This paper focuses on how people manage context and privacy between different groups of friends on social media sites- known as Boundary Regulation. The researchers found that people achieve Boundary regulation through multiple profile management(MPM) on the social media sites. Following are the motives behind multiple profile creation:
1)Privacy: People use multiple profiles to disclose different behaviour on different profiles. For example, a person created a different profile to socialize with peers so that professional image is not effected.
2)Identity Management: People create a different profile to manage different identities. For example, a journalist has a different profile where he raises issues and discussions as a journalist.
3)Utility: People use separate profiles to manage different information with a specific target audience that are not necessarily friends, for example, a Marketing person has created a profile to promote a restaurant.
4) Propriety: People used multiple profiles to facilitate the social boundary that exists in real life. For example, its appropriate if a boss joins your professional profile but not the personal profile.
The Researchers identified methods used for Boundary Regulation:
Regulation by Site: People create separate profiles on the same site to manage the motives described above. Another method is to manage privacy settings on the same profile. Or create different profiles on different sites.
Regulation by Linkage: People can link their different profiles to show that they are the same person in different contexts. Or they try to make sure that an account doesn't give any access or indication of another.
Profiles can be categorized based on the nature of disclosure from Hidden to completely Public:
Pseudonymity: The separate identities are not linked to your personal self and not linked to one another.
Practical Obscurity: Separate identities that are public or personal but are unlinked on purpose.
Transparent Separation: Identities are public and the person purposefully links them.
Review: I feel that this paper did a good job in looking at how people are trying to manage the above mentioned motives through multiple profiles. This is something that social media sites need to look into. However, it would have been more supportive if the paper had put in comments from the users regarding how much effort goes into maintaing multiple profiles. That could be one of the reason why people keep their profiles completely transparent and restrict themselves in participating on the site. We can study how we manage faces in our normal communication. However, social media sites are providing means for any individual to reach large audiences, which wasnt possible before. Therefore, we need to study how famous people manage faces, for e.g Politicians, Actors, etc.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Response: Boundary Regulation in Social Media
Summary:
In this paper the authors investigate the motivations of people in using separate accounts for social networks. They compare different usage patterns ranging from fully open transparent connection of accounts and networks using real names to disconnected hidden accounts using pseudonyms. They also look at the motivation for peoples behavior using these systems, finding that there interest is more than just that of privacy, but also utility, identity management and social behaviour.
Response:
I was surprised at first by the findings of the authors, especially that privacy was not the only reason people chose to use multiple accounts to manage their online identity. On further reflection though I am less surprised, especially when looking at the divisions the authors selected, which I would argue are mostly types of privacy preservation. Whether the reasons are you don't want your boss to see what you do, you don't want your mother to see what you do or you don't want people who don't know who you are what you do, there are all aspects of the same concept.
The utility argument is more interesting to me in that it is caused largely by the lack of control people have over these types of services. Sadly they did not include and google plus users in their study. It would have been interesting to see what having the ability to decide which sections of your audience receives your posts does to the concerns about having professional and private accounts.
In this paper the authors investigate the motivations of people in using separate accounts for social networks. They compare different usage patterns ranging from fully open transparent connection of accounts and networks using real names to disconnected hidden accounts using pseudonyms. They also look at the motivation for peoples behavior using these systems, finding that there interest is more than just that of privacy, but also utility, identity management and social behaviour.
Response:
I was surprised at first by the findings of the authors, especially that privacy was not the only reason people chose to use multiple accounts to manage their online identity. On further reflection though I am less surprised, especially when looking at the divisions the authors selected, which I would argue are mostly types of privacy preservation. Whether the reasons are you don't want your boss to see what you do, you don't want your mother to see what you do or you don't want people who don't know who you are what you do, there are all aspects of the same concept.
The utility argument is more interesting to me in that it is caused largely by the lack of control people have over these types of services. Sadly they did not include and google plus users in their study. It would have been interesting to see what having the ability to decide which sections of your audience receives your posts does to the concerns about having professional and private accounts.
Summary Response Week 10: Social Networking
CPSC 601.25 Week 10 Part 1
Papers
In this response I will discuss two papers, one which examines 'boundary regulation' in social networking and another which discusses the personality of popular facebook users.
Social Realities
In the early days of "social networking" your online identity seldom matches your real world identify. Your online friends were friends you knew online or often through the site itself. Sites like MySpace and Nexopia followed this practice. This lack of connection with a real world identity seemed to date back to the architecture chosen for the internet itself. But when Facebook emerged it made a specific emphasis on representing real world relationships digitally. This was perhaps what set Facebook apart from it's competitors, this direct connection gave it numerous advantages, since people are more interesting in their real world friends, which leads them to spend more time on the site. More real world data means more real world advertising dollars as well.
But this change had some serious consequences. People who presented themselves to different people differently now had all of their relationships collected into one bag. Who would they present themselves as?
The researchers of the boundary regulation conducted an interview study of people who solved this by created multiple profiles. They pompously turn this phenomenon into technical jargon by calling it multiple profile maintenance and giving it the acronym MPM. The research find exactly what you'd expect. Some people (but not even close to a majority) respond to the problem described earlier by just creating multiple profiles. The differences between the profiles range from completed disconnected to basically obvious or transparent. People provided exactly the reasons you'd expect for this. Mostly they want privacy, to limit their posts and social networking activities to a selected set of people. They also are afraid that people will judge them for these sites, which are sometimes (but not usually) accessible to outsiders. Otherwise it's just an explicit attempt to appear to be a different person in the eyes of different groups. One suspects that this kind of a system might become awkward if someone discovered you kept different profiles which they were explicitly not included in.
A much more interesting subject is why people are adding certain groups of people. Probably most people are not purposely duplicitous with their actual friends. It's more likely that people wish to present a public front to bosses, coworkers and acquaintances. It's possible that people are now feeling a social obligation to add these people to social networking and then feel the need to screen or manager boundaries with them.
Popular People
Another paper about popular Facebook users attempts to correlate the number of Facebook friends users have to some personality traits (and other variables). Interestingly the researchers use the results of a Facebook application ... which is presented on the users profile as input for their analysis. They claim that they use 'quality metrics' to remove people who are answering randomly or unseriously. They do not seriously address whether people are answering this questions in a specific way to get a specific outcome. They show a selection of statistical correlations between these personality types and the number of Facebook friends.
A more interesting study would be to examine communication versus social networking. Tools exist that allow users to monitor who they communicate most often with and these could be accompanied with other tracking metrics. This might let researchers compare this tighter social network to the people who are listed as friends on a social network.
Response: The Personality of Popular Facebook Users
Summary:
This paper examined the potential linkage between the personality of a user of FB and their relationships (examined by the number of contacts they had. They selected a large sample of people from the United States, primarily because the personality test used was designed for US culture. Nevertheless, they utilized a Facebook application called “myPersonality” to measure the 5 personality dimensions – Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism. They reasoned that utilizing this application to survey users instead of pen/paper resulted in a higher quality of results, because personal incentives (accurate description of their personality) were a highly motivating factor. Upon receiving the results from the users, they researchers found that people who self-monitor themselves do not correlate with a high number of Facebook “friends”. They conclude, from their study, that knowing this information can lead to more targeted advertisements (and scams).
Response:
I will begin this response by stating that I am an individual who HATES Facebook. Now that I have made that statement, my initial response to this paper and its findings are exactly what the final statement is “The street finds its own uses for things”. Everyone is different, and thus, everyone uses Facebook differently, simply. What is consistent however is the representation of ourselves on Facebook is never truly what we are. The statement in the paper made by Jaron Lanier, who said, “The most effective young Facebook users…are the ones who create successful online fictions about themselves”, is entirely true to me. I simply can’t believe that you can measure personality at all on Facebook, when it is a tool to present oneself fictitiously. In addition, there are many users who simply have contacts they do not communicate with consistently. These weak relationships should not be considered at all if a friend count is being used to determine personality traits. If I added everyone I knew in high school to my Facebook account, and took this test, I would be an extrovert (or anyone else for that matter). All in all, Facebook is not a good tool to measure personality, when everyone tries to look “good” on Facebook J
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Re: Equal Opportunities: Do Shareable Interfaces Promote More Group Participation Than Single User Displays?
Summary
This paper investigated the viability of using shareable interfaces—that are designed for more than one user to interact with— which can facilitate more equitable participation in co-located group settings compared with single user displays. The authors developed a conceptual framework that characterizes what they referred to as Shared Information Spaces (SISs), in terms of how they constrain and invite participation using different entry points. They also conducted an experiment which compared three different SISs: a physical-digital set-up (least constrained), a multitouch tabletop (medium), and a laptop display (most constrained).
Discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate how groups use different kinds of shareable interfaces when collaborating on a task. This objective, in many ways, is similar to the other co-located groupware technologies e.g., multitouch tabletops. Nonetheless, the researchers tried to operationalize the context of their research through the concept of entry points: the layout of the physical room (e.g., use of tables, walls), the display interfaces, the input devices, and the type of physical or digital information to be interacted with. This concept emphasizes the role of size, position, direction of the displays in the placement of input devices, and how these factors could be configured to reduce barriers and to encourage participation. According to the authors, a main finding of the research was that the physical–digital condition, that is, the one designed with the most tangible and accessible entry points, invited an evenly distributed participation in terms of verbal contributions. The tabletop condition was shown to have the most equitable collaboration in terms of physical interaction with the digital information on display. On the other, the control condition provoked the most utterances.
The findings of this research are indeed pointing in a similar direction as related developments in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, emphasizing the importance of entry points; how many entry points to provide and in what form? As is the case when designing any interface, what type of task, and in what context? It remains to be seen how far the use of these concepts and metaphors will actually carry. In the end, these are empirical questions that have to be answered by future research.
Equal Opportunities: Do Shareable Interface Promote More Group Participation Than single User Displays?
The main focus of the paper was to justify the use of digital surfaces for collaborative work by providing qualitative and quantitative proof. One additional concept added was that tabletops provide equal opportunity to the participants in order to contribute to the task. Equal opportunity is provided through the use of multi-touch enabled screens that allow simultaneous manipulation by multiple users from all sides of the tabletop.
Background Analysis: It was found that users needed to be encouraged to familiarize with and make use of a shared display. Additionally, small groups are more comfortable with tabletops than vertical displays. It was also clear that with the use of tangible objects, actions of others are more visible.
The researchers studied collaborative work in three situations: 1) Single Entry Small Laptop. 2)Equal Opportunity Tabletop 3) Equal Opportunity Tabletop with tangibles.
Quantitative Analysis: According to the first analysis less time was taken to complete the task in the laptop and the tangible tabletop case. The researchers then did further analysis on 1) the verbal and non-verbal communication 2)and level of participation of each person in the verbal communication and in manipulating the system. According to the analysis of the verbal communication, it was the highest in case of the laptop. Similarly, according to the results of the equal level of participation of each person in the group, it was less in case of the laptop in both verbal and physical participation. The researchers suggest that providing accessible entry points lead to equal verbal participation from all, however may not result in equal physical participation.
Qualitative Analysis: The researchers were able to clarify the results of the quantitative analysis through these analysis. According to the results, in case of the laptop, the person who spoke the most, used the system the most. Moreover, verbal communication was more incase of the laptop because the person manipulating the mouse was giving running commentary or asking clarifications from the team members, Whereas, incase of the tabletop with the tangibles, the person who spoke the least contributed more physically. Some interesting finding were that, turn taking becomes awkward in single entry shared space. And tabletop with tangibles encouraged the division of labour and personal space. According to the comments of the users, people liked the use of tangibles because it clearly show the available options. Incase, of the laptop people got frustrated with not being able to present their own ideas themselves.
Review: Though this study wasn't necessary to obtain these results. However, the study did point out the advantages and reasons to design groupware applications. The most important reason being the need to provide equal opportunity for contribution by each team member. I was wondering if a system was specifically designed to prompt input from each user (turn by turn), what will be the results.
Background Analysis: It was found that users needed to be encouraged to familiarize with and make use of a shared display. Additionally, small groups are more comfortable with tabletops than vertical displays. It was also clear that with the use of tangible objects, actions of others are more visible.
The researchers studied collaborative work in three situations: 1) Single Entry Small Laptop. 2)Equal Opportunity Tabletop 3) Equal Opportunity Tabletop with tangibles.
Quantitative Analysis: According to the first analysis less time was taken to complete the task in the laptop and the tangible tabletop case. The researchers then did further analysis on 1) the verbal and non-verbal communication 2)and level of participation of each person in the verbal communication and in manipulating the system. According to the analysis of the verbal communication, it was the highest in case of the laptop. Similarly, according to the results of the equal level of participation of each person in the group, it was less in case of the laptop in both verbal and physical participation. The researchers suggest that providing accessible entry points lead to equal verbal participation from all, however may not result in equal physical participation.
Qualitative Analysis: The researchers were able to clarify the results of the quantitative analysis through these analysis. According to the results, in case of the laptop, the person who spoke the most, used the system the most. Moreover, verbal communication was more incase of the laptop because the person manipulating the mouse was giving running commentary or asking clarifications from the team members, Whereas, incase of the tabletop with the tangibles, the person who spoke the least contributed more physically. Some interesting finding were that, turn taking becomes awkward in single entry shared space. And tabletop with tangibles encouraged the division of labour and personal space. According to the comments of the users, people liked the use of tangibles because it clearly show the available options. Incase, of the laptop people got frustrated with not being able to present their own ideas themselves.
Review: Though this study wasn't necessary to obtain these results. However, the study did point out the advantages and reasons to design groupware applications. The most important reason being the need to provide equal opportunity for contribution by each team member. I was wondering if a system was specifically designed to prompt input from each user (turn by turn), what will be the results.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Response to Equal Opportunities: Do Shareable Interfaces Promote More Group Participation Than Single User Displays?
In this paper the authors study three different modes of CSCW, a laptop mode, the table top mode and physical mode of interaction, comparing the quality and quantity of interactions of several groups of participants. While the results of the study are useful, they do not quite provide information to help design better systems for collaborative work in general.
Here the authors investigate these three different modes for one task. The results they produce provide a overview for that one task and however general that task may be it doesn't reflect the real world tasks that people would do using these different types of interaction. As such it is difficult to say how well their findings hold up to the real world. It would be beneficial to see a study like this taken out to where people do need to do interactive work this we and compare how the different modes affect the outcome of the work.
The authors also focus a great deal on the amount of communication necessary between the participants. In the general case this informative, but it is more a measure of an input to the system (of collaboration) than it is a measure of the output. Again if the authors were to turn to real world problems they might find more informative aspects of collaboration to measure.
In the discussion the authors mention affordances especially for collaborators who are less likely to take on leadership roles and ensuring that entry points are provided equitably. While this is good again for the general case, and is an important consideration it does not again allow for the real world considerations of such a system deployed in a work situation.
Here the authors investigate these three different modes for one task. The results they produce provide a overview for that one task and however general that task may be it doesn't reflect the real world tasks that people would do using these different types of interaction. As such it is difficult to say how well their findings hold up to the real world. It would be beneficial to see a study like this taken out to where people do need to do interactive work this we and compare how the different modes affect the outcome of the work.
The authors also focus a great deal on the amount of communication necessary between the participants. In the general case this informative, but it is more a measure of an input to the system (of collaboration) than it is a measure of the output. Again if the authors were to turn to real world problems they might find more informative aspects of collaboration to measure.
In the discussion the authors mention affordances especially for collaborators who are less likely to take on leadership roles and ensuring that entry points are provided equitably. While this is good again for the general case, and is an important consideration it does not again allow for the real world considerations of such a system deployed in a work situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)