Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference

Abstract

Scientists are increasingly using Twitter as a tool for communicating science. Twitter can promote scholarly discussion, disseminate research rapidly, and extend and diversify the scope of audiences reached. However, scientists also caution that if Twitter does not accurately convey science due to the inherent brevity of this media, misinformation could cascade quickly through social media. Data on whether Twitter effectively communicates conservation science and the types of user groups receiving these tweets are lacking. To address these knowledge gaps, we examined live tweeting as a means of communicating conservation science at the 2013 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). We quantified and compared the user groups sending and reading live tweets. We also surveyed presenters to determine their intended audiences, which we compared with the actual audiences reached through live tweeting. We also asked presenters how effectively tweets conveyed their research findings. Twitter reached 14 more professional audience categories relative to those attending and live tweeting at ICCB. However, the groups often reached through live tweeting were not the presenters' intended audiences. Policy makers and government and non-governmental organizations were rarely reached (0%, 4%, and 6% of audience, respectively), despite the intent of the presenters. Plenary talks were tweeted about 6.9 times more than all other oral or poster presentations combined. Over half the presenters believed the tweets about their talks were effective. Ineffective tweets were perceived as vague or missing the presenters' main message. We recommend that presenters who want their science to be communicated accurately and broadly through Twitter should provide Twitter-friendly summaries that incorporate relevant hashtags and usernames. Our results suggest that Twitter can be used to effectively communicate speakers' findings to diverse audiences beyond conference walls.

Mapping Neuroscientists’ Perceptions of the Nature and Effects of Public Visibility

“…This may stem from what Peters (2012) called the "strategic utilization of media communication" by scientists. By that, he means that some scientists actively seek engagement with communication channels rather than waiting for journalists to approach them, something that we have observed in scientists' involvement with social media (Bombaci et al, 2015;Schäfer, 2012). Another possibility is that, as specialized journalists are cut loose from media organizations for financial reasons, scientists may no longer maintain lengthy associations with specific journalists but, rather, must focus on distinguishing among channels.…”

“…Although scientists had been found to be uncomfortable with employing online social channels for public communication of science (e.g., Trench, 2012), more recent data suggest that these channels can be used to effectively convey scientists' findings to lay publics (Bombaci et al, 2015;Schäfer, 2012) and that scientists are starting to rely on these channels (Allgaier et al, 2013a;Schäfer, 2012).…”

Addressing the Gender Gap in Distinguished Speakers at Professional Ecology Conferences

“…These meetings provide a platform for many undergraduate and graduate students and early-career scientists to listen to and interact with highly acclaimed scientists. In addition, content from plenary talks is publicized through social media far more frequently than that from any other conference session type (Bombaci et al 2015), amplifying the potential impact of distinguished speakers at professional conferences. Besides the important acclaim plenary speakers themselves receive, male and female scientists in these highly visible speaking roles have great potential for modeling success to early-career ecologists.…”

A Shifting Tide: Recommendations for Incorporating Science Communication into Graduate Training

“…Embracing a greater role for science communication in a department can also increase department visibility. For example, communication platforms such as Twitter provide access to broader and more diverse audiences (e.g., Bik and Goldstein ) than those represented at scientific conferences (Bombaci et al ). Sharing science via Twitter or other forms of social media may actually contribute to scholarly scientific impact (measured using h‐index; Hirsch ) by raising awareness (Liang et al ).…”

“…Departments can enhance their visibility by ensuring that students are prepared for these moments and are favorable representatives of their academic unit. Audiences of a few individuals at a conference breakout session have social media networks that span hundreds of connections across the globe (Bombaci et al ). One respondent encourages departments to take advantage of the marketing advantages of embracing science communication:

” … I think departments can think selfishly about incorporating science communication into their programs.

…”