doreen siegfried, athanasios mazarakis, isabella peters ...€¦ · this overview shows that the...

Doreen Siegfried, Athanasios Mazarakis, Isabella Peters

Usage of Social Media services in economicsReport of the findings of an online survey among economics scholars at German universities and research institutions 2013

An empirical study within the framework of the Leibniz Research Alliance Science 2.0

abstract

The present study focuses on the use of Web 2.0- and social software-based technical applications among scientists in the disciplines of economics, bu-siness studies and other economics-related subjects. The study describes in particular their knowledge of, usage of, and type of use of various Social Media services. The essential findings are as follows:

Economists at German universities and research institutes most frequently use the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, content sharing services, video and image hosting services, and video conference systems in their everyday lives. In a professional context, economists primarily use highly specialised tools such as learning management and reference management systems. Almost one in three German economists is active in academic and professional networks such as Academia.edu or Xing.

For scholarly work, Social Media services are most important in the context of research and teaching, in particular for the purpose of searching and sha-ring data. The foremost motive for the increased use of so-called Social Media services is that it speeds up work. Wikipedia and other wikis, internet forums, and online reference management systems are quoted mostly for purposes of research. Content sharing services are highly popular for data sharing. We can state that Social Media has arrived in economics but that there are funda-mental differences in the intensity of usage among the various services.

ZBW – German National Library of EconomicsLeibniz Information Centre for Economics

Represented by the director of the ZBW:Professor Klaus Tochtermann

Editor:Dr Doreen Siegfried Head of Marketing and Public Relations Düsternbrooker Weg 12024105 KielT: +49–431–8814–455F: +49–431–8814–520E: [email protected]

Layout: Stefan Werner

Translation:Birgit Gummersbach

Images:stockshoppe/Shutterstock

Published in 2015

contentIntroduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6

1. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

1.1 Design of the survey and sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 81.2 Sample description …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

2. Findings on usage of Social media services ………………………………………………………………………………… 9

2.1 General usage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 102.2 Usage for primarily professional purposes ………………………………………………………………………… 112.3 Intensity of professional usage ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 122.4 Usage of Social media services for different activities ………………………………………………………… 142.4.1 Usage of Social Media services for teaching ………………………………………………………………………… 142.4.2 Usage of Social Media services for research ………………………………………………………………………… 152.4.3 Usage of Social Media services for scholarly communication …………………………………………… 152.4.4 Usage of Social Media services for academic administration …………………………………………… 16

3. Types of use of various Social Media services …………………………………………………………………………… 17

3.1 Usage of Social Media services for coordination and communication ……………………………… 183.2 Usage of Social Media services for data collection / data evaluation ………………………………… 193.3 Usage of Social Media services for sharing information and data ……………………………………… 193.4 Usage of Social Media services for the purpose of searching for data and literature ……… 21

4. Motives for professional (non-)usage of Social media services ………………………………………………… 23

4.1 Primary motives for professional usage of Social Media services ……………………………………… 244.2 Primary motives for non-usage of Social Media services …………………………………………………… 24

5. Access to Social Media services ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

5.1 Sources of information about Social Media services ………………………………………………………… 265.2 End devices for Social Media usage ……………………………………………………………………………………… 26

6. Summary and discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27

7. References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29

Appendix A ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31

Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51

6

introduction

Social Media tools have become an integral part of everyday life for many people. Three in four internet users in Germany are registered with at least one social online network; two thirds are active users of social networks and not merely passive readers. Among 14-29-year-old internet users, 92 percent are members in one or more online communities. Among 30-49-year-olds, this share amounts to 72 percent, and in the generation 50-plus it is still 55 percent ( ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2013, BITKOM Studie 2013; D21 - Digital - Index 2013).

Gradually the various Social Media tools, such as social and professional networks, content sharing services or wi-kis, are used in a professional context. Scholars discover the advantages of web-based work organisation for their own working routines. Some examples:

98 percent of all scientists in Saxony read wikis (in particular Wikipedia) and 61 percent read blogs. 64 percent of all scientists in Saxony use content sharing and cloud services. (Pscheida & Köhler, 2012, p. 15). 63 percent of all scientists in the United Kingdom use Social Media channels for collaborative writing (Nicholas & Rowlands, 2011, p. 63). For academic purposes, blogs, Twitter, Facebook groups and pages are the most popular tools (Zhu & Procter, 2012, p. 8). The first nationwide survey among scientists at German universities and research institutions shows that Social Media has arrived in science, and that specialised tools such as Academia, Dropbox or Moodle are highly valued (Pscheida et.al., 2013).

The present study looks at the role that Social Web tools play for economists at German universities. Which So-cial Media services are used for what purpose and how intensively? Why do economists use certain tools, but not others? What end devices are used for Social Media services?

The present report “Usage of Social Media services in economics” is part of a cooperation project of Goportis – Leibniz Library Network for Information Research within the framework of the Leibniz Research Alliance Scien-ce 2.0 (www.leibniz-science20.de). The report is based on an online survey conducted among economists at Ger-man universities and non-university-affiliated institutions in October and November 2013.

The report is laid out as follows: Chapter 1 describes the methodology of data collection and the composition of the sample. Chapter 2 presents the findings on incidence and intensity of the usage of Social Media services for pro-fessional purposes in economics. Chapter 3 differentiates among Social Media usage for the activities of teaching, research, scholarly communication and academic administration. Chapters 4 and 5 present the foremost motives for the usage or non-usage of Social Media services for professional purposes as well as the means for accessing Social Media services. The report ends in chapter 6 with a summary and discussion of the findings.

1. Method

8 Method

1.1 Design of the survey and sample

Form and content of the present online survey (for the questionnaire see appendix B) were based on the previous work of Pscheida & Köhler (2013). The project partners added a few modifications and revisions to the questionnaire used in 2012. The survey was conducted in the form of an online questionnaire. The sampling focussed on surveying as large a number of economists as possible.

In total, 10,297 study participants in economics received a personalised email including a link which invited them to participate in the survey. After data cleaning and plausibility check 766 valid datasets remained. The response rate among surveyed economists thus amounts to 7 percent.

In addition, the survey addressed 2,012 scientists in human and health sciences, and 9,394 scientists in natural and engineering sciences. In health and human sciences the survey produced 193 valid datasets, e.g. a response rate of 9.6 percent. In natural and engineering sciences the number of valid datasets was 1,047, representing a response rate of 11.2 percent. The analysis compares values between various disciplines in case of significantly relevant differences.

The online questionnaire addressed the following aspects:

→ Knowledge and usage/non-usage of various online tools and Social Media services → Type of use of selected services (active or passive) → Incidence/intensity of usage of various online tools and Social Media services → Context of the usage of various online tools → Reasons for the usage or non-usage of Social Media services for professional purposes → Source of information about new Social Media services → Choice of end devices for accessing Social Media services

The complete questionnaire can be viewed as images in appendix B of this report.

1.2 Sample description

All in all, 766 economists participated in the survey. One in three are women (35.2 percent), nearly two in three are men (63.3 percent), and 1.5 percent of the respondents did not state their gender. On average, the respondents were 39 years old (SD = 11.48). 45 percent of the respondents are active in business studies (343 participants), 22 percent in economics (171 participants) and 14 percent from other economics-related disciplines (106 participants). 38 percent of the respondents were professors, 31 percent research assistants and PhD candidates, 2 percent just PhD candidates, 3 percent academic civil servants, 5 percent were PostDocs and 19 percent were research assistants. See the following figure:

Figure 1Sample composition by professional status

5 percent PostDocs

31 percent research assistants + PhD candidates

38 percent professors

19 percent research assistants

2 percent PhD candidates

3 percent academic civil servants

2. Findings

10 Findings

2.1 General usage

The key concern of the study was to gain an overview of the usage of Social Media in the daily work routines of eco-nomists at German universities and research institutions.

The survey asked about 15 different Social Media services. In order to ensure a common understanding of the tools, the survey named, wherever possible, exemplary applications which are considered typical for the corresponding tool.

The economists first had to state which tools they use, regardless whether for private or professional use. The results can be summarised as follows, see table 11:

Table 1Usage and non-usage of Social Media services in economics

Use Don’t use Don’t know

Wikipedia 95.8 percent 4.0 percent 0.0 percent

Other wikis (e.g. enterprise wiki, subject-specific wikis etc.) 52.7 percent 43.3 percent 3.9 percent

Content sharing/Cloud services (e.g. Dropbox, Slideshare) 78.6 percent 18.0 percent 3.1 percent

Video/Image hosting services (e.g. YouTube, Flickr) 77.0 percent 22.2 percent 0.7 percent

Video conference/VoIP (e.g. Skype, Adobe Connect) 74.7 percent 24.5 percent 0.5 percent

Chat/Instant messaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ) 70.9 percent 28.6 percent 0.4 percent

Internet forums 68.4 percent 30.8 percent 0.5 percent

Academic/professional networks (e.g. Xing, Academia.edu) 66.3 percent 32.4 percent 1.0 percent

Social networks (e.g. Facebook, Google+) 60.2 percent 39.4 percent 0.3 percent

Learning management systems (e.g. OLAT/OPAL, Moodle) 57.6 percent 29.4 percent 12.9 percent

Weblogs 31.9 percent 60.2 percent 7.6 percent

Microblogs (e.g. Twitter) 16.2 percent 80.8 percent 2.6 percent

Web-based real-time editors (e.g. Etherpad, GoogleDocs) 24.0 percent 57.3 percent 18.4 percent

Reference management software (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero) 49.2 percent 38.3 percent 12.4 percent

Social bookmarking services (e.g. Delicious, Bibsonomy) 6.5 percent 50.9 percent 42.3 percent

1 Percentage values in this and all following tables that do not add up to 100 percent are due to rounding errors and missing/not provided responses.

Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (n=766)

11 Findings

This overview shows that the usage of the sampled tools among economists is very high. Ten Social Media services are used by more than 50 percent of respondents from economics. The highest usage is found for Wikipedia (95.8 percent), content sharing services (78.6 percent), video/image hosting services (77.0 percent) and video conference systems (74.7 percent). Least known and least used are social bookmarks (for more details see appendix A, table 8).

If we look at the other disciplines sampled in the course of this cooperative study (see table 13, appendix A), we can state in comparison that economists show higher private and professional use of social and academic networks than either natural and engineering scientists or human and health scientists.

Figure 2Usage of Social Media services in economics

2.2 Usage for primarily professional purposes

Regarding the usage context (professional or private), the study’s findings show that in the working routines of eco-nomists highly specialised tools like learning management systems and reference management systems play a signi-ficant part. Nearly one in three respondents is active in professional and academic networks. Almost one in four re-spondents uses content sharing services and wikis. However, the majority of sampled Social Media services are used by less than 10 percent of economists primarily for professional purposes. Applications used by respondents for both private and professional purposes are disregarded here. The question which Social Media services are used solely or primarily for professional purposes produces the following distribution, see table 2:

Wikipedia

Content sharing services (Dropbox etc.)

Video/Image hosting services (YouTube, Flickr)

Video conferences (Skype, Adobe etc.)

Chat / IM

Internet forums

Academic networks (XING, Academia)

Social networks (FB, Google+)

Learning management systems (Moodle etc.)

Other wikis (enterprise wikis etc.)

Reference management software (Mendeley, Zotero)

Weblogs

Web-based real-time editors (EtherPad, GoogleDocs etc.)

Microblogs (Twitter)

Social Bookmarks

95.8 percent

78.6 percent

77.0 percent

74.7 percent

70.9 percent

68.4 percent

66.3 percent

60.2 percent

57.6 percent

52.7 percent

49.2 percent

31.9 percent

24.0 percent

16.2 percent

6.5 percent



12 Findings

Table 2Professional usage of Social Media services in economics

2.3 Intensity of professional usage

Regarding the intensity of professional usage, i.e. how often Social Media is used, the study shows that social networks are at the top of the list among economists. More than one in three respondents uses social networks at least once a day.

Besides Facebook, Google+ and co., economists also make intensive use of content sharing services, learning manage-ment systems and Wikipedia. Intensive use means “several times a day” and “once every day”, average usage is “seve-ral times a week” and “once every week”, occasional usage is “every month” and “less than every month”. 21 percent of the economists visit the online encyclopedia Wikipedia daily, whereas the percentage among natural and engineering scientists, and mathematicians, who were also surveyed in this cooperative study, amounts to 37 percent.

The opposite holds true for content sharing and cloud services. The number of economists using Dropbox and co. on a daily basis is twice as high as the number of natural and engineering scientists or human and health scientists. The same applies to learning management systems where economists show the highest usage in this comparison group (see table 15, appendix A).

The tools which received the highest values in intensive usage among economists are the social networks with 38 percent, content sharing services with 36 percent and learning management systems with 27 percent. The highest values for occasional use are found for video conferences (63 percent), web-based real-time editors (60 percent) and wikis (52 percent). In comparison to other disciplines, economists rarely use wikis. The quotas for occasional usage are 37 percent among natural and engineering scientists and only 41 percent among human and health scientists.

These are the findings for economics as an overview, see figure 3:

“use”

Learning management systems 54.6 percent

Reference management systems 42.2 percent

Academic and professional networks 32.0 percent

Content sharing services 22.4 percent

Other wikis 22.3 percent

Video conferences 20.5 percent

Internet forums 10.0 percent

Web-based real-time editors 9.8 percent

Chat / IM 8.4 percent

Weblogs 7.7 percent

Wikipedia 6.2 percent

Video/image hosting services 4.3 percent

Microblogs 3.4 percent

Social networks 3.4 percent

Social bookmarking services 2.7 percent

Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (n=766))

13 Findings

Figure 3Intensity of professional usage

Social networks38 percent intensive43 percent average27 percent occasional

Content sharing36 percent intensive35 percent average29 percent occasional

Learning management systems27 percent intensive50 percent average22 percent occasional

Wikipedia21 percent intensive61 percent average17 percent occasional

Reference management systems23 percent intensive46 percent average29 percent occasional

Chat/ IM21 percent intensive37 percent average42 percent occasional

Microblogs20 percent intensive38 percent average43 percent occasional

Weblogs14 percent intensive43 percent average39 percent occasional

Academic networks11 percent intensive47 percent average41 percent occasional

Internet forums12 percent intensiv44 percent average42 percent occasional

Video/image hosting services8 percent intensive51 percent average39 percent occasional

Social bookmarking7 percent intensive44 percent average49 percent occasional

Other wikis8 percent intensive38 percent average52 percent occasional

Web-based real-time editors8 percent intensive31 percent average60 percent occasional

Video conferences5 percent intensive31 percent average63 percent occasional

63 percent occasional

14 Findings

2.4 Usage of Social media services for different activities

The study also surveyed the use of the various services in the daily work routines of scientists. For this purpose it differentiated between the activities of “teaching”, “research”, “scholarly communication”, and “academic administ-ration”. The usage of Social Media services for these four activities is presented below. This question was addressed to all participants who stated a professional usage for the various services named.

2.4.1 Usage of Social Media services for teaching

More than half of the economists use Wikipedia and learning management systems to prepare and follow-up on se-minars and lectures. These two applications are by far the most important. Looking at the behaviour of human and health scientists or natural and engineering scientists, who were also surveyed in this cooperative study, we find that economists use Wikipedia comparatively more often (58.2 percent) than human and health scientists (51.3 percent) or natural and engineering scientists (46.7 percent).

Around one in three economists also uses content sharing services and video or image hosting services. Least relevant for teaching in economics are web-based real-time editors, microblogs and social bookmarking. See the following fi-gure 4.

Figure 4Usage of Social Media services for teaching

Wikipedia

Learning management systems

Content sharing

Video/image hosting services

Internet forums

Other wikis

Video conferences

Chat/ IM

Academic networks

Weblogs

Social networks

Reference management software

Web-based real-time editors

Microblogs

Social bookmarking

58 percent

52 percent

31 percent

30 percent

24 percent

31 percent

19 percent

11 percent

10 percent

10 percent

10 percent

10 percent

7 percent

3 percent

2 percent

15 Findings

2.4.2 Usage of Social Media services for research

Wikipedia is also the most frequently used Social Media tool for research. Every other economist in Germany uses Wikipedia for research (51 percent). Other important tools are content sharing services (47 percent) and reference management systems (43 percent). In addition, almost a third of the respondents consider internet forums and video conferences as important. Least relevant are microblogs (3 percent) and social bookmarking (3 percent; see figure 5).

Figure 5Usage of Social Media services for research

2.4.3 Usage of Social Media services for scholarly communication

The tools of the Web 2.0 are not yet widely used for scholarly communication. Less than half of the economists in Germany carry out their routine communication tasks by means of the Web 2.0. We can state however, that more than a third (37 percent) of the surveyed economists use professional and academic networks such as Xing, Academia.edu etc. to network with colleagues. In comparison to human, health, natural or engineering scientists, economists use the social networks far more often for scholarly communication. In the comparison groups, classical mailing lists are more important (see table 19, appendix A).

Approximately one in four German economist uses video conferences (27 percent), chats and instant messaging (26 percent), and social networks such as Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn etc. (18 percent). Weblogs and microblogs play a minor role (see figure 6).

Wikipedia

Content sharing


Internet forums

Video conferences

Other wikis

Chat/ IM

Academic networks

Weblogs



Social networks


Social bookmarking

Microblogs

51 percent

47 percent

43 percent

31 percent

30 percent

25 percent

23 percent

16 percent

14 percent

12 percent

12 percent

8 percent

4 percent

3 percent

3 percent

Figure 6Usage of Web 2.0 for scholarly communication in economics

2.4.4 Usage of Social Media services for academic administration

For economists employed at universities, academic administration is as much a part of their daily work routines as are research and teaching. In contrast to research and teaching, however, the tools of the Web 2.0 play no essential part in this. Less than one in five economists uses any of the tools quoted, with the exception of content sharing services (21 percent). See figure 7.

Figure 7Usage of Web 2.0 for academic administration

Academic networks

Video conferences

Chat/ IM

Content sharing

Social networks

Internet forums

Wikipedia

Other wikis


Weblogs


Microblogs



Social Bookmarking

37 percent

27 percent

26 percent

22 percent

18 percent

14 percent

9 percent

9 percent

8 percent

7 percent

5 percent

4 percent

4 percent

3 percent

1 percent

16 Findings

Content sharing

Video conferences

Chat/ IM

Academic networks

Other wikis

Wikipedia



Internet forums


Social networks


Weblogs

Social bookmarking

Microblogs

21 percent

15 percent

11 percent

10 percent

10 percent

7 percent

7 percent

6 percent

5 percent

4 percent

3 percent

2 percent

1 percent

0.5 percent

0.4 percent

3. Usage

18 Usage

After taking a holistic view at the usage of Social Media services in economics, we wanted to know for which stages within the research process the various tools are employed. The following tables state the percentage of participants which have ticked the following possible motives for using various Social Media services in the questionnaire. For this question, participants were shown only those services in the questionnaire which they actually named as being used for professional purposes. Multiple answers were possible.

The following areas of activity were sampled:

→ Coordination/communication → Data collection/data evaluation → Sharing of information → Data sharing → Searching data and literature

3.1 Usage of Social Media services for coordination and communication

Video conferences/VoIP services (e.g.Skype), chat/instant messaging services and learning management systems are the tools used most frequently for the processes of coordination/communication in the context of research activities. See the following table 3:

Table 3Usage of Social Media services for coordination and communication

“use” total n

percent n

Video conferences 86.0 196 228

Chat/ IM 76.4 133 174

Learning management systems 60.7 17 28

Social networks 56.7 34 60

Academic networks 47.1 56 119

Web-based real-time editors 43.3 39 90

Content sharing 27.6 99 359

Microblogs 25.0 6 24

Social bookmarking 10.0 2 20

Other wikis 8.9 17 191

Internet forums 7.7 18 234

Weblogs 6.8 8 118

Video/image hosting services 6.3 6 95

Reference management software 5.5 18 329

Wikipedia 1.6 6 387

19 Usage

3.2 Usage of Social Media services for data collection / data evaluation

Most economists use Social Media services such as reference management software for processes of “data collection/data evaluation” in the context of research activities. To a limited extent, economists at German research institutions (9.5 percent) also use content sharing/cloud services for this purpose. We can state that tools of the Social Web play only a minor role for data collection and data evaluation. The majority of quoted applications is used by only a few of the participants. See the following table 4:

Table 4Usage of Social Media services for data collection / data evaluation

3.3 Usage of Social Media services for sharing information and data

Where the focus in the research process is laid on “sharing information”, the conventional tools like email or telepho-ne are most frequently supplemented by Social Media services such as video conferences, content sharing services and chats. For the purposes of “data sharing” the preferred tools are content sharing/cloud services such as Dropbox or Slideshare. See the following tables 5 and 6.

“use” total n

percent n

Microblogs 50.0 12 24

Reference management software 27.1 89 329

Social networks 25.0 15 60

Academic networks 20.2 24 119

Learning management systems 17.9 5 28

Social bookmarking 15.0 3 20

Video/image hosting services 12.6 12 95

Other wikis 11.0 21 191

Web-based real-time editors 10.0 9 90

Content sharing 9.5 34 359

Weblogs 9.3 11 118

Wikipedia 8.0 31 387

Internet forums 6.4 15 234

Video conferences 6.1 14 228

Chat/ IM 5.2 9 174

20 Usage

Table 5Usage of Social Media services for sharing information

Table 6Usage of Social Media services for sharing data

“use” total n

percent n

Video conferences 76.8 percent 175 228

Chat/ IM 72.4 percent 126 174

Academic networks 66.4 percent 79 119

Social networks 63.3 percent 38 60

Learning management systems 53.6 percent 15 28

Content sharing 46.8 percent 168 359

Microblogs 45.8 percent 11 24

Web-based real-time editors 37.8 percent 34 90

Weblogs 31.4 percent 37 118

Internet forums 28.2 percent 66 234

Other wikis 18.8 percent 36 191

Video/image hosting services 16.8 percent 16 95

Reference management software 10.6 percent 35 329

Wikipedia 8.8 percent 34 387

Social bookmarking 0 percent 0 20

“use” total n

percent n





Social networks 15 percent 9 60

Video conferences 14 percent 32 228









Social bookmarking 0 percent 0 20

21 Usage

3.4 Usage of Social Media services for the purpose of searching for data and literature

One of the essential activities in the research process is the search for data, facts and literature. 46 percent of the economists participating in the study (n=766) use Wikipedia to search for sources. Among all participants using Wi-kipedia for professional purposes (n=387), the percentage of those using the online encyclopedia rises to 91.5 percent (see table 7).

Table 7Usage of Social Media services for the purpose of searching for data and literature

“use” total n

percent n







Social bookmarking 60.0 percent 12 20



Social networks 30 percent 18 60




Video conferences 4.8 percent 11 228


4. Motives

24 Motives

After gathering data on the usage of Social Media services and describing the intensity of the usage, the study addres-sed the question of the primary motives for economists’ usage of Social Media services for professional purposes.

4.1 Primary motives for professional usage of Social Media services

The participants were shown only those tools for which they had already stated professional use in prior questions. Total values per tool therefore vary considerably. Below we describe the motives and motivation for employing Social Media services.

For economists, the two most important motives for using Social Media services are: “because it’s convenient” and “because it makes work or communication easier and/or faster” (see table 9, appendix A). The online encyclopedia is rated as most convenient. 61 percent of all respondents who use Wikipedia for professional purposes do so mostly because it is convenient. Content sharing and cloud services receive similar ratings, which 47 percent of their users rate as very convenient, as do internet forums (41 percent). 46 percent of all chat and IM users use Skype, ICQ and co. primarily because it makes their work resp. their communication easier and faster.

The benefit of video conferences and VoIP systems achieves comparable ratings. 45 percent of those economists who use these tools do so because it furthers communication. 27 percent of those economists who use learning manage-ment systems professionally, however, do so mostly because “it is required or the wish of colleagues and project part-ners” (see table 9, appendix A).

Academic and professional networks are rated the most beneficial Social Media tools by far for enhancing one’s own reputation. 16 percent of participants who use academic/professional networks do so primarily in order to improve their own reputation. Otherwise Social Media services are not important for visibility among colleagues. German economists are not very curious about new technologies, either. Only a handful of respondents stated that they test Social Media services because they are interested in new technologies. Twitter achieved the highest value by far with 16 percent.

4.2 Primary motives for non-usage of Social Media services

For nearly all Social Media services sampled in this survey the motives quoted most frequently for non-usage of a tool were: “because I don’t see a benefit in using this tool” and “because I have no need for technical support in this form at this point in time”. There was also a considerable number of economists who quoted “because I haven’t looked into it yet” as a motive for “non-usage”. According to this, more than a quarter of all participants (26.4 percent) have not yet looked at reference management or social bookmarking services (25.9 percent). For one in five (20.3 percent), wikis (with the exception of Wikipedia) and web-based real-time editors (19.1 percent) have not yet been worth a closer look (see table 10, appendix A). Participants see the least benefit in the usage of microblogs. 58 percent of the respondents state they do not use Twitter because they see no benefit in this tool.

Terms and conditions of use play no serious part in non-usage. Social networks meet with the greatest resistance among all 15 tools. 22 percent of German economists state that they do not use Facebook and co. because they disagree with the terms of use. 21 percent stated as their motive for non-usage that they use Social Media more for private pur-poses and wish to keep their private and professional spheres strictly separate (see more details in table 10, appendix A).

5. Access

26 Access

After the study gathered data about the usage of Social Media services and the intensity of this usage, it asked where economists find information about existing Social Media services.

5.1 Sources of information about Social Media services

The majority of scientists in economics and business studies state that they learn most often from “colleagues” and “friends” about the existence of new online tools. Presentations and academic journals are relevant only for one in five of the respondents.

The question where they learned about Social Media services was answered as follows (multiple replies were possib-le):

→ 87 percent learn about Social Media tools from colleagues → 77 percent from friends → 23 percent from presentations → 20 percent from other Social Media tools → 20 percent from academic journals in their own discipline → 16 percent from IT journals → 7 percent other

5.2 End devices for Social Media usage

Economists most frequently access Social Media services from notebooks and PCs. In this they hardly differ from human, health, natural, and engineering scientists. Economists comparably less often use the PC (69 percent) than the members of other disciplines (human and health scientists: 86 percent, natural and engineering scientists: 80 percent); see table 21, appendix A.

→ 88 percent use a notebook (multiple answers were possible) → 69 percent use a PC for Social Media services → 59 percent use a smartphone → 38 percent use a tablet

Nearly two thirds of participants access the services with a smartphone (59 percent). The trend towards mobile use is vividly reflected in tablet use. 38 percent of economists use a tablet to access Social Media services, whereas the num-ber of human and health scientists (24 percent) and natural and engineering scientists (26 percent) who use a tablet for this purposes is statistically significantly lower.

6. Discussion

28 Discussion

The present study “Usage of Social Media services in economics” was part of a cooperation project of Goportis – Leib-niz Library Network for Information Research within the framework of the Leibniz Research Alliance Science 2.0 (ww.leibniz-science20.de) and was conducted between October and November 2013. The study aimed to survey the usage of Social Media services among economists at German universities. It described which Social Media services are used for which purposes and how intensively, and why economists do (not) use certain tools. It evaluated a total of 766 datasets of respondents from economics. In addition, this survey also evaluated a further 1,240 valid datasets from human and health scientists, and natural and engineering scientists. Here we can report several interesting and also comparative findings.

It is a remarkable finding that social bookmarking services have not established themselves yet. In 2009 already, Bernius, Hanauske & Dugall stated that the majority of the economists they surveyed had never heard of social book-marks, and if they had they were unable to assess where they could usefully be applied.

In the general usage of Social Media services there is an inverse prioritisation between between private and professio-nal usage, as can be seen in the examples of Wikipedia and YouTube (as an example for video/image hosting services) (see chapters 2.1 and 2.2). Usage is focussed for both services in a primarily private area. Both Wikipedia and YouTube are perceived only as services for private use.

However, in particular for Wikipedia perception and actual practice are widely divergent. Only 6 percent of respon-dents state that they use the online encyclopedia primarily for professional purposes. In reality, 58 percent of the economists use Wikipedia for teaching and 51 percent use it for research purposes.

The use of the Web 2.0 for the purposes of coordination/communication, of data/information sharing, or of data col-lection/evaluation is not yet very widely spread among academics. Only content sharing services are comparatively popular.

In contrast, Wikipedia and other wikis, internet forums and reference management software are quoted comparati-vely often as Web 2.0 tools for the purpose of literature search. Here Social Media has established itself (see chapter 3.4).

It is also interesting that the professional usage of Social Media is often perceived as owing to “external pressure”. This influence has many facets, for instance as simplified communication if different persons/institutions use the same software. An important factor in this must be that colleagues and friends count as the first source of informati-on about Social Media.

For the non-usage of Social Media, the most important factors are that respondents do not bother with these services and see no benefit in them. Nicholas and Rowlands (2011) arrive at similar findings in their study of the usage of Social Media services in Great Britain. In particular, the generalising argument of “lack of time” shows up prominently here. This is a general phenomenon in the field of knowledge management, as Riege (2005) has shown already. Solutions for breaking down this barrier require that the top levels of management get involved.

We can therefore summarise that Social Media has arrived in science. However, fundamental differences exist bet-ween the active and passive usage of individual services, and between usage in different disciplines. Follow-up studies are being planned which will analyse these differences in more detail.

7. References

30 References

ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie (2013): Mobile Internetnutzung steigt rasant – Boom bei Endgeräten führt zu hohem Anstieg der täglichen Nutzungsdauer.

Bernius, Steffen; Hanauske, Matthias; Berndt Dugall (2009): Von traditioneller wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation zu „Science 2.0“. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Nutzung von Social Software in der universitären Forschung. In: ABI-Technik 29, Heft 4/2009, S.214-226.

BITKOM Studie (2013): Soziale Netzwerke 2013. Dritte, erweiterte Studie Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zur Nutzung sozialer Netzwerke im Internet.

Goportis-Studie (2013): Nutzung von Social-Media-Diensten in den Zielgruppen der Goportis-Fachbibliotheken. Im Auftrag von Goportis – Leibniz-Bibliotheksverbund Forschungsinformation. Eine Untersuchung im Rahmen des Leibniz-Forschungsverbundes Science 2.0. Datenreport und Replikation einer clusteranalytischen Untersuchung zur Identifizierung von Science 2.0-Nutzungstypen. Dr. Waldemar Dzeyk. Dezember 2013.

JISC (2012): Researchers of tomorrow: the research behavior of Generation Y doctoral students.

Nicholas, David; Rowlands, Ian (2011): Social media use in the research workflow. In. Information Services & Use 31 (2011) Seite 61-83.

Pscheida, Daniel; Köhler, Thomas(2012): Wissenschaftsbezogene Nutzung von Web 2.0 und Online-Werkzeugen in Sachsen - Studie des „eScience – Forschungsnetzwerk Sachsen“ – Datenreport 2012; Dresden 2012.

Pscheida, Daniela; Albrecht, Steffen; Herbst, Sabrina; Minet, Claudia; Köhler, Thomas (2013): Nutzung von Social media u8nd onlinebasierten Anwendungen ion der Wissenschaft. Erste Ergebnisse des Science 2.0-Survey 2013 des Leibniz-Forschungsverbundes „Science 2.0“. Dresden 2013.

Riege, Andreas (2005): Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), Seite 18-35.

Tomorrow Focus Media, Social Media Effects (2012): Die steigende Bedeutung des Web 2.0 – auch für Unternehmen, 2012.

Zhu, Yimei; Procter, Rob (2012): Use of blogs, Twitter and Facebook by PhD Students for Scholarly Communication: A UK study; China New Media Communication Association Annual Conference, Macao International Conference.

Appendix A

32 Appendix A

Table 8Distinction of professional and private usage of Social Media services in economics

Social networks (e.g. Facebook, Google+)

percent

n.r. 0.10Solely for professional purposes 1.80

Primarily for professional purposes 2.60For professional + private purposes 15.00

Primarily for private purposes 14.80Solely for private purposes 26.00

Don’t use 39.40Don’t know 0.30

Academic/professional networks (e.g. Xing, Academia.edu)





Video conference/VoIP (e.g. Skype, Adobe Connect)





Microblogs (e.g. Twitter)





33 Appendix A

Weblogs percent





Wikipedia





other wikis (e.g. enterprise wikis, subject wikis)

n.r. 0.00

Solely for professional purposes 10.30Primarily for professional purposes 12.00For professional + private purposes 23.50



Content sharing/cloud services (e.g. Dropbox, Slideshare)





34 Appendix A

Web-based real-time editors (e.g. EtherPad, Google Docs)

ipercent





Internet forums





Chat/instant messaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ)





Reference management software (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero)





35 Appendix A

Social bookmarking services (e.g. Delicious, Bibsonomy)

ipercent





Video/image hosting services (e.g. YouTube, Flickr)





Learning management systems (e.g. OLAT/OPAL, Moodle)





36 Appendix A

because it’s convenient

because it makes work or communication easier and/

or faster

because it improves my work results

because it is required or the wish of colleagues and/or

project partners

under pressure from my own community

to enhance my own reputa-tion

because I’m interested in new technologies

for other reasons

Social networks (e.g. Facebook, G

oogle+) (n=262)24.80 %

32.10 %1.10 %

4.60 %4.20 %

4.60 %6.10 %

11.10 %

Academ

ic/professional networks (n=471)

19.50 %29.90 %

1.70 %3.00 %

5.70 %16.30 %

4.00 %12.10 %

Video conference/VoIP (e.g. Skype) (n=490)

35.70 %44.90 %

1.00 %6.50 %

0.60 %0.00 %

0.80 %2.40 %

Microblogs (e.g. T

witter) (n=77)

16.90 %14.30 %

5.20 %2.60 %

3.90 %7.80 %

15.60 %16.90 %

Weblogs (n=202)

29.20 %20.30 %

8.40 %3.00 %

1.00 %3.00 %

9.40 %16.30 %

Wikipedia (n=684)

60.70 %20.20 %

5.60 %0.30 %

0.10 %0.00 %

1.20 %5.70 %

Other w

ikis (n=377)34.50 %

25.20 %13.30 %

8.80 %2.10 %

0.00 %2.40 %

4.80 %

Content sharing/cloud services (e.g. D

ropbox) (n=545)47.20 %

40.40 %2.00 %

3.30 %0.90 %

0.00 %0.00 %

0.70 %

Web-based real-tim

e editors (n=167)39.50 %

31.70 %3.00 %

6.00 %0.60 %

0.60 %4.80 %

3.00 %

Internet forums (n=433)

41.10 %24.00 %

8.50 %0.90 %

0.70 %0.50 %

5.30 %10.60 %

Mailing lists (n=551)

40.70 %40.80 %

2.50 %2.50 %

1.10 %0.20 %

0.40 %4.90 %

Chat/instant m

essaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ

) (n=398)37.40 %

46.20 %1.50 %

3.30 %0.30 %

0.00 %1.30 %

3.00 %

Online archives/databases (n=584)

31.70 %27.40 %

26.50 %0.90 %

0.20 %0.20 %

0.50 %4.10 %

Reference m

anagement softw

are (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero)

(n=375)36.00 %

30.70 %21.60 %

2.40 %0.30 %

0.00 %0.80 %

2.10 %

Social bookmarking services (n=43)

27.90 %27.90 %

2.30 %0.00 %

2.30 %0.00 %

2.30 %11.60 %

Video/im

age hosting services (e.g. YouTube etc.)

(n=361)34.30 %

18.30 %2.20 %

0.60 %0.30 %

1.10 %6.60 %

16.30 %

Learning managem

ent systems (n=441)

21.80 %31.30 %

3.40 %27.00 %

2.50 %0.20 %

2.30 %4.30 %

Table 9Motives for using Social Media services in economics

* Multiple answers were possible. N.r. was not included in the table above for lack of space. They can be computed from the available % values. Sample: employees of German universities and research institutions (n=766)

37 Appendix A

Table 10Motives for not using Social Media services in economics

because I don’t see a benefit in using this tool

because I have no need for technical support in this form at this point in time

because I haven’t looked into it yet

because I don’t have the time to familiarise myself with

this tool

because I don’t agree with the terms of use

because tthis tool is not com-monly used in my discipline

because I use it for private communication and wish to

keep the private and professi-onal spheres strictly separate

for other reasons

Social networks (e.g. Facebook, G

oogle+) (n=501) 33.70 %

6.20 %1.60 %

1.00 %22.20 %

2.60 %20.80 %

3.20 %

Academ

ic/professional networks(n=285)

38.20 %15.40 %

11.20 %5.30 %

6.30 %1.80 %

3.90 %7.40 %

Video conference/VoIP (e.g. Skype) (n=270)

22.60 %41.50 %

4.40 %4.40 %

0.70 %5.90 %

5.90 %5.90 %

Microblogs (e.g. T

witter) (n=666)

58.40 %9.00 %

9.20 %2.10 %

3.80 %4.40 %

2.10 %2.30 %

Weblogs (n=503)

47.10 %14.10 %

15.50 %4.00 %

0.80 %3.80 %

1.40 %3.00 %

Wikipedia (n=81)

35.80 %3.70 %

1.20 %1.20 %

0.00 %25.90 %

2.50 %12.30 %

Other w

ikis (n=359) 29.80 %

19.80 %20.30 %

3.90 %0.80 %

6.40 %0.60 %

5.30 %

Content sharing/cloud services (e.g. D

ropbox) (n=195)

21.00 %24.60 %

11.30 %3.10 %

13.80 %3.10 %

2.10 %11.30 %

Web-based real-tim

e editors (n=456) 29.40 %

24.80 %19.10 %

4.60 %6.80 %

1.10 %0.00 %

3.50 %

Internet forums (n=327)

44.00 %19.00 %

9.50 %2.80 %

2.10 %5.50 %

3.10 %4.60 %

Mailing lists (n=199)

34.70 %25.60 %

17.60 %3.00 %

1.50 %1.00 %

1.00 %4.50 %

Chat/instant m

essaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ

) (n=364) 33.00 %

28.30 %3.80 %

1.90 %0.80 %

3.00 %11.50 %

5.50 %

Online archives/databases (n=126)

16.70 %19.80 %

36.50 %11.10 %

0.80 %3.20 %

0.00 %0.80 %

Reference m

anagement softw

are (e.g. Mendeley,

Zotero) (n=295) 19.00 %

21.40 %26.40 %

15.30 %1.40 %

1.00 %0.00 %

3.10 %

Social bookmarking services (n=397)

33.80 %16.60 %

25.90 %4.50 %

0.80 %1.50 %

0.50 %4.30 %

Video/im

age hosting services (e.g. YouTube etc.) (n=399)

42.90 %18.50 %

3.50 %1.30 %

4.50 %9.80 %

8.30 %1.50 %

Learning managem

ent systems (n=225)

21.80 %29.30 %

21.30 %8.40 %

0.00 %4.00 %

0.00 %7.10 %

* Multiple answers were possible. N.r. was not included in the table above for lack of space. They can be computed from the available % values. Sample: employees of German universities and research institutions (n=766).

38 Appendix A

Types of user Intensity of Social Media usage Percentage of the sample

n

1 “Intensive user” Participants who use Social Media ser-vices several times a day/at least once a

day

13.7 percent 105

2 “Average user” Participants who use Social Media ser-vices several times a week/at least once a

week

79.6 percent 609

3 “Occasional user” Participants who use Social Media ser-vices once every month or less

6.7 percent 51

Table 11Types of user by incidence

39 Appendix A

Table 12Types of user and demographic variables; groups with different intensities of usage, cha-racteristics of the variables gender, age and function

Occasional users

Average users

Intensive usersT

otal

n percent

n percent

n percent

n percent

genderfem

ale23

46.90 %223

37.00 %24

23.30 %270

35.80 %

male

2653.10 %

37963.00 %

7976.70 %

48464.20 %

Age group

20-24 years 0

0.00 %4

0.70 %0

0.00 %4

0.50 %

25-29 years 15

30.00 %147

24.40 %32

31.10 %194

25.70 %

30-34 years 12

24.00 %135

22.40 %27

26.20 %174

23.00 %

35-39 years 3

6.00 %59

9.80 %11

10.70 %73

9.70 %

40-44 years 1

2.00 %59

9.80 %7

6.80 %67

8.90 %

45-49 years5

10.00 %72

12.00 %8

7.80 %85

11.30 %

50-54 years 5

10.00 %53

8.80 %8

7.80 %66

8.70 %

55-59 years2

4.00 %33

5.50 %4

3.90 %39

5.20 %

60+ years 7

14.00 %40

6.60 %6

5.80 %53

7.00 %

Current function

(Academ

ic status)A

cademic civil servant

00.00 %

193.20 %

33.00 %

222.90 %

PhD candidate

12.00 %

142.30 %

33.00 %

182.40 %

PhD candidate and

research assistant15

30.60 %176

29.20 %44

43.60 %235

31.30 %

PostDoc

510.20 %

315.10 %

44.00 %

405.30 %

Private lecturer-

--

--

--

-

Junior professor 0

0.00 %6

1.00 %0

0.00 %6

0.80 %

Professor 16

32.70 %241

40.00 %30

29.70 %287

38.20 %

Student assistant 0

0.00 %1

0.20 %0

0.00 %1

0.10 %

Research assistant

1224.50 %

11418,90 %

1716.80 %

14319.00 %

40 Appendix A

n.r. “USE” “don’t use” “don’t know”

n % n % n % n %

Social networks (e.g. Facebook, Google+)

HUM 2 1.00% 96 49.70% 92 47.70% 3 1.60%

ECO 1 0.10% 461 60.20% 302 39.40% 2 0.30%

NAT 3 0.30% 521 49.80% 518 49.50% 5 0.50%

Academic/professional networks (e.g. Xing, Academia.edu)

HUM 2 1.00% 81 42.00% 102 52.80% 8 4.10%

ECO 2 0.30% 508 66.30% 248 32.40% 8 1.00%

NAT 3 0.30% 445 42.50% 560 53.50% 39 3.70%


HUM 0 0.00% 131 67.90% 62 32.10% 0 0.00%

ECO 2 0.30% 572 74.70% 188 24.50% 4 0.50%

NAT 2 0.20% 762 72.80% 279 26.60% 4 0.40%

Microblogs (e.g. Twitter)

HUM 2 1.00% 22 11.40% 160 82.90% 9 4.70%

ECO 3 0.40% 124 16.20% 619 80.80% 20 2.60%

NAT 4 0.40% 108 10.30% 909 86.80% 26 2.50%

Weblogs HUM 2 1.00% 29 15.00% 136 70.50% 26 13.50%

ECO 3 0.40% 244 31.90% 461 60.20% 58 7.60%

NAT 4 0.40% 302 28.80% 594 56.70% 147 14.00%

Wikipedia HUM 0 0.00% 190 98.40% 3 1.60% 0 0.00%

ECO 1 0.10% 734 95.80% 31 4.00% 0 0.00%

NAT 2 0.20% 1029 98.30% 15 1.40% 1 0.10%

other wikis (e.g. enterprise wikis, subject-specific

wikis etc.)

HUM 1 0.50% 90 46.60% 89 46.10% 13 6.70%

ECO 0 0.00% 404 52.70% 332 43.30% 30 3.90%

NAT 3 0.30% 768 73.40% 233 22.30% 43 4.10%


HUM 1 0.50% 129 66.80% 53 27.50% 10 5.20%

ECO 2 0.30% 602 78.60% 138 18.00% 24 3.10%

NAT 2 0.20% 703 67.10% 299 28.60% 43 4.10%


HUM 2 1.00% 36 18.70% 108 56.00% 47 24.40%

ECO 2 0.30% 184 24.00% 439 57.30% 141 18.40%

NAT 4 0.40% 220 21.00% 624 59.60% 199 19.00%

Internet forums HUM 1 0.50% 121 62.70% 71 36.80% 0 0.00%

ECO 2 0.30% 524 68.40% 236 30.80% 4 0.50%

NAT 4 0.40% 774 73.90% 256 24.50% 13 1.20%

Mailing lists HUM 1 0.50% 136 70.50% 47 24.40% 9 4.70%

ECO 1 0.10% 566 73.90% 184 24.00% 15 2.00%

NAT 2 0.20% 757 72.30% 250 23.90% 38 3.60%

Chat/Instant Messaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ)

HUM 2 1.00% 122 63.20% 67 34.70% 2 1.00%

ECO 1 0.10% 543 70.90% 219 28.60% 3 0.40%

NAT 3 0.30% 708 67.60% 322 30.80% 14 1.30%

Online archives/databases (e.g. Dt. Digitale Bibliothek)

HUM 0 0.00% 150 77.70% 36 18.70% 7 3.60%

ECO 1 0.10% 585 76.40% 125 16.30% 55 7.20%

NAT 2 0.20% 746 71.30% 205 19.60% 94 9.00%

Reference management software (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero)

HUM 1 0.50% 106 54.90% 59 30.60% 27 14.00%

ECO 1 0.10% 377 49.20% 293 38.30% 95 12.40%

NAT 2 0.20% 504 48.10% 333 31.80% 208 19.90%


HUM 2 1.00% 3 1.60% 71 36.80% 117 60.60%

ECO 2 0.30% 50 6.50% 390 50.90% 324 42.30%

NAT 4 0.40% 39 3.70% 450 43.00% 554 52.90%

Video/ image hosting services (e.g. YouTube, Flickr)

HUM 2 1.00% 145 75.10% 43 22.30% 3 1.60%

ECO 1 0.10% 590 77.00% 170 22.20% 5 0.70%

NAT 2 0.20% 791 75.50% 248 23.70% 6 0.60%

Learning management systems (e.g. OLAT/OPAL, Moodle)

HUM 1 0.50% 78 40.40% 55 28.50% 59 30.60%

ECO 1 0.10% 441 57.60% 225 29.40% 99 12.90%

NAT 3 0.30% 256 24.50% 413 39.40% 375 35.80%

Table 13Usage and non-usage of Social Media services in the Goportis discipline groups

n.r..= no response; Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006)

41 Appendix A

Table 14Usage intensity of individual Web 2.0 services by Goportis discipline groups

Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the discipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)

ZBW ZB MED TIB Totaln=766 n=193 n=1.047 n=2.006

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

3.50

4.00

Social

net

works

Academ

ic/p

rof.

networ

ksVid

eo co

nf./VoI

PM

icro

blog

s

Web

logs

Wik

iped

iaot

her w

ikis

Conte

nt Shar

ing/

clou

d serv

ices

Real-t

ime e

ditors

Inte

rnet

foru

ms

Mai

ling l

ists

Chat/

Inst

ant M

essa

ging

Online a

rchiv

es/

datab

ases

Refer

ence

man

agem

ent

Social

bookm

arkin

g se

rvic

esVid

eo/i

mag

e host

ing

serv

ices

Learn

ing m

anag

emen

t

Web 2.0 services

42 Appendix A

Goportis discipline groups

HUM ECO NAT

n % n % n %

Sociale networks (e. g. Facebook, Google+)

n. r. 1 2.2% 2 0.8% 1 0.5%

occasional users 15 33.3% 71 27.1% 74 38.7%

average users 13 28.9% 90 34.4% 58 30.4%

intensive users 16 35.6% 99 37.8% 58 30.4%

Academic/professio-nal networks (e. g. Xing)

n. r. 1 1.4% 7 1.5% 4 1.0%


average users 33 45.2% 221 46.9% 154 38.4%

intensive users 4 5.5% 52 11.0% 17 4.2%


n. r. 0 0.0% 3 0.6% 4 0.7%


average users 22 21.2% 153 31.2% 173 28.7%

intensive users 4 3.8% 23 4.7% 20 3.3%

Microblogs (z. B. Twitter)

n. r. 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.6%


average users 1 20.0% 29 37.7% 24 38.7%

intensive users 2 40.0% 15 19.5% 13 21.0%

Weblogs n. r. 0 0.0% 7 3.5% 3 1.3%


average users 6 28.6% 87 43.1% 103 46.2%

intensive users 1 4.8% 29 14.4% 27 12.1%

Wikipedia n. r. 3 1.6% 9 1.3% 10 1.0%


average users 113 62.1% 416 60.8% 547 54.2%

intensive users 42 23.1% 146 21.3% 372 36.9%

Other wikis (e.g. enterprise wikis, subject-specific wikis etc.)

n. r. 5 5.7% 4 1.1% 6 0.8%


average users 42 48.3% 144 38.2% 358 47.7%

intensive users 4 4.6% 31 8.2% 112 14.9%


n. r. 0 0.0% 3 0.6% 3 0.6%


average users 40 38.5% 191 35.0% 193 36.6%

intensive users 24 23.1% 194 35.6% 115 21.8%


n. r. 1 3.1% 2 1.2% 1 0.6%


average users 8 25.0% 51 30.5% 65 38.2%

intensive users 4 12.5% 14 8.4% 9 5.3%

Internet forums n. r. 3 3.0% 12 2.8% 6 0.9%


average users 44 44.4% 190 43.9% 371 54.6%

intensive users 6 6.1% 50 11.5% 89 13.1%

Table 15Intensity of Web 2.0 usage for professional purposes by Goportis discipline groups

43 Appendix A

* Aggregation of intensity responses: “several times a day” and “once every day” = intensive users; “several times a week” and “once every week” = average users; “once every month” and “less than every month” = occasional users; n.r.=no response ;


HUM ECO NAT

n % n % n %

Mailing lists n. r. 9 6.6% 4 0.7% 10 1.4%


average users 64 47.1% 258 46.8% 330 45.0%

intensive users 26 19.1% 101 18.3% 172 23.4%


n. r. 0 0.0% 3 0.8% 2 0.5%


average users 26 34.2% 148 37.2% 120 30.6%

intensive users 7 9.2% 82 20.6% 86 21.9%

Online archives/ databases (e.g. Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek, Arxiv.org)

n. r. 1 0.7% 6 1.0% 2 0.3%


average users 74 49.7% 276 47.3% 321 43.1%

intensive users 19 12.8% 85 14.6% 120 16.1%

Reference managa-ment software (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero)

n. r. 4 3.8% 6 1.6% 5 1.0%


average users 52 49.1% 173 46.1% 231 45.8%

intensive users 20 18.9% 86 22.9% 119 23.6%

Social bookmarking services (e.g. Delicious, Bibson-omy)

n. r. 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


average users 1 33.3% 19 44.2% 16 47.1%

intensive users 0 0.0% 3 7.0% 3 8.8%


n. r. 3 3.8% 6 1.7% 3 0.7%


average users 38 48.7% 185 51.2% 200 45.8%

intensive users 4 5.1% 28 7.8% 27 6.2%

Learning manage-ment software (e.g. OLAT/OPAL, Moodle)

n. r. 3 4.1% 8 1.8% 1 0.4%


average users 41 55.4% 219 49.7% 106 42.7%

intensive users 8 10.8% 119 27.0% 29 11.7%

44 Appendix A

Table 16Types of users: Intensity of Web 2.0 usage for professional purposes in economics

n %

Sociale networks (e. g. Facebook, Google+)

n. r. 2 0.8%occasional users 71 27.1%average users 90 34.4%intensive users 99 37.8%

Academic/professional networks (e. g. Xing)




Microblogs (z. B. Twitter)


Weblogs n. r. 7 3.5%occasional users 79 39.1%average users 87 43.1%intensive users 29 14.4%

Wikipedia n. r. 9 1.3%occasional users 113 16.5%average users 416 60.8%intensive users 146 21.3%

Other wikis (e.g. enterprise wikis, subject-speci-fic wikis etc.)






45 Appendix A

n %

Internet forums n. r. 12 2.8%occasional users 181 41.8%average users 190 43,9%intensive users 50 11.5%

Mailing lists n. r. 4 0.7%occasional users 188 34.1%average users 258 46.8%intensive users 101 18.3%



Online archives/ databases (e.g. Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek, Arxiv.org)


Reference managament software (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero)






Learning management software (e.g. OLAT/OPAL, Moodle)


* Aggregation of intensity responses: “ several times a day” and “once every day” = Intensive users; “several times a week” and “once every week” = Average users; “every month” and “less than every month” = Occasional users; n.r.=no response; Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (sample: n =766)

46 Appendix A

Table 17Usage of Web 2.0 services for “teaching” by Goportis discipline groups

Question: “For which purpose/in which context do you use these tools professionally?” Multiple answers possible


Services in “teaching”


HUM (n=193) ECO (n=766) NAT (n=1.047) Total

n % n % n % n %

Social networks 6 3.1% 77 10.1% 24 2.3% 107 5.3%

Academic/prof. networks 0 0.0% 73 9.5% 17 1.6% 90 4.5%

Video conference/VoIP 5 2.6% 148 19.3% 52 5.0% 205 10.2%

Microblogs 1 0.5% 24 3.1% 5 0.5% 30 1.5%

Weblogs 1 0.5% 78 10.2% 47 4.5% 126 6.3%

Wikipedia 99 51.3% 446 58.2% 489 46.7% 1034 51.5%

Other wikis 25 13.0% 164 21.4% 197 18.8% 386 19.2%

Content sharing/cloud services 19 9.8% 236 30.8% 150 14.3% 405 20.2%

Web-based real-time editors 4 2.1% 54 7.0% 40 3.8% 98 4.9%

Internet forums 24 12.4% 186 24.3% 158 15.1% 368 18.3%

Mailing lists 43 22.3% 249 32.5% 207 19.8% 499 24.9%

Chat/Instant Messaging 4 2.1% 87 11.4% 52 5.0% 143 7.1%

Online archives/databases 43 22.3% 243 31.7% 152 14.5% 438 21.8%

Reference management software 16 8.3% 80 10.4% 90 8.6% 186 9.3%

Social bookmarking services 2 1.0% 12 1.6% 5 0.5% 19 0.9%

Video/image hosting services 32 16.6% 226 29.5% 161 15.4% 419 20.9%

Learning management systems 62 32.1% 396 51.7% 189 18.1% 647 32.3%

47 Appendix A

Table 18Usage of Web 2.0 services for “research” by Goportis discipline groups


Services in “research”



n % n % n % n %

Social networks 9 4.7% 60 7.8% 33 3.2% 102 5.1%



Microblogs 1 0.5% 24 3.1% 18 1.7% 43 2.1%

Weblogs 9 4.7% 118 15.4% 138 13.2% 265 13.2%

Wikipedia 127 65.8% 387 50.5% 779 74.4% 1.293 64.5%

Other wikis 50 25.9% 191 24.9% 499 47.7% 740 36.9%



Internet forums 60 31.1% 234 30.5% 476 45.5% 770 38.4%

Mailing lists 48 24.9% 202 26.4% 305 29.1% 555 27.7%


Online archives/databases 125 64.8% 490 64.0% 649 62.0% 1.264 63.0%





Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the dis-cipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)

48 Appendix A

Table 19Usage of Web 2.0 services for “scholarly communication” by Goportis discipline groups


Services in “scholarly communication”



n % n % n % n %

Social networks 21 10.9% 138 18.0% 115 11.0% 274 13.7%



Microblogs 4 2.1% 32 4.2% 37 3.5% 73 3.6%

Weblogs 8 4.1% 51 6.7% 73 7.0% 132 6.6%

Wikipedia 23 11.9% 66 8.6% 153 14.6% 242 12.1%

Other wikis 20 10.4% 72 9.4% 169 16.1% 261 13.0%



Internet forums 35 18.1% 110 14.4% 124 11.8% 269 13.4%

Mailing lists 81 42.0% 241 31.5% 393 37.5% 715 35.6%








49 Appendix A

Table 20Usage of Web 2.0 services for “academic administration” by Goportis discipline groups


Services in “academic administration”



n % n % n % n %

Social networks 4 2.1% 22 2.9% 21 2.0% 47 2.3%



Microblogs 0 0.0% 3 0.4% 4 0.4% 7 0.3%

Weblogs 2 1.0% 10 1.3% 13 1.2% 25 1.2%

Wikipedia 13 6.7% 53 6.9% 79 7.5% 145 7.2%

Other wikis 13 6.7% 79 10.3% 183 17.5% 275 13.7%



Internet forums 6 3.1% 41 5.4% 59 5.6% 106 5.3%

Mailing lists 49 25.4% 159 20.8% 250 23.9% 458 22.8%








50 Appendix A

Goportis key disciplines

HUM ECO NAT Totaln % n % n % n %

PC 166 86.0% 526 69.1% 841 80.6% 1533 76.7%

Notebook 168 87.0% 666 87.5% 861 82.5% 1695 84.8%

Smartphone 101 52.3% 452 59.4% 520 49.8% 1073 53.7%

Tablet 47 24.4% 289 38.0% 268 25.7% 604 30,2%

Other 0 0.0% 2 0.3% 1 0.1% 3 0.2%

Table 21End devices used to access Web 2.0 services – by Goportis discipline groupsMultiple answers possible


Appendix B

52 Appendix B

53 Appendix B

54 Appendix B

55 Appendix B

56 Appendix B

*Hinweis: Die im Folgenden angezeigte Anzahl der Items variiert je nach Anzahl der in der Forschung eingesetzten Werkzeuge.

* Hinweis: Die im Folgenden angezeigte Anzahl der Items variiert je nach Anzahl der beruflich genutzten Werkzeuge. Hinweis: Über die Drop-Down-Liste sind verschiedene Antwortmöglich-keiten wählbar.

57 Appendix B

*Hinweis: Die im Folgenden angezeigte Anzahl der Items variiert je nach Anzahl der beruflich nicht genutzten Werkzeuge. Hinweis: Über die Drop-Down-Liste sind verschiedene Antwort-möglichkeiten wählbar.

58 Appendix B

59 Appendix B

*Hinweis: Die Beantwortung der Wikipedia-Fragen ist optional. Bei Auswahl von „nein“ erfolgt eine Weiterleitung auf die Endseite.

ZBW.EU

doreen siegfried, athanasios mazarakis, isabella peters ...€¦ · this overview shows that the...

Documents