Educational Networking in the Digital Age

  • Cristina Costa
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan’s Digital Education and Learning book series (DEAL)


The emergence of the Web as a dynamic, user-centered platform for interaction and congregation of social capital has been said to impact different levels in our society (Ferlander, 2003; Rheingold, 2000; Wellman, 2001). It is changing some of the fundamental aspects of how people connect, interact, share, and work (Attwell, 2007; Cross, 2007), and a new networking culture seems to be evolving as a result. Academia is not an exception in this respect. These days it is said to be imperative to foster new forms of engagement with one’s field and even beyond. For knowledge workers especially, keeping up with the continuous advancements in their subject areas is not only important, but necessary to survive in a competitive world. Engaging with the possibilities the digital age offers beyond what institutions formally provide in terms of collaboration and personal and professional development is thus more crucial than ever. Understanding the implications of one’s online presence as part of practice, learning, and life in general, is a new skill to be acquired. This chapter will focus on learning and networking online, with special emphasis on academic researchers’ professional networking activity. Hence, we will explore the obstacles, as well as the advantages and implications of adopting a Web 2.0 approach in the context of academic research and practice.


Social Capital Academic Researcher Knowledge Worker Scholarly Communication Digital Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2008). ICT for Learning, Innovation and Creativity, EC, Joint Research Centre, IPTS. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from
  2. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments—the future of eLearning? 2(1). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  3. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (1st edition). Buckingham: Study for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and the Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berkvens-Stevelinck, C. Bots, H., & Häseler, J. (2005). Les grands intermédiaires culturels de la république des lettres: études des réseaux de correspondances du XVIe au XVIIIe siècles. Paris: Honoré Champion, boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from Scholar
  5. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Couros, A. (2006). Examining the open movement: Possibilities and implications for education. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Regina, Canada. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Cronin, B. (2003). Scholarly communication and epistemic cultures. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 9 (1) 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning, rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, an imprint of WILEY.Google Scholar
  8. DfES (2003). The skills strategy white paper, 21st century skills: Realising our potential: Individuals, employers, nation. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from
  9. Ferlander S. (2003). The Internet, social capital and local community. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. University of Stirling, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Forrester, I. (2009). From backstage to open innovation. Guest lecture at the University of Salford, UK. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from Scholar
  11. Fry, J. (2004). The cultural shaping of ICTs within academic fields: Corpus-based linguistics as a case study. Literary and Linguistic Computing 19(3), pp. 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fry, J. (2006). Studying the scholarly Web: How disciplinary culture shapes online representations. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics. 10(1). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Last accessed 14/12/2009Google Scholar
  13. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub.Google Scholar
  14. Hardt, D. (2005). Identity 2.0. Keynote presentation for Identity 2.0 Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from
  15. Jarvis, J. (2006). Everybody’s a network. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from
  16. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purishoyma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century, a white paper. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from _WHITE_PAPER.PDFGoogle Scholar
  17. Keegan, H. (2009). Public vs. private: Conflict and compromise in converging social networks. 2nd digital cultures workshop: Social media publics. Salford, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Kemp, B., & Jones, C. (2007). Academic use of digital resources: Disciplinary differences and the issue of progression revisited. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 52–60.Google Scholar
  19. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(l4), 1306–20. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Scholar
  20. Lankshear, C, & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning (2nd edition). New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lubensky, R. (December 18, 2006). The present and future of personal learning environments (PLE). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  23. Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-Learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Matzat, U. (2009). Disciplinary differences in the use of internet discussion groups: Differential communication needs or trust problems? Journal of Information Science, 35(5), 613–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  26. Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist- informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853–1881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pehn, G. (1999). Networking culture: The role of European cultural networks. Council of Europe: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. PLA ICT Cluster Report (2008). E-skills and digital literacy and partnerships for LLL strategies. 8 October 2008, Thessaloniki, Greece. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from Scholar
  29. Redeker, C. (2009). Review of learning 2.0 practices: Study on the impact of web 2.0. Innovations on. Education and Training in Europe, EC, Joint Research Centre, IPTS. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  30. Research Information Network (2009). Patterns of information use and exchange: Case studies of researchers in the life sciences. A report by the Research Information Network and the British Library. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  31. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Siemens, G. (2006). Groups vs networks, in elearnspace. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  33. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  34. Thelwall, M., & Price, E. (2003). Disciplinary differences in academic web presence. A statistical study of the UK. Libri, 53(4), 242–253.Google Scholar
  35. Times Higher Educational Supplement (2009). The research life cycle: A report produced by TSL Education Limited to a brief agreed with JISC. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from storycode=409097Google Scholar
  36. Warlick, D. (2009). The art of cultivating a personal learning network. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  37. Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of net work individualism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. White, N. (2009). Group Facilitation vs. Network Facilitation-Video interview. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Scholar
  39. Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. HBS press.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, S., Fleming, S., & Parslow, P. (2010). This is me—digital identity for careers. Odin Lab. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from
  43. 21st Century Skills—Realising our Potential (2003). Department for Education and Skills, national skills strategy, white paper. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from

Copyright information

© Michael Thomas 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Costa

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations