This paper looks at disciplinary differences in the production, relevance, and use of three predominant genres of informal scholarly communication on the internet: academic mailing lists; scholarly homepages, and scholar-produced decentralized digital resources. The aim is to contribute to the development of a theoretical framework for understanding and explaining disciplinary differences in the shaping of networked resources. We apply Whitley’s theory of the intellectual and social organization of academic fields to explain variation in forms and types of digital resources across fields. The paper extends Whitley’s theory by applying his key domain analytic concepts ‘task uncertainty’ and ‘mutual dependence’ to explain scholarly communication practices in the digital realm. The empirical data spans seven intellectual fields across the natural sciences, health sciences, humanities, and social sciences. The analysis shows that, while there are similarities in the scholarly production of information genres on the internet, Whitley’s theory helps in identifying and understanding the diversity and heterogeneity of electronic communication fora across fields.
W. D. Garvey, Communication: the Essence of Science (Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK1979).
2.
C. E. Nelson and D. K. Pollock (eds), Communication among Scientists and Engineers (Heath Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1970).
3.
W. Hagstrom, The Scientific Community (Basic Books, London1965).
4.
H. Menzel, Review of Studies in the Flow of Information among Scientists. Two volumes. Bureau of Applied Social Research, Jan. (Columbia University, New York, NY, 1960).
5.
M. Bates, M. Lu and S. Lu, An exploratory profile of personal home pages: content, design, metaphorONLINE & CDROM Review21(6) (1997) 331-340.
6.
R. Kling and G. McKim, Not just a matter of time: field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication, Journal of the American Society for Information Science51 (2000) 1306-1320.
7.
J. Fry and S. Talja, The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields In: ASIST 2004: Proceedings of the 67th ASIST Annual Meeting, Vol. 41 (2004) Medford, NJ.
8.
R. Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (2nd ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2000).
9.
J. Fry, Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach, Information Processing and Management42 (2006) 299-316.
10.
U. Matzat, Academic communication and internet discussion groups: transfer of information or creation of social contacts? Social Networks26 (2004) 221-255.
11.
F. Barjak, The role of the internet in informal scholarly communication, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming).
12.
L. M. Covi and R. Kling, Digital libraries and the practices of scholarly communication: report of a project, (1997). Available at: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/kling/SCIT/SCIT98.htm (accessed 13 September 2000).
13.
L. M. Covi, Material mastery: situating digital library use in university research practices, Information Processing & Management35 (1999) 293-316.
14.
R. Kling, G. McKim and A. King, A bit more to IT: scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology54(1) (2003) 47-67.
15.
L. M. Covi, Debunking the myth of the Nintendo generation: how doctoral students introduce new electronic communication practices into university research, Journal of the American Society for Information Science51(14) (2000) 1284-1294.
16.
J. B. Lodahl and G. Gordon, The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments, American Sociological Review37 (1972) 57-72.
17.
S. Talja, Information sharing in academic communities: types and levels of collaboration in information seeking and use, New Review of Information Behaviour Research3 (2002) 143-160.
18.
S. Talja and H. Maula, Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and databases: a domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines, Journal of Documentation59 (2003) 673-691.
19.
T. Becher and P. R. Trowler, Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines (2nd ed) (SRHE & Open University Press, Buckingham, 2003).
20.
D. O. Case, The collection and use of information by some American historains: a study of motives and methods, Library Quarterly61(1) (1991) 61-82.
21.
W. O. Duff, and C. A. Johnson, Accidentally found on purpose: information-seeking behavior of historians in archives, Library Quarterly72(4) (2002) 472-496.
22.
S. C. Herring, Computer-mediated communication on the internet, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology36 (2002) 109-168.
23.
A. Rojo and R. G. Ragsdale, A process perspective on participation in scholarly electronic forums, Science Communication18(4) (1997) 320-341.
24.
M. Thelwall and G. Harries, Can personal web pages that link to universities yield information about the wider dissemination of research? Journal of Information Science30(3) (2004) 240-253.
25.
K. Dumont and W. Frindte, Content analysis of the homepages of academic psychologists, Computers in Human Behavior21 (2005) 73-83.
26.
C. Hine, Web pages, authors and audiences: the meaning of a mouse click Information, Communication & Society4(2) (2001) 182-198.
27.
E. Wynn and J. E. Katz, Hyperbole over cyberspace: self-presentation and social boundaries in Internet home pages and discourse, Information Society13 (1997) 297-327.
28.
A. Dillon and B. A. Gushrowski, Genres and the Web: is the personal homepage the first uniquely digital genre? Journal of the American Society for Information Science51(2) (2000) 202-205.
29.
K. D. Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: how the Sciences make Knowledge (2nd ed) Harvard University Press, London, 1999).
30.
C. L. Palmer, Scholarly work and the shaping of digital access, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology55 (2005) 1140-1153.
31.
A. J. Meadows, Communicating Research (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1998).
32.
R. Kling, L. Spector and G. McKim, Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the internet: the Guild Model, The Journal of Electronic Publishing8(1) (2002). Available at: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/kling.html (accessed 4 March 2004).
33.
H. Van de Sompel, S. Payette, J. Erickson, C. Lagoze and S. Warner, Rethinking scholarly communication: building the system that scholars deserve, D-Lib Magazine10(9) (2004). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/vandesompel/09vandesompel.html (accessed 19 December 2005).
34.
W. D. Garvey, N. Lin and C. E. Nelson, Communication in the physical and social sciences. In: W. D. Garvey (ed.), Communication: the Essence of Science (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979) 280-299.
35.
B. Wildemuth, L. Crenshaw, W. Jenniches, and C. J. Harmes, What’s everybody talking about: message functions and topics on electronic lists and newsgroups in information and library science, Journals of Education for Library and Information Science, 38(2) (1997), 137-156.
36.
S. Talja, R. Savolainen and H. Maula, Field differences in the use and perceived usefulness of scholarly mailing lists, Information Research10 (2004). Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/10-1/paper200 (accessed 1 July 2006).
