SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES IN INDIANA UNIVERSITIES AND GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS
A RESEARCH PAPER
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
BY
ADAM CLARK
DR. DUSTIN SUPA - ADVISOR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, IN
JULY 2011
Section I
Introduction
The body of academic literature on social media is vast in scope and
growing constantly. As researchers continue to give context to the phenomenon
of social networking technologies, consumers, students and fellow academics
perhaps get a clearer picture of where these technologies fall among prior
research in the larger area of human communication.
However, there is a regulatory element to this that is largely unaddressed
in the academic community. There seems to be a growing sense of urgency from
academics and professionals alike to rein in the virtually unencumbered world of
social media, as it becomes more deeply ingrained into the daily rituals of people
worldwide. It is clear that the rate of adoption of habitual social media use is at a
fever pitch, growing consistently at a disquieting rate. Due to the fact that the
Internet provides this space for creative collaboration and communication, there
has been limited ability for ground rules to be set for appropriate use of Internet
technologies, particularly in the area of social media.
This is perhaps most pertinent in the field of public relations, where every
employee with a Twitter account now has a worldwide stage for communication
about their employer. As employees are often the most valuable brand
ambassadors for their respective organizations, social media communications
4
become a major cause for concern when attempting to maintain a consistent
brand identity.
The focus of this research is to see where Indiana’s local government
agencies and major universities are in that process. The aim is to see if they are
attempting to regulate their employees regarding social media, and if so, to what
degree.
Section II
Literature Review
Prior to websites like Facebook and Twitter, scholars had already
recognized the Internet’s capacity as a mass communication tool, which gives
the novice user with the right hardware and little necessary knowledge the power
to communicate worldwide, a privilege once reserved for the celebrity, politician,
and pundit (Dominick 1999).
Since the inception of social media platforms, even since the coining of
the term “social media platforms,” there has been much scholarly research
devoted to the impact that these tools have on society. Social media have been
recognized by One-Party East Asian states as such powerful tools for the
obtaining of information, so much so that heavy restrictions have been placed by
most of these governments on citizens’ use of the Internet (Hichigian, 2002).
Health professionals recognize the power of social networking websites in,
“connecting you with your customers, giving you a space for dialogue with them,
and sharing the experience of being a part of your professional development
services” (McKenzie 2009; McNab 2009).
There has also been much research devoted to the widespread adoption
of social media among politicians and participants in the democratic process
6
(Langlois, Elmer, McKelvey, & Devereaux, 2009; Davis, 2005; Duman & Locher,
2008; Lipton, 2009; Singer, 2003; Willliams, Trammell, Postelnicu, Landreville, &
Martin, 2005).
The academic community acknowledges the ineffaceable mark that has
been made on privacy, or the perception thereof, because of social media
technologies. Some scholars note that the pervasive nature of these
technologies can lead to “unintended consequences,” such as threats to privacy
and changes in the relationship between public and private sphere; noting also
that the perceived “benefits of Facebook outweigh privacy concerns, even when
concrete privacy invasion was experienced” (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn & Hughes,
2009). Additionally, the popularity of these social networking sites indicates the
“emergence of complicit risk communities where personal information becomes
social capital, which is traded and exchanged” (Ibrahim, 2008).
Some scholars go as far as to define social media more as a system for
relational actualization than a form of Internet communication. Boyd and Elllison
(2008), define social media by three basic attributes:
1. The ability to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded
system
2. The ability to articulate a list of other users with whom they share a
connection
3. The ability to view and traverse their list of connections and those made by
others within the system.
7
Several studies have been conducted on the threat of the Internet to
traditional forms of authority. In a study conducted of religious blogs, it was found
that while hierarchical authority was challenged at some points, for the most part,
individual users in fact affirmed authority in large part (Campbell, 2010). Also the
internet may create new religious authorities, such as the moderator of an online
group being identified and treated as a legitimate spiritual authority by members
of an online religious community (Herring, 2005).
There has also been much research and discussion devoted to social
mediaʼs effect on the practice of public relations. Some scholars contend
“Facebook provides unique public relations opportunities for corporations to fit in
with its usersʼ social norms and meet them in a place of real relational comfort”
(Vorvoreanu, 2009). While other say public relations practitioners as it regards
the tactical practice of public relations have overstated the potential effect of
social media (Taylor & Kent, 2010). There is a disconnect between how much
public relations practitioners think social media is effecting public relations tactics
and how much they are actually effected. “The claims of social media power far
outweigh the evidence social media effectiveness as a communications tool”
(Taylor & Kent, 2010).
Perhaps the area given most credence by the academic community as it
regards the effect of social media is the profession of journalism. “Some wellknown news media names now have Twitter followings that are almost as large
as the circulation of their newspapers or the viewership of their TV shows” (Farhi,
2009). George Stephanopoulos had more than 564,000 people following his
8
tweets as of Mid-May 2009, “Meet the Press” host David Gregory had 528,356,
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had 506,951, National Public Rasio host Scott Simon
had 360,861 and New York Times technology columnist David Pogue had
306,371 (Farhi, 2009).
What started as a field test in the effects of interpersonal communication
conducted at the University of Iowa (Ludwin, 1947) was eventually applied to the
media’s role in filtering information to the public in the form of “Gatekeeping
Theory.” However, according to some scholars, Internet technology “has
eviscerated the role of the elite media as gatekeepers” (Rieder, 2000).
In a surveyed population of journalists, 32% considered social media to be
an important component to their work (Lariscy, Avery, Sweetser, and Howes
2009). Social media has made such an indelible mark on the journalistic process,
that the line for some news outlets between a journalists’ home life and their life
in the news room has been completely obscured. Take for instance, the Los
Angeles Times social media policy, which reads, “Assume that your professional
life and your personal life merge online regardless of your care in separating
them. Don't write or post anything that would embarrass the LAT or compromise
your ability to do your job” (Podger, 2009).
This wouldn’t be the first time in which there were questions raised as to
the how negative the potential effect of computer technology is on the workplace.
This same issue was discussed by scholars at the height of the popularity of
“Instant Messaging” technology. While some at the time were contending that IM
was a workplace distraction and made workers more unproductive, a study
9
revealed “employees use IM in ways that help them to manage interruption, such
as quickly obtaining task-relevant information and negotiating conversational
availability” (Garrett & Danziger, 2008).
Social Media in Universities and Governments
Some scholars consider social media to be a strong tactical approach to
public relations within a university or government setting. Chadwick (2001)
contends “the Internet offers the prospect for governments to create new
‘electronic faces’, which act to support a symbolic architecture of power.” Some
universities, like Davenport University in Michigan, are effectively using social
media as a means of recruiting and retaining their student body (Kattner, 2010).
Scholars have isolated three functions of Internet technologies that are the
primary manifestations of use among students and professors in the university
setting:
1. To clarify course material and procedures
2. As a means of efficient communication
3. For personal or social reasons (Waldeck, Kearney & Plax, 2001)
In a study conducted of college students, their perceptions of college
professors being on Facebook were generally negative regarding that professor’s
credibility as a faculty member of the university (Mazer, Murphy & Simonds,
2007). However, some other scholars would contend that Internet technologies
like email and social media are a means of healthy self-disclosure for professors.
“Teacher self-disclosure can also be a way to increase flexibility when class
10
discussions occur and allows for teachers to adopt a less rigid teaching style”
(Cayanus, 2004).
Section III
Methodology
The muddled, and often contradictory nature of the findings in the
historical and secondary research for the literature review, are the breeding
ground for clarification of the role of social media in the university and local
government setting.
The aim of this research is to lay the groundwork for further investigation
into the consistencies, or lack thereof, among social media policies in major
universities and local governments. The sample group that was selected was the
major universities and city governments in the state of Indiana. In order to make
statistical comparisons between the presence and absence of certain attributes
or topics pertaining to social media, the original method chosen for this study was
a quantitative content analysis. However, even the most cursory of observations
of the content of these policies will reveal the complete lack of consistency one to
the next. This can be attributed to multiple factors.
Rate of Innovation
Some of the policies analyzed herein have not been updated since as long
ago as 2004, which was the same year Facebook was conceived in its most
primitive “Harvard only” format. However, even some of the more recently
12
updated policies cannot account for things like the permeation of social networks
onto mobile devices and smart phones. Considering the rate of innovation and
the relatively sudden pervasiveness of social media technologies, it is not a
surprise that there would be inconsistencies among social media policies.
Intended Audience
Particularly in the university social media policies analyzed, there are
major discrepancies in whom the university chooses to address with the social
media policy. Some are guidelines for students who want to create social media
accounts for student organizations; others are more strict procedural policies
intended to be an addition to an employee handbook for university faculty and
staff. All of these still refer to themselves as the official “social media policy” of
their respective university.
With these and other inconsistencies in mind, it was quickly determined
that a qualitative content analysis would be a more appropriate fit for the purpose
of this particular study. A quantitative content analysis would have had zero
statistical reliability. Qualitative content analysis still lends itself to making in
depth observations of the content of these policies while avoiding bunk statistical
measurements.
Section IV
Results
Local Government Agencies
The sample of local government agencies included seven of the top 10
most populated cities in Indiana according to the most recent available census
data. None of the seven cities had a section of their policy book dedicated
specifically to social media or social networking sites. The closest applicable
sections in policy dealt with general technology and information systems usage.
These sections covered all areas of Internet and computer use, which, whether it
was mentioned by name or not, encompass the activity of engaging in social
media and social networking.
Bloomington
Under the section “Other City Policies and Procedures” in a subsection
called “Information and Technology Services Policy,” the City of Bloomington
discusses issues of technology use. The section is three pages long and
appears on pages 59-61 of the 71-page manual. The “General Use” section
covers technology as it regards issues of sexual harassment, illicit or illegal use
of information technology, as well as prohibiting the distribution of unsolicited
emails “en masse” (all employee emails).
14
Within the subheading of “Personal Use” lies issues of storing or
downloading large personal files, accessing or downloading of sexually
inappropriate material, as well as the non-confidentiality of online transmissions
made from city computers. Since all of those transmissions are considered a
matter of public record, there is to be no expectation of privacy for city employees
when they write emails, post or download things from their work computers.
A “Security” section outlines the importance of Bloomington’s proprietary
information; that any sharing of information or materials that are property of the
city is explicitly prohibited. “Intellectual Property” is what the city defines as
anything created on a computer belonging to the city is also itself the city’s
property, whether it was meant for use for the city or not.
In Bloomington’s employee handbook there is no mention whatsoever of
“social media” or “social networking.” However, there were two points, one from
the “General Use” section and one from the “Personal Use” section that pertain
to activities on social media sites. Under “General Use” it is stated that,
“Information that is posted externally shall reflect the standards and policies of
the City of Bloomington.” Under “Personal Use” references were made to the
tracking of personal time on information systems, “Time spent on personal IT use
must not be included as time worked on daily time sheets, or wherever work time
is tracked.” Also, it was made clear that these personal uses of information
technology were “subject to the City’s personnel policies,” thereby potentially
leaving room for the accommodation of emerging technologies.
The last revision of the Bloomington employee manual was April 4, 2005.
15
Evansville
Within the “Policy Guide” portion of the handbook appears a section
entitled “Internet and Email Use Policy Statement.” The section is two
paragraphs, containing a total of five sentences (by far the shortest of the policies
analyzed), and appears on the top half of page 14 of the 60-page manual. Due to
its brevity, the policy is included in its entirety here:
As is observable here, the policy states, and restates, the restriction on
“non-job related” or “non-official purposes” regarding technology use. Evansville
also gives themselves the ability to subjectively administer punishments to those
who might use technology in a manner that could be deemed unprofessional,
inefficient, ineffective or outside the permission of the employee’s supervisor.
Again, as is observable, no explicit reference to social media of any kind is
made herein. It can only be inferred, by both the employee and employer
16
(Evansville) the degree to which social media and social networking sites are
appropriate for their work activities.
The most recent revision to Evansville’s handbook was April 2008.
Carmel
In a section entitled “On the Job” under the subsection “Computer
Technology,” the City of Carmel deals with the use of computer technology by
their employees. Carmel has one of the more extensive local government
policies, covering eight pages from pages 30-38 of the 94-page handbook.
Carmel addressed most of the other areas that other cities addressed
regarding privacy, intellectual property and general acceptable/unacceptable
uses of technology.
However, Carmel is one of only two local government policy manuals to
mention the term “social networking” within its technology policy. The following
appears under the “Unacceptable Use” portion of the policy:
“Accessing social networking sites or peer-to-peer sites, except for
business purposes, which must be approved by the directors of Human
Resources and Information Systems.”
Carmel was the only local government policy book to mention blogs or
blogging. It was first mentioned in the “Unacceptable Use” portion of the policy,
along with gaming, which is also considered a venue for online social networking,
“Blogging, participating in on-line forums or chat groups, playing games…and
other non-business activities that waste computer resources.”
17
Further down in the policy, an entire subheading was devoted to the
practice of blogging, particularly personal blogs that are not specifically linked to
the City of Carmel. In the introduction to the section on blogs, the City of Carmel
acknowledges that “blogging has become a common pastime and an important
means of sharing experiences and information.” The policy establishes that
blogging on City time or with City computers is strictly prohibited without explicit
authorization from the Mayor’s Office. It then includes a four-point guideline for
personal blogs of City employees, as follows:
•
Blogs are individual interactions, not official communications, and
employees must not represent or imply that they are expressing the
opinion of the City.
•
Bloggers are personally responsible for the contents of their blogs. All
entries pertaining to the City should be accurate and truthful.
•
Blogs should be respectful, and not include any material that is intended to
embarrass, insult, demean or damage the reputation of the City, its
services, its citizens and/or its employees.
•
Bloggers should never disclose any confidential information concerning
the City and its operations.
Also, Carmel makes mention of a concept called “De Minimis Personal
Use.” The opening line to the section on De Minimis use is as follows:
“The City realizes that much of an employee’s personal communication
and many daily tasks are now accomplished via e-mail or the Internet,
and that the ability to dispose of routine personal tasks quickly and
18
easily may allow employees to concentrate more fully on their job
responsibilities.”
De Minimis, then, is a concept that accounts for the efficiency that
emerging technologies bring to the work environment and thus affords a certain
level of discretion in using these same technologies for personal matters in a
manner that is so insignificant and fast, that it does not adversely effect the ability
of an employee to complete his or her work.
The latest revision of the employee handbook was July 2010.
Terre Haute
Terre Haute was unique in that its policy manual technology section
actually referenced an entirely different document called the “Electronic
Communications System Policy” to be provided to newly hired employees as part
of the hiring process. The policy is actually a piece of the contract and is to be
signed by the prospective employee having fully read and understood the tenets
of the technology policy. Although the presence of a technology protocol policy in
any of these employee manuals inherently means that a new employee will have
read the manual and agreed to its entirety as a part of being hired, this was the
only technology policy to have a signature section devoted solely to its contents.
The “Electronic Communications System Policy” document is four pages
long, with 11 sections outlining different aspects of the policy. It begins with a
brief explanation of the expectation that all employees know and understand the
Electronic Communications System (ECS) policy, including the bolded phrase in
capital letters, “IT WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.” This is reinforced by three
19
separate mentions of the potential consequences of acting outside of the
constraints of the policy, up to and including termination.
Terre Haute’s ECS policy makes no specific mention of “social media” or
“social networking.” It does not mention any social networking sites by name (i.e.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.). It does however, allude to a common
understanding of the marginal amount of occasional personal use of technology,
similar to the “De Minimis” clause in the Carmel “Computer Technology” policy.
However, it does not bear the moniker of “De Minimis.” It reads as follows:
“Incidental and occasional personal use of the ECS is permitted,
subject to the restrictions contained in this policy. Any personal use
of the ECS is expected to be on the employee’s own time and is not
to interfere with the person’s job responsibilities. Personal use of the
ECS must not detrimentally affect the job responsibilities of other
employees, disrupt the system and/or harm the city’s reputation.”
The latest revision of the Terre Haute employee handbook was January
2011.
Fort Wayne
Under “Policy 612: City Technology,” in the subsection entitled
“Acceptable Use of City Technology Resources Policy & Management
Guidelines,” Fort Wayne addresses issues relating most closely to social media
and social networking technologies.
Fort Wayne is unique in expressing its concern for the “responsible use of
taxpayer dollars” as a primary factor in the purpose of the technology policy. It is
20
also unique in mentioning “technology resource users are deemed to have given
consent to this policy by their continued use of City technology resources.” So, in
contrast to Terre Haute’s policy, which was in and of itself a contract, Fort Wayne
is inferring that if a City employee is using City technology, then it is understood
that the employee is consenting to the policy just by virtue of their technology
use.
Fort Wayne is another policy with a “De Mimimus (occasional or
incidental)” clause. There are eight tenets of the “De Minimus” clause that are
outlined, which provide the limitations by which occasional or incidental use will
be measured. These tenets include adversely affecting individual’s performance
or impact on work time, restrictions on political activity, and the use of technology
to gain advantages that other citizens could not from the City.
The “De Minimus” section is followed by a subsection entitled
“Unacceptable uses of City technology resources.” This section sets the city of
Fort Wayne apart because in this section they specifically mention the term
“social networking.” Here is the exact context for their mentioning it:
“Posting personal messages on social networking websites,
[bolding not added] chat rooms, newsgroups, and messaging
services (e.g. MSN Messenger).
This is the extent of the specific mentioning of “social networking
websites” in Fort Wayne’s technology policy. There are no mentions of any social
networking websites by name, or any specific functions of social networking sites
that are prohibited, other than “posting personal messages.”
21
The “Unacceptable uses” section is by far the longest of its kind among
any of the analyzed government social media policies. There are 36 different
specifically cited instances wherein City employees could violate the social media
policy. These range from “misrepresenting or hiding” your identity while using
City technology, to “moving computer equipment,” to “using software that does
not have an obvious work related function.”
Also unique to Fort Wayne was a “Q&A” section, which is the final
component of the technology policy. It includes 13 sample questions about the
technology policy. Most of the sample inquiries are general in nature, but one
sample question had a specific tone that related back to the superfluous use of
the Internet during work hours for City employees. It is as follows:
Can I still check my personal Yahoo! e-mail account from
work?
Yes. Occasional, non-intrusive use of the Internet is permitted under
the policy. Specific business areas may, for business reasons,
create, publish and enforce a more stringent policy. (All exemptions
to the policy must be approved by the chief information officer or
designee before implemented.)
The last revision of the Fort Wayne employee handbook was January
2010.
Fishers
The final section of the Town of Fishers’ 47-page personnel manual is the
“Computer Usage Policy.” The section begins with a “Preamble” explaining the
22
purposes and background for having a computer usage policy for the Town. This
is followed by a short section on “Permitted Uses; No Expectation of Privacy.”
While several of the technology policies analyzed here have addressed
the issue of monitoring their employees’ computer usage, being able to review
email, file uploads and downloads and Internet history, no other city or town
besides Fishers addressed the issue of e-mail as a matter of public record.
Fishers dedicates a small section of their computer usage policy to remind
employees of “Indiana Open Door Laws (IC 5-14-1.5 and following),” which was
unique to Fishers. The policy also advised employees to print and retain any
important email interactions as they may be referenced in legal matters where
they are pertinent.
Also unique to Fishers was their brief section entitled “E-mail Etiquette,”
where they took time to coach employees on how to, or not to, write an e-mail.
An italicized portion of this section reminds employees to consider the
ramifications of e-mails sent in a hasty emotional response to someone else:
“Some people will send an angry e-mail message; one that they
would never say in person. Take a minute before you compose any
e-mail message. Be careful about the words you use and how you
use them. Remember - messages can be printed or forwarded.
Don’t write things you will regret later.”
Phrases that encompass the use of social media are laced throughout the
policy: “engaging in any publishing activity,” or “information from non-Town
sources such as the Internet,” are a couple of examples.
23
Fishers was the only town that provided an exception clause to the
accessing of personal, profane, obscene or pornographic sites. It is as follows:
Exception: In the course of an official investigation, it may be
necessary for members of the police crimes unit to visit and view
sites that are otherwise prohibited by this policy. Equipment used
for this purpose will be restricted to those systems specifically
documented by the Police Chief. Systems used for such
investigations will be identified by serial number and/or Town asset
tag number in writing to the Town Manager with copies to the
Information Technology Director. All other systems not so identified
and documented are subject to the provisions of this policy.
Fishers was also the only town to outline tiered consequences to
violations of the policy. Other towns/cities did say that the consequence for
violation was not necessarily immediate termination, but Fishers explicitly
established three tiers of punitive action to be taken by the Town against policy
violators:
1. Internet and e-mail access may be revoked;
2. Access times may be restricted
3. Disciplinary action and/ or termination
There was no explicit mentioning of “social media” or “social networking,”
nor were there any specific names of social networking tools mentioned (i.e.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.).
24
The latest revision to the Town of Fishers technology policy was March
2011.
Universities
As of the writing of this paper, five major universities in Indiana have
“social media policies.” However, there is little to no continuity between them,
mostly due to the intended audience of each policy. Some of these policies are
intended for students, some for faculty/staff of the university. Regardless of
intended audience, their content is analyzed here in order to create a holistic
picture of what universities are saying about their use of social media.
University of Southern Indiana
The University of Southern Indiana (USI) social media policy begins with
the line, “USI encourages the University community to be actively involved with
social media.” What follows is both a policy and a guide, providing “how to’s,” as
well as guidelines for what to do and not to do with university social media.
This policy/guide is web-based, and is not available in a PDF, or otherwise
documented format. This policy addresses both faculty/staff of the university as
well as students interested in making a social media channel to represent their
respective group or organization, but only university or organizationally affiliated
social media channels.
“The USI Social Media Policy applies only to social media accounts
created to represent University of Southern Indiana groups,
departments, programs, entities, etc., and does not apply to private
individual accounts.”
25
The university does not intend, at least from this document, to have their
hand in employee’s personal social media accounts. However, if a social media
channel is to be opened that is going to represent USI, it requires two things:
1. Prior approval of the Marketing and Communications department of the
university, and
2. At least two USI staff members to function as administrators overseeing
the activity of all approved social media channels. This is to “ensure
continuity” between channels.
The policy also outlines the procedure to follow for employees who leave
their post as administrators of said social media accounts. They are responsible
for replacing themselves upon stepping down from their responsibilities.
The policy provides coaching on how to effectively monitor discussions
that occur on university social media channels. It provides the protocol for
handling dissenting opinions or slanderous feedback that could have an adverse
effect on the university’s reputation. It also advises to qualify when any opinions
are being shared on over the social media channels to carefully state that they
are “not necessarily that of the university.”
This social media policy mentions several major social networking sites by
name: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn. It also provides links to all of
these pages. They provide links to all currently approved and active university
social media channels. As of the content analysis there are 37 active, university
approved Facebook fan pages, and five active, university approved Twitter
26
accounts. USI also offers direct contact information to personnel in charge of
managing the approval of social media channels.
The University of Notre Dame
The University of Notre Dame (ND) social media policy begins with a
preamble positioning ND as a university, which recognizes “the importance of
open exchange and learning between the University of Notre Dame and its many
constituents” and sees emerging technologies like social media “as an important
arena for interaction and collaboration.”
The ND social media policy is web-based, and no PDF or otherwise
document-based format of the policy is readily available. There are three
clickable “tabs” under the heading of “social media policy:” Best practices,
definition and our sites.
“Best practices” is a list of current trends and tips for having an effective
social media presence. It is by no means a guideline, which social media will hold
sites affiliated with the university accountable.
“Definition” is simply ND’s working description of what exactly social media
is, which they say is “a variety of Web-based platforms, applications and
technologies that enable people to socially interact with one another online.”
The “our sites” tab has links to some currently approved social media sites
of the university. At the time of the content analysis, there are six sites listed: one
blog, one YouTube channel, one Facebook fan page, two Twitter accounts and
one Photoshelter account. ND indicated that there were other approved sites, but
did not link to them directly from their online social media policy page.
27
In terms of the scope of the parties who are subject to the social media
policy, ND says the following:
“The University of Notre Dame Social Media Policy only applies to
social media accounts created to represent University of Notre
Dame groups, departments, programs, etc. and does not apply to
private individual accounts.”
The site indicates that ND approves all university affiliated social media
channels through the Office of Public Affairs and Communications. This
department also serves as a resource for any questions about the maintenance
of university social media channels. It also lists protocols for obtaining university
images, icons and logos, as all visual elements of social media have to be
approved through the university.
Ball State University
Ball State University’s (BSU) introductory paragraph ends with a
summation of its purpose, which is “to enhance and protect personal and
professional reputations when participating in social media.”
With regard to this premise, BSU is the only university among the ones
analyzed that placed restrictions on individual, personal accounts of faculty/staff
of the university. Here is their rationale:
“Both in professional and institutional roles, employees need to
follow the same behavioral standards online as they would in real
life. The same laws, professional expectations, and guidelines for
interacting with students, parents, alumni, donors, media, and other
28
university constituents apply online as in the real world. Employees
are liable for anything they post to social media sites.”
The following section entitled “Policies for All Social Media Sites, Including
Personal Sites,” reminds employees of standard operating procedure regarding
proprietary and confidential information, copyright and fair use, and following
terms of service. However, among these policies that is the a prohibition of using
the “Ball State logo or any other university images or iconography on personal
social media sites.” This was another element unique to BSU. It was not made
explicitly clear, however, whether this policy restricted incidental use of the logo
or iconography by virtue of their appearance in the background of a picture or on
a university shirt worn in a picture.
BSU also offers a working definition of social media as “ media designed
to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible
and scalable publishing techniques.” They mention several (Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, LinkedIn, and MySpace) by name to give examples.
The “Best Practices” section covers several of the same bases as the
other universities, but one thing that was unique to BSU was their emphasis on
photography accessibility in social media sites. BSU gave a dots per inch “dpi”
and resolution description to protect university social media channels from the
violation of intellectual property by way of printing university images.
While the “Best Practices” section was described as being “helpful for
anyone posting on social media in any capacity,” the final section in BSU’s social
media policy entitled “Institutional Social Media” contains a specific set of
29
“practices” that only apply to university social media. These include things like
protecting “the institutional voice” and acknowledging when sites are in fact
representing the university in their site’s content.
The Ball State University social media policy was updated on November
17, 2009, and was available in PDF format, was not strictly web-based.
Indiana State University
The tone of Indiana State University’s (ISU) social media policy is very
similar to that of University of Southern Indiana. It is a guideline for faculty/staff
and students who are interested in developing a social media presence that
represents the university in some capacity. It is not intended to be a regulation
piece for individual personal accounts for students or faculty/staff of the
university.
ISU aligns its development of online credibility to the four-step model used
by Barack Obama’s campaign in the 2008 United States presidential election:
1. Crawl: Establish an online presence.
2. Walk: Enrich the content.
3. Run: Engage People.
4. Fly: Embrace the concept of community.
ISU’s purpose in all of their social media “using today’s technology to
present the positive aspects of Indiana State University and open the lines of
communication.”
The overall tone of ISU’s policy/guide is lighthearted and engaging, using
subsection headings like “Oops! Did You Screw Up?” and “If It Gives You Pause,
30
Then Pause!” and “Oh Boy, Now You Did It!” Their guidelines read more like
pieces of advice than restrictions on any behavior. Each section heading is
hyperlinked at the top of the page, and below each section is a link that will send
you back to the top of the page if the reader intends to stop reading the policy
where they are and start again.
A unique element to ISU’s policy/guide was their specific coaching on how
to “tweet” (a 140-character microblog entry on the social networking site known
as Twitter). They gave in depth analysis of what makes a tweet a “valuable”
addition to the Twitter conversation, and even discouraged using abbreviations
like “lol” and “rotfl,” saying that these made tweets read like a “teenager’s text
message.” They also gave instruction on effective linking in tweets, to give
followers a place to go, a value added content boost to a university Twitter feed.
They even reference “tinyurl” and “bit.ly,” two websites whose sole purpose is to
shorten URLs to be placed in the body of a tweet.
There is no formal process outlined as a part of the policy/guide for
establishing university affiliated social media channels. However, at the bottom or
the policy there is an email contact established soliciting responses to the policy
itself and how it could be improved, updated or otherwise changed. ISU’s
policy/guide is entirely web-based and not available in PDF or otherwise
document-based format.
Indiana University School of Medicine
While a social media policy was not found for Indiana University at large,
there is an established social media policy specifically for the School of Medicine
31
at Indiana Univeristy (IUSM). It is formally titled “Guidelines for Use of Online
Social Networks for Medical Students and Physicians-in-Training.”
Many aspects of this social media policy make it unique because of the
legal implications of communications originating from medical practitioners, even
those in training. This is what the policy itself refers to as a “unique social
contract” which makes the public nature of the Internet a particularly
temperamental venue for medical mass communication. With this in mind, the
policy here applies to “all IUSM students and affiliated residents and fellows who
participate in social networking sites and online weblogs.”
Under the subheading of “Professionalism,” it is noted to IUSM students
“statements made by you within online networks will be treated as if you verbally
mad the statement in a public place.” This is a unique way of contextualizing the
basis on which IUSM will use online forms of communication as cause for
disciplinary action on its students.
Also, IUSM is unique in that it offers students a quotable, copy/paste
ready disclaimer to put on social media sites in order to protect both the student
and the university:
“The posts on this site are my own and do not necessarily
represent the IU School of Medicine’s positions, strategies, or
opinions.”
Under the subsection “Privacy,” IUSM makes reference to the practice of
“tagging” photos (a practice almost exclusively associated with the interface of
Facebook, though IUSM does not mention Facebook by name in this section).
32
“Others may post photos of you, and may “tag” you in each of the
photos. It is your responsibility to make sure that these photos are
appropriate and are not embarrassing or professionally
compromising. It is wise to “untag” yourself from any photos as a
general rule, and to refrain from tagging others unless you have
explicit permission from them to do so.”
This reference to the practice of “tagging” photos is exclusive to IUSM among
Indiana Universities. No other university gets as granular with its description of
the protocols of Facebook photo sharing.
The final line of the social media policy for IUSM encourages students and
physicians-in-training to “Refrain from accessing personal social networking sites
while at work or in clinical work areas.” This social media policy was in a PDF
format, and was not web-based.
Section V
Discussion
There are 12 different policies analyzed with great depth in this study. No
two among them are even remotely similar regarding issues of social media. The
local government technology policies had similarities in their approach to the
legalities involving things like email as a matter of public record, issues of
intellectual property, and privacy protection. However, when it came to any
matter of social media, there was little-to-no evidence that the writers of the
policy regarded that as anything more than an extension of email communication.
These local government policies feel outdated, but most of them were revised
and updated within the last two years, so it’s not as if the technologies weren’t
around for them to make necessary policy statements that include them. Not one
local government mentioned any social media platform by name. Attributes and
functionality may have been alluded to in a few (not the majority), but even within
those, no local governments said anything about Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
LinkedIn or MySpace directly.
These discrepancies beg the question: “Where is local government on the
scale of preparedness regarding social media?” It seems that towns like Carmel
and Fishers that have been most recently updated, seem to take more notice of
34
social networking technologies with Carmel’s section devoted to personal blogs
and Carmel’s (among other towns) “De Minimis” policy. There is certainly some
level of understanding of the rapid emergence of efficient means of technological
communication there, but to what degree? Is there a level of regulation than can
encompass the rapid rate of innovation and stay relevant from one year to the
next? Perhaps this is why some of the most recent (as recent as less than two
months ago) policies still don’t mention social networking tools by name: there is
a fear that it will be outdated before it is even enforceable.
The inconsistencies continue at the university level. While universities
seem to be more universally aware of social networking technologies, all of their
points of emphasis seem to spread in different directions. Some are concerned
with consistency in branding and imaging, others seem to just be getting their
social media efforts off the ground. While in some cases, like Ball State
University, social media has become a pervasive enough matter that there are
stringent regulations in place to protect the university and its employees from
falling victim to unpreparedness or inappropriate activities regarding social
media.
So the fundamental question for both universities and local governments
is: Is anyone getting it right? Who is more forward thinking, Ball State with its
strict regulation of social media among employees, or Indiana State with its more
advice-based coaching on how to establish a credible social media presence?
Who is in better shape to defend itself against employee use of social media,
Carmel with its page-long litany of regulations on personal employee blogs or
35
Evansville whose entire policy is five sentences that basically gives them the
subjective right to judge the severity of anyone’s “non-business related” use of
computer technology and take punitive action?
The holes present in the current academic literature regarding the
development of social media policies for organizations, along with the distinct
questions raised by the research conducted here, are the groundwork for an
even more in depth study into the future of social media policy making.
36
Section VI
References
Affe, Robert B. "The Contributions of Net News to Cyber Democracy: Civi Affordances
of Major Metropolitan Newspaper Sites." Internet Newspapers Making of a
Mainstream Medium. By Erik P. Bucy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2005. 227-42. Print.
Albrecht, Steffen. "Whose Voice Is Heard in Online Deliberation? - A Study of
Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the
Internet." Information, Communication, & Society9.1 (2006): 62-82. Print.
American Press Institute. "Introduction to Participatory Journalism." The Media Center.
Print.
Anderson, Rob, Robert Dardenne, and George Killenburg. The Conversation of
Journalism. Communication, Community, and News. Westport: Praeger, 1994.
Print.
Beers, David. "The Public Sphere and Online, Independent Journalism." Canadian
Journal of Education 29.1 (2006): 109-30. Print.
Ben-Ari, Ella. "Twitter: What's All the Chirping About?" BioScience 59.7 (2009): 632.
Print.
Benkler, Yochai. Wealth of Networks How Social Production Transforms Markets and
Freedom. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print.
37
Berger, Guy. "How the Internet Impacts on International News: Exploring Paradoxes of
the Most Global Medium in a Time of 'Hyperlocalism'" International
Communication Gazette 71.5 (2009): 355-71. Print.
Bird, S. Elizabeth. "The Future of Journalism in the Digital
Environment." Journalism 10.3 (2009): 293-95. Print.
Blanco, James S. "Social Networking and Cloud Computing: Precarious Affordances for
the "Prosumer"" Women's Studies Quarterly 37.1 & 2 (2009): 303-12. Print.
Blumler, Jay G., and Elihu Katz. The Uses of Mass Communications: Current
Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Vol. 803904940. Sage, 1974. Print.
Booch, Grady. "Software Abundance in the Face of Economic Scarcity, Part 1." IEEE
Software (2009): 12-14. Print.
Boyd, Danah M., and Nicole B. Ellison. "Social Networking Sites: Definition, History and
Scholarship." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008): 210-30.
Buckner, Jennie, and Michael Gartner. "Public Journalism in the 1996
Elections." Assessing Public Journalism. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1998.
223-50. Print.
Bucy, Erik P., Annie Lang, Robert F. Potter, and Maria E. Grabe. "Formal Features of
Cyberspace: Relationships between Web Page Complexity and Site
Traffic." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50.13 (1999):
1246-256. Print.
Carey, James W. "The Internet and the End of the National Communication System:
Uncertain Predictions of an Uncertain Future." Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 75.1 (1998): 28-34. Print.
Carlson, Matt. "Dueling, Dancing, or Dominating? Journalists and Their
Sources." Sociology Compass 3.4 (2009): 526-42. Print.
38
Carpenter, Serena. "How Online Citizen Journalism Publications and Online
Newspapers Utilize the Objectivity Standard and Rely on External
Sources." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85.3 (2008): 531-48.
Print.
Cassidy, William P. "Gatekeeping Similar for Online, Print Journalists." Newspaper
Research Journal 27.2 (2006): 6-23. Print.
Cassidy, William P. "Variations on a Theme: The Professional Role Conceptions of Print
and Online Newspaper Journalists." Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly 82.2 (2005): 264-80. Print.
Cayanus, Jacob L. "Effective Instructional Practice: Using Teacher Self-disclosure as an
Instructional Tool." Communication Teacher 18, no. 1 (2004): 6-9.
doi:10.1080/1740462032000142095.
Chadwick, Andrew. "The Electronic Face of Government in the Internet Age - Borrowing
from Murray Edelman." Information, Communication, & Society 4, no. 3 (2001):
435-57.
Chan-Olmsted, Sylvia M. "From On-Air To Online World: Examining the Content and
Structures of Broadcast TV Stations' Web Sites." Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 77.2 (2000): 321-39. Print.
Charity, Arthur. Doing Public Journalism. New York: Guilford, 1995. Print.
Chu, Donna. "Collective Behavior in YouTube: A Case Study of "Bus Uncle" Online
Videos." Asian Journal of Communication 19.3 (2009): 337-53. Print.
Chung, Deborah S., and Seungahn Nah. "The Effects of Interactive News Presentation
on Percieved User Satisfaction of Online Community Newspapers." Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 14.4 (2009): 855-74. Print.
39
"Citizen Media." Journalism.org- The State of the News Media 2009. Web. 17 Dec.
2009.
<http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/narrative_online_citizen_media.asp?cat=8
&media=4>.
Cohen, Elisia L. "Online Journalism as Market-Driven Journalism." Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46.4 (2002): 532-48. Print.
Coleman, Renita, and Maxwell McCombs. "The Young and Agenda-less? Exploring
Age-related Differences in Agenda Setting on the Youngest Generation, Baby
Boomers, and the Civic Generation." Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly 84.3 (2009): 495-508. Print.
Cooper, Thomas W. "New Technology Effects Inventory: Forty Leading Ethical
Issues." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13.2 (1998): 71-92. Print.
Daly, Chris. "The Historiography of Journalism History: Part 2: "Toward a New
Theory"" American Journalism (2009): 148-55. Print.
Davis, Steve. "Presidential Campaigns Fine-tune Online Strategies." Journalism
Studies 6.2 (2005): 241-44. Print.
Debatin, Bernhard, Jennette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn, and Brittany N. Hughes.
"Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended
Consequences." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2009): 83108.
Dennis, Everette E. "Television's Convergence Conundrum." Television Quarterly: 2226. Print.
Deuze, Mark, Axel Bruns, and Christoph Neuberger. "Preparing for an Age of
Participatory News." Journalism Practice 1.3 (2007). Print.
40
Deuze, Mark. "The Web and Its Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of
Different Types of Newsmedia Online." New Media & Society 5.2 (2003): 203-30.
Print.
Dominick, Joseph R. "Who Do You Think You Are? Personal Home Pages and SelfPresentation on the World Wide Web." Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly 76, no. 4 (1999): 646-58.
Duman, Steve, and Miriam A. Locher. "So Let's Talk. Let's Chat. Let's Start a Dialogue':
An Analysis of the Conversation Metaphor Employed in Clinton's and Obama's
YouTube Campaign Clips." Multilingua 27 (2008): 193-230. Print.
Dupagne, Michel, and Bruce Garrison. "The Meaning and Influence of Convergence - A
Qualititative Case Study of Newsroom Work at the Tampa News
Center." Journalism Studies 7.2 (2006). Print.
Elderkin, Kenton W. Future of the Newspaper Industry How Electronic Newspapers Will
Outrun Their Competition. Mansfield, OH: Elderkin Associates, 1996. Print.
Farhi, Paul. "The Twitter Explosion." American Journalism Review 31.3 (2009): 26-31.
Print.
Fathi, Sandra. "From Generating Awareness to Managing Reputations: Why Your
Company Needs to Twitter." Public Relations Tactics 15.10 (2008): 16. Print.
Garrett, R. Kelly, and James N. Danziger. "IM = Interruption Management? Instant
Messaging and Disruption in the Workplace." Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 13, no. 1 (2008): 23-42. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00384.x.
Grabe, Maria E., Rasha Kamhawl, and Narine Yegiyan. "Informing Citizens: How
People with Different Levels of Education Process Television, Newspaper, and
Web News." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53.1 (2009): 90-111.
Print.
41
Greer, Jennifer D., and Donica Mensing. "The Evolution of Online Newspapers: A
Longitudinal Content Analysis, 1997-2003." Newspaper Research Journal 25.2
(2004): 98-112. Print.
Grunig, James E. "Furnishing the Edifice: Ongoing Research on Public Relations as a
Strategic Management Function." Journal of Public Relations Research 18, no. 2
(2006): 151-76.
Gunter, Barrie, Vincent Campbell, Maria Touri, and Rachel Gibson. "Blogs, News, and
Credibility." Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 61.2 (2009): 185204. Print.
Haas, Tanni. Pursuit of Public Journalism Theory, Practice, and Criticism. New York:
Routledge, 2007. Print.
Haas, Tanni. "Research Note - Alternative Media, Public Journalism, and the Pursuit of
Democratization." Journalism Studies 5.1 (2004): 115-21. Print.
Herring, Debbie. "Virtual as Contextual: A Net News Theology." In Religion and
Cyberspace, 149-65. London: Routledge, 2005.
Hichigian, Nina. "The Internet and Power in One-Party East Asian States." The
Washington Quarterly 25.3 (2002): 41-58. Print.
Hoffman, Lindsay H. "Is Internet Content Different After All? A Content Analysis of
Mobilizing Information in Online and Print Newspapers." Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly83.1 (2006): 58-76. Print.
Ibrahim, Yasmin. "The New Risk Communities: Social Networking Sites and
Risk." International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 4, no. 2 (2008): 245-53.
42
Jansen, Bernard J., Mimi Zhang, Kate Sobel, and Adbur Chowdur. "Twitter Power:
Tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth." Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 60.11 (2009): 2170-188. Print.
Kattner, Therese. "Social Media in Recruiting and Retention: What One University Has
Learned." Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education 24, no. 8 (2010): 1-6.
Langlois, Ganaele, Greg Elmer, Fenwick McKelvey, and Zachary Devereaux.
"Networked Publics: The Double Articulation of Code and Politics on
Facebook." Canadian Journal of Education 34 (2009): 415-34. Print.
Lariscy, Ruthann W., Elizabeth J. Avery, Kaye D. Sweetser, and Pauline Howes. "An
Examination of the Role of Online Social Media in Journalists' Source
Mix." Public Relations Review 35 (2009): 314-16. Print.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics II: Channels of Group Life; Social
Planning and Action Research. Human Relations, 1, 143-153.
Lewis, Seth C. "Where Young Adults Intend To Get News In Five Years." Newspaper
Research Journal 29.4 (2008): 36-40. Print.
Lipton, Jacqueline D. "From Domain Names to Video Games: The Rise of the Internet in
Presidential Politics." Denver University Law Review 86 (2009).
Lowrey, Wilson, and Jenn B. Mackay. "Journalism and Blogging: A Test of a Model of
Occupational Competition." Journalism Practice 2.1 (2008): 64-81. Print.
Mazur, Kevin. "Bloggers as Actors in International Affairs?" SAIS Review 29.1 (2009):
99-100. Print.
43
Mazer, Joseph P., Richard E. Murphy, and Cheri J. Simonds. "I'll See You On
“Facebook”: The Effects of Computer-Mediated Teacher Self-Disclosure on
Student Motivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom ClimateThis Project Was
Funded in Part by a Teaching-Learning Development Grant from the Center for
Teaching, Learning, and Technology at Illinois State University." Communication
Education 56, no. 1 (2007): 1-17. doi:10.1080/03634520601009710.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media." Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (1972): 176-87. Print.
McKenzie, Ann B. "What About Social Networking?" The Journal of Continuing
Education in Nursing 40.10 (2009): 436-37. Print.
McNab, Christine. "What Social Media Offers to Health Professionals and Citizens." Bull
World Health Organ 87 (2009): 566. Print.
Miller, Ron. "Can 20th-Century News Survive in a Digital World?" Econtent (2009): 2227. Print.
Pavlik, John. "The Impact of Technology on Journalism." Journalism Studies 1.2 (2000):
229-37. Print.
Podger, Pamela J. "Limits of Control." American Journalism Review, 2009, 32-37.
Richard, Davis,. Web of Politics the Internet's Impact on the American Political System.
New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
Rieder, Rem. "What's News The Internet Era Old News and New
Bottles." Press/Politics 5.3 (2000): 111-13. Print.
Robinson, Sue. "Someone's Gotta Be in Control Here: The Institutionalization of Online
News and the Creation of a Shared Journalistic Authority." Journalism
Practice 1.3 (2007): 305-21. Print.
44
Schultz, Tanjev. "Interactive Options in Online Journalism: a Content Analysis of 100
U.S. Newspapers." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 5.1 (1999).
Sept. 1999. Web. 10 Dec. 2009.
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu.proxy.bsu.edu/vol5/issue1/schultz.html#Concept%20of%
20Interactivity>.
Singer, Jane B. "The Metro Wide Web: Changes in Newspapers' Gatekeeping Role
Online." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 78.1 (2001): 65-80. Print.
Singer, Jane B. "Campaign Contributions: Online Newspaper Coverage of Election
2000." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80, No. 1 (2003): 39-56.
Sutton, Jeannette N. "Social Media Monitoring and the Democratic National Conventio:
New Tasks and Emergent Processes." Journal of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management 6.1 (2009): 2-20. Print.
Sweetser, Kaye D., Lance V. Porter, Deborah S. Chung, and Eunseong Kim. "Credibility
and the Use of Blogs Among Professionals in the Communication
Industry." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85.1 (2008): 169-85.
Print.
Urista, Mark A., Qingwen Dong, and Kenneth D. Day. "Explaining Why Young Adults
Use MySpace and Facebook Through Uses and Gratifications Theory." Human
Communication 12.2 (2008): 215-29. Print.
Valenzuela, Sebastian, and Kerk F. Kee. "Is There Social Capital in a Social Network
Site?: Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and
Participation." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009): 875901. Print.
45
Vorvoreanu, Mihaela. "Perceptions of Corporations on Facebook: An Analysis of
Facebook Social Norms." Journal of New Communications Research 4, no. 1
(2009): 67-86.
Ward, Mike. Journalism Online. Oxford: Focal, 2001. Print.
Waldeck, Jennifer H., Patricia Kearney, and Timothy G. Plax. "Teacher E-mail Message
Strategies and Students' Willingness to Communicate Online." Journal of Applied
Communication Research 29, no. 1 (2001): 54-70.
Williams, Andrew P., Kaye D. Trammell, Monica Postelnicu, Kristen D. Landreville, and
Justin D. Martin. "Blogging and Hyperlinking: Use of the Web to Enhance Viability
During the 2004 US Campaign." Journalism Studies 6.2 (2005): 177-86. Print.