The Library

If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0

Tools

Procter, Rob, Williams, Robin and Stewart, James (2010) If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. London, UK: Research Network Information..

Preview

Text
WRAP_Procter_If you build it will they come.pdf - Published Version
Download (2024Kb) | Preview

Official URL: http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-di...

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, the web has transformed the way we seek and use
information. In the last 5 years in particular a set of innovative techniques –
collectively termed ‘web 2.0’ – have enabled people to become producers as
well as consumers of information.
It has been suggested that these relatively easy-to-use tools, and the behaviours which
underpin their use, have enormous potential for scholarly researchers, enabling them to
communicate their research and its findings more rapidly, broadly and effectively than
ever before.
This report is based on a study commissioned by the Research Information Network to
investigate whether such aspirations are being realised. It seeks to improve our currently
limited understanding of whether, and if so how, researchers are making use of various
web 2.0 tools in the course of their work, the factors that encourage or inhibit adoption,
and researchers’ attitudes towards web 2.0 and other forms of communication.

Context:

How researchers communicate their work and their findings varies in different subjects
or disciplines, and in different institutional settings. Such differences have a strong
influence on how researchers approach the adoption – or not – of new information and
communications technologies. It is also important to stress that ‘web 2.0’ encompasses
a wide range of interactions between technologies and social practices which allow web
users to generate, repurpose and share content with each other. We focus in this study on
a range of generic tools – wikis, blogs and some social networking systems – as well as
those designed specifically by and for people within the scholarly community.

Method:

Our study was designed not only to capture current attitudes and patterns of adoption but
also to identify researchers’ needs and aspirations, and problems that they encounter.
We began with an online survey, which collected information about researchers’ information
gathering and dissemination habits and their attitudes towards web 2.0. This was followed
by in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a stratified sample of survey respondents to
explore in more depth their experience of web 2.0, including perceived barriers as well as
drivers to adoption. Finally, we undertook five case studies of web 2.0 services to investigate
their development and adoption across different communities and business models.

Key findings:

Our study indicates that a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one
or more web 2.0 tools or services for purposes related to their research: for communicating
their work; for developing and sustaining networks and collaborations; or for finding out
about what others are doing. But frequent or intensive use is rare, and some researchers
regard blogs, wikis and other novel forms of communication as a waste of time or even
dangerous.
In deciding if they will make web 2.0 tools and services part of their everyday practice, the
key questions for researchers are the benefits they may secure from doing so, and how it fits
with their use of established services. Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not
see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication,
but as having their own distinctive role for specific purposes and at particular stages of
research. And frequent use of one kind of tool does not imply frequent use of others as well.

Item Type:

Report

Subjects:

L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB2300 Higher Education
Z Bibliography. Library Science. Information Resources > ZA Information resources

Divisions:

Faculty of Science > Computer Science

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Web 2.0, Internet research , Researchers

Publisher:

Research Network Information

Place of Publication:

London, UK

Official Date:

July 2010

Dates:

Date	Event
July 2010	Published

Number of Pages:

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Publication Status:

Published

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

Research Information Network (Organization) (Great Britain)

References:

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education.
JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Available at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/
documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Arms, W.Y. and Larsen, R.L. (2007). The Future of Scholarly Communication: Building the
Infrastructure for Cyberscholarship, Report of a workshop held in Phoenix, Arizona April
17-19. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Joint Information Systems
Committee. Available at http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~repwkshop/NSF-JISC-report.pdf
Arthur, W. B. (1989). ‘Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical
events’. Economic Journal 99, pp.116-131.
Benkler, Y. and Nissenbaum, H. (2006). ‘Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue’. The
Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), pp. 394-419.
Borgman, C. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the
Internet. The MIT Press. Available at http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/cborgman/PubsDA.html
Bradley, D. (2009). ‘Gen-F Scientists Ignoring Social Networking’. Sciencebase. Available at
http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/gen-f-scientists-ignoring-social-networking.html
[Accessed 9 June 2010]
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society.
Oxford, OUP.

Crotty, D. (2009). ‘Scientists Still Not Joining Social Networks’. The Scholarly Kitchen.
Available at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/19/scientists-still-not-joiningsocial-
networks/ [Accessed 9 June 2010]
De Roure, D. (2008). ‘Web 2.0 and the Democratisation of e-Research’. SSGC 2008,
Hungary. Available at http://www.semanticgrid.org/presentations/issgcWeb3.ppt
Elliott, M. and Scacchi, W. (2008). ‘Mobilization of Software Developers: The Free Software
Movement’. Technology and People, 21(1), pp.4-33. Available at http://www.ics.uci.
edu/~wscacchi/Papers/New/Elliott-Scacchi-Free-Software-Movement.pdf
Fry, J. (2004). ‘The Cultural Shaping of ICTs within Academic Fields: Corpus-based
Linguistics as a Case Study’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19(3), pp.303-319.
doi:10.1093/llc/19.3.303 http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/303
Fry, J. (2004) ‘Scholarly Research and Information Practices, A Domain Analytic Approach’.
Information Processing and Management, 42(1), pp.299-316. Available at http://portal.
acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1138816
Hannay, T. (2009). ‘From Web 2.0 to the Global Database’. In Hey, T. Tansley, S. and Tolle,
K. (Eds.) The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Research. Microsoft Research,
Washington, USA.
Harley, D., Earl-Novell, S., Krzys Acord, S., Lawrence, S, and King, C.J. (2008). Interim
Report: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication, Center for Studies
in Higher Education. Available at http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.
php?id=300

Harley, D., Krzys Acord, S., Earl-Novell, S. and King, C.J. (2010). Final Report: Assessing
the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and
Needs in Seven Disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Available at http://cshe.
berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=351
Hey, T. Tansley, S. and Tolle, K. (Eds.) (2009). The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive
Scientific Research. Microsoft Research, Washington, USA.
Hull D., Pettifer S.R., Kell D.B. (2008). ‘Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools
for the Next Generation Web’. PLoS Computational Biology 4(10): e1000204 doi:10.1371/
journal.pcbi.1000204
Knorr Cetina, K.D. (1999). Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down
culture and control creativity. New York, NY, Penguin Press.
Lin, Y., Poschen, M., Halfpenny, P and Procter, R. (2008). ‘Research 2.0: Social Networking
Sites for Scientists’. In Proc. Association of Internet Researchers Conference: Internet
Research 9.0: Rethinking Community, Rethinking Place. Copenhagen, October.
Murray-Rust, P. (2008). ‘Chemistry for everyone’. Nature, 451, pp.648-651.
Newman, J. (2009). Researchers of Tomorrow. Available at http://explorationforchange.
net/index.php/current-projects/researchers-of-tomorrow/researchers-of-tomorrow-home.
html

Neylon, C. and Wu, S. (2009). ‘Open Science: tools, approaches, and implications’. Pacific
Symposium on Biocomputing. Hawaii, January
Odlyzko, A.M. (1995). ‘Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional
scholarly journals’. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42, pp.71-122.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). ‘What is Web 2.0?’. O’Reilly Media. Available at http://www.oreilly.com/
pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html [Accessed 9 June 2010]
Prenksy, M. (2001). ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp.1-6.
Available at http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20
Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Research Information Network; JISC (2009). Communicating knowledge: How and why
UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings. Research Information Network.
Available at http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/
communicating-knowledge-how-and-why-researchers-pu
Snee, H. (2008). Web 2.0 as a Social Science Research Tool. A report on behalf of Social
Sciences Collections and Research. The British Library: ESRC/British Library Student
Placement Scheme.
Sørensen, Knut H. (1996). ‘Learning technology, constructing culture. Sociotechnical change
as social learning’ STS working paper no 18/96, University of Trondheim: Centre for
technology and society.

Sparks, S. (2005). JISC Disciplinary Differences Report, JISC Scholarly Communications
Group 3 August. Available at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/
infoenvironment/disciplinarydifferencesneeds.pdf notes]
Star, S. L. (ed) (1995). The Cultures of Computing. Wiley-Blackwell.
Stephen, T and Harrison, T. (2002). ‘Building Systems Responsive to Intellectual Tradition
and Scholarly Culture’. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1). Available at http://quod.
lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0008.102
Stewart, J. (2007). ‘Local Experts in the Domestication of Information and Communication
Technologies’. Information, Communication and Society 10(4), pp.547-569.
Stewart, J. and Hyysalo, S. (2008). ‘Intermediaries, Users and Social Learning in
Technological Innovation’. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3),
pp.295-325.
Suber, P. (2004). Open Access Overview: Focusing on open access to peer-reviewed articles
and their preprints. Available at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Surowieki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Why the many are smarter than the few
and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York:
Doubleday
Thorin, S.E. (2003). ‘Global Changes in Scholarly Communication’. In S.C. Hsianghoo,
P.W.T. Poon and C. McNaught (eds), eLearning and Digital Publishing. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands. Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/w873x131171x2421/

Voss, A., Mascord, M., Fraser, M., Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Halfpenny, P., Fergusson,
D., Atkinson, M., Dunn, S., Blanke, T., Hughes, L. and Anderson, S. (2007). ‘e-Research
Infrastructure Development and Community Engagement’. In S.J. Cox (ed.), Proceedings
of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting. Glasgow/Edinburgh: National eScience Centre.
Available at http://www.allhands.org.uk/2007/proceedings/papers/866.pdf
Voss, A., Asgari-Targhi, M., Procter, R., Halfpenny, P., Dunn, S., Fragkouli, E., Anderson,
S., Hughes, L., Mineter, M., Fergusson, D. and Atkinson, M. (2008). ‘Widening Uptake of
e-Infrastructure Services’. Proceedings of e-Social Science 08, Manchester, UK.
Waldrop, M. (2008). ‘Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?’ Scientific American.
Available at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-orgreat-
risk [Accessed 9 June 2010]
Ware, M. and Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the
scholarly community – an international study. London, Publishing Research Consortium.
Available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm
Williams, R. and Edge, D. (1996). ‘The Social Shaping of Technology’. Research Policy 25,
pp.856-899.
Williams, R., Stewart, J. and Slack, R. (2005). Social Learning in Technological Innovation:
Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies. Aldershot, Edward
Elgar.