elpub 2010
TRANSCRIPT
If you build it, will they come?
Ellen Collins, Research Information Network
ELPUB, 16-18 June 2010, Helsinki
How researchers perceive and use web 2.0
Overview
• Web 2.0 and academics
• Method
• Usage
• Attitudes
• Implications
Web 2.0 and academics
• Tools developed specifically for academics
• Open knowledge agenda
• But what is really happening?
• Are researchers using these tools?
• What do they think of them?
Method
• Mixed methodology
• Email survey
• In-depth interviews
• Case studies
Usage
13 % frequent users
45% occasional
39% non-users 13%
45%
39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Frequent Occasional Never
Demographics• Adoption is associated with:
• Being male
• Older age
• More senior positions
• Maths and computer science
• But social networking is different
Collaboration
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Frequent Occasional Never
Work with collaborators indifferent institutions
Work as part of a local researchteam
Participate in wider, discipline-based research networks
Participate in informal, localresearch networks
Do not do collaborative research
Encouragement
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Frequent Occasional Never All
Library and informationservices
Conference organisers
Local research group
Computer support services
Attitudes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Frequent Occasional Never All
Sceptical
Uninterested
Neutral
Enthusiastic
Attitudes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Frequent Occasional Never All
No opinion
Unlikely
Likely
Likelihood that online activity will supplement peer review
AttitudesLikelihood that online publication will grow in importance
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Frequent Occasional Never All
No opinion
Unlikely
Likely
Attitudes: visibility
‘If it increases your profile, and more people were aware of the work you did, that would be a benefit’
‘I don’t see why I wouldn’t also take an online recommendation [in the same way as face-to-face recommendations]’
Attitudes: communication
‘You can have a conversation of more than just two-way
‘You can talk about your research findings…and people can comment or interact without having to wait until your final output is a journal article that will appear in print’
Attitudes: trust
Content‘I wouldn’t use Wikipedia or anything like that, anything that isn’t peer reviewed like that is worthless’
‘I have a negative attitude to using videos and blogs in research. Once it’s finished it should be published otherwise it will be anarchy in science’
‘It would be nice if the community felt a little less competitive and a bit more open about sharing data’
Process
IPR
Implications• Single approach unlikely to have much success
• Engagement in future, but not now
• Intellectual property issues need to be resolved
• Certain people are key to encouraging success:
• Library and information services
• Conference organisers
• Local research groups
• High-profile users
ReferencesProctor, R., Willians, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A. and Asgari-Targhi, M. (Forthcoming) ‘Adoption and Use of Web 2.0 in Scholarly Communications’. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.
Collins, E., and Hide, B. (2010) ‘Use and Relevance of Web 2.0 Resources for Researchers’. Publishing in the Networked World: Transforming the Nature of Communication, 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing 16-18 June 2010, Helsinki, Finland. http://hdl.handle.net/10227/599
Research Information Network (2010), If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0.
