Higher Ed Digital Identity:
Bringing Your Scholarship &
2014 AACE E-Learn #elearn14
Virtual Brief Paper New Orleans, LA
Laura A. Pasquini, Ph.D.
Learning Technologies – @UNTCOI College of Information
The Digital Learning & Social Media Research Group, @RoyalRoads
“Technology is a
form of culture, a
don’t arrive in our
midst as neutral
Nora Young, “The Virtual
Self: How Our Digital Lives
are Altering the World
What does your digital
presence or your identity
online say about you?
Why should you care?
Will you be “Googled well?” asks Richardson
(2008). Let’s find out.
“The way we are
defined on social
media, on the
Internet, and on
who we actually
are as people.”
Jon Ronson, “So You’ve
Been Publicly Shamed”
Digital footprints emerge as
we communicate and interact
online over social media,
content sharing platforms,
and by using and subscribing
to tools and services
The Digital Scholar
Martin Weller a.k.a. @mweller & his blog
The Ed Techie:
“Impacts for digital scholarship include the quantity
of peer-reviewed online information sources, the
growth of social, peer academic networks, and the
variety and range of content to draw upon for
research that has broadened to include drafts of
publications, conference presentations, blog posts,
video and audio” (Weller, 2011).
The Digital Scholar Revisited
"Much of the increased adoption in academia mirrors
the wider penetration of social media tools amongst
society in general, so academics are more likely to have
an identity in such places that mixes professional &
personal.” says @mweller
Assessment of Research
Measurement of quantity and impact for research
can also predict future scholarly behavior.
(Vieria & Gomes, 2011)
• What is shared through networks may not always be the true story.
• Challenge with assessing scientific performance at the individual level
(Vieira & Gomes, 2011)
• “move the evaluation from the power of the scientific journals to the
quality of the single researcher (Castelnuovo, Limonata, Sarmiento &
Molinari, 2010, p. 111)
• Scholars and educators participate on Twitter (Veletsianos &
Kimmons, 2016) and identity development with open practices on
social media (Veletsianos, 2013)
• Academic influence in a scholarly network (Stewart, 2015) and
vulnerabilities in collapsed publics (Stewart, 2016)
The Platforms and Social
ORCID: Connecting Research and Researchers
The Social (Media) Scholar
Beyond these specific
scholarly platforms, we
have seen an increase in
social networking use,
academic blogging or
Twitter), and online
sharing of images,
videos, and audio for
both data and research
“Academics should utilize these emerging
platforms to increase their influence and reach
beyond traditional publishing forums. These
researcher identification and citation tools are
not “just for geeks,” but rather a growing
expectation for scholarship development and
publication notation. It is a critical time to rethink
how research is produced, distributed, and
(Pasquini, Wakefield, Reed & Allen, 2014)
Flickr photo c/o furiousgeorge81
How will you
Ask Yourself These First
1) Where are you online right now?
2) What are your goals for being networked
professionally? (and personally)
3) How will you engage in connected practice?
4) What are the characteristics or things you should
consider in each digital space/platform?
5) What resources are available for you to learn
more? Who can mentor/support your practice?
JOIN the conversation: https://techknowtools.com/2018/01/26/hedigid-twitter-chat/
Bodhani, A. (2012). Digital footprints step up. Engineering & Technology, Feb2012. Retrieved from www.EandTmagazine.com.
Brey, P. (1997). Social constructivism for philosophers of technology: A shopper’s guide. Techne: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 2(3-4), 56-78. [Web
version] Available from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2_n3n4html/brey.html
Castelnuovo, G. (2008). Ditching impact factors: Time for the single researcher impact factor. British Medical Journal, 336(7648), 789.
Castelnuovo, G., Limonta, D., Sarmiento, L., & Molinari, E. (2010). A more comprehensive index in the evaluation of scientific research: The single researcher impact factor
proposal. Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 6(2010), 1745-0179.
Chong, E. K. (2010). Using blogging to enhance the initiation of students into academic research. Computers & Education, 55(2), 798-807.
Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I. M., & Drew, J. A. (2013) The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. PeerJ PrePrints 1:16(1)
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hewson, K. (2013). What size is your digital footprint. Kappan, 94(7), 14-15.
Stewart, B. (2016). Collapsed publics: Orality, literacy, and vulnerability in academic Twitter. Journal of Applied
Social Theory, 1(1).
Stewart, B. (2015). Open to influence: What counts as academic influence in scholarly networked
Twitter participation. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 287-309.
Richardson, W. (2008). Footprints in the digital age. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 16-19.
Viera, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2011). An impact indicator for researchers. Scientometrics, 89, 607-
Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism ad the
philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice. A&C Black.
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2016). Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: How do education professors and students use Twitter?. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 1-10.
Veletsianos, G. (2013). Open practices and identity: Evidence from researchers and educators' social media participation. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 639-651.