Dear Denise, Thank you very much for the information and suggestions. I have most of the articles you recommended in my collections, and they are very useful. I did not make myself quite clear about my research question in the first email. I am not looking at the culture (or community of practice) of the two from the links as AoIrers do. What I am interested in is the representational practices on the webpages within websites, e.g. how they present their missions, projects and research findings via language, images, colors and so on. What I am targeting at is the data within rather than between the websites. So I was going to ask if AoIrers are familiar with some websites that specially for scholars from science or humanities. But problems arise as I was examining the data: the websites for humanities are not designed by people from science, which might be not that culturally shaped. Thanks indeed for your information. With best regards! Yiqiong -----Original Message----- From: Denise N. Rall [mailto:denrall@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 16 September, 2009 6:16 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; Zhang Yiqiong Subject: Re: [Air-L] looking for websites to study the culture of science and humanities First there is a requirement to measure the differing levels of activity between/among academic websites and Prof Mike Thelwall has done a lot of work in this area - Thelwall, M. (2003). "Web use and peer connectivity metrics for academic Web sites." Journal of Information Science 29(1): 11-20. I believe this paper and some of his other publications do differentiate between high-traffic sites (like Physics) and low-traffic sites (like History) but I could be mixing this paper with another one. Then once having established different traffic patterns amongst/between the various disciplines, you will have to assign *meaning* to those traffic patterns. This could be very tricky. Note how Jenny Fry (below) has been careful to 1) select appropriate fields that will demonstrate differences 2) limited the *aspects* of those differences to things she can measure via web transmission. Many of us have appled the work of Tony Becher to extrapolate meaning from communication patterns to the characteristics of the discipline itself. Becher, T. and P. R. Trowler (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham, UK, SRHE and Open University Press. Other members of AoIR have worked long and hard in this area: Beaulieu, A. (2002). Tracing networks of trust in scholars' internet use: connectivity as ethnographic and formal object. Internet Research 3.0: Net/Work/Theory, Maastricht, Holland, Association of Internet Researchers. This is an older presentation by Anne Beaulieu but she had published a great deal in the area of connectivity and academic culture. Another AoIRer, Jenny Fry in the UK has worked a lot in this area: Fry, J. (2002). Academic Research Cultures and Computer-mediated Communication. Society for the Social Studies of Science. Fry, J. (2006). "Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach." Information Processing and Management 42: 299-316. Abstract This paper deals with information needs, seeking, searching, and uses within scholarly communities by introducing theory from the field of science and technology studies. In particular it contributes to the domain-analytic approach in information science by showing that Whitley’s theory of ‘mutual dependence’ and ‘task uncertainty’ can be used as an explanatory framework in understanding similarity and difference in information practices across intellectual fields. Based on qualitative case studies of three specialist scholarly communities across the physical sciences, applied sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities, this paper extends Whitley’s theory into the realm of information communication technologies. The paper adopts a holistic approach to information practices by recognising the interrelationship between the traditions of informal and formal scientific communication and how it shapes digital outcomes across intellectual fields. The findings show that communities inhabiting fields with a high degree of ‘mutual dependence’ coupled with a low degree of ‘task uncertainty’ are adept at coordinating and controlling channels of communication and will readily co-produce field-based digital information resources, whereas communities that inhabit fields characterised by the opposite cultural configuration, a low degree of ‘mutual dependence’ coupled with a high degree of ‘task uncertainty’, are less successful in commanding control over channels of communication and are less concerned with co-producing field-based digital resources and integrating them into their epistemic and social structures. These findings have implications for the culturally sensitive development and provision of academic digital resources such as digital libraries and web-based subject portals. Good luck. A lot of work has already been done in this area, so make sure your literature search is thorough as what you propose (from first glance) has already been explored. Denise N. Rall, PhD. Special Projects, Faculty of Arts & Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Mobile +(61) (0)438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/esm/staff/pages/drall/ Join the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Internet Research 10.0, October 7-11, Milwaukee, WI, USA --- On Sun, 13/9/09, Zhang Yiqiong <zhangyiqiong@nus.edu.sg> wrote:
From: Zhang Yiqiong <zhangyiqiong@nus.edu.sg>
__________________________________________________________________________________ Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/