1. Discussion Paper E Summary
Summary of #btr11 – an experiment in knowledge exchange
through social media
Amy Burnage and Roxanne Persaud
The project… and debate the issues, with the support of
TSRC research. The project was funded by
The Third Sector Research Centre’s (TSRC)
Barrow Cadbury Trust, and launched through
Beyond the Radar project (#btr11) sought to
an “impact event” event in July 2011, which
experiment with a range of social media
was hosted by Department for Communities
platforms over a 10 month period, to improve
and Local Government. The project ran for
the processes by which they engaged with
10 months, held 5 online events and 2 ‘real
individuals on knowledge exchange
life’ events, built a website space through
programmes. For TSRC, the aim was to
Civicrowd for resources and discussions, and
ensure that issues around the ‘below the
used twitter for social reporting and
radar’ (BtR) research, which had been
discussion through the hashtag #btr11.
developed by TSRC researchers since 2008,
Through twitter, news and information about
was shared and explored across policy,
September 2012
the project reached approximately 45,000
practice and research communities. The goal
people, the Civicrowd space was accessed
of #btr11 was not to decide on solutions or
by 1,652 people, and over 120 people
achieve instrumental goals, but to provide a
directly contributed to the online events.
space whereby multiple voices could discuss
2. The evaluation…. Outcomes
The paper associated with this summary1 Potentially, the most practically valuable
offers an evaluation of the #btr11 activities, outcome of the project was the improved
by first seeking to gain a better knowledge and understanding around how
understanding of digital knowledge exchange different audiences responded to different
and then applying that understanding to the platforms through digital knowledge
exchange. A key message from one
human dynamics that emerged through the
organiser was that; ‘I know now which
project. It achieved this through using social
networks and groups I can access through
exchange theory to build a thematic
different tools for different purposes, and
framework, supported with a discussion
have a much better idea of how they are
around social media and “sharing
likely to contribute’. Through this increased
communities”. With this clearer picture of
understanding, #btr11 succeeded in its
digital knowledge exchange, it used
primary goal of engaging with “more voices”
numerical and text data (collected through and was able to introduce people beyond the
various analytical tools, participant original event participants to TSRC and the
interviews, transcript analysis and Below the Radar research. Moreover, it was
observation) to situate the #btr11 activity able to provide spaces where individuals
within the social exchange themes of could discuss and debate important issues
accepted practices, sharing values and across professional and geographical
exchange relationships. Within these themes, boundaries. The Civicrowd online discussion
the evaluation team identified and highlighted with the Big Lottery CEO and other large
key lessons, choices, risks and outcomes, to sector funders serves as a particularly
provide TSRC with a resource for further successful example of this, through a model
experimentation, and to serve as a starting that could easily be replicated in future
point for others interested in developing their events.
own knowledge exchange programme
A weakness of #btr11 however, was that it
through social media.
was less successful in building a unifying
purpose to create momentum for on-going
The learning…
activity within TSRC’s communities of
Through the evaluation process of #btr11, interest. Feedback suggests that while the
some interesting and valuable learning has project created a valuable space for
been developed. The narrative style of the community feedback and discussion, it didn’t
evaluation has reflected the experimental translate to a completed cycle of dialogue
nature of #btr11, as well as the loose, around the BtR research. This limited the
voluntary nature of social media itself. To project to individually valuable “below the
summarise the nuanced and complex nature radar” debates, rather than shared ownership
of the project’s dynamics and processes; the around the research implications.
learning has been loosely themed around
That said; the primary response to the project
outcomes, choices, risks and lessons.
demonstrated significant levels of support
1
from participants and stakeholders, who saw
Available on the TSRC website or upon request from
Amy Burnage (axb144@bham.ac.uk) and Roxanne value in the notion of academic-community
Persaud (roxanne@community.org.uk) knowledge exchange, and repeatedly used
3. the spaces and events to share their stories. not who says it or how they say it.
Therefore, while the discussions were not Negotiating the social media landscape to
always what the organisers expected; find events, platforms and individuals that
comments from every online event expressed support this approach requires significant
appreciation and relevance to the time and “filtering”, but is vital to build a
participants’ interests and work. By providing project that audiences trust.
gateways for engagement between disparate
and previously unconnected networks, Risks
groups and individuals; #btr11 enabled it As with most knowledge exchange projects,
participants to benefit from new relationships, #btr11 faced a number of risks that were
which has resulted in partnership work negotiated through their social media
outside of #btr11. strategy. On the whole, these risks were
managed well and were not problematic, but
Choices
are worth anticipating at the start of future
In terms of future experimentation, the digital knowledge exchange projects. The
evaluation process has uncovered a few key major practical risk for #btr11 was that
choices that knowledge exchange motivations of the project participants did not
practitioners must consider during the design always match the expectations of the
of any social media project. The first decision organisers, which occasionally skewed the
that should be made is whether the primary conversation away from the original aim. This
strategy of the project is one of dissemination difficulty, experienced on all social media
and response (a two-phase approach) or of platforms, is one which organisers must
discussion (a single phase approach). This accept as a natural feature of voluntary,
will affect the tools that should be used and informal participation.
the numbers of individuals you will likely
A secondary risk that was emphatically
connect with. The key to understanding
raised by contributors in the context of
which platforms to use is to test a range of
academic knowledge exchange, and other
social media tools and learn how your target
projects that involve “experts” or decision-
communities interact with them.
makers, is that those with perceived higher
Secondly, as organisers, there is a need to authority can feel challenged or defensive in
understand how trust in your project can be online meetings with their stakeholders.
developed with your communities of interest. Academics in particular need to accept the
For some audiences this will mean building a risk of making their research vulnerable and
strong digital brand by packaging and allowing it to be challenged. #btr11 accepted
delivering information in an accessible way, this risk and dialogue around the issues was
for others this will mean spending time generally healthy. However, in future work
building relationships and facilitating personal where relationships are potentially more
contact. For the latter, which was preferred fraught, it is important to encourage
by the communities that engaged with #btr11; participants to see academics, policy makers
text-based discussions can break down and funders (for example) as community
status divides by avoiding traditionally laid- members with interesting and insightful
out rooms (or webcams) directing contributions, rather than expert sources of
participants towards “big names”. This authority.
encourages value to be seen in what is said,
