In this week’s readings, Zhao’s notion of the “hoped-for possible selves” caught my interest (pg. 1819). It’s such an idealistic concept -- we present ourselves online in the way in which we hope to be perceived even though this may not be true, or realized, in our real lives. Zhao highlights the things users do to develop their “hoped-for selves” -- they add positive quotes, their profile picture is often a group picture not an individual picture, they don’t describe themselves under the “About Me” section but instead “like” things (music, books, art, sports, etc) that reflect themselves, and so on. And based on the information people choose to include, Zhao states:
“It thus seems that the Facebook identities were not the identities users established in the offline world, nor were they close to the identities users would construct in anonymous online environments; rather, they were the hoped-for possible identities users would like to, but have not yet been able to, establish in the offline world (pg. 1828).”
I question whether Zhao and colleagues can make this type of judgment based purely on reading through several Facebook pages. I think the researchers had actually had a focus group with a subset of these college students to find out how aligned or misaligned their Facebook profiles were with their real selves, I would be more convinced. I would argue that while people may choose to leave off some personal information on their Facebook profile, including information such as “hanging out with my friends” or “going to the opera” under “like” doesn’t mean that the person is expressing their “hoped-for selves.”
From my own Facebook profile, I don't think I'm sharing my "hoped-for self." I think that I am, for the most part, trying to be true to who I am in real life. But maybe that's just me
9.25.2010
September 23: Social Life on the Internet
The four communication characteristics Walther describes in his article, Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction, continue to be relevant today despite the changes in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). His article, which was published in 1996, focuses on the differences between CMCs (e.g. email, b-boards,group discussion boards), and face to face (F2F) interactions particularly in the workplace setting.
The fact that his communication framework is still relevant today, despite the advances in technology is most intriguing to me. When I read through his description of the four characteristics (the sender, the receiver, the channel, and the feedback loop), I started reflecting on my own experiences with communicating, mostly at work, with people I have never met before. Most of the characteristics are relevant to my everyday interactions.
I should first say, that despite all of these technological advances (Skype, Webex, IMing, etc), most of my meetings with external colleagues still take place over the phone. When I do use CMC (e-mail always) to communicate with external colleagues whom I've not me in person, it is generally to make a request or an invitation. Most of these often go to physicians so I do spend a lot of time crafting my emails. As the sender, I need the request to be clear, concise, and direct. I am more likely to get a response if the email is written in this manner. Of course, as someone with no clinical background, I need these physicians (as receivers) to perceive me to be competent and knowledgeable or I won't have a job, really.
One piece of my job involves giving feedback to physicians on their residency program goals and objectives. Often I have not met the physician in advance. To my benefit, their perception of me is enormously enhanced by "reduced cues" and our asynchronous interactions. I look young, medical student young, so my f2f interactions with these physicians often begin with an awkward start. If our interactions are conducted via email first, I can give them critical feedback, and then the first f2f interaction (if necessary) isn't awkward at all.
I should first say, that despite all of these technological advances (Skype, Webex, IMing, etc), most of my meetings with external colleagues still take place over the phone. When I do use CMC (e-mail always) to communicate with external colleagues whom I've not me in person, it is generally to make a request or an invitation. Most of these often go to physicians so I do spend a lot of time crafting my emails. As the sender, I need the request to be clear, concise, and direct. I am more likely to get a response if the email is written in this manner. Of course, as someone with no clinical background, I need these physicians (as receivers) to perceive me to be competent and knowledgeable or I won't have a job, really.
One piece of my job involves giving feedback to physicians on their residency program goals and objectives. Often I have not met the physician in advance. To my benefit, their perception of me is enormously enhanced by "reduced cues" and our asynchronous interactions. I look young, medical student young, so my f2f interactions with these physicians often begin with an awkward start. If our interactions are conducted via email first, I can give them critical feedback, and then the first f2f interaction (if necessary) isn't awkward at all.
One of my interests is in online learning/distance education. In this type of setting your want everyone to feel like their contributions matter and that they are part of a community of learners. So this framework could be helpful in understanding how learners interact (or don't interact) with each other. It might also help better understand why/how hyperpersonal relationships develop among some of learners but not others. As an instructor, this framework could be used to inform planning and monitor progress of the course -- how should learners introduce themselves?, what will the first assignment look like?, how will we know if a learner has started to disengage or is left out?
9.15.2010
September 16, Intriguing Concept
What concept or idea intrigued you most in this weeks' readings? How/does it impact your thinking about the questions and issues you wrote out for yourself last week?
I found the concept of "property rights" in cyberspace in the Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age a fairly intriguing piece. Given that the piece was published in 1996, I thought that the authors had incredible foresight. (In 1996, I didn't I even know that there was such a thing as "cyberspace".) Dyson et al. state, "Defining property rights in cyberspace is perhaps the single most urgent and important task for government information policy." (page 306)
I'm not sure exactly what steps the government has taken in the 14 years since this article was published. With respect to education, I know that there are laws around "fair use" that allow teachers to use materials (videos, images, and text) that do not belong to them for a given period of time. But the sharing/distribution of these materials outside of "fair use" is pretty rampant. Today, for example, I was in a meeting where we were reminded that it is illegal to download music, videos, etc, from services like "Limewire." Limewire encourages the sharing of these materials with complete disregard to copyright laws. So how does the government protect individuals (artists, authors, musicians, researchers) who have copyrighted material from being shared without the individual's permission? Do they have the resources to go after everyone who downloads from bit torrent site?
How does this relate to my post from last week? In last week's post I remarked on how people were very liberal in posting things to the web that aren't necessarily flattering. In terms of property ownership, who does that "status update", "tweet" or "image" belong to? You posted it (an idea, a photo, a thought). It's not copyrighted. It's out there in cyberspace. You can't take it back. Others can see and share it. They are not required to attribute it to you (although if it's unflattering, attribution is always there). Is it still yours?
image via zdnet
9.10.2010
9.09.2010
Fascinating and Disturbing
Pardon the stream of consciousness typing. There's just so much to think about and process...
I am endlessly fascinated (and sometimes) disturbed by what people choose to post online in very public or seemingly private forums.
Mike Wesch's lecture made me understand a little better why people are so open and inhibited when it the online world although I admit, I hadn't really considered narcissism as a factor. With his lecture in mind, my questions are: What impact does online behavior have on the future prospects (like acceptance in schools, job prospects, etc.)? and Do we ever really have control?
What impact does online behavior have on future prospects? This has become a new interest of mine. I currently work with NY Presbyterian Hospital -- primarily focusing on faculty development around education but I've also been pulled into other projects. The latest project is on e-professionalism. In February, a photo of a cadaver surfaced on FB. The person who posted the image, currently a resident, was a first year medical student at the time. Clearly this violates all kinds of patient privacy laws. At this point, I'm still not sure what happened to resident in question but in similar situation at another hospital, a resident and a few medical students were suspended. What happens when they return? What impact will this one action, lapse in judgment, have on their future careers in medicine?
This brings me to other question: Do we ever really control? I'm sure that those who posted the photos didn't think that it would get beyond their respective circle of FB "friends". With each of these social media sites, I feel a strong sense of false control. And it doesn't hit you that you don't have real control until your slightly inappropriate photos or comments have been shared with a whole new group because your friend "liked" or "retweeted" your status update or photo. And let's not forget what other people are posting about you...Of course, when it comes to this kind of stuff, I feel quite conservative. Maybe it's because I'm older. Maybe it's because I work at Columbia....
I am endlessly fascinated (and sometimes) disturbed by what people choose to post online in very public or seemingly private forums.
Mike Wesch's lecture made me understand a little better why people are so open and inhibited when it the online world although I admit, I hadn't really considered narcissism as a factor. With his lecture in mind, my questions are: What impact does online behavior have on the future prospects (like acceptance in schools, job prospects, etc.)? and Do we ever really have control?
What impact does online behavior have on future prospects? This has become a new interest of mine. I currently work with NY Presbyterian Hospital -- primarily focusing on faculty development around education but I've also been pulled into other projects. The latest project is on e-professionalism. In February, a photo of a cadaver surfaced on FB. The person who posted the image, currently a resident, was a first year medical student at the time. Clearly this violates all kinds of patient privacy laws. At this point, I'm still not sure what happened to resident in question but in similar situation at another hospital, a resident and a few medical students were suspended. What happens when they return? What impact will this one action, lapse in judgment, have on their future careers in medicine?
This brings me to other question: Do we ever really control? I'm sure that those who posted the photos didn't think that it would get beyond their respective circle of FB "friends". With each of these social media sites, I feel a strong sense of false control. And it doesn't hit you that you don't have real control until your slightly inappropriate photos or comments have been shared with a whole new group because your friend "liked" or "retweeted" your status update or photo. And let's not forget what other people are posting about you...Of course, when it comes to this kind of stuff, I feel quite conservative. Maybe it's because I'm older. Maybe it's because I work at Columbia....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)