The e-Research on Media & Communications: Attitudes, Tools and Practices in Latin America Researchers

Abstract

e-Research is changing practices and dynamics in social research by the incorporation of advanced e-tools to process data and increase scientific collaboration. Previous research shows a positive attitude of investigators through e-Research and shows a fast incorporation of e-Tools, in despite of many cultural resistances to the change. This paper examines the current state (attitudes, tools and practices) of e-Research in the field of Media and Communication Studies in Latin America, Spain and Portugal. A total of 316 researchers of the region answered an online survey during the last 2 months of 2011. Findings confirm an optimistic attitude through e-Research and an often use of e-Tools to do research. Even though, most of them informed to use basic e-Tools (e.g. e-mail, commercial videoconference, office software and social networks) instead of advanced technologies to process huge amount of data (e.g. Grid, simulation software and Internet2) or the incorporation to Virtual Research Communities. Some of the researchers said that they had an «intensive» (31%) and «often» (53%) use of e-Tools, but only 22% stated that their computer capacity was not enough to manage and process data. The paper evidences the gap between e-Research in Communications and e-Research in other disciplines; and makes recommendations for its implementation. RESUMENLa e-investigación está cambiando las prácticas y dinámicas de la investigación social, gracias a la incorporación de herramientas digitales avanzadas para el procesamiento de datos y el incremento de la colaboración científica. Estudios anteriores muestran una actitud positiva de los científicos hacia la e-investigación y la rápida incorporación de herramientas digitales para el trabajo académico, a pesar de las resistencias culturales al cambio. Este artículo examina el estado actual (actitudes, herramientas y prácticas) de la e-investigación en el campo de los estudios en comunicación en Iberoamérica. Un total de 316 investigadores de la región respondieron una encuesta en línea durante los últimos dos meses de 2011. Los resultados confirman una actitud positiva hacia la e-investigación y un uso frecuente de las e-herramientas. Sin embargo, la mayor parte de ellos aseguran usar e-herramientas básicas (como correo-e, videoconferencia comercial, software de oficina o redes sociales), en vez de usar tecnologías avanzadas para procesar gran cantidad de datos (como Grids, programas de simulación o Internet2) o de incorporarse a comunidades virtuales de investigación. Algunos investigadores afirmaron tener un uso «intensivo» (31%) o «frecuente» (53%) de las e-herramientas, pero solo el 22% aseguraron que la capacidad de su computador personal era insuficiente para manejar y procesar los datos. El artículo concluye evidenciando una brecha importante entre la e-investigación en comunicación y en otras disciplinas, y establece recomendaciones para su implementación en la región. (Colombia), Martín Díaz (Colombia) y Elias Suárez (Colombia).2 The 22 groups that make up the ALAIC can b...

Spanish academics and social networking sites: Use, non-use, and the perceived advantages and drawbacks of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, and Academia.edu

“…Discipline has been claimed to be another relevant factor that influences scholars' social media uses and habits (Kjellberg, et al, 2016), therefore we included it as an additional criterion. For example, academics linked to pure and experimental sciences appear more inclined to use these platforms than are their counterparts in the social sciences and humanities (Arcila, et al, 2013). Also, academics from different fields prefer different SNS (Ortega, 2017).…”

Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature

“…Given that use of a single platform varies considerably—for example, less than 10% of scholars reported using Twitter (Rowlands et al, ), whereas 46% used ResearchGate (Van Noorden, ), and more than 55% used YouTube (Tenopir et al, )—it is necessary to discuss the use of various types of social media separately. Furthermore, there is a distinction among types of use, with studies showing higher uses of social media for dissemination, consumption, communication, and promotion (e.g., Arcila‐Calderón, Piñuel‐Raigada, & Calderín‐Cruz, ; Van Noorden, ), and fewer instances of use for creation (i.e., using social media to construct scholarship) (British Library et al, ; Carpenter, Wetheridge, Tanner, & Smith, ; Procter et al, ; Tenopir et al, ).…”

“…Scholars report that one of the barriers for professional use is the trade‐off between the amount of time it takes to learn a new tool and the expected advantages (Dantonio, Makri, & Blandford, ; Davis, Coppock, & Vowell, ). Connecting with other researchers (for community building or collaboration), disseminating research, and following the research output of others are primary motivations for scholarly use of social networking sites (Arcila‐Calderón et al, ; Nández & Borrego, ; Veletsianos, ), though motivations differ by user group (e.g., students, post‐docs, and lecturers) (British Library et al, 2012; Nández & Borrego, ) and by domain area (Chakraborty, ; Elsayed, ). Academic social networking sites are also used for professional branding—in a study of http://Academia.edu, the majority of respondents reported that the profile functioned like an online business card (Jordan, ; Van Noorden, ), although many profiles contain little information (Thelwall & Kousha, ).…”

La investigación en comunicación en la academia en español y portugués . Las revistas científicas presentes en los rankings WoS-JCR y Scimago-SJR (sección de comunicación). Un mapa del flujo de investigación en España y América Latina entre 2009 y 2019

“…Por otra parte, existen numerosos estudios que ofrecen visiones panorámicas de la investigación (Rodrigo-Alsina y García-Jiménez, 2011; Fernández-Quijada y Masip-Masip, 2013;Arcila, Piñuel y Calderín, 2013, Martínez-Nicolás, 2009Vidales, 2015;Fuentes, 1994;Giménez-Toledo y Jiménez-Contreras, 2013;Vasallo, 1999;Piñuel, Lozano y Gaitán, 2015;Rodríguez-Serrano y Gil-Soldevilla, 2018y Piñuel, 2009, 2011.…”