Search

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study to investigate the changes in scholarly communication practices among a group of scholars in the UK and build upon the results that were published in a previous paper.Design/methodology/approach The study deployed a naturalistic inquiry approach using semi-structured interviews as a qualitative research tool. A sample of 40 participants from four UK universities was interviewed to explore the changes in informal scholarly communication behaviour.Findings The analysis of the interviews revealed that there are three ideal types of behaviour: the “orthodox” uses formal and traditional scholarly communication approaches; the “moderate” prioritises formal communication approaches, but at the same time is trying to get benefits from informal channels; and, the “Heterodox” uses all channels available in the scholarly communication.Originality/value The value of the current study lies in using a naturalistic inquiry approach to investigate the changes in scholarly communication practices, and to explore the different scholarly communication styles. In the context of this study, the use of a naturalistic approach and grounded theory principles in connection with coding provided a stance that allows for the gathering of rich information to enable understanding and explanation of scholarly communication activities in addition to uncovering themes that related to scholarly behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – This study aims to accomplish three objectives: first, to investigate the role and impact of information and communication technologies on the practice of science in the UK; second, to examine and characterise changes in scholarly communication activities such as information seeking, publishing and collaboration; and third, to investigate the validity of the current scholarly communication models and to determine whether there is a need for a new model. Design/methodology/approach – The study deployed a naturalistic inquiry approach using semi-structured interviews as a qualitative research tool. A theoretical sample of 40 researchers in four universities were interviewed to gather data regarding informal scholarly communication practices, factors that affect the researchers’ decisions and changes in the scholarly communication system. Findings – The results of the interviews suggest that there are three types of scholars who engage in scholarly communication activities. First, the “orthodox scholar”, who only uses formal and traditional scholarly communication approaches. Second, the “moderate scholar”, who prioritises formal communication approaches but, at the same time, is trying to get benefits from informal channels. Finally, the “heterodox scholar”, who uses all channels available in scholarly communication. The study also proposes a model of scholarly communication that reflects the current changes in scholarly research. Research limitations/implications – The paper describes the changes in informal scholarly communication practices in four universities in the UK. However, because the study used a naturalistic inquiry approach, the results cannot be generalised to a different population. Originality/value – There is limited literature investigating the changes in informal scholarly communication practices. The value of the current study lies in being the first study in this area that uses a naturalistic inquiry approach to investigate the changes in informal scholarly communication practices, and to develop a new model of scholarly communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]