IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v7y2002i2p80-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cyberscience and Social Boundaries: The Implications of Laboratory Talk on the Internet

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Hine

Abstract

This paper examines the use of an online forum for the discussion of laboratory science. It is argued that such forums are significant in the light of claims made for the impact of information and communications technologies (ICTs) on scientific research, and of broader debates about the role of ICTs in reconfiguring social boundaries. It appears that the impacts of ICTs on scientific research are likely to be diverse and unpredictable, in line with emerging findings in other application domains. In particular, the potential to break down the boundaries between science and lay persons, and between different areas of scientific research, is likely to be limited by the ways in which particular forums are preserved as bounded spaces for specific specialisms. In the case of the forum studied in this paper, discursive practices function to re-establish laboratory boundaries in the online setting. Laboratory talk on the Internet may help to break down barriers between individual laboratories, but is not, in itself, any more accessible to lay people than talk in the private spaces of the laboratory.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Hine, 2002. "Cyberscience and Social Boundaries: The Implications of Laboratory Talk on the Internet," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 7(2), pages 80-95, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:7:y:2002:i:2:p:80-95
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.715
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.715?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Matthew & Zeitlyn David, 1996. "‘What are they Doing? Dilemmas in Analyzing Bibliographic Searching: Cultural and Technical Networks in Academic Life’," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 1(4), pages 38-45, December.
    2. Rob Kling & Geoffrey McKim, 2000. "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 Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(14), pages 1306-1320.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simone Belli & Carlos Gonzalo-Penela, 2020. "Science, research, and innovation infospheres in Google results of the Ibero-American countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 635-653, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcia J. Bates, 2021. "Search foundations: Toward a science of technology‐mediated experience. Sachi Arafat and Elham Ashoori. Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2019. 448, pp. $65.00 (hardback). (ISBN 9780262038591)," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(3), pages 377-383, March.
    2. Jiancheng Guan & Lanxin Pang, 2018. "Bidirectional relationship between network position and knowledge creation in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 201-222, April.
    3. Hildrun Kretschmer & Isidro F. Aguillo, 2004. "Visibility of collaboration on the Web," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 405-426, November.
    4. Bo-Christer Björk & Patrik Welling & Mikael Laakso & Peter Majlender & Turid Hedlund & Guðni Guðnason, 2010. "Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-9, June.
    5. Hildrun Kretschmer & Ute Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2007. "Reflection of co-authorship networks in the Web: Web hyperlinks versus Web visibility rates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 519-540, February.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Rong Tang, 2003. "Disciplinary and linguistic considerations for academic Web linking: An exploratory hyperlink mediated study with Mainland China and Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(1), pages 155-181, September.
    7. Eleftheria Vasileiadou, 2014. "Crowd science: it is not just a matter of time (or funding)," Working Papers 14-05, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Mar 2014.
    8. Frandsen, Tove Faber, 2009. "The effects of open access on un-published documents: A case study of economics working papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 124-133.
    9. Ni Cheng & Ke Dong, 2018. "Knowledge communication on social media: a case study of Biomedical Science on Baidu Baike," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1749-1770, September.
    10. Li, Eldon Y. & Liao, Chien Hsiang & Yen, Hsiuju Rebecca, 2013. "Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1515-1530.
    11. Heimeriks, Gaston & van den Besselaar, Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2008. "Digital disciplinary differences: An analysis of computer-mediated science and 'Mode 2' knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1602-1615, October.
    12. Rong Tang & Mike Thelwall, 2004. "Patterns of national and international Web inlinks to US academic departments: An analysis of disciplinary variations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 475-485, August.
    13. Mike Thelwall & Franz Barjak & Hildrun Kretschmer, 2006. "Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 373-383, June.
    14. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2015. "The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 829-846, January.
    15. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2016. "Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1198-1209, May.
    16. Yi Bu & Dakota S. Murray & Ying Ding & Yong Huang & Yiming Zhao, 2018. "Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 463-479, February.
    17. N/A, 2004. "Christine Hine (2004) ‘Social Research Methods and the Internet: A Thematic Review’," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 9(2), pages 110-116, May.
    18. Zahed Bigdeli & Morteza Kokabi & Gholam Reza Rajabi & Ali Gazni, 2013. "Patterns of authors’ information scattering: towards a causal explanation of information scattering from a scholarly information-seeking behavior perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 103-131, July.
    19. József Popp & Péter Balogh & Judit Oláh & Sebastian Kot & Mónika Harangi Rákos & Péter Lengyel, 2018. "Social Network Analysis of Scientific Articles Published by Food Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:7:y:2002:i:2:p:80-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.