research proposal on social media pdf

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• Document 1 of 1
• More like this
• Scholarly Journal

A Research Proposal on the Impact of Social Media on Children

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

Select results items first to use the cite, email, save, and export options

This study seeks to determine the effect that social media has on children. Technology can be lethal when used wrongly, despite its many benefits. Kids are experimenting when they do things that they and other kids find entertaining or fascinating, all the while avoiding adult supervision. Social media is a product of technology, a helpful tool that some of today's youth misuse. The two primary platforms via which young people utilize social media are cell phones and the Internet, both of which have profoundly changed their way of life.

Key Words: Afghanistan, Social Media, Technology, Children, Empowerment, Cyberbullying.

Introduction

This proposed study will determine the effects of social media on the younger generation, given their existing exposure to them and their ease of access to them. It is expected that this proposed research would bring up serious issues with the children's education, physical and mental well-being, and safety. Kemp (2017) mentions that more than 50% of people on the planet use smartphones, and that percentage is rising. This figure shows that, although just recently invented, smartphones and interactive media have stolen many of our lives from infancy to old age, and they include both adults and children. Freud (1991) the founder of psychoanalysis theory, any adverse experiences during a person's formative years may cause them to exhibit undesirable and socially unacceptable behavior later in life. Numerous research studies have verified that kids frequently develop addictions to social media and cell phones. There is a lack of research, though, as it only evaluates respondents' perceptions of the degree of their own personal attachment to social media, not the actual amount of time they spend on their phones.

The results of this proposed study are expected to close the measurement gap in the amount of time kids spend using social media. The study's conclusions might be useful to policymakers in a variety of government areas. For example, educational curriculum designers will receive training when developing curricula for youth so that they can avoid utilizing social media for their children in the future and are aware of the risks involved. In the health ministry, physicians can benefit from understanding the dangers of social media, particularly those who treat expecting mothers. The results of the study should influence other scholars who are considering this field of study and begin the required mitigation.

Literature Review

The use of mobile platforms and media applications by children has spread all over the world in recent years. Teenagers use social media on a continuous basis as part of their routines. While children are unaware of the consequences of social media use, there are growing concerns about the harm that social media use can cause to one's physical, mental, and educational development (Umarlebbe et al., 2019).

Njorogr (2013) stated that people are dependent on their phones and find it hard to live without phones and social media. Using social media leads to cyberbullying, pornography, and, over all, makes people lazier and also costs a lot to buy data bundles. Peer harassment, cybercrime, and an overall feeling of insecurity have increased because of youth having easy access to current technology and media platforms.

According to the findings of Charoensukmongkol (2017), high levels of social media use are associated with social comparison and jealousy. The main contention is that peer groups compare themselves to one another, and this is the outcome of using social media.

Adults think using social media presents a risk to children, but the risk is greater than they realize. Social media use leads to both online harassment and cyberbullying, which are two distinct things. Social media harassment happens more offline than online, yet cyberbullying puts users at greater risk for depressive, anxious, lonely, and suicidal thoughts, and feelings.

While depression is a condition that affects people offline, teenagers can also experience depression online due to the intensity of social media, so in response to this threat, they will continue to check websites and blogs. This is because the information available online is inapplicable, and we are unsure of the best ways to treat depression. For example, when advertisements appear on websites, they may encourage drug abuse, risky sexual behavior, or aggressive and self-destructive behavior in teenagers. Also, teenagers who disclose excessive amounts of personal information on social media run the serious risk of losing their personal privacy (O'keeffe, 2011).

Kusuma (2020) mentioned that it makes them feel pleased when young people post their photos and texts on social media and receive encouraging responses. However, their confidence wanes if they don't receive praises on their images and posts. Cyberbullying, sadness, and suicide ideation were more common among teenagers who did not receive encouragement from their peer group. Youth may also be at risk from other peer interactions on social media, such as social isolation and online discussions and battles about politics or celebrities.

Given the variety of digital tools that are a part of social media and its gradual expansion, it is challenging to fully explain its effects on teenagers. People behave in ways that are either adaptive or deviant on social media, making it difficult to discern their true nature. We are also unable to pass judgment on them in this virtual world. Some teenagers begin by making negative comparisons to their own accomplishments, abilities, and looks.

In addition to the potential it presents, social media poses risks like despair, an increased chance of suicide, poor sleep quality, and long-term negative effects on one's physical and mental wellbeing. The benefit is that it opens new avenues for amusement and global connection (Nesi, 2020).

Tanwar (2016) found that most kids see media violence practically every day, whether it be in a cartoon, on the internet, on TV, in a movie, or in the news. These encounters, whether brief or prolonged, can have detrimental psychological impacts, including an increase in aggressive behavior and a decrease in the excitement one feels when doing violent acts. We should pay close attention to a media-based strategy that aims to foster positive habits among young people while discouraging negative ones.

Jan et al. (2017) stated that social networking seriously damages people's sense of selfworth. These social networking sites are used by people for maintenance, information sharing, and relationship building. Nonetheless, most people eventually compare themselves to other people in both positive and bad ways. People get envious of other people's lives as a result of upward comparisons, which also makes them less appreciative of and obliged to appreciate the gifts of others. These people experience a decline in their sense of value. The use of social media is rapidly increasing in practically every nation on the planet. Because of this, it can be challenging to prevent people from using social media for extended periods of time, especially students who regularly use Facebook.

Singh et al. (2017) discovered that the young, between the ages of 16 and 25, are increasingly overusing social media. In the sample of young people chosen, many of them (55%) are between the ages of 16 and 20. The teenagers use social applications for website browsing, conversing, amusement, etc. Many of the chosen youngsters use social media daily for somewhere between one hour and five hours. Many young people use social media for so long, about one-third of a day, that it disrupts their everyday routine tasks. Several young people have shared their favorable views on using social media. Even if they are experiencing several undesirable or unfavorable repercussions from overusing social media, they maintain that they cannot envision their lives without it. The survey revealed that many young people have quite high levels of anxiety and worry a lot about their electronics. When they stop using social media, they start to feel fear. It has been determined that excessive usage of social media causes both physical and mental issues and diminishes users' capacity for productivity. In today's world, there is an increase in entertainment options, ubiquitous data, and technological processes, including social media. Youth who use social media too much are sluggish and unenthusiastic about faceto-face encounters.

Most internet users who make use of social media platforms are teenagers. Social networking can be seen as having two sides to its application. The first is the actual advantage, but we also need to consider any potential negative effects that can arise from teens using social media so extensively. Teens that use social networks have several benefits, such as social networking, which enables users to communicate with one other and with individuals worldwide, is the most widely used internet feature. It may be easier to find folks and strike up a discussion as a result. Email, newsgroups, FTP, and the World Wide Web network of websites are just a few of the data exchange channels that enable internet users all over the world to communicate information quickly and cheaply. The Web has become one of the most important and dependable sources of information due to the media's capacity to deliver data and information and the internet's rapid growth. You can conduct business in the trade area without actually going to the offer or sales location because transactions are straightforward enough. Increased blood pressure, strain on the eyes, pain in the back, persistent headaches, and gastrointestinal issues are the drawbacks (Untari et al., 2020).

The researcher of this proposed study plans to investigate these hypotheses for my proposed research.

Hoi: There are no significant correlations between social media and depression.

Hai: There are significant correlations between social media and depression.

H02: There are no significant correlations between social media and mental health.

Ha2: There are significant correlations between social media and mental health

H03: There are no significant correlations between social media and physical health.

Ha3: There are significant correlations between social media and physical health.

H04: There are no significant correlations between social media and wasting time.

Ha4: There are significant correlations between social media and wasting time.

H05: There are no significant correlations between social media and cyberbullying.

Ha5: There are significant correlations between social media and cyberbullying.

Ho5 There are no significant correlations between social media and the economy.

Ha6: There are significant correlations between social media and economy.

Ho6: There are no significant correlations between social media and communication.

Ha7: There are significant correlations between social media and communication.

Methodology

The impact of social media on children is the subject of my proposed research project, and I'd like to employ qualitative techniques in this proposed research. Due to my proficiency with qualitative methodologies and my desire to engage in conversation with others, I can understand their ideas through their own words. In qualitative research, data can be gathered from a variety of sources, including focus groups, direct observation, questionnaires, interviews, and ethnography. In my proposed research study to collect information, I wish to speak with parents through interview sources. It is possible for me to encounter ethical problems and erroneous or misleading information at times, so I should try to be conscious of this and take care that the study we undertake on our subjects does not harm anyone.

The benefits of qualitative research are:

* In -depth understanding: A primary advantage of qualitative research is its capacity to yield a comprehensive comprehension of human behavior. Focus groups and interviews are two examples of qualitative data gathering techniques that give researchers rich, in-depth insights into the motivations behind people's thoughts and behaviors. This kind of information, for instance, is priceless for businesses looking to enhance their goods or services in response to consumer input.

* Adaptability: Qualitative research also has the benefit of being very adaptable. Qualitative research is conducted on a range of subjects, with diverse populations, and in a number of contexts. Because of the huge sample sizes and standardized measurements used in quantitative research, this kind of flexibility is not always achievable.

* More respondent-led, which gets around the issue of imposition: The qualitative research is open. People are free to express their opinions without having to respond to our queries. We can't begin with a specific question; instead, we can ask a general one before moving on to our main one.

* Excellent for exploring a subject the researcher is not well-versed in.

* superior validity compared to quantitative data.

Unlike quantities research methodologies, qualitative research doesn't require a big sample size to obtain data. It suffices to collect data from 20-50 individuals because our emphasis is on ideas and words rather than numbers. Additionally, some researchers recommend that we discontinue sampling after qualitative data saturation has been reached.

Data Collection

The proposed research is simple and exploratory in design. For the purpose of this proposed study, I will use the interview method to gather primary data from parents about the age range of adults, the primary reason for using social media, their opinions both positive and negative about social media, and the effects of social media on children's mental and physical development over the course of their lives. Face-to-face interviews will be used to gather data, and the participants will be the kids' parents from Q-Mars High School, which is located in Khair Khana, Kabul, Afghanistan, a nearby elementary school to my house that doesn't require travel. I will email the parents of the children to invite them to the interview. In addition, I would like to conduct an open-ended, unstructured interview with parents to get their perspectives without my intervention. In order to analyze the data, I will prepare the questions to ask them during the interview and record their responses. Although it's a suggested study, I will provide a present or other incentive to participants in my dissertation. I'll prepare the interview-related supplies, including tape recorders, microphones, tapes, notepads, and a research timetable for each person.

Over the past 20 years, children's lives have become increasingly impacted by modern media, which presents both new chances and difficulties. The use of social media is exploding in almost every country on the planet. As a result, it is impossible to stop people, especially kids who use social media frequently from using it for extended periods of time. Children rely too much on social media and their phones.

A great deal of children is nearly always exposed to violent media, whether it be on the internet, via TV shows, cartoons, movies, or the news. Both the immediate and long-term treatments for these substances may have detrimental psychological effects, such as heightened animosity and lowered arousal for aggressive activity, and other unfavorable effects. The allure of tobacco is greatly outweighed by the fervor and impact of social media. A large percentage of social media users, who are young people, suffer from anxiety, grief, and low self-esteem. Concerns about emotional abuse, criticism, or even disregard arise when they engage in social interactions and expand their networks. They do spend a large portion of their time on public contact platforms and their phones. It has advantages as well, such as being used for interaction, learning, or knowledge sharing, in addition to its drawbacks.

Parents as well as educators have a big impact on how their kids use social media. In addition to teaching their kids about the negative impacts of social media, parents ought also to limit their kids' access to these websites. Incorporating information about social media's detrimental impacts into the curriculum and educating expectant moms about the dangers of using social media will help teachers in schools prevent their children from using it.

Charoensukmongkol, P. (2018). The impact of social media on social comparison and envy in teenagers: The moderating role of the parent comparing children and in-group competition among friends. Journal cf Child and Family Studies, 27, 69-79. doi: 10.1007/s 10826-017-0872-8.

Jan, M., Soomro, S. A., & Ahmad. N. (2017). Impact of social media on self-esteem. European Sclentfic Journal, 13(23), 329-341. doi: 10.19044/esj.

Kusuma, A. (2020). Impact of social media on youth. Retrieved on November 20, 2023 from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as sdt=2005&sciodt=0%2C5&cites=1751738 3190053794033&scipsc=&q=Impact+of+social+media+on+youth+kusuma&oq=

Nesi, J. (2020). The impact of social media on youth mental health: Challenges and opportunities. North Carolina Medical Journal, 81(2), 116-121.

Njoroge, R. W. (2013). Impacts of social media among the youth on behavior change: A case study of University students in selected universities in Nairobi, Kenya. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).

O'Keeffe, G. S., Pearson, K. C., and Council on communications and media (2011). The impact of social media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. Official Journal cf the American Academy Pediatric, 127(4), 800-804. doi:10.1542/peds.2011- 0054.

Singh, M. M., Amiri, M., & Sabbarwal, S. (2017). Social media usage: Positive and negative effects on the life style of Indian youth. Iranian Journal cf Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 5(3), 123-127.

Tanwar, K. C., & Priyanka. (2016). Impact of media violence on children's aggressive behavior. Indian Journal cf Research, 5(6), 241-245.

Umarlebbe, J. FL, Masrom, M., Said, S. M, & Ayoobkhan, A. L.M. (2019). Negative impacts of mobile platforms and interactive media on children. On Universal Wellbeing (ICUW 2019). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ahamed-LebbeAvoobkhan/publication/337783081 NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF MOBILE PLATFOR MS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ON CHILDREN/links/5e4cf9f54585.

Untari, D. T, Satria, B, Fikri, A.W.N, Nursal, F, & Winarso, W. (2020). Technology, Social media, and Behavior of the young generation in Indonesia. International Journal cf Selenitic & Technology Research, 9(4), 986-989.

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

© 2024. This work is published under http://www.jbsq.org/about/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Social impact in social media: A new method to evaluate the social impact of research

Roles Investigation, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Journalism and Communication Studies, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Affiliation Department of Psychology and Sociology, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Sociology, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Affiliation Department of Sociology, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain

• Cristina M. Pulido, 
• Gisela Redondo-Sama, 
• Teresa Sordé-Martí, 
• Ramon Flecha

• Published: August 29, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117
• Reader Comments

The social impact of research has usually been analysed through the scientific outcomes produced under the auspices of the research. The growth of scholarly content in social media and the use of altmetrics by researchers to track their work facilitate the advancement in evaluating the impact of research. However, there is a gap in the identification of evidence of the social impact in terms of what citizens are sharing on their social media platforms. This article applies a social impact in social media methodology (SISM) to identify quantitative and qualitative evidence of the potential or real social impact of research shared on social media, specifically on Twitter and Facebook. We define the social impact coverage ratio (SICOR) to identify the percentage of tweets and Facebook posts providing information about potential or actual social impact in relation to the total amount of social media data found related to specific research projects. We selected 10 projects in different fields of knowledge to calculate the SICOR, and the results indicate that 0.43% of the tweets and Facebook posts collected provide linkages with information about social impact. However, our analysis indicates that some projects have a high percentage (4.98%) and others have no evidence of social impact shared in social media. Examples of quantitative and qualitative evidence of social impact are provided to illustrate these results. A general finding is that novel evidences of social impact of research can be found in social media, becoming relevant platforms for scientists to spread quantitative and qualitative evidence of social impact in social media to capture the interest of citizens. Thus, social media users are showed to be intermediaries making visible and assessing evidence of social impact.

Citation: Pulido CM, Redondo-Sama G, Sordé-Martí T, Flecha R (2018) Social impact in social media: A new method to evaluate the social impact of research. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0203117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117

Editor: Sergi Lozano, Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES), SPAIN

Received: November 8, 2017; Accepted: August 15, 2018; Published: August 29, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Pulido et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The research leading to these results has received funding from the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission under the Grant Agreement n° 613202 P.I. Ramon Flecha, https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm . The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The social impact of research is at the core of some of the debates influencing how scientists develop their studies and how useful results for citizens and societies may be obtained. Concrete strategies to achieve social impact in particular research projects are related to a broader understanding of the role of science in contemporary society. There is a need to explore dialogues between science and society not only to communicate and disseminate science but also to achieve social improvements generated by science. Thus, the social impact of research emerges as an increasing concern within the scientific community [ 1 ]. As Bornmann [ 2 ] said, the assessment of this type of impact is badly needed and is more difficult than the measurement of scientific impact; for this reason, it is urgent to advance in the methodologies and approaches to measuring the social impact of research.

Several authors have approached the conceptualization of social impact, observing a lack of generally accepted conceptual and instrumental frameworks [ 3 ]. It is common to find a wide range of topics included in the contributions about social impact. In their analysis of the policies affecting land use, Hemling et al. [ 4 ] considered various domains in social impact, for instance, agricultural employment or health risk. Moving to the field of flora and fauna, Wilder and Walpole [ 5 ] studied the social impact of conservation projects, focusing on qualitative stories that provided information about changes in attitudes, behaviour, wellbeing and livelihoods. In an extensive study by Godin and Dore [ 6 ], the authors provided an overview and framework for the assessment of the contribution of science to society. They identified indicators of the impact of science, mentioning some of the most relevant weaknesses and developing a typology of impact that includes eleven dimensions, with one of them being the impact on society. The subdimensions of the impact of science on society focus on individuals (wellbeing and quality of life, social implication and practices) and organizations (speeches, interventions and actions). For the authors, social impact “refers to the impact knowledge has on welfare, and on the behaviours, practices and activities of people and groups” (p. 7).

In addition, the terms “social impact” and “societal impact” are sometimes used interchangeably. For instance, Bornmann [ 2 ] said that due to the difficulty of distinguishing social benefits from the superior term of societal benefits, “in much literature the term ‘social impact’ is used instead of ‘societal impact’”(p. 218). However, in other cases, the distinction is made [ 3 ], as in the present research. Similar to the definition used by the European Commission [ 7 ], social impact is used to refer to economic impact, societal impact, environmental impact and, additionally, human rights impact. Therefore, we use the term social impact as the broader concept that includes social improvements in all the above mentioned areas obtained from the transference of research results and representing positive steps towards the fulfilment of those officially defined social goals, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the EU 2020 Agenda, or similar official targets. For instance, the Europe 2020 strategy defines five priority targets with concrete indicators (employment, research and development, climate change and energy, education and poverty and social exclusion) [ 8 ], and we consider the targets addressed by objectives defined in the specific call that funds the research project.

This understanding of the social impact of research is connected to the creation of the Social Impact Open Repository (SIOR), which constitutes the first open repository worldwide that displays, cites and stores the social impact of research results [ 9 ]. The SIOR has linked to ORCID and Wikipedia to allow the synergies of spreading information about the social impact of research through diverse channels and audiences. It is relevant to mention that currently, SIOR includes evidence of real social impact, which implies that the research results have led to actual improvements in society. However, it is common to find evidence of potential social impact in research projects. The potential social impact implies that in the development of the research, there has been some evidence of the effectiveness of the research results in terms of social impact, but the results have not yet been transferred.

Additionally, a common confusion is found among the uses of dissemination, transference (policy impact) and social impact. While dissemination means to disseminate the knowledge created by research to citizens, companies and institutions, transference refers to the use of this knowledge by these different actors (or others), and finally, as already mentioned, social impact refers to the actual improvements resulting from the use of this knowledge in relation to the goals motivating the research project (such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals). In the present research [ 3 ], it is argued that “social impact can be understood as the culmination of the prior three stages of the research” (p.3). Therefore, this study builds on previous contributions measuring the dissemination and transference of research and goes beyond to propose a novel methodological approach to track social impact evidences.

In fact, the contribution that we develop in this article is based on the creation of a new method to evaluate the evidence of social impact shared in social media. The evaluation proposed is to measure the social impact coverage ratio (SICOR), focusing on the presence of evidence of social impact shared in social media. Then, the article first presents some of the contributions from the literature review focused on the research on social media as a source for obtaining key data for monitoring or evaluating different research purposes. Second, the SISM (social impact through social media) methodology[ 10 ] developed is introduced in detail. This methodology identifies quantitative and qualitative evidence of the social impact of the research shared on social media, specifically on Twitter and Facebook, and defines the SICOR, the social impact coverage ratio. Next, the results are discussed, and lastly, the main conclusions and further steps are presented.

Literature review

Social media research includes the analysis of citizens’ voices on a wide range of topics [ 11 ]. According to quantitative data from April 2017 published by Statista [ 12 ], Twitter and Facebook are included in the top ten leading social networks worldwide, as ranked by the number of active users. Facebook is at the top of the list, with 1,968 million active users, and Twitter ranks 10 th , with 319 million active users. Between them are the following social networks: WhatsApp, YouTube, Facebook Messenger, WeChat, QQ, Instagram,Qzone and Tumblr. If we look at altmetrics, the tracking of social networks for mentions of research outputs includes Facebook, Twitter, Google+,LinkedIn, Sina Weibo and Pinterest. The social networks common to both sources are Facebook and Twitter. These are also popular platforms that have a relevant coverage of scientific content and easy access to data, and therefore, the research projects selected here for application of the SISM methodology were chosen on these platforms.

Chew and Eysenbach [ 13 ] studied the presence of selected keywords in Twitter related to public health issues, particularly during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, identifying the potential for health authorities to use social media to respond to the concerns and needs of society. Crooks et al.[ 14 ] investigated Twitter activity in the context of a 5.8 magnitude earthquake in 2011 on the East Coast of the United States, concluding that social media content can be useful for event monitoring and can complement other sources of data to improve the understanding of people’s responses to such events. Conversations among young Canadians posted on Facebook and analysed by Martinello and Donelle [ 15 ] revealed housing and transportation as main environmental concerns, and the project FoodRisc examined the role of social media to illustrate consumers’ quick responses during food crisis situations [ 16 ]. These types of contributions illustrate that social media research implies the understanding of citizens’ concerns in different fields, including in relation to science.

Research on the synergies between science and citizens has increased over the years, according to Fresco [ 17 ], and there is a growing interest among researchers and funding agencies in how to facilitate communication channels to spread scientific results. For instance, in 1998, Lubchenco [ 18 ] advocated for a social contract that “represents a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding”(p.491).

In this framework, the recent debates on how to increase the impact of research have acquired relevance in all fields of knowledge, and major developments address the methods for measuring it. As highlighted by Feng Xia et al. [ 19 ], social media constitute an emerging approach to evaluating the impact of scholarly publications, and it is relevant to consider the influence of the journal, discipline, publication year and user type. The authors revealed that people’s concerns differ by discipline and observed more interest in papers related to everyday life, biology, and earth and environmental sciences. In the field of biomedical sciences, Haustein et al. [ 20 ] analysed the dissemination of journal articles on Twitter to explore the correlations between tweets and citations and proposed a framework to evaluate social media-based metrics. In fact, different studies address the relationship between the presence of articles on social networks and citations [ 21 ]. Bornmann [ 22 ] conducted a case study using a sample of 1,082 PLOS journal articles recommended in F1000 to explore the usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research. The author presents evidence about Facebook and Twitter as social networks that may indicate which papers in the biomedical sciences can be of interest to broader audiences, not just to specialists in the area. One aspect of particular interest resulting from this contribution is the potential to use altmetrics to measure the broader impacts of research, including the societal impact. However, most of the studies investigating social or societal impact lack a conceptualization underlying its measurement.

To the best of our knowledge, the assessment of social impact in social media (SISM) has developed according to this gap. At the core of this study, we present and discuss the results obtained through the application of the SICOR (social impact coverage ratio) with examples of evidence of social impact shared in social media, particularly on Twitter and Facebook, and the implications for further research.

Following these previous contributions, our research questions were as follows: Is there evidence of social impact of research shared by citizens in social media? If so, is there quantitative or qualitative evidence? How can social media contribute to identifying the social impact of research?

Methods and data presentation

A group of new methodologies related to the analysis of online data has recently emerged. One of these emerging methodologies is social media analytics [ 23 ], which was initially used most in the marketing research field but also came to be used in other domains due to the multiple possibilities opened up by the availability and richness of the data for different research purposes. Likewise, the concern of how to evaluate the social impact of research as well as the development of methodologies for addressing this concern has occupied central attention. The development of SISM (Social Impact in Social Media) and the application of the SICOR (Social Impact Coverage Ratio) is a contribution to advancement in the evaluation of the social impact of research through the analysis of the social media selected (in this case, Twitter and Facebook). Thus, SISM is novel in both social media analytics and among the methodologies used to evaluate the social impact of research. This development has been made under IMPACT-EV, a research project funded under the Framework Program FP7 of the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission. The main difference from other methodologies for measuring the social impact of research is the disentanglement between dissemination and social impact. While altmetrics is aimed at measuring research results disseminated beyond academic and specialized spheres, SISM contribute to advancing this measurement by shedding light on to what extent evidence of the social impact of research is found in social media data. This involves the need to differentiate between tweets or Facebook posts (Fb/posts) used to disseminate research findings from those used to share the social impact of research. We focus on the latter, investigating whether there is evidence of social impact, including both potential and real social impact. In fact, the question is whether research contributes and/or has the potential to contribute to improve the society or living conditions considering one of these goals defined. What is the evidence? Next, we detail the application of the methodology.

Data collection

To develop this study, the first step was to select research projects with social media data to be analysed. The selection of research projects for application of the SISM methodology was performed according to three criteria.

Criteria 1. Selection of success projects in FP7. The projects were success stories of the 7 th Framework Programme (FP7) highlighted by the European Commission [ 24 ] in the fields of knowledge of medicine, public health, biology and genomics. The FP7 published calls for project proposals from 2007 to 2013. This implies that most of the projects funded in the last period of the FP7 (2012 and 2013) are finalized or in the last phase of implementation.

Criteria 2. Period of implementation. We selected projects in the 2012–2013 period because they combine recent research results with higher possibilities of having Twitter and Facebook accounts compared with projects of previous years, as the presence of social accounts in research increased over this period.

Criteria 3. Twitter and Facebook accounts. It was crucial that the selected projects had active Twitter and Facebook accounts.

Table 1 summarizes the criteria and the final number of projects identified. As shown, 10 projects met the defined criteria. Projects in medical research and public health had higher presence.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t001

After the selection of projects, we defined the timeframe of social media data extraction on Twitter and Facebook from the starting date of the project until the day of the search, as presented in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t002

The second step was to define the search strategies for extracting social media data related to the research projects selected. In this line, we defined three search strategies.

Strategy 1. To extract messages published on the Twitter account and the Facebook page of the selected projects. We listed the Twitter accounts and Facebook pages related to each project in order to look at the available information. In this case, it is important to clarify that the tweets published under the corresponding Twitter project account are original tweets or retweets made from this account. It is relevant to mention that in one case, the Twitter account and Facebook page were linked to the website of the research group leading the project. In this case, we selected tweets and Facebook posts related to the project. For instance, in the case of the Twitter account, the research group created a specific hashtag to publish messages related to the project; therefore, we selected only the tweets published under this hashtag. In the analysis, we prioritized the analysis of the tweets and Facebook posts that received some type of interaction (likes, retweets or shares) because such interaction is a proxy for citizens’ interest. In doing so, we used the R program and NVivoto extract the data and proceed with the analysis. Once we obtained the data from Twitter and Facebook, we were able to have an overview of the information to be further analysed, as shown in Table 3 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t003

We focused the second and third strategies on Twitter data. In both strategies, we extracted Twitter data directly from the Twitter Advanced Search tool, as the API connected to NVivo and the R program covers only a specific period of time limited to 7/9 days. Therefore, the use of the Twitter Advanced Search tool made it possible to obtain historic data without a period limitation. We downloaded the results in PDF and then uploaded them to NVivo.

Strategy 2. To use the project acronym combined with other keywords, such as FP7 or EU. This strategy made it possible to obtain tweets mentioning the project. Table 4 presents the number of tweets obtained with this strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t004

Strategy 3. To use searchable research results of projects to obtain Twitter data. We defined a list of research results, one for each project, and converted them into keywords. We selected one searchable keyword for each project from its website or other relevant sources, for instance, the brief presentations prepared by the European Commission and published in CORDIS. Once we had the searchable research results, we used the Twitter Advanced Search tool to obtain tweets, as presented in Table 5 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t005

The sum of the data obtained from these three strategies allowed us to obtain a total of 3,425 tweets and 1,925 posts on public Facebook pages. Table 6 presents a summary of the results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t006

We imported the data obtained from the three search strategies into NVivo to analyse. Next, we select tweets and Facebook posts providing linkages with quantitative or qualitative evidence of social impact, and we complied with the terms of service for the social media from which the data were collected. By quantitative and qualitative evidence, we mean data or information that shows how the implementation of research results has led to improvements towards the fulfilment of the objectives defined in the EU2020 strategy of the European Commission or other official targets. For instance, in the case of quantitative evidence, we searched tweets and Facebook posts providing linkages with quantitative information about improvements obtained through the implementation of the research results of the project. In relation to qualitative evidence, for example, we searched for testimonies that show a positive evaluation of the improvement due to the implementation of research results. In relation to this step, it is important to highlight that social media users are intermediaries making visible evidence of social impact. Users often share evidence, sometimes sharing a link to an external resource (e.g., a video, an official report, a scientific article, news published on media). We identified evidence of social impact in these sources.

Data analysis

γ i is the total number of messages obtained about project i with evidence of social impact on social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.);

T i is the total number of messages from project i on social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.); and

n is the number of projects selected.

Analytical categories and codebook

The researchers who carried out the analysis of the social media data collected are specialists in the social impact of research and research on social media. Before conducting the full analysis, two aspects were guaranteed. First, how to identify evidence of social impact relating to the targets defined by the EU2020 strategy or to specific goals defined by the call addressed was clarified. Second, we held a pilot to test the methodology with one research project that we know has led to considerable social impact, which allowed us to clarify whether or not it was possible to detect evidence of social impact shared in social media. Once the pilot showed positive results, the next step was to extend the analysis to another set of projects and finally to the whole sample. The construction of the analytical categories was defined a priori, revised accordingly and lastly applied to the full sample.

Different observations should be made. First, in this previous analysis, we found that the tweets and Facebook users play a key role as “intermediaries,” serving as bridges between the larger public and the evidence of social impact. Social media users usually share a quote or paragraph introducing evidence of social impact and/or link to an external resource, for instance, a video, official report, scientific article, news story published on media, etc., where evidence of the social impact is available. This fact has implications for our study, as our unit of analysis is all the information included in the tweets or Facebook posts. This means that our analysis reaches the external resources linked to find evidence of social impact, and for this reason, we defined tweets or Facebook posts providing linkages with information about social impact.

Second, the other important aspect is the analysis of the users’ profile descriptions, which requires much more development in future research given the existing limitations. For instance, some profiles are users’ restricted due to privacy reasons, so the information is not available; other accounts have only the name of the user with no description of their profile available. Therefore, we gave priority to the identification of evidence of social impact including whether a post obtained interaction (retweets, likes or shares) or was published on accounts other than that of the research project itself. In the case of the profile analysis, we added only an exploratory preliminary result because this requires further development. Considering all these previous details, the codebook (see Table 7 ) that we present as follows is a result of this previous research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t007

How to analyse Twitter and Facebook data

To illustrate how we analysed data from Twitter and Facebook, we provide one example of each type of evidence of social impact defined, considering both real and potential social impact, with the type of interaction obtained and the profiles of those who have interacted.

QUANESISM. Tweet by ZeroHunger Challenge @ZeroHunger published on 3 May 2016. Text: How re-using food waste for animal feed cuts carbon emissions.-NOSHAN project hubs.ly/H02SmrP0. 7 retweets and 5 likes.

The unit of analysis is all the content of the tweet, including the external link. If we limited our analysis to the tweet itself, it would not be evidence. Examining the external link is necessary to find whether there is evidence of social impact. The aim of this project was to investigate the process and technologies needed to use food waste for feed production at low cost, with low energy consumption and with a maximal evaluation of the starting wastes. This tweet provides a link to news published in the PHYS.org portal [ 25 ], which specializes in science news. The news story includes an interview with the main researcher that provides the following quotation with quantitative evidence:

'Our results demonstrated that with a NOSHAN 10 percent mix diet, for every kilogram of broiler chicken feed, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 0.3 kg compared to a non-food waste diet,' explains Montse Jorba, NOSHAN project coordinator. 'If 1 percent of total chicken broiler feed in Europe was switched to the 10 percent NOSHAN mix diet, the total amount of CO2 emissions avoided would be 0.62 million tons each year.'[ 25 ]

This quantitative evidence “a NOSHAN 10 percent mix diet, for every kilogram of broiler chicken feed, carbon dioxide emissions carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 0.3 kg to a non-food waste diet” is linked directly with the Europe 2020 target of Climate Change & Energy, specifically with the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared to the levels in 1990 [ 8 ]. The illustrative extrapolation the coordinator mentioned in the news is also an example of quantitative evidence, although is an extrapolation based on the specific research result.

This tweet was captured by the Acronym search strategy. It is a message tweeted by an account that is not related to the research project. The twitter account is that of the Zero Hunger Challenge movement, which supports the goals of the UN. The interaction obtained is 7 retweets and 5 likes. Regarding the profiles of those who retweeted and clicked “like”, there were activists, a journalist, an eco-friendly citizen, a global news service, restricted profiles (no information is available on those who have retweeted) and one account with no information in its profile.

The following example illustrates the analysis of QUALESISM: Tweet by @eurofitFP7 published on4 October 2016. Text: See our great new EuroFIT video on youtube! https://t.co/TocQwMiW3c 9 retweets and 5 likes.

The aim of this project is to improve health through the implementation of two novel technologies to achieve a healthier lifestyle. The tweet provides a link to a video on YouTube on the project’s results. In this video, we found qualitative evidence from people who tested the EuroFit programme; there are quotes from men who said that they have experienced improved health results using this method and that they are more aware of how to manage their health:

One end-user said: I have really amazing results from the start, because I managed to change a lot of things in my life. And other one: I was more conscious of what I ate, I was more conscious of taking more steps throughout the day and also standing up a little more. [ 26 ]

The research applies the well researched scientific evidence to the management of health issues in daily life. The video presents the research but also includes a section where end-users talk about the health improvements they experienced. The quotes extracted are some examples of the testimonies collected. All agree that they have improved their health and learned healthy habits for their daily lives. These are examples of qualitative evidence linked with the target of the call HEALTH.2013.3.3–1—Social innovation for health promotion [ 27 ] that has the objectives of reducing sedentary habits in the population and promoting healthy habits. This research contributes to this target, as we see in the video testimonies. Regarding the interaction obtained, this tweet achieved 9 retweets and 5 likes. In this case, the profiles of the interacting citizens show involvement in sport issues, including sport trainers, sport enthusiasts and some researchers.

To summarize the analysis, in Table 8 below, we provide a summary with examples illustrating the evidence found.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t008

Quantitative evidence of social impact in social media

There is a greater presence of tweets/Fb posts with quantitative evidence (14) than with qualitative evidence (9) in the total number of tweets/Fb posts identified with evidence of social impact. Most of the tweets/Fb posts with quantitative evidence of social impact are from scientific articles published in peer-reviewed international journals and show potential social impact. In Table 8 , we introduce 3 examples of this type of tweets/Fb posts with quantitative evidence:

The first tweet with quantitative social impact selected is from project 7. The aim of this project was to provide high-quality scientific evidence for preventing vitamin D deficiency in European citizens. The tweet highlighted the main contribution of the published study, that is, “Weekly consumption of 7 vitamin D-enhanced eggs has an important impact on winter vitamin D status in adults” [ 28 ]. The quantitative evidence shared in social media was extracted from a news publication in a blog on health news. This blog collects scientific articles of research results. In this case, the blog disseminated the research result focused on how vitamin D-enhanced eggs improve vitamin D deficiency in wintertime, with the published results obtained by the research team of the project selected. The quantitative evidence illustrates that the group of adults who consumed vitamin D-enhanced eggs did not suffer from vitamin D deficiency, as opposed to the control group, which showed a significant decrease in vitamin D over the winter. The specific evidence is the following extracted from the article [ 28 ]:

With the use of a within-group analysis, it was shown that, although serum 25(OH) D in the control group significantly decreased over winter (mean ± SD: -6.4 ± 6.7 nmol/L; P = 0.001), there was no change in the 2 groups who consumed vitamin D-enhanced eggs (P>0.1 for both. (p. 629)

This evidence contributes to achievement of the target defined in the call addressed that is KBBE.2013.2.2–03—Food-based solutions for the eradication of vitamin D deficiency and health promotion throughout the life cycle [ 29 ]. The quantitative evidence shows how the consumption of vitamin D-enhanced eggs reduces vitamin D deficiency.

The second example of this table corresponds to the example of quantitative evidence of social impact provided in the previous section.

The third example is a Facebook post from project 3 that is also tweeted. Therefore, this evidence was published in both social media sources analysed. The aim of this project was to measure a range of chemical and physical environmental hazards in food, consumer products, water, air, noise, and the built environment in the pre- and postnatal early-life periods. This Facebook post and tweet links directly to a scientific article [ 30 ] that shows the precision of the spectroscopic platform:

Using 1H NMR spectroscopy we characterized short-term variability in urinary metabolites measured from 20 children aged 8–9 years old. Daily spot morning, night-time and pooled (50:50 morning and night-time) urine samples across six days (18 samples per child) were analysed, and 44 metabolites quantified. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and mixed effect models were applied to assess the reproducibility and biological variance of metabolic phenotypes. Excellent analytical reproducibility and precision was demonstrated for the 1H NMR spectroscopic platform (median CV 7.2%) . (p.1)

This evidence is linked to the target defined in the call “ENV.2012.6.4–3—Integrating environmental and health data to advance knowledge of the role of environment in human health and well-being in support of a European exposome initiative” [ 31 ]. The evidence provided shows how the project’s results have contributed to building technology for improving the data collection to advance in the knowledge of the role of the environment in human health, especially in early life. The interaction obtained is one retweet from a citizen from Nigeria interested in health issues, according to the information available in his profile.

Qualitative evidence of social impact in social media

We found qualitative evidence of the social impact of different projects, as shown in Table 9 . Similarly to the quantitative evidence, the qualitative cases also demonstrate potential social impact. The three examples provided have in common that they are tweets or Facebook posts that link to videos where the end users of the research project explain their improvements once they have implemented the research results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t009

The first tweet with qualitative evidence selected is from project 4. The aim of this project is to produce a system that helps in the prevention of obesity and eating disorders, targeting young people and adults [ 32 ]. The twitter account that published this tweet is that of the Future and Emerging Technologies Programme of the European Commission, and a link to a Euronews video is provided. This video shows how the patients using the technology developed in the research achieved control of their eating disorders, through the testimonies of patients commenting on the positive results they have obtained. These testimonies are included in the news article that complements the video. An example of these testimonies is as follows:

Pierre Vial has lost 43 kilos over the past nine and a half months. He and other patients at the eating disorder clinic explain the effects obesity and anorexia have had on their lives. Another patient, Karin Borell, still has some months to go at the clinic but, after decades of battling anorexia, is beginning to be able to visualise life without the illness: “On a good day I see myself living a normal life without an eating disorder, without problems with food. That’s really all I wish right now”.[ 32 ]

This qualitative evidence shows how the research results contribute to the achievement of the target goals of the call addressed:“ICT-2013.5.1—Personalised health, active ageing, and independent living”. [ 33 ] In this case, the results are robust, particularly for people suffering chronic diseases and desiring to improve their health; people who have applied the research findings are improving their eating disorders and better managing their health. The value of this evidence is the inclusion of the patients’ voices stating the impact of the research results on their health.

The second example is a Facebook post from project 9, which provides a link to a Euronews video. The aim of this project is to bring some tools from the lab to the farm in order to guarantee a better management of the farm and animal welfare. In this video [ 34 ], there are quotes from farmers using the new system developed through the research results of the project. These quotes show how use of the new system is improving the management of the farm and the health of the animals; some examples are provided:

Cameras and microphones help me detect in real time when the animals are stressed for whatever reason,” explained farmer Twan Colberts. “So I can find solutions faster and in more efficient ways, without me being constantly here, checking each animal.”

This evidence shows how the research results contribute to addressing the objectives specified in the call “KBBE.2012.1.1–02—Animal and farm-centric approach to precision livestock farming in Europe” [ 29 ], particularly, to improve the precision of livestock farming in Europe. The interaction obtained is composed of6 likes and 1 share. The profiles are diverse, but some of them do not disclose personal information; others have not added a profile description, and only their name and photo are available.

Interrater reliability (kappa)

The analysis of tweets and Facebook posts providing linkages with information about social impact was conducted following a content analysis method in which reliability was based on a peer review process. This sample is composed of 3,425 tweets and 1,925 Fb/posts. Each tweet and Facebook post was analysed to identify whether or not it contains evidence of social impact. Each researcher has the codebook a priori. We used interrater reliability in examining the agreement between the two raters on the assignment of the categories defined through Cohen’s kappa. We used SPSS to calculate this coefficient. We exported an excel sheet with the sample coded by the two researchers being 1 (is evidence of social impact, either potential or real) and 0 (is not evidence of social impact) to SPSS. The cases where agreement was not achieved were not considered as containing evidence of social impact. The result obtained is 0.979; considering the interpretation of this number according to Landis & Koch [ 35 ], our level of agreement is almost perfect, and thus, our analysis is reliable. To sum up the data analysis, the description of the steps followed is explained:

Step 1. Data analysis I. We included all data collected in an excel sheet to proceed with the analysis. Prior to the analysis, researchers read the codebook to keep in mind the information that should be identified.

Step 2. Each researcher involved reviewed case by case the tweets and Facebook posts to identify whether they provide links with evidence of social impact or not. If the researcher considers there to be evidence of social impact, he or she introduces the value of 1into the column, and if not, the value of 0.

Step 3. Once all the researchers have finished this step, the next step is to export the excel sheet to SPSS to extract the kappa coefficient.

Step 4. Data Analysis II. The following step was to analyse case by case the tweets and Facebook posts identified as providing linkages with information of social impact and classify them as quantitative or qualitative evidence of social impact.

Step 5. The interaction received was analysed because this determines to which extent this evidence of social impact has captured the attention of citizens (in the form of how many likes, shares, or retweets the post has).

Step 6. Finally, if available, the profile descriptions of the citizens interacting through retweeting or sharing the Facebook post were considered.

Step 7. SICOR was calculated. It could be applied to the complete sample (all data projects) or to each project, as we will see in the next section.

The total number of tweets and Fb/posts collected from the 10 projects is 5,350. After the content analysis, we identified 23 tweets and Facebook posts providing linkages to information about social impact. To respond to the research question, which considered whether there is evidence of social impact shared by citizens in social media, the answer was affirmative, although the coverage ratio is low. Both Twitter and Facebook users retweeted or shared evidence of social impact, and therefore, these two social media networks are valid sources for expanding knowledge on the assessment of social impact. Table 10 shows the social impact coverage ratio in relation to the total number of messages analysed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t010

The analysis of each of the projects selected revealed some results to consider. Of the 10 projects, 7 had evidence, but those projects did not necessarily have more Tweets and Facebook posts. In fact, some projects with fewer than 70 tweets and 50 Facebook posts have more evidence of social impact than other projects with more than 400 tweets and 400 Facebook posts. This result indicates that the number of tweets and Facebook posts does not determine the existence of evidence of social impact in social media. For example, project 2 has 403 tweets and 423 Facebooks posts, but it has no evidence of social impact on social media. In contrast, project 9 has 62 tweets, 43 Facebook posts, and 2 pieces of evidence of social impact in social media, as shown in Table 11 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t011

The ratio of tweets/Fb posts to evidence is 0.43%, and it differs depending on the project, as shown below in Table 12 . There is one project (P7) with a ratio of 4.98%, which is a social impact coverage ratio higher than that of the other projects. Next, a group of projects (P3, P9, P10) has a social impact coverage ratio between 1.41% and 2,99%.The next slot has three projects (P1, P4, P5), with a ratio between 0.13% and 0.46%. Finally, there are three projects (P2, P6, P8) without any tweets/Fb posts evidence of social impact.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t012

Considering the three strategies for obtaining data, each is related differently to the evidence of social impact. In terms of the social impact coverage ratio, as shown in Table 13 , the most successful strategy is number 3 (searchable research results), as it has a relation of 17.86%, which is much higher than the ratios for the other 2 strategies. The second strategy (acronym search) is more effective than the first (profile accounts),with 1.77% for the former as opposed to 0.27% for the latter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t013

Once tweets and Facebook posts providing linkages with information about social impact(ESISM)were identified, we classified them in terms of quantitative (QUANESISM) or qualitative evidence (QUALESISM)to determine which type of evidence was shared in social media. Table 14 indicates the amount of quantitative and qualitative evidence identified for each search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.t014

First, the results obtained indicated that the SISM methodology aids in calculating the social impact coverage ratio of the research projects selected and evaluating whether the social impact of the corresponding research is shared by citizens in social media. The social impact coverage ratio applied to the sample selected is low, but when we analyse the SICOR of each project separately, we can observe that some projects have a higher social impact coverage ratio than others. Complementary to altmetrics measuring the extent to which research results reach out society, the SICOR considers the question whether this process includes evidence of potential or real social impact. In this sense, the overall methodology of SISM contributes to advancement in the evaluation of the social impact of research by providing a more precise approach to what we are evaluating.

This contribution complements current evaluation methodologies of social impact that consider which improvements are shared by citizens in social media. Exploring the results in more depth, it is relevant to highlight that of the ten projects selected, there is one research project with a social impact coverage ratio higher than those of the others, which include projects without any tweets or Facebook posts with evidence of social impact. This project has a higher ratio of evidence than the others because evidence of its social impact is shared more than is that of other projects. This also means that the researchers produced evidence of social impact and shared it during the project. Another relevant result is that the quantity of tweets and Fb/posts collected did not determine the number of tweets and Fb/posts found with evidence of social impact. Moreover, the analysis of the research projects selected showed that there are projects with less social media interaction but with more tweets and Fb/posts containing evidence of social media impact. Thus, the number of tweets and Fb/posts with evidence of social impact is not determined by the number of publication messages collected; it is determined by the type of messages published and shared, that is, whether they contain evidence of social impact or not.

The second main finding is related to the effectiveness of the search strategies defined. Related to the strategies carried out under this methodology, one of the results found is that the most effective search strategy is the searchable research results, which reveals a higher percentage of evidence of social impact than the own account and acronym search strategies. However, the use of these three search strategies is highly recommended because the combination of all of them makes it possible to identify more tweets and Facebook posts with evidence of social impact.

Another result is related to the type of evidence of social impact found. There is both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Both types are useful for understanding the type of social impact achieved by the corresponding research project. In this sense, quantitative evidence allows us to understand the improvements obtained by the implementation of the research results and capture their impact. In contrast, qualitative evidence allows us to deeply understand how the resultant improvements obtained from the implementation of the research results are evaluated by the end users by capturing their corresponding direct quotes. The social impact includes the identification of both real and potential social impact.

Conclusions

After discussing the main results obtained, we conclude with the following points. Our study indicates that there is incipient evidence of social impact, both potential and real, in social media. This demonstrates that researchers from different fields, in the present case involved in medical research, public health, animal welfare and genomics, are sharing the improvements generated by their research and opening up new venues for citizens to interact with their work. This would imply that scientists are promoting not only the dissemination of their research results but also the evidence on how their results may lead to the improvement of societies. Considering the increasing relevance and presence of the dissemination of research, the results indicate that scientists still need to include in their dissemination and communication strategies the aim of sharing the social impact of their results. This implies the publication of concrete qualitative or quantitative evidence of the social impact obtained. Because of the inclusion of this strategy, citizens will pay more attention to the content published in social media because they are interested in knowing how science can contribute to improving their living conditions and in accessing crucial information. Sharing social impact in social media facilitates access to citizens of different ages, genders, cultural backgrounds and education levels. However, what is most relevant for our argument here is how citizens should also be able to participate in the evaluation of the social impact of research, with social media a great source to reinforce this democratization process. This contributes not only to greatly improving the social impact assessment, as in addition to experts, policy makers and scientific publications, citizens through social media contribute to making this assessment much more accurate. Thus, citizens’ contribution to the dissemination of evidence of the social impact of research yields access to more diverse sectors of society and information that might be unknown by the research or political community. Two future steps are opened here. On the one hand, it is necessary to further examine the profiles of users who interact with this evidence of social impact considering the limitations of the privacy and availability of profile information. A second future task is to advance in the articulation of the role played by citizens’ participation in social impact assessment, as citizens can contribute to current worldwide efforts by shedding new light on this process of social impact assessment and contributing to making science more relevant and useful for the most urgent and poignant social needs.

Supporting information

S1 file. interrater reliability (kappa) result..

This file contains the SPSS file with the result of the calculation of Cohen’s Kappa regards the interrater reliability. The word document exported with the obtained result is also included.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.s001

S2 File. Data collected and SICOR calculation.

This excel contains four sheets, the first one titled “data collected” contains the number of tweets and Facebook posts collected through the three defined search strategies; the second sheet titled “sample” contains the sample classified by project indicating the ID of the message or code assigned, the type of message (tweet or Facebook post) and the codification done by researchers being 1 (is evidence of social impact, either potential or real) and 0 (is not evidence of social impact); the third sheet titled “evidence found” contains the number of type of evidences of social impact founded by project (ESISM-QUANESIM or ESISM-QUALESIM), search strategy and type of message (tweet or Facebook posts); and the last sheet titled “SICOR” contains the Social Impact Coverage Ratio calculation by projects in one table and type of search strategy done in another one.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117.s002

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results received funding from the 7 th Framework Programme of the European Commission under Grant Agreement n° 613202. The extraction of available data using the list of searchable keywords on Twitter and Facebook followed the ethical guidelines for social media research supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (UK) [ 36 ] and the University of Aberdeen [ 37 ]. Furthermore, the research results have already been published and made public, and hence, there are no ethical issues.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 6. Godin B, Dore C. Measuring the impacts of science; beyond the economic dimension. INRS Urbanisation, Culture et Sociult, HSIT Lecture. 2005. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Institute for Science and Technology Studies.
• 7. European Commission. Better regulation Toolbox. 2017: 129–130. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox_0.pdf
• 8. European 2020 Strategy. 2010. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/eu-economic-governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/european-semester/framework/europe-2020-strategy_en
• 10. Flecha R, Sordé-Martí T. SISM Methodology (Social Impact through Social Media).2016. Available from https://archive.org/details/SISMMethodology
• 12. Statista. Statistics and facts about social media usage. 2017. Available from https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/
• 16. FoodRisc Consortium, European Commission, Main researcher: Patrick Wall. FoodRisc—Result in Brief (Seventh Framework Programme). 2017. Available from http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/90678_en.html
• 23. Murphy, L. Grit Report. Greenbook research industry trends report. Grit Q3-Q4 2016; (Vol. 3–4). New York. Retrieved from https://www.greenbook.org/grit
• 24. EC Research & Innovation. Success Stories [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/success_stories_en.cfm
• 25. PhysOrg. How re-using food waste for animal feed cuts carbon emissions. 2016. Available from: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-re-using-food-animal-carbon-emissions.html
• 26. EuroFIT. EuroFIT International PP Youtube. 2016; minute 2.05–2.20. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=155&v=CHkbnD8IgZw
• 27. European Commission<. Work Programme 2013. Cooperation Theme 1 Health. (2013). Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/fp7/common/1567645-1._health_upd_2013_wp_27_june_2013_en.pdf
• 29. European Commission. Work Programme 2013. Cooperation Theme 2. Food, agriculture, and fisheries, and biotechnology. (2013). Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/192042/b-wp-201302_en.pdf
• 31. European Commission. Work Programme 2012. Cooperation Theme 6 Environment (including climate change). (2011). Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89467/f-wp-201201_en.pdf
• 32. Research Information Center. Technology trialled in fight against ticking timebomb of obesity. 2016. Available from: http://www.euronews.com/2016/08/10/technology-trialled-in-fight-against-ticking-timebomb-of-obesity
• 33. European Commission. Work Programme 2013. Cooperation Theme 3. ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) (2012). Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/132099/c-wp-201301_en.pdf
• 34. Euronews. Big farmer is watching! Surveillance technology monitors animal wellbeing. 2016. Available from http://www.euronews.com/2016/05/09/big-farmer-is-watching-surveillance-technology-monitors-animal-wellbeing
• 36. Economic and Social Research Council. Social Media Best Practice and Guidance. Using Social Media. 2017. Available from: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/research/impact-toolkit/social-media/using-social-media/
• 37. Townsend, L. & Wallace, C. Social Media Research: A Guide to Ethics. 2016. Available from http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_487729_en.pdf

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Proposal : Effectiveness of Social Media

Related Papers

IAEME Publication

Information Technology's advancements are revolutionizing every business and firms. Social media marketing is the process of gaining awareness, driving traffic and engaging your customers and prospects using social media channels. Despite the current boom of Social networking sites for marketing, this study reveals that effectiveness of advertising through social networking sites. However, a Social networking site provides the ideal platform for direct communication between organizations and customers. Marketing on social network sites has to follow new rules and principles and each organization has to clearly determine if social media marketing is appropriate for them or not. Communication through internet is more specified, with effective interactive strategy among its users. In recent days, internet advertising has taken new forms which have more advantages over the traditional mediums like print media, television and radio. Marketing communication is becoming precise, personal, interesting, interactive and social. Different strategies of communication are followed in various social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Orkut etc., they not only create effect over the users but also make them interact with the marketing statistics created. People get attached to brand communication in social networking sites than usual banner and pop up ads. The study finds that social media marketing effectiveness is highly influenced by its messages/contents quality, the company's involvement, and its association with the other marketing platforms. In addition, a complex and detailed analysis of the strategy is needed in order to accurately measure the return on investment of the social media marketing. The study also finds that generation Y might be the main users of social media sites, but they are not the main target audience of the social media marketing.

Savita P Wani , Dr. B.V.Pawar

The world is digitally connected and so is India. India's digital population is growing faster as compared to other countries. Not just Indians' but the whole world's digital population is increasing. More than 41% of the world population is using broadband connection as reported by International Telegraph Union (ITU). In recent years mobile internet growth has increased by leaps and bonds. According to Internet & Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) in 2001, there were approximately 7 million Internet users in India. The number of Internet users in India reached 302 million by 2014, registering a Year-on-Year growth of 32% over previous year. Indians are online every day, spending ~40-45 hours over the Internet per month. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other electronic media's provide a good source for gaining the information and socially active. The reviews and analysis posted on this medium has great impact on the shopping behavior of the consumers. It is an economical and convenient source of information for anyone shopping online or just searching for products and services. The chat mediums have provided platforms like traditional word-of-mouth marketing. Hence Marketers need to strategically use this media to market their products/services to the consumers. Marketers' use of this media for informing the consumers of new products/services, creating brand awareness, or targeting personally or retargeting lost consumers is possible due to advent of technology and getting all this personal data easily from the service providers. This paper explores the facts and need to use digital social media. A survey done by authors revealed that 90% internet users are on the internet to check emails and connect to social networking websites and get updates of current affairs.

Adela Calin

IJIRT Journal

Social Media is inconceivably moving stage for web-based advertising these days. It likewise furnishes individuals with the occasion to share the post and data of business. Social Media plays very fundamental job in the development of business utilizing internet advertising. Among a great many clients, celebrated big names pick these stages to build up their notorieties. Social stages have addressed numerous issues of clients by reacting to their grumblings as fast as could be expected under the circumstances. The thought behind this is to make the web application which will permit clients to get all the assistance in launching their business on Social Media. We expect to give a total guide from recommending which social media stages will be useful for their specific business. We are additionally giving report of month-to-month development of business. Client does not have to go on another site. The venture depends on a perception made in the most developing field of Digital Advertising.

IP innovative publication pvt. ltd

IP Innovative Publication Pvt. Ltd. , PRATIMA SURYAWANSHI

Today it is said that world has become a small village because through the use social media as we can connect with each other within no time irrespective of distance barrier. This is been possible due to the use of social media. During early 1990’s we were aware of only television, radio and newspapers as a media for communication due to its high accessibility to reach out masses but then the revolution in the field of information technology has changed the scenario. The high speed internet with broadband connectivity has helped many of us to bridge the gap between a common man and constantly changing market place. Social media has a huge impact on consumer mindset as it creates an image of a company, product and services. Also, a company gets profit from the use of social media because of power to reach masses within less time so that they can serve their customers in a better way. With these changing dimensions throughout the world, India is also trying to make use of social media. Hence in this paper we are going to study what is social media? What are different forms of it? How it can be efficiently utilised for advertisement and branding and its impact on consumers.

Amilia Haida

milad kiaei

Dr Santhosh Kumar K

"Social Media has been in the limelight in the recent past. There has been a whopping increase in the number of users on social media and more and more people joining day after day. With the spread of internet facilities across the world, more and more people got the facility to get into the World Wide Web. In 1995 there were about 16 million internet users worldwide which was merely 0.4% of the total population in the world. In the year 2012 internet were accessible to 2405 millions of people which is 34.3% of the total world population. There has been an increase of over 566% growth in the number of users between 2000 and 2012 as per the internet world statistics. The growth in the number of internet users and the growth of social media and its users have made it really attractive for the marketers to look at it as a better marketing tool there by making present in the various social media sites to market their product. Many a times the marketer goes live in the online space, but they do not follow up or keep themselves updated in the online space through the social media which brings negative results to them. Social media is a live medium which is updated every second. Are these participations worth? Or is social media marketing a myth or a reality? Is it going to help the marketers? This paper examines the effectiveness, opportunities, the threats and other aspects of social media marketing"

Journal of Creative Communications

Guda van Noort

Inspired by the increasing popularity of advertising on social media, and especially on social network sites (SNSs), the aim of this study is to give insight into the effectiveness of SNS advertising. The first experimental study compares consumer responses to advertising on SNSs and television (TV) and demonstrates that while TV campaigns are evaluated more positively, SNS campaigns result in more favourable cognitive responses. Moreover, the persuasive intent of SNS campaigns is less recognized than for TV campaigns. Since SNSs are often combined with traditional media in advertising campaigns, the second study examines whether campaigns combining TV and SNSs lead to so-called synergy effects. Results showed that this was not the case: single-medium and multimedia campaigns were equally effective. The third study examines the role of perceived persuasive intent in this relationship and tests whether there is an indirect effect of type of campaign (multimedia or single-medium) on c...

Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism

christos papademetriou

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

GJESR Journal

International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR)

IJAR Indexing

Revista Observatório

Vitória K . R . Pereira

Iaeme Publication

Spyros Angelopoulos

Recep Yılmaz

International Journal of Data and Network Science

Dr. Kouroush Jenab

SSRN Electronic Journal

malathi reddy

Hasan Mahmud

International Journal of Innovative Research and Growth

Nasr Abdulaziz Murshed

Ari Castillo

International Journal of E-Business Research

Taanika Arora

Velayudhan Karthik

Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)

European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org

ghayth jarad

isara solutions

International Research Journal Commerce arts science

Muneeba Khan

Revista Amazonia Investiga

Maryna Martynenko

Social Media Advertising for Achieving Long-term Marketing Objectives

Irakli Abashidze

Dr. Rashad Yazdanifard Uriel Augustin

International Journal of Health Sciences ISSN 2550-6978 E-ISSN 2550-696X © 2022.

Anil Kumar Yadava

International journal of health sciences

Brooke Erin Duffy

Victor O Sobowale

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-warnings-from-democrats-about-project-2025-and-donald-trump

Fact-checking warnings from Democrats about Project 2025 and Donald Trump

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Project 2025 has a starring role in this week’s Democratic National Convention.

And it was front and center on Night 1.

WATCH: Hauling large copy of Project 2025, Michigan state Sen. McMorrow speaks at 2024 DNC

“This is Project 2025,” Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said as she laid a hardbound copy of the 900-page document on the lectern. “Over the next four nights, you are going to hear a lot about what is in this 900-page document. Why? Because this is the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about “Trump’s Project 2025” agenda — even though former President Donald Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document.

“Donald Trump wants to take our country backward,” Harris said July 23 in Milwaukee. “He and his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, has joined in on the talking point.

“Don’t believe (Trump) when he’s playing dumb about this Project 2025. He knows exactly what it’ll do,” Walz said Aug. 9 in Glendale, Arizona.

Trump’s campaign has worked to build distance from the project, which the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, led with contributions from dozens of conservative groups.

Much of the plan calls for extensive executive-branch overhauls and draws on both long-standing conservative principles, such as tax cuts, and more recent culture war issues. It lays out recommendations for disbanding the Commerce and Education departments, eliminating certain climate protections and consolidating more power to the president.

Project 2025 offers a sweeping vision for a Republican-led executive branch, and some of its policies mirror Trump’s 2024 agenda, But Harris and her presidential campaign have at times gone too far in describing what the project calls for and how closely the plans overlap with Trump’s campaign.

PolitiFact researched Harris’ warnings about how the plan would affect reproductive rights, federal entitlement programs and education, just as we did for President Joe Biden’s Project 2025 rhetoric. Here’s what the project does and doesn’t call for, and how it squares with Trump’s positions.

Are Trump and Project 2025 connected?

To distance himself from Project 2025 amid the Democratic attacks, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he “knows nothing” about it and has “no idea” who is in charge of it. (CNN identified at least 140 former advisers from the Trump administration who have been involved.)

The Heritage Foundation sought contributions from more than 100 conservative organizations for its policy vision for the next Republican presidency, which was published in 2023.

Project 2025 is now winding down some of its policy operations, and director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, is stepping down, The Washington Post reported July 30. Trump campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita denounced the document.

WATCH: A look at the Project 2025 plan to reshape government and Trump’s links to its authors

However, Project 2025 contributors include a number of high-ranking officials from Trump’s first administration, including former White House adviser Peter Navarro and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.

A recently released recording of Russell Vought, a Project 2025 author and the former director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, showed Vought saying Trump’s “very supportive of what we do.” He said Trump was only distancing himself because Democrats were making a bogeyman out of the document.

Project 2025 wouldn’t ban abortion outright, but would curtail access

The Harris campaign shared a graphic on X that claimed “Trump’s Project 2025 plan for workers” would “go after birth control and ban abortion nationwide.”

The plan doesn’t call to ban abortion nationwide, though its recommendations could curtail some contraceptives and limit abortion access.

What’s known about Trump’s abortion agenda neither lines up with Harris’ description nor Project 2025’s wish list.

Project 2025 says the Department of Health and Human Services Department should “return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care.”

It recommends that the Food and Drug Administration reverse its 2000 approval of mifepristone, the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for a medication abortion. Medication is the most common form of abortion in the U.S. — accounting for around 63 percent in 2023.

If mifepristone were to remain approved, Project 2025 recommends new rules, such as cutting its use from 10 weeks into pregnancy to seven. It would have to be provided to patients in person — part of the group’s efforts to limit access to the drug by mail. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval over procedural grounds.

WATCH: Trump’s plans for health care and reproductive rights if he returns to White House The manual also calls for the Justice Department to enforce the 1873 Comstock Act on mifepristone, which bans the mailing of “obscene” materials. Abortion access supporters fear that a strict interpretation of the law could go further to ban mailing the materials used in procedural abortions, such as surgical instruments and equipment.

The plan proposes withholding federal money from states that don’t report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention how many abortions take place within their borders. The plan also would prohibit abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funds. It also calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the training of medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, omits abortion training.

The document says some forms of emergency contraception — particularly Ella, a pill that can be taken within five days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy — should be excluded from no-cost coverage. The Affordable Care Act requires most private health insurers to cover recommended preventive services, which involves a range of birth control methods, including emergency contraception.

Trump has recently said states should decide abortion regulations and that he wouldn’t block access to contraceptives. Trump said during his June 27 debate with Biden that he wouldn’t ban mifepristone after the Supreme Court “approved” it. But the court rejected the lawsuit based on standing, not the case’s merits. He has not weighed in on the Comstock Act or said whether he supports it being used to block abortion medication, or other kinds of abortions.

Project 2025 doesn’t call for cutting Social Security, but proposes some changes to Medicare

“When you read (Project 2025),” Harris told a crowd July 23 in Wisconsin, “you will see, Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

The Project 2025 document does not call for Social Security cuts. None of its 10 references to Social Security addresses plans for cutting the program.

Harris also misleads about Trump’s Social Security views.

In his earlier campaigns and before he was a politician, Trump said about a half-dozen times that he’s open to major overhauls of Social Security, including cuts and privatization. More recently, in a March 2024 CNBC interview, Trump said of entitlement programs such as Social Security, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” However, he quickly walked that statement back, and his CNBC comment stands at odds with essentially everything else Trump has said during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump’s campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security. We rated Harris’ claim that Trump intends to cut Social Security Mostly False.

Project 2025 does propose changes to Medicare, including making Medicare Advantage, the private insurance offering in Medicare, the “default” enrollment option. Unlike Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans have provider networks and can also require prior authorization, meaning that the plan can approve or deny certain services. Original Medicare plans don’t have prior authorization requirements.

The manual also calls for repealing health policies enacted under Biden, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. The law enabled Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers for the first time in history, and recently resulted in an agreement with drug companies to lower the prices of 10 expensive prescriptions for Medicare enrollees.

Trump, however, has said repeatedly during the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut Medicare.

Project 2025 would eliminate the Education Department, which Trump supports

The Harris campaign said Project 2025 would “eliminate the U.S. Department of Education” — and that’s accurate. Project 2025 says federal education policy “should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” The plan scales back the federal government’s role in education policy and devolves the functions that remain to other agencies.

Aside from eliminating the department, the project also proposes scrapping the Biden administration’s Title IX revision, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also would let states opt out of federal education programs and calls for passing a federal parents’ bill of rights similar to ones passed in some Republican-led state legislatures.

Republicans, including Trump, have pledged to close the department, which gained its status in 1979 within Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s presidential Cabinet.

In one of his Agenda 47 policy videos, Trump promised to close the department and “to send all education work and needs back to the states.” Eliminating the department would have to go through Congress.

What Project 2025, Trump would do on overtime pay

In the graphic, the Harris campaign says Project 2025 allows “employers to stop paying workers for overtime work.”

The plan doesn’t call for banning overtime wages. It recommends changes to some Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, regulations and to overtime rules. Some changes, if enacted, could result in some people losing overtime protections, experts told us.

The document proposes that the Labor Department maintain an overtime threshold “that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States).” This threshold is the amount of money executive, administrative or professional employees need to make for an employer to exempt them from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2019, the Trump’s administration finalized a rule that expanded overtime pay eligibility to most salaried workers earning less than about $35,568, which it said made about 1.3 million more workers eligible for overtime pay. The Trump-era threshold is high enough to cover most line workers in lower-cost regions, Project 2025 said.

The Biden administration raised that threshold to $43,888 beginning July 1, and that will rise to $58,656 on Jan. 1, 2025. That would grant overtime eligibility to about 4 million workers, the Labor Department said.

It’s unclear how many workers Project 2025’s proposal to return to the Trump-era overtime threshold in some parts of the country would affect, but experts said some would presumably lose the right to overtime wages.

Other overtime proposals in Project 2025’s plan include allowing some workers to choose to accumulate paid time off instead of overtime pay, or to work more hours in one week and fewer in the next, rather than receive overtime.

Trump’s past with overtime pay is complicated. In 2016, the Obama administration said it would raise the overtime to salaried workers earning less than $47,476 a year, about double the exemption level set in 2004 of $23,660 a year.

But when a judge blocked the Obama rule, the Trump administration didn’t challenge the court ruling. Instead it set its own overtime threshold, which raised the amount, but by less than Obama.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Jump to main content

• Research Development

Upcoming Limited Submission Funding Opportunities

• Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP)

Proposals due: September 15, 2024

An alliance-based program, whereby a group of institutions of higher education work together to diversify the nation's STEM workforce by increasing the number of STEM baccalaureate and graduate degrees awarded to persons from LSAMP populations.

Possible Applications:

Limited to one (1) Alliance Grant & Alliance Proposals per institution.

Up to two (2) BD-Master's proposals may be submitted from an alliance.

Up to two (2) BD-Doctoral proposals may be submitted from an alliance.

Solication Document

Focus on Recruiting Emerging Climate and Adaptation Scientists and Transformers

Proposals due: January 29, 2025 - Track 2 Planning Grant proposals due April 30, 2025

Seeks to facilitate graduate career preparation to a student-centered model with a particular emphasis on building entrepreneurial and innovation capacity at emerging research institutions.

An eligible organization may submit only two (2) proposals.

An individual may serve as (PI) or co-PI on only one (1) proposal.

Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Enriching Learning, Programs and Student Experiences (HSI:ELPSE)

Proposals due: February 21, 2024

Welcomes projects that look to implement, test and refine promising practices and/or conduct research related to broadening participation or improving recruitment, retention, graduation and other positive outcomes for undergraduates in STEM.

Educational Instrumentation Proposals: Institutions may submit up to two (2) proposals per year.

Implementation and Evaluation Proposals: Institutions may submit up to three (3) proposals per solicitation deadline, regardless of level.

An individual may be listed as PI or Co-PI on at most two (2) proposals per submission deadline.

Hispanic Serving Institutions: Equitable Transformation in STEM Educaation (ETSE)

Proposals due: August 27, 2025

Supports projects designed to catalyze change and help HSIs meet students where they are, accounting for their assets and the challenges they may face.  

Institutional Transformation Project Track – Limited to one (1) proposal per Institution.

An individual may only serve as a PI or co-PI on one (1) proposal per track.

Contact UNC

Social media.

• UNC Overview
• Awards & Accolades
• Organizational Chart
• Strategic Plan
• Accreditation
• Student Consumer Information
• Sustainability
• Accessibility Statement
• Who Do I Call?
• Notice of Intent
• Research Seeking Volunteers
• RCR Training (CITI)
• Tell Us How We're Doing

Page Last Updated: Today | Contact for this Page: Drew Galyardt

Privacy Policy | Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity/Title IX Policy & Coordinator

Project 2025 Explained: Democrats Assail Controversial Right-Wing Policy Map For Trump At DNC

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Democrats blasted Project 2025 on Monday at the start of the Democratic National Convention—marking the latest round of criticism against the wide-ranging blueprint for a potential second Trump term that even Trump has tried to distance himself from, despite his ex-staffers helping assemble it.

Then-President Donald Trump gives a speech at the Heritage Foundation's President's Club Meeting on ... [+] October 17, 2017, in Washington D.C.

Project 2025, spearheaded by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation with help from more than 100 other conservative groups , is a multi-part plan for the next conservative administration—namely a Trump presidency—which includes a LinkedIn-style database for presidential personnel hopefuls, training programs for executive branch positions and an as-yet-unreleased “playbook” laying out what Trump should do in his first 180 days.

Though the project is led by the Heritage Foundation and other private third-party groups and is not formally tied to Trump, who has tried to distance himself from the operation, its proposals were developed in part by former members of his administration and other Trump allies, and the ex-president has previously praised Heritage for its policy work.

The project has drawn the most attention for its “Mandate for Leadership,” a 900-page proposed policy agenda that describes itself as a “plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors,” laying out plans for all aspects of the executive branch.

Personnel: Project 2025 broadly proposes to insert far more political appointees who are ideologically aligned with the president into the executive branch—replacing many of the nonpartisan career civil servants who serve in it now—proposing an executive order that would put political appointees into any “confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions” (which Trump previously did at the end of his presidency, but President Joe Biden then overturned it).

Federal Agencies: It proposes a scaled-down federal government, including the abolishment of multiple agencies—including the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—whose remaining departments would be folded into other agencies or privatized, including the Transportation Security Administration.

Transgender Rights: Transgender rights and gender identity beyond biological sex are roundly rejected, with such steps as reinstating the ban on transgender Americans serving in the military, prohibiting public school educators from referring to students by anything other than their birth name and pronouns without parental permission, and ensuring no federal funds are used to provide gender-affirming care.

DEI and LGBTQ Rights: Project 2025 seeks to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs from throughout the federal government and in universities, and while it doesn’t outlaw same-sex marriage, it supports “nuclear families” that include a “married mother, father, and their children,” and calls for restricting laws that bar discrimination on the basis of sex to exclude sexual orientation and gender identity.

Climate Change: The proposal would undo much of the federal government’s climate work, including by leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, overhauling the Department of Energy to promote oil and natural gas and deemphasize green energy sources, removing the Department of Agriculture’s focus on sustainability and curtailing climate research.

Abortion: While Project 2025 doesn’t explicitly call for an abortion ban, it would take many steps to restrict the procedure, including directing the Food and Drug Administration to revoke its approval of abortion drug mifepristone, using the Comstock Act to block any abortion equipment or medication from being mailed—which abortion rights advocates have said would be a “backdoor” way to ban abortion—barring federal funds being used to provide healthcare coverage for abortion and requiring states to report all abortions that take place there to the federal government.

Education: Project 2025 emphasizes a “school choice” policy that directs public funds to be used for students to attend private or religious schools, bars “critical race theory” from being taught in federally funded schools and advocates for legislation that would allow parents to sue schools they feel have acted improperly—such as by teaching controversial subjects or requiring students to disclose information about their religious beliefs.

Student Loans: Student loan relief efforts would come to an end—including the public service loan forgiveness program and income-driven repayment plans—as the proposal states “borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.”

Big Tech: TikTok would be banned, and the proposal calls for reforming Section 230 —which shields tech companies and social media networks from being sued over content on their platforms—and allowing laws like those passed in Florida and Texas that seek to punish social media companies who ban or suspend users based on their “viewpoints.”

Justice Department: Project 2025 calls for a “top-to-bottom overhaul” of the DOJ and FBI that gets rid of what it calls an “unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class and radical Left ideologues,” proposing an agency that would be more focused on violent crime and filing litigation that’s “consistent with the President’s agenda” and filled with far more political appointees; it also proposes prohibiting the FBI from investigating misinformation or making “politically motivated” moves against U.S. citizens.

Taxes: Project 2025 would seek to get rid of current tax rates and most deductions and credits, instead proposing a 15% rate for anyone under the Social Security wage base ( $168,000 in 2024) and 30% for taxpayers earning more than that—which means the lowest-income taxpayers will now pay more and some higher earners will pay less, and it would also lower the corporate income tax rate to 18%.

Federal Reserve: The project seeks to reform the Federal Reserve by “tak[ing] the monetary steering wheel out of [its] hands and return[ing] it to the people,” which the authors propose could be done by getting rid of the government’s control over the nation’s money entirely—instead leaving it up to banks—or returning to the gold standard, in which the dollar’s value would be tied to a specific weight of gold.

Foreign Relations: Project 2025 emphasizes opposing China, which it describes as “a totalitarian enemy of the United States,” and directs the U.S. to pull out of international organizations when they don’t serve the administration’s interests, including the World Health Organization and various United Nations agencies.

Healthcare: Project 2025 does not seek to overturn the Affordable Care Act, but would make significant cuts to Medicaid and impose work requirements to receive coverage, as well as reform Medicare—including by making Medicare Advantage, a paid supplement to Medicare, the default option for patients.

Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here .

The proposal was a common point of attack for Democrats against Trump during Monday’s opening night of the Democratic National Convention. State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Mich., called it “a plan to turn Donald Trump into a dictator,” while highlighting the portion of the plan that calls for replacing many of the nonpartisan career civil servants in the executive branch with political appointees. The DNC also aired an ad that featured undercover footage of one of the Project 2025 authors and former Trump administration official Russell Vought, saying Trump has “blessed” the organization.

Is Trump Involved With Project 2025?

Trump has denied any connection to Project 2025, claiming on Truth Social last week that he has “nothing to do with them,” has “no idea” who’s behind the plan and finds some of its ideas “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” His campaign advisor Chris LaCivita has also denounced it, calling the effort a “pain in the ass.” But many aren’t buying the ex-president’s claims: The team behind Project 2025 includes 140 people who worked for Trump in his administration, according to CNN , including six former Cabinet secretaries and four people he nominated as ambassadors. Trump has also seemingly endorsed Heritage’s policy work in the past, saying at a 2022 dinner for the Heritage Foundation that the group was “going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate.”

What Impact Could Project 2025’s Policies Have?

Experts have warned Project 2025’s proposals could have seismic impacts on how the federal government operates if carried out. In an article for Justia , criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor John May suggested Project 2025’s language endorsing the executive branch being able to “restrain the excesses” of the judicial branch and Congress means “if the President wants to, the President can defy any decision of the Supreme Court, any legislation by Congress, maybe even the act of impeachment and removal from office.”

Who’s Behind Project 2025?

The main team behind Project 2025 includes Heritage Foundation director Paul Gans and former Trump White House personnel leaders Spencer Chretien (who also served as Trump’s special assistant) and Troup Hemenway, according to the project’s website. Other groups listed as participating in the project include ex-Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s America First Legal, legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty University, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Turning Point USA. The 900-page policy agenda was co-authored by a series of conservative figures, with chapters penned by such Trump allies as former Housing Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, former Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli, former HHS Civil Rights Director Roger Severino and former Trump advisor Peter Navarro, who went to prison in March for contempt of Congress. The Heritage Foundation confirmed July 30 that Dans is stepping down and leaving the organization, saying in a statement he was “moving up to the front where the fight remains.” The Daily Beast reports Dans resigned amid pressure from the Trump campaign, though the Heritage Foundation said only that it had always intended its “policy drafting” work to only last through the party conventions, “and we are sticking to that timeline.” The Heritage Foundation denied reports Project 2025 is shutting down, and said its personnel efforts would continue.

Will Trump Have To Follow Project 2025’s Plans?

Trump will not be under any obligation to follow Project 2025’s proposals if he wins the presidency, though history suggests he’ll listen to at least some of them. The Heritage Foundation made a similar policy proposal for Trump ahead of his presidency in 2016, and boasted two years into his tenure that Trump had already followed 64% of its recommendations, CBS News notes .

Would Project 2025 Change Social Security?

One area that Project 2025 doesn’t touch on is Social Security benefits and any potential cuts to the program, even as proposals outline changes to numerous other government “entitlements.” Changing Social Security and making cuts to its spending has been a priority for the GOP for decades, though the American public has long opposed slashing benefits. Republicans’ efforts have waned under Trump, however, and the ex-president publicly claimed in March he “will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare,” after he came under fire for suggesting otherwise in an interview with CNBC.

Surprising Fact

While much of Project 2025’s policy agenda concerns federal agencies, the proposal has also gotten attention for its call to outlaw all pornography, which it claims is tied to “the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and is not protected under the First Amendment. Project 2025 calls not only for pornography to be made illegal, but also for anyone involved with its production and distribution to be imprisoned, for any librarians or educators who “purvey it” to be registered as sex offenders and for telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its distribution to be shut down.

Key Background

The Heritage Foundation’s practice of laying out a policy roadmap for a future Republican administration actually dates back to the Reagan era, founder Edwin J. Feulner noted in the afterword of the 2025 edition. The organization first laid out a blueprint in 1981 that President Ronald Reagan ultimately adopted, fulfilling half of its recommendations by the end of his first year in office. The Heritage Foundation has continued to come out with blueprints for potential conservative presidents each election since, it notes, and its 2025 Mandate for Leadership was published in 2023. While it came out last year, Project 2025 gained new attention in the past week since Trump disavowed it—sparking a wave of reports highlighting his ties to the figures behind the project that debunk his claims. Democrats have also used the controversial proposal as a key talking point and argument for why the left should unite behind President Joe Biden and focus on defeating Trump, particularly as Biden’s candidacy has come under widespread scrutiny in the wake of the president’s poor debate performance in June.

Further Reading

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.