Social media and identity

Shirky (2008) predicted that social media would become widespread due to the mass-socialisation - the power of the collective actions of online user communities rather than individual users. But the idea of collective community is not a recent concept at all. As computer scientists are quick to point out, most of the apparently new characteristics of social media existed long before the advent of Facebook. Since the early 1970s, internet applications have allowed users to exchange messages with each other, maintain personal profiles, curate lists of ‘friends’ and write blog-like journal entries. It is therefore important to remember from the outset that ‘the web has always been social’ (Halpin and Tuffield, 2010). And as Christakis and Fowler (2009) conclude, ‘as part of a social network, we transcend ourselves for good or ill, and become a part of something much larger’ (p.30). So, is this the potential answer as to why we are drawn to social media - for reaching something much larger? And what about its perceptions in higher education? 

Social media constitute an increasingly important context wherein individuals live their everyday lives. Indeed, some commentators talk of the ‘networked self’—acknowledging the importance of social media as a key site of sociality and identity performance in many people’s lives (Papacharissi, 2010). As such, the most immediate significance of social media for higher education is the apparently changing the nature of the students who are entering university. In a practical sense, the highly connected, collective, and creative qualities of social media applications are seen to reflect (and to some extent drive) more flexible, fluid and accelerated ways of being. Social media are therefore associated with an increased tendency for young people to multitask, to rely on a ‘digital juggling’ of daily activities and commitments (Subrahmanyam and Šmahel, 2011). First, the advancement of the social technologies has supported student’s construction of the understanding and improved the interaction. Then, the additional benefit of the social technologies provided on the internet is frequently free and require marginal investment, which eliminates a potential barrier of the adaptation. 

But to what extent do universities make connection with their students through social media practices. Some educators point towards an ever-growing digital disconnect between students and their education institutions. Here it is argued that even the well-intentioned universities are able only to offer their students an artificially regulated and constrained engagement with social media. Thus, alongside other institutions such as schools, libraries and museums, universities are seen to face distrust and a growing loss of faith amongst younger generations (Downes, 2010). On the other hand, research has also highlighted the potential of social media for fostering positive outcomes, such as providing social support and enhancing well-being through online communities (Naslund et al., 2021). For example, social media platforms can offer spaces for individuals to share mental health experiences and engage in advocacy, which can reduce stigma and promote empowerment (Berryman et al., 2018). Thus, while social media can have detrimental effects on mental health, its role is complex and multifaceted, depending on both the nature of use and individual factors.

We often read that social media and virtual communities, in particular help students be interconnected, interdependent and more engaged with their peers. And as Annetta et al. (2009) states, students who participate in virtual communities as part of their class feel more connected to their classmates. The connections that students make with classmates through social media can impact the learning environment that is created. Participation in such communities creates a more collaborative and communicative learning setting for students as it enables them to have discussions and interactions with their peers (Heafner & Friedman, 2008). Back in 1999, Kahn (1999) mentioned that the growth of the Internet gives a chance to continuously create new content, interactive type of learning, and sustain collaborative environments. While positive social feedback can enhance self-esteem and foster a sense of belonging, excessive engagement with social media can exacerbate identity-related stress, especially when users compare themselves to others or feel compelled to conform to societal expectations (Fardouly et al., 2015). As a result, the users themselves start creating more and more of this content and knowledge. Accordingly, do we think that learner identity can change in different settings based on societal and even academic expectations? 

Ellison (2013) states that identity is a construct that tells the way we think about ourselves and our role in larger social environments. Also, it is passed through social interactions with others and our relationships with them. In online settings such as social network sites, virtual communities, chat rooms or discussion groups, identity processes are complicated because many identity cues (such as gender or age) are masked and can be purposefully shared, hidden, withheld, or misrepresented (Sunden, 2003). According to the author, these affordances enable the users to be selective in terms of self-presentation when presenting identity, ‘enact multiple identities in online settings simultaneously’ (p.2). When talking about students’ personal identity in online versus offline spaces, Walther and Parks (2002) describe the way in which some kinds of online cues signal a link between one’s online and offline self. According to the authors, students tend to have different identities in social media as compared to the classroom setting. This is an interesting process to observe and there might be many underlying processes which make the students have different identities. This underlying process, according to Boyd (2010) - is called context collapse. It describes the possible processes associated with student’s online self-presentation and identity management (Boyd, 2010; Marwick & Boyd, 2011). Context collapse is the process through which students manage their identities in online and offline settings accordingly. 

This further explains the idea that it's not the audience that is important, but rather the context within that audience. So, it's not who learners share it with but who they share as. Can we assume that social media and digital reality are still very much separate contexts from our offline social reality and education? And if so - do we need to bring those worlds closer together? 

References

• Annetta, Leonard & Minogue, James & Holmes, Shawn & Cheng, Meng-Tzu. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education. 53. 74-85.
• Berryman, C., Ferguson, C. J., & Negy, C. (2018). Social media use and mental health among young adults. Psychiatry Research, 269, 128-134.
• Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In A networked self (pp. 47-66). Routledge.
• Christakis, N. and Fowler, J. Connected. New York, Little Brown, 2009.
• Downes, S. ‘Deinstitutionalizing education’, in Huffington Post, 2 November 2010. Available at www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/deinstitutionalizing-educ_b_777132.html.
• Ellison, N. B. & Boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In W. H Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 151-172). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199589074.013.0008.
• Fardouly, J., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2017). Social comparisons and social media: The impact of Facebook on young women's body image concerns and self-esteem. New Media & Society, 19(4), 514-531.
• Halpin, H. and Tuffield, M. Social Web XG Wiki. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 2010.
• Heafner, T. L., & Friedman, A. M. (2008). Wikis and constructivism in secondary social studies: Fostering a deeper understanding. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4), 288-302.
• Kahn, E. (1999). A critique of non-directivity in the person-centred approach. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39(4), 94–110. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167899394006
• Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133.
• Mok, M., 2024. The impact of social media on teaching and learning: Transforming education in the digital age. Advance HE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/impact-social-media-teaching-and-learning-transforming-education-digital-age
• Naslund, J. A., Aschbrenner, K. A., Scherer, E. A., & Bartels, S. J. (2021). Feasibility of a Facebook-based mental health intervention for college students. Journal of American College Health, 69(3), 316-323.
• Papacharissi, Z. A networked self. London, Routledge, 2010.
• Selwyn, N. (2011) Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. Continuum International Publishing Group, London.
• Shirky, Clay. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations.
• Subrahmanyam, K. and Šmahel, D. Digital youth. Berlin, Springer, 2011.
• Sundén, J. (2003) Material Virtualities: Approaching Online Textual Embodiment. Peter Lang, New York.
• Walther, J. B.  and Parks, M. R. (2002). “Cues Filtered Out, Cues Filtered in: Computer Mediated Communication and Relationships,” In: G. R. Miller, Ed., The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Thousand Oaks.