Social media policies in the Department of Defense—Do they address the risk?

Cole-Miller, Katherine; Ward, William “Doug”; Fruhling, Ann L.; Cooper, Kathryn

doi:10.1080/15536548.2016.1180942

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In suggesting that not using SM is in and of itself a possible opportunity loss, and therefore a risk, Haynes embeds the potential benefits of SM within the framework of risk. This suggestion stands as a counter-point to a common discourse in other literature, which is that organisations are risk-averse to the point of stifling innovation or effective use of SM (Klang and Nolin, 2011;Fuduri c and Mandelli, 2017;Cole-Miller et al, 2016;Ryan, 2016). For example, Fuduri c and Mandelli (2017) suggested that the utility of SM policy was its potential to "guide" rather than "prevent" staff from using SM , and that SM use should be encouraged, with clear parameters and expectations as to the nature of that use.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

National memory institutions' social media policies and risk management: a content analysis

Liew

2021

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAmong the current discourses around social media risk management (SMRM) is whether institutions perceive social media (SM) as more of an opportunity to be embraced and regulated, or a risk to be avoided or mitigated, how this is reflected in their policies and how institutional stance reflects their regulation and management of SM use and practices. There is currently no scholarly literature that addresses these for the memory sector where SM use has proliferated. This research aims to address this gap by putting a focus on national memory institutions (MIs), whose strategies and operations are often governed by a public/civic mandate.Design/methodology/approachThis research involves a comprehensive literature review and a content analysis. The review includes studies that have analysed institutional SM policies in other sectors. The review informs our content analysis both in terms of approaches and in terms of identifying areas for comparisons. Following an initial scoping review and a close inspection, a sample of eight policies of national MIs were included in the content analysis.FindingsThe content analysis led to the identification of 8 core themes and 36 sub-themes. The main themes are concerned with account management, audience management, rules for use, protecting institutional interests, legal considerations, the purpose of the policy, nature of postings and referencing information. Also emerged from the findings are a few gaps that we expect will provide a platform for further discourses with regard to the potentially complex role SM policies have in MIs and the broader cultural heritage sector in relation to their public/civic mandates.Originality/valueThis is the first close SM policy analysis for the memory sector focusing on national MIs. This research contributes insights into how national-level MIs tend to frame the opportunities and the risk of SM use, the ways in which they govern SM usage and their different approaches to SMRM. The findings have implications for SM policy development and implementations, and further iterations of SM policies in the memory sector.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2020-0421

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Cole -Miller et al (2016) looked at the SM policies and directives of the Department of Defense (DOD) in the USA. Their study incorporated risk as a central theme, asking whether the DOD SM policies incorporate risk.…”

Section: Oirmentioning

confidence: 99%

National memory institutions' social media policies and risk management: a content analysis

Liew

2021

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include statements referring to the potential value of social media for the organisation, instruction on how employee use of social media including in their private space should mirror institutional/organisational values, statements emphasising the importance of respecting intellectual property rights, privacy and confidential information, and warning against employees using social media as a platform for criticising the organisation or using social media for whistleblowing. A handful of studies also highlighted that simply introducing a social media policy is insufficient (Sherer et al, 2019;Cole-Miller et al, 2016;McMullen and Gold, 2013). Given the changing nature of social media as a digital technology and as a platform used for communication, discourses and engagement, it is reasonable to expect institutions to review their social media policies and guidelines periodically and revise these as necessary to reflect their evolving and shifting social media use, goals and priorities.…”

Section: Social Media Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Let's talk about risks: a pillar framework for social media risk management in memory institutions

Liew

2021

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeWhile memory institutions' use of social media has proliferated, research and scholarly literature on risks, resulting from social media use, memory institutions' social media risk-aware culture and, in particular, social media risk management remains scant. This study addresses this knowledge gap and identifies aspects of social media risk management from other sectors that could inform the cultural heritage sector.Design/methodology/approachThis research involves a review of the scholarly and professional literature that contribute to social media risk management discourses. These include those that discuss the different categories of social media risks, social media policies, risk-aware culture and social media risk management strategies and processes. Works discussing social media risk management models and frameworks are also included in the review. Based on the insights gained from these reviews, a pillar framework to guide social media risk management in memory institutions is developed.FindingsThe proposed framework outlines the baseline components relevant for the cultural heritage sector and underlines the evolving and continual nature of these components. Elements particularly important to memory institutions are highlighted. Notably, that social risks as a risk category must be recognised. Also noted is that the conventional apolitical stance still taken by many memory institutions need to be reviewed. The importance of memory institutions to be not overly risk-averse to the point of failing to take advantage of the affordances of social media platforms, thereby stifling potential innovations around services and engagement with their users/audience is discussed.Originality/valueThis research offers an extensive review of the social media risk management literature, both scholarly and professional across different domains. The ensuing insights inform the development of a pillar framework to guide social media risk management in memory institutions. The framework outlines a baseline mapping of the governance, processes and systems components. The expectation is that this framework could be extended to account for contextual and situational requirements at more granular levels to reflect the nuances, variances and complexities that exist among different types of memory institutions and to account for varying attributes, mandates and priorities in the cultural heritage sector.

show abstract

Social media policies in the Department of Defense—Do they address the risk?

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

National memory institutions' social media policies and risk management: a content analysis

National memory institutions' social media policies and risk management: a content analysis

Let's talk about risks: a pillar framework for social media risk management in memory institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About