Tag Archive for: LinkedIn

LinkedIn and social media networking — course for health science PhD students

October 14, 2025/0 Comments/by Mike Young

A practical, hands-on workshop in health science networking and communication via LinkedIn and other social media platforms.

The course will be held in the new Maersk Tower at the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen. (Image with permission from Instagram user @Dead_Lab

This PhD course at the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences in Copenhagen is free of charge for PhD students at Danish universities (except CBS) and for PhD students at graduate schools in the other Nordic countries. You can read more about the course and sign up here.

Scientists within the health and medical sector will find LinkedIn (and other social media platforms like Bluesky) particularly useful:

The platforms allow real time access to, for example, patients’ and public perspectives, communities of support, and to advocacy groups internationally — but within a narrow medical specialization.
The increased use of visual abstracts and digital formats in communicating research has been helped by the LinkedIn and Bluesky/X scientific community.

There are more details below this short introductory video:

The course is at the University of Copenhagen’s Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences and is open to all PhD students at Danish universities (except Copenhagen Business School) and for PhD students at most graduate schools in other Nordic countries.

A typical ‘visual abstract’. A shareable digital format that has taken off in recent years, particularly in the health and medical sciences.

The course goals

You will:

Learn how to use LinkedIn and other social media platforms to support your work and career as a researcher
Find a social media routine that fits your personality, daily routine and specific medical specialty
See how to be strategic in your use of social media
Set up personal routines, augmented by automation, for monitoring news and ideas from specific research areas.

Photo with kind permission of Instagram user @nazanins_daily

The course is relevant for both beginners and experienced users.

“Very ‘hands on’. I will definitely recommend this to other PhD students” — previous participant

Dates: 11 + 25 March 2026, both days from 09:00 to 13:00

There is more information and you sign up for this course here.

Does your department, faculty or university need to boost its researchers’ international impact? My workshops in social media introduce researchers to the systematic use of LinkedIn, Bluesky, Reddit, X and other specialized social media and tracking applications. All Mike Young Academy workshops are bespoke and custom-fitted to specific scientific fields. Workshops can be held in-person, or online as a combination of video-conferenced live-sessions with group ‘breakout’ rooms, individual feedback, and homework.

Why niche social platforms like iNaturalist matter to science

October 7, 2025/0 Comments/by Mike Young

Forget viral content. Here is a quiet social platform where researcher impact comes from verified observations and open science

For marine biologist Trond Roger Oskars, the niche social media platform iNaturalist has become a vital tool for both research and outreach.

“iNaturalist is a social media where you upload images of animals or other organisms you’ve photographed, and then experts and knowledgeable amateurs give their opinion on what species it is,” Trond Roger Oskars explained to me, calling it the “Twitter for species”.

I interviewed him recently in preparation for the book Social Media for Research Impact that I have co-authored with Marcel Bogers and that is due for release by the publisher Routledge in early 2026. I was interested in Trond’s use of niche platforms outside the mainstream: In the book we advocate for the use of niche platforms with small-scale — but cumulative — impact, and platforms that are designed with other functions in mind, but that have a social media component.

Closest to us on Trond Roger Oskars’ hand is a common sunstar, (crossaster papposus). Behind that is a blood star.

iNaturalist is a site for hobbyists, but its structure is built for scientific contribution. When a species identification receives enough consensus, it’s marked as ‘research grade’ and automatically added to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) — one of the world’s largest public biodiversity databases.

In other words, what begins as a casual photo taken by a diver or beachgoer can end up as a verified datapoint in an international repository. This is social media acting not just as a tool for research dissemination, but as scientific infrastructure.

For Trond Roger Oskars of the Møreforsking Institute in Norway, the effects are clear in practice: “Recreational divers are essential for documenting rare species — they often send me images or specimens that I wouldn’t encounter otherwise. If they didn’t go around photographing every small thing, I don’t think the marine field would move forward,” he says.

Trond Roger Oskars’ own research on snails has led to major taxonomic revisions.

The collaborative verification model of iNaturalist makes it possible to integrate contributions from non-researchers into formal science, in near real time.

This is most likely a Diaphana minuta, a species of gastropod found in Europe and North America…

The platform also supports open content use. “I use iNaturalist to get images. Most of the images that are uploaded there are in the public space, or CC BY 4.0,” Trond Roger Oskars says. This makes the platform a valuable source for visual material for presentations, outreach posts, and educational content.

…in this case it was observed by someone off the coast of the US.

What sets iNaturalist apart is how it combines structured data collection with community input — making it both a crowdsourced field tool and a global biodiversity hub. Scientists in remote or underfunded areas, or those working in highly specific taxonomies, can gain access to a distributed community of identifiers and observers.

As a niche medium, iNaturalist, does extremely well what mainstream social media like LinkedIn and Facebook only do well with their Groups functionality, with separated private or semi-private communities based on shared interests. What separates a niche platform like iNaturalist from the Group communities of mainstream social media, is that it is solely focused on what users are on the platform are there to do, with no distractions from newsfeeds cluttered by advertising and influencer content.

Trond Roger Oskars is also active on two Facebook Groups where people upload images, one focused on marine invertebrates, one focused specifically on sea slugs.

iNaturalist and these two Facebook Groups are a supplement to the traditional dive books – printed guides used by recreational divers to help identify marine species in specific diving regions.

…then experts like Trond Roger Oskars helped identify it.

“Usually a diver has just clicked a picture and doesn’t know what species it. So people usually just tag me directly in the groups. They get to learn something new and engage more closely to nature so that’s a bit of fun. A lot of the old dive books are now obsolete. So they have to go to social media to get a correct image, and people are happy that there’s someone that can answer, “ says Trond Roger Oskars. The largest Facebook Group has 60,000 members and includes both diverse scientists, and people who just like the images.

Both iNaturalist and Facebook groups like this one for sea slug enthusiasts have turned into networks that connect scientists, to divers, to wider publics, according to Trond Roger Oskars.

“It’s really great that they have brought both the people with the specialized expertise and the people with the hands-on experience together.”

Social media for research impact is a new book by Mike Young and Marcel Bogers (forthcoming). It invites you to think more clearly — and ethically — about how to use social media. Not just to disseminate your research, but to connect, ideate, co-create, and stay open to the unexpected. The book page is here.

Researchers are (also) stoking politics on Bluesky. Here is how to avoid it

September 18, 2025/0 Comments/by Mike Young

When researchers migrated from X to Bluesky, the hope was for a quieter space. They wanted less outrage, and more science. But reality is biting back. So here are a few tips to avoid the politics anyway.

Is scientific Bluesky being swamped by US politics?

The posts from influential scientists that are driving ‘engagement’ in the form of likes and reposts on Bluesky is not science. It is political commentary and cultural hot takes – mostly focused on left-of-centre and progressive US politics.

This is according to an analysis of 18,000 posts from influential scientist accounts by my colleague Lasse Hjorth Madsen. He has looked at the highest performing posts in terms of likes and reposts among 200 highly influential science accounts on the platform. Lasse’s post analysis comes after several iterations where he and I (Mike) have jointly mapped out the emerging Bluesky scientific community, finding the most central and influential scientists and research fields on the platform.

Lasse’s latest analysis points to something uncomfortable: Some academics are not just victims of the attention economy, they are active participants in it. And the tone of the posts that spread, mirrors the posts that spread elsewhere online — politics, outrage, frustration, and protest.

The table above shows the most liked original posts (not reposts) among our influential scientists’ group.

Before we go on, I need to both hedge my claims, and try to give an explanation of what is going on:

Bluesky, to a much higher degree than other platforms, enables you to set up your newsfeed so that you only see what you are interested in. The most savvy Bluesky users can avoid the politics, and some of them will do so (see my tips below). That is one of the reasons why many scientists are there in the first place.
The analysis is based on the top 200 of our ‘most influential’ list, based on centrality measures. This group could be already pre-selected to have centrality because they are already in a non-science politically-oriented community that enables the wider traction. What we see is a kind of circular logic that might not prove anything.
When you count reposts of academics’ original posts, all of the reposts are not necessarily coming from academics themselves. On Bluesky, when you repost, it can be shown on your own followers’ feeds. What this means is that a political post from a scientist, could be highly reposted outside the scientific community, then circle back to be seen by other scientists after it has been circling around the political echo chamber gaining likes and reposts from people who want to virtue signal a specific political standpoint.
A large part of scientific Bluesky is scientists from the United States, so it is, actually, no surprise that posts about US politics dominate global feeds.
Scientists are, in fact, generally mostly left of centre in terms of their politics.
Scientists on Bluesky are, to a higher degree, left of centre in terms of politics, precisely because a large group of them have migrated from X after the controversy surrounding the Elon Musk takeover.
The group of scientists who get the most likes and reposts is likely hiding a much larger undergrowth of scientists on Bluesky who avoid politics, and are happy to avoid viral hot takes.

We have to be really careful we are not mistaking correlation for causation here. Our analysis does not show that posting political hot takes lead to more reposts or higher follower numbers. Heaven forbid, this will not lead to more understanding and more impact for science. Our analysis just shows that highly central scientists in our group got the most reposts when they did post politically.

The lesson? A new platform doesn’t erase the old dynamics. If researchers want Bluesky to become more than an alternative outrage machine, they will need to make some conscious choices.

What can you do to avoid politics?

So how can we help this along? What do you do if you want to avoid politics in a professional or academic context altogether?

As a first step use the functionality of Bluesky to set up different feeds for different topics and modes of working. If you really want to see the politics, then leave the standard newsfeed that lets you see ‘Following’ (you can see my feed on the image above – the feed that is headed ‘Following’). Otherwise set your front page so that you don’t see following as the first thing.

Now set up feeds with only your interests and lists, and make sure that they show first on your newsfeed.

Feeds can be found on the left

See the hashtag symbol on the left? Click on that.

Lists, like good old X, are sets of people that you want to see the posts from. You can find those by clicking on the little bullets symbol below the hashtag. In my set-up shown above right my list of ‘Danish research institutions’ is showing on number fourth spot. Lists on Bluesky are always public.

There is a good guide on how to customize bluesky feeds here.

Click on the cogwheel

But what you need to know is that you can adjust the front page of your Bluesky, so that the first thing you see on the app or on desktop, is a specific feed with your interest. You don’t have to see the posts from the people you are following before you see your interests. This is a great way to avoid getting ensnared in the politics and hot takes.

As a second step, if this does not work, and this goes for Bluesky just as much as any other social platform: Just unfollow the people who post about the politics. Tough, but they had it coming for them. They won’t get a notification.

Click the arrows to adjust which feeds should show first when you open Bluesky. Adjustments apply to both your desktop and phone versions.

As a third step, you can hide a specific account if you see a political post anyway in spite of your unfollow (someone in your network who follows them might have reposted it, which will then put it on your feed). Just click on the three dots at the bottom of the post to mute this particular person. This is also the place where you can block particular people which stops them from interacting with you.

Fourth step. Bluesky’s starter packs feature lets you follow groups of scientists within your own field. This is brilliant. But be aware that large starter packs may include a number of scientists who post about politics. So a fourth step is to unfollow or mute these specific offending scientists afterwards (back to second step!)

Bookmarked searches are the final resort if you can’t get the feeds to shed out all the politics

Fifth step. Sometimes all of the above is not enough to maintain a non-distracting, non-outrage, non US-politics focussed feed anyway. For many specific tasks I resort to bookmarked keyword searches. Just as an example, this link only shows the Bluesky posts that have the ‘University of Copenhagen’ in them.

I hope this helped!

Do you have any further ideas on how to avoid politics on Bluesky? Let me know in the comments!

For scholars, being kind could be contagious

August 19, 2025/0 Comments/by Mike Young

A new paper argues that small, voluntary acts of kindness can ripple through communities, improving mental health. What might this mean for scholars on social media?

It is a good idea for governments to promote voluntary acts of kindness. And it is a good idea to practice being kind yourself, according to a paper by Tri-Long Nguyen and Ji Young Lee, both of the University of Copenhagen.

Practicing kindness can improve mental health and well-being in both individuals and at a societal level. In their paper Kindness as a public health action, they argue that policies that encourage voluntary acts of kindness are practical, cost-effective, and ethically sound.

Their paper was recommended to me recently while I was interviewing sources for our forthcoming book on ‘Social Media for Research Impact’. So I thought, could this be applied to the idea of being a kind academic on social media?

Tri-Long Nguyen (left): In the Buddhist tradition being kind to yourself is not in opposition to being kind to others.

Tri-Long Nguyen is an associate professor in epidemiology with a background in pharmacy, statistics, and education. When he is not doing science, he reads a lot about philosophy and Eastern practices like Zen Buddhism. His work with Ji Young Lee, an assistant professor in philosophy and bioethics, makes the case that being kind is not only a nice thing to do: It is evidence-based good practice.

Algorithm as a kind actor

In their paper they used the preventive medicine framework proposed by Geoffrey Rose in work from the 1980s. He is known for the ‘prevention paradox’: Massively applying to the general population an intervention with small individual benefits is more effective than targeting only those at high-risk of disease. This is because the number of people at high risk is small, so targeting only them would prevent a lower number of absolute cases.

“The biggest mental barrier that people have is the fear that they cannot change the world alone from an individual position”

Just like infectious disease, acts of kindness cascade and multiply, Tri-Long Nguyen and Ji Young Lee argue. And just as in preventing disease, the small individual benefits of cultivating kindness, understanding, love and compassion can collectively generate large-scale social impact by propagating positive effects beyond the initial recipient of the kind actions.

Co-author Ji Young Lee posted about their paper on LinkedIn

In a blog post recently I listed 11 kind habits academics should get into on social media. One of my pet theories is that by doing specific kind practices on social media you are shaping a community around yourself so there is a higher chance of these kind of interactions taking place in the future in your social media vicinity.

This is not just the effect of people copying you. It is because platforms’ algorithms tend to surround you with people who are doing the same types of kind actions, this reinforces the practices as a collective action due to network effects. You are basically creating ripples of kindness, and the algorithms may be reinforcing it. So by practicing kind actions on the social media where scholars are active, you are helping the whole of academia become a kinder place.

Collective conciousness

Our paper “is exactly analogous to this,” Tri-Long Nguyen said when I presented my own pet theory to him on our Zoom call.

“The biggest mental barrier that people have is the fear that they cannot change the world alone from an individual position. But I think that when we change ourself we inspire other people to change themselves as well. We’re not on separate islands and that’s what we try to emphasize in the paper.”

I put it to Tri-Long Nguyen that support for the contagiousness of kindness theory can be found on the Reddit platform. People post here anonymously, on different subreddits, each with a different topic. On many of them, people respond voluntarily to help other people, with no other reward than the knowledge that they are helping others. As they are posting anonymously, there is no reason to believe they are doing it for egoistical reasons or to boost their status. By responding, they are simply helping their community and at the same time increasing the likelihood that other people do the same.

“The non-action is what we cultivate before we speak, before we write, before we perform an act of kindness”

For Tri-Long Nguyen this type of social media practice, and their own paper, ties in well with his practice of Zen Buddhism. If ‘being kind’ propagates to others, it is a sociological phenomenon that can be analyzed through the lens of ‘complexity theory’ and ‘system theory’. But the Buddhist tradition has, through the course of millennia, had a lot to say about it also. For example how being kind to yourself is not in opposition to being kind to others. We are all, in this tradition, ultimately nourishing and cultivating a same ‘collective consciousness’ that we all ‘consume’. There is no separation between you and me, we are interconnected.

Non-action

I showed Tri-Long Nguyen two slides from a recent social media workshop I did for researchers: The first slide outlines a ‘mindful’ approach to social media platforms that protects your attention span, guards your boundaries, and avoids the constant pressure to perform. The focus is on self-care. The second slide outlines an ‘ethical’ approach to the social media platforms that encourages generosity, openness, and support for others. The focus here is on social media as a channel to fulfil our ethical obligations.

I knew, even before I asked him, that Tri-Long Nguyen would politely dismantle my distinction. Are they basically the same thing?

“Yes they are!” Tri-Long Nguyen responded.

“We cite at the very end of our paper the Zen master Thích Nhất Hạnh. He talked a lot about how when we talk about action, we often think about something concrete, like something to do, write, say, or do physically. But there is another aspect that is non-action. The non-action is what we cultivate before we speak, before we write, and before we perform an act of kindness,” Tri-Long Nguyen said.

“Non-action is in a way already action because it increases our well-being and therefore shapes the way that we cultivate loving speech or loving actions to others. So that’s how I relate the two approaches, mindful and ethical.”

What I learned from co-authoring a book

August 6, 2025/0 Comments/by Mike Young

I want to share a few reflections on how co-writing a book has been a powerful experience for me.

Marcel Bogers and I sent a book manuscript to the publisher recently and our work will be released in a few months time. (No spoilers about the actual book here: I want to stay on message!)

Marcel Bogers (left) and I went for a walk with my family in Grib forest when we had finished the manuscript

This is my first book, and a lot of my previous writing in a professional context has been as a journalist. I have many positive experiences with the collective researching, drafting and writing of journalistic articles and stories. But here, most writing, even nowadays, is as a sole author.

Efficient, and in control

The way I see it, being the sole author of any piece of writing, including a non-fiction guide like ours, has its advantages:

Writing is more efficient, as you don’t have to coordinate with anyone else. You can simply work sequentially: now I work on this chapter, now I work on that.
It is written in one tone of voice, and this means that you can spend a lot less time revising to unify this voice once it has been drafted.
As sole author you have complete control over the structure, topics, format, and expression.

But co-authoring a book has advantages too. And this was brought home to me the last six months working with Marcel. Collaborating on a book is not just a 1 + 1 = 2 situation. The sum is greater than the parts.

Something new in the world

Having two authors adds something fundamentally different.

Here are the specific advantages that I have thought about in the actual book-writing process:

Natality. With two authors, there is a higher chance that something new comes into the world. The discussion in itself leads to new thought emerging that would not have appeared in one of the authors. This reminds me of the concept of ‘natality’ in Hannah Arendt, where being human in a shared space means bringing something fundamentally new into the world.
Darlings. In journalism school, you are taught to ‘kill your darlings’. You fall in love with your own ‘cute’ turns of phrase, and you need someone else to take them out. In this work process, I have had many darlings killed!
Network. In this type of non-fiction work, you’ll be looking for wide variety of interview sources with insight, experience, or authority. A co-author doesn’t just add volume—they add variety. I have come into proximity with people I wouldn’t normally approach from different disciplines, countries, and platforms.
Momentum. Writing a book takes time and you go through bumps and troughs. As co-authors we could take turns to pick up the slack.
Blind spots. You bring different assumptions, biases and intellectual traditions to the table. My co-author has shone a light on my own blind spots and made me more self-aware of where I need to learn more.
Division of labour. One of you can be good with sources and interviews, another can be good with references and structure. And the funny thing is: you only find out along the way. In this way, we ended up specializing, while at the same time learning from each other.
Learning. It deserves another mention. When you write a book with someone else, you don’t just learn more about the topic — you are exposed to practical shortcuts, processes and technological tricks. I got better by working with someone else.

Another way of being human

In one way, I suppose, co-authoring a book is just another way of being human. After all, nearly everything new in the world is the result of a collective endeavour. But writing a book with someone else makes this visible in a way that solo work rarely does.

If you have any thoughts yourself on the subject feel free to write them in the comments below!

Call for experts: Social media for research impact

January 10, 2025/0 Comments/by Mike Young

I (Mike) am writing a book on social media for research impact with Marcel Bogers — an expert on open and collaborative innovation. We appreciate your help!

The book has a working title — Social Media for Research Impact — and will combine the expertise in innovation, technology and entrepreneurship from Professor Marcel Bogers and my own (Mike) practical work experience helping academics and universities boost their impact through social media. It will be published by Routledge and is likely to be released in the autumn of 2025.

We want this to be a collaborative project, and we’re looking for experts, case studies, and stories to enrich the book. Below are some key topics where we’d love to hear from you (or someone that you can suggest to us in your own network)!

What we’re looking for:

The concept of ‘research impact’ and social media

We need experts on the theory of research impact and how social media practices tie into it. This includes the interplay between scholarship, policymaking, and public engagement.

Social media identity and personal branding

We want insights on how scholars build their online presence. Which platforms work best? What strategies succeed? We’re especially keen on case studies of academics that have built a strong online identity.

Increasing research visibility and impact via social media

We need case studies of scholars who’ve used social media effectively. Have you seen great examples of posting techniques, use of infographics, or creative sharing strategies? Let us know!

Customizing your information environment

How do academics use social media to manage the flow of information? If you’ve developed methods for filtering feeds and managing your time online, we’d love to hear about them.

Automation, AI, and social media

We’re exploring the pros and cons of automation for academics: What works well? Where are the risks? We want to hear from people using tools like scheduling apps, chatbots, or AI content recommendations, custom GPTs for content creation, or tools to find related social media posts and accounts.

Navigating the dark side of social media

We need stories and strategies around handling the challenges of social media: Trolling, self-censorship, burnout, and more. We’re particularly looking for case studies from scholars who have social media experience in politicized or controversial fields.

Kindness and generosity in academic social media

We want to explore the positive side of social media. Do you know of scholars who share openly, help others, or spread kindness in academic spaces? We want to hear those stories.

The future of social media for scholarly impact

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the future of social media for research impact. What promising strategies are on the horizon? Which older approaches might be worth revisiting?

We want diverse perspectives

We recognize that Marcel and I bring certain biases to this project: We’re both men, from Western Europe, and embedded in traditional academic culture.

So we’re actively seeking diverse voices — from different cultural, geographical, and disciplinary backgrounds. We want to hear from:

Scholars from underrepresented communities
Non-academic stakeholders affected by research
People in different fields and stages of their careers

Interested?
We’d love to hear from you!

Email me Mike on mike@mikeyoungacademy.dk if you have any ideas.

This is a collaborative intellectual journey — and we hope you’ll join us!

Scientists on social media: The problems, the issues … and the solutions

March 15, 2023/1 Comment/by Mike Young

Participants on my workshops offer each other feedback on their own specific social media challenges. Now it is time to release some of it.

It is something that I facilitate at the end of my longer social media workshops for researchers, and it is a core component of the 2-day ‘Boost Your Research Career with Twitter, LinkedIn and alternative social media platforms’ workshop that I hold at the University of Copenhagen:

A feedback exercise where participants walk around the room in groups of two and respond to each other’s social media challenges and bottlenecks. Participants also email me their challenges between the two workshop days, so I have the chance to respond to them myself.

I realized that some of the issues and problems were solved by previous participants. So I would be doing everyone a favour by re-using the previous responses to the same problem.

The feedback session is one of the high points of the ‘Boost Your Research Career with Twitter, LinkedIn and alternative social media platforms’ at the University of Copenhagen.

A participant’s issue could be something specific like this:

‘I need 40 more people to sign up for an upcoming conference that I am organizing and need to find an expert to take part in a panel session. What is the best way to go about it?’

Or it could be a general problem like this:

‘I have a fear of sending things out in the open: I want things to be completely correct before I tweet or post.’

I write the issues at the top of a large A1 flipchart sheet of paper. As each group walks around the room, they have 3 minutes to discuss and formulate their response to the issue.

‘I need 40 more people to sign up for an upcoming conference that I am organizing and need to find an expert to take part in a panel session. What is the best way to go about it?’

When I ring a bell, the groups switch places and move on to the next question, where they both relate to the original issue and the first group’s response to it. There are five or six rounds.

The exercise also works at online meetings. Here the large piece of paper is replaced by a shared google doc, where participants (in breakout rooms) simultaneously update their solutions in the same fashion.

The thing is: After many feedback sessions, I came to realize that some of the issues were already solved by previous participants. So I would be doing everyone a favour by re-using others’ previous responses to the same problem. So I started doing this also.

Participants offer technical solutions to specific technical problems, and some of these solutions are too specific to be released. But participants also offer cognitive strategies and ways to keep up motivation. So it is a good thing if their strategies are used for workshop participants going forward.

I am now going to go one step further!

I release here a selected list of feedback problems, with the participants’ solutions in blue. I have anonymised all the responses, as well as the references to specific institutions and events. If relevant I have added my own previous responses (from the time) in red.