apophenia

Choosing the Right Grad School

Lately, I've been getting all sorts of emails from folks applying to grad school who are seeking advice. I noticed that I was starting to say the same thing over and over again so I thought maybe it'd be better off to write some of it down in a more publicly consumable way. So here goes...

Choosing the Right Grad School

If there are faculty or students out there reading this, I'd love your comments and suggestions too. I know that we all have different advice we give to potential grad students so I know that this isn't the end-all-be-all. Please feel free to comment, send links to your own advice columns, or just tell me that I'm wrong. There are loads of potential students out there lost and confused so hopefully this'll help in some small way.

Also, make sure that you read PhD Comics for a good laugh and Eszter Hargittai's Ph.Do column for some sound advice on being a PhD student.

(Note: I've created a separate page because I plan on updating this as my thoughts on the matter change.)

gradschool PhD advice

Some thoughts on Twitter vs. Facebook Status Updates

The functional act of constructing a tweet or a status update is very similar. Produce text in roughly 140 characters or less inside a single line text box and click a button. Voila! Even the stream based ways in which the text gets consumed look awfully similar. Yet, the more I talk with people engaged in practices around Twitter and Facebook, the more I'm convinced these two things are not actually the same practice. Why? Audience.

There are two critical structural differences between Facebook and Twitter that are essential to understand before discussing the practices: 1) social graph directionality; 2) conversational mechanisms.

Facebook's social graph is undirected. What this means is that if I want to be Friends with you on Facebook, you have to agree that we are indeed Friends. Reciprocity is an essential cultural practice in Facebook (although they are trying to rip out the functional requirement as it relates to status updates, arguably to compete with Twitter). Twitter, on the other hand, is fundamentally set up to support directionality. I can follow you without you following me. Sure, I can't DM you in this case, but I'm still consuming your updates. Yes, yes, yes, privacy settings complicate both of these statements. But for the majority of users of each site, this is the way it goes. Stemming from this are a whole lot of social norms about who's following who and who's consuming who's content. It's pretty clear that the Celebrity will get followed without reciprocating on Twitter, but there's also a tremendous opportunity for everyday individuals to develop a following. It's not just the Celebrities who are following different people than the people who follow them; it's nearly everyone (except for those who think that auto-follow bots relieve social tensions).

On Facebook, status updates are placed on one's Wall. This allows anyone else (among those with permission) to comment on the update. This creates a conversational space as it is quite common for people to leave comments on updates. Conversely, on Twitter, to reply to someone's tweet, one produces an at-reply on their own stream. Sure, the interlocutor can read it in their stream of at-replies, but it doesn't actually get seen or produced on their own page. Thus, a person's Twitter page is truly the product of their self-representation, not the amalgamation of them and their cohort.

So, practices.. how does this affect practices?

Those using Facebook are primarily concerned with connecting with those that they know (or knew in high school). The status updates are an invitation to conversation, a way of maintaining social peripheral awareness among friends and acquaintances. They're about revealing life as it happens so as to be part of a "keeping up" community.

Arguably, Twitter began this way, if only because the geeks and bloggers who were among the early adopters were a socially cohesive group. Yet, as the site has matured, the practices have changed (and I've watched a whole lot of early adopters who weren't part of the professional cohort leave). For the most visible, Twitter is a way of producing identity in a public setting. This is where you see personal branding as central to the identity production going on there. It's still about living in public, but these folks are aware of being seen, of having an audience if you will. Twitter also enables a modern incarnation of parasocial relations. Sure, there are one-sided relationships on Facebook too, but they are far more the norm on Twitter. I can follow the details of a Celebrity's life without them ever knowing I exist. At the same time, there's the remote possibility of them responding which is what complicates traditional parasocial constructs. Angelina Jolie could never see me reading about her in the gossip mags and commenting on her latest escapades, but, if she were on Twitter, she could sense my watching her and see my discussion of her. That's part of what is so delightfully tempting for Celebs.

In short, the difference between the two has to do with the brokering of status. With Facebook, the dominant norm is about people at a similar level of status interacting. On Twitter, there's all sorts of complicated ways in which status is brokered. People are following others that they respect or worship and there's a kind of fandom at all levels. This is what Terri Senft has long called "micro-celebrity." Alice Marwick has been extending Terri's ideas to think about how audience is brokered on Twitter (paper coming soon). But I think that they're really critical. What makes Twitter work differently than Facebook has to do with the ways in which people can navigate status and power, follow people who don't follow them, at-reply strangers and begin conversations that are fundamentally about two individuals owning their outreach as part of who they are. It's not about entering another's more private sphere (e.g., their Facebook profile). It's about speaking in public with a targeted audience explicitly stated.

As you can see, I'm not quite there with my words on this just yet, but I feel the need to push back against the tendency to collapse both practices into one. How audience and status is brokered really matters and differentiates these two sites and the way people see and navigate this.

One way to really see this is when people on Twitter auto-update their Facebook (guilty as charged). The experiences and feedback on Twitter feel very different than the experiences and feedback on Facebook. On Twitter, I feel like I'm part of an ocean of people, catching certain waves and creating my own. Things whirl past and I add stuff to the mix. When I post the same messages to Facebook, I'm consistently shocked by the people who take the time to leave comments about them, to favorite them, to ask questions in response, to start a conversation. (Note: I'm terrible about using social media for conversation and so I'm a terrible respondent on Facebook.) Many of the people following me are the same, but the entire experience is different.

Over the last few years, I've watched a bunch of self-sorting. Folks who started out updating on Twitter and moved to Facebook and vice versa. The voices they take on don't change that much, but they tend to find one medium or the other more appropriate for the kinds of messaging they're doing. One or the other just "fits" better. When I ask them why, they can't really tell me. Sometimes, they talk about people; sometimes they talk about privacy issues. But most of the time, one just clicks better for reasons they can't fully articulate.

Different social media spaces have different norms. You may not be able to describe them, but you sure can feel them. Finding the space the clicks with you is often tricky, just as finding a voice in a new setting can be. This is not to say that one space is better than the other. I don't believe that at all. But I do believe that Facebook and Twitter are actually quite culturally distinct and that trying to create features to bridge them won't actually resolve the cultural differences. And boy is it fun to watch these spaces evolve.

Facebook Twitter audience status

teaching, nursing, and second wave feminism

I am deeply grateful for all that was accomplished by second wave feminism. I love living in a world in which my job opportunities are not constrained because of what's between my legs. That said, I also struggle with the externalities of the accomplishments in the 1970s. This week, I found myself thinking about the role of teaching and nursing in society and the relationship between feminism and those professions.

When my mother was entering the professional world, there were pretty much three options for women: teacher, nurse, secretary. Many women did not work and those who did were highly motivated, passionate, and underpaid. When barriers were eradicated, women left these professions to seek jobs in other fields that were better respected. Nurses were often just as knowledgeable about medicine as doctors and yet doctors were more greatly valued. Not surprisingly, as the years went b, many women who wanted to enter medicine chose to become doctors instead of nurses because the professional rewards were so much greater. When the sex barriers collapsed, women sought out "men's jobs" because they were higher paying, higher prestige, and more flexible.

Since the 1970s, the number of brilliant, motivated individuals working as teachers and nurses in particular declined rapidly. Many women left these professions because they had many more opportunities and many men refused to do "women's work." Don't get me wrong - there are some amazing teachers and nurses out there, but sexist constraint meant that the most brilliant, most passionate women inevitably went to these professions while that is no longer the case.

The problem is what has happened since then. I certainly don't want to go back to the dark ages where women had no choice. But while we've opened up doors for women, we haven't addressed how sexism framed nursing and teaching in ways that are causing us tremendous headaches in society today. Teachers are underpaid and undervalued because we took women's work for granted. When teaching stopped being women's work, we didn't rework our thinking about teaching. As a society, we still have little respect for teachers and nurses and we pay them abysmally. This is deeply rooted in the sexism of the past but the ripple effects today are costly.

Let me addressing education specifically for a moment. Rather than addressing the issue head-on and finding market solutions that value teachers, we have created a cultural expectation of altruistic teachers. We run long NYTimes stories on individuals who grew miserable in their first career and came to teaching to make a difference. In fact, good teachers are almost always discussed as saints who gave up everything for the good of the students. While those individuals should be commended, shouldn't this also be discussed as market failure? For each brilliant, highly motivated teacher out there, how many are there who aren't particularly qualified or good at their job? And, more importantly, what are the costs of not incentivizing potentially amazing teachers to enter the profession by any means other than guilt?

I get uncomfortable thinking about the societal consequences of second wave feminism, especially since I've personally benefited from it so much. I don't blame the feminists or the women who pushed forward to make change. But I do blame society as a whole for not taking stock of what was implicitly devalued and making strides to rework things. Even when nursing and teaching were "women's work," they were challenging professions that contributed greatly to society. I'm glad that women are not limited to just those jobs today, but it's not because those jobs are worthless. We desperately need them and we need to rework our value systems to actually value such jobs. While women have made tremendous strides in the last 30 years, society has not done nearly as good of a job reworking how it thinks of historically women's work.

feminism work

Postdoctoral Researchers, Microsoft Research

If you're graduating with a PhD from a computer science program, applying to be a researcher or postdoc at Microsoft Research might seem obvious. But what I've learned is that few students in nearby departments are even aware that we hire postdocs and researchers who didn't graduate from CS programs. We do! At Microsoft Research New England, we are especially interested in attracting postdocs from the social sciences, economics, communications, information schools, etc. This may be true in other labs as well so I wanted to post a general call for those who might not think of Microsoft Research as a place to apply.

Microsoft Research is seeking applicants for postdoctoral researchers. Microsoft Research provides a vibrant research environment with an open publications policy and with close links to top academic institutions across the United States, Europe, and Asia. Postdoc researcher positions provide an opportunity to develop your research career and to interact with some of the top minds in the research community, with the potential to have your research realized in products and services that will be used worldwide. Postdoc researchers are invited to define their own research agenda and demonstrate their ability to drive forward an effective program of research. Successful candidates will have a Ph.D. and a well-established research track record as demonstrated by journal publications and conference papers, as well as participation on program committees, editorial boards, and advisory panels.

Postdoc researchers receive a competitive salary and benefits package, and are eligible for relocation expenses. Postdoc researchers are hired for a one or two year fixed term appointment. Successful Postdoc researchers may be invited to apply for permanent positions if available towards the end of fixed term period. Postdoc positions are typically hired on the academic school calendar. For most positions, there is no deadline, but candidates are strongly encouraged to apply by December for the following fall.

Qualifications include a strong academic record in anthropology, communications, computer science, economics, information science, sociology, or related fields. Applicants must have completed the requirements for a PhD, including submission of their thesis, prior to joining Microsoft Research.

NOTE: Microsoft Research New England is especially looking for postdoc researchers working in areas related to social media and social networks, particularly from a social science perspective. Those interested in such a postdoc should be certain to apply by December 15, 2009 and indicate "Social Computing" as an area of interest and "New England, U.S." as a desired location. Candidates involved in social media are also encouraged to indicate "danah boyd" as their Microsoft Research Contact.

Qualified candidates should submit their applications online:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/jobs/fulltime/researcher.aspx

Applicants are welcome to apply for positions in multiple labs. Applicants are encouraged to specify areas of research in which they are most interested and specific researchers with whom they would like to work. To explore current researchers at Microsoft Research, see: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/dp/pe/people.aspx

Current PhD students are also encouraged to explore internship opportunities. To learn more about or apply for an internship, see: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/jobs/intern/apply.aspx (Note: MSR New England only takes on advanced PhD students as interns but other labs accept junior PhD students.)

hiring microsoft postdoc

Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age

Over the last 18 months, I have had the great honor of serving as a Commissioner on the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities. Today, it gives me great pleasure to announce that we have released our report:

Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age

We begin our report by asking, "What are the information needs of communities in a democracy?" Following this reflective analysis, we outline findings and recommendations, centered on three objectives:

Maximize the availability of relevant and credible information to all Americans and their communities
Strengthen the capacity of individuals to engage with information
Promote individual engagement with information and the public life of the community

The report concerns itself with journalism, open government, broadband access, digital/media literacy, skills, civic engagement, local communities, socioeconomic and sociotechnical inequality, education, free speech, etc. So my guess is that if you're reading this blog, this report is DEFINITELY for you. And if you don't want to read the whole thing, don't worry, we have an executive summary at the top. But please do look at it. And forward it along to anyone who you think might appreciate it.

And for those who know me... can you spot the hair-brained danah idea? And guess its roots? ::kiss:: to EZ!

(If you happen to be reading this during the day on October 2, we are streaming the launch event from the Newseum.)

democracy report communities government policy

Seeking: Technical Research Assistant for Adhoc Tasks at MSR

This position has been filled.

Microsoft Research New England is seeking an undergraduate research assistant to help out with assorted tasks for 10-20 hours/week to assist Dr. danah boyd, a social media researcher who investigates youth engagement with various genres of new media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Xanga, etc.).

An RA who would enjoy this job would be technically proficient, a quick technical learner, able to change direction when something comes up, and curious to learn more about technology studies research. Projects might include tracking web content related to ongoing research projects, organizing research bibliographies, writing simple scripts to parse online data, managing mailing lists and blogs, etc.

The ideal candidate will have basic scripting skills and be familiar with Web2.0 technologies to find innovative solutions to various challenges. The ideal RA would be comfortable navigating both Microsoft Server and UNIX-based systems. Some tasks require familiarity with HTML, CSS, Javascript, SQL incarnations, Movable Type, etc. or the ability to quickly learn these languages/platforms. Others would require the candidate to find 3rd party software that could help address the challenge. In short, this position is meant for someone who is a webgeek.

The RA would be required to do most work from the Microsoft Research office in Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA but some tasks can be completed remotely. An undergraduate at a nearby university would be most appropriate for this position, although non-student locals may be considered. The position will be managed through contingent staff agency for Microsoft Research and will pay $15-$20/hour.

To apply, please send a copy of your resume and a cover letter to Paul Oka (poka@mit.edu) and CC danah boyd. Feel free to contact Paul with any questions you might have.

This position has been filled.

hiring MSR intern RA

Seeking: Research Assistant/Intern for Online Safety Literature Review

The Youth Policy Working Group at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society is looking for a research assistant intern to help update the Literature Review produced by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force. This project builds off of the Berkman Center's work studying how youth interact with digital media and specifically seeks to draft policy prescriptions in three areas: privacy, safety, and content creation.

The ideal candidate would be a graduate student (or individual working towards entering a graduate program) who is fluent in quantitative methodologies and can interpret and evaluate statistical findings. The RA/intern would be working to extend the Lit Review from the ISTTF report to include international studies, new studies in the last year, and studies that cover a wider set of topics with respect to online safety. The products of this internship will be an updated Literature Review and a shorter white paper of the high points. Other smaller tasks may be required. This project should take 10-15 hours per week and will last at least the fall semester.

The RA/intern will work directly with Dr. danah boyd and will be a part of a broader team trying to build resources for understanding issues relating to online safety. The candidate should have solid research skills and feel confident reading scholarly research in a wide array of fields. The candidate must have library access through their own university. Before applying, the candidate should read the Literature Review and be confident that this is work that s/he could do.

Preference will be given to candidates in the Boston area, but other U.S. candidates may be considered if their skills and knowledge make them particularly ideal for this job. Unfortunately, we are unable to hire non-U.S. individuals for this job.

To apply, please send a copy of your resume and a cover letter to Catherine Bracy and danah boyd.

hiring safety Harvard Berkman

accessible speaking events for the fall

This fall is chock full of me blabbing on and on so I wanted to share some events that are publicly accessible. They're intended for different audiences and in different cities so you might find one that works for you. I always love having friends in the audience so if you're nearby, please do come by!

September 30, New Haven: Launch event for Best Technology Writing 2009 (tis a great book!); panel and discussion
October 7, Chicago: Family Awareness Network; presentation to parents about youth practices
October 9, Milwaukee: AOIR (academic conference); panel on academic and corporate research and paper talk on friendship
October 13, Ann Arbor: JSB Symposium; general talk and discussion
November 4, DC: Family Online Safety Institute; research panel
November 17, New York: Web2.0 Expo; tech-focused talk
December 1, San Francisco: Supernova; tech and policy talk
December 9, Paris: Le Web; tech-focused talk

The spring is equally exciting, including SXSW (where I'm the opening act) and WWW (where I'm keynoting). More announcements still to come!

speaking conferences events

sometimes I feel like a bitch

For the most part, I'm a fuzzy lovable energetic creature (or at least I like to think so). But new technologies combined with information overload sometimes bring out the inner bitch in me. And then I feel guilty.

I am drowning in information overload. I cannot read everything that I want to, engage in conversations with everyone I'd like to, let alone deal with high-bandwidith content like video. Over the last decade, I've developed a set of coping mechanisms for dealing with online conversations. Ways of keeping myself sane amidst the onslaught. The problem is that each new genre of communication and consumption brings new challenges and forces me to adjust. And just when I think that I've got a grip on what's going on, the genre gains mainstream adoption and I'm forced to get all rigid on people. And I hate that.

Let me be a little more concrete. And self-involved. I get hundreds of emails per day that I have to directly respond to. (Hundreds more get filtered into the "will read one day" folders that get very little attention.) I do a huge amount of my responding offline (on airplanes, public transit, cafes, etc.). Thus, messages with links take much longer to get my attention than messages without links. But there's something nice about turning an INBOX into something manageable before people have the chance to respond. The problem with Web2.0 technologies is that each one wants to replace the INBOX (or at least be an additional channel). For example, there are private messages and comments on social network sites, direct messages and @replies on Twitter. There are blog comments. And RSS feeds. And then there are all of the online communities and bulletin boards and chat spaces that have evolved from those developed in olden days. For me, it's too much. Too much I tell you. And we haven't even gotten to voicemail, text messages. Let alone all that's coming.

The onslaught of places to check makes me want to crumple. And, for better or worse, it's simply 100% not manageable if I want to keep up my research and stay sane. So I've developed my own quirky habits to cope and rather than be flexible for others, I've become demanding. I check voicemail sporadically (so please don't leave a message - send a text). I refuse to even check the private messages on social network sites (so if you've sent something there, I've never seen it). Because of how @replies are overloaded with retweets and references, I'm simply incapable of keeping up with the stream of directed @replies with requests to respond. And I almost never check online communities or bulletin boards and have bowed out from all collaborative projects that require that kind of engagement.

It's terrible you see. It's not that I *like* email (cuz goddess knows it's been a long time since "you've got mail" made me do anything other than cringe). But I know how to manage it. Too many years of Getting Things Done training has taught me to manage it as a glorious ToDo list that can get resolved. But I don't know how to meaningfully manage streams of content. And I don't have the structures in place to deal with content in the cloud that requires connectivity. And I don't like having to deal with Yet Another Walled Garden's attempt to replicate email. For my own sanity, I need one pile of ToDo. So at the end of the day, the only channel that actually works for me is email. And if you need me to respond to something, don't message me elsewhere; send me an email.

This is exactly the kind of issue that Bernie Hogan deals with in his dissertation. The complexities of multiple channels and people's individual preferences. And there are huge issues here - should someone be flexible to others' preferences or demand that others work around them? And here's where I feel like a bitch. I'm asking people to work around me. Because I can't cope with the alternative. And that makes me feel guilty and selfish. And I don't know what to do about this. Le sigh. So please forgive me.

This article has been translated. En francais. Thanks Ulysse!

rant communication

Vacation, Vacation, Vaaaay-kaaaay-shun! (offline till Sep 8)

This is the time when all of the crazy people run off to the desert to "survive" with tons of art, fake fur, and countless supplies. Burning Man of course. Normally, I'd be playa-bound, but I'm rebelling and inverting the whole thing. Today, I leave for Iceland where I will make friends with lagoons, greenery, and puffins. Oh am I excited about the puffins! Thanks to my favorite cereal, I've been staring at a puffin every day since college. Now it's time to see them up close and personal. OK, maybe not that close.

I'm not bouncing email on this trip but I'm not checking it either. I will be offline so don't expect a response until after I start digging out post-September 8. Or perhaps just resist the urge to contact me in the meantime. It is after all Burning Man time! Go offline, have an adventure! (I'm not commenting on the presence of cell towers on the playa. Hrmfpt.)

Anyhow, so long, farewell, auf weidersehen, goodbye!

vacation

am I an academic?

academia (n.): The academic world or community; scholastic life. academic (n.): 1) An ancient philosopher of the Academy.
2) A member of a college or university.
3) A member of a society for promoting art or science

At every academic conference I attend, I hear a constant refrain: "How does it feel to have left academia?" The tone changes dependent on who is doing the asking. Sometimes, it's pure curiosity or puzzlement, fascination at my choice. At other times, there's a hint of condescension, as though the question is actually: "Couldn't make it in academia, eh? Stuck in industry, eh?" I try not to bristle at this but I do find myself getting defensive and trying to explain my position at Microsoft Research over and over again. So I couldn't help but think that maybe it's time to write it down.

Microsoft Research is an industrial research lab in the old skool sense. In the world of computer science, the industrial research lab is well understood; it has a long history of success in producing valuable, field-changing research. Like AT&T Bell Labs or Xerox PARC, the halls of MSR are filled with scientists of the highest caliber. People who invented things that you take for granted. MSR grew out of this tradition. It's primarily filled with computer scientists (and engineers, physicists, mathematicians). Researchers are encouraged to pursue research questions that they feel are important and they are evaluated based on their publication record, contributions to the scholarly community, and innovative research that produces "tech transfer."

Being a social scientist in one of these labs is peculiar, but not new. I have long admired the anthropological contributions Lucy Suchman made to research while at PARC. Being a social scientist at an industrial research lab can be a tricky balance. There are plenty of anthropologists and other social scientists who do applied work at Microsoft, focused on specific product needs. This is extremely important work, but it's different than scholarly research. It's also tricky to say what constitutes "tech transfer" as a social scientist. I don't really produce IP in the traditional sense, but my work contributes to the company in other ways.

Yet, tech transfer is only a fraction of what I do. The vast majority of my time is spent doing the same type of research that I've been doing for years. I follow topics that interest me and dive head first in, regardless of whether or not it involves Microsoft's current or future products. I publish articles without seeking approval from anyone. I blog about my research without vetting it through Microsoft. I attend academic conferences, review papers, and contribute to scholarly discourse. It looks a whole lot like academia to me. Yet, I hear all sorts of remarks that indicate that folks don't believe that what I do is akin to academia. I feel the need to account for these and offer a different perspective.

But you're working for a corporation! Since when are universities not corporations? Best that I can tell, most universities are fundamentally real estate barons who gain public credibility by offering higher education. The difference is that Microsoft's products are very visible and related to the types of research that they seek to support. Both Microsoft and the university invest in research in the hopes that it will benefit the corporation as a whole, directly through the production (and protection) of IP or indirectly by creating an atmosphere where productive work can take place. The outcomes may look different, but both Microsoft and the university are large corporations with a fiscal mindset.

But a company makes you focus on the company's bottom line! There is no doubt that Microsoft would love to have research that benefits it financially, but the dynamic is far more symbiotic than parasitic. We're welcome to do the research we're most passionate about, but we get financial bonuses for creating patents or for producing quality research that benefits the company. It's an incentives system. On the contrary, I would argue that the university model is predominantly parasitic. Researchers at universities must run around begging external agencies for money so that they can do the research they love to do. When they finally succeed in getting a grant, how does the university respond? It takes 30-60% for "overhead." And when they don't get funding, they're punished with lack of research resources and students. Furthermore, most university researchers don't get to do as they please - they do what they (think they) can get funding for. I suspect I have far more freedom in terms of my research agenda than most university scholars.

Still, you have to spend time helping the company directly! Yes, I spend time working with product groups. But I like to think of it as my teaching duty. Rather than teaching Soc 101 to hung-over 18-year-olds who didn't bother doing the reading, I teach an interactive form of Soc 101 to engineers who are filled with questions that start with "but why?" and "but how?" I have a hard time imagining that my engagement with product groups takes up more of my time than teaching, office hours, and prep. And it's often quite fun and thought-provoking.

Well, there's no tenure! What exactly is tenure? The promise that the university will promise you a salary in return for perpetual grant begging? Tenure guarantees a job, but it doesn't guarantee an enjoyable one. There's no promise of a pay raise or good classes to teach. Microsoft Research does have the right to fire me but, from what I can see, it's more common for people to leave when they don't gel well (just like in universities). The bigger threat is whether or not Microsoft will be around in N years (arguably, also true with many universities). I suspect that my job is just as solid as it would be in most university environments. The difference really comes down to bonuses. At the university, there are no performance-based bonuses. At Microsoft Research, a large chunk of my salary is linked to performance. Thus, I have an incentive to do well. There are also promotions that parallel university levels; Researcher = Assistant Professor, Senior Researcher = Associate Professor, Principle Researcher = Full Professor. This may not offer the on-paper guarantee of tenure, but it is pretty darn equivalent.

It's not like you have students! Most professors love having students because of the collaboration potential. (Some enjoy the empire building but that's not my bent.) Of course, this varies by field. Some scholars feel as though they need students to complete their work; in other fields, students are more an opportunity to mentor. My approach to students is more of collaboration and mentorship rather than slave labor. It's true that I don't have students, but I have the fortune of being able to take a handful of interns each year for 12 weeks each. These interns are primarily post-quals PhD students who have the skills and passion for collaboratively working on a constrained research project. No, it is not the same as 7-year students that you get to watch grow, but it's not like I'm not engaged with younger scholars. My time with them is just more constrained and focused. There are also postdocs who come for 1-2 years. And when I'm craving collaboration, I can bring in visiting researchers to work with me. So it's a bit more hodge-podge, but there's still tremendous opportunities for engagement with scholars at all levels.

Whatever... it's not real research. This is what it always comes down to... "Real" research comes from the university, suggesting that what comes out of industrial research labs is "fake." I'm never quite sure how to best respond to this except to commit to proving folks wrong.

I feel very fortunate to have a position at Microsoft Research, even if lots of folks don't seem to get why it's a good deal. In many ways, this environment is far more academic than what I witnessed at MIT's Media Lab or Berkeley's iSchool. The biggest downside is that it's not helping with my disciplinary identity crisis. If I had joined a specific disciplinary department, I might have had a clearer sense of the "top" journals, relevant conferences, and whether or not publishing a book is a must to succeed. Perhaps not, but I like to think so. Instead, I'm as confused as ever about where to publish and how to best disseminate my research in a manner that is generally useful. Thus, instead of becoming a proper -ist, I'm continuing to pave a strange path that may or may not bite me in the ass in the future. Of course, this identity crisis is pure academia. And one of the clearest reminders that I'm still an academic through-and-through.

I may not be a professor, but I'm still a scholar and, arguably, an academic. The title of "Researcher" may not seem very impressive or academic in social science realms, but practically speaking, it's akin to "Assistant Professor" (and that's even how people discuss it internally). What I do looks a lot like what any university researcher does, but with fewer restrictions. I don't have to beg for grants. I don't have to battle onerous IRBs (note: dealing directly with lawyers is MUCH easier than dealing with academics who are worrying about the legal repercussions of research). I can travel when I need to for research. I can do research that I think is important. I can collaborate with whoever I please. In return, I make certain that my research (and that of others) is translated into language that product people can understand. Personally, I think it's a pretty amazing trade-off.

academia scholar research university education professor

some thoughts on technophilia

The New Media Consortium is hosting a Symposium for the Future October 27-29. I was asked to write a few thoughts that might provoke conversation in preparation for the event. This is a re-posting of my Ideas for Thought. If you are an educator or involved in the world of learning, consider attending the symposium. Regardless, if these topics interest you, consider reading the other idea pieces by Gardner Campbell and Holly Willis.

It is easy to fall in love with technology. It is equally easy to fear it. In a setting like this Symposium, many of us fall in the passionate lovers camp, dreamily accounting for all of the wonderful things we've experienced through and because of technology. All too often, our conversations center on the need to get technology into the hands of learners, as though the gaps that we're seeing can be explained away by issues of access. Push comes to shove, most of us know that there are problems with this model, but in a world filled with dichotomous rhetoric, it's easy to get into the habit of being the proselytizer in the face of fear-mongering.

I want to push back against our utopian habits because I think that they're doing us a disservice. Technology does not determine practice. How people embrace technology has less to do with the technology itself than with the social setting in which they are embedded. Those who are immersed in a techno-savvy, technophilic community are far more likely to embrace technology than those whose social world is shaped by other patterns of consumption and communication. People's practices are also shaped by those around them. There are cluster effects to socio-technical engagement. In other words, people do what their friends do.

Rejecting technological determinism should be a mantra in our professional conversations. It's really easy to get in the habit of seeing a new shiny piece of technology and just assume that we can dump it into an educational setting and !voila! miracles will happen. Yet, we also know that the field of dreams is merely that, a dream. Dumping laptops into a classroom does no good if a teacher doesn't know how to leverage the technology for educational purposes. Building virtual worlds serves no educational purpose without curricula that connects a lesson plan with the affordances of the technology. Without educators, technology in the classroom is useless.

There are also no such things as "digital natives." Just because many of today's youth are growing up in a society dripping with technology does not mean that they inherently know how to use it. They don't. Most of you have a better sense of how to get information from Google than the average youth. Most of you know how to navigate privacy settings of a social media tool better than the average teen. Understanding technology requires learning. Sure, there are countless youth engaged in informal learning every day when they go online. But what about all of the youth who lack access? Or who live in a community where learning how to use technology is not valued? Or who tries to engage alone? There's an ever-increasing participation gap emerging between the haves and the have-nots. What distinguishes the groups is not just a question of access, although that is an issue; it's also a question of community and education and opportunities for exploration. Youth learn through active participation, but phrases like "digital natives" obscure the considerable learning that occurs to enable some youth to be technologically fluent while others fail to engage.

Along the same lines, keep in mind that the technology that you adore may hold no interest for your students. They don't use del.icio.us or Second Life or Ning or Twitter as a part of their everyday practices. And the ways that they use Facebook and MySpace and YouTube are quite different than the ways in which you do. We each approach technology based on our own needs and desires and we leverage it to do our bidding. In this way, we actively repurpose technology as a part of engagement such that rarely does one technology fit all. Yet, when we introduce technology in an educational setting, we often mistakenly assume that students will embrace the technology in the same way that we do. This never works out and can cause unexpected strife. Take social network sites as an example. You use this for professional networking; teens use it to socialize with their peers. Putting Facebook or MySpace into the classroom can create a severe cognitive collision as teens try to work out the shift in contexts. Most problematically, when teens are forced to navigate Friending in an educational setting, painful dramas occur because who you're polite to in school may be very different than who you socialize with at home. Using technology that ruptures social norms in the classroom can be socially and educationally harmful.

As we talk about the wonderfulness of technology, please keep in mind the complexities involved. Technology is a wonderful tool but it is not a panacea. It cannot solve all societal ills just by its mere existence. To have relevance and power, it must be leveraged by people to meet needs. This requires all of us to push past what we hope might happen and focus on introducing technology in a context that makes sense.

nmc technology technodeterminism digitalnatives youth learning education

Twitter: "pointless babble" or peripheral awareness + social grooming?

Studies like this one by Pear Analytics drive me batty. They concluded that 40.55% of the tweets they coded are pointless babble; 37.55% are conversational; 8.7% have "pass along value"; 5.85% are self-promotional; 3.75% are spam; and ::gasp:: only 3.6% are news.

I challenge each and every one of you to record every utterance that comes out of your mouth (and that of everyone you interact with) for an entire day. And then record every facial expression and gesture. You will most likely find what communications scholars found long ago - people are social creatures and a whole lot of what they express is phatic communication. (Phatic expressions do social work rather than conveying information... think "Hi" or "Thank you".)

Now, turn all of your utterances over to an analytics firm so that they can code everything that you've said. I think that you'll be lucky if only 40% of what you say constitutes "pointless babble" to a third party ear.

Twitter - like many emergent genres of social media - is structured around networks of people interacting with people they know or find interesting. Those who are truly performing to broad audiences (e.g., "celebs", corporations, news entities, and high-profile blogger types) are consciously crafting consumable content that doesn't require actually having an intimate engagement with the person to appreciate. Yet, the vast majority of Twitter users are there to maintain social relations, keep up with friends and acquaintances, follow high-profile users, and otherwise connect. It's all about shared intimacy that is of no value to a third-party ear who doesn't know the person babbling. Of course, as Alice Marwick has argued, some celebs are also very invested in giving off a performance of intimacy and access; this is part of the appeal. This is why you can read what they ate for breakfast.

Far too many tech junkies and marketers are obsessed with Twitter becoming the next news outlet source. As a result, the press are doing what they did with blogging: hyping Twitter us as this amazing source of current events and dismissing it as pointless babble. Haven't we been there, done that? Scott Rosenberg even wrote the book on it!

I vote that we stop dismissing Twitter just because the majority of people who are joining its ranks are there to be social. We like the fact that humans are social. It's good for society. And what they're doing online is fundamentally a mix of social grooming and maintaining peripheral social awareness. They want to know what the people around them are thinking and doing and feeling, even when co-presence isn't viable. They want to share their state of mind and status so that others who care about them feel connected. It's a back-and-forth that makes sense if only we didn't look down at it from outter space. Of course it looks alien. Walk into any typical social encounter between people you don't know and it's bound to look a wee bit alien, especially if those people are demographically different than you.

Conversation is also more than the explicit back and forth between individuals asking questions and directly referencing one another. It's about the more subtle back and forth that allow us to keep our connections going. It's about the phatic communication and the gestures, the little updates and the awareness of what's happening in space. We take the implicit nature of this for granted in physical environments yet, online, we have to perform each and every aspect of our interactions. What comes out may look valueless, but, often, it's embedded in this broader ecology of social connectivity. What's so wrong about that?

Now, I began this rant by noting that these kinds of studies drive me batty. Truthfully, I also have a sick and twisted appreciation for them. They let frustration build up inside me so that I can spout off on my blog and on Twitter, providing commentary that some might find useful and others might code as pointless babble.

(Tx Lior for giving me something to get worked up about this morning.)

communication analytics twitter phatics

Teens Don't Tweet... Or Do They?

Yesterday, Mashable reported Nielsen's latest Twitter numbers with the headline Stats Confirm It: Teens Don't Tweet. This gained traction on Twitter turning into the trending topic "teens don't tweet" which was primarily kept in play all day yesterday with teens responding to the TT by saying "I'm a teen" or the equivalent of "you're all idiots... what am I, mashed potatoes?"

I want to unpack some of what played out because I'm astonished by the misinterpretations in every which direction.

We have a methodology and interpretation problem. As Fred Stutzman has pointed out, there are reasons to question Nielsen's methodology and, thus, their findings. Furthermore, the way that they present the data is misleading. If we were to assume an even distribution of Twitter use over the entire U.S. population, it would be completely normal to expect that 16% of Twitter users are young adults. So, really, what Nielsen is saying is, "Everyone expects social media to be used primarily by the young but OMG OMG OMG old farts are just as likely to be using Twitter as young folks! Like OMG."

We have a presentation problem. Mashable presented this report completely inaccurately. First off, Nielsen is measuring 2-24. My guess is that there are a lot more 24-year-olds on Twitter than 2-year-olds. Unless Sockington counts. (And she's probably older than 2 anyhow.) Regardless, the Nielsen data tells us nothing about teens. We don't know if young adults (20-24) are all of those numbers or not. If all 16% of those under 24 on Twitter were teens, teens would be WAY over-represented in proportion to their demographic size.

We have a representation problem. The majority of people are not on Twitter, regardless of how old they are. Those who use Twitter are not a representative percentage of the population. Geeks are WAY over-represented on Twitter. Celebs and celeb-lovers are WAY over-represented on Twitter. Newshounds are WAY over-represented on Twitter. And while Joe the Plumber has an account on Twitter, I doubt it's him. Age is not the right marker here.

We have an interpretation problem. Saying that 16% of Twitter users are 24 and under is NOT the same as saying that 16% of teens are on Twitter. We don't know what percentage of youth (or adults) are on Twitter. If you want to compare across the ages, you need to know what percentage of a particular demographic is using the technology.

We have an impression management problem. There are teens on Twitter. Thousands of them. Saying "Teens Don't Tweet" gives the wrong impression because there are plenty of teens who do tweet (as they so kindly vocalized on Mashable and on Twitter). Still, just because they suddenly became vocal doesn't mean that those who are there are representative of teens as a whole. Furthermore, the presence of teens on Twitter doesn't mean that Twitter is a mainstream tool amongst teens. It's not.

Given all of these problems, I immediately dismissed the Nielsen report and the Mashable post as irrelevant and meaningless. Then it became a Trending Topic. So while I had a million things to do yesterday, I spent 6+ hours reading the messages of the people who added content to the trending topic, reading their posts about other things, going to their profiles on other sites, and simply trying to get a visceral understanding of what youth were engaged enough on Twitter to respond to the trending topic. What I found fascinated me. I'm still coding the data so you won't get any quantitative data just yet, but I want to give you a sense of my impression.

Teens On Twitter

The majority of teens who responded to the Trending Topic simply responded to the statement "Teens Don't Tweet" by noting that they were a teen and they tweeted. Others just noted that the trending topic was dumb. Many didn't know why the term had become a trending topic, were unaware of the Mashable article or Nielsen study, and thought that Twitter chose the trending topics. (I was in awe of how many teens commented that Twitter was stupid for making such a lie a trending topic. Some thought it was Twitter's attempts to tell them they didn't belong. One did ask if it was a trap to get teens to come out of the closet about their real age.)

Many of the teens who responded to the TT were not American or Canadian. I saw bunches of Brazilian teens, some Indonesian teens, and a smattering of teens from Europe, China, and Mexico. Many of their Twitter streams mixed English and the local language of their country. English dominated the responses but I did see non-English responses to the English trending topic.

About half of the teens included a link to a non-Twitter page in their bio. The pages were really mixed. Among the SNSes, MySpace dominated, but there were some Facebook links and links to Piczo and Multiply. There were also links to YouTube, Blogspot, LiveJournal, Deviant Art, and personal homepages.

Very few of the teens put their age in their bio, although quite a few made their age available in the content or through links. Teens posted messages like "I'm 16 and I'm on Twitter." And birthdays are a big enough deal that I was seeing things like, "I can't wait until I'm 16 and can get a car. Only 3 months to go!" And of course there's MySpace.

Most of the teens on Twitter followed on the order of 40-70 other people (with fewer followers). Who they followed included a smattering of other teens and a collection of big names - celebs, bloggers, geeks. There wasn't much discussion on their feeds about the number of people following them but they frequently highlighted how many tweets they had. I was surprised by how many of them would write a tweet saying nothing more than "this is my 1207th tweet!" Their content is primarily phatic in nature with an eye for updating as often as possible.

The most salient visceral reaction that I got when looking at the teens' Twitter streams was that teens on Twitter seemed to fit into three categories: 1) geeky teens, tech teens, fandom teens, machinema teens; 2) teens who are in love with the Jonas Brothers/Miley Cyrus, musicians, or another category of celebs; 3) multi-lingual foreign teens with friends/followers around the world who seemed to participate in lots of online communities.

While I can't make any meaningful conclusions until I spend more time with the data, it seems to me that the teens on Twitter - or at least the teens responding to the trending topic - are not representative of teens as a whole. That's not a bad thing. They're geeks and passionate creators and trendsetters and pop culture addicts. I don't get the sense that they're dragging their friends into Twitter, but rather, focusing on using Twitter to engage with other people who share their interests or people that they admire.

Anyhow, I'm continuing to track this but I thought I should just report out what I'm seeing in case it's of use to anyone but me.

Be warned: This blog post was written in brain-dump style to get some general impressions out there while I analyze the data. My goal is to give you a sense of what I'm seeing, assuming that you aren't staring at thousands and thousands of tweets by teens. Please don't interpret it as a "report" or a "study" or anything other than what it is: a blog post.

teens demographics research statistics Mashable Nielsen

help me find innovative practitioners who address online safety issues

I need your help. One of our central conclusions in the Internet Safety Technical Task Force Report was that many of the online safety issues require the collective engagement of a whole variety of different groups, including educators, social workers, psychologists, mental health experts, law enforcement, etc. Through my work on online safety, I've met a lot of consultants, activists, and online safety experts. Through my work as a researcher, I've met a lot of practitioners who are trying to engage youth about these issues through outright fear that isn't grounded in anything other than myth.

Unfortunately, I haven't met a lot of people who are on the ground with youth dealing with the messiness of addressing online safety issues from a realistic point of view. I don't know a lot of practitioners who are developing innovative ways of educating and supporting at-risk youth because they have to in their practices. I need your help to identify these people.

I want to know teachers. Who are the teachers who are trying to integrate online safety issues into their classroom by using a realistic model of youth risk?
I want to know school administrators. Who are the school administrators who are trying to build school policy that addresses online safety issues from a non-fear-driven approach?
I want to know law enforcement officers. Who are the law enforcement officers who are directly dealing with the crimes that occur?
I want to know people from social services. Who are the people in social services (like social workers) who are directly working with at-risk youth who engage in risky behavior online?
I want to know mental health practitioners. Who are the psychologists and mental health practitioners who are trying to help youth who engage in risky practices online? Or who help youth involved in self-harm deal with their engagement with self-harm websites?
I want to know youth ministers. Who are the youth pastors and ministers who are trying to help at-risk youth navigate risky situations?
I want to know other youth-focused practitioners. Who else is out there working with youth who is incorporating online safety issues into their practice?

I know that there are a lot of people out there who are speaking about what these partitioners should do, who are advising these practitioners, or who are trying to build curricula/tools to support these practitioners, but I want to learn more about the innovative practitioners themselves.

Please... who's incorporating sensible online safety approaches into their daily practice with youth in the classrooms, in therapy, in social work, in religious advising, etc.? Who's out there trying to wade through the myths, get a realistic portrait, and approach youth from a grounded point of view in order to directly help them, not as a safety expert but as someone who works with youth because of their professional role? Who do I need to know?

(Feel free to leave a comment or email me at zephoria [at] zephoria [dot] org.)

safety practitioners socialwork education teachers youth support