A Question(able) Mashup

I started this as a response to Kim’s great post about LinkedIn and it began getting away from her original point. So with credit to Kim for starting this…it’s ended up as a mashup response to questions 1, 2, 3 and 5.

I use LinkedIn as a website for my consulting business. It has everything that I would put on a website and I don't have to host it. To date, I don't know if I have received work from it, but I have reconnected with people from previous work settings and that's been useful. It’s also provided people who have me foisted on them with, “We’ve retained Judith to help us out, so work with her,” with a quick and easy way to find out a bit about me. 

So it has created a way for people to connect with my presentation of myself on the Internet – my mediated self – as well as allowed people to interact with me.  This allows us to share information with each other and by doing so – through the act of communication – we create a new narrative about ourselves and our ‘life’ together. In doing so, we make up the text and to it we add a richness of other media – photos, links to videos we or others have created, podcasts – in my case, reports I’ve written which clients have posted – etc. My ‘audience’ co-creates this narrative with me: When they link with me, the act of connecting adds information about me to members of my audience, which in turn tells members of their audience something more about them. This is one of the less obvious strengths of LinkedIn and what makes it much more than an online resume service.

Then, if and when we add further connections through Facebook and Twitter, we extend ‘our’ new media narrative arc further and build thicker connections. Facebook is episodic and can be trivial, but over time, it allows people who otherwise would never share a photo or be able to quickly post a link to an article they found meaningful to do so. One photo or article doesn’t tell us much about anyone and is not a narrative in and of itself for the most part, but a year of postings begin to form a powerful story about the individual (or corporation or organization on sponsored pages) and their connections, their personality, their family and friends, etc. Facebook also gives people an opportunity to actively participate in other people’s narratives in almost real time. When we cleaned up my mother in law’s home after she could no longer live independently, we found folders of clippings from newspapers, some with her children’s names on top, some with a note to herself about what she found meaningful. It was lovely and very sweet, but tinged with the yellowing of old newsprint and almost as out of context as the grade six essays she had also secreted away. We had not been able to participate with her in the story she was creating with the artifacts she kept and that was sad, especially as the onset of Alzheimer’s meant that we were never likely to know what she was thinking about some of the mementoes she had kept. Facebook or something like it would have put that narrative into the daily lives of her family and deepened their interactions.  

Twitter feeds add another dimension to the new media narrative. With their 140 character restriction, by necessity they become the callout box or headline within the larger narrative, often linking the reader to another part of the story that they might otherwise miss. 

So think of LinkedIn as the beginning of the narrative of my professional life. It starts with my resume/biography. Others add to my story through their attachment to me and extend my story into theirs. Facebook adds an additional dimension to my narrative; for me, the addition of a friends and family layer. In turn, I visibly add to their narrative. My Twitter feed adds headlines to what I may be posting on Facebook or adding to LinkedIn. So this has become a much richer narrative than anything I could have created on my own.

Bruner tells us that “An individual’s working intelligence is never solo. It cannot be understood without taking into account his or her reference books, data bases and network of friends, colleagues or mentors on whom one leans for help and advice” (1991, p.3). The new media narrative makes our ‘working intelligence’ very visible and accessible. This full-on look inside us is further enhanced by the visual nature of the new mediums – we know each other not just by our words but by the photo we post of ourselves and the video links, etc. For example, if you go to this link, you can see what I look like with short hair http://pipl.com/search/?q=judith+dyck&l=&sloc=&in=6 . 

Bruner (1991) also points out that narrative requires a negotiated role between the storyteller and the reader. This remains true in the new media narrative, but because of the additional opportunities for the storyteller and reader to connect, the negotiations become more frequent and complex. “Will I connect with you on LinkedIn? I might connect with you there, but I won’t become your Friend on Facebook. Sure, you can see what I post on Twitter; I reveal very little of my ‘self’ in that medium, so the privacy issue barrier is lower.” This dialogue occurs daily as we all construct a new, mediated narrative.

The question was what happens to text, product and authorship in a Web 2.0 world? Clearly the definitions are shifting and the lines become blurred between the three. The point I would make in relation to that blurring and narrative is that the stories that define our societies and shape our reality don’t really have authors either. Who really ‘authored’ the story about star-crossed lovers by which we learn that love conquers all? We no longer know because it began so long ago. The same thing occurs in a hyperlinked fashion over a much shorter time span in a Web 2.0 world.

The new media narrative is thick and authentic. Our preexisting relations are enriched by the additional contact we can easily have with friends and family (Benckler, 2006, p. 357). This contact is composed of a richer mix of data than it would have been if we were communicating by letter or telephone because we can so easily add photos, audio and video clips and links to others. This lends it what Shaffer refers to as thick authenticity, which he says ‘computational media’ is particularly adept at enabling.   

New media technologies power and enrich our narratives. They expose our working intelligence and enrich our existing relationships, lending them authenticity along the way. Through our linkages, our following and friending, we author and edit and define each other’s identity and working intelligence. Others on this blog have called for more education in media literacy. This new reality demands it. While it is arguable whether our personal narrative is less our own than it ever was, it isn’t arguable that it is more widely shared and nuanced. 

Benckler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Pp. 356-377. New Haven, CT, London UK: Yale University Press.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry 18 (Autumn 1991).

Shaffer, D. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Jl. Of Interactive Learning Research (1999) 10(2), 192 – 215.

Q1: Participatory media culture and the role of the audience

I work in the Marketing and Communications (MarCom) department at a university. A more participatory media culture affects MarCom's work in a number of ways. Because of informal, participatory communication channels such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, the university can no longer tightly control what is published about it. MarCom has had to expand its role from publisher to listener.

Official publications such as magazines mailed out to alumni and “what’s going on at the university” columns in local newspapers are now a smaller part of the media landscape than they used to be. While these traditional channels might still attract the eyes of one important audience (alumni and other community supporters), the key audience of students and prospective students is more likely to be looking at student-run pages on Facebook. It’s become more difficult for the university to maintain an authoritative “voice” and to control the flow of information and commentary published about the university.

The university’s media officer still prepares press releases and liaises with traditional media. However, her role now includes much more “ear to the ground” work than it used to, because of the proliferation of informal communication channels in which the university is mentioned.

A new example of an informal channel cropped up yesterday. A student – or group of students – has started a “memes” page about the institution on Facebook. Students create LOLcat-style memes on memegenerator.net, and then post them to Facebook. The memes page has generated quite a following, and MarCom has realized that it’s worth watching the page, as it reflects not only undergraduate culture at the university but also student concerns and frustrations about the institution. Along with such predictable memes as “10 minute class break = 20 minute pub break!” there is some very clever and pointed satire about issues at the university such as the lack of certain program offerings, parking woes, and the cost of food services on campus.

A Facebook page such as this cannot be controlled by the university, but can carry as much weight with key audiences – or more – than anything the university itself publishes. The audience is creating content that is more relevant to itself than what the institution creates. As O’Reilly (2005) points out, “The world of Web 2.0 is also the world of what Dan Gilmor calls ‘we, the media,’ a world in which “the former audience”, not a few people in a back room, decides what’s important” (p. 3).

The "few people in a back room" that Gilmor refers to sounds like what MarCom's role used to be. Now, MarCom's role includes being in the audience, listening to what is being said about the institution in Web 2.0 channels, as well as spearheading its own Web 2.0 efforts in order to maintain an official voice in as many communication channels as possible.

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=3

Web 3.0? No, it's Web 2.0 S

Tim O’Reilly (2005) presented a thorough explanation of the benefits of Web 2.0 in his report, What is Web 2.0, and opened the door for predictions about Web 3.0. If Web 1.0 was focused on posting content, Web 2.0 is collaborating to build content, what will Web 3.0 be?
According to the opinions of experts, Web 3.0 will feature information compiled and sorted to personalize content and develop databases that could not have been possible in a Web 1.0 world. 

O’Reilly predicted that, “the race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity…the winner will be the company that first reaches critical mass via user aggregation, and turns that aggregated data into a system service,” (p. 3). Facebook, Google+ and now Rogers are all vying to become the one-stop shop for user’s information.  Rogers Communication’s new service, One Number, offers customers the ability to combine all their contact information and inboxes into one profile accessible using the customer’s cell phone number. A commercial explaining the service is available on the bottom of this page.

Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr and Hunch.com, suggested that personalized recommendations will be made using all of our search data and profiles. Fake says that specific search results, similar to Amazon.com’s recommendations based on your previous purchases, will be used to customize the web to each user. This customization is already happening based on Eli Pariser’s TED Talk, Beware online “filter bubbles”. Pariser says that Google uses 57 signals to customize your search results.

I can see signs of the next step of the Internet in content created solely based on published content. For example, I searched for the term “best horror movies” and in the list of results, Google had pulled content from various sites and compiled its suggestions. The Shining, Alien, Halloween and The Exorcist make Google’s compiled list.  

Is this Web 3.0? Maybe, or it could be Web 2.0 S.

References

Fake, C. (Interview subject). (2009). Spark. (Podcast). Episode 96. Toronto, Ontario: CBC Radio.

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from  http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=3

Pariser, E. (2011). Beware online “filter bubbles”.  TED.com [Online video]. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://blog.ted.com/2011/05/02/beware-online-filter-bubbles-eli-pariser-on-ted-com/

Rogers. (2012). One number [Commercial]. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from https://www.rogersonenumber.ca/welcome/?locale=en_CA#

Q1. Participatory Media

Not being well versed in theories around the roles of the audience, I spent some time reading up on it and found that Katz, Blulmer, Gurevitch’s (1973) Uses & Gratifications theory does well to address the relationship between audience and text in new media technologies (NMT). www.mediaknowall.com summaries Blulmer and Katz’s work to four audience/text purposes:

• Diversion - escape from everyday problems and routine.
• Personal Relationships - using the media for emotional and other interaction, eg) substituting soap operas for family life
• Personal Identity - finding yourself reflected in texts, learning behaviour and values from texts
• Surveillance - Information which could be useful for living eg) weather reports, financial news, holiday bargains

On a personal note, I can easily find myself using NMT within these purposes. I look NMTs like twitter as a diversion when killing time, to see what’s up, Google to help direct my search for support when creating class lectures or support for seed questions. Upon occasion, I see something I “like” in my traverses.  Also get the sense that people use NMT such as Facebook a more “one-stop-shop” for all four purposes - diversion, personal relationships, identity, and surveillance. Youtube is excellent for diversion but less so for personal relationships. Wikipedia in its entirety would present an opportunity for all four as well – diversion when bored (read, create, edit, or comment on pages), develop relationship to those creators behind the scenes, to new users as the comes in to add content, create an identity within the culture, draw out new things from the viewing of diverse pages.

How have new media technologies resulted in a more participatory media culture? Simply put, NMT provides the opportunity by its ability to provide access to the masses and for contribution from the masses. Gone are the days of only specialist publishing (the scribes, the telegraph employees, the book publishers) transformed by NMT to a world where Epictetus', Greek Stoic philosopher, words can be actualized by and for the masses "If you wish to be a writer, write". 

With the prolific nature of Web 2.0, I would say that it has increase the number of eyeballs and the number of contributions but not necessarily the quality of the contributions.  What I mean here is that much of what exists in NMT makes me think of Metcalfe’s Law is a redirect: that retweet of someone’s work, an article with a link to a great video, a new study, a new interview, a like or dislike thumbs up/down, a comment in response to presented ideas…

However, I think this is all relative - I am thinking of Pareto’s “80/20” law…

-       Of the audience, 80% are the are readers, 20% are participatory

-       Of the 20% “participatory”, 80% are “reposters”, 20% are content generators

-       Of the 20% content generators, 80% are reworking already established ideas (ie newspaper articles, Wikipedia content adders) 20% are creating  orginal content.  

In a nutshell, I think NMT is further reaching - but this is relative across the level of participation...  I propose it remains in a constant 80/20 balance.

References

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). USES AND GRATIFICATIONS RESEARCH. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509.

No author. (n.d). Key Concepts in Media Studies. In http://www.mediaknowall.com. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from http://www.mediaknowall.com/as_alevel/alevkeyconcepts/alevelkeycon.php?pageID=audience.

Q 1 - More participatory culture

I would say I have seen evidence of this in post-secondary classrooms.  In the past, teachers were viewed as the holder of wisdom/information.  A better definition of teaching is perhaps the guide at your side, and not the sage on the stage.  Especially in adult classrooms, a teacher can expect that student knowledge will contribute to the learning that happens.  But new media technologies have really changed the class environment at many levels. Students can go to Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc. and bring new, up-to-the minute news and information on almost any subject to the discussion.  I have stopped on more than one occasion to share new information that a student has sourced online.  Teaching them to be critical thinkers about the information they are able to access is a lesson that needs to accompany this ability.

Brave New Web 2.0 World?

O’Reilly emphasizes a clear distinction between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 being the participation of users that “the service automatically gets better the more people use it.”  Bit Torrent users bring their own resources as each is also a server and the “network of downloaders” is harnessed.  

Wikipedia is built on the “unlikely notion” that anyone can contribute.

In the section called the Architecture of Participation, it notes that a key lesson of Web 2.0 is that “users add value” but then goes on to say that only a small number of users actually go to the trouble of adding that value.  Thus, “Web 2.0 companies set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data and building value as a side-effect of ordinary use of the application.”

For some reason I started to think about Aldous Huxley’s warning of big brother and the world he painted in Brave New World.  It has been some time since I read the book so my analysis may be off, but that book outlined a future in which the general populace did not contribute but that all decisions were made for people.   I began to consider that this new generation that expects to contribute would never lead us to such a world.  But if it really is only a small number who do contribute, perhaps we’re not safe from living in a world where decisions are made for us or where we inadvertently contribute to decisions that we are not aware are even being made because of our actions.

I do remember studying in Gordon’s class about the wisdom of crowds and the idea that better ideas are usually the result when more heads are brought together.

That’s a hopeful thought for our future if Web 2.0 really is relying on a wisdom of the crowd.

The whole idea of Web 2.0 really turns the world upside down. It’s very different from our past patriarchal society.  “The boss” was always a man who had tight control.  Remember Father Knows Best?  We really believed that he did.  I can see room for feminist studies in this move to Web 2.0.  Is there a change in the gender of who is making decisions when crowdsourcing is used?

 I was sent this link through a Social Media Marketing group I belong to on LinkedIn. Give an earlier discussion about the value of it, I thought I would share.  Now we all know from research that stats can be misleading and I don't know the questions that produced these results.

I have been telling my students that this is a tool they should use for a professional online presence.  One student was actually called by a company to come in for an interview and they found her on LinkedIn. She happens to have the background they were looking for.  At a job fair my students attended recently, they were told by some companies to connect with them on LinkedIn.

There are some good comments that follow the article - about starting with your audience and not the medium, if you are a business looking to garner more business through LinkedIn.   It appears to be supported as a networking tool to find people, but some question as to its real value in converting leads into business.

http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=5569750136399073291&gid=4253506&type=member&item=94191752&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.hubspot.com%2Fblog%2Ftabid%2F6307%2Fbid%2F30030%2FLinkedIn-277-More-Effective-for-Lead-Generation-Than-Facebook-Twitter-New-Data.aspx&urlhash=LEa6&goback=.gmp_4253506.gde_4253506_member_94191752

Here is a link to a great video that really drives home the point about digital media for anyone who may have doubts.

Do you think, as it suggests, that words on paper will seem as strange to our grandchildren as milk delivery does to us?

I particularly like the statement that in 1910, mass media spread news faster than word of mouth and that now word of mouth spreads news faster than (traditional) mass media.  If what's old is new again, I've often thought of social media as word of mouth/gossip on steroids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM-kGGURWCE