more on social media in this IMS blog
more on social media in this IMS blog
A two-part workshop running 90 minutes each session on Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 2:30pm Eastern/1:30 Central/12:30 Mountain/11:30am Pacific and Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 2:30pm Eastern/1:30 Central/12:30 Mountain/11:30am Pacific
Snapchat is one of the 10 most downloaded apps in the world and a key means of communication for individuals aged 13-34. Emerging quickly onto the social media scene, Snapchat has left many librarians wondering how to incorporate it into their outreach strategy. In this two-part workshop, social media expert Paige Alfonzo responds to this question and teaches you how to successfully leverage Snapchat as a marketing tool—one that can be used for readers’ advisory, promotion, information dissemination, and a variety of other marketing purposes.
In part one, Alfonzo covers the ins and outs of the platform—from teaching you the basics of setting up an account, adding friends, and sending snaps to demonstrating how to annotate snaps, incorporate filters, and use Snapchat Stories and Memories. In part two, Alfonzo delves into the specifics of how to make Snapchat work in libraries by discussing how librarians have successfully used Snapchat to promote their services, then she provides you with an opportunity to participate hands on with Snapchat by sending snaps to each other. The workshop will leave you with useful approaches to get creative with the app and expand your social media strategy.
more on social media for the library in this IMS blog
the use of social media, personal versus institutional, or personal in the context of an institutional repercussions, is a complex and thorny issue. How much can one criticize the institution in their personal social media? And if the institution responds, when does it become silencing the social media as expression of free speech?
Is the article below touching only a specific [political] issue, or academia, as an institution, goes beyond this issue in imposing on freedom of speech?
My tweets might appear uncivil, but such a judgment can’t be made in an ideological or rhetorical vacuum. Insofar as “civil” is profoundly racialized and has a long history of demanding conformity, I frequently choose incivility as a form of communication. This choice is both moral and rhetorical.
Academics are usually eager to contest censorship and deconstruct vague charges of vulgarity. When it comes to defending Israel, though, anything goes.
Students are capable of serious discussion, of formulating responses, of thinking through discomfort. They like my teaching because I refuse to infantilize them; I treat them as thinking adults. My philosophy is simple: Teach them the modes and practices of critical thought and let them figure out things on their own.
Professors are often punished for disrupting convention in informal ways, however. My case is interesting because administrators ignored the de facto standards that regulate our behavior and exercised their power directly. This should be worrisome to any scholar who isn’t a sycophant.
The coming of “academic capitalism” has been anticipated and praised for years; today it is here.
Benjamin Ginsberg points out that in the past 30 years, the administrator-to-student ratio has increased while the instructor-to-student ratio has stagnated. The rise of untenured, or non-tenure-track, faculty exacerbates the problem; a significant demographic in academe lacks job security or the working conditions that allow them to maximize their pedagogical talent. Over a recent 10-year period, spending on administration outpaced spending on instruction. At American universities, there are now more administrators and their staffers than full-time faculty. In the past 10 years, administrative salaries have steadily risen while custodians and groundskeepers suffer the inevitable budget cuts — as do the students whose tuition and fees supplement this largess.
When so much money is at stake, those who raid the budget have a deep interest in maintaining the reputation of the institution. Their privilege and the condition of the brand are causally related. The brand thus predominates. Its predominance often arrives at the expense of student well-being.
critical thinking is a terribly undesirable quality in the corporate world, much more damning than selfishness or sycophancy. Let us then be honest about critical thinking: On the tongues of cunning bureaucrats, it is little more than an additive to brand equity, the vainglorious pomp of smug, uptight automatons who like to use buzzwords in their PowerPoint presentations.
Critical thinking by faculty is even more undesirable. In research institutions, we are paid to generate prestige and to amass grant money; in teaching-centered colleges, we enjoy excess enrollments according to fine-tuned equations that maximize the student-teacher ratio. (In elite liberal-arts colleges, we pamper the kids with simulations of parental affection.) Critical thinking is especially harmful to adjuncts, reliant as they are for income on the munificence of well-paid bosses who cultivate a distended assemblage of expendable employees.
more on social media in this IMS blog: