Mistaken Goal: Where Student Affairs & Technology Meet

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)

In July, those of us interested in technology issues related to higher education were whipped into a frenzy by an amendment to the Higher Education Act proposed by Sen. Reid (D-NV) that would have put a spotlight on institutions that receive lots of notices alleging online copyright infringement by students and required them to adopt technological measures to reduce infringement. Many in higher education opposed this amendment and Reid dropped it rather quickly. Shortly thereafter, the Senate passed their version of the Higher Education Act.

Now it’s the House’s turn to introduce their bills to renew the Higher Education Act. Yesterday, House Republicans unveiled their version of the House bill. It’s a 409 page document but we’ll only concentrate on our narrow, niche interest of technology affecting students.

As Inside Higher Ed has reported, this bill includes one section that is identical to Reid’s contentious and subsequently withdrawn amendment. Specifically, the bill requires that those institutions identified by the Secretary of Education identity each year the 25 institutions that have received the most allegations of online copyright infringement (and a minimum of 100 notices) provide evidence to the Secretary that they:

1. Have notified students on their policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials by students
2. Undertake a review of their procedures and plans related to preventing illegal downloading and distribution to determine the program’s effectiveness and implement changes to the program if the changes are needed
3. Have developed a plan for implementing a technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property.

This section of the Republican’s bill is almost word-for-word identical to Reid’s amendment. As I see it, the primary difference between this bill and Reid’s proposed amendment are that (a) this section is part of a much larger bill, potentially making it more difficult to focus on or repudiate, (b) the bill is proposed by Republicans, the minority party, whereas Reid;s amendment was proposed by the Senate Majority Leader (and thus a Democrat), and (c) this is a House bill and the House has been much more sympathetic to copyright holders and very unsympathetic to concerns of colleges and universities.

Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, is quoted by Inside Higher Ed as saying: “Ironically, as drafted the legislation would wrap institutions in an amazing amount of new federal red tape and, at the same time, order the Secretary of Education to study ways to reduce overregulation.” Contradictory political and financial demands are neither new nor unexpected but they take on additional significance when the political demands are of unproven and dubious effectiveness. We can be sure that this portion of the bill, if passed, would increase costs and likely decrease freedom for students on campus but we have no assurances that the required technical means will have any lasting or significant effect on reducing copyright infringement or effecting a change in the ethics, actions, or beliefs of students. As demanded and rewarded by our current electoral system, these legislators are overlooking or ignoring the long-term view in favor of the short-term view that favors financial gain.

Looking beyond this particular section of the bill, other sections address issues of concern or interest to us:

• Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) funds would be made available for “supporting efforts to establish pilot programs and initiatives to help college campuses to reduce illegal downloading of copyrighted content, in order to improve the security and integrity of campus computer networks and save bandwidth costs.”
• Several sections specifically address distance education, including sections focusing on Title III funding for Tribal Colleges and Universities and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions and another section mandating the Secretary of Education work with the National Academy of Sciences to “conduct a scientifically correct and statistically valid evaluation of the quality of distance education programs, as compared to campus-based education programs, at institutions of higher education.”
• Many sections include amendments to include or require electronically-distributed information and resources.

I am also slightly amused that several sections of this bill specifically focus on the Department of Education’s College Online Opportunities Locater (COOL) online tool. Not only do many of the recommendations seem to be micromanagerial and overly specific for a federal law but the tool itself was recently revamped and relaunched as “College Navigator.” This is another fine example of the speed with which technologies and technological tools change.

Update: EDUCAUSE has posted some talking points (Word document) for those who wish to contact their representatives and urge them to oppose this bill.

Comments(0)

I’ve finally made the time to encode the video from a 3-hour pre-conference session I ran at this summer’s ResNet Symposium. Although the session was entitled “The Impact of Social Networking on ResNet Users,” it was broader than the title indicates (the title changed several times as the it was being put together).

In many ways, the session was a follow-up to and a successor to NCSU’s Facebook Phenomenon. Leslie Dare, my co-chair in the NASPA Technology Knowledge Community and the person as NCSU who hosted their event, told me that some of the feedback from attendees at their event asked for more “advanced” material and discussion. I watched their event as it was streamed live and I agreed with that feedback. So my session focused not on “introductory” topics such as “What is Facebook?” but assumed that knowledge. I hope that those who attended and participated in this session walked away with a foundation of knowledge that applies not only to today’s Facebook but to the SNSes of tomorrow.

The session was organized in three parts:

1. Foundation and generalities (132 mb Windows Media Video file): Introduced the foundational concept of Web 2.0 (or at least the concept of user-generated content and greatly increased usability of web-based tools), a group activity to work towards a definition of “Social Networking Site,” an overview of some definitions used by scholars and researchers, boyd’s properties of SNSes and thesis regarding youth’s use of SNSes, and Suler’s Internet Disinhibition theory.
2. Facebook (133 mb Windows Media Video file): Review of research about Facebook and users, including basic stats, how many undergrads use it, how often, numbers of friends (and relationship with Dunbar’s number), group activity to list some common uses of Facebook, and what the research says about uses of and motivations for using Facebook.
3. Practical Implications and Practice (94 mb Windows Media Video file): Hodgepodge of issues and discussion including Digital Divide, Participation Gap, group activity about the use of SNSes in hiring decisions, how NYU addresses Facebook during orientation, institutional monitoring, and Facebook apps.

The PowerPoint file for the entire session is also available. In both the video and the PowerPoint, I removed the videos that were shown as part of the session. However, I’ve provided links to the videos (they’re all available online) so you can view them. I noted the removed videos and group activities in red text in the PowerPoint. I also added some notes to the presentation but obviously there is a whole lot more in the video. I also made an editorial decision to remove the group discussions as the participants were very candid and open and I am not comfortable sharing those conversations openly on the Internet; they knew that they were being filmed but I am not comfortable assuming they remembered that during some of our discussions.

I hope that someone will find these resources useful and interesting. In conjunction with the materials that NCSU provides on the Facebook Phenomenon website, these materials should provide one with a very solid foundation and understanding of how and why undergraduate students use SNSes, particularly Facebook, and how institutions can use these tools.

Thank you to Judi Rennie for inviting me to present this Professional Development Seminar. A special “thank you” goes to our hosts at UCSD, particularly Erik Strahm and Arianna Pilram, who helped find a room suitable for this session and a video camera to record it.

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)

I have attended several excellent BOFs at this year’s ResNet Symposium:

• Customer Service vs. Education
• Privacy & Security Awareness: How Do We Influence Student Behavior?
• ResNet Symposium Wiki (I only attended this BOF briefly before running to another meeting)
• Future of the ResNet Organization

Significant amounts of excellent information were exchanged and good ideas were shared at all of these BOFs.  However, I have decided to keep them “off the record” in keeping with their informal nature and out of respect for the very open and trusting nature of BOF attendees.  I value their honesty during these discussions so much that I will not even take a chance that I might compromise their trust.  If you want to know more about what was discussed in these excellent and interesting sessions, I recommend you attend next year’s ResNet Symposium and organize some BOFs yourself!

Comments(0)

The keynote address on Sunday morning by Jim Gibson (who also presented a pre-conference session on Saturday) focused on the primacy of the university mission in determining institutions’ responses to allegations of students’ copyright infringement. Specifically, the address focused on file sharing and related copyright complaints and DMCA takedown notices.

First, Gibson noted that universities have a special focus as secular, sacred places where:

• disagreement is valued and promoted
• unpopular views are protected
• the primary mission is to produce informed citizenry with knowledge of their rights and responsibilities

Following from this focus are several key values held by universities:

• openness
• respect for the intellect, including treating students as grownups and exercising a willingness to be convinced
• a sense of independence

Gibson asserted that when confronted with a policy question, the university’s primary reaction should be to ask “What does the university mission dictate we do?” In the case of file sharing and allegations of student impropriety, Gibson asserted that education should be the university’s primary response. Since we must maintain a sense of independence, we must not blindly bow to the demands of the copyright holders. Instead, we should embrace a healthy respect for the intellect and not dumb down the issues when discussing them with students. Discussions of intellectual property should be approached as a critical examination of all the issues involved.

Gibson presented the actions of Swarthmore College when their students were sued by Diebold for copyright infringement as example of a very poor reaction not in keeping with the university’s mission. Although the institution praised the students’ “resolve to act on behalf of an open and fair democracy,” it failed to back up those words with the proper actions. For example, it appears that the institution did not even notify the students of their right to respond to the takedown notice with a counter notice.

Specifically, Gibson recommended that institutions:

• notify students of their legal rights when served with any sort of notice
• notify students of their status with the university and its policies
• ensure they are responding in the appropriate manner to DMCA or DMCA-like notices (remember that institutions are not *legally* obliged to do anything other than terminate repeat offenders if the institution is acting as a “mere conduit”)

Following the keynote address, Gibson took questions from the audience:

• What is the copyright holders’ responsibility to improve their own images? Their image is certainly tarnished but their mission differs significantly from our own. In general, Gibson feels very unsympathetic towards students or others sued for copyright infringement. “[Just because] 98% of your friends didn’t get sued doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.”
• How will our search for funding and change to a commodity change our mission? It’s worrying, particularly in the areas of: big athletics, patents, naming rights, and decreasing public support.
• Some corporations who want us to outsource our ResNet programs are using DMCA notices and copyright issues as leverage. In essence, they are telling us that we can outsource those issues to them just as we can outsource our network and support. What are your thoughts? It depends on the level of involvement.
• What is your take on the potential congressional mandates to use particular technologies to address these issues and shift the burden of enforcement away from the copyright holder and onto the university? Gibson was not worried about sweeping changes to the DMCA or copyright law. Universities are “low hanging fruit” but large commercial ISPs know that if they “let us go” then they will be next. In other words, we (should) have large allies. However, university-specific provisions in the law are a distinct possibility.
• Will copyright owners be able to piggyback on CALEA or similar law enforcement and national security laws? Maybe. Our “reasonable expectations of privacy” (a key legal phrase and test when considering Fourth Amendment issues) change over time, particularly in response to police powers and practices. In other words, we often answer the question “What can the police do?” by asking “What do the police do?” and that is obviously very problematic and eroding of our expectations of privacy.
• What about the RIAA’s pre-settlement letters? The statistics about these letters and the reactions to them don’t seem to exist. However, we probably don’t need those statistics to figure out what our university mission requires of us in these circumstances: forward the letter and provide significant, meaningful context to the student(s). Both openness and our respect for the intellect demand no less.
• Are there any online resources outlining our responsibilities under the DMCA? No, there are not any unbiased resources. There are some biased ones, though, such as the EFF and RIAA.

Comments(0)

In addition to running my PDS session in the morning, I also attended a PDS session in the afternoon.  Entitled “Copyright, Colleges and the DMCA,” it was taught by Jim Gibson, University of Richmond law professor and director their Intellectual Property Institute (IPI).  The IPI’s “What do you think?” video was very popular in last year’s document fair at the ResNet Symposium.

As copyright is a very broad topic, the session was limited in scope to those issues that ResNet professionals are likely to encounter; entire important areas of copyright such as fair use were omitted or covered only in the briefest sense.  The PDS began with a basic overview of copyright, including discussions of liability with a significant focus on secondary liability as it is the issue ResNet professionals are most likely to encounter.  The presumption is that institutions are unlikely to knowingly engage in copyright infringement.  Instead, ResNet professionals are likely to be dealing with copyright holders as they work to address the alleged infringement of their copyrights by students.

To this end, Gibson spent a significant amount of time discussing the safe harbors in the DMCA.  In particular, the “transitory communications” and “system storage” safe harbors were discussed in detail.  Gibson stressed that:

1. The DMCA “notice and takedown” process does not apply if the institution is acting as a “mere conduit” of network data.  By the letter of the law, we are not required to react to, follow up on, acknowledge, or comply with letters from copyright holders asserting our users are infringing on their copyrights if the alleged infringement is only occurring on our network (as opposed to occurring on our servers, referred to as “system storage”).  We are, however, required to keep track of repeat offenders as the DMCA requires us to “adopt, publicize, and reasonably implement a policy of terminating repeat infringers” (Gibson’s words, not directly from the DMCA).  Of course, we could also choose to ignore even that provision of the DMCA if we are willing to give up our “safe harbor” defense.
2. Safe harbor defenses only provide immunity to monetary damages; we may still be subject to injunctions e.g court orders to deny access to materials or users.
3. Even if we give up or do not meet safe harbor requirements, the copyright owner must still prove his or her case in court.  In other words, safe harbor is not the only defense available.  The other traditional defenses such as fair use are still potentially available.
4. Unless the network operator is acting as a mere conduit - a very big “unless!” - copyright owners can utilize the special provision in the DMCA to subpoena identifying information about alleged infringers.  In those cases where a network operator is acting as a mere conduit, copyright owners must file suit (John Doe suits) to file subpoenas.

Most of the questions asked seemed to be either requests for clarification or contrived examples seeking to better understand the complex legal issues presented and discussed.  That some of these are complex and confusingly similar likely contributes to our widespread ignorance of these laws and how we should be reacting to alleged infringement.  There was also widespread discussion of the shared opinion that colleges and universities are being disproportionately targeted by the RIAA, an opinion shared by Gibson.

Comments(0)

The room in which I will be presenting my Social Networking Services Professional Development Seminar (PDS) session tomorrow at the ResNet Symposium is less than perfect. To assist the attendees, I have made the presentation available here (minus the videos) so they can follow along on their own monitors.

I’ll post a proper follow-up to the PDS later tomorrow reflecting on lessons learned and interesting observations.

Update: I will not be posing a proper follow-up to my PDS session except to say that I very much enjoyed the experience and I think it was very well received. I greatly enjoyed and appreciated the interaction with and feedback from the participants. Other than that, I don’t know what else to say that would be appropriate to post in a public venue. I’ll provide an update once the class materials are uploaded and the video made available.

Comments(0)

The ResNet Symposium begins on Saturday and I’ve been busily preparing for the two activities in which I will be heavily involved:

First, I’m running a pre-conference session entitled about social networking sites. They keep changing the title of the session (it was “The Impact of Social Networking on ResNet Users” and now it’s “Social Networking and Student Life”) but the idea has remained the same. Those who follow this blog and the resources I catalog and collect will recognize the themes and ideas I’ll be discussing. I’ll be sharing most of the materials (slideshow(s), notes, bibliography, etc.) freely once I’m done with the session. We also plan to videotape the session and make it available to NASPA members (or maybe everyone - I don’t know why we couldn’t do that even unless NASPA insists that it only be available to NASPA members since NASPA is paying for the videotaping costs).

In any case, this has allowed me another opportunity to gather my thoughts and resources. The session will be divided into three parts:

1. Foundation and generalities: research and background of SNS, including working towards a definition (group activity!); boyd’s work will feature heavily in this section (not just because she’s an expert in these areas but also because she makes so much of her work, including videos of presentations and recordings of discussions, conveniently available; there’s a lesson there, scholars and would-be-scholars!)
2. Facebook: an overview of the research that has specifically focused on Facebook, the most popular SNS among traditional American college and university students; Stutzman will be featured in this section but there will be a lot drawn from others, including some excellent undergraduate research
3. Practical implications and practices: policy implications, brief legal discussion/warnings, and examples from other institutions

The program is “sold out” so there’s obviously a high level of interest in this topic. I hope this program will garner a lot of interaction and meaningful discussion and thought. We’ll have three hours so we can explore some of those thoughts in detail and I hope to provide a very firm theoretical, historical, and multidisciplinary foundation for those discussions. I’m not an expert in this stuff (I don’t think anyone is, yet) but this program should arm attendees with some of the knowledge necessary to understand not just what’s going on today with Facebook but what is likely to happen in the near future as these challenges and opportunities continue to evolve and change.

Second, I’m continuing my work with the ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG) and we will have one-and-a-half presentations at this summer’s symposium. Entitled “RARG: Then and Now: A ResNet Retrospective,” the “one” presentation will focus exclusively on our current research project that has analyzed the presentations from the previous 12 symposia. We’ve utilized qualitative content analysis, a methodology borrowed from media analysis, to spot trends in the presentations. In particular, we’ll be discussing the themes that are typically present in symposia presentations and other related ideas that will help us understand this profession, its history, and its ongoing challenges more clearly. It’s very exciting original research in several ways (both content and process) and I’m very pleased to have been involved in it; it’s a big step forward for the profession to understand its history and conduct serious and meaningful introspection.

The “half” presentation is entitled “EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research and ResNet Applied Research Group Security Survey Results” and it will be a presentation of data from a security survey we conducted last year. The data are beginning to get “stale” but it’s still the most detailed data available on the topics it covered. As you can tell by the title, it’s only half of a presentation because we’ll be sharing the bill with Rodney Peterson, Government Relations Officer and Security Task Force Coordinator at EDUCAUSE; Rodney will be sharing data from an ECAR security study published last year. It’s great the Rodney will be attending this year’s symposium as he’ll be participating in other events (I believe he has one presentation all to himself and he’ll also be coordinating a Birds of a Feather session). Between this collaboration with EDUCAUSE and my work with NASPA, I think the ResNet Symposium is on the right track in forging and maintaining some key relationships.

If you’ll be attending the symposium, please say hello if we cross paths. If you will not be attending the symposium and you are interested in what you’ll be missing, I plan on writing extensively about the presentations I attend as I did for the ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting; it’s time consuming to attend and then write about the presentations in that level of detail but it’s very helpful for me to “force” myself to think about and analyze the information and the experiences. If you’re not at all interested in ResNet-related information or discussion, I hope you are at least enjoying the summer and warm weather!

Comments(0)