Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Content Analysis on Twitter for Identifying Scholarly Activities and Public Use in Informal Communication: With a Focus on Domestic Scholars in Social Sciences

트위터 데이터를 이용한 연구자들의 비공식 커뮤니케이션 활동 및 대중이용 내용분석: 국내 사회과학 분야 연구자들을 중심으로

  • Shim, Jiyoung (Dept. of Library and Information Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Song, Sungjeon (Dept. of Library and Information Science, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2019.05.19
  • Accepted : 2019.06.24
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to identify and categorize the content and public use patterns of social scientists' informal communication activities. Using Twitter data, we identified Korean 736 social scientists who participated in communication activities with the public, and analyzed 4,548 tweets that revealed their informal communication activities. This study is meaningful in that it explored informal communication between social scientists and the public, which was not previously revealed in scholarly communication, and identified the types of informal communication activities, communication media, and collaborative sectors in detail.

본 연구는 사회과학 연구자의 비공식 커뮤니케이션 활동 및 대중이용 패턴을 파악하고 범주화하는 데 초점을 맞춘다. 트위터 데이터를 이용하여 대중과의 커뮤니케이션 활동에 참여한 국내 사회과학 연구자 736명을 식별하고, 이 연구자들의 비공식 커뮤니케이션 활동이 드러난 트윗 4,548개를 내용분석하였다. 본 연구는 지금까지 학술커뮤니케이션 연구에서 밝혀지지 않았던 사회과학자와 일반대중 간의 비공식적인 커뮤니케이션을 탐색하고, 구체적인 비공식 커뮤니케이션 활동 내용, 커뮤니케이션 매체 및 협업 분야의 유형을 식별했다는 점에서 의미가 있다.

Keywords

JBGRBQ_2019_v36n2_133_f0001.png 이미지

Types of informal communication activities corresponding to five social science fields

JBGRBQ_2019_v36n2_133_f0002.png 이미지

Types of informal communication media corresponding to five social science fields

Types of informal communication activities of social scientists and public use

JBGRBQ_2019_v36n2_133_t0001.png 이미지

Communication media types between social scientists and the public

JBGRBQ_2019_v36n2_133_t0002.png 이미지

Sectors cooperating with social scientists

JBGRBQ_2019_v36n2_133_t0003.png 이미지

References

  1. Alegi, P. (2012). Podcasting the past: Africa past and present and (South) African history in the digital age. South African Historical Journal, 64(2), 206-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02582473.2011.640344
  2. Barker, D. (2004). The scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of five emerging practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123-137.
  3. Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.
  4. Borner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179-255. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370106
  5. Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662503012001413
  6. Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2008). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928240
  7. Cao, Z., & Yin, L. (2009, November). Science communication based on the Web 2.0: Give the songshuhui.net as an example. In 2009 Fourth International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology, 473-476. IEEE.
  8. Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior (4th ed.). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  9. Colson, V. (2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12(7), 889-902. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412834
  10. Dearing, J. W. (2016). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4(4), 341-361. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/4/4/002
  11. Delgado, A., Lein Kjolberg, K., & Wickson, F. (2011). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826-845. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510363054
  12. Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists' prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PloS one, 11(2), e0148867. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
  13. English, R. (2004). The ACRL scholarly communications initiative: A progress report. College & Research Libraries News, 65(8), 450-453.
  14. Fausto, S., Machado, F. A., Bento, L. F. J., Iamarino, A., Nahas, T. R., & Munger, D. S. (2012). Research blogging: Indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PloS one, 7(12), e50109. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050109
  15. Gu, F., & Widen-Wulff, G. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A finnish case study. The Electronic Library, 29(6), 762-776. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471111187999
  16. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PloS one, 10(3), e0120495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
  17. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Lariviere, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656-669. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23101
  18. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
  19. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130
  20. Kelly, A. R., & Autry, M. K. (2013). Access, accommodation, and science: Knowledge in an "open" world. First Monday, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i6.4341
  21. Kjellberg, S., Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2016). Researchers' use of social network sites: A scoping review. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 224-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.008
  22. Ko, H. (2011). Analysis of Newspaper Articles into Science Concepts and its Implication for Science Education. Education Culture Research, 17(2), 367-384. https://doi.org/10.24159/joec.2011.17.2.367
  23. Kyvik, S. (1994). Popular science publishing. Scientometrics, 31(2), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018557
  24. Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26(3), 288-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004273022
  25. Lee, M. K., Yoon, H. Y., Smith, M., Park, H. J., & Park, H. W. (2017). Mapping a Twitter scholarly communication network: a case of the association of internet researchers' conference. Scientometrics, 112(2), 767-797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2413-z
  26. Luzon, M. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610
  27. Mackenzie, A. (2013). From validating to verifying: Public appeals in synthetic biology. Science as Culture, 22(4), 476-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2013.764067
  28. Mahrt, M., Weller, K., & Peters, I. (2014). Twitter in scholarly communication. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 399-410). New York: Peter Lang.
  29. Nandez, G., & Borrego, A. (2013). Use of social networks for academic purposes: a case study. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 781-791. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2012-0031
  30. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
  31. Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
  32. Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/004
  33. Pujari, S. C., Hadgu, A. T., Lex, E., & Jachke, R. (2015, October). Social activity versus academic activity: A case study of computer scientists on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-driven Business, 12:1-12:8. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2809563.2809584
  34. Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., & Welsh, A. (2011). Enabled backchannel: Conference twitter use by digital humanists. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 214-237. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111109449
  35. Scanlon, E. (2014). Scholarship in the digital age: Open educational resources, publication and public engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12010
  36. Schäfer, M. S. (2012). Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media's coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(6), 650-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510387559
  37. Shehata, A., Ellis, D., & Foster, A. (2015). The impact of information and communication technologies on informal scientific communication: A naturalistic inquiry approach. Library Review, 64(6/7), 428-445. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-09-2014-0102
  38. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS one, 7(5), e35869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035869
  39. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154
  40. Sugimoto, C. R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22764
  41. Thorsen, E. (2013). Blogging on the ice: Connecting audiences with climate-change sciences. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.9.1.87_1
  42. Vestergard, G. L., & Nielsen, K. H. (2017). From the preserves of the educated elite to virtually everywhere: A content analysis of Danish science news in 1999 and 2012. Public Understanding of Science, 26(2), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515603272
  43. Zalta, E. (2006). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy A university/library partnership in support of scholarly communication and open access. College & Research Libraries News, 67(8), 502-504. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.67.8.7670
(34141) Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, 245, Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon
Copyright (C) KISTI. All Rights Reserved.