Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
Science 2.0: The open orchestration of knowledge creation
by Fridolin Wild, The Open University
Abstract:
The notion ‘science 2.0’ is a rather young one. Not even old enough to have one single, established definition. Not to speak of an accepted set of schools of thought. Though, this new concept already has a number of advocates who are trying to shape its meaning.
In the words of Waldrop (2008), science 2.0 relates to “new practices of scientists who post raw experimental results, nascent theories, claims of discovery and draft papers on the Web for others to see and comment on”. Underwood et al. (2009) postulate even further that science 2.0 offers more potential than mere efficiency optimization (through improved workflows and better sharing possibilities): participation in research can be broadened beyond existing scientific communities. A science 2.0 is about crowd-sourcing of ideas and the refinement of knowledge in an open debate. It is a logical consequence of the socio-culturalist insight that information is a social concept (Hammwoehner, 2005). As language underspecifies meaning, the co-construction of a scholarly network apt to perceive and understand is part of the research work itself.
Most obviously, this foreseen potential is only possible due to recent advances in web and information technology from which improved awareness, socialization, collaboration, and orchestration possibilities arise.
From the background of the open network of excellence in technology-enhanced learning STELLAR, this keynote gives an overview on the recent advances in practices and technology supporting academic explorers in their knowledge creation endeavors.
Mash-ups (Wild et al. (2008), Wild et al. (2009)), social proxies (Wild et al., to appear), distributed feed networks (Wild & Sigurdarson, 2008), research recommenders (Wild et al., 2009b), enriched with textmining technologies such as meaningful interaction analysis, provide the technological building blocks supporting the emergence of these new practices.
References
1. Waldrop, Mitchell (2008). Science 2.0. In: Scientific American, 298(5), pp. 68-73.
2. Underwood, Joshua; Luckin, Rosemary; Smith, Hilary; Walker, Kevin; Rowland, Duncan; Fitzpatrick, Geraldine; Good, Judith; Benford, Steve (2009): Reflections on Participatory Science for TELSci2.0, In: Science2.0 for TEL, Workshop at the 4th European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (ECTEL’09), Nice, France
3. Hammwoehner, Rainer (2005): Information als logischer Abstraktor? Überlegungen zum Informationsbegriff, In: Eibl,Wolff, Womser-Hacker (Eds.): Designing Information Systems. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, pp. 13 – 26.
4. Wild, Fridolin; Kalz, Marco; Palmér, Matthias (2008): Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments, CEUR Workshop Proceedings
5. Wild, Fridolin; Kalz, Marco; Palmér, Matthias; Mueller, Daniel (2009): Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments, CEUR Workshop Proceedings
6. Wild, Fridolin; Valentine, Chris; Scott, Peter (to appear): Shifting Interests: Changes in the Lexical Semantics of ED-MEDIA, In: International Journal of e-Learning, AACE
7. Wild, Fridolin; Sigurdarson, Steinn (2008): Distributed Feed Networks for Learning, In: Upgrade, IX(3) 2008
8. Wild, Fridolin; Ochoa, Xavier; Heinze, Nina, Crescpo, Raquel M., Quick, Kevin (2009): Bringing together what belongs together: A recommender-system to foster academic collaboration, In: Verbert, Duval, Lindstaedt, Gillet, Scott (Eds.): Proceedings of the workshop on Context-aware Recommendation for Learning, Stellar Alpine Rendezvous