Academics and Social Media

26 September 2014 at 10:26 am 5 comments

| Peter Klein |

At this week’s Strategic Management Conference in Madrid I participated in an interesting session on Media Innovations, along with Will Mitchell and Wiley’s Caroline McCarley. My remarks focused on academics and their use of social media. How (if at all) can professors use blogs, videos, wikis, and other social media products to disseminate their research, to improve their teaching, and even to discover new ideas? Are social media and “serious” activities like research and class preparation substitutes or complements? Should untenured faculty avoid such distractions?

I began my remarks — where else? — with Kim Kardashian. Biologist Neil Hall made a bit of a splash a few months back by introducing the Kardashian Index, basically the ratio of an academic researcher’s Twitter followers to citations in peer-reviewed journals. (For a rough approximation, just divide Twitter followers by Google Scholar cites.) Someone with a very high K-index, the story goes, has a large popular following, but hasn’t made any important scientific contributions — in other words, like Kim, famous for being famous.

Science published a rejoinder suggesting that the K-index gets it wrong by implying, incorrectly, that popular and scholarly influence are inversely related. Indeed, among the top 20 natural scientists, by Twitter followers, are some scientific lightweights like Neil deGrasse Tyson (2.4 million Twitter followers and 151 citations), but also serious thinkers like Tim Berners-Lee (179,000 followers and 51,204 cites) and Steven Pinker (142,000 and 49,933). I haven’t run the numbers for economists and management scholars but I think you’ll find the same general pattern. E.g., among the biggies on the LDRLB Top Professors on Twitter list you find a mix of practitioner-oriented writers with modest academic influence (Bill George, Richard Florida, Stew Friedman, Gary Hamel) and scholars with huge citation counts (Mike Porter, Clay Christensen, Adam Grant).

I went on to emphasize (as usual) that, for the most part, these issues are nothing new. Scholars and thinkers throughout history have used whatever media are available to disseminate their ideas to wider audiences. In the 17th-19th centuries there were pamphlets, handbills, newspapers, and lecture halls; in the 20th century radio, magazines, TV, and other outlets. Classical economists like John Stuart Mill published anti-slavery tracts; the Verein für Socialpolitik took positions on important social issues of the day; the American Economic Association was founded to combat lassiez-faire; C. S. Lewis gave his famous wartime radio lectures; Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman dueled in the pages of Newsweek, and Friedman took to the airwaves for the PBS series “Free to Choose.” So academic bloggers, Tweeters, Facebookers, YouTubers, LinkedInners, and Instagrammers are following in a grand tradition. Of course, what’s new today is the scale; without a contract for a newspaper column or TV show, any of us can set up shop, and have the potential to reach a very wide audience.

So what exactly can one do with blogs and other social media? I see at least four roles. The first is disseminating one’s research and other professional activities to a wider audience, including colleagues, students, and the general public. “Check out my latest article.” “I’m giving a lecture on December 12.” “Please submit a proposal to this conference.” One could do the same by posting to an academic or professional listserv, or simply emailing colleagues and students, but using social media is more efficient and usually more convenient. Second, a blog or Twitter feed or whatever is like a professional journal. I often ask myself, “What was that article on X I read a while back?” and then search the archives of O&M or my Twitter feed to find it. Sharing academic and professional interests and activities via social media is a good way of keeping track of what you’re thinking and doing and, as long as your thoughts don’t include naked selfies, are probably useful and appropriate for public consumption as well. Other people might be interested in your thoughts as well!

Third, I often think of social media as water-cooler conversation. I have some great colleagues at Mizzou and NHH and Mises that I see in person on a regular basis, but via O&M, Twitter, Facebook, etc. I can shoot the (professional) breeze with far more. “What did you think of so-and-so’s article?” “Did you see that piece in the WSJ?” “Are you going to the XYZ conference?” “Does anybody know how to use the Z technique?” “Should I read this book?” “Are your students also driving you crazy?” The possibilities are endless! Via social media I have the opportunity to interact, on a variety of formal and informal levels, with far more interesting thinkers, writers, and teachers than I’d ever meet in a professional lifetime. And, importantly, it’s a two-way street. I’m not just sharing my thoughts, I’m learning from my colleagues. In fact, I get far more useful professional (and general) news from Twitter, Facebook, and my favorite blogs than I get from CNN or the New York Times!

The fourth, and perhaps most obvious, use of social media is public outreach. If I think my research or teaching or other activities could have some effect on the world, by influencing public policy, or inspiring students and practitioners, or simply changing the wider conversation on some issue or problem, then why not share it? The cost of such sharing is low, and you never know what kind of influence you might have.

Now the big question, one I’m frequently asked. How much time does all this take? Or, in other words: Wouldn’t your time be better spent writing refereed journal articles? Aren’t you damaging your reputation as a serious scholar? Who do you think you are, Kim Kardashian? Well, we don’t have much systematic evidence on this, but for me, at least, social media and “serious” activities are generally complements, rather than substitutes. I can’t spend 8 hours straight working on an article. I need some breaks, and I’d rather spend them in virtual water-cooler conversation than reading comic books or playing Freecell. And I learn a lot about my profession, about the literature in various fields, about new topics, techniques, and debates, about new teaching techniques, and other valuable bits of information from social media. I think this makes me a more well-rounded scholar, a better teacher, and a more creative and better thinker. Incidentally, I know many cases of junior scholars at high-pressure, public-or-perish institutions who did just fine in the tenure process, despite (or because of?) an active social media presence. Again, this is only anecdotal evidence, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that (appropriate) engagement with a larger audience via social media is in any way harmful to one’s career.

Of course, everyone is different, so choose the path that’s right for you. But be aware of the potential benefits of these tools and consider using them, albeit wisely.

Update: Science came out with a revised ranking featuring a broader set of scholars, including economists. Unfortunately the citation numbers are way off, at least for a few I spot-checked (e.g., Sachs has > 60K cites, not 112; Noah Smith has < 10, not 5,483). The RAs who compiled the citation data obviously didn’t check the names very carefully. So the rankings for natural scientists are probably off too.

Entry filed under: - Klein -, Innovation, Myths and Realities, Nothing New under the Sun, Public Policy / Political Economy, Teaching.

The WINIR Greenwich Conference “Why Managers Still Matter”

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. spender7  |  27 September 2014 at 10:26 am

    Thanks Peter,

    A very helpful amble around the issues.

    The discussion was well worth attending, though I found no good point at which to emphasize my most crispest complaint about management education – that we should return to the Trivium and teach rhetoric. It is no surprise to find that managing is a talking game rather than the rational decision making CMU encouraged. In modern terms, our discourse should admit that management cannot possibly be only about ‘the numbers’, evidence-based positivist thinking and logos, but must also include the other legs of the rhetorical stool – ethos and pathos. Managing is about people not the enactment of the kind of rational model so many of our colleagues are researching.

    The relationship between social media and academics is thus about the intersection between the kinds of inter-human (as opposed to inter-computer or inter-asset) communication social media makes possible and the topics that we academics want to cover. If we see our discourse as ‘science’ then social media seems poorly matched to conveying knowledge, especially when contrasted against the media we appear to rate most highly, peer-reviewed journals.

    Of course many of us believe that managerial discourse is not like academic discourse at all, and is “rich” in the sense of engaging all aspects of rhetoric. It should follow that social media can be a powerful tool for managers, going far beyond the logos of instruction.

    Long long ago I presented: J.-C. Spender (with Ann P. Brown), ‘So will top managers actually use micros?’, Administrative Services Association of Canada Conference, Halifax, May 1981 – I am looking but not finding the paper – the general theme being the contrast between synchronous “managing by walking around” (remember MBWA?) and managing by leaving ‘phone messages (pretty hopeless) and the then new world of micro-computer-driven green screen messaging.

    Being brought up in the world in which one clocked in, we made much of the technological possibility of being able to tell the message’s sender when it had been viewed. Yet this feature is no longer present in our email systems – as it used to be – or in most of today’s social media technologies. In short our computer mediated communication systems are surprisingly passive, when one might have thought that the 1984 sense of active surveillance would prove attractive to managers.

    In general though, until we have a clear notion of ‘the firm’ – back to Coase’s killer questions again – and thus of managing, we are in no good position to explore the organizational impact of social media. If we reframe management communication into the context of classical rhetoric the suggestion that our communications should aspire to the ‘logos alone’ implications of bureaucratic design or of neoclassical economic theory vanishes. Something very different – but still unidentified – arises in its place.

    That is what was so appealing about the explorations of the interaction between communicating and managing in the 1980s – such as: Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design. Research in Organization Behaviour, 6, 191-233.

  • 2. Peter Klein  |  28 September 2014 at 12:32 am

    Thanks, JC, good comments about rhetoric. I hope some new insights were provided at last month’s AoM which was, of course, themed “The Power of Words”!

  • 3. What’s My Kardashian Index? | The Past Speaks  |  28 September 2014 at 1:42 pm

    […] a recent post by Peter Klein, I’ve learned of the existence of something called the Kardashian […]

  • 4. spender7  |  29 September 2014 at 2:12 am

    Yes Peter, one would have thought that at a conference on ‘The Power of Words’ attended by around 11,000 highly intelligent and well trained people one might find a lot of discussion about rhetoric.

    The important distinction, of course, is between ‘communication’ and ‘rhetoric’. Communication – in the Shannon & Weaver sense – fits right into our positivism. Rhetoric, in contrast, does not – hence is seldom heard of in our discourse.

    That’s too bed, of course, because so many of the presentations I heard could have been enriched by a consideration of managing as a rhetorical practice, always under Knightian uncertainty and hence implicitly entrepreneurial, as opposed to being very partial explanation of a rational decision-making process.

    Ironically many who now use the term ‘judgment’ are talking about biases and prospect theory rather than engagement with uncertainty – they are so captive to positivist/determinist thought that they lose sight of their own academic enterprise.

    The pendulum must swing back if we are to address Coase’s questions and restore a measure of managerial relevance to our activity.

    Right now I am writing about how the BSchools’ host universities have conspired to exacerbate the irrelevance of our research.

  • 5. Peter Klein  |  29 September 2014 at 10:37 am

    I have urged my colleagues to use the term “judgments,” as in “judgments and decisions,” when writing about biases and heuristics, rather than “judgment” int the sense we’re using it here. In any case, I hope the interest in these fields is a step in the right direction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Authors

Nicolai J. Foss | home | posts
Peter G. Klein | home | posts
Richard Langlois | home | posts
Lasse B. Lien | home | posts

Guests

Former Guests | posts

Networking

Recent Posts

Categories

Feeds

Our Recent Books

Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Peter G. Klein and Micheal E. Sykuta, eds., The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Peter G. Klein, The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets (Mises Institute, 2010).
Richard N. Langlois, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy (Routledge, 2007).
Nicolai J. Foss, Strategy, Economic Organization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Coordination of Firms and Resources (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Raghu Garud, Arun Kumaraswamy, and Richard N. Langlois, eds., Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks and Organizations (Blackwell, 2003).
Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, eds., Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Elgar, 2002).
Nicolai J. Foss and Volker Mahnke, eds., Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship: Advances in Economic Strategy Research (Oxford, 2000).
Nicolai J. Foss and Paul L. Robertson, eds., Resources, Technology, and Strategy: Explorations in the Resource-based Perspective (Routledge, 2000).