Scholarly Impact in the Age of Social Media

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Stephen J. Vladeck
{"title":"Scholarly Impact in the Age of Social Media","authors":"Stephen J. Vladeck","doi":"10.1177/17438721211035467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By any measure, the most widely read thing that I’ve ever written was a tweet—one that registered over 10.9 million “impressions,” a statistic that captures the number of times an individual tweet appeared in readers’ Twitter timelines or search results. That eclipses my most downloaded paper ever by a factor of . . . over 7000. And although that tweet was not especially scholarly (unless you teach grammar, in which case you might even think that it was wrong), I spend much of my time on Twitter attempting to provide substantive legal content on matters within my academic wheelhouse—for instance, close and careful tracking of the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket.” Although I also use Twitter for (most) of the bad reasons (Let’s Go Mets!), my principal use is to share news, legal analysis, and my and others’ scholarly ideas. The question is whether, for professional purposes, that’s all anything other than a frolic. Forests have already been felled on the perils of being an academic on Twitter, including the possibility that, without an edit button, we might cause harm to our reputations by writing something either blatantly incorrect or substantively objectionable; the absence of the intellectual rigor that characterizes more classical forms of scholarship; and, perhaps at a more banal level, the sheer time that it can take away from nobler professional pursuits. These concerns are quite real. But going by my experience, at least, there are also at least three significant upsides that are also worth weighing for those debating the virtues and vices of being an academic on social media in 2021. First, if nothing else, Twitter is a great forum for drawing attention to professional work that might be less visible on its own. When I finish a paper, publish an op-ed, or file a brief, I’ll contemporaneously tweet a URL link to the underlying document along with a brief summary. It’s possible for sufficiently motivated individuals to find (most of) these things on their own, but Twitter dramatically reduces (and accelerates) that effort. And “retweets” by others, whether with or without an endorsement, can further increase that visibility. For","PeriodicalId":43886,"journal":{"name":"Law Culture and the Humanities","volume":"19 1","pages":"25 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Culture and the Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17438721211035467","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

By any measure, the most widely read thing that I’ve ever written was a tweet—one that registered over 10.9 million “impressions,” a statistic that captures the number of times an individual tweet appeared in readers’ Twitter timelines or search results. That eclipses my most downloaded paper ever by a factor of . . . over 7000. And although that tweet was not especially scholarly (unless you teach grammar, in which case you might even think that it was wrong), I spend much of my time on Twitter attempting to provide substantive legal content on matters within my academic wheelhouse—for instance, close and careful tracking of the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket.” Although I also use Twitter for (most) of the bad reasons (Let’s Go Mets!), my principal use is to share news, legal analysis, and my and others’ scholarly ideas. The question is whether, for professional purposes, that’s all anything other than a frolic. Forests have already been felled on the perils of being an academic on Twitter, including the possibility that, without an edit button, we might cause harm to our reputations by writing something either blatantly incorrect or substantively objectionable; the absence of the intellectual rigor that characterizes more classical forms of scholarship; and, perhaps at a more banal level, the sheer time that it can take away from nobler professional pursuits. These concerns are quite real. But going by my experience, at least, there are also at least three significant upsides that are also worth weighing for those debating the virtues and vices of being an academic on social media in 2021. First, if nothing else, Twitter is a great forum for drawing attention to professional work that might be less visible on its own. When I finish a paper, publish an op-ed, or file a brief, I’ll contemporaneously tweet a URL link to the underlying document along with a brief summary. It’s possible for sufficiently motivated individuals to find (most of) these things on their own, but Twitter dramatically reduces (and accelerates) that effort. And “retweets” by others, whether with or without an endorsement, can further increase that visibility. For
社交媒体时代的学术影响
无论以何种标准衡量,我写过的最被广泛阅读的东西是一条推文,它有超过1090万的“印象”,这是一条推文在读者的推特时间轴或搜索结果中出现的次数。这使我下载次数最多的论文相形见绌。7000岁以上的老人。尽管这条推特并不是特别学术(除非你教语法,在这种情况下你甚至可能认为这是错误的),但我在推特上花了很多时间,试图就我的学术专长范围内的事情提供实质性的法律内容——例如,密切而仔细地追踪最高法院所谓的“影子摘要”。虽然我也会因为(大多数)不好的原因(让我们去大都会队吧!)而使用Twitter,但我的主要用途是分享新闻、法律分析,以及我和其他人的学术观点。问题是,从专业角度来看,这一切是否都是开玩笑。在Twitter上做一名学者的危险已经被砍伐殆尽,包括如果没有编辑按钮,我们可能会因为写一些明显不正确或实质上令人反感的东西而损害我们的声誉;缺乏更为古典的学术形式所特有的学术严谨性;而且,也许在一个更平庸的层面上,它可以从更高尚的职业追求中夺走纯粹的时间。这些担忧是真实存在的。但至少根据我的经验,对于那些在2021年讨论在社交媒体上做学者的利弊的人来说,至少还有三个重要的好处值得考虑。首先,Twitter是一个很好的论坛,可以吸引人们对专业工作的关注,而这些工作本身可能不太显眼。当我完成一篇论文,发表一篇评论,或者提交一份简报时,我会同时在twitter上发布一个链接到底层文档的URL链接,并附上一份简短的摘要。对于有足够动力的人来说,自己找到(大部分)这些东西是可能的,但Twitter极大地减少了(并加速了)这种努力。其他人的“转发”,无论是否有背书,都可以进一步提高知名度。为
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Our mission is to publish high quality work at the intersection of scholarship on law, culture, and the humanities. All commentaries, articles and review essays are peer reviewed. We provide a publishing vehicle for scholars engaged in interdisciplinary, humanistically oriented legal scholarship. We publish a wide range of scholarship in legal history, legal theory and jurisprudence, law and cultural studies, law and literature, and legal hermeneutics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信