“Yes for sharing, no for teaching!”: Social Media in academic practices

Manca, Stefania; Ranieri, Maria

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.004

Cited by 173 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(69 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, gender seems to be a poor predictor of social media use in scholarly context (Manca & Ranieri, 2016b;Nández & Borrego, 2013), although some slight differences have been reported according to the tools. For example, Zhu (2014) found that females are more inclined to adopt microblogging tools, while men prefer wikis.…”

Section: Differences Across Age Gender and Scientific Disciplinementioning

confidence: 89%

“…At the same time, there are also studies reporting higher usage rate of social media in scientific disciplines (Maron & Smith, 2008;Elsayed, 2016;Procter et al, 2010). However, even though results on this factor are not always consistent in terms of which specific discipline is associated with higher use or with specific practices, discipline still remains a significant factor influencing social media adoption for scholarly purposes (Manca & Ranieri, 2016b).…”

Section: Differences Across Age Gender and Scientific Disciplinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies found that age is an important factor influencing social media adoption, with early-career scholars showing higher rates of use than their older counterparts (Dahlstrom, 2012;Moran et al, 2012;Segado-Boj, Chaparro Dommarro, & Castillo-Rodríguez, 2015;Stewart, 2015;Zhu, 2014). Other studies (Manca & Ranieri, 2016b;Nández & Borrego, 2013) brought to more nuanced conclusions, with younger scholars more inclined to use social network sites and older scholars more interested in conferencing systems, images, and videos. Further findings (Harley, Acord, Earl-Novell, Lawrence, & King, 2010;Procter et al, 2010) seem not to confirm that age is a significant predictor, while some studies suggest that higher usage is associated with older age groups (Procter et al, 2010), or with higher relevance within the network (Jordan, 2014).…”

Section: Differences Across Age Gender and Scientific Disciplinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data related to age and number of years of teaching could not be tested due to lack of similar data for the entire population. For a complete report of statistical analysis, see Manca and Ranieri (2016b). In Table 1, statistics related to socio-demographic and professional variables of the sample are reported.…”

Section: Sample and Data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media use in Scholarly Communication

Manca

Ranieri²

2017

IRRODL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on scholars' use of social media suggests that these sites are increasingly being used to enhance scholarly communication by strengthening relationships, facilitating collaboration among peers, publishing and sharing research products, and discussing research topics in open and public formats. However, very few studies have investigated perceptions and attitudes towards social media use for scholarly communication of large cohorts of scholars at national level. This study investigates the reasons for using social media sites for scholarly communication among a large sample of Italian university scholars (N=6139) with the aim of analysing what factors mainly affect these attitudes. The motivations for using social media were analysed in connection with frequency of use and factors like gender, age, years of teaching, academic title, and disciplinary field. The results point out that for the most used tools the influence of the variables examined was higher in shaping scholars' motivations. In fact, frequency of use, age, years of teaching, and disciplinary field were found to be relevant factors especially for LinkedIn and ResearchGate-Academia.edu, while gender and academic title seemed to have a limited impact on scholars' motivations for all social media sites considered in the study.Considerations for future research are provided along with limitations of the study.

show abstract

Section: Differences Across Age Gender and Scientific Disciplinementioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Differences Across Age Gender and Scientific Disciplinementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Differences Across Age Gender and Scientific Disciplinementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample and Data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media use in Scholarly Communication

Manca

Ranieri²

2017

IRRODL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach aligns with socio-technical studies going beyond technological determinism . For this group of researchers, the research problems of Digital Scholarship are connected with the adoption of social media to do and share research, social scholarship (Greenhow and Gleason 2014;Manca and Ranieri 2016;Veletsianos 2012), with emerging forms of reputation based on general and bespoke media tools (Nicholas, Herman, and Jamali 2015;Weller 2012); with fluid processes of collaborative research entailing interdisciplinary dialogue, teaching and dissemination (Veletsianos and Kimmons 2012a); and with a vision of Open Science that engages public audiences in the making of science, by extending the forms of participation along with the research process (Grand et al 2012). The whole debate is connected to the need for improving scholars' literacy to participate in digital, networked and open contexts of scholarship (Goodfellow and Lea 2013;Veletsianos and Kimmons 2012b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different views on Digital Scholarship: separate worlds or cohesive research field?

Raffaghelli

Cucchiara

Manganello

et al. 2016

Research in Learning Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a systematic review of the literature on Digital Scholarship, aimed at better understanding the collocation of this research area at the crossroad of several disciplines and strands of research. The authors analysed 45 articles in order to draw a picture of research in this area. In the first phase, the articles were classified, and relevant quantitative and qualitative data were analysed. Results showed that three clear strands of research do exist: Digital Libraries, Networked Scholarship and Digital Humanities. Moreover, researchers involved in this research area tackle the problems related to technological uptake in the scholar's profession from different points of view, and define the field in different Á often complementary Á ways, thus generating the perception of a research area still in need of a unifying vision. In the second phase, authors searched for evidence of the disciplinary contributions and interdisciplinary cohesion of research carried out in this area through the use of bibliometric maps. Results suggest that the area of Digital Scholarship, still in its infancy, is advancing in a rather fragmented way, shaping itself around the above-mentioned strands, each with its own research agenda. However, results from the cross-citation analysis suggest that the Networked Scholarship strand is more cohesive than the others in terms of cross-citations.

show abstract

Fisheries Volume 43 Number 3 March 2018

2018

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Yes for sharing, no for teaching!”: Social Media in academic practices

Cited by 173 publications

References 41 publications

Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media use in Scholarly Communication

Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media use in Scholarly Communication

Different views on Digital Scholarship: separate worlds or cohesive research field?

Fisheries Volume 43 Number 3 March 2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About