Advertisement

Social network analysis of twitter use during the AERA 2017 annual conference

  • David John Lemay
  • Ram B. Basnet
  • Tenzin Doleck
  • Paul Bazelais
Article

Abstract

Social network analysis can provide insight into the educational research community as it manifests and evolves online. This study presents a social network analysis of Twitter use during the American Educational Research Association 2017 Annual Conference. The overall social network is sparse with low density, with a few very active nodes and many unconnected Twitter users. Tweets were positive or neutral and rarely negative. Degree of centrality and of closeness of the top 10 users is high, relative to the top 100 users as centrality, closeness, and betweenness taper off quickly. We interpret this as due to the large number of non-intersecting special interest groups that dilute the overall density of the network. Future social network analysis studies should compare SIGs on various metrics and track their developments over time.

Keywords

Twitter Social network analysis Educational research Academic conference 

Notes

References

  1. Abbasi, A., & Altmann, J. (2011). On the correlation between research performance and social network analysis measures applied to research collaboration networks. 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.325.
  2. Agarwal, A., Xie, B., Vovsha, I., Rambow, O., & Passonneau, R. (2011). Sentiment analysis of twitter data. In Proceedings of the workshop on languages in social media (pp. 30–38). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  3. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgmann, H., Woelm, J. H., Merseburger, A., Nestler, T., Salem, J., Brandt, M. P., … Loeb, S. (2016). Qualitative twitter analysis of participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content at a major urologic conference. Journal of the Canadian Urological Association, 10(1–2February), 39–43.  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3322.
  5. Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for Betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163–177 http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/algo/publications/b-fabc-01.pdf.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandes, U. (2008). On variants of shortest-path Betweenness centrality and their generic computation. Social Networks, 30(2), 136–145 http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/algo/publications/b-vspbc-08.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruun, J., & Brewe, E. (2013). Talking and learning physics: predicting future grades from network measures and force concept inventory pretest scores. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9, 020109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.  https://doi.org/10.1086/421787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung, A., & Woo, H. (2015). Twitter in urology and other surgical specialties at global conferences. ANZ Journal Of Surgery, 86(4), 224–227.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., Simon, R., & J. (2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: a role for social network analysis. Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desai, T., Shariff, A., Shariff, A., Kats, M., Fang, X., Christiano, C., & Ferris, M. (2012). Tweeting the meeting: an in-depth analysis of twitter activity at kidney week 2011. PLoS One, 7(7), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erlin, Yusof, N., & Rahman, A. A. (2009). Students’ interactions in online asynchronous discussion forum: A social network analysis. 2009 International Conference on Education Technology and Computer, ICETC 2009, 25–29.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETC.2009.48.
  13. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239 http://leonidzhukov.ru/hse/2013/socialnetworks/papers/freeman79-centrality.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: a critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008-2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Goodreau, S. M. (2014). Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: a primer for social network analysis in education research. Cell Biology Education, 13(2), 167–178.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0162.Google Scholar
  16. Hattem, D., & Lomicka, L. (2016). What the tweets say: a critical analysis of twitter research in language learning from 2009 to 2016. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(1–2), 5–23.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016672350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars’ evolving uses of twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 445–464.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kouloumpis, E., Wilson, T., & Moore, J. (2011). Twitter sentiment analysis: The good the bad and the OMG !. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 538–541). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, M., Yoon, H., Smith, M., Park, H., & Park, H. (2017). Mapping a twitter scholarly communication network: a case of the association of internet researchers’ conference. Scientometrics, 112(2), 767–797  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2413-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Letierce, J., Passant, A., Breslin, J. G., & Decker, S. (2010). Using twitter during an academic conference: The #iswc2009 use-case. Proceedings of the Fourth International {AAAI} Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 279–282. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/view/1523
  21. NetworkX. (2016). Documentation, Release 1.11. https://networkx.readthedocs.io/en/stable/.
  22. Padgett, J., & Ansell, C. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the medici, 1400-1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1259–1319.  https://doi.org/10.1086/230190.
  23. Pak, A., & Paroubek, P. (2010). Twitter as a corpus for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1320–1326). European Language Resource Association.Google Scholar
  24. Parra, D., Trattner, C., Gómez, D., Hurtado, M., Wen, X., & Lin, Y. (2016). Twitter in academic events: a study of temporal usage, communication, sentimental and topical patterns in 16 computer science conferences. Computer Communications, 73, 301–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2015.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramanadhan, S., Wiecha, J. L., Emmons, K. M., Gortmaker, S. L., & Viswanath, K. (2009). Extra-team connections for knowledge transfer between staff teams. Health Education Research, 24(6), 967–976.  https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyp030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salzmann-Erikson, M. (2017). Mental health nurses’ use of twitter for professional purposes during conference participation using #acmhn2016. International Journal Of Mental Health Nursing., 27, 804–813.  https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Socher, R., Bauer, J., Manning, C. D., & Ng, A. Y. (2013). Parsing with compositional vector grammars. ACL 2013 - 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, 1, 455–465.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058452.Google Scholar
  28. Stepanyan, K., Borau, K., & Ullrich, C. (2010). A social network analysis perspective on student interaction within the twitter microblogging environment. Proceedings - 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2010, (July 2010), 70–72.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2010.27.
  29. Tang, Y., & Hew, K. (2017). Using twitter for education: beneficial or simply a waste of time? Computers & Education, 106, 97–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Twitter. (2017). Twitter announces third quarter 2017 results (pp. 1–7). San Francisco: Twitter Retrieved from http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-2F526X/5565213491x0x961127/658476E7-9D8B-4B17-BE5D-B77034D21FCE/TWTR_Q3_17_Earnings_Press_Release.pdf.Google Scholar
  31. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Learning in doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, A., & Woodacre, M. (2016). The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 40(2), 282–294.  https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-10-2015-0327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David John Lemay
    • 1
  • Ram B. Basnet
    • 2
  • Tenzin Doleck
    • 1
  • Paul Bazelais
    • 1
  1. 1.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Colorado Mesa UniversityGrand JunctionUSA

Personalised recommendations