Einflussfaktoren bei der Social-Media-Nutzung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation

Abstract

Social Media beherrschen nicht nur die private Kommunikation, sondern haben zunehmend auch Einfluss auf die externe Wissenschaftskommunikation. In bisherigen Forschungsarbeiten wurden zwar bereits Social Media und deren Nutzung durch Wissenschaftler*innen in Zusammenhang mit wissenschaftsexterner Kommunikation untersucht, allerdings mangelt es an einer systematischen Darstellung der Einflussfaktoren. Diese Arbeit möchte an vorangegangene Studien anknüpfen und die gefundenen Einflussfaktoren replizieren und verifizieren. Als maßgebliche Einflussfaktoren bei der Social-Media-Nutzung von Wissenschaftler*innen haben wir basierend auf dem Forschungsstand Disziplinzugehörigkeit, den beruflichen Kontext, persönliche Eigenschaften und Prädispositionen definiert. Untersucht wurde die Häufigkeit der Nutzung von Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat sowie von Blogs und Podcasts. In einer aufwändig angelegten Online-Befragung haben wir zunächst Wissenschaftler*innen von 21 deutschen Volluniversitäten zur Teilnahme an der Studie eingeladen. Die Rekrutierung erfolgte über Dekanate und Institute und führte zu einer Stichprobe von über 1100 Wissenschaftler*innen. Lediglich Facebook und Twitter erwiesen sich für die Kommunikation im wissenschaftsexternen Kontext als relevant. Nach einer binär-logistischen Regressionsanalyse zeigte sich, dass die Ergebnisse bisheriger Studien nur vereinzelt bestätigt werden konnte. Faktoren wie Disziplinzugehörigkeit, Qualifikationsstufe und Alter haben eine nur mäßig gute Erklärkraft. Der Social-Media-Typus der Hochschule, das Geschlecht, Technikaffinität oder -abneigung sowie Persönlichkeitsfaktoren erwiesen sich als nicht signifikant. Die eher geringen R‑Quadrat-Werte in allen Modellen legen nahe, dass die unabhängigen Variablen nicht in der Lage sind, die abhängigen Variablen ausreichend gut zu erklären. Somit bedarf es weiterer Forschung, die insbesondere auch Faktoren des Einflusses auf das Public Engagement von Wissenschaftler*innen unabhängig vom Kommunikationsmedium einbezieht.Social media networks have as much impact on science communication as they have on our daily life. The use of social media for science communication purposes has already been investigated within several studies. But there is a lack of systematic research on factors which describe scientists’ use of social media for external science communication.Science communication in this paper is defined as the use of different methods and media to communicate science. According to Burns et al., “science communication may involve science practitioners, mediators, and other members of the general public, either peer-to-peer or between groups” and is used to stimulate Awareness, Enjoyment, Interest, Opinions and Understanding to/for science (AEIOU definition). Science communication can be internal towards the scientific community, or external towards the public. Schäfer divides internal communication in formal (via journals, conferences) or informal communication (face-to-face communication, communication via e-mail or social media). External science communication is directed at persons outside the scientific community and can be mediated by journalists, communication experts or scientists themselves (self-mediated external science communication).This study ties in with previous research and examines factors which were described as decisive for the use of social network in the context of self-mediated external science communication: affiliation (area of subject, application relevance of the research as well as competitiveness of the research area), professional context (career level, social media type of the university), personal characteristics (age, gender), and predispositions (personality, curiosity about new technological developments, computer anxiety, privacy concerns). While there has not been an established theoretical approach to this topic yet, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) is used to explain the motivations of scientists for using social media for their communication about science. Attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control have been described as motivations which impact the intention to perform a certain behavior. Researching the influencing factors helps to better understand researchers’ intentions for communicating science in social networks. The concise description of influencing factors and the analysis of these factors closes a gap in the research on scientists’ use of social media.In this study, social media use was defined as the frequency of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat as well as blogs and podcasts for private or work-related communication as well as external science communication. Platforms like ResearchGate, Academia, LinkedIn or Xing were not analyzed. The networks have been described as not relevant for external science communication and are rather used for internal communication with own peers.The questionnaire was designed as an online survey and implemented with the German survey tool SoSciSurvey. In an extensive sampling process, 21 German universities were chosen to retrieve a diverse sample of scientists. A non-probability sampling method with purposive sampling was used to define the universities. A sample of scientists was recruited by contacting deaneries and institutes via e-mail. These institutions were then asked to forward the invitation link to their research staff. It was not the aim to draw a representative sample, because this method does not allow to relate which persons did in fact get the invitation link. The main focus was to reach as many scientists with different backgrounds as possible. In the end, over 1100 scientists completed the questionnaire. Students, trainees or technical as well as non-academic staff were excluded from the analyzed data.At first, the participants specified whether they use a social network daily, weekly, monthly, less than monthly or not at all. Persons, who stated that they use a certain social media at least sometimes, were asked to specify whether they use this social network for private communication, for the search for information, for the communication with colleagues, other scientists or students or for the communication with layperson and external experts like journalists, politicians etc. Participants who stated that they do not use a certain social network were asked to name the main reason for not using it. The analysis showed that only Facebook and Twitter are relevant for communication in a professional and scientific context. YouTube, blogs and podcasts were mainly used for the search for information and barely within the context of science communication. It is likely that the production of video- and audio-content is too time-consuming for most of the researchers. Although blogs are a nice way to disseminate own research publicly as well as in the scientific community, blogs need constant maintenance to be visible. Snapchat was only used for private use and at least four percent of the respondents used Instagram to communicate with layperson about science.By means of a binary logistic regression it could further be found that results from previous research were hardly confirmed. Factors like affiliation, age, or career level—which used to be important in other studies—had few influence. The results showed that scientists who define their research area as rather competitive, are more likely to communicate about science on Twitter or Facebook. A researcher’s career level just proofed to be impactful with Twitter users and the career stages “junior professor” or “associate professor” in the context of work-related communication. Age had an impact on the use of Facebook: Older persons were more likely to use Facebook for external science communication. Contrary to expectations there was no significant impact detected fort the area of subject, application relevance of the research, social media type of the university, gender, personality, curiosity about new technological developments, computer anxiety or privacy concerns. In all regression models, Nagelkerke R 2 was rather low with values between 0.166 (use of Facebook for work-related science communication) and 0.229 (use of Twitter for work-related science communication). This indicates that the explanatory variables were not sufficient in describing the explained variables. Further research is needed to draw a more detailed picture on the use and non-use of social media in the self-mediated external science communication. It could be promising to further analyze correlations between the influencing factors and the reasons why scientists are not using social media for external communication, for example. Either way, the influence of factors related to public engagement of activities of scientists should be included. Even if this study is rather limited in its explanatory power and further research is demanded, important information is delivered to understand the complex and multilayered interactions between science, society and the media in times of rapid technological changes.