Building on the authors' prior studies that investigate uses and perceptions of online social networks, this study critically explores the emerging social networking culture. In doing so, the research seeks to identify possible constructs that can be used to predict social networking behavior that may then be tested in a future study. The study relies on multiple user perspectives, drawing its participants from international students at two universities, one in Australia and one in the United States. Throughout this process, the utility of using the lens of national culture versus using other lenses is also examined. While the qualitative data suggests somewhat divergent approaches to social networking in different countries, a number of common themes were also identified. Two themes which appeared across national boundaries were changes in use over time and privacy and trust.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MeltonJ.MillerR., and SalmonaM., Online Social Networks: Student Perceptions and Behavior Across Four Countries, International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change, 3: 2, pp. 24–38, 2012.
2.
MillerR.ParsonsK., and LiferD., Students and Social Networking Sites: The Posting Paradox, Behaviour & Information Technology, 29: 4, pp. 377–382, 2010.
3.
GrayD. and ChristiansenL., An Urgent Call to Action: The Privacy Dangers Adolescents Face Through Use of Facebook, Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 6: 2, pp. 17–32, 2010.
4.
LederachJ. P., Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, 1995.
5.
UseemJ.UseemR., and DonoghueJ., Men in the Middle of the Third Culture: The Roles of American and Non-Western People in Cross-Cultural Administration, Human Organization, 22: 3, pp. 169–179, 1963.
6.
Spencer-OateyH., Sociolinguistics and Intercultural Communication, in Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, AmmonU. (eds.), Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, 2006.
7.
HofstedeG., Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw Hill, New York, 1996.
8.
CharmazK., Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, DenzinN. K. and LincolnY. S. (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 509–535, 2000.
9.
WikstromE. and DellveL., Contemporary Leadership in Healthcare Organizations: Fragmented or Concurrent Leadership, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23: 4, p. 411, 2009.
10.
DenzinN. K., Grounded and Indigenous Theories and the Politics of Pragmatism, Sociological Inquiry, 80: 2, pp. 286–312, 2010.
11.
HutchisonA.JohnstonL. H., and BreckonJ. D., Using QSR-NVivo to Facilitate the Development of a Grounded Theory Project: An Account of a Worked Example. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13: 4, pp. 283–302, 2010.
12.
CorbinJ. and StraussA., Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage, London, United Kingdom, 2008.
13.
CharmazK., Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, Sage, London, United Kingdom, 2006.
14.
PattonM., Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 2002.
15.
AnfaraV. A.Jr.BrownK. M., and MangioneT. L., Qualitative Analysis on Stage: Making the Research Process More Public, Educational Researcher, 31: 7, pp. 28–38, 2002.
16.
SchwandtT. A., Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage, 2001.
17.
BarabS. and SquireK., Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground, The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13: 1, pp. 1–14, 2004.
18.
KaczynskiD.JacksonK., and RichardsL., Doing and Teaching Qualitative Research with Qualitative Data Analysis Software, and Research Paper Presentation; Applied Ethnography: The Uses and Effects of QDAS Upon Theory and Methods, American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California, 2004.
19.
ThatcherB., Web Site Analysis Across Cultures: An Inquiry into Intercultural Values and Web Site Design, Linguistic and Cultural Online Communication Issues in the Global Age, St. AmantK. (ed.), IGI Global, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 2007.
20.
LincolnY. S. and GubaE. G., Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, California, 1985.
21.
DenzinN. K. and LincolnY. S., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 2005.
22.
KaczynskiD.MillerE., and KellyM. A., Ensuring Quality and Rigor: A Few Lessons Learned from a National Evaluation Study, in Handling Qualitative Data, in companion website to RichardsL. (ed.), Sage, London, England, 2009.
23.
JohnsonR. and WaterfieldJ., Making Words Count: The Value of Qualitative Research, Physiotherapy Research International, 9: 3, pp. 121–131, 2004.
24.
StringerE., Action Research in Education, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2004.
25.
AndersonG. L. and HerrK., The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for Rigorous Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities?Educational Researcher, 28: 5, pp. 12–21, 1999.
26.
MilesM. B. and HubermanA. M., Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 1994.
27.
StraussA. and CorbinJ., Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 1998.
28.
RichardsL., Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.), Sage, London, United Kingdom, 2009.
29.
GibbsG., Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVivo, Open University Press, London, 2002.
30.
GlaserB. and StraussA., The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, Illinois, 1967.
31.
ThatcherB., Understanding Digital Literacy across Cultures, in Anthology of Digital Literacy for Technical Communication: 21st Century Theory and Practice, SpilkaR. (ed.), Routledge Press, London, 2010.
32.
ThatcherB., Intercultural Rhetoric, Technology, and Writing in Mexican Maquilas, Technical Communication Quarterly: Special TechnologyTransfer Edition, 15: 3, pp. 383–405, 2006.
33.
Hampden-TurnerC. and TrompenaarsA., Building Cross-Cultural Competence, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000.
34.
ThatcherB., Reading and Writing New Media across Cultures: Issues of Fit, Reciprocity, and Cultural Change, in Reading and Writing New Media, KalmbachJ. and BallC. (eds.), Hampton Press Series New Dimensions in Computers and Composition, 2010.
35.
ConnorU., Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1996.
36.
DanetB. and HerringS., Introduction: Welcome to the Multilingual Internet, in The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture and Communication, DanetB. and HerringS. (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.
37.
HarootunianG., Commentary: Dancing the Kochari: Challenging the U.S. Perspective on Communication in Newly Democratic Cultures, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21: 1, pp. 91–105, 2007.
38.
MeltonJ., Lost in Translation: Professional Communication Competencies in Global Training Contexts, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51: 2, June 2008.
39.
MeltonJ., Going Global: A Case Study of Rhetorical Invention, Packaging, Delivery, and Collecting Feedback, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52: 3, September 2009.
40.
MeltonJ.Organizational Training in Japan: A Case Study of the Social Spaces of Localization, Technical Communication, 58: 1, February 2011.
41.
MeltonJ. and HicksN., Integrating Social and Traditional Media in the Client Project, Business Communication Quarterly, 74: 4, December 2011.
42.
MeltonJ.MillerR., and SalmonaM., Online Social Networks: Student Perceptions and Behavior across Four Countries, International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change, 3: 2, April 2012.
43.
MillerR.ParsonsK., and LiferD., Student and Social Networking Sites: The Posting Paradox, Behaviour and Information Technology, 29: 4, July-August 2010.
