1.
Communication in science: toward a descriptive conceptual framework<br />Christina K. Pikas<br />Doctoral Candidate<br />Doctoral Research DayFebruary 14, 2011<br />

2.
Given:<br />Communication is vital to science –it is the “essence”<br />Garvey (1979)<br />

3.
Problem:<br />Many disciplines study science communication<br />Communication and Rhetoric<br />Information Science<br />Science and Technology Studies<br />These bodies of literature are independentand do not build upon one another<br />

4.
Problem:<br />New social computing technologies (SCTs)are being adopted in science*<br />Many early studies seem oblivious to the body of literature in any of the disciplines<br />Chu & Guo (2006), Mark Ware Consulting (2008), Proctor, Williams, & Stewart, (2010)<br />

5.
Problem:<br />For social computing technologies in particular,the technology and uses co-evolve<br />Early specific studies on a single technologyquickly become dated<br />

6.
My approach:<br />Develop a comprehensive framework to describe communication in sciencethat draws upon the relevant literatures<br />The framework will be useful for:<br />Situating new technologies<br />Research on uses of SCTs<br />Helping organizations understand SCTs, so that they may support their use<br />

7.
My Dissertation:<br />Presents a tentative framework<br />Tests and continues to develop that framework by analyzing the uses of selected SCTs (blogs and microblogging)in a specific community (geosciences)<br />

8.
Framework:<br />Headings:<br />Communication partners<br />Purpose<br />Features of the message<br />Communication channel<br />

9.
Communication Partners:<br />Number<br />Education or sophistication<br />Match<br />

10.
Purpose:<br />Dissemination<br />Certification<br />Preservation<br />Learning/Teaching<br />Persuasion<br />Evaluation/Opinion<br />Social<br />Entertainment<br />Borgman (2007) Nentwich (2003)<br />

11.
Features of the Message:<br />Topic<br />Type of content<br />Data, instructions, analysis, theory<br />Structure<br />Persistence<br />Review or quality control<br />

12.
Communication channel:<br />Face-to-face<br />Mediated<br />copresence, <br />visibility, <br />audibility, <br />cotemporality, <br />simultaneity, <br />sequentiality, <br />reviewability<br />Clark & Brennan (1993)<br />

13.
Methods:<br />Case studies combining<br />Qualitative individual interviews<br />Participant observation<br />Qualitative content analysis<br />

14.
Contact me:<br />@cpikas<br />cpikas@ {umd, gmail}<br />http://scientopia.org/blogs/christinaslisrant<br />Slides will be posted to SlideSharehttp://www.slideshare.net/cpikas<br />