Academic success is now coupled with social media engagement. Social media has become so normalized in the academy that absent a carefully curated social media presence, scholars risk being seen as unscholarly, unproductive, and unpopular. This article lays bare the pressures, mechanisms, and monstrosities of using social media to promote scholarship. We argue that the widespread adoption of social media outpaces critical attention to its ethics and wonder about the future of public scholarship and the monstrous scholarly selves we are becoming. Thinking of monstrosity, with Krecˇicˇ and Žižek, as the preontological domain that rests beneath society and constitutes alterity and otherness, we ask what kinds of #scholarfamousmonsters we want to be, become, and promote in the digital era.
BaertP.BoothJ. (2012). Tensions within the public intellectual: Political interventions from Dreyfus to the new social media. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25, 111–126.
3.
BrooksG.DrentenJ.PiskorskiM. J. (2021). Influencer celebrification: How social media influencers acquire celebrity capital. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 528–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1977737
4.
BuschL. (2023). Knowledge for sale: The neoliberal takeover of higher education. MIT Press.
CarriganM. (2019b). Social media for academics (2nd ed.). SAGE.
7.
CastellsM. (2010). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
8.
ChapmanA. L.GreenhowC. (2019). Citizen-scholars: Social media and the changing nature of scholarship. Publications (Basel), 7(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010011
9.
ChatelainM.LoshE.WernimontJ. (2019). Is Twitter any place for a [Black academic] lady? In LoshE.WernimontJ. (Eds.), Bodies of information: Intersectional feminism and the digital humanities (pp. 172–184). University of Minnesota Press.
10.
CohenJ. J. (1995). Monster theory: Reading culture. University of Minnesota.
11.
DahlgrenP. (2012). Public intellectuals, online media, and public spheres: Current realignments. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25, 95–110.
DreznerD. W. (2017). The ideas industry: How pessimists, partisans, and plutocrats are transforming the marketplace of ideas. Oxford University.
14.
DuffyB. E.PooleyJ. D. (2017). “Facebook for academics”: The convergence of self-branding and social media logic on Academia.edu. Social Media + Society, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117696523
FinchE. (2003). What a tangled web we weave. In JewkesY. (Ed.), Dot.cons (pp. 86–104). Willan.
17.
FochlerM. (2016). Variants of epistemic capitalism: Knowledge production and the accumulation of worth in commercial biotechnology and the academic life sciences. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(5), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916652224
18.
FornäsJ.BeckerK.BjurströmE.GanetzH. (2007). Consuming media: Communication, shopping and everyday life. Routledge.
GambrilJ. A.BoydC. J.EgbariaJ. (2021). The numerous benefits of social media for medicine. Comment on “Documenting social media engagement as scholarship: A new model for assessing academic accomplishment for the health professions.”Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(6), Article e27664. https://doi.org/10.2196/27664
21.
GarciaA. (2017). The pervert’s guide to being a curriculum theorist. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 32(1), 34–52.
GilesD. C.EdwardsL. (2018). Instagram and the rise of the social media ‘influencer.’ In Twenty-first century celebrity: Fame in digital culture (pp. 155–173). Emerald Publishing Limited.
24.
GreenhowC.GleasonB. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392–402.
25.
GritsenkoD.MarkhamA.PötzschH.WijermarsM. (2022). Algorithms, contexts, governance: An introduction to the special issue. New Media & Society, 24(4), 835–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221079037
26.
HarawayD. (2016). Staying with the trouble. Duke University.
HowoldtD.KrollH.NeuhäuslerP.FeidenheimerA. (2023). Understanding researchers’ Twitter uptake, activity and popularity—An analysis of applied research in Germany. Scientometrics, 128(1), 325–344. doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04569-2
29.
JordanKWellerM. (2018). Academics and social networking sites: Benefits, problems and tensions in professional engagement with online networking. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2018(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.448
30.
KearneyR. (2003). Strangers, gods and monsters. Routledge.
31.
KezarA. (2018). Using philosophy to develop a thoughtful approach to going public or not. In PernaL. W. (Ed.), Taking it to the streets: The role of scholarship in advocacy and advocacy in scholarship (pp. 106–113). John Hopkins University.
32.
KhamisS.AngL.WellingR. (2017). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191–208.
33.
KitsisE. A.MilanF. B.CohenH. W.MyersD.HerronP.McEvoyM.WeingartenJ.GraysonM. S. (2016). Who’s misbehaving? Perceptions of unprofessional social media use by medical students and faculty. BMC Medical Education, 16, Article 67.
KrečičJ.ŽižekS. (2016). Ugly, creepy, disgusting, and other modes of abjection. Critical Inquiry, 43(1), 60–83.
36.
KuntsmanA.MiyakeE. (2022). Paradoxes of digital disengagement: In search of the opt-out button. University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/10.16997/book61
MacCormackP. (2012). Posthuman teratology. In MittmanA.DendleP. (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to monsters and the monstrous (pp. 293–309). Ashgate.
39.
MaddahM.EsmaeilzadehP. (2023). Lying in online social networks: A bug or a feature. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 21(4), 438–451.
40.
MarwickA. E. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.
MorozovE. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. Allen Lane.
43.
ParkC. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students—Literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 471–488.
44.
PaulusT. M.LesterJ. N. (2022). Doing qualitative research in a digital world. SAGE.
45.
PaulusT.LesterJ. N.DempsterP. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. SAGE.
46.
PernaL. W. (2018). Taking it to the streets: The role of scholarship in advocacy and advocacy in scholarship. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/book.58092
47.
PetersM. A. (2022). Public intellectuals, viral modernity and the problem of truth. British Journal of Educational Studies, 70(5), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2022.2141859
48.
ReamT. C. (2022). Between purgatory and paradise: Exploring the role of social media in the lives of public intellectuals. New Directionsfor Higher Education, 2022, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20457
49.
ReddickR. J. (2016). Using social media to promote scholarship: Amplify, magnify, clarify. In GasmanM. (Ed.), Academics going public: How to write and speak beyond academe (pp. 55–70). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315616872
SmithJ. E. H. (2019). How social media imperils scholarship: It plays on our vanity and reduces research to a popularity contest. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 65(34), B6.
53.
SongF. W. (2009). Virtual communities: Bowling alone, online together. Peter Lang.
54.
StewartD.-L. (2016). Crafting an online scholarly identity: Invention and representation. In GasmanM. (Ed.), Academics going public: How to write and speak beyond academe (pp. 71–85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315616872
55.
SunsteinC. (2008). Democracy and the internet. In van der HoevenJ.WeckertJ. (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 93–110). Cambridge University Press.
56.
TesarM.Koro-LjungbergM. (2016). Cute, creepy and sublime unnamed childhood monstrosities. Discourse: Studies in Cultural Politics of Education, 37(5), 694–704.
57.
TierneyW. G. (2018). A road less traveled: The responsibilities of the intellectual. In PernaL. W. (Ed.), Taking it to the streets: The role of scholarship in advocacy and advocacy in scholarship (pp. 100–105). Johns Hopkins University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/book.58092.
ZhuY.ProcterR. (2015). Use of blogs, Twitter and Facebook by UK PhD students for scholarly communication. Observatorio (OBS*), 9(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS922015842
