+

Making Web2.0 ResearchableWeb2.0 and Scholarly Communicationinnovation and use

James Stewart

+

+Scholarly Communication

Conducting research, developing ideas and informal communications.

Preparing, shaping and communicating what will become formal research results.

The dissemination of formal products.Managing personal careers, and research

teams and research programmesTeaching and communicating scholarly

ideas to broader communities.(based on Thorin (2003) )

+What is Web2.0?

+Characterised by example

Technical and content forms E.g. blog, wiki, social networking tool, social bookmarking,

peer to peer filesharing, etc

Particular Branded Service or Resource Facebook Skype OpenWetWare Sharepoint Wikipedia

+Web2.0

Way of describing certain post-dot.com bust businesses

Technological definition: “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.’ (Anderson 2007)

The way technology is being driven by individuals and communities seeking to manage the explosion of information, and the move to ‘networked society’

+“Qualities of Web2.0”

“Openness”

“Usability”

“Light structures”

“User creation and contribution”

“Massive data”

“Power of the ‘crowd’”

“Network effects”

Problem: None unique to Web2.0

+How to describe a Web2.0 …

ToolSystemServiceCommunityOrganisationCollectionetc

+Approaches to Web2.0

Technology Business modelOrganisational approachIndividual and social practices – for information use and interactions

Structure of knowledgeExpectations

+Academic archaeology

Many of communicative and information practices characteristic of Web2.0 are characteristic of scholarly communication.

However, some of these forms are rather ossified!

Many earlier internet tools used in Web2.0 way

Many more well established trajectories of socio-technical change. What does Web2.0 add?

+e.g. Collaboratories

Shared instruments

Community Data Systems

Open Community Contribution Systems

Virtual Community of Practice

Virtual Learning Community

Distributed Research Centre

Community Infrastructure project

Bos et al. (2007)

Issues of:

Tacit knowledge

Independence of scholars

Information Standards

Institutional and national barriers

Sustainability

+Working model

services for discovering and maintaining relationships

services for sharing research objects and components

services for sharing, annotating and commentating on publications and presentations

services for documenting and sharing experiences.

+How do you use ‘Web2.0’?

How might you define it?

Is it useful or distracting?

Is the idea of qualities useable?

Does Internet =Web2.0 now?

+Framework: Social Shaping of Technology

Technologies emerge from complex processes of invention, implementation, failure and success

Many different social and technical players and objects effect outcome

Sources of innovation included user communities as well as producer groups

Non-linear process involving changes in practices, knowledge, structures and relationships

+Framework: Social Learning in Innovation

Changing relationships between players in innovation as they interact and learn in the processes of invention and implementation.

Importance of visions and theory in promoting and aligning expectations

Importance of intermediaries in bringing together innovations from different communities

Emergence of new intermediaries

+Factors shaping Web2.0 in SC

Ownership and control of scholarly products, both by scholars and institutions such as universities and publishers

Institutional, individual and cultural factors shaping collaboration

Technical implantation of support for Standardisation, IPR and security

Epistemological issues arising in creating and implementing computer-based communication tools.

+Principal issues governing the Dynamics of socio-technical change Disciplinary differences

Scholarly knowledge production Structure, economics, maturity and culture.

Institutional differences

Non-academic influences – individual and broader social appropriation of Web2.0 practices and ideas

Many different innovation pathways

+Academic Approaches

Science Studies

Sociology of Knowledge

Information Science/ Library Studies

Organisational Science (IT implementation)

Technology Studies

Innovation Studies

Economics

+Visions and Empirical change

Open Access Open Science

Library ‘2.0’

Collaboratories and CSCW

Data-driven scholarship

Globalisation

+Disciplinary Differences Empirically

Use of different types of formal outputs Speed of knowledge production Disciplinary cultures Collective working and competitiveness Uses of online systems such as preprint servers

Theoretically Cultures of knowledge production Type of knowledge produced Types of primary materials/sources Maturity of discipline – esp. development of knowledge

standards Interdependence of scholars Interdsciplinarity

+Disciplinary Differences

Musicology

Music

High Energy Physics

Theoretical Physics

Economics

Cultural studies

+Institutional differences

Institution Status Access to publish high ranking journals

Institutional resources and management

Other activities: teaching, commericalisation

Local network effects – critical mass

+Individuals and groups

Experience with use of existing technologies Experience with technical change Age and Career stage Reward structures and motivations Gender Ability to influence technological change Community and institutional support Collaborations and work practices “innovativeness”

+Preliminary questions and issues Does the ‘openness’ and ‘emergence’ of information

and knowledge standards favour emerging and interdisciplinary research, or is Web2.0 primarily taken up in areas with well established, but older IT infrastructures

Does Age, as a proxy for career stage play a role in adoption of Web2.0, and it is biased to youth and early career, or older and more established researchers

Gender is traditionally a factor in technology adoption, and is clearly an factor in disciplinary participation. Are there any unusual patterns in ‘Web2.0’ adoption

…

+RIN Web2.0 Study

ObjectivesWho is using what, where?

What is shaping that use?

The implications for Scholarly Communications.

+RIN Web2.0 Study

Methods Quantitative and representative survey of UK

scholarly community to discover basic use and awareness

50 in dept interviews on scholarly communications and Web2.0

5 case studies of promoters, developers and users of specific ‘web2.0’ services

+Issues

Many different sorts of scholarly communication e.g. information searching, publishing formal outputs,

coordinating

Web2.0 such a vague term, and not well known

Use of much Web2.0 maybe very limited

BUT

Web2.0 not a step change

Ask about personal changes in pratices and institutional change

The experiences and efforts of innovation intermediaries to stimulate change

+What do you want to know?