• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Social Networking Tools for Informal Scholarly Communication Prove Popular for Academics at Two Universities
【24h】

Social Networking Tools for Informal Scholarly Communication Prove Popular for Academics at Two Universities

机译：非正式学术交流的社交工具在两所大学中广受欢迎

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective – To investigate the adoption, use, perceived impact of, and barriers to using social networking tools for scholarly communication at two universities. Design – Cross-institutional quantitative study using an online survey. Setting – Academics working in the disciplines of the humanities and social sciences at two universities: one in Europe and one in the Middle East. Methods – An online survey was devised based on a previous survey (Al-Aufi, 2007) and informed by relevant research. The survey was piloted by 10 academics at the 2 participating universities. Post pilot it was revised and then circulated to all academics from similar faculties at two universities. Three follow up emails were sent to both sets of academics. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Descriptive and inferential statistics were analyzed using ANOVA tests. Main Results – The survey achieved a 34% response rate (n=130). The majority of participants were from the university based in the Middle East and were male (70.8%). Most of the responses were from academics under 40 years of age. The use of notebooks was prevalent at both universities. “Notebooks” is used as a term to describe laptops, netbooks, or ultra-book computers. The majority reported use of social networking tools for informal scholarly communication (70.1%), valuing this type of use. 29.9% of respondents reported they do not use social networking tools for this purpose. Barriers were identified as lack of incentive, digital literacy, training, and concerns over Internet security. Among the non-users, barriers included low interest in their use and a perceived lack of relevancy of such tools for scholarly communication. The types of tools used the most were those with social connection functions, such as Facebook and Twitter. The tools used the least were social bookmarking tools. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test indicated that there was no significant difference at the 0.05 level between the use of social networking tools at both universities, with the exception of using tools to communicate with researchers locally and with publishers at one of the universities. Both universities use tools for communication with peers and academics internationally. The responses were mainly positive towards the perceived usefulness of social networking tools for informal scholarly communication. Conclusion – The authors conclude that despite the small sample of the community of academics investigated, there is a general trend towards increasing use and popularity of social networking tools amongst academics in the humanities and social sciences disciplines. As technology advances, the use of such tools is likely to increase and advance among academics. The authors point to pathways for future research including expanding the methods to include interviews, focus groups, and case studies. Another angle for research of interest is interdisciplinary differences in the use of prevalent tools such as Facebook and Twitter.
机译：目的–研究在两所大学中使用社交网络工具进行学术交流的方式，使用，感知的影响以及障碍。设计–使用在线调查进行跨机构的定量研究。背景–两所大学从事人文社会科学学科研究的学者：一所在欧洲，一所在中东。方法–根据先前的调查（Al-Aufi，2007年）设计了在线调查，并从相关研究中获悉。这项调查是由2所参与大学的10名学者进行的。试点后对其进行了修订，然后分发给了两所大学类似学院的所有学者。向这两组学者发送了三封后续电子邮件。使用社会科学统计软件包（SPSS）软件对数据进行了分析。使用方差分析对描述性和推论统计进行分析。主要结果–该调查的回应率为34％（n = 130）。大部分参与者来自中东的大学，并且是男性（70.8％）。大多数答复来自40岁以下的学者。两所大学都普遍使用笔记本电脑。 “笔记本”被用作描述笔记本电脑，上网本或超级笔记本计算机的术语。大多数人报告了社交网络工具用于非正式学术交流的使用率（70.1％），对这种使用方式进行了评估。 29.9％的受访者表示，他们没有为此目的使用社交网络工具。障碍被确定为缺乏激励，数字素养，培训以及对互联网安全的担忧。在非用户中，障碍包括对它们的使用兴趣不高以及认为此类工具与学术交流缺乏相关性。使用最多的工具类型是具有社交联系功能的工具，例如Facebook和Twitter。使用最少的工具是社交书签工具。单向方差分析（ANOVA）检验表明，两所大学使用社交网络工具之间在0.05水平上没有显着差异，除了使用工具与本地研究人员和其中一处的出版商进行交流之外大学。两所大学都使用工具与国际同行和学者进行交流。回答主要是对社交网络工具对非正式学术交流的有用性产生积极影响。结论–作者得出的结论是，尽管所调查的学者社区样本很少，但在人文和社会科学学科的学者中，社会网络工具的使用和普及程度普遍呈上升趋势。随着技术的进步，此类工具的使用可能会在学者中增加和发展。作者指出了未来研究的途径，包括将方法扩展到包括访谈，焦点小组和案例研究。感兴趣的研究的另一个角度是，在使用诸如Facebook和Twitter之类的流行工具方面存在跨学科差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号