Skip to content →

Tag: social media

Get a strategic stake for HR with social media

Published October 13, 2009 by Jo Jordan

My social Network on Flickr, Facebook, Twitter...
Image by luc legay via Flickr

Jon Ingham is on to something good.

How can we leap-frog ahead of our competition by using social media?

How can the easy interaction between staff members, whether on the intranet or on Facebook and Twitter, build a stronger team?

How does our combined strength on Facebook and Twitter build more loyal links between us and our customers?

New IT has always give competitive edge

IT boffins have always been brilliant at looking at how a new technology allows us to put old working practices in the trash, leap-frog over our competitors, leaving them in a mad scramble to catch up.

The social nature of the two-way web gives us the opportunity to jettison old norms about social structure and leap ahead with tighter relations.

Who will win the social media race?

One of the interesting features of these revolutions is that it is usurpers who tend to use new technologies.

Barack Obama used my.barackobama.com to mobilise door-to-door canvassers and to raise money $ by $ because he was coming from behind. The Conservatives have been quicker to jump on the social media band wagon because they are trying to wrest the lead from Labour.

In business, we see Best Buy coming in to challenge big box companies with their ‘pull’ HR – work any time like a university lecturer – just get it done.

We see students playing David and successfully challenging the Goliath HSBC.

HR is taking its place with leading IT

Jon is chairing a session at the Social Media in Business conference on October 23rd. He will be surrounded by geeks who will tell you the ins-and-outs of being found on Google and managing your blogging policy.

HR is taking up the chance to be strategic

Jon is doing what I’ve always liked doing: asking how can we change the rules to give us permanent competitive edge?

How do the people, and the way we arrange them, give us and edge on our competitors? How can we take our competitors by surprise and make them chase us?

Oh what fun business is when we treat it as a race!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Leave a Comment

Psychologist in the wilds of social media – pleeease edit my elevator speech!

Published October 7, 2009 by Jo Jordan

How many times are you bored silly by someone’s elevator speech?

Sometimes I find myself furtively looking past someone’s left ear, scanning the room desperately to find a way to escape from this person who simply cannot tell me in a few words what they do and what they want from me?  Just like this sentence – wordy!

Oooh, and how often do I bore other people?

I try to work hard at listening.  I find myself cross-examining other people to find out what they do. Then I rephrase what they say they do to make sure “I get it”. I even introduce them to other people using my summary to save time.  I find it quite easy to summarize someone else’s elevator speech – though they don’t always thank me for it.

I sweat to edit my own though. I wish some one would do it for me. And that person is YOU!

My elevator speech

I’ve given this a lot of thought.

I want to give people some idea of where I am from, and because I have a fair bit of business experience, I want to convey that too but without wasting time, or being overbearing.

Then, I want to find out from them what they do so I can figure out what we can do together. Of course, if they aren’t really sure what they do, then they’ll depend on my framework to guide their response.

I also need to be ready to provide details, explain where I live and tell people where I am from. (Locals will be curious about my accent.)

Here goes.

My name is Jo. I’m a work psychologist. I find the smallest way you, or I, or [the business who is our host] can use social media to achieve our biggest dream.

  • We use the self-connecting features of social media networks to get opportunity to find us.
  • We show you how to do it. Simply.
  • And we stick with you as you try it out.

In a year, if you have the guts, you’ll have a viable business doing what you love.

(Or for an established business: If you get started in small ways today, in a year, the world of Facebook and Twitter will be making money for you.)

How do we work?

We come to you – where you live your life – in cafes, on trains, on line.

We charge a fee to match the task and what you can afford.

Or we work out a joint venture.

Whichever, we only work on big dreams that have little steps that we can take today.  We want short punchy projects that show results, or get dropped and we try again.

My company?

Is Rooi – one word – Rooi – red. The colour of our future together.

My town

Olney, north Bucks. Where you are coming to do you Christmas Shopping. British Art.  50 miles from London on the M1. J14 East.  The opposite way from Milton Keynes. Great to stop off on a long journey.  Great to see the best of Britain and 24 places to eat beginning with a great New York deli!!

Where am I from?

My accent?  Zimbabwe where I learned to organize profitable businesses and the New Zealand where I learned to play a little.

Over to you

  • Do you know what I do?
  • Where am I being long-winded or vague?
  • Is it clear where we can have an interesting conversation?
  • Can you see how some aspect of your business or life would get a lift by working with me?
  • Would you want to take the conversation further?

All comments appreciated.  Not only by me, but by the next person I bump into on the rounds of business networks!

Leave a Comment

Is this today’s career choice- invest in crowd sourcing OR in expert filters?

Published October 2, 2009 by Jo Jordan

Absolute Radio launched its online radio last night. It runs under the name Dabbl from 7pm to 6am.  We nominate the tracks that they should play, and the most popular tracks win.

Dabbl as a lens on social media

A critical unresolved issue in social media is whether crowd sourcing can replace expertise.

Are our votes better than the opinions of expert DJ’s on Radio 6, for example?

I think, as ever, the proof will be in the pudding. We will have to see, in other words.

  • Do we take part?
  • Are the averages of our opinions as good as the expert knowledge of DJ’s?

Dabbl : an experiment we should all copy

Whatever the outcome – Dabbl are running a good experiment that every honest industry should finance and run.

  • How good is the filter made up by our average opinions?
  • With this baseline, experts can ask themselves a straight forward question.
    • Can we do better than the average opinion?
  • And if so how exactly do we do better?
    • How can we organize a service that is consistently better?
    • And how can we develop our service over time so that it continues to be better than average opinion?
    • In what way do our consumers think our service is better?
    • And who is so convinced by our superior performance that they are willing to fund it?

Welcome to the 21st century! I reckon Dabbl is beating the path to where we all will be soon.

What would be crowd-sourcing in your industry?

With Dabbl in front of me as a clear example, I am going to be thinking about this.  What would crowd-sourcing look like in psychology, management and consulting?

What would it mean to commit to a career in crowd-sourcing?

And what would it mean to commit to a career in an expert filter that competes with crowd-sourcing?

Is there a third choice?  And if so, what is it?

What will you be discussing with youngsters you coach?

  • Crowd-sourcing?
  • Expert filters that compete with crowd sourcing?

    UPDATE:  I think the third choice is to do both.  I think we should build platforms to crowdsource in our area and add the expertise on top.  Of course some might specialize in various aspects of the enterprise.   As a profession, I think crowdsourcing should be our basic foundation and there should be a seamless gradient to expert opinion.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
    2 Comments

    Social media has raised the ante in events & conference management

    Published October 1, 2009 by Jo Jordan

    I am not an events manager.  If you want information on events management, follow @tojulius and @carmenhere.

    I am writing this because someone asked me how an event could be better.  Events are a highly specialized and skilled form of organizational management, but as a sub-class of organizational management, some general rules apply.

    My question is this:  if apply the four basic rules, do I arrive at any insights of value?

    1. Make it easy to join in

    If we stumble on the sign up, or forget our passwords, nothing more will happen.

    The basics are having the event at a place we can reach with public transport, on a day that isn’t filled with competing events, etc.  You get the point?  I can move on?

    2.  Make it easy for people to connect

    I still go to conferences where I cannot see in advance who is attending, let alone connect with them.  And the attendance list does not include email addresses or twitter handles.  There is no way to find anyone at the conference once we get there.  We are under-utilizing the social, or connect-potential, of the meeting.  Grossly.

    I know why we continue to organize like this.  It is not technology. Amiando and Meetup have full social capacity.  It is the ‘control-freak’ nature of British-society.  We like to dis the government for being control-freaks, but it start with us.

    Maybe we should give every meetup a control-freak rating?  Anyway, it is time to stop.  I don’t come to your meetup just to meet you!  I want to meet other people too.  I don’t want to meet up with 1% of people I could meet.  I want the full potential!

    3.  Find a way for people to learn

    We learn whenever we ‘do’.  We are learning animals.

    But just as there are levels of convenience in #1 and levels of sociability in #2, there are levels of learning.

    When I introduce myself and the other person struggles to understand what I am on about, I learn.

    I also learn when Twitter feeds go up on a big screen. Those big screens can be distracting though.  Sometimes they are just a techie gimmick.

    Whether they add value or not seems to revolve around ‘feedback loops’. Which feedback loops can we add to highlight great examples of what we do?  And is there a way of making data available so people with the skills and inclination can mash it up, dress it up, and present it back to us?

    A raffle in which we put our business cards in a bowl for a prize is an example of this principle.  The pile of cards grows and we feel good to be at a popular event.  The lucky winner is highlighted for being present (and being lucky).   I am sure the organizers are looking through the cards too, to see who came (with cards and who will have a gamble)?

    What else can we amplify in this way?  How can we help people learn?

    4.  Find a way for the event to add meaning

    We all want to belong to something bigger than ourselves.  I don’t mean belong to a group bigger than ourselves.  We want our group to fit into a wider landscape in a meaningful way.  The existential purpose of the group must be clear.  Not just the instrumental purpose or the social purpose.

    How does this group fit into the wider community?  Why would the wider community be happy that we are there?  Why would they mourn if we were not there?  How does our meaning change with our activity?  How does the wider community thrive and flourish because we thrive and flourish?

    This is the big ask.  So many old organizations feel rotten because they are no longer connected with the wider well-being of the community – in the community’s eyes, that is, not their own.  Does the community see them?  How does the community see them?  What is the symbiosis?

    What is the symbiosis between our event or startup and the wider community?  How do they see us? When they talk about us, or our activities?  Which parts of our work bring a light to their eyes?

    Social media has raised the ante in events management

    Tough.  In the olden-days we were a star to get #1 right.  It is not enough any more.  We have to step up through the levels. So point me to good examples, please, because I am still learning too.

    2 Comments

    Masculine cultures into social media don’t go

    Published September 28, 2009 by Jo Jordan

    A regular trickle of visitors are looking for information on masculine cultures.  It took me a long time to understand this strange term – “masculine culture.”  So what do I understand it to mean?

    What “masculine culture” is not

    • It is not an attack on men. Norway has a feminine culture and there is nothing wrong with their men.
    • It also does not mean non-sexist, or even matrilineal. Much of Africa has a feminine culture but much of Africa is assuredly sexist, patrilineal, or both.

    What “masculine culture” is

    Masculine cultures are based on pecking order.

    We all interested in our status, don’t get me wrong.  It’s just that masculine cultures are obsessed by status.   The jostling and thumping of small boys – you have it in one.

    It’s not that boys don’t play together. It’s just they find it hard until they’ve sorted out who is “top dog”. And they put everything second to that goal – compassion, beauty, intelligence . . . it all goes by the board.

    You can see that women can also have a masculine culture. It is not the preserve of men. Nor is it always bad. It is just very narrowing when everything comes down to pecking order.

    Anyway, why does a positive psychologists working in social media write about masculine cultures?

    1.  Masculine cultures aren’t positive.

    We can get good at winning a race. But the easiest way to win a race is to rig the competition or some other way cheat. We are on a downward spiral.

    When we ask the question another way, and ask how quickly we can run, or how quickly we can get everyone over the line, we find more challenge, on many levels.

    Life opens up. That is the essence of positive psychology. Does life open up?

    2. Social media is about working with others.

    Masculine cultures are about individuals or small groups beating other small groups.

    My cultural test of the world of social media

    I have my new MOO cards now and I am going to repeat my picture test.

    Subscribe to my feed (side right column) because I will post the results as I get them over the next two months.

    Leave a Comment

    Filter, filter,filter. That’s where the money is.

    Published September 28, 2009 by Jo Jordan

    In the olden days, our job, you and I, was to consume.

    Today, we consume, create and share.

    And because we all create and share, we have greater choice, overwhelming choice.  Suddenly, we have to take responsibility  for our choices.  Like it or hate it – we can no longer blame poor outcomes on lack of choice.  Nor can we assume that the creator of what we consume is acting responsibly, thoughtfully, competently, or in our interests.  Anything and everything is out there.  A terrifying world for people who cruise along on auto.

    Filter, filter, filter

    The scared will run inside and slam the door.  The reckless will try anything.  The bold, the curious, the inquisitive and the thoughtful will learn.

    But how do we filter?  Who can we learn from?

    I put “filter” into Flickr and this is the first image that came up.  A scientist folds his filter paper in a special shape so that when he filters soil, the thingymebobs that he wants to look at naturally fall around the edge.  Have a look.

    Confusing filtering and hoarding

    I didn’t put the image here because it is “all rights reserved”.  That is the scientist’s choice.

    Quite likely, he assumes our only possibility is consuming with permission from him (and fee).  Sadly, for him but not for us, in this day, people will create and share as well.   His work has no value as scarcity.  His work only has value if it is used.

    Let me explain the alternative. He could have  put a creative commons license on his picture, with attribution and share-alike.  Then I would have put his picture here and publicized his work for him. True, some of you will trek over to Flickr but I can guess only 0.5% of visitors will – the typical CTR – click through rate.

    Understand our value to the world .  .  . and be rewarded for it

    This person’s ability to do science is of far greater worth than his ability to post a picture on Flickr.

    A much better bet would be to post the picture and ask for comments and alternatives.  By become the central point for discussions on scientific filters, his knowledge and reach grows, and commercial opportunities of far greater value would emerge – from his filtering ability – not from his hoarding ability.

    To demonstrate his ability, we will want to see it in action. Junk, comment, redirect. Junk, comment, redirect.  Rinse & repeat.  Finding one good product from the process and trying to sell it doesn’t advertise the process. The process advertises the process.

    That is the nature of filters that we have to get our head around!

    1.  Filter so as not to be overwhelmed by junk.

    2.  Filter because it is our ability to filter in a specific domain (not to be confused with hoarding) that will have value to others.  And people will want to see the process.  What is our raw material, how do we evaluate it, what advice do we give.

    My mind is racing.  This works equally well for the baked beans and irradiated apples at the supermarket as it does for scientists, psychologists, politicians and newspapers.

    Enjoy. It is where the money is in the future!

    Leave a Comment

    The secret of an un-junked life is your own filter

    Published September 23, 2009 by Jo Jordan

    Do you remember the days when you needed a ‘big man’ to present you to the world?

    I barely remember, yet it was not so long ago that we had to find a patron, if we wanted to be heard.

    • If we wrote a book, we needed a publisher.
    • If we were into politics, we joined a political party.
    • If we kept counted the beans in business, we found ourselves an employer.

    Some of these ‘big men’ were indeed patrons of quality

    When we wanted information and advice of quality, we went to the same ‘big men’.  People of quality gathered around them.  We could randomly pick anyone of them. They would probably be OK.

    Clay Shirky explains why we needed ‘big men’

    Taking newspapers as an example – printing on paper was expensive.  Journalists couldn’t invest in the prohibitively expensive printing presses and distribution networks.  And newspapers proprietors wanted to be sure their printed papers would sell.  So newspaper owners had a vested interest in promoting quality and they become the arbiters and promoters of journalistic quality.

    The internet has broken the ‘big man’ model

    The internet has made publishing cheap and easy.  Working together has got cheaper and easier.  In short, the internet allows us to present ourselves to the world without going through a ‘big man’.

    Every man and his dog has a story up on the internet and we feel drowned in a deluge of material – unfiltered and of indifferent quality. Junk food, junk mail, junk bonds, more junk.

    The flip-side of everyone being their own ‘big man’ is that refereeing quality, and promoting quality, has become our job – perhaps our only job.

    The secret of an un-junked life is our own filter.  And as the art of speaking is the art of being heard, for the first time we are faced with the task of truly understanding how other people filter.  We cannot rely entirely on ‘big men’ to do it for us.  Too much is going around and past them.

    How do we filter the deluge of junk?

    #1 Work with the ‘big men’ who remain

    Political scientist, Matthew Hindman, reminds us that the old patronage systems are still up and running.

    In so far as these systems provide a quality filter, there is no harm in using them.  We still go to university.  We read good books.  We even watch good TV programs!

    What we have to get our heads-around is that as little as five years ago, the ‘big men’ provided the only channels, and the only filters. We lived with their definition of quality – like it or not.

    Today, we do have a choice.  And we find ourselves having to judge the quality of the ‘big men’.  Do the filters that we’ve used for so long have the quality they promise?   Sadly, the alternatives, even the alternatives produced by amateurs, are exposing many ‘clay feet’.

    #2 Actively reconstruct our filters on a regular basis

    The power, and responsibility, for judging quality has shifted to us.  Our next step, fortunately seems to come quite easily.  We figure out what matters in the world.

    Much of what happens is not worth reacting to.  I loved President Obama talking about racist responses to his initiatives.  Looking utterly relaxed on the Letterman show, he began, as if to make a serious point, then with good timing, reminded us he was black before the election.   It is true, he reminded the audience, with mock insistence.  How long have you been black? said Letterman.  Our mental models have become important. It doesn’t do any more to borrow from the great and the good.  We must have mental models of our own.

    Julius Solaris, intrepid London networker, also wrote today of pruning his huge networks, much like my neighbors pruning their roses. A healthy network is free of dead wood and dead heads.  And for that matter, free of ‘dittoheads’ as they have become to be known on Twitter.

    But do other people actively filter? Will they hear us among the deluge of junk arriving on their screens?

    I count 5 ways to understand how information reaches, and doesn’t reach people.

    #1 Old forms of patronage count

    We shouldn’t dismiss the power of old establishments.  They might not fully comprehend the loss of their old monopoly, but they will defend their territory, and they will use the weight of their considerable resources to defend their position.

    Be wise and take the back road to the high ground.

    #2 Recommendations of friends still matter

    Though many people are incredibly trusting of the old filters, they still trust their friends more.

    Old fashioned communication systems remain influential.

    Get close to the people who matter to you and be in touch – literally.

    #3 Understand Google

    How do we find information on the internet?  We can put up a website but does anyone ever look at it other than us?  Understanding the algorithm used by Google is part our our new literacy.

    #4 Join social networks

    Our lives are now lived virtually as well as on the street.  Join up to major social networking sites and take part.  To be off the network today would have been like refusing to read newspapers in the 1960’s.  Odd to say the least.

    #5 Become a respected filter

    Build your own web presence as a filter that other people can rely on.  Let people see the world through your eyes.

    If you are a fan of junk food, then yay, the world can discover junk food in your wake.  If you have an understanding of the deep structure that underlies good food, like Daniel Young, then show that to the world.

    Working consistently on our web presence helps us understand our own filters.

    Using the many statistics packages available (like Google Analytics) helps us track what other people respond to and deepens our awareness of their filters.

    Sometimes this is deeply depressing – but hey, knowledge is power. If people come to this site to find out if they are good looking (told you it gets depressing), or at other extreme, how to do HR in the recession (deeply depressing), it tells me a lot about them. And it tells me a lot about how I manage my relationship with the world’s cybermediary, Google.

    It is a brave new world. The deluge of junk can get overwhelming.

    This is no time to be lazy.  Our job in this age is to define how the world works, to gather quality information around us, to digest it, and to put our understanding back out there for the next person to use.

    Can you imagine doing anything less? If you can, I would like to know.

    Because the quality of our filters seems both to preserve our sanity and be the basis of our earning power.

    Leave a Comment

    Be a social media star: a menu board of 5 competences

    Published September 22, 2009 by Jo Jordan

    We are in social media because we really have fun

    Most of us who get into social media because we love it.  We like computers and we are fairly sociable, though curiously, often introverted too.

    We do what we love, and we do it happily all day long.

    It’s only when we start to think about making money, that we start to think about monetizing. And then we start to think a lot about money. And we start to talk about it too.

    Have you ever noticed that people in other industries don’t talk about money nearly as much as we do?

    That’s because they have more than us.

    Why other people make money

    My ‘day job’, or at least my day-job in years gone by, was as a psychologist to commerce and industry. We put in systems – pay, performance appraisal, selection. Hell, even pensions.

    Most social media firms are much too small to be bothered with such systems. That’s lucky. These systems tend to be rather dull.

    The guiding principles behind the systems are another matter though.

    Take competencies, for example.

    We try to understand a job in terms of its essential skill base. What do we get done? What are the main clusters of tasks?

    I’ve been edging toward a model for social media and this is what I’ve come up with.

    Menu board of 5 competencies in social media

    Competence 1: Customers

    Who are our customers? If they used our service, what would they use it for? How do they satisfy that need without us?

    Once we’ve introduced our service, how do they use it? What tweaks do they introduce?

    This isn’t a customer-service role. It’s a strategic-role where our expertise is watching the people we serve.

    Clay Shirky is the best example of a person who is expert in this role He works at the role of macro-strategy. What affects all of us?

    We also need mavens working at the level of micro-strategy – our own industry, our own locality, our specific demographic. Anthropology and sociology are good foundations for this expertise.

    Competence 2: Technology

    Today, Seth Sternberg, founder of Meebo, posted his thoughts on managing startups over on Techcrunch.

    He believes that the core team needs at least two technical people: the pixelator (design of the front end) and the person who makes the servers fly (backend).

    That’s a useful framework to start with. Where is design and processing going? What is likely to break onto the scene in the next five years? What is flair and what is competence in the field?

    In the social media world of south-east England, many of us rely on LoudMouthMan to give us an overview of what is happening.

    I suspect many geeks are very specialized and are micro-micro, so to speak.  What are the slightly broader ‘chunks’ that match clusters or groups of apps who compete with each other?

    Competence 3: Marketing

    Now we get to looking after customers.  Marketers in the social media space are quite competent technically.  They use social media to find customers, respond to customers, and tweak the system to manage the % ROI.

    This space is very noisy. But I perceive most people are chasing the business of big traditional companies who are perceived to be flush with cash.

    I haven’t met too many social media marketers who will manage a startup.  The closest that I know of is Julius Solaris who is his own startup, so to speak.  He arrived in UK less than 18 months ago and has built an extensive network of entrepreneurs in London.

    I’ve done a little work on the broad mega-picture of Facebook & Twitter and Linkedin users in UK

    To work our own space – to go from zero customers to 1000’s of customers, we need to copy Julius.

    Competence 4: Keeping it all together.

    I have met some accountants at Julius’ meetups. Accountants who specialize in social media are as rare as hens’ teeth though.

    Lawyers are a little more common, but not common at all. Omar Ha-Redeye, reading for his JD in Canada is the closest I know.

    This post is my contribution to this competence ‘Keeping it all together’ by thinking ahead about our skill base.

    Competence 5: Emergence

    And lastly, who is Hannibal of the A team?

    We sometimes bring ‘old world’ attitudes to social media. We want to be in-charge, largely because we don’t trust each other and we are terrified of losing control of the ‘rent’ – the unusual profits.

    In reality, of course, we barely have any profit at all. This is part of the creative sector and few people get rich.

    Hannibal doesn’t play this old fashioned role. Hannibal thinks up the game plan. Hannibal builds the missing trust and gets out some fair and cast iron contracts (that the lawyers, accountants and psychologists will make happen in their detail).

    Hannibal coordinates. Hannibal sizes up the progress we make in our distinct arenas and passes information between us to help us stay together.

    And second only to building trust, Hannibal senses the emergence of new understanding, clarity and more finely tuned goals. Hannibal represents the group to itself . . . represents the group to itself.

    Hannibal must love the group, seriously love it.

    We are Hannibal in our own lives. We think up our game plan. We help all the people who help us to trust each other. We pass information between them when they cannot do it themselves. We sense what we can do together and we represent this possibility so everyone can imagine a future that includes us . Universities have started to offer full semester courses to start students developing personal leadership.

    Five competencies for managing a social media business

    • We need them all in part
    • It’s great when we find a maven who will keep us informed of broad changes
    • It seems to me that there are many opportunities to become experts at “industry” level (between niche and the broader picture).
    • “Keeping it all together” is calling for people with professional skills to specialize in social media.
    • We are all Hannibals in our own life.
    • Some people play the role of Hannibal in project teams and get very good at it.

    Any use to you? Has this list helped you to check off your strengths and the strengths of your network?

    Can you start a project team in the next month?  Who is missing from your team?

    When you next go to a meetup, who are you hoping to find, probably standing somewhere quietly?

    Any thoughts?

    Related articles by Zemanta
    Enhanced by Zemanta
    One Comment

    Future of social media from Social Media Convention

    Published September 18, 2009 by Jo Jordan

    Blogging at 20? The future and potential of social media

    Panelists:

    Kara Swisher,Wall Street Journal

    Dave Sifry, Technocrati

    Richard Allan, Facebook

    Nigel Shadbolt, University of Southampton

    Chair: William Dutton, Oxford University

    If social media are the defining advance of Web 2.0, whereby the network-as-platform enabled users not just to download content but to create it, tag it and share it, what will the next decade hold? Many of the social media businesses whose tools we rely on have yet to make a profit, whilst concerns about privacy, security and possibly even dignity suggest that our online habits may have to change. The technology press has for some time been heralding the oncoming arrival of Web 3.0, as an era where the web gets ’smart’, and research on the developing semantic web suggests that this is no idle prediction. But what will happen to social media in the interim? Will the next ten years see our fascination with blogging, wikis and social networks replaced by a re-focusing on the enhanced informational capacity of the Web or will we continue to Tweet?

    Richard Allan. Increasing pressure to regulate. EU took broadcasting rules and applied to internet. When video hs TV like power – it will attract attn of regulators. We want to tak our identity with us – crunch area. Can we let ppl let us develop identities – regulation of identity is an attractive issue for governments. Increasing power of audience.

    Daily reach Facebook in UK 9m by 0.5 hr.

    Bill Dutton. In US, want anonymity.

    Richard Allan. Germany, like pseudonyms. Some sites might want identity cards.

    Nigel Shadbolt. Public data should public. Delighted Facebook is promoting portability. Somebody at Google -Data Liberator.

    What can be predicted – space and place will be more exquisitely defined. Will be revealed by digital behaviour.

    Social norms. Do we need regulation. Let’s have some very clear info about where our info is and we must held ppl accountable or misuisng it.

    Question.

    ?? Strategy for governments. Need data. Lisbon – top-down.

    Richard Allan. Next few years. What mashups could you build? Find a loo – Satlav. Get data out of local authorities. Make data freely data – at every local govt.

    Kara . .. find Starbucks.

    David. Urinary Liberation Front.

    Nigel Shadbolt. Need to be able access data. Some inadevertently handed over. Rail timetables.

    David. Legal proceedings.

    Nigel Shadbolt. Each jurisdiction will have different view of what is a public good.

    Question.

    ?? Who controls, for example, our language preferences. Who will control this in future?

    Kara . .. Google.

    Dave. .. easily fixable. Geo search. Area of enormous innovatin. Who tracks all that. Commonly available. Genie out of bottle.

    Kara. .Google holds back results in China, by requiremetn.

    Richard Allan. Geo location is covered by law in Eu.

    Kara.. .. computer driven body parts.

    Floor/Kara animals / kids – 2 blocks off.

    Bill Dutton. Privacy and surveillance. Also issue of quality. Are social networks going to enhance quality or not in your area? Or sideshow.

    Nigel Shadbolt. Purposive social networks. What can you keep private? Challenge to build networks with scientists. Interesting engineering to share data. Quality? Next year – most papers in chem.eng will be in Chinese. Data is published with paper.

    Kara….. no downside. Scientists collaborative and competitive. Silos. New media is of quality and getting better – take quality and ethics and embrace speed. Do excellent work online and still of high quality.

    Dave…. better and be worse. Think through consequences of speed.

    Richard Allan. Comparing apples and pears. Comparing content and conversation. Framing doesn’t tell us about quality anymore. We can make wrong assumptions about what we are looking at.

    Nigel Shadbolt. Internet . . didn’t persuade Americans to believe in natual selection.

    Question

    ?? Business model scalable to univeral access. Richer, younger, better educated are on line. Will we increase real life differentials?

    Kara . .. distribution of technology in States. Universal access. Facebook has turned profitable. Google more profitable than Oprah – did I get that right.

    Bill Dutton. Social accountability for small groups of users.

    Question

    x hours of YouTube – people becoming illiterate. . ..

    Kara . . think video, screens.

    Touch it, move it.

    Richard Allan. Video will distribute President Palin.

    Nigel Shadbolt. Empowers illiterate.

    Dave…. Had videos for years…. won’t replace multi-modal

    Kara . . 4 year olds expect screens to be touch screens

    Dave . . . What will be on top today, will not be on top then.

    Nigel Shadbolt – silicon will be meat…. lifestyle data …. big

    Richard Allan – serious movement of refuseniks

    -end-

    Leave a Comment

    Scientists ARE using social media

    Published September 18, 2009 by Jo Jordan

    Parallel Session II: Making science public: data-sharing, dissemination and public engagement with science

    Panellists:

    Ben Goldacre, Open blog

    Cameron Neylon, Bad Science blog & Oxford University

    Maxine Clarke, Nature

    Chair: Felix Reed-Tsochas, Oxford University

    Journals and peer-reviewed publications are still the most widely used channels through which research is disseminated within the scientific community and to a broader audience. However, social media are increasingly challenging the supremacy of editors, reviewers and science communicators. Blogging about science has become a new way of engaging ‘the public’ directly with researchers whilst researchers are increasingly using blogs within their own academic communities for peer-review purposes. Panellists will give their perspective on how social media have changed the nature of the scientific debate among scientists, and how they have impacted on engagement with the public understanding of science.

    1. (Observation last night.) Two of the panelists list their blog as well as their academic affiliation. But are they academics too? Or borrowed for the occasion?

    2. Missed opening remarks as struggled with weak internet connections here.

    3. Now Cameron Neylon. Scientist – using social media as his lab notebook. No peer review. Ppl could steal data. But could [crowd-source] review. Then discovered other scientists using social media to “do science”. Maxine Clarke of Nature said few scientists use social media but it is a rapidly growing community.

    Exp – publicize details – ask people to take mmts.

    Describing typical 7 year cycle of a research project.

    Who funded the prizes (journal subs) for students. Completed project in 6 mo with invited paper and publication. Much more efficient.

    Questions

    FRT: How much has interaction changed?

    Ben Goldacre. Journos often get issues wrong and dumb down issues. Does journo science news inform people with science degrees who work in a variety of roles? Blogs can be niche (mindhacks on neuroscience and psychology). Imagine 2000 science blogs with 500 readers each talking to 1m people.

    Royal Society Prizes for science books recently – 20K in prizes an more in admin – books selling 3000 copies only. Science Minister [google the spat] – committees have no new media experience.

    Blogs encourage us to be clearer and sounder about what we write. Link culture. Journos don’t want you to know they’ve copied and pasted from a press release. Cited an example of not checking primary sources. We link to primary sources.

    FTR: [Will blogs kill science journalism?]

    BG: Old science journalism is dumbed down for us. We need a patchwork with better stuff for people who are informed.

    FTR: Danger of sloppy journalism. But issue of quality and trust.

    BG: Journos say internet is undistributed mush. Need to learn to use internet. Easy to tell when something is [rubbish]. Lots of dodgy stuff everywhere. Want more and let the street [filter].

    Maxine Clarke: As editor, don’t equate blog in that way. But likes blogs and interaction. Nerdish quality – correct – find niche. Look for Open Lab.

    BG: Disintermediation – 70% of science words on BBC Radio 4 are spoken by scientists themselves. Shepherded and coached to be clear – but speaking. Look at Radio 4 for examples.

    Cameron Neylon. Abandon term public – don’t distinguish between public and scientists. Engage people with the scientists. Let people contribute to science – even be authors.

    BG: Interdisciplinary communication. Semi-professional communication promotes . . . Need a place between newspapers and journals.

    FTR: Will social media allow us to differentiate public?

    Cameron Neylon: Arrogant and lazy toward non-scientists. Need not to be [snobbish]. Get support for funding.”public

    Questions

    Dussledorf: What keeps scientists from using Web2.0?

    BG: Younger people use Web2.0? Get RAE to reward unmediated engagement with “public”. And pay or allow people to split jobs.

    Maxine Clarke: Generational issues for journals like Nature. Friendfeed heated discussions about science.

    Camero Neylon: Only just starting to explore social media for public and for science (see Friendfeed). New things are high risk strategies and they keep high risk behaviour for science. Won’t be taken seriously if you are out on a limb. People who are using Web2.0 are trying to get a tenured position. Some senior ppl involved. But 10 years in – more cautious.

    BG. Use blogs as [scribble-pad] in lost cost threshold.

    Question

    ❓ Time to read academic reports. Likes Nature for summary. Few Twitters using service. How are inst. like Nature making money out of it.

    Maxine Clarke. Highlights from Nature very popular. Making money isn’t a serious concern for making money online – still experimental. Lack of time – Nature Network – some blogs to work out problems but also just about lab life. Social not about scientific work itself. Scientists are cerebral – therefore enjoy blogs.

    OII: Fighting against moral panics? Rapidity of moral panics in journo. How does peer review play into process? Blogging about something published is out of step with production of work – time gap huge.

    Cameron Neylon: 6.5bn spent on science. 80% of cost is peer review – count peer review ideas by 95%. Small proportion of important ideas – use traditional methods. Straight out of instrument and blogged if need for instrument.

    Ben Goldcre. Peer review is best of bad lot. What is a scientific publication. Document of record. Methods and results to be published. Different types of publications. Need to recognise two types.

    Maxine Clarke. Peer review increases quality. 95% of biological papers are rejected and some passed on to other journals. Cited a journal that publishes online with peer reports – need tagging system.

    FTR – audience separating production and differentiation. [lost question]

    Maxine Clarke. More journals publishing peer reviews and opening up articles for comment. People tagged by subject. People don’t comment. Scientists conservative – assessed by publications. Power issues inhibit comment.

    FTR- can social media change scientific debates.

    Maxine Clarke. Widgets in newspapers to follow conversations – find hard to follow. Nature also makes txt accessible in “accessble” format. Conversation too fragmented.

    Cameron Neylon. Publicatation is too high risk to be the place to innovate. . . online material not indexed by medline. Conversations in different part of research cycle.

    BG: Structural issues. Draw strands together about topic – can it be open. Wiki-professionals – micro-credits for helping on something.

    Maxine Clarke: Micro-attribution is growing topic. Av no authors is 6. Some consortia iare 100 or so.

    Can contributions be attributed to you – technical issue.

    FTR: open source modes of science. Triggers of open source science.

    CN: Science is the great open source endeavour. What can we do that is useful? If cannot be replicated and cannot check details, not science.

    Bill Dutton: Peer review publications – wrong place to look. Other phases of research process – lot going on. Less collaboration less at publication, high status, older people.

    Maxine Clarke. [Internet playing up]

    Question: Radio 4. Book only sold 3000 copies. Wonderful to have well written science blogs. Few ppl capable to of writing good science blogs. Problem is not quality but problem of selling stuff to consumers.

    Ben Goldacre. That’s why good

    Lost a bit here – Said Business School’s internet connection is scribbled.

    Leave a Comment