text:
Strijp-S is the creative, design and innovation district of the city of Eindhoven.
Strijp S/T
Where design meets technology and its users. Creative, innovation district.
Strijp-S is the creative, design and innovation district of the city of Eindhoven. This former Philips industrial plant has grown into a vibrant urban area that offers a unique mix of working, living, learning and all kinds of leisure facilities that lead to casual meetings.
Besides it being home to a number of renown multinational technology companies (i.e. Philips, Bosch, Gibson, Amazon) and knowledge institutes (i.e. Singularity University, Dutch Design Foundation), Strijp-S houses a great number of highly innovative SME's, start-ups and scale-ups.
In the area cultural and social innovation, design, creative entrepreneurship and education come together. It offers room for living labs and all sorts of (social) experiments that lead to innovation. Something which is stimulated by dynamic interaction between its occupants, many visitors, events, festivals, companies, students and educational institutes.
Moreover, the area is ideal for entrepreneurs and 'makers', it offers them all facilities needed for bringing ideas to live and to test, prototype and accelerate their innovation process. A fertile breeding ground for new business.
Strijp S/T
World class companies and institutes on Strijp-S
Strijp S/T
Benefits Strijp-S offers companies and knowledge institutes
An urban innovation district that offers an excellent work-life balance to future generations (small village concept)
Because of its many facilities like apartments, lofts, houses, shops, all kinds of restaurants, a skate area, educational institutes, fablabs and small and large office spaces, Strijp-S is the ideal place for combining work and life in a high value environment and attractive urban setting.
Strong talent attraction and retention power
Because of its creative, vibrant atmosphere and excellent facilities for entrepreneurs and makers Strijp-S has a strong talent attraction and retention power. At Strijp-S you find an inspiring mix of experienced corporate professionals as well as designers, media makers, freelance engineers, wizzkids and students. All levels of education are presented at Strijp-S and St. Lucas, a renown educational institute for creative professionals, is located at the campus.
Room for experiment in real-life setting
Strijp-S offers room for experiment and is home to several living labs. It offers a real-life testing ground for products and services with an added value that meet the needs of the end users. It is where smart products and services are developed and implemented, in close cooperation with the end users in real-life settings. Moreover, because of the many disciplines you find at Strijp-S, cross-overs are easily made. Some examples of experimental settings you find in the area are Smart City (p.e. Triangulum), MediaLab, Urban Farming (by Duurzame Kost) and Interflex (European project about energy transition).
Strong international position
Strijp-S has a strong international position and is well-known outside the country's borders because of events like Dutch Design Week, close cooperation with i.e. the renown German research institute Fraunhofer and investors like Amazon subsidiary Liquavista and Singularity University that chose Strijp-S to settle.
Ideal place for freelance entrepreneurs, start-ups and scale-ups
As is said Strijp-S offers a rich breeding ground for developing new innovations in all kinds of fields like design, media, technology and sports. Its many facilities, diverse public, room for experiment, attractive rents and wide variety in incubators and accelerator-programmes make it an ideal place for developing new business.
Brainport Eindhoven
How we help
Please feel free to contact us
Do you have any questions or do you want to obtain more information? Then please feel free to contact us at any time. You can reach us by phone or email and you can also follow us on social media.


text:
LoNicotasked Feb 17, 2019 at 2:08pm
Epson Stylus CX4800
Print head can't get to home position with 4 cartridges
I have the above printer (I got it from someone who didn't want it). I have cleaned the jets with printhead cleaning solution to get out the dried ink. I ordered four remanned cartridges. But when I put ALL FOUR in, it does it's check routine, and at the end when it tries to get to home position, it cannot, and the belt vibrates and buzzes trying to get there. This does not happen with THREE cartridges. Any three. I put the old cartridges in, and it does the same thing. I do not think this was happening before I blew out the jets. Any ideas?
Epson Stylus CX4800

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In fact, Mississippi's newspapers are generally doing quite well, thank you. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with several folks who are in the know about Mississippi newspapers. Layne Bruce is the executive director of the Mississippi Press Association; Joel McNeece is President of the MPA and publisher of the Calhoun County Journal; and Will Norton is dean of the Meek School of Journalism and New Media at the University of Mississippi.
The Mississippi Press Association counts 110 members in 81 counties in Mississippi, so my first question for this group was: are newspapers in Mississippi generally healthy?
"Definitely," said Layne. "The vitality of our business in Mississippi might take some by surprise, but newspapers in this state are strong and healthy, and they continue to make vital contributions to their communities and to the state as a whole."
"I guess you could say we've been battling the national narrative about newspapers," Joel added. "But at least in Mississippi, our products are well received, and they continue to serve critical information needs in their communities."
From Will's point of view, "each major new media revolution doesn't mean that the existing media cease to exist. Look at radio, television, and so on. It's more of an evolutionary process, and if the central focus changes, that doesn't mean that newspapers won't change and still be doing what they do best in the future."
Considering the whole impact of the "digital revolution", I asked whether print and digital media can co-exist in effective ways.
"I'd say it's true that this has been lopsided in recent years," Layne suggested. "But what many people need to understand is that we're reaching more people than ever in our history, between the two media. We need to talk about our total reach and audience, and not segment those into different buckets."
"With that said," Joel offered, "it is probably true that newspapers in smaller communities have been less impacted than those in larger communities. In many Mississippi counties, for instance, a lot of people don't have computer access, and they rely on us for the important news and events."
In some important ways, he group agreed that especially in the smaller communities, newspapers are the original and continuing "social media", covering the small and large happenings, serving as the conduit between citizens and government, and providing a voice for all types of issues and concerns.
"I'd have to simply say that we haven't promoted ourselves as we should," Layne said. "In fact, there are more newspapers being published in Mississippi than there were 5 years ago."
What would happen if suddenly, newspapers disappeared from the scene?
"It would clearly cause great damage to our communities and our citizens," Joel said. "We're the watchdogs in terms of government, and many people simply wouldn't know what's happening in their local government agencies without us. Clearly, that would be a very bad thing."
They pointed out a number of instances in which Mississippi newspapers have been integral in getting laws changed that were not beneficial to their communities, and Layne pointed out that the MPA carefully follows and interacts with the state Legislature.
"It's important to us that government be transparent, and we have aggressively fought to protect open records laws," Joel said.
I asked Will about the Meek School of Journalism and how he views his mission.
"We have about 1,300 students in the school," he said. "Our goal is to deliver a broad and effective education, in whatever the medium our students may work. Down the road, the important thing will be distinguishing between good and bad reporting."
All agreed that it's undoubtedly true to say that a great deal of what gets passed off as "reporting" these days really isn't reporting at all, but simply someone's opinion as expressed in a blog, on social media, and so on. In the newspaper arena, at least, publishers and editors continue to vet their reporters and staff writers, and obviously, that isn't true of the "blogosphere".
From Layne's point of view, "newspapers in our state have a bright future, and we expect to keep doing what we do best for a long time to come."
» Contact Mississippi Business Journal publisher Alan Turner at email@example.com or (601) 364-1021.
… we'd like to ask for your support. More people are reading the Mississippi Business Journal than ever before, but advertising revenues for all conventional media are falling fast. Unlike many, we do not use a pay wall, because we want to continue providing Mississippi's most comprehensive business news each and every day. But that takes time, money and hard work. We do it because it is important to us … and equally important to you, if you value the flow of trustworthy news and information which have always kept America strong and free for more than 200 years.
If those who read our content will help fund it, we can continue to bring you the very best in news and information. Please consider joining us as a valued member, or if you prefer, make a one-time contribution.Click for more info


text:
Translator: Zen Translations Editor: Zen Translations
Cai Cai said solemnly: "Zhou Weiqing, in the past, even before your Heavenly Bow Empire was destroyed, if your Emperor personally came to the Fei Li City, I would not even personally receive him. This time, I am already giving you a lot of face… What else do you want?"
Zhou Weiqing said passively: "You are not giving me face, you are giving the ZhongTian Empire face right? It is not what I want, but that for the current us, even this reception is not sufficient. Principal Cai Cai, when I was studying at the Fei Li Military Academy, you have always treated me well and given me many opportunities, and I truly do respect you. As such, I must inform you about something serious… please do not let your Fei Li Empire do something they will regret."
After spending so much time on the Saint Lands, the Fe Li Empire looks so weak in comparison.
And they still think highly of themselves. Makes me wonder what are they intelligence network doing
Ridiculously weak with a sh*tty "intelligence" network.
More Privileged Chapters
Download the app and become a privileged reader today! Come take a sneak peek at our author's stockpiled chapters!Download
Cost Coin to skip ad
You can get it from the following sources
Please switch to the pop-up to complete the payment.
Complete the daily and EXP missions, as well as every week's reading missions to obtain EXP and coin as rewards.Learn more about the rules
Read anywhere, anytime
This's an experimental test for reading assistance in case.
We highly recommend you to enjoy the beauty of the original words.


text:
- Admissions
- Visit
- Tuition & Aid
- Academics
- Campus Life
- Athletics
- About
- Giving
We are here to help you!
Winthrop's admissions team is ready and available to help you. If you have any questions, there are three ways you can contact us:
Phone: 803/323-2191
Email: email@example.com
Virtual Chat: Click here to register
For updates, announcements and special messages from Admissions, please follow us on Instagram - @winthropadmissions
Also, please see our FAQs for prospective students and families amid Covid-19.
Can I receive course credit for my military training or military coursework?
All Questions and concerns regarding Military Credit, Transfer Credit, Academic Advising, should be through the Office of Military, Adult, & Transfer Students. Resource Center for Adult Students website.
What Resources exist on campus for Veterans?
The Office of Military, Adult, & Transfer Students is a great source to learn more about what Winthrop has to offer.
When will I get paid?
For Ch. 33 students, tuition is paid to the school no earlier than two weeks prior to the first day of the term.
You can have your schedule protected while we are waiting for payment from the VA if the Veterans Benefits Coordinator has an up-to-date Certificate of Eligibility or eBenefits screenshot showing the student's eligibility percentage and number of months of entitlement remaining. To have your schedule protected, students should contact Student Accounts Receivable at 803/323-3377 before the fee payment deadline. Failure to do so will result in the student's classes being dropped.
Chapter 33 book stipends are paid to the student at the beginning of each semester. Depending on when the VA receives/process your enrollment certification, you may not receive your book stipend until after classes start. It is a good idea to make other arrangements to pay for your books and treat this as a reimbursement — just in case it doesn't come in prior to the first day of class.
All other stipends are paid on the first of the month for the previous month. For example, your January stipend will be posted to your account on or around February 1. Keep in mind that you may experience payment delays at the beginning of a semester, especially if you are a new VA student or new to Winthrop.
If you believe your payment is late, call the VA at 888-GI-BILL-1 (888-442-4551) to check the status. Call between 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. Central Time, Monday-Friday. You also can submit a question at http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/ and click on "Submit a Question".
If you are a Ch. 33 student and have an eBenefits account, you can view certification and payment information there.
For ALL Chapters, please visit the VA Educational Benefit Stipends link above.
How much will I get paid?
This information is available in the rate tables on the VA's website.
What is Considered Full Time Status for Undergraduates/Graduates?
Please visit the Enrollment Status link above.
Can I receive VA benefits if I have not declared a major?
A student cannot be certified beyond his or her sophomore year unless a major is declared. Only "General Education" courses can be certified prior to the declaration of a major.
Can I receive VA benefits to take any courses at Winthrop?
In order for students to receive VA payment for coursework, each registered class must fit into their declared major program. The Winthrop University Catalog is the official list of courses that are covered under VA educational benefits. It is the student's responsibility to make sure that their registered classes meet the VA certification requirements if VA payment is desired. Charges for any courses taken outside of a student's major are the student's responsibility.
For example, a student may have fulfilled all their electives and would like to take an extra gym class. If the class cannot fit into his/her program's requirements, then the Veterans Benefits Coordinator would not be able to certify such a class. The student would then be responsible for payment of that class.
I am a Chapter 33 student and I got a letter from the VA saying the school certified $0.00 for tuition and fees for this semester. What does that mean?
This is known as "Dual Certification". The Veterans Benefits Coordinator first certifies enrollment for an upcoming semester before fees have been put on student accounts. Doing so helps students receive their housing and book stipends in a timely matter. If there are no fees on the student account, we report $0 to the VA and then go back and amend the certification after fees have been put on the accounts. Once fees have been posted, the Veterans Benefits Coordinator then amends all certifications with Tuition and Fees.
Can I take classes at another school and use my VA Educational Benefits?
Yes, please contact the Veterans Benefits Coordinator the semester beforehand. She will send to the school of your choice what is called a "Parent Letter". This allows that school's certifying official to certify your classes so you can still receive your VA Educational Benefits.
Can I study abroad and use my VA Educational Benefits?
If you have completed the Approval for Transfer Credit Form for the courses taken abroad (signed by your Student Services Coordinator), and those classes are in line with your degree program, the Veterans Benefits Coordinator can certify any TUITION and ACADEMIC FEES being charged through Winthrop University. However, the VA will NOT pay for fees associated with Travel, Room, and Board expenses under any circumstances.
Can I use my VA benefits for summer semester?
Yes, just keep in mind that these months will count against the overall number of months of entitlement you have. Make sure to submit a copy of your schedule to the Veterans Benefits Coordinator, so that she knows you plan to use your benefits.
What Happens if I "fail" a course?
Please see the Rules of Grades link above.
Can I receive BOTH VA Benefits AND additional Financial Aid (Scholarships, Grants, etc.)?
This question is important for students receiving the Ch. 33 Post-911 GI-BILL and depends on several factors regarding what financial aid you are receiving. Please contact the VA Benefits Coordinator for more information.


text:
I spent all day thinking, dreaming and craving…you guessed it…wheat. I wanted a bagel for breakfast with a donut for the meat filling. Ok I guess I was also still craving refined sugar too. Holy crow, this was just day 8 of a 30 day program. I'm in deep trouble.
On a side note, the tincture in the morning is not that bad. Sort of tastes like a shot of some medicine. I find it much easier than the Satan's brew. I didn't envy Val as she stayed in week 1.Tags: Detox program, Optimal Health, TiffanyYoga


text:
This study examines Spanish academics' motives for using social networking sites (SNS) and their perceptions regarding the limitations of and drawbacks to social media. We analyse 18 in-depth interviews conducted with Spanish university professors chosen according to their disciplines, academic ranks and level of use. Our findings confirm prior research based on the uses and gratifications theory. Thus, we conclude that SNS are used for managing content, identifying experts in a researcher's field of knowledge. In addition, academics need to manage different personal identities in each SNS they use.
Social networks sites and academia: Benefits and motives
Social networks sites and academia: Prejudices and dissuading factors
Conclusion, limitations, and further research
Social networking sites (SNS) constitute one of the most characteristic elements of the Web 2.0 landscape and one of the most relevant topics in communication research (Montero-Díaz, et al., 2018). SNS are used in higher education (Manasijević, et al., 2016) and are deeply integrated in scholarly communication (Sugimoto, et al., 2017).
Researchers have adopted generic SNS, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, as professional tools (Kjellberg, et al., 2016) and they can also have recourse to academic social networking sites (ASNS) that offer specific features aimed at scholars and researchers (Jeng, et al., 2017) that could further global collaboration among researchers (Bardakcı, et al., 2018). Early career researchers make greater use of Web 2.0 tools (Nicholas, et al., 2017).
This rise of social media phenomenon has led social scientists to ask what prompts academics to engage in social networking and become members of online communities.
Social networks sites and academia: Benefits and motives
According to uses and gratifications theory, the uses of social media are driven by the need to fulfil the following needs: information seeking, entertainment, self expression, social interaction, and impression management (Gao and Feng, 2016). Thus, five main motives for academic engagement with these platforms can be identified (Gruzd and Goertzen, 2013): socialising (making new research contacts and managing one's professional image); collaboration (seeking advice from peers and colleagues); information dissemination (promoting ongoing work, disseminating findings, drawing media attention, etc.), and information gathering (keeping abreast of new research and ideas, looking for funding opportunities, etc.).
SNS offer users a fairly simple and effective means of establishing new contacts (bridging social capital) (Phua, et al., 2017), but these platforms are more often used for strengthening existing relationships (bonding links) (Liu, et al., 2016). It implies that certain groups of scholars are adopting these media as an additional channel of communication with their peers, along with formal and orthodox channels like conferences and journals (Shehata, et al., 2017). Thus social media has altered the idea of 'invisible college' by overlapping different public, professional, and personal spheres (Quan-Haase, et al., 2015). These social bonds have both an informal nature and a professional side to enhance collaboration among researchers (Nentwich and König, 2014). SNS support a wide range of activities ranging from collaborating on content, planning meetings (Nández and Borrego, 2013), and sharing data (Zhu and Purdam, 2017) to the exchange and testing of ideas and collaborative editing of articles prior to submission to academic journals (Darling, et al., 2013). However, although these sites are designed to support bidirectional and multidirectional communications between users, most researchers appear to use them in a unidirectional way (Jia, et al., 2017).
Among other aspects, impression management means that SNS can be used as basic tool for establishing and maintaining professional images and reputations (Jamali et al., 2015). In fact, networking and managing professional images are the scholar's preferred uses of SNS (Dermentzi, et al., 2016).
Similarly, social media aimed specifically at academics have led their own methods and metrics to allow users to monitor their reputation (Nicholas, et al., 2016). In this sense, Academia.edu has been criticised for overemphasizing self-branding among scholars as well as placing too much pressure on self-monitoring (Tenopir, et al., 2017).
Sharing material and works is an integral part of academic life and the research cycle (Dermentzi and Papagiannidis, 2018) and scholars often use social media to this end (Ghazali, et al., 2016), with three quarters of them frequently sharing material online (Elsayed, 2016). An increasing number of academics are honing their profiles on SNS to serve as digital portfolios showcasing their research findings (Segado-Boj, et al., 2015) and to enhance the visibility of their research output (Thelwall and Kousha, 2015) even farther than the traditional readers of academic journals (Knight and Kaye, 2016). This potential advantage is even recognised by scholars who do not use SNS (Watkinson, et al., 2016).
Along with news dissemination, given the increasing quantity and speed of scholarly information circulating on these platforms, academics cite seeking and keeping abreast of new information as another benefit of joining social media platforms (Meishar-Tal and Pieterse, 2017; Sullivan, 2017).
Lastly, entertainment gratifications, which might be linked to SNS use as a micro-break, are also described (Ahmad Kharman Shah and Cox, 2017).
Social networks sites and academia: Prejudices and dissuading factors
In spite of their awareness of these potential advantages, most scientists still are reluctant to use social media (Collins, et al., 2016). Academics tend to be sceptical about the quality and credibility of the information found on SNS. Their view of SNS as a non-official channel has led academics to express concerns about the lack of accountability of information in circulation on these platforms (Manca, 2018).
Academics also tend to perceive that social media engagement requires time they should be devoting to their teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities. The lack of any institutional recognition for the time and energy they might invest in participating in and contributing to online social networks is another factor that impedes their adoption on a wider scale (Acord and Hartley, 2012). In fact some scholars believe that investing too much time on social media might undermine their reputation (LaPoe, et al., 2017).
Yet another barrier to broader acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies and social networks is their relative technical complexity. Self-efficacy is a key factor influencing the adoption of SNS (Dermentzi, et al., 2016), so that perceived lack of skill might deter academics from using these technologies.
In general, non-users of social media believe that SNSs lead to detached and narcissistic communication (Lüders and Brandtzæg, 2017). In a similar sense, SNS have been perceived as an element alien to academic culture and practices (Greifeneder, et al., 2018).
Concerns about identity theft and phishing figure among the range of factors identified in the literature as impediments to the wider use of social networks (Gruzd, et al., 2012). The fear of having your ideas stolen has likewise been cited as another issue that has slowed the adoption of social media in academic communities (Zhu and Procter, 2015).
Privacy is considered another deterrent to adopting social media, both in general contexts (Walden, 2016) as well in academic and scholarly contexts, (Fan, et al., 2016). Nonetheless, privacy is a complex phenomenon that is understood in different ways by each user, and it is not presented to users in accessible ways (Carmenati González, et al., 2017). The reluctance regarding privacy responds to three concerns (Gruzd, et al., 2012):
- Separating private content from public content: 'What is going to be known about me?'
- Loss of control over content: 'How are my papers or my data to be used?'
- Changes in terms of use and privacy policies.
Nevertheless, the motivations and deterrents enumerated above do not necessarily reflect the attitudes and concerns of academic social media users across the board. A wide range of factors affects the ways in which individual users perceive and use them.
Gender on social media and academia
Gender also influences the uses and expectations related to social media. Thus, women tend to use SNS as a tool for maintaining close ties, whereas men focus instead on obtaining information (Krasnova, et al., 2017). As a consequence, female users place more trust in social media platforms (Warner-Søderholm, et al., 2018) but they engage less in potentially offensive or controversial issues (Bode, 2017).
These factors should be linked with the general inequality women face in academic spaces (Kretschmer and Kretschtmer, 2013). Papers by women are less cited (Potthoff and Zimmermann, 2017), their requests for funding are less likely to be positively evaluated (van der Lee and Ellemers, 2015), and they are less often invited to be keynote speakers at conferences (Sardelis and Drew, 2016).
In the specific case of the Spanish higher education system, female researchers have been traditionally a minority. Women account for only 20 percent of full professors (catedráticos) and only 40 percent of tenured professors (titulares). Women are also minority among scholars aged 60 or above (26 percent), 50 to 59 (37 percent), and 40 to 49 (43 percent) (Gama Cubas, 2017; España Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2015).
The research reported here has a twofold objective: to determine academics' motives for engaging in online social networking and the ways in which they use both generalist and academic networking sites. To this end, we address the gap in the literature on individual practices on SNS (Veletsianos and Kimmons, 2016; Schmitt and Jäschke, 2017). We also identify the main motives that deter some academics from using these platforms and, specifically, focus on those factors that dissuade them from using SNS professionally.
The exploration of multiple SNS is another aspect that sets this research apart. In line with the recommendations of Williams and Woodacre (2016), our work focuses on the features and characteristics of specific sites. Although academic engagement on social media takes place on a wide range of SNS (Nentwich and König, 2014), most research has focused on a single platform such as Facebook (Sharma, et al., 2016), Twitter (Knight and Kaye, 2016; Veletsianos and Kimmons, 2016), Academia.edu (Thelwall and Kousha, 2014), or ResearchGate (Muscanell and Utz, 2017).
Our research also examines how academics use LinkedIn, one of the most popular SNS among academics, which draws up to 55 percent of users (Tran and Lyon, 2017), or even 60 percent in some disciplines (Manca, 2018) or 67 percent, in the case of certain Spanish universities (Campos-Freire and Rúas-Araújo, 2016) Nevertheless, motivation for and use of SMS has not been previously studied.
Adopting a broader approach to the subject allowed us to compare academics' perceptions of generalist and academic networking sites as well as their opinions about the advantages and drawbacks of each type. This approach also allowed us to test the claim by some authors (Gruzd, et al., 2012) that the emergence of SNS specifically designed to serve academics could fuel researchers' interest in this type of social media.
Academia.edu boasts 47 million users (Bond, 2017) and ResearchGate is used by more than 12 million people (Choi, 2016). In spite of their popularity, the two sites have been already studied as reputation building and alternative ranking systems, yet there remains a gap in the literature on practices and new modes of communication through these channels (Manca, 2018).
Rather than focus exclusively on academics' perceptions and practices of social media in a single field, this study seeks to examine the concerns and opinions of professionals working in a variety of disciplines within the humanities and the social, natural, and experimental sciences.
The primary objective of this research has been to establish a clear picture of how Spanish university professors from a range of age groups, disciplines, and levels of social networking experience use generalist (Twitter and Facebook), professional (LinkedIn), and academic (ResearchGate and Academia.edu) SNS. Based on this premise, our study seeks to answer the four main questions of this research:
What are the perceived advantages of using each social networking site addressed in this study?
This question was formulated to facilitate the identification of facets and features of each of the SNS under study that academics deemed to be especially useful and productive.
What are the inherent drawbacks and limitations of each of these platforms?
This question sought to identify Spanish academics' opinions regarding which aspects and features of the same SNS they considered drawbacks and, where appropriate, potential risk factors.
A. How do academics use social network sites in their teaching?
B. How do they use SNS in their research?
These two questions allowed us to elaborate on responses to our initial question and identify which aspects and features of each of the two SNS under study were used most in the teaching environment and which in the research environment.
How do academics use other social media tools in their teaching or research work?
This question was meant to ascertain professors' opinions of social media tools other than SNS (blogs, chats, wikis, etc.) and to determine which they found useful in the teaching environment and which in their research.
We conducted this study from a qualitative perspective using the semi-structured in-depth interview format, which significantly reduced the possibility of making prior assumptions regarding user motivations (Pai and Arnott, 2013). In contrast to published studies using mainly quantitative-based approaches (Kjellberg, et al., 2016), our qualitative approach facilitated a different perspective to user experiences than do questionnaires (Schrepp, et al., 2017), since it allowed for a deeper analysis of the effects of social networking tools on patterns in scholarly communication (Al-Aufi and Fulton, 2015).
The following typological criteria, identified in the literature as factors for determining the ways in which people perceive and use SNS, were applied in the sample selection. The first of these criteria was age, which affects platform preferences, credibility issues and other features (Sugimoto, et al., 2017). Thus, the academics were divided into three age groups: under 35 years old, 36–55 years old, and over 55 years old.
Research shows that seniority also influences adoption and frequency of use of SNS among scholars (Manca and Ranieri, 2016). Because junior scholars are still developing their professional networks and professional images, they use SNS much more than their older colleagues (Gruzd, et al., 2012); thus, employment status was also taken into account. Academic ranks were divided into three categories: tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenured positions. Professors holding high-ranking civil service positions were classified as tenured professors. These are catedráticos (professors holding the highest rank awarded in the Spanish system and comparable to full professors in the U.S.) and professors who have held the rank of profesor titular for at least 10 years. Professors who have achieved the civil-service rank of profesor titular but have held that title for less than 10 years (the rough equivalent of associate professors in the U.S.) were classified as tenure-track professors. All other professors holding non-civil service positions were considered non-tenured professors.
Another criterion used was media attendance theory, according to which media habits affect — among others — the way in which people use and perceive social networking services (Choi, 2016). For example, studies on privacy behaviour have revealed that users and non-users of Facebook and other SNS express varying degrees of concern about privacy issues (Chang and Heo, 2014). Another innovative aspect of our study was to apply intensity of use as a criterion in the sample selection, which gave us a deeper understanding of the ways in which participants' familiarity with SNS might influence the way in which they used these platforms in academic environments. This involved noting whether each potential interviewee was a 'high level' or 'low level' user of these sites. Participants who maintained active accounts on an academically focused networking site and a generalist networking site and used both frequently were considered high-level users. Those at the other end of the spectrum, who did not have accounts on the two types of platform, maintained only one account on either ResearchGate or Academia.edu, or had an inactive account on a generalist networking site, were considered low-level users.
Discipline has been claimed to be another relevant factor that influences scholars' social media uses and habits (Kjellberg, et al., 2016), therefore we included it as an additional criterion. For example, academics linked to pure and experimental sciences appear more inclined to use these platforms than are their counterparts in the social sciences and humanities (Arcila, et al., 2013). Also, academics from different fields prefer different SNS (Ortega, 2017). Thus distinctions were drawn between the natural sciences, experimental science, and engineering, and the social sciences and humanities.
At any rate, regardless of gender as an influencing factor in social media use, the dearth of female professors among the highest ranks of the Spanish higher education system (España Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2015) implied a reduction in the female representation in the final study sample to five. Notwithstanding, females were represented for every age, position, and field.
Table 1 shows the breakdown of the professional profiles of the 16 professors selected for the sample.
Table 1: Characteristics of study sample. Field Age Position Intensity of use Discipline Gender Natural Sciences & Engineering Under 35 Non-tenured High Construction & Building Engineering Female Under 35 Non-tenured Low Veterinary Sciences Male 35 to 55 Tenure-track High Agricultural Engineering Male 35 to 55 Tenure-track Low Astronomy & Astrophysics Male 56 and over Tenured High Computer Science Male 56 and over Tenured Low Medicine Male Social sciences Under 35 Non-tenured High Marketing Female Under 35 Non-tenured Low Social Work Male 35 to 55 Tenure-track High Communication Male 35 to 55 Tenure-track Low Law Male 56 and over Tenured High Library & Information Sciences Female 56 and over Tenured Low Sociology Male Humanities Under 35 Non-tenured High Archaeology Male Under 35 Non-tenured Low History of Art Female 35 to 55 Tenure-track High Philosophy Male 35 to 55 Tenure-track Low History Male 56 and over Tenured High Literature Male 56 and over Tenured Low History of Art Female
Besides applying the criteria noted above, an effort was made to ensure that the sample adequately represented the broadest possible spectrum of specialisations within each of the three general areas of knowledge.
Each of the 16 professors interviewed was affiliated with one of 14 different universities in Spain [1]. Although three were affiliated to the same university, they worked in different fields of research. The inclusion of multiple interviewees from a single university in the study sample was justified by the fact that it ranks amongst Spain's three largest higher-education institutions, in terms of faculty size. The university affiliations of individual participants have been withheld to ensure anonymity.
The authors conducted the interviews between September 2014 and July 2015. At the beginning of each session, participants were asked a series of questions designed to sound out their opinions about social networks in general, their functions, and their strengths and weaknesses. The interviewees were then asked for their general opinion of each of the SNS under study (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Academia.edu, and ResearchGate).
These sessions were divided into sections to gain a better understanding of the participants' perceptions and use of each platform. Because the term 'use' can imply reading, contributing, or both (Kjellbertg, et al., 2016) we specifically asked the interviewees whether they used each platform as a research tool, a means to publish their work, or a vehicle for social contact. Whenever they replied affirmatively, they were asked to describe their activity in that area. In instances in which they indicated they had not used the site for such a purpose, they were requested to describe their motives for not having done so.
During the final stage of the interviews, participants were asked if they had used SNS and other Web 2.0 tools in their teaching and research work and, if so, which they had found most useful in each context.
Social networks in general
The professors participating in this study viewed social networks as promising communications tools that they could be using more but whose potential they had not yet fully exploited. A number of participants said they preferred to use other options available to them, such as e-mail, virtual campus platforms, and alternative types of communications systems developed by the universities to which they were affiliated.
Based on what they perceived to be the main strengths of SNS, one in particular stood out during the interviews: their usefulness in establishing and maintaining contact with other researchers working at geographically distant institutions. The participants also highly valued the opportunity that these platforms offered to access the published work of others, bring their own research accomplishments to the attention of a wider audience, and share resources that they considered to be of interest.
The interviewees also valued the vast amount of information available on these sites and the fact that it was constantly updated and could be accessed much faster than with traditional methods. They also stressed the reliability of information that these sites offered:
[They offer] information that has been filtered by people you consider trustworthy, which is very important. Following a pool of people whose integrity and common sense you respect saves you a lot of time. You can locate documents [you know will be of interest] right away instead of wasting a lot of time. (Female, over 55, tenured professor, Humanities)
Another aspect of SNS that particularly interested the participants was the opportunity that they provided to establish direct contacts with students, respond to their questions, share resources with them, and carry out ongoing academic tutoring, although they conceded that conducting such activities via these platforms was not always easy:
The interaction possible with students via these channels is rather basic and can be somewhat troublesome when students don't manage to keep their messages concise and to the point. There are certain downsides such as immediacy and interaction. On the other hand, these platforms allow me to incorporate a lot of content into courses that I wouldn't normally be able to share in a traditional classroom situation. (Female, under 35, non-tenured professor, Exact sciences — Health and engineering)
From the viewpoint of the professors interviewed, the main drawbacks to using SNS were the risk of depersonalisation and privacy, security, and anonymity issues inherent to them. To a lesser extent, some complained that information disseminated and shared via SNS was relatively unfiltered, whereas others pointed out that this problem was by no means exclusive to these platforms.
Participants thought that a lack of expertise and the time required to harness the full potential of SNS often deterred academics from using these platforms, and several participants who had refrained from using SNS for these very reasons said that universities should offer training in this area.
Table 2 provides a breakdown of what the interviewed professors perceived to be the strengths and weaknesses of each social networking site examined during this study.
Table 2: The perceived strengths and weaknesses of each social networking site under study. SNS Strengths Weaknesses General
- Supports the creation of focused research groups
- Allows professors to reach more students
- Facilitates information sharing
- Boosts visibility of personal Webs and blogs
- Often ends up combining personal and professional use environments
- Privacy issues
- Immediacy
- Offers access to a broad range of information
- Time consuming
- Bombards users with information
- Facilitates contact with former students
- Facilitates contact with others working in the same discipline
- Facilitates access to difficult-to-find publications
- Facilitates contact with experts in one's field
- Not suitable for academic use
- Does not provide university job listings
Academic ResearchGate
- Specialised focus
- Contains job listings
- Provides a means of disseminating and promoting one's own work
- Publishes unreliable information
Generalist social network sites — Facebook
Beyond the few rare instances in which the interviewees had used generalist SNS for a special purpose, such as communication between members of a focused research group, the professors tended to use this type of platform primarily for personal, non-academic purposes, such as keeping in touch with friends and family members.
The strongest reservations expressed by those who considered Facebook unsuitable for professional purposes were related to privacy management. Keywords and phrases used by this group to explain what they considered to be the downside of this site, particularly regarding its use in teaching or research, included 'gossip', 'the control of personal data', and 'a total lack of criteria for what gets published'.
The personal experience of one of the participants served to underline the importance of this issue:
If you want to work and not go insane as well, you need to limit other users' access to your profile. [Data] privacy is also an important issue in the area I work in. Someone opened a false Facebook account in my name using data available on my university profile page. Since I had nothing to do with it, I contacted Facebook, who closed the account. It turned out that the false account belonged to a former student who had opened it without any malicious intent. (Male, 35–50, tenure-track professor, Humanities)
However, other participants in the survey who had used Facebook in their teaching and research claimed that the massive appeal of this platform made it an ideal vehicle for collecting class assignments, sharing information with students and other researchers, classifying content, and promoting blogs and Web sites on which they had posted their study findings.
Generalist networks — Twitter
The response was similar regarding Twitter, another site upon which opinion was divided. Those who had chosen not to use this platform cited the time it required and the constant stream of notifications received as its two greatest drawbacks.
Interviewees who used Twitter considered its greatest virtue to be immediacy — the opportunity it offered users to make spontaneous comments about something of general or specific professional interest in real time. These participants regarded Twitter as a first point of contact from which they could search for additional information on a subject via embedded links or specific sources.
In my opinion, Twitter has the same aura of immediacy that radio once had: when a lot of people retweet something or use a hashtag ... I feel a sense of immediacy. (Female, under 35, non-tenured professor, Humanities)
The majority of the professors interviewed for this study used LinkedIn less than any other social networking site for one specific motive: they considered it to be geared towards the needs and interests of business professionals rather than those of academics. While they thought that LinkedIn might be a good tool for people seeking work in the general labour market, they agreed that it did not serve academics searching for teaching positions at the university level and suggested that a listing of teaching positions and research opportunities would be a feature of interest to professors across the board.
The interviewees cited two advantages to using this particular site. The first was its viability as a channel through which former students could contact them to request recommendations related to job applications. The second was the opportunity it offers for keeping current with activities of other institutions and professionals in their particular disciplines.
I use this site because people in my circle of contacts share a lot of information of interest to me on it. [...] Being able to access the information these individuals post is sometimes more important than maintaining direct contact with them and I believe that is their objective — bringing interesting things to the attention of other colleagues. (Male, over 55, tenure-track professor, Exact sciences — Health and engineering)
Academic SNS
Most participants viewed academic SNS (ResearchGate and Academia.edu) more positively than the generalist sites. They considered the academic focus of these platforms to be a definite plus. Researchers interviewed used this type of platform for two main purposes: to keep current with what their counterparts elsewhere were working on and promoting and disseminating the results of their own studies.
In the first instance, they valued the ease with which they could keep track of what colleagues were doing and the possibility of reading posted conference proceedings, book chapters, and other types of documents, not available elsewhere. The interviewees also considered these sites especially useful tools for identifying the most outstanding researchers in their fields and following the work of colleagues and lines of investigation in which they were particularly interested.
Fewer interviewees used academic SNS as a means of disseminating their own work, citing time constraints as the main reason for not pursuing this option. The participants stated that they would like to see these platforms automatically incorporate authors' most recent work, akin to Google Scholar, but acknowledged that it is being done gradually. They also suggested that universities regard academics' involvement in social networking as a merit activity.
Interviewees considered embedded features, such as bookmarking and following, to be the least appealing features of academic SNS. They particularly disliked the fact that everyone on a user's list of contacts was privy to their personal bookmarking decisions, a function they thought made this option too similar to Facebook's 'like' button. Some participants thought that academic networking sites were useful but were not the best sources of information. They pointed out that, as was the case with SNS in general, communication on these platforms was often stilted due to a lack of trust amongst users.
Table 3 provides a breakdown of participants' views regarding the advantages and drawbacks of using SNS' teaching and research environments.
Table 3: Perceptions regarding the advantages and drawbacks of using SNS in teaching and research environments. Teaching Research Advantages
- Facilitate rapid communication and feedback.
- Allow users to share a range of resources.
- Students feel comfortable using these sites.
- Facilitate communication with colleagues.
- Facilitate contact with experts in one's field.
- Facilitate the publication and the dissemination of findings.
- Teachers have the disadvantage of being digital immigrants.
- Teachers cannot be 'on call' on a 24-hour basis.
- SNS lack the rigour of established journals.
- Researchers lack the technical expertise needed to fully exploit these sites.
The use of SNS in teaching environments
When asked what features of SNS they found most useful in their teaching, most professors interviewed stated that they provided very good channels for communicating rapidly with students, generating feedback, sharing a wide range of materials, answering questions about class work and activities, and disseminating last-minute messages. They gave other reasons as well:
First off, the immediacy with which support, including visual materials, can be provided to students who may have questions or problems. They offer a means of exposing students to multimedia content that wouldn't otherwise be able to share. I think it's really important to be able to respond students and figure out whether or not they like the content you're tossing out to them. (Female, under 35, non-tenured, Exact sciences — Health and engineering)
According to the academics interviewed for this study, students feel closer to professors who answer their questions rapidly via platforms that they are comfortable using, such as SNS, than they do to professors who communicate with them by other means. When asked how she viewed colleagues who used SNS in their courses, one interviewee stated:
I think it gives them a big advantage, especially in terms of relating to students. [Students] see professors who use them as being more up-to-date and feel that they are teaching them things they are really interested in. (Female, over 55, tenure-track professor, Humanities)
Most of the professors interviewed recognised that they would need more experience and training to be able to use SNS as effortlessly and completely as students and stressed the importance of drawing a firm line between their personal and professional online identities. They viewed themselves as digital immigrants separated by age from their digital native students:
We need to use a range of SNS and create a different profile for each site we maintain: [it's important for me], to express my thoughts as Marina the individual as well as a professor teaching a group of students because there are a lot of different facets to my personality; I'm many different Marinas. Who am I in a particular context? Whereas we professors haven't yet grasped the importance of that question, students know perfectly well that a given site is for communicating with their peers, not for spouting off about you or me or whoever. This is harder for us than it is for them. The technology we've adopted only to a limited degree is an integral fixture of their daily lives. (Female, under 35, non-tenured professor, Social and legal sciences)
Some professors, on the other hand, stressed how useful social networks — particularly Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn — were for maintaining contact with former students and communicating with other faculty members, and students at foreign universities.
In terms of the drawbacks to using SNS in teaching environments mentioned by these professors, two in particular stood out: students sometimes fail to understand that professors cannot spend 24 hours a day responding to their questions via these platforms, and there is lack of clear guidelines concerning their use during a course.
The use of SNS in research environments
Opinion was divided concerning the value of SNS to researchers. Some had used them to disseminate their own research findings and to maximize their reach but others, however, claimed that the lack of rigour that characterises SNS made them poor platforms for the dissemination of scientific studies:
I believe that you should disseminate your findings through the right channels, by which I mean high-impact journals whose reputation hopefully rests on the mechanisms they've put in place to ensure the quality of what is published rather on the whims of authors anxious to upload anything they please. (Male, over 55, tenure-track professor, Exact sciences — Health and engineering)
Interviewee opinion was also divided regarding the practice of using social networks to establish new contacts within the academic community. Some thought that they were well suited to this purpose and were especially useful as a means of establishing initial contact with experts in their own or related disciplines. Others, in contrast, felt that SNS were not appropriate channels for making this type of contact.
Conclusion, limitations, and further research
Many of the results reported here concerning professors' motivations for using or not using SNS confirm findings of prior studies. Although this research underscores a number of previously identified factors affecting academics' interest in SNS, it also offers new insights into their perceptions regarding these tools.
The participants in this study repeatedly expressed doubts about the quality of information published on SNS. Nevertheless, the interviews revealed that they have begun to use them (both generalist and academic) as a means of finding documents of potential interest to them and filtering information relevant to the fields in which they work.
These findings might be explained through Bourdieu's (1980) concept of 'la sens pratique' [the logic of practice], which has been used to explain the adoption of social media by other collectives, such as journalists (Powers and Vera-Zambrano, 2018). This theory posits that technological features and uses of a medium that users find helpful in their daily, regular, routine tasks are more likely to be adopted. In this case, we find that positive attitudes among the interviewees were related to information gathering. The need to keep abreast of the latest developments in each academic field is part of the researcher's everyday life, and SNS are viewed as useful resources in this purpose.
The professors interviewed used all kinds of SNS to keep abreast of new developments in their disciplines and especially appreciated being able to peruse documents that other colleagues had directly uploaded to these platforms. Participants not only praised the immediacy of these sites and speed with which they could access information on them but also stressed their growing value as a tool for content curation.
Findings also indicate that academics use SNS as a virtual Who's Who when searching for other experts in their fields as well as a means of requesting notification of these authors' future publications. Many mentioned that SNS not only allowed them to discover new and interesting studies, but also learn more about their authors.
The pace of acceptance and adoption of these tools within the academic community in Spain is hampered by a lack of technical expertise. However, the professors interviewed for this study were clearly aware of social networking's potential and some thought universities and other institutions should provide training in this area; a suggestion that points to an interest in overcoming technical barriers and reducing a generational digital divide. The interviewees believed that this type of training should cover the usefulness of SNS as sources and research tools as well as technical basics.
One of the novelties of this study was its exploration of academics' opinions of LinkedIn. Although the professors interviewed expressed much interest in using this platform, they thought that the features and options it offered duplicated those available via academically oriented sites and other online communities.
The possibility of academic SNS listing teaching and research opportunities in much the same way that LinkedIn features job notices was only one of several interesting ideas that emerged during the exploration of academics' opinions of this site.
The inclusion of LinkedIn in this study also prompted a number of constructive commentaries concerning that platform's usefulness as a channel for maintaining contact with former students, a function that interviewees thought academic SNS should try to emulate.
Nonetheless, interviewees did not think that academic SNS should embrace all the features and aesthetics of their generalist counterparts, drawing a negative comparison between the 'frivolous' public exposure of users' bookmarking decisions on academic SNS (a function that reminded them too much of Facebook) and the total privacy of personal libraries created by users via Google Scholar.
As mentioned earlier, many interviewees thought that the automatic public notification of users' decisions to bookmark specific documents or follow specific people reduced these otherwise useful functions of academic networking sites to the level of 'liking' via Facebook. While they appreciated the 'serious' and 'formal' aspects of academic social networks, they found others, such as the option to seek and grant endorsements, less interesting or even undesirable.
This study has revealed that the slow pace of institutional adoption is impeding Spanish academics from fully exploiting the potential of SNS in the area of research. Professors tend to interpret the refusal of entities and organisations they deal with on a regular basis to use SNS as censure that lowers the quality and impact of these platforms.
The data provided also indicates that scholars are aware that different strategies and patterns of use should be applied in the different SNS in which they are involved. Further research is needed to deep in how these different strategies are defined and applied.
Female academics expressed particular concerns about how to manage different features of professional and personal life. This could be a consequence of the inequality and discrimination faced by these scholars in their professional environment. This scenario might prompt special caution among these academics that a badly managed professional image through SNS might imply an additional obstacle in their perception by their male peers. Something similar was found among the younger scholars, who also find their position as more insecure and perceive that using social media sites might damage their careers (Greifeneder, et al., 2018).
The interviewees cited privacy, data security, and anonymity concerns as being the greatest drawbacks to SNS. The combined weight of these issues was thought to have created a climate of distrust that hindered fluid communication between users. The absence of criteria regarding what could be uploaded to these platforms had made some participants in the study sceptical about the quality of content they contained and discouraged a few from using them for any purpose whatsoever.
Limitations and further research
Although the subjects interviewed for this study were drawn from a wide range of disciplines and universities, as Spaniards they responded to a homogenous social and cultural environment. Academics working in other countries and contexts might have other opinions and make different value judgements regarding the usefulness of SNS in academic environments. It should also be noted that this research did not address all the variables shown to have an effect on the way individuals use and perceive these communications tools. For example, it did not consider user personality factors.
Although the qualitative methodology used in this research did not allow for any quantitative measurement of the advantages and drawbacks enumerated by the participants, it could nevertheless serve as a starting point for future studies of the topic based on surveys or analyses of the content posted on academic Web sites.
The findings of this study indicate that academics in Spain are becoming increasingly aware of the need to develop different strategies and user habits for every SNS on which they have a presence. Future research focusing on the ways in which professors are differentiating their online identities could provide deeper insight into this issue.
In terms of the utility of SNS in teaching situations, professors interviewed remarked that students not only felt comfortable using them in learning environments but also had a higher opinion of teachers who used these tools in their courses. This observation points to the desirability of conducting further research on the relationship between professors' use of SNS and the ratings they receive in student evaluations. Such studies could verify whether the assertion that students value teachers committed to using these tools more highly than teachers who shy away from these technologies has a basis in fact.
Finally, this study has shed light on the ways in which SNS can facilitate communication in the context of teaching collaborations between universities in different countries and promote virtual mobility. Exploratory and case studies in this area would be very useful in helping all involved to make the most out of this sort of educational initiative.
About the authors
Francisco Segado-Boj is Professor at Universidad Internacional de La Rioja and director of the 'Digital Society and Communication' Research Group. His current research interests focus on science and scholarly communication, social media, and audiovisual media.
Direct comments to: francisco [dot] segado [at] unir [dot] net
Jesús Díaz Del Campo is Professor at Universidad Internacional de La Rioja and Director of the Master's Program in Communication and Corporate Identity. His current research interests focus on communication ethics, corporate communication and social media.
E-mail: jesus [dot] diaz [at] unir [dot] net
Erika Fernández Gómez is Associate Professor at Universidad Internacional de La Rioja. Her research areas are social networks sites, social television, and e-health.
E-mail: erika [dot] fernandez [at] unir [dot] net
María-Ángeles Chaparro-Domínguez is Assistant Professor at Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Faculty of Information Sciences). Her research areas are social media, data journalism and new media.
E-mail: ma [dot] chaparro [at] ucm [dot] es
The authors wish to thank Manuel Martínez Nicolás for his support and advice on the methodological design and Luis Deltell for his comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the manuscript. This work was partially funded by UNIR Research (http://research.unir.net), International University of La Rioja (UNIR, http://www.unir.net), in the frame of the Research Support Strategy [2015–2017].
1. Interviewees were affiliated with one of the following universities (all names given in Spanish): Universidad de Barcelona, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Universidad de Córdoba, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, Universidad Jaime I, Universidad de Málaga, Universidad de Murcia, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, and Universidad de Vigo.
Sophia Krzys Acord and Diane Harley, 2012. "Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0," New Media & Society, volume 15, number 3, pp. 379–387.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465140, accessed 21 December 2016.
Nordiana Ahmad Kharman Shah and Andrew M. Cox, 2017. "Uncovering the scholarly use of Twitter in the academia: Experiences in a British university," Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, volume 22, number 3, pp. 93–108.
doi: https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol22no3.6, accessed 15 March 2018.
Ali Al-Aufi and Crystal Fulton, 2015. "Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: a cross-institutional study," Electronic Library, volume 33, number 2, pp. 224–241.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EL-05-2013-0093, accessed 21 December 2016.
Carlos Arcila, José Luis Piñuel, and Mabel Calderín, 2013. "The e-research on media & communications: Attitudes, tools and practices in Latin America researchers," Comunicar, number 40, pp. 111–118.
doi: https://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-03-01, accessed 21 December 2016.
Salih Bardakcı, Ömer Arslan, and Tuğba Kocadağ Ünver, 2018. "How scholars use academic social networking services," Information Development, volume 34, number 4, pp. 334–345.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666917712108, accessed 8 March 2018.
Leticia Bode, 2017. "Closing the gap: Gender parity in political engagement on social media," Information, Communication & Society, volume 20, number 4, pp. 587–603.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1202302, accessed 8 March 2018.
Sarah Bond, 2017. "Dear scholars, delete your account at Academia.Edu," Forbes (23 January), at https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/01/23/dear-scholars-delete-your-account-at-academia-edu/#7db9e6e92d62, accessed 10 February 2018.
Pierre Bourdieu, 1980. Le sens pratique. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
Francisco Campos-Freire and Jose Rúas-Araújo, 2016. "The use of professional and scientific social networks: The case of three Galician universities," El profesional de la información, volume 25, number 3, pp. 431–440.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.may.13, accessed 21 December 2016.
Meysis Carmenati González, Marc Bayés, and Diego Apolo, 2017. "Comunicación de la privacidad en red: Una aproximaci&oacutge;n para el análisis de políticas de Google y Facebook," Index.Comunicación, volume 7, number 3, at http://journals.sfu.ca/indexcomunicacion/index.php/indexcomunicacion/article/view/332/0, accessed 15 March 2018.
Chen-Wei Chang and Jun Heo, 2014. "Visiting theories that predict college students' self-disclosure on Facebook," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 30, pp. 79–86.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.059, accessed 21 December 2016.
Jihyang Choi, 2016. "Why do people use news differently on SNSs? An investigation of the role of motivations, media repertoires, and technology cluster on citizens' news-related activities," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 54, pp. 249–256.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.006, accessed 23 November 2015.
Kimberley Collins, David Shiffman, and Jenny Rock, 2016. "How are scientists using social media in the workplace?" PLoS ONE, volume 11, number 10 (12 October), e0162680.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162680, accessed 15 March 2018.
Emily S. Darling, David Shiffman, Isabelle M. Côté, and Joshua A. Drew, 2013. "The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication," PeerJ Preprints.
doi: https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.16v1, accessed 21 December 2016.
Eleni Dermentzi and Savvas Papagiannidis, 2018. "Academics' intention to adopt online technologies for public engagement," Internet Research, volume 28, number 1, pp. 191–212.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2016-0302, accessed 8 March 2018.
Eleni Dermentzi, Savvas Papagiannidis, Carlos Osorio Toro, and Natalia Yannopoulou, 2016. "Academic engagement: Differences between intention to adopt social networking sites and other online technologies," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 61, pp. 321–332.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.019, accessed 8 March 2018.
Amany M. Elsayed, 2016. "The use of academic social networks among Arab researchers: A survey," Social Science Computer Review, volume 34, number 3, pp. 378–391.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.019, accessed 8 March 2018.
España Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2015. "Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español," at https://www.mecd.gob.es/dms/mecd/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/universitaria/datos-cifras/datos-y-cifras-SUE-2015-16-web-.pdf, accessed 15 March 2018.
Si Fan, Jan Radford, and Debbie Fabian, 2016. "A mixed-method research to investigate the adoption of mobile devices and Web 2.0 technologies among medical students and educators," BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, volume 16, number 43.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0283-6, accessed 21 December 2016.
Marina Gama Cubas, 2017. "La universidad española lejos de la paridad en las c&Uaacute;tedras," El Mundo (27 September), at https://www.elmundo.es/grafico/sociedad/2017/09/27/59b8e122268e3eae4f8b4672.html, accessed 15 March 2018.
Qin Gao and Chenyue Feng, 2016. "Branding with social media: User gratifications, usage patterns, and brand message content strategies," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 63, number 63, pp. 868–890.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.022, accessed 28 September 2017.
Saadiah Ghazali, Nor Intan Saniah Sulaiman, Nerda Zura Zabidi, Mohd Faizal Omar, and Rose Alinda Alias, 2016. "The impact of knowledge sharing through social media among academia," AIP Conference Proceedings.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4966060, accessed 8 March 2018.
Elke Greifeneder, Sheila Pontis, Ann Blandford, Hesham Attalla, David Neal, and Kirsten Schlebbe, 2018. "Researchers' attitudes towards the use of social networking sites," Journal of Documentation, volume 74, number 1, pp. 119–136.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2017-0051, accessed 15 March 2018.
Anatoly Gruzd and Melissa Goertzen, 2013. "Wired academia: Why social science scholars are using social media," Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3,332–3,341, and at https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2013/4892/00/4892d332-abs.html, accessed 21 December 2016.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.614, accessed 24 April 2019.
Anatoliy Gruzd, Kathleen Staves, and Amanda Wilk, 2012. "Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 28, number 6, pp. 2,340–2,350.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.004, accessed 21 December 2016.
Hamid R. Jamali, David Nicholas, and Eti Herman, 2015. "Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms" Research Evaluation, volume 25, number 1, pp. 37–49.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv032, accessed 21 December 2016.
Wei Jeng, Spencer DesAutels, Daqing He, and Lei Li, 2017. "Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on Researchgate Q&A," Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 68, number 3, pp. 638–652.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23692, accessed 8 March 2018.
Hepeng Jia, Dapeng Wang, Weishan Miao, and Hongjun Zhu, 2017. "Encountered but not engaged: Examining the use of social media for science communication by Chinese scientists," Science Communication, volume 39, number 5, pp. 646–672.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735114, accessed 15 March 2018.
Sara Kjellberg, Jutta Haider, and Olof Sundin, 2016. "Researchers' use of social network sites: A scoping review," Library & Information Science Research, volume 38, number 3, pp. 224–234.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.008, accessed 8 March 2018.
Charles G. Knight and Linda K. Kaye, 2016. "'To tweet or not to tweet?' A comparison of academics' and students' usage of Twitter in academic contexts," Innovations in Education and Teaching International, volume 53, number 2, pp. 145–155.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.928229, accessed 8 March 2018.
Hanna Krasnova, Natasha F. Veltri, Nicole Eling, and Peter Buxmann, 2017. "Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences," Journal of Strategic Information Systems, volume 26, number 4, pp. 261–284.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.01.004, accessed 8 March 2018.
Hildrun Kretschmer and Theo Kretschmer, 2013. "Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women's discriminations in research careers," Scientometrics, volume 97, number 1, pp. 25–36.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1023-7, accessed 30 November 2017.
Victoria L. LaPoe, Candi Carter Olson, and Stine Eckert, 2017. "'Linkedin is my office; Facebook my living room, Twitter the neighborhood bar'. Media scholars' liminal use of social media for peer and public communication," Journal of Communication Inquiry, volume 41, number 3, pp. 185–206.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859917707741, accessed 15 March 2018.
Dong Liu, Sarah E. Ainsworth, and Roy F. Baumeister, 2016. "A meta-analysis of social networking online and social capital," Review of General Psychology, volume 20, number 4, pp. 369–391.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000091, accessed 8 March 2018.
Marika Lüders and Petter Bae Brandtzæg, 2017. "'My children tell me it's so simple': A mixed-methods approach to understand older non-users' perceptions of social networking sites," New Media & Society, volume 19, number 2, pp. 181–198.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814554064, accessed 15 March 2018.
Dragan Manasijević, Dragana Živković, Sanela Arsić, and Isidora Milošević, 2016. "Exploring students' purposes of usage and educational usage of Facebook," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 60, pp. 441–450.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.087, accessed 21 March 2018.
Stefania Manca, 2018. "ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: A literature review," Research in Learning Technology, volume 26 (20 February).
doi: https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2008, accessed 18 March 2018.
Stefania Manca and Maria Ranieri, 2016. "'Yes for sharing, no for teaching!': Social media in academic practices," Internet and Higher Education, volume 29, pp. 63–74.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.004, accessed 21 December 2016.
Hagit Meishar-Tal and Efrat Pieterse, 2017. "Why do academics use academic social networking sites?" International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, volume 18, number 1, at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2643/4044, accessed 15 March 2018.
Julio Montero-Díaz, Manuel-Jesús Cobo, María Gutiérrez-Salcedo, Francisco Segado-Boj, and Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2018. "A science mapping analysis of 'Communication' WoS subject category (1980–2013)," Comunicar, volume 26, number 55.
doi: https://doi.org/10.3916/C55-2018-08, accessed 15 March 2018.
Nicole Muscanell and Sonja Utz, 2017. "Social networking for scientists: An analysis on how and why academics use ResearchGate," Online Information Review, volume 41, number 5, pp. 744–759.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2016-0185, accessed 8 March 2018.
Gemma Nández and Ángel Borrego, 2013. "Use of social networks for academic purposes: A case study," Electronic Library, volume 3, number 6, pp. 781–791.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2012-0031, accessed 21 December 2016.
Michael Nentwich and René König, 2014. "Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm," In: Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike (editors). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the Internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, pp. 107–124.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_7, accessed 21 December 2016.
David Nicholas, Eti Herman, and David Clark, 2016. "Scholarly reputation building - How does ResearchGate fare?" International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, volume 6, number 2, pp. 67–92.
doi: https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2016.6.2.067, accessed 8 March 2018.
David Nicholas, Anthony Watkinson, Cherifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Jie Xu, Abdullah Abrizah, Marzena Świgoń, and Eti Herman, 2017. "Early career researchers: Scholarly behaviour and the prospect of change," Learned Publishing, volume 30, number 2, pp. 157–166.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1098, accessed 3 August 2017.
José Luis Ortega, 2017. "Toward a homogenization of academic social sites: A longitudinal study of profiles in Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate," Online Information Review, volume 41, number 6, pp. 812–825.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0012, accessed 15 March 2018.
Peiyu Pai and David C. Arnott, 2013. "User adoption of social networking sites: Eliciting uses and gratifications through a means-end approach," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 29, number 3, pp. 1,039–1,053.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.025, accessed 21 December 2016.
Joe Phua, Seunga Venus Jin, and Jihoon (Jay) Kim, 2017. "Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 72, pp. 115–122.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041, accessed 8 March 2018.
Matthias Potthoff and Fabian Zimmermann, 2017. "Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations," Scientometrics, volume 112, number 2, pp. 1,047–1,063.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2392-0, accessed 30 November 2017.
Matthew Powers and Sandra Vera-Zambrano, 2018. "How journalists use social media in France and the United States: Analyzing technology use across journalistic fields," New Media & Society, volume 20, number 8, pp. 2,728–2,744.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817731566, accessed 11 February 2018.
Anabel Quan-Haase, Kim Martin, and Lori McCay-Peet, 2015. "Networks of digital humanities scholars: The informational and social uses and gratifications of Twitter," Big Data & Society (10 June).
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715589417, accessed 8 March 2018.
Stephanie Sardelis and Joshua A. Drew, 2016. "Not 'Pulling up the ladder': Women who organize conference symposia provide greater opportunities for women to speak at conservation conferences," PLoS ONE, volume 11, number 7, e0160015.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160015, accessed 30 November 2017.
Marco Schmitt and Robert Jäschke, 2017. "What do computer scientists tweet? Analyzing the link-sharing practice on Twitter," PLoS ONE, volume 12, number 6, e0179630.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179630, accessed 8 March 2018.
Martin Schrepp, Andreas Hinderks, and Jörg Thomaschewski, 2017. "Construction of a Benchmark for the user experience questionnaire (UEQ)," International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, volume 4, number 4, pp. 40–44.
doi: https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2017.445, accessed 15 March 2018.
Sujeet Kumar Sharma, Ankita Joshi, and Himanshu Sharma, 2016. "A multi-analytical approach to predict the Facebook usage in higher education," Computers in Human Behavior, volume 55, part A, pp. 340–353.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.020, accessed 15 March 2018.
Ahmed Shehata, David Ellis, and Allen Edward Foster, 2017. "Changing styles of informal academic communication in the age of the Web: Orthodox, moderate and heterodox responses," Journal of Documentation, volume 73, number 5, pp. 825–842.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0083, accessed 8 March 2018.
Francisco Segado-Boj, María ángeles Chaparro Domínguez, and Cristina Castillo Rodríguez, 2015. "Use of Twitter among Spanish communication-area faculty: Research, teaching and visibility" First Monday, volume 20, number 6, at https://firstmonday.org/article/view/5602/4579, accessed 21 December 2016.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i6.5602, accessed 21 December 2016.
Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Sam Work, Vincent Larivière, and Stefanie Haustein, 2017. "Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 68, number 9, pp. 2,037–2,062.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833, accessed 8 March 2018.
Jonathan Sullivan, 2017. "China scholars and Twitter," China Quarterly, volume 229, pp. 218–228.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741017000017, accessed 15 March 2018.
Carol Tenopir, Suzie Allard, Lisa Christian, Robert Anderson, Suzan Ali-Saleh, Dave Nicholas, Anthony Watkinson, and Hazel Woodward, 2017. "No scholar is an island: The impact of sharing in the work life of scholars," Learned Publishing, volume 30, number 1, pp. 5–17.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1090, accessed 8 March 2018.
Mike Thelwall and Kayvan Kousha, 2015. "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship?" Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 66, number 5, pp. 876–889.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236, accessed 21 December 2016.
Mike Thelwall and Kayvan Kousha, 2014. "Academia.edu: social network or academic network?" Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, volume 65, number 4, pp. 721–731.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038, accessed 21 December 2016.
Clara Y. Tran and Jennifer A. Lyon, 2017. "Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools," College & Research Libraries, volume 78, number 2, pp. 171–182.
doi: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.2.16580, accessed 15 March 2018.
Romy van der Lee and Naomi Ellemers, 2015. "Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, volume 112, number 40, pp. 12,349–12,353.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510159112, accessed 23 November 2017.
George Veletsianos and Royce Kimmons, 2016. "Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: How do education professors and students use Twitter?" Internet and Higher Education, volume 30, pp. 1–10.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.002, accessed 8 March 2018.
Justin A. Walden, 2016. "Integrating social media into the workplace: A study of shifting technology use repertoires," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, volume 60, number 2, pp. 347–363.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1164163, accessed 15 March 2018.
Gillian Warner-Søderholm, Andy Bertsch, Everlyn Sawe, Dwight Lee, Trina Wolfe, Josh Meyer, Josh Engel, and Uepati Normann Fatilua, 2018. "Who trusts social media?" Computers in Human Behavior, volume 81, pp. 303–315.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.026, accessed 15 March 2018.
Anthony Watkinson, David Nicholas, Clare Thornley, Eti Herman, Hamid R. Jamali, Rachel Volentine, Suzie Allard, Kenneth Levine, and Carol Tenopir, 2016. "Changes in the digital scholarly environment and issues of trust: An exploratory, qualitative analysis," Information Processing & Management, volume 52, number 3, pp. 446–458.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.10.002, accessed 15 March 2018.
Ann E. Williams and Melissa A. Woodacre, 2016. "The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites," Online Information Review, volume 40, number 2, pp. 282–294.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0327, accessed 21 December 2016.
Yimei Zhu and Kingsley Purdam, 2017. "Social media, science communication and the academic super user in the United Kingdom," First Monday, volume 22, number 11, at https://firstmonday.org//article/view/8066/6563, accessed 15 March 2018.
doi: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i11.7866, accessed 15 March 2018.
Yimei Zhu and Rob Procter, 2015. "Use of blogs, Twitter and Facebook by UK PhD students for scholarly communication," Observatorio (OBS*), volume 9, number 2, pp. 29–46, and at http://obs.obercom.pt/index.php/obs/article/view/842, accessed 24 April 2019.
Editorial history
Received 27 December 2016; revised 24 March 2018; accepted 29 March 2019.
This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Spanish academics and social networking sites: Use, non-use, and the perceived advantages and drawbacks of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, and Academia.edu
by Francisco Segado-Boj, Jesús Díaz-Campo, Erika Fernández-Gómez, and María-Ángeles Chaparro-Domínguez.
First Monday, Volume 24, Number 5 - 6 May 2019
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i5.7296


text:
Late this summer (yes, you can see I've fallen behind on my newsworthy visual concoctions) NBC News and other news outlets reported that hemp could be a viable component in super-conductors. Now, my own personal knowledge of the technical aspects is quite limited, and my own language and understanding would probably take away from the message. So, instead of me trying to mumble my way through the technical specs, facts, and data, let me share with a a blurb and a link.
This certainly isn't a surprise to me, because let's face it, hemp is so durable and has so many uses that I can't think of anything it CAN'T do (well, within reason, of course)! Without further ado, here is the article you've been waiting for:
"A team led by David Mitlin, an engineering professor at Clarkson University, heated up hemp fibers to create carbon nanosheets that can be used as electrodes for supercapacitors. Compared with graphene, the hemp-derived carbon is "a little bit better, but it's 1,000 times cheaper," Mitlin told NBC News.
"Supercaps" are often characterized as the super-battery of the future, but Mitlin said the technology is actually more complementary to next-generation batteries."


text:
14 December 2017 marked the 326th meeting of the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, which was also the last meeting of H.E. Ambassador Amr Abdellatif Aboulatta, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chair of the Committee. The plenary had a packed agenda, covering numerous themes, including terrorism financing, and a future vision for the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED).
Mr. Santiago Otamendi, President of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), briefed the Committee on the work of FATF and cooperation between the United Nations and FATF (read CTED's interview with President Otamendi here). Mr. Max Braun of the Luxembourg Financial Intelligence Unit and Ms. Dawn Peebles of SITE Intelligence Group also provided presentations on challenges faced in the regulation of transactions and prevention of the misuse of new social media technologies for purposes of the financing of terrorism. Mr. Braun focused on the issue of anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulation of virtual currency exchange platforms, emphasizing the importance of tracing and monitoring transactions to find links to identify terrorists and terrorist networks. Ms. Peebles highlighted the misuse of social media, bitcoin, and familiar third-party transaction platforms to fund the purchase of weapons, equipment, supplies, and resources including human services.
In presenting proposed recommendations to the Committee regarding the role of financial institutions, CTED encouraged Member States to assess the terrorist risks of their financial sector, in line with FATF standards, and to apply anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations to those respective products and services of their financial sector. CTED experts also suggested that Members "develop or strengthen the partnership between public and private sector entities for the sharing of financial intelligence aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and identifying and dismantling terrorist networks."
Executive Director of CTED, Assistant Secretary-General Ms. Michèle Coninsx, briefed the Committee on the future work of CTED as the Security Council was currently discussing the mandate renewal of CTED. Ms. Coninsx spoke about strengthening CTED's assessments and methodologies, as assessments are the heart of CTED's activity, and reinforced CTED's aim of improving through "dynamism, flexibility, speed, creativity, and innovation."
"It takes networks to beat criminal and terrorist networks," she said. "Every effort should be made to enforce comprehensive approaches to counter terrorism."
Remarks by the FATF President are available here.


text:
Re: weather blog and ListStreamPlot sampling
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg96296] Re: weather blog and ListStreamPlot sampling
- From: P_ter <petervansummeren at gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:19:07 -0500 (EST)
Hello Sjoerd, I am also very much interested in the blog about weatherdata, especially for the Netherlands. I used FullPolygon because the Polygon missed to much: netherlands = ((CountryData[#, {"FullPolygon", "Mercator"}] & /@ {"Netherlands"}) /. Polygon -> Line); The Dutch cities are not all tabled with their coordinates: nedsteden = CityData[{All, "Netherlands"}]; nedstedencoords = {#, CityData[#, "Coordinates"]} & /@ nedsteden ; rr = DeleteCases[nedstedencoords, {{_, _, _}, {_Missing, _Missing}}] ; With the cities which do have coordinates, I want to know where the weather stations are within shortest reach of the Dutch cities. Some of them are in Belgium, Germany. dutchstations = WeatherData[#] & /@ rr[[All, 2]]; Not all the weather stations do have a temperature record: data = {#, WeatherData[#, "Temperature"]} & /@ dutchstations; data1 = DeleteCases[data, {_, _Missing}]; data2 = {WeatherData[#[[1]], "Coordinates"], #[[2]]} & /@ data1; ( I splitted in smallest steps) The weatherstations with available temperature and coordinates are now for use: Graphics[{Gray, CountryData["Netherlands", "FullPolygon"], {PointSize[Large], Hue[WeatherData[#, "Temperature"]/30],Tooltip[Point[Reverse[WeatherData[#, "Coordinates"]]], WeatherData[#]]} & /@ ds}] To make your first point: yes, the weatherstations are not uniformly spread. How to make a nice plot of the temperature, which we can see every day on the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute? It is certainly not that simple for a small country. with friendly greetings, P_ter


text:
Earlier this summer, Ridgway State Park received an award of $70,000.00 in construction grant money from the Colorado State Parks System for further development of the RAT system. On August 7, 2014 Rodney and Gordon from RAT, along with Scott Vanderplaats and Amy Sharp, met with Kirstin Copeland of Ridgway State Park and Julie Jackson of the BLM to discuss future construction efforts. Although Ridgway State Park has the money locked up, they can not spend it immediately. The Park must first work up a competitive bid proposal and then put the proposal out for bidding by various contractors. Due to administrative requirements of the State Park System, that process will not be completed in time to get construction crews on the ground this year.
Although BLM and RAT/COPMOBA could possibly fund additional construction efforts this summer, supervision will not be available until October, after the hunting season starts. As a result, it presently seems unlikely that we will have an opportunity to grow the RAT system any more before next spring. On a more encouraging note, Kirstin believes the Park will likely be able to complete the remaining 4 miles of single track with the $70,000.00 construction Grant. BLM plans to bring back Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado for another exciting weekend of work very early in May 2015, so next spring and summer should bring further, exponential trail construction.
Amy Sharp, whom RAT has hired to write a State Parks and Trails Grant, informed us that our grant looks very solid and positive for a successful outcome. COPMOBA received about $10,000.00 in funding from the same source for biological and other EA studies incorporated into the BLM's Environmental Assessment of the RAT system in 2011, which is a big advantage for our organization on this round of grant funding. Amy, a former BLM rec planner who was instrumental in getting our system through the BLM approval process, wrote the earlier, successful grant. Our current grant will seek the full $200,000.00 available per grant under this program. Amy presented preliminary budget figures on August 7th and it appears that completion of our system, including trail head facilities with parking, toilets, picnic areas, signs, etc… will cost upwards of $400,000.00, meaning we will not likely complete all phases of construction until 2016 or 2017. However, whatever money we receive from the pending grant request will be spent primarily on trail construction, as opposed to infrastructures, so we can get as much tread in the dirt as possible for 2015.
BLM, State Park, RAT and the Town of Ridgway have also begun cooperative efforts to secure sufficient grant money to prepare and engineering study and design for either an overpass or underpass crossing U.S. 550 at or near the Dallas Creek Day Use Area of Ridgway State Park. The plan is to obtain sufficient early funding that we can seek construction grant money for use in 2017.


text:
Gregoire: No giving up on Sonics
State leaders say they're still working on solution to keep team
Despite the negative vibe surrounding the Sonics' chances of remaining in Seattle in recent weeks, Gov. Chris Gregoire expressed hope Monday that solutions remain to keep the franchise here.
Speaking at a Microsoft event in Redmond, Gregoire issued her first public response concerning NBA commissioner David Stern's criticism about the region's lack of political will to keep the team.
"With all due respect to David Stern, I haven't given up," Gregoire said. "I don't think anybody in Seattle has given up.
"I don't want, a couple of years from now, to look back with regret that we didn't do everything we could to keep the Sonics and the Storm. So I'm continuing to work and have private conversations with a good number of folks. I still remain optimistic, and I think David Stern should keep his powder dry."
Several issues need to be hashed out to prevent Sonics chairman Clay Bennett from moving the franchise to Oklahoma City, as he's requested permission from the NBA to do once his KeyArena lease situation is resolved.
Bennett and Stern both have indicated they're still open to a Seattle solution as long as it includes a new facility. For that to occur, it appears a public-private arena partnership would need to be agreed upon soon in order to present a workable plan to the Legislature in time for its upcoming Jan. 8-April 22 session.
Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said Monday she believes there is support in Olympia if the right package is presented in a timely fashion.
Prentice led the push for a bill to fund an arena in Renton at the last session, but those efforts died when House Speaker Frank Chopp openly opposed the measure, which never got put to a vote.
"There was plenty of support," Prentice said. "We had votes and it was never allowed to come up, that's the sad part. I had five Republicans willing to vote with us. We had people willing to keep the team here."
Prentice said it would be important for Gregoire to put her political clout behind the issue, and also indicated the brevity of the upcoming 60-day session makes it even more critical to have a proposal in place as early as December's pre-filing period.
"The governor has been doing a lot behind the scenes and her support is essential," Prentice said. "But her support is there, no question in my mind."
More difficult would be generating a solid plan out of what seems mostly to be back-room talk among political and business brokers in the region to this point. Bennett said last week he knew of one effort brewing in the area, but that it was separate from his own involvement.
Stern mentioned the necessity of a "white knight" or "wonderful angel" coming out of nowhere. If such an entity exists, he's been publicly silent to date. Prentice mentioned talk of Bellevue real estate developer Kemper Freeman expressing interest, though she said nothing seems to have come of that.
Seattle developer David Sabey, who owns the Associated Grocers property south of Boeing Field, has also been linked with discussion of a large, multi-use project that could include an arena or convention center on the 55-acre site.
It's also possible the city of Seattle will come out with a KeyArena proposal as part of a Seattle Center makeover, though Bennett has indicated he won't be interested in anything other than a completely new arena on that site.
Prentice, whose district includes the Renton area where Bennett's original proposal would have been located, said it wouldn't be hard to find politicians to champion any such project in Olympia.
"I'd be first in line," she said. "Somebody wrote that I was sulking when I talked about (Sabey's) AG property. Why would I be upset? That would be in my district, too. And none of that matters.
"I want them to stay in the area, that's all."
Prentice scoffs at the notion that supporting an arena solution would be political suicide for those up for re-election next fall.
Timing, however, appears critical if a funding solution is to emerge. With transportation and other issues looming, the Sonics can't expect to be at the head of the legislative table.
"A lot of work would need to be done between now and opening day (of the session) to get the momentum you want," Prentice said. "With big issues, you have to have it pretty much jelling (ahead of time) because everybody has their own personal agenda. There's time, but people doing the deal would have to get busy."
Can it happen? Is there a Sonics solution hidden among all the rhetoric?
"There are all kinds of ideas out there, but I'm waiting for one that makes sense," Prentice said. "I just wish some grown-ups would come in and do some of the negotiating because it's clear that grown-ups are missing from the equation so far."