research-article

Open access

An HCI Research Agenda for Online Science Communication

Authors:

Spencer Williams,

Katharina Reinecke,

Gary HsiehAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 490, Pages 1 - 22

https://doi.org/10.1145/3555591

Published: 11 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Social media, blogs, podcasts, and other computer-mediated communication technology have become an integral way for the public to access and engage with research. However, despite the evolving challenges researchers face navigating these platforms, and the high stakes of online science communication, relatively little HCI research has focused on understanding and supporting online science communication through these participatory platforms. Through a review of the literature and a set of interviews with HCI researchers (n = 24), we identify challenges currently facing researchers who try to engage with the public about their work, and establish a research agenda for HCI to study, design, and evaluate technology to support science communication. Specifically, we advocate for the design of tools to support audience analytics, automated summary and outreach workflows, and providing quantitative and qualitative feedback about online outreach efforts, as well as additional research to elucidate the impacts of self-directed science communication efforts and the evolving roles of scientists on the participatory web. With shifting online platforms placing researchers in the role of advocates and participants in science communication, understanding and supporting these interactions is now more important than ever.

References

[1]

Ali Al-Aufi and Crystal Fulton. 2015. Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: a cross-institutional study. The Electronic Library (2015).

[2]

Anne Archambault and Jonathan Grudin. 2012. A longitudinal study of facebook, linkedin, & twitter use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2741--2750. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208671

Digital Library

[3]

Tal August, Dallas Card, Gary Hsieh, Noah A Smith, and Katharina Reinecke. 2020. Explain like I am a Scientist: The Linguistic Barriers of Entry to r/science. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376524

Digital Library

[4]

Tal August, Lauren Kim, Katharina Reinecke, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Writing Strategies for Science Communication: Data and Computational Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 5327--5344. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.429

[5]

Yael Barel-Ben David, Erez S Garty, and Ayelet Baram-Tsabari. 2020. Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists. PloS one 15, 1 (2020), e0222250. https://doi.org/10.1101/760520

[6]

Larry Bell. 2008. Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication 29, 3 (2008), 386--398.

[7]

Andrew BL Berry, Catherine Y Lim, Andrea L Hartzler, Tad Hirsch, Evette Ludman, Edward H Wagner, and James D Ralston. 2017. " It's good to know you're not a stranger every time" Communication about Values Between Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions and Healthcare Providers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1--20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134658

Digital Library

[8]

Heidi R Biggs and Audrey Desjardins. 2020. High Water Pants: Designing Embodied Environmental Speculation. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376429

Digital Library

[9]

Alan F Blackwell. 2015. HCI as an Inter-Discipline. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 503--516. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732505

Digital Library

[10]

Grant Blank and Bianca C Reisdorf. 2012. The participatory web: A user perspective on Web 2.0. Information, Communication & Society 15, 4 (2012), 537--554. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2012.665935

[11]

Takeria Blunt, Chalece Delacoudray, and Isabel Newsome. 2020. Planet Bug: Promoting Awareness of Declining Insect Populations. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381654

Digital Library

[12]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. (2012).

[13]

Michael Brüggemann, Ines Lörcher, and Stefanie Walter. 2020. Post-normal science communication: exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. Journal of Science Communication 19, 3 (2020), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19030202

[14]

Tania Bubela, Matthew C Nisbet, Rick Borchelt, Fern Brunger, Cristine Critchley, Edna Einsiedel, Gail Geller, Anil Gupta, Jürgen Hampel, Robyn Hyde-Lay, et al. 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nature biotechnology 27, 6 (2009), 514--518.

[15]

Massimiano Bucchi. 2017. Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science communication 2.0. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517733368

[16]

Terry W Burns, D John O'Connor, and Susan M Stocklmayer. 2003. Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public understanding of science 12, 2 (2003), 183--202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004

[17]

Daniel M Cáceres, Felicitas Silvetti, and Sandra Diaz. 2016. The rocky path from policy-relevant science to policy implementation-a case study from the South American Chaco. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19 (2016), 57--66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.003

[18]

Elaine Campbell. 2017. ? Apparently being a self-obsessed C** t is now academically lauded": experiencing twitter trolling of autoethnographers. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 18. DEU, 19. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.3.2819

[19]

Tina Chan and Adam Leung. 2020. Illuminate: A Simulation Game to Instill Grounded Hope in Youth for Climate Action. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 47--49. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383668.3419920

Digital Library

[20]

Angela Chia-Chen Chen and Ashish Amresh. 2015. Developing a bilingual, computer-tailored, HPV vaccination promotion intervention targeting latino parents. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Digital Health 2015. 59--64. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750511.2750522

Digital Library

[21]

Yunan Chen, Charlotte Tang, Xiaomu Zhou, Aleksandra Sarcevic, and Soyoung Lee. 2013. Beyond formality: informal communication in health practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion. 307--312. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441955.2442030

Digital Library

[22]

Lucas Colusso, Cynthia L Bennett, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A Munson. 2017. Translational resources: Reducing the gap between academic research and HCI practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 957--968.

Digital Library

[23]

Lucas Colusso, Ridley Jones, Sean A Munson, and Gary Hsieh. 2019. A Translational Science Model for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.

Digital Library

[24]

Chad E Cook, Neil E O'connell, Toby Hall, Steven Z George, Gwendolen Jull, Alexis A Wright, Enrique Lluch Girbés, Jeremy Lewis, and Mark Hancock. 2018. Benefits and threats to using social media for presenting and implementing evidence. journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy 48, 1 (2018), 3--7. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2018.0601

[25]

Steven J Cooke, Austin J Gallagher, Natalie M Sopinka, Vivian M Nguyen, Rachel A Skubel, Neil Hammerschlag, Sarah Boon, Nathan Young, and Andy J Danylchuk. 2017. Considerations for effective science communication. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0055

[26]

Isabelle M Côté and Emily S Darling. 2018. Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? Facets 3, 1 (2018), 682--694.

[27]

Emily S Darling, David Shiffman, Isabelle M Côté, and Joshua A Drew. 2013. The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.0435 (2013).

[28]

Wändi Bruine de Bruin and Ann Bostrom. 2013. Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, Supplement 3 (2013), 14062--14068. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212729110

[29]

Tshering Dema, Margot Brereton, Michael Esteban, Alessandro Soro, Sherub Sherub, and Paul Roe. 2020. Designing in the network of relations for species conservation: The playful Tingtibi community birdhouse. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376713

Digital Library

[30]

Distill. 2020. Distill.pub. https://distill.pub/about/

[31]

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Sarah A James, and Anne E Lincoln. 2012. How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PloS one 7, 5 (2012), e36240. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036240

[32]

Marta Ferreira, Miguel Coelho, Valentina Nisi, and Nuno Jardim Nunes. 2021. Climate Change Communication in HCI: a Visual Analysis of the Past Decade. In Creativity and Cognition. 1--1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3466774

Digital Library

[33]

Casey Fiesler and Blake Hallinan. 2018. " We Are the Product" Public Reactions to Online Data Sharing and Privacy Controversies in the Media. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173627

Digital Library

[34]

Casey Fiesler and Nicholas Proferes. 2018. "Participant" perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media Society 4, 1 (2018), 2056305118763366. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366

[35]

Cary Funk, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Amy Mitchell. 2017. Science news and information today. https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/science-news-and-information-today/

[36]

Cary Funk and Lee Rainie. 2015. Public and scientists' views on science and society. Pew Research Center 29 (2015).

[37]

Silvio O Funtowicz and Jerome R Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 7 (1993), 739--755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016--3287(93)90022-L

[38]

Ajit G. Pillai, A Baki Kocaballi, Tuck Wah Leong, Rafael A. Calvo, Nassim Parvin, Katie Shilton, Jenny Waycott, Casey Fiesler, John C. Havens, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2021. Co-designing Resources for Ethics Education in HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441349

Digital Library

[39]

Anna Gardiner, Miriam Sullivan, and Ann Grand. 2018. Who are you writing for? Differences in response to blog design between scientists and non-scientists. Science Communication 40, 1 (2018), 109--123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017747608

[40]

Alexander Gerber. 2020. Science Communication Research: An Empirical Field Analysis. Edition Innovare.

[41]

Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, Sarah Huang, Jennifer Lee, and Lydia B Chilton. 2021. What Makes Tweetorials Tick: How Experts Communicate Complex Topics on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1--26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479566

Digital Library

[42]

Sarah A Gilbert. 2020. ?I run the world's largest historical outreach project and it's on a cesspool of a website." Moderating a Public Scholarship Site on Reddit: A Case Study of r/AskHistorians. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1 (2020), 1--27. https://doi.org//10.1145/339282

Digital Library

[43]

John Gramlich. 2019. 10 Facts about Americans and Facebook. Retrieved September 7, 2019 from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about-americans-and-facebook/

[44]

Anatoliy Gruzd, Priya Kumar, Deena Abul-Fottouh, and Caroline Haythornthwaite. 2020. Coding and classifying knowledge exchange on social media: A comparative analysis of the# Twitterstorians and AskHistorians communities. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 29, 6 (2020), 629--656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-020-09376-y

Digital Library

[45]

Alison J Head, Michele Van Hoeck, and Kirsten Hostetler. 2017. Why blogs endure: A study of recent college graduates and motivations for blog readership. First Monday 22, 10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i10.8065

[46]

Bernie Hogan. 2010. The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30, 6 (2010), 377--386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893

[47]

Kim Holmberg and Mike Thelwall. 2014. Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics 101, 2 (2014), 1027--1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014--1229--3

[48]

Clayton J Hutto, Sarita Yardi, and Eric Gilbert. 2013. A longitudinal study of follow predictors on twitter. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. 821--830. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470771

Digital Library

[49]

Paige Brown Jarreau and Lance Porter. 2018. Science in the social media age: profiles of science blog readers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95, 1 (2018), 142--168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016685558

[50]

Ridley Jones, Lucas Colusso, Katharina Reinecke, and Gary Hsieh. 2019. r/science: Challenges and Opportunities in Online Science Communication. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 153. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300383

Digital Library

[51]

Jakob Jünger and Birte Fähnrich. 2020. Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society 22, 3 (2020), 387--408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819863413

[52]

Kyriaki Kalimeri, Mariano G. Beiró, Alessandra Urbinati, Andrea Bonanomi, Alessandro Rosina, and Ciro Cattuto. 2019. Human values and attitudes towards vaccination in social media. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference. 248--254. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3316489

Digital Library

[53]

Kaisu Koivumäki, Timo Koivumäki, and Erkki Karvonen. 2020. ?On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human": Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators. Media and Communication 8, 2 (2020), 425. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2812

[54]

Kathrin Kopke, Jeffrey Black, and Amy Dozier. 2019. Stepping out of the ivory tower for ocean literacy. Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (2019), 60.

[55]

Kudos. 2020. Kudos. https://info.growkudos.com/

[56]

Lauren M Kuehne, Laura A Twardochleb, Keith J Fritschie, Meryl C Mims, David J Lawrence, Polly P Gibson, Bem Stewart-Koster, and Julian D Olden. 2014. Practical science communication strategies for graduate students. Conservation Biology 28, 5 (2014), 1225--1235.

[57]

Clayton T Lamb, Sophie L Gilbert, and Adam T Ford. 2018. Tweet success? Scientific communication correlates with increased citations in Ecology and Conservation. PeerJ 6 (2018), e4564. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4564

[58]

Meghan IH Lindeman, Amanda M Durik, and Maura Dooley. 2019. Women and self-promotion: a test of three theories. Psychological reports 122, 1 (2019), 219--230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118755096

[59]

Sebastian Linxen, Christian Sturm, Florian Brühlmann, Vincent Cassau, Klaus Opwis, and Katharina Reinecke. 2021. How WEIRD is CHI?. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445488

Digital Library

[60]

Jessica GY Luc, Michael A Archer, Rakesh C Arora, Edward M Bender, Arie Blitz, David T Cooke, Tamara Ni Hlci, Biniam Kidane, Maral Ouzounian, Thomas K Varghese Jr, et al . 2020. Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from the TSSMN Prospective Randomized Trial. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (2020).

[61]

María José Luzón. 2013. Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication 30, 4 (2013), 428--457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610

[62]

Jennifer C Mankoff, Eli Blevis, Alan Borning, Batya Friedman, Susan R Fussell, Jay Hasbrouck, Allison Woodruff, and Phoebe Sengers. 2007. Environmental sustainability and interaction. In CHI'07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 2121--2124.

Digital Library

[63]

Susana Martinez-Conde. 2016. Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect? Journal of Neuroscience 36, 7 (2016), 2077--2082. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086--16.2016

[64]

Leslie McCall, Gabriel Hetland, Arne Kalleberg, Alondra Nelson, Sarah Ovink, Amy Schalet, Laurel Smith-Doerr, Michele Lamont, Annette Lareau, and Matt Wray. 2016. What Counts? Evaluating Public Communication in Tenure and Promotion. Final Report of the ASA Subcommittee on the Evaluation of Social Media and Public Communication in Sociology. American Sociological Association (2016). https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/tf_report_what_counts_evaluating_public_communication_in_tenure_and_promotion_final_august_2016.pdf

[65]

Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher. 2017. Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly 26, 2 (2017), 127--144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1287361

[66]

Jonathan Mendel and Hauke Riesch. 2017. Gadflies biting science communication: Engagement, tricksters, and ambivalence online. Science Communication 39, 5 (2017), 673--684. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017736068

[67]

Matteo Merzagora. 2004. Science on air: the role of radio in science communication. Journal of Science Communication 3, 4 (2004), C02.

[68]

Vicki Moulder, Lorna R Boschman, Ron Wakkary, Carman Neustaedter, and Hiroki Hill Kobayashi. 2018. HCI interventions for science communication. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.31743

[69]

Rachel Murdock. 2018. They're Smart, but You Can't Trust Them: Using Communication Principles to Help Scientists to Increase their Trustworthiness in Public Communication Situations. In Understanding the Role of Trust and Credibility in Science Communication. Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.31274/sciencecommunication-181114--13

[70]

Matthew C Nisbet and Dietram A Scheufele. 2009. What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American journal of botany 96, 10 (2009), 1767--1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

[71]

Huseyin Oktay, Aykut Firat, and Zeynep Ertem. 2014. Demographic breakdown of twitter users: An analysis based on names. Academy of Science and Engineering (ASE) (2014).

[72]

Alannah Oleson, Meron Solomon, and Amy J Ko. 2020. Computing Students' Learning Difficulties in HCI Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376149

Digital Library

[73]

Maria Powell and Daniel Lee Kleinman. 2008. Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science 17, 3 (2008), 329--348.

[74]

Sebastian Prost, Johann Schrammel, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2014. 'Sometimes it's the weather's fault' sustainable HCI & political activism. In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2005--2010. https://doi.org/g/10.1145/2559206.2

Digital Library

[75]

Mathieu Ranger and Karen Bultitude. 2016. 'The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me': Science bloggers' practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science 25, 3 (2016), 361--378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514555054

[76]

Grace Reid. 2012. The television drama-documentary (dramadoc) as a form of science communication. Public Understanding of Science 21, 8 (2012), 984--1001.

[77]

Ronald E Rice and Howard Giles. 2017. The contexts and dynamics of science communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36, 1 (2017), 127--139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16663257

[78]

Mike S Schäfer. 2017. How changing media structures are affecting science news coverage. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (2017), 51--57.

[79]

Christina Scharff. 2015. Blowing your own trumpet: Exploring the gendered dynamics of self-promotion in the classical music profession. The Sociological Review 63 (2015), 97--112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467--954X.12243

[80]

Nine Sellier and Pengcheng An. 2020. How Peripheral Interactive Systems Can Support Teachers with Differentiated Instruction: Using FireFlies as a Probe. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1117--1129. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395497

Digital Library

[81]

C Smith, Xinyi Wang, Raghav Pavan Karumur, and Haiyi Zhu. 2018. [Un] breaking News: Design Opportunities for Enhancing Collaboration in Scientific Media Production. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 381. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173955

Digital Library

[82]

C. Estelle Smith, Eduardo Nevarez, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Disseminating Research News in HCI: Perceived Hazards, How-To's, and Opportunities for Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376744

Digital Library

[83]

J Gretchen Smith. 2007. The impact of electronic communications on the science communication process Investigating crystallographers in South Africa. IFLA journal 33, 2 (2007), 145--159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035207080518

[84]

Jessi L Smith and Meghan Huntoon. 2014. Women's bragging rights: Overcoming modesty norms to facilitate women's self-promotion. Psychology of Women Quarterly 38, 4 (2014), 447--459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313515840

[85]

Anne Spaa, Abigail Durrant, Chris Elsden, and John Vines. 2019. Understanding the Boundaries between Policymaking and HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300314

Digital Library

[86]

Kate Starbird, Jim Maddock, Mania Orand, Peg Achterman, and Robert M Mason. 2014. Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on twitter after the 2013 boston marathon bombing. IConference 2014 Proceedings (2014).

[87]

Bonnie Stewart. 2016. Collapsed publics: Orality, literacy, and vulnerability in academic Twitter. Journal of Applied Social Theory 1, 1 (2016), 61--86.

[88]

Leona Yi-Fan Su, Michael A Cacciatore, Dietram A Scheufele, Dominique Brossard, and Michael A Xenos. 2014. Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication 36, 3 (2014), 352--378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014529093

[89]

Helen Thompson-Whiteside, Sarah Turnbull, and Liza Howe-Walsh. 2018. Developing an authentic personal brand using impression management behaviours: Exploring female entrepreneurs' experiences. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 21, 2 (2018), 166--181. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-01--2017-0007

[90]

Brian Trench. 2008. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In Communicating science in social contexts. Springer, 119--135.

[91]

Koen van Turnhout, Arthur Bennis, Sabine Craenmehr, Robert Holwerda, Marjolein Jacobs, Ralph Niels, Lambert Zaad, Stijn Hoppenbrouwers, Dick Lenior, and René Bakker. 2014. Design patterns for mixed-method research in HCI. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational. 361--370.

Digital Library

[92]

Raphael Velt, Steve Benford, and Stuart Reeves. 2020. Translations and Boundaries in the Gap Between HCI Theory and Design Practice. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 27, 4 (2020), 1--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386247

Digital Library

[93]

John Vines, Rachel Clarke, Ann Light, and Peter Wright. 2015. The beginnings, middles and endings of participatory research in HCI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74, C (2015), 77--80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.11.002

Digital Library

[94]

John Vines, Anja Thieme, Rob Comber, Mark Blythe, Peter C Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. HCI in the press: online public reactions to mass media portrayals of HCI research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1873--1882.

Digital Library

[95]

Christopher Rhys Watkins, Colin M Gray, Austin L Toombs, and Paul Parsons. 2020. Tensions in Enacting a Design Philosophy in UX Practice. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 2107--2118. https://doi.org/0.1145/3357236.3395505

Digital Library

[96]

Alexandra Weilenmann, Thomas Hillman, and Beata Jungselius. 2013. Instagram at the museum: communicating the museum experience through social photo sharing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1843--1852. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466243

Digital Library

[97]

Dustin J Welbourne and Will J Grant. 2016. Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science 25, 6 (2016), 706--718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068

[98]

Spencer Williams and Gary Hsieh. 2021. The Effects of User Comments on Science News Engagement. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1--29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449106

Digital Library

[99]

Jacob O Wobbrock and Julie A Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in human-computer interaction. interactions 23, 3 (2016), 38--44.

Digital Library

[100]

Oili-Helena Ylijoki and Hans Mäntylä. 2003. Conflicting time perspectives in academic work. Time & Society 12, 1 (2003), 55--78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X03012001364

[101]

Shupei Yuan and Hang Lu. 2020. "It's global warming, stupid": Aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 97, 4 (2020), 1003--1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904791

[102]

Shupei Yuan, Wenjuan Ma, and John C Besley. 2019. Should scientists talk about GMOs nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication 41, 3 (2019), 267--290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019837623

[103]

Yimei Zhu and Kingsley Purdam. 2017. Social media, science communication and the academic super user in the United Kingdom. (2017). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i11.7866

Cited By

Efstratiou AEfstratiou MYudhoatmojo SBlackburn JDe Cristofaro E(2024)"Here's Your Evidence": False Consensus in Public Twitter Discussions of COVID-19 ScienceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870108:CSCW2(1-33)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687010
Long TGero KChilton L(2024)Not Just Novelty: A Longitudinal Study on Utility and Customization of an AI WorkflowProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661587(782-803)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661587
Lim HCho JKim TPark JShin HChoi SPark SLee KKim JLee MHong H(2024)Co-Creating Question-and-Answer Style Articles with Large Language Models for Research PromotionProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660705(975-994)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660705
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

An HCI Research Agenda for Online Science Communication
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI

Recommendations

r/science: Challenges and Opportunities in Online Science Communication
CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Online discussion websites, such as Reddit's r/science forum, have the potential to foster science communication between researchers and the general public. However, little is known about who participates, what is discussed, and whether such websites ...
A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI

HCI has a complex and often ambivalent attitude towards the issue of gender and interactive systems. Here I discuss three dominant paradigms for treating gender in HCI, and discuss their limitations. Next, I will present the theoretical perspectives on ...
Towards an Agenda for Sci-Fi Inspired HCI Research
ACE '16: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology

Science fiction media has had a long lasting influence on the progression of interactive technology, however recently contradictions are emerging in the development of the two disciplines. Therefore, in this exploratory position paper we report on the ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

CSCW

November 2022

8205 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3571154

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Google

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 November 2022

Published in PACMHCI Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
674
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)371
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)53

Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Efstratiou AEfstratiou MYudhoatmojo SBlackburn JDe Cristofaro E(2024)"Here's Your Evidence": False Consensus in Public Twitter Discussions of COVID-19 ScienceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870108:CSCW2(1-33)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687010
Long TGero KChilton L(2024)Not Just Novelty: A Longitudinal Study on Utility and Customization of an AI WorkflowProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661587(782-803)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661587
Lim HCho JKim TPark JShin HChoi SPark SLee KKim JLee MHong H(2024)Co-Creating Question-and-Answer Style Articles with Large Language Models for Research PromotionProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660705(975-994)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660705
He CDeng YHe LGuo QZhang YLu ZLi B(2024)Engage Wider Audience or Facilitate Quality Answers? a Mixed-methods Analysis of Questioning Strategies for Research Sensemaking on a Community Q&A SiteProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373278:CSCW1(1-31)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637327
Shin DWang LHsieh G(2024)From Paper to Card: Transforming Design Implications with Generative AIProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642266(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642266
Ferreira MNunes NFerreira PPereira HNisi V(2024)Connecting audiences with climate change: Towards humanised and action-focused data interactionsInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103341192(103341)Online publication date: Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103341

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents