The time spent online by an average American is about 24 hours. It is more than the half of the full work-hours in a week. The internet has become a necessity rather than a luxury. This infographic describes in detail the online consumption habits of different age groups. Without any surprise, the Gen Z (born after 2000) consumes the most amount of content online. Hence, the social media is used extensively to influence the Gen Y and Gen Z.
The content available can have an impact. Increasing the presence of academics online can make a big difference. With the research out in the open, people would not have to wait for the media organizations to pick some ‘hot’ topics or research. With wide knowledge of the research, it will not only help in the collaboration but will also help in the direct inclusion of the community that might be affected by the research. This changes the thinking of the researchers. Pedagogical methods would become different. As the community will be more open, the resources and needs can be understood better. As George Kuh recommends in his “high-impact practices“, the idea of education should be of inquiry, and learning. The practices were written in 2008, hence, digitalization and its impact is not well incorporated in them. But, as mentioned earlier, the online habits have changed dramatically over the years. Gardner Campbell has captured its importance in detail in the article on networked learning.
Blogging gives the opportunity to indulge better in discussion with the community members. As more people from academia start doing it, it will become a regular thing and not restricted to specialists. When people from all walks of life will be taking part in the discussion, there will be more meaning to the learning and research. Diversity and inclusiveness will have to become a necessary element in everything. It will allow the education to grow. The learning will be more “humanity” and “reality” based.
However, it is easier said than done. There are two factors that may deter the people concerned. First, it is a big responsibility. When someone states something, they should mean it. It may be tiring for some to answer the people who are there just to kill the time. Next, the online presence may have to be increased which may take a toll on the professional and personal life. As we are already spending about 24 hours after the 40 hours of work, the time spent on essential things may change and can have an adverse impact. It can certainly be avoided with proper planning, however, at times, it becomes difficult to manage. The overall positive of ‘going online’ may be overshadowed by the negative, if things go astray.
In search of self 
I agree with the cons you highlight in your last paragraph. Constant communication can be a burden. Should we expect professionals to spend additional hours posting and engaging with commentators? Especially if the readership is low or may not have any desire to learn or engage in real discussion.
I do question whether the openness of peer-reviewed journalism makes a difference in people’s ability to engage with topics of interest to them. Many people don’t understand how to read academic writing or statistics, and many folks won’t be able to tell the differences between good/bad science or pay-to-publish/peer-reviewed journals. If people encounter both good science through scientists’ blogs and unsubstantiated opinions on random citizens’ blogs, how are they to differentiate? Are we hurting our (science) credibility by discussing it on blogs that may also be littered with our opinions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment. You raise an important point with going ‘open’. I completely agree with your view on the inability of the common folks to understand the academic writing with the current system. However, the system is designed by us, and can be changed the time we decide to. I was at a poster presentation in a conference last semester, which was open to all. One of the attendees and I were discussing the difficulty in understanding the titles to find out our interest. There were many posters whose titles could have been written in very simple terms instead of the technical jargon used there.
Once we are able to communicate the science in the simpler terms, I feel, it will gather interest from the concerned public. Now whether what we are reading online is good/bad, irrespective of science or not, is a battle in itself that we all are engaged in. As with anything, “going online’ and ‘being open’ are definitely prone to obstacles. I hope we will be able to find a solution to such with upcoming advances in technology.
LikeLike
I appreciated your point of view and the ability to take a step back and just realize how much of our time is internet consumed. I have often wondered if having academics on twitter (as an academic outreach) and accessible is great or if its really a waste of time. I do agree with the previous commenter on how we should expect professionals to manage their online presence and, as someone who’s on and off blogged for most of my life, I really find that I have no readers .
I find it interesting that you bring up impact. This is one of the main drivers of many academic models and promotion and I think one thing that will determine if more academics regularly blog or not is if their less formal online presence can be taken into account when it comes to tenure. Or maybe blogging is an older academics game.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your comment, Ishi. I think we all have been in that dilemma of, ‘To be or not to be… on Twitter’. I agree with your point on when you don’t have a reader base, it is very difficult to motivate yourself to write, whether on twitter or on a blog. And then there is this whole tenure thing. It is a complex system and cannot and should not be based on a few fixed factors. Again, as I said in my reply to rinaley, it is we, who designed the system and only we can change it.
LikeLike
I can definitely relate to the time crunch! Figuring out how to “filter forward” the high value material and not waste tons of time drifting through the flotsam and jetsam online is an ongoing struggle. But on the other hand, using a blog (or twitter) to develop a network and amplify your work can be so powerful. When I think about all of the things I’ve written that are stuck on my hard drive or scribbled in journals, my blog looks like a great investment of time and energy. The work is out there. I know where to find it, and I can direct someone there in a heartbeat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your thoughts on this, Dr. Nelson. There is no doubt that blogging and writing on social media is a powerful and quick way to connect with people. With having years of published material online, I can understand from your perspective the power of the online presence. For the beginners, like me, it is just difficult to comprehend its importance in future. There is also this fear of being judged and leading to biases when formal and not-so-formal lives of a person are mixed.
LikeLike
I think a question that people ask ourselves can be what is the gain and how can we measure what we (those who are in-tune with their online presence) are gaining when they are actively engaging with the internet community. One thing I know is that people can get immediate satisfaction when comments/likes are had, but past that, how can one know they are gaining in a year or two. How else can we measure our successes online?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment. I think you raise an important question of the benefits of our online presence. There are a few things to be considered such as whether we are able to generate connections or network with the like-minded people. Even if we are able to relay the information of the research to the concerned people, it may be helpful for them to understand the need for the research. This becomes especially important when fields like medicines are concerned and people can get timely advice. However, as mentioned many times before in the comments here, it is not free of difficulties. For example, Andrew Wakefield’s (a discredited former British doctor) fraudulent research relating vaccines to autism and his anti-vaccine activities are leading to measles in many children across Europe. So, it is really important to be careful and find answers in details if there is even a slight confusion.
LikeLike
I think in the case of blogging, we are at least committing to a form of slowed-down and pondered medium for sharing ideas. And that’s a good thing. People have pointed out the difficulty of discussing complex issues in tweets and I agree with them. The more nuanced a subject the more it needs space and time. Sharing bite-sized information is good for grabbing the attention ( esp. those of gen Z audience) but for detailed discussion better platforms exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the comment, Arash. It is true that blogs and twitter can just serve as a platform to connect. However, once the connection is established, it can be discussed in detail using other platforms.
LikeLike
The idea of not having to wait for media organizations to draw attention to research they deem to be a ‘hot topic’ really jumped out to me. How many people, not in academia, actually receive their updates on various scientific advancements any other way? I don’t know any non-academic who browses Web of Science in their free time on the bus. We should be the ones putting our research/ideas out there, and presenting it in a way that’s actually interesting to read and simplified.
Also, it’s true that if people should stand behind what they post online. I cannot tell you how many posts Facebook has pulled from the archives of my high school days that I am so embarrassed of. As people’s grow/mature, it is often hard to have these past posts be so readily available.
LikeLike
I am with you on non-academics browsing Web of Science. Most won’t even know about it. Leave non-academics, I don’t do that in my free time. However, I do read blogs and articles on different forums. I had this crazy idea of submitting my manuscript as a tale, of course it was turned down with the ‘submitting guidelines’. I had this conversation a lot of times, if you can describe your work to your grandparents in the simplest manner and they can understand it, you can describe it to anyone. Writing it out can just help in the description process.
Tell me about the FB embarrassing posts. Yes, I was stupid back then. Maybe I still am. But can we please move on?!
Thank you for your comments 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing out that the average person spends a significant amount of time per week online. I also really like and agree with your thoughtful statement that:
“Blogging gives the opportunity to indulge better in discussion with the community members. As more people from academia start doing it, it will become a regular thing and not restricted to specialists. When people from all walks of life will be taking part in the discussion, there will be more meaning to the learning and research. Diversity and inclusiveness will have to become a necessary element in everything. It will allow the education to grow. The learning will be more “humanity” and “reality” based.”
You mention time as an underlying factor for why academics are hesitant to embrace digital communication as a means of communicating with the community (general public). Another challenge, that does require a significant amount of time, is explaining ideas and concepts in simple, direct, and engaging terms that will facilitate understanding and interest from the community. I think researchers are moving in the right direction with this and as the Gen Y and Zers age, the communication between academics and the community will continue to improve.
LikeLike
Ishi, you are spot on this issues, especially the time we spend online. I like to blogging but only to a certain extent. Other platforms are used to connect but there is a fine balance on what we can do online.
LikeLike