public engagement – Frances Ryan, PhD

Artefacts from a rewarding PhD experience

Frances Ryan/ 22 August 201921 February 2020

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I cleared out my PhD office ahead of my holidays to The Homeland. And now that I am back in my Heartland of Scotland, I have finally cleared through (most of) the bags and boxes of stuff I brought home.

Whilst I recycled or passed on quite a bit of my PhD office’s contents, I brought home the things I would need in my academic career (books, notebooks, and office supplies*). I also brought home things that won’t move with me to my next academic office, but things that serve as invaluable artefacts from my rewarding PhD experience (certificates, awards, and name badges).

These artefacts were collected over my time as a PhD student from various conferences, seminars, training events, and speaking engagements. For example, there are name badges from:

My first SICSA PhD conference, where my poster was shortlisted for an award (St Andrews, Scotland)
My first public presentation at the Fringe Festival (Edinburgh, Scotland)
My first (and only!) conference that I attended wearing a cast (Zadar, Croatia)
My first ASIST conference, which I travelled to with a grant from the John Campbell Trust (Copenhagen, Denmark)
My last conference as a PhD student, where I presented my last paper written as a PhD student (Ljubljana, Slovenia)

There are also awards that I won for my academic work as well as my various roles on committees and activities that I undertook during my studies. For example:

Best Paper and Best 5-Minute Madness presentation at the International Data and Information Management Conference (Loughborough, England)
First Place for 3rd-year Presentation at the School of Computing PhD Conference (Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland)
Principal’s Excellence Award for Outstanding Contribution to University Life by a Research Student (Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland)

There were also other awards for which I don’t have certificates. For example, I was awarded a membership to ASIST as well as a travel grant from the John Campbell Trust. I was also awarded a handful of grants to carry out research projects and events. These things didn’t provide me with physical artefacts, but they certainly added to my overall PhD experience.

I don’t know if my collection is on par with what other PhD students would acquire over the course of their studies, but for my personal situation, I feel that I have amassed a decent little haul. Each little piece of the collection tells a big part of my PhD story, and each carries with it a treasured memory from my student life.

It would not have been possible to have such a collection without support from Edinburgh Napier University’s School of Computing and Centre for Social Informatics. My top-notch PhD supervisors, Professor Hazel Hall, Alistair Lawson, and Peter Cruickshank, were also instrumental in my ability to build this collection.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to do my PhD at an institution that recognised the importance of supporting students in not only their studies but in their wider development as budding academics. These experiences have helped me to become a more capable and confident researcher and have provided me with the skills I need to succeed in my academic life.

Of course, now I have to figure out what to do with all of these wonderful artefacts!

* For the record: I only brought home the office supplies that I purchased myself, and not those that were from the school’s supplies. I am quite picky about my office supplies, and would rather spend my own money on my preferred stationery supplies and tools. Yes, I am a stationery geek!

Accepted for conference: “Building identity in online environments: an Information Science perspective” at #ASIST2017

Frances Ryan/ 10 October 201721 February 2020

I have been accepted to present a poster at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology. This year’s event will be held in Washington, DC. It will be my second time attending the conference, and my first time presenting at it.

The poster is based on the findings from one of my four research questions, “How do individuals use information to build identities for themselves online?” It is co-authored with my PhD supervisors, Peter Cruickshank, Professor Hazel Hall, and Alistair Lawson.

Building identity in online environments: an Information Science perspective

Abstract: The research presented in this poster is concerned with the ways in which people use information to build identities for themselves online with reference to the themes of personal reputation management. To date these two themes have been under-explored together in the research literature, both in general, and from an Information Science perspective. The poster content shares findings related to three areas of identity building: (1) the creation and use of online personas and identities; (2) the use of anonymity and pseudonyms through information sharing – or concealment – practices; and (3) the ways in which the blurring or merging together of participants’ private and professional selves. This study used participant diaries and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 45 UK-based participants. The main finding presented here is that individuals present elements of their online persona or personality using online information, but that they do not do so with the intention of building identity. The findings explored in this presentation are contextualised with reference to identity building in the more formal setting of academic reputation management, i.e. through the use of citations.

Download the full abstract on Edinburgh Napier University’s repository here.

I will share a digital version of the poster and handouts before the conference poster session. I will also be tweeting during the whole of the event, so be sure to follow me on Twitter (@FrancesRyanPhD).

If you’re interested in learning more about this poster, or my PhD as a whole, please contact me!

My new “academic” Twitter: @FrancesRyanPhD

Frances Ryan/ 10 September 201721 February 2020

I have recently started a new Twitter account that is dedicated to my professional or “academic” self (@FrancesRyanPhD). It wasn’t something I was desperate to do, and it isn’t something I’m completely happy about. However, it is something that I felt I should do.

The decision to start a new account was not taken lightly. Because I started my @CleverFrances account as a personal space, my followers reflect my personal interest. But as I began tweeting more and more about my PhD, I started to gain more academic followers—especially when I attended conferences where I was tweeting quite a bit with the conference hashtag.

However, I noticed that my increased academic following was making me feel unsure about what or how to post. I feared that people were following me based on a series of research-related posts at a conference and that they might feel cheated or conned when I started tweeting about whisky and running the following week. Because, if I’m honest, I tweet more personal stuff than research stuff.

The uncertainty soon led me to lose a bit of joy when I was tweeting. I felt obligated to my academic followers to be more academic. But I also felt that I needed to be true to myself and the original intent of my Twitter account, which meant I had to continue tweeting rubbish.

And so, I’ve decided that I have to maintain two accounts: One, @CleverFrances, to represent the full-on Frances and one, @FrancesRyanPhD, to represent the academic Frances.

I will continue to tweet at least some academic stuff from my personal account because my PhD is part of the whole me. However, I will stick to academic tweets on my academic account. I may even find that I am tweeting more academic stuff on that account than I have in the past as I won’t worry about inundating my non-academic followers with academic stuff.

And so:

If you are on Twitter and want to follow my academic journey there, please do find me @FrancesRyanPhD.

If you want to follow the full-on crazy version of my life (which includes academics), you can find me @CleverFrances.

(And please feel free to follow both if you wish. I’ve nothing to hide. Or at least I wouldn’t dare tweet about something I wanted to hide!)

Connecting people, connecting ideas: Keeping the conversations going beyond #CPCINapier

Frances Ryan/ 26 June 201721 February 2020

Last week I ran a one-day research symposium at Edinburgh Napier University, along with Professor Hazel Hall. The symposium, “Connecting people, connecting ideas” (CPCI), focused on research priorities in Information Science as related to everyday life information seeking and information behaviours in online environments. This event was held at our Craiglockhart campus and was geared towards UK academics, with an emphasis on ECR and 3rd-year PhD student participation.

The symposium was an opportunity for participants to consider how to prioritise themes, and develop ideas for, their future research projects. This was done in three stages as explained below.

The first stage took place prior to the symposium. Here, delegates were provided with an opportunity to share key themes that they felt should be priorities within the field using Well Sorted. Before the symposium, those themes were categorised to create working groups for the day of the event.

The second stage was implemented during the morning session where delegates broke into groups related to the categories determined by the Well Sorted exercise. During the morning session, groups determined the key themes that should be priorities from the larger categories. The morning session also helped us to further concentrate our work, leaving us with just three working groups in the afternoon session.

The final of the three stages took place in the afternoon session. At this point, the delegates discussed the key themes they had previously identified to further develop the ideas with an aim towards future research. Groups worked through potential next-steps that would be needed to bring the ideas to reality.

It is hoped that the knowledge and inspiration gained from the day’s outcomes will be used in a range of future activities including grant proposals, future publications or conference papers, and calls for participation in conferences and seminars. Participants will also be able to continue the relationships they establish with other researchers at the event, which could potentially lead to future research collaborations.

Over the next few days, I will work to format the day’s artefacts into a format that will allow all of the CPCI delegates to access them and interact with them—and interact with other delegates. Whilst I am not able to facilitate these conversations, nor am I able to “force” others to continue the conversations, I am hopeful that these post-symposium tasks will help to encourage others to keep moving forward with the ideas generated during the day.

I know that others are working to share their learnings from the day’s event on other social media channels, so I will share another update sometime in July with links to those posts. In the meantime, you can review the day’s Twitter hashtag (#CPCINapier) to see what people had to say on the day.

Online identity at #NapRes17

Frances Ryan/ 22 June 20174 April 2020

Yesterday was the Edinburgh Napier University’s Research Conference. Based at our Craiglockhart campus, the conference was designed to bring together research active staff and research degree students from across the university. (Read up about the event on the Twitter hashtag #NapRes17.)

My contribution to the conference was an academic poster (full-size version). The poster was part of my larger doctoral study that investigates how online information is used in the management and evaluation of personal reputations. This work follows the tradition of research into everyday life information seeking (ELIS). My doctoral investigation considers four research questions (below). This poster addressed the first of these questions “How do individuals use information to build identities for themselves online?”.

Research Questions:

RQ1: How do individuals use information to build identities for themselves online?

RQ2: How do individuals use online information to build and manage their reputations?

RQ3: How do individuals evaluate the identities and reputations of others based on the information available to them online?

RQ4: To what extent do individuals actively practise identity and reputation building and evaluation online?

The findings consider three areas of identity building. The first is related to the creation and use of online personas and identities. This includes an examination of three broad information behaviours that participants use for the portrayal of online identities. The second area investigates the use of anonymity and pseudonyms through information sharing – or concealment – practices, as well as some of the motivations behind these behaviours. The third and final area presents the ways in which the blurring or merging together of participants’ private and professional selves, as well as their online and offline environments, are used for building identity online.

I provided handouts to the people who engaged with me during the poster session. I was also very pleased that even more people approached me after the session to speak about my research. (They were provided with a copy of the handout, too.)

Whilst my poster was only showcasing a small snapshot of a small part of my thesis, the conversations the poster prompted were wide-reaching. I spoke with other conference-goers about my larger doctoral investigation, online reputation and management practices in general terms, and the idea of altmetrics—which I’ve given two talks about in recent weeks. My poster also served as a conversation starter about my post-PhD plans (still in flux), potential public engagement activities, and even possible grant opportunities.

Personally, I feel that these wider conversations are one of the best reasons to present an academic poster. Yes, it’s about the actual research presented in the visual artefact. But it is also about the conversations and connections that visual artefact creates in a wider sense. And for me, this one little poster made the conference a huge success—because I connected with others.

The rest of the conference was very interesting, too. It included a selection of staff and student presentations, breakout working groups, networking, and a research showcase at the end of the day. Sadly, I didn’t win any amazing prizes (as I did last year) but I did win a bit of confidence about my PhD research and my academic future.

I’ll end there as I have just finished delivering a research symposium and I’m a bit tired after the excitement of the day. But I’ll share a post about that shortly… followed by tales from next week’s conference in Aberdeen.

But if you would like to ask any questions about my poster or my larger doctoral investigation, please feel free to comment below or contact me privately.

Workshop: Building your academic reputation online

Frances Ryan/ 13 June 201721 February 2020

Last week I delivered a half-day workshop at the Scottish Graduate School for Social Science’s Summer School. The workshop, “Building your academic reputation online”, was designed for PhD students at any stage of their studies. There were two primary goals for the day: (1) to get students thinking about the impact of online information on their academic reputations and (2) to provide students with a basic understanding of not only how to use social media to build and manage their reputations but also why they should.

The desired outcomes of the workshop included:

An increased awareness of how online information impacts professional and academic reputations—including how it may relate to job seeking and career development
A stronger understanding of how different social media platforms work, and what role they may play in the building and maintenance of academic reputation
A better understanding of online profile management, including potential benefits and risks

The first half of the workshop considered what reputation meant as well as how academics build reputation. The second half was then dedicated to discussing the different platforms that could be used for building reputation. If I had it to do all over again, I would have agreed to a full-day workshop. That would have allowed for more time on the practicalities of using social media platforms. It also would have provided more time to get into questions about privacy issues and the blurring between private and professional lives. Still, I think that the students found (at least some of) the workshop valuable.

You can view the slides from the workshop below or on my SlideShare account here. And please feel free to get in touch if you have any questions about the workshop or want to discuss academic reputation in more detail!

Academics online: Presentation slides

Frances Ryan/ 10 May 201721 February 2020

Last week I spoke at the “Academics Online: Building your research profile in the digital age” workshop to be held at Edinburgh Napier University’s Craiglockhart Campus. The event was organised by Dr Ivana Rihova and Dr Nathalia Tjandra, thanks to support from the Research and Innovation Office (RIO) and the Researcher Development Fund 2016/17.

I was the first of four speakers and shared an overview of how academic reputations are built—including the use of altmetrics. When I prepared my presentation, I worried that the altmetrics portion might be too basic, but it seems that most of the delegates were unfamiliar with what they were (or how to use them). It made for some interesting questions and discussion at the end of my talk though—and hopefully, it has given the audience something to think about as they continue to build their own reputations online.

In addition to altmetrics, my talk shared information about different tools that can be used to create online profiles and why they should be used. I also tried to make the point that you don’t have to use all of the tools. And, in fact, it is better to use fewer tools well and with confidence than it is to use every online tool under the sun with uncertainty.

The other speakers at the workshop were:

Nick Blackbourn, Content Officer at Edinburgh Napier University, who discussed practical ways and specific tools for building an online audience. He talked about using a “work out loud” approach and encouraged participants to tweet along as he spoke.

Vanessa Heggie, University of Birmingham, talked about the risks and rewards of social media. She shared some insights into different tactics, hacks, and coping mechanisms we could use to make sure we present ourselves (and our research) well in public—whilst having the most positive experience online that we can.

Steven Vass is the Scotland Editor of The Conversation, an original and essential outlet for comment and analysis. He was the last speaker of the day and shared with us ideas of how to turn our research into articles that will open eyes and reach the widest possible audience. He encouraged short, 100-word pitches to start with—and got me personally thinking about my own submission. (Which won’t happen until after I submit my thesis!)

You can view the slides from my presentation below or on my SlideShare account here.

Academics online: I have a reputation for the topic!

Frances Ryan/ 21 April 201721 February 2020

I have been invited to speak at the “Academics Online: Building your research profile in the digital age” workshop to be held at Edinburgh Napier University’s Craiglockhart Campus on 2 May 2017 (9.30 am – 3.30 pm). The event, hosted by the Business School, is aimed at Early Career Researchers (ERCs) and doctoral students and is free to attend.

The one-day workshop will offer practical tips on how to increase the impact of research by maximising the potentials of social media engagement. Delegates will also be asked to critically consider the ethical issues around online identities and importance of building academic reputation in the digital age. (In case you’re new here, that’s basically what my research is about: Online information and reputation!)

I will be the first speaker of the day and my talk will be about how academic reputation can be built and maintained using common social networking platforms (i.e. Twitter and LinkedIn) as well as other social media tools such as blogs and university researcher profiles. I will also cover topics such as bibliometric impact and h-indexes, and the role that “altmetrics” plays in the building and evaluation of academic reputation.

My session is not about how to use social media in your academic life—it’s about why you should use it! I am hoping that it will be a fairly engaging session with some good discussions (or at least some interesting questions) and a bit of audience participation.

The other speakers at the workshop are:

Nick Blackbourn, Content Officer at Edinburgh Napier University, who will run a workshop exploring practical ways and specific tools for building an online audience and using a “work out loud” approach. He requests that delegates bring a connected device to access their Twitter accounts, so there’s no doubt he’s expecting audience participation!

Vanessa Heggie, University of Birmingham, is running a session that will consider the risks as well as the rewards of social media, and will work through a series of tactics, hacks, and coping mechanisms to make sure we’re not only presenting ourselves (and our research) well in public, but also having the most positive experience online that we can.

Steven Vass is the Scotland Editor of The Conversation, an original and essential outlet for comment and analysis. He will remind us that what we do is both valuable and fascinating, and provide ideas of how to turn our research into articles that will open eyes, make waves and reach the widest possible audience.

The workshop is organised by Dr Ivana Rihova and Dr Nathalia Tjandra , thanks to support from the Research and Innovation Office (RIO) and the Researcher Development Fund 2016/17.

Space is limited so get your free ticket now if you’re interested!

“Academics Online: Building your research profile in the digital age” on 2nd May, 9:30 am – 3.30 pm in the Rivers Suite, Craiglockhart.

For those unable to attend, I will share my own presentation slides on the day and will be tweeting during the event using the #AcademicsOnline hashtag.

Offline lessons for an online world

Frances Ryan/ 24 February 201721 February 2020

Today I delivered a set of workshops about the “online world” to schoolchildren as part of Edinburgh Napier University’s Cyber Academy. And I did it all offline!

I was not sure how old the audience would be, or if they would be active on social networking sites. And, given that the age range I expected was 10-13, I realised that the majority of the kids might not be old enough to use most of the social networking sites. (Based on age regulations set by the sites, not based on what kids are actually doing!)

Realising that I would have to talk about online environments in a broad sense, without specifics on social networking platforms which the kids might not be able to use, I had to think of creative and (hopefully) fun ways to start conversations.

Oh! And I was doing it without the aid of technology!

To create the workshops, I came up with three activities:

Building a network with balls of wool
A game of “who’s real; who’s not”
Identifying the blur between online and offline activities

The first activity was meant to be an icebreaker as I had understood that it would be a random group of kids from around Edinburgh. The idea was that someone would hold the ball of wool and start talking about their online or offline interests and activities. When someone shared a trait, they’d call out and the ball would be tossed to them, whilst the first person held their end of the string. This continued until there was a massive web of wool crossing back-and-forth across the table.

The kids seemed genuinely surprised with some of their direct connections as well as the way that they were connected with others through those connections. In some cases, they were shocked that they had so many connections with someone and in other cases, they were surprised that they had so few. (A special nod to the last group where 6 kids were 13-14 years of age and they went out of their way to make two 9-year-old girls feel included!)

The “who’s real; who’s not” activity was a guessing game with questions and answers. I had two envelopes, each with a photo inside and a bio outside. The bios were for 12-year-old boys and included some brief details such as usernames and email addresses. Inside one envelope was a photo of a 12-year-old boy. Inside the other was a photo of a 50-year-old man. The aim here was for the kids to ask questions of each “boy” such as their grade level at school, their hobbies and interests, or their social media habits. Then, they needed to determine which one was the “real” 12-year-old and which one was the imposter.

This was by far the most entertaining of the activities, and it is also the one that brought the most discussion. The kids debated with each other if the answers could be legitimate or not with some insisting that a “real” 12-year-old would or would not do what I was claiming. (Little did they know, but all of my “real” kid information came from a real 12-year-old boy!) I especially found it interesting that some of the kids didn’t care who was real because they would never actually meet up with someone they met online because they just assumed that anything they said was a lie. (This might be an interesting area of research all on its own!)

The final activity was only run for one of the workshops, as the other three rounds took more time on the first two activities. However, the final activity was a bit of a flop. (Maybe because of the ages of the participants?) Here, each kid was asked to write three lists: activities only done offline (brushing teeth); activities only done online (playing Minecraft); and activities that include on- and offline tasks (buying concert or airplane tickets).

The kids seemed a bit interested in how the different activities could take place online or offline—or both—but, ultimately, it was not an interesting task for them. I wonder if it was too much like a school task or if they just don’t view the blurring between online and offline environments as something that is worth even considering. Again, that might be an interesting area of research all on its own!

I think it’s fair to say that I got more out of the day’s activities than the kids because I now have a better understanding of what activities might or might not work. I will be using modified versions of the first and third activities for a “grown up” workshop I’m delivering in the summer and (hopefully) the discussions sparked by the activities will be just as useful and dynamic as they were with today’s groups.

But the next time I deliver workshops to kids, I think I will work harder on bringing in technology. Wool and Post-Its just wasn’t right for that audience!

ASIST 2016: A conference for my future

Frances Ryan/ 24 October 201621 February 2020

I attended the 79^th Association for Information Science and Technology (ASIST) Annual meeting last week in Copenhagen, Denmark, supported by a grant from the John Campbell Trust. This was the first time the ASIST meeting has taken place outside of North America, making it a wonderful opportunity for myself and other European-based academics to attend a popular (traditionally) North American event.

Like many people, I look forward to attending conferences because I am excited to hear presentations on papers and current research. However, this conference was more than that for me. This was an opportunity to meet with other academics to discuss my research, our common research interests, and potential collaborations. In fact, my overall goals for this conference were aimed at building my academic confidence and further my researcher networks.

In preparation for the conference, my PhD supervisor (Professor Hazel Hall) and I created a flyer detailing the Centre for Social Informatics (CSI) at Edinburgh Napier University. This way, I had something (other than a business card) to share with people who were interested in potential collaborations with me or others in the CSI. It was also a useful hand-out for the night of the University Reception, where Hazel and I (wo)manned an information table for the CSI that we shared with two other Scottish universities (University of Strathclyde and the University of Glasgow).

The Scottish Contingent (l-r): Ian Ruthven, Diane Pennington (both from Strathclyde University), Professor Hazel Hall, and Frances Ryan (both from Edinburgh Napier University) — The Scottish Contingent (l-r): Ian Ruthven, Diane Pennington (both from University of Strathclyde), Professor Hazel Hall, Frances Ryan (both from Edinburgh Napier University)

I made a successful application to the Doctoral Colloquium that was held during the event, too. As part of the application process, I was paired with an academic mentor, Dr Henriette Roued-Cunliffe. Dr Roued-Cunliffe is an assistant professor at the Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen. I had hoped to meet with her when I started to plan my trip, as I am interested in her work with everyday life information seeking, so I was doubly pleased to have been paired with her.

Dr Roued-Cunliffe met a couple of times over the course of the conference and she provided me with some great insights (leading to increased confidence!) for how to explain different aspects of my research. There are a few parallels to our academic journeys (which are quite different!) and it was refreshing to hear the views and opinions of someone who seems to have a good understanding of some of my concerns. I was so grateful for her input at the conference and am even more grateful that she has agreed to keep in touch, should I have any future questions or challenges that I want to run past her.

The rest of the colloquium session was quite useful in a “general” PhD manner. Whilst we didn’t speak directly about our individual research projects or thesis-related questions, we did engage in some useful round-table discussions about life as a researcher and academic life in general. In addition to the doctoral students, there was a good group of established academics with a range of experiences. The one-on-one meetings with Dr Roued-Cunliffe were probably more useful in the short-term, but the discussions (and, importantly) the connections with other academics and doctoral students will certainly prove to be invaluable in the longer term. (I’m too focused on the short-term right now, as I am preparing for my major write-up time!)

I attended a variety of paper sessions and talks over the course of the conference, too. Whilst they were all quite interesting, my favourite sessions were (1) Digital Sociology and Information Science Research and (2) New Takes on Information Behaviour. The first session was a great opportunity to talk about the changing climate of information studies, with inclusion of “digital” interests in other domains (in this case, sociology). It helped to remind me that there are many crossovers from information science into other disciplines—something I have long known, but I still struggle to fully appreciate. The second session was about information behaviour, but my main takeaway was new takes on methods of investigation for information behaviour studies. And when I think about the two sessions combined, I think that it would have been very interesting to have a round-table discussion about digital sociology’s role in information behaviour. (Just think about the interesting research methods you could come up with there!)

The conference was also a very social one. There were lunches and evening receptions each day, but as most people were staying at the conference hotel, even breakfast was an opportunity to meet with other conference-goers. In fact, some of my greatest networking moments happened whilst waiting in the queue at the omelette bar!

Yes, I'm the awkward one who got the students together for an #ASIST2016 student picture! (And a couple of non-students, for good measure!) — Yes, I’m the awkward one who got the students together for an #ASIST2016 student picture! (And a couple of non-students, for good measure!)

The last social event of the evening was the Sig-CON meeting which is meant to be a bit of a laugh. Thanks to my supervisor’s great suggestion, I was able to “open” the event with a YouTube screening of my Bright Club comedy gig from this past February. It was also at the Sig-CON that the winners of the OCLC Storify competition were announced. The competition was open to students attending the conference. They were asked to share their ASIST adventure online, pulling everything together into a single Storify entry. And you know that I’m only telling you that because I was one of the (five) winners!

ASIST really was a great event for me, and I am so pleased to have been able to attend. I have come away from the conference feeling a bit more confident about my own place within the international Information Science family. I have also come away with some great ideas and insights for how best to explain some of my research in my thesis. And I owe it all to Cilip and the John Campbell Trust!

I won’t be attending any more conferences until next year now, but I do have a few lectures and one-day workshops and training sessions to look forward to. Of course, there’s also a question of that pesky PhD thesis that needs (a great deal of!) my attention. I am pleased to say that I am feeling very motivated at the moment though, so hopefully, I will manage a great deal of writing over the next few months.

CSI: Copenhagen

Frances Ryan/ 13 October 201621 February 2020

Next week I will be attending the 2016 Association for Information Science and Technology (ASIST) Annual Meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, supported by a grant from the John Campbell Trust. As part of the full and exciting programme, there will be a university reception on Tuesday evening (18^th October). In preparation for the event, my PhD supervisor (Professor Hazel Hall) and I have created a flyer detailing the Centre for Social Informatics (CSI) at Edinburgh Napier University.

This will be one of many opportunities we have during the week to discuss the great things we are doing here in the CSI. It will also be an opportunity to discuss potential collaborations with academics from other institutions around the world. (Selfishly, I hope that all of these opportunities lead to my finding the perfect post-doctoral research position. So if you’re looking for a quirky American researcher with strong ties to Scotland, look no further!)

If you’re joining us at ASIST, I hope that you’ll come by and say hello at the reception—or at any free point you may have during the programme. If you’re not able to be there though, here’s what we would be telling you about the CSI:

Since its establishment by Professor Elisabeth Davenport in the late 1990s researchers within the CSI have developed a distinctive body of work that reflects a shared interest in socio-technical interaction at different levels of organisation, and at different stages in the system life cycle. This work has also considered methods to support research in these areas. The CSI provides critical perspectives on, as well as analysis of, ICT trajectories, socio-technical and organisational issues with a particular focus on:

Democratic digital engagement
e-Government
Information policy
Information seeking behaviour and use
Knowledge management
The Information Society
Online communities
Open data and open government

Please find below profiles of the researchers in the CSI. For further details, please download our flyer.

In attendance at ASIST 2016:

Dr Hazel Hall, Professor and Director of the Centre for Social Informatics
Hazel leads the research in the CSI. Her main research and teaching interests lie in information sharing in online environments. Other themes in which she maintains an active interest include social computing/media, online communities and collaboration, library and information science research, and research impact.
(h.hall@napier.ac.uk | http://hazelhall.org | @hazelh)

Frances Ryan, PhD student
My doctoral investigation explores the role of online information in personal reputation management in the context of everyday life information seeking and human information behaviours and use. I am interested in collaborations on these (and related) interests. I am also keen to discuss opportunities for post-doctoral research projects based on the output of my PhD thesis (to be submitted in early 2017) or similar themes.
(f.ryan@napier.ac.uk | http://www.FrancesRyanPhD.com | @FrancesRyanPhD)

CSI Research Staff

Peter Cruickshank, Lecturer
Peter’s main area of research is the adoption and use of Internet technologies for participation in democratic processes, particularly at the hyperlocal level. He teaches in the area of information security, with particular interests in the cultural and organisational factors that underpin security. These two areas encompass concepts of identity and information behaviour.
(p.cruickshank@napier.ac.uk | @spartakan)

Dr Tom Kane, Lecturer
Tom’s research interests include telepresence and relationships between natural people and artificial persons (organisations of people), particularly in relation to the newly emerging field of Cognitonics, the science of the human being in the digital world.
(t.kane@napier.ac.uk)

Dr Laura Muir, Associate Professor
Laura’s research is focussed on user-centred design of information systems and services.
(l.muir@napier.ac.uk | @iLauraMuir)

Dr Bruce Ryan, Researcher
Both Bruce’s research and personal interests coalesce around the use of ICT in (hyper)local government with a focus on Scottish Community Councils. Facets of these interests include the actual technologies that are/could/should be used; how elected representatives learn to use technology and process information; the formation of Communities of Practice around such matters; and the means by which hyperlocal governments develop and learn in general.
(b.ryan@napier.ac.uk | http://community-knect.ne | @myceliumme_CC)

Dr Colin Smith, Senior Lecturer
Colin’s research examines the relationships between new information and communication technologies, strategic innovation and organisational change, particularly in the contexts of e-government and e-democracy. His core interests include: the evaluation of the contribution of the Internet to the role played by political parties in contemporary democratic practices; the assessment of digital delivery platforms for public services; and the exploration of the implications of new web-based technologies for parliamentarians.
(cf.smith@napier.ac.uk)

Dr Ella Taylor-Smith, Researcher/Lecturer
Ella’s current research focus is student transitions into, and through, university and on to employment. Previously she explored the use of online and offline spaces in democracy. Her interests include: social informatics, social media, eParticipation, identity, and transitions.
(e.taylor-smith@napier.ac.uk | @EllaTasm)

Dr Gemma Webster, Lecturer
Gemma’s principle research interests lie in the field of human-computer interaction, health care, older adults, community and assistive technologies. She is an experienced multidisciplinary researcher and keen to expand work that involves ‘real-world’ environments, problems, and partners.
(g.webster@napier.ac.uk)

CSI Research Students

Leo Appleton, PhD student
Leo’s main research interests are based around the value and impact of libraries. His PhD specifically investigates the value and impact of UK public libraries in the Information Society, and their role in citizenship development. In addition he is interested in the role that public libraries play in the generation and exchange of intellectual, social, and transactional capital.
(l.appleton@napier.ac.uk | @leoappleton)

Iris Buunk, PhD student
Iris’ PhD explores the impact of social media tools on tacit knowledge sharing practices between employees within public sector organisations.
(i.buunk@napier.ac.uk | https://theknowledgeexplorer.org | @irisbuunk)

Lyndsey Jenkins, PhD student
Lyndsey is interested in workplace learning development, innovation in the workplace, innovative work behaviours, information behaviours and seeking in relation to both learning in the workplace and general learning, career decision making, and associated influences (personal, context and environment). The primary focus of her PhD is workplace learning and innovation.
(l.jenkins@napier.ac.uk | https://lyndseyjenkins.org | @LJenk2015)

Lynn Killick, PhD student
The focus of Lynn’s PhD research is the future of the population census, and its role in informing the good society. This work has been undertaken as part of a wider project that examined information and its role in society as part of the AHRC-funded Informing the Good Society (InGSoc) project.
(l.killick@napier.ac.uk)

John Mowbray, PhD student
John’s research interests include networking as an information seeking behaviour, social networks, social media, job search, and employability.
(j.mowbray@napier.ac.uk | https://johnmowbray.org | @jmowb_napier)

Alicja Pawluczuk, Research student
Alicja is passionate about participatory digital storytelling and community development. Her PhD research focuses on digital youth, informal education and social impact evaluation in Scotland.
(a.pawluczuk@napier.ac.uk | http://www.phdadventures.com | @alicjapawluczuk)

Todd Richter, Research student
Todd’s research identifies and articulates the impact on young people of exploratory making with technology in hands-on, informal, and experimental learning environments such as Makerspaces and FabLabs.
(t.richter@napier.ac.uk | @todderichter)

ISIC 2016: Zadar

Frances Ryan/ 30 September 201621 February 2020

I spent last week in Zadar, Croatia for the ISIC: The Information Behaviour Conference. It was my first time travelling internationally for a conference—and my first time in Croatia—but my second time attending an ISIC conference.

The pre-conference doctoral workshop was a great experience and left me feeling a bit more confident about my theoretical framework. Well, maybe a better way to say that is that the advice helped me to feel more confident about how to explain my theoretical framework for my thesis write-up, anchoring it firmly within information science. I think that knowing the overall concept made sense to established academics in the field helped to build that confidence, too!

In addition to the feedback and advice I received directly related to my own research, the workshop mentors shared some great general advice for the entire group. The advice wasn’t unique, as I’d heard it all before in different contexts and with slightly different wording. However, each time I hear these things I am further inspired by them as they sink in just that little bit more. A common theme to the mentors’ advice was a reminder that “you are not alone”. Despite a PhD being a lonely process on many levels, we have our supervisors and other academic mentors, as well as an entire community of other PhD students. And whilst we are all working on (and struggling with) our own research, we can share the common struggles and stresses. (Blah, blah, blah. Sorry. I have a love-hate relationship with motivational soundbites. I think it’s because I am equal parts hopeful and cynical. But I digress…)

The main conference was an opportunity for me to present a full paper on some of my early findings for Generation X. (Slides below.) I was very pleased with the feedback I received on both the delivery and the content of my presentation—and the further feedback and interest in the paper as a whole. It was a bit of a challenging presentation because I was behind a lectern when I am generally more comfortable walking around a bit so that I can better point and indicate to the slides. However, my (healing, but still poorly) ankle meant that I was safer standing in one place where I was able to lean on the podium for support. I was a bit distracted by the discomfort, but I don’t think it had a negative impact on my delivery.

Of course, the conference as a whole provided me with great opportunities to listen to and network with other academics in my field. There were a few papers delivered at the conference that will be of great assistance to me when I re-visit my literature review this winter. I also made some great connections with established academics whom (I hope) I will be able to contact with questions as I start pulling everything together into one (hopefully!) cohesive PhD thesis.

And I can’t really share a post about ISIC without giving special thanks to the on-site volunteers and coordinators. I’ve always been grateful for those working behind the scenes (especially having been part of event planning teams in the past!) but this time, I am even more grateful than ever. I mean—wow!—what a great group of people! They were alerted ahead of time about my broken ankle, so the moment someone saw me hobbling towards the venue, I was greeted and whisked away to my own personal elevator. The volunteers were really good about making sure I was comfortable and had everything I needed. Yes, at times I felt that I didn’t need the assistance because I felt fine… but maybe I felt fine because I was being given the special treatment! So… thank you to all of the great student and staff volunteers; you are superstars!

Oh! And there was also a bit of time for some sightseeing whilst in Zadar. You can read more about that on posts from my personal blog, Just Frances: With love from Zadar, Zadar: A Catholic girl’s paradise, and Zadar: Everyday life for an everyday girl.

Preparing for ISIC

Frances Ryan/ 17 September 201621 February 2020

I leave for Croatia tomorrow morning (early, early tomorrow morning) where I will be presenting at the 2016 ISIC: The Information Behaviour Conference. The conference will take place 20-23 September at the University of Zadar and I will present my paper the morning of the 22^nd (full programme here).

The last week was spent preparing my presentation slides. I always find that to be a challenge because I need to be able to convey enough information to make people want to read the paper—but not so much to where I send them to sleep before my third slide. I am feeling pretty confident about my slides though and hope that the combination of my drawings, photos, humour, and—of course!—interesting research keeps my audience entertained and engaged. (I will add a link to the slides the morning of the conference. Promise.)

I’ve also been preparing for a one-day doctoral workshop before the official start of the conference. I attended the workshop at the last ISIC conference two years ago and found it quite useful, and I’m confident that this year’s workshop will be just as beneficial. I am hoping to use the time to discuss how best to anchor a multidisciplinary thesis theme, such as mine, in the domain of information science when writing up my main thesis. Yeah, it’s a hard one to wrap my head around. Especially when my undergraduate and master degrees are from outside of the information science arena.

Now that all the academic preparations are completed, it’s time to prepare the practical things. Like mending and washing clothes before putting them in my suitcase. And backing up all of the files on my phone and laptop so that (God forbid!) if something gets lost, broken, or stolen I am only losing hardware and not files and photos. And I need to paint my fingernails too. Oh! And I should make sure my phone’s address book is up-to-date so that I can send postcards of Croatia to family and friends back home (both homes: America and Scotland).

On another note, I am really looking forward to the conference, but I am also a bit frustrated because I will be attending as a broken woman. I am in Phase II of recovering from a broken ankle and I won’t be able to manage the entire conference without my walking boot. Though I suppose it’s a great way to be noticed in the crowd—as the woman in a walking boot. Or, at times, the woman with a walking stick and an off-balance gait. Thankfully, three of my fellow PhD students (Iris, John, and Lyndsey) will be there, too. So if needed, they’ll be there to help!

I really wish I could enjoy Zadar with two working legs, but I’d rather have the experience with a (healing) injury than not at all! Stay tuned for a conference update—and maybe a few fabulous photos from some of the great cultural sites I’m hoping to see in between doing serious academic stuff.

An outstanding conference!

Frances Ryan/ 24 June 201621 February 2020

Last week’s Edinburgh Napier University Research Conference was an outstanding success! As the first conference of its type for the university, the Research and Innovation Office (RIO) did an amazing job at putting the show together.

[Note: Click here to skip to the day’s highlights.]

The day began with a welcome by the Principal of the University, Professor Andrea Nolan, who reminded us of the importance of collaborative research and the wider university research culture. We then enjoyed an entertaining keynote by Dr Peter Barlow who managed to enthuse the audience with equal measures of great insights into research along with Bob Dylan quotes. (Come on, that’s pretty cool.)

We then broke into skills-building workshops. I opted to attend the “Winning research funding” workshop, as I need to start thinking about my post-PhD life… which will likely require a successful grant application. And after the workshops, I presented in the Three Minute Thesis session along with 10 other PhD students. My less-than-stellar showing meant that I wasn’t really expecting my name to be called out along with the winners at the end of the day. And that was OK.

Following the thesis presentations and lunch (where we enjoyed a poster presentation), there was a short series of presentations by academic staff across the University. As with the Three Minute Thesis presentations, they were geared towards a general research audience, meaning I could understand the research that was being discussed. (I do enjoy a good general explanation of people’s research!) There was even a wee pitch for Bright Club, which I think more academics should participate in. (Like I did!)

At the end of the formal conference day, winners for the Three Minute Madness (Matt Wale and David Whiteley), posters session (Iris Buunk), and staff presentations (Dan Ridley-Ellis) were announced.

But it was the Principal’s Research Excellence Awards that I was interested in, as I found myself very hopeful that my name might be called. In part, because I knew for a fact that at least three people nominated me for the category of “Outstanding contribution to university life by a research student”. However, even though I knew I was nominated, and even though I was hopeful, I also knew that there were other students in the university who might have been just as outstanding as I believe I am.

The outstanding student award was the last one announced, and I was trying to convince myself not to be upset if I didn’t win. In fact, I had distracted myself so much that I hadn’t quite realised that my name had actually been called!

As I made my way to the stage to collect my award, it was explained that I was nominated, in part, because of my work on various committees, mentorship roles, and different initiatives I’ve worked on at the school and university level. But the best part was when it was said that, in addition to these civic roles and responsibilities, I am also producing good research (as noted by my best paper award in January).

It was a truly wonderful feeling to hear from others how valuable they find my contributions to the school and the university. And it was even better to learn that the award includes a small amount of funding for future research spending. (Acknowledgement is great, but money talks!)

With less than a year to go until I submit my thesis (God willing!), I have now had to start saying “NO” to many (most) requests for work outside of my actual PhD research. I admit that I feel a bit bad about that, especially after learning how much people appreciate my non-PhD work, but I also know that if I keep saying yes, I’ll have to say no to the PhD. And that would just be silly.

Anyhow, you can read more about my department’s fantastic showing at the conference on Professor Hazel Hall’s blog. And you can catch up on tweets with the event’s hashtag, #NapRes16.

As for me, I have a bit more PhD work to catch up on… but I’ll keep catching up on the blog, too.

Three minutes to (relative) failure

Frances Ryan/ 22 June 201621 February 2020

Last week I had the privilege of presenting my PhD research at the Edinburgh Napier University Research Conference in the form of a Three Minute Thesis. I had been put forward for the competition because I was the first-place winner at the School of Computing’s PhD Conference the month before, and I was excited about the opportunity to present my work in a short, up-beat manner.

The Three-Minute Thesis is an international competition where PhD students have three minutes to explain their research to a general, non-academic audience. Presenters are allowed to use one static slide for their talk but are not allowed props, costumes, or anything else to aid in their talk. It is one person, one slide, and three minutes. Not a second more.

I was one of two presenters from the School of Computing, along with Marwa Salayma, and one of 11 PhD presenters in total. I went into it all with a bit of confidence, especially because I know that I am generally rather decent at giving presentations. However, the moment the session began, I realised how extremely well-polished and, well, better the other 10 presenters were. And that’s when I knew there was no way I would be winning either the judges’ decision or the popular vote. And that was totally OK with me because the others were just better.

So, where did I go wrong?

First of all, the time limit for the three-minute thesis is very strict, with instant disqualification if you speak for even one second past your three-minute allowance. And this meant that I was extremely nervous because I do tend to ad-lib and joke a bit when I’m presenting… or when I’m just having a normal conversation! That pressure meant that I was extremely nervous in the lead-up to presenting. (A little bit of nervousness is good. I had more than a little though. Which is bad!)

I had practised a fair amount beforehand, but my changing script meant that I wasn’t completely confident about what line came next. And so, as I often do, I ad-libbed in a wee bit of text which meant that I had to wrap up my last comment in warp-speed, but I did manage to end spot-on the three-minute mark.

Of course, one of my larger failings was that I spent too much time setting things up and not enough time sharing my research findings. I was trying to weave a story and build a connection with the audience… but I did so to the detriment of the “interesting bits” of my research.

So, what would I do differently next time?

First of all, I will try to get out of it! I don’t think I like the strict structure of a three-minute thesis. But if I couldn’t get out of it, I would just work on my script a bit more, trying to focus more on the interesting bits rather than laying the groundwork for a larger story. I would also practise a lot more… and make sure that I was not at risk of talking up to the wire.

So, I failed. Miserably.

Yes, miserably. (I’m sure others would say I did a good job, but I am my own worst critic.) But my failure doesn’t mean that the experience was a failure. In fact, I would argue that the experience was a success because I learned a lot from it and I will improve my skills because of it.

So, who did win?

Matthew Wale won the popular vote for his talk about the effect of noise on marine life and David Whiteley won the judges’ choice for his talk on hepatitis research. David will now go on to present at the UK semi-finals and I wish him all the best. Both Matthew and David (and the rest of the presenters!) did an amazing job and I am in awe of their skills. Truly.

Don’t worry though… I didn’t leave the conference empty handed. But that’s a story for another day, as I slowly work to catch up on my blog. (And my PhD!)

Be social:

Building identity in online environments: an Information Science perspective

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

In attendance at ASIST 2016:

CSI Research Staff

CSI Research Students

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social:

Be social: