More than just passing notes in class? Reflections on the Twitter-enabled backchannel (draft)

Tony McNeill (a.mcneill@kingston.ac.uk)Academic Development Centre, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, UK

The focus of this study is the conference behaviours of academic users of Twitter, a social networking/microblogging service that allows users to view and send short messages from mobile phones as well as computers and other internet-enabled devices. Twitter is being used increasingly as a means of continuing and extending dialogue, commentary and networking amongst academic conference participants and is rapidly becoming the default technology used to support what is known as the ‘backchannel’.

Introduction

funny how conferences now have a soundtrack - tic tic tic tic tic tic ticTom Abbot, HU http://twitter.com/tomabbott/status/1444366047 U

The backchannel is the term used to designate the digital communications

space used to sustain primarily textual interactions alongside live spoken

presentations delivered in a physical environment. The backchannel was

first employed in large technology conferences in the USA and was

enabled by lightweight synchronous communications tools such as IRC

(internet-relay chat). The growing adoption of Twitter has led to Twitter-

enabled backchannels – both ‘official’, or ‘quasi-official’, and ‘unofficial’ -

becoming an increasingly common feature of many academic conferences

all over the world. What was once a marginal practice specific to

technology conferences is now moving into the mainstream (Person

2009).

There has been some debate in the blogosphere, as well as in academic

publications, about the digital backchannel in general (Lawley 2004;

Jacobs & McFarlane 2005; McCarthy & boyd 2005; Siemans 2009) and the

Twitter-enabled backchannel in particular (O’Hear 2007; Jones 2008; Clay

2009; Guy 2009; Jukes 2009; Kelly 2009; Reinhardt et al. 2009; Schwartz

2009). However, in the context of digital backchannel practices entering

the mainstream as a result of the rapid uptake of Twitter and the ubiquity

of portable and hand-held devices enabling its convenient use, it’s time to

revisit the question of the conference backchannel and its contribution to

community learning.

The Twitter-enabled backchannel

Twitter is a web-based communications platform frequently described as

enabling both blogging, although the term microblogging tends to be

applied, and some of the activities supported by social network sites like

Facebook including participation in various forms in online communities.

Twitter posts, or, as they are more commonly known, ‘tweets’, are no

longer than 140 characters in length and, due to their brevity and the

varieties of language used, have much in common with the short text-

making practices associated with SMS messages, instant messaging or

Facebook status updates (Herring 2001). However, it is blog posts, albeit

in a greatly truncated form, that tweets most resemble. Lankshear and

Knobel have defined blogs as “hybrids of journal entries and annotations

or indices of links, or some mix of reflections, musings, anecdotes and the

like with embedded hyperlinks to related websites” (2006: 139) and there

is certainly much evidence to support the application of this definition to

Twitter. The tweet below (fig. 1), taken from my own Twitter public

timeline, is an example of twittering as “classic journalling” with myself,

the author “at the centre of the day-to-day matters being written about”

(Lankshear & Knobel 2006: 150). Unlike what David Silver calls ‘thin

tweets’, or “posts that convey one layer of information”, my example is of

a ‘thick tweet insofar as it “convey[s] two or more, often with help from a

1

hyperlink” (Silver 2009). The hyperlink, in this case, is to a picture taken

on my cameraphone and sent to a Twitter-related image hosting service.

Tweets, then, although not intrinsically multimodal, may link easily to

multimodal texts.

Fig. 1: Twitter and ‘classic journalling’

Twitter users have the option of filling in pre-set profile fields to enable

other users to find them or learn more about them. The profile template is

a space for a minimal identity performance: name, username, a self-

description of no more than 160 characters, a field for the URL of the

user’s homepage or blog and an image users select to represent

themselves. The example below (fig. 2) displays all of these features and

is characteristic of the ‘laminated’ identities performed on many Twitter

profiles The notion of ‘laminated’ identity refers to ways in which we enact

particular identities by consciously, and unconsciously, assuming or

rejecting the always/already present subject positions available to us

(Holland & Leander 2004).

Fig. 2: Example Twitter profile details

Tiffini Travis, our sample twitterer, has selected the username ‘mojo_girl’

in a conscious and playful taking up of the identity position of Afro-

American woman (Nora Dean’s Mojo Girl is also the title of Tiffini’s

favourite song). On top of this, she overlays other layers; there is, for

example, a reference to her dual professional identity as librarian and

2

author as well as a more personal subject position, ‘mom’. Tiffini uses her

160-character bio space to list specific interests - ‘punk rock’ ‘60s reggae’,

‘information literacy’, ‘edupunk’, ‘educational technology’- which

constitutes an abbreviated ‘taste performance’ (Liu 2007). This ‘taste

performance’ adds additional layers but is also another of the ways in

which Tiffini projects a public identity that enables her to navigate some

of the online Twitter networks and connect with others with similar

interests.

Twitter allows users to follow the updates of other users; these appear in

that users list of people they are said to be following. The people they are

following may, in turn, choose to follow those who are following them.

These physically distributed social networks form innumerable loosely

coupled communities bound, albeit fleetingly, by shared histories and

interests. Twitter’s search tool enables a user to find others with similar

interests and clicking a ‘Follow’ link adds them to that user’s list of

contacts. A less permanent way of bringing twitterers together is to add a

hashtag (e.g. #alt08) to tweets. This allows other users to search and

retrieve all tweets with the same hashtag. This is now the common

practice in conferences and workshops and allows Twitter users to interact

with others without having to add them to their list of contacts.

Twitter therefore largely conforms to boyd and Ellison’s (2008: 211)

definition of social network sites as “web-based services that

allow individuals to 1) construct a public or semi/public profile within

a bounded system, 2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share

a connection, and (3) view and traverse their lost of connections and

those made by others within the system”. However, Twitter is more

accurately described as an ‘open’, rather than a ‘bounded’ system insofar

as both Twitter profiles and the associated timeline of tweets are fully

public unless users decide to make them private.

Defining the backchannel

3

The concept of the backchannel invokes the metaphor of partitioned or

divided space; a ‘front’ area for the speaker usually comprised of a

lectern, networked computer(s) and projection screen(s) and a larger

‘back’ area for the audience with seating facing the front. The model,

ecclesiastical in origin (i.e. preacher at pulpit delivering a sermon to

seated parishioners), has informed the design of most lecture theatres

from the Middle Ages to the present day. Although a shared space, the

lecture theatre provides the physical platform for an asymmetric

interaction: speaker/presenter talking to - or at - a seated audience whose

opportunity to speak is limited by social conventions dictating a small

period of time at the end for questions and comments. This spatial

arrangement ‘positions’ individuals as either speakers or listeners.

The backchannel disrupts such positioning by allowing, without interfering

audibly with the frontchannel presentation, a range of interactions

between delegates. The backchannel, then, is the space for simultaneous,

multidirectional and, up to a point, multimodal communication. The

notion of the backchannel also problematises the distinction we make

between ‘virtual’ and ‘physical’ spaces. The use of a digital backchannel

at conferences presents a hybrid form of interaction in which the virtual

and physical are embedded in one another. A presentation in physical

space is often the trigger to a series of textual interactions in virtual space

which may, in turn, be reused in the same physical space in the form of

hashtag-aggregated tweets projected onto a screen and responded to by

the speaker or used as a stimulus to further discussion.

Review of the literature

There is currently relatively little in the way of formal academic research

on the use and impact of Twitter although a small number of conference

papers have been published over the last 12-18 months. Much of the work

produced tends to fall into one, or more, of five categories: (1) definitions

4

of Twitter and its key terms (McFedries 2007), (2) accounts of the growth

and geographical distribution of Twitter users (e.g. Java et al. 2007), (3)

categorisation of Twitter behaviours (Huberman et al. 2008;

Krishnamurthy et al. 2008), (4) reflections on Twitter for educational

purposes (Costa, C. et al. 2008; Ebner & Maurer 2008; Grosseck &

Hololescu 2008; Stevens 2008; Young 2008) and (5) analysis of the

Twitter-enabled backchannel (Reinhardt et al. 2009; Saunders et al. 2009;

Schwartz 2009). The blogosphere also provides a intellectually lively

space for academic commentary and conversation on the emerging

practices relating to Twitter use and it is here that the description of

particular case studies and discussion has been at its most intense.

Jacobs & Mcfarlane’s (2005) early paper on conference backchannel

practices framed discussions of technology-supported backchannels in

highly polarised terms; its subtitle, ‘distributed intelligence or divided

attention’ highlighting a conflict between, on the one hand, an inclusive,

participatory conference culture and, on the other, the fracturing of

conference delegates into cliques only intermittently engaged with the

main presentations. The majority of papers and posts on the backchannel

have tended to make a case for them supporting shared learning - “a

valuable way of developing a shared sense of community and active

participation” (Kelly 2009) and “[m]icroblogging allows virtually anyone to

actively participate in the thematic debates” (Reinhardt et al. 2009). A

minority have taken the opposing view; a post by Marieke Guy in her blog

argues that social networks can be occasionally “elitist and alienating”

and that Twitter, based on her recent observation of conference

backchannels, “seems to be the right application in which to be clique

[sic] and have a dig at people” (2009). The backchannel’s ‘snarkiness’

(the term ‘snark’ is a neologism based on the words ‘snide’ and ‘remark’

and is used to designate sarcastic and dismissive comments) is, according

to at least one commentator an integral part of its vitality (Lawley 2004a).

However, it is clear that for some it is a cause for concern.

5

Research questions

Against this background of practice and debate, there are a number of

questions that need to be asked of the growing use of the Twitter-enabled

backchannel in academic conferences. My particular research questions

are:

What types of interaction are academic twitterers (i.e. users of Twitter) engaged in?

Does Twitter enable a more participatory conference culture by facilitating additional modes of networking, discussion and information sharing?

Is there a need to formulate guidelines on how best to manage the backchannel to support community learning?

Research Methods

My research data takes two forms: (1) responses to an online

questionnaire completed by 103 respondents; and (2) a set of hashtag-

aggregated tweets sent by 22 participants of a single learning technology-

related conference that took place in April 2009 and was attended by 108

delegates. I collected and analysed my data over a six-week period in

April and May 2009. By seeking responses from a wide range of

academics, I was attempting to establish the ‘bigger picture’ of Twitter

use and attitudes towards the emerging cultural practices associated with

the Twitter-enabled backchannel. Through my analysis of conference-

related Twitter activity, I was hoping to get at richer data – i.e. specific

actors, detailed social context - that would illuminate Twitter behaviour in

a different way to the questionnaire.

Design of my survey

6

The intention of the online questionnaire was to gather data on attitudes

to, and use of, Twitter for professional development purposes in general

and as a means of enhancing conference participation in particular. The

survey was therefore divided into two sections: (1) ‘Twitter and you’ which

sought to elicit attitudes to and use of Twitter in more general terms and

(2) ‘More than just passing notes in class’ which sought to gain a picture

of Twitter use as part of an academic conference backchannel. Question

types included multiple choice, lickert scale and matrix. I was interested in

seeking qualitative data in participants’ own words and included a number

of open response questions in the survey. Of particular interest to me

were the blurring of professional and personal identities and the idea of

Twitter as a laminated discursive space in which multiple identities are

performed. The survey was publicised through a number of HE discussion

lists and by sending a tweet with a link to the survey which I asked

followers to retweet (i.e. a form of Twitter-based snowball sampling).

Participant analysis

This part of my research is probably best described as an ethnographic

study in which I occupy a space somewhere between researcher-as-

insider and researcher-as-analyst (Davies & Merchant 2006). The data

presented in this study was collected as a result of my developing

participation in a loose network of higher education practitioners (e.g.

lecturers, librarians, educational technologists) attempting to understand

the nature and implications of new and emerging technologies to

teaching, learning and assessment and using social media such as Twitter

to do so.

My research setting was both physical – a single academic conference

that took place in early April 2009 in a physical venue at a university in

the south of England - but also virtual insofar as a unique conference-

specific Twitter hashtag aggregated the disparate tweets of conference

7

participants into a single shared digital space. So, my research context

was a specific discourse community of academics sharing physical and

virtual space as conference participants and twitterers. My collection and

analysis of tweets has more in common with the methodology of

‘unobtrusive measures’ (Webb et al. 2000) than, for example, some work

on digital culture in which the researchers position themselves as both

subjects and objects (Turkle 1995; Markham 1998; Davies & Merchant

2006; Davies 2008; Lankshear & Knobel 2008). The conference whose

Twitter backchannel I have chosen to analyse was one I attended as a

delegate but at which I did not present. I also took no part in the

backchannel other than as a ‘read-only participant’ or ‘lurker’. My

‘inhabitation’ of the conference and its Twitter backchannel – my

ethnographic field site – was therefore limited.

Analysis and findings

Survey responses

The story I have to tell about my research data is one of enthusiastic

engagement with an emerging technology and the new socio-literate

practices that the technology facilitates. It’s also a story of individuals

finding their own ways of using Twitter for personal as well as professional

purposes and managing the separation, or blurring, of these two social

contexts.

The majority of participants in the survey were recent converts (42 or

40.8% joined in the last 6 months), suggesting that 2009 may well be the

year that Twitter went mainstream in HE. However, as one might expect

from higher education practitioners with an interest in technology, a

significant number were early (i.e. users over the last 18-24 months), or

earlyish (users over the last 6-18 months) adopters. Other Twitter users,

both friends (8.7%) and colleagues (28.2%), brokered over a third of

participants’ introduction to Twitter with less than a third learning about it 8

first from a range of web-based sources (30.1%). Participants were quick

to discover a range of tools (Tweetdeck, Twitterfox etc.) to improve the

user experience of Twitter, although a little less than half (46.6%) were

using Twitter-related services such as Twitpic.

My research participants are using Twitter for a range of purposes;

professional development was the reason participants rated most highly,

although ‘learning more about Twitter’s potential in education’,

‘developing new social networks’ and ‘strengthening existing social

networks’ were also highly rated. Twenty-one of the survey participants

took up the option of specifying other reasons for using Twitter. What was

striking was the range of reappropriations of the technology which

spanned the professional – e.g. “Gauge potential as part of a ‘toolbox’ of

‘Web 2.x’ services to support collaborative scientific research”,

“marketing of services”, “as outreach for my library” – and the highly

personal – e.g. “prayer support for close friends”, “fun”, “Stalking

celebrities!”.

What’s clear from the many of the replies is that Twitter users are

engaging creatively with what Pinch and Bijker (1984) call technology’s

“interpretive flexibility”, i.e. users interpret how they want to use it in

ways meaningful to them, and producing what Grint and Woolgar (1997)

call new ‘readings’ that are very different to the intentions of its creators

as a lightweight notification service (‘What are you doing?’).

Of particular interest to me were ways in which Twitter users were

managing the separation or blurring of personal and professional

identities and activities. The majority of participants had a single Twitter

account (72.5%), although over a quarter had multiple accounts (27.4%)

with one respondent having as many as 11. The reason most frequently

cited for multiple accounts was the perceived need to separate

professional and personal spaces:

Personal, two for work, one for daughter and one for band

9

I have a personal Twitter account and one for both the subject areas I manage

One is my main personal/professional one; the other is to support a research project I'm running with students

There were often cases of different Twitter accounts for specific areas of

professional practice:

one for ASTD chapter one for ALA roundtable

I've had 3 for me, undergraduate students and postgraduate students

two I use for automation purposes

Ninety-six participants completed an open response question on their

attitudes to the blurring of private and professional realms. I attempted to

dimensionalise attitudes by placing participants on a continuum: at one

end were those who were comfortable with the blurring and, at the other,

those who felt uneasy. Broadly speaking participants mainly clustered at

the ‘comfortable’ end of the continuum. Some maintained that Twitter’s

relative newness means it’s still to be adopted by the mainstream making

the blurring less of an issue:

no one I know socially uses Twitter

few friends and family on Twitter

Some participants were actually enthusiastic about the blurring:

One of its strengths

there's benefit to a professional person demonstrating human traits

prefer it when the people I follow combine social & professional twittering; it gives a fuller picture of that person, and helps fill in the gaps created by not meeting them face-to-face

More than half the participants (61) had sent tweets during a conference,

the majority of which used the conference hashtag (49). ‘Notes to

contacts not present at the conference’ was the reason selected by most

(49) with ‘to participate in discussion with other delegates’ not far behind

(43). A little more than a quarter of conference twitterers (16) claimed to

10

have sent dismissive or dissenting tweets during presentations. These

included:

snarky replies and DMs [direct messages] to another person sitting near me about content we disagreed with

sometimes speakers say something so wrong (like an assumption or misconception held by non-experts) and you can't wait til the end to go "wtf??"

Speaker was boring, wasted our time

Others participants objected to my survey’s use of the word ‘subversive’

and claimed that critical tweets were no different to the critical comments

they would otherwise feel comfortable articulating face-to-face:

am usually tweeting my thoughts of the presentation and that means both good comments that i agree with as well as things i disagree with

to highlight frailties in argument, or to identify my position on topic

They have been critical, rather than subversive: making critical comments, opinions or reflections about particular issues raised. They are openly tweeted, and nothing I would normally hide from a group of critically engaged colleagues.

The majority of respondents (46.2%) agreed with the statement that

Twitter enhances conference participation by enabling a distributed

dialogue, with over a fifth (21.5%) strongly agreeing. Twenty-one

participants took up the option of describing Twitter’s contribution in their

own words. Only one response provided an alternative description:

oh please, it's just anothe [sic] way of talking to the people you get on with and ingnoring [sic] the people who get on your nerves. sometimes you have to listen to the balix [sic] to hear something interesting or useful.

The others used the space instead to add caveats. Some related to the

uneven adoption of Twitter as a backchannel technology amongst higher

education practitioners and the risk of “two-tier engagement”:

I agree, but would like to see the tweets documented in some way. Besides, twitter is still used only by a minority of people

Yes to above, but multi tasking this way is not for everyone.

Hmmm, sort of agree, but only some people twitter. Like the William Gibson quote, "The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet."

11

Twitter can be great for confs, BUT risks having two-tier engagement, therefore not actually inclusive. (I know people CAN all join if they want, but they haven't yet, have they?)

One area identified by a number was the value of the backchannel to

colleagues not physically present:

I think it creates an interesting backchannel for conversation for those participating live at the conference, and for people who aren't at the conference physically but are present virtually

can potentially broaden and enriche [sic] dialogue and information exchange through backchannel - enable some degree of participation by those not physically present

Some related to the limitations of the technology:

potential for wider participation, but it is quite limited in potential unless combined with streaming of the content itself

I fiind [sic] that I agree with this statement, but also have a comment. […] Twitter is a poor notetakere [sic] with seriously unstable backfiles, and bad searchbility, so i see it's [sic] use as very much "at the moment"

it also provides a record of conference impression but much less coherent than blog postingd [sic] from people who attended the [sic] conference

The final survey question addressed the issue of good practice guidelines

for the use of Twitter conference backchannels. A slightly higher number

(49 against as opposed to 40 for) argued against the needs for such

guidelines. Of the 40 who responded to the request for suggestions, about

a quarter justified their reasons for saying good practice guidelines were

unnecessary or undesirable. Some argued this on pragmatic grounds –

“Could you imagine tryign [sic] to enforce anything??” and “they are

unlikely to suceed [sic] in being adopted by more than a minority of

participants”. Others trusted their fellow professionals and twitterers to

use the backchannel appropriately:

because social networks police themselves

I think on the whole people are fairly sensible at conferences, from the twitter streams I've read. It would sort of lose the point if you had too many dos and donts

I think professionals (adults even!) should be trusted to excercise [sic] their own judgement in this respect. It's quite likely that an element of

12

self-regulation would creep in here too, as followers move to the defence of those who are unfairly tweeted about

Finally, three took a more overtly moral stance on the imposition of

behavioural norms in the backchannel:

I want to say something about no ... I will have no part in constarined [sic] practice ... what is good p for one is not necessarily good p for another

I would resent greatly an imposed set of best practices for this tool. It's [sic] flexibility and personalization are outside of that, I believe

I don't think so. Rules are made to be broken imho. If you constrain me I will buck the system just because!!

The 31 suggestions for good practice guidelines tended to be more

practical than moral and often related to the technicalities of hashtag use:

[not] clogging up the conference stream by using conference hashtags on non-conference related posts

just simple guidance for the uninitiated...

Just the common sense stuff: Hash signs should be a MUST

Publicising hashtags in advance so that we can ensure use correct tags.

Full URL citation when possible - URL shorteners may not persist (lost link over time) and may be subject to hijacking by hackers for nefarious purposes (security)

About a quarter made good practice recommendations relating to the

sending of snarky tweets and other forms of inappropriate behaviour:

"Do no harm", i.e., conduct the conversations with the same level of courtesy and respect that one would expect of any professional interchange Not publically flaming speakers!

actually exposing the twitter stream at events might have the effect making people self moderate a bit more

Keep public tweets 'politically correct' and constructive to the conversations, even if critical. Keep subversive, complaining tweets private

Only Tweet what you would stand up and say publicly

To not make subversive remarks using the conference hashtag...it's unprofessional.

13

Note to self: summary of findings and link to next section needed

Participant observation

The other main component of my data set consists of a series of tweets

using a shared hashtag that were sent during a one-day educational

technology conference. I thought it would be more productive to

reconstruct and analyse the chronology of these tweets – understanding

their ebb and flow in the context of the day’s events - rather than discuss

them category by category as other some papers and blog posts have

done (McCarthy & boyd 2005; Giles 2009). Although I have interpreted the

use of a shared hashtag to mean that these tweets are in the public

domain and, therefore, may be cited without their authors’ permission, I

have attempted to anonymise participants and context of their

interactions by changing the names of both twitterers and removing

details of the conference venue and speakers that would immediately

identify the conference.

One striking characteristic of the hashtag-aggregated Twitter activity I

observed is that it constitutes not a single distributed conversation but,

rather, multiple monologues and a few intermittent, loosely joined

dialogues which participants enter and exit at will.

The earliest tweets fall into the category of play-by-play summaries, i.e.

brief descriptions of the conference as it unfolds akin to live coverage of a

sporting event via a web page,. Play-by-play tweets were the main

category of conference post and many were purely descriptive:

Good morning all! At the train station to start trip to [name of location] & [#conference hastag]

Paul Jones, from the [name of university] speaking "We're interested in the future, and that's the semantic web"

14

Others play-by-play tweets extracted a key message or personally salient

points. These tweets are not verbatim transcriptions but distillations or

identification of salient points and take-home messages:

another knife in the heart of recording 50 min lectures from Paul Jones of [name of university]

[name of university] tends to avoid putting lecture content, instead putting up high-quality documentary content with academic narration/intention

Note made that lecturer's need to be trained in presentation techniques because of limitations of webcast cameras

It was not uncommon for these types of tweets to include the url of

relevant sites or documents:

[name of project] has 7000 metadata entries on the website, encouraging other universities to aggregate feeds into it [url to project website]

biggest barrier is legal / IPR , suggest having a look at [url] as a starting point for advice about a month ago

Another category of tweet that featured amongst the earliest contributions related to logistics and often concerned the availability of WiFi and details of the agreed hashtag:

Arrived for the early bird session at [#conference hastag] at [name of university]. All arriving in [name of venue]. plush Lecture room. No sign of WiFi

new tag for today's podcasting conference [#conference hastag] - a really interesting day ahead [url to conference programme]

At this point tweets replying to logistical questions were also in evidence:

@[name of participant] [conference hashtag] wifi is available on eduroam or someone will pass around visitor login for [name of conference venue] network soon.

Tweets about Twitter and the backchannel-related comments also feature:

so we're doing a good job collab note taking. Is there a good tool for reversing these back to the right chron order?

We've made the Twitter trending topics list again!

Dialogues between participants, although not as common as play-by-play tweets, were a perceptually salient feature of the Twitter backchannel.

15

Here is one example – with names changed - of the kind of dialogic interaction observed:

articulatedesign:Q re transcripts, access4all: credible transcription systems anyone? A: no, no answer...

kunst:automated transcripts are not very readable. We operate on-demand transcription - if requested, we'll send off to a transcriber.

paterfamilias:@kunst - another thing to keep in mind: if you have a script, you also have a transcript

articulatedesign:@paterfamilias re script = transcript: that's what i'm talkin about, yes yes yes. But will put REAL pressure on workload of teachers.

What we see is a three-way dialogue, initially triggered by the

frontchannel presentation, taking place between participants in the

backchannel. Participants are sharing experiences and, to a degree, co-

constructing knowledge. It’s interesting to note that one of the

participants identified backchannel interaction as a positive part of his

conference experience, turning his attention toward backchannel activity

at moments when not engaged with main presentation - “this one a bit

too technical for me, twitter talk keeping me engaged tho”.

A more interesting interaction in the backchannel occurred during a

presentation after lunch when a cluster of highly critical tweets were

posted during one particular presentation by a representative from a

major computer manufacturer that was deemed by many as too

corporate. There are four tweets by the same user – once again, the real

names have been altered - on this presentation, the sarcasm growing

more marked as irritation at being ‘pitched at’ increased:

articulatedesign:I really *want* to like this talk. But I don't. Not "speaking" to me

judgng frm twts, i'm not alone in my discomfort. my neighbour's reading a blogpost on "why i hate [name of computer manufacturer]" (cos of the lock in!!!)

salespitch suckfest with tinkle piano16

@[janefrand] mmm brains nom nom nom (note to self; sell your [name of MP3 player], time to stand firm)

The last tweet was an ‘@ reply’ or public tweet directed at a particular

Twitter user who had posted moments earlier, also directing her post to

other delegates who tweeted their objections to the presentation:

janefrand:

@vilnius @articulatedesign @rdtechie must... eat... brains... no wait...

buy... [name of computer manufacturer] ... products

The above tweets are, on one level, examples of ‘snarks’. On one level

they correspond to Guy Merchant’s (2009) observation that the Twitter-

enabled backchannel is “works well as an outlet for frustration”. However,

something more complex is occurring; the twitterers, irritated by the

frontchannel presenter’s attempt to promote a brand, turn inward toward

the backchannel and engage in forms of banter that assert shared forms

of academic identity and associated modes of conduct that the speaker

appears to be violating. Although the twitterers are having fun – the tone

is alternately sarcastic (“salespitch suckfest”) and silly (e.g. the zombie

brain-eating routine) – I’d argue that they are subverting the presenter’s

attempt to use an academic conference to sell a brand and are reclaiming

the conference space as their own. In the face of the presenter’s

corporate ‘strategy’, snarky tweets in the backchannel are these

participants’ preferred subversive ‘tactic’ (de Certeau 1984).

Towards the end of the conference other sorts of tweets are posted such

as follow-ups - e.g. “bookmark [url of project website]”) and expressions

of appreciation to the speakers or conference organisers – e.g. “great

conference, thanks” and “thanks for great two days everybody :-)“.

Conclusions

The Twitter-enabled backchannel constitutes a complex hybrid and

multidirectional discursive space in which the conference participants

17

make and share notes, quibble, query and demur, have off-stage

dialogues with like-minded colleagues or contacts either present in the

lecture theatre or elsewhere, engage in serendipitous networking and

exchange humorous and bantering tweets. The Twitter-enabled

backchannel, whilst offering something new – simultaneous,

multidirectional and laminated interaction - might be said to re-mediate

older analogue conference practices – e.g. discussing presentations over

coffee, lunch or dinner, on the train home etc.. Unlike spoken comments

which are unrecorded and quasi-private – tweets are generally public and

retrievable, qualities which may be viewed positively or negatively.

There is some evidence from both the survey and from the ‘telling’ case

study of one conference, that such backchannels make a contribution to a

more participatory conference culture by providing additional

opportunities for discussion, information sharing, knowledge building and

professional networking. There is also some evidence from both survey

data and participant observation that backbiting in the backchannel

features in academic conferences to some degree. However, more

research into this aspect of backchannel interaction in the context of a

range of academic conferences is necessary. Anecdotally, snarky tweets

were much less visible in another conference I attended where the

hashtag had been introduced early and where the conference organiser

modelled, to a degree, the tone of backchannel tweets.

I’m still reluctant to claim that there is no pressing need to formulate

guidelines for the use of conference backchannels beyond basic technical

advice. My study has been about Twitter users and, therefore the ‘voices’

of those who have yet to, or who have chosen not to use it are absent

from this study. During my data collection I was contacted by email by

two colleagues whose presentation – at a conference I did not attend - had

been tweeted and who felt that the “mode of dissemination lacked

transparency and collegiality” and did not offer them the “chance to

engage in any discussion about the criticisms” (email to Tony McNeill 9

18

April 2009). In our enthusiasm for this new mode of participation are we in

danger of creating a “two-tier engagement” that includes some and

excludes others?

The Twitter-enabled backchannel raises some interesting questions about

the nature of both lecture and conference participation, professional

development and collegiality in an increasingly digital age. In future

research I hope to return to some of the questions raised and to

reintroduce some of the voices marginalised in studies to date.

19

References

boyd, d. (2009). Social Media is Here to Stay... Now What? Microsoft Research Tech Fest, Redmond, 26 February 2009. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/MSRTechFest2009.html U H

boyd, d. & Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 pp.210-230

Clay, J. (2009). Amplified Twittering and Social Reporting. e-Learning Stuff: news and views on e-learning, ILT and tech stuff in general. Retrieved May 1 2009, from HU http://elearningstuff.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/amplified- twittering-and-social-reporting/ U

Costa, C. et al. (2008). Microblogging In Technology Enhanced Learning Conferences: A Use Case Inspection. Workshop at the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL), Maastricht, The Netherlands, September 16-19 Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-382/ paper3.pdf U H

Davies, J. (2008). Pay and Display: The Digital Literacies of Online Shoppers. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (eds), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (227-248). New York: Peter Lang.

Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (2006). Looking from the Inside Out: academic blogging as new literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (eds) A New Literacies Sampler (167-198). New York: Peter Lang

de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press

Ebner, M. & Maurer, H. (2008). Can Microblogs and Weblogs change traditional scientific writing? Proceedings of E-Learn. Las Vegas. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~i203/ebner/publication/08_elearn01.pdf U

Giles, M. (2009). Conference Tweeting A Distraction and Waste of Time, or Not? Consumer Centric: digging. listening. telling stories. about people. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://consumercentric.biz/wordpress/? p=18 U

Grint, K & Woolgar, S. (1997). The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Grosseck, G. & Holotescu, C. (2008). Can we use Twitter for Educational Activities? The 4th International Scientific Conference. e-Learning and Software for Education. Bucharest, April 17-18, 2008. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://adl.unap.ro/else/papers/015.-697.1.Grosseck %20Gabriela-Can%20we%20use.pdf U H

20

Guy, M. (2009). Back in the Playground: Bitching on Twitter. Ramblings of a Remote Worker. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from HU http://remoteworker.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/back-in-the-playground- bitching-on-twitter/ U H

Heinemeier, D. (2009). Bitching is the killer app for Twitter. Signal vs Noise. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from HU http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/968-bitching-is-the-killer-app-for- twitter U

Herring, S. (2001). Computer-Mediated Discourse. In D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (eds) Handbook of Discourse Analysis (612-634). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage Publications.

Hine, C. (ed.)(2005). Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Oxford & New York: Berg.

Holland, D. & Leander, K. (2004). Ethnographic Studies of Positioning and Subjectivity: An Introduction. Ethos, 32(2): 127-139.

Huberman, B.A. et al. (2008).Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1313405 U H

Java, A. Finin, T. Song, X. & Tseng, B. (2007). ‘Why we Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities’. Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis. San Jose, California, USA, 12 August 2007. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://aisl.umbc.edu/get/softcopy/id/1073/1073.pdf U

Jacobs, N. & Mcfarlane, A. (2005). Conferences as learning communities: some early lessons in using `back-channel’ technologies at an academic conference - distributed intelligence or divided attention? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5): 317-329

Jones, J. (2008) Life Before the Backchannel? Injenuity. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://injenuity.com/archives/153 U H

Jukes, M. (2009). Introduction to backchannels and the amplified conference. Backpass.org. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from HU http://backpass.org/2009/04/22/introduction-to-backchannels-and-the- amplified-conference U H

Karrer, T. (2009). Twitter Conference Ideas. eLearning Technology. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from HU http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2009/01/twitter-conference-ideas.html U H

Kelly, B. (2009). (TwitterFall) You’re My Wonder Wall. UK Web Focus: Reflections on the Web and Web 2.0. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from

21

HU http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/twitterfall-youre-my- wonder-wall/ U H

Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (2008). Digital Literacy and Participation in Online Social Networking Spaces. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (eds), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (249-277). New York: Peter Lang.

Krishnamurthy, B. et al. (2008). A Few Chirps about Twitter. Proceedings of the first Workshop on Online Social Networks, August 18, 2008 Seattle, Washington, USA. Retrieved April 26, 2009, fromHU http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm? id=1397741&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=33036168&CFTOKEN=25384362 U H

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006). Blogging as Participation: The Active Sociality of a New Literacy. Presented to the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, US. April 11, 2006. Available at: HU http://cehs.montclair.edu/faculty/pdfs/bloggingparticipation.pdf U H (Accessed 20 Nov. 2008).

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006 2nd Edition). New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New” in New Literacies. In Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M., A New Literacies Sampler. New York: Peter Lang. 1-24. Available from: HU http://www.soe.jcu.edu.au/sampler/ U H (Accessed 18 Nov. 2008).

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. New York: Peter Lang.

Lawley, L. (2004a). confessions of a backchannel queen. Mamamusings: elizabeth lane lawley's thoughts on technology, academia, family, and tangential topics. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://mamamusings.net/archives/2004/03/30/confessions_of_a_backchan nel_queen.php U H

Lawley, L. (2004b). backchannel modes. Many-to-Many: A group weblog on social software. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/03/15/backchannel_modes.php U

Lawley, L. (2004c). Learning From (and About) the Backchannel. Many-to-Many: A group weblog on social software. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/04/01/learning_from_and_about_t he_backchannel.php U H

Leander, K. M., & McKim, K. K. (2003). Tracing the everyday 'sitings' of adolescents on the internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces. Education, Communication, Information, 3(2): 211-240.

22

Liu, H. (2008). Social Network Profiles as Taste Performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1): 252-275. Retrieved April 29, from HU http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/liu.html U

Lott, C. (2008). Understanding the Backchannel. Ruminate. Retrieved April 26, 2003, from HU http://www.chrislott.org/2008/05/22/understanding-the- backchannel/ U

Markham, A.N. (1998). Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press

McCarthy, J. F. & boyd, d. (2005). Digital backchannels in shared physical spaces: experiences at an academic conference. In Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from HU http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1060000/1056986/p1641- mccarthy.pdf?key1=1056986&key2=8487861421&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=34611421&CFTOKEN=42490139 U H

McFedries, P. (2007). Technically speaking: All atwitter. IEEE Spectrum, 44(10), 84. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4337670 U

Merchant, G. (2009). Tweeting at conferences. My Vedana. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://myvedana.blogspot.com/2009/05/tweeting-at-conferences.html

Merchant, G. (2006). Identity, Social Networks and Online Communication. E-Learning, 3(2): 235-244

Miller, D. & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg.

Mitchell, O. (2009). How to Present While People are Twittering . Pistachio. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from HU http://pistachioconsulting.com/twitter- presentations/ U H

O'Hear, S. (2007). Twitter, the ultimate conference 'backchannel'. The Social Web. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from HU http://blogs.zdnet.com/social/? p=110 U

Person, B. (2009). Hashtags: Coming to a conference near you. Media Bullseye: A New Media and Communications Magazine. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from HU http://mediabullseye.com/mb/2009/03/hashtags-coming-to-a- conferenc.html U H

Pinch, T.J. & Bijker, W.E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399-441.

23

Prior, P. (2003). Are communities of practice really an alternative to discourse communities?' Paper presented at the 2003 American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) Conference. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/pprior/Prior/PriorAAAL03.pdf U

Reichelt, L. (2007). Ambient intimacy. disambiguity. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://www.disambiguity.com/ambient-intimacy/ U

Reinhardt, W. et al. (2009). How People are using Twitter during Conferences (draft). In Proceedings of the 5th EduMedia Conference, Salzburg, Austria. Retrieved May 7, 2009, from HU http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~i203/ebner/publication/09_edumedia.pdf U H

Saunders N, et al. (2009) Microblogging the ISMB: A New Approach to Conference Reporting. PLoS Comput Biol, 5(1): 1-5

Schwartz, J. (2009). Data Analysis of Twitter at Events. Pathable. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from HU http://blog.pathable.com/2009/06/analysis-twitter- events.htmlU

Siemans, G. (2009). Educational Uses of Back Channels. elearnspace: learning, networks, knowledge, technology, community. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2009/03/05/educational- uses-of-back-channels/ U

Silver, D. (2009). The difference between thin and thick tweets. Silver in SF: Teaching and learning in a city called San Francisco. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://silverinsf.blogspot.com/2009/02/difference-between- thin-and-thick.html U H

Stevens, V. (2008). ‘Trial by Twitter: The Rise and Slide of the Year's Most Viral Microblogging Platform’. TESL-EJ, 12(1). Retrieved April 26, 2009, from HU http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej45/int.html U H

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: identity in the Age of the Internet. New York and Toronto. Simon and Schuster.

Webb, E.J. et al. (2000 revised edition). Unobtrusive Measures. London: Sage Publications.

Wheeler, S. (2009). Twittering at Conferences. Learning with 'e's: My thoughts about learning technology and all things digital - I'm interested in how technology can be made to work for us, particularly in education. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from HU http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2009/05/twittering-at-conferences.html U H

Young, Y.R. (2009). Forget E-Mail: New Messaging Service Has Students and Professors Atwitter. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from HU http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i25/25a01501.htm U H

24