Picking a dissertation topic is not for the faint of heart or the unprepared. Narrowing an issue into components and sub-components involves, first, picking a topic, then exploring what others have researched in that area and, finally, finding your own niche.

Crisis communications, social media and higher-education leadership were my interest areas, and it literally took years to find a topic that I could research in a way that would be relevant and would cover each of these topics.

My doctoral studies in educational leadership at the University of Nevada, Reno, covered organizational theory, leadership issues and administrative challenges, meaning research possibilities were endless. Most coursework took place in the mid-2000s, a time when social media was coming into fruition. Four events in higher-education news also dominated that time period, which provided an opportunity to build a dissertation. Read the rest at PR Conversations.

Earlier this year

A few notes: Information presented in this interview was gleaned from a number of sources. The first was a story by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which had compiled records on the top water users in Las Vegas. You may read it here.

The second is a series in the Las Vegas Sun called “For Want of Water.”

The third was my article from 2003 on Professor Dale Devitt , who studies water conservation in southern Nevada. It originally appeared in Silver & Blue magazine and may be read online here.

The fourth was SNWA’s water-use facts, outlined here.

Listen to the interview below.

The clip recently reached more than 420,000 views on Youtube. We conducted the interview, shot the footage, edited it down  and even recorded the soundtrack provided by a local band. Enjoy.

Now available in paperback and electronically:

The Good, The Bad, The Spin

“No matter who you are, or how you interact with the on-line world, this book is a good reminder that the ultimate goal of communication is the dissemination of truth.”

–Ron Andersen, This Is Reno

“Includes important tips and lessons learned from a variety of fascinating examples. Read it to learn or read it for pure entertainment.”

—Judy Strauss, Ph.D.
Marketing Professor, University of Nevada, Reno
co-author, Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputation Online

From the introduction:

To be human, as science as shown, is to be easily swayed by our perceptions of our surroundings. Social psychologist Robert Cialdini, in his seminal book called Influence: Science and Practice, says the future must be vigilant about information overload. Specifically, “because technology can evolve much faster than we can, our natural capacity to process information is likely to be increasingly inadequate to handle the abundance of change, choice and the challenge that is characteristic of modern life.

“More and more frequently, we will find ourselves in the position of lower animals – with a mental apparatus that is unequipped to deal thoroughly with the intricacy and richness of the outside world,” he continues.

Being aware of this reality, especially in a time when we must, now more than ever, guard against information overload, is therefore critical. But we must first be cognizant that information overload is occurring in the first place. It is because of this that I regularly reflect on what is passing through our filters and what sense is being made of it.

A science-based policy publication aimed at enhancing the Great Basin’s environment.

From the preface…

The primary impetus for this Wildfire Forum is a document authored by John McLain and Sheila Anderson of Resource Concepts, Inc. entitled “Urgent Need for a Scientific Review of the Ecological and Management History of the Great Basin Natural Resources and Recommendations to Achieve Ecosystem Restoration.”

This document urged prominent scientists who have spent their careers studying, observing and working to manage the Great Basin ecosystem to pool their collective knowledge and experience over the last four decades, summarize their studies and provide recommendations to address the critical problems facing the Great Basin.

The response to the call was overwhelming as scientists expressed their willingness to participate, and several private Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and government agencies offered to help. Responding to a request from John McLain, Principal of Resource Concepts, Dr. David Thawley, Director of the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station (NAES) at the University of Nevada, Reno agreed to host and sponsor a discussion forum and publish the results as an Experiment Station publication.

Dr. Rangesan Narayanan, Associate Dean of Outreach and Professor of Resource Economics, agreed to provide the required leadership to organize the forum and produce an NAES publication. Dr. Elwood Miller, Professor and Associate Director Emeritus, facilitated the forum discussion and participated in writing and editing this publication.

The two-day forum was held September 17–18, 2007 at the University of Nevada, Reno campus. The Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources contributed the time of Mr. Bob Conrad to assist Dr. Narayanan and Dr. Miller with the editing and compilation of this publication.

Seventeen prominent scientists with more than 500 years of combined work experience in the Great Basin were invited to participate. Fourteen scientists participated in the forum, and two participated through correspondence. A limited number of observers from various state and federal agencies were invited during the two-day symposium and
participated in question-and-answer sessions.

Read the rest by downloading the publication.

The Twitter Vote Report was subject to human judgment and technological error, according to two bloggers from Reno, Nev., who analyzed the network.

Bob Conrad, a doctoral student at the University of Nevada, and blogger Ryan Jerz found that the volunteer effort to track and publicize voting problems during the 2008 election was not truly objective, as planned.

The social media project aimed to capture field reports of voting problems through volunteers who texted and blogged to the site, but Conrad said it had “so many potential loopholes that its result should be interpreted only as a glimpse at the sharing of views of a relatively small number of voters.”

He said that Twitter Vote Report was a novel opportunity for people to share voting experiences online, but the processes for collecting and posting material contained “too many subjective interpretations of what to post to be considered reliable examples of the average voter experience.”

Read the complete story here. The analysis was also written about by Angela Gunn at BetaNews.

My colleague Ryan Jerz and I conducted a study after the 2008, which looked at the Twitter Vote Report.

Read it here: http://twurl.nl/7edve8