Class Research Project Final

Surname: COLLINS First Name: ALEXANDRA
Student Number: Z3419707 Email: z3419707@student.unsw.edu.au
Course Number: SLSP2001 Course Title: APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH 1
Name of Tutor: GEOFFREY BROWN Tutorial: WEDNESDAY 9AM MB LG49
Assessment Question: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REPORT
Assessment Due Date: FRIDAY 7TH JUNE Word Count: 2710 (EXCLUDING REFERENCES)
Student Declaration:
In preparing this assessment task I have followed the Student Code of Conduct.
I certify that I have read and understand the University requirements in respect of student academic misconduct
outlined in the Student Code of Conduct and Annexure 1 of the Student Misconduct Procedures.
I declare that this assessment item is my own work, except where acknowledged, and has not been submitted for
academic credit previously in whole or in part.
I acknowledge that the assessor of this item may, for assessment purposes:
• Provide a copy to another staff member of the University.
• Communicate a copy of this assessment item to a plagiarism checking service (such as Turnitin) which may then
retain a copy of the assessment item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking.
I have retained a copy of this, my assignment, which I can provide if necessary. By signing this declaration I am agreeing
to the statements and conditions above.
Student Signature: Date of Submission: 7 JUNE 2013
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For school use only
Name of Marker:
Date Stamped:

of 17
“I DON’T REALLY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE PRIVACY AS THEIR
MAIN CONCERN”: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS FACEBOOK
PRIVACY PERCEPTIONS.
ALEXANDRA COLLINS – Z3419707
SLSP2001 – APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH 1 – 2013

of 17
CONTENTS
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................4
Literature Review:......................................................................................................................5
Methodology:.............................................................................................................................6
Results:.......................................................................................................................................8
Passive versus active users’:................................................................................................8
Private settings versus personal privacy behaviours:.......................................................8
Digital Literacy:..................................................................................................................10
Discussion:...............................................................................................................................11
Conclusion: ..............................................................................................................................14
Reference List:.........................................................................................................................15

of 17
INTRODUCTION:
As interaction with Facebook rapidly increases (see Wilson et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2011),
concerns such as the relationship of online disclosure and privacy arise. These concerns
demonstrably connect to present literature (see Mohamed & Ahmad, 2012), privacy affected
by online education and usability, previous experience, and personal privacy perceptions
which are presented as thematic concerns in this research. Shifting from often polarised
quantitative studies (see Nosko et al. 2010), this research addresses the minimal qualitative
approaches in this field. Addressing disjuncture in existing scholarship, qualitative semi-
structured interviews create rich and informed participant interaction, thus enabling
assessment of the dichotomy between privacy and social media. By exploring the
undergraduate experience of UNSW students, the following research question will be
addressed ‘How do undergraduate students’ perceptions of privacy inform the publication of
personal information on Facebook?’

of 17
LITERATURE REVIEW:
The nexus between online media and privacy examines several prominent themes emerging
in the following literature. To be cognisant of privacy’s necessity, the foremost concern is
exactly which information Facebook can publicise (see Nosko, et al. 2010; Kim et al. 2010).
Whilst Acquisti & Gross (2006) identify privacy concerns vary among members, empirical
evidence lacks regarding perception-disclosure relationships, which this study addresses.
While members may not be concerned about privacy settings, personal privacy practices may
manifest online through regulated disclosure. Such disclosure often links to risk-taking,
perceived vulnerability and digital literacy (see Stutzman et al. 2011; Fogel & Nehmad, 2009;
Wilson et al. 2012). Knowledge is thus essential of potential ‘environmental’ threats’,
including “misuse of personal information by others, stolen identity and losing privacy”
(Mohamed & Ahmad, 2012, p.2372). It is thus necessary to explore privacy’s manifestation
personally or online and its impact upon risk-taking, noted as lesser when knowledge of
threats exist (see Mesch, 2012; Williams et al. 2011).
Emphasising online educations, culpability shifts from network to participant in cases of
privacy breaches through active control of online information (see Park, 2011). Dissimilarly
to this thesis, and confirmed by this research, control loss may be minimally unavoidable
through targeted advertisements passively encouraged by Facebook (see Kietzmann et al.
2011; Goldfarb & Tucker, 2011). Whilst relatively scarce literature surrounds this issue,
notable discussion suggests knowledge and experience of privacy issues is often fundamental
in controlling publication of personal information (see Bossler, et al 2011; Nosko et al. 2012).
Although insightful, studies lack empirical research on university students in conjunction
with methodological flaws in the wide use of surveys. Inability to control response rate
affects participant’s demographics and quantitative generalisability, as well as potential to
misinterpret written communication by both researcher and respondent (see Taddei &
Contena, 2013; Fogel & Nehmad, 2009; Stutzman et al. 2011). Polarised quantitative focus’,
they fail to address the ‘why’, such as why digital literacy and privacy perceptions may not
equate to private profiles as this research discusses. Notwithstanding, consensus acknowledge
privacy perceptions display greater need for vigilance and self-regulation (see Child et al.
2012; Taddei & Contena, 2013). Evaluating this literature, the methodological framework for
this research allows its concurrence in evaluating the research question, as the following
chapter demonstrates.

of 17
METHODOLOGY:
A qualitative methodological framework allowed inductive exploration of phenomena.
Beneficial through broadening the scope of existing quantified literature, it emphasises
participant perspective (see Bryman, 2012). Semi-structured interviews are thus ideal for the
following extensive reasons; improved response rate and comparability through ensuring all
questions answered, flexibility, minimal potential misinterpretation, longitudinal design,
exploration of motivations and attitudes, and ensures individual response uninfluenced as
potential in methods such as focus groups (see Bryman, 2012; Bailey, 1987; Smith, 1975;
Richardson et al. 1965; Barriball, 1994).
Pairing SLSP2001 students, semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed. The
nature of this method indicates no schedule restricts information, rather a guide discerned to
topic areas addressed. Obtaining participants, purposive sampling occurred twice for strategic
selection (see Bryman, 2012), initially using SLSP2001 students, and narrowing this focus to
a selected ten interviews. Conducted in a quiet setting, interviews were recorded to minimise
memory effects, allow future analysis, and assisting transcribing (see Bryman, 2012;
Heritage, 1984), although transcribing is time-consuming. Once transcribed, interviews were
imported into analytic software; nvivo10, allowing hierarchical coding and thematic analysis
(see Ryan & Bernard, 2003). This enabled categorisation of data and a clearer development
of key themes for results and discussion. Although the most effective methodology, the
interviews would have benefited from pre-testing to refine questions. Further concerns link to
the interviewers, namely the varying skill level and potential biases introduced by a multitude
of interviewers and issues of potential interviewer-participant relationships.
To maintain ethical integrity, several factors were considered. Diener and Crandall (1978)
identified four ethical requirements and applied in this research. Eliminating harm,
confidentiality maintained anonymity of participants; and a consent form outlining research
aims ensured no privacy invasion or deception. In accordance with university research
guidelines (see UNSW, 2009) an agreed consent form allowed the interviews and recording
and further an opt-out function if the participant wanted to discontinue the interview or not
have information published.

of 17
Engaging in reflexivity, several implications of the research methodology are established.
Where time constraints made carrying out more formal means of semi-structured interviews
impractical, in retrospect conduct would be altered. More appropriate means of recording
would be acquired, though sufficient for this task. Dealing with my interview, Kvale’s (1996)
interview suggestions could have been greater utilised to eliminate the prospect of leading the
interview through asking probing questions (see Bryman, 2012). Whilst these implications
exist, however, significant results obtained contribute to literature as demonstrated in the
following chapter.

of 17
RESULTS:
Several salient themes emerged from the research:
PASSIVE VERSUS ACTIVE USERS ’:
Facebook is a demonstrably important communicative tool for undergraduate students,
whether self-identified as active or passive. This aspect is highlighted by Participant 4,
stating:
It’s a platform for me to share important information about events in my life
with friends. It is also an easily accessible tool to promote events that my
friends and I do.
Overall, majority of participants use Facebook to communicate with friends and family,
through accessibility of the medium. Participant 10, however, identified as a passive user:
I don’t make statuses at all. I don’t comment. I think I upload photos very
rarely. Sometimes I might comment on other people’s photos but um, I suppose
in that sense I am a passive user, I don’t really do a lot
PRIVATE SETTINGS VERS US PERSONAL PRIVACY BEHAVIOURS:
A common theme emerging, minus two participants are private Facebook profiles,
questionable in Participant 1’s case, stating “I’m pretty sure it’s private”.
Participant 4, however, was more discerning:
It’s private, as private as possible.
I want to control who sees what I do. There are some people out there I don’t
want knowing where I am, or what I am up to.
Those not actively utilising Facebook settings, behaviours online presented as self-regulating
to monitor privacy via personal means, such as Participant 6:

of 17
I’m pretty sure it’s Public...and it wasn't really a conscious decision I just
haven’t changed the settings...I don't see it as a risk to have it Public because I
keep in mind what information I disclose. It also makes it easier for people to
find you as well.
Interestingly, participants were asked how settings would change if Facebook modified those
available. Where settings weren’t utilised participants stated they wouldn’t alter their activity,
Participant 5 noting:
They wouldn’t really change as I said before my privacy is really open, yeah It
wouldn’t change it would be the same.
Alternatively, those with private profiles mostly agreed it would depend upon changes
introduced. A common theme emerging is if settings were to be non-existent or information
more accessible, behaviour would be greater monitored or reduced, such as Participant 2:
So because I block my family from seeing what status I post I probably would
make sure I didn’t say anything inappropriate in them in there was no privacy
controls. I would also post less photos and reduce the amount of personal
information...
Though settings can be adjusted, it doesn’t necessarily extend to advertisements. While it
wasn’t a concern or mere inconvenience for most, some, like Participant 10 identified
concerns of vulnerability, reasoning:
I figure if I wouldn’t tell them then why should they have access to it, and I
really hate the tailoring of ads on Facebook and you know, in my email and
things like that.

of 17
DIGITAL LITERACY:
Personal experience largely dictates privacy perceptions, as found. One participant with a
private profile stated:
I’ve had some incidents in the past where people have posted really
um...unpleasant things on my wall and if it was a situation where I wasn’t able
to delete that information then I think that would be a contributing factor to me
not wanting to have Facebook.
Literary education has also allowed one participant to identify potential exposure to privacy
threats:
I read some of the articles that said that um, whatever, like, if you’re uploading
pictures on Facebook, technically speaking they’re not your property any more,
I mean, now that you’ve uploaded it, anyone can view it and even the Facebook
administration has legal rights over them
Functionality of settings largely presented as affecting control of maintaining private profiles.
Although navigation was identified as more manageable over time or assistance available,
some participant’s perceptions of privacy were hindered by feelings of minimal usability,
such as Participant 9:
I remember they were a bit confusing when I last looked. I know you can
change settings tailored for individual people so in that sense that if you can
tailor things to who you want to see what, that is probably user friendly. But
going about it, I think is hard.
Through the identification of these themes, many implications for social research are
highlighted, as the discussion section will elaborate.

of 17
DISCUSSION:
The increasing growth of Facebook (see Acquisti & Gross, 2006) is demonstrated through
extensive thematic analysis in this study (see also Wilson et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2011).
This is demonstrable through both active and passive users, where even the most self-
indicated passive participants logged on to Facebook once a week at minimum irrespective of
its minimal use.
Perceptions of privacy indicate majority of participants can feel vulnerable and thus privacy
ensures security and a greater scope for disclosing personal information (see Nosko et al.
2012). Wilson, Gosling and Graham (2012) suggest private communication occurs when
dealing with privacy-disclosure issues. This is contrary to insight developed in this study. It is
important to analyse privacy perceptions in terms of how they manifest in online behaviour.
Unlike research suggesting privacy concerns are linked to increased disclosures (see
Stutzman et al. 2011; Mesch, 2012) it is important to create a distinction between the use of
privacy settings and personal privacy behaviours. Through analysing public and private
profiles, this study concludes that perceptions of privacy as important exist largely for all
participants. Where private profiles are selected, a larger range of information can be
publicised through a trusted audience as afforded by stricter privacy settings. Self-regulation
presented as a means of privacy for those participants with public profiles, enabling
monitoring and awareness of activity; a focal point omitted from existing literature. A
minimal theme generated by this regarding advertising found a minority concerned with the
idea that privacy cannot be wholly implemented and has implications both for Facebook as a
company and social science research which can be explored in future (see Goldfarb &
Tucker, 2011; Kietzmann et al. 2011). While advertisement was not of great concern, those
with private profiles indicated concern about settings if they were to be altered and generated
less capacity for privacy. Such conclusions imply that perceptions of privacy and its
importance is a fundamental concept ingrained in social processes so much so that if non-
existent social phenomena would considerably minimise.
Dissimilarly, digital literacy research complements current scholarship, identifying the
influence of education and experience in dictating privacy perceptions (see Park, 2013; Fogel
& Nehmad, 2009; Bossler et al. 2012). This study contributes to literature through providing
qualitative focus regarding usability of privacy settings and knowledge of online threats and
their moderating publication behaviour as preventative measures. Indicating victimisation,

of 17
some participants showed how personal behaviour influences privacy perceptions and their
online formation.
Where Mohamed & Ahmad (2012) indicate key threats existing online, education is
significant through participant’s literary research and awareness. This knowledge provides
awareness of moderating Facebook settings where necessary, the usability described as
efficient or assistance accessible. Two fundamental categories are thus explored in this
research through thematic analysis, providing insight into the influence and social and
educative sphere upon privacy perceptions and by extensive online disclosure as identified by
the research aims. Privacy manifests itself in the rules we personally provide ourselves,
whether this be manifested in self-regulated privacy behaviours or through assistance gained
by Faceboook privacy settings. This research thus provides significant implications in
potential developments of enhanced social media privacy models.
While conducted in an ethical and authentic manner, three minor limitations present in this
study. Firstly, internal reliability could have been improved, which would have been
beneficial where multiple researchers were involved. In order to enhance this, future studies
would allow the process of exchanging information to ensure the same conclusions had been
drawn and the same meaning gathered through transcribing interviews all conducted by
different researchers.
To further enhance the study, credibility could have been improved through the process of
respondent validations to ensure corroboration of insights obtained. This would have been
particularly useful through the research’s semi-structured interview methodology where
validations could more greatly have ensured information was correct prior to reaching
transcribing stages of the research.
Lastly, triangulation techniques could also have been emphasised. Though multiple
observers, theories and data were used, the methodology could have been broadened to
include a range of qualitative data collection such as focus groups to improve insights
developed. Nevertheless, the study provides meaningful perspectives unhindered by these
limitations.
Acquisti & Gross (2006) identify that many Facebook participants are unaware of issues
surrounding privacy. This, however, may be an outdated concept as explored in this research.
Created in 2004, Facebook now has a multitude of users, the majority of students in the
sample identifying as having an online account. Raised in a vastly technological landscape,

of 17
students today are identified as digitally literate and profoundly aware of dangers existing
online, perhaps at a level that surpasses the same age group in the time Acquisti & Gross’s
(2006) studies were conducted. It would be interesting to conduct future qualitative studies to
explore how generationally these views may potentially alter. Mixed method studies could
also produce interesting results in creating a comparable basis through which to investigate
demographic links to the information obtained in this study. Further, studies could extend
beyond analysing Facebook, and investigate a qualitative understanding if and how privacy
settings would differ and alter publication of personal information on networks where you
can appear anonymous. While providing direction for future studies, this research is a
seminal contribution to existing literature.

of 17
CONCLUSION:
Exploring the publication of personal information on Facebook by undergraduate students,
the research aimed to develop thematic analysis surrounding perceptions of privacy. Through
the methodological framework of qualitative semi-structured interviews, these perceptions
were explored, and adding to an otherwise polarised quantitative focus in social research.
Engaging in any social media, in this instance Facebook, it is essential to be cognisant that
potentially millions of people could access your information. As such, undergraduate students
who were observed are noted as holding the perception that privacy is vastly important.
Whether manifesting in personal privacy behaviours such as self-regulation or through
utilising optional Facebook privacy settings, this perception is demonstrable throughout this
study. Linking heavily to education and providing insights into literary gaps, through digital
literacy, general awareness, or prior experience, perceptions of privacy are moderated in
accordance with deeper levels of understanding surrounding potential threats posed online.
As aforementioned, potential future research can largely be developed through the concurrent
insights of this study and existing literature. Both qualitative and quantitative studies can be
adopted in the future with the potential to elaborate upon demographic and multiple online
network studies, as well as providing a basis from which to explore generational accounts of
privacy awareness. Conclusively, while privacy settings used by undergraduate students may
not eliminate all potential hazards, it provides a necessary barrier that would be otherwise
non-existent; an important factor in mediating publication of personal information on
Facebook.

of 17
REFERENCE LIST:
Acquisti, A & Gross, R 2006, ‘Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and
Privacy on the Facebook’, Privacy Enhancing Technologies, pp. 1-16.
Bailey, K.D 1987, Methods of Social Research, 3rd edition, The Free Press, New York.
Barriball, L.K, 1994, ‘Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper’,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 19, pp. 328-335.
Bossler, A, Holt, T & May, D 2011, ‘Predicting Online Harassment Victimization Among a
Juvenile Population’, Youth Society, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 500-523.
Bryman, A, 2012, Social Research Methods, 4th edition, Oxford University Press Inc., New
York.
Child, J, Haridakis, P & Petronio, S 2012, ‘Blogging privacy rule orientations, privacy
management, and content deletion practices: The variability of online privacy management
activity at different stages of social media use’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 28, no.
5, pp. 1859-1872.
Diener, E & Crandall, R 1978, Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Fogel, J & Nehmad, E 2009, ‘Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and
privacy concerns’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 153-160.
Goldfarb, A & Tucker, C 2011, ‘Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising’, Management
Science, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 57-71.
Heritage, J 1984, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity, Cambridge.

of 17
Kietzmann, J, Hermkens, K, McCarthy, I & Silvestre, B 2011, ‘Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media’, Business Horizons, vol. 54,
no. 3, pp. 241-251.
Kim, J.H., Kim, M & Nam, Y 2010, ‘An Analysis of Self-Construals, Motivations, Facebook
Use, and User Satisfaction’, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 26,
no. 11-12, pp. 1077-1099.
Kvale, S 1996, InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mesch, G 2012, ‘Is online trust and trust in social institutions associated with online
disclosure of identifiable information online?’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 28, no.
4, pp. 1471-1477.
Mohamed, N & Hawa Ahmad, I 2012, ‘Information privacy concerns, antecedents and
privacy measure use in social networking sites: Evidence from Malaysia’, Computers in
Human Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 2366-2375.
Nosko, A, Wood, E & Molema, S 2010, ‘All about me: Disclosure in online social
networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 28, no.
3, pp. 406-418.
Nosko, A, Wood, E, Kenney, M, Archer, K, De Pasquale, D, Molema, S & Zivcakova, L
2012, ‘Examining priming and gender as a means to reduce risk in a social networking
context: Can stories change disclosure and privacy setting use when person profiles are
constructed?’, Computer in Human Behaviour, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2067-2074.
Park, Y.J 2011, ‘Digital Literacy and Privacy Behaviour Online’, Communication Research,
vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 215-236.

of 17
Richardson, S.A, Dohrenwend, B.S & Klein, D 1965, Interviewing, Basic Books, New York.
Ryan, G.W & Bernard H.R 2003, ‘Techniques to Identify Themes’, Field Methods, vol. 15,
pp. 85-109.
Smith, H.W 1975, Strategies for Social Research: methodological imagination, Prentice Hall
International, London.
Stutzman, F, Capra, R & Thompson, J 2011, ‘Factors mediating disclosure in social network
sites’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 590-598.
Taddei, S & Contena, B 2013, ‘Privacy, trust and control: Which relationship with online
self-disclosure?’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 821-826.
UNSW 2009, ‘Research Code of Conduct’, April, viewed 24 May 2013, <
http://www.gs.unsw.edu.au/policy/documents/researchcode.pdf>
Williams, J, Feild, C & James, K 2011, ‘The Effects of a Social Media Policy on Pharmacy
Students’ Facebook Security Settings’, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol.
75, no. 9, pp. 1-7.
Wilson, R, Gosling, S & Graham, L 2012, ‘A Review of Facebook Research in the Social
Sciences’, Perspectives on Psychological Literature, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 203-220.

Class Research Project Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Class Research Project Final

Similar to Class Research Project Final (20)

Class Research Project Final