Scientists Popularizing Science: Characteristics and Impact of TED Talk Presenters

The TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference and associated website of recorded conference presentations (TED Talks) is a highly successful disseminator of science-related videos, claiming over a billion online views. Although hundreds of scientists have presented at TED, little information is available regarding the presenters, their academic credentials, and the impact of TED Talks on the general population. This article uses bibliometric and webometric techniques to gather data on the characteristics of TED presenters and videos and analyze the relationship between these characteristics and the subsequent impact of the videos. The results show that the presenters were predominately male and non-academics. Male-authored videos were more popular and more liked when viewed on YouTube. Videos by academic presenters were more commented on than videos by others and were more liked on YouTube, although there was little difference in how frequently they were viewed. The majority of academic presenters were senior faculty, males, from United States-based institutions, were visible online, and were cited more frequently than average for their field. However, giving a TED presentation appeared to have no impact on the number of citations subsequently received by an academic, suggesting that although TED popularizes research, it may not promote the work of scientists within the academic community.

[1]  Oliver Todt,et al.  Precaution in public: the social perception of the role of science and values in policy making , 2007 .

[2]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[3]  S. Iyengar.  Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[4]  Mabel Padlog.  Introductory story: Building trust among scientists, authorities and the public , 2009 .

[5]  Vincent Larivière.  Individual researchers’ research productivity: a comparative analysis of counting methods , 2010 .

[6]  Martyn Poliakoff,et al.  The Periodic Table of Videos , 2011, Science.

[7]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. , 2009, American journal of botany.

[8]  B. Holden.  Listen and learn , 2002 .

[9]  José van Dijck.  The science documentary as multimedia spectacle , 2006 .

[10]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  Science of Science and Reflexivity , 2004 .

[11]  Svein Kyvik,et al.  Popular Science Publishing and Contributions to Public Discourse among University Faculty , 2005 .

[12]  Gunilla Widén,et al.  Social Information Research , 2012 .

[13]  William Sims Bainbridge,et al.  Leadership in science and technology : a reference handbook , 2012 .

[14]  Va Arlington.  National Science Board. , 2010 .

[15]  Jeffrey R. Young.  YouTube Professors Scholars as Online Video Stars. , 2008 .

[16]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Scholars and Scripts, Spoors and Scores , 2014 .

[17]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[18]  M. Weigold,et al.  Communicating Science , 2001 .

[19]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Socialization or Rewards? Predicting U.S. Scientist-Media Interactions , 2009 .

[20]  José van Dijck,et al.  Picturizing science The science documentary as multimedia spectacle , 2006 .

[21]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Science communication reconsidered , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

[23]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Chapter 9 Assessing the Impact of Online Academic Videos , 2012 .

[24]  J. R. Weber,et al.  The Communication Process as Evaluative Context: What Do Nonscientists Hear When Scientists Speak? , 2001 .

[25]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[26]  Fang Wu,et al.  Crowdsourcing, attention and productivity , 2008, J. Inf. Sci..

[27]  J. Rouquier,et al.  Scientists who engage with society perform better academically , 2008, 0810.4672.

[28]  Yves Gingras,et al.  Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007) , 2009, Scientometrics.

[29]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  The issue of trust and its influence on risk communication during a volcanic crisis , 2008 .

[30]  Sunniva Eikeland Tøsse,et al.  Aiming for Social or Political Robustness? Media Strategies Among Climate Scientists , 2013 .

[31]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Commenting on YouTube videos: From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[32]  Donald Boulter.  Public perception of science and associated general issues for the scientist , 1999 .

[33]  Alberto Cambrosio,et al.  Visual cultures of science : rethinking representational practices in knowledge building and science communication , 2005 .

[34]  Svein Kyvik,et al.  Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries , 2011 .

[35]  Jim Hartz,et al.  Worlds Apart How The Distance Between Science And Journalism Threatens Americas Future , 2005 .

[36]  Erik Millstone,et al.  A crisis of trust: for science, scientists or for institutions? , 2000, Nature Medicine.

[37]  David R. Gruber,et al.  Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[38]  C. Critchley,et al.  Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers , 2008, Public understanding of science.