- Take a deep breath. No-one likes to have their precious writing critiqued, and it can be very easy to feel defensive and annoyed. But remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique. We must learn to accept this and realise how the review process can help us.
- Feel gratitude for the work performed on your behalf by the reviewers and editors. Although you may not like some of their feedback, nearly all (and yes, there are some nasty exceptions) have reviewed your work in the spirit of academic generosity and have taken precious time from their own work to do this. If they have performed the review constructively, they deserve your thanks and appreciation.
- See the revision process as a way to make your work the best it can be, and a challenge to push yourself to improve it.
- If the editor has given you a decision of ‘revise and resubmit’, always attempt this, however extensive the work required of you. There is a very good chance that if you revise your article competently it will be accepted.
- If the editor has rejected your article, acknowledge your inevitable feelings of disappointment and frustration (or even murderous rage!) but then move on. Think about where else you can resubmit it. Consider first the comments made by the reviewers and decide whether you should address some of these before submitting elsewhere to enhance your chances of success next time around.
- Bite the bullet. Try not to leave the revisions or submission to another journal too long – it can be easy to keep putting this job off, but it must be done!
- If the article has been written with other authors, decide who will take leadership on the revisions. This should usually be the person who led the writing of the original manuscript. The lead author should take on as much of the revision work as they can, and then share the revised version with the other author/s for their contributions and feedback.
- Block out a good chunk of time in which you will be able to begin work on the revisions. Choose a time of day if possible at which you know you will be feeling the most mentally alert. There is no denying that you have a demanding task ahead of you.
- Don’t rush things. Take as much time as you need to complete it properly.
- Now that you are mentally prepared … go back and read your submitted manuscript. You will most likely have forgotten most of what you wrote and this is a good chance to read it with fresh eyes.
- Then go back to the email from the journal editors with the reviewers’ comments. Copy and paste the reviewers’ comments in to a new Word document. Then go through and isolate each comment which suggests or requests a revision. Then read each comment carefully.
- Start to go through your original manuscript and begin addressing those points you think require revisions. It is often easiest to address the minor revisions first. In your ‘response to reviewers’ document, write your responses under each separate point as you go. Your response should explain the changes you have made. If you disagree with a suggested change, you are entirely within your rights to state this and explain why.
- Highlight changes in your manuscript with bold or coloured highlighting so that the editor and reviewers can easily see where you added or significantly altered material. Don’t use the track changes function (unless this has been specifically requested by the editor), as track changes can leave the manuscript looking very messy and difficult to read.
- Once you think you have conducted the revisions to the best of your ability, put the revised version aside for at least a day. Come back to it and read it through again. Read your ‘response to reviewers’ document again. Make any further changes you deem necessary.
- Take another deep breath … and resubmit your article. Good luck!
I have written many times on this blog about my own experiences of using social media and other digital tools for academic work and my research focusing on how other academics are doing this.
One of the people I have encountered along the way is Mark Carrigan, an early career British sociologist. Appropriately enough, we first met on Twitter a few years ago, around the time I began experimenting with various digital tools for professional purposes. Since then, we have had many discussions there and on other online forums, as well as by email, about using social media in universities (and a couple of in-person meetings as well). Mark has now written a book on Social Media for Academics. It is the first book I know of to present a ‘how-to’ manual combined with reflections on the wider implications of academic social media engagement.
Mark is a great example of someone who has strategically used social media while still in the very early stages of his career (completing his doctorate) to create a high profile for his work. He has now built on this experience not only to work in various positions involving promoting academic journals, departments and organisations, but to produce this book. In its chapters, Mark employs a casual, chatty style to painlessly introduce readers to the art of academic social media.
The book is distinctive because Mark’s sociological training allows him to contextualise the social, cultural and political implications of academic social media use. Yes, he offers a multitude of helpful tips and advice about how best to communicate online, what platforms and tools are the most effective, how to develop your own voice, how online engagement helps in promoting one’s research and reaching wider audiences outside academia, building networks, curating interesting material you have found on the internet, finding time to use social media and so on. But there are also reflections offered on what academic social media means for professional identities and for academic work in general. In addition there are many pithy remarks drawing on Mark’s observations, for example, of the awkwardness that sometimes accompanies the experience of colleagues meeting in the flesh after having developed a hitherto purely online relationship, or the potential pitfalls of live-tweeting conferences or writing a tweet or blog post in haste and anger that then becomes widely circulated well after the initial irritation has subsided.
This book is highly recommended for higher degree students and faculty staff members who are interested in the possibilities of academic social media for both research and teaching, as well as researchers interested in future directions for the university workplace and academic identities.
My new book The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking is due out with Polity Press this April. The publishers are offering a 20% discount for six months (from 18 January 2016 to 31 July 2016) if it is ordered via their website. Please use the code PY703 when you order to receive the discount.
Here is a PDF of the Introduction: Lupton 2016 Introduction to The Quantified Self.
Table of Contents
1 ‘Know Thyself’: Self-tracking Practices and Technologies
2 ‘New Hybrid Beings’: Theoretical Perspectives
3 ‘An Optimal Human Being’: the Body and Self in Self-Tracking Cultures
4 ‘You are Your Data’: Personal Data Meanings, Practices and Materialisations
5 ‘Data’s Capacity for Betrayal’: Personal Data Politics
Here are my publications that came out in 2015.
- Lupton, D. (2015) Digital Sociology. London: Routledge.
- Lupton, D. (2015) Digital sociology. In Germov, J. and Poole, M. (eds), Public Sociology: An Introduction to Australian Society, 3rd St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
- Lupton, D. (2015) Donna Haraway: the digital cyborg assemblage and the new digital health technologies. In Collyer, F. (ed), The Palgrave Handbook of Social Theory in Health, Illness and Medicine. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peer-reviewed journal articles
- Lupton, D. (2015) Quantified sex: a critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking apps. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(4), 440—53.
- Lupton, D. (2015) Data assemblages, sentient schools and digitised HPE (response to Gard). Sport, Education and Society, 20(1), 122—32.
- Lupton, D. (2015) Health promotion in the digital era: a critical commentary. Health Promotion International, 30(1), 174—83.
- Lupton, D. (2015) The pedagogy of disgust: ethical, moral and political implications of using disgust in public health campaigns. Critical Public Health, 25(1), 4–14.
- Lupton, D. and Jutel, AM. (2015) ‘It’s like having a physician in your pocket!’ A critical analysis of self-diagnosis smartphone apps. Social Science & Medicine, 133, 128—135.
- Jutel, AM. and Lupton, D. (2015) Digitizing diagnosis: a review of smartphone and computer applications in the diagnostic process. Diagnosis, 2(2), online.
- Lupton, D. (2015) Fabricated data bodies: reflections on 3D printed digital body objects in medical and health domains. Social Theory & Health, 13(2), 99—115.
- Lupton, D. and Thomas, G.M. (2015) Playing pregnancy: the ludification and gamification of expectant motherhood in smartphone apps. M/C, 18(5) (online).
- Michael, M. and Lupton, D. (2015) Toward a manifesto for ‘a public understanding of big data’. Public Understanding of Science, online before print
- Thomas, G.M. and Lupton, D. (2015) Threats and thrills: pregnancy apps, risk and consumption. Health, Risk & Society, online before print
- Lupton, D. and Pedersen, S. (2015) ‘What is Happening with Your Body and Your Baby’: Australian Women’s Use of Pregnancy and Parenting Apps. Available here.
This the list of my publications that came out in 2014. If you would like a copy of any of the articles, please contact me on firstname.lastname@example.org.
Lupton, D. (2015) Digital Sociology (Routledge: this has a 2015 publication date, but actually was published in November 2014).
Special Journal Issue
Editor of special issue on ‘Beyond techno-utopia: critical approaches to digital health technologies’, Societies (volume 4, number 2), 2014.
Lupton, D. (2014) The reproductive citizen: motherhood and health education. In Fitzpatrick, K. and Tinning, R. (eds), Health Education: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 48—60.
Lupton, D. (2014) Unborn assemblages: shifting configurations of embryonic and foetal embodiment. In Nash, M. (ed), Reframing Reproduction: Conceiving Gendered Experiences. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peer-reviewed Journal Articles
Lupton, D. (2014) ‘How do you measure up?’ Assumptions about ‘obesity’ and health-related behaviors in ‘obesity’ prevention campaigns. Fat Studies, 3(1), 32—44.
Lupton, D. (2014) The commodification of patient opinion: the digital patient experience economy in the age of big data. Sociology of Health & Illness, 36(6), 856—69.
Lupton, D. (2014) Precious, pure, uncivilised, vulnerable: infant embodiment in the Australian popular media. Children & Society, 28(5), 341—51.
Lupton, D. (2014) Quantified sex: a critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking apps. Culture, Health & Sexuality, online first, doi: 1080/13691058.2014.920528.
Lupton, D. (2014) Data assemblages, sentient schools and digitised HPE (response to Gard). Sport, Education and Society, online first, doi: 1080/13573322.2014.962496.
Lupton, D. (2014) Health promotion in the digital era: a critical commentary. Health Promotion International, online first, doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau091.
Lupton, D. (2014) Apps as artefacts: towards a critical sociological perspective on health and medical apps. Societies, 4, 606—22.
Lupton, D. (2014) Critical perspectives on digital health technologies. Sociology Compass, 8(12), 1344—59.
Lupton, D. (2014) Beyond techno-utopia: critical approaches to digital health technologies. Societies, 4(4), 706—11.
Other Academic Publications
Lupton, D. (2014) Risk. In Cockerham, W., Dingwall, R. and Quah, S. (eds), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior and Society. New York: Blackwell, pp. 2067—71.
Lupton, D. (2014) Feeling Better Connected’: Academics’ Use of Social Media. Canberra: News & Media Research Centre.
Sociology in the Anglophone world has been in the doldrums for some time. Since the heady days of poststructuralism and postmodernism, until very recently few advances had been made in theory or method. British sociology, however, is seeing a renewed impetus and vigour, with several sociologists beginning to talk about a move from ‘zombie sociology’ to ‘live sociology’ (Back, 2012) or ‘inventive methods’ (Lury and Wakeford, 2012), in which creative approaches and different ways of communicating are suggested to move the discipline out of its doldrums.
Punk Sociology, by British sociologist Dave Beer, is a welcome contribution to this new and exciting approach. As its title suggests, Beer attempts in this short book (part of the Palgrave Pivot series, itself an innovative approach to academic publishing) to show how sociology might be shaken up and re-energised. Punk sociology looks outward, is subversive and willing to try new approaches and also ready to engage with alternative forms of knowledge outside sociology. It means investigating forms of research and representations of social life that are beyond the textual, such as audio-visual material, and, as Beer puts it, ‘to coach ourselves to see sociology in sources where we may not be expecting to see it’ (p. 38). It also includes working with, rather than on, participants in sociological research, and experimenting with different approaches to writing about one’s work: blogging, podcasts, YouTube videos and tweets, for example. Beer encourages sociologists to take courage in conveying ideas that may still be raw and engaging with others’ responses to them, a practice that social media avenues encourage.
I am no fan of punk rock, but I very much like the concept of punk sociology. The term itself denotes a fresher approach to the sociological canon and accepted assumptions of what sociology is and should be. I would have loved to have read a book like this as an undergraduate in first-year sociology in the early 1980s, when unfortunately I found myself bored rigid by the dry and dull way in which the discipline was taught. I suspect that undergraduates and even postgraduates in sociology today would also welcome Beer’s thoughts on enlivening sociology.
Exponents of critical sociology have always been a little bit punk in their reflexivity and their efforts to challenge the status quo and identify hidden power relations. Beer talks about the vibrancy and energy of the punk ethos That, for me, is what sociology can contribute at its best, and what has impelled me in my own sociological writing and research (including this blog). I am always interested in new ideas and approaches in my discipline and making new connections (including with other disciplines) and investigating where I can take them.
Sociology is inherently fascinating to many: it is about our own lives and times. Sociologists are able to offer many important insights into social life and selfhood, and it is it downright negligent for us not to be able to convey these insights to others. To render sociology dull is a great disservice to what it can promise.
Beer has chosen to represent the punk ethos in positive terms in this book, largely ignoring its sometimes nihilistic, violent and often overly confronting tendencies. I don’t think he wants to argue that sociology should go down this road. Punk at its most extreme was gritty and hardcore, and my reading of Beer’s argument is that he is espousing a somewhat gentler and optimistic version.
I would have liked to have seen some more concrete examples of punk sociology practice in the book. Beer makes suggestions for how to go about being a punk sociologist, but they tend to be general. Some specific cases of how sociologists might employ new ways of practising the craft in the ways suggested by Beer and how they have gone about it would have been helpful and interesting.
I agree with Beer that there is no point in wallowing in dismay about what some see as an apparent crisis in sociology. The discipline needs to be reactive, energetic and nimble — and yes, even confronting like the original punk musicians were — in response to the social changes that are continually occurring and new forms of social research that are emerging (particularly those related to digital media and digital data).
Beer suggests a punk music playlist to listen to as part of his call to arms for punk sociology. Join him in cranking the music up loud and getting to work on a sociology that is new, imaginative, in the moment and ever-so slightly anarchic!
Back, L. (2012) Live sociology: social research and its futures. The Sociological Review, 60: 18-39.
Lury, C. and Wakeford, N. (2012) Inventive Methods: the Happening of the Social. New York: Routledge.
I have written previously on this blog on the pros and cons of using social media for academic work, including a discussion of why I blog and what I have learnt from using these media. As part of a chapter on the digitised sociologist that I am working on for my Digital Sociology book, I have been reviewing other people’s research on academic blogging.
Numerous accounts of using social and other digital media for professional academic purposes can be found on websites such as the LSE Impact of the Social Sciences and The Guardian’s Higher Education Network. Some more traditional academic articles have also been published in journals on these topics. These accounts have identified some interesting trends and implications.
Academic blogging has been described as ‘conversational scholarship’, a means by which academics can attempt to loosen their formal style of writing as part of communicating to a wider audience (Gregg 2006). It is argued that the practice forces academics to think about their research and writing in new ways, bearing in mind the multiplicity of potential audiences and the ways readers can respond to the material presented (Kitchin 2014, Kitchin et al. 2013). Some bloggers use their writing as a way of developing ideas and seeking engagement with others before they formalise their ideas into a more traditional academic piece (Adema 2013, Carrigan 2013, Daniels 2013, Estes 2012, Gregg 2006, Maitzen 2012). This use of social media for developing scholarly writing and ideas has been described as being an ‘open source academic’ (Carrigan 2013).
Several scholars discussing academic blogging have noted that they often serve the purpose of sharing information and providing advice as part of a gift economy of producing material to share freely with others. From this perspective scholarship and knowledge are not viewed as a marketable commodity but rather as a social good (Adema 2013, Gregg 2006, Hall 2013a, 2013b, Mewburn and Thomson 2013). Here the general sharing ethos and participatory democracy that are viewed as characteristic of social media engagement more generally are interpreted in a more specialist academic context.
Academic blogs and other forms of writing on digital platforms are also beginning to challenge scholarly publishing modes and invent new forms of publication. Blog posts are now often cited in more traditional academic forums, some scholarly journals are incorporating blogs, multimedia or open access repositories as part of their online presence and academic presses are experimenting with new digital modes of publication, including shorter online book formats with faster than usual turn-around times between acceptance of the manuscript and publication. Scholarly publishing is developing as hybrid and multiple, drawing both on legacy forms of publishing and on novel modes introduced by digital formats and platforms.
Public digital scholarship practices such as blogging are also sometimes represented as overtly political and resistant acts. It is argued that these types of practices allow for scholars to experiment with digital publishing and engagement at the same time as resisting the dictates of the scholarly publishing industry and producing new forms of knowledge dissemination (Adema 2013, Gregg 2006, 2009). The content itself of blog posts, Twitter comments and other social media communications may be directly political, with these tools providing a forum for academics to challenge government policies and programs (Kitchin 2014, Kitchin et al. 2013, Wade and Sharp 2013). They can also provide an opportunity for academics to share their frustrations about higher education procedures and policies and their own experiences as academic workers (Adema 2013, Gregg 2006, 2009, Mewburn and Thomson 2013).
On the negative side, blogging opens up academics to great public scrutiny, not only from their peers but from any other audiences. As I noted in a previous post on the risks of using social media for higher education work, some academic bloggers have found themselves the target of trolling, sexual harassment and even threats of violence in response to their public writing. This is particularly the case for members of marginalised or disadvantaged groups, such as women and racial or ethnic minorities. Those academics who express their opinions on controversial issues or who challenge powerful institutions or commercial interests are also often the target of comments questioning their professional integrity, as well hate messages and even death threats (Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications Draft Report 2013, Chapman 2012, Cottom McMillan 2012, Kitchin 2014, Kitchin et al. 2013, Wade and Sharp 2013).
Academics themselves using digital media as part of their professional identities need to think carefully about how best to manage their private and public personae when doing so: how formal their self-presentation is, to what extent they make personal comments about themselves or others, the nature of images of themselves that they upload, to what extent they allow or respond to comments from others (Barbour and Marshall 2012). The freedom of expression that forums such as blogs and social media sites offer academics can also be the cause of their downfall. Several cases exist involving the censure or disciplining of academics for statements that they made on social media sites of which their university disapproved (Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications Draft Report 2013).
Posting one’s work on online media may be considered a risky practice because of the loss of control that eventuates. Academics need to be aware of the multitude of ways in which the content created by one author or group of authors may be re-used and transmitted via different modes of publishing (reblogged or excerpted on other people’s blogs, tweeted in tiny ‘grabs’, commented upon and so on). In receiving wider dissemination in the public forums afforded by the new digital technologies, scholarly writing may develop ‘a social life of its own’ (Beer 2013, Beer and Burrows 2013) as it circulates in these forums and control over it is lost by the author.
The possibilities of plagiarism have also been raised by some academics as a risk of engaging in digital public scholarship. Some academics who blog have noticed that their content has been used by others, sometimes verbatim, without any form of attribution to its original source. This experience has led them to reconsider the benefits of blogging (see, for example, an account by Williams 2013).
Some writers have commented on the vulnerability that social media engagement such as blogging may engender in scholars who are used to formal academic writing styles and traditional procedures of publishing, in which one’s writing is vetted by one’s peers before it reaches an audience and people outside academic do not have the opportunity to comments on one’s research (Estes 2012, Gregg 2006, Kirkup 2010, Kitchin et al. 2013, Maitzen 2012). Quite simply, engaging as a digitised public scholar may be too confronting for some academics.
In the early years of academic blogging, there was often suspicion of the practice on the part of other academics, and people who maintained blogs were in some cases discriminated against when seeking tenure or promotion or otherwise viewed with disdain for being self-aggrandising or wasting time (Gregg 2006, Kirkup 2010, Maitzen 2012). Although negative views of academic blogging have certainly not disappeared, they appear to be slowly changing as universities seek to prove that they are engaging with the public and conforming to open access mandates and policies. Indeed some academics are now concerned that in the quest to achieve community engagement and impact, universities will begin to pressure academics to use social media tools, albeit under restrictive guidelines developed by the university and in the interests of anodyne public relations rather than challenging ideas or engaging in political activism (Mewburn and Thomson 2013). In a workplace in which many academics are already feeling overworked and under continuing stress to produce research publications as well as attract students (Burrows 2012, Gill 2010), such demands may be viewed as unreasonable.
The research and commentary reviewed here outlines a diversity of perspectives on academic blogging, many of which are relevant to academics’ use of other social media as part of their professional work. The benefits of blogging are clear, but so are the potential pitfalls in what has been a largely under-researched practice. More research and scholarship is required as part of mapping how academic blogging is undertaken, how it might be changing in response to other developments in higher education and the broader politics of the practice.
Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications Draft Report (2013): American Association of University Professors.
Adema, J. (2013) Practise what you preach: Engaging in humanities research through critical praxis. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16 (5), 491-505.
Barbour, K. and Marshall, D. (2012) The academic online: constructing persona through the World Wide Web. First Monday, (9). Accessed 27 September 2013. Available from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3969/3292
Beer, D. (2013) Public geography and the politics of circulation. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3 (1), 92-95.
Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2013) Popular culture, digital archives and the new social life of data. Theory, Culture & Society, 30 (4), 47-71.
Burrows, R. (2012) Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review, 60 (2), 355-372.
Carrigan, M. (2013) Continous publishing and being an open-source academic. Accessed 22 December 2013. Available from http://digitalsociology.org.uk/?paged=2
Chapman, S. (2012) Hate mail and cyber trolls: the view from inside public health. The Conversation, Accessed 3 August 2013. Available from https://theconversation.com/hate-mail-and-cyber-trolls-the-view-from-inside-public-health-9329
Cottom McMillan, T. (2012) Risk and ethics in public scholarship. University of Venus, Accessed 4 August 2013. Available from http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university-venus/risk-and-ethics-public-scholarship
Daniels, J. (2013) From tweet to blog post to peer-reviewed article: how to be a scholar now. Accessed 11 December 2013. Available from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/09/25/how-to-be-a-scholar-daniels
Estes, H. (2012) Blogging and academic identity. Literature Compass, 9 (12), 974-982.
Gill, R. (2010) Breaking the silence: the hidden injuries of neoliberal academia. In R. Flood and R. Gill (eds) Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections. London: Routledge, 228-244.
Gregg, M. (2006) Feeling ordinary: blogging as conversational scholarship. Continuum, 20 (2), 147-160.
Gregg, M. (2009) Banal bohemia: blogging from the ivory tower hot-desk. Convergence, 15 (4), 470-483.
Hall, G. (2013a) About Media Gifts Accessed 7 August 2013. Available from http://garyhall.squarespace.com/about
Hall, G. (2013b) The unbound book: academic publishing in the age of the infinite archive. Journal of Visual Culture, 12 (3), 490-507.
Kirkup, G. (2010) Academic blogging: academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8 (1), 75-84.
Kitchin, R. (2014) Engaging publics: writing as praxis. Cultural Geographies, 21 (1), 153-157.
Kitchin, R., Linehan, D., O’Callaghan, C. and Lawton, P. (2013) Public geographies through social media. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3 (1), 56-72.
Maitzen, R. (2012) Scholarship 2.0: blogging and/as academic practice. Journal of Victorian Culture, 1-7.
Mewburn, I. and Thomson, P. (2013) Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (8), 1105.
Wade, L. and Sharp, G. (2013) Sociological Images: Blogging as public sociology. Social Science Computer Review, 31 (2), 221-228.
Williams, L. (2013) Academic blogging: a risk worth taking? The Guardian, Accessed 13 December 2013. Available from http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/dec/04/academic-blogging-newspaper-research-plagiarism
These are the academic publications of mine that have been published this year. Some of these are open access (the link is provided if they are OA). For those that are not and you would like a copy, please contact me on email@example.com and I will email you a PDF.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Risk, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) The Social Worlds of the Unborn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Deborah Lupton (editor) (2013) The Unborn Human. Open Humanities Press (e-book) (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Introduction: conceptualising and configuring the unborn human. In Lupton, D. (ed), The Unborn Human. London: Open Humanities Press (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Infant embodiment and interembodiment: a review of sociocultural perspectives. Childhood, 20(1), 37—50.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) ‘It’s a terrible thing when your children are sick’: motherhood and home healthcare work. Health Sociology Review, 22(3), 234—42.
- Deborah Lupton and Virginia Schmied (2013) Splitting bodies/selves: women’s concepts of embodiment at the moment of birth. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(6), 828—41.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) The digitally engaged patient: self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Social Theory & Health, 11 (3), 256—70.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Digital sociology: beyond the digital to the sociological. In The Australian Sociological Association Annual Conference 2013 Proceedings: Reflections, Intersections and Aspirations. Edited by Osbaldiston, N., Strong, C. and Forbes-Mewett, H. Melbourne: TASA (OA – postprint available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Understanding the human machine. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 32(4), 25—30 (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Quantifying the body: monitoring, performing and configuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 393-403.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Risk and emotion: towards an alternative theoretical perspective. Health, Risk & Society, 15(8), 634-47.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Precious, pure, uncivilised, vulnerable: infant embodiment in the Australian popular media. Children & Society, early view online, DOI: 10.1111/chso.12004.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Fat Politics: Collected Writings. Sydney: University of Sydney (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) The Commodification of Patient Opinion: the Digital Patient Experience Economy in the Age of Big Data. Sydney Health & Society Group Working Paper No. 3. Sydney: Sydney Health & Society Group (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Revolting Bodies: the Pedagogy of Disgust in Public Health Campaigns. Sydney Health & Society Group Working Paper No. 4. Sydney: Sydney Health & Society Group (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Digitizing Health Promotion: Personal Responsibility for Health in the Web 2.0 Era. Sydney Health & Society Group Working Paper No. 5. Sydney: Sydney Health & Society Group (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Book review: Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age (by D. Murthy). Information, Communication and Society, online first, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.808366.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Opening up your research: self-archiving for sociologists. Nexus (newsletter of the Australian Sociological Association), 25(2), 30—1.
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Personlich vervantwortlich: gesundheit im digitalen Zeitalter (Personal responsibility for health in the digital age). Kursbuch, 175, http://kursbuch-online.de/kursbuch/kursbuch-175/
- Lupton, D. (2013) Infants and/as objects (conference paper) (OA – available here).
- Lupton, D. (2013) Introducing digital sociology (preprint book chapter) (OA – available here).
- Lupton, D. (2013) The digital cyborg assemblage: Haraway’s cyborg theory and the new digital health technologies (preprint book chapter) (OA – available here).
- Deborah Lupton (2013) Book review: Why We Eat, How We Eat: Contemporary Encounters Between Foods and Bodies (edited by E.-J. Abbots and A. Lavis). LSE Review of Books (OA – available here).
I have written several times on this blog about the benefits and possibilities of engaging as an academic in using social media and other digital media. I have recounted my experiences of using social media for professional purposes, outlined the reasons for why I blog, discussed why I think academics should write for Wikipedia and advocated for open access publication.
I have also discussed some negative implications for academics using social media, including the possibility that academics will become increasingly subjected to metric assessments based on their success in using social media (via altmetrics) and the reluctance of some to take up new activities in an already very demanding working life. Academics may also find confronting the lack of control they are able to exert over their digital writing once it has been released onto the internet.
In this post I want to elaborate some more on what might be called the risks of online academia, something I have been thinking about in working on my forthcoming book Digital Sociology.
Academics who engage in such activities of public engagement, as part of receiving wider public attention may be subjected to public criticism, unfounded or legitimate, of their ideas. Early career researchers are more vulnerable to trenchant criticism of their views at a time when they are still establishing their careers and seeking employment. More than established academics, who have less to lose, such junior academics are caught in a double-bind. Using social media such as blogs can be an important way to establish a foothold in a field, get one’s name and research known, establish valuable networks with colleagues and demonstrate to potential employers that one is engaging with the public in approved ways. On the other hand, however, some early career academics, particularly if they also come from marginalised social groups or are working in less prestigious universities, may find their opinions open to attack in ways that more senior and socially privileged academics may not.
The phenomenon of ‘trolling’, or the posting of deliberately malicious comments about individuals online, has been experienced by some academics. Those who express their opinions on controversial issues or who challenge powerful institutions or commercial interests are often the target of comments questioning their professional integrity (as well abuse related to more personal attributes). This has happened frequently to a colleague of mine, Simon Chapman, a public health advocate who has received a high level of public attention for his work in confronting such corporations as Big Tobacco and the gun lobby (see Chapman’s account of his experiences here).
There may said to be a ‘politics of digital engagement’, in which academics, particularly those who are members of marginalised social groups (women, minority ethnic or racial groups, gays or lesbians, with disabilities) or who are junior academics seeking tenure or those in short-term employment contracts, may need to be very cautious about the types of opinions they express in open digital forums (see Fullick on these points). Academics from marginalised minority groups can use social media networks as systems of support, but at the same time these very tools, in their public nature, can be sites of attack.
Sexual harassment has been experienced by some female academics who have engaged in debates in public forums or who have used social media to communicate their research findings. Some women have detailed their experiences of their appearance and their sexual attractiveness being remarked upon by anonymous commentators in often hurtful or threatening ways (see Beard and Mitchell on this). I have observed that female academics who engage in fat activism using online forums or traditional media outlets are frequently targeted by vituperative comments about their appearance, lack of self-discipline and the like. (Ironically, these comments often serve only to demonstrate further the contentions of these academics concerning fat stigma and discrimination.)
Abusive and overly racist, misogynistic or homophobic comments, which are often on public display and can be accessed via search engines, may be very confronting and disturbing for their targets, particularly if sexual violence or other violent acts against the targets are suggested. This is a wider problem of the affordances of online technologies: anyone who engages online is open to abusive comments that cannot easily be removed from internet archives.
It is vitally important that universities develop systems for protecting and supporting academics, particularly in the context in which they are increasingly expected and encouraged to engage in public engagement as part of their work. As Cottom Mcmillan notes, ‘While universities are quick to promote public scholarship they are loath to extend their responsibility to refereeing the behavior of academics in the public sphere’. There is a need for guidelines to be drawn up for engaging online in public spaces as an academic, including not only the type of content one disseminates or creates, but also how one interacts with other academics in response to their content. Academics should be supported by their institutions to build online networks and communities but also need to be protected against the risks of engaging as a digital public scholar.
Academics have traditionally been somewhat suspicious of the hugely popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a credible source of scholarly information. They are concerned about the validity and reliability of the information presented, and the fact that entries are open to editing by any comer. Few academics thus far have contributed to Wikipedia as content generators or editors, although they admit to using it regularly, and they know that their students constantly refer to it.
Given that Wikipedia is now the most visited online reference work, surely it is time that more academics played a role in shaping its content? It should be noted that Wikipedia has changed in its approach to content generation over the years. A sophisticated quality control process is now in place by which entries are created, accepted and edited. Wikipedia entries must now be correctly referenced with credible and reputable sources. Although the entries do not have contributors’ names directly appended, it is easy to see who has contributed by clicking on the ‘edit’ button, as well as to view details of the edits they have made.
An increasing number of libraries, art galleries, archives and museums are using the ‘Wikipedian in Residence’ idea to promote their holdings. Under this scheme, a person experienced in editing and creating Wikipedia entries spends a period of time (several weeks or more) at the institution to train staff members in the art. Institutions that have taken advantage of this scheme include the august British Museum, the Palace of Versailles, the Museu Picasso, the Smithsonian Institution, and here in Australia, the State Library of New South Wales.
This seems to me to be a good idea for universities to adopt. If students and academics are regularly using Wikipedia, then they should also learn about how to contribute to the body of knowledge in this platform. For academics, this means that rather than simply sitting back and letting others create content on a topic in which they may be particularly expert, they can take an active approach and shape the content themselves. The entry can be revised and added to at any time, making it responsive to changes in the field about which one is writing.
Those academics who have worked on entries are often positive about the experience. One, Martin Poulter, argues that writing for Wikipedia has taught him how to write about academic subjects in an accessible manner. He gives examples of using Wikipedia writing for students as a means of allowing them to engage in online publication, and notes that Wikipedia entries often shape public debate because they are so widely consulted. He sees Wikipedia as an ‘online community for researchers, educators and students to take part in’.
I have created my own Wikipedia entry on the topic of digital sociology. This entry is now the first hyperlink to appear when the term ‘digital sociology’ is input in a search engine. It was not a particularly onerous task, once I had become familiar with the protocol.
Wikipedia provides clear outlines for how to create and edit entries. Nonetheless, providing training programs for academics by those experienced in creating Wikipedia content would make the process far easier. Some academics have held Wikipedia ‘hack days’ or ‘editathons’, gathering together to work on entries as a group. In the UK the organisation Wikimedia UK offers assistance for such training and events.
Engaging in Wikipedia content creation or editing can be a form of political resistance to marginalisation. Women contributors are far in the minority in Wikipedia, as are entries about high achieving women, and it has been contended that existing entries about women are deleted or severely edited disproportionately compared to those about men. There is clearly a ‘politics of Wikipedia’ involving the same types of marginalisation of and discrimination against less powerful social groups that occurs in other areas of social life, despite the platform’s rhetoric about open collaboration and democratic participation. Some feminist academics have taken up the gauntlet to redress this imbalance, organising mass editing days as part of the ‘Storming Wikipedia’ project, in which female students and academics work together to create entries about influential women.
Participation in the dynamic forum that is Wikipedia, therefore, can take many forms. As an academic (or student) one can engage in active content creation as part of shaping the public discourses on one’s chosen topic. Social researchers can also use the platform as a source of research data, investigating the ways in which knowledge is created and contested as part of the process of Wikipedia content creation and editing, the types of content that shape Wikipedia entries or how people respond to Wikipedia as a source of information. Surprising little critical social research thus far has been conducted on Wikipedia — there seems great scope for further investigation. More radically, contributing to Wikipedia can constitute a resistant political act.