Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists' and scientists' social networks, topics and communicative styles

Visible scientists in digital communication environments: An analysis of their role performance as public experts on Twitter/X during the Covid-19 pandemic

In response to significant societal challenges, there is a growing demand for scientists to actively engage in public discussions. The recent Covid-19 pandemic led to the sudden visibility of certain scientists, necessitating them to extend their roles beyond research and actively communicate with the general public. Online platforms allow for direct engagement but increase the challenge by interconnecting different public arenas. Our case study examined the role performance of visible virologists on Twitter/X in six different time periods during the pandemic in Germany (N = 1003). Findings indicate that they often express calls to action, and voice their own views, but seldom address uncertainty. Differences over time were found in their use of different types of statements, scientific jargon and emotional language. They also utilised the opportunities of direct communication, performing roles like watchdogs or advocates, highlighting the importance for scientists to reflect on their roles as communicators.

Characterizing Precision Nutrition Discourse on Twitter: Quantitative Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is possible that tailoring dietary approaches to an individual's genomic profile could provide optimal dietary inputs for biological functioning and support adherence to dietary management protocols. The science required for such nutrigenetic and nutrigenomic profiling is not yet considered ready for broad application by the scientific and medical communities; however, many personalized nutrition products are available in the marketplace, creating the potential for hype and misleading information on social media. Twitter provides a unique big data source that provides real-time information. Therefore, it has the potential to disseminate evidence-based health information, as well as misinformation.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize the landscape of precision nutrition content on Twitter, with a specific focus on nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. We focused on tweet authors, types of content, and presence of misinformation.

METHODS

Twitter Archiver was used to capture tweets from September 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020, using keywords related to nutrition and genetics. A random sample of tweets was coded using quantitative content analysis by 4 trained coders. Codebook-driven, quantified information about tweet authors, content details, information quality, and engagement metrics were compiled and analyzed.

RESULTS

The most common categories of tweets were precision nutrition products and nutrigenomic concepts. About a quarter (132/504, 26.2%) of tweet authors presented themselves as science experts, medicine experts, or both. Nutrigenetics concepts most frequently came from authors with science and medicine expertise, and tweets about the influence of genes on weight were more likely to come from authors with neither type of expertise. A total of 14.9% (75/504) of the tweets were noted to contain untrue information; these were most likely to occur in the nutrigenomics concepts topic category.

CONCLUSIONS

By evaluating social media discourse on precision nutrition on Twitter, we made several observations about the content available in the information environment through which individuals can learn about related concepts and products. Tweet content was consistent with the indicators of medical hype, and the inclusion of potentially misleading and untrue information was common. We identified a contingent of users with scientific and medical expertise who were active in discussing nutrigenomics concepts and products and who may be encouraged to share credible expert advice on precision nutrition and tackle false information as this technology develops.

Science communication on Twitter: Measuring indicators of engagement and their links to user interaction in communication scholars' Tweet content

Scientists increasingly use Twitter for communication about science. The microblogging service has been heralded for its potential to foster public engagement with science; thus, measuring how engaging, that is dialogue-oriented, tweet content is, has become a relevant research object. Tweet content designed in an engaging, dialogue-oriented way is also supposed to link to user interaction (e.g. liking, retweeting). The present study analyzed content-related and functional indicators of engagement in scientists' tweet content, applying content analysis to original tweets (n = 2884) of 212 communication scholars. Findings show that communication scholars tweet mostly about scientific topics, with, however, low levels of engagement. User interaction, nevertheless, correlated with content-related and functional indicators of engagement. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for public engagement with science.

Injecting fun? Humour, conspiracy theory and (anti)vaccination discourse in popular media

Conspiracy theories have accompanied vaccination since its mass introduction, circulating, among other forms, in humour - such as cartoons, and now, memes. Importantly, humour has targeted both vaccination and anti-vaccination stances. In this study, we discuss the peculiarities of humorous content within the vaccination debate and uncover the most popular thematic categories, forms and logical mechanisms of humour. We show that humorous and serious discussions on vaccination go hand-in-hand, but playfulness and ambiguity of humour complicate public understanding of the vaccination debate. Our analysis shows that vaccination humour often simplifies the complex issue of vaccination and makes it more understandable and more tangible for a broad audience.

Retrospectively evidencing research impact using online data mining

Higher education institutions in the UK and elsewhere are under increasing pressure to measure the impact of their research, which can include how the research has increased scientific engagement among the general public. For various reasons, the need for evidence can arise months, or even years, after a particular research discovery has been made. Furthermore, the right kind of evidence is needed to indicate genuine changes in behaviour, knowledge or attitudes among a given target audience, which can be difficult to obtain after time has passed. In this article, we present a number of strategies for retrospective evidencing of ‘what happened and who cared’, illustrating their use to measure public engagement with example discoveries from up to five years ago.