SNSs as social learning

boyd, danah & Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1).

Greenhow, C. & Robelia, E. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4). 1130-1161.

danah boyd’s and Nicole Ellison’s paper presents an overview of social network sites from an academic research perspective and offers several frameworks for investigation that are explored in the other articles. The definition is clear-cut and encompasses a variety of sites, some of which (YouTube and flickr) are more object-centric than the ego-centric sites (Facebook and MySpace) typically associated with the term “social network.” boyd argues that a social network site has 3 basic components:

1. a user’s public or semi-public profile
2. an articulated list of other users with whom the user shares a connection
3. the ability to traverse the connections

The brief history of SNSs shows a key development and characteristic of these systems: the explosion of popular use began when MySpace offered users the ability to personalize pages and when Facebook offered outside developers the ability to add applications; both features, now emulated elsewhere, offer users content creation capabilities. An interesting data analysis would map user and message growth over the SNS timeline.

boyd outlines 4 issues discussed in previous research (much of it her own) which raises key questions:

1. Impression management and friendship performance
   • How real are profiles?
   • Facebook “Friends” are not necessarily “friends” but instead offer users an “imagined audience.” Are “Top 10 Friends” real “friends?”
2. Networks and network structure
   • Do “Friends” constitute an alternate “taste” structure or is this view a vestige of the topic-centric CMC world?
   • Why are profile fields that are harder to falsify associated with more “Friends?”
   • Are there additional “types” of users other than passive members, inviters and linkers?
3. Bridging online and offline social networks
   • If SNSs primarily support pre-existing social relations (and I see this replicated in my own house in online games played by my children), what is the importance of strong and weak ties in SNSs (based on Granovetter’s work)?
   • Are SNSs really the digital equivalent of unmediated public spaces (such as drive-ins in the 1960’s and malls in the 1990’s) and if so, how was the creativity associated with SNSs manifested in those older spaces?
4. Privacy
   • To what extent are profiles considered public or private by users?
   • Does peer pressure increase privacy awareness?
   • With a semi-public profile, why do users consider feeds (and following) intrusive?

boyd outlines several areas of future research such as cross-cultural study. In addition, she asks how SNSs might be integrated with formal learning; a parallel question has been raised by George Veletsianos regarding the use of SNSs in the process of academic scholarship.  While both suggestions provide direction for productive study, a more interesting (to me) issue was raised in Greenhow’s article which asks us to consider how SNSs (and other technologies) can move beyond the typical view of media as “curriculum-delivery devices, teaching aids or ‘neutral’ tools.”

Greenhow’s study seems well-designed and includes formal interviews, think-aloud observations and SNS page analysis. While the small size of the study (11) and the geographic focus  (a large metropolitan area) may limit generalization, and while the role of SNSs (emotional support, relational maintenance, and self-presentation) only echoes previous research, Greenhow’s examination of social learning is illuminating. She describes three key findings from her study:

1. Validation of creative work
2. Peer/alumni support (although this seems more of a social role than an academic one)
3. School-task support

The mapping of SNS practice to new literacies is somewhat less successful if only because the case for the literacies is not necessarily universally accepted. At the same time, the findings that creative performances serve as social currency and that students adjust content as well as style based on audience demonstrate that SNSs can be used to develop critical academic skills. The disheartening point is that students see so little connection between their SNS practices and those valued in schools; I think the failing lies with the academy rather than with the practices or the students themselves.