Does social media need scientists, or vice versa?
Scientists have just as much to gain as the public from being active on social media, but institutional and personal barriers still hinder their participation.
We need researchers on social media to give voice to evidence-based reason, drive scientific curiosity in the public and represent scientific thought. What is less obvious is just how much scientists can also benefit from being more active on social media. By sharing and promoting research online, scientists can keep a pulse on public opinion, build new concepts in public and fight misinformation. This is to say nothing of how they can influence public opinion, help develop their own research content, and connect to other collaborators.
Here, we explore how scientists can benefit from social media just as much as their audiences benefit from them.
Why aren’t scientists on social media?
Although it’s never been easier to set up an online presence, many researchers still aren’t participating because of various internal and external deterrents.
On the individual level, researchers have the same worries as any individual pursuing an online presence — privacy, freedom of creativity, lack of credibility, being the target of attack, time constraints and so on (Lupton 2014). Not to mention, just the mere act of translating thoughts for a public audience may be intimidating, as one academic commented here: “I worry that I am overly trained in scientific writing and won’t be able to translate my ideas in an engaging way for the public.”
External pressures from host institutions also discourage researchers, particularly with respect to intellectual property, copyright issues, and representation. Institutions don’t generally encourage social media presence, nor provide clear policies or guidelines to assist researchers. At Kuwait University, for example, “lack of university encouragement” was one of the top barriers to the use of social media for informal scholarly communication. Stakeholders, like administration and university leadership, have the responsibility to support researchers here by providing clear support and resources (Muhongya 2022). As it stands, most social media policies of universities focus on protecting the institution.
Although it falls to institutions to start supporting social media usage more effectively, researchers don’t need to wait for systematic change. Just as with the challenges across science communication in general, transformation can start at the individual level. Most easily, by using social media to support research.
Using social media to support research
On the surface, social media participation doesn’t seem to offer enough intrinsic value to entice scientists. But, researchers can approach these platforms in ways that fuel their careers. Here are a few ways scientist already use social media to support their own research.
Building in public
Building in public refers to the act of actively developing a project and using a broader audience as a an accountability system. This concept may be applied in various ways when it comes to social media. Whether it’s sharing periodic findings or committing to a monthly newsletter to summarise the state of research, building in public provides motivation to accomplish more by being openly accountable to an audience.
Take Jonathan Haidt’s Substack, After Babel, where he discusses research findings as he finds them. Instead of hiding away to write books on current topics like social media in human development and liberal democracy, he uses his Substack to relay his recent findings and compile his book content in real time.
I had initially planned to hide away and maximize my time writing, and I thought that starting a Substack would be a distraction from that goal... I could make this Substack an adjunct to my writing, where I could share findings, theories, and questions while inviting the kind of criticism that I’d rather get before I submit the manuscripts than after each book is published. - Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist
Influencing public opinion
One of the most compelling reasons researchers are drawn into the social media sphere is to share research, combat misinformation and influence public opinion. Plenty of academics and researchers have a strong online presence with which they influence public opinion and join public discourse, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Joanne Manaster, Richard Wiseman, and Deborah Blum.
However, for researchers in politically-charged arenas such as climate change, this sometimes involves facing trolls, bots and online aggression. As a result, some researchers have turned to friendlier platforms — moving off Twitter and towards Mastadon or Patreon. Although the insulated safety of these alternative platforms is appealing, they come often come at a drawback: a limited audience and echo chambers. Even though echo chambers still exist within larger networks, bigger platforms offer the possibility to overcome them, simply by audience availability and accessibility (i.e. Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc.). Thus, there’s a distinct need for researchers to be present in the broader online community, particularly on mainstream social media platforms where there is greater opportunity to access both opposing and supportive audiences.
Connect to other researchers
Researchers can take advantage of the various platforms targeted for academic social networking (ASN). Instead of appealing to a mass audience, as is the case with mainstream social media, ASNs focus primarily on promoting and connecting researchers. These include sites like Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and even LinkedIn. There are also lesser known platforms, like, ResearchHub (which we discussed in our newsletter on decentralised science) which connects researchers and incentivises collaboration.
Since ASNs are used primarily used for scholarly discovery, to share and discover research, they have the drawback of having a limited scope. In order to communicate science to a broader audience, other networking platforms should be explored
Deciding what and where to share
What type of content (text, visuals, video, etc.) and on what platform (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.) depends heavily on the topic and propensity of the creator in question.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the space to cover the dozens of social media platforms in use. But at the least, it’s worth noting that Twitter is still one of the most popular platforms for evidence-based discourse. The visualisation below shows how it out-ranks LinkedIn and Facebook as where scientists go to follow and discuss research.
Here, we’ll dive into just two platform-agnostic mediums in science communication: visuals and long-form text.
Visual communication
As we covered in a previous newsletter, data visualisations are a powerful tool to efficiently communicate complex phenomena, from climate change to pandemics to war. Pejman Milani, Ed Hawkins, and Federica Fragapane are all excellent examples to check out.
It’s worth noting that different approaches work best for different platforms, based on the distinct culture and values of each. Whereas Instagram emphasises aesthetics, Tumblr places greater priority on memes and screenshots. The Information is Beautiful provides endless examples of effective visualisations and infographics, as well as workshops to develop better graphics and data-visuals.
Simple rules can help guide what to prioritise in visualisations in order to effectively and accurately communicate scientific concepts. Climate Outreach, a British charity, created the Seven principles for visual climate change communication, which include principles like “Tell new stories”, “Show climate causes at scale”, and “Show local (but serious) climate impacts”.
Long-form text (newsletters, blogs, Substack, etc.)
Although infographics and short-form content abound, the classical approach of long-form writing via newsletters and blogs is still one of the most powerful and descriptive ways to communicate science. Content of this nature can be approached with the “build in public” concept mentioned above, or a variety of other perspectives, such as:
Sharing cutting-edge research
Joining existing dialogues on current topics and trends
Answering questions on topics within the field but beyond exact expertise in order to learn more
Fighting misinformation
The list of platforms is long and varied, as is the degree to which researchers engage. Blogging provides more flexibility and freedom, whereas existing platforms like Substack, Medium, etc. enhance accessibility and make it easier to reach people. Other platforms enable more casual, audience-driven content, like Reddit and Quora.
Below are some examples of successful Substacks by researchers, to name a few:
Emily Taylor, a Women's and Gender Studies professor at Presbyterian College in rural South Carolina who shares academic articles and essays.
After Babel is the Substack by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, where he discusses major findings as he finds them. After Babel serves as his working draft for future books on topics like social media in human development and liberal democracy.
Shane O'Mara is a neuroscientist and professor of Experimental Brain Research at Trinity College Dublin who covers various real-life examples and applications of neuroscience topics.
Richard Dawkins just started his Substack, the Poetry of Reality, in early June.
Asha Rangappa, at the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs, focuses on current events, news and fighting misinformation through her Substack, The Freedom Academy.
Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist, runs Your Local Epidemiologist, which covers recent research on epidemiology, violence rates, mental health, infectious disease, and more.
Warning: Where scientific influencers can go wrong
It’s well-known now that the way social media is structured lends itself to bias. Most platforms promote content on popularity, feed an audience’s existing interest, and, as a result, create insular, bubble environments. As such, researchers entering the arena need to recognise these drawbacks and risks, avoid conflicts of interest, and act with integrity.
Doctors Benjamin Mazer and Michael Rose, both medical influencers, published a recent opinion piece on the topic. Subscription-based science (having audiences pay for medical knowledge via subscriptions on Substack or the like) are a clear example of where biases can play into science communication. As physicians hone in on a particular audience, which is they key to success and gaining popularity, their content is simultaneously moulded by public demand. This concept isn’t new, it’s the same logic that dictates which articles float to the surface of Google search based on SEO optimisation. Yet, it poses a greater risk in crowdfunded platforms which have no editorial process. Given the fact that the content is practically only accountable to the target audience, it’s easy to see how influencers can quickly transform into misinformation hubs.
To overcome this, researchers can disclose crowdfunding revenues. Mazer and Rose further argue that researchers should avoid “any financial scheme that explicitly or implicitly circumscribes the conclusions they reach”.
Although various challenges exist — from institutional resistance to personal doubts to the downsides of social media itself — the benefits are well worth it. By supporting their own research and having a pulse on current happenings, researchers have just as much to gain from social media as their audiences.
Do you share science on social media? If not, what’s holding you back? Let us know in the comments or by tweeting at us @LitmapsApp!
Resources
How early-career researchers get the most out of social media, June 2023
Subscription science: how crowdfunding has become a conflict of interest, May 2023
How scientists are using WhatsApp for research and communication, May 2023
Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges, May 2023
TikTok for physics: influencers aim to spark interest in science, March 2022
Building your research profile via social media, with a focus on LinkedIn, March 2022
Social media for scientists, Nature collection
To be honest, the biggest problem I've found with social media is the amount of time it takes up to interact with it seriously. The nature of it can also make it hard to batch up social media time, instead you often have to repeatedly interact with it through the day. That doesn't match well with the kind of focused work you need in science.
This is the first full long form content substack I have read in a year. Beautifully written and chronologically aligned.
My question is, how do we get the Bias in subscription based scientific social media space?
Is it my offering free content and focusing advertisements based platforms like YouTube or by getting more scientist involved in scientific communication via social media?