Social Media Strategies for Science Communication

Science Communication
via Social Media
 Organizational and individual
perspective
 Strategies and Examples
Science Communication via Social Media Simon Schneider

Organizational perspective
 Increase visibility (Branding, see Kanter and Fine (2010))
 supports education (not yet fully used)
 Supports collaboration (knowledge exchange)
 Supports „Grass root-Principle“
 Fostering transparency – leading to acceptance?
(e.g. large scale technologies)
 Fostering a dialog with „the public“
 Media-Sharing (increase visibility by sharing videos,
slides etc.)

 Marketing of competency/excellence
 Marketing of services (learn about new demands to
tailor service portfolio)
 Employee branding and Recruiting
 Commercialization of research results and services
 In particular, practitioners working for nonprofit
organizations can benefit from adopting social
media due to their often-limited monetary
resources.
(Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009; retrieved from: Adoption
of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations; L. Curtis et al. / Public
Relations Review 36 (2010) 90–92; Elsevier)

 Solely having a profile will not in itself increase
awareness or trigger an influx of participation.
 In April 2006, Facebook opened its registration process
to organizations, and more than 4000 organizations
joined within 2 weeks
(Source : Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using
Facebook; R.D. Waters et al. / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 102–106; Elsevier)

 Waters (2007) found that there are significant
differences in the utilization of interactive elements and
the skill at communicating about organizational
successes with their stakeholders between different
types of Non-Profit organizations (e.g. arts and
humanities, education, religion, etc.).
-> leading to the question: Are there differences
between different Sciences in their use of social media?
 Of the 204 non-profit organizations with a Facebook
profile (within the 2007 study), more than one-third
(36%) did not use the discussion board within the past
month.
(Source: Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using
Facebook; R.D. Waters et al. / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 102–106; Elsevier)

 Social Media Strategies of Research Organizations
share the idea of a two-way symmetry within
communication. But: Facebook profiles are oftentimes
used in a two-Way asymmetrical mode, not taking the
possibilities of a true dialog into account.
 Waters and Jamal found, that public information and
press agentry (propaganda) were used more often than
two-way asymmetry and two-way symmetry. - „While
the provision of information demonstrates a willingness
to share information, a follower of these nonprofit
organizations’ Twitter accounts might sense an
unwillingness to answer questions or respond to others’
comments.”
(Source: Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates; R.D.
Waters, J.Y. Jamal / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 321– 324; Elsevier)

Example Fraunhofer
 Transition to new CI/CD in 2011 and 2012
 Website relaunch of Fraunhofer Gesellschaft as
well as all separate Institutes
 Change in communication culture (from
information to dialog, from facts and figures to 3M-
principle (Moving, Meaningful, Memorable)
 Currently less than 50% of 72 institutions are
active social media users – nevertheless, nearly
all PR-professionals from Fraunhofer see the
increasing value of Social Media
(Source: Oliver Mauroner; Social Media im Wissenschaftsmarketing - Strategien und
Nutzungskonzepte für Twitter, Blogs und Social Networks; wissenschaftsmanagement
5 • 2011)

Example Fraunhofer
 Social Bookmarking, followed by twitter (as
supplement to Newsletters and RSS-feeds)
 Central Fraunhofer Twitter account (@fraunhofer),
8990* followers are journalists, scientists, industry
partners, students etc.
 Blogs are identified as major key medium (mid-
term perspective) – Blog blog.iao.fraunhofer.de
doubled traffic to the website within one year of
existence
5 • 2011) * Stand 22.5.2014

Example Fraunhofer
 Fraunhofer website as „Landing Page“ for all
social media channels
 Connection into the Science-Blogosphere as
crucial milestone
 Cross-Media strategy connects Social Media with
„traditional Media“
 Social Media Strategy as integral part of
communication strategy
 Permanent evaluation and content analysis as well
as feedback analysis
 Key target groups:
shot-term: Media and Students
mid-term: Scientists, Politicians, Industry partners
5 • 2011)

Example Fraunhofer
Social Media Use of 72 Fraunhofer Institutes, 2011
(Source: Oliver Mauroner; Social Media im Wissenschaftsmarketing - Strategien
und Nutzungskonzepte für Twitter, Blogs und Social Networks;
wissenschaftsmanagement 5 • 2011)

Example Fraunhofer
Strategic Social Media for Science Marketing at Fraunhofer
Press and Media Students,
Young
Scientists
Companies,
Industry
Science
Community
Politics,
research
funding
Employees
Twitter Quick response,
fast information,
Networking
Information,
Career Service,
Contacts
Networking,
Information
(Events)
Networking,
Information
(Events)
Information
(Events,
Projects)
Rapid response,
fast information
Blogs Emotional and
subjective
topics, archive
Infotainment
(blogs about
daily work)
Information
(Project-blogs),
Dialog
Information
(Project-blogs),
Dialog
Information
(Project-blogs),
Dialog
Information,
Knowledge
transfer
Social
Networking
Networking,
Dialog
Image building,
reception, Dialog
Networking,
Dialog
Networking,
Dialog
Networking,
Dialog
Individual
networking
(partners,
customers)
Media Sharing Background
information for
complex issues
Background
information,
knowledge
transfer
Background
information,
competency
Background
information,
competency
Background
information,
competency
Information,
knowledge
transfer
Wiki Knowledge
transfer, media
agenda
Knowledge
transfer
Knowledge
transfer
Knowledge
transfer,
knowledge
exchange
Knowledge
transfer
Internal science
management
Nutzungskonzepte für Twitter, Blogs und Social Networks;
wissenschaftsmanagement 5 • 2011)

More Examples -
Fraunhofer

Example National
Geographic
www.facebook.com/natgeo
2011: 7 Mio Likes
Yesterday: 26 Mio Likes
Concept of FB-profile:
Sharing pictures, linking to
NG-documentations on other
platforms

More Examples
 http://science.nasa.gov/connect/

More Examples
 “In an effort to foster a more open, transparent and
accessible scientific dialogue, we’ve started a new
effort aimed at inspiring pioneering use of
technology, new media and computational thinking
in the communication of science to diverse
audiences. Initially, we’ll focus on communicating
the science on climate change.” (Google.org)

More Examples – LMU (RSS is
Dead?)

More Examples – MIT
(http://connect.mit.edu/)

Individual perspective
 Increase visibility
 Increase network (decrease mesh-size)
 Increase quality
 Increase Indicators of Excellency (Quotations,
etc.)
 Faster publication (The battle of Publishers vs.
Open Access)
 Quick response and feedback (e.g. within
publishing: both preprint commentary, such as at
http:// arXiv.org, and post publication review)
 Global informal collaboration (e.g. Facebook
helped researchers identify thousands of fish
specimens in under a week)

 Skill-building (e.g. writing)
 Software support
 No value in terms of qualification (not yet) – strong
influence on traditional scientific metrics (citation
index, article downloads, etc)
 Initiate citizen science projects
(www.scistarter.com)
 Crowdfunding (www.kickstarter.com)

 "Simply put, there's not much tweeting from the
ivory tower."
 In a survey of 1,600 researchers in the US,
Greenhow and Gleason found that only 15 percent
use Twitter, 28 percent use YouTube and 39
percent use Facebook for professional purposes.
Those who do mainly use social media to find
collaborators and disseminate their work and the
work of others; they do not use it largely in their
teaching of students.
 "Academia is not serving as a model of social
media use or preparing future faculty to do this."
(Source: C. Greenhow and B. Gleason, 'Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly
practices in the age of social media', British Journal of Educational Technology, 19 Mar
2014, DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12150)

 Social Media tools are already part of German
sciences: Wikis are used by more than 95% of
scientists, online archive and -databases (79%),
Mailing lists (76%) and Content Sharing/Cloud-
Services like Dropbox or Slideshare (68%), are
used for professional purposes
 scientists consider video conference systems (e.g.
Skype) or Video sharing (e.g. YouTube).
(Source: Daniela Pscheida, Steff en Albrecht, Sabrina Herbst, Claudia Minet, Thomas
Köhler: Nutzung von Social Media und onlinebasierten Anwendungen in der Wissenschaft
Erste Ergebnisse des Science 2.0-Survey 2013 des Leibniz-Forschungsverbunds „Science
2.0“)

 Science communication as well as science
management units are not as enthusiastic as
scientists themselves about social media –
nevertheless social media is seen as increasingly
important
 There is a strong divide between professional use
and private use.
 Twitter is seen by scientists as a hype, only 10% of
scientists actively use Twitter in Germany
 Specialized scientific tools such as education
management systems or bibliographic systems do
not use their potential (nearly 50% do not use or
don‘t know such systems)
(Source: Daniela Pscheida, Steff en Albrecht, Sabrina Herbst, Claudia Minet, Thomas
Köhler: Nutzung von Social Media und onlinebasierten Anwendungen in der Wissenschaft
Erste Ergebnisse des Science 2.0-Survey 2013 des Leibniz-Forschungsverbunds „Science
2.0“)

 In the UK (2007):
• 77% of life scientists participated in some type of
social media
• 50% viewed blogs, discussion groups, online
communities, and social networking as beneficial
to sharing ideas with colleagues
• 85% saw social media affecting their decision
making
 Many scientists perceive Facebook and Twitter, for
example, as unprofessional platforms that may
compromise or threaten years of life-changing
research.
(Source: Van Eperen and Marincola: How scientists use social media to communicate their
research. Journal of Translational Medicine 2011 9:199)

 There is mounting evidence to suggest that an
active online presence may directly impact a
researcher’s credentials as measured through
traditional metrics. (e.g. tweeting and blogging
about papers led to spikes in the number of article
downloads, even for older literature that had been
available for years without much previous
attention).
 For articles deposited in the preprint server arXiv,
Twitter mentions were positively correlated with
rapid article downloads and citations appearing
only months after deposition
(Source: Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012) How the scientific community reacts to newly
submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE 7:
e47523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047523 )

 There is a pressing need for scientific institutions
to offer formalized training opportunities for
graduate students and tenured faculty alike to
learn how to effectively use this new technology.
(Source: Bik HM, Goldstein MC (2013) An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. PLoS
Biol 11(4): e1001535. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535)

 New tools for tracking a researcher’s output
include Google Scholar profiles
(http://scholar.google.com), ImpactStory
(http://impactstory.org), and the Open Researcher
and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative (http://orcid.
org).
 In a 2011 study, only 2.5% of UK and US
academics had established a Twitter account
(Source: Priem J, Costello K, Dzuba T (2011) First-year gradute students just wasting time?
Prevalence and use of Twitter among scholars. Metrics 2011 Symposium on Informetric and
Scientometric Research. New Orleans, Louisiana, United States)

(Source: Bik HM, Goldstein MC (2013) An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. PLoS Biol 11(4): e10015
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535)

Examples from an individual
perspective
 A projects aimed at changing the perception of science
and scientists themselves has recently gone viral in the
online science world: the hashtag #iamscience (raised
more than 6.700$ on kickstarter, soon to be turned into
a book and podcast)

Get more out of Twitter
 Tweeting from conferences (discussing cutting-
edge research developments, linking to journal
articles or lab websites, e.g.) can introduce other
scientists to valuable content, and consequently
provide networking opportunities for users who
actively post during meetings.

 Journalists and scientists may be additionally
introduced to new groups of researchers
(particularly early-career scientists) with relevant
and related interests; conference tweeting can
thus serve to enhance in-person networking
opportunities by expanding these activities to
online spheres.

 Create a Global Meeting
 #AGU12 may attract 10′s of thousands of
participants but there are lots of us who didn’t
make it …
 In ages past (say, 5 years ago) we’d miss a
conference and really regret a lost opportunity.
But not anymore. Because of the #agu12 tweet
stream and because a portion of my twitter
community DID attend, I don’t feel that regret.
(Source: Wading into a Conference Tweet-Stream, 10 December, 2012 by Liz Neeley,
COMPASSBLOGS, http://compassblogs.org/blog/2012/12/10/wading-into-a-
conference-tweet-stream/)

 Scheduling
 Tweets from colleagues,
presenters and
conveners as reminders
(Source: Wading into a Conference Tweet-Stream, 10
December, 2012 by Liz Neeley, COMPASSBLOGS,
http://compassblogs.org/blog/2012/12/10/wading-into-a-

 Live-tweeting
 keeping tabs on
quotable quotes,
key concepts, and
conversations
 add richness and
depth by sharing
links to related
materials and
comments

 Keeping Track
 who is covering
which stories,
what ideas are
gaining traction,
and how science
stories are playing
out beyond the
scientific community.

The economic Value of Social
Media for Science
 For Organizations
 Membership engagement
 Fundraising
 Effective collaboration (e.g. editing)
 Cost reduction (e.g. skype)
 Marketing of Services
 For Individuals
 Effective collaboration (e.g. publications)
 cost reduction (e.g. exchange of results)
 Building reputation

Literature
 Christine Greenhow and Benjamin Gleason (2014): SOCIAL SCHOLARSHIP: RECONSIDERING SCHOLARLY
PRACTICES IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA, British Journal of Educational Technology, DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12150
 Oliver Mauroner (2011): SOCIAL MEDIA IM WISSENSCHAFTSMARKETING - STRATEGIEN UND
NUTZUNGSKONZEPTE FÜR TWITTER, BLOGS UND SOCIAL NETWORKS; wissenschaftsmanagement 5 •
september/oktober • 2011
 Daniela Pscheida, Steffen Albrecht, Sabrina Herbst, Claudia Minet, Thomas Köhler (2013): NUTZUNG VON SOCIAL
MEDIA UND ONLINEBASIERTEN ANWENDUNGEN IN DER WISSENSCHAFT - ERSTE ERGEBNISSE DES SCIENCE
2.0-SURVEY 2013 DES LEIBNIZ-FORSCHUNGSVERBUNDS „SCIENCE 2.0“
 Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007). THE DIALOGIC POTENTIAL OF WEBLOGS IN RELATIONSHIP BUILDING. Public
Relations Review, 33, 227–229.
 Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS THROUGH SOCIAL
NETWORKING: HOW NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE USING FACEBOOK. Public Relations Review, 35, 102–106.
 Waldemar Dzeyk (2013): EXPLORATIVE DATENAUSWERTUNG UND IDENTIFIZIERUNG VON SCIENCE 2.0-
NUTZUNGSTYPEN - Im Auftrag von Goportis – Leibniz-Bibliotheksverbund Forschungsinformation - Eine Untersuchung
im Rahmen des Leibniz-Forschungsverbundes Science 2.0
 R.D. Waters et al. (2009): ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS THROUGH SOCIAL NETWORKING: HOW NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS ARE USING FACEBOOK; Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 102–106; Elsevier
 Kanter, B., & Fine, A. (2010): THE NETWORKED NONPROFIT: CONNECTING WITH SOCIAL MEDIA TO DRIVE
CHANGE. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
 Bik HM, Goldstein MC (2013): AN INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SCIENTISTS. PLoS Biol 11(4): e1001535.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535
 Van Eperen and Marincola (2011): HOW SCIENTISTS USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO COMMUNICATE THEIR RESEARCH.
Journal of Translational Medicine 2011 9:199
 R.D. Waters, J.Y. Jamal (2011): TWEET, TWEET, TWEET: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS’
TWITTER UPDATES; / Public Relations Review 37 321– 324; Elsevier
 L. Curtis et al. (2010): ADOPTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS; /
Public Relations Review 36 90–92; Elsevier
 Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012): HOW THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY REACTS TO NEWLY SUBMITTED
PREPRINTS: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE 7: e47523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047523
 Priem J, Costello K, Dzuba T (2011): FIRST-YEAR GRADUTE STUDENTS JUST WASTING TIME? PREVALENCE AND
USE OF TWITTER AMONG SCHOLARS. Metrics 2011 Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research. New
Orleans, Louisiana, United States

Social Media Strategies for Science Communication

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Social Media Strategies for Science Communication

Similar to Social Media Strategies for Science Communication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Social Media Strategies for Science Communication

Editor's Notes