Interne informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

In der kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Forschung zu Wissenschaftskommunikation wird informelle Kommunikation bisher kaum thematisiert. Wichtig ist sie jedoch in den kommunikativen Prozessen der Wissensproduktion. Informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation ist traditionell eher interpersonal, wird aber durch die Entwicklung neuer Medientechnologien zunehmend mediatisiert. In diesem Beitrag werden nach einer Definition bzw. Abgrenzung des Bereichs der informellen Wissenschaftskommunikation die beiden dominanten Forschungstraditionen zu Struktur (Informationswissenschaften) und Prozessen (Wissenschaftsethnologie) dargestellt, gefolgt von der neueren Entwicklung der Integration dieser beiden Traditionen. Den Abschluss bildet die Darstellung des Forschungsstands zu mediatisierter informeller Wissenschaftskommunikation.

Schlüsselwörter

Wissenschaftskommunikation interne Kommunikation informelle Kommunikation invisible College scholarly Communication Mediatisierung Internet Social Media 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Empfohlene Literatur

  1. Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication: the essence of science – Facilitating information exchange among librariens, scientists, engineers and students. Pergamon Press: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Lievrouw, L. A. (1990). Reconciling structure and process in the study of scholarly communication. In: Borgman, C. L. (Hrsg.), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (S. 59-69). Newbury Park, CA. Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). Social media and the production of knowledge. A return to little science? Social Epistemology 24(3), 219-237.Google Scholar
  5. Lüthje, C. (2014). Mediatisierte wissenschaftsinterne Kommunikation: Stand der Forschung und theoretische Rahmung. kommunikation@gesellschaft 15, 20 S. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-378465

Literatur

  1. Abelson, P. H. (1980). Scientific communication. Science 209(4452), 60-62.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Aufi, A., & Fulton, C. (2014). Use of social networking tools for informal scholarly communication in humanities and social sciences disciplines. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 147, 436-445.Google Scholar
  3. Bader, A., Fritz, G. & Gloning, T. (2012). Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation 2010-2011: Eine Online-Befragung. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. http://geb.unigiessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8539/pdf/BaderDigitale_Wissenschaftskommunikation.pdf. Zugriff: 30. März 2013.
  4. Barjak, F. (2006) The role of the internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(10), 1350–1367.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Homo academicus. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Carley, K. & Wendt K. (1991). Electronic mail and scientific communication. A study of SOAR extended research group. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 12, 406–440.Google Scholar
  7. Cimenler, O., Reeves, K. A., & Skvoretz, J. (2015). An evaluation of collaborative research in a college of engineering. Journal of Infometrics 9, 577-590. doi: 10.106/j.joi.2015.05.003Google Scholar
  8. Clark, B. R. (1995). Places of inquiry: Research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Costa, S., & Meadows, J. (2000). The impact of computer usage on scholarly communication among social scientists. Journal of Information Science. doi:  10.1177/0165551004233258
  10. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cronin, B. (2003). Scholarly communication and epistemic cultures. Keynote address to the conference scholarly tribes and tribulations: How tradition and technology are driving disciplinary change. ARL Washington DC. http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/cronin.pdf. Zugegriffen: 30. März 2013.
  12. Fleck, L. (1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  13. Frandsen, T. F. (2009). The effect of open access on un-plublished documents: A case study of economics working papers. Journal of Infometrics. doi:  10.1016/j.joi.2008.12.002
  14. Fry, J. (2004a). Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information Processing and Management 42, 299-316.Google Scholar
  15. Fry, J. (2004b). The cultural shaping of ICTs within academic fields: corpus-based linguistic as a case study. Literacy and Linguistic Computing 19, 303–319.Google Scholar
  16. Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2007) The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. Journal of Information Science 33(2), 115–133.Google Scholar
  17. Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication: the essence of science – Facilitating information exchange among librariens, scientists, engineers and students. Pergamon Press: New York.Google Scholar
  18. Garvey, W. D., & Griffith B. C. (1967). Scientific communication as a social system. Science 157(3792), 1011-1016.Google Scholar
  19. Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval 8, 123-136.Google Scholar
  20. Ginsparg, P. (1994). First steps towards electronic research communication. Computers in Physics 8, 390–396.Google Scholar
  21. Gloning, T & Fritz, G. (Hg.) (2011). Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation – Formate und ihre Nutzung. Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8227/ Zugegriffen: 18. Dezember 2011.
  22. Gloning, T. (2011). Interne Wissenschaftskommunikation im Zeichen der Digitalisierung. Formate, Nutzungsweisen, Dynamik. In: Gloning, T. & Fritz, G. (Hg.).: Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation – Formate und ihre Nutzung. Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. http://geb.unigiessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8227/ Zugegriffen: 18. Dezember 2011.
  23. Goodwin, S., Jeng, W., & He, D. (2014). Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi:  10.1002/meet.2014.14505101129
  24. Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 2340-2350.Google Scholar
  25. Gu, F. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media. The Electronic Library 29(6), 762-776.Google Scholar
  26. Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. Public Access Computer Systems Review 2, 39–53.Google Scholar
  27. Heintz, B. (1993). Wissenschaft im Kontext: neuere Entwicklungstendenzen der Wissenschaftssoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45(3), 528-552.Google Scholar
  28. Kaden, B. (2009). Library 2.0 und Wissenschaftskommunikation. Berlin: Simon.Google Scholar
  29. Kadushin, C. (1968). Power, influence and social circles: a new methodology for studying opinion makers. American Sociological Review 33, 685-698.Google Scholar
  30. Kling, R. (2004). The internet and unrefereed scholarly publishing. In: Blaise C. (Hg.): Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (S. 591–631). Medford, NJ: Information Today.Google Scholar
  31. Kling, R. & Callahan, E. (2001). Electronic journals, the internet, and scholarly communication. In: Blaise C. (Hg.), Annual Review of Communication Science and Technology (S. 122-177). Medford, NJ: Information Today.Google Scholar
  32. Kling, R. & Mc Kim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci 51(14), 1306–1320.Google Scholar
  33. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1984). Die Fabrikation von Erkenntnis. Zur Anthropologie der Naturwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  34. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2002). Wissenskulturen. Ein Vergleich naturwissenschaftlicher Wissensformen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  35. Knorr-Cetina, K., & Mulkay, M. (Hrsg.) (1983). Science observed / perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Koch, D., & Moskaliuk, J. (2009). Onlinestudie: Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten im Web 2.0. e-learning and education Journal (eleed) 5. http://eleed.campussource.de/archive/5/1842. Zugegriffen: 30.3.2013.
  37. Kuhn, T. (1967). Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  38. Lacy, W. B., & Bush, L. (1983). Informal scientific communication in the agricultural sciencees. Information Processing & Management 19(4), 193-202.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lievrouw, L. A. (1990). Reconciling structure and process in the study of scholarly communication. In: Borgman, C. L. (Hrsg.), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (S. 59-69). Newbury Park, CA. Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). Social media and the production of knowledge. A return to little science? Social Epistemology 24(3), 219-237.Google Scholar
  42. Lievrouw, L. A., & Carley, K. (1990). Changing patterns of communication among scientists in an era of “telescience”. Technology in Society 12, 457-477.Google Scholar
  43. Lüthje, C. (2014a). Mediatisierte wissenschaftsinterne Kommunikation: Stand der Forschung und theoretische Rahmung. kommunikation@gesellschaft 15, 20 S. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-378465
  44. Lüthje, C. (2014b): Medienwandel und Wissenschaft: Feldspezifische Mediatisierung. In: Löw, Martina (Hrsg.): Vielfalt und Zusammenhalt. Verhandlungen des 36. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Bochum und Dortmund 2012. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  45. Lüthje, C. (2015). Medienwandel – soziokultureller Wandel – Wissenschaftswandel: Transformationsfaktoren der internen Wissenschaftskommunikation. In: Schäfer, M. S., Kristiansen, S., & Bonfadelli, H. (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel (S. 44-67). Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  46. Lüthje, C., & Neverla, I. (2012). Wissen, Diskurse, Erzählungen im Kontext von Medialisierung. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zur sozialen Konstruktion von Klimawandel. In: Schäfer, M. S., & Neverla, I. (Hrsg.), Das Medien-Klima. Fragen und Befunde der kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Klimaforschung (S. 143-169). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Matzat, U. (2004). Academic communication and Internet Discussion Groups: transfer of information or creation of social contacts? Social Networks 26(3), 221–255.Google Scholar
  48. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science 159, 59-63.Google Scholar
  49. Mullins, N. C. (1968). The distribution of social and cultural properties in informal communication networks among biological scientists. American Sociological Review 33(5), 786-797.Google Scholar
  50. Münch, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  51. Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Information Services & Use 31, 61-83. doi:  10.3233/ISU-2011-0623
  52. Nielsen, K. H. (2012). Scientific communication and the nature of science. Science & Education. doi:  10.1007/s1191-012-9475-3
  53. Noam, E. M. (1995). Electronics and the dim future of the university. Science and Public Policy 270, 247-249.Google Scholar
  54. Noonan, C. F., & Stratton, K. (2015). Improving scientific communication and publication output in a multidisciplinary laboratory: Changing culture through staff development workshops. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference 978-1-4799-3374-7/15/$31.00Google Scholar
  55. Price, D. J. D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Procter, R., Williams, R., & James, S. (2010). If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and uses web 2.0. Research Information Network RIN. http://rinarchive.jisc-collections.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/. Zugegriffen: 11. Januar 2012.
  57. Schäfer, Mike S. (2014): The Media in the Labs, and the Labs in the Media. What we Know about the Mediatization of Science. in Lundby, Knut (Ed.): Mediatization of Communication. Vol. 21 of the „Handbooks of Communication Science“. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 571-594.Google Scholar
  58. Sondergaard, T. F., Andersen, J., & Hjorland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information – revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation 59(3), 278-320.Google Scholar
  59. Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. (2014a). Acedemia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi:  10.1002/asi.23038
  60. Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. (2014b). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communication, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23236
  61. Tuire, P. & Erno, L. (2001). Exploring invisible scientific communities: Studying networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case. Higher Education 42, 493–513.Google Scholar
  62. Voigt, K. (2012). Informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation und Social Media. Berlin: Frank und Timme.Google Scholar
  63. Wagner, C. S. (Hrsg.) (2008). The new invisible college. Science for development. Washington: Brookings Inst. Press.Google Scholar
  64. Walsh, J. P., & Bayma, T. (1996). Computer Networks and Scientific Work. Social Studies of Science 26(3), 661–703.Google Scholar
  65. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (2), 152-168. doi:  10.1002/asi.20256

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RostockDeutschland

Personalised recommendations