Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Academics and Wikipedia Reframing Web 2.0+as a disruptor of traditional academic power‐knowledge arrangements

Academics and Wikipedia Reframing Web 2.0+as a disruptor of traditional academic power‐knowledge... Purpose – There is much hype about academics' attitude to Wikipedia. This paper seeks to go beyond anecdotal evidence by drawing on empirical research to ascertain how academics respond to Wikipedia and the implications these responses have for the take‐up of Web 2.0+. It aims to test the hypothesis that Web 2.0+, as a platform built around the socially constructed nature of knowledge, is inimical to conventional power‐knowledge arrangements in which academics are traditionally positioned as the key gatekeepers to knowledge. Design/methodology/approach – The research relies on quantitative and qualitative data to provide an evidence‐based analysis of the attitudes of academics towards the student use of Wikipedia and towards Web 2.0+. These data were provided via an online survey made available to a number of universities in Australia and abroad. As well as the statistical analysis of quantitative data, qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis using relational coding. Findings – The data by and large demonstrate that Wikipedia continues to be a divisive issue among academics, particularly within the “soft sciences”. However, Wikipedia is not as controversial as popular publicity would lead one to believe. Many academics use it extensively though cautiously themselves, and therefore tend to support a cautious approach to its use by students. However, evidence supports the assertion that there is an implicit if not explicit awareness among academics that Wikipedia, and possibly by extension Web 2.0+, are disruptors of conventional academic power‐knowledge arrangements. Practical implications – It is clear that academics respond differently to the disruptive effects that Web 2.0+has on the political economy of academic knowledge construction. Contrary to popular reports, responses to Wikipedia are not overwhelmingly focused on resistance but encompass both cautious and creative acceptance. It is becoming equally clear that the increasing uptake of Web 2.0+in higher education makes it inevitable that academics will have to address the “political” consequences of this reframing of the ownership and control of academic knowledge production. Originality/value – The paper demonstrates originality and value by providing a unique, evidence‐based insight into the different ways in which academics respond to Wikipedia as an archetypal Web 2.0+application and by positioning Web 2.0+within the political economy of academic knowledge construction. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Campus-Wide Information Systems Emerald Publishing

Academics and Wikipedia Reframing Web 2.0+as a disruptor of traditional academic power‐knowledge arrangements

Henk Eijkman
Campus-Wide Information Systems , Volume 27 (3): 13 – Jun 29, 2010
Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/academics-and-wikipedia-reframing-web-2-0-as-a-disruptor-of-c5a4YToQyZ

References (39)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1065-0741
DOI
10.1108/10650741011054474
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – There is much hype about academics' attitude to Wikipedia. This paper seeks to go beyond anecdotal evidence by drawing on empirical research to ascertain how academics respond to Wikipedia and the implications these responses have for the take‐up of Web 2.0+. It aims to test the hypothesis that Web 2.0+, as a platform built around the socially constructed nature of knowledge, is inimical to conventional power‐knowledge arrangements in which academics are traditionally positioned as the key gatekeepers to knowledge. Design/methodology/approach – The research relies on quantitative and qualitative data to provide an evidence‐based analysis of the attitudes of academics towards the student use of Wikipedia and towards Web 2.0+. These data were provided via an online survey made available to a number of universities in Australia and abroad. As well as the statistical analysis of quantitative data, qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis using relational coding. Findings – The data by and large demonstrate that Wikipedia continues to be a divisive issue among academics, particularly within the “soft sciences”. However, Wikipedia is not as controversial as popular publicity would lead one to believe. Many academics use it extensively though cautiously themselves, and therefore tend to support a cautious approach to its use by students. However, evidence supports the assertion that there is an implicit if not explicit awareness among academics that Wikipedia, and possibly by extension Web 2.0+, are disruptors of conventional academic power‐knowledge arrangements. Practical implications – It is clear that academics respond differently to the disruptive effects that Web 2.0+has on the political economy of academic knowledge construction. Contrary to popular reports, responses to Wikipedia are not overwhelmingly focused on resistance but encompass both cautious and creative acceptance. It is becoming equally clear that the increasing uptake of Web 2.0+in higher education makes it inevitable that academics will have to address the “political” consequences of this reframing of the ownership and control of academic knowledge production. Originality/value – The paper demonstrates originality and value by providing a unique, evidence‐based insight into the different ways in which academics respond to Wikipedia as an archetypal Web 2.0+application and by positioning Web 2.0+within the political economy of academic knowledge construction.

Journal

Campus-Wide Information Systems – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jun 29, 2010

Keywords: Worldwide web; Higher education; Academic staff; Knowledge management

There are no references for this article.