Brain Dump #4 – "Switching browsers" ('out of the comfort zone' experiment)

Ordinarily I go to my preferred browser, Mozilla Firefox, in order to enter the internet. Within the browser I have all of my bookmarks stored in the order I usually want to visit them (descending order after priority) – and also the browser remembers my passwords etc. Sticking to one browser is thus the most convenient, since it's already 'programmed' and adjusted to fit my needs in terms of what to display (i.e. tabs), what to remember (i.e. passwords) and how to look (i.e. the visual 'skin' of the browser).

After realizing that I use the same browser at all times, I wanted to challenge myself. After tracking myself in October and going through my data, I wanted to find out what would happen if 'the bookmarks' were taken away from me. My systematic use of bookmarks is so significant that a breaching experiment is only natural in order to find out what I will be missing when this systematic order is broken. 

I decided to do the experiment as I turned on my desktop computer for the first time that day, since the pattern of going through the bookmarks is most significant whenever turning on my computer for the first time on any given day (I noted this from my social media tracking in October). The first thing I did was in fact to click on the Mozilla Firefox icon – and I didn't realize it until the browser window had opened. I then realized how natural and derived from habit the use of a specific browser is. I then opened another browser (Chrome) and literally didn't know what to do. The Chrome browser window seems amazingly empty in comparison to my preferred browser's window – so I didn't actually know where to begin. I usually go to the Bookmarks Toolbar in order to pull up the first of a row of social media; the first being Facebook. All of the sudden, I didn't have this Bookmarks Toolbar to turn to, which led me to thinking that I needed to go to the other bookmarks stored in the right-hand side of the browser. But of course no bookmarks were stored, since I never use the Chrome browser. Even though I knew that no bookmarks were stored, I still went to see if this could be true. I knew about this, and yet I went to check just to be safe. No bookmarks, no short cuts.

And this is where I got irritated. I thought to myself: "This is stupid. When I have the possibility to actually store bookmarks in order to not remember what is redundant to remember, why even consider using a browser with no stored bookmarks?" The experiment seemed pointless – and yet I already had provoked emotions just by changing the way I enter the internet. I changed the course of which I normally navigate to and around the internet and already I had gotten a reaction; a clear irritation, a clear frustration. 

I actually ended up not even trying to remember the usual order of social media visited. I went to Facebook but as soon as I had to login to my account, I gave up and went on to Twitter, but here it was the same problem; I had to login – and just by knowing that I was already logged in within the other browser, this made no sense to me. It was so inconvenient, I would even say asinine to go through all this trouble, when I could handle it all a lot smoother just by clicking the icon I usually do.

BB #5 - "Thick Description"

The following is an attempt to combine 'thick description'[1] with a 'narrative account' (in terms of Goodall). Also, it is an attempt to try and separate 'thin' from 'thick' description, the 'emic'[2] term from the 'etic'[3] term and the 'researcher' from the 'participant' - since all of these pairs are very much relevant to both discuss and engage in, when being the researcher of my own social media use. I will try and do this by describing the same situation (serving the purpose of being a vignette[4]) - but on five different levels. I will start by describing it as if I was only the researcher, trying to grasp what is going on in the specific situation; using the etic approach (even though I use the personal pronoun, 'I'). Hopefully the describing of the situation will become more and more 'emic', personal and 'thick' as the levels unfold. 

At first glimpse it seems that I am simply typing on a keyboard on a laptop. I sometimes look from the keyboard to the screen integrated in the laptop. I look over my shoulder several times. I am in a public place, and there are people around. The people are talking to one another, but mostly they are engaging in typing on their own laptops and smartphones. The brightness on my laptop screen is low. I have my laptop close to me. It sits on the edge of the table in front of me.

At second glimpse it seems that I am engaging in something on the screen and not merely on the keyboard. I am in a classroom, and the people around me are my classmates. The typing corresponds with what is going on virtually; an encounter on the screen. I look over my shoulder several times, as if I am nervous or at least alert. It is as if I am keeping an eye on someone or something. I go back and forth from looking at my screen to looking over my shoulder. The people around me do not seem to pay much attention to my screen, since they engage in their own media use - however, I am very observant of where they look to. The brightness on my laptop screen and the fact that I keep my laptop close to me enables me to control the visibility of my screen in relation to my classmates. It seems I only want me to see what is going on.

At third glimpse it seems that I am chatting with someone on Facebook. There is a social encounter going on, where I type something, the other person responds and so it goes on. The communication goes both ways. It seems I'm not comfortable communicating like this (virtually) with the other people (physically) being in the room. Because of this discomfort, I look over my shoulder in order to check if someone is lurking. However, a lot of the people present are engaging in their own social Facebook encounters on either their laptops or their smartphones. But even though I see this, my concern is still: Will they look at my screen? I lower the brightness on my screen in order to make it harder for the people sitting behind me, to actually see what is going on. The same goes for the fact that I have pulled my laptop close to me; sitting on the edge of the table.

At fourth glimpse it seems I am afraid that someone might see what is going on in my conversation on Facebook with a friend. I do not wish people to read what I write in the message, as I feel it's private and no one else but me and the receiver should see it. It's my social encounter, my laptop, my social relation and my thoughts on writing; carefully thought through and edited several times. I feel as if my classmates are curiously lurking and crossing over from being external to my social encounter to being internal, involved and a part of it. I haven't allowed this. If I know they are looking, it will affect my way of writing. I keep looking over my shoulder to prevent intruders from looking at my conversation and laptop. I lower the brightness so that I make it difficult - hopefully impossible - for my classmates to read what it says in the message. I pull my laptop close to my body - once again to protect the message, my friend and me from exposure and public display of our shared privacy. The others need not to know what is going on, and I am going to make sure that they don't.

At fifth glimpse the entire situation, including shielding from the people around me and the emotions attached to the piece of social encounter on Facebook, could be an expression of the level of intimacy and privacy that I put into having a social encounter on Facebook. The fact that I feel strongly about people not lurking or 'intruding' says a lot about the relation I have with both the device on which the social encounter takes place (the laptop I need to 'protect') and the actual conversation on Facebook. I feel as if the encounter is personal, private and such a significant part of me that I go to actual physical lengths in order to keep the virtual social encounter separated from the physical setting, I am in (i.e. lowering the brightness on the screen and pulling the laptop close to me).

---

[1] "[...] investigate[s] the particular circumstances present in the scene, and only then move toward grander statements and theories (Geertz as described in Tracy, 2013, p. 3)

[2] "[...] which means that behavior is described from the actor's point of view and is context-specific" (Tracy, 2013, p. 21)

[3] "[...] in which researchers describe behavior in terms of external criteria that are already derived [...]" (Tracy, 2013, p. 21)

[4] "[...] a focused description of a series of events taken to be representative, typical, or emblematic [...] they exemplify a key argument or claim" (Tracy, 2013, p. 208)

Brain Dump #3

This braindump will be more 'directed' and edited than the previous ones. Because this time I have chosen a theme I would like to explore. The theme is the difference between an offline and an online social encounter and it has emerged during the past few weeks of observing my own social media use. I have come across the returning question of: What is the difference between e.g. online instant messaging and talking to someone face-to-face?

You can run, but you can't hide?
The first thing I think about when trying to compare offline and online communication is the level of intimacy or 'contact'. It seems that face-to-face communication is more personal, intimate and 'confronting'. When communicating online, you can 'hide', postpone messages, choose not to respond to a post, a message or alike (I find that difficult face-to-face). You can 'hide' behind the technology; you can be anonymous and you can deliberately decide what to write and thus how to come across to other people. It seems that there is a larger deal of control involved in online communication as opposed to offline, face-to-face encounter, where you are communicating in real-time and 'real-face'. Also it seems that you 'give off' more impressions (Goffman) face-to-face than you do online. Online you do not have the possibility of showing body language, facial expressions, gestures or talking in a specific tone of voice. 

More than a thousand facial expressions
On the other hand, it seems that all of the above is somehow (too) simplified. Because communication online can be very much 'real' and in fact not separate itself THAT much from what I would say and do 'IRL'. I still have a lot of emotions connected to the online encounter, I still write WITH people (and not bots) and as Coleman notes in Hello Avatar, the graphical period of the internet has surely made online communication more human-like. I use a wide range of the so-called emoticons and online I re-think and edit a lot more than I do 'IRL'. When speaking out loud, there isn't much time to revise and edit the words. This is actually possible online and I practically never send out a message online without having read it through a least a few times. When people are not able to see the 'human-like' features that are related to face-to-face communication - such as facial expressions - they have a lot less to 'work with' (what was the purpose and wanted outcome of my communication?). My written words are thus representative for a lot of features that are only available face-to-face (if you only think of text-based communication and not for instance video chat, that is). Also, the internet enables us to communicate asynchronously. Although we are communicating more and more synchronously, the possibility of e.g. waiting to respond to an email is still there.

When being able to wait, edit and revise, I have a better chance of organizing what I want to 'give' and 'give off' (Goffman terms, once again). In other words I am able to 'construct', 'perform' and 'represent' as I wish (almost) - and at least to another degree than with offline communication. And this (feeling of) control is compelling, I think.

Have you ever experienced an online 'near-death experience'!?

.. I have!
Earlier today, when checking for new emails, this email appeared in my inbox:

"Hi Helle! You have successfully changed your password. Thanks! /The LinkedIn Team."

I instantly panicked: Change of password!? Well, I certainly didn't change it, but then who did!? The email didn't give me much to investigate from, since it only informed me that my password had been changed on LinkedIn. Only problem was: I hadn't changed my password.

I tried to logon to LinkedIn several times with my old password, but the cautionary red letters of "incorrect password" appeared on the screen over and over again. Adrenaline started pumping, hands started shaking, eyes started flickering. What had happened!? Why!? Had my account been hacked? By someone? By a computer? Was everything on my account deleted? Gone for good? While asking myself all of the above questions, I managed to check up on my profile by googling my name (it was still there; the profile - intact) and also: I requested LinkedIn for a new password. It went through - and I was relieved that I didn't have to type in the "changed" new password that I had nothing to do with. Shortly after requesting the new password, an email came in - "You have successfully changed your password. Thanks!". And this time, the email was a sight for sore eyes.

I logged onto LinkedIn with my new (self-elected) password and it was there; my profile. *SIGH*. Nothing has changed. It was all there. And it was safe.

As it turns out, the change of password wasn't part of a hacker's plan. An old colleague of mine had accidentally reset my password, since my email is linked to the old company's site on LinkedIn. Why this is even possible has to do with LinkedIn and its (lack of) security - and that is an entirely different discussion.

All of the above happened within two minutes. Yet, it felt as if it lasted for at least an hour. I actually got scared. It felt as if someone(!) had taken something from me. Something that belonged to me, something that was mine. My property, my 'thing', (part of) me/my identity(?)

I'm surprised my emotions got the best of me. I didn't try and rationalize on what had happened. Instead I instantly thought about worst-case scenarios and 'WHO did this to me?!'

Vlog on Media Diet

The fear of 'not getting the memo' (notes on fasting/media diet)

I decided to 'fast' from social media on Wednesday November 6. It seemed like a good day to conduct my media diet, since I have been tracking my social media use during the weekends up until now. I thus wanted to find out what difference it would make to be aware of my social media use on an ordinary weekday including lecture/class and everyday planning.

I sort of cheated within the first three hours...

It turned out to be very difficult, since class (Dynamic Web Design) started by developing through Facebook's Graph API. We had to login on Facebook in order to get the information we needed for the exercise. Only three hours after beginning my media diet, I thus already sort of 'cheated'. I however chose to go through with the media diet, since the developer's tool doesn't let you access your user interface as such. I didn't get to see any notifications or my News Feed; typical social features I go to when wanting to 'check up on Facebook'.

A few hours later, I was asked to copy/paste a piece of code from my computer to another - and the easiest way would of course be via Facebook or email. When realizing this, I began considering alternative ways of sharing the code - and it seemed a bit silly, since a quick share on Facebook would be so much easier. The least 'social' way of sharing, I ended up concluding, was via a mobile harddrive (USB).

Expectations met

As expected, I had no problems keeping my hands and eyes off my smartphone. Since I only have very few apps installed, I rarely use the device for more than calling or texting. When purchasing my first smartphone, I actually decided not to install the Facebook App, as I knew it would become a part of my social media routine. To this day I haven't installed the app. And I probably will not, since I feel quite 'liberated' from not having to check up on social media all the time while being 'on the run'.

What I also expected was me having a hard time keeping hands and eyes off the screen at home. During my social media tracking I found out that home is where I most often go to Facebook. My use is relatively structured and limited to my stationary computer. Thus, when being around it, I had a hard time not clicking the Facebook bookmark or any other social media bookmark. It seemed a lot more natural to do so than not to do so.

"Why do you want to go on Facebook right now?"

Not only do I use Facebook for updating and practically planning. I also use it for private conversations with friends, networking professionally and as a tool for making myself 'visible' online. However, this was what I was answering when I asked myself: "Why do you want to go on Facebook right now?". Also, and this sort of frightened me a little bit, most of the time I was unable to answer my own question. Why  did I want to go to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.?

The emotions emerging from media fasting would be: Frustration, boredom, loneliness and annoyance. I was frustrated about not being 'allowed' to do what I felt like doing (e.g. checking up on Facebook). Whenever bored I found out that social media was my absolute first 'go-to'. All of the sudden I needed to either prepare some more for my next class - or I needed to simply sit down and read a book. Am I really that closely entangled in my social media use that the only alternative popping up in my head is: Book reading - the old-fashioned way?

"How am I supposed to communicate with people [...] Do I need to VISIT them at their houses!?"

At one point (about halfway through the media diet) I started thinking about the (social) consequences about being offline. What if someone made an appointment without me? What if something important was written somewhere - and I didn't know about it? What if something huge happened on Facebook, and I would be the last to know? Even though it seems a bit silly, I actually felt a touch of loneliness at one point; what if I was the only one not knowing about something and thus the only one not being part of something? The feelings of frustration, boredom and loneliness led to a general annoyance. During the fasting, I dotted in my research journal: 

• "What is the purpose of this stupid fasting?" 
• "How am I supposed to communicate with people, if I'm not allowed to either email them, call them, text them or write them a message on Facebook? Do I need to VISIT them at their houses!?" 
• "I haven't announced my media diet. I wonder what people are thinking. Are they wondering about my absence, questioning if everything is okay? Or even worse (actually): Have they noticed at all? And if they haven't: Am I the only one feeling this important socially online?" 
• "Do the fasting really need to last for 24 hours? Won't less do? What if I feel as if I 'get the point' by now" (after 15 hours of fasting) 

The entire experience on 'fasting' got me thinking about a time, when I had no internet connection for almost two weeks. Even though it wasn't nearly for as long a period of time, some of the 'memories' came back to me during fasting. Back when the lack of internet wasn't a choice but an actual technical problem, it was so weird that I felt so shielded from everything and everyone; not being able to answer (important) emails at home - and having to sneak up at the University on my day off(!) to check up on online events. I felt so silly sitting at a random location within the reach of the University's Wi-Fi - but also (and even more): It felt necessary.

The 'aftershock'

The morning after my media diet had expired I quickly went online to get up to date (in fact, I used my smartphone to go to Facebook, even though I do this very seldom, since I haven't installed the Facebook App, as mentioned). But something struck me. It seemed as if I only skim-read the status updates in my News Feed. I even left a few status updates - and a couple of group notifications - un-read, when logging off. It would be an exaggeration to say that the media diet has changed my social media behavior. However, the short period of 'un-plugging' sure did make me think about my massive use of social media that I engage in on a daily basis.

"Mapping" my social media use (notes from BB#2)

Device specific map

Event specific map

Emotion specific map

Notes on Tracking

Screen Dump of my 48-hour Social Media Tracking

What is 'social'? (defining matter)

I decided to track my own social media use for 48 hours from Friday 18th October at 9 AM to Sunday 20th October at 9 AM. Before starting to track I chose what types of sites I would include. I wanted to note and track all social media use, which is why I haven't noted any activity besides that (e.g. web radio, search results on Google or visits to weather stations online). In retrospect this clear distinction maybe shouldn't have been made while tracking but instead afterwards. Simply because it can be difficult to decide, what sites are "social" - and since I haven't gotten around to defining what 'social' is yet, this selection of tracked sites might exclude some interesting notes on (social) activity online. I did however go by the criteria of 'interacting with others' when trying to define, what sites I should include in the tracking (these sites being: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Pinterest, Hotmail, Skype, blogs and pbworks). On all of these sites I define 'interacting' as writing, posting, commenting and liking. To some extend I would also include 'Lurker' functions such as reading and browsing as interaction (cf. Coleman in Hello Avatar on 'Agency' "[...] that needs to include positions such as listening and being present and not exclusively actions" - p. 33). 

Facebook takes the lead (numbers of visits, duration and order)

It turns out that Facebook is the social media site I visit the most - by far. Almost half of my logins within the 48-hour data collection were on to Facebook (out of a total of 57 logins). When it comes to duration, Skype overtakes Facebook on the inside - 47 % of the time spent online Friday through Sunday was on Skype. However, 35 % of the time was on Facebook.

When turning the attention to the order of social media, I engaged in, there is a certain sequence that repeats itself. (Presumably) because of the way I have sorted out the bookmarks in my browser, it seems that I 'obeyed' a specific order quite a few times during the tracking. The order of Facebook-Twitter-LinkedIn-Pinterest-Instagram-Hotmail is the order I turn to on both Friday and Saturday - it's in fact the first thing I do on both days. The order of Facebook-Twitter-LinkedIn/Instagram is the second most 'obeyed' order of checking up on and engaging in social media. What is interesting about this 'obeying' of orders is whether it is caused by habit, ritual, instance, convenience or something entirely different. Also it's quite obvious that Facebook - once again - is the leading social media when it comes to in which order I prefer to visit the social media sites.

Circle diagram of number of times logged on to Social Media (%)

Circle diagram of duration in % (time used on Social Media)

Not only 'what', but also 'why'? (purpose and 'result')

As I was tracking myself, I decided to not only note the numerical facts. I also wanted to note why I logged on to the social media. Also I wanted to know: Did I get what I came for?

The absolute frontrunner when it comes to purposes is 'checking up on updates'. The next most common purpose is one of direct interactive character; checking up on responses to messages, comments and alike. In some (probably most) cases I got what I came for (typically getting updated on new information or getting answers to my questions or requests). But in other cases, I logged on without there being any updates at all. Also I managed to log on a few times by reflex - with no deliberate purpose.

The interesting thing here is not the frequency of having a 'social' (interactive or updating) purpose. The interesting thing is how this checking up on social updates, comments, messages etc. makes me feel - and even more interesting; how checking up on unanswered or ignored posts, comments, messages, pictures etc. affects me - 'offline'. This specific observation is one that I will be returning to later on in my project. 

'Always On'? (a question of duration or mindset)

Out of all the time tracking myself (48 hours), I was only online for 6 hours and 51 minutes. Converted into percentages I was online 14.3 % of the time within the selected time frame. And this actually surprises me, since I consider myself 'always on'. Within the 48 hours of tracking I also felt as if I was always on, since I had the opportunity to go online - and I also did frequently. I might not have been online continuously, but I checked up on updates on e.g. Facebook relatively often, which made me feel as if I was online most of the time. The consciousness that came with tracking my every move online did however affect my social media use, I believe. Also I had plans (outside of the digital realm), which most likely also had something to do with my social media use at the time. Likewise the weekend presumably also had an effect on my social media use as I tend to check up on social media more frequently during the week due to practical matters (such as planning presentations with my classmates, updating on readings for classes, work related emails etc.)