I chose the research journal Social Networks - An International Journal of Structural Analysis
with a with a current impact factor of 3.381. The 5-Year impact factor is slightly
higher with a value of 4.059. This journal is published four times per year and
covers areas such as social relations, social structures and other types of groups
that could be analyzed in a network form. The editor’s main interests seem to
be how social networks arise, how they evolve and what consequences they might
have on social behavior. Published papers could vary between abstract (mathematical)
works to more concrete (case studies, etc.). In recently published papers authors
have analyzed networks such as terrorist groups/drug traders, Italian political
parties and Twitter followers.
As a research article I chose Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A
Longitudinal Study written by the author Petter Bae Brandtzæg. It was
published in 2012 in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, which has
a rating of 1.778. This is relevant to media technology research (and social
media technologies, a course that I am currently taking) because it evaluates the
psychological effects of social networks. I feel that we do not know much about
the effects of for instance Facebook, and I think that are going to be a lot of
research done on this subject in the future. In short, the study is based on an
evaluation of 2 000 Norwegian social networking users in the age 15-75. The
results suggest that active social networking site users (abbreviated SNS users
by the author) have a higher number of acquaintances than non-users. It also
seems as if SNS users do not “replace”
real live communication with SNS-communication, instead they do more of both.
Something that I found interesting was that the results indicate that males who
use SNS heavily are reporting an increased feeling of loneliness, whereas
females who are using SNS heavily are feeling less lonely.
For the critical examination the first thing I am
going to look at is the background of the study. The author presents several
different studies, each with its own conclusion on the effects of social media.
Some studies suggests that SNS have “negative” effects on users, such as less
interaction, less physical well-being, less time spent with friends and family,
etc. Other studies seems to have found more positive effects, such as higher
levels of friendship and trust, higher level of well-being and higher levels of
political engagement. To me it seems as if there is no clear consensus on the
effects of social media, and maybe the author is a bit to self-confident about
his own results.
Secondly, I think the method and/or results could have
been done in another way. Brandtzæg chose to categorize the SNS users into five
groups: sporadics, lurkers, socializers, debaters and advanced. I think this
might be a too simplified view of the reality. Referring to the Performing research article critiques, the
data and data categorization might not be a reliable representation of the
empirical reality they attempt to capture. I believe that males and females
differ quite radically when it comes to SNS use, and that might explain the
different results when it comes to loneliness. Advanced male users might be
World of Warcraft players, while advanced female users might be bloggers. This
could explain some of the differences between the groups in the reported sense
of loneliness.
------------------
Elements that are not theory (but sometimes confused
as such) are references, data, variables, diagrams and hypotheses. Theory on
the other hand could be answers to the question why, connections between phenomenon, explanation or causality of
the order of events, etc.
I think the main theory used in my selected paper is the
theory of social capital, meaning “the social connections or networks and the
attendant norms and trust that enable participants to act together more
effectively”. I think this would be a type III theory (prediction), since it to
some degree could predict how people behave and how social networks are formed.
The author refers to Coleman (1998), suggesting that some social networks and
relationships are advantageous to group members. I think this indicates that
the theory contains some sort of prediction element.
I am not sure this is a real limitation, but I am
feeling somewhat hesitant to use a “social sciences” theory in combination with
a more “direct” science such as information technology and social networking
sites. Maybe it is a good combination, but I am feeling that computers are in a
way “more scientific” than social sciences. But since ordinary people use
computers and SNS, maybe it is a really good combination after all…
Great description of your article. Interesting reading. It was interesting to hear that males who were heavy users could feel more lonely while using social media, when heavy females users could feel less lonely. Maybe your idea is on the right track, that the type of media they are consuming - and how much feedback it provides, is the explanation to the feeling of (or lack of) loneliness.
SvaraRaderaI think what we can all agree on, is that it is important to meet, and interact with, people in the real world. Social media, like Facebook, should maybe be seen as an advanced address-book as was proposed by Leif Dahlberg during his lecture.
Hi Olle, i see that we found the exact same paper :) i thought it was interesting to read a paper that presented a view that was pro social networking sites when it comes to the effect of social capital. There is this common notion that because of SNSs we only sit at the computer and talk instead of meeting face-to-face and it's all bad. I tend to agree that maybe he was to confident of his own result but he has written about the limitations of the study and i think the results seem accurate and believable.
SvaraRaderaI didn't think so much of the method in my critical examination but i believed, in contrast to you, that dividing it into groups made it easier to draw conclusions. Of course the reality isn't so black and white, thats probably why 5 groups was better than 3 or 4. Maybe it would have been even better with 10 groups but i think the chosen number was good because it gives a simplified view of the basic types of users.
I do not agree with Sutton who says that references, data, variables, diagrams and hypotheses are not the theory. I think that references, data etc. are not the theory itself, but I am sure that data and diagrams are important parts or ingredients of theory. And I always though that hypotheses are the base of theory.
SvaraRaderaI think you are correct when you say that data, references, etc. are an important part of the theory. Without underlying data there is nothing to base the theory on, and such a theory is more or less useless.
RaderaA hypothesis might be the base of a theory, but in my opinion a hypothesis is not based on raw data but on "belief". A hypothesis is want you think the outcome of an experiment might be before you conduct the experiment. In other words I guess you could call a hypothesis a guess that is based on your previous experience, but not based on data/facts about the current case.