Microblogging Practices of Scientists in E-Learning: A Qualitative Approach

Microblogging services, in particular Twitter, have experienced an explosive uptake in the last few years with a decelerated grown rate since 2010. Apart from celebrities, PR and news agencies, the bulk of user profiles stems form private individuals. Amongst them, individual scientists have started to make use of Twitter for professional purposes. This paper presents a qualitative approach of discovering microblogging practices and obtaining rich descriptions of few cases that give a deeper insight into how Twitter is used by scientists active in the field of e-Learning and how this practice shapes their social networks. The methodological approach is based on online ethnographic studies. Therefore Grabeeter, a tool for collecting all public tweets of a person in various formats, has been adapted in order to obtain the data appropriate for a qualitative analysis following a grounded theory approach. After an analysis of the current state-of-the-art we will outline the methodological approach for our qualitative analysis that focuses on discovering tacit aspects of microblogging practices such as value or purpose. Finally the results of the online ethnographic approach and individual cases will be discussed and compared to similar studies. This work presents the explorative phase of a detailed qualitative approach towards exploring microblogging practices of scientists.

[1]  Helen M. Smith,et al.  Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction 3rd Edition , 2006 .

[2]  Balachander Krishnamurthy,et al.  A manifesto for modeling and measurement in social media , 2010, First Monday.

[3]  Claire Hewson,et al.  Internet-mediated research as an emergent method and its potential role in facilitating mixed methods research , 2008 .

[4]  La Efimova,et al.  Passion at work: blogging practices of knowledge workers , 2009 .

[5]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work , 2009, GROUP.

[6]  J. Voß Measuring Wikipedia , 2005 .

[7]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Is it really about me?: message content in social awareness streams , 2010, CSCW '10.

[8]  Susannah Fox,et al.  Twitter and status updating , 2009 .

[9]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[10]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[11]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities , 2007, WebKDD/SNA-KDD '07.

[12]  Paul Mcfedries,et al.  Technically Speaking , 2007, IEEE Spectrum.

[13]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[14]  Stephen Dann,et al.  Twitter content classification , 2010, First Monday.

[15]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Getting Granular on Twitter: Tweets from a Conference and Their Limited Usefulness for Non-participants , 2010, Key Competencies in the Knowledge Society.

[16]  Rizal Setya Perdana What is Twitter , 2013 .

[17]  Christine Hine Internet research as emergent practice , 2008 .

[18]  Martin Ebner,et al.  Why is Wikipedia so Successful? Experiences in Establishing the Principles in Higher Education , 2006 .

[19]  Martin Ebner,et al.  twitter Try out # Grabeeter to Export , Archive and Search Your Tweets , 2010 .

[20]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter , 2009, 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.