Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore consequences of the use of social media for idea generation.

The paper analyzes over 600 ideas submitted to a Slate‐Twitter contest to find the best short characterization of the American Declaration of Independence. These findings are then compared with those of Kornish and Ulrich, who analyzed idea‐contests in classroom settings.

In the Slate‐Twitter contest, repetition of ideas was rare while recombination was frequent. The evolution in the total number of unique ideas suggests that the contest became more focused over time. It also appears that ideas that are recognized as valuable attract similar ideas in turn.

Further checks will be needed with regard to the robustness of the findings. Furthermore, while the current analysis relies on peer review by participants to the contest to value submissions, results might be different if it were done on the basis of independent external reviews. Conceptually, the findings suggest that idea generation via social media has a more iterative character than previously analyzed forms of broadcast search. Future research could investigate what triggers more exploration and exploitation of ideas in this process.

For businesses, which are more and more encouraged to engage in open innovation, the analysis can serve as guide on the use of social media for information collection.

The paper provides a simple and effective method to monitor social media, which firms can use to their advantage.

This paper seeks to discuss the question of “openness” in e‐Science.

The study is based on 12 in‐depth interviews with principal investigators, project managers and developers involved in UK e‐Science projects, together with supporting documentary evidence from project web sites. The approach was to explore the juxtaposition of research governance at the institutional level and local research practices at the project level. Interview questions focused on research inputs, software development processes, access to resources, project documentation, dissemination of outputs and by‐products, licensing issues, and institutional contracts.

The findings suggest that, although there is a widely shared ethos of openness in everyday research practice, there are many uncertainties and yet‐to‐be resolved issues, despite strong policy imperatives towards openly shared resources.

The paper concludes by observing a stratification of openness in practice and the need for more nuanced understanding of openness at the level of policy making. This research was based on interviews within a limited number of e‐Science/Social Science projects and the intention is to address this in future work by scaling the study up to a survey that will reach the entire UK e‐Science/Social Science community.

The fundamental challenge in resolving openness in practice and policy, and thereby moving towards a sustainable infrastructure for e‐Science, is the coordination and integration of goals across e‐Science efforts, rather than one of resolving IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) issues, which has been the central focus of openness debates thus far.

The question of openness has previously been posed on the macro‐level of research policy, e.g. whether science as a whole can be characterized as open science, or in relation to the dissemination of published outputs, e.g. Open Access. Instead, a fine‐grained perspective is taken focusing on individual research projects and the various facets of openness in practice.