Changing styles of informal academic communication in the age of the web: Orthodox, moderate and heterodox responses

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study to investigate the changes in scholarly communication practices among a group of scholars in the UK and build upon the results that were published in a previous paper. Design/methodology/approach The study deployed a naturalistic inquiry approach using semi-structured interviews as a qualitative research tool. A sample of 40 participants from four UK universities was interviewed to explore the changes in informal scholarly communication behaviour. Findings The analysis of the interviews revealed that there are three ideal types of behaviour: the “orthodox” uses formal and traditional scholarly communication approaches; the “moderate” prioritises formal communication approaches, but at the same time is trying to get benefits from informal channels; and, the “Heterodox” uses all channels available in the scholarly communication. Originality/value The value of the current study lies in using a naturalistic inquiry approach to investigate the changes in scholarly communication practices, and to explore the different scholarly communication styles. In the context of this study, the use of a naturalistic approach and grounded theory principles in connection with coding provided a stance that allows for the gathering of rich information to enable understanding and explanation of scholarly communication activities in addition to uncovering themes that related to scholarly behaviour.

[1]  Michael Mabe,et al.  The effect of the internet on researcher motivations, behaviour and attitudes , 2011, J. Documentation.

[2]  Ingemar Bohlin,et al.  Communication Regimes in Competition , 2004 .

[3]  Jeremy Birnholtz,et al.  Bridging Social and Awareness Networks in Distributed Research Collaboration , 2009 .

[4]  Belver C. Griffith,et al.  Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for Psychology , 1972, Inf. Storage Retr..

[5]  Sam Searle,et al.  Using Scenarios in Introductory Research Data Management Workshops for Library Staff , 2015, D Lib Mag..

[6]  Johan Bollen,et al.  How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations , 2012, PloS one.

[7]  Franz Barjak,et al.  The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  David Ellis,et al.  Chapter 2 The Emergence of Conceptual Modelling in Information Behaviour Research , 2011 .

[9]  Peter Neuhaus,et al.  "Blogs" and "wikis" are valuable software tools for communication within research groups. , 2005, Artificial organs.

[10]  Don Schauder,et al.  Electronic Publishing of Professional Articles: Attitudes of Academics and Implications for the Scholarly Communication Industry , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[11]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Returns to science: computer networks in oceanography , 1993, CACM.

[12]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  A Comparison of Information Seeking Using Search Engines and Social Networks , 2010, ICWSM.

[13]  Jane M. Russell,et al.  Scientific Communication at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century , 2001 .

[14]  Melissa Goertzen,et al.  Wired Academia: Why Social Science Scholars Are Using Social Media , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[15]  R. König,et al.  Academia Goes Facebook? The Potential of Social Network Sites in the Scholarly Realm , 2014 .

[16]  Yale M. Braunstein,et al.  Bibliometric Analysis of the Impact of Internet Use on Scholarly Productivity , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[17]  Allen Foster,et al.  The impact of information and communication technologies on informal scientific communication: a naturalistic inquiry approach , 2015 .

[18]  G. Eysenbach.  Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[19]  CHRISTINE L. BORGMAN,et al.  Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication , 2000, J. Documentation.

[20]  Uwe Matzat,et al.  Academic communication and Internet Discussion Groups: transfer of information or creation of social contacts? , 2004, Soc. Networks.

[21]  M. Patton.  Qualitative research & evaluation methods , 2002 .

[22]  John J. Regazzi.  Scholarly Communications: A History from Content as King to Content as Kingmaker , 2015 .

[23]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  G. Kirkup.  Academic blogging: academic practice and academic identity , 2010 .

[25]  Jason Priem,et al.  How and why scholars cite on Twitter , 2010, ASIST.

[26]  A. Hershkovitz,et al.  A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks , 2012, Internet High. Educ..

[27]  Bo-Christer Björk,et al.  A lifecycle model of the scientific communication process , 2005, Learn. Publ..

[28]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States , 2010 .

[29]  T. W. Ng.  Electronic digests in scientific communication , 1998, Internet Res..

[30]  Julie M. Hurd,et al.  The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020 , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[31]  P. Geurts,et al.  Forces and functions in scientific communication: an analysis of their interplay , 1997 .

[32]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  The role of online videos in research communication: A content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Mahmood Khosrowjerdi,et al.  Designing a viable scientific communication model: VSM approach , 2011, Libr. Hi Tech.

[34]  Uwe Matzat,et al.  Disciplinary differences in the use of internet discussion groups: differential communication needs or trust problems? , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..

[35]  Kristin Yiotis,et al.  The Open Access Initiative: A New Paradigm for Scholarly Communications , 2005 .

[36]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information: Revising and updating the UNISIST model , 2003, J. Documentation.

[37]  A. Barrett.  The information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the Humanities , 2005 .

[38]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  Collaboration in computer science: a network science approach. Part II , 2011, ArXiv.

[39]  Mary Kalantzis,et al.  Changing knowledge ecologies and the transformation of the scholarly journal , 2014 .

[40]  George Veletsianos,et al.  Higher education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter , 2012, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[41]  Belver C. Griffith,et al.  Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge. , 1971 .

[42]  Maria Spiropulu,et al.  The future of the , 2013 .

[43]  Fytton Rowland,et al.  The future of scholarly journal publishing , 2000, J. Documentation.

[44]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web , 2012, ArXiv.

[45]  Anatoliy A. Gruzd,et al.  Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[46]  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.

[47]  Christina K. Pikas.  THE IMPACT OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES ON INFORMAL SCHOLARLY SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION: A LITERATURE REVIEW , 2006 .

[48]  Mary Waltham.  The Future of Scholarly Journal Publishing among Social Science and Humanities Associations: Report on a Study Funded by a Planning Grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation , 2010 .

[49]  K. S Raghavan.  Open Access Remodeling Scholarly Communication , 2006 .

[50]  Carol Tenopir,et al.  Changes in the digital scholarly environment and issues of trust: An exploratory, qualitative analysis , 2016, Inf. Process. Manag..

[51]  D. Nicholas,et al.  Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms , 2016 .

[52]  Bill Cope,et al.  The future of the academic journal , 2009 .

[53]  Julie M. Hurd.  The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020 , 2000 .

[54]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? , 2014, Scientometrics.

[55]  Joel Cohen,et al.  Computer mediated communication and publication productivity among faculty , 1996, Internet Res..

[56]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want? , 2004, Learn. Publ..

[57]  Don Schauder.  Electronic publishing of professional articles: attitudes of academics and implications for the scholarly communication industry , 1994 .

[58]  Barrie Gunter,et al.  The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future , 2008, Aslib Proc..

[59]  Jennifer Rowley,et al.  Scientific publishing: a case study of Libyan scientists , 2009, Aslib Proc..

[60]  Mary Waltham.  The Future of Scholarly Journal Publishing among Social Science and Humanities Associations: Report on a Study Funded by a Planning Grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation , 2010 .

[61]  David Nicholas,et al.  Using, Citing and Publishing Scholarly Content in the Digital Age: Case Study of Humanities Researchers , 2015 .

[62]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Social media use in the research workflow , 2011, Inf. Serv. Use.

[63]  Gunilla Widén,et al.  Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study , 2011, Electron. Libr..

[64]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Social media use in the research workflow , 2011 .

[65]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  To search or to ask: the routing of information needs between traditional search engines and social networks , 2014, CSCW.

[66]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Scholarly communication in the digital environment: The 2005 survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes , 2005, Aslib Proc..

[67]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Connecting minds: computer-mediated communication and scientific work , 2000 .