User-generated content on Facebook: Implications from the perspective of two organisations
First Monday

User-generated content on Facebook: Implications from the perspective of two organisations by Jayan Kurian



Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the implications (user benefits and costs) of user-generated content posted by users on Facebook from an organisational perspective. Though motivations to use social networking sites are widely researched and published, studies on implications eventuating from different types of content posted by users on social networking sites is sparse. Hence, this study addresses the gap in literature by an interpretive analysis of user-generated content posted by users on the Facebook of two organisations. The content posted by users is classified using an information classification framework for social networking sites. Implications eventuating from the classified user-generated content to individuals and organisations are established using thematic analysis. The results of analysis demonstrate that the major types of user-generated content posted in the social information category are requests, criticism, greetings, status updates, and announcements. The theoretical implications in terms of user benefits are information seeking, relationship building, coordination and collaboration, identity construction and knowledge dissemination whereas social conflict is a major cost to users. The practical implications are understood in terms of technical assistance, supporting projects that extend open access repository initiatives, collaboration and building capacity among repository users, user community development, marketing and communication as well as accomplishing the core principles of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. This study also leads to considerable gains for users and designers of social networking sites by identifying the different types of user-generated content so that social networking sites can be used as a beneficial tool maximizing its implications.

Contents

Introduction
Related work
Research questions
Methodology
Results and implications
Conclusions

 


 

Introduction

Social networking sites (SNSs) are technological innovations that have received widespread attention from practitioners and researchers (Ngai, et al., 2015; Caers, et al., 2013), being used for interpersonal communication and collaboration among users (Kane, et al., 2014). In addition to their technological impact, there are cultural influences of SNSs on societies (boyd, 2015). Furthermore, the rapid dissemination of information by SNSs has influenced society in terms of psychological well-being, political participation, civic engagement and online journalism, to name a few (Kümpel, et al., 2015). SNSs have been classified into seven different types — public, business, content, target, domain, activity and micro (Richter, et al., 2009). These communication tools require little or no computing skills in order to post user-generated content (Wilson, et al., 2012).

User-generated content is defined as those resources in the form of text, media or metadata that are posted by users either intentionally or impulsively on SNSs (Kane, et al., 2014; Shim, et al., 2013). Individuals and communities co-create and share user-generated content which is used widely in different situations, such as terrorist attacks, product recalls or café shooting incidents (Oh, et al., 2013). Thus, a wide variety of user-generated content is posted by users on SNSs, facilitating social interaction and communication among users (Richthammer, et al., 2014). Benefits of SNSs include news sharing (Kümpel, et al., 2015), convenience in maintaining relationships (Krasnova, et al., 2010), self-presentation (Spertus, et al., 2005), searching and finding old friends, facilitate entertainment and self-satisfaction by helping others (Kim, et al., 2010). From an altruistic perspective, SNSs are used to find the owners of lost items by posting content on online communities, and used as tools for expressing human rights concerns, freedom of speech and democracy (McGrath, et al., 2012; Kim, et al., 2010). In yet another context, SNSs support charity initiatives, popularised environmental concerns and support the visibility of political candidates (Vergeer, et al., 2013; Robelia, et al., 2011). Thus, there are numerous benefits of SNSs for users.

On the other hand, SNSs can cause users’ harm and harm to others (Patchin and Hinduja, 2010), entail security implications (Kim, et al., 2010), and have legal and privacy issues (Stutzman, et al., 2012). Representing real identities on SNSs may cause privacy risk issues (Brooks and Anene, 2012), identity theft (Fogel and Nehmad, 2009), spamming (Zinman and Donath, 2007), personal assault (Patchin and Hinduja, 2010), and risk of burglary (Peterson and Siek, 2009). Other negative outcomes of SNSs include fake online identities, cyber bullying, cyber stalking and spreading false information (boyd and Ellison, 2008; Gross and Acquisti, 2005).

To exemplify the uses, social networking sites have been used widely in higher education (Erskine, et al., 2014); government (Cumbie and Kar, 2014); physician-patient interactions (Dantu, et al., 2014); e-democracy (Finau, et al., 2014); emergency management (Gill, et al., 2014); innovation (Ooms, et al., 2015) and in organisations (Lattemann, et al., 2014; Parveen, et al., 2015). Though SNSs have been used widely in online communication (Papagiannidis and Bourlakis, 2015), organisations have adopted SNSs primarily to accomplish two level of functionalities, i.e., external and internal uses. In external use, organisations receive ideas or recommendations to improve their existing products or develop new products. In internal use, groups are created to communicate within an organisation (Bjelland, 2008). Examples of internal use include IBM’s Beehive (Turban, et al., 2011) and external use includes Procter and Gamble’s Connect and Develop platform (Chesbrough, 2006). A CEO’s apology on YouTube following a service failure won the hearts of customers and proved the benefits of a SNS in an organisational context (Manika, et al., 2015). Furthermore, research on the widespread impact of SNSs on organisations (Parveen, et al., 2015) and individuals (Nosko, et al., 2010; Ahmed, et al., 2014) is growing.

This discussion indicates that user benefits and costs of SNSs are extensive. Although motivations to use SNSs are widely researched and published (Wilson, et al., 2012; Ngai, et al., 2015), studies on implications in terms of user benefits and costs eventuating from the various types of user-generated content posted by users on SNSs are sparse. Further, a framework to systematically classify user-generated content posted on SNSs is still lacking. Hence, the objective of this research is develop an information classification framework on SNSs to explore different types of user-generated content posted by users on SNSs and to establish the implications (user benefits and costs) eventuating from such content to individual and organisations. In this qualitative study, Facebook is chosen in comparison with other SNSs due to the wide variety of user-generated content posted by users (Wilson, et al., 2012).

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Literature on user-generated content is introduced first which leads to the development of an information classification framework. This is followed by research questions, methodology, methods of data collection and coding. Then, results and implications of user-generated content posted by users are presented. Limitations of the study and future work are discussed in the conclusion.

 

++++++++++

Related work

Review of various studies on user-generated content in the context of profile-related content, profession-related content and social context are discussed below.

Profile-related content

Profile related content posted by users range from personal data (name, photo, birthday, gender) to relationship details, achievements, hobbies, interests, e-mail addresses and phone numbers (Stutzman, 2006). According to Kim, et al. (2010) SNSs include a user profile which features basic information (name, photo, age, birthday, relationship status, gender, type of relationship), personal information (interest, favourite music, TV shows, movies, books, and quotation), contact information (mobile phone, land phone, address) and education and work information (school attended, employer details). Thelwall (2008) extended profile content to include marital status, which is also supported by Skeels and Gurdin (2009), who added religious status and political party membership information as well. User profile content disclosed on SNSs was grouped into standard, sensitive and potentially stigmatizing information by Nosko, et al. (2010) to examine identity threats (impersonation). Standard information generally includes gender, birthday, birth year, e-mail and profile picture, while sensitive information comprises messages, photos and albums (Nosko, et al., 2010). Meanwhile, stigmatizing information consists of religious views, political views, sexual orientation, and quotes (Nosko, et al., 2010). SNSs have facilitated young adults to express themselves and create online identities by sharing different types of personal information (Pempek, et al., 2009). Users of SNSs can be connected with schools and with details of their specific courses on their user profiles (Zywica and Danowski, 2008). Other types of information shared by users may be education background, academic interests and achievements, messages, locations, profile photographs, honours, awards and extracurricular accomplishments (Zywica and Danowski, 2008). Individual taste of users on SNSs in terms of hobbies and interests, such as music, books, movies and television shows, in addition to general interests, such as camping, painting or hiking, were studied by Liu (2007) by examining personal information shared by users on their SNS profiles.

This research indicates that user profile information posted on SNSs comprises of names, birthdays, gender, profile pictures, e-mail addresses (Dwyer, et al., 2007), contact information, marital status, religious views, political views, language proficiencies (Nosko, et al., 2010; Kim, et al., 2010), honours and awards (Stutzman, 2006; Zywica and Danowski, 2008), and interests (Liu, 2007; Zhao, et al., 2008). Literature (Richthammer, et al., 2014; Dwyer, et al., 2007; Nosko, et al., 2010) on SNS data types indicates that semantically specified content on SNSs include mandatory content and optionally provided content. Mandatory content is the information that users are required to provide in order to successfully enroll on SNSs, such as names, birthdays, gender, and e-mail addresses. Optionally provided content is non-obligatory information that users may elect to provide (Gross and Acquisti, 2005; Skeels and Grudin, 2009; Herring, 2007) such as contact information, marital status, religious views, political views, language proficiencies, profile pictures, honours, awards, and interests. Since mandatory content and optionally provided content provide basic details about SNS users (Nosko, et al., 2010), they are coalesced as ‘user information’.

 

Figure 1
 
Figure 1.

 

The literature (Stutzman, 2006; Zywica and Danowski, 2008) also indicate that user profile information could include class schedules, schools attended, honors and awards, courses taken, and qualifications. These second set of optionally provided content have been classified under content that have concise meaning (Richthammer, et al., 2014). Hence graduation year, school attended, class schedules, courses taken, and qualifications which are related to educational details of SNS users (Kim, et al., 2010; Nosko, et al., 2010) are coalesced under ‘user education’.

 

Figure 2
 
Figure 2.

 

Profession-related content

Profession-related content includes positions held, professional experience, professional affiliations, professional contacts, and employment status (Papacharissi, 2009). Job titles, job descriptions, job start dates, number of company friends, job-related groups (internship groups), resumes, and job descriptions are different types of content users post on SNSs (DiMicco and Millen, 2007). To add on, career histories and employer information were additional profession-related content posted by users on SNSs (Case, et al., 2013). Other profession-related content includes types of job opportunities available and career progression from technical to managerial positions over time. Users’ share professional information such as project updates with colleagues and are motivated to connect with colleagues at a personal level and advance their career within an organisation (DiMicco, et al., 2008).

Previously cited literature indicates that profession-related content posted on SNSs include professional skills, interests, job descriptions, job start dates, positions held, resumes (DiMicco and Millen, 2007; DiMicco, et al., 2008; Papacharissi, 2009), graduation dates, career histories, job titles, employer information, and professional affiliations (Case, et al., 2013). Thus, a third set of optionally provided content classified under data with concise meaning (Richthammer, et al., 2014) is career histories, job titles, employer information, job descriptions, job start dates, resumes, positions held, professional affiliations, and professional skills. Since this optionally provided content is related to employment details of SNS users (Case, et al., 2013), they are coalesced as ‘user employment’.

 

Figure 3
 
Figure 3.

 

Social content

The types of social information posted by users may be praise, jokes, greetings, photos, and videos to share users’ identities (Manago, et al., 2008) whereas comments or wall posts are types of user-generated content that facilitate social interaction. Collaboration on SNSs leads to content such as personal diaries (life details), advertisements, and announcements (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). According to Honeycutt and Herring (2009), collaboration on Twitter involves different types of content such as self-experience or reflections, announcements, opinions, greetings and other miscellaneous information or text that does not convey meaningful information. Other types of information posted on SNSs are complaints, random thoughts and user activities or diaries (Naaman, et al., 2010). On the other hand, some users post cartoons on SNSs to criticise or influence a political decision-making (Cranefield and Oliver, 2014). According to Binder, et al. (2009) criticism, rumors, and gossip resulted in the generation of online tension among users. Hashtags are types of user-generated content that can be used to direct posts to individuals or events (Conole and Culver, 2009). Users also post different types of photos and videos on SNSs which include vacation photos, project photos, variety of photos (DiMicco, et al., 2008), party photos (Peluchette and Karl, 2008) and videos (Lange, 2007).

The types of information that users post on SNSs in the social content category are status updates (Nosko, et al., 2010), invitations, recommendations (Morris, et al., 2010), diaries, random thoughts (Naaman, et al., 2010), requests (Golbeck, et al., 2010), gossip, criticism (Binder, et al., 2009), announcements, greetings, opinions, self-experience (Honeycutt and Herring, 2009), hashtags (Conole and Culver, 2009), creative writing (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010), cartoons (Cranefield and Oliver, 2014), praise (Manago, et al., 2008), photos (DiMicco, et al., 2008; Peluchette and Karl, 2008) and videos (Lange, 2007). According to Richthammer, et al. (2014), the above disclosed content posted on SNSs do not have succinct or clearly defined meaning. Further, in the disclosed content category, user-generated content are of three types: text, video (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; DiMicco, et al., 2008), photos (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010) or cartoons (Cranefield and Oliver, 2014). Thus, content is represented either through textual mode (Abbasi and Chen, 2008) or using rich media (Dennis, et al., 2008). Hence party photos, vacation photos, project photos, variety of photos, cartoons, and videos are classified as ‘media rich information’ due to the nature of content.

 

Figure 4
 
Figure 4.

 

On the other hand, announcements, creative writing, invitations, status updates, requests, greetings, praise, recommendations, diaries, opinions, random thoughts, gossip, criticism, self-experience, quotations and tags discussed in this section are classified as ‘textual communication’ due to the nature of content.

 

Figure 5
 
Figure 5.

 

Thus, the basic user-generated content illustrated above are coalesced under five sub-categories which are user information, user education, user employment, media rich information, and textual communication. According to Tow, et al. (2010), names, relationship status, friends list, photos, dates of birth, and education history are classified under personal information. Thus, the sub-categories: user information and user education are classified as personal information. According to Najmul Islam and Mäntymäki (2012) and Skeels and Grudin (2009), professional information includes curriculum vitae and other professional content. Hence, user employment is classified as professional information. According to Quan-Haase and Young (2010), social information includes activities and events of network members as well as those messages that are important in a community. Hence, media rich information and textual communication are classified as social information. The information classification framework of user-generated content from basic content to broader categories of information is illustrated below.

 

Figure 6
 
Figure 6.

 

 

++++++++++

Research questions

The aim of this study is to explore the different types of user-generated content posted by users on Facebook and to establish the implications (user benefits and costs) to users. Thus, the research questions that this study will address are:

  1. What are the different types of user-generated content posted by users on the Facebook page of organisations?
  2. What are the implications of user-generated content to individuals and organisations?

 

++++++++++

Methodology

This is a qualitative research; the methodology used is inductive content analysis. Previous studies have used content analysis to collect and analyse data from Web sites (Steininger, et al., 2011) and SNSs (Shelton and Skalski, 2014). This methodology was chosen since the implications of different types of user-generated content posted on SNSs is yet to be established. The focus is on public postings on the Facebook pages of two organisations. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was used to establish themes relevant to user benefits and costs. To limit the scope, this study considered only content that was in the form of text, posted by users on Facebook.

Data collection and coding

To conduct an interpretive analysis of content, one of the primary criteria is to collect rich subjective information (Walsham and Sahay, 1999). Only Facebook satisfied this criterion of rich content when compared with other SNSs (Nosko, et al., 2010). An individual user account was created on Facebook to collect data. Publicly accessible content posted by users of two popular organisations on Facebook, one in the context of open access institutional repositories (dataset 1) and another one in the context of emergency management (dataset 2) was selected for data collection. For the first dataset, user posts during a seven-year period (2007–2014) were collected; for the second dataset, user posts during a six-month period (January to June 2015) were collected. Following pre-processing methodologies in other studies (Gordon, et al., 2013), we adopted a similar approach for collecting and pre-processing raw data in a Microsoft word document. Since this study considers only text postings of users, images and videos were not collected for coding due to the contextual nature of media-rich information.

Posts were saved as PDF documents and loaded into NVivo 10 for coding. Nodes were created on NVivo for different types of user-generated content as noted in the information classification framework. The collected posts were pre-processed to remove content that was not understandable in terms of symbols; text in a language other than English; or text that was not relevant to open access institutional repositories or emergency management. Thus, for the first dataset, 162 posts were found to be relevant for coding; for the second dataset, 944 posts were chosen for coding.

Pre-processed posts were read and analysed in order to secure detailed insight into the nature of the posts. Each user post was examined and then coded with relevant user-generated content from the information classification framework (Figure 6). Lengthy posts were read thoroughly and coded succinctly under relevant user-generated content. After the first round of coding, clarifications that arose were discussed with another researcher who holds a research active university classification and specialised in social media research. This resulted in a second round of coding as a mutual agreement on coding was accomplished. These steps were followed to ensure the rigour in the research process (Sarker, et al., 2013).

 

++++++++++

Results and implications

Analysis of data indicates that major types of user-generated content identified from the first dataset on open access institutional repository were requests, greetings, status updates and announcements, accounting for 70 percent of total posts. On the other hand, major types of user-generated content identified from the second dataset on emergency management were status updates, criticism and requests, equaling 89 percent of total posts. The common types of user-generated content posted by users on both datasets were requests and status updates.

According to Morris, et al. (2010), a request is a service sought from network connections and is a type of user-generated content in the social information category of the information classification framework. A majority of requests from open access repository users were of a professional nature. These include technical requests such as customizing interfaces or requests to participate in the trial of new services. On the other hand, the majority of requests from emergency management were of a social nature. These include requests to help a family in an emergency or requests to reconsider the payment of flood insurance on installments. Thus, it is evident that requests can be of a professional or social nature. Professional implications include technical assistance, supporting projects that extend open access repository initiatives as well as collaboration and building capacity among repository users. Social implications were accomplished in terms of the first, second, third, sixth and seventh core principles of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Council of Australian Governments, 2011). Information seeking and relationship building were implied in these requests, in consensus with Case (2012) and Krasnova, et al. (2010). Information seeking is also in accord with the study of Kim, et al. (2014) on everyday life information seeking using social media.

Status updates, in the social information category, notify others about users’ actions, thoughts and feelings (Nosko, et al., 2010). In the dataset of open access institutional repository users, status updates were used to communicate technical updates, user repository activities or user meetings to network connections. In the context of emergency management, status updates were applied to disseminate information about a proposal to start a response team, volunteering for a task, or extending help in an emergency. Thus, it is evident that status updates can be of professional or social nature. Professional implications include user community development, marketing and communication whereas social implications concur with the core principles of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. With respect to theoretical implications, analysis of status update information is coordination, in consensus with an earlier general study (Jarzabkowski, et al., 2012). Moreover, sharing information to network connections is in accord with Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) on information dissemination. Further, sharing technical updates leads to disseminating knowledge which is in consensus with Kim, et al. (2010) as well as Caers, et al. (2013) on disseminating knowledge in a scientific context.

According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), criticism is defined as an expression of disapproval. Among the different types of user-generated content, criticism was not significant in the dataset of open access institutional repository users. In the context of emergency management, criticism indicates a lack of interest among some officials in conducting emergency preparedness programs, insufficient support after an emergency, lack of support extended for coordinated efforts, inefficient use of public funds in an emergency and unreasonable flood insurance premium. Thus, it was evident that implications derived from criticism were of social nature. These social implications concur with the first, second, third, sixth and seventh core principles of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. Social conflict was in accord with the study of Koroleva, et al. (2011).

A greeting is defined as a note of welcome posted by users on SNS user profiles (Chun, et al., 2008). Among the different types of user-generated content, greetings were not significant in the emergency management dataset. In the context of open access repository users, greetings were posted at the beginning of requests, for receiving help and in anticipation of specific help. Thus, it was evident that in a professional context greetings are of social nature. Greetings are part of community development as well as relationship building, in agreement with Salmon (2003) and Renzi and Klobas (2002).

An announcement is a way of communicating information on social media (Honeycutt and Herring, 2009). Among different types of user-generated content, announcements were not significant in the emergency management dataset. In the context of open access repository users, announcements included information on new repository functionalities, research accomplishments, conferences, scholarships, jobs and newsletters. Thus, announcements were of professional nature, contributing to community development, marketing and communication. This sort of knowledge dissemination was also found by Kim, et al. (2010).

Data analysis indicated that a majority of content shared on Facebook was social rather than personal or professional information. It was also evident that implications of this information could be professional or social in nature, consistent with Lampinen, et al. (2009). The classification scheme, illustrated in Figure 6, is an initial step to determine the nature of user-generated content and to examine its implications in terms of benefits and costs.

Social interactions on SNSs lead to the creation of digital identities (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Simon, 2008). Information posted by users on SNSs appears in two modes — profile information and activity information (Zhang, et al., 2010). Profile information includes succinct information such as name or date of birth which have a semantically specified meaning, whereas activity information includes contextual information, such as comments. Hum, et al. (2011) studied Facebook profile photos and further established identity as a result of posts. Furthermore, identity has been defined in terms of explicit and implicit identity (Zhao, et al., 2008). Explicit identity is a result of posting profile information, whereas implicit identity was accomplished by posting activities or conversations. Thus, users establish social identity by posting information or joining groups on SNSs (Pempek, et al., 2009). Moreover, one of the key implications for users to post or restrict information on SNSs was identity construction (Stern and Taylor, 2007). Thus, users post information to construct identities on SNSs, in agreement with DiMicco and Millen (2007) on impression management.

According to Homans (1958), social exchange theory posits that interaction among participants, referred to as social interaction, leads to rewards and costs. Rewards result in the creation of positive value for participants whereas costs lead to negative value. Participants are more likely to engage in actions that result in the creation of positive value or rewards leading to benefits. These notions are in consensus with relationship building found in this study, in agreement with results noted in Shin and Hall (2012). The findings of this study also demonstrate that social conflict is a major cost, in accord with social exchange theory. The findings of relationship building and social conflict discovered in this study concur with rewards and costs of social interactions supported by social exchange theory.

Data collected and analysed in this study were publicly accessible on Facebook for two organisations, which may be considered a limitation. Certain kinds of information may be more widely posted privately. In addition, the proposed information classification framework described in this paper has only been tested with content from Facebook, certainly another limitation. To develop a more generally applicable framework, it would be necessary to test this scheme with a wide variety of social networking sites.

 

++++++++++

Conclusions

This study examined user-generated content on Facebook from two organisations. User posts were coded into categories of personal, professional and social information. The findings of this study demonstrated that information seeking, relationship building, coordination and collaboration, identity construction and knowledge dissemination were the major benefits for posting content on Facebook. On the other hand, social conflict was a major cost to users on Facebook. For organisations, the benefits amounted to maximising technical assistance, supporting projects, collaboration and building capacity among users, community development, marketing and communication and addressing the core principles of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. A similar study on other social networking sites should establish the significance of user-generated content in a different context. Finally, there needs to be some reconfirmation of the conclusions of this study on the significance of user-generated content directly with users, such as utilizing interviews to confirm findings. Interviews may also educate users on the implications of their use of Facebook, in order to avoid negative ramifications and enhancing positive outcomes. End of article

 

About the author

Jayan is a Lecturer at RMIT University, Vietnam. He has a M.Phil. from the University of Nottingham. His research interests are on open source repositories and social networking sites. Jayan has received funding from Google and DSpace Foundation and has successfully mentored Google Summer of Code projects in 2008 and 2009. In 2008, he received the eINDIA2008 award for his contribution to the open source community. In 2010, he was presented with the “Graduate Scholar Award” — Ubiquitous Learning Conference held at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Jayan can be contacted at jayan [dot] kurian [at] rmit [dot] edu [dot] vn

 

References

A. Abbasi and H. Chen, 2008. “Writeprints: A stylometric approach to identity-level identification and similarity detection in cyberspace,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, volume 26, number 2, article number 7.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1344411.1344413, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Binder, A. Howes and A. Sutcliffe, 2009. “The problem of conflicting social spheres: Effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites,“ CHI ’09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 965–974.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518849, accessed 24 May 2016.

d. boyd, 2015. “Social media: A phenomenon to be analyzed,” Social Media + Society, volume 1, number 1.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305115580148, accessed 24 May 2016.

d. boyd and N. Ellison, 2008. “Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 13, number 1, pp. 210–230.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x, accessed 24 May 2016.

V. Braun and V. Clarke, 2006. “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, volume 3, number 2, pp. 77–101.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa, accessed 24 May 2016.

L. Brooks and V. Anene, 2012. “Information disclosure and generational differences in social network sites,” AMCIS 2012 Proceedings, paper 10, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/SocialIssues/10/, accessed 24 May 2016.

R. Caers, T. De Feyter, M. De Couck, T. Stough, C. Vigna and C. Du Bois, 2013. “Facebook: A literature review,” New Media & Society, volume 15, number 6, pp. 982–1,002.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444813488061, accessed 24 May 2016.

D. Case, 2012. Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior. Third edition. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group.

T. Case, A. Gardiner, P. Rutner and J. Dyer, 2013. “A LinkedIn analysis of career paths of information systems alumni,” Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, volume 1, number 1, at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jsais/, accessed 24 May 2016.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/jsais.11880084.0001.102, accessed 24 May 2016.

H. Chun, H. Kwak, Y.-H. Eom, Y.-Y. Ahn, S. Moon and H. Jeong, 2008. “Comparison of online social relations in volume vs. interaction: A case study of cyworld,” IMC ’08: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, pp. 57–70.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1452520.1452528, accessed 24 May 2016.

G. Conole and J. Culver, 2009. “Cloudworks: Social networking for learning design,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, volume 25, number 5, pp. 763–782.

Council of Australian Governments, 2011. “National strategy for disaster resilience: Building our nation’s resilience to disasters” (13 February), at https://www.coag.gov.au/node/81, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Cranefield and G. Oliver, 2014. “Yes minister: Satire in information systems research,” ECIS 2014 Proceedings, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014/proceedings/track03/3/, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Dennis, R. Fuller and J. Valacich, 2008. “Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity,” MIS Quarterly, volume 32, number 3, pp. 575–600.

J. DiMicco and D. Millen, 2007. “Identity management: Multiple presentations of self in Facebook,” GROUP ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 383–386.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316682, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. DiMicco, D. Millen, W. Geyer, C. Dugan, B. Brownholtz and M. Muller, 2008. “Motivations for social networking at work,” CSCW ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 711–720.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460674, accessed 24 May 2016.

C. Dwyer, S. Hiltz and K. Passerini, 2007. “Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace,” AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, paper 339, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Fogel and E. Nehmad, 2009. “Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 25, number 1, pp. 153–160.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Golbeck, J. Grimes and A. Rogers, 2010. “Twitter use by the U.S. Congress,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, volume 61, number 8, pp. 1,612–1,621.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21344, accessed 24 May 2016.

S. Gordon, R. Blake and G. Shankaranarayanan, 2013. “Case-based research in information systems: Gaps and trends,” Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, volume 14, number 2, article 3, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol14/iss2/3/, accessed 24 May 2016.

R. Gross and A. Acquisti, 2005. “Information revelation and privacy in online social networks,” WPES ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, pp. 71–80.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1102199.1102214, accessed 24 May 2016.

S. Herring, 2007. “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse,” Language@Internet, volume 4, article 1, at http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761, accessed 24 May 2016.

G. Homans, 1958. “Social behavior as exchange,” American Journal of Sociology, volume 63, number 6, pp. 597–606.

C. Honeycutt and S. Herring, 2009. “Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter,” paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Information Systems.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2009.602, accessed 24 May 2016.

N. Hum, P. Chamberlin, B. Hambright, A. Portwood, A. Schat and J. Bevan, 2011. “A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 27, number 5, pp. 1,828–1,833.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.003, accessed 24 May 2016.

P. Jarzabkowski, J. Lê and M. Feldman, 2012. “Towards a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice,” Organization Science, volume 23, number 4, pp. 907–927.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0693, accessed 24 May 2016.

G. Kane, M. Alavi, G. Labianca and S. Borgatti, 2014. “What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda,” MIS Quarterly, volume 38, number 1, pp. 274–304.

A. Kaplan and M. Haenlein, 2010. “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media,” Business Horizons, volume 53, number 1, pp. 59–68.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003, accessed 24 May 2016.

K.-S. Kim, S.-C. Sin and E.Y. Yoo-Lee, 2014. “Undergraduates’ use of social media as information sources,” College & Research Libraries, volume 75, number 4, pp. 442–457.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.4.442, accessed 24 May 2016.

W. Kim, O.-R. Jeong and S.-W. Lee, 2010. “On social Web sites,” Information Systems, volume 35, number 2, pp. 215–236.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2009.08.003, accessed 24 May 2016.

K. Koroleva, F. Brecht, L. Goebel and M. Malinova, 2011. “‘Generation Facebook’ — A cognitive calculus model of teenage user behavior on social network sites, AMCIS 2011 Proceedings, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2011_submissions/392/, accessed 24 May 2016.

H. Krasnova, S. Spiekermann, K. Koroleva and T. Hildebrand, 2010. “Online social networks: Why we disclose,” Journal of Information Technology, volume 25, pp. 109–125.

A. Kümpel, V. Karnowski and T. Keyling, 2015. “News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks,” Social Media + Society, volume 1, number 2, at http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2056305115610141.full.pdf, accessed 24 May 2016.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610141, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Lampinen, S. Tamminen and A. Oulasvirta, 2009. “All my people right here, right now: Management of group co-presence on a social networking site,” GROUP '09: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 281–290.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531717, accessed 24 May 2016.

P. Lange, 2007. “Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 13, number 1, pp. 361–380.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00400.x, accessed 24 May 2016.

H. Liu, 2007. “Social network profiles as taste performances,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 13, number 1, pp. 252–275.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00395.x, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Manago, M. Graham, P. Greenfield and G. Salimkhan, 2008. “Self-presentation and gender on MySpace,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, volume 29, number 6, pp. 446–458.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.001, accessed 24 May 2016.

K. McGrath, A. Elbanna, M. Hercheui, P. Panagiotopoulos and E. Saad, 2012. “Exploring the democratic potential of online social networking: The scope and limitations of e-participation,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, volume 30, article 16, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol30/iss1/16, accessed 24 May 2016.

M. Morris, J. Teevan and K. Panovich, 2010. “What do people ask their social networks, and why? A survey study of status message behavior,” CHI ’10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1,739–1,748.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753587, accessed 24 May 2016.

M. Naaman, J. Boase and C.-H. Lai, 2010. “Is it really about me? Message content in social awareness streams,” CSCW ’10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 189–192.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718953, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Najmul Islam and M. Mäntymäki, 2012. “Continuance of professional social networking sites: A decomposed expectation-confirmation approach,” ICIS 2012 Proceedings, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceedings/DigitalNetworks/5/, accessed 24 May 2016.

E. Ngai, S. Tao and K. Moon, 2015. “Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks,” International Journal of Information Management, volume 35, number 1, pp. 33–44.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.09.004, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Nosko, E. Wood, and S. Molema, 2010. “All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of Facebook,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 26, number 3, pp. 406–418.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.012, accessed 24 May 2016.

O. Oh, M. Agrawal and H. Rao, 2013. “Community intelligence and social media services: A rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social crises,” MIS Quarterly, volume 37, number 2, pp. 407–426, and at http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss2/7/, accessed 24 May 2016.

Z. Papacharissi, 2009. “The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld,” New Media & Society, volume 11, numbers 1–2, pp. 199–220.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Patchin and S. Hinduja, 2010. “Changes in adolescent online social networking behaviors from 2006 to 2009,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 26, number 6, pp. 1,818–1,821.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.009, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Peluchette and K. Karl, 2008. “Social networking profiles: An examination of student attitudes regarding use and appropriateness of content,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, volume 11, number 1, pp. 95–97.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9927, accessed 24 May 2016.

T. Pempek, Y. Yermolayeva and S. Calvert, 2009. “College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, volume 30, number 3, pp. 227–238.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010, accessed 24 May 2016.

K. Peterson and K. Siek, 2009. “Analysis of information disclosure on a social networking site: Online communities and social computing,” In: A. Ozok and P. Zaphiris (editors). Online communities and social computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 5621. Berlin: Springer, pp 256–264.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_28, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Quan-Haase and A. Young, 2010. “Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, volume 30, number 5, pp. 350–361.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380009, accessed 24 May 2016.

S. Renzi and J. Klobas, 2002. “Developing community in online distance learning,” ECIS 2002 Proceedings, paper 143, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2002/143, accessed 24 May 2016.

D. Richter, K. Riemer, J. vom Brocke and S. Bockmann, 2009. “Internet social networking — Distinguishing the phenomenon from its manifestations in Web sites,” ECIS 2009 Proceedings, paper 331, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2009/331, accessed 24 May 2016.

C. Richthammer, M. Netter, M. Riesner, J. Sänger and G. Pernul, 2014. “Taxonomy of social network data types,” EURASIP Journal on Information Security, at http://jis.eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13635-014-0011-7, accessed 24 May 2016.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13635-014-0011-7, accessed 24 May 2016.

B. Robelia, C. Greenhow and L. Burton, 2011. “Environmental learning in online social networks: Adopting environmentally responsible behaviors,” Environmental Education Research, volume 17, number 4, pp. 553–575.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.565118, accessed 24 May 2016.

G. Salmon, 2003. E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. New York: Routledge.

S. Sarker, X. Xiao and T. Beaulieu, 2013. “Guest editorial: Qualitative studies in information systems: A critical review and some guiding principles,” MIS Quarterly, volume 37, number 4, pp. iii–xviii, and at http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss4/2/, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Shelton and P. Skalski, 2014. “Blinded by the light: Illuminating the dark side of social network use through content analysis,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 33, pp. 339–348.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.017, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Shim, S. Dekleva, A. French and C. Guo, 2013. “Social networking and social media in the United States, South Korea, and China,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, volume 33, article 28, at http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol33/iss1/28, accessed 24 May 2016.

S. Shin and D. Hall, 2012. “How do social networking sites users become loyal? A social exchange perspective,” ICIS 2012 Proceedings, at >http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceedings/DigitalNetworks/14/, accessed 24 May 2016.

B. Simon, 2008. Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Malden, Mass.: Wiley Interscience.

M. Skeels and J. Grudin, 2009. “When social networks cross boundaries: A case study of workplace use of Facebook and LinkedIn,” GROUP ’09: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 95–104.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531689, accessed 24 May 2016.

E. Spertus, M. Sahami and O. Buyukkokten, 2005. “Evaluating similarity measures: A large-scale study in the Orkut social network,” KDD ’05: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, pp. 678–684.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1081870.1081956, accessed 24 May 2016.

D. Steininger, J. Huntgeburth and D. Veit, 2011. “A systemizing research framework for Web 2.0,” ECIS 2011 Proceedings, paper 255, http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/255, accessed 24 May 2016.

L. Stern and K. Taylor, 2007. “Social networking on Facebook,” Journal of Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, volume 20, pp. 9–20, and at http://www.cstand.org/UserFiles/File/Journal/2007.pdf, accessed 24 May 2016.

F. Stutzman, 2006. “An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities,” International Digital and Media Arts Journal, volume 3, number 1, pp. 10–18, and at http://fredstutzman.com.s3.amazonaws.com/papers/IDMA2006_Stutzman.pdf, accessed 24 May 2016.

F. Stutzman, J. Vitak, N. Ellison, R. Gray and C. Lampe, 2012. “Privacy in interaction: Exploring disclosure and social capital in Facebook,” Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, at http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM12/paper/view/4666, accessed 24 May 2016.

H. Tajfel and J. Turner, 1979. “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict,” In: W. Austin and S. Worchel (editors). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks-Cole, pp. 33–47.

M. Thelwall, 2008. “Social networks, gender, and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, volume 59, number 8, pp. 1,321–1,330.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20835, accessed 24 May 2016.

W. Tow, P. Dell and J. Venable, 2010. “Understanding information disclosure behaviour in Australian Facebook users,” Journal of Information Technology, volume 25, pp. 126–136.

M. Vergeer, L. Hermans and S. Sams, 2013. “Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style,” Party Politics, volume 19, number 3, pp. 477–501.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068811407580, accessed 24 May 2016.

G. Walsham and S. Sahay, 1999. “GIS for district-level administration in India: Problems and opportunities,” MIS Quarterly, volume 23, number 1, pp. 39–65.

R. Wilson, S. Gosling and L. Graham, 2012. “A review of Facebook research in the social sciences,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, volume 7, number 3, pp. 203–220.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612442904, accessed 24 May 2016.

S. Zhang, H. Jiang and J. Carroll, 2010. “Social identity in Facebook community life,” International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, volume 2, pp. 64–76.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jvcsn.2010100105, accessed 24 May 2016.

S. Zhao, S. Grasmuck and J. Martin, 2008. “Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 24, number 5, pp. 1,816–1,836.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012, accessed 24 May 2016.

A. Zinman and J. Donath, 2007. “Is Britney Spears spam?” CEAS 2007: Fourth Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, and at http://edinbo.ro/pdfs/britneyspears.pdf, accessed 24 May 2016.

J. Zywica and J. Danowski, 2008. “The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 14, number 1, pp. 1–34.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x, accessed 24 May 2016.

 


Editorial history

Received 9 May 2015; revised 30 April 2016; accepted 23 May 2016.


Creative Commons License
This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

User-generated content on Facebook: Implications from the perspective of two organisations
by Jayan Kurian.
First Monday, Volume 21, Number 7 - 4 July 2016
http://www.firstmonday.dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6012/5533
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i7.6012





A Great Cities Initiative of the University of Illinois at Chicago University Library.

© First Monday, 1995-2017. ISSN 1396-0466.