Open Educational Practices in social media

This week, 5-9 March 2018, is Open Education Week – a global, community event that seeks to raise awareness of the benefits of Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open Educational Practices (OEP). During the week more than 150 events are hosted around the world, in more than 15 languages. Many of these events are online, including a web-a-thon, webinars, short online courses, Twitter chats, forums and other online discussions.

OE Week is widely publicised through social media, to the extent that it is hard to imagine it taking place if platforms like Twitter and Facebook did not exist. This reflects the extent of social media use by the wider open education community, illustrated by this screenshot of educationalist Jamison Miller’s community connections on Twitter during the Open Education Conference 2016.

Image CC-BY,

In this post I want to investigate some of the relationships between social media and open education, identifying where and in which ways openness operates in social media.

Historically, Katy Jordan and Martin Weller located the emergence of social media (and particularly social networking tools) as a theme in open education from the mid 2000s, adding that more recently social media use has tended to be subsumed under the umbrella theme of Open Practices, which “sits at the intersection of social media, open access publishing, and OER” (Jordan, K. & Weller, M. (2017).

So what are Open Educational Practices in social media? Katy Jordan and Martin Weller helpfully included OER and open access publishing; I’ve put the former in a broader category – ‘educating’ – and the latter as part of the slightly broader category ‘publicising’. I’ve then added two further categories – networking and researching, which are two other distinct scholarly activities that I frequently observe on social media. I have assembled these activities into the following matrix, which is very much provisional, and will inevitably change and evolve.

These activities are student or learner focussed, and may be initiated or led by them, or by educators. They may be formal or informal, and span a range from didactic teaching to collaboration and exchanging ideas. Peer-to-peer relationships are at the heart of networking, and may include teacher-to-teacher relationships or educators’ and other academics’ links with their disciplines. Networking can incorporate identity building, and ideas are often exchanged or debated in a collegiate manner. These activities are intended to make an impact and draw measurable public attention to work by individuals or institutions. They often involve contributing content to the web, such as the dissemination of research, and may include campaigning & advocacy. This is a broad category, characterised by searching for and using content from the web. It may include recruiting study participants, systematically studying people’s behaviour online (e.g. digital sociology), and the management and curation of information.

Platforms and activities include

YouTube, webinars, podcasts, Facebook groups, Slideshare, the social layers of MOOCs. Twitter chats, Facebook groups, conference backchannels, following, friending and commenting. Blogs, ResearchGate, academic journals, news sites, forums. Wikipedia, analytics, bookmarking, tagging, network maps,

Manifestations of openness

OER, Self as OER, Creative Commons licensing. Virtually Connecting, live blogging, conference hashtags, streaming. OpenAccess publishing, Domain of One’s Own. Open datasets, open research instruments, open dissemination, openly licensed tools & technologies.

Indicative sources

Catherine Cronin (2017) Openness and praxis. Deborah Lupton (2014) Feeling Better Connected: Academics’ Use of Social Media. Steve Lawrence (2001) Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Bea de los Arcos, Rob Farrow, Beck Pitt & Natalie Eggleston (2014) P2PU course Open Research.

It can immediately be seen that some platforms and activities (such as Twitter and hashtags) could be placed in multiple categories. I’ve not done so because I am seeking to distinguish the differences between the categories, rather than the similarities between them. The rationale for this is that later I shall be identifying the risks associated with each category as part of my PhD research, and may use the categories to organise interview and survey questions.

I have also used a variety of different terms for people’s roles in the table – educators, academics, teachers, tutors and researchers. The terms are not mutually exclusive and certainly overlap in many instances. Also, individuals may not be involved in each of the categories. However, in the wider sense, all these people are involved in education.

As a work-in-progress, I’d love to hear your views on the above. For example, are some activities missing? What do you think of the categories? Do you know of other work being done on these topics? All comments welcome, thank you.

Fixing online society

The Open University’s Vice Chancellor Peter Horrocks recently gave a speech to the European Association for Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU). His speech included this passage about online communication:

“We live in a world where fake news and the negative role of social media sometimes determine public policy. I suspect that quite a large number of us in this room were naturally early techno-optimists. But as the polarising, degrading and demeaning aspects of extreme opinions and abusive content online undermine the cohesion of societies I believe that there is a natural swing towards techno-pessimism.
But the overwhelming shift towards a digital world cannot be held back just because we have some reservations and we should not despair. We need to be as committed to creating a constructive information society in the digital world”.

DM-I-wfX0AE0MMf copyAt the same time, an ugly incident unfolded around Cambridge University student Lola Olufemi. Briefly, the Daily Telegraph newspaper misreported a story about changes to the University’s English curriculum in such a way that it led to Olufemi’s social media accounts and email being “flooded with racist and sexist abuse”. Cambridge University publicly defended their student and condemned the social media harassment, and the following day the Telegraph issued a correction to their story. The Lola Olufemi episode served to illustrate some of the problems that Horrocks was describing. So, how might they be countered by “creating a constructive information society in the digital world”?

In a previous post, I identified five broad categories of risks when using social media, namely the risks of:
1. Exposure, criticism and polarisation
2. Online abuse
3. Being in conflict with your role or institution
4. Reduced privacy and security
5. It consuming too much time

As many of these risks are the result of people’s online behaviour, universities can play a particular role in reducing them, alongside the internet and social media industries, the traditional media, politicians and legislators. The public’s dissatisfaction with fake news and increasing mistrust of the internet and social media industries is making our participation in this movement increasingly pressing. Legislators are also lining up to intervene, either benignly, such as through the UK government’s Digital Skills and Inclusion Policy, or more assertively in response to the increasing calls for social media regulation.

In my view, universities can participate in this movement in at least three ways: as educators, as researchers, and as employers.

  • As educators, we can integrate digital literacy across the curriculum, as proposed by JISC
  • As researchers, we can provide the evidence to inform a constructive information society, as commendably demonstrated by Ryerson’s Social Media Lab and Oxford’s Internet Institute.
  • As employers – we can negotiate policies that encourage individual staff (and students) to role-model appropriate online behaviours, whilst protecting them from the risks described above.

A number of NGOs and nonprofits are pioneering ways to accomplish this (including those in this twitter list), and working alongside them may help remind the public of some of the value that universities can contribute to society.

Five risks for educators using social media

lifebelt_sml_sqUniversities are making increasing use of social media at a time when 41% of Americans have personally experienced online harassment and 62% consider it a major problem (Pew Internet 2017). In response to this troubling situation, I am investigating the risks that educators face when participating in social media, with the eventual aim of contributing to good practice guidelines for safer social media use by educators. 
To begin this investigation, I thought it would be helpful to identify the potential risks that educators might face, accepting that although some will be unique to educators, many of these risks apply equally to all social media users.

Why should educators use social media?

Lets summarise the benefits first. Pasquini (2017) makes the case well, including that on social media you can take part in a supportive peer community, learning together with them, contributing to scholarship, and hearing about events, publications and funding available. If you teach, you’ll probably find that your students spend substantial amounts of time on social media, so it’s useful to have an insight into their worlds, and if you’re a researcher, you have more chance of protecting your ideas and written work if you have an online presence displaying your publications.

For those who choose to use social media, what are the risks?

Mark Carrigan is a prominent author on the risks of social media for academics. In 2016 he identified 5 categories of risk:

  • Inactivity & reputation
  • Exposure & criticism
  • Online abuse
  • Polarisation & argument
  • Institution & employer.

Drawing on my own experience, and on wider reading, I’ve built on these categories, adding the topics of time, privacy and security, which are regularly mentioned in other literature, including by Carrigan himself.

My list is very much provisional, and a starting point for discussion on this topic. It is also highly likely to change. Indeed, as this is a snapshot-in-time, changes are inevitable; so for example, if I’d written this prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, fake news wouldn’t have been included as the phenomenon that it now is. In addition, it could be argued that some of the risks below (such as malware, spyware and viruses) are generic online computing risks that exist when using the internet for any purpose, not just when using social media. I am including them because they are almost unavoidable when using social media, although they could be minimised, especially if an individual educator operates exclusively within the ‘walled garden’ of their institution’s intranet and internal email system.

With those caveats, here are five broad categories of risk for educators using social media:

1. The risk of exposure, criticism and polarisation

Initially, it takes some confidence to publish your views online with the possibility that they may be publically questioned or criticised, particularly when it’s clear that some people, including other academics, don’t hold back when exercising their freedom of speech. The tone of online exchanges seems to be deteriorating, which Carrigan (2017) identifies as the ‘increasing toxicity of the online ecology’. When participating in social media, you might encounter:

  • Unexpected obscene or offensive content
  • Discrimination, including sexism and racism (Barlow & Awan 2016)
  • Trolling
  • Fake news.

2. The risk of online abuse

A step on from the above is deliberate and targeted hateful behaviour such as that encountered by classicist Mary Beard. Women are markedly more likely to be on the receiving end of these behaviours (Fawcett Society 2017), which include:

  • Defamation of character
  • Harassment and threats
  • Cyberbullying
  • Cyberstalking.

3. The risk of being in conflict with your role or institution

Many institutions exhibit a confusingly ambiguous and inconsistent approach to social media. They embrace it for brand promotion and student recruitment (Veletsianos 2017), and may want you to demonstrate impact & public engagement, but may be less happy with other ways in which social media may be used. For example:

  • You might clash with your institution’s ‘brand’ either deliberately, such as during trades union disputes, or inadvertently when discussing contentious topics such as politics or religion.
  • Unscrupulous employers could use your social media posts (e.g. on politics) against you in recruitment and promotion.

4. The risk of reduced privacy and security

In surveys (e.g. Manca & Ranieri 2016), this is often given as a major reason for not using social media. On an individual level it means thinking about the boundaries between your personal and professional life, including the issue of whether it is acceptable to ‘friend’ students. More widespread risks include:

  • Surveillance and misuse of your personal data by Google, Facebook and others (Lanchester 2017, Social Media Lab)
  • Data breaches
  • Hacking and identity theft
  • Social media phishing
  • Malware, spyware and viruses
  • Fraud.

5. The risk of it consuming too much time

Learning any new skill takes time, but many longstanding social media users acknowledge that it makes ongoing time demands, leading to some users taking ‘holidays’ away from social media. The time demands include:

  • The short-form writing used in social media being different from traditional academic writing (and evolving rapidly). Emoticon use is one example. This can take time to learn.
  • Navigating your institution’s social media policies (Pasquini & Evangelopoulos 2017).
  • Gaining familiarity with copyright and intellectual property rules.
  • Gaining technical skills – learning how social media works, and keeping up with the frequent changes in the ways in which platforms are designed/operate.
  • Platforms such as Facebook seeking to make their sites addictive, keeping you on there for as long as possible.


As a work-in-progress, I’d love to hear your views on the above. For example, are some risks missing? What do you think of the categories? Do you know of other work being done on these topics? All comments welcome, thank you.

Abstract of project

twitter-292994_1920This project explores educators’ use of social media from the perspective of Open Educational Practices.

Open Educational Practices (OEP) are a contemporary stage in the development of the OER (Open Educational Resources) movement. OEP has a range of definitions including that in The Cape Town Open Education Declaration which states: “Open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It also draws upon open technologies that facilitate collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing of teaching practices”.

Nascimbeni & Burgos (2016) add further detail with their definition of an Open Educator: “An Open Educator … works through an open online identity and relies on online social networking to enrich and implement her work”. Aspects of open online identities are being notably explored and developed by the ‘Self as OER’ community, including Maha Bali, Catherine Cronin, Mariana Funes, Suzan Koseoglu and others.

Open Education may be a pioneer, but it is not alone in recognising the potential of online social networking for education. Many universities are encouraging educators to use Twitter, blogs and Facebook, contributing to George Veletsianos’ view that social media and online social networks are expected to transform academia and the scholarly process. However, the widespread adoption of open online identities by educators has been slow, with many educators deterred by the risks posed by social media, including loss of privacy, fraud and bullying. Incidents such as a Bristol University academic walking out of a lecture over cyber bullying add to this fear, and we must recognise the gender dimension to concerns about using social media, with 80% of victims of stalking being women.

If educators are to adopt sustainable open online identities, we need to acknowledge educators’ concerns and find ways to participate safely in social media. This project seeks to make a contribution by investigating the range of online sharing, networking and identity-building practices evidenced by open educators, and from them derive good-practice guidelines for online safety that will assist other educators to develop their own open online identities. In common with other Open Educators, I shall be using social media and blogging regularly throughout this project, viewing my PhD journey itself as a dynamic OER.