Contents
Preface IX
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Cyberscience 1.0 Revisited 2
1.2 Web 2.0 and Cyberscience 5
1.2.1 The Internet is becoming a social space 5
1.2.2 Social media, digital social networks and digital social culture 7
1.2.3 On the path to cyberscience 2.0? 9
1.3 Conceptual Framework and Methods 11
1.3.1 Modeling scholarly activities and ICT impact on academia 11
1.3.2 Methods applied 15
2 Case Studies 17
2.1 Social Network Sites 19
2.1.1 Main functions 26
2.1.2 Potential for science and research 33
2.1.3 Usage practices and impact 35
2.1.4 Interim conclusions 48
2.2 Microblogging 50
2.2.1 Main functions 51
2.2.2 Potentials for academia 54
2.2.3 Usage practices and impact 57
2.2.4 Interim conclusions 70
2.3 Collaborative Knowledge Production-The Case of Wikimedia 72
2.3.1 Main functions and core principles 74
2.3.2 Potentials for academia 82
2.3.3 Usage practices and impact 85
2.3.4 Interim conclusions 97
2.4 Virtual Worlds-The Case of Second Life 100
2.4.1 Main functions 101
2.4.2 Potentials for science and research 103
2.4.3 Usage practices and impact 104
2.4.4 Interim conclusions 112
2.5 Search Engines-The Case of Google 113
2.5.1 Main functions 116
2.5.2 Potential for academia 125
2.5.3 User practices and impact 127
2.5.4 Interim conclusions 139
3 Cross-Cutting Analysis 143
3.1 Interactivity as a Crucial Category 143
3.1.1 Utopian and dystopian perspectives 143
3.1.2 Insiders and outsiders: methodological issues 146
3.1.3 Overcoming the barriers between utopians and dystopians 149
3.2 New Windows in the Ivory Tower 151
3.2.1 Bringing together the academic and the public sphere 152
3.2.2 Blurring media formats 155
3.2.3 Blurring roles 158
3.2.4 Bridging the boundaries? 161
3.3 Academic Quality and Digital Social Networks 163
3.3.1 Recent developments in academic quality control 163
3.3.2 Ex ante quality control for or through digital social networks? 165
3.3.3 Ex post quality control in digital social networks 168
3.3.4 Crediting and incentives 171
3.4 Information Overload or Information Paradise? 172
3.4.1 The evolution and diversification of communication channels in academia 173
3.4.2 Quantitative impacts of multi-channel communication 176
3.4.3 Qualitative impacts? 178
3.5 Between Transparency and Privacy 181
3.5.1 Privacy versus transparency in the Web 2.0 182
3.5.2 Privacy impact assessment of academic use of social media 183
3.5.3 Paths towards transparent and privacy-friendly academic Web 2.0? 185
3.6 Towards Democratization of Science? 188
3.6.1 What does democratization mean? 188
3.6.2 Internal democratization? 190
3.6.3 External democratization? 194
3.6.4 Obstacles for assessing democratization processes 197
4 Overall Conclusions and Outlook 199
4.1 Maturing Cyberscience 199
4.2 The Cyberscience 2.0 Prospects 201
4.3 An Ambivalent Overall Assessment 205
Abbreviations 207
List of Tables 209
List of Figures 210
Bibliography 211
Index 233
1 Introduction
In the early part of the 21st century one of us coined the term "cyberscience" (Nentwich 2003) to describe the trend of applying information and communication technologies (ICT) to scientific research. Scholars tended increasingly to use the Internet not only to exchange e-mails, but also to participate in online debates, cooperate at distance, use remote databases, simulate and model reality on their computers, and teaching their students with the web. These developments have not come to a halt since the early days but have accelerated and diversified ever since. As will be discussed in section 1.1, the Internet has today become an essential tool for everyday scholarly communication; academic work without the use of the Internet is now as unthinkable as writing an academic paper on a typewriter, especially for young researchers. The emergence of Web 2.0 opened up new opportunities, seized not only by the general Internet community worldwide, but increasingly also by researchers and academic teachers. During the same period powerful commercial actors continued the development of the Internet and made it a different place compared to its early days.
This book focuses on these latest trends and addresses two interrelated research questions: What role does the digital social culture triggered by Web 2.0 play in the academic world at present and what are the potentials of platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia? What impact will the emerging socio-technical practices have?
We approach an answer to these questions in three steps. First, we will review the status quo of how cyberscience developed (1.1) and which new tools and platforms evolved over the last decade with the potential to serve the academic communities (1.2); as a basis for our empirical research and subsequent analysis, we will present our conceptual framework (1.3). Second, we will present five empirical case studies, discussing promising fields of the developments in recent years when it comes to analyze the potential impact on academia: social network sites such as Facebook and similar sites specifically dedicated to research communities (2.1); microblogging with a focus on Twitter (2.2); collaborative knowledge resources, exemplified by various projects of the Wikimedia foundation, namely Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity (2.3); virtual worlds, in particular the rise and fall of Second Life (2.4); finally the most prominent and ubiquitously used universal search engine Google Web Search as well as Google Scholar and Google Books, which are of special interest for academia (2.5). In a third step, we will analyze the empirical material of chapter 2 in the light of our conceptual framework identifying the following key issues: the crucial role of interactivity (3.1); the blurring boundary between academia and the public (3.2); academic quality in the age of Web 2.0 (3.3); the problem of multiple channels and information overload (3.4); transparency and privacy (3.5); and finally potentially democratizing effects emerging from the participatory possibilities of the new platforms (3.6). The book closes with an outlook and overall conclusions, in which we put the analyzed developments into perspective (4.)
