Journal Home Online First Current Issue Archive For Authors Journal Information 中文版

Engineering >> 2018, Volume 4, Issue 1 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2018.02.009

Theories of Social Media: Philosophical Foundations

a School of Management, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, Shanghai 201620, China
b Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Change Management, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, Shanghai 200336, China
c Institute of Cyberspace Advanced Technology, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
d China Electronics Corporation, Beijing 100082, China
e Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Distributed Computing and Service of Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China

Received: 2017-12-08 Revised: 2017-12-13 Accepted: 2018-02-15 Available online: 2018-02-17

Next Previous

Abstract

Although many different views of social media coexist in the field of information systems (IS), such theories are usually not introduced in a consistent framework based on philosophical foundations. This paper introduces the dimensions of lifeworld and consideration of others. The concept of lifeworld includes Descartes’ rationality and Heidegger’s historicity, and consideration of others is based on instrumentalism and Heidegger’s ‘‘being-with.” These philosophical foundations elaborate a framework where different archetypal theories applied to social media may be compared: Goffman’s presentation of self, Bourdieu’s social capital, Sartre’s existential project, and Heidegger’s ‘‘shared-world.” While Goffman has become a frequent reference in social media, the three other references are innovative in IS research. The concepts of these four theories of social media are compared with empirical findings in IS literature. While some of these concepts match the empirical findings, some other concepts have not yet been investigated in the use of social media, suggesting future research directions.

Figures

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

References

[ 1 ] Heidegger M. Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit. Stambaugh J, translator. Schmidt DJ, editor. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1996.

[ 2 ] Habermas J. The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society McCarthy T, translator. Boston: Beacon Press; 1984. link1

[ 3 ] Hirschheim R, Klein HK, Lyytinen K. Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis. Account Manag Inf Technol 1996;6(1–2):1–64. 102 J. Qi et al. / Engineering 4 (2018) 94–102 link1

[ 4 ] Leonardi PM. Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of communication visibility. Inf Syst Res 2014;25(4):796–816. link1

[ 5 ] Cyert RM, March JG. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1963.

[ 6 ] Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 1976;3(4):305–60. link1

[ 7 ] Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm Sci Q 1972;17(1):1–25. link1

[ 8 ] Crozier M, Friedberg E. Actors and systems: The politics of collective action Goldhammer A, translator. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1980.

[ 9 ] Mintzberg H. The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Lebanon: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1979.

[10] Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.; 1959.

[11] Goffman E. Strategic interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1969.

[12] Latour B. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1987.

[13] Giddens A. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Oakland: University of California Press; 1984.

[14] Bourdieu P. Outline of a theory of practice Nice R, translator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977. link1

[15] Apel KO. Towards a transformation of philosophy Adey G, Fisby D, translators. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press; 1998.

[16] Schwartz R, Halegoua GR. The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media. New Media Soc 2015;17(10):1643–60. link1

[17] Papacharissi Z, editor. A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites. New York: Routledge; 2010.

[18] Edwards R. An investigation into the use of social networking sites by young people and the perceived benefits. Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing; 2015.

[19] Livingstone S. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media Soc 2008;10(3):393–411. link1

[20] Obee J. Social networking: The ultimate teen guide. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, Inc.; 2012.

[21] Boyd D. Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites [Internet]. First Monday 2006;11(12) [cited 2017 Nov 11]. Available from: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/ view/1418/1336. link1

[22] Cunningham CM, editor. Social networking and impression management: Self-presentation in the digital age. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.; 2013.

[23] Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1992.

[24] Bourdieu P. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste Nice R,translator. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984. link1

[25] Evans L. Locative social media: Place in the digital age. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.

[26] Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput-Mediat Commun 2007;12(4):1143–68. link1

[27] Carrigan M. Social media for academics. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2016.

[28] Burrell G, Morgan G. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann Educational Books; 1979.

[29] Yoo Y. Computing in everyday life: A call for research on experiential computing. MIS Q 2010;34(2):213–31. link1

[30] Sartre JP. Being and nothingness. New York: Open Road Media; 2012.

[31] Valtysson B. Access culture: Web 2.0 and cultural participation. Int J Cult. Policy 2010;16(2):200–14. link1

[32] Coleman S, Rowe C. Remixing citizenship: Democracy and young people’s use of the Internet Report. London: Carnegie Young People Initiative; 2004.

[33] Montgomery K, Gottlieb-Robles B, Larson GO. Youth as e-citizens: Engaging the digital generation Report. Washington, DC: Center for Social Media, American University; 2004.

[34] Hillier L, Harrison L. Building realities less limited than their own: Young people practising same-sex attraction on the Internet. Sexualities 2007;10 (1):82–100. link1

[35] Blanchard M, Metcalf A, Burns J. Bridging the digital divide: Creating opportunities for marginalised young people to get connected Report. Sydney: Inspire Foundation; 2007.

[36] Camus A. The myth of Sisyphus O’Brien J, translator. London: Penguin Books; 1975.

[37] Johnson L, Levine A, Smith R, Smythe T. The 2009 horizon report: K-12 edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium; 2009. link1

[38] Boyd D. Why youth k social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: Buckingham D, editor. Youth, identity, and digital media. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2007. p. 119–42. link1

[39] Grinter RE, Palen L. Instant messaging in teen life. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work; 2002 Nov 16–20; New Orleans, LA, USA. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2002. p. 21–30. link1

[40] Valentine G, Holloway SL. Cyberkids? Exploring children’s identities and social networks in on-line and off-line worlds. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2002;92 (2):302–19. link1

[41] Cobb NJ. Adolescence: Continuity, change, and diversity. 2nd ed. Houston: Mayfield Publishing Co.; 1995. link1

[42] Sprecher S. Relationship initiation and formation on the Internet. Marriage Fam Rev 2009;45(6–8):761–82. link1

[43] Berk LE. Development through the lifespan. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2001.

[44] Donath J, Boyd D. Public displays of connection. BT Technol J 2004;22 (4):71–82. link1

[45] Third A, Richardson I. Connecting, supporting and empowering young people living with chronic illness and disability: The livewire online community. Livewire research project: Final report to the Starlight Children’s Foundation. Perth: Centre for Everyday Life, Murdoch University; 2009. link1

[46] Munt SR, Bassett EH, O’Riordan K. Virtually belonging: Risk, connectivity, and coming out on-line. Int J Sex Gend Studies 2002;7(2–3):125–37. link1

[47] Adler PS, Kwon SW. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad Manag Rev 2002;27(1):17–40. link1

[48] Levina N, Orlikowski WJ. Understanding shifting power relations within and across organizations: A critical genre analysis. Acad Manag J 2009;52 (4):672–703. link1

[49] Schultze U, Boland Jr RJ. Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices. J Strateg Inf Syst 2000;9(2– 3):193–212. link1

[50] Lee JC, Myers MD. Dominant actors, political agendas, and strategic shifts over time: A critical ethnography of an enterprise systems implementation. J Strateg Inf Syst 2004;13(4):355–74. link1

[51] Boland Jr RJ. Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research on information systems. In: Langefors B, Verrijn-Stuart AA, Bracchi G, editors. Trends in information systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.; 1986. p. 341–9. link1

[52] Huy Q, Shipilov A. The key to social media success within organizations. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2012;54(1):73–81. link1

Related Research