Food For Thought

Wellman and Gulia note that much existing research on online identity and communities have failed to take into account the wider context in which the interactions online are taking place.  Rather than treating internet activity as one part of a person’s life, much research isolated online behavior and examines it out of context.  They also note that there is little in the way of long term or in-depth analysis of online communities, looking at the ways in which various social networks online and in real life interlink, or how virtual communication factors into the overall communication patterns of people. They also note that there has also been relatively little research conducted on the nature and longevity of online intimacy.

Most of the analysis that does exist is parochial.  It almost always treats the internet as an isolated social phenomenon without taking into account how interactions on the Net fit together with other aspects of people’s lives. […] There have been very few detailed ethnographic studies of online communities, no surveys of who is connected to whom and about what,  and no time-budget accounts of how many people spend what amount of hours virtually communing. (p170)

When Wellman and Gulia then go on to describe the narrow focus of many internet communities and groups it raises the question for me whether this narrow focus of research has been dictated to some degree by the nature of the communities being studied.  Wellman and Gulia say that the Internet continues the trend of the real modern world of fostering specialized relationships. Many discussion groups are topic-oriented  (political, technical, social or recreational)  and this can lead to the creation of narrow relationships that focus more on the information shared than the relationships.

However, they also note that many of these specialized groups still perform a role of social support and companionship.  Performing these roles for  others online is often a way of expressing identity, particularly for people to whom expertise or supportive behavior is an important part of their self-identity.  These supportive behaviors help them to develop their reputation and recognition within the group.

Even when online groups are not designed to be supportive, they tend to be.  As social beings, those who use the net seek not only information but also companionship, social support, and a sense of belonging. For example, while the majority of elderly users of “SeniorNet” reported joining the net to gain access to information, nearly half (47%) had also joined to find companionship. Indeed, the most popular activity was chatting with others.  (p173)

On other occasions groups are mobilized online with the specific intent of providing both information and support – often for an event or activity that is happening/coordinated in the real world.  After the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995 local university students had created information sites and electronic bulletin boards all within hours of the blast.  These sites informed locals of critical information like the names of the wounded, the hospitals in use, and where they could go to donate blood.  Another example that Wellman and Gulia give is that of striking professors in Israeli universities who coordinated their action in public and private groups online.

The lack of status or situational cues can also encourage contact between weak ties.  Often, the only thing known about others are email addresses which may provide minimal or misleading information. The relatively egalitarian nature of the net can encourage responses to requests. (p176)

Kiesler and Sproull 1992, and  Hilts and Turoff 1993 argue that “without physical and social cues or immediate feedback, email scan foster extreme language, difficulties in coordination and feedback, and group polarization.” Without situational cues or pre-established status within a group ties can often be weaker, however the same lack of predefined structure gives an egalitarian nature to these groups and can encourage responses from those who may not otherwise have responded.

In he end, despite their effort to do otherwise, Wellman and Gulia concluded that they have resorted to the anecdotal tactics of their predecessors. They finish with a call to action for more evidence-based research in the area.

We have concluded this chapter more like pundits and tellers of tales than like researchers.  As others before us, we have argued often by assertion and anecdote. This is because the paucity of systematic research into virtual communities has raised more questions than even preliminary answers. […] It is time to replace anecdote with evidence. The subject is important: practically, scholarly, and politically.  The answers have not yet been found.  Indeed, the questions are just starting to be formulated. (p188)

 In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity.  The norm is: one body, one identity. (p29)

This chapter examines how identity is established and how identity deception is controlled online.  It takes an ethnographic approach, interpreting closely examined social discourse (Geertz 1973) and examining a virtual community as a communications system and its inhabitants as signallers and receivers.

Donath examines how identity is established in online communities – free from the anchor of their human body, participants online are free to create as many personae as they have time and energy to.  This chapter questions how these personae link back to the body-bound identity that created them and how much they are reliant on and responsible for each other.   Donath says that identity is an essential part of how we assess the trustworthiness or reliability of another and our reputations should be treated with care as they are essential to our placement within a community.  In online newsgroups trust is important because they often centre on information seeking and provision.   It is important to those seeking information that they know where the person providing the information is coming from in relation to their motivation and measure of expertise.  To the individual it is important that they are displaying a recognisable identity, as one of their main aims is to develop a reputation within the group.

There are many examples of deception in nature and the animal kingdom, as when certain animals mimic the colours or sounds of other more dangerous animals to scare away predators.  Donath asks the question why this is not a more common tactic, and though this question is not fully answered she notes that if deception is too prevalent a signal will become unreliable and will no longer convey its message.

[In] stable systems of deception […] the percentage of deceivers does not overwhelm the population, and the signal remains information-bearing, however imperfectly. And there are signals that are inherently reliable: signals that are difficult, or impossible, to cheat. (p32)

She discusses Amotz Zahavi’s 1993 work on signal reliability, which proposes the “handicap principle”. This principle suggests that signals such as carrying a heavy load signify strength or carelessly wasting lots of money signify wealth and these ‘assessment signals’ are not easily faked and thus generally very reliable.  Signals that don’t follow the handicap principle are called conventional signals.  These signals can be made without possessing the trait –such as wearing a t-shirt associated with a gym – but they mean something to both the signifier and the receiver due to custom or convention.  A conventional signal can become unstable if there is too much deception associated with it though, and it will eventually loose its significance.  Conventional signals are generally easier and less costly for both the signaller and the receiver so they are still widely used, despite the possibility of deception.   To make the signals more reliable there is often a punishment associated with deception within a community or society.

Identity in cyberspace is even more subjective and often harder to define. Signals usually take the forms of usernames, email addresses (and domain they are associated with), information included in the signature, and the voice and tone, all of which present the user in the way that they wish to be identified.

Goffman’s “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” makes the distinction of “expressions given” (signaller’s intent) and “expressions given off” (receiver’s interpretation) – which deals with the subtle nuances of language and action that can betray aspects of person’s true identity online. Donath asks if these are assessment or conventional signals.  The username, signature or email address of a net user can also often be used to trace their net history and get an impression of their interests and views and a complete internet history is something that requires more effort than most people are willing to fake.  The use of topic or forum specific language markers and acronyms can also identify a user as a member of a specific online group.

Most of this identifying information can be faked to some degree of success, and Internet trolls use this to their advantage, but others use this deception to protect their real life identity or to explore various personae. Pseudonyms are common and often expected, but they raise questions about balancing privacy and accountability.

New ways of establishing and of hiding identity are evolving in the virtual world. There is no formula that works best in all forums: balancing privacy and accountability, reliability and self-expression, security and accessibility requires a series of compromises and trade-offs whose value is very dependent on the goals of the group and of the individuals that comprise it. (p56)

Growing Up Digital is a positive, if slightly hyperbolic, account of the youth of what Tapscott terms the Net Generation.  Tapscott defines the Net Generation as a generation who were between the ages of 2 and 22 in 1999 and “the first to grow up surrounded by digital media”.  By my calculations that would make them between 15 and 35 now in 2012, which means he is essentially talking about my generation, except it’s not really representative at all.  I would hazard a guess that while most of the statements he makes here may well apply to me, I am the very definition of an early adopter and growing up in the 80s and 90s I never even used a computer until I was eleven years old, so I doubt they apply to even 10% of the people I grew up with. Part of this discrepancy is likely that whereas Tapscott is talking about young people in the USA, I grew up in Ireland where most people couldn’t get access to the Internet, even if they did want it, up until five or ten years ago.  Looking at the figures for 1998 (the year the book was written) only 18.6% of Irish households had a PC (cso.ie, 1998) – that’s not even an Internet connection, just a PC. Even in the UK only 34% of households had a PC (statistics.gov.uk, 2008).

Tapscott admits that he is talking about a small group of early adopters, even by US standards on the pretext that they will inform us on the widespread future adoption by the rest of their generation. Taking that at face value, from this research we can probably deduce more about people who fall into a demographic 5-10 years younger than what is described in the book. With that said, the book offers some interesting insights into a generation that has had a completely different experience of the knowledge continuum compared to previous generations.

In researching the book Tapscott collaborated with over 300 young people.  This research was carried out online over one year on especially dedicated forums. Tapscott also interviews with parents, business leaders, cyber gurus and policy makers and draws on demographic work and market research conducted by the Alliance for Converging Technologies think tank.

According to Tapscott, the main thing that separates the Net Generation from previous generations is that they are more comfortable with technology and more digitally literate than their parents’ generation (the Baby Boomers).  They are at the crux of social transformation because of the way that they communicate, play, shop, learn, work and create communities online.   The kids are out in front, leading the pack and the adults are struggling to catch up and implement educational and social strategies that take digital media into consideration. They are in the midst of a paradigm shift in which the knowledge hierarchy is being flipped on its head. For the first time children are the authorities on something and have valuable skills to teach their parents.

 Stories about six-year-olds programming new VCRs after their parents’ unsuccessful efforts are now cliché. A newer version is the 14-year-old girl whose parents recently asked her to install Net Nanny software on the family computer to keep Internet pornography out of the house.  Of course, her parents are oblivious to the fact that if she sets up the system, she then controls it. ( p36)

Traits that apply to the NGen personality include curiosity, assertiveness, self-reliance and acceptance of diversity.  Tapscott portrays them as active-minded individuals who want to engage in dialogue through their digital media.  They want to be users, rather than viewers.  To them the television is out-dated, in that it does not allow for interaction.

 While N-Geners understand the basic operation of spatial distances, as did previous generations, they appear to lack appreciation of global distances.  They may be the first generation with a truly global perspective.  The world to them is (to use a term of Nicholas Negroponte) “the size of the head of a pin”. (p101)

This generation is more aware of a global context, they think in hypertext – to them everything is linked somehow and the computer augments their thinking, freeing their mind from linear thought. Although he does not go as far as to say it is value-free, Tapscott believes that the Internet has greater neutrality than traditional media.  Kids can control their own world on the Net leading to a greater capacity for questioning, challenging and diversity of opinion. Unlike the TV, the Net provides children with the capacity to develop and learn while also having fun.  Tapscott believes that when kids control their media they develop faster, so the Net Generation has accelerated development.

 Conventional wisdom took a beating in the spring of 1996 when Harvard students effectively challenged their administration’s million-dollar contract wit PepsiCo which would have given the soft drink manufacturer exclusive beverage rights on campus.  The challenge came about as a direct result of a 1993 notice placed on the Internet by university students in Canada. The notice examined PepsiCo’s holdings in Burma [Myanmar….] calls for a boycott of Pepsi products were renewed on university and college campuses all over the continent.  In January 1997, PepsiCo announced its full disengagement from Burma. (p283)

Ideologically, the NGen value independence, individualism, privacy, tolerance, equality, social justice, and freedom of expression and the oppose censorship, and discrimination.  They trust their future only to themselves, trusting their own judgement and abilities but worrying about the wider world and economy and how it will affect their future.  They mistrust government and elites and value a good education although their primary focus is not making money. They value being connected to others and have a strong sense of collective social and civic responsibility and strong opinions on social issues.   The Internet has become the vehicle for questioning and protest of this generation, much as the Baby Boomer generation protested on the streets in the 60s.

 We can already see this in nascent social movements around the world, from the media guerrillas organizing to expose unethical corporations that are pushing smoking or anorexia or exploiting child labor, to the surging students in Serbia working to topple a bankrupt and authoritarian regime.  The Net is their vehicle for revolution – their tract, megaphone, teach-in, bookstore, fundraising event, demonstration, makeshift stage, and war room all in one. (p300)