The impact of computer usage on scholarly communication amongst academic social scientists

The study aims to see whether there are differences in the nature and patterns of computer usage for communicating research between disciplines in the social sciences in Brazil and, if so, whether they can be related to factors which can affect the process of communication. The theory embedded in the research model states that pressures that accompany the introduction of information technologies into a university environment are significant factors in the use of such technologies. These pressures produce differences in the communication process itself. Furthermore, there may also be a relationship between individual factors and the use of IT for communication. The research data were collected via a survey using two instruments. Firstly, mailed questionnaires were sent to 760 academic researchers in sociology and economics in Brazil, working in post-graduate programmes. A response rate of 64.1 percent was achieved. Secondly, 36 interviews were carried out with a sample of the most productive researchers in the two subjects studied. The interview sample included both respondents and non-respondents to the questionnaire. A small sample of 11 British academic researchers was included in the interview survey, in order to allow comparisons and see whether Brazilian academics lag behind IT front-runners. Data collected revealed that there is an impact of computer usage on the scholarly communication process, especially in terms of informal communication. Such an impact can be related to changes in the social interactions that underlie knowledge creation among researchers, and also relates to differences in patterns and processes of computer usage between the chosen disciplines. Formal communication has experienced a gradually growing impact by electronic media on the well-established print environment, with the likely co-existence of the two media for some time to come. The results obtained showed that Brazilian researchers do not lag behind the British ones. Not many differences, but most similarities were found between economists and sociologists in both Brazil and the UK

Good internal communication increases productivity

Internal communication has become an important factor in today's business world. The increased use of electronic media can, despite their obvious advantages, cause communication problems, i.e. information overload. By avoiding communication problems, the productivity of a company can be increased. The relation between internal communication and productivity has been subject of a number of surveys. Although different survey approaches have been used, all found that there is a positive impact of communication on productivity. Since different communication dimensions have a different impact on an employee's perceived productivity, effective and efficient internal communication has to be managed, therefore, in accordance with the situation of each company and its employees. -- In der heutigen Geschäftswelt gewinnt interne Kommunikation als Wettbewerbsfaktor eine zunehmende Bedeutung. Die vermehrte Anwendung von elektronischen Medien kann jedoch trotz ihrer Vorteile auch zu Kommunikationsproblemen, speziell zu Informationsflut, führen. Indem Kommunikationsprobleme vermieden werden, ist es möglich im Unternehmen die Produktivität zu erhöhen. Dieser Zusammenhang ist Gegenstand verschiedenster Studien, die trotz unterschiedlicher Ansätze alle einen positiven Einfluss von Kommunikation auf die Produktivität herausstellten. Aufgrund verschiedener Stellencharaktere und der damit verbundenen Nutzen bestimmter Informationen, beeinflussen vielfache Arten von Kommunikation die Produktivität von Angestellten unterschiedlich. Ebenso sind Unterschiede zwischen den Angestellten und verschiedenen Unternehmenstypologien zu verzeichnen. Folglich ist das Management von interner Kommunikation auf das spezielle Unternehmen und seine Mitarbeiter zuzuschneiden.Productivity,Internal Communication,Communication Methods,Communication Problems,Information Overload,Produktivität,Interne Kommunikation,Kommunikationsmethode,Kommunikationsprobleme,Informationsflut

Utilization of Library and Information Resources for Research Productivity in Nigerian Universities.

This paper discusses utilization of library and information resources and its importance in research process. It views research as a systematic painstaking investigation of a topic or in a field of study often employing technique of hypotheses and experimentation, undertaken by a person intent on revealing new facts, theories or principles or determining skill and identification of research problems which is connected to the level of library and information resources usage and hence determines the productivity or output of researchers. It discusses library and information resources as resources that include all forms of information carriers that can be used to promote and encourage effective research activities and developmental projects including books, journals, periodicals, audio-visual etc. Impediments to the full utilization of library and information resources are highlighted. They include lack of adequate current or relevant materials, non-involvement of lecturers in book selection, lack of adequate professional library staff, lecturers’ lack of awareness of new arrivals among others. The study concludes by recommending acquisition of current and relevant information sources particularly books and journals, well qualified, experienced and adequate professional and Para-professional library staff should be employed by the university, approval of more funds for university library, research productivity should be encouraged with adequate funding in form of grants to lecturers/researchers in respective of their level and rank, lecturers promotion and entitlements should not be delayed, and Libraries and Librarians should embark on awareness and information literacy programs in order to improve on library patronage

If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0

Over the past 15 years, the web has transformed the way we seek and use information. In the last 5 years in particular a set of innovative techniques – collectively termed ‘web 2.0’ – have enabled people to become producers as well as consumers of information. It has been suggested that these relatively easy-to-use tools, and the behaviours which underpin their use, have enormous potential for scholarly researchers, enabling them to communicate their research and its findings more rapidly, broadly and effectively than ever before. This report is based on a study commissioned by the Research Information Network to investigate whether such aspirations are being realised. It seeks to improve our currently limited understanding of whether, and if so how, researchers are making use of various web 2.0 tools in the course of their work, the factors that encourage or inhibit adoption, and researchers’ attitudes towards web 2.0 and other forms of communication. Context: How researchers communicate their work and their findings varies in different subjects or disciplines, and in different institutional settings. Such differences have a strong influence on how researchers approach the adoption – or not – of new information and communications technologies. It is also important to stress that ‘web 2.0’ encompasses a wide range of interactions between technologies and social practices which allow web users to generate, repurpose and share content with each other. We focus in this study on a range of generic tools – wikis, blogs and some social networking systems – as well as those designed specifically by and for people within the scholarly community. Method: Our study was designed not only to capture current attitudes and patterns of adoption but also to identify researchers’ needs and aspirations, and problems that they encounter. We began with an online survey, which collected information about researchers’ information gathering and dissemination habits and their attitudes towards web 2.0. This was followed by in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a stratified sample of survey respondents to explore in more depth their experience of web 2.0, including perceived barriers as well as drivers to adoption. Finally, we undertook five case studies of web 2.0 services to investigate their development and adoption across different communities and business models. Key findings: Our study indicates that a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one or more web 2.0 tools or services for purposes related to their research: for communicating their work; for developing and sustaining networks and collaborations; or for finding out about what others are doing. But frequent or intensive use is rare, and some researchers regard blogs, wikis and other novel forms of communication as a waste of time or even dangerous. In deciding if they will make web 2.0 tools and services part of their everyday practice, the key questions for researchers are the benefits they may secure from doing so, and how it fits with their use of established services. Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication, but as having their own distinctive role for specific purposes and at particular stages of research. And frequent use of one kind of tool does not imply frequent use of others as well

The impact of computer usage on scholarly communication among social scientists

An examination has been made of the effects of using information technology on the communication of research by social scientists in Brazil. Two disciplines were studied – economics and sociology – via both interviews and a questionnaire survey. A small sample of UK social scientists was also interviewed. The results indicate that major changes in communication habits are occurring. These are already well advanced for informal communication and are beginning to appear for formal communication. Differences have been found between economists and sociologists, with the former more active in their use of electronic facilities. Along with such discipline-related differences, the developments also appear to be influenced, in part, by pressures from the research community and from the institutional environment. One significant impact of information technology seems to be an increasing democratisation of the international research community

Newly available technologies present expanding opportunities for scientific and technical information exchange

The potential for expanded communication among researchers, scholars, and students is supported by growth in the capabilities for electronic communication as well as expanding access to various forms of electronic interchange and computing capabilities. Research supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration points to a future where workstations with audio and video monitors and screen-sharing protocols are used to support collaborations with colleagues located throughout the world. Instruments and sensors all over the world will produce data streams that will be brought together and analyzed to produce new findings, which in turn can be distributed electronically. New forms of electronic journals will emerge and provide opportunities for researchers and scientists to electronically and interactively exchange information in a wide range of structures and formats. Ultimately, the wide-scale use of these technologies in the dissemination of research results and the stimulation of collegial dialogue will change the way we represent and express our knowledge of the world. A new paradigm will evolve-perhaps a truly worldwide 'invisible college'

The 1995 NRC Ratings of Doctoral Programs: A Hedonic Model

We describe how one can use multivariate regression models and data collected by the National Research Council as part of its recent ranking of doctoral programs (Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change) to analyze how measures of program size, faculty seniority, faculty research productivity, and faculty productivity in producing doctoral degrees influence subjective ratings of doctoral programs in 35 academic fields. Using data for one of the fields, economics, we illustrate how university administrators can use the models to compute the impact of changing the number of faculty positions they allocate to the field on the ranking of their programs. Finally, we illustrate how administrators can decompose the differences between a department\u27s rating and the ratings of a group of higher ranked departments in the field into difference due to faculty size, faculty seniority, faculty research productivity, and faculty productivity in producing doctoral students. This decomposition suggests the types of questions that a department and a university should be addressing if they are serious about wanting to improve the department\u27s ranking

The Effects of the Quantification of Faculty Productivity: Perspectives from the Design Science Research Community

In recent years, efforts to assess faculty research productivity have focused more on the measurable quantification of academic outcomes. For benchmarking academic performance, researchers have developed different ranking and rating lists that define so-called high-quality research. While many scholars in IS consider lists such as the Senior Scholar’s basket (SSB) to provide good guidance, others who belong to less-mainstream groups in the IS discipline could perceive these lists as constraining. Thus, we analyzed the perceived impact of the SSB on information systems (IS) academics working in design science research (DSR) and, in particular, how it has affected their research behavior. We found the DSR community felt a strong normative influence from the SSB. We conducted a content analysis of the SSB and found evidence that some of its journals have come to accept DSR more. We note the emergence of papers in the SSB that outline the role of theory in DSR and describe DSR methodologies, which indicates that the DSR community has rallied to describe what to expect from a DSR manuscript to the broader IS community and to guide the DSR community on how to organize papers for publication in the SSB