I finally had a chance to read Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker piece on social media and, as the saying goes, I'm picking up what he's putting down.
[note that I won't be rehashing all at he wrote here]
In thinking about how what he's written applies to higher ed and engagement, It seems clear that social media has the ability to broaden our networks but how, really, does it impact our ability to get any kind of movement going? For all the effort underway at schools to get with the social media program, is there really a plan for where to direct the energy that social success could drive?
Ideally, social media can be the connective tissue that holds together groups of constituents and the institution. As it stands, the loose networks that live in social media really don't do that. Why? No sustained leadership. They end up functioning like tents without a tent post. A tarp really.
This is where, as Gladwell rightly points out, we need strong champions with established networks - acting as those tent poles I mentioned - to drive the thing forward. We can't just toss the tools - be it a Facebook page, Twitter hashtag, YouTube channel or whatever - out there and expect the movement to begin. Best case scenario is that you'll get that broad but flat tarp of activity.
We need a structure, complete with people support - staff, volunteers or passionate supporters - with the energy and time to sustain the effort. There also has to be the institutional connections to resources and, ultimately, the line of sight to make a positive impact on whateveer it is that they're aligned around.
So to all the campus social media mavens out there, are we ready to pitch a tent or just keep on laying tarps? Let the circus begin.
Comments