Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in Education 11
Series Editors: Aaron Koh · Victoria Carrington
Harry T. Dyer
Designing
the Social
Unpacking Social Media Design and
Identity
Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity
in Education
Volume 11
Series Editors
Aaron Koh, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong
Victoria Carrington, School of Education, University of Tasmania, Launceston,
TAS, Australia
We live in a time where the complex nature and implications of social, political and
cultural issues for individuals and groups is increasingly clear. While this may lead
some to focus on smaller and smaller units of analysis in the hope that by understanding
the parts we may begin to understand the whole, this book series is premised on the
strongly held view that researchers, practitioners and policy makers interested in
education will increasingly need to integrate knowledge gained from a range of
disciplinary and theoretical sources in order to frame and address these complex issues.
A transdisciplinary approach takes account the uncertainty of knowledge and the
complexity of social and cultural issues relevant to education. It acknowledges that
there will be unresolved tensions and that these should be seen as productive. With this
in mind, the reflexive and critical nature of cultural studies and its focus on the processes
and currents that construct our daily lives has made it a central point of reference for
many working in the contemporary social sciences and education. This book series
seeks to foreground transdisciplinary and cultural studies influenced scholarship with a
view to building conversations, ideas and sustainable networks of knowledge that may
prove crucial to the ongoing development and relevance of the field of educational
studies. The series will place a premium on manuscripts that critically engage with key
educational issues from a position that draws from cultural studies or demonstrates a
transdisciplinary approach. This can take the form of reports of new empirical research,
critical discussions and/or theoretical pieces. In addition, the series editors are
particularly keen to accept work that takes as its focus issues that draw from the wider
Asia Pacific region but that may have relevance more globally, however all proposals
that reflect the diversity of contemporary educational research will be considered.
Series Editors:
Aaron Koh (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Victoria Carrington (University of Tasmania)
Editorial Board:
Angel Lin (Simon Fraser University, Canada), Angelia Poon (National Institute of
Education, Singapore), Anna Hickey-Moody (RMIT, Australia), Barbara Comber
(University of South Australia, Australia), Catherine Beavis (Deakin University,
Australia), Cameron McCarthy (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA),
Chen Kuan-Hsing (National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan), C. J. W.-L. Wee
(Nanyang Technological University, Singapore), Daniel Goh (National University
of Singapore, Singapore), Jackie Marsh (University of Sheffield, UK), Jane Kenway
(Monash University, Australia), Jennifer A Sandlin (Arizona State University,
Tempe, USA), Jennifer Rowsell (University of Bristol, UK), Jo-Anne Dillabough,
(University of Cambridge, UK), Megan Watkins (University of Western Sydney,
Australia), Mary Lou Rasmussen (Australia National University, Australia), Terence
Chong (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore)
Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Senior Editorial Assistant:
Lay Peng Ang E-mail: laypeng.ang@springer.com
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11200
Harry T. Dyer
Designing the Social
Unpacking Social Media Design and Identity
Harry T. Dyer
University of East Anglia
Norwich, UK
ISSN 2345-7708 ISSN 2345-7716 (electronic)
Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in Education
ISBN 978-981-15-5715-6 ISBN 978-981-15-5716-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
This book would not have been possible
without the hard work, dedication, patience,
guidance, and effort of a number of people
whom I would like to thank here.
Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, I would
like to thank the nine participants whose
work is detailed in this book, and without
whom the insights presented here would be
impossible. You were so giving with your
time, so thoughtful with your comments, and
so patient with my many questions. Thank
you all for your efforts and inputs.
I would also sincerely like to thank Professor
Victoria Carrington, my supervisor for this
project, my academic role model, and my
friend. Your guidance, encouragement, and
patience made this project more than I ever
hoped it could be. You made the researcher I
am today, and gave me a template for how to
be a thoughtful supervisor. I hope I live up to
the example you set me.
I also wish to thank the community of
researchers that I am proud to call
colleagues. Over the past decade I am lucky
to have been exposed to a strong, engaged,
and brilliant community of researchers. A lot
of this came through my ongoing
engagements with Twitter, on which I have
found many brilliant, kind, supportive, and
considerate researchers (certainly too many
to name here) who give me hope for the
future of digital research. I have also been
privileged enough to meet many of you
offline for many cups of coffee. I hope to
have many more. I have also been
tremendously privileged to be part of a
vibrant interdisciplinary research community
at the University of East Anglia. I hope to
continue to grow this community, and
continue to be enamoured with everything
UEA has to offer.
Of course, thanks also goes to my supportive,
kind, and loving family and friends. You have
been so forgiving of my dogged engagement
with this work over the last decade. I hope to
repay you all by being a little more present
and engaged…
Finally, of course, none of this would have
ever been possible without my partner,
Vanessa. Words cannot adequately describe
how supportive you have been. For all our
late night discussions, for all the articles you
send my way, for all the cups of coffee, for
the mess of my work spaces, for the knowing
cuddles, for the stress you carry along with
me, for allowing me to chase this bizarre
profession, for pushing me to be the best I
can be, for being a constant inspiration. For
everything you have done and continue to
do. Thank you a million times over.
Contents
1
he Digital Metamorphosis......................................................................
T
1.1Introduction........................................................................................
1.2Selecting and Introducing the Participants.........................................
1.3Dissecting Social Media.....................................................................
References...................................................................................................
1
1
6
12
13
2
efining Social Media…It’s Complicated...............................................
D
2.1Introduction........................................................................................
2.2Dispelling Some Myths and Moral Panics:
What Young People Aren’t Doing Online..........................................
2.3Understanding ‘Social Media’...........................................................
2.4More than a Feature............................................................................
2.5How Young People Define Social Media...........................................
2.6Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy
Makers, and Educators.......................................................................
References...................................................................................................
15
15
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We
Access Social Media Affects Our Experiences,
Uses, and Identities....................................................................................
3.1Introduction........................................................................................
3.2Technically Social..............................................................................
3.3Socio-Cultural Grounded Experiences of Technology:
‘Technology Is Neither Good, nor Bad, nor Is it Neutral’.................
3.4The Medium Is (Part of) the Message: Technology
Changing Uses and Experiences of Social Media..............................
3.5Platforms Are Not Universal Across Devices.....................................
3.6The Difference Between ‘Having’ and ‘Having Access to’
Technology.........................................................................................
3.7Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy Makers,
and Educators.....................................................................................
References...................................................................................................
18
23
28
31
36
37
45
45
46
52
55
58
59
62
66
vii
viii
4
5
6
Contents
hat’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?......................................................
W
4.1Introduction........................................................................................
4.2From Networking to Not Working: Accounting
for the Array of Online Social Experiences.......................................
4.3Uses of Social Media Beyond Content Production Alone.................
4.4Content Collapse: Negotiating Overlaps in Audiences......................
4.5Moving Beyond Content Production..................................................
4.6Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy
Makers, and Educators.......................................................................
References...................................................................................................
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity
Managed Online?.......................................................................................
5.1Introduction........................................................................................
5.2Different Platform, Different Design Features,
and Different Social Performances of Identity...................................
5.3The Use of Third-Party Apps to Augment Design
and the Effects of This Upon Social Interaction................................
5.4Accounting for the Offline in Online Identity Performances.............
5.5Identity Boundary Negotiation Between User
and Design: Tactics, Trade-Off, and Compromises............................
5.6Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy Makers,
and Educators.....................................................................................
References...................................................................................................
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical
Framework for Identity Presentation......................................................
6.1Introduction........................................................................................
6.2Positioning Identity............................................................................
6.3 Accounting for Socio-cultural Resources and Experiences
in Identity Performances....................................................................
6.4Accounting for the Role of ‘Staging’ and ‘Props’
in Identity Performances....................................................................
6.5Agential Realism and Agential Cuts: Accounting
for the Narratives Paths Not Chosen..................................................
6.6Narratives in Comic Book Studies: Closure, Intertextuality,
and Extratextuality.............................................................................
6.7Introducing Comic Theory: Understanding Identity
Performances in Social Media Through the Lens
of Comic Books..................................................................................
6.8Conclusion: Designing an Identity.....................................................
References...................................................................................................
71
71
75
79
81
83
86
88
93
93
97
102
104
108
114
116
117
117
119
123
126
133
136
140
147
148
Contents
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators
and Educational Researchers...................................................................
7.1Introduction........................................................................................
7.2Technology as Panacea: The Need to Readdress
One-­Size-Fits-All Educational Technology.......................................
7.3Comic Theory: Considering Design in Online Identity
Performances......................................................................................
7.4Offering Closure.................................................................................
References...................................................................................................
ix
155
155
156
163
165
170
Chapter 1
The Digital Metamorphosis
Abstract This introductory chapter begins to explore why education needs to carefully explore, understand, and engage with social media. Through a sustained comparison with Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, this chapter unpacks why there is a need
for educators, educational research, and educational policy makers to more carefully examine social media rather than rely upon engrained assumptions. In particular, this chapter asks educational professionals to pay attention to critical sociological
understandings of social media. The chapter then moves on to introduce the participants of the research detailed in this book, discussing why they were selected and
why there is a compelling ethical responsibility and need to move beyond the focus
on public data collection that is ever-present in digital research. Finally, this chapter
concludes by introducing the remaining chapters of this book.
Keywords Metamorphosis · Digital education · Social Media · Public data ·
Participant selection · Digital sociology
1.1 Introduction
One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in
bed he had been changed into a monstrous verminous bug. He lay on his armour-hard back
and saw, as he lifted his head up a little, his brown, arched abdomen divided up into rigid
bow-like sections. From this height the blanket, just about ready to slide off completely,
could hardly stay in place. His numerous legs, pitifully thin in comparison to the rest of his
circumference, flickered helplessly before his eyes. ‘What’s happened to me,’ he thought. It
was no dream. His room, a proper room for a human being, only somewhat too small, lay
quietly between the four well-known walls. (Kafka 1915, The Metamorphosis)
In 1915, Franz Kafka released his now famous novella, The Metamorphosis (or
‘Die Verwandlung’ in its original German) detailing the demise of Gregor Samsa,
an office worker, who wakes up to find himself transformed into a grotesque ‘monstrous verminous bug’. Gregor is immediately faced with the challenge of negotiating the alien and yet familiar world of his bedroom, trying desperately to navigate
and negotiate the world around him that suddenly is not made for the new reality he
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
H. T. Dyer, Designing the Social, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in
Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3_1
1
2
1 The Digital Metamorphosis
embodies. Curiously his concern here is not about his sudden transformation into a
hideous bug, but instead about how he was going to get to his job. Gregor begins to
attempt to navigate the world around him to the best of his ability, but has to think
carefully and deliberately about how to move effectively around an environment
that is familiar but now viewed through (literal) new eyes, presenting both a physical and profoundly ontological shift:
It was very easy to throw aside the blanket. He needed only to push himself up a little, and
it fell by itself. But to continue was difficult, particularly because he was so unusually wide.
He needed arms and hands to push himself upright. Instead of these, however, he had only
many small limbs which were incessantly moving with very different motions and which,
in addition, he was unable to control. If he wanted to bend one of them, then it was the first
to extend itself, and if he finally succeeded doing with this limb what he wanted, in the
meantime all the others, as if left free, moved around in an excessively painful agitation.
‘But I must not stay in bed uselessly,’ said Gregor to himself. (Kafka 1915, The
Metamorphosis)
Gregor engages in an arduous process of navigating the environment in his new
form, suddenly acutely aware of the new functions of familiar objects around him
seen in a new light. Whilst navigating this ontological shift, Gregor is all the while
overhearing the concerns and criticisms of his family and his boss, waiting for him
on the other side of his locked bedroom door. His family and his boss, however, are
not overly concerned with his well-being, but instead concerned with his productivity, attempting to work out how to get Gregor to work. Gregor too attempts to get
ready for work, worried still not about his current bug-like condition and more
about his ability to work:
‘But Mr. Manager,’ called Gregor, beside himself and in his agitation forgetting everything
else, ‘I’m opening the door immediately, this very moment. A slight indisposition, a dizzy
spell, has prevented me from getting up. I’m still lying in bed right now. But now I’m quite
refreshed once again. I’m in the midst of getting out of bed. Just have patience for a short
moment! Things are not going so well as I thought. But things are all right. (Kafka 1915,
The Metamorphosis)
Eventually, Gregor manages to open the door of his bedroom, hurting himself
physically in the process as he focuses intently on maintaining the status quo and
getting to work:
Unfortunately it seemed that he had no real teeth. How then was he to grab hold of the key?
But to make up for that his jaws were naturally very strong; with their help he managed to
get the key really moving, and he did not notice that he was obviously inflicting some damage on himself, for a brown fluid came out of his mouth, flowed over the key, and dripped
onto the floor. (Kafka 1915, The Metamorphosis)
Gregor eventually opens his bedroom door, but, upon discovering his bug-like
form, his family and boss panic, locking him in another room. Over a series of
months they lock Gregor up, attempting to ignore him and wondering why he
doesn’t understand them, all the while making no attempt to understand Gregor in
his new form. This continues until Gregor (who eventually becomes referred to as
‘it’ rather than Gregor) finally dies.
1.1
Introduction
3
I wanted to begin this book with a ‘cliffnotes’ summary of Kafka’s short work
here not only because I think it’s a compelling indictment of modern capitalism and
neoliberalism but because this book details the stories of nine modern Gregors. This
may seem somewhat of a glib and grim comparison at first, but when we look at the
state of modern social media, and education’s response to the challenges social
media raises, I believe it is hard to not see the parallels between Gregor’s story and
the stories of the nine participants detailed throughout this book. Through 45 interviews conducted over the course of a year (between the summer of 2014 and the
summer of 2015 – exactly 100 years after Kafka published The Metamorphosis),
this book details the stories of nine young adults (between the ages of 17 and 26) as
they attempt to navigate and understand the world of social media.
I would like to highlight here that I am not taking the cruel and unusual step of
calling my nine participants ‘monstrous verminous bugs’ (!), but it is evident that
the young people in this research are continuously attempting to navigate the world
of social media that they increasingly find themselves in a world which is at once
strange and familiar. They do so whilst bosses, parents, and teachers talk in worried
tones through locked doors at them whilst ignoring the new reality these young
people face. Though not as severe as Gregor’s transformation, the participants did
undergo a number of changes over the course of the 12 months they were interviewed, starting new jobs for the first time, finishing school, starting/finishing university, moving away from home, and getting their first smartphone. Through
following and interviewing the participants regularly over the course of 12 months,
the research documented in this book is able to explore how they dealt with these
changes in their lives, unpacking in detail the ways in which they navigated and
negotiated social media’s unique challenges. This book then is my attempt to give
voice to their perception of the ontological, social, and physical challenges they face
and to understand how their experiences, and in particular their identities, morphed
to meet the demands of the environments they were in and their changing social
situations.
The focus in this book is overtly upon the social experiences of young people
online, with a particular focus upon how we can theorise and understand identity
online. This is a deliberate choice and one that I feel is increasingly needed in the
field of education, in which I conduct my research. This book, like my teaching to
date, is bound up in education in the broadest sense. By education here I don’t necessarily mean classroom education, though this is explicitly the topic of Chap. 7 of
this book in which we discuss critical digital literacies in education. Education, as
any good teacher will tell you, should not be confined to the classroom. There is an
increasing imperative for educators and educational researchers to deal with social
media in an in-depth manner that doesn’t just throw technology at children in the
assumption that some simple equation can be done here: Kids + Tech = ‘modern
education’. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to suggest that this sort of equation
bears striking similarities to the attitude of Gregor’s boss and family member who
seem to rely heavily on assumptions about Gregor, in turn forcing him to ignore his
changing reality to focus intently on work in a way that literally kills him.
4
1 The Digital Metamorphosis
As this book makes clear, technology is not experienced, understood, approached,
or used in a uniform manner, and it cannot be stripped from the changing realities
users have with technology, nor from the user’s socio-cultural experiences and
resources. Unfortunately, modern educational response to technology seems to wilfully attempt either to ignore and ban social media or to attempt to dissect it, teaching skills deemed essential for the modern market place. Coding, programming, and
Boolean logic pervade how education is engaging with social media, attempting to
position young people for the modern job market. Much like Gregor – who is
expected and pressured to continue his job as a salesman by his boss and family
despite the many new and obvious challenges raised by his adjusting to life as a
grotesque giant bug – users, designers, educators, and researchers often default to
treating young people as workers in a tech-driven marketplace, ignoring and sidelining the complex social experience of young people.
We see this through banning of social media in the classroom, through a focus on
programming, through the abdication of responsibility to discuss social media in
classroom thanks to myths of digital natives that still pervade modern education.
The approach seems to be that we can ignore the bug in the room and focus on creating a productive worker. In the same way that much of the absurdity of Kafka’s
novella comes from the manner in which a giant bug is expected to continue about
its everyday life as a salesman in the face of such a large change, it is bizarre to treat
the Internet as a set skills for the workplace and ignore the social aspects of it. The
work presented here is an earnest attempt to correct for this approach in modern
education, taking young people’s engagement with social media seriously by paying overt, close, and detailed attention to their engagements with social media platforms, in turn attempting to account for how best to understand and theorise their
identity presentations in these environments. Rather than ignoring social media, or
attempting to carry on as normal in preparation for the workplace, this book makes
a case for close attention to, and engagement with, the many changes social media
has bought to young people in and out the classroom.
Our experiences and engagements with technology are constantly shifting, and
any approach towards introducing technology in education should understand that
there can never truly be an easy catch-all solution. Comic Theory, detailed within
this book, attempts to provide a frame for understanding how we engage with technology in a nuanced way, an approach which is vital if we are to see the increasing
influx of technology in education. Rather than assuming, for instance, that apps can
be designed and used as a sort of ‘first response’ to student mental health issues or
that homework can be automated through pre-brought maths programmes that children complete online, the framework detailed here allows us to understand that
technology is embedded and enmeshed in our lives in ways that have large repercussions for introducing it into the education cleanly and uniformly. Instead, the case is
made here through Comic Theory that our engagements with technology are individual, guided, and navigated in an ongoing way by the socio-cultural embedded
design of the platforms we use, the user’s socio-cultural resources and expectations,
their experiences with technologies, and a number of other overlapping factors.
1.1
Introduction
5
The context and experiences of a pupil to date are not shed when they enter a
classroom and are not sidelined when they engage with technology. This does not
provide easy solutions for educational practitioners or researchers, nor is it meant
to. Reality is messy, but the crucial takeaway here is that this mess is vital and cannot be stripped away or ignored. We cannot throw technology at education as a way
of removing that mess, as if all young people are all technology adept and able to
learn if we only find the right combination of technology, environment, and pedagogy. Instead, we should understand that technology is bound up in our lives in
many messy ways. We can (and I argue, must) attempt to understand and account
for this mess, rather than disregarding or ignoring it. That is what this book attempts
to do – dwell in that mess and provide a way of conceptualising and thinking through
the many overlapping elements that shape how we are experiencing and using
technology.
Rather than disregarding this mess, Comic Theory centres it and forces us to deal
with it as an essential element of our experiences with technology. It is hoped that
through this we see that this messiness is crucial to how we use technology and that
educational practitioners, policy makers, and researchers can and should contextualise technology rather than generalise. Doing so may help critically reconsider, for
example, the racial implications of algorithms, the coding of gender as a binary, or the
need for decolonisation of online curricula. This work is being done outside of the
field of education by researchers such as Safiya Noble, Deborah Lupton, Jessie
Daniels, Karen Gregory, Noortje Marres, danah boyd, Rumman Chowdhury, and
countless other exciting researchers to whom this book owes a tremendous debt of
gratitude. I raise this list not to single out any researchers, nor to position myself
amongst them, but to emphasise here that the work to explore technology in a critical
sociologically informed manner continues at a pace, yet education seems resistant, if
not overtly hostile at times to reflecting on this work. In this manner, I position this
work as the response of a digital sociologist working in the field education to the current laissez faire attitude towards technology in education. In doing so, I hope to
emphasise and build upon the work of researchers such as Sonia Livingstone, Akwugo
Emejulu, Gerard Goggin, and others who have built a much-­needed case for the need
for engaged critical digital citizenship in education to understand the lived realities of
young people online and the socio-cultural implications of technology. Crucially, this
work must be done from a purposeful position of exploring what the Internet is (not
merely from looking at the potential of the Internet) and how it is experienced by
young people (not just telling them how they should behave online). As Emejulu and
Mcgregor (2019, 143) make clear, this means overtly teaching young people to be
engaged and critical digital citizens rather than compliant uncritical cyborgs:
The critical heavy lifting about digital technologies should not be left to cultural theory and
science and technology studies scholars and digital privacy and rights activists. We think
the apolitical stance of digital education amounts to an abdication of responsibility about
what education in digital spaces might mean and what education in these spaces might be.
In this manner, I hope this book adds to the voices of research in education
engaging in work which overtly attempts to engage in a serious consideration of the
realities of social media in the lives of young people. Gregor physically hurt himself
6
1 The Digital Metamorphosis
trying desperately to prepare for work whilst ignoring his increasingly complex
reality as a bug. I would heavily suggest that education too is in grave present danger of hurting young people by focusing on social media as a clinical set of logics,
coding, and programming focused on preparing young people for work whilst
ignoring their lived realities and engagements with technology.
With this in mind, this introductory chapter will start by laying out the participants around whom the subsequent chapters of this book revolve.
1.2 Selecting and Introducing the Participants
As mentioned earlier, this book revolves around 45 interviews conducted with nine
17–26-year-olds, discussing their experiences and engagements with social media.
Throughout the next six chapters, I will explore a range of themes arising from these
interviews, culminating in a presentation of a theoretical framework through which
to understand identity presentation online. I will be using excerpts and analysis
from these interviews to explore each theme in the words of the young people, who
offer crucial insights into each of the issues raised.
The choice of participants here is worth discussing as it presents some challenges
to how we approach and understand social media. As I will discuss in detail in Chap.
2 of this book, a definition of social media is often complicated and can cover a
broad and growing spectrum of participants, uses, technologies, and platforms.
Social media is a broad and seemingly ever-expanding domain with a range of users
utilising the platforms for a range of reasons. As boyd (2015) highlights, social
media is more than the sum of the term’s parts. In this case, the social aspects of
social media are many and varied. Added to this is the notion that researchers should
not be prioritising only those who post content alone but that there are many reasons
to utilise and engage with social media. This includes many ‘passive’ users of social
media who frequently are overlooked in digital research, but who nonetheless interact with and through social media in interesting, common, and noteworthy ways
(Weller 2016). This is particularly noticeable given the range of options available to
social media users and the literature that highlights the importance of participation
beyond content production alone. Barnes (2015), for example, notes that consumption and ‘passive’ engagement holds equal importance to louder, more obvious content production and that these engagements should be equally focused upon during
consideration of social media. Indeed, some suggest that content production is an
atypical use of social media (Bright et al. 2014).
This need to account for a broad array of online experiences is often disregarded
in digital research, often with the assumption that the loudest voices online are the
most active. Approaches have been taken towards detailing and selecting perfect
participants for rich data collection in online research, including criteria such at the
purposeful selection of participants who produce substantial amounts of data (See
Kozinets 2010). Whilst such approaches have produced useful and thoughtful work,
such approaches potentially risk obscure engagements beyond content production
1.2
Selecting and Introducing the Participants
7
(Weller 2016), or the consideration of aspects such as the work done in creating
content (Ditchfield 2019). When initially undertaking this research, I originally
aimed to find participants who were heavy users of social media, hoping that active
and interactive participants that produced a wealth of data would allow for a discussion of social media that was informed by substantial experience in content production. However, it quickly became clear once I began talking to potential participants
that whilst finding users who produce large amounts of content can be useful, such
an approach may be bias in its favouring of a particular type of user.
In the initial interviews, the potential participants began discussing the myriad
ways they had of using the Internet as a social space; of the plethora of methods,
tools, and techniques at their disposal for interacting and acting online; and of the
vast variety of their approaches to selecting and uploading appropriate material.
Certainly, there were large disparities in how substantive and data-rich their actual
online updates were and how ‘active’ the participants were, but nonetheless their
engagements with social media were all important, varied, and specific to their situation. Participants discussed, for example, the ways they used Facebook to ‘stalk’
their friends and family without actively engaging with them or the ways in which
they considered themselves a part of a YouTube community just by watching the
videos and vlogs of certain personalities, even without actively commenting on the
posts. As participants, they didn’t fulfil a checklist of useful and ideal traits, but I
decided very quickly that I should not dismiss their usefulness to focus on participants who produces masses of content. The focus instead quickly became and
engagement in discussions around how they were using, consuming, and engaging
with social media through interviews conducted at regular interval throughout the
12 months of data collection. Doing so enabled a move away from considering the
content they were producing to instead understand the role social media was playing
in their lives. Rather than deciding what constituted good ‘active’ participants, I
decided to let a group of nine participants tell me their stories and their engagement
with social media, stories which are detailed in this book.
Some practical guidelines were nonetheless put in place to find participants who
used social media enough to discuss their engagements with the platforms in a detail
manner over the course of the year. The age range selected here (17–26) allowed for
a consideration of a number of interesting transitional life stages of young adults,
though of course there is a need to conduct research around social media use across
various age ranges. Though the age range here is somewhat older than many pupils
and older than the focus of much educational research, the discussions around key
transitional moments in young adulthood provided unique insights into the embedded nature of social media in the lives of young people. Further to this, this sampling of course cannot be perceived as attempting to make claims about broader
populations. Indeed, the theoretical framework presented in Chap. 6 of this book,
Comic Theory, suggest that each individual will engage with social media in unique
yet guided manners and that the manifestations of our narratives online can usefully
be considered in a small-scale individual manner. Whilst our engagements with
social media will be guided by the design process, and whilst certain uses and
engagements are encouraged at often the expense of others, engagements with these
8
1 The Digital Metamorphosis
platforms can still be largely unique and individual manners. Even across a sample
of nine participants in this research, the range of engagements was readily apparent.
As such the aim of this research is not to provide claims for a broad population but
to aid in the development of a theoretical frame through which we can examine and
understand the creation and maintenance of identity performance online as emergent narrative constructions guided by design elements and closure. Arguably no
discussion of how identity is produced online can truly hope to be generalisable
through data collection alone. It is this theoretical model, detailed in Chap. 6 of this
book and constructed from the data produced with and by these participants, that is
aimed to be generalisable and applicable to how we interact with and through social
media. As such, this book attempts to balance a discussion of individual cases, and
a comparison of emergent themes amongst participants, with an approach that aims
to present a theoretical frame through which we can consider the manner in which
identity performances emerge.
I would also like to discuss why this research around social media took the seemingly analogue step of holding face-to-face interviews with young people rather
than, for example, following and documenting their online interactions. One of the
key reasons for this is largely ethical – I gave overt agency to the young people I
documented to share and tell me about what was important to them. The appeal of
public data is largely understandable from a research standpoint. In many ways it is
a researcher’s dream: a plethora of easily mineable data that takes minimal collection and that is presented in a consistent and extractable format. The use of public
data is also (arguably) largely covered ethically in that this data is shared publicly
by the producer of the content on platforms that often cover the use of data for a
range of purposes in the end-user agreements. Users have the option to remove
themselves from publicly sharing their data and can choose to ‘lock’ their accounts
if they do not wish to share their data publicly. Many researchers therefore argue
that there are readily available opt-in security measures, that the data is largely public by choice, and that open access and treatment of data to for a data-rich environment can be a positive for research (Fairfield and Shtein 2014).
However, the argument against assuming that publicly sharing data is fair-game
for researchers is rather obvious. Firstly, there is no informed consent for the use of
the data for research purposes. This is an issue that has been increasingly in the
public eye through occurrences such as researchers purposefully manipulating
Facebook feeds without user permission (Kramer et al. 2014) or through the well-­
documented Cambridge Analytica scandal. Though the data for many of these cases
is technically public for anyone to read and access, this of course does not automatically mean that researchers should use it without making people aware that their
data is being taken and used for research purposes. Crawford and boyd (2012, 672)
sum up this notion, asking questions of this approach towards the access of ‘public’
online information:
should someone be included as a part of a large aggregate of data? What if someone’s ‘public’ blog post is taken out of context and analyzed in a way that the author never imagined?
What does it mean for someone to be spotlighted or to be analyzed without knowing it?
Who is responsible for making certain that individuals and communities are not hurt by the
1.2
Selecting and Introducing the Participants
9
research process? What does consent look like? It may be unreasonable to ask researchers
to obtain consent from every person who posts a tweet, but it is unethical for researchers to
justify their actions as ethical simply because the data is accessible. Just because content is
publicly accessible doesn’t mean that it was meant to be consumed by just anyone.
The above objection to the use of public data does hint at a larger issue, namely,
that researchers shouldn’t assume that all ‘publics’ are equal. If a user shares something publicly they understandably may not feel that this alone means that it will be
largely seen and accessed. It may be meant for a specific group of people: a ‘specific
public’. In the same way, some of the participants of this study noted that they felt
that not all ‘publics’ are equal. Some, for example, noted that being public on
Twitter was less problematic than being public on other platforms, as they felt the
fast-moving nature of Twitter meant their data was soon forgotten and replaced with
newer content. This echoes the concerns raised by Dwyer et al. (2007) who noted
that specific platforms fostered different attitudes towards what data was shared and
how publicly it was shared.
There are also potential issues with the assumption that publicly shared data is
public by choice. Public is for many people a default for participating in social
media (Crawford and boyd 2012). Research has shown that privacy settings are
often sacrificed online in order to interact successfully on platforms geared towards
extracting user data and that participants can feel the pressure to interact publicly
(Cho 2018). As Cho (2018) highlights, public-by-default designs can be particularly
harmful to communities such as queer youth of colour, they note:
Users are not fully in control of or even fully aware of the visibility to their network of all
consequences of all their actions on the platform…These design choices rehearse heteronormative assumptions of publicity of act and speech into the design of a platform, a rehearsal
that is also synonymous with the imperatives of platform capitalism. (Cho 2018, 3195)
As such, the awareness of the public nature of data may not be consistent for all
users, and it cannot be assumed that just because we can access the data, this data
was intended for public use and consumption in unproblematic ways.
This bears out in the analysis of the data presented in this book, which notes that
privacy is often negotiated between user and design and that the boundaries of the
performance are negotiated in this regard, with participants noticeably accepting
trade-offs in the level of their privacy in order to participate in these spaces. The
findings from this data reveal complicated relationships with public data. Participants
appear to walk the line between a need to be public and a desire to control their data
and image. As detailed in Chap. 5 of this book, some participants felt they had to
doctor their content, whilst others merely noted they sacrifice privacy for ‘better’
social interactions on sites such as Twitter. For the participants, the decision to opt
out of public interaction was not so much an opt-out of having their data read as it
was opt-out of the full experience of social communication online. The participants
talked about how they maintained control in some ways via blocking and reporting,
but as they wanted to participate in the social sphere, they felt they had no real way
of maintaining control over ‘lurking’ and over researchers using their data without
interacting with them. For the participants, to go private was also to severely limit
social interaction and to limit people finding them. To go private was to lessen their
10
1 The Digital Metamorphosis
social impact. In order for public and private to be dichotomous, they ought to be
exclusive and exhaustive categories. But for participants in this research, it was
neither; it was a false dichotomy that should not be upheld by researchers or relied
upon without due ethical consideration.
Rather than assuming that public interaction is a singular category, researchers
should be careful to acknowledge the many nuances at play in public interactions.
Public should not be thought of as a catch-all category, but instead researchers
should acknowledge that there is, as Waskul and Douglass (1996) put it over two
decades ago, such a thing as being ‘publicly private’. The interactions may be publicly accessible, but the participants may view these interactions as less public, possibly even as private. The same may be true of archival data that seems to be more
prevalent these days in ‘big data’ studies. The research presented here suggests that
the assumption of public and private should not be made with a consideration of
what these mean to the participants and how these boundaries have been reached on
a person-by-person, platform-by-platform basis.
Essentially then, keeping this discussion very much in mind during the data collection process, this research did not collect public data from social media platforms
directly. This is in part a practical matter. Given that this research did not focus upon
one or two platforms, but instead sought to give voice to the participants’ understanding of social media and to discuss their use of a wide and broad range of sites, it
would be impractical and in some cases impossible to access all of the social media
platforms that the participant was using. Some sites platforms are, for example, location bound and can include sensitive information despite being public, including data
platforms such as Grindr and Tinder. Others such as Snapchat are temporally bound.
Others still work through anonymity or pseudoymity. I could not reasonably follow
and observe the participants engagement on these platforms in person, and I could
not reasonably know which posts the participant has sent and which have been sent
by others. Similarly, as I own an Android phone, some platforms that are Apple
exclusive would not be easily accessed. As such, and given the fact that my participants had a large range of platforms and sites between them, reasonably observing
and capturing data from these sites over the research period would have been problematic and often impossible. To therefore choose to only focus on one or two easily
accessed platforms would also provide a reductive picture of their complex online
experiences. The approach taken in this research as such purposefully sidestepped
this discussion of what data we should have access to, presenting a third tenable
option. Rather than discussing the data produced by participants, this research positioned the experiences and thoughts of the participants in regard to social media as
being of key importance. In essence, the data publicly produced is less important here
than the thoughts and machinations of the participants in the production and consumption of this data. As such, the data detailed in this book is the result of in-depth
discussions with nine 17–26-year-olds about their engagements with social media.
With this in mind, I will now introduce the nine participants around whom this
book revolves:
Brandon was a 26-year-old white male living on the south coast of England with his
girlfriend and working in finance. He described himself as optimistic and happy.
1.2
Selecting and Introducing the Participants
11
He used Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram at the start of the research
period and joined some forums towards the end specific to his interests in motorbikes. He accessed these mainly through either a phone or a desktop computer.
Brian was a 26-year-old gay white male living in London and working as a research
assistant. He had a broad range of interests and spent a lot of his time with his
research, describing himself as a ‘typical nerd’. He used Facebook and Twitter to
produce content, but also regularly accessed a wide range of other platforms for
reading, posting content, and discussing issues. Brian accessed these platforms
across a range of technologies, including phone, tablet, laptop, and computer.
Isabel was a 25-year-old white female living near London with her partner and
working in sales. She mainly used Facebook and Twitter, but also noted that she
used WhatsApp, Instagram, and Snapchat on occasion for a variety of reasons.
She described herself as blunt but loyal to her friends. She accesses these platforms almost exclusively on apple devices, usually an iPhone and an iPad.
Kirsty was a 24-year-old white female living on the south coast of England and worked
in communications. She described herself as often whimsical and bubbly and had
an interest in literature. She mainly used Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn at the
start of the research and accessed them on her phone, laptop, and work computer.
Molly was a 17-year-old white female. She had just sat her final exams for her
A-Levels at a school in the south of England and lived at home with her mother,
her step-father, her step-sister, and two brothers. She described herself as a shy
person who spent a lot of time following her hobbies of dance and music. The
research period coincided with several key events in Molly’s life: turning 18,
leaving school, going to university, and moving away from her family. She used
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat during the research period and
accessed these from a smartphone, a laptop, and a shared family computer.
Nina was a 21-year-old white female living in the south of England after just moving out from her parent’s home. She worked in construction and regularly used
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and a musical theatre forum. She had
many hobbies and was frequently busy fulfilling interests in music and culture.
She accessed these platforms on a range of devices including work computers,
desktop, laptop, and iPhone.
Oliver was a 21-year-old white male living with his girlfriend near London. He was
working in a primary school and training towards being a teacher. He described
himself as geeky and spent his free time playing videogames and watching
TV. He used Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit regularly and accessed these through
a PC, and phone, and an iPad.
Sally was a 21-year-old British-Asian female, living in the south of England with
her parents. She was in her final year of university at the beginning of the research
period and used Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram across several devices.
She described herself as geeky and often talked about her love of fandoms. She
spent much of her free time updating Tumblr, reading books, and watching TV.
Willow was a 24-year-old British-Asian female living in the south of England. She
worked as an office assistant and accessed social media via her phone, laptop,
12
1 The Digital Metamorphosis
and computer. She was shy and geeky and spent her free time indoors reading
and playing videogames. At the start of the research period she used Reddit,
Facebook, and Twitter regularly.
1.3 Dissecting Social Media
To return to where this chapter started, this book represents an attempt to understand
and take social media seriously, considering what it means to young people and how
we can better realise and recognise what this means for an understanding of the
social in education. This requires granular and detailed approaching of the Internet
as it exists today with an understand that this is a quick moving field, and an attempt
to unpack what the role of the Internet is, what its limitations are, and what it can
yet be. Much as the opening of Kafka’s The Metamorphosis details Gregor waking
up as a bug and proceeding to slowly, carefully take stock of the familiar yet alien
surroundings in which he now finds himself, so too is there a need to examine and
take stock of social media, the Internet, and our engagement with technology in
order to better navigate our way through it.
Chapter 2 of this book therefore echoes Gregor’s early steps in The Metamorphosis
taking stock of the new body he finds himself inhabiting. We will be taking a close
and detailed look at the reality of social media in which we find ourselves. This
includes defining what social media is and how young people are using it, as well as
purposefully dispelling some myths about what social media isn’t.
In Chap. 3 we begin exploring some of the new insect appendages, focusing here
specifically on the devices we use to connect to social media, and how devices can
change our uses and engagements with these platforms. This comes with an understanding that platforms, despite having a consistent name and aesthetic across
devices, are largely different beast on different devices.
In Chap. 4 we begin to take stock of the world around us beyond our immediate
appendages, exploring what is ‘social’ about social media, which voices social
media emphasises and minimises, and how a user’s socio-cultural experiences
impact their engagements with platforms. This situates social media as overtly
social in a way that cannot be separated from the offline.
Chapter 5 presents a detail look at the internal struggle between Gregor’s mind
and the new body he now finds himself in. The discussion, presented through the
participants words, moves towards considering how identity performances online
are negotiated in complex ways between socio-culturally grounded users and specifically designed platforms.
Chapter 6 dwells more deeply on this same topic, this time building a presenting
a new theoretical framework, Comic Theory, this which we can begin to frame identity presentation online as the result of complex ongoing negotiations between users
and platforms.
Finally, this book concludes with a discussion of what this close consideration of
social media might mean for educators, educational research, and educational
References
13
policy, in the hope that we can avoid the dire fate Gregor succumbs to through the
wilful disregard of his new reality in pursuit of a futile clinical and detached view of
the world.
I will finish this introduction by noting that it is important as educators that we
take the insect seriously, that we understand how it moves through the world and
how it works, and that we understand the limitations and the advantages of this new
reality rather than assuming that we can crowbar existing stratifies onto digital
appendages. Nor can we just ignore them and hope they go away. This metamorphosis is one that we can and must begin to understand and uncover, rather than ignore
and neglect. This book presents one such attempt to document this process. I encourage anyone involved in education to begin this process themselves, not just leaving
this work to those interested in technology. Comic Theory presents a frame which
purposefully enmeshes the social, the digital, and the cultural and which dwells in
the messiness these issues present. I encourage educators, educational policy makers, and educational researchers to take the steps towards unlocking Gregor’s door
and working with him to avoid his dire fate.
References
Barnes, R. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on
Australian alternative journalism website new Matilda. New Media & Society, 17(5), 810–826.
boyd, d. (2015). Social media: A phenomenon to be analyzed. Social Media + Society, April–June
2015, 1–2.
Bright, J., Margetts, H., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2014). The use of social media for research and
analysis: A feasibility study. A report of research carried out by the Oxford Internet Institute on
behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Cho, A. (2018). Default publicness: Queer youth of color, social media, and being outed by the
machine. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3183–3200.
Crawford, K., & boyd, D. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication &
Society, 15(9), 662–679.
Ditchfield, H. (2019). Behind the screen of Facebook: Identity construction in the rehearsal stage
of online interaction. New Media & Society, 2019, 1–19.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking
sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In AMCIS 2007 (paper 339).
Emejulu, A., & Mcgregor, C. (2019). Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education.
Critical Studies in Education, 60(1), 131–147.
Fairfield, J., & Shtein, H. (2014). Big data, big problems: Emerging issues in the ethics of data
science and journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29(1), 38–51.
Kafka, F. (1915). The metamorphosis (W. Muir & E. Muir, Trans.). Franz Kafka: The complete
short stories. London: Vintage, 2005.
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: Sage.
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-­
scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790.
Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on-line research. The Information Society, 12(2), 129–140.
Weller, K. (2016). Trying to understand social media users and usage: The forgotten features of
social media platforms. Online Information Review, 40(2), 256–264.
Chapter 2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
Abstract This chapter deals with the seemingly simple but surprisingly complex
task of defining social media. We begin with a discussion of what social media isn’t,
working through some of the common and pervasive myths around social media and
young people, before moving on to discuss some of the difficulties in offering a
clear definition of social media. Given the continuing evolving nature of platforms,
including the addition of new ways of interacting, the ever-growing diverse ways of
engaging with and through platforms beyond social interaction, and the use of various social features on a wide array of platforms that may not traditionally be considered overly social spaces, we discuss where (if anywhere) the boundaries of
social media sit. We then move on to discuss the importance of a platform-specific
approach to understanding social media and then finally reflect on data drawn from
a series of interviews with young people to discuss how they understand, define, and
use social media.
Keywords Social media · Social networking · Digital natives · Moral panic ·
Young people
2.1 Introduction
There is no denying the increasingly important and ubiquitous role of the Internet
and of social media in the everyday lives of many people today. Social media has
quickly become incredibly popular – both important and mundane, widespread and
individualised, a source of global political power and a space for sharing GIFs of
cats. Social media contains multitudes and is experienced, used, and present in
many of our lives in a variety of ways (see Miller 2011; Wang et al. 2015; Anderson
and Jiang 2018). In its relatively short existence,1 the Internet has quickly come to
The birth of the Internet is, like many aspects of digital history, nebulous. Some trace it to Leonard
Kleinrock’s work in packet networking in the 1960s with the Advanced Research Projects Agency
(Ruthfield 1995). Others credit Tim Berners-Lee’s work at CERN in the 1980s (Couldry 2012)
1
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
H. T. Dyer, Designing the Social, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in
Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3_2
15
16
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
serve many broad functions and roles in everyday life, from social interaction and
action (boyd 2015), to news (Hermida et al. 2012), shopping (Schivinski and
Dabrowski 2016), business (Qualman 2009), politics (Shirky 2011), and many more
growing diverse uses (Irwin 2016). Given the seemingly increasing popularity of
social media, especially amongst our youth (Lenhart 2015; OFCOM 2019), there is
a pressing need to understand exactly what social media is and how young people
are using social media in their daily lives to act and interact. This means a need to
consider not only the amount of time young people are spending online (a topic
discussed in more detail later in this chapter) but also what their experiences are (if
indeed these can be considered universal, another topic we’ll discuss later) and how
social media may shape their complex social lives (a theme we’ll return to throughout this book).
Though the use of social media is spread amongst all age ranges at an increasing
rate (Perrin and Anderson 2019), young people in particular2 access the Internet
more frequently at an increasing rate (Lenhart 2015; Anderson and Jiang 2018).
This is for a complex range of reasons (Malvini Redden and Way 2017) beyond just
the suggestion that they are young and therefore somehow ‘native’ to technology.
This idea of ‘digital natives’ in particular is a myth that educational researchers,
policy makers, and practitioners must dismantle and a topic that we will return to in
detail later in this chapter. Nonetheless, the latest OFCOM (2019) figures do highlight heavy usage by young people, noting that 83% of 12–15-year-olds have their
own smartphone, that 69% of 12–15-year-olds have social media accounts, and that
99% of 12–15-year-olds go online for 20.5 hours per week. This suggests that social
media is playing a large part in the lives of an increasing majority of young people,
even when lower age limits of social media platforms are being potentially flouted
(Livingstone and Ólafsson 2018). Indeed the same 2019 OFCOM report suggests
18% of 8–11-year-olds in the UK have a social media profile and 47% have their
own device, a statistic that suggests young people have an online presence even
when platforms restrict lower age limits. This presence is seemingly significant and
pervasive in the lives of young people. Statistics suggest that in the USA, 92% of
with the first ‘website’ launching in 1990 (still live at http://info.cern.ch/). Some place it as early
as the 1950s with the emergence of WANs (wide-area networks) and other networks like the SemiAutomatic Ground Environment (Kim 2005), or to 1962 with J.C.R Licklider’s work at MIT on the
‘Galactic Network’ (Leiner et al. 2009).
For the purpose of this book, we’ll be focusing on the internet from roughly around 2000
onwards, when there appears to have been a shift away from the Internet as a little used communication medium amongst those in the know to a heavily utilised method of mass communication and
interaction. In 1993, only 1% of the information sent through two-way telecommunication networks was via the Internet. By 2000 this figure was 51%, and by 2007, it was placed at more than
97% of all information sent (Hilbert and Lopez 2011).
This signifies a massive shift in the last 20 years towards mass communication via the Internet,
followed by capitalist investment in infrastructure across a number of industries, such as the introduction of broadband and the huge boom in educational technology (themes that we will return to
in Chap. 3).
2
At increasingly and notably early ages (Livingstone and Ólafsson 2018; Jones and Glynn 2019)
2.1
Introduction
17
teens go online daily, with 24% reporting that they are online ‘almost constantly’
(Lenhart 2015). Indeed, Lenhart (2015) notes that the majority of teens access the
Internet several times a day at least, visiting an increasingly diverse range of destinations. Only 12% of teens reported accessing the Internet just once a day.
As these spaces broadly are becoming increasingly relied upon in the everyday
social lives of young people, the ways in which identity and interactions play out
on- and offline must be of crucial interest to researchers, educators, parents, the
media, and users and non-users of social media alike. It is worth noting here, however, that much like young people and their use of social media, this growing body
of statistical data shows no sign of slowing or abating any time soon, seemingly
suggesting that Internet use in the global north appears to be generally strong and
pervasive. Whilst these quantitative readings are broadly useful, these sort of statistical barrages of data about young people and social media in the paragraph above
lack qualitative depth around the lived experiences of young people on- and offline.
Nonetheless these narrow data snippets often form the basis of the discussion around
social media, in the public and in the media writ large. This shallow reading of
youth and social media becomes the ever-present narrative undercurrent of public
discussion and consternations, with the gaps left from this mass data around the
actual lived experiences of young people on- and offline seemingly filled with fears,
myths, assumptions, and misunderstandings. The ways the public fills in the gaps
about what young people are doing online from this unabating mass of statistical
data has roots bleeding back to long-held extant fears around youth. This often
belies and supersedes the much-needed deeper discussion that is increasingly
required to understand the various complex roles that social media plays in the lives
of young people, a discussion that is ever-present in digital research (see Livingstone
et al. 2018, for example) but which often fails to penetrate the broader discussion,
especially in education.
This chapter, and indeed this book in general, aims to move beyond broad statements about young people and social media to instead understand how young people’s experiences of social media, their lives on- and offline, their identities, and
their experiences across various digital and non-digital domains result from the
complex, ongoing, and continual negotiation of various shifting factors, actors, and
technologies. Though exploring and dwelling in this complex mix, this book begins
to lay the groundwork for a theoretical framework to understand and map the
enmeshing of the various factors that shape youth experiences of social media. This
is vital if we are to understand how Internet use is largely effected and shaped by
socio-cultural backgrounds and exposures to a variety of discourses and media narratives (see Dyer 2016).
In order to explore beyond these pervasive broad statistics about teens and social
media use, this chapter will discuss what social media is and what research tells us
about how young people understand and engage with it. First, however, given the
propensity of daily stories about young people and social media, it is worth doing
some myth-busting and talking clearly about what social media isn’t.
18
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
2.2 Dispelling Some Myths and Moral Panics: What Young
People Aren’t Doing Online
Increasingly we are seeing a large rise in concern about social media and young
people, with uncertainties around how young people are using social media, what
spaces they are using that parents and teachers may not know about, what ‘normal’
usage is, and if young people are addicted. Unfortunately this well-meaning concern is being exacerbated and fuelled by misinformation and long-standing generational fear. Headlines appear in the Daily Mail in 2016 claiming ‘Social
media-obsessed teenagers are so frightened of real life some won’t even answer the
door’, articles in The Atlantic ask ‘have smartphones destroyed a generation?’, and
the Observer headlines implore parents to ‘stop children bingeing on social media’.
As with many changes involving young people throughout history, this has led to
growing ‘moral panics’ about ‘kids today’. McRobbie and Thornton (1995,
561–562) note of this that:
The same anxieties appear with startling regularity; these involve the immorality of young
people, the absence of parental control, the problem of too much free time leading to crime,
and the threat which deviant behaviour poses to national identity and labour discipline.
We see these observations from over two decades ago still present today, much
as they were when highlighted by Geoff Pearson (1983) who discussed the same
attitudes towards young people in the 1930s and 1940s. As with past moral panics,
our concerns about young people and social media are shaped in no small part by
our collective fears – of youth, of our own mistakes, of our growing irrelevancy, and
of our increasing distance from being ‘cool’, none of which are all that unique or
new as concerns and fears.
Throughout history we see fears of media and of new technological inventions
coded as ways of explaining and justifying broader concerns around issues such as
race, youth, gender, and sexuality. These include fears of televisions as ‘idiot boxes’
that are ‘obstructing a moral lifestyle, and impairing mental and physical health’
(Syvertsen 2017, 55); fears of video games causing youth violence (see the largely
debunked Anderson and Dill 2000 paper); fear of comic books causing violence
(Springhall 1998); fears of flapper dancing causing sexual promiscuity and manly
behaviours in young females (see Hall 1922); fears of dungeons and dragons causing Satanism (Lancaster 1994); and more recently fears linking hip hop to inner-city
crime as seen in an article in The Times (Mararike et al. 2018) detailing ‘Drill, the
“demonic” music linked to rise in youth murders’. The list goes on.
Lest we think these fears of media and technology are a twentieth-century peculiarity, I would like to detour quickly to highlight two of my personal favourite cases
of moral panics around media and technology.3 The first being the case of Jonas
For a brilliant achieve of newspaper articles documenting fears of technology from horseless carriages and bicycles to headphones and radios, I would encourage you to explore the pessimists
archive at https://pessimists.co/archive/.
3
2.2 Dispelling Some Myths and Moral Panics: What Young People Aren’t Doing Online
19
Hanway, an Englishman in the 1750s who, reportedly after a trip to Europe, began
using an umbrella around London when it rained. Onlookers were recorded to be
shocked by this ‘effeminate’ behaviour displayed publicly by a man and were even
recorded as being violent towards Hanway, heckling him, and pelting him with rubbish (Waters 2016). The second case is considerably older, coming from Plato’s
Phaedrus composed around 370 BC. In Phaedrus, the Egyptian King Thamos is
detailed discussing his fears around how writing might impact the capabilities of
younger generations to remember ideas, stating:
If men learn this [art of writing], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease
to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to ­remembrance
no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks (Plato, Transl.
Hackforth 1973).
The point here being that this is nothing new yet seemingly we refuse to learn
from this ongoing fear of youth. This landscape of fear and concern around technologies and youth can often be confusing for parents, teachers, and others concerned with young people, but worryingly can also be truly dangerous in regard to
how we treat young people. Nowhere has this been more apparent recently than in
the case of the ‘Momo Challenge’ in early 2019, a story which obscured, diverted,
and refracted concerns around young people and mental health onto a collectively
manifested and exaggerated fictional totemic ‘folk devil’ (reminiscent of Cohen’s
[1972] work around moral panics). With origins in online rumours dating back to
2018, the ‘Momo Challenge’ was reportedly a ‘suicide game’ where a sinister-looking bird-­faced woman named Momo would appear on children’s phones telling
them to complete an escalating series of tasks, culminating in self-harm and suicide.
Early reporting in the media linked this to deaths of children in South America, and
the stories were met with concern from parents, statements from police forces4 and
school boards,5 posts about the craze from celebrities such as Kim Kardashian,6 and
a flurry of new stories. Of course, the Momo Challenge was not actually real, but
nonetheless the stories spread far and fast. It has even been suggested that, because
of this press coverage, Momo was manifested into existence, with the UK safer
Internet Centre noting ‘It’s a myth that is perpetuated into being some kind of reality’ (Waterson 2019). To any media scholar, this should remind you instantly of Jean
Baudrillard’s (1994) concept of hyperreality in which he posits that fiction and reality are so closely intertwined in modern life that it becomes difficult to separate one
from the other.
Whilst concerns parents were seemingly talking to their children about the dangers of a fictional bird-lady on their phones in the immediate aftermath of the Momo
Challenge, the underlying concerns from which this story manifested – concerns
around social media, young people, and mental health – were left under-discussed.
See here https://www.psni.police.uk/news/Latest-News/250219-psni-statement-regardingmomo-challenge/.
5
https://twitter.com/LimestoneDSB/status/1100822007829024768
6
https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/27/kim-kardashian-youtube-kids-momo-challenge/
4
20
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
Though there are well-meaning fears that young people are suffering through a
mental health crisis driven in no small part by social media, the research is rather
clear, highlighting that adolescent well-being is not strongly linked to technology
use (Orben and Przybylski 2019). Nonetheless, there has been a great deal of handwringing around the ‘screentime’ debate, with the logic that screentime can correlate somehow to an increase in mental health issues or a lack of ‘proper’
communication (See Turkle 2011). It is worth noting that Orben and Przybylski find
in no uncertain tone that, though worthy of academic study, the search for easy
answers around screentime is obscuring more nuanced discussion around youth and
social media, suggesting ‘that the outsized weight given to digital screen-time in
scientific and public discourse might not be merited on the basis of the available
evidence’ (Orben and Przybylski 2019: 177).
The blame for these moral panics cannot, of course, be placed solely in the hands
of concerned parents, nor with the media. As Ophir et al. (2019) go to some length
to point out, key studies that have captured public attention in claiming a link
between social media and mental health in young people, such as Twenge et al.
(2018) heavily discussed paper, are misleading in their measurements, analyses, and
results. As researchers, we should also be careful to understand our role in shaping
public narratives.7
Despite the hard work of many researchers in dispelling these myths around
social media causing mental health issues, we nonetheless see increasing reports of
educators reacting to social media in extreme ways, punishing young people and
blaming social media for complex mental health issues. This includes schools
increasingly banning phones to improve the mental health of young people, such as
the school I attended in my teen years: St. Bede’s in Redhill, Surrey, UK. Headmaster
Stephen Crabtree detailed his plans in the summer of 2019 to ban phones from the
school to improve mental health and encourage communication, suggesting this
would allow pupils the ‘time to simply be children again’.8 I couldn’t be more disappointed in this decision. This move to scapegoat social media and screen time in lieu
of actually providing mental health services and support for young people should be
truly worrying to anyone involved in education, and it is evident that mental health
issues need to be treated rather than removing some of the means through which
mental health issues manifest themselves. Though links between sleep and social
media screen usage are notable and telling, in general the focus should not be on
time spent, but the way we use social media and the content we see, seek, produce,
and consume. As Ophir et al. (2019: 5 [my emphasis]) note:
the risk for adolescent depression rises when the adolescent avoids positive and constructive daily behaviors (e.g., exercising or interacting with friends online and offline) and
when he or she lacks community support or meaning in life (e.g., attending religious services), regardless of new-media screen use.
It should be noted that Twenge seems rather undeterred by this and has continued to explore links
between low well-being and frequent social media use (see Twenge 2019).
8
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/st-bedes-school-redhill-ban-16400248
7
2.2 Dispelling Some Myths and Moral Panics: What Young People Aren’t Doing Online
21
With this need for a more nuanced discussion of social media in mind, the framework presented in Chap. 6 of this book presents a way to situate online content in
the complex and multifaceted lives of young people, rather than treating them as a
catch-all category and assuming a one-way relationship between social media use
and behaviour. Nonetheless, there are many myths that pervade about young people.
One in particular that is present in education stems from an urge to categorise young
people as a collective through the ever-present narrative of ‘digital natives’.
You will notice this is the only section in this book in which I discuss or use the
term digital natives, despite its popularity amongst educators and despite this book
exploring in detail how young people are engaging with social media and digital
spaces. There is good reason for this, as laid out here and indeed in this entire book.
Originally conceived by Prensky (2001), digital natives refers to the generation of
young people born roughly after 1980 who, because they have been exposed to digital technology from birth, have a different approach, fluency, and use of technology
than previous generations whom Prensky labels ‘digital immigrants’. The term digital natives has passed somewhat into its public parlance and has quickly been
adopted as a way of helping to understand why young people are competent and
comfortable with computers.
The notion of digital natives, despite its popularity (particularly amongst educators), has nonetheless been widely discredited and criticised (Jones and Shao 2011;
Helsper and Eynon 2010; Judd 2018). There are a numerous reasons for this criticality, not least because digital natives is such a broad and sweeping term. To assume
that young people universally will have the same or comparable experiences of
technology merely due to exposure is far too simple and misunderstands the well-­
documented digital divides that straddle socio-cultural categories such as class, ethnicity, race, and gender (Carpio 2018; Hargittai 2018; Mihelj et al. 2019).9 As Shah
and Abraham (2009, 26) note:
It is necessary to promote research that grasps that not all digital natives are equal. Each
context will have certain norms by which digital nativity is understood and experienced.
Dismantling the universal digital native and considering contextualised digital native identities might also help us move away from speaking of the digital native as a necessarily elite
power-user of technology.
Indeed, as the above quote highlights, the use of ‘digital natives’ also highlights
some of the problems around attitudes towards technology we see in education to
date – the idea that exposure is related to competence. Though there is much to be
said for discussions of using technology as a pedagogical tool for younger generations (see Morgan 2014, for example), considerations of students and pupils as digital natives can be harmful to approaches to learning for both teachers and pupils.
Blanket assumptions of competence by younger generations can be problematic and
deter from the need for holistic, critical, and engaged guidance from older generations, which may serve to undermine calls for digital literacy and critical digital
For more information about digital divides, see Chap. 4 where social inequality online is discussed at length.
9
22
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
citizenship in schools.10 Students have been suggested to lack, for example, search
skills to find and evaluate suitable research (Duke and Asher 2012). Using an ‘immigrant/native’ dichotomy in education can lead to ‘structurally embedded de-­
privileging of the role of the teacher’ (Bayne and Ross 2011, 161–162) undermining
their ability to guide and work with students and pupils on, in, and through technology. It is also far too simple to assume older generations lack competence, willing,
and ability to utilise technology (Hill et al. 2008) or that they are unable to become
‘native’ (Bayne and Ross 2011). Further, positioning of older generations as digital
immigrants can serve to undermine critiques of technology by these users, meaning
‘their dissent can be delegitimised as symptomatic of their ignorance, backwardness
or resistance to change’ (Bayne and Ross 2011, 162).
Further to this, it is worth highlighting and emphasising the linguistic flaw and
danger in dwelling on an ‘immigrant/native’ divide. As Bayne and Ross (2011, 164)
point out, such a rhetoric ‘inevitably evokes complexities and anxieties around
migration, integration, and racial and cultural difference in Western society’. Even
with a charitable reading of this stretched metaphor of the native pitted against the
immigrant as inherently different in their approach to the world, Prensky’s (2001, 2)
claims of immigrants as ‘heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners’ should be a
warning to any use of this as a concept as a notion of generation assimilation, superiority, or difference.
In reality, beyond such easy generational catch-all assumptions, we see young
people with varied and complex existences that are mediated by, through, on, and
with technology to different degrees, for different purposes, and with different
results. In this regard, the research and discussion in this book focuses upon the
need to consider how technology is embedded in the lives of young people and how
the relationships between technology and humans are mediated in an ongoing manner to create complex identities, actions, and interactions. As Shah and Abraham
(2009, 29) aptly suggest:
It is necessary to overcome the physical-virtual dialectic when speaking of digital natives
and to consider them as techno-social identities who straddle, like Donna Haraway’s
cyborgs, the realms of the physical and the virtual simultaneously.
Whilst there are other myths worth addressing and unpacking around technology
and young people, it is through this lens of a need to consider ‘techno-social’ identities when approaching the experiences of young people today that we turn to a
consideration of how best to define and understand ‘social media’.
See Chap. 7 for a discussion of digital literacy in education and the need to teach criticality over
compliance.
10
2.3
Understanding ‘Social Media’
23
2.3 Understanding ‘Social Media’
Given that social media has become an increasingly ubiquitous (Curran et al. 2016)
part of everyday social life for a wide variety of users (Perrin and Anderson 2019),
research has been keen to unpack the effects of the many aspects of social media
upon our actions and interactions (Ariel and Avidar 2015; Salomon and Brown
2019; Barker and Rodriguez 2019). The subject has attracted a lot of interest from a
variety of fields ranging from sociology (Curran et al. 2016; Daniels et al. 2017), to
psychology (Seidman 2013), geography (Kitchin 2013), business studies (Safko
2010), and education (Marsh et al. 2016). With this broad scope of approaches,
there are a similarly wide variety of approaches towards understanding, considering, and defining social media. This section will therefore detail the scope of this
research in regard to social media, discussing the key aspects of social media as they
pertain to a focus upon identity performances.
A common task I set my students in the first lecture of every year is to define
‘social media’. This seemingly simple task, to define something so ubiquitous in
modern life, becomes quite complex quite quickly as my students realise that they
are unsure about where social media begins and ends. The inevitable responses that
come at the end of this short group task are either hyper-specific, focusing on one or
two aspect such as ‘public posting’ or ‘networking’, or are extremely broad, encompassing all communication online. Some centralise Facebook as ‘default’ social
media with variations spinning off from this; others attempt to account for all variations and include such methods of interacting as email, financial transactions, and
dating apps. One aspect however that unfailingly is centred in almost all definitions
from my students is that social media me is a space for people to interact and post
content online.
As Chap. 4 of this book discusses in detail, there is an understandable tendency
to centre our understanding of social media around this ‘loud’ and obvious public
data that seems to be ostensibly at the heart of ‘social’ media, but in reality our
experiences and uses of social media move far beyond just social interaction alone.
You only have to be on Facebook for a minute to see some on the variations available on this platform alone. Facebook has groups, advert after advert, videos, news,
private messaging, games, and spaces where you can buy and sell goods; the list
goes on and changes frequently. Seemingly social platforms are expanding their
focus far beyond social interactions alone. It could even be argued that companies
such as Facebook and Twitter centre user interaction as the purpose of the platforms
but that their interest lies in collecting and producing data about our habits, clicks,
and footprints online. As David Beer (2018) rightly points out, this ‘data gaze’ follows users online and offline, restructuring and re-contextualising many aspects of
daily life.
In many ways, given the complex and multifaceted nature of these platforms, the
term ‘social media’ is somewhat of a misnomer that, at the very least, makes users,
observers, audiences, and researchers consider these spaces to be social first.
Nonetheless, the term has quickly come into the zeitgeist, seemingly replacing old
24
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
terms such as ‘web 2.0’ and ‘social networking ‘, making it somewhat hard to discuss the growing mass of unique online experiences covered by spaces as diverse as
Grindr and the Daily Mail message board without somehow invoking social media.
Indeed, along with ‘traditional’ social media platforms diversifying their offerings
into a range of different functions and features beyond user-produced content, we
are also seeing other platforms integrate social elements to encourage some form of
engagement and interaction, such as the proliferation of comment boards and
forums on a wide variety of online spaces. Ostensibly then, ‘traditional’ social
media platforms are extending far beyond social interactions, and at the same time
a wide variety of diverse website, games, and platforms are integrating social elements into the users experience, making a strict boundary of where social media
begins and ends increasingly hard to define.
This complex landscape poses somewhat of a challenge to any researcher looking into social media, as choices have to be made about where to focus one’s attention when trying to capture online experiences in a manner that allows a holistic and
accurate representation of online experiences. Questions emerge when approaching
research around the topic of social media, including exactly how broad an approach
towards social aspects online the researcher needs to take, exactly what social elements the research will consider, and how to deal with features beyond the social
aspects of these complex platforms. Beyond the well-known and much researched
features and practices associated with Facebook and Twitter (Oz et al. 2018), a
growing range of online platforms today purposefully attempt to utilise features that
encourage varying forms of social interaction between users (Stroud et al. 2016; Wu
and Atkin 2018) around a range of content (boyd 2015; Curran et al. 2016). Features
such as comment sections and sharing buttons are, for instance, increasingly common across a wide array of sites and have been noted for their ability to generate
social interaction (Toepfl and Piwoni 2015). Research has also looked at other features that can encourage social interaction, including the up-voting of content
(Leavitt and Clark 2014; Tarsa 2015) or simple view counters (Lange 2007; Rieder
et al. 2018). The ubiquity and commonality of these elements on a wide array of
websites potentially blurs the line between dedicated social media platforms and
platforms that contain social elements and that foster an interactive environment
around the content of that site (Canter 2013).
Given this variety of features that encourage different forms of social interaction,
there is limited agreement about what exactly can be considered ‘social media’ and
what cannot. Whilst platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are comfortably
accepted as social media, other platforms with social elements are nonetheless often
excluded from this discussion. This can be seen in choices around how large-scale
statistical data is being collected about social media. A study from PEW (Lenhart
2015), for example, collected data on a range of platforms for their expansive survey
on Internet usage, but chose to delineate only seven platforms (Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, Google+ and Vine) as social media platforms. This is
despite the fact that in amongst the other platforms were popular platforms with
social elements, such as Pinterest, used by 22% of teens (Lenhart 2015); discussion
boards, used by one in six teens; and anonymous sites and apps such as Yik Yak and
2.3
Understanding ‘Social Media’
25
Ask.FM. Indeed, platforms such as Pinterest have been highlighted for their social
elements and the range of communities that emerge around the sharing of content
(Hall and Zarro 2012; Tekobbe 2013; Guidry et al. 2016). Since 2018, PEW now
collect data on nine platforms, removing Tumblr, Google+, and Vine adding
YouTube, LinkedIn, Pinterest, WhatsApp, and Reddit (Perrin and Anderson 2019).
Again, this contains some odd exclusions, including the removal of Tumblr which
continues to be a thriving platform (Byron et al. 2019).
Interestingly, research has found that even if the social element does not serve as
the site’s primary purpose, the inclusion of these interactive features can nonetheless foster an attitude of social interaction and even a sense of community (Barnes
2015; Zhou et al. 2016). Manosevitch and Walker (2009, 22), for example, in their
study of the comment section of two news websites noted that despite neither site
explicitly encouraging it, there were ongoing social conversations in the comment
sections of the sites, suggesting ‘that commenters did not simply ‘parachute’ in and
leave their opinion. Instead, they engaged with one another as well as the issue
under discussion’. This presence of social engagement through comment sections is
also confirmed by Canter (2013, 604) who found ‘buoyant levels of interactivity
between readers in comment threads’ in UK newspaper comment section and by
Barnes (2015, 823) in Australian newspaper comment sections who found that
many commenters were ‘actively forming a virtual community, fuelling their own
sense of identity through the submission of comments and the dynamic played out
through established relationships within that community’. This sense of community
and engagement has even been noted in comment sections and platforms that allow
anonymity. Coles and West (2016, 47), for example, note ‘the majority of posts are
of an interactional nature’ and that ‘online members do not treat each other as being
anonymous – even when posters real names and identities are unknown’ (Ibid, 51).
This strongly suggests that there is a need to broaden approaches to social interactions online beyond just Facebook and Twitter alone if we are to get a fuller picture
of the rich variation of online social interactions.
There is also a need to expand understandings of the activities and purposes of
users on more easily identifiable platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter (boyd and
Ellison 2008; Kowert et al. 2016). As mentioned earlier, it is increasingly clear to
see that these platforms are not exclusively social and focused on peer-to-peer interactions alone, a point that has been being made in research for a decade now (Kwak
et al. 2010; Smock et al. 2011). Indeed, these spaces are increasingly offering
diverse ways of engaging, with various possibilities for action and interaction
(Bucher and Helmond 2018). This makes providing a holistic definition of social
media difficult. Many of the traditional criteria that have been used to separate and
delineate the core of social media’s essence in the early days of online interaction
are being thrown into question by recent developments in platforms. Aspects that
were once considered essential in separating social network sites(SNS)11 from other
boyd and Ellison (2008, 211) make specific use of social ‘network’ site (SNS) rather than social
‘networking’ site, noting that ‘what makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their
social networks’.
11
26
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
spaces online (see boyd and Ellison 2008 for an early list of core features) are now
questioned, with newer platforms which might be considered under the moniker of
‘social networking’ removing the need for dedicated public profiles (Khazaei et al.
2016; Pangrazio 2018) or a dedicated list of connections (Black et al. 2016).
Similarly, social platforms have wholeheartedly integrated private messaging
(O’Hara et al. 2014; Karapanos et al. 2016), meaning the notion of a separation of
public and private social spaces that some research has previously attempted to
maintain is becoming increasingly questionable (Korhan and Ersoy 2016; Utz 2015).
Beyond the blurring of social media into a range of other platforms and spaces
online, it appears there is also an issue of synecdoche12 in the existing literature
dealing with social media. This can be problematic when attempting to consider the
nuances of social media as certain aspects may be exclusively foregrounded and
used to generalise all social experiences online (Smock et al. 2011). An example of
this synecdoche can be seen in use by Hughes et al. (2012), who (understandably for
research published in 2012) position Facebook and Twitter as the key platforms
online and generalise about the entirety of social media from these two platforms.
More recently, Davis (2016, 137) has suggested that ‘social media are interactive,
nonanonymous, network-based Internet technologies that allow for the sharing of
user-generated content’. Whilst this is a generally accurate description of how some
users interact on certain platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (though certainly
this is not all a user can and does do on these platforms), this certainly cannot be
applied or generalised to all social media. This is especially apparent given the
recent resurgence of anonymity in complex ways in social media (Ellison et al.
2016) and the popularity of platforms such as Reddit and Tumblr that do not require
the sharing of personal information. In Davis’ case, their earlier work (Davis and
Jurgenson 2014) hints at the need for a broader definitions, highlighting that a large
number of users use more than one social media platform and defining social media
thusly: ‘by social media, we refer to the set of interactive Internet applications
which facilitate (collaborative or individual) creation, curation, consumption, and
sharing of user-generated content’ (Davis and Jurgenson 2014, 477). This second
definition allows for a wider array of social platforms that does not limit aspects
such as anonymity (Coles and West 2016).
None of this is to say that Davis’ definition provided above is not a consideration
of some of the most important and prevalent aspects of social media, but it is a clear
ontological choice to focus on a specific aspects of the platform – in this case the
interactivity, the lack of anonymity, and the sharing of user-generated content – over
other uses of these complex multi-faceted platforms. Such synecdoche poses problems for what researchers focus upon when they engage with these platforms, which
provide more than just avenues for social interactions between users. It appears,
given the growing range and variety of social platforms, that not only is there a need
Synecdoche refers to the use of a part to refer to the whole or vice versa, for example, the use of
‘Hoover’ to refer to all vacuum cleaners or the phrase ‘boots on the ground’ to refer to military troops.
12
2.3
Understanding ‘Social Media’
27
to consider an array of platforms when considering social interaction, but there is
also a need to pay attention to the particularities of that platform rather than generalising the scope and shape of social interaction online. Indeed, the research documented in this book emerged from an early study where I attempted to do this
myself, focusing on Facebook and Twitter alone to attempt to understand social
media. I quickly found this to be notably restrictive and a limited way of understanding social media. Instead, it must be noted that ‘social networking’ represent
one aspect of social interaction online and that experiences on these platforms are
increasingly diverse. It is also apparent, given the increased presence of social features on a range of platforms alongside the diversification of features offered on
platforms such as Facebook, that SNSs are increasingly less of a discrete and wholly
distinct category, hence the choice to use ‘social media’ as a broader ‘catch-all’
category throughout this book. Whilst traditionally SNSs foreground a rather specific from of social interaction (see Dabbagh et al. 2015), it is clear that today platforms offer far more than social interaction and foregrounding this aspect may only
enhance synecdoche.
Of course, this is also true of the term ‘social media’, which seems to similarly
foreground social interaction. At its broadest ‘social media’ has to cover a range of
complex and overlapping functions across a wide range of spaces, blurring into and
out of a variety of other platforms and including functions far beyond social interactions alone. As such, there is no easy answer to the task I set to my student of defining social media. Nonetheless, if I were to proffer a suggested way to conceptualise
social media, I would point towards the Ancient Greek concept of an ‘Agora’.
Agorae were the social hubs of the Ancient Greek world, literally meaning a ‘gathering place’. They were, ostensibly, marketplaces that served as key locales in Greek
athletic, artistic, spiritual, and political life. On the one hand, they were important
spaces to be and to be seen; they served as places to socialise, interact, discuss politics, and generally be a part of Ancient Greek life. On the other hand, they served as
decidedly commercial spaces. The embedded nature of this dual functionality is still
reflected in the Greek language today, and from the word Agora, we get two Greek
verbs ἀγοράζω, agorázō, ‘I shop’, and ἀγορεύω, agoreúō, ‘I speak in public’.
Modern social media also blurs a market and a social space, producing different
variations and iterations on this theme, emphasising some aspect, and minimising
others to produce an increasingly hybrid experience for the user. This still misses
many aspects of the social media experience however. In this manner, social media
is a rather imprecise term to describe these platforms. For the time being, given the
progression of the term into public parlance, social media serves as an imprecise,
synecdochic, fuzzy, but inescapable category whose centres may be easily located
but whose boundaries become rather obfuscated.
One aspect of importance to note about the term social media is its distinction
and distance from the use of the term ‘site’. ‘Sites’ are increasingly fraught in digital
research, representing a hangover of ‘website’. Social media however is rapidly
moving away from the website-only format towards the use of apps and various
‘blackboxed’ interfaces (Light et al. 2018). Statistics suggest that 95% of American
28
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
teens have or have access to smartphones which they use to access the Internet
(Anderson and Jiang 2018). Some of the increasingly popular platforms such as
Snapchat and TikTok (Şimşek et al. 2018) are viewed only in app-based form on
mobile. Equally, sites like Twitter and Facebook can be reached on a range of different devices. Given the shift to a range of platforms beyond just websites (a trend
that looks likely to continue to evolve with the influx of augmented and virtual reality), the need to avoid synecdoche, and the various uses of these platforms beyond
networking alone (Smock et al. 2011), I warily choose to make use of social media
as a problematic but inescapable term.
Given this position, my research aims to purposefully consider a broad array of
online platforms and considers social media at its broadest point – as platforms
through which users engage with, through, on, over, and about media, albeit alone,
with other users, or with a range of entities both human and non-human. Such a
broad approach naturally covers spaces and platforms which may not traditionally
have been considered, including emails and video games. However, this broader
focus opens many possibilities for a close engagement with a broad array of experiences. Obviously, due to the abundance of easily mineable data from a wide audience, Facebook and Twitter currently attract a lot of attention from researchers,
especially in regard to ‘big data’ research. Nonetheless single-platform research and
the implications drawn from it do not match the experiences of many users for
whom social interaction is happening across a range of platforms (Smith and
Anderson 2018). As Carr and Hayes (2015, 49) highlight, a narrow focus ‘could
impede theoretical development of social media more broadly’. Increasingly, user
contribution and engagement with a range of materials across a range of platforms
has allowed for many diverse spaces to build social community, in turn encouraging
new forms and models of social interaction that should not be ignored by researchers in favour of larger platforms like Twitter (Kowert et al. 2016). It is clear that with
the growth in user interactions across a plethora of diverse platforms, those findings
drawn from one social media platform cannot be applied universally (Katz and
Crocker 2015; Stroud et al. 2016). As discussed in Chap. 6, because of the possibilities a broader consideration of social media offers for research, a theoretical frame
is needed that is capable of moving beyond a reliance upon the structures and affordances of Facebook and Twitter alone. Given this, this chapter will now move on to
consider some of the implications of a broader approach towards social media and
what this might mean for how we consider social interactions online.
2.4 More than a Feature
Beyond the need to consider a broad range of platforms, there is also a need to consider the specificities of each platform and the unique ways in which they may be
used. This is aptly highlighted by Stroud et al. (2016), who note that across 155
functional similar news websites, the use of social features such as social media
buttons, hyperlinks, polls, and comments largely differed from one site to the next.
2.4
More than a Feature
29
They found little support for any ‘interactive convergence’, instead noting ‘many
differences in the adoption and use of interactive features based on medium and
target’ (Stroud et al. 2016, 339), highlighting that the context of the site plays a large
part in how users engage with these features. This suggests that merely noting the
presence of specific features when considering social media is not enough to understand how they are being used to socially act and interact, as the same feature may
be used in different ways for different effects on different platforms. Such an
approach further complicates a clear definition of social media, as the features of
these platforms potentially become less important that the culture and environment
in which they are placed. This point is echoed by Bucher and Helmond (2018, 251),
who note call for platform-specific approaches to social media which ‘emphasize
the specificity of platforms as a socio-technological environment that draw different
users together and which orchestrate the relations between different platform users’.
In this manner, it is apparent that any analysis of social media should look at how
features are utilised and used in context, paying attention to the use of features from
one site to the next rather than assuming that specific features and elements alone
will create and foster similar uses across a range of contexts.
This can be further highlighted by literature that focuses upon cases of ‘trolling’,
anti-social, and uncivil behaviour online, which research suggests may be more
prevalent in certain contexts, such as sites and platforms that offer anonymity (Coles
and West 2016; Massanari 2017). This certainly does not mean that anonymity itself
is always utilised for trolling, and it should be noted that, in some contexts, anonymity can in fact be used in a supportive manner (See Dyer 2017). In this manner,
research has highlighted that the context in which features are found can shape their
use. Rowe (2015), for example, looked at the comment section of the Washington
Post which allows users to post anonymously and compared the comments to those
left on the Washington Post’s Facebook site where users had to use personal
Facebook accounts to leave a comment. Rowe found that the Washington Post website had far more incivility and impoliteness as well as a greater likelihood for purposefully directed hurtful comments than the Facebook page. Similar findings have
been found by other researchers (Cho and Acquisti 2013; Hille and Bakker 2014;
Van der Nagel and Frith 2015). It appears then that interactive affordances, such as
comment sections, are not used in uniform manners. Context, it seems, matters.
Given this, researchers have begun to question the treatment of a vast range of
social media platforms as analogous entities simply due to a commonality of features (see Bucher and Helmond 2018). Work has begun to highlight that many
unique factors and contexts can affect the ways in which users engage with features
(Dyer 2015; Kowert et al. 2016; Stroud et al. 2016). Katz and Crocker (2015) make
the key point that researchers should be careful to contextualise the use of features
such as the ability to take and post selfies. In the results of their survey conducted
into the subject of selfies then noted that: ‘when it came to selfies, the users that we
interviewed suggested that they viewed selfies generated via Snapchat differently
than ones published on more public platforms or saved onto mobile communication
devices’ (Katz and Crocker 2015, 7). It would appear therefore that focusing upon
the affordances offered is not nearly enough to understand the platform, there is also
30
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
a need to consider the use of those affordances on a platform-by-platform basis in
relation to the individual user as well as the intended audience, further echoing calls
to understand social media as socio-technical assemblages (Bucher and Helmond
2018; van Doorn 2011; van Dijck and Poell 2013). In the case of Katz and Crocker’s
(2015) findings, they noted that:
rather than being a single phenomenon with a singular purpose of engagement, we found
that the selfie category encompasses a range of use and intention. The platforms, subject
matter, and audience all impact how users engage with selfies and the reasons for taking
them. (Katz and Crocker 2015, 10)
My own previous research in this area (Dyer 2015) similarly highlights the need
to consider the specificities of the platform, noting that despite Facebook and Twitter
sharing many similar features, a number of factors such as the differences in how
these platforms frame the reasons for socially interacting shape how users interact,
who they interact with, and how they present their identities. Similarly, Duguay
(2016) has looked at the differences in use between Vine and Instagram for queer
women, noting that despite both platforms ostensibly involving the sharing of visual
data, the types of interactions varied, with Vine interactions showing creativity, and
Instagram interactions revolving around expressions of beauty and gender. Though
both platforms revolved around the sharing of visual data, as Kunze (2014) notes,
Vine allowed more creative control and editing, which in turn impacted how users
approached conceptualising and sharing visual data. This more nuanced approach
and attention to socio-technical designs has been seen across a variety of fields of
research (Bowler et al. 2015; Karimov et al. 2011; Postigo 2016). Kowert et al.
(2016: 3) in particular issue a call to researchers to ‘consider the idiosyncrasies of
these different social platforms, particularly when one is discussing any potential
positive or negative impacts they may have on individuals’. They go on to highlight that:
although they [social media platforms] all provide a basis for promoting interaction between
users via the Internet, their social utilities, or more specifically their key features and ability
to connect users and provide a sense of social connectedness, vary widely. Recognising the
unique characteristics of different mediated, social spaces is key to understanding what role
these different social services play in our everyday lives, how they are utilized, and what
social impact (if any) they may have on users over time. (Kowert et al. 2016, 5)
It is this call for contextualisation that this book therefore aims to provide, not
only focusing on a wide range of platforms but also considering the specificities of
design within those platforms, as well as providing an attention towards how different socio-culturally situated users experience and navigate these features. Research
suggests that even simple differences between platforms may result in different
manifestations of identity, different forms of social interaction and action, and
changes in how the user negotiates and understands these spaces (Stroud et al.
2016). The approach towards social media when considering identity online therefore needs to be both broad, with attention to the wide variety of social spaces
online, and specific, with attention to the designs and experiences of specific
platforms.
2.5
How Young People Define Social Media
31
2.5 How Young People Define Social Media
Whilst we have considered what social media is, it is worth briefly considering more
specifically what it represents to young people. Through moving beyond the unhelpfulness of digital natives as a term, we can still broadly consider what existing literature around young people’s interactions online reveal about their understandings of
social media and what role social media plays in their social lives and social development. Specific differences have been noted generally in the use of social media by
young people, including changes in frequency (Agosto and Abbas 2013) and reasons for engaging with the platforms (Antheunis et al. 2014). Data suggest that
young people are vital to the growth of social media (Boulianne 2015; Herring and
Kapidzic 2015) and that ‘those ages 18 to 29 have always been the most likely users
of social media by a considerable margin’ (Perrin 2015, 4).
However, it is not just the widespread nature of these platforms that is important
to the young people, but rather the increasingly important role they play in contemporary social life (Robards 2014), ‘shaping how adults and youth interact with each
other in school, at home, and at large’ (Goldman et al. 2008, 185). This role of social
media in the lives of young people has been much-discussed, sometimes in slightly
hyperbolic fashion but also in a way that highlights the growing importance of
social media as a space for young people to develop identities. It has been argued,
for example, that social media is now ‘compulsory among groups of young people’
(Hodkinson 2017, 272). Research suggests social media platforms play an increasingly integral role in how young people socialise, interact, and form identities
(Wartella et al. 2016; Wood et al. 2016). For example, in their survey of nearly 100
students, Mazzoni and Iannone (2014, 303) suggest that social media forms ‘part of
the functional organs that support emerging adults in their ability to connect and to
be connected to a social network and to develop and maintain it over time’. Though,
as we discuss in Chap. 4, social inequality pervades online spaces, and as highlighted earlier in the discussion around ‘digital natives’, young people’s experiences
cannot be so easily generalised, it is nonetheless apparent that social media is playing some role in the social interactions and identity presentations of many young
people today. Indeed, social media now serves many purposes in the social lives of
young people including enhancing broad socialisation and independence (Vickery
2015), serving as a means of emotional connection (Wood et al. 2016), increasing
self-esteem and well-being (Antheunis et al. 2014), increasing a sense of closeness
with contacts (Valkenburg and Peter 2007), and decreasing loneliness and improving self-reported adjustment (Yang and Brown 2013).
Given the many important social experience that now have the potential to be
filtered through social media, especially at the broadest definition as seen in this
chapter, it is important to interrogate how these various platforms are affecting and
shaping how young people are presenting themselves and how they are acting and
interacting. With this in mind, in my own research with young people, I have
attempted to understand how social media, at its broadest definition, is understood
and experienced by young people and how identity emerges from the enmeshing of
32
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
socio-culturally grounded individuals as specifically designed platforms. It was
with this broad approach in mind that I asked my participants to define social media
for me. As discussed earlier, this is no easy task, but it was nonetheless an important
question to ask, not only to understand how young people viewed these sites, but
also to ensure that as an interviewer I was not already priming the participants by
only asking about, for example, Facebook or Twitter.
In this manner, my interviews for this research project revealed a variety of platforms that were used by the participants for social interaction, suggesting the need
to account for and consider more than just Facebook and Twitter when considering
social interaction online. During the interviews the participants were asked what
they considered social media to be. They provided a number of variable suggestions, some idiosyncratic to their particular method of engaging with social media.
For example, Isabel provided the definition of social media as ‘a way to communicate with your friends and acquaintances, I’d say. And a bit of a newsfeed to see
what’s going on in the world’, suggesting the notion that social media may involve
more than just communication and that in this case it was used for information gathering also of both local, personal, and global issues. Brian too provided a definition
informed by his particular use of social media platforms. He noted social media to be:
Brian: Like, anything that has a forum or has avatars or profiles I consider to be social networking, in one way or another.
Harry: Does that mean you use more than just Twitter and Facebook then?
Brian: Umm. Yeah, I guess it does, I (.) I have a whole bunch of sites I use and post stuff on,
but not (1.) not in any regular sense. I do post on a whole bunch of things though.
Facebook and Twitter just feel a little bit more (.) overtly social. It’s in your face kinda.
Indeed, many of the attitudes towards social media expressed in the interviews
appeared to reveal a hierarchy in the participants’ consideration of social media that
predominantly stemmed from their experiences of Facebook. Nonetheless all participants used a variable range of platforms; Brian used two platforms for content
production and browsed numerous other platforms. Brandon used four platforms
regularly. Isabel used two platforms. Kirsty used three platforms, Nina used five
platforms, Willow used nine that she discussed during the sessions, Molly used four,
and Sally used four. All participants however used Facebook and Twitter in some
form. Brian seemed to hold Facebook and Twitter as separate for the manner in
which they seemed to overtly revolve around social interaction, but nonetheless
acknowledged that social media can be broad. Later he discussed engaging with and
through more than just these two platforms, noting ‘I use a lot of other websites, but,
when you say social media everyone thinks Facebook and Twitter’. He further clarified this remark, discussing how for him the distinction lay not in the social capabilities of the platform per se, but his personal level of engagement:
Brian: I use a lot of them, but don’t have an active presence. So things like YouTube, and
Vine, and umm (.) I would go on but I would never contribute to them (.)
Harry: So you don’t consider that use of the sites?
Brian: No, because I’m not actively giving to the site. I’m (.) milking the site. I don’t think
that, like (.) I would never use YouTube for its intended purpose. Well, I don’t know, I
use YouTube to watch videos, I suppose that’s the intended purpose. But I would never
put videos on there.
2.5
How Young People Define Social Media
33
Notably Brian later expanded his list of platforms his uses to include Google+
and Tumblr. This suggests that Brian was aware of a range of sites, but only felt he
actively contributed to a few. For example, Brian notes:
I feel like you have to be more active. Like, I feel like, the same as YouTube, I don’t use
YouTube, I’m not a YouTuber, and I’m not a Viner or whatever the equivalent would be, I’m
a, a, I watch. I’m a voyeur.
Brian however later did give some parameters to what he considered to be social
media, again suggesting that Facebook is more explicitly social media to him. He
detailed that he defines the boundaries of social media as not specifically including
‘texting apps’:
Brian: I’m on, I’m social networking sites on my phone as well, WhatsApp, Grindr, those
kind of things as well.
Harry: You don’t consider that social media?
Brian: No, it is, but on a different level. It’s basically texting.
It appears that for Brian social media is a broad field but that there is some degree
of definition with certain platforms that are more explicitly, traditionally, or overtly
social. Other participants were noticeably more comfortable to express a broader
view towards social media. Kirsty, for example, understood social media in a rather
broader sense, noting her blog and personal website as forms of social media. Kirsty
suggested ‘I suppose I have a website which technically to extent is a social media
site, in as much as people can comment and get involved on it’ as well as noting:
I did have a LiveJournal account for a while, which I had a lot of interaction with the fandom community on there, which is a totally, but thinking about it, a lot of people that I knew
through LiveJournal I didn’t have any other contact with, so I guess in some ways that is a
social media site.
For others participants however there were particular affordances that made certain platforms more or less social in their view. For example, Brandon noted that to
him social media needed to contain a marker of ‘identity’. He stated that:
anything that is completely anonymous I would have thought is not social media, just
purely on the basis to me is putting some sort of name, whether it be your real name or not,
or some sort of identity, communicating with some sort of identity.
In this manner, there appeared to be no stable definition of social media amongst
the participants. Despite all participants utilising Facebook and Twitter, there were
a broad array of other platforms used for a variety of forms of social interaction,
particularly by some participants. For example, Nina used a wide array beyond
Facebook and Twitter, including platforms like Pinterest and a musical theatre
forum that she accessed frequently and used in a variety of manners. Willow too
discussed several platforms that fulfilled social functions for her, detailing how she
used two video gaming services, Raptr and Steam, socially. She discussed that users
were able to share captured videos of their gaming sessions and could livestream
their gaming sessions to an audience. She noted that on Raptr ‘you set up a profile,
you set a profile picture, you get a username’ and that it allows for ‘tracking where
34
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
I rank up against other people in terms of how much I’ve played’. Willow also discussed Steam, another video gaming service which allows users to:
show you how much you’ve played in the last week, and it’ll rank you up against your
friends and up against the community as a whole. Like, how many, this is the average
amount of hours you’ve spent, or sorry this is the amount of hours you’ve spent, this is the
amount of hours your friends have spent, and this is the average amount of hours that the
community spent playing it, like the average member of the community has played this
game this week for like x amount of hours.
Willow noted that this can be particularly social:
you add your friends, like people you know, or people you like talk to on forums, like steam
forums, and play the same games in, like, people that maybe you watch stream stuff or
something, or you’ve met online. So it, like, and Steam I always thought is more for meeting up with people that you’d want to play with at the same time.
Beyond this, Willow also discussed comment boards, noting that they served as
overtly social spaces for her. She suggested that communities form around the discussion of certain topics:
you don’t really know each other, but because you’re all talking about the same things in the
same context, you definitely get a feel of personalities…people will refer back to comment
boards from a couple of days ago, like ‘oh yeah, you mentioned last article that your dog
was dying, how’s that going?’ or something.
She later suggested one particular comment section she frequented where this
social factor was explicitly encouraged and acknowledged:
Willow: At the end of the week normally, they’ll do what they call an open thread. Which
is ‘here is an article that doesn’t actually say anything, other than comment in the box’,
like talk amongst yourselves, basically. And there’s a couple of other sites that do it.
Harry: I often wondered what that was. So, I didn’t realise what it was.
Willow: It’s basically, they just put up, like one a week normally, which is basically like (.)
which is what are you doing this weekend, what are you playing this weekend, which is
basically just people, just, talk. What are you doing this week, how are you, it’s like,
umm, tell us what you’re on about, how has this week gone for you, what have you been
up to? It’s like, because as I was saying, even though it’s commenting on an article, if
you’re regular enough people sort of set up, maybe not in the same sense of community,
but you kind of get to know people. Or get to see people commenting all the time, that
people are sort of interested in other people’s lives.
Willow suggests here that for her, the social experiences and relationship that are
formed in these comment boards are often pseudonymous, but nonetheless are still
purposeful and often intimate. She notes:
despite the fact that you have no idea of anything, like, I wanna say personal, but I know
some really personal stuff about all of them, apart from the fact that I don’t know their
names and I don’t know, umm, anything.
She highlights one case in particular of a woman who had been talking in the
comment section about living with her partner’s ex-mistress, Willow says she knew:
like how she feels about the fact that she has to put up with her husband’s mistress, although
they’re not having a thing any more, and it’s stuff like that, except I have no idea what her
name is, where she lives, how old she is, anything like that. And it’s just odd.
2.5
How Young People Define Social Media
35
These spaces then appear to fulfil different social functions and purposes and
provide different social experiences and understandings. This also shows, as discussed earlier, the importance of context in understand features like comment
boards and anonymity. In this case it appears the anonymity was a useful feature for
sharing personal stories. Indeed, in a similar manner, and detailing the broad scope
of social experiences facilitated online, Sally also discussed how video games can
serve social functions for her:
Like games where you play with other people, like online role playing games, you can join
groups or teams with their friends or just random people in general and they become
friends…You hear of people starting relationships with other people who they’ve met
online in video games and stuff. I’ve seen a bunch of discussions on games about literally
anything under the sun, from cats and parenting tips and just telling stories.
This suggests that social media is a broadly different experience for each participant. Each gains different social experiences online, responding to, enacting, and
fulfilling different practice, needs, and experiences. Their understandings of social
media, and therefore experiences of social media, appear largely variable.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that Facebook and Twitter were used by all participants in some format and appeared to be noted as the most explicitly social formats,
though again, with a variety of uses dependent upon a number of factors. Whilst
Facebook and Twitter are evidently popular, the interviews nonetheless suggest that
the use of multiple platforms is increasingly common and that future research
should consider more than just a few specific platforms (Carr and Hayes 2015;
Lenhart 2015) when attempting to understand how user are using the Internet to
socially interact and act. All participants made use of at least two social media platforms during the study, with some using up to nine different platforms. Indeed,
Molly highlights a key reason to consider a range of platforms when considering
social media, noting that:
I think other people use Facebook differently to other things, because on Facebook they
only tend to be friends who they’ve actually met, but on Twitter and other ones lots of
people follow sort of random people that they don’t know.
For Molly, Facebook appears to be the exception to social media usage, not the
rule. Despite its popularity, Molly suggests it in some way acts as the outlier for
social media usage, and that not only should it not be considered typical of all social
media, but that it may be atypical of other social media. This serves as a further
crucial reflection for future research into social media. Despite being currently popular, Facebook’s popularity may in fact make the experience of this platform rather
unique, meaning data generated from this platform may be notably less generalisable to other spaces online. In essence, the uniqueness of Facebook made the platform an outlier in their social experiences online; it was the exception, not the rule.
It was therefore engaged with in a different manner from other platforms. As
Brian put it:
I guess they’re all kinda the same, but all other social media feel like (.) community. And if
you’re not talking it’s just (.) it’s snooping without being part of that community. I don’t
know. It just feels (.) Facebook is different.
36
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
Brandon also expresses similar sentiments, noting:
I think Twitter and Instagram, I think, they’re a lot more specialised (.) in the way that they
are designed, whereas Facebook feels a lot more kind of generic.
2.6 Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy
Makers, and Educators
As the data above suggests, social media is notably more complex than it may originally seem and perhaps broader than we might originally consider. This manifests
itself in education in a number of crucial ways, for example, there are interesting
documented cases of young people using classroom apps as social media, such as
Google Docs, which allows users to ‘collaborate’ on a document. Whether we like
it or not, social media is already in our classrooms at all levels. Consider it ‘passing
notes 2.0’. The findings here suggest that social media can be considered in a notably broad manner. Whilst discussing and considering social media in the classroom,
we should show caution when using Facebook as an example of social media.
Whilst currently broadly used, it is clear there is more to social media than this
platform, and indeed it may be the exception rather than the rule.
Whilst it is readily apparent that Facebook and Twitter are popular and that they
are currently an integral aspect of social interaction, this research highlights that a
focus on these two platforms alone is not enough to understand the entirety of young
peoples’ diverse experiences of social media. There is a need to move beyond a
focus on one or two platforms, a need which is all the more apparent given the growing array of platforms through which users can now interact, each offering different
ways of expressing identity, consuming and producing content, and socially interacting. As such, not only is there a need to consider a broad approach towards social
media, particularly when considering the social media uses of young people
(Wartella et al. 2016); it is also clear that there is a need to consider the specificities
of these platforms in their own right and to examine the diversity of experiences and
uses they can offer, as Willow’s experience with anonymity makes clear.
The broad array of platforms and spaces that need to be considered when
approaching social media research is starkly apparent when considering how the
participants define social media here. Even within a small sample, there was a noted
variety of approaches towards social media, with the participants’ definitions of
social media reflecting the diversity of their experiences online. Asking the participants to define social media therefore revealed an important consideration for future
research into social media, that the researcher’s conception and understanding of
social media may not match the user, and that a consideration of how participants
conceive of social media may aid an understanding of their engagements with and
through the platforms. This is true in educational policy. There is a clear case to
build an understanding of social media not from our assumptions but from the experiences of young people.
References
37
It is apparent that there are a variety of approaches towards defining social media
and that social media is not understood or used uniformly by users. As such, it
seems odd that research should attempt to take a uniform approach towards social
media when collecting data by focusing on experiences on one or two popular, but
potentially atypical platforms. Doing so risks prioritising a certain approach over
other equally legitimate understandings of social media. This research suggests
therefore that a similar approach, placing the definition and scope of social media in
the hands of participants, should be taken by future research in order to understand
what these spaces mean to the participants. Asking the participants to define social
media allowed for a deeper consideration of what social media was for the participants and helped in an understanding of how they conceived of these spaces. As
Lefebvre (1991) notes, understanding how social spaces are conceived of by the
users of that space can help better reveal and unpack the practises enacted within
those spaces. This can be essential for classroom approaches to social media also.
Rather than an educational response which assumes usage, we can begin to understand the lived experiences of young people in a more realistic manner.
As this chapter makes readily apparent, understanding and defining social media
is somewhat of a complex task, especially as the boundaries of terms such as ‘social
media’ can obscure the manner in which these platforms offer experiences far
beyond social interaction alone and the manner in which a wide array of spaces
online now offer ways of interacting with a range of entities. As the research above
highlights, the job of defining social media perhaps is not a task for the researcher,
but crucially a task for the participants if we are to better understand the broad array
of social experiences present online.
References
Agosto, D. E., & Abbas, J. (2013). Youth and Online Social Networking. What do we know so far?
In J. Beheshti & A. Large (Eds.), The information behavior of a new generation: Children and
teens in the 21st century (pp. 117–142). Plymouth: Scarecrow Press.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772.
Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018) Teens, social media and technology 2018. Pew Research
Center, May 2018. Accessed 08/2019: https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/
sites/9/2018/05/PI_2018.05.31_TeensTech_FINAL.pdf
Antheunis, M. L., Schouten, A. P., & Krahmer, E. (2014). The role of social networking sites in
early adolescents’ social lives. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(3), 1–24.
Ariel, Y., & Avidar, R. (2015). Information, interactivity, and social media. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 23(1), 19–30.
Barker, V., & Rodriguez, N. S. (2019). This is who I am: The selfie as a personal and social identity
marker. International Journal of Communication, 13, 1143–1166.
Barnes, R. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on
Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media and Society, 17(5),
810–826.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
38
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2011). ‘Digital Native’and ‘Digital Immigrant’ discourses. In R. Land &
S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital difference: Perspectives on online learning (pp. 159–169). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Beer, D. (2018). The data gaze: Capitalism, power and perception. London: Sage.
Black, E. W., Mezzina, K., & Thompson, L. A. (2016). Anonymous social media – Understanding
the content and context of Yik Yak. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 17–22.
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research.
Information, Communication and Society, 18(5), 524–538.
Bowler, L., Knobel, C., & Mattern, E. (2015). From cyberbullying to Well-being: A narrative-based
participatory approach to values-oriented design for social media. Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1274–1293.
boyd, d. (2015). Social media: A phenomenon to be analyzed. Social Media + Society, 2015(April–
June), 1–2.
boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, T. Poell,
& A. Marwick (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social media (pp. 223–253). London: SAGE.
Byron, P., Robards, B., Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., & Churchill, B. (2019). “Hey, I’m having these
experiences”: Tumblr use and young People’s queer (dis) connections. International Journal of
Communication, 13, 2239–2259.
Canter, L. (2013). The misconception of online comment threads: Content and control on local
newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 604–619.
Carpio, G. G. (2018). Racial projections: Cyberspace, public space, and the digital divide.
Information, Communication and Society, 21(2), 174–190.
Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic
Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46–65.
Cho, D. & Acquisti, A. (2013). The more social cues, the less trolling? An empirical study of online
commenting behavior. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on the Economics of Information
Security (WEIS 2013), March 6th 2013. Washington, DC.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Weaving the internet together: Imagined communities in newspaper comment threads. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 44–53.
Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Curran, J., Fenton, N., & Freedman, D. (2016). Misunderstanding the internet. London: Routledge.
Dabbagh, N., Benson, A. D., Denham, A., Joseph, R., Al-Freih, M., Zgheib, G., & Guo, Z. (2015).
Learning technologies and globalization: Pedagogical frameworks and applications. London:
Springer.
Daniels, J., Gregory, K., & Cottom, T. M. (Eds.). (2017). Digital sociologies (pp. 75–99).
London: Policy.
Davis, J. L. (2016). Identity theory in a digital age. In J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.), New directions in identity theory and research (pp. 137–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), 476–485.
Duguay, S. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer visibility through selfies: Comparing
platform mediators across ruby Rose’s Instagram and vine presence. Social Media+ Society,
2(2), 1–16.
Duke, L. M., & Asher, A. D. (Eds.). (2012). College libraries and student culture: What we now
know. Chicago: American Library Association.
Dyer, H. T. (2015). All the Web’s a stage: The effects of design and modality on youth performances of identity. In Sociological studies of children and youth (Technology and youth:
Growing up in a digital world) (Vol. 19, pp. 213–242).
References
39
Dyer, H. T. (2016). Interactivity, social media, and superman: How comic books can help us understand and conceptualize interactivity online. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. M. Cottom (Eds.),
Digital sociologies (pp. 75–99). London: Policy.
Dyer, H. T. (2017) Online anonymity: The good, the bad, and the ugly. HarryTDyer.
com,
January
2017.
Accessed
08/2019:
https://harrytdyer.com/2017/01/04/
online-anonymity-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Ellison, N. B., Blackwell, L., Lampe, C., & Trieu, P. (2016). “The question exists, but you Don’t
exist with it”: Strategic anonymity in the social lives of adolescents. Social Media+ Society,
2016(October–December), 1–13.
Goldman, S., Booker, A., & McDermott, M. (2008). Mixing the digital, social, and cultural:
Learning, identity, and agency in youth participation. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity,
and digital media (pp. 185–206). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Guidry, J., Zhang, Y., Jin, Y., & Parrish, C. (2016). Portrayals of depression on Pinterest and why
public relations practitioners should care. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 232–236.
Hargittai, E. (2018). The digital reproduction of inequality. In D. B. Grusky & S. Szelenyi (Eds.),
The inequality reader (pp. 660–670). New York: Routledge.
Hermida, A., Fletcher, F., Korell, D., & Logan, D. (2012). SHARE, LIKE, RECOMMEND:
Decoding the social media news consumer. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 815–824.
Hilbert, M., & Lopez, P. (2011). The World’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and
compute information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65.
Hackforth, R. (1973). Plato: Phaedrus, translated with an introduction and commentary by
Hackforth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, C., & Zarro, M. (2012). Social curation on the website. Pinterest.com. Proceedings of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1–9.
Hall, G. A. (1922). Flapper Americana Novissima. Atlantic Monthly, 129(June 1922), 771–780.
Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational
Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.
Herring, S. C., & Kapidzic, S. (2015). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media.
In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences
(pp. 146–152). Oxford: Elsevier.
Hill, R., Beynon-Davies, P., & Williams, M. D. (2008). Older people and internet engagement.
Information Technology and People, 21(3), 244–266.
Hille, S., & Bakker, P. (2014). Engaging the social news user: Comments on news sites and
Facebook. Journalism Practice, 8(5), 563–572.
Hodkinson, P. (2017). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites.
New Media and Society, 19(2), 272–288.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook
and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2),
561–569.
Irwin, S. O. (2016). Media ecology and the internet of things. Explorations in Media Ecology,
15(2), 159–171.
Jones, K., & Glynn, M. (2019). How children use social media for brand interactions. Young
Consumers, 20(2), 91–108.
Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The net generation and digital natives: Implications for higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.
Judd, T. (2018). The rise and fall (?) of the digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 34(5), 99–119.
Karapanos, E., Teixeira, P., & Gouveia, R. (2016). Need fulfillment and experiences on social
media: A case on Facebook and WhatsApp. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 888–897.
Katz, J. E., & Crocker, E. T. (2015). Selfies and photo messaging as visual conversation: Reports
from the United States, United Kingdom and China. International Journal of Communication,
9, 1861–1872.
40
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
Karimov, F. P., Brengman, M., & Van Hove, L. (2011). The effect of website design dimensions on
initial trust: A synthesis of the empirical literature. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
12(4), 272–301.
Khazaei, T., Xiao, L., Mercer, R., & Khan, A. (2016). Privacy behaviour and profile configuration
in twitter. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web.
April 11–15, 2016, Montréal (pp. 575–580).
Kim, B. K. (2005). Internationalizing the internet: The co-evolution of influence and technology.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kitchin, R. (2013). Big data and human geography opportunities, challenges and risks. Dialogues
in Human Geography, 3(3), 262–267.
Korhan, O., & Ersoy, M. (2016). Usability and functionality factors of the social network site
application users from the perspective of uses and gratification theory. Quality and Quantity,
50(4), 1799–1816.
Kowert, R., Domahidi, E., & Quandt, T. (2016). Networking and other social aspects of technology use: Past developments, present impact, and future considerations. In D. Faust, K. Faust,
& M. N. Potenza (Eds.), Oxford handbook of digital technologies and mental health. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kunze, P. (2014). Kidding around: Children, comedy, and social media. Comedy Studies, 5(1), 2–11.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is twitter, a social network or a news
media? In 19th international conference on world wide web. April 26–30, North Carolina
(pp. 591–600).
Lancaster, K. (1994). Do role-playing games promote crime, Satanism and suicide among players
as critics claim? Journal of Popular Culture, 28, 67–79.
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380.
Leavitt, A., & Clark, J. A. (2014, April). Upvoting hurricane Sandy: Event-based news production
processes on a social news site. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human
factors in computing systems (pp. 1495–1504). ACM.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R. E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D. C., Postel, J.,
Roberts, L. G., & Wolff, S. (2009). A brief history of the internet. [Online]. Accesses 08/2019:
https://arxiv.org/html/cs/9901011?
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teen, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center, April
2015. Accessed 08/2019: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/04/
PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf
Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of
apps. New Media and Society, 20(3), 881–900.
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2018). European research on children’s internet
use: Assessing the past and anticipating the future. New Media and Society, 20(3), 1103–1122.
Livingstone, S., & Ólafsson, K. (2018). When do parents think their child is ready to use the internet independently? Technical Report. LSE, May 2018. Accessed 08/2019: http://eprints.lse.
ac.uk/87953/1/Livingstone_Parenting%20Digital%20Survey%20Report%202_Published.pdf
Malvini Redden, S., & Way, A. K. (2017). ‘Adults don’t understand’: Exploring how teens
use dialectical frameworks to navigate webs of tensions in online life. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 45(1), 21–41.
Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space
of public deliberation. In 10th international symposium on online journalism, Austin, TX,
17–18 April.
Mararike, S., Harper, T., & Gilligan, A. (2018) Drill, the ‘demonic’ music linked to rise in youth
murders. April 8th 2018. The Times. Accessed 08/2019: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/
drill-the-demonic-music-linked-to-rise-in-youth-murders-0bkbh3csk
References
41
Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new classification. Early Years, 1–12.
Massanari, A. (2017). # Gamergate and the Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and
culture support toxic technocultures. New Media and Society, 19(3), 329–346.
Mazzoni, E., & Iannone, M. (2014). From high school to university: Impact of social networking
sites on social capital in the transitions of emerging adults. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 45(2), 303–315.
McRobbie, A., & Thornton, S. L. (1995). Rethinking ‘Moral Panic’ for multi-mediated social
worlds. The British Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 559–574.
Mihelj, S., Leguina, A., & Downey, J. (2019). Culture is digital: Cultural participation, diversity
and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 21(7), 1465–1485.
Miller, D. (2011). Tales from Facebook. London: Polity.
Morgan, H. (2014). Using digital story projects to help students improve in reading and writing.
Reading Improvement, 51(1), 20–26.
OFCOM. (2019). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2018.
OFCOM. February 2019. Accessed 08/2019: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-aChildren
and parents: media use and attitudes report 2018nd-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/
children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2018
O’Hara, K. P., Massimi, M., Harper, R., Rubens, S., & Morris, J. (2014, February). Everyday
dwelling with WhatsApp. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported
cooperative work and social computing (pp. 1131–1143). ACM.
Ophir, Y., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., & Rosenberg, H. (2019). New-media screen time is not (necessarily) linked to depression: Comments on Twenge, joiner, Rogers, and Martin (2018). Clinical
Psychological Science, 1–5.
Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent Well-being and digital
technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 173–182.
Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. M. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media and Society, 20(9), 3400–3419.
Pangrazio, L. (2018). Young People’s literacies in the digital age: Continuities, conflicts and contradictions. London: Routledge.
Pearson, G. (1983). Hooligan: A history of respectable fears. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Perrin,A. (2015). Social networking usage: 2005–2015. Pew Research Center, October 2015.Accessed
08/2019: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/2015/Social-Networking-Usage-2005-2015/
Perrin, A., & Anderson, M. (2019) Share of U.S. adults using social media, including Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018. PEW Research Center, April
2019.
Accessed
08/2019:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/
share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/
Postigo, H. (2016). The socio-technical architecture of digital labor: Converting play into YouTube
money. New Media and Society, 18(2), 332–349.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Qualman, E. (2009). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the Way we live and do business.
Hoboken: Wiley.
Rieder, B., Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Coromina, Ò. (2018). From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’ investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results. Convergence,
24(1), 50–68.
Robards, B. (2014). Mediating experiences of “growing up” on Facebook’s timeline: Privacy,
ephemerality and the reflexive project of self. In A. Bennett & B. Robards (Eds.), Mediated
youth cultures (pp. 26–41). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion.
Information, Communication and Society, 18(2), 121–138.
Ruthfield, S. (1995). The Internet’s history and development: From wartime tool to fish-cam.
Crossroads, 2(1), 2–4.
42
2
Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated
Safko, L. (2010). The social media bible: Tactics, tools, and strategies for business success.
London: John Wiley and Sons.
Salomon, I., & Brown, C. S. (2019). The selfie generation: Examining the relationship between
social media use and early adolescent body image. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(4),
539–560.
Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). The effect of social media communication on consumer
perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(2), 189–214.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences
social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407.
Shah, N., & Abraham, S. (2009). Digital natives with a cause? A knowledge survey and framework. Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos) Report 2009.
Accessed 08/2019: https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/uploads/dnrep1
Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political
change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41.
Şimşek, B., Abidin, C., & Brown, M. L. (2018). Musical. ly and microcelebrity among girls.
In C. Abidin & M. L. Brown (Eds.), Microcelebrity around the globe, Emerald Publishing
Limited (pp. 47–56). Bingley.
Smith, A., & Anderson, M (2018) Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Center, March 2018.
Accessed 08/2019: https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses
and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6),
2322–2329.
Springhall, J. (1998). Youth, popular culture and moral panics: Penny gaffs to gangsta-rap,
1830–1996. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., & Curry, A. L. (2016). The presence and use of interactive features on
news websites. Digital Journalism, 4(3), 339–358.
Syvertsen, T. (2017). Media resistance. Protest, dislike, abstention. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tarsa, R. (2015). Upvoting the exordium: Literacy practices of the digital interface. College
English, 78(1), 12–33.
Tekobbe, C. K. (2013). A site for fresh eyes: Pinterest’s challenge to “traditional” digital literacies.
Information, Communication and Society, 16(3), 381–396.
Toepfl, F., & Piwoni, E. (2015). Public spheres in interaction: Comment sections of news websites
as counterpublic spaces. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 465–488.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other.
New York: Basic Books.
Twenge, J. M. (2019). More time on technology, less happiness? Associations between digital-­
media use and psychological Well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4),
372–379.
Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Decreases in psychological well-being
among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of smartphone
technology. Emotion, 18(6), 765–780.
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but
also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in
Human Behavior, 45, 1–10.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and
their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267–277.
Van der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity:
Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3).
Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication,
1(1), 2–14.
Van Doorn, N. (2011). Digital spaces, material traces: How matter comes to matter in online performances of gender, sexuality and embodiment. Media, Culture and Society, 33(4), 531–547.
References
43
Vickery, J. R. (2015). I don’t have anything to hide, but…’: The challenges and negotiations of
social and mobile media privacy for non-dominant youth. Information, Communication and
Society, 18(3), 281–294.
Wang, J., Yu, C. T., Yu, P. S., Liu, B., & Meng, W. (2015). Diversionary comments under blog
posts. Transactions on the Web, 9(4). Article 18, e1-34.
Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Montague, H., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Lauricella, A. (2016). Teens, health
and technology: A National Survey. Media and Communication, 4(3), 13–23.
Waters, M. (2016). The public shaming of England’s first umbrella user. Atlas
Obscura. July 2016. Accessed 08/2019: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/
the-public-shaming-of-englands-first-umbrella-user
Waterson, J. (2019) Viral ‘Momo challenge’ is a malicious hoax, say charities. The Guardian, 28th
February 2019. Accessed 08/2019: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/28/
viral-momo-challenge-is-a-malicious-hoax-say-charities
Wood, M. A., Bukowski, W. M., & Lis, E. (2016). The digital self: How social media serves as a
setting that shapes Youth’s emotional experiences. Adolescent Research Review, 1(2), 163–173.
Wu, T. Y., & Atkin, D. J. (2018). To comment or not to comment: Examining the influences of
anonymity and social support on one’s willingness to express in online news discussions. New
Media and Society, 20(12), 4512–4532.
Yang, C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities,
and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3),
403–416.
Zhou, Z., Su, C., Zhou, N., & Zhang, N. (2016). Becoming friends in online brand communities:
Evidence from China. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(1), 69–86.
Chapter 3
Devices and Technology: How the Way
in Which We Access Social Media Affects
Our Experiences, Uses, and Identities
Abstract Beyond looking at the platforms themselves, when considering how social
media is shaping our experiences and interactions online and offline, there is also a need
to consider the devices through which we access these platforms. This chapter provides
a look at how technology can change our actions and interactions and highlights the
need to move beyond thinking of social media as a unified experience across different
devices. A social media platform may look, feel, and act differently based on the devices
we are accessing it on, in turn affecting our experiences of these platforms. Rather than
treating a platform as a uniform experience, this chapter highlights the need to consider
how we are accessing and experiencing these platforms and which features may be
excluded, included, emphasised, or minimised due to the devices we access them on.
We begin with an exploration of a history of technology shaping our experiences
and interactions, online and offline. This discussion highlights not only how technology shapes our experiences but also how technology is not neutral and is not
experienced in the same way by all users. Issues of race, gender, sexuality, and other
socio-cultural resources permeate our experiences with technology. Building from
this discussion, this chapter presents data from a year-long series of interviews with
young people to explore how technology shaped their social experiences and their
use of social media platforms and how their engagement with technology is crucially socio-culturally grounded. This includes one participant who moved from a
joint family computer to a mobile phone, a move which impacted how and why she
utilised social media in complex ways.
Keywords GPS · Technology · Social media · Mobile phone · Family computer
3.1 Introduction
As established in the last two chapters of this book, social media continues to progress and change, adding new ways of acting and interacting. Importantly, it is worth
considering in detail that the devices and technologies through which we access
social media also continue to evolve and change. This may seem a fairly obvious
statement, but it has rather large repercussions for anyone studying or engaging with
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
H. T. Dyer, Designing the Social, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in
Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3_3
45
46
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
social media. Whereas, at one time, sites like Myspace and Facebook were a fairly
uniform experience for users, now Twitter on an Android is a different experience to
Twitter on a laptop or Twitter on a tablet or Twitter on an IoT-connected smart
device. Though nominally the same, these platforms can now be experienced in
vastly different ways by users. Certain features may be emphasised or minimised,
added or removed, centralised or placed in the periphery, or easier or harder to use.
The problem this poses researchers in terms of practicality, research design, ontology, and analysis seems not to have been fully grappled with in a meaningful sense to
date. Consider, for example, the increasingly commonplace practice of collecting
Twitter data around a specific hashtag for some form of research, an approach which
might, for instance, collect online data for a specific period to analyse a range of
aspects such as sentiments, topics, reactions, and emotions (see Bonilla and Rosa
2015; Cappellini et al. 2019). The researcher may collect this mass of data on their
desktop. The data that the researcher is looking at an analysing in this case is not the
same data that the participant actually produced if they used a smartphone to produce
the original tweet. The design and layout are different, the features may be different,
and the experience of Twitter may be different. Yes, the researcher has analysed ‘a
Twitter’, but is this generalisable to the entirety of Twitter, and is the an accurate representation of Twitter? Many researchers will likely collect and analyse data on some
form of desktop or laptop computer, yet when 84% of adults in the UK use the Internet
‘on the go’, 79% of which access it via a smartphone (Office for National Statistics
2019); the Twitter the researcher experiences and uses may be largely different from
the users’ experience and uses. Can this Twitter that the researcher is accessing and
analysing even be considered to be the same platform? When we conduct an analysis
of social media data, can we be sure that the data collected is an adequate representative of the data as is was understood and created by the user? What differences might
the means of access make to the users intentions, actions, interactions, and content?
The research detailed within this chapter and the book in general considers how
user and platforms enmesh to result in complex user experiences, actions, interactions, and identity performances. In order to consider this and generate ways of
theorising identity, there is a need to consider how the growing range of devices
through which users access these platforms shape and effect how users experience
and utilise social media. As such, this chapter will begin with a consideration of the
progression of technology, and the need to socio-culturally ground our understandings of how technology is used and experienced, before reflecting on data from a
year-long series of interviews in order to consider the range of ways in which young
people are experiencing technology and how this is shaping their uses, experiences,
and engagements with, on, and through social media.
3.2 Technically Social
It is apparent that a fixed understanding of our experiences and uses of social media
is inherently hampered by the relentless pace of innovation and changes in the technology used to access it. At the time of writing, social media is largely accessed via
3.2
Technically Social
47
smartphone for many users in the UK (Office for National Statistics 2019), and in
the USA, fully 58% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they mostly go online through a
smartphone, with rising figures similarly seen across all age groups (Anderson
2019). This shift to mobile technology has changed a number of notable aspects of
our social experiences on- and offline. As technology has become more accessible,
less niche, and able to handle more data (Poushter et al. 2018), our ways of accessing social media continue to change, including current progressions into accessing
social media through the Internet of Things (IoT), a term commonly used to describe
the rise of smart devices and appliances (van der Zeeuw et al. 2019). The progression of technological capabilities afforded by mobile technology has allowed for
easier access to a wider range of options of social interaction, moving beyond text-­
based content seen in early days of social media to voice (Llinares et al. 2018),
images (Thulin 2018), selfies (Abidin 2016; Tiidenberg and Gómez Cruz 2015), and
videos (Burgess and Green 2018) becoming increasingly central to social media
experiences. This means other previously centralised ways of interacting may be
undergoing change also. As Thulin (2018, 465) notes “at the same time, SMS and
voice calls have been removed from the centre of young people’s social communication” signalling how changes in technology are creating changes in how we
socialise and which aspects of social interaction are prioritised and minimised.
This spread of mobile technology has also changed how users consume social
media and online content, making it more portable, pervasive, and easily accessible
(Boczkowski et al. 2018), which in turn restructures, reinforces, and challenges
various aspects of our social lives in unforeseen and nuanced ways (see Vanden
Abeele et al. 2018). In terms of content on these platforms, the progression in technology over the decades, such as the introduction of broadband (Dewing 2010), has
meant in turn that social content online has become less niche, with early content
like MUDs being notably fantasy-based (Dourish 1998), and instead has become
more important to various aspects of the operation and organisation of everyday
social life both big and small (Bayer et al. 2016; Chun 2016). It has been noted, for
example, that users now:
experience intensive flows of brief and transient notifications, messages, snaps and updates
to follow and respond to concurrently with other activities offline and online. More and
more things must be fitted into the background, and a state of perpetual contact (as discussed by Katz and Aakhus 2002) is increasingly becoming an actuality, a practice. (Thulin
2018, 477)
One aspect that has been of developing concern for educators and parents is that
the development of mobile technology has given young people more control and
agency over how and when they can use technology for social interaction (Dobson
2018; García-Gómez 2018), allowing them to produce more data and access social
media more frequently (Anderson and Jiang 2018). The negotiation of agency has
led to growing concerns about the content and the manner of social interactions
young people are engaging in, a tension that is likely to continue as young people
gain greater agency over media consumption and production in various ways pertinent to education (Stoilova et al. 2019). Smartphones now are increasingly popular
48
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
and are, according to PEW data, the main means of access to social media today for
many users in the global north (Anderson 2019). The majority of social media consumption is now purportedly done via smartphone, with Anderson (2015) suggesting ownership of these devices has almost doubled since 2011, and is likely to
continue to grow.
The development of the devices used to access social media has had a number of
effects upon how users act and interact online and offline, including aiding the rise
of new forms of social interaction and new forms of social capital emerging from
this. This can be seen by looking to the selfie, driven by the dominance of portable
devices and the emergence of increasingly advanced camera technology on phones
leading in turn to a growth in interactions through largely visual mediums on platforms such as Snapchat and Instagram (Bayer et al. 2016; Piwek and Joinson 2016;
Tiidenberg and Gómez Cruz 2015). Katz and Crocker (2015) note that selfies are
increasingly commonplace and accompanied by an ecology of filters and editing
software, with 96% of respondents in the UK taking selfies. They also note importantly that selfies are increasingly serving a conversational function and being used
in social interactions, a point echoed by Bayer et al. (2016, 966) who note of snapchat that it forms the ‘typically mundane, quotidian “little snippets” of everyday
life’. Research is increasingly exploring the various new etiquettes for data sharing
and image sharing that have emerged due to the advance in mobile technology,
including changes in the expected time taken to respond to messages (Mai et al.
Borderer 2015), and attitudes towards a peer’s content (Katz and Crocker 2015) as
well as particular awareness of privacy settings and practices (Hart 2017). For
example, though users can technically capture another user’s selfie via ‘screen-­
capture’, Katz and Crocker (2015, 2) note that ‘user etiquette makes such activities
taboo and saving Snapchat images can result in being defriended’. Other researchers argue that the time limited and non-archival nature of Snapchat messages and
images affect our interactions and identity performances (Piwek and Joinson 2016)
and even our social relationships both on- and offline (Bayer et al. 2016). Charteris
et al. (2014, 389) similarly argue that the disappearing nature facilitated by Snapchat
enables users to ‘take up a range of discourses and demonstrate discursive agency in
ways that support social mobility through shifting relationships with their peers’
(Charteris et al. 2014, 389). In this manner, the progression of technology brings
new social etiquettes, patterns, expectations, mediums, and behaviours, changing
our experiences in myriad ways.
Given these changes in composition patterns, styles, content, etiquette, locations,
and the various other unfolding changes brought about by new technologies, it is
clear that our experiences and uses of social media cannot be disconnected from the
technology through which we access them. Changes in technology have led to
changes in how users contextualise and approach media forms for social interaction
and will continue to do so as technology evolves. It is apparent that any research
hoping to understand how users are acting and interacting online should pay some
attention to the technology through which users are accessing social media. Indeed
a fixed understanding of social media is inherently hampered by the relentless pace
of innovation and change in the field, both in terms of the hardware available and in
3.2
Technically Social
49
terms of the social media platforms themselves. Social media appears protean and
transient, changing, mutating, and fluctuating with the seemingly relentless march
of technology. Indeed, many apps have started from a position of purposefully
changing or ‘disrupting’ the current social media landscape (Kobie 2019), the success of which can change and alter the form and style of social media quickly. In this
manner, researchers should unpack how these ongoing changes shape and effect the
form, function, and boundaries of social media, and educators should be prepared to
change their approaches to social media in a flexible manner.
Some of the most interesting insights into the relationship between the evolution
of technology and our changing social experiences and priorities can be found
through briefly looking at the history of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and the myriad forms of spatial navigations and experiences these technologies
have opened up. The navigational potential of GPS provides us with tools for locating and positioning ourselves within a space but crucially also provides ways of (re)
presenting a given space that has broad and myriad social implications, including
which spaces are seen as important, who uses a given space, which aspects of a
given space are emphasized and minimized, and even how a space might be used
and experienced.1 Researchers have suggested that the integration of features such
as location check-ins on social media has enabled the integration of physical locations into social interactions in new ways (Saker 2016) or as Cramer et al. (2011, 65,
[italics in original]) put it, ‘ultimately, what this means is that location has changed
from being something you have (a property or state) to something you do (an
action)’. Research into the effects and use of GPS in social media provides an example of how a new, relatively innocuous piece of technology can be used in many
varying way and manifest many different forms and experiences of social action and
interaction.
For example, Saker (2016) has studied how sharing your location via check-in
apps such as Foursquare allows users to show and share places they are physically
visiting. Saker has looked at the ways in which location and identity can become
intertwined thanks to GPS and location-sharing social technology, noting that the
affordances provided and offered by this technology allow for new and novel
manifestations of identity. Through interviews with users of Foursquare, Saker
explores how location-based capabilities provided by wireless GPS technology,
It is always important to keep in mind that if we are to conceptualise GPS technology as a tool for
translating the world around us into a new format, that no act of translation can ever completely
represent a space with accuracy. Choices must be made in the act of translation as to how best to
represent that space and which aspects will be included, excluded, emphasised, and minimised. As
Monmonier (2018, 1) notes, ‘not only is easy to lie with maps, it’s essential. To portray meaningful
relationships for a complex, three-dimensional world on a flat sheet of paper or a screen, a map
must distort reality’. This indeed is true of all social experiences online, which serve as a translation of reality into a new format. It should not be assumed that offline reality is presented neutrally,
accurately, or without bias online. Digital spaces acting as representations of social and physical
reality are always and purposefully curated. The process of representation is therefore one that
cannot assume a ‘blank canvas’ for identities to exist, emerge, and flourish in a neutral manner.
Much as maps provide a curated representation of reality, so to do all social spaces online.
1
50
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
along with the design of Foursquare as a social space, enmeshed identity and location, with users ‘conflating the places they frequented, and the symbolism they
attached to these environments, with their own identities’ (Saker 2016, 945).
Similarly, Humphreys and Liao (2011) discuss another ‘geo-tagging’ service called
Socialight that allows users to ‘check in’ to locations and discuss them via the platform. They note that Socialight allows users to ‘communicate through place to
allow users to create place-based narratives’ (Humphreys and Liao 2011, 407).
The technological capabilities provided by building GPS into a platform socially
allow users to create new narratives and interact in new and meaningful ways
around, through, in, with, and about location. As Schwartz and Halegoua (2015)
suggest, there is a need to consider this enmeshing of location, technology, and
identity in more detail. They evoke the term ‘spatial self’ to uncover this enmeshment, noting ‘spatial self’ refers:
to a variety of instances (both online and offline) where individuals document, archive, and
display their experience and/or mobility within space and place in order to represent or
perform aspects of their identity to others. These are historically rooted practices that combine lived and/or imagined social and spatial realities in order to express identity and socio-­
spatial position. (Schwartz and Halegoua (2015, 1644))
Indeed, GPS technology has many implications for the methods through which
we can socially interact (Erikson 2010), including for surveillance purposes. For
example, Bales et al. (2011) have looked at methods of using location data to help
maintain long-distance relationships via an application that implicitly sends your
partner your location data when you reach a frequently visited location and receives
your partner’s location data when they do the same. They note that this allows partners to maintain awareness of each other’s location and that, importantly, this changes
social interaction away from an explicit obligation to an implicit reception of data
that can be used to express information without direct action from the user. Of
course, there has also been resistance to such uses of locational data. Such tracking
of location of children by parents can undermine trust (Boesen et al. 2010), responsibility, and privacy (Fahlquist 2015). As others have pointed out (see Arnold 2003),
this ‘always on’ surveillance mentality was not always received kindly by users,
many of whom have actively resisted sharing location data and who pushed back
against the pressure ‘to not only adopt social applications such as location-sharing,
but also to be responsive and accessible at all times’ (Page and Kobsa 2010, 174).
Others have looked at how the location-based technology, and in turn the locations themselves, has been ‘gamified’ for social interaction via popular apps and
websites such as Munzee and Geocaching which allow users to discover hidden
scannable codes or caches in various locations hidden by other users. O’Hara
(2008), for example, discusses how the process of collecting geocaches becomes
bound up in a social identity within a wider online community, changing how users
acted and interacted online and offline. She notes that the enmeshing of location and
technology provided a new lens for viewing location, and that ‘online participation
can be a significant influence on associated location-based experiences and vice
3.2
Technically Social
51
versa’ (O’Hara 2008, 1186). Similar findings were noted by Ihamäki (2015) who
suggested that the GPS facilitated specific tribe cultures between ‘geocachers’,
enabling and creating new ways of interacting and knowing the world around them.
Farman (2009, 1) highlight this point, suggesting that geocaching provides a unique
new social space and new forms of social interactions by enabling a ‘blending of
material and virtual interfaces, notions of presence and absence, visible and invisible, and utilitarian and playful purposes of everyday objects’.
For education, the implications of these new forms of interaction in, on, with,
and around place offered by the technological development of GPS through applications and sites such as Geocaching provide not only geographical educational
opportunities but also provide new forums for the development of social skills and
encouraging students to engage in new forms of socialisation (Ellbrunner et al.
2014). In this manner, through using GPS to gamify locations, our social experiences and understandings of spaces and people change. It should be noted however
that this is not separate from existing social inequity and often these technologies
themselves exacerbate existing inequities in myriad conscious and unconscious
ways. This is discussed in more detail in the next section of this chapter, but as
Schwartz and Halegoua (2015, 1653) note ‘this form of representation carries many
biases and limitations that researchers should take into consideration in their work’.
This is uniquely true of education. As Cottom (2017, 214) points out, educational
technology is often designed with a ‘roaming autodidact’ in mind – a user who is
is a self-motivated, able learner that is simultaneously embedded in technocratic futures and
disembedded from place, culture, history, and markets. the roaming autodidact is almost
always conceived as western, white, educated and male. as a result of designing for the
roaming autodidact, we end up with a platform that understands learners as white and male,
measuring learners’ task efficiencies against an unarticulated norm of western male whiteness. It is not an affirmative exclusion of poor students or bilingual learners or black students or older students, but it need not be affirmative to be effective.
We will return to this point later in this chapter, but for educational researchers,
policy makers, and practitioners it is crucial that we recognise the many ways in
which technology is not separate from the world around us.
GPS technology of course is not the only technology that has changed methods,
modes, and forms of social interaction and identity presentation. Other studies have
looked at how self-tracking technology can be used for social interaction. Devices
such as ‘smartwatches’ allow for tracking of various statistics such as sleep patterns,
exercise, body weight, and heart rate. The tracking afforded by this technology not
only has implications for fitness and personal health but also has become a tool for
social interactions via online media, through both general platforms such as
Facebook and Twitter that have accommodated this new social data format (Wang
et al. 2016), and dedicated sites and communities for those interested in fitness
tracking (Esmonde and Jette 2018). As Chen et al. (2016) highlight in their study of
the effects of fitness apps on diabetic and obese patients, new communities have
formed and can form out of the technological capabilities provided by this new
technology, in turn changing the manner in which users engage with the media as
well as the manner and format in which the data is produced, uploaded, and shared.
52
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
As technology continues its relentless progress, our habits and styles of engaging
with these tools changes, and the ways in which the aid, supress, frame, and shape
social interactions also change.
In this manner, a consideration of social actions and interactions online cannot and
should not attempt to separate these interactions from the various technologies
through which they are enacted. In many complex ways, our experiences are enmeshed
with technologies and their capabilities. However, whilst social media emerges in part
through this confluence of design choices, capabilities, and the technology through
which these platforms are accessed, as discussed below, we should avoid viewing this
in a deterministic manner and instead understand that user experiences and engagements with technology are continually socio-culturally grounded in complex ways.
3.3 Socio-Cultural Grounded Experiences of Technology:
‘Technology Is Neither Good, nor Bad, nor Is it Neutral’
We began this chapter by discussing the fact that smartphones are usurping computers as a main source of Internet connectivity. Whilst this is true at the broadest level,
research also shows that this varies considerably across socio-cultural and socio-­
economic lines, with white adults in the USA having higher access to both smartphones and broadband Internet (Anderson 2019) and with higher earners and those
with college degrees similarly having more access to both smartphones and broadband (Anderson 2019). Anderson (2019) notes that over one in four lower-income
adults (compared to only 6% of high earners) and over one in four adults without
some college education (compared to only 4% of those with college education) are
smartphone-only users without access to home broadband. She also notes that:
For example, 92% of adults from households earning $75,000 or more a year say they have
broadband internet at home, but that share falls to 56% among those whose annual household income falls below $30,000. (Anderson 2019, 4)
It is apparent that socio-cultural and socio-economic resources shape how we use
and experience technology. In this style, it is worth reflecting upon Melvin
Kranzberg’s (1986) much cited first law of technology: ‘technology is neither good,
nor bad, nor is it neutral’. Though this may seem somewhat purposefully obfuscated, Kranzberg does expand on this discussing that his meaning here is an attempt
to offer a nuanced look beyond ‘technological determinism’ – the idea that technology shapes our experiences in a one-way manner. Instead, Kranzberg’s aim was to
consider how technology is imbedded and experienced differently by users across
socio-cultural divides or as Kranzberg noted:
Technology’s interaction with the social ecology is such that technical developments frequently have environmental, social, and human consequences that go far beyond the immediate purposes of the technical devices and practices themselves, and the same technology
can have quite different results when introduced into different contexts or under different
circumstances. (Kranzberg 1986, 545–546)
3.3 Socio-Cultural Grounded Experiences of Technology: ‘Technology Is Neither…
53
Written in 1986, Kranzberg nonetheless foresaw the need to consider the way
technology is experienced within socio-cultural and socio-economic contexts. Such
divides are being seen in real time, with emerging technologies such as the IoT
being experienced differently across socio-economic divides (van der Zeeuw et al.
2019). Van Deursen and Mossberger (2018, 122) note that the ‘comparative advantages of the IoT to people will vary based on differentiated skills and resources,
enabling smaller groups of people to benefit, and disadvantaging others in new
ways’. Whilst technology may be shaping all of our collective experiences, as
Wajcman and Dodd (2017, 3) aptly note, the ‘powerful are fast, the powerless are
slow’. These divides even shape why we use different technologies, with Tsetsi and
Rains (2017, 239) suggesting ‘minorities and younger individuals use smartphones
for more social activity, while White, younger, and higher income individuals use
smartphones for more news/information activity’.
Importantly the same GPS technology discussed in the previous section of this
chapter is not devoid of impacting different communities differently and is not created in a vacuum separate of socio-cultural reality. Instead these technologies have
been noted to exacerbate extant social disparities in both intended and unintended
manners. This point is made in a detailed and precise manner by Safiya Umoja
Noble (2018, 1) in her recent book ‘Algorithms of Oppression’, the introduction of
which notes that:
on the Internet and in our everyday uses of technology, discrimination is also embedded in
computer code and, increasingly, in artificial intelligence technologies that we are reliant
on, by choice or not.
Noble provides detailed examples of the ways in which search engines extend and
exacerbate bias around the presentation of gender and race, effectively privileging
whiteness. Similar trends have been noted by a number of researchers. Patton et al.
(2017, 3), for example, note of the use of the website ‘Geofeedia’ (a location-based
social platforms which pinpoints hotspots of expected crime and trouble) that these
platforms:
exclude communities of color and by so doing turns the technological gaze on them...If
communities of color are socially constructed as problematic sites, then this is where the
technological gaze goes, in anticipation of a problem – the social controls morphing into
punitive cognitive controls.
These new ways of experiencing, augmenting, and understanding social interaction are rife with their own socio-cultural biases which subsequently mean that not
every user experiences these interactions nor relates to these technologies in the
same manner. Cases have been documented, for example, of the trend of exclusionary practices on apps and dating sites such as Grindr through terms such as ‘no fats,
no fems, no blacks, no Asians’ (Scott 2015). Conner (2019, 416), for example,
states that Grindr:
…seems to have more potential in heightening, exaggerating, and even allowing for the
creation of new ways its users can stigmatize or marginalize others: filtering out users based
on criteria, blocking, simply ignoring messages, and other methods.
54
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
Others have noted the systemic racial inequalities that manifest themselves when
people of colour (PoC) attempt to play Pokémon GO. In white neighbourhoods,
PoC are treated as if they are acting suspiciously (Crockett 2016). In predominantly
PoC neighbourhoods, Pokémon GO has been noted as having a lack of in-game
resources like PokeStops and Gyms compared to white neighbourhoods (Akhtar
2016). Others still have found ride-sharing apps like Uber discriminate against
women and PoC (Ge et al. 2016). Even attempts to correct racial representation and
experiences can still centralise whiteness, as Sweeney and Whaley (2019) highlight
through looking at skin tone modifiers in emojis. In this manner, technology exacerbates and creates manifestations of extant socio-cultural divide, emphasizing
some voices and ways of being social and minimizing others.
Technology also acts and is experienced differently by different bodies. For
example, technology used in fitness tracking technology has been suggested to be
racially biased. The green light technology used by wearable technology does not
work as effectively on darker skin types, leading to inaccurate readings (Shcherbina
et al. 2017; Hailu 2019). VR technology on gaming headsets such as the Oculus Rift
have been found to induce motion sickness in women more than men, with Munafo
et al. (2017, 900) stating that they ‘conclude that the Oculus Rift, as a technology, is
sexist in its effects’. Added to other socio-economic inequalities around access to
technology and data (Anderson 2019), these technologies becomes enmeshed into
complex socio-technical assemblages which can present new social dynamics and
exacerbate extant issues. As such, there is a need to not only study what forms of
actions and interactions are afforded by different technologies but to look at how
they are used, who they give voice to, and who they silence. This is extremely
important in education, where technology is often used in a broad manner and rolled
out to classrooms and learning environments with the assumption that all users will
gain the same advantages from these technological interventions. As Cottom (2017)
and others highlight, educational technology is often not overtly built to exclude
‘but it need not be affirmative to be effective’. In education we should push back
against the idea that just introducing technology into every classroom will fix educational inequity. In many cases, it exacerbates it in unexpected ways.
There are of course numerous other examples of technology changing our social
experiences in interesting ways, such as headphones, which provide users with the
opportunity to disconnect from the immediate audio environment and immerse
themselves in music, podcasts, or other audio entertainment. The use of headphones
again has implications for different socio-cultural communities, with some critics
noting that the ability to disconnect is a luxury not afforded to all equally. For many,
the choice to disconnect from their environment can be a risk to their life, as highlighted in the shooting of Dillon Taylor, a 20-year-old killed whilst wearing headphones because he couldn’t hear police officers’ commands. Similarly, a viral article
from 2013 detailed how to ‘flirt’ with women who are wearing headphones that
essentially amounted to abusing females on public transport as they attempted to
reclaim their autonomy. In this manner, females are not afforded the ability to disconnect without abuse or harassment. On top of this, not all socio-economic groups
are afforded the luxury of free time, nor access to technology equally (Anderson
3.4 The Medium Is (Part of) the Message: Technology Changing Uses and…
55
2019), meaning that the luxury of disconnection from immediate locations is not
afforded to all members of society with the same risk or cost. As such, it is apparent
that a consideration of the relationship between technology and user must consider
a range of aspects, not only looking at what new possibilities the technology may
provide to users but also how the socio-culturally grounded users may or may not
be able to experience this technology equally (Noble 2018).
The continuing examples of the varied uses of technology serve as a reminder
that, despite the media affordance, researchers need to consider more than just the
anticipated or typical uses but also look at how users create personal and unique
experiences with, through, and within technology, grounded in their socio-cultural
realities (Bar et al. 2016). Nonetheless it is also clear that our interactions are in
some way guided, constrained, and shaped by the technology available for us to
express ourselves through and with. It is through this enmeshment of possibility and
reality that our experiences with technology emerge, as is highlighted in the data
detailed in the next section of this chapter.
3.4 The Medium Is (Part of) the Message: Technology
Changing Uses and Experiences of Social Media
Amongst all participants of my year-long series of interviews, there appeared to be
no uniformity in regard to their experiences of technology. All of the participants
utilised a range of devices to access the different social media platforms they used.
These devices were discussed in detail during the interviews, and it was apparent
that the use and experience of devices were largely different for each user due to
their situation, their needs, and their preferences.
Nonetheless, the participants did discuss a range of ways in which technologies
changed and augmented their experiences of social media and discussed the role
that devices played in creating particular interactions with and through social media
for them. Brian, for example, discussed how his social media usage and experience
changed when he switched from an Android phone to an Apple phone. He noted that
the two technologies had some difference in usability, describing Apple as notably
‘quite clinical’. He suggested:
Android was so much easier to interface between Twitter and Facebook, and you could have
(.) like, I found I had more control with Android over where things went, than with Apple.
I think (.) Apple is easier to use for some people, but (.) they’re so different.
Brian continued from this to note that his usage of social media changed with the
introduction of a new device, specifically detailing how the lack of flexibility in
Apple’s design led to some frustration and ultimately an unwillingness to use
Facebook through his new Apple phone:
Android, because it’s such an open platform, people can be really clever with it and do what
they want with it. Apple, you have a use and that’s it. And so you can’t control it. Android
you can find the app that suits you, find a nice little niche, and work with that. So I found
56
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
that I am actually using Facebook from my computer more and I, I, I am using my
phone less.
The change in technology then from Android to Apple had changed Brian’s
engagement with social media. Crucially however, the interview data suggests that
it is important to contextualise the effects of devices to each user, as the effects will
evidently not be universal. This was made apparent by Brandon, who also noted he
had used both Apple and Android devices but found little discernible difference
between the two. Brandon responded to questions about his usage and engagement
with the two devices with less concern than Brian, noting when asked if there was a
difference:
Brandon: No, I think probably fairly equally across the different phones, just because I’ve
known how to get at them and they’ve all been very easy to access.
Harry: Even from Apple to Android? Was that a big shift or?
Brandon: No, not a huge shift to be honest.
Instead of changes caused by a shift from Android to Apple, Brandon noted other
changes in his usage driven by different technology, specific to his needs and his situation. He highlighted the changes brought about by the addition of a better camera:
since I’ve had a smartphone with a good camera there’s been a bigger shift in terms of the
way I use it, I certainly now use Instagram a lot more because I have a good camera available to me and I don’t have to use my separate camera, go home, upload my photos, and
then put them into the internet. I can just click it from my album.
Brandon also noted other particular changes in social media usage and patterns
bought about since gaining a faster and more advanced smartphone. He noted, for
instance, that he could more easily diversify his use of social media:
I think my habits are possibly changing because previously I’d only have bothered with one
sort of social media site and the other two that have come along, sort of Snapchat as well if
you include it, have been purely since I’ve had a phone and I’ve got access to all of them at
the same time.
In a similar fashion, Sally noted some changes between different devices as well,
with her usage patterns and access times changing after an upgrade in phone:
On my old phone I couldn’t even access Facebook, I had to break it, because my phone was
complaining, umm, so when I went out during the day I’d end up going for about 6-7 hours
at a time without accessing social media, but now with my new phone I kind of access
constantly even when I’m out with friends. So I’m always checking Facebook or Tumblr or
Instagram.
She also later noted some additional differences bought about by gaining a functional mobile phone, particularly highlighting the addition of emojis as a communication tool:
I think it also helps that emojis are on phones now, but you can’t get that (.) it’s limited on
the actual websites, whereas on your phone you have the standard ones, and then extra ones
you can download from the AppStore or Google. I’ve started using emojis a lot, I don’t
know whether it’s good or bad but I’ve started to think in emojis, like ‘this emoji perfectly
describes my reaction here’, I wish I could react with emojis offline.
3.4 The Medium Is (Part of) the Message: Technology Changing Uses and…
57
Similarly again, Kirsty also discussed the changes in her use of social media and her
feelings of connectivity since upgrading her phone:
Well the phone I had before was, well, as my boss at the time flatteringly said, a dumb
phone, because it was the literal opposite of a smartphone, I mean it was as close to a Nokia
3310 in this day and age as you could probably get, it literally did nothing…it just didn’t
have the power to use any kind of site. I mean, none of the phones I had before this one had
apps or anything, so yeah, I umm, in some ways I’ve lost a significant part of my life to having a smartphone now, because I am on call all the time, umm, I certainly, did I even have
Twitter before I had a smartphone? I did, but I never used it really. Now I’m on it all the time.
Kirsty later detailed some nuanced and interesting differences in how she used and
approached the platforms bought about by the technology she was accessing social
media on. She noted that her time spent on the platforms had changed noticeably
since gaining a smartphone:
I had Twitter but very rarely used it, I think every now and again from my laptop in bed
when I was a student, umm, err, and I did have Facebook (.) I checked it less often (.) I suppose when I did check it I would be on it for longer, because by the time you’d bothered to
boot up the computer you might as well hang around and talk to people for a while, whereas
now I just tend to sort of dip in and out more. So actually in some way I suppose I haven’t
necessarily lost time to Facebook, it’s just allocated different.
Given this, it appears that technology can discernibly change the manner in
which the user engages with social media. In Kirsty’s case, we can see technology
changing and impacting her use and experience of social media platforms. Similar
issues when changing between PC and phone were noted by other participants. For
example, Willow discussed some individual differences in the style and manner of
her interactions on different technologies. She notes:
I’d be unlikely to link to, to like post to a friend’s wall with “oh have you seen this” on my
phone, because it’s harder to do it. It’d be more likely to be something I’d do on my pc.
Also, I’m more likely to engage in longer conversations on messenger and stuff over my
computer, because it has a proper keyboard and it’s easier and you can keep the thread of a
conversation better, than on my phone where it’s harder to type. I’m much more likely to
just do like tiny little ‘yes that’s great’ and ‘all that sounds good’ and y’know ‘we’ll see you
then’ kind of things on my phone. Umm. Yeah, I tend to read stuff, read messages on my
phone and then reply to them on my desktop.
Again, it is worth highlighting here that it appears that the medium does not
affect users in the same manner. Instead, individual users enmesh with technology
to produce specific engagements guided by, but not universally bound to, the affordances of that specific piece of technology. Whilst some participants, for example,
discussed how their usage of social media noticeably increased on a mobile device,
for others, the differences between devices were not nearly as clear-cut. Nina, for
example, noted that an iPhone is ‘easier than the actual desktop layout’ but only in
a rather perfunctory sense that a user can ‘just scroll easier with your thumb, and
you can just like stop it when you want to read something, rather than like getting
the mouse up and down. I just, I find it quicker’.
Further to this, participants also suggested there was a need to situate technology
use as it may change based upon where the user is at any given time. Isabel discussed
58
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
this, detailing how she would use her devices differently based on where she was at
the given time. She notes ‘my boyfriend has stopped me checking my phone at home.
I like it actually, I can just be with him so I put my phone down and we just hang out’.
It would appear then that technology needs to be not only considered on a user-byuser basis but also potentially situated when considering how and why it is used.
3.5 Platforms Are Not Universal Across Devices
One aspect of social media engagement that participants noted was that social media
platforms are not consistent across all devices. The manner in which Twitter, for
example, is presented on a smartphone is different from Twitter on a computer or a
laptop or a tablet. A number of the participants discussed this, noting that they preferred using certain devices due to the manner in which they presented the platforms. For example, Oliver, highlighted that:
Oliver: The only thing I make the exception to is Facebook, that has to be on computer.
Harry: And that’s because of the permissions?
Oliver: Nah, I just can’t stand the app. I think it’s a bit counter intuitive and hard to use.
Brian also highlighted this difference, but he emphasised the reverse position,
championing the merits of the application over the computer version of the platform. He noted that given a choice, he would choose to access social media on his
tablet. When asked why he responded:
Brian: Because the apps tend to reduce a lot of Facebook down to (.) although Facebook
does this now itself, anyway, but you like (.) you can’t see as much on it and I like stalking
people basically.
Harry: That’s really interesting, so you like it stripped down and less (.)
Brian: Less faff, yeah, I like to just see it as simple as possible. It’s so much easier on
my tablet, it’s just the updates without any hassle.
This would suggest that beyond paying attention to the nuances of a range of
platforms, there is a need to consider that individual social media platforms themselves may not be consistent and may vary based upon the devices that users are
using to access them. Nina’s interviews emphasise this as she highlights the difference between the presentation of different social media platforms on a Samsung
phone compared to an iPhone. She noted she had gone through:
three Samsung galaxies that have broken. And I did use Facebook, and Twitter, and
Instagram on that, but I actually used it a lot less than when I had my iPhone, because I
found it harder to use, because it was more like the computer. Whereas Apple sort of had
their own layout, but the Samsung, it was sort of the same as the computer and I didn’t like
that. So I actually ended up using my laptop more, than my phone, which I didn’t like.
Not only did these differences affect how Nina accessed her social media platforms,
they also changed the ways and the amount that she used the platforms. She suggested:
I wasn’t on it as much, so I didn’t update anything as much, I didn’t put as many photos up
while I had it, because I didn’t like using the camera on the phone. Because I normally just
take a photo on the iPhone and upload it to Instagram, or Twitter, or Facebook, and just, you
3.6 The Difference Between ‘Having’ and ‘Having Access to’ Technology
59
know, put a comment on it. But with the Samsung I didn’t like taking the pictures, and I
didn’t like the layout, and I didn’t like anything
For Nina therefore the variation in the presentation of platforms across different
devices changed how she used social media in a number of manners, including the
style and regularity of her updates. Nina particularly highlighted the device-specific
layout of the platform as an aspect that affected how she experienced the platforms.
Willow too also noted different presentations of the same features on different technology. She highlights Facebook Messenger in particular as a being different on her
phone as compared to on her computer and suggested she would ‘actually prefer
sending stuff from my phone than sending it from my Facebook, cos they make go
through three extra steps to get it full screen on my bloody laptop’.
It appears therefore that there is a need to consider that social media platforms
are not consistent across technologies and that a user’s experience of that platform
may be bound to the particular device through which they are accessing it. This
would further suggest that there is a need to consider device-specific organisation of
platform features when considering identity performances online. Indeed, as Nina’s
case showed, the presentation of social media on her Samsung devices led to her
interacting in a markedly different manner. For Nina, the experience of a platform
could not be assumed to be consistent across devices, and therefore her engagement
with, and use of, the platform also could not be assumed to be consistent.
3.6 The Difference Between ‘Having’ and ‘Having Access
to’ Technology
A number of the participants suggested a marked difference between how they
viewed and used different technologies, noting that they reserved certain devices for
specific purposes, in turn affecting how they engaged with these devices. The interviews suggest that there is a need therefore to contextualise and situate the technology that users have access to rather than merely noting their access to that technology.
Brian, for example, noted in his interviews that he would make use of different
devices to engage with different aspects of a social media platform. He discussed
his use of Twitter, noting that he would use his computer when possible to view the
current trending topics on Twitter but that, if he wanted to compose and send a
tweet, he would tend to use a phone:
I wouldn’t feel right using Twitter on my laptop. I don’t know why. It doesn’t seem (.) Like,
if I’m looking for a news story I’ll go on Twitter on my laptop and find a trend. Because then
you can scroll through all the tweets quicker. But if I’m tweeting it’ll be from my mobile,
because you can send a text or you can just literally just ‘blup blup’ send to Twitter.
Indeed, this notion of specific devices for specific purposes was not restricted to
Twitter for Brian but was considered across multiple platforms:
Facebook (.) I don’t know, it does actually feel nice to do it on your computer. It’s a computer thing at heart, it’s made for the computer, I think the apps have a lot of redundancy
and they just narrow it down into basically a Twitter format.
60
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
Brian later expanded upon his preference for using a computer when accessing
Facebook, noting:
I just feel like I want to take my time with my Facebook, I think, and when I’m on my
mobile it feels very quick and like I don’t feel like I’m typing properly, whereas Twitter you
can just go ‘blurp’ and it’s on Twitter and I don’t mind, but with Facebook I quite like to
take my time with it.
He later further expanded upon this, detailing why he specifically and intentionally
reserved his engagement with Facebook for a computer:
Well, it’s the whole sitting down and typing. It’s feels more intentional, more of a (.) choice.
I think the computer just feels more of a meaningful choice. It has weight to it.
Brian was aware that the specific technology he used changed the way he approached
updating, and therefore he reserved specific devices for specific purposes. The
intentional notion of sitting down and actively engaging rather than browsing meant
he could interact in what he felt was a more meaningful ‘weighted’ manner. For
Brian, specific platforms were bound to specific uses, and this reflected which technology he used when accessing and posting on these platforms as he felt the different technologies carried different connotations and merits.
Similar findings were suggested by Kirsty, who noted that she’d use a computer
for ‘lengthy posting on Facebook’ and that she found Facebook ‘really irritating’ on
her phone, causing her to use it ‘less and less’. Brandon also noted that he assigned
specific functions to specific platforms, highlighting that ‘for sharing photographs I
only use my phone, because it’s much more convenient. It’s very easy’. Other uses
of technology for specific purposes were also noted by Kirsty, who suggested:
So yeah I don’t tend to use my smartphone as much for Facebook any more, except to sort
of scan what other people are doing, umm, but I do use it almost exclusively actually I use
it for Twitter. I don’t tend to use Twitter so much on other devices, as I say because the app
is so simple and it’s also capturing photo, cos if you’re gonna tweet you might as well tweet
a photo, and yeah capturing a photo on a phone is so much quicker than doing it and putting
it on a computer and all the rest of the jazz.
Similarly, Willow noted her preference of specific devices for specific tasks:
I don’t use the Twitter client so (.) erm check Twitter from my (.) my computer only occasionally. Facebook mostly from my phone again but sometimes from my PC and Reddit is
normally always from my PC. Once or twice I have read on my phone but not very often.
Some differentiated uses of technology were also noted due to the participant’s feeling over the security of using a phone, meaning they restricted their use to PC only.
For example, Oliver notes his usage of devices as:
PC is Reddit all the time, and Facebook. I refuse to use the Facebook mobile app. Simply
because it makes me, it wants me to install the Messenger and I will have nothing to do with
an extra app from Facebook.
This suggests that there is a need to consider that a platform can be used and
reserved for specific purposes by the user, which informs the technology they will
use to access it, and vice versa. The interviews highlighted several occasions when
a user’s engagement with technologies was bound to and by their specific needs and
3.6 The Difference Between ‘Having’ and ‘Having Access to’ Technology
61
situations. For example, Oliver details his preference of his PC over mobile phone
given that his phone use is restricted as ‘I have to remember how much data or usage
it uses, because it keeps updating and checking and sending off messages and doing
stuff, and I’m not on an unlimited tariff thing, err, yeah’. Oliver also notes that this
is locationally specific for him, so that, ‘At home, if I’m in front of my PC, I will
obviously use my computer, if I’m lying in bed or wherever then iPad, if I’m on the
go then it’s phone’. Similarly, Sally notes: ‘I use my phone more though, especially
cos I’m out most of the day so a lot of the stuff I do is away from my laptop’.
Indeed, the use of specific technologies for a range of specific reasons extended
beyond purely social media, with other factors also affecting how and why a user
would engage with a given device. Brandon, for example, notes that, though he has
a laptop, he uses it for dedicated purposes and that he often would not use it for
social media:
Like I don’t bother looking at Facebook or Twitter on a computer. If I’m at a computer
normally I’m doing something particular. Normally I’ve gone there for a reason, and I’ve
gone to the effort of finding my laptop charger and turning it on. It’s a lot of effort just for
Facebook.
A similar usage is noted by Willow, who discusses her desktop computer noting
‘when I’m at my computer I use my computer for actually gaming so I don’t tend to
use it a whole load for social media because normally when I’m at my pc I’m doing
something’. Given this, it appears there is a need to consider the specific context and
situation of the user when understanding how and why users utilise technology;
there is also a need to understand that technology may serve different purposes to
different users and as such may not so easily be considered analogous.
The technology Molly used to access the social media platforms in particular
highlights the need to situate technology for the user and presents some interesting
issues in regard to her specific experience of social media and her specific social
situation. At the start of the research period, when Molly was still living with her
parents, she had two different mediums through which to access social media.
Molly had been given her own mobile phone at 18, which she used as her main
method of accessing social media platforms, and also had access to a joint family
computer, which she said she used fairly frequently for a number of purposes. She
described her usage of the family computer thusly:
I could use it in the evenings. To “do homework” [she uses air quotes]. But mum would
never (.) check on me, so I could do whatever I wanted really. It was upstairs, in the loft
where my mum worked from home. We’d do homework there but nobody was really checking on me. But she could have easily. But like I say, I’m shy, so I didn’t really put anything
about me online. So I just checked Facebook and stuff. It was fine.
Molly notes that she did prefer to use her phone for social media whenever possible.
In the second interview, when asked about the family computer, Molly attested her
preference for her smartphone when accessing social media noting when asked if
she still used the joint computer to access social media: ‘Not really any more, no.
not since I got the phone’. Later she reflected upon the joint computer, noting:
62
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
(.) I kinda forgot how it felt before. They were (.), like I was, there were times when I was
(.) when it was so annoying like if my mum and her boyfriend were watching something
online (.) our TV broke, so they used to watch online a lot. But if I couldn’t, my phone was
fine then. It was, like my phone was for social media, the computer was school work and
researching.
Indeed, Molly contextualises the technology, noting that she made use of them
for largely differing purposes. She notes ‘my phone was for social media, the computer was for school work, research on the internet and emails none of which were
particularly interesting for me as an evening activity’. Nonetheless, in terms of pure
functionality, Molly notes that there was little tangible difference between the two
technologies, mainly because she felt that as she was only browsing, the functionality differences were not sizable. When asked about the difference between the two
in terms of her experience with social media, she notes ‘well, like, seeing as I only
look at them it’s (.) kinda the same on the phone as the computer (.) but, like (.) it’s
easier. It’s mine’.
3.7 Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy
Makers, and Educators
Though in essence the two technologies of mobile phone and family computer may
seem largely different, Molly’s experiences of the platforms whilst using the two
different technologies were not vastly different. Though browsing appeared to be
easier on the phone, this didn’t seem to be too large a deterrent from using social
media, and the differences in terms of using the platforms for browsing appear
largely perfunctory for Molly. What does appear to be a deterrent however was the
access to the machines and the manner in which she contextualised the technology.
Once we situate the technology and pay attention to its meaning and context for the
user, it becomes clear that, for Molly, the medium wasn’t the message, the context
was. What was important was the specific role she assigned to that technology.
Molly suggested that family computer was for homework largely. She acknowledged that she would use it for other purposes including social media, but it did not
appear to be the main purpose she ascribed to the family computer as a medium,
which she suggested numerous times was for homework. Molly suggested she
tended to prefer using the smartphone for social media usage mainly because it was
easier (‘the phone’s easier because it’s just in my pocket’) and because she owned it
(‘It’s mine and I can use when I want without worrying’).
Given this, it appears that there is a need to consider the difference between ‘having’ and ‘having access to’ different technologies in terms of engagement with
them. Care should be taken to not just note the platforms that participants have
access to but to understand that platforms may vary in function and contextualisation for the user as they approach them with different socio-cultural resources,
needs, and contexts. This raises some questions for the treatment of technology in
social media research. Lenhart’s (2015, 2) much cited survey of social media usage
3.7
Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy Makers, and Educators
63
reported to ask participants ‘whether they ‘have or have access to’ a list of five tools:
smartphones, basic cell phones, desktop or laptop computers, tablets and game consoles’. However, these interviews suggest that we cannot assume that ‘having’ and
‘having access to’ technologies are the same thing. For Molly, it appears they
patently are not; the joint family computer was something she had access to, the
phone was something she had, as she notes when she says ‘It’s mine and I can use
when I want without worrying’.
It appears therefore that technology is not a neutral machine used to access anything; it is situated and the users apply different approaches and purposes to different technologies, informed by their specific situations and needs. Here, in Molly’s
case, her joint computer was a family computer. Though she knew she could access
social media on it and that her experience of it may not be that different for the purposes for which she was using the platforms, she largely chose not to make use of it
for that function. If we were to only consider her output, there is little noticeable
difference between her engagement across the devices she chose to create content
on either. However, if we explore her approach towards the devices and her use of
them, it is clear that there is some noticeable variation.
The interviews suggest therefore that a deterministic approach to technology
should not be taken but that instead researchers should aim to understand the unique
and unfolding role that technology plays within each user’s life. The changes technology creates in terms of interaction were not noticeably uniform within this sample,
appearing to be unique to each user. Though larger research samples may be able to
discern some trends in usage, this research suggests that there is a need to purposefully problematize this and consider the role of technology within the user’s life. Sally
noted of Facebook, for example, that ‘it’s easier to browse other people’s pages on
your computer than it is on your phone’, whereas Nina found the iPhone ‘easier that
the actual desktop layout’. Indeed, some participants who used multiple technologies
noted little to no difference between them. Isabel, for example, found no difference
between her iPad and her iPhone. Similarly, Brandon noted that of his multiple
devices that ‘aside from the slightly lack of functionality on my phone, I think I use
them in virtually the same way’. Molly noted only some minor changes in her usage
of social media bought about by a change in technology after gaining a laptop for her
18th birthday. She suggested ‘it’s really great and I (.) I use it a lot now. In my room
and whatever I can leave things up and it’s not (.) a problem’. However, she also crucially noted that her engagement and uses of social media platforms were not dramatically changed, especially in terms of a shift in her content production given that
she continued not to post on social media that frequently, even with new technology.
Given this, it appears that individual users will utilise technology in highly personalized ways, bringing their own experiences, socio-cultural resources, and needs
to these platforms to create unique uses, which may be guided by the features
afforded by the technology but which importantly will be realised in an individual
manner. It is the enmeshing of the technological and the individual through which
the individual usage emerges. These cases therefore serve as a reminder that usage
of technology varies from person to person and the individual experiences cannot be
assumed to be universal. This creates some difficulties for education technology,
64
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
which usually likes to find broad blanket solutions and applications for technology.
The reality here is that technology cannot be easily generalised. Context matters,
and a less deterministic approach to technology is needed to understand user experiences and account for the variation.
Beyond a consideration of the role of design upon the realisation of specific identity performances, this research was also keen to account for the effect of the devices
through which the participants were engaging with social media. This was necessary
given that research suggests that the development and progression of devices can be
tracked concurrently with changes and developments in our Internet uses and habits
(Anderson, 2015). It was noted in the interviews, for example, that there was a need
to consider that social media was generally not being engaged with in prolonged
sit-down sessions. With a growth in mobile technologies, it was apparent that the
participants’ habits revolved around checking and browsing social media on a regular basis through mobile devices. Browsing was highlighted as a key aspect of social
media consumption for the participants and made up the large part of their reported
social media engagement, largely through mobile technology. Indeed, this trend was
readily apparent for some of the participants, such as Brian, who noted the use of his
mobile exclusively for browsing and a laptop or desktop computer for actual content
production. This was enacted for a variety of reasons, including checking on their
peers and keeping up with news as it happens. Indeed, it could be argued that the
‘always connected’ nature of social media, notably prevalent in young people in
regard to their use of mobile phones (Anderson 2019), has largely lead to the trend
of social media for the consumption of news as it happens. A number of studies have
revealed a tendency in recent years towards news consumption and production via
social media (Hermida et al. 2012). Social media has even been noted for some as
their main source of news consumption (Harder et al. 2016). Future research should
continue to study and unpack how social media habits change with the implementation of technology. For educational policy makers, this means a dedication is needed
to continue to explore the changes technology creates in our habits and behaviours,
both broadly and, also, crucially in individual manners.
Beyond the tendency towards browsing social media, it was apparent from the
analysis that there was little comparable engagement with technology by the participants. Instead, the engagements with technology were realised in a unique manner
from participant to participant. This of course does not mean that technology did not
affect aspects of the participant’ use of social media but merely that it affected them
in a variety of manners. For some, aspects such as the better cameras or clearer
interfaces lead to changes in how they engaged online. For others, such as Brandon,
the differences were negligible. Arguably one of the larger shifts in technology was
shown in Molly’s case, moving from a joint family computer to a phone and eventually a personal laptop. Whilst some changes were noted in how she approached
social media, it was noticeable that there were little changes in her engagement with
the platforms for social interaction and social functions. However, for others, the
changes were larger and more articulated. Brandon, for example, noted a change
from a computer to a phone which changes his attitude towards the platforms, noting:
I think my habits are possibly changing because previously I’d only have bothered with one
sort of social media site and the other two that have come along sort of snapchat as well if
3.7
Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy Makers, and Educators
65
you include it have been purely since I’ve had a phone and I’ve got access to all of them at
the same time.
As such, it appears use of technology is bound to the user. As has been apparent
throughout this chapter, we cannot separate the socio-cultural reality of the user
from their experiences with technology. Whilst larger samples may again be able to
highlight specific trends in changes over time, these findings argue for a more
nuanced and grounded consideration of the engagement with technology and in turn
a less ‘broad brush’ attitude to technology in education. Instead, I would suggest
that we look at this engagement on an individual scale to instead consider how the
enmeshing of user and technology produces unique engagements. As the data bears
out, an understanding of the use of technology cannot be gained through a consideration of the technology alone, as though technology makes certain uses easier and
more apparent, the use of these features may be fulfilled by the user in an individual
manner. For example, Molly was arguably able to produce more content with a
dedicated mobile device than she might have been able to on a joint family computer; however, her production habits showed no considerable change between the
devices. However we should also be careful not to place undue attention upon the
human alone. Indeed, it should be made apparent that the use of the Internet obviously cannot be engaged without these devices, each of which come with their own
restrictions and challenges. What this data allows us to consider is the nature in
which these restrictions are dealt with by the user and the manner in which each user
negotiates their own uses of their devices. A framework to track and consider this
will therefore be presented in Comic Theory in Chap. 6 of this book.
Beyond this, it is worth considering context to note that devices can be tied to
specific purpose for users. This again came through in Molly’s case, as the joint
family computer was consigned largely to homework for her. Similarly, Willow
noted that her desktop computer was reserved for playing videogames and therefore
she tended not to use the desktop for social media. This research suggests then that
there is a need to consider the difference between ‘having’ and ‘having access to’
different technologies in terms of a user’s engagement with them. Merely noting the
availability of technology (see Lenhart 2015) is not enough to presume use and
engagement. Instead, there is a need to account for the fact that different technology
can have different meaning and contexts to the user, affecting how they engage with
it. Again then, in order to understand social media use, there is a need to ground the
technology in the socio-cultural concerns of the user at a given time and location.
This should be considered when introducing pedagogical technology. For example,
when setting homework online, we should better consider Tressie Cottom’s (2017)
warnings about roaming autodidacts and the ways in which access to technology is
not the great equaliser.
A further point in regard to the use of technology for social media consumption
became apparent through the analysis of the data, namely, the notion that the platforms were not presented in a uniform manner across technologies. The presentation of a platform was noted as being variable from one platform to the next, and in
this regard, it was noted that the participants’ engagement with the platforms would
change based on how the platform was presented and which features were easily
66
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
accessible and emphasised. This is worth accounting for, especially as the participants noted they preferred to use different devices for different platform due to the
design. Sally, for example, suggested that ‘it’s easier to browse other people’s pages
on your computer than it is on your phone’. Again, this was dependent upon the
user. So for Nina, for example, the iPhone was noted as being ‘easier that the actual
desktop layout’. Care therefore should be taken when considering platform use,
even when following one participant, as their usage may vary based upon the technology through which the user is accessing the platforms. Given that the platforms
are not universally presented across technology, future research may wish to consider that, in order to understand the use of a social media platform or the engagement with specific features, there is a need to considering the devices through which
these features are accessed. It seems, therefore, that it is the enmeshing of the technological devices and the individual users through which the engagement with
social media emerges. Whilst these participants in some manner highlight that technology will affect how we act and interact, it would appear that this may not happen
in a uniform manner and individual variation must be accounted for. As such, it is
suggested there is a need to consider the technology on a user-by-user basis and to
especially pay attention to the ways in which technology exacerbates extant inequity.
References
Abidin, C. (2016, April–June). Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?:
Influencer selfies as subversive frivolity. Social Media+ Society, 2016, 1–17.
Akhtar, A (2016, August). Is Pokémon go racist? How the app may be redlining communities of
color. USA Today. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/08/09/
pokemon-go-racist-app-redlining-communities-color-racist-pokestops-gyms/87732734/
Anderson, M. (2015, October). Technology device ownership: 2015. Pew Research Center. Accessed
08/2019. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015.
Anderson, M. (2019, June). Mobile technology and home broadband 2019. Pew
Research
Center.
Accessed
08/2019.
https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/06/13/
mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/.
Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018, May). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research
Center. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/05/
PI_2018.05.31_TeensTech_FINAL.pdf.
Arnold, M. (2003). On the phenomenology of technology: The “Janus-faces” of mobile phones.
Information and Organization, 13(4), 231–256.
Bales, E., Li, K. A., & Griwsold, W. (2011). CoupleVIBE: Mobile implicit communication to
improve awareness for (long-distance) couples. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference
on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 65–74). ACM.
Bar, F., Weber, M. S., & Pisani, F. (2016). Mobile technology appropriation in a distant mirror:
Baroquization, creolization, and cannibalism. New Media & Society, 18(4), 617–636.
Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Falk, E. B. (2016). Sharing the small moments:
Ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7),
956–977.
Boczkowski, P. J., Mitchelstein, E., & Matassi, M. (2018). “News comes across when I’m in a
moment of leisure”: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social
media. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3523–3539.
References
67
Boesen, J., Rode, J. A., & Mancini, C. (2010). The domestic panopticon: location tracking in
families. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing
(pp. 65–74). ACM.
Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). # Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial
politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4–17.
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge: Wiley.
Cappellini, B., Kravets, O., & Reppel, A. (2019). Shouting on social media? A borderscapes
perspective on a contentious hashtag. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145,
428–437.
Charteris, J., Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2014). Snapchat ‘selfies’: The case of disappearing data.
Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings of Ascilite
Dunedin, 2014, 389–393.
Chen, Y., Randriambelonoro, M., Geissbuhler, A., & Pu, P. (2016, February). Social incentives
in pervasive fitness apps for obese and diabetic patients. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM
conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing companion
(pp. 245–248). ACM.
Chun, W. H. K. (2016). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Conner, C. T. (2019). The Gay Gayze: Expressions of inequality on Grindr. The Sociological
Quarterly, 60(3), 397–419.
Cottom, T. M. (2017). Black cyberfeminism: Ways forward for intersectionality and digital sociology. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. McMillan Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies. London:
Policy Press.
Cramer, H., Rost, M., & Holmquist, L. E. (2011, August). Performing a check-in: emerging practices, norms and ‘conflicts’ in location-sharing using foursquare. In Proceedings of the 13th
international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services
(pp. 57–66). ACM.
Crockett, E. (2016, July). Pokemon Go is augmented reality. Too bad reality is still racist.
VOX.com.
Accessed
08/2019.
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12149664/
pokemon-go-augmented-reality-racist.
Dewing, M. (2010, February). Social media: An introduction. Library of Parliament – Publication
No. 2010–03-E. Accessed 10/2019. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/bdplop/eb/2010-3-eng.pdf.
Dobson, A. S. (2018). Sexting, intimate and sexual media practices, and social justice. In Digital
intimate publics and social media (pp. 93–110). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dourish, P. (1998). Introduction: The state of play. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
7(1), 1–7.
Ellbrunner, H., Barnikel, F., & VETTER, M. (2014). “Geocaching” as a method to improve not
only spatial but also social skills: Results from a school project. GI_Forum 2014 – Geospatial
Innovation for Society, pp. 348–351.
Erickson, I. (2010). Geography and community: New forms of interaction among people and
places. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1194–1207.
Esmonde, K., & Jette, S. (2018). Assembling the ‘Fitbit subject’: A Foucauldian-sociomaterialist
examination of social class, gender and self-surveillance on Fitbit community message boards.
Health, 1–16.
Fahlquist, J. N. (2015). Responsibility and privacy – Ethical aspects of using GPS to track children.
Children & Society, 29(1), 38–47.
Farman, J. (2009). Locative life: Geocaching, mobile gaming, and embodiment. In Proceedings
of the digital arts and culture conference. Accessed 08/2019. http://www.jasonfarman.com/
JasonFarman-Locative_Life_DAC09.pdf.
García-Gómez, A. (2018). From selfies to sexting: Tween girls, intimacy, and subjectivities.
Girlhood Studies, 11(1), 43–58.
Ge, Y., Knittel, C. R., MacKenzie, D., & Zoepf, S. (2016). Racial and gender discrimination in
transportation network companies (no. w22776). National Bureau of Economic Research.
68
3
Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects…
Hailu, R. (2019, July). Fitbits and other wearables may not accurately track heart rates in
people of color. STATnews.com. Accessed 08/2019. www.statnews.com/2019/07/24/
fitbit-accuracy-dark-skin/.
Harder, R. A., Paulussen, S., & van Aelst, P. (2016). Making sense of twitter buzz: The cross-media
construction of news stories in election time. Digital Journalism, 4(7), 933–943.
Hart, M. (2017). Being naked on the internet: Young people’s selfies as intimate edgework. Journal
of Youth Studies, 20(3), 301–315.
Hermida, A., Fletcher, F., Korell, D., & Logan, D. (2012). SHARE, LIKE, RECOMMEND:
Decoding the social media news consumer. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 815–824.
Humphreys, L., & Liao, T. (2011). Mobile geotagging: Reexamining our interactions with urban
space. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(3), 407–423.
Ihamäki, P. (2015). Social tribe culture case study: Geocaching game. International Journal of Web
Based Communities, 11(1), 97–113.
Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk,
public performance. Cambridge University Press.
Katz, J. E., & Crocker, E. T. (2015). Selfies and photo messaging as visual conversation: Reports
from the United States, United Kingdom and China. International Journal of Communication,
9, 1861–1872.
Kobie, N. (2019, February). TikTok breaks all the rules of app design – but somehow it still works.
Wired.co.uk. Accessed 10/2019. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tiktok-snapchat-app-design.
Kranzberg, M. (1986). Technology and history: ‘Kranzberg’s Laws’. Technology & Culture, 27(3),
544–560.
Lenhart, A. (2015, April). Teen, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research
Center. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/04/
PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf.
Llinares, D., Fox, N., & Berry, R. (Eds.). (2018). Podcasting: New aural cultures and digital
media. Cham: Springer.
Mai, L. M., Freudenthaler, R., Schneider, F. M., & Vorderer, P. (2015). “I know you’ve seen it!”
individual and social factors for users’ chatting behavior on Facebook. Computers in Human
Behavior, 49, 296–302.
Monmonier, M. (2018). How to lie with maps. University of Chicago Press.
Munafo, J., Diedrick, M., & Stoffregen, T. A. (2017). The virtual reality head-mounted display
Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Experimental Brain Research,
235(3), 889–901.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York:
New York University Press.
O’Hara, K. (2008). Understanding geocaching practices and motivations. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1177–1186). ACM.
Office for National Statistics. (2019, August 12). Internet access – Households and individuals, Great Britain: 2019. Statistical Bulletin. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/
peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/
bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2019.
Page, X., & Kobsa, A. (2010). Navigating the social terrain with Google latitude. In iConference
2010 (pp. 174–178). Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Patton, D. U., Brunton, D. W., Dixon, A., Miller, R. J., Leonard, P., & Hackman, R. (2017, July–
September). Stop and frisk online: Theorizing everyday racism in digital policing in the use
of social media for identification of criminal conduct and associations. Social Media+ Society,
2017, 1–10.
Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2016). “What do they snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited
instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 358–367.
Poushter, J., Bishop, C., & Chwe (2018, June). Social media use continues to rise in developing countries but plateaus across developed ones. PEW Research Center. Accessed 08/2019.
References
69
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/06/19/social-media-use-continues-to-rise-in-developing-countries-but-plateaus-across-developed-ones/.
Saker, M. (2016). Foursquare and identity: Checking-in and presenting the self through location.
New Media & Society, 19(6), 934–949.
Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on
social media. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1643–1660.
Scott, E. D., Jr. (2015). Big, black, teenaged queens: Navigating intersections and understanding ‘no fats, no fems’ phenomenon. In K. M. Rice & M. V. Felizzi (Eds.), Global youth:
Understanding challenges, identifying solutions, offering hope (pp. 17–33). Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Shcherbina, A., Mattsson, C. M., Waggott, D., Salisbury, H., Christle, J. W., Hastie, T., et al.
(2017). Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 7(2), 3.
Stoilova, M., Livingstone, S., & Nandagiri, R. (2019). Children’s data and privacy online:
Growing up in a digital age. Research findings. London: London School of Economics and
Political Science.
Sweeney, M. E., & Whaley, K. (2019). Technically white: Emoji skin-tone modifiers as American
technoculture. First Monday, 24(7).
Thulin, E. (2018). Always on my mind: How smartphones are transforming social contact among
young Swedes. Young, 26(5), 465–483.
Tiidenberg, K., & Gómez Cruz, E. (2015). Selfies, image and the re-making of the body. Body &
Society, 21(4), 77–102.
Tsetsi, E., & Rains, S. A. (2017). Smartphone Internet access and use: Extending the digital divide
and usage gap. Mobile Media & Communication, 5(3), 239–255.
van der Zeeuw, A., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Jansen, G. (2019). Inequalities in the social use of
the Internet of things: A capital and skills perspective. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1344–1361.
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Mossberger, K. (2018). Any thing for anyone? A new digital divide in
Internet-of-things skills. Policy & Internet, 10(2), 122–140.
Vanden Abeele, M. M., Antheunis, M. L., Pollmann, M. M., Schouten, A. P., Liebrecht, C. C., Van
Der Wijst, P. J., Van Amelsvoort, M. A., Bartels, J., Krahmer, E. J., & Maes, F. A. (2018). Does
Facebook use predict college students’ social capital? A replication of Ellison, Steinfield, and
Lampe’s (2007) study using the original and more recent measures of Facebook use and social
capital. Communication Studies, 69(3), 272–282.
Wajcman, J., & Dodd, N. (Eds.). (2017). The sociology of speed: Digital, organizational, and
social temporalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wang, Y., Weber, I., & Mitra, P. (2016). Quantified self meets social media: Sharing of weight
updates on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 6th International conference on digital health conference (pp. 93–97).
Chapter 4
What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
Abstract This chapter explores what it means to be ‘social’ online. We begin with
a discussion of the manner in which our online social experiences, expectations, and
engagements are enmeshed with extant socio-cultural resources in various ways.
The discussion then moves to consider the various ways of engaging with social
media beyond networking and peer interaction, before moving on to consider the
importance of research exploring the ways social media is engaged with beyond
content production alone. The chapter makes a clear call for a move away from big
data research which at best places undue emphasis on content production and at
worst wilfully misrepresents online user experiences. Finally, this chapter presents
research exploring how young people negotiated the social milieu online and how
they engaged with the various social media platforms they used.
Keywords Context collapse · Big data research · Passive social media use ·
Socio-cultural resources · Content production
4.1 Introduction
In the last chapter, we looked at contextualising the technology we use to access
social media, exploring how it can be experienced, used, and understood differently
by different users and how this may in turn impact our engagements with social
media. Here we will explore what exactly it means and looks like to be ‘social’
online, which naturally also intersects with an understanding of the socio-cultural
resources, realities, and experiences of users. The ability to grapple with socio-­
cultural issues has long been an issue when understanding and considering what it
means to socially engage with the Internet. In 1996, John Perry Barlow wrote and
released his much cited ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’. The
short but provocative work sets out in 16 paragraphs to outline what the Internet is
and how it should be understood by users and governments. In one particularly telling paragraph, Barlow declares the following statement:
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
H. T. Dyer, Designing the Social, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in
Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3_4
71
72
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race,
economic power, military force, or station of birth. (Barlow 1996)
This attempt to strip users of their socio-cultural resources, contexts, and experiences can still be seen today in the heavy-handed introduction of technology in
education. Seemingly technological interventions and innovations are introduced
into classrooms as a panacea with the assumption all young people will experience
it in a similar way, regardless of their socio-cultural contexts. It is of course increasingly clear that the Internet cannot be seen as a space without complex power structures baked in at every level (Noble 2018). Whilst research has been keen to
traditionally suggest that social media creates a level playing field between participants or a way of side-stepping extant power structures (Jenkins 2008, 2014; Kerr
et al. 2012) and that the Internet offers ‘a more decentralised model of media production’ (Miller 2011, 12), other researchers are increasingly pointing out that this
is not as clear cut as we might want to believe and that complex power structures
and agential constraints pervade online (van Dijck 2009; Fenton 2016; Noble 2018).
It is a critical lens of power structures online which we must consider in order to
understand what it means to be social online. To fundamentally alter Barlow’s proclamation of new-found agency online, I would suggest that social media has altered,
exacerbated, and mediated the privileges and prejudices of race, economic power,
military force, and station of birth. These issues are old and new again or as Daniels
(2018, 1072) puts it:
The forms of systemic white supremacy we face today are both a continuation of a centuries-­
old dimension of racism in the United States and part of an emerging media ecosystem
powered by algorithms.
Notably, these complex power dynamics can change from one platform to the
next as ‘different social media sites structure these production and consumption
roles differently’ (Bright et al. 2014, 14). The role and power of the user online
appear to fluctuate from platform to platform, with differing levels of control over
how a user can act and interact (Kowert et al. 2016). It is also evident that users are
not a homogeneous group. Rather, as Chander and Krishnamurthy (2018) notes,
users approach, utilise, and understand social media differently as a result of the
socio-cultural resources they bring with them when they approach social media.
Our experiences online are therefore subject to complex and shifting power dynamic,
user to user, platform to platform.
This provides a large challenge to educational practitioners and researchers, a
challenge that is all too often ignored as technology is thrown at student as a catch-­
all pacifier, leaning into what Chander and Krishnamurthy (2018) label the ‘myth of
neutrality’. Individual differences are side-lined or disregarded in the hope that
merely introducing technology into an educational environment will be enough. As
this chapter, the previous chapter, and the framework detailed in Chaps. 5 and 6
make clear, technology should not be introduced to an educational environment
without an understanding of how the pupils’ contexts, aims, resources, and experiences will shape their engagement with technology, nor the manner in which design
is not passive but is inherently political. Though online platforms may emphasise
4.1
Introduction
73
their passivity, acting as if the ‘simply pass along the speech of their users to those
users’ networks, without editorial input’ (Chander and Krishnamurthy 2018, 401),
the reality is that many seemingly neutral platforms produce complex dynamics for
users, both intended and unintended by the designers of these platforms (Cottom
2017; Noble 2018).
To understand what it means to be social online, we must therefore consider the
sociocultural resources of the users and how these enmesh with designed platforms.
A particularly interesting example of socio-culturally informed uses and experiences of social media can be seen in the growing body of research that specifically
focuses upon the ‘Black Twitter’, the use of Twitter by black communities. Scholars
have noted the myriad ways in which race manifests and is experienced and coded
online. Florini (2014, 224), for example, notes that as a user’s physical body can
often be obscured on Twitter in myriad ways, black communities utilise the linguistic practice of ‘signifyin’, which they note as:
A genre of linguistic performance that allows for the communication of multiple levels of
meaning simultaneously, most frequently involving wordplay and misdirection..[Signifyin’]
allows Black Twitter users to align themselves with Black oral traditions, to index Black
cultural practices, to enact Black subjectivities, and to communicate shared knowledge and
experiences.
Others such as Williams and Gonlin (2017, 1000) have looked at second-screen
viewing of TV shows through Twitter (tweeting along with each as other, in real
time or after the show, as a TV show is watched) as a way of facilitating collective
meaning making around black womanhood, suggesting that ‘co-viewing acts as a
technocultural tool that is community-engendering’. This point is echoed by Prasad
(2016, 56) who notes Black Twitter provides a way to ‘critically recreate, reimagine, and revalue the materiality of Black humanity’. Similarly, Sharma (2013)
looked at the use of racialized hashtags, dubbed ‘blacktags’, to understand how
online racial identities are materialised in unique socio-culturally informed manners
through the technological affordances of online platforms. He notes in particular
that the use of these features in a specific manner and the emergent identities are
unique to Twitter as a platform, and to this particular racial group, suggesting that:
Beyond conceiving Black Twitter as a group of preconstituted users tweeting racialized
hashtags, Blacktags are instrumental in producing networked subjects which have the
capacity to multiply the possibilities of being raced online. (Sharma 2013, 46)
Other research in this vein has looked at the unique uses and appropriations of
social media from users of a wide range of socio-cultural communities such as
queer communities (Szulc 2018) or Christian communities (Thornton and Evans
2015) who use social media in different ways and approach social media with different goals and aims. Of course, users and their social media practices and identities cannot necessarily be understood in relation to broader affiliations alone
(Williams and Gonlin 2017). Researchers have also crucially pointed out the need
to account for individual user nuances and experiences beyond broad socio-cultural
affiliations. Fox and Warber (2015), for example, note gay users interacted differently based on whether they had publicly declared their sexuality. As such, identity
74
4
What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
performance online becomes framed as a mix of offline social resources and specific formats online to result in unique performances of identity in a specific
medium. Our social experiences online are inevitably sociotechnical. We must then
ask ourselves why educational technology is so insistent on maintaining a divide
between the social and the technical; prioritising algorithms, coding, and Boolean
logic without critically examining who these logics prioritise in the classroom; or
allowing the social to play a role in our engagements with technology.
It has been noted that a user’s socio-cultural background not only affects their
approach towards social media but also inevitably their treatment online. Researchers
have noted, for example, manifestations of online racism (Topinka 2018), sexism
and misogyny (Cole 2015), homophobia (Rubin and McClelland 2015), and the
overlapping intersections of these such as anti-black misogyny (Madden et al.
2018). These manifold unequal treatments of users, manifested in old and new ways
online (Brown 2018), suggest that a user’s experiences and interactions online are
not uniform nor are they isolated within online spaces. Instead they permeate to and
from the offline, bound fast to the socio-cultural. This is aptly highlighted in the
cases of trolling and anti-social behaviour through online content, as seen in infamous cases such as ‘Gamergate’ (Quinn 2017) in which feminist and female video
game developers and gamers who used social media were systematically hounded
and abused because of their gender1 and as such had to develop strategies for
approaching and using social media (Massanari 2017). This was not isolated to
online hate speech and abuse, with prominent females in the gaming community
facing death threats, offline abuse, doxing, and public intimidation. Despite Barlow’s
hopeful statements and the perceived neutrality of social media, equal access therefore does not always mean equal treatment, equal representation, or equal voice (Lil
Miss Hot Mess 2015; Niedt 2016).
Clearly, though the potential for social media is levelling, in reality systemic
privileges and the prevalence of socially normative expectations still prevail online,
impacting many aspects of the social media experience from how users access
social media to how they are treated on it. This is a lesson that educational practitioners and policy makers often seem uniquely unwilling to hear as they pursue ways
to build technology in to the classroom in a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, again
attempting to separate the social from the technical. To do so is to wilfully ignore
the many exacerbated and new inequities that emerge through, on, with, and in
technologies.
It is also important to highlight therefore the importance of platform design in
these socio-culturally grounded performances and practices. Research has noted
that specific design choices can affect certain socio-cultural groups more than others (Noble 2018). However, it cannot be assumed that platform features alone lead
to online abuse. Research suggests that it is not as simple as merely highlighting the
particular affordances that are used to elicit abuse (Ariel and Avidar 2015). A
It is worth noting that the Gamergate community claimed that they were hounding, harassing, and
abusing feminists and females because of their concerns around ethics in video game journalism.
It is also worth noting this claim is ridiculous.
1
4.2 From Networking to Not Working: Accounting for the Array of Online Social…
75
consideration must be given both to specific affordances of the platform which
exacerbate specific ways of actions and interaction and to the resources and experiences a user brings with them to these platforms. Sundar (2004), for example, notes
in his study of interactivity online that understanding interactions requires looking
at both the platform design and the users involved in the interaction. Indeed, design
alone can be used in there myriad unforeseen ways, and there may be ‘discrepancies
between designer goals and how the features are used in practice’ (Epstein et al.
2015, 1622).
Given this, in order to consider the complexities of social identity performances
online, a theoretical framework that considers how a user’s individual and broad
socio-cultural factors become enmeshed with specific online platforms to produce
individual identity performances is needed. An emphasis needs to be placed upon
how different users will bring different social resources to social media to produce
unique iterations of identity, but with an understanding that their performances will
still be shaped to varying degrees by the design of the specific platforms and mediums through which they act and interact socially. As Sharma (2013, 47) highlights
in his analysis of racial uses of Twitter, ‘both race and digital networks transformed
in their mutual encounter’. With this in mind, Chap. 6 of this book presents Comic
Theory, a framework for unpacking the multifaceted creation of an identity narrative impacted and impacting on both the platform and the user’s own socio-cultural
background. As the aim of the research detailed in this book is to consider how users
negotiate and navigate social platforms to produce specific identity performance
this chapter will now move on to consider how best to understand what it means to
socially interact online.
4.2 From Networking to Not Working: Accounting
for the Array of Online Social Experiences
When understanding interaction online, it is apparent that there is the need to examine the reality of the Internet and the embedded role it has in everyday life. In other
words, ‘the reality of the Internet is more important that the dazzle’ (Haythornthwaite
and Wellman 2002:5). Due to the advancements in social media in the last decade,
research suggests that there is a need to consider an increasingly broad variety of
social uses and experiences online (Boczkowski et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2014).
Interestingly, and perhaps because of the growing variety of possibilities afforded
by the progression of technology, there seems to be little consensus as to the exact
type of social interactions afforded by social media, with researchers centralising
different social aspects of social media in a variety of contradictory manners. For
example, Kent (2010) highlights that social media mostly affords specific forms of
social interaction that offer, amongst other traits, reduced anonymity, a sense of
propinquity, and short response times. Tierney (2013: 34) however defines social
interaction online in an inverse manner from Kent, noting that it lacks the ‘openness
76
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
and visibility’ present in (seemingly dichotomous) offline communication. Equally
others have counter-argued this, suggesting that we have never been more visible
than we are online (Lee and Cook 2015). What emerges when exploring literature
around what it means to be social online is a seeming mess of contradictions, with
different researchers emphasising different aspects. We can’t even seemingly settle
on if the Internet is making us more or less social or indeed if this enforced dichotomy and comparison to other forms of social interaction are in and of itself an
unhelpful detraction from understanding what is unique about social interaction online.
What is apparent, however, is that there is a growing range of complex and multifaceted social experiences online that need to be accounted for. Crucially, it is
clear that research needs to explore beyond the traditional focus upon peer-to-peer
networking (Tagg et al. 2017), especially as experiences online are diversifying,
both on traditional platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and far beyond these platforms alone (see Chap. 2). These platforms have long been the focus of research
into social interactions online, but it is apparent the rest of the web increasingly
needs to be accounted for when considering what social experiences online entail.
For example, it has been noted by Bright et al. (2014:15) that:
Some social media websites dedicate themselves to a specific theme or niche interest,
whilst others attempt to create a more general type of space for social interaction (within
which more specific niches can spring up). Social networking sites such as Facebook and
Twitter, for example, are generalist: a wide variety of social interactions can take place on
them. Other sites such as LinkedIn (a site designed for professional connections) or
Mumsnet (a site designed for parents to meet and discuss) have more of a specific theme.
Tagg et al. (2017: 113) aptly highlight this variety by drawing on the following
2010 meme satirising the range of social behaviours centralised across different
platforms and how they change our interactions:
Facebook – I like doughnuts
Twitter – I’m eating a #doughnut
Blogger – Read about my doughnut eating experiences
Foursquare – This is where I eat doughnuts
YouTube – Watch me eating a doughnut
LinkedIn – My skills include doughnut eating
Pinterest – Here’s a doughnut recipe
LastFM – Now listening to “doughnuts”
Instagram – Here’s a vintage photo of my doughnut
Google+ – I’m a Google employee who eats doughnuts
They go on to note the importance of framing social interaction online as the
relationship between the affordances of each social space and the user’s experiences, beliefs, and expectations of these affordances, a point we will continue to
return to throughout this book. Given this, we cannot assume that findings regarding
the social interactions viewed and researched on ‘generalised’ social media sites
can be equally transferred to specific communities online who may interact differently. We also cannot assume that each platform will frame and understand what it
means to be social in the same way. The framing of what it means to be social on
Facebook may be notably different to that on Twitter (Dyer 2015), which may be
4.2 From Networking to Not Working: Accounting for the Array of Online Social…
77
different to LinkedIn and so on. These choices to emphasise different understanding
of being social are not just design gimmicks, but as we are seeing with cases from
the Cambridge Analytica scandal or the anti-Rohingya movement on Facebook
(Mozur 2018), to the rise of far-right nationalism on 8chan, these choices can fundamentally impact society in profound ways.
It is worth highlighting again here that being social online is not just about ‘networking’ with established peers. Networking is, as mentioned above, flexible –
actualising itself differently from one site to the next not only in terms of aims and
specificities but also in terms of the modes and manners of interaction. Boyd and
Ellison (2008) note platforms such as Facebook are commonly used to further and
extend already existing connection. However, of course, there are a number of popular SNSs whose primary purpose is to make new connections. Though they may
not be included in Boyd and Ellison’s original conception of social network sites,
they are nonetheless part of the vital makeup of social experiences online that are
increasingly overlapping and bleeding into each other. Indeed, the proliferation of
dating sites and the popularity of Tinder and Grindr only serve to prove this point,
with Duguay (2017) noting that platforms like Facebook are folded into dating apps
like Tinder in complex ways to bolster claims of authenticity. As such, Boyd and
Ellison’s (2008, 211) claim that ‘what makes Social Network Sites unique is not that
they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks’ cannot easily be upheld if we are to
account for the growing array of social experiences online beyond this form of
networking alone. Indeed, some social experiences online work precisely on not
articulating social networks but connecting random strangers (see Chatroulette),
and not all social spaces online use articulated friends/contact lists in meaningful
manners.
Some researchers further problematize the manifestation of the social online,
pointing out that multiple social experiences can exist on the same platform (Weller
2016). Much of the research into social interaction online traditionally highlights
the maintenance of existing social connections as a key part of social interaction
online (Barker 2009; Mendelson and Papacharissi 2011). However, whilst this is
undoubtedly one aspect of the social media experience for many users, it is apparent
that this is not the only experience and that social interaction can exist for many
reasons beyond this. Research has suggested, for example, that users engage in following celebrities (Abidin 2018), companies (Phua et al. 2017), and other interest
groups (Lookadoo and Dickinson 2015), alongside using these platforms for the
consumption of news, culture, and political information (Boczkowski et al. 2018).
These aspects manifest themselves in complex ways which can be used to express
aspects of the user’s identity (Tennent and Jackson 2019), produce markers of sociality and belonging (McInroy and Craig 2018), and shape a user’s understanding of
the world around them (Chess and Maddox 2018).
It appears then that not only can we not generalise the type of social interactions
witnessed on social media writ large but we also cannot generalise within platforms
as engagements with these platforms may differ from one user to the next. This
further highlights the need to consider social interactions on a platform-by-platform
78
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
basis and, importantly, to not overemphasise the importance of networking with
established contacts at the expense of other social experiences online. Indeed, it is
apparent that there is an increasingly broad array of users online now, creating a
variety of social experiences online. This growing body of users, especially on popular platforms like Facebook, has led to interesting new dynamics emerging as users
begin to deal with overlapping social circles collapsing into each other. Researchers
have highlighted the manifestation of ‘context collapse’ online (Davis and Jurgenson
2014), with users having to balance possible input from friends, family, celebrities,
companies, politicians, and news organisations amongst others which increasingly
overlap with each other. The affordances online notably make it ‘difficult for people
to use the same techniques online that they do to handle multiplicity in face-to-face
conversation’ (Marwick and Boyd 2011, 114), leading to the rise of ‘finstagram’
and ‘fakebook’ accounts – fake accounts used to express a user’s ‘real self’ in a
controlled manner (See Abrashi 2018). Research has begun to highlight that this
context collapse means that multiple social experiences are merging within platforms so that, for example, private and public social interactions might intertwine
(Sujon 2018), as might fandom and family or friends and work (Brandtzaeg and
Chaparro-Domínguez 2018). Much like we do offline then (Goffman 1959), it
appears that users online still manage multiple social styles at once which manifest
themselves in unique ways through new affordances (Marwick and Boyd 2011),
flattening, for example, lines between a user’s past and present in complex ways
(Brandtzaeg and Lüders 2018).
Given this brief discussion, it appears that there are a broad array of social interactions online, not only across the growing range of social media platforms but also
within the more well-researched platforms, many of which can serve multiple and
overlapping purposes for users. It is important to highlight here that if researchers
use a specific definition of ‘social’ to shape their understanding of a user’s experience of social media, they risk only seeing a narrow part of the social media experience or assuming that this is the ‘default’ use and that other uses and experiences are
merely deviations from this core (Weller 2016). As Brian Larkin (2008, 3) notes,
‘what media are needs to be interrogated and not presumed’. The research detailed
below therefore aimed to understand user experience in a broad sense beyond just
traditional networking in order to interrogate some of the ways social interaction
manifests online for young people online. To do this, alongside asking young people
to define social media for me (see Chap. 2), I also asked them to define their uses
and engagements with, on, and through these platforms, making sure to explore
uses beyond networking alone. As detailed below, this produced a variety of
responses. Before unpacking these, however, we must first consider social uses of
these platforms beyond just content production alone.
4.3
Uses of Social Media Beyond Content Production Alone
79
4.3 Uses of Social Media Beyond Content Production Alone
Beyond the idea that there are multiple forms of social interaction online is the idea
that social interaction online comprises more than just the production of content
alone. Opening Twitter whilst waiting for the bus, hate-browsing an Instagram
account, scrolling through the comment sections of a blog, watching a Twitch
stream to talk about at school with your friends, and getting lost watching TikTok
videos for a solid hour, all of these play a part in our experiences with social media.
Whilst arguably these uses still produce data and content through myriad digital
footprints, cookies, adverts, and other forms of data tracking, it is clear that these
uses are seemingly ‘quieter’ than other ways of engaging with these platforms such
as creating videos, posts, and updates. As discussed briefly below, this quieter data
production is hugely important to our online experiences, and researchers should
avoid generalising social media based upon loud data alone. Focusing only on user-­
produced loud content online, as is the case with much of the ‘big data’ research
which is conducted through processing and analysing masses of online user-­
produced content (Hargittai 2015), potentially ignores the many complex quieter
uses of social media. In turn, this biases how we perceive social media use by focusing on mass analysis of content alone and risks defining social media on its potential
and not its actualised use in practice (Barnes 2015). Whilst social media offers the
potential for the audience to create media content, this does not mean that this is the
only method through which users engage with and use these platforms, nor is it de
facto the main method, nor should it be the only method of engagement that
researchers focus upon, as is the case with ‘big data’ research. The reality of the role
social media plays in our lives is not just the constant production of content. This
holds notable implications for educational understanding of social media and indeed
the ways in which we might approach concepts such as ‘digital citizenship’.
Increasingly, research is beginning to consider more than just content production
and is highlighting the importance of media consumption in the social experiences
of young people online (Muller 2012; Edelmann et al. 2017; Koutropoulos et al.
2019). Researchers have highlighted many uses, including boredom, passing time,
snooping, and more passive ways of engaging with celebrity ‘fandom’ (Lampe et al.
2006) which seem to make up the majority of our engagements with various platforms. Pempek et al. (2009, 237), for example, note ‘although interactivity is touted
as a hallmark of newer media, online users spend a considerable amount of time just
watching others’. This broader focus beyond content production as the ostensible
driver of social media usage has allowed researchers to highlight and understand a
broader variety of traits and uses of these platforms. Mark et al. (2016, 5519), for
example, highlight that:
social media consumption (as opposed to production) is often lightweight, requiring little
effort and often serving as a quick break. As such, it is not surprising that youth report using
social media for such things as distraction, a way to fill time, and as a mechanism for
socializing.
80
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
Indeed, it has been noted that content production may actually be one of the more
uncommon uses of social media (Barnes 2015) and that the majority of content production may be being done by a minority of atypical users (Bolton et al. 2013;
Baeza-Yates and Saez-Trumper 2015). UK data finds that ‘a handful of users contributing extensively to the sites, whilst the majority contribute rarely or never’
(Bright et al. 2014, 14). This highlights the importance of consumption in our experiences of social media. Weller (2016) similarly asks researchers to consider and
account for the ‘forgotten’ features of social media that hold interesting implications for our understanding of identity performance and social interaction online.
She highlights that seemingly core features of platforms can change over time but
that research on features such as following and retweeting on Twitter is more prevalent than research into aspects such as favouriting posts, which has grown in user
popularity, leading to some features seemingly being forgotten or marginalised.
Minimising these aspects can exclude fascinating areas of research which may
reveal interesting findings about user interactions such as content deletion, unfriending, and unfavouriting.
It appears therefore that in order to consider the social uses of the Internet by
young people, it is crucial that the focus of research is not upon content production
alone and that other uses are not seen as secondary or devalued (Barnes 2015).
Though this produced content online is rich, obvious, and plentiful, this doesn’t
mean that this is the ‘average’ use and experience of social media. The research
detailed in this book therefore suggests that minimising the focus merely to interactions through content production reduces and refracts the fullness of experiences
online and, as such, the research here purposefully considers a wide range of uses
beyond content production.
As Crawford (2009) points out, there is often a temptation in digital research to
listen to those who speak loudly and who actively participate by producing content,
but this ‘privileging of voice’ (Crawford 2009, 527) denies the many nuanced uses
of social media beyond merely producing content. This is of course also true of
those who produce content regularly, who will inevitably also use social media in
manners beyond this alone. Though we have seen a noted growth in big data research
which focuses almost exclusively on analysis of online content, Crawford warns
against this, suggesting that accounting for more than just content production when
considering social uses of social media is crucial as it, in effect, ‘decentres the current overemphasis on posting, commenting and ‘speaking up’ as the only significant
forms of participation’ (Crawford 2009, 528). Similarly, other researchers have
recently suggested ‘a wider definition of ‘participation’ is needed that is not limited
to active contribution, but also includes the act of reading and connecting with audience contributions’ (Barnes 2015, 823).
It is my fear, however, that the growing importance and prevalence of ‘big data’
research is placing far too large of a focus upon one facet of the online experience
alone, skewing the way we understand and think of online social space and online
social experiences. By placing such a large emphasis on an aspect on social media
that research suggests is an increasingly minor part of the complex online social
experience, this form of content farming appears to further silence an already
4.4
Content Collapse: Negotiating Overlaps in Audiences
81
under-­represented aspect of the online experience, presenting a picture of online
reality that is simply not representative. Focusing upon content alone potentially
ignores the many complex uses of social media and risks defining social media on
its conceived potential and not it’s actualised use. At the least, researchers should
acknowledge that the masses of online content data, whilst obviously appealing and
potentially insightful, are not, and cannot be, representative of the larger online
experience. And perhaps at best, researchers should aim to record, report, and reflect
the entirety of the online social experience in an ethical, representative, and academically honest manner. By overtly and often exclusively focusing upon farming
masses of online content, big data research faces the possibility of not reflecting and
illuminating the society it is observing but instead misrepresenting and diffracting
online experiences.
With this in mind, this chapter now moves on to present data from a year-long
series of interviews with young people, focusing upon how they negotiated social
experiences online and how they engaged with, on, in, and through social media.
4.4 Content Collapse: Negotiating Overlaps in Audiences
A number of the participants highlighted that many disparate social aspects of their
offline lives were often converging upon single platforms, causing ‘context collapse’ (Davis and Jurgenson 2014), which changed the ways in which they were
interacting and performing identity. This was often discussed in terms of the
increased presence of parents and family on some social media platforms. Indeed,
amongst the participants, there was even some suggestion that the majority audience on Facebook was now mainly ‘older’ users. For example, Kirsty suggested: ‘I
think the audience is growing in other areas purely because it’s getting more accessible’. Brian also noted that older generations are increasingly present on Facebook:
Brian: Facebook’s useful still. Especially for some demographics. Like I know older generations are really taking it up to keep in contact with their kids and family
Harry: (laughs) do you have any older family on Facebook then?
Brian: oh sure. Aunts and uncles and stuff, they’re all on it. I think one of my aunts has 6
different Facebook accounts. (laughs) Why do old people keep setting up more and
more accounts? (laughs) But it’s useful for them, for sure.
Nina suggested this too, highlighting Facebook in particular as the platform that
older generation are comfortable using. She noted ‘my parents use Facebook; they
don’t use Twitter’.
Similarly, Willow noted of Facebook that:
the connections have grown so far and it’s no longer your friends who you see at school, but
also your mum, who you don’t want to freak out, your co-workers, your in laws, your partner’s family, your cousins, etc.
It was noted by the participants that the increased presence of a wider audience
than just their immediate peers affected how they chose to act and interact and what
82
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
they chose to share. For example, Nina noted of Twitter that, as her family was less
likely to use the platform ‘you don’t have to worry about what your family thinks so
much’. Willow similarly noted of teens now engaging with Facebook:
I think back to what I was like at that age, and I think, if I had the people on my Facebook
that I have now, like my mum and dad, my aunts, I probably wouldn’t have said half the
stuff I did. wouldn’t vocalise it.
Sally similarly suggested that her peer group interacted differently due to possible
parental presence on Facebook. She noted that ‘some of my friends (.) like at uni
they don’t use it for parties in case their dad sees it and gets angry’ and later noted:
I definitely think about my family and work on there that I might not want them to see TV
shows or how much I like them or even just the few celebrities or male models that I follow.
‘Context collapse’ was also an issue for Kirsty, who worked with social media
for her new job in communications. She noted that the audience largely affected
how she thought about presenting herself:
It was the end of the world when I added someone who I used to work with on Facebook
who I got on with really well, I said yeah sure, added on Facebook, and of course because
I’d added her all my other work mates then could find me and I had to try and explain to
them that I don’t add people that I work with on Facebook, I’ve slightly relaxed that rule but
I’ve just got much much more careful about what I post.
Here then we see Kirsty directly changing her manner of acting as a result of different contexts converging upon one platform. She later expands on this to note:
Increasingly now that all my social media I think, bar none, is connected to someone I work
with, so that kind of takes away the choice not to think about it [how I act].
It is worth noting however that some of the participants suggested that they had
developed tactics to deal with this convergence of different audiences online. A
number of participants noted that the intended audience for a given update could be
controlled by the user on certain platforms to make sure that only certain contacts
viewed certain updates. Brian noted, for example, that he could change the security
settings on Facebook so that he could know who was viewing his content. He suggested that:
So for me (.) I can have like different versions of myself on Facebook and nobody would
know really. Like I can doctor the audience so I can express my views on some things without other people seeing it. Cos like I’ve got family and friends and bosses and colleagues,
people from all different aspects of my life. I can make sure I know who’s seeing what so I
don’t have to worry about expressing liberal views without worrying about less liberal people.
Other participants noted a different range of tactics for dealing with the overlap
of different aspects of their offline lives. For example, a number of the participants
did not utilise the security features afforded by certain platforms but instead chose
to maintain an active divide in who they allowed to follow their updates. Brandon,
for example, acknowledged that disparate aspects of his life converge online but
noted that he could keep these converging aspects of his social life separate on
Facebook. He suggested that ‘with Facebook I’m very careful to keep my work
4.5
Moving Beyond Content Production
83
colleagues, or anybody that I interact with in a professional sense separate’. Nina
also noted similar coping mechanisms, suggesting she kept her work friends separate and tried to maintain the divide. She noted of her colleagues that:
I didn’t have them as friends until I left, and then they were like oh I didn’t know you liked
that, I didn’t know you did that, and all that sort of stuff, and now when I meet up with them
I’d say I’m more me, so I’d say yeah it is different.
Isabel similarly acknowledged that ‘I don’t have anyone from work on Facebook’.
It appears therefore that online, not only are broad aspects of a user’s social lives
represented across a range of platforms, but, given the ubiquity of social media in
social life, these aspects can increasingly overlap, affecting how users act and interact in various ways. The participants seemed aware that increasingly a broader array
of their social lives was being represented and present online and, on Facebook in
particular, noted that this affected how they thought about updating and interacting.
As Marwick and Boyd (2011) and others (Davis and Jurgenson 2014) noted with the
term ‘context collapse’, users are having to balance possible input from friends,
family, celebrities, companies, and others and come up with ways of dealing with
this increased presence. As we will discuss in more detail in later chapters, for some
this meant engaging with specific features to maintain a divide, and for others this
meant altering the content and style of their updates. It appears that users, as much
as they do in offline life, juggle multiple social aspects and present themselves
accordingly for a specific audience. However, the specific scope of the audience
available to perform to appears to be largely tied to the spaces in which the users are
performing. This further highlights the need to consider design online, as it can
evidently affect and shape the specific audiences that have access to the given
performances.
4.5 Moving Beyond Content Production
The interviews highlighted clearly that there was a need to consider uses of social
media beyond the production of content alone. Browsing appeared to be a particularly large use of social media for all participants and an important aspect of their
social media experience. All participants noted their use of various platforms for
browsing and reading as a fairly regular occurrence and suggested that it formed a
part of their average engagement with the platforms, if not their most common use
of the platforms.
Browsing for the participants was their regular engagement across a wide range
of platforms. Molly’s engagement with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, for example, was a frequent, almost daily, occurrence. However, for Molly, the platforms
were almost exclusively used for ‘browsing’ the updates and content posted by
close friends. She noted:
I don’t think I’ve ever posted a video. I don’t really post on Facebook at all, I occasionally
put, I don’t really post on Twitter, I like retweet things, like the dance groups I’m in and
84
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
things, like, if they’re important, and I post some photos on Instagram like if I’ve been on
holiday or whatnot. But not that often.
Oliver similarly discussed how he went on Facebook ‘(.) once a day I have a good
browse (.) you know, I check my notifications’ and that on Reddit he participated by
‘upvote, downvote, do all that, I don’t really post, because by the time I’ve come up
with something witty the whole thread is 10 hours old and I feel pointless’. Sally too
mentioned that ‘I don’t really write that many updates, status updates’ and notes of
her use of Tumblr that ‘I don’t really put my own stuff up there I usually just reblog
other people’s things’. For Kirsty, posting was often the exception and was reserved
for specific purposes, where as her main engagement revolved around browsing.
She suggested ‘it tends to be kind of (.) If there’s something to celebrate, I guess, I
tend to stick it on Facebook. Umm. But beyond that I don’t post a lot’. Similarly,
Willow noted, despite going on Twitter regularly, that ‘my last tweet was 295 days
ago’ and that, in regard to Facebook, browsing forms her normal engagement with
the platforms:
Willow: so I tend not to really write about stuff, I don’t really (.) feel the need to broadcast
loads of stuff on Facebook all the time.
Harry: Sure.
Willow: Erm, and I don’t really like doing it (.) erm, so I tend not to – I’ll, I’ll like write
normal like happy birthdays to people, or occasionally I’ll put up status erm like big
events or something or I’ve erm. Or commenting on other people’s stuff that people have
tagged me on or whatever, but I tend not to (.) really post.
The participants highlighted that browsing was not always a mindless task for
them but that it filled a range of particular social functions, often serving to keep the
participants informed about their friendship groups, specific news, and topics of
interest. This was noted by most of the participants. Isabel, for example, highlighted
that she browsed regularly, checking ‘Facebook every day, several times a day’ to
find out about her peers as ‘It’s useful to see it all and know what they’re doing’.
Brandon too noted ‘it’s mainly liking things and reading for me, keeping connected
with what everyone else is doing’. Nina noted frequent browsing as a social function, suggesting of Facebook ‘I use it to, look at what other people are doing, sounds
a bit stalker-y, but what they’re doing, what they’re saying, and have a laugh at it and
all that sort of stuff, and I’ll post things up’. Similarly again, Kirsty suggested that:
Facebook actually tends to be my substitute for gossip magazines in some way, you know
sort of catching up on what other people are doing. I realise that I’m quite a selfish Facebook
user because I very rarely actually post, I tend to just use it to read other people’s goings on.
Molly also suggested browsing for her served a social purpose of keeping informed
about her peers, a point she particularly highlighted after moving to university.
She noted:
I still basically don’t post on Facebook. Just see what everyone else is doing. Especially (.)
people I don’t see so much now. Like school friends. It’s really useful to know what everyone’s up to, even if I don’t post much.
This suggests that there is a clear and present need to account for browsing when
considering how users engage with social media. Whilst these participants shared
4.5
Moving Beyond Content Production
85
little common usage of the platforms in terms of content, the clear function of
browsing was central to all accounts. Browsing formed the main engagement with
these platforms for the participants and served a range of social roles and functions.
Given the importance and regularity of browsing, future research should be reticent
in over-prioritising content production alone.
Beyond browsing updates, other uses of these platforms were also noted by the
participants. Isabel, for example, noted that she mainly did not use social media to
post content but instead chose to communicate via private messaging if she wanted
to communicate. She highlighted that ‘I don’t post stuff much. If I want to talk I’ll
normally use messenger’. In a similar manner, Sally noted that Facebook’s integration of a private messaging system changed how she used the platform for social
interaction and private group interactions:
I do group convos with my friends. So I have one with two of my best friends, one with
those two girls and two others, one with all four of them and a couple of others. It’s ridiculous, like we couldn’t just have one or two group convos, we have to have a hundred. But
we’ll organise nights out or drinks and dinner or just have a general conversation and it’s a
way of keeping in contact.
Other participants talked about consumption beyond peer content. Brandon, for
example, noted that browsing social media could keep users informed about a number topics including news:
I suppose it’s useful for simply keeping tabs on what’s going on in the world. Generally,
important news tends to be written about by other people. So a lot of news I tend to see
through people’s reactions to it on social media.
Similarly, Brian highlighted the presence of news on social media, emphasising
Twitter in particular, noting ‘Twitter’s so instant and so quick. I just use it to see
trends and also science news. More so in a way than I use like Google news, RSS
feeds, I use Twitter instead’. In a similar manner, Kirsty noted ‘if I’m reading Twitter
then it tends to be that I’m finding out world news’. Sally too gained a wide range
of information from Twitter:
Twitter I usually just use it to keep on top of news in a way, and like, when new episodes of
TV shows come out, new books, umm, promos, stuff like that, and some current events
as well.
It appears therefore that it is worth remembering that, just as an increasing range of
websites are acquiring social capabilities and encouraging some form of interaction
amongst users, so too are social media platforms gaining additional capabilities
beyond purely traditional peer-to-peer social content posting (see Chap. 2).
Another use of social media beyond content production that was noted by the
participants was social organisation and planning. Brandon highlighted of Facebook:
I suppose I use it almost as an extension of kind of like my office tools, like it’s an extension
of my email and my calendar, because I use it for sort of planning and for planning events
and seeing what events are coming up, for remembering friends’ birthdays, and getting in
touch with people when I don’t know how else to reach them. It’s very useful.
86
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
In a similar manner, inspired and influenced by her particular socio-cultural situation, Sally made use of social media as a study tool to aid her university studies:
I’m part of quite a few groups, err, my specific course group and a general study
group…a couple of times we’ve organised events over a group message and a couple of times we’ve actually created an event page. I don’t think it makes a difference.
After graduating and starting an office job, Sally later discusses how social media
continued to provide a range of uses for her. Again this was sensitive to her given
and new situation, with the platforms this time proving to be a useful work tool:
I think that’s the one good thing about Twitter in my opinion, that you can talk directly to
entities like public transport and the police and you get that feeling of understanding what’s
going in real time. Like, I’ve been on the train and it’s being held at the station for some
reason and the guards won’t say why, so I just search the station on Twitter and find out in
seconds that it’s cos there’s trespassers on the tracks.
This highlights the manner in which our engagements with these platforms not only
extends beyond content production but that it is bound to our socio-cultural situations in nuanced manners, a point which we will return to in the next two chapters
of this book.
4.6 Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy
Makers, and Educators
For the participants, social media served a number of uses and functions beyond just
posting content. Posting content was far from their main method of engagement
with the platforms. Instead, as Sally and others account across the course of the year
of research in which she graduated and started her first job, contextualise social
media use for each user is important, and we should endeavour to understand how it
fills a particular purposes for them beyond content production alone. Though a
larger sample size may be able to highlight some trends in terms of engagement
through content production, this small sample size serves to problematize any single
conclusive statement to instead highlight that the engagement with social media
emerges from the enmeshing of specific platforms with individual user drawing
upon all of their specific socio-cultural resources.
Interestingly, most participants felt that their consumption was abnormal, selfish,
or somehow unusual and were frequently surprised when I pointed out how normal
content consumption was. This suggests a deep disconnect between the noted reality of these platforms and the expectation of an ‘average’ user. In part, education
could go a long way to demystifying social media and to challenging the platforms
framing of social as equivalent to content alone. Future research could explore this
disconnect between how users perceive an ‘average’ user and what this ‘average’
user might look like in reality.
The interviews highlighted a point of consideration for research in regard to
treatment of online data, specifically suggesting the need to consider the entirety of
4.6
Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy Makers, and Educators
87
the social media experience beyond just data production. Though for some of the
participants the public content they produced was not sizable, the social functions
these platforms serve were nonetheless tangible and important. As such, seeking
only participants who produce a wealth of content, as is seen in various popular
methodologies both qualitative (e.g. Netnography [Kozinets 2010]) and quantitative
(such as ‘big data’ research), may be problematic for understanding the reality of
social media. A range of uses need to be considered alongside purely content production alone. All of the participants discussed using a range of various platforms
for social interaction online. What was most apparent from the discussion of their
engagements across this range of platforms was the role that browsing and consumption played for the participants. In this regard, the findings of this research
support the important role that browsing plays in our social media experiences. This
research holds that browsing and consumption should not be ignored and should be
accounted for when considering the role of social media in social life. This is also
true of discussions of social media in a classroom. Again, we can help to demystify
the reality of social media for young people and help them critique the ways in
which these platforms frame what it means to be social.
Though for some of the participants the public content they produced was not
sizable, the social functions these platforms served were tangible and important. It
was noted that browsing served a social function for the participants. In the case of
Molly, for example, browsing was largely her only engagement with the platforms.
Yet she noted that she followed three separate platforms to keep up to date with the
various social aspects of her friends that were posted across these three platforms.
For Molly, browsing enabled her to gain this social knowledge and to feel connected
with her peers. This raises many issues with regard to how we treat online data. It is
so tempting and easy to take a ‘big data’ view towards collecting and processing
social media data in order to look for emergent trends in topics and content.
However, the data that is often captured through trawling this produced content cannot be considered representative of the reality of social media for users. The main
aspect that is under analysis in much of the ‘big data’ research appears to not even
constitute the main aspect of social media engagement. With the increased prevalence of mobile technology and the use of social media for a range of social function
including news and social consumption, it is apparent that in order to understand the
action and interaction of social media users, researchers cannot simply sit at the
other side of a screen and read a user’s posts. Browsing cannot be ignored from
sociological research online. More than this, it is apparent that content production
should not be overemphasised and considered with undue focus.
Of course, it is important to note that this is not just an issue for large-scale qualitative data but also for small-scale, in depth, and ethnographic research online.
Kozinets (2010) approach towards ‘netnography’ has proven to be a popular method
for observing online communities and continues to be utilised to gather insights into
the manner in which social communities form online. Kozinets (2010) proposes that
to gather the richest data, there is a need to actively seek out those users and communities who produce a wealth of content. Whilst this is understandable, if we are
just viewing the community in situ of the website, it is apparent that this is
88
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
potentially an atypical picture of social media engagement and that equally rich data
that is more representative of the average engagement with social media can be
gathered from understanding and considering users who do not actively produce
content. If we are to study social media in its entirety, this means studying it is its
actualised and repetitive mundanity. This also means challenging and critiquing the
means through which the platforms frame what it means to be social, looking past
these to consider the actual usage by users. Whilst produced content is readily
apparent and obvious when viewing these spaces, research should be able to lose its
bias towards this fixation and begin to unpack the mundane and consumptive reality
of social media in the lives of users, which, as this data and others (Barnes 2015;
Weller 2016) reveals, can be equally rich and varied and can reveal a great deal
about social media use and social media users.
References
Abidin, C. (2018). Internet celebrity: Understanding fame online (Society now). Bingley: Emerald
Publishing Limited.
Abrashi, M. (2018). The fake account for the real self. Scholars Week, 48. https://cedar.wwu.edu/
scholwk/2018/Day_one/48
Ariel, Y., & Avidar, R. (2015). Information, interactivity, and social media. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 23(1), 19–30.
Baeza-Yates, R., & Saez-Trumper, D. (2015). Wisdom of the crowd or wisdom of a few?: An
analysis of users’ content generation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM conference on hypertext
& social media (pp. 69–74). ACM.
Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 209–213.
Barlow, J. P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Eff.org, Access 08/2019:
www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
Barnes, R. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on
Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media & Society, 17(5), 810–826.
Boczkowski, P. J., Matassi, M., & Mitchelstein, E. (2018). How young users deal with multiple
platforms: The role of meaning-making in social media repertoires. Journal of Computer-­
Mediated Communication, 23(5), 245–259.
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., & Solnet,
D. (2013). Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: A review and research
agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245–267.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Chaparro-Domínguez, M. Á. (2018). From youthful experimentation to professional identity: Understanding identity transitions in social media. Young, 1–18.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Lüders, M. (2018, January–March). Time collapse in social media: Extending
the context collapse. Social Media+ Society, 1–10.
Bright, J., Margetts, H., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2014). The use of social media for research and
analysis: A feasibility study. A report of research carried out by the Oxford Internet Institute on
behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Brown, A. (2018). What is so special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech? Ethnicities,
18(3), 297–326.
References
89
Chander, A., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2018). The myth of platform neutrality. Georgetown Law
Technology Review, 2(2), 400–416.
Chess, S., & Maddox, J. (2018). Kim Kardashian is my new BFF: Video games and the looking
glass celebrity. Popular Communication, 16(3), 196–210.
Cole, K. K. (2015). “It’s like She’s eager to be verbally abused”: Twitter, trolls, and (En)gendering
disciplinary rhetoric. Feminist Media Studies, 15(2), 356–358.
Cottom, T. M. (2017) Black cyberfeminism: Ways forward for intersectionality and digital sociology. In Daniels, J., Gregory, K. & McMillan Cottom, T. (Eds.). (2016). Digital sociologies.
London, Policy Press.
Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum, 23(4),
525–535.
Daniels, J. (2018, December). WEB DuBois for the twenty-first century: On being a scholar-­
activist in the Digital era. Sociological Forum, 33(4), 1072–1085.
Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485.
Duguay, S. (2017). Dressing up Tinderella: Interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating
app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society, 20(3), 351–367.
Dyer, H. T. (2015). All the web’s a stage: The effects of design and modality on youth performances of identity (Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 19) (pp. 213–242). Technology
and Youth: Growing Up in a Digital World.
Edelmann, N., Krimmer, R., & Parycek, P. (2017). How online lurking contributes value to
E-participation: A conceptual approach to evaluating the role of lurkers in e-­participation.
In 2017 Fourth International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG)
(pp. 86–93). IEEE.
Epstein, D. A., Jacobson, B. H., Bales, E., McDonald, D. W., & Munson, S. A. (2015). From
“nobody cares” to “way to go!”: A design framework for social sharing in personal informatics.
In CSCW 2015, March 14–18 (pp. 1622–1636). Vancouver.
Fenton, N. (2016). The internet of me (and my “friends”). In J. Curran, N. Fenton, & D. Freedman
(Eds.), Misunderstanding the internet (pp. 145–172). London: Routledge.
Florini, S. (2014). Tweets, tweeps, and signifyin’ communication and cultural performance on
“Black Twitter”. Television & New Media, 15(3), 223–237.
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2015). Queer identity management and political self-expression on
social networking sites: A co-cultural approach to the spiral of silence: LGBT+ & social networking sites. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 79–100.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London, England: Anchor Books.
Hargittai, E. (2015). Is bigger always better? Potential biases of big data derived from social network sites. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 63–76.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (2002). The internet in everyday life: An introduction. In
B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 3–44). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. 2006. New York:
New York University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2014). Rethinking ‘rethinking convergence/culture’. Cultural Studies, 28(2), 267–297.
Kent, M. L. (2010). Directions in social media for professionals and scholars. The Sage Handbook
of Public Relations, 2, 643–656.
Kerr, G., Mortimer, K., Dickinson, S., & Waller, D. S. (2012). Buy, boycott or blog: Exploring
online consumer power to share, discuss and distribute controversial advertising messages.
European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4), 387–405.
Kim, K. S., Sin, S. C. J., & Tsai, T. I. (2014). Individual differences in social media use for information seeking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 171–178.
Koutropoulos, A., Honeychurch, S., & Singh, L. (2019). Rethinking lurking. eLearn Magazine, 29.
Accessed 08/2019: www.eprints.gla.ac.uk/187634/1/187634.pdf
90
4 What’s ‘Social’ About Social Media?
Kowert, R., Domahidi, E., & Quandt, T. (2016). Networking and other social aspects of technology use: Past developments, present impact, and future considerations. In D. Faust, K. Faust,
& M. N. Potenza (Eds.), Oxford handbook of digital technologies and mental health. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: SAGE.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A face (book) in the crowd: Social searching vs.
social browsing. In Proceedings of CSCW 2006, November 4–8 (pp. 167–170). Banff.
Larkin, B. (2008). Signal and noise: Media, infrastructure, and urban culture in Nigeria. Duke
University Press.
Lee, A., & Cook, P. S. (2015). The conditions of exposure and immediacy: Internet surveillance
and generation Y. Journal of Sociology, 51(3), 674–688.
Lil Miss Hot Mess. (2015). Selfies and side-eye: Drag Queens take on Facebook. Studies in Gender
and Sexuality, 16(2), 144–146.
Lookadoo, K. L., & Dickinson, T. M. (2015). Who killed @TheLauraPalmer? Twitter as a performance space for twin peaks fan fiction. In A. F. Slade, A. J. Narro, & D. Givens-Carroll (Eds.),
Television, social media, and fan culture (pp. 337–352). London: Lexington.
Madden, S., Janoske, M., Winkler, R. B., & Edgar, A. N. (2018). Mediated misogynoir: Intersecting
race and gender in online harassment. In Mediating misogyny (pp. 71–90). Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Mark, G., Wang, Y., Niiya, M., & Reich, S. (2016, May 07–12). Sleep debt in student life: Online
attention focus, Facebook, and mood. In Proceedings of 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. San Jose (pp. 5517–5528).
Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
Massanari, A. (2017). # Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and
culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346.
McInroy, L. B., & Craig, S. L. (2018). Online fandom, identity milestones, and self-identification
of sexual/gender minority youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(3), 179–196.
Mendelson, A., & Papacharissi, Z. (2011). Look at us: Collective narcissism in college student
Facebook photo galleries. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and
culture on social network sites (pp. 251–273). New York: Routledge.
Miller, D. (2011). Tales from Facebook. London: Polity.
Mozur, P. (2018). A genocide incited on Facebook, with posts from Myanmar’s military. New York
Times. Accessed 08/2019: www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebookgenocide.html
Muller, M. (2012, February 11–15). Lurking as personal trait or situational disposition: Lurking
and contributing in enterprise social media. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on
computer supported cooperative work. Seattle. (pp. 253–256).
Niedt, G. (2016). Social media affordances and the capital of queer self-expression: Facebook,
Ello, and the nymwars. In Defining identity and the changing scope of culture in the digital age
(pp. 99–116). IGI Global.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York:
New York University Press.
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking
experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227–238.
Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Gratifications of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or
Snapchat to follow brands: The moderating effect of social comparison, trust, tie strength, and
network homophily on brand identification, brand engagement, brand commitment, and membership intention. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 412–424.
Prasad, P. (2016). Beyond rights as recognition: Black Twitter and posthuman coalitional possibilities. Prose Studies, 38(1), 50–73.
Quinn, Z. (2017). Crash override: How Gamergate (nearly) destroyed my life, and how we can win
the fight against online hate. New York: Hachette Book.
References
91
Rubin, J. D., & McClelland, S. I. (2015). “Even though it’s a small checkbox, it’s a big deal”:
Stresses and strains of managing sexual identity(s) on Facebook. Culture, Health & Sexuality,
17(4), 512–526.
Sharma, S. (2013). Black Twitter? Racial hashtags, networks and contagion. New Formations,
78, 46–64.
Sujon, Z. (2018). The triumph of social privacy: Understanding the privacy logics of sharing
behaviors across social media. International Journal of Communication, 12, 3751–3771.
Sundar, S. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity’s effects. The Information Society, 20(5), 385–389.
Szulc, L. (2018). Profiles, identities, data: Making abundant and anchored selves in a platform
society. Communication Theory, 29(3), 257–276.
Tagg, C., Seargeant, P., & Brown, A. A. (2017). Afterword: Beyond Facebook. In Taking offence
on social media (pp. 113–121). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tennent, E., & Jackson, S. (2019). “Exciting” and “borderline offensive”: Bloggers, binaries, and
celebrity feminism. Feminist Media Studies, 19(2), 225–238.
Thornton, D., & Evans, M. (2015). YouTube: A new mediator of Christian worship. In A. E. Nekola
& T. Wagner (Eds.), Congregational music-making and community in a mediated age
(pp. 141–159). New York: Routledge.
Tierney, T. (2013). The public space of social media: Connected cultures of the network society.
New York: Routledge.
Topinka, R. J. (2018). Politically incorrect participatory media: Racist nationalism on r/
ImGoingToHellForThis. New Media & Society, 20(5), 2050–2069.
van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, culture
& society, 31(1), 41–58.
Weller, K. (2016). Trying to understand social media users and usage: The forgotten features of
social media platforms. Online Information Review, 40(2), 256–264.
Williams, A., & Gonlin, V. (2017). I got all my sisters with me (on Black Twitter): Second screening of how to get away with murder as a discourse on Black Womanhood. Information,
Communication & Society, 20(7), 984–1004.
Chapter 5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is
Identity Managed Online?
Abstract This chapter presents a sustained look at data collected from a year-long
series of interviews with young people to consider how they framed and understood
identity online. The data reveals a number of elements which shape how identity
manifests online.
First we consider how the design features present in social media shape identity
performances online. Adding further complexity to this, we briefly consider the role
of third-party apps in augmenting possible experiences of social media, before moving on to explore how a user’s socio-cultural resources and realities might shape
their engagements with social media in an ongoing flexible manner. Finally we
explore identity performances online as a negotiation between socio-culturally
grounded users and specific platform designs. It is suggested that identity performances online emerge from the enmeshing of user and design in an ongoing manner. The data presented in this chapter lays the groundwork for the new theoretical
framework through which to understand identity performance online, proposed in
Chap. 6 of this book.
Keywords Identity · Identity negotiation · Identity theory · Identity performance ·
Design · Social media · Digital duality
5.1 Introduction
In the previous three chapters, we have considered how young people define, use,
and access social media and how this shapes their experiences and their interactions
online. For the next two chapters, we move on to look more closely at the subject of
how best to understand identity performance and presentations in social media.
These next two chapters work very much in tandem, with this current chapter presenting data from a year-long series of interviews with young people which serves
to problematise what we consider to be identity online and the next chapter presenting the beginnings of a solution to how we can theorise identity online.
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
H. T. Dyer, Designing the Social, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in
Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3_5
93
94
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
Our experiences online, as we have seen in the previous chapters, are a blend of
old and new; extant socio-cultural resources meet new ways of emphasising, defining, and encasing what it means to be social. Rather than ‘throwing the baby out
with the bathwater’, the theoretical framework proposed over the next two chapters
builds on previous understandings of identity whilst acknowledging what is unique
about how identity manifests is specifically designed spaces with unique and often
restrictive ways of expressing and presenting ourselves. What does it mean to present identity in 140 or 280 characters? In 6 s videos? In interactive livestreams? In
filtered selfies? Whilst the answers to these issues present a unique understanding of
identity in a specific moment in time (e.g. the interviews were conducted before
Twitter expanded its character limit to 280 characters), the framework presented
over these two chapters allows for a consideration of how identity is negotiated
online in an ongoing manner between human, non-human, and inhuman agents. It
is also hoped that the framework presented here will allow us to reconsider and
reconceptualise how we theorise and consider identity offline. Building upon the
discussion in this chapter around how young people are engaging with, on, in, and
through social media, the framework detailed in the next chapter helps us better
consider identity as an ongoing negotiation between multiple agents. Taken together
then, these two chapters build towards an understanding of identity performances as
complex ongoing negotiations between socio-culturally grounded users, embedded
tools and technologies, and specifically designed spaces and platforms.
It should be noted here that we will save a definition of identity for the next chapter, as this is a complex and controversial issue in and of itself. The discussion in this
chapter explores how young people understand their identity online. This was built
through guided tours of their profiles during interviews, and other methods for
unpacking their understandings of their identities, include methods of discussing
identity in abstract manner, such as asking participants to imagine their profiles
were film scripts (Robards and Bennett 2011). In particular, this chapter will focus
attention towards the role that the spaces we interact within (or, if you like, the staging of our identity performances) play in changing, shaping, and mediating how, in
this case, young people are performing identity online.
This question is of grave concern to many educators, parents, and policy makers
thinking about how these ‘brave new realities’ of social media might influence the
identities, actions, and interactions of young people. Beyond the moral panics
detailed in Chap. 2 of this book, it is clear there is broad ongoing concern for how
much social media design is influencing the identities of young people today.
Discussions of the rise of alt-right proud boys and cyberbullying trolls abound,
alongside concerns around narcissism, anti-social behaviour, and body dysmorphic
influences online. Though these fears can often be quite exaggerated and can lack
nuance in the media coverage generally, it is clear that in no small part they stem
from a concern of just how much social media might influence us, our identities,
intentions, actions, and interactions, online and offline. Just how much agency do
we have in controlling and shaping our own identity online? Are we restricted to
only emphasising some forms of interaction and some manifestations of identity
5.1 Introduction
95
over others? Are social media platforms restricting how we can act and interact?
How susceptible are we to the design whims and intentions of social media creators? Does social media push us down certain paths at the demands of advertisers?
These questions are inevitably complex, but it is hoped that both the data in this
chapter and the new theoretical framework detailed in the next chapter will begin to
answer some of these questions that sit at the heart of many of our fears, hopes, and
concerns about young people and social media.
We will begin by exploring data collected from a year-long series of interviews
with young people in order to understand how they see their identities online. The
data will consider four different aspects of the relationship between user and design
in the complex negotiation of identity performances. First we will look at how
design aspects of the various platforms the participants used shaped their identity
performances, considering what was lost or restricted by these affordances and what
was gained or augmented. We will then consider the use of third-party applications
to augment various design aspects and the effect this added layer of complexity had
upon identity performances. The third section looks at how the changing socio-­
cultural experiences of the participants over the course of a year affected how and
why they used social media platforms, as well as how their understanding of other
social media platforms shaped their actions and interactions online. Finally, this
chapter will explore how the boundaries of identity performances were negotiated
between user and design and how users felt about this negotiation. This will focus
upon what sacrifices and compromises were made around identity and how agency
was negotiated in an ongoing manner.
Before we dive into this data, it is worth recapping what we have considered so
far in the previous chapters. It is evident that social media is increasingly important
to young people and their daily social lives, though the precise roles it plays are
notably varied due to a number of complex factors, making sweeping generational
conclusions near impossible and reductive. We can however say that social media is
an increasingly centralised aspect of social interaction and an influence upon the
development of their social actions and interactions. Importantly, it is clear that the
use of social media platforms is diversifying, with young people regularly present
across multiple platforms. This range of platforms present a variety of different
spaces and modes through which to express and perform identity, with the affordances differing from one platform to the next, providing users with a variety of
social uses beyond just networking alone. Further to this, it is apparent that to understand the social media experiences of young people, there is also a need to account
for the devices through which they are accessing these spaces. Importantly, their
engagement with these spaces does not involve just producing content, but a range
of other aspects that also need to be accounted for. Finally, there is also a need to
account for the socio-cultural backgrounds, experiences, contexts, and resources
that young people bring with them to the platforms, which may change the manner
in which they engage with these spaces in myriad ways. Given this, the next two
chapters here will consider how young people enmesh with these platforms to produce unique user-specific and platform-bound identity performances. Though there
are complex moving elements here, it is hoped that the framework detailed over
96
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
these two chapters can provide some clarity to better understanding this complexity
and give shape to the ‘messiness’ of the reality of social media.
It is also clear that many different approaches can be taken towards understanding what social media is and that defining social media can be largely problematic
due to the ever-changing and disruptive nature of the field. Beyond this, social
media can be approached, understood, and experienced in a range of ways by different users. As such, I seek here to offer no fixed definition as to what social media is
in terms of specific affordances. These are likely to continue to change and diversify. Neither will I attempt to define social media via its relationship to other online
media, as the differences between these categories are increasingly porous. I will
also not define social media via the content created on it, as this diminishes other
essential roles played by users of social media. Given the broad range of social
media platforms, and the growing diversity of social media, this research put the
task of defining social media into the hands of the participants. Rather than telling
participants what I was looking for in terms of social media usage, I let them tell me
how they made sense of social media and their interactions on these platforms. This
allowed me to consider on an individual basis what range of spaces they use for
social interaction and how they utilise these spaces to perform identity in ways that
were attentive to changing relationships and uses of these platforms over the
12 months the interviews were conducted. This was partially an attempt to capture
the growing range of diverse and purposefully heterogeneous sites, but also a way
to allow participants to show me their own definitions of ‘social media’ usage
beyond just networking with offline contacts. As such, through allowing the participants to define social media, this research was able to explore how online design and
user enmesh to perform identity on a specific platform-by-platform, user-by-­
user basis.
Indeed, it is worth dwelling on the idea that the uses of social media again potentially vary from user to user, and from platform to platform, and that individual
approaches need to be taken into account alongside a consideration of how social
action online is guided through design elements. Currently, there is a lack of research
that attempts to account for and reconcile the various aspects raised in this discussion, or provide a bridge through which we can consider the many facets that shape
and form interactivity online accounting for ideas beyond content production.
Though attempts have been made to consider the effects of design upon our actions
and interactions online, they have focused upon specific aspects of design (Coles
and West 2016; Ksiazek et al. 2014) or specific platforms (Duguay 2016) through a
comparison of popular websites (Dyer 2015), or specific technology. Though these
specific and focused approaches wielded precise and useful results, the aim of the
research documented here was to embrace a purposefully messier reality of social
media usage that changed, morphed, and bled across various overlapping aspects
and in turn attempt to make some sense of this mess. The research detailed here, and
the framework in the next chapter, aim to move beyond a focus upon specific
aspects, instead relying upon the interpretation of the users as to what social media
is to them and how they negotiate this growing range of heterogeneous platforms.
As such, a theoretical framework is needed that allows for individual interpretations
5.2 Different Platform, Different Design Features, and Different Social Performances…
97
an understandings of social media whilst also accounting for how the user’s experiences of these platforms and their subsequent actions, interactions, and identity performances are guided and mediated by aspects of platform-specific design. With
this in mind, we will begin by exploring how the young people who took part in a
series of interviews conducted over the course of a year understood the diversity of
platforms and features available to them online.
5.2 Different Platform, Different Design Features,
and Different Social Performances of Identity
During the interviews a number of the participants discussed how the designs and
the specific features present on a range of platforms affected the manner in which
they acted and interacted. The interviews highlighted that a range of design choices
could guide and affect actions and interactions online, but also highlighted the need
to also account for this is a nondeterministic fashion. This meant understanding that
the manifestation and actualisation of social interaction and action online were
unique to the enmeshing of a particular user with these design features, as different
users would interpret and utilise these features differently. In other words, the participants’ actions and interactions were bound to, and emerged from, the specific
platforms and their specific designs, but the interactions and actions that emerged
from the engagement with these features were realised in unique and individual manner.
Brian in particular discussed a range of features that he noted affected his actions
and interactions online. He drew attention to the presence of hashtags on Twitter,
suggesting that their specific functionality made communicating during and about
big events online a lot easier, making him more likely to use Twitter to discuss
these events:
So Twitter I use for big events, social events, and for (.) so for things like tomorrow, like big
political events, is Twitter, and if you want to find (.) and because of the hashtag system, I
know Facebook have tried to bring it in, but because of the hashtag system, to find people
that care about it, or whatever, then definitely Twitter is the place to go.
This was not the only design feature of Twitter that Brian noted as guiding his
actions and interactions; he also later discussed the effects of the then 140-character
limit on Twitter as an aspect that affected how his actions and interactions were
framed and realised. Tellingly, he offered that:
I feel the character limit really forces your hand though. It makes you think really carefully
about what you want to say, and how you want to say it. You have to nail it quickly as well.
Like if something is happening right then you want to be the first to talk about it, so you
have to be quick and you have to be funny, and you have to be short.
This shows that, for Brian, the particular design choice of 140 characters, along with
the consistently active temporal nature of the platform, meant that he framed and
approached his actions and interactions in a particular manner, aware that he had to
98
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
rely upon both brevity and speed to interact and display his identity in an effective
manner. He further highlighted that Twitter’s specific design also made certain formats and uses harder than others, changing the type and form of the content he
chose to post on Twitter:
…if I want to share an image I put it on Facebook. Like people won’t look at your images
on Twitter because they’re normally either (.) if they’re on their phone it sometimes comes
up, it sometimes doesn’t, it’s a bit funny, and also people won’t follow a link to a, a thing.
So I’m sharing an image I will definitely share it on Facebook.
This was not unique to Brian. In a similar manner, Isabel also noted that she would
not use Twitter for photos highlighting that ‘I don’t really see the point in it on
Twitter cos it’s gone in a second’. For Brian this further extended to the content
posted on each site, with specific content and specific ideas shared on certain platform due in no small part to the design features. For example, Brian noted that the
ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, a current trend at the time of the interview that involved
sharing videos of someone throwing ice on their head to ostensibly draw attention
to ALS and raise money for charity, was often not present on Twitter ‘because it’s a
visual. People don’t watch videos on Twitter’.
Brian then was aware of a range of design restrictions that resulted in him preferring to engage with the platform around trending topics and current events. His
content was curtailed to be brief and temporally relevant and was often presented in
a non-pictorial form. Given that the updates he posted were shorter, there was a need
to be curt and quick. The identity that Brian presented was guided by design but
importantly realised in an individual manner as he chose how to act and interact in
an environment that he felt restricted his content in form and style and that encouraged discussion of events as they happened.
The notion of user-specific uses of these features can aptly be noted when considering Brandon’s interactions on Twitter. Brandon also noted that the design of
Twitter constrained and shaped his interactions and actions, but for Brandon, this
manifested itself not in concerns over being curt, current, and witty, but in concerns
over the manner in which his updates would be construed by the reader. He noted
that he felt he could only discuss certain topics on Twitter because:
character limitation does an awful lot to restrict what I would otherwise would have posted
about, like the topics I would otherwise post about, because I can’t put context into it.
This consideration of features and intent was not restricted to Twitter alone and
emerged as a point of discussion across a range of platforms. Brandon, for example,
used Instagram as:
a kind of stream of consciousness, just from an image point of view, so I don’t ever justify
anything on there, I will just put a photo up because I think the photo itself looks cool or,
sort of because I think that people will draw their own conclusions. I don’t feel like I need
to explain that.
Beyond Facebook and Instagram, Brandon suggested in his interviews that he felt
Facebook was slightly more ‘interactive’ than other platforms. When we discussed
why he felt this might be the case, it became apparent that certain design features
5.2 Different Platform, Different Design Features, and Different Social Performances…
99
made it appear as if there was an ongoing conversation happening around the content on Facebook in particular. Brandon noted:
I sort of see lots of posts that friends have liked, or shared, or commented on, because lots
of other people as well as them have done it, so I don’t know if it’s the way that it works,
but the very popular very very popular posts seems to make their way into everybody’s
newsfeed at some point, so I’ve seen a lot of things that are not originated by friends of mine
just purely because a few of my friends have commented on it or interacted with it, so
therefore it’s kind of keeps coming back up to my attention, and more often or not it will be
something that I will have a reaction to again and again (.) It keeps the conversation going
by putting it at the top of my feed every time.
Facebook’s choice to show users the content that was being commented upon recurrently created a more interactive feel for Brandon and encouraged ongoing interaction around a given piece of content. Brandon expanded upon how this was unique
and different to the manner in which he perceived the other platforms he used, noting:
I think Facebook is at little more interactive, I think for me at least Instagram seems to be
very much a sort of browsing, sort of just simply seeing what other people want to share
with the world, rather than reacting to it, to them, and for me Twitter probably similarly
actually, just simply it sort of feels like a lot of kind of little snapshot updates about what
somebody is doing, sort of at that moment.
Again, this was grounded in Brandon’s needs and expectations, but nonetheless
these aspects were also of consideration to all participants, though their framing of
their interactions through these interactive features varied. This was noted, for
example, by Nina, who suggested that the continual re-emergence of content and
the general slower pace of Facebook led to her sharing different content and performing identity in a unique manner on different platforms. She noted:
The other day I was like ‘oh I have a headache grr’, whereas I wouldn’t put that on Twitter,
cos I wouldn’t put a little update like that, because it just gets lost in the time stream on
Twitter which is fine, whereas on Facebook, I don’t know. People will be like ‘oh are you
okay?’, and that sort of thing.
For other participants, different aspects of platform design were highlighted as
fostering specific manners of acting and interacting, unique to their given needs and
situation. Isabel noted one aspect in particular that she felt changed the way that she
was able to discuss subjects on Facebook, highlighting that the groups feature
allowed dedicated places for like-minded users to discuss specific topics. In her
particular case, this manifested itself in discussions around politics. She suggested:
it’s hard to explain really, but the way that umm Facebook is set is kind of segregated into
different stuff, isn’t it? So you can literally go to groups and stuff like that, whereas Twitter’s
very much a stream of chat. Like individual profiles and then what they do, but all shouting
at once in a never ending mess.
For Isabel the partitioning off of particular areas to discuss dedicated topics led to
different social styles emerging on Facebook than on Twitter. She highlighted that
this partitioning fostered a slower feel with dedicated group areas which meant that
people could interact around content more easily. She noted: ‘I think Facebook is,
100
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
it’s got groups and sections and stuff so you can post images and videos and they’ll
stay there longer for people to talk about’.
Other participants noted there were a range of other features that would affect
how interactive they perceived the platforms to be. Whilst this was guided by design,
it was realised in a unique manner by each participant to their specific needs. Oliver,
for example, discussed the fact that Reddit allowed community moderators. By
allowing for community self-moderation, Oliver felt that often the level of interaction was variable depending on the quality of moderation, and as such his participation in the sub-Reddit was therefore also variable:
when you get a good moderated subReddit, like r/games, sticks to the point, keeps going
with it, the mods are fantastic, who keep it on track. And then you get others that are just a
chaos and you can’t be bothered with it.
For Brian, however, interactivity was bound up in the notion of current topics. In his
comparison of the design of Facebook and Twitter, he noted Twitter’s specific
design as fostering a greater sense of ongoing temporally bound interactivity:
Twitter has so many trends, so many fads that are so quick passing. And I think Twitter’s an
important (.) I think people would mind, but I don’t think the world would mourn the loss
of Facebook, whereas I think people would mourn the loss of Twitter, because of things like
the live-tweeting of things, that you wouldn’t get on Facebook in the same way, because the
audience is live and commenting right then and there.
However, Willow noted that she felt she was more likely to interact around shared
content on Facebook, not Twitter. In comparison to Brian, who suggested the ability
to comment upon events as they were happening inspired ongoing interaction on
Twitter, Willow noted her engagement with shared content was affected by being
able to view a preview of that content on Facebook:
If someone shares a link on Twitter and the tweet’s not something I’m particularly interested in I won’t click on it (.) if someone shares a share on Facebook I’ll still have a general
idea of what the thing they were sharing was, because there’ll be a little picture and a little
bit of blurb and sometimes if I’m really bored I’ll just click on it to see what the hell it’s
about, because it’s not just a web link, it’s not just, it’s got a tag line and a photo and a bit
of text underneath, it’s not just a web link, a site address, so. I’m more likely to click on it.
Sally on the other hand noted aspects of Facebook’s design that she felt hindered the
interactivity of the platform:
Sally: it’s kind of hard to keep track of what’s going on Facebook, I found.
Harry: How come?
Sally: Just because their trending system is really bad. It’s kind of like, you get three little
items at the top right hand corner of your page and if you don’t look at it you don’t see
it, whereas Twitter it’s quite easy to kind of see what people are talking about? Especially
because quite a lot of the trending tags there’ll always be someone on the newsfeed talking about it, or commenting on it, or something like that.
Given this, it appears that the engagement with platforms and the perception of their
interactive merits appears to be individual and aligned to the specific needs of the
user, but nonetheless intimately bound up in the design affordances of a given platform. I would suggest from this that it is through the enmeshing of user and design
5.2 Different Platform, Different Design Features, and Different Social Performances…
101
that a given use of the platform emerges. This was succinctly noted by Isabel who
highlighted that engagement with the platforms varies from individual to individual.
She noted that on ‘Facebook you’ve got a whole variety of people and the way that
they behave on there. Like I’ve got friends who only share videos, and some people
just text, yeah’.
This concept of the enmeshing of user and design can further be highlighted if
we reconsider the idea of uses of social media beyond content production. Despite
these platforms often being set up explicitly to encourage users to want to produce
content, a fact long noted by researchers across a range of platforms (Keenan and
Shiri 2009), Molly choose not to fulfil this potential and to engage with them in her
own manner for her own social purposes. She noted that she felt no real pressure to
create content online, saying ‘with my friends I don’t feel really pressure (.) and I
think my friends (.) they know that I’m not (.) posting things about myself online
now’. Instead Molly used the platforms in her own manner and for her own purposes. In essence, Molly decided how to engage with the features of these platforms
which she used almost exclusively to browse content rather than to produce content.
Molly did however report elements of design that aided her particular usage of
platforms and encouraged her to sometimes produce content. In particular, Molly
noted that her content production increased once she was afforded the ability to set
her profiles to private, controlling who saw what information about her. Some platform provided her the ability to be more private than others. For example, in an
interview conducted after she started attending university, Molly noted she had
started using Snapchat as a messenger system with her sister as it allowed a format
that she felt was very controlled and through which she felt any images sent were
not permanent. She noted:
Everybody uses it and it’s easy to get on. So I thought I’d try it, and I like it. It’s (.) my step-­
sister is at uni in [northern UK town]. She doesn’t like texting really. So it’s my message (.)
way of messaging her now, to catch up and check in with each other and have quick chats.
I don’t mind sending her a picture of me. She won’t like judge me, and its fun with all the
stuff it’s got. We’re family so it feels (.) it’s nice.
Molly later also suggested that ‘It’s also less (.) has less (.) it’s not permanent so I
feel like I can maybe use it more without worrying’. When given the option to be
private, her usage also increased on Instagram:
Molly: I guess I post more on Instagram now though. Because I know less people can see
it, in terms of who I let see it and follow me. I (.) I rarely post picture of like me alone.
More of what I’m doing and who I with but that (.) that’s like (.) I don’t like taking
pictures of myself really. But I’m using it more. I’m just, not that sort of person who
really wants to, to comment at all like ‘oh you’re so pretty’ because often that (.) they
just say things and don’t really mean that, you know? So I don’t see the point of all that.
But I’ve started putting up some stuff, especially as I can control who sees it now.
It’s fine.
Harry: Is there like (.) Is there anyone in particular you really don’t want to see your stuff
or is it the public?
Molly: umm, like no one particularly I don’t want, you know. It’s more just (.) knowing
who’s seeing it and not having to worry about it.
102
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
Here we see that the affordance of privacy as a design feature encouraged interactivity, but only when combined with Molly’s specific needs and situation that produced
the given unique identity performance, bound in both the design and the user. When
Molly felt she could control the image constructed by other people in regard to her
identity, she felt more ready to share content, though still with a degree of care over
the content. In this manner then we see design features shaping how we are acting
and interacting online to present our identities. It is apparent here that any understanding of identity online needs to understand and consider how design shapes our
experiences and expectations online and controls various elements of our identity
from one platform to the next.
5.3 The Use of Third-Party Apps to Augment Design
and the Effects of This Upon Social Interaction
Whilst the above section highlights a need to consider various design features
enmeshing with individuals in order to better conceptualise identity online, it is
clear that even this concept can itself be complicated by the complex systems present through which we can access social media platforms. As discussed in Chap. 3, a
platform’s presentation can vary from one device to the next. However, it can also
be augmented with third-party apps that can change aspects of the platform’s design
in an array of manners, affecting how users utilise these platforms. From highlighting certain design features to changing colour scheme, or from restricting access
between certain hours for productivity to adding filters for photos, our experiences
of platforms are augmented by layers of additional and overlapping technologies,
platforms, algorithms, and features.
This was discussed by a number of the participants. For example, Brian noted
that the control over aspects of design afforded by third-party apps might increase
his usage of Twitter. He suggested ‘if I find a really nice app that does Twitter, like
tweetdeck used to do but now they started charging, then I would use Twitter more’.
Similarly, Kirsty discussed the use of third-party apps that help her engage with
social media in a manner specific to her situation:
I use Hootsuite at work, in my professional sort of capacity, and again it’s good to a point
but even the pro version does have bugs. The analytics on it are crap, mind you, and of
course as a marketer it’s quite annoying not being able to analyse the reach you’ve had.
She also highlighted another application, named ‘If This Then That’ (IFTTT), that
augments the design of the platforms and helped her present identity in specific
manners, again informed by her specific situation. She described it as a:
Brilliant app, absolutely love it. More useful professionally, than personally to be honest,
but I really love. So mine’s automatically linked up to, if I ever remember to do something
on Instagram, then it posts it to Twitter as a native picture.
5.3 The Use of Third-Party Apps to Augment Design and the Effects of This Upon…
103
Willow also noted the use of these augmenting applications, highlighting ‘on my
phone see I use a custom app which looks very different from the Twitter app’. She
detailed the differences and how they helped her change the design of the platform
to suit her specific needs:
I don’t use the Twitter client on my phone, I use erm a different app and it’ll save where I
leave off so I scroll up to most current, whereas on Twitter on desktop, and this is me not
having used it in a while, you normally start at the latest stuff and have to scroll down and
I prefer scrolling up rather than scrolling down – dunno why, but it just I prefer – I think
because otherwise I’m coming in on conversations and discussions that have like started
before and I’m seeing the end of, so I prefer to scroll upwards through the conversations and
follow the thread of things that are happening, rather than scrolling down and going what
on earth is going on and then waiting to get the fiftieth tweet before I understand what’s
happening.
Sally also pointed out different way of augmenting platform design, noting that on
Tumblr she was able to add extensions which changed the design of the platform
and altered how she used it. She highlighted one example in particular that allowed
her to use the platform in a more streamlined fashion:
I have an extension on there that makes it so much more user-friendly. It just makes using
it easier. So, without the extension, to reblog a post you have to click on the reblog button,
which brings up a pop-up on the page where you can add like a comment or tags, and then
you have to click the reblog button again. And depending on the size of the post, it can take
a couple of minutes for it to load up and then for it to post to your actual blog. With the
extension you just hover over the reblog button and a little pop up comes up. You can add a
comment but the most important thing for me is that you can save a set of tags. So once the
pop up comes up you can just click on the saved tag and then hit reblog and it’s done. I
love it.
Here then we can see a range of specific augmentations of platform features to
alter the manner of engaging with the platforms specific to the given user’s needs.
Given the rise of third-party apps, it appears that it is worth considering that there
are tactics and resources the user can employ to actively alter aspects of the design
of the platform to suit their given needs and situations. This adds considerable wrinkles to any attempt to consider design features in a uniform manner. It is also worth
remembering, when looking at and analysing online content, that not every user will
be using the ‘vanilla’ version of the platform and that the specific manifestation of
the platform they are using may affect how they choose to share content and generally act and interact. This has large repercussions for researchers, who should be
aware that how they see a tweet, post, or update on their device may be very different from how it appeared to the person posting it. This layer of complexity is worth
considering in any research that wishes to understand the effects of design on users,
as engagement through a social media platform may be mediated and augmented
along the way through other platforms and apps with their own range of features,
designs, and options.
104
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
5.4 Accounting for the Offline in Online
Identity Performances
Whilst this chapter so far has looked at design features and their possible role in
guiding our actions and interactions online, it is evident that any identity performance online is intimately bound to the user’s socio-cultural situation. I suggest that
online identity presentation emerges from the enmeshing of an individual user with
a platform design. The resulting identity performance is informed by the design of
the platform, which guides and shapes how the user is able to present social identity.
However, the identity performance is equally realised in a unique manner as each
user draws on their socio-cultural experiences and resources to complete their specific narrative, which they bring to bear upon the juxtaposed design elements.
During the interviews a number of extant social factors were discussed with the
participants which effected how they felt their identities manifested on specific
platforms.
Brian brought up his awareness that specific users would engage with the platform in a variety of manners, informed by their socio-cultural situations. When
asked about the consistency of identity presentation across social media platforms,
he noted:
for people, every day people like judges, teachers, anybody, has to draw that line between
people they have in the office and people that are their friend. You can’t have (.) umm professional (.) like there has to be a cut off, you can’t share everything with your employers
or your employees, and you certainly can’t share it with people that work for you or that
you’re involved with work, like social workers, or teachers, or anything.
Brian later revealed how his own socio-cultural situation, specifically his homosexuality, could lead to unique engagements with social media features:
I know particularly in the LGBT community, that is a genuine problem for a lot of people
who aren’t out or aren’t comfortable (.) portraying themselves in a certain way around
certain members. You almost have to have a split identity. And even with work life balance,
but even just in your personal life. And a lot of people don’t feel comfortable in being
themselves.
Kirsty similarly revealed during the interviews that her approach towards social
media was largely influenced by her specific situation and the social knowledge she
bought to the platforms. As she worked in online communication, she noted that her
identity was ‘semi-formed by sort of professional concerns as well’ and noted that
her job largely effected how she understood and engaged with social media. She
provided a particular example of this:
Yeah, and actually again from a sort of professional that works with social media on a daily
basis, my boss regularly has said that he expects me to use my personal social media to
promote the charity and the work that we do, and he has a real problem with me having
separate work and personal Twitter feeds, for instance, or Facebook feeds. I put my foot
down on it because I wasn’t comfortable, but there is a question I think about authenticity
and umm also, yeah, I dunno I guess you can’t insist on it because of employment law and
the rest of it, but umm, that’s a dilemma that I face fairly regularly.
5.4 Accounting for the Offline in Online Identity Performances
105
Kirsty later noted that she had adopted a single Twitter account, which changed how
she approached interacting on Twitter. She suggested ‘my Twitter feed is shared, I
tend to use it slightly more professionally than personally umm, so I only have one
Twitter’, specifically noting that ‘I tend to use it a bit more to signpost stuff that sort
of shows I’m interested in the right things for my work’. She later details an example of this, noting ‘I do a lot of live-tweeting on it at the moment’ for big events at
work. Kirsty also noted other effects of her particular situation in regard to employment, discussing her attitude towards profile images:
Facebook tends to change a lot more, but at the moment (.) I think again because the other
two are professional facing, or professional focused, I don’t like to have my partner in my
pictures on them, because actually I think there’s a huge thing about being seen to a woman
with a partner and suddenly you lose a lot of professional influence. So whereas my
Facebook photo quite often has me and my partner in them, I would never do that for
Twitter and LinkedIn.
It is evident then that Kirsty’s specific engagements with features, and in turn her
interactions and identity presentations, were informed by her specific social
resources.
Another pertinent discussion of a specific situation affecting the participant’s
approach and attitude towards social media was found with Willow. She detailed her
specific situation noting:
I’ve got some mental illness, so I think I probably pay a huge amount of attention (.) because
I pay a huge amount of attention to how I present myself in real life all the time ever (.) and
I know I’m not necessarily the typical experience, because I’ve seen an awful lot of people
with various mental illness have said that actually interacting online is a lot easier, whereas
for me it carries exactly the same level of stress, apart from the fact that I can’t see how a
person is reacting. So it actually carries an added level of stress for me. I can’t see how they
react, I can see how they choose to react to it, but I can’t see how they immediately react.
So I don’t like that as much. So I don’t tend to put much up, basically, it’s why I tend to sort
of stay away.
Willow’s specific situation shaped how she interacted on the platform and engaged
with the design features. She noted that she would ‘struggle with the idea that I have
anything worth saying’ and expanded this, noting:
so I tend to stay away from, like, Facebook and Twitter, both feel like they need to be (.) I
know a lot of people don’t feel the same way, but they feel more important. It feels like
there’s more weight.
By holding interviews with the participants regularly over the course of a
12-month period, I was able to track and account for changes in the participant’s
socio-cultural situations and how this shaped their engagements with the platforms.
Over the course of the research period, I was able to track major life events like
starting university, leaving home, and starting a first job. Some participants highlighted that shifts in their offline lives could lead to changes in how they engaged
with online design features to present identity. Brandon, for example, noted:
I’ve definitely noticed that in some workplaces that I’ve had it’s been very much keep people separate from work…However, in my current office there’s maybe 12 or 13 people who
wouldn’t often socialise outside work, but that all have each other as contacts on Facebook
106
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
and very regularly make open comments about what somebody has posted up about
last night.
Nina also discussed how changes in her offline situation led to changes in how she
performed identity and how she approached the platforms as social spaces, noting
of previous work colleagues:
They’re on my Twitter because they followed from the day of my interview, like [the company] themselves, and then I had to be really careful with what I said for the year and a bit
I worked there, I wouldn’t say anything controversial, in fact I stopped using I stopped
really using it as much because they were following me and I knew if I blocked them it was
really suspicious because um they even asked me to stalk other people that had blocked
them, even though I’ve left the company, which I have done on one occasion because she
was slagging off a customer.
Sally also detailed how changes in her life impacted how she approached and used
social media. As a university student, Sally noted that social media provided a way
to study efficiently. She highlighted Facebook, suggesting:
it’s kind of also an easy way to share documents from lectures from my uni mates, and you
know, ask general questions for groups, like the anthropology group or my course group. So
it’s just an easier way to keep in contact with them because I don’t have all their numbers.
However, Sally noted that her engagement with the platforms changed after leaving
university and beginning to work at an office:
One of the guys I work with, we don’t have each other’s phone numbers, but we message a
fair bit outside of work (h) and at work too (h) over Facebook messenger. It’s useful like that
because sometimes he gives me a lift home or if one of us is on holiday and we need to get
in contact we can, or if I’m ill I can message him and ask him to tell my boss I’m not in. I
think (.) it’s interesting that we’ve been working together for almost a year now and we only
talk over Facebook Messenger, like we don’t use our phones as phones with text messages
or calls.
Sally noted changes in both her content and her attitudes towards social media after
leaving university to start her first job. She highlighted that:
Tumblr I used to go on every day, I’d check it as soon as I got in and just kept scrolling down
until I caught up with the previous night. But I just don’t have the time anymore now I’m at
work, it’s a lot to keep it going so if I have a spare fifteen or twenty minutes I’ll load it up
and scroll until I give up and then I’ll move onto something else. I used to religiously
refresh Tumblr every ten minutes because I followed so many people there would be loads
of new posts, but yeah, now I just check it once a week or once every two weeks.
This would suggest that an understanding of identity online should not only be
attentive to how users bring socio-cultural resources with them to online spaces but
also that identity presentation is an ongoing and malleable issue that adapts with the
user, relevant to their given situation and concerns at any given time.
Another case of changes in offline situation affecting engagement with social
media was apparent with Molly. Before going to university, Molly noted that her
main contact on Twitter was with ‘people who I know already, who I’ve like met
face to face’ and that:
5.4 Accounting for the Offline in Online Identity Performances
107
To be honest, because, like, I mainly use it for friends and people I already know there’s not
really any need to put anything up there. Like who am I putting it up for? I’ll tell the people
who I tell in person, it doesn’t have to be there forever, because it’s not really important
enough to be anywhere forever. It’s just (.) stuff.
However, upon moving to university, Molly began to follow different kinds of users
beyond just known offline friends:
Molly: I use Twitter a lot more now. A lot (.) A lot more as a like a professional place. I
pretty much only follow researchers and like government groups. Or people to do with
education, primary education.
Harry: That’s cool
Molly: Yeah, it helps. Like, I feel it’s really helpful. I get the most up to date stuff, lots of
knowledge about everything. It’s really great. I think I follow like 5 other people who
aren’t professional. People I know already. I keep it separate I guess, cos they’re all on
Facebook.
Molly also noted that the change in context affected her concerns about social media
and, therefore, her engagement with the platforms and their specific features. She
noted that she felt she had to be wary about who was viewing her content:
we had a lecture. They said other students had been kicked of their placements and NQT
stuff for not being (.) professional on Facebook and stuff. So I feel like I have to be careful
online about it all.
It is important to highlight however that though the context through which Molly
engaged with Twitter as a social platform did shift to accommodate her growing
professional concerns, her usage largely remained the same. She noted, ‘I still
haven’t tweeted anything. Not myself. I retweet and follow, it’s a way of reading and
being professional for me. It’s like my professional space, that side of me’.
This shift in context for Molly did bring about a change in the manner through
which she approached Twitter as a platform. However, given that her usage did not
largely alter from one context to the next, it appears that a consideration of identity
online must be careful to highlight a consideration of more than just produced tangible content, as discussed in detail in the previous chapter. Though she was still not
producing content on the platform, Twitter served largely different purposes for
Molly before and after joining university. Put simply, Molly’s social situation
changed her engagement with, and contextualisation of, social media, but did not
significantly alter her content output.
The notion of social situations impacting our online engagements and experiences in a variety of ways in an ongoing manner, as seen above, highlights the need
to reconsider the notion of a clean and clear online/offline divide and emphasises
the need to contextualise social media usage (Jurgenson 2012). The participants’
specific offline contexts clearly produced unique engagement with social media.
Though, depending on the user, this did not always change the content created, it
was evident that this did change their engagement with the platforms in line with
their given concerns and interests. Whilst this research is keen to question easy
online-offline divides, it is worth noting therefore that the translation of offline reality into the online realm is not a direct and perfect translation, but instead it is a
specific translation that has the effect of emphasising certain aspects and
108
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
minimising the importance of others. As such, though it is clear that the offline is
translated online, future research should consider unpacking what aspects of the
offline are overtly emphasised and which aspects are minimised, with a consideration of what the effects of this may be. It should not be assumed that offline reality
is presented neutrally online. The Internet is always and purposefully curated, and
an awareness of this must be held, particularly when tying the emergence of audience to the design of platform, given that, through design, certain communities may
be minimised or silenced on specific platforms.
5.5 Identity Boundary Negotiation Between User
and Design: Tactics, Trade-Off, and Compromises
So far in this chapter, we have seen that our actions and interactions online can be
understood through an attention to design and an attention to socio-cultural resources
and experiences. For the remainder of this chapter, I want to focus more specifically
at the interplay between these elements, the negotiation of the boundaries of identity
performance between user and design. We will theorise this concept more fully in
the next chapter, but for now, the focus remains on exploring the participants’ understandings of their identities online.
The interviews highlighted that the participants’ identity performances were
negotiated in a user-specific and platform-specific manner, as individual users
enmeshed with the specific design features to negotiate what was included in a
materially heterogeneous identity performances and what was excluded. For the
participants, much of this manifested itself in concerns over the audiences online
and who was able to view content and profiles.
Because of Twitter’s open and public design, Brian felt that he had to actively
alter how he presented his identity, controlling and tapering the content of his messages. He noted: ‘Facebook is there for me to, to socialise with my friends, I suppose, to put my opinions. I wouldn’t dare put my opinions on Twitter, because you
can’t restrict it’. Interestingly, the idea that ‘you can’t restrict’ audience on Twitter
is not entirely true as users are able to set their profile to private and choose who
views their content. When I question him on this specifically, he replied:
oh sure, yeah, you can (.) but it’s a catch-22 sort of thing. If you want to get everything out
of Twitter you have to accept that it’s going to have to be public. You just have to restrict
what you say. You play the game and change what you say.
Brian later expanded on this to note when asked about audience control on Twitter:
It’s not something you can do on Twitter if you want to go online. You kinda want attention,
you just don’t get to decide what attention, so you have to be more (.) careful with what you
say. You have to hold yourself back and think ‘what would someone think about this?’.
This is rather telling in regard to the notion of identity online. Despite being offered
the option through design to protect his content, Brian seemed to think this was
5.5 Identity Boundary Negotiation Between User and Design: Tactics, Trade-Off,…
109
simply not an option if he wanted to use Twitter ‘properly’. He felt therefore that he
had no control of the public nature of the platform and that this was bound up in the
design of the platform. Instead, for Brian, the boundaries of his identity performance had to be negotiated by altering his content rather than by negotiating with
design. Brian later expanded upon this notion and discussed that platform specificity of this boundaried negotiation:
But I think in a way Facebook does have more permanence, but you can doctor that permanence to people you trust easier, whereas Twitter you either get all public or all private,
there’s no in-between.
In this manner, it is clear that Brian’s negotiation of the boundaries of his materially
heterogeneous identity presentation was bound to a negotiation and trade-off
between himself and the specific platform he was using.
Brian was not the only participant to grapple with the need to be public on
Twitter. Brandon also felt that the control of privacy was non-negotiable on Twitter,
and therefore he felt he had to accept that this aspect was out of his control and
instead alter his content:
Twitter I feel I have no real control at all, because I know fully that everything I put on there
is available to everyone, umm, which probably limits my use of it a bit.
He later expanded up this, suggesting that this negotiation of the boundaries of his
identity was not only platform specific, but also shaped his subsequent interactions
and expectations:
I share more specific info, like what I’m doing and where I am on Facebook as well, because
its, to me, it’s safe and I trust the people I let follow me. On Twitter or Instagram, because
I don’t know who’s going to see it, all the stuff I share is vague and kinda loose.
In a similar sense, and again driven by the specific controls afforded to her by each
platform, Nina noted that she too felt she had to accept trade-offs in her performance and alter her actions:
the other day I posted a post up, I can’t remember what it was, and I wrote the word, definitely, and I spelt definitely wrong, and I got all these tweets back about how I spelt, and
they were like you definitely should learn how to spell definitely, and so I deleted the tweet
in the end, and now I’ve decided never to type the word definitely, because I can’t spell
really well. So yeah, I think I do change for the audience, cos with Twitter anyone can read
it…whereas on Facebook it’s my friends, so if there’s a spelling mistake they’d let it slip, so
I’m not really, I’m just sort of more, relaxed with what I say on Facebook.
For these participants, their usage of Twitter as a platform was largely informed by
the audience, but also importantly was tied to the public-first design of the platform
and their lack of willingness to engage with the design affordances to police this
publicness. As such, they felt the only option they had to control the identity performance was through the content they placed on the platform. If we consider the
implications for a consideration of identity performances, this in essence means that
the boundaries of what was included in the materially heterogeneous identity performances were felt to be non-negotiable in terms of privacy, so despite being
110
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
afforded the ability to enact some control, a trade-off in content was made to be able
to participate fully on the platform.
However, on some platforms, the participants felt that the scope of the audience
could be controlled through the design affordances of the platform, allowing the
participants freer reign over the content and subject matter of their posts. For example, Kirsty noted that design features in Facebook could be utilised to the user’s
benefit in order to patrol who could access and read their posts:
I’ve started to use the privacy filters on things a lot more than I ever used to. Now that I sort
of have to think about it, I’ve got a lot more careful about making sure that everything’s
friend locked and that sort of people that are in the same groups as me can’t necessarily see
what I’m putting out.
Here then we see Kirsty using the design of Facebook to make sure that her content
was only available to the intended audience, meaning that the trade-off in topic was
not necessary and design was instead utilised to set boundaries. Similarly, Brian
noted he felt that he could utilise the design to his advantage of Facebook, rather
than accept the openness of the design as he had done on Twitter, in order to change
the audience of his content:
If I want to I’ll restrict the post to people that I know won’t go crazy if I share a liberal
opinion or a sex positive thing, or whatever, a non-gender binary thing or whatever, like, to
people that I know would be offended, and I can doctor them out of it.
He noted that this level of control was nuanced on Facebook and that he was able to
negotiate control over many aspects of his performance:
I can even control the comments on Facebook if I want. And once it’s out there, I can change
how public or private it gets without really worrying. It doesn’t feel as (.) risky as
Twitter does.
Brian later articulated the importance of the affordance of control through design
and what this meant for the manner in which he could present identity:
I feel like I can control my Facebook because I can limit the views, I can limit the audience,
my online identity with Google(+) is terrifying. I genuinely don’t know who sees what
circle is, I can’t, no. I just don’t understand it. And I feel like I have no control over my
Google identity. My Facebook identity, I can portray myself to select groups of people in a
certain why, and limit the audience, and with Twitter, umm, I control myself very well
on that.
Similar sentiments were noted by Brandon, who suggested that ‘I think Facebook
is just safer. I know who’s seeing it so I can let my hair down. I can say whatever I
like really. It’s not as much of an issue’. He expanded to note that the control over
the boundaries afforded by Facebook’s privacy features meant that he could interact
in a less restricted manner:
in terms of the information I put out there, it doesn’t, even though it does require a certain
amount of information in order to have an account, I don’t feel I have to lie because I can
hide it easily enough with the privacy settings, and I feel that I can control the audience that
my posts go to, even on a case by case, so if there’s something I want to publish to a wider
group I know how to do that and I know how to restrict access to others.
5.5 Identity Boundary Negotiation Between User and Design: Tactics, Trade-Off,…
111
Brandon later again further suggested that he felt he needed to be:
a lot more careful with the content I put out on Twitter because I know it’s a lot less easily
policed, so I would probably be a lot less inflammatory or a lot less controversial with anything I put on Twitter, whereas with Facebook I know that the audience I have I know at
least vaguely people that can see that, so I suppose I’m slightly less concerned about
whether I’m going to offend people.
Brandon telling felt that his reliance upon design features of Facebook to maintain
the boundaries of the identity performance could occasionally lull him into a false
sense of security, leading him to take less care over his content. He suggested: ‘I
possibly put up quite a lot about my life, knowing that the privacy settings I’ve
given, sort of shield a lot of people from seeing it, so I possibly take less care now
than I used to’.
This suggests then that the boundaries of identity performance occur on a
platform-­by-platform basis for the users, who reach their own conclusions about
how they choose to present themselves within the confines of the specific platform
and its affordances. On some platforms, this seems to manifest itself in active and
conscious monitoring of the user’s activity, and on others, it manifests in a reliance
upon the design features, or in a mix of these elements. In each case, it is clear that
it is not possible to separate the resultant identity performance from either the user
or the platform design; the performances emerge from the enmeshing of these elements to produce specific performances with their own negotiated boundaries.
Again, of course, this is specific to the individual user. For example, contrary to
the previous examples provided above, Isabel noted that she was largely concerned
with policing her interaction on Facebook because of the specific audience present
there, rather than the more generalised audience on Twitter. She noted that she had
to temper her responses on Facebook at times, noting: ‘I try not to reply. I usually
write it and then just delete it’ and later adding, ‘If I was gonna write something and
I know that I had friends that would be completely offended by it, I wouldn’t put it
up’. Similar content regulation on Facebook was noted by Willow, who unlike other
participants did not utilise the affordances of Facebook to control the specific audiences of her post, meaning she felt she had to temper the content of her messages.
She noted: ‘I know you can set different settings so that only some people see your
Facebook stuff and other people don’t, but that’s just too much hassle and I can’t be
arsed’. Instead Willow chose to doctor and curtail her performance on Facebook, so
much so that she noted ‘my stuff on Twitter is actually more personal’ than the doctored content she placed on Facebook. She suggested this was because she felt she
could curate the audience on Twitter effectively with the design features there, later
emphasising that: ‘you’ve gotta add people on Facebook that you know, because
otherwise it’s insulting apparently’, whereas in regard to Twitter she felt:
I have curated who I have on Twitter, so they tend to be people who have fairly similar
viewpoints to me, um, politically, so I tend not to sort of have to put up with the same level
of crap.
This further highlights the need to consider the enmeshing of individual user with
individual platform design. The negotiation and trade-offs between user and design
112
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
are enacted in an individual manner, informed by the specific user and their needs,
and bound to the specific design of the platform.
An interesting version of different identity work and boundary negotiation with
the design of platforms was noted by Nina. She discussed how the design of Twitter
led to her taking more care in the presentation of particular aspects of her identity
than she did with similar features on Facebook. She compared the ‘about me’ sections provided for the user to describe themselves, present in different manifestations on both Twitter and Facebook. She noted of Twitter that the maintenance of
this aspect of her online identity was often crucial and of importance:
Twitter is really important, cos, like, say for example I want to find someone and I’m not
quite sure if it’s them, I’ll look at that, cos their timeline could be full of rubbish, like
hashtag loser or, just complete random statements. Whereas that top statement says is from
so and so or works in M&S or and I’ll be like oh I know who that is now, it is the person I
mean to follow, so I’ll follow them.
This led to Nina putting a lot of care into how she maintained this aspect of her
identity presentation on Twitter:
Twitter is always important. I always try and think of something to put in my Twitter bio cos
I don’t like mine, and I can never think (.) and I actually probably change it once a month?
Even just slightly. Just by putting like a comma or a full stop. You do change it. It’s the first
thing you can see on people’s pages.
However, on Facebook, this aspect of identity presentation was not as central for
Nina to the overall identity presentation, and therefore the maintenance of this feature was not as crucial for her, despite ostensibly being offered the same ability to
present identity:
Whereas Facebook you’ve got all the pictures, and the layout of it, like the pictures, the
videos and stuff, you can just watch really quickly and you can be like yeah that’s the right
person. But one on Facebook I haven’t changed since I first went out with my boyfriend 4
years ago.
Sally also noted that she did not maintain this aspect of Facebook. When asked why
she suggested:
Because I know no one reads it! Because, um, like, when I, when my uni friends added me,
I literally just told them what name I was under, because I’m not under my full name, and
umm, once I was friends with one of them, it was really easy for the rest of them to find me
because they just went through their page, and it came on their pages, their homepages, that
I was friends with them, so it was really easy for them to add me.
It appears therefore that the engagement with design features is largely platform-­
specific and cannot be separated or isolated from the specific platform, as it may not
be used consistently. Despite both platforms offering the ability to ‘write’ identity
in textual format, Nina feels this was not as important on Facebook, given that the
design allowed identity to be confirmed in a clearer, less ambiguous manner. What
is important in regard to identity performance therefore appears to be inconsistent
across platforms. Of course, even this element of identity presentation was not consistent across the participants. An example of the need to account for the specific
5.5 Identity Boundary Negotiation Between User and Design: Tactics, Trade-Off,…
113
user can be seen in the case of Willow, who noted she did not maintain her Twitter
‘about me’ section with as much regularity as some of the other participants:
It’s not something I think about so much on Twitter, because I tend to use it like it’s almost
a news site, so I don’t really think about my end of it or what I’m presenting a lot. I sort of
set it up and then I’ve just kind of left it alone, whereas on Facebook I’m quite careful about
how I choose to present myself and describe myself.
In terms of the negotiation of the boundaries of identity performance between
user and design, Willow telling discussed that she feels she was ‘forced’ into presenting herself in certain ways due to the design of both Facebook and Twitter:
Willow: actually feel like they force me to fill stuff out whereas I’d rather not.
Harry: Both of them [Twitter and Facebook]?
Willow: Both of them, yeah. Like I said, my Twitter bio was empty for ages and I eventually
felt like I had to put something there, even though I don’t really feel like I wanted to put
something there. Um. And Facebook it does feel like you have to fill shit out, cos it
otherwise it goes why haven’t you filled out and you haven’t done this and you haven’t
updated it like six months (.) the site just constantly pressures you to do it. Update your
Facebook profile! Every time I go on Facebook it has that little tiny thing update your
Facebook profile. Um. You’ve got 14 steps to go through! No matter how many times I
skip through them it’s like do them again!.
Further to this, Willow later provided some strong and interesting insights into the
materially heterogeneous nature of identity on Facebook. She noted that she felt that
the design of the platform did not allow her to express enough of her identity, and
that the afforded design elements were too confining for her to be able to adequately
express identity:
It doesn’t feel like I have a huge amount of control over my identity. Mine is the same as
everybody else’s, although I can pick bits and pieces, how much attention do people actually pay to all that kind of stuff, if 90% of the time you’re looking down your feed? So even
if I’ve got a nice cover picture and nice profile picture, how big is that in people’s screens?
So what you actually recognise is just kind of, sometimes you don’t pick the details out, you
just recognise a vague shape and colour. It’s even (.) even if I control what’s on my actual
page how often do people go there?
Willow did not feel therefore that her identity presentation was fully under her control and that the identity performance afforded to her through platform design did
not emphasise the features and aspects that she found to be important. For Willow,
the ability to present self through an ‘about me’ section was largely unimportant:
It’s not really for anybody, it’s for Facebook, so I don’t really care enough to change it. And
I can’t think of the last time I looked at anyone else’s unless I was specifically curious to see
something about somebody. And that’s not very often. I don’t think in the last 3 years I’ve
ever bothered looking at it, and because you know most of the time people don’t bother
updating it.
114
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
5.6 Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy
Makers, and Educators
The interviews presented in this chapter suggest that identity performance online
emerges from the enmeshing of an individual user with individual design features,
with the boundaries of the emergent materially heterogeneous identity performance
maintained in an individual way by combinations of different users and platforms.
In this manner, the boundaries of the performances are also noticeably negotiable
and subject to change.
In terms of a consideration of the impact of design, the analysis revealed a number of ways in which identity performances were constrained and mediated by the
design of the platforms and highlighted that the given performances could not be
considered in isolation from the platforms through which they emerged. The participants revealed their awareness of the restrictions of design on their use of the platforms. For example, Brandon noted of Twitter that ‘character limitation does an
awful lot to restrict what I would otherwise would have posted about, like the topics
I would otherwise post about, because I can’t put context into it’. In this manner, it
was clear that the design affected how the social was enacted and how the users
considered and approach identity performances online. The findings here therefore
match those of previous research in noting that design shapes social action (Karimov
et al. 2011), with participants able to engage with an array of features to present
identity (Stroud et al. 2016) specific to the given platform (Lafkioui 2013). Matching
other research, the data here highlights that the growing range of platforms ‘afford
a variety of tools that potentially extend and compromise impression management’
(Mendelson and Papacharissi 2011, 254). This should be a consideration when discussing online behaviour in educational settings. It is apparent that online actions
and interactions are bound to design features and that the actions of young people
online are not only a result of their agency alone. As we will unpack in more detail
in the next chapter, there is a need to understand our online actions as the result of
the enmeshing of user and design.
Further to this, the interactions with design features were noted as being platform-­
specific. It was found that even if different platforms had common features, there
was still variation and specificity in the manners in which the participants approached
the platform and the features. In this regard the findings confirm the work of
researchers such as Van Dijck (2013), who noted that though platforms can share
similar modes, the arrangement and presentation of these modes will affect how
they are utilised and how identity is presented. This was found to be evident by the
participants, who despite being offered the ability to ‘write’ their identity on both
Facebook and Twitter, chose to engage with the features in different ways, based
upon how they understood and contextualised the given platforms. The same feature
was therefore given different prioritisation and consideration on each platform, in
line with the specific contextualisation of that platform by the user. As such, it is
clear that the user of features cannot be assumed to be uniform across platforms and
should be instead considered and situated on a platform-by-platform basis. Adding
5.6 Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy Makers, and Educators
115
further nuance to this notion is the need to consider the use of third-party applications which augment the presentation of the platforms, further making any conclusions about the specific uses of design features questionable. The presence of
third-party apps presents a unique and emergent challenge to discussions around the
relationship between design and social interaction. This research therefore highlights this as potential area of future exploration, with a consideration of the effects
of variation in the presentation of a given platform via the use of third-party applications likely to provide some insight into how the presentation of features can affect
online action and interaction.
However, it appears that a consideration of the growing array of design features
only considers one end of the equation of identity creation and that, in order to
understand the impact of design, a more nuanced model is needed. Rather than presenting a full deterministic approach to identity performance as a concept at the
whim of design feature, this research was keen to build an awareness of identity
work as situationally bound and emergent. With this in mind, it is clear that there is
a need to acknowledge, as Mendelson and Papacharissi (2011) rightfully do, that the
array of features online only offer the potential to extend and compromise impression management. Moving beyond a consideration of design alone, we should
understand how the potential of this design is understood by the user of that space
and what this interpretation means for subsequent identity performances.
As such, it should be noted that although no trends can be unpacked as to the
specific effects of specific features from a small sample size, this research questions
the notion of such conclusions as reached in previous papers (see, e.g. Ksiazek et al.
2014) which claim certain features will have a fairly uniform effect upon an audience. Whilst we may be able to say that the potential for interactivity is greater
through certain features, or that with the presence of this feature, interactivity
increases on a platform, this research suggests that a feature is nothing without a
socio-culturally grounded actor and an actor nothing without staging and props on
and through which to perform. It is through the enmeshing of these factors that the
social performance of identity emerges. For example, in the analysis above, it was
noted that despite platforms often being set up explicitly to encourage users to produce content, Molly chose not to fulfil this potential and used the platform in her
own manner for her own social purposes. This means, in essence, that an overt prioritisation of humans when looking at interactivity online is problematic in that it
denies the very real effects of design, but that, equally, an overt focus upon the
technological features that afford interactivity is also problematic and does little to
provide equal consideration to both the human and non-human in the creation of the
social (Latour 2005).
From this, I suggest from that that a theoretical framework is needed that allows
for, and demands, an active consideration of human and non-human elements in a
manner that considers that features constrain and guide our available interactions,
but that also acknowledges that these are realised on an individual person-by-person
basis. The consideration of this is all the more necessary at a time when experiences
and audiences are diversifying online, bringing with them myriad combinations of
human and non-human, enmeshing to create specific identity performances. With
116
5
Enmeshing the User and Design: How Is Identity Managed Online?
this in mind, in the next chapter, we will move to begin to theorise what this means
for our understanding of identity online and how the creation of specific identity
narratives are negotiated online.
References
Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Weaving the internet together: Imagined communities in newspaper comment threads. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 44–53.
Duguay, S. (2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18(6), 891–907.
Dyer, H. T. (2015). All the Web’s a stage: The effects of design and modality on youth performances of identity. Sociological studies of children and youth, 19: Technology and youth:
Growing up in a digital world (pp. 213–242).
Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet, 4, 83–91.
Karimov, F. P., Brengman, M., & Van Hove, L. (2011). The effect of website design dimensions on
initial trust: A synthesis of the empirical literature. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
12(4), 272–301.
Keenan, A., & Shiri, A. (2009). Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites.
Library Review, 58(6), 438–450.
Ksiazek, T. B., Peer, L., & Lessard, K. (2014). User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing
interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments.
New Media & Society, 1–19.
Lafkioui, M. (2013). Multilingualism, multimodality and identity construction on French-Based
Amazigh (Berber) websites. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, 18(2), 135–151.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mendelson, A. L., & Papacharissi, Z. (2011). Look at us: Collective narcissism in college student
Facebook photo galleries. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and
culture on social network sites (pp. 251–273). Oxford: Routledge.
Robards, B., & Bennett, A. (2011). MyTribe: Post-subcultural manifestations of belonging on
social network sites. Sociology, 45(2), 303–317.
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., & Curry, A. L. (2016). The presence and use of interactive features on
news websites. Digital Journalism, 4(3), 339–358.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). “You have one identity”: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn.
Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215.
Chapter 6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive
Theoretical Framework for Identity
Presentation
Abstract Through a sustained engagement with sociological theories of identity
and the social, this chapter builds the case for a new theoretical approach to considering identity presentation online. This chapter begins by exploring previous sociological approaches toward identity, specifically focusing upon Goffman’s work
around the performative nature of identity. The chapter then progresses to discuss
the work of Foucault in understanding the manner in which Discourse shapes our
social experiences, before moving on to discuss Actor-Network Theory as an
approach for understand the social beyond a focus on human influences alone.
Finally, Barad’s work around agential realism is introduced as an approach that
allows for an understanding of the ways in which humans and non-humans negotiate the boundaries of the social world in an ongoing manner. It is suggested that a
frame is needed that brings these four approaches together, and as such, the chapter
takes one final turn towards considering Comic Book Studies as a field of research
which allows for a detailed look at narrative construction between socio-culturally
bound readers and specifically designed media.
Using this as a frame, this chapter proposes and introduces Comic Theory as a
new framework to understand identity performances online as an ongoing platform-­
specific negotiation between user and design.
Keywords Comic Theory · Actor-Network Theory · Latour · Foucault · Post-­
structuralism · Discourse · Barad · Agential realism · Goffman · Identity
performance · Identity negotiation
6.1 Introduction
The previous chapter presented a sustained look at data from a series of interviews
conducted with young people over the course of a year, exploring how they understood and negotiated their identities online. The data suggested that social media
users negotiate a growing plethora of online social spaces in order to perform identity and that the given identity performances emerged from the enmeshing of
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
H. T. Dyer, Designing the Social, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in
Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3_6
117
118
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
socio-­culturally grounded users and specifically designed platforms. Though the
data itself, as with any data collected around social media, dates itself rather quickly,
this notion of identity as a negotiation between various actors, human and nonhuman, holds a number of compelling implications and challenges for how we
define and understand identity. With this in mind, this chapter aims to begin the
work of laying out a new theoretical framework for understanding identity which
incorporates the ongoing negotiations present in online actions and interactions. In
this manner, though discussions of social media are inevitably bound to a specific
moment in time (the character limit on Twitter, e.g. has doubled since the interviews
were conducted), it is hoped that the framework here provides a contribution to
thinking about our online actions and interactions that is far more durable. In order
to do so, this chapter will start by first exploring how identity has traditionally been
theorised.
Identity is such a frequently used term that it has become ambiguous and heterogeneous and perhaps even over-utilised. Despite the diversity and extensiveness of
literature discussing the concept of identity, or perhaps because of the breadth of
this research, researchers have suggested that it is still a concept that is poorly
understood and frequently under-conceptualised (Buckingham 2008). Yet identity is
a topic that nonetheless is particularly pertinent given the rise and proliferation of
social media, and the evident connections between social media and identity, with
platforms seemingly serving as spaces through which we can perform and present
ourselves to an audience (boyd 2014; Kietzmann et al. 2011).
Though common parlance and certain fields of research (such as psychology)
tend to focus explicitly upon identity as an internal notion, for the purposes of this
framework and research, we will focus less of identity as understood from an inner
understanding of self-conceptualisation (Rogers 1961) and instead focus on the
ways in which user identity is actualised and how it is realised and expressed externally. As such, the approach towards identity will be focusing upon social performances, social actions, and social interactions, given for and to a variety of audiences
(Goffman 1959). These social identities will be considered as negotiated in, and
emerging from, a variety of social media platforms, though crucially, as discussed
in the last chapter, not always resulting in content production. In the following sections of this chapter, therefore, I will focus on discussing definitions and theories of
identity that best relate to external expressions of identity. Following this, the chapter will move on to consider how best to account for the role of design in shaping
identity performances, looking at the issues raised by Actor-Network Theory
(Latour 2005) and Barad’s (2003, 2007) work in agential realism, before considering how the ideas raised in the field of Comic Book Studies can help address the
manner in which individual narratives of identity are created by the enmeshing of a
particular platform with an individual user.
6.2 Positioning Identity
119
6.2 Positioning Identity
As mentioned in the introduction, within the field of sociology, the focus of identity
research generally shifts from relationship between self and identity towards a focus
on the relationship between identity and the social situations and settings in which
it is formed and enacted (Goffman 1959; Pearson 2009). However, there is still
much variation within this focus in regard to the conceptualisation of social identity.
Given the variety and breadth of the discussion surrounding the concept of identity,
this chapter cannot hope to fully discuss the ways in which identity has been conceptualized in sociology. It is worth noting however that sociological approaches
straddle ‘macro’ approaches (which understand identity as a broad cultural category
that is tantamount to the ongoing performed acts, attitudes, and behaviours of a
group of people) to more ‘micro’ approaches (which focus upon identity as an individual response to a given situation), as well as approaches which attempt to disrupt
this dichotomy to understand the interplay between broad categories and individual
variations. It is worth noting here that the approach detailed in this chapter positions
itself towards an understanding of identity as a malleable performance, responsive
to context and yet still informed by socio-cultural resources and experiences. As
discussed in the previous chapter, given the importance of design features in shaping how our identities manifest online, there is a need to consider identity as malleable and bound to specific locations, not just the result of consistent exposure to
broad social groups. It is equally true though that through also highlighting the
social and often group-based nature of online actions and interactions, we can begin
to explore the ways in which our identity is drawn from our understanding of, and
exposure to, the social situation around us, and not just the physical spaces we interact within. An approach towards identity is needed that positions identity as a complex, and crucially, malleable and responsive performance, specific and adaptive to
the setting in which the social interactions take place, and able to account for individual variation, whilst still acknowledging the impact socio-cultural experiences,
histories, and resources have on how we approach any given social situation. In
order to build such an approach, this chapter will begin by drawing upon an understanding of identity from the dramaturgical approach of Erving Goffman (1959).
The word identity comes from the Latin root idem, meaning ‘the same’, yet identity is often viewed as a sign of independence and difference, a consistent point of
reference that makes each of us somehow unique. Whilst many theories around
identity lean into the idea of a consistent, often singular identity (Jenkins 2014),
Goffman and his work in dramaturgical identity subverts this to look at the existence
of multiple malleable identities consisting of external performances given in and as
a response to specific locations and situations. In essence, Goffman suggests we, as
performers of identity, choose appropriate social cues, actions, and interactions to
taper and adapt for different settings and audiences. Crucially, rather than focusing
upon a consistent identity as the unit of measurement against an inner notion of self,
Goffman’s approach here suggests instead we treat identity as a variable, responsive
to, and appropriate for, any given situation. In his key text, The Presentation of Self
120
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
in Everyday Life, Goffman (1959) argues that the primary focus of analysis should
be upon interactions and exchanges between the performer and an audience.
Goffman defines and discusses identity performances as ‘all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period…before a set of observers and which has some
influence on the observers’ (Goffman 1959, 32). The key component here is the
notion of audience. For Goffman, identity performance was something that occurred
before, in response to, and for an audience; performers give their performances for
the audience in order to influence them in some manner. The audience play a part in
the performance by providing feedback, by judging the authenticity of the performance, and by providing the frame by which the performer approached the performance (Goffman 1959). This also allows for the ongoing adaptation of the specific
identity performance, as Goffman suggested that performances proceed in line with
the feedback provided by the audience. For Goffman then, identity is socially created and crucially is plural, changeable, and responsive to a given location and audience (Brissett and Edgley 2005; Tseëlon 1992). This approach therefore provides a
useful frame when considering, as the approach detailed in this chapter aims to, the
effect of a given situation on social actions and interactions, in that it allows for a
view of identity that situationally bound, socially contingent, and malleable. Indeed,
in research into social media and identity presentation, Goffman’s work has proven
useful to explore the ways in which users respond to the specific situations of social
media including considerations of specific features such as location check-ins
(Bertel 2016) or privacy feature (Tufekci 2008), to broader considerations of social
media as a space for ‘playful’ audience-focused identity work (Pearson 2009;
Bullingham and Vasconcelos 2013), and the collaborative nature of the construction
of an ongoing identity online (Marwick and boyd 2011).
Goffman’s crucial ontological shift is in the focus of his analysis, which is upon
the performances themselves as units for evaluation and not upon the individual as
a performer of identity. Whilst other approaches, such as Symbolic interactionism
(Stryker 1980), conceive of identity as multiple and adaptive, Goffman’s work ranks
a successful performance against how far it deviates from a ‘core’ self but how successful it is for that social situation (Gonos 1977). In this manner, Goffman’s positioning negates criticisms of an identity performances given for an audience as
‘inauthentic’ (Gouldner 1970), instead questioning the notion of what could be considered authentic through proposing that any performance is judged every time by a
potentially different audience. The multiple and fluid nature of identity performance
that is the focus of Goffman’s work does not mean that identity performance is
inauthentic, or deceitful, but merely that it is adaptive to the social situation as is
necessary (see Bertel 2016 for an example of this in practice in social media
research). A successful performance is not subject to a value judgement of authenticity in this manner but is co-constructed by the audience and the actor. A performance is successful if it has met the needs of the audience and if it is appropriate for
the social situation in which it is performed, not if it is consistent against a base
level. In this manner, Goffman largely avoids commenting upon actual ‘self’ identity (or as he termed it, ‘ego identity’ [Goffman 1968]), which he raises only to
highlight his work as a separate issue, joined ostensibly through the use of the same
6.2 Positioning Identity
121
nomenclature (See Burns 1992; Clarke 2008). Despite criticism, Goffman’s
approach does not claim to discuss or account for the entire experience or notion of
identity. This was something Goffman acknowledged more explicitly later in his
writing beyond the seminal ‘the presentation of self’, moving past the rather broad
understanding of identity performance as the oft-cited ‘all the activity of a given
participant’ (Goffman 1959, 26), to instead acknowledge later that: ‘a performance,
in the restricted sense in which I shall now use the term, is that arrangement which
transforms an individual into a stage performer’ (Goffman 1974, 124). In this manner, Goffman attempts to understand more clearly a specific aspect of identity,
namely, how we adapt our presentations for the given social situation. To avoid
confusion and in order to draw focus towards the performative nature of identity
examined in the data presented in the previous chapter, the framework built here
will use the term ‘identity performance’ in order to discuss the performance of
social actions and interactions within given social situation and acknowledge that
this is a curation of appropriate actions and interactions, not a core notion of self.
Goffman’s approach to identities as such positions them as ‘fluid’. They are not
fixed, isolated, or self-contained but are instead fragmented, multiple, heterogeneous, socially bound, and adaptable. Whilst such an approach therefore lacks consideration of where the skill resources to conduct such performances come from,
Goffman’s approach does present a usable framework for considering the effects of
situation upon variations in performances of identity, a useful starting place when
understanding social media design impacts our actions and interaction. For the purpose of the framework being built in this chapter, this key differentiation provides a
useful frame to consider how identity performances, and thereby social actions and
interactions, are given for a particular situation, with the social situations viewed as
the catalyst for the given identity performance. Goffman’s focus upon malleability
in terms of how we act and interact in social situations seems particularly suited to
contemporary online interactions as researchers have observed users with multiple
changeable and adaptable identity performances aimed at and for the increasing
variety of changeable audiences and platforms online (Abidin 2016; Davis 2016). It
is suggested that ‘the reality of users’ lived experiences is that most users incorporate multiple platforms into their communication practices in order to access the
people and networks they desire to influence’ (Zhao et al. 2016, 89). This can lead
to a wider variety of situationally bound performances online.
Nonetheless, it is apparent from the data presented in the last chapter that, beyond
the effect of audience alone, there is a need to acknowledge the role of non-human
elements in informing and shaping how identity emerges. Whilst Goffman astutely
considers how an individual performs to an audience, it is clear that ‘audience’ can
be a looser topic online. The specific situations presented online raise some issues
in terms of how users present themselves to multiple audiences and how users deal
with the shifting multiple identity performances. Varis and Blommaert (2015), for
example, note that the growth of viral social media posts online suggests that social
actors cannot often account for all possible audiences online, leading to augmentations in content and a potentially diverse conception of audiences. Similar
122
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
observations have been made in regard to ‘context collapse’ and multiple converging audiences online, as discussed in Chap. 4 of this book.
Further to this, whilst Goffman’s work allows for a consideration of how identity
is responsive and specific to situation, it crucially doesn’t look at the role of the
design of that situation in shaping the identity performances. Goffman does note
that we choose appropriate social cues, actions, and interactions for different settings and audiences but does not overtly consider in any detail that this choice is not
boundless, made instead from the available options within that location. To extend
Goffman’s analogy of identity performances, whilst the audience certainly does
shape how an actor performs, so to do the props and staging available to the actor.
As highlighted in the data presented in the last chapter, this is a particularly important factor to account for. Indeed, Richey, Ravishankar, and Coupland (2016) note
that the changeable nature of identity can be potentially problematic in certain situations online when situational cues are misread, leading to inappropriate posts
which can damage identity impressions, highlighting that ‘technology-enabled
interactions don’t constitute a perfect situation where performers can access a full
range of social cues’ (Richey et al. 2016, 604). Others have similarly highlighted
design choices such as asynchronicity as factors that may affect how we choose to
present ourselves online for a range of audiences (Hogan 2010). The effect of design
and technological factors is a theme that we will return to later in this chapter when
we discuss Actor-Network Theory and other theoretical frames that help unpack the
effects of design, but it is apparent here that whilst Goffman’s work can aid a consideration in terms of how the audience co-constructs identity performances, his
framework does not fully account for the effects of the design and the layout of the
stage in and upon which the performances take place. It also crucially provides
little-­to-no attempt to unpack identity beyond performed social action, an issue that,
as highlighted in the previous chapter, needs to be considered given that research
suggests the majority of users utilise social media for more than just content production alone (Barnes 2015). Nonetheless, the dramaturgical approach appears particularly useful for the flexible nature of online interactions as it holds that we must
view identity as multiple, changeable, and performative, with the emphasis of analysis upon the responsiveness to the situation.
As such, and following the work of Goffman, the new framework presented at
the end of this chapter frames identity as malleable and adaptive to the specific situation and environment in which it emerges but additionally aims to account for how
the design of this situation affects the specific performances that emerge. Evidently
a number of other factors must be accounted for when considering why users of
social media interact and act in the manner they do online. We will begin by considering socio-cultural factors more fully, beyond the narrow framing which Goffman’s
focus on situation allows. To do so, this chapter will now move on to consider post-­
structuralism (Foucault 1977), an approach towards understanding social structures
and situations that are often combined with Goffman’s work when considering
interactions both online and offline, before moving on to consider how best to
account for the role of the physical design of the staging upon our social actions and
interactions.
6.3
Accounting for Socio-cultural Resources and Experiences in Identity Performances
123
6.3 Accounting for Socio-cultural Resources and Experiences
in Identity Performances
Given the notion that identity performance can be thought of as fluid and changeable through the use of the dramaturgical model, the question then becomes, what
changes identity performances? For Goffman the answer to this question was that it
was audience, and in particular the individual performer’s conceptualisation of that
audience, that changed how individuals approach and shape identity performances.
For Foucault, however, the concept of social influences on behaviour was broader
than the given audience in any situation and was purposefully homophonous. At its
heart, Foucault work argued that our knowledge and definition of the world around
us were not arbitrary and static but rather purposeful, flexible, and worthy of interrogation. Inspired by Kant’s attempts to present the reality of the world around us
(noumenon) as a separate notion from how we thought of the world (phenomenon),
Foucault’s work considered how our knowledge of the world around us could be a
method of social control or of social power (see Hendricks 2008). Foucault thus
suggested that the manner in which we understand and know the social world
around us, and thus how we act and interact within that world, is informed by the
intimate and constantly shifting relationship between ‘power’ and ‘knowledge’, a
topic upon which much has been written. To briefly (perhaps glibly) summarise
Foucault’s work around the relationship between power and knowledge, Foucault
focus in his work was exploring how our understanding of the world was constructed and maintained, what this construction revealed about those who work to
maintain this particular knowledge of the world, and how these constructed conceptions of the world work to maintain certain social ideals and standards (Miller
1990). Foucault’s work has been used to argue that these constructed categorisations
of the world around us (or Discourses as Foucault termed them) serve to shape how
we know, approach, and experience society and that in turn these constructions
often serve to enforce and maintain the claims to power of those within the structures of power, allowing them again in turn to maintain their control of discursive
knowledge. This relationship between power and knowledge was, for Foucault,
cyclical; knowledge maintained and legitimised the power structures, which in turn
controlled and constrained knowledge. In this manner, Discourses extended beyond
statements of fact to ways of ‘systematically construct the subjects and the worlds
of which they speak’ (Lessa 2006, 283).
Discourses then are socially constructed and reveal the ideological beliefs and
social expectations of a period in time; they define, control, and become an accepted
and often normalised way of acting, looking, thinking, knowing, and speaking about
a subject at a given moment in time (see Rowse 2005). Importantly, Discourses then
are not only our way of knowing, understanding, and framing the world; they also
work to shape our experiences, actions, and interactions within the world (Pennycook
1994). As Miller and Fox (1997, 36) argue, Discourse shapes possibilities which
people ‘use in conducting their everyday activities and interactions’. Further to this,
and importantly for this research, this means Discourses can also manifest
124
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
themselves in the physical world around us and can be conceptualised as emerging
in visual and spatial forms (Richardson and Jensen 2003). Though Foucault never
provided an analysis of space himself, he acknowledged the importance of considering the design of spaces, noting: ‘A whole history remains to be written of spaces–
which would at the same time be the history of powers’ (Foucault 1980, 149).
Foucault provided an example of this in his work on the penal system, and in particular the much-discussed Panopticon, a system designed by Jeremy Bentham in
the late eighteenth century to maximise surveillance and to elicit compliant behaviour in prisoners who were always potentially monitored from a centralised tower
around which the cells were located. Whilst Foucault largely used this as a metaphor for the self-regulation and internalisation of power’s gaze which manifests in
compliant behaviour (Foucault 1977), evidently the physical design of a Panopticon
holds power beyond metaphor. Physical spaces can embody Discourses and can be
used to enforce and reinforce certain behaviours, social actions, interactions, and
power structures (Crampton and Elden 2007). As Markus and Cameron (2002, 16)
argue, ‘the constructions of reality which are made apparent in Discourse will very
often be apparent in the way a building organises space’. This has been noted by a
number of researchers in buildings such as shopping malls (Voyce 2006) and libraries (Radford 1992) and through features such as spikes placed on pavements to
discourage rough sleeping by people experiencing homelessness (Dee 2015).
Spaces then, as Foucault (1977, 148) argued, ‘are at once architectural, functional,
and hierarchical’. The same can be seen as being true of social media platforms,
which in their design may suggest certain emphasise and prioritise certain manners
of acting and interacting through design.
A Foucauldian understanding of Discourse can therefore help understand the
ways in which power is expressed and people, actions, identities, spaces, and practises are defined and governed. This can be critical to an understanding of identity
using Goffman’s dramaturgical frame, as Discourses can be seen as informing and
shaping the manners and methods through which individuals are interacting
(Hacking 2004) and can frame the performer’s and audiences’ understanding of
appropriate identity performances and social conventions (Bordo 1993). Regarding
identity, Foucault suggests:
The individual is not to be conceived as a sort of elementary nucleus, a primitive atom, a
multiple and inert material on which power comes to fasten or against which it happens to
strike… In fact, it is already one of the prime effects of power that certain bodies, certain
gestures, certain Discourses, certain desires, come to be identified and constituted as individuals. The individual, that is, is not the vis-a-vis of power; it is I believe, one of its prime
effects. (Foucault 1980, 98)
Here Foucault is arguing that there is no core inherent human characteristic that
controls our social interactions and identity performances. Instead, human actions,
interactions, and identity performances are a product of the existing Discourses they
are exposed to and are a product of their society at any given time. In a similar manner to Goffman, Foucault throws into question the notion of a singular core identity
or self, instead attempting to understand why it is we believe there is a self. Through
this line of questioning, Foucault comes to the conclusion that the self is the result
6.3
Accounting for Socio-cultural Resources and Experiences in Identity Performances
125
of the social spaces and situations an individual finds him or herself in and the
Discourses they are exposed to. In essence, Foucault manages to account for the
socio-cultural positioning of the individual in regard to how they approach and
realise social action and interaction.
Given this positioning, it is easy to see the overlap between Goffman and
Foucault. It is through this understanding of identity and human interaction that we
can begin to see how the Discourses we are exposed to will make a difference in
how we frame our social actions and interactions (Hacking 2004). Indeed, Goffman
states ‘when the individual presents himself before others, his performance will
tend to incorporate and exemplify the officially accredited values of society’
(Goffman 1959, 45). We can also consider how Discourses are manifested in our
actions and interactions given and chosen for specific audiences, reinforcing their
normalcy and claims to legitimacy. Indeed, Goffman also states our social interactions ‘establish the means of categorising persons and the complement of attributes
felt to be ordinary and natural for members of each of these categories’ (Goffman
1968, 503). We can also begin to consider that if Discourses manifest themselves in
the physical layout and design of the world around us, then the design of the social
spaces and technologies around us can also influence how we are able to act and
interact socially. Goffman and Foucault however provide no framework to specifically examine the design of social spaces upon the manner in which we socially act
and interact, and as such, a further shift is needed towards a framework that purposefully examines the identity performances that come from the enmeshing of
design with socio-cultural and discursively bound individuals. In this vein, other
research has combined Foucault and Goffman to consider how online interaction is
negotiated, constrained, and shaped by a number of factors (Rymarczuk 2015;
Westlake 2008). Willett (2008), for example, unpacks the manner in which agency
and power are negotiated online and notes, for example, the trend of girls dressing
virtual dolls that ‘positions girls as sexual, as needing to be skinny, and as constant
consumers of fashion and accessories’ (Willett 2008, 49). She concludes by suggesting that ‘that young people’s online identities must be viewed not only in terms
of active engagement, but also in relation to the structures which frame those activities’ (Willett 2008, 65).
Through drawing on both Goffman and Foucault, we are able here to begin to
frame how an individual’s action and interactions within a given environment are
guided by their socio-cultural background and exposure to Discourses, as well as by
the specific situation in which they find themselves. This is especially pertinent for
the research being presented here given that Discourses are also physically and
spatially grounded and specific, with design drawing on and enforcing specific
aspects of offline and pre-existing, as we discussed in Chap. 4 of this book. As
Couldry suggests, when considering interactions within a space we must acknowledge ‘the spatially specific accumulations of “constraints” and “coercions” on
action that flow from human life being lived in coordination or competition with
others’ (Couldry 2012, 26–27). By this, Couldry suggests that our actions and interactions within a space are often constrained and guided by a number of accumulated
factors specific to that location. A reading of the Internet as a space for social
126
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
interaction can therefore consider how our actions and interactions are coerced and
constrained within a given environment, both through broad socio-culturally bound
Discourses and through the specific restrictions of the immediate environment.
Different spaces and sites can be considered as emphasising different Discourses
and methods of socializing (Dyer 2015), meaning that platforms must be considered
in an individual and specific manner whilst still accounting for the user’s understanding of, and expose to, larger social structures, powers, and Discourses. As
Hook (2005) suggests, researcher utilising Foucault’s work should attempt to consider what make ‘certain acts, statements and subjects possible at certain specific
locations’ (Hook 2005, 10).
As such a framework is needed that allows for the impact of specific location
design along with a potentially deeper understanding of both the systemic structures
and logics of the particular media culture. Foucault and Goffman both provide a
useful starting point for such a framework, but in order to understand the importance of location beyond the audience-focused framing of Goffman, a further theoretical turn is needed. Given this, this chapter will now move on to look at how best
to account for the effects of the specific platforms upon, in, and through which
identity performances emerge, first considering if and how Goffman can be used to
account for and conceptualise the notion of space and place.
6.4 Accounting for the Role of ‘Staging’ and ‘Props’
in Identity Performances
Whilst we have so far in this chapter accounted for the manner in which identity can
be framed as a situationally specific response to an audience (Goffman 1959) and
grounded in the socio-cultural exposure of the performer (Foucault 1980), there is a
need to account for the manner in which identity performance is affected by the
physical reality and design of the specific situation, not just enacted upon it. One of
Goffman’s key papers on the subject of social analysis was entitled ‘The Neglected
Situation’ (Goffman 1964). Though he was talking about the subject of the analysis
of face-to-face interactions against other methods of communication, this title aptly
sums up his neglectful treatment of the role of the physical setting in identity performance. Whilst Goffman accounted for the effects of the audience upon a performance, he did not adequately account for other aspects that may affect the
performance of identity, particularly, as Bullingham and Vasconcelos (2013) point
out, aspects that have arisen since the rise of social media. Research suggests that
the physical settings in which identity performances take place impact and shape a
given performance and that physical spaces provide a variable range of props to
potentially amplify, minimize, or extend aspects of our identity performance (Gieryn
2000; Huot and Rudman 2010). With this in mind, the framework presented in this
chapter is keen to extend Goffman’s ideas on the performative nature of identity to
not only consider the effects of the audience upon a situationally specific
6.4
Accounting for the Role of ‘Staging’ and ‘Props’ in Identity Performances
127
performance of identity by a socio-culturally grounded actor but to also account for
the effects of the specific ‘staging’ and ‘props’ available to the actor. In this analogy,
‘staging’ can best be thought of as the physical design and layout of the spaces in
which performers are acting and interacting, and ‘props’ can be thought of as the
tools, modes, and accoutrement made available to the actors to aid and shape the
performances in a variety on manners.
Goffman was however aware of the potential impact of situation upon identity
performances and did acknowledge and account for the presence of staging and
props in a performance. In particular, Goffman acknowledged the role of ‘setting’
which he defined as including ‘furniture, décor, and physical layout’ (Goffman
1959, 32). For Goffman, however, these objects merely served as tools through
which the performer could augment, supplement, and reinforce their performance,
rather than objects that were a part of the performance in their own right. In
Goffman’s framing, an actor chooses props and tools to serve their performance,
with interaction between performer and setting being a one-way relationship of a
performer using props. Goffman presents the performer therefore as being in control over the objects and space around them, rather than viewing identity performance as arising from the interplay between staging and performer. Critically,
Goffman does not continue on to acknowledge that these props that the actor
chooses from are often not limitless but are also often situationally specific (Stroud
et al. 2016), can vary from location to location much like audiences, and could be
chosen for the performer (Perinbanayagam 1990).
Nowhere is this more overtly clear than in online social space, where restrictive
and purposeful framings of what it means to be social can be seen. Some platforms
purposefully limit the choice of props, for example, Twitter’s character limit (Gilpin
2010) or Snapchat’s use of image filters (Chopra-Gant 2016). As such, online users
do not have a limitless range of props to utilise but a curated set from which to
choose. As Bennett and Bennett (1981: 18) stated, ‘all social interaction is affected
by the physical container in which it occurs’. That the actor chooses the props then
is only partially true; the actor chooses the props from those available to them in the
particular setting they find themselves. This is a crucial difference that this work
aims to overtly account for in order to understand the effects of design upon our
actions and interactions on a platform-by-platform basis.
Law and Moser (1999) further attempt to complicate the relationship between
actors and props, highlighting that we should not so quickly draw a division between
people and props and that the relationship between these aspects should not be considered a one-way relationship. They note that:
Goffman’s division between people and props – which is also one built into much social and
organisational analysis as well as common sense – insists that it is people who act rather
than objects. But in our way of thinking…the division does not work and the division
between people and their surroundings has become blurred. (LLaw & Moser 1999, 253)
The turn signalled in this quote, a turn towards accounting for the agency of non-­
human ‘actants’ in shaping the social around us, is a still contentious issue within
sociology, and one which continues to progress alongside the growth in frameworks
128
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
such as Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which I discuss in more detail below.
Interestingly, this divide seems less problematic in other schools such as Geography
which, for example, note that ‘public urban space has a mixed character as a concrete abstraction, as a product, and as a producer’ (Lehtovuori 2005, 151). It is readily apparent here though that the relationship between props and actors is not as
clear-cut as Goffman holds it to be. Goffman’s failure to account meaningfully for
the impact of setting upon identity performances is particularly noticeable given the
detail and precision with which he thoroughly analyses and approaches the complex
relationship between performer and audience. For the purpose of the work presented in this chapter, the same detail and scrutiny will be applied to the relationship
between the performer and the ‘staging/props’, with the relationship positioned as
two-way and with identity performances seen as emerging in part from the interplay
between social actor and the specific location in which they are performing.
If we are to consider the role of design in producing and mediating specific identity performances, a theoretical framework is needed that accounts for how humans
interact with, in, and through specific social spaces. Much like the subject of identity, this has been considered in a range of ways which we do not have space within
a chapter to cover in enough depth. These include the work of Lefebvre (1991), who
adopted a Marxist positioning to consider social spaces as continually evolving
realms that emerge conceptually through the interaction between the manner in
which space is conceived by designers, the manner in which it is co-opted conceptually by the users of that space, and the spatial practises that happened within that
space. Such an approach allows for a consideration of the stylised and purposeful
presentations and choices made by designers but nonetheless relies heavily upon the
interpretation of the researcher to presume the ideals and intent of the designer of a
social space without any proposed method of verification (see Goonewardena et al.
2008). Arguably what is important is not how the researcher conceives of the designers’ intent but how those who use the social spaces conceive of it and how they
subsequently negotiate and interact in these spaces (Unwin 2000). This is astutely
demonstrated recently in Ditchfield’s (2020) work examining the processes social
media users engage in before posting content online. Lefebvre provides no solution
to this problem as his focus is upon the abstract concept of space across many levels
rather than the users’ experiences (Stewart 1995). Further to this, Lefebvre focus is
upon space as an abstract, and not, as is needed here, a understanding of the physicality of space. Indeed, subsequent theories have attempted to show that the separation of the conceptual and physical realm is problematic, unnecessary, and often
ineffectual (Latour 2005).
Other approaches towards understanding the role of the physical non-human in
shaping human action and interactions can be found in the works of Marshall
McLuhan and the Toronto School of Communication Theory in the field of media
studies, most well-known arguably for coining the aphorism ‘the medium is the
message’ (McLuhan 1964). Using this aphorism, McLuhan argued that media studies should focus less upon the messages being communicated through media and
more upon the medium through which they are being sent, positing that the adoption of new mediums of communication changed ‘the scale and form of human
6.4
Accounting for the Role of ‘Staging’ and ‘Props’ in Identity Performances
129
association and action’ (McLuhan 1964, 9) and, as such, the focus of analysis
should be upon ‘the physical and social consequences of the designs or patterns as
they amplify or accelerate existing processes’ (McLuhan 1964, 24). McLuhan’s
approach here however is notably one direction, focusing upon how technology
impacts humans without an acknowledgement of ‘the user’s ability to exert control
over content’ (Nash 2012, 199). The data presented in the previous chapters suggests an approach is needed that understands how the participants’ socio-cultural
backgrounds shape how they contextualise, understand, and interact in, on, and with
technology, as well as considering how technology is shaping their social actions
and interactions online. Rather than focusing on and prioritising either the medium
or the message, an approach is needed that focuses upon the relationship between
the medium and the message.
Actor-Network Theory (or ANT [Latour 2005]) appears to offer a happy medium
between Lefebvre’s largely conceptual approach to the effects of design and
McLuhan’s overly deterministic approach towards the effects technology can have
upon our actions and interactions. Despite being somewhat notoriously (perhaps
purposefully) difficult to fully summarise, and, as Latour (2005, 9) himself suggests, having ‘a name that is so awkward, so confusing, so meaningless that it
deserves to be kept’. It is not a unified theory as such (as Latour himself noted [see
Latour 1999]) but rather as an epistemological positioning that situates the non-­
human as an impactful and impactive element in creating reality. ANT offers a useful conceptualisation of the social beyond just a result of human action and
interaction (Sayes 2014). Instead, ANT frames the social as a specific manifestation
that emerges from the interactions between specific users with their own socio-­
cultural resources and specific non-human features and affordances (Law 1999;
Mützel 2009). It is from the ongoing enmeshing of the human and non-human factors that a locationally specific manifestation of the social is realised. Rather than
approaching technology as impacting all users in the same manner, ANT considers
how individual and situated users are interacting with specific mediums to create a
socio-technical reality in unique manners (Latour 2005). Despite being a relatively
new sociological theory, ANT has proven widely popular as an ontological turn
towards a consideration of the non-human in the formation and ongoing creation of
the social, with Latour, Callon, and Law, along with researchers from a broad array
of fields such as urban studies (Farías and Bender 2010), maritime studies (Dolwick
2009), geography (Bosco 2006), and education (Fenwick and Edwards 2010) using
the approach to detail various complex socio-technical realities. Through this work,
ANT attempts to purposefully invert the idea that the physical, natural, and technological worlds are passive realms that humans effect to instead look at how the
human and the physical realms affect one another, in turn presenting a bidirectional
approach to the relationship between humans and technology. From an ANT perspective, to butcher McLuhan’s words, the medium is also part of the message.
ANT at its core attempts to break down long-standing dichotomies between realism and objectivism (Mützel 2009). It starts from the position of dealing with many
of the criticisms raised in previous sociological theory by entwining human elements, social categories, and Discourses with the non-human: the natural, the
130
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
physical world of things, and the design of bodies, technologies, artefacts, and so
on. In this regard, the focus of analysis often falls upon the artefacts that emerge
from the specific entwining of these disparate elements within a specific given
locale. Rather than positing social actions, interactions, and effects as something
that happens upon the realm of the non-human, ANT argues that the social emerges
from the intertwining of the human and non-human (Murdoch 1998). This is perhaps best summed up by Fenwick and Edwards (2010, 3. Emphasis in original text):
Actor-Network Theory examines the associations of human and non-human entities in the
performance of the social, the economic, the natural, the educational, etc. The objective is
to understand precisely how these things come together – and manage to hold together,
however temporarily – to form associations that produce agency and other effects: for
example, ideas, identities, rules, routines, policies, instruments, and reforms.
Latour’s work therefore aims to emphasise and reappropriate the realm of the
material in sociology in order to understand that the realm of the social does not
exist in a vacuum and is not the product of human action alone (Fenwick and
Edwards 2010; Mützel 2009). Crucially, as it pertains to Goffman, Latour argues
that objects should not be an afterthought or positioned as a separate realm upon
which social actions and interactions take place but that objects should be given
equal consideration with humans during analysis. As Law (1999, 2) suggests, ‘entities take their form and acquire their attributes as a result of their relations with
other entities’. Law argues that as such, the prioritising of human entities alone in
this equation, as has been traditionally prevalent in sociology, is largely questionable. This is often misconstrued in critiques of ANT as an undue placement of
agency upon the non-­human. Crucially, ANT is not suggesting that non-human
objects are afforded ‘intentionality’ in their ability to impact human actions and
interactions (Law 1999). They are not acting upon us with intent of forethought of
their own volition (Martin 2005), but intention or not, they still impact upon how we
can act and interact. This does not mean, as some have suggested (Collins and
Yearley 1992), that ANT means humans and non-humans must be considered equal
but that they must be equally considered. The focus that ANT provides is not to suggest that there are not differences between these elements but that we should
approach them with a ‘generalised symmetry’ (Callon 1984), to afford equal consideration to their potential roles in forming the world and the social. To emphasise
this need for generalised symmetry, ANT uses the term ‘actant’ to describe human
and non-human entities on the same level, rather than differentiating between them
(Callon 1986). Latour therefore defines actant as ‘something that acts or to which
activity is granted by another…an actant can literally be anything provided it is
granted to be the source of action’ (Latour 1996, 373).
Social entities can be considered at once actors and networks, in the sense that
they are able to impact upon and act within the world as actors but that they are
formed as locationally specific entities due to the enmeshing of many elements,
human and non-human (Fenwick and Edwards 2010). Hence, the duality presents at
the heart of the term ‘actor-network’ (Latour 2005). ANT attempts then to view
actor-networks both as actors that impact the world around them and as networks
6.4
Accounting for the Role of ‘Staging’ and ‘Props’ in Identity Performances
131
realised within the situation which they find themselves due to the relationship
between a number of materially heterogeneous elements (Law 1999; Latour 2005).
As they are the result of a number of interacting elements, both human and non-­
human, they are susceptible to potential changes in the formation of the network.
ANT holds therefore that such constructions cannot be assumed to be pre-given
(Whittle and Spicer 2008) but are instead negotiated in an ongoing manner between
many heterogeneous elements specific to that given situation (Latour 2005) and are
not immune from deconstruction; they are at all times potentially unstable (Latour
1999). Importantly for this research, each enmeshing of these elements is locationally specific and emerges from the specific iteration of non-human and human present in that location (Latour 2005). In other words, ‘entities achieve their form as a
consequence of the relations in which they are located’ (Law 1999, 4). Thus ANT
allows for a much-needed move away from understanding the social as solely
human and instead offers a consideration of the physical world’s role in the creation
and formation of specific iterations of ‘the social’. As Kowert, Domahidi, and
Quandt (2016, 5) highlight, ‘Recognising the unique characteristics of different
mediated, social spaces is key to understanding what role these different social services play in our everyday lives’.
ANT’s positioning therefore continues Foucault’s line of enquiries into the construction of the world we inhabit, taking an anti-essentialist, relational stance to
observe the world but importantly looking at these constructions beyond just the
sole lens of ‘Discourse’ to acknowledge the very real and impactful role of the
material world. As Vis (2009, 116) puts it, ANT looks ‘beyond language to all entities’ to position discursive formations as one of many elements that might affect
how reality emerges within a specific location at a given time. In this manner, ANT
attempts to view society as a ‘thick, rich, layered and complex matter’ (Latour 1996,
373). Therefore, ANT can be considered as decentralising the object (Law 2002),
following on from the post-structuralist turn of Foucault and others which aimed to
de-centre the human subject. If, as post-structuralism holds, subjects can be considered heterogeneous and fluid, ANT holds that objects can too (Latour 2005;
Pickering 1993). Objects can be considered fluid as the many actants that network
to create the object are heterogeneous and are in interaction with each other (Law
2009). Indeed, to further complicate the matter, and in an attempt to ontologically
move away from the anthropocentrism prevalent in sociology, ANT holds that nothing can truly be assumed or considered a complete and separate actant, free from the
input and influence of any other actant (Law 1999). Instead everything must be
deconstructed, evaluated, and considered to understand how it has come to be the
way it is and how it impacts the world around it (Latour 2005).
Given this, ANT potentially provides a useful frame to continue to work of
Goffman and consider identity performances. Using ANT, not only can we consider
how the audience effects the identity performances present, but we can also deconstruct and consider the many other elements of the location-specific performance,
including non-human ‘staging’ and ‘props’. Indeed, using ANT as an identity performance can be seen as both a network of human and non-human elements, working together to create the specific identity performance being performed, and also as
132
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
an actor itself in even larger aspects of the specific social situation. Or, as Law
(2009, 147) suggests, ‘people are relational effects that include both the human and
the nonhuman’. These relational effects can be seen as continually under progress
or as Callon (1987, 93) puts it:
Reducible neither to an actor alone nor to a network…An actor-network is simultaneously
an actor whose activity is networking heterogeneous elements and a network that is able to
redefine and transform what it is made of.
Whilst ANT provides a useful frame to consider identity presentation beyond the
human alone, ANT is somewhat focused upon tracing the networks that enmesh and
not necessarily upon the ongoing effects of this enmeshed actor-network. ANT, in
the vein of Foucault and others, focuses a gaze on the past to understand the construction of the present. Through this focus, the meaning and effects of these locationally specific social actor-networks are not fully explored in ANT. In essence,
ANT is concerned with the construction of specific actor-networks, not the effect of
them. Whilst ANT does provide some consideration for how this actor-network then
acts as a constructed whole in a social situation (in particular through a consideration of what Callon 1991 terms ‘punctualisation’), the work built in this book aims
to account more closely for how identity is formed through the enmeshing of human,
inhuman, and non-human elements and crucially to explore the boundaries and
actions that constitute a given identity performance. This means providing a framework for understanding the boundaries of identity going forward: how social actors
are perceived and constrained within a given location, how they are able to act and
interact within that space, how they are supposed to act and interact within that
space, and how these boundaries are negotiated, perceived, and potentially challenged by the individual user. To examine and understand the importance of the
boundaries of an actor-network and the restrictions these can place upon how an
actor-network can thus act and interact within any given space, a further discussion
is needed, one which can be provided through the work of Karen Barad, presented
in the next section of this chapter.
It is worth mentioning here, before moving onto the work of Barad, that ANT can
be unendingly cyclical in nature, an aspect of ANT that can often make for a confusing logical spiral. The punctualised actor-networks can affect the actants that play a
role in creating it as an actor-network (Collins and Yearley 1992). Or, in other words,
an actant can be part of an actor-network and affected by that actor-network.
Latour’s approach at times therefore loses some of its impact in discussing specific
aspects as it far too often becomes lost in following infinite unending relations. Such
an approach has therefore been heavily criticised as lacking focus and prioritisation
(Castree 2002; Fine 2005), most noticeably and scathingly by Collins and Yearley
(1992), who suggest that the cyclical line of thinking leads ANT into an unanswerable epistemological ‘chicken and egg debate’. Indeed, utilising ANT as a usable
theory of analysis has proven noticeably tricky in sociology (see Walsham 1997), a
fact that Latour himself was aware of (Latour 1999, 2005). As Latour (1990, 121)
notes ‘explanation does not follow from description; it is description taken that
much further’. The concerns with using ANT as a theory may in part be due to the
6.5
Agential Realism and Agential Cuts: Accounting for the Narratives Paths Not…
133
fact that ANT is not a single theoretical perspective; it is more of an ontological
positioning that attempts to acknowledge the role of the non-human in social situations and provides a re-contextualisation of the realm of the social (Sayes 2014). As
such, it does not provide a framework through which the relationship between
humans, non-humans, and social Discourses and structures can be examined and
followed in an ongoing manner. Instead ANT merely reframes the focus of analysis
by stating that there is a relationship between these elements that should be
accounted for. Given this, a workable theoretical frame is needed that is informed
by the ontological concerns of materially heterogeneous consideration presented by
ANT but that presents a model through which the relationship between the human,
the non-human, and the Discursive can be examined. In order to progress such a
model, we will take one more theoretical turn towards agential realism (Barad 2003,
2007, 2011).
6.5 Agential Realism and Agential Cuts: Accounting
for the Narratives Paths Not Chosen
So far in this chapter, we have looked at identity as a social performance (Goffman
1959), considered the socio-cultural influences upon our contextualisation of social
interaction (Foucault 1977), and positioned identity performances as the ongoing
enmeshment of human and non-human elements (Latour 2005). One final theoretical brink is needed to further uncover identity as an ongoing materially heterogeneous identity performance before we begin to build the wall of a theoretical
framework to bring these elements together. The final brick here comes from the
compelling work of Karen Barad. Barad (2003) developed the notion of agential
realism in part as a response to the overly complicated view of endless relations and
self-fulfilling actor-networks proposed by ANT (Barad 2007; Simon 2015). Barad’s
approach still considers the way the social emerges from the enmeshing of locationally specific materially heterogeneous actants, but rather than ‘following the actor’
(Latour 2005) to observe all of the actants that form parts of continually unending
networks and actors, Barad’s focus is upon how we create the boundaries around
these materially heterogeneous elements to form an actor, what makes the boundaries of these actors specific to this locale (Dale and Latham 2015), and what these
boundaries mean for how we act and interact within a given social location
(Søndergaard 2013). Through this line of questioning, Barad aims to allow for considerations of how specific actor-networks have come to be through their relations,
what has been excluded and discarded from specific actor networks, and what constrains, confines, and defines the agency of the actor-network (Barad 2003; Shotter
2013). It is this shift towards a consideration of the process of emerging and the
boundaries constructed of the emerging actant that Barad highlights as crucial for an
understanding of reality (Barad 2011). She suggests therefore that ‘the world is an
ongoing open process of mattering through which ‘mattering’ itself acquires
134
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
meaning and form in the realization of different agential possibilities’ (Barad 2003,
817). Or put another way:
empirical claims do not refer to individually existing determinate entities, but to phenomena-­
in-­their-becoming, where becoming is not tied to a temporality of futurity, but rather it a
radically open relatingness of the world worlding itself. (Barad 2011, 148)
Barad refers to this relational entwining as ‘intra-activity’ (Barad 2003, 2007).
She purposefully uses the term intra-activity to distinguish from interactivity (see
Dyer 2016). For Barad, interaction suggests that two or more separate, pre-determined, and distinct entities are coming together to create a new entity, whereas
intra-action suggests that all entities emerge together through and with each other to
make and delineate specific iterations of entities (Marshall and Alberti 2014). It is
through this process of intra-action that boundaries of knowledge and power are
formed and enforced (Barad 2003).
As part of this fixation upon how we create materially diverse elements into
boundaried actors, Barad proposes that we should not only view the specific iterations of actors that are presented to us; we should also consider how they came to be
presented in that form (Højgaard et al. 2012; Juelskjaer 2013). That is, Barad proposes that we should also consider the detritus – that is lost and removed on the way
to the specific iteration of the social (Herzig 2004). Drawing on a wealth of feminist
literature, Barad asks for an engagement with the non-human in the social, suggesting that ‘agential cuts’ are made to determine and shape the boundaries of what can
act and interact within any local setting and what is considered a complete and
appropriate actor for that space (Barad 2011). Barad suggests we should pay attention to ‘agential cuts that produce determinate boundaries and properties of ‘entities’ within phenomena’ (Barad 2007, 148).
The approach here becomes more focused than ANT, whilst still acknowledging
the myriad heterogeneous elements that form a specific actor-network, so that the
focus is upon ‘agential cuts; cuts that constitute boundaries, categories and ‘properties’ of phenomena, cuts through which specific concepts and specific material–discursive reconfigurations of the world become meaningful’ (Juelskjaer 2013, 757).
Through agential cuts, we engage in the process of labelling and defining those
around us, creating and maintaining categories and boundaries to make sense of a
world of infinite relations. The object of enquiry becomes the practices and boundaries of the locationally specific material-discursive (Barad 2003), accounting not
just for the non-human in the construction of the social but also the role of
Foucauldian Discourse in shaping our engagement with the material world around
us. In this manner, Kaiser and Thiele (2014, 166) argue agential cuts are material-­
discursive negotiations which ‘co-constitute subjects, objects and the ongoing
pattern-­formations in which they/we participate’. Or, as Fenwick and Edwards
(2013) argue, ‘an agential cut is always a performance: the boundaries distinguishing knower, known and knowledge do not pre-exist the cut. Further, an agential cut
can only be performed in a local moment and place’ (Fenwick and Edwards 2013,
59). It is this essence of agential cuts creating locationally specific boundaried
wholes out of the enmeshing of materially heterogeneous elements and Discourses
6.5
Agential Realism and Agential Cuts: Accounting for the Narratives Paths Not…
135
that is crucial to Barad’s work. As Barad astutely puts it, ‘cuts cut “things” together
and apart’ (Barad 2007, 179). These cuts, rather than an endless web of relations,
provide a tangible consideration of how the social comes together in a given setting
through the meshing of Discourse, materials, and humans.
In order to adopt this consideration, Barad heads towards what could tentatively
be seen as a post-Actor-Network Theory, an approach that grounds its understanding heavily in the work of post-structuralists such as Foucault and Butler (Barad
2007) in that Barad’s approach acknowledges the power in naming and defining the
boundaries of specific realities, allowing a researcher to look at the manner in which
these boundaries are maintained and negotiated and how ‘knower, known, and
knowledge’ (Fenwick and Edwards 2013, 59) are formed from and around the
enmeshing of materially heterogeneous elements. Using agential cuts, Barad (2003,
2007) holds that assemblages also have ethical consequences and ethical implications as each specific iteration of an assemblage works to exclude or reduce other
iterations (Marshall and Alberti 2014). This works much in the way that Foucault
described the power of Discourses and the inherent links between power and knowledge; as Discourses become more and more accepted, and more ratified by institutions of power, alternate Discourses become ignored, removed, and even possibly
punished. The same is true of Barad’s assemblages, certain iterations become
expected and realised as truth though their proclivity and ubiquity, at the expense of
other iterations. However, Barad’s view of this is necessarily grounded in heterogeneous materiality. As Marshall and Alberti (2014, 27) put it:
Butler’s work, building on Foucault, interrogates the way regulatory regimes, particularly
norms, produce disciplined/ideal and therefore ‘normal’ bodies from the plurality of forms
taken by matter…For Barad, what is lacking in Butler and Foucault is a sense of how the
actual matter of bodies is inseparable from – and productive of – the on-going process of
their materialization.
This understanding plays a critical and crucial role in considering the design of
websites and how specific iterations of identity are guided and realised by and
through this design. We begin to see how design manifests ‘correct’ forms of interaction between humans and non-humans and how other aspects are discouraged,
frowned upon, or even banned. By accounting not only for the manifestations that
arise but also those that are not permitted to arise, Barad’s approach allows for a
consideration of how the dominant ideals maintain their claim to realism and maintain their power. We can also consider how subversive or antithetical assemblages
are dealt with, and we can begin to see how specific iterations are guided into being
in a ‘materially discursive’ manner (Barad 2003). Through the approaches seen in
this chapter so far then, we can begin to move towards considering identity a materially heterogeneous entity (Latour 2005), specific to a given location (Goffman
1959), that is defined and boundaried in a specific manner (Barad 2003), a manner
which limits and controls the action and agency of this ‘boundaried’ actor and situates its role within the given setting. It is how these boundaries are understood by
the performer that, as we saw in the data from the last chapter, provides insight into
how their identity performances are constrained and shaped in any given platform
136
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
and, crucially, provides insight into how the performer negotiates and challenges
these boundaried restrictions to create novel performances of identity. Whilst these
elements are present across the disparate theories presented so far in this chapter, I
would like to propose a way of bringing these ideas together to present a coherent
and flexible model for understanding identity performance as ongoing and locationally responsive material-discursive acts. In order to do so, we will take a turn towards
the realm of media studies to explore how narratives are co-constructed in comic
books. I believe that through the work being done in the field of Comic Book
Studies, we can see the parallels between the disparate perspectives presented in this
chapter and the manner in which narrative construction is understood in comic
books. In doing so, we will begin to build what I propose here as ‘comic theory’, a
theoretical framework for which positions identity as a co-constructed ongoing
material-discursive narrative.
6.6 Narratives in Comic Book Studies: Closure,
Intertextuality, and Extratextuality
Comic Book Studies is a field of studies that looks at how a narrative is formed
through the placement and processing of juxtaposed images (Dyer 2016; McCloud
1993). Comic Book Studies is a useful field that provides a workable model of the
relationship between materially heterogeneous elements that include human, non-­
human, and discursive elements that enmesh to create a cohesive, specific, and individual narrative. The focus is upon the co-construction of a narrative between
materially heterogeneous elements that include socio-culturally grounded humans,
complex multimodal non-human elements, and materially discursive elements.
When reading a comic book, the various elements of a comic form a narrative,
informed by the reader’s own socio-cultural background and experiences of other
texts in order to create a boundaried individual narrative (Bongco 2000) guided by
elements of design which may emphasise particular narrative readings and discourage others (Lefèvre 2011). In this manner, Comic Book Studies explores how a
completed user-specific narrative reading is formed and filled out by many parts
working together and impacting each other (McCloud 1993). The resultant narrative
of a comic is completed by an individual and stylised manner by each reader, but
this process of creating is guided and shaped by the media form itself, by the reader’s socio-cultural resources and experiences, and by the stylised design choices of
the authors (Chute and DeKoven 2006). I posit that by adapting the ideas presented
in Comic Book Studies, we can build an understanding of identity performances
that pay close, purposeful and detailed attention to the ways in which human, non-­
human, and discursive elements intra-act to create boundaried, socio-culturally
saturated, materially heterogeneous, locationally specific, ongoing, and individually
manifested narratives.
6.6
Narratives in Comic Book Studies: Closure, Intertextuality, and Extratextuality
137
It is important to highlight that Comic Book Studies, like many other fields of
media studies, is more than happy to expand the focus of study to consider elements
beyond just humans alone and is comfortable in not maintaining the divide between
human and non-human to instead embrace the reality that our perception of the
world is filtered through our interaction with the various material and non-human
elements around us. As Barad and Latour both suggest, this hang-up seems to be
uniquely maintained in sociological theory in ways that obscure our understanding
of the social significantly. Comic Book Studies astutely asks how narrative creation
is shaped and guided by various aspects such as page design, style, modal arrangements, shapes, sizes, and colours (Herman 2010), as well as considering the influence of the reader’s socio-cultural background and their experience of, and exposure
to, other media forms that they draw upon to understand and interpret a particular
comic book (McCloud 1993). Each reader’s constructed narrative is therefore
guided and influenced heavily by design, without which there would be no narrative
to emerge (Dittmer and Latham 2015), but the narrative is ultimately realised in a
personal, stylised, and particular individual manner. The reader understands, makes
sense of, and completes the comic book narrative through the concepts of closure,
intertextuality, and extratextuality (McCloud 1993). It is these concepts, expanded
upon below, that allow for and demand a consideration of design elements, socially
grounded contextualisation, and individual stylised agency to understand how an
individual narrative is reached. Comics offer us a distinct media form of study and
consideration in its own right – not quite art, not quite written narrative text
(McCloud 1993). But it is this interplay between text and image and the sequential
nature of comic books that has produced pertinent and useful questions for all media
forms, which help us understand the interplay between design aspects online.
McCloud (1993) defines comics as ‘juxtaposed pictorial and other images in
deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic
response in the viewer’ (McCloud 1993, 9). For our discussion of digital identity
performances, the important aspect of this definition is the idea of juxtapositioning
and of the deliberate sequencing of images and text within a space (Groensteen
2013). The fragmented nature of the images that appear in comics requires active
interaction and interpretation from the audience. The reader must make sense of the
design; they must continuously connect and interpret the individual graphic units
(or panels) provided by the authors of the comic and actively produce and make
sense of a narrative whole (Herman 2010). The reader is not only required to make
sense of the movement from one comic panel to the next but also understand its
place within the page and the larger comic and narrative (Berlatsky 2009).
The focus of Comic Book Studies then is to understand how the reader makes
sense of the design and interprets the panels and pages to create a narrative whole.
This narrative is guided by the design but is also open to interpretation and variation
by the reader, who, due to the juxtaposed nature of the images and text provided,
becomes involved in deciding exactly what happens between the panels, creating an
individual personal narrative, guided by themselves, the media form, and the author
(McCloud 1993). McCloud therefore posits that comic books ask the reader to play
an active role in creating a narrative but that their role is guided and shaped by the
138
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
design, the features of the images and texts, and the nature of the medium itself
(McCloud 1993). Some gaps between panels require more input from the reader
than other, thus requiring larger narrative leaps and assumptions on the part of the
reader (Groensteen 2013). McCloud (1993) suggests therefore that comics are a
highly and constantly participatory media form as the audience has to actively and
consistently be engaged in creating the narrative in order to make sense of the juxtaposed images they are provided with.
The images and design that are presented to the audience in comics only reveal
parts of the overall story; the audience is left to literally ‘fill in the gaps’ between
each image in order to create and make sense of a continuous narrative (Cohn 2013).
They are presented with a series of discrete images and have to create a continuous
whole from these images (Groensteen 2013). The act of creating a continuous whole
narrative out of the separated images the reader is presented with is known as ‘closure’ (McCloud 1993). The main space in which this closure is committed is the
area between the panels known as the ‘gutter’ (Groensteen 2013). However, it is
important to note here that closure can also happen within images and comic panels
as the audience attempts to make the image a fully realised whole. The gutter however represents the space where two separated pieces of text become one joint narrative, as the reader attempts to ‘connect the dots’ to create a continuous, unified
reality.
This act of closure can heavily involve the audience as they dissect and compile
the given information from panel to panel. The ‘gutter’ between the panels can be
seen as the space where human imagination comes into play; although comics
themselves are largely visual, in the gutter between the panels, the users are free to
engage and call upon all of their senses to fill in the gaps (McCloud 1993). Each
image acts as what Lessing (1766), who was discussing the effects of framing on
pieces of art, described as a ‘pregnant moment’, giving birth to a whole world that
is fleshed out by the reader. Closure is a useful term when considering how a narrative whole is created as it not only implies that the audience takes an active role in
creating the story but it also allows for a consideration of how this narrative whole
is created in a personalised individual manner, as well as how this process is guided
by the material design elements of the comic book (Round 2007). Closure suggests
that the narrative created will not be the same for each reader despite reading the
same text; it is a narrative that is personal, affected by our own perceptions, experiences, and understandings (McCloud 1993). Closure is potentially informed, influenced, completed, and experienced differently from person to person (Cohn 2013),
as, when presented with a series of images, different users may draw upon different
experiences and frames of reference in order to make sense of the gap between the
two presented images.
The question then becomes what are these gaps filled with? Comic Book Studies
suggests that closure is aided and achieved through utilizing and linking the images
given within the text to our extratextual knowledge and our intertextual experiences
(McCloud 1993). Here extratextuality can be understood as the audiences’ use of
experiences and knowledge beyond solely that which is given in the text, allowing
them to understand and make sense of the text (Stein and Thon 2013). This includes
6.6
Narratives in Comic Book Studies: Closure, Intertextuality, and Extratextuality
139
socio-cultural background and real-life experiences. Intertextuality, drawing on
Bakhtin’s (1981) work, is understood as the audiences’ ability to link the given text
to other texts they have experienced and consumed in order to make sense of what
they are reading (McCloud 1993). Through intertextuality and extratextuality, each
narrative is experienced on a personal level and may differ from the narrative created by another reader as different readers draw upon different extratextual and
intertextual information to understand and contextualise the narrative presented in
the design, whilst still being guided towards a particular narrative by the design of
the comic book (McCloud 1993). Comics then can be seen as offering a jagged staccato rhythm of unconnected moments ‘which we then connect, via closure, to mentally construct a continuous, unified reality’ (McCloud 1993, 67).
The reader’s individual narratives therefore can be considered a co-construction
between the user, the media form, and the design (McCloud 1993). It is important
to emphasise that this process, whilst requiring the input of the reader to make the
narrative meaningful, is largely subject to design. McCloud highlights that the level
of interaction and input required from the audience to create this narrative whole
and make meaningful sense of the disjointed images they are presented with can
change based on how much information they are given by the authors in each image
and how much they have to do to connect one image to the next (McCloud 1993). It
is also influenced by many elements such as the types of lines used, the border
around each image, the style of presentation, the colour pallet, the textual information, and many other design features that suggest how the narrative should continue
(Groensteen 2013). The narrative creation therefore is by no means completely
boundless; it is restricted and guided by the design and form of the comic book and
could not be completed without the design of the comic book. McCloud highlights
that certain actions can be taken by the author and artist to restrict the amount of
work to be done by the audience to create a narrative and to guide the reader towards
a certain understanding of events (McCloud 1993). The degree of involvement
required by the reader to fill in these gaps can vary depending on how much the two
images differ or the types of ‘transitions’ used from panel to panel (Lewis 2010).
Some panel transitions will require very little information to be filled in by the
reader as not much happens between the panels, whilst others can require the audience to be heavily involved in rendering the transitions meaningful (Groensteen
2013). However, the audience is kept constantly involved in making sense of the
media form from image to image (Berlatsky 2009). The involvement of the reader
doesn’t just involve decoding from panel to panel but also within the panel as they
make sense of the art style and apply the information to reality. The reader also has
to decide the order to read the panels and plays a part in constructing the overall
narrative and the page. This process of closure and completing the narrative therefore emerges from the enmeshing of design feature and the reader or, as McCloud
(2006) terms it, ‘dynamic construction’.
In essence then, Comic Book Studies highlights that the readers’ understanding
of a media form can be guided by their own readings and interpretations of the narrative (closure), their socio-cultural resources (extratextuality), and their understanding of similar media (intertextuality), as well as by the design of the media
140
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
form and the amount and type of space they are given to create their own understandings. Comic Book Studies suggests that cohesive completed narratives can
therefore be thought of as collaboration between a reader and the design, with the
user utilising stylised individual understandings informed by a number of issues and
the design purposefully suggesting the completion of a narrative. By highlighting
that narrative can be both guided by design and also open to the user to place their
own understanding drawn from their inter- and extratextuality and their socio-­
cultural understanding, Comic Book Studies presents comics as a complex media
form with multiple influences producing specific narratives. Comic Book Studies
offers us therefore the ability to highlight and draw out the relationship between the
design elements of the media we consume and our role in the construction of a narrative. It also helps us think of the media forms, and indeed social media platforms
as we will discuss in the next section, as networks formed of many heterogeneous
actants, human and non-human, combined to make specific and unique narrative
realities (McCloud 1993; Groensteen 2013). Given this, I propose that we can utilise comic books as a theoretical lens to understand identity performances online
and suggest the introduction of Comic Theory to view identity performances online
as materially heterogeneous narratives that are site specific and formed through the
user’s individual engagement with a design that is created to guide and shape specific boundaried performances of identity. Different social media platforms will
offer different ‘transitions’, asking the user to sometimes do more or do less to
complete the identity performance narrative. The completion of this narrative will
not only be informed by the design but will be completed in an individual and stylised manner, with each user drawing upon differing intertextual and extratextual
ideas and concepts to commit closure and negotiate the boundaries of identity performances. As such, identity performances can be thought of as a narrative that is
formed of the interplay between user, design, and socio-cultural issues and ideals,
bringing the theories of Latour, Barad, Foucault, and Goffman.
6.7 Introducing Comic Theory: Understanding Identity
Performances in Social Media Through the Lens
of Comic Books
Comic books offer a practical and actionable lens through which we can reconcile
the different understandings of social identity performances, bridging the divides
between the impact of form and media, the impact of personal interpretation and
understandings, and the impact of socio-cultural Discourses. Given that the focus of
Comic Book Studies is often upon the reader’s interpretation of these elements, we
can begin to build a focus upon how design can impact the construction of a narrative without assuming the intent of the designer. Instead, the focus is upon how this
design is experienced, approached, contextualised, negotiated, and understood by
the reader to make a coherent narrative. As researchers we cannot assume to know
6.7 Introducing Comic Theory: Understanding Identity Performances in Social Media…
141
the motivation for the choices of the designer; however, we can realistically measure and observe the effects of these choices and attempt to understand how they
have been negotiated by individual participants, especially if we gather this perspective from the users of the platforms. As such, the proposed Comic Theory
detailed below attempts to understand identity performances online as emergent
from the interactions between socio-culturally grounded users and platform-specific design as users negotiate the boundaries (Barad 2003) and identity performance on specific platforms accessed on specific devices. Users create their own
narrative closure through extratextual and intertextual readings of the narrativebuilding features of the platform, with the selection of these readings and the subsequent closure guided and influenced by aspects of design which may encourage
certain ways of committing closure to users with different intertextual and extratextual experiences. Importantly this process is purposefully approached and analysed
from the perspective of the users, with the aim of understanding how they negotiate
and utilise these factors. As shown in the previous chapter, an overt discussion of
negotiation with users can reveal how they feel they are able to resist suggested
closures, or engage in novel uses of the platforms, or why they feel they should
comply and compromise certain aspects of their performance, or how they arbitrated an identity narrative with the platform features, or how their specific sociocultural resources and experiences lead to unique engagements with features.
Through approaching online identity performances as a narrative construction of
juxtaposed design features, completed and co-constructed by the user parsing and
negotiation with design features in a way that is informed by other textual experiences, socio-cultural non-textual experiences, and their interpretation of the intentions of the designer, we can begin to build a suitably detailed, complex, flexible,
and yet manageable understanding of identity.
The ideas raised in Comic Book Studies reveal how narrative creation is a negotiated and location-specific concept and also reveal how a media form can be considered as the emergence of the relationship between human, discursive, and non-human
elements, working together to create a narrative reality. In this way, Comic Book
Studies treats the role of the non-human in the creation of a narrative in a similar
manner to the notion presented by Barad (2003, 2007) in which the boundaries of
reality are negotiated in a location-specific manner by the interaction of various
materially heterogeneous elements. By utilising this location-specific materially
heterogeneous approach in Comic Theory and by focusing upon how this power and
agency in the creation of a narrative are negotiated between multiple elements, this
approach is able to consider in a practical manner, and in greater depth and breadth,
the degree to which social media platforms involve the user and how the user renders the given information meaningful to form specific iterations of identity performance. In essence, this framework provides the ability to unpack a platform-specific
performance negotiated on and through those platforms. Indeed, Foucault in 1993
noted the importance of environment in shaping and creating social actions and
interaction and the links between space and knowledge. He noted that it was ‘somewhat arbitrary to try to dissociate…the practice of social relations, and the spatial
distributions in which they find themselves. If separated, they become impossible to
142
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
understand’ (Foucault 1993, 246). I propose that approaching social media performances from this angle could provide much-needed practical and workable insight
into how a personalised experience is shaped and formed in social media.
Social media is highly structured, and many of the platforms have made choices
in regard to design aspects of the site that encourage certain behaviours and restrict
or deny others. Studies into social media therefore should not presume that the ability for interactivity offered online necessarily means greater freedom or control, as
the availability of props to interact and act through is not limitless but purposeful
and chosen in advance, which can restrict and shape how we are able to act and
interact (Noble 2018). It is how we produce identity performances from, through,
on, and with these chosen modes and restrictions that we should then unpack. This
can be aided by utilising the concepts of closure, intertextuality, and extratextuality
which help understand how the finished narrative is guided by design features and
realised in an individual manner by users drawing on their experiences of other texts
and socio-cultural resources. By using the ideas of closure, we can consider how the
individual user is guided towards certain identity performances by the specific
design of the platform. Closure, in essence, suggests that the construction of the
narrative of an identity performance is the result of the enmeshing of human, inhuman, non-human. It suggests, in a similar manner to ANT and Barad, that the ongoing identity performances are always and continually locationally bound and
realised as a result of the specific user and the specific design features coming
together to create the performance. Crucially, it also demands that the identity performance can never be considered purely human or purely technological alone. It is
not the medium that is the message, and it is not the human that creates the specific
identity performance; it is always and essentially the result of the specific human
committing closure guided by and grounded in the specific features. The identity
performance could not happen without either element; they are intertwined and both
creating the identity performance, which would not be possible without the other.
There could be no identity performance without the user to perform it. And there
could be no identity performance without the design features through which to perform it, features which ultimately restrict, confine, and frame the performance.
Therefore, not only do humans and non-humans co-habitate online spaces, they
co-produce them, impacting upon each other, with humans shaping the content of
media and the media shaping and mediating the actions of the humans. In this manner, the boundaries of the identity performance are negotiated between materially
heterogeneous elements (Barad 2003) with all elements, human and non-­human,
shaped and informed by socio-cultural Discourses that pervade in all temporal
directions. This then echoes and follows the pioneering work of theorist such as
Sara Ahmed (2006) in understanding how socio-culturally bound bodies are oriented in, through, and with socio-culturally bound space.
Using the concepts of closure, extratextuality, and intertextuality, Comic Theory
is explicitly nondeterministic; each performance is always and necessarily individual due to the unique enmeshing of user and design. Design features will never
affect every user uniformly (Ahmed 2006), but nonetheless they may suggest the
‘ideal’ or preferred usage, minimising unwanted uses and therefore, in a Baradian
6.7 Introducing Comic Theory: Understanding Identity Performances in Social Media…
143
sense, creating boundaries around identity performances. Of course this notion of
an ideal or preferred usage suggested by design will not be interpreted, approached,
or even understood in the same manner by all users. As previously mentioned, it is
the user’s interpretation of the designer’s intent that matters for when the object of
analysis is identity performances, not the interpretation of the researcher, though
much can and should be gained from discussion with designers about their design
choices, especially if this leads to more ethical and thoughtful design. Researchers
with access to designers should continue to explore disconnects between designers
and users (see Noble 2018). The interpretation and explanation of design elements
in the work conducted here are placed upon the individual user, as it is ultimately
their individual performance and their negotiation and perception of these features
that we can aim to unpack. I suggest therefore that anyone wishing to utilise the
ideas presented here should aim to understand and explore how each user perceives
these platforms and design features and how they negotiate with these features to
create boundaried identity performance from materially heterogeneous elements. It
is the realisation and manifestation of individual performances that this approach is
keen to unpack.
With closure, the relationship between human and design features is crucially
malleable. Much as with the idea of transitions in comic books, sometimes the user
will need to do more work to complete the identity performance and will be allowed
freer reign over the performance of identity to construct a more stylised narrative.
Equally, sometimes the features will be presented in such a manner that the user will
not have to input very much at all to complete the narrative. The relationship
between these features should not be presumed. It is also crucial to note, again in a
nondeterministic manner, that this does not mean of course that this potential will
be realised by all users, as some may choose to utilise the larger freedom in different
manners and some may create narrative leaps where little space is provided in manners that may not be anticipated by the designers of the platforms.
Each user will approach social media in a unique way for unique purposes, with
features being utilised and contextualised differently for and by each user, as discussed in Chap. 4 of this book. This is largely where the concept of extratextuality
comes into play. Extratextuality looks at how each user draws on their experiences
outside of a text to understand and contextualise that text. When transposed to identity performances on social media, extratextuality still allows for an understanding
of how design guides identity performances but looks at how the approach towards
design is contextualised and grounded in the unique manner by each user, informed
by their socio-cultural background. Examining extratextuality will allow for contextualisation of the identity performance, with an understanding of how the user’s
specific situation affects the manifestation of identity on any given platform, and a
consideration of the different dynamics present on social media for users from different backgrounds. This takes on extra pertinence given that not all social actors are
equal and different features and online contexts may allow for some inequalities to
pervade or may equally challenge them (Nguyen 2016; Noble 2018). An examination of extratextuality and how the user approaches and uses certain platforms and
features based on their socio-cultural experiences, resources, and expectations will
144
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
help therefore to account for the reality that not only do socio-cultural issues impact
how users utilise social media (Sharma 2013), they also affect their attitudes towards
it, their treatment on it, and their experiences with it (Rubin and McClelland 2015;
Noble 2018). Comic Theory therefore aligns itself with Barad’s notion of agential
cuts (Barad 2007, 2011), allowing for a greater consideration of how power and
agency are negotiated on a platform-by-platform basis. Crucially, in this way, Comic
Theory holds that identity online is always and continually grounded in, and contextualised through, offline reality and Discourses, thus challenging the notion of digital duality (Jurgenson 2012).
Comic Theory also allows us to consider the notion of intertextuality, as the
user’s exposure to other media forms may affect how they approach and utilise this
media form. Using intertextuality to view social media, we can understand how they
function as texts whose meaning to the user is shaped by their relation to other texts,
both online and offline, known to and accessed by that user. In turn, social media
can be seen as impacting and affecting how readers understand and approach other
texts, both online and offline, in an intertextual manner. Intertextuality therefore
offers yet another frame through which academics can conceptualise the breakdown
of digital dualism and the merging of the online and offline world (Jurgenson 2012).
Importantly, the social identity performance and engagement of and with these features do not have to be realised through the production of content alone. As established in Chap. 4 of this book, using social media involves more than just producing
content alone. The mere possibility of equitable interactivity offered by media does
not always mean this means of bidirectional interactivity will necessarily be taken
up. Users will utilise social media in different way to interact socially and to be
social. I suggest then that it is hugely important to account for uses of social media
beyond just content production alone and to do so in a way which does not place
them as secondary uses.
One aspect that Comic Book Studies does not capture, but that Chap. 3 of this
book reveals which needs to be accounted for when considering identity performances online, is the medium through which these platforms are accessed, the technology. This is understandable considering that comic books only traditionally
come in one format. Though recently there have been attempts to look at the impact
of the Internet and digital forms on comic that suggests that this format offers unique
challenges and opportunities for narrative completion due mainly to the format
through which it is accessed (Gilmore and Stork 2014). Nonetheless, this is an
aspect that is important to account for with digital research as Chap. 3 highlighted
and is an aspect that has been shown to affect how users utilise social media. As
such, Comic Theory aims to also account for the technology used to access social
media, doing so in a manner in part inspired by McLuhan’s (1964) approach towards
the effect of technology upon the given manifestation of our social actions and interactions. Crucially though, this will not be done from a technologically deterministic
viewpoint but will also be approached from a user-by-user basis, drawing again on
the understanding and perspective of the user in order to unpack the role of the
technology in their specific formation of an identity narrative. Driven by an understanding of intertextuality and extratextuality affecting how users approach a text to
6.7 Introducing Comic Theory: Understanding Identity Performances in Social Media…
145
complete a narrative, it is clear that there is also a need for an understanding of how
technology used to access the platforms impacts the user’s contextualisation of the
platforms, their understanding of their role on the platforms, and their completion
of the narratives. As Chap. 3 also showed, technology can serve specific purposes in
our lives, and contextualising technology is largely important.
Many of the criticisms of Actor-Network Theory (Latour 2005) revolve around
the unwieldly nature of the infinite web of relations that the ontological shift
demands. In many ways, ANT seems unfocused, aiming a lens at everything and
anything in a theoretical butterfly effect model. Critics hold that if everything is a
series of relationship, then practically conducting research into a subject is nearly
impossible as the subject unfurls into relations both that it is formed of and that it
plays a part in the formation of. To truly attempt to account for the ANT reality of a
subject, a research would have to attempt to account for the entirety of the network
that creates the ongoing and ever-shifting actor-network or find ways of highlighting key elements as they perceive them, the onus here often being on the interpretation of the researcher and not, as the data and approach here suggest, the interpretation
of the social actor in their negotiation of overt material heterogeneity. ANT’s
approach is impractical at best and impossible at worst. Comic Theory however
aims to offer a happy middle ground. It provides an embrace of Barad’s (2003) work
in examining the boundaries of actor-networks that form the materially heterogeneous social reality and also enquires why these boundaries are the way they are,
how these boundaries are negotiated, and what they exclude and include. Comic
Theory as such aims to embrace the necessary role of the reality of non-human
objects to impact upon our perceptions but also offers a practical method accounting
for the negotiation of agency in the creation of a narrative from the perspective of
the user. For Kant, the noumenon reality of an object is separate and distinct from
our perception of the object, which is not impacted by the reality of the object. For
Comic Theory, however, I would suggest that this distinction is eluded as a purposeful focus is placed upon how a narrative reality is created by, and emerges through,
the interaction between the reality of the physical world and the human perception
of this. If we are going by Danah boyd’s definition of social media as a phenomenon
(boyd 2015), then Comic Theory aptly helps us unpack the role of the noumenon in
the formation of a phenomenon, affording the physical reality of the noumenon
equal consideration to our perception of it.
I hope here that Comic Theory begins to offer a practical approach to unpacking
the relationship between human, non-human, and inhuman. In considering intertextuality and extratextuality, it provides researcher a tool to understand how the user
navigates, contextualises, and understands social media platforms, considering a
number of elements that play equal roles in the creation of the location-specific narrative performances through the eyes of the user of that platform. It is the aim of this
framework to focus upon the effects of the specific locations in the negotiation of
the narrative. This of course cannot claim to fully unpack the unended Latourian
network of relations that go into forming social identity performance online, nor
does it claim to consider every element. Instead this study aims to account for a
missing focus in digital sociology upon the very real and tangible impact of
146
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
technology and design upon our social actions, interactions, and the performance
that emerge through our use of technology. Thus Comic Theory is informed ontologically by the sensibility of Actor-Network Theory and Barad but acknowledges
that to truly follow an infinite web of relations is impractical and to claim to speak
objectively to any true, thorough, and complete actor-network is practically impossible and ontologically dishonest, as choices must be made by a researcher about
what to include and exclude from analysis. Here, these choices are largely placed in
the hands of the social media user to understand what they consider to be important.
Whilst this cannot be a complete consideration of the multiple actants, silent and
loud, seen and unseen which shape the social, we can begin to shape a telling of the
social as understood by the person navigating it. In many ways, and following the
ideas of Barad (2003), it is the blackboxing of these actants, the creation of a presented whole formed of many actants, that should be the object of enquiry, not the
following of infinite webs of unending relations.
Given this, and to attempt a useful starting summary, I propose Comic Theory as
a model that:
• Sees the relationship between design and human in online identity performances
as always and inherently bidirectional and co-dependent, with both design affecting the user’s framing and actualisation of social actions and interactions and
individual users understanding, contextualising, and acting in novel manners
within this space.
• Socio-culturally grounds the performances of identity in the user’s specific background through the concept of closure, extratextuality, and intertextuality,
thereby suggesting that digital duality cannot be maintained.
• Also understand that design choices are always and inherent socio-culturally
bound in intended and unintended ways and cannot be seen as neutral.
• Overtly acknowledges and understands the effect of the material and physical
nature of these spaces in which people are acting and interacting as causal elements in the final identity performances.
• Understands that each identity performance is unique and individual due to closure, thereby allowing for novel and individual interpretations of identity and
accounting for how different users understand, experience, and contextualise
technology differently. This provides a direct avoidance of the deterministic
issues of McLuhan and others to understand that each user will realise the potential of technology in different ways but that their uses will nonetheless be guided
and bound by the possibilities offered through the technology. The realisation of
this will be unique for each user and informed by their socio-cultural background
and the socio-culturally infused designs.
• Understands that the resulting identity performances emerge in a location-­
specific manner through specific non-human and human elements and thus can
be considered malleable, negotiable, and temporally specific.
• Establishes and interrogates the boundaries of identity created in a given social
space in line with Barad’s work around agential realism, questioning what narra-
6.8
•
•
•
•
Conclusion: Designing an Identity
147
tive readings, actions, and interactions are excluded and how these boundaries
are (re)negotiated, realised, and/or flouted by users.
Understands that individual identity performances can also circumvent design
ideals to create narratives not considered or anticipated by designers.
Understands that being social online involves more than just producing content.
Places the emphasis of understanding the implications of the design choices
made within the social spaces that the user is interacting in, on, with, and through
upon the user. This purposefully removes the researcher’s interpretation of the
designers’ intentions in regard to design choices and instead focuses the attention
upon how the user contextualises, understands, and interacts with the design of
the social spaces.
Allows for a consideration of the role of technology in shaping engagement with
social media.
6.8 Conclusion: Designing an Identity
In this chapter, I have presented a number of theoretical frames, ontologies, and
perspectives. We began by considering the concept of identity in sociology, in particular, focusing upon the work of Goffman and his research into the identity performance, and pointing the discussion towards an analysis of socially produced,
presented, bound, and conceived identity performances. Using a post-structuralist
grounding drawn from the work of Foucault, we saw how Goffman’s dramaturgical
frame allowed for an understanding of the complex relationship between social situation and identity performance, but Goffman’s work did not allow for a detailed
account of the impact of space and setting upon the realised and actualised identity
performances. Therefore, Actor-Network Theory was introduced as an ontological
frame that demanded the grounding and contextualising of social analysis within
the physical realities from which it manifested on a case-by-case basis. However,
though Actor-Network Theory provided a useful ontological frame for unpacking
the situation in which social actions and interactions emerge, it did not provide a
useful frame through which to understand the relationship between human, non-­
human, and discursive elements in a usable manner. It also presented the possibility
of an endless web of actants that influence identity performances in a way that
would be impractical to follow. As such, Barad’s (2003) work was introduced as a
manner to embrace the boundaries of actor-networks and to make them the focus of
enquiry.
From this, a model was needed that combined these many aspects into a workable consideration of how platform-specific identity performances were negotiated
online. As such, Comic Book Studies was presented as a frame through which
Comic Theory could be proposed and through which the analysis of identity performances could focus upon how the user understood and negotiated design elements
of the social spaces in which they were acting and interacting, as well as how these
148
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
social spaces guided, shaped, and encouraged the actualisation and realisation of
identity performance.
Comic Theory provides a framework that allows a consideration of the relationship between human, non-human, and discursive elements and highlights the manners through which humans and non-humans enmesh to form a cohesive ongoing
narrative. Comic Theory also regrounds and reintroduces the attention towards the
role of the design and the choices made by the designer but argues for an approach
to research which understands these elements from the perspective of the user. It
also allows for a consideration of how the creation of these identity performances is
shaped on a platform-by-platform basis by the user’s individual acts of closure,
utilising socio-cultural elements through extratextuality and intertextuality to make
sense of the presented and suggested designs. This process of closure is in part
guided by elements of design, which present certain preferable narrative readings
and suggested interpretations, though these are negotiated in an individual manner
by each user.
For educational practitioners, policy makers, and researchers, I suggest that,
using comic books as a guide, we should aim to view social media platforms as not
just texts for analysis but ‘comics’ from which a narrative emerges, with the aim
that this will provide a potentially deeper understanding of how many aspects online
are bought together and how the audience and design interact through and with the
media form to create a specific and platform-dependant reality. The focus when
considering social media in the lives of young people, I would suggest, should be
upon how each user understands the design of the sites; how this design shapes,
guides, and encourages the performance of certain narratives; and how the user,
technology, and platform design co-actualise an individual narrative of identity. In
particular, we can begin to consider how each user draws upon extratextual and
intertextual information, both on- and offline, to complete this narrative. I hope the
work begun here can be continued by researchers wishing to explore identity online
in a manner that accounts for the materially heterogeneous, socio-culturally infused,
individually realised, ongoing, and negotiated narratives we see online.
References
Abidin, C. (2016). “Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?”: Influencer
selfies as subversive frivolity. Social Media + Society, 2016, 1–17.
Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. London: Duke
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson, M. Holquist, & M. Holquist,
Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to
matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter
and meaning. London: Duke University Press.
Barad, K. (2011). Nature’s queer performativity. Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social
Sciences, 19(2), 121–158.
References
149
Barnes, R. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on
Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media & Society, 17(5), 810–826.
Bennett, D. J., & Bennett, J. B. (1981). Making the scene. In A. Furnham & M. Argyle (Eds.), The
psychology of social situations: Selected readings (pp. 18–25). Oxford: Pergamon.
Berlatsky, E. (2009). Lost in the gutter: Within and between frames in narrative and narrative
theory. Narrative, 17(2), 162–187.
Bertel, T. F. (2016). ‘Why would you want to know?’ The reluctant use of location sharing via
check-ins on Facebook among Danish youth. Convergence, 22(2), 162–176.
Bongco, M. (2000). Reading comics: Language, culture, and the concept of the superhero in comic
books. London: Routledge.
Bordo, S. (1993). Feminism, Foucault and the politics of the body. In C. Ramazanoglu (Ed.), Up
against Foucault: Explorations of some tensions between Foucault and feminism (pp. 179–202).
London: Routledge.
Bosco, F. J. (2006). Actor-network theory, networks, and relational approaches in human geography. Approaches to human geography, 136–146.
boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale Press.
boyd, D. (2015). Social media: A phenomenon to be analyzed. Social Media + Society, 2015, 1–2.
Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (Eds.). (2005). Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed.).
London: Transaction Publishers.
Buckingham, D. (2008). Youth, identity, and digital media. Boston: MIT Press.
Bullingham, L., & Vasconcelos, A. C. (2013). ‘The presentation of self in the online world’:
Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39(1), 101–112.
Burns, T. (1992). Erving Goffman. London: Routledge.
Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and
the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32, 196–233.
Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon,
J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 19–34). London:
Palgrave.
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological
systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83–106). London:
MIT Press.
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of
monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge.
Castree, N. (2002). False antitheses? Marxism, nature and actor-networks. Antipode, 34(1),
111–146.
Chopra-Gant, M. (2016). Pictures or it didn’t happen: Photo-nostalgia, iPhoneography and the
representation of everyday life. Photography and Culture, 9(2), 121–133.
Chute, H. L., & DeKoven, M. (2006). Introduction: Graphic narrative. Modern Fiction Studies,
52(4), 767–782.
Clarke, S. (2008). Culture and identity. The Sage Handbook of Cultural Analysis, 510–529.
Cohn, N. (2013). The visual language of comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of
sequential images. London: Bloomsbury.
Collins, H., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickerin (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Crampton, J. W., & Elden, S. (Eds.). (2007). Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and geography. London: Routledge.
Dale, K., & Latham, Y. (2015). Ethics and entangled embodiment: Bodies–materialities–organization. Organization, 22(2), 166–182.
Davis, J. L. (2016). Identity theory in a digital age. In J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.), New directions in identity theory and research (pp. 137–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
150
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
Dee, M. (2015). Young people and urban public space in Australia-creating pathways to community, belonging and inclusion. International Journal of Social Science Research, 3(2), 138–151.
Dittmer, J., & Latham, A. (2015). The rut and the gutter: Space and time in graphic narrative.
Cultural Geographies, 22(3), 427–444.
Ditchfield, H. (2020). Behind the screen of Facebook: Identity construction in the rehearsal stage
of online interaction. New Media & Society, 22(6), 927–943.
Dolwick, J. S. (2009). “The social” and beyond: Introducing actor-network theory. Journal of
Maritime Archaeology, 4(1), 21–49.
Dyer, H. T. (2015). All the web’s a stage: The effects of design and modality on youth performances
of identity. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth: Technology and Youth: Growing Up in
a Digital World, 19, 213–242.
Dyer, H. T. (2016). Interactivity, social media, and Superman: How comic books can help us
understand and conceptualize interactivity online. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. McMillan
Cottom (Eds.), Digital Sociologies (pp. 75–99). London: Policy.
Farías, I., & Bender, T. (2010). Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban
studies. London: Routledge.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. Oxford: Routledge.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies. Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education and
Learning of Adults, 4(1), 49–63.
Fine, B. (2005). From actor-network theory to political economy. Capitalism Nature Socialism,
16(4), 91–108.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977.
New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1993). Space, power and knowledge. In S. During (Ed.), The cultural studies reader.
London: Routledge.
Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 463–496.
Gilmore, J. N., & Stork, M. (2014). Superhero synergies: Comic book characters go digital.
Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gilpin, D. R. (2010). Working the Twittersphere: Microblogging as professional identity construction. In A networked self (pp. 240–258). New York: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Allen Lane.
Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 133–136.
Goffman, E. (1968). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Pelican.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Gonos, G. (1977). “Situation” versus “frame”: The “interactionist” and the “structuralist” analyses
of everyday life. American Sociological Review, 42(6), 854–867.
Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, S., Milgrom, R., & Schmid, C. (Eds.). (2008). Space, difference, everyday life: Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York: Routledge.
Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of Western sociology. New York: Basic Books.
Groensteen, T. (2013). Comics and narration (A. Miller, Trans.). Jackson: University Press of
Mississippi.
Hacking, I. (2004). Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: Between discourse in the
abstract and face-to-face interaction. Economy and Society, 33(3), 277–302.
Hendricks, C. (2008). Foucault’s Kantian critique philosophy and the present. Philosophy & Social
Criticism, 34(4), 357–382.
Herman, D. (2010). Multimodal storytelling and identity construction in graphic narratives. In
D. Schiffrin, A. De Fina, & A. Nylund (Eds.), Telling stories: Language, narrative, and social
life (pp. 195–208). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Herzig, R. (2004). On performance, productivity, and vocabularies of motive in recent studies of
science. Feminist Theory, 5(2), 127–147.
References
151
Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances
& exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377–386.
Hook, D. (2005). Genealogy, discourse, “effective history”: Foucault and the work of critique.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 3–31.
Højgaard, L., Juelskjær, M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2012). The ‘WHAT OF’ and the ‘WHAT IF’ of
agential realism – In search of the gendered subject. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, (1–2), 67–78.
Huot, S., & Rudman, D. L. (2010). The performances and places of identity: Conceptualizing intersections of occupation, identity and place in the process of migration. Journal of Occupational
Science, 17(2), 68–77.
Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity (4th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.
Juelskjaer, M. (2013). Gendered subjectivities of space time matter. Gender and Education, 25(6),
754–768.
Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet, 4, 83–91.
Kaiser, B. M., & Thiele, K. (2014). Diffraction: Onto-epistemology, quantum physics and the critical humanities. Parallax, 20(3), 165–167.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3),
241–251.
Kowert, R., Domahidi, E., & Quandt, T. (2016). Networking and other social aspects of technology use: Past developments, present impact, and future considerations. In D. Faust, K. Faust,
& M. N. Potenza (Eds.), Oxford handbook of digital technologies and mental health. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1), 103–131.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 15–25.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Law, J. (2002). Objects and spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5–6), 91–105.
Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new
Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Chichester: Wiley.
Law, J., & Moser, I. (1999). Managing, subjectivities and desires. Concepts and Transformation,
4(3), 249–279.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Lefèvre, P. (2011). Some medium-specific qualities of graphic sequences. SubStance, 40(1), 14–33.
Lehtovuori, P. (2005). Experience and conflict: The dialectics of the production of public
urban space in the light of new event venues in Helsinki 1993–2003. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press.
Lessa, I. (2006). Discursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen motherhood. British
Journal of Social Work, 36(2), 283–298.
Lessing, P. G. E. (1766). Laocoon: An essay on the limits of painting and poetry (P. E. A. McCormick,
Trans.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lewis, A. D. (2010). The shape of comic book reading. Studies in Comics, 1(1), 71–81.
Markus, T. A., & Cameron, D. (2002). The words between the spaces: Buildings and language.
London: Psychology Press.
Marshall, Y., & Alberti, B. (2014). A matter of difference: Karen Barad, ontology and archaeological bodies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 24(1), 19–36.
Martin, A. (2005). Agents in inter-action: Bruno Latour and agency. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory, 12(4), 283–311.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
152
6
Comic Theory: A New, Critical, Adaptive Theoretical Framework for Identity…
McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York: Kitchen Sink.
McCloud, S. (2006). Making comics: Storytelling secrets of comics, manga and graphic novels.
New York: William Morrow.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, S. (1990). Foucault on discourse and power. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political
Theory, 76, 115–125.
Miller, G., & Fox, K. J. (1997). Building bridges. In Qualitative research. Theory, method and
practice (pp. 24–44). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Murdoch, J. (1998). The spaces of actor-network theory. Geoforum, 29(4), 357–374.
Mützel, S. (2009). Networks as culturally constituted processes: A comparison of relational sociology and actor-network theory. Current Sociology, 57(6), 871–887.
Nash, K. (2012). Modes of interactivity: Analysing the webdoc. Media, Culture & Society, 34(2),
195–210.
Nguyen, N.-M. (2016). I tweet like a white person tbh! #whitewashed: Examining the language
of internalized racism and the policing of ethnic identity on Twitter. Social Semiotics, 26(5),
505–523.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York:
New York University Press.
Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social
networks. First Monday, 14(3).
Pennycook, A. (1994). Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 115–138.
Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1990). How to do self with things. In S. H. Riggins (Ed.), Beyond
Goffman: Studies on communication, institution, and social interaction (pp. 315–340). Berlin:
de Gruyter.
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science.
American Journal of Sociology, 559–589.
Radford, G. P. (1992). Positivism, Foucault, and the fantasia of the library: Conceptions of knowledge and the modern library experience. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community,
Policy, 62(4), 408–424.
Richardson, T., & Jensen, O. B. (2003). Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology
of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies, 40(1), 7–22.
Richey, M., Ravishankar, M. N., & Coupland, C. (2016). Exploring situationally inappropriate
social media posts: An impression management perspective. Information Technology and
People, 29(3), 597–617.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Milwaukee:
Houghton Mifflin.
Round, J. (2007). Visual perspective and narrative voice in comics: Redefining literary terminology. International Journal of Comic Art, 9(2), 316–329.
Rowse, J. (2005). Power/knowledge. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Foucault.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. D., & McClelland, S. I. (2015). “Even though it’s a small checkbox, it’s a big deal”:
Stresses and strains of managing sexual identity(s) on Facebook. Culture, Health & Sexuality,
17(4), 512–526.
Rymarczuk, R. (2015). The heterotopia of Facebook. Philosophy Now, 107, 6–7.
Sayes, E. (2014). Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that
nonhumans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134–149.
Sharma, S. (2013). Black Twitter? Racial Hashtags, networks and contagion. New Formations,
78, 46–64.
Shotter, J. (2013). Reflections on sociomateriality and dialogicality in organization studies: From
“inter-” to “intra-thinking”…in performing practices. In P. R. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley,
& H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How matter matters: Objects, Artifacts, and materiality in organization
studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References
153
Simon, J. (2015). Distributed epistemic responsibility in a Hyperconnected Era. In L. Floridi (Ed.),
The onlife manifesto (pp. 145–159). Cham: Springer.
Søndergaard, D. M. (2013). Virtual materiality, potentiality and subjectivity: How do we conceptualize real-virtual interaction embodied and enacted in computer gaming, imagination and night
dreams? Subjectivity, 6(S1), 55–78.
Stein, D., & Thon, J. N. (2013). From comic strips to graphic novels: Contributions to the theory
and history of graphic narrative. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Stewart, L. (1995). Bodies, visions, and spatial politics: A review essay on Henri Lefebvre’s the
production of space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 609–618.
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., & Curry, A. L. (2016). The presence and use of interactive features on
news websites. Digital Journalism, 4(3), 339–358.
Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. London: Benjamin/
Cummings.
Tseëlon, E. (1992). Is the presented self sincere? Goffman, impression management and the postmodern self. Theory, Culture & Society, 9(2), 115–128.
Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social
network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 20–36.
Unwin, T. (2000). A waste of space? Towards a critique of the social production of space….
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(1), 11–29.
Varis, P., & Blommaert, J. (2015). Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes,
and new social structures. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the
Periphery, 2(1), 31–31.
Vis, B. N. (2009). Built environments, constructed societies: Inverting spatial analysis. Leiden:
Sidestone Press.
Voyce, M. (2006). Shopping malls in Australia: The end of public space and the rise of “consumerist citizenship”? Journal of Sociology, 42(3), 269–286.
Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects.
In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research
(pp. 466–480). London: Chapman & Hall.
Westlake, E. J. (2008). Friend me if you Facebook: Generation Y and performative surveillance.
TDR/The Drama Review, 52(4), 21–40.
Whittle, A., & Spicer, A. (2008). Is actor network theory critique? Organization Studies, 29(4),
611–629.
Willett, R. (2008). Consumer citizens online: Structure, agency, and gender in online participation.
Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, 49–69.
Zhao, X., Lampe, C., & Ellison, N. B. (2016). The social media ecology: User perceptions, strategies and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 89–100). New York: ACM.
Chapter 7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call
to Action for Educators and Educational
Researchers
Abstract This chapter explores what a consideration of the manner in which design
influences social experiences online might mean for educational researchers, educators, and pupils. The chapter begins by critiquing the current approaches towards
technology in education, particularly highlighting the one-size-fits-all model of
technology in classrooms, the creeping ‘data gaze’ in education, and the attempts to
present and view technology as apolitical. The chapter finishes by summarising how
Comic Theory (presented in Chap. 6 of this book) can help understand the interactions of young people online in a nuanced and careful manner. To echo Larkin’s
(2008, 3) words, ‘what media are needs to be interrogated, not presumed’. This
holds true for education and for our understanding of media writ large. It is hoped
that Comic Theory presents a method through which this interrogation can
take place.
Keywords Comic Theory · Educational technology · MOOCs · Interactive
whiteboards · Clinicalisation · Data gaze · Datafication · Educational bureaucracy
7.1 Introduction
So far in this book we have taken an in-depth look at how social media works in the
lives of young people, drawing on data taken from a year-long series of interviews
and close engagement with extant research in the field of digital sociology, considering what this means for educational policy makers, practitioners, and researchers
along the way. The resulting discussion highlighted the need for a consideration of
identity presentation online as a complex negotiation between user and design,
always socio-culturally grounded in a way which suggests that educational
approaches around technology cannot simply focus on Boolean logic and algorithms alone. The negotiation between user and design is at all times socio-material,
undertaken by:
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
H. T. Dyer, Designing the Social, Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in
Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5716-3_7
155
156
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
• Users with their own intertextual experiences of other social media platforms
• Users with their own extratextual socio-cultural experiences, resources, and
expectations
• Users providing their own interpretation of the socio-cultural dynamics online
and the intent of the designers of these platforms
• Designs infused in biases and socio-cultural disparities, intended and unintended,
which permeate experiences online
• Designs which guide certain narratives and limit what is possible online
Each of these hold unique and overlapping challenges for how we use and engage
with technology in education. In this concluding chapter, I will begin highlighting
why this nuanced approach towards identity presentation online matters for education and how we can best grow on this work to help understand the needs and challenges facing young people, online and offline.
7.2 Technology as Panacea: The Need to Readdress
One-­Size-Fits-All Educational Technology
There is no doubt that modern digital technology has had a massive impact on education. Walk in to any classroom in the UK today, and you are likely to find some
technology present in these spaces. From interactive whiteboards and various tablets to the mobile phones and laptops of pupils and students, technology is ever-­
present opening up new challenges and opportunities for educators and students
alike. There is, of course, no easy solution for how best to make the most of this
digitally infused environment, but certainly there are approaches that we can evidently see are not working well for educators and pupils. The question here then
should be: Just who are these interventions working for? The answer, increasingly,
seems to be businesses.
Big businesses are increasingly positioning technologies as essential tools to
age-old pedagogical challenges. The most obvious of these recently is the aforementioned interactive whiteboard (IWB). Originally sold as a revolution in education and quickly rolled out to classrooms around the world, interactive whiteboards
have become a mainstay in most classrooms. In the UK, for example, the 2003–2004
Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion project invested £10 million in acquiring
IWBs for primary classrooms across the country (see Lewin et al. 2008), a move
which Higgins et al. (2007, 221) suggested ‘may be the most significant change in
the classroom learning environment in the past decade’. Others have similarly highlighted the ways these technologies seem to have been forced into classrooms
worldwide in troubling ways (see Slay et al. 2008). Yet there seems to be issues in
providing a useful understanding of what exactly is ‘interactive’ about them beyond
offering a touch-sensitive surface, or an understanding of what exactly these whiteboard might revolutionise in education. Though interactive in potential, this does
not mean they are de facto interactive in their usage (Northcote et al. 2010; Smith
7.2 Technology as Panacea: The Need to Readdress One-Size-Fits-All Educational…
157
et al. 2005). Allsopp et al. (2012, 13) highlight that there appears to be a noted
‘dichotomy between what these teachers envision to be the potential for IWBT and
how they actually use it’. As others have pointed out in increasing volume, the introduction of these technologies seems to often be:
technology-led’ (i.e. it is introduced because it is available) rather than ‘education-led’ (i.e.
it is introduced because it is known to meet the professional needs of teachers and the educational needs of children better than existing educational tools). (Gillen et al. 2007, 244)
Indeed, despite being positioned as revolutionary tools, Gillen et al. (2007, 254)
go on to note ‘the use of the IWB cannot be claimed to “transform teaching” in
terms of classroom dialogue and underlying pedagogy’. This is not, of course, to
state that IWBs and other technology cannot be used in creative, new, and innovative ways to invigorate teaching (See Gillen et al. 2007; Kennewell and Beauchamp
2007), but to highlight that we should be critical of the wholesale introduction of
technology into classrooms (Slay et al. 2008). As Northcote et al. (2010, 496) note:
Popularity and excitement associated with the use of IWBs has meant that significant financial input is required at the school level to purchase, install and prepare staff and students
for use of the boards. Decisions to allocate serious financial resources for the purchase and
installation of this technology are made without necessarily being informed by convincing
research about how the boards impact learning.
Of course, businesses are not just involved in hardware to revolutionise and disrupt classrooms; they are also increasingly producing software to use in the classroom for various reasons. As researchers such as Selwyn (2007, 86) have suggested,
this often be ‘directed towards very limited forms of technology use based around
the “transferable” technical skills and operational know-how deemed useful in
future employment’. The push towards private software in education seems again to
be driven by profit and disruption, not necessarily by pedagogical need (Spring and
Picciano 2013). As we have seen throughout this book, the reality of technology
makes it hard, if not functionally impossible, to strip the social from the technical.
Yet educational interventions seem acutely invested in this pursuit nonetheless in a
way that (as Chap. 4 of this book highlights) can deeply exacerbate extant social
inequity. In essence, the logics of these systems may be producing an increasingly
capitalistic mentality towards what skills are essential for students and pupils to
learn. This is readily apparent in the increase in business offering quantitative analyses from data collected in classroom. Through comparing the data gained from
tracking pupils and classrooms, it seems modern classrooms are not just technology
infused but capitalistically infused for a neoliberal market. As Rowe (2019,
276) notes:
We are, at all times, producing data, visible and traceable. Teachers are to punch into an
online and virtual ‘time-clock’ to digitally record their physical, embodied presence, which
is reminiscent of industrialisation and ‘punching in’ on the factory floor (Strauss 2018). The
production of student data can be sold to for-profit companies, and the OECD (2013)
encourages in their report on the knowledge-based economy, ideally should be sold
for profit.
158
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
Big data is now ever-present in modern classrooms at all levels, tracking various
metrics to understand student performance, providing feedback about engagement
and attendance, providing insights into student mental health, desperately trying to
collect as many data points as possible, and quickly positioning themselves as
essential parts of education in ways which seem to prove Weber’s warnings about
creeping bureaucracy without reflectivity worryingly prescient. We are seeing, for
example, educational apps such as Enlitened app (see www.enlitened.org) emerge
to track student mental health and well-being, intervening when data suggests an
emergent mental health issue. Students are rewarded with free coffee and cinema
tickets in exchange for their data, data which in turn is made accessible to educators
to track changes at various levels. Whilst undoubtedly useful in some regards, we
should be actively questioning what is being done with this data and how, for
instance, incentives exchanged for data sits ethically. In many ways this is reminiscent of the stories emerging at the time of writing this book around menstruation-­
tracking apps sharing information with Facebook (Privacy International 2019), or
the ongoing discussion about how much personal health information we’re willing
to give away via wearable technology (Neff and Nafus 2016). Education is not
immune to these same concerns, and we are increasingly seeing educators and
pupils subject to panoptic gaze of data tracking multiple metrics in the hope of
quantifying education and offering ‘tailored experiences’ at the expense of countless means of tracking, recording, and surveilling students in a panopticon 2.0.
Students are often unable to resist these means of tracking, with cases of, for example, student visas and funding reliant on physical presence on a campus recorded by
apps and technologies. This reliance on technology and business to fix education
should deeply worry anyone involved in education.
Beyond the criticisms here of technology for technology’s sake and the creeping
data gaze of capitalism in the classroom, the data and discussions presented in this
book provide a challenge to the use of technology as a controllable one-size-fits-all
solution to educational issues. As detailed in Chaps. 3 and 4 of this book, technology can exacerbate and amplify socio-cultural disparities, create new inequalities,
and act in unforeseen ways on different bodies. To introduce technology into a
classroom is all too often to assume that technology is not political. This, as Noble
(2018) and others aptly discuss, is hugely problematic. Designers may see their
technology as neutral, but this is not the case. The very concept of neutrality often
stands as a proxy for whiteness and masculinity. A quote raised in Chap. 3 of this
book bears repeating here then. As Cottom (2017, 214. My emphasis) points out,
educational technology is often designed with a ‘roaming autodidact’ in mind – a
user who:
is a self-motivated, able learner that is simultaneously embedded in technocratic futures and
disembedded from place, culture, history, and markets. the roaming autodidact is almost
always conceived as western, white, educated and male. as a result of designing for the
roaming autodidact, we end up with a platform that understands learners as white and male,
measuring learners’ task efficiencies against an unarticulated norm of western male whiteness. It is not an affirmative exclusion of poor students or bilingual learners or black students or older students, but it need not be affirmative to be effective.
7.2 Technology as Panacea: The Need to Readdress One-Size-Fits-All Educational…
159
Examples of this can be seen through looking into VR technology on gaming
headsets such as the Oculus Rift, which can induce motion sickness in women. As
mentioned in Chap. 3, Munafo et al. (2017, 900) ‘conclude that the Oculus Rift, as
a technology, is sexist in its effects’. So to might technology introduced in education
often assume neutrality in ways that may be harmful to different communities.
Educators should also be careful here in making generational assumptions about
technological capabilities or access. Setting homework to be completed through
educational software such as the currently popular MyMaths (www.mymaths.co.uk)
system can disadvantage those without easy access to hardware and technology to
access these systems. UK Data published at the end of 2019 (Blank and Dutton with
Lefkowit 2019) suggests that higher proportions of non-users below the median
income line have reduced access to the Internet and that as many as 18% of Britons
may not access the Internet. Though access is rising, educators should be careful to
understand the ways in which technologies are not neutral, and attention should be
paid to the ways in which technology may amplify and minimise certain voices in
unforeseen ways.
The need for this appears all the more apparent when we consider, as Comic
Theory suggests, what is negotiated and negotiable between user and design.
MOOCs (massive open online courses) are touted as a key expansion area for higher
education, providing ‘interactive’ online educational content, often for free, to a
seemingly broad audience in line with calls for widening participation in higher
education. Whilst an opening up of education is much needed, warning bells should
ring when we hear designers such as Anant Agarwal, CEO of edX, suggesting in a
2013 Guardian article that ‘MOOCs make education borderless, gender-blind, race-­
blind, class-blind and bank account blind’. These claims of blindness ignore that our
experiences online are socio-culturally grounded at all times, with design emphasising certain closures and users constructing narrative experiences through their intertextual and extratextual experiences. Despite the potential to reach vast audiences,
research suggests MOOCs perpetuate many demographic problems in higher education. MOOCs are not reaching underprivileged global students with limited access
to higher education (Laurillard 2016) and seemingly are completed largely by able-­
bodied users (Iniesto and Rodrigo 2016), employed users (Macleod et al. 2014), and
users with advanced degrees (Despujol et al. 2014).
In this manner, MOOCs continue deep-rooted issues within higher education in
failing to truly speak with and to a broad, diverse audience. As the works of activists
and scholars like Lola Olufemi and Priyamvada Gopal have pointed out, this is no
surprise given the continued reticence of universities to decolonise their curricula,
and, as Gopal (2017) puts it, there is a need to ‘recognise that knowledge is inevitably marked by power relations’. Through this lens, claims of blindness online ignore
that knowledge cannot be decoupled from historic, current, and future inequalities,
no matter the context of delivery. In this manner, the calls to decolonise the curriculum cannot stop at the physical gates of universities. Instead, we must push for
decolonisation of MOOCs and a renewed attempt to move towards the well-­meaning
statements of Anant Agarwal with our eyes opened. The blindness Agarwal attributes to MOOCs only works if we are blinkered from the reality of knowledge as
160
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
always political. We could also aptly critique the claims of these pervasive issues as
‘unconscious bias’ given that academia has long built and designed in ways that
privilege whiteness and masculinity. In many ways, there is little unconscious about
this. Technology can exacerbate this in new and complex way. As the research presented in this book suggests, any attempt to strip socio-cultural contexts, resources,
and experiences through the introduction of technology ignores that technology is
always and already embedded in our lives in complex ways. As Emejulu and
McGregor (2019) discuss in detail, educators’ responsibility should be to engage
young people in discussions of these pervasive inequalities driven by technology
and not, as Agarwal suggests, to claim blindness.
In similar ways to the ongoing battles in higher education at local and policy
levels to fund and support humanities, arts, and social sciences, MOOCs too are
pivoting to a marketised view of education, catering largely and consistently to
those with advanced degrees and often focusing on practical courses in ‘traditional’
hard sciences, computer sciences, business, and engineering. It is apparent that
often the humanities and sociologies are the battlegrounds for pushing issues of
decolonisation, LGBTQ+ issues, feminist issues, and so on that emerge from technology, and often the sorts of research documented and discussed in this book
become an afterthought in education writ large as we focus on technology in a clinical and detached manner. These critical points are largely absent from practical
MOOCs in technology, which instead present a neutrality focused on practical
aspects. The neutrality of these practical courses is often a default whiteness and
masculinity that leads to programming only two genders, or demonetises LGBTQ
content on YouTube.
There are obviously huge funding and publishing biases in what science is published and presented in academia writ large. The issue evidently runs deeper than
MOOCs into science and academia in general providing funding and publication
opportunities focused through a specific lens. So in this manner, the neutrality and
blindness that MOOC founders espouse are a continuation, reflection, and amplification of a point of view that pervades academia. It is all too easy to see Agarwal’s
blindness as a positive – we are just teaching facts and knowledge – but we must
critically continue to challenge this claim to neutrality, when, as Foucault continually explored, knowledge reinforces claims to power and power shapes knowledge.
It seems this blindness in MOOCs is an attempt to decouple power from knowledge
and present knowledge in an ‘open’ format to a broader audience (a point that, as we
already discussed, is flawed given the actual audience of MOOCs). If anything, this
acceptance and uncritical presentation of knowledge divorced and seemingly distanced from the power structures that uphold, produce, and support this knowledge
just reinforce the claims to normality that Foucault deeply asked us to turn our eyes
to. Ontologically then, this blindness is a turning of the face away from the hard
questions of how this knowledge is produced and sustained. It is not so much blindness as wilfully ignoring. The blindness is agential, a choice to ignore, not a freedom from oppression, a choice to look past rather than to examine. It is the
sustenance of this knowledge as ‘blind’ that is in-and-of-itself incapacitating. It is a
7.2 Technology as Panacea: The Need to Readdress One-Size-Fits-All Educational…
161
refusal to open their eyes. No wonder then that there is a lack of decolonised literature and a lack of a diverse audience. They are blinding themselves. The fiction of
science and practical courses as nonideological and ‘apolitical’ originates and is
sustained in its contemporary practice and discourse.
We might think of Thomas Hobbes’ description of Native Americans as an
apparently inferior race acceptant of poor living conditions or of Hegel’s overt
exclusion of Africa from the history of thought because of their supposed inferiority. Or least we think this is settled history, the current discussion around CRISPR
technology allowing for designer babies free from disability and ‘abnormality’. In
this way, it is not just the history of science that has a particular bias and focus on
particular people, but the ongoing reality of science, both through funding, scholarship, publishing, and indeed the knowledge being produced and chased. These are
issues bigger than MOOCs, but evidently they still exist in this new form of teaching which purports to remove many of these barriers. It is, if anything, this claim to
be above this discussion, to be blind, that I take such strong objection to and which
educational researcher, policy makers, and practitioners must actively resist. It is all
too easy to close our eyes. We need to open them now more than ever.
Much like the funding and publishing problems prevalent in academia which
prioritise and emphasise western scholarship and Research, MOOCs here serve as a
way of controlling which groups have access to resources to do science. They perpetuate the very systems they purport to disrupt. Again, the resources of higher
education speak the right words of ‘widening participation’, but fundamentally
struggle to effectively grapple with the idea that the knowledge and curricula they
uphold itself is disenfranchising. MOOCs claim to open the doors of the ‘ivory
tower’, but if anything, the blindness that Anant Agarwal talks of might be coming
from the bright ivory sheen pervading and gleaning from the tower. They are blinded
by the reflective ivory of the tower, shining its light outwards and inwards.
One final aspect worth mentioning here is the clinicalisation of technology in
education. By clinicalisation here I am drawing on Foucault’s sustained body of
work unpacking the ways in which topics such as mental illness, bodies, and sexuality have increasingly become treated and viewed in clinical manners. For example,
Foucault’s History of Sexuality (1979) unpacks the way in which sexuality has, over
time, become the domain of science, with the focus moving from sensuality towards
a clinical fragmentation of the body into definable parts. Foucault traced similar
lines around attitudes to mental illness being understood in an increasingly detracted,
clinical, and medicalised version. I would suggest that this attitude of cold, detached,
clinicalisation is increasingly present in modern educational attitudes towards technology and computing as subjects of study. The current statutory guidance of the
UK National Curriculum for computing programmes of study (Gov.UK 2019) is a
prime example of this attitude. In Key Stage 1 (age 5–7), pupils should:
1. Understand what algorithms are, how they are implemented as programs on digital devices, and
that programs execute by following precise and unambiguous instructions
2. Create and debug simple programs
3. Use logical reasoning to predict the behaviour of simple programs
162
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
By Key Stage 3 (age 11–14), pupils should:
1. Understand simple Boolean logic
2. Use two or more programming languages
3. Understand the hardware and software components that make up computer systems
And so on. Whilst these are useful skills for a modern STEM-driven job market, it
is easy to see some flaws with the highly clinical nature of this approach in which
logic and hardware abound. What is evidently missing from this approach is an
understanding that technology is already embedded in the lives of young people, as
the data and discussions in this book aptly emphasise. Technology is social. We cannot be blind to this as well. Educational institutions must provide spaces not only to
understand and strip technology down to its constituent parts but to understand the
embedded reality of technology. Key discussions around young peoples’ lived realities are missing from this discussion, often in a manner which plays into the pervasive narratives of the ‘digital native’ myths which often convince educators that
these discussions of young peoples’ experiences with technology are not within
their purview. As mentioned in Chap. 2 of this book, using an ‘immigrant/native’
dichotomy in education can lead to ‘structurally embedded de-privileging of the
role of the teacher’ (Bayne and Ross 2011, 161–162) undermining their ability to
guide and work with students and pupils on, in, and through technology.
At the same time, we seek to somehow strip young people of the embedded
nature of technology in education, banning phones in schools and banning social
media in classrooms. This is not only futile as there are myriad ways around this but
also largely unhelpful to young people and perhaps even an abdication of responsibility in shaping and guiding the morality of young people in our care as teachers
and educators. For an apt example of the ways in which pupils will subvert these
bans, we can look at the recent rise of Google Docs as a social platform in classrooms (see Loren 2019). Google Docs is ostensibly a word processor, allowing
users to ‘freely’ create documents, often collaboratively. As a tool, Google Docs is
often not blocked by schools and is encouraged as a space for collaboratively discussing and creating documents. There are documented cases, however, of pupils
creatively using Google Docs for live chat, with different colours or fonts used to
signify different users (Loren 2019). The collaborative session can be easily deleted,
and it may appear to the casual viewer that pupils are just making notes on the lesson plan rather than engaging in passing notes 2.0. It is evident that young people
will subvert and undermine technology bans. It is therefore precisely our place to
engage them in discussions of technology in their lives rather than assuming this
somehow disappears once they enter the school. The data presented in this book
suggests these discussions cannot be a clinical list of rules and logics, but must be
engaged in their lived realities which are infused with technology.
7.3
Comic Theory: Considering Design in Online Identity Performances
163
7.3 Comic Theory: Considering Design in Online
Identity Performances
From the data gathered and analysed, here it is clear that there is a need for a consideration of the many nuances that create specific identity performances online.
This book presents Comic Theory in this regard as a framework that allows for the
unpacking of the relationship between humans and design that create specific identity performances online.
As discussed in Chap. 2 of this book, young people’s experiences online are
diversifying increasingly, both in terms of the platforms they are using (OFCOM
2019) and in their social experiences and engagements with these platforms (Weller
2016). Of course, the ability to socially interact is not without boundaries and limitations that restrict, shape, and effect how an individual engages in social interaction. For a long time in identity research, and in sociology as a whole, the restrictions
that have been studied and considered are social restrictions. Discourses and audiences have been unpacked through multiple lenses as aspects that shape and restrict
actions and interactions, both online and offline. The research detailed in this book
attempts to understand the interplay between other unaccounted for restrictions and
limitations, specifically drawing attention to an aspect of identity performance that
has been neglected in sociology, the effect of design. This focus appears to be especially necessary online given that the platforms present us with specific designs
through which to act and interact, restricting the modes and methods through which
we are able to present ourselves, be they the ways we can talk, the amount we can
say, the topics we can discuss, the ways we can move through these spaces, the
representations and image we can use, the colour pallet we are afforded, and a myriad other design choices. Online, every pixel of these social spaces is explicitly
designed, and this design is highly curated. As such there is a desperate need in
online research to consider how users are able to present themselves and how they
deal with and negotiate these limitations and restrictions on identity presentation
across a diverse array of platforms that make up the social reality for young people
online (Zhao et al. 2016).
There is an apparent need to understand how these curated design features are
being engaged with to present identity. Goffman’s (1959) research suggests that
social identity presentation is largely location specific in that the presentation of
identity can change from location to location as the audience for that presentation
shifts. The data presented in this book however suggests that there is a need to alter
the manner in which we consider the locationally specific nature of identity performances, particularly in highly curated online spaces. The presentation of identity is
not just a result of the performer considering the appropriate performance for the
given location. Identity performance is instead enmeshed with, bound to, and emergent from that location, drawing on previous experiences and socio-cultural
resources. This means that the identity is not just something that happens to take
place on a stage, but something that emerges from specifics of that stage and that
164
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
user. The presentation of identity online is therefore inseparable from the location in
which it emerges; it is resultant from the interplay between user and design.
In this manner, Comic Theory adopts the sensibility towards the non-human that
Latour (2005) argues is crucial for the ongoing development of sociology and that
is all the more necessary when considering identity performances in heavily curated
and designed spaces. The identity performances unpacked in the analysis were phenomena reducible to neither the human nor the non-human parts but were the result
of the enmeshing between these elements. The impact of the non-human can clearly
not be ignored online, and the participants showed that they were grappling with
many of these elements in a considered manner. However, the misleadingly named
Actor-Network Theory does not provide a workable theoretical frame to unpack this
enmeshing on human and non-human. Instead, ANT merely notes that researchers
should attempt to pay attention to the non-human and not diminish or underestimate
the ability of these elements to impact the social. Latour, perhaps purposefully given
the complicated nature and macro implications of the subject matter, offers no
workable framework to account for the non-human in the formation of the social.
Comic Theory attempts to address this need for an account of the non-human and
crucially offers a workable and flexible approach through which to unpack and
account for the enmeshing of human and non-human. It does so in a fashion that
allows for variation in the performance but that also unpacks why this variation is
present through the concept of a locationally bound performance that is enacted by
users with their own socio-cultural resources. It is hoped that, through Comic
Theory, future digital research might consider identity performances that are enacted
through the features available online, providing a frame to unpack how users are
presenting flexible, multiple, and malleable identities on this growing range of platforms. This sensibility towards design allows the researcher to consider why and
how users engage with certain features and to what effect.
The data show that the trade-offs between location and performer that result
in locationally bound performances need to be accounted for in a nuanced manner
that allows for variation in the performance, variation in the user, and variation
in location. Comic Theory attempts to provide such a consideration, allowing us to
unpack and consider this nuance in a manner which is malleable and nondeterministic. Malleability is crucial given that it is established that users can be widely variable in terms of their socio-cultural backgrounds, which they bring with them to
these platforms. It is also crucial given that the platforms themselves are largely
variable in how they frame social interaction and in how they allow the user to act
and interact. The approach towards the enmeshing of these factors therefore needs
to be equally malleable and account for the myriad ways in which these variable
factors can combine. Closure provides the framework through which to consider
this negotiation between user and design in a malleable manner. It accounts for the
manner in which design can vary, allowing the user more or less space in which to
present identity and offering them an array of features to guide the creation of the
identity narrative. It also accounts for the manner in which the users vary, bringing
different extratextual and intertextual resources with them to the identity
7.4
Offering Closure
165
performance. This extends both to a consideration of multiple users and the ways in
which individual users can change over time and location.
The need for this malleable approach bears out in the data, with the platforms
and the users enmeshing to create unique performances that changed across time,
across users, and across platforms. Comic Theory not only captures this variety but
importantly allows a workable framework for a consideration of why and how this
variety emerges from the interplay and trade-offs between myriad combinations of
user and location. In this manner, Comic Theory is also nondeterministic in its
approach. It is apparent from the analysis that the participants did not act and use the
spaces in a uniform manner. There were a variety of in the approach taken towards
the platform that resulted in vastly different performances enacted for a variety of
reason. Design features were not engaged with in a uniform manner and did not
affect participants uniformly. Instead, the final performance was a negotiation
between user and design, sometimes meaning negotiating content creation or sacrificing privacy. Further to this, tracking the participants over the course of the year
allowed for a greater consideration of this flexibility and was vital for showing the
shifting nature of this negotiation between design and user. The data highlighted the
need for a model that could unpack the complexities of the relationship between
human and non-human in a manner that allowed for changes over time, platform,
and user. This suggests therefore that though trends can be found in large data samples in regard to how certain features are engaged with, there is a need to consider
the subtleties of this engagement. This research further notes that this is best considered from the perspective of the users, as it is their interpretation of how they engage
with the features that reveals the importance of these for their actions and interactions online.
7.4 Offering Closure
Through the analysis it was apparent that a broad approach towards social media
comes hand-in-hand with a broad approach towards the social experiences in these
spaces. The social experiences of the participants were indeed largely variable
across the range of platforms, with participants using different platforms to interact
with a range of users around a variety of topics. This included interacting and ‘networking’ with known contacts, but also importantly involved interacting with a
wider variety of contacts around interests and hobbies. Given this, the research
notes that there is a need to consider social media beyond networking with established offline contacts (Boczkowski et al. 2018). Though this forms an important
aspect of social interaction online, it is clear that this is a specific aspect of online
social reality, as discussed in Chap. 4 of this book. Networking with established
offline contacts has been the focus of much of the research into online experiences
in recent years as social media becomes a tool for the continuation of social capital.
However, this research suggests that the participant’s experiences were broader than
166
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
this and included an array of interactions with varied and included wider audiences,
engaged with for a variety of social aims.
Importantly, this research notes that not only were there broad variations in the
participants’ social engagements across platforms; there were also broad variation
within platforms. Platforms were not used in a uniform manner, and different participants used the platforms for a variety of different social features, informed by the
specific extratextual resources they bought with them to commit closure. Some participants, for example, chose only to follow established offline friends on Twitter,
and some chose only to follow celebrities and those with similar interests. Some
participants chose to allow their colleagues on Facebook, and others chose to restrict
this to more professional websites such as a professionally fronted Twitter accounts
or to LinkedIn. The engagement with the platforms is therefore realised in an individual manner by different participants, informed by their extratextual situation.
This further highlights the need to consider social interactions on a platform-byplatform basis and, importantly, to not overestimate the importance of networking
with established contacts at the expense of other social experiences online.
When networking with established contacts was discussed, this included importantly accounting for the growing notion of context collapse that was a factor in the
interactions of many of the participants (Davis and Jurgenson 2014), with multiple
aspects of the participant’s lives converging upon some of the more popular platforms. Context collapse was noted as a factor that largely affected the identity performances of the participants, shaping how and why they engaged with the platforms
to present identity. Brandon notes, for example, ‘I do worry about future problems.
Like if a boss sees my posts or something, so I try and keep that in mind when I’m
typing’. It was apparent that the participants were largely aware of the audience for
their interactions and shaped their performances accordingly. This then confirms
Goffman’s (1959) notion of situationally specific identity performed for a given
audience. However, it is worth noting that this convergence is only present due to
the unique nature of the Internet, again highlighting the need to consider social
interaction online in situ as a phenomenon that emerges through and with the platforms, not on them.
With a growing array of users present on a range of social media platforms, there
is a growing need to prioritise the notion of closure and extratextuality when considering identity performances online. In order to understand why certain messages are
expressed and sent, even upon platforms that are ostensibly considered ‘networking’ sites, an understanding of the user’s specific socio-cultural context was necessary. In this manner this research largely questions any divide between the online
and the offline. Through discussions of context collapse and the manner in which
the user’s extratextual socio-cultural resources affects their specific closure online,
it was apparent that the offline and the online are not discrete realms, but are constantly bleeding into each other. The data shows that the specificities and differences
of the online realm need to be considered in order to understand a user’s action
within that space, but crucially also reveals that the users are grounded within the
offline and bring this to bear on their engagement with the online. The notion of
closure therefore provides a necessary new lens through which to unpack this
7.4
Offering Closure
167
relationship between specific spaces and socio-culturally grounded users and in the
process challenges the notion of digital duality (Jurgenson 2012), arguing that the
online is necessarily and continually grounded in the offline realms. The offline
realm does more than just bleed into the offline; it informs our actions and interactions and shapes our approach, our reading, our uses, and engagement. They are at
all times linked. As such, this research notes online interactions cannot be understood without a consideration of the socio-culturally grounded (inter)actor. It was
crucial that this be understood from the perspective of the participants, as it was
their specific commitment of closure that was necessary to understand why they
presented themselves in the manner they did at that given time within that specific
location. In doing so, my interpretations and assumptions of these spaces were not
overtly imposed upon the participants, and the research was able to explore how
these spaces were read and understood by the participants.
This is all the more evident when considering Molly’s case. It was apparent that
the change in context that Molly underwent from home to university changed her
engagement with social media and her approach to the platforms. She began to follow new users online that were pertinent to her course and also began engaging with
new platforms to maintain contact with her friends. In this regard, her usage of the
platforms could not be separated from her given situation. Brandon too noted that a
change in offices led to different approaches towards what was appropriate to share
online. Indeed, most participants suggested that their offline socio-cultural grounding augmented their online actions and interactions in some manner. Following the
participants over the course of a year revealed that their engagements with the platform were largely temporally and socio-culturally bound. Future research in this
area could therefore consider the effect of specific socio-cultural shifts – such as
educational transitions – on social media use. Such changes in situation bring with
them evident changes in social needs and concerns. A focus upon a specific shift in
socio-cultural situation could allow for comparison across subjects undergoing the
same socio-cultural shift and could provide insights into specific concerns and patterns of change during this time.
Understanding the participants’ contextualisation of these platforms was therefore vital to proceed to unpack their actions and interactions within those spaces.
Through this process, it became apparent that the participants’ contextualisations of
the platforms were widely variable and dependent upon their specific situation.
Work, studying, friendship groups, and family were all noted as aspects that shaped
how and why these particular participants were engaging with the features during
the course of data collection. Their uses of the platforms were not uniform, as different concerns shaped how they committed closure and completed the narrative. It
is not simply enough therefore to note which features are engaged with. There is a
need to understand why these specific features are used in the manner they are.
Closure in this regard helped to unpack the participants’ engagement with the features of the website, with the participants bringing their own specific contexts to
their engagement with the platforms. Through the interviews it was apparent that
the extratextual situation of the participants varied and that their specific situation
affected how and why they engaged with the features.
168
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
The concept of closure and extratextuality then allows for a consideration of the
enmeshing of user and design, placing the emphasis upon how the design is interpreted and understood by the user, which in turn affect how they engage with the
platforms to present identity. In this manner, the design of the platform is enmeshed
with the user to produce unique identity performances. The idea of completing the
narrative through closure avoids determinism whilst still allowing for a consideration of how the performance is necessarily bound to the space in which it emerges,
thus acknowledging and accounting for the real and tangible impact of design. As
such, the concept of closure presents a usable and flexible frame with which to
understand how the users understand, manage, and negotiate their identities, their
interactions, and their actions online in line with their specific needs and situations.
Given the ability of Comic Theory to unpack the interplay between user and design,
it is suggested that, in future research, the framework should be explored from a
range of socio-cultural backgrounds than this particular project was able to access
in order to further explore and test the validity of the theoretical framework.
Further to this, Comic Theory suggests that there are more manners of engaging
with platforms socially than merely producing content and that social media plays
many shifting and complicated roles in the social lives of young people. These roles
again vary from user to user, platform to platform, and technology to technology. It
is therefore vital that we not only consider the nuances at play between user, design,
and technology to create specific identity performances but that we also shift our
attention away from the obvious data production to consider wider uses of the platform that are equally important to the user and, in some cases, form the bulk of their
engagements with the platforms.
Comic Theory ultimately provides a workable, usable, and transferable frame
through which to consider and account for design in identity presentation and
through which to consider the role of the non-human, without the research becoming lost in an unending web of connections. Whereas ANT and similar frames have
presented the necessity for a shift towards the consideration of the non-human, here
Comic Theory proposes a workable framework to unpack this and to consider the
role of the non-human in a nuanced manner with regard to identity presentation.
This importantly is presented in a nondeterministic fashion to consider human and
non-human enmeshing to create different performances. Identity is ultimately malleable and grounded in the specific space in which it emerges. The performed identity online then is not purely the result of humans. It is guided by the many subtleties
and variabilities of design and technology and equally and is shaped and fulfilled by
the user. Comic Theory holds that it is these elements enmeshing that produce an
identity performance and that are continually renegotiated as the performance
plays out.
Through this purposefully adaptive approach, researchers are encouraged to
move beyond the consideration of one or two platforms alone and instead engage
with the growing variety of design elements available across a growing range of
platforms. This is increasingly important in social media research if we are to examine the role of social media in the daily lives of users. This evidently involves more
than just content production, more than just peer-to-peer interaction, and more than
7.4
Offering Closure
169
just Facebook and Twitter. Indeed, it is noted in this research that Facebook can be
considered an atypical social media experience and that focusing upon this platform
alone may be misrepresentative to the diverse online experiences of young people.
As such, research needs to move beyond the focus on SNS that pervades digital
research and acknowledge the complex reality of social experiences online.
Finally then, this book wishes to conclude by referring back to the words of
Larkin, written in 2008, who noted that ‘what media are needs to be interrogated,
not presumed’ (Larkin 2008, 3). Comic Theory holds this to be true, especially in an
age when they are increasingly present in the lives of young people. As this chapter
makes clear, this is also pertinent to educational technology writ large, which is
often utilised in a heavy-handed manner, or, as Anant Agarwal hints, engaged within
a manner which presumes and exudes blindness. This interrogation is vital to understand the role of the platforms in the social interactions of young people and, as this
chapter discusses, a vital challenge for educators, policy makers, and researchers
alike. As this chapter notes, we need sociological understanding of technology in
education. It is my hope that, through Comic Theory, this much-needed interrogation can be conducted in a manner that allows for the deftness needed in addressing
the growing array of experiences online.
The challenge to educational researchers, practitioners, and policy makers
remains a simple but necessary response to Agarwal’s claims of blindness: open
your eyes. Sociological research continues to explore the overlaps between technology, culture, and education. This work provides a much-needed critical consideration to the introduction of technology in education. In this manner, this research
joins others such as Emejulu and McGregor (2019, 132) in calling for a new framing of digital citizenship in education, one which acknowledges that:
a developed sense of the political – and how it shapes social and cultural relations – remains
largely absent in the field of digital education…Radical digital citizenship should also
debunk magical thinking whereby the ‘digital’ is invoked as a fetish, operating to obscure
the material inequalities and socially exploitative relations upon which the proliferation of
digital technology is premised.
Technology cannot be removed from the political and social contexts in which it is
so deeply embedded. Educational responses to technology similarly should not
spend time and effort desperately propping up an unsustainable divide between the
technological and the social. This does a disservice to our pupils and ill-prepares
them for the realities of technology in their everyday lives. As the discussion in
Chap. 2 of this book suggests, we cannot assume that young people have the skills
to navigate this space, nor can we abdicate our responsibility in shepherding them
through this sociotechnical world. As Emejulu and McGregor (2019, 143) go on
to state:
Digital education can play an important role in helping individuals and groups desire more
for themselves than being a commodity and performing a digital self online. We think digital education can help us to desire more from the internet than just the commodification of
digital spaces. We also think that digital education can help us understand systemic social,
economic and environmental inequalities in a new and different way.
170
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
We find ourselves then at a crossroads of how to work with technology in the classroom. Down one path lies our current destination, bound up in catch-all implementation of technology, in Agarwal’s claims of blindness, in teaching young people to
comply to the whims of social media companies in the name of digital citizenship
read as good behaviour and in the creeping spectre of bureaucratic neoliberal capitalism into education. Down the other path, the path less travelled, lies a consideration of the ways in which technology continues to exacerbate inequity, an overt
attention to the sociotechnical, a promise to build educational policy in a way which
encourages young people to be critical of the design of the platforms they use, and
a move towards education that liberates rather than pacifies. As Paulo Freire (1985,
122) put it, ‘Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral’. We, as educators, stand in
the position to dictate which path we choose for our pupils and how we choose
account for technology in education. Neutrality and blindness have pervaded our
response to technology to date. It’s time we changed paths.
References
Allsopp, D. H., Colucci, K., Doone, E., Perez, L., Bryant, E., Jr., & Holhfeld, T. N. (2012).
Interactive whiteboard technology for students with disabilities: A year long exploratory study.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(4), 1–15.
Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2011). ‘Digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ discourses. In R. Land &
S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital difference: Perspectives on online learning (pp. 159–169). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Blank, G., & Dutton, W. H., With Lefkowitz, J. (2019). Perceived threats to privacy online:
The internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2019. Oxford Internet Institute, University
of Oxford.
Boczkowski, P. J., Matassi, M., & Mitchelstein, E. (2018). How young users deal with multiple
platforms: The role of meaning-making in social media repertoires. Journal of Computer-­
Mediated Communication, 23(5), 245–259.
Cottom, T. M. (2017). Black CyberFeminism: Ways forward for intersectionality and digital sociology. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. McMillan Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies. Policy
Press: London.
Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485.
Despujol, I. M., Turro, C., Busqueis, J., & Canero, A. (2014). Analysis of demographics and results
of student’s opinion survey of a large scale MOOC deployment for the Spanish speaking community. In Proceedings of Frontiers in education conference (pp. 1–8). Madrid, Spain.
Emejulu, A., & McGregor, C. (2019). Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education.
Critical Studies in Education, 60(1), 131–147.
Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). London: Allen Lane.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. London: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A ‘learning revolution’?
Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms.
Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243–256.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Allen Lane.
References
171
Gopal, P. (2017). Yes, we must decolonise: Our teaching has to go beyond elite white
men.
Accessed
09/2019.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/27/
decolonise-elite-white-men-decolonising-cambridge-university-english-curriculum-literature
Gov.UK. (2019). Statutory guidance National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study. Published 11 September 2013. Access 09/2019. https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study/
national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225.
Iniesto, F., & Rodrigo, C. (2016). A preliminary study for developing accessible MOOC services.
Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 6(2), 126–150.
Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet, 4, 83–91.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227–241.
Larkin, B. (2008). Signal and noise: Media, infrastructure, and urban culture in Nigeria. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford
University Press.
Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: Professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology, 24, 1–17.
Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information
Technologies, 13(4), 291–303.
Loren, T. (2019, March 14). The hottest chat app for teens is … Google docs. The
Atlantic.
Access
09/2019.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/
hottest-chat-app-teens-google-docs/584857/
Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A., & Alkhatnai, M. (2014). Emerging patterns in MOOCs:
Learners, course designs and directions. TechTrends, 59(1), 56–63.
Munafo, J., Diedrick, M., & Stoffregen, T. A. (2017). The virtual reality head-mounted display
Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Experimental Brain Research,
235(3), 889–901.
Neff, G., & Nafus, D. (2016). Self-tracking. Boston: MIT Press.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York:
New York University Press.
Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive
or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494–510.
OFCOM. (2019, February). Children & parents: Media use and attitudes report 2018.
OFCOM. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-aChildren and parents: media use and attitudes report 2018nd-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/
children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2018.
OECD (2013). New sources of growth: Knowledge-based capital: Key analyses and policy conclusions: Synthesis report. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/knowledge-based-­
capital-synthesis.pdf
Privacy International. (2019). No body’s business but mine: How menstruation apps are sharing your data. Access 09/2019. https://www.privacyinternational.org/long-read/3196/
no-bodys-business-mine-how-menstruation-apps-are-sharing-your-datas.
Rowe, E. (2019). Capitalism without capital: The intangible economy of education reform.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 271–279.
Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical
perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83–94.
Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or
just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321–1341.
172
7
Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational…
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon?
A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91–101.
Spring, J., & Picciano, A. G. (2013). The great American education-industrial complex: Ideology,
technology, and profit. London: Routledge.
Strauss, V. (2018). Teachers are now being asked to punch time clocks. What does that mean
for their profession?. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/
wp/2018/03/04/teachers-are-now-being-asked-to-punch-time-clocks-what-does-that-mean-­
for-­theirprofession/?utm_term=.57738f160db4
Weller, K. (2016). Trying to understand social media users and usage: The forgotten features of
social media platforms. Online Information Review, 40(2), 256–264.
Zhao, X., Lampe, C., & Ellison, N. B. (2016). The social media ecology: User perceptions, strategies and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 89–100). ACM.