If you build it, will they come? Web 2.0 in research communication

Quite clearly, the advent of web 2.0 does not pass without effects on how researchers communicate. But how do web 2.0 technologies impact scientific communication? To find out the British Research Information Network commissioned a study and published the results in a report.

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.

(…)

There has been considerable interest in the last two-three years in concepts of open science or open research; and in finding ways to put into effect the proposition that all kinds of information and other resources produced by researchers should flow as public goods into an open infrastructure that supports and facilitates reconfiguration and integration of those resources. Our findings show that very few researchers are as yet operating in this way. About half of respondents to our survey share their work with colleagues, but only a small group of enthusiastic open researchers – 5% of our respondents – publish their outputs and their work in progress openly, using blogs and other tools. Others consider such practices a waste of time, or even that it risks bringing ‘anarchy in science’.

The authors of this study recommend to watch the developments in this field. They do not expect immediate or short term effects on scientific communication. None of the new web 2.0 media do yet replace the traditional scientific communication media. Current users rather see the new media as a broadening of the spectrum of media available.

Procter, R., R. Williams, und J. Stewart (2010), If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0, Research Information Network, London, United Kingdom. http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/web_2.0_screen.pdf

... or not to twitter

A research note written by Matthew Robson, a 15-year-old Morgan Stanley intern, that described his friends' media habits has generated a flurry of interest from media executives and investors. There are many reported observations about how teenagers make use of various media. with all the flurry about twitter, the most explosive point was that Robson observed that his peers regard twitter as "pointless". (see e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/13/twitter-teenage-media-habits)

In terms of media consumption we live in an economy of attention (see e.g. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6097/1.html) and it turns out that twitter as a medium fares low in this system, while -until now- the company that runs it was "hot stuff". Probably no longer.

To me, the hype and fall of twitter is yet another example of disregard of patterns of social interaction. Does anybody remember "Second Life"? The way we conduct science is a real world social network, too. It has its own economy of attention (i.e. citation) and its interactions among network members are governed by trust. Therefore, any Web 2.0 approach to science must be in line with the cultural practices of the community it is designed to serve. Otherwise it will fail. Or, as I said at the AGU Fall Meeting 2007: "Beware of Geeks bearing gifts".

PhD Comic recently featured two nice comic strips on Web 2.0 in science:
To Tweet or not to Tweet
If research papers had a comment section

Enjoy! And get a FirstLife first. ;-)