Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources for researchers

European Bioinformatics InstituteMendeleyOpen Knowledge FoundationScience and Technology Facilities Council SPARC UKOLN

1. Executive Summary

The application of Web 2.0 tools to the practice of research is an area with immense promise butwhere evidence of real value is limited. We have assembled a team with a wide range of experiencein developing, using, and critically analysing such services. The team is deeply embedded withinthe community that utilises and builds these services. However this community remains small andunrepresentative of the research community at large. We are therefore interested in examining boththe successes of these approaches as well as reasons for lack of adoption.We will undertake four main activities to qualitatively and quantitatively analyse the extent of useof Web 2.0 tools in research.1.First, a literature review and aggregation of research material will be carried out to definethe state of the art internationally.2.Second, qualitative interviews and case studies will be used to identify common themes insuccessful and unsuccessful applications of Web2.0 approaches and barriers, perceived andreal.3.Along with the literature review, this will form the basis for designing and carrying out thethird activity: a large-scale empirical study. The resulting data will be analyzed using astructural equation modeling approach, which will allow us to go beyond a qualitative,anecdotal, or phenomenal understanding. It will enable us to quantify the strength of theeffect of each promoter and inhibitor of the adoption of Web 2.0 tools, as well as the relativeimportance of the factors vis-à-vis each other. This can lead to prescriptions as to whichinhibitors to tackle first, and which promoters to focus on. It will also provide empiricalevidence as to which degree the use of Web 2.0 tools influences scholarly communication.4.Fourth, because the self-reported survey is likely to overestimate the use of Web 2.0 toolsdue to the self-selection bias, we will validate our data externally by undertaking asampling-based survey. This survey will involve a search for a randomised list of researchersfrom a range of disciplines and environments, on a range of Web 2.0 services for scientists.As this will systematically underestimate the use of these tools, we will be able to establishthe upper and lower boundaries of the actual use of Web 2.0 tools in research.

2. Background

In recent years much has been made of the the potential of Web 2.0 tools, applications and servicesto transform the way research is performed and disseminated. There are numerous high profileexamples of technologies that facilitate effective collaboration and working practices that could1

Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources for researchers

make the lives of researchers easier - from communication and messenging tools to collaborativeauthoring, public review and rating sites, from social networking services to community driventools for resource discovery. Twitter can provide instant updates of what is happening in the lab.Google Docs provides an environment for writing papers that can solve the problems inherent inemailing around documents. Wikis can capture and preserve the collective expertise of a researchgroup. Digg-like mechanisms could replace peer review with social networking sites providing a"social search" mechanism, bringing the research you need to be aware of to your attention as wellas the opportunity to find new collaborators, as and when you need them.There are exemplars showing that all of these approaches are possible, and that they can offer animprovement over traditional approaches. However for every success there are many failures, andscratching beneath the surface, you will find many of the same names re-appearing in theseexamples. The degree to which these approaches have penetrated general academic practice appearsto be extremely limited. Broadly, there are three reasons why this might be the case. First, adoptioncould simply be expected to be slow as practice in research does not change rapidly, systems needto change, tools need to be built. Second, there may be specific cultural or social reasons why thesetools are not appropriate or are perceived as not appropriate. This may be due to the wrong tools being built, or it may be a result of scientists who were brought up in the pre-web age are not ableto "get it", requiring a new generation of scientists (the so called "Google Generation") to exploitthem effectively. Finally, it is possible that these tools simply do not, on average, work well inresearch settings.The overall picture is likely to be complex and a combination of factors. We have therefore electedto apply a model-based approach to disentangle the contribution of these different factors both touptake, and intention to uptake. We will apply a qualitative approach to identify web applicationsand services to enable the design of a quantitative survey which will be used to probe therelationships between model components (see methodology).

3. The Team

We have assembled a team with a wide expertise in Web 2.0 technologies and their application toresearch. The team includes both commercial and academic developers, users and analysts, as wellas community and policy advocates. The team is strongly motivated to take a close and critical look at the effectiveness of such tools and inhibiting factors concerning usage in research - as developers,as advocates, and as researchers.Collectively, the team has a broad range of experience of research 'on the ground' in differentdomains - from experimental and computational sciences, to the humanities and social sciences. Afine-grained understanding of research environments in different domains will be particularlyadvantageous when performing interviews and building case studies, and in designing a larger scaleempirical study which will allow meaningful inter-disciplinary comparison.We have a rich perspective on the growth and adoption of new internet technologies in differentareas - from policy analysts, funding bodies, commercial developers, government, academia and thetechnical community. Hence, debates about the adoption, transformational potential, network effectsand perceptions of Web 2.0 tools are familiar territory and we are keen to develop a richer,evidence-based picture.2

Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources for researchers

4. Key Deliverables

The key deliverables for the project will be:

•

Literature review

•

Transcripts, record and analysis of qualitative interviews

•

Design of model for quantitative survey

•

Results and analysis of quantitative survey

•

Anonymised data and analysis of "adoption sampling" survey of service penetration

•

Summary report and website to present data and findingsMoving forward we propose publishing the report and associated material on a website withrecommendations and summaries of key findings catered to different stakeholders, includingresearchers, institutions, funders, software developers, service providers, librarians, information professionals and publishers. In the longer term we anticipate this could act as a central point of reference for parties interested in utilising or developing Web 2.0 tools for research.There have been numerous surveys on Web 2.0 and its usage and relevance in different domains,from education to library and archives. The JISC funded SPIRE project is a relatively recentexample of British funded research in this area. Our project would go beyond this kind of work inthat we hope to develop a compelling and dynamic evidence base that could be explored andcontributed to - giving a thorough and up-to-date overview of existing usage of Web 2.0 tools (byharnessing existing networks, communities and publicity channels), as well as giving arepresentative picture of UK research as a whole (overcoming selection bias with survey incentivesand adoption sampling).

5. Theoretical background and model development

The overarching theoretical framework for this study will be the Unified Theory of Acceptance andUse of Technology (UTAUT, Venkatesh et al. 2003). The UTAUT was designed to explain the

Behavioral Intentions

to use and the

Use Behavior

of information systems. The theory holds thatfour key constructs are direct determinants of usage intention and behaviour:

•

Performance Expectancy:

The degree to which an individual believes that using the systemwill help him or her to attain gains in job performance.

•

Effort Expectancy:

The degree of effort an individual associates with the use of the system.

•

Social Influence:

The degree to which an individual perceives that important others believehe or she should use the information system.

•

Facilitating Conditions:

The degree to which an individual believes that an organizationaland technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system.The effect of these four key constructs on usage intention and behaviour is moderated by

Gender

Age

Experience

(with the system), and

Voluntariness of Use

, i.e. these moderating variables specifywhen the effects of the key constructs on the dependent variables will be weaker or stronger (Baronand Kenny 1984).The UTAUT was developed through a review and empirical consolidation of eight models whichhad previously been employed to explain information systems usage. It is most closely related tothe Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) and its extension, the Theory of Planned3