In an ever-changing world of technology, advisers try to stay connected and in tune with their students. They utilize electronic records systems, work with online and distance-learning students, and communicate through e-mail. The trend in education is to use technology to better interact with and teach students. Many schools have experimented with Facebook and other social media to recruit new students and engage current ones. Advising is no exception, as evidenced by the growing trend to connect students to their advisers and campuses through Facebook.

As the technical generation has come of age and subsequently started to enter the advising and counseling fields, staying connected occurs naturally. Many of these new advisers were undergraduate or graduate students when Facebook hit the college scene and changed the way people interacted. For these advisers, Facebook is not as much a professional tool as it is a personal one that allows them to keep in touch with friends and family.

So what happens when these advisers enter the profession and they find their students in the same (Internet) places they are? It is easy to avoid the bars around campus that students frequent, but what about on the great World Wide Web? What are some of the ethical implications and possible legal ones?

Case Illustration

As a new adviser at a university, you keep a personal Facebook profile that you have had for several years. There is a new initiative at the university encouraging advisers to embrace technology in order to be accessible to students. Your students in the freshman seminar ask if you have a Facebook page so they can contact you that way. You are unsure how to proceed, as you use your Facebook page frequently in your personal life but do not want it to be viewed in a professional setting. However, it seems like a good idea to be able to communicate with students through Facebook.

Literature and Standards

While many articles and presentations urge colleges and advisers to create Facebook fan pages or groups to "meet students where they are," these suggestions seem to address professional pages only, ignoring the possibility that advisers might already have personal Facebook pages. Advisers might decide to "friend" their students and thereby deepen the advising relationship, but what if they already have their own friends and enjoy using Facebook personally? Are they to give up that enjoyment to maintain a strictly professional online profile?

The first highly publicized and documented case of this nature arose last year when a professor at East Stroudsburg University came under fire for status updates she provided on her personal Facebook page. Gloria Gadsden was unaware of privacy updates that altered the settings on her page, which allowed students to see her profile (Stripling, 2010). She believed "that by limiting her cyber friendships she could maintain the firewall between her personal life and her role as a professor" (Stripling, 2010, ¶ 5). The case was resolved when Gadsden was reinstated to her position but not without fallout from her co-workers, some of whom made their opposition to her return obvious (Miller, 2010). As a result of this case, along with other similar incidents, institutions may more explicitly outline social media policies.

The National Academic Advising Association's (NACADA) Statement of Core Values provides little to guide decisions about friending students on Facebook or interacting via social media. NACADA acknowledges "... the changing communication technologies used by students and the resulting new learning environments," which may refer to e-mail and online courses (i.e. Blackboard) and supports using Facebook as an advising tool, but the organization does not address any self-disclosure or privacy concerns (NACADA, 2005, Exposition).

The American Counseling Association's (ACA) Code of Ethics is much more detailed and specific than NACADA's but still does not recognize the need for guidelines on social media. The code encourages use of the Internet, as long as it does not violate privacy. It also states, "counselor–client nonprofessional relationships ...should be avoided, except when the interaction is potentially beneficial" (ACA, 2005, A.5.c). This can be loosely interpreted to support Facebook as a "potentially beneficial" exception. If a student messaged an adviser or posted on the adviser's wall a question about registration, the adviser's response would be beneficial. An arrangement that allows students access to advisers' profiles (and vice versa) could create non-professional relationships, especially when advisers can "see" how students spend their out–of–class time.

And so we are left to see how others handle this dilemma. While there is a lot written about Facebook in the journals and largely encourages advisers use, most of this literature has become outdated. As stated above, this information does not address setting boundaries between professional and personal use. Additionally, most of the literature comes from the faculty perspective, which is different in nature than that of advisers and their relationship with students.

One study looked at the effect of instructor self-disclosure on student motivation and learning and found that high self-disclosure on the teacher's website correlated with positive attitudes toward the teacher (Mazer, 2007). The study cited by Mazur (2007) further weighed the positive and negative aspects of student-teacher interaction on Facebook and found:

• Students see teacher use of Facebook as positive (trying to create relationships) (p. 3)
• Teachers may not behave the way students expected on Facebook, ruining the relationship (p. 3)
• Too much self–disclosure on Facebook (either friends' comments, groups, or self made) can change students' views of the teacher (p. 4)
• Students liked seeing the teacher's page, but didn't want teachers snooping on their page (p. 12).

The results, as bulleted above, indicate that even students present contradictory views of teacher (or adviser) presence on Facebook. They like being able to learn a little about the faculty member but not too much. They like being allowed to see the faculty member's page but didn't want faculty members to see their own (which is another ethical consideration discussed later). If students are not sure whether to interact with faculty (advisers) on Facebook, the same is true of advisers thinking about interacting with students.

Many have come to the conclusion of viewing Facebook as a virtual office door: If you would not display it in your office where students might see it, you should not post it on your page (or say it) (Lipka, 2007). As for identifying students as friends, many have decided this is appropriate only if the student invites the adviser to be a friend (Lipka, 2007; Perlmutter, 2009; Schwartz, 2010). Even then, some maintain that students should only become "friends" of advisers and/or faculty members after they graduate (Young, 2009). Informal questioning of colleagues resulted similarly–mixed between "only if they invite me" and "not until they graduate."

What are the benefits of Facebook, however? If advisers choose not to allow students to view their personal information on Facebook, are they doing their students (and themselves) a disservice by not utilizing these tools? There is such overwhelming anecdotal evidence about its positive influence, it would seem almost detrimental to students not to utilize Facebook (especially advisers who are familiar with the social medium and are adept at it).

Carter (2007) states that Facebook's private messaging option could be used in lieu of e-mail, as it serves the same function, and students check Facebook more often than they do e-mail. Schwartz (2010) sees Facebook as allowing for single, developmental interactions called "mentoring episodes" that help students and further the adviser-advisee relationship (p. 41). Art Esposito (2007) of Virginia Commonwealth University looked at data showing his students had higher academic success than students on other advisers&339 rosters, which he attributes in part to his Facebook presence. Julie Traxler (2007) espouses the benefits of Facebook, namely to inform, organize, educate, and connect with students. In the current technological environment, it seems almost imperative that advisers have a presence on Facebook.

One of the most common concerns among advisers who support a Facebook presence regards student profiles: What if advisers see or read something on students' pages that affects their view of their advisees? Students are generally savvy about their privacy settings, but pictures and status updates may still provide more insight than an adviser wants/needs and may even lead to disciplinary trouble for students on their campuses. Generally universities do not actively look at student pages for violations. Due to legal concerns over individual rights, many administrators have decided that unless a violation is reported, students' profiles are their own business (Lipka, 2008). Because an adviser is an employee of the university, it would not seem appropriate to actively look at student pages, as one would be bound to report any violations they find. Not to mention, what is found there could change the adviser's perception of the student and negatively impact their relationship. If Facebook is meant to be a positive tool in the adviser–advisee relationship, this kind of scrutiny would be counter–productive.

Universities and colleges recognize the utility of Facebook and the potential for positive use it has. However, as evidenced by the lack of policies in place on social networking, it seems administrators are unsure how to guide employees (advisers) when it comes to student interactions on these sites. Advisers should not have to wait for guidance from their institutions before making decisions on how to proceed.

Conclusion

Striking a balance between effectively connecting with students through Facebook and maintaining an adviser's personal life is challenging, and both legal and disciplinary challenges are likely before any professional guidelines are institutionalized. In the meantime:

• Advisers should be available to students through Facebook
• Advisers should maintain a professional Facebook page (whether through the university or separately) on which self–disclosure should be limited to what they would share in person or on their office door
• Advisers should not actively look at a students' Facebook pages
• If an adviser has a personal Facebook page, it should be private (and settings maintained) and have no connection to the adviser in his or her professional capacity
• Advisers should only friend students on their professional pages or after the students graduate

While maintaining professional and private Facebook profiles is complicated, it would be much like e-mail, wherein individuals use their private e-mail accounts for some things and maintain professional accounts for others. Given that current Facebook users are fairly vigilant and skilled in selecting privacy settings, maintaining personal Facebook profile should not be difficult. While users should not feel the need to censor themselves on their personal pages, the realization that this information is on the Internet somewhere should always be part of the thought process.

As the technological environment in which our students exist changes, it is important to maintain one's image, not just in person or on the phone, but online as well. New, young advisers with histories of Facebook use have likely left a trail of Internet presence as they progressed through college and embraced technology just like their students. Just as advisers inform their students of the risks the Internet poses to people's perception of them, advisers should be mindful of this risk as well.