ºÝºÝߣ

Editor's Notes

1. \n
2. tell story of when I started thinking about personal blogs\n
3. tell story of when I started thinking about personal blogs\n
4. So this is the big-picture question that I ended up asking myself.\n
5. And this is the question that’s guiding today’s presentation.\nwe care because people who are using social media are constantly engaging (whether they realize it or not) with these shifting ideas about public and private. \n\ndescribe the data set\n
6. definitional complexity - based on the number of applied to survey respondents’ definitions of the concepts of public and private \nelements of definitions - were there any patterns in the ways that survey respondents defined these terms? (hint: there definitely were)\nwhat does it all mean? - turning to observational and especially interview data, how are bloggers really talking about these concepts?\n
7. just quickly... there is a small difference in the complexity of bloggers’ definitions of public and private as measured by number of codes applied to their definitions...\nI had kind of expected to see some difference based on whether or not their primary blogging service included access controls, but none appeared.\nSo there are no easy answers there.\n
8. Next we look at the definitions of public and private. There are a number of ways that we academics tend to like to think about public and private.\n\nspatial - referencing public and private SPACES. But very few of them used this definition.\n\nsocial - referring to the social and political divisions (home/work, public sphere/private sphere, public sector/private sector). Nope, not many of them, either.\n\npersonal - referring to “personal” things as private (though this was more common than the other two)\n
9. Next we look at the definitions of public and private. There are a number of ways that we academics tend to like to think about public and private.\n\nspatial - referencing public and private SPACES. But very few of them used this definition.\n\nsocial - referring to the social and political divisions (home/work, public sphere/private sphere, public sector/private sector). Nope, not many of them, either.\n\npersonal - referring to “personal” things as private (though this was more common than the other two)\n
10. Next we look at the definitions of public and private. There are a number of ways that we academics tend to like to think about public and private.\n\nspatial - referencing public and private SPACES. But very few of them used this definition.\n\nsocial - referring to the social and political divisions (home/work, public sphere/private sphere, public sector/private sector). Nope, not many of them, either.\n\npersonal - referring to “personal” things as private (though this was more common than the other two)\n
11. Instead, these respondents are overwhelmingly conceptualizing the public and private as INFORMATIONAL.\n\ncontent/control: what type of content are they publishing and do they have control over who has access to it.\n(In retrospect, these should really have been two codes)\nAudience size: how many people are going to be able to SEE the content?\n\nYes. There’s almost certainly some bias here - these questions are from a web-based survey and all of the questions that came before the ones where I asked them to define public and private were about their internet use.\n
12. Instead, these respondents are overwhelmingly conceptualizing the public and private as INFORMATIONAL.\n\ncontent/control: what type of content are they publishing and do they have control over who has access to it.\n(In retrospect, these should really have been two codes)\nAudience size: how many people are going to be able to SEE the content?\n\nYes. There’s almost certainly some bias here - these questions are from a web-based survey and all of the questions that came before the ones where I asked them to define public and private were about their internet use.\n
13. These really were overwhelmingly the most common definitional elements.\n\nNote that the 26% who defined public as both one person and a small group duplicates the codes individually.\n
14. That’s all well and good but WHAT DOES IT MEAN?\nThere’s an interaction going on between content - what people post - control - how much control they think they have over the content - and audience - who they expect to be seeing the content.\nThis becomes even more clear when we look at selected survey definitions as well as some interview conversations.\n
15. That’s all well and good but WHAT DOES IT MEAN?\nThere’s an interaction going on between content - what people post - control - how much control they think they have over the content - and audience - who they expect to be seeing the content.\nThis becomes even more clear when we look at selected survey definitions as well as some interview conversations.\n
16. That’s all well and good but WHAT DOES IT MEAN?\nThere’s an interaction going on between content - what people post - control - how much control they think they have over the content - and audience - who they expect to be seeing the content.\nThis becomes even more clear when we look at selected survey definitions as well as some interview conversations.\n
17. That’s all well and good but WHAT DOES IT MEAN?\nThere’s an interaction going on between content - what people post - control - how much control they think they have over the content - and audience - who they expect to be seeing the content.\nThis becomes even more clear when we look at selected survey definitions as well as some interview conversations.\n
18. That’s all well and good but WHAT DOES IT MEAN?\nThere’s an interaction going on between content - what people post - control - how much control they think they have over the content - and audience - who they expect to be seeing the content.\nThis becomes even more clear when we look at selected survey definitions as well as some interview conversations.\n
19. That’s all well and good but WHAT DOES IT MEAN?\nThere’s an interaction going on between content - what people post - control - how much control they think they have over the content - and audience - who they expect to be seeing the content.\nThis becomes even more clear when we look at selected survey definitions as well as some interview conversations.\n
20. \n
21. \n
22. \n
23. \n
24. this is the same person as the second definition of “public”\n
25. \n
26. \n
27. anonymity, separateness\n
28. \n
29. \n
30. \n
31. \n
32. so if we think back to the interaction between content, control, and audience, where it leads us is to...\n
33. so if we think back to the interaction between content, control, and audience, where it leads us is to...\n
34. so if we think back to the interaction between content, control, and audience, where it leads us is to...\n
35. so if we think back to the interaction between content, control, and audience, where it leads us is to...\n
36. so if we think back to the interaction between content, control, and audience, where it leads us is to...\n
37. so if we think back to the interaction between content, control, and audience, where it leads us is to...\n
38. public as clearly defined, etc. a spectrum of private.\n\nfrom the “preaching to the choir” files... we can’t deal with public and private in a dichotomous way (can we deal with ANYTHIGN in a dichotomous way anymore?) but more importantly - it’s not just we academics who are thinking in more complex ways about these issues, it’s the social media users themselves.\n
39. \n