Social Networks as an Infrastructure of Interpersonal Communication: Transformation and Diffusion of Communication Frames (Tomsk Students’ Case)

Release:

2017, Vol. 1. №2

Title: 
Social Networks as an Infrastructure of Interpersonal Communication: Transformation and Diffusion of Communication Frames (Tomsk Students’ Case)


For citation: Glukhov A. P., Bulatova T. A. 2017. “Social Networks as an Infrastructure of Interpersonal Communication: Transformation and Diffusion of Communication Frames (Tomsk Students’ Case)”. Siberian Socium, vol. 1, no 2, pp. 82-96. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2017-1-2-82-96

About the authors:

Andrei P. Glukhov, Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Associate Professor, Department of Social Communications, Tomsk State University; glukhovap@tspu.edu.ru

Tatiana A. Bulatova, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University (Tomsk, Russia); Web of Science RecheacherID: AAB-1578-2020; bulatowa@mail.ru

Abstract:

This article analyses the transformation of the communicative culture of virtual interpersonal relations and the virtual identity of the youth audience in social media space. The empirical base of the project is the field research of virtual interpersonal communications of student youth in Tomsk universities. Thus, this study has a pronounced regional specificity. The authors have used semi-formalized interviews and focus groups in offline and online formats on virtual social media sites. The main methodological method is the reinterpretation and transposition of theoretical conceptual schemes from the traditional offline communication to network communications. This allowed to identify the key frames of organising interpersonal communications in the social network space. In accordance with the hypothesis, the social media, as a new communicative infrastructure of interpersonal communications, becomes a carrier platform for two types of interpersonal communications — interpersonal strong close ties (as in a private communication organization) and interpersonal weak ties (as in semi-public communication). Based on analytics and the conducted qualitative research, the authors have come to the following conclusions: social platforms in relation to close interpersonal relationships do not change their structure and organization. Yet, they provide new opportunities for logistics (planning and alignment) of relations, management of communications (in terms of regulating the impression of oneself, the level of involvement, synchronization of contacts and access), and removing risks and uncertainty (greater transparency and ease of entry/exit). Weak network ties (in the format of semi-public communications) are masked as “quasi-close” relationships, and their participants use them for the purposes of self-presentation and acquisition of social capital among their acquaintances and other people. The authors see the further prospect of research of virtual interpersonal communications in the analysis of changes in the balance of communication modes under the influence of network platforms. Additionally, a further thorough study requires the transfer of interpersonal “frames” and patterns of relations into the sphere of professional and business communication, actively implemented in networked semi-public communications.

References:

  1. Batygin G. S. 2001. “Kontinuum freymov: dramaturgicheskiy realizm Irvinga Gofmana” [Continuum of Frames: The Dramatic Realism of Erving Goffmann]. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: Sotsiologiya, no 2, pp. 15.
  2. Glukhov A. P., Bulatova T. A., Bychkova M. N., Okushova G. A. et al. 2016. Sotsial’nye seti kak ploshchadka organizatsii mezhlichnostnykh kommunikatsiy i performansa identichnosti tsifrovogo pokoleniya: sbornik materialov issledovaniya [Social Networks as a Platform for the Organization of Interpersonal Communications and the Performance of the Identity of the Digital Generation: A Collection of Research Materials]. Edited by I. P. Kuzheleva-Sagan. Tomsk: Tomsk State University.
  3. Goffman E. 2000. Predstavlenie sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni [The Presentation of Self in Every Day Life]. Moscow: KANON-PRESS.
  4. Ploshchadka-gruppa, sozdannaya v ramkakh avtorskogo issledovatel’skogo proekta “Frending, virt, trolling i layking: issledovanie” [Site Created in the Framework of the Author’s Research Project “Friending, Virt, Trolling, and Liking: Research”]. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087976241225793/
  5. Ploshchadka-gruppa, sozdannaya v ramkakh avtorskogo issledovatel’skogo proekta “Frending, layking, trolling: issledovanie” [Site Created in the Framework of the Author’s Research Project “Friending, Virt, Trolling, and Liking: Research”]. https://vk.com/club119169854
  6. Frindte V., Keller T., Shubert T. 2000. “Publichnoe konstruirovanie ‘Ya’ v oposredstvovannom komp’yuterom obshchenii” [Public Construction of the “I” in Computer-Mediated Communication]. In: Voyskunskiy A. E. (ed.).  Gumanitarnye issledovaniya v Internete. Moscow. 
  7. Berlinger M. R. 2000. “Internet and Alienation”. The New York Times, February 23. Accessed on: 7 October 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/23/opinion/l-internet-andalienation-946346.html?scp=1&sq=inte... 
  8. Burke M. 2011. “Reading, Writing, Relationships: The Impact of Social Network Sites on Relationships and Well-Being”. Ph. D. diss. Pittsburgh: Human-Computer Interaction Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  9. Goffman E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay in the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.
  10. Granovetter M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties”. The American Journal of Sociology, no 78 (6), pp. 1360-1380.
  11. Keol L., Keol E., Meier B. 2012. “International Student’s Use of Social Network Services in the New Culture: A Case Study with Korean Youths in the United States”. Asia Pacific Educ. Review. 
  12. Kraut R., Patterson M., Lundmark V., Kiesler S., Mukophadhyay T., Scherlis W. 1998. “Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?”. American Psychologist, no 53 (9), pp. 1017-1031.
  13. Peluchette J., Karl K. 2008. “Social Networking Profiles: An Examination of Student Attitudes Regarding Use and Appropriateness of Content”. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, no 11 (1), pp. 95-97.
  14. Turkle S. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
  15. Wellman B., Hogan B. 2006. “Connected Lives: The Project”. In P. Purcell (ed.). Networked Neighbourhoods. London: Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/1-84628-601-8_8
  16. Wolak J., Mitchell K., Finkelhor D. 2003. “Escaping or Connecting? Characteristics of Youth Who Form Close Online Relationships”. Journal of Adolescence, no 26 (1), pp. 105-119.