Literature Review

Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter will review the existing literature on social networking, social networking sites, the impact of new technology on young people and how youth work can be used for online youth work. Therefore, this chapter will initially look at existing knowledge around network theory, discussing the various different types and features of these different types. It then moves on to discuss social networking sites, showcasing the range available, the components they share and how network theory relates to social networking sites. This chapter will look at how young people use social media and are influenced by the rapid increase in technology. It will discuss definitions of these “digital natives” and discuss the validity of the theory. Finally, it will consider existing knowledge around online youth work, underpinning my research and giving it a context.

Networks

Networks are connections or links between people. Networks happen due to a common link or shared interest. Barnes (1954) was the first researcher to coin the phrase “social network.” Barnes viewed social interactions as a “set of points some of which are joined by lines” to form a “total network” of relations (Barnes, 1954. Cited in Knoke & Yang, 2008:8). Researchers use sociograms to observe and examine these connections. Jacob Moreno (1934) pioneered hand drawn sociograms to show the connections between individuals and how they form networks. Kadushin (2011) discusses how social scientists identify with three types of network. Ego-centric networks involve individuals connected to other individuals. They are drawn as relative to one individual, and their connections. Looking at Figure 1, Person A is connected to B, C and D. This network could be described simply as a list. “In popular discourse, especially when social support is discussed, any list is called a “network” it is a network in a basic sense because even if no one on the list is connected with one another, each individual is at least all connected with the person being supported” (Kadushin, 2011: 17). This means although A is connected to B, C and D it does not necessarily mean that B is connected to D. The only thing they share according to the graph is their commonality to the central individual. D also has a link to E, so therefore A has an indirect link to E through D, because of the direct link between D and E. This approach has also been referred to as a person’s “personal social network” (Cotterell, 2007:28). It displays the connections a person has, with the person (A) as the focus. Examples of this network include an individual’s direct family and friends, or the manager of an organisation, with the workers forming the network. 

Figure 1: Sociogram of an ego-centric network

 

Secondly, Socio-centric networks involve groups of individuals being connected through a fixed commonality such as a group of school pupils all in the same form class or a team of lecturers teaching on the same degree.  They follow a closed system in that the network is fixed within this commonality, it can be visualised in figure 2.

Figure 2: Socio-centric network

 

In this network all individuals are connected to each other. They all share the same experience and boundaries are clearly identified. The individuals in these networks are studied in relation to the ties they have with each other. As we can see, all individuals have a connection with all other individuals. It could be described as an internal network as it is exclusive to the people in contains.

Open-system networks are networks where the boundaries are not clear. The commonality between is not as simple as having a shared workplace, or having relationships with one individual. Rather it can include a shared interest, shared social circle or shared belief such as all the followers of a religion. They can be expressed in figure 3.

This sociogram shows the more complex connections within an open system network. As we can see, A has a connection with B, C and D, as well as B having a connection with C, and C connected with D. Just as before with the ego-centric network there are direct links between A and B, but also indirect links between A and F. The ABCD network is therefore indirectly connected to the EFGH network.  The social proximity between these connections and networks is what interests’ researchers. If we consider the followers of a religion as a network we can acknowledge that while having local community networks through places of worship, they also share within the worldwide community of followers.

With the massive growth in technology in the past few decades, it has allowed people to have greater access to their connections. Mobile phones and the internet allow people to maintain connections, even if we don’t see engage with them face to face. Social networking sites allow individuals to not only access and maintain their offline network, but also grow their network and engage with new networks. Therefore, I will now discuss social networking websites, which enable users to engage with and enhance their own personal and total networks on the internet. Firstly however I think its relevant to look at how this social media feature of the internet came about.

Web 2.0

In recent years there has been a new notion among internet discourse. It starts from the idea that the internet went from being a purely information based tool to a facility capable of user participation. This notion became known as Web 2.0. Coined in 1999 by Tim O’Reilly, Web 2.0 refers to a “second generation” of internet-based services that emphasis online collaboration and sharing among users, often allowing users to build connections between themselves and others” (Green and Hannon, 2007:15). This interaction element has given rise to interaction between the website user and the website itself. These interactions can range from comment boxes, online surveys and discussion boards to blogs, wiki sites and social networking sites. 

Definitions & Features of Social Networking Sites

Social networking sites have been an interesting phenomenon in recent years.  Social networking sites are defined by Boyd (2008) as follows:

“We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to

(1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,

(2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and

(3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”

This notion of public or semi-public profile is an important one it means that users have complete control over how much or how little they put on their profile, and can control who can access it.

It is valuable to consider the different components of a social networking site, and how these aid to network management. Users build a profile showcasing their personal details and interests. The user will access the website from their internet connection. They add their name, age and geographical information, as well as other information such as hobbies and interests. The website then uses this information to build a profile. The user can also add educational information, political and religious beliefs and job details, all of which can be shared with other users at the profile owner’s discretion, through various privacy controls. Users are encouraged to upload personal content such as photos and videos, as well as add a short descriptive paragraph about themselves.

Once the user has a profile, they can look at other user’s profiles and find other users whom they already have existing connections with and add them as “friends.” Friends, family members and acquaintances all make up the user’s personal social network. At this point their profile conforms to the ego-centric network described above. However with the nature of social networking sites, these networks rarely stay small.

Facebook is the largest social networking site on the internet with over 1.11 billion worldwide active users as of March 2013 (Facebook, 2013). On average, 655 million of these users are daily active users, meaning they are regularly using the website, as opposed to simply having an account. It features all of the features described previously.  One important feature of Facebook is its “mutual friends” ability. This allows users looking at a users’ profile to see if they have any common connections. This feature isn’t exclusive to Facebook but it is a key part of its networking capability.

The diagram below shows a small Facebook network from the perspective of John. In this network, John is friends with Tim, Ryan, Jason and Keith. When John became friends with Tim on Facebook he also noticed Tim was friends with Ryan.

  

However, given the scale of many Facebook users’ networks, the networks are far more complex and span countries and continents, as well as work, home and leisure. The diagram below is a more accurate description of social networks today, with the help of social networking sites.

Fig.5 Complex network

Photo reference:

http://www.researchtoaction.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/networks1.jpg

As we can see, this network is much more complex and comprises of several different connections.

  

Social Networking sites & Social Capital

Social networking sites allow for users to communicate who may not have been able to before. In face to face contact you have to talk to people and find out their interests in order to make connections. However with social networking sites all the information which you acquire from talking to someone is already on screen and you can tailor your experience and networking needs according to what you see on people’s profiles. Many larger social networking sites are not necessarily about looking for new people, rather they are used for communicating with existing network connections which they have offline, and can maintain these connections online (Boyd, 2008).

Research by Ellison et al (2007) has shown that users engage with social media to “establish social capital in the form of new social contacts created online as well as the maintenance of offline social contacts using social methods.” Coleman (1988) believed social capital referred to the resources accumulated through the relationships among people (cited in Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007:1145). Alternatively Lin (1999) defines social capital as an “investment in social relations by individuals through which they gain access to embedded resources to enhance expected returns of instrumental or expressive actions” (Steinfield et. al p1). Putman (2000) differentiates between two types of social capital; bridging and bonding social capital. Bridging social capital refers to the loose connections between individuals such as between professionals in the same industry like youth workers networking with other education professionals.

Similarly bonding social capital refers to close relationships between people, such as between family members and close friends. Both of these variants of social capital have the potential to be maintained through social networking sites, however bridging social capital may be enhanced. Research by Steinfield et.al (2009) has shown a strong connection between use of the social network site Facebook and higher levels of bridging social capital. Social networking sites like Facebook offer a cheap and efficient method of communication, and so they help to maintain these loose connections. Young people have been perhaps the biggest users of social networking sites. I will now explore their use of new technology and social networking sites.

Young People & New Technologies

Young people today are fully engaged in these new technologies and this has a profound effect on their experience. Researchers have become intrigued by the way young people have taken to this advancement. Although it is still a relatively new topic, research has been varied. Some researchers (Prensky, 2001., Holmes, 2011., and Bennett, Maton, Kervin, 2011) are concerned with this notion of “digital natives”, which looks at how young people are growing up with a full engagement and understanding of new technologies. Other research (Denver, Balmer & Pleasense, 2010, Livingstone, 2008) has focused on how young people are using the internet for self-expression and seeking advice.

Today’s generation of young people is the first generation growing up with a full engagement with new technology. Mobile phones, computers, Instant Messaging (IM) and other social technology are not something new for today’s young people; they know them from birth and grow up with them as a part of their lives. This makes them fundamentally different from the generation before, with Prensky (2001) believing young people’s brains have physically changed, or at least they’re thinking patterns have changed.

This generation of young people have been dubbed the “cyberkids” (Holloway and Valentines,2003, cited in Holmes, 2011), the “internet generation”, “net generation”, and n-geners (European Commision, 2007; Tapscott, 1998, cited in Holmes, 2011). The most common title given to this generation, and the label I will hereafter be using, is “digital native” (Prensky, 2001). Prensky (2001) coined the phrase digital native as he believed students in schools were all “native speakers of the digitial language of computers, video games and the Internet.” 

Hulme (2011) refers to digital natives as a generation of young people who are fundamentally different from previous generations in the way they communicate, seek information, engage, interact and entertain themselves. Prensky (2001) claims, “our students have changed radically, today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (2001:1).

Criticisms of digital native

The debate is largely based on an assumption that this “technologization of childhood” (Plowman, Stephen and Mcpake, 2010) is applicable to all young people. Bennett (2008) is critical of this assumption explaining that young people’s internet usage is not applicable to all young people and can vary according to the social context. Internet usage among young people is “far from uniform and depends on contexts of use, with widely varying experiences according to children’s school and home background (Lee, 2005). Helsper & Eynon (2010) also note the vast majority of the evidence for the digital native concept is based on studies in the US, and as such may not reflect worldwide trends. I

t’s clear to see that the digital native concept has some unanswered questions, and may not apply to all young people, however research from YouthNet (2009) has shown 90% of young people “often use a number of different technologies at the same time”, with 86% of them saying “I love how new technology enables me to communicate with people and 85% saying they are “confidence about using new technology.” It seems young people, regardless of the debate, are massive users of technology.

1.5 Youth Work online

We can see that young people are major users of the internet for communication and information seeking. It is where a lot of them “hang out” in today’s technology driven society. Therefore, if youth workers want to engage with young people from where they are at, it would be wise to start online. Some researchers (Kirby, 2006. Székely & Nagy, 2011, Davis & Cranston, 2008) have already explored the potential for youth work online. This idea of virtual youth work is one recognised in both literature and practice. Terms such as “digital youth work” and especially “online youth work” are more often used to denote youth work carried out in the digital environment (Székely & Nagy, 2011).

Kirby (2006) studied the potential for virtual youth work online, and had several testimonials indicating mixed views from young people, however the conclusion of the research was positive in mentioned “new technology can underpin the values that youth work holds dear” (2006: 282). The youth work values Kirby is referring to include; voluntary participation; education and welfare; association, relationship and community; being friendly, accessible and responsive (Jeffs & Smith, 2010).

Székely & Nagy (2011) see two approaches in online youth work. The first approach, passive, is concerned with the “dissemination of information.” This includes signposting for information, promotion of events or activities and general information about existing projects. It could also be used for recruitment of young people, information enquiries and connecting with parents.

The second approach Székely & Nagy (2011) describe is an interactive approach. This refers to a two way process where a young person becomes a partner, influencing, producing and owning the given content, as opposed to a one way process where the young person is simply a data consumer.

Research carried out by Davis & Cranston (2008) has been the most influential within youth work applications to social media. Their research was funded by the National Youth Agency and investigates how youth work can best support young people to navigate the risks of social networking sites and make the most of the opportunities it contains. One of the key points from the research is youth workers need to “take active steps to develop the online social networking knowledge and skills of staff” (2008: 3). This is important as youth workers are attempting to engage in a field where young people are largely already experts. It also emphasis safety implications and levels of participation within the online youth work field.

Further details on how youth work / youth workers have engaged with an online presence will be explored in greater detail in the Digital Youth Work section (link)