bryant rkcsi 11

Integrating Social Networks into Research on Youth and Media : 

Integrating Social Networks into Research on Youth and Media J. Alison Bryant IU Dept. of Telecommunications 10 November 2005 Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics

Research Agenda:SIT networks and youth: 

Research Agenda: SIT networks and youth Integrating network and multitheoretical multilevel (MTML) perspectives into research on kids, families, and media (esp. socially interactive technologies [SITs])

Today’s youth have…: 

Today’s youth have…

Youth & Interactive Media: Internet use: 

Youth & Interactive Media: Internet use Source: Hanway, S. (May 6, 2003) What are teen Webheads doing online? Gallup Poll Briefing.

Youth & Interactive Media: Internet use: 

Youth & Interactive Media: Internet use Source: Hanway, S. (May 6, 2003) What are teen Webheads doing online? Gallup Poll Briefing.

Youth and Interactive Media:  Internet use and social networks: 

Youth and Interactive Media: Internet use and social networks 48% use the Internet to improve their relationships with friends 32% use the Internet to make new friends 67% feel that the Internet only helps “a little” or “not at all” when trying to make new friends

Youth and Interactive Media: IM use: 

Youth and Interactive Media: IM use Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2004). Latest trends: Online activities. Washington, DC.

Youth and Interactive Media: IM use: 

Youth and Interactive Media: IM use 74% of online teens have ever used IM (compared with 44% of online adults) Almost 70% of teen IMers use IM at least several times a week More that 1/3 of teen users use IM every day Most teens use IM most regularly to maintain relationships, either with friends or family members, especially those that do not live nearby Girls use IM as a venue for socializing more than boys

Where the research is lacking…: 

Where the research is lacking… Research on IM has been relatively limited and focused on either: in-depth ethnographic data, but relatively small sample sizes (Eldridge & Grinter, 2001),or basic user data with larger samples (Lenhart, 2003; Lenhart, Rainey, & Lewis, 2001) Text messaging has not been an area of focus for research in the U.S. (and only marginally abroad) Research on pre-teens

Theoretical perspectives: 

Theoretical perspectives Social Exchange Theory Social Support Media Richness Electronic Proximity Diffusion Theory Homophily Network (Co)evolution

The Preliminary Research Project: 

The Preliminary Research Project Are adolescents creating more, but weaker ties using SITs? To what extent do adolescent SIT-facilitated networks overlap with friendship networks? Are SIT relationships important for adolescents who have fewer offline peer ties? “Midwest college town” 7th grade Media/SIT usage and network data questionnaires 40 respondents (16% response rate)

What technology is at home: 

What technology is at home

Slide13: 

Computer use

Their friends and how they communicate with them: 

Their friends and how they communicate with them

Email Use: 

Email Use

IMing: 

IMing

Slide17: 

IMing

Slide18: 

IMing

Txt msgN: 

Txt msgN

Txt msgN: 

Txt msgN

Are adolescents creating more, but weaker ties using SITs?: 

Are adolescents creating more, but weaker ties using SITs? Significantly more friends than IM or txtmsg partners, but no difference in relationship intensity. No significant difference between number of IM & txtmsg partners or their relationship intensity.

To what extent do adolescent SIT-facilitated networks overlap with friendship networks?: 

To what extent do adolescent SIT-facilitated networks overlap with friendship networks? Little significant correlation between the friendship and SIT networks: 39% Friend/IM (78% negatively correlated) 0% Friend/txt 13% IM/txt Very little significant correlation between the values in the friendship and SIT networks: 13% Friend/IM 0% Friend/txt 25% IM/txt Therefore, the networks do not seem to overlap, whether measured by who they are communicating with or how much.

Are SIT relationships important for adolescents who have fewer offline peer ties?: 

Are SIT relationships important for adolescents who have fewer offline peer ties? IM use Participants with 10 or fewer friends: 36% People with more than 10 friends: 72% TxtMsg use Participants with 10 or fewer friends: 27% People with more than 10 friends: 24% None of the adolescents who responded that they have few or no close friends used instant messaging or text messaging.

What may all of this mean?: 

What may all of this mean? Youth are not communicating with the same people offline that they are online. They have both strong and weak ties on- and offline, but they are with different people. Offline relationships are still more important for adolescents, esp. those with fewer friends

Complexities/Limitations: 

Complexities/Limitations Working with preteens/teens Participant response Use of IM handles Ego-centered data Possible Solutions Going online (and into school computer classes) Using smaller, constrained networks

Future Directions: 

Future Directions Complete network data p* analysis Overtime data (looking at the coevolution of social and technology networks) Multi-site and int’l data Diverse populations Family systems