Comments on: Digital intimacy

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:23:10 +0000

Liz, I think you’re absolutely right–I use the science blogosphere myself to keep an ear to the ground. But I I don’t think we can expect a huge amount of participation in those big networks from the majority of scientists beyond lurking. I’m arguing that scientists are not behind the curve here, more that they don’t have the time or motivation to blog or tweet on that level. Like the general population, you’re always going to get a subgroup of folks who enjoy that sort of thing and do it, while the majority don’t bother. It always comes back to Jakob Nielsen’s 90-9-1 rule. I read a variety of non-science blogs, but I don’t expect the rest of the non-science world to suddenly start blogging or even leaving comments on blogs. As such, I think the open networks should currently be viewed somewhat skeptically–do they represent the mainstream of science? Or are they instead skewed toward certain personality types, or people with their own agendas (such as personal promotion and/or promotion of a cause) and those with a fondness for new technologies. I’m more interested in tools that reach beyond this subgroup.

By: links for 2008-09-25 at LIS :: Michael Habib

links for 2008-09-25 at LIS :: Michael Habib — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:31:46 +0000

[...] Bench Marks » Blog Archive » Digital intimacy ""There’s something important in there for the science community, creating an online identity is of growing importance, whether you do it through your lab’s web page, your set of tagged articles on Digg, your blog about your research or personal interests or your photos on Flickr. When people are interested in asking you to give a talk, hiring you, joining your lab, or collaborating with you, they’re going to look you up via Google, and as the Times article points out, there’s a danger in not participating, and thus not controlling your online image" (tags: onlineidentity scientists) [...]

By: Liz Philpots

Liz Philpots — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:00:17 +0000

Got here via Nature Networks - and just wanted to add that while I agree that smaller, trusted networks are vital for fast/effective sharing of information and knowledge, there is also a place for more ‘open’ netwrks - that let ‘lurkers’ like myself, get ‘under the skin’ of what’s going on. Important that there is some linkage between them, to allow ideas to flow and influence the wider scientific world.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:50:01 +0000

Thanks to all for your comments. I think what’s really emerged from this, at least in my mind, is an emphasis on smaller, trusted networks, rather than the usual completely open free-for-all one sees in most of the ventures offered online. As Maxine points out, businesses are not interacting with competing businesses through social networks, but instead use them internally, to keep everyone on the same page. In my mind, there’s more traction for an internal network within a lab or a department than there is one that’s open to everyone. In general, you only get to present your work to the lab every now and again at lab meeting, and even more rarely to your department. I think concentrating on those levels is likely to be more effective than “meet friends and collaborators from around the world.”

By: Cameron Neylon

Cameron Neylon — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:59:15 +0000

One of the usual bloggers and Web2 evangelists here

I wanted to pick up on your comment about Friendfeed and protocols:

“There does seem to be a growing group of biologists on Friendfeed (many are the usual bloggers and web 2.0 evangelists one seems to see everywhere). Lurking around the site, there are occasionally helpful, if shallow, discussions of methods and daily laboratory activities, but the majority of it”

I think this is because you are expecting that community to be providing the wrong thing. Ask a question about exactly how to implement some sort of software tool for bioinformatics and you will get very rapid detailed and helpful responses.

On real lab protocols you get very little because you have a relatively small group of diverse scientists - who have relatively little, methodogically speaking, in common. The community isn’t big enough and concentrated enough to provide answers.

So what this means is that you do have to spend effort to both find and build the ‘trusted network’ that is relevant to your needs. For the question ‘how much KCl do I need’ that network probably isn’t available at Friendfeed. For ‘does the latest Calais offering provide an advantage for my bioinformatics analysis pipeline’ or ‘where is the latest discussion on the OA citation advantage (or lack thereof) happening’ it certainly is.

A lot of it _is_ the equivalent of dropping into people’s offices or sharing a cup of coffee. The investments you make in maintaining your trusted network within your physical environment. So yes, a lot of noise perhaps and something that you need to balance. But at least here I can turn off someone if they aren’t contributing to what I need - try keeping that pesky cow-orker out of your office with their latest hare-brained scheme.

By: Maxine

Maxine — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:03:46 +0000

By the way, I went to an online meeting a year ago which was full of business people. Apparently blue-chip companies are using internal social networks (wikis) as intranets to share client and other portfolio information. I get the impression that financial businesses are using these web tools more nowadays, but this is just an impression. My own feeling is that scientists (or anyone) will only use these tools en masse “if they provide a demonstrable benefit to them” (eg version control of emailing attached drafts of papers back and forth between multi coauthors - eventually everyone will realise that a wiki is better for that!). But everyone is busy and most people won’t get involved in these innovations until they see someone else using it do to something they want to do, or already do but better.

By: Maxine

Maxine — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:58:41 +0000

I enjoyed reading this post and think you make excellent points. In general I agree that scientists in the main are not using social web tools, with some notable exceptions (discipline based groups such as bioinformaticians, and individual “early adopters”). Most scientists have never heard of RSS and only vaguely about blogs. Microblogs, definitely not.
You’ve touched on some costs and benefits, and there are others of course: educational ones for example. (Teaching). For a journal like Nature, a web social network is very efficient for advising people about how to publish or write a paper - interactive from the point of view that anyone can ask a question, and efficient compared with email because all can see the answers.
Private social networks are certainly one way scientists can use the web. To name but one example, many papers now are written by people in three or more countries: a private web network is useful for online collaborations and developing papers. At NPG we offer such private networks at Nature Network and Connotea, but I am not sure of the uptake - definitely some groups (labs and so on) are using them.

By: Richard Gayle

Richard Gayle — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:24:43 +0000

David,

As always a great discussion. I do not think that all researchers will be twittering or posting their lives on FriendFeed But I will bet that any effecient, successful lab will have someone who is monitoring what is going on in selected areas on these sites.

Of course, the areas will have to be carefully selected But, these types of tools are just too good at dispersing information to be ignored. I figure they will supplement email, voicemail, seminars, conferences and publications for the dissemination of scientific information and knowledge.

By: As Always « A Man With A Ph.D.

As Always « A Man With A Ph.D. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:20:25 +0000

[...] September 23, 2008 — Richard by tanakawho [Crossposted on SpreadingScience] Digital intimacy: [Via Bench Marks] Recently, the NY Times had an article discussing the concept of “ambient [...]

By: As always

As always — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:18:52 +0000

[...] tanakawho Digital intimacy: [Via Bench Marks] Recently, the NY Times had an article discussing the concept of “ambient [...]