Social Media, Networks and Impact

A couple of years ago Nadine Muller, a cultural historian and English literature researcher at Liverpool John Moores University, visited the University of Kent to talk about how she used social media in her work. One thing that stood out was how much of her efforts were based around creating a virtual community.

Muller studies the cultural understanding of widowhood. By engaging with widows’ groups on Twitter, she has gained access to a more personal well of experience. She has also connected with people beyond academia who might benefit from or be interested in her research, including policymakers, teachers and informed lay people.

Research, especially in the humanities and some areas of the social sciences, can be solitary work. Social media, Muller said, allowed her to discuss her work and interact with people without leaving her desk. It also gave her a chance to think aloud, and to run a rough draft of a paper or a research project past people before taking it further.

The same goes for those of us who support academics. At the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (Earma) Conference this year, I am linking up with colleagues from the universities of Ghent and Coventry, and University College Dublin, to deliver a session on using social media. 

Tracking the Impact Beast

Impact, that mythical beast

When impact first burst onto the scene seven years ago it was so radical an idea, so controversial a concept, that we used to run ‘impact surgeries’, to which academics could bring their research ideas and where we would suggest possible ways in which their work could have impact. We were no impact experts, but had the objectivity and distance to see beyond the immediate research to its potential effect on the wider world.

Tips on Using Twitter in Academia

Dr Rebekah Higgitt

Yesterday I took part in a presentation with Rebekah Higgitt on 'using social media to promote your research'. I gave an overview, and touched on some of the issues I'd picked up from Nadine Muller and Andy Miah. Rebekah followed up by focussing on Twitter, and I thought it would be worth noting some of the points she made as a long term user.

Modern Balboas

Balboa. But not the Rocky one

Last week I gave a talk on using social media to support research development at an Association of Research Managers and Administrators training event. The keynote speaker was Andy Miah, professor of science communication and digital media at the University of Salford. His talk was inspiring, exhilarating—and terrifying. He made us all feel like Vasco Balboa, the first European to see the Pacific. The ocean's vast, uncharted waters lay before us, and its huge, untapped potential was awe-inspiring as it glistened in the sunlight.

Most of us have only paddled in the shallows of social media, but Miah exhorted us to cast off from the safety of the shore and head to the deeps. To feel the terror of drowning, before bobbing to the surface and enjoying the freedom of the medium. "If you’re not overwhelmed, you haven’t been paying attention," said Miah. It will be overwhelming and it will be terrifying, but ultimately we all have to take the plunge. The world is changing.

The REF and Edited Books

There was an interesting piece by Prof Andy Miah on the Guardian Higher Education Network blog last week, which looked at what academics should be doing at this late stage to bolster their outputs for the REF.

Prof Miah started by recognising two points: firstly, time is short, so there's a limit to what you can still publish; and secondly, there is wide variance between disciplines as to what is regarded as prestigious or good. Journal articles are regarded much more favourably in the STEM subjects, for instance, than they are in the Humanities, where there is more of a tradition of monographs.

The focus of his piece, however, was edited books, which he described as 'the biggest loser' in RAE2008, when very few were submitted. This was because editing does not equate to research, but also because there was some ambiguity over the peer review of book chapters, and the difficulty in getting book chapters cited. But these volumes are not without worth: they offer a useful way for early career researchers (ECRs) to be published, as the process is often more flexible and supportive.

Will this mean, therefore, that there is a certain amount of discrimination against ECRs in REF2014? On balance I think not: whilst this is the implication of Miah's argument, most ECRs worth their salt will have been able to publish up to 3 outputs within the time, without having to factor in a book chapter. From the preparatory REF meetings I've been part of it's certainly not been to big an issue. However, it is worth highlighting it: the more entrenched these assessment processes become, the more they will affect behaviour, and the more likely that a time will come when edited volumes are a thing of the past.

That's fine if that's what everyone wants, but we shouldn't stumble into it blindly. If the academic community and the publishing industry see the worth of edited books then they need to make sure that some allowance is made for them in the REF. Otherwise academics will continue to prioritise journals and monographs, and edited books will wither on the vine.