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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630–640
Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570
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, 13–16
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):359–377
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
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
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 65–123
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):2936–2944
Christensen C (2011) Twitter revolutions? Addressing social media and dissent. Commun Rev 14(3):155–157
Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405
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 York
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):78–89
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):55–75
Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4):5–11
Heinze T (2006) Mapping the evolution of nano S&T: analytical and empirical tools. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34(1):60–82
Hopkins DJ, King G (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. Am J Political Sci 54(1):229–247
Hughes AL, Palen L (2009) Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. Int J Emerg Manage 6(3):248–260
Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108(3):577–598
Krugman P (2009) The increasing returns revolution in trade and geography. Am Econ Rev 99(3):561–571
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 York
Ladwig P, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Shaw B (2010) Narrowing the nano discourse? Mater Today 13(5):52–54
Lasorsa DL (2011) Normalizing twitter-journalism practice in an emerging communication space. J Stud 1(1):1–18
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):819–834
Murthy D (2011) Twitter: microphone for the masses? Media Cult Soc 33(5):779
National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2012). Centers and Networks. http://nano.gov/centers-networks. Accessed 24 Apr 2012
National Science Board (2012) Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding science and engineering indicators 2012. National Science Foundation, Arlington
National Science Foundation (2012) Awards Search. http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp. Accessed 25 Aug 2012
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
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):36–70
Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf Retr 2(1–2):1–135. doi:10.1561/1500000011
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
Pew Research Center (2011b) Press widely criticized, but trusted more than other information sources. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Report to the President and Congress on the third assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
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
Shapira P, Youtie J (2008) Emergence of nanodistricts in the United States: path dependency or new opportunities? Econ Dev Q 22(3):187–199
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
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, Storrs
Sunstein CR (2007) Republic 2.0. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Tewksbury D (2005) The seeds of audience fragmentation: specialization in the use of online news sites. J Broadcasting & Electronic Media 49(3):332–348
Tewksbury D, Weaver AJ, Maddex BD (2001) Accidentally informed: incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. J Mass Commun Q 78(3):533–554
The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2012) Consumer products inventory. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/search/?keywords=&company=0&country_origin=0&categories=0&subcategories=0&created=&modified=&search=1. Accessed 28 Dec 2012
Twitter (2012) About Twitter. https://twitter.com/about. Accessed 9 July 2012
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
Weaver DA, Bimber B (2008) Finding news stories: a comparison of searches using Lexisnexis and Google News. J Mass Commun Q 85(3):515–530
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):1188–1204
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon study supported by grants from the National Science Foundation to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (Grant No. SES-0937591) and the UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center in Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale (Grant No. SES-DMR-0832760). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A. Anderson, D. Choi, J. Kim, N. Li, X. Liang, M. Stubbings, L. Y.-F. Su. contributed equally to this study
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Runge, K.K., Yeo, S.K., Cacciatore, M. et al. Tweeting nano: how public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. J Nanopart Res 15, 1381 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1381-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1381-8