All, Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs. Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference? Kevin
Hi Kevin. I think the reason why some researchers still use "online social networks" is that not all social networks on the Internet are bound to a SNS. The way I see it, a SNS refers to a service that supports online social networks (such as Facebook or LinkedIn). It would, however, be quite tiresome and redundant to refer to them as "online social network services", when SNSs no doubt all exist online. Social networks, however, do not. Now, I don't know if some researchers also use ONS when they write about Facebook or LinkedIn, but I would expect the term to appear when dealing with social networks on the Internet in general, and not when dealing explicitly with SNSs. Anyone agree/disagree? Linda Siterer Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com>:
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Sorry for the spam, but a small correction: I meant to say that SNSs support online AND offline social networks. Still, hope you get my point. :-) Siterer lol044@webmail.uib.no:
Hi Kevin.
I think the reason why some researchers still use "online social networks" is that not all social networks on the Internet are bound to a SNS.
The way I see it, a SNS refers to a service that supports online social networks (such as Facebook or LinkedIn). It would, however, be quite tiresome and redundant to refer to them as "online social network services", when SNSs no doubt all exist online. Social networks, however, do not.
Now, I don't know if some researchers also use ONS when they write about Facebook or LinkedIn, but I would expect the term to appear when dealing with social networks on the Internet in general, and not when dealing explicitly with SNSs.
Anyone agree/disagree?
Linda
Siterer Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com>:
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Anyone agree/disagree?
Well, why not arguing during 7 x 24 hours about the fact that on some SNS, there is this features that, if used uncarefully, makes people send personal messages to the whole world instead of to their intended recipient, which could result either in (a) some bastard being offended to be called such by some other, (b) a lawsuit against the SNS manager, (c) a hurricane blowing the shores of West Africa? _ Christophe Prieur, prieur@liafa.jussieu.fr Liafa, Université Paris-Diderot [user experience research, social networks, (large) graph algorithms] _ Le 13 mai 09 à 10:00, Linda.Olsen@infomedia.uib.no a écrit :
Hi Kevin.
I think the reason why some researchers still use "online social networks" is that not all social networks on the Internet are bound to a SNS.
The way I see it, a SNS refers to a service that supports online social networks (such as Facebook or LinkedIn). It would, however, be quite tiresome and redundant to refer to them as "online social network services", when SNSs no doubt all exist online. Social networks, however, do not.
Now, I don't know if some researchers also use ONS when they write about Facebook or LinkedIn, but I would expect the term to appear when dealing with social networks on the Internet in general, and not when dealing explicitly with SNSs.
Anyone agree/disagree?
Linda
Siterer Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com>:
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Zing! Thank you for a little light relief amid an interesting and (by its very existence) revealing debate. Oh, wait, I didn't hit "reply all", did I? On 13/05/2009, at 18:27, "Christophe Prieur" <christophe.prieur@liafa.jussieu.fr
wrote:
Anyone agree/disagree?
Well, why not arguing during 7 x 24 hours about the fact that on some SNS, there is this features that, if used uncarefully, makes people send personal messages to the whole world instead of to their intended recipient, which could result either in (a) some bastard being offended to be called such by some other, (b) a lawsuit against the SNS manager, (c) a hurricane blowing the shores of West Africa?
_ Christophe Prieur, prieur@liafa.jussieu.fr Liafa, Université Paris-Diderot [user experience research, social networks, (large) graph algorithms] _
Le 13 mai 09 à 10:00, Linda.Olsen@infomedia.uib.no a écrit :
Hi Kevin.
I think the reason why some researchers still use "online social networks" is that not all social networks on the Internet are bound to a SNS.
The way I see it, a SNS refers to a service that supports online social networks (such as Facebook or LinkedIn). It would, however, be quite tiresome and redundant to refer to them as "online social network services", when SNSs no doubt all exist online. Social networks, however, do not.
Now, I don't know if some researchers also use ONS when they write about Facebook or LinkedIn, but I would expect the term to appear when dealing with social networks on the Internet in general, and not when dealing explicitly with SNSs.
Anyone agree/disagree?
Linda
Siterer Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com>:
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hi Linda, Yes, I agree. I used that nomenclature in my paper: Ackland, R. (2009), "Social Network Services as Data Sources and Platforms for e-Researching Social Networks," Social Science Computer Review Special Issue on e-Social Science, 27(4), Winter 2009. I use "online social network" to refer to any social network on Internet e.g. organisational hyperlink networks and social network services/sites. I agree with you that an SNS is a particular type or class of online social network. Rob Linda.Olsen@infomedia.uib.no wrote:
Hi Kevin.
I think the reason why some researchers still use "online social networks" is that not all social networks on the Internet are bound to a SNS.
The way I see it, a SNS refers to a service that supports online social networks (such as Facebook or LinkedIn). It would, however, be quite tiresome and redundant to refer to them as "online social network services", when SNSs no doubt all exist online. Social networks, however, do not.
Now, I don't know if some researchers also use ONS when they write about Facebook or LinkedIn, but I would expect the term to appear when dealing with social networks on the Internet in general, and not when dealing explicitly with SNSs.
Anyone agree/disagree?
Linda
Siterer Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com>:
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
As one who tries to make a clear distinction between "social networks" and "social networking", let me see if this distinction makes sense to others. Social networks are created and maintained by ties between people. They are studied using social network analysis, a formal set of techniques now being more widely used and identified under the label of "network science". There is no online or offline separation for social networks -- they exist, emerge and are maintained based on ties between people whether these happen via online and/or offline means. Social networking I take to mean a deliberate, active pursuit of ties with other people -- from the business sense of social networking as something you do to make and keep business contacts, to the friend making in MySpace, Facebook, etc. Social networking sites (SNSs) are online sites which provide the technical infrastructure for social networking. While the term is used, and I'd say reserved for online sites, the concept of a social networking site could also apply to offline settings as well -- after all, what is a pub for if not a social networking site. And, yes, social networks emerge and are maintained through social networking via social network sites. The distinction is that social networks emerge in lots of ways, not *just* through the deliberate strategy of social networking, nor just through social networking sites. Comments please as I really do try to make these distinctions clear and bug people not to call my work 'social networking'! /Caroline ---- Original message ----
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:25:00 -0400 From: Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> Subject: [Air-L] Social network site nomenclature To: air-l@aoir.org
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 haythorn@illinois.edu OR haythorn@uiuc.edu
I use both "Online Social Network" and "Social Networking Site" in my writing. In my taxonomy, OSN exists a level up from SNS, and I often use SNS as a direct object reference to a "site" - i.e. Facebook, Myspace. However, as the term SNS has been defined, a number of sites that afford "social networking" do not qualify as SNS. I tend to view SNS liberally and view that the definition of a SNS is in evolution. The concept of an OSN was introduced to me by Howard Rheingold (using Wellman's work) in the Virtual Community. I've always felt a strong affinity to the term as it is flexible and crosses sites/domains/ technologies. That is, an online social network can exist in Facebook or Bebo as well as it can exist in a bulletin board, community forum, and so on. The distinction I use when choosing the term is the scope of reference. If I am writing about a "site," I'll often use SNS. If my scope is larger, crosses modes, or describes a process-oriented approach, I'll use OSN. On May 13, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Caroline Haythornthwaite wrote:
As one who tries to make a clear distinction between "social networks" and "social networking", let me see if this distinction makes sense to others.
Social networks are created and maintained by ties between people. They are studied using social network analysis, a formal set of techniques now being more widely used and identified under the label of "network science". There is no online or offline separation for social networks -- they exist, emerge and are maintained based on ties between people whether these happen via online and/or offline means.
Social networking I take to mean a deliberate, active pursuit of ties with other people -- from the business sense of social networking as something you do to make and keep business contacts, to the friend making in MySpace, Facebook, etc.
Social networking sites (SNSs) are online sites which provide the technical infrastructure for social networking. While the term is used, and I'd say reserved for online sites, the concept of a social networking site could also apply to offline settings as well -- after all, what is a pub for if not a social networking site.
And, yes, social networks emerge and are maintained through social networking via social network sites. The distinction is that social networks emerge in lots of ways, not *just* through the deliberate strategy of social networking, nor just through social networking sites.
Comments please as I really do try to make these distinctions clear and bug people not to call my work 'social networking'!
/Caroline
---- Original message ----
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:25:00 -0400 From: Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> Subject: [Air-L] Social network site nomenclature To: air-l@aoir.org
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 haythorn@illinois.edu OR haythorn@uiuc.edu
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Fred Stutzman Ph.D. Student and Teaching Fellow School of Information and Library Science, UNC-Chapel Hill fred@fredstutzman.com | (919) 260-8508 | http://fredstutzman.com/
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Caroline Haythornthwaite wrote:
Social networking sites (SNSs) are online sites which provide the technical infrastructure for social networking. While the term is used, and I'd say reserved for online sites, the concept of a social networking site could also apply to offline settings as well -- after all, what is a pub for if not a social networking site.
Totally agree. Just like a pub can be a superior place for knowledge management. Back to topic: so what in the difference between social networking sites and 'regular' online community sites then? Is it possible to draw a line? A common characteristic is that both provide merely the technical infrastructure for people to join and create the 'community'. I always thought an important aspect of 'novel' SNN like linkedin is the provision of search meaning you can search for a person that fits some characteristics (fits not only linkedin but every matchmaking site) In good old Usenet times (ie prior to dejanews and similar data huggers) it was easy because Usenet didn't tell you anything about its participants. You had to find out yourself by examining traces left behind (aka reading postings) and emailing/meeting participants. Nowadays most 'regular' online community sites (eg travel site australien-info.de) also offer user profiles and search. Which means it's a weak distinction but it might lead somewhere?
And, yes, social networks emerge and are maintained through social networking via social network sites. The distinction is that social networks emerge in lots of ways, not *just* through the deliberate strategy of social networking, nor just through social networking sites.
Absolutely. It's marketing that would love to make us believe that you have to sign up to some site in order to find new friends/business partners/... Best regards christopher
Comments please as I really do try to make these distinctions clear and bug people not to call my work 'social networking'!
/Caroline
-- Dr. Christopher Lueg Professor of Computing University of Tasmania Private Bag 100 Hobart TAS 7001, Australia christopher.lueg@utas.edu.au http://www.cis.utas.edu.au/users/clueg/ CRICOS Provider Code: 00586B
---- Original message ----
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 00:52:57 +1000 (EST) From: Christopher Lueg <christopher.lueg@utas.edu.au> Subject: Re: [Air-L] Social network site nomenclature To: air-l@aoir.org
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Caroline Haythornthwaite wrote:
Social networking sites (SNSs) are online sites which provide the technical infrastructure for social networking. While the term is used, and I'd say reserved for online sites, the concept of a social networking site could also apply to offline settings as well -- after all, what is a pub for if not a social networking site.
Totally agree. Just like a pub can be a superior place for knowledge management. Back to topic: so what in the difference between social networking sites and 'regular' online community sites then? Is it possible to draw a line?
A good question, and one that I answer this way -- Community is a hypothesis to be tested, i.e., you can't know you've got a 'community' until you look at what people are doing, with whom. Some people within a giant SNS will develop and maintain a community through that tool and probably others; other people will not be part of a community even if spending a lot of time in an SNS. Same for 'regular' online communities. The distinction to me is whether the individuals involved pay attention to each other, making and creting their own norms of interaction, or whether it is site managers who make the rules, with individuals oriented to something other than the site. (In a continuing work in progress, I've explored this extensively in a paper discussing the differences between crowdsourcing and virtual community - [https://www.ideals.uiuc.edu/handle/2142/9457]) Also, it's a question that keeps us all in business :) /Caroline -------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 haythorn@illinois.edu OR haythorn@uiuc.edu
Hi Caroline. To me, your definitions make very much sense, and very nicely sums up some of the throughts I have had on the subject myself, but have not been able to articulate well enough. Well done. Personally, I see the term SNS as reserved for online settings, though I realize it could apply to offline settings as you mention. I do, however, have some issues with regard to the appropriate use of the term SNS. Should the N stand for "networking" og "network"? Should the last S stand for "site" or "service"? I have for many years used the term "social networking service" when studying LinkedIn. To me this has made sense, as LinkedIn both supports the explicit act of networking and acts as a service for this purpose. As such, I have also used the term "social networking service" when describing other SNSs such as Facebook. Some reserachers have, however, argued that sites/services such as Facebook are not primarily for networking, but for maintaining social networks and that "network" therefore is more appropriate and would give a broader/better description of such sites/services. I have given it some thought and see the point that is being made. When it comes to the term "service" or "site", I have stuck with service as I see LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter etc. as providers of some sort of extra service to their members, beyond that of ordinary websites. I would love to hear yours, and others, throughts about this subject! :-) Linda Siterer Caroline Haythornthwaite <haythorn@illinois.edu>:
As one who tries to make a clear distinction between "social networks" and "social networking", let me see if this distinction makes sense to others.
Social networks are created and maintained by ties between people. They are studied using social network analysis, a formal set of techniques now being more widely used and identified under the label of "network science". There is no online or offline separation for social networks -- they exist, emerge and are maintained based on ties between people whether these happen via online and/or offline means.
Social networking I take to mean a deliberate, active pursuit of ties with other people -- from the business sense of social networking as something you do to make and keep business contacts, to the friend making in MySpace, Facebook, etc.
Social networking sites (SNSs) are online sites which provide the technical infrastructure for social networking. While the term is used, and I'd say reserved for online sites, the concept of a social networking site could also apply to offline settings as well -- after all, what is a pub for if not a social networking site.
And, yes, social networks emerge and are maintained through social networking via social network sites. The distinction is that social networks emerge in lots of ways, not *just* through the deliberate strategy of social networking, nor just through social networking sites.
Comments please as I really do try to make these distinctions clear and bug people not to call my work 'social networking'!
/Caroline
---- Original message ----
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:25:00 -0400 From: Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> Subject: [Air-L] Social network site nomenclature To: air-l@aoir.org
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 haythorn@illinois.edu OR haythorn@uiuc.edu
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I agree with much of what Caroline and Fred have posted regarding the definitions of and distinctions among SNSs and OSNs. I don't use the term OSN because the sites I study are not "online social networks" (as opposed to "offline" social networks?). I don't think it makes sense to ask an undergraduate Facebook user to distinguish between their online and offline social networks as we tend to see hybrid communication patterns in this population. With earlier techs, such as newsgroups, this notion made more sense. On the network vs networking issue: danah and I discuss this in our 2007 piece, arguing for "network" as a term that more appropriately describes the way in which users are articulating existing relationships as opposed to using the sites for networking purposes (that is, making new contacts). My colleagues and I will be presenting a paper at the upcoming ICA conference which offers some empirical support for this observation in regards to FB use. I see "network" used more than "networking" in the papers I review, but most of them use the boyd & Ellison definition (which is probably why I get them) so take that observation with a grain of salt. In the past year or two, I typically have not seen "OSN" used to describe sites like Facebook. Re: site vs service - good question. danah may want to chime in, but my sense is most users think of these as sites (places) as opposed to services, thus "site" seems to resonate with me. Thanks, Nicole On May 13, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Linda.Olsen@infomedia.uib.no wrote:
Hi Caroline.
To me, your definitions make very much sense, and very nicely sums up some of the throughts I have had on the subject myself, but have not been able to articulate well enough. Well done. Personally, I see the term SNS as reserved for online settings, though I realize it could apply to offline settings as you mention.
I do, however, have some issues with regard to the appropriate use of the term SNS. Should the N stand for "networking" og "network"? Should the last S stand for "site" or "service"?
I have for many years used the term "social networking service" when studying LinkedIn. To me this has made sense, as LinkedIn both supports the explicit act of networking and acts as a service for this purpose. As such, I have also used the term "social networking service" when describing other SNSs such as Facebook. Some reserachers have, however, argued that sites/services such as Facebook are not primarily for networking, but for maintaining social networks and that "network" therefore is more appropriate and would give a broader/better description of such sites/services. I have given it some thought and see the point that is being made.
When it comes to the term "service" or "site", I have stuck with service as I see LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter etc. as providers of some sort of extra service to their members, beyond that of ordinary websites.
I would love to hear yours, and others, throughts about this subject!
:-)
Linda
Siterer Caroline Haythornthwaite <haythorn@illinois.edu>:
As one who tries to make a clear distinction between "social networks" and "social networking", let me see if this distinction makes sense to others.
Social networks are created and maintained by ties between people. They are studied using social network analysis, a formal set of techniques now being more widely used and identified under the label of "network science". There is no online or offline separation for social networks -- they exist, emerge and are maintained based on ties between people whether these happen via online and/or offline means.
Social networking I take to mean a deliberate, active pursuit of ties with other people -- from the business sense of social networking as something you do to make and keep business contacts, to the friend making in MySpace, Facebook, etc.
Social networking sites (SNSs) are online sites which provide the technical infrastructure for social networking. While the term is used, and I'd say reserved for online sites, the concept of a social networking site could also apply to offline settings as well -- after all, what is a pub for if not a social networking site.
And, yes, social networks emerge and are maintained through social networking via social network sites. The distinction is that social networks emerge in lots of ways, not *just* through the deliberate strategy of social networking, nor just through social networking sites.
Comments please as I really do try to make these distinctions clear and bug people not to call my work 'social networking'!
/Caroline
---- Original message ----
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:25:00 -0400 From: Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> Subject: [Air-L] Social network site nomenclature To: air-l@aoir.org
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 haythorn@illinois.edu OR haythorn@uiuc.edu
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
* * * Nicole Ellison, PhD nellison@msu.edu
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Nicole Ellison <nellison@msu.edu> wrote:
On the network vs networking issue: danah and I discuss this in our 2007 piece, arguing for "network" as a term that more appropriately describes the way in which users are articulating existing relationships as opposed to using the sites for networking purposes (that is, making new contacts).
And I (and likely others) very much appreciated that you explicitly defined and discussed your chosen terminology. I suspect that part of the answer to my original question is simply that many people are not as careful and intentional with their terminology, uncritically using whatever is most comfortable and familiar to them as colored by their discipline and experiences.
Re: site vs service - good question. danah may want to chime in, but my sense is most users think of these as sites (places) as opposed to services, thus "site" seems to resonate with me.
That's very interesting and very helpful! I have personally leaned towards "service" as I have always felt that "site" was too closely related to (and perhaps derived from) "website" and thus too limiting. Thanks all for the very informative and interesting (and ongoing) responses and conversation! It's definitely opened my eyes a bit and exposed me to some new ideas. Kevin
Here's an uber short definition for how I think about these terms (concurring with many of the previous respondents): - Social network: ties between people, regardless of mediating infrastructure [think what sociologists study] - Online social network: ties between people that exist within or are created because of online technologies - Social networking: the practice of building one's social network, regardless of mediating infrastructure [think what business professionals are interested in] - Online social networking: the practicing of building one's social network using online technologies - Social network site: websites that support the articulation, display, and utilization of social networks [see "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship for a proper definition] - Social networking site: websites that center on the practice of social networking, whether for business or pleasure [many communities of interest, business networking, and online dating sites fit into this category] In our JCMC special issue, Nicole and I explicitly wanted to pull out the category of new sites exemplified by Facebook, MySpace, etc. While they are a subset of online communities, they are both structurally different than many of them and engender very different practices. We wanted to use nomenclature that captured those differences. Of course, plenty of folks continue to talk about them as social networkING sites and academics, journalists, and marketers frequently clump online dating sites and community sites into this new glittery genre, but we were trying to explicitly avoid this. There is no doubt that a whole lot of sites out there support networking, but that's not what we were trying to highlight when we put together the JCMC special issue. What this means is that I would call Facebook a social network site. I would call Match.com a social networking site. And I would call LinkedIn both a social network site and a social networking site (depending on whether I was talking about the structure or the practice). I would talk about all of them as CMC and social media. I would say that all of them support online social networks (and social networks more broadly). At the end of the day, the big thing to me that makes a social network site a social network site is the articulation, display, and utilization of one's social network. This requires a profile, but a profile alone does not make a social network site. As for sites vs. services... Originally, I was conceiving of sites to be those website-only environments and services to be a broader category that would include mobile apps, downloadable apps, etc. But these lines are increasingly blurry. Now that both FB and MS have mobile apps and most mobile apps have a website as well, it's hard to distinguish the two categories. So I'm a big agnostic about this. My inclination these days is to call them all sites to highlight the digitally mediated component of it (cuz services don't have the same digital ring as sites), but I can be totally convinced otherwise. Anyhow, I hope that helps. I am totally welcome to critiques on how I'm thinking about it but, in my head at least, there's some coherence to these different categories. danah ------ "taken out of context, i must seem so strange" -- ani http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/ http://www.danah.org/ @zephoria
Hi to all, I have been following the discussion with some interest, and I'm happy to find that my understanding of the terms pretty much coincides with that of danah. By the way, this is my first time posting to the list, so hello everyone. I'm an assistant professor of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore, currently also a visiting researcher at the Berkman Center in Harvard. Since danah added 'social media' to the mix, can I please ask the good folks on this list to provide their definitions of the term 'social media' as well? (in relation to SNS or in relation to 'non-social' media, if there is such a thing). The reason I ask is not merely academic curiosity. I have agreed to teach a class on social media for the first time in my school and I think it will help in positioning this class vis-a-vis other related classes if I can collect some thoughtful definitions of the term and get some idea for what people think it should include. I'll refrain from providing my own version here because I'd really love to hear your perspectives first. Thanks in advance, Giorgos On May 14, 2009, at 10:51 PM, danah boyd wrote:
Here's an uber short definition for how I think about these terms (concurring with many of the previous respondents):
- Social network: ties between people, regardless of mediating infrastructure [think what sociologists study]
- Online social network: ties between people that exist within or are created because of online technologies
- Social networking: the practice of building one's social network, regardless of mediating infrastructure [think what business professionals are interested in]
- Online social networking: the practicing of building one's social network using online technologies
- Social network site: websites that support the articulation, display, and utilization of social networks [see "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship for a proper definition]
- Social networking site: websites that center on the practice of social networking, whether for business or pleasure [many communities of interest, business networking, and online dating sites fit into this category]
In our JCMC special issue, Nicole and I explicitly wanted to pull out the category of new sites exemplified by Facebook, MySpace, etc. While they are a subset of online communities, they are both structurally different than many of them and engender very different practices. We wanted to use nomenclature that captured those differences. Of course, plenty of folks continue to talk about them as social networkING sites and academics, journalists, and marketers frequently clump online dating sites and community sites into this new glittery genre, but we were trying to explicitly avoid this. There is no doubt that a whole lot of sites out there support networking, but that's not what we were trying to highlight when we put together the JCMC special issue.
What this means is that I would call Facebook a social network site. I would call Match.com a social networking site. And I would call LinkedIn both a social network site and a social networking site (depending on whether I was talking about the structure or the practice). I would talk about all of them as CMC and social media. I would say that all of them support online social networks (and social networks more broadly).
At the end of the day, the big thing to me that makes a social network site a social network site is the articulation, display, and utilization of one's social network. This requires a profile, but a profile alone does not make a social network site.
As for sites vs. services... Originally, I was conceiving of sites to be those website-only environments and services to be a broader category that would include mobile apps, downloadable apps, etc. But these lines are increasingly blurry. Now that both FB and MS have mobile apps and most mobile apps have a website as well, it's hard to distinguish the two categories. So I'm a big agnostic about this. My inclination these days is to call them all sites to highlight the digitally mediated component of it (cuz services don't have the same digital ring as sites), but I can be totally convinced otherwise.
Anyhow, I hope that helps. I am totally welcome to critiques on how I'm thinking about it but, in my head at least, there's some coherence to these different categories.
danah
------
"taken out of context, i must seem so strange" -- ani http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/ http://www.danah.org/ @zephoria
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
can I please ask the good folks on this list to provide their definitions of the term 'social media' as well? (in relation to SNS or in relation to 'non-social' media, if there is such a thing).
I'd rater compare Social media to User-generated content. UGC is anything that you can find on a platform that does not discriminate for participation. It should include, although it's odd, professional content made for YouTube. It would be called Social Media when the conversation is the message: people talking to each other though webcam on YouTbe make it a Social media; artsy indy films, less so. The difference with Mass media is that the poster doesn't have an unbalanced position towards its viewers (and explicit technical means, implicit authority): comments at the botton of a blog, or letter to the editor would be intermediate versions. Replies between blogs is social media.
The reason I ask is not merely academic curiosity. I have agreed to teach a class on social media for the first time in my school and I think it will help in positioning this class vis-a-vis other related classes if I can collect some thoughtful definitions of the term and get some idea for what people think it should include. I'll refrain from providing my own version here because I'd really love to hear your perspectives first.
'non-social' media, if there is such a thing).
There isn't! :) I have a feeling that social media aims toward "sociable media," which Donath defines as: """ Sociable media are media that enhance communication and the formation of social ties among people. Such media are not new – letter writing can be traced back thousands of years – but the advent of the computer has brought about an immense number of new forms. Researchers in this field look at how existing technologies are used, how they affect the relationships among the people using them, and how they transform society. They also design new technologies, drawing from fields such as cognitive science, sociology and urban design to create systems that better support social interaction. They examine the ways social cues are communicated in the real and the virtual world, discover the limits imposed upon on-line communities by their mediated nature, and explore directions that virtual societies can take that are impossible for physical ones. The goal is to understand and improve the social aspects of mediated communication. """ I don't see a lot of reference to sociable media, and I suspect that social media came in on the heals of "social software" which I never really liked. (What about social hardware? What about sociable uses of unsociable software?) I think the issue is that--like Web 2.0--the term "social media" seems to be expendable to pretty much any novel web-based system of the last four years or so, plus a fairly broad set of applications going back before this period to PLATO and the Community Memory project, and a number of non-web-mediated practices. (Actually, I think it is reasonable to go back much further than this, and that ignoring sociable uses of the telephone, especially, would a mistake.) The quasi-broadcast model of the web that arose with commercialization in the mid-1990s may be waning, though it continues to predominate. Even on systems held up to be standard-bearers for "User-Generated Content" like YouTube, there is an odd intermingling of one-to-many commercially produced items, fan (and critic) remixes of that content, and original user-created material. I think probably that social media is defined as being on a spectrum in which the number of people speaking approaches the number of people listening. On one extreme end is Walter Cronkite speaking to a nation, and on the other extreme are point-to-point networks: most telephones, chat, etc. Between the two are the some-to-some and many-to-many media that really don't have good antecedents before widespread adoption of the web. - Alex On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Giorgos Cheliotis <gcheliotis.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi to all,
I have been following the discussion with some interest, and I'm happy to find that my understanding of the terms pretty much coincides with that of danah. By the way, this is my first time posting to the list, so hello everyone. I'm an assistant professor of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore, currently also a visiting researcher at the Berkman Center in Harvard. Since danah added 'social media' to the mix, can I please ask the good folks on this list to provide their definitions of the term 'social media' as well? (in relation to SNS or in relation to 'non-social' media, if there is such a thing).
The reason I ask is not merely academic curiosity. I have agreed to teach a class on social media for the first time in my school and I think it will help in positioning this class vis-a-vis other related classes if I can collect some thoughtful definitions of the term and get some idea for what people think it should include. I'll refrain from providing my own version here because I'd really love to hear your perspectives first.
Thanks in advance, Giorgos
-- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net //
I want to comment on the reference to "network science" below. I guess there will be quite a few people on Air-L who like me, are also on the SOCNET list run by the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA). I study and teach about online social and organisational networks and a major influence on my work is social network analysis (SNA). SNA is not a sub-field of network science. Network science is primarily identified with applied physics, while SNA comes out of sociology. There has been some cross-over between network science and SNA and interestingly, there has been significant movement of ideas from SNA to network science. For example, in relation to centrality in networks - see "Going the Wrong Way on a One-Way Street: Centrality in Physics and Biology" by Linton Freeman, http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume9/Freeman/. As pointed out by Freeman, often the direction of ideas goes the other way: from natural science to social science. I feel it is important to recognise the disciplinary differences in how networks are analysed - different theoretical models, different analytical approaches (although with useful cross-over). I guess I'm concerned to see "network science" used as an umbrella term as it really does refer a particular disciplinary perspective. I have similar reservations about "web science". Best regards, Rob Caroline Haythornthwaite wrote:
As one who tries to make a clear distinction between "social networks" and "social networking", let me see if this distinction makes sense to others.
Social networks are created and maintained by ties between people. They are studied using social network analysis, a formal set of techniques now being more widely used and identified under the label of "network science". There is no online or offline separation for social networks -- they exist, emerge and are maintained based on ties between people whether these happen via online and/or offline means. -------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 haythorn@illinois.edu OR haythorn@uiuc.edu
------------------------------------- Dr Robert Ackland Fellow and Masters Coordinator, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, The Australian National University e-mail: robert.ackland@anu.edu.au homepage: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/robert.php project: http://voson.anu.edu.au teaching: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/study/ssi.php -------------------------------------
Researchers from data mining and networking (capital N) communities tend to use the term "online social networks" fairly consistently. They are (in general, not always) measuring and analyzing networks as nodes and links and describing how information flows within them--they're less focused on the social layer. For this context, "online social networks" seems pretty appropriate and sufficient. Some examples are SIGCOMM's 2008 and 2009 "Workshop on Online Social Networks", Chau et al.'s WWW '07 "Parallel crawling for online social networks" , Mislove et al.'s IMC '07 "Measurement and analysis of online social networks", Kumar et al.'s KDD '06 "Structure and evolution of online social networks", etc, you get the idea. ---- School of Interactive Computing Georgia Institute of Technology www.cc.gatech.edu/~yardi <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/%7Eyardi> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Robert Ackland <robert.ackland@anu.edu.au>wrote:
I want to comment on the reference to "network science" below.
I guess there will be quite a few people on Air-L who like me, are also on the SOCNET list run by the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA).
I study and teach about online social and organisational networks and a major influence on my work is social network analysis (SNA). SNA is not a sub-field of network science. Network science is primarily identified with applied physics, while SNA comes out of sociology. There has been some cross-over between network science and SNA and interestingly, there has been significant movement of ideas from SNA to network science. For example, in relation to centrality in networks - see "Going the Wrong Way on a One-Way Street: Centrality in Physics and Biology" by Linton Freeman, http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume9/Freeman/. As pointed out by Freeman, often the direction of ideas goes the other way: from natural science to social science.
I feel it is important to recognise the disciplinary differences in how networks are analysed - different theoretical models, different analytical approaches (although with useful cross-over). I guess I'm concerned to see "network science" used as an umbrella term as it really does refer a particular disciplinary perspective. I have similar reservations about "web science".
Best regards, Rob
Caroline Haythornthwaite wrote:
As one who tries to make a clear distinction between "social networks" and "social networking", let me see if this distinction makes sense to others.
Social networks are created and maintained by ties between people. They are studied using social network analysis, a formal set of techniques now being more widely used and identified under the label of "network science". There is no online or offline separation for social networks -- they exist, emerge and are maintained based on ties between people whether these happen via online and/or offline means.
-------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 haythorn@illinois.edu OR haythorn@uiuc.edu
------------------------------------- Dr Robert Ackland Fellow and Masters Coordinator, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, The Australian National University
e-mail: robert.ackland@anu.edu.au homepage: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/robert.php project: http://voson.anu.edu.au teaching: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/study/ssi.php -------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
As a writing theorist and teacher, I use the term "social information technologies" to talk about what I study. This gets the problematic verb out of the equation and emphasizes the fact that what I'm really interested in are the technologies that allow the sharing of what Goffman calls "social information." I've seen this term used in Sociology, but not in Writing Studies yet. Caroline has a great point in these times when some colleagues think all we do is play on Facebook. And might I say it was a small but tolerable annoyance to hit "Reply All" then paste the air address into the "To" field. :-) Deanya -- Deanya Lattimore 704/434/8994 home ABD PhD. Syracuse University Adjunct, Gardner-Webb University http://www.deanya.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/deanya Diigo: http://www.diigo.com/profile/deanya Google Chat: deanyalattimore@gmail.com Friend me on Facebook
I am jumping into a very old discussion - not because I have perverse pleasures in kick-starting things outside of their temporal plane (well, maybe I do, but ah well!) - but I didn't the time to read this thread in detail before now, and was very intrigued by the different ways in which people are trying to respond to this question which often emerges in a variety of cybercultures nomenclature as different disciplines approach the same object with different understandings and ideas. One of the ways in which I have always understood the difference between SNS and ONS is through the metaphor of geographical space. Social Networking Sites, for me, are necessarily bound to a digital/virtual space which brings together different users/participants/players etc. in a digital environment that shapes their communication, behaviour and activities within that environment. However, the ONS is an idea of scattered geographies. Members in an Online Social Network might belong to different digital spaces and might have over-laps with some spaces in particular digital environments but not necessarily all of them. An example that a colleague (who works as an information architect and is a stickler for the correct names) once gave me was through the popular blogging site Livejournal. He said that Livejournal itself is a social networking site because it expects people to come together in a particular environment and then consolidates all their activities within prescribed formats and structures. On the other hand, Delicious, is an Online social network, where, even though the users are subscribing and logging in, they are inheriting their various social networks (inclluding livejournal) and bringing them together. Or in other words, he had suggested, that the ONS is more of a meta-structure that aggregates various social networking sites under one umberlla. Following this, of course, one starts wondering about Facebook and what FB would/should be called. On the one hand, FB serves as a social networking site where clearly, through a series of activities, users communicate and network online. However, with its ability to also aggregate other social networking sites data through third party apps, FB also seems to be working as an Online Social Network - at least for me, where many of my friends, who are not on FB (Orkut is still quite popular in India), can still interact with different things I do on FB because of embedded apps. Anyway, that's about it. Just wanted to give in my very delayed two cents worth. Cbeers Nishant On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Much of the available research refers to services such as Facebook and MySpace as "social network(ing) sites/services (SNS)." Let's ignore for the moment the differences between those four permutations as I'm more interested in learning about why some researchers use "online social networks (ONS)." SNS seems to be much more common, particularly in the wake of the late 2007 JCMC special theme issue focusing on SNSs.
Given that both terms are still in use, is there some sort of subtle cultural or discipline-based divide of which I am unaware? Or is this just an oddity that isn't important or indicative of anything more than personal preference?
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Nishant Shah Doctoral Candidate, CSCS, Bangalore. Director (Research), Centre for Internet and Society,( www.cis-india.org ) Asia Awards Fellow, 2008-09 # 00-86-21-66130376
participants (17)
-
Alex Halavais -
Bertil Hatt -
Caroline Haythornthwaite -
Christophe Prieur -
Christopher Lueg -
danah boyd -
Fred Stutzman -
Giorgos Cheliotis -
Jean Burgess -
Kevin Guidry -
Linda.Olsen＠infomedia.uib.no -
M. Deanya Lattimore -
Nicole Ellison -
Nishant Shah -
Rob -
Robert Ackland
-
Sarita Yardi