A qualitative approach towards discovering microblogging practices of scientists

Although Microblogging (for instance Twitter) is still rather young compared to other traditional weblogging services there already exists quite a number of studies on its usage. The majority of scholars dealing with this topic have chosen a quantitative approach focusing on different aspects such as publishing patterns, follower patterns, publishing practices, etc. However, there are less qualitative evidence and case studies on how Twitter is used by adults in their personal working practices. 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 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 an approach for a more qualitative analysis that focuses on discovering tacit aspects of microblogging practices such as value or purpose. Finally some initial results from four individual cases will be discussed. This work presents the initial phase of a detailed qualitative approach towards exploring microblogging practices of scientists.

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

[2]  A. Bernardo,et al.  Huberman, Romero, and Wu, Fang. . Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. , 2008 .

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

[4]  D. Silverman Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction , 1994 .

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

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

[7]  J. Voß Measuring Wikipedia , 2005 .

[8]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Social networks and Internet connectivity effects , 2005 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18]  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.

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

[20]  Karen Rose,et al.  What is Twitter , 2009 .

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

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

[23]  Fang Wu,et al.  Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope , 2008, First Monday.