How and why physicists and chemists use blogs

This study examined how and why chemists and physicists blog. Two qualitative methods were used: content analysis of blog and “about” pages, and in-depth responsive interviews with chemists and physicists who maintain blogs. Analysis of the data yielded several cross-cutting themes that provide a window into how physicists and chemists use their blogs, and what value they receive from maintaining a blog and participating in a blogging community. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for supporting scientists’ work.

[1]  Marilyn Domas White,et al.  Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology , 2006, Libr. Trends.

[2]  L. Bonetta.  Scientists Enter the Blogosphere , 2007, Cell.

[3]  Daniel C. Brouwer,et al.  Public Intellectuals, Public Life, and the University , 2003 .

[4]  John P. Walsh,et al.  The Virtual College: Computer-Mediated Communication and Scientific Work , 1996, Inf. Soc..

[5]  Kalpana Shankar.  Order from chaos: The poetics and pragmatics of scientific recordkeeping , 2007 .

[6]  Franz Barjak,et al.  On the integration of the Internet into informal science communication , 2004 .

[7]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[8]  Robert S. Allen.  Physics Information and Scientific Communication: Information Sources and Communication Patterns , 1991 .

[9]  Torill Mortensen,et al.  Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an online research tool , 2002 .

[10]  David L. Altheide.  Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis , 1987 .

[11]  E. Guba,et al.  Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. , 1982 .

[12]  M. Weigold,et al.  Communicating Science , 2001 .

[13]  Diana Crane,et al.  Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities , 1972, Medical History.

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

[15]  Ronald G. Ragsdale,et al.  A Process Perspective on Participation in Scholarly Electronic Forums , 1997 .

[16]  Matt Carlson,et al.  BLOGS AND JOURNALISTIC AUTHORITY , 2007 .

[17]  Rob Kling,et al.  Not Just a Matter of Time: Field Differences and the Shaping of Electronic Media , 1999 .

[18]  Reijo Savolainen,et al.  Field differences in the use and perceived usefulness of scholarly mailing lists , 2004, Inf. Res..

[19]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration , 1990, CSCW '88.

[20]  Inna Kouper,et al.  Longitudinal Content Analysis of Blogs: 2003–2004 , 2012 .

[21]  Nicola Döring,et al.  Personal Home Pages on the Web: A Review of Research , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[22]  H. Rubin,et al.  Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data , 1995 .

[23]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[24]  Eva Amsen.  Who Benefits From Science Blogging , 2008 .

[25]  Lois Ann Scheidt,et al.  Bridging the gap: a genre analysis of Weblogs , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[26]  Bonnie A. Nardi,et al.  Why we blog , 2004, CACM.

[27]  William E. Jones,et al.  Context in information behavior research , 2007 .

[28]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Computer Network Use, Collaboration Structures, and Productivity , 2002 .

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

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

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

[32]  Gilad Mishne.  Using Blog Properties to Improve Retrieval , 2007, ICWSM.

[33]  Jill Walker,et al.  Blogging from inside the ivory tower , 2006 .

[34]  Janet Vertesi,et al.  To have and to hold: exploring the personal archive , 2006, CHI.

[35]  P. Mayring.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[36]  Svein Kyvik,et al.  Popular Science Publishing and Contributions to Public Discourse among University Faculty , 2005 .

[37]  Roberta Lamb,et al.  Information and Communication Technology Challenges to Scientific Professional Identity , 2005, Inf. Soc..

[38]  Jochen Gläser,et al.  What Internet Use Does and Does Not Change in Scientific Communities , 2003 .

[39]  Marija Norvaisaite.  Review of: Cronin, Blaise (ed.). Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST). Vol 42, 2008. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., [2007] , 2008, Inf. Res..

[40]  R. Lomas.  “The Invisible College” , 1960, British medical journal.

[41]  G. Myers.  Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries , 2003 .

[42]  M. Gregg.  Feeling Ordinary: Blogging1 as Conversational Scholarship , 2006 .

[43]  Eileen G. Abels,et al.  Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions: part I: queries , 1996 .

[44]  W. D. Garvey,et al.  Scientific communication as a social system. The exchange of information on research evolves predictably and can be experimentally modified. , 1967, Science.

[45]  David L. Altheide.  Ethnographic Content Analysis , 1987 .