As mentioned in my previous post, my first Belgrade lecture focused on the concept of Research 2.0.  The second lecture focused on Scholarly Identity 2.0, which is increasingly important because of the wealth of online identity information created by Research 2.0.

The Scholarly Identity Matrix below is adapted from a general identity matrix concept pioneered by the founders of ClaimID. It is meant to display the different types and components of a researcher’s online identity.

The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model below displays how the different components from the Matrix fit together.

The black text is content types. The blue are the characteristics of identity these content types best represent. The green is who is responsible for managing this information. The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model takes the series of concept models one step farther, but with a slightly different twist.

The spectrum is more specific than in past models with one end being entirely user-generated content (UGC) and the other traditional scholarly communication. My hypothesis is that scholarly identity online, or Scholarly Identity 2.0, is a combination of these two information types held together by a unique identifier. For example, the combination verifies not just topical expertise through peer-review of articles, but also personality verified by LinkedIn recommendations.

Please share your thoughts on the accuracy of this model in the comments below or on FriendFeed.

The below presentation covers each quadrant of the Matrix culminating in the Concept Model as a summary.

The above is an evolution of the Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models developed for my Master’s Paper. While the original model primarily focused on academic library services for students, the new model focuses on services for researchers.

Like in the original models, the top represents communication spaces grounded in physical space, while the bottom mirrors this in the online realm.

Two ends of the spectrum are informal communications and formal communications. My argument is that Research 2.0 falls somewhere between these extremes.  I developed the model for the presentation below.

(Update: A video of the presentation is located here.)

This model is meant to capture Research 2.0 as concerns scholarly communication and not research conducted through 2.0 methods such as Galaxy Zoo.

I am eager to receive feedback on how well this model represents the concept of Research 2.0.

• Where is it limited?
• Where is it right? Wrong?
• Please feel free to leave comments below (or on FriendFeed)

I had the opportunity to revisit my concept models and develop this variation when preparing for recent lectures hosted by the University of Belgrade Libraries with support from the Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development and the Serbian library consortium KoBSON. While there, I also had the opportunity to visit the Institute of Technical Sciences Library and the National Library of Serbia; both of which are working on a number of interesting projects.

The first of these lectures is above, the second lecture (and another new model) will follow in a separate post that explores the concept of Scholarly Identity 2.0.

I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic,  at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.

Scholarly Reputation Management Online: The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media
Session 6: Wissenschaftskommunikation 2.0
Social Software @ Work

• “The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online”
  danah boyd’s presentation from the PDF conference.
  (tags: socialnetworking facebook myspace research internet politics culture democracy danahboyd ethnography)

A little while back Facebook got a lot of slack for refusing to ban some particularly reprehensible hate speech groups. While Facebook’s representative employed the cause of free speech in their defense, many commentators have pointed out that, as a private company, Facebook has complete control of the speech on their site. (I wrote most of this series when this event was still playing out, but chose to take some time before completing it and posting.)  I believe, it is important to take a historical perspective when dealing with issues like this. Luckily, the Supreme Court has something to say on this issue. At least they do if you consider Facebook to share legal characteristics with a shopping mall.

Shopping mall owners have a tendency to go overboard in banning speech they personally disagree with. For example, t-shirts with such slogans as “Give Peace a Chance” have often been considered unacceptable by mall owners.

While a mall is used in roughly the same way as main street used to be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that as private property the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Facebook too remains private property, which can be easily forgotten as, like a mall atrium, it is increasingly used as a public space. Given this precedent, it stands to reason that Facebook has no legal obligation to allow hate speech.

However, is it desirable that Facebook take it upon themselves to censor hateful viewpoints such as those in question? As the central online community space for a whole generation at least 2.5 generations, one could argue that it would be more desirable for Facebook to install their own First Amendment.

Why? This makes Facebook less likely to abuse their power to ban whatever they feel like. A lot of legitimate activism takes part on and through Facebook, including a lot of political activity. If Facebook is to remain a platform for such activity, a freedom of speech policy is critical.

For example, Facebook technically could have banned all speech favorable of the Obama campaign leading up to the recent election. Cries of censorship wouldn’t matter from a legal perspective. However, given Obama’s popularity on Facebook, such an action could have skewed the results in favor of McCain

It could be argued that, like for public spaces, the best safeguard against abuse of power in a public-like space like Facebook is an absolutist policy on freedom of speech.

Specifically because there are no legal First Amendment protections inside Facebook, this question becomes more urgent. This is not a question the courts can answer for us.   It is a question we need to answer for ourselves.  Whatever paths Facebook and the other big social networks choose now will set the precedents for later.

In this series of posts, I will argue that online communities share more in common with universities, libraries, and newspapers than they do with shopping malls.

This is the second presentation I will be giving to editors since having taken on the role of Product Manager for 2collab. The presentation breaks down into three sections.

First, I present the findings from the Social Media web survey conducted in May 2008 by my predecessors at 2collab. Conducted using Survey Monkey, 40,000 randomly sampled registered users of ScienceDirect were contacted with a 4.6% response rate yeilding 1,824 responses.

This survey demonstrated that early career researchers (25-44 yrs/old, 1-10 articles), are not only using social media heavily, but they are using it more for work than for play. When comparing how this demographic is currently using social media for work, with how the entirety of respondents expect social media to be used in the next two years, one can see gaps in what tools are available and what are desired. A lot of what I am working on as a Collaboration Tools Product Manager will try to fill these and other gaps in a researcher’s workflow.

After showing how early career researchers are currently using social media, I delve into 2collab as an example of one possible tool journal editors can use to engage with this demographic. One of my primary suggestions is suggesting that authors use 2collab to share their articles alongside supplementary content related to their articles. For example, one can use 2collab to share images from a paper, related presentations, and the article itself all in one place. One of the reasons I was motivated to write this post was to practice what I preach. Some screenshots of Flickr, Slideshare, my blog, and 2collab, related to this post are still to be included in the appendix of the presentation as an example.

Last, I open things up for discussion. To do this I prompt editor’s to think about how they can apply available Web 2.0 tools to the tasks of editing, such as promotion of articles. For those of you familiar with my Master’s paper, you will recognize this methodology as 1 part of my Academic 2.0 theory.

When you get a chance, please take a look at the presentation and let me know if you have any suggestions about how journal editor’s or authors can use social media.

Also, please send any examples you know of editors using social media such as blogs or Flickr to interact with authors, editorial boards, or readers. Thanks.

• On the Nature of Networking — #3 – The Scientist – Richard Grant’s blog on Nature Network
  More discussion on Cameron Neylon’s open letter.
  (tags: sciencenetwork science2.0)

• Main Page – The Facebook Project Wiki
  Includes links to research articles and facts about Facebook.
  (tags: facebook research bibliography)

• What are the best web based tools and technologies for visualizing (and browsing) social networks, and why?
  I asked this question on LinkedIn. Please add your answer if you get a chance.
  (tags: visualization network networkvisualization socialnetworks linkedin question)

• Social Graph API – Google Code

  XFN, FOAF – “With the Social Graph API, developers can now utilize public connections their users have already created in other web services. It makes information about public connections between people easily available and useful.”

  (tags: xfn foaf api social_networks socialnetworks socialgraph)

• What font says ‘Change’? – The Boston Globe

  “TYPOGRAPHY CAN subtly or boldly define a company, product, or person… The logos of the presidential candidates are no exception.”

  (tags: branding design politics)