google scholar research topics in communication

Article Contents

“what theory are you using”, theory is ubiquitous in published communication scholarship, what is theory anyway, is theory really necessary, the chicken or the egg: theory or data first, will any theory do, what is a theoretical contribution, theoretical bandwidth, what are the benefits of theory, the current state of communication theory, looking forward, data availability, conflicts of interest.

• < Previous

The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Timothy R Levine, David M Markowitz, The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication, Human Communication Research , Volume 50, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 154–161, https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad037

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Communication is a theory-driven discipline, but does it always need to be? This article raises questions related to the role of theory in communication science, with the goal of providing a thoughtful discussion about what theory is, why theory is (or is not) important, the role of exploration in theory development, what constitutes a theoretical contribution, and the current state of theory in the field. We describe communication researchers’ interest with theory by assessing the number of articles in the past decade of research that mention theory (nearly 80% of papers have attended to theory in some way). This article concludes with a forward-looking view of how scholars might think about theory in their work, why exploratory research should be valued more and not considered as conflicting with theory, and how conceptual clarity related to theoretical interests and contributions are imperative for human communication research.

Theory looms large in the practice of human communication scholarship. College-level textbooks on various communication topics describe relevant theories to students enrolled in communication classes. In thesis and dissertation defenses, students are often asked, “What theory are you using?,” implying that they must apply at least one theory to ground their research and contribute to the field. In the peer-review process of academic journals, a perceived failure to be sufficiently theoretical can be grounds for rejection. Few, if any, modern communication scholars would embrace the labels of being “dust-bowl” or atheoretical. Surely, no serious communication scholar is genuinely and categorically against theory. Theory is undeniably a desirable “warm-fuzzy good thing” in modern academic culture ( Mook, 1983 ). Without it, the bedrock of communication and other social sciences is shaky and uncertain. No academic discipline could be built from a purely empirical foundation. Having theory—understanding the value it provides, what we gain by building and extending theory, and the contributions that a scholar can make to theory—is more complicated and nuanced, however. We interrogate these complications in this article.

This article addresses a broad set of questions about the past, present, and future role of theory in communication scholarship: What is theory? Do all scholarly contributions require theory? What does it mean to make a theoretical contribution? What does theory do for us? And, if we continue to accept theory as a scholarly imperative, what is the current state of theory in the field and where might communication theory go in the future? To address these questions, we follow and draw on important commentaries such as those of Chaffee and Berger (1987) , Slater and Gleason (2012) , and DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) , but we provide our own perspective. Unlike similar essays on communication theory, our goal is not to be prescriptive about how to do theory (e.g., how to create or even define theory), nor are we attempting to be pollyannish about the many accepted virtues of theory. Instead, a conversation about communication theory is advanced by asking questions that are hard to answer, interrogating some often-implicit presumptions about the role of theory in communication science, and raising some less obvious implications of theory. This article will succeed if it prompts deeper thought and discussion on the topic of communication theory across many areas of the field. We envision this being useful for early career communication scholars who are uncertain about what theory really is and why it matters, and a thoughtful commentary for seasoned communication researchers who may wrestle with theory development as they move forward in their established research programs.

In our experience, graduate students (and undergrads, junior faculty, visiting scholars, etc.) are frequently asked “what theory are you using?” when trying to position one’s work within communication science at large. This question raises many meta-theoretical issues relevant to this article. First, the question implies that theory is a prerequisite for scholarship. Later in this article, we will argue that this perspective is unfortunately limiting, and that there is a need for exploratory and pre-theoretical inquiry and data. Further, a relevant theory is not always available for each research interest. A better initial question, in our opinion, asks if there is a relevant theory to be tested, extended, or used. When no relevant theory exists, the lack of a theory should not preclude research nor publication. Advancing theory is undeniably valuable. Not all scholarly contributions, however, explicitly advance theory in ways that are recognized at the time they are written.

When a relevant theory or theories are available, follow-up questions might address how the theory is being engaged (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Is the theory being directly tested in a way that is informative about the merits of the theory? How is the theory being advanced? Is a boundary condition being explored or the scope being extended? Merely using a theory to inform a topic can provide valuable direction and insights, but using theory is less likely to push the theory and its related propositions forward. Making a theoretical contribution involves actually advancing the theory itself ( Slater & Gleason, 2012 ).

We opened by opining that communication scholarship is consumed with theory and that contributing to theory is a priority of the discipline. To descriptively demonstrate this extent of this interest, we evaluated over 10,000 full text communication articles across 26 journals that were published in the last decade (see Markowitz et al., 2021 ), in search of how often they focus on five key theory-related terms ( theory , theories , theoretical , theoretical contribution , theoretical contributions ). The top panel of Figure 1 represents the percentage of papers within each year that mentioned at least one of the five terms related to theory. On average, 79.1% (8,320 of 10,517) of articles mentioned one theory-related term, with a relatively stable distribution over time (see the bottom panel of Figure 1 for a breakdown by journal). Of the 60,727 times that one of the five theory-related terms appeared in the sample, over half were related to the word theory alone (55.1%; 33,462/60,727). A thematic review of these cases revealed that theory is used in a variety of ways by communication researchers. The word is attached to specific social scientific theories (e.g., Construal Level Theory, Social Identity Theory), the term is used abstractly to feign the appearance of theory (e.g., “message processing theory,” “organizational communication theory”), the word theory serves as sign-posts in academic papers (e.g., “in the theory section above”), and finally, the term attempts to mark one’s contributions (e.g., “has several implications for theory and research on selective exposure”). 1 Together, the ubiquity of theory and theory-related terms, we believe, stems from and reflects expectations for publishing norms that value theory in the field of communication.

The rate of mentioning theory in communication science articles.

Our findings align with those of Slater and Gleason (2012) who examined articles in three elite communication journals in 2008–2009. They report that a sizable number of articles advanced theories in at least one of several ways. They reported, for example, that 54% of the articles they examined in Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , and Communication Research addressed boundary conditions, 40% expanded a theories range of application, 22% advanced a mechanism, and 12% revised a theory. Alternatively, theoretical contributions, such as creating a new theory, comparing theories, and synthesizing across theories, were less common occurring in only 8% of articles combined.

We note, however, that mentioning at least one theory-related term does not mean that the work counts as contributing to theory. Of course, deeply theoretical work mentions theory, but so too do articles that engage in a practice that might be called theoretical name dropping . Our concern is that if work must invoke theory to pass the peer-review process, then exploratory and pre-theoretical work might mention a theory or otherwise invoke theory-related words to appear theoretical and thereby get published. In line with this concern, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) found that the use of words in articles specifically related to theory evaluation were infrequent. In a sample of articles from four top journals between 2013 and 2015 ( Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , Communication Research , Communication Monographs ), just less than one-third of them included at least one theory evaluation word, and at least half of those were evaluating method rather than theory.

Deciding what is truly theory and what is not requires defining theory. This is where our conversation becomes more complex.

Despite the ubiquity of researchers’ focus on theory in published communication scholarship ( Figure 1 ), any thoughtful discussion of theory is fraught from the start due to unavoidable definitional ambiguity. There is no one definition of communication theory, nor can there be, nor should there be. As Miller and Nicholson (1976) rightfully suggested, definitions are not by their nature things that are correct or incorrect. Although undeniably circular, words mean what people mean by them, and people use words differently. This is especially true of theory. No one scholar, nor do a collection of scholars, become the definitive authority or arbitrator on what theory is and what it is not.

Definitional diversity in conceptually constituting theory is intellectually rich. In modern intellectual thought, different specialties and perspectives are welcomed and valued. The alternatives to diversity in theory definitions are hegemony and the demise of academic freedom. Treasured intellectual diversity, however, comes at the cost of potential misunderstanding stemming from people using the same word to mean so many different things (e.g., see Bem, 2003 ). Valuing intellectual diversity also requires us to abandon rigidity in prescribing fixed rules of doing communication theory and research.

Although there can be no one universal definition of theory, we agree with DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) that regardless of approaches, scholars should strive for greater clarity in what they mean by theory and their theoretical contribution. Diversity in definitions should be expected, but clarity and the thoughtful explication of one’s approach to theory should also be expected in any social science.

The lack of a shared definition for theory puts communication scholars in a Catch-22. Communication scholars value theory and appreciate approaching theory with rigor and clarity. Communication scholars also value intellectual diversity, and valuing diverse perspectives and approaches prevents scholars from imposing their own views of theory on other scholars. We find that an “anything goes” approach to theory intellectually troubling, but we are equally disturbed by imposing views and perspectives on other scholars. While we do not see an easy way out of this conundrum, we see much value in acknowledging that it exists and being thoughtful about how we balance conflicting values.

When scholars define theory, perhaps the most notable dimension of variability for the word theory is narrowness-breadth. At the wide end of this continuum, theory is synonymous with being minimally conceptional. Explicating a construct with a conceptual definition could constitute theory under some of the more expansive uses of the term (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Similarly, at the broad end of the continuum, theory can be synonymous with explanation. Efforts to answer “why” can count as theory. Sometimes, although we personally think this goes too far, simply adding the word theory to a topic or phenomenon (e.g., media theory, aggression theory, language theory) can pass as theory or at least provide the appearance of theory.

We prefer a much narrower use of the term, where theory can be considered a set of logically coherent and inter-related propositions or conjectures that (a) provide a unifying explanatory mechanism and (b) can be used to derive testable and falsifiable predictions . In this relatively narrow view, thinking conceptually or just explaining is not enough. Specifying a path model or set of mediated links might or might not count as theory. We note that some scholars may use the word theory even more restrictively, desiring to limit the term to formal axiomatic theories, and considering work to count as theoretical only if it conforms to a strict hypothetico-deductive depiction (or caricature) of science. Slater and Gleason (2012) provide a definition similar to ours. They see “the primary role of theory in communication science as the provision of explanation, of proposing causal processes, the explanation of ‘how’ and ‘under what circumstances’ in ways that result in empirically testable and falsifiable predictions” (p. 216).

The point here, however, is not to advocate for particular definition of theory but instead to argue that the efforts to impose a universal definition of theory is fundamentally misguided. Appreciation of theory requires recognition of the diversity of approaches to theory and a willingness to be respectful of approaches other than one’s own. The topic of theory needs to be approached with a cognizance of its diversity. Arguments about whose definition of theory is best will often be counterproductive. More constructive arguments will provide cogent reasons why an approach to defining theory is best for the intellectual endeavor to which it is applied.

Now that we have embraced the ambiguity inherent in defining theory, we next contemplate the necessity of theory. If we cannot provide a consensus definition of theory, then how can we demand or test it? Do (or would) we even know theory when we see it?

In our view, the necessity of theory varies according to the breadth of the term’s use. Being minimally conceptual is probably a prerequisite for making a scholarly contribution. After all, understanding what one is studying is typically either a prerequisite for, or a desired outcome of, advancing knowledge. If scholarly activities — such as concept explication, creating a new measure, description, observation, and hypothesis generation — indeed count (see Slater & Gleason, 2012 ), then requiring theory seems constructive.

One can imagine empirically documenting an effect or phenomenon whose explanation is not yet understood. While this might not count as a theoretical advancement under most uses of the term, it might nevertheless make a valuable contribution to knowledge. If nothing else, we typically need to know what needs explaining before we go about explaining it ( Rozin, 2001 ). Thus, disregarding the contribution of scholarship that is not “full-on” theory in some narrow sense is counterproductive to the advancement of knowledge.

Park et al. (2005) provide an instructive example. Their first study simply documents the existence of a strong finding. Unlike in the United States, Korean spam emails often contain an apology. What follows are five experiments testing various explanations before settling on a normative account. The work is not grounded in a specific theory, but it is clearly a systematic effort to document and explain a communication phenomenon. What if, however, they had packaged their studies as a series of articles rather than in one. Would this make the work any more or less theoretical?

One of the more controversial, meta-scientific questions in communication science is: Must we have theory? We answer “yes” in the broadest sense, as it helps to clarify our thinking about a topic. We also answer “no” in a narrower sense of theory. In explaining why not, we acknowledge that it would also always be better if we had at least one good theory than if we did not. Nevertheless, a well-articulated and relevant theory is not currently available for every conceivable topic or hypothesis worthy of investigation. It is not hard to imagine useful and enlightening scholarship that is neither formally engaged in theory building nor explicitly testing an existing theory. Simply put, if one is interested in a question or phenomenon where suitable theory is currently lacking, this ought not preclude research. Consequently, it follows that not all valuable scholarship requires theory in the narrow sense.

Which comes first, theory or data? The answer is it can be either, or the two can work together in an iterative, interactive, and abductive process ( Rozeboom, 2016 ). Different disciplines and specialties put a different emphasis on the primacy of theory in empirical research. Communication, on the one hand, sometimes views a strict hypothetico-deductive dogma as the ideal for formal theory testing, presupposing an existing formal theory from which to derive hypotheses. Computer science, on the other hand, is typically less strict in its placement or appreciation of theory in the research process. Quite often, computer scientists will obtain data, analyze them, and then identify the theory or theories that fit the findings as a final step. A communication scholar may scoff at this research process, though norms are powerful drivers of behavior ( Cialdini, 2006 ), and conventions related to theory are to be appreciated and scrutinized within the context of a discipline, specialty and even sub-specialty.

Building theory can be a purely logical process, but we are likely to develop more and better communication research if relevant data from exploratory research is available. Exploratory research, we contend, is not synonymous with being atheoretical. We tentatively define exploratory research as research guided by curiosity and seeking to document a finding or set of findings rather engaging in hypothetico-deductive hypothesis testing or focusing on explanation . We further note that not all hypothesis tests are theoretical. The logic behind hypotheses often takes the form of “others have found this, therefore we will too.” Such research falls in between more purely exploratory work and explicit theory testing where hypotheses follow from theory.

We contend that exploration is symbiotic with and often contributes to theory because it can highlight relationships that were unanticipated by theory, offering new hypotheses for future research. Even purely descriptive research can provide an understanding of the phenomena of interest, thereby providing a solid empirical foundation for conceptual construction. The placement of theory in the research process is not specifically a statement about the work’s value or rigor; it likely emphasizes the goals and norms of a particular research community. Consistent with our views on defining theory, we encourage our colleagues to be ecumenical in approaching theory-data time ordering.

An even more difficult question asks if all theories are equal. If some theories are indeed better than others, then what makes them so? Are there instances when no applicable theory is preferred to a misapplied or unreliable theory?

At the risk of diverting from our previous, more ecumenical perspective, we will tentatively take the position that some theories are indeed preferable to other theories—at least for certain applications—and along certain criteria of evaluation. For example, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) expanded on Chaffee and Berger’s (1987) list of criteria for evaluating theory. Their refined list includes explanatory power, predictive power, parsimony, falsifiability, logical consistency, heuristic value, and organizing power. Building on this work, we further cautiously propose that theory can do more harm than good when it is misapplied, used haphazardly, or thrown at data to see if it sticks. If the goal of scholarship is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, it seems possible that certain frames, stances, models, and understandings might be counterproductive or misguided.

From our perspective, a first consideration regarding the utility of theory is one of relevance. Does the sphere of application fall within the boundary conditions of the theory, or does the application involve interrogating the boundary conditions of the theory? If the answer to both questions is no, then the application is probably ill-advised on the grounds of relevance. Irrelevant theory distracts from empirical contributions. This is the theoretical equivalent of a red herring argument.

The second test is more difficult and involves a cost–benefit analysis of gains and losses in knowledge, insight, and understanding. Consistent with commentators such as Levine and McCornack (2014) , we envision evaluative dimensions, such as clarity, coherence, and verisimilitude, in assessing the scholarly value added by a theory. The more that a theory clarifies rather than clouds our understanding, the more valuable it is. Theory can bring order to otherwise unruly facts, findings, and ideas, or it can lead to logical inconsistencies, the latter obviously being less desirable. The insights offered by theories can align with known facts and findings or it can be contradicted by data and evidence ( Levine & McCornack, 2014 ).

In practice, assessing the alignment of theory with data is an especially thorny issue in quantitative, social scientific communication research. Not all scholarship strives to be empirical nor scientific, and theory-data alignment might not be the point in many scholarly endeavors. But when it is, theory-data alignment quickly becomes deeply problematic in the actual practice of communication scholarship, particularly when inferential statistics, and especially p -values, are involved ( Denworth, 2019 ).

One issue concerns “undead theories” ( Ferguson & Heene, 2012 ). It is not unusual in the social sciences for theoretical predictions to be soundly falsified, yet, nevertheless, applied despite their documented empirical deficiencies. Such theories are functionally sets of counterfactual conjectures that are passed off as good science. We anticipate that the reader will have their favorite undead theory, but we also anticipate that one scholar’s undead theory is another’s source of wisdom. Both can be true, which we appreciate, and will explain.

While the replication crisis in the social sciences has become an increasingly recognized issue ( Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ), it has also long been recognized that modern social science practices ensure that almost any hypothesis will receive mixed support regardless of its validity or verisimilitude ( Meehl, 1978 ). Essentially, the fact that the nil-null hypothesis is never literally true regardless of the soundness of the theory (Meehl’s crud factor), sub-optimal statistical power, questionable research practices such as p -hacking, and publication bias all combine to make the empirical merit of any claim murky at best ( Dienlin et al., 2021 ; Lewis, 2020 ; Markowitz et al., 2021 ). Accumulating more data over time often further muddies the water as mixed findings pile up and multiple citations can legitimately be provided in support of incompatible empirical claims. Not even meta-analysis is immune. As prior work shows ( Levine & Weber, 2020 ), regardless of the topic, findings in communication are heterogeneous, and the heterogeneity is seldom resolved by moderator analysis. In this way, meta-analytic results often document rather than resolve conclusions of mixed support for theoretical predictions. The net result is that a theory’s supporters and critics can both provide plenty of citations for why the theory is well supported and clearly falsified.

A common concern in academic research publishing is to articulate how one’s work makes a substantial theorical contribution ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ; Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Articles in flagship, high-impact communication journals are often rejected if theoretical contributions are not substantial and clearly expressed. For example, the Journal of Communication suggests “Submissions are expected to present arguments that are theoretically sophisticated, conceptually meaningful, and methodologically sound” ( Journal of Communication, 2022 ). The words sophisticated and meaningful in their instructions for authors are subjective and elusive. Considering the subjective aspect of such appraisal, what does it mean to make a theoretical contribution?

Given that we have argued so far that defining theory is misguided, that formal theory is not necessary for all research endeavors, and that unequivocally establishing the empirical merit of theory is nearly impossible, one might expect an argument dismissing the very idea of theoretical contribution. A close read of what preceded, however, conveys several ways to make a theoretical contribution (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Clarifying a conceptualization, providing an explanation, making or testing a prediction, testing theoretical boundary conditions, articulating a unifying framework integrating two or more seemly unrelated facts, and identifying a moderator that resolves previously unexplained heterogeneity can all count as theoretical contributions if done in a way to be conceptually coherent. One can seek to create new theory, pit existing theories against each other, or reconcile apparently conflicting theories. In our view, all such outcomes can offer new knowledge that conceptually builds on an existing foundation of empirical findings.

Critically, a theoretical contribution is different from discovering a new, statistically significant finding. Moving from empirical findings to theoretical contribution involves answering questions related to the mechanism underlying the finding. How does the finding fit within the larger nomological network of findings in the domain ( Cronbach & Meehl, 1955 )? What are the limits of the finding? How robust is it? How far can it be generalized? What are its moderators and antecedents? These questions, among many others, may help to position a finding better as a theoretical contribution instead of an empirical one-off result.

The most basic types of theoretical contributions are conceptualizing or explicating a new construct, reconceptualizing an existing construct, or providing a new explanation for an empirically documented effect. These types of contributions might be considered theoretical building blocks for subsequent theoretical development. Although these types of contributions may also be seen as just minimally theoretical, they are nevertheless important because other types of theoretical contributions require well explicated components and explanations. Coherent conceptual structures can lead to testable and falsifiable hypotheses about human communication and logically coherent networks of hypotheses can lead to formal theory.

A second approach to theoretical contribution involves variations on theory creation. Arguments for the desirability of a new theory will often take one of three forms. The first notes the absence of a relevant theory for a given topic or purpose. If no relevant theory exists and if theory is desired, then it follows that theory creation is needed. The second type of argument rests on making the case that existing, relevant theory is deficient, and the deficiencies are both sufficiently severe and intractable to justify a new theory as a rival. Third, prior theory can be accepted, but arguments are made that the new perspective offers additional insights that would not otherwise be gained.

Once a theory exists in the literature, it is often the goal of communication research to test, extend, modify, or apply a theory to improve our understanding of human communication. Each of these (testing, extending, modifying, or applying) moves communication theory forward. We note, however, that at least for scientific research, testing should typically precede the other forms of contribution to ensure theoretical adequacy prior to extension or application.

Many discussions of theoretical contributions will involve value judgments regarding theoretical bandwidth. Discussions of theoretical bandwidth, in turn, may deal with two qualitatively different issues. The first relates to how theory is defined. One might think of explicating a construct as a narrower contribution than explaining the relationship between two explicated constructs. Explaining how a well-understood effect fits with a network of documented effects is broader still.

Second, communication theories vary widely in their topical scope and boundary conditions. Communication theories might focus on a particular topic or phenomenon, others on a broader domain or function, and others still might be general theories of communication. Further, regardless of topical breadth, boundary conditions can vary. Communication theories, for example, might be limited to a particular age group, point in time, media, or culture.

It is likely tempting to equate theoretical bandwidth and theoretical contribution under the likely tacit presumption that more is better. While surely there are knowledge-gain advantages to breadth, any firm link between breadth and contribution is qualified by all other things being equal. Surely contribution is more closely tied to how well a theoretical goal is accomplished than to how ambitious the goal is (cf., DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ).

Rather than reviewing the extensive literature on the value of theory, we focus here on two benefits of theory that we believe are highlighted less frequently but are no less important.

Generality and external validity

Perhaps the most underappreciated benefit of theory is that it can provide satisfying answers to questions of generality in ways that data simply cannot. Theory is a better approach to achieving external validity than research design.

We have all seen data collected on college students and wondered if the findings might apply to working adults. We all likely agree that for most topics, a nationally representative sample is preferable to a sample of college students (though, see Coppock et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, we might still wonder that if the data were collected at a different point in time, or if the questions were worded a bit differently, or perhaps presented in a different order, would the findings be the same? These sorts of questions cannot be answered with data because we can never sample everyone everywhere over all times in all possible ways. No matter how much data we have, data are finite, and representative sampling and inferential statistics do not change this uncomfortable truth.

Fortunately, theory provides an elegant solution. Theoretical claims specify what is expected under what conditions. Theory, and more precisely its boundary conditions, provide us with statements of the extent of generality. As described by Mook (1983) , we specify generality theoretically, then we test and validate claims of generality with data. Rather than fretting over the sampling of participants, multiple message instantiations, multiple situations, and a host of other study-specific idiosyncrasies, we use theory to make generalizations and data to test those generalizations ( Ewoldsen, 2022 ). We could ask if a theory applies to non-WEIRD cultures, and then test core claims with a non-WEIRD culture ( Henrich et al., 2010 ; Many Labs 2, 2018 ).

Theory as agenda setting

A second underappreciated function of theory is research agenda setting. Just as the media might tell us which news topics and frames are important, so too does theory tell us what we need to study, how to study it, and what to expect. It is not unusual for new researchers to struggle with topic selection. Theory provides a straight-forward way to come up with a hypothesis and an approach to testing it. This topic selection approach can also be flipped. We can ask, what if a theory was wrong? How might we show that? A research design should flow from these questions.

Theory offers an even more important agenda setting function. As Berlo (1960) famously identified when defining communication as process, a wide variety of forces can affect how communication unfolds. Regardless of the specific topic or focus, the potentially important considerations are numerous. Theory tells us what is most important and what is less important. In other words, theory tells us what to prioritize.

We are more pleased than not with the current state of communication theory as its progress is undeniable. There was a time when the lack of communication theory was bemoaned and when most theories were taken from other disciplines (see Berger, 1991 ). Our perception of the current literature, formed by our lived experience across decades of publishing and reading communication scholarship, is that the number of communication theories and theoretical ideas have grown, and the communication trade deposit with related fields has diminished. The latter point, of course, deserves a strict empirical evaluation to test how communication and other social sciences share ideas and theories.

As the reader has surely noticed, we have approached this article from a particular perspective. The present authors have a quantitative and social scientific approach to communication scholarship. A consequence of originating from this scholarly tradition is that our commentary is better targeted for research publishing in outlets such as Human Communication Research than outlets like Communication, Culture, & Critique . Both are worthy outlets, but they have different orientations and conventions.

Like most communication scholars, we are theory advocates. We use, have written our own, and made contributions to theory on a range of topics relevant to human communication. While we ascribe to the idea that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” ( Lewin, 1951 ,  p. 169), blind allegiance to theory is ill-advised. Theories, we believe, must have testable and falsifiable components to them. We encourage our fellow communication scholars to “follow the data.” Moving science forward requires theoretical predictions that hold up to data over time.

Replications play an increasingly important role in theory testing, but also add a final set of complications to address. Theory and evidence can misalign for several reasons, and it is usually unclear why a test failed. Perhaps some critical aspect of the research setting was different, producing an unexpected result. A moderating variable may have impacted the results, such that the findings do not invalidate the theory, but instead provides a nuanced understanding of the conditions that led to a particular effect and those that did not (or led to the opposite effect). Theory should be a guidepost for empirical research, not gospel, upon considering the results. Of course, theory and data can also misalign because the theory is mis-specified. In practice, it can be difficult to discern valid support from false positives and mis-specified predictions from a methodological artifact or undetected moderators. Nevertheless, we envision a future where replication is both more prevalent and more valued.

Communication is an eclectic discipline, and science is not the only method for understanding communication. Further, we as a field draw on and adopt ideas from different fields, authors publish in journals outside of communication research, and there is no singular approach to the same research question. We encourage authors to continue this tolerance and flexibility with exploratory and “pre-theory” work as well. As mentioned, there are times when a good theory simply does not fit one’s phenomenon of interest. Communication scholars should not be faced with a “square peg, round hole” problem just to satisfy reviewers who demand more theory. One can try to fit a square peg into a round hole with enough force, but it will not fit well and there may be important consequences because of this exercise (e.g., theory–data misalignment). Exploratory work should be considered and applauded when we simply do not know how concepts will relate to each other. Proposing a research question instead of hypotheses derived from theory is not an admission of a research study being atheoretical, but instead, an admission of one’s curiosity and uncertainty. Thus, we envision a future where exploratory and descriptive work is more prevalent and more appreciated.

It is also important for authors to think about and explicitly communicate the role of theory in their research. This article has noted the many functions that theory can serve; yet, these functions are often assumed or implied in a manuscript when they could be made explicit. Being forthcoming about the role of theory in one’s research will lead to conceptual and contribution-related clarity. This will lead to less superficial applications of theory (e.g., theoretical name dropping ) and toward more conceptual richness. If communication research is to value theory—and we undoubtedly think it should—then theory should be used appropriately. Theories are built on a foundation of empirical evidence, collected over time allowing researchers to draw nuanced conclusions and make subsequent predictions about human communication. Using the term theory to sound more scientific, rigorous, or grounded is gratuitous and should be avoided. Consequently, we envision a future where communication theory, in form and function, is used more thoughtfully and transparently.

Finally, we are encouraged that all major communication research journals have a large focus on theory in their articles (e.g., at least 50% of articles in each journal mention theory in some manner; Figure 1 ). However, the degree to which the published communication literature is advancing theory in consequential ways or settings is unclear ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ). We encourage scholars to be flexible with their assumptions about a theory, testing it in ways that might be unconventional and creative in the pursuit of new knowledge. To this end, null effects are still informative ( Francis, 2012 ; Levine, 2013 ), especially if a study is adequately powered. For example, understanding what leads to null effects might be helpful for the development of boundary conditions of theory. Null effects are difficult to publish, but communication research can lead in their normalization in the pursuit of greater theoretical precision and explication. Thus, we envision a future where researchers are more frank about empirical support, and more precise with predictions.

Data related to Figure 1 can be retrieved from Markowitz et al. (2021) or by contacting David M. Markowitz.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors also report no conflicts of interest with the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

A systematic, qualitative review of how theory terms were used across the entire sample is beyond the scope of this commentary. We used these data to descriptively demonstrate how theory is prevalent in communication research, and used as a means to achieve different ends.

Bem D. ( 2003 ). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley J. M. , Zanna M. P. (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). (pp. 185–219). American Psychological Association .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Berger C. R. ( 1991 ). Communication theories and other curios . Communication Monographs , 58 ( 1 ), 101 – 113 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376216

Berlo D. K. ( 1960 ). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice . Holt, Rinehart and Winston .

Chaffee S. H. , Berger C. R. ( 1987 ). What communication scientists do. In Berger C. R. , Chaffee S. H. (Eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 99 – 122 ). Sage .

Cialdini R. B. ( 2006 ). Influence: The psychology of persuasion . Harper Business .

Coppock A. , Leeper T. J. , Mullinix K. J. ( 2018 ). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 ( 49 ), 12441 – 12446 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115

Cronbach L. J. , Meehl P. E. ( 1955 ). Construct validity in psychological tests . Psychological Bulletin , 52 ( 4 ), 281 – 302 . https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

Denworth L. ( 2019 ). The significant problem of p-values . Scientific American . https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1019-62

DeAndrea D. C. , Holbert L. R. ( 2017 ) Increasing clarity where it is needed most: Articulating and evaluating theoretical contributions . Annals of the International Communication Association , 41 ( 2 ), 168 – 180 . https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1304163

Dienlin T. , Johannes N. , Bowman N. D. , Masur P. K. , Engesser S. , Kümpel A. S. , Lukito J. , Bier L. M. , Zhang R. , Johnson B. K. , Huskey R. , Schneider F. M. , Breuer J. , Parry D. A. , Vermeulen I. , Fisher J. T. , Banks J. , Weber R. , Ellis D. A. , de Vreese C. ( 2021 ). An agenda for open science in communication . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 1 ), 1 – 26 . https://doi.org/10.1093/JOC/JQZ052

Ewoldsen D. R. ( 2022 ). A discussion of falsifiability and evaluating research: Issues of variance accounted for and external validity . Asian Communication Research , 19 ( 2 ), 5 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.20879/acr.2022.19.2.5

Ferguson C. J. , Heene M. ( 2012 ). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 ( 6 ), 555 – 561 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059

Francis G. ( 2012 ). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 19 ( 6 ), 975 – 991 . https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y

Henrich J. , Heine S. J. , Norenzayan A. ( 2010 ). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33 ( 2–3 ), 61 – 83 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Journal of Communication . ( 2022 ). Author instructions . Oxford Academic . https://academic.oup.com/joc/pages/General_Instructions

Levine T. R. ( 2013 ). A defense of publishing nonsignificant (ns) results . Communication Research Reports , 30 ( 3 ), 270 – 274 . https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2013.806261

Levine T. R. , McCornack S. A. ( 2014 ). Theorizing about deception . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 33 ( 4 ), 431 – 440 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14536397

Levine T. R. , Weber R. ( 2020 ). Unresolved heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Combined construct invalidity, confounding, and other challenges to understanding mean effect sizes . Human Communication Research , 46 ( 2–3 ), 343 – 354 . https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz019

Lewin K. ( 1951 ). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . Harper & Brothers . https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1951-06769-000

Lewis N. A. ( 2020 ). Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how . Communication Methods and Measures , 14 ( 2 ), 71 – 82 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660

Many Labs 2 . ( 2018 ). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings . Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , 1 ( 4 ), 443 – 490 . https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810

Markowitz D. M. , Song H. , Taylor S. H. ( 2021 ). Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 5 ), 739 – 763 . https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030

Meehl P. E. ( 1978 ). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 46 ( 4 ), 806 – 834 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806

Miller G. R. , Nicholson H. E. ( 1976 ). Communication inquiry: A perspective on a process . Addison-Wesley Pub. Co .

Mook D. G. ( 1983 ). In defense of external invalidity . American Psychologist , 38 ( 4 ), 379 – 387 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379

Park H. S. , Lee H. E. , Song J. A. ( 2005 ). “ I am sorry to send you spam” Cross-cultural difference in email advertising in Korea and the US . Human Communication Research , 31 ( 3 ), 365 – 398 , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00876.x

Open Science Collaboration . ( 2015 ). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science . Science , 349 ( 6251 ), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Rozeboom W. W. ( 2016 ). Good science is abductive, not hypothetico-deductive. In Harlow L. L. , Mulaik S. A. , Steiger J. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 335–391). Routledge .

Rozin P. ( 2001 ). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 5 ( 1 ), 2 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_1

Slater M. D. , Gleason L. S. ( 2012 ). Contributing to theory and knowledge in quantitative communication science . Communication Methods and Measures , 6 ( 4 ), 215 – 236 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.732626

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2958
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Subject and Course Guides

• University Libraries Databases
• WMU Research Guides
• Communication Research Guide
• Creating and Selecting a Research Topic

Generating Ideas for a Research Topic

Selecting a topic, selective list of encyclopedias.

• Library Resources to Start With
• Advanced Search Techniques
• Recommended Databases
• Research Honeycomb
• Presentation Tools

You have been asked to write or present about a research topic, but how do you come up with a topic? Here is a process to help.

• Think about what has been discussed in class. What are some broad topics that immediately come to mind?
• Skim your textbook, course readings, and notes for these topics. What do you already know about these topics?
• What would you like to know more about each topic? Phrase it as a question.

Now that you have a few broad topics, you need to select one that is appropriate for the assignment, has enough information available, and will hold your interest. For each of the topics you have generated, search a few keywords in Google , Library Search , and Google Scholar .

• Is there a lot of information available or only a few sources?
• What words are being used in titles and abstracts (article summaries) to describe the topic?
• Are there names, dates, places, things, etc. that are repeatedly mentioned?
• Is there anything more specific about a topic that sounds interesting?

For help using Google, Library Search, and Google Scholar, check out these guides:

• Advanced Searching in Google
• Library Search
• Getting the most out of Google Scholar
• Reading Scholarly Articles

Encyclopedias are a great way to get broad overviews of a topic, find sources, and narrow your research focus. Here are a few to get you started.

Encyclopedia Databases

Created and hosted by CQ Press, the CQ Press Library is the definitive reference resource for research in American government, politics, history, public policy, and current affairs. A wealth of CQ Press resources and years of journalistic and editorial expertise are combined in this indispensable reference collection. These reference products offer researchers—whether students, scholars, professionals, or interested citizens—a range of tools for discovering and understanding CQ Press's authoritative content. The suite includes CQ Almanac , CQ Researcher Plus Archive , Supreme Court Yearbook , and Politics in America .

More than 14,000 pro/con viewpoint essays, 5,000+ topic overviews, 300+ primary source documents, 300+ biographies of social activists and reformers, more than 775 court-case overviews, 5 million periodical articles, nearly 6,000 statistical tables, charts and graphs, nearly 70,000 images and a link to Google Image Search, thousands of podcasts, including weekly presidential addresses, premier NPR programs and more.

Full-text online from over 400 encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other reference books. Search a topic, build a concept map, or browse information sources organized by subject. Find text, images, sound files, sortable data tables and more.

Search over 600,000 biographies on more than 500,000 people by name, occupation, nationality, ethnicity, birth/death dates and places, or gender as well as keyword and full-text. Also includes full-text articles from more than 300 magazines and newspapers.

• << Previous: Communication Research Guide
• Next: Library Resources to Start With >>
• Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 8:23 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wmich.edu/communication

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Ocean Frontier Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Information Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

• Curtis Martin, 
• Bertrum H. MacDonald

• Published: November 10, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972
• Reader Comments

Today, many science communicators are using social media to share scientific information with citizens, but, as research has shown, fostering conversational exchanges remains a challenge. This largely qualitative study investigated the communication strategies applied by individual scientists and environmental non-governmental organizations on Twitter and Instagram to determine whether particular social media practices encourage two-way conversations between science communicators and citizens. Data from Twitter and Instagram posts, interviews with the communicators, and a survey of audience members were triangulated to identify emergent communication strategies and the resulting engagement; provide insight into why particular practices are employed by communicators; and explain why audiences choose to participate in social media conversations with communicators. The results demonstrate that the application of interpersonal communication strategies encourage conversational engagement, in terms of the number of comments and unique individuals involved in conversations. In particular, using selfies (images and videos), non-scientific content, first person pronoun-rich captions, and responding to comments result in the formation of communicator-audience relationships, encouraging two-way conversations on social media. Furthermore, the results indicate that Instagram more readily supports the implementation of interpersonal communication strategies than Twitter, making Instagram the preferred platform for promoting conversational exchanges. These findings can be applicable to diverse communicators, subjects, audiences, and environments (online and offline) in initiatives to promote awareness and understanding of science.

Citation: Martin C, MacDonald BH (2020) Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. PLoS ONE 15(11): e0241972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972

Editor: Rashid Mehmood, King Abdulaziz University, SAUDI ARABIA

Received: October 3, 2019; Accepted: October 24, 2020; Published: November 10, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Martin, MacDonald. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: “Ethical approval for this study was obtained at Dalhousie University, which operates within the terms of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2018). In compliance with this ethics approval, which assured anonymity and confidentiality to all participants, the original data cannot be made available. As the text of the Twitter and Instagram posts assembled could be searched online and the participants thereby disclosed, de-identifying the social media data is not possible. Similarly, the interview transcripts contain specific information related to the social media practices of each of the communicators, and could be used to identify the individual or organization participants. However, all anonymized aggregate data from the survey, as well as anonymized quotations from the interviews and survey, necessary to replicate the study’s results are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Funding: BHM 435-2015-1705 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Human activities—both past and present—are having detrimental impacts on the earth’s environmental systems: fishing practices have forced fish stocks to critical condition [ 1 ], many of the planet’s species are being driven to extinction at an alarming rate [ 2 ], and continuous burning of fossil-fuels has created a global climate emergency [ 3 ]. If these harmful environmental practices are to be mitigated, they need to be managed through policy decisions at the science-policy interface where various actors, barriers, and enablers affect the flow of information from researchers to decision-makers [ 4 ]. Citizens are an important group that interacts with numerous stakeholders at this interface. If citizens are to be effective participants in decisions and solutions to address deteriorating environmental conditions, relevant research information must be communicated effectively to this diverse group. However, this communication is not a trivial activity, as cultivating environmental science literacy has proven to be a major challenge [ 5 – 8 ]. Climate change literacy is often cited to illustrate this challenge; misunderstanding is still widespread among citizens, due to a combination of denial, intentional obfuscation of facts, and personal values taking precedent over scientific information [ 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 ].

Although risks are associated with communicating science via social media (such as being subject to internet trolls and anti-science users [e.g., 11 , 12 ]), the internet and social media provide science communicators with significant opportunities to share policy-relevant information with citizens, as such tools are now the main information source for the public, including for scientific and policy information [ 13 , 14 ]. As of 2019 an estimated 4.4 billion people use the internet, with nearly 3.5 billion active on social media [ 15 ]. The latest statistics show that billions of social media posts are created daily on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and other social media platforms, and the numbers are increasing [ 15 , 16 ]. Although important barriers to internet access still exist [e.g., 17 , 18 ], new media are generally user-friendly and widely available; simple and quick web searches can break down technical and financial barriers to information, and social media platforms are primarily inexpensive and accessible internationally [ 19 , 20 ]. Virtual communities can be formed online to facilitate public engagement with science, and citizens now have greater opportunity to participate in science communication, bypassing traditional information “gatekeepers” (e.g., scientific journals, popular media, government reports) to aid in information dissemination, and increase public awareness of important scientific issues [ 19 , 21 – 23 ].

Numerous researchers have explored whether relationships exist between social media posting behaviours of communicators and audience engagement [e.g., 24 – 30 ]. Research on this subject has been mainly exploratory to date, with studies covering a range of social media platforms and methods. At present, the results indicate that communication techniques can play an important role in generating audience engagement for both individual and organization communicators, but that science communicators have typically struggled to encourage conversations on social media, particularly with citizens exposed to such information for the first time [ 31 – 33 ]. Some studies have noted that science communicators have given lower priority to strategies that would promote engagement via online conversations [ 34 ]. Researchers have called for further exploration to understand better the challenges of facilitating science conversations on social media, to identify additional means of improving engagement, and to investigate whether communicator strategy and audience engagement patterns persist across communication topics [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 35 ]. In particular, they have called for small scale studies that offer detailed insights that big data approaches are less likely to provide [ 35 ].

This study applied a mixed methods approach to investigate communication strategies and two-way conversation activities of individual and non-governmental organization science communicators on two different social media platforms (Twitter and Instagram). The study triangulated data obtained through qualitative methods to: identify emergent communication strategies and resulting audience engagement; gain insight into why particular practices are employed by communicators; and determine why members of the audiences choose to participate in social media conversations with communicators.

Literature review

Science communication on social media.

The ability to communicate science to a wide variety of audiences is important. Scientific information is often needed for effective policy decisions, and strong science communication can promote the use of relevant information in environmental decisions [ 4 , 36 , 37 ]. Scientific information should be actively shared with citizens. Not only is the majority of scientific research publicly funded, citizens also need access to scientific information to make informed input to decisions on subjects relating to public policy, technological advancement, political preferences, and personal environmental practices, among others [ 26 , 38 – 42 ]. Communicating science to audiences beyond the academic community is increasingly seen as a responsibility of scientists, and is in some cases central to receiving research funding [ 40 , 43 – 45 ].

Scientists have been turning to social media to communicate the results of their research [ 46 , 47 ]. These media are significant because they grant communicators a platform for two-way exchanges with members of the public. Previously, the common and accepted communication model was based on resolving a perceived knowledge deficit to improve public understanding of science [ 48 – 50 ]. In this “first-order” way of thinking it was assumed that citizens lacked knowledge and acted as passive receivers of information. Thus, solely providing people with the necessary information was intended to lead to greater understanding and awareness of public issues [ 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 ]. “Second-order” communication that is reflexive, deliberative, and depends on dialogic, two-way information exchange is now thought to be a better model for sharing information with citizens [ 49 , 51 , 52 ]. This latter model promotes knowledge co-production between researchers and citizens by allowing people to bring their ideas and values to the conversation, and facilitates the formation of trust relationships between researchers and citizens [ 48 , 49 , 53 – 56 ]. A third participation model of science communication has also been proposed in the belief that all involved can contribute to decisions that affect them [ 57 , 58 ]. Social media—including blogs, microblogs, social networks, podcasts, and curatorial tools—offer the potential to facilitate deliberative communications, allowing citizens to participate in research discussions online by responding to information, sharing it with others, and/or creating new science communication resources [ 46 , 59 , 60 ].

Non-governmental organizations and individual scientists as communicators on social media

Social media have become significant to organizational practice [ 61 – 63 ]. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in particular have been credited with pioneering the use of social networking tools, prior to their use by government agencies and private companies [ 64 ]. As a result, social media—including Twitter and Instagram—are used by many NGOs around the world. According to a recent report, 77% of NGOs use Twitter, and 50% use Instagram, with the majority posting on both Twitter and Instagram at least once per week [ 64 ]. NGOs of all sizes are reaching large numbers on both platforms with some building massive audiences. For example, Amnesty International has over 1 million Twitter followers ( www.twitter.com/amnesty ), and over 500,000 Instagram followers ( www.instagram.com/amnesty ).

NGOs cite numerous benefits associated with social media use, including fundraising, increased brand awareness, volunteer recruitment, improved event organization, and more effective communications [ 64 – 66 ]. Through social media, organizations can share information, participate in conversations, and build relationships with their audiences [ 65 – 68 ]. Nonetheless, various studies show that NGOs have not fully capitalized on the affordances granted by social media: organizations have typically been found to focus on one-way communication models characteristic of a knowledge-deficit, using social media primarily as a broadcast tool, similar to the practices observed for some government agencies [ 25 , 29 , 68 – 72 ].

Individual scientists have been relatively slow in adopting social media [ 73 – 77 ]. According to a survey by Nature, an estimated 13% of scientists use Twitter regularly, with 50% of those engaging in scientific discussions on the platform [ 78 ]. According to another study, it is estimated that a smaller portion of scientists active on Twitter also use Instagram [ 79 ]. One reason for slow acceptance is that science outreach is often not incentivized for researchers; researchers interested in communication activities are therefore often required to pursue them on a volunteer basis in addition to their professional duties, creating a time barrier [ 79 , 80 ]. Furthermore, scientists—especially those working in government and industry—are sometimes discouraged from open communications [e.g., 81 – 83 ]. In other words, broad and public communication is typically not regarded as a valuable activity for researchers [ 79 ]. There is also evidence that individual scientists avoid communicating via the tools due to a general lack of knowledge on how the tools function, questions surrounding the rigor of scientific discussions on social media, and incorrect perceptions that the tools are ineffective as a means of scientific communication [ 75 – 77 , 79 ].

Numerous studies have demonstrated the strong communication potential that social media provide to scientists [e.g., 84 – 86 ]. Social media afford scientists the ability to build their “personal brand” by communicating their research and other related subjects [ 86 ]. Additionally, social media provide an avenue through which scientists can communicate to the public, which, although not new, is a more common and more requested pursuit for researchers today [ 87 – 90 ]. However, research shows that scientists utilizing social media are mainly sharing research within their own fields, with outreach to the wider public remaining a lower priority [ 75 – 77 , 79 ]. Some scientists also over-emphasize the importance of blogs as a tool for communicating with public audiences; blogs were previously thought to be useful for encouraging dialogues with citizens, but in practice have not been widely successful in reaching non-scientific audiences [ 79 , 91 ].

As illustrated above, science communicators have had difficulty in engaging citizens in two-way conversations on social media, which has led to calls for more innovative/inventive strategies to engage citizens with research, predominantly on subjects linked to important public policy issues [e.g., 92 ]. Furthermore, social media communication strategies often vary among communicators, including individuals and organizations, which affect whether communication is effective [e.g., 69 , 93 ].

This study investigated strategies to engage people with scientific and policy information on social media. Research indicates that social media practices can affect how audience members engage with posts shared by individual and organization communicators [ 31 ]. Therefore, the first research question addressed by this study is:

RQ1: How do individual and NGO communicators approach sharing scientific and policy information on social media, and what particular strategies do they apply in their activity to engage with their audiences?

Furthermore, science communicators have typically struggled to encourage conversations on social media, despite evidence of two-way conversations being more effective for information sharing than one-way transmission [ 32 , 33 , 49 , 51 , 52 ]. Therefore, the second research question addressed by this study is:

RQ2: Do particular social media strategies encourage two-way conversations between science communicators and online audiences, and what characteristics of the strategies encourage communicators and audiences to participate in two-way conversations?

The goal of this research was to identify communication practices that encourage two-way conversations between communicators and citizens on social media. If particular techniques are more engaging, they could be adopted or prioritized by communicators to improve how scientific and policy information is shared on social media, and ultimately enable citizens to participate in decision-making processes.

To address the research questions, the activity of four scientists acting as recognized science communicators using individual Twitter and Instagram accounts and the activity of three environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) using organization Twitter and Instagram accounts to share scientific and policy information were studied. This number of communicators was selected to consider the research questions in a detailed, qualitatively data-rich manner (consistent with calls for such studies; [e.g., 24 ]) rather than be representative of all scientists and eNGOs communicating on social media. This study was conducted with established qualitative research methods appropriate for the sample size of communicators and volume and types of data collected [e.g., 94 ]. This research included: 1) an analysis of public Twitter and Instagram data of each of the seven account holders to identify practices implemented by communicators and resulting follower engagement in two-way conversations; 2) interviews with the individual and eNGO communicators to determine their social media strategies; 3) a survey of audience members involved in two-way conversations to determine why they participate in conversations on social media; and 4) an audience “biography” analysis to determine whether the communicators are engaging a scientific, non-scientific, or mixed audience on social media ( Fig 1 ). Following collection, the aggregated social media data were triangulated to develop thorough understanding of social media strategies used by the communicators.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g001

Ethics approval for this study was obtained in the ethics review process established by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Board at Dalhousie University. As required by the ethics approval, informed consent was obtained from the participants prior to the interviews and the survey. The social media data collection complied with the Terms of Service for both Twitter and Instagram. Twitter was selected for this study because it is actively used for science communication and has been studied to a greater extent than other platforms [ 35 , 75 – 78 ]. Instagram was selected because it is a newer platform, and fewer studies on the potential of Instagram as a science communication tool have been completed to date [ 35 , 78 ]. Studying usage of the two platforms, which offer different features, allowed determining whether the communicators were consistent in their application of social media strategies.

Account identification

Following the requirements of ethics approval, all of the participants were treated anonymously. The four individual scientists are located in four countries in North America and Europe. These scientists were chosen from The SciCommunity, an Instagram community that uses social media to make science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics more accessible ( instagram.com/thescicommunity ). The individual communicators were selected based on the order in which they joined the community. Beginning with the earliest community members (i.e., most established communicators), scientists who use personal Twitter and Instagram accounts to communicate primarily in English frequently each week, with accumulated 10,000 followers or more (Twitter and Instagram combined), were invited to participate in the study. Invitations were extended until four communicators agreed to participate in the study. The three eNGOs, also with many thousands of followers, were selected for their focus on sharing environmental information on Twitter and Instagram regularly each week, and for the scale of the organization (one local, one national, and one international). Invitations were extended to eNGOs that met the criteria until three agreed to participate in the study, Environmental NGOs were studied due to their growing role as science communicators to diverse audiences [ 63 , 95 ].

Social media data collection and coding

Publicly available Twitter and Instagram data posted by the seven communicators were collected for four weeks from July 30 to August 26, 2018, including all Twitter posts (TRPs), Instagram posts (IGPs), Instagram stories (IGSs), and all associated TRP and IGP comments. As this study followed a largely qualitative approach to investigate the social media practices of the communicators, one month was judged to be sufficient for analysis and triangulation with the interviews. During the interviews (see below), communicators were asked to focus their responses on their most recent social media activity. Twitter posts were collected once per day using the desktop version ( twitter.com ) one week after they were posted to allow time for audience engagement (from August 6 to September 2, 2018). A screenshot of the TRPs recorded the date/time of posting, captured images, and preserved a “snapshot” of the content and engagement. In the case of multiple Twitter posts together (i.e., a thread), the posts within a thread were captured and treated as a single post, unless posts occurred over multiple days.

Instagram posts were collected from the desktop version ( instagram.com ) in the same manner as TRPs. Instagram stories were collected twice daily to ensure none were missed (as stories expire after 24 hours). Screen capture software was used to record the video and audio associated with each IGS post. Each set of stories was saved as a video file and the stories were separated into threads based on the time between posting and topic continuity. Engagement data from IGSs are not public and were not captured.

The Twitter and Instagram data were organized in spreadsheets for statistical analysis in Rstudio version 1.1.456. For the TRPs, five spreadsheet files were created: original content, comments, handles, names, and reply type (response from the original communicator vs. a secondary social media user). The content files contained two columns—post caption data, and hashtag data—with each row representing a unique post. The other files were organized similarly, with each row containing data on either comments, handles, names, or reply types associated with a unique post. This process was used for IGPs, but only for original content, comments, and handles were created, as data for names and reply type are not recorded within Instagram posts. Each TRP, IGP, and IGS was categorized for the content characteristics [ S1 Table ] using codes based on topics listed as central to the goals of organizations, and the Instagram description for The SciCommunity. Because the Instagram story data were recorded in audio/visual formats, rather than text, the IGSs were only subjected to content coding. In total, 840 social media posts and 1399 comments were collected and analyzed.

Text analysis

The Twitter and Instagram post captions were subjected to text analysis using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015 (LIWC2015) software, which was used to identify the percentage of personal pronouns used in social media posts by the communicators, as such pronouns can affect how interactions between communicators and their audiences are perceived [ 96 ]. LIWC has been validated and used in numerous published research studies [ 75 , 97 ]. English and non-special character data in the text captions posted by each communicator were analyzed as a single dataset, aided by Excel. The analysis was conducted separately for the Twitter and Instagram data for each communicator. Individual and eNGO scores were aggregated, as both communicator groups were analyzed under the same conditions.

Interview data collection and analysis

The owners or representatives of the seven accounts were invited via email to participate in semi-structured interviews and to maintain anonymity were randomly assigned a code (e.g., IND1 for an individual scientist or ORG1 for an eNGO). The interview questions were designed to investigate how the communicators viewed their use of social media generally, along with their goals/objectives, their posting strategies, and their participation in social media conversations. The interviews, conducted by phone or Skype, were audio recorded. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to three rounds of coding, following established analysis processes [ 98 – 100 ], to draw out the themes from the textual data: an initial round to determine specific codes for each relevant interview response, a second round to create broader grouping of associated codes into categories, and a final round to restructure categories into overarching themes of all interviews. In the initial round, coding was conducted by one researcher, followed by a second researcher. The coding was compared and where discrepancies occurred, the researchers discussed the variations and resolved the differences. In subsequent rounds as the themes were drawn from the underlying coding, the second researcher reviewed the theme extraction to ensure consistency of application.

Survey data collection and analysis

An online survey, open from September 10 to October 31, 2018, was administered using Opinio software to query engaged users about their participation in two-way social media conversations. Individuals who posted English comments in two-way conversations on Twitter or Instagram posts of each of the accounts were invited to complete the survey. The participants were invited if they were involved in a conversation with a) one of the communicators in the study, or b) another user who commented on a communicator post. A two-way conversation was defined as a comment that received at least one response, with both the commenter and respondent invited to complete the survey. Accounts that were deleted or changed to a different “handle” by users before invitations were sent out, accounts that did not belong to individuals, accounts that were obvious trolls/bots (based on their social media profile and/or comments), and the seven accounts of the individual scientists and eNGOs in the study were excluded. A total of 425 conversationalists were invited to participate in the survey via either Twitter or Instagram (i.e., the platform in which a conversation occurred) using a unique comment that tagged the individual in a Twitter or Instagram post and asked to follow a link that directed them to a webpage containing the survey link. When users conducted conversations on posts of more than one of the accounts in the study, random selection was used to decide which account the user was contacted about. The participants were treated anonymously and limited to completing the survey once. The quantitative data were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, and the free text responses were coded for content themes.

Audience analysis

The Twitter and Instagram biographies of the individuals invited to complete the survey were analyzed statistically with the aid of Rstudio version 1.1.456 to determine if they self-identified as scientists on social media. The individuals were classified as scientists if their biography mentioned science or science disciplines (e.g., neuroscientist, biochemistry), or if their social media profile pictures clearly depicted them as scientists.

Because the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between communication techniques and audience engagement, particularly two-way conversations across Twitter and Instagram, analysis of the activity data from the two social media platforms, the interviews, and the survey text responses and demographic information were integrated for each communicator in the presentation of the results. This approach triangulates each communicator’s social media practices (both their views about their strategies and actual practices) with audience engagement, while highlighting similarities and differences in the strategies and engagement between each communicator and as either an individual communicator or eNGO. Because this study connects the application of strategies and resulting engagement throughout the social media activity of the communicators, social media data were analyzed in aggregate (i.e., strategies and engagement across all posts), rather than on a post-by-post basis.

Three strategy filters

The interviews and the Twitter and Instagram data show that the two communicator groups utilize three types of “filters” to guide their posting activity. First, the seven communicators operate within implicitly accepted social practices on each platform (i.e., platform conventions). Second, the two communicator groups apply specific activity strategies related to posting frequency and type of media used in posts. Third, the seven communicators implement interpersonal communication strategies in their posts. These three filters are implemented in a hierarchical manner, that is, the activity strategies are applied according to platform conventions, and the interpersonal strategies are applied in accordance with both the activity strategies and platform conventions. Interpersonal communication and strategies emerged as important characteristics of the communicators’ social media activity. Interpersonal communication has been the focus of extensive research [ 101 – 104 ]. The succinct definition by Braithwaite, Schrodt, & Carr [ 105 ], “interpersonal communication is the production and processing of verbal and nonverbal messages between two or a few persons,” is pertinent in this study as this definition accounts for communication centred on individuals, focused on interactions involving exchange of messages, and on development of relationships between the participants. As is shown below, the strategies that communicators implemented to promote interpersonal communication gave attention to one or more of these aspects.

Platform conventions

The interviews with the seven communicators show that accepted social media conventions play an important role in dictating the techniques applied by them, as they recognize that adherence to the common platform practices that have emerged over time will ensure their posts remain consistent with the expectations of social media users. The communicators expressed similar views of how they plan and implement strategies based on the platform conventions. For example, all of the communicators noted that Twitter tends to attract a more educated and/or issue-cognizant audience seeking news-centric information, and that Instagram draws a larger general/non-scientific audience interested in more personal multimedia posts, and therefore the seven communicators post accordingly to meet audience expectations (e.g., “You can share photos on Twitter, but it’s more visible and accessible on Instagram” (IND 4 interview)). Additional strategies applied by the communicators (discussed below), are implemented in compliance with implicit platform conventions.

Activity strategies

The individual and eNGO communicators implement particular strategies related to post frequency, platform priority, and media type used in posts—hereafter referred to as activity strategies—although with some variability. The eNGOs strive to post at regularly scheduled intervals, while maintaining flexibility to react when necessary. For example, one eNGO representative stated: “[we’re] doing as much planning as possible, but trying to leave in the flexibility to react when there is a more timely or necessary content need” (ORG2 interview). This approach allows the eNGOs to present well-researched information that is backed by evidence, while still giving the organizations an opportunity to share topical content and participate in social media “conversations” regarding breaking news or unexpected events related to their work (e.g., an interesting animal encounter during field work). In practice, ORG1 and ORG3 post on social media about 20 times/week ( Fig 2 ). ORG2, however, posts on Twitter and Instagram much more frequently, at a rate of >120 times/week ( Fig 2 ), because it “seems to be the most effective” for encouraging engagement (ORG2 interview). The individual scientists post in a less scheduled manner than the eNGOs, mainly when they feel inspired to do so. IND3 and IND4 post at similar rates to ORG1 and ORG3 (about 20–25 times/week), but IND1 and IND2 less than 10 times/week ( Fig 2 ). The individual scientists indicated that frequency is not as important as quality. They typically share based on more mentally “dynamic” factors (e.g., creativity, curiosity, inspiration, interest), and consequently do not feel motivated to post at high frequencies, which the individuals find to be overexerting or time consuming. As one communicator said, “I’ve kind of come to the point where it’s best for me just to post when I like, when [it] suits me best” (IND4 interview). Although the individual scientists did not discuss whether posting at high frequencies is an effective engagement strategy (other than ensuring the time between posts is not excessive, e.g., weeks), they did mention that they believed that the excitement/passion they are able to convey based on inspiration can be quite engaging for their audience.

Colours indicate the platform distribution of Twitter posts (TRPs), Instagram stories (IGSs), and Instagram posts (IGPs).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g002

The communicators decide which platform they use based on a mix of platform affordances and level of engagement received. However, the eNGOs and individual scientists do not prioritize the same platforms, in regard to intended strategies, or how they are translated into practice. ORG2 prefers Instagram over Twitter, as Instagram is seen as more aligned with the organization’s overall goals: “our preference, or our top performing platform I should say, has been Instagram … it’s still at a point of very rapid growth and evolution in terms of the functions or things you can and can’t do on the particular platform. So that’s lent itself to being a top performer” (ORG2 interview). ORG1 and ORG3 do not have expressed platform preferences. Nevertheless, based on actual post frequency, all three of the eNGOs prioritize Twitter over Instagram, sharing most of their posts (67–76%) on Twitter ( Fig 2 ). For ORG2, this practice is not consistent with the stated platform preference noted during the interview. All three of the individual scientists said they prefer Instagram—especially IGSs. For example, IND3 emphasizes posting on Instagram because that is “where [my] biggest audience is,” while also noting the importance of functionality: “I love how many dimensions there are to using Instagram. You can do pictures, you can do posts, you can do videos and stories, you can live stream. It’s so … versatile in how you can use it that it’s been incredible as a creator” (IND3 interview). The actual post frequency corroborates the interview responses of the individual scientists, as 69–85% of all their social media posts were shared on Instagram, particularly IGSs, with 50–77% of all posts shared via IGSs ( Fig 2 ).

All of the communicators post text, images, and videos in accordance with platform conventions. The two groups of communicators use media types (text, images, and video) in a similar proportion of posts, but the individuals use text differently. Both the individuals and the eNGOs include text in all posts, images in the majority of posts (56–98%), and videos in a smaller fraction of posts (2–36%) ( Fig 3 ). However, on Instagram, where the character limit is 2200 for each post, the individuals post an average of 244 words/caption, whereas the eNGOs use fewer words (an average of 102 words/caption) ( Table 1 ). On Twitter, where the post length is more limited (280 characters), all communicators post a similar average of words/caption (28 for eNGOs and 30 for individuals) ( Table 1 ). In addition, none of the individual scientists use Twitter to share videos, whereas two of the three eNGOs do ( Fig 3 ).

Proportion of social media posts by individuals and eNGOs containing A) images, and B) videos/GIFs, July 30-August 26, 2018. Colours indicate the relative proportion of posts with images or videos/GIFs in the TRPs, IGSs, and IGPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t001

Interpersonal strategies

The seven communicators all noted in their interview responses that they aim to integrate interpersonal strategies into their social media activities. Some of these strategies are non-conversational, resulting in no direct interactions between the communicators and audience members. Six of the communicators stated that humanizing social media content is important for establishing personal connections with audiences. To humanize their organizations the representatives of ORG1 and ORG3 stated they display images of scientists or other staff members in posts. As one eNGO representative said, “It’s good for people to get to know who… the researchers or advocates are behind each of the stories and who’s working on them and why. I think [that’s] useful for people… that human aspect is important, and… giving people a chance to get to know who’s behind the controls is a good thing” (ORG1 Interview). However, the ORG1 and ORG3 representatives also stated that posting selfies and humanizing their organizations is one of their biggest social media challenges, particularly as the organization staff are often not willing to be seen in social media photos/videos, and because the organizations employ multiple staff members to create content for social media (ORG1 and ORG3 Interviews). In practice, ORG1 and ORG3 include selfies in a small fraction of their posts (14% and 15% of posts respectively), whereas ORG2 does not post any selfies on social media ( Fig 4 ).

Colours indicate relative proportion of posts with selfies in the TRPs, IGSs, and IGPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g004

Selfies are a key means of humanizing the individual scientists since displaying their faces allows people to become comfortable with them. The individual scientists stated they use selfies to convey authenticity and to encourage/invite their audience to engage with them. As IND3 said, “I do try to be the most honest version of myself that I can display,” which “is important because it helps people to understand and also care about what you’re communicating” (IND3 interview). Similarly, IND2 noted: “that’s why I like to film in a selfie mode, because also it… puts a face on a scientist. People like to connect with other people” (IND2 interview). IND1 also expressed a similar view: “that’s one hundred percent to be human… even if you post a photo with your science, or with your code, or whatever… I think even in my facial expressions I try to make it about inviting people in” (IND1 interview). Selfie strategies are evident in the actual posting activity of the individual scientists, who collectively utilize selfies far more frequently than the eNGOs, incorporating selfies into more than 30% of posts ( Fig 4 ). Additionally, selfie-style videos are important for the individuals, who noted they speak directly to their camera to convey a sense of talking directly to their audiences. The individuals believe these videos are especially effective for communicating on a personal level and establishing communicator-audience relationships. For example, IND3 explained how selfie-style videos feel very authentic and conversational:

I think video content, especially… a selfie-style video… feels pretty intimate actually. It feels like you’re having a one-on-one conversation, and it really helps… to build relationships with the audience. Because it feels very personal to have someone speaking right to you via the phone in your hand. (IND3 interview)

Selfie-style videos are commonly implemented as a strategy by the individual scientists, as a substantial proportion of their video posts (38–67%) include selfie-style audio ( Fig 5 ). In contrast, the eNGO communicators rarely use selfie-style audio in their video posts (5–7%), generally opting for no audio at all, or music-based audio ( Fig 5 ).

*Two or no videos posted (IND2 and ORG1).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g005

In addition to practices to humanize their social media activity, the communicators used non-conversational interpersonal communication strategies linked to the social media topics of their posts. Educating audiences through social media is an important goal of the eNGOs, and they give particular attention to the manner in which education is conducted. They emphasize a two-way model, rather than a top-down approach where information only flows from communicator to audience. For example, ORG1 pointed out: “I don’t know if it’s ‘teaching’… We don't want to be talk ‘down-y’” (ORG1 interview). The eNGOs also try to balance “heavier” educational/scientific content with “lighter” topics—such as posts focused on funny/interesting animals—and they use metaphors to make science content more accessible for their audiences. Similarly, the eNGOs stated they aim to make the content fun and interactive by presenting compelling information and mixing in humour. In addition, the eNGOs aim to build trust with their audiences by ensuring all of their posts are backed by scientific evidence. Overall, the social media activity shows that the eNGO communicators post consistently on topic (only an average of 9% of eNGO posts were off-topic, i.e., not clearly linked to the organization’s goals or mission, Fig 6 ), deciding to include entertainment and humour in posts topically linked to the organization’s goals/mission.

Colours indicate the relative proportion of off-topic posts in the TRPs, IGSs, and IGPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g006

Similar to the eNGOs, the individual scientists exercise two-way communication practices to avoid talking down to their audiences and to balance the educational component of their social media activity with lighter content such as humour and entertainment. One individual emphasized this sentiment, describing the educational component as “teaching, but with an engagement model… helping people to engage with educational content” (IND3 interview). However, in contrast to the eNGOs, the individual scientists mainly balance the content by including personal social media topics—such as daily activities that might be unrelated to science—and expressed a clear intention to post personal content using IGSs. For example, IND1 discussed how posting personal content on IGSs helps to portray scientists as people, i.e., regular individuals who have interests outside of science:

I think that Instagram stories humanize [science] more than anything else. Just because they’re quick, they don’t have to be high quality… Sometimes [content is] not exciting enough to warrant a whole post on Instagram, but you know, people like seeing it on the stories. Because it’s a way for them to check in with me, and like, what I am doing between posts. (IND1 interview)

The individuals also focus on expressing emotions in their post topics, and try to authentically display themselves, and scientists more generally, as warm, kind people as opposed to strictly knowledge experts absent of approachable qualities. In addition to ensuring their posts are all evidence-based (a strategy emphasized by the eNGOs as well), the individual scientists work to establish personal connections with their audiences in order to build trust. In highlighting use of selfie-style videos, IND3 said, “Recording an off the cuff video just kind of… confers some level of honesty. Because it’s you just free stream talking as if in conversation. And so, I try not to overly produce anything. Because I want people to see… we’re just talking, this is not so serious. We’re just having conversations, let’s delve in” (IND3 interview). The social media data demonstrate that the individual scientists share a larger proportion of off-topic posts than eNGOs (an average of 32% of posts were off-topic), many of which are about everyday activities ( Fig 6 ). The text analysis of social media posts via LIWC shows that individual scientists also use more first person personal pronouns in their posts than the eNGO communicators; 3.4% and 5.1% of words in captions posted by the individuals on Twitter and Instagram respectively were first person pronouns ( Table 1 ). In comparison, the eNGOs used such pronouns less frequently (2.1% of words on Twitter, 1.5% of words on Instagram).

The seven communicators also implement interpersonal communication strategies via two-way conversations with their audiences. The eNGO communicators stated that they prioritize responding to audience comments on their posts, especially when people ask questions. The eNGOs also put calls to action (such as requests for audience members to sign petitions or join meetings) and/or questions in their posts, and endeavour to make their posts captivating, all designed to encourage audience members to participate in social media conversations. In addition, the eNGO communicators view two-way conversations as an opportunity to establish personal connections with their audiences and form communicator-audience relationships. For example, ORG2 said that “it’s difficult to build that relationship without having a conversation. So… enabling the opportunity to interact one-on-one with the individual… [is an occasion] to be able … to take that next step in that relationship” (ORG2 interview). Nonetheless, the eNGO communicators did not particularly feel they have been successful in forming communicator-audience relationships, as noted by ORG1: “I don’t feel like I have much of a personal relationship with the followers, no” (ORG1 interview). While the eNGO representatives stated that engaging with audience members was important, in practice, ORG1 and ORG2 respond to few, if any comments (responding to less than 1% of comments per post) ( Fig 7 ). Although ORG3 responds to about 8% of comments per post, it still does so much less frequently than all individuals (who responded to an average of 15–34% of comments per post).

Colours indicate the relative proportion of comments responded to on TRPs and IGPs. Numbers on top of bars indicate the total number of comments responded to during the study period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g007

In the interviews, the four individual scientists also discussed interpersonal communication strategies via two-way conversations with their audiences. They prioritize responding to audience comments (particularly questions), put calls to action and/or questions in their social media posts to encourage a conversations, and strive to establish personal connections with their audiences and form communicator-audience relationships via two-way conversations. This view was obvious in a statement by IND3: “A lot of the time we’re just building relationships, we’re laughing. I’ll post something funny, and someone will reply… Further, it’s important for me to let people know that scientists do care about them… We care about individuals more than people realize… So it’s important for me to address people’s concerns, and talk with them, and share with them information that they’re curious about” (IND3 interview). In practice, the individual scientists respond to a substantially larger proportion of audience comments than the eNGOs (15–34% of comments per post ( Fig 7 )). The individual scientists also highlighted that they have been able to form communicator-audience relationships through their social media activity, as evidenced by a comment by IND4: “Yeah, [meeting up with an audience member in person for the first time] was great. It was weird in the fact that it wasn’t a complete stranger. So although it was the first time that you met them, you were talking to them like you had known them for ages” (IND4 interview). One individual scientist noted that although typical conversations on posts might be short, the conversations can extend beyond single posts once communicator-audience relationships are formed:

Oh my gosh, they’re ongoing. They’re very ongoing. There are many examples of people messaging me to ask for advice … and [they] almost always follow up. So I had one woman applying to a … program, and we actually even met in person because she happened to be visiting, and we exchanged some advice and conversation. And a year later she followed up and let me know she got into the program … and we had been chatting in the interim, but not so much. But many times people will follow up and let me know how it went, and say thank you, and say, “Oh I also learned this, you can tell people that next time” … So now we’ve turned a one-time interaction into a long-term resource, which I think is cool. (IND3 interview)

In contrast, the eNGO communicators noted during interviews their intention to build relationships with audience members through social media, but did not indicate that they had been successful in doing so.

Audience engagement on communicator posts

Triangulation of the social media and survey data was carried out to understand why audience members decided to engage with social media posts shared by the communicators. The individual scientists receive more conversational engagement than the eNGOs, that is, the individuals receive more and longer comments, and generate a larger number of direct interactions with unique conversationalists ( Table 2 ). The individuals receive 20–42 comments/post/10,000 followers on Instagram, and 0.8–60 comments/post/10,000 followers on Twitter whereas the organizations receive 1–4 comments/post/10,000 followers and almost no (0.05–0.4) comments/post/10,000 followers on Instagram and Twitter, respectively ( Table 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t002

Comments on the individual scientists’ posts ranged from 11–26 words in length on Instagram and 9–26 words on Twitter ( Table 2 ). In contrast, comments on the eNGO communicators’ posts ranged from 5–7 words on Instagram and 2–15 words on Twitter ( Table 2 ). Although the total number of unique conversationalists varied across the two groups and platforms ( Table 2 ), an average of 74% and 85% of unique users interacted directly with the individual communicators on their Twitter and Instagram posts, respectively (although IND1 on Twitter was far lower than the other individuals). An average of 30% of unique conversationalists interacted directly with the eNGO communicators on their Twitter posts, and an average of 23% did so on Instagram posts ( Table 2 ).

Although direct message data were not collected (this information is not public in either Twitter or Instagram), all of the communicators indicated during the interviews that direct message engagement does not occur more frequently than comment engagement. Furthermore, although the eNGO communicators engage a majority non-scientific audience (0–22% of conversationalists across Instagram and Twitter were identified as scientific users), the individual scientists reach a mixed audience consisting of both scientific and non-scientific users–particularly on Instagram–with 42–67% of conversationalists identified as scientific users on Instagram, and 44–100% identified as scientific users on Twitter ( Table 2 ). While mixed, scientists constitute a large proportion of the audience of the individual communicators.

The survey of conversationalists yielded a response rate of 10% (45 out of 425 invited to complete the survey). Most of the survey respondents were engaged on posts of the individual scientists (five on Twitter and 33 on Instagram), and seven were engaged on posts of the eNGO communicators (all from Instagram). The majority (62%) of respondents who identified their age were between 19–33 years old, with a smaller proportion (16%) aged 5–18 and 34–49 combined ( Table 3 ). Only two of the survey participants were 50 or above. Most of the survey respondents who revealed their gender identified as female (82%) ( Table 3 ). The respondents were also highly educated and science-associated overall: 83% of respondents had some level of post-secondary education, and 80% consider themselves part of the scientific community ( Table 3 ). Although the majority of survey participants were well educated and science-associated, many users who participated in conversations on the posts of the science communicators were not scientists, especially those engaged with eNGO posts ( Table 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t003

Some survey participants provided open text responses that explained why they engage in conversations on posts of the communicators, frequently expressing personal sentiments (emotional connections to the communicator and/or their posts) in their responses, rather than focusing on education or links to science. Those who prefer to engage in conversations on Twitter do so due to its short message length and focus on news/relevant information ( Table 4 ). The participants who expressed a preference for Instagram drew attention to its visual nature, its communication features, and its ease of use/functionality ( Table 4 ). Regardless of platform preference, the most cited reasons for using Twitter related to the participants’ work and their seeking news/information. In contrast, the participants use Instagram because of the platform’s visual nature, and for personal reasons such as self-expression, relationship-building, and connecting with friends/family ( Table 5 ). Personal sentiments also emerged when the respondents wrote about their motivation for following particular accounts. Although they follow the communicators to receive new information, many also do so because they find the communicators (or the content) to be relatable ( Table 5 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t005

A theme that emerged from all survey responses was the participants’ sense of personal connection with the communicators, which encouraged participation in conversations, particularly on Instagram, which the participants viewed as a more personal social media platform compared to Twitter. For example, one participant stated: “it seems personal and engaging (photos and captions) but without the threat of things getting out of hand or out of context like on Twitter.” The survey respondents also noted that Instagram is quite conducive to communication, illustrated by the participant who stated: “I’m most active on Instagram and it’s easy to make and respond to comments, posts, and stories.” When the respondents commented about their decisions to engage with the communicators, many (12 out of 19) did so in terms of personal connections, perceived authenticity of the communicator, and feeling that they knew the owner of the account ( Table 5 ). For example, one wrote, “for me it is easier to contact a person instead of an organization with 'unknown faces' behind it.” Another respondent described a sense of comfort in interacting with organizations that are comprised of known individuals, “I use social media for work so I know there are ‘individuals’ behind the organization… However if I didn’t know the organisation, then I would be less likely to reply.”

When queried about establishing relationships with the communicators, 24 respondents added explanations, and 13—both those that do and do not feel that they have formed relationships with the communicator—commented specifically about two-way conversations. One did not feel an opportunity to form a relationship was presented, because direct interactions had only occurred with other users, not the communicator: “I don't think [the communicator has] ever responded to anything I've said on their post, responded to one of my posts, or anything of the like. It's impossible to feel any link if it's not reciprocal.” In contrast, those who formed relationships emphasized the dialogic interactions: “we have commented back and forth to each other as well as [direct messaged] in the past!” Two others expressed similar comments: “we talk in private as well as I do with my friends”; and: “I often message [them] if I need to know anything about being in academia, because I am new to it and [they are] really helpful.” One respondent also stressed that the way posts are presented on social media is crucial, and can result in a relationship-type connection in the absence of direct interactions with the communicator:

We don’t talk, but their welcoming demeanor and friendliness makes learning science personal. It feels like engaging with a friend. Their method of communication makes science a more fun and accessible conversation. You feel like you are involved, and you can always put forth your input without judgement—something that is super important because science can appear condescending to a lot of people. It’s constant learning and that’s all that matters.

Recognizing that social media provide a means of two-way interactions—which research suggests are crucial for effective communication [ 33 , 34 ]—individual scientists and NGOs are increasingly using social media platforms to communicate with their audiences and promote science literacy [ 46 , 47 , 68 , 75 , 106 ]. However, individual and NGO communicators have had difficulty fostering two-way exchanges with their audiences on social media [ 33 , 106 ]. With evidence that the way in which communicators use social media plays an important role in determining audience engagement [e.g., 31 ], this study investigated how individual and NGO communicators approach sharing scientific information on social media, and the strategies they apply to engage with their audiences (RQ1).

The individual and eNGO communicators in this study implement three strategy “filters” in a hierarchical manner to guide their posting activity. First, both communicator groups follow implicit platform conventions when sharing posts on social media. All of the communicators follow a similar approach to ensure their posts are consistent with audience expectations, for example, focusing on more news-centric content in Twitter posts (TRPs), and more visually interesting content in Instagram posts (IGPs).

Second, both of the communicator groups are intentional in how often they post on the social media platforms, as well as in the types of media they use in posts. This activity “filter” is applied differently between the communicator groups. For example, the eNGOs implement a more scheduled approach, typically posting frequently, at regular intervals, and mainly on Twitter. In contrast, the individual communicators are more flexible in how often they post, and share information mainly via Instagram, particularly Instagram stories (IGSs). However, the activity strategies applied by the communicators do not link directly with conversational engagement on their social media posts. When comparing proportional engagement between the communicators (normalizing engagement to the number of followers for each communicator), ORG2—which posts far more frequently than the other communicators—receives fewer comments than the other communicators, and is in conversations with fewer unique users. IND1 and IND2 post less frequently than the other communicators, but they do not receive lower engagement with regard to user comments or unique conversationalists. A link between media type used (frequency of text, images, videos) and conversational engagement is also not obvious. Furthermore, a connection between the platform given priority in practice (i.e., the platform posted to most frequently) and conversational engagement is not evident, as all of the eNGOs receive more engagement on IGPs than TRPs despite posting more frequently on Twitter than Instagram.

The data in this study show that the implementation of interpersonal social media strategies by the communicators (i.e., the third strategy “filter”) encourages conversational engagement (RQ2). The next section discusses the characteristics of interpersonal strategies that encourage communicators and audiences to participate in two-way conversations (RQ2).

Interpersonal communication strategies and social media engagement

A variety of interpersonal communication strategies have been demonstrated to affect social media engagement [ 62 ], many of which are used by both the individual and eNGO communicators. For example, both the individuals and eNGOs actively invite people to participate in conversations on their posts, which is important because this approach encourages engagement, an opportunity that would otherwise be missed [ 25 , 62 , 107 ]. However, the individual scientists more comprehensively implement interpersonal communication strategies. First, the individuals post selfies and selfie-style videos more frequently than the eNGOs. This difference is noteworthy for engagement, as social media users are more willing to comment on posts by communicators whom they know, and more likely to initiate conversations with communicators who are familiar to them [ 26 , 29 , 69 ]. Furthermore, previous research shows that speaking directly to social media audiences through the camera—as is common practice for the individuals in selfie-style videos—can personally connect communicators with audience members and help to build trust and establish communicator-audience relationships, even in the absence of direct communicator-user interactions [ 27 , 84 , 108 , 109 ]. In addition, research on interpersonal communication has shown that this form of communication entails establishing relationships among the participants [ 105 ]. The results of this study support the link between selfie-style posts, two-way conversations, and communicator-audience relationships, as the individual scientists receive more engagement than eNGOs overall, and successfully formed relationships with their audiences, even in the absence of direct interaction (as corroborated by the survey responses). The frequent use of selfie-style image and video posts appears to be an effective strategy to build trust, establish communicator-audience relationships, and stimulate discussions of science on social media, which science communicators could implement to encourage effective science communication.

The expression of interpersonal sentiments in posts is also important for social media engagement, as recent research suggests that content characteristics affect engagement. For example, when users see social media posts similar in nature to their own, they are better able to connect with the content on a personal level and engage with it [ 28 , 30 ]. Although both communicator groups discussed strategies to make their social media content more relatable, the individual scientists receive more engagement in terms of two-way conversations than eNGOs overall, which may be because the former choose to focus on posting personally-relatable content. When the individual scientists post off-topic content such as day-to-day activities and frequently use first person pronouns in posts, they create relatable, shared stories that are thought to be key for audience engagement [ 26 , 110 ]. In fact, posts with a personal sentiment or message (including those without any science content) can surpass scientific posts in terms of engagement, even on science-focused accounts [ 107 ]. A link between engagement and personal content was evident in the survey responses, which showed users choose to follow communicators with whom they can relate. The results of this study suggest that the use of personal and relatable social media content promotes more two-way interactions in social media with science communicators than would otherwise occur.

Previous studies show that using two-way conversations to form communicator-audience relationships is important for social media engagement. Two-way conversations can result in personal connections between users and organizations, and cultivate positive organization-public relationships, which are crucial because organizations often have difficulty in retaining engaged users on social media [ 62 , 111 – 113 ]. However, the means through which relationships are formed between organizations and users on social media goes beyond direct interactions, as research shows that a significant number of users are influenced by the interactions they see online. When communicators engage with an individual, they are indirectly affecting relationship perceptions for others who observe the interaction, even when no direct communication takes place with the latter [ 114 ]. Additionally, the survey responses demonstrate that communicators are capable of establishing relationships with audience members through the use of personal sentiments even in the absence of direct interactions. Therefore, because the eNGOs currently respond to a smaller proportion of audience comments compared with the individual scientists, the eNGOs engage in fewer two-way conversations and therefore may be more limited in their ability to form communicator-audience relationships than individuals. This outcome is supported by this study: two-way conversations between individual communicators and audience members resulted in the establishment of communicator-audience relationships, whereas the eNGOs communicators were less successful in forming relationships with their audiences. Furthermore, because more conversations can result when communicators form relationships with their audiences (as discussed above), two-way conversations and communicator-audience relationships appear to be mutually reinforcing. Consequently, focusing on responding to audience comments to form communicator-audience relationships is likely an effective strategy to create sustained social media engagement between science communicators and their audiences. One of the individual scientists emphasized that conversations are not limited to individual posts; instead, when communicators establish relationships with their audiences, the relationships allow conversations to extend beyond a discrete instance, and into a larger, ongoing conversation. Therefore, science communicators will benefit by being responsive to social media comments and working to establish communicator-audience relationships in order to facilitate longer-term, ongoing conversations about science [ 115 ].

Non-scientific audience engagement

Both the individuals and the eNGOs stated that they specifically target non-scientific audiences with their social media activity (although the communicators do not limit their audiences to non-scientific users alone). In the interviews, all seven communicators pointed out that they generally use Instagram to reach non-scientific audiences, as they feel the platform attracts a larger population of non-scientific users than Twitter. Studies have shown, however, that the educational distribution of users on Twitter and Instagram is relatively similar [ 116 , 117 ]. The apparent mismatch between the perception of the communicators and subscriber base of the two platforms may be due to the topics of focus by the communicators on social media and the audiences that they have built. To date, scientists have typically been heavier users of Twitter than Instagram, and because the communicators post an abundance of science-based content [ 78 , 79 ], they may attract more scientists via Twitter than Instagram. Furthermore, education level does not necessarily equate to science literacy. In this study, all of the communicators except IND1 appear to engage a larger proportion of scientific users in conversations on Twitter than on Instagram. Moreover, a higher proportion of users in conversations on posts by the eNGOs are non-scientific compared to the individual scientist communicators. This result is likely a consequence of the differences in target audiences, topics, and social media goals among the communicators indicated during interviews. Nonetheless, the individual scientists engage a mixed (scientific and non-scientific) audience on social media, particularly on Instagram. Therefore, as this study shows, focusing on Instagram as a platform to reach non-scientific audiences for science conversations could be an important science communication strategy.

Interpersonal communication afforded through Instagram

Determining the extent to which Instagram fosters social media engagement is another informative outcome in this study. Not only did a greater number of two-way conversations take place on Instagram than Twitter for nearly all of the communicators (including the eNGOs that do not prioritize the platform in practice), Instagram was favoured by the communicators and survey participants for conversation-related uses overall, particularly illustrated by their understanding of accepted social media practices. The visual, informal, multi-functional, cordial, and multimedia-focused nature of Instagram (both posts and stories) contributes to it being a more conversational platform than Twitter. Science communicators could capitalize on this functionality of Instagram to encourage more conversations and informative two-way science communication with diverse audiences.

Implications

This study is especially informative for understanding characteristics of science communication on social media, and could contribute to dialogic theory on science communication more broadly, as the results highlight factors that play an important role in fostering two-way exchanges [ 62 , 106 , 118 ]. The use of more formal methods typical of traditional science communication practices, i.e., through transfer of publications (data and information in various forms, e.g., peer-reviewed research papers) [ 119 – 122 ], often results in a transmission pathway, where conversations are limited between communicators and their audiences ( Fig 8 ). In contrast, the implementation of interpersonal strategies by science communicators promotes the formation of communicator-audience relationships and encourages audiences to participate in more two-way conversations, resulting in positive feedback effect ( Fig 8 ). Crucially, because the interpersonal communication practices observed in this study mainly relate to how content is shared rather than what information is shared or who it is shared with, such strategies are applicable to a wide diversity of subjects and audiences. Therefore, science communicators of all types (individual scientists, organizations, government agencies, etc.) can communicate interpersonally with citizens about a variety of scientific topics for which research information is relevant to make policy decisions, promoting citizens to be more scientifically engaged in environmental, health, and other issues.

Formal strategies are not sufficient to establish a relationship between audience and communicator, resulting solely in a transmission pathway. Interpersonal strategies act as enablers to information flow, resulting in communicator-audience relationships, which promote two-way conversations sustained over time.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g008

For organizations such as eNGOs that are communicating with large non-scientific audiences, the potential to engage citizens in the science of environmental issues through interpersonal strategies is high. Importantly, because organizations do not operate in the same manner as individual scientists, they may be more limited in their ability to adopt interpersonal communications (for example, organizations are staffed by multiple individuals, and/or may be hesitant to share off-topic content or use first person pronouns due to organization culture) [ 123 , 124 ]. Furthermore, organizations face particular challenges and risks when using social media, such as losing control of the narrative of messages or being portrayed as less authoritative, which are not eliminated with the implementation of interpersonal strategies. In such cases, organizations could develop specific guidelines for implementing interpersonal communication into their social media activities in a manner consistent with higher-level organization practices. Nonetheless, because the eNGOs in this study share many goals with the individual scientists (such as encouraging two-way science conversations), eNGOs could apply interpersonal communication strategies—through a “spokesperson,” for example—and promote improved scientific literacy in their audiences on environmental issues that the organizations are engaged with.

Although this research investigated science communication on social media, the interpersonal strategies observed to promote conversations with citizens are applicable to all science communicators in diverse environments. Science communicators working to engage their audiences with environmental research information can apply interpersonal techniques offline as well as online. For example, communicators could utilize interpersonal communication strategies to establish relationships with relevant stakeholder groups involved in participatory policy processes and gain a better understanding of stakeholder concerns, ultimately leading to greater cooperation and more effective management decisions that are inclusive of stakeholder values [ 115 ].

Limitations and future work

The sample size of communicator participants was selected to examine the research question in a detailed and qualitatively data-rich manner rather than be representative of all scientists and eNGOs communicating on social media; nonetheless, increasing the number of communicator participants could reveal whether the conclusions of this study hold across a broader group of communicators and their audiences. Additionally, a longer period of study than was the source of data in this research, would provide further insights into communication patterns, such as how social media behaviours may be changing over time, regarding platform functionality and the way in which users employ social media tools (for example, a new feature called Instagram TV was instituted while this research was in progress). The ways in which social media research is conducted may also be required to change over time as the relationship between researchers and platform providers evolves and data access shifts [ 125 , 126 ]. The study was focused on Twitter and Instagram; future work could include other popular social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube to advance understanding of the effects of interpersonal communication on engagement across more platforms. The communicator participants in this study share slightly different information on social media (i.e., the individual scientists focused mainly on a range of science topics, whereas the eNGOs included more politics and advocacy, with science aspects), which could affect audience engagement. Further research could compare individual scientists and eNGOs focusing on a single science topic to identify any effect of content topic on audience engagement.

The demographic concentration of the survey participants tended toward younger, highly educated respondents. Future work could use sampling techniques to evaluate whether links exist between demographic characteristics and the choice to participate in social media conversations, as well as survey a larger number of audience members to draw broader representative conclusions. Furthermore, conversation quality and message framing were not measured to determine the extent to which social media conversations were scientifically meaningful and learning-oriented, or how messages were framed. Additional investigation into social media as tools to facilitate a participatory model of communication could advance understanding of conversation quality. Evidence from the survey in this study suggests that communicators are positively influencing audience behaviour. For example, 44% of the survey participants (n = 41) feel inspired by communicator posts to make behaviour changes in regard to the natural environment. Therefore, future research that focused on conversation quality could provide additional insight into the effectiveness of science communication to influence behavior. Determining deeper understanding of the extent to which communicators are reaching non-scientific audiences, and how communicator-audience networks are structured and operate, could be obtained through studies that investigate how to measure the level of effectiveness of conversations in communicator/audience interactions, the role of communicator/audience networks, and the presence of lurkers in such networks.

Conclusions

A social media presence by itself is not sufficient for successful communication; how social media tools are used to encourage two-way conversations is an important determinant of engagement [ 25 , 118 ]. Both the individual and eNGO communicator groups in this study share similar communication goals and conveyed strong awareness of strategies known to be effective for science communication (such as two-way conversations). The two communicator groups apply interpersonal communication strategies differently in their social media activity. One difference that emerged is their overall application of interpersonal communication strategies. The individual scientists particularly focus on making themselves known and relatable communicators throughout their social media activity, and on establishing relationships with their audiences. In practice, the individuals achieve this outcome by posting more selfies (images and videos), posting more off-topic content, responding to more comments, and using more personal pronoun-prominent language than the eNGOs achieved. The individual scientists also prioritize Instagram over Twitter (and particularly Instagram stories), which more readily supports the implementation of interpersonal communication strategies than Twitter. This emphasis by the individual scientists on interpersonal communication promotes the formation of communicator-audience relationships, encouraging more two-way conversations and generating greater numbers of opportunities to form relationships with their audiences than the eNGOs. In other words, the results of this study show that a combination of interpersonal communication strategies, and their application throughout the social media activity of science communicators via the features of the social media platforms, especially in Instagram, play an important role in determining audience participation in two-way conversations, and ultimately affect how audience members engage with communicators over time.

Supporting information

S1 table. codes and definitions used to characterize twitter post, instagram post, and instagram story content..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.s001

Acknowledgments

The individual scientists, eNGOs, and survey participants who participated in this study are acknowledged with thanks. Peter Wells, International Ocean Institute Canada, and Suzuette Soomai, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, provided helpful insights. This paper benefitted from the detailed assessment by the PLOS ONE anonymous reviewers.

• 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. FAO; 2020. Available from https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
• 2. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondizio ES, Ngo HT, Guèze M, Agard J, et al., editors. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn; 2019.
• 3. Cubasch U, Wuebbles D, Chen D, Facchini MC, Frame D, Mahowald N, et al. Introduction. In Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
• 4. MacDonald BH, Soomai SS, De Santo EM, Wells PG. Understanding the science-policy interface in integrated coastal and ocean management. In MacDonald BH, Soomai SS, De Santo EM, Wells PG, editors. Science, information, and policy interface for effective coastal and ocean management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2016. p. 19–43.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Hallman WK. What the public thinks and knows about science—and why it matters. In Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA, editors. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 61–72.
• 9. Boykoff MT. Creative (climate) communications: Productive pathways for science, policy, and society. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6 pmid:31733928
• 10. Serrão-Neumann SM, Coudrain A, Coulter L, editors. Communicating climate change information for decision-making. Cham: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.01.070 pmid:29544822
• 13. National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators 2012. National Science Foundation; 2012. Available from https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20170706211612 / https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
• 14. Purcell K, Brenner J, Rainie L. Search engine use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2012 March 9. Available from https://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/09/search-engine-use-2012/
• 15. We Are Social. Digital in 2018. Available from https://wearesocial.com/global-digital-report-2019 . 2019.
• 16. Internet Live Stats. Live. Available from http://www.internetlivestats.com [date unknown].
• 17. Pierce J. Digital divide. In Hobbs R, Mihailidis P. editors. The international encyclopedia of media literacy. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2019; 8 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238
• 18. Reisdorf BC, Blank G, Dutton WH. Internet cultures and digital inequalities. In Graham M, Dutton WH, editors. Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 80–95.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 23. National Science Board. Science and technology: Public attitudes, knowledge, and interest. National Science Foundation; 2020. Available from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/interest-information-sources-and-involvement
• 24. Balan C. Does brand posting behaviour influence follower engagement on Instagram? Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence. 2017; 11(1):687–697. https://doi.org/10.1515/picbe-2017-0073
• 37. Kahan D, Scheufele DA, Jamieson KH. Introduction: why science communication. In Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA, editors. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 1–11.
• 45. Davies SH, Horst M. Science communication: Culture, identity, and citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.
• 50. Akin H, Scheufele DA. Overview of the science of science communication. In Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA, editors. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 25–33.
• 52. Irwin A. Risk, science and public communication: Third order thinking about scientific culture. In Bucchi M, Brian T, editors. Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London: Routledge; 2008. p. 199–212.
• 57. Trench B. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In Cheng D, Claessens M, Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J, Schiele B, Shi S, editors. Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media BV; 2008. p. 119–135.
• 61. Bughin J, Chui M. The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday. [1 December 2010]. Available from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/the-rise-of-the-networked-enterprise-web-20-finds-its-payday#
• 64. Nonprofit Tech for Good. 2018 Global NGO technology report. 2018. Available from http://techreport.ngo
• 81. Boyd I. Be very cautious indeed, Research Fortnight; 2018; 532:20–21.
• 94. Leedy PD, Ormrod JE. Practical research: Planning and design. 12th ed. New York: Pearson; 2019.
• 95. UNESCO-IOC. Summary report of the first global planning meeting: UN Decade of ocean science for sustainable development.13-15 May 2019. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (No. 4). Paris: UNESCO-IOC; 2019. 17 p. Available from https://oceandecade.org/assets/uploads/documents/GPM_SummaryReport_V9FINAL_1563800523.pdf
• 97. Gonçalves P, Araújo M, Benevenuto F, Cha M. Comparing and combining sentiment analysis methods. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Online Social Networks. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2013. p. 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/2512938.2512951
• 101. Berger CR, Roloff ME. Interpersonal communication. In Stacks DW, Salwen MB, Eichhorn KC, editors. An integrated approach to communication theory and research. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2019. p. 277–291. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710753-24
• 102. Burleson BR. The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In Berger CR, Roloff ME, Roskos-Ewoldsen DR, editors. The handbook of communication science. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010. p. 145–163.
• 103. Shue CK, Stamp GH. Measurement in interpersonal communication. In Graham EE, Mazer JP, editors. Communication research measures III. A sourcebook. New York: Routledge; 2020. Chapter 1.
• 104. Solomon D, Theiss J. Interpersonal communication: Putting theory into practice. New York: Routledge; 2013.
• 105. Braithwaite DO, Schrodt P, Carr K. Introduction. Meta-theory and theory in interpersonal communication research. In Braithwaite DO, Schrodt P, editors. Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015. p. 1–20.
• 112. Cox R, Pezzullo PC. Environmental communication and the public sphere. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2016.
• 121. Hjørland B, Fjordback Søndergaard T, Andersen J. UNISIST model and knowledge domains. In Encyclopedia of library and information science. Boco Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2005. p. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS-120024989

SPECIALTY GRAND CHALLENGE article

Understanding and navigating the scholarly communication landscape in the twenty-first century.

• School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States

What is scholarly communication? We lack a universally accepted definition. The Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL), however, provides a broad perspective:

“Scholarly communication is the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and preserved for future use. The system includes both formal means of communication, such as publication in peer-reviewed journals, and informal channels, such as electronic mailing lists” ( ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee, 2003 ).

There is no doubt that scholarly communication is a fundamental activity in all scholarly disciplines. Without this system there would be no networks of scholars, dissemination outlets, and the wealth of recorded scholarship would not be available to readers. Simply put, today's knowledge could not advance without scholarly communication. Despite the long history of formal methods for communication, research on how scholars communicate, and the different facets of this system, are needed more than ever. We have entered an exciting and tumultuous time where the research community is grappling with issues that span social and technological concerns. These concerns, in turn, affect the processes and products of scholarly communication that impact the publishers of scholarly works and distributors such as libraries.

Formal processes for scholarly communication have evolved over the centuries, aided by technological developments, and shaped by ideological shifts. Industries and associations have developed around facilitating scholarly communication whether through journals, conferences and associated proceedings, or monographic treatments of research topics. Technologies and new mindsets are transforming—and challenging—traditional systems for the publication and dissemination of scholarly products. One cannot overstate the importance of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for scholars in reducing the barriers of distance and time. Throughout history, the exchange of ideas could only take place as quickly as the fastest mode of delivery. ICTs, ultimately, have made this communication essentially instantaneous, where distance is no longer an obstacle to the sharing of ideas or facilitation of collaborations among scholars across multiple countries.

Similarly, the technologies used to record scholarly discourse, and to collect and store the evidence used in support of research, make it possible to pursue topics on a scale that could only be imagined even a few decades ago. Big data and big science projects now require the efforts of large interdisciplinary teams of researchers who work toward a common goal as part of centralized or decentralized teams. The resources needed to support large projects present their own challenges for researchers, the institutions in which they operate, and the funding agencies that support their work.

Despite the key role of technologies for the storage and dissemination of scholarly products, the system of scholarship is still is most importantly about human-centered activities. Technologies simply provide the tools to facilitate storage, communication, dissemination, and collaboration. The process of scholarship, in turn, is shaped by the environment in which it exists and is influenced by associated cultural norms and ethics of the scholarly community.

How we communicate with colleagues within our disciplines and in other disciplines, and increasingly how what is learned is translated to the public, are more important than ever for accountability and transparency. The Open Science movement encourages all aspects of scholarly activity to be open ( de la Fuente, 2018 ). This movement has been most evident through Open Access publications, where authors or publication venues make the products of scholarship freely accessible to a global audience. Open Science is expanding further to include open datasets, researcher notes, open software, and open peer assessment of scholarly products. Openness encourages accessibility, accountability, reuse, reproducibility, and transparency. This, then, encourages further discovery and understanding. However, the push toward openness can be a double-edged sword. In some disciplinary areas, particularly involving social research, the move for openness must be balanced with the equally important considerations of privacy and confidentiality of personal and social data. This concern extends to big data, where opportunities to discover knowledge can also raise ethical concerns.

Ethical issues are at the forefront of scholarly communication and affect all aspects of scholarly processes. As scholars we strive to reveal and understand the world around us. Increasing pressures for researchers to “produce” have promoted an environment of “publish or perish,” which creates the potential for research misconduct or ethically questionable behavior. The outcomes of the pressures to produce manifest themselves in many forms and may include: the reporting of slipshod research, a focus on the least publishable unit, gratuitous authorship, data fabrication, plagiarism, and selective reporting of results. In scholarly environments where prestige and impact are determined, at least in part, by measures based on citations and other usage data, these pressures extend to journal editors and publishers where increasing the profile of a journal to attract the best submissions presents its own challenges. These issues also extend to peer review, a cornerstone of scholarly communication. With the growing numbers of venues that publish reviewed research, demands on scholars' time to participate in rigorous peer review are increasing ( Kovanis et al., 2016 ).

How we assess scholars and scholarship represents another important facet of scholarly communication in need of further study. Scholarly reward systems encompass both the recognition (or credit) that scholars receive for their contributions as well as the tangible and intangible rewards bestowed upon them that can help advance their careers and stature in the research community. In addition, understanding how scholars remain current and how they engage in information seeking behavior is vital to effective scholarly communication. The growth in the amount of scholarly literature published annually makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to keep up with developments in their own fields, let alone allied disciplines.

With these topics in mind, the Scholarly Communication section of Frontiers in Research Analytics and Metrics provides a forum for all aspects of scholarly communication—past, present, and future—that address the stakeholders, processes, products, and the environments in which they exist. We welcome original research submissions that investigate how the changing landscape of scholarship is created and communicated in the sciences, social sciences and humanities, and we encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives that focus on any of these issues.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee (2003). Principles and Strategies for the Reform of Scholarly Communication . Available online at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/principlesstrategies (accessed October 25, 2019).

Google Scholar

de la Fuente, G. B. (2018). What is Open Science? Introduction . Available online at: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/content/what-open-science-introduction (accessed October 25, 2019).

Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., and Trinquart, L. (2016). The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE 11:e0166387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: research ethics, scholarly communication, big data, research collaboration, open science, research assessment

Citation: Wolfram D (2019) Understanding and Navigating the Scholarly Communication Landscape in the Twenty-First Century. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 4:4. doi: 10.3389/frma.2019.00004

Received: 17 October 2019; Accepted: 30 October 2019; Published: 13 November 2019.

Edited and reviewed by: Chaomei Chen , Drexel University, United States

Copyright © 2019 Wolfram. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Dietmar Wolfram, dwolfram@uwm.edu

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

200+ Google Scholar Research Topics: Strategies & Example

Academic research is all about learning new stuff and finding answers to questions. Whether you’re a student, teacher, or just someone curious, Google Scholar is like a super helpful friend for your research adventures. 

In this guide, we’ll explore how Google Scholar can make your research journey easier and more exciting. Moreover, we will check the Google Scholar Research Topics. So, let’s dive in!

What Would Be Search Strategies For Google Scholar?

Google Scholar’s search capabilities go far beyond the basic search bar. To unlock its full potential, it’s crucial to understand advanced search techniques, Boolean operators, and filters. Here are some strategies to consider:

Advanced Search Techniques

Google Scholar offers an advanced search feature that enables you to refine your queries. You can use this feature to narrow down results by specific authors, journals, publication dates, and more. It’s a powerful way to find precisely what you’re looking for.

Boolean Operators

Employing Boolean operators like “AND,” “OR,” and “NOT” can help you create complex search queries. For instance, combining “climate change” AND “policy” can yield research papers that specifically address the intersection of these two topics.

Filters and Operators

Utilizing filters and operators, such as the citation count, can help you identify the most influential and highly cited research in your field. This can be especially useful for locating seminal papers.

80+ Google Scholar Research Topics: Subject Wise Topics

• The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity
• Quantum Computing: Current Developments and Challenges
• Nanotechnology Applications in Medicine
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery
• Dark Matter and the Structure of the Universe
• Advancements in Gene Editing Technologies
• Renewable Energy Sources and Sustainable Solutions
• The Effects of Pollution on Aquatic Ecosystems
• Ethical Considerations in AI and Machine Learning
• Cybersecurity Threats and Mitigation Strategies
• Internet of Things (IoT) and its Impact on Daily Life
• Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Education
• Blockchain Technology and Its Applications Beyond Cryptocurrency
• 5G Technology and Its Potential for Transforming Communication
• Human-Computer Interaction and User Experience Design
• Robotics in Healthcare: Current Trends and Future Prospects
• Precision Medicine and Personalized Treatment Approaches
• Mental Health Stigma and Access to Care
• The Role of Gut Microbiota in Human Health
• Advances in Cancer Immunotherapy
• Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring
• Health Disparities Among Vulnerable Populations
• Antibiotic Resistance: Causes and Solutions
• Aging and Neurodegenerative Diseases: Research Challenges

Social Sciences

• Social Media’s Influence on Political Behavior
• The Psychology of Social Networks and Online Communities
• Gender Inequality in the Workplace: Recent Developments
• The Impact of Immigration Policies on Social Cohesion
• Educational Inequality and Access to Quality Education
• Climate Change and Public Opinion: A Global Perspective
• Youth Activism and Social Change Movements
• Cultural Diversity and Identity in Contemporary Society
• Postcolonial Literature and Identity
• The Philosophy of Ethics and Morality
• Historical Preservation and Cultural Heritage
• Existentialism in Modern Literature and Philosophy
• Art as a Medium for Social Commentary
• The Influence of Ancient Philosophers on Contemporary Thought
• Folklore and Oral Traditions in Modern Society
• Human Rights and Literature in Global Contexts
• The Evolution of Digital Art and New Media
• Contemporary Dance and Its Exploration of Gender Roles
• Sound Art and its Impact on Auditory Perception
• Environmental Art and Sustainability Messages
• Film as a Reflection of Societal Values
• The Intersection of Technology and Visual Arts
• Street Art and Graffiti as Forms of Urban Expression
• Music Therapy and its Therapeutic Applications
• Quantum Entanglement and Communication
• Gravitational Waves and their Detection
• Superconductivity and Its Potential Applications
• Particle Physics: The Quest for Fundamental Particles
• Black Holes: Unveiling the Mysteries of the Universe
• Quantum Computing and Quantum Algorithms
• Dark Energy and the Fate of the Universe
• Advanced Materials for Energy Storage and Conversion
• Behavioral Economics and Decision-Making
• Income Inequality and Its Economic Consequences
• Economic Impact of Global Trade Agreements
• Financial Markets and Behavioral Biases
• Sustainable Economic Development Models
• Economic Resilience in the Face of Global Crises
• The Economics of Healthcare Systems
• Cryptocurrency and Its Implications for Monetary Policy
• Cognitive Neuroscience and Memory Processing
• Psychopathology and Innovative Treatment Approaches
• The Psychology of Social Media Addiction
• Positive Psychology and Well-Being Interventions
• Cross-Cultural Psychology and Cultural Norms
• Child Development and Early Childhood Education
• Emotional Intelligence and Workplace Success
• Psychology of Decision-Making in High-Stress Situations
• Historical Analysis of Revolutionary Movements
• Environmental History and the Impact of Human Activity
• Ancient Civilizations and Their Cultural Legacy
• History of Science and Technological Advancements
• The Role of Women in Historical Events
• Indigenous Histories and Narratives of Resistance
• World Wars and their Socioeconomic Consequences
• Historical Preservation and Museums as Educational Tools
• Postmodern Literature and Its Fragmented Narratives
• Transcultural Literature and Identity in Migration
• Science Fiction as a Reflection of Technological Progress
• Shakespearean Studies in Modern Contexts
• Contemporary Poetry and its Exploration of Language
• Graphic Novels as a Medium for Social Commentary
• Literature and Ecocriticism: Nature’s Role in Stories
• Dystopian Fiction and its Socio Political Themes

25+ Google Scholar Research Topics For Beginners

• Introduction to Google Scholar: An overview of what Google Scholar is and how to use it effectively for academic research.
• Research Basics: Exploring the fundamental principles of research, including formulating research questions and conducting literature reviews.
• Citing Sources: Understanding the importance of proper citation and how to cite sources using different citation styles like APA, MLA, or Chicago.
• Research Ethics: An introduction to ethical considerations in research, including plagiarism, informed consent, and data integrity.
• Using Keywords: Tips and techniques for selecting and using keywords effectively to improve search results.
• Finding Reliable Sources: Strategies for identifying reputable and peer-reviewed sources in Google Scholar’s search results.
• Creating Alerts: How to set up email alerts for specific research topics or authors to stay updated on the latest publications.
• Managing References: An introduction to reference management tools like Zotero or Mendeley for organizing and citing sources.
• Research Question Development: Guidance on formulating clear and focused research questions that drive your inquiry.
• Literature Review: Basics of conducting a literature review to summarize and analyze existing research on a particular topic.
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources: Understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources in academic research.
• Data Collection Methods: An overview of various methods for collecting research data, including surveys, interviews, and observations.
• Statistical Analysis: Introduction to basic statistical concepts and tools for analyzing research data.
• Research Presentation: Tips for creating effective presentations and posters to communicate research findings.
• Choosing a Research Topic: Strategies for selecting a research topic that aligns with your interests and goals.
• Research Design: Exploring different research design options, such as experimental, observational, or case study approaches.
• Data Visualization: Basics of creating visual representations of data, including graphs and charts.
• Qualitative Research Methods: An introduction to qualitative research approaches, including content analysis and thematic analysis.
• Quantitative Research Methods: An overview of quantitative research methods, including surveys and experiments.
• Writing a Research Paper: Steps and guidelines for structuring and writing a research paper, from the introduction to the conclusion.
• Peer Review Process: Understanding the peer review process and its role in ensuring the quality of research publications.
• Using Google Scholar Metrics: Exploring Google Scholar Metrics to assess the impact and visibility of research articles.
• Open Access Journals: Learning about open access journals and their role in making research more accessible.
• Research Funding: An introduction to sources of research funding, grants, and scholarships for beginners.
• Collaborative Research: Tips for collaborating with other researchers and forming research partnerships.

15+ Google Scholar Research Topics For Intermediate

• “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Healthcare Delivery: A Comprehensive Review”
• “Environmental Sustainability in Urban Planning: Analyzing Current Practices and Challenges”
• “The Role of Social Media in Shaping Political Discourse: A Comparative Analysis”
• “Exploring the Effects of Climate Change on Global Food Security: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach”
• “The Psychology of Online Learning: Factors Influencing Student Engagement and Performance”
• “Digital Marketing Strategies in E-commerce: An Analysis of Best Practices and Emerging Trends”
• “Cross-Cultural Communication in Global Business: Challenges and Strategies for Success”
• “The Neurobiology of Addiction: Insights into Treatment and Rehabilitation”
• “Impact Investing and Sustainable Finance: Evaluating Social and Environmental Outcomes”
• “The Evolution of Renewable Energy Technologies: Assessing Viability and Adoption”
• “Criminal Justice Reform: Evaluating the Effects of Restorative Justice Programs”
• “The Influence of Literature on Social Movements: A Comparative Study of Historical Contexts”
• “Cybersecurity Threats in the Internet of Things (IoT): Strategies for Protection and Resilience”
• “The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Addressing Bias and Accountability in AI Systems”
• “Post-pandemic Workforce Trends: Remote Work, Mental Health, and Organizational Adaptation”

10+ Google Scholar Research Topics For Advanced

• Quantum Computing Algorithms for Cryptography: Investigate advanced quantum computing algorithms and their implications for cryptography and data security.
• Neural Networks in Natural Language Processing: Explore cutting-edge techniques in neural network-based natural language processing and their applications in machine translation and sentiment analysis.
• Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations: Analyze the ethical challenges surrounding genome editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 and their potential impact on society.
• Advanced Data Mining Techniques for Healthcare: Research advanced data mining and machine learning methods for predicting disease outbreaks and improving patient outcomes in healthcare.
• Post-Quantum Cryptography: Investigate cryptographic methods designed to withstand attacks from quantum computers, which have the potential to break current encryption algorithms.
• Neurobiology of Consciousness: Delve into the intricacies of neurobiology to explore the nature of consciousness and its neural correlates.
• Quantum Machine Learning: Explore the intersection of quantum computing and machine learning to develop quantum-enhanced algorithms for solving complex problems.
• Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Study the development of AGI systems, which possess human-level intelligence, and examine the ethical and societal implications of AGI.
• Advanced Materials for Renewable Energy: Investigate novel materials and nanotechnologies for enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of renewable energy sources like solar cells and batteries.
• Social Network Analysis in Cybersecurity: Analyze advanced techniques in social network analysis to detect and mitigate cybersecurity threats and attacks in complex online environments.

Tips and Guides: How To Search Google Scholar Research Topics

• Research Topic Selection: Discovering the right research topic is crucial. Google Scholar can assist you in identifying trending topics and gaps in existing literature.
• Literature Review: Conducting a thorough literature review is a fundamental step in research. Google Scholar’s vast database simplifies the process of finding relevant studies.
• Bibliographic References: Google Scholar generates citations in various citation styles, making it easier to compile your bibliography.
• Evaluating Sources: Not all sources are created equal. Google Scholar provides tools to assess the reliability and credibility of sources, ensuring you rely on trustworthy research.
• Academic Writing: Improve your academic writing skills by reading well-crafted research papers available on Google Scholar. Analyze their structure, style, and citation methods.

Example: How To Get Desired Google Scholar Research Topics?

Let’s take the example of researching the topic “Neural Networks in Natural Language Processing” using Google Scholar. I’ll provide a step-by-step guide and include a table to organize the information.

Step 1: Access Google Scholar

Go to Google Scholar using your web browser.

Step 2: Formulate Your Search Query

In the search bar, enter your research topic: “Neural Networks in Natural Language Processing.”

Step 3: Refine Your Search

To refine your search results, you can use various techniques:

Quotation Marks: To search for an exact phrase, put it in quotation marks. For example, “Neural Networks in Natural Language Processing” will return results containing that exact phrase.

Advanced Search: Click on the menu icon (three horizontal lines) in the upper-left corner and select “Advanced search” to access advanced search options. Here, you can specify authors, publications, and date ranges.

Filters: Use the filters on the left-hand side to narrow down results by publication year, author, or journal. You can select “Since” to specify a particular year.

Step 4: Explore Search Results

Browse through the search results to identify relevant articles, papers, and books. Each result includes the title, authors, publication source, and a brief excerpt from the content.

Now, let’s create a table to organize and track the information from your search results:

Step 5: Access Full Text

Click on the title of a search result to access the full text of the article or paper. Some may require a subscription or purchase, while others are freely accessible.

Step 6: Review and Cite

Read the selected articles thoroughly, take notes, and cite them in your research. Make sure to note the key findings and contributions to your topic.

By following these steps and organizing your findings in a table like the one above, you can efficiently conduct research on your chosen topic using Google Scholar. This approach helps you keep track of relevant publications and easily access the information you need for your research project.

Final Remark

Google Scholar is like a huge treasure chest filled with knowledge. It’s a must-have tool for researchers, scholars, and students all over the world. If you learn how to use it well, you can have a successful research journey that helps us all understand more about the world. Whether you’re looking for answers to specific questions or just curious about something, Google Scholar is your doorway to a world of academic learning. Check all above mentioned google scholar research topics. Try as per your requirement.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Download PDF
• CME & MOC
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Strategies to Improve Medical Communication

• 1 Penn Medical Communication Research Institute, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
• 2 Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
• 3 Associate Editor, JAMA
• Editorial Communicating Medicine—A New JAMA Series Anne R. Cappola, MD, ScM; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS JAMA
• JAMA Insights Delivering Effective Messages in the Patient-Clinician Encounter Joseph N. Cappella, PhD; Richard L. Street Jr, PhD JAMA
• Comment & Response Improving Medical Communication—Reply Anne R. Cappola, MD, ScM; Karthika S. Cohen, MS, MA JAMA
• Comment & Response Improving Medical Communication LaKesha N. Anderson, PhD, CPD; Christy J. W. Ledford, PhD JAMA
• JAMA Insights “Inoculation” to Resist Misinformation Sander van der Linden, PhD; Jon Roozenbeek, PhD JAMA

Accurate and clear medical information helps patients better manage their health, improves treatment adherence, and reduces health care costs, all of which help improve quality of life. 1 Medical communication is the provision of information about disease prevention, diagnosis, and management, including the risks and benefits of treatment and nontreatment. While medical communication has historically referred to verbal or written communication between a clinician and patient, communication through other sources, such as social media channels and video sharing, have expanded the message format and the audience. This article proposes effective medical communication strategies for clinicians and focuses on 3 aspects: the message, messenger, and social context ( Figure ).

• Editorial Communicating Medicine—A New JAMA Series JAMA

Read More About

Cappola AR , Cohen KS. Strategies to Improve Medical Communication. JAMA. 2024;331(1):70–71. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.23430

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Effective Communication Strategies for Ph.D. Research Presentations

Affiliated faculty.

Experienced mentors often find that Ph.D. students struggle with tailoring their research presentations to a diverse audience. Deeply immersed in their research, students frequently overestimate audience familiarity with the subject matter. Thomas Stewart , an associate professor of data science and the Ph.D. program director, shares his advice for enhancing clarity and impact for Ph.D. research presentations.

"In my experience, Ph.D. students can struggle with tailoring their presentation to the audience," Stewart says. "They spend so much time in the nitty-gritty details of their work. They struggle to reset their expectations for how much the audience will be familiar with the topic and relevant details." This discrepancy can lead to presentations that are either too detailed or too vague, making it difficult for the audience to grasp the key points. 

The guidance provided to Ph.D. students preparing for research presentations is crucial for ensuring their work is effectively communicated. A poster worksheet (available below), utilized during practice sessions, can serve as a key tool in this preparation. This worksheet, comprising questions related to audience, message, impact, and clarity, is instrumental in honing the students' presentation skills. 

To address this, the message and impact sections of the worksheet are designed to help students focus on what truly matters to the audience. Students may be inclined to present their findings chronologically, detailing each step of their research journey. 

"Because students arrive at their results taking steps A, B, C, D, there is a temptation to present the results as a travel log, saying we did A then B then C, etc.," Stewart explains. "The truth is that the audience doesn’t care about the journey." 

The audience is typically more interested in understanding the main message and the impact of the research. Therefore, students are encouraged to design their posters and presentations with these elements as the focal points. 

The worksheet also includes an exercise in focus. Stewart asks students to go through each section of the poster or paragraph of the talk and to identify how it communicates the main message or impact. "If there isn’t a direct link to the message or impact, I encourage them to delete it. A very common mistake is to cram too much material into too little time or space. It is hard for students to edit in this way, but it is a helpful exercise." 

A peer review session constitutes the second page of the worksheet. "After showing a poster for 15 to 20 seconds, I blank the screen and ask the students to answer the questions on the second page," Stewart says. This exercise simulates the audience's initial reaction, providing valuable feedback on the clarity and effectiveness of the presentation. 

Additionally, students practice delivering a concise two-sentence introduction, prompted by an audience member's inquiry: “Hey, tell me about your poster.” This practice is essential, as students often find themselves unprepared for such impromptu interactions. By rehearsing this introduction and focusing on how the research impacts the audience's life, students can significantly improve their communication skills. 

Stewart recalls a particularly effective introduction honed after many attempts. "My favorite intro after several iterations was from a student who said, 'Hi, my name is Joseph, and I use deep learning to make better bombs.'"

Students frequently inquire about presenting to mixed audiences of experts and the general public. To navigate this challenge, they are advised to use the “to-X-we-did-Y” strategy. 

Stewart shares an example: "To understand the nonlinear relationship between patient age and risk of mortality (X), age was added to the regression model as restricted cubic splines using 5 knots (Y)." This approach involves prefacing technical details with a high-level explanation of their purpose, ensuring that both technical and non-technical audience members remain engaged. 

These structured exercises and strategies help Ph.D. students craft presentations that are not only informative but also engaging and accessible to a diverse audience.

School of Data Science Ph.D. Students and Faculty Member Named To Raven Society

Doctoral Candidate Kevin Lin Receives International Recognition at ICMVA 2024 Conference

Data Science Across the Globe: Ph.D. Student Shares Insights from Uzbekistan Conference

Student Perspective: Opportunities to Learn About Ph.D. Research

Thomas Stewart

Get the latest news.

Subscribe to receive updates from the School of Data Science.

• Prospective Student
• School of Data Science Alumnus
• UVA Affiliate
• Industry Member

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

100+ Best Google Scholar Research Topics

Google Scholar provides a simple and unique way to search for scholarly literature. In a nutshell, it is a search engine for educational applications, especially dissertation and thesis research. Unfortunately, writing a dissertation, thesis, or research paper that is researchable on google scholar can be challenging, especially when finding a good topic or think about pay for dissertation .

Top Google Scholar Research Proposal Topics

Great examples of google scholar thesis topics, great google scholar dissertation topics, creative google scholar research topics in marketing, great google scholar research topics in computer science, fantastic google scholar accounting research topics, excellent google scholar research topics in education, samples of google scholar research topics in business, the best google scholar research topics for nursing, incredible google scholar research topics in economics, top google scholar research topics in finance, interesting google scholar research topics in psychology, top google scholar research topics in chemistry, good google scholar quantitative research topics, good google scholar qualitative research topics.

A good google scholar search by topic should be well-researched, original, exciting and compelling, clear and competitive, relevant to your field of study, manageable, and enticing. If you are seeking excellent google scholar topics in 2022, you are in the right place. We spent hours creating some interesting ideas listed below for you.

A good google scholar research proposal topic should be unique and original. Also, it should be relevant to your area of study. Here are examples of research topics research google scholar search:

• The relationship between the relevance of search engines and clicks
• How does implicit impact provide better results from search engines?
• Ways to enhance the effectiveness of search engines
• Is social media experience dependent on search engines?
• Social media vs. traditional media: The analytics
• A comparison of social networks and search engines for information seeking
• How to use search engines for better decision-making

A thesis paper involves comprehensive research and is required to complete a master’s degree. Therefore, when choosing a topic, you must not forget its vitality. Below are some exciting google scholar thesis topics you should explore:

• Paid placement strategies for website search engines
• The causes of the decline in employment rates
• Are men more employable than women?
• Climate change and its impact on natural resources
• Bullying in schools: Measures to prevent it
• Climate change trends over the last four years
• Is there a correlation between school status and performance?

A dissertation is a research project completed by undergraduate and postgraduate students. A good topic can make your project easy or complicate it more than it should. Here are some incredible google scholar dissertation topic examples:

• The pros and cons of international joint ventures
• Impacts of organizational culture on business decision making
• Does organizational culture influence performance?
• Does training employees alter business productivity?
• Human resource strategies for non-profit organizations
• An extensive exploration of cultural changes and their impacts on social lives
• How the integration of technology in the SCM sector works

Creativity is a critical element in creating great topics. Here are some marketing google scholar research topics:

• How companies can influence the consumer buying behavior
• The impact of social media advertising on consumer behavior
• The interwoven impacts of brand marketing and political campaigns
• An overview of the outcomes of advertising strategies in a recession
• How impulse buying influences the internet world
• An analysis of customer retention in online businesses
• How businesses are positioning themselves for hard economic times

As we have said earlier, a good google scholar research topic should be relevant to the specific field of study. So here are topics relevant to computer science:

• An analysis of search algorithms
• The evolution of artificial intelligence over the past ten years
• The role of human intelligence in artificial intelligence
• How do mobile gadgets employ unique software development?
• A data-based comparison of iOS and Android
• The role of development in future computer systems
• Effective ways of improving computer data security

Finding a research topic in accounting can cause a headache. So, we prepared the following examples:

• The impact of managerial accounting in large corporate organizations
• Activity-based costing: meaning and components
• How accounting can revolutionize medical care
• A look at the accounting parameters in public service
• How managerial accounting influences global finance practices
• How does managerial accounting influence human resources?
• Capital budgeting: What is it all about?

Even education students benefit from the google scholar search engine. Here are some education-related google scholar research topics:

• An analysis of the real-time performance of education data
• Online vs. offline studies: The comparison
• Why the present curriculums are generating results
• The mental impacts of distance learning
• Creative ways of monitoring student’s mental health
• Ways to empower girls’ education
• The role of technology in digital learning

You may also benefit from some topic inspirations in business. Here are some business-related research topics on google scholar ;

• Theories in outsourcing and the findings
• Business understaffing in today’s setting explained
• Are most businesses reluctant on technology?
• How can companies survive international competition?
• The value of educating the public on international investment
• How to transform a local business into an internationally recognized brand
• Economic problems that small local businesses incur

Here are some excellent google scholar nursing research topics you can rely on. While nursing is a broad topic, these are some of the best topics.

• The nursing adaptation in the digital era
• Health issues that immigrant women face
• How technology in nursing favors the maternal sector
• A look at the nurses vs. doctors relationship in the private sector
• Guidelines for promoting diversity in the nursing sector
• How can the nursing sector overcome vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women?
• New developments in childhood cancer treatment

Studying economics is exciting, until when it comes to writing research papers. Let’s look at excellent google scholar project topics in economics:

• How income changes influence consumer choices
• Is the cost of living likely to shift in two years?
• The influence of governance on economics
• A comparison of the impacts of labor force participation on the budget and economy
• The connections between salary levels and economic conflict in the United States
• An analysis of salary fluctuations in your country
• An exploration of the evolution of consumption in your country over the past ten years

Do you want to write a research paper in finance? Here are research paper google scholar research topics for your consideration:

• How can finance serve as a tool for regulating economies?
• The role of financial markets in the mobilization and dispersal of financial resources
• Financial challenges that third-world countries face
• Comparing finance utilization in the private and public sector
• Joint-stock companies and the financial challenges they encounter
• The financial function of social security in your country

Here are great title examples on psychology to give you an idea of what’s expected.

• Examining the concept of free will in the current society
• Finding an equilibrium between the conscious and unconscious mind
• The impact of bullying and harassment on mental well-being in adulthood
• How psychology is shaping the modern world
• How social phobias and anxiety influences psychological growth
• The impact of effective parenting on child development

Here are examples of top google scholar research topics in chemistry:

• The knowledge of chemistry and how it influences farmers
• Avoiding pesticides in agriculture
• How farmers should view GMO
• The role of sustainable elements in the chemical synthesis
• The function of organic chemical reactivity functioning
• The side effect chains of amino acids

Let’s look at some great google scholar – research topics in quantitative research:

• The link between mortality rates and the sex of individuals
• Effective ways to promote the acceptance of cancer screening processes
• Data-based analysis of mortality rates on kids below five.
• The impact of unhealthy workplaces on individuals’ mental health
• How to develop critical thinking
• How has education fueled the success of the technological sector?

Here are google scholar research topics in qualitative research:

• How long-term planning methods improve project management
• The best practices when dealing with time management and goal setting
• Guidelines for achieving affordable medical care in low-income societies
• An analysis of dealing with loss and the recovery process
• Is poor kids’ upbringing a contributor to bad performance in schools?
• How to establish eco-friendly facemasks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Oncol Pract
• v.3(6); 2007 Nov

Developing Effective Communication Skills

A practicing oncologist likely uses just about every medium to communicate. They talk on the phone, send e-mail messages, converse one-on-one, participate in meetings, and give verbal and written orders. And they communicate with many audiences—patients and their families, referring physicians, and office staff.

But are you communicating effectively? How do you handle differing or challenging perspectives? Are you hesitant to disagree with others, especially those in authority? Do you find meetings are a waste of time? What impression does your communication style make on the members of your group?

Be an Active Listener

The starting place for effective communication is effective listening. “Active listening is listening with all of one's senses,” says physician communication expert Kenneth H. Cohn, MD, MBA, FACS. “It's listening with one's eyes as well as one's years. Only 8% of communication is related to content—the rest pertains to body language and tone of voice.” A practicing surgeon as well as a consultant, Cohn is the author of Better Communication for Better Care and Collaborate for Success!

Kenneth H. Cohn, MD, MBA, FACS

Cohn suggests creating a setting in which “listening can be accommodating.” For example, don't have a conversation when one person is standing and one person is sitting—make sure your eyes are at the same level. Eliminate physical barriers, such as a desk, between you and the other party. Acknowledge the speaker with your own body language: lean forward slightly and maintain eye contact. Avoid crossing your arms, which conveys a guarded stance and may suggest arrogance, dislike, or disagreement.

When someone is speaking, put a premium on “being present.” Take a deep breath (or drink some water to keep from speaking) and create a mental and emotional connection between you and the speaker. “This is not a time for multitasking, but to devote all the time to that one person,” Cohn advises. “If you are thinking about the next thing you have to do or, worse, the next thing you plan to say, you aren't actively listening.”

Suspending judgment is also part of active listening, according to Cohn. Encourage the speaker to fully express herself or himself—free of interruption, criticism, or direction. Show your interest by inviting the speaker to say more with expressions such as “Can you tell me more about it?” or “I'd like to hear about that.”

Finally, reflect back to the speaker your understanding of what has been said, and invite elaboration and clarification. Responding is an integral part of active listening and is especially important in situations involving conflict.

In active listening, through both words and nonverbal behavior, you convey these messages to the speaker:

• I understand your problem
• I know how you feel about it
• I am interested in what you are saying
• I am not judging you

Communication Is a Process

Effective communication requires paying attention to an entire process, not just the content of the message. When you are the messenger in this process, you should consider potential barriers at several stages that can keep your intended audience from receiving your message.

Be aware of how your own attitudes, emotions, knowledge, and credibility with the receiver might impede or alter whether and how your message is received. Be aware of your own body language when speaking. Consider the attitudes and knowledge of your intended audience as well. Diversity in age, sex, and ethnicity or race adds to the communication challenges, as do different training backgrounds.

Individuals from different cultures may assign very different meanings to facial expressions, use of space, and, especially, gestures. For example, in some Asian cultures women learn that it is disrespectful to look people in the eye and so they tend to have downcast eyes during a conversation. But in the United States, this body language could be misinterpreted as a lack of interest or a lack of attention.

Choose the right medium for the message you want to communicate. E-mail or phone call? Personal visit? Group discussion at a meeting? Notes in the margin or a typed review? Sometimes more than one medium is appropriate, such as when you give the patient written material to reinforce what you have said, or when you follow-up a telephone conversation with an e-mail beginning, “As we discussed.…”

For one-on-one communication, the setting and timing can be critical to communicating effectively. Is a chat in the corridor OK, or should this be a closed-door discussion? In your office or over lunch? Consider the mindset and milieu of the communication receiver. Defer giving complex information on someone's first day back from vacation or if you are aware of situations that may be anxiety-producing for that individual. Similarly, when calling someone on the phone, ask initially if this is a convenient time to talk. Offer to set a specific time to call back later.

Finally, organize content of the message you want to communicate. Make sure the information you are trying to convey is not too complex or lengthy for either the medium you are using or the audience. Use language appropriate for the audience. With patients, avoid medical jargon.

Be Attuned to Body Language—Your Own and Others

Many nonverbal cues such as laughing, gasping, shoulder shrugging, and scowling have meanings that are well understood in our culture. But the meaning of some of these other more subtle behaviors may not be as well known. 1

Hand movements. Our hands are our most expressive body parts, conveying even more than our faces. In a conversation, moving your hand behind your head usually reflects negative thoughts, feelings, and moods. It may be a sign of uncertainty, conflict, disagreement, frustration, anger, or dislike. Leaning back and clasping both hands behind the neck is often a sign of dominance.

Blank face. Though theoretically expressionless, a blank face sends a strong do not disturb message and is a subtle sign to others to keep a distance. Moreover, many faces have naturally down turned lips and creases of frown lines, making an otherwise blank face appear angry or disapproving.

Smiling. Although a smile may show happiness, it is subject to conscious control. In the United States and other societies, for example, we are taught to smile whether or not we actually feel happy, such as in giving a courteous greeting.

Tilting the head back. Lifting the chin and looking down the nose are used throughout the world as nonverbal signs of superiority, arrogance, and disdain.

Parting the lips. Suddenly parting one's lips signals mild surprise, uncertainty, or unvoiced disagreement.

Lip compression. Pressing the lips together into a thin line may signal the onset of anger, dislike, grief, sadness, or uncertainty.

Build a Team Culture

In oncology, as in most medical practices, much of the work is done by teams. Communication within a team calls for clarifying goals, structuring responsibilities, and giving and receiving credible feedback.

“Physicians in general are at a disadvantage because we haven't been trained in team communication,” says Cohn. He points out that when he was in business school, as much as 30% to 50% of a grade came from team projects. “But how much of my grade in medical school was from team projects? Zero.”

The lack of systematic education about how teams work is the biggest hurdle for physicians in building a team culture, according to Cohn. “We've learned team behaviors from our clinical mentors, who also had no formal team training. The styles we learn most in residency training are ‘command and control’ and the ‘pace setting approach,’ in which the leader doesn't specify what the expectations are, but just expects people to follow his or her example.”

Cohn says that both of those styles limit team cohesion. “Recognizing one's lack of training is the first step [in overcoming the hurdle], then understanding that one can learn these skills. Listening, showing sincere empathy, and being willing to experiment with new leadership styles, such as coaching and developing a shared vision for the future are key.”

Stated goals and team values. An effective team is one in which everyone works toward a common goal. This goal should be clearly articulated. In patient care, of course, the goal is the best patient outcomes. But a team approach is also highly effective in reaching other goals in a physician practice, such as decreasing patient waiting times, recruiting patients for a clinical trial, or developing a community education program. Every member of the team must be committed to the team's goal and objectives.

Effective teams have explicit and appropriate norms, such as when meetings will be held and keeping information confidential. Keep in mind that it takes time for teams to mature and develop a climate of trust and mutual respect. Groups do not progress from forming to performing without going through a storming phase in which team members negotiate assumptions and expectations for behavior. 2

Clear individual expectations. All the team members must be clear about what is expected of them individually and accept their responsibility for achieving the goal. They should also understand the roles of others. Some expectations may relate to their regular job duties; others may be one-time assignments specific to the team goal. Leadership of the team may rotate on the basis of expertise.

Members must have resources available to accomplish their tasks, including time, education and equipment needed to reach the goal. Openly discuss what is required to get the job done and find solutions together as a team.

Empowerment. Everyone on the team should be empowered to work toward the goal in his or her own job, in addition to contributing ideas for the team as a whole. Physicians' instinct and training have geared them to solve problems and give orders—so they often try to have all the answers. But in an effective team, each team member feels ownership in the outcome and has a sense of shared accountability. Cohn notes, “You get a tremendous amount of energy and buy-in when you ask ‘What do you think?’”

Team members must trust each other with important tasks. This requires accepting others for who they are, being creative, and taking prudent risks. Invite team members to indicate areas in which they would like to take initiative. Empower them by giving them the freedom to exercise their own discretion.

Feedback. Providing feedback on performance is a basic tenet of motivation. For some goals, daily or weekly results are wanted, while for others, such as a report of the number of medical records converted to a new system or the average patient waiting times, a monthly report might be appropriate. Decide together as a team what outcomes should be reported and how often.

Positive reinforcement. Team members should encourage one another. Take the lead and set an example by encouraging others when they are down and praising them when they do well. Thank individuals for their contributions, both one on one and with the team as a whole. Celebrate milestones as a way to sustain team communication and cohesion.

Effective E-mail

E-mail has numerous features that make it a wonderful tool for communicating with a team: it is immediate; it is automatically time-stamped; and filing and organizing are easy. (E-mail with patients is a more complex topic and is not addressed herein.)

The e-mail subject line is an especially useful feature that is typically underused. Make it your best friend. Use it like a newspaper headline, to draw the reader in and convey your main point or alert the reader to a deadline. In the examples given below, the person receiving an e-mail headed “HCC” is likely to scroll past it—planning to read it on the weekend. The more helpful subject line alerts the reader to be prepared to discuss the topic at an upcoming meeting:

•      Vague Subject Line: HCC
•      More Helpful Subject Line: HCC Plan to discuss the SHARP trial this Friday—Your comments due December 5 on attached new policies

As with all written communication, the most important aspect to consider is the audience. Consider the knowledge and biases of the person/people you are e-mailing. Where will the reader be when he or she receives your message? How important is your message to the reader?

The purpose of writing is to engage the reader. You want the reader to do something, to know something, or to feel something. Write it in a way that helps the reader. Put the most important information—the purpose of the email—in the first paragraph.

Except among friends who know you well, stay away from sarcasm in e-mail messages. The receiver does not have the benefit of your tone of voice and body language to help interpret your communication. When delivering comments that are even slightly critical, it's better to communicate in person or in a phone call than to do so in an e-mail. Something you wrote with good intentions and an open mind or even with humor can be interpreted as nitpicky, negative, and destructive, and can be forwarded to others.

Because we use e-mail for its speed, it's easy to get in the habit of dashing off a message and hitting the “send” button. We count on the automatic spell-check (and you should have it turned on as your default option) to catch your errors. But spelling typos are the least of the problems in communicating effectively.

Take the time to read through your message. Is it clear? Is it organized? Is it concise? See if there is anything that could be misinterpreted or raises unanswered questions. The very speed with which we dash off e-mail messages makes e-mail the place in which we are most likely to communicate poorly.

Finally, don't forget to supply appropriate contact information, including phone numbers or alternative e-mail addresses, for responses or questions.

Conflict is inevitable in times of rapid change. Effective communication helps one avoid conflict and minimize its adverse consequences when it does occur. The next issue of Strategies for Career Success will cover conflict management.

What Not to Do When Listening:

• Allow distractions
• Use clichéd phrases such as “I know exactly how you feel,” “It's not that bad,” or “You'll feel better tomorrow”
• Get pulled into responding emotionally
• Change the subject or move in a new direction
• Rehearse in your head what you plan to say next
• Give advice

Make Meetings Work for Your Team

A good meeting is one in which team goals are introduced or reinforced and solutions are generated. The first rule—meet in person only if it's the best format to accomplish what you want. You don't need a meeting just to report information. Here are tips for facilitating an effective meeting:

Don't meet just because it's scheduled. If there are no issues to discuss, don't hold the meeting just because it's Tuesday and that's when you always meet.

Use an agenda. Circulate a timed agenda beforehand and append useful background information. Participants should know what to expect. If it's a short meeting or quickly called, put the agenda on a flipchart or board before people arrive.

Structure input. Promote the team culture by making different individuals responsible for specific agenda items. Follow-up on previous task assignments as the first agenda item to hold group members accountable for the team's success.

Limit the meeting time. Use the timed agenda to stay on track. If the discussion goes off on a tangent, bring the group back to the objective of the topic at hand. If it becomes clear that a topic needs more time, delineate the issues and the involved parties and schedule a separate meeting.

Facilitate discussion. Be sure everyone's ideas are heard and that no one dominates the discussion. If two people seem to talk only to each other and not to the group as a whole, invite others to comment. If only two individuals need to pursue a topic, suggest that they continue to work on that topic outside the meeting.

Set ground rules up front. Keep meetings constructive, not a gripe session. Do not issue reprimands, and make it clear that the meeting is to be positive and intended for updates, analysis, problem solving, and decision making. Create an environment in which disagreement and offering alternative perspectives are acceptable. When individuals do offer opposing opinions, facilitate open discussion that focuses on issues and not personalities.

Circulate a meeting summary before the next meeting. Formal minutes are appropriate for some meetings. But in the very least, a brief summary of actions should be prepared. Include decisions reached and assignments made, with deadlines for follow-up at the next meeting.

Kenneth H. Cohn: Better Communication for Better Care: Mastering Physician-Administrator Collaboration. Chicago, IL, Health Administration Press, 2005, www.ache.org/pubs/redesign/productcatalog.cfm?pc=WWW1-2038

Kenneth H. Cohn: Collaborate for Success! Breakthrough Strategies for Engaging Physicians, Nurses, and Hospital Executives. Chicago, IL, Health Administration Press, 2006, www.ache.org/hap.cfm

Suzette Haden Elgin: Genderspeak: Men, Women, and the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 1993

Jon R. Katzenbach, Douglas K. Smith: The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organization. New York, NY, Harper Business, 1994

Sharon Lippincott: Meetings: Do's, Don'ts, and Donuts. Pittsburgh, PA, Lighthouse Point Press, 1994

Kenneth W. Thomas: Intrinsic Motivation at Work: Building Energy and Commitment. San Francisco, CA, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2000

More Strategies for Career Success!

Deciding About Practice Options—J Oncol Pract 2:187-190, 2006

The Interview: Make it Work for You—J Oncol Pract 2:252-254, 2006

Employment Contracts: What to Look for—J Oncol Pract 2:308-311, 2006

Principles and Tactics of Negotiation—J Oncol Pract 3:102-105, 2007

Professional Advisors: They're Worth It—J Oncol Pract 3:162-166, 2007

Building and Maintaining a Referral Base—J Oncol Pract 3:227-230, 2007

Malpractice Insurance: What You Need to Know—J Oncol Pract 3:274-277, 2007

Joining a Practice As a Shareholder—J Oncol Pract 3:41-44, 2007.

• QUICK LINKS

Office of Communications and Marketing

The Office of Communications and Marketing is responsible for developing and disseminating the official messages of Hunter College to internal and external audiences, and for gathering the most newsworthy stories from around campus.

Mission Statement

Hunter College’s Office of Communications and Marketing is dedicated to enhancing the reputation, visibility, and brand recognition of Hunter College through strategic communication initiatives. Our goal is to effectively communicate the college’s mission, accomplishments, and values to internal and external stakeholders, thereby promoting engagement, support, and pride in the Hunter community.

Hunter News

The honor recognizes individuals who have advanced Division III athletics throughout their careers.

Assistant Professor of Political Science Zhihang Ruan won the best dissertation prize from APSA’s Class and Inequality.

The Hunter-Bellevue School of Nursing today announced its third annual cohort of Evelyn H. Lauder Community Care Nurse Practitioner Fellows.

“This is a big step forward in re-imagining the student experience,” said Joseph Fantozzi, Assistant VP for Student Affairs and Enrollment.

Five Hunter College grads and one staffer made the City University of New York’s its inaugural 50 Under 50 alumni list.

Lauren Holmes, MFA Playwriting '22, was named as the winner of the 2024 Princess Grace Playwriting Fellowship.