Media społecznościowe, komunikacja naukowa i akademicki superużytkownik w Wielkiej Brytanii
Abstrakt
Internet i narzędzia oferowane przez media społecznościowe otworzyły nowe możliwości dla otwartej nauki, wliczając w to bardziej interaktywną komunikację i udostępnianie danych badawczych. Wyniki naszych badań, oparte na danych z wywiadów oraz ankiety przeprowadzonej wśród naukowców uniwersyteckich w Wielkiej Brytanii, sugerują, że większość badaczy docenia wartość i znaczenie zwiększenia komunikacji w obrębie otwartej nauki i udostępniania danych, lecz obawia się potencjalnych zagrożeń. Niewielka grupa, którą można określić mianem superużytkowników, regularnie udostępnia nowe informacje na temat prowadzonych przez siebie badań. Nie ulega wątpliwości, że możliwości rozwoju otwartej nauki i zaangażowania społecznego wciąż wzrastają, jednak związane z tym trudności pozostają aktualne.
Bibliografia
S. K. Acord and D. Harley, 2013. “Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0,” New Media & Society, volume 15, number 3, pp. 379–397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465140, accessed 18 October 2017.
A. Al-Aufi and C. Fulton, 2015C. “Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: A cross-institutional study,” Electronic Library, volume 33, number 2, pp. 224–241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-05-2013-0093, accessed 18 August 2017.
Z. Bauman, 1987. Legislators and interpreters: On modernity, post-modernity, and intellectuals. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Y. Benkler and H. Nissenbaum, 2006. “Commons-based peer production and virtue,” Journal of Political Philosophy, volume 14, number 4, pp. 394–2419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00235.x, accessed 18 October 2017.
Berlin declaration, 2003. “Berlin declaration on open access to knowledge in the sciences and humanities” (22 October), at http://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration, accessed 18 October 2017.
B.-C. Björk and D. Solomon, 2013. “The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals,” Journal of Informetrics, volume 7, number 4, pp. 914–923. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001, accessed 18 October 2017.
J. Bohannon, 2013. “Who’s afraid of peer review?” Science, 04 Oct: volume 342, number 6154 (4 October), pp. 60–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60, accessed 18 October 2017.
Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), 2002. “Budapest Open Access Initiative,” http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org, accessed 18 October 2017.
D. Butler, 2012. “Avian flu controversy comes to roost at WHO,” Nature (17 February), at http://www.nature.com/news/updated-avian-flu-controversy-comes-to-roost-at-who-1.10055, accessed 18 October 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10055, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Carrigan, 2016. Social media for academics. London: Sage.
M. Carrigan, 2013. “Is social media becoming mainstream within UK sociology?” (11 June), at http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/13285, accessed January 2016.
L. Chan, B. Kirsop and S. Arunachalam, 2011. “Towards open and equitable access to research and knowledge for development,” PLOS Medicine, volume 8, number 3, e1001016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001016, accessed 18 October 2017.
F. Cruz and S. B. Jamias, 2013. “Scientists’ use of social media: The case of researchers at the University of the Philippines Los Baños,“ First Monday, volume 18, number 4, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/4296/3650, accessed 18 October 2017. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i4.4296, accessed 18 October 2017.
S. R. Davies, 2008. “Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public,” Science Communication, volume 29, number 4, pp. 413–434. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222, accessed 18 October 2017.
E. Duede, 2015. “Wikipedia is significantly amplifying the impact of open access publications,” LSE Impact Blog (8 September), at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/09/08/wikipedia-amplifying-impact-of-open-access/, accessed February 2016.
European Commission, 2014. “Consultation on ‘Science 2.0’: Science in transition,” at https://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/consultation_en.htm, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Fine and M. E. Torre, 2004. “Re-membering exclusions: Participatory action research in public institutions,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, volume 1, number 1, pp. 15–37.
A. Giddens, 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
B. Godin and Y. Gingras, 2000. “What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model,” Public Understanding of Science, volume 9, number 1, pp. 43–58. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/303, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Graham and W. H. Dutton (editors) (2014. Society and the Internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A. Grand, C. Wilkinson, K. Bultitude and A. F. T. Winfield, 2012. “Open science: A new ‘trust technology’?” Science Communication, volume 34, number 5, pp. 679–689. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547012443021, accessed 18 October 2017.
A. Grand, K. Bultitude, C. Wilkinson and A. F. T. Winfield, 2010. “Muddying the waters or clearing the stream? Open science as a communication medium,” Public Communication of Science and Technology; version at http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/13540/, accessed 18 October 2017.
J. Gregory and S. Miller, 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum Trade.
M. Groulx, M. C. Brisbois, C. J. Lemieux, A. Winegardner and L. Fishback, 2017. “A role for nature-based citizen science in promoting individual and collective climate change action? A systematic review of learning outcomes,” Science Communication, volume 39, number 1, pp. 45–76. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547016688324, accessed 18 October 2017.
A. Gruzd, C. Haythornthwaite, D. Paulin, S. Gilbert and M. Esteve del Valle, 2016. “Uses and gratifications factors for social media use in teaching: Instructors’ perspectives,” New Media & Society. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444816662933, accessed 18 October 2017.
J. Habermas, 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Translated by W. Rehg. Cambridge: Polity Press.
M. Haklay, 2013. “Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation,” In: D. Sui, S. Elwood and M. Goodchild (editors). Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer International, pp. 105–122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7, accessed 18 October 2017.
G. Hall, 2015. “What does Academia_edu’s success mean for open access?” LSE Impact Blog (22 October), at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/10/22/does-academia-edu-mean-open-access-is-becoming-irrelevant/, accessed October 2015.
A.J. Head, M. Van Hoeck and K. and Hostetler, 2017. “Why blogs endure: A study of recent college graduates and motivations for blog readership,” First Monday, volume 22, number 10, at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/article/view/8065/6539, accessed 18 October 2017. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i10.8065, accessed 18 October 2017.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2015. “Open access research,” at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/, accessed 18 October 2017.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), 2015. “Staff in higher education,” at https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/staff-2015-16, accessed 18 October 2017.
S. Hilgartner, 1990. “The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses,” Social Studies of Science, volume 20, number 3, pp. 519–539. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631290020003006, accessed 18 October 2017.
D. Hind, 2010. The return of the public. London: Verso.
K. Holmberg and M. Thelwall, 2014. “Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication,” Scientometrics, volume 101, number 2, pp. 1,027–1,042.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Horst, 2013. “A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication, Science Communication, volume 35, number 6, pp. 758–779. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013487513, accessed 18 October 2017.
J. Howard, 2013. “Posting your latest article? You might have to take it down,” Chronicle of Higher Education (6 December), at http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Huijer, 2003. “Reconsidering democracy: History of the Human Genome Project,” Science Communication, volume 24, number 4, pp. 479–502. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547003024004004, accessed 18 October 2017.
A. Irwin and B. Wynne (editors), 1996. Misunderstanding science: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
B. Kieslinger, 2015. “Academic peer pressure in social media: Experiences from the heavy, the targeted and the restricted user,” First Monday, volume 20, number 6, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/5854/4580, accessed 18 October 2017. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i6.5854, accessed 18 October 2017.
S. Kjellberg, 2010. “I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context” First Monday, volume 15, number 8, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2962/2580, accessed 18 October 2017. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i8.2962, accessed 18 October 2017
N. Levin, S. Leonelli, D. Weckowska, D. Castle and J. Dupré, 2016. “How do scientists define openness? Exploring the relationship between open science policies and research practice,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, volume 36, number 2, pp. 128–141. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467616668760, accessed 18 October 2017.
D. Lupton, 2014. “‘Feeling better connected’: Academics’ use of social media,” News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra (10 June), at https://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/faculties/arts-design/attachments2/pdf/n-and-mrc/Feeling-Better-Connected-report-final.pdf, accessed 18 October 2017.
B. Lynch, 2009. “Jim Gray’s fourth paradigm and the construction of the scientific record,” In: T. Hey, S. Tansley and K. Tolle (editors). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Research, pp. 177–183; version at https://www.cni.org/publications/cliffs-pubs/jim-grays-fourth-paradigm-and-the-construction-of-the-scientific-record, accessed 18 October 2017.
S. Manca and M. Ranieri, 2017. “Networked scholarship and motivations for social media use in scholarly communication,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, volume 18, number 2, at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2859/4084, accessed 18 October 2017.
S. Manca and M. Ranieri, 2016. “‘Yes for sharing, no for teaching!’ Social media in academic practices,” Internet and Higher Education, volume 29, pp. 63–74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.004, accessed 18 October 2017.
S. Miller, 2001. “Public understanding of science at the crossroads,” Public Understanding of Science, volume 10, number 1, pp. 115–120. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/a036859, accessed 18 October 2017.
K. Mogendorff, H. te Molder, B. Gremmen and C. van Woerkum, 2012. “‘Everyone may think whatever they like, but scientists ...’: Or how and to what end plant scientists manage the science-society relationship,” Science Communication, volume 34, number 6, pp. 727–751. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011433887, accessed 18 October 2017.
G. Myers, 2003. “Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries,” Discourse Studies, volume 5, number 2, pp. 265–279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002006, accessed 18 October 2017.
Nature, 2006. “Can peer review police fraud?” Nature Neuroscience, volume 9, p. 149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0206-149, accessed 18 October 2017.
B. Nelkin, 1967. “Scientific knowledge, public policy, and democracy,” Science Communication, volume 1, number 1, pp. 106–122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/107554707900100106, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Nielsen, 2012. Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
M. Nielsen, 2011. “An informal definition of OpenScience,” Open Science Project (28 July), at http://openscience.org/an-informal-definition-of-openscience/, accessed February 2016.
T. Niyazov, C. Vogel, R. Price, B. Lund, D. Judd, A. Akil, M. Mortonson, J. Schwartzman and M. Shron, 2016 “Open access meets discoverability: Citations to articles posted to Academia.edu,” PLOS ONE, volume 11, number 2, e0148257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148257, accessed January 2016.
Open Science Collaboration (OSC), 2015. “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” Science, volume 349, number 6251 (28 August). doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716, accessed January 2016.
M. A. Peters, 2010. “Openness, Web 2.0 technology, and open science,” Policy Futures in Education, volume 8, number 5, pp. 567–574. doi: https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.5.567, accessed 18 October 2017.
PLOS ONE, 2013. “Data availability,” at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability, accessed January 2016.
S. T. Perrault, 2013. Communicating popular science: From deficit to democracy. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
S. H. Priest, 2001. “Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development,” Science Communication, volume 23, number 2, pp. 97–110. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002002, accessed 18 October 2017.
R. Procter, R. Williams, J. Stewart, M. Poschen, H. Snee, A. Voss and M. Asgari-Targhi, 2010. “Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, volume 368, number 1926 (13 September), pp. 4,039–4,056. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155, accessed 18 October 2017.
K. Purdam, 2014. “Citizen social science and citizen data? Methodological and ethical challenges for social research,” Current Sociology, volume 2, number 3, pp. 374–392. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114527997, accessed 18 October 2017.
A. Quan-Haase, K. Martin and L. McCay-Peet, 2015. “Networks of humanities scholars: The informational and social uses and gratifications of Twitter,” Big Data & Society, volume 2, number 1, at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053951715589417, accessed 18 October 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715589417, accessed 18 October 2017.
Research Councils UK (RCUK), 2015. “RCUK common principles on data policy,” at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/datapolicy/, accessed January 2016.
Research Excellence Framework (REF), 2014. “REF impact case studies,” at http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/, accessed 18 October 2017.
Research Information Network (RIN), 2010. “Open to all: Case studies of openness in research,” at http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/NESTA-RIN_Open_Science_V01_0.pdf, accessed February 2016.
N. Robinson-García, E. Jiménez-Contreras and D. Torres-Salinas, 2016. “Analyzing data citation practices using the data citation index,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 67, number 12, pp. 2,964–2,975. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23529, accessed 18 October 2017.
I. Rowlands, D. Nicholas, B. Russell, N. Canty and A. Watkinson, 2011. “Social media use in the research workflow,” Learned Publishing, volume 24, number 3, pp. 183–195. doi: https://doi.org/10.1087/20110306, accessed 18 October 2017.
Royal Society, 2012a. “Science as an open enterprise” (21 June), at https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/, accessed 18 October 2017.
Royal Society, 2012b. “Data sharing and mining,” at https://royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/, accessed 18 October 2017.
C. Sanders and M. Brynin, 1998. “Ordinary least squares and logistic regression analysis,” In: E. Scarbrough and E. Tanenbaum (editors). Research strategies in the social sciences: A guide to new approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Research Strategies in the Social Sciences, pp. 29–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198292376.003.0003, accessed 18 October 2017.
K. Scheliga and S. Friesike, 2014. “Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?” First Monday, volume 19, number 9, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/5381/4110, accessed January 2016. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i9.5381, accessed 18 October 2017.
H. Shema, J. Bar-Ilan and M. Thelwall, 2014. “Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 65, number 5, pp. 1,018–1,027. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23037, accessed 18 October 2017.
J. Stewart, R. Procter, R. Williams and M. Poschen, 2012. “The role of academic publishers in shaping the development of Web 2.0 services for scholarly communication,” New Media & Society, volume 15, number 3, pp. 413–432.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465141, accessed 18 October 2017.
P. Sturgis and N. Allum, 2004. “Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science, volume 13, number 1, pp. 55–74. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690, accessed 18 October 2017.
P. Suber, 2007. “More on data sharing in big science and big industry,” at http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/03/more-on-data-sharing-in-big-science-and.html, accessed 18 October 2017.
O. Tacke, 2010. “Open science 2.0: How research and education can benefit from open innovation and Web 2.0,” In: T. J. Bastiaens, U. Baumöl and B. J. Krämer (editors). On collective intelligence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 37–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14481-3_4, accessed 18 October 2017.
C. Talbot, 2017. “Opinion: how academic blogs can help civil servants create evidence-based policy,” Civil Service World (2 October), at https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/opinion/opinion-how-academic-blogs-can-help-civil-servants-create-evidence-based-policy, accessed 18 October 2017.
C. Tatum and N. W. Jankowski, 2010. “Openness in scholarly communication: Conceptual framework and challenges to innovation” (16 October), at http://digital-scholarship.ehumanities.nl/wp-content/uploads/Tatum-and-Jankowski-openness-in-scholarly-comm-v202.pdf, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Thelwall and K. Kousha, 2014a. “Academia.edu: Social network or academic network?” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 65, number 4, pp. 721–731. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Thelwall and K. Kousha, 2014b. “ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship?” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 66, number 5, pp. 876–889. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236, accessed 18 October 2017.
G. Veletsianos, 2016. Social media in academia: Networked scholars. New York: Routledge.
R. Watermeyer, 2012. “Measuring the impact values of public engagement in medical contexts,” Science Communication, volume 34, number 6, pp. 752–775. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011432804, accessed 18 October 2017.
J. Wilbanks, 2006. “Another reason for opening access to research,” British Medical Journal, volume 333, number 7582, pp. 1,306–1,308. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/sbmj.39063.730660.F7, accessed 18 October 2017.
M. Wind-Cowie and R. Lekhi, 2012. “The data dividend,” Demos (5 March), at https://www.demos.co.uk/project/the-data-dividend/, accessed 18 October 2017.
T. Yarkoni, 2014. “Strong opinions about data sharing mandates — mine included” (12 March), at https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2014/03/12/strong-opinions-about-data-sharing-mandates-mine-included/, accessed 18 October 2017.
