{"id":11447,"date":"2012-08-15T22:00:03","date_gmt":"2012-08-16T02:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=11447"},"modified":"2012-08-16T01:01:22","modified_gmt":"2012-08-16T05:01:22","slug":"toward-a-more-inclusive-backchannel-an-unusual-call-to-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2012\/08\/15\/toward-a-more-inclusive-backchannel-an-unusual-call-to-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Toward A More Inclusive Backchannel: An Unusual Call To Action"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Academic conferences: the model needs to change.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As the 2012 meeting of the American Sociological Association (#ASA2012) kicks into gear, I want to use this post to start a conversation about a somewhat-contentious topic: academics\u2019 use of Twitter, particularly at conferences<\/strong>. I begin by extending some of what\u2019s already been written on Cyborgology about the use of Twitter at conferences, and then consider reasons why some people may find Twitter use off-putting or intimidating at conferences. I close by considering what Twitter users in particular can do to ease the \u201cTwitter tensions\u201d at ASA by being more inclusive. The stakes here include far more than just \u201cniceness\u201d; they include as well an opportunity to shape the shifting landscape of scholarly knowledge production<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Before I begin, I need to make two disclosures; I also want to define a few terms, so that the conversation that follows is more accessible to people who aren\u2019t familiar with Twitter. Disclosure No. 1 is that this year will be my first time attending an ASA; at the time of writing, my impressions of the \u201cTwitter tension\u201d at ASA in particular are based on reports from friends and colleagues rather than on first-hand experience. Disclosure No. 2 is that, like<\/a> my<\/a> Cyborgology<\/a> colleagues<\/a>, I\u2019m a big fan of what we like to call augmented conferences<\/em>, or conferences that make full use of Twitter<\/a> and other digital media to enhance and expand conference participation both for those who can attend in person and for those who participate across geographic distance<\/strong>. (Readers who also see this type of model as the ideal conference<\/a> may wish to skip the next two paragraphs, in which I explain some terminology relevant to backchannels and Twitter most generally.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
A backchannel from Theorizing the Web 2012, as seen from a mobile phone.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Augmented conferences frequently work to enhance participation through the use of backchannels<\/em>, which are conversations about individual conference presentations or about the conference itself that take place in real-time through Twitter<\/strong> (and sometimes through other digital media). Threads of specific backchannel conversations are identified using hashtags<\/em><\/strong>, which are short bits of text with # in front of them (aka, #ASA2012<\/a>). Hashtags are clickable links, and both Twitter users and non-users can follow a backchannel discussion by clicking on a hashtag or by entering the hashtag into the \u201csearch\u201d field on Twitter; doing either will bring up all the tweets<\/em><\/strong> (or individual posts of 140 characters or less) that have that particular hashtag in them. The main hashtag for a big conference can become a bit chaotic, so presentation-specific backchannels are often marked with both the conference hashtag and a presentation-specific hashtag (you can see how this was done at Theorizing the Web 2012<\/a>: in addition to the conference-specific hashtag #TtW12, each panel has its own specific hashtag<\/a> listed in the program according to session number and room location).<\/p>\n

So what\u2019s a backchannel conversation like?<\/strong> Twitter users who are watching the presentation (either in the room or remotely, if the talk is livestreamed<\/em><\/strong> over the Internet) frequently quote or paraphrase the presenter\u2019s points. A user who is live tweeting<\/em><\/strong> the presentation will attempt to transmit enough of the talk and following in-room discussion for someone who isn\u2019t in the room (or watching online) to follow along; other users watching the presentation will tweet points they find particularly interesting, noteworthy, controversial, or enjoyable. Both users who are watching the presentation (in-room or via livestream) and those who are only following the backchannel will comment on and ask questions about points from the presentation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Backchannel conversations often continue after a presentation ends, and if the presenter is a Twitter user as well, she\u2019ll usually join in for a bit after her presentation is finished. A panel at an augmented conference may also have a backchannel moderator<\/em><\/strong>, whose job it is to live-tweet the presentations and to voice the best questions from the backchannel during in-room discussion; some intrepid speakers<\/a> have also been known to field questions directly both from the room and from the backchannel simultaneously.<\/p>\n

If you\u2019ve never seen one happen, the truth is that a backchannel discussion is a pretty amazing thing.<\/strong> It allows people who can\u2019t be physically present at a conference to participate, not just by making conference content available to them but by providing a way for them to add their voices to the discussions that take place as they are happening<\/em>. Successful backchanneling also demands an intense engagement from in-room attendees<\/strong>, and therefore forces those who can be corporeally present to be intellectually present as well<\/a>. One backchannel participant who clarifies a piece of presenter can improve the experience of attending a talk for unknown numbers of other participants, and a lively backchannel discussion can allow participants to identify key issues and questions before in-room discussion begins. All of these things help participants to make better use of limited in-room discussion time.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
How *does* one approach stranger sociologists?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Backchannel discussions also allow conversation to continue after conference-weary bodies file out of stuffy conference rooms, or fly out from conference cities; some of us shy or introverted<\/a> attendees may also find it easier<\/a> to approach strangers in person after talking to them in a backchannel (just kidding\u2014we all know there are no awkward sociologists<\/em>). Backchanneling can therefore help to create and maintain the professional and personal relationships upon which survival in academia depend.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Perhaps most importantly, archived backchannel discussions represent an important form of conference proceedings<\/a>, one that is more accessible<\/a> by virtue of being both publically available online and (more often than not) written in the less \u201cjargony\u201d language that Twitter\u2019s 140 character limit tends to demand. These versions of proceedings are accessible by availability and by design<\/a>. When we take conference notes by live-tweeting instead of creating private digital or paper notes, we enact our commitment to reengaging academic sociology with the societies that surround it<\/strong>, to facilitating the spread of information, and to getting \u201c<\/strong>out of the hotel conference room, and [into] the streets<\/a>.\u201d Participating in a backchannel is a political act<\/strong>, and in a certain sense, a backchannel discussion is a collective labor of love.<\/p>\n

So now that ASA has wifi, why aren\u2019t we all backchanneling?<\/strong> It turns out that not everyone thinks backchannels are so great. There\u2019s been some friction at previous ASA meetings between attendees who use Twitter and attendees who don\u2019t, and I think this is understandable. Even I admit that, in a way, Twitter can represent the worst of cultural speed-up<\/strong>. The expected response time on a critical tweet is a lot shorter than the expected response time on a critical journal article, and if one \u201cfollows\u201d a good collection of people, Twitter can be an overwhelming assault of interesting ideas and articles, a personalized \u201cdata deluge.\u201d Some presenters may be worried that wider, more rapid circulation of their unpublished work will lead not to increased opportunities for collaboration, but to getting \u201cscooped\u201d; others may fear discussing preliminary work they are not yet ready to commit to record. Given that the mantra is still \u201cpublish or perish,\u201d the stakes can feel high.<\/strong><\/p>\n

There\u2019s also the matter of presenting itself. In the age of Twitter, an anxious presenter must now worry<\/strong> not only about whether the computer users are taking notes or checking email, whether the notepad users are taking notes or doodling, and whether those people sitting quietly in the back row are actually sleeping<\/a>, but also whether some of the audience is tweeting,<\/em> and therefore not only \u2018distracted\u2019 but having a conversation of which the presenter herself is as-yet unaware. The presenter is, of course, always participating in the discussion; without her presentation, there would be no backchannel discussion at all!<\/strong> But we can acknowledge that presenting and backchanneling are different modes of participation, just as are presenting and attending, and that the difference between presenting and backchanneling in particular may be additionally disconcerting for speakers who are unfamiliar with Twitter and backchannels.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Taking notes? Or passing notes?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A non-user may feel as though a backchannel discussion of her presentation represents \u201cpassing notes during a talk, only if those notes were posted on a giant whiteboard<\/a> behind the speaker so that everybody but her could read them.\u201d Though a speaker can easily join the backchannel discussion following her presentation, she may in that moment want a drink or a nap (or both) far more than she wants to engage in digital discussion about her talk. Let\u2019s admit, too, that it can be considerably more daunting (for user- and non-user presenters alike) to face a room that\u2019s well prepared to ask critical questions<\/strong> instead of one that flounders<\/a> for the first two-thirds of an in-room discussion period. Maybe this represents a drawbacks to moving past talks in which a speaker presents \u201cto five bored attendees checking their email<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, given that new or unfamiliar technologies can irritating or intimidating in and of themselves, what percentage of \u2018expert authorities\u2019 want to risk losing face by fumbling with Twitter in front of some punkass hipster grad students<\/a>?<\/strong> Though there are certainly some venerable figures who use and enjoy Twitter, perhaps it\u2019s unsurprising that other academics with secure positions and established networks don\u2019t see what bothering with Twitter would have to offer them. But why does any of this matter?<\/strong> Some of us love Twitter, some of us hate it, and some of us just don\u2019t care; why is this worth writing a blog post about? Can\u2019t the lovers love, and the haters hate, and all of us leave it at that?<\/p>\n

In a word: No.<\/p>\n

As David<\/a> Banks<\/a> (@DA_Banks<\/a>), Sarah<\/a> Wanenchak<\/a> (@dynamicsymmetry<\/a>), Nathan Jurgenson<\/a> (@nathanjurgenson<\/a>) & Pj Rey<\/a> (@pjrey<\/a>), and a number of others have argued, the old conference model needs to change, as do most of the models<\/em> for how we academics circulate and disseminate information.<\/strong> Backchanneling represents one excellent way for academic conferences to take a step in the right direction, but at present those of us who feel that way are in the minority. Academia is notoriously slow to change, and \u201cthose entrenched in the old system<\/a>, whose habits are better suited to yesteryear and who still have sufficient power to resist\u2026 any change\u201d have little incentive to see the value that backchannels add<\/a> to a conference. Therefore, I call for new tactics: I call for dialogue and outreach at ASA2012.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Make a new connection.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

If you\u2019re backchanneling this week, I challenge you to reach out to someone who isn\u2019t<\/em><\/strong> backchanneling<\/strong>. Consider offering to share your screen with someone for a talk. Show someone a backchannel conversation following a presentation, and explain how backchanneling works. See if you can\u2019t help someone sign up for Twitter. Try to answer questions about what you\u2019re doing and why you\u2019re doing it with patience, compassion, and humor (even when those things aren\u2019t extended to you, because at least once they probably won\u2019t be). Try not to be too<\/em> bitingly sarcastic on Twitter when you see a presentation you disagree with, and if you must break out the industrial strength snark, consider keeping it off the #ASA2012 hashtag. Don\u2019t publically make fun of people who aren\u2019t as tech-savvy as you are (even if you did think that whole ASA2012 \u201capp\u201d thing<\/a> was really funny). Remember that there are understandable reasons some people are skeptical of backchanneling, and see if you can contribute\u2014even just once\u2014to making augmented conferences seem a little less alien, off-putting, or intimidating <\/strong>to someone who doesn\u2019t yet see augmented conferences the way you do.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As academics, we need to work first and foremost on being more accessible to society; we also need to work on being more accessible to each other. Backchanneling can help us with the former, and it has certainly helped some of us with the latter, but we need to go further. How can we accomplish this? Let\u2019s start the conversation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Whitney Erin Boesel is on Twitter (@phenatypical<\/a>), and is more than happy to help you get on Twitter, too!<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Unhappy conference image from http:\/\/idratherbewriting.com\/2012\/05\/18\/15-tips-for-a-successful-conference-experience\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Backchannel on mobile phone photo by Rob Wanenchak from https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/tag\/theorizing-the-web\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Approaching sociologists at TtW12 photo from https:\/\/picasaweb.google.com\/111664843315056907652\/TheorizingTheWeb2012?authuser=0&feat=directlink#5731684385905961026<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Taking or passing notes photo from http:\/\/www.movingfrommetowe.com\/2008\/03\/12\/when-a-conference-audience-gets-ugly-in-live-time\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

New connections at TtW11 image from http:\/\/pjrey.wordpress.com\/2011\/04\/19\/reflections-on-theorizing-the-web\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As the 2012 meeting of the American Sociological Association (#ASA2012) kicks into gear, I want to use this post to start a conversation about a somewhat-contentious topic: academics\u2019 use of Twitter, particularly at conferences. I begin by extending some of what\u2019s already been written on Cyborgology about the use of Twitter at conferences, and then […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1875,"featured_media":11448,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9967],"tags":[36438,209,374,18370,12208,12198,10409,18371,18374,13190,18299,18372,12,184],"class_list":["post-11447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","tag-ttw12","tag-academia","tag-asa","tag-asa2012","tag-augmented-conference","tag-bingo","tag-conference","tag-grad-students","tag-knowledge-production","tag-networking","tag-relevance","tag-snark","tag-technology","tag-twitter"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/files\/2012\/08\/thisconferencesucks.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11447","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1875"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11447"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11447\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11473,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11447\/revisions\/11473"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}