Microblogging as an extension of science reporting

Abstract

Mass media have long provided general publics with science news. New media such as Twitter have entered this system and provide an additional platform for the dissemination of science information. Based on automated collection and analysis of >900 news articles and 70,000 tweets, this study explores the online communication of current science news. Topic modeling (latent Dirichlet allocation) was used to extract five broad themes of science reporting: space missions, the US government shutdown, cancer research, Nobel Prizes, and climate change. Using content and network analysis, Twitter was found to extend public science communication by providing additional voices and contextualizations of science issues. It serves a recommender role by linking to web resources, connecting users, and directing users’ attention. This article suggests that microblogging adds a new and relevant layer to the public communication of science.

Keywords

climate change content analysis media and science network analysis popularization of science representations of science science communication science journalism topic modeling Twitter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aitamurto

Lewis

(2013) Open innovation in digital journalism: Examining the impact of Open APIs at four news organizations. New Media & Society 15: 314–331.

Arcenaux

Schmitz Weiss

(2010) Seems stupid until you try it: Press coverage of Twitter, 2006–09. New Media & Society 12: 1262–1279.

Ashwell

(2014) The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science. 25(3):379–393. DOI: 10.1177/0963662514556144.

Atton

Wickenden

(2005) Sourcing routines and representation in alternative journalism: A case study approach. Journalism Studies 6: 347–359.

Bastos

Zago

(2013) Tweeting news articles: Readership and news sections in Europe and the Americas. Sage Open 3(3): 1–18.

Batts

Anthis

Smith

(2008) Advancing science through conversations: Bridging the gap between blogs and the academy. PLoS Biology 6(9): e240.

Benkler

(2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bik

Goldstein

(2013) An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology 11(4): e1001535.

Blei

(2012) Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM 55(4): 77–84.

10.

Blei

Jordan

(2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993–1022.

11.

Brossard

(2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 14096–14101.

12.

Bucchi

(1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London: Routledge.

13.

Bucchi

(2004) Can genetics help us rethink communication? Public communication of science as a “double helix.” New Genetics and Society 23: 269–283.

14.

Bucchi

(2013) Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science 22: 904–915.

15.

Cha

Haddadi

Benvenuto

Gummadi

(2010) Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In: Proceedings of the 4th international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Washington, DC, 23–26 May, pp. 10–17. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.

16.

DiMaggio

Nag

Blei

(2013) Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of US government arts funding. Poetics 41: 570–606.

17.

Duggan

Ellison

Lampe

Lenhart

Madden

(2015) Social Media Update 2014. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014

18.

Easley

Kleinberg

(2010) Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/networks-book.pdf

19.

Eveland Dunwoody

(1998) Users and navigation patterns of a science World Wide Web site for the public. Public Understanding of Science 7: 285–311.

20.

Fahy

Nisbet

(2011) The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism 12: 778–793.

21.

Feinerer

Hornik

Meyer

(2008) Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software 25(5). Available at: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v25/i05

22.

Galtung

Ruge

(1965) The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research 2: 64–90.

23.

Gerhards

Schäfer

(2010) Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society 12: 143–160.

24.

Gerlitz

Rieder

(2013) Mining one percent of Twitter: Collections, baselines, samples. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 16(2). Available at: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/620

25.

Grimmer

Stewart

(2013) Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis 21: 267–297.

26.

Han

(2010) Theorizing new media: Reflexivity, knowledge, and the web 2.0. Sociological Inquiry 80: 200–213.

27.

Hansen

(1994) Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science 3: 111–134.

28.

Hermida

(2014) Twitter as an ambient news network. In: Weller

Bruns

Burgess

Mahrt

Puschmann

(eds) Twitter and Society. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 359–372.

29.

Hilgartner

(1990) The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20: 519–539.

30.

Hong

(2012) Online news on Twitter: Newspapers’ social media adoption and their online readership. Information Economics and Policy 24(1): 69–74.

31.

Horrigan

(2006) The Internet as a Resource for News and Information about Science. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/11/20/the-internet-as-a-resource-for-news-and-information-about-science/

32.

Jackman

(2006) Data from the web into R. The Political Methodologist 14(2): 11–15.

33.

Karnowski

(2011) Diffusionstheorien [Theories of Diffusion]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

34.

Katz

Lazarsfeld

(1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication. New York, NY: The Free Press.

35.

Kennedy

(2010) The future of science news. Daedalus 139(2): 57–65.

36.

Kleinberg

Lawrence

(2001) The structure of the web. Science 294: 1849–1850.

37.

Kua

Reder

Grossel

(2004) Science in the news: A study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Science 13: 309–322.

38.

Kwak

Lee

Park

Moon

(2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, 26–30 April, pp. 591–600. New York, NY: ACM.

39.

Leshin

Mahaffy

Webster

Cabane

Coll

Conrad

et al . (2013) Volatile, isotope, and organic analysis of martian fines with the Mars Curiosity rover. Science 341(6153): 1238937.

40.

Lewenstein

(1995) Science and the media. In: Jasanoff

Markle

Petersen

Pinch

(eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 343–360.

41.

Liu

Kliman-Silver

Mislove

(2014) The tweets they are a-changin’: Evolution of Twitter users and behavior. In: Proceedings of the 4th international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Ann Arbor, MI, 1–4 June, pp. 305–314. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.

42.

Maron

(2013) The government shutdown is (almost) over, but the damage to science will last. Scientific American. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-government-shutdown

43.

Meyer

Schroeder

(2009) The World Wide Web of research and access to knowledge. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 7: 218–233.

44.

Milkman

Berger

(2014) The science of sharing and the sharing of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111: 13642–13649.

45.

Mimno

(2015) Package “mallet”: A wrapper around the Java machine learning tool MALLET. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mallet/mallet.pdf

46.

Mohr

Bogdanov

(2013) Introduction—Topic models: What they are and why they matter. Poetics 41: 545–569.

47.

Murthy

(2012) Towards a sociological understanding of social media: Theorizing Twitter. Sociology 44: 1059–1073.

48.

Myers

Sharma

Gupta

Lin

(2014) Information network or social network? The structure of the Twitter follow graph. In: Proceedings of the companion publication of the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web, Seoul, Korea, 7–11 April, pp. 493–498. New York, NY: ACM.

49.

National Science Board (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

50.

Neuberger

(2014) Social Media in der Wissenschaftsöffentlichkeit [Social media in the science public]. In: Weingart

Schulz

(eds) Wissen–Nachricht–Sensation. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, pp. 315–368.

51.

Neuman

Guggenheim

Jang

Bae

(2014) The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication 64: 193–214.

52.

Nisbet

Scheufele

(2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96: 1767–1778.

53.

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): e94785.

54.

Pellechia

(1997) Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science 6: 49–68.

55.

Peters

Brossard

de Cheveigné

Dunwoody

Kallfass

Miller

et al . (2008) Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication 30: 266–276.

56.

Puschmann

(2014) (Micro)blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. In: Friesike

Bartling

(eds) Opening Science. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 89–106.

57.

Ranger

Bultitude

(2014) “The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me”: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science. 25(3):361–378. DOI: 10.1177/0963662514555054.

58.

Razavi

Inkpen

Brusilovsky

Bogouslavski

(2013) General topic annotation in social networks: A latent Dirichlet allocation approach. In: Zaiane

Zilles

(eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Springer, pp. 293–300.

59.

Retzbach

Maier

(2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty. Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research 42: 429–456.

60.

Robinson

(1963) Analyzing the impact of science reporting. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 40: 306–314.

61.

Rogstad

(2016) Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting between Twitter and mainstream media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 13(2):142–158. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2016.1160263.

62.

Rzepa

(2011) The past, present and future of scientific discourse. Journal of Cheminformatics 3(46): 1–10.

63.

Schäfer

(2007) Wissenschaft in den Medien [Science in the Media]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

64.

Schäfer

(2009) From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication 30: 475–505.

65.

Schäfer

(2011) Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: A review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research. Sociology Compass 5: 399–412.

66.

Schäfer

(2014) The media in the labs, and the labs in the media: What we know about the mediatization of science. In: Lundby

(ed.) Mediatization of Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 570–593.

67.

Scharkow

(2012) Automatische Inhaltsanalyse und maschinelles Lernen [Automated Content Analysis and Machine Learning]. Berlin: Epubli.

68.

Segev

Sharon

(2016) Temporal patterns of scientific information-seeking on Google and Wikipedia. Public Understanding of Science. 26(8): 969–985. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516648565.

69.

Shan

Regan

De Brún

Barnett

van der Sanden

MCA

Wall

et al . (2014) Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public Understanding of Science 23: 911–928.

70.

Silvertown

(2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 467–471.

71.

Smith

Rainie

Himelboim

Shneiderman

(2014) Mapping Twitter Topic Networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/02/PIP_Mapping-Twitter-networks_022014.pdf

72.

Subasic

Berendt

(2011) Peddling or creating? Investigating the role of Twitter in news reporting. In: Clough

Foley

Gurrin

Jones

Kraaij

Lee

et al . (eds) Advances in Information Retrieval. Berlin: Springer, pp. 207–213.

73.

Trench

(2007) How the internet changed science journalism. In: Bauer

Bucchi

(eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 133–141.

74.

Van Dijck

(2011) Tracing Twitter: The rise of a microblogging platform. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 7: 333–348.

75.

Veltri

(2013) Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Understanding of Science 22: 832–849.

76.

Veltri

Atanasova

(2015) Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science. 26(6): 721–737. DOI: 10.1177/0963662515613702.

77.

Wade

Schramm

(1969) The mass media as sources of public affairs, science, and health knowledge. The Public Opinion Quarterly 33: 197–209.

78.

Weare

Lin

W-Y

(2000) Content analysis of the World Wide Web: Opportunities and challenges. Social Science Computer Review 18: 272–292.

79.

Weber

Monge

(2011) The flow of digital news in a network of sources, authorities, and hubs. Journal of Communication 61: 1062–1081.

80.

Weinberger

(2012) Too Big to Know. New York, NY: Basic Books.

81.

Weng

Lim

E-P

Jiang

(2010) Twitterrank: Finding topic-sensitive influential Twitterers. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM international conference on web search and data mining, New York, NY, 3–6 February, pp. 261–270. New York, NY: ACM.