An analysis of ResearchGate and Academia. edu as socio-technical systems for scholars’ networked learning: a multilevel framework proposal

Main Article Content

Stefania Manca


Academic social network sites (ASNS) like ResearchGate and are digital
platforms for information sharing and systems for open dissemination of scholarly practices that are gaining
momentum among researchers of multiple disciplines. Although ASNS are increasingly transforming
scholarly practices and academic identity, a unifying theoretical approach that analyses these platforms at
both a systemic/infrastructural and at a personal/individual level is missing. Moreover, despite there is an
increasing amount of studies on social media benefits for scholarly networking and knowledge sharing, very
few studies have investigated specific benefits of ResearchGate and for scholars’ professional
development according to a networked learning perspective. This study focuses on academic social network
sites as networked socio-technical systems and adopts a three-level analysis related to ASNS as platforms
for digital scholarship and scholarly communication. The approach comprises: 1) a macro-level, which
constitutes the socio-economic layer; 2) a meso-level, which comprises the techno-cultural layer; and 3)
a micro-level, which constitutes the networked-scholar layer. The study reports on investigations into the
technological features provided by ResearchGate and for networked learning that are based
on the multilevel approach. The final aim is to exemplify how these digital services are socio-technical
systems that support scholars’ knowledge sharing and professional learning.

Article Details

Articles - General topics


Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.) (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Borrego, A. (2017). Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: The depositing habits of Spanish researchers. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 185-192.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Carnegie Foundation.

Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 707-728.

Costa, C. (2016). Double gamers: academics between fields. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(7), 993-1013.

Donelan, H. (2016). Social media for professional development and networking opportunities in academia. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(5), 706-729.

Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro-meso-macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 263-279.

Duffy, B. E., & Pooley, J. D. (2017). “Facebook for Academics”: The Convergence of Self-Branding and Social Media Logic on Social Media + Society, 3(1), 1-11.

Ellison, N. B., & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 151-172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fox, A., & Bird, T. (2017). #any use? What do we know about how teachers and doctors learn through social media use? Qwerty. Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 12(2), 64-87.

Fu, P.-W., Wu, C.-C., & Cho, Y.-J. (2017). What makes users share content on facebook? Compatibility among psychological incentive, social capital focus, and content type. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 23-32.

Fulk, J., & Yuan, Y. C. (2013). Location, Motivation, and Social Capitalization via Enterprise Social Networking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 20-37.

Genoni, P., Merrick, H., & Willson, M. (2005). The use of the Internet to activate latent ties in scholarly communities. First Monday, 10(12).

Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392-402.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125-147.

Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765-775.

Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 40-51.

Kelly, N., & Antonio, A. (2016). Teacher peer support in social network sites. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 138-149.

Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars’ evolving uses of twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 445– 464.

Kling, R., McKim, R., & King, A. (2003). A Bit More to It: Scholarly Communication Forums as SocioTechnical Interaction Networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 47-67.

Kramer, B., & Bosman, J. (2016). Swiss army knives of scholarly communication - ResearchGate, Academia, Mendeley and others. Presentation at STM Innovation seminar 2016. Retrieved from

Kuo, T., Tsai, G. Y., Wu, Y-C. J., & Alhalabi. W. (2017). From sociability to creditability for academics. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 975-984.

Li, J., & Greenhow, C. (2015). Scholars and social media: tweeting in the conference backchannel for professional learning. Educational Media International, 52(1), 1-14.

Lundin, M., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Hillman, T. (2017). Teachers’ reshaping of professional identity in a thematic FB-group. Qwerty. Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 12(2), 12-29.

Macià, M., & García, I. (2017). Properties of Teacher Networks in Twitter: Are They Related to Community-Based Peer Production? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), 110-140.

Manca, S. (submitted). ResearchGate and as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology.

Manca, S., & Raffaghelli, J. E. (2017). Towards a Multilevel Framework for Analysing Academic Social Network Sites: A Networked Socio-Technical Perspective. In A. Skaržauskienė & N. Gudelienė (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Social Media – ECSM 2017, Vilnius, Lithuania 3-4 July 2017, pp. 193-201.

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2017a). Editorial. Reshaping professional learning in the social media landscape: theories, practices and challenges. Qwerty. Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 12(2), 5-11.

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2017b). Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media use in Scholarly Communication. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 123-138.

Nández, G., & Borrego, A. (2013). Use of social networks for academic purposes: a case study. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 781-791.

Nicholas, D., Herman, E., & Clark, D. (2016). Scholarly Reputation Building: How does ResearchGate Fare? International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 6(2), 67-92.

Nicholas, D., Herman, E., & Jamali, H. R. (2015). Emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars. Brussels: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., Akil, A., Mortonson, M., Schwartzman, J., & Shron, M. (2016). Open Access Meets Discoverability: Citations to Articles Posted to PLoS ONE, 11(2): e0148257, 1-41.

Pooley, J. (2017). Scholarly communications shouldn’t just be open, but non-profit too. LSE Impact Blog, August 15, 2017. Retrieved from

Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2017). Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112(1), 443-460.

Raffaghelli, J. E., Cucchiara, S., Manganello, F., & Persico, D. (2016). Different views on Digital Scholarship: separate worlds or cohesive research field? Research in Learning Technology, 24(1), 1-17.

Ranieri, M., Manca, S., & Fini, A. (2012). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks? An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and its implications for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 754-769.

Stewart, B. E. (2015). In Abundance: Networked Participatory Practices as Scholarship. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 318-340.

Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876-889.

Utz, S. (2016). Is LinkedIn making you more successful? The informational benefits derived from public social media. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2685-2702.

van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity. A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512, 126-129.

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked Participatory Scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766774. Veletsianos, G., & Stewart, B. (2016). Discreet Openness: Scholars’ Selective and Intentional SelfDisclosures Online. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 1-11.

Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar. How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury.

Wagner, C. (2008). The New Invisible College: Science for Development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6), 865-899.