IASSIST 2017 social media wall: an experiment in engagement

At the University of Kansas in Lawrence, from 23 to 26 May 2017, IASSIST hosted “Data in the Middle: The Common Language of Research.” The IASSIST 2017 Social Media Wall formed part of the meeting’s attempt to make research conversation visible, immediate and shared. Instead of allowing questions and observations to disappear into each session, the experiment gathered the social commentary generated around the programme and gave it a common destination.

The archived programme and schedule show the wall within a conference concerned with big data, deep learning, digital agriculture and global food security. Plenary sessions and parallel presentations addressed specialised questions, while the social display offered a less formal way for participants to react to those ideas. Short questions, observations and links could show where concepts were landing, where confusion remained and which connections crossed disciplinary boundaries.

The experiment also revealed how easily “engagement” can be confused with simple activity. A busy screen may indicate enthusiasm, curiosity or even polite performance. Its research value lies in asking what changed in the exchange: whether more people spoke, whether researchers answered one another, whether quieter participants entered, and whether useful conversation continued after the screens stopped refreshing.

For an Australian audience, the experiment offers lessons without requiring a literal copy. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane audiences routinely move between venues on public transport, using systems such as Opal, Myki and Go Card, while many everyday transactions now begin with a smartphone or QR code. Any conference wall for these settings has to be easy to join, legible on a phone and useful without specialist software.

How the wall changed conference conversation

An event social wall works as a bridge between an individual post and the room around it. Participants contribute through the platform and event identifier, while organisers may filter, group or display selected contributions. The result is not simply an archive of comments; it becomes a live prompt, asking attendees to look beyond their own session and recognise a wider conversation taking shape.

This matters most during a multi-session meeting. A plenary speaker could see a question emerge from a parallel discussion on digital agriculture; a researcher on global food security could encounter a challenge posted by someone working with deep learning. The wall compressed distance between rooms and made the programme feel like one shared inquiry, although those connections depended on active moderation rather than automatic publication.

Its impact should not be overstated. Screens can privilege fast, confident commentary, and people comfortable with public platforms may speak more often than those who are not. For the 2017 experiment, the most defensible achievement is therefore not a claim that social media solved conference participation. It is that the conference tested a visible, shared channel and made communication itself part of the subject matter.

Research made visible in public

The wall gave unusual visibility to ideas that might otherwise have remained technical or local. Big data becomes easier to discuss when participants can point to an actual research consequence; deep learning can be tested through questions about accuracy and application; digital agriculture and food security can be connected through shared concerns about evidence, access and policy.

The KU data archives add useful context to that public-facing view of scholarship. They show how conference material can sit alongside institutional collections and continuing research activity. A social wall functions best when its short posts point back to that deeper record, giving interested readers a route from a live observation to a paper, dataset, presentation or further discussion.

Display also changes who interprets the work. A researcher may recognise a methodological issue in a concise question, while a student or practitioner may connect it to an application not covered by the formal programme. The wall did not replace specialist review; it created another setting in which public language could reveal where explanations needed to improve.

Participation designed for busy audiences

An effective wall reduces the effort between seeing an invitation and contributing. A visible hashtag, a short URL and clear posting guidance can lower the barrier, while staff can explain the process at registration and between sessions. QR codes placed near the display suit audiences already accustomed to scanning menus, tickets and event programmes with their phones.

That convenience has to coexist with competing demands. In Sydney, a delegate may leave a venue to catch a train using an Opal card or contactless tap; in Melbourne, a Myki journey may determine whether there is time to return before the next session. Such practical habits favour brief mobile contributions over long forms. The display should also show how posts are selected, handled and removed, so participation does not create uncertainty.

The Australian market for conference technology includes universities, government teams, professional associations and community organisations with very different budgets and technical capacity. A shared service is often more practical than a custom platform, but contracts should specify accessibility, Australian support hours and export options. Regional delegates, including those in towns outside the major cities, need a low-data route that does not assume a constant office connection.

Moderation, privacy and trust

A public wall needs editorial judgement. Organisers must screen for abuse, personal information, unsupported claims and material that identifies a vulnerable participant. Posts should carry the participant’s chosen name, and moderation decisions need reasons that can be explained. Removing a message quietly may protect the screen, but transparent procedures better protect trust.

Australian requirements make those procedures concrete. Under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles, organisations collecting personal information should be clear about its purpose, take reasonable steps to secure it and avoid collecting more than the activity requires. The Spam Act 2003 also matters when promotional messages accompany the event. Consent for conference engagement is not the same permission as consent for later marketing.

Trust also depends on measurement discipline. Post counts, hashtags and screenshots can show activity, but they cannot establish learning, collaboration or inclusion on their own. A stronger assessment asks whether participants exchanged useful information, whether questions were answered, whether disciplinary perspectives were shared and whether contributors could correct or withdraw material under a published process.

Signals of meaningful engagement

The experiment becomes more useful when teams define engagement before launch and compare several kinds of evidence rather than celebrate one large number.

Useful signals include:

• Questions recurring across different sessions
• Replies that add evidence, examples or references
• Contributions from first-time and less-visible attendees
• Connections between separate research disciplines
• Discussion continuing after the conference closes

Common distortions include:

• Repetition by organisers or a small group
• Reactions posted without any substantive reply
• High activity from one dominant participant
• Impressions treated as evidence of understanding
• Platform algorithms determining which posts appear

These signals should be read together. Volume without diversity may amplify a narrow voice, while a small number of well-connected exchanges may be more consequential than hundreds of brief reactions. Organisations developing a broader participation strategy can consult RISE InPact alongside the archived material when considering how online contributions become accountable, human-centred action.

The experiment’s lasting value

Viewed now, the IASSIST experiment can be assessed as both communication mechanism and historical snapshot. It sat at a point when conferences were reconsidering how digital participation fitted around plenaries, parallel sessions and physical meeting spaces. Its strongest feature was not novelty of the tools, but the decision to make participant response visible alongside the research itself.

The comparison below separates the narrow social wall from a wider engagement model. This clarifies what the 2017 experiment can preserve without treating a temporary display as a complete substitute for conversation, peer review or community work.

Dimension	Social media wall in 2017	Broader conference engagement
Main purpose	Make live posts visible	Connect live, asynchronous and follow-up participation
Participant effort	Tag or submit a short post	Choose a suitable route for questions, evidence or collaboration
Evidence	Visible exchange around sessions	Linked feedback, decisions, outputs and later actions
Moderation	Filter public contributions in real time	Apply consent, correction, privacy and escalation pathways
Measures	Reach, post volume and visible reactions	Quality, diversity, retention and evidence of useful exchange
Legacy	A digital trace of conference moments	Archived material plus an accountable record of response

The surviving value of the wall lies in its testable premise: research communication becomes more public when the audience can react in the same place where ideas are presented. Even without archived dashboards or a final participant count, the experiment prompts a durable question about how conference organisers can turn attention into reciprocal exchange while retaining editorial care, legal responsibility and a clear record of the work discussed.