This is just too good NOT to share even though I don't have time.

I know I get excited about weird things -- but the potential and uses for this just caused an explosion in my brain. So while I clean up the mess it made, read for yourselves. But you've been warned.

I've found it in a couple of places - but I think this site is where it's being developed. Read More......

Strange Intersections - Revisited

This post discusses a dissertation that could have easily been included in my "scholarly research" post, but I felt it was worthy of a post of its own. The reason it’s a "strange intersection" is because it is directly related to three different significant academic interests of mine, and they all converged in one dissertation. In fact, I had trouble deciding on which blog to post it, and finally decided this one – and make a link to this post from my other blog.

Why do people engage in social computing?: A need fulfillment perspective
by Sachdev, Vishal, Ph.D., The University of Texas at Arlington, 2007, 112 pages; AAT 3307230 This is a dissertation that thoroughly explores constructs related to measuring and defining interactivity. (You may need to be logged into a library data base with access to ProQuest searches, such as BYU's library, to access this link)

I was first interested in the content of the dissertation because of our new media class. And also because of the two main research questions it attempts to answer:
a. What is the motivation for users to participate in social computing?
b. What will it take for these sites to retain existing users and attract new ones?

I was interested in it from a web analytics perspective because the key element Sachdev researched in answering these questions was interactivity. Interactivity and all of its’ sub-constructs are exactly what we’d like analytics to be able to measure better for educational purposes. Sachdev’s study gives me some solid research on which to base ideas about possible improvements or applications of web-analytics. Additionally, there are some possibilities about segmentation that can be gleaned from the information here – another big part of web analytics.

Last, but not least, (nerd alert here) he presents his hypothesis and his results in (among other ways) factor analysis diagrams, which I recently studied this summer! So…instead of just flipping through the statistical results to get to the “meat” of the written conclusion, I was actually quite interested in reading about the methods he used. I was also familiar with the software he used for the analysis, and actually understood what he did, and the diagrams and reported results made perfect sense! That, in and of itself was really exciting (as well as a little unusual  ) I also was encouraged to see that he used both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Ok, Ok, but will YOU be interested? Well here are the factors he explores in relation to interactivity: control, autonomy, responsiveness, social presence, deep profiling, self-presentation, competence, and relatedness – all loading on motivation, and then intention, and then use. Wouldn’t most everyone in our field with interests in improving learning want to know more about those constructs? Read More......

Into the Brainstorm

In an earlier post I promised this one would: "explore curious ideas, to seek out unusual perspectives, to boldly go where no one has cared much to go before (probably for good reasons)" This may not hold up under the scrutiny of "truth of advertising" but here are some thoughts I've had:

It's obvious that people who are willing to share (information, friend's information, photos, thoughts, writings, bookmarks, music, screencasts, lesson plans, podcasts, recipes, art, their 'virtual' selves, or whatever...) are the life-blood of the "New Media" or Web 2.0 You might have picked up from previous posts that privacy issues are a concern to me as is how all of this information could be used for good or otherwise.

I think we need to hold "social network sites" and other sites based on user contributions and web 2.0 technologies to be just as transparent as they ask 'us' to be, their users - who are really their evangelists too. Hey, we are their content providers AND their best marketing tools -- so we should insist on this. I want to know/see (or at least have the option of seeing) how many times my contribution is accessed and by whom - or at least the location of the access. And...if it was used by an app, I want to know which one, and when. As long as we're into cool little "visual network" applications -- let's create some that show where my content/information has "been".

I think this would have several effects. First of all I think it would greatly surprise many people. I think most 'users' totally underestimate just where their little piece of freely contributed and personal content-in-a-bottle ends up after they toss it into the webic ocean. I know I have been surprised before at what I have learned just from simple web-analytics I installed on my blogs. Secondly, I think it may make a FEW people a little more thoughtful before they push the Send/Upload/OK/Join/IAgree/Publish buttons. The illusion of anonymity would slowly start to fade. In the end I think it would hasten sharing because having that information would be incredibly interesting, and because narcissists and selfless-altruistic-sharers alike would be encouraged by that information. It may (though this is probably just a naive and hopeful wish) deter some people from using the freely shared data in unethical ways.

Now on to the exotic...I suppose the following work might have been included in the "Scholarly Research" tour, but to me it is so "off the beaten path" that I think it goes here in the brain-storm category.

It is a master's thesis by a Clemson fine arts student. It's got to be one-of-a-kind. At least I would be surprised if there were many (if any) other successfully defended recent theses out there that contain only one cited reference, and THAT reference is a website!! Figuring the Digital by Morin, Molly C., M.F.A., Clemson University, 2007, 34 pages; AAT 1447739 The intent of this thesis (as described in the abstract) is:

"a way of understanding, reflecting on, and contributing to a contemporary dialogue about the impact of digital technology and the Internet on society by looking at the organization of information that lies behind the computer screen, and creating work that is sourced directly from the Internet but becomes a tangible object in the physical world."

Though far from qualified to judge the art that was produced, I think I can comment on her method for creating that art. Morin believes that the art reflects patterns found on then internet generally and facebook specifically. She explains:

"I create systems for moving through the internet and generate images in which the size, shape and repetition of each line is determined by the organization of existing websites and information published on social networking sites like Facebook.com"

When I read her 34 page thesis, specifically the methods used to produce the art, it occurred to me that the art is just as much based on random numbers and creating patterns using those numbers as it is on the structure of the web, or facebook information. That you can obtain (at least pseudo)random numbers from data on the internet is not surprising as (pseudo) random numbers can be found in such mundane things as phonebooks, license plates, and paint splatters. I'd love to hear your opinion about this artwork - if you agree that it truly reflects structures of the web, or answers one of her "research" questions: "How webby is the web?". I've included a picture of part of her art work below. No matter what your opinion - you have to agree this is a curious idea, and an unusual perspective.


One other brief point: I feel like this thesis could possibly serve as a valid counter-example to the opinion held by some that all academic research is somehow more legitimate than what "just anyone" can post on the web. What do you think?

And just in case those two nuggets didn't really deliver as the post advertised, here's something to watch. I found it both mind-boggling, expanding, and honestly a little creepy in some ways, because at the end of the video, what Kelly is describing sounds so incredibly Borg-like!(Google "Seven of Nine", "Borg" or "Star Trek The Next Generation", if this is not familiar to you.) He says: There will be "Only one machine (The One)", "the web will be its OS, All screens look into 'The One'","No bits will live outside the web", "To share is to gain", "Let the One read it.", "The one is us."



Thankfully, some commentors seemed to have been a little uncomfortable with his prediction as well. It is fascinating to think about...the next 5000 days. Read More......

Ports of Call – Social Networking Universe – Scholarly Research

(image by Laura Givens) This is going to be a REALLY quick (though NOT short) “dock”. There are so many “places” to visit and so little time! This whirlwind tour covers just four of the artifacts from my foray into the “scholarly” forest – and not as much synthesis as I would like, but…that’s life. I’ve tried to collect souvenirs that do double duty, that is they are scholarly research about social networks – but also have direct connections to education. Signing into an online library database (such as BYU's) maybe needed before being able to access these links.

Engaging others in online social networking sites: Rhetorical practices in MySpace and Facebook by Vie, Stephanie, Ph.D., The University of Arizona, 2007, 221 pages; AAT 3254886. This dissertation considers “pedagogical implications of social networking sites” . Vie says:

"Online social networking sites can provide teachable moments to talk with students about audience, discourse communities, intellectual property, and the tensions between public and private writing. Thus, if writing instructors ignore the growing conversation regarding online social networking sites, they may potentially miss out on familiar and accessible spaces for teaching rhetorical analysis."

She also discusses surveillance and privacy issues, as well as other aspects of education and social networks including considerations changing the traditional relationships between students and teachers.

In “21st Century Learning and Information Literacy.” Change Mar./Apr. 2005: 21-27 Patricia Breivik makes points that are even more relevant today in the world of 2.0 . She attempts to answer the question: What is information literacy, and what is Education’s role? She begins by explaining the problem:

“Without a doubt, these young people are far more awash in information than their parents were. However, neither all of this information, nor their ease with the computers and Internet that bring much of it to them, are translating into better-educated and informed college graduates or more competent and efficient workers. What went wrong? Why haven't these technological enthusiasts evolved into an extraordinary American workforce?...As far back as 1982, futurist John Naisbitt presciently wrote, "We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge" (p. 24). What is growing ever more obvious is that today's undergraduates are generally far less prepared to do research than were students of earlier generations, despite their familiarity with powerful new information-gathering tools.”

Understanding the Facebook Generation: A study of the relationship between online social networking and academic and social integration and intentions to re-enroll by Kord, JoLanna I., Ph.D., University of Kansas, 2008, 186 pages; AAT 3304096 . This dissertation is surprising (to me) in its findings. Given that facebook’s historical roots were founded in university populations, the conclusions seem counterintuitive and disturbing if true. However, I’m not convinced that other explanations of the results were explored. Correlation is not causation. Kord states in the abstract:

This research contributes to the literature by providing significant findings that online social networking was a negative predictor of academic integration as defined by Tinto (1993). Online social networking was a significant negative predictor for student's perceptions of faculty concern for student development and teaching and for academic and intellectual development. This led to the conclusion that online social networking was a negative influence on the college student academic experience.

Online Networks in Process Change and Innovation by Mortensen, Tye, M.A., Northern Kentucky University, 2008, 108 pages; AAT 1450503 This dissertation explores online networks in organizations and adoption of new forms of technology. From the abstract:

Online networks have experienced rapid diffusion for social applications but have experienced relatively slow diffusion in the organizational world. ... Through an examination of online networks this study explores the history and scholarship of social network models.

He references a G. Gotzenbrucker article (Journal of Communications, 29, 467-494) that I find particularly interesting if this holds in an educational setting:

Seven possible effects of online organizations emerge and are identified by Gotzenbrucker as (a) development of new power structures and hierarchies (b) emphasis on knowledge over organizational status (c) decrease in pressure decisions and snap judgments (d) reduction of emotional components of decisions (e) suppression of personal glorification and need for attention (f) protection against weak cohesion and (g) documentation of various forms of communication. It is also important to note that Gotzenbrucker finds that hierarchal structures are not as prevalent in online social networks. Often hierarchal configurations become less important in online interactions and can often shift or change from the actual organizational power structure. More users are encouraged and have a higher likelihood of participation in this type of setting (Gotzenbrucker, 2004). This is attributed to the fact that more people are willing to voice their opinions and thoughts when they aren’t forced to face immediate response from colleagues and supervisors.

Ahh…times up! (Or at least space!) There’s so much more...but it will have to wait for another journey. Who knows, by the time we make it back here – the landscape may have changed drastically! Read More......

The Launch

I chose Facebook as my carrier into the “system” of social networks. It began uneventfully, I found family easily enough: one (of three) brothers (is it kosher for a stake president to have a facebook account with 139 “friends”? :-), neither of my two sisters, quite a few nieces, a nephew, the youngest (of 5) of my own children, one daughter-in-law, and one sister-in-law. I also readily found several IP&T friends. There were two additional friends that I found unexpectedly: an old friend from my Flagstaff Arizona high school whom I hadn’t seen or talked to since her graduation a year earlier than mine (she replied to my message: “Nothing happens by accident”.) and a friend from Stockholm whom I met when we collaborated on a work project (both of us from different countries and companies). She had visited our office in Provo, and I had visited their office in Stockholm, back in 2000. We kept in touch for a several years by email and phone, but I hadn’t heard from her for a couple of years. It was great to find her on facebook – and easy! I also easily found many of the young women I had worked with in my church calling, and a few young women leaders.

Then I started getting updates from everyone. It felt really...peculiar...kind of like a big party where I had invited lots of friends, but from so many different contexts...it was just odd, especially to know that if someone visited my “space” they would see this rather incongruous hodge-podge of messages and updates. It was also a little disconcerting when one of my new 'friends' sent an update that included language that I didn’t really care to have on my 'wall'.

I thought it interesting that regardless of whether or not I was someone’s 'friend' I could examine THEIR friend’s names and pictures, just by searching for their name, and then viewing their friends. I noticed that there were some people where the option to "view friends" was missing. So I checked settings and after digging around for awhile found the radio button to turn off the ability to see my friends – unless you were one. However I realize that most people don’t know (or care) how to do this – or even know that it’s an option. What this means is that you could easily traverse through a network of MANY people by looking up friends of friends of friends...etc.

So I began to be concerned about the whole privacy issue. Especially so when I went to install an app, and they always ask:

"Allow access? Allowing access will let it pull your profile information, photos, your friends' info, and other content that it requires to work….By proceeding, you are allowing (name of app) to access your information and you are agreeing to the Facebook Platform User Terms of Service... you also agree to the (name of app) Terms of Service."

Which I’m pretty sure no one really reads – they could be agreeing to ANYTHING! (I would LOVE to write my own app and include ridiculously random things in the “Terms of Service” just for fun.) This is when I realized that any of MY friends who install apps have given permission for it to access MY info too - at least what they have access to. Is it only people over a certain age that this bothers? I remember reading the George Orwell's "1984" in 1974 and thinking it could never happen in 10 years (and it didn’t) but I see now that the possibility is definitely there -- not because of "big brother" but because of information that hundreds of thousands of people post at will! And I’m not generally one to be on the paranoid side.

When we briefly discussed privacy and safety issues in class Kimberly mentioned (and later bookmarked for the new media diigo group the reference to) an article published in the Feb-Mar 2008 issue of American Psychologist entitled: Online “Predators” and Their Victims Myths, Realities, and Implications for Prevention and Treatment. The crux of this article is summarized nicely in it’s first paragraph. My take on it is NOT that it’s refuting the dangers, but only saying that it’s not (statistically speaking) the unknowing or innocents that are seduced – but the ones who already engage or seek to engage in risky behaviors. This doesn’t mean that there is not a risk – only that it is higher for those who fit a certain profile.

One question that was raised: If having all that information "out there" is risky or dangerous – have we heard of any "disasters" or large problems with it? There are two notes that may be of particular interest to those who ask this question. The first is that there has been at least one huge privacy infringement – but either it was not (by choice?) passed on via the same or similar networks that were breached, or those who received notification did not perceive it as noteworthy enough to pass along, or we have all chosen to forget about it.

The misuse of information to which I refer occurred August of 2006 and links to discussions about it are listed here including TechCrunch , wikipedia, wired and the NY Times. There were some efforts to spread the word which seem to be mostly ineffective based on the inability of anyone in class to quickly recall such an event. Several posts could be created from this event and its consequences alone, but I will refrain.

I also found an eye-opening 2008 computer science thesis written by Jack Lindamood entitled: Privacy Preserving Methods In Social Networking Data (This is a Proquest link: you may need to be signed in to a library database to access it). His thesis is fascinating for many reasons-- including a "machine learning algorithm"-- but more specific to this post, it shows what a machine can learn about you, simply by traversing facebook data from your friends!

This method of obtaining information by querying friends is not new, as anyone knows who is a friend, relative, or neighbor of someone who has applied for a position that needs a ultra high security clearance from the government. The difference is that you (ostensibly) know who you are giving the information to, who you are volunteering information about, and a general idea of why it is being collected. This information is all completely hidden from you when your electronic data is mined - data that at some point in time you gave permission to access with no more than a few grams of thoughtless pressure from your index finger when you installed the latest, coolest, facebook app – or signed up for some other social network "service".

The applications available to install on facebook are myriad. There seems to be a preponderance of apps that are trivial at best, and hopefully at worst, a waste of time. I even found a website that concurs about the dearth of any worthwhile apps. Though even most of their top 10 aren't all that great. I smiled as I read this interesting comment from a user of the Slide Funspace application :

"Do Not Grant Access Unless You Know What It Is (by Steven Brundage at 7:20am on October 3rd, 2008: ) This is actually an application that, once downloaded by you, allows others with it installed to know when you have viewed their profile. In my opinion, this application should be removed from FaceBook. I have no problem with such an application (let anyone choose what they want), but this one masquerades as something it is not. I'm going to report it, if I can find where to do so."

–That’s my whole point – giving a blanket permission for data access without knowing how it will be used is something I am not comfortable with. I’m sure it’s more than just this app that takes that "liberty".

On the other hand, I think I like the idea that you can write and put your own application "out there" and sort of make an end run around all of the traditional marketing and business roadblocks. There may even be money in it for a lucky few. I do like the picnik application I installed that lets me quickly and easily edit graphics and pictures. And yes, I admit I agreed to the "terms of service". Yes, I sold my soul for completion of a class assignment (j/k). There honestly weren’t many other applications that I was even interested in downloading though. Have I missed some app you just can't live without? Maybe I've looked for application love in all the wrong places, I dunno.

One other fact that people (especially those new to the job market) should know is that it’s not unusual for employers, perspective employers, or admissions committees to view your social networking account. Even if it’s an account you’ve ‘deactivated’ or deleted it’s usually available from a cached or mirrored site. If there is something on your account (post, photo, etc) that you (or a friend) posted indiscriminately, as a teen, in the heat of the moment, etc. it may be forever available. It can be viewed by potential employers and influence their decisions, and you won’t even be aware that they viewed it. You can find posts about this many places, here are just a few from msnbc, PCWorld, CBS News, and ZDNet (this last one has some do’s not just don’ts).

After my facebook foray and signing up for diigo and delicious (which by the way I really LIKE), it seems that the underlying trend is toward creating a "space" that will virally attract people - people with common friends, interests, objectives, etc. Even though there is talk about the "social objects" that these networks are built around, I think they are all after the same thing: members and whatever will attract and keep them, be it friends, applications, social objects, or a sense of a "personal portal" –your one-stop platform for whatever you want, whenever you want, and however you want it to be. In essence they want the "space" to become your world.

Social networks have existed throughout human history. But the recent ability to easily form those networks with individuals of such diverse locations, cultures and interests holds incredible potential. I subscribe to the philosophy that technology in general, and of itself, is merit neutral; there is potential to accomplish great good as well as potential for great harm and destruction. What determines the technology’s worth is how we choose to use it, and, as a result what the technology ends up supporting or even becoming, because of the sum of our individual choices. Do we think about this in our visits and web 2.0 behaviors, do we make conscious choices to improve what's in the cyber? If we don't, can we complain when it's not what it could be?...what do you think? Oh, and did you catch this on LDS Media Talk? Read More......