Abstract
Social media research has gained traction during the last 10 years within Internet research and digital sociology. However, due to methodological and technical difficulties studies have mainly focused on analyzing only one platform per study (often Twitter or Facebook), especially when the study involves analysis of large public or private data streams (e.g., Bechmann. J Media Bus Stud 11(1):21–38, 2013; Bechmann. Managing the interoperable self. In: Bechmann A, Lomborg S. The ubiquitous internet: user and industry perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 54–73, 2015; Boyd and Marwick. Social privacy in networked publics: teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies. In: Proceedings of a decade in internet time, 21–24 September 2011, University of Oxford, 2011; Fernandes et al. Mass Commun Soc 13(5):653–675, 2010; Marichal. First Monday, 12(2), 2013; Lotan et al. Int J Commun 5:1375–1405, 2011; Wu et al. Who says what to whom on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the international World Wide Web conference (WWW 2011), pp 705–714, 2011; Bruns and Burgess. J Stud 13:801–814, 2012). The fact that such data streams are accessed through different application programming interfaces (APIs) that have their own different logics means that complexity increases at a technical level.
However, this chapter argues that addressing such technical complexities also requires looking at issues at the sociological and conceptual level. How do different social media, for instance, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, fundamentally differ? By addressing not only the different social and relational logics but also linking them to processes of data retrieval and analysis, the chapter aims to contribute with new insights into the fundamental character of two seemingly related social media and address questions which need to be posed in order to make solid and comparative academic analyses in the future.
More specifically, we develop a framework for the analysis of use and relations across social media, combining a theoretical, a conceptual, a methodological, and a technical approach. We identify challenges and suggest a specific technical implementation that we in the end evaluate. Technically, we focus on Facebook, Instagram, and to a certain extent Twitter, but we argue that our framework can be easily expanded to encompass other social media. The main argument in the chapter is that bridging is not an easy task as several challenges occur on different levels that the researchers need to account for in greater details. First, in the technical infrastructure and/or database structure relations are simple but represent many different complex sociological relationships and interaction types. Second, the elements of social media as accounted for need to be translated socially. Third, when we study user-centric social media use, we increase complexity in at least two different dimensions, we propose a mixed method design and we propose a cross-service approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson K, Nafus D, Rattenbury T, Aipperspach R (2009) Numbers have qualities too: experiences with ethno-mining. Ethnogr Prax Ind Conf 2009(1):123–140
Bechmann A (2013) Non-informed consent cultures: privacy policies and app contracts on Facebook. J Media Bus Stud 11(1):21–38
Bechmann A (2015) Managing the interoperable self. In: Bechmann A, Lomborg S (eds) The ubiquitous internet: user and industry perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 54–73
Bechmann A, Klausen HB (2015) Measuring impact across social media. Rethink Impacts Rep 2:1–34
Bechmann A, Vahlstrup PB (2015) Studying Facebook and Instagram data: the Digital Footprints software. 20(12)
Becker H, Iter D, Naaman M, Gravano L (2012) Identifying content for planned events across social media sites. In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pp 533–542. ACM
Berelson B (1952) Content analysis in communication research. Free Press, Glencoe
Blumer H (1980) Mead and Blumer: the convergent methodological perspectives of social behaviorism and symbolic interactionism. Am Sociol Rev 45(3):409–419
Boyd D, Ellison NB (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput-Mediat Commun 13(1):210–230
Boyd D, Marwick A (2011) Social privacy in networked publics: teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies. In: Proceedings of a decade in internet time, 21–24 September 2011, University of Oxford
Bruns A, Burgess J (2012) Researching news discussion on Twitter: new methodologies. Journal Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.664428
Burkitt I (2008) Social selves: theories of self and society. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Clark A (2011) Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press, New York
Courtois C, Merchant P (2013) An evaluation of the potential of Web 2.0 APIs for social research. In: Patriarche G, Bilandzic H, Jensen JL, Jurišić J (eds) Audience research methodologies: between innovation and consolidation. Routledge, London, pp 212–226
Ellison NB, Boyd D (2013) Sociality through social network sites. In: Dutton B (ed) Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 151–172
Enli GS, Skogerbø E (2013) Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Inf Commun Soc 16(5):757–774
Facebook Platform Changelog. Retrieved from https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/changelog
Fernandes J, Giurcanu M, Bowers KW, Neely JC (2010) The writing on the wall: a content analysis of college students’ Facebook groups for the 2008 presidential election. Mass Commun Soc 13(5):653–675
Fraser M, Dutta S (2010) Throwing sheep in the boardroom: how online social networking will transform your life, work and world. Wiley, New York
Gencarelli TF (2006) Perspectives on culture, technology, and communication: the media ecology tradition. Hampton Press, Cresskill
Gergen KJ (2009) Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford University Press
Graph API User. Retrieved from https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference/v2.3/user
Gross BM, Churchill EF (2007) Addressing constraints: multiple usernames task spillage and notions of identity. In: CHI EA ’07 CHI ’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 2393–2398
Hanna R, Rohm A, Crittenden VL (2011) We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business horizons 54(3):265–273
Haraway D (1991) A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth-century. In: Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York
Jensen JL, Scott Sørensen A (2013) Nobody has 257 friends. Nordicom Rev 34(1):49–62
Jensen JL, Tække J (2013) Indledning: Facebook i den danske hverdag. In: Fra socialt netværk til metamedie. Samfundslitteratur
Kietzmann JH, Hermkens K, McCarthy IP, Silvestre BS (2011) Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Bus Horiz 54(3):241–251
Latour B (2011) Network theory, networks, societies, spheres: reflections of an actor-network theorist. Int J Commun 5:15
Law J (1991) Introduction: monsters, machines and sociotechnical relations. In: Law J (ed) A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology and domination. Routledge, London
Liu J, Zhang F, Song X, Song Y-I, Lin C-Y, Hon H-W (2013) What’s in a name?: an unsupervised approach to link users across communities. In: WSDM ’13 Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pp 495–504
Lomborg S, Bechmann A (2014) Using APIs for data collection on social media. Inf Soc 30(4):256–265
Lotan G, Graeff E, Ananny M, Gaffney D, Pearce I, boyd d (2011) The revolutions were tweeted: information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Int J Commun 5:1375–1405
Marichal J (2013) Political Facebook groups: micro-activism and the digital front stage. First Monday 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5210%fm.v18i12.4653
Rogers R (2013) Digital methods. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Taneja H, Webster JG, Malthouse EC, Ksiazek TB (2012) Media consumption across platforms: Identifying user-defined repertoires. New media & society 14(6):951–968
Turkle S (1995) Life in the screen: identity in the internet. Simon, New York
Wu S, Mason WA, Hofman JM, Watts DJ (2011) Who says what to whom on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the international World Wide Web conference (WWW 2011), pp 705–714
YourTwapperKeeper – Archive Your Social Media. Retrieved from https://github.com/540co/yourTwapperKeeper
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Jensen, J.L., Vahlstrup, P.B., Bechmann, A. (2018). How to Compare Different Social Media: A Conceptual and Technical Framework. In: Hunsinger, J., Klastrup, L., Allen, M. (eds) Second International Handbook of Internet Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1202-4_32-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1202-4_32-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1202-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1202-4
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences