Technology use across a campus

Analyzing the use of web 2.0 Analyzing the use of web 2.0 tools by researchers across a tools by researchers across a regional UK Universityregional UK University

Analyzing the use of web 2.0 Analyzing the use of web 2.0 tools by researchers across a tools by researchers across a regional UK Universityregional UK University

Dr Nick Pearce

Centre for e-Science

Lancaster University

4th International Conference on e-Social Science 2008

OutlineOutlineOutlineOutline

• Disciplinary differences and ICT

• Summary of results

• Tentative conclusions


Technology change in academiaTechnology change in academiaTechnology change in academiaTechnology change in academia

• Revolutionary promises since early ‘80s

• Compare:– “1. Integrated methods for creating, accessing, (…) and

manipulating information.– 2. More efficient processes and tools for … research.– 3. Enhanced group interactions with more sharing of work and

more joint exploration of ideas” (SDF 1983, cited in Shields 1995)

– With contemporary definitions of e-science


E-science Vs web 2.0E-science Vs web 2.0E-science Vs web 2.0E-science Vs web 2.0

• E-science– developed for

researchers– Adoption at

institutional or project level.

– Limited adoption– Barriers to entry

(funding, technology, expertise)

– E.g. Access Grid

• Web 2.0– Developed for general

use, adopted by researchers

– Individual adoption– Wider adoption– Low barriers to entry– E.g. MSN


Disciplinary differences and ICTDisciplinary differences and ICTDisciplinary differences and ICTDisciplinary differences and ICT

• Becher and Trowler (2001)– Disciplinary culture affected by epistemology– Hard/ soft applied/pure

• Fry (2004,2006,2007)– “…fields that have a highly politicized and tightly

controlled research culture will develop a coherent field-based strategy for the uptake and use of ICTs, whereas domains that are pluralistic and have a loosely organized research culture will appropriate ICTs in an ad-hoc localized manner.” (Fry 2004)


Xu and Meyer’s (2007) studyXu and Meyer’s (2007) studyXu and Meyer’s (2007) studyXu and Meyer’s (2007) study

• Secondary analysis of data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty– Data from 1999

• Restricted idea of technology use

• Large sample size (4,293)

• Complex conclusions


Lancaster UniversityLancaster UniversityLancaster UniversityLancaster University

• Fairly new (est. 1967)

• Mid sized– 16k UG students– Of which 3k PG students– 2.5k staff (just less than 900 academic)

• Research led

• Organised into 3 faculties


Response RateResponse RateResponse RateResponse Rate

Faculty Research Staff

Responses

Response Rate

FST 470 105 22.3

FASS 250 52 20.8

MS 141 37 26.2

Total 861 194 22.5


Methods for discovering relevant Methods for discovering relevant academic references (%)academic references (%)Methods for discovering relevant Methods for discovering relevant academic references (%)academic references (%)

Faculty Reading Colleagues Database Web search Journal notifications

e-mail list

Google scholar

Wikipedia RSS

FST 88 77 77 63 42 26 53 26 5

FASS 95 88 94 72 53 42 66 31 11

MS 91 78 81 59 57 28 57 12 3


Managing references (%)Managing references (%)Managing references (%)Managing references (%)

Faculty Specialist Software Cut and paste Custom db Paper methods

FST 50 34 20 40

FASS 53 51 12 24

MS 50 33 14 38


Use of ICT tools (%)Use of ICT tools (%)Use of ICT tools (%)Use of ICT tools (%)

Faculty Instant Messaging Conference calls Desktop video conference

Access Grid(n=155)[1]

FST 30 25 9 10

FASS 23 25 6 9

MS 35 24 13 21

[1] There was a separate series of questions about Access Grid, hence the difference in numbers of responses. The results have been included here for simplicity.


Project use of ICTProject use of ICTProject use of ICTProject use of ICT

Faculty Website Wiki Blog

FST 38 15 2

FASS 44 12 12

MS 38 11 8


Blog readership and authorship (%) Blog readership and authorship (%) (n=192)(n=192)Blog readership and authorship (%) Blog readership and authorship (%) (n=192)(n=192)

Faculty Read Write

FST 18 2

FASS 31 8

MS 8 3


Tentative ConclusionsTentative ConclusionsTentative ConclusionsTentative Conclusions

• Considerable variety across faculties

• Wide variety of tools used to help research– More often web 2 than e-science?

• Hopefully a fuller analysis of the results will help determine the factors which affect uptake of new technologies

• More information (and a report) is available at redress.lancs.ac.uk/survey


FeedbackFeedbackFeedbackFeedback

• Any questions, comments or feedback to– [email protected]