As many scholars do, Beer wrote a response in an attempt to broaden the unsettling definitions in the Boyd & Ellison article. The intellectual debate surrounding internet phenomena (SNS, Friends, Web 2.0, etc) is complex one, as it is constantly shifting and difficult to stabilize understanding. Context is key; each article is situated in its own discussion and will always be evolving. Beer pointed out the limiting nature of definitions; our need to classify often poses a limitation on our understanding. Scholars attempt to define phenomena to lay the groundwork for their theories. Someone will always find this problematic, attempt to point out faults and re-define. This is the nature of academia. In an attempt to create, there is a flux between broad and narrow definitions. It is unclear which serves better, but they each serve their purpose to create a dialogue.
Boyd & Ellison made the condition apparent in the introductory overview of the article – explicitly stating they are presenting “one perspective.” Beer still has a problem with this, as they have differing conceptual outlooks about SNS. Beer brought up interesting points, but his main problem with the Boyd & Ellison article is its scope of vision. He calls for a narrower focus with more specific categorization, rather than general trends. I think this is problematic, as each scholar attempts to coin their own terms and unique perspectives. There is very little room for common classifications. However, both views serve their purpose and support each other to create a stronger body of work. I prefer the wider scope of the Boyd & Ellison article, as it attempts to provide a generalized approach to a very disjointed and tumultuous field.
The Boyd & Ellison article reviewed a variety of research about SNS sites. The article explained a brief history of the development of SNS sites, and provided evidence to show how each respective type of site mediated connections. This examination helps provide a broader view of SNS and aids in the understanding and definition of such sites.
Overall, the article focused on the tendency of SNS sites to maintain existing relationships and networks, rather than function as means to connect to strangers. Boyd & Ellison outlined three parts to their definition of a Social Network Sites: sites allow for a profile that exists within a “bounded system,” users have a list of shared connections, and users can view and navigate these connections to explore their networks. Boyd & Ellison chose the term “network” over “networking” to place an emphasis on the structure of these web-services. They were steadfast in their definition that sites enhance existing ties, rather than forming new relationships.
They outlined a few main types of sites which are important to understanding how SNS sites influence interactions. These were profile-centric sites that target specific demographics (like FB), socially organized sites that solicit broad audiences (for business people, like LinkedIn), passionate-centric – those that connect strangers based on interests and activities (like CouchSurfing), and content-sharing sites (like Flickr and Youtube). There are similarities between SNS and online communities on certain types of sites. As categorized by Boyd & Ellison, passionate-centric sites and content-sharing SNS sites are the hybrid of SNS and communities. The interactions on SNS are still more individualized connections, but they revolve around content, rather than existing relationships.
Overall, SNS is about developing and maintaining existing relationships (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). On the other hand, online communities often focus around interests, where connections can be made secondarily. The relationships formed online can be just as real as those offline. Friendship is not a fixed concept and SNS have the ability to change our sociological concept of friendships (Beer, 521). Online communities revolve around a shared sense of experience, and can foster deep connections. SNS connections are more individualized, and they consist of existing acquaintances and weak ties. SNS connections are often mixed mode networks (formed offline and transition online) because these technologies and systems are embedded in our social interaction. The structure of a site can impact our behavior. Not to the extreme of determinism, but each site has its own practices and norms that influence our interactions. Likewise, definitions influence our understanding.
I agree with you completely that the structure of a site can impact our behavior. On facebook and twitter you can talk about anything, and you can have a lot of friends who might not be interested in that topic, so they will not like your status. In an online community they come together for that common interest and surely everyone will be interested, or at least pretend to be.
I wonder if we could also think about re-defining “networking,” so that rather than using that term to mean making new connections, we could think about it as “working your network.” Would that make it a better term for more profile-centric sites and make it easier to differentiate those sites (like Facebook) from content-sharing sites like YouTube?
I think that’s a good observation. There can be multiple components of networking. When networking face-to-face, we are often introduced to new people by exisiting friends, peers, colleagues, etc. Thus, we aren’t simply making new connections, we are working our existing connections to parlay them into new connections. It certainly seems better to think about this as “working your network.”
I think this is happening in action more and more, so maybe scholars will catch up? On sites like LinkedIn, I haven’t connected with a single individual that I didn’t previously know, but the system allows me to display my “work self” in a way that would feel too laced up for an SNS like Facebook. I’m using LinkedIn to work my network and get information about my education, work skills and experience out on the chance that I need to tap into those ties on the job market. While employers might check me out on the site, its more likely that I would use the network to connect with current connections to let them know I was job hunting.
I think definitions are equally limiting and expansive. If there is no universal term, meaning gets lost in interpretation. Attempting to categorize such a broad range of sites is difficult. I appreciate Beer’s desire to categorize, but how do we choose the qualifications for these categories? Each scholar has a wide range of terms for each category. I suppose the closest current category for some of these interactive sites could be Web 2.0, but that doesn’t fully explain the differences. “Work your network” is a more lenient understanding that can encompass more structures, including interactive and profile-centric models. I feel like I’m stuck in a battle between broad and narrow, trying to decide between which creates a better understanding.
Friendship is NOT a fixed content and can be altered through these forums of connection. I definitely agree with you about online relationships can be just as real as offline relationships, especially when dealing with people you already know. Some friendships can become broken because of a comment made online! scary thought!
I really like the fact that you agree more with Boyd and Ellison’s definition, instead of with Beer’s. You really have a great point that attempting to break SNSes down into a multitude of different labels and definitions actually does confuse the situation even more. However, I do think that having separate classifications for sites is sometimes necessary (content sharing versus passion centric, for example) because it allows a new user to really understand what they are getting in to. However, back to your original point, there is so much overlap with different SNSes now, classifying them is too difficult!Ugh – confusing! Great post, Susan. It really made me think more about the studies we read.