Social media today can take some wisdom from past research into social networks. Mark Granovetter’s famous sociological study of how people hear about job opportunities found that “weak ties” to friends and acquaintances are actually more beneficial than “strong ties” to family and close friends. Social media marketers need to consider who has weak ties and strong ties before designing a social media strategy.

The Individual and The Network: Courtesy of Wikipedia

Weak ties are a product of social and psychological factors. Whether you’re designing an interaction, an experience, a marketing campaign or even an organizational itself, you should know what makes a “weak tie.” Weak ties are the source of precious information, like who’s hiring someone with your exact qualifications, where you can get the best deal on tires, or how good that new movie really is. Weak ties are the source of influence marketing, organizational innovation, and economic growth. In short, weak ties are the ties that matter.

What kind of person develops many weak ties? In his famous study, Granovetter did not measure certain psychological or sociological variables to determine if there was a systematic difference between those with weak ties and those with strong ties. But there are reasons to believe that there is such a systematic difference.

I come from a small town full of people with thick, strong ties have held that community together for generations. Originally a prosperous West Coast Salish Community, Sechelt continues to be archetypical of strong ties. There is economic development there, yet there is little innovation, dynamism or rapid change that occurs in cities.

I came to Toronto, where I knew exactly two people, both of whom were “weak ties” or friends I had known from school. Granovetter’s analysis would show that these were exactly the right kinds of people to help me find economic opportunities. And indeed, he was right; one friend graciously opened her home to me as I started my new job in this new city. 13 years later, I still live in this city (minus a two-year sojourn back home for my Master’s degree and to rack up even more weak ties), and here I am.

I now run this research company by developing and honing my weak ties. Weak ties have brought Copernicus new colleagues, new business, and new ideas. I have many weak ties throughout the city and the continent. What kind of person am I? What are the missing variables from Granovetter’s study?

• I am well educated, with four degrees and armloads of weak ties from each university experience. Did this help me develop a wide social network?
• I have cultural capital, having been trained which fork to use and when by my etiquette conscious mother. Did this help me develop a *quality* social network?
• I am an extrovert, who is comfortable meeting strangers and talking to acquaintances. Did this pre-ordain me to have many weak ties?
• I am a woman, who has been trained to consider social events part of my “gender job.” Does this encourage me to develop weak ties?
• I am white, and have been given white privileges like walking into office buildings, record shops, and convenience stores with nary a blink from a security guard. Has this helped me make new weak ties?

Sociologically speaking, weak ties are likely the result of a combination of social structures like race, gender, and social class. Psychologically speaking, weak ties are likely the result of constitutional personality traits, such as neuroticism or introversion/extroversion. Using both lenses, one can see that social capital is not built without a context; people are born into a personality, a body, and a social location which may — or may not — encourage the development of weak ties.

When you are designing a social media strategy, consider these social and psychological factors. Interaction designers would do well to gather insight around these variables specifically when doing design research, and incorporating them into their personas. Organization designers and HR consultants should consider that innovation does not happen simply because of “social media,” but because of specific social and psychological factors. And marketers should never believe that “if you build it, they will come.” Marketers should instead believe “if you build it, some of these specific types of people will come” to social media applications and campaigns.

Gladwell sparked quite the social media flare when he claimed recently that social media pundits greatly overestimate social media’s ability to effect social change. He compared the famous civil-rights era lunch-counter sit-ins to the revolutionary activity in contemporary Iran and found good, old-fashioned face-to-face relationships were a more effective mobilization tool than the new-fangled Twitter and Facebook.

Malcom Gladwell for The New Yorker

But Gladwell is wrong.

He makes the classic mistake of arguing that a particular technology may (or may not) lead to a particular result. In the real, messy, social world, X technology is not guaranteed to lead to Y results. Nor is X technology guaranteed NOT to lead to Y results. Gladwell commits the same sin as those of social media pundits he so blithely condemns. Namely, Gladwell is a technological determinist with a poor grasp of actual social interaction.

Sociologists, by contrast, recognize the social world is complex and full of exceptions. Their contribution to the phenomena of social change is far more nuanced than Gladwell suggets.

He correctly asserts that the lunch-counter sit-ins were both more effective and required more commitment from its participants. He cites Golnaz Esfandiari who shrewdly noted that Iranian tweets were written almost exclusively in English, not Farsi. The “Twitter revolution” was actually Westerners in Western places, scrolling through the tweets tagged “#iranelection.”

But he goes on to argue that activism in the Facebook Age ain’t what it used to be,

Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in American history, we seem to have forgotten what activism is.

Social media help us organize life but they don’t make change, he argues:

The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo.

Sociologists of technology have long ago found that technology has indeterminant results, which can only be understood by examining the social context in which the technology is introduced. Technology researchers Pinch and Bjiker called this “interpretive flexibility” which suggests that technologies are used differently in different social contexts.

Bicycle Mower

Pinch and Bijker  introduced this idea decades ago, yet Gladwell has no grasp on these decades of socio-technical analysis.

Instead, he uses a single social theory, specifically, Granovetter’s social network theory of “weak ties” versus “strong ties.” Gladwell argues that social change requires a great deal of “strong ties,” which existed in the south at the time of the civil rights movements.

Yet he does no comparison to other examples of social change, such as the ‘60s counter-culture in general, which cannot be demonstrably be traced to a disproportionate amount of strong ties. Instead, social scientists have attributed the mass youth uprisings of the ‘60s in North America and especially France to a high number of young people with “post bourgeois” values.

Gladwell also simplistically characterizes effective organization as necessarily “hierarchical.” But sociologists know that social institutions can either enable or constrain weak or strong ties. Sociologist Mario Luis Small, for example, has shown that how organizations connect people matters, and conceivably matters more than the technology they use. Small found that daycare centres in New York City encouraged the formation of new ties between parents when they had frequent, non-competitive and regular interactions, such as meeting to plan field trips or daycare holiday parties.

Researchers have also found recently that mobile technology use actually strengthens strong ties, depending on the context in which they are used.

The lunch-counter sit-ins succeeded because they had the requisite organizational structure already in place, not because these organizations were “hierarchical” as Gladwell argues. Hierarchies are not required to create social change, as much as Lenin’s “vanguard elite” might want us to believe it.

And these lunch-counter protesters did have technology that they used to incite more activism, notably, the telephone and the newsletters and newspapers. Gladwell skates over this fact in his zeal to condemn social media.

Maybe we should cut Gladwell some slack. He is, after all, a great synthesizer and a storyteller. He succeeds in popularizing ideas that have gained little attention outside academic circles. And granted, his New Yorker post was a brief post, not a treatise.

But fans of Gladwell take note: his ideas are usually not his. Worse, he often fails to apply them in the same thoughtful, nuanced ways their originators had intended.

UPDATE: Gladwell has incited a fair number of awesome ripostes including @leighh ’s very similar post and this awesome one from Anil Dash.

I was recently invited to speak at Ottawa’s Social Media Breakfast. The organizers, Simon Chen, Rob Lane and Ryan Anderson, asked me specifically to bring a sociologist’s understanding to social media. Below is my presentation. For the full version, with the notes, visit the full slideshare version.

My essential argument for the presentation was that we don’t have enough deep understanding of “the social” in social media. Social media gurus abound these days, but too few of them actually understand social theory. Sociologists have been thinking about and researching social interactions for over a century. Just because we are now using the Web doesn’t mean those essential insights are no longer valid. Quite, the contrary, I argue. Social theory is even more relevant today because it coheres and synthesizes design and marketing research. We need social theory to provide some weight, some shape to what we learn about social media use.

As an aside, I notice “social business” is an emerging buzz word. All business is social. Those who argue “social business” is new are missing the point; we have only just begun to realize social interaction is fundamental to business, in part because we have begun to engage in empathetic research projects such as ethnography. When you do quantitative surveys, for example, it’s incredibly easy to dismiss the real impact of your business policies on your customers or employees. But when you hang out with your employees and hear candid feedback about how you’ve organized your business processes, it’s impossible to ignore the social impact (Undercover Boss is a great example of this phenomenon). “Social business,” then, is the effect of “taking on the role of the other” in your employee or customer research. It is not new.

But back to social media. I offer two social theories: social capital (Bourdieu) and dramaturgical theory (Goffman) to explain how we interact both on and off-line. Social networks are a source of wealth, says Bourdieu. Social interaction is a well-crafted play, says Goffman. I apply these theories to well executed, and not-so-well executed social media experiences.

Bourdieu understood our social networks to be a source of wealth. It’s what helps the rich get richer, he argued. Rich people know other people who can help them make more money or to keep the money they have. Sociologist Mark Granovetter found that in fact, it is the “weak ties” we have with our acquaintances that gets us jobs, for example. “Strong ties” with friends and family may enrich us spiritually but provide us fewer job opportunities.

Goffman had another framework for understanding social interaction: the theatre. Goffman believed social actors play roles when they interact. We have scripts, a wardrobe, a set, make-up, and a cast (or “team” as he called it). Embarrassment happens when the script slips. Imagine you must be both a manager, a father, a school buddy, and a cousin all at the same time. Embarrassing! This is what online social networks do to us everyday: they force us to play multiple roles at the same time. Good social media allows “audience segregation,” which lets us select which role to play when.

In the Q&A afterward, I mentioned a few pieces of social research that would help people understand social theory. The first is

McMillan, S. and M. Morrison (2006). “Coming of Age With The Internet: A Qualitative Exploration of How The Internet Has Become An Integral Part of Young People’s Lives.” New Media and Society 8(1): 73-95.

The second that is a wealth of information about social networking and online life:

Wellman, B. and C. Haythornwait, Eds. (2002). The Internet in Everyday Life. New York, Blackwell.

And finally, the original sources:

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Handbook of Theory And Research for The Sociology of Education. J. G. Richardson. New York, Greenwood: 248.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York, Pantheon Books.

For those of you who caught my Ignite TO presentation, here are the slides. For those of you who missed it, below is a text summary that goes with the slides.

I’d like to give thanks to my teacher and friend, Dr. Karen Anderson, whose scholarly work underpins many of the ideas in this presentation.

Slide 1:

This presentation about is the self, that it is a social phenomenon not a biological one.�Most theories of the self don�t give us a social angle but only a biological one.�This has an impact for technology design.

Slide 2:The self is an uniquely human phenomenon.�It is the internal private reality of the consciousness.�It is not anatomical or physiological.�It is not a body.It is only meaningful in social situations.

Slide 3:�So we have this internal, private reality, this consciousness.�Biological paradigms to explain it are inadequate.�Bodies are the containers of selves, not the actual self.�Containers matter.�But they are not the only thing that matters.

Slide 4:�Victor, was a �feral child� found in France.�He would not wear clothes.�Or Use a bed.�He farted.�He did not have a social self, but a biological one.His body functioned; his self did not.

Slide 5:�HAL 9000 has a self.�He is socially competent.�Aware of his inner reality.�He imagined that Dave and Frank were plotting against him.�Victor had no inner reality but HAL did. �HAL understood the social.

Slide 6:�All too often we think of the self as a piece of hardware, or an emotion chip.�Unfortunately, most of our ideas about the self are really about our hardware.

Slide 7:�For example, Sigmund Freud.�Freud thought biological experiences created the self.�In the form of ego and the superego.�We learn about our anus and develop a self, but this doesn�t explain Victor or HAL�s development.

Slide 8:�Even psychologist Piaget put biology first.�Piaget�s theory of child development relies on sensory experiences.�Not social experiences.�For Piaget, learning starts with a bodily interaction, not social interaction.

Slide 9:�Yet socially successful human beings must master the meaning of symbols.�Symbols have fine nuances, depending on the context.�Hand gestures are anatomically similar but mean different things at different times, in different places.

Slide 10:�Social interaction is built upon symbols, not biological impulses.�We are aware of our internal realities by interpreting social symbols.�The degree of force in a gesture matters. Who gives it matters.

Slide 11:�We interpret symbols, not react to them.�We are not Pavlovian dogs who salivate at the sound of a bell.�We are not somatically driven beings, but socially driven beings.�Our bodies have influence over us but they are not the self.

Slide 12:�George Herbert Mead offers us a theory of a social self.�The �I� is what Victor has: a purely instinctual consciousness.�The �me� is created through social interaction.��I should sit on a chair; it�s more socially appropriate.�

Slide 13:�The �generalized other� is when we realize there is a whole world out there.�That we then internalize into our own private reality.�We begin to imagine what �others� might say about our actions.�Our self imagines what other selves think of it.

Slide 14:�Often we design technology to be USABLE, not to be SOCIAL. We don�t enable social selves to use technology without an awkwardness, or embarrassment.

Slide 15: �Google Street View.�This technology has created a few embarrassing moments.�Google�s face blurring does not solve our embarrassment of interpreting this image.�Street View is functional, not social.

Slide 16:�Facebook continually fails to sense what selves need.�This self posted a picture of himself smoking.�Unfortunately, his mom recognized the room.�This is embarrassing.

Slide 17:�If we design for selves, not bodies, we think of everyone�s internal private realities.�Bodies need ergonomics, usability, accessibility.�Selves need to be shielded from embarrassment, awkward situations, and social breaches.

Slide 18:�Technology designed for bodies is like an awkward dinner party.�The technology we design should provide a consistent, social lubricant.�We must design technology like we design great parties.�Where the right people sit in the right seats.

Slide 19:�Socially meaningful symbols must be present.�This can be discovered through contextual inquiry,�Selves also require the ability to control their presentation to others.�And finally, the social �place� of technology must be clearly demarcated.

Slide 20:�In the end, we design our world for selves.�Technology designed for bodies just gets in the way.�If technology is designed for bodies, selves change to meet the needs of technology.

I would prefer that have technology adapt to selves.

Thank you

My article on understanding organizational culture is now up on the interaction design site, Johnny Holland. The post provides an overview of key factors in organizational culture and how these factors affect an organization’s culture. It’s specifically intended to help designers understand their clients’ business culture and to avoid the all-too-common trap of “missing the social” in a design project.

It’s happened to all of us. We walk into what we think is a Web redesign project, only to find we have unwittingly ignited the fires of WW III in our client’s organization. What begins as a simple design project descends – quickly – into an intra-organizational battle, with the unprepared interaction designer caught in the crossfire.

Read the whole post.

Data-driven social experience is an entirely new manner of social interaction, one that obscures our emotional connections to people. Data makes social relationships visible, knowable, and countable in unprecedented ways. But it does not — and cannot — convey the emotional experience of social interaction. I’ve already discussed how digital technologies transform text and time. Now I want to explore how “data” transforms social experience.

Take the notion of the “social network.” Most people (especially those that read blogs!) think these synonymous with Web sites like Facebook. Truth be told, social network analysis has existed for almost a century. We’ve all heard the term “six degrees of separation,” but most of us don’t know that was coined by none other that Stanley Milgram, of the “shock experiments” fame, when he tracked letters mailed around the world.

Social networks are exceedingly difficult to know from a quantitative perspective. We all live inside social networks but we have a very hard time knowing how these networks are constructed. We may know, for example, that our friend Jeff is friends with another one, Sarah, but we don’t know if Sarah knows Jeff’s partner Sam. Social network analysis is a set of methods designed to learn exactly that.

Now imagine your social network, as it is represented on Facebook (what, you’re not on Facebook?). Below is an image from Visual Complexity that renders a social network visibly but also very easily, simply by mining the data inherent in Facebook’s structure:

from Visual Complexity

Note how we instantly and easily know how institutions are connected, and through which people. Previously, researchers would have to conduct extensive and expensive surveys to get these data. Now these data are easily calculated and visualized by anyone with access to a social network online.

Some people are talking about this visualization as a piece of intellectual property. Alex Iskold on Mashable, for example, asks “Who owns the social map?” I go further and ask, “What does it mean that our social world is mappable?”

Our social world is now infiltrated by masses of data. These data inform us about the structure of our interactions with others in ways that we could not recall correctly if asked. Suddenly we can now see our social world reflected back to us, punctuated by institutions, and social structures. When we see our social network through the eyes of data, we see the names of organizations, or the institutional affiliation of the people. We do not “see” the emotional experience that created our connections in the first place.

Suddenly, we may think we really are not that close with Jeff, because his partner Sam is really not friends with anyone I know. I can also see that Sarah and I have very few friends in common, which may lead me to think I don’t have much of a future friendship with her.

Those data crowd out the qualitative, embodied experience of the laughs I shared with Jeff and Sam at their cottage last summer. Those data obscure the fact that Sarah and I shared 3 long months as call centre employees together, a time that bonded us forever. A data-filled social world is one that masks the visceral, emotional experiences of face-to-face interaction.

Digital social life is revealed to us in fragmented, mashed up ways. Such ways were impossible before the freely available data on social networks, data that is now so ubiquitous, we don’t even see it.

[digg=http://digg.com/design/What_Designers_Can_Learn_From_Facebook_s_Beacon_the_collision_of_fronts]

The blogosphere (and even the regular old newspaper-sphere) is alight with stories of Facebook’s online advertising flop, Beacon. What can designers learn from this flop? It’s not about privacy; it’s about the presentation of self. People have different “selves” for different places — virtual or otherwise — and designs must be consistent with these variety of selves.

Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow posted an interesting story on InformationWeek that predicted the decline of Facebook because of its own success. He predicts that the more people that are one Facebook, the more confusing it is. Your “creepy coworkers,” your boss, and your friends you met at Burning Man are all in the same “place,” making it confusing, embarrassing and difficult for everyone.

What Doctorow is really describing is sociologist Erving Goffman’s notion of “the front.” Using the theatre as a metaphor Goffman argued that we actually “perform” multiple selves. Each place we go has a “front” that we learn to incorporate. A front has a wardrobe, a setting, a decor, make-up, a script and stage direction. We have a “front stage self” that we perform for everyone to see, a “back stage self” for only our closest intimates to see, and a “core self,” which is deeply private.

A doctor, for example, has a front that includes an office, a lab coat, a stethoscope and medical jargon. This is her “front stage” self. But when she’s talking to her best friend, she may use a “back stage self,” being less formal, not wearing a lab coat, or using less formal language. Her “core” self is secretly wishing she were a full-time marathoner, but she tells no one that.

Facebook’s Beacon didn’t work because it forces people to use multiple fronts AT THE SAME TIME. If I tag a recipe from Epicurious.com, but I broadcast that fact to friends that perceive me to be a party girl, I have a collision of fronts. If my boss demands to be my friend, I have a collision of fronts. If I rent The Notebook on Netflix, and my friends think I am a Goth, I have a collision of fronts.

Facebook’s Beacon forces its users to combine multiple selves. Goffman considers the collision of fronts to be a source of embarrassment or shame. Take, for example, the hilarious “Meeting in a Swimming Pool” gag on Just for Laughs. Swimmers have their swimming front (including a bathing suit, casual demeanour) and forced into a meeting, with its serious demeanour and fully clothed attendants. This is embarrassing.

Facebook has done the same thing by forcing its users to expose their selves to different fronts simultaneously. It is embarrassing, even shameful.

What Designers Can Learn From Facebook’s Beacon

• Discover your users’ fronts: If you are designing a product or a virtual place, ask your potential users what they consider the character of this “place” to be. Is is a formal place? Is it a casual atmosphere? What kinds of “props” are expected here? What would be an embarrassing topic of conversation or incident?
• Design using the theatre metaphor: Make the product consistent with that place, as if you were writing a play. Ensure that what you design is part of a script that users understand or expect.
• Pay attention to embarrassment: If your users mention shame or embarrassment in any way, gently press them about it. Discover the character of the “collision of fronts” that is the source of that embarrassment, and, above all, avoid forcing users to feel embarrassment.

[digg=http://digg.com/design/What_Designers_Can_Learn_From_Facebook_s_Beacon_the_collision_of_fronts]

Update: The New York Times is reporting that Facebook’s lawyers have not succeeded in having documents about its founder Zuckerman removed from an online magazine. These documents are “embarrassing.”

Update (12/19/07): Mashable is reporting that FB is now allowing people to “group” their friends, but they haven’t quite mastered the collision of fronts problem.