Participant Experiences in an Informal twitter Sub-network

1. Participant Experiences in an Informal twitter.com Sub-network Jennifer Maddrell Doctoral Student at Old Dominion University AACE E-learn 2010 – Brief Paper Presentation October 18-22, 2010 Click for audio ->

2. Nice to meet you … • Working on my dissertation • Research interest in distance and online learning • Live in Chicago and visit these places, too: • http://designedtoinspire.com • http://twitter.com/JenM • http://edtechtalk.com

3. Case Study Research Questions • What is the nature of communication and interaction within a twitter sub-network? • Why do users in the sub-network participate? • How do users represent themselves, including the demographic information they chose to share within their profiles?

4. Qualitative Case Study 3,100 in Reciprocal Following Sub-network

5. Nature of Relationships

6. Data Collection

7. Observation Periods

8. Observation Checklist

9. Profile Review

10. Focus of Interview Questions • Background information • Twitter use • Perceptions of twitter • Communication on twitter • Community and relationships on twitter

11. Nature of Communication • Always on / always accessible • 75 different applications used to tweet • “live”, “transient”, “office buddy”, “glance”, “graze”, “cocktail party”, “ambi-synchronous” • Broadcast messages and conversations • 1 in 3 tweets including @ symbol • Half of those were re-tweets RT@ • Shared interest communication • 1 in 5 tweets included # tag • Word clouds suggest shared interests

12. Wordle.net Word Cloud of Tweets

13. Wordle.net Word Cloud of Biographies

14. Nature of Interaction • Network ties • Most not linked by geography or workplace • Shared interest and weak-tie relationships • Transparency • Post specific details of personal & professional life • Central to relationship formation & maintenance • Audience awareness • Pay attention to followed by / following lists • Care about post relevance and suitability to audience

15. Motivations to Participate • Access • People • Information • Resources • Reciprocity • Sharing of knowledge a condition of membership • Contributions are a form of network currency

16. Summary of Study • Twitter serves as a virtual coffee machine • Sub-network bound by shared interest • Network ties: • Clusters of strong-tie relationships • Weak-tie acquaintances • Transparency central to weak tie formation • Reciprocity is network currency and payment for membership

17. Significance of Findings • Sub-network formed organically over years • Suggests drivers behind on-going participation • Cannot generalize to other sub-networks • Does not suggest results would be the same in sub-network created by teacher

18. Questions for Future Research • Is the required level of user transparency and self-discloser feasible in most educational settings? • Would an experienced professional be willing to interact with a novice and, if so, would the communication and interaction be at a meaningful level? • To what extent do these network characteristics and participant motivators exist in other contexts and settings?

19. Please share your thoughts … http://designedtoinspire.com/drupal/aace2010twitter