 Great. Thank you. So my name is Roy Skiddins. We are both at the University of Texas at Austin and our topic today in the schedule was does researcher participation online networks democratize knowledge protection? It's something interesting. We're gonna kind of broaden that a little bit and talk about scholars because we didn't want to just focus on research. We wanted to look at kind of a broader interpretation of what academics do. And to consider how as academics participate in online spaces how that or what are the barriers to democratizing knowledge and democratizing dissemination. So basically what we're going to do today is we're going to start with a few probably for the first 15 to 20 minutes. Just kind of give you some background information about what we're talking about kind of set the stage. We're going to talk about two specific examples of what we think are some barriers. And then we're going to open it up to discussion. We're going to spend the rest of the time just discussing your own experiences, your own research that you have read or have conducted and to open up the floor and learn from you as well. So in recent years we've seen the new practice emerge with regards to how scholars are participating in online spaces and in online networks. And we've tried to define that in terms of in terms of participation for the purpose of sharing, reflecting, critiquing, improving, validating and furthering our scholarship. And by scholarship as Royce mentioned, we're both referring to research and teaching practice. And just to give a few examples of you know what this looks like people who have been or yes academics who have been participating in online spaces you know with kind of an intent towards openness and intent towards sharing have been called digital scholars. And Martin Waller has just recently published a book on that topic and if you haven't read it, I would recommend it and it's published under an open access license. Other people have referred to these individuals as open scholars. For example, Terry Henderson and Eden Burden had to use that term. And so ideas or as examples of you know what these people do in online spaces range from like going on Facebook and sharing images of you know something that you have found and then asking individuals to either make recommendations or provide suggestions for you. So for example a couple months ago there was a group of ecstheologists, these are people who do research on different fish species, who are examining fish in particular a remote lake. And they found the number of fish and they were not able to categorize them, right? So they posted pictures of this fish on Facebook and invited their colleagues to chip in and say, you know, well have you encountered this before? What does it look like and what is this? It was pretty amazing that within a couple of days they were able to identify 90% of the fish that they had collected some of them. Other examples include, you know, sharing our own lectures on YouTube or other video sharing sites. So for example, you know, this presentation is going to be by the end of the day or by tomorrow. Going on Twitter and asking colleagues for input or, you know, pointing out links to the content that we post online like our syllabi or TVDs. And you know, sharing our videographers on Mendeley and sharing our emerging research agendas or, you know, papers that we have in draft. Not waiting for them to appear in journals, you know, three years after they're done. But sharing kind of an in-purpose working, being feedback on, you know, as this is going well, what do you see that you're doing research on the same topic emerging? How can collaborate and create, essentially create a better future for ourselves, right? But that's, in some ways, that is the, that is the assumption here in the ultimate goal, right? To learn from each other, to grow and enhance our work. So participation in these ways is saying those democratized knowledge production dissemination. We're sharing our work, we're getting feedback from each other, and we're doing it in such a way so that it's not closed behind gates or subscriptions or institutions and so on. And to put it more bluntly, these are not just unstated assumptions that we have, right? We're, we're pretty open in how we think openness and technology, especially participatory technologies are going to help us propel forward. So just a few examples, these are quotes from colleagues on the field, right? Information technology is the greatest opportunity for scholars in this age, or anyone can learn anything from anyone at any point for free. Or this national car technology is going to flood how we're currently thinking about education, how we're thinking about research, how we're thinking about teaching. And these technologies having the greatest potential for change. So in a way we're a very positive field, right? We see lots of positive things happening, or positive changes coming by as a result of these technologies, as a result of these practices that we're embracing. And it is not often that we stop and take a time to reflect on the challenges and obstacles. And this is what we're trying to do right now. And Neal Solving actually charges that this positive outlook that exists in the field prevents the field from being taken as a place of serious discourse about technology and change in education. So we're not trying to critique ourselves just for the sake of critiquing ourselves, right? We're trying to critique ourselves to see what obstacles we're facing and how we can overcome them to serve both ourselves and our students better. So we'll talk about two of these obstacles and then we'll open that. So the first obstacle that we want to talk about relates to the types of environments that we participate in online. So when we're using a tool online, using a different social networking platform, so considering my Twitter, Facebook, or an IRC channel, each of these systems has inherent within them certain assumptions about who we are, how we want to participate, how we see ourselves both as people, as educators, as scholars. So up here at the top you see some images, so like for Facebook, for instance, if you think about Facebook, Facebook from day one has argued that it is an authentic identity platform. So its goal is to present yourself to the community as you authentically are. As we think about that though, there are some assumptions that go along with that, right? So Facebook then therefore assumes that I have an authentic identity first of all and that that authentic identity doesn't change. It's the same for every context that I'm in. We see issues with this arising, or kind of a response to this with Google+, when they came out with circles. This context or this idea that as I'm participating in social networks it's important for me to be able to contextualize who I'm connecting with, right? Because the way I participate will be dependent upon how I see myself in those contexts. But recently Christopher Poole, otherwise known as Moves, the founder of 4chan and a few other prominent internet projects argued that both Facebook and Google circles had gotten it wrong. And he basically says that it's not about the audience, it's not about the context, but it's more about who you share with, or sorry, it's not who you share with, it's who you share as in your context. So thinking about how these different systems that we participate in online how they force us to kind of change our identity or accept a certain view of our identity. And if you look at the literature on identity, different people approach it in different ways. You know, some kind of a traditional rationalist approach is that I have this real identity that it exists, it's essential to myself, right? And it exists outside of any social participation. In other literature, though, we see different views. We see views where identity is structured based upon how I participate with my community. So then I have the social construction of identity. You also see people who argue for an idea of multiple identities. So basically I have one identity in one context, one identity in another. Or that my identity is chaotic, or that it changes. And that as I am in one context I'm doing, I'm being one person there than being someone else somewhere in another context. And so all this kind of is meant to bring up the issue that these systems have within them embedded a certain assumption about how we see ourselves and how we identify. So contrast, you know, Facebook and Google circles with anonymous. So anonymous is a hacker group. They predominantly use anonymous IRC channels to communicate with one another. And so obviously if you're going to try to coordinate an attack on the New York Stock Exchange as they did a few weeks ago, you're going to want to participate in these online spaces in a very different way than you would in Facebook, right? So to kind of get into this and think about how scholars see themselves and their identity in these spaces, we did a chronological study recently where we went and talked to scholars about their Facebook use. These are scholars who, you know, they're not IT people, they're not open-ed people. These are college of education people who just happened to be using Facebook for varying reasons. And you probably haven't been listening to me. You've probably been reading what they said. But here we have three different scholars. These are all researchers and teachers. So they are either tenure track or tenure professors who teach courses and who also conduct research. And from these comments that we received from them, we see if they see themselves in a very different way. So let's just look at this first one. This first scholar says, my position as a professor is building a community of teachers that I talk to where you can share and so participation in these spaces makes total sense. So this faculty member, she used Facebook. She connected with her students. It was her primary way of communicating with the teachers that she worked with. And I think a lot of us probably at this conference can kind of resonate with this understanding of how we see ourselves as educators. Here we have another educator, though. She says, I made Facebook this hybrid space. So she entered into it thinking I'm going to use it to connect with personal people. I'm going to connect with professional people, which in and of itself assumes that I have different identities and different contexts. And sometimes it's really annoying, she says. I keep thinking I should be lying here looking at data and I'm doing this. I think that I created a conundrum I live in now. She kind of goes on to explain that her use of Facebook has declined over time as she's come across problems associated with this hybrid space that she's created it. So basically she's discovered that she has kind of a multiple identity or she has an understanding of herself as having a multiple identity. And by using Facebook, those identities have been collapsed. And this is similar to what Dana Boy has talked about with convergence, identity convergence. And because this professor didn't have the forethought or wasn't aware of what the assumptions of the tool was, this has led to issues for her. And in this last example, this professor says all the insert explicit here is not really worth it. Talking about Facebook, I think that it's okay for students to now know everything about their professor. These practices add to the complexity of those who struggle with the homework balance and the technology pool. And ultimately, talking about his students and even his colleagues, he says, I don't have time for you. So if I'm a take your track faculty member, I'm focused on my research. I'm focused on teaching. And I, at the same time, I'm trying to balance a family life and a life that I find to be meaningful. I don't have time to be constantly checking in with you, checking to see what I'm saying is appropriate in all these different contexts. So just from this little example, we can see that the way scholars see themselves is very different. And as a result, as they participate in these online spaces, they will be led to participate in them in different ways. So just looking at this, we can kind of guess, right, how each of these would probably participate in Facebook, or whether or not they would. So just to kind of tell you the answer, this faculty member ended up using Facebook a lot. This one used it first and realized they created problems and then stopped. This one just had an account and doesn't ever use it. Does anyone know what this is? It's a network network. Social network analysis? Yeah, it's a network model of the internet. It's really great internet. And it's pretty amazing in that this is what we participate on a day-to-day basis. And it's made up of nodes and connections and all of that stuff, right? So the assumption underlying this discussion is that individuals can participate on the internet in an equal manner. And they can all reap the benefits of this participation, right? Sharing our syllabi with each other. Having conversations with each other. We can create a better future for ourselves, right? So the web is a platform. And by participating in it, we can reap the benefits of it. But what skills are required to participate effectively on, let's say, Twitter or Facebook, or any of the other social platforms that we can see? Anyone want to venture a guess? What skills would be necessary for us to be effective on these spaces? Communication skills. Okay, communication skills? Time management. Time management, yeah, that's what we're doing. Right, composing. Composing, okay. Right, those are good ones. Some other examples are the ability to filter information and direct their attention to information that's important versus information that may not be important, right? The ability to talk to them with the information, tag information, be able to retrieve it when we need it, right? If I'm on Twitter and I have, I'm following 2,000 people and you can see, and you have something like Twitter, for example, you can see the information going by, right? And after a couple of minutes, you're not able, well, you aren't able to go back, but after a couple of days, you won't know where that important tweet came from and where it is, unless you're able to, you know, tag it effectively so that you can retrieve it when the time comes for it to be necessary. But even though, you know, we might train people in this skill, and we might prepare them for the skills that they need to participate effectively, does that mean that everyone will be able to participate equally if they have the skills? And the question, and the answer is no. For example, it's just like power, so who do you know and who you're connected with, and it's just connecting to resources, time and money, who contribute to making participation, you know, in land spaces unequal. So because I know various people that say, well, I don't, but let's say someone in the audience knows someone who is well-known in the open-end community, they might get, you know, various opportunities in furthering open-end education, and someone else who doesn't know any people who might have great ideas might not be able to tap into those networks to promote their work and be able to connect with people that might be able to further their work, right? So I think co-participation is not just a matter of skills and knowing how to do things online, but also having access to, you know, networks and knowing how networks work and having that power. So I guess the important point here is that some people might be able to exploit the riches of the online space better than others. Sure, jump in. I'm just going to say, isn't that where such things, such as Cloud comes in, where you want to try to measure or look at potential metrics around your influence, structures in social media and so forth, which is kind of precisely that, to say how do you get your message up and how many followers you have, or what is your Cloud score? Sure, so Cloud is the way that I understand it's a metric engine, right, that if I knew it's your impact on others, is that correct? Kind of, yeah, I know there's other ones other than Cloud too. Sure, so you see at the same time this increase in kind of services that evaluate either reach or access to networks or whatnot. There's a similar service with regards to blogs, right, the Technorati, you can't score or whatever that would score. So now, so we've just kind of touched on two barriers that we think or two issues that we need to think about in relation to this idea of democratization and participating in social networks online. So now we're going to kind of open it up. So we have other issues that we think are important as well. We have things that we think are barriers also, so we can talk about those all day, but we don't want to. But we'd like to open it up to you and help you or give you the opportunity to share with us research findings, relevant projects, and firsthand experiences on issues related to this. We will be keeping notes here at piratepad.net slash scholar. And again, if we want to talk about some of the other issues that we already brought up, that would be great too. Sorry to interrupt. It looks like some of you have already gone there and had notes. So please feel free to do that while we're having this conversation and we'll pull up piratepad just to have it there as a kind of sheer space that they're going to look at to see what's going on. Go ahead. Thanks. I suppose I would like to question one of your assumptions here, which is that democratizing knowledge production is necessarily a good thing because part of what makes knowledge production work is that some people are better at it than others. There's a reason why some people have a professor of another name and a more doctor. There's a reason why when you go to see a medical doctor, you go there rather than somewhere else because they've got special knowledge. So I would construe this as a tension between democratic forms of knowledge production and expert-based forms of knowledge production. I don't want to assume that making things democratic is necessarily better in every instance. So how would you respond to that? Well, I would just say that I think this is an important critique or an important question. It's a question that's been asked quite a bit. Obviously the traditional power structure has limitations as well and obviously a completely open power structure with regards to knowledge production and dissemination has issues as well. And I don't know that necessarily we're looking for a middle ground but it's important to understand both the value of each and the limitations of each. So I can't say it's a superior or whatever but there are issues associated with each for sure. I would just say that it's not a sort of start-up distinction between the two in the sense that how does a medical doctor come to arrive at a position of expert knowledge? Well, it's through becoming part of the community, right? So there's still a democratic and forms of peer review of the democratic processes. So it's not a choice between one or the other but it's working out where are the appropriate forms of knowledge versions according to different kinds of products basically. There's going to be different models there. I think maybe each needs a bit more refinement in how you put that forward. Yeah, and I don't think we're arguing for any extreme for democratic practices. Well, democratic knowledge production, right? Obviously, we wouldn't expect someone who has never done research to put out a log and say, well, this is my research and this is what I should be doing to open up education and whatnot. And those are English level but there's also various levels of democratization, right? So for example, so being a faculty member, you know, I can publish in various journals and some of the journals are open and some are closed, right? So what steps can I take towards democratization if my institution, you know, I use certain journals more than others, right? And how can I safeguard both my work and my position but also contribute to, you know, providing this knowledge that I'm creating for people who might not be able to have access to it if they don't have the same amount of research to do so. And yeah, it's a complex topic. Yeah. So we've been working with some groups of scientists. I mean, I was, after working with Terry Anderson, we were looking at different ways to open up some of the process and what we ended up with with our, for instance, geophysical institute is working with groups who have large grant projects. We're not trying to open up a process along the way because of various political and other issues but at the end, instead of the standard research report we're working with NSF grantees on creating or essentially open forces explaining what their project was, what they learned and where you can go from there because one of the big problems with all of this and keeping it kind of closed is that you end up with the final public deportees on the incomprehensible and unusable to anything but other scientists. And so we were kind of shifting that and actually getting funding written into the grant model to say we're going to create this kind of open course for people to understand what we've done and what we've learned. So the way that I'm understanding is that there's various different areas within, you know, the project we're open to might come in and one of them might necessarily be, you know, sharing our data while we're analyzing it might be, you know, sharing how we'll do one of our more successful projects. And even more, the public face to say why does this matter as opposed to the meaninglessness of the reports was a big thing for us. And then the problems with opening a press long way which I'm all in favor of often is climate change, for instance, that you don't want to release necessarily without that sort of aspect. So in response to the person who said, you know, we have this fear of making the knowledge too open and too democratic, while it could be argued that anything could be put on the internet and made searchable by Google, there are a lot of things that you won't know whether it's good or valid for your field or not unless people in your field somehow through conferences or what have you tell you to look for that. So while it's out there for anybody to share, there's still that level of face to face communication to even inform people that it's there. Because if you look for it, if you're looking for information on a topic, do a Google search or do a database search on a topic, you may or may not know that that resource is the one. As far as a resource not being the one because the information is faulty, if you are a person who is knowledgeable in your field of your content and you see that, you'll take it as a joke. You won't take it seriously because you'll have the background knowledge to say, well, this is valid and this isn't. So as far as democratization of knowledge and open courses and open resources, you know, even though it's out there, there still has to be that seed planted in a face to face environment to let people know that this is what's out there or this scholar did this or this research was done or this paper was created. I wouldn't have known half the things that are happening if I didn't go attend this conference in person about all these other things that are happening in the country and the world as far as open education, even though it's open and it's out there. So I hear two things from what you're saying. First, this idea of the individual once he or she finds something to be able to vet it based on their background knowledge or on skills regarding questioning the validity of things that are available online. But secondly, is this idea of finding things that are out there because I write a blog and I update every other week or whatnot doesn't mean that people are actually going to find it. It doesn't also mean that the people who are going to find it are people who have never talked to people, right? So I always make this joke that two other people are reading my blog and those are two of my students because I share them in my class. Are we just talking to each other on a different medium? Are we just, you know, talking within our silos? Are we having an impact outside of, you know, let's say open education when we're writing about how to improve education with technology? More fundamentally, the person who spoke up front kind of spoke as if this understanding of who the experts are and who the expert communities are is uncontroversial and clear. And one of the issues with opening up science is opening up to divergence and other viewpoints are, you know, slavish devotion to the scientific method side. There is controversy here and one of the ideas of protecting is not only to create artificial scarcity, which I think is a problem but is in order to create kind of a closed system where you're not getting the critique from the outside. I don't know who the experts are and everybody thinks they are the expert but they know who the experts are so you have to open it up to see something other than that. And to bring that in as you were saying I think it's also interesting to think about, you know these groups of scholars online in different fields, right? So we look at like the open ed group here, right? When we're tweeting about what's going on here at open ed, how many people outside of the open ed kind of spear are seeing that? So we're talking about opening up these types of networks to people on the outside. Ultimately what happens oftentimes is that we have these echo chambers online or that we just connect with people who we agree with, right? So my entire online experience, my entire participation online is shaped by the people who I already agree with, right? So if I'm already a self styled expert I'm just going to connect with people who share my opinion, right? So it's a question that seems like a barrier, right? So that, I mean, yes it does pose the potential for opening up these types of closed systems at the same time as the application of closed systems or more closed systems. Kind of along all of these lines there's the notion of the power differential within the networks and how that, a lot of times is exploited by folks that do just that but they do it for a purpose. And so they, back to what I mentioned in India, they intentionally have the folks that are getting online presence and getting more and more networks and getting more and more connections and increasing their network power and potentially you have folks that do that for a reason and, you know there's the medical engineering for example these are things that are very interested in right now and how to combat that how to counter message those types of things going on within these networks. So that goes back to the characterization of knowledge as well because you may think some things are but they're not even though it's open it depends on who's saying it and why they're saying it and what the purposes are behind why they're saying it and also goes back to the notion of fact checking and understanding from another source unfortunately a lot of people don't do that. So questioning why people participate and why do they shift I mean do we all have a lot of tourist purposes for sharing no do you have examples to share yeah, because let's face it let's just be honest if you're in higher education and you're doing research and you're publishing I hope that you have some kind of belief and passion in what you're trying to improve or what you're trying to create and you don't want to just share this with people just so they know about it but ego stroke you want the attention and you want other people to interact with you about whatever you did because people don't like to work in bubbles I mean that Donny's I would argue that's part of the work of the scholar right in the journal if I didn't want people to read about it but then again my reason for publishing is to because I feel passionate about education and because I want to work with others to improve education but we also see this notion of managing our identity in the way that people perceive us obviously when we participate online we're not going to I would hope that we're not going to go forward every single thing about us the idea of Roy's that becomes very complicated because let's say you're a social science scholar or an ethnic studies scholar or a scholar in gender studies and you do research in a particular area sometimes the fact that you're doing research in a particular area with particular population already says volumes about you because not just because of the content but also because of the conferences you attend to present this data and the networks of people who are interested in this information so that already creates an identity for you sure absolutely back to kind of this thing you wanted a personal example so during the keynote I was tweeting a little bit by virtue of the conferences I go to by virtue of how your cloud score goes up online so now you're in different circles increasing that so let's say that I now have instead of I've increased to 1,000, 2,000 followers which is not by any means what it is but hypothetically in all these circles now if I say that maybe this idea is good or this thing should be thought about or something there's a potential that a lot of people are going to potentially agree with that and that it gets retweeted and moved along now you've got something moving that stems and then you get now it's on that and it increases so you have this notion that you can have this idea power and a lot of people back to the motives they do that for various reasons a lot of it has to do with let's say you're a consultant you want to increase your ability to command higher consulting prices you want to increase your footprint you do that for reasons and sometimes you target it fortunately I find out to do that but that's just an example of how these things are leveraged and I'm not sure who's putting things on there but that's great right, do you have one of the topics that we've been thinking about? I think civility is an interesting notion to think about and again thinking about the structure of the systems that we work in so think about twitter for instance think about what are the limitations of twitter if twitter is the basis for my interactions with specific people or a group of people and I'm limited to 140 characters how does that translate into how I participate and how people interpret what I'm saying and how does that I guess going back to the issue of literacies right so what are the literacies associated with being an effective twitter and how does that translate into it was brought up this morning in the keynote just ideas of societal polarization in the US today so much of it is that we are inundated with information inundated with polarizing snippets from different groups so I guess how does that relate to to us as scholars how we conduct our work and how we connect with people that makes sense someone wrote on here devil's advocate and they want to bring up that question so the question is what does knowledge so the question is what does knowledge work have to do with how Scotland act in social media the person who wrote that question appeared to expand a little bit I'll say go ahead I think that scholars did acknowledge that so OER I mean it's distribution how do you get ideas how do you respond it's just but probably the biggest thing is you talk about agency so agency is individual or the global level and people I think one of the big kind of excitement is you can now have agency at a much larger level because instead of a small like it's opening classroom doors instead of small shut the door and talk about the people it breaks that down and so through various portals people can have impact not only on their own little bit classes or programs or members of disciplines and maybe even beyond that so that's the making of knowledge in the humanities anyway so to paraphrase that question let me pose a different question and say does participation in social media spaces have nothing to do with knowledge production does knowledge get generated how is knowledge generated as you buy a scholar sitting in front of their computer having out equations maybe if you're an mathematician and you're trying to find truth to a certain theorem let's say how about if you're an educator and you're trying to figure out how to engage females in computer science or how to reduce certain inequities that exist in the educational system how do you do that isn't that through social participation and engagement with colleagues I think this gets back to your original thoughts about the sort of schizophrenia of I'm a scholar I participate fully as myself I'm a scholar and I have personal stuff and I don't use social media because it's all personal and I think that gets back to it's agency but it's why you're using social media who you are and if you feel comfortable building knowledge on Facebook is that really what you want to do or are you just there to see your mom or whatever are you there to just talk about the football game with your friends and I think that's a good question for scholars and for scholars who don't differentiate between their personal and their academic life and I think they are the most successful that I've seen that can actually help build knowledge in those forums because they participate more and they bring their work into their social their private life and vice versa go ahead I'll get back to Jim I'll get back to Lawrence Peter talking about a wonderful analogy he had Peter Finserville of a breakthrough and a field and somebody sort of digging a hole and everybody else joining in to dig the hole and the hole getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and all the world's experts are sort of at the bottom of the hole and then finally some grad student rebels and goes and starts to dig the hole over here and seems to me that the social media exacerbate that if you take that concern by probably exacerbating a tendency for people to go with the in thing and on the other hand the social media also bring much more awareness and so maybe that also increases the likelihood that somebody will say wait a minute this isn't right and go over here so it intensifies it and speeds it up dramatically whether it's better obviously it's hard to determine and just to clarify you know we're I don't think it's going to take long I don't think I'm taking that perspective you know better or not better trying to question these assumptions that go unspated and that impact our lives as teachers as educators and researchers and questioning both kind of assistance that we find ourselves in whether those are you know social media systems or whether those are institutions because it's basically the way that people interact you know in conferences or in spaces mediated by the values of anything sorry can I just make a correction I said Peter it was Edward de Bono a lot of little things sorry I'm coming into this late I haven't been here from the beginning but it seems like partly about addressing your sort of perennial tensions that we have between individualism and communitarianism and production knowledge that goes back to Plato to be produced knowledge in individually in solitude or to be produced in concerts with others in community and you know if you look at the humanities there's lots of literature that sort of celebrates the genius of the individual scholar working in his solitary carol off the grid completely and cloistered from the world at large and yet you know there's soft produce who's walking around in public and not writing but his knowledge is produced directly face to face in concert with other people and so there's this perennial tension at least in humanities about where we produce knowledge and where quality knowledge is produced and something I bring up with my students is you know these things in terms of trying to reflect deeply about the world around you and the fact that the digital technologies are reshaping the space and our ability to connect with others is something that we want to be reflecting on we want to be thinking about the degree of connectivity that we have vis-a-vis ourselves and how much time we spend alone in solitude and what is the best way to sort of think about the world in a clearer, more deep sense those sort of perennial issues that we need to weigh and repay and I think you know there's lots of questions right there's technological pressure and how we are shaking how we are thinking about knowledge and there's social pressure and there's cultural pressure with this I get a lot of institutions in society that are thinking collaborative ways you know do we is the idea of the lone scholar still valid? probably not is there one way to do this I was wondering when you interviewed and talked to different professors and instructors if they discuss, compartmentalize for example one that was very confused for example maybe you you know I know I use them again for specific professionals I use Facebook more or more for panning things I use Circus for other things or within other Facebook exchanges you've got the ability to then structure around how you want to organize what you're doing so that you can essentially have multiple identities within these was that brought up or are those skills that need to be thought about or taught when you were discussing or helping folks use? that's a great question and the data so the point you're talking about reflects how I use social media I think part of it gets back to these were run-of-the-mill college of education professors these weren't ed tech people and so I think thinking these things through they haven't gone to that point yet so all these professors as far as I know they all had at least tried Twitter, had tried a variety of other social media but the only ones that they even used even a little bit was Facebook and so even though they had to try different spaces I guess they hadn't gone to the point yet in segmenting or fragmenting themselves in that way in multiple spaces and ultimately the ones who were using social media regularly it was for personal reasons and whether or not they were able to successfully connect that with their professional identity depended upon how they saw themselves but I think kind of the model that you're talking about I think it would have been appropriate for some of them if they had certain beliefs like how you have connected with colleagues through Twitter for instance but they didn't and I'll just say too that some of them it was really interesting because some of them entered Facebook with this desire to use it as a professional space but it was interesting to them or shocking to them how it quickly transformed based upon the assumptions of Facebook right so it quickly became a very personal space and that's what led to the conundrum that they were living in so even though they may have had good intentions they weren't able to I guess successfully maybe lack the literacy or the foresight to successfully fragment themselves in a way that they would be comfortable with so does there need to be a basically a social media literacy to help people guide them in the way they might want to structure and navigate these waters well I think that makes sense and I think that makes sense for how I see myself looking to like the first professor whose quote I put up there she saw herself as a very kind of unified person much less fragmented than I see myself I see myself as personal life and I as professional life she saw it all as one and so I just wonder again to create some type of I don't know literacy objective to help professors to learn how to fragment themselves that carries with it assumptions about how we see ourselves right the assumption would be that other people see themselves the way I see myself is kind of having these multiple identities that I play out which may not be the case that could be the choice how you see yourself is how you use it and there's you know there's steps so there's initiatives towards getting faculty members and you know PHP students who are here in our kind of scholars in getting them to think about these visual literacies so for example, Athabasti University has run this this one week course or workshop in the past two summers where they brought and Terry Anderson and George Siemens brought in people to think about you know networks and how they relate to the work that we do and how you know how our scholars are participating and what it is that they're doing in those spaces and what we're seeing from the screen after that and being mindful of the number of positions that we're bringing out here we have about maybe five or that what I want to do to close is to give you a chance to look at the document reflecting it and then we can you know answer some final questions or you know bring up other issues that you see it's a common practice and obviously there's various motivations behind that and and I do that we prepare that and that's you know there's various reasons for doing that one is you have to get your paper out there the second to get it out there so you don't have to wait two years for it to appear and also you know if it is published then close to provided we see lots of you know all the open access work that's been done for example the book at the basket industry press books they get a lot of mention on the social media I think it's for reflecting on the IPIC because but yeah but then one might say well do the motivation if you're putting you know this information to the people that would be valuable to them it doesn't matter you're not doing it for the purpose I'm wondering in terms of like with open scholarship do you guys look into like social media and that like something like Google citations for like your papers or something like that or how those like I don't know because I guess like citations within Google scholar are like a form of social media already but they're not like as that makes sense so there's lots of work that's being done in the social in the publishing space in terms of evaluating the impact of your work and journals have tried to come up so for example Irodo which is another initiative the Irodo journal you can try to download for your paper and some of the some of the physical science journals have included things like common thing and you know tracking on other social media spaces common and hashtags for the very things that are not the question that I find interesting in that space is how universities recognize and evaluate that right so you can so I'm a faculty member at UT Austin and I'm a assistant professor going up in some point in the future I'm not going to be able to take them you know on downloads from journal tags and say hey you should do the page window you know I think that I should but you know as the institution going to value that it's not going to be valued the same as you know publishing journal tags that's ranked five out of hundred and fifty you know using some random metrics made by some corporation I think you want to relate to that it's the NDLTD network digital library pieces and citations where you know folks used to have an audience really four or five or now eventually like some decade ago over a million I'm sure it's probably the two million in this thing that I get around this now so that is just very exciting to see graduate education really matter and I think some institutions I don't know which ones are developing repositories I think that you know at least the government involved is finding ways to aggregate information and information like what he suggested that we can take that side to that sort of thing So an important question is how do you value on social media spaces and how does how do you reconcile the culture of different institutions and you know the metrics that we use to value in online spaces could you go on to George so so do we have a couple more minutes to get a final couple more comments I guess within what you just said if you were applying for tenure tomorrow what would you say about your like this talk I guess here how would you sell yourself so different that's a good question so the way that one prepares for the future of different individuals and the way that I have prepared for the future is by being by existing in this hybrid space by publishing work that I think would be valuable to people who are reading open access journals or by publishing work that practitioners would find valuable in those outlets that are easy for them to access and then by publishing the work that you know much people in this group let's say might not find it interesting to know the journal that the institution would value so for example I have publications in open access journals but then I have publications in the journals that you know the field values and that individuals in peer institutions value as well so that's a good question yeah Terry I understand I had this discussion about years ago about the Madison distance at one place and it was interesting how do you manage your work when you're an institution access institution why what the values of the institution that you're in how does that structure your scholarship and how does that change and shape the scholar that you want to be so the notes are on there and they will be on there and again the URL is piratepad.net feel free to add resources after we're done feel free to copy, paste and share the document as the session goes it's yours now feel free to make what you want out of it thank you for coming and thank you for participating during your session