Professional Personae - How
Organizational Identification Shapes Online Identity in the Workplace
Christian Fieseler, Miriam Meckel,
Giulia Ranzini (2014, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication)
In the article I have choosen for this
week's theme the authors explore the connection between the perceived
level of identification with the organisation where the subject works
and overlap of personal and professional personae online in social
media.
The data collected for this study
consisted of an online survey that was sent to 17 000 individuals
registered in a database supposed to consist of communication and
marketing managers in Europe. Out of these 17 000 invitations, they
managed to get 679 usable fully filled questionnaires to work with.
The demographic consisted of 369 females and 310 males, with a mean
age of roughly 41,5 years with a standard deviation of 9 years. The
questions were all ranked on a 5 point Likert scale and analyzed on
the group as a whole, but also in groups based on gender, age,
position and wether or not the individual have a high or low concern
about privacy in social media.
The authors state that one of the aims
of the study is to explore possible connections that future studies
can build on, and I believe the method used is a good one to create a
foundation for more specific theories and hypotheses in the future.
However, I do see a problem in the fact that all questions are based
on the perception of the subjects. While I don't doubt that the
questions were answered in a way the subject perceived as true, I see
a risk in not trying including some question(s) designed to
standardize the subjects view on the phenomena. However, the authors
do state their research is exploratory and to be used as a foundation
for future qualitative studies, which is why I believe the method is
sound.
What I especially like about the study
is that the authors are aware and do mention the limitations of their
study. An example is that they mention what I tried to describe for
the previous theme the possibility of self-selection bias in the
sample, since they chose a group that often use social media as part
of their job. Their analysis is however very interesting, especially
the comparison between the different groups mentioned earlier, which
can be used to perform studies on a more varied sample on specific
findings in both a quantitative or qualitative way.
Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality:
The Body Shapes the Way We Play
Konstantina Kilteni, Ilias Bergstrom,
and Mel Slater
I found this paper to be really
interesting! Getting empirical data that points to the fact that our
perceived identity can alter our ability to perform in a positive way
if said identity is believed to mesh better with the context than our
own. Maybe a better way to describe it would be that it's easier to
use our innate abilities to their full potential if we don't feel out
of place in the context. I can relate to this myself, and I know of
several situations where I felt uncomfortable due to being over/under
dressed or too old/young in a crowd and unconciously limited myself
while interacting with other people.
It would however have been interesting
to look expand the study to 4 groups: Casual/Formal Dark skinned and
Casual/Formal Light skinned to further explore if the results can be
explained with perceived cultural belonging or if dress code also
play a significant role. However after discussing with Ilias the aim
of the study was to create as large of a contrast as possible to see
if differences exist. I hope someone continue the research and build
on the theory.
What are the benefits and limitations
of using quantitative/qualitative methods?
I would say the main benefit of using a
quantitative method is to be able to test hypotheses on a large
sample to test the scope of a theory and to find differences between
groups within the sample that might hold significance for further
studies. Assuming the subject to his or her best ability answer the
questionnaire truthfully, there could be a comfort in the anonymity
of a survey.
On the other side of the spectrum we
have the qualitative methods. These are likely to be prefered when
trying to explain why we get the result of a quantitative study. The
benefit here is that you get to ask the follow up questions and maybe
explain a result of a quantitative study that could have multiple
explanations. Qualitative methods are however time consuming and
require the researcher(s) to spend time with each subject. The risk
here is that the chosen sample does not properly represent the
userbase or population as a whole, but with good empirical data from
the quantitative studies criterias for the sample should be good
enough to lower this risk.
Both types of methods have their own
merit, and I think both are nessecary in the process of creating and
evolving theories, either in different phases of a study or between
them.
I found relevant your point about self-selection bias. I have the same reflection about survey answered directly by participants and the question that come out after: how can we know if they told the truth? It is interesting to notice that the authors are aware of this problem but count even though on this method to collect data and explore possible connections. I have the impression that these methods can’t lead to efficient results in the sense that we are not sure at 100% of the correctness of the conclusions. Researchers base their research on previous ones, and count on the fact that others would follow, like a endless process. It’s a little bit disturbing for me, as if they could work ad infinitum without being sure to find something relevant and consistent. Yeh, of course, it’s the definition of research, but it’s still weird to work like this.
SvaraRaderaNonetheless, thank you for sharing!