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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Aslib journal of information management 2015-01, Vol.67 (3), p.356-371
1. Verfasser: Bowman, Timothy D
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Information Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library &amp; 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 &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; 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