Concentration: Information Theory and Design, Essay Example

Analyze and discuss the theoretical foundations and current research on the information behavior of users of social networking sites (SNS) and their attitudes towards providing and seeking information in these information environments.

A theory is a body of principles, or generalizations established in association with a particular field of study or practice and the forming of theoretical content is recognized as an intellectual discipline in itself. Theory is also defined as a select group of assumptions, rules, principles of procedures structured to analyzes a set of phenomena, nature or behavior. A model, on the other hand, is a tool based on theoretical ideals. In his text on theories associated with information behavior, Fisher et al (2005)., breaks down individual information behavioral theory into a model by hypothesizing four select explanations that serve as driving factors for why individuals behave the way they do based on the information they have. The first explanation the author give is that 1) “in decision making, people make a good enough decision to meet their needs, and do not necessarily consider all the possible, or knowable, options” (Fisher et al., 2005, p.5). Fisher is keen to point out that the individual is focused primarily on the bare minimum necessary for survival and to continue on living life. He attributes much of this factor number 2) which is that “people underestimate the value of what they do not know, and overestimate the value of what they do know” (Fisher et al., 2005, p.5). He further supports this claim by pointing out most individuals are incapable of imagining new information that they are unaware of, specifically what that information could be or how they might behave based on being equipped with unknown information. On the other hand, information they do know is very real to them, clear, vivid seemingly absolute and irrefutable in nature. Fisher attributes this complexity to why most people under-invest in seeking out new information. Another reason why individuals tend to avoid seeking new information is noted in factor 3) “gaining new knowledge may be emotionally threatening in some cases” (Fisher et al, 2005, p.5). He justifies this concept by pointing out that most people base their perceived identity on the body of knowledge they posses, and changing this knowledge can poses a threat to one’s sense of self. The final factor in Fishers model of individual information behavior is the fact that 4) “information is not tangible” but objects are tangible. He points this out to reiterate another reason why individuals under-invest seeking out new information. He argues they rather pursue tangible objects.  It is within this context that smart phones and other mobile devices in collaboration with the internet and social media sites influence the individual information behavior of consumers with content. Social media serves both as a methods through which a user can frame and shape the information they are exposed to on a daily basis,  as well as a form of programming or filter. Through social media, specifically social network sites, whatever information is most popular within a community of an individual’s peers tends to also recieve the most attnetion from the individual. While this could be viewed as a form of self censorship, in some ways it can be a highly effective path towards solving complex research problems, especially within scholarly communities.

In Gruzd and Staves (2011) study “Trends in Scholarly Use of Online Social Media,” the authors draft a position paper which they presented at the Workshop on Changing Dynamics of Scientific Collaboration. This event was a part of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). The main focus of their study is to decipher how and why scholars are using social media for knowledge information dissemination (KID). The study attempts to answer the following questions:

1. Why are scholars starting to rely on alternative media?
2. What is the geographical reach of alternative media?
3. What is the actual adoption rate for alternative media among scholars?
4. What is the perceived, actual and potential utility of alternative media in the context of KID?
5. Does alternative media help to improve KID?
6. Does alternative media assist in hindering the ability of researchers to publish or present their work in more traditional media such as journals and conferences?

Web 2.0 technology has drastically evolved scholarly research methods. It has also changed day to day activities associated with their professional lives.  Social media is recognized as one of the most substantial focuses of research on KID in scholarly research due to its ability to facilitate communication between individuals and their colleagues (Avital et al, 2006). Gruzd and Straves note that significantly more scholars are starting to realize the advantages offered to their research through the use of social media outlets. For example, “when Dr. Deolalikar was able to have solved the P versus NP problem (one of the most difficult problems in Mathematics and Computer Science) and posted a proof on his website, within just a few hours other computational theorists started a number of wikis and blogs to debate the credibility of this proof” (Gruzd and Staves, 2011,p.3). The authors are keen to point out that this level of development in the field of mathematics could have never been achieved without collaboration between mathematicians which only occurred due to social media (Marouf, 2007).

Popular Social Media Tools for Scholars

Online social media tools like wikis, blogs,  and microblogging site are are substantial source of information as well as a resource utilized by scholars to exchange information in their field. Scholar in a wide range of industries within the sciences are able to utilize these sites to stay  relevant and current on developments. Through the dissemination of information, both through informal communication as well as setting up formal interactions with peers, Blogs were established one of the  first modern social media resources used by scholars. Scholarly blogging platforms like http://scienceblogs.com and http://scientificblogging.com enable researchers to discuss current research, developing trends, and scientific news (Gruzd and Staves, 2011 ). These sites also allow scholars to network and connect with their peers in ways never imagined before the internet, as scholars are able to establish new relationships with their peers, bonds that would have traditionally been formed in proprietary environments of study. In this way blogs establish a community of scholars to interact with one another and provide support. Likewise these technologies have also enabled them to share files like never before.

Solis, et. al.,  (2011), in their text on “Intellectual Property Rights and File Sharing” they talk about how one of the easiest ways for people to exchange secure and valuable information today by means of the Internet is through online file sharing.  File sharing in general entails allowing access to files and information to others via computers and networks (File Sharing). The authors note that “there are two basic types of online file sharing: peer-to-peer and file hosting services” (Solis et al., 2011, p.8). With peer -to-peer (P2P) users connect to other users through software that enables uploading and downloading through a network of peers. File hosting services, on the other hand, function by having the files hosted in one place. This is usually made possible by an Internet hosting service. Users download the files they need from this hosting service. As Solis et al., (2011) points out, “as of right now, P2P is not as popular as file hosting” (Solis et al., 2011, p.8). Many blogs, academic based journals sites, and scientific forums provide access to files or file hosting sites or services that giver researchers access to valued files within their field. An example of this can be seen with known databases like Project Muse, or ProQuest, to simplified blog versions of similar sites. On many blogs, where scientific communities have been established a social network of interaction and correspondence in a particular field, file sharing serves as one of the core methods through which scholars are able to further research and development at a faster rate than if they were not utilizing social media. Solis et al (2011) notes that, “the technology used with one-click hosts is different compared to peer-2-peer. Everything is centralized on servers, which host the files and send them back at the user’s request. The advantage of direct download is that once you start your download it won’t stop until it is finished, unless you get disconnected from the Internet” (Solis et al., 2011, p.8). Solis and authors note that this is significantly different from P2P exchanges due to the fact that in P2P file sharing, the uploader could potentially disconnect, which could significantly slow down the download speed, or even make it impossible for the downloader to receive the files. Through hosting services files are made more readily available.

Social media enable scholars to connect with new scholars from more distant parts of the globe. It cuts the costs of live interaction, but also enables them to more readily correspond with one another. Likewise, globalization has increased the pace with which the information is exchanged from scholar to scholar. All of this means developments in scientific fields of study are much more frequent and technological findings produced from those fields are growing exponentially. This can be attributed in large part to the fact that these blogs are successful in forming communities of scholars, which in turn sparks further collaboration and connections among peers. Scholarly blogging has grown in such popularity that a conference was created, the Science Blogging Conference; the last meeting of which attracted nearly 200 delegates (Bonetta, 2007; Bukvova, et al, 2010). Microblogging sites have also been revealed to be a major source of information dissemination and communication for scholars. An example of a micro-blogging site is a site like Twitter, or conference communication tools that enable for sharing links and information about the real-time events at the conference. Gruzd and Staves (2011), notes that, “Twitter is also frequently used by scholars to communicate with their peers, promote the scholar’s own, or a peer’s work. Due to Twitter’s popularity, innovative microblogging sites that specifically target scholars are also emerging. One such example is http://sciencefeed.com, a microblogging tool designed for scientists and scholars in the science fields” (Gruzd and Staves, 2011,p.3). This reveals how scholar are, in addition to utilizing social media platforms, creating their own with resources and tools that better supplement their needs.

Why Do Scholars Use Social Media Sites?

Many of the prior studies on why scholars use online social media and networking tools often cite their need to communicate with each other (Bonetta, 2007). Additionally, many scholars confirmed a major benefit of using social media tools was the ability the sites gave them to build on ideas formed through interactions with colleagues. This can especially be seen occurring between microbloggers and their readers as the dissemination of information becomes more readily available (Collins et al, 2010; Kirkup, 2010). Research finds microblogs can even replace the need to publish regularly in scholastic journals (Bialeck, 2005; Kirkup, 2010). Another frequently cited benefit that encourages scholars to use these new social media and networking tools is the ability to create and maintain a community or network of other  scholars or colleagues (Birnholtz, et al, 2009; Letierce, et al., 2010). The development of a scholarly community is created by attaining ‘awareness’ between scholars and their respective work. One of the most cited reason for why scholars are flocking to social media tools and resources can be seen in social media’s ability to create blogging communities. Scholars were noted as stating “social media technologies facilitate this ‘awareness’ by increasing the visibility of scholars and remove barriers that traditionally that separate scholars from their peers. The communities created by these social media may inspire increased collaboration and information dissemination between scholars” (Gruzd and Staves, 2011,p.3). One of the most interesting and surprising trends concerning the adoption of these sites by scholars is the age groups who are most likely to use social media tools in their professional life.

Studies show that senior faculty represent the main group adopting the technology and following trend to utilize social media. These researchers have been described by some studies as being the most common and the first adopted of social media and networking sites on college campuses (Birnholtz, et al., 2013). Many attribute this to the job security held by many of these academics. Their positions are tenure and more established, and they do not fear the scrutiny of their colleagues that often comes with the use of social networking sites.

In survey conducted by HR Innovators & Influencers, researchers assessed the difference between the Private Sector and the Public Sector in regards to using social media as a recruitment tool. The study found the most commonly used sites for recruitment are done though, are Linkedin (92%), followed by Facebook (79%) and Twitter (62%). Furthermore, when asked whether there should be one recruiting location for the public sector, specifically one focal website, 61.2% agreed that there should be one site for all.

Fig. 1. Lavigna, B., Flato J. (2014) Collaborative Website in Public Sector

The best way to build the brand of one central website is through social media initiatives.

It is also interesting that scholars in the sciences use social media technologies earlier and more often than their counterparts in the humanities (Gardiner, 2006).  Scholars and researchers are becoming more aware and familiar of or familiar with social media network site. They are learning how to better utilize them as social media tools. This metric earned a mean score of 4.11 out of a possible 5.0 in a study assessing the adoption rate and level of understanding scientists averaged when it came to aspects of social media use and information exchange. Here a mixed method result is provided. This is a quantitative analysis of a qualitative result that measures the quality of social media usage. Another example can be seen with the image and video sharing, which came out to an average of (3.77), in addition to conferencing which earned a (3.66) are the two next familiar social media tools.

It is not clear why scholars and scientific research are adapting so well to the use of social media. Researchers within the field speculate it could either be due to the fact that they have a better understanding of the technologies or just because they have a greater need to use the technology. Cronin (2010) points out that it should not be sen as a coincidence that scientific scholars are more heavily relying on their peers in recent years, due primarily to the fact that social media enables them to more readily rely on their peers while also increasing the pace and frequency of engagement  (Cronin, 2010). Social media tools enable scholars to continue to rely on their peers.   In sum, despite the fact that some limitations and  hesitations are prevalent in respect to the use of these resources, we expect that as these tools grow so will scholarly adoption rates and use. Many researchers are in the process of conducting online surveys and expanding knowledge in the field through a wide range of studies that will better reveal the true nature of this interaction between the scientific community and new information technologies. The results of this research will provide better understanding of changes in the scholarly communication and publishing practices as they occur online. These studies will measure the impact of scholars’ postings on the public and mainstream media.

In Cruz and Jamias’s (2013) study on scientists and their use of social media. In the opening of their study, the authors make the connection between social media use, telecommunications in information science and its impact on scientific research. The authors note that, included in the body of the many technologies that molded scientific communication as a resource for research and study, there are specifically tools that have become known as social communication technology. Researchers Koo, et al. (2011) define these technologies as any technical tools or resources utilized specifically for social purposes. This entails telephone hardware, social networking software, such as tools for instant messaging, e-mail or software that enable video chat conference calls. Technology like Twitter, blogs, websites, forums, Facebook, or video streaming sites like Youtube, fall into this category as well.

Barnes and Lescault (2011) point out that social media in communication has grown in such importance world wide that since 2011, 84 percent of all Fortune 100 corporations have adopted the use of at least one social media platform as their standard protocol (Barnes and Lescault, 2011). This has become especially true within the field of scientific research such as the science industry but academia as well. In regards to development in the field of scientific research, Chou, et al. (2009) reveals that in the social sciences the use of social media has substantially grown connectivity and interactions between people within the profession. In fact, the use of social media on college campuses is becoming a standard resource for educational initiatives as well as a tool for students to correspond with their instructors, to access information, and disseminate information. Cruz and Jamias further affirm this fact noting that, “on the education front, a 2011 study of the Center for Marketing Research of the University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth revealed that 100 percent of U.S. colleges and universities are now using some form of social media” (Cruz and Jamias, 2013, p.1). In addition to the wide spread adoption of social media in colleges and universities for the purpose of information dissemination, Vasileiadou and Vliegenthart (2009), point out that the increasing use of the Internet in research field a wide range of studies assessing the value of internet use in regards to its impact on research. Many of these studies reveal that the internet increases efficiency and enhances the quality of research.

While the internet is most commonly recognized as a tool for accessing resourceful information, which supplements research and enables vital file sharing activities necessary for the exchange developing knowledge in academic fields of study (Walsh, et al., 2000), in further research on the role social media plays in academic study, specifically scientific research, Nordling (2011) reveals that social media is being utilized by scientists for the purpose of networking as well. He cites Romain Murenzi an Executive director at the Italy-based Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, who reveals that social media platforms can help scientists communicate with one another “there is a huge potential for using social media for networking. These platforms can help scientists get together and work on shared areas of interest. It could also dramatically reduce the need for developing-country scientists to travel to meetings and conferences. I use Skype all the time to speak to my colleagues in Rwanda, for instance” (Nordling, 2011, p.1). Murenzi goes on to state that one of the main reasons why scientists from around the world leave their countries is due to lack of safety but also resources in their homeland. He credits social media as a valuable resource to assist scientists in collaborating and sharing both information as well as news about the sociopolitical climate in different regions of the world that might be impeding research and development.

Reference

Avital, M., Björk, B., Boland, R. J., Crowston, K., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2009). ICIS 2008 panel report: Open access publishing to nurture the sprouts of knowledge and the future of information systems research. Communications of AIS, 24, 509-522.

Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. M. (2011). Social media adoption soars as higher-ed experiments and reevaluates its use of new communications tools. Center for Marketing Research. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA.

Birnholtz, J., Yuan, Y. C., & Gay, G. (2009). Bridging social and awareness networks in distributed research collaboration. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://www.sci.utah.edu/images/docs/cscw2010/birnholtz.pdf

Birnholtz, J., Guha, S., Yuan, Y. C., Gay, G., & Heller, C. (2013). Cross?campus collaboration: A scientometric and network case study of publication activity across two campuses of a single institution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 162-172.

Bonetta, L. (2007). Scientists enter the blogosphere. Cell 129(3), 443-445.

Bukvova, H., Kalb, H., & Schoop, E. (2010). What we blog: A qualitative analysis of researchers’ weblogs. Paper presented at the Publishing in the Networked World: Transforming the Nature of Communication 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing. Helsinki, Finland.

Chou, W. Y. S., Hunt, Y. M., Beckjord, E. B., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2009). Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. Journal of medical Internet research, 11(4).

Collins, E., & Hide, B. (2010). Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources for researchers. Paper presented at the Publishing in the Networked World: Transforming the Nature of Communication 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (Helsinki, Finland).

Cronin, B. (2008). The sociological turn in information science. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 465-475.

Cruz, F. & Jamias, S. (2013). Scientists’ use of social media: The case of researchers at the University of the Philippines Los Banos. First Monday, 18(4), Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4296

Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, L. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of information behavior. Information Today, Inc..

Gardiner, D., McMenemy, D., & Chowdhury, G. (2006). A snapshot of information use patterns of academics in British universities. Online Information Review, 30(4), 341-359.

Gruzd, A. & Staves, K. (2011). Trends in scholarly use of online social media. Position paper presented at the Workshop on Changing Dynamics of Scientific Collaboration, the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Retrieved from http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/14427

Kirkup, G. (2010). Academic blogging: Academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8(1), 75-84. Retrieved from informaworld database.

Koo, C., Wati, Y., & Jung, J. J. (2011). Examination of how social aspects moderate the relationship between task characteristics and usage of social communication technologies (SCTs) in organizations. International Journal of Information Management, 31(5), 445-459.

Lavigna, B., Flato J. (2014). Millennials are attracted to public service, but government needs to deliver. Jibe, 1-3

Letierce, J., Passant, A., Breslin, J. G., & Decker, S. (2010). Using twitter during an academic conference: The #iswc2009 use-case. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (National University of Ireland, Galway).

Marouf, L. N. (2007) Social networks and knowledge sharing in organizations: A case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(16), 110-125.

Nordling, L. (2011, February 18). Transforming science strategy in the developing world. Nature International Weekly Journal Science.

Solis, E., Herve, A., Olsen, M., Hart, N., & Scott, T. (2011). Intellectual Property Rights and File Sharing. California State University San Marcos.

Vasileiadou, E., & Vliegenthart, R. (2009). Research productivity in the era of the internet revisited. Research Policy, 38(8), 1260-1268.

Walsh, J. P., Kucker, S., Maloney, N. G., & Gabbay, S. (2000). Connecting minds: Computer?mediated communication and scientific work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1295-1305.