Premise

The purpose of this survey is to explore the level of adoption of Web 2.0 tools among research communities for the creation of scientific knowledge in their research activity, how and how much Web 2.0 is currently used among research communities, the benefits and the disadvantages perceived in utilizing these innovative tools. The survey intends also to explore the level of adoption of Web 2.0 tools in teaching activities, the benefits and the disadvantages perceived.

There are many definitions of Web 2.0 which however do not exclude each other. To the purpose of our survey we will adopt the Anderson’s Web 2.0 definition (Anderson, 2007): “Web 2.0 encompasses a variety of different meanings that include an increased emphasis on user-generated content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort, together with the use of various kinds of social software, new ways of interacting with web-based applications, band the use of the web as a platform for generating, re-purposing and consuming content”. Therefore, we propose a broad concept of the term Web 2.0 by including in it a variety of generic tools which facilitate knowledge sharing (i.e., Google Docs, Google Calendar, Skype etc).

The questionnaire is divided in 3 sections:

1. Personal information

2. Web 2.0 tools and their adoption in research activities

3. Web 2.0 tools and their adoption in teaching activities

It will take you about ten minutes to fill it out. We thank you for your collaboration.

Licia Calvi, Maria Cassella

1. First section: Personal information

1.1 Position

Full Professor

Senior Researcher/Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor

Junior Researcher/Lecturer/Assistant Professor

PhD student

1.2 Discipline/field of research:

Arts and Humanities

Social sciences

Computer sciences

Mathematics

Health

Life sciences

Earth sciences

Physical sciences

Engineering

Business, Marketing and Management

Library and Information Sciences

1.3 Age

25–35

36–40

41–45

46–50

51–60

Section 2: Web 2.0 tools and their adoption in research activities

2.1 Do you use Web 2.0 tools (microblogging platforms, social networks, software for collaborative reference management (e.g., Mendeley, Zotero and so on)) for sharing information and knowledge creation in your research activity?

1. Yes, I use them regularly

2. Yes, I use them, but seldom

3. No, I use them only for personal goals

4. No, I never use them neither for professional nor for personal goals

2.2. What are the most common Web 2.0 tools you adopt in your research activity?

1. Social networking platforms

• Facebook

• LinkedIn

• Academia.edu

• Others (specify)

2. Wikis

• Wikipedia

• Institutional wikis

• My colleagues’ personal wikis

• Other scientific wikis (specify)

3. Blogs

• My personal blog

• Other scientific blogs (e.g., ScienceBlog.com, Nature.com Blogs)

• My colleagues’ personal blogs

4. Microblogging platforms (e.g., Twitter)

5. Social bookmarking and reference management tools

• Delicious

• Connotea

• CiteULike

• Mendeley

• Zotero

6. Collaborative project platforms

• Mavenlink

• Others (specify)

7. Other kind of collaborative platforms and tools

• Google Calendar

• Google Docs

• Google Talks

• My Experiment

• YouTube

• YouTube.edu

• Nature Precedings

• Skype

• Others (specify)

2.3 What are the main advantages in adopting Web 2.0 tools in your research activity?

(For each item the respondent should choose between “I totally disagree”, “I disagree”, “Neutral”, “I agree” and “I definitely agree”)

1. They help me work in a collaborative way

2. They help me share and disseminate fast ideas and research results

3. They help me keep in touch with my colleagues

4. They are easy to use (minimum skills required in using them)

5. They are free to use

6. They help me keep updated in my research field

7. They help me save time and costs (i.e., travelling is less necessary….)

2.4 What are the main reasons for not adopting Web 2.0 tools in your research activity?

(For each item the respondent should choose between “I totally disagree”, “I disagree”, “Neutral”, “I agree” and “I definitely agree”)

1. I am very busy and it takes me too much time to use these tools

2. I do not trust Web 2.0 tools and platforms

3. Privacy concern

4. Web 2.0 tools promote amateurishness by opening contents to non academic users

5. It hides behind it a sum of technologies and concepts which are still insufficiently defined

6. Low quality of shared contents

7. In my research field collaboration is not a modus operandi (I work by myself)

Section 3: Web 2.0 tools and their adoption in teaching activities

3.1 Do you use Web 2.0 tools in your teaching activity?

1. Yes, I use them regularly

2. Yes, I use them, but seldom

3. I use them only for personal goals

4. I never use them neither for professional nor for personal goals

3.2 What Web 2.0 tools do use in your teaching activity?

3.3 List some examples of the use you make of it.

3.4 What are the main advantages in adopting Web 2.0 tools in your teaching activity?

(For each item the respondent should choose between “I totally disagree”, “I disagree”, “Neutral”, “I agree” and “I definitely agree”)

1. They help me have an immediate feedback from my students

2. I use them to post my teaching resources (video, slides etc)

3. I use them to create and share bibliography with my students

4. I use them to create a more accessible, portable, durable, and interactive educational portfolio

5. They help me create a very good classroom environment

6. They help me better identify students’ interests and use of teaching resources

7. They help my students to develop capabilities in communication and collaborative works

3.5 What are the main reasons for not adopting Web 2.0 tools in your teaching activity?

1. Lack of time

2. Lack of expertise

3. Privacy concern

4. Do you think the use of social tools will increase in the next five years in your research and teaching activity?

5. Comments