Home | Electronic periodical | Сategories | DOMECTICAND FOREIGN PRACTICE OF ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLINGUISTIC | SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE IN THE DIGITAL AGE – SOME DIRECTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT

SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE IN THE DIGITAL AGE – SOME DIRECTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT

M. Meiler

SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE IN THE DIGITAL AGE – SOME DIRECTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT

(translated from original by O.A. Radchenko)

This paper discusses some directions of development that seem to be extrapolatable on the basis of what we know to date about how the digital revolution affects academia and its communication system. Drawing on that interdisciplinary state of research five aspects are outlined that determine scholarly discourse taking place in the World Wide Web: a) media infrastructures and platforms, b) ethno-theories within the field of scholarly discourse online, c) aspects of quality control and information overload, d) newly evolving digital genres and e) the question if there will arise a new order of academic knowledge. Subsequently some hypotheses on problems that might appear in the near future are discussed too.

Keywords: academia, scholarly communication, WWW, social media, meta-academics, media linguistics

 

Литература

  1. Adamzik K. Was heißt Kultur im akademischen Kontext? // Text und Stil im Kulturvergleich / Foschi Albert M., Hepp M., Neuland E., Dalmas M. München: iudicium, 2010. pp. 137–153.
  2. Auer S. Towards An Open Research Knowledge Graph / TIB Hannover, 2018.

URL: https://zenodo.org/record/1157185#.XfTYAehKhpg

  1. Beyond the Bubble. / Bedford-Strohm J. München, Eichstätt: zem::dg, 2017.

 

  1. Bornmann L., Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015. T. 66. № 11. pp. 2215–2222.
  2. Caraher W., Reinhard A. From Blogs to Books // Internet Archaeology. 2015. № 39. pp. 1–41.
  3. Conradi T., Wiemer S. Befreites Wissen // Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft. 2016. T. 14. № 1. pp. 151–155.
  4. Fitzpatrick K. Academia, Not Edu. 2015.

URL:http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/academia-not-edu/

  1. Fortney K., Gonder J. A social networking site is not an open access repository.2015.

URL:http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-open-access-repository/

  1. Fritz G. Texttypen in wissenschaftlichen Blogs. // Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation – Formate und ihre Nutzung / Gloning T., Fritz G. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 2011. pp. 205–285.
  2. Giesecke M. Der Buchdruck in der frühen Neuzeit. 1991. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1994.
  3. Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation.ьFormate und ihre Nutzung. / Cост. Gloning T., Fritz G. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 2011.
  4. Halavais A. Scholarly Blogging: Moving toward the Visible College. // Uses of blogs / Bruns A., Jacobs I. Frankfurt a.M. etc.: Lang, 2006. pp. 117–126.
  5. Hauser S., Genre matters. // Contrastive Media Analysis / Hauser S., Luginbühl M. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2012. pp. 219–243.                                                14. Luckmann T. Kommunikativen Gattungen und kommunikativer „Haushalt“ einer Gesellschaft. // Der Ursprung von Literatur / Smolka-Koerdt G., Spangenberg P. M., Tillmann-Bartylla D. München: Fink, 1988. pp. 279–288.
  6. Mahrt M., Weller K., Peters I. Twitter in Scholarly Communication. // Twitter and Society / Weller K., Bruns A., Burgess J., Mahrt M., Puschmann C.

 

Frankfurt a.M. etc.: Lang, 2014. pp. 399–410.

  1. Mangiafico P. Should you #DeleteAcademiaEdu? On the role of commercial services in scholarly communication. 2016. URL:http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/02/01/should-you-deleteacademiaedu/
  2. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. / McLuhan M. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
  3. Eristisches Handeln in wissenschaftlichen Weblogs. / Meiler M. Heidelberg: Synchron, 2018.
  4. Meiler M. Wissenschaftliches Twittern. Linguistische Bestandsaufnahme und meth(olog)ische Auslotung in preperation. 30 p.
  5. Meiler M. Offene Spielräume: wissenschaftliches Bloggen zwischen Kolloquium, Zeitschrift und Forschungstagebuch. // Wissenskommunikation im Web / Beckers K., Wassermann, M. Frankfurt a.M. etc.: Lang, 2019. pp. 119–140.
  6. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. / Merton R. K. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
  7. Mortensen T., Walker J. Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an online research tool. // Researching ICTs in Context / Andrew Morrison. Oslo: Unipub forlag, 2002. pp. 249–279.
  8. Cyberscience. / Nentwich M. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2003.
  9. Cyberscience 2.0. / Nentwich M., König R. Frankfurt, New York: Campus, 2012.
  10. Pöschl U. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review // IFLA Journal. 2010. T. 36. № 1. pp. 40–46. 26. Puschmann C., Mahrt M. Scholarly Blogging: A New Form of Publishing or Science Journalism 2.0 // Science and the Internet / Tokar A. Beuerskens M., Keuneke S, Mahrt M, Peters I, Puschmann C., van Treek T., Weller, K. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press, 2012. pp. 171–181.

 

  1. Ruff C. Scholars Criticize Academia.edu Proposal to Charge Authors for Recommendations. 201

URL:http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Criticize/235102

  1. Zur Entstehung des modernen Systems wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. / Stichweh R. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. 1984.
  2. Walker J. Blogging From Inside the Ivory Tower. // Uses of blogs / Bruns A., Jacobs, J. Frankfurt a.M. etc.: Lang, 2006. pp. 127–138.
  3. Weinrich H. Sprache und Wissenschaft. // Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache / Kalverkämper H., Weinrich H. Tübingen: Narr, 1986. pp. 183–193.

31. Gillespie T. The politics of ‘platforms’ // New Media & Society. 2010. T. 12. № 3. рр. 347–364.

Extract from the register of registered media dated May 23, 2019, El N FS77-75769, issued by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor)