This weeks readings dealt with how different types of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) impact civil and political engagement (Rojas & Puig-i-Abril 2009). Though some of the findings were somewhat interesting, I was most intrigued by the discussion of how the network among certain sites and technologies can drastically differ.

For example, in the book A Networked self, chapter 9 discussed the potential differences among networks within social networking sites like YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. Chapter 9 (Papacharissi, 2010, p. 187) states “A third important distinction between YouTube and other social network sites is that the networks on sites such as Facebook and MySpace often (though not exclusively) feature interactions between users who also have interpersonal connections offline, potentially resulting in homogeneous networks of likeminded individuals interacting with one another in the networked space.” To me, this can certainly explain why much of the dialogue on sites such as Facebook appear to be more civil than what you may find when reading the comments under a YouTube video. In a homogeneous network, individuals are more likely to agree about things due to their similarity. Therefore, there may not be as many arguments as one may find in heterogeneous network like YouTube where individuals may clash with one another due to differing opinions or ideas.

Also, as the above quote mentions, individuals who are friends on Facebook often have relationships offline. That is, the discussions on these sites are not between anonymous individuals. You may actually run into these individuals in your daily life. However, individuals may not personally know the others with whom they are conversing with on sites like YouTube that are characterized has having heterogeneous networks. Although heterogeneous networks may sometimes result in more aggressive discussions, there are also some advantages to networks like this. These networks can introduce individuals to differing viewpoints, and potentially result in a better understanding of the individuals holding these views (Papacharissi, 2010).

A couple of this weeks articles also discussed the type of ties that mobile communication seems to gravitate towards. For instance, Campbell and Kwak (2011) state, “although mobile communication is sometimes used to connect with new and weak ties (Boase & Kobayashi, 2008; Wilken, 2011), it has become a primary resource for connecting with close personal ties, who have an especially important influence on technology’s use and consequences” (p. 1006). Thinking about last week, I wonder what may create stronger social capital, a text message or a Facebook wall post. They could both create a stronger bond between the individuals, but one is more public than the other. It is somewhat interesting to think about which individuals we communicate with while using a certain type of technology or website.

References:

Boase, J., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Kei-Tying teens: Using mobile phone e-mail to bond, bridge, and break with social ties – a study of Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 930–943.

Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2011). Political involvement in ‘mobilized’ society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication, 61, 1005-1024.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

Rojas, H., & Puig-i-Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobiliza- tion and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 902-927.

Wilken, R. (2011). Bonds and bridges: Mobile phone use and social capital debates. In R. Ling & S. Campbell (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together or tearing us apart? (pp. 127–150). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.