Inadequate Interactions and Unbalanced Power Between Scientists and the Public in Chinese Knowledge Sharing Network: Social Network Analysis of the Topic of Genetically Modified Food on Zhihu

Abstract

This study takes the scientific discussion about genetically modified food on Zhihu as an example, using the method of social network analysis to explore the interactions between Chinese scientists and the public online. The findings indicate that both scientists and non-scientists are inclined to interact with users with a similar identity. Cross-group interactions seem to be hard to achieve on Zhihu. Furthermore, compared with non-scientists, scientist users tend to hold significantly stronger digital social capital than non-scientists on Zhihu. It is suggested that the knowledge sharing network has not fully achieved the goal of effectively promoting equally science dialogue in China.

Keywords

public engagement digital media discourse power social network analysis genetically modified food

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baran

(1964). On distributed communications: XI. Summary overview (pp. 1–9). RAND Corp. Memo RM-3767-PR.

Borgatti

S.P.

(2003). The key player problem1. In Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: Workshop summary and papers (pp. 241–252). The National Academies Press.

Borgatti

S. P.

Jones

Everett

M. G.

(1998). Network measures of social capital. Connections, 21(2), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8733(99)00020-9.

Borgatti

S. P.

Mehra

Brass

D. J.

Labianca

(2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. science, 323(5916), 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821

Brass

D. J.

(1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392937

Bucchi

(2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of Science. In Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 71–90). Routledge.

Burt

R. S.

(2001). Closure as social capital. In Social sapital: Theory and research (pp. 31–55). Routledge.

Carvalho

(2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506066775

Ceron

Curini

Iacus

S. M.

Porro

(2014). Every tweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France. New Media & Society, 16(2), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813480466

10.

Chen

Liu

(2012). Science Communication in the New Media Age. Theorical Horizon, 12(4), 16-18. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-1747.2012.04.005.

11.

Cheong

(2011). Social media data mining: A social network analysis of tweets during the 2010-2011 Australian floods. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS 2011: Quality Research in Pacific Asia, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 7–11 July 2011.

12.

Chung

T.-L.

Johnson

Hall-Phillips

Kim

(2021). The effects of offline events on online connective actions: An examination of# BoycottNFL using social network analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 115(1), 106623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106623

13.

Colleoni

Rozza

Arvidsson

(2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084

14.

De Laat

Lally

Lipponen

Simons

R.-J.

(2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for Social Network Analysis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9006-4

15.

Diamond

(1996) Status and power in verbal interaction: A study of discourse in a close-knit social network (40). John Benjamins Publishing.

16.

Sun

(2014). Public Science Communication Research: A Review. Forum on Science and Technology in China, 26(3), 118-123. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-6711.2014.03.020.

17.

Dudo

(2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12298

18.

Farrell

(2016). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2875

19.

Felt

Davies

S. R.

(Eds.), (2020). Exploring science communication: A science and technology studies approach. SAGE Publications Limited.

20.

Freeman

L. C.

(1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

21.

Gieryn

T. F.

(1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American sociological review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325

22.

Gieryn

T.F.

(1995). Boundary work. Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications.

23.

Goh

(2015). Narrowing the knowledge gap: The role of alternative online media in an authoritarian press system. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015596336

24.

Han

Wang

(2015). Mapping user relationships for health information diffusion on microblogging in China: A social network analysis of Sina Weibo. Asian Journal of Communication, 25(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.989239

25.

Hayat

Lesser

Samuel-Azran

(2017). Gendered discourse patterns on online social networks: A social network analysis perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 77(1), 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.041.

26.

Haythornthwaite

(1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & Information Science Research, 18(4), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0740-8188(96)90003-1.

27.

Helliwell

Hartley

Pearce

(2019). NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing. Agriculture and Human Values, 36(4), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09956-9

28.

Hogg

M. A.

(1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. WorldCat.

29.

Holliman

(2011). Telling science stories in an evolving digital media ecosystem: From communication to conversation and confrontation. Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), C04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.10040304

30.

Zhang

Zhu

(2018). Engaging scientists in science communication: The effect of social proof and meaning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170(9), 1044-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.210.

31.

Ingold

(2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x

32.

Jacobson

Myung

Johnson

S. L.

(2016). Open media or echo chamber: The use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook pages of partisan news organizations. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2015.1064461

33.

Jamieson

K. H.

Kahan

Scheufele

D. A.

(Eds.), (2017). The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press.

34.

Jenkins

(2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Mit Press.

35.

Jenkins-Smith

H. C.

Silva

C. L.

Murray

(2009). Beliefs about radiation: Scientists, the public and public policy. Health physics, 97(5), 519–527. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3181ad7eec

36.

Jensen

Holliman

(2009). (In)authentic science and (im)partial publics: (re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In Holliman

, et al., (Ed.) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 35-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37.

Chao

Ding

(2019). Rumormongering of genetically modified (GM) food on Chinese social network. Telematics and Informatics, 37(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.005

38.

Jia

Shi

Wang

(2018). Passive communicators: Chinese scientists’ interaction with the media. Science Bulletin, 63(7), 402–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2018.03.001

39.

Jiang

Qiang

Zhang

Wen

Xia

(2018). Climate change communication in an online Q&A community: A case study of Quora. Sustainability, 10(5), 1509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051509.

40.

Lei

Liu

Zhong

Liu

Shen

Yang

(2018). Understanding user behavior in Sina Weibo online social network: A community approach. IEEE Access, 6(2), 13302-13316. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2808158.

41.

Leydesdorff

(2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20614

42.

(2016). Publish SCI papers or no degree”: Practices of Chinese doctoral supervisors in response to the publication pressure on science students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(4), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005050

43.

Liang

Liu

Zhang

(2019). Scientists vs laypeople: How GMF is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science, 28(8), 991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519876782

44.

Liu

Goncalves

Kostakos

Xiao

(2016). Fragmentation or cohesion? Visualizing the process and consequences of information system diversity, 1993–2012. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(6), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2016.5

45.

López-Goñi

Sánchez-Angulo

(2018). Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: focus on Twitter. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(2), Article fnx246. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx246

46.

Makagon

M. M.

McCowan

Mench

J. A.

(2012). How can social network analysis contribute to social behavior research in applied ethology? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 138(3–4), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.003

47.

Marques

M. D.

Critchley

C. R.

Walshe

(2015). Attitudes to GMF over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514542372

48.

Marsh

O.M.

(2018). Nah, musing is fine. You don't have to be’doing science. Emotional and descriptive meaning-making in online non-professional discussions about science. Doctoral dissertation. UCL (University College London).

49.

McClain

C. R.

(2017). Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”. PLOS Biology, 15(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002020

50.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

51.

Mihelj

Leguina

Downey

(2019). Culture is digital: Cultural participation, diversity and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1465–1485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818822816

52.

Mullen

Copper

(1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210

53.

Newman

M. E. J.

(2011). Networks: An introduction. Oxford University Press.

54.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

55.

Nooteboom

(2003). Inter-firm collaboration, learning and networks: An integrated approach. Routledge.

56.

O’malley

A. J.

Marsden

P. V.

(2008). The analysis of social networks. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 8(4), 222–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-008-0041-z

57.

Opsahl

Agneessens

Skvoretz

(2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006

58.

Paradowski

M. B.

Jarynowski

Jelinska

Czopek

(2021). Out-of-class peer interactions matter for second language acquisition during short-term overseas sojourns: The contributions of Social Network Analysis. Language Teaching, 54(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444820000580

59.

Pearce

Holmberg

Hellsten

Nerlich

(2014). Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. Plos One, 9(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094785

60.

Pearce

Niederer

Özkula

S. M.

Sánchez Querubín

(2018). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(2), e569. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569

61.

Quattrociocchi

Scala

Sunstein

C.R.

, 2016. Echo chambers on Facebook. SSRN 2795110.

62.

Ren

Zhai

(2013). Communication and popularization of science and technology in China. Springer Science & Business Media.

63.

Riesch

Potter

(2014). Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513497324

64.

Rose

K. M.

Markowitz

E. M.

Brossard

(2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(3), 1274–1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117

65.

Schafer

M. S.

(2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: A literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.191

66.

Shimeall

T. J.

Spring

J. M.

(2014). Network analysis and forensics Introduction to Information Security (pp. 235–251).Syngress.

67.

Soleri

Long

J. W.

Ramirez-Andreotta

M. D.

Eitemiller

Pandya

(2016). Finding pathways to more equitable and meaningful public-scientist partnerships. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.46

68.

Spaiser

Chadefaux

Donnay

Russmann

Helbing

(2017). Communication power struggles on social media: A case study of the 2011–12 Russian protests. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1308288

69.

Stilgoe

Lock

S. J.

Wilsdon

(2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154

70.

Strasser

Baudry

Mahr

Sanchez

Tancoigne

(2019). Citizen Science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies, 32(2), 52–76. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60425

71.

The State Council of China (2021). Notice of the state Council on printing and distributing the outline of the national action plan for scientific literacy (2021-2035). Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-06/25/content_5620813.htm. Published on 25-06-2021.

72.

Turner

P. G.

Lefevre

C. E.

(2017). Instagram use is linked to increased symptoms of orthorexia nervosa. Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 22(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-017-0364-2

73.

Valinciute

(2020). Lithuanian scientists’ behavior and views on science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520907001

74.

Vicari

(2020). Is it all about storytelling? Living and learning hereditary cancer on twitter (p. 1461444820926632). New Media & Society.

75.

Wagner

C. J.

González-Howard

(2018). Studying discourse as social interaction: The potential of social network analysis for discourse studies. Educational Researcher, 47(6), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x18777741

76.

Wang

Jia

(2018). New kinetics of science communication in the Era of network self-media——Taking “Internet Celebrity” scientists as examples. Journalists, 428(10), 49-58. http://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:XWJZ.0.2018-10-010.

77.

Wang

Zhong

Jia

(2015). From Science Popularization to Public Engagement with Science——Thinking triggered by Cui Yongyuan and Lu Daru’s GMO debate. Journalists, 6(1), 8-15. http://doi.org/0.2015-06-003.

78.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications (8). Cambridge University Press.

79.

Yang

(2021). Deconstruction of the discourse authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks (p. 09636625211005106). Public Understanding of Science.

80.

Yardi

Boyd

(2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011

81.

Zarocostas

(2020). How to fight an infodemic. Lancet, 395(10225), 676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X

82.

Zhang

C.J.

Zhu

(2016). China’s graduate students need better education in scientific writing and publishing. Journal of Zhejiang University-Science B, 17(5), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1600174

83.

Zhang

Machin

Song

(2015). Visual forms of address in social media discourse: the case of a science communication website. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(2), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2015.1042384

84.

Zou

(2020). University’s grad students no longer have to publish to earn their master’s degree. China Daily. Available at: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202008/07/WS5f2ca549a31083481725ec6d.html. Updated: 20S20-08-07.