research work social media

BioResources

• About the Journal
• Authors & Reviewers
• How to Self-Register
• Full Site Navigation
• Editorial Board
• Meet the Staff
• Editorial Policies
• General Instructions
• Ethics & Responsibilities
• Article Preparation
• Submission Instructions
• Acknowledgment of your Peer-Reviewing
• Writing Style Suggestions
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Back and Current Issues
• Scholarly Reviews
• Special Conference Collection Issues
• Competition Print Edition
• FRC: Pulp and Paper Fundamental Research Symposia Proceedings
• Paper Manufacturing Chemistry
• BioResources Early Career Investigator Award
• Distance Education: Online Masters Degree & Individual Courses
• Upcoming Conferences
• Hands-On Courses
• Affiliate Journal

The use of social media and its impact for research

Social media is an omnipresent part of everyday life. It provides users with an easy way to engage and connect with others without meeting face-to-face. This form of communication provides a lot of opportunity for companies and individuals to reach a massive audience. What is the purpose of social media, and how does it tie into science? Well, you see, it all depends on who you know and how active your social media presence is. Is there a benefit for sharing research across social media? The benefits of social media stem from active participation and the generation of new attractive content from an individual. Research is about producing new information, and social media offers unique opportunities to present new content.

Full Article

The Use of Social Media and its Impact for Research

Jessica Rogers

Keywords: Social media; Research; Engagement

Contact information: BioResources Process Editor, Department of Forest Biomaterials, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8005, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

What is Social Media?

In today’s world social media is an ever-present facet of life that surrounds us. Almost every advertisement, whether television, radio, magazine, movie preview, podcast, newspaper, or elsewhere, will mention its social media presence in some way. ‘You can like us on Facebook, Check us out on Instagram,’ or perhaps ‘Watch our channel on YouTube’, are just some of the hooks that companies will provide to further build their brand and increase their visibility. As of January 2019, there were around 7.7 billion people in the world, of which 3.397 billion were active social media users (Smith 2019). Moreover, there are almost one million new users to some form of social media each day, or a new user every 10 seconds; 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube alone every minute (Smith 2019). To summarize, if you have found yourself boycotting the idea of social media, I hate to break it to you but it is here to stay.

The Underlying Purpose of Social Media

For those who do not know, a key theme of social media is ‘engagement’. Have you ever reached out to a company on their social media for any reason? The different social media outlets are simply interactive pathways on the internet that companies and businesses use to form relationships and network with others without leaving one’s desk. As a scientist, it is essential to attend conferences, give lectures, and lead panel discussions to network with others about common science interests. Today, there are an endless amount of resources accessible on the internet at your fingertips that allow you to do the same thing. Twitter first surfaced as a news and social networking site in which users post content and interact with each other through messages called ‘tweets’. The use of hashtags (a type of metadata tag) across all social media platforms allows people to search for certain interests and see all content related to that particular hashtag. This is a quick way to find and engage with people through common interests. Of course, you should still actively participate in your community by attending conventions and conferences, but if you truly seek to engage with more people, then you should not simply ignore the outlet of social media until you try it, as it can connect you with an even larger audience. Think of it this way, your lecture or discussion is most likely already being recorded, so what will you do with that recording?

Social media has a clear and direct purpose for businesses that sell a product or service and are searching for ways to advertise their brand. Of course, there other ways to use social media. Most people use social media to be, well, social, and communicate with family, former colleagues, or keep in touch with old classmates. The idea of a technological way of staying in touch with people is how Facebook was created. Facebook adds 500,000 new accounts each day, which equates to 6 new profiles every second (Smith 2019). So who exactly is in your friends list on Facebook? Who is subscribing to your channel on YouTube? Who is retweeting your tweets? If you want to broaden your impact beyond your discipline, you need to have a strong base of connections in your network.

The average person has 5.54 social media accounts (Smith 2019). Of those accounts, whatever one’s goal is, is it being projected across multiple platforms? Exactly who is engaged? These are all important questions that deal with your potential reach as an individual. The bottom line is if you seek community engagement in what you are doing, you must first be active in that particular community.

Social Media and Research

Now let us change course and focus on a different path of social media, that is where scientists use it to promote their research. The same rule applies. While all social media outlets have the potential for massive reach, it all comes back to a matter of whom you connect with or engage. However, the fast-paced and live aspect of social media can drive skeptical researchers not to publish, but successful reactions and quick responses can increase a researcher’s credibility. Research is about producing new information, and social media offers unique opportunities to present new content.

As a scientist, once you publish your research, you want to share it with as many colleagues and people so that they may read your novel findings. You want to share your hard work with many individuals. Almost all researchers send an email to their colleagues and individuals within their institution, which essentially is the first step in promoting their work. What if you took that one-step further and reached out to the scientific community on social media? You probably already have some form of a social media account and possibly one that relates to the scientific community; ResearchGate is a popular academic social media outlet. ResearchGate is a website that provides scientists with a forum to share and discuss their research as well as find collaborators. If you share your research on your personal account, then the only people that will see it are those whom you connect with. However, if you were active on different community or special interest pages that relate to your area of study and participate in regular discussions with other researchers on these sites, then you may find yourself having a much wider reach. Again, it all stems back to what you wish to accomplish with your research.

What Does that Mean for you?

Before getting started, you must ask yourself what exactly you want to gain from social media. If an increased reach is primarily what you seek, then you must be active in multiple communities related to your specialty. You already stay current on industry news and new research on your own, which is what others may be doing when they discover your research. However, if engagement and stimulated discussions are what you seek, then your active presence is required. Participating and driving discussions and posting content is what ultimately increases your visibility. Sharing and reposting others’ work, and being an active member on social media brings more attention to your profile and can enhance your reputation. A good place to start is with the professional social networking site LinkedIn that allows you to make connections with people based on job interests.

You can always go the old fashioned, tried and true route and send an email about your research, but how many new people reach out to you regarding your work? Maybe next time, try posting your research on a couple of industry pages, tag a few people in the community, and see if you make any new connections or spark any intriguing conversations. Because social media allows you to interact instantly with people across the globe, you may be surprised at who or how many people engage with you.

References Cited

Jaring, P., and Bäck, A. (2017). “How researchers use social media to promote their research and network with industry,”  Technology Information Management Review  7(8), 32-39. DOI: 10.22215/timreview/1098

Smith, K. (2019). “123 Amazing social media statistics and facts,”  brandwatch , (https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/amazing-social-media-statistics-and-facts/), Accessed 26 March 2019.

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Using Social Media as a Research Recruitment Tool: Ethical Issues and Recommendations

Luke gelinas, robin pierce, sabune winkler, i glenn cohen, holly fernandez lynch, barbara e bierer , md.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Address correspondence to: Luke Gelinas, Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School, 23 Everett St., 3 rd floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. [email protected]

Co-lead author.

Co-lead author. Dr. Pierce’s current affiliation is Brunel University London, School of Law.

This work was conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health Award UL1 TR001102) and financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers, or the National Institutes of Health

The use of social media as a recruitment tool for research with humans is increasing, and likely to continue to grow. Despite this, to date there has been no specific regulatory guidance and little in the bioethics literature to guide investigators and IRBs faced with navigating the ethical issues it raises. We begin to fill this gap by first defending a non-exceptionalist methodology for assessing social media recruitment; second, examining respect for privacy and investigator transparency as key norms governing social media recruitment; and, finally, analyzing three relatively novel aspects of social media recruitment: (i) the ethical significance of compliance with website ‘terms of use’; (ii) the ethics of recruiting from the online networks of research participants; and (iii) the ethical implications of online communication from and between participants. Two checklists aimed at guiding investigators and IRBs through the ethical issues are included as Appendices.

Keywords: Research, ethics, social media, recruitment, privacy, transparency

1. Introduction

Social media sites – Facebook, Twitter, Grindr, Instagram, LinkedIn, and other similar online spaces – offer various platforms for connecting and sharing interests and information, while allowing users to maintain physical separation and a degree of anonymity. For the purpose of this article, we will define ‘social media’ as internet-based applications that permit users to construct a public or semi-public profile and create and maintain a list of other users (‘friends’) with whom they may share content and participate in social interactions and networking ( Boyd and Ellison 2008 ; Kaplan & Haenlein 2010 ). With increased general use and penetration of social media platforms, investigators are exploring ways to utilize social media in research; in particular, social media is emerging as a promising way to identify and recruit potential participants for clinical trials and other forms of human subjects research ( Gearhart 2015 ). Social media is attractive in this context because it may enable investigators both to reach wider segments of the population than may otherwise be accessible and to target individuals on the basis of personal information that, in many cases, allows researchers to infer their eligibility for particular studies.

Despite its growing popularity as a recruitment tool, there is no specific regulatory guidance and few resources to guide IRBs, investigators, and others on the use of social media for research recruitment. ( Andrews 2012 ; Adair 2015 ). 2 Moreover, while some IRBs have policies on social media recruitment, most do not, and even among existent policies there is no clear consensus over how to identify and approach the most pressing issues. 3 This is problematic, since navigating social media recruitment requires applying legal and ethical norms sensitively in a context that may be unfamiliar to investigators and IRBs. In this article we examine the conceptual and ethical issues involved with the use of social media in recruitment to research and present a set of practical recommendations for investigators and IRBs. Our focus here is purposefully narrow. We limit our analysis primarily to ethical issues that arise when using social media as a method for identifying and contacting potential research participants, or as a platform for communication between currently enrolled participants, leaving aside ethical issues surrounding online research using social media more generally (e.g., data collection over social media sites) as well as issues that arise when obtaining participant consent online (e.g., online tools and methods for ensuring comprehension and confirming participant identity). We have developed the recommendations we offer into a practical guidance document for investigators and IRBs, including two checklists for facilitating proposal and review of social media recruitment, both of which are presented here as Appendices. 4

We begin with a brief overview of the empirical literature on the effectiveness of social media as a recruitment tool. In Section 2, we advance a methodology for evaluating social media recruitment proposals, grounded in the belief that social media recruitment ought to be assessed in terms of the same general ethical principles as traditional recruitment, namely, beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. However, we also analyze what we take to be the two most salient normative considerations for evaluating social media recruitment, which are more specific components of the general principles: (1) respect for the privacy of social media users, and (2) investigator transparency. In Section 3, we consider several detailed cases to illustrate our methodology, as well as the substantive application of the ethical principles we advocate. In Section 4, we examine three issues that we think are relatively unique to social media recruitment and so likely to be less familiar to investigators and IRBs: (i) the ethical significance of compliance with website business rules or ‘terms of use’; (ii) the ethics of recruiting from the online networks of current or potential research participants; and (iii) the ethical implications of certain forms of post-enrollment online communication from and between participants. The article thus has two overarching aims: to examine the issues conceptually, asking whether and in what ways social media requires a shift in conceptualizing the ethical aspects of recruiting human subjects for research; and to yield concrete, practical ethical guidance and directives for investigators and IRBs involved in proposing and evaluating social media recruitment.

1.1. Why social media for recruitment?

Recruitment to research remains a perennial challenge. By some counts, up to 60% of all clinical trials are delayed or cancelled due to lack of enrollment, slowing the progress of socially valuable research and at times resulting in research participants being exposed to risks, burdens, and inconvenience for no benefit ( Puffer & Torgersen 2003 ; Wertheimer 2013 ). Further, researchers face particular problems with specific hard-to-reach populations, such as patients with rare medical conditions, or women at particular stages of pregnancy ( Ramo and Prochaska 2012 ), among others. Additionally, traditional methods, such as use of print, radio, and television advertising, can be costly and often do not remedy low participation rates ( Fenner et al. 2012 ).

While empirical research on the effectiveness of social media recruitment is still in its infancy, several studies offer early signs of promise ( Shere et al. 2014 ; Frandsen et al. 2014 ; Akard et al. 2015 ; Goadsby 2013 ; Fenner et al., 2014; Tweet et al. 2011 ). To date social media recruitment techniques have shown effectiveness for HIV vaccine clinical trials ( Sitar et al. 2009 ), occipital nerve studies ( Goadsby 2013 ), pediatric cancer research ( Akard et al. 2015 ), depression prevention studies ( Morgan et al. 2013 ), and smoking cessation research ( Frandsen et al. 2014 ; Heffner et al. 2013 ), among others. Perhaps more striking, they have also shown effectiveness with historically hard-to-reach populations, such as young cancer survivors ( Gorman et al. 2014 ), gay Latino males ( Martinez 2014 ), the deaf community ( Kobayashi et al. 2013 ), and sufferers of low-incidence diseases, such as spontaneous coronary artery dissection ( Tweet et al. 2011 ; Ramo and Prochaska 2012 ). While unlikely to be the sole remedy for the challenges of recruitment, social media is, and will increasingly become, an important tool in the recruitment arsenal, and therefore calls for ethical and regulatory guidance that can facilitate the appropriate implementation of social media recruitment techniques.

2. Methodology and substantive ethical considerations

In this section we propose a methodology for evaluating social media recruitment proposals, and identify and discuss the substantive normative considerations that we take to be most salient in this context. As with all human subjects research, federal and state laws govern social media recruitment activities; these legal requirements do not differ when applied to social media. Because there are no specific regulations applicable to social media recruitment, we focus here on the ethics.

Before proceeding further we distinguish two basic types of recruitment activity: passive and active. Passive recruitment involves distributing recruitment materials (ads, posters, flyers) with the aim of attracting potential participants to contact the research team for more information and for consideration of enrollment. By contrast, active recruitment occurs when research staff approach and interact with specific individuals with the aim of enrolling them in research, usually on the basis of knowledge of characteristics that would make them suitable candidates for particular trials.

Both passive and active recruitment have social media and more traditional ‘off-line’ correlates. Posting flyers in subways or buses is a popular form of traditional passive off-line recruitment, while placing advertisements in health or patient support group websites is a form of passive online recruitment. Approaching an oncology patient in clinic for trial enrollment on the basis of the research staff’s knowledge of his or her disease state is an example of traditional active off-line recruitment, while emailing a member of a patient support website for breast cancer on the basis of her online activity and membership in the group is an example of active online recruitment.

2.1. Non-exceptionalism as the default

A key component of our approach is that, whether active or passive, social media recruitment should be evaluated in substantially the same way as more traditional analogue or ‘off-line’ recruitment. When planning (as an investigator) or reviewing (as an IRB) a social media recruitment technique, we propose the following strategy. First, whenever possible, identify a more familiar off-line variant or equivalent of the social media technique being proposed. Second, identify the substantive ethical considerations that bear on the off-line version and bring them to bear on the online version (see below, Section 2.2). Finally, identify any ways the online version differs from the more traditional off-line equivalent, and evaluate this difference in terms of relevant ethical norms and considerations. In short, we suggest striving to normalize social media recruitment techniques while remaining sensitive to their potentially novel aspects by, first, making their resemblance to more traditional off-line recruitment explicit; second, applying the appropriate ethical considerations and scrutiny; third, determining whether social media recruitment differs from off-line recruitment in ways that warrant further review.

There are two justifications for this non-exceptionalist approach. The first is conceptual. Like off-line recruitment, social media recruitment is governed by the foundational norms of research ethics: beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. The second reason is practical. Normalizing social media in the way we suggest, by comparing it to off-line recruitment, can help investigators and IRBs get their bearings in a context that may be less familiar and may help them isolate any aspects of social media recruitment that are potentially novel and require greater scrutiny. Ideally, this can serve to make investigators and IRBs who might otherwise be wary of social media recruitment more comfortable approaching it, which in turn can help facilitate use of this important recruitment tool. We illustrate our methodology below.

2.2. Substantive ethical considerations

While social media recruitment is governed by the same foundational norms that govern more traditional analogue recruitment, the ‘embedded’ and interconnected nature of social media does provide a new, potentially unfamiliar context for the application of these principles, one that demands sensitive application of these norms and the recognition that their operational implications may, in these contexts, differ. Our view is that the most salient ethical considerations fall into two categories: (i) respect for the privacy and other interests of social media users and (ii) investigator transparency. Because in our view ethical analysis of essentially all cases of social media recruitment involve application of both privacy and transparency considerations, we unpack both of these concepts before illustrating them in greater detail in Section 3.

2.2.1. Respect for privacy and other interests

Respect for privacy is grounded in the foundational norms of respect for persons and beneficence. The right to control sensitive personal information about one’s self, including one’s private health information, is essential for our ability to maintain a personal sphere of sovereignty where we can govern ourselves effectively (i.e., autonomy), as well as crucial for our wider well-being, given the harm that can occur (dignitary or tangible) when sensitive personal information is taken, used, or shared without our consent.

In the context of social media recruitment, respect for privacy is especially important given the amount of personal information available online and the ease with which it can be accessed. Of course, much of the personal information available online has been voluntarily made public. In light of the seemingly “public” nature of this information, it may seem counterintuitive to claim substantial privacy interests. Typically, however, this information has not been shared by social media users for the advancement of generalizable knowledge, or even health purposes, but for social connectivity and personal expression. Moreover, perceptions of whether a venue is public or private may vary ( Taylor et al. 2014 ). Posting material for social networking purposes, often within limited public communities, is different than intending for it to be available to the public in general or researchers in particular. In addition, empirical research has shown that social media users often lack knowledge of how to manage privacy settings and fail to grasp the full extent to which they render information shared over social media publicly available ( Boyd 2010 ; Madden et al. 2013 ). This may result in a ‘disinhibition effect’ ( Suler 2004 ; Swirsky et al. 2014 ) that leads social media users to act in ways that they would find embarrassing and avoid if they knew the public or researchers were observing. For example, a social media user, not realizing that her privacy settings permit people other than her family and friends to see her posts, may describe intimate and vulnerable details of her experience with an illness that she would not want the public to see. In general, social media users may not comprehend the range of possible uses, risks, and harms of posting potentially sensitive personal information online ( Parsi & Elster 2014 ; Taddicken 2013 ).

Because of this, investigators should handle personal information responsibly, even if it has already been made widely available, by minimizing the chances of individuals suffering embarrassment, loss of dignity or other harms due to social media recruitment methods. Investigators should never disclose sensitive information to others without the participant’s explicit permission, or engage in online interactions that would allow others to infer sensitive information about participants or potential participants, even if that information has already been made publicly available in a different context.

In addition to considerations of privacy, researchers have an obligation to be mindful of the values, mores, and potential vulnerabilities of those they approach on social media ( Gyure et al. 2014 ). It is possible to be respectful of privacy but nonetheless approach and communicate with different online communities in ways that are offensive or insufficiently sensitive to their condition. While researchers have similar obligations in off-line recruitment, the quickness and ease of online communication, the physical distance between researchers and investigators during online interactions, and the fact that many social media users may not expect to be approached by researchers over social media, make sensitivity to the interests and vulnerabilities of potential participants particularly important when recruiting over social media.

2.2.2. Transparency

The second salient ethical consideration in the context of social media recruitment is investigator transparency. The importance of transparency is grounded primarily in respect for persons, which, outside of exceptional circumstances, demands investigator truthfulness and honesty when interacting with research volunteers. Transparency also serves a dual function by promoting public trust in the research enterprise, which is needed for research to flourish. 5

Transparency requires investigators engaged in recruitment activities to be truthful and honest when describing the aims, details, risks, and benefits of studies. In the context of social media recruitment the demand for transparency has further implications. The first stems from the fact that certain social media venues, such as online patient support groups, may require users of the site to have certain characteristics as a condition of joining and participation. An online patient support group for breast cancer survivors, for example, may require members to actually be breast cancer survivors themselves, or to be a close family member of a breast cancer survivor, in order to join the site. Since investigators may lack the relevant characteristics, these sites may often be technically closed to them. Transparency in this situation requires investigators to avoid deception and refrain from fabricating online identities to gain access to these online communities, instead seeking access through alternative mechanisms, such as asking for explicit permission from a moderator or site administrator, as is discussed further below.

A second issue related to transparency concerns the obligations of investigators to proactively disclose their presence on social media when collecting information for recruitment purposes. Such information gathering can often be done relatively easily and without the knowledge of social media users, but there is a distinctive concern about whether activity of this sort may be insufficiently respectful of social media users —counting as cases of researchers ‘creeping’ or ‘lurking’ on a site where users reasonably expect that such activity will not occur and to which social media users could justifiably object. The question is whether, or under what conditions, investigators must alert social media users to their presence and purpose when viewing and collecting the personal information of strangers.

In our view the answer to this question depends largely on whether the site is reasonably viewed as a public or private space. The more public a social media venue is—that is, the fewer restrictions there are on who may join, and the easier it is for one to join without providing personal or identifying information—the less of a reasonable expectation of privacy users of the site have, and the less of an obligation investigators have to proactively disclose their presence. That said, we think it wise for investigators to err on the side of caution in this context. Even if social media users do not have a right that investigators proactively announce their presence in all contexts, the perception of researchers ‘creeping’ or ‘lurking’ may damage public perception and trust in ways that hinder recruitment and set back the progress of research more generally.

In this section we provide concrete illustrations of respect for privacy and investigator transparency, and our approach to evaluating social media recruitment generally, by considering several cases. The cases are intended to highlight both the methodology we recommend as well as how to bring the substantive ethical considerations just discussed to bear on social media recruitment.

Investigator A wishes to recruit from a Facebook cancer patient support group to increase enrollment for her clinical trial, which holds the prospect of direct benefit for participants. The Facebook support group is ‘open,’ that is, there are no restrictions to joining the support group, no registration, no requirement to post certain minimal information, and no assumption of privacy or that all members online are afflicted with cancer. Anyone, including the research team, can identify and contact members of the group through it. Some members of the IRB wonder whether contacting people in this way would be ethically advisable, given that the group is formed around a disease category and not specifically geared toward clinical research, and that members of the group are likely to be vulnerable and may feel embarrassed, stigmatized, or alienated by recruitment advances.

The methodology we advocate first instructs us to find a more familiar off-line variant of this situation, such as a physician-investigator in a clinical setting attending an open oncology patient support group in order to make members aware of the opportunity to participate in a trial. In the latter situation, an IRB might appropriately advise the investigator to seek permission to attend the support group in order to protect patient privacy and preserve trust. Indeed, some online group settings have a moderator from whom permission may be sought. However, in at least some cases (e.g., some Facebook groups) there is no identifiable moderator from whom to seek permission. Further, in online settings such groups are often less personal and intimate, and less continuous; the nature of the group is more fluid and individuals can easily choose not to respond, unlike at in-person support groups where the person is physically present and may feel compelled to respond. These differences might justify fewer or less stringent restrictions from the IRB in the online variant. The IRB might, for example, recommend that investigators access the group through a moderator, if available, without explicitly requiring it. Or they might require the investigator to record any negative comments or information shared from Facebook members, tabulate that information, and report back to the IRB at continuing review or earlier.

In terms of substantive ethical considerations, transparency dictates that investigators be forthright that they are accessing the group in their capacity as researchers, not patients, as well as about the aim and details of the study, its risks and benefits, and so on. With respect to privacy, investigators should protect the personal information of the site’s members. They should refrain from disclosing anything that would allow personal health information to be inferred about members of the group, including the fact that they are in or are eligible for the research in question, even if those individuals choose to disclose this information in certain contexts.

With respect to the concern about whether recruitment overtures would be sufficiently sensitive to this population, some members of the site may indeed feel annoyed or embarrassed by recruitment advances. But this by itself does not make recruitment unethical. The important question is whether user annoyance is based on a reasonable expectation that would be violated by the recruitment activity. The answer to this question may vary from case-to-case. One way for social media users to have reasonable expectations is for a website policy to make clear that the site is to be used expressly and only for purposes that do not include recruitment or research. But this is not the only way. Some types of recruitment overtures might be so lacking in tact or taste as to conflict with common and reasonable expectations in society at large, even if no website policy prohibits them. For example, approaching a Black Lives Matter Facebook group about a study on race and IQ, or a support group for parents of recently deceased young children about the effects of family tragedy on divorce rates, may conflict with widespread and reasonable norms of propriety and decency and violate reasonable expectations of these users.

That said, we think that such cases are rare, even when the people approached are sick or the situation is sensitive. In particular, while recruiting over a Facebook page for cancer sufferers requires sensitivity, it does not, we would argue, demand that researchers forego all contact with the group but rather that they be transparent, respectful, and sympathetic to their circumstances and possible suffering, making sure potential participants understand that they will be allowed to accept or reject the offer freely, without pressure or undue influence from the research team. It is also important that, while some members of this group may feel embarrassed, stigmatized, or upset by recruitment advances, others may welcome the opportunity to participate in clinical research that can improve treatment and indeed holds the prospect of direct benefit for them.

Investigator B wishes to use online ‘banner ads’ to deliver customized messages for specific individuals or groups based on their online activity, to increase targeted recruitment for his clinical trial. In the first instance, he wishes to place banner ads on a Facebook media group for expectant mothers. In the second instance, he wishes to use banner ads to deliver customized online messages for specific individuals or subgroups of individuals based on their search and browsing history, online profile information, and the like.

Methodologically, the first step is to ask whether and how these examples differ from the familiar practice of strategically placing flyers in physical spaces likely to be frequented by the potential study population (e.g., placing flyers for a study on depression in pregnancy in obstetrical offices). One difference is that the social media site is, while the obstetrical office is not, tracking and keeping a record of who looks at the ad or expresses interest in it. Does this difference demand greater IRB scrutiny? We would argue that the answer is a qualified ‘No.’ Having one’s response to online ads collected and tracked is a feature of social media use generally . So long as the tracking and data mining activities of a site (what will be tracked, by whom, for what purpose, and so on) are publicly disclosed to potential users before they agree to join, which they typically will be as part of the ‘terms of service,’ people concerned about such activities can make informed decisions about whether to join.. That said, if the research team intends to track responses to their ad in ways that would not normally occur over Facebook, the IRB would have an obligation to review the risks associated with this form of tracking and, if appropriate, ensure participant protections are in place prior to the initiation of the research (which protections may include additional notification to the participant), since these risks would now exceed the background risks associated with social media use generally. 6

A second cluster of differences arises for using customized banner ads to target individual pregnant women, given that these ads utilize personal online activity and search history in ways that placing a poster in an obstetrical clinic does not. The main concern with using customized banner ads is whether they can be employed by researchers in ways that are sufficiently respectful of privacy. However, the personal search information on which these ads are based is part of an algorithm used by the site or advertising company and is generally not shared with investigators directly. Because of this, the use of banner ads will typically not involve additional research risks for potential participants and indeed will be analogous to other off-line recruitment strategies, such as the growing use of algorithms to scan medical records to identify patients who may be eligible for particular studies. So long as the algorithms on which online banner ads are based comply with applicable law, and investigators receive none of the information used to target individuals, they should be evaluated in the same way as more familiar off-line strategies. In other words, the IRB should affirm that no information relating to an individual’s online activity will be collected and retained by the investigator, and that the language of the banner ad proposed is appropriate prior to approval.

A final possible difference is that some people may find the targeting of individual pregnant women via customized banner ads “creepy,” or “creepier” than the targeting of pregnant women generally at an obstetrical office. It is doubtful that the mere perception of creepiness has intrinsic ethical weight or would demand greater protection for social media users. Nonetheless, it may lead to negative public sentiment and erode public trust in the research enterprise—which investigators and IRBs certainly have reason to avoid. That said, while the perceived creepiness of customized research ads and their relation to public trust are empirical questions, it seems to us that the widespread (and still growing) popularity of social media platforms—despite the fact that targeting of various types is prevalent over social media, and perceived by some as ‘creepy’—suggests that the risk of online targeted ads significantly undermining public trust is relatively low.

If, as we have argued, the differences just discussed do not give rise to greater research risks in the online scenarios, the IRB should review them using customary norms and methods. For example, if placing posters in an obstetrician office requires permission of the doctor, which it presumably would, then posting an advertisement on the website might require permission of a moderator or other authority connected with the site.

Investigator C is a clinical investigator conducting HIV research. To expedite enrollment, he considers using a location-based social and dating application directed towards gay and bisexual men. The platform’s terms of service put no restrictions on who may or may not join, and are silent on whether the application may be used for research purposes, neither prohibiting nor expressly permitting it. Investigator C downloads the application to his smartphone, where he creates a profile that gives him access to information from other users, and observes that User M has a profile identifying him as age 29, gay, HIV+, and living in zip code 77777. This information suggests that User M may satisfy the eligibility criteria for Investigator C’s clinical trial. Investigator C wonders if it would be permissible for him to contact User M to see if he is interested in enrolling in the protocol.

The first thing we should ask is whether targeting users of this application differs from other methods of seeking out the relevant population, such as, for instance, approaching individuals leaving a bar frequented by gay men. One way these two activities may differ is in the degree of certainty investigators have about whether the individuals targeted are in fact HIV+ and meet the inclusion criteria for the study. In the example above, User M has self-identified as HIV+ on his application profile, but presumably investigators recruiting outside a gay bar will typically not have knowledge of the HIV status of the people they approach. Whether there is knowledge of disease status matters ethically. Users of the application who do not self-identify as HIV+ could legitimately take offense with a researcher who assumed that they were HIV+ simply because they are using the application, as could individuals targeted for an HIV study merely on the basis of attending an establishment frequented by gay men. Could a user of the application who self-identifies as HIV+ on their profile page, as in the original example, reasonably take offense in the same way?

It could be argued that, in some cases at least, the willingness of users to disclose their HIV status or other sensitive health information may be based on an assumption that the site is restricted to romantic uses. Individuals may be willing to disclose their HIV status to potential dates, given that this is the ethical thing to do, but hesitant or unwilling to disclose it on the application if they knew researchers would also see it. If so, Investigator C might be seen as taking advantage of a context-specific willingness to disclose highly personal information in order to use that information in ways not intended by the user and to which they might object.

The weight of this objection depends in part on further details about the aim and accepted use of the specific application and whether users are in fact justified in thinking that only potential romantic partners will view their profile. Since the site requires users to disclose information and create a profile before gaining access to the profiles of others, users are reasonable to expect that there will be some limitations on who views their information and the application may not be considered as an entirely public space. If the application is exclusively advertised and used as a romantic dating service only, users may have a reasonable expectation that researchers will not view their profile. In that case researchers would have some reason (not necessarily decisive) to avoid using the site for recruitment purposes, which would need to be weighed against the value of the research and the prospects for seeing it to completion using other recruitment strategies when determining the overall ethical status of the activity.

If, on the other hand, the site is not restricted (in policy or practice) to romantic interactions—if users tend to encounter co-workers, neighbors, people who are just curious, and so on, not all of whom are looking for dates with the user—the objection is much less concerning. In many ways, researchers, who have ethical obligations not to share the user’s personal health information outside the context of research, are less threatening to the user’s privacy and interests than others to whom the user may reveal information about himself over such a platform. Perhaps more importantly, if the application is not restricted to romantic purposes, users who are concerned about their health information being viewed by people other than potential dates may easily choose not to disclose their HIV status in their profile but instead do so only in the midst of a conversation initiated by another user whose romantic intentions are clear.

In any situation, the principle of transparency would require Investigator C to make it clear to users of the application from the start that he is contacting them for the purpose of research, rather than for social reasons. Since the primary purpose of the application is to facilitate social interaction (whether romantic or not), users of the platform might justifiably feel deceived or wronged if the research team were to approach them under the pretense of social reasons only later to disclose their underlying intent of offering them participation in the study. Additionally, the application profile created by Investigator C should be accurate and not misleading.

Thus, while the objection reveals how context-sensitive evaluation of social media recruitment can be, and reinforces the need for IRBs to be sensitive and discerning in their application of privacy norms, it does not, we would argue, necessarily show that Investigator C’s proposed recruitment technique is unethical. So long as users do not have a valid expectation that researchers will not view their profile, and so long as researchers treat personal information accessed over the application discreetly and confidentially, this sort of recruitment activity can be ethically acceptable.

As these examples show, there will typically be a good deal of overlap between social media recruitment techniques and their off-line analogues. There are, however, several aspects of social media recruitment that are relatively unique to it and that deserve special attention. In the final section of this article, we identify these aspects and analyze them in terms of their ethical implications.

4. Potentially unfamiliar aspects of social media recruitment

Despite the general similarities to traditional recruitment methods, there are several aspects of social media recruitment that are relatively novel and likely to be unfamiliar to investigators and IRBs. In this final section we conclude by recommending concrete guidance on the ethical questions raised by three issues in particular: (i) website policies and ‘terms of use,’ (ii) recruiting from the social networks of current or potential participants, and (iii) managing online communication from and between participants.

4.1. Website policies or ‘terms of use’

The first relatively novel aspect of social media recruitment stems from the existence of website policies or ‘terms of use’ to which users may be asked to agree before entering a site, and to which they may be required to comply while using it, at the risk of being removed from the site and/or subject to legal consequences. Terms of use state the rules of the website on a range of possible issues, including what types of interactions are expected and tolerated on the site, how personal information shared over the site may be used, and who will have access to that information and for what purposes, among other contractual expectations. The existence of these policies demands consideration of what weight to afford them in determining what is and is not acceptable research activity. Because one function of a site’s ‘terms of use’ may be to establish legal expectations and potential liability, it will often be important for investigators and IRBs to work together with institutional legal counsel when deliberating over ambiguous or difficult cases. Here we will leave the legal issues aside and focus specifically on the ethical issues associated with terms of use.

Terms of use establish reasonable expectations among users of different sites that others have reason to honor. If, for example, a website’s terms of use require individuals to agree to refrain from certain online behaviors as a condition of using the site, users of the site can reasonably expect other users to refrain from the prohibited behaviors, and for the website to enforce its policies in cases of breach. Because of this, there should typically be a presumption in favor of researchers complying with terms of use. On occasion, however, there may be countervailing considerations, such as whether a moderator is willing to grant an exception, the site’s own behaviors and attitudes toward its stated terms of use in practice, and more generally whether there are benefits that can outweigh the risks involved with violating terms of use in particular cases.

Imagine, for example, that investigator D wishes to recruit over a patient support site, but the stated ‘terms of use’ restrict access to ‘Patients and Friends and Family only.’ However, a section of the website features prominent navigation (e.g., a dropdown panel or caption heading) for ‘Emerging and Experimental Therapies and Trials.’ In this part of the site there are numerous postings from researchers offering enrollment to members of the site, and archived posts clearly indicate that it is a well-traveled, active area. Investigator D proposes to advertise for the study in this area of the site. The study is likely to yield significant social value and Investigator D anticipates difficulty meeting recruitment targets by other means.

In all situations, we recommend that as part of the protocol submission, investigators either certify compliance with the terms of use on the sites they wish to use for recruitment or alert the IRB if their proposed recruitment techniques fail to comply with the relevant terms of use (or if it is ambiguous whether it complies with them). In this case, then, Investigator D should begin by telling the IRB that the proposed recruitment strategy is in conflict with the site’s explicit terms. If Investigator D nonetheless wishes to pursue the strategy, he should make the case that the situation is sufficiently compelling or that the benefits of the recruitment strategy outweigh the risks, here noting that the website itself is not in compliance with its own terms of use, that recruitment via other avenues is likely to be slow or ineffective, and that the study may provide significant benefit. The IRB should then determine next steps. These might include requiring the investigator to contact the moderator of the website (if one exists) to seek an exception to its stated policies, which is the ideal outcome. Alternatively, depending on the comfort level and with input from institutional counsel, the IRB may decide that the situation is sufficiently compelling to justify approving the strategy in the absence of an explicit exception.

A possible ethical concern with approving recruitment strategies that conflict with published terms of use is the lack of respect for the site itself, or the owner(s) of the site. However, such considerations are not within the purview of IRBs: the mission of the IRB is to protect the rights and interests of research participants. 7 Since the site or site’s owners are not research participants (or potential participants), it is questionable whether IRBs should refuse to approve strategies merely on the grounds that they do not show sufficient consideration for sites or site owners, rather than research participants or potential participants. This is especially the case when complying with the terms of use yields no increase in participant protection and indeed denies individuals the chance to participate in potentially beneficial research.

That said, in these cases, the institution sponsoring the research, rather than the IRB per se, may have reason to respect the site, and attend to the terms of use, which would need to be taken into account in the final analysis and judgment. This differentiation of responsibility supports obtaining institutional guidance and counsel in these cases. Additionally, there is the possibility that a website user could complain about unauthorized recruitment activity that could result in the researcher being banned from the site and have negative consequences for recruitment, which should also be considered by the investigator and IRB. In our view, however, these considerations do not support a categorical prohibition against IRB approval of recruitment techniques that conflict with stated terms of use.

4.2. Recruiting via the networks of others

The second relatively novel aspect of social media recruitment stems from the interconnected nature of social media. One key feature of social media sites is the networking of social media users with ‘friends,’ ‘followers,’ and the like. In many cases these networks can be accessed with relative ease, particularly when an initial participant was recruited using social media (but even if not), and networked individuals may share characteristics relevant for study eligibility. There are, however, risks. Most importantly, this approach risks allowing a participant’s networked ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ to infer protected and sensitive information about them, including their status as research participants or their eligibility for the research—information these individuals have a moral or legal right to keep private. Because of this, investigators and IRBs must be especially attentive to protect the privacy of current or potential participants when considering recruiting via their networks.

Indeed our view is that IRBs should require investigators either to obtain authorization from current or potential research participants before using their online network for recruitment purposes, or to enlist current or potential participants to approach members of their network directly on the research team’s behalf. Exceptions to this requirement will be warranted, however, in situations where the investigator independently identifies the relevant individuals for study recruitment without using the online network of the current or potential participant. What requires someone’s permission, in other words, is not merely recruiting their networked ‘friends’ or ‘followers’ for research—people do not generally hold a right to control who may and who may not be offered the chance to participate in research—but rather that their networked ‘friends’ or ‘followers’ are being identified and targeted using their network .

To illustrate, imagine that researchers have successfully recruited Participant E for a study involving drug use in the LGBTQ community, and now wish to use her social media network to recruit other participants for the same study. Participant E often frequents a LGBTQ bar where there is known drug use, and she sometimes posts pictures of herself and her friends at the bar on Facebook. The researchers want to use this information to contact the friends tagged in one of Participant E’s photos and offer them the chance to participate in the study.

In this case the research team has a strong obligation not to disclose Participant E’s sensitive personal information to members of her online network, such as Participant E’s current enrollment in the research protocol. Because of this, the IRB should require the research team to obtain Participant E’s permission before approaching her friends for recruitment (or potentially to enlist Participant E to approach them herself on the research team’s behalf.) Suppose, however, that the ‘friend’ sought for recruitment is also independently referred to the study by her primary care physician. In that case, the IRB should allow the research team to pursue enrollment of this individual without seeking Participant E’s permission. In other words, the mere presence of a potential participant in another current or potential participant’s social media network is not itself a barrier to recruiting that individual. The key issue is whether the social media network is directly used for recruitment purposes, or whether recruitment occurs by other legitimate means.

4.3. Online participant communication

The third potentially unfamiliar aspect of social media recruitment stems from the possibility of online communication from and between research participants. Social media decreases barriers to connectivity and can dramatically extend the prevalence and reach of communication between researchers and study participants, as well as between study participants (and potential participants) themselves. This is possible even when social media is not utilized for recruitment, but may be even more likely when it is.

Online communication may in some cases have benefits, such as when participants share their positive experiences online in ways that promote positive public perception of research and enrollment into particular studies. But there are also risks to increased participant communication. First, participants who post detailed online descriptions of their experience may jeopardize the scientific integrity of the trial by including information that threatens to un-blind themselves, other participants, or the research team. This may occur, for example, when different participants describe in-detail the interventions they are receiving or how they feel or react to investigational agents, and speculate online about what arm of the trial they are in ( Glickman et al. 2012 ; Marcus 2014 ). Second, participants posting explicitly incorrect information about the trial can undermine the understanding of other participants (and potential participants). Similarly, participants portraying their experiences in an unduly negative light may harm study recruitment and retention and thereby introduce selection bias into the trial. Finally, participants reporting their experiences with certain drugs or devices may unjustifiably influence the public perception and worth of these products ( Robins 2015 ).

The options of investigators for dealing with these types of communication are limited, given that they have no authority to control participant communications or expression short of nondisclosure agreements or termination from the study, both of which are undesirable for a variety of reasons. In our view the best approach is to take steps to educate participants of the risks posed by certain social media communications to the integrity of the study. This might involve the development of educational materials explaining how social media communications may jeopardize the integrity of the trial, or a specific request to each participant to refrain from communications about the trial that could result in un-blinding or misperception. 8 Investigators may also wish to develop a communication plan for addressing these risks, which could identify triggers (e.g., participant speculation on social media about which arm they are in) for interventions from the research team (e.g., corrections of misinformation or reminders about risks of un-blinding). While investigators do not, in our view, have an affirmative obligation to search for ill-advised online posts from participants, they do have an obligation to take steps to correct misinformation and ensure the integrity of the study, when such communications are brought to their attention.

Imagine, for example, that investigator F comes across a Twitter post related to migraines and finds that participants in his study are providing specific health information to others based on their experience in the trial, and incentivizing others to join (e.g. “Currently doing a #migraine study, this #Lupron is great. Join this study it pays and it works! #clinicaltrial”). A tweet of this nature may influence individuals to enroll on the basis of expectation of medical relief, or to misrepresent themselves in order to appear eligible for the trial and receive compensation. It may also threaten to un-blind the research team or other participants. When the integrity of a trial is jeopardized by the dissemination of misleading information, investigators and research institutions have a strong interest in correcting it. In such cases the investigator should post a reminder that the trial is in progress and that this type of speculation can damage the integrity of the trial. Such communication could be part of the IRB-approved communications plan, or may require an amendment to authorize this and similar communications during the trial.

5. Conclusion

The prevalence and popularity of social media is only likely to grow, and with it, the appeal of using social media as a recruitment tool. In this article we have presented a non-exceptionalist methodology for assessing social media recruitment, examined respect for privacy and investigator transparency as two key norms governing social media recruitment, and analyzed three relatively novel aspects of social media recruitment. These efforts, and the appended guidance and checklists, offer important contributions to filling the gap between the growing use of social media in recruitment and the lack of regulatory guidance and bioethical literature on this topic, and will, we hope, make it easier for investigators, institutions, and IRBs to navigate the ethical and regulatory issues. While the ethically relevant differences between social media and more customary recruitment techniques should not be exaggerated, these materials can help to serve as a roadmap for its potentially unfamiliar aspects and contribute to putting social media recruitment in proper ethical perspective as a valuable recruitment tool.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the reviewers of this manuscript for their thoughtful and comprehensive comments, which helped us clarify our views and significantly strengthened the manuscript.

Appendix A: Investigator checklist for proposing social media recruitment

Investigators proposing to recruit via social media are advised to take the following steps:

Provide the IRB with a statement describing the proposed social media recruitment techniques, including:

A list of the sites to be used.

A description of whether recruitment will be passive and/or active.

If utilizing active recruitment, a description of how potential participants will be identified and approached, and their privacy maintained.

Ensure that the social media recruitment strategy complies with applicable federal and state laws.

Provide the IRB with a statement certifying compliance (or lack of noncompliance) with the policies and terms of use of relevant websites, OR if proposed techniques conflict with relevant website policies and Terms of Use:

Seek an exception from the website to its terms of use; provide the IRB with written documentation of the exception, if granted.

Depending on IRB policy, in compelling circumstances make the case that the recruitment strategy should be allowed to proceed in the absence of an exception from the site.

Ensure that the proposed recruitment strategy respects all relevant ethical norms, including:

Proposed recruitment does not involve deception or fabrication of online identities.

Trials are accurately represented in recruitment overtures.

Proposed recruitment does not involve members of research team ‘lurking’ or ‘creeping’ social media sites in ways members are unaware of.

Recruitment will not involve advancements or contact that could embarrass or stigmatize potential participants.

If the research team intends to recruit from the online networks of current or potential study participants:

Provide the IRB with a statement explaining this approach and describing plans to obtain consent and documentation of consent from participants before approaching members of their online networks or to invite the individual themselves to approach members of their network on the research team’s behalf.

Consider whether a formal communication plan is needed for managing social media activities among enrolled participants, including:

Steps to educate participants about the importance of blinding and how certain communications can jeopardize the scientific validity of a study (e.g., a section in the orientation or consent form)

Triggers for intervention from the research team (e.g., misinformation or speculation among participants on social media that could lead to un-blinding)

Interventions from the research team (e.g., corrections of misinformation or reminders about importance of blinding on social media)

Appendix B: IRB checklist for evaluating social media recruitment proposals

IRBs evaluating protocols that propose to recruit via social media should take the following steps:

Seek to normalize social media recruitment to the extent possible, drawing analogies to traditional recruitment efforts.

Ensure that the proposed online recruitment strategy complies with all applicable federal and state laws.

Check that the investigator has certified compliance (or lack of noncompliance) between recruitment techniques and policies/terms of use of relevant websites.

If a proposed technique conflicts with website policies and terms of use, request that the investigator seek a written exception from the site, OR

Depending on IRB policy, request a written statement from the investigator explaining why the recruitment strategy warrants approval without an explicit exception, to be evaluated by the IRB with input from institutional legal counsel.

Ensure that proposed social media recruitment strategies respect all relevant ethical norms, including:

Proposed recruitment does not involve deception or fabrication of online identities

Trials are accurately represented in recruitment overtures

Proposed recruitment does not involve members of research team ‘lurking’ on social media sites in ways members are unaware of

Recruitment will not involve advancements or contact that could embarrass or stigmatize potential participants

Ensure that investigators will obtain consent from current participants before they approach members of their online network for recruitment via their network or invite individuals to approach members of their network on research team’s behalf.

Ensure that a communication plan is in place for how the research team will handle online communication from enrolled participants that threatens the integrity of study.

While the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, a federal advisory committee of the Department of Health and Human Services, has issued non-binding recommendations on internet research generally ( SACHRP 2013 ), those recommendations do not cover recruitment to research or clinical trials specifically in sufficient detail to yield actionable advice on many important issues that concern us here.

Online searches revealed the existence of IRB policies or guidance documents addressing social media recruitment from the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Purdue University, Quorum Review, and The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research (see Works Cited for references and links). There is wide variation among these documents over the topics covered as well as the degree of analysis provided.

The guidance document is “The Use of Social Media in Recruitment to Research: A Guide for Investigators and IRBs.” https://catalyst.harvard.edu/pdf/regulatory/Social_Media_Guidance.pdf .

The federal regulations do permit research involving deception under certain conditions, but even in these situations the value of the research should be weighed against the possible deleterious effects on public trust and whether the research can be done using other, non-deceptive methods.

We acknowledge that researchers have good reason to familiarize themselves with the privacy policy and terms of use of social media platforms, both to evaluate whether the proposed research coheres with a site’s terms of service (see below, Section 4.1) as well as to ensure that the site will not use the data it collects from tracking responses to recruitment ads in ways that violate the Belmont principles. If there is evidence of particular social media platforms failing to respect the rights of its users or acting with blatant disregard for their interests, investigators have strong ethical reasons to avoid using those sites for research purposes.

Respect for the stated terms of use of the site is, however, within the purview of the institution or sponsor of the research, as discussed below.

Such as those developed by the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation, here: https://www.ciscrp.org/primer/ . See also McNair.

Contributor Information

Luke Gelinas, Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School and Harvard Catalyst.

Robin Pierce, Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School and Harvard Catalyst.

Sabune Winkler, Harvard Catalyst.

I. Glenn Cohen, Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School and Harvard Catalyst.

Holly Fernandez Lynch, Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School, Harvard Catalyst, and Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School.

Barbara E. Bierer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard Catalyst.

Works Cited

• Adair C. Establishing IRB Review Policies for Social Media Participant Recruitment and Retention Programs. Quorum Review Institution Bulletin. 2015;5(1e) Available at: http://www.quorumreview.com/2015/03/05/irb-review-policies-social-media-recruitment/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Akard TF, Wray S, Gilmer MJ. Facebook advertisements recruit parents of children with cancer for an online survey of web-based research preferences. Cancer Nursing. 2015;38(2):155–61. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000146. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews C. Social media recruitment: the opportunities and challenges social media provides in the realm of subject recruitment. Applied Clinical Trials. 2012;21(11) 2012e. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd DM. SXSW. Austin, Texas: Mar 13, 2010. [Accessed December 24, 2015]. Making sense of privacy and publicity. Transcript available here: http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html . [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd DM, Ellison NB. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008;13:210–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cornell University Office of Research Integrity and Assurance. [Accessed March 25, 2016];Use of Social Networking Sites or Mobile Devices for Human Participant Research. Available here: https://irb.cornell.edu/.../IRB%20Policy%2020.pdf .
• Farnan JM. Connectivity and Consent: Does Posting Imply Participation? American Journal of Bioethics. 2014;14(10):62–63. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.947823. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Human Subject Protection Program. [Accessed March 25, 2016];Guidance: Recruitment Methods for Clinical Research Studies. Available here: http://www.feinsteininstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Recruitment-Methods-for-Clinical-Research-Studies.pdf .
• Fenner Y, Garland SM, Moore EE, Jayasinghe Y, Fletcher A, Tabrizi SN, Wark JD. Web-based recruiting for health research using a social networking site: an exploratory study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2012;14:e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1978. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frandsen M, Walters J, Ferguson SG. Exploring the viability of using online social media advertising as a recruitment method for smoking cessation clinical trials. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2014;16(2):247–251. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt157. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gearhart J. Clinical Trial Recruitment Using Social Media is Growing. Quorum Review Institution Bulletin. 2015;5(1e) http://www.quorumreview.com/2015/03/05/clinical-trial-recruitment-social-media-growing/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Glickman SW, Galhenage S, McNair L, Barber Z, Patel K, Schulman KA, McHutchison JG. The potential influence of Internet-based social networking on the conduct of clinical research studies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2012;7(1):71–80. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.71. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goadsby PJ. Analysis of occipital nerve stimulation in studies of chronic migraine and broader implications of social media in clinical trials. Cephalalgia. 2013;33(3):214–15. doi: 10.1177/0333102412468680. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorman JR, Roberts SC, Dominick SA, Malcarne VL, Dietz AC, Su HI. A diversified recruitment approach incorporating social media leads to research participation among young adult-aged female cancer survivors. Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology. 2014;3(2):59–65. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2013.0031. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gyure ME, Quillin JM, Rodrigues VM, Markowitz MS, Corona RA, Borzelleca JF, Bowen DJ, Krist AH, Bodurtha JN. Practical Considerations for Implementing Research Recruitment Etiquette. IRB. 2014;36(6):7–12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvard Catalyst Regulatory Foundations, Ethics, and Law Program. The Use of Social Media in Recruitment to Research: A Guide for Investigators and IRBs. Available here: https://catalyst.harvard.edu/pdf/regulatory/Social_Media_Guidance.pdf .
• Heffner JL, Wyszynski CM, Comstock B, Mercer LD, Bricker J. Overcoming recruitment challenges of web-based interventions for tobacco use: the case of web-based acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation. Addictive Behavior. 2013;38(10):2473–2476. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.05.004. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Indiana University Office of Research Compliance. [Accessed April 2, 2015];Research Using Online Tools and Mobile Devices. http://researchcompliance.iu.edu/hso/hs_online_mobile.html .
• Johns Hopkins Office of Human Subjects Research. [Accessed April 2, 2015];Recruiting Study Subjects. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/guidelines_policies/guidelines/study_subject_recruitment.html .
• Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons. 2010;53(1):59–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kobayashi Y, Boudreault P, Hill K, Sinsheimer JS, Palmer CG. Using a social marketing framework to evaluate recruitment of a prospective study of genetic counseling and testing for the deaf community. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13:145. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-145. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madden M, Lenhart A, Cortesi S, Gasser U, Duggan M, Smith A, Beaton M. Teens, Social Media, and Privacy. Pew Research Internet Project. 2013 Available here: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/
• Marcus AD. Researchers fret as social media lifts veil on drug trials. [Accessed December 20, 2015];The Wall Street Journal July. 2014 29:2014. At: http://www.wsj.com/articles/researchers-fret-as-social-media-lift-veil-on-drug-trials-1406687404 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez O, Wu E, Shultz AZ, Capote J, Lopez Rios J, Sandfort T, Manusov J, Ovejero H, Carballo-Dieguez A, Chavez Baray S, Moya E, Lopez Matos J, DelaCruz JJ, Remien RH, Rhodes SD. Still a hard-to-reach population? Using social media to recruit Latino gay couples for an HIV intervention adaptation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2014;16(4):e113. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3311. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McNair L. Clinical Trials and Social Media: Friends or Foes? [Accessed December 24, 2015];WIRB Copernicus Group White Paper. Posted on November 4, 2015. At http://www.wcgclinical.com/clinical-trials-social-media-friends-foes/
• Morgan AJ, Jorm AF, Mackinnon AJ. Internet-based recruitment to a depression prevention intervention: Lessons from the Mood Memos study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013;15(2):e31. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2262. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsi K, Elster N. Conducting Research on Social Media—Is Facebook Like the Public Square? American Journal of Bioethics. 2014;14(10):63–64. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.947825. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puffer S, Torgerson D. Recruitment difficulties in randomised controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 2003;24:S214–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Purdue University Human Research Protection Program. [Accessed March 30, 2016];Recruitment of Human Participants. https://www.irb.purdue.edu/docs/Guidance_Recruitment_of_Human_Participants.pdf .
• Quorum Review IRB. [Accessed March 30, 2016];Top Considerations for Using Social Media in Research. Available at: http://www.quorumreview.com/2012/12/04/social-media-research/
• Ramo DE, Prochaska JJ. Broad reach and targeted recruitment using Facebook for an online survey of young adult substance use. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2012;14:e28. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1878. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robins R. A shattering crash, an online chronicle, and an unexpected twist. [Accessed October 12, 2015];Boston Globe, August. 2015 21:2015. At: https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2015/08/21/invivo/4IPQGotWl43ipD3E2zufdO/story.html . [ Google Scholar ]
• Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections. Considerations and Recommendations Concerning Internet Research and Human Subjects Research Regulations. 2013 http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/mtgings/2013%20March%20Mtg/internet_research.pdf .
• Shere M, Zhao XY, Koren G. The role of social media in recruiting for clinical trials in pregnancy. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e92744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092744. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sitar S, Hartman BI, Graham BS, Ledgerwood GE. Social media as a tool for engaging and educating audiences around HIV vaccine research and clinical trial participation. Retrovirology. 2009;6(Supplement 3):218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suler J. The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior. 2004;7(3):321–326. doi: 10.1089/1094931041291295. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swirsky ES, Hoop JG, Labott S. Using Social Media in Research: New Ethics for a New Meme? American Journal of Bioethics. 2014;14(10):60–61. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.948302. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taddicken M. The ‘privacy paradox’ in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2013;19(2):248–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor HA, Kuwana E, Wilfond BS. Ethical Implications of Social Media in Health Care Research. American Journal of Bioethics. 2014;14(10):58–59. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.947820. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tweet MS, Gulati R, Aase LA, Hayes SN. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: A disease-specific, social networking community-initiated study. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2011;86:845–50. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2011.0312. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• University of Pennsylvania IRB. [Accessed March 30, 2016];Guidance on Recruitment and Research Using Social Media. http://www.upenn.edu/IRB/sites/default/files/IRB%20Social%20Media%20Guidance_March%202015_FINAL%20(2).pdf .
• Wertheimer Alan. Non-completion and informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2013;40:127–130. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-101108. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (102.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

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 media research: We are publishing more but with weak influence

Roles Methodology

Affiliation Department of Marketing, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

Roles Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Business Administration, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Jounieh, Lebanon

• Samer Elhajjar, 
• Laurent Yacoub

• Published: February 8, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The purpose of this paper is to address the chasm between academic research on social media as an expanding academic discipline and at the same time a growing marketing function. A bibliometric analysis indicated the evolution of academic research on social media. The results of a survey of 280 social media practitioners shed the light on the gap between academic social media research and the practice of professionals. A qualitative study also offered novel insights and recommendations for future developments in academic research on social media. The findings of this paper showed that academic research on social media is growing in terms of the number of publications but is struggling in three areas: visibility, relevance, and influence on practitioners. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on social media. The implications of our study are derived from the importance of our findings on the directions to publish more relevant and timely academic research on social media. While extensive studies exist on social media, their influence on practitioners is still limited.

Citation: Elhajjar S, Yacoub L (2024) Social media research: We are publishing more but with weak influence. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0297241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241

Editor: Alhamzah F. Abbas, UTM Skudai: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, MALAYSIA

Received: July 27, 2023; Accepted: January 1, 2024; Published: February 8, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Elhajjar, Yacoub. 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 manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The data underlying the results presented in the study are from Scopus ( http://www.scopus.com/ ).

Funding: The author received no specific funding for this work.

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

Introduction

In the early 1960s, academics began to advocate that marketing should gain rigor by relying on a scientific approach that respects requirements in terms of the state of knowledge, the hypotheses development, the methodology, and the analysis and interpretation of results [ 1 – 5 ]. This traditional conception of rigor has, over the years, fuelled the need to acquire tools to better evaluate, recognise and promote it. Thus, first in the United States, and now in almost all countries, various stakeholders use rankings of scientific journals, mainly Anglo-Saxon, which often consider their impact factors according to the Journal Citation Report (JCR) of the Science Citation Index or the Social Science Citation Index. Quality accreditation bodies for higher education management institutions have also followed suit by offering journal ranking lists.

However, since the early 1980s, the debate between rigor and relevance in the production and dissemination of marketing knowledge has been prominent in the literature. There is a serious concern about how academics are evaluating the impact of their research. As if the focus of marketing researchers is to improve their citation records rather than developing practical implications for practitioners. Shouldn’t marketing scholarship, when applied to practical issues, aim to harmonize rigor and relevance right from the start? How did we arrive at this risk of divorce and the need to reconcile thoroughness and applicability?

In fact, in some fields, such as pharmacy, where breakthroughs in medical procedures and the discovery of new pharmaceuticals result in societal benefits, the influence of research is simple to grasp. This effect is more difficult to detect in social media. In the discipline of marketing, for example, there have been allegations that research has strayed too far from the interests of practitioners. In turn, researchers point out the flaws in present professional methods [ 6 ]. Indeed, some in the marketing research community believe that many practical concerns that worry professional marketers are unworthy of researchers’ attention. This is mainly because of a long-standing misguidance of business schools [ 7 ] since their research is less and less influential [ 8 – 11 ]. Several studies confirm that the impact of academic research on business practices has been disappointing and that innovations have come from the consulting community, the business press, and professional associations [ 12 – 15 ].

This article aimed to identify whether there is a gap between rigor and relevance in academic research on social media. It also proposed ways for marketing researchers to foster relevance. In general, this article responded to two research questions: Is there a chasm between academic social media research and social media practitioners? How to reconcile the rigor and relevance of social media research?

The originality of this research lies in its specific focus on bridging the potential gap between rigor and relevance within the realm of academic research on social media. While social media has become an integral part of contemporary society and communication [ 16 ], there is a growing concern that academic investigations in this domain may sometimes prioritize theoretical rigor at the expense of practical applicability [ 17 ]. By addressing this issue, the research seeks to contribute significantly to the field by shedding light on the balance between rigorous methodologies and the real-world applicability of social media research findings. This unique perspective not only emphasizes the importance of ensuring academic work remains pertinent and useful in a rapidly evolving digital landscape but also offers valuable insights for researchers, educators, and policymakers striving to navigate the intricate intersection of academia and social media’s dynamic environment.

To answer our research questions, the paper was structured as follows. First, we examined the theoretical foundations of academic marketing research. Second, the research design and methodology of our three investigations were then described. Our first study involved a social media research bibliometric analysis with the goal of describing the evolution and development of academic social media research. Our second study gathered feedback and information from social media practitioners. Our third study listed suggestions for academic researchers. The three studies worked in tandem to create a comprehensive picture of academic research on social media. They offered historical context, practical insights, and actionable recommendations, collectively contributing to a holistic understanding of how researchers can bridge the gap between rigor and relevance in the dynamic realm of social media. Lastly, we listed the contributions of our study and their implications for future research.

Literature review

Academic marketing research has two purposes: first, to advance marketing theory, and second, to improve marketing practice [ 18 ]. On the one hand, theory ought to give academics fresh ideas, conceptual frameworks, and resources to aid in their understanding of marketing phenomena. On the other side, research should give marketers direction for making better decisions. As a result, marketing academics should address issues with the development of marketing theory’s rigor and its applicability to marketing practice [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, leading academic voices have expressed worry about the gap between marketing theory and practice. Reibstein et al. [ 20 ], for example, have questioned if marketing academia has lost its way, while Sheth and Sisodia [ 21 ] have urged for a reform. In a similar vein, Hunt [ 22 ] advised revising both marketing’s discipline and practice, while McCole [ 23 ] proposed strategies to refocus marketing theory on changing practice. Rust et al. [ 24 ] argue for reorienting marketing in firms to become more customer-centric, and Kotler [ 25 ] advocates for marketing theory and practice to conform to environmental imperatives. Also, because the business landscape is dynamic, Webster Jr. and Lusch [ 26 ] believe that marketing’s goal, premises, and models should be rethought. Finding answers to these problems keeps marketing from becoming obsolete [ 27 ] and marginalised [ 20 ], both as a discipline and as an organizational function [ 28 ].

According to the literature [ 29 , 30 ], marketing scholars have lost sight of both rigor and relevance. As a result, many scholarly journals have made it normal practice to provide implications and suggestions [ 31 ], their actual influence has been insignificant [ 20 ]. Many marketing academics have failed to address substantive topics [ 18 ], resulting in a loss of relevance [ 30 , 20 ] and a drop in marketing expertise [ 32 ].

The efforts of certain institutions (e.g., Marketing Science Institute), conferences (e.g., Theory + Practice in Marketing–TPM), and leading journals’ special issues on marketing theory and practice to bridge this gap are well recognised, with the goal of fostering dialogue and collaboration between marketing scholars and practitioners. Several solutions for bridging the marketing theory–practice gap have also emerged from existing literature: adopting the perspective of rigor–and–relevance in research [ 27 , 33 ]; focusing on emerging phenomena [ 34 , 35 ]; positioning research implications to the higher business level rather than the narrow level of the marketing department [ 36 ]; running role-relevant research driven by a deep understanding of the core tasks of the marketing department; translating research results into actionable recommendations [ 23 , 37 ].

In sum, marketing research has been criticised for not having an impact on practice since it is primarily focused on writing for other scholars and not for practitioners who might benefit from marketing research to address practical issues. Equivalently, publishing marketing research that is more useful for practitioners implies that there should be a well-functioning nexus between the theory and the marketing tools and techniques that practitioners need to deal with practical issues. In the context of social media, we still don’t know whether academic publications have an impact on practitioners. In other terms, one may ask whether social media practitioners read academic articles or refer to these publications in their practices.

Our paper considered the gaps between the theory and practice of social media and identifies where they exist. Some possible explanations for the gaps can be explored which may be of interest to both academics working in the field.

We conducted a bibliometric study, consisting of the collection, summarizing, assessing, and monitoring of published research, to create an up-to-date overview of the current marketing research on social media and statistically assess the associated literature [ 38 , 39 ]. Scopus, one of the most complete databases of academic articles, served as our data source. It indexes 12,850 periodicals in various categories and contains articles published since 1966. Scopus was chosen over Web of Science for two reasons. First, as researchers faced a trade‐off between data coverage and cleanliness, Scopus has been discovered to have a larger coverage (60% larger) than Web of Science [ 40 ]. Second, bibliometric studies in marketing research often employ only one database to avoid data homogeneity problems that could arise when using numerous databases [ 41 ].

To search the database, we first identified two keywords related to our study: “social media”, and “social media marketing”, we ran a query using a combination of these keywords (adopting the Boolean operator “OR”) in the fields related to “title,” “abstract,” and “keywords.” We considered works published only in business journals until October 2022. Proceedings, book chapters, and books were excluded from further consideration. To filter this data, we relied on a screening process. Documents were excluded based on whether they are not published in English and/or not available for the project team.

We placed the highest priority on maintaining the reliability of our dataset, which we accomplished by adhering to protocol. This protocol was carried out in four distinct phases: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion, as elaborated in Fig 1 . Using Mendeley’s robust features, we structured all identified studies in an organized format consisting of author names, titles, and publication years. Additionally, we conducted a thorough check to detect and remove any duplicate studies, ensuring the dataset’s cleanliness and integrity.

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.g001

After applying our selection criteria rigorously, our initial search of the Scopus database produced a substantial dataset comprising 5345 research works. This dataset encompassed a wide range of information, including author names, article titles, the countries of corresponding authors, publication counts, comprehensive citation statistics (total citations, average article citations, and the number of citing articles, both with and without self-citations), journal sources, keywords, geographical distribution by countries, and author-level metrics. A detailed workflow outlining our selection process is depicted in Fig 1 , providing a comprehensive overview of our systematic approach.

To further enhance the comprehensiveness of our research, we implemented a backward search strategy. In this phase, we scrutinized the reference lists of the retained studies for our final review but did not identify any additional studies relevant to our research objectives.

Once we finalized our ultimate dataset, we examined the complete text of each article. We extracted and organized all pertinent information essential for our review. To streamline this process, we developed a structured data extraction tool specifically designed to record and concisely summarize the crucial details necessary to address our research inquiries. This approach aimed to minimize potential human errors and enhance procedural transparency.

The data coding phase unfolded in two distinct steps. Initially, we subjected the data extraction form to a rigorous pilot evaluation using a select sample of the finalized articles. Two of our co-authors independently conducted data extractions from this sample, allowing for a meticulous cross-check to identify and rectify any technical issues, including completeness and the form’s usability. In the second step of data coding, each article received a unique identifier. One co-author examined the complete text of each article, coding the data into specific categories, such as article title, publication year, geographic market focus, and research theme. To ensure the utmost accuracy and reliability, a second co-author rigorously reviewed the extraction form and conducted a random sample check for cross-validation. Any discrepancies or disagreements that arose during this process were thoroughly discussed and resolved to maintain the integrity of our data coding efforts.

Then, we proceeded to conduct a comprehensive performance analysis. Within this evaluation, we scrutinized various metrics to gauge the scholarly contributions. Among the myriad measures assessed, two stood out as particularly prominent indicators of research impact. The first criterion was the number of publications produced per year or per research constituent, serving as a robust proxy for productivity and output. The second metric revolved around citations, a paramount gauge of the work’s influence and impact within the academic community. As mentioned by Donthu et al. [ 42 ], these dual facets—publication and citation—equally underscore the multifaceted nature of scholarly contributions.

Fig 2 shows the evolution of publications on social media research. Academic research was keeping up with the growth of social media platforms. In fact, since 2010, the number of social media users has significantly increased, the number of social media networks has grown, and the social media platforms evolved from direct electronic information exchange to virtual gathering place.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.g002

These publications have collectively accumulated a total of 2,351 citations. Further dissecting this data, we found that the average citation per document stands at 0.43. Moreover, the h-index, a key indicator gauging both the productivity and influence of a researcher’s body of work, stands at 16. This signifies that a minimum of 16 citations have been garnered by these publications.

Overall, the studies have been conducted in 52 countries. The greatest share of research has been carried out in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, Australia, and China. Business journals publishing on social media were also listed in our findings. They included a range of marketing journals (e.g., Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science; International Journal of Research in Marketing; Journal of Marketing; Marketing Intelligence and Planning; Journal of Interactive Marketing; Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing; Psychology and Marketing), business research journals (Journal of Business Research; EuroMed Journal of Business; Business Horizons; Journal of Business Media studies), and management journals (e.g., European Management Review). In general, the Marketing journals and business research journals dominated this list. The most cited paper was the classical article on the challenges and opportunities of social media published by Kaplan and Haeinlein in Business Horizons, which has received more than 27000 citations. Next, we found three papers with more than 5000 citations and 10 additional ones with over 2000 citations.

In our study, the abstracts were assessed for the keywords "theory" and "model" to identify theories and models that the social media study added to, and to explore the many theoretical lenses used to guide the research. In total, 321 papers had an abstract that included a theory or model. There were 19 different theories initiated from those works. Theory of gratification, the theory of technology acceptance, and the theory of planned behavior are the most used theories in social media research.

Next, we conducted a keyword co‐occurrence analysis aimed at identifying the main keywords i.e., academic research on social media. By investigating the relationships between keywords, keyword co-occurrence analyses helped us to represent and comprehend the literature of a scientific topic. VOSviewer package of Van Eck and Waltman [ 43 ] was used to generate bibliometric analysis which has been widely adopted in the literature [ 44 ]. VOS is superior to multidimensional scaling for constructing bibliometric analyses and maps [ 43 ], so we did not involve multidimensional scaling. The results of our keyword analysis are shown in Fig 3 . The size of the circles in the graphic representation indicates which keywords had the highest levels of co-occurrence throughout the examination of keyword co-occurrence. Social networking platforms, consume behaviour, marketing, sustainability, and economic and social effects are among the most important keywords used by social media researchers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.g003

Social media research has identified several prominent topics that have garnered significant attention in recent years. One of these is the impact of social media on mental health [ 45 ]. Researchers have been exploring how various aspects of social media use, such as the quantity and quality of online interactions, content consumption, and platform design, influence individuals’ mental well-being. This includes investigations into the links between social media use and consumer well-being [ 46 ].

Another critical area of focus in social media research is the spread of misinformation and fake news [ 47 ]. The mechanisms behind the dissemination of false information on social media platforms have been extensively examined, along with their effects on public opinion, trust, and political polarization. Researchers have sought to understand how the algorithms, echo chambers, and filter bubbles on these platforms contribute to the propagation of misinformation [ 47 ].

Influencer marketing is another hot topic in social media research [ 48 ]. The effectiveness of influencer partnerships, issues related to authenticity, and the ethical considerations surrounding sponsored content have all come under scrutiny. Researchers are also exploring how influencers shape consumer behavior, affecting choices and preferences [ 49 ].

Political communication on social media has attracted significant attention, particularly regarding its impact on election campaigns, policy-making, and public discourse. Scholars have examined how algorithms, the presence of filter bubbles, and the formation of echo chambers can influence political opinions and contribute to polarization [ 50 ].

Privacy and data security issues are ongoing concerns in the realm of social media research. These studies investigate user privacy, data breaches, and the effects of privacy settings on various social media platforms [ 51 ].

Research into user behavior and engagement on social media platforms is fundamental for understanding trends, virality, and the factors that drive user interactions. Numerous research studies have delved into the impact of social media on consumer behavior, offering valuable insights into this dynamic relationship [ 52 ]. The concept of social proof, where people tend to follow the actions and preferences of others, is well-established in social media research [ 53 ]. The fear of missing out (FOMO) also drives consumer behavior, as limited time offers and exclusive deals on social media can prompt quick purchasing decisions [ 54 ].

Several emerging trends in social media research are shaping the field’s future direction. One of these is the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning into research methodologies [ 55 ]. AI is being used for sentiment analysis, content recommendation, and identifying trends within large datasets [ 56 ].

Blockchain technology is also gaining traction as a means to enhance trust and transparency in social media interactions. Researchers are exploring its potential in content authentication and combating fake news [ 57 ].

Ethical considerations surrounding AI algorithms on social media platforms are a growing concern. Research in this area focuses on issues of bias, fairness, and the ethical responsibility of tech companies in algorithm design and implementation [ 58 ].

Cross-cultural and global perspectives in social media research are becoming more prevalent, with studies investigating how social media usage varies across cultures and regions and the global impact of social media trends [ 59 – 61 ].

Looking ahead, future research in social media could consider the long-term effects of social media usage on individuals and societies, including potential generational attitudes and behaviors. Advocacy for increased algorithmic transparency on social media platforms and the study of its impact on user experiences and content distribution is another important direction for future research. Research into how humans and AI can collaborate to enhance content moderation, fact-checking, and information verification on social media platforms will become increasingly relevant. Finally, as concerns about environmental sustainability grow, future research could investigate the environmental impact of data centres and the carbon footprint associated with social media platforms.

Building upon the insights garnered from our initial study, our research journey continued with two subsequent investigations. The second study delved into the world of social media practitioners, extracting valuable feedback and information. In parallel, our third study synthesized a comprehensive list of suggestions tailored specifically for academic researchers. These two complementary endeavors, while distinct in focus, formed integral components of our overarching quest to bridge the gap between theory and practice in the realm of social media.

Numerous academics and commentators have recently claimed that marketing scholarship has stopped being sufficiently creative and has grown more disassociated from actual practice. A rush of recent special journal issues, editors’ forums, and studies on the seeming research/practice gap in marketing have been linked to such worries. While some contend that the goal of marketing research should be to enhance rather than merely describe, understand, or criticise marketing activity, a possible divide between practitioners’ and academics’ concerns appears to have formed.

Academic research, characterized by its systematic inquiry, rigor, and peer-reviewed dissemination, represents a cornerstone of knowledge production and dissemination across various fields and disciplines. Yet, the extent to which social media practitioners engage with, trust, and value academic research remains a subject of limited empirical inquiry. This gap in our understanding is particularly pertinent given the increasingly complex and intertwined relationship between social media and academia.

While a growing body of literature has explored the impact of social media on academic research dissemination and public engagement [ 62 , 63 ], relatively few studies have focused on the reverse perspective—how social media practitioners perceive and interact with academic research. In response to this gap, Study 2 aims to delve deeper into this important facet of the digital age information ecosystem.

The sample frame for this study consisted of 280 social media practitioners. Emails were sent to 441 marketers explaining the project and posing their participation. To improve response rates, a cover letter and a survey instruction letter were sent to all potential respondents [ 64 ]. The overall response rate from the participating companies was 63.5 percent. Table 1 displays the characteristics of the participants. To facilitate the process of reaching social media professionals, we collaborated with a local professional marketing body. This collaboration provided us with access to their membership database and allowed us to leverage their network to identify and contact potential participants. Our data collection initiative unfolded over the course of three months, spanning from November 2022 to January 2023.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.t001

The selection of a sample frame comprising 280 social media practitioners for this study was well-justified on several grounds. Firstly, this choice was rooted in the research’s primary objective, which seeks to gain valuable insights into the perspectives of professionals actively engaged in the field of social media. Moreover, the sample size of 280 was both practical and feasible, considering the available resources and the capacity for efficient data collection and analysis. This size also ensured the statistical significance of the study’s findings, reducing the likelihood that results are simply due to random chance. Ultimately, this choice of sample frame aligned with the study’s research goals, methodological considerations, and ethical principles, strengthening the validity and reliability of the study’s outcomes.

Results showed that only 2% read an academic paper every quarter. Less than 1% of our respondents believed that academic research had an impact on their decisions and activities. Participants of our survey indicated that social media platforms, practical eBooks, specialised websites, and newspapers and magazines are their main sources of knowledge. Fig 4 shows the responses of the participants to the following question: What media or tools do you use to acquire knowledge in social media?

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.g004

Participants mentioned that they use the previously mentioned tools to mainly gain more information about the latest trends in the fields of social media and technology. Others read market analysis reports and practical reports, while the rest use the templates developed by marketing institutes and digital marketing agencies (See Table 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.t002

Respondents shared their perceptions of marketing academics. Academics were regarded as being elitist because they use their own jargon, speak in convoluted scientific terms, strive to publish at all costs, and do little to advance practice. Moreover, most of our participants raised negative criticisms towards the academic research on social media. For them, academic research lacks usefulness, relevance, and visibility (see Table 3 ). Respondents were also asked what the ideal focus of an academic journal should be on. Results show that the most important areas of focus are: (1) practical cases, (2) best practice sharing and (3) dissemination of new ideas. According to the respondents, the least focus should be placed on theoretical models.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.t003

Building upon the insights gained in our second study, we transition into our third investigation, which, like the second, continues to focus on social media practitioners. This continuity underscores the importance of deepening our understanding of their experiences, challenges, and expertise within the ever-evolving social media landscape. In this manner, our research endeavors maintain a cohesive narrative, as we gather comprehensive feedback from practitioners to inform our ongoing quest for practical solutions and academic contributions.

11 online focus groups were held with 69 social media practitioners between March and June 2023. Focus groups are a popular qualitative research method for producing cutting-edge findings. This approach was designed and justified to ensure the rigor and comprehensiveness of our research. By opting for a series of focus groups, we aimed to capture a diverse range of perspectives within the field of social media, considering its dynamic nature and the variety of roles practitioners may hold. Smaller groups can lead to more in-depth discussions and allow each participant to contribute meaningfully [ 65 ]. Furthermore, conducting these sessions during a specific time frame ensured that our data remained relevant and reflective of contemporary practices. The approach also provided opportunities for data validation and triangulation, enhancing the trustworthiness of our findings. Overall, the methodology aligned with the study’s objectives, maximizes data richness, and accounts for practical constraints, ultimately enhancing the robustness and credibility of our research.

The moderator and participants must be chosen for the online focus group to grow well. For the role of moderator, the focus group was facilitated by one of the researchers with experience in conducting online focus groups, whose main role was to encourage an open and relaxed discussion, keep the discussion relevant and probe into areas that needed clarification. A relaxed atmosphere was created to improve interaction and the free flow of ideas and opinions. ‘Starter’ questions were used at the focus group sessions to seed the discussions about the role of academic research.

We did not predetermine the number of focus groups, but we did adhere to the principles of saturation and ceased gathering data when there was no more material to add. The focus groups lasted between 62 and 91 min, with an average length of 73 min. We purposively selected information-rich participants [ 66 ] by using the authors’ networks and snowball sampling. All the participants had a strong understanding of social media, having more than three years of experience in digital marketing. An emailing list of marketing professionals was already developed by the researchers. Those professionals already participated in a previous survey or engaged in an academic activity (example: guest talk, judging a case competition, industry speech to the students). The sample frame for this study consisted of 69 marketing professionals in Singapore, France, and Lebanon. Emails were sent to 130 marketing professionals explaining the project and posing their participation. All potential respondents received a cover letter and a letter outlining the survey’s requirements to increase response rates. The overall response rate from the participating companies was 53 percent. Industries included high-tech, investment, banking, media, logistics, retailing, and healthcare. 55.07% of the sample salespeople were males with a mean age of 33 years.

Each focus group was transcribed and reviewed by an independent researcher. Using computer-based qualitative analysis software, the authors created the initial codes (QSR NVivo 12 Plus). To work methodically through the complete focus group data set and give each data item its full and equal attention, the authors scheduled frequent follow-up meetings. Then, the authors used a data-driven thematic analysis approach to look for themes that were strongly connected with the data but unrelated to the topics posed during the focus groups. To ensure that the themes formed a logical structure, the authors revised and improved the topics. To make sure that each theme appropriately reflected the meanings visible in the entire data set, the authors specifically went back to the transcripts. The final thematic categories underwent numerous rounds of editing to verify that they accurately translated the empirical data and were free of overlapping meanings. They also established connections between the detected themes and previously published works of literature. The trustworthiness of the authors’ later findings, which were demonstrated and backed by a comprehensive collection of data quotations, required such iterative analysis to be improved. Finally, the authors created a report by summarizing the results and highlighting how the new research has added to the body of knowledge. Reports were sent to all the study participants to obtain their feedback. The feedback validated the findings.

Before conducting a thematic analysis, textual data were analyzed using VOSviewer software. The software can automatically and precisely identify the keywords that frequently exist in a large text. VOSviewer analysis needs data files in.txt or.csv format for analysis. As such, all data files were converted from.docx to.txt format and uploaded to the software. The research generated many keywords, each of which was represented by a circle based on how frequently it appeared in the transcripts. The higher the frequency of occurrence of a theme in the textual data or transcripts, the larger the size of the circle (See Fig 5 ). We identified 10 topical keywords: 1) relevance; 2) automation; 3) artificial intelligence; 4) technology; 5) exposure; 6) partnership; 7) big data; 8) innovation; 9) analytics; and 10) trends. These keywords are intelligible with the importance of publishing relevant and visible academic research to practitioners. This analysis also shows that technology, automation, and artificial intelligence are among the main interests of our participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.g005

In this section, we present the findings of our thematic analysis. To answer our research questions, our findings shed the light on 1) the problems of academic research on social media; and (2) the participants’ recommendations to improve the managerial and practical impact of academic research on social media.

A primary finding of this research was related to the current challenges the academic research on social media. All our participants thought that the lack of visibility of academic articles is the main problem of academic research. All of them mentioned that they are not aware of the academic journals in the field of social media and are not exposed to the academic articles. Participants believed that academic institutions and researchers don’t promote research works to practitioners, as described in the following paragraph:

I think academic research is not visible for professionals like us [ … ] I believe that academics need to invest more time with practitioners and present the results of their research . As things stand like this , we are not even aware of what researchers are doing .

(Participant 13, Digital Marketing Manager, 10 years of experience).

The participants also mentioned that the lack of relevance for research in social media—is overwhelming: the gap between social media research and its practice looks abysmal, even irreconcilable, and practitioners’ interest in the research produced by researchers is very limited. The relevance dimension relates to the originality of the results. However, according to the participants, the nature of originality differs between researchers and social media managers. The originality expected by social media practitioners is established in reference to their daily practice (there is originality when the results question the practices in use) whereas the originality for researchers has as reference the universe of theories (there is originality when the results question existing knowledge). And this has implications for the researcher concerned with relevance. If he or she evolves in the world of theories and is, therefore, able to detect what constitutes original results, as quotes of participant 24 depict:

We are looking for new and original contributions [ … ] We expect to read something that we don’t know and can help us in our job .

(Participant 24, Social Media Coordinator, 5 years of experience).

The participants felt that there is an obvious time gap between researchers and practitioners: Thus, the researcher took liberties with research time which, in the eyes of the marketers, sometimes made the results obsolete. This perspective of a two-speed world (always slow for research, very fast for marketers) brought with it the idea that researchers are disconnected from business constraints and realities, as depicted in the following quote:

We don’t work much with marketing researchers because there is too much of a time gap.

(Participant 43, Marketing Manager, 13 years of experience).

Another problem noticed by our participants concerns editorial style and the dissemination of the writings. On the one hand, practitioners knew that vocabulary is an element of a researcher’s scientific capital. It is a proof of legitimacy and a mark of identity. On the other hand, they also considered the scientific writing style complex and difficult. In fact, according to our participants, the latter do not read academic articles because they are not trained to understand their content, which is often too specific, abstract, written in specialised jargon, and peppered with references and methodological details. Social media practitioners look for easy-to-understand texts that address the real world and offer cutting-edge ideas, digital marketing trends, or advice that help prevent or solve crises, address challenges, or stay competitive in the digital world.

For our participants, the questions addressed in the research work must be in phase with the concerns of social media practitioners and the challenges facing companies. They must therefore deal with current, and even future, topics, as these are the ones that interest practitioners and can help digital marketers make a difference, stand out and progress in their practices. Therefore, many of our participants said that the topics that social media researchers tackle may neither be important nor interesting for them. In this sense, participant 3 expressed the following:

Research is not at all intriguing . It is very difficult for me to understand and covers subjects that I don’t find interesting .

(Participant 3, Social Media Specialist, 5 years of experience)

The participants listed several recommendations to improve the practical impact of academic research on social media. First, there is a need to improve the visibility and exposure of the academic articles to the practitioners. Academics can think about organizing conferences and seminars to present their results to practitioners. Joint seminars involving academics and practitioners might be planned in this order to increase the practical value of academic research. Also, academics, according to our participants, can publish the results of their results in practice websites. Researchers should also be more active on social networks and try to use less scientific and more practical language in their blogs to explain the importance of their results to social media practitioners. Participants think that researchers should share specific recommendations for practitioners through YouTube. For instance, they can practically explain how to increase social media engagement and how to improve the online reputation of a company. Moreover, professional associations and professional institutes can play an important role in transmitting academic research findings to practitioners.

In addition to presenting at practitioner conferences, writing in traditional crossover journals for practitioners as well as in shorter pieces like op-eds and blogs, and attracting the attention of those who publish columns, blogs, and articles about research for practitioners, participants discussed other ways that scholars can share pertinent research insights with practitioners. Second, participants suggested involving practitioners in research, conducting research in partnership with companies. Implementing collaborative research is not easy, however. It assumes that researchers and social media managers can navigate both worlds and comply with the rules of the game specific to each universe. Participants emphasised the importance of developing ecosystems that bring together researchers and companies to pool resources from both sides to tackle shared issues. Offering a place to share problems and solutions is relevant and improves the efficiency of efforts, whether through knowledge sharing, financial support mechanisms (sponsorship), or—the implementation of joint field studies. Social media practitioners should play an important part in the co-production of research and so shape how new social media plans and ideas are developed. Participant 19 said:

I think researchers need to bridge the gap with professionals [ … ] A key element here is : collaboration . The collaboration will help both parties . The researchers will be able to co-create knowledge with the practitioners , and the latter will get new perspectives from the researchers .

(Participant 19, Marketing Executive, 20 years of experience)

Additionally, social media practitioners can collaborate with researchers to co-produce research, as shown by examples where they have served as data sources, recipients, commissioners, endorsers, and co-researchers on collaborative projects. For two crucial reasons, it is uncommon for practitioners to write on discipline-based research. The first is that academic journals have historically been less likely to publish articles on topics that are of interest to both academics and practitioners and on which they may collaborate in research. If any such research is done, it might be published in journals geared toward practitioners, but these publications don’t seem to get the attention or credit required to improve an academic’s reputation or career. Second, because practitioners lack training in the vocabulary, tools, and processes of research analysis, co-production is uncommon. To promote the generation and dissemination of information, business schools might suggest research training for practitioners and can create networks between practitioners and academics.

Third, practitioners recommended research to tackle specific, relevant, and “real-world” topics. Practitioners look for research that can provide new insight and information, which goes beyond intuition. This relevance non-obviousness test determines whether research meets or exceeds a practitioner’s intuition. So, the research topic must evoke a real marketing problem and the focus should be directed toward helping practitioners with new insights or knowledge. Then, researchers should convert this info into practice and communicate the same in jargon-free language. Social media research should concentrate on know-how rather than know-what and need to mainly rely less on theory to the virtual exclusion of practitioner utility. It is also suggested that researchers consider the results of surveys that some academic or professional organizations periodically conduct to identify practitioner needs and challenges.

Making social media research more relevant does not mean neglecting its rigor, but rather reconciling these two qualities. This "research/teaching/transfer" synergy implies changes in thinking, acting, and managing on the part of all stakeholders: faculty, policymakers, and the management of educational institutions. Participants proposed recommendations for promoting relevance at each stage of this process. Thus, according to them, research must: 1) focus on marketing problems that face practitioners and on variables that practitioners can influence; 2) analyze the interactions between, people, organizations, and the industry and their impact on marketing performance indicators deemed important by practitioners; 3) generate results that cannot be deduced intuitively and that are quickly transferred to practitioners.

Furthermore, participants thought that there is a need to investigate the effect of media on consumers, value formation and their interplay with purchase decisions, and optimization of social media marketing tools that marketing practitioners can use in their everyday jobs. Table 4 presents examples of suggested topics by our participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.t004

Fourth, social media research needs to provide recommendations that motivate practitioners to act on the results. Therefore, when possible, researchers should use examples to illustrate how their findings should affect social media practitioners’ actions while also defining the context in which those findings are most likely to be applicable. This entails including—and treating seriously—a part in papers titled "implications for practice" and, ideally, having relevant practitioners review versions of this section. In the eyes of practitioners, it appears necessary for researchers to adopt a forward-looking posture and look to the future rather than simply explaining what has happened or is happening today, as described by participant 58:

I expect recommendations from the part of researchers on how to prepare for the future of digital marketing . (Participant 58, Digital Marketing Manager, 15 years of experience)

Fifth, participants called for new thinking on research analysis methods:

We , the marketing directors , need models to help us make decisions and make judgments , and this is a strong expectation from researchers .

(Participant 40, Social Media Specialist, 7 years of experience)

As far as data mining and retargeting are concerned, social media practitioners are waiting for models to better manage data flows. Quantitative approaches are therefore not excluded, but they must be combined with interpretative approaches, backed by psychology, ethnography, or anthropology, to better understand and anticipate consumers’ choices and decisions.

Sixth, the skills needed to thrive in the field of digital marketing are numerous and diverse because it mixes traditional marketing, web design, SEO, analytics, content management, and much more. Tech-savvy digital marketers are always trying to learn more. For instance, digital marketers need to be familiar with data analytics. To make wise decisions, it is advised to regularly update the database and remove irrelevant information. Additionally, having a basic understanding of HTML and CSS can help digital marketers if they will use WordPress. So, there is an emergence in the required technical knowledge and skills. Our participants advocated for more technical academic research where marketing researchers collaborate with researchers from computer science and data analytics backgrounds. Such research would contribute to the multidisciplinary character and hybrid task structure of the digital marketing profession, which uses technology, analytics, and marketing.

Finally, participants indicated five areas where researchers can help digital marketers to be more knowledgeable and acquainted: 1) the use of big data in the social media field; 2) the AI-powered technology in digital marketing; 3) the characteristics of emerging markets; 4) the features of metaverse marketing; and 5) the use of blockchain technology in digital marketing and social media.

The study has several key implications for future social media investigations. First, a direct correlation exists between academic research and the evolution of social media in terms of users, platforms, and medium. Nevertheless, there is a gap between social media studies and their influence on the marketing function. The problem can be attributed to laxity on the part of digital marketing institutes and centers linking practitioners and researchers [ 67 ]. The onus is on digital marketing institutes to assume the intermediary role between academic researchers and social marketing professionals.

Today, much social media research is invisible to practitioners because the system is primarily self-referential. Authors are forced to decide whether to undertake socially impactful research or write publications that are only academically impactful [ 68 ]. The various participants in the focus groups provide potentially practical solutions to the issue. A close relationship between academic researchers and practitioners increases the chances of implementation. Collaborations help researchers play the role of participant-observer in practitioners’ responsibilities and decision-making. Therefore, social media investigations can consider academic and informal aspects to enhance readability and generate a significant audience.

Another reason that could explain the gap between practitioners and researchers is that the former focus on publishing instead of engaging their target audience. Thus, a disparity exists between the expectations of the marketing professionals trying to transform their work for industry consumption and the researchers’ interests. Additionally, social media marketers work in an exciting field, but academic researchers continue to ignore this vital fact [ 69 ]. Cadotte et al. [ 70 ] support the perspective and contend that practitioners feel that academics consider themselves elitists who speak their jargon and write in complex scientific language. The issue explains why 69% of our respondents stated that they do not find academic articles interesting. Although theoretical models are critical in research studies, authors should focus more on practical cases, best practice sharing, and disseminating new ideas. The fast-paced and dynamic nature of social media marketing [ 71 ] requires companies and marketers to rely on scientific studies to make informed decisions [ 69 ]. However, academic journals are characterised by the slowness of their review process. Managerial fads are often gone by the time the articles that dissect them are published.

Our research also focuses on academic research challenges regarding social media and implementing participants’ recommendations to enhance practicality. The lack of originality in academic papers means that marketing practitioners do not find the articles relevant to their practice. According to Roberts et al. [ 19 ], professionals want researchers to publish studies that value practical relevance, but academics favour journals with a high impact factor. Young and Freytag [ 72 ] indicate that the only approach to bridge the gap between research studies and their influence function is through successful collaborations between academic researchers and professional practitioners.

The findings of this paper show that academic research on social media is growing in terms of the number of publications but is struggling in three areas: visibility, relevance, and influence on practitioners. Our findings outlined some difficulties in bridging academic research and social media usage. We offered some recommendations for improving the interaction between research and practice after focusing on the viewpoints of the practitioners. Thus, we discussed why research relevance is important and how scholars might raise the relevance of their research in an effort to inspire academics to produce research that is more pertinent to social media practitioners.

Our findings should be of interest to marketing researchers and academic institutions. We presented a detailed snapshot of guidelines to publish more impactful research works. Collaboration between scholars and practitioners is an important area where the gap could be closed. Collaboration with professional organisations and businesses should already be under progress. In order to advance toward positive developments in the interaction between the academy and practice, collaboration will result in stronger links between social media research and the instruments used in professional practice. Another position consists in asserting that the lack of relevance of the knowledge produced by social media research is the direct consequence of its mode of production. By raising to the rank of dogma a paradigm inherited from the hard sciences, the scientific community has, so to speak, dried up the marketing discipline. As a result, the findings of the social media research conducted by the researchers have lost interest. To make social media research more relevant, it would be necessary to change the way research is conducted. An initiative such as the creation of the d.school at Stanford University, a program that fundamentally changes the way of thinking about teaching and research based on the design sciences paradigm, is part of this conception, but other approaches such as critical digital marketing studies, critical realism or constructivism are also proposed by the advocates of a paradigmatic renewal. Even if the solutions advocated differ, these approaches have the common characteristic of advocating a greater openness in marketing research by proposing new research methods, new forms of results, and, above all, new criteria for evaluating scientific productions.

Some limitations should be acknowledged. First, books, theses, and conference proceedings were not included in the review because it only looked at and evaluated items that were published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Future research should take this restriction into account and may decide to broaden the area of their investigations. Second, our review comprised journals identified in Scopus; upcoming studies may contemplate examining other databases. Third, the perceptions of social media practitioners may also vary by country, along with the nature of jobs and the competencies they require. To advance this research, it is advised that our data be combined with information from various geographic contexts. Finally, the results of future research can be bed on larger sample size, as the sample in our second study was comprised of only 280 practitioners.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297241.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 12. Davenport TH, Prusak L, & Wilson HJ. What’s the big idea? Creating and capitalizing on the best management thinking. Harvard Business Press. 2003.
• PubMed/NCBI