|
|
|
| Examining Users' Conversation Interaction Structure and Quality in the Chinese Online Academic Community |
| Zhang Min1, Jiang Guanlan2, Ding Heng1 |
1.School of Information Management, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079
2.College of Computer and Information Science, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This study elaborates the sequence structure and interaction quality of users' conversation interaction in Muchong Forum, with the aim of discovering the patterns of academic users' conversation interactions and providing references for the improvement of interaction services, thereby enhancing the value of the academic community in supporting users' scientific research work. Based on qualitative content coding and statistical and sequence analyses of 1485 posts and 7099 replies collected from five disciplines, including Inorganic Nonmetallic, Quantum Chemistry, Information Science, Medical, and Humanities and Social Sciences, this study found that question clarification, answer expansion, and question negotiation corresponded to the three conversation modes. The user knowledge construction of each discipline was mainly based on knowledge divergence and knowledge connection in this community. The answer expansion and question negotiation sequence with reciprocal interaction characteristics were more likely to achieve a higher level of knowledge interaction quality. Due to its protean nature, the dynamics of academic communities' conversation process are difficult to capture in detail. Therefore, the empirical research settings may be elaborated further in future research by drawing on the potential of novel methods and perspectives, such as digital conversation analysis.
|
|
Received: 30 December 2021
|
|
|
|
1 Savolainen R. Dialogical-information-interaction in diabetes-related online discussion[J]. Information Research, 2019, 24(2): Paper 814.
2 Toms E G. Information interaction: providing a framework for information architecture[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, 53(10): 855-862.
3 Chai S M, Kim M. What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of trust[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2010, 30(5): 408-415.
4 张敏, 田松瑞, 张可. 中文网络学术社区用户参与行为的实证分析[J]. 图书情报知识, 2019(4): 82-93, 121.
5 王曰芬, 贾新露, 傅柱. 学术社交网络用户内容使用行为研究——基于科学网热门博文的实证分析[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2016(6): 63-72.
6 严炜炜, 刘倩. 从功能融合到社会交互: 国内外学术社交网络研究进展[J]. 图书情报知识, 2022, 39(1): 95-104.
7 许鑫, 翟姗姗, 姚占雷. 学术博客的学科交互实证分析——以科学网博客为例[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2015(7/8): 13-23.
8 丁敬达, 杨思洛, 邱均平. 论学术虚拟社区知识交流模式[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 36(1): 64-68.
9 Deng S L, Tong J J, Fu S X. Interaction on an academic social networking sites: a study of ResearchGate Q&A on library and information science[C]// Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. New York: ACM Press, 2018: 25-28.
10 卢恒, 张向先, 张莉曼, 等. 会话分析视角下虚拟学术社区用户交互行为特征研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(13): 80-89.
11 巴志超, 李纲, 毛进, 等. 微信群内部信息交流的网络结构、行为及其演化分析——基于会话分析视角[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(10): 1009-1021.
12 李月琳, 张建伟, 张婳. 螺旋式与直线式: 在线健康医疗平台用户与医生交互模式研究[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(1): 88-100.
13 丁敬达, 许鑫. 论学术博客评论的质量测度功能及指标——基于科学网博客的实证分析[J]. 情报学报, 2015, 34(2): 129-135.
14 Li L, Zhang C Z, He D Q. Factors influencing the importance of criteria for judging answer quality on academic social Q&A platforms[J]. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2020, 72(6): 887-907.
15 Li L, He D Q, Zhang C Z. Evaluating academic answer quality: a pilot study on ResearchGate Q&A[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on HCI in Business, Government, and Organizations. Cham: Springer, 2016: 61-71.
16 张宁, 袁勤俭. 用户视角下的学术社交网络信息质量影响因素研究——基于扎根理论方法[J]. 图书情报知识, 2018(5): 105-113.
17 王东, 曲久龙, 刘国亮. 虚拟学术社区的学术质量评价流程与模式研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2012, 35(5): 94-98.
18 吴佳玲, 庞建刚. 基于SBM模型的虚拟学术社区知识交流效率评价[J]. 情报科学, 2017, 35(9): 125-130.
19 吴亚欣, 于国栋. 为会话分析正名[J]. 山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2017, 40(1): 85-90.
20 Wang G A, Wang H J, Li J X, et al. An analytical framework for understanding knowledge-sharing processes in online Q&A communities[J]. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2015, 5(4): Article No.18.
21 Harasim L M. Online education: perspectives on a new environment[M]. New York: Praeger, 1990: 39-63.
22 Gunawardena C N, Lowe C A, Anderson T. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing[J]. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1997, 17(4): 397-431.
23 严亚利, 黎加厚. 教师在线交流与深度互动的能力评估研究——以海盐教师博客群体的互动深度分析为例[J]. 远程教育杂志, 2010, 28(2): 68-71.
24 Miles M B, Huberman A M. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook[M]. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1994.
25 张耀坤, 张维嘉, 胡方丹. 中国高影响力学者对学术社交网站的使用行为调查——以教育部长江学者为例[J]. 情报资料工作, 2017(3): 96-101.
26 刘运同. 会话分析概要[M]. 上海: 学林出版社, 2007: 54-55.
27 Gabadinho A, Ritschard G, Studer M, et al. Mining sequence data in R with the TraMineR package: a user’s guide[R/OL]. Geneva: University of Geneva, (2011-03-18) [2021-03-15]. http://mephisto.unige.ch/pub/TraMineR/doc/TraMineR-Users-Guide.pdf.
28 Sin S C J, Lee C S, Theng Y L. Social Q&A question-and-comments interactions and outcomes: a social sequence analysis[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries. Cham: Springer, 2016: 325-338.
29 Cuong T T, Müller-Birn C. Applicability of sequence analysis methods in analyzing peer-production systems: a case study in Wikidata[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Informatics. Cham: Springer, 2016: 142-156.
30 ToomeyD. 数据科学: R语言实战[M]. 刘丽君, 李成华, 卢青峰, 译. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2016: 47-54.
31 Savolainen R. Dialogue processes in online information seeking and sharing: a study of an asynchronous discussion group[J]. Information Research, 2020, 25(3): Paper 863.
32 王春. 技术语境下的电子会话分析[M]. 芜湖: 安徽师范大学出版社, 2019: 101.
33 宋宇, 邬宝娴, 郝天永. 面向知识建构的课堂对话规律探析[J]. 电化教育研究, 2021, 42(3): 111-119.
34 Savolainen R. The structure of argument patterns on a social Q&A site[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(12): 2536-2548.
35 Taylor R S. Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries[J]. College & Research Libraries, 1968, 29(3): 178-194.
36 Jeong A C. The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online[J]. American Journal of Distance Education, 2003, 17(1): 25-43.
37 彭雪. 学术话语参与者的身份建构——基于语言学会议的语用研究[D]. 武汉: 华中师范大学, 2017.
38 张倩. 在线学习社区中学习者社会性交互研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2020.
39 Hew K F, Cheung W S. Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: an analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques[J]. Instructional Science, 2011, 39: 303-319.
40 Schellens T, Valcke M. Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups[J]. Computers & Education, 2006, 46(4): 349-370. |
|
|
|
