دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی نظریه های رسانه های اجتماعی - الزویر 2018

ABSTRACT

Although many different views of social media coexist in the field of information systems (IS), such theories are usually not introduced in a consistent framework based on philosophical foundations. This paper introduces the dimensions of lifeworld and consideration of others. The concept of lifeworld is based on Descartes’ rationality and Heidegger’s historicity, and consideration of others is based on instrumentalism and Heidegger’s “being-with.” These philosophical foundations elaborate a framework where different archetypal theories applied to social media may be compared: Goffman’s presentation of self, Bourdieu’s social capital, Sartre’s existential project, and Heidegger’s “shared-world.” While Goffman has become a frequent reference in social media, the three other references are innovative in IS research. The concepts of these four theories of social media are compared with empirical findings in IS literature. While some of these concepts match the empirical findings, some other concepts have not yet been investigated in the use of social media, suggesting future research directions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this paper suggests a framework for phenomenological computing that is applied to social media use. This framework allows four archetypal theories to be integrated into the new theoretical perspective. Some of the concepts extrapolated from the four archetypal theories were confirmed by empirical findings regarding social media as published in IS literature, while others do not match any findings. An abstract of the comparison of concepts related to the four theories and the empirical findings in IS literature regarding social media is provided in Table 5. The features extrapolated from the theories that do not match current findings are Goffman’s strategic interaction (game theory), Bourdieu’s reproduction of social capital and reproduction of social structure (“habitus”), Sartre’s gaze of others that contributes to our identity, and Heidegger’s being-in-the-world. Such a gap may be understood by the fact that most of these concepts were simply not included as observable phenomena in the studies, and therefore may have been neglected because of a methodological theoretical lens. An important finding is that no IS publications regarding social media rely on the discourses of Goffman or Bourdieu regarding the contingency of these theories. Indeed, applying the presentation of self to personal life may be arguable, considering that Goffman’s book is related to work situations. Indeed, the intention of Goffman is to describe situations “organized within the physical confines of a building or a plant” (preface). The examples Goffman provides are of a salesman, a waitress, a teacher, an asylum attendant, a doctor, a gas station attendant, or a hotel manager. Therefore, as Goffman’s symbolic interactionism has been built for a work context, it may have little relevance to an understanding of our personal life.