pikas research day 2011

1
Communication in science: toward a descriptive conceptual framework Christina K. Pikas Why Communication is vital to science; understanding how communication works enables us to support scientific work. The existing body of research describing communication in science is distributed across many different disciplines, sometimes not co-citing or building upon one another. What and how A conceptual framework provides the dimensions useful to understand communication in science. The preliminary framework was developed through a review of the literature and preliminary analysis of social computing tools in use in science. Preliminary framework For additional information The poster will be posted to http:// www.slideshare.net/cpikas . Updates on the study will be posted to twitter (@cpikas) and my blog at http://scientopia.org/blogs/christinaslisr ant . Testing and improving the framework Two in-depth case studies of two specific social computing technologies used in geosciences. Courtesy Storm Crypt cc-by-nc-nd http ://www.flickr.com/photos/21366409@N00/30405 87311 / Courtesy of SergioTudela cc-by http://www.flickr.com/ph otos/27983776@N03/347931 4094/ Courtesy WSDOT cc by-nc-nd http://www.flickr.com/photos/78217 71@N05/4008614741/ Courtesy kevinzim cc by http://www.flickr.com/photos/86624586@N 00/10199206 Scientists are using new social computing technologies (e.g., blogs, microblogs, wikis), but studies of new technologies are often done as if the new technology was created in a vacuum, and not an evolution of the communication system. Any study risks becoming dated quickly because the technologies change as do the uses New technologies allow scientists to do different things but they also help scientists do the same things faster, over longer distances, among other things. Scientists adapt the technologies to their needs but also adapt to the new technologies •Interviews with participants and non-participants •Content analysis •Participant observation Name Description 1 Communication Partners 1.1 Number of communication partners Varies from one-to-one to broadcasting to a crowd. May also include an unknown audience. 1.2 Education or sophistication Varies from members of the specific research area with in- depth specialized knowledge to members of the public with little or no scientific training. 1.3 Match of communication partners To what extent the characteristics of the communication partners match 2 Purpose 2.1 Dissemination To make available the results of research. Sub categories include: discourse, social benefit, identity, and rewards 2.2 Certification To register ideas and to claim priority 2.3 Preservation To assure the continuing availability of the work 2.4 Learning/teaching To teach in classes and mentees but also to learn through writing 2.5 Persuasion To convince readers of the interpretation in an article or the worth of a grant application 2.6 Evaluation /opinion An example of this is reviewers for grants and journal articles 2.7 Social To form and maintain relationships and establish common ground 2.8 Entertainment Examples include science puzzles in society publications 3 Features of the message 3.1 Topic 3.2 Type of content Includes data, instructions (methods, algorithms, protocols), analysis, or theory. 3.3 Structure From well structured to free text or unstructured. 3.4 Persistence If the message is expected to become a permanent record or to be ephemeral 3.5 Review or quality control The extent to which the communication is reviewed, edited, or curated prior to or after transmission 4 Communication channel 4.1 Face-to-face 4.2 Mediated Includes these aspects: copresence, visibility, audibility, cotemporality, simultaneity, sequentiality, reviewability

Upload: christina-pikas

Post on 12-Nov-2014

347 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Poster presenting my conceptual framework

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pikas research day 2011

Communication in science: toward a descriptive conceptual frameworkChristina K. Pikas

WhyCommunication is vital to science; understanding how communication works enables us to support scientific work. The existing body of research describing communication in science is distributed across many different disciplines, sometimes not co-citing or building upon one another.

What and howA conceptual framework provides the dimensions useful to understand communication in science.

The preliminary framework was developed through a review of the literature and preliminary analysis of social computing tools in use in science.

Preliminary framework

For additional [email protected] poster will be posted to http://www.slideshare.net/cpikas. Updates on the study will be posted to twitter (@cpikas) and my blog at http://scientopia.org/blogs/christinaslisrant .

Testing and improving the frameworkTwo in-depth case studies of two specific social computing technologies used in geosciences.

Courtesy Storm Crypt cc-by-nc-nd http://www.flickr.com/photos/21366409@N00/3040587311/

Courtesy of SergioTudela cc-by http://www.flickr.com/photos/27983776@N03/3479314094/

Courtesy WSDOT cc by-nc-nd http://www.flickr.com/photos/7821771@N05/4008614741/

Courtesy kevinzim cc by http://www.flickr.com/photos/86624586@N00/10199206

Scientists are using new social computing technologies (e.g., blogs, microblogs, wikis), but studies of new technologies are often done as if the new technology was created in a vacuum, and not an evolution of the communication system. Any study risks becoming dated quickly because the technologies change as do the uses

New technologies allow scientists to do different things but they also help scientists do the same things faster, over longer distances, among other things. Scientists adapt the technologies to their needs but also adapt to the new technologies

• Interviews with participants and non-participants• Content analysis• Participant observation

Name Description1 Communication Partners

1.1 Number of communication partners Varies from one-to-one to broadcasting to a crowd. May also include an unknown audience.

1.2 Education or sophistication Varies from members of the specific research area with in-depth specialized knowledge to members of the public with little or no scientific training.

1.3 Match of communication partners To what extent the characteristics of the communication partners match

2 Purpose

2.1 Dissemination To make available the results of research. Sub categories include: discourse, social benefit, identity, and rewards

2.2 Certification To register ideas and to claim priority

2.3 Preservation To assure the continuing availability of the work

2.4 Learning/teaching To teach in classes and mentees but also to learn through writing

2.5 Persuasion To convince readers of the interpretation in an article or the worth of a grant application

2.6 Evaluation /opinion An example of this is reviewers for grants and journal articles

2.7 Social To form and maintain relationships and establish common ground

2.8 Entertainment Examples include science puzzles in society publications

3 Features of the message

3.1 Topic

3.2 Type of content Includes data, instructions (methods, algorithms, protocols), analysis, or theory.

3.3 Structure From well structured to free text or unstructured.

3.4 Persistence If the message is expected to become a permanent record or to be ephemeral

3.5 Review or quality control The extent to which the communication is reviewed, edited, or curated prior to or after transmission

4 Communication channel

4.1 Face-to-face

4.2 Mediated Includes these aspects: copresence, visibility, audibility, cotemporality, simultaneity, sequentiality, reviewability