The aim of this bachelor-thesis is to study how postgraduates approach open access during times of change within scholarly communication. Our theoretical framework is based upon Knorr Cetinas epistemic cultures and Cullen & Chawners theory that there is a paradigmatic conflict within scholarly communication due to the fact that open access has failed to reach the same level of prominence among researchers as it has within research libraries. We interviewed six postgraduates at Malmö högskola in order to find answers to our research questions. We identified a shared epistemic culture among the postgraduates, which can be explained by the fact that being postgraduates, they all share similar experiences and values. We chose to call this epistemic culture the horizontal epistemic culture. During the interviews institution-specific cultures were expressed as well. These institution-specific cultures we chose to call the vertical epistemic cultures. Our study shows that the basic principle of the open access movement, namely to make all research freely available, has encountered difficulties when it comes to being incorporated within both the horizontal and the vertical epistemic culture. The statements of the postgraduates unanimously show that open access is viewed neither as a concept nor as a real publishing-alternative for them. We can conclude that the statements of the postgraduates show a similar conflict between the traditional publishing system and open access publishing that Cullen and Chawner identified. Research libraries should be aware of these cultures in order to be able to collaborate more efficiently with the postgraduates. / Program: Bibliotekarie

The Open Access (OA) movement came to be as a reaction against the enclosure of information resources, facilitated by new distribution technologies. The purpose of the OA movement is to make research results freely available. The aim of this master´s thesis is to increase the understanding of how libraries outside of the academic sphere and within research institutes relates to OA. As a theoretical framework I created two different ideologies, the OA ideology and the nonsharing ideology. I also conducted six interviews with librarians. Through an idea and ideology analysis I relate the materials to the two different ideologies. The theories used concern information commons and gifting economies. My study shows that the informants have different views of the OA ideas depending on what aspects that is in question. Especially when it comes to economics and copyright issues the informants express a great degree of criticism against the traditional publishing models. In some other aspects the informants relied on the traditional publishing and thereby on the nonsharing ideology. The idea to make research results freely available was positively viewed upon by many of the informants. They sometimes plan and have ideas connected to the OA ideology. In a few cases they also work with OA materials, but the context that the libraries functions within makes it complicated and sometimes less urgent than it is in the universities to adopt to OA to a larger extent.

In Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic the Public Health Agency of Sweden assumed the major responsibility for communication and information dissemination about the contagion, and made efforts on preventive work and the risk mitigation. To successfully mitigate the risks it is important for the Public Health Agency to be transparent in their risk communication, in order to gain and strenghten the public’s trust towards their institution, which is a prerequisite for them to be able to work efficiently in changing public behaviour in the population. This study examines what strategies the Public Health Agency of Sweden has used to create transparency within their risk communication, with the theoretical perspective of scholarly communication and information making. The study was conducted by analysing texts in the form of news articles published on the agency’s own website. The study identified eleven different strategies the agency has used in their risk communication, from referring to expert knowledge, to using a language that is accessible to the whole public.

<p>As the western society gradually turns into a knowledge- and risk society, where science and scientific innovations increasingly both promise to save the world and destroy it, a shift in the relation between the scientific community and the rest of society has emerged. A shift from a top-down one-way transfer view regarding communication, to a dialogue-based interactive co-production model, where the public are part of setting the agenda for research and contribute to the knowledge production. Or at least in theory, in EU documents and in many different country's policy documents. In practical application however, one might have a hard time see the implementation of such model.</p><p>As a more comprehensive and dialogue-based science communication is depending on the possibility for scientist themselves to engage and fell the need to engage, we have focused on their thoughts.</p><p>In this thesis we have examined six scientists view on, and work with, science communication, as well as their perceived social and structural conditions. We have also examined action plans and strategy documents from three Swedish universities that in different ways mention science communication and interaction with the broader society. Finally we have compared the view on science communication that we have found in the documents with that of the scientists.</p><p>We have used qualitative interviews to gather information from the six scientists, who range from 30 to 60 years in age and come from different fields of study. For the documents we used a qualitative analyse, searching for different areas regarding science communication and interaction with society.</p><p>Our finding show that both the view of the scientist and that of the documents, regarding science communication, more resemble that of the older one-way transfer model, although some minor parts remind of a dialogue-based model.</p><p>All the scientists we have interviewed are positive to science communication, especially for its possibility to increase the knowledge in general society and set a ground for better decision making, and also to give legitimacy for both research and the decisions based on it.</p><p>Regarding their practical work with science communication, no one have fixed routines, and the time they spend differ greatly. It is mostly reactive in nature and consist of lectures, popular science articles, participation in interviews in media and conferences etcetera. Three of the scientists use, or are about to use, websites where they communicate their science.</p><p>Socially, most of the scientists both talk extensively with their colleagues about science communication and feel that they think it is important. When it comes to their superior or employer view on science communication most of the scientists don't feel that they act as if it is a subject of concern. Regarding to the academic world at large, they think it is both seen as something positive and sometimes negative. For example some scientists may see it as a positive and important work, while others see the science communication as being part of self promotion and a attempt to raise more funds for specific research. The scientists still feel principle encourage to work with science communication.</p><p>The structural conditions differ between the different scientists, and only one has had training in science communication, although three think they have the possibility to get training. All the scientist have possibility to get some help with their communication however. Two of the scientists felt that their conditions for working with science communication are sufficient, while others feel the need for more resources, time and natural environments for engagement.</p><p>In the action plans and strategy documents we found five interesting areas regarding science communication and engagement with the broader society. First of are their view on science communication and its positive effects. Here all the universities point at the importance of science communication for a sustainable development. They also focus on the benefit for the research in utilizing the knowledge and experience of the broader society. Secondly two of the universities give examples on how they work with science communication. Here they mention open lectures, seminars, study visits, among other. The third area focus on the education of scientist in science communication. Here KTH strongly emphasis the importance education for good leadership and communicative skills for scientists. Fourth, the need for better structural conditions is something that Södertörn stresses, both regarding funding, merits and different departments’ tasks regarding science communication. Last, the importance of business related education as a way of spreading knowledge is something that all the universities focus on.</p>

As the western society gradually turns into a knowledge- and risk society, where science and scientific innovations increasingly both promise to save the world and destroy it, a shift in the relation between the scientific community and the rest of society has emerged. A shift from a top-down one-way transfer view regarding communication, to a dialogue-based interactive co-production model, where the public are part of setting the agenda for research and contribute to the knowledge production. Or at least in theory, in EU documents and in many different country's policy documents. In practical application however, one might have a hard time see the implementation of such model. As a more comprehensive and dialogue-based science communication is depending on the possibility for scientist themselves to engage and fell the need to engage, we have focused on their thoughts. In this thesis we have examined six scientists view on, and work with, science communication, as well as their perceived social and structural conditions. We have also examined action plans and strategy documents from three Swedish universities that in different ways mention science communication and interaction with the broader society. Finally we have compared the view on science communication that we have found in the documents with that of the scientists. We have used qualitative interviews to gather information from the six scientists, who range from 30 to 60 years in age and come from different fields of study. For the documents we used a qualitative analyse, searching for different areas regarding science communication and interaction with society. Our finding show that both the view of the scientist and that of the documents, regarding science communication, more resemble that of the older one-way transfer model, although some minor parts remind of a dialogue-based model. All the scientists we have interviewed are positive to science communication, especially for its possibility to increase the knowledge in general society and set a ground for better decision making, and also to give legitimacy for both research and the decisions based on it. Regarding their practical work with science communication, no one have fixed routines, and the time they spend differ greatly. It is mostly reactive in nature and consist of lectures, popular science articles, participation in interviews in media and conferences etcetera. Three of the scientists use, or are about to use, websites where they communicate their science. Socially, most of the scientists both talk extensively with their colleagues about science communication and feel that they think it is important. When it comes to their superior or employer view on science communication most of the scientists don't feel that they act as if it is a subject of concern. Regarding to the academic world at large, they think it is both seen as something positive and sometimes negative. For example some scientists may see it as a positive and important work, while others see the science communication as being part of self promotion and a attempt to raise more funds for specific research. The scientists still feel principle encourage to work with science communication. The structural conditions differ between the different scientists, and only one has had training in science communication, although three think they have the possibility to get training. All the scientist have possibility to get some help with their communication however. Two of the scientists felt that their conditions for working with science communication are sufficient, while others feel the need for more resources, time and natural environments for engagement. In the action plans and strategy documents we found five interesting areas regarding science communication and engagement with the broader society. First of are their view on science communication and its positive effects. Here all the universities point at the importance of science communication for a sustainable development. They also focus on the benefit for the research in utilizing the knowledge and experience of the broader society. Secondly two of the universities give examples on how they work with science communication. Here they mention open lectures, seminars, study visits, among other. The third area focus on the education of scientist in science communication. Here KTH strongly emphasis the importance education for good leadership and communicative skills for scientists. Fourth, the need for better structural conditions is something that Södertörn stresses, both regarding funding, merits and different departments’ tasks regarding science communication. Last, the importance of business related education as a way of spreading knowledge is something that all the universities focus on.

This master’s thesis aims to explore the practice of becoming a researcher and the learning process embedded in this activity by looking at the communicative practices of PhD students, within the context of academic publishing. It is likely that the way in which these soon-to-be researchers reason about the task of communication is related to their way of approaching their field of research as well as the lived world, which makes it relevant to explore further. The study was performed based two sets of data, first open-ended semi-structured interviews with eleven PhD students at Stockholm University, where they talk about their current situation, their motivations and goals and about how they plan to publish their dissertation. Secondly, an analysis of data about publications focusing on work by PhD students at Stockholm University between 2013–2016, and information about how the intended audience, i.e. the readers, have interacted with the published material. These two sets of data were analysed with the use of theories about personal epistemology, sociocultural learning and the rationality of actions. The study shows that the majority of the PhD students at Stockholm University publishes their research findings as scholarly articles in English. The conclusion is also that the publishing process can be understood as a pedagogical tool, as it provides a vehicle for the PhD students to immerse themselves in their community of practice. These findings suggest that it could be useful to further emphasise the publishing activity as a learning process that may lead to a deeper understanding of the role of the researcher in society. / Den här masteruppsatsen avser att utforska hur doktorander lär sig sitt framtida yrke, och hur de socialiseras till att bli forskare via de kommunikativa praktiker som de ägnar sig åt, dvs. akademisk publicering. Dessa kommunikativa praktiker torde vara kopplade till hur en forskare relaterar till sitt forskningsfält, men också sin omvärld, och företeelsen är därför intressant att ytterligare belysa. Studien är genomförd i två delar. Den första delen består av intervjumaterial från samtal med 11 doktorander vid Stockholms universitet. Den andra delen består av en analys av statistik om elektroniska publikationer av doktorander vid Stockholms universitet under perioden 2013–2016. Publikationerna sätts sedan i relation till data om hur läsekretsen har interagerat med publikationerna via olika media och citeringar. De två dataseten analyseras med hjälp av teorier om personlig epistemologi, sociokulturellt lärande och handlingsrationalitet. Slutsatserna är att de flesta doktorander vid Stockholms universitet väljer att publicera sig i vetenskapliga tidskrifter på engelska, och att dessa kommunikativa praktiker kan förstås som ett pedagogiskt verktyg när det gäller lärande om och förståelse för doktorandernas kontext eller gemenskap. Resultatet av studien indikerar att det kan vara meningsfullt att fokusera på publicering, eller liknande kommunikativa praktiker, som en användbar lärandeprocess när det gäller att förstå mer om forskarens roll i samhället.

The last few years have been characterised by increasing online communication and the emergence of social media, made possible by Web 2.0. In society as well as in research, social media is used for knowledge produc- tion and networking. One example of this is Mendeley, a social reference management tool. With answers from users all over the world, this study investigates the use of Mendeley, if the respondents use other social media and if all of this affects scientific communication. The aim is also to study what the respondents think about the future of scientific communication and if this can be related to current tendencies. The theoretic framework for this study is based on Leah Lievrouws research on the Cycle of Scientific Communication and the relationship between the ”Little Science 2.0”-scenario and the ”Big Science Retrench- ment”-scenario. A qualitative web based survey was conducted (41 answers) and complemented with an interview with a professor in environmental sciences. The main purpose with the interview was to study how Mendeley can be used in collaborations. The results show that Mendeley is used by researchers to store and organize references, read and annotate pdf:s, cite, share articles in groups, search for new references and to present their research and make new ac- quaintances. The answers show that one effect that Mendeley and other social media has on scientific communi- cation is facilitating cooperation across traditional divides. At the same time, some respondents have not seen an effect on their scientific communication yet. Methods to measure impact in social media are requested, which would complement standard citation analysis. Mendeley’s related research function is found valuable in theory, but is in need of significant improvements. The respondents think that the future will be characterized by an increase in openness and sharing, but a tendency to keep scientific results copyrighted and locked behind pay- walls is also present. This is a two years master’s thesis in Library and Information science.