Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions

Journal of Science Communication

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  Mahrt, Merja ^a   Puschmann, Cornelius ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Public communication of and discourses on science and technology; Public engagement with science and technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907401494     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18242049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22323/2.13030205     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. C.L. Borgman (2007), Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the Internet, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.
2. M. Nentwich and R. König (2012), Cyberscience 2.0: Research in the age of digital social networks, Campus, Frankfurt a.M., Germany.
3. S.A. Batts, N.J. Anthis and T.C. Smith (2008), “Advancing science through conversations: bridging the gap between blogs and the academy“, PLoS Biology 6(9): e240, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060240.
4. L. Bonetta (2007), “Scientists enter the blogosphere“, Cell 129(3): 443-445, DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.04.032.
5. G. Kirkup (2010), “Academic blogging: academic practice and academic identity“, London Review of Education 8(1): 75-84, DOI: 10.1080/14748460903557803.
6. E. Tola (2008), “To blog or not to blog, not a real choice there. . . “, JCOM 7(2): 1-3.
7. B. Trench (2012), “Scientists' blogs: glimpses behind the scenes“, in S. Rödder et al. eds., The sciences' media connection. Public communication and its repercussions, Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
8. F. Wolfe-Simon, J.S. Blum, T.R. Kulp et al. (2011), “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus“, Science 332(6034): 1163-1166, DOI: 10.1126/science.1197258.
9. R. Redfield (2010), Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA's claims), retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html.
10. A. Bader, G. Fritz and T. Gloning (2012), Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation 2010-2011: eine online-Befragung, retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8539/.
11. F. Gu and G. Widén-Wulff (2011), “Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media. A Finnish case study“, Electronic Library 29(6): 762-776, DOI: 10.1108/02640471111187999.
12. D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell et al. (2010), Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: an exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines, Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A., retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g
13. N. Pearce (2010), “A study of technology adoption by researchers. Web and e-science infrastructures to enhance research“, Information, Communication&Society 13(8): 1191-1206, DOI: 10.1080/13691181003663601.
14. R. Procter, R. Williams, J. Stewart et al. (2010), “Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications“, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A 368(1926): 4039-4056, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0155.
15. I. Kouper (2010), “Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges, and opportunities“, JCOM 9(1): A02.
16. H. Riesch and J. Mendel (2013), “Science blogging: networks, boundaries and limitations“, Science as Culture 23(1): 51-72, DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2013.801420.
17. M. Gregg (2009), “Banal Bohemia. Blogging from the ivory tower hot-desk“, Convergence: the International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 15(4): 470-483, DOI: 10.1177/1354856509342345.
18. T. Mortensen and J. Walker (2002), “Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an online research tool“, in A. Morrison ed., Researching ICTs in context, InterMedia, Oslo, Norway.
19. J. Walker (2006), “Blogging from inside the ivory tower“, in A. Bruns et al. eds., Uses of blogs, Peter Lang, New York, U.S.A.
20. th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers&posters, New York, U.S.A., retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://www2004.wwwconference.org/docs/2p28.pdf.
21. M.J. Luzón (2009), “Scholarly hyperwriting: the function of links in academic weblogs“, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(1): 75-89, DOI: 10.1002/asi.20937.
22. J.S. Wilkins (2008), “The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs“, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(8): 411-413, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.004.
23. M.-C. Shanahan (2011), “Science blogs as boundary layers: creating and understanding new writer and reader interactions through science blogging“, Journalism 12(7): 903-919, DOI: 10.1177/1464884911412844.
24. V. Colson (2011), “Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news“, Journalism 12(7): 889-902, DOI: 10.1177/1464884911412834.
25. S. Kjellberg 2010, “I am a blogging researcher: motivations for blogging in a scholarly context“, First Monday 15(8), retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2962/2580.
26. J. Davies and G. Merchant (2007), “Looking from the inside out: academic blogging as new literacy“, in M. Knobel et al. eds., A new literacies sampler, Peter Lang, New York, U.S.A.
27. S.F. Hendrick (2012), Beyond the blog, Ph.D. Thesis, Ume°a University, Ume°a, Sweden, retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:482322/FULLTEXT01.
28. H. Shema, J. Bar-Ilan and M. Thelwall (2012), “Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information“, PLoS ONE 7(5): e35869, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035869.
29. K. Busemann and C. Gscheidle (2012), “Web 2.0: Habitualisierung der Social Communities“, Media Perspektiven (7-8): 380-390.
30. Pew Research Center (2010), Generations 2010, retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP Generations and Tech10.pdf.
31. V.P. Dennen (2009), “Constructing academic alter-egos: identity issues in a blog-based community“, Identity in the Information Society 2(1): 23-38, DOI: 10.1007/s12394-009-0020-8.
32. X. Wang, T. Jiang and F. Ma (2010), “Blog-supported scientific communication: an exploratory analysis based on social hyperlinks in a Chinese blog community“, J. Inform. Sci. 36(6): 690-704, DOI: 10.1177/0165551510383189.
33. H. Yu (2007), Exploring the Chinese blogosphere: the motivations of blog authors and readers, Master's Thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore, retrieved 12 December 2013, available at https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/13159.
34. B.K. Kaye (2005), “It's a blog, blog, blog world: users and uses of weblogs“, Atlantic Journal of Communication 13(2): 73-95, DOI: 10.1207/s15456889ajc1302 2.
35. B.K. Kaye (2010), “Going to the blogs: toward the development of a uses and gratifications measurement scale for blogs“, Atlantic Journal of Communication 18(4): 194-210, DOI: 10.1080/15456870.2010.505904.
36. M.S. Littek (2012), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Web 2.0, Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M., Germany.
37. S. Allan (2009), “The future of science journalism“, Journalism 10(3): 280-282, DOI: 10.1177/1464884909102570.
38. J.-C. Burgelman, D. Osimo and M. Bogdanowicz (2010), “Science 2.0 (change will happen. . . )“, First Monday 15(7), retrieved 12 December 2013, available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2961/2573.
39. A.F. Hayes and K. Krippendorff (2007), “Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data“, Communication Methods and Measures 1(1): 77-89, DOI: 10.1080/19312450709336664.
40. A. Kata (2010), “A postmodern Pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet“, Vaccine 28(7): 1709-1716, DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022.
41. R.K. Zimmerman, R.M. Wolfe, D. Fox et al. (2005), “Vaccine criticism on the World Wide Web“, Journal of Medical Internet Research 7(2): e2, DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7.2.e17.
42. A.A. Anderson, D. Brossard, D.A. Scheufele et al. (2014), “The 'nasty effect:' Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies“, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(3): 373-387, DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12009.
43. E. Segev and A. Baram-Tsabari (2012), “Seeking science information online: data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system“, Pub. Underst. Sci. 21(7): 813-829, DOI: 10.1177/0963662510387560.
44. Q.D. Atkinson (2011), “Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa“, Science 332(6027): 346-349, DOI: 10.1126/science.1199295.