Sometimes we communicate by using a few words
as a kind of shorthand for big ideas: we
know what we mean. Or at least we assume we have a common conception for what
we mean when we use certain words, based perhaps on a shared experience of the
phenomenon. But when we try to enlarge the conversation and explain it to
someone else with whom we do not share experiences or frames of reference, we
must be more precise. I believe we are at such a point with some of the words
we use in the NSMNSS project. To include and engage others beyond the early
adopters and true believers of online research, we may need to build a common
language.
As a case in point, last spring NSMNSS
conducted a questionnaire about ethical issues in social media research. Using
the narrative option many respondents posted concerns about what they perceived
as a lack of understanding of online research generally at their institutions and
out-of-date guidance from their faculty, dissertation supervisors and
institutions. It would seem important to include such scholars and academics in
our conversations so they can become more knowledgeable about emerging research
methods and topics—and thus better able to guide the next generation of
researchers.
How we can begin to more clearly define terms
we commonly use? Let’s begin by thinking about that the term social media means. I discovered just
how challenging that task might be when I looked for a clear definition to cite
for an article I was working on last week.
Some writers conflate “social media” with
“Facebook and Twitter”(Baptist et al., 2011; Gibson, 2013; Grose, 2012). This
seems inadequate to me for several reasons: Facebook and Twitter are brand
names for commercial platforms designed with the unabashed goal of profit for
their shareholders. They are not neutral spaces. As well, businesses and brand names
change. Other platforms exist and new ones are emerging. What criteria will we
use to determine whether those platforms can be described as “social media”?
Some scholars differentiate social media
from other online platforms or Information and Communications Technologies
(ICTs) by describing characteristics. Social media is characterized by the
ability of users to create, store, and retrieve user-generated content (Benbunan-Fich, 2010). The focus is on the user as producer (Bechmann & Lomborg, 2013) who generates content in various forms—including video, images,
text, and geospatial data (Schreck & Keim, 2013). The producer of content interacts with readers: “effective social media use requires
engagement with the audience” (Bik & Goldstein, 2013, p. 5) and readers are t, who themselves producers of content “thus
blurring the distinctions between audience and producer as a means to create a
distinct form of textual production that draws on both roles”(Meyers, 2012, p. 1023).
Given these descriptions and
characterizations, is an email list “social media”? It is interactive and users
generate content that can be retrieved. What about a virtual world—where users
generate spaces, artifacts and events that engage others, and can be revisited
or “retrieved.” In a web conferencing or videoconferencing space users can meet
to generate and share content that can be saved and later retrieved. Wikis?
Threaded discussion forums? Are they all “social media” or is there a more
granular distinction missed in the extant definitions and descriptions?
How do you define the term—and what ICTs
would you include or exclude from your conception of “social media”? Use the
comment area, or respond to this 5-question survey. I will
compile your responses and make a post on NSMNSS to share your collective ideas
about ways to define social media!
Gibson, D.
(2013). Dodging the effects of the big bang: collaborating securely in the
cloud. Computer Fraud & Security,
2013(2), 7-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-3723(13)70018-6
