When reading this week's overview on Canvas, these few words immediately grabbed my attention: "we will consider how people build and share their expertise online". Great topic. Yes, how do people build their expertise online? Which indicators turn them from anonymous produsers to recognized experts, and even for some of them, propel them to the ultimate title of influencers?
Based on my experience in the research field, noticeable scientists and academics get their popularity from their significant achievements in research, their innovative ideas, and their ability to communicate to and within communities of experts.
Could this be the same in the digital space? Are credibility and expertise the results of these single skills or are there other variables into play? Let's dig a bit.
The paper from Osatuyi (2013) provides some insightful reflections and mentions that the credibility of the information shared on social media is due to a combination of sharing strategies. Thus, information shared on personal blogs, wikis, or social media networks is deemed as more credible when related to a topic of high interest for people, and when they are shared in combination with links to other sources, and when valued with embedded audio/videos. Overall, the credibility and expertise of individuals on social media is due at least to the credibility of the content.
To that, it seems to me that credibility and expertise also depend on the profile of the individual who shares content through Web 2.0. And this can be conveyed by their personal background, their tone, their academic history, their topics of interest, their values, and other kinds of personal information they reveal through their written oral, and multimedia self-made materials. Wiedmann and von Mettenheim (2021) share some interesting findings on that matter, and point out that "the most important requirement [for social influencers in their work] is trustworthiness, followed by attractiveness; surprisingly, the relevance of
expertise is virtually nil". This quote initially refers to social influencers, but I guess that reaching the influencer level could be considered as some kind of significant achievement for an expert actively growing their skills on Web 2.0.
Lastly, I believe their choice of environments for sharing information and subsequently building and confirming their authority in one or more subject matters also says a lot about their credibility and expertise. Again, Osatuyi (2013) gives some indications on the type of information people are most likely to share on blogs, social networks, or forums.
My current reflections emerged from the list of the Top 100 Learning Influencers published online by Eduflow earlier this year. By skimming this list, I was wondering: on what criteria was that list built? By reading the introduction of the post from David Kofoed Wind, it seems that the lucky winners were selected by "extensive research and input from hundreds of experts in the field". Who are those so-called experts is intriguing as well, but that's not where I want to go for now. Next to the name of each person from the list, you can find some elements describing why, and/or how these people are considered as learning influencers. Exploring this ranking is riveting as it shows that overall, there is no unique path to becoming a learning influencer. Some people are considered influencers without the help of social media, but that's a minority (and some are no longer alive, which highlights the importance of recognition and expertise over time). For the wide majority, Web 2.0 played a significant role in their recognition of their expert status.
If you can or are curious, do not hesitate to explore that list. Do you agree with Eduflow's choice? Do you think social media is a major criterion that could explain the recognition, credibility, and expertise of those so-called learning influencers?
Comments
Post a Comment