Femedtech -curation and what next? #femedtech

Femedtech network at time of writing

Femedtech (see brief history) currently comprises a Twitter handle @femedtech and a hash tag #femedtech and a network of great people who engage variously with femedtech. There was some great collaboration in evolving the concept of femedtech – much work done behind the scenes by talented and busy women. Over the last year the interaction was confined to #femedtech and my curation of @femedtech, and we knew we could reach further.

In April 2018, Helen Beetham, Maren Deepwell and I worked on the concept of shared curation inspired by @IndigenousX. We started with ourselves, and invited people to join us. We were delighted with the response and are evolving the process of curation along with our volunteer curators who experiment, share reflections and tips in our curation space. The chart below reveals how the number of tweets, follows and followers has grown thanks to our lovely volunteer curators.  They have also shared their thoughts on who to follow, retweeting and linking tweets to current relevant events and topics in the curation space.

Tweets , follows and followers during shared curation

We have curators for the remainder of 2018 and the current process is sustainable as the work of changing and sharing passwords is once a fortnight, and curators have time to settle into the role.

We are keen to extend collaboration on the process of curation and what else we might do. With that in mind, we are holding a participative webinar 1200-1300 GMT 19 July link to time converter : UPDATE <link to webinar>. All interested in #femedtech are invited to participate so that we can reflect on recent volunteer curation of @femedtech and #femedtech and consider what plans we might have for femedtech.

If you would like to contribute but are unable to attend please share your ideas in this document and/or at #femedtech.

Looking forward to lots of bright ideas and useful advice, at webinar or elsewhere.

 

Managing networking in social media – what’s in between the zone of homophily and broadcast?

I was interested to read George Siemens post on his loss of interest in social media, I did not completely agree with him , though my disagreement was not so dramatic as Donald Clark’s. I think George might be confusing a channel/ web service with what people can do with it.

I was interested to read George Siemens post on his loss of interest in social media, I did not completely agree with him , though my disagreement was not so dramatic as Donald Clark’s.  I think George might be confusing a channel/ web service with what people can do with it.

However, George’s post did get me to reflect on my own practice with Twitter.  I had a think and came up with this analysis of my own Twitter network.  Everyone’s Twitter network is different e.g. @Downes with 4k+ followers and following 1.
My personal Twitter network

My personal network contains two zones – the blue (those who follow me)and the red (those I follow).  The overlap between those is my zone of homophily. This is a bit of a comfort zone where those with whom I share interests can share resources and conversation (sometimes silly).  However, previous research warns us of the dangers of group think  and the dangers of familiarity can militate against questioning and criticality.

In the blue zone of those who follow me, there will be people I know but don’t follow – I broadcast to them!.  I suspect there are a lot of ‘dead’ Twitter users who followed me then left.  Some who found me via the 112 lists I am in (I own 1 list) may still be following me. I would also guess that there are quite a few bots and spammers that I haven’t managed to spot and block.  This all makes the apparent 1198 to whom I broadcast my tweets (without me seeing theirs) look like  a large  overestimate of ‘followers’. Although my attention is mainly focused towards the red zone, I still value the tweets from some of the 1198 that hop over to grab my attention by using @francesbell.  I will usually click on their name and take a quick look at their recent tweets, maybe following them if they look interesting.

In the zone of those I follow but they don’t follow me, I am on the receiving end of broadcasts from the great and the good of social media /learning technology, a band, a folk festival, news media feeds, a funding body, a cinema,  a couple of celebrities,and  my Vice-Chancellor. I definitely can gain information from these links but there is little or no conversation taking place.  I am in their blue zone and may @message them but only once if I don’t get a reply – I get the message they aren’t seeking conversation;)

So although the focus of my Twitter network may appear to be my zone of homophily, my broadcasters and broadcast audience are also important to me. If your zone of homophily is too big to manage, prune it but don’t blame the channel.  If my valued network decamps to G+, I might need to shift my activity there but currently, I find Twitter a lot more manageable and less intrusive than G+.  I ‘go to Twitter’ via Tweetdeck whereas G+ comes to me every time I log into to my Google account for other reasons.

Edit: a question from @heloukee made me realise I hadn’t said how I worked out the numbers.  I got the number of followers and followed by me from Tweetdeck then got the number I follow who don’t follow me back from http://twopcharts.com/notfollowingback.php?source=gl&user=francesbell. I would have been in trouble if that number was more than 100 (twopchart’s limit) so this method won’t work for everyone.