Connecting minds: Computer-mediated communication and scientific work

Walsh, John P.; Kucker, Stephanie; Maloney, Nancy G.; Gabbay, Shaul M.

doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::aid-asi1046>3.0.co;2-w

Cited by 85 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The greatest benefit seemed to be facilitation of scientific communication, providing the glue for the 'virtual college'. 13 Katz and Martin noted that one of the reasons for increasing collaboration was the growing importance of interdisciplinary fields. They suggested that:…”

Section: Communication and Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Research practices and scholarly communication in the digital environment

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines changing research practices in the digital environment. A review of the literature and our own field research in Australia suggest that there is a new mode of knowledge production emerging, changing research practices and bringing new information access and dissemination needs. Adjustments will be required to accommodate these changes, but new opportunities are emerging for more cost‐effective and sustainable information access and dissemination. It will be necessary, however, to take an holistic approach and treat the creation, production and distribution of scholarly information, the management of information rights and access, systems of review and evaluation and the underlying infrastructure as parts of a single research information and scholarly communication system.

show abstract

Section: Communication and Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Research practices and scholarly communication in the digital environment

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One open question regarding collaboratories is the degree to which they can change the nature of this relationship between propinquity and propensity to collaborate. Evidence from a limited set of studies suggest that there is a positive relationship between email usage and remote collaboration (Cohen, 1996;Walsh & Bayma, 1996;Walsh, Kucker, & Maloney, 2000;Walsh & Maloney, 2002), but this question remains to be definitively answered. Hara, et al (2003) (Watson, 1968), but these do not likely represent the modal experience of scientists in collaborations.…”

Section: General Studies Of Scientific Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity

Birnholtz

2007

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First, I thank all of my dissertation committee members and in particular the chair and my primary advisor, Tom Finholt. His support, guidance and feedback have been invaluable in carrying out the work described here and in learning more generally how to conduct rigorous research and have a successful career. He has kept me focused throughout this process, cleared obstacles from my path and provided solutions to problems I thought could not be solved. He was never too busy for a quick chat about a logistical issue or to provide thorough and thoughtful feedback on a draft.Michael Cohen has been both a second advisor and a good friend throughout my time in graduate school. His wise advice and feedback generally come in the form of deep, well thought out questions for which I don't usually have quick answers -but that always cause me to think in ways I hadn't anticipated and try harder in creatively achieving my goals. Meetings with Michael also have the periodic benefit of taking place on his sailboat on Lake Erie, an environment ideally suited to long discussions without distraction that has made for several memorable afternoons.I was glad that Paul Edwards agreed to become involved in this project because I knew that his expertise in qualitative research and science studies would prove valuable iii and improve the quality of my work. I was not disappointed. In addition, Paul's stylistic comments on this dissertation at various phases have made it a much more readable, interesting and compelling document (bearing in mind that the dissertation genre is known for none of these traits).Early in this project, I jokingly said to a colleague that meetings with Jason Owen-Smith were getting too expensive-I always left his office with a long list of books that seemed essential to purchase. Jason's solid and broad grasp of the literature in both the sociology of science and organizational behavior were invaluable in the early phases of this project, and his careful attention to detail and detailed knowledge of both qualitative and quantitative research methods have substantially strengthened my work.Last but most certainly not least, Homer Neal has been an excellent mentor and .......................................................................................... DISCUSSION ................................................................................... ABSTRACTGeographically distributed and multidisciplinary collaborations have proven invaluable in answering a range of important scientific questions, such as understanding and controlling disease threats like SARS and AIDS or exploring the nature of matter in particle physics. Despite this, however, collaboration can often be problematic. There are institutional obstacles, collaboration tools may be poorly designed, and group coordination is difficult. To better design technologies to support research activities, we need an improved understanding of why scientists collaborate and how their collaborations work. To achieve this improved understanding, this study com...

show abstract

“…Several arguments support a productivity rise: In general, more information is available over computer networks and the search and retrieval of information is faster (NENTWICH, 2003). Access to remote instruments and data sets is also easier and faster (WALSH et al, 2000). Research may become better connected and more modular (KIRCZ, 1998;347 NENTWICH, 2003).…”

Section: What Do We Know About Research Productivity At the Individuamentioning

confidence: 99%

Research productivity in the internet era

Barjak

2006

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the relationship between the use of different internet applications and research productivity, controlling for other influences on the latter. The control variables included dummies for country, discipline, gender and type of organization of the respondent; as well as variables for age, recognition, the degree of society-related and careerrelated motivation for research, and the size of the collaboration network. Simple variance analyses and more complex negative binomial hurdle models point to a positive relationship between internet use (for personal communication, information retrieval and information dissemination) and research productivity. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as it was not possible to test the role of the internet against other pre-internet tools which fulfil the same functions. Thus instance it may not be the use of e-mail per se, but the degree of communicating with colleagues that makes a productive scientist.

show abstract

Connecting minds: Computer-mediated communication and scientific work

Cited by 85 publications

References 17 publications

Research practices and scholarly communication in the digital environment

Research practices and scholarly communication in the digital environment

When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity

Research productivity in the internet era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About