Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events
-
Published:2020-05-15
Issue:1
Volume:3
Page:129-146
-
ISSN:2569-7110
-
Container-title:Geoscience Communication
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Commun.
Author:
Lacassin RobinORCID, Devès MaudORCID, Hicks Stephen P.ORCID, Ampuero Jean-PaulORCID, Bossu Remy, Bruhat LucileORCID, Wibisono Desianto F., Fallou Laure, Fielding Eric J.ORCID, Gabriel Alice-Agnes, Gurney Jamie, Krippner Janine, Lomax AnthonyORCID, Sudibyo Muh. Ma'rufin, Pamumpuni Astyka, Patton Jason R., Robinson Helen, Tingay Mark, Valkaniotis SotirisORCID,
Abstract
Abstract. Twitter is an established social media platform valued by scholars as an open way to disseminate scientific information and to publicly discuss research results. Scientific discussions on Twitter are viewed by the media, who can then pass on information to the wider public. Social media is used widely by geoscientists, but there is little documentation currently available regarding the benefits or limitations of this for the scientist or the public. Here, we use the example of two 2018 earthquake-related events that were widely commented on by geoscientists on Twitter: the Palu Mw 7.5 earthquake and related tsunami in Indonesia and the long-duration Mayotte island seismovolcanic crisis in the Indian Ocean. We built our study on a content and contextual analysis of selected Twitter threads about the geophysical characteristics of these events. From the analysis of these two examples, we show that Twitter promotes a very rapid building of knowledge in the minutes to hours and days following an event via an efficient exchange of information and active discussion between the scientists themselves and the public. We discuss the advantages and potential pitfalls of this relatively novel way of making scientific information accessible to scholarly peers and lay people. We argue that scientific discussion on Twitter breaks down the traditional “ivory tower” of academia, contributes to the growing trend towards open science, and may help people to understand how science is developed and, in turn, to better understand the risks related to natural/environmental hazards.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference55 articles.
1. Andrews, R. G.: Indonesian Tsunami: What Happened, How To Survive One, And
How To Help, Forbes, 1 October, available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinandrews/
(last access: 5 July 2019), 2018a. 2. Andrews, R. G.: Geologists Joke About “Sea Monster” After Mysterious
30-Minute Rumble Emanates from Waters Near Madagascar, Gizmodo,
available at:
https://gizmodo.com/
(last access: 5 July 2019), 2018b. 3. Bao, H., Ampuero, J.-P., Meng, L., Fielding, E. J., Liang, C., Milliner, C.
W. D., Feng, T., and Huang, H.: Early and persistent supershear rupture of
the 2018 magnitude 7.5 Palu earthquake, Nat. Geosci., 12, 200–205,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0297-z, 2019. 4. Bartel, B. and Bohon, W.: The Hazards of Hazard Communication: Importance,
Rewards, and Challenges of Science in the Public Sphere: A white paper
summary of presentations from session PA23B at the 2018 Fall Meeting of the
485 American Geophysical Union, available at:
https://www.iris.edu/hq/files/
(last access: 8 May 2020), 2019. 5. Bossu, R., Mazet-Roux, G., Douet, V., Rives, S., Marin, S., and Aupetit, M.:
Internet Users as Seismic Sensors for Improved Earthquake Response, Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union, 89, 225–226,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008eo250001, 2008.
Cited by
27 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|