Those of you following me on Twitter may have noticed a flurry of articles about Google+ shared with all and sundry. I am currently in the process of conducting some research into the use of communication tools and, whilst I am pretty familiar with the ins and outs of Twitter and Facebook, Google+ remains a little grey corner of the internet which I have failed to investigate or make proper use of.
Clearly some people are using the gym... (image via Maximus_W on Flickr).
My interest has grown recently as a result of reports that Google+ brand pages have seen pretty strong growth in the past few months. As one commentator noted, Google+ is ‘adding users four times faster on Google+ than on Twitter’. Of course statistics like this should be treated with extreme caution. Growth would be rapid on Google+ as it is a relatively new social media platform backed by one of the giants of the internet. It is also worth noting that a comparison with brands on Twitter isn’t really a fair one. Facebook Pages offer a far more suitable comparison and Google+ still has some way to go before it even comes close to the strength of brands on Facebook.
Google+ has also not been helped by comparisons such as this:
Google+ is like the gym. Everyone is a member, hardly anyone goes.
Certainly a huge number of people I know signed up to Google+ the instant they were able to do so. Since then, well, it’s gone rather quiet. I posted a Google+ status the other day asking people to comment or give it a ‘+1′. Five people did. I have 91 people in my circles and 146 people have me in their circles. Five people is pretty feeble by any standard. That said, checking out some Pages there does seem to be a high degree of interactivity. The Muppets Google+ Page being a good example (although granted it might be skewed due to the current PR blitz).
There are plenty of useful hints and tips out there to try to get the most out of Google+, but I’m still not convinced that it is quite good enough. There are, however, a few things that would make me seriously consider using G+ on a more regular basis:
Page management from smartphone application.
Richer link sharing (so posting links from the app is the same as on the website).
Integration with other social media.
I’m pretty sure the last one is never going to happen, but I think the first two would certainly be a big step in the right direction (although admittedly the link sharing point is more of a personal preference – links look dull when they are not accompanied by snippets of text and an image from the source). Certainly from the perspective of managing the Voices for the Library G+ Page, it would make life a great deal easier if it could be managed from my smartphone in the same way as our Twitter and Facebook accounts. Having to individually post links is particularly time-consuming and simply results in that particular forum being ignored.
So, Google+ where do we go from here? Well, I’ve updated my profile and made it look all singing and all dancing but it still lacks that ease of use and connectivity offered by other social media. I may well try to make more extensive use of it, but the areas I identified above really need addressing for G+ to become my first port of call on the internet. Get those things right and I will be spending a lot less time on Facebook and rather more time enhancing the Voices for the Library brand on G+.
Incidentally, as an experiment, I have also posted this blog on my G+ profile. It will be ‘interesting’ (in the loosest sense of the word) to see if there is any difference in the level of interaction. We’ll see.
Freedom of Information is vital in the fight against corruption (image c/o intangible arts on Flickr).
A little while back I wrote a post about how there was an ‘illusion of transparency‘ at the heart of government. In it I referred to how the government appears to be keen on transparency of outcomes but not in decision making. This was underlined through attempts by ministers to circumnavigate the Freedom of Information Act as well as comments by senior civil servants questioning the value of the Act.
Earlier in the same month I had written a post about the UK’s standing in the Corruption Perceptions Index (‘Information key to addressing corruption’). It seemed clear to me then, as it still does now, that only through complete transparency across the democratic process (coupled, of course, with substantive empowerment of citizens) can we ensure that corruption is seriously restricted in our political life. It may be too optimistic to eradicate it entirely, but it should not be beyond the realms of possibility to make a significant reduction to its prevalence.
It is with much concern, therefore, that I read this morning that the Ministry of Justice has claimed that the “Freedom of Information Act has not improved government“. Coupled with this has come the question of whether increased or additional fees should be added:
The memorandum discloses a “desire to see the appropriate limit amended in some way, ie either a reduction in the overall limit, or for other costs to be included, eg reading, consultation and, most importantly, redaction time”.
Of course, it needs to be kept in mind that it is civil servants that have written this report and it is these very same civil servants that are tasked with responding to FoI requests. It is hardly surprising that they have criticised the Act and questioned its impact.
In 2010, KCC dealt with 1,539 separate requests – about three times as many as when the Act first came into force in 2005. It estimates that the hours spent dealing with these requests was 4,779 and the average cost of dealing with a request was £78 – compared to £71 the previous year.
But the bulk of requests did not come from journalists. The media accounted for 16 per cent of all requests; private individuals accounted for 58 per cent and companies 18 per cent. The costs of dealing with 246 requests from the media were £19,188. In the context of KCC’s annual £2.4billion budget, that represents 0.00007995 per cent of its total spend. Now, to me that’s pretty small beer.
Now, this is only one authority, but Kent is a particularly large one and it seems a fairly minor cost to the council in attending to these requests.*
Obviously there will be many vexatious or just plain daft requests. But this does not mean that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. As with benefits and immigration, you are never going to get a perfect system so you just need to accept that some ‘imperfections’ are going to exist no matter what (I do not understand why we need to clamp down on benefits when benefit fraud costs us so little – especially in comparison to tax avoidance. And immigration will never be resolved unless we either have open borders or permanently shut ones preventing any movement at all). The benefits of having such a system, flawed though it may be, far exceeds any minor inconveniences.
If we want to live in a truly functional, inclusive, open and transparent democratic society then we need to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act is not eroded in any way by the state. If we are to start chipping away at the Act one can be sure that there will be increased potential for corruption and certainly less transparency in the decision-making process. Furthermore, if the Act is restricted we will no doubt look upon 16th place in the Corruption Perceptions Index as the high-watermark of UK governance in the modern era. David Cameron said last year that his government was creating a “new era of transparency“. At best that appears to be optimistic piece of spin. At worst it is nothing more than Orwellian.
* It also emerged that Kent have suggested the introduction of a fee and have ‘urged’ the Ministry of Justice to “include reading information and redacting – blanking out information such as names – when assessing the length of time it would take to deal with a request.”
In the run-up to the first National Libraries Day, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to find out why my local authority had nothing planned to celebrate the inaugral event. Unfortunately, by accident or design (possibly the latter), the request was not fulfilled until after the day itself. I have reproduced the information received below:
All of which makes for interesting (and very depressing reading). It is particularly worthy of note that the Secretary of the Society of Chief Librarians makes reference to a ‘library march planned in London’ which, of course, never took place. I do hope that the reason why celebrations didn’t take place across the county.
Further to this, I complained to the councillor responsible for libraries who sent me this reply (via his secretary):
A pretty pathetic response I’m sure you will agree.
Further to these revelations regarding the lack of support for National Libraries Day by Kent County Council, there are also more troubling signs about the locality boards that are being established to consider the options for public libraries across the county. At the recent KCC budget meeting at County Hall, Paul Francis tweeted the following:
'Locality boards are not open to public + no arrangements for webcasts' - written answer from Cllr Mike Hill #youthservice#kccbudget
It certainly doesn’t have the appearance of an open and democratic process. In fact it appears to be nothing more than a talking shop established to rubber stamp whatever plans the council have decided on. Whatever the future for Kent libraries, it doesn’t look like the road there will be particularly transparent. They just don’t want the people of Kent to either celebrate their library service or to have a real say in its future.
Is our democracy so fragile as to be threatened by those preaching hate? (Image c/o riviera 2005 on Flickr)
There’s been much discussion in the newspapers about the deportation (or not) of Abu Qatada over the past few days. I would say it has been mainly the right-wing press that has been up in arms about the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to block his deportation to Jordan but, to be fair, this is has been pretty consistent across the political spectrum. Certainly across the mainstream political spectrum there has been universal revulsion. How could a man so ‘dangerous’ be refused deportation? But amongst the bluster, what is the reality?
Before going any further I guess I should make one thing absolutely clear. I have no time for preachers like Qatada. In fact, as somewhat of a militant atheist who would happily have all religions consigned to the dustbin of history, I see Qatada as a perfect (if somewhat more extreme) version of the kind of thing that appals me about ‘religious’ preachers – their failure to grasp the basic tenets of the faith they claim to hold. Furthermore, anyone justifying murder regardless of whether they are religious or not deserves the utmost contempt. That’s the caveat out of the way…
What I have found has often been overlooked is exactly why people like Qatada are dangerous. It’s because of the words they use. It’s because of their use of language. It’s because of their ideas. It is important to remember that Qatada has never been charged with a crime in the UK. If he has committed a crime he should be charged and tried in a court of law much the same as we would do with anyone who commits a crime. As he has not been charged with any criminal offence, it appears that it is his obscene preaching that is the cause of the problem. This is a problem, of course, but does it make deportation a suitable idea.
To quote V for Vendetta, you cannot kill an idea. An idea will not go away once the person who shares it is deported. Once the seed is planted in the minds of individuals the removal of the planter will make not a single jot of difference. How many people has Qatada preached to before his detention? Will the removal of the man remove the idea? Of course not. Will the ideas spread in his absence? Quite possibly. In which case, what does the removal achieve? Very little. Sure, it will appease the mob and make some people feel good, but what benefits will a deportation actually bring? And that’s before we even consider the deportation of an individual without due process. Do we really want to live in a country that deals in arbitrary arrest, detention and deportation?
I have to say I agree with Simon Jenkins. Britain’s democracy should be robust enough to deal with a few crazy preachers spreading their mad ideas. If he is guilty of a crime, charge him and put him on trial. If his crime is the planting of ‘dangerous’ ideas in the minds of the impressionable, then put him under surveillance and, when the evidence is gathered, put him on trial. Whether we like them or not, unpalatable ideas and hate speech are not reason enough to deport an individual. We meddle with habeas corpus and the right to free speech at our peril.
Last week I took part in the Library Day in the Life project, a bi-annual event whereby information professionals across the world share their working day. They do this via blog posts, photos, videos or whatever other medium they wish to use. This year I decided to publish daily blog posts describing my days, as well as tweeting and adding images to Flickr. As last week saw the build-up to the first National Libraries Day, my posts covered not only my day-to-day routine, but also preparations for the day itself and some of the things that I was doing for Voices for the Library.
This year I have also tried something a little different – I Storified my week. However, rather than just provide a comprehensive account of everything that happened during the week, I decided to create a kind of summary that provides examples of the kinds of things I do every week. I thought (perhaps foolishly!), that this might be more interesting than ploughing through loads of blog posts and photos and it also has the advantage of capturing some of my tweets. I had intended on posting this on my Tumblr blog but, for whatever reason, it wouldn’t export the Storify, so I’ve posted it here.
The revolution probably won't be tweeted (image c/o Gigi Ibrahim on Flickr).
The internet was alive with chatter on Friday in response to Twitter’s announcement that it was making a change in the extent to which it restricts content. The change means that content that violates the laws of an individual state will be blocked. Given the nature of the average Twitter user (generally opposed to censorship) and the impact the use of Twitter has had in a range of despotic regimes across the world, it was not surprising that there was uproar about this announcement. Such was the uproar, there were threats of widespread blackouts as people announced their intentions to boycott the service. Judging by the volume of tweets, it appears that this didn’t really take hold.
As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.
In an update it went on to add:
We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld. As part of that transparency, we’ve expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to share this new page, http://chillingeffects.org/twitter, which makes it easier to find notices related to Twitter.
The alternative would be to see Twitter blocked entirely in countries which consider its content to be a violation of their local laws. If the finger should be pointed at anyone, it isn’t Twitter, but rather the lawmakers that make it possible to censor content in the first place.
So is it really an issue? Should Twitter really be the target of a boycott?
It’s a tricky issue to get right. Ultimately, the medium should be as lightly managed as possible, ensuring people can tweet freely and share information readily. As has been seen in a number of cases, the impact of such freedom can have a positive impact upon our society. But, of course, as with all freedom of speech issues, there are concerns and grey areas that need to be wrestled with.
So how do we resolve such issues? Surely our viewpoint on censorship ultimately comes down to our own personal moral compass? Do we believe that censorship is ultimately acceptable if the laws that the tweet breaks are only those we are sympathetic towards? Would we be more inclined towards censorship if the content was gratuitously offensive to an ethnic minority than if it was content that is adjudged to be libellous to a large corporation? Both would be in breach of the law, but is one easier than the other to justify?
Personally speaking, I firmly believe in the right to free speech. I broadly believe that people should not be prosecuted for what they communicate. But there difficult areas, and I am not really sure I have come to terms with them myself. I absolutely believe that racist content should be removed. But I am less sympathetic towards censorship of libellous tweets aimed at large corporations. And yet both are subject to criminal prosecution. Perhaps my view on censorship would be best summed up as a necessary evil if it defends the interests of the powerless or the weak, but absolutely avoided if it seeks to defend the interests of the powerful. It’s not a satisfactory response to freedom of speech issues, but it’s the best I can come up with.
In terms of Twitter, I am not sure that this policy is a wholly bad thing, although it is probably best to see how things play out before rushing to judgement (although is that even a satisfactory response?). Clearly it ensures that those in repressive regimes actually get access to the technology rather than endure a blanket ban. It also ensures that tweets are only blocked according to location, so outside of that locality the tweets would be entirely visible – ensuring that in the case of repressive regimes the content still makes it out to the wider world. This location aspect is certainly superior to some other methods utilised to control content. As Zeynep Tufekci points out on her excellent post on this issue, Blogger is currently censoring a post on brutality conduced by security forces in Egypt. This post is currently blocked globally without any indication as to the cause of its removal (unlike the policy that Twitter announced – which will supposedly ensure transparency over removal). Furthermore, there is a commitment to only block content based on a ‘valid legal order’ which should ensure a degree of protection, providing Twitter doesn’t cave in to spurious government requests for removal.
So, overall I would say that whilst this move is not the most welcome news, I’m not so sure it is quite as regressive as it first appears. I think the people at Twitter are smart enough to know that if censorship does become a major issue for users they will just move some place else. It seems to me that they have tried to strike a middle ground ensuring it can protect itself from prosecution (after all, that would lead to the closure of the service for all) and ensure that content is relatively unaffected. That said, this will need be monitored closely and, if there are attempts to cave into requests by government to censor content without ensuring that valid legal orders are applied, then the strongest possible pressure should be applied to ensure censorship on such grounds is no longer an option. Time will tell whether this move by Twitter amounts to an attack on free speech or a smart way to defend it.
With National Libraries Day just over a week away, I decided to have a look around to see what my local authority is doing to join in the celebration of public libraries. The event itself is a great opportunity for libraries (and particularly public libraries) to shout about the services they offer and the many great things they do. You’d think, with that in mind, most authorities would jump at the chance to get onboard a fabulous opportunity. So what about Kent? Well…
My first stop was the National Libraries Day website. There is where all the events that are taking place have been logged by participating authorities. And what did I find?
Erm....
Well, it looks like a gaping great hole in the bottom right corner. It would appear that nothing is being planned in Kent. How strange.
But, maybe they’ve just not added their event to the website yet and are currently promoting it on their own site in the meantime…
How strange...
Hmmm. That is strange. It doesn’t even appear to mentioned on the library front page of the website. Even on that scrolling list of events. And you’d expect to find it there more than anywhere else.
But they also have a Facebook Page…maybe they have posted something there…
You are kidding...
Wow, not there either. I guess that means they aren’t running any events in support of National Libraries Day then. But what about The Library Book? If they are not running any events, surely they must have ordered some of the books to lend?
Nada...
Although, to be fair, the book isn’t actually out yet so maybe that explains the delay…Maybe I better just check to see if it is available in other authorities?
Well strike me down...
Oh blimey. Well it looks like other authorities have ordered and it is clear to the public that they have done so. How strange that not a single library in Kent is listed as having a copy on order…
It gets all the more bizarre when you discover that the Head of Libraries at KCC is also the Secretary of the SCL, one of the organisations supporting National Libraries Day. Now that really is bizarre.
So why are Kent libraries not supporting National Libraries Day, an event designed to celebrate the contribution libraries make to our communities? Might it be something to do with the fact that the council is preparing to look at a range of options for libraries across the county (including closures and forcing communities to run them)? Perhaps they don’t want people to ‘re-discover’ their local library and see the range of services the excellent staff provide? Because if they were to go along and see what their local library offers, they will be even more likely to oppose the programme of closures and cuts that the council are lining up (regardless of what is raised in discussions with local people). Far better for local people to remain in ignorance about the services that the council are so desperate to destroy. When you have a leadership that can’t even bring itself to celebrate libraries, you know there are bleak times ahead.
You may be interested to know that a couple of protests are planned to take place on National Libraries Day at a couple of locations in the county: Whitstable and Ash. Why not pop along and show your support?
After lunch we had a really interesting presentation on Google+ delivered by Martin Hamilton of Loughborough University and William Florence from Google. What was particularly interesting and unique about this presentation was that William was co-presenting from San Francisco using Google+ Hangout to connect with the audience. It was pretty impressive stuff and made for a very interesting and unique presentation. In terms of the presentation itself, by the time we came to the end I have to say I was quite enthused about the idea of making more use of Google+. Of course, this might have been the intended effect (it was co-presented by a man from Google after all), but it certainly raised a few interesting aspects about the tool that I had not considered before. Certainly, I thought it was pretty smart that as the presentation was coming to a close (the presentation was displayed on Google+ next to the Hangout connection), William announced that he had added another slide to the presentation without causing a distraction. I thought this was pretty neat and highlighted the possibilities to innovate using this particular platform. What was also quite impressive was that Martin tweeted a link to a Google document after his presentation and encouraged people to add questions about Google+ that would be answered by the end of the event. All in all it was a pretty impressive presentation and you can actually view the whole thing on Martin’s blog as he also recorded the session and uploaded it to YouTube. Admittedly I still haven’t gone back to Google+ to have a proper play, but I will certainly do so in the near future.
Following Martin and William, Rob Needham talked about what had been learnt from using Twitter in CiCS at Sheffield. Initially it appears that it was a bit of a task sending out tweets with no one person initially dedicated to tweeting from the account. Instead, multiple people were given the responsibility to tweet and provide updates in turn. To help indicate whose turn it was to publish updates, they used an innovative and modern solution – a BluTac bird was placed on the individual’s desk (!). However, it now appears that one person takes overall responsibility for the account which has raised interesting questions about where their work ends and their private life begins (some tweets are answered out of working hours). There were also concerns that with spreading the work amongst a range of people there was a lack of consistency in expertise resulting in an uneven service delivery. Certainly, I think it is key that, as far as possible, there should be a consistent approach to managing such an account which means as small a team as possible managing the service (or at least a team that agrees a consistent approach and an equal level of expertise).
Next up, Mandy Phillips presented on how to create a digital community using social media. Mandy referred back to Twestival as a great example of what can be achieved by a connected digital community. Twestival is a “single day, global movement which uses the power of social media to organize offline events that mobilize communities in support of local causes”. You can see some examples of the things they have achieved, including improving access to water for people in Ethiopia, Uganda and India, over on their website.
Purpose, passion and people. The 3 key factors to making social media work according to @m8ans1#ucsoc12
Pretty inspirational stuff and a great example of what a digital community can achieve. Mandy also went on to argue that there are three key elements required to make social media ‘work’: purpose, passion and people (see tweet above – note Mandy’s Twitter handle is actually @m8nd1). Again, as a previous speaker mentioned, purpose has to be absolutely key to the process. Certainly, any social media engagement that does not include all three key elements is very unlikely to succeed.
Following Mandy, and before a brief break for refreshments, Brian Kelly talked about ‘building and sustaining a community using the social web’ (see Brian’s video introduction). Brian referred to the old IT strategy of saying ‘no’ to virtually anything that was requested. However, now ‘everyone’ has a connected device and that there is a need to engage with this. To illustrate his point, Brian produced some interesting examples of what can happen if institutions do not have a presence in the places in which students connect (particularly Facebook – see the presentation below). I certainly agree with this.
Highly comical, yet embarrassing, Facebook groups created by disgruntled students - what to do with them? Brian Kelly suggests #ucsoc12
Students are going to make use of social media to criticise your service and you need to be able to connect with them to minimise any potential damage such criticism could create. This is particularly the case when we are entering an era where student perceptions (and it is important to remember that it is their perception rather than how the institution views its service delivery) are absolutely fundamental and could decide whether an organisation rises or falls. Brian also reflected on the importance of filtering messages. It doesn’t matter if you don’t read every single tweet in your timeline – learn to focus on key people to see what they are saying (lists on Twitter are particularly useful for this I find).
The penultimate presentation was delivered by Michael Nolan of Edge Hill University who shared their experience of ‘Hi’ a tool they used to improve student communications. Launched in 2007 it encouraged students to blog about their experiences and share them with the
Edge Hill university's 'Hi' - click the image to view the site
wider community. Again using WordPress, selected students had to adhere to certain guidelines in terms of the content they added. Blogs that were overly critical of the institution were discouraged. The idea certainly appeared to be successful, but it emerged that they were now moving away from ‘Hi’ and onto a new Customer Resource Management tool (CRM) called ‘Think’. It appears that the use of ‘Hi’ has been very profitable for the institution as it was the top performing institution in the north east according to the 2010 National Student Survey. Of course, there is no evidence to suggest that ‘Hi’ was the main reason for this rating, but the level of student engagement seems to suggest it played a part.
Finally, Pamela Agar of Imperial College London talked about how to ‘get more out of your social media efforts’. Again, Imperial encourage a team of dedicated student bloggers who share their experiences of life at the university and on their respective courses. The university also connects with students via a wide range of social networking tools including Twitter, Flickr, Facebook and YouTube. The institutions social media content is then
Imperial's Interact page - click the image to view the site
pulled together into their ‘Interact’ page which displays selections of content including links to the student blogs. They have also created an interactive screensaver for the student computers which integrates their range of social media accounts. Imperial has also made great use of Storify to collect content on specific events which is then embedded onto their website. Furthermore, they have plans to enable students to pull their social media content into personalised versions of the Interact service. Interestingly, it appears that perceptions of the institution by prospective students aren’t great, but their use of new technology appears to address this and demonstrates to the students that whilst it is a serious institution, it is not unfriendly and unable to connect with them. I have to say that I was very much impressed with the way in which Imperial had integrated social media into the institution’s online presence.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the event. I was surprised that there were so few library staff in attendance and so many from IT departments. I’m not sure why this was the case, perhaps because it wasn’t specifically library focused? Whilst social media was explored on a broader institutional basis, there were plenty of innovative ideas that demonstrated the potential for engaging in social media in communicating and building relationships with students. It was certainly an interesting days of innovation and ideas and has provided me at least with plenty of food for thought.
On Wednesday (18th January) I attended Using social media to communicate in Birmingham. The event consisted of a number of presentations on the use of social media in higher education to communicate with students and to develop the student experience. The event was hosted by UCiSA (Universties and Colleges Information Systems Association) and speakers came from a range of institutions and organisations, including JISC, University of the Arts London, University of Sheffield and Loughborough University. More details on the event are available on Lanyrd if you want a better idea of the programme of speakers.
First up was Joe Nicholls of Cardiff University whose presentation posed the question: what does social media mean for IT services? Joe pointed out that a huge proportion of our learning is actually informal, at around 90% (although this figure has been disputed). Joe also noted that a common reason for failure in a social media project is the lack of both a clear business purpose and clear responsibilities. If there is no clarity on why you are pursuing a course of engagement via social media, then any project is very likely to fall by the wayside. Such clarity can certainly help ensure that everyone is on the same page and ensures a consistency across the organisation that can ensure success. As was made clear in this presentation, initial failure will occur if an organisation tries to run before it learns how to walk.
The question of who is enabling is also a key factor. Who is enabling the staff and the students? Who is going to provide the skills and the training to ensure that everyone across an institution can take advantage of the opportunities social media brings?
Who has the role of educating the University community in using social technologies? #UCSOC12
According to Joe, there is a need to go beyond the traditional hierarchies, getting beyond that to create a more collaborative environment built on the back of staff development and a policy of enablement in IT departments, providing staff with the tools to explore the potential of social media.
Next up was Katie Christie of the University of the Arts London who talked about experimentation in social media (Prezi available here), specifically their online social gallery Showtime. Showtime essentially provides a space for students to share their portfolios across the university and beyond. Each student is provided with a unique and personal space on the site which they can use to add images, embed video (YouTube/Vimeo), PDFs etc. By doing so they can promote their work and exhibitions as
Click the image to visit the site
well as linking to their social media (Twitter, Facebook et al). The site itself appears to have been incredibly popular so far. According to Katie, the site has had 400,000 visits and 2.5m page views in the past year. But more important than that, the site has really helped students in terms of the opportunities it has given them. A number of the students who showcase their work on Showtime have been approached and offered work through the platform. One student in particular was approached by the X-Factor to design the dresses for Little Mix. Regardless of what you think about X-Factor (I despise it truth be told), that is pretty cool and highlights the massive advantage to both institutions and students in engaging in social media. Katie summed it up with the three key advantages of Showtime:
It invites student to engage in the institution.
Raises the profile of the university.
Enables discoverability.
Following Katie, Mike Kelly talked about the implementation of a university blogging service, also at the University of the Arts. Mike explained that they were looking for something engaging for students to share information about the processes of study. Whilst they use Blackboard as their Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) they did not feel that it was an appropriate platform for the students to blog from. Consequently, they made use of WordPress as a tool to enable students to share their experiences. To do so, students first sign-up for an account at http://myblog.arts.ac.uk using their computer username and login (this also handily prevents any abuses as they can only engage via
University of Arts using WordPress and BuddyPress to build blogging community, 330,000 page views in Nov 2011 #ucsoc12
their university account and are unable to post anonymously). According to Mike, since August 2011 around 1,500 blogs have been created and, since November 2011, there have been over 330,000 page views. Featured posts are placed on the front page alongside a list of most recent posts so student’s posts are promoted amongst the community. As a result of encouraging students to maintain blogs on the domain it was felt that this provided a ‘connection to professional practice’ and ‘engages them in a real world commitment’.
Of course, it would encourage them to be more reflective in their work and possibly engage on a broader level with their coursework in general. It certainly opens up their student experience to the wider online community which could act as a great marketing tool for student recruitment (an increasingly important aspect of university strategy in light of the coalition cuts to higher education and the increased debt burden on undergraduates – or ‘tuition fees’ as they are more commonly known).
Click image to visit the site
Finally, in the last session before lunch, Steve Bonham presented on making the most of the tools. This session was a little less “person at front talking” and more interactive, requiring us to actually stand up, discuss and engage. We were asked to do two things.
"it's not the content its the conversation" #ucsoc12
Firstly to put on a post-it note what we thought IT departments should or shouldn’t be doing with social media – with each option placed at either end of the room. Then we were asked to write down some of examples of possible messages we might receive from students and how we would respond. I think the consensus on the former was that IT departments should take a more relaxed attitude to social media and have a light touch policy of ‘regulation’ – certainly that was what I picked up on anyway. In terms of the latter, I think it was more about thinking about how to engage with students through this medium and a focus on opening up conversation.
With that, it was time for a spot of lunch (including mini scones!) which was nicely accompanied by a projection of all the tweets that had been tagged #ucsoc12 throughout the morning via VisualTweets – a pretty neat little touch.
