Updating the Standard Model of Scholarly Communication inConsideration of the Use of

Social Computing Technologies

Christina K. Pikascpikas@umd.edu

Please feel free to blog, tweet, photograph, or otherwise share this presentation.

Problem

• The Garvey & Griffith model (1967, 1972, 1979) is frequently used as the standard model of scholarly communication in science.

• It has several shortcomings that limit its utility in the current environment. These are due in part to the blurring of:– Informal ↔ Formal– Scholarly ↔ Popular– Archival ↔ Ephemeral– Production ↔ Distribution

Agenda

• The standard model

• Other suggested updates

• Social computing technologies– What they are– Why they matter

• Additional dimensions for the model

The Standard Model

ResearchInitiated

ResearchCompleted

PreliminaryReports

A& I ServicesConferenceProceedings

ConferenceReports

ManuscriptSubmitted

AppearanceIn “Accepted”

JournalPublication

A&I Services

ReviewArticles

Article isCited

Pre-printsDistributed

Hurd’s (1996) representation of the Garvey-Griffith Model

Features

• As you move from left to right– Work is less specific, details are lost– The audience is broader, less targeted– Time passes and immediacy is lost– Work is archived and retrievable

• Omits– Popular communication– Sharing of datasets, modules, protocols

Formal: journal articles, books

•Has been reviewed by peers (“certified”)

•Is archived and retrievable

•Is distributed widely

Informal: conference papers, posters, reports, hallway conversations, e-mail…

•Typically not peer-reviewed to the same level

•Might not be archived and difficult to retrieve

•Provides more context

Scholarly:with other scientists, often within the discipline or invisible college

•Shared background or training

•Assertions are moderated by “it seems” and other rhetorical approaches

Popular:with “the public”

•Not specifically included in the model

•Textbooks are mentioned as the most abstract, with the fewest details, presenting “facts” in retrospect

Archival:

•Materials are preserved indefinitely

•Extensive infrastructure (publishing/libraries) has been developed to facilitate retrieval

Ephemeral:

•Only available to participants

•Remembered or saved in notes

Agenda

• The standard model

• Other suggested updates

• Social computing technologies– What they are– Why they matter

• Additional dimensions for the model

E-mail, Listservs, E-journals

• Hurd (1996) suggests that changes to this system may be– Modernizations– Journal-less– Unvetted– Collaboratory

• But Kling & McKim (2000), among others, noted that nothing is inevitable

• Most prevalent model for e-Journals is the electronic version of the print (Hahn, 1999)

Popularization Continuum

• Communication with the press and outside of science happens at all stages of the work from the grant application through discussion of completed work after publication

• Lewenstein (1995) suggests a sphere of science communication

• Paul (1994) describes the use of popular works in scholarly works and vice versa

Agenda

• The standard model

• Other suggested updates

• Social computing technologies– What they are– Why they matter

• Additional dimensions for the model

SCTs

• My term for Web 2.0, social software, social networking– Includes blogging, micro-blogging (e.g.,

Twitter), wikis, RSS, social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), social aggregators, social bookmarking…

• Technologies that enable– Social interaction online– Contributions by individual authors– Easy linking and sharing of media

In Science

• Scientists are using these tools

• Some are using these tools to do “open science”– Wikis as lab notebooks– Open collaboration tools– Sharing presentations – while they are being

revised

• Defined by format, but this format supports recent changes in how science is done– Increased pace– Sharing of data, modules, protocols– Annotation of information objects such as

pictures, graphs, posters, conference presentations

– Computational thinking

• Do these tools change how science is done or facilitate/enable new ways of doing science?

Are they different?

• Mixed formal and informal• Distribution

– Widely available– More easily retrieved than many journal

articles

• Content is not precisely ephemeral, but might not be preserved if care is not taken

• Certification or authority– Peer review – stable text on Wikipedia?– In-links, “likes”, comments?

Agenda

• The standard model

• Other suggested updates

• Social computing technologies– What they are– Why they matter

• Additional dimensions for the model

Some Additional Dimensions

• Instead of a linear model with stages, each with one or the other feature, we have diverse and multiple communication activities throughout scientific work.

• Some dimensions are suggested:– Completeness– Access– Expected audience, actual audience

Dimensions

• Completeness– A journal article– A data set

• Access– Is available?– What barriers? (code, cost, intellectual, etc.)

• Audience– Intended – participants

Take Home Messages

• A new or revised model of communication in science is required to understand the interactions among ICTs, the social system of science, and how science is done.

• New dimensions should address issues of access, completeness, and expected audience

Christina K. Pikas

Doctoral Student

University of Maryland

College of Information Studies

cpikas@umd.edu

ReferencesGarvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating

information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon Press.

Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1967). Scientific communication as a social system. Science, 157, 1011-1016.

Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines - empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(3), 123-136.

Hahn, K.L. (1999).  Electronic journals as innovations: A study of author and editor early adopters. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 9926786).

Hurd, J. M. (1996). Models of scientific communications systems. In S. Y. Crawford, J. M. Hurd & A. C. Weller (Eds.), From print to electronic: The transformation of scientific communication (pp. 9-33). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320

Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403-436. doi:10.1177/030631295025003001

Paul, D. (2004). Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of scientific ideas. Written Communication, 21(1), 32-68. doi:10.1177/0741088303261035