18. “Those within the academy become
very skilled at judging the stuﬀ of reputations.
Where has the person’s work been published,
what claims of
priority in discovery have
they established, how often have they been cited,
how and where reviewed, what
prizes won, what institutional ties earned, what
19. Reading Status Signals
• Where you went to school
• Who your supervisor was
• Where you’ve published
(& their impact factor)
• Your h-index
• Your citation count
• The associations you belong to
• Your rank in the academic hierarchy
25. Google yourself. What do your
• Are you visible on the ﬁrst page?
• Can I ﬁnd an interactive platform through which
to engage with you or your work?
• Do you share your own work and that of others
• Can I see you speak/talk/teach?
• Are there any red ﬂags?
35. Sometimes…I’ll choose
someone with twenty
followers, because I come
across something they’ve
managed to say in 140
characters, and I think
“oh, look at you,
crafting on a
grain of rice.”
45. 9 years blogging, 8 years on Twitter,
3 months with a Ph.D
• 4 peer-reviewed publications (+ 3 more
• 17 public articles on higher ed & networks
(Salon, The Guardian UK, Inside Higher Ed)
• 474 citations
• 11 keynote/plenary presentations
• 30+ conference talks
• 5 local/national CBC radio appearances
• place at the table in leading conversations in
Think of a Venn diagram. Here’s traditional dissemination, here’s what people had for lunch. I study the middle. Because so long as senior scholars and administrators and tenure committees think Twitter is what people had for lunch, there’s a gap in our understanding of influence signals, especially in fields that are changing rapidly.
And it’s more than just putting work online.. It’s a stretching beyond your institutional role to create identity positions within audiences and networks you may not have known were there…through ongoing networked practices.