The Unwanted Dissemination of Science: The Usage of Academic Articles as Ammunition in Contested Discursive Arenas on Twitter

TL;DR

This study investigates how academic articles are weaponized in contested discourses on Twitter by analyzing tweets that link to scholarly DOIs and contain offensive language. Using a mixed-methods pipeline that combines TweetEval for offensive language and sentiment, NQTM for short-text topic modeling, and critical discourse analysis to contextualize topics, the authors examine virality via retweet volume and diffusion speed. They find that offensive tweets citing DOIs appear across disciplines, with higher rates in humanities and social sciences and topics spanning science, race, religion, politics, and gender; these tweets reach smaller audiences on average but can diffuse more quickly when they go viral. The results underscore the complex role of science in public discourse on social media and suggest that while negative or offensive content can accelerate certain diffusion dynamics, it generally undermines broader reach and credibility, highlighting the need for nuanced approaches to science communication online.

Abstract

Twitter is a common site of offensive language. Prior literature has shown that the emotional content of tweets can heavily impact their diffusion when discussing political topics. We extend prior work to look at offensive tweets that link to academic articles. Using a mixed methods approach, we identify three findings: firstly, offensive language is common in tweets that refer to academic articles, and vary widely by subject matter. Secondly, discourse analysis reveals that offensive tweets commonly use academic articles to promote or attack political ideologies. Lastly, we show that offensive tweets reach a smaller audience than their non-offensive counterparts. Our analysis of these offensive tweets reveal how academic articles are being shared on Twitter not for the sake of disseminating new knowledge, but rather to as argumentative tools in controversial and combative discourses.