Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter

This study explores science communication on Twitter by investigating a sample of tweets referring to academic papers in five different scientific fields. The specifications of science communicators on Twitter, the characteristics of those who initiate actions (by tweeting), the extent and quality of reactions (retweeting), individual and group interactions, and the distribution of tweets across types of engagement in the process of science communication (i.e., dissemination, consultation, and evaluation) were explored. A broad array of actors is involved in the communication of science on Twitter, with individual citizens and individual researchers playing an important role. In principle, this is promising for creating direct interaction, which can be difficult through more traditional mass media. The vast majority of communication activities regarding academic papers is undigested dissemination with almost no sign of debate, contestation, or collective reflection. Another general finding of this study is that bot accounts play a major role in the science communication landscape on Twitter.     

Network member support marshaling in response to another’s relational transgression experience

Relational transgressions are emotionally difficult for those who directly experience the transgression. Less is known about how transgressions affect those located within the personal network of a relational transgression victim. This study explored how network members engaged in support marshaling in response to another’s transgression experience. Results indicate that some participants marshaled support, citing four reasons for their actions: perceived insufficiency, camaraderie, personal ramifications, and personal values. We explore these reasons for marshaling support and discuss them within the broader context of support marshaling and relational transgressions.     

Contesting Communities

This introductory article to the combined special issue of Journalism Studies and Journalism Practice provides an overview of some of the key contemporary approaches to studying journalism and social order. It argues the need to step beyond a functionalist framework when considering the news media’s central role in shaping social connections, community and cohesion. To advance our understandings of social order, our paper suggests a greater emphasis of the significance of journalism’s relationship to the wider social sphere along with three other key considerations, including (1) a critical focus on the relationship between media, politics and social order, especially in defining and/or negotiating “anti-social” practices and social disintegration; (2) a more refined focus on the “imagined” and geographic boundaries of news audiences in digital spaces; and (3) the changing relationship to norms and conventions of journalism practice from trust and legitimacy to the role of journalists as arbiters and connectors across social spaces.     

Print Media Standardisation and Professionalism

The independence of the media under Ghana’s Fourth Republic is assessed from the perspective of standards and professionalism. Using a qualitative method, the study shows that unethical practices are evident in the print media landscape in Ghana, and argues that this can be traced to four major spheres: educational qualification, existence of several professional associations, a weak regulatory body and “money matters”. Overall, the study argues that legalities form a minimal part of the independence of the Ghanaian media but concerns about freedom seem to be self-inflicted by the very media practitioners through their actions and sometimes questionable reportage.     

Citizen-Centered Journalism and Contested Boundaries

This article explores the existence of a “citizen-centered journalism” that sees citizens as crucial participants in the construction of news and as co-creators of their own worlds. Through qualitative case studies of three news organizations, the article examines the motivation for using a citizen-centered approach, the news routines that are required to do so, the categories of content produced, and the perceived impact of this approach. The results suggest these news organizations are working in partnership with communities and striving to give a voice to historically marginalized communities. The journalists, however, see citizen participation as complementary to professional journalistic routines that favor verifiable information, rather than assigning inherent value to it for its own sake.     

Placing Facebook

Facebook is challenging professional journalism. These challenges were evident in three incidents from 2016: the allegation that Facebook privileged progressive-leaning news on its trending feature; Facebook’s removal of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Napalm Girl” photo from the pages of prominent users; and the proliferation of “fake news” during the US presidential election. Using theoretical concepts from the field of boundary work, this paper examines how The Guardian, The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review and Poynter editorialized Facebook’s role in these three incidents to discursively construct the boundary between the value of professional journalism to democracy and Facebook’s ascendant role in facilitating essential democratic functions. Findings reveal that these publications attempted to define Facebook as a news organization (i.e., include it within the boundaries of journalism) so that they could then criticize the company for not following duties traditionally incumbent upon news organizations (i.e., place it outside the boundaries of journalism). This paper advances scholarship that focuses on both inward and outward conceptions of boundary work, further explores the complex challenge of defining who a journalist is in the face of rapidly changing technological norms, and advances scholarship in the field of media ethics that positions ethical analysis at the institutional level.     

The effect of scheduling format on long-term retention

This study examines the relationship between course intensity and long-term retention on graduate level counseling students enrolled in a research and statistics course. It confirms earlier findings of time and learning studies, which have primarily dealt with end-of-course outcomes, that there is no effect due to scheduling format. In this study, older students performed significantly higher on a six-month follow-up test than younger students. Students who had previous, related course work scored significantly higher in final course grades than students with no prior course work, however, differences were moderated and no longer significant at the time of follow-up. Implications from these findings are discussed.Rebecca LaFountain is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling, Shippenburg University of Pennsylvania. She earned an Ed.D in Counseling from the College of William and Mary, an M.S. in Counseling from Iowa State University, and a B.A. in French from Grand Valley State University. She is a Licensed Psychologist and a Certified Clinical Mental Health Counselor. Her primary professional interests include the teaching of research and statistics so that it is not threatening; Adlerian psychology; and, Solution-Focused counseling.