Social media in the classroom

Howard Rheingold has uploaded an eight minute video on his Social Media in the Classroom Co-laboratory.  The video is a superb piece, a really good overview of social media tools and the benefits to be gained. This posing is about some thoughts I want to share that viewing the video triggered for me.

A master in studying the social implications of electronic communications, Howard’s advice about keeping up with continual change is to “…keep up with the literacies that technology makes possible”. That is true for me. My understanding of social media has been helped along immeasurably through participation – through this blog, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, LinkedIn, Goofy2, del.icio.us and more.

One consequence is that my attention is being spread over more media. I’m spending more time on social media and less time on broadcast and print media. What’s more, my participation-rate online has lifted considerably over the last few months. There is so much happening.

Back to Howard’s video. Somewhat to Howard’s surprise, his students were not as well informed about social media and the benefits as he thought they would be. I am not so surprised about that. Sure, younger people consume a lot of digital media, but it’s fragmented over many sites and service offerings – diversity rather than convergence. What’s more, although there are some sites popular to everyone (such as YouTube) those aged seven to 15 years are more interested in video games whereas young adults are more interested in social networking sites.  In my experience, collaborative tools like Twitter, Friendfeed and LinkIn are more useful to adults in work such as IT entrepreneurs and technicians, journalists and researchers. 

I’ve found that people who don’t use social media just don’t get it. It’s a part of the growing digital divide. As a horizon scanner, finding out what the early adopters are doing is important to me. These days, to achieve an understanding of social media requires experience of it – broad and personal experience.

Social media has created a new layer of influencers

Brian Solis, principal of a PR and new media agency in the Silicon Valley, coined the title of this posting in his blog on June 11, 2007: The Social Media Manifesto – integrating Social Media into Marketing Communications. I’ve only just come across it. Slug. I’m glad I did though.

Social media goes beyond the role that people have played traditionally in disseminating information, it’s much more than that. The dynamic behind the new layer of influencers is the Social Web: enabling people to create and share news and information with others through decentralised networks. The Web is a 21st century social meeting place. Like any other meeting place over the eons, people socialise, discuss politics, conduct business all in the one place.

The impact on mainstream media is significant. Mass media scale advantages do not apply to social media. Broadcaster and publisher audiences and readers now have alternatives, and they are producers as well as consumers. There are many participants…millions of people…but as Clay Shirky has observed, a few are far more active than most. It’s a pattern that Clay states is general to social media. Just a few people can be very influential.

There are ways to identify who the main influencers are. One approach is that adopted by The Advertising Age in publishing a list of the top Media and Marketing blogs in the world. Laurel Papworth identified the most ‘influential’ Australian media and marketing bloggers out of the Australian entrants on world list. Just how influential these bloggers are is unclear…but it does provide evidence of social media influence.

Brian Solis’s message to PR & marketing professionals was that “…focusing on important markets and influencers will have a far greater impact than trying to reach the masses with any one message or tool”.

Back in 2006 The Future Exploration Network(FEN) described a symbiosis taking place between social media and mainstream media (eg. TV stars setting up profiles on social networking sites). Solis’s message and the FEN media symbiosis are just two indicators of the growing nexus between social and commercial elements of the Social Web.

Solis pointed out that understanding social media is more about sociology and less about technology. Perhaps another way to describe this is to take a socio-technical perspective. This is an important issue – it means that anticipating the future of communications and media is more about understanding social developments and less about technology.

Social media is being employed by corporates. Mashable has identified 35 examples of corporate social media in action. To paraphrase Brian Solis, understanding the nexus between social media and commerce is more about socio-economics and less about economics.

What all this means is the need to go deeper into the social and cultural transformation taking place.

Over the last couple of months I have become aware of many researchers and consultants blogging, presenting and twittering on the subject of social media and social networking. There are social media start-ups in Australia, such as Norg Media - people powered news. Read about the first robot with living brain tissue. 3eep is a social networking come social media enterprise for sporting enthusiasts.

Earlier this month Brian Solis and Jesse Thomas created The Conversation Prism graphic that charts online conversations between people that populate communities as well as networks that connect the Social Web.

The graphic is an excellent visual representation of rapidly evolving and pervasive extent of the Social Web.

The 20th century is known for massive advances in technology. It is not surprising that so much attention has been paid to technology trends in keeping pace with media developments. At this point in the 21st century however, social developments rate as being of more significance as drivers of change.

I’ve re-designed my blog

It has been eight months since the launch of this blog…time for a re-design (courtesy of WordPress templates) This one is easier to read.

Hope you like it.

I’m enjoying the experience. More posts on social research soon..including the nexus between social and commercial.

cheers

Paul r

Key degrees of difference: mainstream and social media

The Weekend Australian has an article on differing views about global warming. Global warming sceptics have taken to the blogosphere it seems. The title of this posting is a play on the heading used by The Weekend Australian to signal the opposing views about measures of global warming.

Well, for me the article raised more questions than it answered. I felt frustrated by the focus on temperature measurement. I’d like to have seen views on melting ice caps and drought and the inter-relationship between the various indicators captured in the article as well. Maybe there is no inter-relationship between those phenomenon. I would have found discussion around that very interesting.  I was frustrated there were no links to the bloggers sites (neither in print nor online) or to the research centres whose views were outlined. The article was not open to interaction, not inviting of reader participation. The only action I could take was to bookmark the article – and to write this blog posting.

Openness and participation are key differences between social media and mainstream media. Global warming is a very topical subject, strongly lending itself to social media. This was an opportunity for mainstream media and social media symbiosis. The opportunity was not taken.

Beijing Olympics 2.0

I’ve been wondering how many netizens will prefer a Web-based Olympics experience as opposed to network television. During the course of today I have come across:

•  a blog posting to share the web sites around world that will have Olympics coverage
• a Twitter feed called 080808 just for the Olympics
• a mash-up of the Twitter feed and Flickr postings

Just an indicator of what netizens around the world are doing

Social Web’s driving personal, community and organisational change

‘Improve ways for people to connect and communicate and change the world’. That thought has been preoccupying me for some time now. It is time to get productive. This posting threads together some of my reflections. It outlines some ‘headline’ research ideas that I have to gain a deeper understanding and clarity over ways in which the Social Web is changing the World. Change that is in a social, economic and political sense, driven by the use of social networking (eg. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Friendfeed, LinkedIn, Hi5, Bebo, Orkut, Miki and so on) and all manner of blogs and discussion groups, interactive web sites and messaging that connect people with others to communicate and to share.

Human beings are social, and socialising for many in the 21st century is no longer constrained by location, culture or by social or temporal barriers. In comparison, for many people in developed countries, the 20th century was a time of social fragmentation and isolation due to:

• suburbanisation
• watching TV instead of socialising with others
• social dispersion through globalisation and the ease of international and national travel in search of jobs and new experiences
• social isolation as many travel alone to work in their own vehicles
• kids being home alone while both parents work (and as neighborhoods experience declining social capital as residents interact less).

Social networking sites (SNS) meet a basic social need…to know that we are not alone.  Online connections vary between relationships that are strong (eg. close friends and families) but also relationships that are weak or episodic. That is not to say weak in terms of value – emotionally, professionally, commercially. Some people are ‘hyper-connected’ – they live their lives online, connecting with hundreds or thousands of people.  Others have no presence at all online. What may be the longer term consequences, respectively? What are the comparative benefits to individuals and communities of interest from an expanding array of cultural and social reference points available to them online? What are the comparative risks to individuals who spend much of their time interacting with others online and less time with their family and friends offline?

Organisations have cottoned on that in a fast changing world, they cannot rely on their own knowledge base locked behind IP within internal organisational boundaries. They cannot rely so heavily on timely and relevant expert advice from institutions (edcuation/research/media/consultants). Being competitive means being networked.

I feel that these are big changes. Really big. I’d like to explore the social and economic impacts of the Social Web in much more detail. I’d like to find out what the inter-relationship are between the Social Web and social capital.

My thoughts are being formed by scanning (shifting through masses of information and thinking though the patterns and inter-relationships). I’m referring here to reading, viewing/listening and conversing with others. I’m referring to contemplation, analysis and writing. That’s what I do.

But more than that…much more…has been my own experience as a Social Web participant. I have a modest presence, but an expanding one. I have much more to experience and learn. Even with that, I am amazed about who I am connecting with and the effect that it is having on me.

So this is experiencial research. I know that others have completed research well in advance of me and I’m keen to get up to speed with that as well.  There is much to do.

Proponent of free markets = practitioner of free thinking

Unaccustomed as I am to being provocative, about the subject line…how often does the equation hold true?

Technically speaking, those that champion competition also champion the communication of information. Don’t they?

Whither competition but for openness and innovation? Is that not so?

Social networking facilitates the exchange of information and ideas. Openness fosters innovation and competition.

How many of those that champion competition, also champion social networking? How many of those that champion innovation, champion openness?

In a networked economy, what of this holds true for you?

Just a few questions to prompt some thinking.

To tweet or not to tweet

Interesting posting here from Andrew Zahler on whether to hop on the Twitter bandwagon or not. Andrew outlined five good reasons to go for it and five good reasons to avoid it. That prompted me to share my experience and motivations. I joined-up to Twitter just a few weeks ago.

Here is what I commented on Andrew’s blog: 

“I had been holding out until a few week ago. I had held off mainly ’cause, as you say, I have so much info through RSS feeds and the like. Joining Friendfeed helps to keep on top.

But Twitter is fascinating. I’m connecting with really interesting people in ways i would not have otherwise.  Last weekend I watched a sports match live on TV, and shared the event over Twitter with people spread over two continents and three cities. It really added to the emotional connection.

Social media is also of increasing interest to me as a professsonal strategic thinker. Being engaged is part of the research process.”

Twitter has had it’s problems as you may know. Actually, while it’s been frustrating, I’m fascinated by the attachment that many still have to Twitter (including me). It’s like you are not fully dressed without a mobile … I’m not really connected without Twitter.

Of course it is earlier days in social networking terms. How long Twitter keeps it’s hold before a usurper or two comes along is… a matter of time. Goofy2 perhaps. But my desire for connectivity social networking style will not now recede.