!!UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS: COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT!!By!!Rachel Elizabeth Little!!!!!!A THESIS!!Submitted to !Michigan State University!in partial fulÞllment of the requirements!for the degree of!!Digital Rhetoric and Professional Writing - Master of Arts!!2016!!!!ABSTRACT!UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS: COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT!!By!!Rachel Elizabeth Little!!With social mediaÕs increasing focus, many organizations have started to attempt to implement communication to reach a wider audience. This is especially seen in scientiÞc governmental organizations, such as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, yet there is still confusion over best practices to utilize social media. This project stems from the need to see how BOEM is currently utilizing social media to communicate with the general public, and how to increase communication practices. Through adapting tried and true external communication audit theory and practices, the outlined method allows for an analysis of both Facebook and Twitter posts. By reviewing these results through the lens of PielkeÕs Four Idealized Roles of Science Communication, recommendations can be made for increased communication not only for BOEM, but for other scientiÞc governmental organizations as well.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Copyright by!RACHEL ELIZABETH LITTLE!2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!To my grandfather, Howard Lloyd Bishop:!Your wisdom, laughter, and stories have shaped me, and encouraged me to pursue my dreams. !!!!!!!!!!!!ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS!!!!!I Þrst wish to thank Elizabeth Perry, for all of her support and critiques throughout this process.!!To the members of my committee - D!nielle DeVoss, Stuart Blythe, and Liza Potts - thank you for your encouragement, time, and assistance.!!TABLE OF CONTENTS!!!LIST OF TABLES!!!!!!!!!!viii!!LIST OF FIGURES!!!!!!!!!!ix!!Introduction!!!!!!!!!!!1!!Communications Audit!!!!!!!!3!          !External Communications Audit Case Study!!!!!7!          !Social Media!!!!!!!!!!10!          !Research Organization: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management!!13!          !Methods!!!!!!!!!!!15!!Four Idealized Roles of Science Communication in Policy and Politics!16!!!Pure Scientist!!!!!!!!16!!!Science Arbiter!!!!!!!!17!!!Issue Advocate!!!!!!!!17!!!Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives!!!!!18!!Selection Process!!!!!!!!!19!         !Social Media ClassiÞcation!!!!!!!!20!!Facebook SpeciÞc Steps!!!!!!!!23!!Twitter SpeciÞc Steps!!!!!!!!25!!Data Analyses!!!!!!!!!25!!Results!!!!!!!!!!!27!!Study 1: Types of Posts Made Over an Entire Year!!!!27!!Study 2: Top 5 Facebook Posts!!!!!!!30!!Discussion!!!!!!!!!!!31!!Top 5 Facebook Posts: ID 1!!!!!!!31!!Top 5 Facebook Posts: ID 3!!!!!!!31!!Research Questions Answered!!!!!!!33!!Future Implications!!!!!!!!!!35!!BOEM and ScientiÞc Governmental Organizations Implications!!35!!Future Audit Studies Implications!!!!!!!36!!Conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!38!!APPENDICES!!!!!!!!!!40!!APPENDIX A!!!!!!!!!!41!!APPENDIX B!!!!!!!!!63!!APPENDIX C!!!!!!!!!84!!"viREFERENCES!!!!!!!!!!130!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"viiLIST OF TABLES!!!Table 1: Twitter Spreadsheet!!!!!!!!41!!Table 2:  Facebook Spreadsheet!!!!!!!!63!!Table 3: Top 5 Facebook Comments!!!!!!!84!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"viiiLIST OF FIGURES!!!Figure 1: Patti et al.Õs four part analysis!!!!!!!8!!Figure 2: GIP example!!!!!!!!!21!!Figure 3: ER example!!!!!!!!!21!!Figure 4: DN example!!!!!!!!!22!!Figure 5: ANS example!!!!!!!!!22!!Figure 6: Fig. 6 Percentage of all posts by classiÞcation: GIP= Government Implementation of !!Policies, ER=Environmental Research, DN= Director News, ANS= Animals/Nature !!Scenery, EN= Employee News!!!!!!!28!!Figure 7: Fig. 7 Percentage of likes and shares:  Likes based on original content vs !!ReTweeted content (left) and ReTweets based on original content vs ReTweeted content !(right)!!!!!!!!!!!29!!!!!!!!!!!!"ixIntroduction!!The goal of this project was to answer the research question of how a government sponsored organization, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), utilizes social media to engage with the general public. To gain insight and answers on this project, I conducted a modiÞed communication audit focusing on the social media platforms of Facebook and Twitter, allowing me to collect a random sampling of posts to study. Each post was then labeled by a classiÞcation system to better understand what each post communicated and if it fostered dialogue. In order to better situate these results and be able to offer recommendations for future posts, I used PielkeÕs four idealized roles of science communication as a lens to frame my work. The results of this project contain how BOEM currently communicates with the general public, what role of science communication it currently follows, as well as recommendations for how to better engage the general public and which science communication role it should pursue.!!The idea for this project initially began at an American Association for the Advancements of Science (AAAS) conference in February of 2015. Upon speaking with BOEM Public Relations employee John Romero, I Þrst was able to hear about the concerns this organization had for reaching out not only to the general public but also citizens that were concerned about science policies, such as oil drilling (personal interview, February 2015). Acknowledging that social media was an excellent way to communicate current science policy and cutting edge research, Romero stated that BOEM was trying to Þgure out how best to use these social platforms and was worried that they werenÕt reaching their audience. Hearing of this concern and curious about !"1how social media can generate dialogue between organizations and the public, the seed for this project began to germinate.!!Indeed, social media is currently a focal point for many scholars within the technical communication discipline. From studying its usage in classrooms, to implementation in business organizations, breaking down the roles of a social media communicator, and even understanding its potential in crisis management, our understanding of social media continues to grow in leaps and bounds (Carpenter & Lertpratchya, 2016; Leonardi, Huysman, & SteinÞeld, 2013; Maranto & Barton, 2010; Potts, 2014). Within many of these studies, social media is highlighting the shift that allows readers to contribute to a discussion or group, rather than be a passive audience (Katajisto, 2010). With my focus on how to generate dialogue between a governmental organization and the general public, my study contributes to this ongoing research of active participants and how to increase participation in these spaces. !!This idea of attempting to connect with the general public through the usage of social media is also a hot topic of discussion in the science disciplines, such as cell biology (Woodgett, 2014). By offering new ways of delivering information and granting scientists the ability to add their voice, it is the hope that social media will not only foster scientiÞc growth but also illuminate and disseminate complex theories for the general public (Woodgett, 2014). With BOEMÕs position as a scientiÞc governmental organization, identifying this disconnect with the general public and trying to Þnd ways to bridge the gap are at the heart of my research.!!Within this paper, I Þrst give background on communication audits, speciÞcs on external communication audits, and social media to lay the groundwork for the rationale !"2driving the methods of my research. I then give background on BOEM so that the organizationÕs goals and unique needs are understood. My methods are then outlined, followed by the results of the data that was collected. From there, I breakdown these results to give a more thorough analysis of what they mean not only for BOEMÕs current communication practices, but how these practices can be changed to create a stronger sense of communication outreach.!Communications Audit!!Communication audits have been around for years, and have been adapted for a wide array of disciplines (Alnajjar, 2015; Beacroft & Dodd, 2011; Kuzma, 2010; Zwijze-Koning & de Jong, 2014). Traditionally, communication audits have been seen as a tool of the corporate world, helping businesses Þnd their communication weak points. However, that is not to say that communication audits cannot be adapted for non-proÞts, or in my case governmental organizations. It all comes down to using the theory of communication audits, and appropriately reÞning them for the speciÞc organization the auditor is studying.!!While there are many researchers studying communication audits, two names in particular are often cited by their fellow researchers - Downs and Adrian (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Ver#i#,& Sriramesh, 2007; Klenk & Hickey, 2010; Wagner, Bezuidenhout, & Roos, 2015). Since DownsÕ Þndings and research are used to further current research, this prompted me to base my own initial understanding of communication audits on his work. This Òprocess of exploring, examining, monitoring, and evaluating somethingÓ (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 6) of audits can take multiple forms, and can be applied to many different types of communication practices. !"3However, all of these forms can be linked to either an internal or external communication audit.!!Internal communication audits deal with promoting positivity and a ßow of information within the workplace (Yates, 2006, p. 71). This can be found in emails, memos, and ofÞce bulletins, as well as who ÔholdsÕ information within an organization. Due to this, internal audits can be used as an Òintegrative tool in helping managers and employees meet their rights and obligations to communicate with each otherÓ (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 31). Finding ways to increase communication between workers and those in a position of power can be beneÞcial to enacting change within a business. !!On the other hand, external communication audits focus on how a company communicates and interacts with users or the general public. These tend to be conducted for companies trying to build loyalty among their users, as well as an outside exchange of information to allow the public to feel Òin the knowÓ (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 61). !!As mentioned above, Downs is widely cited by his peers and therefore his benchmarks of a successful audit should be sound. The traits of a successful audit were described by Downs (1988) as four benchmarks that should be followed: (1) It should map communication ßaws as well as appropriate practices; (2) Checkpoints should be set to evaluate present and future practice; (3) It should provide innovative responses for the organization to improve its communication; (4) The auditor needs to explain to the organization the basis of auditing judgements by identifying the evaluation criteria.!!Following this premise, communication audits normally begin with six characteristics as described by Downs and Adrian (2004): !!"4¥Independence. An audit should be conducted by an outside assessment team to avoid biased results and conclusions (p. 7).!¥Professionalism. Auditors should hold themselves to a high standard of excellence, including having the ability to facilitate information and possess a willingness to continue to learn (p. 7). !¥Diagnostic thoroughness. Not only should data be collected systematically, the auditor should also strive not to deÞne the initial diagnosis solely in terms of available solutions (p. 7).!¥Skilled evaluation. An auditor must have a speciÞc criteria to judge effectiveness, which can include standards generated by government organizations, benchmarks generated by other successful companies, current popular notions, etcÉ(p. 8).!¥Tailored design. An audit should be designed speciÞcally for the organization, taking into accounts their unique business models and goals. One type of audit does not Þt all (p. 9). !¥Current time frame. An audit only takes a snapshot of a particular time for an organization. While data and theories can be extrapolated from this, audits should be conducted !regularly to see how an organization grows and changes (p. 10).!!!By following these six characteristics an evaluation can be designed speciÞcally for an organization, and will be able to be conducted within a speciÞc amount of time. While all need to be considered it is this time aspect that is also crucial within a !"5government setting. Simply put, scientists and policy makers often do not have time for interviews, surveys, and Likert Scale questionnaires which are the core pieces of an internal communications audit. Ensuring time is not taken away from research projects and meetings is of particular concern to BOEM per RomeroÕs observations. !!Due to the time aspect and to align my own purposes with my organizationÕs concerns of communicating with the general public, external communication audits became my primary focus. By conducting an external communication audit, this allows me to identify how they exchange dialogue. From there I can conduct an analysis, as well as a few generalizations, to accurately answer how BOEM is utilizing social media to communicate to the general public.!!Unfortunately, not much research focuses on external audits. Indeed, many communication audits traditionally concentrate on Òinternal communication, rather than on the relationship between an organization and its external clientsÓ (Hargie & Tourish, 2000, p. 261). However, one such external communication audit conducted by Charles H. Patti, Bernard McKenna, Glen J. Thomas, and William Renforth of a superannuation (retirement fund) company was fully laid out for future auditors.!!While the audit was conducted for a retirement fund company, Patti et al. laid out their thinking process in a very detailed manner, allowing for future auditors to follow their thought patterns. They also detailed how they had adapted other research to Þt the speciÞc needs of their clients. This clear analysis allows for their research to be adapted for other companiesÕ and organizationsÕ concerns. Falling back on the tailored design characteristic, no one type of audit is applicable to any two organizations. However, the !"6thought process and theory behind a successful audit is a great help, and is crucial to adapt and design a communications audit. !External Communications Audit Case Study!!In order to develop my own communication audit strategy, I closely examined and greatly utilized$the following model of Patti et al. to gauge a comparable study for conducting external communication audits. $While I did not use an exact duplicate of their model, my own study followed Patti et al.Õs general outline.!!In order to begin, the researchers needed to become familiar with the environment they would be working with, in this case a large Australian company known by the pseudonym ÔSuperFundÕ (Hargie & Tourish, 2000, pp. 255-271). This was done by reading company documents, articles, and attending meetings with the the superannuation ofÞce. From these initial reviews, they focused on the marketing strategies desired by the company. These key strategies included producing high quality information in a timely manner, and elevating awareness of the Fund amongst the general public (p. 257). Once feeling comfortable with the background knowledge, desires of the company, and industry research, the team began to examine the wide range of documents at their disposal.!!Due to the many ways SuperFund communicated with other businesses and users, the auditors asked to be supplied with copies of any type of materials used to communicate with the general public (p. 260). These materials were catalogued and classiÞed based on the aspects of each communication. Five separate classiÞcations were derived consisting of ÒFund members; contributing employees; administrators of !"7other funds; those leaving the Fund, or next of kin of deceased members; and advertising, publicity, and promotion materialÓ (p. 260). !!Once classiÞcations were set, Patti et al. used some of the principles found and tested from internal communication audits to apply to their external audits, allowing them to follow DownsÕ (1988) four benchmarks of a successful audit as described earlier.!!!Once these principles were identiÞed and in place, the communication audit began. In regards to letters, each letter was classiÞed and put through a rigorous four part analysis as seen in Fig. 1. This was done not only to analyze the audience and tone set !"8Figure 1: Patti et al.Õs four part analysisby the letter, but also to evaluate how the letter was arranged (i.e., font and layout, sentence breakdown on verbage used, jargon, etc). !!Advertising and marketing materials were additionally examined based on two separate Þve point systems that included such things as: does communication start with the interests of the audience, and does communication attempt to build a long-term relationship with the audience? (p. 267). Upon completion of the audit, the researchers drew broad conclusions about SuperFund, and made suggestions for improvements based on their Þndings. !!Patti et al. then judged the success of their audit on whether SuperFund answered positively to the following questions: !¥Was there a summary of successful and unsuccessful communication activities? !¥Was the communication situation diagnosed by identifying strength and providing strategies for overcoming problems? !¥Were some of the recommendations modeled with good examples that could be replicated? !¥Were benchmarks provided that could be applied in the future? (p. 270).!!!By following the thought processes of Patti et. al., I was able to understand how to shape tailored communications audits. In order to tailor my methods speciÞcally for BOEM, utilizing and adapting Patti et al.Õs a classiÞcation system to record data is a fundamental piece of my design. Similarly, while I did not use such an in-depth method as Patti et al.Õs four part analysis, the tone section was of special interest to me as it can !"9help or hinder the creation of communication relationships. In addition, the four checklist questions answered at the end of the audit became the cornerstone of how I wished to present feedback and suggestions for future communication. However with my focus on social media, I wanted to be sure that these practices and theories would translate well to this newer medium. !Social Media!!The desire to understand how to effectively use social media as well as its many implications is a hot topic of study for researchers across a wide range of disciplines, including science, music, and the arts (Claussen et. al, 2013; Greenhow, Sonnevend, & Agur, 2016; Sheldon, 2015; Suhr, 2012). This can be seen in Virginia Sublet, Christina Spring, and John HowardÕs (2011) research and evaluation of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Science Blog published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. With their overall question being whether social media improved communication, speciÞcally for a federal organization, the researchers used an online survey to ask readers what they thought of the blog. From those 75 random readers, the results indicated that the blog was considered a strong, useful social media resource with workplace changes being undertaken based on the blogÕs information. This success of another government organization utilizing social media to raise awareness of new scientiÞc practices in regards to health makes BOEMÕs desire for a strong social media presence sound. Yet what is social media exactly?!!Social media is focused on user centered activities, and is a way to facilitate human networks and collaborations through an online platform (Dijck, 2013, 11). Social media is a set of online tools that create and augment web-based communities, allowing !"10for an exchange of information and interaction between individuals (Osborne-Gowey, 2014). Comprised of both websites and applications, some of the more popular social media platforms are Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Osborne-Gowey, 2014). These social media platforms are a convenient way of sharing information and interacting with the general public. However, there can be a steep learning curve to discovering how social media can be used effectively to facilitate this communication. !!Indeed, there are many articles and manuals giving advice on appropriate, even ÒcorrectÓ ways to utilize social media for communication. A primary component of many is to listen and participate in conversations that are already happening (see, for instance, Stevenson, 2011).!!For scientist to scientist communication, some professionals deem social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter unprofessional, and set them aside in favor of niche platforms made speciÞcally for science communication, such as LabSpaces and Surgytec (Eperen & Marincola, 2011). However, for communication aimed toward the general public, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are being used as a way to bridge the gap between scientists and the public, as well as to give scientists a personality (E&M 2011). Examples of ÒpersonableÓ science can be seen in the Twitter accounts of Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking, as well as organizations such as National GeographicÕs Twitter and Facebook.!!Researchers such as Kimberley Collins, David Shiffman, and Jenny Rock (2016) are attempting to shed more light on how scientists use and view social media. From their study, three primary themes emerged; scientists in the study: (1) didnÕt understand how to use social media and didnÕt perceive the beneÞts of using such platforms; (2) !"11didnÕt believe they had time to devote to these platforms; (3) and were overall uncertain about implementing social media. Despite this uncertainty, scientists still perceive the ability to reach a diverse audience and utilize these platforms as a way to interact with the general public (Collins, Shiffman, & Rock, 2016). Indeed, scientists are slowly recognizing that to produce successful communication with the general public, they must apply the platforms most used by their target audience (E&M, 2011). Thus, Òthe ability to communicate to the masses via social media is critical to the distribution of scientiÞc information amongst professionals in the Þeld and to the general populationÓ (E&M, 2011). This focus on understanding and employing social media to reach the general public is a pillar of my research and is a driving force behind my decision to pursue this project.!!By delving into social media, I was also able to discover CyTRAP Labs. Founded by social media expert Urs E. Gattiker, CyTRAP Labs conducts social media audits through adapting methods of communication audits (Gattiker, 2013). CyTrap pairs their audits with an in-depth cost analysis, which allows businesses to gain a comprehensive understanding of how they are currently using social media, and tips for how they should be using social media (Gattiker, 2013). This is especially seen in their Disaster Management tutorial, where Gattiker stresses that ÒWhen it comes to social media, timing is everythingÉ If you do not reply, people just go to the WebÉ and the rumor mill may become a huge avalancheÉÓ (Gattiker, 2013, p. 52). This stress on not only replying but the timing of replies gave me a unique outlook while formulating my methods, and the decisions I made with how to present the results. The success of this international organization proves that social media can be studied using adaptations to !"12communication audits, and helped me settle into developing the methods I used for this project. !!However before we can get into these methods, an auditor must Þrst learn more about the company it intends to audit (see External Communication Case Study section). In this case, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.!Research Organization: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management!!The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is a United States government organization whose core principles Òpromotes energy independence, environmental protection and economic development through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and renewable energy and marine mineral resources.Ó (BOEM About). BOEM is an organization established from the dissolution of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) in 2011 to allow for a clearer division of operations. Focusing on natural energy management while preserving the offshore ocean environment, BOEM manages not only oil and gas, but also wind farms, current and solar power. This includes leasing and administration of natural energy sites, environmental research, and economic analysis for governmental policies.!!BOEM has a unique scientiÞc presence due to their diverse nature. Normally science organizations fall into either a pure research driven entity, or one that focuses on helping create science policy. BOEM has divisions that do both, while also reaching out to the general public to facilitate questions. This diversity also gives BOEM a unique responsibility and need to communicate effectively on a wide array of topics. !!"13!From explaining offshore drilling policies, to promoting new scientiÞc discoveries, BOEM needs to maintain public communication across the country. While some of their primary communications are for government consumption and understanding so that laws can go into effect, BOEM openly seeks public engagement. This is especially seen as many offshore energy sites are adjacent to native tribal lands. BOEM has a long history of meeting with tribal leaders in an effort not only preserve the environment, but also to maintain positive relations with the inheritors of these native lands and the customs that are associated with them (Ewald, Hite, Carrier, Ball, Haller & Jones, 2015). While this demonstrates one strong facet of BOEMÕs communication goals with a particular subsection of the general public, I am focused on the groups and divisions of the concerned general public who utilize social media for the purpose of this thesis. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!"14Methods!!!With a better understanding of who BOEM is and what it does, I was able to devise and tailor my methods to conduct a pilot communications audit focusing on what dialogue is occurring on social media between BOEM and the general public. In order to do this, I had to Þrst keep in mind DownsÕ four benchmarks: (1) It should map communication ßaws as well as appropriate practices; (2) Checklists should be set to evaluate present and future practice; (3) It should provide innovative responses for the organization to improve its communication; (4) The auditor needs to explain to the organization the basis of auditing judgements by identifying the evaluation criteria.!!Simplistically, I needed to devise a way to study a wide pool of posts that spanned a wide range of time that would allow me to gain a strong understanding of BOEMÕs current communication practices. However, in order to follow benchmark #3, I also needed to study a wide range dialogue in the form of comments from the general public. Due to this, my research wound up being comprised of two studies being compiled simultaneously: (1) The types of posts made throughout the year 2015, (2) Top 5 Facebook comments of 2015. The Þrst was a random sampling of posts throughout the year, allowing me to make conjectures about BOEMÕs communication practices overall. The second allowed for a much more in-depth look at the top Þve Facebook posts that generated the most dialogue/comments. This was to deconstruct the ßaws and strengths of BOEMÕs social media communication, and provide examples of both. 2015 was chosen as I had an entire yearÕs worth of content to gather from, and it was still relevant to the continuing 2016 year. !!"15!This tailored design that is crucial to external communication audits allowed me to Þnd the answers to my two sub-questions: (1) who are the people communicating on these platforms?; (2) how do they exchange dialogue? In order to make the data more comprehensible, I followed Patti et al. system of classiÞcation by creating a system that allowed me to label each post. While not as rigorous as Patti et al.Õs four part analysis, I did also adapt their study to judge the tone of the comments by classifying them as positive, negative, or neutral. In order to tailor this communication audit even further for BOEMÕs goals, I utilized PielkeÕs Four Roles of Science Communication in Policy and Politics as a lens through which I could look at current posts and provide recommendations for future communication practices.!Four Idealized Roles of Science Communication in Policy and Politics!!PielkeÕs book The Honest Broker explains four idealized roles science organizations can follow in regards to communicating science and advocacy of policy. With BOEM working not only in the public sphere but also in politics, these roles are important to understand so that BOEM can move forward in their communication goals. These four roles are comprised of: (1) Pure Scientist, (2) Science Arbiter, (3) Issue Advocate, and (4) Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives.!Pure Scientist !!Focusing solely on research, a Pure Scientist approach means that information is given with no regards to the decision making process (Pielke, 2007, p. 15). A Pure Scientist refuses to engage in the politics regarding their Þndings - the knowledge simply exists, but what is done with this knowledge is of no concern to them. With BOEM a government entity that actively deals with policy, there is no way BOEM can, or !"16even should, follow this role. Per my conversation with Romero, BOEM has to present data and help make the decisions that are based on that data. They canÕt just give this research knowledge in a vacuum with no discussions with policy makers and constituents.!Science Arbiter!!Pushing to remain outside of the subjective role of a speciÞc political agenda, the Science Arbiter remains objective and bound by the facts and data (p. 16). However, as opposed to remaining aloof and removed entirely like the Pure Scientist, a Science Arbiter recognizes that policy makers will have questions and will answer them without bias or political sway (p. 16).!!I believe that BOEM could do well in all of its communication to follow such a role. Allowing them to remain a part of the decision making process, utilizing and following the Science Arbiter path will allow them to remain unbiased and objective, rather than aligning with one partyÕs political goal. This also allows them to take a position to answer questions from the general public, by viewing them as a subset of policy makers asking positive questions. This allows them to try and move toward the type of communication Romero expressed the organization was interested in. While easy in theory, implementing such a task can be daunting, as all scientists have some type of bias to work around and overcome.!Issue Advocate!!Taking on an Issue Advocate role means aligning oneself and oneÕs research with a speciÞc political agenda (p. 15). A driving force and member of the decision !"17making process and science policy, the Issue Advocate uses their status as an expert to attempt to sway policy makers in their political agendaÕs favor. !!Being active in policy decisions, BOEM often sways into this role, which can cause outrage among the general public. One such example of this is BOEMÕs role in pushing for a new Georgian offshore drilling operation. Aligned with the Governor of Georgia, both BOEM and the governor threw their support behind this offshore drilling policy, despite the local populaceÕs strong vehemence against it (Landers, 2015). While at times this may be a necessary role, BOEMÕs desire for open communication with the general public means that they should only take on this role as a last resort. !Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives!!Aiming to answer and allay policy makers fears, the Honest Broker provides a multitude of options based on scientiÞc facts (p. 16). Normally comprised of a committee to mitigate scientistsÕ personal preferences from turning to Issue Advocacy, the Honest Broker expands the number of options rather than narrowing them down as a Science Arbiter would (p. 16).!!From speaking with Romero, this is what he believes BOEM should lean toward. Initially, the Honest Broker appealed to me as I believed it to be the most transparent and allow people to learn about the multitude of options. While this may indeed be something that BOEM can and should implement within its governmental policy making goal, how would this translate to the general public?!!Upon analyzing the data I gathered, BOEM canÕt truly follow an Honest Broker role. Attempting to engage in dialogue with the general public will get watered down and muddled if more options keep popping up, and cause even more confusion. Instead, I !"18believe a Science Arbiter role modiÞed with the spirit of the Honest Broker will be the best course of action for BOEM. !!By using the term Ôby spiritÕ I allude to the design and desire to be open and transparent. This can be done by openly stating the pros and cons of a research project or policy decision, and laying out the top three decisions with precision. From there, questions that are posed should be answered honestly and truthfully, with science to back it. It is this way that BOEM can reach out to the general public, maintain an unbiased delivery of the science, and still engage and help form scientiÞc policy.!!With this lens in mind, what follows is a comprehensive walk-through of my methods and thought processes to tackle BOEMÕs communication audit.! Selection Process!!My research is centered around and gathered from two social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter, over the course of an entire year (January 1 - December 31, 2015) to provide a pilot sample size. An entire year was chosen as to avoid any seasonal posts that may arise over a 4 month sampling size, such as research surrounding spring between the months of February-May. I didnÕt want to only have research that dealt with a speciÞc seasons problems, such as hurricanes, or winter weather research. !!To keep a random sampling, I chose one post per every 2 weeks over this time period. To further randomize, each biweekly post comes from a different day of the week. For instance, should the Þrst post collected be posted on a Sunday, the next post will be one posted on Monday, the following one on Tuesday, etcÉ Should a day of the week not have a post issued, the next day in order was chosen. !!"19!In this fashion, a sample size of 26 posts was obtained by dividing 52 weeks per year by 2. I obtained a further Þve posts outside of the initial 26 to peer brießy into what types of posts generate the most trafÞc. This was done as due to the random nature of the 26 posts, the top trafÞc posts were not initially recorded. Here trafÞc is deÞned as a post that yields not just high likes and shares, but written comments from the general public. I obtained these while collecting the 26 initial posts, by observing each post in the entire year to determine which have the highest comments. These top Þve posts were hypothesized to give an initial assessment of what content BOEM generates that induces dialogue.!!In order to make sense of what types of posts are made, I needed to develop a classiÞcation system for each piece of data. !Social Media ClassiÞcation!!In order to determine and create a useful set of data, I Þrst needed to hypothesize a series of classiÞcations for each post across both platforms. This classiÞcation allowed for a thorough breakdown of which types of media are produced, shared, and generate dialogue with the general public. With that in mind, my four original hypothesized primary classiÞcations are as follows:!!!!!!!!"20Government Implementation of Policies (GIP) !Any type of post that deals with current policy, government, and decision making/deliberation. !Environmental Research (ER)!Anything that talks about new or ongoing research aimed at the environment and ecosystem. !!"21Figure 2: GIP exampleFigure 3: ER exampleDirector News (DN)!A post detailing the whereabouts or activities of Director Hopper of the BOEM.!Animals/Nature Scenery (ANS)!Photos or posts dealing with an ideal view of the environment. !!"22Figure 4: DN exampleFigure 5: ANS example!As BOEM has an extremely broad scope, from sustainable energy and ocean resources, to protecting the environment, and research into marine animals and ecosystems, all posts should not only be assigned a primary classiÞcation, but also a secondary classiÞcation as well. !!Once this twofold classiÞcation system was in place, steps needed to be outlined and adhered to for the collection of Facebook and Twitter data.!Facebook SpeciÞc Steps!!BOEMÕs FacebookÕs data was compiled into multiple Pages Spreadsheets and divided by the week to make it easier to identify and analyze the information. Each original Facebook post generated by BOEM was given a name or number identity. From there, the original post date was recorded, as well as its classiÞcation, as discussed previously. A copy of the post, either by straight text or screenshot followed, as well as whether a picture or video was associated with the post. Finally, the total number of likes, shares, and comments was recorded, as well as outbound links. All raw data can be found in the Appendices. !!The data on each comment was collected in a separate spreadsheet for simplicity. Each original BOEM postÕs identiÞer had a corresponding comments spreadsheet. Contained within each original spreadsheet copy was whether or not BOEM or another user replied, as well as the copies of those exchanges. The original post date was recorded as well.!!Due to data not being inherently ÔpositiveÕ or ÔnegativeÕ, all comments were compiled. However, as the primary purpose was not only to engage in dialogue but also to make it meaningful dialogue to further reÞne my second research question of how do !"23they exchange dialogue, each comment had a positive, negative, or neutral classiÞcation: !Positive: a comment that primarily contained language associated with happiness or inquiry. I.e. ÒExcellent work, Melanie and team! I love retirement, but miss working with the great folks at BOEM on interesting issues like this one.Ó!!Negative: a comment that used scornful language, threats, and language associated with anger. ÒYes, and since he also closed offshore drilling in the Atlantic, y'all can stop pimping the ocean and move on, to CLEAN energy. YAY! I bet you will sleep better, now that you've been taken off part of the KILL THE OCEAN plan. grin emoticonÓ!!Neutral: a comment that was not inherently positive or negative. I.E. ÒEncouraging that President Obama and DOI want to hear from the public regarding protection of resources. Considering BOEM's hypothetical production scenario came with a 75% probability of large oil spills, the best way to protect is to cancel the two proposed Arctic lease sales before effort begins. http://www.adn.com/.../obama-administration-weighing... Ò!!Trolling: due to the nature of the internet, a fourth classiÞcation was considered for those comments that had no bearing or theme on the original post. These comments are recorded, but will not have any weight in further data considerations.!An example of such a comment is ÒYou too can make $542 a day sitting at home!Ó.!!!"24!To be clear, just because a comment was listed as negative does not mean it cannot lead to a meaningful dialogue exchange. Merely that a more enriching, scientiÞc inquiry tends to stem from more positive and neutral dialogue. People with negative connotations tend to be anxious, and less likely to be open to new information. These classiÞcations were to record and study how both BOEM and the general public dealt with these situations, and to potentially acquire ideas on how a helpful, positive and enriching dialogue can follow.!Twitter SpeciÞc Steps!!Similar to Facebook, each Tweet was given a name or identiÞcation number, date of original Tweet, as well as a type classiÞcation. The original Tweet was preserved as a screenshot, as well as if it contained pictures. !!Due to TwitterÕs design as a microblogging platform of short but frequent content, dialogue was determined by the number of Retweets and favorites. While ReTweets and favoriting may not be considered dialogue in a classic sense, it still shows a level of engagement based on the content that was produced or shared. In my mind, it is a cursory or initial level of dialogue that still allows for a larger interpretation of BOEMÕs science communication. I also determined whether the content was produced initially by BOEM, or if it was simply a ReTweet from another source. If it was ReTweeted, I identiÞed and recorded the original source, as well as any outgoing links.!Data Analyses!!From this data, I was able to determine the types of posts made over the year, as well as what types of posts generated the most trafÞc. With these understood, I could answer (1) who are the people communicating on these platforms?; (2) how do they !"25exchange dialogue? Upon determining the answers to the aforementioned queries, I could paint a broad picture of how BOEM utilizes social media to communicate with the general public.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"26Results!Before delving into the numbers, I had to make two primary changes to the methods while I was compiling and categorizing data. !!While the original four hypothesized categories (see pages 19-20) were indeed found, a Þfth category needed to be implemented as well. This Þfth classiÞcation, Employee News (EN), deals with posts about new hires, or employees retiring. The second change to the methods was more of an oversight on my part, as I had not considered the possibility that days may have more than one post created. Due to this, I chose to record all of these multiple day posts, and thus not arbitrarily decide one post was ÔbetterÕ than another. While the result of this is observed to a greater degree in the Twitter data, Facebook also had multiple posts per day. Due to this, the Þnal count of data for Facebook is 27 posts, while Twitter has 57.!!The results are broken down over the two studies: (1) Types of Posts Made Over an Entire Year, and (2) Top 5 Facebook Posts.!Study 1: Types of Posts Made Over an Entire Year!!Upon the Þnal compilation of research and data, 57 posts from Twitter and 27 posts from Facebook were collected for a total of 84 sources. The results of the entire project suggests 3 main points.!!!"27(1)Most common type of Posts are classiÞed as GIP.!47.6% of all posts landed in the GIP classiÞcation, with ER a low second at 17.85%. With BOEM being a government entity dealing with environmental policy, the high number of posts within the GIP category makes sense. !!!!!!!!"28GIPERDNANSENFigure 6: Percentage of all posts by classiÞcation:!GIP= Government Implementation of Policies,!ER=Environmental Research,!DN= Director News,!ANS= Animals/Nature Scenery,!EN= Employee News(2) Non-original content on Twitter is overwhelming liked and favorited more !!!!!!!!Observing the data in Appendix A, of the 1450 likes and 1434 ReTweets, the majority are of content that is not originally produced by BOEM. While non-original content can help generate dialogue, further in-depth research should be conducted to understand why BOEM original Tweets are not the forerunning posts that generate interest. Of these non-original Tweets, those that tend to have the highest likes and shares are most often within the ANS category with the top Tweet (ID 27) obtaining 472 and 581 respectively. !(3) BOEMÕs Facebook ER classiÞcation is found more dialogue worthy than its more common GIP classiÞed posts. !!Overall, likes and shares are also low across the board, with Facebook (ID 19) having the highest with 30 and 14 respectively (Appendix B). ClassiÞed within ER, this is surprising as posts of this type only comprise 17% of the total, compared to the less liked but more often posted GIP category (48%). This shows that the general public are !"29ORIGINAL CONTENT LIKESRETWEET CONTENT LIKESORIGINAL CONTENT RETWEETSRETWEET CONTENT RETWEETSFigure 7: Percentage of likes and shares:!Likes based on original content vs ReTweeted content (left) and ReTweets based on original content vs ReTweeted content (right)more interested and passionate in BOEMÕs research goals, and wish to share these Environmental Research posts with friends.!!While this shows that there is much room for improvement on reaching out to the general public about the things they are curious about, the top 5 Facebook posts that generated the most trafÞc allow for a more in-depth look.!Study 2: Top 5 Facebook Posts!!As seen in Appendix C, the 2015 top Þve Facebook posts with the most trafÞc are primarily within the GIP classiÞcation. Once more, this does make sense considering what BOEM is. The post with the most comments (ID 1) and the post with the most meaningful dialogue (ID 3) will be explained in depth within the following Discussion section. However, it is the lack of ER classiÞcation, even as a secondary category, that was surprising. !!This was especially contradictory considering that the data from Types of Posts Made Over an Entire Year supports that more people tend to like and share ER posts. Yet they do not generate that many comments. While more information and a deeper in depth analysis of all post over the entire year would need to be conducted, my hypothesis regarding this abnormality is that there is something in the construction of these ER posts that does not facilitate conversation and dialogue. People are interested in what is being researched (as evidenced by the likes and shares), but donÕt seem to know what or how to ask questions (as evidenced by the lack of comments). Due to this, the manner in which BOEM explained and presented these research opportunities should be observed closely.!!!!"30Discussion!!While all of the top 5 Facebook posts yielded interesting results (see Appendix C), the following two I discuss here were the ones I believe to most clearly identify BOEMÕs weaknesses and strengths in regards to their communications. ! Top 5 Facebook Posts: ID 1!!Of the Top 5 posts, (ID 1) has the most comments at 16. Of these 16, most are of a negative nature, urging, begging, and demanding that BOEM not begin offshore drilling. Many posts from the general public question whether BOEM is truly reading or just manipulating the comments sent to them. While the North Carolina offshore drilling is a hot topic debate during this period of time, the fact that BOEM remains silent in the comments does not foster a sense of dialogue or exchange of information. BOEM is throwing out information, like PielkeÕs Pure Scientist, and refusing to care or speak further. BOEM appears at best indifferent by refusing to even acknowledge the public they have reached. !!As stated before, due to their unique position in the realm of politics and desire to reach the general public, a Pure Scientist approach cannot work. However, going through (ID 3) shows that BOEM can engage in dialogue and discussion.!Top 5 Facebook Posts: ID 3 !!At Þrst glance, ID 3 appears the same as any other - another GIP post, using Director Hopper as the face of this policy. Yet it is after the Þrst comment that we can observe BOEM breaking the barrier between them, and the public they wish to reach.!!!"31ÒThank you for your interest and your passion. "Ready for renewables" is consistent with the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy. OCS states are the primary drivers of interest expressed in different forms of energy and, by law, we must work with states and other stakeholders toward decisions. All the best, BOEM staff.Ó (Appendix C)!!BOEM not only acknowledges a less than thrilled poster, they manage to keep an even tone, presenting the information. This then leads the same poster to respond again, ÒBOEM staff, thank you for your replyÉÓ and continue the exchange. This is what BOEM has been missing in most of its other posts and lack of comments. They are Listen(ing) and Participate(ing) in Conversations that are Already Happening, a core value of social media. BOEM is not just posting information and ignoring what happens to it, but Þnding ways to engage with those who read it.!!This is seen throughout top 5 Facebook posts ID 3, where BOEM makes an effort not only to respond and show that they are reading the comments, but also to offer clariÞcation and more information upon being asked. This is what PielkeÕs Science Arbiter does, answers questions that are asked of them. While these comments are biased to a point, they are offering up information due to BOEMÕs shareholders and political alliances. What would push them towards becoming a Science Arbiter with an Honest Broker spirit would be to offer up both sides of the information. A way to think of this would be to imagine a pro and con list, offering up BOEMÕs position in the debate but showing that they are paying attention to their opposition.!!ID 3 is a strong piece of evidence that shows not only how BOEM can engage and promote an exchange of communication, but that they can do it well. While it may !"32not be possible for every post, the social media liaison for this one was spot on for what BOEM wants to become. It also showed that science entities can promote communication with the general public by following PielkeÕs models. !Research Questions Answered!!!The ÔhowÕ discussed above is at the heart of my research question. ID 1 shows how BOEM tends to produce content - they deliver information to the general public, and then never answer the questions posed. Unfortunately, this seems to be the trend found in most of BOEMÕs communications, and hinders any kind of enriching dialogue or exchange from happening. It is ID 3 that shows a different version of how to foster communication, allowing science to be reachable and accessible to BOEMÕs audience. It is this version of ÔhowÕ that I wish to foster in my own work and research, allowing for a spread and wealth of scientiÞc knowledge to be understood. !!From these two posts, it is easy to see that a large portion of the people who are asking BOEM questions are nervous or scared by the policies being discussed. They wish to have their fears alleviated, and are seeking answers. Unfortunately, these questions are often unanswered, causing a shift in communication towards anger. By answering questions and acknowledging that they are being heard, a much more civil dialogue and general scientiÞc inquiry is attained. !!This could then lead to a larger group of science enthusiasts and policy inquirers reaching out to communicate and ask questions. While this is still seen in the data by the number of likes and favorable comments, it is people who are passionate about science that help foster scientiÞc inquiry. Just because they are not a scientist, does not !"33mean that their dreams and questions cannot spark an amazing idea, or lead a younger generation to enjoy science rather than fear it. !!With this understood, my overall research question - how a government sponsored organization, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), utilizes social media to engage with the general public - can be answered. At the moment, BOEM is just starting to try and reach out to a wider audience through social media. As a science government sponsored organization, BOEM is sticking more towards a Pure Scientist role as that is what science is expected to be. Information is delivered and then forgotten, as opposed to using social mediaÕs strengths of encouraging a ßow of communication. So right now social media is more often used as a dumping ground for information. However, BOEM can move towards a Science Arbiter with an Honest Broker spirit by encouraging a give and take with their audience. By responding enthusiastically and warmly to commenters, BOEM can foster a sense of community that promotes learning and the exchange of complex science and policy making knowledge. In this way, BOEM can continue to reach a wider audience and become a leader in scientist to general public communication. !!With the answers to my research questions Þrmly in place, I can now explain some future implications for BOEM and for future auditors who attempt a similar study of governmental organizations.!!!!!!!"34Future Implications!!Upon completion of this audit and delving through its results, two sets of implications arise: (1) for BOEM and governmental organizations in general, (2) for future audit studies conducted by technical communicators in the Þeld of science. !BOEM and ScientiÞc Governmental Organizations Implications!!From the results, BOEM has many avenues they can pursue. Overall, their focus on GIP is admirable and stays true to their overall focus and position within governmental policy. However, their reach and method of using social media has room for improvement.!!In regards to their ER posts, an in-depth analysis should be conducted to determine why these posts do not gain as much trafÞc. As BOEM wishes to showcase and increase the visibility of its research, new methods for delivery should be considered. This could be done through Patti et al.Õs approach by breaking down ER posts for verbal macro-textual features, non-verbal macro-textual features, and verbal micro-textual features (see Fig. 1 on p. 8). This could then be compared to a similar breakdown of their GIP posts, to see similarities and differences of approaches that they share.!!As for tackling the major goal of increasing communication, the format, tone, and feel from FTP ID 3 should be analyzed similar to Patti et al.Õs approach, and then shown as an example to BOEMÕs future social media liaisons. One member of BOEM has proven that they can have a successful conversation through social media over a controversial subject. This approach should be the norm, not the exception, allowing !"35BOEM to further step into a Science Arbiter role. Through this role, BOEM will be able to attain RomeroÕs hope for strong communication with the general public.!!While the feel and tone of FTP ID 3 is a wonderful template other scientiÞc governmental organizations can share, future auditors must keep in mind that a clearer, more speciÞc guideline should be addressed to properly align with each unique organizationÕs mission. However, a pilot such as this one should be able to give some initial impressions of an organizationÕs communications, allowing the necessary tailoring for an in-depth audit.!!Seeing that social media can allow for a Science Arbiter or Honest Broker to succeed, there are many ways that communication between governmental organizations and the general public can grow. Allowing for a more personal feel and a wide audience base, I am excited to use the idea of this audit and tailor it to other institutionsÕ social media platforms. As long as listening and participating happens between both parties, scientiÞc governmental organizations will be able to slowly but surely reach out to the general public, answer hard-hitting questions, and fascinate the future generation of scientists.!Future Audit Studies Implications!!While there were strong results that arose from this pilot audit, there are still revisions I would implement to make future audits easier. First, the sampling was able to give a general idea of the types of posts BOEM makes throughout a year, as well as which types they post most frequently. However, it was by scouring for the posts with the highest trafÞc that BOEMÕs communication practices were truly able to be observed. Due to this, I would suggest a true, in-depth audit of every post and comment be !"36obtained for the entire year. While this type of sampling audit could be conducted as a way to get an initial idea about an organization, much data could be overlooked by taking data randomly every two weeks. For instance, none of the top comment posts are to be found in Appendix B. Had I been an auditor only looking and making suggestions based on this data, I would not have been able to give them such a strong example to follow.!!Secondly, I would further reÞne each classiÞcation, as well as potentially add one or two more categories to better Þt the posts. This would allow for a cleaner audit to be performed, and allow BOEM to have a better view of what they post versus what truly matters to their organization. This reÞned categorization would more than likely be conducted after a Þrst initial classiÞcation of the data. !!Finally, I would focus more heavily on Facebook rather than dividing my time between Facebook and Twitter. While it did give solid data, due to its microblogging platform Twitter does not lend itself as well to the type of communication BOEM is most concerned with currently. There are no comments, and dialogue is bound by 140 characters. On the other hand, Facebook allows these comments to ßourish without handicap or limits, and can be used as a solid base to build the relationship with the general public. Once this relationship is solid, I would then turn my attention to an in-depth analysis of Twitter. However, this initial focus on Facebook will not be a priority for every organization, so I suggest asking for clariÞcation either from company leaders, or by their communication goals.!!!!"37Conclusion!!Governmental policy communication continues to evolve due to new communication methods. However, communicating with the general public is still murky at best, and missteps utilizing social media make these necessary communications even harder. By adapting tried and true external communication audit methods to the Þeld of scientiÞc governmental policy communication, organizations can Þnd their communication strengths and weaknesses, foster a sense of community that promotes learning and the exchange of complex science and policy making knowledge, and continue strengthening ties with the general public. !!From the conclusion of this pilot communication audit, these external audit methods do yield results which can guide governmental organization forward. While I feel a Science Arbiter role is the best route for BOEM and other similar scientiÞc governmental organizations dealing with both science policy and the general public, all four roles should be considered for different centers. While the audit results can and should be used to highlight what role the majority of posts follow, Þnding key communications where the organization have also succeeded should be highlighted to use as references.!!Overall, BOEM is making its Þrst forays into utilizing social media in its quest to connect with the general public. While right now Facebook and Twitter are being used more as news ßash bulletin or information dumping grounds, there are instances where BOEM tries to foster dialogue. It is this dialogue that is the hallmark of social media, and will allow BOEM to create a strong relationship with the general public over policy questions and scientiÞc inquiry in the future.!!"38!By continuing to push the understanding and reÞnement of governmental science policy communications, there is hope that a healthy and meaningful dialogue with the general public shall become the norm, rather than the exception. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"39!!!!!!!!!!!APPENDICES!!!!!!!!!!!"40APPENDIX A!!"41Table 1: Twitter SpreadsheetTable 1 (contÕd)!"42Table 1 (contÕd)!"43Table 1 (contÕd)!"44Table 1 (contÕd)!"45Table 1 (contÕd)!"46Table 1 (contÕd)!"47Table 1 (contÕd)!"48Table 1 (contÕd)!"49Table 1 (contÕd)!"50Table 1 (contÕd)!"51Table 1 (contÕd)!"52Table 1 (contÕd)!"53Table 1 (contÕd)!"54Table 1 (contÕd)!"55Table 1 (contÕd)!"56Table 1 (contÕd)!"57Table 1 (contÕd)!"58Table 1 (contÕd)!"59Table 1 (contÕd)!"60Table 1 (contÕd)!"61Table 1 (contÕd)!!!!!!!!"62Table 1: Twitter Spreadsheet (contÕd)Table 2: Facebook Spreadsheet!!APPENDIX B!!"63Table 2 (contÕd)!"64Table 2 (contÕd)!!"65Table 2 (contÕd)!!"66Table 2 (contÕd)!!"67Table 2 (contÕd)!!"68Table 2 (contÕd)!!"69Table 2 (contÕd)!!"70Table 2 (contÕd)!!"71Table 2 (contÕd)!!"72Table 2 (contÕd)!!"73Table 2 (contÕd)!!"74Table 2 (contÕd)!!"75Table 2 (contÕd)!!"76Table 2 (contÕd)!!"77Table 2 (contÕd)!!"78Table 2 (contÕd)!!"79Table 2 (contÕd)!!"80Table 2 (contÕd)!!"81Table 2 (contÕd)!!!!!"82Table 2 (contÕd)!APPENDIX C!!"83Table 3: Top 5 Facebook Comments!"84Table 3 (contÕd)!"85Table 3 (contÕd)!"86Table 3 (contÕd)!"87Table 3 (contÕd)!"88Table 3 (contÕd)!"89Table 3 (contÕd)!"90Table 3 (contÕd)!"91Table 3 (contÕd)!"92Table 3 (contÕd)!"93Table 3 (contÕd)!"94Table 3 (contÕd)!"95Table 3 (contÕd)!"96Table 3 (contÕd)!"97Table 3 (contÕd)!"98Table 3 (contÕd)!"99Table 3 (contÕd)!"100Table 3 (contÕd)!"101Table 3 (contÕd)!"102Table 3 (contÕd)!"103Table 3 (contÕd)!"104Table 3 (contÕd)!"105Table 3 (contÕd)!"106Table 3 (contÕd)!"107Table 3 (contÕd)!"108Table 3 (contÕd)!"109Table 3 (contÕd)!"110Table 3 (contÕd)!"111Table 3 (contÕd)!"112Table 3 (contÕd)!"113Table 3 (contÕd)!"114Table 3 (contÕd)!"115Table 3 (contÕd)!"116Table 3 (contÕd)!"117Table 3 (contÕd)!"118Table 3 (contÕd)!"119Table 3 (contÕd)!"120Table 3 (contÕd)!!!!!!"121Table 3 (contÕd)!"122Table 3 (contÕd)!"123Table 3 (contÕd)!"124Table 3 (contÕd)!"125Table 3 (contÕd)!"126Table 3 (contÕd)!"127Table 3 (contÕd)!!!!!!!!!!!!"128Table 3 (contÕd)!!!!!!!!!REFERENCES!!!!!!!!!!!"129References!!!Alnajjar, J. (2015). Mixed qualitative methods in conducting business communication!!audits. European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and !!!Management Studies, 1.!!Beacroft, M., & Dodd, K. (2011). ÔI feel painÕÐ audit of communication skills and !!!understanding of pain and health needs with people with learning disabilities. !!British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 139-147. doi:10.1111/j.!!!1468-3156.2010.00640.x!!Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (n.d.). About BOEM. In BOEM: Bureau of !!Ocean Energy Management. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from http://!!!www.boem.gov/ About-BOEM/!Carpenter, S., & Lertpratchya, A. P. (2016). Social media communicator roles: A scale. !!Social Media + Society, 2(1) doi:10.1177/2056305116632778!!Claussen, J. E., Cooney, P. B., DeÞlippi, J. M., Fox, S. G., Glaser, S. M., !!Hawkes, E.,É Steward, C. (2013). Science communication in a digital age: !!Social media and the american Þsheries society. Fisheries, 38(8), 359.!!Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the !workplace? PLoS One, 11(10) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162680!!Downs, C. (1988). Communication Audits. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.%%Downs, C. W., Adrian, A. D., & Downs, C. W. (2004). Assessing organizational !!!communication: Strategic communication audits. New York: Guilford Press.!Ewald, J., Hite, K., Carrier, B., Ball, D., Haller, M., & Jones, D. (n.d.). Annual Tribal !!Consultation Report Fiscal Year 2014. N.p.: U.S. Department of the Interior: !!Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.!Dijck, J. v. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford: !!Oxford University Press.!Gattiker, U. E. (2013). Social media audit: Measure for impact. New York: Springer. !Greenhow, C., Sonnevend, J., & Agur, C. (2016). Education and social media: Toward a !digital future. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.!Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Ver#i#, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). !!!DeÞning Strategic Communication. International Journal of Strategic !!!Communication, 1: 1, 3-35.!!"130Hargie, O., & Tourish, D. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of communication audits for !!!organisations. New York: Routledge.!Katajisto, L. (2010). Implementing social media in technical communication. Paper !!presented at the Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2010 IEEE !!International, Enschede, Netherlands. Abstract retrieved from http://!!!!ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/document/5530019/!!Klenk, N. L., & Hickey, G. M. (2010). Communication and management challenges in !!large, cross-sector research networks: A canadian case study. Canadian Journal !!of Communication, 35(2), 239.!!Kuzma, K. (2010). Agenda building in the blogosphere: A communication audit of !!!blogging at beth israel deaconess medical center!!Landers, M. (2015, ). Feds, locals discuss ga. offshore drilling. TCA Regional News!!Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & SteinÞeld, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: !!!DeÞnition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in !!!organizations. Journal of Computer"Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1-19.!!Maranto, G., & Barton, M. (2010). Paradox and promise: MySpace, facebook, and the !!sociopolitics of social networking in the writing classroom. Computers and !!!Composition, 27(1), 36-47.!!Osborne-Gowey, J. (2014). What is social media. Fisheries, 39(2), 55-55. doi:!!!10.1080/03632415.2014.876883!%Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. !!Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.%!Potts, L. (2014). Social media in disaster response: How experience architects can build !for participation. New York, NY: Routledge.!!Sheldon, P. (2015). Social media: Principles and applications. Lanham, Maryland: !!Lexington Books.!%In Stevenson, S. C. (2011). Social media and communications technology: Essential !!strategies for nonproÞts and associations.%!Sublet, V., Spring, C., Howard, J., & National Institute for Occupational Safety and !!Health. (2011). Does social media improve communication? evaluating the !!NIOSH science blog. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 54(5), 384-394. !!doi:10.1002/ajim.20921!!!"131Suhr, H. C. (2012). Social media and music: The digital Þeld of cultural production. New !York: Peter Lang.!!Van Eperen, L., & Marincola, F. M. (2011). How scientists use social media to !!!communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9(1), 199-199. !!doi:10.1186/1479-5876-9-199!!Wagner, J. &., Bezuidenhout, M. C., & Roos, J. H. (2015;2014;). Communication !!!satisfaction of professional nurses working in public hospitals. Journal of !!!Nursing Management, 23(8), 974-982. doi:10.1111/jonm.12243!!Woodgett, J. (2014). Burning platforms: Friending social media's role in #scicomm.!!Trends in Cell Biology, 24(10), 555-557. doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2014.08.002! !!!Yates, K. (2006, July 1). Internal communication effectiveness enhances bottom-line !!results. Journal of organizational excellence, 25(3), 71-79.!!Zwijze-Koning, K. H., & Jong, d., M.D.T. (2015). Network analysis as a communication !!audit instrument: Uncovering communicative strengths and weaknesses within !!organizations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(1), 36-60. !!doi:10.1177/1050651914535931!!!"132