What Isn't New About Social Networking - Research Proposal Example

What isn’t new about social networking? Introduction It is the argument of this paper that the accepted understanding of the contemporary technological condition, the perception that people are now existing amidst the advent of an ‘Information Age’, can be viewed in a quite different way if the histories of media technologies are taken into account. The tide of advancement hits forcefully so as to blur people’s sight of what is in fact taking place. The argument that the current period is not at the heart of immense and ever more recurrent development in media technologies opposes the entire fundamental principle of progress, and the specific premise of the ‘Information Age’ itself, that it should certainly be questioned by rational individuals. The notion of ‘social media revolution’ is utterly historical or cultural, because how can one be certain that a condition has transformed, or has evolved, without recognizing its earlier situation or status? It is hence relevant to provide an analysis of these arguments which are themselves rooted in history; in the cultural and historical conditions enveloping the usage of what could be generally referred to as ‘science’, particularly the science of human communication (Mungiu-Pippidi & Munteanu 2009). This historical knowledge unravels the ‘Information Age’ to be mostly a misapprehension, a rhetorical ploy and a demonstration of technological unawareness. The mainstream literature on the media and these issues reverberate with images of catastrophe, the same group of occurrences being the foundation of both modes of being dogmatic (Atkinson & Dougherty 2006). This is the context against which this paper discusses more purposely that there is nothing in the historical development of electronic communication technologies to suggest that important large-scale revolutions have not been supported by established social formations. Certainly, it is probable to discern in the historical document not only a more gradual tempo of change than is often proposed but also these continuities in the behavior of transmission and innovation as to propose a paradigm for all these transformations. Replications can be found across this varied continuum of media technologies and across periods of their creation and transmission. For instance, take into account the ways in which blueprints for tools arise, the relevance of science and technology, the connection of ‘trial products’ to ‘innovations’ and the harmony of forces inducing and hampering the technologies (Gripsrud et al. 2010). A paradigm to demonstrate these trends completely expresses the dominance of the social arena as the meeting point of these interactions, activities, orientation, and creation of technological advances. Relevant Literature For many people nowadays, social media refers to Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook. However, social media transcends these social networking sites to take account of blogs, wikis, and other specialized applications (Research Technology Management 2011). Social media users do not interact with or consume content. Rather, they produce content, mutually structuring, sharing, editing, tagging, and generating information, reconstructing the inputs of others and taking part in open forums (Clark & Slyke 2006). These are developing media technologies, implying that content and system and even usage arise with application, from the activities and requirements of the users. Although open innovation involves an entire array of attempts to expand outside the business firewall, social media can control a formerly inaccessible reservoir of new knowledge and insights: the public. A crowd that is composed of self-reliant members with varied points of view can produce wise decisions and innovative answers, given correct means to amass and disseminate ideas and points of view (Morozov 2011). However social media is not merely an innovative technology mechanism, but a revolution in the function that media technologies fulfil in people’s lives and in the manner they reflect on technology and the environment around them. As claimed by Andrew McAfee, these “new technologies are significant because they can potentially knit together an enterprise and facilitate knowledge work in ways that were simply not possible previously” (Tuten 2010, 16). They help organizations “make visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers” (Tuten 2010, 16) and to communicate those traditions and outcomes in manners that have never been accessible in the past. The argument of Morozov’s (2009) of social media’s political power manifests a greater reshaping around cultural and social repercussions of the social media. Clay Shirky (2008 as cited in Research Technology Management 2011) describes how social media are facilitating the creation of new forms of groups, groups that make a major difference in the actual world. For instance, Twitter and Facebook puts people in touch with other individuals and perspectives they would otherwise be not likely to stumble upon; with Twitter, groups can develop unexpectedly around issues and disband just as abruptly and easily. Intellectual groups, in organizations, possibly will surface from networks that develop all of a sudden. Cross and colleagues (2004 as cited in Research Technology Management 2011) demonstrate how the actual operation of an organization probably takes place not through the prescribed hierarchical system but through casual social networks via which individuals communicate ideas and disseminate knowledge. It is easy to understand how these casual social networks could emerge through Facebook, Twitter, or an in-house social media site (Hirschorn 2007). And it is nearly as simple to understand that an ingenious, cautiously organized mechanism could become the site for a developing, transforming group of intellectual groups—a number of them developing naturally around commonly held opinions or interesting insights (Winston 1998)—that generate a torrent of groundbreaking innovations. Case Study Social networks widely known to the public, such as Twitter and Facebook, appeared to be a sensible place to begin a revolution of information dissemination mechanisms. This fact has been strengthened by the death of Rachel Hoffman, a 23-year-old private informer killed in a failed drug raid (Thompson 2009). The dilemma of the advocates is how the story of Rachel Hoffman can effectively reach a vast number of people. Twitter and Facebook became the most potent instruments. At first, police blamed the death of Hoffman on her purportedly disobeying procedure, but they decline to disclose information since it was part of a current investigation (Thompson 2009). The deliberation about the hiring of private informers became heated in Tallahassee and law enforcement liability was challenged. After an adjudicator closed up pretrial information, advocated had to find means to disseminate the story and strengthen exposure. With that in mind, the advocates created a Twitter account and Facebook group for the Hoffman case (Thompson 2009). According to one of the advocates, “Because we kept with the story in print and online and were trying to find as many ways to get it to new people as possible, Hoffman has become a part of this community. She’s put a face on what is a gray area of law enforcement that needs more scrutiny” (The IRE Journal 2009, 13). All of these had been made possible by the social media. Outcome As argued by Hannah Arendt, “everything that appears in public can be seen and heard by everybody and has the widest possible publicity” (Gripsrud et al. 2010, 104). The development of new media technologies is the extent and determination of potential publicity. For majority of the people in the distant past, public life was not recorded and disseminated for the opinion of uninvolved others. Only famous people and noble bloods confronted that kind of public for social and structural forces directly restricted the greatest potential publicity. Not all occurrences or events could be recorded and disseminating information was very difficult (Gripsrud et al. 2010). The Internet and the social media have permanently transformed this. The basic characteristics of networked publics, which are anonymity, searchability, and determination, (Clark & Slyke 2006) are strange to the old generation that is leading them through social life. Relevance for the Discipline This paper has been a very brief history of information and communication technologies. Its arguments are relevant to the debunking of technological determinism by demonstrating that the major determinants of technological development are cultural, economic, political, and social factors. The discussion on the effects of media technology on the social and cultural arena can contribute to the formation of a paradigm that puts emphasis on the importance of the social domain on the activities of technologists. The discussion can put light on how social forces both encourage and hamper this progress, creating a social balance upon them. This balance is fundamentally attained by holding back the disrupting power of social media to affect completely established social formations. References n.a. (2011) “The Revolution Will be Shared: Social Media and Innovation” Research Technology Management, 54(1), 64+ Atkinson, J. & Dougherty, D. (2006) “Alternative Media and Social Justice Movements: The Development of a Resistance Performance Paradigm of Audience Analysis” Western Journal of Communication, 70(1), 64+ Clark, J. & Slyke, T.V. (2006) “Welcome to the Media Revolution” In These Times, 30(7), 20+ Gripsrud, J., Moe, H., Molander, A. & Murdock, G. (2010) The Idea of the Public Sphere: A Reader. UK: Lexington Books. Hirschorn, M. (2007) “The Web 2.0 Bubble: Why the Social-Media Revolution Will Go Out with a Whimper” The Atlantic Monthly, 299(3), 134+ Morozov, E. (2009) “Iran: Downside to the ‘Twitter Revolution’” Dissent, 56(4), 10+ Morozov, E. (2011) “Technology’s Role in Revolution Internet Freedom and Political Oppression: Revolutions Depend on People, not on Social Media, and the Internet Both Promotes Democracy and Thwarts It, Says a Foreign-Policy Scholar. Cyber-Utopians Be Warned Authoritarian Regimes Are Adapting to the Internet Age” The Futurist, 45(4), 18+ Mungiu-Pippidi, A. & Munteanu, I. (2009) “Moldova’s ‘twitter revolution’” Journal of Democracy, 20(3). Thompson, J. (2009) “Networking News” Investigative Reporters and Editors, 32(3), 13+ Tuten, T. (2010) Enterprise 2.0: How Technology, eCommerce, and Web 2.0 Are Transforming Business Virtually. Volume One Only: The Strategic Enterprise. New York: Praeger. Winston, B. (1998) Media Technology and Society: A History from the Telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge. Read More