Connecting life and leisure: Twitter is work

I’ve been overwhelmed with the reading load lately- an online subject about teaching online and a collaborative chapter on bread yeast, which is due all too soon. I love a reading challenge like the best of them, but I’m wafting from tab to tab, Zotero to Mendeley, blog to Canvas and not making much progress. There have been some things I have enjoyed though. The hefty tome which seems to be the original node: Scholarship Reconsidered (Boyer, E. L. (1990). brings out all the items I think make me like my job (most of the time) at ‘The University’. I’m not going to pretend I’ve read it, but most of these new papers spring from this item.

The tome of knowledge. Image source Wikipedia (creative commons license)

Within ‘The University’ there is a lot to take from the interpretations of this work. Boyer argues that there are four interrelated areas: Scholarship of Discipline, Integration, Teaching and Application which should take up the interest, time and breadth of activities for an academic (Boyer, 1990). My new foray into teaching is really looking at SOTL (scholarship of teaching); but with my thinking stimulated by reading of Greenhow & Gleason (2014), a reconsideration is in order.

Greenhow & Gleason (2014) have taken the base of Boyer’s work, and interpreted each of the domains in a ‘social network’ light- bringing together literature, studies, examples and making suggestions which scaffold social media and interactions to each of the domains of scholarship. How can social media be part of our scholarly activities?

Let’s take it one Boyer dimension at a time and begin with SOD- original research that expands or challenges current knowledge in a discipline. Here is were we put our classical and authenticated knowledge, compiled by experts in the field, through argumentation to produce findings and disciplines. I’m a little hazy on how this can be used to my own area of bench based microbiology; but certainly the gatekeepers of knowledge can be challenged by using Twitter to criticise an article in Science in the example given by Greenhow & Gleason(p. 5, 2014) to illustrate explicit review. Surely a way to challenge the hierarchy- and used to devastating effect.

Next up is SOI, where interdisciplinarity is valued and measured and where new intellectual questions can be asked (and maybe answered) by integration of disparate disciplines. Using a connectivist approach, ‘gettin’ on the socials’ could be a wonderful way to create or articulate a network of relationships across disciplines. There are some fine examples of research teams using collated data, analysing user patterns and the like for advancing knowledge. Indeed, I can think of a great sourdough bread project which harness the socials to collect data (here). Masters of the discipline!

Down to business: teaching. SOTL is stimulated active learning to encourage students to be critical, creative thinkers- and surely to pass their exams. Is it a good way to encourage engagement and instructor knowledge? Maybe…certainly being able to connect knowledge beyond the course materials will help in situating knowledge for the students, and likely improve my feedback to improve into the future. Using the analytics seems key- how many students are on Twitter and how are they linking it to me? Should my learning materials be open access? I love it when other people’s are- should I give it a go?

And finally, SOA- where the socials come into their own. Making links between theory and practice, application for unique skills and insights and ‘taking it to the people’. I love this explanation, and the work on graduate students, outreach, talking to different audiences (Greenhow & Gleason, 2014). Helps everyone, but I struggle to see how the authors have distinguished the SOI from the SOA. Different sides of the same coin? Talking to other disciplines and talking to the people might be the same. A bit hazy and a bit complicated. But I certainly agree that it is a good way to demonstrate your relevance if you are going for a job or promotion- likes, views, reads, comments all show how you are able to stimulate your audience, contribute to debate and lead scholarship within your area.

So does that mean that my Twitter procrasta-scrolling is work? Yes. Always.

References:

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton University Press, 3175 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED326149

Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12150

7 thoughts on “Connecting life and leisure: Twitter is work”

  1. The way you have explored the use of social media, particularly Twitter here Kate is interesting. In linking the use of social media in with Boyer’s Scholarship of Discipline, Integration, Teaching and Application you have provided a solid framework to discuss how something that is often considered frivolous can be used to support academics across the various domains of their work.
    Rather than employing Twitter in teaching, I often refer my research-only colleagues to Rolls, Massey, and Elliott (2019) and Côté and Darling (2018) to encourage them into the Twitterverse. But the promise of citations is just to get them there! What I have found valuable is the communities of practice (Johnson, Bledsoe, Pilgrim, & Lowery-Moore, 2019) that emerge when academics are ‘gettin’ on the socials’ as you put it. I found this particularly the case during the last 12 months, so am in complete agreement that your Twitter procrasta-scrolling is definitely work!!

    Côté, I., M., & Darling, E., S. . (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS, 3, 682-694. doi:10.1139/facets-2018-0002

    Johnson, M., Bledsoe, C., Pilgrim, J., & Lowery-Moore, H. (2019). Twitter: A Tool for Communities of Practice. SRATE Journal, 28(1). Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1203420&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s2775460

    Rolls, K., Massey, D., & Elliott, R. (2019). Social media for researchers – beyond cat videos, over sharing, and narcissism. Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses, 32(5), 351-352. doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2019.07.004

  2. Hi Kate, I think someone has already beat you to the sourdough project!
    https://youtu.be/yp_iaxtLCZs

    I’ve hit my limit of TLA’s for the day but was interested in your statements about Greenhow and the distinction behind “hitting the socials”, what are the key motivations? As this recent article by Luo el al 2020 highlights faculty engagement is still in its infancy and we have a long way to go.

    Luo, T., Freeman, C. & Stefaniak, J. “Like, comment, and share”—professional development through social media in higher education: A systematic review. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1659–1683 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09790-5

    1. Thanks Jeremy! I agree that faculty engagement is in its infancy, but expanding. I’ll read that article with interest.

  3. Further to our brief discussion on Blooms Taxonomy during the Week 4 #EDUC90970 discussion here’s a critique of Bloom’s taxonomy that is quite thought provoking – it’s the one-dimensional approach that a taxonomy presents that limits their approach for thinking deeply about curriculum design.
    Pring, R. (1971). Bloom’s Taxonomy: A philosophical critique (2). Cambridge Journal of Education, 1(2), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764710010205

    1. Much appreciated! I’ve sat through so many T&L meetings where we use this taxonomy- I’ve wondered if there is a robust debate out there. I agreed with your comments in the week 4 session where using Bloom’s is a good entrée for thinking structurally about teaching philosophy and curriculum design. To now move beyond the entree to consider other philosophies as the main course is a good opportunity! Maybe the CoP/CoI makes a sweet and collaborative dessert.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *