Jul 132016
 

Today I am again at the European Conference on Social Media 2016 and will be liveblogging the sessions. Today is a shorter conference day and I’ll be chairing a session and giving a poster so there may be a few breaks in the blog. As usual these notes are being taken live so any corrections, questions, etc. are very much welcomed. 

Keynote presentation: Dr Sue Greener,University of Brighton Business School, UK – Unlearning Learning with Social Media

I wanted to give you a topic this morning about my topic, which is learning. But not just learning in Higher Education, but also learning in the workplace. I encourage you to tweet throughout, do tweet me @suegonline.

Life is about learned behaviours. We learn habits and once we learn habits, they are hard to unlearn. But at the same time we also love new novel things – that’s why we love social media. You could call this a dichotomy – between habit and the new. A lovely aphorism from Maria de Beausarq: “The power of habit and the charm of novelty are the two adverse forces which explain the follies of mankind”. We see this dichotomy in psychology all the time.

Davis (1999) talks about habit as a barrier to creating thinking and innovation – the idea that “if someone did it this way, they must have had a good reason”. Glaveanu (2012) writes about “habitual creativity” – where expertise and master is brought about through the constant sharpening and adjusting of habitual practice to dynamic changes in context. As in learning a piano, or a language – practising all the time but gradually introducing flourishes and creativity.

Now, you may be wondering about whether this talk is about learning, or about skills… But I think both are very similar. Learning involves a whole range of skills – reading, note taking, evaluation, etc. Learning is a skill and has a degree of both routine and creativity. And learning is not just about those recognisable tasks… And I want to talk about “unlearning”, something that Alvin Toffler talks about in Future Shock, and he talks about 21st Century digital literacy, talking about learning and unlearning. I was started in elearning and the technology. The technology is what we fit around as habit, as mastery, but it’s all about learning. And when I was looking at Toffler’s work, when doing that PhD work, I was worried about learning theory – they all seemed over-engineered, too formal, too linear almost, too structured as pedagogy. I knew that the idea of learning styles – still in the literature and research – but I think of myself as having a learning palate – which I can pick and choose from, I pick the style of learning to suit the context. I personally learn best by learning by watching, by modelling from other people… Yesterday Britt Allan talked about “advertising literacy” and I hadn’t heard that before, but loved that phrase, it made sense to me, and that’s very much how I learn

Bandoura – triple reciprocal determinism – I found theories of learning I understood. He talked about behaviours, and learning from behaviours, and trialling ideas. That idea of not piling learning on learning, but instead about the idea of learning and unlearning, that makes sense. Hefler talks about organisational unlearning – giving it equal weight to learning. Yes, neural networks in the brain accumulates, but they also die away without use… And unlearning is something else.

So, what is unlearning? It is not negative. And it is not about forgetting/the unconcious giving up of knowledge – although it has been seen that way before in the 80s and 90s – we do forget things but that is not what unlearning is. And it is not just replacing the obsolete. But it is a purposive creative process as important as learning. Unlearning is about taking apart the pieces and reconstructing the meaning. It means we can build the foundations of our knowledge. Much under-researched as an area – therefore enticing. Rushmer and Davies (2004) talk about three things: Fading (over time); wiping (enforced from outside – often happens in the workplace, not comfortable); deep unlearning (from individual surprising experience producing inconsistency, changes of value). That deep unlearning can be gradual, or can be about “falling off a cliff” – when we find something surprising and need to decide to change.

And now to social media. Now, I don’t know about you but much of my unlearning takes place on social media. But why? If we go back to 1997, to the early social network 6degrees.com… Since then we have learned to communicate, to exchange information, assessing and evaluating information differently. Information is all around us, and we absorb it in a very social context. So, how much of our learning is from formal courses, and how much is informal learning? Formal learning is the tip of the iceberg, informal learning is bigger and is about rich tacit understanding. As educators we can try to overly control learning, even in e.g. closed facebook groups. But this is learning that benefits from space to work well.

So, informal learning is social and personal and often informal. Bourdieu (1992) talks about a habitus – a mindset – that is enduring but can be transformed by what takes place within and beyond it. Garrick (1998) and Boud (1999) suggested informal interactions with peers are predominent ways of learning at work. Wenger (1998) talks about social participation in the community as key to informal learning. Boud and Middleton (2003) talk about informal learning as being about mastery of organisational processes, negotiating the political and dealing with the atypical – those are things we don’t always embed in the degree process of course. So, how does this all fit with my idea of social media, this DIY media?

When this conference launched in Brighton in 2014 we had a Social Media Showcase with students, employers, academics, and school children. Last year we did a virtual showcase. And this year we did the Big Bang showcase – in a huge showground in Sussex. Over 8000 students from school children – and we were able to have conversations, have vox pops. Out of hundreds of conversations only 10 students did not use social media. And those that were active, they could write a long list (e.g. 8 or 9) of sites they use. My sense is that for this age range these presences are a little like stickers. For these kids informal learning is massive – from peers, from others, from celebrities. At that age perhaps causing a great deal of unlearning. They encounter information in schools but also from peers – which do they choose to trust and engage with? If ever there was a reason for teachers to understand social media, that was it.

At Brighton we have a “switch it on” policy – we ignore this stuff at our peril! You can always ask for devices to be switched off for a few minutes/a task. To exclude those spaces you are turning away and excluding that valuable informal learning, that bigger context. If we want to help people learn, we have to teach them where they are comfortable. And we must help people to evaluate what they see on social media – that is a critical thing for teachers. And social media is not just for kids… We are increasingly joining SnapChat and WhatsApp – less trackable conversations are appealing to older audiences too.

So, back to Rushmer and Davies (2004) and fading… Snapchat is about forgetting, fading. Wiping will be in place in all organisations but we have to think about how to deal more positively with resistance to change. Hislop, Bosley, Coombs and Holland 2013 – who I don’t totally agree with – have a typology of unlearning which is helpful. My thesis is that social media has some particular aspects – it is personal, ubiquitous and high speed. Data is transmitted in a hugely complex route, filtered through sites, through audiences… We have a huge dissemination of a (any) single story. Speed and serendipity are vital features of social media in action. And the experience is intimate – staring into a screen that makes it one-to-one even if in reality it is one-to-many. These interactions can change our mind. They can change our mind in referenda, they can change our mind in many ways. And they can be central to unlearning. That can be for good, and for bad. We will all have great examples of links, of ways we learn through social media. And it is less predictable than mainstream media, you can find surprises, you can catch enthusiasm – and I like to foster that even if I cannot control it!

So, can social media drive deep unlearning? I think all the signs are there. You should make up your own mind.

Q&A

Q1) I am not sure I totally understand what unlearning is… Learning is a process…

A1) I would relate this to the concept of cognitive dissonance – where there are two competing ideas that you must resolve and decide between. In social media I connect with people I like and trust, if they raise an idea that I didn’t previously agree or subscribe to, their raising of it has the ability to influence or change my mind, or at least means I reconsider that issue.

Q2) You talked about habitual creativity, and implied that as you get older you may forget/fade. I saw a presentation a few years back emphasising that you can learn by changing your habits – a walking route for instance.

A2) Absolutely. Things like changing your seat in a lecture theatre, changing a route etc. But social media can really shift your understanding.

Q3) I think you talked about two types of learning that don’t mix together. Many go to universities for the workplace to gather formal skills, that you call back on etc. But that requires some structure. And of course informal learning happens all the time. And the people I

A3) I agree that media stacking and multi tasking is not good… But at the same time in lectures, at conference, I find it useful to reflect, to engage with topics etc. that is very valuable.

Comment) In high school I remember girls knitting and learning too and doing very well.

A3) It is possible, and it is skills that we are developing. I’d agree that it can work, and that it can be helpful for students to be active and engaging rather than passively receiving.

Q4) Thank you for your interesting keynote. How can social media make real change?

A4) I’m not a politician – I wish I was. We have a tool that can strike at the heart of people. It can help form and shape opinion, but that can be bad as well as good…

Introduction to ECSM 2017 

The next conference will be in Vilnius, the capital city in Lithuania. Lithuania is one of three large modern Northern European baltic countries. We are part of EU, NATO, Euro etc. Vilnius has around 550K, and indeed Lithuania has 3 million people. We have a lovely old town, listed by UNESCO. We have technology sectors that we lead in, particularly green tech, and we have the fastest public wi-fi in the world, and third most affordable internet in the EU! People are lovely, well educated, and we speak many languages! We have 14 universities, we have research parks etc. Our campus is on outskirts of the city – but we have Uber and public transport – and the city centre is all walkable on foot. And our campus has excellent facilities and you are very welcome there. We have many researchers working on social technologies, and a journal for social technologies. And, to end, a short video…

And, on that lovely video, I paused the liveblog to give my poster on the Digital Footprint MOOC. 

Young Adults’ Construction of Social Identity on Facebook: A Structural Equation Model – Raheleh Barkhordari, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada and MichaelWillemyns,University of Wollongong in Dubai, UAE

I wanted to look at what impact developing identity in social media had a cognitive or behavioural impact on young people. So my work connects to Social Identity theory – a Social-Psychological theory that describes cognition and behaviour through group processes, across three areas: cognitive, affective, behavioural. Identity is complex as well, divided into Personal Identity – individual’s personal conception of themselves and feelings of uniqueness; and Social Identity – individuals’ knowledge of their membership o a social group and emotions and values of being a member of that group.  Our work on Facebook relates more to Social Identity, but both personal and social identity indicators are evident on Facebook. People define themselves, their demographics, their views etc – personal identity – but also join groups, follow football teams etc. which is about asserting their social identity.

My work is based on two classic works: Erikson (1964) talked about young peoples’ need for socialisation and identity development. We borrowed the idea from Erikson, and suggested that young people on Facebook could be interpreted as identity development. McMillan and Chavis (1986) talks about social identity, the development of sense of belonging or community, and we applied this idea to online group. We argued that online groups, like offline groups, develop ties over time and a sense of belonging. Another stream of research, which was very recent introduced the concept of self presentation – and researchers argued that young people are presenting themselves on Facebook. And in fact in our research we found that one of the most popular activities in Facebook was photo sharing, tagging, etc. and we argue that that could also be a claim on identity.

So we hypothosised that there is a Sense of Belongingness, Online Socialising, Implicit Self Expression all contributed to Online Social Identity.

We ran an online survey of UG and PG students in Dubai, and received 93 valid responses. The questions addressed demographics, the amount of time students spend on Facebook activities, their network and how that is comprised, and popular Facebook activities.

Our participants were mostly 30 years or younger. Facebook is a part of students daily routine – 80% logged into their accounts more than once a day and each time spend up to an hour. They feel out of touch when they don’t log in. They consider themselves to be a valuable member of Facebook community – a marker of social identity. Students belive that their identity of their facebook groups would overlap their personal identoty. Generally our participants was made up of friends and acquaintances rather than strangers (average 200 friends). There can be “fake” profiles on Facebook, but if your network is all people you know it is harder to fake your identity perhaps as there is a connection to offline life. Photo activities were the most popular activities – 70% mainly use Facebook for this purpose.

We analysed the validity for our hypothoses. For Sense of belongingness contributing to online social identity development was supported. Implicit self-presentation – through sense of belongngness – did contriute to online social identity and that was supported in that mediated relationship. For that last aspect of Online socialisation contributing to online social identity was not supported, but it may be that if we had explore this in more detail, with more factors, we may have been able to see some effect.

We found that students engage in online interactions on social media specifically in self-presentation activities to implicitly express themselves. Overtime they develop a sense of belongingness to Facebook and a positive community there. There were other aspects, like self-esteem, that we didn’t include but could/might have.

So, in terms of the cognitive and behavioural component we see a mixture of socialisation – self-presentation; communications; group activities – and knowledge of group membership. And we saw these feed into a sense of belongingness – the affective component. And that that contributes to a sense of Online Social Identity. And we hope that model can contribute to future research.

Q&A

Q1) What profile aspects did you use for “presentation of self”

A1) We didn’t look at profiles, we asked question. We asked about a list of popular Facebook activities – published by other researchers – and asked about preference/activities, and things like taking photos etc. were part of this.

Q2) I was interested in your comment about Facebook identity being consistent with offline identity… I was wondering if there had been any qualitative data that maybe suggested a lack of continuity, or of self-censorship, etc.

A2) The main argument we had in the paper about profile identities as reflective of offline activities, was about real life contacts and how that provides some continuity/assurance of identity. The paper reports all the questions. The majority of students said they wouldn’t use Facebook to make new connections, they prefer to maintain connections there.

Exploring the Relationship Between Imagination and Creation Performance Among Visual Arts Learners Under the Blended Learning Model in Taiwan  – LiuKuang-Hsia, University of Taipei, Taiwan

I am very excited to be here from Taipei, Taiwan to share my research with you. I’ll summarise my work, with some backgrounds, method of study, and some interesting results. I am a visual arts teacher with 9 years experience in Digital Image Creation, where our course objectives are about gaining photoshop skills, digital skills, and creation methods – it is a mixture of art creation guidance and technical skills. We have lots of challenges. We have 2 to 3 hours of face to face time with our students – which is challenging too.

So, there is never enough time to cover all of the course topics… Part of that is about the tool – Adobe Photoshop now has a huge amount of new features – added in every version. That’s a challenge. And students are keen to focus on skills based learning, and are not as focused on imagination, creativity, aesthetic aspects. And because of timing the tutors talk quickly, that can cause stressed and questioning students. So, blended learning provides a solution here – providing a way for students to learn online to augment the face to face teaching. And the Horison 2016 reflects HE adoption of blended learning. Since 2014 I have adopted a blended learning model, and that shows an impact on the creativity of the students improving.

My study was to understand the relationship between imagination and creative arts and blended learning. My participants are 37 students – 9 male and 28 female. They are all taking the Blended learning module. They had a questionnaire at the end of the course – and it was voluntary and specifically not tied to assessment. Thompson (2008) has an Imagination Scale for Spontaneous Imagining and Structure Imagining(?). We used a 5 pt Likert scale in our research. We also looked at assessing artwork based on four criteria, and three experts assessment of the work.

When we looked at Students imagination performance, we saw slightly higher levels than in the wider populace. Regarding overall performance – male students performed significantly better than female students. When we looked at the dimensions of Theme and Content; Aesthetic Design; Creativity and Use of Skills we see the only significant result between male and female students in the area of Use of Skills (with male students performing slightly better).

I found that visual arts learners have more creativity than a wider range of learners.

Male students have higher imagination performance than female students, but there is no significant difference between genders in creative performance. And in terms of use of skills – highly skilled students performed significantly better. There was no difference between low and medium.

I have ideas for future research: Develop a tool to objectively assess imagination.

Q&A

Q1) It’s strange to see imagination connected with performance and assessment. Can you say more about triggering imagination?

A1) There is more discussion in the full paper. Imagination in our culture includes: beauty, skill, precision. I agree with you that there is no perfect imagination scale at the moment, but maybe we need a scale for future research. There are many aspects to assess. We have scholars who have developed small scale imagination – but none are perfect. But this is an experimental study.

Q2) Are you planning further studies with a more general population – there are only 9 men here, so might have different results in a wider study.

A2) Yes, I agree. Our students are mostly female though.

Q3) You were comparing the questionnaire results to the students performance in assessment, so I was curious how you avoid gender bias in the marking – as that stronger male performance could be the result of a difference in marking potentially…

A3) It’s an interesting question. The students for the questionnaire were self selecting… And the imagination performance was stronger for those with higher skills – where the male students were significantly stronger. But it is interesting…

Q4) How do you design your blended learning?

A4) I have an 18 week curriculum, 9 weeks online, 9 weeks in person. The digital material, shooting etc. takes place over summer… They are happy to work from home to do that first half of the class of online learning materials. And I am available via online office time for students, especially ahead of assessments.

And not captured above: I had some interesting chat in the between-presentation break, about all of the other complexities with assessing creative arts and imagination. Including some discussion of the fact that those 9 male students may be more motivated or may feel more confident in their expression given their role as minority in the group/space. In particular we were talking about the difference in aesthetics, symbology, etc. which may exist across cultural backgrounds, age groups etc. Can we assess young people’s creativity if their own visual language and styles speak to their peers and not to their (older) tutors for instance? How do we do that and understand the meaning of the work? Interesting stuff. And now onto the next paper… 

Informal Learning Practices Among Academic’s in Malaysia – OmarSiti Sarah, SitiSarawati,Johar Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Zailin ZainalAriffin,National Defence University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

This is a simple study that my undergraduate students undertook. And I would just like to share with you what I’ve found about informal learning processes amongst that group.

Learning not only prepares an individual to cope in life but is the most important factor for success (Harrison and English 2003). Both formal and informal learning have contributed to the growth of the education system. Informal learning has been adopted for a number of reasons. Marksick and Watkins (2003) have a model of the reasons for adopting informal learning which includes: it provides flexibility or freedom for learners; it involves the processes by which people learn; and acknowledges the social aspects of learning from each other.

So the purpose for my study was to identify the level of participation, purpose, content and methods used in informal learning among the faculty of technical and vocational education lecturers. We are one of 9 faculties in a public university in Southern Malaysia.

What is informal learning? It is learning outside of formal structures but has been endorsed and encouraged by organisations, including the European Union, as being beneficial for learning. Telecommunications and technology have dramatically altered the way educators do their jobs and the way students are engaged in learning activities and processes. They are internet based tools that facilitate creativity and information sharing and collaboration among users (Clough 2010). There is an emphasis on sharing and engagement (Lucas and ??).

So in this study I used a descriptive survey to identify how lecturers adopt informal learning in their workplace. It was sent to 100 lecturers and had a 65% return rate. It was analysed in SPSS.

The level of involvement was generally high – with “surfing the internet at work for information about teaching, interests and hobbies as well as general information” the most popular activity but amongst a wide range. In terms of the purpose of involvement in informal learning was spread across five areas: Knowledge of conducting research (top answer), obtain teaching materials, etc. And this is in-keeping with Othman (2005), as did participants use of particular content in online learning. In terms of method/medium, interactive media was most frequently used above other sorts of content.

In terms of conclusions: the level of involvement was high. The purpose was most prominent for research and publications, whereas content of informal learning was ranked the highest for the language of communication (English and Malay), with Areas of expertise in teaching the second most popular answer.

Q&A

Q1) What was the context of this study?

A1) It was conducted by my undergraduate students for their final project for their degree. They came up with the topic.

Q1) Can I look again at the questions here? I saw some questions here that start “I always…”, what does that mean?

A1) Very often. But yes, I can see that that is open to misinterpretation. The scores are based on the 5pt Likert scale by the way.

Comment) One way to do that is to not include “often” or “always”

A1) I should say that the questionnaire was asked in Malay, which may make it slightly different in terms of ambiguity/phrasing.

Q2) What was the languages of communication question about?

A2) The students wanted to know about the content the lecturers accessed.

Q3) Why did you think that the level of informal learning was high?

A3) The score was 3.87 on that 5pt Likert scale. Which is high since 5 is maximum.

Q4) What do you intend to do with this research next?

A4) Could be extended, to look at gender differences perhaps… Other ideas…

Comment) You could look at preferences across

Q5) A really interesting study for students to take part in… I wondered how you got the lecturers to take part and answer honestly! And what would you do if rerunning again?

A5) I definitely wouldn’t use the same questions and would want students to engage in more complex statistical analysis. This work was 2-3 years ago. But informal learning is definitely still of interest.

Q6) Did you give your students feedback on their work here?

A6) Yes, so learning for them and for me!

Comment) It might be good to compare informal learning to knowledge.

A6) Yes, that would be interesting, to have a look at tacit knowledge…

Comment) That’s a good question to ask as they may read or engage with all of these things, but it’s hard to know if they are learning from them.

And with that, it’s time for lunch… 

The Implementation of Social Media in an Open Distance Learning Context  – LedimoOphillia and NicoMartins,UNISA, Pretoria, South Africa

This is a theoretical paper proposed with my colleague Nico Martins. And really for doing our business we have to be involved in open distance learning, and social media is key to that. In health it is especially important to implement these tools in this environment.

When we look at the concept of social media it is imagined differently, to communicate differently, to engage. And they allow creation and exchange of information that is generated by the users themselves. In terms of the general principles that are required, you need internet and digital context. It is connected and collective. And it describes the way learners learn in the current era. One colleague before lunch talked about social media as a platform for informal learning, for learners to be autonomous in their learning.

So most colleagues would implement social media without looking at the context of their organisation. And we think that actually we think it is imporant to understand the nature of open distance learning in the 21st century, to look at attributes of an open distance learner in an era of technlohu. To consider learner access to tools and resources. And to understand the role of social media in a learning and teaching environment.

Students can’t post assignments to us anymore, our assignments are submitted online, notes are accessed online, that’s the environment we find ourselves in. And we are looking for learners to be engaged more through technology. And these tools allow reach to students in a variety of environments and locations. But social media also helps students acclimatises students into the world of work where they will be expected to engage in social media as part of their practices.

In terms of student attributes, we find the current generation want to study anywhere, at anytime. And irrespective of age – even older learners have embraced the technology and are willing to use it. When you look at current learners, the literature also reflects this, the learners are problem solvers and multi-tasking learners. They want to be, and need to be, active engaged learners. They are very self-regulated and they want to be autonomous.

In terms of access to tools and resources. In South Africa our government tried to introduce an elearning programme without taking into account the history or experience of learners before. You can have tools but without economic access to resources, to internet, it won’t work. So, if you provide social media it is crucial that you provide an equal playing field for all your learners, so that they are able to participate and engage on the same terms. We have a social media tool called My UNISA which all students use, but you need internet access –  but students privileged to have internet access participate, others struggle to engage in discussions and group sessions. So, when you want to make social media as a tool for learner centred approach, it’s important to think about learners access to tools and material.

We also have to talk about how you use it… You don’t just use it because it’s a trend. But looking at the literature we see it can be used for support, collaboration, it’s an easy platform for that. And we are moving from a trend of basic things… We are moving to assessement submission online, exam online, it allows us to teach a large group of learners across a diverse geography. Once your student is supported, able to engage and participate, to do well in their studies. But the content must be managed so that the learner doesn’t deviate too far, that they focus their discussions. Important for students to build understanding, to build confidence, to engage directly with each other and their teaching staff. And when students collaborate and engage with one another, they are encouraged to work harder – and students are more satisfied by group activities and learner activities.

So, in conclusion, we think it’s really important that we facilitate open distance earning through social media. When we think of going fully online it is important to look at those areas – access, usefulness for support and assessment. Although social media has its own limitations… And because contact isn’t person to person… And security of users can be of concern… But benefits versus risk have to be balanced. We as educators have to balance that out in our own approach. And if we use social media we can empower learners to depend on one other and to help one another.

Integrating Social Media into a MOOC: Lessons from the Course on Digital and Social Media Marketing – GatautisRimantas and ElenaVitkauskaite,Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

I’ll be reflecting on some experience we’ve had. We had a project called JEMMS: Joint European Marketing and Social Media – a very ambitious 3 year project. And out of the project we are publishing a book with Routledge: Digital and Social Media Marketing. And more ambitious still we are delivering a joint masters programme across partners in Europe: The University of Salford Business School; KTU in Lithuania; Lot? University, Poland; WALTT in; and University of Sheffield in the City College in Thessoloniki. And they have agreed to run a MOOC and a joint masters.

And we ran our MOOC – Digital and Social Media Marketing – on the “leading open online course platform in Europe” (apparently), Iversity. We had EC funding so wanted to use a European MOOC platform.

We divided the MOOC into six different topics – why digital and social media is imporatnt, nature of digital channels, buyer persona development, etc. And students could access the course, and continue to access materials for six months afterwards. We had an aim of having 3000 MOOC participants. We did some promotion, and the platform did some promotion too. We asked everyone to introduce themselves on Twitter – also to help market the course. We used the hashtag #passion4digital. We attracted 14,000 students. Un-enrollment level was very low. And the course attracted participants across the whole world.

The evaluation was done in  two methods: Iversity did some evaluation, but we also did some evaluation. This was evaluation of the course as a whole. The Iversity questions were standard. We had 175 participants in the Iversity evaluation questionnaire, the project team questionnaire had around 100 participants.

Our results showed varied acceptance of different MOOC tools and formats. Videos were most successful. Quizzes and additional materials were well accepted. P2P assignments were not as happily accepted. And Online office hours/webinars were not so popular. Discussion forums also not well accepted.

We used two external platforms alongside the course: Twitter and the blogging platform CreativeHive. These supported the course community, also for some tasks in the course. And throughout the course we tried to understand how to promote the course via social media tools. There are different social media tools. The team decided to use Twitter…. The hope was that it would force students to use these tools, and some students did that… This is also tricky part. Twitter is very popular in the UK, but in Lithunia it is not popular at all, not in Latvia either. But we managed to force some students to use new tools – but not all of the project team learned new platforms!

We wanted to limit ourselves in terms of where we, as a team, supported students. We found that students themselves set up presences on Facebook and LinkedIn, as well as WhatsApp and SMOOCER – which explicitly supports MOOC completion. And the different content that students produced by participants was quite interesting, and some really interesting work. Overall we had nearly 1000 active users able to receive statement of participation. But they were spread about the world.

In conclusion, two important points. We were trying to limit ourselves to Twitter and CreativeHub. And to focus on active participants. And students actively created their own space.

We had the hashtag #passion4digital and we thought they would just use it on Twitter, but they used it on Facebook and Instragram etc. which let us find their discussions… etc. and consider which platforms to use.

And a good outcome of the MOOC – Iversity asked us to design a 12 week paid professional course (this one we ran was free) so we are going to be doing that.

Apologies, my chairing this session meant no capture of interesting questions and discussions. 

Summary of the Conference
Award to the winner of the Best PhD Paper and Best Masters Paper

Christina: We had really good presentations and papers so this was hard to select – there were so many interesting perspectives in these sessions. The PhD prize is jointly awarded to:

Britt Adams for: Improving Adolescents’ Advertising Literacy Through Education: The Perceptions of Secondary Education (TeachersAdamsBritt, TammySchellensand MartinValcke,Ghent University, Belgium).

And:

KarinHögberg for: The Interpretation of Social Media: Challenges of Adopting Social Media in Organizations (HögbergKarin, University West, Sweden)

And the winner of the Masters symposium is:

Organisational Context and Netiquette: Exploring the Paradox of Control Versus Chaos in Social Media Management CallinanSarah and EtainKidney,Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland (Masters).

The winner for the Masters colloquium is: Sarah Callinan: Organisational Context and Netiquette: Exploring the Paradox of Control Versus Chaos in Social Media Management (CallinanSarah and EtainKidney,Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland)

The winner for the poster is Hanaa Namankani,University of Liverpool and King Abdulaziz University, UK – Social Media (SM) Adoption by Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs): Influential Factors in the Context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)

Sue Nugus: Two small announcements. Next year in Vilnius at ECSM2017 we will have a new competition which will be looking for good initiatives or applications of social media, where academia and business work together. It’s about the story of what happened, the challenges, and what happened at the end/where you are at. Teams of at least 2. And please keep an eye out for that, and tell your contacts and colleagues.

And with that, we are done!

 July 13, 2016  Posted by at 7:38 am Uncategorized Tagged with: , ,  No Responses »
Jul 122016
 

This week I am at the European Conference on Social Media 2016. I’m presenting later today, and have a poster tomorrow, but will also be liveblogging here. As usual the blog is live so there may be small errors or typos – all corrections and additions are very much welcomed!

We are starting with an introduction to EM Normandie, which has 4 campuses and 3000 students.

Introduction from Sue Nugus, ACPI, welcoming us to the event and the various important indexing etc.

Christine Bernadas, ECSM is co-chair and from EM Normandie, is introducing our opening keynote Abi Ouni, Co-founder and CEO of Spectrum Group. [http://www.spectrumgroupe.fr/]

Keynote Address:Ali Ouni,Spectrum Group, France – Researchers in Social Media, Businesses Need You!!!

My talk today is about why businesses need social media. And that, although we have been using social media for the last 10-15 years, we still need some approaches and frameworks to make better use of it.

My own personal background is in Knowledge Manageent, with a PhD from the Ecole Centrale Paris and Renault. Then moved to KAP IT as Head of Enterprise 2.0, helping companies to integrate new technologies, social media, in their businesses. I belive this is a hard question – the issue of how we integrate social media in our businesses. And then in 2011 I co-founded Spectrum Groupe, a consulting firm of 25 people who work closely with researchers to define new approaches to content management, knowledge management, to define new approaches. And our approach is to design end to end approaches, from diagnostic, to strategy development through to technologies, knowledge management, etc.

When Christine asked me to speak today I said “OK, but I am no longer a researcher”, I did that 12-15 years ago, I am now a practitioner. So I have insights but we need you to define the good research questions based on them.

I looked back at what has been said about social media in the last 10-15 years: “Organisationz cannot afford not to be listening to what is being said about them or interacting with their customers in the space where they are spending their time and, increasingly, their money too” (Malcolm Alder, KPMG, 2011).

And I agree with that. This space has high potential for enterprises… So, lets start with two slides with some statistics. So, these statistics are from We Are Social’s work on digital trends. They find internet activity increasing by 10% every year; 10% growth in social media users; and growth of 4% in social media users accessing via mobile; which takes us to 17% of the total population actively engaging in social media on mobile.

So, in terms of organisations going to social media, it is clearly important. Ut it is also a confusion question. We can see that in 2010 70%+ of big international organisations were actively using social media, but of these 80% have not achieved the intended businesses. So, businesses are expending time and energy on social media but they are not accruing all of the benefits that they have targeted.

So, for me social media are new ways of working, new business models, new opportunities, but also bringing new risks and challenges. And there are questions to be answered that we face every day in an organisational context.

The Social Media Landscape today is very very diverse, there is a high density… There are many platforms, sites, medias… Organisationsa re confused by this landscape and they require help to navigate this space. The choice they have is usually to go to the biggest social media in terms of total users – but is that a good strategy? They need to choose sites with good business value. There are some challenges when considering external sites versus internal sites – should they replicate functionality themselves? And where are the values and risks of integrating social media platforms with enterprise IT systems? For instance listening to social media and making connecting back to CRMs (Customer Relationship Management System(s)).

What about using social media for communications? You can experiement, and learn from those… But that makes more sense when these tools are new, and they are not anymore. Is experimenting always the best approach? How ca we move faster? Clients often ask if they can copy/adopt the digital strategies of their competitors but I think generally not, that these approaches have to be specific to the context and audience.

Social media has a fast evolution speed, so agility is required… Organisations can struggle with that in terms of their own speed of organizational change. A lot of agility is requires to address new technologies, new use cases, new skills. And decisions over skills and whether to own the digital transformation process, or to delegate to others.

The issue of Return on Investment (ROI) is long standing but still important. Existing models do not work well with social media – we are in a new space, new technology, a new domain. There is a need to justify the value of these kinds of projects, but I think a good approach is to work on new social constructs, such as engagement, sentiment, retention, “ROR” – Return on Relationship, collective intelligence… But how does one measure these?

And organisations face challenges of governance… Understanding rules and policies of engagement on social media, on understanding issues of privacy and data protection. And thought around who can engage on social media.

So, I have presented some key challenges… Just a few. There are many more on culture, change, etc. that need to be addressed. I think that it is important that businesses and researchers work together on social media.

Q&A

Q1) Could you tell me something on Return on Relationships… ?

A1) This is a new approach. Sometimes the measure of Return on Investment is to measure every conversation and all time spent… ROR is about long term relationships with customers, partners, suppliers… and it is about having benefits after a longer period of time, rather than immediate Return on Investment. So some examples include turning some customers into advocates –so they become your best salespeople. That isn’t easy, but organisations are really very aware about these social constructs.

Q1) And how would you calculate that?

Comment) That is surely ROI still?

Comment) So, if I have a LinkedIn contact, and they buy my software, then that is a return on investment, and value from social capital… There is a time and quality gain too – you identify key contact and context here. Qualitative but eventually quantitative.

A1) There absolutely is a relationship between ROR and ROI.

Q2) It was interesing to hear your take on research. What you said reminded me of 20 years ago when we talked about “Quality Management” and there was a tension between whether that should be its own role, or part of everyone’s role.

A2) Yes, so we have clients that do want “community management” and ask us to do that for them – but they are the experts in their own work and relationships. The quality of content is key, and they have that expertise. Our expertise is around how to use social media as part of that. The good approach is to think about new ways to work with customers, and to define with our consulting customers what they need to do that. We have a coaching role, helping them to design a good approach.

Q3) Thank you for your presentation. I would like to ask you if you could think of a competency framework for good community management, and how you would implement that.

A3) I couldn’t define that framework, but I think rom what I see there are some key skills in community management are about expertise – people from the business who understands their own structure, needs, knowledge. I think that communication skills need to be good – writing skills, identifying good questions, an ability to spot and transform key questions. From our experience, knowing the enterprise, communication skills and coordinating skills are all key.

Q3) What about emotional engagement?

A3) I think emotional engagement is both good and dangerous. It is good to be invested in the role, but if they are too invested there is a clear line to draw beteen professional engagement and personal engagement. And that can make it dangerous.

Stream B – Mini Track on Empowering Women Through Social Media (Chair – Danilo Piaggesi)

Danilo: I proposed this mini track as I saw that the issues facing women in social media were different, but that women were self-organising and addressing these issues, so that is the genesis of this strand. My own background is in ICT in development and developing countries – which is why I am interested in this area of social media… The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which include ICT, have been defined as needing to apply to developing and developed countries. And there is a specific goal dedicated to Women and ICT, which has a deadline of 2030 to achieve this SDG.

Sexting & Intimate Relations Online: Identifying How People Construct Emotional Relationships Online & Intimacies Offline
Spurling – Esme, Coventry University, West Midlands, UK

Sexting and intimate relations online have accelerated with the use of phones and smart phones, particularly platforms such as SnapChat and Whats App… Sexting for the purpose of this paper is about the sharing of intimate texts through digital information. But this raises complexity for real life relationships, and how the online experience relates to that, and how heterosexual relationships are mediated. My work is based on interviewees.

I will be talking about “sex selfies”, which are distributed to a global audience online. These selfies (Ellie is showing examples on the “sexselfie” hashtags) purport to be intimate, despite their global sharing and nature. The hashtags here (established around 2014) show heterosexual couples… There is (by comparison to non-heterosexual selfies) a real focus on womens bodies, which is somewhat at odds with the expectations of girls and women showing an interest in sex. Are we losing our memory of what is intimate? Are sexselfies a way to share and retain that memory?

I spoke to women in the UK and US for my research. All men approached refused to be interviewed. We have adapted to the way we communicate face to face through the way we connect online. My participants reflect social media trends already reported in the media, of the blurring of different spheres of public and private. And that is feeding into our intimate lives too. Prensky (2001) refers to this generation as “Digital Natives” (I insert my usual disclaimer that this is the speaker not me!), and it seems that this group are unable to engage in that intimacy without sharing that experience. And my work focuses on shairng online, and how intimacy is formed offline. I took an ethnographic approach, and my participants are very much of a similar age to me, which helped me to connect as I spoke to them about their intimate relationships.

There becomes a dependency on mobile technologies, of demand and expectation… And that is leading to a “leisure for pleasure” mentality (Cruise?)… You need that reward and return for sharing, and that applies to sexting. Amy Hassenhof notes that sexting can be considered a broadcast media. And mainstream media has also been scrutinising sexting and technology, and giving coverage to issues such as “Revenge Porn” – which was made a criminal offence in 2014. This made texting more taboo and changed public perceptions – with judgement online of images of bodies shared on Twitter. When men participate they sidestep a label, being treated in the highly gendered “boys will be boys” casualness. By contrast women showing their own agency may be subject to “slut shaming” (2014 onwards), but sexting continues. And I was curious to find out why this continues, and how the women in my studies relate to comments that may be made about them. Although there is a feeling of safety (and facelessness) about posting online, versus real world practices.

An expert interview with Amy Hassenhof raised the issue of expectations of privacy – that most of those sexting expect their image to be private to the recipient. Intimate information shared through technology becomes tangled with surveillance culture that is bound up with mobile technologies. Smartphones have cameras, microphone… This contributes to a way of imagining the self that is formed only by how we present ourselves online.

The ability to sext online continues despite Butler noting the freedom of expression online, but also the way in which others comment and make a real impact on the lives of those sharing.

In conclusion it is not clear the extent to which digital natives are sharing deliberately – perceptions seemed to change as a result of the experience encountered. One of my participants felt less in control after reflective interviews about her practice, than she had before. We demand communication instantly… But this form of sharing enables emotional reliving of the experience.

Q&A

Q1) Really interesting research. Do you have any insights in why no men wanted to take part?

A1) The first thing is that I didn’t want to interview anyone that I knew. When I did the research I was a student, I managed to find fellow student participants but the male participants cancelled… But I have learned a lot about research since I undertook my evidence gathering. Women were happy to talk about – perhaps because they felt judged online. There is a lot I’d do differently in terms of the methodology now.

Q2) What is the psychological rationale for sharing details like the sex selfies… Or even what they are eating. Why is that relevant for these people?

A2) I think that the reason for posting such explicit sexual images was to reinforce their heterosexual relationships and that they are part of the norm, as part of their identity online. They want others to know what they are doing… As their identity online. But we don’t know if they have that identity offline. When I interviewed Amy Hassenhof she suggested it’s a “faceless identity” – that we adopt a mask online, and feel able to say something really explicit…

A Social Network Game for Encouraging Girls to Engage in ICT and Entrepreneurship: Findings of the Project MIT-MUT
–  Natalie Denk, Alexander Pfeiffer and Thomas Wernbacher, Donau Universität Krems, Ulli Rohsner, MAKAM Research Gmbh, Wien, Austria and Bernhard Ertl,Universität der Bundeswehr, Munich, Germany

This work is based on a mixture of literature review, qualitative analysis of interviews with students and teachers, and the development of the MIT-MUT game, with input and reflection from students and teachers. We are testing the game, and will be sharing it with schools in Austria later this year.

Our intent was to broaden career perspectives of girls at the age of 12-14 – this is younger than is usually targeted but it is the age at which they have to start making decisions and steps in their academic life that will impact on their career. Their decisions are impacted by family, school, peer groups. But the issue is that a lot of girls don’t even see a career in ICT as an option. We want them to show that that is a possibility, to show them the skills they already have, and that this offers a wide range of opportunities, possible career pathways. We also want to provide a route to mentors who are role models, as this is still a male dominated field especially when it comes to entrepreneurship.

Children and young people today grow up as “digital natives” (Prensky 2001) (again, my usual critical caveat), they have a strong affinity towards digital media, they frequently use internet, they use social media networks – primarily WhatsApp, but also Facebook and Instagram. Girls also play games – it’s not just boys that enjoy online gaming – and they do that on their phones. So we wanted to bring this all together.

The MIT-MUT game takes the form of a 7 week long live challenge. We piloted this in Oct/Nov 2015 with 6 schools and 65 actie players in 17 teams. The main tasks in the game are essentially role playing ICT entrepreneurship… Founding small start up companies, creating a company logo, and find an idea for an app for the target group of youth. They needed to then turn their game into a paper prototype – drawing screens and ideas on paper to demonstrate basic functionality and ideas. The girls had to make a video of this paper prototype, and also present their company on video. We deliberately put few technological barriers in place, but the focus was on technology, and the creative aspects of ICT. We wanted the girls to use their skills, to try different roles, to have opportunity to experiment and be creative.

To bring the schools and the project team we needed a central connecting point… We set up a SeN (Social Enterprise ?? Network), and we did that with Gemma – a Microsoft social networking tool for use within companies, that are closed to outside organisations. This was very important for us, given the young age and need for safety in our target user group. They had many of the risks and opportunities of any social network but in this safe bounded space. And, to make this more interesting for the girls, we created a fictional mentor character, “Rachel Lovelace” (named for Ada Lovelace), who is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, coming to Austria to invest. And the students see a video introduction – we had an actress record about 15 video messages. So everything from the team was through the character of Rachel, whether video or in her network.

A social network like Gemma is perfect for gamification aspects – we did have winners and prizes – but we also had achievements throughout the challenge for finishing a face, making a key contribution, etc. And if course there is a “like” button, the ability to share or praise someone in the space, etc. We also created some mini games, based on favourite genres of the girls – the main goal of these were as starting points for discussing competencies in ICT and Entrepreneurship contexts. With the idea that if you play this game you have these competencies, and why not considering doing more with that.

So, within Gemma, the interface looks a lot like Facebook… And I’ll show you one of these paper prototypes in action (it’s very nicely done!), see all of the winning videos: http://www.mitmut.at/?page_id=940.

To evaluate this work we had a quantitative approach – part of the game presented by Rachel – as well as a quantitative approach based on feedback from teachers and some parents. We had 65 girls, 17 teams, 78% completed the challenge at least to phase 4 (the video presentation – all the main tasks completed). 26% participated in the voting phase (phase 5). Of our participants 30 girls would recommend the game to others, 10 were uncertain, and 4 would not recommend the game. They did enjoy the creativity, design, the paper prototyping. They didn’t like the information/the way the game was structured. The communication within the game was rated in quite a mixed way – some didn’t like it, some liked it. The girls interested in ICT rated the structure and communication more highly than others. The girls stayed motivated but didn’t like the long time line of the game. And we saw a significant increase in knowledgeability of ICT professions, they reported increase in feeling talented, and they had a higher estimation of their own presentation skills.

In the qualitative approach students commented on the teamwork, the independence, the organisational skills, the presentation capabilities. They liked having a steady contact person (the Rachel Lovelace character), the chance of winning, and the feeling of being part of a specialist project.

So now we have a beta version, we have added a scoring system for contributions with points and stars. We had a voting process but didn’t punish girls for not delivering on time, wanted to be very open… But girls thought that we should have done this and given more objective, more strict feedback. And they wanted more honest and less enthusiastic feedback from “Rachel”. They felt she was too enthusiastic. We also restructured the information a bit…

For future development we’d like to make a parallel programme for boys. The girls appreciated the single sex nature of the network. And I would personally really like to develop a custom made social media network for better gamifiation integration, etc. And I’d like

Q&A

Q1) I was interested that you didn’t bring in direct technical skills – coding, e.g. on Raspberry PIs etc. Why was that?

A1) Intentionally skipped programming part… They have lessons and work on programming… But a lack of that idea of creative ways to use ICT, the logical and strategic skills you would need… But they already do informatics as part of their teaching.

Q2) You set this up because girls and women are less attracted to ICT careers… But what is the reason?

A2) I think they can’t imagine to have a career in ICT… I think that is mainly about gender stereotypes. They don’t really know women in ICT… And they can’t imagine what that is as a career, what it means, what that career looks like… And to act out their interests…

And with that I’ve switched to the Education track for the final part of this session… 

Social Media and Theatre Pedagogy for the 21C: Arts-Based Inquiry in Drama Education – Amy Roberts and Wendy Barber, University of Ontario, Canada

Amy is starting her presentation with a video on social media and performance pedagogy, the blurring of boundaries and direct connection that it affords. The video notes that “We have become a Dramaturgical Community” and that we decide how we present ourselves.

Theatre does not exist without the audience, and theatre pedagogy exists at the intersection between performance and audience. Cue another video – this time more of a co-presentation video – on the experience of the audience being watched… Blau in The Audience (1990) talks about the audience “not so much as a mere congregation of people as a body of thought and desire”.  Being an audience member is now a standard part of everyday life – through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Vine… We see ourselves every day. The song “Digital Witness” by Saint Vincent sums this up pretty well.

YouTube Preview Image

Richard Allen in 2013 asked whether audience actually wants conclusive endings in their theatre, instead showing preference for more videogame open ended type experiences. When considering what modern audiences want… Liveness is prioritised in all areas of life and that that does speak to immediacy of theatre. Originally “live” was about co-presence but digital spaces are changing that. The feeling of liveness comes from our engagement with technology – if we engage with machines, like we do with humans, and there is a response, then that feels live and immediate. Real time experiences gives a feeling of liveness… One way to integrate that with theatre is through direct digital engagement across the audience, and with performance. Both Baker and Auslander agree that liveness is about immediate human contact.

The audience is demanding for live work that engages them in its creation and consumption through the social media spaces they use all the time. And that means educators have to be part of connecting the need for art and tech… So I want to share some of my experiences in attempting “drama tech” research. I’m calling this: “Publicly funded social board presents… Much ado about nothing”. I had been teaching dramatic arts for many years, looking at new technologies and the potential for new tools to enable students to produce “web theatre” around the “theatre of the oppressed” for their peers, with collaboration with audience as creator and viewer. I was curious to see how students would use the 6 second restriction of Vine, and that using familiar tools students could create tools familiar to the students.

The project had ethics approval… All was set but a board member blocked the project as Twitter and Vine “are not approved learning tools”… I was told I’d have to use Moodle… Now I’ve used Moodle before… And it’s great but NOT for theatre (see Nicholls and Phillip 2012). Eisner (2009) talks about “Education can learn from the arts that form and content cannot be separated.How something is said or done shapes the content of experience.”. The reason for this blocking was that there was potential that students might encounter risks and issues that they shouldn’t access… But surely that is true of television, of life, everything. We have to teach students to manage risks… Instead we have a culture of blocking of content, e.g. anything with “games” in the name – even if educational tools. How can you teach media literacy if you don’t have the support to do that, to open up. And this seems to be the case across publicly funded Ontario schools. I am still hoping to do this research in the future though…

Q&A

Q1) How do you plan to overcome those concerns?

A1) I’m trying to work with those in power… We had loads of safeguards in place… I was going to upload the content myself… It was really silly. The social media policy is just so strict.

Q1) They’ll have reasons, you have to engage with those to make that case…

Q2) Can I just ask what age this work was to take place with?

A2) I work with Grade 9-12… But this work specifically was going to focus on 17 and 18 year olds.

Q3) I think that many arts teachers are quite scared by technology – and you made that case well. You focus on technology as a key tool at the end there… And that has to be part of that argument.

A3) It’s both… You don’t teach hammer, you teach how you use the hammer… My presentation is part of a much bigger paper which does address both the traditional and that affordances of technology.

Having had a lovely chat with Amy over lunch, I have now joined Stream B – Monitoring and Privacy on Social media – Chair – Andree Roy

Monitoring Public Opinion by Measuring the Sentiment of Re-tweets on Twitter – LashariIntzar Ali and Uffe KockWiil,University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

I have just completed my PhD at the University of Southern Denmark, and I’ll be talking about some work I’ve been doing on measuring public opinion using social media. I have used Twitter to collect data – this is partly as Twitter is most readibly accessible and it is structured in a way that suits this type of analysis – it operates in real time, people use hashtags, and there are frequent actors and influencers in this space. And there are lots of tools available for analysis such as Tweetreach, Google Analytics, Cytoscope. My project, CBTA, is combining monitoring and analysis of Tweets…

I have been looking for dictation on geographical location based tweets, using a trend based data analyser, with data collection of a specific date and using network detection on negative comments. I also limited my analysis to tweets which have been retweeted – to show they have some impact. In terms of related studies supporting this approach: Steiglitx (2012) found that retweets is a simple powerful mechanism for information diffusion; Shen (2015) found re-tweeting behaviour is an influencing behaviour from the post of influential user. The sentiment analysis – a really useful quick assessment of content – looks at “positive”, “negative” and “neutral” content. I then used topic base monitoring an overview of the wider public. The intent was to move towards real-time monitoring and analysis capabilities.

So, the CBTA Tool display shows you trending topics, which you can pick from, and then you can view tweets and filter by positive, negative, or neutral posts. The tool is working and the code will be shared shortly. In this system there is a keyword search of tweets which collects tweets, these are then filtered. Once filtered (for spam etc), tweets are classified using NLTK which categorises into “Endorse RT”, “Oppose RT” and “Report RT”, the weighted retweets are then put through a process to compute net influence.

So for my work has looked at data from Pakistan around terms: Zarb-e-Azb; #OpZarbeAzb; #Zerb-e-asb etc. And I gathered tweets and retweets, and deduplicated those tweets with more than one hashtag. Once collected the algorithm for measuring re-tweets influence used follower counts, onward retweets etc. And looking at the influence here, most of the influential tweets were those with a positive/endorsing tone.

But we now have case studies for Twitter, but also for other social media sites. We will be making case studies available online. And looking at other factors, for instance we are interested in the location of tweets as a marker for accuracy/authenticity and to understand how other areas are influencing/influenced by global events.

Q&A

Q1) I have a question about the small amount of negative sentiment… What about sarcasm?

A1) When you look at data you will see I found many things… There was some sarcasm there… I have used NLTK but I added my own analysis to help deal with that.

Q2) So it registers all tweets right across Twitter? So can you store that data and re-parse it again if you change the sentiment analysis?

A2) Yes, I can reprocess it. In Twitter there is limited availability of Tweets for 7 days only so my work captures a bigger pool of tweets that can then be analysed.

Q3) Do you look at confidence scores here? Sentiment is one thing…

A3) Yes, this processing needs some human input to train it… But in this approach it is trained by data that is collected each week.

Social Media and the European Fundamental Rights to Privacy and Data Protection – BeyversEva, University of Passau and TilmanHerbrich, University of Leipzig, Germany

Tilman: Today we will be talking about Data Protection and particularly potential use in commercial contexts, particularly marketing. This is a real area of conflict in social media. We are going to talk about those fundamental rights to privacy and data protection in the EU, the interaction with other fundamental rights, and things like profiling etc. The Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) are primary law based on EU law. There is also secondary law including Directives (requiring transposition into national law, but are not binding until then), and Regulations (binding in entirity on all member states, they are automatically law in all member states).

In 2018 the CFR will become legally binding across the piece. In this change private entities and public bodies will all be impacted by the CFR. But how does one enforce those? They could institute a proceeding before a national court, then the National Court must refer questions to the European Court of Human Rights who will answer and provide clarifications, that will then enable the National Courts to take a judgement on the specific case at hand.

When we look across the stakeholders, we see that they all have different rights under the law. And that means there is a requirement to balance those rights. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has always upheld that concerned rights and interests must be considered, evaluated and weighed in order to find an adequate balance between colliding fundamental rights – as an example the Google Spain Data Protection case in Spain where their commercial rights were deemed secondary to the inidividual rights to privacy.

Eva: Most social media sites are free to use, but this is made possible by highly profiled advertising. Profiling is articulated in Article 4 in the CFR as including aspects of behaviours, personality, etc. Profiling is already seen as an issue that is a threat to Data Protection. We would argue that it poses an even greater threat: users are frequently comfortable to give their real name in order to find others which means they are easily identifiable; users private lives are explicity part of the individual’s profile and may include sensitive data; further this broad and comprehensive data set has very wide scope.

So, on the one hand the users individual privacy is threatened, but so is the freedom to conduct a business (Art 16 CFR). The right to data protection (Article 8, CFR) rests on the idea of consent – and the way that consent is articulated in the law – that consent must be freely given, informed and specific – is incompatible with social networking services and the heavy level of data processing associated with them. These spaces adopt excessive processing, there is dynamic evolution of these platforms, and their concept is networking. Providers make changes in platform, affordances, advertising, etc. create continued changes of the use and collection of data – at odds with specific requirements for consent. The concept of networking means that individuals manage information that is not just about themselves but also others – their image, their location, etc. European Data Protection law does nothing to accommodate the privacy of others in this way. There has been no specific ruling on the interaction of business and personal rights here, but given previous trends it seems likely that business will win.

These data collections by social networking sites also has commercialisation potential to exploit users data. It is not clear how this will evolve – perhaps through greater national law in the changing or terms and conditions?

This is a real tension, with rights of businesses on one side, the individual on the other. The European legislator has upheld fundamental data protection law, but there is still much to examine here. We wanted to give you an overview of relevant concepts and rights in social media contexts and we hope that we’ve done this.

Q&A

Q1) How do these things change when Europe is outwith the legislative jurisdiction of most social media companies are – they are global
A1) General Data Protection Law 2018 will target companies in the EU, if they profile there. It was unclear until now… Previously you had to have a company here in Europe (usually Ireland), but in 2018 it will be very clear and very strict.

Q2) How has the European Court of Human rights fared so far in judgements?

A2) In Google Spain case, in another Digital Rights case the ECHR has upheld personal rights. And we see this also on the storage and retention of data… But the regulation is quite open, right now there are ways to circumvent.

Q3) What are the consequences of non-compliance? Maybe the profit I make is greater than that risk?

A3) That has been an issue until now. Fines have been small. From 2018 it will be up to 5% of worldwide revenue – that’s a serious fine!

Q4) Is private agreement… Is the law stronger than private agreement? Many agree without reading, or without understanding, are they protected if they agree to something illegal.

A4) Of course you are able to contract and agree to data use. But you have to be informed… So if you don’t understand, and don’t care… The legislator cannot change this. This is a problem we don’t have an approach for. You have to be informed, have to understand purpose, and understand means and methods, so without that information the consent is invalid.

Q5) There has been this Safe Harbour agreement breakdown. What impact is that having on regulations and practices?

A5) The regulations, probably not? But the effect is that data processing activities cannot be based on Safe Harbour agreement… So companies have to work around or work illegally etc. So now you can choose a Data Protection agreement – standardised contracts to cover this… But that is insecure too.

Digital Friendship on Facebook and Analog Friendship Skills – KordoutisPanagiotis, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens and EvangeliaKourti,University of Athens, Greece

Panagiotis: My colleague and I were keen to look at friendship on Facebook. There is a lot of work on this topic of course, but very little work connecting Facebook and real life friendship from a psychological perspective. But lets start by seeing how Facebook describes itself and friendship… Facebook talk about “building, strengthening and enriching friendships”. Operationally they define friendship through digital “Facebook acts” such as “like”, “comment”, “chat” etc. But this creates a paradox… You can have friends you have never met and will never meet – we call them “unknown friends” and they can have real consequences for life.

People perceive friendship in Facebook in different ways. In Greece (Savrami 2009, Kourti, Kourdoutis, Madaglou 2016) young people see Facebook friendship as a “phony” space, due to “unknown friends” and the possibility of manipulating self presentation. As a tool for popularity, public relations, useful acquaintances; a doubtful and risky mode of dating; the resort of people with a limited nnumber of friends and lack of “real” social live; and the resort of people who lack friendship skills (Buotte, wood and pratt 2009). BUT it is widely used and most are happy with their usage…

So, how about psychological definitions of analog friendship? Baron-Cohen and Wheelright (2003) talk about friendship as survival supporting social interdependence based on attachment and instrumentality skills.

Attachment involves high interdependence, commitment, systematic support, responsiveness, communication, investment in joint outcomes, high potential for developing the friendship – it is not static but dynamic. It is being satisfied by the interaction with each other, with the company of each other. They are happy to just be with someone else.

Instrumentality is also part of friendship though and it involves low interdependence, low commitment, non-systematic support, low responsiveness, superficial communication, expectations for specific benefits and personal outomes, little potential for developing the relationship – a more static arrangements. And they are satisfied by interacting with others for a specific goal or activity.

Now the way that I have presented this can perhaps look like the good and the bad side… But we need both sides of that equation, we need both sets of skills. What we perceive as friendship in analog life usually has a prevalence of attachement over instrumentality…

So, why are we looking at this? We wanted to look into whether those common negative attitudes about Facebook and friendship were accurate. Will FB users with low friendship skills have more Fb friends? Engage in more Fb “friendship acts”; will they use Fb more intensely; will they have more “unknown” friends than users with stronger friendship skills”. And when I say stronger friendship skills – I mean those with more attachment skills versus those with more instrumental skills.

In our method here we had 201 participants, most were women (139) from Universities and technological Institutes in metropolitan areas of Greece. All had profiles in Fb. median age was 20, all had used Facebook for 2 hours the day before, and many reported being online at least 8 hours a day, some on a permanent ongoing basis. We asked them how many friends they have… Then we asked them for an estimate of how many they know in-person. Then we asked them how many of these friends they have never met or will never meet – they provided an estimation. There were other questions about interactions in Facebook. We used a scale called the Facebook Insensity Scale (Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe 2007) which looks at importance of Facebook in the persons life (this is a 12 pt Likert scale). We also used an Active Digital Sociability Scale which we came up with – this was a 12 pt likert scale on Fb Friendship acts etc. And we used a Friendship Questionnaire (Baron-Cohen and Wainwright 2003). This was a paper exercise, for less than 30 minutes.

When we looked at stronger and weaker friendship skills groups – we had 44.3% of participants in the stronger friendship skills group, 52% in the weaker friendship skills group. More women had stronger friendship skills – consistent with the general population across countries.

So, firstly do people with weaker friendship skills have more friends? No, there was no difference. But we found a gender result – men had more friends in facebook, and also had weaker friendship skills.

Do people with weaker friendships skills engage more frequently in Fb friendship operations of friendship acts? No. No difference. Chatting wa smost popular, browsing adn liking were most frequet acts regardless of skills. Less frequent were participating in groups, check in and gaming. BUT a very telling difference: Men were more likely to comment than women, and that’s significant for me.

Do people with weaker friendship skills engage in Fb use it more intensively? Yes and No. There was a difference… But those with stronger friendship skills showed high Fb intensity, compared to those with weaker friendship. Men with stronger skills were more intensive in their use than women with strong skills.

Do people with weaker friendship skills have more friends on facebook? No. Do they have more unknown friends? No. But there was a gender effect. 16% of men have unknown friends, ony 9% of women do. Do those with weaker friendship skills interact more with unknown friends? No, opposite. Those with stroger skills, interact more with unknown friends. And so on.

And do those with weaker friendship skills actually meet unknown friends from Fb in real life? Yes, but opposite to expected. If they have stronger skills I’m more likely to meet you in real life… If I am a man… The percentages are small (3% of men, 1% of women).

So, what do I make of all this? Facebook is not the resort of people with weak friendship skills. Our data suggests it may be advantageous space for those with higher friendship skills, it is a socail space regulated by lots of social norms – it is an extension of what happens in real life. And what is the norm at play? It is the famous idea that men are encouraged to be bold, women to be cautious and apprehensive. Women have stronger social skills, but Facebook and the dynamics suppresses them, and enhances men with weaker skills… So, that’s my conclusion here!

Q&A

Q1) Very interesting. When men start to see someone they haven’t met before… Wouldn’t it be women? To hit on them?

A1) Actually yes, often it is dating. But men are eager to go on about it… to interact and go on to meet. Women are very cautious. We have complimented this work with qualitative work that shows women need much longer interaction – they need to interact for maybe 3 years before meeting. Men are not so concerned.

Q2) You haven’t talked about quality etc. of your quantitative data?

A2) I haven’t mentioned it here, but it’s in the paper (in the Proceedings). The Friendship questionnaire is based on established work, saw similar distribution ratios as seen elsewhere. We haven’t tried it (but are about to) with those with clinical status, Aspergers, etc. The Facebook Intensity questionnaire had a high reliability alpha.

Q3) Did you do any comparison of this data with any questions on trolling, cyber bullying, etc. as the consequences for sharing opinion or engaging with strangers for women is usually harsher than for men.

A3) Yes, some came up in the qualitative study where individuals were able to explain their reasons.

Q4) Did your work look at perceptions by employers etc. And how that made a difference to selecting friends?

A4) We didn’t look at this, but others have. Some are keen not to make friends in specific groups – they use Facebook to sell a specific identity to a specific audience.

Q5) The statistics you produced are particularly interesting… What is your theoretical conjecture as a result of this work?

A5) My feeling is that we have to see looking at Facebook as an alternative mode of socialising. It has been normalised so the same social rules functioning in the rest of society do function in Facebook. This was an example. It sounds commonplace but it is important.

The Net Generation’s Perceptions of Digital Activism –  StochLouise and SumarieRoodt, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Sumarie: I will be talking about how the Net Generation view digital activism. And the reason this is of interest to me is because of the many examples of digital activism we see around us. I’ll talk a bit about activism in South Africa, and particularly a recent campaign called “Fees Must Fall”.

There are various synonyms for Digital Activism but that’s the term I’ll use. So what is this? It’s origins start with the internet, with connection and mobilisation. We saw the rise of social media and the huge increase in people using it. We saw economies and societies coming online and using these spaces over the last 10 years. What does this mean for us? Well it enables quick and far-reaching information sharing. And there is a video that goes with this too.

Joyce 2013 defines Digital Activism as being about “the use of digital media in collective efforts to bring about social or political change, using methods outside of routine decision-making processes”. “It is non-violent and civil but can involve hacking (Edwards et al. 2013). We see digital activism across a range of approaches: from Slacktivism (things that are easy to participate in); online activism; internet activism; cyber activism; hacktivism. That’s a broad range, there are subtleties that divide into these and other terms, and the different characteristics of these types of activism.

Some examples…

In 2011 we saw revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Occupy Wall Street;

2012-14 we saw BringBackOurGirls, and numerous others;

2015 onwards we have:

  • RhodesMustFall – on how Cecil John Rhodes took resources from the indigenous communities, and recent removals of statues etc. and naming of buildings, highly sensitive.
  • FeesMustFall  – about providing free education to everybody, particularly university – less than 10% of South Africans go to University and they tend to be those from the more privileged background – as a result of that we weren’t allowed to raise our fees for now, and we are encouraged to find other funders to subsidise education and we cannot exclude anyone because of lack of economic access, the government will help but…. a lot of conflict there particularly around corruption, but government also classified universities as advantaged or non advantaged university and distributes funds much more to non advantaged university.
  • ZumaMustFall – our president is also famous for causing havoc politically and economically for what many see as very poor decisions, particularly under public scrutiny in the last 12 months.

In the room we are having a discussion about other activist activities, including an Israeli campaign against internet censorship law targeted at pornography etc. but including political and cultural aspects. Others mention 38 degrees etc. and successful campaigns to get issues debated. 

Now, digital activism can be on any platform – not necessarily Facebook or Twitter.

When we look at who our students are today – the “Net Generation”, “Millennials”, “Digital Natives” – and characteristics (Oblinger and Oblinger) associated this group include: confidence with technologu, always connected, immediate, social and team orientated, diverse, visual, education driven, emotionally open. But this isn’t homogenous, not all students will have these qualities.

So, what did we do with our students to assess students view? We looks at 230 students, and targeted those looked at in the literature: those born in any year from 1983 to 2003, and they needed to be those with some form of online identit(ies). We had an online questionnare that ran over 5 days. We analysed with Qualtrics, and thematic analysis. There are limitations here – all students were registered in the Comms department – business etc.

In terms of the demographics: Male participants were 38%, female were 62%; Average age was 22, minimum was 17, maximum was 33. We asked about the various characteristics, using a Likert scale questions… Showing that all qualify suffiently to be this “Net Generation”. We asked if they paid attention to digital activism… Most did, but it’s not definitive. Now this is the beginning of a much bigger project…

We asked if the participants had ever signed an online petition – 145 had; and 144 believed online petitions made a difference. We also asked if the internet and social media have a positive effect on an activism campaign – 92% do, and that has huge interest to companies and advertisers. And 89% of participants felt the use of social media in these causes has contributed to creating a society that is more aware of important issues.

What did we learn? Well we did see that this generation are inclined to participate in slacktivism. They believe digital activism mades a difference. They pay attention to online campaigns and are aware of which ones have been successful – at least in terms of having some form of impact or engagement.

Now, if you’d like access to the surveys, etc. do get in touch.

Q&A

Q1) How does UCT engage with the student body around local activism?

A1) Mostly that has been digitally, with the UCT Facebook page. There were also official statements from the University… But individual staff were discouraged from reacting. But freedom of speech for the students. It increased conflict in some way, but it also made students feel heard. Hard to call which side it fell on. Policy change is being made as a result of this work… They had a chance to be heard. We wanted free speech (unless totally inappropriate).

Q2) I see that you use a lot of “yes” and “no” questions… I like that but did you then also get other data?

A2) Yes. I present that work here. This paper doesn’t show the thematic analysis – we are still working on submitting that somewhere. We have that data, so once the full piece is in a journal we can let you know.

Q3) Do you know any successful campaigns in your context?

A3) Yes, FeesMustFall started in individual universities, and turned then to the government. It actually got quite serious, quite violent, but that definitely has changed their approach. And that campaign continues and will continue for now.

At this point of the day my laptop lost juice, the internet connection dropped, and there was a momentary power outage just as my presentation was about to go ahead! All notes from my strand are therefore from those taken on my mobile – apologies for more typos than usual!

Stream C – Teaching and Supporting Students – Chair – Ted Clark

Students’ Digital Footprints: Curation of Online Presences, Privacy and Peer Support – Nicola Osborne and Louise Connelly,University of Edinburgh, UK

That was me!

My slides are available on Prezi herehttps://prezi.com/hpphwg6u-f6b/students-digital-footprints-curation-of-online-presences-privacy-and-peer-support/

The paper can be found in the ECSM 2016 Proceedings, and will also be shared on the University of Edinburgh Research Explorer along with others on the Managing Your Digital Footprint (research strand) researchhttp://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/students-digital-footprints(5f3dffda-f1b4-470f-abd4-24fd6081ab98).html 

Please note that the remaining notes are very partial as taken on my smartphone and, unfortunately, somewhat eaten by the phone in the process… 

How do you Choose a Friend? Greek Students’ Friendships in Facebook – KourtiEvangelia, University of Athens and PanagiotisKordoutisand AnnaMadoglou,Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Greece

This work, relating to Panagiotis’ paper earlier (see above) looked at how individuals make friends on Facebook. You can find out more about the methodology in this paper and Panagiotis’ paper on Analog and Facebook friends.

We asked our cohort of students to tell us specifically about their criteria for making new friends, whether they were making the approach for friendship or responding to others’ requests. We also wanted to find out how they interacted with people who were not (yet) their friends in Facebook, and what factors played a part. The data was collected in a paper questionnaire with the same cohort as reported in Panagiotis’ paper earlier today.

Criteria for interacting with a friend, never met before within Facebook. The most frequent answer was “I never do” but the next most popular responses were common interests and interest in getting to know others better. physical appearance seems to play a factor, more so than previous interactions but less so than positive personality traits. 

Criteria for deciding to meet a previously unknown friend. Most popular response here was “I never do so”, followed by sufficient previous FB interaction, common acquaintances, positive personality etc. less so.

Correspondence Analysis – I won’t go into here, very interesting in terms of gender. Have a look at the Proceedings. 

Conclusion is that Facebook operated as social identity tool. And supporting offline relationships. self involvement with the medium seems to define selection criteria compatible with different social goals reinforcing one real-life social network.

Q&A

Q1) I’m very interested in how FB suggests new friends. Did students comment on that. 

A1) We didn’t ask about that.

Q2) isn’t your data gender biased in some way – most of your participants are female.

A2) Yes. But we continue this… With qualitative data it’s a problem, but means and standard deviation cover that. 

Q2) Reasons for sending a request to who you don’t know. First work by Ellison etc. showed people connecting with already known people… I wonder if it is still true? 

A2) Interesting questions. We must say that students answer to their professor in a uni context, that means maybe this is an explanation… 

Comment) Facebook gives you status for numbers and types of friends etc. 

A2) it’s about social identity and identity construction. Many have different presences with different goals. 

Comment) there is a bit of showing off in social. For status. 

Professional Development of Academic Staff in the use of Social Media for Teaching and Learning – Julie Willems, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia

This work has roots in 2012. from then to 2015 I ran classes for staff on using social media. This follows conversations I’ve heard around the place about expecting staff to use social media without training. 

Now I use a very broad definition of social media – from mainstream sites to mobile apps to gaming etc. Media that accesses digital means for communication in various forms. 

Why do we need staff development for social media? To deal with concerns of staff, students move there, also super enthusiasm.. 

My own experience is of colleagues who have run with it, which has raised all sorts of concerns. Some would say that an academic should be doing teaching, research, service and development can end up being the missing leg on the chair there. And staff development is not just about development on social media but also within social media. 

We ran some webinars within Zoom webinar, showing Twitter use with support online, offline and on Twitter – particularly important  for a distributed campus like we have. 

When we train staff we have to think about the pedagogy, we have to think about learning outcomes. We need to align the course structure with LOs, and also to consider staff workload in how we do that training. What will our modes of delivery be? What types of technology will they meet and use – and what prep/overhead is involved in that? We also need to consider privacy issues. And then how do you fill that time. 

So the handout I’ve shared here was work for one days course, to be delivered in a flipped classroom – prep first, in person, then online follow up. Could be completed quickly but many spent more time on these.

This PPT from a module I developed for staff at Monash university, with social media at the intersection of formal and informal learning, and the interaction of teacher-directed learning and student-centred learning. That quadrant model is useful to be aware of: Willem Blakemore(?): 4QF.

Q&A

Q1) What was the object among staff at your university?

A1) First three years were optional. This last year Monash require staff to do 3 one day courses per year. One can be a conference with a full report. Social Media is one of 8 options. Wanted to give an encouragement for folk to attend. 

Q2) How many classes use your social media as a result?

A2) I’ve just moved institution. One of our architecture lecturers was using FB in preference to LMS: students love it, faculty concerned. Complex. At my current university social media isn’t encouraged but it is use. Regardless of attitude social media is in use… And we at least have to be aware of that. 

Q3) I was starting to think that you were encouraging faculty staff to use Social media alone, rather than with LMS.

A3) At Monash reality was using social alongside LMS. That connection discouraged in my new faculty. 

Q4) I loved that you brought up that pressure from teaching staff – as so many academics in social media now, they are min more active and a real pressure to integrate.

A4) I think that gap is growing too… Between resisters and those keen to use. Students are aware of what they share – a Demi formal space… Have to be aware.

Q5) do you have a range of social media tools or just Facebook?

A5) mainly Facebook, sometimes Twitter and Linked In. I’m in engineering and architecture. 

Q5) Are they approved for use by faculty?

A5) Yes, the structure you have there had been. 

Q6) also encourage academic staff to use academic networking sites?

A6) depends on context. Depends… ResearchGate good for pubs, Academic.edu like bus card. 

Q7) Reward and recognition

A7) Stuff on sheet was for GCAP… Came out of that… 

Q8) Will we still have these requirements to train in, say, 5 years time? Surely they’ll be like pen and pencil now?

A8) Maybe. Universities are keen for good profiles though, which means this stuff matters in this competitive academic marketplace. 

And with that Day One has drawn to a close. I’m off to charge a lot of devices and replace my memory sticks! More tomorrow in a new liveblog post. 

 July 12, 2016  Posted by at 9:22 am Events Attended, LiveBlogs Tagged with: , ,  No Responses »