Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0017899501 = product of:
  0.0035799001 = sum of:
    0.0035799001 = product of:
      0.0071598003 = sum of:
        0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 5364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071598003 = score(doc=5364,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 5364, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How sharing the mundane details of daily life did not start with Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube but with pocket diaries, photo albums, and baby books. Social critiques argue that social media have made us narcissistic, that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube are all vehicles for me-promotion. In The Qualified Self, Lee Humphreys offers a different view. She shows that sharing the mundane details of our lives?what we ate for lunch, where we went on vacation, who dropped in for a visit?didn't begin with mobile devices and social media. People have used media to catalog and share their lives for several centuries. Pocket diaries, photo albums, and baby books are the predigital precursors of today's digital and mobile platforms for posting text and images. The ability to take selfies has not turned us into needy narcissists; it's part of a longer story about how people account for everyday life. Humphreys refers to diaries in which eighteenth-century daily life is documented with the brevity and precision of a tweet, and cites a nineteenth-century travel diary in which a young woman complains that her breakfast didn't agree with her. Diaries, Humphreys explains, were often written to be shared with family and friends. Pocket diaries were as mobile as smartphones, allowing the diarist to record life in real time. Humphreys calls this chronicling, in both digital and nondigital forms, media accounting. The sense of self that emerges from media accounting is not the purely statistics-driven ?quantified self,? but the more well-rounded qualified self. We come to understand ourselves in a new way through the representations of ourselves that we create to be consumed.

0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 3702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=3702,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 3702, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The realm of the digital offers both new methods of research and new objects of study. Because the digital environment for scholarship is constantly evolving, researchers must sometimes improvise, change their plans, and adapt. These details are often left out of research write-ups, leaving newcomers to the field frustrated when their approaches do not work as expected. Digital Research Confidential offers scholars a chance to learn from their fellow researchers' mistakes -- and their successes. The book -- a follow-up to Eszter Hargittai's widely read Research Confidential -- presents behind-the-scenes, nuts-and-bolts stories of digital research projects, written by established and rising scholars. They discuss such challenges as archiving, Web crawling, crowdsourcing, and confidentiality. They do not shrink from specifics, describing such research hiccups as an ethnographic interview so emotionally draining that afterward the researcher retreated to a bathroom to cry, and the seemingly simple research question about Wikipedia that mushroomed into years of work on millions of data points. Digital Research Confidential will be an essential resource for scholars in every field.

Content

Preface How to think about digital research / Christian Sandvig and Eszter Hargittai -- "How local is user-generated content" : a 9,000+ word essay on answering a five-word research question" : or how we learned to stop worrying (or worry less) and love the diverse challenges of our fast-moving, geographically-flavored interdisciplinary research area / Darren Gergle and Brent Hecht -- Flash mobs and the social life of public spaces : analyzing online visual data to study new forms of sociability / Virag Molnar and Aron Hsiao -- Social software as social science / Eric Gilbert and Karrie Karahalios -- Hired hands and dubious guesses : adventures in crowdsourced data collection / Aaron Shaw -- Making sense of teen life : strategies for capturing ethnographic data in a networked era / Danah Boyd -- When should we use real names in published accounts of internet research? / Amy Bruckman, Kurt Luther, and Casey Fiesler -- The art of web crawling for social science research / Michelle Shumate and Matthew Weber -- The ethnographic study of visual culture in the age of digitization / Paul Leonardi -- Read/write the digital archive: strategies for historical web research / Megan Sapnar Ankerson -- Big data, big problems, big opportunities : using internet log data to conduct social network analysis research / Brooke Foucault Welles -- Contributors -- References -- Index.

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4231,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The debate on Facebook raises questions about the use and users of this information service. This collected volume gathers a broad spectrum of social science and information science articles about Facebook.Facebook has many facets, and we just look forward above all to the use and users. The facet of users has sub-facets, such as different age, sex, and culture. The facet of use consists of sub-facets of privacy behavior after the Snowden affair, dealing with friends, unfriending and becoming unfriended on Facebook, and possible Facebook addiction. We also consider Facebook as a source for local temporary history and respond to acceptance and quality perceptions of this social network service, as well. This book brings together all the contributions of research facets on Facebook. It is a much needed compilation written by leading scholars in the fields of investigation of the impact of Web 2.0. The target groups are social media researchers, information scientists and social scientists, and also all those who take to Facebook topics.

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 5191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=5191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 5191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Spektrum der Wissenschaft 2019, H.4, S.92-93 (A. Lobe): "Der Autor hat eine theoretisch fundierte, kenntnisreiche und methodisch saubere Dissertation vorgelegt, die den Lesern die politische Dimension des Datensammelns vor Augen führt ... . Mülling hat mehrere Jahre an der Schnittstelle von Informatik und Politikwissenschaft geforscht ... . Im theoretischen Teil wären noch etwas mehr Verweise auf Nachbardisziplinen wie die Medienwissenschaft wünschenswert gewesen, wo der italienische Medientheoretiker und Philosoph Matteo Pasquinelli mit seinem Aufsatz zur »Gesellschaft der Metadaten« ein Grundlagenkonzept erarbeitet hat. Auch das Konzept des digitalen Ungehorsams wirkt in der Gesamtschau etwas unterspezifiziert. Müllings Dissertation ist dennoch ein wichtiger Debattenbeitrag, der sich wohltuend vom Jargon der Politikwissenschaft abhebt und einem interessierten Fachpublikum empfohlen werden kann."

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 5818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=5818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 5818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The social dynamics of alternative facts: why what you believe depends on who you know. Why should we care about having true beliefs? And why do demonstrably false beliefs persist and spread despite bad, even fatal, consequences for the people who hold them? Philosophers of science Cailin OConnor and James Weatherall argue that social factors, rather than individual psychology, are whats essential to understanding the spread and persistence of false beliefs. It might seem that theres an obvious reason that true beliefs matter: false beliefs will hurt you. But if thats right, then why is it (apparently) irrelevant to many people whether they believe true things or not? The Misinformation Age, written for a political era riven by fake news, alternative facts, and disputes over the validity of everything from climate change to the size of inauguration crowds, shows convincingly that what you believe depends on who you know. If social forces explain the persistence of false belief, we must understand how those forces work in order to fight misinformation effectively.