Becoming more like friends: the significance of personal media in social networking processes Key-words: Social networks, social technologies, youth, interaction Research questions: What are the network-building consequences of mediated interaction? How does mediated interaction affect weak and strong ties? And what can explain the different social consequenes that are found? Method: Qualitative interviews/20 young informants/face-to-face and IM A rather researched theme, but I try to contextualise and understand the patterns found. Why? Hence a qualitative study Despite research questions indicating that a quantitative mapping of networks could be a relevant approach. My focus is instead on the experiences of my informants - how do they perceive that use of personal media has changed their social networks. IM-interviews (MSN) to extend the geographical scope of the study - because geography is important Marika Lüders marikamedia.net

This presentation: trying to explain the different social consequences that are found An analysis of mediated social interaction 1. analysing the use of personal media for maintaining social relationships. 2. analysing how mediated interaction initiates new relationships. Differences when it comes to the social function of personal media are interrelated with: Social competence Specific needs and patterns of using personal media Geographical and urban/rural location The analysis in the article focuses upon mediated interaction for 1) maintaining social relationships and 2) initiating new relationships. I try to relate my analysis to the following contextual aspects (1, 2 and 3), these are important for patterns of use, and patterns of use are important for the social consequences of use. In this presentations I’m trying to make these contextual aspects for explitcit (than in the article). Marika Lüders marikamedia.net

The analysis very briefly The analysis explains how interaction takes on mundane forms, confirming the value of social relationships between in-person meetings. Mediated self-disclosures may moreover strengthen already strong offline ties, and turn initial strangers into friends. Online/offline interactions An apparent paradox: the advantages of online communication on the one hand and the priority given to face-to-face interactions on the other. Goffman: context-dependent performances, impression management Berger and Luckmann: We experience the world in terms of dffering degress of closeness and remoteness. Briefly about the analysis Important key-words: hyper-personal communication, or how people more easily admit things in mediated arenas than face-to-face. Developments of romantic relationships as a relevant example. Different intimacy-levels between different personal media: from IRC to the cell-phone and ultimately face-to-face (though I do not want to present face-to-face as a gold standard upon whihc all others are compared): Differentiated friends-lists in Live-Journal and Flickr (which is not differentied enough). Reciprocal releaving of thoughts and feelings in the development of friendships Control of performances, which brings us to a point I’d like to elaborate on just briefly How can we understand this apparent paradox? Goffman as a usual reference: we adjust our performances of self according to the roles we are playing for the present audience. However, we cannot control all impressions given off. Possibilities to control performances are better in mediated context. My informants have not read Goffman (although sometimes I suspect them to), but they are quite aware that possibilities to control performances of self are better in mediated context (they experience it explicietly themselves). As such, a wish to meet people face-to-face is only natural - when more impressions will be given off. ”More authentic”. Berger and Luckmann are also relevant references. Pheonomenologically, spatial immediacy is a valued quality. Marika Lüders marikamedia.net

Different social consequences (1) Social competence Cannot be reduced to a general rule indicating that those who are more socially outgoing in the first place, are also more social online; or the opposite, that people who perceive themselves as socially incompentent find new possibilities online. I am not very explicit about it in the article, but I try to related the analysis of the social consequences of use of personal media to the contextual factors mentioned earlier. Social competence is one such factor, but the relationship is by no means black/white: very different personalities gain from mediated interaction. Kristoffer: social hub, extremely outgoing, hardly sees any restrictions in who he can contact either online or offline. Daniel: the odd, special (in the creative way), shy (and troubled) youth, who claim people are surprised by how quiet he is when they meet him face-to-face (because online he is very expressive). What were my impressions when I met him after having read his diary? Marika Lüders marikamedia.net

Different social consequences (2) Specific interests and patterns of use Users have different interests and needs that personal media comply with, and there are considerable differences between which and how personal media are used. An obvious contributing factor. Users have creative sides, wants to share their photos, art-works, writings. Or they have some personal issues and likes to share them with their friends in mediated contexts (remember how some things are more easily admitted in mediated contexts. Or they have so busy every-day lives that mediated interactions are a very valuable addition to face-to-face contact. Daniel again, useful example in this context Stine: busy, busy, busy. She is very social, and wants to be social, hence strange to be accused of being asocial by her mum. Marika Lüders marikamedia.net

Different social consequences (3) Geographical or urban/rural location Location matters in mediated worlds, both when it comes to motivations for using personal media, and for possibilities for extending online relations to the offline world. No, we are not totally freed from spatial constraints. Where we live have consequences for what we can do with our online relations. And for motivations for use in the first place. IMPORTANT to see the connections between face-to-face and mediated interaction. Supporting, not supplanting. Kristian (very small place, Western coast of Norway) Andreas (rural area, but not too far from Oslo) Marika Lüders marikamedia.net