This study looks at how online tools like branded social networks [1], photo and video communities, and email and IM services help people around the world manage their relationships, impacting conceptions and formations of cultural practice and identity. The study focuses on uncovering and exploring a set of digital practices around identity expression and construction as they emerge online and off among transnational populations.

Please share any comments, reactions or questions you may have, I would love to hear them.

– Deepthi

[1] I favor the term branded social network to refer to communities like Facebook. Read the full exploration of this shift in terminology.

Allison, Anne. Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination. Berkeley: University of California, 2006. Print.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities, rev. ed. London: Verso Books, 1991.

Appadurai, Arjun. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Media and cultural studies keyworks. Ed. Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. 584-603. Print.

Bailey, Olga G. et al. Transnational Lives and the Media. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Print.

Baym, N. K. “The Emergence of On-line Community.” Cybersociety: communication and community (1998): 35-68. Print.

Benjamin, Walter. The Writer of Modern Life Essays on Charles Baudelaire. New York: Belknap, 2006. Print.

Berners-Lee, Tim. Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by its Inventor. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999. Print.

Bird, S. Elizabeth. The Audience in Everyday Life: Living in a Media World. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Böse, Martina. “‘Race’ and Class in the ‘Post-subcultural’ Economy.” The Post-Subcultures Reader. Eds. Muggleton and Weinzierl. Oxford: Berg, 2003. 167-180. Print.

Bowker, Geoffrey C. “The Past and the Internet.” Structures of Participation in Digital Culture. Ed. Joe Karaganis. New York: Social Science Research Council, 2007. 20-37. Web.

boyd, danah. “Friendster Lost Steam. Is MySpace Just a Fad?” Web Log post. Apophenia Blog. Mar. 2006. Web. 30 Nov. 2009. <http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay.html>.

boyd, danah. “Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics.” Thesis. UC Berkeley, 2009. danah boyd. 2009. Web. 10 Oct. 2009.

boyd, danah m., and Nicole B. Ellison. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 13.1 (2007). Indiana University. Web. 29 Nov. 2009. <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>.

Brinkerhoff, Jennifer M. Digital Diasporas. New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.

Carey, James. Communication as culture: Essays on Media and society. Winchester: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Print.

Chadwick, Andrew. “Digital Network Repertoires and Organizational Hybridity.” Political Communication, 24 (2007): 283–301. EBSCOhost Communication & Mass Media. Web. 10 Apr 2009.

Chambers, Deborah. New Social Ties: Contemporary Connections in a Fragmented Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Print.

Çinar, Alev, and Thomas Bender. Urban Imaginaries Locating the Modern City. New York: Univ Of Minnesota, 2007. Print.

Clifford, James and George E. Marcus. Writing Culture. Berkeley: U of California P, 1986. Print.

Davis, Kathy. “Beauty and the Female Body.” The Celebrity Culture Reader. Ed. P. David Marshall. New York: Routledge, 2006. 557-580. Print.

Gaver, William W. “Technology Affordances.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, New Orleans, Louisiana. 1991. 79-84. Print.

Hallin, Daniel, and Paolo Mancini. “The Forces and Limits of Homogenization.” International Communication: A Reader. Ed. Daya Kishan Thussu. New York: Routledge, 2010. 154-87. Print.

Hollstein, James A. and Jaber F. Gubrium. The Self We Live By: Narrative Identity in a Postmodern World. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.

Huq, Rupa. Beyond Subculture: Pop, youth and identity in a postcolonial world. London: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Imre, Anikó. “National Intimacy and Post-socialist Networking.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 12.2 (2009): 219-33. Sage Journals Online. Web. 30 Oct. 2009. <http://ecs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/219>.

Ito, Mizuko et al. “The Digital Youth Project.” Kids’ Informal Learning with Digital Media: An Ethnographic Investigation of Innovative Knowledge Cultures. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 2005-2008. Web. 29 Jan 2010.

Kahn, Richard, and Douglas Kellner. “Youth Culture.” The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Ed. Wolfgang Donsbach. Wiley-Blackwell. PDF. 11 November 2009.

Kasinitz, Philip, and John H. Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters. “Worlds of the Second Generation.” Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation. Eds. Kasinitz, Mollenkopf and Waters. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 2004. 361-391. Print.

Manovich, Lev. “Database as a Genre of New Media.” AI & Society 14.2 (2000). UCLA. Web. 18 Dec. 2009.

Mayhew, Henry. London Labour and the London Poor. Vol. 1. Electronic Text Center. University of Virginia Library. 1861. Web.

Moores, Shaun. Interpreting Audiences: The Ethnography of Media Consumption. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1993. Print.

Morozov, Evgeny. “Foreign Policy: Twitter And Protests In Tehran.” NPR. NPR, 17 June 2009. Web. 30 Nov. 2009. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105506664>.

Neda Group. “We Will Never Forget.” Image. Facebook Group. Facebook. Web. Also available at <http://poemshape.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/we-will-never-forget.jpg>.

Neda Group. “My Name is Neda.” Image. Facebook Group. Facebook. Web.

Nielsen Online. “Global Faces and Networked Places.” Rep. Nielsen Online. Web. 1 Dec. 2009. <http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp…/nielsen_globalfaces_mar09.pdf>.

Phillips, Tim. “Imagined Communities and Self-identity: An Exploratory Quantitative Analysis.” Sociology 36.3 (2002): 597-617. Sage Journals Online. Sage. Web. 19 Sept. 2009.

Raffi, Celina et al. “The Web as Techno-Social System: The Emergence of Web 3.0.” Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science. University of Salzburg. 2008. PDF. 19 Apr 2010. <http://www.bertalanffy.org/media/pdf/pdf39.pdf>.

Rantanen, Terhi. The Media and Globalization. London: Sage Publications, 2005. Print.

Rheingold, Howard. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: The MIT, 2000. Print.

Roberts, Donald F., and Ulla G. Foehr. “Trends in Media Use.” Children and Electronic Media Spring 18.1 (2008). The Future of Children. The Trustees of Princeton University. Web. 29 Nov. 2009. <http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=32&articleid=55&sectionid=230&submit>.

Shelley, Percy Bysshe. “Mont Blanc.” Complete poems of Percy Bysshe Shelley. New York: Modern Library, 1994. 571-73. Print.

Shirky, Clay. “A Rant About Women.” Web Log post. Clay Shirky. 15 Jan 2010. Web. 21 Feb 2010. <http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/01/a-rant-about-women/>.

Smith, Olav Bryant. Myths of the Self Narrative Identity and Postmodern Metaphysics. New York: Lexington Books, 2004. Print.

“Social Network Service.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_service>.

Stoner, Eric et al. “Obama-Mousavi.jpg.” Waging Nonviolence. Web. <http://wagingnonviolence.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Obama-Mousavi.jpg>.

Uskowi on Iran. “Neda Soltan portrait.” Image. Weblog Post. Uskowi on Iran. Web. <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qu97vVnoSKc/Skve6wvyYoI/AAAAAAAADU8/Ecv5ZKWmqXQ/s400/Neda+Soltan+portrait.bmp>.

Vedro, Steven. “Our Evolving Global Brain.” Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness 16 (Sept– Nov 2007): 24-29. PDF. 19 Apr 2010. <http://www.noetic.org/publications/shift/issue%2016/S16_VEDRO_OurEvolvingGlobalBrain_lr.pdf>.

Williams, Terry. “The Soft City.” Columbia University. New York. 14 Oct. 2009. Lecture.

Wilson, Fred. “Social Networking: Does the Rest of the World Matter More Than the U.S.?” Seeking Alpha. 28 Mar 2010. Web.

146 qualified respondents completed the survey!

Respondents were recruited through three outreach efforts: an email announcement, a general message board announcement, and short announcements posted to three branded social networks (Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s recently launched Buzz service). All respondents were asked general demographic questions along with a series of questions to identify media habits and frequency. Full results coming in April!

Purpose and Benefits
The International Communication Survey asks questions about your background and use of media in order to better understand transnational communication habits. In exchange for your participation in this survey, you will be entered into a drawing for one of four (4) gift cards to Amazon.com worth $25 each. There are no other personal benefits to participating in this survey.

Procedures and Participation
The survey will take approximately fifteen (15) minutes to complete. You will be asked questions about your personal history and the ways in which you use media in your daily life. You may exit the survey at any time if you do not wish to answer any of the questions. You will not be asked to disclose any private information other than standard demographic information. The data will be confidential and only the researcher will have access to the data. SurveyMonkey will not use the information collected from this surveys in any way, shape, or form. Identifiable information will be used only for the purposes of the drawing or to contact you if you agree to participate in future studies and follow-up interviews. Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without jeopardizing your employment, student status or any other entitlements.

Contact Information
If at any time you have questions regarding the research or your participation, you should contact the investigator, Deepthi Welaratna, who will answer all questions. She can be reached at (XXX) XXX-XXXX (c) or XXXX@newschool.edu.

Participant’s Statement
I have read the above purpose of the study, and understand my role in participating in the research. I volunteer to take part in this research. I understand that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without jeopardizing my employment, student status or other rights to which I am entitled. I certify that I am 18 years of age or older and freely give my consent to participate in this study.

If you agree to participate in this survey, please enter your name and contact information at the end of the survey. This information will also be used for the purposes of the drawing mentioned above.

The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete online, and takers will be entered to win a $25 gift card to Amazon.com. Four people will win! The survey will close at 12am on March 6, 2010.

OFFICIAL CONTEST RULES

1. The contest can be entered by filling out the online survey in full and entering a valid email address where indicated. Anyone is eligible to enter with a valid email address, and fulfillment is subject to Amazon’s terms and conditions.

2. The contest will run from the survey posting date until midnight March 6, 2010. A random draw will be made after the closing date from all eligible entries received on or before the contest closing date. Following the draw, all selected entrants will be sent a gift card worth USD $25 by email which must be redeemed according to Amazon’s terms and conditions. Four (4) winners will be selected.

3. The chances of being selected depend upon the number of eligible entries received.

Wikipedia’s entry, for example, terms them social networking services. According to Wikipedia’s editors, a social networking service “focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others.” danah boyd and Nicole Ellison also interrogate the terminology, arguing for a comprehensive definition under the name social network sites, as opposed to the more common social networking sites that continues to dominate the popular press today. boyd and Ellison write, “We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”

As a basic definition of the main characteristics these networks share in common, boyd and Ellison provide an excellent starting point. And their attempt at refining the terminology makes a fine and necessary distinction between the nature and activities in these networks: “‘Networking’ emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers… What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks.”

Nevertheless, I would argue that there are two key omissions of characteristics of these networks embedded in the terms social networking sites or social network sites, and one by social network services that could be rectified with yet another shift in terminology to branded social networks. In 2009, it makes sense to drop the word “site” as it limits access points to browser interfaces, while many networks are now regularly accessed through a variety of mobile device applications. In addition, many of these networks host events in the offline world as opposed to the online, and much of the activity that takes place on these networks can be described as coordination of “real world” or offline activities (argued by Donald Roberts and Ulla Foehr). Thus, the boundary between online and offline worlds is both permeable and fluid so no limitation is necessary.

Finally, it makes sense to include the more commercially-oriented vocabulary of branded because branding is the central organizing principle of these networks. Many members are proud to be affiliated with one network, and have actively rejected identification with another. This aspect of brand affiliation cannot be ignored in discussing how members engage with each other and with the networks themselves. In addition, the dominant networks that exist are for-profit companies, and their networks and members are big business. To ignore this element of BSNs is to preclude a discussion of motives and catalysts for certain types of growth and use.

That’s it, let me know what you think in the comments.