CollinsK.ShiffmanD.RockJ. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace?PLoS One, 11(10), e0162680. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162680
2.
DaviesS. R. (2014). Knowing and loving: Public engagement beyond discourse. Science & Technology Studies, 27(3): 90–110.
3.
ElamM.BertilssonM. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confronting science. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2): 233–251.
4.
HilgartnerS. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519-539.
5.
KlingR. (2007). What is social informatics and why does it matter?Information Society, 23, 205-220.
6.
KlingR.RosenbaumH.SawyerS. (2005). Understanding and communicating social informatics: A framework for studying and teaching the human contexts of information and communication technologies. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
7.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
LeeN., M.VanDykeM. S. (2015). Set it and forget it: The one-way use of social media by government agencies communicating science. Science Communication, 37(4), 533-541.
9.
MontgomeryS. L. (1996). The scientific voice. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
10.
PetersH. P.DunwoodyS.AllgaierJ.LoY. Y.BrossardD. (2014). Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO Reports, 15, 749-753.
11.
RegenbergA. C. (2010). Tweeting science and ethics: Social media as a tool for constructive public engagement. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(5), 30-31.
12.
RitsonS. (2016). “Crackpots” and “active researchers”: The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere. Social Studies of Science, 46, 607-628.
13.
TurkleS. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY: Penguin.