Science communication on social media

Examining cross-platform behavioral engagement

Authors

  • Amanda Coletti University of Connecticut
  • Rory McGloin University of Connecticut
  • Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch University of Connecticut
  • Emily Hamlin University of Connecticut

Keywords:

social media, science communication, user engagement, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram

Abstract

Social media is a popular channel for scientists to communicate with the public. Still, it remains relatively unclear how social media users perceive and engage with scientific content across various platforms. Therefore, this study sought to examine how users engage with scientific content on different social media channels to help scientists and science communicators gain a deeper understanding of how audiences may be perceiving their posts. A quasi-experimental survey methodology was conducted with a snowball sample of social media users. Participants (N = 237) were exposed to social media posts containing three scientific content areas (biology, social science, and engineering) across three social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter). Results from this study found that biology content on Facebook had higher behavioral engagement than other platforms, and there was no significant difference in content comprehension between social media platforms. Implications for scientists and science communicators using social media platforms to share knowledge and research findings are discussed.

Author Biographies

Amanda Coletti, University of Connecticut

Amanda Coletti is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut. Her research interests include science communication, training and development, and narrative storytelling. Amanda also has experience programming and delivering storytelling workshops related to developing science communication skills.

Rory McGloin, University of Connecticut

Rory McGloin, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut and is also the owner of RPM Communication Consulting, LLC. His current work is focused on the use of communication best practices in organizational training and development programs. Rory’s research mission is centered around the improvement of employees’ communication skills through an increased value of communication.

Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, University of Connecticut

Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut, where she conducts research in the Human-Computer Interaction lab. Her research focuses broadly on the use of social media for information sharing as a form of communication. Specifically, her work investigates the effects of using social and mobile media to engage with news, health, and science content.

Emily Hamlin, University of Connecticut

Emily Hamlin is a doctoral student in the Communication Ph.D. program in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut. Her research interests include organizational communication, particularly relational development in workplace environments. Emily also has experience collecting data on the effectiveness of organizational training and development workshops. 

References

Aldous, K. K., An, J., & Jansen, B. J. (2019, November). Predicting audience engagement across social media platforms in the news domain. In International Conference on Social Informatics (pp. 173-187). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34971-4_12

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public understanding of science, 17(1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159

Baldwin, H. J., Freeman, B., & Kelly, B. (2018). Like and share: Associations between social media engagement and dietary choices in children. Public Health Nutrition, 21(17), 3210-3215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018001866

Barker, V. (2017). User perceptions about self-efficacy, features and credibility as antecedents to flow on social networking sites. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 6(1), 110-143.

Bauer, M. W., & Gregory, J. (2007). From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations, 33-51.

Beil, L. (2018, July 15). The brain may clean out Alzheimer’s plaques during sleep. Science News. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sleep-brain-alzheimers-plaques-protein

Bennett, N., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Besley, J. (2019). Scientists, trainers, and the strategic communication of science. In T. P. Newman (ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 9-31). Routledge.

Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972

Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLOS Biology, 11(4), e1001535. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535

Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329

Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). Routledge.

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2014). Science communication research: Themes and challenges. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1-14). Routledge.

Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004

Canfield, K., & Menezes, S. (2020). The state of inclusive science communication: A landscape study. Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. https://www.informalscience.org/state-inclusive-science-communication-landscape-study

Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace?. PLOS ONE, 11(10), e0162680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162680

Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops?. Facets, 3(1), 682-694. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002

Cooke, S. J., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., Nguyen, V. M., Skubel, R. A., Hammerschlag, N., & Danylchuk, A. J. (2017). Considerations for effective science communication. Facets, 2(1), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0055

Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science communication, 29(4), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222

Davies, S. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two UK studies. Science Communication, 35(6), 687-707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013478203

Dessart, L. (2017). Social media engagement: a model of antecedents and relational outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(5-6), 375-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1302975

Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. M. (2016). Social media engagement theory: Exploring the influence of user engagement on social media usage. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 28(2), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.2016040104

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1999). Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness. Public Understanding of Science, 8(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/8/1/003

Funk, C., Gottfried, J., & Mitchell, A. (2017). Science news and information today. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/science-news-and-information-today/

Gaget, L. (2017). 3D printing in space: The next revolution? Sculpteo. https://www.sculpteo.com/blog/2017/11/29/3d-printing-in-space-the-new-revolution/

Gilstrap, C., & Holderby, N. (2016). “Actually Having Conversations and Talking to People”: Defining Social Media Engagement. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 5(2), 202-225.

Gottfried, J., & Shearer, E. (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

Greenwood, M. R. C., & Riordan, D. G. (2001). Civic scientist/civic duty. Science Communication, 23(1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023001003

Hall, M., Mazarakis, A., Chorley, M., & Caton, S. (2018). Editorial of the special issue on following user pathways: Key contributions and future directions in cross-platform social media research. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34(10), 895-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1471575

Hargittai, E., Füchslin, T., & Schäfer, M. S. (2018). How do young adults engage with science and research on social media? Some preliminary findings and an agenda for future research. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 2056305118797720.

Hines, H. N., (2019). Cell-fies: Sharing microbiology with global audiences through Instagram. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 366(16). https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnz205

Hitlin, P., & Olmstead, K. (2018). The science people see on social media. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/03/21/the-science-people-see-on-social-media

Howell, E., & Brossard, D. (2019). Science engagement and social media: Communicating across interests, goals, and platforms. In T. P. Newman (ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 57-70). Routledge.

Jarreau, P. B., Cancellare, I. A., Carmichael, B. J., Porter, L., Toker, D., & Yammine, S. Z. (2019). Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216625

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

Kim, C., & Yang, S. U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: How each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 441-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.006

Kruikemeier, S., Lecheler, S., & Boyer, M. M. (2018). Learning from news on different media platforms: An eye-tracking experiment. Political Communication, 35(1), 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1388310

Leshner, A. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299(5609), 977-978. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5609.977

McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Cataldi, E. F., Man, F. B., & Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019. NCES 2019-144. Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED594978.pdf

Mueller-Herbst, J. M., Xenos, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2020). Saw it on Facebook: The role of social media in facilitating science issue awareness. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 2056305120930412.

Munro, K., Hartt, C. M., & Pohlkamp, G. (2015). Social media discourse and genetically modified organisms. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 4(1).

Newman, T. P. (Ed.). (2019). Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge.

Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236196

Osterrieder, A. (2013). The value and use of social media as a communication tool in the plant sciences. Plant methods, 9(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4811-9-26

Pavelle, S., & Wilkinson, C. (2020). Into the digital wild: Utilizing Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook for effective science and environmental communication. Frontiers of Communication, 5(575122). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.575122

Pellegrini, G. (2021). Evaluating science communication: Concepts and tools for realistic assessment. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink‐Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2010). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in science. Science Education, 94(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20344

Rakedzon, T., Segev, E., Chapnik, N., Yosef, R., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0181742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181742

Rathnayake, C., & Winter, J. S. (2018). Carrying forward the uses and grats 2.0 agenda: An affordance-driven measure of social media uses and gratifications. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2018.1451861

Sbarra, D., Briskin, J. L., Slatcher, R. B. (2018). Smartphones and close relationships: The case for an evolutionary mismatch. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 596-618. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691619826535

Schäfer, M. S. (2011). Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: A review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research. Sociology compass, 5(6), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00373.x

Segev, E., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2012). Seeking science information online: Data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 813-829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510387560

Shane-Simpson, C., Manago, A., Gaggi, N., & Gillespie-Lynch, K. (2018). Why do college students prefer Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram? Site affordances, tensions between privacy and self-expression, and implications for social capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 276-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.041

Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059

Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50 (1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

Singh, S., & Srivastava, S. (2019). Engaging consumers in multichannel online retail environment. Journal of Modelling in Management, 14(1), 49-76. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-09-2017-0098

Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q., Goh, D., & Pang, N. (2016). Social media and citizen engagement: A meta-analytic review. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1817-1839. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616221

Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2018). Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/

Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690

Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, 73-100. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.073

Sundar, S. S. (2012). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In Oxford handbook of internet psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199561803.013.0007

Tandoc, E. C., Lou, C., & Min, V. L. H. (2018). Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context: How and why users navigate multiple social media platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy022

Tella, A. (2009). Correlates of undergraduates’ information-seeking behavior. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 16(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310902754221

Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679130

Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1813-1831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817707349

Downloads

Published

2022-12-30

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2022): The Journal of Social Media in Society

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).