Examining individual and collective factors affecting the adoption of social media by inter-institutional research teams
1 like184 views
Work-in-progress paper presented at the Social Media & Society Conference, London, July 11-13, 2016.
![The other thing I love about social media is they way
in which they are a leveller. There is no longer a
hierarchy, whereas in the past somebody wouldn't
have nerves, as a student for example, to maybe
email me. PhD students, researchers will connect
online on Facebook or Twitter, and then they'll send a
little chat [] (p. 29)
Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 16#SMSociety16
Veletsianos, George. (2016). Social media in academia :
networked scholars. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sms2016-laplante-haustein-dufour-160712125450/85/Examining-individual-and-collective-factors-affecting-the-adoption-of-social-media-by-inter-institutional-research-teams-16-320.jpg)
Examining individual and collective factors affecting the adoption of social media by inter-institutional research teams
- 1. Facult辿 des arts et des sciences cole de biblioth辿conomie et des sciences de l'information Examining individual and collective factors affecting the adoption of social media by inter-institutional research teams Audrey Laplante, Stefanie Haustein, Christine Dufour #SMSociety16, 12 July 2016 Work-in-Progress Paper
- 3. Background Presentation of the project Theoretical framework Sampling The next steps Presentation Outline #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 3
- 4. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 4 Scholars use of social media Specialized and general social media platforms Motivations: Maintaining or creating ties with scholars Promoting and disseminating work Staying informed Communicating with scholars Sharing information (CIBER 2010; Gruzd & Goertzen 2013; Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk 2012; Nicholas et al. 2014; Pearce 2010) Background
- 5. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 5 Known barriers: Lack of time Lack of recognition for promotion or funding Information overload Known facilitators: Social influence Inter-institutional collaborations (Acord & Harley 2013; CIBER 2010; Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk 2012; Nicholas et al. 2011; Ponte & Simon 2011) Background
- 6. Background Presentation of the project Theoretical framework Sampling The next steps Presentation Outline #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 6
- 7. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 7 Objectives: 1. provide an in-depth analysis of use practices of social media at each stage of an inter- institutional collaborative research project; 2. explore the factors of adoption of social media by teams of researchers in inter- institutional collaborative research projects. Presentation of the project
- 8. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 8 Definition of social media: Media that afford two-way interaction with an audience, beyond any specific recipient. (Hogan & Quan-Haase 2010) Presentation of the project
- 9. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 9 Presentation of the project Christine DufourAudrey Laplante Vincent Larivi竪reStefanie Haustein
- 10. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 10 Mixed-methods sequential exploratory design (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011) Phase 1: In-depth interviews with members of 4-8 inter- institutional research teams from various disciplines Quantitative bibliometric and altmetric data Phase 2: Canada-wide large-scale survey of researchers Methods
- 11. Background Presentation of the project Theoretical framework Sampling The next steps Presentation Outline #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 11
- 12. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 12 Frameworks for understanding work team effectiveness (McGrath 1964; Hackman 1987) Individual-level factors Group-level factors Environment-level factors Theoretical framework
- 13. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 13 Individual-level factors: Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers 1983) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis 1989) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2003) UTAUT: Performance expectancy Effort expectancy Facilitating conditions Social influence/pressure Theoretical framework Anxiety and Self-efficacy Attitude toward using technology (Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk 2012)
- 14. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 14 Team- and environment-level factors: Constantines organizational reference paradigms (Constantine 1993) Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) (DeSanctis & Poole 1994) Theory of Information Sharing (Constant, Keisler and Sproull 1994, enriched by Jarvenpaa and Staples 2000) Theoretical framework
- 15. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 15 Constantines organizational reference paradigms (Constantine 1993) Four organizational reference paradigms: Closed (traditional hierarchy) Random (innovative individualism) Open (adaptive collaboration) Synchronous (harmonious alignment) Theoretical framework
- 16. The other thing I love about social media is they way in which they are a leveller. There is no longer a hierarchy, whereas in the past somebody wouldn't have nerves, as a student for example, to maybe email me. PhD students, researchers will connect online on Facebook or Twitter, and then they'll send a little chat [] (p. 29) Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 16#SMSociety16 Veletsianos, George. (2016). Social media in academia : networked scholars. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
- 17. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 17 Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) (DeSanctis & Poole 1994) Factors influencing appropriation: Styles of interacting Knowledge and experience with structures Perceptions of others knowledge Consensus on appropriation Theoretical framework
- 18. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 18 Theory of Information Sharing (Constant, Keisler & Sproull 1994, enriched by Jarvenpaa & Staples 2000) Individual factors, organizational factors, and task: Information culture Organization information ownership Propensity to share Task interdependence Computer comfort Computer-based information characteristics Theoretical framework
- 19. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 19 Individual-level factors Performance expectancy Effort expectancy Anxiety and Self-efficacy Attitude toward using technology Information culture Group-level factors Groups personality Closed Random Open Synchronous Groups internal system Styles of interacting Knowledge and experience with structures Perceptions of others knowledge Consensus on appropriation Task interdependence Information culture Information ownership Environment-level factors Facilitating conditions Social influence/pressure Information culture Information ownership
- 20. Gallivan & Srite 2005
- 21. Background Presentation of the project Theoretical framework Sampling The next steps Presentation Outline #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 21
- 22. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 22 Selection criteria: Competition year 2013-2014 1 co-applicant Research grants SSHRC: Insight - Individual, Team and Partnerships Research Grants NSERC: Discovery Grants CIHR: Team and Operating Grants Sampling
- 23. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 23 Sampling
- 24. Background Presentation of the project Theoretical framework Sampling The next steps Presentation Outline #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 24
- 25. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 25 Get ethics approval Prepare and test interview guide Find participants Conduct interviews Collect altmetrics data Canada-wide survey of funded researchers The next steps
- 26. Facult辿 des arts et des sciences cole de biblioth辿conomie et des sciences de l'information This is a work in progress all comments are welcome!
- 27. Acord, S. K., & Harley, D. (2013). Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0. New media & society, 15(3), 379-397. doi: 10.1177/1461444812465140 CIBER. (2010). Social media and research workflow. London: Londons Global University. Retrieved from http://ciber-research.eu/download/20101111-social-media-report.pdf Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). Whats mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400-421. doi: 10.1287/isre.5.4.400 Constantine, L. L. (1993). Work organization: Paradigms for project management and organization. Communications of the ACM,36(10), 35-43. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011).Designing and conducting mixed methods research(2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008 Bibliography
- 28. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 28 DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635011 Gallivan, M., & Srite, M. (2005). Information technology and culture: Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. Information and Organization, 15(4), 295-338. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.02.005 Gruzd, A., & Goertzen, M. (2013). Wired academia: Why social science scholars are using social media. In Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3332-3341). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.614 Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2011). Tenure and promotion in the age of online social media. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-9. 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(6), 2340-2350. doi: j.chb.2012.07.004 Bibliography
- 29. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 29 Gallivan, M., & Srite, M. (2005). Information technology and culture: Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. Information and Organization, 15(4), 295-338. doi :10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.02.005 Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 1-16. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3 Jarvenpaa, S. L. et Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: An exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,9, 129-154. Larivi竪re, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323-1332. doi: 10.1002/asi.23266 Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Rowlands, I., & Jubb, M. (2011). Social media, academic research and the role of university libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(5), 373-375. Pearce, N. (2010). A study of technology adoption by researchers. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1191-1206. doi: 10.1080/1369118100366360 Bibliography
- 30. #SMSociety16 Laplante, Haustein, & Dufour 30 Ponte, D., & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149-156. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039-4056. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643-681. doi : 10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121 Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126-129. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. Bibliography