Tweeting nano: how public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments

  • Kristin K. Runge
  • Sara K. Yeo
  • Michael Cacciatore
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Michael Xenos
  • Ashley Anderson
  • Doo-hun Choi
  • Jiyoun Kim
  • Nan Li
  • Xuan Liang
  • Maria Stubbings
  • Leona Yi-Fan Su
Research Paper

Abstract

The growing popularity of social media as a channel for distributing and debating scientific information raises questions about the types of discourse that surround emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, in online environments, as well as the different forms of information that audiences encounter when they use these online tools of information sharing. This study maps the landscape surrounding social media traffic about nanotechnology. Specifically, we use computational linguistic software to analyze a census of all English-language nanotechnology-related tweets expressing opinions posted on Twitter between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2011. Results show that 55 % of tweets expressed certainty and 45 % expressed uncertainty. Twenty-seven percent of tweets expressed optimistic outlooks, 32 % expressed neutral outlooks and 41 % expressed pessimistic outlooks. Tweets were mapped by U.S. state, and our data show that tweets are more likely to originate from states with a federally funded National Nanotechnology Initiative center or network. The trend toward certainty in opinion coupled with the distinct geographic origins of much of the social media traffic on Twitter for nanotechnology-related opinion has significant implications for understanding how key online influencers are debating and positioning the issue of nanotechnology for lay and policy audiences.

Keywords

Nanotechnology Social media Twitter Public opinion Online Policy 

References

  1. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2010) The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content. J Nanopart Res 12(4):1083–1094. doi:10.1007/s11051-010-9860-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630–640Google Scholar
  3. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bansal M, Cardie C, Lee L (2008) The power of negative thinking: exploiting label disagreement in the min-cut classification framework. Proceedings of COLING: companion volume: Posters, 13–16Google Scholar
  5. Brossard D, Shanahan J, McComas K (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass commun Soc 7(3):359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546–558. doi:10.1177/0963662507087304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cacciatore MA, Anderson AA, Choi D-H, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Liang X, Dudo A (2012) Coverage of emerging technologies: a comparison between print and online media. New Media Soc 14(6):1039–1059. doi:10.1177/1461444812439061 Google Scholar
  8. Carlino G, Hunt R, Duranton G, Weinberg BA (2009) What explains the quantity and quality of local inventive activity? Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, pp 65–123Google Scholar
  9. Chmiel A, Sobkowicz P, Sienkiewicz J, Paltoglou G, Buckley K, Thelwall M, Holyst JA (2011) Negative emotions boost users activity at BBC Forum. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 90(16):2936–2944Google Scholar
  10. Christensen C (2011) Twitter revolutions? Addressing social media and dissent. Commun Rev 14(3):155–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conrad JG, Schilder F (2007) Opinion mining in legal blogs. Paper presented at the ICAIL01: The 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dudo A, Choi D-H, Scheufele DA (2011a) Food nanotechnology in the news: coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56(1):78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA (2011b) The emergence of nano news: tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology. J Mass Commun Q 88(1):55–75Google Scholar
  15. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4):5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heinze T (2006) Mapping the evolution of nano S&T: analytical and empirical tools. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34(1):60–82Google Scholar
  17. Hopkins DJ, King G (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. Am J Political Sci 54(1):229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes AL, Palen L (2009) Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. Int J Emerg Manage 6(3):248–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108(3):577–598Google Scholar
  20. Krugman P (2009) The increasing returns revolution in trade and geography. Am Econ Rev 99(3):561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kwon N, Shulman SW, Hovy E (2006) Multidimensional text analysis for eRulemaking. Paper presented at the The 7th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladwig P, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Shaw B (2010) Narrowing the nano discourse? Mater Today 13(5):52–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lasorsa DL (2011) Normalizing twitter-journalism practice in an emerging communication space. J Stud 1(1):1–18Google Scholar
  24. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Mass Commun Q 83(4):819–834Google Scholar
  25. Murthy D (2011) Twitter: microphone for the masses? Media Cult Soc 33(5):779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2012). Centers and Networks. http://nano.gov/centers-networks. Accessed 24 Apr 2012
  27. National Science Board (2012) Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding science and engineering indicators 2012. National Science Foundation, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. National Science Foundation (2012) Awards Search. http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp. Accessed 25 Aug 2012
  29. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10):1767–1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Int J Press Politics 8(2):36–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf Retr 2(1–2):1–135. doi:10.1561/1500000011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papacharissi Z, de Fatima Oliveira M (2012) Affective news and networked publics: the rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. J Commun 62(2):266–282. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01630.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pew Research Center (2011b) Press widely criticized, but trusted more than other information sources. The Pew Research Center for the People and the PressGoogle Scholar
  34. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Report to the President and Congress on the third assessment of the National Nanotechnology InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667. doi:10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapira P, Youtie J (2008) Emergence of nanodistricts in the United States: path dependency or new opportunities? Econ Dev Q 22(3):187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith A, Brenner J (2012) Twitter use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Twitter_Use_2012.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2012
  38. Smith TW, Marsden P, Hout M, Kim J (2011) General social surveys, 1972–2010 (National Science Foundation, Trans.). In: National opinion research center (Ed.). The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, StorrsGoogle Scholar
  39. Sunstein CR (2007) Republic 2.0. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Tewksbury D (2005) The seeds of audience fragmentation: specialization in the use of online news sites. J Broadcasting & Electronic Media 49(3):332–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tewksbury D, Weaver AJ, Maddex BD (2001) Accidentally informed: incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. J Mass Commun Q 78(3):533–554Google Scholar
  42. Twitter (2012) About Twitter. https://twitter.com/about. Accessed 9 July 2012
  43. United States Census Bureau (2012) Education: educational attainment by state:1990–2009. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0233.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2012
  44. Weaver DA, Bimber B (2008) Finding news stories: a comparison of searches using Lexisnexis and Google News. J Mass Commun Q 85(3):515–530Google Scholar
  45. Youtie J, Shapira P (2008) Building an innovation hub: a case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Res Policy 37(8):1188–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin K. Runge
    • 1
  • Sara K. Yeo
    • 1
  • Michael Cacciatore
    • 1
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
    • 1
  • Dominique Brossard
    • 1
  • Michael Xenos
    • 2
  • Ashley Anderson
    • 1
  • Doo-hun Choi
    • 1
  • Jiyoun Kim
    • 1
  • Nan Li
    • 1
  • Xuan Liang
    • 1
  • Maria Stubbings
    • 1
  • Leona Yi-Fan Su
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Life Sciences CommunicationUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication ArtsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations