Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-b5g75 Total loading time: 0.309 Render date: 2021-04-10T12:57:22.000Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
Perspectives on Politics Perspectives on Politics

Article contents

#polisci Twitter: A Descriptive Analysis of how Political Scientists Use Twitter in 2019

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2020

James Bisbee [Opens in a new window] ,
Jennifer Larson  and
Kevin Munger
Corresponding
E-mail address:
james.bisbee@nyu/edu
Jennifer.larson@vanberbilt.edu
kmm7999@psu.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge creation is a social enterprise, especially in political science. Sharing new findings widely and quickly is essential for progress. Scholars can now use Twitter to rapidly disseminate ideas, and many do. What are the implications of this new tool? Who uses it, how do they use it, and what are the implications for exacerbating or ameliorating existing inequalities in terms of research dissemination and attention? We construct a novel dataset of all 1,236 political science professors at PhD-granting institutions in the United States who have a Twitter account to answer these questions. We find that female scholars and those on the tenure track are more likely to use Twitter, especially for the dissemination of research. However, we consistently find that research by men shared on Twitter is more likely to be passed along further by men than research by women.

Type
Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , First View , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

Footnotes

A list of permanent links to Supplemental Materials provided by the authors precedes the References section.

*Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SUBWTT

References

Aronow, Peter M, Samii, Cyrus, and Assenova, Valentina A. 2015. “Cluster-Robust Variance Estimation for Dyadic Data.” Political Analysis 23(4): 564-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Taylor, Andrew J. 2019. “Partisan Affiliation in Political Science: Insights from Florida and North Carolina.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52(4): 706-10.Google Scholar
Barberá, Pablo. 2015. “Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data.” Political Analysis 23(1): 76-91.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D., and Beaulieu, Emily. 2017. “Engaging Women: Addressing the Gender Gap in Women's Networking and Productivity.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50(2): 461-66.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Emily, Boydstun, Amber E, Brown, Nadia E, Dionne, Kim Yi, Gillespie, Andra, Klar, Samara, Krupnikov, Yanna, Michelson, Melissa R, Searles, Kathleen, and Wolbrecht, Christina. 2017. “Women Also Know Stuff: Meta-Level Mentoring to Battle Gender Bias in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50(3): 779-83.Google Scholar
Bisbee, James, Dehejia, Rajeev, Pop-Eleches, Cristian, and Samii, Cyrus. 2017. “Local Instruments, Global Extrapolation: External Validity of the Labor Supply-Fertility Local Average Treatment Effect.” Journal of Labor Economics 35(S1): S99-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuning, Marijke, Gross, Benjamin Isaak, Feinberg, Ayal, Martinez, Melissa, Sharma, Ramesh, and Ishiyama, John. 2018. “Clearing the Pipeline? Gender and the Review Process at the American Political Science Review.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51(3): 629-34.Google Scholar
Dion, Michelle L., Sumner, Jane Lawrence, and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. 2018. “Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields.” Political Analysis 26(3): 312-27.Google Scholar
Esarey, Justin, and Bryant, Kristin. 2018. “Are Papers Written by Women Authors Cited Less Frequently?” Political Analysis 26(3): 331-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenbach, Gunther. 2011. “Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact.” Journal of medical Internet research 13(4) e123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flaherty, Colleen. 2018. “A Non-Tenure Track Profession?” Inside HigherEd, October 12. (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/12/about-three-quarters-all-faculty-positions-are-tenure-track-according-new-aaup).Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2012. “Mere Description.” British Journal of Political Science 42(4): 721-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, , Phillip, W. N.d. “Diagnosis versus Ideological Diversity.” PS: Political Science & Politics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Hindman, Matthew. 2008. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jaidka, Kokil, Zhou, Alvin, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2018. “Brevity Is the Ssoul of Twitter: The Constraint Affordance and Political Discussion.” Journal of Communication 69(4): 345-72.Google Scholar
Ke, Qing, Ahn, Yong-Yeol, and Sugimoto, Cassidy R. 2017. “A Systematic Identification and Analysis of Scientists on Twitter.” PLoS One 12(4): e0175368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Key, Ellen M., and Sumner, Jane Lawrence. 2018. “You Research Like a Girl: Gendered Research Agendas and Their Implications.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52(4): 663-68.Google Scholar
Kim, Hannah June, and Grofman, Bernard. 2019. “The Political Science 400: With Citation Counts by Cohort, Gender, and Subfield.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52(2): 296-311.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, Krupnikov, Yanna, Ryan, John Barry, Searles, Kathleen, and Shmargad, Yotam. 2020. “Using Social Media to Promote Academic Research: Identifying the Benefits of Twitter for Sharing Academic Work.” PloS one 15(4): e0229446. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229446CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreiss, Daniel. 2016. “Seizing the Moment: The Presidential Campaigns' Use of Twitter during the 2012 Electoral Cycle.” New Media & Society 18(8): 1473-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwick, Alice E., and Boyd, Danah. 2011. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13(1): 114-33.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, Ehsan, Thelwall, Mike, Kwasny, Mary, and Holmes, Kristi L. 2018. “Academic Information on Twitter: A User Survey.” PloS one 13(5): e0197265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mourao, Rachel Reis. 2015. “The Boys on the Timeline: Political Journalists' Use of Twitter for Building Interpretive Communities.” Journalism 16(8): 1107-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, Kevin. 2017. “Tweetment Effects on the Tweeted: Experimentally Reducing Racist Harassment.” Political Behavior 39(3): 629-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, Kevin. 2019. “The Limited Value of Non-Replicable Field Experiments in Contexts with Low Temporal Validity.” Social Media + Society 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305119859294Google Scholar
Ortega, Jose Luis. 2016. “To Be or Not to Be on Twitter, and Its Relationship with the Tweeting and Citation of Research Papers.” Scientometrics 109(2): 1353-64.Google Scholar
Peoples, Brandon K., Midway, Stephen R., Sackett, Dana, Lynch, Abigail, and Cooney, Patrick B.. 2016. “Twitter Predicts Citation Rates of Ecological Research.” PloS one 11(11): e0166570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raghavan, Usha Nandini, Albert, Reka, and Kumara, Soundar. 2007. “Near Linear Time Algorithm to Detect Community Structures in Large-Scale Networks.” Physical Review E 76(3): 036106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rom, , , Mark Carl. 2019. “A Liberal Polity: Ideological Homogeneity in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52(4): 701-705.Google Scholar
Searles, Kathleen, and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2018. “How Not to Get Ratioed and Other Advice for the Savvy Graduate Mentor.” Political Communication 35(4):669-73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sen, Maya. 2018. “Response to Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell.” Political Analysis 26(3): 335-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Jieli, Liu, Regina Y, and Xie, Min-ge. 2018. “Prediction with Confidence—A General Framework for Predictive Inference.” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 195: 126-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufekci, Zeynep. 2014. “Big Questions for Social Media Big Data: Representativeness, Validity and Other Methodological Pitfalls.” In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
Usher, Nikki, Holcomb, Jesse, and Littman, Justin. 2018. “Twitter Makes It Worse: Political Journalists, Gendered Echo Chambers, and the Amplification of Gender Bias.” International Journal of Press/Politics 23(3): 324-44.Google Scholar
U.S. News & World Report. 2019. “U.S. News Education Rankings Colleges.” (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings)Google Scholar
Wilson, , , J. Matthew. N.d. “The Nature and Consequences of Ideological Hegemony in American Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52(4): 724-27.Google Scholar
Yi Dionne, , , Kim. 2019. “There’s a Gender Gap in Political Science. Our Series Examines the Problem—and Looks at Some Solutions.” Washington Post: Monkey Cage, August 19. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/19/theres-gender-gap-political-science-our-series-examines-problem-looks-some-solutions/)Google Scholar

Bisbee et al. supplementary material

Bisbee et al. supplementary material

PDF 1 MB

Bisbee et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SUBWTT
Link

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 3400
Total number of PDF views: 395 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 23rd December 2020 - 10th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

#polisci Twitter: A Descriptive Analysis of how Political Scientists Use Twitter in 2019
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

#polisci Twitter: A Descriptive Analysis of how Political Scientists Use Twitter in 2019
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

#polisci Twitter: A Descriptive Analysis of how Political Scientists Use Twitter in 2019
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *