IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0249181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating mediated public engagement with science on the “science” subreddit: From the participants’ perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Chen
  • Noriko Hara
  • Clinton McKay

Abstract

While public engagement with science activities traditionally inhabits physical environments (i.e., museum exhibits), as the Internet becomes more ubiquitous, new types of public engagement with science mediated through information technologies have emerged. Instead of having scientific findings filtered through traditional mediators, scientists have begun to take advantage of social media in order to communicate directly with the general public. This paper focuses on technology mediated public engagement with science in an online environment, specifically the sub-Reddit called “r/science”, on a popular platform, Reddit, in which we investigated the factors contributing to user engagement and perceived effects of science communication from the users’ perspectives. The survey instrument including user engagement scales, perceived effects of science communication, and demographics were distributed among 2000 participants in the r/science Ask Me Anything (AMA) series. We analyzed 146 survey responses using descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression. The findings indicated that the participants were generally engaged compared to ones in other studies that used the same user engagement scales and perceived positive effects on science communication, except when it came to building trust. Furthermore, we found that time spent on this particular platform appeared to be the most important factor when it came to positive perceived effects of r/science AMAs. This type of mediated public engagement has been insufficiently investigated, most particularly in terms of the examination of participants’ perspectives. This void is addressed in this study. The findings from the study will also be informative to similar platforms that support mediated public engagement with science.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Chen & Noriko Hara & Clinton McKay, 2021. "Investigating mediated public engagement with science on the “science” subreddit: From the participants’ perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-22, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0249181
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249181
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249181&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0249181?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Dudo & John C Besley, 2016. "Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Adrian Rauchfleisch & Mike S Schäfer & Dario Siegen, 2021. "Beyond the ivory tower: Measuring and explaining academic engagement with journalists, politicians and industry representatives among Swiss professorss," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Kaisu Koivumäki & Timo Koivumäki & Erkki Karvonen, 2020. "“On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human”: Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 425-439.
    3. Matthew S. VanDyke & Andy J. King, 2018. "Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1378-1389, July.
    4. Mónica García-Melón & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Carmen Corona-Sobrino, 2022. "Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1483-1512, December.
    5. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2022. "Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3167-3192, June.
    6. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    7. Paige Brown Jarreau & Imogene A Cancellare & Becky J Carmichael & Lance Porter & Daniel Toker & Samantha Z Yammine, 2019. "Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Emily L Howell & Julia Nepper & Dominique Brossard & Michael A Xenos & Dietram A Scheufele, 2019. "Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    9. John C Besley & Kathryn O’Hara & Anthony Dudo, 2019. "Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0249181. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.