Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:41:09.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rich Media and Rich Science; Web Squared Cumulativity Conceptualization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2012

Oscar Westlund
Oscar Westlund
Affiliation:
Department for Journalism, Media and Communication, University of Gothenburg, Box 710, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientists work by collecting observable evidence of different phenomena, from which they analyse and construct theoretical explanations. Consequently, science involves systematic efforts to increase human knowledge, a phenomenon that is usually described as ‘cumulativity’. Most scientists would probably agree that (excellent) research should be cumulative, and by this they usually mean that scientists should accommodate and refer to the publications of other scholars. This article suggests that our perception of science would benefit from a broader and more nuanced approach to cumulativity. The article therefore provides a discussion on how contemporary scholars can approach cumulativity by adopting the fundamental ideology of the web 2.0 and web squared concepts. A proposition for an altered approach is posited through web squared cumulativity conceptualization, involving a more open and collaborative approach. The discussion provides a foretaste of contemporary initiatives that suggest the spread of this emerging trend.

Type
Focus: Knowledge Management in Contemporary Europe
Information
European Review , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , 30 March 2012 , pp. 182 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Merton, R.K. (1988) The Matthew Effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, pp. 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Arunachalam, S. (2008) Open access to scientific knowledge. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 28, p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Piscopo, C. and Birattari, M. (2008) The Explanation of the Success of Science. IRIDIA Technical Report Series 013. (Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles).Google Scholar
4.Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
5.Chalmers, A.F. (1999) What is this Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and its Methods (Buckingham: Hackett).Google Scholar
6.Drenth, P.J.D. (2010) Research integrity; protecting science, society and individuals. European Review, 18, pp. 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Piscopo, C. and Birattari, M. (2008) The Explanation of the Success of Science. IRIDIA Technical Report Series 013. (Brussels: Univesité Libre de Bruxelles).Google Scholar
8.Merton, R.K. (1968) The Matthew Effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science considered. Science, 159(3810), pp. 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Burgen, A. (2010) Academia Europaea: origin and early days. European Review, 17, pp. 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Stamm, J. (2010) Women in science – why networking matters. European Review, 18, pp. 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Arnaldi, S., Boscolo, F. and Stamm, J. (2010) Living the digital revolution – explorations into the futures of the European society. European Review, 18, pp. 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Pautasso, M. and Pautasso, C. (2010) Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers. European Review, 18, pp. 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Franzoni, C. (2008) Research instruments and operating tools: how open science contributes to technology. Innovation Studies Working Paper (ISWoP), no. 3/2008. (Pyltechnic of Turin, Italy).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Axelsson, A-S. and Schroeder, R. (2009) e-enabled data-sharing in Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 52, pp. 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Levy, M. (2009) Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), pp. 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.O'Reilly, T. (2007) What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar
17.Musser, J., O'Reilly, T. (2006) Web 2.0 principles and best practices. O'Reilly Radar, http://oreilly.com/catalog/web2report/chapter/web20_report_excerpt.pdfGoogle Scholar
18.Vossen, G. and Hagemann, S. (2007) Unleashing Web 2.0: from concepts to creativity, (Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann).Google Scholar
19.Fuchs, C. (2010) Social software and web 2.0: their sociological foundations and implications. In S. Murugesan (ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications. Volume II (Hershey, PA: IGI-Global), pp. 64–789.Google Scholar
20.O'Reilly, T., Battelle, J. (2009) Web squared: web 2.0 five years on. Paper presented at the Web 2.0 Summit Special, Oct 20-22 2009, San Francisco, CA (http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/28/web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf).Google Scholar
21.Mitchell, M.M. (2008) Science 2.0. Scientific American, 298, pp. 68–73.Google Scholar
22.Eysenbach, G. (2006) Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol, 4, pp. 0692–0698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Evans, J.A. and Reimer, J. (2009) Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323, p. 1025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Mann, F., Von Walter, B., Hess, T. and Wigand, R.F. (2009) Open access publishing in science. Communications of the ACM, 52, pp. 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Dallmeirer-Tiessen, S., Goerner, B., Darby, R., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., Lambert, S., Lengenfelder, A., Leonard, C., Mele, S., Polydoratou, P., Ross, D., Ruiz-Perez, S., Schimmer, R., Swaisland, M., van der Stelt, W. (2010) First results of the SOAP Project. Open access facts: what publishers offer, what researchers want, Presentation at the Fifth UNICA Scholarly Communication Seminar: ‘Find it, Get it, Use it, Store it’, 7–9 November 2010, Lisbon, Portugal. (http://www.slideshare.net/ProjectSoap/soapfall2010).Google Scholar
26.Vickers, A.J. (2006) Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials, 7(15), pp. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Borgman, C.L. (2007) Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.E-mail correspondence with Swedish National Data Service, May 2010. The results are based on a survey with 544 professors and 1147 PhD candidates in Sweden during spring 2009.Google Scholar
29.McChesney, R.W. (1999) Rich Media, Poor Democracy – Communication Politics in Dubious Times (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press).Google Scholar