IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6290-d394529.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fostering Social Project Impact with Twitter: Current Usage and Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Mirjana Pejić Bach

    (Department of Informatics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Cristina M. Pulido

    (Department of Journalism and Communication Studies, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08000 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Dalia Suša Vugec

    (Department of Informatics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Vladia Ionescu

    (University of Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Gisela Redondo-Sama

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Deusto, 48007 Bilbao, Spain)

  • Laura Ruiz-Eugenio

    (Department of Theory and History of Education, Faculty of Education, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

Social impact assessment has become a major concern within the research community. While different methodological advancements have been made to better display, as well as to measure, achieved impacts, social media has proved to be a potential domain to generate many new opportunities to support both the communication as well as the realization of social impact. Within this context, the current research presents an analysis of how Twitter is used among a subset of research projects to maximize social impact. The research focuses on the use of Twitter, as one of the most often used social media, by the members of scientific projects funded under one part of the FP7 funding framework of the European Union called Science in Society. The data were analyzed using NVivo, and WordStat Provalis software. The results presented in this study include exploratory data analysis, topic mining and the analysis of the impact of projects on Twitter. The results indicate moderate use of Twitter among the observed projects, but with a strong focus on the dissemination of project results, thus indicating a trend towards the usage of social media for communicating the social impact of research projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Mirjana Pejić Bach & Cristina M. Pulido & Dalia Suša Vugec & Vladia Ionescu & Gisela Redondo-Sama & Laura Ruiz-Eugenio, 2020. "Fostering Social Project Impact with Twitter: Current Usage and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6290-:d:394529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6290/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6290/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Puay Tang, 2011. "Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 219-226, September.
    2. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    3. Marta Entradas & Martin W Bauer & Colm O'Muircheartaigh & Frank Marcinkowski & Asako Okamura & Giuseppe Pellegrini & John Besley & Luisa Massarani & Pedro Russo & Anthony Dudo & Barbara Saracino & Car, 2020. "Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Stefan P L de Jong & Pleun van Arensbergen & Floortje Daemen & Barend van der Meulen & Peter van den Besselaar, 2011. "Evaluation of research in context: an approach and two cases," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 61-72, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chun-Che Huang & Wen-Yau Liang & Shian-Hua Lin & Tzu-Liang (Bill) Tseng & Yu-Hsien Wang & Kuo-Hsin Wu, 2020. "Detection of Potential Controversial Issues for Social Sustainability: Case of Green Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Carlos Arcila-Calderón & David Blanco-Herrero & Maximiliano Frías-Vázquez & Francisco Seoane-Pérez, 2021. "Refugees Welcome? Online Hate Speech and Sentiments in Twitter in Spain during the Reception of the Boat Aquarius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Esther Oliver & María Carmen Llasat & Montserrat Llasat-Botija & Javier Díez-Palomar, 2021. "Twitter’s Messages about Hydrometeorological Events. A Study on the Social Impact of Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-24, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    2. Blanca L. Díaz Mariño & Frida Carmina Caballero-Rico & Ramón Ventura Roque Hernández & José Alberto Ramírez de León & Daniel Alejandro González-Bandala, 2021. "Towards the Construction of Productive Interactions for Social Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.
    4. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    5. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Filippo Chiarello & Gualtiero Fantoni, 2021. "Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1745-1774, February.
    6. Pentti Riikonen & Mauno Vihinen, 2008. "National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 207-222, November.
    7. Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.
    8. Juan A Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The Citation Merit of Scientific Publications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-9, November.
    9. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 407-414.
    10. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The role of statistics in establishing the similarity of citation distributions in a static and a dynamic context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 173-181, July.
    11. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    12. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Haddawy, Peter & Cicero, Tindaro & Hassan, Saeed-Ul, 2017. "The solitude of stars. An analysis of the distributed excellence model of European universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 435-454.
    13. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Pablo D’Este & Oscar Llopis & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Towards an alternative framework for the evaluation of translational research initiatives," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 235-243.
    14. Mario Pagliaro, 2021. "Purposeful Evaluation of Scholarship in the Open Science Era," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, February.
    15. John N. Parker & Stefano Allesina & Christopher J. Lortie, 2013. "Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 469-480, February.
    16. Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans, 2011. "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 85-98, April.
    17. Martins, Francisco Leonardo Bezerra & do Nascimento, José Cláudio, 2022. "Power law dynamics in genealogical graphs," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 596(C).
    18. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Young-Ho Eom & Santo Fortunato, 2011. "Characterizing and Modeling Citation Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-7, September.
    20. Giancarlo Ruocco & Cinzia Daraio, 2013. "An empirical approach to compare the performance of heterogeneous academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 601-625, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social impact assessment; Twitter; topic mining; FP7; text mining;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6290-:d:394529. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.