Theme 3: Research and theory (pre seminar)

Theme 3: Research and theory

Journal:

I chose the journal “Social Networks” (impact factor 2.931). It treats the impact of networks and social relations in terms of disciplines related to the subject. It also treats analysis of social behavior and social structure in relation to social networks.

Paper:

 I chose the paper called “Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study” by Petter Bae Brandtzæg. The purpose of this paper was to investigate how SNS (Social networking site) users differ in social capital and also how th social capital differs over time. The meaning of social capital according to this paper is a measurement of Informal sociability, loneliness and bridging social capital. That basically means the amount of offline (face-to-face) interaction with close friends one has, how lonely one feels and how many friends you have (people that you call friend and meet regularly). The study also investigates how different types of SNS users differentiate from each other. The users are categorized into 5 subgroups, sporadics (do not visit SNS very often but occasionally), lurkers (only watch but do not interact), socializers (only visit the SNS to socialize with friends and family), debaters (uploading content and participate in debates and discussions) and advanced users (frequent SNS users with diverse and broad SNS usage).

The research was conducted via a series of survey given out a total of 3 times during a period of 3 years. The sample size was decently large 700-2000 samples but according to me not enough to investigate things as age and gender differences as well as difference between the user groups with an undoubtedly solid conclusion.

The conclusion was fairly well matched with the hypothesis in the cases that SNS user have more face-to-face interactions with close friends and that they have a greater set of friends who they see regularly. However some interesting results were to be found. For example, lurkers and sporadics reported less social capital and male debaters and advanced users reported increasing loneliness!

One thing that I think the study lacks is an evaluation on which personalities tend to become active SNS users and who does not. I think the conclusion can be compromised if you do not take into account that some groups tend to become heavier SNS users than others (for example people with greater social demand). That could mean that already social active people use SNS in a larger degree and   less socially active people do not see the benefits of it. Perhaps a more interesting conclusion could be found if the question was if SNS usage increases social capital(interview people before and after they started using SNS) and not if SNS users have a greater social capital than non SNS users?

I also think that the study should focus more on emphasizing feelings rather than quantitative results (how many face-to-face interactions one has). Do the users feel like they have a greater social capital in terms of feeling socially active, feeling like they have a lot of friends and feeling lonely?

Theory:

Theory is about explaining phenomena that occurs for the purpose of explaining and enhancing our understanding of the world. According to Gregor (2006) he characterizes theory into subgroups, theory of analyzing (how things are), explaining, predicting, analyzing and predicting (EP) and the theory on action and design (how to accomplish tasks). Theory is not data, empirical pattern and hypothesis. These things might be a tool in order to frame theory and knowledge but are not theory in themselves.

I would say the characteristics of the theory used to explain things in my selected paper are to a very large degree from the theory of explaining and predicting (EP). Explaining what the relationship looks like of SNS and non SNS users according to the study. Also explaining and discussing why the results were as they were. The paper included both testable propositions and casual explanations of the result. Predictions were included in terms of explaining previous articles and trying to predict parts of the result in order to formulate hypothesis.

The theory of explaining and predicting was for sure the right was to go for this paper. What we want to know from the conclusion is; what is, how, why, when and where. We also want proof in terms of results conduced from testable propositions with a discussion aiming to explain them.