Learning from others mistakes: how social media etiquette distorts informal learning online
Nicola Osborne
EDINA, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
nicola.osborne@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
Informal learning and information exchange form an important part of interactions between
professionals in social media spaces but these spaces also trigger complex performances of self
(Goffman 1959, Barbour and Marshall 2012). This paper, drawing upon research investigating the
nature and efficacy of collaborative learning between professional participants within social media
spaces, expands upon key findings on the roles of self-presentation, and emerging etiquette practices
around peer correction. In particular the reported practice of public error addressed by private
correction
is
examined
as
an
important
but
dysfunctional
practice.
This work draws upon Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and concept of scaffolded learning,
and theories of learning through Affinity Spaces. The work is also informed by the researcher’s
professional role working with social media and advising on best professional practice in these
spaces. The research presented sits within the wider context of emerging research into the changing
role of social media in everyday life, including work by danah boyd, Mimi Ito, and Christine Greenhow
examining
the
cultural
and
educational
impact
of
social
media
technologies.
The underlying research was conducted as part of a masters dissertation project. Two forms of
research data collection took place: self-completion online questionnaires completed by volunteer
participants (n=44) in October 2011; and follow-up interviews (n=4) conducted using Skype Chat in
February 2012. Volunteer recruitment was through convenience sampling of social media channels,
predominantly
Twitter.
The research finds that trust and safety are crucial factors in emerging scaffolding practices, with
individuals constructing personal rules and etiquette for dealing with the challenges of social media
such as blurred identities. However, issues are identified with a particular focus on the problematic
emerging practice of providing private steers and corrections arising from public discussions.
Keywords: social media, informal learning, vicarious learning, Continuing Professional Development,
social
media
ettiquette
1 Introduction
Anecdotal evidence suggests that social media are effective as peer learning communities and are
increasingly useful tools in continuous professional development (CPD). This paper develops key
findings around public and private discourse and correction drawn from research, conducted as part
of a masters dissertation project (Osborne 2012a) in late 2011 and early 2012, which sought to
investigate the under-explored area of the nature and efficacy of informal learning between
professional participants within collaborative social media spaces.
This research has been particularly influenced by the concept of Scaffolded Learning. In Vygotsky’s
(1978) “Zone of Proximal Development” the learner must be ready and able to progress, and they
must be willing and able to use the “scaffold” they are provided with. The scaffold - which might be a
steer, new information, advice or similar enabling information - is provided for the learner’s
development but there is no requirement that the learner make use of it. Vygotsky regards the
individual learner and their provider of scaffolding as having agency in an individualised learning
process.
This model resonates with the unstructured nature of informal learning mechanisms (as defined by,
for instance, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 2008) and with the place CPD
occupies in many professionals’ lives: opportunities may be provided but it is up to the individual
(Friedman, Hurran and Durkin 1999) to exploit these and ensure that they make relevant and
beneficial use of what they learn.
2 Methodology
Two research questions were identified to investigate how collaborative learning takes place amongst
professional peers in social media spaces, this paper focuses on findings associated with the first of
these:
What roles do scaffolded learning (Vygotsky 1978) and mentoring play in informal learning
practice in social media spaces?
Two types of data were collected (i) self-completion questionnaires (n=44); (ii) follow up interviews
with participants (n=4).
2.1 Self-Completion Questionnaire
A self-completion questionnaire was designed to investigate how participants use and define their
own learning process and experience in social media spaces, using multiple-choice and open-ended
questions. An initial pilot of the questionnaire took place, and modifications made. The final
questionnaire (Osborne 2012a: Appendix II), delivered via Bristol Online Survey, proposed seventeen
questions about social media and informal learning in continuous professional development contexts.
These questions were accompanied by four demographic questions and a request to indicated
willingness to participate in follow-up interviews.
Prior to completing the research questionnaire participants were asked to read and complete a
consent form (Osborne 2012a: Appendix I) which required them to confirm that they were social
media users as the intended focus was on learning processes and interactions among a wide range
of social media users, rather than to draw comparisons between users and non-users.
2.2 Interviews
After initial analysis of questionnaires potential interviewees were identified from those who had
responded positively (n=20) to the request for interview volunteers. Six potential interviewees,
representing a range of views and practices, were identified and approached, with in-depth interviews
(n=4) taking place between 9th and 13th February 2012. Skype Chat was selected as the
environment for interviews as this instant messenger or private chat room-like space, mirrors the
online and primarily text-based nature of social media.
Interview schedules were prepared consisting of 6 standard questions with prompts (Osborne 2012a:
Appendix IV), with additional questions and prompts for each interviewee based on their own
questionnaire responses. Interviews were scheduled for 60-90 minutes, though most took 2 hours to
complete.
2.3 Participant Recruitment
Participants were initially recruited through convenience sampling of my own extended personal and
professional social networks. The questionnaire was launched on Monday 17th October 2011 and
initially distributed through my own presences on three social media spaces, Twitter, Facebook and
Google+.
Figure 1: Tweet sent out to recruit potential research participants. Similar messages were shared via
Facebook and Google+.
The request for participation was swiftly re-shared through extended networks resulting in 79
attempted completions and 36 completed questionnaires two days after launch, easily exceeding the
target of 20 responses. The questionnaire closed on 9th December 2011 by which time a total of 47
questionnaires had been completed with a further 51 incomplete questionnaire attempts. Three
questionnaires were omitted from analysis due to incomplete consent forms; findings presented are
therefore based upon 44 responses.
2.3.1 Features and limitations of volunteer recruitment
Recruiting volunteer participants through such a personal route does risk gathering a more limited
variety of opinion (Rosenthal and Rosnow 1975). This was reflected in the difficulty of identifying
suitable volunteers providing more skeptical or negative views in this self-selecting process. One
interviewee, who was one of very few participants with skeptical views, unfortunately withdrew from
the process during the interview stage. However, one of the benefits of such a transparent recruitment
process was that participants offered feedback on the questionnaire itself, providing insightful
commentary on the relatively high incompletion rate, such as concern over the length of the
questionnaire.
2.4 Data Analysis
Initial analysis and cross-tabulation of questionnaire data took place in Bristol Online Survey (BOS).
Short form textual responses were then exported, anonymised, normalised, and analysed using (i)
Excel and Wordle, for illustrative overviews and (ii) SPSS for further exploration through crosstabulation of multiple variables and running of Chi-Square tests for significance.
Long form textual answers were explored through more manual processes. Responses were copied
into the Voodoo Pad wiki application. They were manually analysed for common themes and
clustered as sub-pages. This process, informed by the questioning and exploratory concept of
“interactive reading” (Dey 1994) allowed key concepts and trends to emerge from this large text
corpus and then be clustered and refined into specific findings. The method revealed trends that had
not been previously apparent in reading individual responses, and allowed interview transcripts to be
reexamined for comparison, particularly around confirmation of trends, contrasting viewpoints,
additional context and explanation.
Interview transcripts were anonymized, then analysed with DeDoose, a web-based qualitative dataencoding tool. Broad themes were identified in a first round of analysis, with notes taken by the
researcher during interviews used as a source of initial codings. Once coded a second parse took
place to ensure consistency. A further reflexive parse of the transcripts was made with particular
consideration of the concept of “transposing data” (Dey 1999), interrogating the “what ifs” of the
questioning process. Finally extracts from the transcripts were analysed with the Voyant text analysis
tool to further interrogate and visualise the most popular or significant terms in texts - particularly
clusters of quotes around particular trends (see Fig. 2).
Figure 2: Screen capture of the Voyant Tools analysis of comments from questionnaires tagged as
relating to “dysfunctional learning”.
3 Findings
Participants were asked to indicate the frequency and type of usage they made of social media and
indicated that they were highly engaged: the majority (91%) reported that they use social media tools
more than once a day, with no participants reporting use of social media fewer than several times a
week. Asked whether they found, through social media, information and links to resources that are
useful in their professional life: 43 of the 44 participants indicated that they did. Given the amount of
time and energy participants are investing in interactions in these spaces in professional contexts it is
perhaps not surprising that complex forms of etiquette are emerging,
3.1 Risk and reputation in public spaces online
Researcher: Do you use Facebook?
Kate: Yes, but only with a gun to my head!
The idea of different spaces being used for different groups or functions was voiced repeatedly
throughout both questionnaires and interviews. Some social media sites were characterised strongly
as working spaces, others were consistently seen as purely social spaces. This segmentation may
reflect attempts to manage and differentiate multiple performances of identity (Goffman 1959) with
tensions occurring, for some participants, around potential blurring of these identities.
For some participants segmentation of social media spaces was a conscious process, as exemplified
by Robin:
Robin: Employers who don't allow social media in the workspace are shooting themselves in
the foot. I don't mean Facebook, which should be kept for personal interactions with family,
but Twitter and Linked in are more important now than email.
Segmentation of particular identities or personas to fit the audiences and expectations of particular
social media spaces seemed to be a deliberate strategy employed by a number of participants in this
research. They report adopting a number of similar but differing personas (akin to the postmodern
selves discussed in Usher, Bryant, and Johnston, 1997), perhaps an informal and social “facebook
self” that is distinct from another semi-professional “twitter self” that they adopt at other times.
Participants who reported this type of practice framed it in discussions of privacy, of personal space,
of managing their identity for the appropriate audience.
Barbour and Marshall (2012), in their examination of the online presences of individual professionals
within the “prestige economy” of academia, define five academic persona - the formal self, the public
self, the comprehensive self, the teaching self, and the uncontainable self. Each persona reflects
varying levels of self-awareness and interest in presenting a professional personal brand online.
This performative aspect, which can be a source of significant anxiety (e.g. Ball 2003), is particularly
interesting in the context of social media where authority is as likely to be established through actions
and contribution as by markers retained from the real world (name, role, institutional affiliation, etc.).
The stakes for such identity performances can be high with several, mainly freelance, participants
talking about the positive impact of social media for finding or authenticating skills and of this leading
to new paid work.
However, the idea of segmenting spaces and identities in this way was not universal. Many
participants, perhaps as a result of accessing social media frequently and in multiple contexts through
mobile devices (see Ofcom 2012, Turkle 2008, Turkle 2012), reported on the benefits of blurring their
professional and personal identities. Laura, who engages with close colleagues, her professional
body and friends via social media, reflected that:
Laura: “If I know someone in a friendly capacity as well as in a professional one, I'm probably
more likely to be interested in what they're doing and what projects they're sharing”
Laura’s comments reflect those of number of participants who saw blurred identities as providing
greater opportunity for serendipitous discovery, gateways to diversifying and improving relationships
with peers, mentors, etc. Laura’s sense of building up a more holistic and engaging picture of people
within her network also connects to one of the strongest themes emerging from questionnaire and
interview responses: the central role that trust and a sense of safety play in learning that takes place
within social media spaces.
3.2 Scaffolding and correction practices
Rosemary: …if I go out and look for it the information is there or comes to me. People are
sending this information out to everyone obviously not just me. I have discussed subjects with
other professionals and gained great insight which again are discussions I've instigated rather
than a specific forum as such.
As Rosemary articulates, the idea of using a social media community (no matter how ad hoc) as a goto space for information and support around professional interests begins to confirm social media as a
space where peer learning and scaffolding takes place.
The questionnaire sought evidence of scaffolded learning dynamics or behaviours through a series of
questions on correction and steers. These seemed the most definable moments of scaffolding as the
intervention of a corrective comment or steer can be seen as an attempt to guide or support the
learner in their own learning process. The responses seem to confirm that such scaffolding actions do
take place. Half of all questionnaire participants reported having been corrected in a social media
space, with men more likely than women to report being corrected in a social media space (Table 1).
Notably over 60% of participants indicated that they had themselves offered advice to steer or correct
a peer and almost 80% of participants reported having observed others being advised or corrected in
social media.
Table 1: Responses to question 18(a) “Have you ever been
tabulated with gender.
18.a. Have
you ever been Female
Male
corrected in a social media (n=29)
(n=14)
space?
Yes
11 (38%)
10 (71%)
No
14 (48%)
3 (21%)
Other
3 (10%)
0 (0%)
No Answer
1 (3%)
1 (7%)
Totals
29
14
(100%)
(100%)
corrected in a social media space” cross
Prefer not
to
say
(n=1)
1 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (100%)
Totals
22 (50%)
17 (39%)
3 (7%)
2 (5%)
44
(100%)
These multiple-choice responses were supported by qualitative questionnaire and interview data. In
these responses a significant trend of private correction to public error emerged.
3.3 Trust and shared gifts
A sense of trust, and the safety to take small risks without significant detrimental consequences, is
central to learning, particularly in an online context (e.g. Edmondson 1999, Anderson 2008) and this
was reflected in questionnaire and interview responses.
When considering what might be unique or special about social media several respondents pointed to
an increased sense of trust. Robin, describes how this feels as a user of these spaces for learning:
Robin: The interactions are surprisingly intimate and revealing about people's personalities,
sometimes almost like reading another person's mind. Oddly, there is often a greater feeling
of trust among strangers. Trust and generosity.
Robin’s increased sense of trust was also reflected in many others’ responses. However, in their
excellent review and synthesis of the literature around identity, belonging and learning processes in
(formal) online education Delahunty, Verenikina and Jones (2013) highlight the complexities of
negotiating identity and relationships online. This something that was also reflected here, for instance
one participant described the sense of vulnerability she felt in a dysfunctional “affinity space” where
an absence of trust discouraged shared learning or dialogue:
Shirley: Flame wars started all of the time on the pregnancy forum I was on and I think that
having spent many, many hours watching that happen has made me wary of ever doing such
things in a public space where people can easily feel personally attacked. It's always best to
take things off privately if you really need to.
Trust thus plays a crucial role in participation and the possibilities of learning and engaging in
dialogue in social media spaces, whether positively through its presence in safe spaces for learning
and discussion, or through the negative impact a lack of trust can have.
3.4 The dysfunctional etiquette of public and private correction
Participants reported very mixed experiences of scaffolding interventions, particularly commenting on
the impact of corrections made in public. Ray, Vicky and Maggie all note discomfort with the potential
for loss of face or reputation:
Ray: It’s ok as long as you are not criticising people in public. Just stating points of view and
facts is ok.
Vicky: I try and do it gently - more of a 'hey have you seen this link' rather than a direct 'you
are wrong' particularly on a public wall.
Research Questionnaire: Have you ever been corrected in a social media space? How was
it?
Maggie: Embarrassing - the same way that being corrected in a meeting or in a classroom
would be
These responses sit within the context of participants describing social media as relatively permanent
and scrutinised spaces. The increasing newsworthiness of apparently trivial social-media stories (e.g.
Bloxham 2012, BBC 2012a, etc.) that elevate the content of individual tweets or blog posts to national
news items may be reinforcing this perception that social media is a permanent and high stakes
space for participation, as may the increasing use of social media policies and guidelines in the
professional workplace (e.g. IBM 2005, 2008, 2010, BBC 2010 and 2012b, University of Essex 2012,
Osborne 2012b),
Discomfort with public correction is clearly not limited to concerns around permanence or surveillance
though. A number of participants reported their own steering and correction behaviours in ways that
indicated the empathetic nature of concerns around public correction. For instance James describes
his provocations to test the mood and expertise of his network of peers:
James: Actually sometimes I pose questions or assumptions I know are wrong just to see
how the crowdsource reaction goes. But it can be a occasionally a bit alarming to be told
you're wrong, especially if the teller is lacking in charm and diplomacy
Despite encouraging debate and disagreement James also voices his discomfort with public
correction. This is also reflected in Abby’s response to being asked if she had ever offered advice to
steer or correct a peer:
Abby: yes, I did, and they indicated agreement - but I felt badly and wondered if they felt i was
being mean
This empathetic concern for reputation of both the individual and their organisation was strongly and
repeatedly voiced. Many participants reported that their solution to avoiding damaging a peer’s
reputation, standing, or pride, was to provide a correction or steer, related to a public comment, in a
private space such as an email or a Direct Message[1].
Acts of private correction are a sensitive solution to the risk of loss of face or reputation, but they
create challenging issues. If misunderstandings or errors are made in public but corrections or steers
are being made in private then, whilst a constructive learning experience does take place for the
individuals privy to the private exchange, there is a risk that others present in the public space may
not benefit from that steer or correction. This is particularly problematic as many participants in this
research – and indeed many privacy campaigners - see social media as a relatively permanent
medium. This means that traces of learning exchanges and discussions may remain public and
accessible in the long term, but the version of record may be left in an inaccurate or problematic state
due to the absence of additional private steers, correction or advice that informed the original
exchanges.
Social media has a reputation, although disputed (e.g. Gladwell 2010), as a more transparent and
democratised space for discourse but fears of being publicly corrected – whether at the time of
posting or at a later date – and the practice of private correction denies much of the potential for
vicarious learning, for further peer support or for peer review of the information shared. Whilst a
publicly posted comment may be responded to or debated a private response cannot be scrutinised in
the same way.
4 Conclusions
Participants describe learning processes that are often centered around information objects and
virtual gifts of information or advice, and they describe discussion and both positive and negative
impacts of peer support and intervention.
The issue of private corrections in social media raises complex issues around the construction of
over-sanitised presentations of self, notions of trust and privacy online, and the impact of personal
practice on community wellbeing. Social media offers unique opportunities for informal and vicarious
learning, which may be compromised by emergent practices around scaffolding in the types of
informal CPD learning discussed here.
4.1 Areas for Further Research
Serendipitous learning and scaffolding moments require further examination.
Social media is a powerful source of information, for maintaining weak, strong or new connections. It
is also an infrastructure for using and building upon connections with shared interests. Prompts,
steers, corrections and similar opportunities do occur but their origins can be anarchic and, as such,
quality may vary. There also appear to be stronger opportunities within social media for individuals’
sense of confidence and identity to be threatened through dysfunctional peer behaviours. Further
work that examines the qualities of both productive and dysfunctional exchanges may be beneficial
for shaping future social media policy and professional best practice.
A learner-led form of on-demand scaffolding is emerging but it is not clear how reliable or robust this
is in practice.
In many cases participants reported identifying their own learning needs, identifying themselves as
being in a Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky 1978), and looking to the network for support in
learning further. This on-demand form of scaffolding is an extension of Vygotsky’s original vision.
Here the learner must be sufficiently self-aware and motivated enough to be, on some level, aware
that they are in a zone of proximal development, to share their interest, and only then may they
receive useful steers, correction, support to learn beyond their current knowledge.
It is less clear how a learner may be scaffolded if they are not aware of their own need for correction
or advice; nor how one may interpret the requests that go unanswered. Further analysis, both through
ethnographic and more systematic actor-network analysis, is required to better understand these
learning processes.
Scaffolding that does occur appears to be associated with complex blurrings of roles and expertise perhaps definable as the “Wikipedia effect” since knowledge on a small topic can (however briefly)
raise the individual to the level of expert. A peer or self-selecting instructor in these spaces need only
know enough on the right topics to offer useful scaffolding and support. They do not need a broader
body of knowledge as the complex array of strong, weak and potential ties in the network provide
many opportunities to receive expertise on a wider number of topics and at a range of levels. The
system therefore seems to be one of self-advertising learners benefitting from on-demand scaffolding
by their peers, mentors, and notable others in their field. Further understanding of these behaviours,
particularly what motivates those who do support peers in these spaces, would be beneficial.
Etiquette around CPD and social media and assessments of trust need to be better understood.
Emerging etiquette in social media spaces, as reported by participants in this research, appears to
include an “err in public, be corrected in private” model, which is potentially threatening to productive
learning encounters and scaffolding moments. Such semi-public exchanges reflect the weight
attributed to reputation in social media spaces. For individuals willing to share corrections - and with
an audience sympathetic to dialogue – these exchanges can have positive impacts on an individual’s
authority as a source of trustworthy information. For individuals unwilling to be corrected, or share
corrections, this has the potential to harm reputation. Further exploration of these emerging practices
around public and private correction would contribute to better understanding the current and future
potential - and limitations - for learning in social media spaces.
Formal markers of trust or influence, such as social media metrics (e.g. number of followers, Klout
score), do not appear to be in use by participants in this research. Assessments of trust are instead
made against pragmatic criteria, often related to the quality of information or advice shared, attitude,
or other highly personal perceptions of value. Further investigation of the relationship between these
human trust markers and automatically assessed trust or influence metrics would provide a valuable
insight into methods of assessing new contacts and information in social media.
Social media is perceived by many participants to be permanent, an “on the record” exchange,
usually in public.
This makes it a high stakes space, particularly for learning. “Permanence” is both a potential benefit
(information may be revisited, definitive positions may be found) and a threat, particularly where
potentially controversial opinion in concerned, or where inaccurate, incorrect or out of date information
could be seen and associated with the individual and their professional reputation. Analysis of existing
research on generational attitudes to technology, social media and the authority of print, which could
be developed into a more nuanced understanding of what “permanence” means for learning and
observed exchanges in a predominantly text-based environment, would be highly beneficial.
4.2 Recommendations for operationalising this research
Throughout this research I have explored current CPD practice within social media. The findings
suggest specific practical opportunities for organisations and individuals to develop their practice:
1. Formally recognise the value of social media as an arena for CPD and professional learning. This
would benefit individuals and organisations by emphasising forms of valued social media participation
and providing lower risk opportunities for engaging with best practice.
2. Encourage or adopt self-aware efforts to seek support and scaffolding. For instance reviewing and
reflecting upon calls for help on Twitter might be a more personalised and appropriate method of
identifying CPD needs for an individual than conventional practices.
3. Embrace a culture of accepting error and correction. Making corrections and steers in public rather
than in private has huge benefits for the learner, scaffold provider, and vicarious learners, and
ensures the public version of record retains interest and relevance. Public correction may also help
encourage deeper reflection and discussion and demonstrate transparency and openness.
4. Reevaluate the relative impact of “permanence” in the online world and consider techniques to
manage perceived risk.For instance a statement of relevance, date published, and perhaps a
suggested “best before” date would help later readers of a comment to assess it within an appropriate
context.
In conclusion it is important that employers and individuals recognise and understand the growing role
of social media in continuing professional development practices, no matter how they choose to do
so.
5 References
Anderson, T. ed. (2008) The Theory and practice of online learning, Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca
University Press.
Ball, S. J. (2003) “The Teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity”, Journal of Education Policy,
Vol.18, No. 2, pp 215-228.
Barbour, K. and Marshall, D. (2012). “The academic online: constructing persona through the www”,
First Monday [Electronic], Vol. 17, No. 9, Available:
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3969/3292, [1st February 2014].
BBC (2010) “Social Networking, Microblogs and other Third Party Websites: Personal Use”, BBC
Editorial Guidelines [Online], October 2010, Available:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-blogs-personal-summary/ [1st
February 2014].
BBC (2012a) “Andy Murray: Wimbledon semi-final win Twitter reaction”, BBC Sport [Online], 6th July
2012, Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18750027/ [1st February 2014].
BBC (2012b) “Social Networking, Microblogs and other Third Party Websites: BBC Use”, BBC
Editorial Guidelines [Online], Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-blogsbbc-full [1st February 2014].
Bloxham, A. (2012) “Stephen Fry tweets guitarist past 2m views with a 'wow'”, Telegraph [Electronic],
31st January 2012, Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9052125/Stephen-Frytweets-guitarist-past-2m-views-with-a-wow.html [1st February 2014].
Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I, and Jones, P. (2013) “Socio-emotional connections: identity, belonging
and learning in online interactions. A literature Review”, Technology, Pedagogy, and Education
[Electronic], DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2013.813405.
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2008) Informal Adult Learning – Shaping the Way
Ahead, DIUS Publications, Available: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/s/urnial2008-shaping-the-way-ahead/ [1st February 2014].
Dey, I. (1994) “Creating categories”, Quantitative Data Analysis: a user - friendly guide for social
scientists, pp 94-112, London: Routledge.
Dey, I. (1999) Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry, San Diego: Academic
Press.
Edmondson, A. (1999) “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp 350-383.
Friedman, A., Hurran, N. and Durkin, C. (1999) “Good Practice in CPD Among UK Professional
Associations”, Continuing Professional Development, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 52-68.
Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker
[Electronic], 4th October 2010, Available:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell [1st July 2012].
Goffman, E. (1959), The presentation of self in everyday life, New York, NY: Anchor Books.
IBM (2005, 2008, 2010) IBM Social Computing Guidelines [Online], Available:
http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html [1st July 2012].
Ofcom (2012) “Adults media use and attitudes report”, Ofcom.org.uk [Online], March 2012. Available:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/medialiteracy/archive/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/adults-media-use-attitudes/ [5th July 2012].
Osborne, N. (2012a) Continuous Professional Development in Collaborative Social Media Spaces,
MSc in eLearning dissertation, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh [Online], Available:
https://sites.google.com/site/cpdaandsocialmedia/ [1st February 2014].
Osborne, N. (2012b) EDINA Social Media Guidelines (version 1.1, 19th October 2012) [Online],
Available: http://edina.ac.uk/about/social_media/social_media_guidelines.html [25th July 2012].
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. (1975) The volunteer subject, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Turkle, S. (2008) Always-on/Always-on-you: The Tethered Self, in Katz, J. E. (ed.) Handbook of
Mobile Communication Studies, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Turkle, S. (2012) The Flight From Conversation, The New York Times (Sunday Review, The Opinion
Pages), April 22, 2012, Available:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-fromconversation.html [20th July 2012].
University of Essex (2012) University of Essex social media policy [Online], Available:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/digital_media/policy.aspx [18th July 2012].
Usher, R., Bryant, I. and Johnston, R. (1997) Reconfiguring the other: self and experience in adult
learning, Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge, London: Routledge, pp. 93-121.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.