Horizon Research Conference 2013 - Chris James Carter Presentation
•
1 like•376 views
Presentation by Chris James Carter at the Horizon Digital Economy Research Conference, 11th June 2013. Chris outlined the progress he had made in his PhD to date, with a particular focus on the development of a new scale (the Concern for Professional Image through Social Media Interaction: CPI-SMI) and his recent study exploring whether proximity to the professional career transition influenced the extent to which students considered their professional image when using social media.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Horizon Research Conference 2013 - Chris James Carter Presentation
Similar to Horizon Research Conference 2013 - Chris James Carter Presentation (20)
More from Dr. Chris James Carter
More from Dr. Chris James Carter (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Horizon Research Conference 2013 - Chris James Carter Presentation
- 1. Social MediSocial Medi Understanding the Promotion and Protection of Digital Personhood
- 2. Digital Personhood Valuable selves Personal branding; Commodification Multi-faceted selves Multiple identities; blurred boundaries Temporally extended selves Digital footprint; Remembering/forgetting MeMe TMTM
- 4. 39% = monitor the social media activity of their employees (on company-owned computers/mobile devices) 33% = disciplined employees for violating social media policy (n = 441; Society for Human Resource Management, 2011) 84% = use personal data for making recruitment decisions 85% = positive online reputation influenced hiring decisions 70% = rejected candidates based on negative information (n = 275; Microsoft/Cross-tab Market Research, 2010) Employers say:
- 5. BSc friends School friendsMSc friends PhD friends Family Former colleagues Current peers/clients
- 6. Q1. How can we define ‘professionally appropriate’ interaction with social media?
- 7. Defining professionally ‘appropriate’ interaction •25 organisational social media guidelines/policies •14 semi-structured interviews with employees using social media to support their professional activity Self-promotesConsiderspermanencyof actions Considers visibility of actions Considersfutureconsequences ofactions Considers im pact of actions on others Controls emotional expression Considers influence ofpast actions
- 8. Q1. How can we define ‘professionally appropriate’ interaction with social media? Q2. How can we measure the extent to which people consider professional image when interacting with social media?
- 9. Scale Development: Concern for Professional Image on Facebook &Twitter F1: Consideration of Professional Consequences ‘I take time before posting to consider how a potential employer might judge my actions’ F2: Self-Regulatory Control ‘I post first and then deal with any consequences later’ (reversed) F3: Prevention of Threats to Image ‘I avoid posting in a way that might cause others to think of me as a negative person’ F4: Professional Self-Promotion e.g. ‘I post about things that I’m working on so that others might judge me to be a hard-worker’ Sample n = 235 full-time students Scale (1) Never behave this way (5) Always behave this way Item reduction 25 items 22 items Reliability Good - α = .75 .84
- 10. Q1. How can we define ‘professionally appropriate’ interaction with social media? Q2. How can we measure the extent to which people consider professional image when interacting with social media? Q3. Do people closer to making the work transition report greater consideration for professional image when interacting with social media compared to those further from it?
- 11. Age Controlling for impulsivity and conscientiousness, age was a significant predictor of F1 (r = .22***); overall model: R2 = .07; n = 217.
- 12. Individual Differences: Personality Impulsivity was a significant predictor of F2 (r = -.33***); overall model: R2 = .29; n = 202. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of F3 (r = . 15*); overall model: R2 = .14; n = 205. Ability to modify self-presentation and Neuroticism were significant predictors of F4 (r = .13*; .19**); overall model: R2 = .05; n = 227.
- 13. Stage of study 2.18 3.02 2.29 Controlling for covariates, there was no sig. main effect of stage of study F(3, 144) = .49, p = .69, n.s., partial η² = .01, n = 150 Controlling for covariates, sig. main effect of stage of study F(3, 141) = 3.84, p < .05, partial η² = .08 with sig. differences between middle year UGs and first year UGs (p < .01), n = 146 3.73 4.05 F1: Consideration of Professional Consequences F2: Self-Regulatory Control
- 14. Stage of study Controlling for covariates, there was a sig. main effect of stage of study F(3, 141) = 4.07, p < .01., partial η² = .08, with a sig. difference between final year UGs and college students, p < .01), n = 147 Controlling for covariates, there was no sig. main effect of stage of study F(3, 142) = 1.29, p = .28, n.s., partial η² = .03, n = 149 2.28 2.80 2.88 2.88 3.18 F3: Prevention of Threats to Image F4: Professional Self- Promotion
- 15. Stage of study There was no sig. main effect of stage of study F(3, 147) = 2.51, p = .06, n.s., partial η² = .05 .57 1.09 1.27 2.31 There was no sig. main effect of stage of study F(3, 124) = 1.72, p = .17, n.s., partial η² = .04 Regulation Strategies on Twitter Regulation Strategies on Facebook
- 16. Tentative evidence that final year students report more frequent engagement in professional self-promotion behaviours upon social media… … and consideration of the professional consequences of one’s interactions appears to peak prior to the final year of study … … but no group differences in mean scores for Self-Regulatory Control (F2) and Prevention of Threats to Image (F3) Summary
- 17. Q1. How can we define ‘professionally appropriate’ interaction with social media? Q2. How can we measure the extent to which people consider their professional image when interacting with social media? Q3. Do people closer to making the work transition report greater consideration for professional image when interacting with social media compared to those further from it? Q4. How might a system be designed to help people reduce risk to professional image when interacting with social media?
- 18. How useful are current systems in identifying potential risks to reputation? If limited, what might a better alternative look like?
Editor's Notes
- Identity is broad and complex subject; many definitions & perspectives The aspects presented on this slide are what I believe are important components of digital personhood and are important to the study of reputation and professional image
- Paris Brown – Youth Crime Commissioner – illustrates a number of the aforementioned aspects: Valuable selves: Economic impact from resigning; Multi-faceted selves: Group co-presence of social friends (17 yr olds) with professionals and wider public Temporally extended selves: PB’s actions as a 14 yr old had an impact as a 17 yr old If the media coverage of the case indicates anything to us about digital personhood and social media, it might be distilled in to two points:
- Evidence of the importance of professional context in how we use social media: Box 1: HR professionals and recruiters report using social media to search for applicants and as affirmation of both positive and negative attributes Box 2: Regulation of social media is important whilst employed also – use can influence employment status
- Not just an issue for people with publicly accessible profiles either - potential for people of professional importance WITHIN our networks As we known, networks can be complex – here is where we see issues of COLLAPSED CONTEXTS as discussed by the likes of Danah Boyd.
- So, an overarching question appears to be: how do people manage the risk to their professional reputation when interacting with social media? My PhD thus far has broken these down into sub-questions – the first of which is about defining professional appropriateness. Using the Paris Brown case as an illustration again, an interesting element of the media reaction seemed to centre around a sense of ‘appropriateness’ – but what does this look like? What are the rules of engagement? It could be argued that it is only through defining what these are that we are really able to assess how risky a person’s use may be.
- For symbolic interactionist like Erving Goffman: norms are embodied within a social setting that guide and constrain behaviour; they are scripts for behaviour in front of particular audiences I explored what these look like through analysing both social media guidelines and policies of large corporations AND interviews with employees within Higher Education who used social media as part of their professional work Helped to build a picture of what ‘appropriate’ professional interaction looks like; from PROTECTIVE actions of considering consequences of actions to more PROMOTIONAL aspects of demonstrating social influence and professional competency
- So this raises a question of why some people appear to be more attuned to professional ‘appropriateness’ when interacting with social media What factors might play a role? Elements of the user’s personality? What about the situation, for instance, how close a person is to making the transition from studenthood to professional employment? I aimed to explore these in following study
- However, first I developed a scale that included interactional behaviours that people in my previous study had indicated using to promote and protect their professional image on social media The scale measured the self-reported frequency with which people typically engaged in these behaviours Following exploratory factor analysis, a scale of 22 items was formed that could grouped into four factors or subscales (briefly describe each subscale) A survey of current students was conducted whereby I wanted to explore the respective roles of individual differences in personality and stage of study on the extent to which students consider their professional image when using social media
- So this raises a question of why some people appear to be more attuned to professional ‘appropriateness’ when interacting with social media What factors might play a role? Elements of the user’s personality? What about the situation, for instance, how close a person is to making the transition from studenthood to professional employment? I aimed to explore these in following study
- Predicted that as age increased in respondents, so too would scores on each of the four scale factors – experience (a case of older = wiser?)? Actually when taking account of other covariates of the four scale factors, age was only a significant predictor of F1 (Consideration of Professional Consequences) – and even for this, the amount of variance it explained was very small (see graph on left) The graph on the right illustrates how despite being expected to be so, age was not a significant predictor of F2 (self-regulatory control) and as it happens, wasn’t for F3 or F4 either. Worth noting how assumptions of homoscedasticity appear to be violated for this variable, meaning that it is likely to be difficult to generalise the finding beyond these models.
- Predicted that as impulsiveness of respondents increased, so too would the scores they produced on F1, F2 and F3 (particularly F2) Actually when taking account of other covariates of the four scale factors, impulsivity was only a significant predictor of F2 (self-regulatory control) – and even for this, the amount of variance it explained was relatively small (see graph on left) The graphs on the right illustrates how despite being expected to be so, impulsivity was not a significant predictor of F1 or F3 (and F4 too).
- Next steps
- Systems currently exist that attempt to help social media users to monitor the professional consequences of their actions, but how useful are they? Contextual sensitivity Only useful for evaluating existing actions – by which time is it potentially too late?