Clearly standards at Science are falling, judging by the vaporology published in the latest edition. Not content with creating the big blast of hot air that is the tiresome "Web 2.0" meme, computer scientists are now attemption to define "Science 2.0".
I don't normal react so strongly to a paper in print, but Ben Schneiderman's paper attempting to define "Science 2.0" [1] is the biggest piece of drivel I've seen in a major journal for quite some time. His assertion is that what he calls "Science 1.0" is out of date in the age of social networks and world wide webs, and that in order to progress we need to move towards a "Science 2.0." approach, which in practical terms means... well I've read it four times and I still don't know. Let's take a step back and look at what it is that Ben Shneiderman thinks has changed in the world to prompt this necessity.
"Successful scientific collaboratories among genomic researchers, engineering innovations through open-source software, and community-based participation in cultural heritage projects are all early indicators of the transformative nature of collaboration (5). eBay, Amazon, and Netflix have already reshaped consumer markets, while political participation and citizen journalism are beginning to change civil society. Patient-centered medical information and secure electronic health records are improving health care while creating opportunities for clinical research. MySpace and Facebook encourage casual social networks, but they may soon play more serious roles in facilitating emergency/disaster response (6). Social media platforms such as Wikipedia, flickr, and YouTube are also stunning success stories of Web-based contributions."
It may sound odd for a blogger to say, and it may make me look old fashioned and cranky, but I absolutely hate this whole "Web 2.0" fad, where Facebook is going to change the world and Wikipedia is going to take education to the masses. It's not that I don't think the technology is cool, it's that the proponents of it are up there with T.V. evangelists in terms of their ability to completely ignore reality. Schneiderman here has brilliantly managed to bring to science the "ignoring reality" part without the "cool technology" component.
If you don't believe me, just dissect the statement above. It's a classic example of Web-2.0-speak, consisting of a whole bunch of assertions that the author doesn't bother to back up, because apparently in his world-view they're self-evident. Note that there are only two references here: (6) refers to one of Schneiderman's own previous papers, while (5) is, frankly redundant - I think we'd all agree that collaboration is "transformative". The rest is bewildering though - he provides no evidence that electronic records are "improving healthcare", and this unsupported notion of an army of "citizen journalists" revolutionizing media is one that I've blogged on previously. Schneiderman seems to forget that the biggest journalistic presence on the web by far is traditional media.
Edit for clarity: I'm not trying to argue that the internet hasn't changed the world, my point is that complex social networks have existed for many years, and internet networks for a couple of decades now - I fail to see what's new in particular about Web 2.0., and it concerns me to see a scientist making sweeping claims in a peer-reviewed article without backing them up with any supporting evidence. This isn't science, it's an advertising blurb.
"Understanding these collaboration-centered socio-technical systems could accelerate their adoption and raise their benefits. However, researchers will need to develop new ways of studying these complex interactions. Science 1.0 will continue to be important, but new kinds of science, which I call Science 2.0, are needed to study the integrated interdisciplinary problems at the heart of sociotechnical systems. Science 2.0 will be especially important to meet the design challenges in secure voting, global environmental protection, energy sustainability, and international development among many others."
Yes, complex socio-technical systems do require new ways of studying them - but this isn't "Science 2.0", it's complexity science, something we've been doing for 20 years now. The ignorance on display here is absolutely breath-taking. Schneiderman bizarrely fails to mention complexity theory or network theory anywhere in the entire article, indicating that he has precisely zero grasp of the field in which this work (if you can even call it work) resides. Worse still is the fact that the editors published it. I mean, I may as well submit an article of my own - "Biology 2.0... using computers to analyse genes".
So having reinvented an existing field in order to satisfy his own virtually religious belief in the importance of interactive web-pages (and if anyone else can actually define Web 2.0 I'd love to see them have a go), what does Schneiderman think we should be doing?
"Advancing Science 2.0 will require a shift in priorities to promote integrative thinking that combines computer science know-how with social science sensitivity. Science 2.0 researchers who develop innovative theories, hypothesis testing based on case study research methods, and new predictive models are likely to lead the way. The quest for empirical validity will drive research beyond what laboratory-based controlled studies can provide, while replicability and generalizability will be achieved with greater effort through multiple case studies. Just as technologycentered researchers measured progress in petabytes of storage or petaflops of processing power, collaboration-centered researchers will measure the growth of peta-collabs of cooperation and peta-contribs of assistance."
So apparently we should aim to be multidisciplinary, to make use of case studies and predictive models, and to study systems in the wild, not just in the lab. Who would have thought it? And as for "peta-collabs", I'm speechless... I don't know what it's supposed to represent exactly - other than being a cool sounding word - but I can only assumed it means a quadrillion collaborators, in which case we're going to have to get to some serious breeding.
This isn't science, it's a shampoo advert, and I'm shocked that it's in print in such a prestigious journal.
[1] Schneiderman, B. (2008). Science 2.0. Science, 319(5868), 1349-1350.
http://layscience.net/trackback/71
Change (of any sort and at any time) is one of the most upsetting circumstances for human mind. SO far, there is nothing really new of what has just being written and said for endless decades.
I think we should not turn to radicalism or to radical mindsets about the way things might turn at this stage of human civilisation. The dynamics and the speed of change has outpaced our capacity to establish truths or final judgements, in particular to the way communication, participation, exchange or other similar concept is handled in the 21st century, which by the way, is happening now while I comment on this post!
I dont want to discuss further, just would like to add that we should seriously be aware of changes and their implications before establishing final comments when things barely start taking place, in this case let me focus on the Web 2.0, but it also could be some other related subject.
Researchers are already taking note of what is going and taking the first steps to start up a debate on them...seriously and without outrage, but equilibrium.
Here are some initiatives that I am aware of:
1) The Economist launched a series of debates and launched a series of motions followed up by brilliant debates. The fist one:
“social networking technologies will bring large [positive] changes to educational methods, in and out of the classroom.”
"The debate has yielded a clear result: it seems that most on the floor believe social networking will do good things for education. Well argued by Ewan. But we're in Michael Bugeja's debt, for coming at this from a very different direction and treating technology as a moral and a material issue, not just a force of nature. Even those who didn't vote his way were surely moved to think twice by his arguments.
"In short, both speakers were magnificent, and the comments so good they should be bound and published. Allow me to highlight a particularly great line from Vint Cerf, used in a late comment from JUNIVERS: "How I miss the days one had to demonstrate an understanding of technology in order to use it".(The Economist)
2) Another step in trying to figure out the changes (and not simply refute them):
"The Internet Is Changing the Scientific Method" By Alexis Madrigal March 06, 2008 http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/the-internet-is.html
3) The Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University http://www.iq.harvard.edu/ has scheduled events closely related to the changes we currently witness in social science research and the way we communicate it, that is my opinion. One of the interesting one is Cambridge Colloquium on Complexity and Social Networks http://www.hks.harvard.edu/netgov/html/colloquia_complexity.htm
Eric M. Mindich Conference on Experimental Social Science (pass recent)http://www.iq.harvard.edu/conferences/eric_m_mindich_conference_computational_social_science
4) Socially Redeeming Web 2.0? http://www.ssireview.org/opinion/entry/socially_redeeming_web_20/
There is much more, but I stop here. Radical positions will take us nowhere. Real knowledge will be always based on thinking, analyses, pondering, intuition, innovation, experimentation, proof, more analyses...despite of Web 2.0 or exactly because of it or guided by it. I t just came to my mind when the black and white TV started its path...
Thanks for the great comment and interesting material.
Just to clarify - my Ph.D. thesis was on complexity science and it's my area. I agree with all of the above, and I have a great interest in complexity research. What I take issue with here is the way that Schneiderman seems (and it's evident in the Wired article you posted too) to want to reinvent the wheel as it were, in creating some kind of "Science 2.0" when what he's really talking about is complexity theory.
As for the benefits of "Web 2.0", the point I was trying to make wasn't so much that the internet isn't changing the way things happen, but that too many people jump aboard the Web 2.0 bandwagon and start making claims that simply aren't backed up. I'll clarify this in my post now I think.
Thanks for the comment,
Martin.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I guess what motivated me to post was just this lack of clarification in your post, I mean, about your own position (the one you just clarified).
In trying to make your point, you almost lost it! A relative of mine used to say that 'the reason is on yours as long as you know how to defend it;. Or put in other other way (more elaborated thinking):"Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than from the arguments of its opposers". William Penn (1644-1718) British religious leader.
The Complexity Theory seems to back in full force. It is not my field, but I find it fascinating, especially considering it applied to today's world.
Finally, I would say add my position about your claim on jumping this bandwagon without much (or none at all) back up. I take things like that: this is the start of another learning process and I find it spontaneous and normal that this goes this way now. It is just part of a first stage (or phase)of something pretty new. Things are not bound to remain the same. I think the adjustment phase is still to come. Let us play with it, touch it, use, misuse it, explore it...then, many (or most) will get saturated about it, will learn with it and with thiers and others's mistakes, will improve it, modify it, perfect it, will discard it. For me, it is a natural process taking place.
The problem is that there are many new events and advents happening too fast in scales never seen before and virtually at the same time. That is confusing and it may affect the way we all pass through this first steps, delaying eventual progress. I think we will be always trying to reinvent the wheel until we realise that we have been inventing something else!
P.S.: The Eureka moments that in fact take so much hard work (search for this article in New York Times online). I think it is in Business session, type the word Eureka and hard work (it may work)
"In trying to make your point, you almost lost it!"
Absolutely, I wrote it in a bit of a rush while waiting for tests to run, and it needed a little editing.
" I take things like that: this is the start of another learning process and I find it spontaneous and normal that this goes this way now. "
I have no problem with enthusiasm and excitement - it was this that got me into complexity in the first place. "Web 2.0" has basically been adopted as a marketing slogan, and in the world of P.R. maybe that's okay, but in the world of science - particularly in one of the world's leading science journals - there's an expectation of greater quality and rigour that this article simply doesn't have. It reads more like a blog entry! There's a time and a place for evangelizing, and that's in the conference hotel bar.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Rush is a problem to me too...
I agree with you. Read this:
New Source for News Vetted by Scientists
By Alexis Madrigal February 28, 2008 http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/new-source-for.html
and this:
Eureka! It Really Takes Years of Hard Work http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/business/03unbox.html?ex=1359781200&en.... A good article in my opinion.
Bon courage!
Ohhh... Thank U Cris!
That's a good theme for discussion :)
Certainly the social media & blogosphere is a wonderful ‘media’ for communicating alternative messages. The blogging experience was new to me and it has been an incredible experience. What I have found is that it provides the opportunity to tell a story or present a perspective from a very different angle - away from the restrictions of conventional formula & structured communications media.
Best link
4) Socially Redeeming Web 2.0? http://www.ssireview.org/opinion/entry/socially_redeeming_web_20/
-------
Best regards, Mike
E-mail: mikel.angggelo@hotmail.com
Website: http://www.hmdonl.com
Hi,
Could someone help me to find a link to the same topic at myspace.com.
Thank you,
Mike
Here U go, Mike,
Try this: http://searchservice.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sitesearch.results...
---
Alex