O impacto do discurso científico no Twitter: o caso de Neil deGrasse Tyson

 Elena Denia, Polytechnic University of Valencia (Espanha)

https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-02

Palavras chave

Twitter, comunicação, ciência, divulgação, impacto, público, participação, análise computacional

Resumo

A percepção social da ciência tem sido estudada amplamente desde meados do século XX. Este projeto pretende abordar a interação ciência-público no âmbito da vida digital para complementar os estudos clássicos sobre o impacto social da ciência, em particular na rede social Twitter. Apresenta-se, assim, uma proposta metodológica com o projeto de um algoritmo que opera em conjuntos representativos de tuítes para analisar seu conteúdo, com o uso de técnicas computacionais de mineração de dados e processamento de linguagem natural, facilmente reproduzível por outros pesquisadores e de baixo custo. Para testar a ferramenta, analisa-se o discurso do popular divulgador Neil deGrasse Tyson. O impacto da informação é calculado em termos de: 1) curtir e retuitar; 2) medidas sugeridas para a popularidade e o grau de conteúdo polêmico; 3) a rede semântica. Após verificar e classificar os elementos relevantes do discurso pelas categorias "ciência", "cultura", "político-social", "crenças", "mídia" e "emocional", os resultados revelam que uma transmissão com carga emocional na mensagem do divulgador desperta uma resposta muito mais profunda no público, bem como a alusão a questões sócio-políticas. Além disso, vários conceitos periféricos para a discussão científica despertam maior interesse que os próprios conceitos centrais no discurso. Ambos os resultados sugerem que a ciência é mais interessante quando está ligada a outros aspectos.

Referências

Álvarez-Bornstein, B., & Montesi, M. (2019). Who is interacting with researchers on Twitter? A survey in the field of Information Science. JLIS, 10(2), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12530

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Arrabal, G., & De-Aguilera, M. (2016). Comunicar en 140 caracteres. Cómo usan Twitter los comunicadores en España. [Communicating in 140 characters. How journalists in Spain use Twitter]. Comunicar, 46, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.3916/C46-2016-01

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bauer, M.W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bauer, M.W., Shukla, R., & Allum, N. (2012). Towards cultural indicators of science with global validity. In M.W. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), The culture of science: How the public relates to science across the globe (pp. 1-17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813621

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Becker, B.F.H., Larson, H.J., Bonhoeffer, J., Van-Mulligen, E.M., Kors, J.A., & Sturkenboom, M. (2016). Evaluation of a multinational, multilingual vaccine debate on Twitter. Vaccine, 34(50), 6166-6171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.007

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., & Jordan, M.I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993-1022. https://bit.ly/2wQLaGj

Link Google Scholar

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

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Büchi, M. (2016). Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 953-968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516657794

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Dann, S. (2010). Twitter content classification. First Monday, 15(12). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i12.2745

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Davis, R.C. (1958). The public impact of science in the mass media. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://stanford.io/2w9teGk

Link Google Scholar

Dehkharghani, R., Mercan, H., Javeed, A., & Saygin, Y. (2014). Sentimental causal rule discovery from Twitter. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(10), 4950-4958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.024

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

European Commission (Ed.) (2008). Public engagement in science. Publications Office of the European Union. https://bit.ly/2uB98Vg

Link Google Scholar

Kahle, K., Sharon, A.J., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2016). Footprints of fascination: Digital traces of public engagement with particle physics on CERN's social media platforms. PLoS One, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156409

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kaiser, D., Durant, J., Levenson, T., Wiehe, B., & Linett, P. (2014). The evolving culture of science engagement: an exploratory initiative. MIT & Culture Kettle. https://bit.ly/2Wjy5hG

Link Google Scholar

Kapoor, K.K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N.P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y.K., & Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(3), 531-558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In M. Rappa, & P. Jones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 591-600). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772751

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Li, R., Crowe, J., Leifer, D., Zou, L., & Schoof, J. (2019). Beyond big data: Social media challenges and opportunities for understanding social perception of energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101217

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

López-Pérez, L., & Olvera-Lobo, M.D. (2019). Participación digital del público en la ciencia de excelencia española: Análisis de los proyectos financiados por el European Research Council. El Profesional de la Información, 28(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.ene.06

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Kwasny, M., & Holmes, K.L. (2018). Academic information on Twitter: A user survey. PLoS One, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197265

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Moreno-Castro, C., Corell-Doménech, M., & Camano-Puig, R. (2019). Which has more influence on perception of pseudo-therapies: The media’s information, friends or acquaintances opinion, or educational background? Communication & Society, 32, 35-49. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.32.3.35-48

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Murphy, J., Hill, C., & Dean, E. (2013). Social media, sociality, and survey research. In C. Hill, J. Murphy and E. Dean (Eds.), Social media, sociality, and survey research (pp. 1-33). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118751534.ch1

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Murphy, J., Link, M.W., Childs, J.H., Tesfaye, C.L., Dean, E., Stern, M., Pasek, J., Cohen, J., Callegaro, M., & Harwood, P. (2014). Social media in public opinion research: Executive summary of the AAPOR task force on emerging technologies in public opinion research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(4), 788-794. https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/poq/nfu053

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Myers, S. A., Sharma, A., Gupta, P., & Lin, J. (2014). Information network or social network? the structure of the twitter follow graph. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 493-498). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2576939

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Naaman, M., Boase, J., & Lai, C.H. (2010). Is it really about me? message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 189-192). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718953

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Narr, S., Luca, E.W.D., & Albayrak, S. (2011). Extracting semantic annotations from twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Exploiting semantic annotations in information retrieval (pp. 15-16). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2064713.2064723

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pardo, R. (2001). La cultura científico-tecnológica de las sociedades de la modernidad tardía. Treballs de la Societat Catalana de Biologia, 51, 35-63. https://bit.ly/2T0n8B5

Link Google Scholar

Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate Change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC working group 1 report. PLoS One, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094785

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pérez-Rodríguez, A.V., González-Pedraz, C., & Alonso-Berrocal, J.L. (2018). Twitter como herramienta de comunicación científica en España. Principales agentes y redes de comunicación. Communication Papers, 7(13), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/cp.v7i13.21986

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Santoveña, S., & Bernal, C. (2019). Explorando la influencia del docente: Participación social en Twitter y percepción Académica. [Exploring the influence of the teacher: Social participation on Twitter and academic perception]. Comunicar, 58, 75-84. https://doi.org/10.3916/C58-2019-07

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

ScienceFlows (Ed.) (2019). ScienceFlows. https://bit.ly/2wGZ8dB

Link Google Scholar

Shan, L., Regan, Á., De-Brún, A., Barnett, J., Van-der-Sanden, M.C.A., Wall, P., & McConnon, Á. (2014). Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public Understanding of Science, 23(8), 911-928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512472315

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Silge, J., & Robinson, D. (2016). Tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 1(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00037

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media: Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217-248. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Twitter (Ed.) (2019). Application programming interface. https://developer.twitter.com

Link Google Scholar

Uren, V., & Dadzie, A.S. (2015). Public science communication on Twitter: A visual analytic approach. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2014-0137

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Veltri, G. (2013). Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 832-849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512463510

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Veltri, G., & Atanasova, D. (2015). Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 721-737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515613702

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Wilkinson, D., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Trending Twitter topics in English: An international comparison. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1631-1646. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22713

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Zhao, W.X. Jiang, J., Weng, J., He, J., Lim E.P., Yan, H., & Li, X. (2011). Comparing Twitter and traditional media using topic models. In P. Clough et al. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol 6611. Advances in Information Retrieval (pp. 338-349). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20161-5_34

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fundref

Crossmark

Technical information

Recebido: 26-02-2020

Revisado: 20-03-2020

Aceite: 27-04-2020

OnlineFirst: 15-06-2020

Data de publicação: 01-10-2020

Tempo de revisão do artigo: 23 dias | Tempo médio de revisão do número 65: 36 dias

Tempo de aceitação do artigo: 61 dias | Tempo médio de aceitação do número 65: 79 dias

Tempo de edição da pré-impressão: 173 dias | Tempo médio de edição pré-impressão do número 65: 191 dias

Tempo de processamento do artigo: 218 dias | Tempo médio de processamento do número 65: 236 dias

Métricas

Métricas deste artigo

Vistas: 42072

Leituras dos resumos: 38050

Descargas em PDF: 4022

Métricas completas do Comunicar 65

Vistas: 492888

Leituras dos resumos: 425954

Descargas em PDF: 66934

Citado por