Thursday, June 25, 2015

status updates r good for writers & readers (even academics!)

image source
Inspired by an update i read this morning, one that reverbs familiar advice about how to write (as an academic), i have been reading about a FB recall study that's linked to the relevance and persistence of status updates. It's Dr. Laura Mickes, et al (2013) but new to me. i was inspired to read it after reading a claim suggesting that, in part, FB updating too frequently could be damaging our abilities as (academic writers), or at least our daily productivity. i almost always resist such advice because my experience has been that without FB i may have left academia altogether. More conceptually, i think about how in an attention economy, being read and remembered seems nearly as important as that project you've been developing with care over time. Maybe *too* much, by some writers' standards, but perhaps it's simply *in time*; and, given the social connectedness emerging from FB participation -- a gift difficult to generate in some life situations -- the timeline is less relevant than the balance of sociality and productivity. In many ways, i'm relieved by the study for how it frames my understanding of the value of FB and spending time here, especially because, as the FB memory study reveals, according to Mickes, "The gaps in performance between Facebook recall and literature recall are on a scale similar to the difference between amnesiacs and people with healthy memory." To me, this does not suggest that updating is superfluous, silly, or irrelevant to my development as a writer, academic or otherwise. It validates updating as a potentially valuable aspect of our writerly lives. In earlier parlance, we might have called it "invention," posthumanist thinking might consider our updates as representations of lived experience that interface importantly with our teaching and scholarship (Hendry, 2011, ctd in Snaza & Weaver, 2014), and digital media scholars might suggest an "interface effect" (Galloway 2014) that reveals interfaces as neither simplistically good or evil but instead as *what is*, as thresholds, doors, and apertures that invite these very sorts of critiques. Finally, to be clear, the update that started me on this path was *fine* ... very pragmatic advice from a very prolific academic writer whom i admire. The interface experience this morning encouraged me to dig in to the feeling of shame (i doubt was an intended effect of the original update) i associated with the familiar admonition. I am relieved of shame, I'm writing, and I've discovered a few new texts that aid my thinking about social media, writing, and acceptance.

Note: The Mickes quote above is from a Fast Company​ article by Jennifer Miller. The piece contains a link to the study, as well.