What do you want to be known for, on social media?

Being an academic in a digitally-connected society means there are many opportunities to embrace social technological innovations, such as social media. Perhaps you use social media in your role to forge professional connections and increase your capacity for research dissemination. But there are other purposes behind the posts. What if we could use the footprints we leave behind a rich and deliberate digital legacy? What do you want to be known for?

I ask the people I mentor this question. It gets people to think not only about what they want to achieve and the steps needed to achieve it, but what impact they want to make for others (which I think is a nicer way of framing it). There are many ways our digital traces can leave a legacy for current and future generations. Here are some example posts from my professional social media channels, and my reflections on how they help me curate my legacy.

'We're all smart. Distinguish yourself by being kind.'

I've seen statements like this many times, and it's certainly something I would like to be known for. It can be expressed in various ways on social media. This is an example of a tweet which is typical of a lot of content I post on my professional social channels.

I use posts like this to demonstrate my commitment to building capacity beyond my own, rather than just using social media to broadcast successes. This tweet, like many others, is giving practical advice but in a way which normalises the challenges of the role, which might otherwise be a basis for people experiencing 'imposter syndrome'. I also regularly share news when I receive rejections from journals or grants, and insights on the 'unwritten rules' of academic which helps bring the knowledge gap between academic natives and immigrants. 

Guidance to professionals on using social media often (quite rightly) outlines the importance of upholding the good reputation of yourself and your organisation. However, from my perspective, I like to use posts like this to go a step further and express dimensions of both competence and warmth. These are curated in a highly considered way to help communicate empathy and understanding of others.

Modelling desirable values and behaviours

Social media sites can often be platforms in which normative values are made evident, and where academics can model desirable values or behaviours which can be helpful for those who may be newer to academic communities. I have certainly found platforms such as Twitter to be helpful here.

This tweet is me modelling healthy behaviour regarding taking leave from work to rest and avoid burnout. I regularly post content which articulates the value of rest in an otherwise busy professional life, and also add the words '(on leave)' after my username on Twitter during periods when I'm away from work. It is too common to see academics feeling the need to articulate how busy they are, so I try to bring some balance to this. Content on social media can serve to reflect or amplify our offline experiences. If normative values around over-working are reflected on social media, this can translate into normative behaviours in our offline world. As such, I like to think that posts such as this can help break a cycle of perpetuation.

Extending and diversifying audiences and insights

Another benefit from using platforms such as Twitter and LinkedIn has been to support additional reach of my research insights and diversifying my professional networks. A 2021 study by Jessica Lucs and colleagues found that tweeting about research papers significantly increases their citations relative to papers which are not tweeted about. My passion for science communication, partnered with my research interests in online communication, means that I can use social media platforms for effective science dissemination to different audiences. I routinely use a variety of creative methods to summarise research findings and use social media as a channel through which to disseminate this to different types of audiences. This tweet is a good example of the types of formats I use to communicate my research findings in an accessible manner.

When issuing guidance for professionals on using social media, whilst digital accessibility of content may be framed in respect of legal obligations, accessibility is much less discussed in terms of its comprehensibility to different audiences. Platforms such as Twitter or LinkedIn can connect people across discipline and sector boundaries, but a challenge here relates to context-collapse. This refers to multiple types of audiences in a single context whereby you may be concurrently managing various 'audiences' on your profile. That can cause issues for knowing what is appropriate and relevant behaviour for these diverse audiences.

One of the challenges we faced in writing the British Psychological Society's social media guidance was how to best advise on what is appropriate to share on professional social media accounts. Context-collapse is part of the reason we found this to be a challenge. What is perceived as appropriate and relevant is likely to vary based on the nature and configuration of a given user's network. Interestingly, although it is often assumed that people will work to the principle of the 'lowest common denominator effect' – where they constrain their expressions to their strictest audience – research from Ben Marder and colleagues in 2016 showed that it is the strongest audience which is more influential. This 'strongest audience effect' refers to combination of the standards and value (economical/social) attributed to specific audience members.

Creating universal guidance on social media use (and the nature of types of content) is therefore challenging; knowing what is relevant and appropriate may be somewhat subjective, both to the account owner and the various receivers. Additionally, this judgment can also vary based on key factors such as the permanency of content being posted, whether the account is public or private/protected, and whether it is on an account which the owner deems to be 'professional' versus 'personal' use. Brittany Davidson and Adam Joinson have written about this as 'shape shifting across social media', and these factors were all included as considerations within the guidance, to illustrate the nuances required on this issue.

Adding a 'human' element

One of the risks I see of using social media for professional purposes is that the human or personal element can be lost. When writing the social media guidance, we deliberately avoided making a distinction between personal and professional, and instead used the term 'private' to avoid reinforcing the assumption that there should be no element of personal or human quality in professional social media. Personal elements can add in a level of authenticity and richness which can have a significant contribution to building one's legacy.

This is a good example of a tweet which shares elements of the personal which are all designed to curate a picture of me as a holistic person rather than just an academic.

Understanding human behaviour

Within cyberpsychology and related fields, we can ethically use data from social media platforms to observe human behaviour in meaningful contexts. Whilst I use social media to support my professional activities, I also use them as a platform of study. My own research for example, has studied how Twitter hashtags and accompanying language use may help us understand collective identity (including a study with Rachel Walker on using Twitter data to explore public discourse to antiracism movements). We can also make use of a wide range of data scraping and analyses to collect various types of online data to explore human behaviour. As such, psychology researchers can use social media to create new knowledge of the digitally-connected human experience. The BPS has had ethical guidelines on Internet-mediated research for nearly a decade, which helps researchers interested in using the internet as a platform for research to undertake this ethically and sensitively. 

Reflecting a legacy

I recently shared a tweet based on AI software called abbrevia.me, which provides a summary of Twitter users based on their recent tweets. This generated: 'Lindakkaye's tweets cover a range of topics, including cyberpsychology, social media, academia, and current events. They often retweet and engage with others in their field, and express gratitude and support for their colleagues. They also share personal experiences and opinions, such as their decision not to pursue clinical or counselling psychology due to the emotional toll it can take. They use emojis occasionally, but not excessively. Overall, they come across as knowledgeable and engaged in their field, and willing to share their insights and experiences with others.'

That captures pretty much everything I have considered in this piece. Perhaps my digital traces on social media are already beginning to reflect what I want to be known for.   

Dr Linda K. Kaye is the Associate Head of Psychology at Edge Hill University. She is one of four founding members, and Past Chair, of the British Psychological Society's Cyberpsychology Section. This has led to her involvement in a wide range of BPS task groups and policy enquiries. Dr Kaye has her own private consultancy company The CyberDoctor, working with a range of business clients to help them understand their online consumers from their online behaviour.  

Find the British Psychological Society's Guidance on the Use of Social Media.