Cited by 257Computational and Text Analysis MethodsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsData Analysis and Archiving

A topology of Twitter research: disciplines, methods, and ethics

Zimmer, Michael, Proferes, Nicholas John·2014·Aslib Journal of Information Management

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to engage in a systematic analysis of academic research that relies on the collection and use of Twitter data, creating topology of Twitter research that details the disciplines and methods of analysis, amount of tweets and users under analysis, the methods used to collect Twitter data, and accounts of ethical considerations related to these projects. Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis of 382 academic publications from 2006 to 2012 that used Twitter as their primary platform for data collection and analysis. Findings – The analysis of over 380 scholarly publications utilizing Twitter data reveals noteworthy trends related to the growth of Twitter-based research overall, the disciplines engaged in such research, the methods of acquiring Twitter data for analysis, and emerging ethical considerations of such research. Research limitations/implications – The findings provide a benchmark analysis that must be updated with the continued growth of Twitter-based research. Originality/value – The research is the first full-text systematic analysis of Twitter-based research projects, focussing on the growth in discipline and methods as well as its ethical implications. It is of value for the broader research community currently engaged in social media-based research, and will prompt reflexive evaluation of what research is occurring, how it is occurring, what is being done with Twitter data, and how researchers are addressing the ethics of Twitter-based research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/ajim-09-2013-0083

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Zimmer and Proferes (2014) found that of 382 Twitter studies only about 5% use existing datasets collected by other researchers.

    “Zimmer and Proferes (2014) found that of 382 Twitter studies only about 5% use existing datasets collected by other researchers.”

    From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Zimmer and Proferes (2014)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zimmer, M., & Proferes, N. J.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
Venue
Aslib Journal of Information Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2014-05-19
Volume
66
Issue
3
Pages
250-261
ISSN
  • 0001-253X (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-3806
OpenAlex
W2051800759
Cited by
257
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4
FWCI
125.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Aslib Journal of Information Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
Keywords
Twitter data collection, research ethics, social media research, disciplinary trends, research methodology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review