Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that there were differences in the use of Twitter by professors at AAU schools. Affordance use differed between the personal and professional tweets of professors as categorized by turkers. Framing behaviors were described that could impact the interpre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Aslib journal of information management 2015-01, Vol.67 (3), p.356-371 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 371 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 356 |
container_title | Aslib journal of information management |
container_volume | 67 |
creator | Bowman, Timothy D |
description | Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that there were differences in the use of Twitter by professors at AAU schools. Affordance use differed between the personal and professional tweets of professors as categorized by turkers. Framing behaviors were described that could impact the interpretation of tweets by audience members. Design/methodology/approach – A three phase research design was used that included surveys of professors, categorization of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and categorization of tweets by active professors on Twitter. Findings – There were significant differences found between professors that reported having a Twitter account, significant differences found between types of Twitter accounts (personal, professional, or both), and significant differences in the affordances used in personal and professional tweets. Framing behaviors were described that may assist altmetric researchers in distinguishing between personal and professional tweets. Research limitations/implications – The study is limited by the sample population, survey instrument, low survey response rate, and low Cohen’s κ. Practical implications – An overview of various affordances found in Twitter is provided and a novel use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for the categorization of tweets is described that can be applied to future altmetric studies. Originality/value – This work utilizes a socio-technical framework integrating social and psychological theories to interpret results from the tweeting behavior of professors and the interpretation of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0180 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1709760431</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1709760431</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-9e98c72d9f9a5da8735b2c2d4c52cf4d6399384e5569088d802790fba20a20853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1LAzEURYMoWGp_gLsBN26iL1-TBFelWq1U3Og6pJkEp0xnat4U8d87Y10JDy48DpfLIeSSwQ1jYG7nz6sXyjjlwCQFZuCETJhWhgotzSmZcFBAhYHynMwQtwDAOBPKlhNyd1-nFHNsQ8Sibot9zNi1vil8WxX73KWIWP8--q8Yeyy6VGD46Bqf8YKcJd9gnP3llLwvH94WT3T9-rhazNc0SBA9tdGaoHllk_Wq8kYLteGBVzIoHpKsSmGtMDIqVVowpjLAtYW08RyGM0pMyfWxd9jzeYjYu12NITaNb2N3QMc0WF2CFGxAr_6h2-6Qh_nohiowWkvgA8WOVMgdYo7J7XO98_nbMXCjUTcadYy70agbjYofYatm4Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2080877402</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars</title><source>Emerald Complete Journals</source><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><creator>Bowman, Timothy D</creator><contributor>Stefanie Haustein, Dr Cassidy R. Su, Dr</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bowman, Timothy D ; Stefanie Haustein, Dr Cassidy R. Su, Dr</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that there were differences in the use of Twitter by professors at AAU schools. Affordance use differed between the personal and professional tweets of professors as categorized by turkers. Framing behaviors were described that could impact the interpretation of tweets by audience members. Design/methodology/approach – A three phase research design was used that included surveys of professors, categorization of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and categorization of tweets by active professors on Twitter. Findings – There were significant differences found between professors that reported having a Twitter account, significant differences found between types of Twitter accounts (personal, professional, or both), and significant differences in the affordances used in personal and professional tweets. Framing behaviors were described that may assist altmetric researchers in distinguishing between personal and professional tweets. Research limitations/implications – The study is limited by the sample population, survey instrument, low survey response rate, and low Cohen’s κ. Practical implications – An overview of various affordances found in Twitter is provided and a novel use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for the categorization of tweets is described that can be applied to future altmetric studies. Originality/value – This work utilizes a socio-technical framework integrating social and psychological theories to interpret results from the tweeting behavior of professors and the interpretation of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2050-3806</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-3748</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0180</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Age ; Audiences ; Behavior ; Bibliometrics ; Business communications ; Classification ; Colleges & universities ; Framing ; Higher education ; Information management ; Informetrics ; Methodology ; Researchers ; Scholarly communication ; Scholars ; Social factors ; Social networks ; Surveys ; Three phase ; University professors ; User behavior</subject><ispartof>Aslib journal of information management, 2015-01, Vol.67 (3), p.356-371</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-9e98c72d9f9a5da8735b2c2d4c52cf4d6399384e5569088d802790fba20a20853</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-9e98c72d9f9a5da8735b2c2d4c52cf4d6399384e5569088d802790fba20a20853</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,968,21699,27928,27929</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Stefanie Haustein, Dr Cassidy R. Su, Dr</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bowman, Timothy D</creatorcontrib><title>Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars</title><title>Aslib journal of information management</title><description>Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that there were differences in the use of Twitter by professors at AAU schools. Affordance use differed between the personal and professional tweets of professors as categorized by turkers. Framing behaviors were described that could impact the interpretation of tweets by audience members. Design/methodology/approach – A three phase research design was used that included surveys of professors, categorization of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and categorization of tweets by active professors on Twitter. Findings – There were significant differences found between professors that reported having a Twitter account, significant differences found between types of Twitter accounts (personal, professional, or both), and significant differences in the affordances used in personal and professional tweets. Framing behaviors were described that may assist altmetric researchers in distinguishing between personal and professional tweets. Research limitations/implications – The study is limited by the sample population, survey instrument, low survey response rate, and low Cohen’s κ. Practical implications – An overview of various affordances found in Twitter is provided and a novel use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for the categorization of tweets is described that can be applied to future altmetric studies. Originality/value – This work utilizes a socio-technical framework integrating social and psychological theories to interpret results from the tweeting behavior of professors and the interpretation of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Audiences</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Business communications</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>Framing</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Information management</subject><subject>Informetrics</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Scholarly communication</subject><subject>Scholars</subject><subject>Social factors</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Three phase</subject><subject>University professors</subject><subject>User behavior</subject><issn>2050-3806</issn><issn>1758-3748</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1LAzEURYMoWGp_gLsBN26iL1-TBFelWq1U3Og6pJkEp0xnat4U8d87Y10JDy48DpfLIeSSwQ1jYG7nz6sXyjjlwCQFZuCETJhWhgotzSmZcFBAhYHynMwQtwDAOBPKlhNyd1-nFHNsQ8Sibot9zNi1vil8WxX73KWIWP8--q8Yeyy6VGD46Bqf8YKcJd9gnP3llLwvH94WT3T9-rhazNc0SBA9tdGaoHllk_Wq8kYLteGBVzIoHpKsSmGtMDIqVVowpjLAtYW08RyGM0pMyfWxd9jzeYjYu12NITaNb2N3QMc0WF2CFGxAr_6h2-6Qh_nohiowWkvgA8WOVMgdYo7J7XO98_nbMXCjUTcadYy70agbjYofYatm4Q</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Bowman, Timothy D</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CNYFK</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M1O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars</title><author>Bowman, Timothy D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-9e98c72d9f9a5da8735b2c2d4c52cf4d6399384e5569088d802790fba20a20853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Audiences</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Business communications</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>Framing</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Information management</topic><topic>Informetrics</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Scholarly communication</topic><topic>Scholars</topic><topic>Social factors</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Three phase</topic><topic>University professors</topic><topic>User behavior</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bowman, Timothy D</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Library & Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Library Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Aslib journal of information management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bowman, Timothy D</au><au>Stefanie Haustein, Dr Cassidy R. Su, Dr</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars</atitle><jtitle>Aslib journal of information management</jtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>356</spage><epage>371</epage><pages>356-371</pages><issn>2050-3806</issn><eissn>1758-3748</eissn><abstract>Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that there were differences in the use of Twitter by professors at AAU schools. Affordance use differed between the personal and professional tweets of professors as categorized by turkers. Framing behaviors were described that could impact the interpretation of tweets by audience members. Design/methodology/approach – A three phase research design was used that included surveys of professors, categorization of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and categorization of tweets by active professors on Twitter. Findings – There were significant differences found between professors that reported having a Twitter account, significant differences found between types of Twitter accounts (personal, professional, or both), and significant differences in the affordances used in personal and professional tweets. Framing behaviors were described that may assist altmetric researchers in distinguishing between personal and professional tweets. Research limitations/implications – The study is limited by the sample population, survey instrument, low survey response rate, and low Cohen’s κ. Practical implications – An overview of various affordances found in Twitter is provided and a novel use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for the categorization of tweets is described that can be applied to future altmetric studies. Originality/value – This work utilizes a socio-technical framework integrating social and psychological theories to interpret results from the tweeting behavior of professors and the interpretation of tweets by workers in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.</abstract><cop>Bradford</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0180</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2050-3806 |
ispartof | Aslib journal of information management, 2015-01, Vol.67 (3), p.356-371 |
issn | 2050-3806 1758-3748 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1709760431 |
source | Emerald Complete Journals; Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection |
subjects | Age Audiences Behavior Bibliometrics Business communications Classification Colleges & universities Framing Higher education Information management Informetrics Methodology Researchers Scholarly communication Scholars Social factors Social networks Surveys Three phase University professors User behavior |
title | Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T18%3A45%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differences%20in%20personal%20and%20professional%20tweets%20of%20scholars&rft.jtitle=Aslib%20journal%20of%20information%20management&rft.au=Bowman,%20Timothy%20D&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=356&rft.epage=371&rft.pages=356-371&rft.issn=2050-3806&rft.eissn=1758-3748&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0180&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1709760431%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2080877402&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |