Academic literature on the topic 'Humanities Study and teaching (Higher) Victoria Directories'

05–267Aitchison, Claire (U of Western Sydney, Australia), Thesis writing circles. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 97–115.05–268Allison, Desmond (The National U of Singapore), Authority and accommodation in higher degree research proposals. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 155–180.05–269Bazerman, Charles (U of California, Santa Barbara, USA), An essay on pedagogy by Mikhail M. Bakhtin. Written Communication (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) 22.3 (2005), 333–338.05–270Belanger, Joe (U of British Columbia, USA), ‘When will we ever learn?’: the case for formative assessment supporting writing development. English in Australia (Norwood, Australia) 141 (2004), 41–48.05–271Bodwell, Mary Buchinger (Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, USA; mary.bodwell@bos.mcphs.edu), ‘Now what does that mean, “first draft”?’: responding to text in an adult literacy class. Linguistics and Education (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 15.1–2 (2004), 59–79.05–272Broadley, Guy, Seeing forward looking back: the New Zealand literacy picture. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, Australia) 28.1 (2005), 8–18.05–273Bruton, Anthony & Emilia Alonso Marks (Universidad de Sevilla, Spain), Reading texts in instructed L1 and FL reading: student perceptions and actual selections. Hispania (Exton, PA, USA) 87.4 (2004), 770–783.05–274Chandrasegaran, Antonia (Nanyang Technical U, Singapore), Mary Ellis & Gloria Poedjosoedarmo, Essay Assist: developing software for writing skills improvement in partnership with students. RELC Journal (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) 36.2 (2005), 137–155.05–275Chujo, Kiyomi (Nihon U, Japan; chujo@cit.nihon-u.ac.jp) & Masao Utiyama, Understanding the role of text length, sample size and vocabulary size in determining text coverage. Reading in a Foreign Language (Honolulu, HI, USA) 17.1 (2005), 1–22.05–276Cromley, Jennifer G. & Roger Azevedo (U of Maryland College Park, USA), What do reading tutors do? A naturalistic study of more and less experienced tutors in reading. Discourse Processes (Mahwah, NJ, USA) 40.1 (2005), 83–113.05–277Crompton, Peter (crompton@fastmail.fm), ‘Where’, ‘In which’, and ‘In that’: a corpus-based approach to error analysis. RELC Journal (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) 36.2 (2005), 157–176.05–278Day, Richard (U of Hawaii, Manoa, USA) & Jeong-suk Park, Develop ing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language (Honolulu, HI, USA) 17.1 (2005), 60–73.05–279Dunlosky, John & Katherine A. Rawson (U of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA), Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the Levels-of-Disruption Hypothesis for the Rereading Effect. Discourse Processes (Mahwah, NJ, USA) 40.1 (2005), 37–55.05–280Guillot, Marie-Noëlle (U of East Anglia, UK), Il y a des gens qui disent que…‘there are people who say that…’. Beyond grammatical accuracy in FL learners' writing: issues of non-nativeness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL) (Berlin, Germany) 43.2. (2005), 109–128.05–281Haan, Pieter de (p.dehaan@let.ru.nl) & Kees van Esch, The development of writing in English and Spanish as foreign languages. Assessing Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 10.2 (2005), 100–116.04–282Hitosugi, Claire Ikumi & Richard R. Day (U of Hawaii, Manoa, USA), Extensive reading in Japanese. Reading in a Foreign Language (Honolulu, HI, USA) 16.1 (2004), 21–39.05–283Hunt, Alan (Kansai U, Osaka, Japan) & David Beglar, A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language (Honolulu, HI, USA) 17.1 (2005), 23–59.05–284Jackson, Sue & Susan Gee (Victoria U of Wellington, New Zealand; sue.jackson@vuw.ac.nz), ‘Look Janet’, ‘No you look John’: constructions of gender in early school reader illustrations across 50 years. Gender and Education (Abingdon, UK) 17.2 (2005), 115–128.05–285Kaplan, B. Robert (U of Southern California, USA) & Richard B. Baldauf, Jr., Editing contributed scholarly articles from a language management perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 14.1 (2005), 47–62.05–286Keen, John (Manchester U, UK; john.keen@man.ac.uk), Sentence-combining and redrafting processes in the writing of secondary school students in the UK. Linguistics and Education (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 15.1–2 (2004), 81–97.05–287Liu, Lu (Purdue U, USA), Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: a comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 14.1 (2005), 1–18.05–288Liu, Yongbing (Nanyang Technological U, Singapore), The construction of pro-science and technology discourse in Chinese language textbooks. Language and Education (Clevedon, UK) 19.4 (2005), 281–303.05–289McCarthey, Sarah J. & Georgia Earnest García (U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA), English language learners' writing practices and attitudes. Written Communication (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) 22.2 (2005), 36–75.05–290McCarthey, Sarah J., Yuey-Hi Guo & Sunday Cummins (U of Illinois, USA), Understanding changes in elementary Mandarin students' L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 14.2 (2005), 71–104.05–291Mills, Kathy, Deconstructing binary oppositions in literacy discourse and pedagogy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, Australia) 28.1 (2005), 67–82.05–292Mišak, Aleksandra, Matko Marušić & Ana Marušić (Zagreb U School of Medicine, Croatia), Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 14.2 (2005), 151–172.05–293Misson, Ray (U of Melbourne, Australia), What are we creating in creative writing?English in Australia (Norwood, Australia) 141 (2004), 132–140.05–294Nelson, Cynthia D. & Caroline San Miguel (U of Technology, Sydney, Australia), Designing doctoral writing workshops that problematise textual practices. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 116–136.05–295Oller, Jr., John W., Liang Chen, Stephen, D. Oller & Ning Pan (U of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA), Empirical predictions from a general theory of signs. Discourse Processes (Mahwah, NJ, USA) 40.2 (2005), 115–144.05–296Paltridge, Brian (U of Sydney, Australia), Teaching thesis and dissertation writing. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 78–96.05–297Pantaleo, Sylvia, Young children engage with the metafictive in picture books. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, Australia) 28.1 (2005), 19–37.05–298Pearson, Lynn (Bowling Green State U, USA), The web portfolio: a project to teach Spanish reading and Hispanic cultures. Hispania (Exton, PA, USA) 87.4 (2004), 759–769.05–299Peterson, Shelley & Theresa Calovini (Toronto U, Canada; slpeterson@oise.utoronto.ca), Social ideologies in grade eight students' conversation and narrative writing. Linguistics and Education (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 15.1–2 (2004), 121–139.05–300Reynolds, Dudley W. (U of Houston, USA), Linguistic correlates of second language literacy development: evidence from middle-grade learner essays. Journal of Second Language Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 14.1 (2005), 19–45.05–301Roache-Jameson, Sharyn, Kindergarten connections: a study of intertextuality and its links with literacy in the kindergarten classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, Australia) 28.1 (2005), 48–66.05–302Ryan, Josephine, Young people choose: adolescents' text pleasures. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, Australia) 28.1 (2005), 38–54.05–303Rymes, Betsy (Georgia U, USA; brymes@coe.uga.edu), Contrasting zones of comfortable competence: popular culture in a phonics lesson. Linguistics and Education (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 14.3–4 (2003), 321–335.05–304Skillen, Jan & Emily Purser (U of Wollongong, Australia), Teaching thesis writing: policy and practice at an Australian university. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 17–33.05–305Stapleton, Paul (Hokkaido U, Japan; paulstapleton@gmail.com), Using the web as a research source: implications for L2 academic writing. The Modern Language Journal (Malden, MA, USA) 89.2 (2005), 177–189.05–306Starfield, Sue (U of New South Wales, Australia), The evolution of a thesis-writing course for Arts and Social Sciences students: what can applied linguistics offer?Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 137–154.05–307Strauss, Pat, Jo Ann Walton & Suzanne Madsen (Auckland U of Technology, New Zealand), ‘I don't have time to be an English teacher’: supervising the EAL thesis. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 1–16.05–308Terras, Melissa (U of London, UK; m.terras@ucl.ac.uk), Reading the readers: modelling complex humanities processes to build cognitive systems. Literary and Linguistic Computing (Oxford, UK) 20.1 (2005), 41–59.05–309Turner, Joan (U of London, UK), Writing a Ph.D. in the contemporary humanities. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong, China) 8.2 (2003), 34–53.05–310Wallace, Catherine (Institute of Education, UK; c.wallace@ioe.ac.uk), Conversations around the literacy hour in a multilingual London primary school. Language and Education (Clevedon, UK) 19.4 (2005), 322–338.05–311Yamada, Kyoko (wsedikol@hotmail.com), Lexical patterns in the eyes of intermediate EFL readers. RELC Journal (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) 36.2 (2005), 177–188.05–312Yamashita, Junko (Nagoya U, Japan), Reading attitudes in L1 and L2, and their influence on L2 extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language (Honolulu, HI, USA) 16.1 (2004), 1–19.05–313Zhang, Hao & Rumjahn Hoosain (The U of Minnesota, USA), Activation of themes during narrative reading. Discourse Processes (Mahwah, NJ, USA) 40.1 (2005), 57–82.

At one point in Victor Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the archdeacon, Claude Frollo, looked up from a book on his table to the edifice of the gothic cathedral, visible from his canon’s cell in the cloister of Notre Dame: “Alas!” he said, “this will kill that” (146). Frollo’s lament, that the book would destroy the edifice, captures the medieval cleric’s anxiety about the way in which Gutenberg’s print technology would become the new universal means for recording and communicating humanity’s ideas and artistic expression, replacing the grand monuments of architecture, human engineering, and craftsmanship. For Hugo, architecture was “the great handwriting of humankind” (149). The cathedral as the material outcome of human technology was being replaced by the first great machine—the printing press. At this point in the third millennium, some people undoubtedly have similar anxieties to Frollo: is it now the book’s turn to be destroyed by yet another great machine? The inclusion of “post print” in our title is not intended to sound the death knell of the book. Rather, we contend that despite the enduring value of print, digital publishing is “present and active” and is changing the way in which research, particularly in the humanities, is being undertaken. Our approach has three related parts. First, we consider how digital technologies are changing the way in which content is constructed, customised, modified, disseminated, and accessed within a global, distributed network. This section argues that the transition from print to electronic or digital publishing means both losses and gains, particularly with respect to shifts in our approaches to textuality, information, and innovative publishing. Second, we discuss the Children’s Literature Digital Resources (CLDR) project, with which we are involved. This case study of a digitising initiative opens out the transformative possibilities and challenges of digital publishing and e-scholarship for research communities. Third, we reflect on technology’s capacity to bring about major changes in the light of the theoretical and practical issues that have arisen from our discussion. I. Digitising in a “post-print age” We are living in an era that is commonly referred to as “the late age of print” (see Kho) or the “post-print age” (see Gunkel). According to Aarseth, we have reached a point whereby nearly all of our public and personal media have become more or less digital (37). As Kho notes, web newspapers are not only becoming increasingly more popular, but they are also making rather than losing money, and paper-based newspapers are finding it difficult to recruit new readers from the younger generations (37). Not only can such online-only publications update format, content, and structure more economically than print-based publications, but their wide distribution network, speed, and flexibility attract advertising revenue. Hype and hyperbole aside, publishers are not so much discarding their legacy of print, but recognising the folly of not embracing innovative technologies that can add value by presenting information in ways that satisfy users’ needs for content to-go or for edutainment. As Kho notes: “no longer able to satisfy customer demand by producing print-only products, or even by enabling online access to semi-static content, established publishers are embracing new models for publishing, web-style” (42). Advocates of online publishing contend that the major benefits of online publishing over print technology are that it is faster, more economical, and more interactive. However, as Hovav and Gray caution, “e-publishing also involves risks, hidden costs, and trade-offs” (79). The specific focus for these authors is e-journal publishing and they contend that while cost reduction is in editing, production and distribution, if the journal is not open access, then costs relating to storage and bandwith will be transferred to the user. If we put economics aside for the moment, the transition from print to electronic text (e-text), especially with electronic literary works, brings additional considerations, particularly in their ability to make available different reading strategies to print, such as “animation, rollovers, screen design, navigation strategies, and so on” (Hayles 38). Transition from print to e-text In his book, Writing Space, David Bolter follows Victor Hugo’s lead, but does not ask if print technology will be destroyed. Rather, he argues that “the idea and ideal of the book will change: print will no longer define the organization and presentation of knowledge, as it has for the past five centuries” (2). As Hayles noted above, one significant indicator of this change, which is a consequence of the shift from analogue to digital, is the addition of graphical, audio, visual, sonic, and kinetic elements to the written word. A significant consequence of this transition is the reinvention of the book in a networked environment. Unlike the printed book, the networked book is not bound by space and time. Rather, it is an evolving entity within an ecology of readers, authors, and texts. The Web 2.0 platform has enabled more experimentation with blending of digital technology and traditional writing, particularly in the use of blogs, which have spawned blogwriting and the wikinovel. Siva Vaidhyanathan’s The Googlization of Everything: How One Company is Disrupting Culture, Commerce and Community … and Why We Should Worry is a wikinovel or blog book that was produced over a series of weeks with contributions from other bloggers (see: http://www.sivacracy.net/). Penguin Books, in collaboration with a media company, “Six Stories to Start,” have developed six stories—“We Tell Stories,” which involve different forms of interactivity from users through blog entries, Twitter text messages, an interactive google map, and other features. For example, the story titled “Fairy Tales” allows users to customise the story using their own choice of names for characters and descriptions of character traits. Each story is loosely based on a classic story and links take users to synopses of these original stories and their authors and to online purchase of the texts through the Penguin Books sales website. These examples of digital stories are a small part of the digital environment, which exploits computer and online technologies’ capacity to be interactive and immersive. As Janet Murray notes, the interactive qualities of digital environments are characterised by their procedural and participatory abilities, while their immersive qualities are characterised by their spatial and encyclopedic dimensions (71–89). These immersive and interactive qualities highlight different ways of reading texts, which entail different embodied and cognitive functions from those that reading print texts requires. As Hayles argues: the advent of electronic textuality presents us with an unparalleled opportunity to reformulate fundamental ideas about texts and, in the process, to see print as well as electronic texts with fresh eyes (89–90). The transition to e-text also highlights how digitality is changing all aspects of everyday life both inside and outside the academy. Online teaching and e-research Another aspect of the commercial arm of publishing that is impacting on academe and other organisations is the digitising and indexing of print content for niche distribution. Kho offers the example of the Mark Logic Corporation, which uses its XML content platform to repurpose content, create new content, and distribute this content through multiple portals. As the promotional website video for Mark Logic explains, academics can use this service to customise their own textbooks for students by including only articles and book chapters that are relevant to their subject. These are then organised, bound, and distributed by Mark Logic for sale to students at a cost that is generally cheaper than most textbooks. A further example of how print and digital materials can form an integrated, customised source for teachers and students is eFictions (Trimmer, Jennings, & Patterson). eFictions was one of the first print and online short story anthologies that teachers of literature could customise to their own needs. Produced as both a print text collection and a website, eFictions offers popular short stories in English by well-known traditional and contemporary writers from the US, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and Europe, with summaries, notes on literary features, author biographies, and, in one instance, a YouTube movie of the story. In using the eFictions website, teachers can build a customised anthology of traditional and innovative stories to suit their teaching preferences. These examples provide useful indicators of how content is constructed, customised, modified, disseminated, and accessed within a distributed network. However, the question remains as to how to measure their impact and outcomes within teaching and learning communities. As Harley suggests in her study on the use and users of digital resources in the humanities and social sciences, several factors warrant attention, such as personal teaching style, philosophy, and specific disciplinary requirements. However, in terms of understanding the benefits of digital resources for teaching and learning, Harley notes that few providers in her sample had developed any plans to evaluate use and users in a systematic way. In addition to the problems raised in Harley’s study, another relates to how researchers can be supported to take full advantage of digital technologies for e-research. The transformation brought about by information and communication technologies extends and broadens the impact of research, by making its outputs more discoverable and usable by other researchers, and its benefits more available to industry, governments, and the wider community. Traditional repositories of knowledge and information, such as libraries, are juggling the space demands of books and computer hardware alongside increasing reader demand for anywhere, anytime, anyplace access to information. Researchers’ expectations about online access to journals, eprints, bibliographic data, and the views of others through wikis, blogs, and associated social and information networking sites such as YouTube compete with the traditional expectations of the institutions that fund libraries for paper-based archives and book repositories. While university libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase all hardcover books relevant to numerous and varied disciplines, a significant proportion of their budgets goes towards digital repositories (e.g., STORS), indexes, and other resources, such as full-text electronic specialised and multidisciplinary journal databases (e.g., Project Muse and Proquest); electronic serials; e-books; and specialised information sources through fast (online) document delivery services. An area that is becoming increasingly significant for those working in the humanities is the digitising of historical and cultural texts. II. Bringing back the dead: The CLDR project The CLDR project is led by researchers and librarians at the Queensland University of Technology, in collaboration with Deakin University, University of Sydney, and members of the AustLit team at The University of Queensland. The CLDR project is a “Research Community” of the electronic bibliographic database AustLit: The Australian Literature Resource, which is working towards the goal of providing a complete bibliographic record of the nation’s literature. AustLit offers users with a single entry point to enhanced scholarly resources on Australian writers, their works, and other aspects of Australian literary culture and activities. AustLit and its Research Communities are supported by grants from the Australian Research Council and financial and in-kind contributions from a consortium of Australian universities, and by other external funding sources such as the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. Like other more extensive digitisation projects, such as Project Gutenberg and the Rosetta Project, the CLDR project aims to provide a centralised access point for digital surrogates of early published works of Australian children’s literature, with access pathways to existing resources. The first stage of the CLDR project is to provide access to digitised, full-text, out-of-copyright Australian children’s literature from European settlement to 1945, with selected digitised critical works relevant to the field. Texts comprise a range of genres, including poetry, drama, and narrative for young readers and picture books, songs, and rhymes for infants. Currently, a selection of 75 e-texts and digital scans of original texts from Project Gutenberg and Internet Archive have been linked to the Children’s Literature Research Community. By the end of 2009, the CLDR will have digitised approximately 1000 literary texts and a significant number of critical works. Stage II and subsequent development will involve digitisation of selected texts from 1945 onwards. A precursor to the CLDR project has been undertaken by Deakin University in collaboration with the State Library of Victoria, whereby a digital bibliographic index comprising Victorian School Readers has been completed with plans for full-text digital surrogates of a selection of these texts. These texts provide valuable insights into citizenship, identity, and values formation from the 1930s onwards. At the time of writing, the CLDR is at an early stage of development. An extensive survey of out-of-copyright texts has been completed and the digitisation of these resources is about to commence. The project plans to make rich content searchable, allowing scholars from children’s literature studies and education to benefit from the many advantages of online scholarship. What digital publishing and associated digital archives, electronic texts, hypermedia, and so forth foreground is the fact that writers, readers, publishers, programmers, designers, critics, booksellers, teachers, and copyright laws operate within a context that is highly mediated by technology. In his article on large-scale digitisation projects carried out by Cornell and University of Michigan with the Making of America collection of 19th-century American serials and monographs, Hirtle notes that when special collections’ materials are available via the Web, with appropriate metadata and software, then they can “increase use of the material, contribute to new forms of research, and attract new users to the material” (44). Furthermore, Hirtle contends that despite the poor ergonomics associated with most electronic displays and e-book readers, “people will, when given the opportunity, consult an electronic text over the print original” (46). If this preference is universally accurate, especially for researchers and students, then it follows that not only will the preference for electronic surrogates of original material increase, but preference for other kinds of electronic texts will also increase. It is with this preference for electronic resources in mind that we approached the field of children’s literature in Australia and asked questions about how future generations of researchers would prefer to work. If electronic texts become the reference of choice for primary as well as secondary sources, then it seems sensible to assume that researchers would prefer to sit at the end of the keyboard than to travel considerable distances at considerable cost to access paper-based print texts in distant libraries and archives. We considered the best means for providing access to digitised primary and secondary, full text material, and digital pathways to existing online resources, particularly an extensive indexing and bibliographic database. Prior to the commencement of the CLDR project, AustLit had already indexed an extensive number of children’s literature. Challenges and dilemmas The CLDR project, even in its early stages of development, has encountered a number of challenges and dilemmas that centre on access, copyright, economic capital, and practical aspects of digitisation, and sustainability. These issues have relevance for digital publishing and e-research. A decision is yet to be made as to whether the digital texts in CLDR will be available on open or closed/tolled access. The preference is for open access. As Hayles argues, copyright is more than a legal basis for intellectual property, as it also entails ideas about authorship, creativity, and the work as an “immaterial mental construct” that goes “beyond the paper, binding, or ink” (144). Seeking copyright permission is therefore only part of the issue. Determining how the item will be accessed is a further matter, particularly as future technologies may impact upon how a digital item is used. In the case of e-journals, the issue of copyright payment structures are evolving towards a collective licensing system, pay-per-view, and other combinations of print and electronic subscription (see Hovav and Gray). For research purposes, digitisation of items for CLDR is not simply a scan and deliver process. Rather it is one that needs to ensure that the best quality is provided and that the item is both accessible and usable by researchers, and sustainable for future researchers. Sustainability is an important consideration and provides a challenge for institutions that host projects such as CLDR. Therefore, items need to be scanned to a high quality and this requires an expensive scanner and personnel costs. Files need to be in a variety of formats for preservation purposes and so that they may be manipulated to be useable in different technologies (for example, Archival Tiff, Tiff, Jpeg, PDF, HTML). Hovav and Gray warn that when technology becomes obsolete, then content becomes unreadable unless backward integration is maintained. The CLDR items will be annotatable given AustLit’s NeAt funded project: Aus-e-Lit. The Aus-e-Lit project will extend and enhance the existing AustLit web portal with data integration and search services, empirical reporting services, collaborative annotation services, and compound object authoring, editing, and publishing services. For users to be able to get the most out of a digital item, it needs to be searchable, either through double keying or OCR (optimal character recognition). The value of CLDR’s contribution The value of the CLDR project lies in its goal to provide a comprehensive, searchable body of texts (fictional and critical) to researchers across the humanities and social sciences. Other projects seem to be intent on putting up as many items as possible to be considered as a first resort for online texts. CLDR is more specific and is not interested in simply generating a presence on the Web. Rather, it is research driven both in its design and implementation, and in its focussed outcomes of assisting academics and students primarily in their e-research endeavours. To this end, we have concentrated on the following: an extensive survey of appropriate texts; best models for file location, distribution, and use; and high standards of digitising protocols. These issues that relate to data storage, digitisation, collections, management, and end-users of data are aligned with the “Development of an Australian Research Data Strategy” outlined in An Australian e-Research Strategy and Implementation Framework (2006). CLDR is not designed to simply replicate resources, as it has a distinct focus, audience, and research potential. In addition, it looks at resources that may be forgotten or are no longer available in reproduction by current publishing companies. Thus, the aim of CLDR is to preserve both the time and a period of Australian history and literary culture. It will also provide users with an accessible repository of rare and early texts written for children. III. Future directions It is now commonplace to recognize that the Web’s role as information provider has changed over the past decade. New forms of “collective intelligence” or “distributed cognition” (Oblinger and Lombardi) are emerging within and outside formal research communities. Technology’s capacity to initiate major cultural, social, educational, economic, political and commercial shifts has conditioned us to expect the “next big thing.” We have learnt to adapt swiftly to the many challenges that online technologies have presented, and we have reaped the benefits. As the examples in this discussion have highlighted, the changes in online publishing and digitisation have provided many material, network, pedagogical, and research possibilities: we teach online units providing students with access to e-journals, e-books, and customized archives of digitised materials; we communicate via various online technologies; we attend virtual conferences; and we participate in e-research through a global, digital network. In other words, technology is deeply engrained in our everyday lives. In returning to Frollo’s concern that the book would destroy architecture, Umberto Eco offers a placatory note: “in the history of culture it has never happened that something has simply killed something else. Something has profoundly changed something else” (n. pag.). Eco’s point has relevance to our discussion of digital publishing. The transition from print to digital necessitates a profound change that impacts on the ways we read, write, and research. As we have illustrated with our case study of the CLDR project, the move to creating digitised texts of print literature needs to be considered within a dynamic network of multiple causalities, emergent technological processes, and complex negotiations through which digital texts are created, stored, disseminated, and used. Technological changes in just the past five years have, in many ways, created an expectation in the minds of people that the future is no longer some distant time from the present. Rather, as our title suggests, the future is both present and active. References Aarseth, Espen. “How we became Postdigital: From Cyberstudies to Game Studies.” Critical Cyber-culture Studies. Ed. David Silver and Adrienne Massanari. New York: New York UP, 2006. 37–46. An Australian e-Research Strategy and Implementation Framework: Final Report of the e-Research Coordinating Committee. Commonwealth of Australia, 2006. Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991. Eco, Umberto. “The Future of the Book.” 1994. 3 June 2008 ‹http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_future_of_book.html>. Gunkel, David. J. “What's the Matter with Books?” Configurations 11.3 (2003): 277–303. Harley, Diane. “Use and Users of Digital Resources: A Focus on Undergraduate Education in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” Research and Occasional Papers Series. Berkeley: University of California. Centre for Studies in Higher Education. 12 June 2008 ‹http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_future_of_book.html>. Hayles, N. Katherine. My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2005. Hirtle, Peter B. “The Impact of Digitization on Special Collections in Libraries.” Libraries & Culture 37.1 (2002): 42–52. Hovav, Anat and Paul Gray. “Managing Academic E-journals.” Communications of the ACM 47.4 (2004): 79–82. Hugo, Victor. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Notre-Dame de Paris). Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth editions, 1993. Kho, Nancy D. “The Medium Gets the Message: Post-Print Publishing Models.” EContent 30.6 (2007): 42–48. Oblinger, Diana and Marilyn Lombardi. “Common Knowledge: Openness in Higher Education.” Opening up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education Through Open Technology, Open Content and Open Knowledge. Ed. Toru Liyoshi and M. S. Vijay Kumar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. 389–400. Murray, Janet H. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. Trimmer, Joseph F., Wade Jennings, and Annette Patterson. eFictions. New York: Harcourt, 2001.

IntroductionIn late 2016, I undertook a short-term, three-month project to share some of my research through my Instagram account using the categorising hashtag #AustralianBeachspace. Much of this work emerged from my PhD thesis, which is being published in journal articles, but has yet to be published in any accessible or overarching way. I wanted to experiment with the process of using a visual social media tool for research dissemination. I felt that Instagram’s ability to combine text and image allowed for an aesthetically interesting way to curate this particular research project. My research is concerned with representations of the Australian beach, and thus the visual, image-based focus of Instagram seemed ideal. In this article, I briefly examine some of the existing research around academic practices of research dissemination, social media use, and the emerging research around Instagram itself. I then will examine my own experience of using Instagram as a tool for depicting curated, aesthetically-driven, research dissemination and reflect whether this use of Instagram is effective for representing and disseminating research. Research DisseminationResearchers, especially those backed by public funding, are always bound by the necessity of sharing the findings and transferring the knowledge gained during the research process. Research metrics are linked to workload allocations and promotion pathways for university researchers, providing clear motivation to maintain an active research presence. For most academics, the traditional research dissemination strategies involve academic publications: peer-reviewed scholarly books and journal articles.For academics working within a higher education policy climate that centres on measuring impact and engagement, peer-reviewed publications remain the gold standard. There are indicators, however, that research dissemination strategies may need to include methods for targeting non-academic outputs. Gunn and Mintrom (21), in their recent research, “anticipate that governments will increasingly question the value of publicly funded research and seek to evaluate research impact”. And this process, they argue, is not without challenges. Education Minister Simon Birmingham supports their claim by suggesting the Turnbull Government is looking to find methods for more meaningful ways of evaluating value in higher education research outcomes, “rather than only allocating funding to researchers who spend their time trying to get published in journals” (para 5).It therefore makes sense that academics are investigating ways of using social media as a way of broadening their research dissemination, despite the fact social media metrics do not yet count towards traditional citations within the university sector.Research Dissemination via Social MediaThere has been an established practice of researchers using social media, especially blogging (Kirkup) and Twitter, as ways of sharing information about their current projects, their findings, their most recent publications, or to connect with colleagues. Gruzd, Staves, and Wilk (2348) investigated social media use by academics, suggesting “scholars are turning to social media tools professionally because they are more convenient for making new connections with peers, collaboration, and research dissemination”. It is possible to see social media functioning as a new way of representing research – playing an important role in the shaping and developing of ideas, sharing those ideas, and functioning as a dissemination tool after the research has concluded.To provide context for the use of social media in research, this section briefly covers blogging and Twitter, two methods considered somewhat separated from university frameworks, and also professional platforms, such as Academia.edu and The Conversation.Perhaps the tool that has the most history in providing another avenue for academics to share their work is academic blogging. Blogging is considered an avenue that allows for discussion of topics prior to publication (Bukvova, 4; Powell, Jacob, and Chapman, 273), and often uses a more conversational tone than academic publishing. It provides opportunity to share research in long form to an open, online audience. Academic blogs have also become significant parts of online academic communities, such as the highly successful blog, The Thesis Whisperer, targeted for research students. However, many researchers in this space note the stigma attached to blogging (and other forms of social media) as useless or trivial; for instance, in Gruzd, Staves, and Wilk’s survey of academic users of social media, an overwhelming majority of respondents suggested that institutions do not recognise these activities (2343). Because blogging is not counted in publication metrics, it is possible to dismiss this type of activity as unnecessary.Twitter has garnered attention within the academic context because of its proliferation in conference engagement and linking citation practices of scholars (Marht, Weller, and Peters, 401–406). Twitter’s platform lends itself as a place to share citations of recently published material and a way of connecting with academic peers in an informal, yet meaningful way. Veletsianos has undertaken an analysis of academic Twitter practices, and there is a rise in popularity of “Tweetable Abstracts” (Else), or the practice of refining academic abstracts into a shareable Tweet format. According to Powell, Jacob, and Chapman (272), new media (including both Twitter and the academic blog) offer opportunities to engage with an increasingly Internet-literate society in a way that is perhaps more meaningful and certainly more accessible than traditional academic journals. Like blogging, the use of Twitter within the active research phase and pre-publication, means the platform can both represent and disseminate new ideas and research findings.Both academic blogs and Twitter are widely accessible and can be read by Internet users beyond academia. It appears likely, however, that many blogs and academic Twitter profiles are still accessed and consumed primarily by academic audiences. This is more obvious in the increasingly popular specific academic social media platforms such as ResearchGate or Academia.edu.These websites are providing more targeted, niche communication and sharing channels for scholars working in higher education globally, and their use appears to be regularly encouraged by institutions. These sites attempt to mediate between open access and copyright in academic publishing, encouraging users to upload full-text documents of their publications as a means of generating more attention and citations (Academia.edu cites Niyazov et al’s study that suggests articles posted to the site had improved citation counts). ResearchGate and Academia.edu function primarily as article repositories, albeit with added social networking opportunities that differentiate them from more traditional university repositories.In comparison, the success of the online platform The Conversation, with its tagline “Academic rigour, journalistic flair”, shows the growing enthusiasm and importance of engaging with more public facing outlets to share forms of academic writing. Many researchers are using The Conversation as a way of sharing their research findings through more accessible, shorter articles designed for the general public; these articles regularly link to the traditional academic publications as well.Research dissemination, and how the uptake of online social networks is changing individual and institution-wide practices, is a continually expanding area of research. It is apparent that while The Conversation has been widely accepted and utilised as a tool of research dissemination, there is still some uncertainty about using social media as representing or disseminating findings and ideas because of the lack of impact metrics. This is perhaps even more notable in regards to Instagram, a platform that has received comparatively little discussion in academic research more broadly.Instagram as Social MediaInstagram is a photo sharing application that launched in 2010 and has seen significant uptake by users in that time, reaching 700 million monthly active users as of April 2017 (Instagram “700 Million”). Recent additions to the service, such as the “Snapchat clone” Instagram Stories, appear to have helped boost growth (Constine, para 4). Instagram then is a major player in the social media user market, and the emergence of academic research into the platform reflect this. Early investigations include Manikonda, Hu and Kambhampati’s analysis social networks, demographics, and activities of users in which they identified some clear differences in usage compared to Flickr (another photo-sharing network) and Twitter (5). Hochman and Manovich and Hochman and Schwartz examined what information visualisations generated from Instagram images can reveal about the “visual rhythms” of geographical locations such as New York City.To provide context for the use of Instagram as a way of disseminating research through a more curated, visual approach, this section will examine professional uses of Instagram, the role of Influencers, and some of the functionalities of the platform.Instagram is now a platform that caters for both personal and professional accounts. The user-interface allows for a streamlined and easily navigable process from taking a photo, adding filters or effects, and sharing the photo instantly. The platform has developed to include web-based access to complement the mobile application, and has also introduced Instagram Business accounts, which provide “real-time metrics”, “insights into your followers”, and the ability to “add information about your company” (Instagram “Instagram Business”). This also comes with the option to pay for advertisements.Despite its name, many users of Instagram, especially those with profiles that are professional or business orientated, do not only produce instant content. While the features of Instagram, such as geotagging, timestamping, and the ability to use the camera from within the app, lend themselves to users capturing their everyday experience in the moment, more and more content is becoming carefully curated. As such, some accounts are blurring the line between personal and professional, becoming what Crystal Abidin calls Influencers, identifying the practice as when microcelebrities are able to use the “textual and visual narration of their personal, everyday lives” to generate paid advertorials (86). One effect of this, as Abidin investigates in the context of Singapore and the #OOTD (Outfit of the Day) hashtag, is the way “everyday Instagram users are beginning to model themselves after Influences” and therefore generate advertising content “that is not only encouraged by Influences and brands but also publicly utilised without remuneration” (87). Instagram, then, can be a very powerful platform for businesses to reach wide audiences, and the flexibility of caption length and visual content provides a type of viral curation practice as in the case of the #OOTD hashtag following.Considering the focus of my #AustralianBeachspace project on Australian beaches, many of the Instagram accounts and hashtags I encountered and engaged with were tourism related. Although this will be discussed in more detail below, it is worth noting that individual Influencers exist in these fields as well and often provide advertorial content for companies like accommodation chains or related products. One example is user @katgaskin, an Influencer who both takes photos, features in photos, and provides “organic” adverts for products and services (see image). Not all her photos are adverts; some are beach or ocean images without any advertorial content in the caption. In this instance, the use of distinctive photo editing, iconic imagery (the “salty pineapple” branding), and thematic content of beach and ocean landscapes, makes for a recognisable and curated aesthetic. Figure 1: An example from user @katgaskin's Instagram profile that includes a mention of a product. Image sourced from @katgaskin, uploaded 2 June 2017.@katgaskin’s profile’s aesthetic identity is, as such, linked with the ocean and the beach. Although her physical location regularly changes (her profile includes images from, for example, Nicaragua, Australia, and the United States), the thematic link is geographical. And research suggests the visual focus of Instagram lends itself to place-based content. As Hochman and Manovich state:While Instagram eliminates static timestamps, its interface strongly emphasizes physical place and users’ locations. The application gives a user the option to publicly share a photo’s location in two ways. Users can tag a photo to a specific venue, and then view all other photos that were taken and tagged there. If users do not choose to tag a photo to a venue, they can publically share their photos’ location information on a personal ‘photo-map’, displaying all photos on a zoomable word map. (para 14)This means that the use of place in the app is anchored to the visual content, not the uploader’s location. While it is possible to consider Instagram’s intention was to anchor the content and the uploader’s location together (as in the study conducted by Weilenmann, Hillman, and Jungselius that explored how Instagram was used in the museum), this is no longer always the case. In this way, Instagram is also providing a platform for more serious photographers to share their images after they have processed and edited them and connect the image with the image content rather than the uploader’s position.This place-based focus also shares origins in tourism photography practices. For instance, Kibby’s analysis of the use of Instagram as a method for capturing the “tourist gaze” in Monument Valley notes that users mostly wanted to capture the “iconic” elements of the site (most of which were landscape formations made notable through representations in popular culture).Another area of research into Instagram use is hashtag practice (see, for example, Ferrara, Interdonato, and Tagarelli). Highfield and Leaver have generated a methodology for mapping hashtags and analysing the information this can reveal about user practices. Many Instagram accounts use hashtags to provide temporal or place based information, some specific (such as #sunrise or #newyorkcity) and some more generic (such as #weekend or #beach). Of particular relevance here is the role hashtags play in generating higher levels of user engagement. It is also worth noting the role of “algorithmic personalization” introduced by Instagram earlier in 2017 and the lukewarm user response as identified by Mahnke Skrubbeltrang, Grunnet, and Tarp’s analysis, suggesting “users are concerned with algorithms dominating their experience, resulting in highly commercialised experience” (section 7).Another key aspect of Instagram’s functionality is linked to the aesthetic of the visual content: photographic filters. Now a mainstay of other platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, Instagram popularised the use of filters by providing easily accessible options within the app interface directly. Now, other apps such as VCSO allow for more detailed editing of images that can then be imported into Instagram; however, the pre-set filters have proven popular with large numbers of users. A study in 2014 by Araújo, Corrêa, da Silva et al found 76% of analysed images had been processed in some way.By considering the professional uses of Instagram and the functionality of the app (geotagging; hashtagging; and filters), it is possible to summarise Instagram as a social media platform that, although initially perhaps intended to capture the everyday visual experiences of amateur photographers using their smart phone, has adapted to become a network for sharing images that can be for both personal and professional purposes. It has a focus on place, with its geotagging capacity and hashtag practices, and can include captions The #AustralianBeachspace ProjectIn October 2016, I began a social media project called #AustralianBeachspace that was designed to showcase content from my PhD thesis and ongoing work into representations of Australian beaches in popular culture (a collection of the project posts only, as opposed to the ongoing Instagram profile, can be found here). The project was envisaged as a three month project; single posts (including an image and caption) were planned and uploaded six times a week (every day except Sundays). Although I have occasionally continued to use the hashtag since the project’s completion (on 24 Dec. 2016), the frequency and planned nature of the posts since then has significantly changed. What has not changed is the strong thematic through line of my posts, all of which continue to rely heavily on beach imagery. This is distinct from other academic social media use which if often more focused on the everyday activity of academia.Instagram was my social media choice for this project for two main reasons: I had no existing professional Instagram profile (unlike Twitter) and thus I could curate a complete project in isolation, and the subject of my PhD thesis was representations of Australian beaches in literature and film. As such, my research was appropriate for, and in fact was augmented by, visual depiction. It is also worth noting the tendency reported by myself and others (Huntsman; Booth) of academics not considering the beach an area worthy of focus. This resonates with Bech Albrechtslund and Albrechtslund’s argument that “social media practices associated with leisure and playfulness” are still meaningful and worthy of examination.Up until this point, my research outputs had been purely textual. I, therefore, needed to generate a significant number of visual elements to complement the vast amount of textual content already created. I used my PhD thesis to provide the thematic structure (I have detailed this process in more depth here), and then used the online tool Trello to plan, organise, and arrange the intended posts (image and caption). The project includes images taken by myself, my partner, and other images with no copyright limitations attached as sourced through photo sharing sites like Unsplash.com.The images were all selected because of their visual representation of an Australian beach, and the alignment of the image with the themes of the project. For instance, one theme focused on the under-represented negative aspects of the beach. One image used in this theme was a photo of Bondi Beach ocean pool, empty at night. I carefully curated the images and arranged them according to the thematic schedule (as can be seen below) and then wrote the accompanying textual captions. Figure 2: A sample of the schedule used for the posting of curated images and captions.While there were some changes to the schedule throughout (for instance, my attendance at the 2016 Sculpture by the Sea exhibition prompted me to create a sixth theme), the process of content curation and creation remained the same.Visual curation of the images was a particularly important aspect of the project, and I did use an external photo processing application to create an aesthetic across the collection. As Kibby notes, “photography is intrinsically linked with tourism” (para 9), and although not a tourism project inherently, #AustralianBeachspace certainly engaged with touristic tropes by focusing on Australian beaches, an iconic part of Australian national and cultural identity (Ellison 2017; Ellison and Hawkes 2016; Fiske, Hodge, and Turner 1987). However, while beaches are perhaps instinctively touristic in their focus on natural landscapes, this project was attempting to illustrate more complexity in this space (which mirrors an intention of my PhD thesis). As such, some images were chosen because of their “ordinariness” or their subversion of the iconic beach images (see below). Figures 3 and 4: Two images that capture some less iconic images of Australian beaches; one that shows an authentic, ordinary summer's day and another that shows an empty beach during winter.I relied on captions to provide the textual information about the image. I also included details about the photographer where possible, and linked all the images with the hashtag #AustralianBeachspace. The textual content, much of which emerged from ongoing and extensive research into the topic, was somewhat easier to collate. However, it required careful reworking and editing to suit the desired audience and to work in conjunction with the image. I kept captions to the approximate length of a paragraph and concerned with one point. This process forced me to distil ideas and concepts into short chunks of writing, which is distinct from other forms of academic output. This textual content was designed to be accessible beyond an academic audience, but still used a relatively formal voice (especially in comparison to more personal users of the platform).I provided additional hashtags in a first comment, which were intended to generate some engagement. Notably, these hashtags were content related (such as #beach and #surf; they were not targeting academic hashtags). At time of writing, my follower count is 70. The most liked (or “favourited”) photo from the project received 50 likes, and the most comments received was 6 (on a number of posts). Some photos published since the end of the project have received higher numbers of likes and comments. This certainly does not suggest enormous impact from this project. Hashtags utilised in this project were adopted from popular and related hashtags using the analytics tool Websta.me as well as hashtags used in similar content styled profiles, such as: #seeaustralia #thisisqueensland #visitNSW #bondibeach #sunshinecoast and so on. Notably, many of the hashtags were place-based. The engagement of this project with users beyond academia was apparent: followers and comments on the posts are more regularly from professional photographers, tourism bodies, or location-based businesses. In fact, because of the content or place-based hashtagging practices I employed, it was difficult to attract an academic audience at all. However, although the project was intended as an experiment with public facing research dissemination, I did not actively adopt a stringent engagement strategy and have not kept metrics per day to track engagement. This is a limitation of the study and undoubtedly allows scope for further research.ConclusionInstagram is a platform that does not have clear pathways for reaching academic audiences in targeted ways. At this stage, little research has emerged that investigates Instagram use among academics, although it is possible to presume there are similarities with blogging or Twitter (for example, conference posting and making connections with colleagues).However, the functionality of Instagram does lend itself to creating and curating aesthetically interesting ways of disseminating, and in fact representing, research. Ideas and findings must be depicted as images and captions, and the curatorial process of marrying visual images to complement or support textual information can make for more accessible and palatable content. Perhaps most importantly, the content is freely accessible and not locked behind paywalls or expensive academic publications. It can also be easily archived and shared.The #AustralianBeachspace project is small-scale and not indicative of widespread academic practice. However, examining the process of creating the project and the role Instagram may play in potentially reaching a more diverse, public audience for academic research suggests scope for further investigation. Although not playing an integral role in publication metrics and traditional measures of research impact, the current changing climate of higher education policy provides motivations to continue exploring non-traditional methods for disseminating research findings and tracking research engagement and impact.Instagram functions as a useful platform for sharing research data through a curated collection of images and captions. Rather than being a space for instant updates on the everyday life of the academic, it can also function in a more aesthetically interesting and dynamic way to share research findings and possibly generate wider, public-facing engagement for topics less likely to emerge from behind the confines of academic journal publications. ReferencesAbidin, Crystal. “Visibility Labour: Engaging with Influencers’ Fashion Brands and #Ootd Advertorial Campaigns on Instagram.” Media International Australia 161.1 (2016): 86–100. <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X16665177>.Araújo, Camila Souza, Luiz Paulo Damilton Corrêa, Ana Paula Couto da Silva, et al. “It is Not Just a Picture: Revealing Some User Practices in Instagram.” Proceedings of the 9th Latin American Web Congress, Ouro Preto, Brazil, 22–24 October, 2014. <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7000167>Bech Albrechtslund, Anne-Metter, and Anders Albrechtslund. “Social Media as Leisure Culture.” First Monday 19.4 (2014). <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4877/3867>.Birmingham, Simon. “2017 Pilot to Test Impact, Business Engagement of Researchers.” Media Release. Australian Government: Australian Research Council. 21 Nov. 2016. <http://www.arc.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2017-pilot-test-impact-business-engagement-researchers>.Booth, Douglas. Australian Beach Cultures: The History of Sun, Sand, and Surf. London, United Kingdom: F. Cass, 2001.Bukvova, Helena. “Taking New Routes: Blogs, Web Sites, and Scientific Publishing.” ScieCom Info 7.2 (2011). 20 May 2017 <http://journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/sciecominfo/article/view/5148>.Constine, Josh. “Instagram’s Growth Speeds Up as It Hits 700 Million Users.” Techcrunch, 26 Apr. 2017. 1 June 2017 <https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/26/instagram-700-million-users/>.drlizellison. “Dr Liz Ellison.” Instagram.com, 2017. 8 June 2017 <http://www.instagram.com/drlizellison>.Ellison, Elizabeth. “The Australian Beachspace: Flagging the Spaces of Australian Beach Texts.” PhD thesis. Brisbane: Queensland U of Technology, 2013. <https://eprints.qut.edu.au/63468/>.Ellison, Elizabeth. “The Gritty Urban: The Australian Beach as City Periphery in Cinema.” Filmburia: Screening the Suburbs. Eds. David Forrest, Graeme Harper and Jonathan Rayner. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. 79–94.Ellison, Elizabeth, and Lesley Hawkes. “Australian Beachspace: The Plurality of an Iconic Site”. Borderlands e-Journal: New Spaces in the Humanities 15.1 (2016). 4 June 2017 <http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol15no1_2016/ellisonhawkes_beachspace.pdf>.Else, Holly. “Tell Us about Your Paper—and Make It Short and Tweet.” Times Higher Education, 9 July 2015. 1 June 2017 <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/tell-us-about-your-paper-and-make-it-short-and-tweet>.Ferrara, Emilio, Roberto Interdonato, and Andrea Tagarelli. “Online Popularity and Topical Interests through the Lens of Instagram.” Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, Santiago, Chile, 1–4 Sep. 2014. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2631775.2631808>.Gruzd, Anatoliy, Kathleen Staves, and Amanda Wilk. “Connected Scholars: Examining the Role of Social Media in Research Practices of Faculty Using the Utaut Model.” Computers in Human Behavior 28.6 (2012): 2340–50.Gunn, Andrew, and Michael Mintrom. “Evaluating the Non-Academic Impact of Academic Research: Design Considerations.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39.1 (2017): 20–30. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2016.1254429>.Highfield, Tim, and Tama Leaver. “A Methodology for Mapping Instagram Hashtags”. First Monday 20.1 (2015). 18 Oct. 2016 <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5563/4195>.Hochman, Nadav, and Lev Manovich. “Zooming into an Instagram City: Reading the Local through Social Media.” First Monday 18.7 (2013). <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4711/3698>.Hochman, Nadav, and Raz Schwartz. “Visualizing Instagram: Tracing Cultural Visual Rhythms.” Proceedings of the Workshop on Social Media Visualization (SocMedVis) in Conjunction with the Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM–12), 2012. 6–9. 2 June 2017 <http://razschwartz.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Instagram_ICWSM12.pdf>.Huntsman, Leone. Sand in Our Souls: The Beach in Australian History. Carlton South, Victoria: Melbourne U Press, 2001.Instagram. “700 Million.” Instagram Blog, 26 Apr. 2017. 6 June 2017 <http://blog.instagram.com/post/160011713372/170426-700million>.Instagram. “Instagram Business.” 6 June 2017. <https://business.instagram.com/>.katgaskin. “Salty Pineapple”. Instagram.com, 2017. 2 June 2017 <https://www.instagram.com/katgaskin/>.katgaskin. “Salty Hair with a Pineapple Towel…” Instagram.com, 2 June 2017. 6 June 2017 <https://www.instagram.com/p/BU0zSWUF0cm/?taken-by=katgaskin>.Kibby, Marjorie Diane. “Monument Valley, Instagram, and the Closed Circle of Representation.” M/C Journal 19.5 (2016). 20 April 2017 <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1152>.Kirkup, Gill. “Academic Blogging: Academic Practice and Academic Identity.” London Review of Education 8.1 (2010): 75–84.liz_ellison. “#AustralianBeachspace.” Storify.com. 8 June 2017. <https://storify.com/liz_ellison/australianbeachspace>.Mahnke Skrubbeltrang, Martina, Josefine Grunnet, and Nicolar Traasdahl Tarp. “#RIPINSTAGRAM: Examining User’s Counter-Narratives Opposing the Introduction of Algorithmic Personalization on Instagram.” First Monday 22.4 (2017). <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7574/6095>.Mahrt, Merja, Katrin Weller, and Isabella Peters. “Twitter in Scholarly Communication.” Twitter and Society. Eds. Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt, and Cornelius Puschmann. New York: Peter Lang, 2014. 399–410. <https://eprints.qut.edu.au/66321/1/Twitter_and_Society_(2014).pdf#page=438>.Manikonda, Lydia, Yuheng Hu, and Subbarao Kambhampati. “Analyzing User Activities, Demographics, Social Network Structure and User-Generated Content on Instagram.” ArXiv (2014). 1 June 2017 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8099>.Niyazov, Yuri, Carl Vogel, Richard Price, et al. “Open Access Meets Discoverability: Citations to Articles Posted to Academia.edu.” PloS One 11.2 (2016): e0148257. <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148257>.Powell, Douglas A., Casey J. Jacob, and Benjamin J. Chapman. “Using Blogs and New Media in Academic Practice: Potential Roles in Research, Teaching, Learning, and Extension.” Innovative Higher Education 37.4 (2012): 271–82. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9207-7>.Veletsianos, George. “Higher Education Scholars' Participation and Practices on Twitter.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28.4 (2012): 336–49. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x>.Weilenmann, Alexandra, Thomas Hillman, and Beata Jungselius. “Instagram at the Museum: Communicating the Museum Experience through Social Photo Sharing.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paris: ACM Press, 2013. 1843–52. <dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466243>.