Argumentative practices and patterns in debating climate change on Twitter
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2021-0164 |
| Published date | 01 February 2022 |
| Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Pages | 131-148 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
| Author | Antonella Foderaro,David Gunnarsson Lorentzen |
Argumentative practices and
patterns in debating climate change
on Twitter
Antonella Foderaro and David Gunnarsson Lorentzen
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Bor
as,
Bor
as, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate practices of argumentation on Twitter discussions about
climate change.
Design/methodology/approach –Conversational threads were collected from the Twitter API.
Fundamental concepts from argumentation theory and linking practices were operationalised through a
coding schema for content analysis. Tweets were analysed in the context of the discussions and coded
according to their argumentative approach, interaction type and argumentation stage. Linked and embedded
sources were analysed in order to find how they were used in arguments, the plausibility and soundness of the
message, the consistency and trustworthiness of the linked source and its adequacy with the target audience.
Findings –Among the interactions between arguers, this study found five typical practices and several
patterns involving the dynamics of the conversations, the strategy of the argumentation and the linking
practices. Although the rhetorical approach was prominent, the agreement was rarely achieved. The arguers
used a variety of sources to justify or support their positions, often embedding non-textual content. These
linking practices, together with the strategy adopted and the topics discussed, suggest the involvement of a
multiple audience engaged in discussing ad lib scientific artefacts, topics and outputs.
Originality/value –While Twitter has been the focus for many research papers, the conversational threads
have been given little attention so far. With the Twitter API making conversations more accessible for research,
this paper does not only give insight into multiple audience group argumentation dynamics but also provides a
method to study the conversations from an argumentation theory perspective.
Keywords Argumentation practices, Argumentation patterns, Argumentation theory, Linking practices,
Climate change, Twitter conversations
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Social media data makes it possible to analyse dissemination and discussion of scientific
artefacts. Studying Twitter conversations referring to scientific artefacts gains insights into the
choice and usage of artefacts as part of arguments and the reactions to arguments based on
scientific sources. In order to increase not just the overall understanding of science but also a
more constructive and collaborative dialogue between scientists and the general public, it is
relevantto define how the scientific artefacts areused in conversations,and more specifically in
argumentation. Twitter is a public arena in which different groups meet in a wide range of
interactions (Yardi and Boyd, 2010).Whenmembersofagroupinteractwitheachother,the
opinions of the group tend to shift more towards the direction it was already leaning, but
Debating
climate change
131
© Antonella Foderaro and David Gunnarsson Lorentzen. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of
this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Data collection was made as part of the Data4Impact project. Data4Impact has received funding from
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No
770531.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-3806.htm
Received 14 June 2021
Revised 30 September 2021
26 November 2021
Accepted 6 January 2022
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 75 No. 1, 2023
pp. 131-148
Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-06-2021-0164
convincingarguments representing new ideasmay also lead to a group shiftingtowards those
ideas (Sunstein,2002). Our question is then what happens if an acceptable argument is exposed
to and replied to by opponents in a conversational context? While Lorentzen (2021) found some
examples of bridging participants establishing some kindof middle ground, polarisation may
also increase if people are exposed to opposing viewpoints (e.g. Bail et al., 2018).
For information scholars and professionals, Twitter is a platform that is important to
understand. The platform “puts scientific research into circulation”and “amplifies news, and
is a channel for news distribution”(Niederer, 2019, p. 111) and as such may play an important
role in disseminating research findings. With straightforward access to large quantities of
data through its API, studying Twitter at a macro-level with automatic tools may be an
attractive choice for researchers. Niederer, however, warns about only using a computational
analysis as it may be misleading, with a close reading of the content needed for correct
interpretation (2019, p. 103). In this article, we move beyond the macro-level to focus on how
conversations are played out from the perspective of argumentation theory. The article builds
on previous research on understanding the conversations on the platform rather than the
patterns of relationships and the contents of tweets analysed outside their contexts. The
purpose is to investigate argumentative approaches and the usage of scientific artefacts in
Twitter conversations. Specifically, our aim is to understand the conversations through a
series of typical patterns and practices of argumentation.
As a case of study, we selected five conversational threads about climate change,
including 1,697 interactions. The choice of climate change as a topic is motivated by two main
reasons. Firstly, it is arguably of public interest and secondly, it shows clear signs of a
political divide on Twitter (e.g. Jang and Hart, 2015). As such, it may also be considered to be
played out as a controversy (Marres and Moats, 2015), where communication networks
display antagonising groups (Chen et al., 2020). Pearce et al. (2019) suggest that an increasing
amount of research focused on the dynamics within and between groups discussing climate
change is needed for two main reasons. The first one is to investigate the role of social media
in relation to trust. The second one is to investigate critically into climate imaginary
circulated within social media users. Furthermore, they called for analyses of the usage of
non-textual elements. Considering this, we selected threads with a higher density of sources,
including embedded charts as well as links to scientific articles. Our research questions are:
RQ1. What kind of argumentative approach and strategy do arguers use when
discussing climate change on Twitter?
RQ2. What kind of web-based artefacts are referred to and how do arguers use them?
RQ3. What can be learned from these practices in order to facilitate the discussion of
scientific topics on Twitter?
To assess the soundness of the argument in the context of the conversation, we developed a
coding scheme based on argumentation theory, which was applied to discussions about
climate change. The argumentation analysis allows for studying the tweets in relation to the
conversational contexts in which they exist, as replies to other tweets in the discussions.
Using content analysis based on argumentation theory, the paper contributes with
knowledge about real-time multiple audience argumentation dynamics and the
argumentative use of scientific artefacts on social media. This builds an understanding of
how conversations evolve through different argumentative stages, and how research is
discussed on the platform.
2. Theoretical background
Social media platforms make it possible for a mass audience to engage and participate in
debates. Public and private spheres converge to share, exchange and access information.
AJIM
75,1
132
To continue reading
Request your trial