Doreen Siegfried, Athanasios Mazarakis, Isabella Peters Usage of Social Media services in economics Report of the findings of an online survey among economics scholars at German universities and research institutions 2013 An empirical study within the framework of the Leibniz Research Alliance Science 2.0
60
Embed
Doreen Siegfried, Athanasios Mazarakis, Isabella Peters ...€¦ · of research and teaching, in particular for the purpose of searching and sha - ring data. The foremost motive for
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Usage of Social Media services in economicsReport of the findings of an online survey among economics scholars at German universities and research institutions 2013
An empirical study within the framework of the Leibniz Research Alliance Science 2.0
abstract
The present study focuses on the use of Web 2.0- and social software-based technical applications among scientists in the disciplines of economics, bu-siness studies and other economics-related subjects. The study describes in particular their knowledge of, usage of, and type of use of various Social Media services. The essential findings are as follows:
Economists at German universities and research institutes most frequently use the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, content sharing services, video and image hosting services, and video conference systems in their everyday lives. In a professional context, economists primarily use highly specialised tools such as learning management and reference management systems. Almost one in three German economists is active in academic and professional networks such as Academia.edu or Xing.
For scholarly work, Social Media services are most important in the context of research and teaching, in particular for the purpose of searching and sha-ring data. The foremost motive for the increased use of so-called Social Media services is that it speeds up work. Wikipedia and other wikis, internet forums, and online reference management systems are quoted mostly for purposes of research. Content sharing services are highly popular for data sharing. We can state that Social Media has arrived in economics but that there are funda-mental differences in the intensity of usage among the various services.
ZBW – German National Library of EconomicsLeibniz Information Centre for Economics
Represented by the director of the ZBW:Professor Klaus Tochtermann
Editor:Dr Doreen Siegfried Head of Marketing and Public Relations Düsternbrooker Weg 12024105 KielT: +49–431–8814–455F: +49–431–8814–520E: [email protected]
1.1 Design of the survey and sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 81.2 Sample description …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
2. Findings on usage of Social media services ………………………………………………………………………………… 9
2.1 General usage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 102.2 Usage for primarily professional purposes ………………………………………………………………………… 112.3 Intensity of professional usage ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 122.4 Usage of Social media services for different activities ………………………………………………………… 142.4.1 Usage of Social Media services for teaching ………………………………………………………………………… 142.4.2 Usage of Social Media services for research ………………………………………………………………………… 152.4.3 Usage of Social Media services for scholarly communication …………………………………………… 152.4.4 Usage of Social Media services for academic administration …………………………………………… 16
3. Types of use of various Social Media services …………………………………………………………………………… 17
3.1 Usage of Social Media services for coordination and communication ……………………………… 183.2 Usage of Social Media services for data collection / data evaluation ………………………………… 193.3 Usage of Social Media services for sharing information and data ……………………………………… 193.4 Usage of Social Media services for the purpose of searching for data and literature ……… 21
4. Motives for professional (non-)usage of Social media services ………………………………………………… 23
4.1 Primary motives for professional usage of Social Media services ……………………………………… 244.2 Primary motives for non-usage of Social Media services …………………………………………………… 24
5. Access to Social Media services ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
5.1 Sources of information about Social Media services ………………………………………………………… 265.2 End devices for Social Media usage ……………………………………………………………………………………… 26
6. Summary and discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Appendix A ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
6
introduction
Social Media tools have become an integral part of everyday life for many people. Three in four internet users in Germany are registered with at least one social online network; two thirds are active users of social networks and not merely passive readers. Among 14-29-year-old internet users, 92 percent are members in one or more online communities. Among 30-49-year-olds, this share amounts to 72 percent, and in the generation 50-plus it is still 55 percent ( ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2013, BITKOM Studie 2013; D21 - Digital - Index 2013).
Gradually the various Social Media tools, such as social and professional networks, content sharing services or wi-kis, are used in a professional context. Scholars discover the advantages of web-based work organisation for their own working routines. Some examples:
98 percent of all scientists in Saxony read wikis (in particular Wikipedia) and 61 percent read blogs. 64 percent of all scientists in Saxony use content sharing and cloud services. (Pscheida & Köhler, 2012, p. 15). 63 percent of all scientists in the United Kingdom use Social Media channels for collaborative writing (Nicholas & Rowlands, 2011, p. 63). For academic purposes, blogs, Twitter, Facebook groups and pages are the most popular tools (Zhu & Procter, 2012, p. 8). The first nationwide survey among scientists at German universities and research institutions shows that Social Media has arrived in science, and that specialised tools such as Academia, Dropbox or Moodle are highly valued (Pscheida et.al., 2013).
The present study looks at the role that Social Web tools play for economists at German universities. Which So-cial Media services are used for what purpose and how intensively? Why do economists use certain tools, but not others? What end devices are used for Social Media services?
The present report “Usage of Social Media services in economics” is part of a cooperation project of Goportis – Leibniz Library Network for Information Research within the framework of the Leibniz Research Alliance Scien-ce 2.0 (www.leibniz-science20.de). The report is based on an online survey conducted among economists at Ger-man universities and non-university-affiliated institutions in October and November 2013.
The report is laid out as follows: Chapter 1 describes the methodology of data collection and the composition of the sample. Chapter 2 presents the findings on incidence and intensity of the usage of Social Media services for pro-fessional purposes in economics. Chapter 3 differentiates among Social Media usage for the activities of teaching, research, scholarly communication and academic administration. Chapters 4 and 5 present the foremost motives for the usage or non-usage of Social Media services for professional purposes as well as the means for accessing Social Media services. The report ends in chapter 6 with a summary and discussion of the findings.
1. Method
8 Method
1.1 Design of the survey and sample
Form and content of the present online survey (for the questionnaire see appendix B) were based on the previous work of Pscheida & Köhler (2013). The project partners added a few modifications and revisions to the questionnaire used in 2012. The survey was conducted in the form of an online questionnaire. The sampling focussed on surveying as large a number of economists as possible.
In total, 10,297 study participants in economics received a personalised email including a link which invited them to participate in the survey. After data cleaning and plausibility check 766 valid datasets remained. The response rate among surveyed economists thus amounts to 7 percent.
In addition, the survey addressed 2,012 scientists in human and health sciences, and 9,394 scientists in natural and engineering sciences. In health and human sciences the survey produced 193 valid datasets, e.g. a response rate of 9.6 percent. In natural and engineering sciences the number of valid datasets was 1,047, representing a response rate of 11.2 percent. The analysis compares values between various disciplines in case of significantly relevant differences.
The online questionnaire addressed the following aspects:
→ Knowledge and usage/non-usage of various online tools and Social Media services → Type of use of selected services (active or passive) → Incidence/intensity of usage of various online tools and Social Media services → Context of the usage of various online tools → Reasons for the usage or non-usage of Social Media services for professional purposes → Source of information about new Social Media services → Choice of end devices for accessing Social Media services
The complete questionnaire can be viewed as images in appendix B of this report.
1.2 Sample description
All in all, 766 economists participated in the survey. One in three are women (35.2 percent), nearly two in three are men (63.3 percent), and 1.5 percent of the respondents did not state their gender. On average, the respondents were 39 years old (SD = 11.48). 45 percent of the respondents are active in business studies (343 participants), 22 percent in economics (171 participants) and 14 percent from other economics-related disciplines (106 participants). 38 percent of the respondents were professors, 31 percent research assistants and PhD candidates, 2 percent just PhD candidates, 3 percent academic civil servants, 5 percent were PostDocs and 19 percent were research assistants. See the following figure:
Figure 1Sample composition by professional status
5 percent PostDocs
31 percent research assistants + PhD candidates
38 percent professors
19 percent research assistants
2 percent PhD candidates
3 percent academic civil servants
2. Findings
10 Findings
2.1 General usage
The key concern of the study was to gain an overview of the usage of Social Media in the daily work routines of eco-nomists at German universities and research institutions.
The survey asked about 15 different Social Media services. In order to ensure a common understanding of the tools, the survey named, wherever possible, exemplary applications which are considered typical for the corresponding tool.
The economists first had to state which tools they use, regardless whether for private or professional use. The results can be summarised as follows, see table 11:
Table 1Usage and non-usage of Social Media services in economics
1 Percentage values in this and all following tables that do not add up to 100 percent are due to rounding errors and missing/not provided responses.
Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (n=766)
11 Findings
This overview shows that the usage of the sampled tools among economists is very high. Ten Social Media services are used by more than 50 percent of respondents from economics. The highest usage is found for Wikipedia (95.8 percent), content sharing services (78.6 percent), video/image hosting services (77.0 percent) and video conference systems (74.7 percent). Least known and least used are social bookmarks (for more details see appendix A, table 8).
If we look at the other disciplines sampled in the course of this cooperative study (see table 13, appendix A), we can state in comparison that economists show higher private and professional use of social and academic networks than either natural and engineering scientists or human and health scientists.
Figure 2Usage of Social Media services in economics
2.2 Usage for primarily professional purposes
Regarding the usage context (professional or private), the study’s findings show that in the working routines of eco-nomists highly specialised tools like learning management systems and reference management systems play a signi-ficant part. Nearly one in three respondents is active in professional and academic networks. Almost one in four re-spondents uses content sharing services and wikis. However, the majority of sampled Social Media services are used by less than 10 percent of economists primarily for professional purposes. Applications used by respondents for both private and professional purposes are disregarded here. The question which Social Media services are used solely or primarily for professional purposes produces the following distribution, see table 2:
Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (n=766)
Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (n=766)
12 Findings
Table 2Professional usage of Social Media services in economics
2.3 Intensity of professional usage
Regarding the intensity of professional usage, i.e. how often Social Media is used, the study shows that social networks are at the top of the list among economists. More than one in three respondents uses social networks at least once a day.
Besides Facebook, Google+ and co., economists also make intensive use of content sharing services, learning manage-ment systems and Wikipedia. Intensive use means “several times a day” and “once every day”, average usage is “seve-ral times a week” and “once every week”, occasional usage is “every month” and “less than every month”. 21 percent of the economists visit the online encyclopedia Wikipedia daily, whereas the percentage among natural and engineering scientists, and mathematicians, who were also surveyed in this cooperative study, amounts to 37 percent.
The opposite holds true for content sharing and cloud services. The number of economists using Dropbox and co. on a daily basis is twice as high as the number of natural and engineering scientists or human and health scientists. The same applies to learning management systems where economists show the highest usage in this comparison group (see table 15, appendix A).
The tools which received the highest values in intensive usage among economists are the social networks with 38 percent, content sharing services with 36 percent and learning management systems with 27 percent. The highest values for occasional use are found for video conferences (63 percent), web-based real-time editors (60 percent) and wikis (52 percent). In comparison to other disciplines, economists rarely use wikis. The quotas for occasional usage are 37 percent among natural and engineering scientists and only 41 percent among human and health scientists.
These are the findings for economics as an overview, see figure 3:
“use”
Learning management systems 54.6 percent
Reference management systems 42.2 percent
Academic and professional networks 32.0 percent
Content sharing services 22.4 percent
Other wikis 22.3 percent
Video conferences 20.5 percent
Internet forums 10.0 percent
Web-based real-time editors 9.8 percent
Chat / IM 8.4 percent
Weblogs 7.7 percent
Wikipedia 6.2 percent
Video/image hosting services 4.3 percent
Microblogs 3.4 percent
Social networks 3.4 percent
Social bookmarking services 2.7 percent
Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (n=766))
13 Findings
Figure 3Intensity of professional usage
Social networks38 percent intensive43 percent average27 percent occasional
Video conferences5 percent intensive31 percent average63 percent occasional
63 percent occasional
14 Findings
2.4 Usage of Social media services for different activities
The study also surveyed the use of the various services in the daily work routines of scientists. For this purpose it differentiated between the activities of “teaching”, “research”, “scholarly communication”, and “academic administ-ration”. The usage of Social Media services for these four activities is presented below. This question was addressed to all participants who stated a professional usage for the various services named.
2.4.1 Usage of Social Media services for teaching
More than half of the economists use Wikipedia and learning management systems to prepare and follow-up on se-minars and lectures. These two applications are by far the most important. Looking at the behaviour of human and health scientists or natural and engineering scientists, who were also surveyed in this cooperative study, we find that economists use Wikipedia comparatively more often (58.2 percent) than human and health scientists (51.3 percent) or natural and engineering scientists (46.7 percent).
Around one in three economists also uses content sharing services and video or image hosting services. Least relevant for teaching in economics are web-based real-time editors, microblogs and social bookmarking. See the following fi-gure 4.
Figure 4Usage of Social Media services for teaching
Wikipedia
Learning management systems
Content sharing
Video/image hosting services
Internet forums
Other wikis
Video conferences
Chat/ IM
Academic networks
Weblogs
Social networks
Reference management software
Web-based real-time editors
Microblogs
Social bookmarking
58 percent
52 percent
31 percent
30 percent
24 percent
31 percent
19 percent
11 percent
10 percent
10 percent
10 percent
10 percent
7 percent
3 percent
2 percent
15 Findings
2.4.2 Usage of Social Media services for research
Wikipedia is also the most frequently used Social Media tool for research. Every other economist in Germany uses Wikipedia for research (51 percent). Other important tools are content sharing services (47 percent) and reference management systems (43 percent). In addition, almost a third of the respondents consider internet forums and video conferences as important. Least relevant are microblogs (3 percent) and social bookmarking (3 percent; see figure 5).
Figure 5Usage of Social Media services for research
2.4.3 Usage of Social Media services for scholarly communication
The tools of the Web 2.0 are not yet widely used for scholarly communication. Less than half of the economists in Germany carry out their routine communication tasks by means of the Web 2.0. We can state however, that more than a third (37 percent) of the surveyed economists use professional and academic networks such as Xing, Academia.edu etc. to network with colleagues. In comparison to human, health, natural or engineering scientists, economists use the social networks far more often for scholarly communication. In the comparison groups, classical mailing lists are more important (see table 19, appendix A).
Approximately one in four German economist uses video conferences (27 percent), chats and instant messaging (26 percent), and social networks such as Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn etc. (18 percent). Weblogs and microblogs play a minor role (see figure 6).
Wikipedia
Content sharing
Reference management software
Internet forums
Video conferences
Other wikis
Chat/ IM
Academic networks
Weblogs
Video/image hosting services
Web-based real-time editors
Social networks
Learning management systems
Social bookmarking
Microblogs
51 percent
47 percent
43 percent
31 percent
30 percent
25 percent
23 percent
16 percent
14 percent
12 percent
12 percent
8 percent
4 percent
3 percent
3 percent
Figure 6Usage of Web 2.0 for scholarly communication in economics
2.4.4 Usage of Social Media services for academic administration
For economists employed at universities, academic administration is as much a part of their daily work routines as are research and teaching. In contrast to research and teaching, however, the tools of the Web 2.0 play no essential part in this. Less than one in five economists uses any of the tools quoted, with the exception of content sharing services (21 percent). See figure 7.
Figure 7Usage of Web 2.0 for academic administration
Academic networks
Video conferences
Chat/ IM
Content sharing
Social networks
Internet forums
Wikipedia
Other wikis
Video/image hosting services
Weblogs
Learning management systems
Microblogs
Web-based real-time editors
Reference management software
Social Bookmarking
37 percent
27 percent
26 percent
22 percent
18 percent
14 percent
9 percent
9 percent
8 percent
7 percent
5 percent
4 percent
4 percent
3 percent
1 percent
16 Findings
Content sharing
Video conferences
Chat/ IM
Academic networks
Other wikis
Wikipedia
Learning management systems
Reference management software
Internet forums
Web-based real-time editors
Social networks
Video/image hosting services
Weblogs
Social bookmarking
Microblogs
21 percent
15 percent
11 percent
10 percent
10 percent
7 percent
7 percent
6 percent
5 percent
4 percent
3 percent
2 percent
1 percent
0.5 percent
0.4 percent
3. Usage
18 Usage
After taking a holistic view at the usage of Social Media services in economics, we wanted to know for which stages within the research process the various tools are employed. The following tables state the percentage of participants which have ticked the following possible motives for using various Social Media services in the questionnaire. For this question, participants were shown only those services in the questionnaire which they actually named as being used for professional purposes. Multiple answers were possible.
The following areas of activity were sampled:
→ Coordination/communication → Data collection/data evaluation → Sharing of information → Data sharing → Searching data and literature
3.1 Usage of Social Media services for coordination and communication
Video conferences/VoIP services (e.g.Skype), chat/instant messaging services and learning management systems are the tools used most frequently for the processes of coordination/communication in the context of research activities. See the following table 3:
Table 3Usage of Social Media services for coordination and communication
“use” total n
percent n
Video conferences 86.0 196 228
Chat/ IM 76.4 133 174
Learning management systems 60.7 17 28
Social networks 56.7 34 60
Academic networks 47.1 56 119
Web-based real-time editors 43.3 39 90
Content sharing 27.6 99 359
Microblogs 25.0 6 24
Social bookmarking 10.0 2 20
Other wikis 8.9 17 191
Internet forums 7.7 18 234
Weblogs 6.8 8 118
Video/image hosting services 6.3 6 95
Reference management software 5.5 18 329
Wikipedia 1.6 6 387
19 Usage
3.2 Usage of Social Media services for data collection / data evaluation
Most economists use Social Media services such as reference management software for processes of “data collection/data evaluation” in the context of research activities. To a limited extent, economists at German research institutions (9.5 percent) also use content sharing/cloud services for this purpose. We can state that tools of the Social Web play only a minor role for data collection and data evaluation. The majority of quoted applications is used by only a few of the participants. See the following table 4:
Table 4Usage of Social Media services for data collection / data evaluation
3.3 Usage of Social Media services for sharing information and data
Where the focus in the research process is laid on “sharing information”, the conventional tools like email or telepho-ne are most frequently supplemented by Social Media services such as video conferences, content sharing services and chats. For the purposes of “data sharing” the preferred tools are content sharing/cloud services such as Dropbox or Slideshare. See the following tables 5 and 6.
“use” total n
percent n
Microblogs 50.0 12 24
Reference management software 27.1 89 329
Social networks 25.0 15 60
Academic networks 20.2 24 119
Learning management systems 17.9 5 28
Social bookmarking 15.0 3 20
Video/image hosting services 12.6 12 95
Other wikis 11.0 21 191
Web-based real-time editors 10.0 9 90
Content sharing 9.5 34 359
Weblogs 9.3 11 118
Wikipedia 8.0 31 387
Internet forums 6.4 15 234
Video conferences 6.1 14 228
Chat/ IM 5.2 9 174
20 Usage
Table 5Usage of Social Media services for sharing information
Table 6Usage of Social Media services for sharing data
“use” total n
percent n
Video conferences 76.8 percent 175 228
Chat/ IM 72.4 percent 126 174
Academic networks 66.4 percent 79 119
Social networks 63.3 percent 38 60
Learning management systems 53.6 percent 15 28
Content sharing 46.8 percent 168 359
Microblogs 45.8 percent 11 24
Web-based real-time editors 37.8 percent 34 90
Weblogs 31.4 percent 37 118
Internet forums 28.2 percent 66 234
Other wikis 18.8 percent 36 191
Video/image hosting services 16.8 percent 16 95
Reference management software 10.6 percent 35 329
Wikipedia 8.8 percent 34 387
Social bookmarking 0 percent 0 20
“use” total n
percent n
Content sharing 80.8 percent 290 359
Learning management systems 35.7 percent 10 28
Web-based real-time editors 26.7 percent 24 90
Chat/ IM 15.5 percent 27 174
Social networks 15 percent 9 60
Video conferences 14 percent 32 228
Academic networks 10.9 percent 13 119
Weblogs 8.5 percent 10 118
Microblogs 8.3 percent 2 24
Reference management software 7.9 percent 26 329
Other wikis 5.2 percent 10 119
Video/image hosting services 4.2 percent 4 95
Internet forums 3.0 percent 7 234
Wikipedia 1.6 percent 6 387
Social bookmarking 0 percent 0 20
21 Usage
3.4 Usage of Social Media services for the purpose of searching for data and literature
One of the essential activities in the research process is the search for data, facts and literature. 46 percent of the economists participating in the study (n=766) use Wikipedia to search for sources. Among all participants using Wi-kipedia for professional purposes (n=387), the percentage of those using the online encyclopedia rises to 91.5 percent (see table 7).
Table 7Usage of Social Media services for the purpose of searching for data and literature
After gathering data on the usage of Social Media services and describing the intensity of the usage, the study addres-sed the question of the primary motives for economists’ usage of Social Media services for professional purposes.
4.1 Primary motives for professional usage of Social Media services
The participants were shown only those tools for which they had already stated professional use in prior questions. Total values per tool therefore vary considerably. Below we describe the motives and motivation for employing Social Media services.
For economists, the two most important motives for using Social Media services are: “because it’s convenient” and “because it makes work or communication easier and/or faster” (see table 9, appendix A). The online encyclopedia is rated as most convenient. 61 percent of all respondents who use Wikipedia for professional purposes do so mostly because it is convenient. Content sharing and cloud services receive similar ratings, which 47 percent of their users rate as very convenient, as do internet forums (41 percent). 46 percent of all chat and IM users use Skype, ICQ and co. primarily because it makes their work resp. their communication easier and faster.
The benefit of video conferences and VoIP systems achieves comparable ratings. 45 percent of those economists who use these tools do so because it furthers communication. 27 percent of those economists who use learning manage-ment systems professionally, however, do so mostly because “it is required or the wish of colleagues and project part-ners” (see table 9, appendix A).
Academic and professional networks are rated the most beneficial Social Media tools by far for enhancing one’s own reputation. 16 percent of participants who use academic/professional networks do so primarily in order to improve their own reputation. Otherwise Social Media services are not important for visibility among colleagues. German economists are not very curious about new technologies, either. Only a handful of respondents stated that they test Social Media services because they are interested in new technologies. Twitter achieved the highest value by far with 16 percent.
4.2 Primary motives for non-usage of Social Media services
For nearly all Social Media services sampled in this survey the motives quoted most frequently for non-usage of a tool were: “because I don’t see a benefit in using this tool” and “because I have no need for technical support in this form at this point in time”. There was also a considerable number of economists who quoted “because I haven’t looked into it yet” as a motive for “non-usage”. According to this, more than a quarter of all participants (26.4 percent) have not yet looked at reference management or social bookmarking services (25.9 percent). For one in five (20.3 percent), wikis (with the exception of Wikipedia) and web-based real-time editors (19.1 percent) have not yet been worth a closer look (see table 10, appendix A). Participants see the least benefit in the usage of microblogs. 58 percent of the respondents state they do not use Twitter because they see no benefit in this tool.
Terms and conditions of use play no serious part in non-usage. Social networks meet with the greatest resistance among all 15 tools. 22 percent of German economists state that they do not use Facebook and co. because they disagree with the terms of use. 21 percent stated as their motive for non-usage that they use Social Media more for private pur-poses and wish to keep their private and professional spheres strictly separate (see more details in table 10, appendix A).
5. Access
26 Access
After the study gathered data about the usage of Social Media services and the intensity of this usage, it asked where economists find information about existing Social Media services.
5.1 Sources of information about Social Media services
The majority of scientists in economics and business studies state that they learn most often from “colleagues” and “friends” about the existence of new online tools. Presentations and academic journals are relevant only for one in five of the respondents.
The question where they learned about Social Media services was answered as follows (multiple replies were possib-le):
→ 87 percent learn about Social Media tools from colleagues → 77 percent from friends → 23 percent from presentations → 20 percent from other Social Media tools → 20 percent from academic journals in their own discipline → 16 percent from IT journals → 7 percent other
5.2 End devices for Social Media usage
Economists most frequently access Social Media services from notebooks and PCs. In this they hardly differ from human, health, natural, and engineering scientists. Economists comparably less often use the PC (69 percent) than the members of other disciplines (human and health scientists: 86 percent, natural and engineering scientists: 80 percent); see table 21, appendix A.
→ 88 percent use a notebook (multiple answers were possible) → 69 percent use a PC for Social Media services → 59 percent use a smartphone → 38 percent use a tablet
Nearly two thirds of participants access the services with a smartphone (59 percent). The trend towards mobile use is vividly reflected in tablet use. 38 percent of economists use a tablet to access Social Media services, whereas the num-ber of human and health scientists (24 percent) and natural and engineering scientists (26 percent) who use a tablet for this purposes is statistically significantly lower.
6. Discussion
28 Discussion
The present study “Usage of Social Media services in economics” was part of a cooperation project of Goportis – Leib-niz Library Network for Information Research within the framework of the Leibniz Research Alliance Science 2.0 (ww.leibniz-science20.de) and was conducted between October and November 2013. The study aimed to survey the usage of Social Media services among economists at German universities. It described which Social Media services are used for which purposes and how intensively, and why economists do (not) use certain tools. It evaluated a total of 766 datasets of respondents from economics. In addition, this survey also evaluated a further 1,240 valid datasets from human and health scientists, and natural and engineering scientists. Here we can report several interesting and also comparative findings.
It is a remarkable finding that social bookmarking services have not established themselves yet. In 2009 already, Bernius, Hanauske & Dugall stated that the majority of the economists they surveyed had never heard of social book-marks, and if they had they were unable to assess where they could usefully be applied.
In the general usage of Social Media services there is an inverse prioritisation between between private and professio-nal usage, as can be seen in the examples of Wikipedia and YouTube (as an example for video/image hosting services) (see chapters 2.1 and 2.2). Usage is focussed for both services in a primarily private area. Both Wikipedia and YouTube are perceived only as services for private use.
However, in particular for Wikipedia perception and actual practice are widely divergent. Only 6 percent of respon-dents state that they use the online encyclopedia primarily for professional purposes. In reality, 58 percent of the economists use Wikipedia for teaching and 51 percent use it for research purposes.
The use of the Web 2.0 for the purposes of coordination/communication, of data/information sharing, or of data col-lection/evaluation is not yet very widely spread among academics. Only content sharing services are comparatively popular.
In contrast, Wikipedia and other wikis, internet forums and reference management software are quoted comparati-vely often as Web 2.0 tools for the purpose of literature search. Here Social Media has established itself (see chapter 3.4).
It is also interesting that the professional usage of Social Media is often perceived as owing to “external pressure”. This influence has many facets, for instance as simplified communication if different persons/institutions use the same software. An important factor in this must be that colleagues and friends count as the first source of informati-on about Social Media.
For the non-usage of Social Media, the most important factors are that respondents do not bother with these services and see no benefit in them. Nicholas and Rowlands (2011) arrive at similar findings in their study of the usage of Social Media services in Great Britain. In particular, the generalising argument of “lack of time” shows up prominently here. This is a general phenomenon in the field of knowledge management, as Riege (2005) has shown already. Solutions for breaking down this barrier require that the top levels of management get involved.
We can therefore summarise that Social Media has arrived in science. However, fundamental differences exist bet-ween the active and passive usage of individual services, and between usage in different disciplines. Follow-up studies are being planned which will analyse these differences in more detail.
7. References
30 References
ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie (2013): Mobile Internetnutzung steigt rasant – Boom bei Endgeräten führt zu hohem Anstieg der täglichen Nutzungsdauer.
Bernius, Steffen; Hanauske, Matthias; Berndt Dugall (2009): Von traditioneller wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation zu „Science 2.0“. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Nutzung von Social Software in der universitären Forschung. In: ABI-Technik 29, Heft 4/2009, S.214-226.
BITKOM Studie (2013): Soziale Netzwerke 2013. Dritte, erweiterte Studie Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zur Nutzung sozialer Netzwerke im Internet.
Goportis-Studie (2013): Nutzung von Social-Media-Diensten in den Zielgruppen der Goportis-Fachbibliotheken. Im Auftrag von Goportis – Leibniz-Bibliotheksverbund Forschungsinformation. Eine Untersuchung im Rahmen des Leibniz-Forschungsverbundes Science 2.0. Datenreport und Replikation einer clusteranalytischen Untersuchung zur Identifizierung von Science 2.0-Nutzungstypen. Dr. Waldemar Dzeyk. Dezember 2013.
JISC (2012): Researchers of tomorrow: the research behavior of Generation Y doctoral students.
Nicholas, David; Rowlands, Ian (2011): Social media use in the research workflow. In. Information Services & Use 31 (2011) Seite 61-83.
Pscheida, Daniel; Köhler, Thomas(2012): Wissenschaftsbezogene Nutzung von Web 2.0 und Online-Werkzeugen in Sachsen - Studie des „eScience – Forschungsnetzwerk Sachsen“ – Datenreport 2012; Dresden 2012.
Pscheida, Daniela; Albrecht, Steffen; Herbst, Sabrina; Minet, Claudia; Köhler, Thomas (2013): Nutzung von Social media u8nd onlinebasierten Anwendungen ion der Wissenschaft. Erste Ergebnisse des Science 2.0-Survey 2013 des Leibniz-Forschungsverbundes „Science 2.0“. Dresden 2013.
Riege, Andreas (2005): Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), Seite 18-35.
Tomorrow Focus Media, Social Media Effects (2012): Die steigende Bedeutung des Web 2.0 – auch für Unternehmen, 2012.
Zhu, Yimei; Procter, Rob (2012): Use of blogs, Twitter and Facebook by PhD Students for Scholarly Communication: A UK study; China New Media Communication Association Annual Conference, Macao International Conference.
Appendix A
32 Appendix A
Table 8Distinction of professional and private usage of Social Media services in economics
Social networks (e.g. Facebook, Google+)
percent
n.r. 0.10Solely for professional purposes 1.80
Primarily for professional purposes 2.60For professional + private purposes 15.00
Primarily for private purposes 14.80Solely for private purposes 26.00
Primarily for professional purposes 3.00For professional + private purposes 22.60
Primarily for private purposes 20.20Solely for private purposes 29.90
Don’t use 22.20Don’t know 0.70
Learning management systems (e.g. OLAT/OPAL, Moodle)
n.r. 0.10Solely for professional purposes 42.70
Primarily for professional purposes 11.90For professional + private purposes 2.70
Primarily for private purposes 0.30Solely for private purposes 0.00
Don’t use 29.40Don’t know 12.90
36 Appendix A
because it’s convenient
because it makes work or communication easier and/
or faster
because it improves my work results
because it is required or the wish of colleagues and/or
project partners
under pressure from my own community
to enhance my own reputa-tion
because I’m interested in new technologies
for other reasons
Social networks (e.g. Facebook, G
oogle+) (n=262)24.80 %
32.10 %1.10 %
4.60 %4.20 %
4.60 %6.10 %
11.10 %
Academ
ic/professional networks (n=471)
19.50 %29.90 %
1.70 %3.00 %
5.70 %16.30 %
4.00 %12.10 %
Video conference/VoIP (e.g. Skype) (n=490)
35.70 %44.90 %
1.00 %6.50 %
0.60 %0.00 %
0.80 %2.40 %
Microblogs (e.g. T
witter) (n=77)
16.90 %14.30 %
5.20 %2.60 %
3.90 %7.80 %
15.60 %16.90 %
Weblogs (n=202)
29.20 %20.30 %
8.40 %3.00 %
1.00 %3.00 %
9.40 %16.30 %
Wikipedia (n=684)
60.70 %20.20 %
5.60 %0.30 %
0.10 %0.00 %
1.20 %5.70 %
Other w
ikis (n=377)34.50 %
25.20 %13.30 %
8.80 %2.10 %
0.00 %2.40 %
4.80 %
Content sharing/cloud services (e.g. D
ropbox) (n=545)47.20 %
40.40 %2.00 %
3.30 %0.90 %
0.00 %0.00 %
0.70 %
Web-based real-tim
e editors (n=167)39.50 %
31.70 %3.00 %
6.00 %0.60 %
0.60 %4.80 %
3.00 %
Internet forums (n=433)
41.10 %24.00 %
8.50 %0.90 %
0.70 %0.50 %
5.30 %10.60 %
Mailing lists (n=551)
40.70 %40.80 %
2.50 %2.50 %
1.10 %0.20 %
0.40 %4.90 %
Chat/instant m
essaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ
) (n=398)37.40 %
46.20 %1.50 %
3.30 %0.30 %
0.00 %1.30 %
3.00 %
Online archives/databases (n=584)
31.70 %27.40 %
26.50 %0.90 %
0.20 %0.20 %
0.50 %4.10 %
Reference m
anagement softw
are (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero)
(n=375)36.00 %
30.70 %21.60 %
2.40 %0.30 %
0.00 %0.80 %
2.10 %
Social bookmarking services (n=43)
27.90 %27.90 %
2.30 %0.00 %
2.30 %0.00 %
2.30 %11.60 %
Video/im
age hosting services (e.g. YouTube etc.)
(n=361)34.30 %
18.30 %2.20 %
0.60 %0.30 %
1.10 %6.60 %
16.30 %
Learning managem
ent systems (n=441)
21.80 %31.30 %
3.40 %27.00 %
2.50 %0.20 %
2.30 %4.30 %
Table 9Motives for using Social Media services in economics
* Multiple answers were possible. N.r. was not included in the table above for lack of space. They can be computed from the available % values. Sample: employees of German universities and research institutions (n=766)
37 Appendix A
Table 10Motives for not using Social Media services in economics
because I don’t see a benefit in using this tool
because I have no need for technical support in this form at this point in time
because I haven’t looked into it yet
because I don’t have the time to familiarise myself with
this tool
because I don’t agree with the terms of use
because tthis tool is not com-monly used in my discipline
because I use it for private communication and wish to
keep the private and professi-onal spheres strictly separate
for other reasons
Social networks (e.g. Facebook, G
oogle+) (n=501) 33.70 %
6.20 %1.60 %
1.00 %22.20 %
2.60 %20.80 %
3.20 %
Academ
ic/professional networks(n=285)
38.20 %15.40 %
11.20 %5.30 %
6.30 %1.80 %
3.90 %7.40 %
Video conference/VoIP (e.g. Skype) (n=270)
22.60 %41.50 %
4.40 %4.40 %
0.70 %5.90 %
5.90 %5.90 %
Microblogs (e.g. T
witter) (n=666)
58.40 %9.00 %
9.20 %2.10 %
3.80 %4.40 %
2.10 %2.30 %
Weblogs (n=503)
47.10 %14.10 %
15.50 %4.00 %
0.80 %3.80 %
1.40 %3.00 %
Wikipedia (n=81)
35.80 %3.70 %
1.20 %1.20 %
0.00 %25.90 %
2.50 %12.30 %
Other w
ikis (n=359) 29.80 %
19.80 %20.30 %
3.90 %0.80 %
6.40 %0.60 %
5.30 %
Content sharing/cloud services (e.g. D
ropbox) (n=195)
21.00 %24.60 %
11.30 %3.10 %
13.80 %3.10 %
2.10 %11.30 %
Web-based real-tim
e editors (n=456) 29.40 %
24.80 %19.10 %
4.60 %6.80 %
1.10 %0.00 %
3.50 %
Internet forums (n=327)
44.00 %19.00 %
9.50 %2.80 %
2.10 %5.50 %
3.10 %4.60 %
Mailing lists (n=199)
34.70 %25.60 %
17.60 %3.00 %
1.50 %1.00 %
1.00 %4.50 %
Chat/instant m
essaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ
) (n=364) 33.00 %
28.30 %3.80 %
1.90 %0.80 %
3.00 %11.50 %
5.50 %
Online archives/databases (n=126)
16.70 %19.80 %
36.50 %11.10 %
0.80 %3.20 %
0.00 %0.80 %
Reference m
anagement softw
are (e.g. Mendeley,
Zotero) (n=295) 19.00 %
21.40 %26.40 %
15.30 %1.40 %
1.00 %0.00 %
3.10 %
Social bookmarking services (n=397)
33.80 %16.60 %
25.90 %4.50 %
0.80 %1.50 %
0.50 %4.30 %
Video/im
age hosting services (e.g. YouTube etc.) (n=399)
42.90 %18.50 %
3.50 %1.30 %
4.50 %9.80 %
8.30 %1.50 %
Learning managem
ent systems (n=225)
21.80 %29.30 %
21.30 %8.40 %
0.00 %4.00 %
0.00 %7.10 %
* Multiple answers were possible. N.r. was not included in the table above for lack of space. They can be computed from the available % values. Sample: employees of German universities and research institutions (n=766).
38 Appendix A
Types of user Intensity of Social Media usage Percentage of the sample
n
1 “Intensive user” Participants who use Social Media ser-vices several times a day/at least once a
day
13.7 percent 105
2 “Average user” Participants who use Social Media ser-vices several times a week/at least once a
week
79.6 percent 609
3 “Occasional user” Participants who use Social Media ser-vices once every month or less
6.7 percent 51
Table 11Types of user by incidence
39 Appendix A
Table 12Types of user and demographic variables; groups with different intensities of usage, cha-racteristics of the variables gender, age and function
Learning management systems (e.g. OLAT/OPAL, Moodle)
HUM 1 0.50% 78 40.40% 55 28.50% 59 30.60%
ECO 1 0.10% 441 57.60% 225 29.40% 99 12.90%
NAT 3 0.30% 256 24.50% 413 39.40% 375 35.80%
Table 13Usage and non-usage of Social Media services in the Goportis discipline groups
n.r..= no response; Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006)
41 Appendix A
Table 14Usage intensity of individual Web 2.0 services by Goportis discipline groups
Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the discipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)
ZBW ZB MED TIB Totaln=766 n=193 n=1.047 n=2.006
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
3.50
4.00
Social
net
works
Academ
ic/p
rof.
networ
ksVid
eo co
nf./VoI
PM
icro
blog
s
Web
logs
Wik
iped
iaot
her w
ikis
Conte
nt Shar
ing/
clou
d serv
ices
Real-t
ime e
ditors
Inte
rnet
foru
ms
Mai
ling l
ists
Chat/
Inst
ant M
essa
ging
Online a
rchiv
es/
datab
ases
Refer
ence
man
agem
ent
Social
bookm
arkin
g se
rvic
esVid
eo/i
mag
e host
ing
serv
ices
Learn
ing m
anag
emen
t
Web 2.0 services
42 Appendix A
Goportis discipline groups
HUM ECO NAT
n % n % n %
Sociale networks (e. g. Facebook, Google+)
n. r. 1 2.2% 2 0.8% 1 0.5%
occasional users 15 33.3% 71 27.1% 74 38.7%
average users 13 28.9% 90 34.4% 58 30.4%
intensive users 16 35.6% 99 37.8% 58 30.4%
Academic/professio-nal networks (e. g. Xing)
n. r. 1 1.4% 7 1.5% 4 1.0%
occasional users 35 47.9% 191 40.6% 226 56.4%
average users 33 45.2% 221 46.9% 154 38.4%
intensive users 4 5.5% 52 11.0% 17 4.2%
Video conference/VoIP (e.g. Skype, Adobe Connect)
n. r. 0 0.0% 3 0.6% 4 0.7%
occasional users 78 75.0% 311 63.5% 406 67.3%
average users 22 21.2% 153 31.2% 173 28.7%
intensive users 4 3.8% 23 4.7% 20 3.3%
Microblogs (z. B. Twitter)
n. r. 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.6%
occasional users 1 20.0% 33 42.9% 24 38.7%
average users 1 20.0% 29 37.7% 24 38.7%
intensive users 2 40.0% 15 19.5% 13 21.0%
Weblogs n. r. 0 0.0% 7 3.5% 3 1.3%
occasional users 14 66.7% 79 39.1% 90 40.4%
average users 6 28.6% 87 43.1% 103 46.2%
intensive users 1 4.8% 29 14.4% 27 12.1%
Wikipedia n. r. 3 1.6% 9 1.3% 10 1.0%
occasional users 24 13.2% 113 16.5% 80 7.9%
average users 113 62.1% 416 60.8% 547 54.2%
intensive users 42 23.1% 146 21.3% 372 36.9%
Other wikis (e.g. enterprise wikis, subject-specific wikis etc.)
Web-based real-time editors (e.g. EtherPad, Google Docs)
n. r. 1 3.1% 2 1.2% 1 0.6%
occasional users 19 59.4% 100 59.9% 95 55.9%
average users 8 25.0% 51 30.5% 65 38.2%
intensive users 4 12.5% 14 8.4% 9 5.3%
Internet forums n. r. 3 3.0% 12 2.8% 6 0.9%
occasional users 46 46.5% 181 41.8% 213 31.4%
average users 44 44.4% 190 43.9% 371 54.6%
intensive users 6 6.1% 50 11.5% 89 13.1%
Table 15Intensity of Web 2.0 usage for professional purposes by Goportis discipline groups
43 Appendix A
* Aggregation of intensity responses: “several times a day” and “once every day” = intensive users; “several times a week” and “once every week” = average users; “once every month” and “less than every month” = occasional users; n.r.=no response ;
Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the discipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)
HUM ECO NAT
n % n % n %
Mailing lists n. r. 9 6.6% 4 0.7% 10 1.4%
occasional users 37 27.2% 188 34.1% 222 30.2%
average users 64 47.1% 258 46.8% 330 45.0%
intensive users 26 19.1% 101 18.3% 172 23.4%
Chat/Instant Messaging (e.g. Skype, ICQ)
n. r. 0 0.0% 3 0.8% 2 0.5%
occasional users 43 56.6% 165 41.5% 184 46.9%
average users 26 34.2% 148 37.2% 120 30.6%
intensive users 7 9.2% 82 20.6% 86 21.9%
Online archives/ databases (e.g. Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek, Arxiv.org)
n. r. 8 1.8%occasional users 95 21.5%average users 219 49.7%intensive users 119 27.0%
* Aggregation of intensity responses: “ several times a day” and “once every day” = Intensive users; “several times a week” and “once every week” = Average users; “every month” and “less than every month” = Occasional users; n.r.=no response; Sample: Employees of German universities and research institutions in economics (sample: n =766)
46 Appendix A
Table 17Usage of Web 2.0 services for “teaching” by Goportis discipline groups
Question: “For which purpose/in which context do you use these tools professionally?” Multiple answers possible
Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the discipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)
Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the dis-cipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)
48 Appendix A
Table 19Usage of Web 2.0 services for “scholarly communication” by Goportis discipline groups
Question: “For which purpose/in which context do you use these tools professionally?” Multiple answers possible
Services in “scholarly communication”
Goportis discipline groups
HUM (n=193) ECO (n=766) NAT (n=1.047) Total
n % n % n % n %
Social networks 21 10.9% 138 18.0% 115 11.0% 274 13.7%
Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the discipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)
49 Appendix A
Table 20Usage of Web 2.0 services for “academic administration” by Goportis discipline groups
Question: “For which purpose/in which context do you use these tools professionally?” Multiple answers possible
Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the discipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)
Table 21End devices used to access Web 2.0 services – by Goportis discipline groupsMultiple answers possible
Sample: employees at German universities and research institutions from the following disciplines: Natural and engineering sciences (NAT), Human and health sciences (HUM) and economics (ECO) (n total=2,006; n of the discipline groups: n ZB MED / HUM=193, n ZBW / ECO=766, n TIB / NAT=1,047)
Appendix B
52 Appendix B
53 Appendix B
54 Appendix B
55 Appendix B
56 Appendix B
*Hinweis: Die im Folgenden angezeigte Anzahl der Items variiert je nach Anzahl der in der Forschung eingesetzten Werkzeuge.
* Hinweis: Die im Folgenden angezeigte Anzahl der Items variiert je nach Anzahl der beruflich genutzten Werkzeuge. Hinweis: Über die Drop-Down-Liste sind verschiedene Antwortmöglich-keiten wählbar.
57 Appendix B
*Hinweis: Die im Folgenden angezeigte Anzahl der Items variiert je nach Anzahl der beruflich nicht genutzten Werkzeuge. Hinweis: Über die Drop-Down-Liste sind verschiedene Antwort-möglichkeiten wählbar.
58 Appendix B
59 Appendix B
*Hinweis: Die Beantwortung der Wikipedia-Fragen ist optional. Bei Auswahl von „nein“ erfolgt eine Weiterleitung auf die Endseite.