Protecting Academic Freedom or Managing Reputation? An Evaluation of University Social Media Policies

IF 1 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Kwestel, Milano
{"title":"Protecting Academic Freedom or Managing Reputation? An Evaluation of University Social Media Policies","authors":"Kwestel, Milano","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.10.2020.0151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n University social media policies appear to favor institutional reputation over the tenets of academic freedom upon which research and teaching are based. A content analysis of social media policies of 82 doctoral-granting research universities found that policies used language and concepts that restrain online faculty speech. Two-thirds of policies are overseen by marketing departments rather than by committees that include faculty members as recommended by the American Association of University Professors. Contradictory boundary logic presented double binds for faculty who were enjoined to be brand ambassadors, creating tension for them and creating paradoxes for institutions whose social media policies contradict their commitment to freedom of research and teaching.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.10.2020.0151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

University social media policies appear to favor institutional reputation over the tenets of academic freedom upon which research and teaching are based. A content analysis of social media policies of 82 doctoral-granting research universities found that policies used language and concepts that restrain online faculty speech. Two-thirds of policies are overseen by marketing departments rather than by committees that include faculty members as recommended by the American Association of University Professors. Contradictory boundary logic presented double binds for faculty who were enjoined to be brand ambassadors, creating tension for them and creating paradoxes for institutions whose social media policies contradict their commitment to freedom of research and teaching.
保护学术自由还是管理学术声誉?大学社交媒体政策评估
大学的社交媒体政策似乎更看重学校的声誉,而不是作为研究和教学基础的学术自由原则。一项对82所授予博士学位的研究型大学的社交媒体政策的内容分析发现,这些政策使用了限制教师在线言论的语言和概念。三分之二的政策是由营销部门监督的,而不是像美国大学教授协会(American Association of University Professors)建议的那样,由包括教职员工在内的委员会监督。矛盾的边界逻辑给那些被要求成为品牌大使的教师带来了双重束缚,给他们制造了紧张,给那些社交媒体政策与他们对研究和教学自由的承诺相矛盾的机构制造了悖论。
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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