A Comparison of On and Offline Networks through the Facebook API

B. Hogan
{"title":"A Comparison of On and Offline Networks through the Facebook API","authors":"B. Hogan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1331029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social Network Sites (SNS) are a part of everyday social activity for millions around the world (boyd and Ellison, 2007). Sites vary in their affordances, audiences and scope. While some sites cater to specific interest group audiences and 'niche' networks, others, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace are designed to be general purpose 'social utilities'. Are these sites in fact general purpose social utilities? If so, we should expect to find not only an overlap between the pre-existing personal network and the Facebook network, but also a logic that can connect the two. At present, a host of studies are emerging that take Facebook networks as a stand-in for the 'real' social networks of individuals. The study of community structure through Facebook is meant to signify actual community structure (Traud, Kelsic, Mucha, and Porter, 2008). The study of taste on Facebook is meant to signify actual differences and clusters in taste (Lewis, Kaufman, Gonzalez, Wimmer, and Christakis, 2008). These studies, by virtue of their research design, do not actually measure or examine the personal network. Instead, they capture a slice of Facebook's database and assert that for the group in question (generally college students), it is a reliable proxy for the network of active ties. However, if we are to continue down this road, it is important to connect these networks to the pre-existing studies of personal networks and networking. This enables researchers to leverage past insights on personal networks (such as theories of foci, closure, multiplexity and so forth, c.f., Fischer, 1982) and because it is an important validity check on these online networks. This paper is a research outline and a preliminary quantitative autoanalysis of the relationship between the personal network and one's Facebook network. Insofar as Facebook is the most popular social utility for individuals in the United Kingdom and Canada, it is an ideal candidate to examine how personal networks manifest themselves online (or to the extent that they do so).","PeriodicalId":343564,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Networks","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics of Networks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1331029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Social Network Sites (SNS) are a part of everyday social activity for millions around the world (boyd and Ellison, 2007). Sites vary in their affordances, audiences and scope. While some sites cater to specific interest group audiences and 'niche' networks, others, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace are designed to be general purpose 'social utilities'. Are these sites in fact general purpose social utilities? If so, we should expect to find not only an overlap between the pre-existing personal network and the Facebook network, but also a logic that can connect the two. At present, a host of studies are emerging that take Facebook networks as a stand-in for the 'real' social networks of individuals. The study of community structure through Facebook is meant to signify actual community structure (Traud, Kelsic, Mucha, and Porter, 2008). The study of taste on Facebook is meant to signify actual differences and clusters in taste (Lewis, Kaufman, Gonzalez, Wimmer, and Christakis, 2008). These studies, by virtue of their research design, do not actually measure or examine the personal network. Instead, they capture a slice of Facebook's database and assert that for the group in question (generally college students), it is a reliable proxy for the network of active ties. However, if we are to continue down this road, it is important to connect these networks to the pre-existing studies of personal networks and networking. This enables researchers to leverage past insights on personal networks (such as theories of foci, closure, multiplexity and so forth, c.f., Fischer, 1982) and because it is an important validity check on these online networks. This paper is a research outline and a preliminary quantitative autoanalysis of the relationship between the personal network and one's Facebook network. Insofar as Facebook is the most popular social utility for individuals in the United Kingdom and Canada, it is an ideal candidate to examine how personal networks manifest themselves online (or to the extent that they do so).
通过Facebook API对在线和离线网络进行比较
社交网站(SNS)是世界各地数百万人日常社交活动的一部分(boyd和Ellison, 2007)。网站的功能、受众和范围各不相同。虽然有些网站迎合特定兴趣群体的受众和“利基”网络,但其他网站,如Facebook、LinkedIn和MySpace,旨在成为通用的“社交工具”。这些网站实际上是通用的社会公用事业吗?如果是这样的话,我们不仅可以在现有的个人网络和Facebook网络之间找到重叠,而且还可以找到将两者连接起来的逻辑。目前,许多研究都将Facebook网络作为个人“真实”社交网络的替代品。通过Facebook对社区结构的研究是为了反映实际的社区结构(Traud, Kelsic, Mucha, and Porter, 2008)。对Facebook上的味道的研究是为了表明味道的实际差异和集群(Lewis, Kaufman, Gonzalez, Wimmer, and Christakis, 2008)。这些研究,由于其研究设计,并没有实际测量或检查个人网络。相反,他们获取了Facebook数据库的一小部分,并断言,对于所讨论的群体(通常是大学生),它是活跃关系网络的可靠代理。然而,如果我们要继续沿着这条路走下去,将这些网络与已有的个人网络和网络研究联系起来是很重要的。这使研究人员能够利用过去对个人网络的见解(如焦点、封闭、多样性等理论,c.f. Fischer, 1982),因为这是对这些在线网络的重要有效性检查。本文是对个人网络和Facebook网络之间关系的研究大纲和初步定量分析。鉴于Facebook是英国和加拿大最受个人欢迎的社交工具,它是检验个人网络如何在网上表现自己(或在某种程度上如此)的理想候选者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信