Evaluation of science communication on social media
A content analysis of Facebook pages
Keywords:
Science communication, Facebook pages, Activity theory, Scientist, Content analysis, IndiaAbstract
Worldwide social media platforms are used for communication purposes apart from entertainment. One of the most widely used social media sites in the world is Facebook. With 2.85 billion monthly active users as of 2021, Facebook is the most popular social media network on the planet. This platform has now become an important avenue for raising awareness. The way society utilizes these platforms is a matter of study. There is a lot of research on how politicians and celebrities throughout the world used it for communication. On the other side, there is a scarcity of studies on the use of social media for science communication. With the growing importance of social media as a source of knowledge, it's become a matter of whether these online platforms can present science news in a way that even non-scientists can grasp. The present study is fruitful in gaining knowledge that how science communicators used Facebook pages as a tool to reach a massive following. The researcher selects the most popular science communication facebook pages from the Google web browser. Later, through purposive sampling researcher select six popular pages. The study is based on the method of content analysis.
Downloads
References
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(4), 1083–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-9860-2
Bagarukayo, E., Ssentamu, P., Mayisela, T., & Brown, C. (2016). Activity Theory as a lens to understand how Facebook develops knowledge application skills. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 12(3), 128–140. http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=2264
Bryant, C. (2003). Does Australia need a more effective policy of science communication? International Journal for Parasitology, 33(4), 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(03)00004-3
Clement, K., Rees, H., Canver, M. C., Gehrke, J. M., Farouni, R., Hsu, J. Y., Cole, M. A., Liu, D. R., Joung, J. K., Bauer, D. E., & Pinello, L. (2019). CRISPResso2 provides accurate and rapid genome editing sequence analysis. Nature Biotechnology, 37(3), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0032-3
Elsevier. (2020). Content Coverage Guide. Scopus, 1–24. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_Guide_WEB.pdf (Accessed on 22 July 2021)
Dwivedi S, Nov 18, 2017. Communicating Science through Social Media, Technical today, https://technicaltoday.in/communicating-science-through-social-media/
Hasan, H., & Kazlauskas, A. (2014). Activity Theory : who is doing what , why and how.
Hashim, N., & Jones, M. L. (2007). Activity Theory: A framework for qualitative analysis. 4th International Qualitative Research Convention (QRC), Research Online. http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/408
Hitlin, P., & Olmstead, K. (2018). the science people see on social media. Pew Research Center, March.
Illingworth, S., & Allen, G. (2020). Effective Science Communication (Second Edition). In Effective Science Communication (Second Edition). https://doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-2520-2
Jayashree, B. (2018). Social media and communication by scientists : M . S . Swaminathan on Twitter. CURRENT SCIENCE, 114(no.9), 1840–1845.https://doi.org/ 10.18520/cs/v114/i09/1840-1845
Kappel, K., & Holmen, S. J. (2019). Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence. Frontiers in Communication, 4(October), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055
krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis : An Introduction to its methodology. In Sage publication: Vol. 2nd editio. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.31.3460
Lopez-Goni, I., & S´anchez-Angulo, M. (2018). Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement : focus on Twitter Ignacio L opez-Go. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx246
Mazzonetto, M. (2015). Focus Science communication in India : current situation , history and future developments. March 2005. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.04010901
McClain, C. R. (2019). Likes, comments, and shares of marine organism imagery on Facebook. PeerJ, 7, e6795. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6795
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 and Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120930412
Patairiya, M. (n.d). Science communication in India : perspectives and challenges. SciDev.Net
Pavelle S and Wilkinson C (2020) Into the Digital Wild: Utilizing Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook for Effective Science and Environmental Communication. Frontiers in Communication, 5:575122.doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.575122
Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13585–13592.
Shearer, E., & Gottfried, J. (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Pew Research Center, https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/
Takahashi, B., & Tandoc, E. C. (2016). Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986
Rinartha, K., & Suryasa, W. (2017). Comparative study for better result on query suggestion of article searching with MySQL pattern matching and Jaccard similarity. In 2017 5th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(8), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00096-1
Ermatov, N. J. ., & Abdulkhakov, I. U. . (2021). Socio-hygienic assessment of the incidence rate among various strata of the population-based on the materials of appeals and in-depth medical examinations. International Journal of Health & Medical Sciences, 4(3), 309-314. https://doi.org/10.31295/ijhms.v4n3.1758
Welbourne, D. J., & Grant, W. J. (2016). Science communication on YouTube : Factors that affect channel and video popularity. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068
Xenos, M. A. (2017). Citizens making sense of science issues: Supply and demand factors for science news and information in the digital age. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, May 2018, 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.31
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 International journal of health sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant IJHS right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.
Articles published in IJHS can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. 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 acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
This copyright notice applies to articles published in IJHS volumes 4 onwards. Please read about the copyright notices for previous volumes under Journal History.
