As social media continues to expand in popularity, there becomes a need to research what people are viewing, why they view it, and how they interpret it. This is especially important to understand in the scientific community, as the sources used for obtaining information could very well be illegitimate and /or publishing incorrect/misleading data. “The Science People See on Social Media” presented extensive research on what platforms are used and engaged with the most, as well as what these science-related Facebook accounts are posting about the most. Shockingly, they discovered that 33% of all social media users that view these science-related accounts rely on them as an important source for learning about science news. WHAT? I understand that this is the most accessible option, but Facebook as a primary source for science news seems odd. Moreover, to be considered a source for new science news, there aren’t many “new science discovery posts” being made on these accounts. Across 30 of the most popular scientific Facebook pages, only 29% of these posts actually presented new discoveries. If the daily news program presented less than a third of the breaking news occurring in the neighborhood, no viewer would consider that a reliable source for obtaining information. After learning how many people rely on these pages for their science news, it continues to raise red flags when the research shows the breakdown of post percentages by topic. Most of the pages do not touch on major scientific topics that are controversial and are some of the most important that need to be discussed. On many pages, there is no mention of climate change, vaccines or GMOs. If many of the main topics that need to be discussed are not even mentioned, how is the public getting going to get informed on these important issues? In terms of engagement activity with these posts, research found that people tend to be more drawn to posts with a visual component. This is not out of the ordinary, as many people do relate more to a topic when a visual is provided. However, research also found that some of these higher engagement visuals included simply a picture with fruit saying: “Share if you think all schools should have this.” That is it. That’s the post. Shocking, I know. The summary of this article is that the way in which people are obtaining what they think is groundbreaking scientific news is completely and utterly sad.
The next article puts the focus on the writer with a look at how to present scientific information online. It first outlines the different platforms and the audiences that typically utilize them, as well as the purpose that they serve. For example, a website tends to be a more credible source than an informal blog posting. Moreover, a website allows you to write in detail with more depth to the writing whereas a social media post does not allow this. The article also elaborates on the engagement variations. On social media, you can readily converse with people who leave comments. The process is much slower if someone reads your article on a website, and then proceeds to email you. After choosing a platform, you then have to consider how to brand yourself and the strategies to use in order to get the message to a massive amount of people. Two of the suggestions I found to be important were conversations and sharing ability. Ensuring that you are conversing with those who read your work is essential. Different platforms allow different dynamics of communication. Using one in which conversation can keep at an active pace is important. Moreover, the ability to share the post ensures that it gets into the hands (or on the screens) of many more people.
I chose to follow Molly Grantham on Twitter. She is a local news personality and a huge advocate for breast cancer as her mom recently passed from it. She has 16,100 followers. She runs her own account and it was created in January of 2012. Most of her posts are not scientific related with several visual postings spread every few posts. She is the founder of Molly’s kids: children and young adults with terminal or debilitating illnesses that she highlights and brings awareness to their story. These posts receive the most engagement by far. She definitely utilizes the ability to post pictures to go along with her stories, bringing more attention to them when you see the face of someone alongside a terribly sad news story. I think that she could break up her postings some and add more of a relationship element with her followers, but she is good about replying to relevant comments so it is not a huge necessity.
Taylor's Blog 