|
|
Sociology of Online Journals
|
|
|
| Sampling via internet communities??? |
[02 Apr 2009|07:20pm] |
Hi all, I am new here and have a question. For my dissertation I plan to recruit participants (for interviews) via the internet. The group I am studying is diffuse and there are rarely local groups but tons of online activity--blogs, listservs, LiveJournal, etc. So the internet is the best way to access my population, but then the systematic nature of sampling becomes a problem.
Anyway, I am looking for examples of sociological studies where people sampled via the internet through LiveJournal, blogs, or listservs. I have found some literature, but I am not satisfied and a lot of the stuff I'm finding is outside of sociology. I figured if I'm looking for sociologists who employ LJ I'll log into my LJ and ask. Any references you have would be tremendously appreciated. Thanks!
|
|
| "Friends" vs. friends |
[03 Feb 2009|12:16pm] |
From First Monday, the Internet journal of Internet studies, Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope.
Researchers found that Twitter users don't post more based on how many followers they have/how many people they follow, but based on how many people they actually interact with on a regular basis, a number that isn't strongly correlated with followers/followees. Self-evident to anyone who's been involved in the discussion over whether LJ should really call it a "friends list," I think.
What I'm interested in is this idea they have that it's the people you interact with among your followers/followees (or friends list) who really matter. True, I regularly exchange comments with probably less than 10% of my friends list, but I have people on my flist who regularly post things that make me think, whose posts I look forward to eagerly, and who definitely have an impact on me even though I rarely comment on their entries and they never comment on mine. I suppose the relationship I have with those people isn't strictly social networking, even though we're using a social networking tool to have it.
|
|
|
[06 Jan 2009|01:23pm] |
The buzzword of the day is 'sexting'.
This is nothing new. It is the same old phone-sex people, young and old, have been engaging in almost since the invention of the telephone. But now you can send pictures of the action. In fact a recent study shows that one in five kids have used their phones to send sexy or nude pictures of themselves.
This new twist can have consequences including charges of distributing child pornography as in the recent case of a 15-year-old girl in Ohio
There have been cases of this here on LJ as well. Teen girls can get a friend list of hundreds before the journal is discovered and deleted. But aside from such short term consequences, those pictures will outlast the Internet.
I don't think the Internet itself is causing this behavior. There is, of course, the element of peer validation as I have mentioned before. But for the most part it just seems that the Internet has made private lives a LOT more public. Another recent study shows more than half of teens reveal risky behavior online
|
|
|
[03 Jan 2009|01:33pm] |
Journalism vs. Blogging
"It reflects a fundamental shift from mass media to niche media. Within journalism, this means that instead of everyone being forced to watch a narrow number of news sources for a narrow selection of stories deemed significant. People can now seek out the news that they want to hear, from the sources they want to hear from. This leads to a much more Balkanised public sphere as people seek out what they want to hear, and blogger/journalists increasingly preach to the converted. For example, right wing nationalist bloggers comb the Internet for any stories related to certain ethnic minorities (not always the case, but as a generalisation) and feed them to a specific audience who are deliberately looking to confirm their prejudices. Similarly, anti-EU bloggers will publish any anti-EU story or rumour to support their cause without any desire for verification, explicitly for the purposes of motivating their political audience."
|
|
|
[01 Jan 2009|12:39pm] |
Throughout much of my life there has been a problem of 'trial by media', where 'news' reports basically convicted people before the blood was dry. I believe it was the case of a gentleman wrongly accused of being the green river killer that lead to the widespread use of the word 'alleged' in the news. Not that such a mild change really made much difference.
So it is not surprising that the same issue is now popping up on the Internet. Trial by Facebook could silence witnesses. Here is an interesting case...
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20081214TDY02306.htm
Will this be harder to control than mainstream media? Is the entire Internet going to become a jury of your peers?
Here are a couple more cases that question blogging in the courtroom
http://www.examiner.com/a-1768940~DA__defense_want_to_prevent_blogging_at_trial.html
http://whyy.org/blogs/itsourcity/2008/12/31/blogging-goes-on-trial/
This last case differentiates between descriptive and evaluative. Many news sources now are more evaluative than descriptive and it is often subtle and hard to spot. Take for example the use of the term "scud" as a label for the Russian made rockets in the first Iraq war. That was not their actual name but a negative nickname NATO gave them. So even in the simple reporting of a "scud" missile attack there was a strong evaluative element. In the minds of many people, that became a war between the scuds and the Patriots. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud_missile
This issue, trial by blog, is really a bit larger than just court cases in the respect of influencing public opinion. Israel recently launched a large online propaganda campaign to promote their attack on Palestine. They used both Twitter and Youtube. Although their videos were removed from Youtube.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=afyZaL6zcjhY&refer=uk
This is clearly trial by online media.
|
|
| The web as an alternative news source |
[30 Dec 2008|09:24pm] |
I grew up in the Vietnam era. Every day we heard the news on radio and TV, and read in the papers about the atrocities of the communist intruders in North Vietnam. I was pretty geeky even then, messing with phone computers and old electronics gear I dug up here and there. One day I got my hands on an old ham radio receiver. After replacing a few tubes and stretching a wire from my room to a tree in the back yard for an antenna I was surfing the static filled airwaves for anything of interest.
( continued... )
|
|
|
[30 Dec 2008|01:35am] |
An interesting new study to investigate how the Internet effects developing morals and norms:
http://www.thelocal.se/16596/20081227/
“We have a theory that there are processes for building norms on the internet which look different than those which take place in traditional society and that they are moving in a different direction than where the majority of society and legislation are headed,”
A lot will depend on the methodology on this one. Could be quite controversial. Could also be very interesting and useful if done well. What do you think they will find? Is there a different morality online than in 'traditional society'? Will people develop a different morality when raised with the Internet? Did television also make such a change and did we fail to notice?
Love that 'traditional society'...is that the new buzz word for the offline world? I need to log into traditional society for a bit so my RL av can get some sleep. :)
|
|
|
[29 Dec 2008|03:16pm] |
Next month will mark six years since I created this community. At that time I was talking about this subject a lot in my personal LJ and the posts were getting a lot of interest. I wanted to move the discussion out of my personal journal so I looked around for forums on this issue. I found nothing either within LJ or anywhere else on the web. Seeing a need, I filled it by creating ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) blog_sociology and began posting my thoughts here.
Within a very short time the membership shot up to 1500, we had controversies and there were spin off groups who started their own versions. People began discussing research projects involving the issues here. This was all brand new stuff to discuss. It was the hot topic of the day. Within a month after I started this there were four more LJ communities created on the subject.
At that time, one hot topic was the emergence of pro-anorexia communities. Six years later a book has been published examining this issue in depth - The Medicalization of Cyberspace. This community was the catalyst but the discussion has expanded to eclipse this modest forum. It now permeates mainstream media.
While I have diverse interests including a background in crisis and suicide intervention as well as extensive studies in the mechanics and effects of neurochemistry on behavior, one of my main interests in starting this community was the management and building of such communities. Most online communities are started and run by people who have zero knowledge or experience in people management or community building. They manage mostly by kneejerk and often make a mess of it.
However, there are clear things you can do to create an environment that nurtures and encourages useful discussion. In fact there are now companies that professionally manage online communities. I have watched the growth of this with interest over the 20+ years I have been building and managing online communities.
I know there are other community managers and owners in this group. What do you think of the growth of online communities, big and small, as an industry? What issues do you think are most important in community management. What methods work best in growing a community membership? It seems as though FaceBook is dominating this media at the moment. What are they doing right and what is everyone else doing wrong?
|
|
| The other side of the coin |
[28 Dec 2008|11:19am] |
When I was a kid we had this big contraption with a 50,000 volt transformer and buzzing neon-like tubes that generated ozone. It was a 'medical' device touted to cure everything from hangnails to cancer. Fortunately I didn't spend too much time with this newfangled gadget so I still have my original lungs. I don't want to appear like some 'neo-Luddite', but I can say from long experience that it is wise to look closely at new technology before diving in head first.
That said...here are a couple interesting looks at the good side of online communication
Study says social networking sites increase productivity...with the usual cautions of course :)
Facebook as a serious communications tool...
"In fact, she and others noticed attendance at Sociology Club meetings was down, but once the Facebook groups were posted, membership and involvement increased."
The article also refers to the advantage of a certain amount of leniency in the workplace, like casual Fridays. The sort of thing that makes people feel 'this is a good place to work'. In my HR management studies a few decades ago I remember coming across a study that showed the same thing with mild employee pilfering. Allowing someone to walk off with a box of pencils now and then can actually pay off for a company.
This article suggests there might be an equal advantage to allowing a certain amount of on the job private Internet access. But it also mentions the problem of abuse. Such things are always a delicate balance and it isn't always easy to see where to draw the line. I have known a number of people who have encountered problems with Internet use in the workplace.
And here is an article which states that, instead of isolating people, the Internet is putting us in touch.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=5a12fd0a-eb12-416d-bfa3-f3016907cdf8
"Wellman said almost all relationships people have online are with those they already know. In fact, he says, it's generally more social people who are greater Internet users."
I have been accused recently of not understanding what REAL people are like because I spend so much time in the make believe world of the internet.
|
|
|
[27 Dec 2008|04:19pm] |
I am curious what people think of the recent suicide web broadcast of Abraham Biggs. Kieth Whitworth of business week wrote "For all this connectivity, the quality and depth of communication has decreased for many young people"
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2008/tc20081219_977572.htm
But is this really an accurate assessment of what is happening or simply kneejerk "blame it on the web" reaction to an unfortunate case? Aside from the fact it was broadcast on the web, did this suicide really have any relation to the web? Were people really acting different than they would have in the "real world"? Are the communications of present day kids really any more superficial than they were 40 years ago?
|
|
|
[27 Dec 2008|02:39pm] |
In the 20+ years I have been building and managing online communities I have had many opportunities to chat candidly with individuals who have caused problems. In many cases they have mentioned that they do not recognize other people online as real people. In 'the real world' this would be considered psychopathic.
With a little experience this behavior is very easy to spot. You can see it even more clearly in 3D communities such as second life. Most people refer to their avatars as 'me' or 'I', as in "I look great in this outfit!" but occasionally you encounter someone who refers to their avatar as 'he' or 'she' or even 'it', as if they are playing with a doll or action figure. These are the individuals I have learned to quickly steer clear of because they almost always deliberately hurt those around them.
This type of 'play' is entirely different from the concept of role playing in such environments. Referring to your avatar as he or she would be a breach of etiquette in most 3D RP communities.
I have often contemplated what cause and effect might be going on here. I tend to think I am simply seeing the normal bell curve of psychopathic behavior online that I see offline. In fact the one or two times I have had the opportunity to know such individuals from online in the real world, they are just as psychopathic there as they are online.
But there also seems to be an element to online communication that is conducive to this. I don't think it there is anything magic about the Internet that will swing someone to the opposite end of the psychopathic bell curve, but could the perceived anonymity of online communication push borderline psychopaths a bit further into that behavior? Does such anonymous communication favor or facilitate psychopathic behavior? I personally don't think the anonymity would matter to them. What do you think?
|
|
| power usurpers |
[26 Dec 2008|12:25pm] |
|
In both online and "real world' communities and organizations I have often seen individuals become key figures not by the quality of their contribution but by quietly running off anyone who might actually do the job better. I have seen cases where there is one honored employee who has stuck with the boss for years while others seem to always quit on him or her. What the boss never realizes is the better people didn't quit. They were driven out by the supposedly dedicated employee. I have seen this especially bad in some open source software programs where there really is no management. Anyone is free to contribute. All you have to do is put up with extreme abuse from a small group of very incompetent hackers who have elbowed their way into the middle of the project. If you complain about anything they are quick to point out that people aren't exactly lining up to help and they have contributed more than anyone. From a management perspective these people can be very hard to spot. They often show a totally different side to their superiors, giving the impression of very nice people and dedicated workers. It is also very easy to get many professionals to leave quietly with a few well placed attacks no one else sees. For most professionals it isn't worth the fight and they really don't want to be part of an organization where people behave like that. So... Have you observed cases like this yourself? What do you watch for to prevent such things happening in your online community or organization? How would you handle a situation like this if you are the one being shoved out? How would you deal with this as a manager who has just discovered it is happening? How would you deal with this in an unmanaged situation such as an opensource project?
|
|
|
[02 Oct 2008|06:02pm] |
Dear colleagues!
What changes in family lifestyle you can mention in the context of spreading PC’s and Internet in past decade? What definitions you can suggest to describe these changes? Can you say that family life has become more routine, various, dynamic, public e t.c. and why. I’m looking forward to all your ideas and suggestions! Thanks!
|
|
| Serial adders |
[08 Jul 2008|03:40pm] |
|
Tell me please people, what it is that serial adders do that's so terrible, that they need banning before they've done anything more than add you to their f/list?
|
|
| Hello everybody! |
[18 May 2008|02:31pm] |
|
Help me please: what distinction between Neighbourhood Groups and Social Networks?
|
|
|
[21 Apr 2008|12:55pm] |
Hi! I'm excited to have found this community because I'm currently working on an undergraduate thesis in Psychology on Motivations of Blogging of Adolescents.
I'm looking at motivation in terms of psychological concepts and theories such as Maslow's theory of motivation and Murray. I was wondering if anyone knows of any related literature...journal articles, websites. Anything would be great and a huge help. :)
|
|
| help! |
[24 Jan 2008|01:41pm] |
|
boys and girls! if you know some new social science researches about communication in internet. could you prompt me, please. something like N. Luhman
|
|
|
[04 Aug 2007|12:03pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 curious |
] |
I've had friends over time who will send an email to update everyone as to what is going on. It is like a newsletter and given that it is sent to approximately 50 recipients isn't "personalised".
I'm curious, if you reasonably regularly received these as the only form of contact with this person, generally speaking would you have more, less or the same inclination to reply than if it was a personalised email?
Poll #1033134
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All Speaking generally, in the above example would you be
(X-Posted to my LJ)
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
2 (1.6%)