Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 3 No. 3 (2015)

"Wow, I didn't know that before; thank you": How scientists use Twitter for public engagement.

  • Alison Smith
Submitted
December 2, 2015
Published
2016-01-30

Abstract

In recent years there has been a rhetorical shift from 'deficit' to 'dialogue' and 'engagement' in discourse about science communication. The extent to which any rhetorical shift has translated into everyday communications practice is unclear. This exploratory study aims to develop insights into the ways that scientists use microblogging site Twitter for science communication. Users of social media determine to a considerable degree which communicative function their activity can realise, and how accessible it will be to non-scientists; therefore the importance of scientists' assumptions about the process they are involved in and the people they are communicating with cannot be underestimated. Science blogs were heralded for their potential to transform dialogue between science and society, yet studies suggest they have failed to do so. This study investigates reported practices and discourses of U.K and U.S. scientists on Twitter. The analysis employs a theoretical lens informed by Irwin's (2008) taxonomy of 'orders' of engagement and draws on the notion of 'imagined audiences'. I find some evidence of dialogue and engagement talk, however, reported practice does not reflect this talk. Scientists tweet by and large what they find interesting; despite the deficit-like approach of individual scientists, I conclude that given Twitter's unique characteristics, the effect of all this science tweeting does appear to offer the potential to break down barriers between scientists and non-scientists.

References

  1. Bell, A., 2012. ‘ScienceBlogs is a high school clique, nature network is a private club’: Imagining the communities of online science. Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 10, 240–265.
  2. Besley, J., and Nisbet, M., 2013. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659.
  3. Besley, J., 2014. What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy, scu042.
  4. Blok, A., Jensen, M. and Kaltoft, P., 2008. Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 189-209.
  5. Bowater, L. and Yeoman, K, 2012. Science communication: a practical guide for scientists. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  6. boyd, d. and Ellison, N., 2008. Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.
  7. Broks, P., 2006. Understanding popular science. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill International.
  8. Brossard, D, 2013. New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14096-14101.
  9. Bubela, T., Nisbet, M., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E., Jones, S., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O'Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., Spear, M., Strauss, S., Thavaratnam, T., Willemse, L., and Caulfield, T., 2009, Science communication reconsidered, Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518
  10. Bucchi, M. and Trench, B., 2008. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge.
  11. Bucchi, M. and Trench, B., 2014. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London: Routledge.
  12. Burchell, K., 2007. Empiricist selves and contingent “othersâ€: The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 145-162.
  13. Chilvers, J., 2010. Sustainable Participation? Mapping Out and Reflecting on the Field of Public Dialogue on Science and Technology. Summary Report. London: Sciencewise-ERC and the University of East Anglia.
  14. Cook, G., Pieri, E., and Robbins, P., 2004. "The scientists think and the public feels": Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 433-449.
  15. Davies, S., 2008. Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
  16. Fitton, L., Gruen, M. and Poston, L., 2010. Twitter for Dummies. Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  17. Goodell, R., 1977. The Visible Scientists. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
  18. Gregory, J. and Miller, S., 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. New York: Plenum.
  19. Hall, N., 2014. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome biology 15(7), 424-426.
  20. Hinton, S., Hjorth, L., 2013. Understanding Social Media. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  21. Holliman, R., and Jensen, E., 2009. (In)authentic science and (im)partial publics: (Re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In Holliman R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., and Thomas, J., 2009. Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media, Oxford University Press, 35-52.
  22. House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2000. Science and Society, Third Report. London: HMSO.
  23. Irwin, A., 2006. The Politics of talks: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 229-320.
  24. Irwin, A., 2008. Risk, science and public communication: Third order thinking about scientific culture. In Bucchi, M. and Trench, B., 2008. Public communication of science and technology handbook, 199-212. London: Routledge.
  25. Jackson, N. and Lilleker, D., 2011. Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17(1), 86-105.
  26. Jensen, E. and Holliman, R., 2009. Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement. In Holliman R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S. and Thomas, J., 2009. Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford University Press, 35-52.
  27. Jensen, E., and Holliman, R., 2015. Norms and Values in UK Science Engagement Practice. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement.
  28. Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M., 2011. The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Business Horizons, 54, 105-113.
  29. Kaplan, A., and Haenlein, M, 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons 53(1), 59-68.
  30. Kietzmann, J., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I., Bruno S. Silvestre, B., 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241—251.
  31. Knorr-Cetina, K., 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  32. Kouper, I., 2010. Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), 1-10.
  33. Levy-Leblond, J-M., 1992. About misunderstandings and misunderstandings. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 17-21.
  34. Lezaun, J., and Soneryd, L., 2007. Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279-297.
  35. Liang, X., Su, L., Yeo, S., Scheufele, D., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., Nealey, P, and Corley, E., 2014. Building Buzz: (Scientists) Communicating Science in New Media Environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1-20.
  36. Lilleker, D., 2003. Interviewing the political elite: Navigating a potential minefield. Politics, 23(3), 207-214.
  37. Mahrt, M. and Puschmann, C., 2014. Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13.
  38. Marwick, A., and boyd, d., 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society 13(1), 114-133.
  39. Maynard, A., 2011. Social media and science communication – the new Renaissance, or a load of Jackson Pollocks? 2020 Science [online] 22 April 2011. Available from: http://2020science.org/2011/04/22/social-media-and-science-communication-the-new-renaissance-or-a-load-of-jackson-pollocks/ [Accessed 1 January 2015].
  40. Maynard, A., 2015. Social media and science communication: what are your benchmarks of success? Available from: https://medium.com/2020-science-comms/social-media-and-science-communication-f67bd6eb4ccc [Accessed 25 April 2015].
  41. McClain, C., and Neeley, L., 2014. A critical evaluation of science outreach via social media: its role and impact on scientists. F1000Research, 3(300), 1-8.
  42. Mellor, F., 1999. Scientists' rhetoric in the science wars. Public Understanding of Science, 8(1), 51-56.
  43. Miller, S., 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115-120.
  44. Miller, S., 2008. So where’s the theory? On the relationship between science communication practice and research. Communicating science in social contexts. Springer Netherlands, 275-287.
  45. Pais, A., 1982. Subtle is the Lord...: the Science and Life of Albert Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press.
  46. Pearson, G., Pringle, S. and Thomas, J., 1997. Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6(3) 279-289.
  47. Perez, S., 2010. Twitter is NOT a Social Network, Says Twitter Exec. Readwrite [online] 14 September 2010. Available from: http://readwrite.com/2010/09/14/twitter_is_not_a_social_network_says_twitter_exec [Accessed 1 May 2015].
  48. Pinholster, G., and Ham, B., 2013. Science communication requires time, trust, and Twitter." Science, 342(6165) 1464-1464.
  49. Ponterotto, J., 2006. Brief note on the origins, Evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept Thick Description. The Qualitative Report 11(3), 538-549.
  50. Raichvard, D., and Jacques, J., 1991. Savants et Ignorants. Une Histoire de la Vulgarisation des Sciences. Paris: Seuil.
  51. Ranger, M. and Bultitude, K., 2014. ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science, 1-19.
  52. Research Councils UK, 2015. RCUK Public Engagement. Available from: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/pe [Accessed 20 March 2015].
  53. Riesch, H. and Mendel, J., 2014. Science blogging: Networks, boundaries and limitations. Science as Culture 23, 51–72.
  54. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L., 2005. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.
  55. Shermer, M., 2002. The View of Science Stephen Jay Gould as Historian of Science and Scientific Historian, Popular Scientist and Scientific Popularizer. Social Studies of Science 32(4), 489-524.
  56. Silverman, D., 2013. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: SAGE Publications Limited.
  57. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S., and Wilsdon, J., 2014. Why should we promote public engagement with science?. Public Understanding of Science 23(1), 4-15.
  58. Sturgis, P. and Allum, N., 2004. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public understanding of science 13(1), 55-74.
  59. The Royal Society, 1985. The Public Understanding of Science. London. Author.
  60. Travis, J., 2014. Twitter's science stars, the sequel. Science [online] 6 October 2014. Available from: http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/10/twitters-science-stars-sequel [Accessed 1 May 2015].
  61. Trench, B., 2012. Scientists’ blogs: Glimpses behind the scenes. The Sciences’ Media Connection–Public Communication and Its Repercussions. Springer Netherlands. 273-289.
  62. Turney, J., 2006. Engaging Science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. London: The Wellcome Trust.
  63. Van Eperen, L. and Marincola, F., 2011. Editorial: How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9(199), 1-3.
  64. Wilcox, C., 2012. Guest editorial: It's time to e-volve: Taking responsibility for science communication in a digital age. The Biological Bulletin 222(2), 85-87.
  65. Wilkins, J., 2008. The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(8), 411–413.
  66. Wright, N. and Nerlich, B., 2006. Use of the deficit model in a shared culture of argumentation: the case of foot and mouth science. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 331–342.
  67. Wynne, B., 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220.
  68. You, J., 2014. Who are the Science Stars of Twitter? Science, 345(6203) 1440-1441.