intervento tenuto al workshop “il contributo delle discipline non IUS alla formazione del giurista”, Lecce, 21 Aprile 2016

1. I Social Media come risorse per la
didattica e la comunicazione
accademica
Stefania Manca
Istituto per le Tecnologie Didattiche
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Genova
stefania.manca@itd.cnr.it
Workshop “il contributo delle discipline non IUS alla formazione del giurista”
Lecce, 21 Aprile 2016

2. Contenuti di questa presentazione
I social media nelle professioni giuridiche
Un’indagine italiana: I social media nell’università
I social media come strumenti e risorse per la
formazione universitaria
I social media nella comunicazione accademica

3. I social media nelle professioni
giuridiche

4. Avvocati e Social Media. Studio sull’utilizzo
dei nuovi media tra i giuristi d’impresa
Secondo un’indagine condotta negli USA nel 2012, l’84% degli intervistati ha
affermato di utilizzare regolarmente blog di altri professionisti legali a scopo
informativo, definendo i Social Media come un modo intelligente per
reperire e filtrare informazioni utili per svolgere il proprio lavoro.
I Social Media costituiscono per molti avvocati uno strumento per acquisire
visibilità e rafforzare la propria reputazione, oltre che per solidificare le
relazioni professionali con clienti e colleghi.
http://www.segretaria24.it/white-paper.html

5. «La scelta dell’avvocato oggi passa per i Social
Media»
«Sempre più giuristi d’impresa e dirigenti dei reparti legali aziendali
utilizzano le potenzialità delle reti professionali e dei blog [...] le nuove
risorse online vengono utilizzate non solo per reperire informazioni
utili all’esercizio della professione, ma anche per la scelta degli
avvocati esterni cui rivolgersi in caso di necessità […] tra i fattori che
influenzano l’assunzione degli avvocati esterni acquistano una certa
rilevanza i blog curati da legali e i profili di LinkedIn».
http://www.laleggepertutti.it/40207_la-scelta-dellavvocato-oggi-
passa-per-i-social-media#sthash.9Nhy5peq.dpuf

6. «Social Networks per avvocati: Linkedin»
«Sempre più i professionisti in ambito forense (avvocati, giuristi
d’impresa, funzionari e dirigenti pubblici) usano i social
networks: Twitter, LinkedIn e Friendfeed stanno diventando siti
frequentati quasi quotidianamente, per non parlare
dell’onnipresente Facebook. A chi non è capitato di ricevere le
richieste di amicizia di colleghi o clienti? Quanti si sono ritrovati a
parlare di ciò che era pubblicato sulle rispettive bacheche nelle
conversazioni al bar del Tribunale?»
http://www.leggioggi.it/2011/02/27/social-networks-per-avvocati-
linkedin/

7. «Avvocati e giuristi, non sottovalutate
Twitter»
«Su Twitter comunicano e condividono conoscenze tantissimi giuristi
di livello, facendo di questo social network un validissimo strumento
per aggiornarsi e approfondire. Io li seguo quotidianamente cogliendo
l’occasione per stringere amicizie che, con il tempo, vanno anche oltre
il rapporto professionale. Da non sottovalutare poi, che tra leggi e
decreti, ci si diverte anche tanto!»
http://www.vitaforense.com/avvocati-e-giuristi-non-sottovalutate-
twitter

8. «Social Web Avvocati»
«SWA ovvero Social Web Avvocati è un’idea nata da un gruppo di avvocati
dislocati nelle diverse regioni italiane e conosciuti in rete. Si tratta di
un network creato da e per avvocati, professionisti consapevoli
dell’importanza che oggi riveste internet e l’uso delle nuove tecnologie come
eccellenti supporti all’avvocatura, (purtroppo) ancora non “2.0”.
Lo scopo principale della piattaforma è la condivisione, l’informazione e la
discussione di tutti gli aspetti legali che il quotidiano pone dinanzi
nell’esercizio della professione forense, attività ancora “vecchia” e ancorata ad
un desueto modo di operare».
http://socialwebavvocati.it/

9. MarketingLegale.it
«Il primo blog italiano dedicato solo ed esclusivamente a fare
marketing per uno studio legale. Ci trovi consigli e suggerimenti per
trovare clienti per avvocati di grande successo o aspiranti tali».
http://www.marketing-legale.it/

10. Paure e resistenze
Mentre in America ormai circa il 43% degli avvocati è membro di almeno una
rete sociale, in Italia i numeri si riducono notevolmente.
L’avvocato italiano ha timore di non sapere gestire il social network oppure
non ne ha realizzato l’utilità per la sua professione o lamenta la mancanza
di preparazione tecnologica.
In molti pensano ancora che essere presenti sui Social Network comporti il
rischio di deprezzare la propria immagine, di svendere la propria
competenza come una merce a buon mercato.
http://www.segretaria24.it/white-paper.html

11. Social media e università.
Concetti di base

12. Scholarship (academic study)
Four dimensions:
1) Discovery = original research to develop and advance knowledge
2) Integration = synthesis of knowledge across disciplines and topics
within a discipline
3) Application = using knowledge stemming from scholarship of
discovery and scholarship of integration to close the gap between
the academic and real world, and to solve societal needs
4) Teaching = the study of teaching models and practices to improve
the quality of learning
(Boyer, 1990)

13. Digital scholarship
A new form of scholarship due to the widespread penetration of information
and communication technologies into teaching and research practices.
The purpose of digital scholarship is to reconsider seminal conceptualization
of the different dimensions of scholarship (i.e. discovery, integration,
teaching and application) in light of widespread social media adoption.
The digitalization process of scholarship has to do also with the embracing of
open values applied to knowledge and technologies to fostering peer-to-
peer approaches and to coworking for societal benefits.
The term is also associated with e-Research and Science 2.0.
(Veletsianos, 2016; Weller, 2011)

14. Social Media
Web 2.0 Social software Social web
Condividi Collabora Partecipa/crea

15. Academic Social Media
A subset of social media that includes social networking sites like ResearchGate and
Academia.edu, or reference management software like Zotero and Mendeley.
These sites are specifically designed for academics’ needs and enable them to:
 create CV research
 be kept updated and connected
 build a scientific network
 collaborate with peers
 publish information reaching a broader audience
 archive or request publications
 discuss in professional discussion groups
 find a research job

16. Scholarly Communication

17. Scholarly Communication
Sharing and publishing research studies and results to a wider academic
community and to a general public.
It can be articulated in a number of stages that go from communication
in informal networks and dissemination in conferences and public
events, to the formal publication in scientific journals.
The advent of social media and the general widespread diffusion of the
Internet is profoundly affecting how scholars publish and disseminate
their research, involving institutional structures less and relying more
on informal channels of diffusion and communication.

18. Social media e università. Uno
studio italiano

19. Since the Ministry of Education
files do not include junior
positions like PhD students and
post-docs, the study was only
addressed to faculty staff that
have a permanent or a tenured
track position.
The academic positions taken into
consideration:
assistant professor
associate professor
full professor
October-December 2013

20. Methodology
The survey was adapted and translated from a
questionnaire annually administered by Pearson and the
Babson Survey Research Group in the USA.
Respondents were provided with the following definitions
relating to the three different kinds of use:
1) Personal use: to connect with family and friends;
2) Teaching use: as part of a course you are teaching
(researching a topic, including in a lecture, as part of a student
assignment, etc.);
3) (Non-teaching) professional use: connecting with colleagues,
staying up to date on areas of professional interest, etc.

22. Sample
Out of 58.175 subjects involved, the rate of
response was 10.5%, corresponding to 6.139.
The sample has shown to have overlapping
characteristics, with specific reference to a series
of socio-demographic variables such as gender,
role, scientific discipline, type of institution,
geographical area.

23. Campione (N=6139)
Popolazione
(N=58175)
Sesso
Maschi 3727 (60,7%) 37245 (64,0%)
Femmine 2412 (39,3%) 20930 (36,0%)
Età
Meno di 25 0 (0,0%) -
25–34 253 (4,1%) -
35–44 1939 (31,6%) -
45–55 2185 (35,6%) -
55+ 1762 (28,7%) -
Anni di insegnamento
Meno di 1 52 (0,8%) -
Da 1 a 5 670 (10,9%) -
Da 6 a 9 1047 (17,1%) -
Da 10 a 15 1690 (27,5%) -
Da 16 a 20 822 (13,4%) -
20+ 1858 (30,3%) -
Ruolo (N=6043)
Ricercatore 3130 (51,8%) 26824 (46,6%)
Professore associato 1704 (28,2%) 16086 (28,0%)
Professore ordinario 1209 (20,0%) 14612 (25,4%)

24. Campione
(N=6139)
Popolazione
(N=57590)
01. Scienze matematiche e informatiche 435 (7,1%) 3174 (5,5%)
02. Scienze fisiche 288 (4,7%) 2257 (3,9%)
03. Scienze chimiche 307 (5,0%) 2931 (5,1%)
04. Scienze della Terra 121 (2,0%) 1056 (1,8%)
05. Scienze biologiche 500 (8,1%) 4980 (8,6%)
06. Scienze mediche 653 (10,6%) 9871 (17,1%)
07. Scienze agrarie e veterinarie 336 (5,5%) 3040 (5,3%)
08. Ingegneria civile ed Architettura 332 (5,4%) 3623 (6,3%)
09. Ingegneria industriale e dell’informazione 636 (10,4%) 5290 (9,2%)
10. Scienze dell’antichità, filologico-letterarie e storico-
artistiche 641 (10,4%) 5227 (9,1%)
11. Scienze storiche, filosofiche, pedagogiche e
psicologiche 639 (10,4%) 4689 (8,1%)
12. Scienze giuridiche 371 (6,0%) 4875 (8,5%)
13. Scienze economiche e statistiche 580 (9,4%) 4825 (8,4%)
14. Scienze politiche e sociali 300 (4,9%) 1752 (3,0%)

25. Main results
Italian scholars seem to be more inclined to adopt Social
Media for personal and professional uses rather than for
teaching practices
More than 70% of academics use at least one tool on a
monthly basis for personal purposes and almost 60% for
professional interest, while less than 50% declare they use
Social Media for teaching.

26. Frequency of personal use
Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Do not use
Twitter - TOT 3.4% 4.0% 2.9% 11.9% 77.8%
Twitter - Law 2.4% 3.2% 4.6% 11.9% 77.9%
Facebook - TOT 20.2% 12.2% 5.8% 13.0% 48.8%
Facebook - Law 21.0% 10.0% 4.0% 11.3% 53.6%
LinkedIn - TOT 2.0% 8.3% 9.8% 19.4% 60.6%
LinkedIn - Law 1.1% 4.9% 5.7% 18.3% 70.1%
Podcasts - TOT 1.5% 3.2% 3.8% 7.5% 84.1%
Podcasts - Law 0.8% 3.5% 2.2% 7.3% 86.3%
Blogs and Wikis - TOT 5.6% 11.1% 8.6% 10.1% 64.6%
Blogs and Wikis - Law 5.4% 7.8% 8.4% 14.3% 64.2%
YouTube e Vimeo - TOT 8.4% 22.1% 16.4% 19.2% 34.0%
YouTube e Vimeo - Law 7.8% 21.0% 13.5% 21.0% 36.7%
ResearchGate and
Academia.edu - TOT
4.8% 14.7% 12.6% 14.1% 53.8%
ResearchGate and
Academia.edu - Law
1.9% 7.0% 8.6% 11.1% 71.4%
SlideShare - TOT 0.6% 2.0% 2.8% 6.9% 87.7%
SlideShare - Law 1.1% 0.8% 3.0% 5.1% 90.0%
89.3% of
respondents
use at least
one tool. This
percentage
decreases to
75.7% if at
least the
monthly use is
considered.

27. Frequency of teaching use
Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Do not use
Twitter - TOT 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 2.9% 94.5%
Twitter - Law 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 1.9% 96.8%
Facebook - TOT 2.7% 4.8% 3.6% 7.0% 82.0%
Facebook - Law 3.0% 4.3% 2.2% 6.2% 84.4%
LinkedIn - TOT 0.5% 1.5% 1.9% 5.6% 90.5%
LinkedIn - Law 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 3.8% 94.9%
Podcasts - TOT 0.5% 1.2% 1.9% 5.2% 91.2%
Podcasts - Law 0.3% 0.8% 1.3% 4.6% 93.0%
Blogs and Wikis - TOT 3.0% 8.2% 7.7% 9.8% 71.3%
Blogs and Wikis - Law 2.4% 5.4% 6.5% 9.7% 76.0%
YouTube e Vimeo - TOT 1.9% 7.8% 11.4% 18.1% 60.7%
YouTube e Vimeo - Law 0.8% 2.2% 5.1% 11.6% 80.3%
ResearchGate and
Academia.edu - TOT
2.5% 6.0% 6.4% 10.8% 74.4%
ResearchGate and
Academia.edu - Law
1.1% 4.9% 5.4% 10.0% 78.7%
SlideShare - TOT 1.0 3.0% 4.0% 7.5% 84.5%
SlideShare - Law 1.6% 1.1% 4.3% 4.9% 88.1%
64.0% of
respondents
declare to use
at least one
tool. This
percentage
decreases to
44.9% if at
least the
monthly use is
considered.

28. Frequency of professional use
Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Do not use
Twitter - TOT 1.6% 2.3% 1.7% 4.3% 90.1%
Twitter - Law 1.1% 1.1% 1.9% 3.2% 92.7%
Facebook - TOT 3.9% 6.1% 4.5% 8.2% 77.3%
Facebook - Law 3.2% 4.3% 3.8% 7.3% 81.4%
LinkedIn - TOT 2.4% 8.8% 10.3% 16.5% 62.1%
LinkedIn - Law 2.7% 7.3% 4.6% 15.9% 69.5%
Podcasts - TOT 0.5% 1.2% 1.6% 4.7% 92.0%
Podcasts - Law 0.3% 0.5% 1.1% 4.0% 94.1%
Blogs and Wikis - TOT 3.6% 7.9% 8.1% 9.1% 71.3%
Blogs and Wikis - Law 2.7% 3.8% 7.0% 9.7% 76.8%
YouTube e Vimeo - TOT 1.9% 6.7% 8.5% 14.6% 68.3%
YouTube e Vimeo - Law 0.8% 3.0% 4.9% 12.4% 79.0%
ResearchGate and
Academia.edu - TOT
5.2% 16.3% 14.3% 14.7% 49.6%
ResearchGate and
Academia.edu - Law
3.0% 6.7% 8.9% 11.3% 70.1%
SlideShare - TOT 0.8% 2.3% 4.0% 7.2% 85.7%
SlideShare - Law 1.1% 0.5% 4.0% 4.6% 89.8%
74.5% reported
they use at
least one tool.
This
percentage
decreases to
58.7% if at
least the
monthly use is
considered.

29. Perceived usefulness
58.90%
38.60%
53.90%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Personal use
Teaching use
Professional use
Facebook
YouTube-
Vimeo
YouTube-
Vimeo
Blog-Wiki
ResearchGateAc
ademia.edu
LinkedIn

30. Research questions
1. Association between socio-demographic variables and personal,
teaching and professional uses of Social Media
2. Association between personal, professional and teaching uses of
Social Media
3. Association between Social Media use and blended/e-learning
teaching
4. Motivations to use Social Media tools in teaching practice
5. How Social Media tools are used in teaching
6. Obstacles that prevent using Social Media in teaching practice

31. Results

32. Association between socio-demographic variables and
personal, teaching and professional uses of Social Media
 Gender is a factor with minor influence
 Younger scholars are using Social Media for personal, professional and
teaching purposes more than their older colleagues
 The variable most associated with frequency of use is scientific
discipline: for example, Humanities and Arts plus Social Sciences are
more inclined to use Twitter, Facebook, Podcast, Blog-Wiki and
YouTube-Vimeo for all the purposes under investigation, while
Mathematics and Computer Science plus Natural Sciences and
Professions and Applied Sciences lean more towards professional tools
such as LinkedIn and/or ResearchGate-Academia.edu.

33. Association between personal, professional and teaching
uses of Social Media
Personal use is almost always associated with professional
use, but much less with teaching use, though some
important exceptions including Podcast, Blog-Wiki, YouTube-
Vimeo and SlideShare must be noted, whereby the
association between teaching and professional use is more
relevant than the association between personal and
professional use.

34. Association between Social Media use and blended/e-
learning teaching
Prior experience with e-learning or blended learning is
associated with Social Media use: scholars who are using the
institutional e-learning platforms or are delivering online or
blended learning are more inclined to use all types of Social
Media for all the three types of uses, with the exception of
ResearchGate-Academia.edu.

35. Motivations to use Social Media tools in teaching practice
Facebook and Twitter are mainly viewed as means to
motivate students, other Social Media such as Blog-Wiki,
Podcast, YouTube-Vimeo, SlideShare and ResearchGate-
Academia.edu are seen as tools that can be used to
improve the quality of teaching or to share educational
content.
The scientific discipline plays a significant role particularly
referring to Podcast, Blog-Wiki, YouTube-Vimeo and
ResearchGate-Academia.edu.

36. How Social Media tools are used in teaching
Fruition of content
material
Commenting
content material
New content material
production
YouTube-
Vimeo
SlideShare
ResearchGate-
Academia.edu
Facebook
Twitter
Blog – Wiki

37. Obstacles that prevent using Social Media in teaching
practice
The obstacles that prevent academic staff from using
Social Media for teaching are mainly:
cultural and social factors (the erosion of teachers’
traditional roles, the management of relationships with
students or the issue of privacy threats)
pedagogical (face-to-face teaching is perceived as
pedagogically more effective than online teaching)
and administrative and institutional (lack of institutional
and pedagogical support).

38. Social Media in scholarly
communication

39. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Social
Media in Scholarly Practices
Gender seems to be a poor predictor of social media use for scholarly reasons
Females are more inclined, although to a limited extent, to use microblogging tools such as
Twitter to share posts on their ongoing research advancements, while men are more prone
to share their research work through wikis (Zhu, 2014).
Males are more prone than females to use Twitter (Segado-Boj, Domínguez, & Rodríguez,
2015).
Men have a higher preference for LinkedIn (Rowlands et al., 2011).
Two-thirds of frequent users were men, non-users were mainly women (Procter et al.,
2010).
Academia.edu seems to reflect a female advantage, that is suggestive of general social
networking norms (Thelwall & Kousha, 2014).

40. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Social
Media in Scholarly Practices
With reference to age, contrasting results emerge from the literature. Junior scholars are sometimes
represented as early and frequent users of social media in the research context, while sometimes they are less
enthusiastic than their older counterparts.
Participants with a high level of social media presence were mostly graduate students and early-career
scholars, while senior academics were reluctant with regard to the adoption of new tools for scientific
communication considering social media as futile (Stewart, 2015a).
While PhD students and the majority of scholars under 40 years old were intense users of academic social
networks, senior scholars were likely to use other Web 2.0 tools (Nández & Borrego, 2013).
Younger scholars tend to use social network sites for microblogging, social tagging and bookmarking, while
scholars over 35 years old are more inclined to use conferencing systems, images and videos (Rowlands et al.,
2011).
“Tech-savvy” young graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, or assistant professors are not taking risks to
disseminate their works through innovative informal channels such as social media: traditional publishing
practices still prevail (Harley et al., 2010).
Academic seniority influences social media practices, with more senior academics having more connections and
occupying a more central position within the network than more junior ones (Jordan, 2014).

41. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Social
Media in Scholarly Practices
The literature also mentions differences in the use of social media according to disciplinary differences.
Several studies report that Humanities and Social Sciences scholars are embracing social media for scholarly
purposes more than their colleagues in the Science disciplines (Almousa, 2011; Nández and Borrego, 2013; Procter
et al., 2010).
Scholars in Humanities and Social Sciences were more inclined to share the ongoing updates of their research
online, while scholars in scientific disciplines were keener to contribute to public wikis (Zhu, 2014).
Scholars in Science disciplines have a tendency to take-up social networking tools earlier and use them more
frequently than their counterparts in Humanities and Social Sciences (Maron & Smith, 2008).
Scholars in Computer Science and Mathematics were over-represented among frequent users, while scholars in
the Medical and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities were relatively less represented (Procter et al.,
2010).
No matter what specific discipline is considered, the culture of sharing through informal networks and social
media tools is still limited, though blogs are mentioned as relatively “good” in economics, astrophysics, political
science, archaeology and history (Esposito, 2013; Harley et al., 2010).

42. Main results
Younger Italian academics are using Social Media more than
their older colleagues for scholarly communication
Use of ResearchGate-Academia.edu or LinkedIn prevails
Low interest in academic blogging compared with the
attention received by blogging in other academic settings
Reasons for use:
 self-development (i.e. keeping up to date and using social media as a reliable information
source)
 maintaining networks (i.e. using media to keep in touch with and strengthen existing
networks)
 widening networks (i.e. using social media to bring the work of an institution to a wider
audience)
 increased visibility (i.e. using social media for career progression).

43. Conclusions
 Social Media use is still rather limited and restricted and that
academics are not much inclined to integrate these devices into
their practices for several reasons, such as cultural resistance,
pedagogical issues or institutional constraints.
 However, there are differences among academics in the ways they
use Social Media or perceive them, mostly depending on the
scientific discipline of teaching and personal data such as age.
 Overall, the results emphasize ambivalent attitudes towards the
benefits and challenges of these tools in the context of higher
education with obstacles prevailing over advantages.

44. Limitations of the study
 Difficulties related to retrieving email addresses or the actual receipt of
emails sent
 Invitations sent by email might have been blocked by spam filters
 Further reasons for this low response rate may be linked to a lack of
familiarity with the topic, or to negative preconceptions of Social Media
and learning, or also to the time required to fill in the questionnaire (20
minutes)
 Since the survey required participants with a teaching background, this
requirement might have brought the researchers who do not hold a
teaching position not to fill in the survey

45. Riferimenti bibliografici
 Almousa, O. (2011). Users' Classification and Usage-Pattern Identification in Academic Social Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering
and Computing Technologies AEECT (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: IEEE.
 Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
 Esposito, A. (2013). Neither digital or open. Just researchers. Views on digital/open scholarship practices in an Italian university. First Monday, 18(1).
 Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl–Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in
seven disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley Nández, G., & Borrego, A. (2013). Use of social networks for academic purposes: A case study. The Electronic
Library, 31(6), 781-791.
 Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(1).
 Maron, N. L., & Smith, K. K. (2008). Current models of digital scholarly communication: Results of an investigation conducted by Ithaka for the association of research libraries.
Association of Research Libraries.
 Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010), Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society, 368(1926), 4039-4056.
 Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social Media Use in the Research Workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183-195.
 Segado-Boj, F., Domínguez, M. A. C., & Rodríguez, C. C. (2015). Use of Twitter among Spanish communication-area faculty: Research, teaching and visibility. First Monday, 6(1).
 Stewart, B. E. (2015a). In Abundance: Networked Participatory Practices as Scholarship. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 318-340.
 Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social Network or Academic Network?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721-731.
 Veletsianos, G. (2016). Social Media in Academia: Networked Scholars. New York, NY: Routledge.
 Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar. How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London/New Dely/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury.
 Zhu, Y. (2014). Seeking and sharing research information on social media: A 2013 survey of scholarly communication. In A. Rospigliosi, & S.Greener (Eds.), Proceedings of European
Conference on Social Media ECSM 2014 (pp. 705-712), 10-11 July 2014, University of Brighton. Brighton: Academic conferences & publishing international.

46. Pubblicazioni sull’indagine italiana
Manca, S. (2014). I Social Media nell’università italiana. Diffusione degli usi personali, didattici e professionali negli
Atenei italiani. Rapporto Tecnico ITD-CNR, Giugno 2014, scaricabile da http://bit.ly/1ru178f
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2014). I Social Media vanno all’università? Un'indagine sulle pratiche didattiche degli
accademici italiani. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 10, 305-339.
Manca S., Ranieri M. (2015). Social media in higher education. How Italian academic scholars are using or not
using Web 2.0 tools in their personal, teaching and professional practices. In F. Falcinelli, T. Minerva, P. C. Rivoltella
(Eds.), Apertura e flessibilità nell'istruzione superiore: oltre l'e-learning. Atti del convegno SiremSiel 2014, Perugia
13-15 Novembre 2014. Reggio Emilia, Sie-l Editore, pp. 107-112.
Manca S., Ranieri M. (2016). “Yes for sharing, no for teaching!”: Social Media in academic practices. The Internet
and Higher Education, 29, 63-74.
Manca S., Ranieri M. (2016). Facebook and the others. Potentials and obstacles of Social Media for teaching in
higher education. Computers & Education, 95, 216-230.
Manca S., Ranieri M. (2016). Exploring Digital Scholarship. A Study on Use of Social Media for Scholarly
Communication among Italian Academics. In Esposito A. (Ed.). Research 2.0 and the Impact of Digital Technologies
on Scholarly Inquiry. Hershey, PA. IGI Global

47. Grazie!
Stefania Manca
stefania.manca@itd.cnr.it