Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación

Twitter como objeto de investigación en comunicación de la ciencia

Elena Denia

Resumen

El servicio de microblogging Twitter, utilizado a la vez como red de información y como red social, es un objeto de investigación emergente con gran potencial para explorar la difusión de la ciencia, pero sobre el que existe cierto desorden teórico. Es por ello que en este artículo se documentan, en primer lugar, una serie de resultados relevantes en estudios de comunicación que se centran en el ecosistema Twitter. En segundo lugar, se sitúa el foco en el ámbito de la comunicación de la ciencia, para el que se exponen trabajos ilustrativos con el fin proporcionar una perspectiva de conjunto sobre los distintos propósitos, enfoques y metodologías utilizadas, en vistas a servir de marco conceptual para trabajos futuros. Además, como resultado de esta compilación, se esclarecen las principales funciones que desempeña Twitter como herramienta de comunicación científica, que dependiendo de los actores involucrados y sus objetivos aparentes se configuran de manera específica e incluso empíricamente observable. Se plantea asimismo una distinción entre dos aproximaciones de investigación; una centrada en la información —los temas científicos de interés público— y otra en los agentes difusores —científicos, periodistas e instituciones—. Por último, se sugieren algunas direcciones de investigación específicas para ulteriores estudios.


Palabras clave

Twitter; comunicación de la ciencia; periodismo científico; divulgación; redes sociales; análisis de redes

Referencias

Aiello, L. M.; Petkos, G.; Martin, C.; Corney, D.; Papadopoulos, S.; Skraba, R.; Göker, A.; Kompatsiaris, I. & Jaimes, A. (2013). Sensing Trending Topics in Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 15(6), 1268-1282. http://doi.org/f5bzrz

Alperin, J. P.; Gomez, C. J. & Haustein, S. (2019). Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 2-18. http://doi.org/gdg6vs

Álvarez-Bornstein, B. & Montesi, M. (2019). Who is interacting with researchers on Twitter? A survey in the field of Information Science, 10(2), 87-106. http://doi.org/dw88

Becker, B. F. H.; Larson, H. J.; Bonhoeffer, J.; van Mulligen, E. M.; Kors, J. A. & Sturkenboom, M. C. J. M. (2016). Evaluation of a multinational, multilingual vaccine debate on Twitter. Vaccine, 34(50), 6166-6171. http://doi.org/f9h2zn

Berger, J. & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of marketing research, 49(2), 192-205. http://doi.org/fxqzn7

Bhattacharya, S.; Srinivasan, P. & Polgreen, P. (2014). Engagement with Health Agencies on Twitter. PLoS One, 9(11), e112235. http://doi.org/dw89

Boyd, D. (16/08/2009). Twitter: ‘Pointless Babble’ or Peripheral Awareness+ Social Grooming. Aphogenia. https://bit.ly/2wXAEx9

Boyd, D.; Golder, S. & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Honolulu, HI. http://doi.org/cn6wj3

Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report C-1. The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.

Brossard, D. & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, New Media, and the Public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. http://doi.org/j45

Brown, P. (2014). An explosion of alternatives. EMBO reports, 15(8), 827-832. http://doi.org/f2swhw

Castillo, C.; Mendoza, M. & Poblete, B. (2011). Information credibility on twitter. In WWW '11: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web (pp. 675–684). http://doi.org/bm4s9p

Cha, M.; Haddadi, H.; Benevenuto, F. & Gummadi, K. P. (2010). Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy. In Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 10-17). https://bit.ly/370Y2aO

Chew, C. & Eysenbach, G. (2010). Pandemics in the Age of Twitter: Content Analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 Outbreak. PLoS One, 5(11), e14118. http://doi.org/cz2jpx

Congosto, M. L. (2016). Caracterización de usuarios y propagación de mensajes en Twitter en el entorno de temas sociales. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid: España. https://bit.ly/3eJz4za

Côté, I. M. & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS, 3(1), 682-694. http://doi.org/gdq9zt

Dann, S. (2010). Twitter content classification. First Monday, 15(12). http://doi.org/dw9b

Darling, E. S.; Shiffman, D.; Côté, I. M. & Drew, J. A. (2013). The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 6(1). http://doi.org/dw9c

De Choudhury, M.; Lin, Y.-R.; Sundaram, H.; Candan, K. S.; Xie, L. & Kelliher, A. (2010). How does the data sampling strategy impact the discovery of information diffusion in social media? In Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 34-41). https://bit.ly/2XwEqIs

Dehkharghani, R.; Mercan, H.; Javeed, A. & Saygin, Y. (2014). Sentimental causal rule discovery from Twitter. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(10), 4950-4958. http://doi.org/gghqf5

Díaz-Faes, A. A.; Bowman, T. D. & Costas, R. (2019). Towards a second generation of ‘social media metrics’: Characterizing Twitter communities of attention around science. PLoS One, 14(5), e0216408. http://doi.org/ggdftp

Dodds, P. S.; Harris, K. D.; Kloumann, I. M.; Bliss, C. A. & Danforth, C. M. (2011). Temporal Patterns of Happiness and Information in a Global Social Network: Hedonometrics and Twitter. PLoS One, 6(12), e26752. http://doi.org/b4x9cx

Gerhards, J. & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143-160. http://doi.org/bjzmbm

Grabowicz, P. A.; Ramasco, J. J.; Moro, E.; Pujol, J. M. & Eguiluz, V. M. (2012). Social Features of Online Networks: The Strength of Intermediary Ties in Online Social Media. PLoS One, 7(1), e29358. http://doi.org/fzs6dq

Hall, N. (2014). The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology, 15(7), 424. http://doi.org/tw9

Harvey, K. (2014). Klout Score. In K. Harvey (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (pp. 753-754). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Haunschild, R.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Hellsten, I. & Marx, W. (2019). Does the public discuss other topics on climate change than researchers? A comparison of explorative networks based on author keywords and hashtags. Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 695-707. http://doi.org/dw9d

Haustein, S. (2019). Scholarly Twitter Metrics. In W. Glänzel; H. F. Moed; U. Schmoch & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 729-760). Cham: Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/dxkh

Haustein, S.; Bowman, T. D. & Costas, R. (2016). Interpreting ‘Altmetrics’: Viewing Acts on Social Media through the Lens of Citation and Social Theories. In C. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication (pp. 372-406). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. http://doi.org/dxkj

Haustein, S.; Costas, R. & Larivière, V. (2015). Correction: Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns. PLoS One, 10(5), e0127830. http://doi.org/dw9f

Hellsten, I. & Leydesdorff, L. (2019). Automated analysis of actor–topic networks on twitter: New approaches to the analysis of socio-semantic networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(1), 3-15. http://doi.org/ggk2td

Höijer, B. (2010). Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), 717-731. http://doi.org/b7r4gv

Holton, A. E.; Baek, K.; Coddington, M. & Yaschur, C. (2014). Seeking and Sharing: Motivations for Linking on Twitter. Communication Research Reports, 31(1), 33-40. http://doi.org/gfgxdk

Huberman, B. A.; Romero, D. M. & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14(1). http://doi.org/dw9g

Hughes, A. L. & Palen, L. (2009). Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. International journal of emergency management, 6(3/4), 248-260. http://doi.org/dh7cpf

Jahng, M. R. & Lee, N. (2018). When Scientists Tweet for Social Changes: Dialogic Communication and Collective Mobilization Strategies by Flint Water Study Scientists on Twitter. Science Communication, 40(1), 89-108. http://doi.org/dw9h

Java, A.; Song, X.; Finin, T. & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In WebKDD/SNA-KDD '07: Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56–65). http://doi.org/d3zh2r

Kahle, K.; Sharon, A. J. & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2016). Footprints of Fascination: Digital Traces of Public Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN's Social Media Platforms. PLoS One, 11(5), e0156409. http://doi.org/gbnq6h

Ke, Q.; Ahn, Y.-Y. & Sugimoto, C. R. (2017). A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS One, 12(4), e0175368. http://doi.org/f9z4j6

Kolari, P.; Finin, T.; Yesha, Y.; Yesha, Y.; Lyons, K.; Perelgut, S. & Hawkins, J. (2007). On the structure, properties and utility of internal corporate blogs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2007). https://bit.ly/2Y3z1I5

König, L. & Jucks, R. (2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401-416. http://doi.org/dw9j

Kwak, H.; Lee, C.; Park, H. & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In WWW '10: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web (pp. 591–600). http://doi.org/c2k8cj

Li, N.; Akin, H.; Su, L. Y.-F.; Brossard, D.; Xenos, M. & Scheufele, D. A. (2016). Tweeting disaster: An analysis of online discourse about nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5). http://doi.org/dw9k

Liang, X.: Su, L. Y.-F.; Yeo, S. K.; Scheufele, D. A.; Brossard, D.; Xenos, M.; Nealey, P. & Corley, E. A. (2014). Building Buzz: (Scientists) Communicating Science in New Media Environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772-791. http://doi.org/ggcd8d

Lin, Y.-R.; Keegan, B.; Margolin, D. & Lazer, D. (2014). Rising Tides or Rising Stars?: Dynamics of Shared Attention on Twitter during Media Events. PLoS One, 9(5), e94093. http://doi.org/f56mgp

López Pérez, L. y Olvera Lobo, M. D. (2019). Participación digital del público en la ciencia de excelencia española: análisis de los proyectos financiados por el European Research Council. El profesional de la información, 28(1). http://doi.org/dw9m

Mandavilli, A. (2011). Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature, 469(7330), 286-287. http://doi.org/ap2

Murphy, J.; Hill, C. A. & Dean, E. (2013). Social Media, Sociality, and Survey Research. In E. D. C.A. Hill & J. Murphy (Ed.), Social Media, Sociality, and Survey Research (pp. 1-33). John Wiley & Sons. http://doi.org/dxkk

Murthy, D. (2012). Towards a Sociological Understanding of Social Media: Theorizing Twitter. Sociology, 46(6), 1059-1073. http://doi.org/gfc8v9

Myers, S. A.; Sharma, A.; Gupta, P. & Lin, J. (2014). Information network or social network? the structure of the twitter follow graph. In WWW '14 Companion: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 493–498). http://doi.org/dw9n

Naaman, M.; Boase, J. & Lai, C.-H. (2010). Is it really about me? Message content in social awareness streams. In CSCW '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 189–192). http://doi.org/bqxczp

Narr, S.; Luca, E. W. D. & Albayrak, S. (2011). Extracting semantic annotations from twitter. In ESAIR '11: Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Exploiting semantic annotations in information retrieval (pp. 15–16). http://doi.org/dck8ff

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. http://doi.org/dv4zw8

PearAnalytics (2009). Twitter study. https://bit.ly/2Y3I4Zi

Pearce, W.; Holmberg, K.; Hellsten, I. & Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate Change on Twitter: Topics, Communities and Conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report. PLoS One, 9(4), e94785. http://doi.org/f5472q

Percastre-Mendizábal, S.; Pont-Sorribes, C. & Codina, L. (2017). A sample design proposal for the analysis of Twitter in political communication. El profesional de la información (EPI), 26(4), 579-588. http://doi.org/dw9p

Pérez-Rodríguez, A. V.; González-Pedraz, C. & Alonso-Berrocal, J. L. (2018). Twitter como herramienta de comunicación científica en España. Principales agentes y redes de comunicación. Communication Papers, 7(13), 95-112. http://doi.org/dw9q

Peters, H. P.; Dunwoody, S.; Allgaier, J.; Lo, Y.-Y. & Brossard, D. (2014). Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO reports, 15(7), 749-753. http://doi.org/s8s

Pont Sorribes, C.; Cortiñas Rovira, S. & Di Bonito, I. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for science journalists in adopting new technologies: the case of Spain. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3). http://doi.org/dw9r

Priem, J.; Groth, P. & Taraborelli, D. (2012). The Altmetrics Collection. PLoS One, 7(11), e48753. http://doi.org/gf35cr

Quercia, D.; Ellis, J.; Capra, L. & Crowcroft, J. (2011). In the Mood for Being Influential on Twitter. IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (pp. 307-314). Boston, MA. http://doi.org/fzzqh7

Quiñónez Gómez, H. A. y Sánchez Colmenares, M. F. (2017). Uso de twitter en el Periodismo científico. Caso: El Nacional y El Universal en Venezuela (septiembre-octubre de 2014). Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 23(1), 553-568. http://doi.org/dw9s

Ribas, C. (2012). La divulgación y la comunicación de la ciencia, en la encrucijada. Sociedad Española de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular, 173, 10-12. https://bit.ly/2Ms9GSL

Robinson-Garcia, N.; Costas, R.; Isett, K.; Melkers, J. & Hicks, D. (2017). The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles. PLoS One, 12(8), e0183551. http://doi.org/gbtf8g

Rosselli, R.; Martini, M. & Bragazzi, N. L. (2016). The old and the new: vaccine hesitancy in the era of the Web 2.0. Challenges and opportunities. Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 57(1), E47-E50. https://bit.ly/2w7Y02V

Rowlands, I.; Nicholas, D.; Russell, B.; Canty, N. & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183-195. http://doi.org/c8r2bb

Runge, K. K.; Yeo, S. K.; Cacciatore, M.; Scheufele, D. A.; Brossard, D.; Xenos, M.; Anderson, A.; Choi, D.; Kim, J.; Li, N.; Liang, X.; Stubbings, M. & Su, L. Y.-F. (2013). Tweeting nano: how public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(1). http://doi.org/ggxg3k

Sasahara, K.; Hirata, Y.; Toyoda, M.; Kitsuregawa, M.; & Aihara, K. (2013). Quantifying Collective Attention from Tweet Stream. PLoS One, 8(4), e61823. http://doi.org/f43228

Schäfer, M. S. (2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. WIREs Climate Change, 3(6), 527-543. http://doi.org/f4fmqd

Schmidt, J.-H. (2014). Twitter and the rise of personal publics. In K. Weller; A. Bruns; J. Burgess; M. Mahrt & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 3-14). New York, USA.

Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J. & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research Blogs and the Discussion of Scholarly Information. PLoS One, 7(5), e35869. http://doi.org/hwq

Small, T. A. (2011). What the hashtag? Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 872-895. http://doi.org/d9hxv3

Sugimoto, C. R.; Work, S.; Larivière, V. & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037-2062. http://doi.org/gbtnkr

Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V. & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services. PLoS One, 8(5), e64841. http://doi.org/q6g

Torres-Salinas, D.; Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. y Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: nuevos indicadores para la comunicación científica en la Web 2.0. Comunicar, 21(41), 53-60. http://doi.org/gdxxhg

Uddin, M.; Imran, M. & Sajjad, H. (2014). Understanding Types of Users on Twitter. In SocialCom-Stanford, California, USA. https://bit.ly/2Y24H0e

Uren, V. & Dadzie, A.-S. (2015). Public science communication on Twitter: a visual analytic approach. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 337-355. http://doi.org/dw9t

Van Dijck, J. (2011). Tracing Twitter: The rise of a microblogging platform. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(3), 333-348. http://doi.org/fxqd7v

Van Liere, D. (2010). How far does a tweet travel? Information brokers in the twitterverse. In MSM '10: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling Social Media (pp. 1–4). http://doi.org/b3bfc3

Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature news, 512(7513), 126-129. http://doi.org/t6v

Veltri, G. (2013). Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 832-849. http://doi.org/dw9v

Veltri, G. & Atanasova, D. (2015). Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 721-737. http://doi.org/gf6dqd

Walter, S.; Lörcher, I. & Brüggemann, M. (2019). Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 696-712. http://doi.org/gf4c58

Wasike, B. (2019). Citations Gone #Social: Examining the Effect of Altmetrics on Citations and Readership in Communication Research. Social Science Computer Review. http://doi.org/ggdj6k

Waters, R. D. & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321-324. http://doi.org/fm4ctn

Weller, K.; Bruns, A.; Burgess, J.; Mahrt, M. & Puschmann, C. (2013). Twitter and Society. Peter Lang. http://doi.org/dxkm

Westerman, D.; Spence, P. R. & Van Der Heide, B. (2012). A social network as information: The effect of system generated reports of connectedness on credibility on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 199-206. http://doi.org/bnxtb6

Wilkinson, D. & Thelwall, M. (2012). Trending Twitter topics in English: An international comparison. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1631-1646. http://doi.org/f368bw

Zhao, W. X.; Jiang, J.; Weng, J.; He, J.; Lim, E.-P.; Yan, H. & Li, X. (2011). Comparing Twitter and Traditional Media Using Topic Models. In P. Clough; C. Foley; C. Gurrin; G. J. F. Jones; W. Kraaij; H. Lee & V. Mudoch (Eds.), Advances in Information Retrieval. ECIR 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 338-349). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. http://doi.org/dfzb46




DOI: https://doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM000006





Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.