Jul 042017
 

Today I am again at the Mykolo Romerio Universitetas in Vilnius, Lithuania, for the European Conference on Social Media 2017. As usual this is a liveblog so additions, corrections etc. all welcome… 

Keynote presentation: Daiva Lialytė, Integrity PR, Lithuania: Practical point of view: push or pull strategy works on social media 

I attended your presentations yesterday, and you are going so far into detail in social media. I am a practitioner and we can’t go into that same sort of depth because things are changing so fast. I have to confess that a colleague, a few years ago, suggested using social media and I thought “Oh, it’s all just cats” and I wasn’t sure. But it was a big success, we have six people working in this area now. And I’m now addicted to social media. In fact, how many times do you check your phone per day? (various guesses)…

Well, we are checking our smartphones 100-150 times per day. And some people would rather give up sex than smartphones! And we have this constant flood of updates and information – notifications that pop up all over the place… And there are a lot of people, organisations, brands, NGOs, etc. all want our attention on social media.

So, today, I want to introduce three main ideas here as a practitioner and marketer…

#1 Right Mindset

Brands want to control everything, absolutely everything… The colour, the font, the images, etc. But now social media says that you have to share your brand in other spaces, to lose some control. And I want to draw on Paul Holmes, a PR expert (see www.holmesreport.com) and he says when he fell in love with social media, there were four key aspects:

  • Brands (in)dependency
  • Possibilities of (non)control
  • Dialogue vs monologue
  • Dynamic 24×7

And I am going to give some examples here. So Gap, the US fashion brand, they looked at updating their brand. They spent a great deal of money to do this – not just the logo but all the paperwork, branded items, etc. They launched it, it went to the media… And it was a disaster. The Gap thought for a few days. They said “Thank you brand lover, we appreciate that you love our brand and we are going to stick with the old one”. And this raises the question of to whom a brand belongs… Shareholders or customers? Perhaps now we must think about customers as owning the brand.

Yesterday I saw a presentation from Syracuse on University traditions – and some of the restrictions of maintaining brand – but in social media that isn’t always possible. So, another example… Lagerhaus (like a smaller scale Ikea). They were launching a new online store, and wanted to build community (see videos) so targeted interior six design blogs and created “pop up online stores” – bloggers could select products from the store’s selection, and promote them as they like. That gained media attention, gained Facebook likes for the store’s Facebook page. And there was then an online store launch, with invitees approached by bloggers, and their pop up stores continue. So this is a great example of giving control to others, and building authentic interest in your brand.

In terms of dialogue vs monologue I’d quote from Michael Dell here, on the importance of engaging in honest, direct conversations with customers and stakeholders. This is all great… But the reality is that many who talk about this, many are never ever doing this… Indeed some just shut down spaces when they can’t engage properly. However, Dell has set up a social media listening and command centre. 22k+posts are monitored daily, engaging 1000+ customers per week. This was tightly integrated with @dellcares Twitter/Facebook team. And they have managed to convert “ranters” to “ravers” in 30% of cases. And a decrease of negative commentary since engagement in this space. Posts need quick responses as a few minutes, or hours, are great, longer and it becomes less and less useful…

Similarly we’ve seen scandinavian countries and banks engaging, even when they have been afraid of negative comments. And this is part of the thing about being part of social media – the ability to engage in dialogue, to be part of and react to the conversations.

Social media is really dynamic, 24×7. You have to move fast to take advantage. So, Lidl… They heard about a scandal in Lithuania about the army paying a fortune for spoons – some were €40 each. So Lidl ran a promotion for being able to get everything, including spoons there cheaper. It was funny, clever, creative and worked well.

Similarly Starbucks vowing to hire 10,000 refugees in the US (and now in EU) following Trump’s travel ban, that was also being dynamic, responding quickly.

#2 Bold Actions

When we first started doing social media… we faced challenges… Because the future is uncertain… So I want to talk about several social media apps here…

Google+ launched claiming to be bigger than Facebook, to do it all better. Meanwhile WhatsApp… Did great… But disappearing as a brand, at least in Lithuania. SnapChat has posts disappearing quickly… Young people love it. The owner has said that it won’t be sold to Facebook. Meanwhile Facebook is trying desperately to copy functionality. We have clients using SnapChat, fun but challenging to do well… Instagram has been a big success story… And it is starting to be bigger than Facebook in some demographics.

A little history here… If you look at a world map of social networks from December 2009, we see quite a lot of countries having their own social networks which are much more popular. By 2013, it’s much more Facebook, but there are still some national social media networks in Lithuania or Latvia. And then by 2017 we see in Africa uptake of Twitter and Instagram. Still a lot of Facebook. My point here is that things move really quickly. For instance young people love SnapChat, so we professionally need to be there too. You can learn new spaces quickly… But it doesn’t matter as you don’t have to retain that for long, everything changes fast. For instance in the US I have read that Facebook is banning posts by celebrities where they promote items… That is good, that means they are not sharing other content…

I want to go in depth on Facebook and Twitter. Of course the most eminent social media platform is Facebook. They are too big to be ignored. 2 billion monthly active Facebook users (June 2017). 1.28 billion people log onto Facebook daily. 83 million fake profiles. Age 25 to 34 at 29.7% of users are biggest age group. For many people they check Facebook first in the morning when they wake up. And 42% of marketers report that Facebook is very important to their business. And we now have brands approaching us to set up Facebook presence no matter what their area of work.

What Facebook does well is most precise targeting – the more precise the more you pay, but that’s ok. So that’s based on geolocation, demographic characteristic, social status, interests, even real time location. That works well but remember that there are 83 million fake profiles too.

So that’s push, what about pull? Well there are the posts, clicks, etc. And there is Canvas – which works for mobile users, story driven ads (mini landing), creative story, generate better results and click through rates. (we are watching a Nespresso mobile canvas demo). Another key tool is Livestream – free of charge, notifications for your followers, and it’s live discussion. But you need to be well prepared and tell a compelling story to make proper use of this. But you can do it from anywhere in the world. For instance one time I saw livestream of farewell of Barack Obama – that only had 15k viewers though so it’s free but you have to work to get engagement.

No matter which tool, “content is the king!” (Bill Gates, 1996). Clients want us to create good stories here but it is hard to do… So what makes the difference? The Content Marketing Institute (US), 2015 suggest:

  1. Content
  2. Photos
  3. Newsletters
  4. Video
  5. Article
  6. Blogs
  7. Events
  8. Infographics
  9. Mobile applications
  10. Conferences and Livestreams

So, I will give some examples here… I’ll show you the recent winner of Cannes Lions 2017 for social media and digital category. This is “Project Graham” – a public driver safety campaign about how humans are not designed to survive a crash… Here is how we’d look if we were – this was promoted heavily in social media.

Help for push from Facebook – well the algorithms prioritise content that does well. And auctions to reach your audience mean that it is cheaper to run good content that really works for your audience.

And LinkedIn meanwhile is having a renaissance. It was quite dull, but they changed their interface significantly a few months back, and now we see influencers (in Lithunia) now using LinkedIn, sharing content there. For instance lawyers have adopted the space. Some were predicting LinkedIn would die, but I am not so sure… It is the biggest professional social network – 467 million users in 200 countries. And it is the biggest network of professionals – a third have LinkedIn profile. Users spend 17 minutes per dat, 40% use it every day, 28% of all internet users use LinkedIn. And it is really functioning as a public CV, recruitment, and for ambassadorship – you can share richer information here.

I wanted to give a recent example – it is not a sexy looking case study – but it worked very well. This was work with Ruptela, a high tech company that provides fleet management based on GPS tracking and real-time vehicle monitoring and control. They needed to hire rapidly 15 new sales representatives via social media. That’s a challenge as young people, especially in the IT sector – are leaving Lithuania or working in Lithuania-based expertise centres for UK, Danish, etc. brands.

So we ran a campaign, on a tiny budget (incomparable with headhunters for instance), around “get a job in 2 days” and successfully recruited 20 sales representatives. LinkedIn marketing is expensive, but very targeted and much cheaper than you’d otherwise pay.

#3 Right Skills

In terms of the skills for these spaces:

  • copywriter (for good storytelling)
  • visualist (graphics, photo, video)
  • community manager (to maintain appropriate contact) – the skills for that cannot be underestimated.
  • And… Something that I missed… 

You have to be like a one man band – good at everything. But then we have young people coming in with lots of those skills, and can develop them further…

So, I wanted to end on a nice story/campaign… An add for Budweiser for not drinking and driving

Q&A

Q1) Authenticity is the big thing right now… But do you think all that “authentic” advertising content may get old and less effective over time?

A1) People want to hear from their friends, from people like them, in their own words. Big brands want that authenticity… But they also want total control which doesn’t fit with that. The reality is probably that something between those two levels is what we need but that change will only happen as it becomes clear to big brands that their controlled content isn’t working anymore.

Q2) With that social media map… What age group was that? I didn’t see SnapChat there.

A2) I’m not sure, it was a map of dominant social media spaces…

Q3) I wanted to talk about the hierarchy of content… Written posts, visual content etc… What seemed to do best was sponsored video content that was subtitled.

A3) Facebook itself, they prioritise video content – it is cheaper to use this in your marketing. If you do video yes, you have to have subtitles so that you can see rather than listen to the videos… And with videos, especially “authentic video” that will be heavily prioritised by Facebook. So we are doing a lot of video work.

Introduction to ECSM 2018 Niall Corcoran, Limerick Institute of Technology, Ireland

I wanted to start by thanking our hosts this year, Vilnius has been excellent this year. Next year we’ll a bit earlier in the year – late June – and we’ll be at the Limerick Institute of Technology, Ireland. We have campuses around the region with 7000 students and 650 staff, teaching from levels 6 to 10. The nearest airport is Shannon, or easy distance from Cork or Dublin airports.

In terms of social media we do research on Social MEdia Interactive Learning Environment, Limerick Interactive Storytelling Network, Social Media for teaching and research, Social Media for cancer recovery.

In terms of Limerick itself, 80-90% of the Europe’s contact lenses are manufactured there! There is a lot of manufacturing in Limerick, with many companies having their European headquarters there. So, I’ve got a short video made by one of our students to give you a sense of the town. And we hope to see you there next year!

Social Media Competition Update

The top three placed entries are: Developing Social Paleantology – Lisa Lundgren; EDINA Digital Footprint Consulting and Training Service – Nicola Osborne (yay!); Traditions Mobile App – Adam Peruta.

Stream A: Mini track on Ethical use of social media data – Chair: Dragana Calic

The Benefits and Complications of Facebook Memorials – White Michelle, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA

I wanted to look at who people imagine are their audience for these memorials. And this happened because after the death made me look at this, and I decided to look into this in more depth.

So, I’m using danah boyd’s definition of social networking here. We are talking Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat etc. So, a Facebook Memorial is a group that is created specifically to mark the death of a friend or family members – or for public figures (e.g. Michael Jackson).

Robert Zebruck and Brubecker talk about imagined audience as the flattening of realities. So, right now I can see people in the room, I can see who you are, how you react, how to modify my tone or style to meet you, to respond to you. But it is hard to do that on social media. We see context collapse. And we can be sat there alone at our computer and not have that sense of being public. Sometimes with memorials we will say things for that audience, but in other cases perhaps it is sharing memories of drinking together, or smoking weed with something… Memories that may jar with others.

It was a long road to get to this research. My review board were concerned about emotional distress of interviewees. I agreed in the end to interview via Skype or Facebook and to check everything was ok after every question, to make it easier to see and review their state of mind. I had to wait over a year to interview people, the death had to not be by suicide, and the participants had to be over 18 years old. So I did conduct qualitative research over Skype and Facebook… And I found interviewees by looking at memorial pages that are out there – there are loads there, not all labelled as memorials.

So, my data… I began by asking who people thought they were talking to… Many hadn’t thought about it. They talked about family members, friends… Even in a very controlled group you can have trolls and haters who can get in… But often people assumed that other people were like them. A lot of people would write to the deceased – as if visiting a grave, say. I asked if they thought the person could hear or understand.. But they hadn’t really thought about it, it felt like the right thing to do… And they wanted family and friends to hear from them. They felt likes, shares, etc. were validating and therapeutic, and that sense of connection was therapeutic. Some even made friends through going out drinking, or family gatherings… with friends of friends who they hadn’t met before…

This inability to really think or understand the imagine audience, that led to context collapse. Usually family is in charge of these pages… And that can be challenging… For instance an up and coming football star died suddenly, and then it was evident that it was the result of a drug overdose… And that was distressing for the family who tried to remove that content. There is an idea of alternative narratives. Fake news or alternative facts has a particular meaning right now… But we are all used to presenting ourselves in a particular way to different friends, etc. In one memorial site the deceased had owed money to a friend, and they still felt owed that money and were posting about that – like a fight at the funeral… It’s very hard to monitor ourselves and other people…

And there was fighting about who owned the person… Some claiming that someone was their best friend, fights over who was more important or who was more influenced. It happens in real life… But not quite as visibly or with all involved…

So, in conclusion… There are  a lot of benefits for Facebook Memorials. Pyschologists talk of the benefit of connecting, grieving, not feeling alone, to get support. Death happens. We are usually sad when it happens… Social networking sites provide another way to engage and connect. So if I’m in Lithuania and there is a funeral in Hawaii that I can’t travel to, I can still connect. It is changing our social norms, and how we connect. But we can do more to make it work better – safety and security needs improving. Facebook have now added the ability to will your page to someone. And now if someone dies you can notify Twitter – it changes it slightly, birthday reminders no longer pop up, it acts as a memorial. There are new affordances.

Personally, doing this research was very sad, and it’s not an area I want to continue looking at. It was emotionally distressing for me to do this work.

Q&A

Q1) I am old enough to remember LiveJournal and remember memorials there. They used to turn a page into a memorial, then were deleted… Do you think Facebook should sunset these memorials?

A1) I personally spoke to people who would stare at the page for a month, expecting posts… Maybe you go to a funeral, you mourn, you are sad… But that page sticking around feels like it extends that… But I bet Mark Zuckerberg has some money making plan for keeping those profiles there!

Q2) What is the motivation for such public sharing in this way?

A2) I think young people want to put it out there, to share their pain, to have it validated – “feel my pain with me”. One lady I spoke to, her boyfriend was killed in a mass shooting… Eventually she couldn’t look at it, it was all debate about gun control and she didn’t want to engage with that any more…

Q3) Why no suicides? I struggle to see why they are automatically more distressing than other upsetting deaths…

A3) I don’t know… But my review board thought it would be more distressing for people…

Q4) How do private memorials differ from celebrity memorials?

A4) I deliberately avoided celebrities, but also my IRB didn’t want me to look at any groups without permission from every member of that group…

Comment) I’ve done work with public Facebook groups, my IRB was fine with that.

A4) I think it was just this group really… But there was concern about publicly identifiable information.

Online Privacy: Present Need or Relic From the Past? – Aguirre-Jaramillo Lina Maria, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Colombia

In the influential essay, The Right to Privacy, in the Harvard Law Review (1890) – Warren and Brandeis, privacy was defined as “Privacy – the right to be let alone”. But in the last ten years or so we now see sharing of information that not long ago would have been seen and expected to be private. Earl Warren is a famous US judge and he said “The fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual.”

We see privacy particularly threatened by systematic data collection. Mark Zuckerberg (1999) claims “Privacy is no longer a social norm”. This has been used as evidence of disregard toward users rights and data. The manner in which data is stored, changed and used and the associated threats. But we also see counter arguments such as the American Library Association’s Privacy Revolution campaign.

So, this is the context for this work in Columbia. It is important to understand literature in this area, particularly around data use, data combinations, and the connection between privacy concerns and behaviours online (Joinsen et al 2008). And we also refer to the work of Sheenan (2002) in the characterisations of online users. Particularly we are interested in new privacy concerns and platforms, particularly Facebook. The impact of culture on online privacy has been studied by Cho, Rivera Sanchez and Lim (2009).

The State of the Internet from OxII found that Columbia had between 40 and 60% of people online. Internet uptake is, however, lower than in e.g. the US. And in Columbia our population is 46% 25-54 years old.

So, my study is currently online. A wider group is also engaging in personal and group interviews. Our analysis will focus on what background knowledge, risk and privacy awareness there is amongst participants. Wat self-efficacy level is regealed by participants – their knowledge and habits. And what interest and willingness is there to acquire more knowledge and gain more skills to manage privacy. At a later stage we will be building a prototype tool.

Our conclusions so far… Privacy is hard to define and we need to do more to define it. Privacy is not a concept articulated in one only universally accepted definition. Different groups trade off privacy differently. Relevant concepts here include background knowledge, computer literacy, privacy risk, self efficacy.

And finally… Privacy is still important but often ignored as important in the wider culture. Privacy is not a relic but a changing necessity…

Q&A

Q1) Did age play a role in privacy? Do young people care as much as older people?

A1) They seem to care when they hear stories of peers being bullied, or harassed, or hear stories of hacking Instagram accounts. But their idea of privacy is different. But there is information that they do not want to have public or stolen. So we are looking more at that, and also a need to understand how they want to engage in privacy. As my colleague Nicola Osborne form Edinburgh said in her presentation yesterday, we have to remember students already come in with a long internet/social media history and presence.

Q2) I was wondering about cultural aspect… Apps used and whether privacy is important… For instance SnapChat is very exhibitionist but also ephemeral…

A2) I don’t have full answers yet but… Young people share on SnapChat and Instagram to build popularity with peers… But almost none of them are interested in Twitter… At least that’s the case in Columbia. But they do know some content on Facebook may be more vulnerable that SnapChat and Instagram… It may be that they have the idea of SnapChat as a space they can control perhaps…

Q3) I often feel more liberal with what I share on Facebook, than students who are 10 or 15 years younger… I would have some privacy settings but don’t think about the long story of that… From my experience students are a lot more savvy in that way… When they first come in, they are very aware of that… Don’t want a bigger footprint there…

A3) That is not exactly true in Columbia. The idea of Digital Footprint affecting their career is not a thing in the same way… Just becoming aware of it… But that idea of exhibitionism… I have found that most of the students in Columbia seem quite happy to share lots of selfies and images of their feet… That became a trend in other countries about three years ago… They don’t want to write much… Just to say “I’m here”… And there has been some interesting research in terms of the selfie generation and ideas of expressing yourself and showing yourself… May be partly to do with other issues… In Columbia many young women have plastic surgery – came out of the 1980s and 1990s… Many women, young women, have cosmetic surgery and want to share that… More on Instagram than Pinterest – Pinterest is for flowers and little girlie things…

Q4) You were talking about gender, how do privacy attitudes differ between males and females?

A4) The literature review suggests women tend to be more careful about what they publish online… They may be more careful selecting networks and where they share content… More willing to double check settings, and to delete content they might have difficulty explaining… Also more willing to discuss issues of privacy… Things may change over time… Suggestion that people will get to an age where they do care more… But we also need to see how the generation that have all of their images online, even from being a baby, will think about this… But generally seems to be slightly more concern or awareness from women…

Comment) I wanted to just follow up the Facebook comment and say that I think it may not be age but experience of prior use that may shape different habits there… Students typically arrive at our university with hundreds of friends having used Facebook since school, and so they see that page as a very public space – in our research some students commented specifically on that and their changing use and filtering back of Facebook contacts… For a lot of academics and mid career professionals Facebook is quite a private social space, Twitter plays more that public role. But it’s not age per se perhaps, it’s that baggage and experience.

Constructing Malleable Truth: Memes from the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign – Wiggins Bradley, Webster University, Vienna, Austria, Austria

Now, when I wrote this… Trump was “a candidate”. Then he was nominee. Then president elect… And now President. And that’s been… surprising… So that’s the context.

I look at various aspects in my research, including internet memes. So, in the 2008 Obama’s campaign was great at using social media, at getting people out there and sharing and campaigning for them on a voluntary and enthusiastic basis. 2016 was the meme election I think. Now people researching Memes feel they must refer to Richard Dawkins talking about memes. He meant ideas… That’s not the same as internet memes… So what are the differences betwen Dawkins’ memes and Internet memes? Well honestly they are totally different EXCEPT that they require attention, and have to be reproducable….

Mikhail Bakhtin wrote about the Carnivalesque as something that subverts the dominant mode or perspective, it turns the world on its head… The king becomes the jester and the jester becomes the king. So the Trump tie memes… We need no text here, the absurd is made more absurd. It is very critical. It has that circus level laugh… He’s a clown or a buffoon… You know about it and how to reproduce this.

In terms of literature.. There is work on memes but I think when understanding memes with millennials, but also baby boomers, even people in their 70’s and 80s… We have to go back to major theorists, concepts and perspectives – Henry Jenkins, Erving Goffman, etc. This is a new mode of communication I think, not a new language, but a new mode.

So method wise… I wanted to do a rhetorical-critical analysis of selected internet memes from the facebook page Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash, which had over 420k members when I wrote this slide – more now. It was founded by a college student in October 2015. And there are hundreds of thousands of memes there. People create and curate them.

Two months before nad one month after the US Election I did two sets of samples… Memes that received 1000 or more likes/retweets. And memes that received at least 500 or more likes/reactions and at least 100 shares. As an unexpected side note I found that I needed to define “media narrative”. There doesn’t seem to be a good definition. I spoke to Brooke Gladstone of WYNC, I spoke with colleagues in Vienna… We don’t usually take time to think about media narrative… For instance the shooting at Pulse Nightclub has a narrative on the right around gun control, for others its around it being a sad and horrible event…

So, media narrative I am defining as:

  1. Malleable depending upon the ability to ask critical questions
  2.  Able to shape opinion as well as perceptions of reality and a person’s decision-making process and…
  3.  Linguistic and image-based simulations of real-world events which adhere and/or appeal to ontologically specific perspectives, which may include any intentional use of stereotyping, ideology, allegory, etc.

Some findings… The relational roles between image and text are interchangable because of the relationship to popular culture. Barthes (1977) takls about the text loading the image burdening it with culture, a moral, an imagination. And therefore the text in internet memes fluctuates depending n the intended message and the dependence on popular culture.

So, for instance we have an image from Nightmare at 20,000 ft, a classic Twilight Zone image… You need to know nothing here and if I replace a monster face with Donald Trump’s face… It’s instantly accessible and funny. But you can put any image there depending on the directionality of the intended meaning. So you have the idea of the mytheme or function of the monster/devil/etc. can be replaced by any other monster… It doesn’t matter, the reaction will depend on your audience.

Back to Barthes (1977) again, I find him incredibly salient to the work I’ve done here. One thing emerging from this and Russian memes work done before, is the idea of Polysemic directionality. It has one direction and intentionality.. No matter what version of this image you use…

So, here’s a quick clip of the Silence of the Lambs. And here Buffallo Bill, who kills women and skins them… A very scary character… We have him in a meme being a disturbing advisor in memes. If you get that reference it has more weight, but you don’t need to know the reference.

We have the image of Hillary as Two Face, we have Donald as The Joker… And a poster saying “Choose”. The vitriol directed at Clinton was far worse than that at Trump… Perhaps because Sanders supporters were disappointed at not getting the nomination.

We have intertextuality, we also have inter-memetic references… For example the Hilary deletes electoral colleges meme which plays on Grandma on the internet memes… YOu also have the Superman vs Trump – particularly relevant to immigrant populations (Jenkins 2010).

So, conclusions… The construction of a meme is affected and dependent on the media around it… That is crucial… We have heard about fake news, and we see memes in support of that fake news… And you may see that on all sides here. Intertextual references rely on popular culture and inter memetic references which assumes knowledge, a new form of communication. And I would argue that memes are a digital myth – I think Levi Strauss might agree with me on that…

And to close, for your viewing pleasure, the Trump Executive Order meme… The idea of a meme, an idea that can be infinitely replaced with anything really…

Q&A

Q1) This new sphere of memes… Do you think that Trump represents a new era of presidency… Do you think that this will pass? With Trump posting to his own Twitter account…

A1) I think that it will get more intense… And offline too… We see stickers in Austrian elections around meme like images… These are tools for millennials. They are hugely popular in Turkey… There are governments in Turkey, Iran and China are using memes as propaganda against other parties… I’m not sure it’s new but we are certainly more aware of it… Trump is a reality TV star with the nucleaur keys… That should scare us… But memes won’t go away…

Q2) In terms of memes in real life… What about bumper stickers… ? They were huge before… They are kind of IRL memes…

A2) I am working on a book at the moment… And one of the chapters is on pre-digital memes. WWII used to write “Kilroy was here”. Is Magritte’s Ceci n’est pas une pipe a meme? There is definitely a legacy of that… So yes, but depends on national regional context…

Q3) So… In Egypt we saw memes about Trump… We were surprised at the election outcome… What happened?

A3) Firstly, there is that bias that reinforcing narrative… If you looked at the Sanders meme page you might have had that idea that Clinton would not win because, for whatever reason, these people hated Hillary. Real rage and hatred towards her… And Trump as clown hitler… Won’t happen… Then it did… Then rage against him went up… After the Muslim ban, the women’s march etc…

Q4) There are some memes that seem to be everywhere – Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sean Bean, etc… Why are we picking those specific particular memes of all things?

A4) Like the Picard WTF meme… Know Your Meme.com is a great resource… In the scene that Picard image is from he’s reciting Shakespeare to get Louixana Troy away from the aliens… It doesn’t matter… But it just fits, it has a meaning

Q5) Gender and memes: I wondered about the aspect of gender in memes, particularly thinking about Clinton – many of those reminded me of the Mary Beard memes and trolling… There are trolling memes – the frog for Trump… the semi-pornographic memes against women… Is there more to that than just (with all her baggage) Clinton herself?

A5) Lisa Silfestry from Gonzaga, Washington State and Lemour Shipman in Tel Aviv do work in that area. Shipman looks at Online Jokes of all types and has done some work on gender.

Q6) Who makes memes? Why?

A6) I taught a course on internet memes and cultures. That was one of the best attended courses ever. My students concluded that the author didn’t matter… But look at 4Chan and Reddit or Know Your Meme… And you can tell who created it… But does that matter… It’s almost a public good. Who cares who created the Trump tie meme. With the United Airline you can see that video, it turned into a meme… and it had lost millions in stock.

Stream B: Mini track on Enterprise Social Media – Chair: Paul Alpar

The Role of Social Media in Crowdfunding – Makina Daniel, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

My work seeks to find the connection between social media and finance, specifically crowd funding. And the paper introduces the phenomena of crowdfunding, and how the theory of social networking underpins social media. The theory around social media is still developing… Underpinned by theory of information systems and technology adoption, with different characteristics from what happens in social media.

So, a definition of crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is essentially an aspect of crowdsourcing, spurred by ubiquitous web 2.0 technologies. And “Crowdfunding refers to the efforts of entrepreneurial individuals and groups – cultural, social and for-profit – to fund their ventures by drawing on relatively small contributions from a relatively large number of individuals using the internet, without standard financial intermediaries” (Mollick 2014).

Since 2010 there have been growing amounts of money raised globally through crowdfunding. Fobes estimates $34 billion in 2015 (compared to $16 billion in 2014, and $880 million in 2010). The World Bank estimates that crowdfunding will raise $93 billion annually by 2025. This growth couldn’t be achieved in the absence of internet technology, and social media are critical in promoting this form of alternative finance.

Cheung and Lee (2010) examined social influence processes in determining collective social action in the context of online social networks. Their model shows intentional soial action, with users considering themselves part of the social fabric. And they explain three processes of social influence: subjective norm – self outside of any group; group norm – self awareness as a member of a group; and social identity – self in context. Other authors explain social media popularity because of a lack of trust in traditional media, with people wary of information that emanates from people they do not know personally. Kaplin and Haenlein (2010) define social media as “a group of internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of web 2.0 applications that allow the creation and exchange of user generated content” So it is a form of online interaction that enables people to create, comment, share and exchange content with other people.

So, how does social media facilitate finance, or crowd sourcing? Since social media assists in maintaining social ties, this should in turn aid facilitation of crowdfunding campaigns. Draw on Linus’s Law “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”. Large groups are more adept at detecting potential flaws in a campaign than individuals (alone). Thus providing fraudulent campaigns from raising money for crowdfunding projects. Facebook, Twitter, etc. provide spaces for sharing and connection are therefore suitable for crowdfunding campaigns. Studies have shown that 51% of Facebook users are more likely to buy a product after becoming a fan of the products Facebook page (Knudsen 2015).

Brossman (2015) views crowdfunding as existing in two phases (i) brand awareness and (ii) targeting people to support/back one’s campaign. And crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarted and IndieGoGo allow project creators to publish pertinent information and updates, as well as to link to social media. Those connections are present and that also helps deal with a relative lack of social networking functionality within the platform itself, where they are able to create project descriptions, they have a community of users and utilise web 2.0 technologies that allow users to comment on projects and attract money.

A study by Moisseyez (2013) on 100 Kickstarter projects found that connection between social media approval and success in funding. Mollick (2014) observed that crowdfunding success is associated with having a large number of friends in online social networks: a founder with ten Facebook friends would have a 9% chance of succeeding; one with 100 friends would have a 20% chance of success; one with 1000 friends would have a 40% chance of success. He cited a film industry example where more friends mapped to a much higher potential success rates.

So, in conclusion, we don’t have many studies on this are yet. But social media is observed to aid crowdfunding campaigns through its ability to network disparate people through the internet. One notable feature is that although there are main forms of social media, crowdfunding utilizes a limited number of spaces, primarily Facebook and Twitter. Furthermore future research should examine how the expertise of the creator (requestor of funds) and project type, social network, and online presence influence motivations.

Q&A

Q1) I was wondering if you see any connection between the types of people who back crowdfunding campaigns, and why particular patterns of social media use, or popularity are being found. For instance anecdotally the people who back lots of crowdfunding campaigns – not just one off – tend to be young men in their 30s and 40s. So I was wondering about that profile of backers and what that looks like… And if that profile of backer is part of what makes those social media approaches work.

A1) The majority of people using social media are young people… But young people as sources of finance for, say, small businesses… They are mainly likely to be either studying or starting professional career… But not accumulating money to give it out… So we see a disconnect… Between who is on social media… On Twitter, Facebook, etc. to raise finance… You successful in raising funding from people who cannot raise much… So one would expect people in mid career were using most social media, would expect more money coming from crowdfunding… One aspect of crowdfunding… We are looking at resources… You asking for small amounts… Then young people are able to spare that much…

Q2) So most people giving funding on crowdfunding sites are young people, and they give small amounts…

A2) Yes… And that data from Mollick… combined with evidence of people who are using Facebook…

Q2) What about other specialised crowdfunding networks… ?

A2) There is more work to be done. But even small crowdfunding networks will connect to supporters through social media…

Q3) Have you looked at the relative offerings of the crowdfunding campaigns?

A3) Yes, technology products are more successful on these platforms than other projects…

Using Enterprise Social Networks to Support Staff Knowledge Sharing in Higher Education – Corcoran Niall, Limerick Institute of Technology, Ireland and Aidan Duane, Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland

This work is rooted in knowledge management, this is the basis for the whole study. So I wanted to start with a Ikujio Nonaka “in an econoy where the only certainty is uncertainty… ” And Lew Platt, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard said “If HP knew what HP knows it would be three times more productive” – highlighting the crucial role of knowledge sharing.

Organisations can gain competitive advantage through encouraging and promoting knowledge sharing – that’s the theory at least. It’s very important in knowledge-intensive organisations, such as public HEIs. HEIs need to compete in a global market place… We need to share knowledge… Do we do this?

And I want to think about this in the context of social media. We know that social media enable creation, sharing or exchange of information, ideas and media in virtual communities and networks. And organisational applications are close to some of the ideals of knowledge management: supporting group interaction towards establishing communities; enable creation and sharing of content; can help improve collaboration and communication with organisations; distinct technological features that are ideally suited for knowledge sharing; fundamental disruption in knowledge management; and social media is reinvigorating knowledge management as a field.

We do see Enterprise Social Networks (ESN). If you just bring one into an organisation, people don’t necessarily just go and use it. People need a reason to share. So another aspect is communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), this is an important knowledge management strategy, increasingly used. This is about groups pf people who share a passion for something – loose and informal social structures, largely voluntary, and about sharing tacit knowledge. So Communities of Practice (CoP) tend to meet from time to time – in person or virtually.

ESN can be used to create virtual communities. This is particularly suitable for distributed communities – our university has multiple campuses for instance.

So, knowledge sharing in HEIs… Well many don’t do it. A number of studies have shown that KM implementation and knowledge sharing in HEIs is at a low level. Why? Organisational culture, organisational structures, beurocractic characteristics. And there is well documented divide/mistrust between faculty and support staff (silos) – particularly work from Australia, US and UK. So, can CoP and ESN help? Well in theory they can bypass structures that can reinforce silos. That’s an ideal picture, whether we get there is a different thing.

So our research looked at what the antecedents for staff knowledge sharing are; what the dominant problems in the implementation of ESN and CoP. The contextual setting here is Limerick Institute of Technology. I used to work in IT services and this work came significantly from this interest. There is a significant practical aspect to the research so action research seemed like the most appropriate approach.

So we had a three cycle action research project. We looked at Yammer. It has all the features of social networking you’d expect – can engage in conversations, tagged, shared, can upload content. It lends itself well to setting up virtual communities, very flexible and powerful tools for virtual communities. We started from scratch and grew to 209 users.

Some key findings… We found culture and structure are major barriers to staff knowledge sharing. We theorised that and found it to be absolutely the case. The faculty staff divide in HEI exacerbates the problem. Management have an important role to play in shaping a knowledge sharing environment. The existence of CoP are essential to build a successful knowledge sharing environment, and community leaders and champions are require for the ESN. Motivation to participate is also crucial. If they feel motivated, and they see benefit, that can be very helpful. And those benefits can potentially lead to culture change, which then effects motivation…

We found that our organisation has a strong hierarchical model. Very beaurocratic and rigid. Geographic dispersal doesn’t help. To fix this we need to move from a transactional culture. The current organisational structure contributes to the faculty staff divide, limits opportunities and motivations for staff and faculty to work together. But we also found examples where they were working well together. And in terms of the role of management, they have significant importance, and have to be involved to make this work.

Virtual communities are a Knowledge Management strategy has the potential to improve collaboration and interaction between staff, and it has to be seen as valued, relevant, a valid work activity. Staff motivation wise there are some highly motivated people, but not all. Management have to understand that.

So management need to understand the organisational culture; recognise the existence of structural and cultural problems; etc. Some of the challenges here are the public sector hierarchical structures – public accountability, media scrutiny, transitional culture etc.

Q&A

Q1) On a technical level, which tools are most promising for tacit knowledge sharing…

A1) The whole ability to have a conversation. Email doesn’t work for that, you can’t branch threads… That is a distinctive feature of Yammer groups, to also like/view/be onlookers in a conversation. We encourage people to like something if they read it, to see that it is useful. But the ability to have a proper conversation, and organised meetings and conversations in real time.

Q2) What kind of things are they sharing?

A2) We’ve seen some communities that are large, they have a real sense of collaboration. We’re had research coming out of that, some really positive outcomes.

Q3) Have you seen any evidence of use in different countries… What are barriers across different regions, if known?

A3) I think the barriers are similar to the conceptual model (in the proceedings) – both personal and organisational barriers… People are afraid largely to share stuff… They are nervous of being judged… Also that engagement on this platform might make managers thing that they are not working. Age is a limiting factor – economic issues mean we haven’t recruited new staff for almost 10 years, so we are older as a staff group.

Q3) Might be interested to compare to different cultures, with asian culture more closed I think…

A3) Yes, that would be really interesting to do…

Q4) I am trying to think how and what I might share with my colleagues in professional services, technical staff, etc.

A4) The way this is constructed is in communities… We have staff interested in using Office 365 and Classroom Notebook, and so we set up a group to discuss that. We have champions who lead that group and guide it. So what is posted there would be quite specific… But in Yammer you can also share to all… But we monitor and also train our users in how and where to post… You can sign up for groups or create new groups… And it is moderated. But not limited to specifically work related groups – sports and social groups are there too. And that helps grow the user base and helps people see benefits.

Q5) Have you looked at Slack at all? Or done any comparison there?

A5) We chose Yammer because of price… We have it in O365, very practical reason for that… We have looked at Slack but no direct comparison.

Finalists in the Social Media in Practice Excellence Competition present their Case Histories

EDINA Digital Footprint Consulting and Training Service – Nicola Osborne

No notes for this one…

Developing Social Paleantology – Lisa Lundgren;

This is work with a software development company, funded by the National Science Foundation. And this was a project to develop a community of practice around paleontology… People often think “dinosaur” but actually it’s about a much wider set of research and studies of fossils. For our fossil project to meet it’s goal, to develop and support that community, we needed to use social media. So we have a My Fossil community, which is closed to the community, but also a Facebook group and Twitter presence. We wanted to use social media in an educative way to engage the community with our work.

We began with design studies which looked at what basic elements to contribute to engage with social media, and how to engage. We were able to assess practical contributions and build an educatie and evidence-based social media plan. So we wanted to create daily posts using social paleantology, e.g. #TrilobiteTuesday; design branded image-focused posts that are practice-specific, meet design principles, often huperlinks to vetted paleontological websites; respond to members in ways that encourage chains of communication. There is a theoretical contribution here as well. And we think there are further opportunities to engage more with social paleontology and we are keen for feedback and further discussion. So, I’m here to chat!

 

Traditions Mobile App – Adam Peruta.

When new university students come to campus they have lots of concerns like what is this place, where do I fit in, how can I make new friends. That is particularly the case at small universities who want to ensure students feel part of the community, and want to stay around. his is where the Traditions Challenge app comes in – it provides challenges and activities to engage new students in university traditions and features. This was trialled at Ithaca University. So, for instance we encourage students to head along to go along to events, meet other new students, etc. We encourage students to meet their academic advisors outside of the classroom. To explore notable campus features. And to explore the local community more – like the farmers market. So we have a social feed – you can like, comment, there is an event calendar, a history of the school, etc. And the whole process is gamified, you gain points through challenges, you can go on the leaderboard so there are incentives to gain status… And there are prizes too.

Looking at the results this year… We had about 200 students who collectively completed over 1400 challenges, the person who completed the most (and won a shirt) completed 53 challenges. There are about 100 challenges in the app so it’s good they weren’t all done in one year. And we see over 50k screen views so we know that the app is getting more attention whether or not people engage in the challenges. Students focus groups raised themes of the enjoyment of the challenge list, motivation for participation (which varied), app design and user experience – if there’s one key takeaway: this demographic has really high expectations for user interface, design and tone; contribution to identity… Lots of academic research that the more students are engaged on campus, the more likely they will remain at that university and remain engaged through their studies and as alumni. So there is loads of potential here, and opportunity to do more with the data.

So, the digital experience is preferred, mobile development is expensive and time consuming, good UI/UX is imperative to success, universities are good at protecting their brands, and we learned that students really want to augment their on-campus academic experiences.

Conference organiser: Those were the finalists from yesterday, so we will award the prizes for first, second and third… and the PhD prize…

Third place is Lisa; Second place is me (yay!); First place is Adam and the Traditions mobile app.

I’m going to rely on others to tweet the PhD winners…

The best poster went to IT Alignment through Artificial Intelligence – Amir  – this was mainly based on Amir’s performance as his poster went missing so he had to present to an A4 version of the poster so he did a great job of presenting.

Thank you to our hosts here… And we hope you can join us in Limerick next year!

Thanks to all at ECSM 2017.

Apr 102013
 

For the next three days I will be blogging from the Lancaster University Twitter and Microblogging Conference, where Clare Llewellyn (UoE Informatics) and I will be presenting our work on analysing #OR2012 tweets tomorrow.

Keep an eye on this post for notes on today’s talks (programme here) once things get going at 11am. The Twitter hashtag, #lutwit, will probably also be very busy!

Introduction to Twitter and Microblogging: Political, Professional and Personal Practices – Julia Gillen and Johnny Unger

Julia is introducing the conference by outlining the interest in this topic at Lancaster. Greg Myers work on blogs and wikis and Nathan Jurgenson’s work on digital dualism, and Julia’s interest is in political discourses. For Julia some of the motivation for today was attending AAAI on weblogs and social media in Dublin in June. In some ways a super experience, cross-discplinary and people from Twitter there. Went to each o fthe Twitter sessions and listened to what they said. Some real overlap with University of Maryland – academics embedded in Twitter. Lots of people at the conference analysing large data sets in social media, and journalists there using social media. But I was uneasy at the event. Why were the Twitter, LinkedIn, IBM poeple there? To analyse the data for profit. Academics had some research interests there. Lots of the research was linguistics research and corpus linguistics but those presenting never used the terms. So there was a need to really examine Twitter from different perspectives, from different linguistics perspectives, real world problems and issues. There are many motivations, academic and otherwise, and a really good mix over the next few days.

Johnny Unger is now giving a brief practical overview of the conference and the Lanyrd site which acts as the authoritative programme. He is also introducing this afternoon’s Twitter Q&A with Nathan Jurgenson who will be joining the room from Twitter and video feed and suggesting we read two of Nathan’s papers ahead of that:

We will be able to ask questions ahead of or during the session (and I’m sure they are welcome from outside the room #njqa) via Twitter or in the room via Johnny.
And now a comment from the chair of tomorrow evening’s Professional Twitter plenary session, with Twitter users between 1000 and 10,000 followers about #lutwitrc (rc for “Reality Check”) engaged, discussion in a talk here and with tweets in the background. This is more on practicalities of Twitter and Tweeting than on the academic side of Twitter. Again I’m sure input from others will be welcome.
A quick comment again from Johnny: please do tweet. #lutwit is the general hashtag for the sessions. Johnny suggests adding GF4 for lecture theatre 4 etc. If there’s a better system etc. that’s fine. Some special hashtags already mentioned. You can tweet any questions about the event to @lutwit13 (or ask in person).

Plenary: Online freedom and repressive law: The paradox of digital journalism by Lee Salter, University of West of England

Lee’s research loooks at interactions between new media and traditional media. Julia came to know his work through the book he co-authored with Janet Jones, Digital Journalism (Jones & Salter 2011). Lee is also in town as his film is playing in Lancaster tonight.

I wanted to start by pointing to issues we may be talking about at the rest of the conference. My issue in social media is both how it relates to traditional media but also around the paradoxes social media can lead to. I want to focus on some of those issues through some of the more controversial areas where social media has been used.

So as we know Twitter is lots of different things to different people, it’s an integral part of modern journalistic toolkit, a ranting space, a means of sharing links and photos, and it’s a campaign and protesting tool – which I’m particularly interested in, and those discourses around this.

In the book I don’t go for hyperbolism or doom and gloom. However there are real extremes in the coverage and discourses around social media. In the coverage of the Mumbai massacre Tom Sutcliffe, writing in The Independent, rallies against the coverage on Twitter. Of course months later the paper were up and tweeting. But discourses of hyperbole does need to be modified, reined in. Twitter grows out of the use of UGC by journalists. Anar Thorson argues that Moldovan and Iranian elections see Twitter being used to generate news on the ground, “a hub for first hand accounts”.

More recently we see a journalists in a hybrid environment – breaking stories on blogs and twitter before appearance on broadcast or print. Thorson sees the coverage of the election on blogs getting greater viewership than maintream press in some cases. The criticisms of Twitter describe it as nonsense, as repition. Thorson moved to work on the “Arab Spring” and he cites NPR’s Andy Carvin as one of the paragon examples of really good tweeting. He tweeted so rapidly that Twitter tried to delete his account as they thought he might be a spammer. He used Twitter to collect first hand accounts, to verify rumous and discussio, to gather fast moving information. Benjamin Doherty critizes Carvin work as he says that he couldnt see any other NPR journalists working with activists and protestors against the Israeli state in that sort of way, keeping their job.

I want to talk now about whether Twitter really has changed corporate communications, how journalism has changed, what the power relations are.

It’s notable that journalists, as gatekeepers of information, tend to reflect existing power relations. The suggestion is that Twitter and social media have changed those power relations. Thorson argues that journalists do have incentives to protect the traditional press role but that use of social media is changing those power relations. Chadwick argues the change of relations between elite sources and elite journalists, particularly in terms of temporality. The routine news day is based around routine deadlines. Powerful sources of information can sync and interface with those times of day in order to feed the news system. Social media do not follow those patterns so closely, the news routine is interrupted. But I’m not actually sure that interruption is actually occurring. We know that participation and influence is limited by the resource base that people use. The range of people that use Twitter is limited, those that use it effectively is even smaller. Pew’s research in the US finds only 15% of internet users using Twitter, only 8% doing so daily. Only a quarter of Twitter users have ever tweeted. In the Uk research shows Twitter users as being higher income. But in the US Twitter users tend to be younger, female, urban, and more black and hispanic users than might be expected. There isn’t one profile here.

Bruns and Burgess, et al. (2011) [thanks to @mdanganh for the clarification and URL] found Twitter use in Australian elections being about traditional power and professional relations, with social media amplifying those central conversations. But activists are now engaged in loosely coupled relationships with newsmakers, the majority of those interactions have little impact, but only a small number of Twitter users make a real difference, push the conversations, etc.

There has been little work on Tweet’s intregration in mainstream media. Thorson writes not about Twitter but about “Have your Say” information and the BBC during elections. The use of this tended to represent middle ground. Wiki News did things a little differently, they required a neutral point of view. But what does “neutral” mean, especially in controversial areas. Twitter is obviously different to these two spaces. It isn’t censored, it isn’t moderated. A colleague who writes for the Guardian was complaining about Twitter as a chaotic medium, that they integrate it in a conventional linear narrative, but it doesn’t fit with discursive structures of journalism.

Now when I mentioned the Arab Spring, a lot of the attention of journalists and scholars looking at the Arab Spring has been a focus on the particular conflict in the middle east and North Africa. If Twitter had really penetrated the mainstream I think we would have seen different discourses. There has been a real role for Twitter in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, and we have seen that covered and rather overstated, but we don’t see coverage Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, say. There are various assumptions we can make about the focuses… social media tends to be used to illustrate what is going on by particular groups, very media savvy protest groups and a need to communicate to the outside world via social media, then bounce back via mainstream media (e.g. particularly in Egypt). So the discourses of social media here fitted with the mainstream news agenda and that’s why it had leverage in some areas much more so than others.

We know that Twitter power relations reflect mainstream roles – mainstream journalists have far more followers than others. Because social media has been used within the mainstream news frames. We see parallels between protest in the middle east and the UK at the same time became reported by mainstream media. I’m going to play a clip of reporting of conflict in Egypt – the images, the placement of the camera, the emphasis, etc. here (from World News Today). The interesting here is the way that the conflict between the protestors and the police are represented, the alignment of the journalist to the protestors, the reference to petrol bombs as defensive, the slight giggle in the discussion of rock throwing. Compare that with a clip from the student protests in the UK at the same time (BBC News), this time the footage includes a dismissive nod towards attacks on students by police here. Social media told a very different story to the new coverage.

This notion of communicative freedom that takes place… when Tunisia and Egypt shut down Twitter and Facebook there is outrage. In the UK David Cameron talks of shutting down BlackBerry, Facebook etc. raises far less media question. But the question

Andrew Cameron and Barbara Tool call the “Californian Ideology”, the internet is just there, it’s natural as John Perry Barlow says. Now that is not a reality, it was set up by government, by institutions etc. Laurance Lessig (in code and cyberspace) talks about political regulation and economic regulation, and norms or hegemony. And I think these may explain why Twitter regulation isn’t neccassary. The traditional public/private dichotomy is disappearing, it’s broken down, but law hasn’t caught up with a paradoxical medium like Twitter. Nor do the users. Take Paris Brown for instance, elected as a Police Youth Comissioner who is 17, and people found tweets from the ages from when she was 14 or 15… they included crude comments about sex and drugs. Do we really expect 14 year olds to understand that dichotomy? She stood down yesterday. Andrew Brown wrote some nasty comments on Facebook and was jailed for 12 weeks. An 18 year old was arrested for making comments about Tom Daley’s deceased father. And of course there is the case of Peter? because an off the cuff comment on Twitter was taken to be a terrorist threat. People aren’t very aware of this dichotomy, and the outdated law is the major problem here. Many of these cases date from the 2003 communications act. This allows prosecution for comments deemed to be offensive, obscene, etc. comments. Many comedians do not get taken to court or taken to prison for comments of those type (e.g. Frankie Boyle or Richard Littlejohn), whilst the same types of comments on Twitter and social media seem to be taken very differently. Which is particularly odd given there are no specific press freedom laws here. “improper use of public communications network”

Mitchell Stancombe was jailed for three years for a tweet asking when the riots would start in Southampton. The idea of incitement to riot predates these media and the punishment has been disproportionate. And discourses did not make it into the mainstream media. Tweets such as “This is what happens when you consistently opress [sic] the youth, have some of your own medicine #londonriots” did not make the headlines. Rob Proctor’s work on Twitter showed the most powerful tweets dominating, dissenting voices shut down, the clean up operation after the riots dwarfed the riot tweets. He argues that those who were rioting did not use Twitter, they knew they would be caught. Blackberry Messenger was far more popular for that reason.

Now another reason not to close down those spaces hasn’t really got anything to do with communicative styles, it’s to do with the modes of British Policing. We can talk about “permissive transgression”. They allow law to be broken to a certain extent “policing by consent” then cracking down, the idea being to minimise conflict. The police also lack intelligence – but social media allows huge gathering of intelligence. The other function of social media during protests and riots is quite amusing. The police try to contact and engage those that they think may be protesting. Since 2010 there really haven’t been a central starting point, an organiser, etc. They try to reach out to a leader in the protest, but there is no leader. When I looked at protests in Bristol, different students from different colleges would arrange 4 or 5 different protests, but which one got popular was luck really. no one was in charge.

Def? and his colleagues have looked in depth at how the police use Twitter in conflict. To try to calm situation, to try to engage, to provide information, and to try and name and shame individuals. On occassion some individuals were acquitted… one of these had his house burned down because he had been named as possibly involved in protest. There is a growing sense of identifiable data, of the need to be private in case seen/named/photographed etc.

And I want to end on the opposite take on this. Anonymous, as a group, is full of paradoxes. On the one hand the group is anonymous in terms of membership, representation etc. but they are also Anonymous, a brand essentially. And they are desperate for their actions and hacks to play a propaganda role so they have to play to the mainstream. They say “Twitter is their link to the world”. Looking at @YourAnonNews this is “one of many” Anonymous accounts, you cannot verify it, there is no hierachy and leadership here. They say “we are legion” and that’s a very deliberate term. Anonymous attached Israel over the weekend, I asked about a previous operation and I spoke to “Commander X” and asked him about interfaces with mainstream media. He advised we watch the “We Are Legion” documentary. They started posting quotations from the documentary at the same time as they appeared in the documentary – wasn’t a coincidence, he had control of my machine. So it’s a very weird group to interact with and talk to.

Commander X called Twitter the frontline, the key medium for publicity, it is designed to reach the mainstream journalists. They send out huge numbers of press releases as well. The operations are designed to Shock and Awe, to be too powerful for mainstream media to miss. Commander X says that that is why full blown complete take downs can force the media to discuss it. 1 million followers on Twitter. This is an important organisation. Anonymous going to war online with Israel… this seems major but all of the reporting says the same thing, from an AP release, stating that actually it hasn’t caused any real damage. Israeli government was main source for article. It illustrates those tricky power relations. But I did ask why Twitter doesn’t reject Anonymous or hack them. They say they know they are being watched, they are better at hacking than them, and they say “we haven’t done anything to offend Twitter”. It’s a paradoxical relationship.

Power relations do not seem to have been addressed by Twitter but there are clear opportunities for transformations. There is something but it’s not transforming mainstream media. The hegemonic status hasn’t changed. The integration of Twitter into news discourses doesn’t cause disruption, it follows the patters, it is normalised. But the law fails to address these mediums. Leveson was an opportunity to address that but it didn’t happen. But the paradox, the tension here, is the issue of Twitter as a sphere of public communication and as a sphere of surveillance.

Q&A

Q) In that use of Twitter by mainstream media, how does the Guardian fit in here?

A) The Guardian did become different in riots coverage but had previously been similar to other traditional media outlets. A truly different approach would be to frame those involved in the riots as “primary definers”. I argue that the riots were political but I have many debates with intelligent people who argue otherwise. In Egypt that protest wasn’t that focused but muddies the narrative. That would have been a radical alternative discourse.

Q) Can Twitter be considered unmoderated?

A) Of course it is mediated and moderated. Take downs occur, depends if you think pre-selection or post comment take downs. BBC comments are pre-publication, with Twitter moderation tends to be after the fact. Relatively unmoderated.

Q) My name is Ty Graham, been studying how dutch journalists use Twitter, how that selection might change journalists?

A) Nick Davies wrote a great book called “flat earth news” about the role of PR in news. Throughout the 80s and 90s there were fewer journalists covering more and more who became reliant on press releases and PR. Journalism already has it’s problems. The choice isn’t between seeing or calling a source, and doing that directly vs Twitter. It’s more between press releases and Twitter, and Twitter looks better there. But one of the problems is selecting tweets that fit with the journalist or the discursive angle of the journalists. The daily mail won’t highlight tweets against it’s position for instance.

Q) To what extent does reporting of conflict reflect regulation – so in the case of Egypt the UK press is not regulated by the state, in the London Riots they are, their reporting of Tweets may inevitably be related to their own relationship with the state, with the politics of that protest, with regulation (e.g. license fee negotiation).

A) There’s certainly something there, at least in terms of TV coverage as BBC, ITV, C4 etc. are very much regulated by the state. But newspapers are not regulated in the same way and yet they elected not to frame their coverage differently. People were effectively executed around the riots and that was little covered, just as death in police custody isn’t reflected in reporting. There is a much wider issue with journalism that it wants to reflect and frame it’s coverage in ways that its readers/consumers understand, are not unsettled by, are comfortable with and that really prevents alternative discourses, radical reframings etc.

Q) follow up: surely in a rolling news era TV sets the agenda here though? Surely agenda is also set by whatever has the best pictures?

A) Well perhaps but news organisations in print also produce video; TV news producers use social media; there is such blending and merging here. And there is a real concern around the use of video. In the London Riots all of the major broadcasters handed over footage to the police and there is real concern that in the next protest those journalists may well be finding themselves targets for that reason.

We’ve just had a good lunch break, now moving to parallel strands and I have selected:

 

Building rapport in conference live tweets by Giorgia Riboni, Milan

Giorgia and her colleague C. Degano analysed conference tweeting to understanding discourse. Most participants seem to be addressing tweets to academic peers, not a more public audience. They seem to represent communications within a particular community, an efficient self-promotional tool perhaps? The main question I want to ask is “If scholars’ conference tweets are targeted at an audience of peers, how do they build rapport while sharing information?” and wondering how conference tweeters strategies vary or overlap with speakers strategies, with Erving Goffman’s essay The Lecturn. I am calling on SFG Halliday 1985 (Interpersonal Funcation); Goffman 1981 (Frame Analysis); Hydland 19?? (??)

Corpus was around 2000 tweets, hashtag based collection of 8 pplied linguisitics conference live tweets. With a reference corpus of conference scripts. John Swales Conference Corpus (2009). 23 lectures and around 77k words. I will be sharing the findings of my qualitative analysis rather than my quantitative analysis although the qualitiative results are based on that. In my data 81.5% of tweets were original tweets; 12.8% were retweets; only 5.7% were replies. It doesn’t seem that the tweeters are reluctant to engage, rather they want tweets to reach all or most of their audience instead.

looking at Goffman’s typology for audiences, these don’t seem to quite apply here. Marwick and Boyd 2010 find the effect of “networked audience” – the idea that tweets might reach a global audience of peers rather than replies which only reach a small audience. Hydland 2001 talks about metadiscursive elements and engagement markers. On Twitter there are both engagement language devices (Deixis – in person this is about “I’m pleased to be here” etc. in tweets this is a little different ; questions and imperatives; conversational elements; evaluative elements – these tends to be a matter of positioning yourself in the academic community, paying compliments, etc.) and engagement markers (e.g. @, RT, etc.). Looking at markers – hashtags enact a social relationship. The @ sign are a deictic marker of addressivity at the beginning of the tweet, it is about mentioning when mid-tweet. RTs also are about mentioning another user and representing that in your own stream (User X has posted the following (Zappavigna 2012). But in conferences there is a driver for participants’ own personality and perspective to emerge, probably hence the low level of RT.

Conference live tweeter can act as an “Animator” but there are hybrid or ambigous models here. Sometimes Animator and principal; Author or principal. This hybrid ambiguity amplifies the tweeter’s voice in relation to the speaker. And this relates to the scholarly voice, the role of the speaker (Monacelli 2009) which may represent their role, organisation, etc. and the textual self of the speaker (Goffman 1981). Goffman talks about the speaker as a performer, a method of transmitting content rather than the textural self projects in the course of the lectures delivery. But for me the textual self of the speaker is equally important as, thanks to Twitter affordances, the public and private spheres are collapsing and colliding together and thus the construction of the textual self includes both the scholarly voice and the personal voice. There is a backstage frenzy. Doesn’t mean that distance-altering mechanisms are not there, you see irony and humour, parenthetical remarks, and text brackets as well.

Conclusions. Speakers establish conection with attendees by engaging their rhetorical audience, discursively constructing their textual self and altering their alignmen with the public while transmitting their talk. But that the tweeters also perform, often using the same strategies as the speaker. Conference live tweeters can send notifications; transmit their personal and public self etc. Contact Giorgia @Giorgia_Riboni.

Q&A

Q) David Matthews, Lancaster: One of the things you mentioned was the low number of retweets. One explanation was that people want their own voice to emerge. I’m wondering whether you’d think about asking them, interviews with those you examine, as there may be other reasons. for example people using twitter at a conference don’t retweet as they know their peers are present at the conference as well, that information will already be available.

A) I agree that ethnographic approach would benefit these studies. As a live tweeter I have my own opinions and have been trying to verify those using my corpus.

Q) Mark: Have you engaged with set up, e.g. TWitter wall. Like this morning the wall ran after the talk but not during them. There is a twitter wall in the foyer/lunch area. What is the impact of that display on live tweeting. What is your experience in that?

A) A good comment. Didn’t do this as part of research, think I should have. What we are experiencing today shows that what we see of the tweets can really shape Tweets and interactions.

Q) Anthony McNeill, Kingston University: Looking at research on Blogging by Susan Herring for instance, that monologue was the trend but dialogue did occur in bursts. Some continuity between blogging and microblogging there perhaps. And 140 chars means a retweet really limits what I can say… does that have an impact.

A) Yes, initially I think that was an issue. New RT button changes that somewhere. Tweeters feel the need to credit the tweet so that may be a challenge. The way that they conserve textuality is also interesting. You consider your own tweet but you also consider your tweet in the wider context of the corpus of Tweets.

Q) Is it normal that live tweeters are present?

A) Yes, but the audience may not be.

 

Polyphony of discourse on and about Twitter: Analysis of Twitter uses in the European Parliament, Commission and Council by Sandrine Roginsky (@enirdans)

My work started with an article I saw saying that Twitter was useful for commissioners to communicate. I saw a tweet from Vivian Reding, Vice President of European Comission on the election of president Elles in 2012. It certainly won’t be a commission view. Twitter allos some form of free expresion of actors who are also part of institutions. Professionally though there are guidances around speeches etc.  Maingeuneau says that “institutions mask the conflict” but on Twitter we still see that conflict. So the research question for me here is whether Twitter make it possible to combine various registers of communication or genres of discourses,and the role of the “neutral speech” the “truth of speech” etc. You cannot have both. My hypotheisis that the communications of the institutions as public organisations on Twitter leads to blurring of personal and private, and that

French discourse analysis – Caroline Olliver-Yaniv and Claire oger which is from perspective of political sociology. See also quote on Witschge 2008 the poential of the internet for opening up public discourse cannot be evaluated without properly understanding the context. My method included participant observation, interview, etc. I had ready access to the institutions for this work. I looked at the European Commission, the European Council, and the European Parliament. Today I will really focus on the European Commission.

In terms of the context you should note that there is a general injunction for institutions and staff of the Commission to use social media (see EP, Stategic Plan of Communication 2011-2014) as it offers “unique cost-efficient oppotunity for interactivity with citizens”. There is often a perception that there is a deficit around EU communication, but worth bearing in mind in the Commission’s use of others’ tools.

Who is in charge here? At the Commission there are 6 people dedicated to SNS (only). Important to know that Commission has very decentralised communications team. The Social media team is quite small – and on short-term contracts – but Twitter use is spread across the Commission. The European Council has one social media manager – not really communicating in general as much. At the European Parliament there is a team of 30 people dedicated to both social media and the website of the institution. The age average of these staff is around 25-35 year olds.

Ollivier-Yaniv and Oger found that institutional discourses re those officially produced by an individual or organisation. There is some evolution here of our understanding of the institution in Twitter. You have speakers who are Commissioners AND politicians. And you have Commissioners and Staffers both communicating on Twitter. Many voices for this one institution. Too many accounts for the institution. I did this full time for three months and I couldn’t track and follow them all! And there are even more since! There was one main institutional account, one for each Director Generals, 16 personal Commissioner accounts, 16 spokespeople of Commisioners, more for specific programmes and services, 27 nationalities etc. Very difficult to keep track of them.

The Commission has pushed for their staff to be on Twitter BUT not everyone is allowed to speak on behalf of the institution. See Bourdieu 2004 on the role of authorised speakers (and unauthorised speakers). However even for a researcher working on Tweets of the Commission it is near impossible to work out who is authorised to speak on behalf of the Comission. No clear guidelines here, even when staff were asked. Was told by one person that it will be obvious form indications of the the Twitter account. But same person said that her Commissioner’s account was “her personal account, she writes whatever she wants”. So very unclear whether personal or Comission views.

Moving to discourses. Institutional communication (Pasquier 2011); Political communication (Gerstle 1992); Personalised Communication (Jacobson 1994?). One Comms Officer tols me there are two types of tweets, political tweets “which are more interesting” and more personal.  If we take the account of Jose Manual Barroso (@BarrosoEU) – this actually changed names three times here. The rebrand changed the account to both a more personal and more political account. There are some Tweeters do speak on a more personal basis. Viviane Reding again seems to be much more personal. Laszio Andor does similarly but words those tweets in far more personal and informal ways.

However there are a great many more professional type tweets than wholly personal tweets. I found three types of tweets. But I am interested in the paradoxes of enunciation on Twitter and contradiction between the discourse on and about Twitter. Words like Objectivity, Impartiality, Loyalty, Discreion, Circumspection vs. “the best information are those which have not yet been communicated yet”. There is a tension between the rules and the aim of participation on Twitter. Really a huge contradiction. Interviewees all said the argumentative, very political tweets were the most interesting but at the same time they said that you really can’t do that. Most of what is tweeted is much more institutional communication. Probably rather less than one interviewee’s guestimate of 70% institutional to 30% personal political.

Some validation of hypothesis here. Smoothing of political discourse on Twitter.

Most interviews in their discourses on Twitter, they said it was a good way to reach “citizens” or the “man on the street”. But when we looked at who followed and interacted with them it was predominently media and others from the Brussels e-bubble. So it is not a good tool to reach the “man on the street” but very useful way to reach that “Brussels e-bubble”.

Questions – validation process and control of speech within and outside the organisation suited for Twitter.

Q&A

Q) Something about identity, and the need to have a certain professional character. It seems that in order to be “professional” they have to tweet a news feed, they are locked within a bubble of who they are, what they are representing, do they belong in a medium like Twitter.

A) A good question, I have the same question myself. I don’t have an answer exactly. The discourse they have about Twitter, especially Twitter rather than Facebook as they see Twitter as most useful, but I’m not sure at all. A researcher (geugeugis?) found that there is a competition between civil servants and politicians. And The civil servants are winning but Twitter is subversive to that, a way to produce own communication. But you can see the touch of civil servants in that prevelance of institutional tweets, very administrative form and tone for this. So many accounts though! There was also a debate around actor, around digital rights, strong debates and those did take place in those debates. None of the EU institutions took part in that debate. They said they don’t know how to act, how to participate, how to be part of the conversation and perhaps take sides in a way.

Q) Simon van Houts: covering the EU as a journalist is notoriously limited, “mediated mediation” – are the Twitter channels another part of this?

A) I think so. I have started to look at journalists and their interactions with EU accounts and I think I would agree there.

And after a biscuit we are back!

Uses and risks of microblogging in organisations by Soureh Latif Shabgahi

Soureh is particularly looking at use of social media tools in SMEs, and use of microblogging here. Two of the relevant tools here are Twitter and Yammer. From previous literature a majority of research into microblogging has taken place in larger organisations. Generally uptake has been large organisations who have adopted tools after early uptake and trials by some of their staff.

Yammer is an enterprise-orientated microblogging tool without restriction on number of characters.  (A’lvaro et al 2010; gunther 2009; Giles 2010). The messages shared are private to the organisation and it appears that over 70k organisations are using Yammer. However there is little research on enterprise microblogging, 30 papers starting in 2009. Most papers are in US and Europe. Key authors include Kai Riemer and Dejin Zhao. Riemer focuses on microblogging influence on communications. Dejin has focused more on awareness.

I have categorised themes in usage. The main themes are around coordination; reputation management; forming relationships’ Awareness and sense of connectnedd’; Record information for future reference; sharing knowledge/information; discussion. Personal dimensions also come in here, for instance using Twitter for finding work related updates, I have mapped that to Awareness and a sense of connectedness.  There are also face to face discussions that come out of microblogging discussions. These include areas such as work related stress etc.

In considering these tools I also categorised the risks associated with enterprise microblogging. One risk is the restriction on messages, that limitation to 140 characters; difficulties of using the system; distraction – particularly time cost, the noise to value ratio, ; privacy of employees; Security of the organisation.

Data collection via semi structured interviews with 20 SMEs in South Yorkshire area, most of which were IT based companies. But have also gathered results from SMEs in other areas, e.g. educational companies, sports companies. Based on interviews also observations of some companies – of messages posted by employees during the interviews or at a later date. Also used questionnaires to SMEs and received over 100 responses – some from companies I hadn’t contacted directly but had been passed on to them. All interviewees were asked to complete the questionnaires. Analysis has been carried out on a sample of 4 interviews, as the basis for thematic analysis for broader collection. In one SME case I interviewed two staff members, the first was a manager who had introduced Twitter and Yammer, the second was a manager who was using Twitter for their organisation. And I have pulled out some of the uses and some of the risks involved.  Interviewee 1 said that Yammer allowed sharing at “speed of thought” making it easy to use, saw Twitter very positively, as a way to market and engage with customers. Yammer as internal tool, Twitter as tool for reaching audience. Interviewee 2 liked perpetual connection – 24/7 mobile access – and talked about network effects, use for marketing etc. and possibility of attracting new customers.

In terms of risks Interviewee 1 said there was a risk of upsetting colleagues via Yammer – can type quickly and find an upset colleague. On Twitter you can phrase things badly, that had happened, and there was a reputation impact. Interviewee 2 also talked about the risk of hacking – Yammer includes very confidential discussion so real risk there – and of distraction of Twitter.

Turning to Interviewee 3, specifically about Twitter, found the scale very positive and liked the “follow” concept. For their business that was really important. There was a real value to restricting their message. Short messages allow people to decide quickly if they want information, they don’t have to read a lot. But also identified “accidentally just mentioning something” as a risk.

These first two organisations were very positive in tone. However Interviewee 4 was much more negative about use of Twitter. They saw Twitter as very famous, good for marketing and attention, probably needed for mass communication. However in his eyes it’s mainly a “social media tool” in that it is effective for communicating with friends, not with professional cololeagues. Because some private information had been leaked they were particularly aware of that risk. Spelling mistakes are a real risk. And they felt that most users of social media were younger and perhaps not mature in dealing with these issues.

As this research goes forward I will add further risks and uses to my diagrams. My study will focus on the risks and will look at policies and guidelines and how to handle risks when they arise. So for instance Reputation (e.g. spelling mistakes) and Upset/Offend Others will be added to the risks.

Q) Me: Risks – have legal risks been incorporated? Also were SMEs

A) Risks: looked at risks of microblogging and regular blogging tools. Lots of similarities. Some risks that are specific to blogging and probably vice versa. And probably will use policies and guidelines into those risks. In terms of SMEs: First question I ask is whether they use microblogging or not, sometimes I have to explain what microblogging is. Almost all companies I contact are using Twitter, lots of IT companies use it. Some are still in process of adoption. Still debating internally. Did interview them as well as wanted to capture that process of adoption. If aware of them and considering them I did include those SMEs.

Q) You picked companies with high IT knowledge. How would that map to companies with less IT knowledge perhaps? e.g. Health and social care.

A) My focus is mainly in the area of IT I have interviewed companies working in education, sports, some charities. It will be interesting… 80% are IT so there should be some scope for comparison of them with other companies.

Q) Peter Evans, UoE: Study is about use of microblogging by companies. Did you look at use of microblogging by employees not just by companies – and regardless of company policies, particularly around knowledge sharing.

A) It was difficult to find companies in the first place, I spoke to max 2 people and focused on manager who introduced it plus one other. One of my questions was about whether personal or business account was being used. One of the risks which majority of companies using personal accounts identified was the sharing of business information on personal accounts, felt that spelled trouble for the whole company. Some had specifically introduced policies and guidelines as a result, e.g. do not mention the business at all.

Q) So I hadn’t heard of Yammer before…?

A) It was hard to find Yammer companies because that is private communication but I met some of the Yammer staff and was able to find some companies through them.

Comment) Yammer is used a lot in local government.

More than just passing notes in class? Twitter backchannels as new literacy practice by Tony McNeill, Principal Lecturer in Educational Technology

Tony wants to start by linking his presentation to the main conference themes, on the many diverse and creative ways Twitter is being used… or maybe misused. So I love this Onion headline “Twitter creator on Iran: I Never Intended for Twitter to be useful” which is quite fun, not as funny as some others in the Onion, but it raises a few things. That negative, trivial, vacuus perception of Twitter. The other side is that all technology is really a misuse of technology – to put it to purposes for which it was never intended (e.g. using screwdriver to open a can of paint). Like Howard Bloom saying all reading is misreading, so all technology use is all misuse.

So in an image of a lecture we see a lecturer in the room and two participants in the backchannel. It was a minority force a few years ago. Now it’s commonplace, participation starts weeks or months in advance. Signing up for a conference means the schedule, the people, but also the hashtag. See eg a tweet about conferences sounding like the tic tic tic of typing – maybe out of date in era of smart phones.

Tony’s core question is whether this back channel is new or just a new take on old/existing practice. To answer it we need descriptions of practice and theorisations of practice. So I want to start by thinking of ways to theorise the backchannel. Tony defines this “the digital communications space used for primarily textual interactions alongside live spoken presentations generally delivered in a physical environment”. Sometimes there are images and multimodal elements in the backchannel too.

You can see Nathan Jurgenson’s critique of the term “there will not be separate online and offline conferences happening, […] Twitter isn’t a backchannel it’s the session at the front.”. My own take is that there are backchannels and that front channels are not automatically physical, they can be digital. Back channels go way back – looking at this painting we see chatter at the back of the room. But there are roles in this room.

So I want to stick with the notion of backchannel. My theoretical frameworks are New Literacy Studies and New Mobilities Paradigm, both of which have their origins in Lancashire. So firstly New Literacy Studies are an approach around reading and writing practices, sees literacy as plural, socially embeded, and about identity and power. And a sub area of this, New Literacies, is whether new digital technologies really lead to new literary practices. Is there a new ethos in Twitter backchannels or does technology just enable what we’ve already done.

Types of backchannel tweets:

  • minute-by-minute/live tweeting
  • note taking/resource sharing – and co construction and collaborative aspects
  • personal commentary
  • dialogue – some dialogue but more monologue than dialogue
  • fun /playfulness.

There are also new conventions in the backchannel, competances to be a participant:

  • use of event specific hashtags
  • @ messages
  • retweets (RTs)
  • invite muting/unfollowing when backchannelling

All of these are implicit knowledge we need to understand.

New Literacy Studies are interested in context and in power. I was at a conference a few years ago on podcasting and there was a hastily improvised hashtag, We had a speaker from Apple and we were interested to hear ideas etc. but we got a real sales pitch. So one comment here “I really *want* to like this talk but it’s not playing to me… ” and others followed suit. We are shown a promotional video and the tweets get more angry and more defensive of being sold to. It was interesting to see that very tense mismatch between audience giggling and speaker presentation. What was going on here? Was it just silliness, boredom, irritation? I think it was something else. Academics were going beyond that academic identity but at the same time reinforcing the importance of the conference space for sharing and discussion, a reaffirmation against the sales pitch.

My second theoretical framework are the New Mobilities Paradigm (Shelly and Urry 2006) which about social life no longer being about physical proximity, being more about moving, technologies enable remote connections. Having intense but meaningful contact at a distance. A book I’ve been reading lately, by Daniel Millar, on parenting and migrant workers from the Phillipines and how that is facilitated by Skype seems to fit with these theoretical frameworks. And Shelly and Urry are against sedentarism.

So, with a new mobilities perspective how might we see the conference. The “sedentarist” conference is about face to face encounter; bounded in time and space’ impermeable (delegates only); backchannels a “distraction”.

Backchannels potentially challenge those ideas in many ways:

  • virtual/phsyical (e.g. I tweeted various links days ago using a tweet scheduler that you should see now)
  • digital/analogue
  • then/now
  • not here/here
  • interloper/delegate

There are all sorts of bizarre things. The digital is present in physical spaces – twitter walls appear in a few conferences. danah boyd had a really Twitter wall fail a few years back when very uncomplimentary tweets weren’t visible and thus weren’t addressable.

Early ethnographic perspective. Miller and Slater (2000) wrote about needing to treat the internet as embedded and continuous in daily lives.

On the backchannel theme…. Starbucks sponsored an ice skating rink at the Natural History Museum. Tweet to their tag: #spreadthecheer and you appeared at the ice rink. Starbucks weren’t stupid, they moderated it when they saw the tweets appearing but not fast enough… a skater had photographed it. The virtual was made physical in the space, photographed and tweeted and shared over 1000 times back in the digital realm.

A tentative conclusion: Backchannels constitute a new literacy practice and structure (plus two sub points

Q&A

Q) A question here… in a previous role I looked at digital scholarship… given the cost and environmental reasons will there always be physical conferences?

A) I think that we are between two ways of doing things. We are doing some video streaming of some of the plenaries. Live bloggers here… we are mid point between physical and online conference. I’ve done some technology conferences where that participation is online and that’s comfortable, there will be more use of that in the future…

Comment) Actually I think the real back channel is in the pub so I don’t agree…

Q) I went to a conference called Gin and Joy Division specifically about that… I wanted to ask about the backchannel and the thing… it’s often very multilayered. Some events I’ve been to have huge numbers of parallel conversations, which sort of gives you more of a sense of response to what is presented. Have you thought about that at all? What does the back channel say in response to the paper? Is it always sniping and jokes?

A) I always enjoy that… If someone is looking at the laptop when I’m talking you may be doing something broadly positive – looking something up, following up interesting themes. For this conference I’m not sure but a colleague who has done more quantitative work found that some conferences with successful and busy hashtags actually it comes down to half a dozen or a dozen people producing most of the tweets. But I see it as generally positive, ranging from banal (wifi, dinner, etc.). I have seen some real dialogue and co production of knowledge going on… a lot of people talking about automatic transcriptions etc… real dialogue… One post at that conference said the participant was struggling but backchannel was keeping them engaged. But it can be snarky too.

Q) Rhianon: I have to admit the description of backchannels being snarky… maybe a British thing… in fan communities especially the back channel can be about informing those beyond the room who cannot be physically present. Not about criticising the speaker but dissemination of information… about an augmented confrerence.

A) The same happens here. But snarkiness comes from US blogs, and IRC backchat really. But still broadly positive.

And it’s back to the main room for our second plenary…

Twitter Q&A with Nathan Jurgenson (@nathanjurgenson) by Nathan Jurgenson and Johnny Unger

This session is taking place in a more novel way. Nathan is joining us via Google+ Hangout on video, and also via Twitter. Johnny is chairing in the room. We have been asked to read Nathan’s work on the IRL fetish and to think about his work on digital dualism. Do we as academic researchers critique these things, are we guilty of these things… ?

Johnny: I will start with a question from my own experience: I often talk with colleagues about students using technology in the lecture room – computes, smartphones, tablets etc. Some find that quite concerning and threatening.

Nathan: That is one of the issues of digital dualism. A lot of the time these issues are confused with access and presence. We are trying to come to terms with that. Digital dualism we often overestimate the role of the online in the offline, and the other side of that, we underestimate the role of the offline in the online. The assumption can be concerns that students are checking out of the room. They may be but they may not. But it’s not about whether to make that compromise or not, it’s not about online or offline, its about how you augment the on and offline with each other. They are different spaces but they are enmeshed. And we should neither under or over estimate that enmeshment. Personally I am terrified of MOOCs, the idea of no face to face contact scares me. I run a conference, Theorising the Web, is certainly enmeshed though, if you weren’t on Twitter you only see half the conference.

Digital dualism is the fallacy of looking at the online and offline as disconnected and unrelated. Facebook is real of course. And the IRL Fetish is about value judgements about those spaces, as seeing people on phones, using technologies etc. as anti social, to see ourselves as more real or authentic because we are offline. When Sheryl Turkle talks about walks on the beach… she wasn’t disconnected, she’s connected but her social space is the NYT op-ed pages, rather than Facebook.

And, with that Nathan is offscreen and turning to questions on Twitter… the room has fallen silent and migrated to #njqa. And I shall move with it but return to liveblogging when Nathan appears onscreen again shortly.

And… after a weird half hour…

Johnny asks how that went? Nathan says we agree too much! He has lots of stuff to read and look at after the questions, I think there was a lot of digital thinking going on there. I am joking there but some long reads, some discussion online. Feedback from the audience is “too loud” which is very much an ironic comment, it’s been super quiet. I’ve commented that we’ve privileged the backchannel to frontchannel… very little backchat in the room. So two lessons, maybe Twitter isn’t the backchannel, maybe you need music… or more person to person chat…. maybe it was too quiet. But we are in a lecture theatre and the physical layout certainly doesn’t encourage chatter. Nathan: architecture affordances is one-to-many structure. Twitter is many-to-many format so disjunction there, conceptually interesting. Comment from the room: quite creative, real creation of content in the room. Johnny: when people are asked to create content they do that rather than chat. Nathan: indeed, may not be best format for conference where networking is so important. But really great experiment, test running this novel way, really interesting.

Our final plenary for the day took place after dinner and was, it must be said, pretty much unbloggable. In:

Facebook is like Disco and Twitter is like Punk by Rebekka Kill

We were treated to something between performance art, a great retro DJ set, and a really thoughtful musing on the cultures and practices of social media. I can’t sum it up adequately here and without Kill’s unique DJing persona, but her slides and some of the music can be found in this blog post from her performance at the Shift Happens conference in 2012.

And with that Day One is truly over. Day two sees my own presentation taking place so expect a few gaps in the blogging!