making the concept of web2.0 researchable: web2.0 and scholarly communication

Making Web2.0 ResearchableWeb2.0 and Scholarly Communication:

innovation 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 programmes• Teaching 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)

• Technology• Business &/or organisation• Practices – for information use and interactions• Expectations

“Qualities of Web2.0”

“Openness”“Usability”

“User creation and contribution”“Massive data”

“Power of the ‘crowd’”“Network effects”

Problem: None unique to Web2.0

How to describe a Web2.0 …

• Tool• System• Service• Community• Organisation• Collection• etc

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.

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; and;

• services for documenting and sharing experiences.

Factors shaping Web2.0 in SC

• Ownership and control of scholarly products, both by scholar 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

• Disciplinary differences– Structure, economics, maturity and culture.

• Intellectual property and demonstration: Importance of publication for career progression and for institutional success

• Dynamics of socio-technical change

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• Gender• Ability to influence technological change• Community and institutional support• Collaborations and work practices• “innovativeness”

Dynamics of Tech Change

• Barriers and Drivers• Knowledge and Information standards

RIN Web2.0 Study

• Objectives:

RIN Web2.0 Study

• Methods

What do you want to know?