Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity

Article (PDF Available)inPublic Understanding of Science 25(6) · February 2015with 5,767 Reads 
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
DOI: 10.1177/0963662515572068 · Source: PubMed
Cite this publication
Abstract
YouTube has become one of the largest websites on the Internet. Among its many genres, both professional and amateur science communicators compete for audience attention. This article provides the first overview of science communication on YouTube and examines content factors that affect the popularity of science communication videos on the site. A content analysis of 390 videos from 39 YouTube channels was conducted. Although professionally generated content is superior in number, user-generated content was significantly more popular. Furthermore, videos that had consistent science communicators were more popular than those without a regular communicator. This study represents an important first step to understand content factors, which increases the channel and video popularity of science communication on YouTube. © The Author(s) 2015.
Public Understanding of Science
1 –14
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963662515572068
pus.sagepub.com
P U S
Science communication on
YouTube: Factors that affect
channel and video popularity
Dustin J. Welbourne
Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Australia;
University of New South Wales, Australia
Will J. Grant
Australian National University, Australia
Abstract
YouTube has become one of the largest websites on the Internet. Among its many genres, both professional
and amateur science communicators compete for audience attention. This article provides the first overview
of science communication on YouTube and examines content factors that affect the popularity of science
communication videos on the site. A content analysis of 390 videos from 39 YouTube channels was conducted.
Although professionally generated content is superior in number, user-generated content was significantly
more popular. Furthermore, videos that had consistent science communicators were more popular than
those without a regular communicator. This study represents an important first step to understand content
factors, which increases the channel and video popularity of science communication on YouTube.
Keywords
channel, content analysis, factors, popularity, review, science communication, video, YouTube
1. Introduction
Science communication has traditionally been dominated by professional communicators
employed directly or indirectly by the mainstream media (Valenti, 1999). With the emergence of
Web 2.0, platforms such as blogs, wikis, social media and video sharing websites have redefined
the mediascape (Brossard, 2013; Minol et al., 2007). Web 2.0 provides an alternative to traditional
content distribution by reducing the barriers for content creators to reach an audience (Juhasz,
2009). Many Web 2.0 platforms are constructed on a participatory culture, a ‘function that is most
noticeably absent from most mainstream media’ (Burgess and Green, 2009: 29). Thus, in the era
of Web 2.0, viewers have shifted from being passive consumers to active participants. Science
Corresponding author:
Dustin J. Welbourne, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University,
Science Road, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Email: d.welbourne@student.unsw.edu.au
572068PUS0010.1177/0963662515572068Public Understanding of ScienceWelbourne and Grant
research-article2015
Theoretical/Research Paper
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Public Understanding of Science
communication is now conducted not only by professional communicators but also by scientists,
interest groups, professional organisations and passionate amateurs across numerous Web 2.0
platforms (Claussen et al., 2013; Lo et al., 2010; Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009).
YouTube is a particularly significant example of the Web 2.0 phenomenon. YouTube was
founded by employees of PayPal in 2005 and has undergone spectacular growth to become one of
the top websites on the Internet (Alexa Internet Inc., 2015; Burgess and Green, 2009). YouTube
was founded on the user-generated content (UGC) model, whereby content was to be derived
from YouTube users and consumers. However, the sale of YouTube to Google in 2006 marked the
beginning of a deliberate effort by YouTube management to increase the volume of professionally
generated content (PGC) – content created by corporate entities to extend the reach of commercial
branding (Ackerman and Guizzo, 2011; Kim, 2012; Wasko and Erickson, 2009). PGC and
‘Astroturf’ (content created by corporate entities to mimic grassroots or UGC) have subsequently
increased over the period (Burgess and Green, 2009). The evolving demographic of content
creators on YouTube has meant that amateur science communicators now compete for views with
large well-funded corporations like the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Discovery
Channel.
Despite the large number of content consumers on YouTube, reaching an audience is not
guaranteed. Reaching an audience and achieving success is a function of how popular a channel
and its videos become, as measured by the number of subscribers and views received (Burgess
and Green, 2009). The popularity of any given video is a function of the video’s content factors,
content-agnostic factors and YouTube’s video recommendation system (Borghol et al., 2012;
Figueiredo et al., 2014). Content factors are the stylistic and informational characteristics of a
video (e.g. topic, duration or delivery style), whereas content-agnostic factors relate to charac-
teristics external to the video (e.g. the creator’s social network or video upload date and time).
YouTube’s recommendation system both identifies what is popular and creates what is popular
in a rich-get-richer popularity scenario (Figueiredo et al., 2011; Szabo and Huberman, 2010;
Zhou et al., 2010). That is, the recommendation system recommends popular videos to viewers,
which in turn increases the popularity of those videos (Zhou et al., 2010). Although a growing
body of literature has independently addressed content and content-agnostic factors of YouTube
videos broadly, few studies have examined science communication videos specifically.
To fill this knowledge gap, we examined content factors of science communication videos
on YouTube for their influence on video popularity. We first assessed the differences in profes-
sionally and user-generated channels, specifically, the number of views, subscribers, age of the
channel and number of videos created. Then, within the context of PGC and UGC, we examined
the impact of video length and pace and how the video was delivered – delivery being a function
of the gender, style, and the continuity of the delivery person(s) between videos. This was
achieved by manually coding content factors of a sample of videos and analysing the relation-
ships against YouTube’s popularity metrics. Although manually coding limits the quantity of
videos that can be sampled, it was necessary to obtain much of the data required. Understanding
which video content factors contribute to video popularity on YouTube and the impact of PGC
on UGC, if there is any, will assist content creators to create more engaging and popular science
communication content. In the ‘Literature review’ section, current research on understanding
popularity on YouTube is reviewed, followed by the ‘Method’ section that will detail the sampling
protocols and video coding procedures. The ‘Results’ section follows, divided into channel-
specific and video-specific sections, and finally, the results are discussed and the article concludes
by highlighting future research.
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Welbourne and Grant 3
2. Literature review
As there are few studies that have examined science communication on YouTube, the selection
of content factors in this study may seem arbitrary, although this is not the case. We focus on
content factors, as opposed to content-agnostic factors, as they are valuable to understanding
drivers of popularity broadly and allow recommendations to be made in the creation of science
communication content. Upon accepting content factors, the first evaluation is a fundamental
separation of professionally generated and user-generated channels and their videos. Expected
differences in channel resources between user-generated and professionally generated channels
led us to examine content factors related to the delivery of content. For instance, a channel with
large resources may be capable of employing professional creators, which undoubtedly have
different skill sets and, therefore, ideas about how a YouTube video should be presented.
Ultimately, the content factors selected provide a baseline for future research to build upon.
Before reviewing content factors, we briefly address the primary content-agnostic factor that
appears to drive video and channel popularity.
A channel’s social network is the primary content-agnostic factor that influences, and also
confounds, video and channel popularity (Burgess and Green, 2009; Juhasz, 2009; Yoganarasimhan,
2012). Crane and Sornette (2008) postulated three categories of video (viral, quality and junk) and
found that each had a distinct view count distribution history. Figueiredo et al. (2011) similarly
found that top videos (the quality category in Crane and Sornette (2008)) experience a significant
burst of activity, receiving many views in a single day or week, with other videos undergoing several
smaller peaks of activity. The growth of video views is linked to the rich-get-richer effect of the
recommendation system (Borghol et al., 2012) and the channel’s social network (Yoganarasimhan,
2012). Despite these findings, social network analysis on YouTube is problematic for two reasons.
First, a complete social network within YouTube cannot be attained because not all channels make
lists of ‘friends’ or ‘featured channels’ available, and, second, it is not feasible to determine the
social network of a channel beyond YouTube due to difficulties in connecting social networks
across platforms (Yoganarasimhan, 2012). Although an analysis of the social network of science
communication channels on YouTube is beyond the scope of this article, it is clearly an important
consideration in understanding channel popularity generally.
Although the popularity of a YouTube video is a function of content and content-agnostic factors,
content factors appear to be the most informative for understanding broad popularity within the
YouTube community. Broad popularity is meant here as popular among a wide spectrum of viewers,
whereas narrow or niche popularity is only popular within a limited audience. Figueiredo et al.
(2014) examined YouTube users’ perceptions of video popularity by exposing volunteers to pairs
of preselected videos. User preferences meant that in many evaluations users could not come to a
consensus on which video had the best content, but, in those evaluations where users did come to
a consensus, the video identified as having the preferred content was frequently more popular on
YouTube (Figueiredo et al., 2014). Hence, for a video to be popular among a broad audience, the
content must be broadly appealing. Therefore, understanding the content factors is vital to under-
standing what drives popularity broadly.
Most studies examining science communication on YouTube are directed at assessing the veracity
of the information, which, depending on the topic, does appear to influence video popularity.
Keelan et al. (2007) analysed 153 immunisation videos for accuracy and tone, categorised as posi-
tive, ambiguous or negative. Positive videos were those that presented immunisation in a positive
way, ambiguous content was neither for nor against and negative content had a central theme of
anti-immunisation. Keelan et al. (2007) found no errors in positive content, whereas 45% of negative
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Public Understanding of Science
content had misleading information. Despite misleading information, negative videos had higher
view count and ratings than positive videos. Conversely, Sood et al. (2011) analysed 199 videos on
kidney stone disease and found useful videos received significantly higher views than misleading
content. Still, other research has found no statistical difference in view count and ratings between
useful and misleading content (Ache and Wallace, 2008; Azer, 2012; Murugiah et al., 2011; Pandey
et al., 2010).
The type of channel is of particular interest in understanding YouTube popularity. Professionally
generated channels (i.e. channels that exist to extend commercial branding) often have superior
financial resources compared with user-generated channels. Financial resources can allow profes-
sionally generated channels to increase the appeal of the channel and/or of specific videos through
the creation of regular or large volumes of content and content of high production value. Hence,
the UGC community has expressed concern that they will be overshadowed by PGC (Kim, 2012).
Although superior resources might allow channels to employ professional video producers and
presenters, it has been argued that ‘in order to operate effectively as a participant in the YouTube
community, it is not possible simply to import learned conventions … from elsewhere (e.g. from
professional television production)’ (Burgess and Green, 2009: 69). Furthermore, the popularity of
YouTube content is not determined by the quantity of videos a channel uploads but by the views
and engagement (YouTube, 2012). Thus, while regular content assists in engaging one’s audience
(YouTube, n.d.), a channel must still host content that the YouTube community finds engaging.
Superior resources of a channel may give it an advantage through advertising. YouTube’s
video recommendation system uses the engagement metrics, or popularity metrics, to recommend
videos to other viewers. These can be manipulated as numerous websites sell fake views, com-
ments, likes and subscriptions for YouTube channels and videos (Hoffberger, 2013). While
YouTube has responded by continually policing the artificial inflation of popularity metrics,
which in the past has led to the removal of views and videos, it appears to be an ongoing problem
(Pfeiffenberger, 2014). Regardless of illegitimate forms of advertising, channels can purchase
legitimate advertising. Google advertising can be purchased to increase views and engagement on
videos and channels, thereby giving well-funded channels a competitive advantage.
In an information-rich world, the limiting factor in consuming content is the consumers’ atten-
tion (Davenport and Beck, 2001). Therefore, it logically follows that short videos and/or fast-paced
videos which give the illusion of being short might be more engaging than long or slow-paced
videos (Grabowicz, 2014). Although the length of science communication videos has not been
reviewed explicitly in the primary literature, several media companies have analysed YouTube
video length more generally. The Pew Research Center (2012) reviewed the most viewed YouTube
videos between January 2011 and March 2012 and found ~50% were less than 2 minutes and ~82%
were less than 5 minutes, and Ruedlinger (2012) claims video length was inversely correlated with
capturing and holding viewer attention in business videos. Nevertheless, these findings may be
indicative of sampling bias given that the average length of YouTube videos was found to be
4.4 minutes (Lella, 2014). That is, if the majority of videos are short, then it is likely that most
popular videos are short.
Although the evidence is weak, there is some suggestion that UGC is more popular than PGC.
Lorenc et al. (2013) reviewed the top 241 most subscribed channels and found ~68% were from
user-generated channels, and of the genres represented (comedy, n = 83; music, n = 79; gaming,
n = 36; fashion/beauty, n = 14; other, n = 29), only the music genre had more professional-generated
than user-generated channels. In the context of science communication, Lo et al. (2010) reviewed
videos on epilepsy and found that UGC content had more views, ratings and comments than PGC,
and noted that comments on UGC attempted to engage with the videos’ creator and other viewers,
whereas comments on PGC did not. However, little weight can be afforded to either of these
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Welbourne and Grant 5
findings as Lorenc et al. (2013) have not undergone peer-review and Lo et al. (2010) examined
only 10 videos that included only 2 professionally generated. Hence, this study makes a significant
contribution to the science communication literature by examining science communication on
YouTube more thoroughly.
3. Method
Video procurement
To achieve the aims of this article, it was calculated that a minimum sample of 385 videos was
required. To limit bias induced by channels with large numbers of videos, a clustered random
sampling approach was used. In December 2013, YouTube channels were randomly sampled in 50
channel blocks from the top 1000 channels from the SocialBlade (2013) categories of ‘Education’
and ‘Science & Technology’. Videos were then randomly sampled from each channel and reviewed
for inclusion. Videos in English, at least 180 days old and could be defined as science communica-
tion (in the context of this study, see definition below) were retained until 10 videos per channel
were identified, resulting in a total of 39 YouTube channels included in the dataset. Clone-videos
and channels principally composed of reposted content from other creators were excluded from the
dataset.
Science communication
Science communication in practice is considerably broad, often attracting equally broad definitions
in the academic literature (sensu, Bryant, 2003; Gilbert and Stocklmayer, 2013). In this study, ‘science’
was taken as any topic that would be categorised into one of the Scopus science subject areas of
physical, life, health or social sciences, excluding the topic of ‘Arts and Humanities’ (Elsevier,
2014). The tone of communication of these topics can also be quite broad. Hence, ‘science com-
munication’ in this study was taken to be any video that might be seen as a form of science journalism
that is not overtly didactic or instructional, while also not being principally focused on entertainment.
Defining science communication in this way was necessary because of the different reasons that
one watches YouTube (Burgess and Green, 2009). Although this is somewhat subjective, consist-
ency was maintained as a single author (D.J.W.) reviewed all material for inclusion.
Data coding
The collection of channel data, video popularity metrics and video content factors of the identified
YouTube videos began in January 2014. Data were obtained on videos and channels using both
automated (Zdravkovic, 2013) and manual coding procedures. The following data were coded for
each channel:
(a) Channel age, as measured from the first upload event;
(b) Number of videos at the time of video procurement;
(c) Channel views at the time of video procurement;
(d) Channel subscriptions at the time of video procurement;
(e) Channel type, coded as PGC for channels named after corporate entities or as UGC for
channels that are YouTube derived.
The following popularity metrics were extracted for all videos simultaneously:
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Public Understanding of Science
(a) Video view count;
(b) Number of comments on the video;
(c) Number of subscriptions driven from the video;
(d) Number of times the video was shared;
(e) Total number of ratings.
Each video was reviewed manually and the following content factors coded.
(a) Video length (seconds) taken as the complete video duration.
(b) Pace of content delivery (words per minute) calculated from the video and YouTube’s auto-
matic transcript feature. Although this feature does not record each word accurately, it does
capture the number of words accurately (unpublished data).
(c) Communicator continuity (binary) identified whether a channel had a continuous science
communicator or communicators who delivered content. Channels were initially classified
into three categories of mostly continuous, >66% of videos had the same communicator;
mostly non-continuous, >66% of videos did not have the same communicator; and mixed.
In the final dataset, this was collapsed to a binary classification as no ‘mixed’ channels were
identified.
(d) Gender (male, female, both or no-gender) of the person or persons delivering the science
content.
(e) Video style was coded as one of six styles identified while reviewing the dataset – Vlog:
an iconic YouTube video style where the presenter delivers content by talking directly to
the camera; Hosted: stylistically similar to vlog where the communicator presents the
information; however, other people such as members of the public or interviewees are also
part of the video content; Interview: videos where the person delivering content is being
interviewed by a person off camera who is often the video creator; Presentation: the
presenter is presenting information to an audience and not the camera specifically; Voice
over visuals: videos where someone talks over animated or static visuals; Text over visuals:
similar to voice over visual, but with text in place of the voice.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analysis was carried out in the R statistical package version 3.0.2 (Cran Team, 2014).
Provided assumptions held and data transformations were suitable, parametric tests were used,
otherwise non-parametric tests. Welch’s t-test was used in place of Student’s t-test where unequal
variance was identified using Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance. An alpha of .05 was used
for significance in all tests. Effect sizes and correlations were described according to Cohen (1988)
and Evans (1996).
4. Results
Channel results
A total of 411 YouTube channels were sampled to obtain the 39 science communication channels
required. These consisted of 21 professionally generated and 18 user-generated channels. The age
of professionally generated channels (M = 1220 days, standard deviation (SD) = 864) was not sig-
nificantly different from user-generated channels (M = 1263 days, SD = 679; Student’s t(37) = 0.17,
p = .87, Cohen’s d = 0.05). Professionally generated channels had significantly more videos than
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Welbourne and Grant 7
user-generated channels (Welch’s t(34.5) = 1.73, p = .04, Cohen’s d = 0.55; Figure 1(a)).
Professionally generated and user-generated channels both had highly positively skewed distribu-
tions of subscriptions and channel views (Figure 1(b) and (c)). Hence, half of professionally
generated and user-generated channels had less than ~1.8 × 106 and ~4.6 × 107 channel views
(respectively) and less than 26,533 and 366,805 subscriptions (respectively). Channel type had a
large effect on subscriptions and channel views; user-generated channels had significantly more
subscriptions (Welch’s t(33.4) = 4.90, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 1.55) and channels views (Student’s
t(37) = 3.38, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 1.09) than professionally generated channels.
Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used to examine the relationships between channel
data and popularity metrics. Both professionally generated and user-generated channels exhibited
similar relationships between channel data and popularity metrics; hence, channel type (i.e. UGC
or PGC) was not considered in the correlations. Channel views were very strongly positively
correlated with subscriptions (t(37) = 15.7, p < .01, r = .93) and moderately positively correlated
with the number of videos on a channel (t(37) = 2.8, p < .01, r = .42). However, by controlling for
subscriptions and uploads, views per subscription was not correlated with subscriptions (t(37) = 1.92,
p = .06, r = −.30), and no correlation was found between views per video and number of videos
(t(37) = 0.80, p = .43, r = −.13). Number of videos was moderately positively correlated with the age
of a channel (t(37) = 4.2, p < .01, r = .57), but after controlling for channel age no correlation was
found between the age and the number of videos uploaded daily (t(37) = 0.11, p = .92, r = −.07).
Interestingly, neither channel views nor subscriptions were correlated with the age of the channel
(t(37) = 1.32, p = .19, r = .21; t(37) = 0.01, p = .99, r = .00, respectively), and channel subscriptions
were not correlated with the number of videos on a channel (t(37) = 0.89, p = .38, r = .14).
Video results: popularity metrics
A total of 10 videos from each channel were acquired resulting in a final dataset of 210 videos
of PGC and 180 videos of UGC. Similar to channel age, video age was approximately normally
distributed (M = 752 days, SD = 540), and there was no significant video age difference between
PGC and UGC (Student’s t(387) = 0.54, p = .59, Cohen’s d = 0.06). All video popularity metrics (i.e.
views, comments, subscriptions driven, number of shares and total ratings) were found to be highly
Figure 1. The number of (a) videos, (b) subscriptions and (c) channel views of professionally generated
(PGC) and user-generated (UGC) YouTube science channels. Asterisks indicate a significant (p < .05)
difference between PGC and UGC.
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Public Understanding of Science
positively skewed (skew > 4.6, kurtosis > 24.8). Furthermore, Spearman’s rank-order correlation
showed that all popularity metrics were very strongly positively correlated to one another, which
differed little between channel type (all relationships ρ > 0.88 and p < .01). Hence, only video views
were considered further as the dependent variable.
Considering popularity metrics in terms of engagement revealed that engagement activity differed
between popularity metrics and that PGC and UGC were engaged with differently. Engagement
refers to the number of views received per event of another metric. A one-way between-subjects
analysis of variance (ANOVA) (followed by Tukey’s post hoc test) was conducted without video
type as a function. All engagement metrics had significantly different views per engagement event
(F(3, N = 647) = 467, p < .01, η2 = .52; Figure 2). That is, views per rating event were significantly
lower than per subscription driven, views per subscription driven were significantly lower than per
comment received and views per comment were significantly lower than per share event. Whether
a video was professionally generated or user-generated had no effect on the number of views
received per subscription driven (Welch’s t(199) = 0.26, p = .80, Cohen’s d = 0.03) or comment
received (Student’s t(345) = 1.53, p = .13, Cohen’s d = 0.16). However, UGC had significantly fewer
views than PGC per rating received (Student’s t(372) = 5.30, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.55), and PGC
had significantly fewer views than UGC per share event (Welch’s t(206) = 4.90, p < .01, Cohen’s
d = 0.63; Figure 2). Thus, for the same number of views UGC would receive significantly more
ratings, but PGC would be shared significantly more.
Video results: content factors
PGC and UGC differed in several, but not all, of the content factors measured. A chi-square test was
used to examine the proportions of PGC and UGC that contained a regular science communicator.
UGC had a significantly higher proportion of videos (~56%, n = 100) with regular communicators
than PGC (~37%, n = 77; χ2(1, N = 390) = 13.95, p < .01). A binomial exact test was used to evaluate
whether science communicators were equally represented by both genders. The test showed males
were in a significantly greater proportion of both PGC (p < .01) and UGC (p < .01; Figure 3(a)).
There was no null hypothesis to test the proportion of delivery styles employed in PGC and UGC;
still, Figure 3(b) shows that PGC was marginally more varied than UGC. The rapidity with which
Figure 2. Number of views of professionally generated (PGC) and user-generated (UGC) YouTube science
videos per engagement event. Asterisks indicate a significant (p < .05) difference between PGC and UGC.
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Welbourne and Grant 9
content was delivered, as measured in words per minute, was significantly quicker in UGC
(M = 169, SD = 32) than PGC (M = 153, SD = 27; Student’s t(338) = 5.10, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.55).
Despite the difference in pace, there was no significant difference in the length of PGC
(Median = 196 seconds, range = 19–4996 seconds) and UGC (M = 333 seconds, SD = 196 seconds;
Welch’s t(355) = 0.37, p = .71, Cohen’s d = 0.04).
Of the content factors measured, only communicator continuity, pace of delivery and (margin-
ally) gender appeared to impact video views. Videos with a regular communicator, in both video
types, had significantly more views than videos without a regular presenter (UGC: Student’s
t(178) = 9.03, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 1.35; PGC: Welch’s t(192) = 3.90, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.54;
Figure 4). Furthermore, the effect of a regular communicator was larger for views of UGC than
PGC. Using a one-way ANOVA, gender was not found to be significant for views of UGC (F(2,
N = 177) = 2.53, p = .08), whereas it was significant for PGC (F(2, N = 206) = 2.95, p = .03, η2 = .04).
Tukey’s post hoc test indicated that male-only PGC was viewed significantly more than PGC with
both genders present, although this was a small effect. Pearson’s product-moment correlation was
used to examine the impact of pace and video length on video views. Pace was found to be weakly
positively correlated with views in both UGC (t(160) = 2.60, p < .01, r = .21) and PGC (t(171) = 3.40,
p < .01, r = .25), but, interestingly, no correlation was identified between views and video length
(t(388) = 0.69, p = .49, r = −.03). Delivery style could not be analysed for its impact upon views as
a number of channels were found to use only one style for their delivery.
5. Discussion
In this study, 390 science communication videos, from 21 professionally generated and 18 user-
generated YouTube channels, were examined to identify content-related factors that influenced
popularity. We identified three factors that contribute to popularity. First, although PGC is more
numerous than UGC, UGC is far more popular in the science communication genre. Therefore,
whether a channel is an overtly professionally generated channel or one that appears to be
YouTube derived (UGC) is the largest correlate of popularity. Second, whether a channel had a
regular communicator to deliver content greatly impacted video views. Third, for both PGC and
Figure 3. (a) Gender representation and (b) deliver style of professionally generated (PGC) and user-
generated (UGC) YouTube science videos.
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 Public Understanding of Science
UGC, videos that delivered information more rapidly had more views than slow-paced videos.
Several results from this study, namely, the effect of video length on popularity and the rates of
engagement with videos, disagree with findings from prior work (Chatzopoulou et al., 2010).
Still, we make several recommendations that may increase the popularity of science communica-
tion videos on YouTube, and we identify future research directions to expand upon this work.
Despite the concerns of Kim (2012), this research highlights that user-generated science com-
munication need not fear PGC monopolising audience attention. The superior financial resources
of professionally created channels and (likely) formal technical training of PGC creators do not
lead to science communication videos or channels that are more popular with the YouTube com-
munity. This result can be explained by how content consumers identify trusted sources. Among
the key factors used by consumers to identify trusted sources of information on Web 2.0 are
communicator expertise, experience, impartiality, affinity and a source being trusted within a
content consumer’s social network (Borgatti and Cross, 2003; Heath et al., 2007). These factors
also support why communicator continuity increased video views. Making a connection with the
audience is logically more direct if there is continuity throughout a series of videos; in short, a
regular communicator adds to the authenticity of a channel (Burgess and Green, 2009). Thus, the
success of UGC can be explained by user-created channels fostering meaningful connections
with the viewer base, and the increased success of UGC with a regular science communicator
merely compounds the effect.
It is logical that the pace of content delivery needs to suit the medium of communication. To get
your message across when public speaking, instructional tips often repeat the dictum that one
should not speak too quickly or too slowly, while averaging between 100 and 150 words per minute
(Sudha, 2010). Comprehension studies, for instance, have found that students benefit from receiving
content at lower than average speaking rates (~190 words per minute; Weinstein and Griffiths,
1992). The main reason why public speakers should ensure they are not talking too quickly is
because of the transitory nature of the medium. It is not possible to replay something if it is missed.
In contrast, however, faster rates of speech are considered to improve the persuasiveness of argu-
ments and increase audience focus (Chambers, 2001; Miller et al., 1976; Smith and Shaffer, 1995).
However, these are competing outcomes. Slower rates of delivery may improve comprehension,
Figure 4. Views (natural log) of professionally generated (PGC) and user-generated (UGC) YouTube
science videos as a function of communicator continuity. Asterisks indicate a significant (p < .05) difference
between videos with a continuous host (Con.Host) and non-continuous host (Non-Con.Host).
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Welbourne and Grant 11
whereas greater rates may increase engagement and interest. In the YouTube context, comprehension
may not be affected as YouTube videos can easily be replayed as necessary. Thus, these results
support the point that higher rates of content delivery do increase views, but future research should
examine whether comprehension of the message deteriorates.
For the most part, the gender of the science communicator was not found to influence views;
however, in terms of representation, science communicators, especially in UGC, were often male.
Jenkins et al. (2009) define a participatory culture as one with relatively low barriers to entry,
where people are supported and encouraged to create and share content and where participants
feel a degree of social cohesion with other participants. YouTube is therefore often described as a
participatory culture, and we would nominally expect that creators represent the demographics of
the community (Chau, 2010). While it appears that YouTube has relatively the same amount of
male and female viewers (Chau, 2010), Abisheva et al. (2013) identified clustering in different
subjects on YouTube; for example, sports had more male viewers while entertainment had more
female viewers. Thus, the lack of female science communicators may be symptomatic of a lack of
female viewers. Alternatively, female science communicators simply may choose not to make
content. Molyneaux and O’Donnell (2008) in fact identified that females did create and consume
fewer vlogs than males, despite having the same technical skills and feeling just as much a part of
the YouTube community as their male counterparts. To explore the gender gap in the creation of
science communication content, future research should explore qualitative approaches.
Two findings in this study conflict with prior research: video length and engagement
rates. First, longer videos intuitively seem that they would be less popular than shorter videos
(Davenport and Beck, 2001), a point expressed by content creators and even YouTube (n.d.).
This study does not support this claim. Content creators, however, should not assume any video
length is appropriate; further research on video length of YouTube science videos is needed, and
we recommend that this should occur on few channels with variability in video length to control
for channel effects. Second, we found that for the same number of views, UGC would receive
more ratings than PGC. In contrast Chatzopoulou et al. (2010) found that videos with higher
views had relatively fewer ratings, comments and favourites. Their explanation was that videos
with more views elicit a ‘less acute reaction’ (Chatzopoulou et al., 2010: 2). This hypothesis might
explain why we found that PGC was shared more than UGC. Our contrary finding of relatively
higher ratings may simply be an idiosyncrasy of science communication; nevertheless, it alludes
to how UGC becomes more popular. Given ratings were received significantly more than other
engagement metrics, given UGC received significantly more ratings, and given YouTube’s video
recommendation systems incorporate such engagement metrics, UGC may become more popu-
lar by simply being recommended more often.
With the abundance of information in the modern era, understanding how to capture audience
attention is paramount to having one’s message heard. On YouTube specifically, long-term success
requires understanding what factors contribute to the growth of video and channel popularity
(Burgess and Green, 2009). It is important to recognise that analysis in this study was correlative,
and causation cannot necessarily be inferred from these results. Still, this study highlights several
factors that appear to contribute to popularity. Science communicators on YouTube need to have a
face and they must engage with the community. The biggest mistake that content creators can make
is in viewing YouTube as merely a video hosting platform, rather than a participatory community.
As this study describes some of the characteristics of science communication on YouTube, it
provides a foundation for future research. We urge continued research of science communication
on YouTube as we cannot assume that broad YouTube trends identified elsewhere apply to the science
communication genre.
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12 Public Understanding of Science
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Merryn McKinnon and Vanessa Hill who provided feedback on the original manuscript and to
the two anonymous reviewers who reviewed the submitted manuscript.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
Abisheva A, Garimella VRK, Garcia D and Weber I (2013) Who watches (and shares) what on YouTube? And
when? Using Twitter to understand YouTube viewership. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4511. Available at:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4511.pdf
Ache KA and Wallace LS (2008) Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage on YouTube. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: 389–392.
Ackerman E and Guizzo E (2011) 5 technologies that will shape the web. IEEE spectrum. Available at: http://
spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5-technologies-that-will-shape-the-web
Alexa Internet Inc. (2015) Top Sites. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites
Azer SA (2012) Can ‘YouTube’ help students in learning surface anatomy? Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy
34: 465–468.
Borgatti SP and Cross R (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks.
Management Science 49: 432–445.
Borghol Y, Ardon S, Carlsson N, Eager D and Mahanti A (2012) The untold story of the clones: Content-
agnostic factors that impact YouTube video popularity. Paper presented at the 18th ACM SIGKDD
conference, Beijing, China. Available at: http://www.ida.liu.se/~nikca/papers/kdd12.pdf
Brossard D (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 14096–14101.
Bryant C (2003) Does Australia need a more effective policy of science communication? International
Journal of Parasitology 33: 357–361.
Burgess JE and Green JB (2009) YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chambers HE (2001) Effective Communication Skills for Scientific and Technical Professionals. New York,
NY: Perseus Publishing.
Chatzopoulou G, Sheng C and Faloutsos M (2010) A first step towards understanding popularity in YouTube.
Paper presented at the IEEE INFOCOM 2010 conference, Riverside, CA. Available at: http://www.
cs.unm.edu/~michalis/PAPERS/youtube_CAMERA.pdf
Chau C (2010) YouTube as a participatory culture. New Directions for Youth Development 2010: 65–74.
Claussen JE, Cooney PB, Defilippi JM, Fox SG, Glaser SM, Hawkes E, et al. (2013) Science Communication
in a Digital Age: Social Media and the American Fisheries Society. Fisheries 38: 359–362.
Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cran Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 3.0.2). Vienna: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/
Crane R and Sornette D (2008) Robust dynamic classes revealed by measuring the response function of a
social system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:
15649–15653.
Davenport TH and Beck JC (2001) The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Elsevier (2014) Subject area categories. Available at: http://help.scopus.com/Content/h_subject_categories.htm
Evans JD (1996) Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.
Figueiredo F, Almeida JM, Benevenuto F and Gummadi KP (2014) Does content determine information
popularity in social media? A case study of YouTube videos’ content and their popularity. Paper
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Welbourne and Grant 13
presented at the 32nd annual ACM conference, Toronto, ON, Canada. Available at: http://www.mpi-
sws.org/~gummadi/papers/chi2014-contentpopularity.pdf
Figueiredo F, Benevenuto F and Almeida JM (2011) The tube over time: Characterizing popularity growth
of YouTube videos. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th ACM international conference, Hong
Kong, China: Available at: http://homepages.dcc.ufmg.br/~fabricio/download/wsdm11.pdf
Gilbert JK and Stocklmayer SM (eds). (2013) Communication and Engagement with Science and Technology.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Grabowicz P (2014) Tutorial: The transition to digital journalism. Available at: http://multimedia.journalism.
berkeley.edu/tutorials/digital-transform/
Heath T, Motta E and Petre M (2007) Computing word-of-mouth trust relationships in social networks from
semantic web and web 2.0 data sources. Paper presented at the 4th European semantic web conference,
Innsbruck. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/23610/1/ComputingWorld-of-Mouth.pdf
Hoffberger C (2013) I bought myself 60,000 YouTube views for Christmas. Available at: http://www.
dailydot.com/entertainment/how-to-buy-youtube-views/
Jenkins H, Purushotma R, Weigel M, Clinton K and Robinson AJ (2009) Confronting the challenges of
participatory culture. Boston, MA: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Juhasz A (2009) Learning the five lessons of YouTube: After trying to teach there, I don’t believe the hype.
Cinema Journal 48: 145–150.
Keelan J, Pavri-Garcia V, Tomlinson G and Wilson K (2007) YouTube as a source of information on immu-
nization: A content analysis. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 298: 2482–2484.
Kim J (2012) The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to professionally generated
content. Media, Culture & Society 34: 53–67.
Lella A (2014) comScore releases January 2014 U.S. online video rankings. Available at: http://www.
comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2014/2/comScore-Releases-January-2014-US-Online-Video-
Rankings
Lo AS, Esser MJ and Gordon KE (2010) YouTube: A gauge of public perception and awareness surrounding
epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior 17: 541–545.
Lorenc W, Armstrong C, Aubrecht C, Gitlevich G, Hampton Q, Heaney M, et al. (2013) 2013 YouTube Study.
Columbia, MO: Columbia College.
Miller N, Maruyama G, Beaber RJ and Valone K (1976) Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 34: 615–624.
Minol K, Spelsberg G, Schulte E and Morris N (2007) Portals, blogs and co.: The role of the internet as a
medium of science communication. Biotechnology Journal 2: 1129–1140.
Molyneaux H and O’Donnell S (2008) Exploring the Gender Divide on YouTube: An Analysis of the Creation
and Reception of Vlogs. American Communication Journal 10: 8–22.
Murugiah K, Vallakati A, Rajput K, Sood A and Challa NR (2011) YouTube as a source of information on
cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 82: 332–334.
Nisbet MC and Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and
lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96: 1767–1778.
Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, Sood A and Singh G (2010) YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1
influenza pandemic. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 38: 1–3.
Pew Research Center (2012) Video length. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2012/07/16/video-
length/#_ftn3
Pfeiffenberger P (2014) Keeping YouTube views authentic. Available at: http://googleonlinesecurity.
blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/keeping-youtube-views-authentic.html
Ruedlinger B (2012) Does length matter? Available at: http://wistia.com/blog/does-length-matter-it-does-for-
video-2k12-edition
Smith SM and Shaffer DR (1995) Speed of speech persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 1051–1060.
SocialBlade (2013) YouTube statistics by Social Blade. Available at: http://socialblade.com/youtube/
Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A and Murugiah K (2011) YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone
disease. Urology 77: 558–562.
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14 Public Understanding of Science
Sudha RD (2010) Advanced Communication Skills Laboratory Manual. New Delhi, India: Pearson Education.
Szabo G and Huberman BA (2010) Predicting the popularity of online content. Communications of the ACM
53: 80–88.
Valenti JM (1999) Commentary: How well do scientists communicate to media? Science Communication 21:
172–178.
Wasko J and Erickson M (2009) The political economy of YouTube. In: Snickars P and Vonderau P (eds) The
YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 372–386.
Weinstein G and Griffiths R (1992) Speech rate and listening comprehension: Further evidence of the
relationship. TESOL Quarterly 26: 385–390.
Yoganarasimhan H (2012) Impact of social network structure on content propagation: A study using YouTube
data. QME: Quantitative Marketing and Economics 10: 111–150.
YouTube (2012) Changes to related and recommended videos. Available at: http://youtubecreator.blogspot.
com.au/2012/03/changes-to-related-and-recommended.html
YouTube (n.d.) Uploads & Activity. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/yt/playbook/uploads-and-
activity.html
Zdravkovic N (2013) YouTube statistics downloader (Version 2.1.2). Available at: http://yts.sourceforge.net/
download.html
Zhou R, Khemmarat S and Gao L (2010) The impact of YouTube recommendation system on video views.
Paper presented at the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference, New Delhi, India. Available at: http://
conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2010/papers/p404.pdf
Author biographies
Dustin J. Welbourne is a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales in the School of Physical,
Environmental and Mathematical Sciences. His research interests include evolutionary biogeography and
how these topics are communicated in society.
Will J. Grant is a researcher/lecturer at the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science,
Australian National University. His research and teaching have focused on the intersection of science, society
and technology.
at UNSW Library on March 17, 2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
  • ... The characteristics of live-streaming content were also investigated. The types of live-streaming content refer to the style and information characteristics of video content [16]. In previous studies, live-streaming contents of Periscope, Ustream, and YouNow were classified as follows: "To Chat" for communication between streamer and viewers, "Share Information," to share information with viewers, "24/7," to observe 24 h a day, seven days a week, and "Slice of Life," to broadcast the streamer's daily life [17]. ...
    ... Based on these users' activities such as "like", "comment", and "share", YouTube accordingly presents popular video content on its website or mobile app. Researchers have examined factors affecting the popularity of YouTube's video content [16]. In these studies, the popularity of YouTube's video content was measured by the number of views, comments, subscriptions, shares, and total number of ratings [16]. ...
    ... Researchers have examined factors affecting the popularity of YouTube's video content [16]. In these studies, the popularity of YouTube's video content was measured by the number of views, comments, subscriptions, shares, and total number of ratings [16]. Although video content with more views, likes, comments, or shares may not be the best content, this content may be popular content preferred by numerous YouTube users [19]. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Naver V Live, a South Korean live-streaming service, showcases video contents specific to the entertainment industry, such as K-pop and music. On V Live, K-pop stars and their fans can interact directly in a natural way, and V Live provides high-quality video content with novel topics. This study has identified key characteristics of video content that affect its popularity. A total of 620 video contents of five leading Star channels were classified on the basis of production company, type of video content, and whether it was live-streamed or not. The popularity of video content was measured by the number of comments, hearts, and views. To control potential bias, additional variables were set as control variables—such as the number of channel subscribers, mini-album sales, if the video content was previewed, and cumulative number of days since the video content was uploaded. For analysis, a hierarchical linear regression was conducted. The findings suggest future directions in video content planning.
  • ... Construir una audiencia y un canal exitoso se consigue incrementando el número de los suscriptores y vistas del canal. Existen varios factores que ayudan a la viralización de material, uno de los más importantes, es el sistema de recomendaciones de la plataforma que consiste en situar a los vídeos, que más vistas tengan, en los primeros lugares de búsqueda, es decir, la plataforma impulsa a los audiovisuales populares para que sean más advertidos (Welbourne & Grant, 2016). ...
    ... Los vídeos subidos a la plataforma puede ser creados por profesionales o por usuarios amateur. Los primeros suelen ser financiados directamente por marcas que pueden aportar económicamente en cada contenido, los cuales llegan a monetizarse más rápido que el resto y, por lo tanto, varias marcas apuestan a pautar publicidad en dichos audiovisuales (Welbourne & Grant, 2016). ...
  • ... These established formats are supplemented by online video platforms, with new science video formats and new actors on stage. A recent study found that usergenerated science videos are more popular than professionally generated ones (Welbourne & Grant, 2016). However, nowadays it has become hard to differentiate between user and professionally generated content as, for instance, so-called 'influencers' or 'sciencetubers' are often professional communicators as well. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Due to the rise of the Internet, the effects of different science communication formats in which experts appear cannot be neglected in communication research. Through their emotional and more comprehensible communication ‘sciencetubers’—who frequently differ from the stereotypical image of scientists as white, old men—may have a considerable effect on the public’s perceived trustworthiness of scientists as well as their trust in science. Thus, this study aims to extend trust and trustworthiness research to consider the role of emotion in science communication in the context of emerging online video content. Therefore, perceived trustworthiness was examined in an experimental online survey of 155 people aged 18–80. We considered different potential influencing variables for trustworthiness (expertise, integrity, benevolence) and used six different video stimuli about physics featuring scientific experts. The video stimuli varied according to format (TV interviews vs. YouTube videos), gender (male vs. female), and age of the experts depicted (old vs. young). The results suggest that: (1) Scientific experts appearing in TV interviews are perceived as more competent but not higher in integrity or benevolence than sciencetubers—while scientists interviewed on TV are regarded as typical scientists, sciencetubers stand out for their highly professional communication abilities (being entertaining and comprehensible); (2) these emotional assessments of scientists are important predictors of perceived trustworthiness; and (3) significantly mediate the effect of the stimulus (TV interview vs. YouTube video) on all dimensions of perceived trustworthiness of scientific experts.
  • ... It stands as the third factor for increasing the views of the videos and could be considered as one of the crucial factors to decide whether a video might be hit or not Brtl (2018). The factors which affect the video popularity and their listing by the recommender system are content-agnostic factors and content factors, which constitute of, date of the video, topic, video duration and many other factors Welbourne and Grant (2016) Figueiredo et al. (2011). This legitimately connects to that recommender system further suggests the videos to the users which are more viewable Siersdorfer et al. (2010). ...
    Thesis
    Full-text available
    The escalation and boom of YouTube industry has taken place due to the colossal utilization of web technologies. YouTube provides income to its content creators in the form of revenue collected through advertising. Unscrupulous users, in the form of a loophole, try to exploit this by deliberately uploading misleading videos to generate income also known as clickbait videos. This proves to be serious harm to the YouTube system since it tends to create a negative impact on the users as well as on the advertisers and investors. By collecting metadata of 800k videos this research tries to overcome the issue by detecting these deceptive videos, thereby generalising and improving the overall YouTube system prominence.
  • ... for Twitter, the single, time-based newsfeed that displays all posts does not. Research into public engagement with science via social media is occurring in multiple contexts, including YouTube (Welbourne and Grant 2016), Twitter (Daume and Galaz 2016), and Facebook (Fauville et al. 2015), yet these empirical studies do not necessarily capture the ways in which social media can be used for educative purposes. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Social media provides science learners opportunities to interact with content-specific messages. However, most science-specific social media content is designed to disseminate information instead of encouraging dialog. In this novel, ex post facto exploratory study of a science social media community, we sought to understand the relationships among community member interaction, design elements of messages, and post type on two digital niches (i.e., Facebook and Twitter). Framed by the theory of symbolic interactionism, we conducted a content analysis of 1370 messages that were systematically created by an informal science learning project and found that usage frequency of messaging elements varied by niche; interaction within each niche differed, varying by messaging element; and differential interaction was found to be associated with post types within Facebook only. This study suggests a pathway for developing and examining social media as an educational component of informal science learning.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Los artículos, libros, capítulos, conferencias y seminarios tradicionales dan paso a nuevas herramientas de difusión del conocimiento científico como las redes sociales, apostando por la concepción de la ciencia abierta. Esta se entiende como la distribución pública de los resultados de investigación de forma deliberada, para que el público acceda libremente a los conocimientos universales. De este contexto, nace el presente estudio, que tiene por objetivo reconocer temáticas científicas en tendencia propuestas por jóvenes youtubers dedicados a la divulgación científica, así como obtener una valoración de docentes en Educación Superior sobre la fiabilidad y conveniencia de los contenidos y argumentos proporcionados por esta vía. El procedimiento metodológico parte de una exploración cuanti-cualitativa mediante análisis de contenido de cuatro canales con 12 unidades audiovisuales y 144 minutos de visionado, y de un cuestionario online que acoge la opinión de 205 investigadores universitarios. Los resultados cualitativos presentan un índice medio-alto de rigurosidad, credibilidad y fiabilidad por parte de los youtubers, así como un interés de los usuarios por las pseudociencias, las enfermedades de transmisión sexual, las matemáticas y las creencias dogmáticas. Contrariamente, los docentes encuestados declaran una falta de coherencia y criterio científico por parte de los influencers. Esta paradoja apunta hacia YouTube como una plataforma reveladora para la comunicación del saber, dirigida esencialmente a los jóvenes y sustentada por la libertad para aprender y enseñar ciencia. Se introduce, en suma, una nueva, innovadora y juvenil vía de difusión del conocimiento más controvertido, político, social y educativo, mediante recursos audiovisuales online, sociales y generalistas.
  • Chapter
    YouTube und andere Videoplattformen gewinnen als Informationsquelle für wissenschaftliche Themen immer mehr an Bedeutung. Auf diesen Plattformen ist die Vermittlung wissenschaftlichen Wissens durch Wissenschaftler*innen, Forschungsinstitute, Forschungsorganisationen und Universitäten sowie interessierte Laien unabhängig von klassischen Medien möglich geworden. Die Angebote, die zu wissenschaftlichen Themen auf YouTube zu finden sind, sind entsprechend vielfältig. Darunter finden sich u. a. aufgezeichnete Science-Slams. Diese stellen einen Sonderfall dar, da sie nicht zu den Angeboten zählen, die speziell für die Veröffentlichung auf YouTube produziert wurden. In diesem Beitrag werden unterschiedliche Präsentationsformen der externen audio-visuellen Wissenschaftskommunikation auf YouTube analysiert sowie typologisiert und Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen YouTube-Videos zu Wissenschaft und aufgezeichneten Science-Slams dargestellt und diskutiert. Die Untersuchung zeigt, dass Kanäle von sogenannten YouTuber*innen, die keine direkte Verbindung zu wissenschaftlichen Institutionen haben, diesen in ihrer Reichweite überlegen sind. Auch aufgezeichnete Science-Slams scheinen Wissenschaftler*innen bessere Möglichkeiten zu bieten, eine breitere Öffentlichkeit zu erreichen, als die Präsentation ihrer Forschung in Videos von wissenschaftlichen Institutionen.
  • Article
    How is economics made public? Specifically, how is economics made public on Google? Here we explore a methodological problem – studying google-knowing – and simultaneously explore the more pragmatic problem of the public-making of economics. We argue there has been very little attempt either to make economics public or to understand what is currently in the public sphere about economics. This is especially stark when compared to other knowledge contributors to society, like science. We start to remedy this gap by using a methodological figure: the google-knower. Google-knowing is central to how knowledge is created and circulated in society in the digital age and raises a range of questions at the heart of how we understand and make sense of our (economic) world. In this paper, we make common cause with google-knowers by searching on Google for economics. We find a picture of a discipline marked on the one hand by secrecy and gatekeeping and on the other by an insistence that it is not boring. We also argue that using the figure of the google-knower as a methodological tool offers insights into classic questions in epistemology, such as objectivity, knowledge as a commodity, a knowers' identity and expertise.
  • Chapter
    Full-text available
    In the current decade, there is a drastic increase in the active social network users which simultaneously raised the interest of destination management organizations (DMOs) to increase their e-visibility on social network sites (SNS), specifically to promote their tourism destinations. The main aim of DMOs is to reach the target market and create a brand image of the destination to increase the tourist footfalls. The purpose of this chapter will be to analyze the utilization of Instagram as a network of smart tourism ecosystem by state tourism boards in India. The network analysis will be done between state tourism boards by using UCINET 6 which is a software package developed for social network analysis. This chapter will give an insight into the Instagram account used by states tourism boards for the promotion of their respective tourist destinations. The findings of the study will help to improve the utilization of SNS for online content creations, managing the social media campaigns, marketing, branding and promotions of tourism destinations.
  • Book
    Science communication seeks to engage individuals and groups with evidence-based information about the nature, outcomes, and social consequences of science and technology. This text provides an overview of this burgeoning field-the issues with which it deals, important influences that affect it, the challenges that it faces. It introduces readers to the research-based literature about science communication and shows how it relates to actual or potential practice. A “Further Exploration” section provides suggestions for activities that readers might do to explore the issues raised. Organized around five themes, each chapter addresses a different aspect of science communication: •Models of science communication-theory into practice. •Challenges in communicating science. •Major themes in science communication. •Informal learning. •Communication of contemporary issues in science and society.
  • Article
    This is my review of the textbook, not the textbook itself. ResearchGate keeps crediting me with citations to the textbook.
  • Article
    We here investigate what drives the popularity of information on social media platforms. Focusing on YouTube, we seek to understand the extent to which content by itself determines a video's popularity. Using mechanical turk as experimental platform, we asked users to evaluate pairs of videos, and compared users' relative perception of the videos' content against their relative popularity reported by YouTube. We found that in most evaluations users could not reach consensus on which video had better content as their perceptions tend to be very subjective. Nevertheless, when consensus was reached, the video with preferred content almost always achieved greater popularity on YouTube, highlighting the importance of content in driving information popularity on social media.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Social media platforms are effective tools used to help communicate and increase involvement in cultural, political, and scientific circles. In 2012, an ad hoc committee was established to explore online fisheries science communication and how social media platforms can be utilized by the American Fisheries Society (AFS). A survey was disseminated to all AFS units (chapters, sections, divisions) and student subunits to better understand the current use of social media within the AFS. A relatively high response rate (82%) provided some confidence in the survey results-namely, that nearly 69% or more of units and subunits used social media. Facebook was the dominant platform used (59%; all others < 15%) and almost exclusively (97%) for the purpose of communication. Education, outreach, and member recruitment were other reasons for social media use. Finally, whether units currently use social media or not at all, it was recommended that AFS-led workshops and assistance would increase the usefulness of social media.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    We combine user-centric Twitter data with video-centric YouTube data to analyze who watches and shares what on YouTube. Combination of two data sets, with 87k Twitter users, 5.6mln YouTube videos and 15mln video sharing events, allows rich analysis going beyond what could be obtained with either of the two data sets individually. For Twitter, we generate user features relating to activity, interests and demographics. For YouTube, we obtain video features for topic, popularity and polarization. These two feature sets are combined through sharing events for YouTube URLs on Twitter. This combination is done both in a user-, a video- and a sharing-event-centric manner. For the user-centric analysis, we show how Twitter user features correlate both with YouTube features and with sharing-related features. As two examples, we show urban users are quicker to share than rural users and for some notions of "influence" influential users on Twitter share videos with a higher number of views. For the video-centric analysis, we find a superlinear relation between initial Twitter shares and the final amounts of views, showing the correlated behavior of Twitter. On user impact, we find the total amount of followers of users that shared the video in the first week does not affect its final popularity. However, aggregated user retweet rates serve as a better predictor for YouTube video popularity. For the sharing-centric analysis, we reveal existence of correlated behavior concerning the time between video creation and sharing within certain timescales, showing the time onset for a coherent response, and the time limit after which collective responses are extremely unlikely. We show that response times depend on video category, revealing that Twitter sharing of a video is highly dependent on its content. To the best of our knowledge this is the first large-scale study combining YouTube and Twitter data.