“We definitely need an audience”: experiences of Twitter, Twitter networks and tweet content in adults with severe communication disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

References

• Dann S. Benchmarking microblog performance: Twitter Content Classification Framework in Burkhalter. In: Janée N, Wood NT, eds. Maximizing commerce and marketing strategies through micro blogging. Hershey (PA): IGI Global ; 2015. pp 318–337
   Google Scholar
• Twitter. [Internet]. Help for consumers; 2014. Available from: www.twitter.com
   Google Scholar
• Puschmann C, Burgess, J. The politics of Twitter data. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess Mahrt M, Puschmann C, eds. Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang; 2014:43–54
   Google Scholar
• Social Media News. [Internet]. Social Media Statistics, Australia; 2014. Available from: http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-july-2014/ [last accessed 8 May 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Twitter. [Internet]. About Twitter: Company; 2014. Available from: https://about.twitter.com/company
   Google Scholar
• Rogers R. Foreword: Debanalising Twitter: The transformation of an object of study ix. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess Mahrt M, Puschmann C, eds. Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang; 2014:ix
   Google Scholar
• Vis F, Faulkner S, Parry K, et al. Twitpic-ing the riots: analysing images shared on Twitter during the 2011 UK Riots. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess Mahrt M, Puschmann C, eds. Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang; 2014:385–98
   Google Scholar
• Light J. Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: from research to effective practice. Baltimore: Brookes; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Beueklman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 4th ed. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Hemsley B, Palmer S, Balandin S. Tweet reach: a research protocol for using Twitter to increase information exchange in people with communication disabilities. Dev Neurorehabil 2014;17:84–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Access Economics. The economic impact of cerebral palsy in Australia in 2007. Report for Cerebral Palsy Australia; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Media Access Australia. [Internet]. Sociability: social media for people with a disability; 2012. Available from: http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/web/social-media-for-people-with-a-disability [last accessed 8 May 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Bundon A, Hurd Clarke L. Unless you go online you are on your own: blogging as a bridge in para-sport. Disabil Soc 2014;30:185–98
   Google Scholar
• Deloitte [Internet]. Department of Health and Ageing National e-Health Conference Report. Australian Government; 2011. Available from: http://www.pherp.health.gov.au/internet/ehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/A6455C73492D8FDCCA257CD9000366AB/$File/eHealth%20Conference%20and%20Stakeholder%20Report.pdf [last accessed 8 May 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Hargittai E, Litt E. Becoming a Tweep: how prior online experiences influence Twitter use. Inform Commun Soc 2012;15:680–702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer M, Proferes N. Privacy on Twitter, Twitter on privacy. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess Mahrt M, Puschmann C, eds. Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang; 2014:169–82
   Google Scholar
• Bruns A, Stieglitz S. Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: metrics for tweeting activities. Int J Social Res Methodol 2013;16:91–108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruns A, Moe H. Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess Mahrt M, Puschmann C, eds. Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang; 2014:15–28
   Google Scholar
• Stephanson H, Coudry N. Understanding micro-processes of community building and mutual learning on Twitter: a ‘small data’ approach. Inform Commun Soc 2014;17:1212–27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2014
   Google Scholar
• Honeycutt C, Herring SC. Beyond microblogging: conversation and collaboration via Twitter. The 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2009 Jan 5–8; Big Island, HI
   Google Scholar
• Gillen J, Merchant G. Contact calls: Twitter as a dialogic social and linguistic practice. Lang Sci 2013;35:47–58
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marwick AE, Boyd D. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc 2010;13:114–33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao D, Rosson MB. How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. 2009. Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 243–252
   Google Scholar
• Raghavendra P, Wood D, Newman L, Lawry J. Why aren't you on Facebook?: patterns and experiences of using the internet among young people with physical disabilities. Technol Disabil 2012;24:149–62
   Google Scholar
• Sellwood D, Wood D, Raghavendra P. Perspectives on the telecommunications access methods of people with complex communication needs. Telecommun J Aust 2012;62:29.1–11
   Google Scholar
• McKee R. Ethical issues in using social media for health and health care research. Health Policy 2013;110:298–301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gephi. The open graphic vis platform; 2014. Available from: http://gephi.github.io
   Google Scholar
• Palmer S. Characterizing university library use of social media: a case study of Twitter and Facebook from Australia. J Acad Librarianship 2014;v40:611–19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner J, Smith A. [Internet]. 72% of online adults are Social Networking Site users. Pew Research Center. Available from: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/social-networking-sites.aspx [last accessed 8 May 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Marwick AE. Ethnographic and qualitative research on Twitter. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess Mahrt M, Puschmann C, eds. Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang; 2014:109–22
   Google Scholar
• Riessman CK. Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Edelman N. Reviewing the definitions of “Lurkers” and some implications for online research. Cyberpsychol Behav Social Network 2013;16:645–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Y. Efficient, high-quality force-directed graph drawing. Math J 2005;10:37–71
   Google Scholar
• Putnam RD. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Dann S. Twitter content classification. First Monday 2010;15:12
   Google Scholar
• Sun N, Rau PP-L, Ma L. Understanding lurkers in online communities: a literature review. Comput Human Behav 2014;38:110–17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielson J. The 90–9–1 Rule for participation inequality in social media and online communities; 1996. Available from: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/ [last accessed 8 May 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Soroka V, Rafaeli S. Invisible participants: how cultural capital relates to lurking behavior. Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference, WWW; 2006 May 23–26; Edinburgh, Scotland
   Google Scholar