tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/online-writing-7354/articlesOnline writing – The Conversation2016-05-11T14:11:44Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/590102016-05-11T14:11:44Z2016-05-11T14:11:44ZAcademics need to embrace new ways of writing and sharing research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121929/original/image-20160510-20749-1i5kgf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The old ways aren't necessarily the best when it comes to academic writing.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Universities are a “thousand-year-old industry on the cusp of profound change”. That’s according to <a href="http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_of_the_future_2012.pdf">a study</a> that explored Australia’s higher education landscape four years ago. One warning from the report rings true far beyond Australia and all the way around the world:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Over the next ten-15 years, the current public university model … will prove unviable in all but a few cases.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://stan.md/1N83AhO">Warning shots</a> are ringing out across the world. But how many academics are actually paying attention? In my experience as a lecturer at a South African university, we continue to placate the two denizens of academia – teaching and research – in the same way we always have. Teaching remains focused on <a href="https://theconversation.com/schools-must-get-the-basics-right-before-splashing-out-on-technology-52994">instruction</a> and content reproduction, while most research never makes it beyond journals.</p>
<p>If we continue to teach in outdated ways, we will increasingly lose touch with our students. Equally, if we continue to closet our findings in traditional journals, we may find our hard work increasingly eclipsed by research organisations that use new media to effectively share their findings.</p>
<p>Lots of attention is being given to <a href="https://theconversation.com/outdated-teaching-methods-will-blunt-technologys-power-40503">new ways</a> of teaching. The great news is that there are also exciting new publishing opportunities springing up. </p>
<h2>The right to write</h2>
<p>On May 12 2015 I published my <a href="https://theconversation.com/outdated-teaching-methods-will-blunt-technologys-power-40503">first article</a> with The Conversation Africa. One year and ten articles later, I’ve started to view my “right to write” in a totally different way. For more than 20 years as an academic, writing has been more of a duty than a need – let alone a right. Productivity units must be met. Papers must be written and published in approved journals. Even the joy of writing for conferences, which can generate spirited discussion, has been removed. Conference presentations don’t contribute much to one’s chance of promotion.</p>
<p>Of course there is great merit in writing for journals. These have been one of the primary stores of human knowledge, and their peer review process foregrounds credible research – <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/03/08/the-increasing-use-of-predatory-journals-for-advocacy-research/">most of the time</a>. They teach academics how to write carefully argued pieces, and the best ones hold us to high standards of quality. </p>
<p>Pragmatically, they also pay. Individual academics and their institutions earn money for each article that’s published in certain accredited journals.</p>
<p>However, the money associated with such journals has created an entire industry that flies counter to a world where sharing knowledge is seen as the right thing to do. Journals are being <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/04/02/academic-publishing-piracy/">accused</a> of using the free services of academics to write and the free services of reviewers to edit. They then charge exorbitant prices so that the very same academics can’t even access their own content. </p>
<p>But traditional journals are no longer the be-all and end-all. At least, they shouldn’t be. Open-access journals, blogs, wikis, professional Facebook pages and YouTube channels offer academics a range of exciting, different ways to share their research. These spaces come with a range of benefits.</p>
<h2>New media means new benefits</h2>
<p>The first of these is the far quicker turnaround time. One of academics’ abiding frustrations with the current publishing process is how long it takes for articles to see the light of day. <a href="http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf">Research</a> shows that it takes, on average, between nine and 18 months (and sometimes longer) from submission to publication. Writing for new media spaces means that research can be shared within hours or days, opening up the opportunity for discussion, debate and dissent far more quickly.</p>
<p>Your reach is far greater in new media spaces. Some studies estimate that the average journal article is read entirely by <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/prof-no-one-is-reading-you">only ten people</a>. Tools like <a href="https://www.google.com/analytics/#?modal_active=none">Google Analytics</a> can help academics to track their readership in new media spaces. Some sites, like The Conversation, have their own metrics systems – from this, I know that each of my articles is read on average 4,000 times.</p>
<p>Greater reach leads to far greater exposure. This can take the form of comments from academics around the world, invitations to collaborate, and TV and radio interviews. This takes academic research far beyond conferences and journals. I’ve discussed my work on different platforms, including international newspapers, and have been drawn into several local and international research collaborations. Isn’t that sort of work the point of publishing? </p>
<p>New media spaces can also be less intimidating for young, inexperienced academics than established journals are. Getting used to writing, finding your own voice and presenting your work on a public platform is all good practice for journal writing. Universities often offer <a href="http://utlo.ukzn.ac.za/Files/Come%20Write%20With%20Me%20Sept2014.pdf">programmes</a> designed to help young academics develop and strengthen their writing, and these are useful tools as well.</p>
<p>Finally, new media spaces offer a valuable opportunity for feedback, conversation and even correction. They’re not about getting it <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-time-the-world-embraced-wikipedia-41461">perfect upfront </a> – they’re about learning, arguing and altering. This encourages the kind of dialogue and idea sharing that any academic should value.</p>
<h2>Stepping out of our academic closet</h2>
<p>Change isn’t coming to academia – it’s here. And the one thing you don’t do in the path of <a href="http://stan.md/1N83AhO">an avalanche</a> is stand still. The privilege of just talking about new teaching approaches and new publishing opportunities has passed. If academics don’t make bold moves to change how we use new platforms and technologies, we ourselves are at risk of becoming irrelevant.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59010/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Blewett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are many exciting new publishing opportunities opening up for academics who want to take their work beyond traditional spaces like journals.Craig Blewett, Senior Lecturer in Education & Technology, University of KwaZulu-NatalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323932014-10-31T01:02:41Z2014-10-31T01:02:41ZFive ways to fight online abuse with good manners<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63230/original/b2zqr3q3-1414620786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The abuse unleashed online can be devastating at times.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/spyrospapaspyropoulos/13431814265">Flickr/Spyros Papaspyropoulos </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Online and social media’s capacity to enable anyone to communicate their ideas and views is much celebrated. So why do so many people feel nervous about getting involved with online debate?</p>
<p>Too often, the reason is they have had vitriol poured all over them, or seen that happen to others. </p>
<p>This was the experience of one of this article’s authors (Helen), who recently wrote an opinion piece for a popular Australian website, <a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/">Mamamia</a>, which ran with the headline <a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/is-it-okay-to-let-men-pay-the-bill/">Why I’d never be with a man who always pays the bill</a>. And the public response to what was her first foray into writing for a major website left her wondering if it’s worth repeating the exercise.</p>
<p>Beyond this single anecdotal example – just one of <a href="http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/infographic-24-hours-on-the-internet/">the millions of blog posts</a> and articles published every day around the world – why does online incivility matter? </p>
<p>It matters, in part, because recent research has shown that the content and tone of comments on articles can actually affect the way people read and interpret the original article. </p>
<p>One <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12009/full">online experiment</a> examined attitudes to nanotechnology by taking a neutral blog post on the subject and exposing its participants to either rude or polite comments to see if it affected their views. The research revealed the “Nasty Effect”, showing that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] those who are exposed to uncivil deliberation in blog comments are more likely to perceive the technology as risky than those who are exposed to civil comments. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>So what each one of us posts online matters. And as we’ll show, there are ways to improve the general standard of online comments and to not let trolls get the better of you.</p>
<h2>Faceless bullying</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/sociology/criminology/incivility-rude-stranger-in-everyday-life">Sociological</a> discussions of incivility have tended to focus on everyday urban encounters between people in spaces such as streets and public transport. </p>
<p>But although urban incivility attracts a great deal of attention and may result in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-03/woman-facing-charges-over-racist-tirade-on-sydney-train/5569564">action by the police</a>, the practice of aggressively insulting strangers is being given a new lease of life <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365#.VCz1OPmSxj4">online</a>. </p>
<p>As is common in such pieces of “confessional journalism”, when writing for Mamamia <a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/is-it-okay-to-let-men-pay-the-bill/">Helen used examples</a> from personal experience to dissect broader social values: in this case, gendered assumptions about who pays for restaurant meals. It was intended to be a critique of gender inequality wrapped in the garb of benevolent sexism.</p>
<p>The response from readers in the comments below the article and particularly on Mamamia’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mamamiablog/posts/10152412375300945">Facebook page</a> was frequently savage. While it was a bruising surprise for Helen, sadly when you look at online comments around the world, the comments she got were not particularly <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/">unusual</a>.</p>
<p>That prompted us to reflect on some examples of how online media can easily function as a vehicle for harshness and abuse, often against – as well as by – women. </p>
<h2>Demanding silence: ‘just eat your dinner and be quiet’</h2>
<p>A favourite technique in the incivility repertoire involves undermining the legitimacy of the author to say anything at all on the subject. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62992/original/8mrbftgn-1414474152.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some of the public comments from Mamamia’s Facebook page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/mamamiablog/photos/pb.142149825944.-2207520000.1411964673./10152412711075945/">Facebook</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In statements such as “Just eat your dinner and be quiet” and “first world problem”, hostile commenters are essentially demanding muteness. </p>
<p>Telling the speaker explicitly or implicitly to shut up means that there is no need to engage with what they have actually said. </p>
<p>Curiously, this response can be triggered among those who have not read the original article, but have caught the wave of author-baiting – this is incivility by proxy.</p>
<h2>Name-calling: ‘you are just a bitch’</h2>
<p>Several commenters bemoaned the confusion that the article would prompt amongst men, whose embattled masculinity had received a below-the-belt blow.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62995/original/8jmmxjsx-1414474275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some more of the public comments from Mamamia’s Facebook page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/mamamiablog/photos/pb.142149825944.-2207520000.1411964673./10152412711075945/">Facebook</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By being “bitchy” and “another malcontent female”, the author was confounding men and letting the side down for women who want to be pampered by them.</p>
<p>A “man-hating” attitude – seemingly interpreted as any questioning of men’s conduct – somehow justified expressions of hatred from commenters.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62997/original/nvv3w42n-1414474396.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even more of the public comments on Mamamia’s Facebook page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/mamamiablog/photos/pb.142149825944.-2207520000.1411964673./10152412711075945/">Facebook</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the absence of the constraint of having to look someone in the eye when spitting venom at them, keyboard warriors can unload freely on others with little recourse for the target. </p>
<p>There is a growing back catalogue of experiences of women being the subject of online assaults that challenge not only their arguments, but their <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk">right to speak at all</a>. </p>
<p>It is now routine for incivility to pass for critique when historically marginalised groups such as women freely express their opinions. </p>
<p>The circuits of privilege and power that exist offline are easily replicated in a digital universe, where the heedless slam-dunking of strangers is a sport designed to enforce a code of silence and submission. </p>
<h2>You’re the problem: ‘she should have taken more control’</h2>
<p>Incivility can also masquerade as being ostensibly helpful by not being openly hostile. </p>
<p>Some readers seem sympathetic and suggest remedies that involve behaviour modification on the woman’s part; for example, that she needs to be less complicit, more assertive, and a better negotiator. </p>
<p>Suggesting that it is all a matter of the woman’s individual responsibility, and leaving her date’s behaviour unquestioned, de-politicises and de-contextualises the issue of gender equality that was raised in the first place.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62688/original/4tqshhrk-1414113080.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">While it can be hard not to feel bruised if someone attacks you online, many trolls are just taking their frustrations out on you.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ryan2point0/13919128975/in/photolist-ncZb7k-JKSJU-hamUxh-7gpT3B-564nuQ-fgb5UE-51dY5-P8DNs-cGZ7XE-dJZy9t-nephGR-9yHCbD-9yHC4r-9yHBZH-9yHCtP-9yHBNk-9yHCqB-9yHCfc-9yHBTt-9yLCX5">Flickr/Ryan Tracey</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Five tips for handling incivility</h2>
<p>So what is to be done? While there are many common types of incivility, authors and commenters need not surrender to them. Here are five ways to say no, politely, to online incivility.</p>
<p><strong>1. Take responsibility for a good quality conversation</strong></p>
<p>Online environments can be polluted like any other, and dumping insults on fellow humans can only result in a degraded public culture.</p>
<p>Think first, type later.</p>
<p><strong>2. Remember the human being behind the screen</strong></p>
<p>Authors bleed when cut by cruel words, but uncivil commenters may think they’re just “gaming”. Recognise that the pleasure rush of the snide put-down has a human cost. </p>
<p><strong>3. Apply the in-person test</strong></p>
<p>If as original author or commenter you would not say to someone’s face what you would happily post, you probably having nothing worthwhile to say.</p>
<p>Even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/25/the-queen-tweet-trolled_n_6046160.html?utm_hp_ref=uk">Queen Elizabeth famously got trolled</a> when she sent her first tweet. But as the Palace later pointed out, for every rude remark there were many more positive responses.</p>
<p><strong>4. Take pity on trolls: they’re often unhappy people</strong></p>
<p>Instead of fretting too much about comments from uncivil, anonymous people, read up on some of the many cases where they have been exposed. Some are funny, such as the case of the <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/curtis-woodhouse-twitter-troll-apologises-1759391">boxer who tracked down his troll</a> and won a grovelling public apology.</p>
<p>There are also many cases where seemingly ordinary people have taken their frustrations out on others online, without considering the harm they could do to others or themselves. </p>
<p>Examples include the 2012 exposure of “<a href="http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web">the biggest troll on the web</a>”. He turned out to be a middle-aged man from Texas who begged not to be unmasked and subsequently <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html">lost his job</a> over online behaviour including posting “jailbait” images of underage girls.</p>
<p>There was also a tragic case of a church-going Englishwoman in her 60s, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781377/BREAKING-NEWS-Internet-troll-targeted-McCanns-dead-hotel-room-days-fleeing-home.html">Brenda Leyland,</a> who had obsessively attacked missing girl Madeleine McCann’s parents using an anonymous <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns">Twitter account @Sweepyface</a>. Leyland recently committed suicide after her real identity was revealed.</p>
<p><strong>5. Don’t be cowed by cowards</strong></p>
<p>Online bullies, especially those who hide behind pseudonyms and avatars, have all the courage of the playground legends who never pick a fight that they might lose. Your persistence in not giving up your right to join online debates means that they picked on the wrong person. </p>
<p>Online incivility and its ugliest side, <a href="http://fibreculturejournal.org/cfp-special-issue-for-the-fibreculture-journal-the-politics-of-trolling-and-the-negative-space-of-the-internet/">trolling</a>, are seen by some as the norm rather than as aberrant. But it often has consequences. </p>
<p>Calling out online incivility for what it is and insisting on basic standards of respect for others does not impede robust debate – it’s vital for sustaining it. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading</strong><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-from-debating-science-with-trolls-30514">What I learned from debating science with trolls</a></em></p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: Showing respect for others and taking responsibility for the quality of the conversations you take part in are among the most important guidelines for comments on this site too – all outlined in <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/community-standards">The Conversation’s Community Standards</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32393/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Rowe is a previous and current recipient of funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Barcham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Online and social media’s capacity to enable anyone to communicate their ideas and views is much celebrated. So why do so many people feel nervous about getting involved with online debate? Too often…David Rowe, Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney UniversityHelen Barcham, PhD candidate , Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/225122014-02-06T15:43:11Z2014-02-06T15:43:11ZWatch where you put that emoticon AND KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40811/original/2bhvks9r-1391619800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">"Hey, where are u?" "Ummm, right next to you".</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">TonZ</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Emoticons, punctuation and creative spelling have been debated, condemned, and regulated since the very beginning of online text-based communication.</p>
<p>We’ve all seen “netiquettes” on how not to use ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT IS SHOUTING, or not to use smileys, because it is unprofessional. Recently, an article about the <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115726/period-our-simplest-punctuation-mark-has-become-sign-anger">angry full stop</a> caused <a href="http://networkedblogs.com/RsB4m">great uproar</a>, and issues about <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/very-british-problems">what, how and when to write</a> show that we are still unsure about the conventions of online writing. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40479/original/w9ft4pw6-1391424941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40479/original/w9ft4pw6-1391424941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40479/original/w9ft4pw6-1391424941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40479/original/w9ft4pw6-1391424941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40479/original/w9ft4pw6-1391424941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40479/original/w9ft4pw6-1391424941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40479/original/w9ft4pw6-1391424941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Very British Problem.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We shouldn’t be so hard on ourselves though. Online communication may have become absolutely essential to our private and professional lives but it’s still very new.</p>
<p>When we email, instant message or write on forums, the production of the text and the reception of it take place in two completely different contexts. Often we don’t even know where the person reading our missive is, let alone how they are feeling when they read it. When people communicate online, they don’t share the same physical environment, so they can’t rely on signals that would normally help them to understand the intended messages, like the tone of voice, gestures or facial expressions that accompany it.</p>
<p>In face-to-face interactions, non-verbal signals have an extremely important role in conveying how exactly messages should be understood. They can clarify, emphasise, complement, repeat, but also contradict the words we say, signal if something is to be taken lightheartedly or if something is meant to be a serious message. Audio signals, prosody, such as the tone of voice, pitch, rhythm, pause or loudness play a crucial part in this, but facial expressions or body language are also often used.</p>
<p>In digital writing, we have none of these cues available so people have taken great effort to come up with <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00195.x/full">creative and playful ways</a> to somehow replicate or replace these signals. Emoticons are one obvious example but everyone has their own way of making themselves understood, be it by using exaggerated or unconventional spelling, punctuations or capital letters.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40314/original/z242w2ff-1391187199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40314/original/z242w2ff-1391187199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=135&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40314/original/z242w2ff-1391187199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40314/original/z242w2ff-1391187199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=135&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40314/original/z242w2ff-1391187199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=170&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40314/original/z242w2ff-1391187199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=170&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40314/original/z242w2ff-1391187199.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=170&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Facebook message from a creative friend.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both research and mass media have tended to over-generalise and stereotype these techniques, describing them as merely “stand-ins” for non-verbal cues. In an attempt to understand the new rules of communicating, they seek to assign a well-defined meaning to each cue. A smiley is thought to denote a joke or a smile and a full stop or caps lock is seen as a sign of anger.</p>
<p>But the picture is much more complex than this. Consider an email written by your boss, reminding you of a looming deadline:</p>
<p> <em>“Everyone else has already submitted their report. You are the LAST!:)”</em></p>
<p>Even if you are on very good terms with your boss, the emoticon here clearly doesn’t function as a representation of a smile or signal a joke, and capitals are not meant to be read as shouting. They have a more complex function in communication, and the best way to demonstrate it perhaps is to read the same message without them.</p>
<p><em>“Everyone else has already submitted their report. You are the last!”</em></p>
<p>Capitals clearly gave some added emphasis to the message, but the emoticon in particular makes a world of a difference. The first example could be read as a friendly nudge or teasing, while the second, without the emoticon, is a highly authoritative, commanding message. The emoticon isn’t relaying a full-on smile but it is tempering the tone of the message.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12063/full">recent study on e-mails</a> a very high number of emoticons were found not to represent a facial expression in business correspondence at all. Instead they are used as a hedge – a device used to give flavour to certain types of message. And they work in both directions. They can soften requests, rejections or complaints but also strengthen other types of messages such as wishes, appraisals and promises.</p>
<p>The creative ways we use our keyboard to somehow inscribe signals into our writing cannot be simplified to neat lists with assigned meanings. Written non-verbal cues are like capsules of meaning which only get activated in specific contexts. To understand them we usually need to know who is sending the message, to whom and why. The full stop might be angry for someone in one situation or another, but when my husband texts:</p>
<p><em>Forever.</em></p>
<p>I like to think that it means something else for us.</p>
<p>If we write online, we need to keep reminding ourselves that the way we do it has not yet been conventionalised, and we need to consider the wide scale of meanings and possible interpretations of our words and symbols. We’re all working it out as we go along.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erika Darics works for the University of Portsmouth.</span></em></p>Emoticons, punctuation and creative spelling have been debated, condemned, and regulated since the very beginning of online text-based communication. We’ve all seen “netiquettes” on how not to use ALL…Erika Darics, Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/186742013-09-27T09:28:32Z2013-09-27T09:28:32ZPopular Science is wrong to get rid of online comments<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32027/original/rkr5yk7y-1380208534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Thanks, we don't want to know what you have to say.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">lewishamdreamer</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Popular Science <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments">has announced</a> that it will be closing online comments on its news stories. Uncivil commenters have an overly negative effect on readers, it claims, with a small number of negative commenters poisoning the way readers perceive the stories. A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html?_r=0">New York Times article</a> is used to back up the claims.</p>
<p>I disagree with their reasons. Of course, the site is theirs. They can do what they need and want to do with their comment sections. More worrying to me was the response of fellow science communicators that more publications should do the same.</p>
<p>There are two main reasons why I’d like to suggest caution. First, the evidence for the poison effect of uncivil comments isn’t nearly as damning as is claimed. Second, there is a lot of potential good in comment sections and removing them sends some fairly negative messages about science communication.</p>
<p>The New York Times piece was based on a study published in the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12009/abstract">Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication</a>. The authors measured the reaction of 1183 adults who read a blog post about risks and benefits related to nanotechnology. Some received a version with civil comments and some a version with uncivil comments. The overall results though: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…did not demonstrate a significant direct relationship between exposure to incivility and risk perceptions. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This would be tough to tell from The New York Times article.</p>
<p>The things that did have an impact weren’t too surprising. Readers who were familiar with nanotechnology and who already supported nanotechnology tended to perceive lower risks than the rest. These factors explained more of the readers’ perceptions than any others, and they support decades of work that prior beliefs are one of the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095006999290723#.UkLyEj_ll_c">largest factors</a> in how readers interpret what they read.</p>
<p>Digging further into their analysis, the uncivil comments seemed to slightly heighten the views that people already had, and when they divided them by religion they tended to react slightly differently to the uncivil comments. But both of these effects together explained only 1% of the differences in readers’ risk assessments. Does that seem like solid evidence for publications to decide to do away with commenting all together? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Apart from a shaky justification, I also see a serious problem with the knee-jerk reaction to remove all comments. I’m generally in favour of strong moderating policies. Even if they don’t really change people’s minds about the risks of nanotechnology, uncivil comments may be undesirable for many other reasons. </p>
<p>A few years ago I completed a study of expertise claims in comments left in response to health stories in the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail. For the study, I gathered all of the comments posted on four health stories one week after the stories had been published. Off-topic and uncivil ones were removed, but it turned out there was a lot left. They were important and valuable comments. Extensive contributions were made by parents, patients and people with medical expertise. Questions were asked and clear thoughtful answers were often given. </p>
<p>There are often calls in popular science publications for people outside of traditional scientific communities to become more interested and engaged in science. Comment spaces are a viable place for that to happen.</p>
<p>Like any actual place of conversation, they also fall victim to domination by extreme voices and need to be well managed. Town hall meetings and public consultations are a great example. When they’re good, they’re fascinating and offer real insight that the panel members or politicians could never have fully appreciated without opening the floor to members of the public or a particular community. They can provide access and a voice for people to actively influence science and technology as it affects their lives and communities. At their worst they can be reactionary shout-fests of frustration for all involved. Despite these dangers, though, their benefits are usually recognised to outweigh their drawbacks.</p>
<p>If these online venues for scientific engagement are closed, the message becomes: “Well we didn’t really mean for people to be engaged, we just want you to listen to us more.” This is a return largely to outdated models of science communication where the sole purpose is to push information out to people for their ready and unquestioning uptake. If science is truly about discussion of evidence and a willingness to be open to new findings, then the public cannot be left out of that process.</p>
<p>But what about claims that there is a decades-long war against expertise? Well, a no commenting policy is also a no experts commenting policy. Comment spaces are also places for experts to answer questions and support or correct information presented in the article. I’m uncomfortable giving back complete control to how risks are presented in a forum where no expert has a space to disagree with what Popular Science or another venue says. What a no commenting stance says to me is that the publication doesn’t need or want those contributions associated with their articles.</p>
<p>Overall, incivility doesn’t seem to have nearly the dire effect that Popular Science seems to think it does. Comments are often frustrating (sometimes even heartbreaking) but readers are still making up their minds based on other factors. So the benefits Popular Science hopes for are unlikely to be realised. And instead of looking for better ways to manage, guide, moderate or selectively publish comments we lose all of the potential benefits for real engagement.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an edited version of a piece that appeared on <a href="http://boundaryvision.com/2013/09/25/please-dont-blindly-follow-popscis-lead-and-get-rid-of-comment-spaces/">Marie-Claire Shanahan</a>’s blog.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18674/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marie-Claire Shanahan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Popular Science has announced that it will be closing online comments on its news stories. Uncivil commenters have an overly negative effect on readers, it claims, with a small number of negative commenters…Marie-Claire Shanahan, Research Chair in Science Education and Public Engagement, University of CalgaryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.