In my social media research seminar, students are required to blog analyses of 5 scholarly articles of their choice. This assignment rewards students for reading in their own area of interest. In this particular case (and it’s not the only one, though it doesn’t happen as frequently as I would wish), the author of the article the student analyzed found the blog post and commented on it.

This shows how learning with social media extends beyond the classroom – students learn from people who are not in the class, and even long after the course is over. It’s a beautiful thing.

So, if you read this, or you read any student work in your area, please consider taking the time to leave a comment. It is a very satisfying learning experience for students to engage with you, and to learn outside the classroom.

P.S.

Thank you, David Barnard-Wills!

And then, while consuming my Monday dose of lolcats, I came across this sociolinguistic study of LOLspeak – which lead to a conclusion that LOLspeak is used to construct online identity – not only as a cat, but also as an Internet-savvy person.

I followed the line of thought and some of the references cited in this study, and I was attracted to the line of work by Bucholtz & Hall (not that Hall, but the name coincidence helped). So I read a paper that I feel will become a cornerstone in one of my future studies of online identity. I summarize it here and think how it applies to my research of online identity management.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.

The paper integrates several strands of sociolinguistic, linguistic, anthropological, and cultural studies to define an approach to identity. This approach defines identity as emergent through social interaction, local and situated in specific interactions and contexts. This view of identity is contrasted with that of identity as a stable concept that the person brings to the social interaction. Identity is performed and created in millions of micro-interactions – small acts of speech and interactions. In the authors’ words:

[...] identity is emergent in discourse and does not precede it. [...] identity [is] an intersubjectively achieved social and cultural phenomenon. [...] the process of identity construction does not reside within the individual but in intersubjective relations of sameness and difference, realness and fakeness, power and disempowerement. (pp. 607-8).

This social constructionist view of identity is not groundbreakingly new. It echoes the social interactionist view of the self advanced by Mead, for example. But the paper goes beyond proposing a view of identity. It proposes five principles that can guide the study of identity.

Principle 1: Emergence

The first principle states that language does not play the limited role of reflecting an individual’s internal mental state (or sense of identity) – but that language use actively constructs identity. People “do,” or perform, identity through discourse.

Identity is best viewed as the emergent product rather than the pre-existing source of linguistic and other semiotic practices and therefore as fundamentally a social and cultural phenomenon (p. 588).

Research implication: Examine discourse, and especially interaction, to see how people actively construct and perform their identities. In social media, the advantage is that this discourse is already inscribed. The examination of interaction means looking at actual conversations, not just profiles.

Principle 2: Positionality

Social science often associates identity with broad demographic categories, such as age, gender, race, etc. However, identities are much more local than that. Even in a group that seems homogenous according to demographic characteristics, local, temporary roles are enacted by participants in moment to moment interaction. Participants may assume and enact temporary roles, and orientations (stances) that depend on the particular context and situation, and can only be grasped through a detailed, ethnographic approach.

Identities encompass (a) macro-level demographic categories; (b) local, ethnographically specific cultural positions; and (c) temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles (p. 592).

Research implication: This principle points to detailed ethnographic observation as a necessary research method to understand identity construction. Survey research is not only self-reported, but assigns identity based on demographic categories. Ethnographic observation has access to understanding local contexts and the specific cultural position an actor takes in a given context; and to the transient, temporary roles and stances participants assume. This means, for example, that studying an interaction on Twitter is necessary, but not sufficient. To make sense of that interaction, one needs to understand the cultural context of the participants. To a great extent, the cultural context is defined by Twitter culture and social norms (whatever those are). So, an ethnographic, participant understanding of this culture is a prerequisite to being able to draw any conclusions about Twitter interactions (and one of the reasons why social media immersion is required in my social media seminar). It also follows that identity on Twitter is constructed through several micro-interactions. Each micro interaction is temporary and local, and in any give micro-interaction the participant may assume any given role of stance. These roles of stances need not be consistent and coherent across time, although I can see that patterns would emerge in time.

Principle 3: Indexicality

Indexicality gets down to the very mechanisms by which identity is constructed. Simply put, the way we talk use language positions ourselves and others as certain kinds of people. At the more obvious level, this is done by assigning labels – stating that someone belongs to a certain social category. At more subtle levels, the way we use language may be associated with a certain group of people – for example, scholarly language with academics, or certain linguistic structures with women, members of ethnic groups, etc. The study of LOLspeak mentioned earlier concluded that use of LOLspeak serves to build one’s identity as an Internet savvy person, one who is informed about memes. This is done exactly through the process of indexicality. Other mechanisms through which identity is produced through language use are implicatures and presuppositions; orientations or stances; footings and participant roles; style; etc.

Identity relations emerge in interaction through several related indexical processes, including: (1) overt mention of the identity categories and labels; (b) implicatures and presuppositions regarding one’s own or others’ identity position; (c) displayed evaluative and epistemic orientations to ongoing talk, as well as interactional footing and participant roles; and (d) the use of linguistic structures and systems that are ideologically associated with specific personas and groups (p. 594).

Research implications: Research should include microscopic attention to how language use positions the participant and others in social categories, or exhibits styles and stances associated with social categories. For example, an accumulation of forceful stances may be equated to a display of a masculine gendered identity. These social categories can only be understood in the context of socio-cultural values (aka the ideology) of the group. For example, many people on Twitter post recommendations – mostly, recommendations for things to read. How does this practice position them and others? Is the implication here that one is the recommended and the others are the audience, that one is the expert, and the other ones the students?

Note how in this tweet, the user is positioning himself both as a student, and as a recommender to other twitter users.

Principle 4: Relationality

This principle emphasizes that identities “acquire social meaning in relation to other available identity positions and other social actors” – in other words, identity is relative to the others’ positions. One can define oneself in relation to others – for example, as the same or different. In addition to similarity/difference, the Bucholtz and Hall propose two more types of relations: genuiness/artifice and authority/delegitimacy.

Identities are intersubjectively constructed through several, often overlapping, complementary relations, including similarity/difference, genuiness/artifice, and authority/delegitimacy (p. 598).

Bucholtz and Hall expand on these moves participants in social interaction can make to position themselves in relation to others, and discuss several “tactics of intersubjectivity;”playing up similarities or differences, establishing authority/credibility or sabotaging it by delegitimizing it, etc.

Research implication: It takes a trained, careful eye to begin to notice these tactics in the fast flow of everyday discourse. The fact that these tactics can be complementary and simultaneous makes things even more difficult. All that comes to mind right now is a type of discourse I often see on Twitter, that against people who self-define as social media experts or gurus. With this type of tweet, the author may do all 3 tactics at the same time: differentiate self from these self-proclaimed experts; point out the artifice/fakeness of the other; delegitimize the other while building up own authority.

Principle 5: Partialness

This is best explained in the authors’ own words:

Because identity is inherently relational, it will always be partial, produced through contextually situated and ideologically informed configurations of self and other. Even seemingly coherent displays of identity, such as those that pose as deliberate and intentional, are reliant on both interactional and ideological constraints for their articulation:

[Principle 5]: Any given construction of identity may be in part deliberate and intentional, in part habitual and hence often less than fully conscious, in part an outcome of interactional negotiation and contestation, in part an outcome of others’ perceptions and representations, and in part an effect of larger ideological processes and material structures that may become relevant to interaction. It is therefore constantly shifting both as interaction unfolds and across discourse contexts.

The authors relate this partialness principle to the concept of agency – the degree of autonomy and intentionality behind a social act. However, a more productive view of agency is that of accomplishment of social action, whether that action was deliberate or not.

Research implications: To me, this seems that identity cannot be fully known – because it is a moving target, constantly shifting and evolving, and its meaning depends not on internally defined states, but on a lot of external meanings – those of other people, of the context, culture, ideology. So, while it is possible to capture tactics and processes by which individuals construct identity, even observe longitudinal patterns, in may be impossible to capture one’s identity fully. It would be simple and simplistic to consider each social network a “discourse context” – e.g. Twitter is a discourse context, and Facebook another one. And while this may be partially (partially!) true, it may also be true that one can experience – participate in, even create, several discourse contexts on Twitter alone. What are the defining boundaries of a discourse context?

It also means that self-reports are insufficient for capturing identity processes, because not all identity actions are fully conscious, and because there are many other relational and contextual factors that need to be taken into consideration.

And finally, it means that the factors that contribute to identity construction are multiple: the self, others the self interacts with, the larger context, culture, ideology, material structures. Any study of identity that looks at only one of these is partial. Any study that looks at all of them must be… an ethnography. It may not be feasible or desirable to look at all of them, but it is important to acknowledge and articulate the partialness of the very knowledge we produce.

So, here is a presentation about the linguistic study of LOLspeak (the language cats speak). It is analyzed as language play that has a function in the construction of online identity – as a cat and Internet savvy person.

I can has language play: Construction of Language and Identity in LOLspeak from Lauren Gawne on Vimeo.

We are looking for volunteers to participate in research interviews. Interviews will take about 30 minutes, and will be conducted via telephone or Skype.

Specifically, we are searching for individuals who meet the following criteria:

• Has graduated from college within the past two years OR
• Is a social media consultant OR
• Is an IT security professional

AND

• Is an active social media user – participates actively in 3 or more social networking sites

In exchange for your time, you will have a 1 in 10 chance to win $25 in cash, gift card, or donation to your preferred charity.

Interested in participating? Please contact me through this online form.

Do you know other people who may wish to participate? Please forward them the link to this post.

Thank you,
Dr. V

This project is supported by a research grant from Verisign, Inc. Co-PI: Gene Spafford – CERIAS, Purdue University

The Common Craft Plagiarism video

I would not hesitate to show this in undergraduate – but maybe even in graduate courses.

Here is why it sucks, and here is why innovation by knee-jerking is a bad idea, and unnecessary, especially for Facebook.

Facebook is, by far, the SNS market leader.

As market leader, it is unnecessary to freak out and patch-up your product with random features, in an effort to compete with Google+, Twitter, Foursquare, Instagram, etc. You’re in no danger. You can afford to think and be strategic about what features you add. You’re not going to lose market share to Google+ overnight. SNS migration is slow, and for so many people, FB is mainstream, it’s become a habit. Early adopters may migrate, but the majority will stay put.

Speaking of the majority: All these new features confuse them. They don’t know what Google+ is. They have heard of Twitter, but it is more foreign to them than Romania. They know exactly what they use Facebook for, and they are happy seeing what the crazy cousin is up to, and sharing photos of the baby with extended family. I bet you the majority, which form Facebook’s biggest market and ARE its strategic advantage, can’t keep track with all these innovations and don’t even understand them. So, by adding new, confusing, features, you’re confusing your main market. Bad idea. I do informal research whenever I present to student groups. I ask them if they’re aware of and use certain (new) Facebook features. They’re not. And these are your Digital Natives. If they can’t keep up, how about auntie Mae?!

As MacManus points out, Facebook started off as a private social network. This IS was Facebook’s strategic advantage. As Facebook adds Google+ and Twitter-like features, it loses its strategic advantage and its definition. What is Facebook these days, exactly? What does it want to be – besides “the biggest, most popular SNS in the Western hemisphere”? A product without a unique proposition is diluted, confusing. Rather than trying to be everything to everybody, I think Facebook should step back to search and find its soul (too late for that) defining, unique proposition. The danger of knee-jerk responsive innovation is that you dilute a product and forget its strategic advantage and position in the marketplace. Rather then be Google+ AND Twitter AND Foursquare AND Instagram, Facebook should figure out what it is and what it is not  – and how it is different from all of the above. From the market leader position, it can afford to relax and think strategically.

* Image captured from a slideshare presentation about social media adoption and uses around the world:

I am also teaching the graduate interface usability course, CGT 512 – Human Factors of Computer Interface Design (#CGT512 on Twitter) It’s a fun and intense class, and once again, we have great research partners! We’ll be working with nanoHUB, LearnVest and iKneer.

It’s going to be a busy but FUN semester! Join me online and help me teach & learn in these classes!

Dr. V

Journal & Courier, Oct 2, 2011 - BoilerCribs owner taps crowdsourcing to hone West Lafayette project

The Atlantic, Sept. 2, 2011 – Social Media’s Slow Slog Into the Ivory Towers of Academia

Journal &  Courier, Aug. 3, 2011 – Keynote at Lafayette Digital Media Conference

Lafayette Online, July 29, 2011 - Lafayette Digital Media Conference

Lafayette Online, July 7 – Social Media Marketing Workshop for Artists

Journal & Courier, June 7 - West Lafayette Police Adopt Social Media Policy

Journal & Courier, June 9 - Steffey’s mother joins search for missing student

Journal & Courier, June 14 – Slow start for applying social media ethics

So, what’s the big improvement in Mac OS X Lion? What does it enable users to do that they couldn’t do before?

In terms of interface, it seems to be a political, not user-oriented movement. The interface decisions say to me: “we’re moving laptops towards touch-screen interfaces.” It may be a strategic step in the next direction for the company. But does it work for the user?

The biggest, and, pardon my French, stupidest mistake/bad idea in Lion is “natural scrolling.” By “natural scrolling” they mean reversing the scroll direction, so now you scroll up if you want to go down a page. Why is this stupid? Let me count the ways:

1. It takes a behavior that is so ingrained, for some people, since birth – for others, since they started using mice in the early ’70s – a behavior that’s more than second nature, it is automated and memorized by the body and it attempts to reverse it. Good luck with that. After trying natural scrolling for a bit, I got so confused, I don’t know which way is up or down. Good thing you can turn it off.
2. It takes a behavior that is indeed natural in a touch-screen device when you interact directly with the content, not with the scroll bar and imports it to another, very different device. Just because this behavior is natural on the iPad, where you are touching the page, not the scrollbar, it does not make it so on the computer interface – where design conventions are different, and scroll bars still exist, even if Safari won’t display them.
3. It forgets that people interact with computers via mice, not only track pads. Don’t get me wrong, I love the track pad. I love the feel of it and the way it works. It’s just that after using it for 6 months without a mouse, my hand hurts so badly, sometimes I think I broke a bone (or more). So I can’t use the track pad, because it literally hurts my hand. I use a mouse. Where scrolling behavior is so automatic (see #1) that all of us are too old to learn a new trick. And where scrolling up is a much more difficult, inconvenient, painful gesture than scrolling down. So, when using a mouse, this natural scrolling is bad, bad, bad for the 3 reasons named before.

Good news: you can turn it off. System Preferences > Trackpad > Scroll & Zoom

What else does Lion do, besides trying to persuade me my MacBook Pro is an iPad?

The Mail interface is much better now, and I can begin to tolerate it – because it looks more like Outlook, which is the only Microsoft product I like. BUT.

They added these silly, annoying animations that are a complete waste of time and, after you’ve seen them once, become a plague. When replying to an email, upon hitting the reply button, the email message I’m replying to does this little dance. It hops out of its place, floats to the top right of the screen, then it settles down in front of me and only then can I begin to type. Cute, the first time. Completely unecessary annoying waste of time after that. Life’s too short to watch email messages dancing on the screen a hundred times a day. I swear I saw Safari dancing around a bit (or some unnecessary animation) when I started it. I haven’t figured out if or how to turn these off.

iCal is pretty much the same. They moved some buttons around, hopefully based on usability studies. No problem there. But they made it look cheesy. The top bar looks like leather (really?!) and it has little marks where you see you “tore off” the previous page. Really?! Talk about adding unnecessary cutesy stuff. And cutesy is a matter of taste. So if you add it, you must allow people to customize it. But I haven’t figured out a way to do it, and am not sure it is possible. If it is, I shouldn’t have to spend 20 minutes trying to find it. Right click, baby. Can we still do that? Oh, wait, two finger tap. Why is that wrong about iCal?

1. Things that pretend to be what they’re not are tacky. That is not leather. I don’t want it to look like leather. In fact, I don’t really want it to get my attention.
2. Many people hate leather.
3. Many people hate that ugly color they chose for the “leather”
4. The paper calendar metaphor hurts computer-based calendars by imposing on them paper-based page limitations. Cooper wrote about that a long time ago (see pp 37-38). I wonder why nobody listens?

I’m also experiencing some erratic behaviors, like random windows being brought to the front when I select an email address in the To field in Mail… but I assume those were not intended as a way to add excitement to users’ lives.

Tell me, what do you love/hate about Lion?