Like many groups on Facebook, Science Bloggers exists to bring people with a shared interest together, and provide a sense of community. With over 600 million groups in existence, it is expected that some groups will be more active than others. When I took over as admin last August, the group unfortunately was in the not-too-active category.

The group is quite small. There are less than 90 members and about 10% of those members post regularly. I wondered if there was anything I could do to change this. I wanted to determine whether the group was fulfilling the purpose for which it was originally created, or if it was even meeting the needs of its members. Before I could figure all of this out, I needed to have some idea of who our members are, and how to define them. I didn’t expect my definition to be correct, at least not in the beginning, but I needed some hypothesis I could base and test my assumptions.

The definition came somewhat easy. While the group’s name has the word bloggers, the original description included the terms vloggers, and podcasters. This meant the group’s original creator had a much broader community of science communicators in mind, which is a reflection of how the Internet has changed science communication. People no longer get information from a single news source. Instead, they curate their news from dozens, if not hundreds, of sources. Some of that information comes from lesser-known but established news outlets and web sites, while other news sites and blogs.

What is a Science Blogger (or Vlogger, or Podcaster)?

Science communication is a field comprising several groups or roles. Very few people in a particular group do what they do exclusively and there can be considerable overlap between the field’s many roles. There are journalists, PIOs, and scientists who blog, vlog, and tweet. In many cases, these people represent the institutions or outlets they work for.

The science communicators that make up the Science Bloggers differ from others groups in one key way. Almost all the content creators in the group own their own blogs, vlogs, and podcasts and, with it, comes ownership of a unique brand or identity that each uses to communicate to their intended audience.

Many of these brand owners operate on their own and this means that the entire creation process — from writing to finding and building an audience, almost solely falls on the shoulders of the site’s owner.

A look at the social media profiles of some of the group’s more active members shows differences in everyone’s ability to build an audience — some Facebook Pages and Twitter profiles have several dozen followers, while other accounts have followers that number in the hundreds, even thousands. Total number of followers does not necessarily mean a blog, podcast, or YouTube channel is successful. What matters is engagement. Given the average number of followers, even if there was 100% engagement, it means that very few members are getting their message out. As finding, reaching, and building an audience is crucial to what we do, this could indicate an area the group could do better.

Finding out the Group’s Needs

To get a better idea of who Science Bloggers is, I created a survey (now closed) and asked both existing and incoming members to take. This survey was done to test the above assumptions, and determine the group’s needs and future path. A total of 13 people responded.

Who are we?

The first set of questions was to determine what members did in their day-to-day lives, whether they were independent content creators, and whether they wrote or produced content for a blog, vlog, or podcast other than their own.

What do the Science Bloggers do?

Respondents were given a set of choices. They could choose one or more and they could add their own descriptions. Most people in the group considered themselves writers (27.3%), followed by active scientists (scientists and graduate students, 17.3%). The rest of responses, each at 9.1%, included Public Information Officers, dentist, full-time scientific project manager, Consultant, scientific engagement manager, VP biotech content, psychologist, food service, and graphic designer and science blogger.

Do Science Bloggers contribute to other publications?

Of the 13 responses, more than half the people responding said they contributed to a science publication other than their own sites.

What type of science channels do we own?

Of the 12 people who answered this question, everyone had their own blogs but some also that their own vlogs or podcasts.

What science do we cover?

Most of the blogs are focused on biology, medicine, or chemistry, followed by physics, and mathematics. Other responses include astronomy, dentistry, the scicomm experience, science in popular culture, behavioral science, and general science communication.

How often do we post?

Of the 12 people who responded to this question, only 3 posted weekly. The rest post when they can, or when the inspiration strikes.

Who do we write for?

All the people who responded to this question said that lay people with an interest in science was their intended audience. We can break this down into specific groups to see that some blogs are aimed to children (18.2%), high school students (27.3%), college students (54.5%), graduate students (72.7%), other scientists (54.5%), work colleagues (36.4%), parents (9.1%), and people who have been misled by anti-science propaganda (9.1%).

Group Activity and Problems

The next set of questions were asked to determine group activity and any specific problems members feel need to be addressed.

The majority of group indicated they don’t check the group very often — only 6 members said they check in daily or weekly. Only one person said they check in when they felt like it, while the rest checked in when they saw a new post on their Facebook timelines. This could mean that while the group’s activity is low, people are interested in the group’s activity.

Group Problems

As suspected, lack of activity was cited as the group’s biggest problem (58.3%). Two other responses of note include that one member did not find the content relevant, and that there was a “lack of bloggers. Lots of science bloggers out there.”

What should the group talk about?

groups

The group seems most interested in the subjects of blogging, vlogging, and podcasting. This could include anything from setting up your own site, use of social media, or tools of the trade. Members were next interested in seeing blog posts from both members inside the group, and bloggers outside the group. Members also indicated they would like to see profiles from other members, and discussions on mentorship.

Suggestions for the group

This was an open question where a survey taker could put anything they wanted. Responses given include: 1) There are lost of active science bloggers who are NOT part of the group. Would be good to get more people on board, 2) I think maybe less ‘link dumping’ more helping of each other, and discussing blogging, and 3) suggestions on how to improve my blog.

Conclusions

Though 13 respondents is by no means a large sample size, we can learn a lot from everyone’s answers. The group’s lack of activity is noticeable and has been noticed by all. Getting new blood into the group could solve this problem, so a more active outreach program is certainly in order.

People are also interested in learning about each other and have suggested member profiles as one way to do this. One of the more surprising responses was the popularity of mentorship. While the survey was also given to members who had just joined the group, some already established science communicators had this as a response. This is definitely an avenue worth exploring.

Based on the survey, some directions the group can take include: 1) increasing membership, and group activity, 2) posting more articles by science bloggers, both within and outside of the group, 3) blogging advice, e.g., help gain more traffic, help with site design and feedback, 4) feature member profiles, and 5) provide mentorship.

Building the Community and the Limitation of Facebook Groups

The problems of group activity and helping members get noticed is a two-fold problem. Not only do we need to get more science communicators involved, we also need to get more people who read science blogs, view science-based YouTube channels, and listen to science podcasts.

Getting more people into the group would certainly help with outreach efforts. A search for science groups on Facebook shows the group is almost last and thus lacks visibility. Some of the most visible science groups on Facebook have memberships that number in the thousands. As desirable as this solution may be, it may cause more problems than it solves.

Facebook groups work best when members share a common interest. The possible problem of having two disparate groups is that much of one group’s interests and communications can get lost in the chatter of the other group. It also means that some of the group’s discussions, e.g., blogging advice, and mentorship, may not be applicable or of interest to non-science communicators.

Communicating to the Outside World

The group needs several new channels, each serving a special purpose, to achieve its goals. The present group already serves as an effective means for everyone to interact with each other. The proposed new channels include:

Facebook Page: Facebook Pages are ideal for creating a public presence, and raising brand awareness. A Facebook Page for the group was created and, as a test, some articles from the group’s members were posted to the page and then shared to some of the more popular science groups on Facebook. This was done to test engagement and whether people would like the page. Over a period of two months of posting and sharing articles, the page managed to attract over 40 likes.

Twitter and Tumblr: A Twitter account was also created for the group. Like the Facebook Page, this serves as a public presence for the group. A Tumblr page was also created as it is easy to repost links on the platform and the backlinks may provide additional SEO benefits.

Medium: A Medium page was also created to serve as both a public presence and communication channel for members to use. This allows members to create content that may not quite fit their own blogs and also provide a permanent repository of information that future members can use.

Another Facebook Group: An additional Facebook Group will be needed that is made up of both science communicators and science blog readers. This will allow a channel for the original group members to interact and engage with people who consume their content.

Mailing List: A mailing list for the group was also created on MailChimp, subdivided into two lists: science communicators, and science readers. This will allow the group to capture an audience that may not be on Facebook.

Slack: While a Facebook group is great for sharing information, but there are limitations. While the best groups are active and post often, it also means that less active threads can either get pushed down or never seen on a member’s feed. The group may need a channel where real-time discussions can take place, e.g., mentoring or asking for advice, and mentorship.

Data!! We need data!

The Internet has also fundamentally changed the way people consume information. Not too long ago, information flowed (more or less) in one direction. People got their information from a few news sources. Today, people curate their news feeds from hundreds, if not thousands, of channels on social media. Some of the proposed channels above, e.g., Facebook Pages, Twitter, and the Mailing List, would allow us to track reader engagement and potentially find new audiences. This should provide members within the community to get the support and resources they need to better their own science communication channels.