Literature DB >> 26081769

Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference.

Sara P Bombaci1, Cooper M Farr1, H Travis Gallo1, Anna M Mangan1, Lani T Stinson1, Monica Kaushik2, Liba Pejchar1.   

Abstract

Scientists are increasingly using Twitter as a tool for communicating science. Twitter can promote scholarly discussion, disseminate research rapidly, and extend and diversify the scope of audiences reached. However, scientists also caution that if Twitter does not accurately convey science due to the inherent brevity of this media, misinformation could cascade quickly through social media. Data on whether Twitter effectively communicates conservation science and the types of user groups receiving these tweets are lacking. To address these knowledge gaps, we examined live tweeting as a means of communicating conservation science at the 2013 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). We quantified and compared the user groups sending and reading live tweets. We also surveyed presenters to determine their intended audiences, which we compared with the actual audiences reached through live tweeting. We also asked presenters how effectively tweets conveyed their research findings. Twitter reached 14 more professional audience categories relative to those attending and live tweeting at ICCB. However, the groups often reached through live tweeting were not the presenters' intended audiences. Policy makers and government and non-governmental organizations were rarely reached (0%, 4%, and 6% of audience, respectively), despite the intent of the presenters. Plenary talks were tweeted about 6.9 times more than all other oral or poster presentations combined. Over half the presenters believed the tweets about their talks were effective. Ineffective tweets were perceived as vague or missing the presenters' main message. We recommend that presenters who want their science to be communicated accurately and broadly through Twitter should provide Twitter-friendly summaries that incorporate relevant hashtags and usernames. Our results suggest that Twitter can be used to effectively communicate speakers' findings to diverse audiences beyond conference walls.
© 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ICCB 2013; Sociedad para la Biología de la Conservación; Society for Conservation Biology; comunicación de la ciencia; live tweeting; redes sociales; science communication; scientific societies; social media; sociedades científicas; tuiteo en vivo

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26081769     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  6 in total

1.  How to use Twitter at a Scientific Conference.

Authors:  B Joanne Power
Journal:  mSphere       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 5.029

2.  Tweet success? Scientific communication correlates with increased citations in Ecology and Conservation.

Authors:  Clayton T Lamb; Sophie L Gilbert; Adam T Ford
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Digital technology and the conservation of nature.

Authors:  Koen Arts; René van der Wal; William M Adams
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.129

4.  Data mining in conservation research using Latin and vernacular species names.

Authors:  Ivan Jarić; Franck Courchamp; Jörn Gessner; David L Roberts
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Twitter use at the 2016 Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: analyzing #DIScience16.

Authors:  Caitlin G Allen; Brittany Andersen; David A Chambers; Jacob Groshek; Megan C Roberts
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  Academic information on Twitter: A user survey.

Authors:  Ehsan Mohammadi; Mike Thelwall; Mary Kwasny; Kristi L Holmes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.