Big ideas...

I've just been thinking about the type of social network study I am reading about - where twitter or facebook are used and a very specific interaction is investigated. Some studies also examine in much more general terms the way in which that network functions. But why not approach these questions from another perspective - people.

Let me explain. Think about this: my egocentric social network is far bigger than my twitter network. My egocentric network on twitter is completely unrepresentative of my actual social network. At best it only represents those people that I know who are on twitter.

In reality, my ecocentric network is actually a whole mass of interconnected people, who I communicate with via Twitter, via Facebook, by email, by phone, by texting to a large extent, through letters very occasionally and most frequent of all face to face. It is also constantly changing and evolving both in how I contact them and who I am contacting and why.

I would love to see a comprehensive study of specific people's egocentric networks. Perhaps taking 10s or 100s of people. Imagine the diversity of methods used to communicate - imagine the potential findings and the document of our current communication forms that this would form! This sample could then be repeated years later and potentially conducted again multiple times over the years.

What would it look like?

Interview the participants in detail to identify the forms of communication they use. Use samples of people from deliberately chosen ages and demographics - for instance in the university it could be undergrad, postgrad, lecturer and admin person for instance... The networks within these various communciation forms could then be examined individually i.e. for each person you would come out with their twitter, facebook, email network etc etc and you would then end up with a comprehensive snapshot of the technology they used at that time and who they contacted, how etc. Each network could be analysed for its own merit but then also cross-analysed with each person's other networks and then between people or different groups of people...



It's probably wildly overcomplex & time intensive but anyway, just an idea!

Further Social Network Visualisations

Today I've been able to get quite a lot more data for eco-centric networks. The images on the left show some more complex social networks (not particularly well arranged) which give an insight into the sort of visualisations that can be created using the NodeXl tool.

These are both simple eco-centric networks which show how one user (me for example) follows others, these others may also be following me. Some of the people I follow also follow each other - hence the rather hectic lines connecting all the different actors in the network. These samples are limited to >200 people but each dot represents an account or person. The size of the dot in these visualisations has been defined by the 'betweeness centrality' value which it has within the network i.e. '..how many of the shortest paths between two others some actor lies on'. The colour of the dots has been defined by their Eigenvector Centrality - how important that actor is within the network. These can now be used to compare with other networks and to represent many other characteristics of the network visually.

Digital Space

Is the digital space and digital connection equivalent to a 'physical' connection?

This is a question that comes up time and again in my research, indirectly or by assumption. Are relationships online equivalent to those offline. What difference does that make to companies and organisations? The offline connection often results in an online one. But to the majority of internet users does the reverse occur so readily? Is the connection created online as strong as one offline to a cause or charity for instance?

Offline we use body language, read tone and voice internation - none of which is available to us in the digital space. The pace and ebbs and flows of conversation offline make a big difference. The online often uses 'on' or 'off', you either talk or listen: email; blog comments; your friend 'is typing' on msn messenger or facebook chat; the back and forth of twitter.

Is there a different form of connection or relationship generated? One that is based on information and factual transmission. Causes or voices that appear silent or unreachable(a large corporation or charity with tightly controlled press releases for instance) suddenly have a voice and direct communication is possible.

This is where many businesses and charities have been able to harness social media. The towering, closed international organisation suddenly has a new voice in the digital space and real people can engage with it where before they wouldn't have dreamed of it. The Third Sector has left the building.

The Seven Inviolable, Irrefutable, Ingenious Things Your Business or Institution or Candidate Can Do in the Age of the Internet...

"The Seven Inviolable, Irrefutable, Ingenious Things Your Business or Institution or Candidate Can Do in the Age of the Internet That Might Keep You from Getting Your Ass Kicked But Then Again Might Not"

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)


The following are the seven things that Trippi describes in his book with a simplified explanation of each. Please do get hold of a copy and read these in full!

1. Be First - There is very little about the Internet that is proprietary...the first everything has a headstart building a community...(rule 1a - If you're not going to be the first mover, you'd better be a hell of a lot better.)
2. Keep it Moving - Don't be static... Don't let your website be wallpaper.
3. Use an Authentic Voice - Have real people write real stuff.
4. Tell the Truth - The internet has an inherent transparency... Tell them what you want. Don't manipulate
5. Build a Community - Create a commons, a town square, a place where people can come together...
6. Cede Control - Once you invite people in, they're going to want to do more.
7. Believe Again - Have some faith in the [] people again.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)

This advice is still massively relevant to all sorts of organisations today. They are very important areas that we see missed so much - we see 'websites as wallpaper' all the time! Bland press releases with no space for community. Many examples, in my own immediate experience spring to mind of organisations that believe this in their ethos and are trying to engage but miss out on the potential of the internet as a way to do it.

The tools for the job have improved massively since 2004; many of them free. What is holding you back? Will your organisation survive and thrive without this sort of engagement?

On the Internet

What effect does using the web have on us? Why is the disembodiment of the web attractive and is it a good thing? Is it more than just a tool?

Reading Hubert L. Dreyfus' book On the Internet is forming an important introduction to some of these big questions on the use and effect of the internet. So far I have been surprised how much of his text rings true. Mainly as a warning against a hedonistic view of the internet as the be all and end all of current society. There is a limit and there are reasons some things need reality.

Some of these questions were also raised as part of Aleks Krotoski and the BBC's Virtual Revolution. In the final episode of the series 'Homo Interneticus', Dr Krotoski dicusses the effect of social networking on our relationships. Do we really have 500+ friends and what do we mean by friends in the context of facebook and other social networks?

The effect of the internet for good as a tool is undoubted, but like anything open and freely usable it is open to abuse and misuse. Do the bonds created online act as stongly as 'real' relationships. I say no, but being only on the verge of being a digital native (as opposed to an immigrant) myself, can I really judge? I think in fact this is a really important point and fundamentally divides many organisations' attitudes to the internet and use of social networks. If an organisation doesn't value the internet's potential for relationships then they tend to undervalue and underinvest in their online presence and often ignore social networks entirely.