the diversity within blogging styles, languages, and networking characteristics among bloggers on these platforms.
More Related Content
Similar to A Tale of Two Platforms: Emerging communicative patterns in two scientific blog networks
A Tale of Two Platforms: Emerging communicative patterns in two scientific blog networks
- 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 networks Nuffield/Oxford Internet Institute Social Networks Seminar Series Nuffield College, Oxford 11th February 2013 photos by http://www.flickr.com/people/7455207@N05/
- 2. This talk The contextof my research Framing the issue: How can we describe new forms of scholarly communication online? Tracing the evolution of two scholary blog platforms
- 3. in a broadersense: science and scholarship as networks of knowledge (citation networks, social networks, conceptual networks) net· work ˈnet-ˌwərk in a narrower sense: hyperlinks between blogs on two scholarly blogging platforms
- 4. Prior and relatedresearch • 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. "Scholarship in thesciences, social sciences, and humanities is evolving, but at different rates and in different ways. While the new technologies receive the most attention, it is the underlying social and policy changes that are most profound... This is an opportune moment to think about what we should be building." (Borgman, 2008, p. xvii)
- 6. methods/tools data peer ication revi com mun ew How does the Internet reshape science and scholarship? funding mology relationship with the public e pisto
- 7. be tw a ee ma n te collabora'on 1.0 (sharing) sc u r ien s 's ts an d collabora'on 2.0 (contribu'ng) am collabora'on 3.0 (cocrea'ng) on g s cie 's n ts (Du9on, 2008)
- 8. How significant issocial 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. How significant issocial 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. 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. How do scholarlyblogs fit it?
- 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. Aims of blogdata analysis 1. 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. Scholarly blogging platforms Scilogs ResearchBlogging Hypotheses launched 2007 2007 2004 type publisher publisher* publicly funded # blogs ~60 1,230 456 # posts ~7,500 26,960 45,528
- 15. Hypotheses.org(*) Researchblogging.org(**) Hypotheses.org: disciplines of most active blogs (n=74) History Sociology Political 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. Hypotheses.org: languages bypost french other catalan german spanish portuguese english
- 17. Hypotheses.org: active blogsper year 400 300 blogs 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
- 18. 0 500 1000 1500 2004−01 2004−02 2004−03 2004−04 2004−05 2004−06 2004−07 2004−08 2004−09 2004−10 2004−11 2004−12 2005−01 2005−02 2005−03 2005−04 2005−05 2005−06 2005−07 2005−08 2005−09 2005−10 2005−11 2005−12 2006−01 2006−02 2006−03 2006−04 2006−05 2006−06 2006−07 2006−08 2006−09 2006−10 2006−11 2006−12 2007−01 2007−02 2007−03 2007−04 2007−05 2007−06 2007−07 2007−08 2007−09 2007−10 2007−11 2007−12 2008−01 2008−02 2008−03 2008−04 2008−05 2008−06 2008−07 2008−08 2008−09 2008−10 2008−11 2008−12 Posts per month starting 2004−01 2009−01 2009−02 2009−03 2009−04 2009−05 2009−06 2009−07 2009−08 2009−09 2009−10 2009−11 2009−12 2010−01 2010−02 2010−03 2010−04 2010−05 2010−06 2010−07 2010−08 2010−09 2010−10 2010−11 2010−12 2011−01 2011−02 2011−03 2011−04 Hypotheses.org v. Researchblogging.org 2011−05 2011−06 2011−07 2011−08 2011−09 2011−10 2011−11 2011−12 2012−01 2012−02 2012−03 2012−04 2012−05 2012−06 2012−07
- 19. Hypotheses: blogs bynumber of posts 6000 5000 number 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. one author, 6kposts since 2003
- 21. Hypotheses.org: posts, links,internal links per year 12000 posts links internal links 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
- 22. Hypotheses.org: mean outgoinglinks per blog & year 15 average links per blog 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
- 23. Hypotheses.org: outgoing linksby target university/gov news blogs/wikipedia homepage
- 24. Hypotheses.org: incoming vs.outgoing internal links leo.hypotheses.org 250 guerre-froide.hypotheses.org 200 outgoing 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 incoming
- 25. Hypotheses.org: self−citations vs.internal links 600 internal links self−citations 500 400 300 200 100 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
- 26. Hypotheses.org: internal andself-linking (2008)
- 27. Hypotheses.org: internal andself-linking (2008-2009)
- 28. Hypotheses.org: internal andself-linking (2008-2010)
- 29. Hypotheses.org: internal andself-linking (2008-2011)
- 30. Hypotheses.org: internal andself-linking (2008-2012)
- 31. Network characteristics rank 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. Observations 1. Different platformsare 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 connected 3. Subgroups emerge based on different factors (topic, language, geography) 4. Bloggers link to a variety of sites, but a large proportion is academic 5. Self-citation is very widespread
- 33. Thank you foryour attention!
- 34. Bibliography 1. 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: 10.1145/1013367.1013373 2. 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. 0050109 3. 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:10.1177/1354856509342345 4. 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/ 2962/2580 5. 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.20937 7. 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.0035869 9. 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.