Transcript Participant Experiences in an Informal twitter.com Sub

Participant Experiences in an
Informal twitter.com Sub-network
Jennifer Maddrell
Doctoral Student at Old Dominion University
AACE E-learn 2010 – Brief Paper Presentation
October 18-22, 2010
Click for audio ->
Nice to meet you …
• Working on my
dissertation
• Research interest in
distance and online
learning
• Live in Chicago and visit
these places, too:
– http://designedtoinspire.com
– http://twitter.com/JenM
– http://edtechtalk.com
Case Study Research Questions
• What is the nature of communication and
interaction within a twitter sub-network?
• Why do users in the sub-network participate?
• How do users represent themselves, including
the demographic information they chose to
share within their profiles?
Qualitative Case Study
edtechtalk
3,100
in Reciprocal
Following
Sub-network
twitter.com
Nature of Relationships
Facebook
Blogging
Twitter
Support existing
relationships
Blogger talks “at”
audience
Browse friends of
friends creating
large following
networks
Two-way
dialogue
Comments
rhetorically
subservient
Smaller subnetwork where
posts frequently
directed
Data Collection
Observation
of user
communication
Review
of user
profile data
Interviews
Observation Periods
Observation
Period
1
2
3
4
Date of Observation
Saturday 20091010
Sunday 20091011
Monday 20091012
Tuesday 20091013
Target Hours of Observation
6:00 a.m. to noon
6:00 p.m. to midnight
6:00 a.m. to noon
midnight to 5:59 a.m.
noon to 5:59 p.m.
6
7
8
Wednesday
20091014
Thursday 20091015
Friday 20091016
Saturday 20091017
6:00 p.m. to midnight
6:00 a.m. to noon
midnight to 5:59 a.m.
9
10
Sunday 20091018
Monday 20091019
noon to 5:59 p.m.
6:00 p.m. to midnight
5
Period of Day
Morning
Evening
Morning
Late Evening / Early
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
Morning
Late Evening / Early
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
Observation Checklist
Tweet
Content
(Cut and
Paste)
Time
30 minute
Observation
Period
(1-10)
Original
Post or
Re-tweet
(O/RT)
Broadcast
or
Direct
Response
(B / @)
User
Name
#
Tagged
Content
(Y / N)
Hyperlink
Included
(Y / N)
Education
or
Technology
(Y / N)
Post Made
on
Twitter.com
(Y / N)
Profile Review
User
Name
Location
Website
Bio
#
Following
#
Followers
#
Tweets
Picture
(Default /
Self/Other)
Date
Joined
Twitter
Focus of Interview Questions
• Background information
• Twitter use
• Perceptions of twitter
• Communication on twitter
• Community and relationships on twitter
Nature of Communication
• Always on / always accessible
– 75 different applications used to tweet
– “live”, “transient”, “office buddy”, “glance”, “graze”,
“cocktail party”, “ambi-synchronous”
• Broadcast messages and conversations
– 1 in 3 tweets including @ symbol
– Half of those were re-tweets RT@
• Shared interest communication
– 1 in 5 tweets included # tag
– Word clouds suggest shared interests
Wordle.net Word Cloud of Tweets
Wordle.net Word Cloud of Biographies
Nature of Interaction
• Network ties
– Most not linked by geography or workplace
– Shared interest and weak-tie relationships
• Transparency
– Post specific details of personal & professional life
– Central to relationship formation & maintenance
• Audience awareness
– Pay attention to followed by / following lists
– Care about post relevance and suitability to audience
Motivations to Participate
• Access
– People
– Information
– Resources
• Reciprocity
– Sharing of knowledge a condition of membership
– Contributions are a form of network currency
Summary of Study
• Twitter serves as a virtual coffee machine
• Sub-network bound by shared interest
• Network ties:
– Clusters of strong-tie relationships
– Weak-tie acquaintances
• Transparency central to weak tie formation
• Reciprocity is network currency and payment
for membership
Significance of Findings
• Sub-network formed organically over years
• Suggests drivers behind on-going participation
• Cannot generalize to other sub-networks
• Does not suggest results would be the same in
sub-network created by teacher
Questions for Future Research
• Is the required level of user transparency and
self-discloser feasible in most educational
settings?
• Would an experienced professional be willing to
interact with a novice and, if so, would the
communication and interaction be at a
meaningful level?
• To what extent do these network characteristics
and participant motivators exist in other contexts
and settings?
Please share your thoughts …
http://designedtoinspire.com/drupal/aace2010twitter