Dataset Information

Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists' and scientists' social networks, topics and communicative styles.

ABSTRACT: Experts increasingly use social media to communicate with the wider public, prompted by the need to demonstrate impact and public engagement. While previous research on the use of social media by experts focused on single topics and performed sentiment analysis, we propose to extend the scope by investigating experts' networks, topics and communicative styles. We perform social and semantic network as well language analysis of top tweeting scientists and economists. We find that economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer Twitter conversations with members of the public than scientists. Scientists use a more informal and involved style and engage wider audiences through multimedia contents, while economists use more jargon, and tend to favour traditional written media. The results point to differences in experts' communicative practices online, and we propose that disciplinary ways of 'talking' may pose obstacles to an effective public communication of expert knowledge.

SUBMITTER: Della Giusta M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7802044 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists' and scientists' social networks, topics and communicative styles.

Della Giusta Marina M Jaworska Sylvia S Vukadinović Greetham Danica D

Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) 20200915 1

Experts increasingly use social media to communicate with the wider public, prompted by the need to demonstrate impact and public engagement. While previous research on the use of social media by experts focused on single topics and performed sentiment analysis, we propose to extend the scope by investigating experts' networks, topics and communicative styles. We perform social and semantic network as well language analysis of top tweeting scientists and economists. We find that economists tweet ...[more]

PMID: 32933450

Similar Datasets

Project description:The economic valuation of ecosystem services in part reflects the desire to use conventional economic tools (markets and economic instruments) to conserve ecosystem services. However, for regulating and supporting ecosystem services that depend on ecosystem structure and function, estimation of economic value requires estimates of the current level of underlying ecological functions first. This primary step is in principle, the job of environmental scientists, not economists. Here, we provide a coarse-level quantitative assessment of the relationship between the research effort expended by environmental scientists (on the biophysical values) and economists (on the monetary values) on 15 different regulating and supporting services in 32 ecosystem types using peer-reviewed article hits retrieved from bibliographic databases as a measure of research effort. We find a positive, moderately strong (r = 0.69) correlation between research efforts in the two domains, a result that, while encouraging, is likely to reflect serendipity rather than the deliberate design of integrated environmental science-economics research programs. Our results suggest that compared to environmental science research effort economic valuation is devoted to a smaller, less diverse set of ecosystem services but a broader, more diverse, set of ecosystem types. The two domains differed more with respect to the ecosystem services that are the major focus of research effort than they did with respect to the ecosystem types of principal research interest. For example, carbon sequestration, erosion regulation, and nutrient cycling receive more relative research effort in the environmental sciences; air quality regulation in economic valuations. For both domains, cultivated areas, wetlands, and urban/semi-urban ecosystem types received relatively large research effort, while arctic and mountain tundra, cave and subterranean, cryosphere, intertidal/littoral zone, and kelp forest ecosystem types received negligible research effort. We suggest ways and means by which the field of sustainability science may be improved by the design and implementation of a searchable database of environmental science and economic valuation literature as well as a global ecosystem service research network and repository that explicitly links research on the estimation and prediction of biophysical ecosystem functions with that of the social sciences and other knowledge systems. These suggestions would, at least in principle, facilitate a more efficient research agenda between economists and environmental scientists and aid management, regulatory and judicial decision-makers.

Project description:Breastfeeding is one of many health practices known to support the survival and health of mother and infant, yet low breastfeeding rates persist globally. These rates may be influenced by limited diffusion of evidence-based research and guidelines from the scientific community (SC). As recently highlighted by the National Academy of Sciences, there is a need for the SC to diffuse its findings to the public more effectively online, as means to counteract the spread of misinformation. In response to this call, we gathered data from Twitter for one month from major breastfeeding hashtags resulting in an interconnected social network (n = 3,798 users). We then identified 59 influencers who disproportionately influenced information flow using social network analysis. These influencers were from the SC (e.g. academics, researchers, health care practitioners), as well as interested citizens (IC) and companies. We then conducted an ego-network analysis of influencer networks, developed ego maps, and compared diffusion metrics across the SC, IC and company influencers. We also qualitatively analyzed their tweets (n = 711) to understand the type of information being diffused. SC influencers were the least efficient communicators. Although having the highest tweeting activity (80% of tweets), they did not reach more individuals compared to IC and companies (two-step ego size: 220± 99, 188 ± 124, 169 ± 97 respectively, P = 0.28). Content analysis of tweets suggest IC are more active than the SC in diffusing evidence-based breastfeeding knowledge, with 35% of their tweets around recent research findings compared to only 12% by the SC. Nonetheless, in terms of outreach to the general public, the two-step networks of SC influences were more heterogenous than ICs (55.7 ± 5.07, 50.9 ± 12.0, respectively, P<0.001). Collectively, these findings suggest SC influencers may possess latent potential to diffuse research and evidence- based practices. However, the research suggests specific ways to enhance diffusion.

Dataset Information

Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists' and scientists' social networks, topics and communicative styles.

Publications

Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists' and scientists' social networks, topics and communicative styles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets