The use of social media in volcano science communication: challenges and opportunities

Williams, Rebecca; Krippner, Janine

doi:10.30909/vol.01.02.i-viii

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hayes et al, 2011). Scholarly interactions via social media, sometimes involving citizen expertise and observations, may transform both the timeliness and the way our geophysical understanding is built and shared Williams and Krippner, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twitter stands as a very efficient and simple tool to publicly disseminate scientific information and rapidly engage in discussion about the cause and implications of geological events (Landwehr et al, 2016;Lee, 2019;Takahashi et al, 2015). While Twitter is not the most popular social media platform, compared with platforms such as Facebook (Fallou and Bossu, 2019;Williams and Krippner, 2019), it is valued by scholars as an interactive and open way to discuss research-related issues and to comment on research results in a concise way (Shiffman, 2017;Van Noorden, 2014). Twitter is also widely used by journalists, who can pass on information to the wider public (Engesser and Humprecht, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Twitter is an established social media platform valued by scholars as an open way to disseminate scientific information and to publicly discuss research results. Scientific discussions on Twitter are viewed by the media, who can then pass on information to the wider public. Social media is used widely by geoscientists, but there is little documentation currently available regarding the benefits or limitations of this for the scientist or the public. Here, we use the example of two 2018 earthquake-related events that were widely commented on by geoscientists on Twitter: the Palu Mw 7.5 earthquake and related tsunami in Indonesia and the long-duration Mayotte island seismovolcanic crisis in the Indian Ocean. We built our study on a content and contextual analysis of selected Twitter threads about the geophysical characteristics of these events. From the analysis of these two examples, we show that Twitter promotes a very rapid building of knowledge in the minutes to hours and days following an event via an efficient exchange of information and active discussion between the scientists themselves and the public. We discuss the advantages and potential pitfalls of this relatively novel way of making scientific information accessible to scholarly peers and lay people. We argue that scientific discussion on Twitter breaks down the traditional “ivory tower” of academia, contributes to the growing trend towards open science, and may help people to understand how science is developed and, in turn, to better understand the risks related to natural/environmental hazards.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, such language must be used in communications, a language that recognizes the translation need of the media filter. Social media has emerged since the 2002-03 Stromboli crisis as the immediate means of communicating and framing a natural disaster (Williams and Krippner, 2018), as have near-real-time news streams. However, these suggestions equally apply for social media (e.g., individual-tweet style, messages from inhouse scientists), press releases, and on-line situation reports.…”

Section: Discussion Sum-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media views of the Stromboli 2002–2003 eruption and evacuation: a content analysis to understand framing of risk communication during a volcanic crisis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2002-2003 eruption of Stromboli (Aeolian Islands, Italy) was one of Stromboli's most important effusive events of the last two centuries and began on 28 December 2002. On 30 December 2002, two days after the beginning of the eruption, a landslide entered the sea and caused a tsunami that struck Stromboli's coastal areas. The events of 30 December led to a "voluntary evacuation" by Stromboli's inhabitants. To understand the role of the media in framing risk and the evacuation, we analyzed the content of five newspapers, including two national newspapers (Il Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica) and three regional newspapers (La Gazzetta del Sud, La Sicilia and Il Giornale di Sicilia), published during the period covering the onset of the eruption, the tsunami and the voluntary evacuation (28 December 2002-18 January 2003). Our aim was to assess the type of hazard information given, how it was delivered, and how this may have helped (or not) with the population's resilience, especially in regard to viewing a potential need to evacuate in a favorable light. News regarding the eruption covered a total area of 12, 000 cm 2 for the national newspapers (~6000 cm 2 /paper) against 41,700 cm 2 for the regionals (14,000 cm 2 /paper); making the regional newspapers the more important sources by quantity. For both newspaper categories, most of this area was occupied by interviews with experts, followed by quotes from residents and tourists, and, finally, those involved in the response (i.e., hazard managers, including civil protection and local government). Out of a total of 9286 words analyzed, the most popular was "tsunami" (426 cases), with the word "volcano" being repeated 315 times (the 6th most popular word); so it would have been difficult for the population not to have known there was a potential risk of tsunami associated with the volcano. In texturally framing the eruptive crisis, negative words, such as "fear", "terror" and "apocalypse", were much more frequent than positive words, which were rare and even not present in some newspapers. The reporting focused on the tsunami threat with little link back to the eruption and other hazards, and contrasted with imagery (that took up 41% of the reporting space) which comprised relaxing pictures of a tranquil island surrounded by a calm blue sea. This, coupled with a confused message through selection of quoted expert sources, may have led to an exaggerated and alarmist frame for the eruption and attendant hazards. This was in spite of widespread use of scientific sources, as well as pleas from the

show abstract

“…Thanks to worldwide geophysical instrumental networks (e.g., global and regional seismic networks) and satellites (e.g., optical or radar imagery), together with open data, researchers now generally have enough information to get a satisfactory first-order description of the geophysical event and an estimation of its consequences within days (e.g., Hayes et al, 2011). Scholarly interactions via social media, sometimes involving citizen expertise and observations, may transform both the timeliness and the way our geophysical understanding is built and shared (Hicks, 2019;Williams and Krippner, 2019).…”

Section: -Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

Lacassin¹,

Dévès²,

Hicks

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Twitter is an established social media platform valued by scholars as an open way to disseminate scientific information and to publicly discuss research results. Scientific discussions on Twitter are widely viewed by the media who can then pass on information to the public. Here, we take the example of two 2018 earthquake-related events which were widely commented on Twitter by geoscientists: the Palu Mw7.5 earthquake and tsunami in the Indonesian island of Sulawesi and the long-duration (more than one year) seismo-volcanic crisis Mayotte island in the Comoros archipelago between Africa and Madagascar. We build our analysis on a content and contextual analysis of selected Twitter threads about the geophysical characteristics of these events. Most authors of this paper have participated to these Twitter threads and related discussions, and regularly explain geohazard events via this social media. From the two selected examples, we show that Twitter promotes very rapid building of knowledge &#8211; in the minutes to hours and days following an event &#8211; via an efficient exchange of information and active discussion between the scientists themselves and with the public. Combining these results with our own experience of communicating geohazard science via Twitter, we discuss the advantages and potential pitfalls of this relatively novel way to make scientific information accessible to scholarly peers and to lay people. We argue that scientific discussion on Twitter breaks down the traditional &#8220;ivory towers&#8221; of academia. It participates to the growing trends towards open science, making science accessible to any non-academics or citizen scientists who can follow and participate in the discussion. This may help people to understand how science is developed, and, in the case of natural/environmental hazards, to better understand their risks.</p>

show abstract

The use of social media in volcano science communication: challenges and opportunities

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

Media views of the Stromboli 2002–2003 eruption and evacuation: a content analysis to understand framing of risk communication during a volcanic crisis

Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About