Articles de revues sur le sujet « Staffroom »

Innovation evolves all the time and it has tremendously changed English Language Teaching (ELT) particularly alongside advances in technology. This seemingly obvious fact, however, is not necessarily evident to everybody in our profession. This article documents innovations for language teachers based on empirical practices. Among major innovations addressed in this article include digital platforms, online corpora, mobile learning, online authentic materials, communicating with people online, online CPD and the global staffroom.

The study assessed the member response rate to the Oyo state teaching service commission (TESCOM) interactive learning platforms during the COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria. The study adopted a descriptive survey research design. The sample comprised 3,388 respondents drawn from five online learning platforms (Arts, science, commercial, general and staffroom). Two instruments, Response Rate Factor Questionnaire-Survey monkey (r = 0.83) and participant online direct recording (π = 0.76), were used to collect data at three different intervals. Frequency counts and analysis of variance were used to analyse the data collected. Those online at the time of data collection were 59 (5.2%) for science, 23 (4.3%) for arts, 24 (6.4%) for commercial, 84 (7.4%) for general study and 96 (48.5%) in the staff room platform. A significant difference in member response rate was observed across the learning platforms [F(4,10) = 4.374; p= 0.027< 0.05]. Bonferroni post hoc analysis shown by mean plot revealed that general studies platform had the highest mean score (M=169.0) in terms of members response online followed by staffroom (M=79.0) and lastly commercial platform (M=32.67). It was deduced from the findings that members across the TESCOM interactive learning platforms do not respond online the same way by participating on the respective interactive platform to which they belong. Therefore, TESCOM should ensure that teachers and students actively engage in online learning platforms for better teaching and learning.

This paper reports research conducted with Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) teachers in England, specifically to find out (i) whether the status of teaching influenced their decisions to join the profession, and (ii) their perceptions of their status within the profession. The data are drawn from the national Teacher Status Project conducted in England 2002-6 combined with previously unpublished data from a follow up study with Asian teachers in 2007. The conclusions, based on focus groups with 65 teachers (African Caribbean, Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi) in four regions of England, are that the teachers were not influenced by the status of teaching but joined the profession for intrinsic reasons, such as to improve children’s achievement, and to be role models for all children and for other teachers. Their self perceptions of their status within the profession are that it is low, as shown, for example, through the rejection of their culturally sensitive approaches to teaching, and their struggles to achieve leadership roles. The latter finding is repeatedly endorsed in studies of BME teachers and demands national monitoring of their career trajectories.

This article describes the development of a school environment questionnaire to assess students' perception of their school environment. The dimensions and internal consistency reliability were examined utilizing various statistical methods—factor analysis and alpha coefficient. The sample consisted of 705 students from two high schools with ages ranging from ten to nineteen years. Results showed that the students perceived their school as having various aspects, rather than a global point of view. Factor analysis identified seven dimensions in the school environment: external characteristics of the environment, aesthetic and functional elements of the classroom, students' bathroom, the canteen and staffroom, the aesthetic and functional elements of the school as a whole and sanitation. Overall the internal reliability of the factors was high. Implications for school health programs are addressed.

The microbial air quality of a Secondary School in Port Harcourt was investigated between 9- 9:30am and 2-2:30am employing plate exposure and count method for bacteria and fungi estimation. Results obtained from the study showed that bacteria counts from the school for morning session ranged from 4.8 x 103 cfu/m3 (Library) to 4.07 x 104 cfu/m3 (Staffroom) and for the afternoon 9.8 x 103 cfu/m3 (Library) to 4.66 x 104 cfu/m3(SS1A Classroom). Fungal counts ranged from 5.68 x 103 cfu/m3 (Library) to 2.07 x 104 cfu/m3 (SS3B Classroom) for the morning sessions and 6.56 x 103 cfu/m3 (Library) to 2.59 x 104 cfu/m3 (SS3B Classroom) for the afternoon session. Seven bacterial species, Bacillus spp., Enterococcus spp., Escherichia coli, Micrococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp. Staphylococcus aureus and Serratia spp and six fungal species, Alternaria spp., Aspergillus niger, Candida spp., Mucor spp., Penicillium spp., and Rhizopus spp were isolated. The bioaerosol concentrations were higher than recommended limit regardless of the sampling sessions. The high microbial counts and identified bacterial and fungal species may pose a serious problem to learning. Keywords: Microbial Air Quality, Classroom, Bacteria, Fungi, Niger Delta

This study investigates the level of social interaction, its determinants and influence on the instructors’ motivation and work efficiency in an online university in Pakistan. Exploratory case study design has been used for this purpose. Data was gathered through participant observations and one-to-one interviews. Ten interviews were conducted from instructors belonging to four different departments. Observations were carried out for a period of one month. The study revealed that in the online university, level of social interaction was lower than a traditional one. Instructors pointed out various reasons behind it including high workload, seating arrangements, and attitude of some of the heads. Even when they had free time and opportunities, most of the them preferred browsing through the internet or chatting with their fellows through computers. It appeared that the online culture and intense human-computer interaction had made them addicted to machines. Almost all the instructors agreed that higher and better level of social interaction would improve their job motivation, work efficiency and institutional attachment. They suggested more relaxed environment, trips and social gathering, workshops and conferences involving all the departments, sports week for the faculty members, and facilities like canteen and staffroom for improved social interaction and work experience.

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome - Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is mainly transmitted via respiratory secretions through coughing, sneezing, or contact with contaminated surfaces. This virus can be present in feces and many body fluids. The study aimed to screen the hospital environment as a potential source for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and identify the hospital zones with the highest contamination levels. Methodology: Swabs were collected from different sites in the hospital before and after routine cleaning/disinfection, transported in vials containing 1-3 mL of viral transport medium, and stored at -80 ℃ as soon as possible until the time of testing. The real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) system targeting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and E genes was used to detect the SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Results: Moderate environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by rRT-PCR before routine cleaning/disinfection (52% of the swabs were positive). The hospital surfaces with the highest contamination levels were elevators’ buttons, sinks and faucets’ handles at the waiting rooms, patient’s room and bathroom, call buttons and telephones in the patient’s room, toilet bowl surface, the doorknob and light switches at the X-ray room, and the computer keyboard at the staffroom. All the swabs collected after routine cleaning/disinfection were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR. Conclusions: The hospital environment is a high-risk area that can be contaminated by SARS-CoV-2 through contact, respiratory, and maybe fecal shedding of the virus. To limit this fatal virus transmission, strict adherence to proper hand hygiene with frequent optimal decontamination of hospital environmental surfaces is essential.

This paper reports a case study examining teachers’ feelings about teaching young learners (YLs) in the British Council Tokyo teaching centre. A literature review is presented, outlining desirable qualities for YL teachers. Qualitative and quantitative research – involving an online questionnaire, attitude survey and interviews – investigates teachers’ feelings about a variety of YL-related issues and finds three “groups” within the staffroom, each with a different profile and differing attitudes towards YL teaching. By identifying and analysing prevalent concerns amongst staff, recommendations for ELT managers are made to encourage effective professional development, thereby empowering less experienced teachers and promoting good practice for schools running YL programmes. 本論は、ブリティッシュ・カウンシル東京校で児童英語教育について教師の感想を研究したケーススタディーで、児童英語教師に求められる資質を示した文献も提示する。オンラインでのアンケートとインタビューという質的・量的研究手法を用いて、様々な問題点に対する教師の感情を調査した結果、異なった経歴と態度を持つ3つのグループに分けられることがわかった。教員が抱える問題点を発見・分析することで、ELT運営に対して職務能力向上のための提案を行う。また、このような研究は、経験の少ない教員には能力強化に繋がり、児童英語プログラムを持つ学校においては、よりよい授業を提供する指針となる。

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address participants’ humorous provocations as a part of informal interactions between participants and researcher that can be treated just like the research data. By means of autoethnographic analysis, the author explores the expectations of the researcher and participants that humour research entails and discusses how different expectations are revealed in participants’ provocations. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses an autoethnographic approach to discuss the informal interactions between participants and the researcher gathered during research into staffroom humour. The informal interactions in general and humour specifically were recorded, analysed, coded, interpreted and theorised just like the data on humour between participants. The theoretical framework used in the study combines Goffman’s (1959) version of symbolic interactionism and Solomon et al. (2006) idea of hybrid spaces. Findings The study shows the need for reconsideration of expectations entangled in humour research and proposes to be prepared for unexpected. Expecting unexpected can help stay open minded in the field and in interactions with participants and apply healthy distance towards own research and own expectations. The study shows that whenever certain behaviour was expected and different behaviour was delivered, there was a chance for certain behaviour being interpreted as provocations. Participants’ provocations can result from their own expectations about the research or what they think is expected from them by the researcher and thus they remain subject to different interpretations. Research limitations/implications Further research could investigate and discuss the role of humour in participant-researcher interactions in different research contexts and across different methodologies. Combining and analysing experiences of use of humour from both participants and researchers could allow for creating the guidelines in the use of humour in different research situations. Ethical challenges posed by informal interactions between researcher and participants could be explored further and suggestions as to how to protect the researcher, research and participants in such interactions could be developed. Originality/value This paper aims to be a starting point for a discussion about the understudied relationship between expectations humour research is entangled with and participants’ provocations. The study shows innovative approach to informal interactions between participants’ and researcher which are treated as research data and are theorised using original combination of symbolic interactionism and hybrid spaces. The study contributes to the qualitative research methodology by discussing the ethics of both using humour with participants and recording and analysing informal humorous interactions between participants and the researcher.

Objectives: Children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) need a supportive, non-stigmatizing school environment for self-care activities such as checking blood glucose (BG) and taking pre-meal insulin. Data about T1D self-care in schools in developing countries are scarce. We looked at diabetes self-care activities at school, and attitudes of school staff toward diabetes care. Material and Methods: We interviewed, over an 8-week period, consecutive patient-parent dyads attending T1D clinics in North (Delhi, Gurgaon, and Kanpur), West (Aurangabad), and South (Hyderabad) India. Results: We received responses from 397 patients, 51% of boys. Mean age was 11.7 years (SD: 3.7), mean age at diagnosis 7.2 years (SD: 3.7), and mean diabetes duration 4.5 years (SD: 3.5). A majority (69.8%) were attending private (fee paying) schools (PS) and the rest were studying at government (subsidized/free) schools (GS). More than half of the parents had high educational status: graduate or more (mothers: 52.1%, fathers: 56.9%). Parents visited school daily in 17.1%, significantly more if they had high educational status and if the child was <6 years. Less than half (47.4%) were administering a pre-meal insulin bolus at school (self-injection: 33%, by parent: 12.9%, and by staff: 1.5%); only 24.4% were checking BG regularly (< once per week) at school. The odds of performing diabetes self-care activities at school were significantly higher in children attending PS compared to GS (OR: 3.17, 95% CI: 1.99–5.03 for taking insulin, OR: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.75–5.98 for regular BG checking). The odds of taking insulin at school were also higher with higher parental education (OR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.87–4.24 for mother’s education, OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 1.99–4.57 for father’s). Testing and injecting we done in classroom (26.2%); medical room (16.1%), staffroom (7.8%), or toilet (2.5%). School insisted on secrecy in 12.6%, excluded children with T1D from sports/excursions in 17.9%, refused permission for injecting in 4.3%, for testing 15.9%, and for pre-activity snack 7.6%. This non-supportive behavior was equal in PS and GS. PS had slightly better care infrastructure such as availability of glucometer (29.6% vs. 3.3%), sick room (21.7% vs. 0.3%), and dedicated nurse (9.7% vs. none). Conclusion: Half of our children were able to manage T1D self-care in school, as schools were often supportive, whether private or government. Parental educational status was positively associated with better care. Although self-care was better in PS and they had better infrastructure, there is much scope for improvement.

The fire detection system combines the simultaneous measurements of smoke, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. The security of campus against intruders moving in laboratories, class rooms, staffrooms or washrooms. The fire alarm system consists of Fire detectors (with can be smoke detector, heat, or Infra-Red detectors), control unit and alarm system. A fire detection system is developed based on the simultaneous measurements of temperature and smoke. The fire detection system with the alarm algorithm detected fires that were not alarmed by smoke sensors, and alarmed in shorter times than smoke sensors operating alone. Previous fire detection algorithms used data from sensors for temperature, smoke, and combustion products. The smoke sensor alarms when the analog output signal exceeds or equal the threshold value. The node includes analog sensors to measure smoke, carbon monoxide (CO) and temperature. A fire alarm system should reliably and in a timely way notify building occupants about the presence of fire indicators, such as smoke or high temperatures.

The purpose of this article is to report on a small study that investigated the availability of library and information resources in rural schools of Limpopo Province, South Africa. For the school curriculum to be successfully implemented, adequate library facilities, collections, staff and funds are required to support it. Data was collected by means of questionnaires directed to all teacher-librarians and principals in the high schools of the Lebopo Circuit, Capricorn District. The study found that most schools do not have functional school libraries. Converted classrooms serving as libraries are unorganised making it difficult to retrieve and access information. Some schools use staffrooms and storerooms to house library materials but learners cannot use these materials because of limited space. Unqualified teacher-librarians lack library skills and cannot guide learners to use resources. A few schools are without electricity making it impossible to operate electronic equipment. The authors recommend that schools should be provided with library-based resources managed by professionally qualified teacher-librarians to meet the needs of learners and the aims of the school curriculum.

PurposeThe aim of the current study was to explore emotional closeness and emotional distance between Arab teachers who teach in the Jewish State Educational System and their Jewish counterparts in the school.Design/methodology/approachThe research used semi-structured interviews with 16 Arab and Jewish teachers in Israel.FindingsThe authors identified patterns of emotional closeness and emotional distance among Arab and Jewish teachers, perception gaps among Jewish and Arab teachers and the factors affecting emotional closeness/distance among them. Empirical and practical implications are suggested.Originality/valueThe study sheds light on the emotional aspects of multicultural educational teams and workplaces and increases our understanding of the complexity of teacher emotion in multi-ethnic and multi-religious staffrooms.

Introduction In an era of upheaval and uncertainty for higher education institutions around the world, scholars, like those in many in other professions, are increasingly using social media to build communities around mutual support and professional development. These communities appear to offer opportunities for participants to exert more positive influence over the types of interactions they engage in with colleagues, in many cases being valued as more altruistic, transformational, or supportive than established academic structures (Gibson, and Gibbs; Mewburn, and Thomson; Maitzen). What has been described as ‘digital scholarship’ applies social media to “different facets of scholarly activity in a helpful and productive way” (Carrigan 5), with online scholarly communities being likened to evolutions of face-to-face practices including peer mentoring (Ferguson, and Wheat) or a “virtual staffroom” (Mewburn, and Thomson). To a large extent, these accounts of scholarly practice adapted for digital media have resonance. From writing groups (O’Dwyer, McDonough, Jefferson, Goff, and Redman-MacLaren) to conference attendance (Spilker, Silva, and Morgado) and funding (Osimo, Priego, and Vuorikari), the transformational possibilities of social media have been applied to almost every facet of existing academic practices. These practices have increasingly attracted scrutiny from higher education institutions, with social media profiles of staff both a potential asset and risk to institutions’ brands. Around the world, institutions use social media for marketing, student recruitment, student support and alumni communication (Palmer). As such, social media policies have emerged in recent years in attempts to ensure staff engage in ways that align with the interests of their employers (Solberg; Carrigan). However, engagement via social media is also still largely considered “supplementary to ‘real’ scholarly work” (Mussell 347).Paralleling this trend, guides to effectively managing an online profile as a component of professional reputation have also become increasingly common (e.g. Carrigan). While public relations and management literatures have approached reputation management in terms of how an organisation is regarded by its multiple stakeholders (Fombrun) this is increasingly being applied to individuals on social media. According to Gandini a “reputation economy” (22) has come to function for knowledge workers who seek to cultivate a reputation as a good community member through sociality in order to secure more (or better) work.The popularity of professional social media communities and scrutiny of participants raises questions about the work involved in building and participating in them. This article explores these questions through analysis of tweets from the first year of #ECRchat, a Twitter group for early career researchers (ECRs). The group was established in 2012 to provide an opportunity for ECRs (typically within five years of PhD completion) to discuss career-related issues. Since it was founded, the group has been administered through partnerships between early career scholars using a Twitter account (@ECRchat) and a blog. Tweets, the posts of 140 characters or fewer, which appear on a user’s profile and in followers’ feeds (Twitter) are organised into a ‘chat’ by participants through the use of the hashtag ‘#ECRchat’. Participants vote on chat topics and take on the role of hosting on a volunteer basis. The explicit career focus of this group provides an ideal case study to explore how work is represented in an online professionally-focused community, in order to reflect on what this might mean for the norms of knowledge work.Digital Labour The impact of Internet Communication Technologies (ICT), including social media, on the lives of workers has long been a source of both concern and hope. Mobile devices, wireless Internet and associated communications software enable increasing numbers of people to take work home. This flexibility has been welcomed as the means by which workers might more successfully access jobs and manage competing commitments (Raja, Imaizumi, Kelly, Narimatsu, and Paradi-Guilford). However, hours worked from home are often unpaid and carry with them a strong likelihood of interfering with rest, recreation and family time (Pocock and Skinner). Melissa Gregg describes this as “presence bleed” (2): the dilutions of focus from everyday activities as workers increasingly use electronic devices to ‘check in’ during non-work time. Moving beyond the limitations of this work-life balance approach, which tends to over-state divisions between employment and other everyday life practices, a growing literature seeks to address work in online environments by analysing the types of labour being practiced, rather than seeing such practices as adjunct to physical workplaces. Responding to claims that digital communication heralds a new age of greater freedom, creativity and democratic participation, this work draws attention to the reliance of such networks on unpaid labour (e.g. Hearn; Hesmondhalgh) with ratings, reviews and relationship maintenance serving business’ economic ends alongside the individual interests which motivate participants. The immaterial, affective, and often precarious labour that has been observed is “simultaneously voluntarily given and unwaged, enjoyed and exploited” (Terranova). This work builds particularly on feminist analysis of work (see McRobbie for a discussion of this), with behind the scenes moderator, convenor, and community builder roles largely female and largely unrecognised, be they activist (Gleeson), creative (Duffy) or consumer (Arcy) groups. For some, this suggests the emergence of a new ‘women’s work’ of affective immaterial labour which goes into building transformational communities (Jarrett). Yet, digital labour has not yet been foregrounded within research into higher education, where it is largely practiced in the messy intersections of employment, unpaid professional development, and leisure. Joyce Goggin argues that convergence of these spheres is a feature of digital labour. Consequently, this article seeks to add a consideration of digital labour, specifically the cultural politics of work that emerge in these spaces, to the literature on digital practices as a translation of existing academic responsibilities online. In the context of widespread concerns over academic workload and job market (Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure, and Meek) and the growing international engagement and impact agenda (Priem, Piwowar, and Hemminger), it raises questions about the implications of these practices. Researching Twitter Communities This article analyses tweets from the publicly available Twitter timeline, containing the hashtag #ECRchat, during scheduled chats, from 1 July 2012 to 31 July 2013 (the first year of operation). Initially, all tweets in this time period were analysed in anonymised form to determine the most commonly mentioned topics during chats. This content analysis removed the most common English language words, such as: the; it; I; and RT (which stands for retweet), which would otherwise appear as top results in almost any content analysis regardless of the community of interest. This was followed by qualitative analysis of tweets, to explore in more depth how important issues were articulated and rationalised within the group. This draws on Catherine Driscoll’s and Melissa Gregg’s idea of “sympathetic online cultural studies” which seeks to explore online communities first and foremost as communities rather than as exemplars of online communications (15-20). Here, a narrative approach was undertaken to analyse how participants curated, made sense of, and explained their own career stories (drawing on Pamphilon). Although I do not claim that participants are representative of all ECRs, or that the ideas given the most attention during chats are representative of the experiences of all participants, representations of work articulated here are suggestive of the kinds of public utterances that were considered reasonable within this open online space. Participants are identified according to the twitter handle and user name they had chosen to use for the chats being analysed. This is because the practical infeasibility of guaranteeing online anonymity (readers need only to Google the text of any tweet to associate it with a particular user, in most cases) and the importance of actively involving participants as agents in the research process, in part by identifying them as authors of their own stories, rather than informants (e.g. Butz; Evans; Svalastog and Eriksson).Representations of Work in #ECRchat The co-creation of the #ECRchat community through participant hosts and community votes on chat topics gave rise to a discussion group that was heavily focused on ‘the work’ of academia, including its importance in the lives of participants, relative appeal over other options, and negative effects on leisure time. I was clear that participants regarded participation as serving their professional interests, despite participation not being paid or formally recognised by employers. With the exception of two discussions focused on making decisions about the future of the group, #ECRchat discussions during the year of analysis focused on topics designed to help participants succeed at work such as “career progression and planning”, “different routes to postdoc funding”, and “collaboration”. At a micro-level, ‘work’ (and related terms) was the most frequently used term in #ECRchat, with its total number of uses (1372) almost double that of research (700), the next most used term. Comments during the chats reiterated this emphasis: “It’s all about the work. Be decent to people and jump through the hoops you need to, but always keep your eyes on the work” (Magennis).The depth of participants’ commitment comes through strongly in discussions comparing academic work with other options: “pretty much everyone I know with ‘real jobs’ hates their work. I feel truly lucky to say that I love mine #ECRchat” (McGettigan). This was seen in particular in the discussion about ‘careers outside academia’. Hashtags such as #altac (referring to alternative-academic careers such as university research support or learning and teaching administration roles) and #postac (referring to PhD holders working outside of universities in research or non-research roles) used both alongside the #ECRchat hashtag and separately, provide an ongoing site of these kinds of representations. While participants in #ECRchat sought to shift this perception and were critically aware that it could lead to undesirable outcomes: “PhDs and ECRs in Humanities don’t seem to consider working outside of academia – that limits their engagement with training #ECRchat” (Faculty of Humanities at the University of Manchester), such discussions frequently describe alternative academic careers as a ‘backup plan’, should academic employment not be found. Additionally, many participants suggested that their working hours were excessive, extending the professional into personal spaces and times in ways that they did not see as positive. This was often described as the only way to achieve success: “I hate to say it, but one of the best ways to improve track record is to work 70+ hours a week, every week. Forever. #ecrchat” (Dunn). One of the key examples of this dynamic was the scheduling of the chat itself. When founded in 2012, #ECRchat ran in the Australian evening and UK morning, eliding the personal/work distinction for both its coordinators and participants. While considerable discussion was concerned with scheduling the chat during times when a large number of international participants could attend, this discussion centred on waking rather than working hours. The use of scheduled tweets and shared work between convenors in different time zones (Australia and the United Kingdom) maintained an around the clock online presence, extending well beyond the ordinary working hours of any individual participant.Personal Disclosure The norms that were articulated in #ECRchat are perhaps not surprising for a group of participants seeking to establish themselves in a profession where a long-hours culture and work-life interference are common (Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure, and Meek). However, what is notable is that participation frequently involved the extension of the personal into the professional and in support of professional aims. In the chat’s first year, an element of personal disclosure and support for others became key to acting as a good community member. Beyond the well-established norms of white collar workers demonstrating professionalism by deploying “courtesy, helpfulness, and kindness” (Mills xvii), this community building relied on personal disclosure which to some extent collapsed personal and professional boundaries.By disclosing individual struggles, anxieties, and past experiences participants contributed to a culture of support. This largely functioned through discussions of work stress rather than leisure: “I definitely don’t have [work-life balance]. I think it’s because I don’t have a routine so work and home constantly blend into one another” (Feely). Arising from these discussions, ideas to help participants better navigate and build academic careers was one of the main ways this community support and concern was practiced: “I think I’m often more productive and less anxious if I'm working on a couple of things in parallel, too #ecrchat” (Brian).Activities such as preparing meals, caring for family, and leisure activities, became part of the discussion. “@snarkyphd Sorry, late, had to deal with toddler. Also new; currently doing casual teaching/industry work & applying for postdocs #ecrchat” (Ronald). Exclusively professional profiles were considered less engaging than the combination of personal and professional that most participants adopted: “@jeanmadams I’ve answered a few queries on ResearchGate, but agree lack of non-work opinions / personality makes them dull #ecrchat” (Tennant). However, this is not to suggest that these networks become indistinguishable from more informal, personal, or leisurely uses of social media: “@networkedres My ‘professional’ online identity is slightly more guarded than my ‘facebook’ id which is for friends and family #ECRchat” (Wheat). Instead, disclosure of certain kinds of work struggles came to function as a positive contribution to a more reflexive professionalism. In the context of work-focused discussion, #ECRchat opens important spaces for scholars to question norms they considered damaging or at least make these tacit norms explicit and receive support to manage them. Affective Labour The professional goals and focus of #ECRchat, combined with the personal support and disclosure that forms the basis for the supportive elements in this group is arguably one of its strongest and most important elements. Mark Carrigan suggests that the practices of revealing something of the struggles we experience could form the basis for a new collegiality, where common experiences which had previously not been discussed publicly are for the first time recognised as systemic, not individual challenges. However, there is work required to provide context and support for these emotional experiences which is largely invisible here, as has typically been the case in other communities. Such ‘affective labour’ “involves the production and manipulation of affect and requires (virtual or actual) human contact, labour in the bodily mode … the labour is immaterial, even if it is corporeal and affective, in the sense that its products are intangible, a feeling of ease, well-being, satisfaction, excitement or passion” (Hardt, and Negri 292). In #ECRchat, this ranges from managing the schedule and organising discussions – which involves following up offers to help, assisting people to understand the task, and then ensuring things go ahead as planned –to support offered by members of the group within discussions. This occurs in the overlaps between personal and professional representations, taking a variety of forms from everyday reassurance, affirmation, and patience: “Sorry to hear - hang in there. Hope you have a good support network. #ECRchat” (Galea) to empathy often articulated alongside the disclosure discussed earlier: “The feeling of guilt over not working sounds VERY familiar! #ecrchat” (Vredeveldt).The point here is not to suggest that this work is not sufficiently valued by participants, or that it does not parallel the kinds of work undertaken in more formal job roles, including in academia, where management, conference convening or participation in professional societies, and teaching, as just a few examples, involve degrees of affective labour. However, as a consequence of the (semi)public nature of these groups, the interactions observed here appear to represent a new inflection of professional reputation work, where, in building online professional communities, individuals peg their professional reputations to these forms of affective labour. Importantly, given the explicitly professional nature of the group, these efforts are not counted as part of the formal workload of those involved, be they employed (temporarily or more securely) inside or outside universities, or not in the paid workforce. Conclusion A growing body of literature demonstrates that online academic communities can provide opportunities for collegiality, professional development, and support: particularly among emerging scholars. These accounts demonstrate the value of digital scholarly practices across a range of academic work. However, this article’s discussion of the work undertaken to build and maintain #ECRchat in its first year suggests that these practices at the messy intersections of employment, unpaid professional development, and leisure constitute a new inflection of professional reputation and service work. This work involves publicly building a reputation as a good community member through a combination of personal disclosure and affective labour.In the context of growing emphasis on the economic, social, and other impacts of academic research and concerns over work intensification, this raises questions about possible scope for, and impact of, formal recognition of digital academic labour. While institutions’ work planning and promotion processes may provide opportunities to recognise work developing professional societies or conferences as a leadership or service to a discipline, this new digital service work remains outside the purview of such recognition and reward systems. Further research into the relationships between academic reputation and digital labour will be needed to explore the implications of this for institutions and academics alike. AcknowledgementsI would like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions and support of everyone who participated in developing and sustaining #ECRchat. Both online and offline, this paper and the community itself would not have been possible without many generous contributions of time, understanding and thoughtful discussion. In particular, I would like to thank Katherine L. Wheat, co-founder and convenor, as well as Beth Montague-Hellen, Ellie Mackin, and Motje Wolf, who have taken on convening the group in the years since my involvement. ReferencesArcy, Jacquelyn. “Emotion Work: Considering Gender in Digital Labor.” Feminist Media Studies 16.2 (2016): 365-68.Bentley, Peter, Hamish Coates, Ian Dobson, Leo Goedegebuure, and Lynn Meek. Job Satisfaction around the Academic World. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. Brian, Deborah (@deborahbrian). “I think I’m often more productive and less anxious if I’m working on a couple of things in parallel, too #ecrchat” (11 April 2013, 10:25). Tweet.Butz, David. “Sidelined by the Guidelines: Reflections on the Limitations of Standard Informed Consent Procedures for the Conduct of Ethical Research.” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 7 (2008): 239-59. Carrigan, Mark. Social Media for Academics. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.Carrigan, Mark. Social Media and Academic Freedom. 2015. 5 Jan. 2016 <https://markcarrigan.net/2015/08/06/social-media-and-academic-freedom/>.Driscoll, Catherine, and Melissa Gregg. “My Profile: The Ethics of Virtual Ethnography.” Emotion, Space and Society 3.1 (2010): 15–20.Doorley, John, and Helio Fred Garcia. Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012.Duffy, Brooke. “The Romance of Work: Gender and Aspirational Labour in the Digital Culture Industries.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 19.4 (2015): 441-57.Dunn, Adam (@AdamGDunn). “I hate to say it, but one of the best ways to improve track record is to work 70+ hours a week, every week. Forever. #ecrchat.” (14 Mar. 2013, 10:54). Tweet.Evans, Mike. “Ethics, Anonymity, and Authorship on Community Centred Research or Anonymity and the Island Cache.” Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health 2 (2004): 59-76.Faculty of Humanities at the University of Manchester (@HumsResearchers). “PhDs and ECRs in Humanities don't seem to consider working outside of academia - that limits their engagement with training #ECRchat” (2 Aug. 2012, 10:14). Tweet.Feely, Cath (@cathfeely). “I definitely don’t have [work-life balance]. I think it's because I don’t have a routine so work and home constantly blend into one another” (16 Aug. 2012, 10:08). Tweet.Ferguson, Hazel, and Katherine L. Wheat. “Early Career Academic Mentoring Using Twitter: The Case of #ECRchat.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37.1 (2015): 3-13.Fombrun, Charles. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 1996.Galea, Marguerite (@MVEG001). “Sorry to hear - hang in there. Hope you have a good support network. #ECRchat” (6 Dec. 2012, 10:32). Tweet.Gandini, Alessandro. The Reputation Economy: Understanding Knowledge Work in Digital Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Gibson, Chris, and Leah Gibbs. “Social Media Experiments: Scholarly Practice and Collegiality.” Dialogues in Human Geography 3.1 (2013): 87-91. Gleeson, Jessamy. “(Not) ‘Working 9-5’: The Consequences of Contemporary Australian-Based Online Feminist Campaigns as Digital Labour.” Media International Australia 161.1 (2016): 77-85.Goggin, Joyce. “Playbour, Farming and Labour.” Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization 11.4 (2011): 357-68.Gregg, Melissa. Work’s Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity P, 2011.Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2000.Hearn, Alison. “Structuring Feeling: Web 2.0, Online Ranking and Rating, and the Digital ‘Reputation’ Economy.” Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organisation 10.3/4 (2010): 421-38.Hesmondhalgh, David. “User-Generated Content, Free Labour and the Cultural Industries.” Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organisation 10.3/4 (2010): 267-84.Jarrett, Kylie. “The Relevance of ‘Women’s Work’ Social Reproduction and Immaterial Labor in Digital Media.” Television & New Media 15.1 (2014): 14-29.Magennis, Caroline (@DrMagennis). “It’s all about the work. Be decent to people and jump through the hoops you need to, but always keep your eyes on the work.” (26 July 2012, 10:56). Tweet.Maitzen, Rohan. “Scholarship 2.0: Blogging and/as Academic Practice.” Journal of Victorian Culture 17.3 (2012): 348-54.McGettigan, Carolyn (@c_mcgettigan). “pretty much everyone I know with ‘real jobs’ hates their work. I feel truly lucky to say that I love mine #ECRchat.” (31 Jan. 2013, 10:17). Tweet.McRobbie, Angela. 2010. “Reflections on Feminism, Immaterial Labour and the Post-Fordist Regime.” New Formations 70: 60-76.Mewburn, Inger, and Pat Thomson. “Why Do Academics Blog? An Analysis of Audiences, Purposes and Challenges.” Studies in Higher Education 38.8 (2013): 1105-19. Mills, C. Wright. White Collar: The American Middle Classes. New York: Oxford UP, 1951/1973.Mussell, James. “Social Media.” Journal of Victorian Culture 17.3 (2012): 347-47.O’Dwyer, Siobhan, Sharon McDonough, Rebecca Jefferson, Jennifer Ann Goff, and Michelle Redman-MacLaren. “Writing Groups in the Digital Age: A Case Study Analysis of Shut Up and Write Tuesdays.” Research 2.0 and the Impact of Digital Technologies on Scholarly Inquiry. Ed. Antonella Esposito. Pennsylvania: IGI Global, 2016. 249-69.Osimo, David, Pujol Priego Laia, and Vuorikari Riina. “Alternative Research Funding Mechanisms: Make Funding Fit for Science 2.0.” Research 2.0 and the Impact of Digital Technologies on Scholarly Inquiry. Ed. Antonella Esposito. Pennsylvania: IGI Global, 2016. 53-67. Pamphilon, Barbara. “The Zoom Model: A Dynamic Framework for the Analysis of Life Histories.” Qualitative Inquiry, 5.3 (1999): 393-410.Palmer, Stuart. “Characterisation of the Use of Twitter by Australian Universities.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35.4 (2013): 333-44.Pocock, Barbara, Natalie Skinner, and Philippa Williams. Time Bomb: Work, Rest and Play in Australia Today. Sydney: U of NSW P, 2012.Priem, Jason, Heather Piwowar, and Bradley Hemminger. “Altmetrics in the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact.” 2012. 25 Mar. 2017 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745>. Raja, Siddhartha, Saori Imaizumi, Tim Kelly, Junko Narimatsu, and Cecilia Paradi-Guilford. Connecting to Work: How Information and Communication Technologies Could Help Expand Employment Opportunities. Washington DC; World Bank. 2013. 5 Jan. 2016 <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/290301468340843514/Connecting-to-work-how-information-and-communication-technologies-could-help-expand-employment-opportunities>.Ronald, N.A. (@naronresearch). “@snarkyphd Sorry, late, had to deal with toddler. Also new; currently doing casual teaching/industry work & applying for postdocs #ecrchat” (17 Jan. 2013, 10:15). Tweet.Solberg, Lauren. “Balancing Academic Freedom and Professionalism: A Commentary on University Social Media Policies.” FIU Law Review 75.1 (2013). 5 Jan. 2016 <http://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol9/iss1/26>. Spilker, Maria J., Maria Paula Silva, and Lina Morgado. “Research 2.0: The Contribution of Content Curation.” Research 2.0 and the Impact of Digital Technologies on Scholarly Inquiry (2016): 231.Svalastog, Anna-Lydia, and Stefan Eriksson. “You Can Use My Name; You Don’t Have to Steal My Story—A Critique of Anonymity in Indigenous Studies.” Developing World Bioethics 10 (2010): 104-10.Tennant, Peter (@Peter_Tennant). “@jeanmadams I've answered a few queries on Research Gate, but agree lack of non-work opinions / personality makes them dull #ecrchat” (15 Nov. 2012, 19:26). Tweet.Terranova, Tiziana. “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy.” Social Text 18.2 (2000): 33-58.Twitter. “Help Center: New User FAQs.” 2016. 5 Jan. 2016 <https://support.twitter.com/articles/13920-get-to-know-twitter-new-user-faq#>.Vredeveldt, Annelies (@anneliesvrede). “The feeling of guilt over not working sounds VERY familiar! #ecrchat” (19 July 2012, 10:25). Tweet.Wheat, Katherine (@KL_Wheat). “@networkedres My ‘professional’ online identity is slightly more guarded than my ‘facebook’ id which is for friends and family #ECRchat” (15 Nov. 2012, 19:27). Tweet.