Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference

作者: Sara P. Bombaci , Cooper M. Farr , H. Travis Gallo , Anna M. Mangan , Lani T. Stinson

DOI: 10.1111/COBI.12570

关键词: GovernmentSocial mediaReading (process)Conservation sciencePublic relationsMisinformationDisseminationScope (project management)International congressSociology

摘要: Scientists are increasingly using Twitter as a tool for communicating science. can promote scholarly discussion, disseminate research rapidly, and extend diversify the scope of audiences reached. However, scientists also caution that if does not accurately convey science due to inherent brevity this media, misinformation could cascade quickly through social media. Data on whether effectively communicates conservation types user groups receiving these tweets lacking. To address knowledge gaps, we examined live tweeting means at 2013 International Congress Conservation Biology (ICCB). We quantified compared sending reading tweets. surveyed presenters determine their intended audiences, which with actual reached tweeting. asked how conveyed findings. 14 more professional audience categories relative those attending ICCB. often were presenters' audiences. Policy makers government non-governmental organizations rarely (0%, 4%, 6% audience, respectively), despite intent presenters. Plenary talks tweeted about 6.9 times than all other oral or poster presentations combined. Over half believed effective. Ineffective perceived vague missing main message. recommend who want be communicated broadly should provide Twitter-friendly summaries incorporate relevant hashtags usernames. Our results suggest used communicate speakers' findings diverse beyond conference walls.

参考文章(9)
E.C.M. PARSONS, D.S. SHIFFMAN, E.S. DARLING, N. SPILLMAN, A.J. WRIGHT, How Twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conservation Biology. ,vol. 28, pp. 299- 301 ,(2014) , 10.1111/COBI.12226
D. Brossard, New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. ,vol. 110, pp. 14096- 14101 ,(2013) , 10.1073/PNAS.1212744110
J. You, Who are the science stars of Twitter Science. ,vol. 345, pp. 1440- 1441 ,(2014) , 10.1126/SCIENCE.345.6203.1440
Caleb Ferguson, Sally C. Inglis, Phillip J. Newton, Peter J.S. Cripps, Peter S. Macdonald, Patricia M. Davidson, Social media: A tool to spread information: A case study analysis of Twitter conversation at the Cardiac Society of Australia & New Zealand 61st Annual Scientific Meeting 2013 Collegian. ,vol. 21, pp. 89- 93 ,(2014) , 10.1016/J.COLEGN.2014.03.002
Yehuda Baruch, Brooks C. Holtom, Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research Human Relations. ,vol. 61, pp. 1139- 1160 ,(2008) , 10.1177/0018726708094863
Ashley A. Anderson, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, Peter Ladwig, The Nasty Effect: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. ,vol. 19, pp. 373- 387 ,(2014) , 10.1111/JCC4.12009