Reading Lankton and McKnight 2011

Lankton and McKnight 2011 is a nice follow up to Doyle et al. 2012 since both of these papers deal on Trust. Besides that, there are more differences than similarities in the study of Trust by these two groups of researchers.

We continue with our analysis of Trust, as an essential factor in Web 2.0 tools in the realm of sociality.

What does it mean to trust FaceBook?

Is the distinction presented by Lankton and McKnight 2011 between interpersonal trust and technology trust a useful construct when studying social networking sites such as FaceBook?

How is this study different from Doyle et al. 2012?

What methodology was used by Lankton and McKnight?

 
In your analysis of Lankton and McKnight, you need to become a double observer:

1. On one side, if you have a FaceBook account (and who doesn’t?) see if, as a user, their statements resonate with your experience
2. On the other hand, as a professional in the domain of information, what can you do to learn from this dichotomy of the trust phenomenon to provide a more trustworthy information delivery experience to your clients

You may find this report a bit dizzying since I expect you will be observing the observer you are in each one of the two situations described before.

Reading Doyle et al. 2012

To help you move on on your reading, I am posting here the guidelines for your next two reports.

Doyle et al. 2012, is a practical paper, especially for those working in the Wine Industry. It can also be used in other areas, but it's important to understand how we know what we know, therefore, in your report, pay attention to the methodology used and the way data was analysed.

 

What advantages provide a content analysis of blogs? What are the limitations?

Continuing with our reflection on how research methods impact what we can learn in a research study, how do you see content analysis compared with an ethnographic study?

This study looked at the Wine Industry, as much as possible in your analysis of this paper see how you can translate Doyle et al. 2012 findings to your own organization.

1. Have you study trust in this detail? 
2. Why Trust is such an important concept for Blogs and other social networking sites? 
3. Look at Figure 1. What are the dimensions that Doyle et al. include in their model that you find more important? 
4. If you are ‘the provider of information’ how do you see yourself acting on these dimensions in such a way to signal them in your blog?

Include a brief summary of those issues you found important in changing the observer you are of the blog phenomenon.

Reading Dixon and McNamara 2008

Wikis are changing the way we work in organizations. An excellent example of the possibilities they offer is presented in Dixon and McNamara's (2008) report on their ethnographic study on Intellipedia.

Following our conversation on empowerment through reading, let's use this second report to explore how we can be empowered to use wikis in your every day relations, either at the UAA, or any other organization you are associated with. Also, use this reflection to work with your team members in your Zoho Wiki.

1. Briefly discuss why an ethnographic study can be so useful to understand the impact of new information and communication technologies.
2. How research methodologies impact what we know about a phenomenon?
3. What do you understand by disruptive technologies?
4. Can you identify the affordances of the technologies you are using?

Specific to Intellipedia,  discuss each one of the 7 core observations, especially as they relate to your own experience using wikis.

Choose one of the Future Research Questions and propose a way you would conduct research to answer it. 

Be sure to submit your report via e-mail by June 13, 2013

JCBR's Report

We shouldn't create social systems as functional and expect people to use it naturally and comfortably without first understanding people's social activity instincts.

However, we should design social systems according to human's social motivations and needs.

Software cannot be social in nature, it is mankind that is social in nature.

With that, I had thought of some social rules that were applied to current social systems.

a. Low barrier to entry.

In real life, if you want to include as many friends in your life, you cannot make it difficult for others to befriend you. Similarly in a social system/service, registration must be made easily accessible but there must also be credentials checking, etc.

[It really depends what kind of social service you are providing]

b. Politeness, friendliness and respectfulness.

In real life, we do not welcome or condone (usually we condemn) people who do not observe social norms such as being polite and respectful. In cyberspace, social systems have filtering rules in forums, terms and conditions to be adhered to and as well as social norms seen by how other online users condemn someone's unruly behavior.

What is the norm in real life are also a norm in online social space.

c. Observing personal space and boundaries.

In real life, we do not reveal everything to everyone. We decide where our personal boundaries extend to. Likewise in social systems, we do not reveal overly personal information online or do we accept anyone to have access in viewing our online profiles (Facebook, Friendster).

One good example, while others may be comfortable in revealing that their relationship status had changed from being "in a relationship" to being "single" (Seen in context, Facebook), others may feel uncomfortable about the whole world knowing that they had broken up and would wish no one would ask about it.

In applying the above concepts, I had learned how to better craft and design social network communities such as Facebook Pages, Twitter tweets and online forums.

For example, group pages on Facebook. I remembered I will create a group page on FB

and invite my classmates to join. Considering everyone at that time has a Facebook account, barrier to entry is low.

Facebook group page was meant for class interaction and discussion but no interesting content was created, even if someone created some content, no one will comment and I doubted they read it. Although there are no traffic after my classmates had joined the group, one thing for sure I was successful about:

There is a conformity pressure, if you are in the class and if you do not join this exclusive class group page, you will be left out. Moreover, being proud of being in the class, everyone will accept my group invitation to build their identities online.

You can connect people, you can provide a platform but real collaboration comes in when online social services were designed after understanding the social behavior in real life such as:

a. Social motivation

Social motivation in a way that, "Hey, are my good friends in that platform?"

"What is my motivation for sitting in front of the computer screen, is it because my friends are usually there and I can talk to all of them at one time making sure I am in the loop of everyone?

b. Content and value of participation

In the case of Wiki, there is incentive to provide high quality articles because wiki authors wants approval and respect from fellow wiki authors and readers.

The value of any discussion, gossips, etc be it online or offline relies on the content.

My friend once told me how she stayed awhile longer just to listen and participate in the gossips and "updates" of the students in School of Computing. I felt it was amazing how the content and how people derive their perceived value and satisfaction out of gossips can glue them to a coffee shop table in Clementi.

In conclusion, how do we start off such an online group page and make it more successful (hopefully)?

a. Advertise, create awareness and know your social service has value people are looking for.

b. Generate useful and interesting content at least twice a week or minimally once a week.

c. Have a core group of members to comment and generate commentary traffic to the above content.

JCC's Report

“The Realm of Sociality: 

Notes on the Design of Social Software”

The main significance of this paper is that, there is a need of putting in use models and design frameworks to help the designers to create, in structured manner, social systems. It is important to mention that as Dr. Alex Ramírez said several times during the previous class and also it is written in this paper: “sociality cannot be designed; it can only be designed for”.

The most relevant part of the introduction for me is the precept that the authors hold that sociality, not functionality, Is the key concept in social software systems, because it’s most important to have a social knowledge of the social group or part of the society we are trying to affect or the sector that we want to create the system for, in order to determine the correct functionality of the application of system.

Other important part of the introduction is that the authors focus on social software systems as a means of pursuing sociality, and take advantage of the trigger mechanisms in people that make them engage in offline and online social services.

Then the authors take an approach focus on the soft systems methodology, investigating the sociality in order to have a qualitative methodology for complex situations as the social networks are. They show a figure where there is a line between the real world and the thinking systems in with there is interaction between the problem situation, that goes through root definitions of relevant systems and conceptual models that once that transit over the real world improve the problem situation.

The next part of the document explains the sociality that helps us to understand how creatures organize their relations. They mention a distinction of types of sociality based on the type subject related in the social group that can be either only people and groups or artifacts. Then they mention the level on interaction that results in the grade of complexity, resulting in one-dimensional or multi-dimensional. The authors present a table that encapsulates all this types of sociality for further identification, for example the multi-dimensional artifact-base represents social networks through hardware and/or software, and they named it “System-centered sociality”.

The following part is the conceptual model where the authors put the sociality right in the middle as a driving force for the design and development of social software.  Around the center (vertical) they put the theories of social structure to provide rules and norms and the theories of situated experience to emphasize actions and intentions. 

The other segment (horizontal) is about the social practice that consists on the mechanisms by which the groups interact and the ones related to the identity and its relation to the group. They include four realms based on the theories expressed before to represents design areas to be included.

Then they show the Last.fm case where through the classification of music, opinions and ratings the website receive information of the users and groups that results in personalized the right music to the right people. The authors then explain how each one of the defined realms applies to this case. For me the most relevant one in this example is the realm of actualizing self because through the characteristics of the individual, this site associates it with other people with the same preferences to provide more options that can be for the preference of the individual.

The following part of the paper is oriented to the triggers and mechanisms that help people to be part of a social group or even to be able to create their own group. That is the case of the great success of twitter.com, which reinforces the feeling of situated connectivity and enables group formation.  It’s a form sociality based of points of interest that create strong relations where the people express ideas or spontaneous thinking, that’s why there are a lot of new users every day, it’s easy to relate to small expressions, it’s also easy to follow several people or groups at the same time. Perhaps the most important mechanisms are the limit of size for the messages that help users to see a lot of messages in a small area, also the continuity of the activities that the users are going through in real time.

A design framework takes stage in the following part of the paper. This framework is designed as a guideline to the designers and developers of social software that invite people to join in social activities. The realms depicted above in this document take a structural part of this framework, and are correlated to some design patterns like: domains, criteria, principles, parameters and dilemmas to provide a certain directive for each case. 

From the design framework presented above the authors present the case of LinkedIn and Friendster, where those authors explain the distinctions of each other through the patters of design. For example in the design principles LinkedIn offers clear objectives while Friendster’s objectives are vague. However the most relevant part of this case is how the authors explain that even though both sites are labeled as social network ones with similar functionalities are differ dramatically on the way they stimulate users to engage in social activities.

At the end of this paper the authors express the importance of the concept of sociality towards the work of social software designers, and the possibility to consider and use the conceptual model and design framework presented is this paper.

Conclusion

It is critical for systems architects and developers to consider sociality as a corner stone of social software systems as part of their designs and creative processes to correctly cover a certain need. There is area of opportunity for new social websites that have the possibility to success, but it order to achieve that success the architects have to identify first the need and understand social wise the problem and provide the correct triggers and mechanisms for people to be able to be part of a social group, even with the possibility of creating their own sites. But this entire new overhaul has to be supported by models, frameworks and techniques, and follow guidelines because a bad designed social site with no social interest of the users is a failure on its own.