Description
APA format is required for both in-line references and endnote references.
Full-text PDFs of all references are required. Lack of full-text PDFs will lose half of the credit for this post.
Chapter 13 – According to Franks and Smallwood (2013), information has become the lifeblood of every business organization, and that an increasing volume of information today has increased and exchanged through the use of social networks and Web2.0 tools like blogs, microblogs, and wikis. When looking at social media in the enterprise, there is a notable difference in functionality between e-mail and social media, and has been documented by research – “…that social media differ greatly from e-mail use due to its maturity and stability.” (Franks & Smallwood, 2013).
Q1: Please identify and clearly state what the difference is?
Create a new thread with 700 words, be clear and concise!
Textbook: https://b-ok.org/book/2363786/2f8186
I need atleast 2 references and also pdf attachments of the documents used as references, please use atleast 2 references and also refer to text book..and once you complete send me the pdf files of the references and also the cite the references in the discussion.
Textbook Link: Information Governance: Concepts, Strategies and Best Practices; 1st Edition; Robert F. Smallwood; Copyright © 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey (ISBN 978-1-118-21830-3)
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
SOCIAL MEDIA? WHAT SOCIAL
MEDIA?
Maxim Wolf
Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Email: mwolf03@mail.bbk.ac.uk
Julian Sims
Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Huadong Yang
University of Liverpool, UK
Abstract
This developmental paper is flagging up the issue of insufficiently clear definition of
two contemporary concepts: social media and enterprise social media. Drawing on the
findings from empirical case studies, differences in users’ perceptions of what is and is
not social media are highlighted. These are juxtaposed with extant definitions from IS
literature. The concept of “in-house” or “enterprise” social media is introduced from
the literature and its clarity and necessity is challenged based on the data from the case
studies. The aim of this early research paper is to evaluate whether a re-definition of
“social media”, for example through performative lens is meaningful, necessary and
helpful.
Keywords: Social Media, Enterprise social media, Definitions, Literature Review
1
Introduction
The field of information systems (IS) is concerned with the investigation of Information
Technologies (IT) impacts on individual, organisational and societal levels (Lucas Jr,
Agarwal, Clemons, El Sawy, & Weber, 2013). One of the recent most impactful IT
phenomena is the emergence and spread of a sub-set of IT technologies referred to as
social media (Kane, Alavi, Labianca, & Borgatti, 2014; Kapoor et al., 2017). (Kapoor
et al., 2017) list top one hundred IS research topics on social media which range from
foreign languages, politics to machine learning and even smoking related issues,
touching virtually every aspect of people’s personal and professional lives.
Interpersonal web-based communication technologies have long been investigated by
IS researchers (Kent & Taylor, 1998). Social media are, however, qualitatively different
from traditional media and on-line communication systems.
Social media have been defined in a variety of ways. The definition of social media as
a “platform to create profiles, make explicit and traverse relationships” by (Boyd &
Ellison, 2008) has been cited over 13,000 times according to google scholar. Other
definitions, identifying social media by the set of functionalities or “building blocks”
(Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011),
has 3,000 citations. A
taxonomy of “social media” splitting the field into 6 distinctive categories (Blogs,
Social Networking Sites, Collaboration Projects, Content Communities, Virtual Social
Worlds, and Virtual Game Worlds) introduced by (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), too finds
resonance with 11,000 citations on google scholar. The trend of creating new and
updating old definitions continues, as does the development, use and adoption of social
media (Kapoor et al., 2017).
This paper is raising two definitions which stem from an empirical qualitative
comparative case study on social media use in organisations and juxtaposes them with
current definitions in the literature. The first question is “what is social media and how
do academically accepted definitions resonate with the definitions in the field”? The
second question is based on research in “enterprise social media” and the highlighted
importance of research in this field (Hauptmann & Steger, 2013; Kapoor et al., 2017;
Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfeld, 2013; Maruping & Magni, 2015): “what makes a
social media platform an ‘in-house’ or ‘enterprise social media’”?
The paper starts with the introduction of possible definitions of “social media” from
recent literature. This is followed by a brief introduction of the research project. The
question of how to define social media and how to define enterprise social media are
then discussed followed by conclusions and summary.
2
Discussion
To be considered “impactful”, academic research needs to be communicated and
applied outside academia (Lucas Jr et al., 2013). One of barriers to communication is
the language and definitions used in academia and in practice. There is no clear
definition of what social media is, which means that research findings are often not
comparable or transferable. In the case of social media, researchers have focused on
one specific platform or application, albeit in a different context, e.g. use of twitter
(Delery & Roumpi, 2017), Facebook (Brown & Vaughn, 2011; Gilbert & Karahalios,
2009; Lim, 2012; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009), blogs (Lu, Guo, Luo, &
Chen, 2015; Vidgen, Sims, & Powell, 2013). Lacking a clear definition, it is uncertain
and disputable whether e.g. findings from a “twitter-study” would apply to a
“WhatsApp-study” etc. The definitions of social media in the literature, while
disagreeing on many points, have some common properties.
2.1
Social Media Definitions – common denominators
Social Media has been defined as websites which allow profile creation and visibility
of relationships between users (Boyd & Ellison, 2008); web-based applications which
provide functionality for sharing, relationships, group, conversation and profiles
(Kietzmann et al., 2011). Social media has been referred to as “social media sites”
(Diga & Kelleher, 2009), or a set of information technologies which facilitate
interactions and networking (Kapoor et al., 2017; Oestreicher-Singer & Zalmanson,
2013). However, there appears to be a broad agreement that Web2.0 technologies
played a significant role in the development and adoption of social media.
Another definition of social media refers to “Internet-based applications built on Web
2.0, while Web 2.0 refers to a concept as well as a platform for harnessing collective
intelligence” (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013 p. 246). Social media, such as Facebook,
Twitter, and LinkedIn, provide people with a pervasive network connectivity (Asur &
Huberman, 2010).
The term “Web 2.0” refers to the set of technologies and ideologies that enable and
drive media rich content creation on the internet (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Web 2.0
is rooted in the open source ideology, whereby users collaborate freely using free tools
and sharing their work and information with each other. Technological advances in
Web 2.0 and open ideology supported the emergence of User Generated Content
(UGC). The UGC – the ability to create and share content free of censorship and at low
cost, contributed to the proliferation of social media (DesAutels, 2011).
As an Information System, social media is built upon a set of (available) Internet,
communication and computing technologies, as well as a set of ideological beliefs about
how information should be created, accessed and distributed (Figure 1).
Social Media
Social Networking Sites, Blogs, MMORPG, Virtual Words, Knowledge Sites, Online
Communities of Practice, Corporate In-House Platforms…
Web 2.0 Technologies
Media
Richness
Interactive
Applications
Content
Creation
Web 2.0 Ideology
Transparency
Information
Availability
IT Technologies and Market
Smartphones
Fiber
Tools
fast CPUs and Affordability Broadband,
Availability
GPUs
WiFi, 4G
GPS
Figure 1 - Technological, Ideological and Market foundations of Social Media
All definitions of social media agree that social media implies use of online or internet
technologies. Following the transparency, sharing and integration ideology of Web 2.0,
many of the applications (websites, mobile applications, online systems) are allowing
programmatic integration with other Web 2.0 applications. Notable is the definition and
proliferation of standard integration protocols which allowed the integration of several
systems to be implemented in an easier and quicker manner, as the integration interfaces
would follow pre-defined standards (for example Simple Object Access Protocol
(SOAP) 1.1 in 2000, 1.2 in 2007, and Open Data Protocol (OData) for Representational
State Transfer (REST) services initiated in 2007). Arguably, a definition of social media
should include the technological (internet and mobility), the ideological (transparency,
sharing and integration) as well as functional component.
2.1.1 Social Media Functionalities
One of the approaches to identify “social media” is to describe the functionalities of a
given platform and application in terms of essential “social” properties. (Kietzmann et
al., 2011) specify seven functional building blocks of Social Media which are present
to greater or lesser extent any social media application and which can be substituted
and enhanced through integration of several applications (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Building blocks of Social Media (Kietzmann, 2011)
Identity refers to the representation of the user in the virtual world. It could be as
descriptive and personal as a profile on Facebook, listing birthday, hobbies, family
relationships etc., or could be as vague as an imaginary pseudonym.
Conversations allows users to interact with each other in a broadcast or dialogue
manner synchronously in real time or asynchronously with time lapse between
statements.
Sharing refers to activities through which existing content is spread (and possibly
enhanced) through the social graph. Hereby the social connections might not be
necessary be made explicit, for example publicly sharing on Facebook or posting on
Twitter does not rely on existing connections: on the contrary in the example of Twitter
“sharing” often precedes connections (expressed through “following”).
Presence allows users to know where other community members are (on/off-line and
actual/virtual location).
Relationships allows community members to visualize their networks in many ways
ranging from “likes” and “followers-followed” to virtual representation of real-life
relationships. These social-graph abstractions can be uni- and bi-directional and allow
strong and weak ties. For example, “following” on Twitter is not necessarily reciprocal,
whereas a connection on LinkedIn requires both parties to accept the connection and
both to indicate the nature of their relationship (e.g. colleagues).
Groups refers both to membership groups where users can articulate their affiliations
with, or interest in, a specific subject and groups utilized by users to manage their
relationships.
Reputation allows users to qualify the content provided by another user and establish
trust-levels between community members. These trust-levels can be made explicit, for
example through a scoring or ranking system (LinkedIn “influencer” status,
StackOverflow points system), or remain implicit (Twitter number of followers).
Many of the platforms provide users with the ability to integrate other applications.
Through the integration of two or more platforms the building blocks, the affordances
of one system can be greatly enhanced, but also jeopardised. For example, by enabling
the integration of Twitter and Facebook whereby a “tweet” also appears in the personal
thread in Facebook, the “identity” of a (fairly anonymous) Twitter-account becomes
much more personal on Facebook. Vice versa, a Facebook post, visible inside that
platform only, could reach much wider (unintended) audiences when simultaneously
(and automatically) posted on Twitter.
The inherent integrative nature of Web 2.0 applications makes the assessment of the
functional blocks in a single application/platform difficult at the least, and meaningless
at most. Integrated social media systems combine their capabilities and thus could be
assessed as a system and not as individual applications. However, this poses another
challenge: specific applications and technologies can be combined by the end-user to
meet their individual needs, so that a “social media system” of one user is not
necessarily the same or comparable to the “social media system” of another user.
Arguably, definitions of “social media” as “landscapes” or “groups” would address this
challenge.
2.1.2 Social Media Definitions
A technocratic definition of social media reads: “a group of Internet-based applications
that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow
the creation and exchange of User Generated Content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
This definition is suited for defining “media” – generation of content, internet based set
of technologies. However, the “social” part of the definition is made only implicitly
through references to “Web 2.0” and “Unser Generated Content”.
(Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211) take a less technical approach and 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”. (Kane et al., 2014) extend this definition by
adding that users should also be able to create and access digital content. These
definitions enhance the technical definition of Kaplan and Haenlein by adding the
“connection” element (list of interconnected users) and a “human” element (profiles).
However, the boundlessness of these systems: the ability of users to integrate and
combine applications and features into a new unique system is explicitly excluded in
this definition. Also, the “interactive” nature of social media: the ability of users to
establish and maintain social contact is not made clear.
(Oestreicher-Singer & Zalmanson, 2013) employ the term “social computing” as a
placeholder for online IT technologies which enable and facilitate social interactions
and are deeply embedded in day-to-day human interactions. The focus on “any
technology which supports relationships and collaboration” is also supported by
(Kapoor et al., 2017). These definitions highlight the “social” nature of social media
and focus on interpersonal communication and information exchange independent of
technological platforms involved. These views lean towards the performative view,
concentrating on what the platforms are used for rather then what the technology was
intended to support.
2.1.3 Social Media – definition discrepancies
Despite a plethora of definitions and view-points being available many of the
applications, websites, platforms which we “naturally” perceive as social media are not
covered by these definitions. These applications are
Accessible through apps and not (only) through websites – e.g. WhatsApp, or
Facebook, which makes the “social media site” term too narrow;
Always online through notifications in desktop applications and on mobiles,
which is not mentioned in either definition and is not covered by the
“presence” building block by (Kietzmann et al., 2011), as they become
“intrusive”;
Integrated and Media Rich, which goes beyond simple “interactions”
(otherwise “pine” – the email client released in 1992 would be “social
media”);
Support “passive sharing” of content when information is pushed towards
users without the creator actively doing that, which extends the “relationships”
beyond explicitly made connections.
The difficulty of positively identifying social media became obvious in this study, a
multiple case study performed in 2013-2017 which focuses on the impact of social
media use on intra-organisational communication process. The researcher’s
understanding of “social media” was different from that of the case study participants,
and the participants did not agree on one single definition. The following section
presents the study and the resultant questions for the need of a different (better,
narrower, wider?) definition of social media.
2.2
Case Study
Social Media use in the context of Human Resource Management (HRM) was
investigated in a comparative case study conducted in three large organisations in the
UK. Traditionally, HR communications were one-way top-down communications with
limited feedback mechanisms. In the case organisations employee feedback would be
sought and collected through (bi-) annual employee surveys, without any means for the
employees to provide immediate feedback on HR initiatives, activities and policy. This
flow has been challenged by the emergence of social media, when social media
platforms which are open and freely accessible by employees became part of
communication resources (Huang, Baptista, & Galliers, 2013). The introduction of
social media in the case organisations lead to enhanced ability of management to seek
timely employee feedback on one hand, and to diminished ability of the management
to control and censor this feedback.
The research involved three qualitative case studies in organisations which used social
media for different purposes, with different intensity and with different outcomes. The
three organisations UKBank, UKConsulting, and UKOutsourcing represented different
industry sectors, however, they also shared many commonalities with regards to the
geographical markets they operate in, location of headquarters, workforce size,
composition and education level. The differences in social media use in each
organisation are partially explained by the regulatory framework constraining the use
(for example, UKBank, as a financial services provider, is subject to different
regulations than UKConsulting – a technology consultancy, and UKOutsourcing, that
provides services to private and public entities). Further, some differences are explained
by the physical location and access to computers and internet (UKBank employees are
not officially permitted to use personal devices at work, or work-computers for personal
use (such as visiting social media sites); UKConsulting employees are allowed to use
their own devices and to access social media from within the office; Many of
UKOutsourcing employees are not office-based and sometimes do not have access to
internal network and/or corporate computers). Finally, the factors dictating, framing
and enabling social media use in these organisations were the management’s
involvement, strategy and policy. These internal factors were the focus of the research.
The data collection was performed in a series interviews with informants from a range
of hierarchical levels from associates (shop-floor employees), middle-managers, to
higher-level managers who are (partially) responsible for setting and executing firmwide policy and strategy. To protect the informant’s anonymity, whenever a proprietary
in-house developed software was used, the name of that product has been changed by
the authors to avoid the identification of the case organisations.
During the data collection and analysis stages of the research two issues became
obvious: first, the differentiation between public and “in-house” social media was
consistently being made by interviewees. Second, the conceptualisation of “social
media” differed from interviewee to interviewee. The following sections discuss the
observed differences and address the need for a re-definition of “social media” in IS
research.
2.2.1 What is social media?
The three organisations use a variety of tools – in-house built applications, on-premise
applications and web-bases tool, to communicate, share information and connect
employees and managers. Some of the applications were used in all organisations,
others were organisation specific (Table 1).
Platform
Description
UK Bank
Public Professional Net...