Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Should graduate students use social media?

A new graduate student writes:

As an incoming grad student, and reader of your blog, I am cognizant of the generally harsh reality of the academic job market. In light of that, I obviously do not want to do anything that would lessen my chances on the market. I am wondering what the general consensus is — if there is one — regarding social media accounts and academic hiring. To use Twitter as an example, there does seem to be a benefit to having a public Twitter account in order to a) control your online presence (whatever that means), and b) participate in public conversations with the philosophical community. A positive instance of the latter that comes to mind is simply a public appeal for resources in a specific area (i.e. "Does anybody know of any articles discussing narrative identity and Nussbaum's capabilities?").

The concern, however, would be that any number of Twitter gaffes could lead to a negative perception of the job candidate by the hiring committee. A candidate might Tweet in support of an unpopular political movement, or express an opinion that they later come to regret, or indicate that they have questionable work/study habits. Ignoring the more obvious of the possible kinds of poor Twitter etiquette — swearing, racism/sexism, illegal behavior — is it better to just hide Twitter activity altogether? Or do hiring committees not even look at such things? I would hate to lose out on a great job opportunity because I wrote a tweet three years prior in support of an unpopular/divisive issue (i.e. for/against gay marriage, government surveillance, or a particular Presidential candidate). Still,neither do I like the idea of losing out on the sorts of personal/professional relationships that Twitter might help to foster by making my profile publicly accessible. Any guidance from you or your readers would be fantastic!

My own advice would be to steer clear of any public social media:  the evidence is that first impressions are "sticky," and there is way too much risk that a bad first impression will be created by unfortunate or out-of-context remarks on social media, rather than a student's work.

I've opened this for comments from readers; graduate students may post without their name (but use a distinctive handle), but must include a valid e-mail address, which will not appear.

UPDATE:  The responses on Twitter, or at least the few I've seen, inadvertently make the point about the potential for that medium, perhaps in particular, for embarrassment.  One philosopher (who I shall not name, to protect the foolish) reads the preceding and then glosses it, bizarrely, as "Brian Leiter outs himself as a fan of cowardly conformity and surrender to group think, for others anywT telling.” Yes, my whole career has been about “cowardly conformity,” and that was precisely the question my student correspondent was asking:  "Dear Prof Leiter, how can I be more cowardly and conformist?"  Even more amusingly, someone who tweets pseudonymously (!) declares:  “The discipline's archetype Socrates saw no qualms with being held accountable for his opinions and we commend him for it.”   So why does this guy hide his identity?  You decide.  In any case, most commentators and correspondents understood that this was not about whether you should defend controversial views in your philosophical work, but whether you should risk making an ass of yourself in superficial ways on public social media…the way, say, the preceding tweeters have done.

AND FOR A DIFFERENT VIEW:  This philosopher sings the praises of Twitter.  (Thanks to Andy M. for the pointer.)

AND ONE MORE:  Even famous faculty can go down in flames on Twitter!

Leave a Reply to L13 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

44 responses to “Should graduate students use social media?”

  1. anon grad student

    I am a graduate student, not in philosophy, that studies new media and film. I limit my web presence. I do not use Facebook, Twitter, etc. I have an academia.edu page and a personal website, that's it. I agree with Leiter in that if/when social media is used, one must realize that it is public. What one does online is what one does in public. My advice would be to limit your use or follow some strict personal guidelines when using social media. You are now a professional vying for a career in an extremely difficult job market.

    If you are concerned about not having a web presence at all as you progress in your degree, make a personal website, publish, write a book review, etc. Let your work speak for you online rather than a poorly thought out Twitter blast or a Facebook battle. Why academics think Facebook is a proper venue to air their grievances is something I will never understand.

  2. As far as I can see, an academic employer has business knowing what you research and whether you're any good; what you teach and whether you're any good; and what your admin capabilities are. Beyond that, it's just creepy. Would you want to work for an institution that thinks that it has a right to scrutinise your life outside the office?

    (I know some people who have a personal and a professional FB/ twitter account; I can understand why they might, but I personally don't – and a lot of people who only know me via other electronic fora also know what I do in real life. It's not a decision that's bitten me yet: in fact, it's occasionally come in handy. For example, I've received a couple of invitations to comment in the national media, and one invitation to help develop a much bigger idea, that wouldn't have come had people not got to know me and what do when I'm being all self-righteous and sweary online…)

  3. Because nothing says academic freedom like self-censorship.

    BL COMMENT: Very little that's on Twitter or Facebook probably falls under the protections afforded by academic freedom. And we self-censor continually, in both professional and social contexts.

  4. Very surprised by this advice coming from someone who has been such an early and avid user of the Internet in legal and philosophical academia. Many of us have cherished your rankings and thoughts over the years without ever connecting with you personally. That is the power of the Internet. Social media takes this to the next level by allowing for an even more rich and real-time amount of knowledge sharing. To discourage people from participating in this next phase of the life of the Internet does not make much sense to me, especially given the demonstrated positive influence the Internet has had in your career and the countless others you have touched.
    And irony of ironies, I found this via Twitter!

    BL COMMENT: By the time I started blogging, I was tenured and pretty well established. On the other hand, I did plenty of imprudent things beforehand and survived:
    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/cowardice_and_b.html So it may depend on your risk tolerance.

  5. Stefan Heßbrüggen

    The general advice not to make a fool of oneself online is valid not only for graduate students. But since Twitter is explicitly referred to, it should be mentioned that it is in fact possible to have two accounts: one for professional matters, one for anonymous communication as a private persona. And if you use a capable twitter client, administering two accounts isn't that complex, too. Friend lists on facebook and G+ circles provide similar functions to limit the visibility of one's contributions. But I would be sad, if grad students missed out the opportunity to get in touch with senior colleagues, just because they are afraid of a hiring committee snooping online profiles. If senior philosophers are active in social media, it is because they have a basic interest in communication and the exchange of ideas. Informal tutoring of this kind can have extraordinary value not only for those who profit directly, but also for the philosophical community as a whole: social media may help us to foster more cooperation and collaboration which may advance the discipline.

    Here is a list of 1343 philosophers active on twitter:

    https://twitter.com/ranilillanjum/philosophers-on-twitter/members

  6. I too am a grad student, so it will be very interesting to read what senior philosophers have to say about this.

    My sense is that, if philosophy is going to be your life, and you truly love it, you just have to be yourself on social media; if you stay in philosophy long enough, their going to find out anyway. I see so much talk being devoted to how to poise yourself for employment in the discipline, yet so little evidence that all this prep work pays off. I know very intelligent people who would have made great philosophers, but they just burned out on all the bullshit. On the flip-side, I've seen people who couldn't find their ass with either hand that seemingly walked right into tenure track positions.

    So, if you want to play the game right, then yes, go manage your online identity – delete any and all posts that present you as having come down on an issue in an unreflective manner, don't search for yourself too often when finding these posts, as this will just increase the likelihood that they'll appear as results to others, and certainly, by no means, post comments like those you find associated with me (like this one). Maybe doing these things will make a difference, all be it, a small one. I think it goes without saying that you should never leave/put anything out there that is, or could be perceived as sexist, racist, or politically questionable, where 'politically questionable' means in opposition to the views are people you want to work with in the future.

    However, I would encourage you to not diminish your identity to the point at which you're no longer a person; don't be a slave to some impossible figure. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of philosophy is the life that each philosopher lives. It seems to me that all too often people forget that philosophers are people, interested in things besides philosophy, and my message is: have a life.
    Further, if you put your work out there, make sure it is polished and representative of 'your' philosophical interests, and not just the 'hot topics' of the month; following the hot topics might get you published, and it is in your best interest to know what they are, but it won't necessarily make you a better philosopher, and worse, could give the impression that you're the kind of person who just follows the trends.
    Last, don't take this too seriously. You'll never be a candidate who is appealing to everyone – if you are, then you don't need my feedback. Give an example of a 'past' philosopher who was appealing to every one of his or her contemporaries, and surely you'll be able to dig up an aspect of that person's life that, if known today, would prevent him or her from being hired into most departments.

  7. I'm just a graduate student, and have zero experience with the job market so far. But I don't think that one really does oneself any favours by avoiding social media, or by avoiding posting on the blogs, etc.

    I think it's true that first impressions stick, as Dr. Leiter said, and the concerns expressed are certainly legitimate. But it doesn't seem to me that the costs incurred are worth it. Many of the same risks (and rewards) are associated with conference presentations, but I doubt many people think graduate students should steer clear of those. There are, as the initial interlocutor pointed out, many benefits to using social media: they make it easy to keep in contact with the people you meet at conferences and other events, they facilitate discussion, and they help you start to build your online presence. While negative recognition is a possibility, so is positive recognition, and I think it's generally worth the risk.

    That said, I think graduate students should be cautious in their use of social and other media. And we should avoid getting into heated arguments with people–especially over the internet. So choose your topics wisely, and write/post/say things you can be proud of. ('Course, that advice applies equally well to anyone posting on the internet in a semi-professional capacity.)

  8. As someone who has recently gone through the job market cycle, I would offer this advice: there are so many variables in the hiring process that are beyond your control that it makes good sense to control the variables you can. Will hiring committees look at your Facebook or Twitter profiles? Who knows. But any of them might, and the good news is that while you cannot stop them looking you can certainly control what they are likely to find. I recommend staying off Twitter, staying hidden on Facebook (meaning that you keep your profile set so that only friends can read posts and then you limiting your friends to people who will share your sympathies, who don't work in academia, or who have known you long enough to have a genuine context for your more "creative" posts), and staying away from blogging altogether (I say no blogging for two reasons, i) you don't want committees to find examples of your half-baked work, and ii) you don't want them to think of you as indolent or unprofessional and given to blogging rather than working)…Oh, and never post on a blog widely read in the profession using your real name if you can possibly avoid doing so.

    One more thing to note. Having been fortunate enough to get a job, I can tell you that while this might all seem draconian, I think it is actually good for a student's professionalization. Whether you eventually work at a public or private institution, you are training to become a public intellectual. That means taking control and ownership of (and responsibility for) everything you say, and learning to comport yourself in way that reflects well on yourself, your colleagues and your institution.

  9. I agree with Brian that steering clear is probably a good idea; the downside is just greater than the upside. Only takes one gaffe to really leave an indelible impression on your candidacy. That said, it's only finalists that are really going to get scrutinzed at that level, but many of us definitely check…! (The bigger issue to me seems to be no websites/bad websites for job candidates. Make a website and make it good. And don't look desperate on it, huge turn off.)

  10. Facebookless grad student

    This is one of the reasons that I don't have a Facebook, never tweet, and don't use a Google+ page. Even the blog that my wife and I use to write about our family for viewing by other family members is hidden on search engines and can't be accessed unless we give permission. Even if the risk of biasing someone's opinion is small, which it doesn't seem to me to be, any risk in this area is too much, given how many other factors are already out of one's control.

  11. I am graduate student who uses social media. I devote roughly 90% of my twitter energy to various opinions on Boston sports that sometimes contain the usual uncivilized sports jargon we are all familiar with. And frankly, I wouldn't want to be hired by a Yankees or Rangers fan anyways…

  12. It might be helpful/interesting for more people with experience on search committees to weigh in on whether or not they search for candidates' social media accounts.

  13. Just out of interest: when you say you check, what do you look for?

    (Again, for the record, I'm FB friends with a number of students (UG, PGT and PGR) and follow and am followed by more – some of whom I don't know. I've never been tempted to look at their profiles with an eye for anything that might make an academic difference. I'm not senior enough to be able to make a difference to someone's career, but though it might be tempting to obstruct the progress of someone obsessed with Justin Beiber, I can't imagine that that'd actually make a difference in real life…)

  14. Roberta L. Millstein

    A number of my Facebook friends are graduate students who I have met at one conference or another (I do not "friend" people I don't know). This has helped me to remember who they are and what they are working on. I do not mind seeing that they have lives outside of academia (families, hobbies, etc.) — in fact, I find that refreshing — or that they have political interests, especially when those are related to their AOSs. So, as long as people are smart about what they post, I think it can overall be a benefit to graduate students to participate in social media.

    BL COMMENT: Just to clarify my own view (since I agree with everything Prof. Millstein says here): the concern is about social media that is genuinely public: so a Facebook account with no privacy settings; a public Twitter; a public blog; etc.

  15. Anonymous coward grad student

    Facebook is a fantastic tool for keeping in touch with people you would not be in regular contact with otherwise, friends and contacts from the academic world most of all. Apart from fostering a sense of community, it's pretty good for acquiring tidbits of info on conferences, jobs, papers etc. As Brian Leiter suggests, careful attention to privacy settings makes it quite easy to save anything overly salty for your closest friends, and spare your friends outside academia the full extent of your geekery.

  16. Anon pre-tenure law prof

    For what the anecdote is worth, reliable sources have told me that I lost votes—in a close final vote which I ultimately lost—on the job market a couple years ago, because some people didn't like a blog post about (seriously!) Stanley Fish. Then again, I landed somewhere great with people I love, so I'm not sure if the lesson to be drawn from this is "stay quiet" or "do what you want and trust that a department with which you are compatible will like the real you."

    (Brian, I'd really appreciate if this comment could remain anonymous, as some of the vote-casters may be reading…)

  17. I have some reservations about the first commenter's suggestion that you let your work speak for you. When I look back on things I wrote as a graduate student, a lot of them are embarrassingly awful, but at the time I thought they were brilliant and had no way of knowing otherwise (yes, I occasionally had some feedback, but it was always pretty positive, and even when someone disagreed with me, nobody ever said "just keep that to yourself until you're a little more mature philosophically"). So I'd take the advice to put your work up with a grain of salt unless you have feedback on it it from people who are genuinely reliable (and even then, there are obvious problems with judging whose advice is reliable).

  18. Original Concerned Grad

    Original grad student here.

    First, thanks everyone for commenting – it's nice to hear opinions from those who are further along than myself. Second, with the exception of a few brave souls, it seems like the general consensus from both concerned grad students and established professionals is to be entirely hidden from the public. Maybe we can have private Facebook/Twitter accounts, but this network should only really be extended to those we've met in person (and perhaps, even, only to those who will not have the ability to affect — positively or negatively — our career prospects). Blogging is generally a bad idea, and we should only have our personal, professional websites available to the public.

    This seems a bit depressing. I currently follow a number of professional philosophers on Twitter, but the comments here seem to indicate that I effectively have to just lurk in the shadows rather than participate in their public conversations. Today's social media seems to be well-suited for bringing the public intellectual out into the actual public. While I agree that Facebook/Twitter are not the proper domain in which philosophers should pursue intellectual debates (closed-access academic journals still seem to rule that realm 😉 ), they seem to be the proper domain in which philosophers can engage with the public.

    Assuming two candidates with equal profiles — i.e. similar level of graduate program prestige, similar grades, recommendations, and publication record, etc . Candidate A has an active public Twitter feed (mentioning their love of Arsenal Football), a blog (detailing, amongst other well-written entries, their philosophical objections to fracking), and a LinkedIn profile (noting their active participation in a grassroots election campaign for Romney in '12). Candidate B has none of these. Both candidates have an adequate professional website. Would A really be worse-off on the market, for having such a public existence?

  19. Anon Adjunct–

    It seems you've misunderstood the first commenter's point. The point of their post was that you should let your work speak for you via publishing, and I assume the commenter meant in peer-refereed journals, rather than just posting every seminar paper one writes. The comment seems right in a sense that one's public persona as a professional ought to be professional–thus, having one's professional work available, without a litany of family photos, one's musing on conferences, journals, and philosophers as people, etc. to cloud that seems the best course of action.

    It also seems to me that there's somewhat of a generational divide about this sort of thing. I think current graduate students have seen, in some sense, the dark side of the internet. Because of this, think it wise to limit or carefully cultivate their presence. The internet functions as a permanent archive of one's interaction with it. As such, even later redacted material is still available. The ability for one to 'stop' the circulation of something once it has been put on the internet is difficult, and largely impossible. Given that, I would have to agree that for those of us with job insecurity, we be very careful indeed. (Even if this risks being too cautious.)

    [Dr. Leiter–if this is inappropriate as an example, feel free to cut it. It just strikes me as a good and timely example of how the internet works]
    The 'sexting' grad student, who appeared in a publication, accidentally on record recently is a good example of this. If you remember that student's name, you can google said student. The original copy of that news article appears, complete with the student's discussion of their 'sexting' practices. The article has since been redacted. However, its original form is still available for a google search. Obviously this was not the student's intention. However, it is an example of the way that once something has been put online it is there, basically forever, you just have to know how to find it. In some cases, this will be easier than in others.

    Regardless, it speaks to using caution in ones interactions with the internet.

  20. This is tricky. I have been using twitter for a few years, and I find it extremely helpful for academic purposes. I do, however, go back and forth about whether I want to have a public or private profile because of the reasons being discussed here. I do want to mention some important considerations, though.

    1) Twitter allows you to connect with philosophers all over the world, and fast. If you follow the right people, you get immediate updates about job openings, conference postings, books that just came out, articles worth reading, issues in the profession, etc. Philosophers also tweet quite interesting articles related to politics and other news. It's a great way to stay connected and updated.

    2) Professors on twitter encourage graduate students, and graduate students support one another. Often, I will tweet a question asking for reading recommendations on a topic, and without twitter, I wouldn't have found some great books are articles that have informed my research. In another case, two professors offered to read and comment on a paper draft of mine that I was submitting to be considered for publication. (These discussions took place via email.) Their comments were crucial in the revise and resubmit stage of the process that ultimately landed me a publication, and these professors live time zones away.

    3) A point connected to 2: graduate programs are extremely difficult to get into, and many of us don't wind up at departments that are perfect for our research interests. Sometimes, professors in our own departments who have interests similar to our own are not accessible. Twitter is a place where graduate students can follow professors in other departments who tweet about their interests, and who might be willing to chat about ideas.

    I would also like to encourage discussion about whether LinkedIn might be a more appropriate place for philosophers to find a place for themselves online. It's a professional network, there are *some* groups related to academic philosophy, your profile is really just your CV, and the whole purpose is to have a professional online presence. And, unlike twitter, it's not necessary to express your opinions or link followers to (possibly controversial) articles in order to build a successful network.

    Another quick point: I find academia.edu a bit confusing and unhelpful, though it's used much more widely by academic philosophers than LinkedIn (in my own experience).

  21. An experience of mine may be informative. Back in 2005, I think it was, I hosted a political blog, with philosophers as contributors. In order to keep the blog alive, I wrote a lot of posts, on all sorts of topics. One day an article about experimental philosophy appeared online in Slate magazine. I thought it was a silly article, and in any case, one of my aims as blogger was to post provocative opinions. So I wrote a couple of snarky paragraphs about X-phi and threw them up on the blog. Next thing I knew, practitioners of X-phi had drawn up a manifesto denouncing me. (It was published here on Leiter Reports.) And I still get invitations to contribute to conferences and volumes on X-phi as "a well known critic" of the field, even though I've never written a considered word on the topic, and my blog posts were deleted long ago. So a couple of paragraphs that I tossed off one morning before breakfast ended up defining my professional profile in a sub-field of the discipline.

    To post something on the Internet is to *publish* it, and your postings will be treated as publications. If they are philosophical in content, they will be treated as philosophical publications. So post only what you would be willing to put into print.

  22. As a graduate student, my policy has been to avoid social media for professional work entirely. At this point, my sense is that it would most likely only hurt a young philosopher, possibly, through an association with immature behavior. One less than savory tweet or post could cost a number of opportunities. For professionally established philosophers, I can surely see the benefits.

  23. Good points. As a grad student, I'd love to read a follow-up on the limits of academic freedom and social media.

    BL COMMENT: Here's a short comment, but e-mail me a reminder in September, and I'll do a full thread on it. Very briefly: academic freedom does not protect anything that an 'academic' happens to say. It should, and usually does, protect, speech related to your research and teaching. Since Twitter is a superficial medium, a lot of what people say on it will have a hard time qualifying as "academic freedom"–but some of it will.

  24. What, exactly, does Original Concerned Grad want here? For philosophers take the role of public intellectual seriously enough to encourage/reward public engagement through social media, but not so seriously that they would judge someone based on the content and quality of that engagement? (Any philosopher wishing to enter into the public sphere should share Socrates's worries from Book V of the Republic. The important danger is not that you should be wrongly ridiculed by your enemies, but that you should be wrongly believed by your friends).

  25. I have a post-doc position in a field other than philosophy (although my doctorate is in philosophy), and I have been actively encouraged to create a professional Twitter account so that I can maintain a social media profile. Whilst I certainly support the suggestions about being very cautious about what you write on social media (especially if you are publishing your comments under your real name), I think that it can be a good tool, particularly if you're just starting out.

  26. I am a philosopher who uses twitter under my own name. I have found it both useful and enjoyable, have made contacts with philosophers around the world who otherwise I would not personally have known, got many useful ideas for my work, had people recommend things to read I hadn't known about, shared philosophical ideas and arguments with the non-academic people who follow me…

    Of course there are perils and pitfalls, and one should be wary of making an ass of oneself. But these are the same perils that apply in the flesh and blood world too. David Velleman is right to point out that everything said on the internet should be thought of as publishing, and people should be cautious about throwing out casual thoughts and half-baked ideas. But in many ways, drawing this distinction between "the internet" and "the real world" is a bit of a red herring. Yes, you should be careful not to be an asshole on twitter, just as you should be careful not to be an asshole at conferences, or campus fly-outs. If you're the kind of person who can't trust yourself not to behave like an asshole in social situations, then maybe twitter is not for you. But for most reasonably intelligent and circumspect people, the benefits of twitter are manifold, and the risks minimal.

  27. It has been suggested that one way to conjoin employability with an ordinary human breadth of interests and follies in the age of twitter, is to put your own name to anything published in a peer-reviewed journal, and an anonymous moniker on the rest of your life. This is the modern way, but I am astonished that a bunch of philosophers should nod sagely at this suggestion. Perhaps they also have views about the Ring of Gyges?

  28. Shouldn't we distinguish more clearly between blogging (at least at blogs with philosophical content like Flickers of Freedom, PEA Soup, Certain Doubts, etc.) and posting at social media like FB and Twitter? I'm impressed by grad students who are willing to wade into philosophical discussions at blogs, at least when their comments are well-informed. And their names become known to the relevant sub-communities. I suppose well-informed philosophical posts on social media should have the same effect, but there seems to be more opportunities to screw up on social media. I don't use or look at FB or Twitter yet, so I wouldn't see such posts anyway (and maybe I'm misunderstanding their philosophical uses).

    But I hope the sentiments in this thread do not discourage grad students from getting involved in philosophical blogs. Given the arcane pace of journals and the difficulty of going to conferences, these blogs seem to be an ideal way for people to engage in fast-paced and interactive philosophical discussions, with opportunities to take some risks (but do read over your "risks" carefully before hitting "Post"!)

  29. Simple solution surely is to have e.g. a Twitter account and use it only for work, for the benefits the OP suggests? You wouldn't walk around at work telling off-colour jokes or giving a diatribe on contentious matters (unrelated to your work) so why mix the two for a professional Twitter account?

  30. I'm one of those who responded here to David's post on experimental philosophy, back in the day. David made some strongly negative remarks on the kind of work my colleagues and I do, we responded strongly to those remarks, and some lively discussion followed. I don't think our response engaged in the sort of personal attacks that ought be characterized as "denouncing"; indeed, I think the exchange exemplified some of the ways in which real time internet philosophizing can be worthwhile. (I should stress that as a former student of David's, I most emphatically do not wish to be read as denouncing him.)

    But David is quite right that what one puts on the internet tends to hang around, which suggests that those without permanent employment have strong prudential reason to proceed with caution regards their contributions to the various new media.

    In fact, readers can follow the link below to decide for themselves whether my sunny characterization of the episode or David's less sanguine one is more apt.

    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html

  31. Anon Grad Student

    I use FB but not Twitter (not for any principled reason, I just get bored of Twitter easily). Connecting with other grad students and sometimes even professors through Facebook has been extremely valuable, I think. It seems to me that the value of social media is not in the actual doing of philosophy on the internet or some such, but in fostering and keeping up social connections with interested and interesting colleagues.

    The main danger for me is not that I'll post an embarrassing picture or opinion or some such, but that use of social media exacerbates an already problematic level of procrastination…

    In any case, I think FB and social media in general can be extremely useful. If you're worried about embarrassing yourself (or about exercising restraint somehow constituting some kind of extreme "conformity" on your part), perhaps you should consider becoming a person who doesn't embarrass him or herself on the internet quite as much.

    BL COMMENT: I'm not sure the last bit of advice will be too helpful! Most people who make fools of themselves on Twitter don't seem to know they're doing it, I'd venture.

  32. I'd like to register agreement with what Professor Nahmias says about blogging. I'm a graduate student, and a contributor at the Philosopher's Cocoon, and I've found the environment that Marcus Arvan has created there to be incredibly helpful. Engaging on a blog with philosophical content is also a good means of networking, as Professor Nahmias notes, and it is especially useful to graduate students who may not be able to attend many conferences. The pitfalls of social media that come with using Facebook and Twitter also seem far less likely to occur in a blogging atmosphere, especially if the blog is aimed towards a more professional audience.

  33. Rachel McKinnon

    I'm posting on behalf of my partner, who has a lot of experience teaching social media strategies and literacy to companies and employees.

    This [Brian's] response feels like it's coming from someone who doesn't understand the value or hasn't been able to successfully take advantage of social media. It's very common to see these "warnings" from people who view social media as a lot of childish noise. I used to get the same argument from corporate heads ALL the time. If they haven't taken the time to see the value in social media, they are quick to dismiss it as a bad idea. The other problem being that a lot of people (AND businesses) get themselves into trouble because of how they interact with the social media network.

    There are several things to consider when using Social Media. The primary is who is your audience (friends, colleagues, the general public, all of the above)? It may mean having separate accounts,example: use a nickname for your friends and your real identity for the public. You *MUST* control what level of access people have to viewing your information. You cannot blame someone for "finding out" about a a party you went to if you made a globally public post about it. All of the primary social media tools out there have the ability to set groups and visibility restrictions – USE THEM!! In the same light, take action and do not allow others to post or tag you in things that you would not post yourself.

    I have always suggested that people consider themselves as a business. The business of you! Social media is very valuable tool in making yourself and your work accessible to the world. It can help you to engage your peers / clients. But ultimately YOU are responsible about how you portray yourself online. Rule #1 is don't post anything you wouldn't be willing to say in a crowded room.

    There are typically three types of posts: valuable (opinions and articles you want to share), personal ("I'm doing X right now", "had a great time at Y conference"), and what's considered 'noise' ("I don't feel so good today", "happy monday!", "OMG COOKIES!!") … they are ALL fine things to post *IF* you consider your audience AND the ratio of value to noise in your posts.

    [Brian's] point about employees creeping your social media accounts is very valid. This is why you need to seriously consider my points above and make yourself visible to the right circles. Yes, people are going to form opinions about you based on what they find in a Google search. This is a (sad biasing) reality of the technology today. But YOU had control over what they found (like hell I want anyone to find my tumblr account! eep!! but Pinterest, sure, go have a look!). So, be responsible for yourself and take advantage of the tools available that are fast shaping this world.

    But hey, I only taught this stuff for a living.

    BL COMMENT: Twitter is (by and large) a lot of childish noise, and I think only in the mind of twitter users is it shaping the world. Notwithstanding my skepticism, I thank your partner for articulating an opposing view and offering useful guidance.

  34. Roberta L. Millstein

    I don't agree. I've seen people behave badly on the NewAPPS blog, and that looks just as bad for them as behaving badly on Facebook or Twitter would. The lesson here is to think twice (and sometimes three or four times) before you post. And if you don't know if you have a problem expressing yourself properly in these media, ask a few reliable friends to give you their honest opinion. Similarly, if you see a grad student friend of yours making a jerk of him/herself, the kind thing to do would be to let them know, privately.

  35. Professor Millstein, I didn't mean to suggest that behaving badly on NewAPPS or other philosophy-oriented blogs was less bad than behaving badly on Facebook or Twitter. I agree that it looks just as bad (probably worse) to behave badly on a professional blog than on other types of social media. Rather, what I had in mind was that the content on blogs like NewAPPS or PEA Soup is far less likely to generate bad behavior from its commenters than the material found on Facebook or Twitter. It seems to me that noise attracts more noise. I agree wholeheartedly that we ought to think carefully before posting, and invite honest feedback about how we might be interpreted.

  36. Just to drive the point home that Professor Velleman, anonladygrad, and others have made that posting something to the Internet should be considered publication in a permanent archive, it is important to point out that the entire Internet–at least, everything that's linked from something and hosted on a server that does block robots (automated crawling programs)–is regularly archived and can still be accessed in perpetuity. Nothing that's up for any reasonable period of time can ever truly be deleted, even if no human saw it before it was deleted.

    If you're curious whether your embarrassing blog post still exists somewhere in the cyberarchive, the webpage you hosted as an undergraduate can still be found during the opposition research stage of a job hunt, or are simply feeling nostalgic for that old Prodigy Internet homepage, try http://archive.org/web/web.php .

  37. Good point about risk tolerance.

    But isn't the idea of pursuing a career in Philosophical academia risky by definition (how many tenured positions even exist nowadays)?

    I think you might enjoy Twitter.

  38. I follow a couple of my professors on twitter, and they seem to be embedded in a community of academics and grad students who mostly use the platform to trade academic jokes and test out politics-related puns and one-liners on each other. I have never seen them post anything embarrassing or controversial, though I do now know more about them than I did before I discovered them on twitter, which can be either a pro or a con.

    What I'm trying to say is that not everything on twitter is scandalous and base. Yes, having a public account might be unwise if you're liable to get drunk and start tweeting racist abuse to celebrities, but if you're a moderately well-behaved person you don't really have much to worry about.

    I have to say I don't quite understand why tweeting is seen as more unseemly than blogging. Because of the character limit? If it's good enough for Schlegel, it's good enough for me!

  39. My attempt to point out the parallel between strategic anonymity on the internet, and Plato’s discussion of a magic ring that makes you invisible, went down like a lead balloon (despite the evidence provided by recent cases on Twitter). So I’ll try another tack. Contributors to this thread have been advising philosophers to attach their ‘real name’ only to some elevated and non-embarrassing stuff, perhaps in a journal or some dedicatedly philosophical blog. That’s prudentially good for the individual, but so what? I was trying to raise a moral or philosophical question.

    Suppose some select proportion of your writing appeared under the name ‘Brian Leiter’, while the rest of your blogging and twitting and personal existence generally is lived its life under the name ‘ChicagoMuffins10097’, which moniker you disclose only to trusted confidants (and family). Wouldn’t that raise a question about which of the two was the ‘real name’?

    Traditionally, a name which is deployed only for the purposes of a writer’s professional persona is called a ‘nom de plume’.

    A nom de plume can help liberate writing from any confusion between the real life of the author, and the details of his or her writing. That’s a useful sort of liberty for fiction – it might be used to get over a gap of gender, and in other ways to protect the fiction from certain misplaced kinds of reading and criticism (just look at what sometimes results from mixing up the author with the narrator). But useful as this liberty of the nom de plume is in the arena of fiction, is that the sort of liberty we want for writings in moral philosophy?

    Why are the philosophers on this thread so keen on the idea that the best response to the internet is to develop a sort of professional nom de plume? For reasons of prudence, yes – but philosophically: is that the direction we would want philosophy to go? Is that a direction we could endorse for society as a whole?

    A block of flats where, suddenly, all the internal walls were removed, and all the external walls too, so that all the world is one large public hall – like actually living inside the lecture hall. Special cloaks, however, are provided. The residents can again decide what of their life is to be publically exhibited, and what not. In a way, the uncloaking takes on the same role that moving out onto the balcony or talking in the square had done before. But a difference: this cloaking and uncloaking is directly chosen. Before, you were public in the square as a natural accompaniment of buying bread or playing chess or haranguing the mayor there. Now, you can buy bread and play chess and live any element of your life you might choose as an eerie flying cloak, complete with Porte Monnaie, empty-faced. And the faces, when they are to be seen, take an entirely different significance. Is it not the significance of fiction?

  40. Hi, John (doris) — Well, my post began "My younger son has alerted me to a report in Slate on the newest philosophical fad" — clearly an off-hand bit of snark. The response was a closely argued refutation, twice as long as the original post, aimed not at X-phi skepticism in general but at my precise words, and signed by 15 philosophers. The statement treated some casual remarks as if they were a considered philosophical thesis, and in doing so it held me professional responsible for them. The fact that it has given me a lasting reputation as a philosophical critic of X-phi shows that it had non-trivial consequences. If the word "denunciation" is not apt, how about "ambush"?

    I'm not asking for sympathy: the mistake was mine. I should have realized that I was publishing a philosophical opinion that would be exposed to the same professional scrutiny as any other publication. I thought I was shooting the breeze when in fact I was shooting myself in the foot.

    My advice to "new graduate student" is this. You may think that you are "participat[ing] in online conversations", but they are not conversations: they are published exchanges. Your "online presence" is not like being present at a conference: this "presence" is public and permanent.

  41. Blogging/tweeting grad student here. I have been blogging since undergrad and recently hopped on the Twitter train and, so far as I can tell, social media hasn't ruined my career (yet!). Beside the intrinsic benefits of practicing writing in any form, I guess the hope is to eventually cash in my "online presence" sometime in the future when my Google SEO demonstrates to anyone on a search committee that some people care about what I have to say. Here are my thoughts on avoiding "gaffes":

    1. Avoid politics and controversial gossipy topics. If you have anything non-scholarly to say, always keep it PBS or NPR civil, not like late-night television or The Smoker, where it's cool to be "edgy" and make witty insults.

    2. Always keep it civil. Seriously. Avoid snark, dripping sarcasm, disdain, insults, and anything that makes you look petty and bitter. Be the bigger person. That means taking the high-road if someone insults your intelligence, or moral compass, which is inevitable on the internet. You will be compared to Hitler and you have to thank them politely for sharing their views (or better yet, just ignore them and only talk to smart civil people). Don't let people get under your skin when they interpret your views in the worst way possible, which is also inevitable on the internet. Never result to name-calling or invectives.

    3. Be polite. Thank people for their contributions to your blog, and highlight agreement where possible. Be charitable to other people's views before offering your criticism.

    4. If you are going to criticize someone else's view, even a "big name", don't resort to name-calling or insults on someone's abilities as a philosopher or thinker. Attack someone's ideas and arguments, not their intelligence or personality. Be thoughtful, and always try to employ the principle of charity.

    5. Don't say anything you wouldn't say in polite conversation in a room full of faculty members. Obviously this includes sexist, racist, bigoted remarks, etc. Even if you do have "politically incorrect" views that you would only share with your closest friends after 5 beers, never ever share them on the internet. Don't even get in the habit of writing them anonymously, because one day you will feel so comfortable writing that kind of stuff when your willpower is drained you'll suddenly making a "gaffe". But this doesn't mean you can't have opinions on things, just make sure they are the kind of opinions you'd defend in a Q&A session at a job talk, not the opinions you'd defend anonymously. Be confident, but don't be arrogant or say idiotic things.

    6. Content is king. Most people who don't use Twitter don't understand that Twitter and other social media often follow extreme power laws, where 99% of the content consumed is produced by 1% of the users. In essence, Twitter is a massive link-dump, where almost all the "power-users" with the most followers are producing 99% of the content, which is usually links to websites. Twitter is more of an information clearing house than a personal blogging platform, and the people who link to the best content the most get the most followers, and thus the most "influence". You can use your influence however you want, but for academics the primary benefit is "getting your name out there", and everything that encompasses, which is hard to quantify. Just as it would be useful to "network" at a conference and introduce yourself and make a good impression to as many people as possible rather than holed up in your hotel room, using social media is useful for networking on a large scale. In sum, post interesting things that other people would enjoy reading.

    7. Follow the golden rule: don't post anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to read yourself. If you immediately skip anyone's post that begins to describe the boring banalities of their life, then never post your own banalities. No one cares. Link to an interesting piece of online journalism, or a cool blog post, or talk about an idea, paper, or book. Share news and information. Say interesting things.

  42. I've just finished a PhD in a decent UK department. I fear that I might have damaged my career prospects halfway through grad school in a social-media related way. However, Marc Lance's thoughts on this issue encouraged me not to be too worried about this:

    http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/09/a-strategic-thought-on-entering-the-job-market.html

  43. The premise behind this discussion seems crazy to me, that there are some general rules that apply to all or even most grad students. Clearly, some grad students can help themselves a lot by increasing their visibility on social media. Others can be harmed and shouldn't do it. Grad students are adults, they should be able to figure out for the most part where they are on this spectrum, how to minimize damage and make the most of the benefits. Like the rest of life, you learn from your mistakes and grow from them. And as one commentator said, something that might seem like a disaster (not getting a job because of blog post) can actually be huge stroke of luck (landing somewhere where they don't make decisions based on a post on Stanley Fish).

  44. Another anon grad

    I find it extremely useful to friend philosophers on Facebook after meeting them. It makes them much more likely to remember me in the future, and lessens my own fear of an embarrassing future encounter where I greet and they have no idea who I am.

    To the extent that there is a concern about saying imprudent things, I'm not sure why it applies only in totally unrestricted fora like Twitter and totally public Facebook accounts (the latter of which very few people have). If you're someone with a lot of philosophers as friends on Facebook, saying something imprudent which just your friends can see could be just as damaging; moreover, your comments on others' threads will be visible to non-friends even if your profile is restricted. And after all, the dangers of saying something imprudent or making yourself look bad are everywhere – in commenting on blog threads, in joining senior philosophers for dinners/drinks, and even in putting your work out there at conferences and in journals. I don't really see why having a Twitter account is uniquely dangerous.

Designed with WordPress