How do your participants position themselves with regards to popular beliefs about virtual identity and the formation of online communities?
This study of virtual identity and online communities will draw heavily upon previous research into the field to offer informed and thorough observations upon this subject. As outlined in my project plan, the work of David Crystal (2001) will inform much of my work, in particular his assertions that online communities are “evolving measures of identity, some of which will be non-linguistic and some linguistic in character.” This will offer a solid groundwork upon which I can compare and consider my findings. The data I have gathered is drawn from four participants, two male and two female, all aged 21. This gender split is deliberate in order to allow me to investigate any genderbased differences that may become apparent. I have also intentionally chosen participants from different Universities, as I feel that this would create a wider variety of responses in terms of what they use social network sites for. I shall use their responses to my seven questions alongside a raft of literature and academia in order to allow me to draw conclusions as to the roles of virtual identities and online communities on social network sites. I made a conscious decision at the start of my study to allow the information I gathered inform the direction of my work; I was intrigued to discover the key themes that surfaced, and it is the examination of these, as opposed to any pre-ordained narrow focus, that shall guide this investigation. Previous Literature Within the study of virtual identity and online communities, I have been guided by a wealth of previous research. In particular, the core reading of Jones and Hafner (2012) has contributed much to the development of my own theories. Their definition of online communities as allowing for “the grouping of people with similar interests into categories,” can be compared to the ideas of online communities given by the participants of my research. Indeed, Mary agrees that her use of online communities on Facebook revolves mostly “the University German Club, or the Sailing Club, and the communication I use on there are mostly just for organising events or for getting in touch with other members of the society.” It is this idea of function and interest-driven communities that I shall further explore later in this study. Outside the prescribed readings, Crystal (2001) remains a key source, with his chapter on “Finding an Identity” particularly fruitful. With its focus on how communities employ a wide range of varieties’ of English in their communication, and the assertion that virtual identity is constantly changing due to “the differing expectations, interests, and abilities of the users, the rapid changes in computer technology and availability, and the rate at which language change seems to be taking place across the internet,” Crystal’s
ground-breaking work on computer-mediated communication shall act as a cornerstone throughout my own research. I shall endeavour to discover whether these claims above hold true when compared to my findings. A key reading for this subject, Spears and Lea (1992) notes that differentiation between people is more likely on social network sites that allow greater construction of identity, such as Facebook, where you are able to post photos, opinions, interest and other personal information that constructs and shapes your virtual identity. This idea of identity construction, and the extent to which it is a conscious or unconscious effort will become an important focus of research, and I will be using the results of my work, and how my participants believe they shape their virtual identities, to assess the findings of Spears and Lee (1992), as well as the work of Marwick and boyd (2010) who make interesting insights regarding Twitter. Using this research, I intend to compare how identity can vary across different types of social network sites, whether more open platforms such as Facebook, or Twitter, which allows greater anonymity for the user. As I begin the process of collating, examining and explaining my results, I have considered to great extent the work of Sherry Turkle (1996) and her concepts of multiplicity, which she neatly summarises as “a decentred self that exists in many worlds and plays many roles at the same time.” Observing my results at this early stage, it is clear that my participants are aware of multiplicity, of performing many different roles in many different ways that are detached, and perhaps totally unrelated to their physical selves. Extracts from my findings shall support and advocate this idea that social network sites, and any form of interaction on the internet has led to each person being in possession of an infinite number of possible identities that serve a whole raft of functions and causes.
Findings All participants unanimously agreed that virtual identity is not a fixed concept; it is continually changing and evolving. As Ben, a 21 year old Business student studying at Loughborough University says, “I would say nowadays it is far more
professional than it used to be - due to my current pursuits.” Having secured a graduate job at a top accounting firm in London, Ben is aware that his conduct and identity across all social network sites, particularly LinkedIn must reflect his increasingly professional status. Similarly, Mary has become more aware of how her virtual identity has changed, although for different reasons; I’ve definitely become more aware of the privacy settings online. She explicitly states that LinkedIn, to me, doesn’t make any sense because I’m not a businessperson, which therefore means that, whilst she
holds a similar view to Ben, she has entirely different reasons for doing so. Alongside this view of identity as a fluid concept is supported by a raft of literature, including Crystal (2001) and Jones and Hafner (2010) and Goffman (1959) who initially put forward the theory of performing identity, an idea that has spread from physical to virtual settings. Jones and Hafner (2010) indicate that impression management and performing virtual identities is largely down to “deciding what information we want to reveal to others and what information we want to hide from them,” something that can vary hugely between social network sites. This idea of purposely constructing different identities for different purposes is expanded upon by my participants; Sarah told me that her identity changed dependant on the setting. My virtual identity on LinkedIn is purely professional, but my Facebook identity I’d say is my kind of, social one for my friends. This view is supported by Ben and Josh, who both refer to LinkedIn as reflecting a more “professional” identity; indeed, their view of Facebook as, in Mary’s words, limited to friends and family, actually runs counter to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s vision for his site. He once stated that “the days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly,” (Kirkpatrick, 2011) yet the information I have gathered seems to directly contradict his prediction. Indeed, when asked why he uses more than one social network, Josh answered that it was in order to portray different images [of self]. Therefore, it appears that each one fulfils a specific role in constructing identity forming communities online, from the “business network” of LinkedIn, to Twitter’s celebrity-centric approach, not to mention Reddit, Tumblr, Instagram and the multitude of other sites available, each one allowing for a slightly different identity to be portrayed. In direct relation to the concept of virtual identity is online community. Defined by as “”, my research suggests that, at least in Ben’s case, he chose to join certain online communities to reflect his identity. He stated that joining communities, such as Facebook groups, Attaches me to a certain community which I dont mind being a part of. May act in a more professional way in some communities than others; indeed, being part of online communities can be considered essential to the construction of identity. Furthermore, Josh identifies that he join certain groups for functional reasons. I communicate with other students who are involved in my university surfing club via facebook. He further expands on what exactly the group’s main purpose is; this is usually to arrange trips and events. Therefore, the idea of being a part of an online community now appears to be more than just a lifestyle statement- Josh and Mary both participate in these for more practical reasons, due to ease of communication for all members of these groups. Crystal (2001) appears to have a more limited opinion of online communities, believing they are “ready to criticize or exclude newcomers who do not accept their groups’ linguistic norms,” yet I believe my research demonstrates that many communities have moved away from such
prescriptivism and exclusivity, and are now far more focussed on enhancing communication between people with shared interests. References:
Crystal, D (2001). Language and the Internet. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) Donath, J and boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal. 22 (4) Herring, S. (2010). Computer-Mediated Conversation: Introduction and Overview. Available: www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2801. Last accessed 13th November 2013. Jones, R and Halfner, C (2012). Understanding Digital Literacies. (USA and Canada: Routledge.)
Lee, C K.M. (2007). Text-making practices beyond the classroom context: Private instant messaging in Hong Kong. Available: https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-2992732-dt-content-rid4169736_2/courses/1314-SE1405/Lee%20%282007%29.pdf. Last accessed 13th November 2013. Merchant, G. (2006). A sign of the times: looking critically at popular digital writing. In: Marsh, J and Millard, E Popular literacies, childhood and schooling. (USA and Canada: Routledge.) p85-100. Spears and Lee (1992) Turkel (1996) Life on the Screen: Identity in the age of the internet Goffman (1959) Kirkpatrick (2001)
Marwick and boyd (2010)
Pseudonyms: Maddie - Mary Sophie - Sarah Jack - Josh Ben - Bill