This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

W: | T: @UB_UK

on Facebook. On the other hand, Facebook feels a lot more visual and personal – it's a great way to inspire a sense of community spirit and pride.” Sheffield was singled out in a 2012 report

conducted by social media consultancy group Sociagility on ‘The Transatlantic University Divide’. The report found that it was one of only two UK universities which achieved social media engagement rivalling that of their American counterparts. “On the whole I’d say we’ve been in the ‘early adopters’ bracket of UK universities when it comes to social media,” says Mallet. As with many early adopters, Sheffield’s social media team started out on Twiter in 2009, with Facebook and YouTube accounts following shortly after. In the last few years, they’ve been expanding their services onto LinkedIn and Sina Weibo, a Chinese social media platform which holds incredible promise for universities looking to engage with students from across the world. “[Joining Weibo] was actually instigated by one of our students who came to us with a proposal, and it’s been a really successful venture for us since then,” says Mallet. “For us social media is all about being social, and engaging people, more than it is about collecting large numbers of followers. [...] Despite us posting about half as much content as a few other similar-sized universities, we tend to get quite a bit more engagement.”

New, content-focused platforms University College London (UCL) also took on the triumvirate of Twiter, Facebook and YouTube in 2009, but they’ve increasingly been looking at ways to harness newer content-focused platforms. “We’ve been blown away by people’s response to our SoundCloud channel, which now has over 500,000 followers,” says John Burnet, the Acting Head of Digital Communications, Communications and Marketing at UCL. “The atributes of the different channels, and the audiences that use them, have informed our segmentation and content strategies.” While their Flickr account is full of media-ready images of events, the Instagram account captures smaller moments of life on campus. Meanwhile, their Soundcloud account covers everything from music and comedy podcasts to lectures and debates, along with plenty of shared content created by their students and other universities. Whereas social media engagement outside the

classroom has moved quickly, geting faculty members to use social media for teaching isn’t always easy. “One of our challenges is colleagues starting social media accounts without a defined audience or purpose,” says Burnet. “These accounts soon fizzle out, creating a poor impression for people who stumble across them.” At both UCL and York, they’ve introduced templates and guides to help their faculty with a few steps for joining social media. The University of Edinburgh, meanwhile, will be trying out a new step for this academic year with their 'Managing Your Digital Footprint' campaign. “The project is unusual for its scope, bringing together academic departments, support services

and EUSA, the Edinburgh University Students Association,” says Nicola Osborne, Social Media Officer with EDINA, the University’s Jisc-designated centre for digital expertise and online service delivery. “The accompanying research project will help us to gain a much clearer picture of existing practice in these spaces, and help us to identify opportunities for teaching and learning, and potential support needs going forward.” Edinburgh have been very willing to experiment

with teaching on new platforms, taking to iTunes U in 2009, joining the online virtual world Second Life in 2007, and running Coursera MOOCs in early 2013. Osborne feels that the slow growth of social media in academia is due to faculty concerns over privacy. “Social media spaces are often semi or wholly public by nature, which can be [...] challenging,” says Osborne. “In theory there should be nothing special about social media,” she says. “However, in practice social media can still feel more risky for so many reasons, not least because postings and presences can be both inconveniently unstable (and often difficult to archive), and also inconveniently permanent and visible. Students also move onto new social media tools and apps quickly.” In that sense, universities will have to continue

finding ways to effectively use existing websites and apps while remaining on the lookout for newer innovations. Over at York, Head of Digital Marketing and Communications Alison Kerwin is looking forward to making the most of professional networking. “I certainly feel LinkedIn has more potential for current students and alumni engagement so I can see us working with this more in the future. We’re also monitoring Google+, as we feel this has a lot of potential – particularly for internal communications, as we run Google Apps.”

Too much sharing? UCL, meanwhile, are seeing a slight downturn in performance with certain platforms. Nick Dawe, the University’s Digital Media Manager, wrote a post earlier this spring about the slow engagement uptake on Google+. His colleague Burnet also sees some issues with the monetisation of other platforms. “We have noticed that Facebook reach has decreased slightly, despite increased likes and shares – likely due to the company’s escalating efforts to make money from it.” The issue of how to adapt to the ever-changing

landscape of social media feeds into the larger issue facing all internet-age academia: Is it beter to share and experiment, risking academic reputation and security in the process, or is it worth creating more secure, yet private, systems? The popularity of social media is often due to its use by young people still in education – Facebook was, after all, the work of a few Harvard undergraduates. Going forward, then, faculty members should continue playing close atention to how their students create and engage with so much content on such a plethora of platforms. UB

York image (top): Ian Martindale; (botom): John Houlihan

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82