elpub 2010

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.

Contact

Ellen Collinsellen.collins@rin.ac.uk

Branwen Hidebranwen.hide@rin.ac.uk

www.rin.ac.uk