IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0084339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Case Study in Serendipity: Environmental Researchers Use of Traditional and Social Media for Dissemination

Author

Listed:
  • Clare Wilkinson
  • Emma Weitkamp

Abstract

In the face of demands for researchers to engage more actively with a wider range of publics and to capture different kinds of research impacts and engagements, we explored the ways a small number of environmental researchers use traditional and social media to disseminate research. A questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of different media as a tool to broker contact between researchers and a variety of different stakeholders (for example, publics, other researchers, policymakers, journalists) as well as how researchers perceive that their use of these media has changed over the past five years. The questionnaire was sent to 504 researchers whose work had featured in a policy-oriented e-news service. 149 valid responses were received (29%). Coverage in traditional media (newspapers, broadcast) not only brokers contact with other journalists, but is a good source of contact from other researchers (n=47, 62%) and members of the public (n=36, 26%). Although the use of social media was limited amongst our sample, it did broker contact with other researchers (n=17, 47%) and the public (n=10, 28%). Nevertheless, few environmental researchers were actively using social media to disseminate their research findings, with many continuing to rely on academic journals and face-to-face communication to reach both academic and public audiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Clare Wilkinson & Emma Weitkamp, 2013. "A Case Study in Serendipity: Environmental Researchers Use of Traditional and Social Media for Dissemination," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0084339
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084339
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084339&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0084339?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. Elaine Howard Ecklund & Sarah A James & Anne E Lincoln, 2012. "How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-5, May.
    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. Kimberley Collins & David Shiffman & Jenny Rock, 2016. "How Are Scientists Using Social Media in the Workplace?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-10, October.

    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. Craig R McClain, 2017. "Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-9, June.
    2. Alana Kluczkovski & Joanne Cook & Helen F. Downie & Alison Fletcher & Lauryn McLoughlin & Andrew Markwick & Sarah L. Bridle & Christian J. Reynolds & Ximena Schmidt Rivera & Wayne Martindale & Angelin, 2020. "Interacting with Members of the Public to Discuss the Impact of Food Choices on Climate Change—Experiences from Two UK Public Engagement Events," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Meredith Nash & Hanne E F Nielsen & Justine Shaw & Matt King & Mary-Anne Lea & Narissa Bax, 2019. "“Antarctica just has this hero factor…”: Gendered barriers to Australian Antarctic research and remote fieldwork," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Janet L Fitzakerley & Michael L Michlin & John Paton & Janet M Dubinsky, 2013. "Neuroscientists’ Classroom Visits Positively Impact Student Attitudes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, 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. Jarrett E K Byrnes & Jai Ranganathan & Barbara L E Walker & Zen Faulkes, 2014. "To Crowdfund Research, Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-29, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Elizabeth A McCullagh & Katarzyna Nowak & Anne Pogoriler & Jessica L Metcalf & Maryam Zaringhalam & T Jane Zelikova, 2019. "Request a woman scientist: A database for diversifying the public face of science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-11, April.
    9. Marta Entradas & João M. Santos, 2021. "Returns of research funding are maximised in media visibility for excellent institutes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.

    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:pone00:0084339. 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.