Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39177096›Full record

ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2025

The plurivocal university: Typologizing the diverse voices of a research university on social media.

Sophia Charlotte Volk, Daniel Vogler, Silke Fürst, Mike S Schäfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sophia Charlotte VolkUniversity of Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0887-8224
Daniel VoglerUniversity of Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0211-7574
Silke FürstUniversity of Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1978-4277
Mike S SchäferUniversity of Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0847-7503

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science communication has diversified in the wake of the digital transformation of communication and media ecosystems. Social media enable universities, but also academics and institutions affiliated with them, to expand their communication. This leads to increasing plurivocality of universities, yet the many different voices remain largely unexplored. This study develops a typology to conceptually distinguish eight voices by their representational role, hierarchical embeddedness, type, and affiliation. Based on a quantitative content and social network analysis of more than 600 Twitter accounts linked to a research university, it identifies six types of voices empirically. The study compares interactions among these voices, showing differences between central and decentral, as well as institutional and individual voices, and highlighting closer exchanges between voices within the same disciplinary communities. It also examines topics and tonality, revealing that decentral institutional voices engage most in science-related topics, and that only current and former students express critical views.

Indexed as

Social MediaHumansUniversitiesdecentralizationinstitutional communicationplurivocalityscience communicationscientistssocial mediasocial network analysisTwitteruniversity communication

Identifiers

PMID39177096
PMCPMC11927015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.