ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024
A role for qualitative methods in researching Twitter data on a popular science article's communication.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Big Data communication researchers have highlighted the need for qualitative analysis of online science conversations to better understand their meaning. However, a scholarly gap exists in exploring how qualitative methods can be applied to small data regarding micro-bloggers' communications about science articles. While social media attention assists with article dissemination, qualitative research into the associated microblogging practices remains limited. To address these gaps, this study explores how qualitative analysis can enhance science communication studies on microblogging articles. Calls for such qualitative approaches are supported by a practical example: an interdisciplinary team applied mixed methods to better understand the promotion of an unorthodox but popular science article on Twitter over a 2-year period. While Big Data studies typically identify patterns in microbloggers' activities from large data sets, this study demonstrates the value of integrating qualitative analysis to deepen understanding of these interactions. In this study, a small data set was analyzed using NVivo™ by a pragmatist and MAXQDA™ by a statistician. The pragmatist's multimodal content analysis found that health professionals shared links to the article, with its popularity tied to its role as a communication event within a longstanding debate in the health sciences. Dissident professionals used this article to support an emergent paradigm. The analysis also uncovered practices, such as language localization, where a title was translated from English to Spanish to reach broader audiences. A semantic network analysis confirmed that terms used by the article's tweeters strongly aligned with its content, and the discussion was notably pro-social. Meta-inferences were then drawn by integrating the findings from the two methods. These flagged the significance of contextualizing the sharing of a health science article in relation to tweeters' professional identities and their stances on health-related issues. In addition, meta-critiques highlighted challenges in preparing accurate tweet data and analyzing them using qualitative data analysis software. These findings highlight the valuable contributions that qualitative research can make to research involving microblogging data in science communication. Future research could critique this approach or further explore the microblogging of key articles within important scientific debates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.