In my opinion, the most interesting readings this week came from A Networked Self. The introduction to the book discussed the differences between “random networks” and “scale free networks.” A random network assumes that nodes (individuals) randomly link to each other. This would imply that most nodes have the same number of connections with only a few having numerous connections and a few having none. On the other hand, scale free networks paint a different picture. These networks are represented by many small nodes coexisting “with a few very highly connected nodes, or hubs (Papacharissi, 2010).” Sure, nodes may have random encounters with other nodes, but their likelihood of connecting depends upon the number of connections the nodes already have and their fitness. Fitness was defined as “the ability to attract links after these random encounters (Papacharissi, 2010).” Since I am in the field of marketing, the idea of fitness and increasing fitness is very interesting to me.
Chapter 2 of A Networked Self also had many intriguing points. I was most interested in Boyd’s discussion of profiles within social network sites. He stated that, “Because of the inherent social – and often public or semi-public – nature of profiles, participants actively and consciously craft their profiles to be seen by others (Papacharissi, 2010).” Alexa already discussed this within her blog, but this idea of one’s self and how individuals express themselves within a social network is a research interest of mine. Do individuals express their actual self or ideal self in this context? Does the audience matter? For example, are individuals likely to express whom they would like to be instead of whom they really are when they are not likely to encounter audience members in the “real world?”
Chapter 3 of New Media Cultures discussed “new media” and how it has impacted the lives and culture of many people around the world. It is apparent that we do not just consume media, we interact with it, and we produce it. As we discussed in our last class, most phones have cameras on them that allow individuals to quickly capture a moment in time. This photo or video can then be shared with a myriad of individuals. This chapter also discussed the rise of a new work culture where technology allows individuals to stay connected to the job even when they are away from the office. However, the opposite is true as well. While on the job, individuals can use technology for personal reasons, such as, checking Facebook or playing online games. There appears to be a blurring of the line between work time and play time (Marshall, 2004).
Lastly, Stalder (2006) discussed Castells’s idea of networks and the theory behind it. Of particular interest to me was how networks coordinate themselves. Stadler (2006) states “they coordinate themselves on the basis of common protocols, values, and goals (process).” I also found Castells description of the roles that nodes play to be very interesting. Castells argues that a nodes importance depends on the level of its contribution. Valuable nodes contribute information to the network, and if a node fails to contribute, it will be dismissed from the network (Stalder, 2006). I would like to learn more about how nodes increase their value.
Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.
Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.
Stalder, F. (2006). The logic of networks. In Manuel Castells and the theory of the network society (pp. 167-198). Cambridge: Polity Press. [ch. 6]
John, I knew you were interested in the actual vs. self literature, but I didn’t know you were interested in it in the context of social networks. This is an interest of mine too. I think you raise a good point about how people may not portray the same self online as in the real world and whether this matters. This could have some interesting marketing implications, and could make for an exciting joint future research project.
I think so too!
People surely behave differently. By simply looking at online survey, it is common that people are often more forthcoming about their attitudes than paper-pencil base survey. People often plays various role consciously or unconsciously. I do not think that consequent context collapse is necessarily a bad thing because there should be some underlying core attitudes that influence the behaviors in varying degrees. I guess, the question that I am asking to myself is, what can I do to assess such underlying core attitudes?
Choi, what is the attitude toward that you are questioning how to assess?
An anonymous survey is different from a social network site, where you may be known and very identifiable by your audience(s). All information put on a SNS is done by choice, so at some level anything you display is done so strategically. But there may be different goals for different people. Is that what you meant by attitudes?