Week 1: Introduction to Social Networking

[Michele Martin]

Online social networks facilitate connections between people based on shared interests, values, membership in particular groups (i.e., friends, professional colleagues), etc. They make it easier for people to find and communicate with individuals who are in their networks using the Web as the interface.

By some definitions, just about all Web 2.0 tools are a form of social networking, but for this module we're going to focus on "ego-centric" social networks, those that are focused on individuals, as opposed to networks that build up around objects, such as Delicious, Flickr, Slideshare, etc. (Note you can learn more about the concept of ego-centric vs object-centric networks here ).

There are several different online social networks, but for our purposes, we’ll focus on the three that tend to be used the most by learning professionals--Facebook, LinkedIn and Ning. Each of these networks has its own unique style, functionality and patterns of usage. You will also find that different people are active in these different networks.

LinkedIn is primarily a professional network, designed to facilitate linkages between people who are wanting to connect for work-related purposes. It is more “buttoned-down” than Facebook with a more formal culture of relationships and connections. It is also the network of choice for most professionals.

Because LinkedIn is designed for professional networking, there’s a greater emphasis on building a reputation and connecting to employment and business opportunities. LinkedIn Questions and Answers is a way for people to ask questions and receive expert advice. Answers can be rated and people who do this well can improve their LinkedIn reputation. There are also employment listings and an ability to receive recommendations from your connections that then become part of your profile. You can also create and join groups.

Facebook was originally developed for college students to connect, so it has a more informal, social air than you find on LinkedIn. Now open to anyone, you will still find that Facebook is the preferred network for Millenials who see the encroachment of Boomers and, to a lesser extent, Gen X into the network as cause for some alarm.

Facebook combines the personal and the professional. Members can play games, join groups, share photos, and send each other virtual “gifts.” This is the network where you’re most likely to see both pictures of someone’s weekend activities, as well as a link to their online portfolio or professional website. Many companies are using Facebook as a recruitment tool for Gen Y, while college and university professors are exploring it's use for their classes.

Ning is what’s referred to as a “white label” network--anyone can use the Ning platform to create their own social network related to a particular topic or area of interest. We are operating this class on the Ning platform.

As a learning professional, you will want to think of Ning in two ways. First, there are a number of Ning networks related to various topics of interest to learning professionals that you could join. In addition, because Ning allows you to create your own network from scratch, you can also use it to facilitate learning events or activities. Therefore Ning offers opportunities for you to be both a joiner/collector and a creator.

One great advantage of Ning for learning is that it allows you set up your own private space that can only be accessed by members. It also offers great functionality, including allowing members to write blogs and engage in forum discussions.

Common Features of Social Networks

**The ability to create a Profile page--this is your main “home” on the network. Different networks offer varying abilities to personalize your page in terms of look and feel. They may also differ in terms of the types of information you would include, such as name, location, education, etc. Facebook, for example, asks for your relationship status (because it’s more “social”), while on LinkedIn, which is primarily for professional use, does not.

**A way to find and link to “friends” or connections--The purpose of a network is connections, so facilitating a members’ ability to find and connect to other people is important. Each network offers different types of search capabilities and once you’ve located a potential friend, you must send an “invitation” to invite them into your personal network.

**Privacy Controls--In most networks, your ability to access more detailed information about a person is based on their status as one of your connections; “friends” can see much more information than those who are not your “friends.” You can control who is actually in your personal network by effectively managing who you invite into your network and whose invitations you accept.

The ability to send public and private messages--In Ning and Facebook, you can communicate with your connections either by sending a private message or “writing on their wall.” On LinkedIn, you communicate via person-to-person messages. Ning also provides Forums where members can interact with one another on specific topics (you’re reading this in one of the Ning forums)

**Ability to share various digital objects and information--Both Ning and Facebook allow members to share various online items, including photos, videos and RSS feeds. LinkedIn offers some ability to share links, although it’s multimedia capacities are nothing like what you find on Facebook or Ning.

As in real life, the value of an online social network lies in the people. While you can have some fun playing around with some of a network's online functionality, if you don't have the right people in your network, it will be a waste. Here are some good resources on building a social network:

* Six Steps to a Remarkably Powerful Network

* Weave Smarter Networks with LinkedIn

* How to Grow a Facebook Network

To learn more about the basics of social networking, check out this Common Craft video on social networks. You may also want to check out this article on myths and risks.

Also check out this wiki, WebTools4U2Use

If you have other thoughts or questions on the basics of social networks, post them here. If not, then you may want to check out the rest of the forums in this module.

PREVIOUS TOPIC--Introduction to the Assignment

NEXT TOPIC--Introduction to LinkedIn

[EricWilbanks]

Wow...Fred Stutzman's article (ego-centric vs. object-centric) was amazing. Great find...

Several things stood out for me.

1. "It's a game, it's fun for a bit, but then (say it with me readers) "What's next?" Yes, the what's next moment occurs. This is not to say the network becomes useless: no, it's very useful rolodex, and the newsfeeds introduce concepts of peripheral participation (or social surveillance), but the game is in essence over. [It becomes] no longer situationally relevant. Users have got all they can from the system, they've exhausted the game-like experience, and there's a viable alternative." I'm somewhat of a SN junkie, but I have noticed that my initial buzz and addiction surrounding a platform is fairly short-lived; between 30 and 60 days. As the novelty wears off, my life reverts back to normal and my useage drops from all-consuming to an occasional short visit. This has been true for MySpace, Facebook, Ning, Geni…you name it. However, my personal perspective is somewhat different in that this applies to both ego-centric and object-centric models. As I think about it, this applies to most everything in life. There’s a high level of excitement about all the cool new stuff (SN sites, tech gadgets, hobbies, clothes, etc.), but eventually the novelty wears off and I settle into a more stable level of useage based, as Stutzman suggested, on relevance.

2. “So what will be the next big thing? It will be a situationally relevant social experience that exploits dense, underserved clusters, treating the ego-centric aspects as a sub-feature. I'm almost certain that the experience will be mobile based, incorporating geolocational data and personal beacons.” Sounds suspiciously like a predictive analytic for Twitter, to which I have recently become addicted. But here’s the interesting thing about Twitter: Even though I am now in the 30-60 day tapering window, my useage levels have remained fairly consistent since the beginning. Instead of a “game-like” experience, I’ve found Twitter to be highly relevant for day-to-day communications as well as for the creation of interesting new social connections.

[Tracy Hamilton]

I would be interested to know if there is a standard "playing time" for the newest, the latest, the greatest (ie: Twitter, Utterli, Facebook, etc). I think your 30-60 day window might be about right before you decide if it's right for you and if you are getting anything out of the tool (toy).

If you aren't getting much out of it, do you keep it around anyway or do you abandon it completely? I have Facebook. I don't use it nearly as much as my friends. But I do keep it around so I can "spy on them" and see what they are up to. Other than that I barely look at it.

Anyone else have thoughts on the "honeymoon phase" of these applications?

EricWilbanks said:

Wow...Fred Stutzman's article (ego-centric vs. object-centric) was amazing. Great find...

Several things stood out for me.

1. "It's a game, it's fun for a bit, but then (say it with me readers) "What's next?" Yes, the what's next moment occurs. This is not to say the network becomes useless: no, it's very useful rolodex, and the newsfeeds introduce concepts of peripheral participation (or social surveillance), but the game is in essence over. [It becomes] no longer situationally relevant. Users have got all they can from the system, they've exhausted the game-like experience, and there's a viable alternative." I'm somewhat of a SN junkie, but I have noticed that my initial buzz and addiction surrounding a platform is fairly short-lived; between 30 and 60 days. As the novelty wears off, my life reverts back to normal and my useage drops from all-consuming to an occasional short visit. This has been true for MySpace, Facebook, Ning, Geni…you name it. However, my personal perspective is somewhat different in that this applies to both ego-centric and object-centric models. As I think about it, this applies to most everything in life. There’s a high level of excitement about all the cool new stuff (SN sites, tech gadgets, hobbies, clothes, etc.), but eventually the novelty wears off and I settle into a more stable level of useage based, as Stutzman suggested, on relevance.

2. “So what will be the next big thing? It will be a situationally relevant social experience that exploits dense, underserved clusters, treating the ego-centric aspects as a sub-feature. I'm almost certain that the experience will be mobile based, incorporating geolocational data and personal beacons.” Sounds suspiciously like a predictive analytic for Twitter, to which I have recently become addicted. But here’s the interesting thing about Twitter: Even though I am now in the 30-60 day tapering window, my useage levels have remained fairly consistent since the beginning. Instead of a “game-like” experience, I’ve found Twitter to be highly relevant for day-to-day communications as well as for the creation of interesting new social connections.

[Harold Jarche]

I've used and played with many of these and agree that Twitter is a bit different and my activity may continue to be strong after a few months, not like Facebook, which is more of passive site site for me now. I slowed down on FB after I became more active on Twitter. I've also been on Linked-In for ages but it doesn't take much effort.

Twitter is a microblogging platform (not so much a SNS) and that may be why it is successful. For me, the most powerful Web 2.0 platform is my blog. I've been writing on it for over four years and don't intend to quit. It is my main tool for contemplating, connecting and learning. Of course, blogs are very ego-centric and that is one reason I put much effort into mine, because it is a direct reflection of my professional life.

Tracy Hamilton said:

I would be interested to know if there is a standard "playing time" for the newest, the latest, the greatest (ie: Twitter, Utterli, Facebook, etc). I think your 30-60 day window might be about right before you decide if it's right for you and if you are getting anything out of the tool (toy).

If you aren't getting much out of it, do you keep it around anyway or do you abandon it completely? I have Facebook. I don't use it nearly as much as my friends. But I do keep it around so I can "spy on them" and see what they are up to. Other than that I barely look at it.

Anyone else have thoughts on the "honeymoon phase" of these applications?

EricWilbanks said:

Wow...Fred Stutzman's article (ego-centric vs. object-centric) was amazing. Great find...

Several things stood out for me.

1. "It's a game, it's fun for a bit, but then (say it with me readers) "What's next?" Yes, the what's next moment occurs. This is not to say the network becomes useless: no, it's very useful rolodex, and the newsfeeds introduce concepts of peripheral participation (or social surveillance), but the game is in essence over. [It becomes] no longer situationally relevant. Users have got all they can from the system, they've exhausted the game-like experience, and there's a viable alternative." I'm somewhat of a SN junkie, but I have noticed that my initial buzz and addiction surrounding a platform is fairly short-lived; between 30 and 60 days. As the novelty wears off, my life reverts back to normal and my useage drops from all-consuming to an occasional short visit. This has been true for MySpace, Facebook, Ning, Geni…you name it. However, my personal perspective is somewhat different in that this applies to both ego-centric and object-centric models. As I think about it, this applies to most everything in life. There’s a high level of excitement about all the cool new stuff (SN sites, tech gadgets, hobbies, clothes, etc.), but eventually the novelty wears off and I settle into a more stable level of useage based, as Stutzman suggested, on relevance.

2. “So what will be the next big thing? It will be a situationally relevant social experience that exploits dense, underserved clusters, treating the ego-centric aspects as a sub-feature. I'm almost certain that the experience will be mobile based, incorporating geolocational data and personal beacons.” Sounds suspiciously like a predictive analytic for Twitter, to which I have recently become addicted. But here’s the interesting thing about Twitter: Even though I am now in the 30-60 day tapering window, my useage levels have remained fairly consistent since the beginning. Instead of a “game-like” experience, I’ve found Twitter to be highly relevant for day-to-day communications as well as for the creation of interesting new social connections.

[paul lowe]

I think this is where sites like ning come into play, in that they are established for a specific purpose and perhaps with a specific time frame/limit. for example, we have just set up a ning site for the masters course I teach, that will run for at least the 2 years of the course and then hopefully for as long as its members consider it to be a useful post graduation tool for sharing information and resources.
I think that used in this way closed or invitation only social networks have a lot of potential in building communites of practice around specific professional arenas, as in that way they encourage repeated visits and updates over a sustained period of time, so the novelty doesn't wear off so soon

[David Miller]

Interesting distinction between ego and object-centric networks. I find the lines blur and that sites such as Flickr certainly can also be ego-centric as a way to promote yourself and your offerings. I suppose that is true of any tool and just depends on how it is used and exploited.

Thank you for the wealth of information you have already posted and it is only day one!

[Dave Ferguson]

The "ego-centric" and "object-centric" terminology might be more like the (theoretical) introversion/extraversion scale in MBTI.

While I tend to think of Myers-Briggs as corporate astrology, even its proponents will say that extra- and intro- are not assessments of your personality, but indicators of where you tend to draw your energy.

So, for example: I regularly read Harold Jarche's blog, and I think he more than anyone else convinced me (by example) to begin my own. I don't know whether he's egocentric, but it's because he writes about things that interest him strongly that I come back to read them.

(And did you feel a tendency to think "he talks about" rather than "he writes about?" Me, too -- tangentially, I think this is an indicator that we read into the particular connection a fuller dimension of contact based on what we get out of the connection.)

So: make ego- and object- the ends of a continuum, and networks fall all along that continuum (as they always have). If you're fired up about working with Python, you'll find a Python network. If you want to connect with lots and lots of people, you'll do that. Consider the kind of site frequented by eBay sellers -- they've got the object-orientation (online sales) and the ego-orientation (each individual's interests and experiences).

It's not what you call them so much as what they do.

[Michele Martin]

Hi Dave--If you check out Stutzman's article, his main point is that we can either form networks around people or things. So an ego-centric network is like Facebook or LinkedIn where the primary way you relate to each other is by setting up a profile and then trying to connect with other people. In an object-centric network, you're connecting over shared items, like photos (Flickr), URLs (Delicious), videos (YouTube) or PPT presentations (Slideshare). Stutzman thinks (and I tend to agree) that we tend to stick longer with networks where we're connecting over shared information/resources rather than based solely on our profiles.

His point is that once you've set up a profile in an ego-centric network, then what do you do? Whereas if you're connected through an object-centric network, you'll tend to return in order to find and share the objects. Just a different way of looking at all of this.


Dave Ferguson said:

The "ego-centric" and "object-centric" terminology might be more like the (theoretical) introversion/extraversion scale in MBTI.

While I tend to think of Myers-Briggs as corporate astrology, even its proponents will say that extra- and intro- are not assessments of your personality, but indicators of where you tend to draw your energy.

So, for example: I regularly read Harold Jarche's blog, and I think he more than anyone else convinced me (by example) to begin my own. I don't know whether he's egocentric, but it's because he writes about things that interest him strongly that I come back to read them.

(And did you feel a tendency to think "he talks about" rather than "he writes about?" Me, too -- tangentially, I think this is an indicator that we read into the particular connection a fuller dimension of contact based on what we get out of the connection.)

So: make ego- and object- the ends of a continuum, and networks fall all along that continuum (as they always have). If you're fired up about working with Python, you'll find a Python network. If you want to connect with lots and lots of people, you'll do that. Consider the kind of site frequented by eBay sellers -- they've got the object-orientation (online sales) and the ego-orientation (each individual's interests and experiences).

It's not what you call them so much as what they do.

[paul lowe]

I think where it gets very interesting is when ego and object overlap - which is why i dont think flikr is such a great example of an object centered 'thing' as in many ways the images that are put up represent the identity of the poster - the photos stand in for their interests, personality etc etc.
When we get to things like blogs and portfolio sites that show off a professional's work then i think the ego and object coalesce into what you might call an object centered online identity that goes beyond a social network as such. So the public online 'object' represents the personality and professional presence of the author. We follow blogs because they tell us interesting things, and because we trust the personality of the blogger, and a social network builds up around the subscribers and regular visitors. in time these weak social ties may turn into stronger ones - much as how this workshop is beginning to happen - all of the creators of this were people whose blogs i followed, and now that weak tie is being solidified into a stronger one thru the interaction here. But the intial weak tie was based on an object that was out there on the web, the ego emerged slowly as i got to know the blogger better...

[Michele Martin]

Good point, Paul, although I think that maybe the term "ego" is adding a level to this that Stutzman didn't intend--I see it as his way of trying to differentiate between networks that revolve around your profile and networks that revolve around sharing some digital object. The issue becomes why do you keep returning to the site? On a site like Flickr, you return in order to continue to share and find photos. What do you do on Facebook? Return to poke someone or update your status? For a lot of people, that isn't enough--maybe that's where the ego thing comes in. I like to share resources, but I don't necessarily need to update you on myself or send virtual gifts. But that might just be me. :-)


paul lowe said:

I think where it gets very interesting is when ego and object overlap - which is why i dont think flikr is such a great example of an object centered 'thing' as in many ways the images that are put up represent the identity of the poster - the photos stand in for their interests, personality etc etc.
When we get to things like blogs and portfolio sites that show off a professional's work then i think the ego and object coalesce into what you might call an object centered online identity that goes beyond a social network as such. So the public online 'object' represents the personality and professional presence of the author. We follow blogs because they tell us interesting things, and because we trust the personality of the blogger, and a social network builds up around the subscribers and regular visitors. in time these weak social ties may turn into stronger ones - much as how this workshop is beginning to happen - all of the creators of this were people whose blogs i followed, and now that weak tie is being solidified into a stronger one thru the interaction here. But the intial weak tie was based on an object that was out there on the web, the ego emerged slowly as i got to know the blogger better...

[paul lowe]

but i think that thats the point, spaces like flikr and blogs perform both as object and ego, as they give information/data/images etc and reflect the personality of the poster - and because new information is constantly being added - unlike say facebook perhaps - they repay regular revisiting

Michele Martin said:

Good point, Paul, although I think that maybe the term "ego" is adding a level to this that Stutzman didn't intend--I see it as his way of trying to differentiate between networks that revolve around your profile and networks that revolve around sharing some digital object. The issue becomes why do you keep returning to the site? On a site like Flickr, you return in order to continue to share and find photos. What do you do on Facebook? Return to poke someone or update your status? For a lot of people, that isn't enough--maybe that's where the ego thing comes in. I like to share resources, but I don't necessarily need to update you on myself or send virtual gifts. But that might just be me. :-)


paul lowe said:

I think where it gets very interesting is when ego and object overlap - which is why i dont think flikr is such a great example of an object centered 'thing' as in many ways the images that are put up represent the identity of the poster - the photos stand in for their interests, personality etc etc.
When we get to things like blogs and portfolio sites that show off a professional's work then i think the ego and object coalesce into what you might call an object centered online identity that goes beyond a social network as such. So the public online 'object' represents the personality and professional presence of the author. We follow blogs because they tell us interesting things, and because we trust the personality of the blogger, and a social network builds up around the subscribers and regular visitors. in time these weak social ties may turn into stronger ones - much as how this workshop is beginning to happen - all of the creators of this were people whose blogs i followed, and now that weak tie is being solidified into a stronger one thru the interaction here. But the intial weak tie was based on an object that was out there on the web, the ego emerged slowly as i got to know the blogger better...

[paul lowe]

a great piece in today's guardian newspaper....


Make friends before you start
Facebook is being used on campus to ...

[Kate Klingensmith]

I've found almost everything Stutzman does to be interesting, especially a course he's teaching that is currently in session at UNC-Chapel Hill called "The Technologies of Friendship". The course has a wiki where you can get lecture notes and links to videos, articles, and the course's delicious list that is created by the students.

The focus is, of course, on personal relationships, but I wish I could have been there for the discussion of "social capital" - this seems very relevant for not only friendships, but professional group collaboration and communities of learners.