Guidelines for Administrators

Social computing—Web 2.0, as many call it—erupted so quickly on our campuses that few higher administrators were ready for the shock of its many unpredictable impacts. Problems that used to be addressed by technology experts are now passed up the line to higher administrators. These guidelines are intended not to provide solutions to particular problems, but to suggest a framework of readiness for the multiple, wild, and entirely unpredictable next wave of problems that will inevitably come your way.

Phase One: Ahead of time

• Develop a multi-constituency approach to technology policy. Insist that at least these four main constituencies—information technology officials, student life officials, faculty, and higher administrators—work together on problems, policies, action plans. Develop an organizational structure that ensures that these four groups will come to the table together to develop technology policy, especially (but not only) with respect to social computing resources. We all use our technological resources. We can't afford to let one group alone be responsible for decisions regarding its use.
• Understand the history and current use of social computing. As a first step, consult Wikipedia on this subject. If Wikipedia is good for anything, it is good for this topic!
• Know the means at your disposal to address problems of social computing: Policy. Education. Adjudication.
• Be sure you have a good policy in place, and review that policy once a year. Draw all constituencies into the formulation of that policy.
• Use case studies (For starters, see our "hypothetical situations" and/or the case studies we used at our E-SCAPE symposium). Or use a situation that has arisen at your school in the recent past. Bring together key players from all constituencies to consider these cases. Alternatively or in addition, get together with key players from other schools to consider them. Much is revealed through the consideration of individual cases.
• Focus on education and prevention.
• Use students. Our most informative presentations have been ones where we invited students to share their electronic lives for faculty and deans of students—tours of their Facebook pages, brief talks on sites they deem important. Faculty, administrators, and deans of students learn enormously (and are frequently reassured) by listening to students. Students also provide good models for effective online discourse, and good advice on developing materials (skits, plays, video presentations) that get important messages across to their peers. Young alumnae provide another good resource.
• Do faculty and students have enough say in the use and allocation of computing resources?

When you're in the thick of it…

• Computing problems happen fast and spread like wildfire. Develop a rapid-response approach. Don't wait when you see a clear problem begin to emerge. Know your system, and social computing, well enough that you can spot potential problems.
• Make sure you're clear on current laws governing free speech, copyright, ownership and privacy , with respect to online cases. Consider how these issues might play out with respect to the problem you're trying to solve. Seek counsel with expertise in—or access to expertise in—Internet law.
• Gather information. Base your understanding and plan for action on evidence rather than on impressions and myths.
• Decide where you will draw the line—what values are you willing to go to the mat to preserve? (Free speech? Protection of your students' rights? Preservation of a non-hostile learning environment? Politeness and civility? Conflict as a route to education? The development of students' ethical sensibilities?)
• Turn to campuses that have experienced similar problems or developed expertise in these areas for help.

Reflection and Memory

• Know that you can't prevent everything. A rule of thumb: someone somewhere will always find a new way to surprise you by bending the rules of computing. Common problem areas (reflected in our case studies) include hate speech, students developing unethical businesses via your system, individuals using computer systems to threaten, harass and/or plan crimes, flame wars over campus issues, and privacy issues (individuals revealing too much of themselves or violating the privacy rights of others).
• Recognize that social computing is a window onto pre-existing or buried campus-level problems. Over time, we have seen that the same problems keep coming up—no matter how much the technologies through which they are expressed have changed. While it might be tempting to wish these problems would simply stay buried—that's not good educational policy.
• Think about the special characteristics of your institution. It is our belief that, as pervasive and universal as social computing is, its use is nevertheless inflected (deeply shaped, in some cases) by institutional cultures, histories, populations, and values. Take time to reflect on your institution's technological history. How and when was technology introduced? Who used it initially, and who uses it now? Is usage different in different divisions of the institution (the sciences as opposed to the humanities, e.g.? graduate programs as opposed to undergraduate programs?) Who is satisfied and who is dissatisfied? Who has made what policy decisions (including decisions about who has access to which resources, what software applications are available for use, and what students may or may not access via campus resources)? What impact do these decisions have on which groups? What are the consequences of these decisions? Which decisions can be undone, and which now have become so entrenched that they seem irreversible?
• Social computing is part human behavior, part technology. Don't focus so much on the contributions of technology that you miss the contributions of the human element in all of this. Develop an approach that can transcend changes in technology but that is also flexible enough to note changes in technology (such as the Facebook phenomenon) and to be alert to their possible consequences.