Mining and Visualizing Research Networks Using the Artefact-Actor-Network Approach

Virtual communities are increasingly relying on technologies and tools of the so-called Web 2.0. In the context of scientific events and topical Research Networks, researchers use Social Media as one main communication channel. This raises the question how to monitor and analyze such Research Networks. In this chapter, we argue that Artefact-Actor-Networks (AANs) serve well for modeling, storing, and mining the social interactions around digital learning resources originating from various learning services. In order to deepen the model of AANs and its application to Research Networks, a relevant theoretical background as well as clues for a prototypical reference implementation are provided. This is followed by the analysis of six Research Networks and a detailed inspection of the results. Moreover, selected networks are visualized. Research Networks of the same type show similar descriptive measures while different types are not directly comparable to each other. Further, our analysis shows that narrowness of a Research Network’s subject area can be predicted using the connectedness of semantic similarity networks. Finally, conclusions are drawn and implications for future research are discussed.

[1]  Oliver Tacke,et al.  Open Science 2.0: How Research and Education Can Benefit from Open Innovation and Web 2.0 , 2010 .

[2]  E. Prud hommeaux,et al.  SPARQL query language for RDF , 2011 .

[3]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Artefact-Actor-Networks as tie between social networks and artefact networks , 2009, 2009 5th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing.

[4]  D. Hindman The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier , 1996 .

[5]  D. Butler Science in the web age: Joint efforts , 2005, Nature.

[6]  Karin D. Knorr-Cetina Sociality with Objects : Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies , 1997 .

[7]  Michael McGill,et al.  Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval , 1983 .

[8]  Erik Duval,et al.  Automatic keywords extraction - a basis for content recommendation , 2010 .

[9]  R. Procter,et al.  Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[10]  Erik Duval,et al.  Components of a Research 2.0 Infrastructure , 2010, EC-TEL.

[11]  Amy Jo Kim,et al.  Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities , 2000 .

[12]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional-design Theories and Models : A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume II , 1999 .

[13]  Patricia R. Webb Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community , 1996 .

[14]  Susan M. Land,et al.  Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models , 2013 .

[15]  Charles Wankel,et al.  Educating Educators with Social Media , 2011 .

[16]  B. Wellman Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking , 2001 .

[17]  Mark William Johnson,et al.  Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the Dominant Design of Educational Systems , 2006, EC-TEL Workshops.

[18]  Luciano Paccagnella,et al.  Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[19]  Rob Koper,et al.  Learning Networks: connecting people, organizations, autonomous agents and learning resources to establish the emergence of effective lifelong learning , 2002 .

[20]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[21]  Kevin Oliver,et al.  Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study , 2001 .

[22]  Katrin Weller,et al.  Social Software in Academia: Three Studies on Users' Acceptance of Web 2.0 Services , 2010 .

[23]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Modeling, obtaining and storing data from social media tools with Artefact-Actor-Networks , 2010, LWA.

[24]  Rob Koper,et al.  Learning Network Services for Professional Development , 2009 .

[25]  W. Reinhard,et al.  How people are using Twitter during conferences , 2009 .

[26]  M. Waldrop,et al.  Science 2.0. , 2008, Scientific American.

[27]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Future social learning networks at universities – an exploratory seminar setting , 2011 .

[28]  G. Fischer Communities of Interest: Learning through the Interaction of Multiple Knowledge Systems , 2001 .

[29]  Gerard Salton,et al.  Term-Weighting Approaches in Automatic Text Retrieval , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[30]  Stefanie N. Lindstaedt,et al.  Science 2.0 Practices in the Field of Technology Enhanced Learning , 2009 .

[31]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  OWL: Web Ontology Language , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[32]  Peter Sloep,et al.  Social Interaction in Learning Networks , 2009 .