The Benefits and Barriers for Social Media for Scientists

The Benefits and Barriers for Social Media for Scientists

• 1.
  The Benefits and Barriers of SocialMedia for Scientists Craig R. McClain @DrCraigMc
• 2.
  Deep Sea News D DeepSea News SN deepseanews.com @deepseanews #deepsn
• 3.
  Why Should I EvenGive A Flying Flip?
• 4.
  If I GoogleYou If IWhat Would I Find? Google You, What Would I Find? t to be or not. . n ether you wa one else is online wh 1.You’re on identity some curating your t t. 2.If you’re no your conten re you create 3.Make su
• 6.
  er the ageof 30, human race is und re than half of the Mo t the internet. known life withou they've never Guess how they fee l about social media ?
• 7.
  3 out of4 Americans use social technology -Forrester, The Growth of Social Technology Adoption, 2008
• 8.
  All media isnow social media om wer away fr e po he s shifting th blishment, t nology i esta Tech lishers, the pub editors, the l. media elite. re in contro ho a he people w Now it's t ert Murdoch -Rup
• 9.
  If Facebook werea country it would be the third most populated in the world ahead of the United States In Billions ! China 1.35 India 1.21 Facebook 1.06 U.S. 0.31 ! http://news.yahoo.com/number-active-users-facebookover-230449748.html
• 10.
  5 billion pieces*of content a week on Facebook in 2010 * web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc. http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/02/15/new-facebook-statistics-show-big-increase-in-content-sharing-local-business-pages/
• 11.
  1/3 of womenaged 18-34 check Facebook when they first wake up ! ...even before going to the bathroom http://www.dailyillini.com/features/health_and_living/article_323b7fd8-966a-11e2-b435-001a4bcf6878.html
• 12.
  As of April,500 million total users and more than 200 million active users on Twitter http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/
• 14.
  So What Do IDo Online?
• 15.
  Social media isa tool like a microscope. It can be used well and badly. It can be used to do a lot of different things. ! -Jon Eisen
• 16.
  social media islike water. on its own, water does some cool things, but when combined with other compounds it enabled the evolution of all forms of life. ! social media on its own is nice, but when combined with other tools, it is enabling everything to evolve, from communications to business to politics to marketing ! Mike Volpe VP Marketing HubSpot
• 17.
  What is youronline mission? Personal? Outreach? Science? Consume, Share, Filter, Generate?
• 18.
  * Inreach versus Outreach *James Brownhas nothing to do with this. I simply have always wanted to put a photo of James Brown dancing in a presentation. I also want to make sure you are still awake.
• 19.
  Social Media for Scientific Benefit
• 20.
  In terms ofinreach, social media has become an important tool in quickly connecting with other researchers (Priem and Costello 2010). ! “This is the dilemma faced by researchers in the electronic age. How can we be expected to produce both quality and quantity and to yield influential research? We simply cannot—at least not on our own. Instead, we must rely on networking and collaborations to build our research programs and to remain influential in our fields in order to advance scientific knowledge. With this collaborative view in mind, scientific influence involves the body of work of both individual researchers and of research groups as a whole.”
• 25.
  Crowd Sourcing Science
• 26.
  Conferences
• 27.
  Blogs written byscientists for scientists are becoming common and important places for the exchange of ideas
• 28.
  One way thatthe social media appears does not to impact a scientific career is a direct link of social media mentions and citations on a scientific article. ! In an analysis of 1.4 million documents in PubMed and Web of Science published from 2010 to 2012, Haustein et al. (2013) found no correlation between a paper or a journals citation count and Twitter mentions.
• 29.
  As argued bythe authors of the study (Haustein et al. 2013), this suggests that Twitter mentions do not reflect traditional research impact. Indeed, social media mentions may capture a previously unquantified impact of a scientist’s career (Priem et al. 2012). crea ill In dia W l Me ocia S sure xpo se E
• 32.
  Social Media for Public Outrech
• 33.
  Most of SocialMedia Outreach is a Mystery ! We often don’t know the goal or the path.
• 34.
  Science: A PublicRelations Nightmare? this  public  rela.ons  nightmare”  is  been  the  pla4orm  in  which  scien.sts  have  been  encourage  to  “take  responsibility  for  science   communica.on  in  a  digital  age”  (Wilcox  2012).     may  not  simply  be  an  issue  of  the  public  percep.on  on  the  credibility  or  worth  of  scien.sts     but  rather  the  strategies  we  use  to  communicate  the  public.
• 35.
  Are Scientists PoorCommunicators? Nearly  30%  of  scien.sts  in  one  study  stated  that  “scien.sts  are  poor  interpersonal  communicators  or  that   nonscien.sts  perceive  them  to  be  uniformly  inept  at  communica.on,  regardless  of  their  actual   abili.es”  (Ecklund  and  Lincoln,  2012).         ! In  the  same  study  37%  of  scien.sts  placed  the  blame  poor  outreach  efforts  on  scien.sts  themselves   (Ecklund  and  Lincoln,  2012).     writer/journalist25%- Open Lab 2013 anthology of the best science writing online graduate/medical-student17%- teacher3%scienceprofessional8%- research-scien6st45%- medical-doctor2%-
• 36.
  Are Scientists NotEngaging the Public? • Scien.sts  do  not  believe  that  their  colleagues  actually  engage  in  outreach  (Ecklund  and  Lincoln,  2012)   ! • Nearly  half  of  all  academic  scien.sts  ere  engaged  in  some  type  of  outreach  (Ecklund  and  Lincoln,  2012)   • Scien.sts  have  a  posi.ve  aOtude  toward  par.cipa.ng  in  public  engagement  (Ecklund  and  Lincoln,  2012).   ! • 20%  of  respondents  engaged  online  personally  (Allgaier  et  al.  2013)   • 44%  of  German  and  65%  of  United  States  scien.sts  thought  that  these  channels  “can  strongly  influence   how  the  public  thinks  about  science”  (Allgaier  et  al.  2013)
• 37.
  Are Scientists NotEngaging the Public? • Over  62%  of  respondents  give  media  interviews   • 59%  provide  assistance  to  government  agencies   • 59%  give  talks  or  presenta.ons  to  the  general  public.       ! • 39%  do  not,  and  never  will,  use  TwiZer  for  academic/professional  work;     • 35%  say  the  same  for  Facebook  (though  58%  use  TwiZer  and  Facebook  for  personal  use).
• 38.
  Are Scientists NotEngaging the Public? • Wilkinson  and  Weitkamp  (2013)  survey  of  researchers  whose  work  had  been  highlighted  in   policy-­‐relevant  newsleZers   ! ! • “For  the  majority  of  researchers,  there  has  been  liZle  change  in  the  use  of  media  to   communicate  with  non-­‐academic  audiences  over  the  past  five  years.     ! • As  Table  3  indicates  social  media  are  rarely  used  as  a  means  for  communica.ng  with  non-­‐ academics,     • 73%  (n=97)  never  used  TwiZer,     • 64%  (n=84)  never  used  blogs  and     • 51%  (n=67)  never  use  online  news  forums.
• 39.
  Are Scientists NotEngaging the Public?
• 40.
  Is the DeficitModel Effective? • 70%  of  scien.sts  express  a  percep.on  of  public  ignorance   • 30%  blame  a  disinterest  in  science   • “widespread  lack  of  scien.fic  knowledge  among  the  general  public  is  a  difficulty  in  communica.ng   advanced  scien.fic  discoveries  beyond  the  borders  of  the  academic  science  community”.   • “Scien.sts  view  their  role  in  outreach  as  mainly  to  fill  a  void     • in  knowledge  among  members  of  the  general  public“ ! Scholars  have  examined  dynamics  such  as     ! • how  real-­‐world  exposure  to  science  stories   • • influences  science  beliefs  (Hwang  &   Southwell,  2009),     how  narra.ve  structure  may  affect   interpreta.on  (Dahlstrom,  2010;  Yaros,   2006),     and  how  various  mediums  may  differen.ally   affect  public  percep.ons  (Nisbet  et  al.,   2002)
• 41.
  Is the DeficitModel Effective? Vaccine  Risk  Percep.ons  and  Ad  Hoc  Risk  Communica.on:  An  Empirical  Assessment-­‐Dan  M.  Kahan   ! ! • Based  on  survey  and  experimental  methods  (N  =  2,316),  the  Report  presents  two  principal  findings:     1. that  vaccine  risks  are  neither  a  maZer  of  concern  for  the  vast  majority  of  the  public  nor  an  issue  of  conten.on   among  recognizable  demographic,  poli.cal,  or  cultural  subgroups;     2. that  ad  hoc  forms  of  risk  communica.on  that  assert  there  is  moun.ng  resistance  to  childhood  immuniza.ons   themselves  pose  a  risk  of  crea.ng  misimpressions  and  arousing  sensibili.es  that  could  culturally  polarize  the   public  and  diminish  mo.va.on  to  cooperate  with  universal  vaccina.on  programs.
• 42.
  Is Social MediaEngaging the Public? • Most  will  not  have  direct  contact  with  most  of  the  public  via  social  media   • Tradi.onal  media  is  s.ll  the  gateway  for  informa.on  (SuZon  et  al.)   • “The  majority  of  our  ques.onnaire  respondents  indicated  that  they  sought  informa.on  using   • mobile  phones  to  contact  friends  or  family  (54%);     • through  informa.on  portals  and  websites  adver.sed  in  tradi.onal  media  (76%);     • by  accessing  alterna.ve  news  sources  and  individual  blogs  (38%);     • through  discussions  on  various  web  forums  (15%);     • from  photo-­‐  sharing  sites  such  as  Flickr  or  Picasa  (10%).     • Just  less  than  10%  of  our  respondents  used  TwiZer,  in  spite  of  the  ac.ve  media  coverage  on  the   topic.  “
• 43.
  Is Social MediaEngaging the Public? Deep Sea News ! D SN •At  www.deepseanews.com  the  average  length  spent  on  the  website  in  2013  was  54  seconds     •87.8%  of  visitors  only  read  a  single  post.       •Only  12%  of  page  views  were  by  returning  visitors.     •More  than  50%  of  readers  never  commented  and  near  25%  only  commented  one  or  twice   Deep Sea •When  surveyed  readers  were  asked  why  they  did  not  comment,  “the  reader  did  not  feel  qualified   News (28.6%),  the  reader  had  nothing  to  add  (25.7%),  or  the  reader  did  not  generally  comment  on  blogs   (17.1%).”     •This  suggests  that  social  media  engagement  through  blogs  may  be  short,  superficial,  and  single  serving.  
• 44.
  rd Ne st ru fT o
• 47.
  Is All InformationBeing Consumed? • One  assump.on  is  that  if  you  broadcast  any  informa.on  via  social  media  it  will  be  consumed  by  the   public.     • This  is  based  on  the  idea  that  all  social  media  pla4orms  have  massive  usage.       • In  a  given  month,  one  billion  people  visit   YouTube  to  watch  6  billion  of  hours  of   video.     Yet,  many  videos  receive  few  views   and  less  than  10%  account  for  the   majority  of  views  (Cheng  et  al.  2008).   • • Posts  published  at  Deep-­‐Sea  News   Deep Sea News for  2013  (N=299),  garnered   1,666,119  page  views.       Of  these  views,  82.6%  were   received  on  the  top  20  posts.       The  lowest  ranking  200  posts   accounted  for  just  5%  of  total   2013  views.     • •
• 48.
  Is Social MediaCapital Offline Capital? • In  a  study  with  49  par.cipants,  588  requests  to  help  with  a  class  project  of  labeling  photos  online   nearly  80%  of  the  requests  were  unanswered  (Stefanone  et  al.  2012).     • Ten  par.cipants  received  no  response  and  nine  only  one  response.    Stefanonone  et  al.  (2012)     • Another  study  on  2,000  Norwegian  revealed  that  those  who  engaged  in  social  media  had   significantly  higher  face-­‐to-­‐face  interac.ons,  number  of  acquaintances,  and  friends  with  differing  views   than  themselves  (Brandtzaeg  2012)       • Thaler  et  al  (2012)  suggest  that  social  media  may  be  crea.ng  a  public  only  superficially  involved  with   the  environmental  movement,  i.e.  slack.vism   • “Facebook  allow  people  to  “like”  a  topic  without  requiring  any  addi.onal  commitment.  While   that  person  may  feel  they  are  lending  support  to  the  topic,  this  can  ar.ficially  increase  the  number  of   people  who  appear  to  be  involved  in  an  issue  (Golden  1998;  Furlong  2004).”
• 49.
  Will Social MediaOutreach Benefit A Scientist’s Career? ?
• 50.
  How and whendo things go viral? Berger and Milkman (2012) • The  results  indicate  that  posi.ve  content  is   more  viral  than  nega.ve  content   • Virality  is  par.ally  driven  by  physiological   arousal.     • Content  that  evokes  high-­‐arousal  posi.ve   • Debunking (awe)  or  nega.ve  (anger  or  anxiety)   emo.ons  is  more  viral.     Content  that  evokes  low-­‐arousal,  or   deac.va.ng,  emo.ons  (e.g.,  sadness)  is   less  viral.
• 51.
  How and whendo things go viral?
• 52.
  D Deep Sea News SN Deep SeaNews
• 53.
  Is Engagement AlwaysPositive? "Your article are such crap and very unscientific. The 3 explanations in your blog, on echinoderms wasting away had no real basis. The claim the because it happened on the East Coast, also happening a decade ago, but you left out that there are plenty of leaks on the East too (Love Canal). Then to make a claim that no other life in the pacific has been showing odd symptoms is an opinion, please be more clear in your work, all you are doing is feeding into misinfo and likely are involved with Koch or some other pro industry. Like reading all the Forbes, op eds. Next you will be citing them about how radiation is just like a banana." "I've been seeing your LYING disinformation news on Fukushima on MY Facebook page. My writers and I tell the truth about Fukushima radiation and we will not allow you to lie and therefore be guilty of crimes against humanity. You'll be exposed on my website as I'll have one of my writers investigate this disinfo source and then do a write up. My website gets over a million views/month and FB pagecurrently hosts over 231,000 subscribers. You can either tell the truth, and we won't tell the truth about your lies, or continue lying and read what I said would be done above." "The JEWS did Fukushima Sabotage and False Flag with HAARP. The JEWS did 9-11 Sabotage and False Flag with HAARP. JAPAN TSUNAMI QUAKE C AUSED PURPOSELY WITH HAARP. Fukushima Sabotage was done with HAARP. The Stuxnet Computer Virus was made in Dimona Israel. HAARP, Fukushima, Sabotage, Benjamin Fulford, Stuxnet Computer Virus, Dimona Israel, Siemens Computers, False Flag,” The Stuxnet computer worm is perhaps the most complicated piece of malicious software ever built; DESIGNED BY JEWS TO SABOTAGE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS. When are they going to PROSECUTE the JEW OWNERS of HAARP?" "This article is ridiculous.You are no better than all the fear mongers out there, only instead of actually being concerned about this environmental crisis, you're completely trying to deter everyone from the reality that fukushima is serious and something that needs to be watched closely, as it WILL have dire effects on the entire planet. If you honestly think that fukushima is nothing to be concerned about, you should just kill yourself, you're doing this world absolutely no good."
• 54.
  The anonymity ofthe internet makes bullies. How do we deal with them?
• 55.
  Now Go Out ThereAnd Get Social!
• 56.
  social media islike water. on its own, water does some cool things, but when combined with other compounds it enabled the evolution of all forms of life. ! social media on its own is nice, but when combined with other tools, it is enabling everything to evolve, from communications to business to politics to marketing ! Mike Volpe VP Marketing HubSpot
• 57.
  Recognize Social MediaOutreach is still an experiment. One that you can shape and take part in. That’s exciting
• 58.
  Deep Sea News http://deepseanews.com DeepSea News D SN @DrCraigMc http://craigmcclain.com most images courtesy of ShutterStock