科学证据好卖吗?结合人工和自动内容分析调查科学家和普通人在社交媒体上的证据实践

IF 4.6 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Science Communication Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1177/10755470241249468
Kaija Biermann, Bianca Nowak, Lea-Marie Braun, Monika Taddicken, Nicole C. Krämer, Stefan Stieglitz
{"title":"科学证据好卖吗?结合人工和自动内容分析调查科学家和普通人在社交媒体上的证据实践","authors":"Kaija Biermann, Bianca Nowak, Lea-Marie Braun, Monika Taddicken, Nicole C. Krämer, Stefan Stieglitz","doi":"10.1177/10755470241249468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Examining the dissemination of evidence on social media, we analyzed the discourse around eight visible scientists in the context of COVID-19. Using manual ( N = 1,406) and automated coding ( N = 42,640) on an account-based tracked Twitter/X dataset capturing scientists’ activities and eliciting reactions over six 2-week periods, we found that visible scientists’ tweets included more scientific evidence. However, public reactions contained more anecdotal evidence. Findings indicate that evidence can be a message characteristic leading to greater tweet dissemination. Implications for scientists, including explicitly incorporating scientific evidence in their communication and examining evidence in science communication research, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47828,"journal":{"name":"Science Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Scientific Evidence Sell? Combining Manual and Automated Content Analysis to Investigate Scientists’ and Laypeople’s Evidence Practices on Social Media\",\"authors\":\"Kaija Biermann, Bianca Nowak, Lea-Marie Braun, Monika Taddicken, Nicole C. Krämer, Stefan Stieglitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10755470241249468\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Examining the dissemination of evidence on social media, we analyzed the discourse around eight visible scientists in the context of COVID-19. Using manual ( N = 1,406) and automated coding ( N = 42,640) on an account-based tracked Twitter/X dataset capturing scientists’ activities and eliciting reactions over six 2-week periods, we found that visible scientists’ tweets included more scientific evidence. However, public reactions contained more anecdotal evidence. Findings indicate that evidence can be a message characteristic leading to greater tweet dissemination. Implications for scientists, including explicitly incorporating scientific evidence in their communication and examining evidence in science communication research, are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241249468\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241249468","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过研究证据在社交媒体上的传播,我们分析了 COVID-19 背景下围绕八位知名科学家的讨论。通过对基于账户的跟踪 Twitter/X 数据集进行人工(N = 1,406)和自动编码(N = 42,640),捕捉科学家在六个两周期间的活动并引发反应,我们发现可见科学家的推文包含更多科学证据。然而,公众的反应却包含了更多的传闻证据。研究结果表明,证据可能是导致推文传播更广的信息特征。本文讨论了对科学家的启示,包括在传播中明确纳入科学证据以及在科学传播研究中研究证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does Scientific Evidence Sell? Combining Manual and Automated Content Analysis to Investigate Scientists’ and Laypeople’s Evidence Practices on Social Media
Examining the dissemination of evidence on social media, we analyzed the discourse around eight visible scientists in the context of COVID-19. Using manual ( N = 1,406) and automated coding ( N = 42,640) on an account-based tracked Twitter/X dataset capturing scientists’ activities and eliciting reactions over six 2-week periods, we found that visible scientists’ tweets included more scientific evidence. However, public reactions contained more anecdotal evidence. Findings indicate that evidence can be a message characteristic leading to greater tweet dissemination. Implications for scientists, including explicitly incorporating scientific evidence in their communication and examining evidence in science communication research, are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science Communication
Science Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Science Communication is a prestigious journal that focuses on communication research. It is recognized globally for publishing top-quality manuscripts that demonstrate excellent theoretical frameworks and robust methodology. Our journal embraces a broad definition of science, encompassing not only the natural and physical sciences but also social science, technology, environment, engineering, and health. Regardless of the scientific area, effective communication is always the focal point of our investigations. Apart from theoretical and methodological rigor, we place great emphasis on the practical implications of scientific communication. Therefore, we expect all submitted manuscripts to address the real-world applications and significance of their research, alongside theoretical considerations. In summary, Science Communication is an internationally renowned journal dedicated to bridging the gap between science and society. By promoting effective communication in various scientific domains, we strive to engage readers with intriguing research that has tangible implications for the world around us.
期刊最新文献
Science Communication Spaces as “Pockets of Belonging”: Inviting in a Plurality of Science Identities for Scientists-in-Training Storytelling in Science Film: Narrative Engagement Relates to Greater Knowledge, Interest, and Identification With Science Video-Based Group-Values Affirmation Reduces Defensive Responses to Risk Messages Beyond Deliberation: Alternative Forms of Public (Dis)engagement With Science Chilly Reception: A Content Analysis of Comments on a Reformed Climate Skeptic’s Confession
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1