Metasíntesis cualitativa sobre colaboración científica e identidad digital académica en redes sociales

  1. Jesús Salinas Ibáñez 1
  2. Victoria I. Marín Juarros 2
  1. 1 Universitat de les Illes Balears (España)
  2. 2 Carl von Ossietzy Universität Oldenburg (Alemania)
Revista:
RIED: revista iberoamericana de educación a distancia

ISSN: 1138-2783

Año de publicación: 2019

Título del ejemplar: Las redes sociales en educación: desde la innovación a la investigación educativa

Volumen: 22

Número: 2

Páginas: 97-117

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5944/RIED.22.2.23238 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: RIED: revista iberoamericana de educación a distancia

Resumen

La colaboración científica y la gestión de la identidad académica tienen un papel importante en la productividad académica, como algunos estudios ya han mostrado. Con la aparición de las herramientas de redes sociales, esas posibilidades se han ampliado y la presencialidad en la actividad académica no es siempre necesaria. Algunos trabajos han abordado estos temas, pero todavía no existe una sistematización de la literatura que ayude a identificar posibles líneas de trabajo en este campo y muestre las ventajas y desventajas de modos alternativos de colaboración y desarrollo de la identidad académica en línea. Este estudio pretende cubrir ese vacío mediante una metasíntesis cualitativa de estudios centrados en el uso de las herramientas de redes sociales generalistas (de temática no específica) y académicas con propósitos de colaboración científica y cuidado de la identidad digital académica por parte de investigadores académicos. Las búsquedas se realizaron en cinco bases de datos internacionales relevantes en el campo de la educación. Además, se incorporaron algunas referencias bibliográficas de estudios principales. Este proceso llevó a la identificación final de 68 estudios entre 2008 y 2018, cuyos hallazgos se sintetizan en los resultados a través de una división por categorías. A modo de conclusión, se denota la falta de estudios con una visión crítica y de análisis profundo de las prácticas académicas en las herramientas de redes sociales y se discuten los resultados junto a líneas de investigación futuras respecto a las dimensiones identificadas: el networking, el intercambio de conocimiento y la identidad digital.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Al-Aufi, A. S., & Fulton, C. (2014). Use of Social Networking Tools for Informal Scholarly Communication in Humanities and Social Sciences Disciplines. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 147, 436–445. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.135
  • Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014254214337
  • Bennett, L., & Folley, S. (2014). A tale of two doctoral students: Social media tools and hybridised identities. Research in Learning Technology, 22. http://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.23791
  • Bozeman, B., & Lee, S. (2003). The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity. Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Denver, Colorado
  • Borgman, C. L. (2006). What can studies of e-Learning teach us about collaboration in e-Research? Some findings from digital library studies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(4), 359–383. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-006-9024-1
  • Carreño, E., Frías Montoya, J. A., & Travieso Rodríguez, C. (2018). El papel de las profesoras e investigadoras de la universidad de Salamanca en la difusión de su producción científica. Análisis de ResearchGate y Academia.edu. En Investigación y género. Reflexiones desde la investigación para avanzar en igualdad: VII Congreso Universitario Internacional Investigación y Género (pp. 108–129). Sevilla: SIEMUS. Recuperado de https://idus.us.es/xmlui/handle/11441/80210
  • Costa, C. (2013). The habitus of digital scholars. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1063519), 1–17. http://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21274
  • Costa, C. (2015). Outcasts on the inside: academics reinventing themselves online. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(2), 194–210. http://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.985752
  • Dermentzi, E., Papagiannidis, S., Osorio Toro, C., & Yannopoulou, N. (2016). Academic engagement: Differences between intention to adopt Social Networking Sites and other online technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 321–332. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.019
  • Duque, R.B., Ynalvez, M.A., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D.B.S., & Shrum,W. (2005). Collaboration paradox: scientific productivity, the internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705053048
  • Esposito, A. (2013). Neither digital or open. Just researchers. Views on digital/open scholarship practices in an Italian university. First Monday, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i1.3881
  • Greenhow, C. (2009). Social scholarship: Applying social networking technologies to research practices. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 42-47. Recuperado de: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/108885/
  • Hackett, E.J. (2005). Special Guest-Edited Issue on Scientific Collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 35(5): 667-671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705057569
  • Harseim, T. (2017). How do researchers use social media and scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs)? Recuperado de: http://www.springersource.com/scholarly-collaboration-networks/
  • Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars’ evolving uses of twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 445–464. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12428
  • Kjellberg, S., Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2016). Researchers’ use of social network sites: A scoping review. Library and Information Science Research, 38(3), 224–234. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.008
  • Kjellberg, S., & Haider, J. (2018). Researchers’ online visibility: tensions of visibility, trust and reputation. Online Information Review. http://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2017-0211
  • Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networking: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(11). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.4937
  • Jordan, K. (2015). What do academics ask their online networks?: An analysis of questions posed via Academia. edu. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference (Art. No.. 42). ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2786451.2786501
  • Jordan, K., & Weller, M. (2018a). Communication, collaboration and identity: factor analysis of academics’ perceptions of online networking. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1–13. Recuperado de: http://oro.open.ac.uk/54364/
  • Jordan, K., & Weller, M. (2018b). Academics and Social Networking Sites: Benefits, Problems and Tensions in Professional Engagement with Online Networking. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (1), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.448
  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359
  • Lemon, N., & McPherson, M. (2017). Intersections online: Academics who tweet. In The Digital Academic: Critical Perspectives on Digital Technologies in Higher Education (pp. 78–90). Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia: Taylor and Francis. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315473611
  • Lupton, D. (2014). ‘Feeling Better Connected’: Academics’ Use of Social Media. Recuperado de: https://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/faculties/arts-design/attachments2/pdf/n-and-mrc/Feeling-Better-Connected-report-final.pdf
  • Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016). “Yes for sharing, no for teaching!’’: Social Media in academic practices.” Internet and Higher Education, 29, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.004
  • Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2017). Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media Use in Scholarly Communication. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 123–138. Recuperado de: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2859/4084
  • Manca, S. (2018). ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1–16. Recuperado de: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1173547
  • Meishar-Tal, H., & Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use academic Social Networking Sites? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i1.2643
  • Menéndez, M., de Angeli, A., & Menestrina, Z. (2012) ‘Exploring the virtual space of academia’. In 10th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 49–63). Marseille, France,.
  • Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Information Services & Use, 31(1), 61–83. http://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2011-0623
  • Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Jamali, H., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Dobrowolski, T., & Pouchot, S. (2015). New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation. Learned Publishing, 28(3), 169–183. http://doi.org/10.1087/20150303
  • Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Xu, J., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Abdullah, A., Watkinson, A., … Rodríguez-Bravo, B. (2018). Early career researchers’ quest for reputation in the digital age. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 375–396. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.4.01
  • O’Keeffe, M. (2018). Academic Twitter and professional learning: myths and realities. International Journal for Academic Development. http://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1520109
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520–536. http://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0093
  • Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(210). http://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  • Ovadia, S. (2014). ResearchGate and Academia. edu: Academic social networks. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 33(3), 165-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2014.934093
  • Pujari, S. C., Hadgu, A. T., Lex, E., Jäschke, R., H., S., S., L., & T., L. (2015). Social activity versus academic activity: A case study of computer scientists on twitter. In i-KNOW'15 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-driven Business (Art. No. 12). ACM: New York.
  • Rodríguez-Fernández, M. M., Sánchez-Amboage, E., & Martínez-Fernández, V.-A. (2018). Utilización, conocimiento y valoración de redes sociales digitales científicas en las universidades gallegas. El Profesional de La Información, 27(5), 1097–1107. http://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.sep.13
  • Salahshour, M., Dahlan, H. M., & Iahad, N. A. (2016). A case of academic social networking sites usage in Malaysia: drivers, benefits, and barriers. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 9(2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITSA.2016070106
  • Sánchez-Santamaría, J. & Aliaga, F. (2018). Contribuciones de las revistas científicas a la identidad digital de los investigadores e investigadoras. Aula Magna 2.0. [Blog]. Recuperado de: http://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/5448
  • Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York, NY: Springer.
  • Shah, N. A. K., & Cox, A. M. (2017). Uncovering the scholarly use of Twitter in the academia: Experiences in a British University. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 22(3), 93–108. http://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol22no3.6
  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643-681. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121
  • Sooho, L., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35 (5), 673-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359
  • Stewart, B. (2015). Open to influence: what counts as academic influence in scholarly networked Twitter participation. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 287–309. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1015547
  • Talja, S. (2002). Information sharing in academic communities: types and levels of collaboration in information seeking and use. New Review of Information Behavior, 3(1), 1–14. Retrieved from http://mapule276883.pbworks.com/f/Info.%20sharing%20in%20academic%20communites.pdf
  • Tennant, J. (2017). Promoting your articles to increase your digital identity and research impact. Science Open [Blog]. Recuperado de: http://blog.scienceopen.com/2017/03/promoting-your-articles-to-increase-your-digital-identity-and-research-impact
  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, Communicating, and Measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236
  • Vasileiadou, E., & Vliegenthart, R. (2009). Research productivity in the era of the internet revisited. Research Policy, 38(8), 1260–1268. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.005
  • Van-Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: scientists and the social network. Nature, 512 (7513), 126-129. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/512126a
  • Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networks. Internet and Higher Education, 16(1), 43–50. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.01.004
  • Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2016). Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: How do education professors and students use Twitter? Internet and Higher Education, 30, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.002
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet