The challenges of Weibo for data-driven digital media research

Data generated via user activity on social media platforms is routinely used for research across a wide range of social sciences and humanities disciplines. The availability of data through the Twitter APIs in particular has afforded new modes of research, including in media and communication studies; however, there are practical and political issues with gaining access to such data, and with the consequences of how that access is controlled. In their paper ‘Easy Data, Hard Data’, Burgess and Bruns (2015) discuss both the practical and political aspects of Twitter data as they relate to academic research, describing how communication research has been enabled, shaped and constrained by Twitter’s “regimes of access” to data, the politics of data use, and emerging economies of data exchange. This conceptual model, including the ‘easy data, hard data’ formulation, can also be applied to Sina Weibo. In this paper, we build on this model to explore the practical and political challenges and opportunities associated with the ‘regimes of access’ to Weibo data, and their consequences for digital media and communication studies. We argue that in the Chinese context, the politics of data access can be even more complicated than in the case of Twitter, which makes scientific research relying on large social data from this platform more challenging in some ways, but potentially richer and more rewarding in others.

How information around acute events comes into being on social media?

In this digital age, as social media is emerging as a central site where information is shared and interpreted, it is essential to study information construction issues on social media sites in order to understand how social reality is constructed. While there is a number of studies taking an information-as-objective point of view, this proposed study emphasizes the constructed and interpretive nature of information and explores the processes through which information surrounding acute events comes into being on micro-blogs. In order to conduct this analysis systematically and theoretically, the concept of interpretive communities will be deployed. This research investigates if or not micro-blog based social groups can serve as interpretive communities, and, if so, what role might they play in the construction of information, and the social impacts that may arise. To understand how this process is entangled with the surrounding social, political, technical contexts, cases from both China (focusing on Sina Weibo) and Australia (focusing on Twitter) will be analysed.

Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?

We investigate whether Nobel laureates’ collaborative activities undergo a negative change following prize reception by using publication records of 198 Nobel laureates and analyzing their coauthorship patterns before and after the Nobel Prize. The results overall indicate less collaboration with new coauthors post award than pre award. Nobel laureates are more loyal to collaborations that started before the Prize: looking at coauthorship drop-out rates, we find that these differ significantly between coauthorships that started before the Prize and coauthorships after the Prize. We also find that the greater the intensity of pre-award cooperation and the longer the period of pre-award collaboration, the higher the probability of staying in the coauthor network after the award, implying a higher loyalty to the Nobel laureate.

The first cut is the deepest: Repeated interactions of co-authorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams

Despite much in-depth investigation of factors influencing the co-authorship evolution in various scientific fields, our knowledge about how efficiency or creativity is linked to the longevity of collaborative relationships remains very limited. We explore what Nobel laureates’ co-authorship patterns reveal about the nature of scientific collaborations looking at the intensity and success of scientific collaborations across fields and across laureates’ collaborative lifecycles in physics, chemistry, and physiology/medicine. We find that more collaboration with the same researcher is actually no better for advancing creativity: publications produced early in a sequence of repeated collaborations with a given coauthor tend to be published better and cited more than papers that come later in the collaboration with the same coauthor. Our results indicate that scientific collaboration involves conceptual complementarities that may erode over a sequence of repeated interactions.