Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Pikas 2013 research day poster 03022013

  • Identifiez-vous pour voir les commentaires

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Pikas 2013 research day poster 03022013

  1. 1. Twitter at scientific meetings:Scholarly communication?Christina K. Pikas Common types of tweets: Introduction Results •Live tweeting/commentary on sessions Many scientists use Twitter including at and around The most prolific accounts by far were those from institutional “Holdren on #climate: "We have not reduced our professional conferences and meetings (Letierce, Passant, accounts including NASA and the organizing society, AGU commitment or our determination to get that problem Decker, & Breslin, 2010; Weller, Dröge, & Puschmann, (Figure 1). solved." #AGU10” 2011). Is this scholarly communication? Does this replace or “There is some weird magnitude-focal mechanism thing supplement any of the traditional conference going on in this talk that I dont quite get. #AGU10” communications (Garvey, Tomita, Lin, & Nelson, 1972) or •Coordinating meetings/providing schedules is this new? Which of the typical features of scholarly “@eruptionsblog What time is your talk? #AGU10” communication in science are found in Twitter exchanges? •Hallway meta-conversations “@skepticscience If funding an issue perhaps some This poster reports on work in progress to answer these #scicomm group or @theagu itself could sponsor you to do questions. In my dissertation I develop a framework to a workshop next year? #agu10” describe information and communication in science. I am testing this framework by studying the cases of geoscientists using twitter at a scientific meeting and using blogs year round. Conclusions Figure 1: #agu10 mentions/replies network, main component, sized by •One reason scientists attend conferences to catch up in their degree. NASA and AGU are the two most prominent nodes. field. The twitter stream does show pointer information, but Methods unlike attendees, remote participants will have to read to get •TwapperKeeper (http://twapperkeeper.com, now defunct) 257 of the 264 tweets @NASA were re-tweets of their press the content. was used to collect tweets with the official meeting hashtag, release tweets. 566 of the twitterers only tweeted once, and of #agu10 •A second reason is to meet potential collaborators in person those, 199 were @NASA •twitteR (Gentry, 2013) was used to collect additional tweets to establish or maintain relationships. The tweets did show from the time of the conference some relationship maintenance, but likely direct messages or e-mails would be used for more sensitive negotiations. •Some summary statistics were provided by TwapperKeeper and others were calculated using Excel •Tweets were imported into Excel and analyzed using the Next Steps framework elements developed through an analysis of •Complete qualitative coding and analysis scholarly communication. Emergent codes were added. •Repeat the analysis for other conferences Figure 2: Number of tweets per twitterer. •Interview participants on their experiences Further information Please contact cpikas@umd.edu . The poster will be available on SlideShare at http://www.slideshare.net/cpikas Updates to the study will be posted to my blog at: http://scientopia.org/blogs/christinaslisrant

×