Authenticity and vulnerability: Opportunities and challenges of social media use in academia

It was great to see the variety of responses to the #OKHE module, and I was immediately drawn to the blog posts of Sara Smith, CarlyP and Debbie Smith, which focused on different aspects of openness in social media. I’m an enthusiastic (some may say obsessive) user of social media in my personal life, but still feel pangs of anxiety when attempting to tweet in a professional capacity. Although I’m not an academic, Debbie Smith’s question, ‘How open can I truly be as an academic and who I am trying to be open to?’ really resonated with me as a new professional. I set out to explore use of social media within academia in more detail, specifically the inherent ‘sense of vulnerability and… fear of losing control’ highlighted by Sara Smith.

Many academics are active on social media, using both general services open to all, and those aimed specifically at researchers: over 18 million reported using ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Mendeley in 2014 (Van Noorden 2014). Teaching staff often set assignments that require engagement with social media (Moran, Seaman and Tinti-Kane 2011:3), and around a quarter of life scientists consider social media usage to be a major influence on funding applications and future jobs (Anderson 2008), with early career researchers feeling particular pressure to use social media to make work visible (Matthews 2016). No one can say with certainty which social media platforms will remain popular and well-used, but commentators are convinced that the industry’s growth and influence over scientists will continue (Van Eperen and Marincola 2011) and become increasingly central to the way academics keep up with their fields (Matthews 2016).

How can academics benefit from using social media? Dedicated sites like ResearchGate are intended to ‘support scientists wanting to engage in collaborative discussion’ (Van Noorden 2014), and the blog posts of CarlyP and Debbie Smith showcased positive experiences of various social media platforms being used to build an academic community. CarlyP observed students using Facebook groups to share academic resources and pose course or topic questions, ‘facilitat[ing] open communication and open knowledge,’ and Debbie Smith discovered that blogging could ‘bring a level of transparency’ to the role of the academic. However a 2014 study into academics’ social media behaviour questions the extent to which researchers use these platforms to seek community interaction and work collaboratively. Most researchers surveyed reported using ResearchGate and Academia.edu primarily as tools of discoverability, ‘simply maintaining a profile in case someone wanted to get in touch’ (Van Noorden 2014). One commentator questioned the applicability of social media to academic work, arguing that the most popular platforms were more social and less geared towards professional activities (Anderson 2008), with another reminding us that ‘a tool in itself is not able to create a community, only members can’ (Cavazza 2008).

Even if academics are using social media in ways that are more individual- and less community-focused than anticipated, I was intrigued by the convincing case made by the OKHE bloggers for social media’s value in conveying authenticity. CarlyP noticed that the Facebook groups set up by her department and used enthusiastically by students ‘are successful exactly because they aren’t perceived as being ‘official’,’ allowing users to ‘behave in an open and authentic way,’ including feeling able to ‘express honest opinions about their University experience, both positive and negative, through Facebook than they are via any official channel,’ despite the presence of staff within the group. Herring and Kapidzic (2015) have charted a shift in online presentation over the last three decades. Many users of online interactive environments in the 1990s would employ nicknames and construct imagined personas, whereas in recent years sites such as Facebook explicitly encourage provision of truthful personal information, leading young users especially to present their real identities (Herring and Kapidzic 2015:4). However, concepts of ‘real’ and ‘truth’ are not uncomplicated in these virtual spaces, with manipulation of self-presentation still possible in environments that encourage truthfulness (ibid:10), and complex management and curation of public social media profiles common amongst strategically-minded users (Duncan 2016). One academic, TheLitCritGuy, is able to enjoy open and authentic dialogue with others interested in his research topic under the somewhat contradictory veil of anonymity (TheLitCritGuy 2016).

CarlyP attributes the authenticity and openness of her department’s Facebook groups in part to the feeling that the group operates on ‘neutral ground,’ without the established roles and hierarchies of other methods of University interaction, but highlights how this neutrality can be problematic when interactions go sour. She reports how some staff members, unhappy with the language used by a student in response to a staff post on the group, ‘felt that the students should be counselled in a more formal way about their conduct,’ arguing that the social media site was ‘still a University group and students should behave in a way that we would expect them to in other University settings.’ Seeking to retrospectively apply offline procedures to online interactions, whilst understandable, is problematic, and reflects the fact that web-based communication tools have often been adopted by HE institutions without first establishing protocols. Furthermore, HE staff are being encouraged to engage with social media with no training, as experienced by Sara Smith, who ‘had to learn quickly to adapt my public speaking and my writing style for a general audience.’ Whilst Sara Smith and CarlyP call for ‘guidance to help staff negotiate their role within these sites,’ CarlyP cautions on the risk of formalisation and overregulation: if ‘students start to feel inhibited in their ability to comment, then the openness of the discussion and the value associated with that openness will be compromised’. We need to tread a fine line between procedures and protocols that empower without restricting authenticity in our social media interactions.

Whilst most of us on the #OKHE module are sold on the benefits of openness, Sara Smith points out that ‘The use of social media technologies requires a much more personal level of openness which is uncertain.’ Some experiences of social media can lead us to consider the dangers of being too open: ‘At no other time in history have… people enjoyed such opportunity to make themselves visible to, and heard by, diverse audiences. At the same time, this exposure entails risks’ (Herring and Kapidzic 2015:1). Over 70% of faculty staff reported privacy concerns as an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ barrier to social media use (Moran, Seaman and Tinti-Kane 2011:3), and it is undeniable that engagement with social media blurs the boundaries of the public and private self.

Whilst all users are potentially vulnerable to negative commenting, cyberbullying and harassment, and resultant psychosocial distress (Li 2006 in Herring and Kapidzic 2015:9), academics face challenges to both their personal and professional credibility when putting themselves and their work out for public consumption (Zook 2015). TheLitCritGuy found freedom and authenticity in anonymity: ‘The persona means that I don’t have to run my opinions by my institution… I get to mix jokes with theory without worrying that my colleagues will take me less seriously’ (TheLitCritGuy 2016). But the increasing number of victims of trolling would attest that being able to speak freely without being traced can push authenticity beyond the bounds of social decorum: ‘Anonymity disinhibits people, making some of them more likely to be abusive’ (Hunt 2016). Women are the most common victims of online harassment, with more than three-quarters of women under 30 questioned by digital security firm Norton reporting some form of online abuse, with harassment via social media three times as common as by email (ibid). There have been several high-profile instances of female academics being targeted by trolls, including Cambridge professor Mary Beard. ‘Virtual reality can become reality, and it ruins your life,’ commented one victim (ibid).

Although navigating the potentially hostile terrain of social media can be daunting, there is much to suggest it’s worth doing for female academics, as an alternative means of networking and self-promotion. It’s essential for academics to participate in social networks, but ‘academic culture is not a culture of inclusion but a culture of selection,’ where women are often prevented from ‘fully participating in and integrating into formal and informal networks’ (Šadl 2009:1239–1240). Exclusion from such networks damages intellectual exchange and risks isolation, with negative career implications (ibid:1254). In the study quoted, women respondents reported that male peers expressed high levels of self-promotion and self-confidence, with women themselves ‘reluctant to use self-promotion to make themselves more visible’ (ibid:1255). Sara Smith’s initial thoughts on blogging — ‘Blogs are self-centred, narcissistic, self-promoting and mostly vacuous’ — reflect anxiety, and caused her to shy away from using social media, only persuaded to try it for the purpose of ‘marketing and promotion of a programme rather than self-promotion.’ Professor Athene Donald, shortlisted for the Good Thinking Society’s 2012 Science Blog prize after massing the necessary chutzpah to self-nominate, believes that women shouldn’t be afraid of blogging or self-promotion, and that social media can help bring women out of the shadows of academia. ‘What is needed is the encouragement that one isn’t behaving as a ‘naughty little girl’, impertinently pushing oneself forward and stepping out of line,’ writes Donald, citing the support and mentoring of others as essential to having the confidence to ‘take risks and stamp on those fears’ (Donald 2012). The new and developing social media landscape may be less constrained by traditional mores and networks, and a more open space where female and junior academics can make their mark, though there is some evidence that established offline hierarchies simply move online, with lecturers and professors tending to have significantly more Twitter followers than postgraduates (Havergal 2016).

Whilst no one should accept being subjected to indefensible personal and professional attacks, engaging with social media can provide an opportunity to refine one’s work and views in light of constructive criticism and challenging opinions. Sara Smith and CarlyP make this point in their blog posts, with Sara Smith noting that ‘being ‘open’ also means being open to criticism,’ and CarlyP pointing out that ‘by being open you will facilitate views that you dislike or challenge your own views.’ Whilst not necessarily a comfortable experience, this is surely a necessary one for all those keen to contribute to research and discussions. CarlyP comments of her experience of departmental Facebook groups, ‘critical posts can be as valuable, if not more so, than the positive content that is being shared,’ and Debbie Smith sees value in ‘This ability to instantly inform practice and policy and get feedback from others … [as] truely [sic] rewarding as a researcher.’ We can’t, however, assume that social media technology will only serve to broaden and open up our view on our topics and the world. Evidence is emerging that ‘our use of social media for news monitoring can lead us to consume only narrow, partisan news,’ potentially reducing our exposure to ideas that challenge our current beliefs (Duncan 2016), and reliance on a mechanised process of filtering academic papers ‘could lead to “tunnel vision” — an excessive focus on the most popular papers — to the detriment of other gems’ (Matthews 2016). Effort is still required on the part of the social media user, academic or otherwise, to actively seek out and confront alternative views. Being bold enough to prompt discussions by sharing one’s own work or thoughts is a good starting point.

Sara Smith, CarlyP and Debbie Smith had all tried their hands at social media, perhaps not becoming committed converts, but reflecting on their experiences with a view to informing future involvement. This approach is healthy, as some commentators suggest we have no choice but to engage with tools of online interaction. ‘You cannot hide anymore,’ writes Cavazza (2008); ‘Whether you want it or not, conversations occur with or without you.’ CarlyP recommends a shift in both role and attitude towards social media engagement, from owner to participant; rather than attempting to control all aspects of interaction, recognising that being an active participant in a community means intervention and contribution is necessary. ‘Not only are scientists utilizing social media to communicate their research, they must,’ claim Van Eperen and Marincola (2011); ‘The ability to communicate to the masses via social media is critical to the distribution of scientific information amongst professionals in the field and to the general population.’ Social media’s most distinctive aspect is its facilitation of the move from content to conversation, permitting the invocation of ‘unparalleled individual, industry, societal, and even global change’ (Moran, Seaman and Tinti-Kane 2011:4). Our only choice, some claim, is ‘between suffering and benefiting from online conversations’ (Cavazza 2008).

In fact, I think there is another choice that academics have to make, which is where these conversations will take place. Who will be permitted to be involved? With whom will these exchanges be shared? Sara Smith cites ‘increasing demand from funders and higher education institutions to demonstrate how academic research developed has an impact beyond the academy sphere’ as influencing academics to be active and open on social media. But dedicated platforms like Academia.edu and ResearchGate largely connect academics to ‘people they already know’ (Matthews 2016), with the use of niche scientific sites like LabSpaces demonstrative of ‘professionals who appreciate the power of communicating to the masses, but want to do so inside the walls of a gated web community’ (Van Eperen and Marincola 2011). In late 2015, The Guardian aired conflicting academic views on this topic, with K. B. Zook urging academics to ‘leave your ivory towers and pitch your work to the media’ in September, and J. Mulholland responding in December with a call to ‘forget about public engagement, stay in your ivory towers.’ Whilst I reject the latter’s preference for knowledge remaining esoteric, I sympathise with Mulholland’s point on that contentious idea of academic impact, that academic outputs may not automatically be impactful today, but may become so in the future, thus questioning the benefit of everyday engagement between research and the general public.

Nevertheless, I align myself with Zook in this debate, convinced that ‘successful communication [of scientific and other academic advancements] can only be achieved by employing the channels in which the general public is currently engaged’ (Van Eperen and Marincola 2011). Twitter is an obvious channel, its openness ‘facilitat[ing] engagement with a wider range of audiences’ (Matthews 2016), a ‘space for conversation and mutual education’ that allows ‘academics to become relatable’ (TheLitCritGuy 2016). It’s important to remember that, after all, ‘the Web was conceived as a medium for scientific communication’ (Anderson 2008), and social media offers the opportunity to hone and enhance that communication to the benefit of all. One academic interviewed by Zook reports huge improvements in her writing since beginning to blog for the public: “It’s not giving me the crutch of using these big words that only a handful of people understand. I can’t hide behind the jargon. I have to cut through the bullshit and just say what I really mean.” Sara Smith concurs: ‘By using social media we can develop the skills and experience in presenting sometimes abstract concepts at a practical level, our writing will improve,’ adding that the results of this could yield new interactions, leading to further research and collaboration. Social media can be intimidating, but I’ve learnt from the experiences of CarlyP, Debbie Smith and Sara Smith that engagement with these platforms can also be stimulating and empowering, and am determined to be more open in my professional use of social media platforms.