Social Networking Tools: Concepts and Practice

Social networking tools such as Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and Buzz are challenging the dominance of traditional media. Recently on radio 2CC in Canberra, I was asked to comment on the use of Facebook and Youtube by politicians, especially in relation to Queanbeyan mayoral candidate Tim Overall's posting of an election message on Youtube. Overall's foray into the realm of cyberspace adopted the use of traditional, or 'heritage' media, to draw attention to the Youtube advertisement. After making my comments, I reflected on the different approaches to using 'new' media and I document my thoughts here.

As a starting point, there are two distinct classes of new media users: (1) the digital native, or those who use social networking tools and Youtube on a regular, sustained basis. This class of user is typically young (or those who grew up using the technology), tech-savvy, and familiar with the integration of the various applications such as Blogger, Facebook and Youtube. Digital natives (especially in Australia) are likely to use Facebook for networking, Youtube for watching various home-made and non-commercial videos, and MySpace for listening to their favourite bands. While there are other applications, in my experience this pattern appears to best represent the current trend; and (2) the digital immigrant, those who adopted the technology later in life or who use the Internet as an adjunct to heritage media and more traditional means of communication such as email and telephones. These classifications are contentious as there are obviously tech-savvy people who might be classified as digital immigrants and digital natives who are not-so-competent. Nevertheless, the classifications are useful here to generalise about the way that the two classes actually use the Internet.

Overall stated that a 21 year old constituent had suggested that younger generations were more likely to see a political message if it appeared on Youtube, rather than in the heritage media. This prompted Overall to enter the digital realm as part of his campaign strategy. However, there is no obvious link to Overall's campaign advertisement from social networking tools or the other popular realms through which digital natives are likely to navigate. That is not to say that using heritage media to 'pull' people to new media cannot be effective. John Howard used this technique and attracted many viewers to a Youtube message in his unsuccessful election campaign last year. Nonetheless, this technique is more likely to attract, or be noticed by, digital immigrants rather than digital natives (or the target audience). Indeed, digital natives are more likely to listen to FM (rather than AM) radio. This means that despite his digital campaign, the approach adopted by Overall is inadvertently targeted at digital immigrants.

A similar scenario exists in the US election campaign. At the time of writing, Barack Obama has 1,702,531 supporters on Facebook while John McCain has (comparatively) only 297,646. Obama's Facebook page features prominent links to 33 Youtube videos, whereas McCain's page has fewer Youtube links which are located further down the page. Obama also has popular pages for supporters in many individual states, which means that digital natives have potentially more opportunities to see his messages. 'Pages' are a relatively new application in Facebook which overcome the problems associated with having individuals sign up as 'friends'. Enrolling 'friends' rather than 'supporters' was an issue for Rudd's Kevin 07 campaign because at the time he was limited to having only 5,000 friends per individual profile. Senator Bob Brown has taken advantage of Facebook 'pages' and leads Australian politicians with 6,169 supporters at the time of writing.

To be successful (if success is measured by the number of viewers or supporters), it appears that campaigns must do much more than rely on heritage media to 'pull' viewers to their message (at the time of writing, Overall's Youtube message has had only 125 viewers). My emerging theory on taking advantage of the viral nature of social networking tools is that the campaigner (or their teams) must become digital natives themselves. This means becoming active on the most popular social networking tools, blogging, and establishing a stable 'group' which can help to spread the message. This approach is very similar to that mentioned in much of the online learning literature about using contemporary communications technologies to develop a useful learning environment.

So how can campaign teams target digital natives specifically? It appears that the six degrees of separation phenomenon is a reality in cyberspace. I am constantly surprised by the number of people I see on Facebook who share several mutual friends with me yet I do not know them. I have also been surprised by the number of old high school friends - many I haven't seen in twenty years - who are friends with people I know now. This suggests that one can reach a vast number of people by engaging with people they already know, and then letting the viral nature of social networking take its course. However, much like systems theory's view (based on the laws of thermodynamics) one cannot direct a living system, only disturb it. This is problematic for those who wish to control the means of communication. Indeed, attempting to control a social network tends to dissipate the network as social networks tend to resist central control.

An approach which I have found useful is to start with a stable group of 'friends' and then provide interesting links to blogs, videos and invitations to events. Remembering that networks resist central control, it is better to rely upon people's natural curiosity and provide enticing snippets of information or updates to one's user profile which draw other users to the message. Approaches which 'push' the message will simply be regarded as spam and will not be popular with digital natives. The challenge, then, is not too different from the challenge which traditional marketeers face - how to get people to hear the message.

Digital natives are quite discerning and the last thing they want to see in cyberspace is the type of advertising currently seen on both free-to-air and pay TV - the constant repitition of annoying advertisements which are more likely to attract Homer Simpsons than thinking, discerning digital natives. Indeed, one of the reasons digital natives prefer cyberspace is that they can simply go elsewhere with a click if they don't like what they see. The trick is to give them something they want, rather than to use the 'we'll be right back after this message' capture technique. This annoying television habit simply doesn't work in cyberspace - there are too many channels and too many messages and, unlike digital immigrants, digital natives will know the difference.

Toward a new ideology

Francis Fukuyama once suggested that the rise and rise of liberal democracy had ushered in the end of ideology. Liberalism had won the day and ideology was a remnant of the past. One of the problems with this view is that we might reasonably agree that humanity has reached the pinnacle of existence and therefore there is little more to be done now. Markets are the most efficient way of delivering goods and services and personal choice is a private issue which is beyond the reach of governments. There is little doubt there is merit to this approach, particularly where real competition exists and businesses focus on competing to meet the needs of society. However, one of my students' contributions to a discussion recently (roughly translating Marx) challenged this perceived wisdom with a statement that 'the market can never meet social goals because businesses only ever meet yesterday's needs - businesses will not meet the needs of tomorrow until tomorrow is yesterday'. Such moments of brilliance make the business of teaching a learning experience which can rock your world in the most amazing ways.

This got me thinking about the role of the university in terms of creating knowledge and developing new ways of 'doing business'. Should universities follow trends or create new trends? Can universities create new knowledge by following trends? Have we really reached the pinnacle of human existence or have we just become lazy? Is there a case for a new ideology?

In addressing these questions, my usual approach is to refer to history to identify the trends, cycles, and the ways in which our predecessors dealt with similar problems in earlier times. There is little doubt that universities and university students have played a significant role in bringing about beneficial changes to society and its attitudes. Student activism has been significant in bringing about changes which have become the norm over time - despite the beginnings of change being viewed as 'rocking the boat' to the extent where people were arrested for their activism.

A recent documentary on the federal government's decision to over-rule the damming of the Franklin River is a case in point - many of the original proponents of the dam agree now that the economic benefits of tourism have far outweighed the short-term economic benefits the dam would have achieved. The economic benefits of tourism have provided a sustainable alternative to the short-term solution yet many of the people who initiated the changes were viewed as 'dirty greenies' who did nothing other than disrupt the normal order of things. Over time, those 'dirty greenies' have not only been accepted as the change agents who brought about societal support for environmental protection, but these same people (such as Bob Brown) have been acknowledged as people of principle who stayed true to their cause despite the odds. The usual story of global heroes includes a long list of Mahatma Ghandis, Nelson Mandelas, Martin Luther Kings and Bob Browns who stayed true to their cause despite the odds. People to be admired in history, but in their time to be ostracised - people who had to 'put their body on the line' to bring about changes but at a cost which deters the average person from ever bothering. Is it all worth the personal cost? One might argue that yes it is because the Bob Browns and the Nelson Mandelas and the Mahatma Ghandis proved themselves through adversity. This process actually provides limits to ensure that snake-oil merchants and others do not trick people into believing in their personally motivated causes. Fair enough you might say and I would agree.

But what about the role of universities? Does one have to sacrifice their livelihood, integrity, status in society, personal relationships, personal freedoms and the like to prove that a societal change can be beneficial? If we have such a focus on 'efficiency', is this an efficient way to trial new approaches to doing business? Obviously, changing the way we do business on a whim brings a whole series of new problems. But many innovative companies deal with this issue by enabling a certain percentage of their business to be experimental while maintaining their core business - enabling the company to innovate without putting all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. Similarly, society would benefit from having an incubator for new ideas.

Enter the role of the university. Traditionally, universities were the place where new innovations not only occurred, but were encouraged. Universities were seen as the place to experiment, to test and to trial new ways of 'doing business'. One of the problems facing the traditional 'knowledge generators' is that Australian universities are challenged by contemporary needs to be 'efficient' and 'effective' in a political climate where business rules the roost. Universities are required to generate profits (or, put simply, to adopt a market model to sustain themselves), not to generate knowledge which has been their traditional role. I take issue with the new focus - if universities are not about generating knowledge, then what do they do? Some would argue that universities are there to train future workers, to enable businesses to get on with the job of meeting social goals. But if business can only meet yesterday's social goals, then who is charged with the responsibility to meet the social goals of tomorrow?

My philosophical approach to teaching requires universities to provide a safe space for future leaders. Students should be able to make mistakes which do not affect society-at-large. To enable this type of learning through experimentation, universities cannot be conservative institutions, nor demand that university students meet the usual expectations of society while on-campus. To do so is to restrict creativity, free speech and free thinking individuals to a space which occupies the same space of society-at-large. Providing a safe space for free-thinking individuals to make mistakes and by doing so, find new solutions to tomorrow's problems, can only be of benefit to society and in my view should be encouraged. Indeed, the personal sacrifices which the contemporary focus on innovation entails will certainly reinforce the past, rather than focus on the future, unless there is some part of our society which provides a place to 'practise' innovating. Unlike explicit knowledge, entrepreneurial knowledge and innovation skills do not necessarily follow the patterns of experience which can be documented, packaged and taught in a traditional manner.

I suspect that my student is correct - business can only provide tomorrow's solutions to yesterday’s problems. Universities provide an established institution which generates knowledge, but to focus universities on generating profit is to take away the role of higher education institutions and to move to a system which supports the conservative way of doing business. Without universities, there is no real 'ideas incubator' and the social ramifications of such an oversight can only be detrimental to our future.

The trouble is that universities take away public funds which justifiably need to be accounted for in society's economic equation. In a time of global economic uncertainty this is quite reasonable. Nonetheless, it does not cost anything for universities to provide a 'safe space' to facilitate social, economic and political experimentation. Indeed, the culture of the particular organisation will determine, to a large extent, the manner in which university staff and students are encouraged or discouraged from experimenting and testing new ways of doing business. But the university which finds a new and useful way of 'doing business' will no doubt receive accolades in the future.

In the meantime, this crucial yet overlooked part of society is losing its importance at a time where no other institution has the capacity to develop a new ideology - if you like, a systematic way of viewing the world and dealing with the complexities of maintaining a cohesive civil society (or a new way of doing business). The value of universities cannot be over-stated, particularly where changes can be implemented which do not cost anything other than the ego-challenge associated with a change in attitude. Unfortunately, recent approaches to university governance echo the remnants of the past. Meanwhile, new ways of doing business escape us as we idly watch the demise of an institution which has proven itself time and again throughout human history to bring about beneficial changes. If Australia’s only hope is to follow others who have the courage to be different, it is a source of shame to a nation which once took great pride in its ability to innovate in the face of adversity. Liberalism is only the end if we choose it do be so, and while the problems (such as stagflation) which enabled the rise of neoliberalism to take a hold globally are re-emerging in Britain (where it all began), who will develop the new ideology?

National Sorry Day

Below is the transcript of a speech I delivered at the National Sorry Day ceremony at the University of Canberra, 4 June 2008. I dedicate this speech to my niece, Marley, who is Torres Strait Islander and part of my family.

Good afternoon. I must say I am pleased to be able to speak here today. For many years I wanted to live and work in Canberra as a political scientist, and fortunately I speak here today in that capacity. My position as a lecturer in politics here at the University of Canberra, Australia’s Capital University, has provided me with the opportunity to practice my craft close to the centre of government. But for some reason, nothing really happened in Canberra from the time I arrived in 1999 until 13 February this year when the Rudd Government offered a broad apology to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and particularly the Stolen Generations for their "profound grief, suffering and loss". Ten years of nothing, and then suddenly one of the most significant milestones in Australian political history. Ten years of waiting in Canberra for that once-in-a-generation event to be a part of - and I find myself stuck in Melbourne! So on the 13th February 2008, while sitting in a union conference in Melbourne, I listened to the Prime Minister deliver the National Apology. Mr Rudd said sorry:

• For the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on our fellow Australians.
• For the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
• For the pain, suffering and hurt of the Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind.
• For the breaking up of families and communities.
• For the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture.

Just over a decade ago, on 26th May 1998, a 'Sorry Day' was held to mark one year after the tabling in Federal Parliament of a report of the National Inquiry into the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families – or what is more commonly known as the “Bringing Them Home” report. Today we honour that tradition, but we do so in unique circumstances – a key recommendation in the “Bringing Them Home” report was that Indigenous people affected by policies of forced removal should receive an acknowledgement of responsibility and apology from all Australian parliaments and other agencies which implemented policies of forcible removal. Symbolically, that recommendation was implemented just a few months ago and this is the first National Sorry Day commemorating, rather than calling for, a National Apology.

The National Apology was at least a step in the right direction, focusing particularly on the Stolen Generations – but importantly; it went further in that it acknowledged “the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture”. This last point is very important and I would like to relate it back to the University of Canberra.

You may be aware that the University of Canberra has a 39 Step Strategic Plan to reinvigorate this place. Fittingly, Step 1 is to “Ensure that respect for Australia's traditional owners and concern for their current circumstances influences our plans and actions”. Step 39 is to: “Set and meet ambitious targets and standards, as a signatory to the Talloires (pronounced Tal-Whar) Declaration, to reduce our ecological footprint”. Much like the novel by John Buchan, the “39 Steps” has its meaning in a thread that runs through the whole story. And this story is applicable to today’s ceremony.

Global warming, environmental degradation and rampant capitalism and consumerism mean that survival of the species will be an issue for future generations. Following at least the official end to 220 years of institutionalised racism, it is fitting that we acknowledge the “proud people” and “proud culture” who represent the oldest surviving culture in the world. These people interacted with the land in sustainable ways for some 40,000 to 80,000 years, whereas so-called “civilized peoples” have destroyed natural wonders in this Great Land in a handful of generations. The pluralist Aboriginal society with its traditional laws and customs provides many lessons for a sustainable future and the National Apology was the first step in rectifying the racist attitudes of Australian society in the last 220 years. But has it really changed the way we do things here? Do we have the courage to ensure that the indignity and degradation brought upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by institutionalised racism does not keep happening?

The National Apology was not the end of the reconciliation process. Indeed, it is only the beginning. March and Olsen refer to institutions as the “rules, routines, and procedures” which order political life; the “way things are done here”, if you like. Well may we say that the National Apology broke with the tradition of stalling the reconciliation process, but do not be fooled. The “Bringing Them Home” report also called for compensation, but this has been deliberately excluded from the political discourse. The “way things are done here” hasn’t really changed, and it will be up to people like those gathered here to keep putting the issues back on the political agenda. So while we celebrate this year’s National Sorry Day and the year that was, we must not let the momentum stall or the symbolism of the National Apology will be just that – a symbol. In closing, let me say that the proud Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the sustainable culture they established in a history spanning tens of thousands of years is very relevant to humanity today, and while symbolism is an important First Step, there is still much work to be done.