Our topic this week is in consideration of how we can make our online learning spaces inclusive, ensuring that these online communities (or community) can engage all members with the offer to be included with whatever topics is at hand. The topic I would be applying this sentiment would be to one of healthcare, where equitable, accessible, and inclusive care is a high priority. Healthcare systems are always striving to be aware of ways they can reach and communicate with as many patients as possible. Either through active care processes or simply to improve health literacy through education, healthcare systems/organizations are aware of the need to reach out through new mediums or modes. Apart from general health communication, healthcare organizations also acknowledge the value of patient-provider relationships through the transition from providers simply telling patients what to do, to patient empowerment through having patients engage with their care processes. Although this shift is general and applicable to all persons in the healthcare process, it is important to acknowledge the need for inclusion of groups that may have trouble accessing PLN technologies, be they caught in barriers of language, disabilities, or access.

Public media is increasingly shifting from a passive role for its consumer-base to having a participatory role for its network users (Aufderheide & Clark, 2011). With the increase of patient-focused and empowerment of care, as well as the shift towards communities or networks of care, PLNs can be an important setting for an inclusive and informative environment for patients. Care providers and patients can connect in a way not possible before, both in a technological (PLNs, Internet) and social (Provider/Patient relationship change) sense. The interactivity (or discovery of interactivity) has also increased over time. I believe the interview with Shelly Moore captures this sentiment, as with the recent experiences in 2020, many people discovered how they were able to connect and communicate over their various platforms, networks, and communities.

How does social media use in public discourse potentially challenge advocacy communications? How does social media engage in advocacy communications?

Public discourse is often the loudest and most prominent aspects of our popular social media platforms. At least with my personal use of these platforms, as well as the use of my family and friends, political events are often the dominating, trending ‘topic of the day’. An issue with social media is that people can be highly reactive and willing to accept news or speculation that support their confirmation biases. Depending on the platform, the degree of reactionary responses from users can vary. On YouTube or Instagram, where users can establish context or a convincing argument, responses may be somewhat less reactionary. However, on Twitter, users may make assumptions on Tweets that usually compose of 2-3 sentences, or simply react with only Retweets or Likes. The part of the interview with Shelly Moore where she contrasts reactionary Twitter with journal-like and relatively interactive Instagram experiences made me reflect on how different platforms can foster advocacy.

An issue with social media and with algorithms is that whoever is the loudest is often who gets seen or shared first. With the vast amount of users online, as well as the generally reactionary and seemingly “act first, think never” attitudes on Twitter, it’s quite possible for advocacy communications to be outshouted or even have its message distorted and changed. But on the other hand, likeminded individuals can also identify allies, figureheads, and simply other supporters of the same idea to engage in further discussion. People who comment, share, and follow the same hashtags or profiles can connect with others with similar ideas to discuss the advocacy topic at hand. The everchanging and dynamic flow of information online is a double-edged sword, with people quickly connecting to interact over a specific topic, while also threatening to create echo-chambers where users only follow topics they may have confirmation bias for.


How diverse is your existing PLN?

I would say my PLN is only somewhat diverse, as though I do use online networks and services extensively, I confess that most of my usage is not particularly interactive. Most of the people I encounter I have a connection in-person – there is also a face-to-face aspect that tends to overshadow any online interaction. My primary PLN is currently consisting of classmates and peers from the HINF program, instructors and professors, and colleagues from recent work positions. Other PLN users include pre-post-secondary relations, as well as a multitude of online strangers in various communities. Although I have used various social media platforms extensively, I do believe and have learned that there are features and functions I have yet to explore or exploit.


In your PLN, are you learning from a variety of voices?

Though my PLN is lacking in diversity from my own standards due to a lack of reaching out on my part to more groups or individuals, I do believe that I learn from a variety of voices. The people in my PLN come from various stages of professional experience (managers, professors, students) as well as differing national, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. Of course, there is always a limitation in that the connections and voices that I gravitate to are the ones I am more accustomed to. As diverse as it may be now, I do believe it is important for me to reach out when possible to hear more voices that I may be neglecting to acknowledge or am ignorant of.

References & Videos:

Clark J., Aufderheide P. (2011) A New Vision for Public Media. In: Jansen S.C., Pooley J., Taub-Pervizpour L. (eds) Media and Social Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1057/9780230119796_5

Course Interview with Shelley Moore: https://youtu.be/KeSV0rUl1bA