Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 105

The Role of Facebook in the Lives of Oxford Postgraduates: A Case Study

Elizabeth Ashley Gasten

Dissertation submitted to the University of Oxford in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Educational Research Methodology

September 2008

ABSTRACT
The study presented here examines the use of Facebook, a social networking site, by a group of Oxford postgraduate students. As new internet technologies become an entrenched part of society, with students as dedicated users on the forefront of adoption, understanding the role these technologies play in their lives becomes increasingly important for those who work with them. The aim of this research was to examine how students used Facebook for academic purposes as well as for creating and maintaining social networks, and to explore the impact it had on their sense of community and identity. Underlying these questions is the notion of affordances, offering insights into why these students use this technology in certain ways. Employing a case study approach, the research attempts to explore the topic through a combination of methodologies, with the goal of looking at it from the students own perspective. Questionnaires provided preliminary information and allowed selection of a smaller number of participants for in-depth interviews. A form of virtual ethnography, whereby online spaces were explored post interview to increase understanding, is also included. Findings suggest that, although students saw no place for Facebook in the classroom, it was none the less having a large impact on their university experience. Devoted users of communication technologies, nearly all participants used Facebook intensively. The formation and maintenance of support networks, both of past friends and current peers, was highly important to these students, and something they felt Facebook particularly afforded. They were also highly cognizant of the displays of connection Facebook provided, and manipulated various applications to demonstrate ties and affiliations. In contrast to previous research, this study finds that these students were not overly concerned with overt creation and expression of identity, or with issues of privacy, which they managed through the presentation of limited information and the careful selection of those who viewed their profiles. The value and implications of this study are two-fold. First, it offers insights into how one group of students make social networking a part of their university experience, which, potentially, could be of value to those who work with young people. Secondly, it explores research methods potentially suited to this area, and generates possible themes and hypotheses on which to base further research.

Everything that went into this work is dedicated to the memory of my best friend, who taught me its ok to be yourself, that stubbornness can be a good thing, and to always follow your nose, wherever it may lead you. Thanks, Kerby.

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
I owe thanks to many people for their support over the past year. To my supervisor, John Furlong, for his constant support and feedback, and for continually opening my mind to new dimensions. To Russell Francis for his contagious enthusiasm on the subject. To many other members of the Department of Education; Chris Davies for his continual support of my interest in learning technologies, Ingrid Lunt, Geoffrey Walford, Geoff Hayward, and Maria Evangelou for their invaluable teachings and feedback throughout the programme To my parents, for the unconditional support of an unconventional daughter. To Chris Pearson who showed me that I both could and should go back to school. And to all my friends, for their help with my research and their help in polishing off a pint. And to Adam Shaw, for continually making my world a brighter, if somewhat more bizarre, place.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction................................................................................1 II. Review of the Literature............................................................4 The New Internet...............................................................4 Social Software...................................................................5 Facebook............................................................................7 Themes in the Research.....................................................9 III. Questions Driving the Study....................................................19 IV. Methodology...........................................................................21 Data Collection Tools........................................................23 Participant Selection.........................................................26 Gathering Data..................................................................30 Data Analysis.....................................................................32 Ethical Considerations.......................................................35 Strengths and Limitations.................................................37 V. Findings.....................................................................................39 Findings from the Questionnaire......................................39 Findings from Interviews and Virtual Ethnographies.......44 VI. Discussion.................................................................................55 Research Questions and Literature...................................55 Implications and Directions for Future Work....................61 Bibliography ..................................................................................66

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Appendix 2: Interview Guide Appendix 3: Completed CUREC Approval Appendix 4: Participant Information and Informed Consent Appendix 5: Information Presented on a Facebook Profile

TABLES AND FIGURES


Table 1. Overview of applications and ideas inherent in Web 2.0 Table 2. Demographic characteristics of students participating in the study Table. 3 Summary of interview participants Table 4. Time spent engaged in types of activity online Table 5: Number of students reporting using various tools for communication Table 6. Use of Facebook features Table 7. Students attitudes towards Facebook Table 8. Coding scheme for interview transcripts

Figure 1. Timeline of the introduction of various social networking sites Figure 2. Example of a Facebook profile Figure 3. Percentage of students indicating amount of time spent online per day Figure 4. Wall posts showing progression of information exchanged

I. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been astronomical growth in the number of people connecting to and actively using the internet. For students in particular it has become an entrenched part of daily life. Todays university students come equipped with desktop and laptop computers, mobile phones, iPods, GPS systems, and a seemingly endless supply of other technologies. As mobile computing and wireless internet develop to meet consumer demands, it is these students who are on the forefront of adoption; the idea of ubiquitous wireless access through laptops or mobile phones is one they are quickly embracing. It is obvious that these ideas and technologies are becoming incorporated within the mundane realities of everyday life (Beer and Burrows 2007). This paradigm shift has potentially huge implications for the next generation, and for the people and institutions that engage with these youths. Social networking software is one internet application that has become particularly popular among university students. In most cases, social networking is a web based service, whose inherent features allow users to: ...construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within this system (boyd & Ellison 2007: 211). Within the sphere of social networking, one particular site, Facebook, has emerged as the most popular, with over 90% of university students maintaining a profile on the site (Ellison et al. 2006). This ubiquity of use makes it clear that Facebook has become an important part of students lives, and as such, the potential impact on education is enormous. Within Facebook, the interaction of various types of media makes it a powerful form of communication. The ability to develop networks and affinity Page | 1

groups, exchange personal and public messages, and adopt applications to meet specific requirements gives Facebook the potential to fulfil many different needs and students are quickly recognizing these affordances. Despite the near ubiquitous presence of Facebook in the lives of todays students, research in the area of social networking is still in the most nascent of stages. In this thesis I will argue, through a discussion of literature and a small scale case study, the importance of coming to understand how and why Facebook is being so highly utilised by students. The research I conducted explored the experience of one group of postgraduate students at the University of Oxford who are high level users of Facebook. Employing a case study methodology, and using questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and a form of virtual ethnography, this research examines how these students are using Facebook, their feelings and attitudes towards it, and begins to consider why this tool has become so important in their lives. The impetus for this research comes from two main areas. The first is a personal interest in both emerging technologies and the role they play in students lives. As a teacher and as a student, I was very aware of the fact that students were quick to embrace social networking technologies. It became apparent to me that the amount of time devoted to online interaction meant that this was something important to the student experience, especially as many students seemed to join Facebook at the urging of their peers. The second reason I chose to conduct research in this area was due to the gap I perceived in the literature surrounding Facebook. As will be discussed in the literature review, though there are several studies that look at adoption rates or privacy issues, there are very few studies that explore Facebook from the point of view of the student. I believe this is of utmost importance in beginning to understand how Facebook is impacting students lives and university experiences.

Page | 2

This dissertation is meant to form a preliminary study, exploring methodologies and generating possible hypotheses for use in my proposed doctoral research. As this is a new and rapidly developing field, data and methodological strategies are continually emerging and being refined. I feel that the novel combination of methods I use in this study, combining elements of Learner Experience methodology, a case study approach, and a form of virtual ethnography, may suggest a strategy particularly suited to this area, or, equally as valuably, suggest which methods may not be appropriate. Further to this, I hope to begin to contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of social networking. I believe that the data I generate, though limited in scope and generalisability, may suggest theories worthy of future study. Chapter two presents a review of literature surrounding the topic. Starting with an overview of the technologies involved, it then explores themes that emerged from the empirical research conducted into social networking. The questions on which the current study are based are presented in chapter three. A detailed explanation of the methodology used , including specific instruments and justifications for their choice are presented in chapter three. With this is a discussion of the ethical considerations surrounding the chosen methods, and an analysis of possible strengths and limitations of the study. Findings are presented in chapter five, and discussed in chapter six. Within the discussion, the relation of the findings to the literature and to the research questions will be explained, and possible implications and directions for future work will be examined.

Page | 3

II.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The New Internet The recent massive adoption of internet technologies (Madden and Fox 2006) has coincided with a shift in the nature of the internet; the rise of the new, so called, Web 2.0. The term Web 2.0 is generally attributed to Tim OReilly, whose definition is based on ideas such as . . . consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an architecture of participation (OReilly 2005: Online). One of the key principles of Web 2.0 is that, although it is inherently tied to the development of hardware and networking, it is more a revolution of ideas, processes, and applications. Laying the foundation for this was the move from a static, read-only web, to a new read/write web, exemplified by applications such as social software, wikis, blogs, and mash-ups (Alexander 2006). In a report commissioned by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), Anderson (2007) gives a comprehensive overview of both the technologies implicit in, and the big ideas behind, Web 2.0 (Table 1). Key Applications blogs wikis tagging and social bookmarking multimedia sharing audio blogging and podcasting RSS and syndication Big Ideas user generated content the power of the crowd data of epic scale architecture of participation network effects openness of information

Table 1. Andersons overview of applications and ideas inherent in Web 2.0 The ideas of user generated content and architectures of participation appear to be foundational parts of the new web (see, for example, Brey 2005 or Hilton 2006). What has catapulted Web 2.0 from being purely a technical development to a near societal Page | 4

revolution has been the transference of these ideas into mainstream culture. Media theorist Henry Jenkins uses the term participatory culture to encapsulate these ideas: A participatory culture is a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing ones creations...one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created). (Jenkins et al. 2006: Online)

Students are one group with a particularly high level of participation in Web 2.0, so much so that it has potentially huge impact for the people that work with them. Hartman et al. (2007) look at the increasing move towards learner centred pedagogy, pointing out that this shift in modes of participation in education is forcing university faculty to evolve along with the internet or face becoming extinct. An interesting, if slightly farfetched article by Barnes and Tynan(2007) takes a speculative fiction approach in tracking the life of a student in the near future, showing how new Web 2.0 technologies could be used not just to support traditional teaching, but to completely change the way universities operate. And Hilton (2006) looks at the disruptions these new ideas are having on higher education, asking whether they present a sunrise or perfect storm. Whichever view we take, it is essential that research around this area is conducted to allow us to both examine the ways students are internalising these new concepts, and how they are using both the ideas and the technologies to enhance their educational experience.

Social Software While Web 2.0 is comprised of a range of applications, one specific type, social software, has generated particular amounts of interest; from users, the media, and the public in general. The term social software was first coined by Shirky (2003) to refer to all uses of software that supported interacting groups. Further to this, Coates (2005) considers social software as software which supports, extends, or derives added value Page | 5

from human social behaviour message boards, musical taste sharing, photo sharing, instant messaging, mailing lists, social networking. While these definitions give a snapshot of both practices and technologies inherent in social software, boyd (2007) perhaps captures the wider picture with her comment that social software is about a movement, not simply a category of technologies. This idea fits neatly into the paradigm of the new web evolving from ideas rather than hardware. When speaking colloquially of social software, most people are referring to a specific subset of social software applications. Though the precise nomenclature has been debated (boyd & Ellison 2007, Beer 2008), the term social networking site (SNS) is what is generally used to describe these applications. Such sites are the most common method of putting ones self on the internet, and often serve as a portal for the presentation of self online. Their popularity has made them prominent in the media and it seems rare today to find people who arent at least somewhat familiar with sites such as Facebook or MySpace. With the first primitive examples of these sites being released in 2000, social networking software is still a relatively new phenomenon. Figure 1. gives an overview of SNSs and their release dates.

Fig. 1. Timeline of the introduction of various social networking sites (boyd & Ellison 2007) For a phenomenon with a relatively short history, the uptake and adoption rate of these applications has been astounding. A recent study by Ofcom (2008) found that 22% of adult internet users in the UK over age 16 have set up their own profile on at least one social networking site. This translates to nearly 8.5 million users, as reported by the Guardian (Sweeny 2008). And users access these sites fairly frequently, with 87% logging on at least once a week, and half at least every other day. The entrenchment of this Page | 6

technology into the daily lives of so many has potentially massive implications for society. As boyd (2007) says, it is altering the organisation of social life. And as we move into an age where young people have grown up with online social networking as part of the cultural mainstream, this new organisation of social life will move toward becoming a societal norm.

Facebook Although there are a plethora of social networking sites, certain ones have achieved a much higher level of prominence than others. The two most highly utilised SNS sites are Facebook and MySpace (Ofcom 2008). Although these sites have similar features (profiles, lists of connections, various methods of interaction, the ability to share media, etc) most users seem to choose one over the other. The choice of a location for ones primary social networking profile seems to be influenced by many factors, including age (MySpace is popular with younger users, Facebook with a more mature audience) and geographic location (MySpace shows a higher proportion of users in the United States, while Facebook has a higher proportion in the UK) (Ofcom 2008). As this present study is being conducted in the UK with users over 18 years of age it seems rational to use Facebook as the primary example of a social networking site. For those not familiar with Facebook, Golder et al.(2007) provides a detailed overview. Briefly, Facebook users create a profile, filling in a framework with contact details, interests, and a picture of ones self. The networking side comes through the addition of friends; users friend other users, creating inter-linked social networks. Friends can view each others profiles, and interact in many ways: public asynchronous chat via the wall, private messages, and pokeing are examples. In addition to profiles, Facebook supports groups where users with similar interests can interact, and events Page | 7

which usually promote offline gatherings. Recently, the expansion of Facebook to include applications and chat functionality has expanded the possibilities of use. Chat allows real time, synchronous discourse between users. Applications are small programs embedded into ones page, and have been developed for every possible desire one could have; from virtual bookshelves, to quizzes, to growing computer generated plants. Figure 2 provides an example of a Facebook profile main page.

Fig. 2. An example of a Facebook profile In the UK, Facebook has the highest rate of adoption of any social networking site. Of SNS users, 62% maintain a profile on Facebook (Ofcom 2008). One demographic with a particularly high rate of participation is university students, who have quickly embraced Facebook, adopting the technology in huge numbers. Various studies quote consistently high percentages of student users: 85% (Stutzman 2006), 90% (Golder et al. 2007), 94% (Ellison et al. 2006). Although these studies make a clear point about the important role

Page | 8

Facebook is playing in the lives of students, they fail to examine why this may be so; what particularly it is about Facebook that makes it such a highly utilised application. Themes In The Research Although the presence of Facebook in students lives is clearly recognized, research into why this may be is still in its infancy. Large scale empirical studies have lookied at such things as rates of adoption (Stutzman 2006), use in academia (Selwyn 2007), size of networks (Lampe et al. 2006), and user demographics (Baron 2007). Though this type of information is useful in generating statistics, it fails to delve to the level of understanding of the phenomenon required to assess, and possibly make use of, the impact it is having on students. A number of themes seem to guide the more detailed studies and writings in this area: the potential impact on education, the formation and presentation of identity, the development of online networks, the relation between online and offline worlds, and issues of privacy and safety. Academic Relevance In what are mainly theoretical musings rather than empirical studies, a few authors have focused specifically on the implications of Facebook in education. Bugeja (2006) looks at Facebook from the viewpoint of a professor, discussing the potential challenges faced by academics in relating to and engaging students who are such high level users of these new technologies. He specifically mentions the distractions that can occur when technology is used as a learning tool, and the issue of disclosure of private information that can detrimentally affect students identities as serious learners. On the more positive side, he also argues that Facebook can promote critical thinking in learners about their learning, and therefore, if used properly, may help engage students in the academic experience. A slightly more practical article is presented by Berg et al. (2007) Page | 9

who examine the ways in which the multi-functionality of social networking sites could be appropriated by universities in order to offer services to students, both academic and supportive, in ways that would perhaps better engage them. This view is taken even further by Selwyn (2007) who believes that this technology not only could, but needs to be incorporated into higher education, encouraging a radical overall and wholesale restructuring of universities and university education. Along with theorising, Selwyn has also conducted empirical research into the use of Facebook in universities. He completed a large scale study of undergraduates, looking at how Facebook is being used to support academic work (2007). In an analysis of wall postings, he found, not surprisingly, only 4% were directly related to academic studies. Of this small number, he defined five themes: recounting and reflecting on university experience, the exchange of logistical information, the exchange of academic information, displays of disengagement with studies, and what he descriptively calls banter. While making an interesting point about Facebook having more of a role in social support rather than a direct relation to academic study, the large scale quantitative nature of this research (data mining from nearly 70 000 wall posts) fails to create a picture of why this may be so. The place of Facebook in education, especially in negotiating the divide between students and educators, was explored in an interesting experiment conducted by Mazer et al. (2007). Their work examined how the amount and type of disclosure of personal information on a Facebook profile affected students opinions of their instructors. Generally, participants judged profiles with high disclosure as the teacher that would provide higher levels of motivation and a more positive environment. However, in

Page | 10

answer to more open ended questions, participants expressed the view that having a high level of personal disclosure on Facebook may impair a teachers credibility. Identity One aspect of Facebook is that users must create and present an identity (profile) as a prerequisite of adoption of the application. Much of the related literature traces back to the notion of presentation of self, introduced by Erving Goffman (1959). Goffman uses the metaphor of the stage, arguing that people present themselves, either consciously or not, in a variety of roles dependent on the audience and the context. Certain characteristics may be emphasized or hidden in order to convey the desired impression. On Facebook, users can manipulate the information they share in a variety of fields, continually refining their on-line selves. How users do this has spawned a fair bit of research, undertaken in various ways and looking at different aspects of identity creation. The deterministic quality of self presentation on line is nicely summed up by boyd (2008): One cannot simply be online; one must make ones presence visible through explicit and structured actions. Though the vast majority of her research has revolved around one small scale ethnographic examination of early adopters of the site Friendster, boyd has produced copious writing related to social networking. One point she makes repeatedly is the mediated nature of sites like Facebook; ones online identity must be created within the structures imposed by the site. Rather than simply reflect presentation of self in everyday life, online communities evolve their own contexts which mediate the performance of identity, shaping how users are both able, and how they choose, to present themselves.

Page | 11

Baron (2007) conducted a small scale survey of 60 undergraduates, presenting a descriptive study of how users present themselves through Facebook and instant messaging. Along with demographic information, she specifically, she looks at how self is presented through the use of status updates on instant messenger software. Somewhat unfortunately, she doesnt expand this to examine the use of status updates on Facebook, which would seem to be a similar method of presentation. The important point she does conclude is that ones identity on Facebook can be more an expression of who one wants to be rather than whom one really is. This idea is taken up by Zhao, Grasmuck, and Martin who argue: ... Facebook identities were not the identities users established in the offline world, nor were they close to the identities users would construct in a more anonymous online environment; rather, they were the hoped-for possible identities users would like to, but have not yet, been able to, establish in the offline world. (Zhao et al. 2008: 1834) Their study looked at the profiles of 63 undergraduate students, analysing the information shared in certain fields, and using this to make judgements regarding the identities created by the users. They conclude that all users attempt to project a socially desirable self, emphasising traits such as popularity, well roundedness, and thoughtfulness. They also make the point that, in this type of presentation, most users claim their identities implicitly rather than explicitly, using photographs, quotes, and group/friend affiliations to aid in their construction of self. Though they generate a fair bit of interesting data, the subjective nature of their interpretations impairs the credibility of the study. Simply assuming certain photographs, quotes, or listed characteristics are selected to convey certain impressions could be specious; following up these assumptions by conducting interviews with participants could help validate their findings.

Page | 12

One emergent theme in relation to identity creation is the problem users face in knowing precisely to whom they are presenting themselves. Audience members will change over time, especially as the users life situation and offline networks shift. As boyd & Heer (2006) describe, Projections into the persistent digital public are accessible to anyone present now or later. Thus even if one can evaluate the audience at a given time, it is impossible to gauge future potential audiences. How this fluidity can serve as a positive influence on shaping a persons online identity, or as a challenge to be overcome, is an interesting area for continued research. Networking The networking aspect of social networking software comes from the creation of ties to other users; on Facebook, these are known as friends. Although the term friend connotes a relatively close relationship in the offline world, online friends may range from close confidants to people never met in person, with some users often having tens of thousands of online friends. As boyd (2004) discusses, friendship online doesnt truly imply closeness or trust, rather a somewhat specious, though publicly articulated, display of connection. These displays of connection are the subject of both theoretical exploration and some empirical research, often considering the ways software can mediate relationships. Early in the evolution of social networking sites, Donath and boyd (2004) introduce the idea of public displays of connection, describing how networks online grow as friends recruit friends, articulating these links in a visible public manner. They regard these online social networks as having similarities to more traditional offline networks :

Page | 13

sources of emotional and financial support, and of information about jobs, other people, and the world at large...[they] have a profound effect on the way people work, the opportunities they have, and the structure of their daily life. (Donath & boyd 2004: 71) As online communication grows, the construction of these networks is increasingly being conducted online through computer mediated environments. Donath and boyd use signalling theory as a lens to focus their discussion, noting that visible signals are often correlated with specific underlying characteristics, and this is especially true in the online environment, which lacks many of the possible signalling devices found in face to face communication. From this they conclude that online, these public displays of connection help to both ensure honest self presentation and reassure others of the reliability of signals, as ones connections are linked to ones profile; they have both seen it and, implicitly, sanctioned it (2004). However, the question of how these newly formed online networks will, or even can serve the same purposes as offline social networks, is one that is just starting to be recognised and addressed. One theme emerging within this area is the lack of distinction made between Facebook friends; it is impossible to know how close a relationship exists simply based on a friend link. As links between friends on Facebook are unnuanced and decontextualized (Donath and boyd 2004) it is important look further than simple friend connections to establish the relationships between users. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2006) undertook a large survey study looking at how students use of Facebook relates to social capital. They discuss the difference between bridging social capital (weaker ties based on acquaintanceship) and bonding social capital (stronger ties which imply a close mutual relationship). By measuring intensity of Facebook use through number of friends and time spent online, and correlating this with measures of attitude both towards Facebook and college experience in general, they conclude that social networking sites can increase Page | 14

social capital, especially the weaker ties inherent in bridging social capital. This isnt a revolutionary idea; the very nature of Facebook in sharing basic information with a large number of people can easily be seen to lead towards the establishment of a loose network of acquaintanceship. Golder, Wilkinson, and Huberman (2007) examined how often online friends truly interacted, undertaking a prodigious study which looked at messages and pokes exchanged between nearly 4.2 million users at 496 universities in North America over a two year period. They posited that the exchange of messages or pokes represented a higher investment than simply friending someone, and was an active, socially meaningful gesture. Not surprisingly, they found that only 15% of friend dyads actually exchanged messages, and that factors such as being at the same school or being established friend pairs increased the likelihood of reciprocal exchanges. Unfortunately, these large scale studies seem to be the only examination into the types of connections afforded by social software; as Ellison et al. (2006) stress, there is little academic work examining online social networks. Further, Donath (2008) raises an important question, asking if this formation of many weak links will eventually shift peoples social world form one focused on a few important relationships to one consisting of an immense number of weak relationships. It is these types of questions, looking at how social networking software could fundamentally impact the culture of the next generation, which deserve closer examination. Offline to Online Closely tied to the discussion of the formation of online networks is the question of how these connections relate to offline relationships. Although in the past many have regarded the internet as a way of meeting new people, research findings seem to suggest Page | 15

that most users see Facebook as a way to enhance relationships established offline, and tend to friend people they already know from other contexts (see, for example, Selwyn 2007). Boyds (2008) discussions also touch on this topic, and her ideas of a collapsing of contextual boundaries in which an online profile has to be tailored for presentation to widely varied offline contacts neatly sums up some of the problems inherent in the merging of these two different worlds. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampes (2007) work also moves into this area; the concept of creating social capital online that is then used to enhance offline life reflects these overlapping boundaries. One of their key findings is that students view the primary audience for their profile to be people with whom they share an offline connection. They go on to say that participants overwhelmingly used Facebook to keep in touch with old friends and to maintain or intensify relationships characterised by some form of offline connection. The large scale study commissioned by Ofcom (2008) also defined three main motivations for using Facebook, all of which involved offline relationships: keeping in touch with peers, linking up with old friends, and managing existing relationships. What may be interesting is to follow this up with an examination of which offline contacts students put forth effort into developing or maintain relationships with, and what features of Facebook help them to do so. In the early days of the internet, most authors were engaged in exploring the differences between the online and offline world. Turkle (1996) spends a great deal of time describing the differences in identity and interaction seen in the real versus the online world. The media also plays up this stereotype, with examples of people meeting online who are then disappointed in what they find when they eventually meet in real life. However, it seems that the generation of users who have embraced social Page | 16

networking have chosen not to fall into this pattern, and are instead integrating the two worlds into one. How seamlessly this is, or can be, done is definitely an interesting future topic. Privacy Social networking sites are inherently public spaces. You would be hard pressed these days not to have heard of or engaged in the debates that rage around the issue of privacy and security inherent in putting oneself online. The media seem to have a fascination with the area, with everyone from the New York Times to Cosmo magazine producing some sort of story. And yet, when looked at through well designed research, it seems this may all be a sort of overblown fear mongering. Although nearly all of the studies that look at Facebook use inevitably contain questions on issues of privacy and security (Selwyn 2007, Mazer et al. 2007, Joinson 2008 for example), few seem to find it an issue needing deeper study, especially when the users are adults competent enough to make informed choices. And they do; today, most users of social network sites seem to understand the risks inherent in their behaviour, make choices accordingly, and are accepting of the consequences. One of the first and most widely cited studies of privacy concerns on Facebook comes from Acquisti and Gross (2006). They surveyed students at one American university, combining this with data mined from profiles. They found that, although most students claimed to have a high level of privacy concerns, and most knew that settings to manage profile visibility existed, they did not use a great number of strategies to restrict the data visible on their Facebook profile. Instead, they chose to control the information they shared. Interestingly, students also explained that a social network was based on the idea of information sharing, with privacy concerns being overridden by the need to Page | 17

share ...enough information so that necessary/useful to me and other people to benefit from Facebook. It is important to keep in mind that, at the time this study was conducted, Facebook networks were clearly delineated; only members of certain universities could have a profile, and it could therefore be assumed that the majority of those with access to ones profile were of a similar peer group. As Facebook has expanded and profiles are now available to anyone, it is likely that attitudes may have shifted somewhat. boyd (2008), in an article reflecting on this point, suggestively entitled Facebooks Privacy Trainwreck, discussed how the expansion of Facebook beyond the college community, and concurrent change in site features, led to a backlash of users against the site. Suddenly people became more aware of the information they were projecting. Facebook was quick to respond with increased levels of privacy settings, a trend that has continued as the site continually seems to offer more ways to control who has access to different parts of ones profile. Although this area of privacy and security is highly charged and integral to the continued prominence of Facebook, affecting how users choose to portray themselves and interact online, I felt it far too large to be adequately addressed in this small scale study. Instead, I chose to examine how and why students use Facebook, with the belief that privacy concerns, if valid, would emerge through these topics.

Page | 18

III. QUESTIONS DRIVING THE STUDY


After reviewing recent work in this area, the need for further research that starts to describe and explain the role that social networking software is taking in the lives of students becomes apparent. Particularly, there seems to be a paucity of studies examining the phenomenon from the students own viewpoint. The need for studies that allow students to share their experiences, motivations, and perceptions relating to the role of technologies in their lives has recently been identified (Mayes 2006). Such studies, valuable in their own right, also provide a new platform of understanding on which further research can be developed. This present research aims to begin to fulfil this need, with a study that looks at the ways in which students have appropriated Facebook in order to enhance their university experience, and explores their perceptions, experiences, and responses to this phenomenon. The research questions guiding the study are: What is the experience of Oxford university postgraduates using Facebook? o How is Facebook affecting these students academic work? o How is Facebook affecting these students social support systems? o How is Facebook affecting these students sense of identity? The meta question allows me to examine the students experience and voice, looking at how they are using Facebook, and at their beliefs, motivations, and rationalisations surrounding it. The first sub-question is designed to explore if students feel there is any impact, positive or negative, of Facebook on their actual studies. The second subquestion explores the social aspect of social networking. The development of online communities has changed the way people relate, and has provided a new forum for presentation of self. How this has affected students experiences of the university Page | 19

experience is an area in need of further understanding. The third sub-question looks at how on-line presentation of self is affecting students perceptions of their identity and what strategies they employ to manage how others perceive them. Woven throughout these questions in my study is the idea of affordance; what particularly is it about Facebook that has caused these students to adopt it in such large numbers, and what other forms of technology, communication, and interpersonal relations has it replaced in their lives.

Page | 20

IV. METHODOLOGY
The essence of good research design is that the methods employed must be appropriate to the questions asked (Robson 2002). This chapter will present the questions driving the research, and describe the methodology employed in this study. A description of these methods will be given, along with justification for these choices. Selection of a site and the recruitment of participants will be discussed, as will the particular strategies and instruments employed in data collection. Methods of data analysis will be explained. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the ethical considerations surrounding this project and reflection on the accuracy and trustworthiness of the data obtained. In an area of study as novel and evolving as this, the researcher has the flexibility, even a mandate, to explore the phenomenon from different perspectives using different methodologies. As described in the literature review, there have been a variety of different approaches taken to the study of social networking software, especially with the overlap of disciplines involved, making this area currently particularly methodologically rich. Studies from anthropologists and sociologists often use ethnographic methods with participant observers becoming members and spending time interacting in online communities (boyd 2004). Those from a technical background employ quasi-experiments and examinations of the affordances of software architectures (Mazer Murphys and Simonds 2007). And many researchers base their work on wide scale surveys, yielding reams of seemingly similar numerical data (Selwyn 2007, Stutzman 2006). This lack of prescription allows the researcher some degree of freedom and innovation with their choice of method.

Page | 21

The intent of this study was to examine the role of Facebook in the lives of students, looking specifically at their experiences and reflections. For this, a research design based mainly on qualitative strategies seemed most appropriate, as, according to Punch (2005), qualitative strategies have the advantage of capturing the lived experience of the participants. Merriam states that case studies are a particularly suitable methodology for... extending the knowledge base of various aspects of education...these problems in which understanding is sought in order to improve practice. (1988, xiii). As one of the foci of this study is on understanding the phenomenon of Facebook from the viewpoint of the users, I felt a case study approach particularly suited to this research. Also influential on the design of my study was Learner Experience methodology. Recently, JISC published a study entitled LEX: The Learners Experience of e-Learning (Mayes 2006). Their detailed methodology report described practices of data collection that develop a holistic picture of the learner, and allow the learners voice to be heard. They offer six guiding principles for such a learner centred methodology: open ended methods mixed mode triangulated access beliefs , explanations, and intentions talk about learning with students authentic contexts

They suggest that these principles are best met through naturalistic data collection strategies, including in-depth interviews using artefacts or activities to guide responses. Case studies have a unique strength in being able to deal with a variety of evidence (Yin 2003). Using the strategies suggested by the learner experience methodology within a case study approach would provide the sort of rich understanding of the experiences of these particular students which I hoped to gain. I chose three specific methods of data collection: questionnaires, in-depth interviews conducted while viewing the students Page | 22

Facebook profiles, and a type of retrospective virtual ethnography (Francis 2007) in which I explored participants Facebook profiles myself after conducting interviews. Each of these methods will be discussed further below. The benefits of using multiple, varied strategies of data collection is reinforced by several authors in their discussions of the advantages of mixed method designs. Hammersley and Atkinson(2007) discuss three approaches to multi method research: use of different types of data to triangulate findings, using one strategy to facilitate research using a second strategy, and using two strategies in different aspects of the research to complement each other. The practical advantages of all three of these approaches became increasingly clear as my study progressed and, using this guidance, I was able to draw on the various types of data generated to create a detailed and holistic picture of the role Facebook was taking in the lives of my participants. Data Collection Tools Questionnaires I chose to begin my research with the use of a questionnaire for three primary reasons. First was to provide basic demographic information on participants, and to gain an overview of how these students used a variety of modern technologies, including social networking software. I felt this important, as with a questionnaire I could gather data from many more students than I could complete in depth interviews with. Robson (2002) corroborates this point, in discussing how questionnaires are a relatively straightforward way to study attitudes and beliefs, that they are highly standardised, and they can easily generate data from a large number of individuals. The second purpose of the questionnaire built upon this feature of standardised data. I used comparisons between participants to select interviewees (as will be discussed under Participant Page | 23

Selection below.) The final purpose of the questionnaire was to provide slightly more detailed information on students use of, and attitudes towards, Facebook which could then be used to formulate some tentative preliminary hypotheses and to guide the development of questions to be used during interviews. The questionnaire I employed had three main sections: basic demographic information, questions on participants use of technologies, and a specific section on participants use of, and attitudes towards, Facebook. The design, layout, and content were created with reference to several sources in regards to what constitutes an effective questionnaire (see, for example, Converse and Presser (1986), De Vaus (1991) or Robson (2002) ). For the most part, participants were asked to select from answers provided; lists of possible technologies or interval scales delimitating time periods where appropriate. This was done for two reasons; to ensure that responses were standardised, permitting some between subject comparisons to be carried out, and in consideration of the time required to complete the questionnaire, with the knowledge that more in-depth responses could be elicited during interviews. Attitudes towards Facebook and social networking were measured using a Likert type scale, asking students to tick boxes they felt best described their viewpoint. Areas such as the use of Facebook to make or maintain friendships, attitudes towards privacy, and the place of Facebook in college life were addressed in this section. The questionnaire is presented in its entirety in Appendix 1. Interviews The primary method of data collection in this study was the in-depth interview. Kvale (1996) states that interviews attempt to understand the world from the subjects point of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples experiences, to uncover their lived Page | 24

world. This idea, central to the learner experience methodology as well, a fits closely with the research questions driving my study, and my desire to understand students perspectives on the role of Facebook in their lives. I chose to use lightly structured, in-depth interviews. A brief list of questions was used to guide the interview (see Appendix 2). Employing a guide ensured that I addressed the key points I wished to in each interview, and allowed a slight degree of standardisation and comparison to be drawn between participants. However, within each interview, I was particularly careful to follow up topics that seemed particularly relevant, or particularly interesting, to the participant; a key point in understanding personal experience. This is a distinct advantage of such open ended interviews; as May states, it allows the meanings that individuals attribute to events and relationships to be understood on their own terms... it thereby provides a greater understanding of the subjects point of view.(2001: 120) This was highly observable in my interviews, as several participants chose to speak in-depth about aspects of the experience with Facebook that I had not previously expected, and many of the themes that emerged in my findings came from these parts of the interviews. Virtual Ethnography In a study such as this, where there is emphasis on methodological exploration and developing directions for future work as well as on answering the questions posed, employing a design that is flexible and open to amendment throughout the research process is invaluable (Robson 2002). As my data collection and analysis progressed, I found myself frequently viewing the Facebook profiles of participants, in order to clarify a point made during an interview or to see if an emergent theory was supported by this documentary evidence. Hine (2000) has employed the term virtual ethnography to Page | 25

describe the study of internet spaces as cultures or cultural artefact. Her description of virtual ethnography as a methodology moves far deeper into the ethnographic tradition than my study has, particularly as she discussed how researchers can become active members of specific online communities, while I used profiles more as a sort of documentary evidence. Building on Hines work, Francis (2007) uses the term retrospective virtual ethnography to particularly describe exploring online spaces (such as Facebook profiles and networks) after completing interviews, with the intention of adding understanding to data gathered in the interview. These emergent and evolving strategies have promise in becoming useful methods of data collection for research in this area. Participant Selection In qualitative research, the basic ideas behind the sampling strategies vary considerably, and reflect the purposes and questions guiding the study. (Punch 2005: 187). This statement provides researchers with the flexibility to choose settings, cases, and participants for qualitative research in a manner that is logically derived from the purposes of their study. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) also suggest the need for pragmatism in selection of site. Within the case study methodology, the case needs to be defined as a bounded system. This can take many forms: an individual, social group, organisation, role, nation or event (Davies 2007). Bassey (1999) describes types of case studies suited to educational research. His category theory-seeking and theory-testing (corresponding to Stakes (1995) instrumental case study, or Yins (2003) exploratory case study) focuses on an issue, with the particular case chosen as it is expected to be both demonstrative of and in some ways typical of other similar cases. As my intentions were to examine Facebook use among Oxford postgraduates, choosing one specific Oxford Page | 26

postgraduate college formed a well bounded case. I chose Linacre College for several reasons, resulting from, and even helping to generate, the research questions of my study. As a member of this group myself, I could not help but observe the vast proliferation of Facebook into the lives of Linacre students. I felt this group of highly educated, well resourced, and technologically proficient students would make a good selection for an examination of Facebook. As well, as a member of the college, I knew I would be able to recruit participants, and to select certain students whom I knew were using Facebook in interesting ways. Stakes comments on case selection seem particularly supportive of this choice of case: My choice would be to examine that case from which we feel we can learn the most. That may mean taking the one most accessible or the one we can spend the most time with. Potential for learning is a different and sometimes superior criterion to representativeness (2005, p. 451).

Within Linacre College, I went about recruiting participants through a combination of self selected and snowball sampling. First, I emailed the population of the college asking for volunteers to take part in the study. I provided a brief outline of the project, detailing what involvement would require. I had a target of obtaining twenty five participants for the survey. From the email request, I had sixteen respondents express a desire to participate. The further nine students were recruited in person, through my requesting their participation, or through asking students to provide the names of others who may be interested in the project, or who were known to use Facebook in interesting ways. Though I had no thoughts of generating a representative sample, I did give consideration to gender, age, area of study, and degree type when recruiting participants, aiming for a sample that varied across these areas. Table 2 below provides a brief demographic outline of the students who completed the questionnaire. Page | 27

Gender Age Degree Type Area of Study 1 F 23 M. Phil Linguistics and Philology 2 F 26 M. Sc Visual Anthropology 3 M 25 D. Phil Material Science 4 F 24 M. Sc Social Anthropology 5 F 24 D. Phil Plant Sciences 6 M 25 D. Phil Clinical Medicine 7 M 28 M. Sc Forced Migration 8 F 30 D. Phil Neuroscience 9 M 34 M. Phil Development Studies 10 F 27 D. Phil Clinical Psychology 11 M 37 D. Phil Clinical Medicine 12 M 29 D. Phil Oriental Studies 13 M 24 D. Phil Medicinal Chemistry 14 M 27 D. Phil English 15 M 28 D. Phil Neuroscience 16 F 30 D. Phil Microbiology 17 M 32 D. Phil Chemistry 18 F 26 D. Phil Immunology 19 F 24 D. Phil Physiology 20 F 33 D. Phil Sociology 21 M 25 M.B.A Business 22 M 31 M. Sc Environmental Change and Management 23 M 24 D. Phil Biology 24 F 26 D. Phil Inorganic Chemistry 25 F 27 D. Phil Pharmacology Table 2. Demographic characteristics of students participating in the study. One of the functions of the questionnaire was to provide a basis on which to select participants for interviews. Selection here was purposive. Rapely (2004) suggests four guidelines when choosing interviewees: finding knowledgeable informants, getting a range of views, testing emerging themes, and extending results. I chose students who seemed to use Facebook in different ways, and who displayed a variety of different attitudes towards Facebook. As the interviews progressed, I began to choose interviewees based somewhat on the data I had already gathered, using the questionnaire data to select participants who could provide data particularly relevant to emergent theories. I began with a target of completing ten interviews. However, as I began conducting the interviews, I found them to be much more in-depth, longer, and Page | 28

comprehensive than expected. Following the principle of not collecting more data than you can analyse (Bassey 1999) I chose to complete eight interviews. Table 3 below presents a summary of the interview participants. Name Age Gender F Area of Study Linguistics and Philology Degree Type M. Phil Reason for selection Technology refuser, though active on Facebook, using it frequently for communication, profile updates, and picture sharing. Very large number of friends, active communicator on Facebook, though rarely updates profile. High user of technology, though very light user of Facebook. States his primary reason for being on Facebook is to keep track of what others are doing, rarely uses it to communicate or update profile. Very high level consumer of technology Active user, maintains a Facebook profile and groups for the college common room. Nominally a Facebook refuser, though maintains a profile for a pseudonym Average user

Josephine 23

Ariel

27

Pharmacology

D.Phil

Eric

25

Material Sciences

D.Phil

Steve

32

Inorganic Chemistry D. Phil

Piper Tyler

33 24

F M

Sociology Biology

D. Phil D.Phil

Richard

37

Clinical Medicine

D.Phil

Jasmine

26

Visual M.Sc Anthropology Table. 3 Summary of interview participants

Page | 29

Gathering Data The first step in my data collection was testing the instruments to be used. I chose to pilot the study on two participants, administering the questionnaire and conducting interviews based on a preliminary outline of topics generated in reference to the research questions and the literature review. Based on their feedback, and on the type of data generated, I made minor adjustments to the questionnaire. I reviewed these changes with the volunteers, who seemed confident that this had produced a highly effective instrument. The subjects covered during interviews proved to be a good initial guide for developing more specific interview question. What did arise during piloting was the immediate generation of unexpected themes and responses to questions, which, I felt, put me in a slightly more informed position from which to begin the data collection phase of my project. Although data from the pilot stage is not officially included in my findings, it is impossible not to let the knowledge gained influence my thinking and the progression of the project. Therefore, I acknowledge the contribution of the pilot participants to the overall study. Administering the questionnaire to those that had consented to take part in my study was the next step. Twenty five students were given the questionnaire, either through college post, by hand, or completed while I was present. I considered the potential bias created by my being present while administering the questionnaire to some participants and not others, especially as some participants did ask questions for clarification. However, as the goal of this research was to generate a holistic understanding of the students rather than a strictly regulated data set, I felt that this guidance would help rather than mar my results. The decision between a paper based or internet based questionnaire was also a consideration. I decided to use paper based, Page | 30

partly due to the fact I was familiar with administering this type of instrument and felt confident in using it, and partly due to technical difficulties during this time period that made me dubious of my ability to as easily access online information. I was lucky to receive an excellent rate of participation; all students who were given a copy of the questionnaire did return it, and all were completed thoroughly without any missing pieces or evidence of misunderstandings. Once the questionnaires had been returned, I began analysing the data generated. Although at this stage the primary function of the questionnaire was to create profiles of each participant for selection of potential interviewees, patterns in the data were readily apparent and I spent some time examining emerging themes. I felt that my increasing level of understanding would be beneficial to conducting the most efficacious interviews possible. Once the interview guide had been further refined, I used the questionnaire data to select interview subjects and began the process of interviewing. Participants were contacted by email or in person with requests for an interview. I explained to them that it would take between a half and one hour of their time, and could be conducted in a location of their choosing. Generally, students were happy to participate. Twelve agreed to take part, but due to time constraints, I chose to conduct eight interviews. Two other students I spoke with informally, and though this data was not recorded and transcribed, I did include insights gained as part of the data generated and relevant to the findings of the study. I began each interview by explaining the project, and sharing my research goals with the participant. The shortest interview took twenty minutes; the longest one hour and ten minutes. Interviews were conducted in a variety of locations: coffee shops, the college common room, and participants homes and offices. Of the eight interviews, six Page | 31

were conducted in front of a computer, providing the participant an opportunity to demonstrate their use of Facebook. These participants were happy to walk me through their Facebook profiles, and I found this afforded an excellent opportunity to conduct some naturalistic observation which added yet another dimension to my data collection. All interviews were recorded, and immediately afterwards I reviewed the recording, making notes of particularly interesting themes, or memos of pieces of data I wished to examine in further detail. Interviews were nearly fully transcribed; conversation that had deviated completely from the relevant topic was omitted from transcription. Data analysis, as described below, was then begun. During the data transcription and analysis, I found myself repeatedly accessing the Facebook pages of participants. At the time, I did not consider this an official strategy of data collection. I would simply view Facebook pages, adding notes to interview transcripts to clarify certain parts of the conversation, or adding commentary to confirm or elaborate on aspects of emergent themes. As this practice became more frequent, I became more methodical in my use of this online data, printing out hard copies of the participant profiles and using these for reference instead of the constantly evolving Facebook pages. I felt that the data obtained through questionnaires and interviews represented a snapshot of each participant, taken at a certain point in time and representing their views and experiences at that time. In contrast, Facebook pages are inherently non-static, with some users changing their profile daily. I felt that, in order to achieve some standardisation, it would be best to utilise data that came from the same time frame as the interviews.

Page | 32

Data Analysis The use of multiple data collection instruments resulted in the generation of a great deal of raw data. Although there is no one prescribed method for the analysis of qualitative data, certain authors, such as Corbin and Strauss (1990), Miles and Huberman (1994) or Silverman (2000), have proposed strategies and guidelines that have proven to be efficacious in transforming and interpreting qualitative data in a standardised way. I chose to follow the data analysis procedures recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994), as their approach based on the three interacting components of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification are particularly suited to the types of data generated in this study, and their approach is commonly cited by other authors discussing qualitative research (Punch 2005, Yin 2003). Miles and Huberman (1994) share a classic set of analytic moves, which offer guidance throughout the data analysis process: Affixing codes to data Noting reflections in the margin Identifying common phrases, relationships, patterns, and themes Elaborating a set of generalisations Confronting these generalisations with constructs or theories

Following these steps, I first generated a list of possible codes. Suggestions for these codes came from data generated by the questionnaire, themes previously identified in the literature, and preliminary reflection on interview data, with consideration of the research questions used to guide the relevance (Table 8 presents the codes used, in reference to the findings). I then proceeded to break the interview transcripts into chunks, or blocks of text with similar meaning, a procedure suggested by Edwards (2007) to help reduce data into meaningful and manageable units. Codes were then assigned to Page | 33

each chunk, with memos in the margins recording further thoughts and reflections. I particularly focused on memos which suggested ideas about the codes and possible relationships, a strategy suggested by Robson (2002). After this initial coding, I was able to confirm the validity of some codes, generate new codes to account for themes I hadnt originally considered, and began to perceive some relationships between codes. This allowed me to generate higher level categories, or emergent themes. I referred to the data generated by the questionnaires, and to the Facebook profiles of participants, as a means of triangulation to support these emergent themes. I then proceeded to recode the data, using a combination of these categories and codes. One of the data analysis strategies that Miles and Huberman (1994) consider essential to valid qualitative analysis is the use of well thought out displays. The display that seemed most appropriate was a matrix, or what Miles and Huberman term a conceptually ordered display: a table with columns representing cases, and rows representing categories and codes. This format allowed me to easily develop a profile of each case by reading down a column, and to examine each category by reading across the rows. One of the strengths I found in this method was the ability to both gain an idea of the relative importance of a specific category or code based simply on the amount of data included, and also to quickly scan across rows to note phrases or concepts occurring repeatedly between cases. This allowed me to sketch a conceptual map, permitting visualisation of connections between themes, data, and questions, and helped me begin to draw tentative conclusions with regards to each question. Again, I followed the advice given by Miles and Huberman regarding evaluating early conclusions: follow up surprises, triangulate, formulate if-then hypotheses, and check rival explanations. I examined the themes that seemed unexpected, referred to the data from questionnaires, checked the emerging theories against Facebook profiles, pondered the implications of my Page | 34

hypothesised conclusions, and considered possible alternate interpretations. Through this iterative process, I gained a level of confidence in my findings. Ethical Considerations According to Punch (2005), all social research involves ethical issues, and thorough research projects must examine these potential issues and how they will be dealt with. In completing this project, I spent time considering a number of ethical issues. The main guidelines this project adheres to are those provided by British Educational Research Association (BERA 2004). Ethicial approval was obtained through the University of Oxfords Central University Research Ethics Committee (see Appendix 3). Following Lunt (2007), I considered seven key areas in evaluating the ethics of this project, each labelled and outlined below. 1. Voluntary informed consent Each potential participant was provided with both a Participant Information letter to keep and a Declaration of Informed Consent to sign and return (see Appendix 4). I also spent time reviewing these documents with participants, especially those who agreed to further participate in the interview phase of the project. Finally, I contacted any person for whom potentially identifying information was included in this work (specifically in screen captures of Facebook pages), and obtained additional consent to share this information. 2. Avoid deception One of the main ethical concerns I had was my role as both researcher and Facebook friend in the networks of most of my participants. I clearly explained this dual role to participants, and asked for their further consent in viewing their profile in light of my Page | 35

research agenda. All participants felt comfortable with this, and I was careful to continually maintain anonymity in all aspects of the research. 3. Maintain participants right to withdraw At every stage, participants were free to decline to participate, or to withdraw completely from the study. Although I had some participants refuse to participate in the interview phase, all made it clear this was due to logistical constraints rather than ethical troubles. 4. Avoid harm I considered any potential impact on participants that may result from being part of my study. Beyond issues relating to privacy (discussed below), threat of harm seemed quite limited, a point reinforced through discussion with subjects participating in the pilot phase of the study. 5. Respect privacy Privacy concerns are an inherent part of research in public spaces, such as Facebook. Indeed, privacy concerns are of high importance to users of Facebook. I took several measures to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. Although the name of the university and college were identified in the study, all personal names and identifying data were removed. In instances where there was potential for certain participants to be identified, for example due to their sharing of their role in college during interviews, further consent was obtained before using this information in publications. Throughout the study, data was stored under pseudonyms, with the correlative list password protected on computer, and hard copy information stored in secure locations. 6. Consider disclosure

Page | 36

The knowledge that certain morally ambiguous practices or situations conducted by participants and shared through Facebook may come to my attention during the study did occur to me. However, as participants in this study are mature adults, I felt that, unless evidence of harm to others was evident, it was neither my duty nor place to disclose such information. Luckily, no such incidents occurred, and I felt comfortable with virtually all of the information disclosed to me during the research. 7. Aim to debrief participants Throughout the study, participants expressed a keen interest in the results of the research. I have made it known to participants that I am happy to provide them with a copy of the findings, either in the form of the entire dissertation, or a brief summary of the project. In addition to these guidelines, as a researcher I consider it my duty to continue to develop awareness of ethical issues surrounding social research. Consideration of the role of research, the practices undertaken in conducting research, and the presentation of findings to the community were areas of both reflection and discussion throughout this research project. Strengths and Limitations Within the case study tradition there are present and enduring questions regarding the concept of external validity or generalisation. Generalisation is often seen as the aim of quantitative studies, but whether such generalisations can be made from qualitative research is the subject of debate. Stake (1995) believes we can make naturalistic generalisations from qualitative work; provided the research is sufficiently rich, the reader can make their own judgements on the applicability to other situations. Page | 37

Guba and Lincoln (21989) argue that knowledge is constructed and situational, and that law-like generalisations cannot be made. Gomm, Hammersly, and Foster (2000) seem to walk a middle line, suggesting the idea of transferability, dependent on careful evaluation of the research and the possible similarities to other cases. What is integral to any degree of generalisation is the level of internal validity maintained in a study. Case study research has often been criticised due to its common reliance on interview data. Interviews are inherently a construct, relying on language and interaction between the interviewer and interviewee (Walford 2008). As such, the data yielded is subject to bias and interpretation. Silverman (2000) suggests two ways to strengthen internal validity: triangulation and respondent validation. Yin (2003), in reference specifically to the case study method, stressed the importance of testing hypothetical constructs against findings, particularly in examining possible alternate explanations and cases that do not support hypotheses. Although I doubt the generalisability of this current study to a larger population, I feel that the strategies I employed did lead to a degree of internal validity. The multiple methods of data collection allowed triangulation; hypotheses were supported by questionnaire, interview, and virtual ethnographic data. A thorough review of the literature had given me a range of theories that could have proven applicable to my research questions. I was careful to consider these alternate explanations in conjunction with my findings. I also chose participants who displayed a wide variety of attitudes towards Facebook, whom I felt could provide data that may challenge my hypotheses. Finally, as I began to develop confidence in my findings, I spent time discussing the emerging conclusions with several of the participants in the study.

Page | 38

However, as in any research, I feel there were limitations to this study, and things I would do differently in the future. My role as a member of Linacre College and a highend user of technology and Facebook definitely gives me a certain perspective on the subject. Although I spent time reflecting on my views, it is highly possible that this has introduced certain bias into my research. I also felt that the use of a lightly structured interview was perhaps too open ended; interviews often deviated from the set topic, yielding data that, while interesting, simply generated too many possible theories and hypotheses. While these provide excellent basis for future research, as a neophyte researcher I found it difficult to separate them out of the present findings. Returning to the issue of generalisability, I feel that my work perhaps has relevance in the area of transferability which Gomm, Hammersley, and Foster (2000) suggest. My findings do suggest some trends that could influence study in other similar situations. Linacre College proved to be a good choice of site for this preliminary case study, however if I were to repeat the study, I would look at including a second college. This would allow between case analyses, and would, I feel, lead to and increasing level of theoretical generalisability of my conclusions.

Page | 39

V. FINDINGS
This section presents the results of data collection and analysis, the findings of this study. As the study was conducted primarily in two stages, questionnaire followed by interviews/virtual ethnographies, the findings from each are presented separately below. A discussion of how these findings, including how they serve to answer the research questions and the implications for the body of knowledge in this area will be discussed in the following chapter. Findings From The Questionnaire The first method of data collection employed was a questionnaire, distributed to 25 students. The questionnaire was designed to collect demographic information about the participants, and to briefly examine their use of technology and social software and their attitudes towards Facebook. The purpose of this was three-fold: to gain an overview of how students were using technology and social software, to provide a profile of each participant as a basis for selection for interviews, and as a method of generating preliminary codes with which to begin data analysis. The questionnaire showed that the students surveyed were high level users of technology, with all students owning their own computer, and 48% owning more than one. All students also owned a mobile phone; 48% used their phones as a means of connecting to the internet. Also popular among these students were digital cameras (68% owning) and iPods (60%). Many students noted the emerging trend of convergence of technologies; 40% owned devices that combine most of these features into one. They also spent a great deal of time online, with 52% of the students spending more than eight hours each day connected to the internet (Fig. 3). And they were starting to adopt the Page | 40

idea of ubiquitous access; while they still primarily connected to the internet from their home or place of work, 44% accessed wireless from remote locations at least occasionally.

Amount of Time Spent Online Per Day


0% 12% 36% 8% Less Than 1 Hour 1 - 3 hours 3 - 6 hours 6 - 8 hours 28% 16% More than 8 hours Nearly always connected

Figure 3. Percentage of students indicating amounts of time spent online per day Exploring what theyre doing with their time online, students engaged in a range of activities (see Table 4 below). Much of their time was dedicated to furthering their academic and personal interests; with 58% of the students saying that while online they nearly always were engaged with learning, while another 76% engaged in some form of learning quite frequently. A great deal of their time was also dedicated to communicating with others. Nearly all of the students reported that they engaged in direct communication (such as email, social software, instant messaging, or Skype) quite frequently or nearly always. Students also used the internet for day to day life management, and, unsurprisingly, for amusement. Never Work related directly to academic studies Direct communication with others Once in Awhile Sometimes Quite Nearly Frequently Always 20% 36% 44% 16% 40% 40%

4%

Page | 41

Daily life management Engaged with learning or hobbies Amusement

20% 12%

16% 26%

64% 40% 12%

12%

24%

60%

4%

Table 4: Percentage of students indicating the amount of online time spent engaged in each type of activity. The questionnaire explored the specific social software applications students used. Facebook was by far the most popular; all students were familiar with it, with 23 students actively maintaining an account, one student using it occasionally, and one student who no longer used their account. Students were also using instant messaging programs (IM), with 60% saying they used some form of IM at least occasionally. Voice over internet (VOIP) was also becoming popular; 68% had experience using Skype, with 56% using it on a regular basis. Evident from this, and as shown in Table 5 below, students were doing a vast amount of their communicating online. Letters or postcards 8% 44% Telephone 88% 68% E-mail 84% 88% Instant Messaging 14 48% Social Software 88% 72%

Friends at Oxford Friends outside Oxford Family

36%

76%

72%

32%

28%

Academic 4% 24% 92% 16% 28% colleagues Academic 12% 96% 4% Supervisors Table 5: Number of students reporting using various tools for communication. The questionnaire then examined the students use of Facebook in more detail. Students tended to log into Facebook frequently, but for brief periods of time. On average, these students logged into Facebook 8.3 times each day. However, 56% spent less than ten minutes each logon and no students reported spending more than twenty Page | 42

minutes logged on. While some students had been using Facebook for a relatively long time (the earliest joined in September 2004), most had joined within the past year. The most common months for joining were September and October, coinciding with the start of academic terms. There was a considerable range in the number of friends students have; from 5 to 673, with a mean of 240. Their interest in groups is also variable, ranging from 0 to 42 with a mean of 17. Students appeared to be quite selective about the features they used; while most students reported using some of the features at least some of the time, of a list of 19 possible uses, only five were heavily used, and three were generally not used at all. (See Table 6 for a list of these features) Features Used Frequently (Reported as likely, quite likely, or almost definitely used each login by over half of the students) Read the news feed on my home page Read a friends profile Write on a friends wall Send a message to a friend Look at photos on a friend, group, or event profile Featured Not Used (Reported as never use by over half the students) Other Features Listed (Reported with varying degrees of use) Table 6. Use of Facebook features The final section of the questionnaire examined attitudes toward Facebook using a standard five point Likert type scale. Students were asked to suggest their attitudes towards a number of statements by choosing one of the following options: strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree. Findings showed Page | 43

Poke someone Add an application Become a fan of a page

Change my status Edit my profile Read the profile of someone who is not a friend Post photos, videos, or notes Read pages of groups or events Create groups or events Use an application on my profile Chat with others

that students did feel strongly about Facebook; out of nineteen statements, over half the students indicated disagreement with six and agreement with seven (see Table 7 below). Statements with which students Statements with which students strongly disagreed strongly agreed (Reported as strongly disagree or (Reported as agree or strongly disagree by over half the students) agree by over half the students) Facebook helps me make new Facebook helps me maintain friends past friendships I would like to have my I have learnt things about academic supervisor in my other students in college Facebook group using Facebook Facebook has helped me with Facebook helps me feel closer my academic studies to people I already know I feel distant from people who Facebook has helped me have not joined Facebook rebuild relationships with old friends Id lost touch with Facebook will help me get ahead in my career I am highly selective about whom I have as a friend I am concerned with someone I believe my personal network stalking me on Facebook maintained through Facebook will be useful in years to come Facebook helps me stay in touch with more people than previously possible. Table 7. Students attitudes towards Facebook The responses given suggested that students did not regard Facebook as having academic value or as being useful in starting new friendships. Instead, they saw it as a means of deepening newly created social ties, and for maintaining and re-establishing pre-existing social networks. Findings from Interviews and Virtual Ethnographies From the data gathered by the questionnaire, I selected eight participants for interviews, the procedure by which is described in the methodology section above. I also used this first data to generate tentative codes to apply to interview transcripts. As the transcripts were analysed, I refined the codes, ending up with six categories and eleven codes, detailed in Table 8 below. Page | 44

Categories Academic relevance

Social Networking

Identity

Communication

Reasons for use Opinions

Description How students are using Facebook to create and maintain relationships with colleagues and supervisors Impact How Facebook is influencing students academic work Connections How students are using Facebook to create and maintain relationships Public displays How students are using Facebook to publicly display connections Relationship How Facebook is changing the nature of relationships Surveillance How students are using Facebook to keep track of what friends are doing Presentation of self How students are using Facebook to present themselves to others Privacy How students negotiate issues of privacy How students are utilising different methods of communication, and how Facebook has influenced communication Reasons given for adoption and continued use of Facebook Students attitudes and reflections on Facebook Table 8. Coding scheme for interview transcripts

Codes Networking

Academic Relevance In general, students did not see Facebook as being relevant to their academic work. While many of the students had their peers and academic colleagues as Facebook friends, they all expressed reluctance at the idea of academic supervisors, or anyone in a position of authority, interacting with them on Facebook. As Jasmine put it, Theres no reason. Im not close to them in their personal life, and I wouldnt want to cross that boundary. Students did see the value of this type of network for support around their academic work: Some of the people in my course are on it, and its good to ask each other Page | 45

questions or moan about the work (Tyler). This proved true in examining wall posts; I did not read any that directly related to academic work, but a few students did have posts offering moral support in regards to essays or exams. Students were also quick to express how Facebook was often used to promote social interaction among members of their academic department, and to explain that they thought maintaining connections with such people could prove useful in years to come. Facebook has often been criticized for taking time away from more meaningful pursuits. When asked if they felt the time spent on Facebook impacted on their academic work, students unanimously expressed both the view that yes, they did indeed spend too much time on Facebook, but also that if they werent spending that time on Facebook they would most likely be doing something else non work related. As Josephine put it, Its definitely procrastination. So yeah, I could be writing an essay, but really, Id be doing something else that was procrastination instead. However, while Facebook was not seen as having a negative impact, it was also not seen as having much of a positive one either; indeed it would be most accurate to say that these students saw Facebook as completely separate from their academic lives. Social Networking If Facebook did not have relevance to students academically, it definitely was relevant in their social lives. Students used it to establish and maintain connections with others. Although they unanimously did not use it to connect with people they had never met offline, they did see it as a way of quickly establishing strong connections with people they may have met only briefly in person. As Steve said, The only criteria for adding someone as a friend is one good conversation in the bar. Students would actively seek out previous connections to add as friends, especially when they first joined Facebook. Page | 46

Personal networks mostly grew through this: I got a friend request from this guy I went to elementary school with. Now Im friends with a bunch of them, and its great because these are people I have not seen since I was in Grade 6 (Piper). Interaction with these friends from the past tended to be more sporadic; students liked to see where their old friends are now, but only rarely did they reform connections offline. Much more common was using Facebook to quickly develop deep ties with new friends; especially, for this group of students, those they had met at college. Its just easier when you meet someone to add them on Facebook than to get their phone number. Then you can sort of see what theyre about and message them once or twice, then you exchange numbers (Ariel). Looking at wall posts verified this, as I often saw a short string of posts between two people, culminating with sharing phone numbers or arranging a meeting, as shown in Figure 4 below.

Fig. 4. Wall posts showing progression of information exchanged.

Page | 47

Once contact on Facebook had been established, it was rarely broken; students were comfortable with not accepting friend requests, but they were highly reluctant to defriend anyone. Ive had two people de-friend me, over a relationship issue. And its sort of silly and petty, but it also sort of hurts. Thats why I wouldnt do it (Eric). Being a Facebook friend of someone was not enough to create or maintain a social tie between people. Friendship really means bugger all to me. If you want to know who my actual friends are on Facebook, look at who writes on my wall (Eric). Students were very aware that Facebook afforded public displays of connection, and were quick to take advantage of this. They used the public medium of wall posts to express things they wanted others to see; birthday wishes being a common form of this. Id say happy birthday to people on Facebook who I wouldnt talk to at other times. Its just a way of showing a connection, and showing people youre that type of friendly person, but with no effort really (Jasmine). In examining profiles, this proved to be highly accurate; birthday greetings made up a large proportion of wall posts, and often came from people with whom someone had no other visible interaction. Groups were also a way of displaying shared ties. While some students joined groups that had particular purposes, many groups seemed to simply exist to demonstrate or define a friendship group. Piper was a member of a group called Save Dave from Becoming a Boatie. She explained, Its in reference to a friend that took up rowing. Another friend set up this group, sort of as a way of mocking him, but if you look at the people who joined, it very clearly shows a particular group of friends, and tells other people who see it, yeah, were part of this group. Although not used as commonly, students also saw gifts, shared applications, and photos as other ways of displaying connections. Page | 48

The nature of relationships was seen as changing, partly as a result of social networking. The use of the term friend for a Facebook connection was indicative of this. For some students, the term friend had lost meaning: You have so many friends on Facebook, I think it sort of cheapens and desensitizes the term friend. Because suddenly everyone is a friend and some of these people you hardly ever talk to. You know them just enough to recognise them and be able to nod as you pass in the street, but would you really call them a friend? (Eric). For others, being friends on Facebook allowed them to maintain a type of relationship they wouldnt have otherwise: Yes Facebook friends are real friends. Friends in real life are on Facebook, the ones youd tell stuff to anyway. But the other friends you have on Facebook, the ones maybe you do not talk to in real life, they still want to know whats going on, and they want you to have that window into their life as well (Ariel). Facebook had also changed the way relationships developed. As stated above, most students felt Facebook was an easy and socially acceptable way of contacting people they had only met casually, with whom they would like to develop a further relationship. Three of these students had even begun romantic relationships this way: I wouldnt have sent him an email or called him, but it was totally ok to add him on Facebook, and post on his wall to follow up a conversation we had (Piper). Students also noticed that although Facebook made it easier to begin a relationship, it also made it more difficult to end one. I think its sort of made it more necessary to keep in touch. When did it not become ok to just let some relationships slide? (Josephine). This idea of needing to maintain contact was repeated in several interviews. As Tyler said, You have all these relationships, and you feel like you have to keep them up. But while you keep in touch with more people, you keep in touch not that closely. Its removed the need for contact in other ways, and has made it easier to just sort of keep an eye on what people are up to. Page | 49

Keeping an eye on people was a common activity among these students, and one that Facebook seems to have made socially acceptable. You can see into peoples lives. And its ok, because theyve chosen to put it out there, and you know theyre doing the same to you (Josephine). Facebook stalking had even become a common activity; as Tyler said Well sit around the bar at night, and someone will have a computer. And well just stalk people. See what people we know are doing or who theyre talking to. And even see if friends have people who we want to know, like fit girls wed like to meet. While not all students were that direct in explaining it, everyone discussed to some degree how it allowed them to see what friends were up to: I hesitate to say keep tabs, but yeah, to see what friends are doing. People who I wouldnt normally see. Old friends. I wouldnt directly communicate with them, but its nice to see what theyre up to (Steve). Some students used it more specifically. Ariel admitted her primary activity on Facebook was reading her girlfriends profile: I stalk her to see if shes done anything she shouldnt have. To see if anyone has written on her wall. This surveillance had also driven some students away from Facebook. Rich, who deleted his real Facebook account and instead used one under a pseudonym, referred to this: I hated that people always seemed to know what I was doing. I do not see any need for that, and Im not the type of person who wants to put myself out there that way. Identity Students realised that, just as they used Facebook to learn about and keep tabs on people, others were doing the same to them. And while they were highly cognizant of what they displayed on profiles and how they used Facebook, very few actively attempted to create an entirely new identity through this medium. Although Facebook allowed users to share a fair amount of information about activities, interests, and Page | 50

hobbies, few students put more than one or two entries into these categories. Even fewer ever updated this information. When asked about the impression he believed this conveyed, Eric explained, Its like when you first sign up you get into it, and you do it. And you think occasionally youll update it. But in the end it just sort of fades away. I suppose I filled it in with what I could think of, and what was honest, so I hope it reflects me a bit. In contrast to this, three of the students did actively manipulate their profiles, making a conscious effort at controlling the identity they presented (See Appendix 6 for an example of a completed information section from a profile page). Josephine used quotes, profile pictures, and frequent status updates to craft an image of herself: I put in a lot of quotes, because that says something about me. Its what I think and who I am, but in quote form. Rich went out of his way to craft an identity for his alter-ego, Juan, who had a wide range of interests and activities, from mountain climbing to wine tasting. With only five friends, the effort Rich put into Juans profile seemed excessive, but he explained: Its something fun to do when theres time in the lab. The only friends I have on Facebook know that its me, and know that I do not like using Facebook for myself. But it is a good way of staying in touch for events. So this way, people I want to contact me I can invite to be his friend, but no one else could figure out who it was. Privacy in Facebook may be a popular topic in the literature, but that concern was not voiced by these students. While they were aware of such issues, they felt confident in their ability to manipulate settings and information in a way that protected their privacy. Most did this in two ways: limiting the amount of information they shared (as discussed above), and by restricting access to their profiles. All eight students had changed their privacy settings so that only friends or networks could view their profiles. Steve seemed the most cognizant of privacy concerns, and his comments reflected the issues raised by other students as well: It basically comes down to what you want to Page | 51

share with people. Anyone who can see my Facebook, Ive accepted as a friend. So its fine if they have my email or phone number or know that Im in a relationship. Its just about being aware of what youre sharing, and taking the time to learn how to control that. Communication, Reasons for Use, and Opinions These students viewed Facebook primarily as a communication tool. When asked why they used it, every one mentioned communication in some form. They perceived the advantage Facebook had in combining multiple forms of communication into one environment. Add to this the ability to share photos, create and manage events, and bring people together in groups, and they saw it as a powerful tool, replacing several other methods of communication and interaction. Facebook had definitely enhanced communication among these students. They used it to stay in touch with more people, and to keep in touch more frequently. As Tyler said, Its easier than emailing or MSNing. It brings people together into one place. Its just an easier, more gentle way, of communicating. It had not replaced other methods of communicating, but had changed the way in which they were used. Email was seen as a more formal medium, used for communicating with academic supervisors, distant family members, or for more official interactions. Although Facebook messages and email may appear to be similar, students saw a difference between the two. It was acceptable to send a Facebook message that was brief or meaningless, but not such an email. Facebook had also alleviated the need to communicate in person, or by phone. If youre planning something, you used to have to call people, or tell them in person, and you could not remember who you had told. On Facebook, you can make an event, or send a message, and you can see whos responded (Piper). And though some may criticise Page | 52

modern methods of communication for removing the need for face to face interaction, these students did not see it that way. They still highly valued spending time with their friends in person, using Facebook as a way of keeping in touch primarily when that was not possible. Facebook made things easier for these students. As Jasmine described, Everyone is there. You just start typing the persons name, and it comes up in full, with their picture so you know its the right person. Then you can message or wall post them. People have weird emails sometime, that I cannot remember, and I cannot be bothered to look them up. Creating and managing events was another common way of using Facebook. You can see who youve invited, what youve told people about it, and whos coming and not. And its sort of fun to do it that way, its like getting one of those birthday party invitations when you were a kid (Ariel). Forming groups for common interests was also popular. All of these students belonged to the group Linacre College, which was used to disseminate information about events, college notices, and as a forum for posing questions and starting discussions. As Tyler said, Its super easy to let people know whats going on. You just select all of the group members to send a message to, and you know that they all will get it. Not everyone would bother to check a web page or look at a poster. Although a relatively new phenomenon, Facebook was already seen as entrenched in daily life. When asked, all eight students said that they could not see any reason theyd stop using it. However, their views of Facebook were not unanimously positive. Applications, especially those which spam other users, were intensely disliked. I have no need to know that Bobs vampire-werewolf-ninja just threw a sheep at Matts zombiepirate-martian (Eric). And while the convergence of tools and media into the Facebook space did have advantages, it could be taken too far. Piper took the positive side: There Page | 53

are certain applications that could be powerful. Things that build on that collaborative aspect of the net, like Wikipedia. Something like Google Docs attached to Facebook, where you have everyone you network with, would be great. Eric disagreed: Youre just trying to make it into some giant communication and entertainment complex. Instead of something to just look and see what your friends are doing, send messages if you need to, people are trying to make it a full entertainment stop that they can spend hours wasting time on. Finally, although it did play a large, and pronouncedly positive role in these students lives, Facebook still suffered from somewhat of a negative reputation. Students often spoke of it disparagingly: Theres still a bit of nervousness in being on Facebook. If Im in the library I would hide it if someone came by (Jasmine). They were also hesitant in admitting how much time they spent on it: I check it like twelve times a day. That sounds like a lot, but Im not doing much, really, Im only on it for a couple minutes each time (Tyler). These attitudes seemed to be in contrast to the benefits of using Facebook that students consistently spoke of, and when questioned on this, seemed unsure why it should be. Steves remarks summed up their attitudes: You hear so much more negative stuff about it than positive, like in the media and such. And you sort of learn to think of it as non academic and just goofing off. But its not, really, its a huge thing in my life, and I think, maybe, people who do not use it just do not understand.

Page | 54

VI. DISCUSSION
The previous chapter outlined the findings of this study in terms of the instruments used, and the themes emergent from the data. This chapter considers those findings in reference to the questions driving the study and the previous literature on the subject, discusses the possible implications of this work, and postulates direction for further research in this area. Research Questions and Literature This study was guided by four research questions: What is the experience of Oxford university postgraduates using Facebook? o How is Facebook affecting these students academic work? o How is Facebook affecting these students social support systems? o How is Facebook affecting these students sense of identity? Each of the sub-questions will be discussed below, followed by consideration of the metaquestion. How is Facebook affecting students academic work? In general, Facebook is not affecting these students academic work. They did not see applications of Facebook in enhancing their academic learning, even though they did spend a large portion of their time online engaged in learning. What they did view as potentially enhancing their academic work, wass the ability to easily network with peers, and to gain social support from them in regards to their studies. In Selwyns (2007) examination of Facebook in universities, he found that of the very small percentage of Page | 55

wall posts that related to study, a few key themes emerged. This work supports those findings, and most of the Facebook exchanges with peers could be seen as recounting the academic experience, exchanging logistical information, or simply engaging in banter. Although this sort of exchange may not directly impact academic work, social ties with others who share the academic experience help students foster a shared academic culture. Hargatti (2008) recognizes this, in commenting on the power Facebook has for creating a close knit bond with a peer group. As many of these students joined Facebook, or actively friended people, near the start of the academic year, this is obviously an important type of social bond to nurture. Through this, students perceive themselves as part of an academic environment, leading to more effective study. Of the many articles discussing Facebook in academia, most bring up the potential disruptions it could pose to teaching and learning. Hilton (2006) sums this up nicely, by asking if new technologies present a sunrise or perfect storm. From this present study, it seems these questions are almost unnecessary. Students truly felt that Facebook was separate from their academic lives, to be viewed more along the lines of spending time with friends in a pub rather than as part of their work. Authors such as Bugeja (2006) discuss the need for teachers to examine how they can use technologies like Facebook to help engage their students in learning. From the negative reactions students had towards the idea of having supervisors on Facebook, it seems that teachers and supervisors are perhaps best off leaving this medium to the students, and not attempting to intrude into this aspect of their lives. Perhaps, as Facebook has already caused students to narrow their identity in order to create a self presentable to many different audiences, this serves as a last boundary, which these students were unwilling to cross.

Page | 56

Finally, it is important to note that these students had clearly considered the implications Facebook had for their academic work. They had made the conscious decision to fit Facebook into the social side of their lives, not detracting from, but also not enhancing, their academic studies. How is Facebook affecting students social support systems? It is in the area of social support networks that Facebook is having the biggest impact on students lives. There were three key areas in this study in which Facebook benefited students social support systems: the ability to maintain past relationships with little effort, acting as an acceptable method of initiating and developing relationships with peers, and serving as a way of displaying connections with others. Relating both to the maintenance of past relationships, and the development of new ones, is the ability of Facebook to establish ties. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) discuss this with reference to the effect of social networking on social capital, and the concepts of different strength ties. While they emphasise how Facebook allows easy maintenance of weak, bridging, ties, this study also found that Facebook is extensively used to strengthen and maintain stronger, or bonding, ties, particularly with those physically close to them. And it is these ties that seemed most important to these students, with the majority of their interactions being with people they saw frequently, or with those they explicitly described as very close friends elsewhere. This idea of strong versus weak connections is also picked up by other authors. In her work, boyd (2004) often discusses how Facebook friends are simply a public connection and not true friends. These students did perceive a difference between true friendship and Facebook friends, but, as boyd seems to miss, they also articulated that offline friends are also on Facebook, and it is primarily these connections they used social Page | 57

networking to foster. Donath and boyd (2004) use the phrase public display of connection, which was often repeated during this study. The use of Facebook as a stage for these public displays was not only recognized by students, but was promoted as one of the most important uses of Facebook. Displaying bonds with others, both individual and group ties, was an integral part of students socialisation. They saw this as both strengthening connections with certain friends on an individual basis, and demonstrating to others outside those connections that they were part of a recognised unit or group. These ties and groups were hugely important to students. Being able to monitor what friends are doing is an important way of both deepening closer and maintaining more distant social ties. The theme of surveillance, which arose clearly in my research, seems to be quite new in the literature, at least to the extent of its being viewed as a positive rather than negative aspect of social networking. Joinson (2008) found surveillance to be one of the main motivations for using Facebook, something reinforced by this study. These students definitely felt this to be a completely acceptable method of maintaining relationships with geographically distant friends. This links to the theme of changing nature of relationships; giving someone a window into your life, and peering into theirs, coupled with sporadic and brief written contact was a perfectly accepted method of maintaining relationship to these students. As Donath and boyd (2004) nicely sum up, networks have a profound effect as sources of emotional and informational support. As postgraduate studies often involve an immense amount of work, and as most of these students were far from home and family, the level of stress they experienced could be intense, and these networks became a massive source of support to them. This clearly demonstrates that, even though Facebook may not have a role in the classroom, it is very much an integral part of the Page | 58

university experience. The concept of networks as support resources is one of the most important to come from this, and other studies. The development of personal networks in the age of technology was discussed far before the advance of social networking software, and has served as guidance for those developing new software applications, such as Facebook. Wellman (1988) first posited the idea of networked individualism. Basically, as technology has both caused and allowed broad changes in social relationships, networks have become based around an individual, rather than a community or organization. He suggests three key points: networks no longer rely on proximity, feature densely knit groups within a collection of more sparsely related ties, and relationships are often easily formed and abandoned. In this research, it became obvious that students were using Facebook as a tool to support personal networks of precisely the kind described above. How is Facebook affecting students sense of identity? Although overt identity creation and management is often cited in the literature as one of the primary functions of social networking, it did not appear to be so to these students. What they did make consideration of is the audience their information was being shared with, and the connections they displayed to others (as discussed above). Goffmans (1959) work on presentation of self has become a standard reference in this area, and the idea that everyone, consciously or not, takes into account audience and context when interacting with others is very keenly reflected in social networking. These students were highly aware of who was viewing their profile. They especially noted the variety of different audiences: new friends, old friends, family, colleagues, and others. Certain authors, such as boyd (2008) and Zhao et al. (2008) found that in response to this, people created a self they wanted to present to others, often an ideally created self which Page | 59

did not truly reflect actuality. The majority of students in this study did not believe they were doing this. Instead, they chose to present a minimum of information about themselves, with the conscious thought that this would be a way of presenting an acceptable self to all audiences. Obviously the information chosen reflects a filtering process, but, with the exception of two who did admit to explicitly crafting their profiles, students truly felt what they presented was an honest reflection of their identity. Facebook did not seem to pressure these students to change their identities to create an entirely new self. What it did instead was encourage students to create a streamlined identity, which they felt was presentable to the collapsed audience on Facebook. The area of identity and self presentation that did have influence on these students was in the display of connections with others. As mentioned above, demonstrating ties with friends, or group and network affiliations, was important to them. There seems to be a distinct overlap between social network and identity here, suggesting that these students very much identified themselves and others with reference to friends. Social networking perhaps is helping shift back from the emphasis on individual identity so prevalent in society during the past two decades towards a presentation of self as part of certain groups or in reference to specific connections. As Holland et al. (1998) suggest, selves are socially constructed through the mediation of powerful discourses and their artefacts. Facebook could prove an example of this sort of powerful discourse and artefact in helping to shape a socially based identity for these students. What is the experience of this group of Oxford postgraduate students using Facebook? In brief, Facebook had rapidly become a large and important part of these students lives. Primarily, it allowed them to maintain and develop relationships and Page | 60

networks which were important social structures in their lives. Facebook was just one piece in an ever expanding repertoire of technology utilised by these students. This supports the many recent pieces of research which demonstrate the prevalence of technology in the lives of university students (for example Selwyn 2007 and Stutzman 2005), as well as the high rate of adoption of social networking more specifically. These students experience with Facebook was nearly unanimously positive. They saw it as hugely beneficial, even without it having direct benefit to their academic work. The only negatives voiced were minor annoyances with the design of the software, with the slight discomfort initially encountered with the collapse of several different types of audience into one, and with the concern of displaying personal information to many people. However, these students, perhaps by virtue of being highly educated and technologically savvy, felt that they had easily overcome any concerns and had manipulated this tool to their benefit. Implications and Directions for Future Work The intense engagement of students with Facebook has implications for those who work with them. Often, teachers and academics dismiss Facebook, as they do not see its academic relevance. These students seemed to agree that there is not currently a place in the classroom for Facebook, and were wary of merging their academic work into this social sphere. However, even if Facebook did not impact academic studies, it played a major role in the university experience of these students. The significant use of Facebook, and the shared understanding of around it had become part of the culture of these students. Clifford Gertz discusses culture as webs of significance (1973), which seems to succinctly describe what Facebook was to these students. Forming bonds with which to develop a web of social support to maintain them whilst engaging in the Page | 61

rigorous academic work expected of postgraduate students was integral to these students well being. Facebook seemed to be not only one of the primary ways these students adopted for doing this, but also a tool particularly suited to the task. Over the course of this research, it became clear to me that, behind the overt research questions I had posed around how Facebook was being used in these students lives there lay the question of why. The notion of affordance seems particularly applicable to this question. Introduced by Gibson (1977), affordances are the possibilities of action that an object presents. Norman further refined this definition to take into account the role of human interaction with the objects. To him, the affordance of an object is the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used. (2002: 9) In applying the idea of affordance to social software such as Facebook, one inevitably realises that there are two types of influence that need to be investigated: technological and social. Although rapidly becoming a part of social culture, Facebook is inherently a piece of computer software, created and maintained by software developers. The engineering process which developed the software has given it certain affordances and constraints. For example, as boyd (2008) discusses, Facebook users need to express their identities through the tightly defined fields of information allowed by Facebook, and can only use tools and applications on the site that the developers have approved. If users adopt software, it suggests that they are comfortable with these constraints, and that the software provides sufficient affordances to make it worth their time and effort (Dwyer et al. 2008). Although the technology does imply limits on the interaction that takes place around it, it does not inherently determine the type of social interaction that grows Page | 62

around it. Graves (2007) ties this back to Gertzs idea of webs of significance and discusses how technology takes on meaning in a cultural context, meaning that is altered both by the technology and the reading or implementation of it by users. The struggle between technological and social determinism is not new. Bijker and Law laid the foundations for a social constructivist viewpoint with their explanation: Technologies do not have a momentum of their own at the outset that allows the...to pass through a neutral social medium. Rather, they are subject to contingency as they pass from figurative hand to hand, and so are shaped and reshaped. Sometimes they disappear altogether... At other times they take novel forms, or are subverted by users to be employed in ways quite different from those for which they were originally intended. (1992: 8) Hutchby argues a more middle ground position. He believes that: ...affordances are functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object. In this way, technologies can be understood as artefacts which may be both shaped by and shaping of the practices humans use in interaction with, around, and through them. (2001: 444) This link between social shaping and affordances has been collapsed into the notion of social affordances, how both the properties of an object and the social characteristics of a group enable particular types of interaction surrounding that object. (Bradner et al. 1999) The question that perhaps latently underlies this study, and one which could drive future work, is: What are the social and technical affordances of Facebook that make it such an integral part of these students lives? If we start to answer this question, we start to understand some of what motivates these students, and can perhaps use this to better engage with them. Although this study wasnt designed to answer this question, it is possible to see some connection to it in the findings. These students repeatedly mentioned the ease of contacting friends through Facebook. One simply has to begin typing a name, and the friends full name and picture pop up, quickly linking to a variety Page | 63

of ways one can interact with this person. There are two things tied together here: a collapsing of several different forms of communication into one space, and the organisation of communication by contact rather than by medium. This is not a new principal; the nature of people to organize communication by contact rather than media has long been a recognised (see for example Whittaker 2004). This reinforces the importance of the network, and of the role of Facebook in supporting relationships, already shown to be highly important to these students. A second affordance of Facebook is the ability for these students to share information about themselves, both through direct information provided, and indirectly through things like photograph sharing, group affiliation, and reciprocal postings on walls. As mentioned above, this ties both to the idea of presentation of self and identity management, and to the public display of group ties. Previously, university students commonly accomplished such things through notice boards, photographs, and memorabilia displayed on room or locker doors. Facebook has migrated this to the digital space, and with these students spending so much of their time online, it is not difficult to see why this would prove a popular alternative. Tied with this notion of sharing information is the affordance Facebook makes for keeping track of what friends are doing, which, as discussed above, proved to be a popular use for these students. This is something new provided by Facebook; such surveillance in the past wasnt as easy or socially acceptable. The hesitation these students still demonstrate when discussing these aspects of Facebook may be indicative of this. The concept of affordances in relation to the evolving internet is relatively new, and relatively unexplored. Boase and Wellman (2004) offer a baseline, in suggesting five main social affordances of the internet: maintaining local and long distance relationships, sparely and densely knit networks, making and breaking relationships, switching between Page | 64

relationships, and strong and weak ties. This study found that these areas are influential in the use of Facebook by these students, and I believe they could provide an excellent baseline for further examination of social networking in student life. Along with research that has its roots in sociological theory, I found research from disciplines such as computer science and software engineering to be relevant. boyd and Heer (2004) also make this connection, using an ethnographic study of social networking to influence their design of a software model which displays friend connections and network links. Dwyer et al. (2008) use previous research on usage patterns of social networking sites to create a social software performance model, which can be used to explore the effectiveness of design of social software tools. Collaborative work between disciplines could decrease the debate between technological and social determinism that often surrounds the internet, and could lead to a deeper understanding of how and why social networking has become such a popular phenomenon. The specific value of this present study, I believe, lies in the in depth examination of how Facebook is being used by a group students; in applying both the case study and learner experience methodologies to help us being to understand how Facebook is being used, and to begin to develop hypotheses as to why this may be so. Although no claims to generalisation beyond this specific group of students can be made, the richness of the data gathered would suggest that studies such as this have a place in the growing body of social networking research, and can aid in our understanding of this growing phenomenon and the impact it is having on the lives of students. In turn, this information could prove valuable in informing the practices and attitudes of those who work with students.

Page | 65

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. (2006) Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook. In: Privacy Enhancing Technologies, June 28-30, 2006, Cambridge. Berlin: Springer, p. 36. Alexander, B. (2006) Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41,(2), pp. 33 - 44. Anderson, P. (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies, and implications for Education. [Online] JISC. Available from: <www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701.pdf> (Accessed January 10, 2008). Barnes, C. and Tynan, B. (2007) The Adventures of Miranda in the Brave New World: Learning in a Web 2.0 Millennium ALT-J, 15, (3), pp. 189-200. Baron, N. (2008) Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. New York: Oxford University Press. Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press. Beer, D. (2008) Social network(ing) sitesrevisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd & Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, (2), pp. 516529. Beer, D. & Burrows, R. (2007) Sociology and, of, and in Web 2.0: Some initial considerations. Sociological Research Online [Online]. 12, (5). Available from: <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html> (Accessed May 20, 2008). BERA. (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2004). [Online]. BERA. Available from: < http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA1.PDF> (Accessed September 20, 2008). Berg, J., Berquam, L. & Christop, K. (2007) Social Networking Technologies: A Poke for Campus Services. EDUCAUSE Review, 42, (2), pp. 32 - 44. Bijker, W.E. and Law, J. (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Boase, J. & Wellman, B. (2005) Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet. In D. Perlman and A. Vangelisti (eds.) Handbook of Personal Relations. Oxford: Blackwell. Boyd, d. (2004) Friendster and Publicly Articulated Social Networking. In: Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems (CHI 2004), April 24-29 2004, Vienna.

Page | 66

Boyd, d. (2007) The Significance of Social Software. In: Burg, T. & Scmidt, J. BlogTalks Reloaded: Social Software Research & Cases, October 2, 2006, Vienna. Norderstedt, pp. 15-30. Boyd, d. (2008) Facebooks Privacy Trainwreck: Exposure, Invasion, and Social Convergence. Convergence, 14, (1), pp. 13-20. Boyd, d. & Ellison, N. (2007) Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, (1), pp. 210-230. boyd, d. & Heer, J. (2006) Profiles as Conversation: Networked Identity Performance on Friendster. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, January 4 7, 2006, Kauai. Bradner, E., Kellogg, W. A., and Erickson, T. (1999) The adoption and use of 'BABBLE': a field study of chat in the workplace. In: Bodker, S., Kyng, M., and Schmidt, K. (eds). Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, September 12 - 16, 1999, Copenhagen. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 139-158. Brey, P. (2005) Evaluating the Social and Cultural Implications of the Internet. Computers and Society, 35, (3), p. 1. Bugeja, M. (2006) Facing the Facebook. [Online]. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available from: <http://chronicle.com/jobs/2006/01/2006012301c.htm>. Coates, T. (2005) An Addendum to a Definition of Social Software. January 5, 2005. Plasticbag.org. [Online]. [Accessed March 8, 2008]. Available from: www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/01/an_addendum_to_a_definition_of_social_softwar e/ Converse, J. & Presser, S. (1986) Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardised questionnaire. London: Sage. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 1, (1), pp. 3 21. Davies, C. (2008) Case Study Research, lecture notes distributed in the topic Strategies for Educational Research, Educational Research Methodology Programme. University of Oxford, Department of Education on February 27, 2008. DeVaus, D. (1991) Surveys in Social Research. London: UCL Press. Donath, J. (2008) Signals in Social Supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, (1), pp. 231-251. Donath, J. & boyd, D. (2004) Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal. 22, (4), p. 71. Page | 67

Dwyer, C., Hilts, S. & Widmeyer, G. (2008) Understanding Development and Usage of Social Networking Sites. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 7-10, 2008, Hawaii. Edwards, A. (2007) Interpretive Approaches to Analysis: from evidence to data, lecture notes distributed in the topic Qualitative Design and Data Analysis, Educational Research Methodology Programme. University of Oxford, Department of Education on November 6, 2007. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2006) Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks and Social Capital: The Role of Facebook. In: Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, June 19-23, 2006, Dresden. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2006b) A Face(book) in the Crowd: Social Searching vs. Social Browsing. In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work, November 4-8, 2006, Banff. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007) The Benefits of Facebook Friends: Social Capital and College Students Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, (4), p. 1143 Francis, R. (2007) The Predicament of the Learner in the New Media Age: an investigation into the implications of media change for learning. Unpublished DPhil thesis. University of Oxford. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books Gibson, J. (1977) The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw and J. Bransford (eds.) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: toward an ecological psychology. London: Halsted. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin. Golder , S., Wilkinson, D, and Huberman, B. (J2007) Rhythms of Social Interaction: Messaging within a massive online social network. In: C. Steinfield, B. Pentland, M. Ackermans, N. Contractor (eds.) Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies, November 27, 2006, Palo Alto. London: Springer, pp. 41 66. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. & Foster, P. (2000) Case Study Method. London: Sage. Graves, L. (2007) The Affordances of Blogging. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31, (4), pp. 331-346. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd Edition. London, Routledge. Hargittai, E. (2008) Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13, (1), pp.276-297. Page | 68

Hartman, J.L., Dziuban, C. & Brophy-Eillison, J. (2007) Faculty 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 42,(5), pp. 62-76. Hilton, J. (2006) The Future for Higher Education: Sunrise or Perfect Storm? EDUCAUSE Review, 41,(2), pp. 59 - 71. Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage. Holland, D., Lachicotte Jr., W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998) Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. London: Harvard University Press. Hutchby, I. (2001) Technologies, Texts, and Affordances. Sociology, 35, (2), pp 441-456. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MacArthur Foundation. Available from: <http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/> (Accessed January 20, 2008) Joinson, A.N. (2008) Looking at, Looking up or Keeping up with People?: Motives and Uses of Facebook. In: CHI '08: Conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2008, Florence. Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews : an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage. Lampe, C., Ellison, N. and Steinfield, C. (2006) A Face(book) in the Crowd: Social Searching vs. Social Browsing. In: Proceedings from the ACM Special Interest Group on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, 2006, Banff. Lunt, I. (2007) Ethical Issues and Procedures, lecture notes distributed in the topic Strategies for Educational Research, Educational Research Methodology Programme. University of Oxford, Department of Education on October 31, 2007. Madden, M. & Fox, S. (2006) Riding the Waves of Web 2.0. [Online] Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available from: <http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf> (Accessed January 10, 2008). Mazer, J.P., Murphy, R.E. & Simonds, C.J. (2007) Ill see you on Facebook: The Effects of Computer-Mediated Teacher Self-Disclosure on Students Motivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom Climate. Communication Education, 56, (1), pp. 1 - 17. May, T. (2001) Social Research : issues, methods and process. Buckingham: Open University Press. Mayes, T. (2006) LEX: The Learner Experience of e-Learning: Methodology Report. [Online] JISC. Available from: <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/ lex_method_final.pdf> (Accessed May 14, 2008) Page | 69

Merriam, S.B. (1988) Case Study Research in Education. London: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edition. London: Sage. Norman, D. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic. Ofcom (2008) Social Networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours and use. [Online] Ofcom. Available from: <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetwor king/report.pdf> (Accessed June 20, 2008). OReilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0? [Online]. OReilly. Available from: <http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html> (Accessed January 20, 2008). Punch K. F. (2005) Introduction to Social Researc:. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, 2nd Edition. London: Sage. Rapely, T. (2004) Interviews in c. Searle, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage. Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Selwyn, N. (2007) Screw Blackboard...do it on Facebook!: An Investigation of Student's Educational Use of Facebook. In Proceedings from Poke 1.0 - Facebook Social Research Symposium, November, 2007, London. Shirky, C. (2003) People on Page: YASNS. May 12, 2003. Corantes Many-to-Many. [Online] (Accessed January 20, 2008). Available from: http://many.corante.com/archives/2003/05/12/people_on_pag_yans.php Silverman, D. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage. Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage Stake, R. (2005) Qualitative Case Studies in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd Edition. London: Sage. Stutzman, F. (2006). Adopting the Facebook: A Comparative Analysis. Available from: <http://www.ibiblio.org/fred/pubs/stutzman_wp5.pdf> (Accessed May 20, 2008). Sweeny, M. (2008) Facebook sees first dip in UK users. [Online] Guardian.co.uk. Available from: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/21/facebook.digitalmedia> (Accessed Feb 22, 2008). Walford, G. (2008) Qualitative Interviews , lecture notes distributed in the topic Strategies for Educational Research, Educational Research Methodology Programme. University of Oxford, Department of Education on February 6, 2008. Page | 70

Wellman, B. (1988) The Community Question Re-evaluated. In M. P. Smith (ed.), Power, community and the City. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Whittaker, S., Jones, Q., Nardi, B., Creech, M., Terneen, L., Isaacs, E., and Hainsworth, J. (2004) ContactMap: Organizing Communication in a Social Desktop. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11, pp. 445-471. Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: design and methods, 3rd Edition. London: Sage. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. and Martin, J. (2008) Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24, (5), pp. 1816-1836.

Page | 71

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE

SOCIAL NETWORKING IN UNIVERSITY LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. The study explores the use of social networking applications in the lives of postgraduate students at Oxford. In particular, Im interested in how you use social networking to support your university experience, both academically and personally. I appreciate any insights you can share with me. Please note that all the information you provide will be treated confidentially and your identity will be concealed in any publications resulting from the study. You are also free to withdraw at any time, or to decline to answer any questions without explanation. I appreciate your participation.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Name

Date

Email

Telephone

Course of Study

Qualification sought (MSc/DPhil)

Brief indication of dissertation/thesis topic

USE OF TECHNOLOGIES Do you own (please tick all that apply) Desktop computer PDA/Palm Mobile phone Mobile phone with internet access [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] Notebook/laptop/tablet Blackberry I-Pod (or similar) Digital camera [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ]

Other digital technologies (please specify):

Approximately how many hours during a typical week day do you spend online? (please tick the most appropriate response) Less than 1 hour 1 3 hours More than 8 hours [ [ [ ] ] ] 6 8 hours 3 6 hours Im pretty much always connected [ [ [ ] ] ]

How often do you access the Internet from the following locations? Never Occasionally On a weekly basis Multiple times a week Everyday

Your home Your office / department Computer room The library Coffee bar Other remote location

Within the time you spend online, how often are you engaged in the following tasks:

Never

Once in awhile

Sometim es

Quite frequentl y

Nearly always

Work related directly to your studies (i.e. online research, communication with peers, browsing sites related to your field) Direct communication with others (i.e. email, instant messaging, skype, blogging) Day to day life management (i.e. banking, shopping, making travel arrangements, looking up specific information) Engaged with learning or hobbies outside your academic field (i.e. informal reading, following sports scores, sharing information about hobbies or activities with others) Socializing and amusement (i.e. watching videos, using social networking sites purposelessly, flipping through random pages)

USE OF SOCIAL SOFTWARE Please indicate your use of social software by checking the box that best indicates your use of the application. Never hear of Heard of, but never used Used in the past, but not anymore Use occasionally Use regularly Use everyday

Facebook Friendster My Space LinkedIn Bebo MSN Messenger AOL Messenger Google Talk Skype Second Life There is a wide range of social software applications, many of which may not be listed above. If there are other applications you use which you consider to be social software, please list them below:

The ways in which we communicate with others are changing. I am particularly interested in how students are now using social software to connect with people. Which communication tool(s) do you use to stay in touch with (please tick all that apply):

Handwritten letters and postcards

E-mail

Telephone (mobile or handheld)

Instant messaging

Social Software (i.e. Friendster or Facebook)

Friends at Oxford Friends living outside Oxford Current academic colleagues

Immediate family Extended family Academic supervisors


FACEBOOK The focus of this study is on Facebook, which seems to be the most widely used social networking application at Oxford. Do you have a Facebook account? Yes I did, but I no longer use it Ive never had one [ [ ] ]

[ ]

If youve never had a Facebook account, or youve had one but stopped using it, I would appreciate if you could briefly explain the reasons why:

If you use Facebook, please complete the following section. It may help if you have your Facebook profile open while completing it. How often do you log into your Facebook account? Rarely (a few times a month) Occasionally (perhaps weekly) Often (several times a week) Daily [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] [ ]

Multiple times per day (Please give an approximation of how many times)

On average, how much time do you spend on Facebook each time you log in? Less than 5 minutes 5 10 minutes 10 20 minutes 20 30 minutes More than 30 minutes [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ]

When did you first join Facebook? (approximate month/year) ________________________

How many Friends do you have on Facebook? ________________

How many groups do you belong to? _________________

Please indicate the ways in which you use Facebook by checking the box that is most appropriate: When I log into Facebook, Im likely to: Dont use this feature Read the news feed on my home page Read my own profile Read a Friends profile Read the profile of someone who is not a Friend Change my status Edit my profile Write on a Friends wall Send a message to a Friend Poke someone Not very likely Somewhat likely Quite likely Almost definitely

Look at photos/videos on a friend, group, or events wall


Post photos/videos Read the pages of groups/events I belong to

Write on the wall or in the discussion items of a group/event I belong to Write a note or a post on my own page Create a group or event Use an application already on my profile Add an application Become a fan of a page Chat with other users

If there are other Facebook features you regularly use, please list them here:

Please suggest your attitude towards the following statements. Strongly Disagree Facebook helps me make new friends. Facebook helps me maintain past friendships. I have learnt things about other students in college using Facebook. Facebook makes me feel closer to people I already know. Facebook has helped me rebuild relationships with old friends Id lost touch with. I spend too much time on Facebook. Facebook has improved my social life. I am highly selective about who I accept as a Friend. I would like to have my academic supervisor in my Facebook group. I would feel alienated from my college life if it were not a member of Facebook. Facebook has helped me with my academic studies. I feel distant from people who have not joined Facebook I believe my personal network maintained through Facebook will be useful in years to Disagree Neither Agree Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree

come. Facebook helps me stay in touch with more friends than was previously possible Facebook will help me get ahead in my career. Facebook helps me to know how my friends are feeling. My use of Facebook has distracted me from my studies. Facebook has become a popularity contest. I am concerned that someone might be stalking me on Facebook.

APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE

Interview Guide Why do you use Facebook? What do you do each time you log in? How often do you log in, and how long do you spend each time youre logged on? Have participants demonstrate use if possible. Do you use Facebook to help your academic work? Why or why not? Do you have academic colleagues or your supervisor as a friend? Who are your friends? How do you use Facebook to develop or maintain friendships? Is there a difference between real life and Facebook friends? What does your profile say about you? Do you change it often? How has Facebook changed your social life? Has Facebook changed the role of other ways of communicating in your life? What are your favourite and least favourite things about Facebook?

APPENDIX 4: COMPLETED CUREC APPROVAL

APPENDIX 4: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND INFORMED CONSENT

APPENDIX 5: INFORMATION PRESENTED ON A FACEBOOK PROFILE

Вам также может понравиться