Beyond overexposure: how academics can reclaim agency on LinkedIn

As LinkedIn continues to evolve from professional noticeboard to personal branding arena, academics find themselves navigating unfamiliar terrain. The platform once served as a static online CV. Today, it is a space where scholars are expected to be visible, articulate, inspirational and, above all, constantly present.

The question is no longer whether academics are becoming overexposed on LinkedIn. Many clearly are. The more pressing issue is how to cultivate a sustainable, authentic digital identity in an environment shaped by algorithms, performance pressures and shifting institutional expectations.

The new currency of academic relevance

In the past, academic visibility depended on journal publications, research grants and conference invitations. Increasingly, however, professional credibility is tied to digital presence. For early career researchers in particular, a quiet LinkedIn profile can feel like a liability, signalling disengagement or irrelevance.

This reflects a broader shift: responsibility for public engagement is moving from institutions to individuals. Universities often enjoy the reputational benefits of scholars’ active online profiles but seldom acknowledge the labour involved in maintaining them. The result is a form of digital self-management that is expected but rarely supported.

The emotional labour of being ‘professionally personable’

LinkedIn cultivates a relentlessly upbeat tone. Posts are expected to be polished yet personal, confident yet humble, aspirational yet relatable. For academics, accustomed to careful qualification and discipline-specific nuance, this can feel like an ongoing performance.

Many report discomfort with self-promotion, fearing that sharing achievements might appear boastful, while staying silent risks invisibility. Meanwhile, the public nature of the platform exposes scholars to critique and unsolicited scrutiny. Posting is often a negotiation between vulnerability, tone and anticipated response.

The algorithm’s appetite for simplicity

LinkedIn’s algorithm favours short, accessible, emotionally resonant content. Deep analysis, cautious interpretation and the complexities of academic inquiry rarely thrive under these conditions. Scholars attempting to communicate research must often simplify in ways that feel reductive or misleading.

This dynamic can create a subtle pressure: post what the algorithm rewards, or risk being buried. Some academics adapt; crafting narrative-driven posts tailored to engagement metrics. Others resist, at the cost of visibility. In either case, the platform, not academic judgement, sets the terms.

• Spotlight guide: What can higher education learn from social media?
• How to preserve academic credibility when engaging with social media
• Building your research profile via social media, with a focus on LinkedIn

Exposure and its uneven risks

Overexposure is not simply a matter of posting too much. It is about accessibility, being visible to critics, bad-faith actors and those who view academic work through ideological lenses. Women, scholars of colour and early career academics frequently bear the brunt of this exposure, encountering harassment, misinterpretation or public questioning of their expertise.

Unlike traditional academic settings, LinkedIn offers little insulation. A single post can invite global visibility within hours, sometimes with consequences far beyond professional networking.

Institutional expectations without institutional support

Social media visibility benefits recruitment, public engagement strategies and institutional branding. Yet scholars often navigate this terrain alone. Few institutions provide:

• Training in digital communication
• Guidance on managing online harassment
• Workload recognition for digital impact
• Support for high-traffic academic accounts.

This gap leaves academics carrying the weight of institutional visibility without the necessary protection or resources.

Building a healthier digital culture for scholarship

Rather than rejecting LinkedIn outright, academics must rethink how they engage with the platform and how institutions support that engagement.

What academics can do 

Set intentional boundaries. Define what you will and won’t share. This can involve deciding in advance which topics are off limits, setting posting windows, or drafting posts offline and revisiting them before sharing. For example, some academics choose not to share anything about their personal lives, while others selectively disclose personal experiences to foster relatability and warmth. What matters is not the level of disclosure itself but that these choices are made deliberately rather than in response to platform pressures.

Prioritise authenticity over performance. Visibility does not require constant posting. In practice, this might mean posting irregularly, disengaging from trends that feel misaligned and resisting pressure to comment on every topical issue.

Curate rather than broadcast. Share only what aligns with your values and goals. For example, treating LinkedIn as a space for research translation or teaching reflection, rather than personal disclosure or reactive commentary.

Recognise digital labour as labour. Engagement has a cost; allocate time accordingly. This can involve time-boxing social media use, counting it within workload planning or consciously stepping back during high-pressure periods.

What universities can do

Provide structured training in digital communication and online risk management. This could include guidance on platform norms, managing visibility, handling misinterpretation and responding to online hostility.

Acknowledge public scholarship in promotions and workload models. For example, recognising public writing, media engagement or digital knowledge exchange as legitimate scholarly outputs.

Offer safety protocols and institutional backing for scholars facing online hostility. This might involve confidential reporting mechanisms, access to communications or legal guidance, support in handling media attention and clear reassurance that scholars will not be penalised for public engagement that attracts hostility.

Encourage diversity in digital voices, rather than privileging hyper-visible. Algorithmic platforms tend to reward frequency, confidence and performative visibility rather than depth or care. Universities can resist this by valuing quieter, slower forms of public scholarship, such as long-form writing, collaborative engagement and mentoring, and by assessing impact in relation to purpose and audience rather than visibility metrics alone.

Reclaiming agency in a hyper-visible world

LinkedIn is neither a threat nor a solution. It is a landscape that scholars can navigate thoughtfully, strategically and on their own terms. The danger lies in allowing the platform to dictate what academic visibility should look like.

Overexposure is real but so is the potential for meaningful, impactful and ethical engagement. The challenge for academia is to build a culture where digital presence is a choice rather than an obligation, where institutions support rather than silently expect visibility, and where scholars are empowered to define the boundaries of their professional identities.

Jasmine Mohsen is an assistant professor at SP Jain School of Management, UK.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.