| Literature DB >> 35206162 |
Lídia Puigvert1, Beatriz Villarejo-Carballido2, Regina Gairal-Casadó3, Aitor Gómez3, Paula Cañaveras1, Teresa Sordé Martí4.
Abstract
Scientific literature presents young people as a vulnerable group at risk of poverty and social exclusion. One of the elements that have the most significant impact on reducing their vulnerability is promoting education. Little is known about how social networks can promote the education of young people. To address this, the present study aims to analyse how social networks, specifically Instagram, which is one of the most used by young people, has promoted, among other aspects, the scientific education of young people during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyses 5000 education-related Instagram posts made during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2021) European research project ALLINTERACT. We have analysed those posts that show, on the one hand, how citizens benefit from scientific research and, on the other hand, citizens' awareness of the impact of scientific research. Through the analysis of the posts, it has been observed how Instagram has been a social network that has provided information and scientific advances in various branches of knowledge, created knowledge networks, and provided a channel for information about the pandemic. Through the analysis of the 5000 posts, it is evident how Instagram has provided spaces for scientific learning, fostering access to scientific education for young people.Entities:
Keywords: Instagram; pandemic; science education; vulnerable groups; young people
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206162 PMCID: PMC8872541 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19041974
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Categories of analysis by topic.
| Code | Topic | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not valid. | It includes those messages that are not related to project topics. |
| 1 | How citizens’ benefit from scientific research. | It includes those messages where citizens express how they implement or benefit from scientific research, although they are not aware that it is due to/do not mention scientific research. |
| 2 | Citizen awareness of the impact of scientific research. | It includes both initiatives that make citizens aware of the link between the benefits they appreciate and the research that led to them and messages where citizens express their awareness of the impact of scientific research in education and gender. |
| 3 | Awareness-raising initiatives succeeding at engaging citizens in scientific participation, including the Open Access movement. | It includes those initiatives that enhance citizen participation in science. |
| 4 | Awareness-raising actions that foster the recruitment of new talent in the sciences | It includes formal actions (e.g., campaigns, workshops, seminars, conferences, scholarships, vacancies specifically encouraging women, educational materials, interviews) and individual actions (e.g., personal experience or testimony). |
| 5 | Policies that promote awareness-raising actions and citizen engagement in science | It includes messages that mention policies, programs, or institutional measures and initiatives that promote citizen engagement in science, representation of women scientists, or the creation of spaces for the participation of vulnerable groups in science. |
Categories of analysis by “Scientific evidence.
| Code | Scientific Evidence | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not Scientific Evidence | The message does not contain scientific evidence |
| 1 | Certified Scientific Evidence | The message includes scientific evidence (articles from journals indexed in Scopus or JCR) |
| 2 | Supposed Scientific Evidence | The message says it is based on scientific evidence but no reference to the article or study. |
Figure 1Selected hashtags.
Analysis of the posts.
| 5000 posts | Scientific Evidence | 1. Certified Scientific Evidence | 233 posts | 97 posts respond to the main objective of the research |
| 2. Supposed Scientific Evidence |
Analysis of the posts.
| 97 posts respond to the main objective of the research | 70.10% (68 posts) provide information and scientific progress in various branches of knowledge | 47.06% (32 posts) science topics |
| 10.29% (7 posts) educational topics | ||
| 7.35% (5 posts) sociology topics | ||
| 27.94% (19 posts) health topics | ||
| 1.47% (1 post) engineering topics | ||
| 4.41% (3 posts) gender topics | ||
| 1.47% (1 post) United Nations Sustainable Development Goals topics |
Analysis of the posts.
| 97 posts respond to the main objective of the research | 29.90% (29 posts) provide information concerning the COVID pandemic | 44.83% (13 posts) COVID and science topics |
| 13.79% (4 posts) educational information about COVID topics | ||
| 6.90% (2 posts) sociological pandemic perspective topics | ||
| 27.59% (8 posts) COVID and health topics | ||
| 3.45% (1 post) gender pandemic perspective topics | ||
| 1.47% (1 post) United Nations Sustainable Development Goals from a pandemic perspective |