Makes a good point in the "engage daily" post -- but, something about Michael Neilson's recent post on the structure of disruption is sort of plinking at my brain with this -- Spong seemed to be presenting SM as an extension of society meetings, something else that attendees could take away. Something structured by the society/conference itself? So, makes a good continuation of F2F meetings, but innovates how? Esp. if still within the society membership? Good introduction for those not yet using these tools, yes, that's make sense. But like the conversations about Ning's -- what keeps the community coming back? What builds it in the first place? How does the society facilitate this and what benefit is there for the effort? - Mickey Schafer

Hi Mickey. Thank you very much for having taken the time to watch the video.I don't see SM as the salvation of societies so much as an opportunity to enable them to offer substantive proof of their enduring relevance and value to their members as they (could) see it. In a very real sense, societies and the journals they publish were the creators of social networks in the sciences, albeit over rather longer periods of time (annual conferences; monthly publications with a 12 week response time) than we're talking about now. If they want to continue to play the role they have done historically (and there are all sorts or reasons why this may not be the case as the dynamics of authority buckle) it seems a shame that they are by and large failing to avail themselves of a ready-made opportunity by fostering social networking / social media communities of interest that bear their society's brand. - Andrew Spong

Thank you, Andrew. In fact, I realize that I am a good example of societies using SM "as an opportunity to enable them to offer substantive proof of their enduring relevance and value to their members as they (could) see it" -- I make decision on my prof. orgs according to the value provided electronically (which is the only way I interact since my small and "economically efficient" academic unit has very little travel funds available). I'm dropping the AMWA -- they are expensive and have proved of little value -- most of their digital offerings are non-interactive, fee-based, and require personal attendance at the yearly conf. in order to get certification. OTOH, NCTE and NSTA I happily pay every year because the value of the e-newsletter alone is worth the price of admission. Both have active interactive communities. This is simpler than what you are suggesting, I think, but as I muse on it, I have to think that what NCTE/NSTA produce cannot be cheap. Definitely some serious work going on in the background and a large group of people combing the net for useful links or a really good API (or few people with good search skills who work non-stop!). - Mickey Schafer