My #REF2014

My #REF2014

8546479900_20ae1c18f0_k.jpg

The #REF2014 results came out, but the details are still unpublished. I led the Unit 36 submission for the University of the West of Scotland, which managed to achieve a 25% growth in 3-4* research activity. We were particularly successful in our Research Impact evaluation and the two case studies each related to my work. Until the full documentation is made available, here's a snippet of what was submitted, along with my research output details.

Research Outputs

Impact Case Studies

“Bringing Science to Society”: Influencing Public Engagement with Bioethics

Professor Andy Miah’s research on the ethics of human enhancement has transformed the working lives of three principal professional communities: curators of UK flagship festivals and exhibitions (Abandon Normal Devices festival, the Wellcome Trust, Edinburgh International Science Festival); journalists (coverage on doping); and politicians and civil servants working on technology policy (European Parliament, World Anti-Doping Agency). His pioneering research has led to the creation of new artistic work, shaped policy directions, contributed to public engagement with bioethics, and advanced debate on the ethics of digital and biological technology.

“We Are the Media”: Enabling Media Citizenship

Research from the Creative Futures Institute (CFi) has generated original understandings of how social media has triggered change within the practice of journalism. The evidence shows how findings from 3 inter-related projects were a catalyst for skills development and generated new contributions to both civil society and the creative community. Impact is demonstrated across 15 organizations where new community media collectives were developed around the Vancouver 2010 (W2 Centre & True North Media House) and London 2012 Olympics (#media2012 & #CitizenRelay). UWS research led these organisations to invest £115,000 additional funds and implement these findings in their current work.

 

There are a lot of people to thank beyond the researchers involved in the creation of the impact case studies. For legal reasons, their names are omitted from the final documentation, but institutions include Abandon Normal Devices, London 2012 Creative Programmer in the North West, FACT Liverpool, CamGlen, Media Trust UK, Wellcome Trust, STV, and the Edinburgh International Science Festival.

Can a six-second movie be considered art?

Can a six-second movie be considered art?

14756014919_5220011e8a_o.jpg

In my first article for @ConversationUK I focus on the hypershort video format as an art work. This paper was stimulated by a talk I gave for the Encounters Short Film Festival in Bristol. Take a peek Here's one I made earlier (from China)...

 

The Olympic Movement and New Media (2014)

The Olympic Movement and New Media (2014)

2014.12-OlympicsSocialMedia.jpg

This week, a new book of mine was published by the Russian International Olympic University. Co-authored with Alexander Zolotarev and Prof Lev Belousov, the book is published in Russian and covers such areas as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, the Sochi 2014 context, and how the International Olympic Committee is re-orientating itself around new and social media.

Live Event: Sports Media

Live Event: Sports Media

2014.07-IAAF-copy.jpg

2014.12.17-IOCMoocOn Wednesday 17th December, I will host a webinar event for the International Olympic Committee MOOC on Sports Media, which will feature British Olympian Samantha Murray. Register here Samantha Murray at Bath UniversityPicture Sam Farr for Matchtight31/10/12

 

Here is the overview:

Dear Athletes and Learners,

Do you know how to use social media to enhance your sporting career?

Are you prepared for the tough questions from the media that come straight after competition?

Have you thought about moving into the media after your stop competing?

Join Prof Andy Miah, Chair in Science Communication and Digital Media at the University of Salford, as he talks exclusively to Modern Pentathlon Olympic silver medallist and reigning world champion, Samantha Murray.

Following her Olympic success, Samantha has been exposed to a level of media attention she could never have imagined. From radio interviews, magazine articles, television shows and personal appearances, Samantha has done them all – hear exactly how she has dealt with her new found fame and hear her tips on how you can do the same.

Plus learn from Alex Trickett, Head of Sport for Twitter UK about his top tips for athletes who want to actively use social media platforms.

This live event will also include interactive polls and give you the opportunity to ask your own questions in a dedicated Q&A session towards the end of the event.

Limited spaces available, register now to reserve your place.

 

Best wishes

The IOC Athlete MOOC Team

FameLab UK

FameLab UK

2014.12.08-FameLabFinal-copy.jpg

This week, I judged the regional final of @FameLabUK with contestants from Manchester and Sheffield. It was a fantastic display of the talented science communicators around England's North and the winner was @Benstutchbury with a 3 minute whirlwind through 'Mucous'! It was great to be involved with this and I really look forward to growing this network in my new role. 

International Drones for Research Network

International Drones for Research Network

This week, I've launched the 'International Drones for Research Network', an initiative that emerges from my thoughts around Project Daedalus, but also from the many conversations I have had with colleagues over the year about the utilization of drones for a whole range of research projects. Personally, I am curious to learn about new projects and want to share experiences and knowledge about how drones are developing and how they might be used. The network starts of as an email group, we will see where it goes from there.

IOC MOOC on Sports Media #IOCathleteMOOC

IOC MOOC on Sports Media #IOCathleteMOOC

Screen-Shot-2014-11-28-at-4.30.03-PM.png

Today saw the launch of the International Olympic Committee MOOC on Sport and the Media, which I led. We have some of the world's leading media pros in the course, including the IOC's Heads or Communications, Media Operations, and Social Media. We also have ABC Broadcaster Tracey Holmes, photographer extraordinaire Nick Didlick, awesome video journalist Yuval Lion, and athlete Jonathan Edwards MBE. The course is free to access and is designed to guide athletes towards a career in the media, after they conclude their life in competition. Subjects covered include broadcasting, writing, photography, video journalism, corporate communications, social media, and future media developments. Something for everyone!

Here's the link

Screen Shot 2014-11-28 at 4.27.54 PM Screen Shot 2014-11-28 at 4.28.02 PM

 

The Secret Life of Passwords

The Secret Life of Passwords

IMG_9923.jpg

This week, the New York Times published an article written by Ian Urbina, titled 'The Secret Life of Passwords'. I have been talking with Ian about this article for a few months now and a lot of research on his part has gone into this extensive, fascinating investigation. I am quoted in the piece a couple of times, but I thought it might be worthwhile publishing my entire responses to Ian, as a supplement. So, here they are, pulled out of emails, slightly edited for clarity.  

Dear Ian, what a very interesting line of inquiry. 

You are right, this is not something I have focused on specifically in my published work, but I have given some thought to this in the course of my research. In particular, I have two comments to make, one around the prevalence of data mining for passwords and the other related to the future of verification. Here are some thoughts which may or may not be useful. Feel free to quote anything or seek clarification, if useful/interesting.

I agree that passwords are a very interesting gateway to personal life stories and what we has been meaningful in our lives. I think we could quite reasonably say that the passwords we choose relate very closely to the things that matter in our lives. They are our secret autobiographies.

Unfortunately, mattering is a problem vis a vis security. This is because what matters to us, increasingly, is also embedded within our extended digital lives. Consider an anniversary, the date of which could be tagged in Facebook. Previously, someone might have used an anniversary as their password - perhaps their mother's birthday - but these dates are much more public now and so these meaningful passwords are much less desirable. In fact, if you look at the most secure systems, randomized, temporal, unique codes are the preference. The best passwords, it would seem, are those which are devoid of any meaning and impossible to guess.

Furthermore, it has become preferable for these passwords to be valid only within a fixed temporal period. The platforms which host our content ask us to change them regularly, sometimes every time we login, as is the case for things like online banking. In this sense, the concept of passwords as being closely tied to what we care about is disappearing, as the number of places where we need to verify who we are expands. Instead, verifying ourselves is becoming a matter of series of having a unique string of zeros and ones - almost like our DNA -  as more and more of our semantic selves is shared online. It seems that the more public we become, the more vulnerable we are.

So, in terms of the future, I think it is very interesting to reflect on present systems of verification, beyond passwords. For example, the Captcha verification system utilizes a kind of primitive Turing test to verify we are human, by requiring us to demonstrate we can understand letters, words and place them alongside each other. Yet, even here, one can envisage improvements that, for instance, take into account our character on a computer - how fast we type on the keys, the pressure we exert on them. This kind system would get closer to something like a unique digital signature.

Did you see that Google just acquired SlickLogin - which verifies id using sound waves? That's a nice example of how I think passwords will become a thing of the past - in your terms - part of our digital memoirs. I think one crucial element of this debate is the fact that passwords have, for a long time, been chosen on the basis of what we are able to remember, so they do, as you suggest, access aspects of our personal psychology in a very intimate way. What we choose is closely tied to our memories of the things that mattered most to us.

This is changing also as verification becomes a matter of biometric measurement. Already, the iPhone 5 uses a fingerprint verification and we have been aware of retina verification as a way of authenticating ourselves for some time now. So, the erosion of memory as a means of verifying who we are is, i think, inevitable. After all, it is a matter of reliability and our memories are more fallible than our biology.

In terms of academic research on this, in my studies, I have come across a great deal that talks about personality and choice over passwords. For instance, some research discusses how, what we choose as our passwords, reflects what sort of people we are. We might choose meaningful people in our lives to whom we have emotional bonds, or we might choose things of which we are fans, for instance, a football player's name. In some cases, these choices may be relatively subconscious, they say something important about ourselves, even if we don't consciously identify them as such. What appears salient to us in terms of memory may just reveal itself to us, without much in-depth thought or consideration.

In my view, we have also to take into account two life courses when thinking about this. The first life course relates to our actual age; where we are and what we've gone through. If you are 13 and starting a facebook account, you are less likely to choose a meaningful anniversary than a favourite popband or sibling birthday perhaps. If you are older, your range of memories from which you can choose will be far greater. The second life course is our journey through technology.

If you have had to renew your work email password every 12 weeks for the last 10 years, you may well have exhausted your most memorable moments, but there again, what an interesting thing it would be to examine all of those passwords over the years and build a picture of somebody's life. I think it would be a wonderful window to their world and their lives.

We also have to take on board how universal passwords are being generated now by logging in with large social media applications, like Twitter or facebook. This again changes how we project our sense of history and identity - in this case we tie those memories increasingly to the lives we have lived within these social media platforms.

I hope some of this may be useful, but happy to dialogue a bit more, if that's useful.

best wishes,

Andy

 

Some additional quote sent subsequently:

"If passwords do become a thing of the past, there is something that we will lose as a result. Our daily encounters with personal memories, which have no place to be recalled elsewhere in our lives will cease to be present."

"Passwords are a window to what matters to us in a most personal sense. They are not like anniversaries or like significant public landmarks in our lives like weddings or children being born. Instead, they are the things that may matter only to us. And so it is a loss of intimacy with our past that we sacrifice by ceasing to remember."

"While their demise will not change the fact that these things will still happen to us, we may stop thinking about these moments in the same way."

"In some small sense, we will lose part of our selves and, as a result, we will need to renegotiate our personal histories in the process."

 

How do science festivals nurture scientific citizenship? #scicomm

How do science festivals nurture scientific citizenship? #scicomm

IMG_20141023_101420.jpg

This week, Salford University launched a number of studentship calls, one of which would be under my supervision, focusing on the role of science festivals in society. I am really excited about this position for a number of reasons. I think there is a need to investigate the value and contribution of science festivals to society, so we can make the most of them and understand what else needs to be done develop critically engaged citizens, who are mindful of the complexity of science and compelled to invest themselves into its development. I am also interested in the range of events that fit into the category of 'science festival', which is surely more expansive than the term often denotes. For instance, there are many festivals that provoke a lot of engagement around new creative technologies, such as Burning Man where the focus is on participation and inhabiting the festival, and where there is a lot of experimental technology developed and discussed.

Alternatively, there are hundreds of science festivals, which link with science funding bodies or the media to deliver science communication events and opportunities for public debate. Great examples of this include Manchester Science Festival, an organisation which we would expect to work closely with in fleshing out this project.

Having worked around a lot of scholars who focus their research on festivals, I think there is something distinct about the science festival, but I am not yet sure what it is or which functions they serve, or how effectively their impact across policy or public understanding can be measured.

This PhD will explore some of these dimensions but its theoretical contribution will speak to some of the broad questions that confront humanity today, such as trying to unpack the limits of democratising science and the implications of this for how societies organize and progress. Science festivals find themselves at an exciting time in human history where the kinds of changes that are on the horizon are potentially species altering and certainly environment altering. There seems no more important time in human history than now that the entire population needs to tune into some of the decisions which are affecting our future.

The successful candidate will have a great time in this role discovering the wide world of science festivals. The methodological underpinning will rely on social scientific approaches, but there is an opportunity also to shape this and an understanding of science policy processes, critical theory, media studies, and a desire to inquire into the role of science in society are at the heart of the project.

The role will be located within the School of Environment and Life Sciences at the University of Salford, Manchester. It is a really dynamic and exciting place to work with huge investments and partnerships, a lot of ambition, and this PhD is the first kind we have advertised. It will be a unique context for someone who has aspirations to work within the field of science communication and public engagement, whether or not they have a background in science. Many of us are hybrids in this school and even more of us believe in studying the cross over of disciplines to really make sense of the world.

If you are interested in applying for this fully funded PhD studentship, please find all the relevant info here. If you are interested in providing financial support for the PhD, either in match funds, or supporting additional placements, please contact me directly.

 

Photograph from the Marcus Coates 'The Sounds of Others', part of Manchester Science Festival

Is Google Glass Intelligent? #throughglass

Is Google Glass Intelligent? #throughglass

20141113_081307_301e.jpg

Over the last few months, I have been traveling the world wearing Google Glass, giving demos to people, seeing their reactions, documenting the journey. One quirk I have noticed over this period is that, now and then, the device would take a photograph without my intending for it to do so. It would just snap away and I am left with a collection of accidental photos...at least, I presume they are accidental. I suppose it is possible that this is actually a design feature of Google Glass. Perhaps Google is deciding when the device takes a photo. Are there Google employees in the basement of the HQ all monitoring what each device is seeing and pushing a big red button when they want a photograph to be taken? I hope so :) Here's the first set of from this autonomous photographic device.

 

Salford International Media Festival #SIMF14

Salford International Media Festival #SIMF14

image1.jpg

This week saw some of the UK's best media pros come to Salford - many of them are already here of course! The phenomenal venue of Media City was a fantastic back drop to debates about media change, not least because it stands as an example of how much change has happened already in the UK, since Media City was open. The industry conference was preceded by an academic conference and, while one might wish for more integration than separation, these are still early days in the programme's life and it was a fantastic achievement to bring these two alongside each other.

I chaired a panel looking at alternative media and social media and their role within journalism. Two things struck me about this panel. The first is that the media industries are still trying to figure out how to do social media and have yet to come to terms with just how much it is changing their profession.

Forget whether or not citizens are journalist, what struck me most was provoked by Salford' Caroline Cheetham revealing that the user-generated content (UGC) department in the BBC is the fastest growing of all departments. In a world where the amount of news is expanding and the number of journalists is diminshing, it seems apparent to me that a completely new model is required. While one presentation talked about journalists as 'curators' of content rather than 'originators' of content, this seems still a stop-gap position, at the top end of a slippery slope, the end of which is a complete failure of journalism to do anything that the people cannot do themselves.

This is not a realisation that those in the industry willingly accept, but it is an impending reality that is steadily eroding professional journalism. Until the media realise this and figure that, even 'trust' is not something that they can rely on as a USP, then it will steadily ebb away into oblivion.

Despite this gloomy prognosis, I am optimistic about the future of journalism, but it is a future that is not predicated on the current economic model, not even the current ethos of journalism. It has to evolve and figure out what kind of future it has in a world where enhanced democracies can produce capable citizen journalists who work out of networks that can take on the biggest and smallest stories in our world.

The opening day closed with a lecture from Harriet Harman MP, who emphasised the importance of the creative industries - focusing more on this than on the journalism side of things. Yet, this separation was my biggest problem with her speech. Within government, there is no sense of the ways in which content overlap across industries and how difficult it is to separate them out.

A debate about the BBC license fee on the second day left me with one conclusion. In a world where citizens take on the role of journalists, the rise of user generated content may one day see the BBC change its acronym to UGC. Journalists may still have a job, but it will look nothing like the one they enjoy today.

 

 

 

A Deep Blue Grasshopper: Playing Games with Artificial Intelligence

A Deep Blue Grasshopper: Playing Games with Artificial Intelligence

IMG_9864.jpg

Back when I was a PhD student, I discovered philosophy of mind and spent some of my early years wrestling with Turing’s ‘Imitation Game’ and the response of his contemporaries to the question ‘Can machines think?’ This question opens the new movie release inspired by Turing’s work and it seems a good reason to re-publish one of my papers that address the matter of how we devise the appropriate kind of test to answer this question. The paper I published was part of a collection on Philosophy and Chess and my piece 'A Deep Blue Grasshopper: Playing Games with Artificial Intelligence' interrogated the limits of the rationale mind in devising relevant tests for AI. Instead, it proposes games of greater complexity that

Whereas Turing's classic test relies on the human failure to distinguish between a computer and a human when occupying a particular role, the storytelling proposition requires a computer to make sense of second order concepts, such as joke telling. Anyway, I will let the article do the work, find below some of the key texts I have read that speak to the idea of discovering an answer to this question. These readings were my foundation for the subject:

 

Bloomfield, B.P. & Vurdubakis, T. (2003) Imitation games: Turing, Menard, Van Meegeren. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, p.pp.27–38.

Boden, M.A. (1998) Artificial Intelligence. In London & New York: Routledge.

Bostrom, N. (1997) How Long Before Superintelligence? Version 2.0.

Bringsjord, S. (1998) Chess is too Easy. Technology Review.

Copeland, J. (1993) Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Copeland, B.J. Turing’s O-machines, Searle, Penrose and the brain.

Dennett, D.C. (1991) Consciousness Explained, London: Penguin.

Dyson, G. (1997) Darwin Among the Machines, London: Allen Lane.

Fetzer, J.H. (1990) Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Harnad, S. (1999) Minds, Machines and Searle. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence, 1, p.pp.5–25.

Hauser, L. (1997) Searle’s Chinese Box: Debunking the Chinese Room Argument. Minds and Machines, 7 (3), p.pp.199–226. Available at: http://members.aol.com/lshauser2/chinabox.html.

Hauser, L. (1993) Why Isn’t My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing. Minds and Machines, 3 (1), p.pp.3–10. Available at: http://members.aol.com/lshauser/wimpcatt.html.

Kary, M. & Mahner, M. (2002) How would you know if you synthesized a thinking thing? Minds & Machines, 12 (1), p.pp.61–86.

Kasparov, G. (1997) Deep Blue wonders. The Guardian, p.p.1.

Leiber, J. (2000) On Getting Turing Wrong Perversely. Tekhnema, 6 (4). Available at: http://tekhnema.free.fr/3Leiber.htm.

Mainzer, K. (1998) Computer Technology and Evolution: From artificial intelligence to artificial life. Techne: Society for Philosophy and Technology, 4 (1).

Millican, P.J.R. & Clark, A. (1996) Machines and Thought: The Legacy of Alan Turing, vol 1.

Moran, F., Moreno, A., Merelo, J.J. & Chacon, P. (1995) Advances in Artificial Life: Third European Conference on Artificial Life, Granada, Spain, June 4-6, 1995 Proceedings. , 929.

Moravec, H. (1988) Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence, London: Harvard University Press.

Moravec, H. (1997) When will computer hardware match the human brain? Journal of Evolution and Technology, 1, p.p.http://www.jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.htm.

Penrose, R. (1995) Shadows of the Mind, London: Vintage.

Penrose, R. (1989) The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerrning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics., London: Vintage.

Piccinini, G. (2000) Turing’s Rules for the Imitation Game. Minds and Machines, 10 (4), p.pp.573–582.

Preston, D. & Taylor, D. (1996) Artificial Intelligence: An Ethical Analysis. In J. M. Kizza, ed. London: McFarland & Company, Inc., pp.267–272

Searle, J. (1980) Minds, Brains, and Programs. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 3 (3), p.pp.417–458. Available at: http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/MindsBrainsPrograms.html.

Searle, J.R. (1990) Is the Brain’s Mind a Computer Program? Scientific American, 262, p.pp.20–25.

Turing, A. (1950) Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind: A Quarterly Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, LIX (236, October). Available at: http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm.

Turing, A.M. (1951) Programmers’ Handbook for the Manchester Electronic Computer. Available at: http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/rst/turing/turing/index.html.

Wagman, M. Cognitive Science and the Symbolic Operations of Human and Artificial Intelligence, Westport, Conneticut: Praeger.

Smart Cities, Smart Sports

Smart Cities, Smart Sports

IMG_96001.jpeg

My talk from the City Events programme in Paris this week. There was a lot of talk on alternative sports events, perhaps cities are tired of multi-sport mega events, which they don't own and can't fully exploit or get behind. Plus a little film I made of the BMX demo.

Social Media & Radio: A Natural Born Partnership?

Social Media & Radio: A Natural Born Partnership?

IMG_9470.jpg

This week, I a gave a talk for the European Broadcasting Union at their HQ in Geneva. Here's the manuscript: Are Social Media and Radio Natural Born Partners?

by Professor Andy Miah

My starting point for answering this question is to think about the term ‘listening technology’, which has become a crucial concept within the field of social media. Anyone who is doing serious social media work is likely to have purchased some kind of listening technology and some of it is not cheap.

You can pay anything from nothing to tens of thousands of pounds for this software and it provides the most comprehensive means through which you can discover what takes place across your social media channels. The software allows you to understand how audiences engage, what they like, what they don’t like, and what you can do to improve the impact of what you share.

Yet, there is something ironic about the way this concept disregards what may be considered the first form of listening technology – radio. It is as if radio is seen simply as old media or that it has nothing to offer the dynamic world of social media. Radio was the first media technology to provide a direct, bi-directional communication between producers and audiences. Its content and its values became shaped by this ability and, arguably, so did the entire history of media culture that followed in its wake.

Are things different now? If radio was so influential to the way we think about the values of media culture today, then why does it seem that radio is treated as an outdated mode of communicating, unable to monetize its content to a level that is anywhere near television or film? Is radio’s distinguishing feature still its capacity to listen to people? Is it still the exemplary form of listening technology?

To answer this, I think we have consider what are the distinguishing features of radio today? However, this is no easy task to resolve in a world of complex transmedia experiences, where even our understanding of how people consume media is complicated and dynamic. We don’t even fully understand how people use media across devices and across formats. For example, consider the following media consumer, lets’ call him Andy. Andy loves radio, tv, and social content. He consumes a lot of it, particularly through social media and online television.

Now picture Andy jumping on board an underground train in London. It’s a busy, crowded train and he has on his headphones and decides to open up his download of the latest episode of Homeland, a show of which is starting to tire. The train pulls into Covent Garden and he has to now make the dash through the crowd to the elevator and up into the street. What does he do at this point? He can’t continue watching the screen, it’s too busy. The episode of Homeland is meandering a bit - he’s not very impressed with the latest series – and, instead of switching off the device, he puts the phone into his pocket and continues consuming the content using just the audio track. Instead of watching television now, he is listening to it.

Suddenly, this tv series has become a radio drama and has switched into becoming a different kind of product. He finishes the episode and makes a decision that he may go back to the content later to see the visual version, or he may not. I am not sure how typical this example is, but it is one of many ways in which the conventions around consuming media are changing.

It works the other way around too and this is why many radio shows are producing visual content around their production. The example reminds us that it's not just the technology that is transforming the medium, it is also the way in which the technology interacts with peoples lives and how it forms new habits. So, my first headline is quite startling: I propose to you that we still don’t really know what is radio. With this in mind, how do we begin to theorize radio’s relationship to social media when, in fact, most professionals and commentators would argue that we live in times of transmedia experiences - where the distinctions between types of media content experience is being altered.

Yet, this kind of conversation is all very abstract still, so let’s make it more concrete. Consider the daily media journey of another typical consumer, John. When John wakes up, he often begins his media experience by opening up his BBC news app on his mobile phone, checking the news of the day, before even getting out of bed. This is principally a reading experience, but it’s not deep reading, just quick skim reads. The whole experience may last just 3 minutes. He then get’s up and, while getting ready – still with mobile in hand - click’s the ‘live’ button on the BBC news app, which then opens up the BBC News 24 tv channel on his phone. However, he doesn’t watch it, he just listens. It is the background audio company to his daily routine. Is this a radio experience?

After getting dressed, John goes downstairs and switches on his radio but, while listening to the BBC Today Show, he also reads the BBC News app again and, quite quickly, is reminded of how the content on those two platforms are related - the stories on his BBC News app are quite closely connected to what the BBC Radio 4 programme is discussing, but he is getting more depth from the radio.

If he really likes something he hears on the radio, he might decide to tweet about it and tag it with the @BBCRadio4 account handle or #BBCtoday tag. Within seconds, friends of his - who are also having their breakfast while listening to the show - will favorite his share and this tells him that they are each listening to the show at the same time. They are connected. This has now become a communal media experience.

This example reveals how the first part of our answer to the question about how radio relates to social media requires taking on board the idea that social media has changed how people consume media and, crucially, that the catchall term ‘social media’ is actually part of a broader set of changes to media consumption that emerge around ‘mobile media’ - consuming media on the move. Mobility then, is a decisive factor here, perhaps even more than social media.

Yet, none of this is completely new. Radio has already made inroads to social media integration. So what do we know about how social media is changing how radio producers think about their content? We know mostly that social media creates a change in how people work. People stop chasing web traffic and instead focus on engagement and dialogue. We know also that social media users include a core group who quickly become co-producers of content. We also know that the ethos of social media can change an organization’s working life and how it relates to its audience. We also know that radio listeners do go to social media platforms after listening to content to find more and they want to comment on that content. We know also that young people especially are engaged by the social media content emerging from radio. Other key principles that social media content creators advocate is a 30/70 split, where 30% of what you ahre is yours, while 70% is other things that will interest your followers. Where you can, it is also a good idea to attach an image or video to content, to promote engagement.

However, there is a lot we still don’t know about this world. For example, we know that different audiences in different countries do different things. They don’t consume social media content that relates to radio in the same way. Back in 2007, TIME magazine’s Person of the Year was ‘You’ – it came at the height of the YouTube growth and the decision speaks to the importance of authorship, participation, ownership, matters which social media users care about, and there are some great radio examples of this.

My favorite radio show is a US program called 99% Invisible, part of the Radiotopia programme. At the beginning of this year, they launched a kickstarter campaign to get their program to a weekly schedule. They made a lot of money, easily reaching their targets, because audiences want to feel invested in the media they consume. This goes beyond co-production, it has something to do with co-authorship - the desire to feel invested intellectually or creatively into something. This kind of desire underpins the citizen journalism movement. It explains why we have such phenomena as CNN’s iReport, or the Huffington Post, or Sound Cloud.

So, my answer to the question is that radio is optimally designed to maximize the benefits of social media. It was the first direct form of social media, bringing listeners into contact with presenters and giving live air space to audiences. However, I think there is one other important factor to bear in mind here.

As various media formats converge and has habits of media consumption fragment, there is a need to re-think what we understand as any singular format and, in the end, what may distinguish radio from other media is what may be described as the 'art of radio’ In a world of pervasive user generated content, the distinguishing factor is no longer the platform, it’s not having a channel, since everyone has a channel. Everyone can edit, create, and publish. What’s left, in my view, is something to do with creativity and, to be novel in this social media age, radio producers need to think about their medium as an art form, not as just a communication device. Understood in this way, social media isn’t simply a mode of rethinking how you distribute content. It isn’t even just a context for thinking about how you connect with audiences. It is about allowing your organization and your medium to re-think its values, its purpose, and its contribution to people’s lives.

As a final comment, I want to think specifically about the applications of radio to sport. I recall being at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games and having taken a train to Whistler, which was quite a trek. On the way back, people in the carriage were anxious to know what was happening in the ice hockey match - USA vs Canada of course. I remember people would be checking social media to find out what was happening, but actually the place where they should have been is radio. The technology is at a point now where, as a radio commentator, you can deliver 10 second live clips - with minimal delay - across social media platforms.

This capacity requires radio producers to re-think how they relate to platforms - the radio waves are part of a wider ecosystem of audio distribution and engaging people differently with audio becomes all the more important in a mobile world where we struggle to ‘watch’. Even technologies like Google Glass are unlikely to change that situation. In an entirely screen based world, the importance of listening becomes all the more distinct and valued and this is why radio, perhaps more than any other format, has the capacity to really innovate with social media.

I met a man recently who has a hearing limitation and wears a hearing aid, which he has hacked to allow him to hear the presence of a wifi signal. He played the sound to us, which was a kind of crackling noise, fluctuating in volume. It might turn out that the social media trend leads us to think about our sensory capacity to hear in different ways and this may be the most exciting thing of all for people working in radio.

So as a concluding point, the power of radio – the art of radio – may not be found in its history, but in the way that social media is compelling it to re-think its future. The kinds of sounds we have typically heard from radio may be quite different from what we hear in the future and sports are fantastic contexts in which to explore this world.

Thank you.

Bioarte: Actuacion Transhumana y Posthumana

Bioarte: Actuacion Transhumana y Posthumana

IMG_9404.jpg

Este mes, tengo un nuevo capitulo en el primer libro del nuevo revista Teknokultura. If you like a bit of bioart and a bit of spanish, then check it out! The book is edited by Heidi J. Figueroa Sarriera, Angel Gordo Lopez, and Javer de Rivera, and includes some really awesome authors, such as Steffen P. Walz, Barbara Bolt, Langdon Winner, Steven Mentor.  

Expanding the Ebola debate

Expanding the Ebola debate

Ebola.png

Back in September, I chaired a public debate for the British Society for Parasitology, which began with the emerging crisis around Ebola. In this film you will see what scientists think of this issue, how it's covered in the media, what we didn't do well enough, and what we need to do now, as a scientific community, to ensure we are best positioned to address this kind of crisis. You'll also see a debate filmed with Google Glass, which is a first for me.  

In Conversation with Marcus Coates

In Conversation with Marcus Coates

How should we think about our relationship to other species - and their relationship to each other? This is the question we are invited to consider when seeing Marcus Coates' new work 'The Sounds of Others', which premiered at the Manchester Science Festival this week. I took part in a conversation with him and his collaborator Geoff Sample who, ironically, had to sample a bunch of animals in order to help Marcus explore his work. The project essentially involves speeding up and slowing down the sounds of different species which, when done, begin to sound remarkably like each other. This art work was funded by Cape Farewell's new Lovelock Art Commission, which explores James Lovelock's Gaia theory through art. It's a really compelling piece, which is very easily understood upon seeing it and does make one think about our place in the world. I am sure it will tour all over the place, so do try and get to it, if you find it in your neighbourhood!

Project Daedalus Lab

Project Daedalus Lab

FullSizeRender.jpg

This week, the crew from Marshmallow Laser Feast came up to Manchester for the first of our lab events. Conversations focused on the scope of Project Daedalus, and a whole lot of playing with new tech, like Google Glass, Oculus Rift, Quadcopters, and Google Cardboard to explore fist person view perspectives on drone cameras. Here's a brief overview of some of the highlights: The wonderful Museum of Science and Industry was our creative platform for the three days...

Our amazing venue for #projectdaedalus lab s @voiceofmosi an inspiring place to work!

A video posted by Andy Miah (@andymiah) on

Glass vs Cardboard #Google

A photo posted by Andy Miah (@andymiah) on

The beauty of drone films at human eye level #projectdaedalus

A video posted by Andy Miah (@andymiah) on

This is work, honest! Testing FPV with drones. Manual mode @marshmallowlf @andfestival

A video posted by Andy Miah (@andymiah) on