Mistaken Goal: Where Student Affairs & Technology Meet

I’m doing at least three things with this blog post:

1. Participating in the NASPA Tech Tools program that asks participants to try out Flickr by creating an account and uploading a photo.
2. Discussing my current research.
3. Providing some hard-to-find information about the use of a digital camera and a copy stand to copy historical documents.

This is a photo of my new portable copy stand. The photo was uploaded to Flickr and it tagged with NASPATechTools; I hope others participating in the Tech Tools program will follow suit and upload some interesting photos.

This device is a copy stand. I would have liked to take the photo with the camera attached to the stand but I had to use the camera to take the photo. The stand that allows me to attach my new camera so the lens faces downwards. Why would I want to do that? The answer lies in the name of the stand - copy stand. I place documents on the table below the camera and take high quality photos of them. More on the specifics in a bit.

But let’s ask “why would I want to do that?” again: Why would I want a portable copy stand?  It’s so I can more easily and quickly conduct some of my current research. I have two strands of research that both focus on locating and analyzing the contents of historical documents. First, I am aiming to discover how American student affairs professionals have used and related to various technologies throughout the history of the profession. One way I’m doing that is by looking through documents in the National Student Affairs Archive at Bowling Green State University. Those documents include program guides from ACPA and NASPA conferences going back to the 1930s and other documents from those organizations related to technology. Second, I am continuing my research into student-used communications and entertainment technologies in American residence halls. To do that, I’m looking through various documents (building design specifications, housing regulations, meeting minutes, etc.) in Bowling Green’s university archives.

If I didn’t have a camera or if the wonderful people at Bowling Green were not letting me use it then I would be (a) carefully poring over each document to fully ingest it, (b) taking many, many notes, and (c) asking the archives staff to copy (probably for a fee) many, many documents. By using my camera to copy documents, I can work much more quickly and, in the long run, cheaply (since I don’t have to pay for copies). I still have to read everything but I am very liberal with what I copy since it’s quick and cheap. Of course, when I say “copy” here I mean “copy for personal research use.” These documents and photos are still copyrighted so I still need to seek permission before I can use these documents for some purposes.

The specific camera I am using is a Canon Powershot S5 IS. I could probably use a cheaper camera but I am very ignorant of photography. One reason I like this camera is that flash must be physically flipped up before it will work. That means that I can’t accidentally forget to turn the flash off before using it to take photos of old documents. Just as important, like many Canon cameras this one came with a USB cable and software that allows me to control the camera using my laptop. Among other things, that eliminates any possibility of me jiggling the camera when I press the button to take photos. The software also automatically sends the photos to my laptop so I can take as many as my hard drive will hold.

It’s not a perfect system. First, being unable to use a flash or external lights means that I am forced to rely on the light in the room. Second, I haven’t begun to figure out all of the settings and options and I know there is some automatic setting that is fouling up the color of the document photos. That’s okay because (a) I can correct that afterwards and (b) it’s not important to get the color correct when I just want to copy a text document.

The image to the right is a sample image. It’s a page from the Report of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the American College Personnel Association; the meeting was held in Atlantic City on February 20-24, 1935. You can click on the image to view it full size. The only edit I made to this image was to rotate it 180 degrees and crop it. You can’t see the discoloration that I think is being introduced by some automatic setting in the software in this particular image as the pages in this book are already very yellowed with age.  But you can see the quality of the image and how it compares to a photocopy or scan.

With respect to content, this document is of interest to me because of the presentation of original research by AT&T. There are several examples in the early ACPA conferences where representatives from giant corporations - AT&T, General Electric, Westinghouse, and American Steel - gave presentations or read papers. I don’t yet know what to make of those presentations and papers. And that is part of the point: Because it was quick, easy, and cheap, I was able to copy this document so I and file it away so I can read it over in more detail later and continue to think about it and process what it might mean. Without my camera, I would have to weigh whether it would be worth the cost and time to either take very detailed notes or request this document be copied.

I’m finding all sorts of cool things in the National Student Affairs Archives: technology-related presentations from the early 1960s, ACPA and NASPA task forces and ad hoc organizations formed to analyze technology and dissolved within the space of a few years, and the sad story of a comprehensive student affairs information database system jointly created and funded (and then killed) by ACPA and NASPA in the early 1980s. I look forward to being able to digest all of this, make sense of it, and share it with everyone.

Comments(0)

My biggest project during my first semester at Indiana University’s Higher Education and Student Affairs PhD program was a research project focusing on the history of student-used communications and entertainment technologies in the IU residence halls throughout the 20th century. I relied almost exclusively on archived historical materials, including memos to and from various administrators, strategic plans (and drafts of those plans), student and popular media reports, and meeting minutes. Although my initial hope was to document not only what technologies were used but also why those technologies were introduced and maintained, the second question (”Why?”) proved to be difficult and elusive. Nonetheless, it was exciting and interesting and I was able to draw some relatively sound conclusions.

First, there is no unifying force or explanation to explain or account for the adoption of every technology. Although I expected to find a strong thread of consumerism and competition driving the adoption of most or all of the technologies, an expectation shared by prominent education historian John Thelin (in response to a query posted on my behalf to a historian listserv by IU professor Andrea Walton), those do not appear to have been significant driving forces. This may be explained by the lack of meaningful competitive pressure felt by a service that IU students were forced to fund (even today, first-year IU students are required to live on campus). Moreover, each technology has a unique history. Telephones and buzzers were initially installed almost exclusively as convenient communications devices. Their popularity and widespread presence throughout Indiana and America seems to have been the primary driving force in expanding telephone access in the residence halls and there is little evidence that students regularly demanded the continued expansion of telephone-related services and access. Radios and record players were originally furnished by the university as they could only be used in common spaces. They were integral parts of communal and social activities, roles that were gradually assumed by television and other activities and media. Computers and computer networks were explicitly introduced in large part to address computer literacy and provide residents with access to academic technologies.

Second, and more interestingly, is the pervasive trend common among all of these technologies that their origination in the IU residence halls as a shared resource in a common space was followed by a move into the individual rooms as private ownership of the technologies become more affordable and common among residents. In other words, each of the technologies either migrated from a shared communal location and experience to a more private and personal one.  In many cases, the technology initially played an important role in the communal social life and activities of the residents. Telephones were initially placed in lounges and hallways while residents were reminded to keep their calls short out of consideration of others that may be disturbed by the conversation or need to make a phone call. Radios and record players began as furnishings in lounges and significant social events were organized around them. Televisions were only allowed in specified common lounges, sometimes advertised as “TV rooms.” Computers were available only in clusters.

Each of these technologies, however, moved into individual residence hall rooms and shifted from enablers of communal activities and gatherings to more private and personal uses. Telephones migrated from hallways to suites and eventually were installed in each individual room. As newer residence halls were constructed with more modern electrical systems, radios, record players, and televisions were permitted in individual rooms. The university even made provisions to assist residents in obtaining good reception with the television sets as indicated by the drama surrounding external antenna that culminated in cable television in each room. Even before networking equipment was installed, computers quickly moved out of the clusters and into individual rooms as microcomputers became powerful and commonplace. Although vestiges of each of these technologies remained outside the rooms, the migration of these technologies into the individual rooms mirrors a more general trend towards more personal space and more individual amenities as well as a decreasing cost for once-expensive technologies.

This semester, I am pursuing independent study under the supervision of Andrea Walton in which I will seek to expand on the finding that these technologies historically began as shared communal resources and have migrated to personal ones. In particular, I need to expand my research to encompass:

1. Other American universities and colleges.  I need to know if these findings are unique to IU. I strongly suspect that the history is similar at many institutions that were large and resourceful enough to remain technologically advanced. However, I also suspect that at institutions that could not or did not “keep up” found that simply “keeping up” and meeting demand, driven in part by institutions like IU and in part by larger American societal and cultural expectations, became a large part of their motivation for employing these technologies. This will not be an easy task as I do not expect these topics to be covered in any detail, or at all, in the available histories of most institutions. I hope to explore the history of the professional housing officers’ association ACUHO-I, particularly its publications, IT committee, and the titles and abstracts of presentations at its conferences.
2. University and college operations other than housing and residence life. I’m not sure how this will pan out but I feel it would be helpful to look beyond this one operational area. I am not hopeful as I am already working in this direction and so far I am finding virtually nothing about students’ non-curricular use of technology until the 1980s when computers really entered the picture. There is material in the student affairs literature addressing use of technology dating back to at least the 1960s but much of the literature I have located concentrates on administrative uses and not students’. There is some that addresses the use of technology in training student employees and some that addresses the use of telephones and computers in counseling (of both the career and the psychological kind). The best source for this kind of info may be the titles and abstracts of the programs and presentations presented at the large national conferences, particularly ACPA and NASPA, as they have been active for many decades.
3. American life off campus and outside of academia. I suspect the trends I identified at IU reflect larger societal shifts as these technologies moved from the living rooms of the wealthy to the bedrooms, kitchens, and dens of nearly every American household. Many of the forces that allowed or encouraged this to happen in the IU residence halls such as declining costs, increased familiarity, and general cultural expectations, also played out in American homes. I hope this will be the easiest lead to follow as I expect and hope to find a significant number of secondary and tertiary sources on this topic unlike the other two topics which will likely consist of some secondary sources and a whole lot of primary sources.

I should have something interesting to say to a much larger audience if I can expand my IU-specific research along those three paths.

One thing I may not be able to say or that I will need to say in a different manner is that it seems that for at least some of these technologies, particularly telephones and computers, the trend away from communal use to personal use is now taking a path to a different kind of communal use. This may be even more true as those two previously-disparate technologies continue to converge. My original research focused exclusively on the twentieth century so I haven’t yet figured out how to work these thoughts into my research. It will fit in there somewhere…

Finally, I have not figured out where “pure” entertainment technologies such as game systems and lower-tech devices such as pinball machines, ping pong tables, and pool tables fit into all of this. Those technologies have certainly had a historical presence in some residence halls but I don’t yet know how they work into the bigger picture. I don’t even know how widespread they were in residence halls although I know they were in some.  Did they originate primarily as revenue generators? How do the modern game systems differ? They appear to have primarily been introduced, supported, and maintained by students; is this true and how has it affected their impact on students and residence halls? How has the impact of computers changed as gaming on them has changed (a task that probably was not widespread when word processors and dumb terminals ruled the roost)?

And I haven’t even gotten in depth with my budding obsession with the breakup of AT&T, its impact on colleges and universities, and how that ties into the current discussions about network neutrality and telecoms mergers. It seems that I have my work cut out for me this semester!

Comments(3)

Several new resources and articles focusing on social network services (SNSs) (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, etc.) have been recently published or released:

• A special issue of the Journal for Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC) focused on SNS edited by danah boyd and Nicole Ellison has finally been published. All of the articles are available online for free. Of particular interest to me are “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship” by danah boyd and Nicole Ellison and “Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites” by Eszter Hargittai. Hats off to danah and Nicole for pulling this together and seeing the project through to completion!
• The Online Computer Library Center, better known as OCLC, released the 280-page document “Sharing, Privacy, and Trust in Our Networked World.” Although the report focuses in part on libraries and library directors, it also includes significant sections on (a) User practices and preferences on their favorite social spaces, (b) User attitudes about sharing and receiving information on social spaces, commercial sites, and library sites, and (c) Information privacy: what matters and what doesn’t. The research appears to be largely based on surveys of several thousand individuals from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
• The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) released the 36-page document “Security Issues and Recommendations for Online Social Networks” (1.8 MB pdf). Contributors to this document include many familiar names for those who have browsed my bibliography: Alessandro Acquisti, Fred Stutzman, Nicole Ellison, and Ralph Gross, among others. While the focus of this document (threats and recommendations) may be slightly different than that of interest to many of you, the perspective is very valuable and many of the issues identified will be familiar. Among the issues addressed are: difficulty of complete account deletion, SNS spam, profile-squatting and reputation slander through ID theft, stalking, and bullying.
• Karine Joly discusses a new Facebook feature, Facebook Pages, in the context of institutions of higher education seeking to market their institutions and connect with their constituents. Although intended primarily for commercial marketing purposes, Joly sees utility in this tool for higher education. Personally, I am becoming wary and weary of marketing efforts, particularly as they continue to infiltrate our personal lives and spaces. I recognize that much of that infiltration is occurring simply due to the blurring of boundaries between our personal and private lives but that does not make my any more comfortable with some of these developments.  Nor am I comfortable with the commercialization of higher education despite my understanding of the economic and social forces driving it.

Comments(0)

Three very recent publications in student affairs literature discuss technology:

1. I have a brief article in the current issue of Leadership Exchange, NASPA’s quarterly magazine for senior student affairs officers. The article is entitled “The Offline Challenges of Online Video” (which is a much better title than the one I had for it) and it’s in the Technology Center section. NASPA members can access entire volumes of Leadership Exchange via the NASPA website after logging in. For those who are not NASPA members, here is the article as it was submitted to the editor; it was substantially shortened and the references removed as befitting the type of publication and audience. We were hoping the article would serve as a small promotional or awareness piece for the NASPA Technology Knowledge Community but I think that link got lost in the editorial process.  It’s also worth noting that the article was written before the University of Florida “Don’t taze me bro!” incident that was captured and spread via YouTube.
2. M. Leslie Sadle discusses Facebook in a NASPA NetResults article entitled “Freedom and Responsibility: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills to Facebook Users.” The article is available to NASPA member. If enough people express interest to the author, perhaps he or she will release it in a publicly-available location (when I last published a NetResults article, I was not asked to sign over copyright to NASPA).
3. David M. Eberhardt also discusses Facebook in “Facing up to Facebook” in the current issue of AboutCampus. It’s an ACPA publication that is mailed to all ACPA members and I don’t know if it’s available online.

The problem I have with all three of these articles, including mine, is that they are descriptive and theoretical. We’ve been spending way too much time making predictions and theorizing and far too little time conducting the necessary research to see if our predictions and theories hold water. That’s the primary reason I quit my full-time job to return to school full-time and earn a PhD: to stop guessing and waving my hands in the air and start conducting research so I can start saying something with some level of assuredness. I acknowledge and embrace the necessary role played by these and similar articles but I have a burning desire and need to move beyond them to formal experimentation and observation. Now I just need to make the time, money, and patience to follow through…

Comments(0)

One of my current projects is an examination of the history of student-used communication and entertainment technologies in American college and university residence halls. Examples of such technologies include buzzers, telephones, televisions, computer labs, and in-room computer network connections. I’ve still got a lot of work to do, particularly on the older technologies, as those resources are more challenging to identify and locate. This is serious historical research complete with examinations of dusty old papers and searches for hand-scrawled notes and letters (it’s not Indiana Jones-type work as it’s all 20th century material but it’s still fun and exciting, especially for a computer geek). I am trying to anchor the research in the history of student affairs/college student personnel but as most of the student affairs technology literature is both (a) recent (so far, my oldest document in my literature review is from the 60s) and (b) very focused on the here-and-now I have even that portion of my job cut out for me.

That is all very vague so let me share with you a few questions related to residential computer networks that either I am working to answer or that have arisen in the course of this research:

1. Were most networks preceded by computer labs in residence halls? It is clear that in many cases computer labs (sometimes referred to as “clusters” instead of labs), composed of dumb terminals, preceded in-room network connections. However, I don’t know how prevalent this was nor do I think that I may be able to answer that question except in particular cases. And that’s okay as the question really seems to get at the historical evolution of computers in residence halls. So the question really reduces to “Did those institutions who were the pioneers of in-room network connections have computer labs before they installed in-room connections?” Of course, that means that I have to identify the “pioneers.” That question is easy to dodge answer by simply stating that those institutions for whom I have the earliest records are, as far as I can tell, the pioneers. I can only work with the information that I can locate but if I do a good job hunting for information then my answer should be okay.
2. What role, if any, did the 1984 divestiture of AT&T have on the development of American college and university campus computer networks and telecommunications, particularly computer networks installed in residence halls? I know from the primary and secondary sources that in-room connections were being explored and piloted by several institutions in the mid 80s. Was it just coincidence that these experiments were being tried right after the telephone monopoly was broken? Was innovation stirred by the AT&T breakup or were old habits and mindsets shaken loose? Or was it just a coincidence? Of course, this is complicated by the fact that networking technology and minicomputers were becoming mature enough for these experiments to be tried at that same time.

As stated before: I still have a lot of work to do. The ultimate goal with the current project is to see if I can figure out the reasons why these technologies were introduced. That’s a difficult question to answer, particularly in a historical context. Figuring when or how something was done is rather straight-forward. Figuring out why it was done seems to be a different and more difficult challenge. The AT&T question is a rather large question and I will almost certainly put it aside for later; I need a much better grounding in the history of AT&T and telephony in America before I can adequately begin to search for the answer to that question. But it sure is an interesting question and I hope it yields interesting answers!

This appears to be a novel and underresearched topic and I feel as if I am having to build the foundation as I go along. I am spending as much time in the Indiana University archives as I am in the library or online looking for resources with the hope that the historical questions about which I can not provide general answers I may be able to provide answers for one institution. I have even found a few gems in the archives that relate to other institutions.

I hope I can report back in a few months that I have some answers. The immediate goal is to produce a final paper for one of my classes (Andrea Walton’s History of Higher Education in the 20th Century) but this topic is close to my heart. It’s a joy when I am able to pursue a project such as this for a class or for work as it serves multiple interests and needs. If it turns out well, I hope to spin the paper and other findings into a handful of articles for publication. In the meantime, I hope to begin adding the documents I am locating to my bibliography in the near-future if anyone would like to follow along or glance over my shoulder.

Comments(0)

The last program I attended at the 2007 ResNet Symposium was presented by Dave Futey and entitled “The Evolution of a ResNet Program.” As a fellow member of the ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG), I have had the pleasure of working with Dave for the past three years. In addition to his professional experiences in and out of residential computer networking, he has been heavily involved in the ResNet Symposium for many years and has worn many hats on the Steering Committee. I know that many of the ideas in this presentation are ideas that he has been developing for many years now and I was very glad to finally see him present this material.

The primary focus of this presentation was a theoretical model of ResNet Program Development modeled after Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy is the familiar pyramid describing the order in which people satisfy or meet their various needs. First, people must satisfy their basic physical needs: food, shelter, clothing, etc. The needs become increasingly complex until one begins to achieve or approach self-actualization once all of the other needs are met.

Similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy, Futey proposes a ResNet Pyramid describing the needs of a ResNet program. In order from most essential to most complex, the levels of this hierarchy are:

1. Infrastructure/Development
2. Support Structure
3. Security & Policy
4. Education/Acceptance
5. Integration with Academic Service/ResLife

Futey seems to have built his model based on his own experiences and observations of how ResNet programs evolve and grow. In particular, he hopes this model will help answer the two questions that Futey asserts are of primary importance:

• What do you want the student experience to be?
• What is the student’s experience?

To me, those questions (particularly the second one) point clearly to the need for assessment and data collection/analysis. That appears to be an area of weakness for many ResNet programs but that is a topic for another discussion.

As with many presentations, the discussion and interaction with the attendees was extremely interesting and informative. The two most interesting topics raised during those discussions were:

• Discussions of the role of and challenge developing a unique identity for a ResNet program/service. Some attendees seemed to be asking for advice on how to more firmly establish their program’s identity while others were sharing worries that ongoing and future changes could erode or erase their program’s hard-earned identity. To the best of my recollection (and poor note-taking skills), no one questioned the need for a well-established ResNet identity. Many of us shared some surprise that this topic was raised and discussed so forcefully and with such great interest and enthusiasm; clearly, many attendees feel very strongly about this topic and I can’t recall this often explicitly discussed.
• The relationship and cultural difference between Central IT and Housing/Student Affairs. Attendees shared their experiences in crossing the cultural and political divide between those two (or three) groups, particularly the difference styles of communication that have proven most effective. In particular, there seemed to be some widespread agreement that many IT staff are comfortable with electronic communication whereas personal communication seemed to be most successful with Housing and Student Affairs staff. I’m sure that this observation is not surprising for those experienced or educated in these fields.

Both of these observations could be used as springboards for research, discussions, and presentations. The second observation, the cultural differences between IT and Housing/Student Affairs hits close to home for me because:

• I have training, experience, and education in both areas so the difference are clear to me. However, I don’t think that my experiences and education are common so I have taken this knowledge for granted. Education focused on higher education culture and history, with a particular emphasis on student affairs, may be welcomed by some IT professionals seeking to understand these differences and cross the barriers.  Some institutions offer this kind of training and education to their IT staff but it is also welcomed at professional conferences.  It does not appear to be widespread in the “ResNet world” and that is a need that should be addressed.
• Some student affairs professionals have expressed the exact same frustrations and observations. During one technology-related presentation at this year’s ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting, the attendees (nearly all student affairs professionals, of course) expressed their desire for assistance in understanding and communicating with IT professionals. A few of us in the NASPA Technology Knowledge Community have kicked around the idea of proposing a session for next year’s NASPA conference specifically addressing this issue.

Again, I was very pleased to see Dave present this material and get it out to a wider audience for examination and consideration. Although there has not been research conducted specifically to support or refute this theoretical model, I think that (a) there is some material in the RARG’s most recent research regarding the programs presented at the last 12 years’ ResNet Symposia supporting this notion and (b) such research is possible. I believe that the development of theoretical models such as this one and the application of existing models or frameworks to these domains is critical for the continued maturation and development of residential computing and student IT support.

Comments(0)

Two members of the ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG), Dave Futey and Clifton Pee, joined Rodney Peterson, EDUCAUSE Government Relations Officer and Security Task Force Coordinator, to present results related to security research conducted by those two organizations. Both of these organizations conducted work related to security last year: the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) released the results of their “Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006” study (although the study is only available to ECAR members, the Key Findings are publicly available) and the RARG released results from their “2006 ResNet Security Practices and Policies Survey.”

The bulk of the presentation focused not on survey results but on their meaning. Rodney concentrated his presentation on relating the ECAR data to the new EDUCAUSE/Internet2 Security Task Force’s Confidential Data Handling Blueprint. (although I did not attend SIGUCCS’ Computer Services Management Symposium, I am told that Rodney presented a very similar presentation in Savannah). The RARG data was a selection of results from the larger body of results followed by several questions intended to stir discussion among attendees.

Items raised in the discussion included:

• An observation (initially made by myself but echoed by other attendees) that the experience of small colleges may differ significantly from larger institutions. In particular, we have fewer staff less likely to have the specific skills necessary to address complex legal and technical challenges related to security. We also may perceive of ourselves as “not targets” due to our small sizes as we “fly under the radar” while attention is focused on larger institutions. In response, Rodney observed that some institutions are shifting and training staff instead of hiring new persons.
• What has changed in the last year? Or have we finally caught up to 2003 (a landmark year for ResNet programs as various worms decimated our networks during fall opening)? The primary response to these questions was “there have been no recent incidents.” This perceived lack of incidents led us to question if we are being successful in our efforts, merely lucky, or just untested.
• When asked how often we should evaluate our security plans, Rodney reminded us that the federal government is required to review their plans whenever an incident occurs and at least annually (as required by the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act).
• One attendee noted that her institution is formulating a security plan that encompasses not only IT but also paper forms and data recorded on paper. Rodney agreed that was necessary and advised us to place security in the context of risk and not computers or IT (”people, process, & technology” was the exact phrase he used).
• When asked how we should define success in relation to security, one attendee replied that success has occurred when a culture embracing security has been created. Another opined that you only know when you’re unsuccessful.

Stepping back away from the content of the presentation, it was quite heartening to see this joint presentation between an EDUCAUSE staff member and members of the RARG.  I believe that it’s a sign of healthy maturity that the ResNet organization is reaching out to and being reached out to by other professional organizations.

Comments(0)

If you haven’t checked out my online bibliography, I’d recommend you do so as I presume you are interested in many of the same topics in which I am interested. You can find it by clicking on the tab labeled “wikindx” on my webpage. It’s not the most user-friendly application in the world but it meets my needs.

It’s searchable so you can always look for specific authors, topics, or other metadata or bibliographic data. Some of the records includes links to the original documents when they’re available online. When I use the tool and log in, I can not only create new records and edit existing ones but I can (and do) upload documents associated with bibliographic records. In other words, even though you can’t seem them and access them, most of the records have electronic copies of the item attached to them. So this not only functions as a bibliographic and note-taking tool (you can associate abstracts, quotes, and other notes with the records) but it also functions as a web-accessible library of research documents for me.

If there is a particular document that interests you but you don’t have access to it (no publicly-available URL, your local libraries don’t carry it, etc.), go ahead and drop me a line and if it’s legal and ethical I’ll send you a copy. I don’t want to encourage or be privy to copyright infringement or unethical behavior. :)

Aside from its value as a information resource about the topics in which I am interested, it’s also interesting to note that this is an interesting information resource about me and my activities and interests. It’s an interesting exercise to be placing some of my research notes on a publicly-accessible webpage where anyone can read them and attribute them to me (although I hope that everyone understands the nature of off-the-cuff remarks and notes to myself). You can also track my research interests and get a good idea of my research activities by analyzing some of the information available about the resources I’ve entered, particularly when I entered them and modified them. You can definitely tell that one of my current projects focuses on social networking and Facebook.

Those who wish to closely stalk me and be notified of changes to my bibliography can even subscribe to an RSS feed.

Comments(4)

The final session I attended at the 2007 ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting was entitled “Leading the Way in Developing Plans, Integrating Student Learning, Learning Outcomes, and Technology.” The session was presented by Gal Cole-Avent and Diane Cooper of the University of Georgia.

The basis for their presentation was a small study done at UGA analyzing one (perhaps two - poor notetaking on my part) professor’s use of a listserv to communicate with 6 students before they arrived on campus. Although the group studied was very small, the findings seem to make sense and are consistent with my own knowledge and experiences:

• Convenience was cited as a huge factor in the use of the medium although it’s unclear (either in my notes or from the research) if the convenience is specifically tied to the listserv medium or more generally linked with computer mediated communication tools
• That the students were able to communicate with persons on the UGA campus before arriving helped them transition to the campus by reducing the perceived size of the institution
• Similarly, the communications helped build a greater sense of community
• The use of e-mail (via a listserv) fit well with students’ perception of e-mail as a means of communication with faculty and staff (compare with instant messaging, social networking services, and SMS that are generally used for communicating with one’s peers)

Among the presenters’ recommendations were that we:

• Identify alternative ways to supplement what is already provided through traditional means
• Decide if technology is appropriate for the proposed use: instruction, programmatic, service objectives, etc.
• Apply measurable outcomes to technology use

The general theme of the presenters’ remarks seemed to be that our use of technology must be intentional. It’s a simple message but an idea that often alludes both those who enjoy technology for its own sake (”We like new toys!”) and those who do not keep up with technology (”Whaddya mean our students and new professionals are using ___? Never heard of it…”).

Once again, Facebook arose in discussion. Novel points in this discussion included the observation that using Facebook allows one to bypass parents and get messages directly to students and the point that “we don’t always go ‘where they’re at.’” The specific example posed by the attendee who rejected the notion of always meeting them “where they’re at” was that of the ubiquitous bars and clubs near campus: we know students go there but unless there is a very compelling reason we don’t “go there.” There are clearly some (legal, social, and cultural) boundaries that we can not and should not cross despite our best intentions and desire to help and communicate with students. Is Facebook on the other side of one of those boundaries? Many students seem to think so and some administrators agree.

That this research focused on the use of a listserv intrigues me for several reasons. First, as noted above, the use of e-mail for faculty to communicate with students fits in very well with students’ perception that e-mail is used primarily to communicate with faculty and staff (e-mail is for “old people” and official correspondence). One of the students even noted that she felt obligated to clean up her grammar and syntax when communicating to the faculty via e-mail. Second, I have personally observed that listservs are very familiar and comfortable technology for many administrators and “old people.” I am subscribed to several listservs where the other subscribers are more than capable of using a different medium such as a bulletin board or a wiki but they choose not to do so. I suspect it has as much to do with their familiarity of listservs and how they function as it does with desirable properties of listservs. I really do think there is something more to be said about the longevity of listservs (and that must include their history and the culture of those who use them) but I’ll not say it here and now.

Finally, there was a brief discussion of some specific tools such as housing management software and student group management software. As one who has previously administered a housing management system, I empathize with my colleagues who perform that task. The world of discipline-specific software is a unique one that is seldom seen outside of those specific areas and I always wonder if those areas are being served well or just well enough.

Comments(0)

The first session I attended on Wednesday, the final day of the ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting, was entitled “Too Much Information? An Empirical Study of Undergraduate Facebook Profiles.” Daniel Saunders, Shaun Jamieson, and Jordan Hale outlined the results of research they have conducted at the University of Massachusetts-Amhrest.

These gentlemen examined the profiles of 464 UMass undergraduates in March of 2006 to answer questions like: What proportion of UMass undergraduates have a profile? How do those students differ from those without profiles? What proportion of UMass undergraduates with Facebook accounts post contact information? What proportion have positive references to the university? What proportion have positive references to partying, drugs, and alcohol? Some results of their research:

• 82% of UMass-Amherst undergrads had Facebook profiles
• Women were more likely to have a photo of themselves in their “central profile,” one or more photo albums, and more photos (women averaged 81 photos vs. 30 for men); however, men were more likely (21%) than women (8%) to list their phone number
• On-campus residents were more likely (63%) than off-campus residents (23%) to post address information
• Over half (58%) posted some or all of their class schedule
• 7% had central profile photos with a clear photo of alcohol/drinking with White students (71%) more likely to have references to alcohol than students of color (49%) and women (73%) more likely to reference alcohol than men (61%)
• Women had more positive references to UMass-Amherst (2.2 on average) than men (1.5 on average)

As you can see by the research questions and the statistics presented above, there are similarities to a few previous studies. In particular, Jones & Soltren’s 2005 “Facebook: Threats to Privacy” and Watson, Smith, & Driver’s 2006 “Alcohol, Sex and Illegal Activities: An Analysis of Selected Facebook Central Photos in Fifty States” studies explored some similar themes. Jones & Soltren explored the amount and type of information Facebook users shared on their profiles whereas Watson, Smith, & Driver specifically examined the central photos of Facebook profiles. Aside from the obvious differences, the methodology of this research differed from those studies primarily in that it concentrated on students at only one institution. Although the details vary, the general results of this research do not seem to substantially differ from those older studies. In particular, the number of students with clear photos of alcohol or other substances in their central profile photo remained low in this research although the greater proportion of women than men with such photos differed from the Watson, Smith, & Driver study.

There appear to be two interesting facets to this research:

1. The demographic differences - men v. women and White v. students of color - were very interesting. That students of different genders use Facebook differently is no surprise as we already know there are differences in how men and women typically employ CMC tools. The differences between White students and students of color, however, is very interesting and an area that I do not know has been researched or examined thoroughly. During the discussion after the initial presentation, I raised the point that those differences may be attributable to not only race or ethnicity but also socioeconomic status. In other words, students who have had lots of access to the Internet and technology throughout their youth will have a level of comfort and familiarity that those whose access has primarily or exclusively been at school or in libraries do not have. And those students are disproportionately students of color. That’s a very tentative hypothesis and we need to know more about how students of different backgrounds use Facebook and other tools. Further, we should not ever assume that all incoming students or even students already enrolled have the same levels of knowledge, comfort, or access - Digital Divide, Participation Gap, etc.
2. Although we talked about the positive uses for Facebook in other sessions, this is the only research I know of (as if I know of all of it!) that specifically looked for positive mentions in students’ profiles. Further, the presenters stressed that role of Facebook in how institutions’ images are presented and perceived by others. The connection between Facebook and campus attitudes (i.e. social norming) was obvious to me but I missed the connection with institutional image. I suspect I failed to make that seemingly-obvious connection as the medium is completely outside of our control unlike, for example, MySpace where institutions can register an account and control it.

Some other interesting points raised in discussion:

• Has the self-disclosure practiced on (and inherent in) Facebook led to an increase in any negative incidents such as stalking, assault, etc.? Some attendees were of the opinion that harassment had increased but I know of no relevant research.
• As discussed in other sessions, the boundaries (or lack thereof) between students and staff on Facebook were discussed. This appears to be more of an issue for graduate students and new professionals (possibly due simply to their much higher usage rates than older staff). Are we doing enough to educate these young staff members about this tool and how to negotiate this shifting boundary? I suspect that we are not doing enough but I have felt the same about other advances in technology that new professionals bring with them into the profession such as instant messaging. We should be dealing with these issues holistically and intentfully rather than reactively dealing with each particular technology two years after it has been in use.
• One attendee reported on a very successful self-created social networking tool at his campus. There was even some talk on his campus of moving away from e-mail as the official means of communication and using the social networking tool instead.
• Similar to the concern about how students (and others) are portraying our institutions in Facebook, there apparently are some (parents and other non-Facebook users?) who appear to confuse Facebook with an institutionally-controlled and -approved service (”Why did you let him say that about my son/daughter?”). Yikes! I wonder if that was covered in the “Online Parent Course” session that was being presented at the same time by the University of Redlands…

Comments(0)