Bringing Web2.0 to scholarly communication: publishers as

innovation intermediaries?

Innovation and Intermediaries• Social Learning –Social Shaping

– multiple, overlapping cycles of development and implementation (Rip, Misa & Schot 1995),

– Processes of negotiation and interaction that occur between diverse networks of players attempting to make technologies work - 'fitting them into the pre-existing heterogenous network of machines, systems, routines and culture’ (Sørensen 1996).

• Much trial and error. Much relationship building and breaking

• How and where does learning by interacting, doing, regulating etc actually happen,?

• What are, and who creates the hybrid spaces for experimentation and debate that bring together disparate actors and technologies; create temporary experimental zones at the boundaries of different socio-technical arenas?

• Draw on Sociology of Markets (Callon et al) and Social Network theory (Burt).

• (Stewart & Hyyslo 2008)

Innovation Intermediaries• Actors who create spaces and opportunities for

appropriation and generation of technical or cultural products by others.

• They are crucial in organizing user knowledge and experiences, and mediating between emerging users and producers in uncertain markets (Williams et al, 2005; Russell & Williams, 2002; Hyysalo, 2004;Pollock and Williams).

• Play an important role in the non-technical innovation that accompanies technology development and appropriation

Intermediaries in Pick and Mix

A:TechniciansB:Telecoms operatorsC: market research and usability consultantsD: retailers, advertisers E: various supply-side industry consultants F:User groups; user-developers; local experts

BRIDGE and the TROLL

Mapping intermediaries between supply and use

• Huge range of intermediaries between supply and use. Organisations and individuals.

• Play a Bridging Role• Become conservative GatekeepersIntermediaries->Innovation Intermediaries

– Established intermediaries often inadequate in innovation: they fail innovation.

– New intermediaries emerge to bridge the gaps: but fragile and overlooked.

• Tend to be clustered on supply side• What about those on the ‘user-side’?

Functions and Activities of Intermediaries

Intermediary functions (Howells, 2006) Bridging activities (Bessant & Rush, 1995)

1. Foresight and diagnostics 1.articulation of needs, selection of options

2. Scanning and information processing 2.identification of needs, selection training

3. Knowledge processing and (re)combination 3.creation of business cases

4. Gatekeeping and brokering 4.communications, development

5. Testing and validation 5. education, links to external info

6. Accreditation 6. project management, managing external resources, organizational development

7. Validation and regulation

8. Protecting the results

9. Commercialisation

10. Evaluation of outcomes

Example intermediaries

• End user intermediaries• Domestication intermediaries• Supply side intermediaries• Regulatory intermediaries• Market building intermediaries…• Thin v. thick, long v. short.

Core Intermediary Activities• Facilitation: making space to experiment

– Hybrid, and provisional facilities: e.g. technology, workshops, learning support etc • Configuring: rules, technology, visions, knowledge

– E.g. build representations of users, select technologies, filter knowledge, build frames

• Brokering: linking and bridging between users, suppliers and other stakeholders– Seek support from external players, lobby and make representations to outside

organisations.

• Play a key role in non-technical innovation• NOT selfless -

– Often try to make themselves OPP– Have to make themselves sustainable.– Struggle with issues of autonomy, legitimacy etc(Stewart, 2000)

(Need some more ways to measure, assess effectiveness in innovation)

New objects of study of Innovation intermediaries

Academic publishers• Standards bodies• Testbeds• Patent Pool management firms

Web2.0 In Scholarly Communication

• What is the role of Academic publishers in the introduction of Web2.0 services and practices to the research community?

• Are they users, technology developers, intermediaries?

What is Scholarly Communications?

A range of formal and informal communications:• In developing ideas, preparing, shaping and

disseminating formal results, • Pursuing personal careers, managing research

teams and research programmes;• In teaching and communicating scholarly ideas

to broader communities.

Context

• ‘Crisis’ in Publishing• Open Science Movement• Scholarly communication moves online• Globalisation of Research• Emphasis on interdisciplinary and inter-institutional research• Opening of Industry research (Pharma, IT)

• Mass market adoption of ‘Web2.0’

• Massive diversity in scholarly practice across disciplines, countries, institutions etc.

What is Web 2.0?“Web 2.0 encompasses a variety of different meanings that include an increased emphasis on user-generated content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort, together with the use of various kinds of social software, new ways of interacting with web-based applications, and the use of the web as a platform for generating, re-purposing and consuming content.”Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Feb. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Web2.0 Problems• Initially a business concept –

– A set of ideas about what sort of services survived the dot.com bust and would be successful web-based business.

– Very fuzzy edges – empirically and conceptually defined• ‘Science’ and academic scholarship has long exhibited

features explored in Web 2.0, but with 200+ years of history.

• Comparison with centralised information systems, not flexible tools like email or bulletin boards

• Web2.0 also a concept in practical development – Services not software– “perpetual beta” – etc

Web2.0 in SC: the utopia• Representation of the users: Highly social;

constantly looking for new ideas; frustrated by existing infrastructures and institutions etc

• Disruptive model of innovation: Web2.0 can improve and replace some practices and institutions that only exisit because past technical limitations

• Technology deterministic model: Web2.0 can replace blind peer review, break down disciplinary and organisational barriers, make publishers and libraries redundant

Research Methods

• Review of Literature on innovation in Scholarly Communication, and on the adoption and innovation of ICTs in research

• Survey of UK scholarly community to discover basic use and awareness.

• 50+ in-depth interviews on scholarly communications and Web 2.0.

• Case studies of promoters, developers and users of specific Web 2.0 services.

Demographics• 1308 completed responses, representing 0.8% of target population

– confidence interval +/- 2.5% at confidence level of 95%. • Comparing sample with age, sex, position and discipline for UK academic

population confirms no significant bias. • Three subgroups identified reflecting different degrees of adoption:

– early adopters (177, 14%) who do (at least one of) frequently: write a blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki; contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journal articles; post slides

– occasional users (570, 44%) who do (at least one of) occasionally: write a blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki; contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journal articles; post slides

– non-adopters (523, 40%) who never : write a blog; comment on others’ blogs; contribute to a private wiki; contribute to a public wiki; add comments to online journal articles; post slides

Adoption by age

• Youngest and Oldest lowest adopters

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

All respondents Early adopters Occasional users Non-adopters

Under 25

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and over

Adoption by position

Professors leading innovatorsPHD students lead all categories

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

All respondents Early adopters Occasional users Non-adopters

Professor

Reader

Senior Lecturer

Lecturer

Research Fellow

PhD Student

Adoption by genderLower use by Women

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

All respondents Early adopters Occasional users Non-adopters

Female

Male

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

All respondents Early adopters Occasional users Non-adopters

Medicine & Veterinary sciences

Biological sciences

Physical sciences

Computer science & Maths

Engineering

Economics & Social sciences

Arts & Humanities

Adoption by disciplineComputer science and bioinformatics leading innovatorsOtherwise very even spread.

Future of Peer Review

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All res

pond

ents

Early

adop

ters

Open

scien

tists

Blogge

rs

Social

net

worke

rs

Peer review increasinglyunsustainable

Peer reviewcomplemented by ratings,etc

New types of publicationwill become increasinglyimportant

Impact on Scholarly Communications

• Evidence of how Web 2.0 is changing behaviour:– production and use of ‘non-traditional’ content, such as

contributing to wikis, blogs, sharing slides– taking part in dissemination activities beyond of core

research field– sharing of work in progress and data beyond close groups

of colleagues– Some crowdsourcing– awareness and support for ‘Open Science’

Adoption/Non-adoption• We just want Google• Not ‘real science’• We go to the lowest common denominator• Too many things, no time to test them• We need standardised reliable tools• Saves so much time!; wastes so much time!

• Local communities basis for use• Career concerns dominate formal publishing• New forms of communication – the conference slides

Innovation in SC• Web2.0 innovation in parallel to changes in SC practices • Innovation environment more dynamic outside scholarly sector • Distributed innovation and trial processes : local communities of

use, local experts.• Scholars frequently use tools and ideas from outside organisation.• Huge disciplinary differences in resources, needs and practices.• IT services, libraries etc struggle to support

• Key social factors and barriers: VLEs, careers, University independence

Intermediaries in Scholarly Communication

In SC, Users are the producers. Core intermediary roles for:• Scholarly societies• Academic publishers• Universities

Serious role of maintaining the infrastructure of scholarship: quality, debate, exchange, archive etc.

We are also see new players: • Conference organisers,• Discipline, University and national repositories,• New publishers,• Self-publishing websites.• Also: workshops, personal websites, social networking sites etc.

Funders influence the the ground rules: e.g. Metrics; and provide the money for all the activities, e.g. publishing

HOW DO THESE SERVICE INTERMEDIARIES BEHAVE IN INNOVATION?

Static/Service intermediary

Innovation Activities Innovation Intermediary role

Scholarly Societies Focus, shape and legitimise research communities. Publish journals, run conference

Innovate to serve their community, and further core ideas and interests of members.

Put pressure on publishers and funders to change regimeEncourage discussion and innovation within communityCreate and configure new tools

Academic publishers Facilitate the production and distribution of peer-reviewed journals and books

Innovation to maintain market position: build the reputation of their journals and sell them

Encourage discussion and innovation within marketCreate and configure new tools with existing productsContribute to standardsHigh risk

University Structure careers, activities, IT and physical facilities etcGive researchers access to journals –

Provide training, Provide tools for SCPromote research, Set rules of local behaviour

Provide training to researchers, students, librarians and ITEncourage discussion in management and researchTest , buy, implement services, and provide supportoccasionally create original services and tools

Conference Organisers Provide face to face meetings and publish proceedings

Encourage attendance, gain contracts to run other conferences, gain sponsorship

Provide tools to enhance conference experienceProvide demonstrations to conference community.Low risk

The Academic Publishers• Nature Publishing Group• Public Library of Science• 10 year biographical histories• Take Web2.0 from ‘out there’ and try to fit it to their business and the

practices of scholarly communities

• Responding to Open Access and challenges to their business from users and funders, and innovations by other publishers

• Developing services to support users, editors, business with practical tools, and services that way encourage radical change in practice.

• User-side intermediaries; established service intermediaries

• Innovation approach: Experimental• Response of scholars: lukewarm.

NPG:The innovative establishment• Medium publisher. Top brand

“Nature“• Switch to internet early 2000s –

create a ‘platform’• Professionally Edited journals.

Branded and White label publishing

• Inspired by Web outside to create version of web2 to integrate with business – for end users or for themselves?

• Internal transformation of business

• Open access – resistant• ‘Leading promotor of Web2’ –

Timo Hannay• Recruited developer team from

new media, science blogs, chemistry

• ‘wiki’ editing – half hearted• Comments on articles• Connontea –social bookmarking

half hearted• Nature Networks

– Discussion of Web2.0 on Nature Networks

• Nature blogs. Blog aggregator• Videos• Data • Nature platform – rather closed

idea. • Contribution to standards around

Semantic web etc

PLOS: The radical newcomer.

• User innovation – set up by leading scientists

• Goal of improving quality of science

• 7 conventional open access journals

• Initial lobbying stage• Small team of

developers

Experiments: • Comments• PLOS One – open

ended, open access journal.

• PLOS Currents using Google tool

• Article Level Metrics

Role of ‘Users’• Who are the potential users?

– All readers and contributors: Attempt to reach these users, via editorials, the website, conferences, press etc.

– Editors (NPG)

• Users can benchmark publishers efforts against best WEB2.0 services outside.

• Developer practices: Interactive ‘Web2.0’ approach, ‘perpetual beta’, close interactions with users, exploit malleability of technologies and huge innovative effort ‘outside’.

• Who are the innovating users– Core enthusiasts: computational biologists, chemists

Resistance from Core business: Tension between traditional peer-review role (protected by editors), and innovative ideas managers and developers

Publishers role in Social LearningFacilitation: making space to experiment• Yes, in journals, websites, but not much. Not focused enough• Too complicated, too much competition – scholars not

interested in single publisher

Configuring: rules, technology, visions, knowledge• Technical Configurations not always very good – no original

technology; visions strong, but too radical; not enough influence to change the rules; important contribution to discourse.

Brokering: linking and bridging between users, suppliers and other stakeholders

• Lobbying, network building, promoting vision, but seen by many as the ‘bad guys’

• NOT selfless - – Often try to make themselves OPP: try to maintain the position– Have to make themselves sustainable:

Problematic SL diagram

Innovating Scholars

Innovating Scholars

PublishersPublishers

Good intermediaries?• Are there metrics for assessing effectiveness of

intermediaries in innovation? Could they do better?• What did they do right, what wrong, could they do any

better anyway?– Normal innovation intermediaries– Limited resources (unlike tech firms)– They do act as Bridges, but are self- interested– Too embedded in system – difficult to be too radical.– The network is too rigid for them to precipitate change,

but actually provide a window for experimentation.– Maintaining their obligatory position – we cannot do

without them.