Academics and Wikipedia: Reframing Web 2.0+ as a Disruptor of Traditional Academic Power-Knowledge Arrangements

Autor/in	Eijkman, Henk
Titel	Academics and Wikipedia: Reframing Web 2.0+ as a Disruptor of Traditional Academic Power-Knowledge Arrangements
Quelle	In: Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27 (2010) 3, S.173-185 (13 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1065-0741
DOI	10.1108/10650741011054474
Schlagwörter	Foreign Countries; Evidence; Politics of Education; Power Structure; College Faculty; Teacher Attitudes; Hypothesis Testing; Teacher Role; Educational Resources; Grounded Theory; Information Sources; Negative Attitudes; Web Sites; Electronic Publishing; Computer Uses in Education; Social Networks; Computer Mediated Communication; Teacher Surveys; Australia; Canada; South Africa; United Kingdom + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ausland; Evidenz; Educational policy; Bildungspolitik; Fakultät; Lehrerverhalten; Hypothesenprüfung; Hypothesentest; Lehrerrolle; Bildungsmittel; Information source; Informationsquelle; Negative Fixierung; Web-Design; Elektronisches Publizieren; Computernutzung; Social network; Soziales Netzwerk; Computerkonferenz; Australien; Kanada; Südafrika; Süd-Afrika; Republik Südafrika; Südafrikanische Republik; Großbritannien
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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Emerald. One Mifflin Place Suite 400, Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA 02138. Tel: 617-576-5782; e-mail: america@emeraldinsight.com; Web site: http://www.emeraldinsight.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10