Research 2.0 and the Future of Information Literacy

Tibor Koltay, Sonja Spiranec, Laszlo Z Karvalics

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780081000755
• eBook ISBN: 9780081000892
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Business Intelligence
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Research 2.0 and the Future of Information Literacy examines possible congruencies between information literacy and Research 2.0, because the work of today's researcher mobilizes a number of literacies. From among the various types of relevant literacies, at least three types of literacies can be mentioned in this relation: information literacy, scientific literacy and academic literacy. This book addresses these literacies in the light of the changing research landscape. Broad contexts of the researcher's abilities, as adaptive and innovative thinking, problem solving skills, self-management and design mindset are also examined. Computational thinking and the computational paradigm in a number of fields of research are taken into consideration, as well. Researchers differ to non-researchers when populating social media, which means that these two different groups require different literacies. The relationship between information literacy and information is approached in a new way. Among the multitude of issues, we introduce a new interface between information literacy and Research 2.0. It encompasses the issues of research data management and data literacy, which represent also a challenge both for the academic library and for the communities of researchers. Similarly, the questions of new metrics of scientific output are addressed in the book. - Summarizes the most important and up-to date approaches towards Research 2.0, including researchers' skills and abilities, the data-intensive paradigm of scientific research, open science, not forgetting about factors that inhibit a wider uptake of Research 2.0 - Discusses the nature of information literacy in the light of its definitions, declarations and related frameworks and by outlining the new literacies context, reading and writing, the cultural context, and the turns of library and information science - Numerous literacies, other than information literacy, its relationship to information overload and personal information management are also subject of the book - Theoretical and practical perspectives are given to enable the understanding of the transformations of information literacy and its relationship to Research 2.0

Chapter 1

Shifting Research Paradigms Toward Research 2.0

Abstract

This chapter discusses how Research 2.0 came into existence and how it developed into a leading paradigm of our era. This requires an outline of the socio-technical changes brought about by the development and widespread use of information and communications technologies, based on computers and leading to the appearance of social media. There is no one who would deny that researchers are central figures in research, so their skills and abilities will be briefly examined. Research 2.0 is closely connected to the idea of open science that will be described, giving especial attention to its main constituent that is open access. Open science also comprises the data-intensive paradigm of scientific research, which we consider in detail. A wider uptake of Research 2.0 is inhibited by a number of the factors of scholarly communication, so we will enumerate them.

Keywords

Research paradigms

Research 2.0

Researchers’ skills and abilities

Open science

Open access

The data-intensive paradigm of scientific research

Alternative metrics of scientific output

Until the end of the last century, the role of technology in formal scholarly (scientific) communication and the resulting scholarly record was the same as in any other type of print-based communication (Aalbersberg et al., 2013). This was changed by the widespread use of Web 2.0, which—as a term—has now been replaced by social media (Godwin, 2012). The scholarly record can be defined in the words of Lavoie et al. (2014, p. 6) as “the curated account of past scholarly endeavour.”

Obviously, the boundaries of the scholarly record are fluid, not least because they also depend on the perspective that particular groups of stakeholders bring to bear on it. The same young faculty member might view the scholarly record in one way when focusing on obtaining tenure and through different glasses when looking at it when acting as a researcher. The former role includes concentrating on establishing credentials, while the latter includes materials that are useful for research interests.

A publisher or a library also may view the scholarly record from a different angle. Consequently, we have to ask how to distinguish the scholarly record from the cultural record, especially if we want the boundaries of the former to remain distinct enough to avoid including everything in it. Let us add that the scholarly record is in close connection with scholarly communication that can be understood as the process of sharing and publishing research works and outcomes which have been made available to a wider academic community and beyond (Gu & Widén-Wulff, 2011).

According to another definition, scholarly communication is the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and preserved for future use. This system includes both formal means of communication and informal channels (ACRL, 2003).

The appearance of the Research 2.0 paradigm was thus brought about by numerous technological innovations resulting from the abundance of social media. Research 2.0 denotes a range of activities that reflect on and are required by eScience, a subsystem of networked and data-intensive science, as described by Hey and Hey (2006).

Furthermore, Taylor (2001) refers to “global collaboration in key areas of science, and the next generation of infrastructure that will enable it.” This definition implies that eScience comprises not only tools and technologies, but also depends on pooling resources and connecting ideas, people, and data. It has to do as much with information management as with computing. Therefore, the concept Research 2.0 is complementary to the idea of eScience and may be defined as a means for realizing its principles.

The strong presence and popularity of social media that characterizes the Research 2.0 environment may lead to transformations that will change the principles underlying research activities. Having this in view, when explaining the nature of Research 2.0, we will highlight factors that hinder its wider uptake. We will also try to show that information literacy (IL) is changing in some of its aspects as a result of developments in the Research 2.0 domain, regardless of the fact that it is not widely adopted.

The consequences resulting from the transformations analyzed in IL are of the utmost importance for academic and research libraries, the content of their instructional activities, and future conceptualizations of information literacy.

In the relevant literature, there is a general acceptance of statements such as that the globalization of science has accelerated, that modes of knowledge production are emerging which follow new patterns, or that the rapid build-out of the new cyber-infrastructure of science introduces radical changes in the methodologies of numerous scientific fields.

There is, however, a considerable divergence of opinions concerning the depth of the challenge that research faces. Opinions differ on how a comprehensive framework might be produced to interpret the respective changes.

On the one hand, there is no doubt that research has changed and metamorphosed through the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs), as numerous authors have noted so far (Arms & Larsen, 2007; Borgman, 2007; de Sompel et al., 2004; Nentwich, 2003; Odlyzko, 2009; Waldrop, 2008). However, deeper and more radical transformations that potentially could cause changes in the configurations of the principles of research activities have resulted from technological innovations brought about by Web 2.0 (Lievrouw, 2011; Luzon, 2009; Odlyzko, 2009; Procter et al., 2010; Waldrop, 2008).

Given the social and communicative nature of scientific inquiry, it is little surprise that many researchers have become active participants in this new Web, often using services and tools created specifically for research (Priem & Hemminger, 2010). If we follow the actual developments in the world of research, it is becoming clear that the scholarly record is evolving in a direction where it becomes different from its previous, print-based version.

As Lavoie et al. (2014) outline it, the scholarly record is shaped by various evolutionary trends, including the well-known shift from being print-centric to becoming digital to an ever greater extent; and its extension to a variety of materials, including data sets. (About research data, see the section on data-intensive science.)

By virtue of its transition to digital formats, the scholarly record is much more changeable and dynamic than it used to be in the past. It is available through a blend of both formal and informal publication channels, and its boundaries may expand, driven by, among other issues, an increased emphasis on the replicability of scholarly outcomes, and by expectations for a greater ability to integrate seamlessly previously published material into new work. This involves issues of citation and referencing.

Even though the scholarly record becomes digital, selection remains an important issue. In this respect, there is no difference from the world of print resources. For successful selection, researchers need clearly established priorities. As we will also see in the section on data management and data curation, stewardship models for the evolving scholarly record are needed to secure its long-term persistence. (Consulting the section on data-intensive science, mentioned above, again may be useful.)

The traditional importance attributed to formal communication via journal articles and monographs published by established scholarly publishers has come under pressure as informal modes are increasingly becoming visible with the use of digital technologies.

In comparison to smaller audiences and limited distribution after months-long blind peer-review procedures that characterize the traditional mode of formal communication, we can see intellectual priority registered first on a blog or in a video posted online (Tatum & Jankowski, 2012).

There may be changes in the exclusivity of science. The academic world has been as selective as possible in its membership, thus it imposed isolation on itself to some extent. While we can lament that this may change or be enthusiastic about it, we can also avoid these extremities by choosing a moderate and balanced position, based on a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis of the most used digital technologies. This analysis should include acknowledging the fact that Research 2.0 is a response to challenges induced by changes in technology, while being in many respects a return to centuries-old principles of open science, consequently not entirely new and revolutionary (Borgman, 2007; Dinescu, 2010).

The promise of social media is to enable researchers to create, annotate, review, reuse, and represent information in new ways and make possible a wider promotion of innovations in the communication practices of research, e.g., by publishing work in progress and openly sharing research resources (Procter et al., 2010). The term Research 2.0 expresses exactly these substantial changes.

The analysis of several definitions shows that both terms refer to new approaches in research that promote collaborative knowledge construction, rely on providing online access to raw results, theories and ideas, and focus on the opening up of the research process (Luzon, 2009; Ullmann et al., 2010). According to Weller et al. (2007), the potentials of coupling Web 2.0 tools and services with research processes may be differentiated into several dimensions. It is the generation and management of collective knowledge that creates new structures and systems of scholarly communication.

The prevalence of the digital, mentioned above, also allows new models of public interaction in the field of research activities through the use of blogs, podcasts, etc. All these features and dimensions differentiate traditional research activities from Research 2.0. The traditional forms of research, sometimes labeled as Research 1.0, are dominated by a text- and document-centric paradigm.

In contrast, research in the Web 2.0 environment revolves around people and communities that have now become the new central focus of research processes. In their search for data and information, researchers have always been relying on their peers, professional communities, and networks. This did not change.

However, how they do it is changing; and the changes are obviously not just technologi...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• About the Authors
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Shifting Research Paradigms Toward Research 2.0
• Chapter 2: The Nature of Information Literacy
• Chapter 3: Transformations of Information Literacy: From Bookshelves to the Web 2.0
• Chapter 4: Conclusion: Shaping Forces, Future Challenges
• References
• Index