Inspiration Dissemination is a radio program on Oregon State University’s station, KBVR that invites graduate students to share their stories and discuss their research projects live over the radio. Co-host of the program, Joey Hulbert will introduce the objectives and explain what happens “behind the scenes” of Inspiration Dissemination.
Tuesday, April 15
12 noon – 1pm
LPSC Seminar room 402
Presenter: Joey Hulbert
During this brown bag lunch discussion, Joey will share a short podcast compilation featuring graduate students from College of Agriculture and explain the process of creating a podcast episode. He will also discuss the value of social media and explain the typical format of each interview.
Joey encourages anyone interested in science communication to attend this discussion. He invites us to provide feedback to improve how the program can help the guests become better science communicators. For more information about the program, visit: http://oregonstate.edu/inspiration
We are able to participate without traveling to North Carolina.
We will watch moderated discussions and create our own conference at OSU. All are welcome. SEE SCHEDULE
The sessions are especially interesting to:
Science writers and journalists;
Web communicators;
Outreach specialists; and
Scientists and students with an interest in outreach, blogging, and social media.
There were 24 people gathered together yesterday for the Twitter SciComm brown-bag. It was nice to see many new faces this month representing diverse positions and departments on campus. We want to build on this momentum. There is a need for more panels, discussions, and support related to social media.
ScienceOnline 2014 conference #scio14 Feb. 27- March 1, 2014
Sackler Colloquium on the Science of Science Communication #sackler (in the Fall)
Two other resources come to mind.
Yesterday, there was an excellent Google Hangout discussion related to our brown-bag. This Hangout was part of a series put on by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Participates gave outstanding advice and tools. The experienced panel included Dawn Wright, Liz Neeley, Gretchen Goldman (host), Craig McClain, and Jamie Vernon.
Much was mentioned at the brown-bag related to the fact that Twitter is about communication, and it is valuable to take into consideration “the science of science communication”. A popular concern is how we deal with misinformation about science on social media and the web. A recommended (free download) is The Debunking Handbook.
The Handbook explores the surprising fact that debunking myths can sometimes reinforce the myth in peoples’ minds. Communicators need to be aware of the various backfire effects and how to avoid them, such as:
It also looks at a key element to successful debunking: providing an alternative explanation. The Handbook is designed to be useful to all communicators who have to deal with misinformation (eg – not just climate myths).
Linus Pauling Science Center (LPSC) seminar room 402
Three OSU Tweeters will share their knowledge, expertise, and advice.
~ Naomi Hirsch @naomichirps, On-line science communicator for two research centers, will provide an overview of how Twitter is useful for outreach and professional careers.
~ Brett Tyler @BrettTylerOSU, Director, Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing, will provide a scientist perspective on use.
~ Brendan Cahill @bgcahill, Fulbright-Marine Institute Scholar, will provide a career development perspective helpful for graduate students and postdocs.
Bring your laptop or tablet and tweet. Get questions answered. A Twitter cheat sheet will be provided to help the newbie get started and the beginner to intermediate tweeter save time. Getting more familiar with Twitter will perhaps help you make an informed decision “To Tweet or Not to Tweet”.
Social media is no longer a new thing. But to scientists it still might be. There are few who are starting to take advantage of social media for professional reasons. What can other scientists learn from such use? What are the benefits and limitations?
To investigate this, three colleagues and I looked at some concrete examples. Among the commonly used social media, the 140-character microblogging service Twitter has been popular. We decided to survey 116 marine scientists that actively tweet to understand the role Twitter plays in the lifetime of a scientific idea – from birth to dissemination.
From cradle to flight
Here is what we found: Twitter can move conversations from the university lounge to a much larger network of scientists on social media. For example, a scientist’s Twitter following can act as a virtual department to spark and share new ideas. As shown in the graphic below, 55% of the Twitter followers of those surveyed consisted of scientists. Tweeting new ideas to other scientists can push ahead “open science in real time”
[photo credit: www.katiephd.com]
Scientists can also use Twitter to communicate far beyond the ivory tower of academia. For example, the remaining 45% of the scientists’ followers included people from the media, non-governmental organisations and the general public. Tweeting links to new scientific papers can reach journalists who might cover the story. In fact, using social media to build a network of media followers may be a new public relations strategy for scientists.
Scientists can also tweet their research directly to decision makers. Most members of the US and Canadian governments have twitter accounts and are actively using them. Recently, Barack Obama tweeted a consensus statement about climate change to his 31 million followers.
Several studies have shown that tweeting and blogging about scientific findings can increase their impact. Major funding boards, research councils and some tenure, promotion and hiring committees are starting to value all research products, including their social media impact.
Finally, social media can also provide a platform for critiques of published findings. Studies of genes that can reverse ageing and life forms that use arsenic instead of phosphorus were correctly criticised by a rapid response on social media, in so-called “trials by Twitter”. While Twitter firing squads can deal catastrophic (but deserved) blows to scientific publications, they can also provide a positive filter to highlight important new papers to the community.
Scientists are getting in the game too. stevegarfield
Game-changer?
There are, of course, limitations of social media in the scientific workflow. Putting new ideas freely on Twitter can raise the spectre of intellectual property ownership. Tweets are also effectively “science sound bites” that can misrepresent complex ideas. These sound bites could then be hijacked by outside agendas, such as occurred in the infamous Climategate email scandal.
Importantly, Twitter is not inclusive of all scientists. Most scientists active on Twitter are academically younger, having received their PhD within the past five years. This means that social media and Twitter are only a complement to more traditional academic social networks built through departments, universities, conferences and the peer review process.
Even given these limitations, the value of social media to me has become ever more clear since our manuscript was published a few weeks ago as a preprint for open review online. It has been seen by more than 1,300 people, half of these are referrals from Twitter and Facebook. We have received several detailed comments on how to revise and improve our paper. The clever infographic that you saw above emerged from the the social media attention our manuscript received.
Social media can be a powerful tool to speed up how scientists create, publish and communicate their research. As climate change, globalisation and technology change our world faster than ever before, it’s time scientists learn to keep pace.
Emily Darling does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
