Self-Organizing the Scholarly Practices

This study explores the self-organized activities undertaken across Web 2.0 and social media services by individual PhD researchers in their doctoral journey. It aims to add to the emergent body of knowledge reporting the doctoral students' experience in the digital venues for scholarly purposes. This chapter is based upon an international and multi-method research carried out to canvass the variety of social media practices characterizing the PhD researchers' digital engagement. The findings offer a detailed and unprecedented repertoire of individual experiments in taming social media to scholarly tasks. The results suggest that complex negotiations occur between technology and practice, where the tension between the need for supporting existing tasks and the attempt for expanding opportunities for personal development is always at work and prefigures an approach to digital engagement always on the move. Furthermore, the research sparks questions about any institution-led initiatives to support the sort of ‘do-it-yourself' PhD emerging from the participants' narratives.

Research and Web 2.0

The scientific publishing industry has witnessed a plethora of innovations across the life cycle of writing, publishing and archiving of scientific journals. Open access is only the visible tip of an iceberg that contains new players and new services and modes of publishing—which span from new review processes, online citation indexes and social media tools—that have become available over the past 20 years. One might have the impression that disruptive innovations are underway and that many of the well-established themes of digital transformation, such as business model and service innovation, disintermediation, ProSuming and new pricing models, have had a profound impact on the market of scientific journals. Nonetheless, the commercial academic publishing houses (the incumbents) so far have not only successfully defended but even extended their market position. By categorizing the innovations underway and relating them to the constellation of actors in this market, the authors reflect on and try to explain the lasting influence of traditional publishers in the market.

Google Scholar's Filter Bubble

This chapter investigates the allegation that popular online search engine Google applies algorithms to personalise search results therefore yielding different results for the exact same search terms. It specifically examines whether the same alleged filter bubble applies to Google's academic product: Google Scholar. It reports the results from an exploratory experiment of nine keywords carried out for this purpose, varying variables such as disciplines (Natural Science, Social Science and Humanities), geographic locations (north/south), and levels (senior/junior researchers). It also reports a short survey on academic search behaviour. The finding suggests that while Google Scholar, together with Google, has emerged as THE dominant search engine among the participants of this study, the alleged filter bubble is only mildly observable. The Jaccard similarity of search results for all nine keywords is strikingly high, with only one keyword that exhibits a localized bubble at 95% level. This chapter therefore concludes that the filter bubble phenomenon does not warrant concern.

Academics' Active and Passive Use of YouTube for Research and Leisure

This chapter presents findings from a survey study regarding academics' use of YouTube videos for research and leisure. The results are based on a large-scale survey which reflects responses from over 1,800 researchers based at 12 Russell Group universities in the UK. The results suggest that YouTube has been a very popular entertainment tool. The majority of academics have watched YouTube videos for leisure purposes whilst almost half of them watched YouTube videos for academic purposes. However, active uses of YouTube for posting videos were still limited. There were some differences in the extent of active/passive use of YouTube between groups in terms of academic discipline, age and seniority. Academics who had received social media training, recommendations from colleagues, had teaching duties and positive attitudes towards YouTube as a means of dissemination, were more likely to post videos on YouTube for research purposes. Additionally, academics who owned a smartphone were more likely to post videos on YouTube for leisure purposes.

Digital Identity of Researchers 2.0

This chapter results from an investigation into the digital identity of a community of researchers, part of a PhD study on Education focused on Personal Learning Networks (PLN). Today the social web is a massive reality in academic research, which leads to question the importance of the digital presence of researchers in these informal contexts and how they relate to each other. With the evolution of the internet, new challenges are posed to researchers, both socially (social web) and academically. Immersion in these digital environments promotes the development of open research practices, with evidence of interactions between group members, stressing the collaborative way we interact in the context of learning throughout life. Thus, the social web allows the researcher 2.0 to access the work of other researchers quickly and effectively, sharing content and collaborating with others through a PLN. This personal network requires a range of skills related to the digital identity of researchers, considering the environment in which they are operating.

The Hook, Woo, and Spin

Academics using social media in the university are now a significant issue as it is being used to influence outcomes of research and teaching. Academics are conducting their scholarly lives on social media in ways that make relations with others, and their university visible. Academics create hooks for others to be interested in the work, woo them with scholarly identity work and ways of being on social media, and spin the stories of their research. In the Academics Who Tweet project the authors focused on how academics used Twitter as a research tool, developed and maintained research networks, and for professional development. This chapter draws on findings from one interview to attend to the multiple ways academics use, think about, and research with social media. This research is significant as it is focused on academics' conceptualizations of social media use and how they think it supports their professional practices.

Exploring Digital Scholarship

Social media are increasingly perceived as powerful drivers of change for research practices, in terms of openness, sharing and sociability. Numerous studies have reported benefits and factors affecting the progressive adoption of these sites especially for scholarly communication. However, extensive studies that are carried out with large samples at a national level are still rare. This chapter reports the results of a survey addressed to Italian academic scholars, the purpose of which was to identify frequency and way of use of a number of social media tools (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, YouTube, Vimeo, SlideShare, Blogs, and Wikis). The study aims at providing evidence on how academic scholars are using social media for scholarly purposes, also by taking into account a number of factors such as gender, age, years of teaching, academic title, and field of knowledge. It also investigates the most valuable tools and the main reasons for use in academic practices. Results of quantitative and qualitative analysis are provided along with considerations for further research.

Alternative Research Funding Mechanisms

Funding affects how science is carried out. Over the last 50 years, the core of science funding has become competitive, project based and increasingly oriented towards societal challenges. Recently, alternative, more open and flexible funding mechanisms have emerged, such as crowdfunding, philanthropy and bottom-up mechanisms. This chapter analyses the development and implications of alternative funding mechanisms for science, through an umbrella literature review complemented by case studies. It concludes that alternative funding are an important component of research funding, which provides new opportunities especially for niche and unrecognized research, and require stronger communication skills by researchers. However, they can't and should not substitute traditional mechanisms. Researchers, institutions and funding agencies should redesign their activity accounting for a plurality of funding instruments, and facilitate collaboration between them.

Writing Groups in the Digital Age

Social media writing groups are an emerging phenomenon in the academic world. Combining the discipline, mentorship, and peer support of face-to-face writing groups, with the convenience, global reach, and interdisciplinary networks of social media, they offer a way for scholars to apply new digital technologies to the old problem of developing, maintaining, and protecting an academic writing practice. Despite their growing popularity, however, there has been little critical or empirical analysis of these groups. Using Shut Up & Write Tuesdays (SUWT) as a case study, this chapter examines the purpose, use, outcomes, and challenges of a social media writing group for academics. Usage data from the three SUWT Twitter accounts, a survey of SUWT participants, and the narrative reflections of the SUWT hosts, are drawn together to highlight the value, strengths, and limitations of social media writing groups as a scholarly activity in the digital age.

Visibility of Scholarly Research and Changing Research Communication Practices

Scholars globally are increasingly required to account for the visibility and impact of their research, and visibility and impact are increasingly digitally-mediated through the platforms and practices associated with Web 2.0. Traditional prestige-based metrics of visibility (ISI/WoS Impact Factor) measure only scholar-to-scholar outputs like journals and books. In many African universities with nascent research cultures, legacies of colonialism and imperatives of national development, these measures present scholars with particular challenges. At the same time, in the North, moves towards Open Access, along with the potential of Web 2.0 technologies for increasing visibility of research, offer the potential for changes to traditional measures of assessing impact and visibility. Using a framework whereby the extent of change in research communication practices at all stages of the research process can be analysed, this paper reveals the pressures shaping African research communication practices and the visibility of research, using data from a case study at the University of Namibia.