University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences

(USC Thesis Other)

Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
CREATING COMMUNITY ONLINE:
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING COMMUNITIES ON
COLLEGE STUDENTS' EXPERIENCES.
HOW CAN STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS BEST RESPOND TO THIS
EMERGENT PHENOMENON

by

Scott Charles Silverman
____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2007

Copyright 2007 Scott Charles Silverman
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my dissertation advisor and
chair, Dr. Michael Jackson, Vice President of Student Affairs at USC. I truly
appreciate all of your guidance and advice over these past few years. Without your
expertise and direction, this dissertation would not have been possible. I am also
eternally grateful for the professional development that you offered me. I am truly
inspired by your vision of higher education and the practice of student affairs.
I would also like to acknowledge the other members of my committee for
their analysis and review of my study. Dr. Courtney Malloy and Dr. Donahue Tuitt
you were both invaluable as professors in some of my classes, and as dissertation
committee members. I appreciate Dr. Jeffrey Cole for joining this committee just in
time for the proposal defense, and for your insights into my research area as someone
who has been researching the effects of new media on society for many years. Thank
you to the entire committee for spending countless hours reading and re-reading this
manuscript. I would also like to thank all of the rest of the faculty who I have taken
classes from, from the University of Southern California and from my B.S. and M.S.
programs at the University of California, Riverside. I can honestly say that I have
learned so much from all of you.
My family deserves far more gratitude than I could reasonably offer. Their
unending support has helped me reach this point, the culmination of my educational
endeavors. To my older brother Ed, sister-in-law Ayaka, nephew Sage, my younger
iii

brother Jon, and his girlfriend Amanda, thank you for being there to support me
always, and particularly during the last year of research and dissertation writing. To
my parents, Laurence and Alice Silverman, thank you for giving me the
opportunities that I have had over the past 28 years. I hope that I can make as much
of a difference in the university setting as you have done in schools through
administration and school board respectively.
To all of my friends, while I’ve been working on this dissertation and degree,
many of you have gotten engaged, married or had kids. I’ll catch up, I promise. Just
know that I am thankful for all of the good times we have had, and I look forward to
spending more time with you now that I am finally done.
To my colleagues at the University of California, Riverside, you are all great
to work with. Iselda, Carol, Ellen, Joe, Tom, Tonantzin, Jennifer, Jen, Carmen, Lily,
Alex, Chasen, Alfredo and all of our student staff, I consider you all great friends,
and enjoy working with you. I love our office and I appreciate your words of
encouragement to finish my dissertation, and your enthusiasm at each of my status
updates, even the little ones. To the rest of my colleagues, at UCR and elsewhere,
thank you as well.
I would also like to thank one of my friends and mentors, Vincent Del Pizzo,
retired Assistant Vice Chancellor of Students Services at the University of
California, Riverside. As an undergraduate student, newly elected to the Associated
Students, I first thought that Vince was a non-traditional student, and the oldest
iv

Senator in the Associated Students Senate. I quickly discovered that Vince’s job
entailed working closely with students. It was at that point that I realized that I
wanted to go into Higher Education and Student Affairs.
To my current boss, Diane LeGree, and the current Assistant Vice Chancellor
of Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Dr. Susan Allen Ortega, I would like to
thank you both for your support of me in attaining this degree. More importantly, I
am thankful that you have given me the great opportunity to work as the Coordinator
of First Year Programs. Now that I’ve finished my dissertation, I’ll be able to spend
more time thinking about innovations and enhancements for all aspects of work.
I also wish to dedicate this work to the students on our campuses. They
provide us meaning and purpose for our jobs. I want to also thank all of the students
who participated in my study. The online survey was unintentionally lengthy. To the
survey respondents who completed most or all of the survey, despite its length and
some similarities between questions, thank you for your tenacity. To the focus group
participants, your responses and comments were insightful, and I appreciate your
genuine interest in the research subject. Finally, I want to acknowledge all of the
students who have embraced online social networking as a medium for
communication and interaction. I encourage you to be safe and smart in your online
communications. Online social networks can continue to be entertaining and
enjoyable, but can also be productive and meaningful for your college experiences, if
you exercise good judgment in your online endeavors.
v

ABSTRACT
Student usage of online social networks (OSNs) has grown in recent years to
be incredibly prominent in the lives and experiences of today’s college students.
While not every student may be actively using OSNs, cognizance of their existence
is ubiquitous, and the majority of students are avid users. The potential drawbacks
have been focused on in the news, and yet students continue to use these online
communities. The overarching research question for this study is: what are the
effects of online social networking communities on the experiences of college
students? In order to truly ascertain what the effects of OSNs are on college student
experiences, it is important to understand the student perspective. In looking at this
phenomenon from the student perspective, it becomes apparent that students have a
fairly comprehensive understanding of drawbacks with regards to OSNs. When
balancing the drawbacks versus the benefits, students clearly indicate that they will
continue to use OSNs. Students predominantly believe that limited interaction and
presence from their universities within OSNs would be acceptable or tolerable. In
many cases, students welcomed the university presence as an opportunity for
universities to be more aware of the student culture of the campus, and for the
university to educate students about how to be safe and smart in their online
activities. Through a more comprehensive understanding of student perceptions of
the uses of OSNs, the benefits and drawbacks of OSN, and what level of
involvement staff, administrators and universities should have within OSNs, student
vi

affairs practitioners can be more supportive of student participation within OSNs,
and through that, their engagement with the university.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
Abstract v
List of Tables x

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, & OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 6
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 14
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 17
Assumptions 21
Definitions of Key Terms and Related Concepts 22
Organization of the Dissertation 24

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Introduction 26
Framework 27
Student Development Theoretical Framework 30
Astin’s Student Involvement Theory 30
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory 33
Maslow’s Human Motivation Theory 35
Social Network Analysis 38
Importance of Developing Communities 39
Categories of Online Communities 42
Academic Web Portals Employed by Universities 43
Co-Curricular Web Portals Employed by Universities 43
Online Social Networking Communities 44
Online Dating Websites 44
World Wide Web, E-mail, Instant Messaging 45
Facebook as a model for most OSNs 46
Effects of Online Social Networking 51
Negative Effects of OSNs 52
Positive Effects of OSNs 57
Court Cases 62
In Loco Parentis 62
Communications Decency Act 63
Network Neutrality 64
Court Cases and Judgments 65
viii

Legal Implications for Universities 69
Negligence and the University 71
Conclusions 76

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Chapter Overview 77
Research Design 79
Sample and Population 81
Data Collection Procedures 83
Validity of and Confidence in Findings 85
Data Analysis Procedures 87
Surveys 88
Focus Groups 89
Observations 90
Document Analysis 91
Trustworthiness 92
Ethical Considerations 92
Researcher’s Subjectivity 92
Survey Participants 94
Focus Group Participants 97
Summary 101

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Chapter Overview 102
Research Question 1 103
Students feel that their usage of OSNs is highly flexible 104
Students appreciate that OSNs serve as a maintenance-free
online directory 111
Students value interactions with each other online 113
Research Question 2 117
Benefits
OSNs allow students to keep in touch with friends and meet
new people 118
Students perceive that OSNs provide a sense of community 122
Students believe OSNs provide opportunities for entertainment
and involvement 125
OSNs reduce students’ inhibitions and enhance their
socialization 130
Drawbacks
Students are somewhat concerned about their safety while online 135
Students have mixed feelings about the repercussions of online
actions 140
ix

OSN use can prevent students from completing work and
interacting with peers face-to-face 142
Opinions of inappropriate content and the response to it differed
widely 144
Research Question 3 150
Students do not believe universities should be held liable for
student-posted online content 151
Students believe that involvement from non-students is ok to
a limited extent 155
Students see the benefits in and need for educational materials
and workshops 169
Content for Educational seminars, workshops and
Orientation programs 175
Students adjust their settings and edit their content 185
Closing 189

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
Chapter Overview 191
Summary of Findings 191
Discussion of the Study 193
Conclusions 200
Recommendations 204
Campus Programming and Events 209
Managing and Reducing Liability 210
Principles for University Policies and Sample Policy 211
Helping Students Stay Safe and be Smart 215
New Incoming Students 216
Student Leaders 219
Staff and Faculty 221
Recommendations by Functional Area of Campus 221
Implications for Future Research 223
Closing 228

REFERENCES 231
APPENDIX A: Focus Group Consent Form 254
APPENDIX B: Individual Questionnaire for Focus Group Participants 257
APPENDIX C: Student Focus Group Protocol 258
APPENDIX D: Online Survey Protocol and Informed Consent 260
APPENDIX E: Other Interesting Findings 271
x

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. University Information and Student Demographic Responses 95
Table 2. Focus Group Participant Information 98
Table 3. The flexibility of usage of online social networks 105
Table 4. Students use OSNs as online directories 111
Table 5. Student-to-student online interactions 114
Table 6. Benefits students associate with online social networking 120
Table 7. In-Person Organization Membership vs. Online Group Membership 127
Table 8. Benefits versus Consequences 133
Table 9. Drawbacks students identify with online social networking 138
Table 10. Concerning issues in OSNs 161
Table 11. Students thoughts on educational interventions 172
Table 12. Students’ Responses to Suggestions on Editing/Reviewing Content 186

Table 13. Recommendations by Functional Area of Campus 222
1

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND OVERVIEW OF THE
STUDY
Introduction
An emerging issue on college and university campuses became more evident
in February 2004 with the initial release of www.Facebook.com (Facebook) and its
proliferation across the United States. As an online social networking community,
this site and others like it have been widely adopted for use by college students.
However, rapid student acceptance of Facebook, Myspace and other online social
networks and its incorporation into students’ lives has largely left student affairs
practitioners trying to catch up in terms of understanding how this phenomenon
affects college students. Student affairs practitioners will best facilitate student
success in their college and developmental experiences through more robust
knowledge of students’ activities and experiences, in-person and online (Evans,
Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). By understanding student online behavior, student
affairs professionals will be able to incorporate online communities in interactions
with students and better serve their student populations through enhanced
engagement. The following vignette provides a framework for this dissertation.
Nesha, a third-year Resident Advisor (RA) in the undergraduate
housing residence halls of Shell Rock University (SRU) shuts off her TV in
shock after hearing about two stories on the news. The first story was about a
2

high school student who flew to a foreign country to meet a man she met on
Myspace. The second story was about a security concern for her sister’s high
school as a result of a ‘post’ (message posted on an online message board) on
the popular website Myspace declaring that day ‘Take your guns to school
day’. She immediately calls home to check on her sister before heading
downstairs to the dining hall for lunch. As she walks through the residence
hall, she checks to see if any of her residents would join her for lunch. Her
schedule this quarter is hectic in the afternoons but she enjoys having lunch
with her residents before class.
On her way through the hall she observes Brian, a first-year student,
typing with the telltale sounds of Instant Messenger, which is a type of
computer program where users can chat with each other. At the same time,
Brian is viewing his friend’s Facebook page in one window and someone
else’s Myspace profile in another. His cell phone is flashing with an
incoming text message or phone call while he is on the phone with someone
else. Nesha knows that some of Brian’s friends jokingly refer to him as ‘Mr.
Facebook’, because he has befriended over 300 students via the website that
he has no connection to in “real-life”. Nesha wonders if Brian ever comes out
of his room, since he always seems to be on his computer. As she invites him
to join her for lunch, Brian responds with a hurried “no, sorry, maybe at
3

dinner,” as another instant messenger window pops open on his computer
monitor.
Hannah, a second-year resident, is coming out of her room,
complaining that her blog (web log or online diary) keeps getting blocked by
the university server. Nesha has seen Hannah’s site and blog before, and
knows that a number of students are big fans of it, and check regularly for
updates. Hannah admits that some of the content she posts might be viewed
as risqué (e.g. provocative pictures and messages related to underage
drinking), or highly opinionated and politically charged, such as her views on
hot political issues. Yet, she feels she has already paid for the right to host the
blog on her personal website. She does not understand why the university is
blocking her access to that site now, when she accessed it freely on a frequent
basis during her first year on campus. Hannah heads down to lunch and tells
Nesha she will talk to her more about it later.
Lauren and Zack, both third-year students, are talking about their old
high school friend, Mark, who also attends SRU and was put on probation by
the University for posting pictures and comments on his Facebook profile
that offended his hallmates and classmates. The profile included a
particularly inciting remark about how pretty one of Mark’s professors is, in
spite of not learning much from her class, prompting his classmates to shun
him in class for the next week. In addition, most of Mark’s hallmates,
4

including Lauren and Zack, were sanctioned by the Residence Life staff after
seeing pictures of them engaging in underage drinking. Nesha reminds
Lauren and Zack that the workshop they are supposed to lead about drinking
responsibly is coming up soon.
When Nesha walks into the Dining Hall she sees another resident,
Melissa, sitting by herself in the back corner, her eyes are watering, cheeks
red, and she is eating very nervously and slow. When Nesha asks her what’s
wrong, Melissa begins to sob and confides to Nesha that she has been getting
harassing phone calls on her cell phone, and harassing messages written on
the message board outside of her room. The messages are from a male
student who has been bothering Melissa and a few of the other residents with
late-night phone calls and electronic mail (e-mail). The messages range from
talking about notes from class to asking her out for a date, and occasionally
threatening messages demanding that Melissa talk to him. As Nesha probes
to find out more about the identity of the stalker, Melissa states that she
thinks it’s a person who keeps trying to add her as a “Friend” on Facebook.
As Melissa gets up to leave for class, she states that she has been too afraid to
talk to anyone about it, except her roommate who is also worried.
As Nesha eats lunch with a few of her fellow RA’s, José and Saul,
they talk about the incidents they have seen their students experience within
online communities and online social networks. Their supervisor, the
5

Resident Director, stops at their table, listens to a bit of the conversation and
tells them to bring their lunch to the conference room for a last-minute staff
meeting to discuss the effects of online social networking communities. As
the three RAs walk to the conference room, José wonders why there are so
many concerns about this phenomenon. Saul muses to himself that it seems
that everyone is ignoring the positive aspects of Facebook and Myspace,
namely that it allows him to keep in touch with friends from home who are
attending other schools, and other friends he does not see regularly. Nesha
becomes even more frustrated with the whole situation, and tries to think of
how she can help her students avoid the negative consequences and take
advantage of the benefits of the phenomenon of online social networking.

From this vignette we can see that Brian is so engrossed in online social
networking and other technological pursuits that he misses in-person contact while
Hannah is frustrated by the limitations SRU is putting on her online activities in
blocking her from accessing her blog. Mark has also been limited in what he can do
online and is actually on probation as a result of some of the content he previously
posted. Lauren and Zack have to plan a workshop to educate their peers on drinking
responsibility as a sanction for posting pictures of themselves drinking heavily at an
off-campus party. Melissa’s troubles are more severe. She is facing harassment and
possibly stalking from someone who is using online social networks to learn more
6

about her and bother her endlessly. Her fear and crying has disturbed her Resident
Advisor Nesha, who was already distraught over concerns for her sister’s safety
based on a random Myspace comment. While this vignette focused on the potential
drawbacks of online social networking, this study will also examine the positive
effects associated with online communities.

Background of the Problem
College students today are more “wired” than previous generations. They are
more connected to information and to each other electronically than previous
generations. Most students are digital “natives” meaning that they have either grown
up with these technologies, or they have become so common-place in their lives that
using them is part of the norm. Students are using a wide array of modern
technological media (e.g. cellular phones and the Internet) to communicate with each
other with increasing regularity. E-mail, cellular phones and increasing usage of
instant messaging (real-time person-to-person chats that occur online) have provided
a more rapid and direct form of communication. The World Wide Web offers a
variety of communication tools, recreational gaming options (video games people
from the entire world can play together) and resources. Scholarly academic research
has also been affected. A great deal of research can be conducted on the Internet,
which has the capability to connect students and researchers with online versions of
7

library content, and a wealth of other materials or resources that may not be available
in print form.
The effects of the Internet on college students have yet to be adequately
determined. Part of the function of student affairs staff at the university level is to
facilitate a first-rate undergraduate experience both educationally and
developmentally. Yet many of these professionals may not have extensive
experience with computers and the Internet, let alone online communities. Thus, they
may not be familiar with the experiences and exposure or vulnerability college
students have online. This lack of knowledge of the impact of technology on
students’ experiences is a gap needing to be filled to ensure that student affairs
professionals can serve all aspects of student developmental needs.
The Internet is transforming communication much like the telephone did 50
years ago. Today, the Internet serves as a form of peer-to-peer communication,
which directly connects people over time and space. Researchers have noted that
technological advancements are outpacing professionals’ ability to keep up with the
developments (Duffy, 2006; Holt, 2004; Krupnick, 2006). Students are taking full
advantage of cutting edge technological communication (e.g. online communities
and online social networking) by participating in and developing new means of
communication and new uses for the communication media that exist. For example,
students have adapted Facebook.com to be used for reasons other than what it was
intended. Political campaigning, lobbying, and commercial enterprises have
8

discovered the benefits of advertising via Facebook (Hirschland, 2006; Facebook,
2006; Kushner, 2006; Grynbaum, 2004).
While technology has been advancing, it has also become more accessible,
meaning larger numbers of people have more access to technology. The digital
divide (i.e. the disparity in technological access and the skills to use it across certain
demographic groups such as age, ethnicity, class, and geography) has been evolving,
translating to more students from underrepresented minority groups being
represented online (Salmon & Bustamante, 2006; Sharif, 2004). One illustration of
this was the California high school walkouts protesting immigration reform in spring
2006. These walkouts were organized primarily via Latino students communicating
through Myspace (Salmon & Bustamante, 2006). However, the evolutions in the
digital divide now indicate that there are distinctions between those who have
broadband access versus those with a dial-up modem (Digital Report, 2005).
A growing phenomenon in society is the increasing use of Online Social
Networks (OSNs) as a way to communicate frequently with people all over the
world. The recent growth in participation in online communities and OSNs among
college students is becoming a larger component of the college student experience
(Paperclip, 2006). Online communities and OSNs are any form of virtual community
organized and hosted through the Internet. This includes Instant Messaging programs
(examples include AOL, Yahoo, MSN, and ICQ.), web logs (blogs; online journals
or diaries that someone posts for the express reason of wanting others to read it),
9

dating websites (e.g. www.match.com, www.eharmony.com), and alumni and peer
communities (e.g. www.Friendster.com, www.Classmates.com).
The Internet is by nature a constantly evolving entity (as with most forms of
technology). Everyone with access to the Internet can post their own content and
adapt the Internet as their own tool for virtually any use they desire. The evolution of
the Internet, online communities and online social networks combined with
increasing student participation in them, makes it logical to assume that college
students will use Facebook and Myspace on college and university campuses with
increasing regularity (Salvo, 2004; Schackner, 2004).
This study will focus on two online communities that are heavily used by
college students: www.Facebook.com and www.Myspace.com. The growth in
student usage of these communities is a recent development. Facebook.com started at
Harvard University in February 2004 and over time has expanded at colleges across
the country. As of March 2006, over 2,200 four-year colleges and universities were
represented on Facebook, with over 8 million registered users (www.facebook.com,
2006). Two-thirds of these users log in daily, with an average usage time of 18
minutes (Facebook.com, 2006). Myspace boasts over five times the total number of
users that Facebook has, but the age profile of users is 14 and over, whereas
Facebook is generally 18-24 plus recent graduates. As a result of the difference in
user demographic, primary focus of this study will be on Facebook, yet the findings
of this study should be applicable to other OSNs.
10

Statement of the Problem
This study will examine the impact of online social networking communities
on the educational and developmental experiences of undergraduate college students.
These online social networks (OSNs) are an increasingly significant component in
the life of today’s college students. Therefore, student affairs professionals need to
develop a firm understanding of how OSNs contribute to or detract from the
educational experiences of students.
The problem with online social networks is determining their impacts on
college student experiences. It will be important to determine whether OSNs can be a
positive contributor to students’ educational and developmental experiences, despite
some negative ramifications. If OSNs are ascertained to be a worthwhile component
of the student experience, then it will be important to determine what student affairs
professionals can or should do to incorporate this phenomenon into their work with
students. Student affairs, as a profession, may need to adapt to student needs in
changing times. It is common for student affairs professionals to want to “meet
students where they are at,” in order to engage students at a time, place, and through
a medium in which they would receive and respond to the message and be more
engaged.
There is little research about the effects of online social networks on their
users. Despite an increasing amount of online communication from the university,
and encouragement to use the Internet for scholastic purposes, there is little research
11

that examines the effects of participation in the Internet on college experiences.
Given that a growing proportion of student-to-student communication is conducted
through the Internet, there is a significant gap in student affairs research on the
effects of Internet-based communication on student experiences. There is a need to
study this so that student affairs administrators can understand another facet of the
student experience. Thus, this study will look at research on community theory, and
sociological research on communities and networking, to extrapolate a frame of
analysis for the effects of OSNs on college students.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to understand students’
perceptions about the importance of online social networking and their views on the
role that colleges and universities should play in managing student usage of these
phenomena. This study will employ the use of the student voice to examine the effect
of student use of online phenomena (e.g. Facebook and other online social networks)
on their educational and developmental experiences, campus communities and the
practice of student affairs. In doing so, student affairs professionals can determine
the best ways to interact with online communities like they do with in-person
communities. By gaining a better understanding of the effects that OSNs have on
college students’ experiences, student affairs professionals will have a stronger sense
of how to work with students in this new type of community. This study will help
12

student affairs professionals understand what OSNs are and how they function, the
role they play in the student experience, and how student affairs professionals should
think about how to interact with students using online communities.
Though this study will generally focus on Facebook as the primary online
social network that students use, there are a wide variety of other online social
networks that function in comparable ways, in terms of their role in students’ lives.
Other technologies to be discussed will include academic-focused systems such as
Blackboard and WebCT, instant messaging, website hosts, blogs and online social
networks such as Xanga and Myspace. This study will look at all online social
networks, but for the purpose of analysis, this study will pay particular attention to
Facebook, the college campus-based online community. This study will identify
current best practices on university campuses for working with students on issues
related to Facebook and other OSNs, and use those practices as models for additional
interventions.
This study will also help student affairs professionals to understand what
online social networking communities are, their importance to students, and what
role students think the university should play in these online communities. Student
affairs administrators and staff have limited to no exposure to this phenomena
(NASPA conference, 2006; Trotter, 2006). Yet in order to do their jobs effectively,
student affairs professionals need to have a working knowledge of all issues that
might affect students’ development, including online issues (Willard, 2006). To do
13

this, the researcher will utilize the student voice for this phenomenological study to
shape and frame their perspective and inform student affairs professionals and
administrators about the online social networking experience. In addition, this study
will help the reader understand how social networking communities in general and
online social networks in particular affect students, and what steps might be needed
to protect student and societal interests.
Research Questions
The first two research questions will be answered primarily through student
focus groups, observations of student interactions within online social networking
communities, and survey data. The third research question will primarily be
answered through the survey of undergraduate students and student focus groups. All
methods of data collection, including document analysis, the online survey, focus
group and participation in online communities to observe student interactions, will
contribute to answering all three of the research questions.
1. How do students utilize online social networks, and in what ways do they
engage with each other?
2. What do students feel are the benefits and drawbacks associated with their
usage of online communities and online social networks?
3. What are students’ attitudes and perceptions about staff and administrator
involvement in online social networks?
14

Answering these research questions will student affairs practitioners understand what
OSNs are and how they function, the role they play in the student experience, and
how student affairs professionals should think about how to interact with students
using online communities. This could lead to student affairs professionals integrating
OSNs into a productive college student experience.

Significance of the Study
According to Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, there are over 8 million
users of Facebook and nearly two-thirds of these users login on a daily basis, for an
average of 18 minutes over the course of one day (March 2006). This makes
Facebook the most popular among over 65 different online social networks (OSNs)
that college students are using regularly (Berkeley survey, Winter 2006). Myspace,
which boasts the most overall users, has less college student users than Facebook,
but a greater majority of the non-college student population. Students will continue
to explore new facets of existing OSNs and create new OSNs (Sharif, 2004). This
study’s aim is to educate student affairs professionals about what students are doing
in online communities and online social networks, and what student affairs
practitioners can do to help integrate OSNs into a productive college student
experience.
The multitudes of technological advances enable more uses of the Internet for
student peer-to-peer interaction. Some OSNs enable you to post web logs (blogs), or
15

diaries about everyday experiences (www.blogger.com). Others allow you to post
unlimited amounts of pictures, photo albums, and digital video (e.g.
www.youtube.com). Among the many issues related to OSNs of relevance to student
affairs professionals are: 1) university’s liability for student-posted online content
using university resources, and a host of other issues centering around liability, 2)
inappropriate content posted by students, 3) the quality of communication between
and among students, 4) increased organizing of student interest groups (quasi and
real student organizations), and 5) ways to effectively use online social networks to
supplement the educational experiences of college students.
This study proposes to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by
synthesizing existing research about in-person communities, communication, and
networking. Community theory will shape our understanding of online communities
as communities (Granovetter, 1973; Hampton, 2002). Social network analysis
(Stutzman, 2005) will provide a sense of interconnectivity amongst student users of
OSN. Synthesizing the mission of student affairs (Evans et al, 1998; Kuh et al, 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; NASPA and ACPA, 2004) and student development
theories (Astin, 1984; Schlossberg, 1984; Maslow, 1943) with community theory and
social network analysis will frame this study. That framework will support the
analysis for examining the impacts of online communities on students’ college and
developmental experiences. There is a gap in the limited research on online social
networks in that little qualitative research has been done with the student users of
16

these online communities. This study will make use of the student voice, through
focus groups, an online survey and participant-observation.
By understanding students’ perceptions about the importance of online social
networking and their views on the role that colleges and universities should play in
managing that phenomena, student affairs professionals can determine the best ways
to interact with online communities like they do with in-person communities. In
many ways, understanding the relationship between students and online communities
is a tool for student affairs professionals. The knowledge of how students operate
within OSNs may translate into programs and support services that professionals can
use to engage students using online communities as a new venue for programming. It
is important for student affairs practitioners to be able to understand and respond to
any forms of community and any types of activities that students are engaging in,
incorporating them into the educational and developmental experiences of college
students.
As a product of this study a new guide will be developed for student affairs
professionals to help them respond to issues related to student interactions and
experiences with online social networking communities. Student affairs professionals
can proactively address issues regarding the drawbacks to online social networking
by expanding components of orientation or welcome week programs. These
programs can be used to educate students about issues related to personal safety and
identity theft online, as well as highlight the impacts that negative online behaviors
17

might have on their future. Lastly, student affairs professionals will be able to
incorporate online social networks as one of many campus communities, and utilize
the positive effects of online social networks as a student engagement tool.

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study is limited by factors that may confound the results of the study.
One of the limitations of this study is that there is no clear ruling on a university’s
liability for content posted online by a student. Regardless of whether the student
uses university computer equipment or their university email account or neither, the
legal responsibility of the university is not clear. Therefore, no established set of
practices has been widely implemented and tested to guide university practice with
regards to students’ Internet content. Clear right or wrong actions have not yet been
established, and student affairs professionals are largely reliant on good judgment to
protect the best interests of students and their universities. This is a limitation
because a clear ruling from the courts would guide university actions with regards to
students’ online behavior. A court ruling in the near future, presumably after some
actual incident of violence or other criminal act that was referred to online by the
perpetrator in his or her profile occurs, is a distinct possibility (French, Lukianoff &
Silverglate, 2005). That will likely result in case law to set precedence and possibly
even Federal legislation to attempt to control liability.
18

The gap in available research on these online phenomena, although not a
limitation of the research design, does limit the framing of the study. The majority of
research done on online communities and online social networks is found in student
newspapers rather than scholarly articles. There exists a limited number of published
research findings on the effect of online social networking on the student experience,
particularly research focusing on the administration of higher education in student
affairs. Therefore, many references in this study as to the effects on students’
experiences will be from college student newspapers across the country.
The first delimitation of this study is choosing to conduct multiple focus
groups at only one institution of higher education. It was determined that more
informative results would be produced by having small, intimate groups of three to
ten students representing first through fifth year undergraduates. In addition, as much
as possible, the students participating in the focus group will represent variance in
their level or type of campus involvement. Another delimitation was the decision not
yet to conduct staff focus groups. Most current professionals have limited to no
experience with Facebook. Those professionals that do have experience with
Facebook are usually new to the field, and likely were exposed to online social
networking prior to entering the profession. Thus, these professionals are more akin
to the student users, sharing their opinions about these phenomena as opposed to
looking at them through the student affairs lens (Stephens, 2006).
19

It was determined that focusing on the student experience and perspective
would yield more complete results. Also, by focusing primarily on Facebook, and to
a lesser extent Myspace, as the chief portal of student usage for online social
networking, the researcher is excluding potentially useful information from other
particular individual OSNs. Students that participate in the focus group or complete
the online survey that happen to be avid users of Facebook or Myspace will have a
vastly different opinion of what those online communities provide than someone
who has not yet taken the time to participate or actually has made a conscious
decision not to participate in those communities. By intentionally soliciting survey
responses through Facebook ads and messages, the results may not be completely
representative of the entire college student population, but will still demonstrate the
perspectives of avid users of online social networks.
The primary university selected, the University of Southern California (USC)
was chosen particularly because USC is reported to have the highest percentage of
registered users of Facebook (Facebook, 2006). As such, the number and extent of
online interactions, online content, groups, etc. is higher within the college-based
Facebook network associated with USC than it would likely be at most, if not all,
other institutions. While students representing a cross-section of universities across
the United States were desirable for responses to the online survey, the costs of
advertising repeatedly across the entire Facebook United States college-based
20

networks would be grossly prohibitive. The choice of institutions is a delimitation as
it will limit the generalizability of the study.
Six student focus groups will be conducted at the primary institution of study,
the University of Southern California. In addition, an online survey will be
conducted, hosted online at surveymonkey.com and advertised through email and
Facebook to undergraduate college students from around the country. This survey
may spread via word-of-mouth, but will only be directly advertised to students at
particular large institutions, and students that are participating in some of the largest
online groups and discussion threads on Facebook. Analyzing focus group
proceedings, survey data and observations of online communities and online social
networks will overcome any sample limitations. This intentional or purposeful
sampling, while reducing generalizability, will yield a better foundation for results.
In addition, given the widespread and growing concern by professionals
about what students are doing within these online communities, there may be
training programs being implemented to educate first year students about being safe
and smart online. To account for that development, the focus groups will
intentionally involve various students from each year of undergraduate study.
One limitation will be the way in which students are selected for participation
in the focus groups. The most useful feedback for this study will come from students
who are familiar with and/or active users of OSNs. Participants will be selected by
soliciting students through Facebook’s advertising feature called “Flyers” (see
21

Chapter II). With an estimate of 75% or more of the enrolled students at any given
university having a Facebook profile, and logging in to it more frequently than his or
her Myspace profile, Facebook advertisements that will elicit participation in the
focus groups seems most prudent (Brooks, 2004).

Assumptions
For the purposes of this study, the author has assumed that students will
continue to use these online social networking communities, or other portals that
function in similar ways. It is assumed that student usage of Facebook is largely
indicative, inclusive and reflective of all of the types of communication and
interaction that can take place through other online social networks. Though there are
some detrimental effects associated with some uses of online communities, it is also
assumed that student affairs professionals can find ways to help these students
overcome these detriments and make use of the positive aspects of these tools (e.g.
Facebook). This assumption was made because it is the mission of student affairs to
support student development and their educational experiences (Kuh et al, 2005;
Komives et al, 2003; Evans et al, 1998). Given that use of OSNs is not likely to
dissipate, student affairs practitioners need to learn how to interact with students in
this new and growing arena of communication and formation of communities.

22

Definition of Key Terms and Related Concepts
1) Online Social Networks (OSN): refers to all of the online social networking
venues. A 2006 Berkeley survey identified over 65 OSNs that are currently
popular and being used by students.
2) Social Networking Communities (SNC): a broad term including all forms of
social networks, whether they exist in-person or online.
3) Online communities: a broad term including all online social networks and
instant messenger related programs or websites that allow personal profiles,
information and communication options. This classification is broad enough
to include online academic portals as well. According to the Digital Future
Project, “an ‘online community’ is defined as a group that shares thoughts or
ideas, or works on common projects, through electronic communication
only.”
4) Facebook: “an online directory that connects people through social
networks,” that can be used to “look up people around you, see how people
know each other, and make groups and events with your friends,”
(Facebook.com, 2006). While this refers specifically to one of many online
communities, and most likely the most popular one amongst college students,
this term has multiple applications. Brian can “Facebook” another student
(e.g. add that student as a friend, send that person a message, or look up
23

information about that person). Please see Chapter 2, for an in-depth
discussion of how Facebook functions.
5) Myspace: this is an online community with a much wider audience than
Facebook once was, as it is not college-specific. There are no intentional
subdivisions within Myspace, although there are interest groups on Myspace.
This online community functions in very, very similar ways to Facebook. In
addition to the above features, Myspace is the venue of choice for new
movies and bands to publicize. Separate from actual advertising, which
occurs on both Facebook and Myspace, bands and movies will create a
Myspace profile and actively participate like an individual user.
6) Digital Natives: A term to describe a constituency that has not needed to
become accustomed to a particular technology as it has little to no
understanding of what life without that technology was like. This group may
even exhibit signs of taking this particular technology for granted.
7) Netizens: literally, cyber-citizens. Usage of this term would imply that just as
there are commonly-held assumptions of decency and respect in in-person
communities, that there are similar, comparable assumptions of decency and
respect for users in the online community world. With increasing use of the
Internet, students are no longer simply “citizens” of the campus, but
“netizens”, meaning they are frequent or habitual users of the Internet.
24

8) Blogs: short for a web log, or diary/journal that is posted by someone to her
or his website or profile page for everyone to read. Some web portals allow
users to limit access to blogs to only those who subscribe to it, but generally
blogs are viewable and accessible by anyone.
9) “Fakesters”: students who create fake profiles, either for an alter-ego or
unauthorized profiles of others (oftentimes celebrities and university staff).
10) Weak Ties: casual or informal connections between people. Typically these
are between acquaintances or fellow group members.
11) Strong Ties: strong and often formal connections between people. Typically
these are between family members or close friends.
12) Nodes: this is the term for the person at the other end of the tie or connection.
Oftentimes student affairs practitioners are nodes for students to access
campus resources.

Organization of the Dissertation
This first chapter of the dissertation serves as an introduction to the research
problem. In the next chapter, all relevant research and literature will be reviewed to
establish a framework for the research study and findings. The third chapter will
discuss the methods used in conducting this qualitative study. Subsequently, in the
fourth chapter, research results will be presented, discussed and analyzed. Finally,
chapter five will present the conclusions of this study, recommendations to student
25

affairs staff in working with students through online communities and online social
networks, and future directions for additional research.
26

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Introduction
In this chapter, relevant literature and research related to study will be
analyzed and reviewed to structure this study to present research findings in
subsequent chapters. By understanding students’ perceptions about the importance of
online social networking and their views on the role that colleges and universities
should play in managing that phenomena, student affairs professionals can determine
the best ways to interact with online communities like they do with in-person
communities. As this is a phenomenological study, an understanding of what online
communities and online social networks (OSNs) are, how they function, and how
they integrate both into the lives and experiences of students, and the functions and
operations of the university, will evolve over the course of this study (Creswell,
2003). This literature review will first provide a framework of student development
theories and social network analysis. Looking at Astin’s Student Involvement theory
(1984), Schlossberg’s Transition theory (1984), and Maslow’s theory of Human
Motivation (1943), as they relate to online social networks and social network
analysis will provide a good foundation to understand the complexities of students’
online interactions. Then the in-person and online communities will be discussed,
with a specific focus on Facebook and Myspace, as those two online social networks
are largely representative of online social networks as a whole. A discussion of the
legal issues surrounding OSNs and the university completes the chapter.
27

Framework
Student affairs professionals serve as “institutional agents” or individuals
who have the ability and knowledge to connect students with institutional resources
and support. Relationships with student affairs professionals help students to access
programs, resources and opportunities that they would not otherwise know about or
find (Nuss, 2003). Student organizations function and operate under the guidance of
the campus activities staff and connect students with similar interests, passions and
hobbies. Simply having a social network of peers from a common background allows
students to feel comfortable displaying their identity and beliefs when they might
otherwise shelter themselves from the possible risk of being put down for their
beliefs.
Student development theory, as a field of study, is what guides student affairs
professionals in helping students negotiate many of the challenges they are faced
with during their college experiences and beyond. The variety of developmental
issues (e.g. cognitive, moral/ethical, identity) that confront students are more
complex today than at any other time in higher education (Evans et al, 1998, p. xi).
Chickering (2000) argues that each institution’s educational environment bears great
influence on the developmental experiences of its students. According to Chickering
student development occurs through seven vectors: 1) Developing Competence, 2)
Managing Emotion, 3) Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence, 4)
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, 5) Establishing Identity, 6)
28

Developing Purpose, and 7) Developing Integrity. These vectors describe factors that
contribute to the formation of identity. For most students, the time spent in colleges
and the experiences they have during that time, mold their lifelong identity.
Development of identity, whether it is in the form of cultural, religious, sexual
orientation/preference, gender, occupational preference, emotional, relationship
(including familial), or any other types of identity typically involves a process of
stages, or phases of development. Understanding how students develop and behave,
and what factors influence that behavior and development, helps student affairs
professionals interact with students more effectively. Oftentimes, student affairs
professionals need to be able to apply multiple theories to any student. At any given
time each individual can be experiencing their development to varying extents in
terms of identity, cognitive, emotional and social development, and need to be
approached accordingly.
The role of student affairs professionals is to contribute to the educational
and developmental experiences a student has while in college. A student’s college
experience can be broken up into in-class and out-of-class activities. Student affairs
professionals predominantly work on issues relating to those out-of-class
experiences, of which online social networking is the newest and increasingly
prominent component. This study will look at the role of student affairs professionals
in providing programs and services that cultivate the educational and developmental
experiences of undergraduate students. There will be a particular focus on the effects
29

of OSN communities on the student experience. Specifically, understanding how
student affairs professionals can manage both the positive and negative effects of
OSNs on the educational and developmental experiences of college students.
Student affairs professionals work with many diverse student populations
with varying needs and interests. Students needs and interests range from community
service, multiple types of student organizations and underrepresented minority
student program offices. There are also services for students with disabilities,
professional organizations, and academic support services for students to participate
in. These groups of students or communities are supported and funded by the
institution because student affairs practitioners believe that doing so helps to
facilitate the experiences, skill-building, growth and development of students.
One principle of student affairs is that students learn and develop most
effectively when they are able to interact frequently with students from diverse
backgrounds. It is a desired outcome of student affairs to have students from diverse
backgrounds and experiences engage each other as part of their academic, social and
personal education. Diversity of culture and background is a necessary and vital
component of the college experience (Saunders, 2003). Diversity in student
populations and campus activities are important for development of the student’s
identity. College students have easy access to computers, in their apartments or
residence hall, and campus computer labs. Student computer usage is highly
encouraged by universities, who frequently employ academic web portals such as
30

WebCT, Blackboard, and library e-resource databases to support students’ academic
experiences, as well as mandate the use of university-assigned email accounts for
most communication.
The concept of social networks, to be discussed more in-depth, is significant
for approaching multiple contexts of interpersonal and group interaction. These
networks also provide support to the lifetime success of college students as each
network can support each student in individual ways and scenarios. Examining the
effects of online iterations of pre-existing social networks, and separate or new social
networks existing primarily online on the experiences of students will help student
affairs practitioners connect student development theory to online communities and
support students’ in their online activities. Student affairs professionals need to
become knowledgeable about students’ online activities, understand how these
activities impact college experiences, and determine how to incorporate the
engagement of students in this phenomenon into the field of student affairs work.

Student Development Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding
Student Usage of Online Social Networking Communities
Astin’s Student Involvement Theory
Astin’s (1984) student involvement theory links traditional pedagogical
theory variables such as subject matter, resources, individualization of approach and
desired learning outcomes. Involvement theory is concerned with the behavioral
31

processes that facilitate learning, rather than developmental outcomes (Astin, 1984,
1993). The overarching argument of the theory is that in order for student learning
and growth to take place, students must engage in their environments (Evans et al.,
1998). Astin (1984) defines involvement as the amount of physical and
psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience, and
involvement is viewed as what the student actually does (their behavior), rather than
their feelings, thoughts or motivations. According to Astin (1984), involvement
requires the investment of physical and psychological energy into the activity,
whether it is classroom related or entirely out-of-classroom (p. 298). Involvement
also requires a time commitment proportionate to the level of involvement (Astin,
1984; Borden, 2004).
Students spend a significant amount of time on computers to complete
coursework, as well as engaging in non-academic pursuits (Bollier, 1994; Bourne,
2004; Brazzel, 2005). Students may allocate less time for in-person involvement
because of this amalgam of online activities they are engaging in. Thus, they may be
uninvolved in the traditional definition of campus life and activities, or less involved
because they view involvement as a valued resource of time. Student involvement
theory proposes that the most precious institutional resource may be student time.
Additionally, student’s achievement of developmental goals is a direct function of
the time and effort they devote to activities designed to produce these gains. The
theory acknowledges that the psychological and physical time and energy of students
32

are finite and that educators compete with other forces in a student’s life for a share
of their time and energy (Astin, 1984). However, evaluating student involvement in a
physical time and energy sense is still contingent on traditional definitions of student
involvement—that is spending time and energy on campus, or at least in-person with
other students. It is not yet clear how applicable this is to students’ online
involvement or engagement. Brian, the student from the vignette in the introduction
to this study that stayed in his room at lunch to interact within the online social
networks versus going to lunch with his RA and hallmates. From Brian’s
perspective, he may be fully engaged in campus life, even though that does not fit the
traditional sense of engagement.
The level of involvement a student may experience will fluctuate over time
and over a multitude of different activities. The extent of a student’s involvement in
academic work, for instance, can be measured quantitatively (how many hours she or
he spends studying) and qualitatively (whether she or he reviews and comprehends
reading assignments or simply stares at the textbook and daydreams). The same
differentiation can be applied to out-of-classroom involvement. Astin’s theory also
argues that the effectiveness of any policy or practice is directly related to the
capacity of that policy or practice to increase student involvement and level of
engagement with the university. The amount of student learning and personal
development associated with any educational program is directly proportional to the
quality and quantity of student involvement in that program. As universities consider
33

interventions or other programs to incorporate student online activity into their work,
the quality and quantity of student involvement in online social networking should
be taken into account.

Schlossberg’s Transition Theory
Schlossberg (1984) describes transition theory as a vehicle for analyzing the
human response to transition. For Resident Advisors like Nesha from the vignette,
this theory facilitates an understanding throughout the year as her residents adapt to
their changing environment. Over the course of the academic year, students will be
experiencing a number of fluctuations in the amount of friendships and connections,
as well as their depth of interaction. Some of these changes will occur as a result of:
fall move-in day, changes experienced in relationships within their prior social
network over winter break and evolving peer relationships at school until summer
starts. Whether a student is preparing for transition, moving through it, or ending the
transition and looking towards what’s next, the theory explains the need of support
for the transition, and the opportunity to eliminate barriers to the transition. Life
transitions are often the reason an individual seeks learning (Aslanian & Brickell as
cited in Jacoby, 1989; Schlossberg, 1984), and transition theory can be applied to
learners of any age, gender, or ethnicity, but is typically categorized as a theory of
adult development (Evans et al., 1998).
34

The psychosocial effects of a student’s transition from high school into
college, with new surroundings and new people, will cause that student to want to
overcome barriers to the transition. Schlossberg (1984) defines a transition as “any
event or nonevent that results in change in relationships, routines, assumptions,
and/or roles within the settings of self, work, family, health, and/or economics,” (p.
43) and stresses that a transition is not the change itself, but the individual’s
perception of the change. As the student moves through the transition into and
through college, a key challenge for that student is finding a way to balance new
activities and people with other parts of life. Student affairs professionals can use
these challenges to provide support to students (Levin-Epstein & PaperClip
Communications, 2006; Stephens, 2006; Stutzman, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d).
This theory argues that in order to understand a transition’s meaning for an
individual, the type, context, and impact of the transition must be considered. To
assess an individual’s readiness for the moving in stage of a transition, the
framework of situation, self, support and strategies should be used and the resources
available in each component should be evaluated to determine how the individual
will cope with the transition (Schlossberg et al., 1995). Transitions can be
categorized as predicted, unpredictable/unscheduled, or nonevents—expected but did
not occur. The context is the individual’s relationship to the transition or it’s setting,
and the impact is the degree that the transition alters the individual’s daily life.
(Schlossberg et al, 1995). For many high school students, abandoning the social
35

network they spent upwards of 12 years building for a new social network to start
completely from scratch can be unsettling.
Today’s college students are even more susceptible to this phenomenon
(Beavers, 2004; Coomes, 2005; Esposito & Lang, 2006). Pressure to fit in and feel
like full-fledged members of the community leads students to seek out as many new
friends as possible by any means available to them (Schlossberg, Lynch &
Chickering, 1999). There are two typical high school-to-college transitions. The first
is a difference in the academic rigor between the student’s high school and their
university. The second main transition is the newfound freedom of being away from
home and not being forced to attend class or complete assignments and study.
Students will want to address transition of leaving the breadth and depth of their pre-
college social networks to fill that void in their lives, and thus, participate in online
social networking, in order to achieve the fulfillment of their needs as described by
Maslow.

Maslow’s Theory of Human Motivation
Human or individual motivation is driven by the desire to fulfill certain
needs. These needs must be fulfilled sequentially, that is one can only be motivated
to strive for fulfillment of one need provided that the need before it has been
achieved. In fact, according to Maslow (1943, 1954, 1968), “no need or drive can be
treated as if it were isolated or discrete; every drive is related to the state of
36

satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other drives,” (1954, p. 167). There is a concept of a
need for freedom that underlies the other basic needs. “We are motivated by the
desire to achieve or maintain the various conditions upon which these basic
satisfactions rest and by certain more intellectual desires,” (p. 176).
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954) essentially says that there are five
levels of basic needs that every human has, but the needs are generally felt only as
the need before it is met (Maslow, 1943, 1970). The needs, in order from most
essential to higher needs are: 1) Physiological: water, air and food; 2) Safety: shelter,
protection, health, routine/rhythm; 3) Love: love, affection, belonging, comfort; 4)
Esteem: value, self-worth, respect; and 5) Self-Actualization: the tendency for a
person to reach her or his full potential. Thus, a human will generally not be
concerned about love, esteem or self-actualization, until her needs of food, air and
water are met.
Maslow’s hierarchy is not pure, and there are exceptions to the general
principle that more basic needs are met first. Some people seek self-esteem before
love; others release their creativity (self-actualization) not as a result of achieving the
first four basic needs but in spite of doing so. Some people really will feel happy just
by having food and shelter/safety, and will not strive for higher needs, while others
do not feel the need for love, perhaps because a lack of experience with it (Maslow,
1943, 1970). Maslow writes, that if a need “has been satisfied for a long time, this
need may be underevaluated,” (Maslow, 1954, p. 173). Just because a person will
37

tend to desire the more basic of two unmet needs does not mean that she or he will
act in that fashion. Individuals that develop strong character, and general success
fulfilling each of the levels of needs, can then sustain a lack of fulfillment in that
given area for an extended amount of time (173), but will eventually need to have
that need met once again.
A person does not need to have physiological needs one hundred percent
fulfilled before safety needs emerge. A person will be motivated to fulfill various
needs through a variety of fluctuating factors. Gratification of these five basic needs
plays an important role in motivation theory, “a basically satisfied person no longer
has the needs for esteem, love, safety, etc,” (176) and that person will invest their
time and energy seeking out fulfillment of more advance needs. According to
Maslow, “everyday conscious desires are to be regarded as symptoms,” (p. 175) or
superficial indicators of basic needs. These needs must be addressed at a deeper level
in order to be satisfied. At a precursory level, one might predict that online social
networks primarily address the latter three categories of needs.
In the vignette Hannah’s self-actualization needs are at least partially
addressed by the blog she was actively writing, yet Lauren and Zack appear to be
striving to meet their self-esteem needs by proudly displaying pictures of themselves
inebriated at recent parties. The need most relevant to the setting of social networks
is that of love; that is, the need to feel comfort, a sense of belonging and that the
student is a part of a community. Maslow argues that a person’s actions will be
38

driven by their desires to fulfill particular needs. Looking at online communities as
organizations, a student user may already have her or his physiological and safety
needs partially or mostly fulfilled. That being the case, the purpose these Facebook
groups serve then is to help fulfill the love needs. Students want to feel like they are
not alone, they want to belong to groups and interact with others sharing similar
interests. That is why students will create or join subgroups within Facebook; groups
that mirror officially registered student organizations on campus, and groups that are
just based on hobbies, favorite TV shows/movies and political or other special
interests (Business Week online, 2004).

Social Network Analysis
A number of researchers have studied the methods, frequency and extent of
connections between individuals through analysis of blogs, and online social
networks, and how those connections might define and shape a community
(Stutzman, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Hampton 1979, 1990, 2001; Granovetter, 1973,
1990; Wellman and Hampton, 1999). Social network analysis classifies people as
nodes and the connections between them as ties (Granovetter, 1973). This analysis is
based on the notion that social cohesion is based on the strength and function of the
ties between people. A strong tie is characterized by a number of factors: 1) mutual
confiding in one another, 2) emotional intensity of the relationship, 3) amount of
39

time spent interacting, and 4) reciprocation of the connection (Granovetter, 1973;
Hampton, 1990).
People actually benefit both from strong and weak ties (Wellman, 1998;
Granovetter, 1973). The premise is that although one’s relationships with family and
close friends (the strong ties) are necessary and important to supporting that
individual, maintaining a number of weak ties with a diverse group of acquaintances
and other friends will provide a wider base of support and knowledge (Granovetter,
1973, 1978).
In looking at online social networks as communities, Hampton (2001)
identifies the concern that Internet use at home and engaging in OSNs detract from a
‘true’ sense of community and damage social capital. In actuality, Hampton is
arguing that OSNs and the Internet have the opposite effect. OSNs, or what Hampton
calls computer-mediated communities, increase access of diverse populations to each
other, thus increasing social capital. Additionally, in the Netville study, where a
small neighborhood was wired to provide wireless Internet access to over half of the
residents, the wired residents demonstrated greater off-line interactions and
familiarity with their neighbors than the non-wired residents (Hampton, 2001).

Importance of Developing Communities
The university, as a marketplace of ideas, is not only a bastion for academic
innovation and societal discovery, but also a forum for civil discourse (as evidenced
40

by ACLU v. Mote, 2005; Glover v. Cole, 1985). As such, it is important
developmentally for students to interact with and engage with students from multiple
backgrounds and those with a variety of experiences. Through this diversity of
opinions and perspectives, students will gain a more robust educational and
developmental experience (Nuss, 2003).
Communities organize around areas of common interest. Universities offer
support to a variety of student constituencies or communities, such as cultural
student program offices (serving Chicano, African, Asian-Pacific, Native-American
students); and resource centers (serving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
individuals; women and men; students with disabilities). Other communities of
students supported by universities include: student athletes and students interested in
physical fitness/recreation, students involved in campus activities and events and
those active in student organizations. These organizations include: fraternities,
sororities, community service groups, religious organizations, special-interest
groups, academic and professional organizations, honor societies, recreational
groups, and arts or publications. Each student organization and campus community
within the institution offers a sense of belonging and comfort to students, as well as a
place to network and befriend their peers, and communicate outside of class (Astin,
1984; Schlossberg, 1984; Maslow, 1943).
Although there are other campus communities that have not been served
adequately, universities in general, and student affairs practitioners as a whole, have
41

identified most student constituencies (Evans et al, 1998; UCR Student Affairs,
2006). For example, in Engaging Diverse Populations, Harper and Quaye (2008)
write that there are a number of student populations that are known to exist, but not
yet adequately served, including students with disabilities; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender and Questioning students; and international students. Commuter, part-
time, transfer or returning students, for example, are not yet served to the best of
staff abilities but they have been identified as an important community to focus
attention towards (Silverman, Aliabadi & Stiles, 2008). Undoubtedly, additional
campus communities will be established or identified over time. As an example, in
the early 1990’s, LGBT Resource Centers were not very common, yet they now exist
on a number of university campuses (UCR LGBTRC Establishment petition, 1991).
Online communities and OSNs are similar to other, in-person communities, and just
as important. However, OSNs fundamentally differ from in-person networks in the
nature, content and frequency of interactions between members (Levin-Epstein &
PaperClip Communications, 2006; Stutzman, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d).
In fact, most of the identified in-person campus communities are also
represented as OSNs within online communities. Myspace presents a highly
accessible venue for community groups organized around shared cultural values,
experiences and interests. Facebook is regularly utilized by officially registered
campus student organizations for event planning, invitations, and communication.
42

Even unregistered student groups or informal social networks use Facebook to
communicate, particularly for party and event invitations (Arrington, 2005).

Categories of Online Communities
There are multiple types of online student-to-student communication. Some
of this communication is set up by the university in an academic portal (e.g.
Blackboard and WebCT), and some of this communication is structured by the
university for student organization use (e.g. the Symplicity web portal). Students use
Myspace, Facebook, Xanga, Friendster, and others to communicate and interact with
students at their school, students from other schools and sometimes even non-
students (Myspace and Friendster, generally not Facebook). In addition, Instant
Messaging programs like AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, Microsoft
Messenger and ‘I Seek You’ (ICQ) messenger allow for students to chat with each
other in real-time through sending messages back and forth. Sending text messages
through cellular phones, which is essentially a blend of e-mail and instant messaging,
is another frequently employed student communication tool. Each of these types of
online communities influence and shape student experiences in a variety of ways,
providing multiple opportunities for potential engagement.

43

Academic Web Portals Employed by Universities
Web portals such as Blackboard, and WebCT are frequently utilized by
colleges and universities to supplement classroom instruction. For example,
Blackboard is a popular tool for universities to post pertinent course documents (e.g.
syllabi, assignments and sample tests) as well as host virtual classroom chats or
moderate a discussion board for class-related topics, and allow students to submit
assignments and view their grades online. Howard (2002) argues that students are in
some ways more involved and engaged in online courses than they are in the
traditional classroom setting. A website devoted to identifying academic integrity
violations relating to plagiarism, www.Turnitin.com, is also a tool for faculty to
record grades, and students and faculty to review and revise student work.

Co-Curricular Web Portals Employed by Universities
In addition to the academic portals referred to above, non-academic, or co-
curricular-focused portals are also available. Blackboard provides a module that
allows for increased productivity for student organizations to operate and function
online the same way that classes do on Blackboard. In addition to a student seeing all
of their classes when they log in to Blackboard, they would also see all of the student
organizations they are involved in. The fundamental difference between this and its
academic version, besides the lack of grades, is that the president of the organization
moderates the student group listing, while the faculty member moderates the course
44

listing. There are other types of online portals for student organization operations, all
of which offer online storage of student organization documents (minutes, budgets,
Constitution), up-to-date membership rosters, discussion boards and chat rooms for
online ‘meetings’ (www.symplicity.com, 2006; www.blackboard.com, 2006).

Online Social Networking Communities
From one of the earliest online social networks, or OSN,
(www.Friendster.com) to the most current and commonly used (Facebook), these
virtual OSNs fulfill a variety of functions for students. Some students use social
networks to seek out relationship opportunities, but in general, they are used by
students to connect to others with similar interests. This is particularly true of online
social networks. Students want to make new friends and reconnect or stay connected
with old friends (Fosbenner, 2005; Georgetown Voice Editorial Board, 2004). Online
dating websites will be discussed first, followed by the World Wide Web, E-mail and
Instant Messaging. Then, online social networking in general will be discussed, with
a specific focus on Facebook and Myspace.

Online Dating Websites
While this component of online social networking is not of primary focus for
this dissertation, this is a phenomena employed by a number of students to meet
others (mostly students) they might not otherwise meet. Students do not necessarily
45

meet most of the dating website contacts for a face-to-face encounter. Yet the
purpose of dating websites is for singles to get to know someone online and then
meet in person to initiate romantic relationships. Hundreds of different dating
websites exist to serve multiple needs and interests. There are both general dating
websites (e.g. www.eharmony.com, www.match.com) and specifically targeted
dating websites (e.g. www.jdate.com, geared for Jewish singles; and
www.stdsingles.com, which provides a venue for individuals that have sexually
transmitted diseases to connect to others with the same affliction).
For students who are looking for a relationship with someone that shares
similar interests, online dating websites provide a method to meet and interact with a
wide variety of people. In addition, a user can pre-screen other people by searching
only for the criteria or interests she or he is looking for (e.g. www.dating.com,
www.match.com, www.americansingles.com).

World Wide Web, E-mail, Instant Messaging
The World Wide Web is a system of accessing content and communicating
with others over the Internet. Almost any type of content one could think of would
be available on the web, including research material, instruction manuals, shopping,
and music and videos. Two of the major forms of communication over the Internet
are E-mail (electronic mail) and Instant Messaging. Fundamentally, the difference
between the two is that E-mail is sent from one person to a computer that holds the
46

communicated message until the recipient logs in to their e-mail to view it, while
Instant Messages are sent user-to-user in real time.
E-mail has increased the frequency and speed of communication amongst
people all over the world. Students at most universities, and some high schools, get
an email account on the institution’s server, just like employees for most
corporations and organizations. Instant Messaging programs (e.g. AOL, Yahoo,
MSN, ICQ) each have a buddy list, a list of “friends” or contacts that the user has
identified as people she or he wishes to communicate with on a more frequent basis.
Usually, when a user signs on to an IM program, his or her contact list appears, and
anyone who has that user on the buddy list will be notified that she or he has signed
on. Both E-mail and Instant Messages can also transmit files as attachments (e.g.
music, pictures, video, and documents).
There are also blogs, discussion boards and chat forums, that function both
independently and as part of other social networking websites. As mentioned
previously, Facebook and Myspace are the two OSNs of particular focus for this
study as those are the two that are engaging the highest numbers of student
participants. The next section will explain in more depth how those OSNs function.

Facebook as a model for most OSNs
Facebook is currently the most popular online social networking community
amongst college students, and currently is the sixth most trafficked site on the web,
47

meaning that it gets the sixth highest number of visitors (Facebook.com, 2007). In
addition to the 2500 college networks, that is, the setting within Facebook organized
around college campuses, there are also 22,000 networks for high schools, and
another 1000 corporate networks. The college version of Facebook was the first to be
released, starting in Harvard in 2004 and quickly spreading nationwide. In this sense,
a college portal means that membership and access is restricted to students attending
the same college (see “Registration and Access” below). There is a way for someone
to have a Facebook page under multiple networks (high school, university, additional
universities, corporation), and link them together. As a user of Facebook, generally a
user can only view the profiles of other students enrolled at the same institution, or
living in the same city proximity. For example, a University of California, Riverside
[UCR] student can view profiles of other UCR students or anyone living in
Riverside. Each of the following subsections will explain a different feature of
Facebook. It should be noted that statistics and specifics of features are current as of
Fall 2006, unless otherwise noted.
Registration and Access. The only form of identity verification that Facebook
currently employs is requiring new registrants to have a “.edu” e-mail account,
specifically one that is particular to that university. For example, a student from the
University of Southern California can only access Facebook by using her
“@usc.edu” email account. Upon completion of the registration form online, a
confirmation e-mail is sent to the students’ account. Thus, if a profile exists for a
48

staff colleague, but that staff person depicted did not set up the profile, looking at the
e-mail address of the profile can help in determining what person set up the account.
If the e-mail address is jdoe@student.ucr.edu, one can determine that John Doe
created that profile.
Viewing Profiles. Users can only view the profiles of users within their
network and anyone else that they are friends with (see below). A Facebook user can
adjust their privacy settings to affect what information can be seen by friends,
acquaintances and users-at-large.
Friend Requests. Within each Facebook network (e.g. based on the university
attended or geographic location of residence), any user within that network can view
the profile of anyone else within that network. Any user can request to be linked as a
friend to any user from any network. Once a user sends a friend request, the second
user has to confirm or deny that the two are ‘friends’. If the friend request is denied,
the first user does not get a message indicating it was denied. As far as that user
knows, the second user just has not reviewed the friend request yet. A large number
of Facebook users approve most friend requests, whether or not they know the
person in real life.
Messages. Any user of Facebook can send a message to any other user.
Members can elect to block someone to prevent that person from sending them
messages.
49

The “Wall”. The message wall is a venue for members to post a message up
on another member’s “wall” or message board. Oftentimes, these posts relate to
birthday wishes, a quick note about needing to get together, or a message about
upcoming event. There is a feature here to view the shared wall messages between
two users. Called “Wall-to-Wall”, the users that posted the messages, and anyone
else from within their network, can see the string of messages back and forth.
Another feature of the “Wall” is that when students have pictures posted, other
students may post a comment about that picture, and that comment will appear on the
wall.
Event Announcements/RSVPs. Students will post an event on Facebook and
invite their friends to attend. Oftentimes these events are related to officially
registered campus student organizations, or Facebook groups that are not officially
recognized by the university as a student organization
Facebook Groups. In addition to campus-recognized student organizations
that also operate as groups on Facebook, there are some Facebook groups that are not
official student organizations on campus. One such example at the University of
California, Riverside of a Facebook group that is not registered with the university is
the Jamaican Heritage Club, which claims to appreciate Jamaican culture, but in
actuality uses fundraisers to buy beer and marijuana for members.
“Pokes”. Facebook.com itself actually has no stated purpose for the “poke”
feature. It functions as a flirtatious or teasing way to say hello, or that one user is
50

thinking about another. The closest parallel to real-life is the colloquial and casual
“What’s up?” that one person would say to another in passing, without expecting an
answer. Comparable features on other websites include the “Wink” on www.match.com,
or the “click” feature on www.americansingles.com.
Birthdays. When a user registers for Facebook, she enters her birthday, and
from that point on, all of her Facebook friends will see a notice as soon as they log-
on indicating that their friend’s birthday is coming up. Many users have indicated a
strong affinity for this feature (Facebook.com, 2006).
Pictures and Comments. Students can upload an unlimited amount of pictures
on Facebook. Once the pictures are posted, the student can go through each one and
“tag” their friends that are in the pictures. A “tag” is a way for a user to identify who
is in the picture. To “tag” someone, the student posting the picture has to click on the
face of the person in the picture, and a window pops up for the student to type in the
name of his or her friend. Once someone is “tagged”, the picture now appears in his
or her photo album. Facebook itself has a disclaimer and policy that prohibits
postings of a “harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or
racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable” nature (Facebook.com, 2006), and
there are a number of staff at Facebook that review profiles for content (typically
only when they receive a complaint or concern).
Since there are over 8 million college student users, and millions more still in
high school, Facebook does not actively peruse student profiles; Facebook would
need to exponentially increase staffing in order to come close to keeping on top of
51

user-posted content. While this also seems like a lack of oversight on the part of
Facebook, the disclaimer policy about content and their terms of use policy seems to
have staved off litigation on this point thus far. An interesting aspect of Facebook is
that the staff frequently implement changes to the features, as well as the wording of
their policies, without much warning or notice to users. Users are expected to
frequently review the policies for changes, and if a user does not speak up, it is
presumed that the user is in agreement with the changed policy.
Status Updates. Students on Facebook can optionally choose to update or
enter their status each time they sign on or whenever desired. The status might be
something real, such as where she or he has signed in from, or current activity, or
something of a more joking nature.

Effects of Online Social Networking
In March 2006, when the immigration issue in California became a heated,
daily discussion about political actions being debated at the Federal, State and local
levels, high school students organized walkouts via their Myspace profiles and
pages. While some walkout participants were not fully cognizant of what they were
doing, the fact that the walkouts were so widespread, with significant participation
rates, speaks volumes for the increased presence of underrepresented minority
students online (Salmon & Bustamante, 2006).
52

In high school, most students are sitting atop social networks that have, for
the most part, been building for 12 or more years. Students are accustomed to seeing
their friends and contacts on a daily or regular basis. Apart from students who
change schools and/or move to new areas during the latter years of junior high or
high school, and not counting the online social networks high school students may
already have established, seniors graduate with very large social networks that have
great influence on their lives (Antonio, 2004). As students transition out of high
school into college, many of their friends might be working or going to school in
other parts of the state or country. Each student has to basically rebuild his or her
social network, and students will want to fill the void in their social network as
quickly as possible (Schlossberg, 1984; Antonio, 2004), enter Online Social
Networking Communities such as Myspace and Facebook.

Negative Effects of OSNs
In the recent past (since January 2006 at least), popular press and media have
reported numerous negative impacts of OSNs like Myspace on society. In fact, the
phenomena of increasing Myspace usage has evidenced itself as references in
comedy routines on The Tonight Show, Saturday Night Live and elsewhere
throughout the media and society. Cyber-stalking and Internet predators are both
severe drawbacks of online social networks. That is one of the largest negative
consequences of having so much personal information listed online.
53

At Kent State University, athletes were banned from using Facebook.com
and given a deadline by which they had to remove their current profiles completely
(The Wired Campus, 2006a). This is, in part, to stave off potential for recruitment
from sports agents, but due mostly to the desire to avoid NCAA and legal
ramifications of inappropriate pictures that would reflect negatively on the
institution, and athletic department. Kent State’s Athletic Department is trying to
protect itself as “pictures of hazing and underage drinking aren’t exactly good news
for athletics programs,” (The Wired Campus, 2006a). Similar issues with athletics
departments have occurred at other institutions, such as Elon University and
Northwestern (The Wired Campus, 2006c). Thus, there appears to be a growing
trend starting in athletics departments nationwide to at least warn athletes of the
perils to themselves, the department and the institution of using Facebook.com (The
Wired Campus, 2006a). In most, if not all, of these cases, the prohibition on using
online social networks has not lasted, as will be discussed later.
Some professors are now using Facebook to check up on students’ claims of
being sick as an excuse to miss class (Applebe, 2004; Holt, 2004; Snow, 2004).
When the professor checks out this alibi on the students Facebook.com profile, and
sees that the student actually was at a party the night before, the requested
accommodation from the student (e.g. a make up exam) is routinely denied (The
Wired Campus, 2006b). It also is not surprising that employers, both inside and
outside the campus environment, are finding ways to look up job applicants on
54

Myspace.com, Facebook.com and other online communities and online social
networks (Hirschland, 2006; Krupnick, 2006; Lester, 2004). Potential employers are
using this as a method to screen out candidates whose actions outside of work might
reflect negatively on the employer (Bugeja, 2006.
At Brandeis University, a student posted a comment to her Facebook profile
referencing her marijuana-smoking habits. Word of this reached her parents and
grandmother, leading to their disappointment and her embarrassment (Schweitzer,
2005). Schweitzer goes on to write that Brandeis University began implementing
educational seminars for students soon after this incident, on how to avoid the
pitfalls of online communities such as the Facebook. Public safety officers at many
campuses have utilized online social networks to find out about inappropriate
activities and respond to them. This includes the University of Mississippi, where a
Facebook group stated the desire to have sex with one of the university professors
(Schweitzer, 2005), and the University of Southern California and UC Berkeley,
where campus security officers broke up parties that they found out about online
(Nguyen, 2004; Springer, 2006).
Alter-Egos Online. One of the freedoms that the Internet allows is for
students to pretend to be someone other than themselves. Students will create fake
identities or fake personas on their Myspace or Facebook accounts. It is not clear
whether students are using the personas to explore new interests, hidden elements of
their personality, a completely separate identity, or just to have fun. For example, a
55

student might never tell people in-person that he is a fan of a particular genre of
movies, but he might list them on his favorite movies list on his Facebook profile.
Some students will create entirely fake profiles under the name of their favorite
superhero or cartoon character, movie or TV star, or university administrator. These
unauthorized profiles of others are expressly prohibited in the Facebook terms of use
(www.Facebook.com, 2006).
Of some concern are the profiles created by ‘fakesters’ pretending to be
university administrators or staff members (Facebook.com, 2006; Carducci &
Rhoads, 2005). Anyone who views the profile is going to assume that information is
entirely accurate. For example, there are many potential problems that would arise if
there is a fake profile for the university president, with comments that imply the
president thinks the university is a horrible place to be and a bad learning
environment.
With regards to fake profiles and “fakesters”—those who create the fake
profiles, Facebook official policy states that when they are notified of the fake
profile they will remove the profile and suspend the user who posted it. Another
drawback associated with fake profiles is that other students do not know what
information is real and what is fake. This is also important for regular profiles that
may or may not reflect the true persona of the student who posted it.
People also will sometimes lie about their age on Myspace. A number of
adult males have been arrested for lying about their age (or even telling the truth
56

about their age) just so they can meet up with underage boys or girls (NBC To Catch
a Predator, 2006). In online chat rooms there are a lot of people who lie about their
age or other characteristics.
The most obvious reason for a fake profile is just for fun. It is possible that
students might just feel more comfortable sharing information online then in person
(Shuey, 2005; Stutzman, 2005a). For most students a hobby or particular interest
might not come up in casual conversation with most people, and is something only
their friends know. Students might actually display less information online then their
friends know about them (Stutzman, 2005a). That could be that they are too lazy to
complete the profile, or perhaps they know how to exercise their privacy rights and
have actually limited who can access what information.
Safety Concerns. There are a number of indications that there are significant
safety concerns associated with the use of online communities. Foremost among
them has been the NBC Dateline segments entitled “To Catch a Predator”, in which
older men are caught in a police sting trying to meet up with an underage minor (To
Catch a Predator, 2006). Cyber predators are a commonly recognized phenomenon,
referenced repeatedly on television news, in print, and even popular shows like
Saturday Night Live (Saturday Night Live [SNL] May 13, 2006). In an episode of
SNL, one skit portrayed a number of adults sitting through a workshop on how to set
up a profile on Myspace. Out of 15 people in the room, one was a woman who
wanted to set up a profile of her own, and had questions about what her daughter was
57

doing online. The rest of the community participants were men in their 30s and 40s
who were setting up profiles for themselves, but making it look as though they were
in their mid-to-late teens. At the end of the scene, a police officer mistakenly walks
into the room and all of the men in the seminar ran out, underscoring their
knowledge that their behavior was inappropriate.
College students may not be soliciting interactions with underage minors, but
they are posting messages and pictures of themselves and their friends engaging in
underage drinking, the consumption of illegal drugs, and other behaviors and actions
that would be considered inappropriate according to the university student code of
conduct (www.ucr.edu, 2006; www.usc.edu, 2006). When these behaviors occur
offline, for example the residence halls, and are reported, they typically result in
judicial action.

Positive Effects of OSNs
Using online social networks, students can keep in touch with friends that are
not attending college with them, as well as seek out new friends. Over summer, when
students are separated from college friends, Facebook, Myspace and other OSNs
serve to facilitate communication and camaraderie while these students may not be
able to see each other. In fact, any student user can message any other user through
these OSNs. Many online social networks also provide a venue for creating online
event or party announcements and inviting friends and others to the event. There are
58

some websites where the primary function is to manage party and event invitations
(www.evite.com).
Another function of online OSNs, and actually the stated purpose of
Facebook, is to be an online directory of information, including: email addresses,
phone numbers, hobbies, interests, pictures and messages.
Retention. Student retention rates are important issues of concern for every
university. Students that are involved in campus activities, such as student
organizations, internships, and other out of classroom activities are less likely to drop
out of the university. Students that are involved in campus life have multiple social
networks that support them during their time at the university. These networks
include the organizations they are members of, their roommates and hallmates, study
groups for each class, as well as their network of friends. All of these networks serve
to support the student during college (Astin, 1984; Ellis, 2004). Research has shown
that online social networks serve a similar supporting function; they offer support,
comfort, camaraderie, and even a distraction or pastime. The structure provided by
these in-person and online social networks (Granovetter, 1973) provide emotional
support and a sense of belonging, which provides them a crucial foundation for
student success in college (Kuh et al, 2005; Maslow, 1943).
Easing transition. OSNs help ease the transition for students from high
school to college. Some universities have encouraged summer orientation leaders or
resident advisors to go onto Facebook and search out their students before meeting
59

them in person to get them involved and engaged that much sooner. Students are also
using Facebook shortly after they get their university email account, checking out the
profile of the student who they are assigned to room with, and checking their
‘compatibility’. This is both a positive and a negative, as Housing Services has had
to deal with an increase in roommate change requests before move-in day
(Schweitzer, 2005).
Increased connectivity with multiple, diverse populations. Access to
technology, specifically computers and the Internet, among the disadvantaged has
become increasingly common. As mentioned above, in April and May 2006,
California experienced a large number of walkouts and protests related to the issue of
immigration reform that were organized through Myspace and other online social
networking phenomena (NBC, 2006a). This means that populations of students
previously without much access to the Internet or technology in general, now have a
presence online (Salmon & Bustamante, 2006). Additionally, the increased presence
of multiple, diverse populations online and within online social networks will
stimulate more interactions between students with different backgrounds, leading to
more understanding of each other and each other’s experiences.
As Figure 1 shows, when looking at a college student’s in-person
experiences, completely separate from that student’s online social networking
activities, a lot can be gleaned from the student’s social interactions. For this student,
spheres of social interaction may be loosely connected. There may be some
60

individuals from one social sphere that exist also within other spheres, but that
crossover is disconnected.

Figure 1. One conceptual model of a student’s in-person interactions.
However, when looking at the effects of social interaction due to online
social networking, a very different level, type and frequency of interactions is
evident. As shown in Figure 2, the multiple spheres of social interaction present in
this student’s life overlap when the student is interacting with these constituencies
online.
Family
Other
Activities
Roommates /
Neighbors
Classes
Student
Organizations
Friends

Student
61

Figure 2. A conceptual model of a student’s online interactions.

Conceptually, the theories of Astin, Schlossberg and Maslow woven together with
Granovetter’s social network analysis provide a foundation for understanding online
communities. The resulting comprehensive theory indicates that through online
social networking, a student can interact with many formerly distinct constituencies
simultaneously. Additionally, that person’s friends and contacts will be more likely
to connect to each other independently of that primary individual than they would
Roommates /
Neighbors
Other
activities
Student
organization
Classmates
Family
Friends
Student
62

had the interactions only been in-person. This conceptual framework will be tested as
part of the survey and focus group protocol throughout this study.
The remainder of this chapter will explore court cases and legal implications
for Universities, followed by conclusions. The next chapter will present this study’s
methodology. Chapter IV will convey the results of this study that are applicable to
the three research questions. Finally, Chapter V will present conclusions,
recommendations and implications for further research.

Court Cases
In Loco Parentis
Though they are not the legal guardians of students, universities are often
seen as guardians nonetheless. This concept of university staff functioning “in place
of the parent” or in loco parentis, implies that there's an expectation that universities
have responsibility to function in the same way as parents would, while the student is
at school (Larabee, 2006). That is, society generally has the expectation that the
university will educate students, monitor what they do, and help discipline them
appropriately much like a parent would discipline his or her children. It is not to say
that parents do not want to take a role in their college student’s education, but rather
that most of the educational experiences take care of itself. One application of the
principle of in loco parentis is whether or not the university maintains a duty of care
63

to its students and the community to monitor the online content posted by students
(Mawdaley, 2004).
Communications Decency Act
First proposed in 1995, and passed in February 1996, the Communications
Decency Act sought to ban specific words and content from being available on the
Internet. This included fiction like “Catcher in the Rye and “the 7 dirty words”
(Center for Democracy and Technology, 2006). In addition to barring offensive
content such as cyberhate or pornography and vulgarity, the CDA would have made
“criminals out of anyone transmitting these materials electronically,” which Shari
Steele says would have contradicted a number of court decisions at the time that
upheld the freedom of speech on the World Wide Web (Steele, 1995; Johnson,
1995). The CDA dealt not only with the Internet, but other forms of electronic media
are addressed, including harassing phone calls, charges billed when calling toll-free
numbers, and increased fines for radio and TV obscenities, (S. 314-CDA; Center for
Democracy and Technology, 1995). The CDA was a way for adults to satisfy their
“duty to take responsibility for adult misbehaviors and to quit blaming them on
young people,” (Males, 276).
The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition filed suit to overturn the CDA,
challenging “that the Internet is a unique communications technology which
deserves First Amendment protections at least as broad as those enjoyed as by the
print medium,” (Center for Democracy and Technology, 2005). The CIEC goes on to
64

say that individuals and families should exercise discretion in their own activities
online; as opposed to having the government prohibit content. The CDA was
eventually struck down by the Supreme Court on June 26, 1997, citing the Internet as
a “unique medium entitled to the highest protection under the free speech protections
of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. This gives the Internet the same free
speech protection as print (media). The Internet is the first electronic media to
achieve this because of low barriers to access, abundance, many speakers, no
gatekeepers,” (Center for Democracy and Technology, 2006). In the Court’s
decision, the Court resoundingly rejected the notion of “censorship of the on-line
medium and establishes the fundamental principles that will guide judicial
consideration of the Internet for the 21st Century,” (Electronic Privacy Information
Center, 2006).
Network Neutrality
On May 25, 2006, the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the
network-neutrality bill, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act, HR 5417,
which would make it an “anti-trust violation for telecommunications companies to
favor certain types of network traffic with fast-lane delivery to people’s computers
and put other traffic in the slow lane,” (Free Press, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006). As this quote suggests, the bill ensures fair
and equal access to the Internet by everyone without discrimination or prejudice, as
opposed to Internet Service Providers currently being able to limit who can access
65

what arbitrarily. “‘Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the
restoration of the health of our democracy,’ former Vice President Al Gore declared
in a recent speech. ‘It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be
protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by
large media conglomerates,’” (Free Press, 2006c).
According to the provisions of the Bill, the four essential Internet Freedoms
that are included are: “1) Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content
of their choice; 2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; 3) Consumers are entitled to
connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4) Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and
service providers, and content providers,” (Wikipedia, 2006, p. 4).
These four provisions, should the Bill pass, will set up a new framework for
analyzing some First Amendment Rights and applications on the Internet. These
applications will provide guidance to student affairs professionals in responding to
issues of concern with student-posted content online.
Court Cases and Judgments
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 853, 870 (1997) says that, “First Amendment
rights apply with full force to the Internet,” (Levy, 2006, p. 5). How that applies,
however, has not yet been exhaustively determined for various types of content
within various forms online. The courts distinguish between passive sites (for
66

example, a university website) and highly interactive sites (websites like match.com,
Myspace.com and Facebook.com would be considered highly interactive) and
everywhere in between, in determining jurisdiction for lawsuits. At issue for most
universities, is the appropriateness and/or legality of student-posted online content,
communication, and file-sharing through online social networking sites such as
Facebook and Myspace. These online communities where participants post personal
profiles, information, interests, pictures, messages and other communication pose
significant questions for society (Silverman, 2006).
One main problem is that most users do not exercise restraint in what they
post, blatantly bragging about their illegal activities, latest sexual exploits, and even
tactless insults, both in comments and pictures. It is not yet clear if students would
exercise restraint if they knew how the content they post affects how they are
perceived (Bugeja, 2006). Even if they do realize the detrimental effect their content
might have, they may not be aware that the entire Internet is considered public
domain, whether or not a password is required to log-in.
There is not much that can be done about the offensive and inappropriate
content on some sites, or even the existence of some of the websites themselves.
However, university concern tends to be related to general worry about what students
might be running into online, what students might be posting and how that might
affect them long-term (Mawdaley, 2004; Wellman & Gulia, 1997). Societal concern,
67

of course, includes this, and broader concerns covering all constituents, most
notably, Internet predators.
The First Amendment will not allow for society to prohibit most offensive,
inappropriate content from the Internet. Even if universities were to have enough
staff to monitor and regulate all student-posted online content, it is not clear that that
would be an appropriate action (Levy, n.d.). Most Free Speech litigation and news
stories mention that if party A is saying something that offends party B, the
university cannot stop party A from saying it (unless it falls under the unprotected
speech category), but the university is obligated to offer party B equal time and
opportunity to present his or her own viewpoint (Calleros, 1997; French, Lukianoff
& Silverglate, 2005).
Looking at possible legal questions that might arise out of actual incidents
that have occurred at the primary institution of study, the University of Southern
California, and the University of California, Riverside as the institution where the
researcher works, will provide clarity in applying this phenomenon to legal
applications. For each of the four issues listed below, two or three bullet points will
follow demonstrating possible outcomes to legal questions that might arise:
1) a student talking about his severe depression online right before successfully
committing suicide;
a. The student’s family could very well sue the university for negligence and win,
if the university had a stated policy of reviewing Internet content.
68

b. Without a stated policy of review, the student’s family could probably sue for
negligence for not catching other warning signs, or educating student up front
about warning signs.
2) students exchanging insulting remarks through their Facebook.com profiles;
a. Without any physical altercation, any legal action on this depends on the
severity of the harassment, but will probably not be negligence.
b. With a resulting physical altercation, negligence seems a valid argument.
3) proof (in pictures and messages) of students engaging in underage drinking and
the use of illegal drugs;
a. There are grounds for negligence at a later date because there is reasonable
evidence to predict continuance of this deleterious behavior.
b. The students and their families can argue that it was the university’s obligation
to protect their students from the harmful behavior of themselves or others.
4) Cyber hate, that is, a student posting messages of a hateful nature, including
swastikas and messages related to specific, targeted groups being inferior, on his
website and Facebook.com pages, as well as using his university email account
to harass students.
a. Harassment here is easier to prove. Should the university know about this and
let it continue, the university might be held liable for negligence for letting the
harassment continue (and likely get worse over time).
69

b. Again, the university might also be held liable for negligence in not educating
their students properly to avoid this sort of confrontation.
One additional area of concern is that if the university receives hints or tips from
students and other campus community members about incidents or pending issues,
they might be sued for negligence just because everyone might assume that they
were told about a pending online issue or concern and chosen not to do anything
about it. This is potentially the case even if the university makes no official statement
about regular and consistent review of online material, but particularly so if there is
an official statement.

Legal Implications for Universities
Institutions of higher education have a moral and legal obligation to protect
the rights of their students in their pursuit of education, while maintaining the
sanctity of the university as a “marketplace of ideas” (Kaplin & Lee, 1995). In ACLU
v. Mote (2005) the District Court for the Maryland-Southern Division, quotes Glover
v. Cole, 762 F.2d 1197, 1200 (4
th
Cir. 1985), that “a college milieu is the
quintessential ‘marketplace of ideas’.” Essentially, one of the benefits of the college
environment is its place as a venue for every perspective and viewpoint to contribute
to learning and development. For all public universities, all private universities in
California (Leonard’s Law) and other states with regulations imposing Free Speech
requirements on private institutions, and most private universities receiving a great
70

deal of Federal funding, there is an expectation that universities need to balance
individuals’ rights to freedom of speech with the need to maintain a campus
community of respect, and preserve the university as a marketplace of ideas.
Universities typically employ student conduct codes to address behavioral
issues that the institution expects to be of particular relevance to students during their
college experience. Given the growing cognizance of Internet-related questions of
free speech, will universities turn to their codes of conduct and add wording to
specifically address online content and speech that students post? Yet, if universities
have a specific, enumerated policy declaring that they will monitor online content of
student web pages, profiles, and user-created online social networking communities,
are they then opening themselves up to liability on a number of issues? These issues
are: 1) negligence for failing to catch warning signs of a potential problem before it
happens, 2) possible infringement on First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech,
3) failing to establish or preserve a safe learning environment free from harassment
that is conducive to a positive learning experience.
Liability might still exist without a formal policy, but that has yet to be
determined by the Courts, and even so, it is likely much weaker than the liability
attached if there is a formal policy. There is a chance that someone can sue a
university for negligence for not warning a student about the pitfalls of participating
in online communities. Based on the earlier discussion of what constitutes
71

negligence, any reasonable person would most likely educate students about these
pitfalls, so universities ought to pay attention and educate their students.
The role of student affairs professionals on campus is to support the
educational and developmental experiences of college students to supplement their
in-class education with a co-curricular or out-of-class experience. Given the
increasingly prominent role that the Internet and developing technology is playing
within the lives of today’s students, it is important for universities to pay attention to
online issues of free speech. By doing so, student affairs professionals can
understand what students are doing online, outside of the classroom, and how to
support their students in their online activities.

Negligence and the University
Negligence is defined as a failure to exercise the duty of care towards others
which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action
which such a reasonable person would not, and is a “legal cause of damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially
to producing such damage, so it can reasonable be said that if not for the negligence,
the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred,” ('Lectric Law Library, 2006).
In essence, negligence is the failure to protect society against unnecessary or
unreasonable risks, and any person or institution that neglects to protect society,
particularly a specific individual or group of individuals, can be held liable for the
72

ensuing damages (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2006). In any legal action in which
negligence is one of the theories used, the court will evaluate the facts of the incident
to determine what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances.
In some instances, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been found
negligent for failing to protect its users (customers) from harm that a reasonable
person would have taken action to prevent. Plaintiffs are increasingly suing Internet
Service Providers for failing to police the Internet for porn, Internet predators, or
other objectionable content. Not only are they suing these ISPs, but oftentimes,
plaintiffs are winning their cases in the courts. The argument is that “ISPs are not
only failing to monitor their Web sites properly, but federal laws are also
contributing to the problem by granting ISPs broad immunity from suits challenging
content they carry,” (Baldas, 2006). The Federal law Baldas is referring to is the
Communications Decency Act, which would have made it easier to sue ISPs for
content posted by their customers; it was eventually thrown out by the Supreme
Court.
Baldas (2006) writes that in Doe v. Bates and Yahoo, the plaintiff and his
parents sued Yahoo, Inc., alleging that Yahoo allowed Bates and others to share
pornography on a website created and accessed through Yahoo (No. 5:05 CV 91).
This website included nude pictures of the minor who had allegedly been molested
and photographed by a neighbor. The plaintiffs in this case are arguing that Yahoo
itself is in violation of federal child pornography statutes “by receiving, distributing,
73

storing and disseminating child pornography,” (Baldas, 2006). In Barnes v. Yahoo
(2005), a woman sued Yahoo for allowing her ex-boyfriend to post nude pictures of
her on an online profile. This legal action also alleges that in response to a formal
complaint that she filed with Yahoo, Yahoo promised to remove the pictures, but had
not yet done so (Civil No. 05-926-AA).
An attorney for one of the above plaintiffs believes that the reason why there
is so much concern over Internet content and behavior is that “people can do
whatever they want under the guise of free speech. People are allowed to peddle
whatever they want on the Internet and ISPs have just turned a blind eye,” (Baldas,
2006). Under the guise of the Communications Decency Act, which was eventually
struck down, ISPs enjoyed federal shielding from prosecution for the actions of its
customers, though even in the mid-1990’s ISPs were working to educate their users
(particularly parents) over how to be safe online (Baldas, 2006). It does seem as
though current law is placing increasing liability on ISPs for the actions of their
customers, so ISPs are likely to develop stricter regulations and more diligent
enforcement, since there is established liability and an expected duty of care.
As institutions of higher learning, virtually every university functions in the
role of Internet Service Provider in some way. Most institutions offer high-speed
Internet service through the campus network. What this means is that the university
plays a dual-role in relation to Internet usage by its students, that of Internet Service
Provider, and that of in loco parentis, which guides universities not to control or
74

parent students, but to guide them along cognitive, moral, ethical and identity
developmental pathways. In this instance, the university’s role is to educate student
about the implications and effects of content they might choose to post online.
For this discussion, negligence could be applied to the university for failing
to act on suspicion of students engaging in illegal activities that result in “loss, injury
or damage” sustained by another individual or group of individuals per the definition
used above. This does not necessarily mean that because a student puts up pictures of
him or herself engaging in underage drinking that the university can be sued for not
forcing that student to go to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, or an educational
workshop. Undoubtedly, if that intoxicated student would get into verbal and
physical altercations with other students that resulted in assault, the university might
be facing a lawsuit, for failing to be aware of what was occurring. This would be
particularly true if the student would post pictures from the wild party he had been at
and talk about how crazy he acted, and other students were aware of all of this.
This might be considered a lack of oversight on the university’s part. The
university would be in a significantly worse position should there be an official or
understood policy that the university would be regularly monitoring Facebook.com
(‘Lectric Law Library, n.d.; Kaplin & Lee, 1995). In that case, the lawsuit from the
students injured during a physical altercation with the underage drinker, would allege
that the university was negligent for knowing what was going on, and failing to do
something about it (Kaplin & Lee, 1995).
75

In addition, there are few universities that could afford to monitor user-posted
online content, even if the university wants to. Wise institutions will only follow up
on reported instances of problematic issues with student-posted online content. The
university itself cannot officially seek out problems up front without facing severe
liability. Universities do not have enough funding or staffing to realistically monitor
all of the online content posted by their students, and thus should not create the
expectation that they will do so.
It is unclear what levels of liability can be assessed to universities for the
Internet content posted by students in OSN profiles. Universities might very well
face liability even without an official statement of monitoring student-posted Internet
content. Yet, the biggest concern seems to be that if universities officially state that
the university will monitor the Internet content posted by their students it may face
liability for negligence. This is particularly the case if that content includes explicit
or implicit pictures, messages or comments pertaining to illegal activities or some
other questionable activity. Neither legal theory has been tried in the court as of yet,
but an official statement of reviewing online communities for content, whether it is
made in the Student Code of Conduct, university handbook, or even vocalized in a
university orientation session, sets up an expectation of a duty of care. The university
is obligated to protect its students from injury and insult, harm and harassment, as
well as an obligation to follow up on every problematic issue with interventions or
sanctions, judicial or otherwise (Bugeja, 2006). In fact, it is highly likely that
76

universities need to take reasonable steps to educate students about potential pitfalls
and risks in order to minimize their liability.

Conclusion
In this chapter the researcher has reviewed all of the relevant literature
connecting student involvement, transition and human motivation student
development theories to social network analysis as that framework applied to online
communities and online social networking. In addition literature about in-person and
online communities has been presented to frame a possible data result that online
communities fulfill a similar purpose and function as in-person or online
communities. Finally, the researcher has reviewed the legal implications posed to
universities by student participation and activities within online communities and
online social networks.
77

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Chapter Overview
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to understand students’
perceptions about the importance of online social networking and their views on the
role that colleges and universities should play in managing student usage of these
phenomena. This study will employ the use of the student voice to examine the effect
of student use of online phenomena (e.g. Facebook.com and Myspace.com) on their
educational and developmental experiences, campus communities and the practice of
student affairs. That will shape and frame the student perspective and inform student
affairs professionals and administrators about the online social networking
experience. The student voice will be gathered through conducting focus groups and
an online survey. Additionally, by participating in and observing online social
networks (particularly Facebook), the researcher will gain insight into actual student
interactions within online communities. By gaining a better understanding of the
effects that online communities and online social networks (OSNs) have on college
students’ experiences, student affairs professionals will have a stronger sense of how
to work with students in this new type of community, and how best to support
students in their online interactions.
This study will help student affairs professionals understand: 1) what online
communities and OSNs are and how they function, 2) the role they play in the
student experience, and 3) how student affairs professionals should interact with
78

students using online communities. This researcher will also identify current best
practices on university campuses for working with students on issues related to
Facebook and other online social networks, and use those practices as models for
additional interventions.
The research questions in this study are:
1. How do students utilize Online Social Networks, and in what ways do they
engage with each other?
2. What do students feel are the benefits and drawbacks associated with their
usage of online communities and online social networks?
3. What are students’ attitudes and perceptions about staff and administrator
involvement in online social networks?
This chapter will provide a detailed description of the procedure to be followed
during the course of this proposed study, including the design, sample and
population, data collection and analysis. This chapter discusses the research methods
used in this study to understand student perceptions about the importance of online
social networking and their views. First, the qualitative methods approach to this
phenomenological study will be presented and justified. Then the sample and
population, data collection procedures and data analysis procedures will be presented
and explained. The ethical considerations will also be addressed. Finally, the
demographic information for actual focus group participants and survey respondents
will be presented.
79

Research Design
This study will be qualitative in nature, and data will be collected through a
combination of surveys, focus groups, document analysis, and researcher participant-
observation within Facebook as a model for all online communities. Reviewing and
participating in a number of online social networks or online communities, mainly
Facebook and Myspace, will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of
the way these communities work and the varied types of interactions students have
within them. Additionally, that understanding will assist in the formation of survey
questions and focus group protocol. The surveys collected and focus groups
conducted will yield data that will answer all three research questions.
The online student surveys and focus group protocols each contained a number
of questions that are applicable in answering the first research question: How do
students utilize Online Social Networks, and in what ways do they engage with each
other? These survey and focus group questions included variations along the
following lines: “what do you use online social networks for and how do you expect
your usage to change”, “what role do OSNs play in your life and college
experiences”, “what would make you stop using any particular site”, “what types of
in-person communities and online groups are you a part of”, “what is the difference
between in-person communities (i.e. your school, your neighborhood, your city, and
other actual communities you identify with) and online communities”, “what is the
difference between online social networks and other online communication tools and
80

academic portals”, etc. These questions were asked in various forms, and even those
with different aims sometimes resulted in similar responses.
The online student surveys and focus group protocols each contained a number
of questions that are applicable in answering the second research question: What do
students feel are the benefits and drawbacks associated with their usage of online
communities and online social networks? These questions included variations along
the following lines: “how do you think participating in OSNs affects your college
experience”, “what drawbacks do you see in this form of communication”, “what
questionable content have you run across on Facebook, Myspace or other online
social networks”, “what are the positive and negative effects of OSNs on college
student experiences”, “what is your opinion on the benefits and drawbacks of
students using OSNs”, “how often has the student experienced some of the various
features of OSNs”, “in what ways might online communities or online social
networks be able to help students achieve their personal growth and developmental
goals”, etc. Variations of these questions were asked in order to answer the second
research question about the benefits and drawbacks students perceive in using online
social networks.
The focus groups and some of the survey questions contributed to answering
the third research question: What are students’ attitudes and perceptions about staff
and administrator involvement in online social networks? These questions included
variations along the following lines: “what is the appropriate response to content
81

students post and who should be responding to that content”, “what liability does a
university face for content that students post”, “what level of involvement
(advertising, participation, recruitment, etc.) is appropriate for the university”, “is
your university checking online social networks for potential policy violations”,
“what should universities know about student participation in online social
networks”, “assuming there are significant concerns related to what happens within
online social networks, what do you think the university should do”, “what
interventions has your university taken to educate students about the benefits and
drawbacks of using OSNs”, “does your university have any formal or informal
policy related to reviewing student-posted online content”, “have you ever been
advised to review your profile to remove questionable content or adjust privacy
settings”, “what do you think the university could do to help educate students and
what material and methods should be included in any such educational program”,
etc. These questions were asked in various forms in order to answer the third
research question about the role students believe universities and staff should play
within online social networks, if any.

Sample and Population
This research study intends to gain an understanding of student perceptions
about the importance of online social networking and their views on the role that
colleges and universities should play in managing that phenomenon. Thus, student
82

affairs professionals can determine the best ways to interact with students in online
communities like they do with students engaging in in-person communities. To do
this, student surveys will be conducted across the country through the college
network of Facebook.com, and student focus groups will be conducted at the
University of Southern California.
The University of Southern California (USC), a large, private institution of
Higher Education in Los Angeles, California was the institution selected for this
study. As a large, private, four-year institution, USC has a total enrollment of about
33,000 students (USC, 2006). Thus, it is not surprising that USC reportedly has the
highest percentage of its enrolled undergraduate students registered for and actively
using Facebook on a regular basis (Facebook staff, 2006). As of July 2006, USC had
over 1,000 active Facebook groups.
By conducting focus groups of undergraduate students at this institution, the
researcher will be able to present an understanding of students’ perceptions about the
uses, benefits and drawbacks of online social networking, and what role students
think the university should play in these communities. Student perceptions about
what they see as the potential benefits and drawbacks, and the university’s role, will
help student affairs professionals incorporate these communities into their work. It
may be useful for universities to use a media that students are going to use
increasingly on an ongoing basis to communicate more effectively and efficiently,
depending on the data collected from students.
83

Six focus groups will be conducted at USC. Each will consist of four to ten
undergraduate students. Each student focus group session will last 40-60 minutes. In
addition, these focus groups will also highlight specific incidents and problems that
have occurred involving these online communities, which will be incorporated into
the student focus group discussions. These focus groups will also indicate any
interventions these institutions might already have implemented.
The primary units of study for this research problem are students enrolled at
USC. The data collected should be fairly representative to be generally assumed as
applicable to all students across the country. In order to understand this phenomenon,
and to individual students engaging in these online communities and online social
networks, the student’s voices themselves must be heard (Patton, 2002). In addition,
the secondary units of study are undergraduate students enrolled at colleges and
universities all over the United States to understand their notions and conceptions
about online social networks. Thus, the focus of data collection will be on student
surveys and focus groups, document analysis, observation and participant-
observation within online communities.

Data Collection Procedures
Using the research points enumerated in Chapter One, and the focus group
and survey protocols found in Appendixes A-D, this will be a qualitative,
phenomenological study of students’ experiences in the online social networking
84

environment. The data collected will be qualitative in nature. Data will be collected
through surveys, focus groups and reviewing the content and interactions within
online social networks like Facebook. Surveys will be collected from students
enrolled in colleges around the country. Respondents will be recruited from amongst
those that participate in Facebook.com through the posting of Facebook flyer
advertisements on the college network pages, and posting messages on the wall of
the largest Facebook groups (totaling over 1.5 million potential survey respondents).
Focus groups with groups of three to ten USC undergraduate students each will be
conducted.
The researcher will also make use of Facebook and Myspace in particular to
gain a first-hand understanding of those environments. The data collection process
will include researcher-participation in Facebook and Myspace to get first-hand
experience with how these online social networks work, what they do, and all of the
different purposes students use them for. In addition, document analysis of current
research related to online interactions, theories related to social networking,
communities and student development, and preexisting research data, findings,
reports and presentations will contribute to the research.
Each student focus group will consist of three to ten undergraduate students,
and participants will be requested to represent a variety of constituencies within the
university as well as represent a variation in activity level. Participants will be
solicited through a variety of means, including Facebook flyers, message boards and
85

email. Each focus group will last approximately 40-60 minutes and be audio taped.
Each focus group will be fully transcribed. It will not be important for focus group
participants to have completed the survey first, but survey respondents who indicate
that they attend the University of Southern California will be invited to participate in
the focus groups.
In addition to the surveys and focus groups, the researcher will explore
various online social networks, with a particular focus on Facebook and Myspace,
and other Internet communication technologies, such as Instant Messenger programs,
Youtube and others. Examining the online social networks students participate in
will provide a more in-depth understanding of what students are doing in these
communities. The author will observe student participation and interaction within
these online communities as well as look at specific incidents that are referenced in
the collected data. This level of analysis will possibly reveal additional resources of
interventions those universities or others might be implementing to alleviate
concerns about online communities. As possible, all documents and resources
referenced online or mentioned by participants will be obtained for subsequent
document analysis.

Validity of and Confidence in Findings
The validity and accuracy of this phenomenological study will be based on
triangulating data obtained from document analysis, student focus groups, an online
86

survey and participant-observation of student interactions within online
communities and OSNs. Triangulating various sources will provide a more robust
understanding of this phenomenon, more credible findings, and thus, a better
justification for concluding recommendations (Creswell, 2003; Patton, 2002). For
this study, data triangulation will strengthen the findings, as no individual method or
data source will reveal a clear and accurate understanding of the phenomenon. For
example, comparing observed OSN interactions with the focus group data, or focus
group responses with survey data, or even any differences in the types and nature of
responses gathered within the surveys or within the focus groups will contribute to a
more thorough understanding of this phenomenon (Patton, 2002).
This will be a phenomenological study to provide student affairs
professionals with an understanding of students’ perceptions about the importance
of online social networking, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of interacting
within online communities, and their view on the role, if any, that colleges and
universities should play in managing these social networks. Through that
understanding, student affairs professionals can determine the best ways to interact
with online communities like they do with in-person communities. Creswell (2003)
writes that a phenomenological study in this area uses student voice and stated
experiences to identify and define the nature of the phenomenon. By studying a few
hundred students through the online survey, a small number of subjects through the
focus groups, and including participant-observation of student interactions within
87

OSNs, patterns of relationships and meaning will become clear (Creswell, 2003). In
addition, a great deal of emphasis will be placed on best practices currently being
employed by universities, and other practices that universities might consider
employing in working with students with regard to OSNs.

Data Analysis Procedures
As mentioned above, the surveys and focus groups will provide rich
information for qualitative analysis. As a reminder, the research questions are:
1. How do students utilize online social networks, and in what ways do they
engage with each other?
2. What do students feel are the benefits and concerns associated with their usage
of online communities and online social networks?
3. What are students’ attitudes and perceptions about staff and administrator
involvement in online social networks?
Question 1 will be partially answered as a result of document analysis and researcher
participation and observation of Facebook and other online communities. In addition,
research questions 1, 2, and 3 will be answered through a combination of the student
surveys and focus groups being conducted at USC (see Appendices A through D).
Systematically reviewing online social networks to see student participants actively
engaging in their online communities and online social networks will further enhance
the results collected from the student surveys and focus groups. In addition,
88

document analysis will provide additional insight for all three of the research
questions.

Surveys
An online survey will enable the researcher to collect the opinions and
perspectives of a large number of individual students on a substantial number of
questions or points. Additionally, an online survey is more convenient and rapid than
some other data collection method, such as focus groups. What focus groups lack in
breadth, surveys compensate for. Surveys, on the other hand, can lack depth, which
is a strong benefit of focus groups.
The survey data collected was analyzed rigorously. First, the researcher used
the analytical tools provided through the survey mechanism on
www.surveymonkey.com. Those tools tabulate data for survey questions with
defined responses, indicating the number and percentage of respondents indicating
each response. For all of the open-ended survey questions, the researcher read all
survey data to get an initial idea of categories of responses for each question. Once
initial categories or themes were identified, for each question the researcher
classified each response by theme. The researcher reviewed the themes and the
responses within each theme and collapsed categories as appropriate. This continued
until all questions had been coded thoroughly. Though the intent of the researcher
was for each survey question to ascertain different information about the student
89

experience within online social networks, many participants felt that some questions
were not very different. As such, the researcher clustered like questions together, and
in some cases, grouped the responses accordingly. It should be noted that in the case
of similar questions, the resulting data exhibited little if any difference.

Focus Groups
Using a particular protocol (see Appendixes A, B and C) to facilitate focus
groups with a small number of participants in each, the researcher can direct the line
of questioning (Creswell, 2003). Additionally, by conducting focus groups as
opposed to one-on-one interviews, the student subjects will interact with each other
during the focus group in a potentially similar fashion to their online interactions. A
limitation of focus groups is that the information presented might be out of context
for the setting. It may be difficult for a subject to explain what they mean by an
answer without showing an example of the online content being referenced.
The researcher reviewed the audiotapes and handwritten notes of each focus
group repeatedly during the transcription phase of data collection and analysis. After
each focus group was transcribed, focus group responses for each question were
coded into themes identified by the researcher. Data was analyzed focus group by
focus group as well as question by question for all groups simultaneously, and data
presented according to the latter. Initial themes and classifications of responses were
collapsed into broader categories as necessary for ease of comprehension.
90

Observations
The benefit of observations as a method for qualitative inquiry, and in
particular for a phenomenological study is that information is provided in its natural
setting and context (Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2003). This will serve as a natural and
necessary complement to focus groups, as observations will help overcome one of
the limitations of focus groups. In addition, observations will enable unforeseen
issues to emerge that bear relevance on the study (Creswell, 2003).
One of the main limitations with observation is that the subject may behave
differently when she or he is aware of being observed than she or he would naturally
behave. Observation bias may affect the accuracy of online social networking
observations. Thus, a student who is being observed unknowingly will be likely to
engage in OSNs just as they would if not being observed. As the observations in this
study will be conducted through the average and general usage of Facebook by the
researcher, students will not be aware that their online interactions are being
observed, and no identifying information about any particular student will be
recorded or maintained. That may help to minimize abnormalities in the behavior
student participants engage in during the ongoing observation.
For this study, the researcher participated in multiple online communities and
OSNs. Primarily, the researcher was an active participant in Facebook, and focused
participant-observation within that particular OSN. The researcher interacted with
numerous students in a variety of capacities on Facebook, mimicking actual student-
91

to-student interactions. This was aided by the researcher’s close working relationship
with students over the course of the release and expansion of Facebook to various
campuses, and thus the researcher experimented and grew with students from the
researcher’s primary networks as they became increasingly familiar with the OSN.

Document Analysis
Analyzing documents such as e-mail, memos, reports, newspapers and
documents related to any interventions each institution may have implemented will
provide another lens for analysis and triangulation for this study (Patton, 2002).
Using document analysis, the researcher will identify and adopt the language of
participants, and gain insight in a way that the study’s participants might not
otherwise be able to convey (Creswell, 2003).
One limitation to document analysis will arise if any of the documents are
private communication that cannot be released to the public (Creswell, 2003). Other
limitations exist because the documents may be very hard to find, inaccurate, or
unauthentic. To overcome these limitations, the researcher will seek out documents
for analysis from multiple sources and constituencies.
The researcher read any published article or research that could be reasonably
attained over the course of this study. Though by no means does the researcher
believe that all published articles, research or other news stories related to OSNs has
been referenced in this study, particularly those published most recently, the breadth
92

of the documents analyzed for this study has provided a solid foundation for the
survey and focus group protocol. This study is based largely on the little that was
known about OSNs prior to the commencement of this study, and is also based on
the researcher’s own experience within Facebook and other online communities and
OSNs.

Trustworthiness
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board’s
procedures for conducting ethical research will be followed. The anonymity and
identities of all participants will be protected and ensured. Any information that
might link a student participant to their university or risk breaching their anonymity
will be prevented. In the event that specific content from Facebook, Myspace or
other online communities is given particular focus or discussion in this study, or
printed for more analysis by the author, personal information will be withheld.
Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Participants will understand
that their participation will be voluntary, and that they are free to withdraw from the
study at any time.
Researcher’s Subjectivity
The researcher’s personal interest in this research is partially a result of
current and previous work experience at the University of California, Riverside.
93

Previously, I served as the Executive Director for Hillel, which is a Jewish version of
an ethnic student program department that is separate from the university’s
administrative cluster. I have also worked as a graduate assistant in the student
activities area of that campus, working directly with a number of student
organizations. As an undergraduate and graduate student at that campus, I served in a
number of student government positions, and was very active in multiple student
organizations. All of these experiences exposed me to various aspects of student-
staff interaction, and multiple exposures to these online social networks. In my
previous role, I spent a great deal of time utilizing Facebook and other online social
networks to locate students that would be potentially interested in programs or events
or to send out announcements to those already affiliated.
In my current role, as the Coordinator of First Year Programs at the
University of California, Riverside, there are no work needs that require the use of
Facebook. However, various individuals, departments, student organizations and
others make avid use of Facebook in a variety of interesting ways. We have used it to
recruit Orientation Counselors, advertise for Homecoming and promote school spirit.
My continuing interest in this phenomenon is to contribute to the profession’s (and
society’s) understanding of student communication methods and media, so that we
can continue to communicate more effectively with students. The intent in this study
is to provide a bias-free examination of OSNs and how student affairs professionals
can best incorporate OSNs into their work with students.
94

Survey Participants
The survey conducted through this study was completed by using
Surveymonkey.com as the host for the online survey, and participants solicited
through the use of email, and advertisements posted on Facebook.com.
Facebook.com participant solicitation took multiple forms, including paid “flyers”
advertising the survey within the college-based networks of USC and other large
universities, a Facebook “event” directing students to complete the survey, messages
posted on the walls of some of the largest Facebook groups in existence, and overall
word-of-mouth marketing. The survey was active from December 2006 through
early February 2007. In total, 367 students participated in the online survey, and
most of those students successfully completed all sections of the survey. There are
126 students who did not complete the demographic information about themselves or
their college or university.
The university information reveals information not only about the size and
type of universities, but also begins to show some of the presence that each
respondent’s university has within online social networking communities. Table 1
displays student responses to descriptive questions about their universities and their
own demographic characteristics. Most of the respondents are enrolled at public
universities, with the plurality of respondents attending institutions with over 30,000
students enrolled. The institutions most represented by survey participants were the
University of Southern California (as the institution of primary study received more
95

intentional advertising) and the University of California, Riverside (as the institution
where the researcher currently works and had multiple student contacts).
Total Student Enrollment at University
<2,500
25 (10%)
2,500-4,999
19(8%)
5,000-9,999
35(15%)
10,000-19,999
54(22%)
20,000-30,000
40(17%)
>30,000
68 (28%)
Public University 184 (76%) Private University 57 (24%)
Do staff interact using online
communities or Instant Messaging?
Do you think university staff should interact using online
communities or Instant Messaging?
Yes
118 (49%)
No
21 (9%)
Not sure
102 (42%)
Yes
96(40%)
Maybe
101(42%)
No
44(18%)
How many hours per week do you spend on the following activities?
0-4 hrs 5-10 hrs 11-15 hrs 16-20 hrs >20 hrs
Using the Internet 17(7%) 50(21%) 46(19%) 51(21%) 80(33%)
Online Communities
(i.e. Facebook, IM)
83(34%) 82(34%) 33(14%) 20(8%) 26(11%)
In-person interactions 23(10%) 52(22%) 60(25%) 43(18%) 74(31%)
Class 32(13%) 28(12%) 69(29%) 72(30%) 44(18%)
Work 78(32%) 38(16%) 33(14%) 29(12%) 65(27%)
Other Rec. Activities 44(18%) 97(40%) 58(24%) 34(14%) 14(6%)
Which of the following best applies to your student experience?
Class Yr First Yr Soph Junior Senior 5
th
year Grad Not enrolled
Last year 48(20%) 44 (18%) 36 (15%) 34 (14%) 3 (1%) 12 (5%) 64 (27%)
This year 54(22%) 47 (20%) 38 (16%) 36 (15%) 12 (5%) 16 (7%) 38 (16%)
GPA 0-1.99 2.00-2.49 2.50-2.99 3.00-3.49 3.50-4.00
Last year 17 (7%) 3 (1%) 34 (14%) 84 (35%) 102 (42%)
This year 14 (6%) 4 (2%) 37 (15%) 92 (38%) 93 (39%)
Residence On campus
(Res. Halls)
Off-campus
(w/ 3 miles)
Commuter
(>3 miles)
Not enrolled
This year 73 (30%) 66 (27%) 44 (18%) 58 (24%)
Last year 81 (34%) 80 (33%) 45 (19%) 35 (15%)
How involved
/ engaged are
you in
campus life?
I do not
participate in
any activities /
events
I participate in a
few activities /
attend some
events.
I participate
moderately in a
number of activities
or events.
I am an active
participant in
many areas of
campus life.
Last year 46 (19%) 86 (36%) 56 (23%) 53 (22%)
This year 37 (15%) 94 (39%) 49 (20%) 61 (25%)
For each category below, please indicate the response that best categorizes your identity.
Ethnicity Chicano
/ Latino
3 (1%)
African-
American
3 (1%)
Native
American /
Alaska Native
1 (0%)
Asian
Pacific
Islander
5 (2%)
Asian
Indian
2 (1%)
Caucasian

187 (78%)
Mixed
Ethnicity
11 (5%)
Other

9 (4%)
Decline
to State
20 (8%)
Gender Female: 179 (74%) Male: 57 (24%) Prefer not to
answer: 5 (2%)
Age 18
48(20%)
19
50
(21%)
20
40
(17%)
21
34 (14%)
22
24 (10%)
23
21 (9%)
24
6 (2%)
25+
18 (7%)
Table 1. University Information and Student Demographic Responses
96

Universities represented by survey respondents included a number of two and four
year public and private institutions, heavily representing California institutions,
followed by New England area universities. Table 1 also shows that almost half of
the student respondents believe that staff on their campus interacts using online
communities or Instant Messaging, while less than one-fifth of respondents stated
that they do not want the university to have any online presence. This demonstrates
that students are open to universities having a presence online, yet the specific details
of those interactions are covered in more depth in chapter 4. The answers marked in
bold are those receiving the most responses from students.
Students completing the online survey tended to have a relatively balanced
split of time spent on various activities. The most surprising responses were from
two-thirds of students who indicated that they spent five or more hours within online
communities. Since Facebook stated that users spend between 18-20 minutes daily
on Facebook, which amounts to a little over 2 hours weekly, the other hours students
spend within online communities are on Instant Messenger and other online social
networks. Given that one of society’s concerns related to online social networking is
that students will spend less time interacting with friends and other people in-person,
it was also surprising that over two-thirds stated that they spent 11 hours or more
interacting with friends in-person.
The demographics of the student respondents themselves are interesting.
There were significantly more females responding to the online survey than males.
97

This may be due to differentials in student involvement by gender. Similarly, nearly
eighty percent of respondents were Caucasian. It is possible that this is partially a
result of the survey dissemination method, which included the researcher directly
contacting a number of former colleagues that work for various Hillel chapters
around the country with the request to disseminate the survey to their membership.
Another surprising finding is that student respondents, as a whole, had a
significantly higher grade point average than would be expected based on the high
amount of time spent within online communities and the Internet as a whole.
Most students either lived on campus or within a three mile radius, and a large
majority of them said that they were somewhat to actively involved in campus life.

Focus Group Participants
The second phase of this study involved conducting focus groups of students
enrolled at the University of Southern California. Participants for these focus groups
were solicited through targeted emails to specific, identifiable pockets of students.
Six focus groups were completed, with the number of participants ranging from four
to ten students in each. Out of the 43 students who participated in these focus groups,
only 11 of them were male, and seven of those were from one focus group conducted
in a fraternity house at the University of Southern California. One focus group was
conducted with student officers from the Undergraduate Student Government.
Another focus group was held with the officers and some members of another
98

student organization. The other three focus groups were held at the Joint Educational
Project office due to the convenience of location and student traffic; participants
included both student employees and their friends. All focus groups were completed
at the University of Southern California in February 2007.
Each focus group participant, upon reading the Information Sheet, was asked
to complete a short questionnaire that included some demographic information and
basic questions about their online activities. Table 2 displays those responses.
Online
Communities
Facebook
100%
Myspace
75%
Youtube
75%
Xanga
75%
Email
100%
IM programs
75%
Other Online Social Networks Bebo, People.com, Friendster, Gmail chat, Google notebook
Instant Messaging Programs AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, I-Chat, Gmail chat, Skype
Focus Groups Group Class Majors Gender Ages Online Communities
Focus
Group I
Hillel
Executive
Board
Officers
2-Sr.
1-Jr.
3-Soph.
1-1
st

year
Cinema-Television,
Political Science,
Communications,
Religion, History,
Interdisciplinary
Studies, Business
Female
5

Male
2
18-
24
Facebook
Myspace
Youtube,
Friendster Bebo
and Xanga
Focus
Group II
Alpha Epsilon
Pi Fraternity
2-Jr.
5-Soph.
Business,
Communications
Male
7
19-
21
Facebook
Myspace/Youtube
Focus
Group III
Focus
Group IV
Focus
Group VI
Joint
Educational
Project

Employees,
and friends of
employees
10-Sr.
7-Jr.
5-Soph.
3-1
st

year
Public Relations,
Psychology, Music,
Sociology, Health
and Humanities, Poli.
Sci., American Lit.,
English, Education,
Communications,
History, Business.
Female
24

Male
1
18-
27
Facebook
Myspace
Youtube,
People.com,
Friendster, Gmail
chat, Google
notebook and
Xanga
Focus
Group V
Undergraduate
Student
Government
3-Sr.
1-Jr.
Accounting, Poli.
Sci, Business
Communications
Female
3
Male: 1
21-
22
Facebook
Myspace
Youtube
Other activities involved in: Sororities and Fraternities, recreational sports activities, community
service endeavors, informal involvement and activities that they participate in as part of the
organization, working Resident Assistants or in the Orientation office and elsewhere on campus. Over
80% of participants in these focus groups named at least one other student organization they were in.
Table 2. Focus Group Participant Information
99

Each of the focus group participants indicated that their primary online social
networking community is Facebook.com, yet there were additional OSNs and Instant
Messaging (IM) programs listed, as shown in Table 2. The class levels, ages, gender
and majors of focus group participants are also listed in Table 2.
Focus Group I was held with most of the executive board, and some members
of Hillel, a campus-based student organization based on cultural, religious, spiritual
and historical context. Focus group II, at the Alpha Epsilon Pi house, consisted of
men only, and as a fraternity, it should not be surprising that many comments related
to recruitment and social endeavors. Focus groups III, IV and VI, were held at the
Joint Educational Project, which is a service-learning program that provides USC
students with an opportunity to gain experience working in the community and
collaboratively help give teachers in the community new tools and ideas for teaching
their own students. These student participants were so eager to offer their input, that
Focus Group VI, which started with a much lesser number of participants (three),
rapidly grew to ten as new people walked in and heard the subject being discussed
and asked if they could participate. Focus group V was held within the offices of the
Undergraduate Student Government, with four of the executive officers participating.
These students are obviously heavily vested in the interests of student engagement
and avid student participation in campus life. Each of the participants spoke from
that lens when answering the focus group questions. These students have been
100

involved in both the student usage and application of online social networks, as well
as seen these complexities from a more holistic university perspective.
With the demographic information from the participants in both the surveys
and focus groups presented, the actual research findings will be presented next. As a
reminder, the survey and focus group protocols were designed with the intent that
each question would produce different responses. In actuality, respondents to the
surveys and focus groups tended to interpret some of the varied questions as similar,
or at least responded as though some of the questions were similar. Thus, these
responses and questions were synergized to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
There are themes found while collecting survey and focus group data to answer the
three research questions, and the duration of this chapter will be organized according
to those themes. While some of these themes were also apparent in answering the
other research questions, the researcher has made every effort to categorize themes
and answers by the research question that it most appropriately applies to.

Summary
In this chapter, the researcher has explained the methodology for qualitative
data collection and analysis to be used in conducting this phenomenological study.
This design will help understand the data collected through the focus groups,
observations and document analysis. In the next chapter, the research findings will
be presented and analyzed. In the final chapter, legally acceptable recommendations
101

based on current trends, best practices, focus group data, survey responses and
participant-observation will be presented.

102

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
Chapter Overview
This chapter will present the results of this study of student participation
within online social networking communities. The overarching question of this study
is: what are the effects of online communities on the experiences of college students.
This question was examined by conducting an online survey, holding multiple focus
groups with students from the University of Southern California, document analysis
(including presentations, reports and other resources) and researcher participation
within the key online social networking communities (Facebook and Myspace).
Collecting data from multiple means and venues has provided a comprehensive base
for understanding the effects of online social networks on college student
experiences. The following three research questions were used to collect data in
completion of this study:
1. How do students utilize Online Social Networks, and in what ways do they
engage with each other?
2. What do students feel are the benefits and drawbacks associated with their
usage of online communities and online social networks?
3. What are students’ attitudes and perceptions about staff and administrator
involvement in online social networks?
103

For organizational purposes, this chapter will be organized by each research
question, and within each of those three sections, will be broken up by the themes
found in the study results.

Research Question One: How do students utilize (OSNs), and in what ways do
they engage with each other?
To understand the effects of OSN communities on college student
experiences, it is important to fully comprehend what purposes students have for
these sites, how students use these sites and in what ways they interact with each
other. By understanding the multiple means of online communication that students
utilize, what purposes they apply this medium for communication to, and the varied
functionalities of these OSNs, educators will be able to better understand the role this
phenomenon plays in the lives of today’s college students. To answer this first
research question, the researcher examined the perceptions of students who are
regular participants in and users of OSNs. In particular, the researcher studied
students’ perceptions of the ways in which they utilize OSNs and their interactions
within these online communities.
The themes that emerged in answering this research question from
conducting the surveys and focus groups are that students: 1) feel that their usage of
online social networks is highly flexible, 2) appreciate that OSNs serve as a
maintenance-free online directory, and 3) value interactions with each other online.
104

These student perspectives will help student affairs practitioners understand the uses
students have for OSNs and how they engage each other.

Students feel that their usage of online social networks is highly flexible.
Students participating in this research study resoundingly voiced that the uses
they have for online communities differ largely based on their needs and interests at
the time. Students feel that all online communities have different uses at different
times for different needs and that their usage of online social networks will evolve
over time. This is critical to the understanding of online social networks because the
functions and features not only fluctuate from OSN to OSN, but the ways that users
employ the online social networks will differ greatly as well from one person to the
next. Each of the categories of online communities fulfills different purposes and
sometimes each of the particular online communities within a category function
differently than its peers. Oftentimes, even if there are similar features within
multiple online communities or online social networks, users will tend to use one
feature mostly in one OSN, and another feature mostly in another, as opposed to
using both features avidly in both OSNs. For example, a student may post all of their
pictures to their Facebook profile so they can ‘tag’ all of their friends—link that
picture to the profile of all of their friends within that picture, but may continue to
write most of their blogs and notes in Myspace. This section first describes which
OSNs students participate in, followed by the differences students perceive between
105

in-person communities and online communities. Finally there will be a discussion of
how different features fit in to student usage of OSNs.
Table 3 displays the student survey response rate for the main types of online
communities (as categorized in Chapter 2).
How will your participation in/usage of online communities change over time?
Usage would evolve into
different features and purposes
52 (14%)
Overall usage
will increase
56 (15%)
It will probably
stay the same
95 (26%)
Overall usage would
decrease
161 (44%)
What is the benefit you receive from using online communities?
Easier access to contact info
to connect with people
288 (78.5%)
Event
Scheduling
13 (3.5%)
Entertainment
(includes photos)
31 (8.4%)
No benefit
6 (1.6%)
Other:
27 (7.4%)
How do online student-to-student interactions differ from in-person? How are they comparable?
Less risk in online
interactions
66 (18%)
Less personal /
formal online
95 (26%)
Easier/More
convenient
59 (16%)
They don’t differ
37 (10.1%)
More personal /
formal online
16 (5.2%)
Other
92
(25.1%)
Which of the following statements best describes how you use Facebook, Myspace and other
OSNs? (you may select more than one)
Keep in touch
with old & new
friends, &
make new ones
255 (69.7%)
Only to
keep in
touch w/
old friends
136(37.2%)
As online directories
of my peers, but I
haven’t sought out
old friends on it
39 (10.7%)
I registered because
my friends kept
pressing me to do so,
but I don’t use it
much. 29 (7.9%)
I post pictures, videos,
journals, blogs to express
myself and share
experiences with
friends/others. 206 (56.3%)
Other: 60 (16.4%)
How does your participation in OSNs such as Facebook or Myspace differ from participation in
online academic portals (i.e. Blackboard, WebCT)?
OSNs and online
academic portals
are unrelated
233 (63.7%)
Equally important to
college experiences and
lifelong success
58 (15.8%)
Facebook helps me connect to classmates
that I otherwise might not have, that has
helped my academic performance.
91 (24.9%)
Others
96
(26.2%)
Please indicate which OSNs you participate in and add any that are missing.
Facebook,
Myspace, Xanga,
Friendster,
Classmates.com
360 (98.4%)
eJournal,
LiveJournal,
Blogger.com
85 (23.2%)
FlickR,
Youtube,
Photobucket
165 (45.1%)
AOL, Yahoo,
MSN and other
Instant Messaging
programs
297 (81.1%)
Online dating sites-
match.com,
eharmony.com, etc.
38 (10.4%)
Other OSNs: 63 (17.2%) bbs, pc games, Bebo, Friends Reunited, Yahoo Groups, Blogspot, Webshots, Cyworld,
deadjournal.com, Deviantart.com, mixi.jp, gmail chat, Greatest Journal, GAIM (not aim),
guidepostssweet16mag.com, hi5, http://slashdot.org/, http://www.somethingawful.com/, http://www.digg.com/,
Nexopia, mass mutliplayer online role-playing game, Jdate, LinkedUp, Koolanoo.com, Last.fm LinkedIn.com,
internetDJ.com, MyYearBook, namesdatabase.com, Neopets, OKCupid.com, OnlySimchas, orkut, tagworld,
del.icio.us, xuqa.com, hotornot.com, Skype, G Talk, teamspeak, snowboard.com, studivz.net (german facebook),
tagworld, WAYN (Where are you now), webshots.com, youthink.com
Table 3. The flexibility of usage of online social networks.
106

Online social networks, such as Facebook and Myspace, predominated, though a
very large number of respondents indicated that they use AIM, Yahoo, MSN, and
other instant messaging programs. As Table 3 also shows, students also use some
form of photo or video sharing websites or participate actively in blogging or
journaling websites to varying degrees. One of the survey questions asked
respondents to identify which OSNs users participate in (and to list any additional
sites that may be missing). Respondents could select from choices of clusters of
OSNs, and occasionally, student respondents would submit their own answers which
were various combinations of the choices presented. For example one student who
said, “To clarify: I use Facebook, YouTube (not posting, though), and AIM.” Over
50 different online social networking communities and online communication media
are represented in Table 3, but there are many more that exist. As mentioned
previously, a survey conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, identified
over 65 different OSNs excluding online dating sites.
Since there are a large number of online communities or online social
networks, understanding the differences in student perceptions between in-person
communities (i.e. their school, neighborhood, city or other actual communities they
identify with) and online communities may not be readily clear. Most respondents
stated that it is easier to get involved in activities online. Whether that involvement
would classify as such by Astin remains to be seen and will depend on the depth of
that online involvement. An action as passive as clicking a mouse to indicate interest
107

in joining a group based on affiliation, hobby or opinion is not as engaged as another
student who may not just click to join that group, but actively post comments on that
group’s discussion board, or become friends with fellow members, etc. Additionally,
a number of focus group participants commented that in-person communities are
generally associated with stricter standards of conduct and friendship, where, as
participant IIIF puts it, “I would pick and choose who I affiliate with.” A participant
in Focus Group VI went even further to state that an in-person community “demands
more mutual interaction and mutual investment” and meaning than an online
community does. That may be a part of why online communities have become so
popular: users can engage in them as frequently or infrequently as they choose from
the comfort of their own homes.
Another part of the reason that these sites have become so popular is that they
allow for each user to define the experience they each want to have, to a great extent.
Users can pick and choose what features to use and to what extent they will use
them. That the usage of these sites is flexible over time goes hand-in-hand with the
self-defined, user-controlled experiences that are the norm of online social networks.
This is significant to understanding Research Question 1 in looking at how students
utilize OSNs and in what ways they engage each other because students will
continue to want to explore and experiment with different features and venues of
social networking regardless of the medium involved.
108

When asked how their participation in online social networks would change
over time, one survey respondent said “I think that the reasons I’m participating will
change and have changed. Before it was a way to look at other people or just to have
[a profile], now it is a means of keeping in touch with a variety of people.”
Oftentimes, focus group participants and survey respondents echoed this sentiment.
Of the large number of students who said that they expected that their usage of
Facebook, Myspace and other online social networks would decrease, most felt like
they would have less time for it. “Hopefully my usage will lessen as I get in touch
with people—online communication replaced with actual communication,” said one
survey respondent. The summary of other respondents revolved around students
saying that their usage of OSNs would decrease as the length of time since they
graduated increased, underscoring the notion that some students perceive online
social networking to be largely a college phenomenon.
Facebook, Myspace and other OSNs are filled with features that allow users
to access various levels of content to various degrees of intensity. As a result of avid
and increasing student usage, these features are expanding in terms of number and
type of features, frequency of use and utility. Students themselves are adapting
existing features for their own uses and creating new features and plug-ins for the
OSNs that they are then sharing with others. At the time of the completion of this
study, the most recent new feature and functionality to any of the most prominent
online social networks was the creation of the developer’s platform, and the wide
109

variety and large number of “applications” stemming from individual users
contributions to the site. These “applications” were not in existence at the
commencement of this research study and are therefore excluded from this study.
These features are only mentioned here as an additional tool for customization and
individualization of the online social networking experience for all users.
Students were also asked how participation in OSNs differs from
participation in online academic portals such as Blackboard or WebCT. Most
respondents said that online academic portals and online social networks are not
related, because Facebook and other OSNs are used for social purposes while
academic portals are limited to class-related pursuits. Some students see online
academic portals and OSNs as interconnected and equally important to their college
experiences and lifelong success, but in different ways. Some identified that
Facebook and other OSNs help them connect to classmates that they may not
otherwise have had contact with, and that has helped their academic performance.
One student in particular commented that:
“Facebook and Myspace are websites that allow me to keep friends posted
about my life: friends, love, school, etc. Blackboard, in my experience, is not
a very interactive website. I log on to this site to view syllabi, homework
assignments and class discussion groups. I may occasionally use it to send an
email to a classmate if I do not know their email address.”
110

For students, it seems clear that they tend to keep their academic and social
experiences separate, but know how to tap into additional resources when necessary.
Other participants described the utility of Facebook and online communities
as providing a means of knowing exactly who you are talking to online. While the
possibility of people using incorrect pictures or information was not addressed at this
point, the participants in Focus Group IV discussed the ability to use Facebook and
see someone’s picture and know that you are talking to that person, versus finding
their email address on a directory, and not knowing who you are talking to.
Regardless, all of the focus group participants indicated that they check their online
social network of choice (mostly Facebook) as part of their regular “ritual”, meaning
that whenever they check their email, they check their Facebook. This point was
made particularly poignant when participants commented that they would check
Facebook even more often than they check email. Others did not value Facebook as
much. For example, one respondent mentioned that if the communication is urgent
the person would make a phone call. “Communication on Facebook, while I enjoy
and appreciate it, is generally nothing urgent or highly important. That does not
mean that I would ever stop using it though,” (Focus Group V). Interestingly, some
survey respondents admitted registering for Facebook or other online social networks
because of peer pressure, but do not log in to it that much. One student commented
that “I was pressed to join (but I grew to enjoy them) and deepen friendships.” Even
111

those students who did not intentionally join OSNs have found productive and
meaningful uses for them in their lives and experiences.

Students appreciate that OSNs serve as a maintenance-free online directory.
One of the key ways that students use online social networking communities
is as a directory of their friends and contact. Students identified one of the purposes
of online social networks as an online directory that the user does not have to self-
maintain. This function is also one of the primary and essential functions of these
sites from the point-of-view of their creators (Facebook.com, 2006). As a participant
from Focus Group I said, “I do not have to write down emails or numbers anymore.
All I need to do is remember someone’s name. All I have to do is go to Facebook
and find the easiest way to contact anyone.”
In many ways, using Facebook and other OSNs as a live directory of friends
and contacts also allows students to stay up-to-date on their friends lives and
experiences and vice versa. Data evidencing this is displayed in Table 4.
What is the benefit you receive from using online communities?
Easier access to contact info
to connect with people
288 (78.5%)
Event
Scheduling
13 (3.5%)
Entertainment
(includes photos)
31 (8.4%)
No benefit
6 (1.6%)
Other:
27 (7.4%)
Which of the following statements best describes how you use Facebook, Myspace and other
OSNs? (you may select more than one)
Keep in touch
with old and
new friends,
and make new
ones
255 (69.7%)
Only to
keep in
touch w/
old friends
136(37.2%)
As online
directories of my
peers, but I have
not sought out old
friends on it
39 (10.7%)
I registered
because my friends
kept pressing me to
do so, but I do not
use it that much.
29 (7.9%)
I post pictures, videos
and journals /blogs as a
way to express myself
and share experiences
with friends/others.
206 (56.3%)
Table 4. Students use OSNs as online directories.
112

As Table 4 shows, a significant number of student respondents identified OSNs as
making it easier to access contact information in order to connect with people thus
fulfilling the purpose of at least Facebook—according to its creators, if not other
OSNs as well, as online directories. A number of respondents reflected on the utility
of online social networks both in checking in with their friends as often as just to “let
others know how you have been.” Getting updated on current news involving their
friends and other people they know is as important to the student experience as
having the ability to contact them whenever you need to, from anywhere. This is
particularly beneficial, said some students, when you do not yet know someone well
enough to have each other’s phone numbers.
Whether students appreciate the directory functions of OSNs so that they can
keep in touch with friends, make new friends and acquaintances, post pictures,
videos, and journals/blogs as a way to express themselves and share their life and
experiences with friends/others, etc. (see Table 4), clearly the directory feature has a
high utility. Some respondents directly answered that they use these sites as online
directories of their current peers and friends but have not sought out old friends. This
was echoed during the focus groups. However, survey and focus group responses
clearly identified the live and up-to-date directory as one of the best uses for OSNs.
Rather than the user contacting all of their friends to get updated contact information,
as soon as someone updates their contact information online, all of their friends can
113

log on to their profile page to access it. Thus, OSNs provide maintenance free
directories that make it easier for students to communicate with each other.
Students value interactions with each other online.
Students participating in the focus groups or responding to the online survey
readily agreed that online social networks allow students to interact with each other
more frequently and regularly than they would without the existence of online
communities such as Facebook and Myspace. This point is important in our
understanding of how students utilize OSNs and how they engage with each other
because the utility of interacting with friends online is as important as the online
directory function, if not even more so. If anything, the two are related, as most
students identified the reason the directory function is useful because it promotes
further interactions with their friends and contacts.
Of importance is the value students place on OSNs. Students feel that online
social networks like Facebook would (or potentially even have) become as
influential in today’s society as the telephone once was. Whereas the online social
networking phenomenon has not always been so prevalent, it is widespread and
pervasive in the experiences of students today. Some participants knew other people
who gave up Facebook for Lent or themselves had their Orientation Counselor take
their current Facebook profile picture (Focus Group I). Other students commented
that Facebook and online social networks are “integral to the student experience”
since making friends on campus was a top priority when coming to campus, and
114

continued to be a high priority and primary focus for most students. One of the
students from Focus Group III, who did not have Facebook when first starting at
USC, said that, “making friends was most important to me, including meeting people
from the residence hall, my friend across the hall and other friends through her…
That group of friends was inseparable that very first week, and we continue to be
close today,” (Participant IIIG). This student went on to draw connections between
that experience, and the experience she continues to have by connecting to people
through Facebook, Myspace and other online communities.
Oftentimes, students turn to Facebook and Myspace as a preferred venue for
communicating with friends. Table 5 displays student responses related to how
students interact with each other online.
How do online student-to-student interactions differ from in-person? How are they comparable?
Less risk in online
interactions
66 (18%)
Less personal /
formal online
95 (26%)
Easier/More
convenient
59 (16%)
They don’t differ
37 (10.1%)
More personal /
formal online
16 (5.2%)
Other
92
(25.1%)
Which of the following statements best describes how you use Facebook, Myspace and other
OSNs? (you may select more than one)
Keep in touch
with old & new
friends, &
make new ones
255 (69.7%)
Only to
keep in
touch w/
old friends
136(37.2%)
As online directories
of my peers, but I
haven’t sought out
old friends on it
39 (10.7%)
I registered because
my friends kept
pressing me to do so,
but I don’t use it
much. 29 (7.9%)
I post pictures, videos,
journals, blogs to express
myself and share
experiences with
friends/others. 206 (56.3%)
Other: 60 (16.4%)
How does your participation in OSNs such as Facebook or Myspace differ from participation in
online academic portals (i.e. Blackboard, WebCT)?
OSNs and online
academic portals
are unrelated
233 (63.7%)
Equally important to
college experiences and
lifelong success
58 (15.8%)
Facebook helps me connect to classmates
that I otherwise might not have, that has
helped my academic performance.
91 (24.9%)
Others
96
(26.2%)
Table 5. Student-to-student online interactions.
As discussed repeatedly during the focus groups, students will go to Facebook,
Myspace or other social networks first. If the need to communicate is urgent, or it is
115

important to set up a meeting, etc., then students would use the phone. Yet, general
communication, since it is not usually time-sensitive, tends to start online for
students. Students completing the online survey also expressed that when they “have
questions from class”, “want to say hi” or “stay in touch”, etc., they turn to
Facebook, and other online communities first. When describing OSN use, one
student mentioned that OSNs are “easier than using the telephone [and a] fun way to
express yourself.” Respondents also use OSNs for the pursuit of entertainment for
themselves and others. For some students, this means using Facebook or other online
communities to communicate with friends instead of doing something else,
“procrastination from university assignments”, and “boredom” topping the list. A
few students expressed sentiments best summed up by one given response: “It’s a
distraction from all the hard work and stress. When you receive a message, it makes
you smile.” Others also talked about the ease with which they can share photos,
stories and jokes with friends, as one respondent put it, online social networks
provide “quick communication with friends, a place to post photos and artwork of
myself and receive feedback and admiration and/or negative comments, [this is] a
place to let people know about myself and to learn.”
Table 5 also displays survey respondents’ views on how student-to-student
interactions differ from the in-person versions of those interactions. Students
generally felt less risk when interacting with other students online. However, there
were those that believed online interactions felt less personal, less formal and less
116

risky. These students also felt they were less trustworthy and fair, or that people are
more likely to say “stupid things online than in-person”, as well as be “more curt
and/or to-the-point”. A number of other students specified that they felt people will
be more honest online and thus, able to better express themselves. As one student
stated, “people I chat with online are a little bit looser with what they talk about
online and in person they can be a little more guarded with what they say because
someone can reply immediately to them.”
Another student mentioned that their utilization of OSNs centers mostly
around “having an established and trusted reference where if one friend mentions
another friend, I can look up the other friend.” This means that this student will
potentially make meaningful connections by looking up friends of their friends. In
many respects, this is where the networking function of OSNs really comes in handy.
Study participants frequently pointed to the ability to learn more about and then
communicate with friends of friends as a positive feature of online social networks.
Yet, students are wary of the presence of others within their online communities for
fears of reprisals based on content they post. By understanding how students are
engaging in social networking through online media, student affairs practitioners can
better support their students while they interact online, and adapt this understanding
to future social networking methods or technologies. Both the benefits and
drawbacks associated with online social networking will be addressed in the next
section, as research question 2 is answered. Responses addressing research question
117

3 will be in the following section, and include an in-depth discussion of the presence
of others within students’ online social networks.

Research Question Two: What do students feel are the benefits and drawbacks
associated with their usage of online communities and online social networks?
Essential to the understanding of student participation within OSNs on
college experiences is the examination of the benefits and drawbacks associated with
online social networking. By looking at what students define as the benefits and
drawbacks of online social networking, educators will have a better understanding of
the role this phenomenon plays in the lives and experiences of today’s college
students. Educators will be able to understand how students balance the benefits
versus the drawbacks in determining to what extent and for what purpose they will
use OSNs.
The themes that emerged in answering this research question from
conducting the surveys and focus groups fall either into the category of benefits or
drawbacks. Some of the aspects of these online social networks can be interpreted as
a benefit to some and a consequence to others. The themes that identify OSN
benefits are: 1) OSNs allow students to keep in touch with friends and meet new
people; 2) students perceive that OSNs provide a sense of community; 3) students
believe OSNs provide opportunities for entertainment and involvement; 4) OSNs
Reduce Students’ Inhibitions and Enhances their Socialization. The themes that
118

identify OSN drawbacks, which are issues that students are concerned about, are: 1)
students are somewhat concerned about their safety while online; 2) students have
mixed feeling about the repercussions of online actions; 3) OSN use can prevent
students from completing work and interacting with peers face-to-face; 4) students
had varied opinions of inappropriate content. In terms of drawbacks, students
focused mostly on mitigating the impact of drawbacks instead of simply stating what
the drawbacks are. From these findings, educators will see that students have a clear
understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of online social networking.

BENEFITS
OSNs Allow Students to Keep In Touch With Friends and Meet New People
An overwhelming majority of respondents identified both positive and
negative effects. In some cases the respondents who recounted positive experiences
had not encountered negative experiences. In one case, a student only had positive
experiences because she “only let my friends see my profile, and do not do anything
stupid on there.” One of the other positive-only responses stated that “because
college is a very fast paced life, using Facebook or Myspace allows for socialization
and small talk during the late hours of the night when you don’t have time to make
phone calls.” Other positives included “more connection, more modern way of
communication”, “found great people”, “more friends, greater understanding of
119

background”, and “you can expand your friend network by getting in touch with old
friends through mutual friends”.
One of the most significant benefits of OSNs, as identified both in the focus
groups and survey data, is meeting new people and keeping in touch with friends.
OSNs are important and beneficial in keeping in touch with friends and family due to
their widespread usage, ongoing, anytime access from anywhere in the world. This is
important for our understanding of the role of OSNs in students’ college experiences
as connecting to other students is one of the concerns foremost on the minds of
today’s college students (Focus Group III). These online communities enable
students to be “more connected to more people at the same time” (Survey
respondent). In terms of meeting new people, online social networks allow for
students to find people that share similar experiences or common interests and forge
new bonds along those lines. These sites can allow users to get “to know someone
before [meeting] them in a class or something in a social situation,” (Survey
respondent). In addition, another respondent stated that “Facebook makes it easy to
contact friends – to say hello, plan something in the future, laugh about something
that happened, gossip and homework, etc.”
As a whole, students do not necessarily befriend everyone else they meet and
interact with online, or even those they interact with in person. Table 6 identifies the
benefits students associate with OSNs.

120

What is the benefit you receive from using online communities?
Easier access to contact info
to connect with people
288 (78.5%)
Event
Scheduling
13 (3.5%)
Entertainment
(includes photos)
31 (8.4%)
No
benefit
6 (1.6%)
Other:
27
(7.4%)
How do online student-to-staff interactions differ from in-person?
Better in person / I avoid interacting
with staff online 6(1.6%)
More available
online 77 (21%)
I don’t know/Have not used
it for that/N/A: 193 (52.7%)
Other:
90(24.6%)
Please answer this question for each of the following acts, behaviors or observations on OSNs
like Facebook or Myspace. How often have you either experienced, or heard of the following
acts occurring, within the OSNs you participate in? (Select all that apply)
Myself My
friends
Heard of it
happening
at my school
Heard of it
happening
elsewhere
Never heard
of this
happening
Getting help in a class from a
classmate
156
(58%)
142
(53%)
113 (42%) 82 (30%) 43 (16%)
Reminders of friends’
birthdays
261
(97%)
183
(68%)
105 (39%) 96 (36%) 1 (0%)
Keeping in touch with friends 263(98%) 186 (69%) 115 (43%) 103 (38%) 1 (0%)
Status updates on your
friends
249
(93%)
188
(70%)
108 (40%) 94 (35%) 3 (1%)
Meeting and finding new
friends
146
(54%)
165
(61%)
132 (49%) 105 (39%) 12 (4%)
Joining new student
organizations
127
(47%)
131
(49%)
125 (46%) 84 (31%) 33 (12%)
Getting involved in campus
activities
145
(54%)
150
(56%)
133 (49%) 92 (34%) 24 (9%)
Creating “events” & tracking
RSVPs
155
(58%)
188
(70%)
133 (49%) 104 (39%) 15 (6%)
Sharing personal experiences
through blogs/notes
149
(55%)
215
(80%)
127 (47%) 99 (37%) 3 (1%)
Find out common interests
between you and someone you
just met
208
(77%)
169
(63%)
99 (37%) 95 (35%) 15 (6%)
Seeing pictures of your
friends & self
260
(97%)
202
(75%)
123 (46%) 108 (40%) 0 (0%)
Can you identify any other specific benefits associated with student-to-student interactions
within OSNs?
Finding new people
11 (4.1%)
Connect to friends
36 (13.4%)
Networking
23 (8.6%)
Not applicable
199 (74%)
How do you think that participating in OSNs affects your college experiences?
Reduces
Inhibitions
113 (33%)
Grades / Interaction
have dropped
19 (6%)
Sense of community /
commonality
121 (35%)
Enhance feelings of
purpose and worth
31 (9%)
Not much
effect
50 (15%)
Table 6. Benefits students associate with online social networking.
Participants in Focus Group III, including current and former Resident Advisors
(RAs) and a summer camp counselor, specifically pointed out that they are careful
121

about befriending their counselees, residents, etc. on Facebook or Myspace. Some of
these students, such as the camp counselor, flatly refuse to let any of the counselees
add them as a friend. Others, such as one of the RA’s, do not seek out her residents
to add them as a friend, but will confirm the Facebook or Myspace “friendship” if
initiated by the other students. In their own way, each of these students is exhibiting
varying levels of discretion and setting boundaries between themselves and the
students they work with. It is not clear whether or not the camp counselor or one of
the RAs ever befriends the students they counsel after that role-relationship has
ceased, or if those boundaries are preserved. Nor is it clear if the other RA limits the
extent to which she interacts with her residents online in terms of limiting their
access to her profile content. These students did voice their beliefs that most of their
peers in similar student leadership or quasi-supervisory capacities also exhibited
discretion in their online interactions with those students with whom they counseled.
A large majority of students said that they personally keep in touch with
friends through online social networks. “It’s nice knowing what your friends are
doing that you may have lost touch with or don’t have time to communicate with as
often as you would like,” said one respondent, discussing the convenience of OSNs.
Since this medium for communication and socialization is online and available all
the time from anywhere, it is incredibly beneficial for users. Many students
commented through the survey that, “I’m not always available to talk on the phone
or [instant message] for most of the day, so [online social networking] allows me to
122

keep in touch or up to date without having to really be there,” or “I can keep in touch
with friends who are far away, without too much hassle. I can find out more about
them too, from profiles and [conversations] they have with other people.”
A lot of students also said they use Facebook to check on their friends’ status
updates. Other respondents knew of friends who used OSNs to keep in touch with
others, to check on status updates, or to meet new people. Some respondents had
even done so personally. While these answers were not mutually exclusive, and thus
difficult to determine the level of overlap in student answers, it does appear as
though a plurality of students are aware of these features involving friends, and a
majority of these students and their friends have used them.

Students Perceive That OSNs Provide a Sense of Community
Online social networks such as Facebook and Myspace provide a forum for
students and all users to share their interests with each other. This sense of
commonality and community is a key benefit identified by students and speaks to the
need students have to bond with others that share common interests and/or
experiences. For educators, understanding the extent of these feelings of community
and commonality provided by OSNs will help explain part of the importance and
value students ascribe to online social networking.
Most survey respondents said that the primary effect OSNs have on their
college experience is to help them “find a sense of community and commonality”.
123

On campuses with high student populations, this may be extremely important as the
students may not feel they have the ability to bond with staff as readily. Responses
included: an OSN “allows me to feel more connected to my peers and classmates”,
“easier way to keep in contact with people”, “definitely makes the school feel
smaller and more connected”, “facilitates communication, study groups, events,
clubs.” In addition, students expressed, “I don’t feel so isolated because I can still
keep in touch with my old high school friends”, and “I especially like it for keeping
in touch with my college friends while on break”. Online social networks provide a
means for ongoing, convenient and rapid communication between people, as well as
a forum for making contact with new people.
Students can create their community online and continue to build and interact
within it whenever they want with whomever they want. One respondent said that
“In the past people wrote letters to one another. Today, these are our pen pals. This
screen is our paper and our hands type the ideas that our minds desire to be
expressed.” Looking at this response, it becomes clearer that communication is
occurring through this new online medium. Additionally, community exists, but
through a different and innovative context. Survey and focus group respondents
stated that connecting to “others that share similar interests and experiences” is an
important function of these online communities.
In addition, some students thought that online social networks enhanced
feelings of purpose and worth for members of those online social networks. This is
124

particularly relevant for the sense of commonality and community responses as
enhanced feelings of purpose and worth tend to result from an increased sense of
community. OSNs help students remember people’s names and birthdays, or their
favorite bands and movies for birthday gift ideas. While most students had direct
experience with birthday reminders on Facebook, the true extent of the benefit would
depend on the mutual interaction and sharing of that information. Due to the
increased connectivity between people and amongst overlapping and intersecting
social spheres, every member has the potential to be connected to a lot more people
online than they would have had a chance to be in person. The student who provided
the above comment links increased connectivity to feeling greater sense of self-
worth. Regardless, increased connectivity does appear to result in a stronger sense of
community because there are an increase in the number of both strong and weak ties
within these online social networks that would have organically existed from society
alone.
One of the added benefits associated with student-to-student interaction
within online social networks is that of networking with the increased variety and
number of strong and weak ties. Through Facebook, Myspace and other online social
networks, students can network with each other and professionals in various fields.
One student said that you can use online social networks to find “out about job
opportunities or people working at the company you’re going to be working for, etc.”
125

This networking allows students to capitalize on the connections they make online in
terms of long-term career benefits, classes and socialization as a whole.
Students can connect with classmates—which may be acquaintances, or what
Granovetter might classify a “weak tie”—that they may not talk to much in-person,
and maintain a safe and distant online social interaction. “We would help each other
in cases such as with class notes or getting an opinion about courses or professors,”
said the survey respondent. This student would likely agree with others who thought
that students becoming friendlier with each other through online social networks
would “make for a better collegiate experience”. A large number of students have
used OSNs to connect with classmates, or know others who have. Students have
found ways to utilize Facebook and other online social networks not just for social
purposes, but for academic and other pursuits as well.

Students Believe OSNs Provide Opportunities for Entertainment &
Involvement
One survey respondent clearly stated that the benefit she perceived from
participating within online social networks involved “getting involved with campus
activities.” The creation and management of event invitations and announcements,
student organization presence and publicity and opportunities for involvement and
attendance in campus activities and programs were identified by a majority of
students as important benefits of online social networks that they had experience
126

with or knowledge of. As such, student affairs practitioners should be able to not
only understand how they function, but how they fit into their own campus’ vitality,
programming and involvement goals. Table 6 shows that most study participants
stated that they were more involved in campus activities or attended campus events
as a result of their membership within online communities such as Facebook or
Myspace, or had joined student organizations as a result of their online interactions.
Students also expressed a great deal of experience with the “events” feature on
Facebook by creating “event” announcements on Facebook for publicity and to track
RSVPs. One student in particular mentioned that OSNs are tremendously useful for
organizing large events, as well as “keep contacts warm without seeing or calling
them for months…We’re far more connected now than we were before – at least
that’s how it seems.”
A few focus group participants identified an even more effective means of
publicizing events through online social networks. One student in Focus Group II
said that “creating an event is more pervasive than flyers on campus bulletin boards”
because news can spread widely through word-of-mouth, or viral, advertising. While
the mini-feed form of viral messaging is tied to the event-RSVP system, which
participants already identified as inaccurate, it is effective, participants said, because
if someone RSVPs to go to a certain Facebook event or program, then all of their
Facebook friends will find out through the mini-feed and be able to click onto that
event listing. Potentially they might RSVP themselves, and then all of their friends
127

see it, and so on. Participants IIIA and IIIG also indicated that they sometimes use
the Facebook or Myspace status features to a similar effect. Regardless of the form
of the advertising on Facebook and other social networks, they were identified by
students participating in the focus groups and responding to the surveys as a “good
forum to reach the mass audience” and “the best way to advertise to college
students” (Focus Group II). An overwhelming majority of survey respondents
identified the utility of Facebook events and status updates to spread news about
themselves or an upcoming event rapidly to a large number of their peers.
Students completing the online survey were asked a series of questions
related to on-campus student organizations (or in-person organizations in general)
and online groups that they may be a part of. Table 7 compares the responses for in-
person organization membership with online group affiliation.
WHAT TYPES OF “IN-PERSON”
ORGANIZATIONS ARE YOU A
PART OF?
WHAT TYPES OF
“ONLINE” GROUPS ARE
YOU A PART OF?
1)Academic/Professional 103 (38.6%) 107 (40.1%) (+)
2) Arts, Entertainment &
Publications
71 (26.6%) 101 (37.8%) (+)
3) Fraternity / Sorority 49 (18.4%) 39 (14.6%) (-)
4) Governance / Advisory
Boards
32 (12%) 17 (6.4%) (-)
5) Honor Societies 58 (21.7%) 25 (9.4%) (-)
6) International Cultural 29 (10.9%) 26 (9.7%) (-)
7) National Cultural 15 (5.6%) 28 (10.5%) (+)
8) Political 34 (12.7%) 40 (15%) (+)
9) Recreational 77 (28.8%) 65 (24.3%) (-)
10) Service 63 (23.6%) 45 (16.9%) (-)
11) Social Issue 41 (15.4%) 89 (33.3%) (+)
12) Special Interest 49 (18.4%) 99 (37.1%) (+)
13) Spiritual/Religious 88 (33%) 93 (34.8%) (+)
Table 7. In-Person Organization Membership vs. Online Group Membership
128

For purposes of this study, the researcher used categories of student organizations
and groups currently utilized by the office of Student Life at the University of
California, Riverside as the basis for student responses. Students were given free
range to indicate as many categories of student organizations they were a member of
as they chose to. The table indicates the number and percentage of students stating
membership or affiliation in groups of that category (in-person or online). The third
column of this table also indicates whether more or less students indicated affiliation
with online groups than with actual, in-person organizations for each category.
For most categories, student responses indicate an increase in organizational
affiliation if the group is online versus in-person. In four categories—
Fraternity/Sorority, Governance/Advisory Boards, International Cultural, and
Recreational—fewer students were involved in online groups fitting these categories
than in-person iterations. In two additional categories: Honor Societies and Service,
the differences were more pronounced, with even less students in online groups of
these categories than in-person organizations. For the other seven categories, more
students identified membership in online groups than in-person organizations. It
should also be noted that most survey respondents indicated membership in in-
person organizations or online groups representing at least four distinct categories.
While that may not indicate exactly how many groups or organizations students are
affiliated with, it is important to note that students completing this survey did tend to
be heavily vested in multiple venues of social networking, both on and offline.
129

The majority of students responding to the survey perceived that online
groups both serve a practical and recreational purpose. These students often would
say the practical groups they were in were x, y and z, and the recreational groups
were groups 1, 2 and 3. Most students had more generic responses. One student said
that “some [online groups] are for fun, but many do have purposes and many
students are concerned with the direction our society is headed. They want to make a
difference. Online versions exist for easier communication.” Thus, whether a group
existed for fun or served a purpose depends on the focus of the group. Other students
agreed that “some online groups raise awareness on subjects, and some have
petitions in order for a voice to be heard. Many, however, are just for fun or due to
common interests.” For example, while certain online groups “are just for fun”,
others served a serious purpose or cause, like “the political ones” or some that
“organize community service”. Almost one-third of students stated that online
groups are just online versions of in-person organizations.
Respondents were asked how the functions and operations of the online
groups differ from in-person counterparts and what their purpose is online. For the
groups students are in that are only online, students were asked what they gained out
of participating in them. The responses collected from these questions in particular
yielded little in the way of new information. Respondents identified interacting with
friends, connecting with other people that share similar interests, having fun and
being entertained as the primary purposes of affiliating with online groups. Some
130

students felt that a major benefit to OSNs was that “you can be a member and you
don’t have to attend any meetings”, which students prefer so that they can “be
involved in multiple groups at the same time”. Other students identify that they can
“gain some information from seeing those groups and gain notification of their
events” as well as allowing “me to talk to people I was once friends with and may
have lost contact with over the years”.
Study participants largely label event scheduling, entertainment and
involvement opportunities as benefits of online social networking. This is partly a
result of the individual utility of each of these functions with Facebook, Myspace
and other OSNs, but also the social needs that students have and are expressing
through OSNs.

OSNs Reduce Students’ Inhibitions and Enhance their Socialization
Another benefit to online social networking is that online communities tend
to help members develop greater social skills and be more open with each other. This
includes reduced social inhibitions, which could potentially involve positive and
negative consequences. On one hand, reduced inhibitions could allow people to be
more open with each other and get to know each other better, deeper, etc. On the
other hand, reduced inhibitions could embolden members of these online
communities to be more careless in their actions and behaviors online (see
inappropriate content section under Drawbacks below). Additionally, enhanced
131

social skills and overall socialization to campus culture are perceived by students to
be natural by-products of online social networking. This provides an intriguing
venue for students to develop and hone their own skills. For example, students
believe, like one student, that “you can talk to people and get invited to social events.
If people think you’re cool online, you’re invited.”
Another student explained that through OSNs, “you meet more people, which
is basically the social aspect of college,” but it also, as one student mentioned,
“allows less confident people to interact with others which may eventually allow
greater social interaction in person.” As this student mentioned, students build
confidence in themselves while interacting online, perhaps due to perceptions that
online social networking is relatively low-risk. This does not refer to the risk of
identity theft or stalking but rather to the risk of one’s ego, embarrassment or shame
that more shy people may face in public social situations. As a case in point, one
student identified OSNs as the venue for him coming out of his shell and having
more in-person friends than he would have had without the existence of OSNs.
There are additional means by which students believe that online social
networks help reduce inhibitions of their users and provide them the social skills and
opportunities to interact more with one another. Most of the students responding to
the survey stated that they themselves, or their friends, had shared personal
experiences through blogs or notes. Students are familiar with the features and that
they are used widely by students at most institutions and probably by people they
132

know. Through the sharing of blogs or notes, people can keep up to date on their
friends’ experiences and anecdotes, as well as discover commonalities.
Students also discover common interests by randomly searching out people
with interests in common or finding friends of friends and then discovering
commonalities. A great deal of students indicated that they or their friends shared a
number of common interests with a peer whom they had just met through OSNs.
Students identified this as one of the primary benefits, and indicated through their
responses that by finding common interests between two or more people, they are
more likely to want to engage that person both in dialogue and socially, in-person
and online. Students completing the survey discussed their own networks of friends,
acquaintances, colleagues, classmates, and fellow students. Most discussed the extent
to which their online and in-person friendships and acquaintanceships have grown as
a result of shared interests or experiences discovered through online social networks.
The third indicator of reduced inhibitions and enhanced socialization
experiences pertained to seeing pictures of themselves and friends online. Every
student responding to the survey expressed familiarity with this function. An
overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that they had seen pictures of
themselves or others on Facebook or other online social networks, while over three-
fourths knew of friends who had pictures on their online social networks. While
picture posting and photo-tagging may not be the primary feature of Facebook and
133

most of the online social networks, they are apparently significant in most users’
online social networking experiences.
One student identified positives as networking, keeping in touch and social
functions and negatives as creepy people and losing a job because of content students
post. This student addressed some of the prevalent benefits and drawbacks with
online social networking. Many of the briefer responses were similar to this student
that said that online social networks allowing “non-threatening social interaction” is
a positive, while putting “information on the web that should not be public” as a
negative. The breadth and depth of responses to this question in particular indicates
that students are relatively cognizant of the concerns associated with engaging in
online social networking. Table 8 displays students’ responses on the positive and
negative effects of online social networking.
What are the positive and negative effects that online social networks have on college student
experiences?
Only Positive Effects
16 (4.4%)
Only Negative Effects
44 (12.2%)
Both Positive and Negative Effects
260 (72%)
N/A
41(11.4%)
How do you think that participating in OSNs affects your college experiences?
Reduces
Inhibitions
113 (33%)
Grades / Interaction
have dropped
19 (6%)
Sense of community /
commonality
121 (35%)
Enhance feelings of
purpose and worth
31 (9%)
Not much
effect
50 (15%)
Which of the following statements best describes your opinion on the benefits and drawbacks
of participating in online communities? (Select all that apply)
Never
thought
about it
that way
30 (11.1%)
Very glad these
OSNs exist,
could not
imagine life
without them
65 (24.1%)
There are some
concerns about
Facebook &
Myspace, but that
does not affect me at
all 115 (42.6%)
There are both
benefits and
drawbacks, but the
benefits outweigh the
drawbacks
162 (60%)
I am very concerned
about what happens
within OSNs. I am very
careful about my own
participation.
86 (31.9%)
Other: 21 (7.8%)
Table 8. Benefits versus Consequences
134

Students expressed some variety in their opinion on the effects of benefits
and drawbacks of online social networking. The greatest number of responses agreed
with the statement that they “know there are both benefits and drawbacks, but the
benefits outweigh the drawbacks.” Students also expressed that they were very
concerned about what happens within online social networks, and that they were also
careful about their own participation.
Students who added their own response to this question largely said that they
are careful not to do anything incriminating. They also say that if they do something
incriminating they do not link their name to the incriminating activity and that
anyone who is not careful is, as one student put it, “just stupid, no one is a victim on
Myspace or Facebook unless they choose to be.” Some respondents are just worried
about potential employers looking at the sites, while others are worried about anyone
other than their own friends viewing their information, so they adjust their settings
accordingly. One respondent was quick to point out that “it’s easy to avoid
consequences (don’t friend people you don’t know, don’t post pictures where your
doing something illegal and don’t post anything your school/employers can hold
against you).”
A number of focus group participants felt as though there are no new
activities or behaviors that are happening on Facebook that would not otherwise have
happened, “it’s just that the behavior is being shown in new ways,” and “perhaps to
more people,” (Focus Group Participants VC and VD). Participant IIIG commented
135

that Myspace and Facebook exhibit both bullying behavior from some users on
others, and “students posting things that aren’t correct about someone online.” some
of the many concerning or problematic behaviors that existed before online social
networks became so prominent, but the online communities are a new medium for
conveying those messages and behaviors. The next section will look at students’
perceptions of the drawbacks of participating within OSNs, as well as how they
mitigate those drawbacks.

DRAWBACKS
Students Are Somewhat Concerned About Their Safety While Online
Students participating in each of the six focus groups referenced safety
concerns in general as one of the largest drawbacks to using online social networks.
A number of survey respondents echoed these findings, underscoring the need for
students to learn how to be safer in their online social networking activities. An
understanding of students’ safety concerns will aid educators that want to help
students be safer online. The safety concerns students mentioned included identity
theft, cyber bullying, cyber hate and stalking, which are many of the same concerns
shared by society-at-large and universities themselves. The issue of cyber hate
generally centers on what the students referred to as prejudice and bias that some
users express against individuals or groups of individuals based on their
demographic characteristics. Some of the specified examples included Anti-Semitic
136

or homophobic remarks, racial slurs and other derogatory language being used, and
similar sentiments expressed through pictures. Survey respondents also worried
about cyber bullying, where on a discussion thread for a politically themed group,
one user would state his or her belief, and another user, the bully, would write them
messages, make repeated posts on the message board, etc. lambasting the first user in
an attempt to stifle “their opinions, sentiments or beliefs”. This also indicates that
although students may not be as outwardly concerned about issues to the same extent
that their parents or university staff are, they still acknowledge the concerns as issues
to be aware of.
In terms of this, Myspace was highlighted as a creepier online community
than Facebook, due in part due to its undiscriminating and widespread usage.
However, participants were quick to point out their concerns that Facebook had
already expanded beyond the college-specific phenomenon it had once been lauded
for, as well as the evolution of Facebook’s features continually making it seem more
and more like Myspace every day. Of the safety concerns, stalking was at the top of
everyone’s list. One participant, during Focus Group III, commented that she used
her privacy settings to prevent certain people from knowing where she was. “Nobody
who is not my friend can view my profile. On Myspace, everyone can access too
much. I even debated getting rid of Facebook at one point,” said this student, who
thinks that there is too much information available online.
137

This student was not alone in her belief that having too much information
available on her Facebook or other online social networking profiles posed potential
risks for stalking, and at least annoyance. Some participants commented that they did
not like random people knowing details about their interests and lives. Students
frequently commented that even though privacy settings do exist, most students do
not know how to fully utilize them. When discussing privacy settings, one
participant from Focus Group I stated that people either do not realize they exist or
do not use them adequately. Either way, she went on to say, “it doesn’t necessarily
mean that people are: a) responsible about it, or b) realize what’s going on. I think
Facebook has the potential to be 99.99% safe.” Many survey respondents echoed this
sentiment, provided that users adjusts their privacy and access settings accordingly.
However, one of the concerns students had centered around random people
being able to know where you are at any given time of day due to the status updates,
class schedules, organization meetings for groups that you list involvement in and
even people identifying places where you have been by pictures posted on your
profile. That over-exposure of information may be the reason why a majority of
students responding to the survey identified stalkers, predators, creepy people, cyber-
bullying, offensive comments and harassment as the category of issues they see with
regards to online social networking that are most concerning. As Table 9 shows,
students have a wide array of opinions and experience concerning student-posted
online content.
138

Please discuss any specific examples of content you came across in one of your OSNs
(Facebook, Myspace, etc.). What are the most concerning issues you see with regards to OSNs?
Underage
drinking, illegal
drug use (pictures
and comments)
30 (11.1%)
Stalkers,
Predators,
Creepy people,
Cyber-bullying
139 (51.7%)
Fake
identities
15 (5.6%)
I don’t see any
issues, nothing
bothers me, not
that serious
78 (29%)
Concerned about
universities convicting
students without enough
notice
7 (2.6%)
How do you think that participating in OSNs affects your college experiences?
Reduces
Inhibitions
113 (33%)
Grades / Interaction
have dropped
19 (6%)
Sense of community /
commonality
121 (35%)
Enhance feelings of
purpose and worth
31 (9%)
Not much
effect
50 (15%)
Table 9. Drawbacks students identify with online social networking.
Some of the specific concerns mentioned were that Facebook users
(particularly within groups) “should not be allowed to contain some inappropriate
and/or offensive statements”. One student had received random pokes—flirtatious
ways of saying hello—from males wanting to flirt with her and misreading
communication from her, said “people attack others for no reason. There are quite a
few rather racist and/or sexist groups out there.” One student even stated that she did
not think “these networks should allow individuals to post their addresses and phone
numbers,” to help protect them from themselves and others. Another student
suggested that the most pressing concerns would be addressed if “people would only
think of the Internet as a place open for everyone to see, even if their pages are
protected. If one is certain not to reveal possibly incriminating, compromising, or
overly personal information, one can be fairly certain of security and freedom from
harassment.”
A number of student respondents thought that it was important that students,
as users of Facebook and other online social networks, should be responsible for
their own online behaviors, and should exercise their own judgment and discretion in
139

terms of what to post or not post. This sentiment was echoed repeatedly by other
respondents. Students said that their peers should think about the content they post
carefully, as it all affects the image they portray of themselves. “Putting up pictures
of drinking/smoking isn’t as impressive as they seem to think, and they should
realize that they are being judged by what they post, the same way they are judging
their “friends”,” said one respondent in talking about why his peers post what they
post. This is particularly poignant as students widely acknowledged that most student
affairs practitioners, parents or other authority figures now could easily access
Facebook or Myspace content to check on students. Furthermore, the wide net of
access cast by these sites allows anyone to view a lot of personal information,
whether their intent is nefarious or constructive. Respondents did not think that just
because students could limit their privacy settings in order to minimize the access
non-friends would have to their profile, that it would stop stalking, cyber hate or
cyber bullying concerns or problems from occurring. They did believe that these
particular issues would become less prevalent if users were wiser in the information
that they provided. This is also the case for other safety concerns.
Identity theft and other safety concerns were also cited during the focus
groups, even if less frequently. Some students were concerned about the high
number of scams run through the Internet. Other students had similar concerns with
scams and spam. “I am being spammed with fake profiles and people fishing for my
personal information on online networks. Too much spam makes me quit using the
140

network. Maybe spam filters need to be installed to prevent the very obvious spam,”
said one survey respondent. The volume of scams, spam, phishing and fake profiles
was described as annoying by those respondents who addressed these issues, but the
number of students directly addressing these issues was relatively low. Others were
concerned with “fakesters”, users who pose as alter-egos of themselves or celebrities
through their online social networking profile.
Additional concerns students identified explicitly were cyber hate, which is
online content or speech bordering on hate speech, and cyber bullying, where users
will send messages or write posts to others yelling at them or arguing with them. All
of these student concerns could potentially be mitigated once university student
affairs professionals understand that students are aware of these issues and express
concern about them as well. However, how the university might mitigate these issues
is still a contentious issue, as will be explored further when answering research
question 3. The next student-identified drawback to be discussed relates to students
perspectives on whether or not they feel sanctions are warranted based on content
posted online.

Students Have Mixed Feelings about the Repercussions of Online Actions
By and large, students participating in this study were concerned about the
repercussions of content posted online. This parallels nicely with university
concerns, as educators are increasingly interested in responding to problematic
141

content with sanctions or proactively reducing the incidences of problematic content
through educational interventions. Thus an understanding of students’ opinions and
perspectives of what sorts of responses might be appropriate to content they or others
might post will be important for an educator’s overall understanding of student usage
of online social networks.
Generally, students participating in the focus groups expressed that there was
little in their profile to be concerned about. This contradicted other statements from
students saying that they were going to check their profile for content and edit as
appropriate following the completion of the focus group, or some students who
stopped by during a later focus group to say that they had already completely
reviewed their profile. A large number of survey participants echoed similar
sentiments. Whether or not there were any concerning issues or problematic content
still remaining on their profiles was not discussed.
What students readily asserted is that they thought it not only completely
appropriate but entirely necessary for sanctions and other repercussions to be applied
to other students who had posted something inappropriate. “If you are dumb enough
to post something inappropriate, you deserve to be punished for it,” said one
respondent. Most focus group participants and survey respondents echoed this
sentiment. However, students expressed sincere concern that they would be punished
for something they perceive to be an inside joke or a private thing to share with their
friends. From the student perspectives presented, the concerns about possible
142

repercussions depend almost exclusively on three things: 1) the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of the content, 2) who posted the content, and 3) the extent of the
repercussions or sanctions. Through an understanding of these student concerns,
student affairs practitioners can more adequately support students in their online
social networking. This is particularly important to overcome the distracting and less
personal qualities of online social networks as discussed below.

OSN Use Can Prevent Students from Completing Work and Interacting With
Peers Face-To-Face
Each focus group had at least one student remark that Facebook and online
social networking as a whole is a waste of time and serves as a venue for
procrastination. Usage of OSNs can detract from engaging in other productive
activities. However, the students making those remarks gave no indication that they
would be cutting down on their usage of and participation in these online social
networks anytime soon. On the contrary, the majority of students tended to most
often comment that if they were not wasting time being on Facebook, Myspace or
another online social network, they would be procrastinating and wasting their time
doing something even more frivolous. What this means to educators is that despite
student perceptions that OSNs are considered a waste of time or form of
procrastination by students using them; students will continue to engage in online
social networking. Students largely stated that they are able to maintain
143

communication with more people regularly, and while not all students would agree
that OSNs are less personal, it appears as though most would sacrifice depth of
communication for breadth if it came down to doing so.
Students largely said that OSNs are important to their college experiences
and that even if Facebook, Myspace and other online social networks did not exist,
they would simply be spending that same amount of time on other activities. One
respondent in particular wrote that OSNs do not impact his college experiences very
much: “I make friends and hang out with people in person. It is only amusing when
you feel like posting on a friend’s wall or seeing pictures from a party. I could take it
or leave it though.”
One group of students felt that either their grades or interactions with others
in person (and often both) had decreased due to online social networking. One of the
students who answered in this fashion commented that OSNs take away “from time I
should be spending studying, but don’t let that get back to my parents! I’d be a lot
less stressed if I got all my work done first, I’m sure, but the networking sites are
also convenient because I can stay in contact with my friends who don’t go to the
same college as me.” This student acknowledged the impact of online social
networking on her own experiences, but explained why she continues to use it.
Another student stated that she did not get as much work done as a result of being
distracted by Facebook. However, she said, “it’s a good social tool for staying in
144

touch with people and to follow up on meetings with people. It makes it much easier
to learn who people are.
However, though OSNs may be conducive to more frequent or regular
socialization, some students also feel that the quality of interaction declines as a
result of online social networking. “Things can be taken out of context online.
Someone I knew made a Facebook group about the cheer team I am a part of, and all
of my teammates were mad at me,” said one student who had to deal with the
repercussions of some online content. The number of students who identified online
social networking as a time-waster, form of procrastination or a venue for less
personal or emotional connection was significantly smaller than those who identified
positive impacts through the online survey. Yet this population will continue to use
OSNs and would likely benefit from an understanding of how to use them to
positively affect their college experiences rather than detract from it.

Opinions of Inappropriate Content and the Response to it Differed Widely
The most important drawback students reported for OSNs pertained to
inappropriate content. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of different content
posted within online social networks is in the eye of the beholder, meaning that the
student or staff person or community member seeing the content would decide
whether or not they perceive it to be inappropriate. Therefore, even if content is
perceived to be inappropriate, the requisite response to is will also depend on the
145

constituency deeming it inappropriate. Educators should understand the complexities
of the sometimes questionable appropriateness of content posted online from the
student perspective as well as student opinions on the responded to that content. That
sense of understanding will enable educators to understand what role inappropriate
content plays within online social networks and students experiences within OSNs
such as Facebook and Myspace.
The appropriateness of the variety of materials (pictures, comments, etc.)
posted within online social networks such as Facebook or Myspace is largely
determined by who views it and in what context. Students responding to the survey
did not necessarily agree with students participating in the focus groups as to what
content was appropriate versus what could be considered inappropriate. The general
consensus of the focus group participants could best be summed up by a student who
said that
It’s dangerous how public everything is. People don’t realize the severity of
what they post. People will join a group because they think its funny, but not
realize how it makes them look. Particularly the groups that are like: I hate
this group, or I think this person is dumb, etc.
This student’s examples concerning content show that some of the groups students
may join can be as troubling as individual messages and posts.
Generally speaking, students may find certain questionable content to be
inappropriate or unnecessary, but may disagree on whether or not it was ok for the
146

student who posted it to do so. Most of the focus group participants and survey
respondents seemed to believe that it was up to the user’s own discretion as to what
they choose to post or not post. The consensus: post at your own peril.
On the questionnaire focus group participants filled out, students were asked
if they knew that Facebook, for example, has a policy that anything posted on their
site is co-owned by Facebook, until such time as it is taken down by the original
poster. In each focus group this prompted a discussion about how the content posted
on Facebook and other sites is very likely not only maintained or archived on some
servers in that website’s headquarters, but there is a high probability that some
content may be printed up or saved by individual users and will one day come back
to haunt the original poster. One respondent said that she fully expects future
political candidates “to get completely screwed because of what they have posted
online.”
Students resoundingly affirmed that inappropriate content could be found
throughout online communities. There were various types of content that fell into the
realm of questionable appropriateness (see Table 9). Nudity, and other sexually-
explicit content was cited as a concerning issue due to the popularity amongst even
younger users of these sites in posting provocative and evocative pictures of
themselves in scantily-clad poses. Substance abuse, including the consumption of
illegal drugs, underage drinking and binge drinking, was also often cited as
inappropriate content that students were posting online, in the form of pictures,
147

messages and comments, etc. Most participants in Focus Group III agreed with the
sentiments of one respondent who said that “90% of pictures on these sites are bad,
showing underage drinking, drug use, and perhaps even underage students at a bar,
blatantly using Fake IDs to have gotten in,”. A large proportion of survey
respondents echoed these sentiments.
Focus group participants seemed more concerned about the nudity and
sexually-explicit content spattered around online communities. However, when
survey respondents were asked to discuss any specific examples of concerning issues
in content they came across within online social networks, respondents did not
identify nudity as a major concern. Some survey respondents did identify responses
that fall into the category of underage drinking and illegal drug use (pictures and
comments). More students said that they do not see any issues, or that nothing that
serious bothers them. While both material might be posted as a way to boost
someone’s ego or status (Focus Groups I, III, IV and V), students in Focus Group VI
asserted that students engaging in over-consumption of illegal drugs or alcohol
(including underage drinking) would have done so even if online social networks did
not exist. On the contrary, these students point out their belief that the nudity and
sexually-explicit content within online social networks might not otherwise have
happened in the absence of the convenient venue for sharing pictures and comments
that these online communities provide.
148

Focus group participants also identified property damage, destruction and
graffiti as content likely to be inappropriate to post on their online social network
pages. Focus group participant IIIA, an RA in the residence halls, mentioned the
dilemma she faced with whether or not to check out her residents profiles. If she
were to look, and notice evidence of property damage, she would be duty-bound to
report it. If she reported it, she would damage her relationship with her residents, and
if she did not, she would lose her job. A common element of discussion in all six
focus groups was the USC Senior Fountain Tour, an underground tradition at USC
where graduating seniors have a route of all of the water fountains across campus,
and pick a day where all of the graduating seniors that want to, jump into each of the
fountains, in order. From the perspective of these student participants, the
administration of the University of Southern California is adamantly opposed to this
“tradition” as it poses liability issues for risk of harm, as well as the added cost of re-
sanitizing and chlorinating each of the fountains after the run. During Focus group
III, one respondent revealed that the “information on the date and time of the
fountain tour is kept secret to that the campus administration cannot stop it,” and she
went on to say that by using Facebook to organize this year’s Senior Fountain Tour,
the students were attempting to prevent the fountains from being drained in advance,
and garner even more attendees and participation.
A number of groups within Facebook networks have made the news during
2006 for their questionable nature or content posted within them. Some of these
149

groups were discussed during the focus groups. One respondent discussed how there
are Facebook groups entitled “Guys who have hooked up with (insert name of
specific female student here)”. Another type of group often mentioned by focus
group participants is “If 1,000 people join this group, my girlfriend will have a
threesome with me”. As one of the focus group participants explained, the student
who created that Facebook group was subsequently kicked off of Facebook. These
groups cause problems for the group’s creators and administrators as well as the
members of these groups, as it reflects negatively on their judgment and discretion,
let alone taste and sense of decency in some instances. In a number of instances,
these groups may contain content that slanders or libels individuals and sometimes
groups of people. Additionally, some of these groups promote or condone racist or
bigoted sentiments. One such Facebook group from the Facebook network at the
University of Southern California that received a lot of negative attention was called:
“White Nation” (Focus Group Transcripts). With this particular group, it “started as
an inside joke from the football team. It made a lot of headlines and upset a lot of
people,” (Focus Group VI). It is questionable whether or not the entirety of the USC
football team thought this ‘inside joke’ to truly be amusing, but certainly a large
majority of the USC campus took offense to the connotation associated with this
group. These types of problems range in severity and frequency, and oftentimes will
ebb and flow, but their existence at all is certainly a drawback to online social
networking.
150

While this may not be an exhaustive listing of the inappropriate content
students post within online social networks, some of which was addressed in
previous sections, it is a first step in fully comprehending what content students post
that may be considered inappropriate. Study participants were asked why they or
their peers would be willing to post content of such questionable appropriateness;
and what the appropriate response to such content should be (and by whom). By
looking at these responses, one can begin to ascertain the role that students think
their online social networking plays within society as a whole.

Research Question Three: What Are Students’ Attitudes And Perceptions
About Staff And Administrator Involvement In Online Social Networks?
This research question examines students’ attitudes about staff and
administrator involvement in online social networks users of these online social
networking communities. The themes that emerged in answering this research
question from conducting the surveys and focus groups are that students: 1) do not
believe universities should be held liable for student-posted online content, 2)
believe that involvement from non-students is ok to a limited extent, 3) see the
benefits in and need for educational materials and workshops, and 4) adjust their
settings and edit their content in response to university staff involvement.

151

Universities Should Not Be Held Liable For Student-Posted Online Content
The amount of liability that may be assessed to universities for the content
posted online by their students is not clearly known. Students participating in this
study did discuss the extent that they thought universities might be liable. On the
whole, students generally felt that universities cannot be held liable for any
inappropriate content or behavior exhibited by their students online. Students stated
that there is nothing inherent about the behaviors and content being posted online
that warrant any more liability or duty of care than if those same behaviors were
being depicted in other forums. However, students felt it justifiable, and in some
cases necessary, for universities to educate their students about the potential pitfalls
of online social networking. For student affairs professionals, understanding this
balance will help when planning whether or not to have any educational
interventions and workshops about being proactively positive within OSNs.
Some focus group participants felt that their university had some liability or
responsibility for online content that their students post. Participant IIB said that
“USC has to look when it is a concerning issue,” to which another Focus Group II
participant responded that she “wouldn’t be surprised if the university is liable. I’m
sure they are bound to look out for student’s best interests, and monitoring Facebook
is the cheapest and quickest way to do it.” A great majority of the perceived liability
stemming from the survey and focus group data center around the university’s
obligation to protect its own students from harm from themselves or others. Thus,
152

underage drinking in fraternities and sororities, in the residence hall, and any of a
host of other behaviors students may engage in could harm those students or others,
and the university should prevent whatever they can (Focus Group I, II and IV).
However, both survey respondents and other focus group participants readily pointed
out that monitoring Facebook would be cost-prohibitive; most universities would not
have the fiscal resources or staff to monitor all online content of all of their students.
A few focus group participants keenly pointed out that the liability for the
university could potentially exist if a university official was engaging in problematic,
inappropriate or illegal behavior online, or knew of students doing so and took no
efforts to stop it. In Focus Group VI, one respondent said that he “did not think they
could be sued, since USC is not endorsing any of this; unless, a university official
was engaging in bad behavior.” A participant from Focus Group V, with the
Undergraduate Student Government, agreed, ‘if you have two girls that are 18 and
drinking underage, and an employee in the picture is laughing, then that’s a problem
on multiple fronts.” Focus group participants commented that this applied primarily
to professional staff, although student employee behavior online may also reflect
negatively on the university.
Other focus group participants (I, III, IV, and VI) felt that their university
“should do more to regulate online content. They might lose out on possible
donations or other consequences, such as tuition dollars, etc.” This is because
students may not want to have their university regulate online content at all, and
153

students thought that might deter students from enrolling A participant in Focus
Group IV identified this as “a social liability, not a legal liability,” which her peers
interpreted as the university being socially responsible for what its students are
doing, and have an obligation to educate students to be better, more productive
members of society. However, many students do not feel that universities bear a
legal responsibility for the behavior of its students. “They should regulate it
somewhat, to say otherwise is ludicrous. They should keep their ears open to
problems that are brought to their attention,” (Focus Group VI).
Even though most students agreed that universities would be unable to
monitor all online content, a number of participants and respondents thought that it
would be important for universities to generally know what was going on online.
Participants from Focus Group II, some of whom are aspiring legal professionals,
said that this speaks to “reasonable precautions”, the precautions any reasonable
person could expect the university to undertake to exhibit due diligence. At USC,
students identified that the Department of Public Safety was looking “on Facebook
to find parties and close them down,” (Focus Group I). Since it is there, it will make
it easier for the university to do its normal functions. In the words of one respondent,
“all the university is technically doing is using the same resources students use to
find out what is going on, to know what is going on around campus. DPS is not
preemptively closing down parties.”
154

A larger majority of focus group participants felt that the university was not
liable at all for the online content their students post. Students like participants IA,
IB and IF felt that it is not the university’s responsibility to police Facebook, and
thus, the university cannot be held liable. If the university does not face liability for
some potentially offensive or problematic content that their students write in their
own email messages to others, said participants in Focus Groups I, III and V, then
why should potentially offensive or problematic content posted within OSNs be any
different. For these students who feel the university is not liable or responsible, it
does not matter what the content is. Some students felt that the university should
publish a statement saying that the university “ignores” online social networks, or
only “specifically monitors” them to follow up on reported complaints. Fellow
participants in Focus Group III pointed out that such a statement would incur added
liability. Consistent with the comments of some survey respondents, students in
some focus groups said that although the university “does not need to check out
[Facebook content], they have the right to,” or that the university “should keep [its]
ears open to problems that are brought to their attention,” (Focus Group VI).
Students responding to the online survey perceived no liability that can be assigned
to a university because of the content that any of their students choose to post or any
behavior they might espouse.

155

Students believe that involvement from non-students is ok to a limited extent.
Students participating in this study had mixed feelings about universities and
outside entities being involved in OSNs. Outside entity involvement or presence was
clearly least favored by students, though participants acknowledged that corporate
advertising within an OSN is what made it free for them to use.. Students were
largely opposed to employers using Facebook or other OSNs to evaluate prospective
or current employees, despite one student who asserted that personal and
professional lives “do collide. You can’t say they are totally separate. If they have to
hire you and cannot separate out your personal behavior, then shouldn’t they look at
your profile first?”
This section, while classified under “Drawbacks” also includes some positive
examples of university presence within OSNs. It is important to acknowledge that
from the student perspective, there is a fine line between searching OSNs for
offensive and inappropriate conduct (which students clearly oppose), and
participating within OSNs to help connect students more closely together and more
efficiently to campus resources.
In terms of university involvement, students widely believed that the primary
function of OSNs is for students to communicate through them. This was particularly
the case when discussing Facebook, specifically that it should be for college students
only. However, students also saw the benefit in having campus job announcements,
156

event promotion, and information about campus resources within OSNs. In some
cases student-staff interactions were referenced as potentially useful.
Participant VIC had a different response because at her previous job (athletics
department) she was not allowed to befriend any of the athletes on Facebook. She
“eventually changed my privacy settings so that my bosses couldn’t see what I was
doing. I could see the point if I was trying to take my relationship further with them,
but I was not.” This student skirted her employer’s non-fraternization rule by
reducing opportunities for her employer to find out, and participant she was glad that
her bosses did not force her to show them her friend’s list. Some survey respondents
described similar situations, and in some cases the students changed their online
name to their middle name or nickname so that their employer or anyone who they
did not want to befriend online could not locate them.
Very few students said that they knew their university regularly reviewed the
online content of their students. One student said that every time she logs in “to the
student computers, it informs me that my history is being tracked and basically not to
participate in any criminal activity.” Other respondents mentioned that athletes’
profiles are monitored regularly, and if inappropriate behavior or content is
portrayed, the athlete risks a loss of their scholarship or other sanctions.
Some respondents indicated that their university does have a policy to review
content of a student, but only when complaints are filed against that student. Some of
these students asserted that this must be because the university does not have enough
157

money or “time to constantly look at everyone’s profile,” whereas other students did
not assume that their university wanted to seek out all of the problematic behavior of
its student body. In some cases the university did not have a separate policy, but that
the overall student conduct code they signed when being accepted to that school
applied to OSNs as well. One example of a student conduct code specifically
referencing online content was given by a survey respondent, “if we are caught
breaking rules online, the same penalty applies as breaking rules offline.”
Some students qualified their response to this question by clarifying that their
university treats online misdeeds the same way it would treat misdeeds that happen
face-to-face, or in print, etc. One survey respondent clarified this point:
If the school sees something that is against its formal policy, it punishes the
same as it would if you were caught in person. However, the only time actual
profiles seem to be reviewed is when someone complains about it. So, as long
as you don’t have offensive material, you don’t get bothered. Resident
Advisors (who write you up for breaking rules and keep the peace within the
dorms) avoid looking at their resident’s profiles in order to avoid seeing
underage drinking.

Participants like this respondent clearly see their university’s perspective as fitting
with a “don’t see, don’t tell” mindset, “as long as you’re not in danger of harming
yourself or others and aren’t being destructive, they will not write you up.” Other
students echoed this sentiment that if you are careful in your own behavior you could
avoid incurring the wrath of university involvement in your online social network
and sanctions or other punishment.
158

However, if such a policy did exist, some students believed that their
university needed to do a better job of educating its students about it. One respondent
felt that there might be a policy at his institution but hopes the policy “would remain
along the lines of the counseling center’s policy: unless there is an immediate threat
to a person or private property, everything is confidential/none of their business.”
Students also acknowledged awareness of some of their peers losing work-study jobs
or other positions “because of information that staff found on their profiles.” Though
whether or not the staff proactively looked for such content or if it was brought in by
another student as part of a complaint was not made clear. One of the issues survey
respondents were concerned about is that universities would convict students of
violating student conduct codes or other policies without having sufficient evidence.
Online advertisements somehow related to the university were identified as
important to the student experience, whereas commercial advertising was not. This is
the reason why a majority of students from Focus Group III said that they would be
more interested in university-related advertisements than those from corporations,
companies or other outside entities. The only other distinction participants made
between university and commercial advertising is that the commercial ads may be
more aesthetically pleasing, and thus more readily received and viewed by students.
A number of focus group participants indicated that though they doubt if the
university is entirely aware of how much university-related or ‘semi-legitimate’
advertising exists on Facebook, the students themselves find value in it (Focus Group
159

III). Participant IIIA even commented that the university may not want to know how
much presence they have online. The types of university-related advertising
mentioned were: recruiting for student employees, recruiting for students to take this
minor or major, campus events, Housing, Bookstore sales, Alternative Spring Break
trips, student elections, etc. Participants IIIA, IIIG and a few participants in Focus
Groups I and VI identified that campus student organizations as well as student
groups sponsored by the university (i.e. Undergraduate Student Government,
Program Board, and Athletics) were among the most frequent university-related
advertisers. Additionally, participants commented that posting “flyers” on Facebook
was more effective than posting flyers on campus, in that “students seem to not pay
attention to on-campus flyers much anymore,” (Focus Group IV). Collectively,
student respondents appreciated online advertising for campus activities, with a
general preference for those advertisements and events that are student-initiated or
student-driven.
When participants were asked what other ways the university is present in
their online communities, most respondents indicated that they have online
friendships with teaching assistants, professors, staff, and even non-university
employees that work for campus-based organizations. While the latter are not
directly related to the university, participants categorized these individuals as equally
significant in terms of their own online interactions with non-students. In terms of
these online friendships with non-students, teaching assistants, staff and professors,
160

oftentimes the online friendship is matched with a stronger person-to-person
connection in real life, though it was not always clear which came first or was more
prevalent in these students’ experiences. Participant IIC and a number of survey
respondents pointed out that they had an experience where their professor set up their
own Facebook account and profile to memorize the names and faces of his or her
students. “It was really creepy the first day when he came in, and picked out a girl
and said: ‘you like this, this, this, and horseback riding. The girl freaked out and
dropped the class after, but I added him as a friend. I guess it’s a good tool when you
have a lot of names and faces to memorize,” (Participant IIC). At least in this one
class, this professor uses it to get to know all of the students’ names, by face, very
early in the term. Other students in Focus Group II thought this to be a positive
example of staff interaction and involvement within online communities.
Some of the more passive positive effects of university presence within OSNs
were also identified. Participants commented that campus resources and information
are more accessible as a result of university presence within OSNs. A student can
befriend a student or staff person who works for a specific department, and through
that node of connection learn how to benefit from the resources of that department,
and get their questions answered if they were not necessarily comfortable asking the
question in person directly. This connection between students and staff may also lend
itself to increased retention, as one survey respondent mentioned that during a rough
period in her life she stumbled onto a campus resource and staff person within her
161

Facebook network that she eventually met with to help her through her troubles.
Other students echoed this sentiment.
Table 10 displays student survey responses with regards to concerning issues
with regards to OSNs, and what the appropriate response to those concerns from the
university might be.
Please answer this question for each of the following acts, behaviors or observations on OSNs
like Facebook or Myspace. How often have you either experienced, or heard of the following
acts occurring, within the OSNs you participate in? (Select all that apply)
Myself My
friends
Heard of it
happening
at my school
Heard of it
happening
elsewhere
Never heard
of this
actually
happening
Mini-feed feature causing
problems
55
(20%)
86
(32%)
69 (26%) 63 (23%) 116 (43%)
Offensive images / pictures
Discriminatory or hatred
28
(10%)
41
(15%)
67 (25%) 91 (34%) 112 (41%)
Pictures of Underage drinking 16 (6%) 53 (20%) 91 (34%) 124 (46%) 96 (36%)
Pictures of nudity/lewd
conduct
6 (2%) 23 (9%) 40 (15%) 98 (36%) 146 (54%)
Inappropriate or offensive
messages
5 (2%) 31
(11%)
63 (23%) 94 (35%) 128 (47%)
Experienced identity theft or
stalking
20 (7%) 46
(17%)
60 (20%) 87 (32%) 130 (48%)
Someone is denied a job or
internship based on profile
4 (1%) 12 (4%) 24 (9%) 118 (44%) 136 (50%)
Spam and junk email or
messages; fake profiles
108
(40%)
100
(37%)
89 (33%) 98 (36%) 71 (26%)
Unwanted contact from anyone147(54%) 138 (51%) 103 (38%) 102 (38%) 49 (18%)
Assuming there are significant concerns related to what happens within online social
networks, do you think the university should do which of the following:
Educate
students about
how to reduce
negative
consequences
120 (44.9%)
Participate in
and monitor
OSNs being
used mostly
by students
20 (7.5%)
Work with the staff
of Facebook and
Myspace to suggest
changes to reduce
the risks
63 (23.6%)
Do nothing.
The university
has no place /
interest within
my OSNs
116 (43.4%)
Do nothing. We’re
mature enough to
make our own
decisions about
what we do online
146 (54.7%)
Other: 26 (9.7%)
Do you know whether or not your university has any policy of when to review students’ online
content and what to do about it?
Yes, they review
regularly
8 (3%)
Yes, they review when
complaints are filed
15 (5.7%)
I don’t know,
but probably
165 (62.7%)
No, they don’t
have a policy
36 (13.7%)
I have no idea,
I hope not
15 (5.7%)
Table 10. Concerning issues in OSNs
162

As Table 10 shows, though a large number of students can identify most of
the major drawbacks and concerns associated with OSNs, 40-50% tend to say that
they have never heard of this actually happening, though they are sure that it has
somewhere. Regardless, groups of respondents clearly believed that their university
ought to “educate students about how to minimize negative consequences of their
online activities,” though as other question’s responses will show, the suggested
medium for conveying that educational message will differ widely by student. Other
evidence that students would tolerate some university presence within their OSNs
comes from a student who said that “when I checked above that university staff
should monitor frequently trafficked areas of their students, I actually think they
should do this to learn about their students and know about the campus culture,” of
their student body. This student thought that universities could use OSNs to keep
their fingers on the pulse of their campus community.
A number of students felt that online interactions with staff are beneficial
because they felt that staff members were more available and accessible online than
they are in person. This is largely a function of the challenges a student faces with
making it to a staff or faculty member’s office hours, as much as it has to do with
students feeling more comfortable asking any number of questions online versus
face-to-face. As one student remarked through the survey, “[Online interactions with
staff] are less personal, but at the same time may get more done. When interacting
via [the] Internet, we have the opportunity to ask questions we may not have
163

otherwise asked for any myriad of reasons.” Most students who indicated that they
interact with staff and faculty online said that it is generally through email. Very few
specified that they use online social networks or online communities to interact with
any university professional.
Some students expressed concern over the true motivations of staff
interacting within OSNs. A few of these comments were similar to one student’s
response that “[staff] become much more nosy in the fact that they use these
communities to find students who break rules.” Another student said she had only
had one brief discussion with a staff member on Facebook, “he said that he joined to
see what students were saying about his test. There are not many staff on Facebook.”
However, most students differentiated between email and other online interactions
with staff. Many students would email staff or faculty with questions or for other
reasons, but would not dream of communicating with them through OSNs.
Students from both the surveys and focus groups perceived their OSNs to be
private, closed media for communication, and stated that they draw distinctions
between their professional and social or personal lives. Essentially, these students did
not believe it appropriate for employers to be able to access these communities in the
first place (despite one student who admitted to walking her employer completely
through the online social network). Even if the employers were participating in the
online communities, students believe that they should not make hiring decisions or
potential job-actions based on content within the online communities.
164

In the words of some of the participants from Focus Group VI, the password
required for signing in to an online social network is just there to “control what you
say or do”, but does not imply privacy. This lack of privacy has spawned some
students from the focus groups to think more carefully about what they post, to
minimize embarrassment to themselves, their employers and their friends. However,
students were quick to point out that some of the privacy settings can be adjusted to
limit who can access what on your profile. Others responded that companies often
look at Facebook, if not directly, than through current employees who can access and
view within the networks of their applicants. In addition, the privacy features and
settings of Facebook and other OSNs can not only be adjusted, but new capabilities
for those features and settings are constantly being developed. This was identified as
a huge down side, as these settings are little more than “an illusion of privacy,”
(Participant IIIA). One student said “when I put something on Facebook, I do it with
the assumption that anyone can see it.” This is largely because users cannot be 100%
sure that anything they may want hidden from some people really is hidden from
view. Participants in Focus Group I commented that they actually posted certain
things hoping that others, from friends to everyone else, will see it.
One of the concerns that students expressed about university participation in
and monitoring of online social networks is that the university might try to get too
involved. As a result of that “over-involvement” the university might try to stop
things that participants felt were either harmless or so important that it should not be
165

prevented. The chief example here is the Senior Fountain Run, which was discussed
previously. “The Senior Fountain run organizers would not post the date so that the
university won’t stop the event. I talked to someone who said that if they knew what
date the event was happening, they would empty all of the water fountains the night
before,” because they would have to empty them and clean them if the Fountain run
had occurred (Focus Group II). In the eyes of participating students, this would not
be the best use of university knowledge of OSNs. However, other examples, such as
underage drinking, or racist groups such as the “White Nation” incident, would be
appropriate for the university to respond to.
On one hand, the university can sanction a student for inappropriate content
that they post, just as if they exhibited the same inappropriateness in terms of
behavior. On the other hand, the university can educate students to reduce the
incidence of inappropriateness. Many students saw a need to balance both, and as
one participant said: “There’s going to be a difference between proactive educational
measures and saying ‘you did this and now we’re going to kick you out of school’,”
(Focus Group VI). Many universities, like USC, have begun educating
subpopulations of their students, chiefly through new student orientation and student
leadership staff training on being smart and safe in their online social networking.
This will be discussed in more depth in the next section.
Students working in on-campus jobs are told to review their online content
regularly for appropriateness, just as it is suggested that students review their profiles
166

before applying to law schools and other jobs because potential and current
employers and universities are likely to not only see what content is posted, but
potentially find issues with the level of appropriateness of some of it. Focus Group
Participant VB commented that most or all RAs, particularly those that she knows,
are looking at Facebook and other online social network profiles to see if there are
any concerning issues that need to be addressed for themselves or more important
their residents. “When, how and if USC should check Facebook, Myspace or other
profiles depends on what their intent or cause is. If they are really limiting what you
can put on your profile, then that’s too far. But on the same token, by being a student
of USC, you are agreeing to be a representative of USC,” (survey respondent). The
intent behind reviewing the profiles may be important in understanding what a
university may want to do in response to potentially inappropriate content. Some
focus group participants assume that USC is checking out Facebook and other online
social networks because the university itself, its affiliates (student organizations,
departments, etc.) and individuals (i.e. staff, faculty) are using Facebook, advertising
on it, and generally aware of what is going on.
One concern mentioned by students is whether or not student employees or
student leaders on campus will be required to show their employer, or student
organization advisors and leaders the entirety of their profiles (Focus Groups III, IV
and VI). To some extent, in some instances, that is already being done. Participant
VC said that the Panhellenic Council reviewed Facebook and other online social
167

network profiles to review candidates for board positions of Panhellenic. Another
concern a few participants expressed is the belief that student employees (whether
they are working on-campus or off) should not have their Facebook checked as part
of the hiring process (Participant VIC), or even if such a check would be legal
(Participant VIA).
In addition, participants also focused on the individual and collective
responsibility that users of these OSNs have for their own content. Many students
feel as though users of these OSNs are responsible for the content that they post. As
such, they should be prepared to face any negative consequences as a result of the
content they post. Additionally, users should be aware that everything they post is
basically public information, and they can never be 100% confident that what they
are posting is only visible to those whom they want to see it.
Students’ thoughts and perspectives on potential university support of OSNs
indicate that students will want very particular and limited support from their
university provided that the university does not overstep its bounds into excessive
monitoring. Additionally, students stated that receiving advice and coaching from
university staff, faculty and mentors through OSNs could be both productive and of
high utility and benefit for the students and the university. This might include the
university paying “attention to the causes and petitions students are advocating for”
within OSNs and promoting faculty student interactions. A few students referred to
additional opportunities for collaboration within OSNs between students and their
168

university. The ability to publicize their Facebook group on campus, and have a staff
person serve as a co-administrator of the online group (i.e. a student organization
advisor) were desired by study participants.
A number of students identified the benefit to non-residential or commuter
students. Specifically, university support of online groups “will help keep students
who don’t live on or near campus still involved within the school,” said one student,
and other respondents expressed similar sentiments. Students also thought that
universities should support online versions of groups that exist on campus. These
responses included complaints about on-campus organizations already being under-
funded—related to a desire for funding of online groups, an interest in “the
university [creating] groups which are related to the same in-person communities”,
support/promote in-person events for online groups, and other suggestions
particularly applicable to the developers of the online social networks. These
suggestions included: for Facebook group-related flyers to include not only the
poster’s email address but the web address of the group/organization, and
hybridizing various online social networks with the university, or developing a
home-grown, university specific OSN. This university-specific OSN would need
strict guidelines to minimize negative or detracting behavior, but most focus group
participants stated that they did not think students would use university-specific,
closed OSNs. Alternatively, students said that universities can link the university
homepage and clubs’ pages to online communities. OSNs are like an access point for
169

a variety of in-person organizations and activities; they also may help develop social
skills by serving as an anxiety-free intermediary in between in-person interactions.
As one student said, “I think these communities would work if they were highly
organized and were also coincided with in-person meetings/discussions. I believe
online communities should work in partnership with in-person causes. They can both
compliment each other but having one more than the other will not be optimal.” A
number of other students echoed this sentiment.
University staff can take from this an understanding that to a certain extent,
students acknowledge that they would benefit from university presence and
university-student interactions within OSNs. While this does not extend to university
monitoring of OSNs to detect problematic content and behaviors, which students
clearly oppose, most participants felt that it was justifiable and necessary for
universities to follow up on reported complaints.

Students see the benefits in and need for educational materials and workshops
Every focus group participant, with the exception of participant VB, felt that
while the university may not be liable for the online content posted by their students,
the university did have both a responsibility and a compelling opportunity to educate
its students about the risks and benefits associated with online social networking. By
doing so, the university would be saying that “we are looking out for our student
body,” (Focus Group IV). During Focus Group I, a student said that not only have
170

current students grown up with the Internet (particularly true as time goes on), but
that there are so many stories on Dateline and other news reports or shows, that, in
the words of participant IIE, “it is not the university’s job,” to educate students about
OSNs. However, most participants agreed with the sentiments raised by one of those
respondents, in that the university is in a position where it could help, even if it may
not have to.
Students responding to the online survey were asked what interventions their
university had implemented to educate students about the benefits and drawbacks of
online social networking. The vast majority of students completing the survey said
that their university had not implemented any educational interventions yet. Some
students said that their university has not taken much action (proactive or reactive)
with regards to online social networks. One student in particular said that their
university had no education measures, though “housing does something, but mainly
they have made lots of threats that I don’t think they have the man power to follow
through on.” Responses from some other students focused on the punishments doled
out by their university since there were no educational interventions:
There have been *NO* (sic) interventions…only punishment. My school
cracks down on parties that have been listed as an event (because yes, they
are monitoring the events) and put three students on academic probation (the
fourth transferred schools) because the students created a group voicing their
171

dissatisfaction about a specific teacher. The only thing we’ve learned is that if
you have an opinion, you better keep it to yourself.
Another student said that their “school has not taken the ‘education’ route,” because
it is a small Christian college that had decided to prohibit student access to online
social networks from on campus. Southern Virginia University, which a survey
respondent identified as a campus that also elected to “block Facebook and Myspace
from on-campus access” reversed that decision after facing opposition from a
sizeable population of students. This student went on to say that “Facebook and
Myspace are not destructive sites to visit IF (sic) you know how to use them wisely,”
and others expressed similar sentiments, implying that students might appreciate
education on how to use online social networks appropriately, wisely and safely.
Of the actual educational interventions students did identify, the types that
elicited the most responses were newsletters, flyer and email campaigns to educate
their students about using online social networks appropriately. These educational
interventions were described by students as passive, “I saw a flyer telling us to watch
what we say”, because who knows who else might be reading it. The most active
intervention described by students in this category of responses is that some
universities have sent letters to their students’ parents informing them of the risks
associated with online social networking, such as “stalking, losing a job opportunity,
and being denied admissions because of Facebook posts.” Other semi-active
interventions included students receiving “encouragement to be careful and use
172

networking in moderation” or occasional email warnings describing that types of
behaviors or actions online are likely to cause concerns, and what the ramifications
of those actions or behaviors might be. Another respondent said that they have “seen
flyers posted about [online social networking] in the dorm lobby, but haven’t really
heard much else about it.” Of the more active interventions, seminars and workshops
were indicated by respondents as an educational intervention their university had
been utilizing to promote wiser participation in online social networks by their
students. Slightly fewer students identified Orientation as the primary avenue for
conveying information about wise use of online social networking. Table 11 displays
student responses regarding current and possible educational interventions.
What interventions has your university implemented to educate students about the benefits and
drawbacks of OSN?
Orientation
program
13 (4.9%)
Seminar or
workshop
16 (6%)
Newsletter, flyers,
emails
33 (12.4%)
Nothing that I know of
205 (76.8%)
What are some possible approaches the university might take to educate students about the
issues of concern? What are additional steps the university might take to educate students about
the benefits and drawbacks of OSN?
Orientation
program
32 (12%)
Seminar, workshop
or class
42 (15.7%)
Pamphlets and
flyers
23 (8.6%)
Emails, newspaper
articles
26 (9.7%)
Other or No
idea
151 (53.9%)
Table 11. Students’ thoughts on educational interventions.
There is some overlap here, in that the workshops that were discussed by students
often occurred as part and parcel of the Orientation program. These active
interventions allow students to interact with upper class student peer educators,
mentors or role models and professional staff. As opposed to just seeing a flyer or
newsletter, these students would be able to engage and interact with the presenters or
173

facilitators to gain a more comprehensive understanding of online social
networking’s benefits and drawbacks.
Some students thought that “providing a session dedicated to [online social
networking] awareness during new student orientation” would ensure that all
incoming students receive the same message. That information session during the
first year orientation could address the benefits and drawbacks of online social
networks. This would have the same effect throughout the academic year. One
respondent, a resident advisor, said that one of the first-year student workshops the
RAs facilitate for residents could also serve this function. “We are informed by
Housing on Facebook dangers and we inform the residents,” which provides them an
opportunity to ask pressing questions and get practical tips to apply to their own
familiarity and experiences with online social networks.
Not all students think educational interventions would be helpful:
I think that universities can implement education for students but that doesn’t
mean that students will listen or even heed the warnings. It is my experience
that people will do what they want. People need to be informed about the
risks associated with what they post (especially about personal information).
Even with universities informing their students about the risks associated with their
online content and behaviors, some respondents stated that they doubt that many
students would heed the warnings. Some believe that this is because the university
has no business being involved with OSNs, and thus, students would distrust any
174

advice offered by universities. Other survey responses in this vein included, “if a
college-level student does not understand the social consequences of behaving in
certain ways, both in reality or online, then they should not be in college,” and that
any such university-sponsored educational endeavor should be optional as opposed
to required. Overall the majority of students said educational interventions from the
university are both necessary and valid, and that they should be required for all
students to participate in and benefit from.
Survey respondents tended to identify the same educational interventions as
either ones their university had implemented or those they thought their university
should implement. This shows that those universities that have already implemented
some interventions (flyers, emails, newsletter articles and Orientation or other
workshops), are on-track with what students who have not seen any interventions
think would work best. Students with responses falling into these categories
suggested a multi-faceted approach through which the university could offer tips,
hints or suggestions for what students should and should not do online, including
both warnings or potential consequences (generally and from the university or
employers) and tips and hints for positive practical applications of online social
networks. Including the educational component as part of a seminar or class was
identified by students as a suggested action universities could take. One respondent
in particular identified this as ideal because it could become a “part of general
education English composition…[online social networking] is a new forum of
175

communication…or critical thinking as we should all be” able to decide how and
what to do once all benefits and drawbacks are understood. Other suggestions also
surfaced:
During the Weeks of Welcome and to first year students or in the Student
Union building they could hand out pamphlets and have a booth at the clubs
fair, or organize a day where they give a lecture. It’d be best if other students
did the talking and not the professors [or staff], students will listen to other
students who experience the same things as them more willingly than listen
to a staff member that didn’t grow up in the technological age that my
generation has.

The concept of using students to deliver the message runs across the media for
conveying that message. “Education on issues of concern could be addressed in a
workshop during freshman orientation,” so that all incoming students would receive
a uniform message. A number of students had no suggestion for additional
interventions. While some of these were students who felt it was inappropriate for
the university to be concerned about OSNs and their students’ behavior within them,
a greater number of these respondents indicated that they either were not sure what
else universities could try, had general answers (i.e. ‘educate students’, ‘tell students
what they should or should not do’, etc.), or thought that what their university was
already doing was sufficient.

Content for Educational Seminars, Workshops and Orientation programs
Both the focus group and survey participants identified key elements as
important to include in any educational endeavor related to online social networks.
176

One of these important elements is making sure that students are aware that
employers and other people can see their profile, and see what they are doing and
posting online. The “realities of people’s access” is that in the virtual world, virtually
anyone can see virtually anything that virtually anyone else posts (Focus Group VI).
As participant VA said, “letting people know who has access would be the most
important thing, and also going over the key elements in the terms of use as an FYI.”
Publishing tips highlighting key issues in the terms of use and user agreements
would help students understand some of the hidden complexities and intricacies of
the policies they agreed to when first signing up for these online social networks. As
discussed previously, students completing the focus group questionnaire were
unaware of some of the more concerning elements in these policies, and were quite
frustrated as they discussed the implications of those policies. However, not all
participants agreed. Participant VD, for example, felt that it was not “USC’s
responsibility to go over the terms of use for [students]. It’s our responsibility to
know what they’re about.” Focus group participants routinely felt that information
about privacy settings, safety, identity theft, and the dangers of posting too much
personal information online were all crucial elements to include in any educational
measures. While these issues may be some that many students responding to the
survey feel they have a comprehensive understanding of, further discussion and
probing through additional questions implies that students would be receptive to
additional effort on this front.
177

Additionally, over 80% of survey respondents and focus group participants
identified discussions about the effects of online social networking content on job
applications or current employment as educational elements that they had
participated in or received. Participants from Focus Group II and III both identified
the Career Center having specialized workshops about editing your profile and
adjusting your settings before applying for jobs, and brought up an idea to bring in
business to give examples of people they wanted to hire but did not based on what
they found in their online profile. More students identified this material as important
content than any of the other issues to potentially educate users on. Fewer survey
participants identified bad or inappropriate content, or potentially inappropriate
content, as an important element for any educational measure. Dissenters on this
point primarily focused on their perception that it is up to each user’s own discretion
what they post. Focus group participant VB commented that people who post
inappropriate content indiscriminately only benefits him and anyone else who does
not do anything “stupid on their profile”. This participant was quick to point out how
it might seem selfish to not care as much about what others do to themselves and
focus on their own well-being, but his rationale is that each person is responsible for
herself or himself. Other dissenters felt that the definition of what is or is not
appropriate would be arbitrarily set by whoever is evaluating the situation. Students
distinctly stated that the definitions the average university would come up with
would not match the average student’s definition of what is appropriate.
178

In each focus group, students stated a desire for Frequently Asked Questions
and answers to be a key component of any efforts to promote greater education and
understanding of the uses and implications and effects of online social networks.
These frequently asked questions, student participants felt, would likely highlight
important issues from the perspectives of the students, their university, and even
society-at-large. Even students who believed that the university should not be
participating in online social networks, stated that if the university were to conduct
educational interventions, discussing current hot-button issues and frequently asked
questions would be productive, “as long as the university did not say what I could or
could not do online,” (Focus Group Participant IIIG). Participant VB agreed, in that
he felt education was different than a warning of likely repercussions.
However, participants largely did feel that teaching students about the
possible short-term, medium-term, and long-term repercussions of their actions
would minimize the likelihood of students being surprised later by the effects that
their online content have on others and on themselves. The repercussions students
seem most concerned about, and wanted to avoid the most, involved the ability or
inability to get jobs, social isolation or humiliation by others due to what they post,
embarrassment from family members viewing their online content, and the inability
to completely eradicate content from the Internet once it has originally been posted.
Possible job action and punishment from the university, or the government, while
identified by study participants, were neither overt nor widespread student concerns.
179

Furthermore, while none of these possible repercussions were shared by all study
participants initially; many focus group participants readily affirmed their agreement
once the repercussion was first mentioned.
In terms of the medium for conveying this message, students offered a few
options that they feel would be particularly well-received by students. Students in
Focus Groups III felt that a repetition of messages through a variety of means would
likely be more comprehensive and effective. One student noted that she expected to
hear messages about being safe online from her professor, career counselor and
mother, and that that would help students better understand the repercussions of their
actions (Participant IIIC). Participant IIIG had a specific suggestion:
There should be something. I think there should be a seminar for every single
entering freshman student about privacy and online communities, posting
comments, pictures and messages, interacting with fellow students as well as
community members or people in authority like staff and faculty, as well as
email scams or fraud, identity theft, etc.

This would address not only issues pertaining to online social networks, but other
pertinent issues related to student usage of the Internet.
Participants identified delivery through the Orientation program as a great
medium for educating all students, even though it would only get the incoming
students each year. One respondent said, when “I came to Orientation, someone
asked me if I had Facebook yet, and so I signed up right away.” Clearly, if an
educational intervention were to take place during Orientation, every incoming
student would be more informed about how to maximize the benefits of online social
180

networks while minimizing the drawbacks. “I think students are oblivious to the fact
that Facebook is so public, and that they should go to a seminar for a half-hour about
it,” (Participant IIIG). Additionally, “the presenter has to be able to answer a lot of
questions about” online social networks in order to be effective in conveying that
message, and thus their knowledge of the benefits and risks of online social
networking should be thorough (Focus Group participant VA).
However, participant IE thought that an educational seminar at Orientation
may not be as effective as other media for conveying that message and participant
VB wonders what the university would sacrifice to address online social networking.
“You have a limited time at Orientation. What will you take out to talk about
Facebook? Are you going to cut alcohol awareness information which I feel is
important?” (Focus Group V). Some of her fellow participants thought that the
university could consider pamphlets to supplement the presentations. In addition,
during the presentations, respondents felt that it would be productive and meaningful
to show a few sample profiles from the audience receiving the presentation. The
presenter could learn some things about those example students, and ask the
audience to “think about what strangers might be learning about you,” (Focus Group
V). Some focus group participants felt that personal accounts or horror stories from
students who got into trouble as a result of content they posted would be a vital
component of this presentation as well. Such testimony would help students
understand that the risks and drawbacks are real.
181

Equally meaningful to the students receiving the educational intervention
might be the use of peers to convey the message, as highlighted in discussions during
Focus Group I, III and VI. Students already experience “peer pressure” to use
Facebook and exhibit potentially risqué or problematic behaviors, and a number of
the focus group participants asserted that peer mentors or student leaders (student
organization officers, Resident Assistants, Orientation Leaders, etc.) could convey
the message in a memorable and productive way. Participant IIIA mentioned her
own training as a Resident Assistant, which included a session about Facebook,
Myspace and other online social networks:
We had a session about Facebook, and it was probably the most interactive
session because it attracted everyone’s attention. All these privacy issues that
they were talking about and all of the things we would be liable for. That was
probably the most interactive. I think that if they were to have that kind of
thing with Orientation, then in addition to the students eating it all up, I think
it would attract a lot of their attention, particularly if we, as upper-class
students can help facilitate that message.

Other students participating in the focus groups agreed with IIIA that student-to-
student discussions and presentations about online social networking’s risks, pitfalls
and benefits would reach new students more effectively than hearing the same
material from staff.
As an alternative or additional educational intervention, an online module
similar to Alcohol.Edu (which is akin to online driver’s education, but about alcohol
abuse awareness and college social issues related to alcohol) could be very useful
(participant VIC and others). A little promotion of that or message of things you
182

need to remember when you come to school. It was felt that if the educational
intervention is not interactive, it would not get read. While participants did admit that
they did not pay much attention during Alcohol.Edu, or were very glad that the
requirement to complete that module did not affect their class year, they did feel that
a module pertaining to Facebook, Myspace and other online social networks would
be beneficial for students. Conceivably, students mused that of all of the online
modules or campus requirements they have to satisfy, this would likely be among the
least boring to complete. One possibility mentioned during Focus Group II is that
this module could be mandatory or optional. However, this fraternity member felt
that if it was only optional, then the university should have a zero-tolerance policy on
judicial actions if a student does not complete that module. Focus group participants
also felt that it was important to include some sort of quizzing feature to ensure that
students completing the module have achieved the learning outcomes of that
educational intervention. Repeatedly, some participants raised the concern that
students will simply click next on each screen and not pay attention, and the quizzing
feature may help address that.
One participant in the sixth focus group felt that sending an informational
letter to students and parents about how the students can protect themselves online
would be effective. “At the very least,” said one student, “the parents will read the
letter and then talk to their students about the issues,” (Focus Group VI). Participant
VIA mentioned that she had received a similar educational notice from the university
183

in advance of her 21
st
birthday, which prompted her parents to talk to her about
drinking. While the participants were eager to voice their consternation about a
measure such as this, they agreed that it would be effective in getting students to
think more holistically about their online activities (Focus Groups III and IV). One
participant in Focus Group IV particularly felt that an interactive intervention would
be more effective than the letter that may not get read, and an in-person interactive
measure would be even better than the online module.
Study participants also identified a series of smaller, more frequent and
ongoing interventions. Open forums or other discussions on Facebook content,
settings and safety seemed appropriate to participants as a measure to educate
currently enrolled students in general, as well as provide ongoing educational
interventions. This would be critical, commented a few of the respondents in Focus
Group III, as the features and functionality of these online social networks are
constantly evolving, and practically looks different each and every day. In addition,
it may be practical to have an article in the Daily Trojan periodically (Focus Group
Participant IIIA). Some of the messaging that would be important to include in these
or any educational intervention would be: “Remember, people can see what you do
on Facebook”, “nothing is private”, While there is no guarantee that any one
intervention would reach all students, a combination of multiple media and venues
for the educational materials.
184

It was clear from both the surveys and focus group data that students would
not trust any educational intervention designed by the online social networks and
websites themselves. That is not to say that students would not appreciate Facebook
or other online social networking site to more fully develop and enhance their
privacy settings, and better explain their utility. On the contrary, respondents felt that
Facebook and other online social networks should do that, and the university should
provide its educational interventions.
Vast numbers of survey respondents and focus group participants commented
that their participation in this research study was particularly effective in getting
them to think about issues related to online social networks. Participating students
would comment that they were going to go look at their profile and adjust their
settings after the focus group had concluded, or after they completed the survey.
Students in the third JEP focus group (Focus Group V) commented that their peers
from JEP, Focus Groups III and IV, had been seen revising their profile and
adjusting settings. While it is impractical for every student to complete a survey or
participate in a focus group about online social networking, these comments and
observations from students imply that any discussion about the risks associated with
online social networks will help students be safer and wiser in their online activities.
Educating students about the dangers and risks of using online social
networks is not only as important as helping students understand the benefits of
using them responsibly, but as important as educating students on a variety of other
185

things. As one student from Focus Group I drew a comparison to walking across the
street: “If your parents never told you to look both ways before you cross the street,
then someone has to tell you.” Participant VA said that “in high school it may not
have been as big a deal. But now as a first year student, you should be aware that
your faculty may add you as a friend or see your profile,” and you should know that
they will judge you by what they see. Universities could positively contribute to the
experiences of their students by imposing educational interventions through a variety
of means, giving students the tools they need to be productive users of OSNs.

Students adjust their settings and edit their content in response to university
staff involvement.
Study participants were asked if anyone had ever suggested to them to review
their profiles for content, and if they had ever done so for any reason. Focus group
participants, as discussed previously, were quick to mention that as a result of
participating in this study, they intended to log on to Facebook, Myspace and their
other OSNs to begin adjusting their settings and editing content. In fact, a few focus
group participants who managed to be nearby during subsequent focus groups
mentioned that they had already done so as a result of the discussion they
participated in the previous day. This is important for educators to know as it speaks
to the responses students might have to educational interventions.
186

As Table 12 shows, survey respondents specifically were asked if they had
ever been advised to edit or review their profile to remove content or adjust privacy
settings to minimize their online exposure.

General seminar /
program
Staff in response to
seeing content
Family
Friends
Potential Employer
Organization’s
headquarters
You reviewing own
profile
WHAT MATERIAL WAS THE ADVICE ABOUT?
a. Remove content 6 (2%) 4 (2%) 7 (3%) 11 (5%) 3 (1%) 7 (3%) 9 (4%)
b. Adjust privacy settings 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 10(4%) 10(4%) 2 (1%) 3 (1%) 31(13%)
c. Reduce personal info 3 (1%) 0 (0%) 11(5%) 10(4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 25(10%)
All of the above 19 (8%) 4 (2%) 14(6%) 12(5%) 3 (1%) 8 (3%) 48(20%)
Only a and b 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 0 (0%) 6 (2%)
Only a and c 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 3 (1%)
Only b and c 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 13(5%) 5 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 22 (9%)
No this has not happened 209
(87%)
228
(95%)
183
(76%)
189
(78%)
230
(95%)
222
(92%)
97
(40%)
WAS THE CHANGE OR MODIFICATION A DIRECTIVE OR SUGGESTION?
“You must do this or get
in trouble”
2 (1%) 2 (1%) 6 (3%) 4 (2%) 1 (0%) 2 (1%) 4 (2%)
“You’re in trouble, now
fix this”
1 (0%) 1 (0%) 4 (2%) 2 (1%) 3 (1%) 4 (2%) 1 (0%)
“Be careful about what
you post”
30
(13%)
8 (3%) 45
(19%)
46
(19%)
7 (3%) 8 (3%) 88
(37%)
“This violates our code
of conduct”
0 (0%) 3 (1%) 3 (1%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 5 (2%) 0 (0%)
Not applicable 206
(86%)
225
(94%)
181
(76%)
186
(78%)
226
(95%)
220
(92%)
147
(61%)
DID YOU MAKE THE RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS?
Yes
25(10%) 8 (3%) 45(19%) 43(18%) 9 (4%) 13(5%) 124(52%)
No
8 (3%) 8 (3%) 15(6%) 15 (6%) 8 (3%) 10 (4%) 6 (2%)
Not applicable
206(86%) 223(93%)179(75%)182(76%)222(93%)216(90%) 110(46%)
DID YOU CHANGE YOUR SETTINGS?
Yes 25(10%) 8 (3%) 44 (18%) 37 (15%) 8 (3%) 12 (5%) 122(51%)
No 10 (4%) 7 (3%) 15 (6%) 19 (8%) 8 (3%) 9 (4%) 16 (7%)
Not applicable 204(85%) 224(94%) 180(75%) 184(77%) 223(93%) 218(91%) 102(42%)
Table 12. Students’ Responses to Suggestions on Editing/Reviewing Content
187

These respondents were also asked to indicate who might have made those
suggestions and whether or not the student went ahead and made any of the
recommended adjustments. The great majority of students stated that they had not
received any advice about removing questionable content, adjusting their privacy
settings or reducing the amount of personal information they had posted online. Very
few students indicated receiving advice through general seminars, staff suggestions
after viewing their profile, family, friends, potential employers or their
organization’s national office. In fact students generally said that the main source of
suggestions at all about their online social networking profiles and content came
from family, friends or themselves. Family and friends had each told these students
to “be careful about what you post”, while less students had heard that message in a
general seminar or program. A larger number of students responded to this same
message as the reason they reviewed their own profile. Less than six students in any
category answered that the modification suggested came in the form of “you must do
this or get in trouble”, “you’re in trouble, now fix this” or “this violates our code of
conduct”.
When asked whether or not the respondent made the recommended
adjustments, a small number of students said that they did make the recommended
adjustment brought up during the general seminar or program, while very few said
no. An astounding majority of students said there were no recommended adjustments
188

to make, or “not applicable”. When asked the question a different way—“Did you
change your settings”—the answers were not noticeably different.
Students completing the online survey were given an opportunity to offer any
additional thoughts they would like to share about their use of online communities
that they felt was not yet adequately covered by their responses to other survey
questions. One respondent said that he “didn’t want anyone to judge me based on
what I wrote on the Internet – they should get to know me in person first.” Others
indicated that they feel Facebook is a form of self-expression. One student said:
I feel that students should not feel an authoritative eye on them in online
communities. Very often in Myspace or with Youtube, I see people using it
as a form of expression that they are unable to have in person because they’re
ashamed, or it’s difficult information to share in person. I think that they need
this outlet for them to express their emotions and thoughts without feeling
like someone is going to come after them for it. Free speech, right?

Many survey respondents echoed these sentiments. Another student pointed out that
people are making their lives more digitally based, such as in multiplayer online
games like World of Warcraft. “We’re digitizing our personalities and our lives. For
better or worse, the Internet is becoming another dimension in which we interact,
learn, grow, fight, celebrate, live and die,” said one participant. This student went on
to state that they felt passionately that online personalities and personas could
probably shed a lot of light on society in the way that everyone interacts.
Some students offered responses related to them changing or adjusting their
own settings. One student referred to an incident she had with stalking, where the
stalker took pictures of her walking home and to school, then sent them to her,
189

finally causing her to contact the police. Another student adjusted her settings for
professional reasons, saying “I am going to be a therapist, so obviously I do not want
my clients researching me on the Internet and finding personal information about me
on there which is why I made my Myspace profile private.” Students frequently
mentioned that when they set up their profiles, they were unaware that all of the
information they were supplying was all going to be visible on their profiles, and
thus they did not initially realize how much of their information was out there.
Survey respondents as a whole identified a number of varying attitudes and
perceptions pertaining to the need for and extent of staff and administrator
involvement within online social networks. Focus group participants also expressed
differing opinions as to the need for or value of university presence and involvement
within online social networks. Largely, these opinions and perspectives were
accompanied by reasoning and explanation which, when combined with responses
and data for the first two research questions will serve to help guide universities in
moving forward to guide and support all students’ behaviors, in-person and online.

Closing
The next and final chapter of this research study will further summarize the
entire research study. This chapter will also offer conclusions based on the research
data collected. The researcher will draw upon the research and conclusions to state
recommendations for student affairs practitioners. The researcher will then discuss
190

implications for future research into how mediating social networking through
technology affects college student experiences.
191

CHAPTER V:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Chapter Overview
This chapter will review the most pertinent results and relate those results to
the reviewed literature. These findings will lead to conclusions related to student
perceptions of the effects of online social networks (OSNs) on their own college
experiences. Next the researcher will present recommendations for student affairs
practitioners based on this research study. Though this research study could not
examine all possible areas of interest with regards to online communities and OSNs,
this study contributes insights to the limited research on online communities or
OSNs to, with regard to student opinions, perspectives, and experiences. Thus, this
study serves as a foundation for future studies and sets a baseline for later
comparisons. The researcher will present implications for future research as part of
this chapter. Finally, this chapter and study will wrap up with some closing thoughts.

Summary of Findings
The overarching question in this study was, “What are the effects of online
social networking communities on college student experiences?” An online survey
and student focus groups contributed to answering these three research questions:
1) How do students utilize Online Social Networks, and in what ways do they
engage with each other?
192

2) What do students feel are the benefits and drawbacks associated with their
usage of online communities and online social networks?
3) What are students’ attitudes and perceptions about staff and administrator
involvement in online social networks?
As discussed throughout the previous chapter, students’ perspectives on the uses and
utility of participating within online social networks vary widely from individual to
individual. What remains consistent is that the vast majority of students indicate that
participation within online social networks such as Facebook and Myspace is
important to them, and many feel like it is a pervasive component of their college
experiences. Some students even expressed the desire to have Facebook remain only
for college students as they saw it as a right of passage for high school students
transitioning into college, and then getting a Facebook profile.
Students identified a number of important risks and drawbacks associated
with using OSNs. These risks and drawbacks generally center around personal safety
and public image. Despite the severity of these drawbacks, the benefits from online
social networking that students defined clearly lead them to believe outweigh the
drawbacks and risks. As such, it is not surprising that online social networking
continues to grow in popularity and frequency of usage. The benefits of online social
networking ran the gamut from increased socialization opportunities, to the
convenience of anytime, anyplace instant communication, to an increased sense of
community and a venue for entertainment and involvement.
193

Students were also particularly concerned with the incidence and extent (or in
some cases even the necessity) for universities and other entities to have an online
presence within Facebook, Myspace and other OSNs. A constituency of students felt
it not only unimportant or unnecessary for universities and other entities to
participate in online social networking, but also identified that as a violation of
students’ rights to privacy and free speech. While this, of course, would depend on
what actions or inactions the university or other entities might take with regards to
content or behavior they might run across, nearly every student did feel it would be
wrong for those entities and universities to actively seek out problems online. Nearly
all students stated that outside entities (except for universities—with a limited
presence) were essentially unwelcome within their OSNs. However, the majority of
students felt that a university presence, or preferably just the presence of individual
staff, faculty and administrators from within the university as users participating
within the OSNs would not only be ok, but might be positive contributors to
students’ experiences online. In addition, students said that these interactions would
positively affect their level of engagement and affinity with the university, as well as
support throughout their college experiences.

Discussion of the Study
As technology grows, in both the variety and scope, people have been
concerned there may be more breadth and less depth in social connections. That
194

being the case, people will need venues for an interconnected environment, or
multiple, overlapping social spheres. Online communities in general and online
social networks (OSN) specifically provide a forum for multiple, simultaneous,
overlapping spheres of social interaction that many users feel is important to their
lives and experiences. This is certainly the case with college students who, in many
ways, are already using the Internet and associated technology in every aspect of
their lives. Students order food and do other shopping through the Internet. Students
also use the Internet to turn in their assignments, collaborate with classmates, and
research for their assignments. Today, an increasing amount of student-to-student
communication and socializing occurs online. The Internet, through online
communities and OSN, is doing to communication and socialization today what the
advent of the telephone did 40 to 50 years ago. Students back then chose to make
calls rather than walk to their friend’s house; now they choose to send e-mails, text
messages and instant messages instead of making phone calls. It is likely that in the
long run, OSNs will prove to be even more relevant in our daily lives.
As recently as the past three or so years, universities have transitioned away
from print copies and snail mail to preferring e-mail as the desired mode of
communication to students. Additionally, it is much more common for college
applications and acceptances to be conducted completely online. Transitioning to
electronic communication as students became more familiar with that technology not
only saved universities money, but time as well. Universities can communicate with
195

more students more efficiently online then they ever could on paper. Thus, as
students have increasingly become digital natives, universities should not be
surprised that generally, students know more about the technology than staff, and
will find innovative uses for the technology that the developers and educators would
never have imagined. Also, students tend to be more open, comfortable, and less
concerned with the disclosure of personal information online, at least initially. This
might be because many students tend to feel a certain level of anonymity in their
online interactions and behaviors. Whether or not a student discloses their contact
information online, there is usually at least a photo and name affiliated with their
profile.
Interestingly, students are generally using little discretion in their online
activities (Arotsky, 2004; ARS Technica, 2006; Paperclip, 2006; Facebook, 2006).
Oftentimes, students are doing and saying things on Facebook that they would not do
or say in person (Bugeja, 2006). As one student at Harvard (which was the launching
point of Facebook) puts it: “I realize that someone looking at my profile might get a
different impression of me than I intended, but it’s not supposed to encompass
yourself – everybody’s profile changes daily…it’s completely ephemeral,”
(Schweitzer, 2005). As this quote illustrates, students tend to have little concern for
the potential negative consequences of what they post online. Some students express
themselves in the form of alter egos online, and will say anything and everything that
comes to mind because they feel invincible.
196

Students may perceive online communities as being exclusive to students and
having no bearing on their future lives, careers or families (Stutzman, 2006;
Paperclip, 2006). Wellman and Gulia (1997) found that the Internet can effectively
maintain the quantity and diversity of weak or informal ties between users.
According to the authors, intermediate-strength ties between people who can only
interact on a face-to-face basis infrequently, are supported and enhanced by the
Internet. These online relationships tend to be mostly founded on shared interests,
and less on socio-demographic characteristics. The authors go on to describe some of
the differences between in-person and online relationships:
Although many relationships function off-line as well as on-line, [computer
supported social networks] are developing norms and structures of their
own…the limited evidence available suggests that the ties people develop
and maintain in cyberspace are much like most of their ‘real-life’ community
ties: intermittent, specialized and varying in strength. (Wellman & Gulia,
1997, p. 16)

This quote suggests that the users themselves see this phenomenon as just another
normal part of life. This would explain why most student users of Facebook have no
qualms about what they post about themselves, their real friends, or their Facebook
friends.
In the near future, as Facebook expands to high schools and as technology
advances, students are going to be increasingly exposed to OSNs at an earlier age,
and will continue to keep up with technological developments. Rupert Murdoch, who
recently purchased Myspace for $580 million, said of online social networking that:
197

To find something comparable, you have to go back 500 years to the printing
press, the birth of mass media – which, incidentally, is what really destroyed
the old world of kings and aristocracies. Technology is shifting power away
from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, the media elite. Now it’s
the people who are taking control, (Wired Magazine, 2006).

However, this study will be applicable and transferable to the impacts of emergent
technology students use on their educational and developmental experiences. What
this could mean for educators is an opportunity to help students navigate the
challenges of preserving the depth and breadth of their communication with friends,
family and others without sacrificing their many other pursuits.
It is not the intent of this writer to scare student affairs professionals from
making use of online communities and OSNs, or prohibiting their students from
using them. In fact, it is important to understand what activities college students are
engaging in online, and why. Oftentimes this user-created content is full of pictures
or statements that run contrary to what the average reasonable person would deem
appropriate. Pictures showing illegal activity, such as underage consumption of
alcohol and any consumption of illegal drugs, or those of an overt sexual nature, are
as prevalent as an abundance of personal identity and contact information that can be
used by complete strangers to contact a user without that user having known the
person (Facebook.com, 2006).
Most if not all of these concerning behaviors, actions and messages occurred
before the advent of OSNs. The concerns and responses to in-person concerns should
be the same for online depictions of the same behaviors, actions, messages and other
198

content. It is not surprising that the same should occur for online offenses. In the next
ten years or so, we will have candidates for political office that face embarrassment
over some college antics posted on the Facebook, and probably within five years, we
will see an even larger increase in litigation, perhaps to the level of the Supreme
Court with issues of Free Speech online, particularly with user-created content.
As a result of the emergence of these phenomena, and the latency with which
society often catches up, universities, and society at large, now have to contend with
emerging problems associated with student behavior and actions, which occur online
through social-networking portals such as Myspace and Facebook. Universities
differ on whether or not they sanction students based on what is published on their
profiles, and to what extent (Trotter, 2006; Willard, 2006; Wissner, 2005). A more
important question might be whether or not the institution will make any formal or
official policy with regards to online communities and OSNs (Willard; Stephens,
2006; Steiner, 2006). The extent that students’ online activities might pose liability
issues for universities is still largely undefined. It will most likely depend on a
number of factors, including whether the institution is public or private.
As discussed previously, society and universities have already identified a
number of concerns with respect to online social networking. Generally, these
concerns center on an interest in protecting the students from harm due from their
own behavior, and protecting the university from legal action. As a result of those
concerns, some universities have considered taking action to control what students
199

can or cannot view and post or even access. Other universities have opted to take a
more educational route, addressing issues as they are brought to the university’s
attention by talking to the student about the issues of concern their posted content
brings up. Some universities are realizing that the wisest and most prudent course of
action is educating each of their students about the benefits and drawbacks of
engaging in online social networks. In order for each university’s student affairs staff
to make the best decisions for their institution, they need to know what students’
perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of participating in OSNs are.
Despite these concerns, this form of communication is so popular amongst
college students and so prevalent in their lives that students will likely continue to
utilize OSNs regardless of any interventions that universities might consider
implementing. This is apparent due to students’ general recognition of many of the
issues and concerns related to online social networking. Online social networking, as
a phenomenon, is not likely to go away anytime soon. In fact, while the specific web
sites, networks, or means (for example, as mobile device technologies improve), may
change over time, students are going to continue to engage each other and interact
online. At the same time, universities want to meet students where they are at:
academically, emotionally, cognitively, in terms of their developmental stages, and
physically. Given these factors, if our students are not at a location where we could
offer them our services, programs, counsel, advising, etc. then we need to find new
ways to reach them. This does not mean that the university should abandon its
200

existing programs, and services that are offered in person. Rather, the university
should consider supplementing in-person services and interactions with online
interaction.
College students are creating community online through online social
networks. Since students will continue to participate in OSNs and other online
communities because they believe that the benefits of doing so outweigh the
drawbacks, universities ought to educate students on being safer in their online
activities. More importantly, student affairs practitioners, educators and
administrators have the unique opportunity to support students in their online social
networking and utilize this medium for enhanced integration, engagement,
involvement and retention within the university as a whole.

Conclusions
Facebook, Myspace and other OSNs, despite some of their disconcerting
attributes and features, play a key role in the campus socialization process for new
undergraduate students. This is particularly important for new first-year students as
they transition from the social network they had been building for oftentimes 12 or
more years through high school to college, where everything and everyone is
different. However, ongoing participation in online communities and OSNs plays at
least an equally prominent role in the lives and experiences of continuing students.
201

Additionally, student affairs staff members that want to engage students in
campus life and activities and connect them to services, resources, and to each other,
will need to be innovative. Instead of programming to where we want the students to
be, universities need to read out to students and program where they are at, in this
case, online. At least in part, our students are online, and OSNs are an important
medium by which universities can integrate students’ lives and outside experiences
with the university resources and programs. In the words of Cathy Small, author of
My Freshman Year, today’s campus communities are “small, individualized
networks formed early, by choice, mediated by technology, and not really connected
to academics,” (Small, 2007). As opposed to the traditional sense of community—a
sense of identity or affiliation based on shared experiences, geography, beliefs, needs
preferences, etc.—college campuses are personalized communities of choices and
individuals. In college, community is typically elusive and not automatic. Generally,
we see small peer networks with close-knit, but often closed communities. OSNs
break down those barriers to interaction so that in addition to the close-knit, often
closed in-person communities or social networks, there are also numerous, open,
loosely woven together and overlapping spheres of online social interaction existing
simultaneously and continuously.
As a result, students are interacting online more than anyone would have
thought possible four years ago, prompting universities to be concerned that students
would be less involved and engaged on campus, and prompting society to be
202

concerned that OSN users would be disconnected from real life. Despite the potential
for negative applications that online communities and OSNs have, they still engage
students, oftentimes in more ways than any campus activities office could think to
attempt. The depth of that engagement remains largely undefined, but our
understanding of it is enhanced by this research. In reality, the data shows that
students are not less connected in person as a result of interacting online with
increasing regularity. However, evaluating student involvement has traditionally
required looking at the commitment of physical time and energy sense; it is not yet
clear how applicable this is to students’ online involvement or engagement.
From this study, educators can reflect on the student perspectives of OSNs
and other online communities, and re-conceptualize student involvement and
engagement. Relationships with student affairs professionals help students to access
programs, resources and opportunities that they would not otherwise know about or
find (Nuss, 2003). As institutional agents, student affairs practitioners can serve as
nodes connecting students to campus resources, to each other, and to their
educational growth and personal development.
In addition, the benefit students receive from being loosely connected to
multiple individuals is as important a component of students’ college experiences as
having really strong and close connections to fewer individuals. This speaks to
Granovetter’s concept of the strength of weak ties (1973) as discussed in chapter 2.
A strong tie, which Granovetter states are an essential component of functioning
203

communities, is characterized by a number of factors: 1) mutual confiding in one
another, 2) emotional intensity of the relationship, 3) amount of time spent
interacting, and 4) reciprocation of the connection (Granovetter, 1973; Hampton,
1990). Thus, students can maintain strong connections to other individuals through
online communities despite the interaction not necessarily occurring face-to-face.
Furthermore, this study shows that OSNs help fulfill three of Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs for student experiences as discussed in chapter 2—the need for love and sense
of belonging, the need for esteem and self-worth, and the need for self-actualization
or reaching their full potential. Students interact within OSNs to find others that
share similar interests. These commonalities then lead to students valuing and
depending on each other for support and respect.
OSNs offer students the opportunity to be increasingly connected with
multiple facets of the diverse population, both of their university and others—as well
as non-college student constituencies. Students are able to maintain participation
within these social networks with much more regularity than they could have with
their in-person equivalents. Transitions in the student experience, both initially to
college, and then throughout and beyond those experiences, are made easier as a
result of students having more regular interactions in these social networks. Since
enhanced interaction and engagement in general tends to speak to retention and
persistence within the university, and online social networks lead to enhanced
204

interaction and oftentimes engagement with the university (staff, resources, etc.), it is
logical to conclude that OSNs may help these effects.

Recommendations
This study proposes that online communities warrant attention and support
similar to that provided to other communities within the institution. One of the
results of this study is that student affairs practitioners will be better able to
determine the appropriate level and type of attention and service to direct towards
online communities and OSNs. As this online phenomenon is similar in function to
other campus communities and has been increasing in popularity, student affairs
professionals should consider targeting programming for this community. Targeted
programming can be in the form of educating students on how to protect themselves
while online as well as how to use OSNs productively and meaningfully. This will
provide student affairs professionals with the knowledge necessary to effectively and
positively contribute to student experiences and success, given the increasingly
prominent role the Internet plays in students’ daily lives.
Students sometimes have no idea about some of the comments or pictures
posted involving them, since a lot of things may be posted by their friends. Thus,
they are the recipients of the benefits and consequences associated with this content
that may not even realize had been posted. Due to this, universities should take care
when following up on complaints. This will minimize the possibility of a student
205

getting in trouble for content they themselves did not post. At the same time, if
universities are educating their students to be proactive in reviewing what their own
profile contains or displays, as well as what else might be said about them online,
students themselves can then reduce the likelihood that content involving them will
get them in trouble.
Since applying the principle of Free Speech to the Internet and specifically
OSNs is relatively untried in the courts, universities need be careful to balance the
Free Speech rights of their students, as well as staff, faculty and others within their
communities, with principles of respect and community that are upheld on the
campus. With that principle in mind, and an eye towards being preemptive with
educational material, I suggest that universities make a concerted effort to address
their concerns over content on the Internet and educate their students over what is
considered to be inappropriate or offensive content. This includes the types of
content issues that run contrary to the university’s principles of community, respect
and tolerance (University of California, Riverside, 2003). Every university has some
version of a student code of ethics or conduct that serves as a framework for
participation on that university’s campus community. However, I am urging
universities not to create new policies to specifically address behaviors, content or
concern within online social networks. There are no new behaviors occurring as a
result of the existence of OSNs, rather the same behaviors are being depicted and
conducted through different media.
206

Instead, universities should think of Facebook, Myspace and other online
social networks as a new medium for the same behaviors. If you would follow up on
a complaint from a student who says someone in her hall is writing her threatening
messages on her message board, then you would do the same if another student is
receiving threatening posts on his Facebook “wall”. If a student brings you a picture,
or claims to know that his roommate has a drinking problem, and you would
normally bring that student in to talk to them about risky behavior and the law, then
you would do the same if someone shows you a Facebook profile portraying the
same behaviors. The same actions, through a different medium, warrant the same
responses. Facebook and Myspace may just provide additional evidence.
This does not necessarily mean that you could dismiss a student because
there is a post on their ‘wall’ that discusses the joys of drug use. However, if the
student is caught at some point, under suspicion of drug use, or even without being
caught, you could educate the student about the dangers of drug use, as well as the
long term implications of that sort of post online. If the problematic behavior is a
negative post about someone else, but it doesn’t rise to a concerning level, you could
not force the offender to take down the content, but you could bring them in and talk
to them about how that action will affect their perception by others. Presumably, that
is similar to the process for judicial affairs at most campuses. The best advice is to
treat these communities like you would any other venue for information distribution.
The only difference is the semi-permanence of the evidence.
207

Thus existing university policies should be sufficient to address any issues
that arise. Some universities are inclined to develop a whole slew of new policies and
procedures for dealing with complaints they receive related to other students’
behaviors on Facebook or Myspace. This is both unnecessary, and unwise. Doing so
would imply that for every new medium of communication and behavior, new
policies would need to be developed. Also, students will be more likely to find
loopholes and slip through the cracks of haphazardly developed policies. Universities
would not want to get in the habit of creating a new policy for every new
technological development, but rather, have a holistic policy that can address
anything that comes up. Thus, if university administrators feel that their current
policies are insufficient to address concerns about student participation within OSNs,
then the same policies likely do not address other communicative media such as
Instant Messenger, cellular phones, etc. This is particularly important as
communication, and therefore social networking, will occur through any emergent
communication technology.
Students should ask themselves about the choices they make regarding how
they present themselves to others (including practices involving alcohol, drugs, and
sex). Do they result in the type of personal experiences and exposure they want to
have in their life (Chapman, 2005)? As Chapman goes on to say, there are a number
of teaching moments and opportunities for learning, challenge and support for
student affairs professionals to educate students about OSNs. The Josephson Institute
208

for Ethics, on its Character Counts website advises individuals to think about their
behaviors and actions with the perspective that they should be comfortable with their
parents or grandparents seeing what decisions they make on a billboard or the front
page of a newspaper. Educators can help students think about their online behaviors
and content from these perspectives. Specifically, talking to students about how the
online sphere functions much like the “public square”; there is potential for everyone
to know what is going on. Particularly because once something is posted, there is no
way to be sure that it has not been printed by someone else, or stored in the cache of
someone’s computer or server. Even if the student who posted something offensive
removes that content within an hour, it may already be too late, and the damage may
have already been done.
By examining the impact of OSNs on student experiences, student affairs
professionals can reach out to and program for online communities in similar style as
they would for the Greek community, Cultural Student Program Offices
communities, and other constituent groups. The time students spend doing their
social networking online, and the nature and variety of these interactions versus
doing the same in-person will be important to note so that student affairs
practitioners can more fully understand how OSNs shape the student experience.
That knowledge will provide programming for a campus community that has not
previously received attention.
209

With the growing trend in the usage of online phenomena such as Myspace,
Facebook, and personal blogs by college students, and the connections between that
usage and the university environment as outlined in Chapter 2, it may be important to
reexamine the standard free speech rubric of “time, place and manner” and determine
when a university will respond to content posted online and what that response is
likely to entail. That is not entirely within the limits of this dissertation study.
Student affairs professionals can help minimize the negative impacts of
OSNs on college students while making use of their positive effects. A likely
byproduct of this study will be a guide for new student affairs professionals in terms
of what they should or should not do with regards to OSNs, as well as a resource that
can be distributed to students as part of a Welcome Week or Campus Orientation
activity that would help them make the safest, most effective use of OSNs.

Campus Programming and Events
As students have increasingly engaged in online communities and online
social networking, they themselves and their universities have increasingly
advertised and promoted events and campus programs. In some instances, traditional
programs, such as an in-person student organization fair, may be drawing
significantly fewer attendees. One possible solution is for universities to support
their student organizations and departments by having information available online
about each of these resources, perhaps through group pages within OSNs, or
210

enhancing the web presence through websites and other technological
communication (email, Instant Messenger, etc.). The most essential advice for
universities based on the findings in this study is that promoting the campus events
through OSNs is generally both anticipated and appreciated by the students
themselves.

Managing and Reducing Liability
A university should have no official policy stating that monitoring of online
social networks will occur. The liabilities that such a statement would incur upon the
university are unknown but expectedly would be huge. Most of the liability issues
will remain unresolved until there are court cases resulting in judicial decisions and
actions one way or the other. It may very well be possible, that the university might
be liable, even without an official policy of monitoring.
Advertising for university events, and staff or faculty having intentional
interactions with students within online social networks may contribute to liability.
Certainly, the perception of liability or responsibility will be questioned at some
point in court. Participation in the sites may warrant a duty of care for the university
to have noticed some problematic behavior before it harmed persons or property.
This would be exacerbated by any official policies of monitoring. However,
educating the student body about the risks and concerns would likely stave off that
211

possibility. However, there are certain important points to explicitly address when
considering any policies about university participation and involvement.

Principles for University Policies and Sample Policy
Any university that is considering any policy revisions or new policies
regarding how the university and its employees should or would interact with
students within online social networks ought to consider the following principles in
developing such policies or initiatives. These principles will guide universities in
developing or revising policies that are comprehensive, inclusive and broad. These
principles will also help universities to avoid assuming additional and unnecessary
liability. These principles will adapt and evolve as more case-law around this area is
developed.
• Universities should not explicitly state, nor imply, that the university will
be monitoring online social networks for concerning or problematic
content, or student conduct violations.
• Universities may consider stating that any complaint or concern filed with
the university about a student’s conduct or actions could include online
content as material on which to establish said claim. This is no different
than a student filing a concern about a peer based on a behavior they
witnessed in person.
212

• Universities should not explicitly state that participation within online
social networks is part of the job description for any professional or student
staff. The university would have difficulty regulating what that staff person
did within the OSN outside of the scope of her or his employment.
• Universities could refer to utilizing OSNs as a venue for event promotion,
publicity and marketing to their student populations.
• University policy should certainly commit to educating students about the
benefits and drawbacks of online social networking, just as university
policy generally would indicate that the university exists to provide
education to its students to prepare them for further studies, the work force,
and to be productive members of society. Training should be tailored to
new students, student leaders, staff, faculty and administrators separately,
as each constituency will be utilizing OSNs differently.
• University policy ought to include provisions for campus resources to
support student engagement through online communities, OSNs or any
other emergent technological phenomena for communication.
• Universities can look to OSNs as one of the best ways in which to reach
out to traditionally unengaged students. Through OSNs, engagement is
shattering the mold of what was once considered traditional, yielding
ample opportunity for outreach and involvement to spread campuswide.

213

Using these principles, Nesha and other characters from our vignette can develop a
policy regarding online social networks for the office of Residence Life at Shell
Rock University. This is what that policy or guiding document may look like:
At Shell Rock University, the office of Residence Life is committed
to supporting the ongoing and varying needs of our residents to promote a
vibrant and actively engaged student experience. SRU acknowledges that
students are interacting online, within such online communities or online
social networks as Facebook and Myspace, as well as through other
technological media.
Working with the office of New Student Orientation, the office of
Residence Life will educate all new incoming students on the benefits and
drawbacks of online social networking in the hopes that students will
maximize the utility of these online communities while mitigating negative
consequences. All students will receive this message and training from us
during Orientation, whether they will be living on campus or not, as we
anticipate residential and off-campus students to be interacting significantly
online. Residence Life will also work with the Campus Activities office
throughout the year to promote ongoing education and tips for students to
continue to use these forms of technology positively.
Any student groups forming online that are interested can apply for
programming funds to support an in-person social gathering or activity
214

pertaining their stated interests. The Residence Hall Association in concert
with Residence Life staff will review such requests and make allocations
accordingly. In collaboration with the office of Campus Activities, all student
groups online on Facebook, Myspace or other online social network, will be
able to register for campus recognition for room reservations, as well as to
provide a list to residents of all Facebook groups so that students may
intentionally seek them out online.
The office of Residence Life, and Shell Rock University as a whole,
is not in the business of seeking out student conduct violations on Facebook
or other online social network. As with student conduct violations that occur
in-person and are reported to the university, the university is obliged to
follow up on any reports, whether the behavior that has allegedly occurred is
depicted within online social networks or not. The role, purpose and function
of university professional staff participating within online social networks is
not mandated by the university whatsoever. Some staff, as well as student
leaders or student employees, may use online social networks for publicity,
marketing and event promotion, much akin to some aspects of how students
as-a-whole utilize online social networks.
The office of Residence Life encourages our staff to engage with our
students in ways that are meaningful, productive and effective from the
student point-of-view. Resident Advisors, Resident Directors and other staff
215

will want to keep up on the venues for interaction preferred by students and
will participate accordingly. Should you have any questions or concerns
about this, please do not hesitate to contact your Resident Advisor or Director
so that you can offer feedback.

Other individual departments and the university in general will want to adapt the
principles mentioned herein, other gleanings from this dissertation, and insights both
from the university’s own experiences, structure and culture, to develop policies
appropriate in scope and content to reflect university interaction or involvement
within online social networks.

Helping Students Stay Safe and be Smart
Since there are a lot of liability concerns associated with students posted
content on these or other online social networks, there are some reasonable
precautions that every university should take. Educating their students, staff and
faculty about the benefits and risks associated with online social networking will go
a long way towards minimizing the university’s liability for what its constituents
might post. Of course, each constituency requires educational materials with content
tailored to the issues they face and needs they have. It is entirely possible and
strongly suggested based on the data collected during this study, that universities
consider utilizing an online educational module, similar in structure to Alcohol.edu.
216

Alcohol.edu is in use to educate students about alcohol abuse, safety, etc., and a
module pertaining to online safety and online social networks would be received by
students in more earnest than alcohol awareness. It should be noted that some
students will not approve of this measure, particularly if forced, but it will
undoubtedly be effective.
New Incoming Students
Our newest incoming students should be a prime target for educational
messages regarding Facebook, Myspace and other online social networks. As it is
these students already come to campus for an orientation program to learn about all
of the things they need to know related to their new university. Some of the topics
most often covered include: campus safety, registering for classes, academic
advising, school spirit, campus activities and opportunities for involvement. One of
the reasonable precautions the university should take is educating students during
orientation about not only the concerns of using online social networks, but tips and
suggestions for making the most positive use of this phenomenon for their own
experience.
In addition, supplemental workshops or materials should be made available
periodically for the students’ benefit. Welcome week, transitional programs with
topical workshops such as a first-year success series, and print material (i.e. flyers
posters, brochures, etc.) will all help educate our students to be wiser and safer in
their online activities. Additionally, e-mail messages in general, and messages, posts,
217

groups, etc. on Facebook or other online social networks may be an even more
effective method of reaching students. Some of the critical elements to include in the
presentation and education materials to the students are:
• Critical issues in terms of use agreements. For example, Facebook can
change its terms of use policies without warning, and by signing back into the
site, you have agreed to the new terms. Additionally, Facebook co-owns the
content you post until such time as you decide to remove it, and if Facebook
gets sued for something you post, you are liable for the damages. Educating
students about the terms of use that they agreed to is critical, as most users
scroll through and agree to them without reading or understanding them.
• Contact information and personal safety. Students should know that they do
not need to fill out every field of data that Facebook (or other sites) asks for.
Although Facebook was designed to be a live, up-to-date and evolving
directory and database of information about people within your network
and/or social spheres, students should know that each piece of information
that is given out cannot be taken back.
• Privacy settings. Adjusting the settings will help students minimize some of
the risks, particularly if they only allow their full profile and content to be
seen by real friends. However, most students know about the settings but do
not take the time to fully explore all of the adjustments and how it can result
in differences in who can access what.
218

• Netiquette and perception. Just as there are appropriate and inappropriate
things to say to someone in-person and standards that govern the conduct of
everyday behavior, there is an online version of those standards of
appropriateness. Educating students about netiquette will hopefully stave off
some of the interpersonal conflict and confrontations that occur online.
• The long-term effects of short-term actions. The actions students take and
depict online are likely to affect job and graduate school applications, let
alone their ongoing interactions with each other. This would be the ideal time
to talk about content that could be perceived to be inappropriate. For
maximum benefit, explaining why some content could be perceived as
inappropriate and by whom, paired with the effects and damages it could do
to the poster’s reputation, would aid the student in deciding what to post and
not post on his or her profile.
• Community Builders. These online social networks will help students build
new, expanding and overlapping social spheres rapidly and frequently
throughout their college experiences.
• Emotional support. As evidenced by the aftermath of the April 16, 2007
shooting at Virginia Tech, online social networks have become a venue for
grieving, mourning and emotional support. Students (and others) have come
together from all around the country and world to express condolences,
support, and even petition Facebook to change the colors of the website to
219

Virginia Tech’s colors for one day. The connectivity that these online social
networks have engendered, allows for meaningful interactions on a variety o
levels.

Student Leaders
It is equally important to provide educational measures for students in
leadership roles. Student orientation counselors, student government officers,
program board members, tour office ambassadors, Resident Advisors, and student
organization leaders are role models for the rest of the student body. As student
leaders, and oftentimes, student employees, these students represent the university.
The behaviors they emulate and actions they take will be replicated by others. The
images that these student leaders put forth may be seen as sensible behavior by new
students. It may even be perceived to be acceptable behavior by current students.
On a similar note, student employees become representatives of their
department by virtue of their position. This does not necessarily mean that a
department could tell student employees what not to post, or that the university force
student leaders keep some content off of their profile. Of course, if that content poses
an imminent or upcoming threat of bodily harm or damage to persons or property,
the university could keep their employees from posting it or sanction them for doing
so. More practical solutions range from the above to also include educating student
leaders and employees about the image attributed to the university or department by
220

the content that students post. Appealing to common sense will often be helpful in
the situation.
One way to appeal to common sense would be to display some sample
profiles from student leaders in attendance at the session. The Internet, and these
OSNs, are public domain. Highlight some of the positive aspects of said profiles, and
pinpoint the issues that the university finds disconcerting and explain why. Most of
the student leaders will understand the point, even if they do not accept it, or follow
the advice.
Additional issues to consider center around liability and legality. The
university might not be able to prohibit the posting of certain content by its student
leaders or employees. Any such requirement might be illegal. However, suggesting
to the student that they adjust both their privacy and access settings so that their
information and content could only be fully accessed by their friends and random
others would only see a limited profile, will likely prevent the department or
university from unnecessary embarrassment from that student’s behavior.
At the same time, it is still worthwhile to be concerned about students’
behaviors, even if they are not depicted online. It has become clear that there are
really no new behaviors that are happening because of the existence of these online
social networks. It is just that the existence of these online social networks has made
it possible for a wider audience to see what each person is doing.

221

Staff and Faculty
Some of the same issues that apply to students also apply to staff and faculty.
Specifically, remembering that what you say and do on your profile will be seen as
an example of behaviors to mimic and emulate by students and others. If we are
concerned about the behavior of student leaders, we will want to educate staff and
faculty accordingly. We should keep in mind that protecting an individual’s right to
Free Speech is important, and coaching someone on the implications of what they
post and suggestions for online behavior does not infringe on the First Amendment.
That being said, some faculty have been using Facebook, Blogger.com and
other online social networks to communicate with students, maintain discussion
boards and submit assignments (mainly responses to discussion prompts). The most
unique of these is communicating with students, for there are countless other
academic portals that can be used for online discussion boards and assignments.
One of the most pressing areas for discussion about Facebook and Myspace is
sanctioning students for the content they post.

Recommendations by Functional Area of Campus
Though the vignette at the opening of this study is framed around the office
of Residence Life, it should be reiterated that the phenomenon of online social
networking is prevalent campus-wide, and across most, if not all students’
experiences. Table 13 will show recommendations by area of campus.
222

Functional
Area
Recommendations for Practice
How can OSNs be used to engage students in campus life?
Residence
Life
• RAs can form a group for residents on their hall/floor/building for convenient event
promotion or announcement. Can also be used to ask students what programs they
want to see.
• RAs can check out student profiles to determine their interests, and plan group
outings accordingly
Student Life
and Campus
Activities
• A virtual student organization fair can be conducted online with campus student
organizations and online Facebook groups, etc.
• Campus events and resources can be promoted online.
• Commuter students, already less likely to be involved/engaged in campus life, can
be “plugged in” to the campus through OSNs, where they can connect to resources
and individuals through online communication. Contact made by the commuter
student at their convenience, response by the resource or staff member during work
hours, communication received when the student is out of class or back home, etc.
• Other student populations that have not been as engaged with campus life can be
connected to in a similar manner (Transfer, Returning and International Students)
• There can be specific Facebook pages set up for each type of student constituency.
New Student
Orientation
• Educate students about the benefits and drawbacks of using OSNs.
• Orientation counselors may form groups for the students they had interacted with
over summer (i.e. “Scott was my Orientation Counselor” and all of the students I
had from each Orientation session may join). This would be useful in following up
with students to see how they are doing throughout the year.
Academic
Life
• Faculty advisors can communicate with students rapidly through OSNs. Helpful for
schedule building, but even more so for offering help in coursework.
• On the same token, teaching assistants can also have virtual office hours to be
available for initial contact with students.
• Faculty-to-student mentoring can occur online
Alumni
Association
• Can track what interests and activities students participated in while on campus,
which will help when soliciting for donations later.
• By looking up friends of alums that are active in the Alumni Association and
already giving to the University, more support could be sought after.
Student Peer
Mentors
• Peer mentors can connect with their mentees more readily through OSNs. This can
be useful for setting up the initial meeting, to introduce the mentee to the mentor, for
the mentor to find out what interests or classes the mentee has, etc.
Gender and
Cultural
Student
Program
Offices
• As one of the benefits of higher education is exposure to people of diverse
backgrounds (in terms of demographic characteristics, identity and upbringing), one
recommendation is for services offered by these offices to be available online as
well as in-person. At the University of California, Riverside, the LGBT Resource
Center has instituted weekly online chats with student volunteers for anyone who
wants to talk about their sexual/gender orientation, etc.
• Create Facebook groups both for the office as a whole as well as student sub-groups
affiliated with the office to reach out to a larger population of students.
Table 13. Recommendations by Functional Area of Campus
Students may be engaging in different technologies for communication, online social
network or online community, Facebook and Myspace or Youtube and Instant
223

Messenger, and any of another host of configurations of usage. While these
recommendations were classified by the functional area of campus, a number of
them apply to multiple functional areas all of which will help student affairs
practitioners and other university staff successfully integrate OSNs into a productive
college experience. Additionally, these recommendations are simply a launching
point. Each university would need to think about what the particular challenges are
facing their campus, what their campus’ student culture is, and how best to program
to their student body, integrating OSNs for a more productive student experience.
Through any of the above recommendations, a university can embrace OSNs as
components of the campus community just like Intra Mural sports are common
avenues for university support of students’ campus culture.

Implications for Future Research
This study has examined the perspectives and opinions students have about
OSNs, and the role students think universities should or should not play within this
emergent phenomenon. However, this study has only answered some questions about
this phenomenon, and it has raised quite a few more. Continued research on this
phenomenon should focus on attaining an ongoing and deeper understanding of
multiple facets of online social networks. This section will discuss possible avenues
for future research that should be considered by researchers wanting to know more
about particular facets of OSNs.
224

One area for further research would be to look at the difference in usage
between and across online social networks. As Facebook’s developer’s platform has
expanded and increased the number of plug-in features, the uses and interactions
students have within the networks are likely to change and adapt. Similarly, students
see this development as another stage of Facebook’s evolution into Myspace, a
transition that nearly all student users of Facebook would oppose. With the large
number of online social networks in existence, exploring the difference in usage that
students have from one online community to another would shed light on the
different role that each plays within the student experience.
It may be beneficial to observe students actually interacting within OSNs in
future studies to witness first-hand the levels and types of interaction students engage
in online. This would be different than this study’s participant-observation of OSNs
because the researcher could conduct an in-person observation and interview the
student at the same time to ask probing questions about specific actions they do
online. It may be difficult for a subject to explain what they mean by an answer
without showing an example of the online content being referenced. In addition,
future studies including observations in this manner can highlight specific incidents
and problems that have occurred involving these online communities, which will be
incorporated into the student discussions.
An interesting area for additional research would be to use the data collected
for this study as a baseline and foundation for a collective understanding of student
225

perspectives on OSNs. Using that baseline to create an annual survey will provide a
comparison of student perceptions of OSNs and social networking through additional
emergent technologies over time. Additional research studies on the effects of
Internet-based communication on student experiences should examine this
phenomenon both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Future research could take this basis for an understanding of the student
perspective of OSNs and apply it to focus groups with representative student affairs
staff (from entry- to senior-level). Doing so will determine whether the student
perspective has contributed to more comprehensive awareness of the OSN
phenomenon. Additionally, staff focus groups will provide insight into their
perspectives and opinions on the subject. The staff focus groups will possibly reveal
additional resources of interventions those universities or others might be
implementing to alleviate concerns about online communities.
Given the findings of this study, that OSNs serve a productive purpose
despite potential drawbacks or other concerns, and that students will continue to use
them, it would be beneficial to coordinate future research studies with the developers
and managers of the various OSNs. This could provide detailed usage statistics and
other institutional research they might have conducted. Given Facebook’s particular
relevance to the college community (as opposed to Myspace and others, and ignoring
Facebook’s recent venture into the High School and corporate arenas), interviews
with the executive officials of Facebook would offer additional insight.
226

Another direction for future research would be to look at the difference in
usage of OSNs based on institution type, geographic region, and demographic
characteristics. As the primary institution for this study was the University of
Southern California, a large, private institution in Southern California, there are a
number of potentially rich comparisons that could be explored. One possibility is to
look at a public institution, particularly one with a highly diverse student population.
The University of California, Riverside (UCR), a moderately-sized public institution
in Riverside, California and part of the larger UC system, could be selected for
comparison with USC. UCR happens to be one of the universities boasting the most
diverse student body, recently being cited as the public institution with the widest
array and enrollment of diverse student subpopulations and still consistently ranks in
the top five (US News and World Report, 1999-2006). As a public institution with a
total enrollment of about 17,000 students (UCR, 2006), UCR is about half of the size
of USC, yet there will be breadth in the sample populations. The high level of
diversity at UC Riverside contributes to the breadth of the students participating in
online communities. Comparing the results from multiple institutions to check if
there are differences in the motivation and intent students have for using these online
social networks, will identify if there are substantial variations in perception based
on student population and demographics.
One of the experimental techniques tried out during the online survey of this
research study was the use of an online version of the Rorschach psychological ink-
227

blot test pertaining to the features of online social networks. Each student was asked
to give their first response when they saw each prompt (Facebook or OSN feature, or
an action typically occurring on Facebook). While the resulting data did not directly
speak to this study’s research questions, examining of how students’ perceptions of
various features and functions change over time as those features evolve might prove
interesting.
Further research could also examine the role of OSNs as emotional support
for students and others. Students have used OSNs to write farewell messages to
recently deceased friends, and in doing so, gain support from other friends as they
mourn together. Following the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007, and other similarly
tragic incidents, survivors band together through message boards and other areas of
OSNs to talk about where they were when the incident happened, to form support
groups, etc. Researching the function of OSNs as tools for emotional support would
aid universities in responding comprehensively to crises on campus and in the
community.
It may also be interesting to examine the exposure to diversity through online
social networks as compared to in-person experiences with diversity. Similarly,
looking at a more comprehensive analysis of engagement and involvement through
online or technological means would help student affairs practitioners connect to
students more meaningfully and effectively in the future. Additionally, this may help
the online social networks, and the groups within them, serve student interests and
228

thrive more fully, help college and university staff better plan programs and services
to meet students at their developmental and involvement levels and possibly even
help colleges with online programs embark on student development programs and
services.
As this phenomena is relatively young, and certainly only recently so
prominent, an interesting avenue for further research might include looking at how
student perspectives of OSNs will change now that college students will increasingly
have had much more OSN experience by the time they enroll at the university. This
is relevant to a window of further research that may be closing. As of right now, it
may still be possible to gather substantial data on the effects of OSNs on college
persistence, retention and performance (both academically and developmentally).
This study shows that OSNs help students build community, and that community
complements the on-campus community, which plays a major role in student
persistence, retention and performance. As student usage of OSNs increases, further
research may shed light on the different effects of each particular online social
network on the student experience.

Closing
Facebook, Myspace and other online social networks have become prominent
fixtures in the lives of our college students. In fact, in many instances they have
pervaded multiple facets of society. Myspace has been avidly used by teens for a
229

number of years and now Facebook has expanded from being college-specific to
include high schools, corporations, geographic regions, and anyone with any kind of
email address. Long before the onset of online communities such as Facebook and
Myspace, instant messenger programs were one of the preferred modes of
communication on a peer-to-peer level. Certainly online social networks, instant
messenger programs, and to a lesser extent e-mail and cellular phones have become
preferred means of communication for maintaining contact with a larger number of
casual friends.
There are many factors related to student usage of Facebook and Myspace
that remain unknown. This is but a sample of the issues and complexities universities
should deal with before making the decision to engage in OSNs. In addition, other
concerns include the "coolness" factor declining with increasing university presence
in the online social networks. Will students stop using OSNs if their university has
an increasingly prominent presence within them? Will students just gravitate to a
new OSN that will require universities to spend a great deal of time learning about it
in order to then help students be safe and smart in their activities there?
It is clear that in terms of the student experience, Facebook and Myspace are
strong contributors. Even if the university would want to prohibit their usage,
students will either find a way around it, or develop new sites or methods of
engaging in the same ‘sharing’ behaviors. With all of these and other concerns, it is
clear that we are going to have more questions, not less. Some research has already
230

been done, but a great deal more is needed. As technologies evolve, it is incumbent
upon university staff to understand the uses of the technology, its implications, and
the role that the university should take, if any. Thus, universities should embrace
student usage of these online communities, find ways to engage within them that
does not detract from the student experience or scare them away, and educate
students about the benefits and risks of online social networks so that the risks can be
mitigated and benefits propagated.

231

REFERENCES

Alexander, K. (2004, May 11). Facebook defies utilitarianism, insults Mill.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper at
the University of Chicago, Web Site: http://maroon.uchicago.edu

American Psychological Association (2003). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Antonio, A. L. (2004). The influence of friendship groups on intellectual self-
confidence and educational aspirations in college. Journal of Higher
Education, 75, 446-471.

Appelbe, M. (2004, April 27). Putting your best face forward. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from The Daily Californian, the student newspaper at the University of
California, Berkeley, Web Site: http://www.dailycal.org

Applebome, P. (2004, December 1). Our towns; on campus, hanging out by logging
on. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://select.nytimes.com

Aquino, J. (2006, January 31). Study: internet users are more social. Retrieved
March 14, 2006, from The Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper at the
University of Minnesota Web Site: http://www.mndaily.com

Arboleda, A., Wang, Y., Shelley, M. C, II, & Whalen, D. F. (2003). Predictors of
residence hall involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 44,
517-531.

Arotsky, D. (2004, March 31). Students to connect through web facebook. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton
University, Web Site: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com

Arrington, M. (2005, September 7). 85% of college students use Facebook.
Retrieved March 23, 2006, from TechCrunch Web Site:
http://www.techcrunch.com

ARS Technica. (2006, January 19). Google + Facebook + alcohol = trouble.
Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com

Astin, A. W. (1973). Impact of dormitory living on students. Educational Record,
54, 204-210.
232

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Awad, M. (2004, November 11). Have you been facebooked? Retrieved May 8,
2006, from The Pendulum, the student newspaper at Elon University, Web
Site: http://www.elon.edu

Bademain, S. (2005, October 12). Steve Hofstetter wants to be your friend. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from The Tartan, the student newspaper at Radford University,
Web Site: http://www.thetartan.com

Baldas, T. (2006, May 2). Lawsuits target Internet Service Providers for not policing
porn. Retrieved June 21, 2004, from Law.com Web Site: http://www.law.com

Balz, C. A. (2004, April 16). www.thefacebook.com. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from
The Hoya, the student newspaper at Georgetown University, Web Site:
http://www.thehoya.com

Banning, J. H. (2006). Review of "Promoting reasonable expectations: aligning
student and institutional views of the college experience" by T. E. Miller, B.
E. Bender, J. H. Schuh and Associates. Journal of Higher Education, 77,
557-559.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2002). Review of "Learning that lasts: integrating learning,
development, and performance in college and beyond" by M. Mentkowski
and Associates. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 660-666.

Beaton, J. (2005, November 11). Love and dating in the electronic age. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Johns Hopkins News-letter, the student newspaper at
Johns Hopkins University, Web Site: http://www.jhunewsletter.com

Beavers, C. (2004, November 30). Online black book binds college students
nationwide. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Independent Florida Alligator,
the student newspaper at the University of Florida, Web Site:
http://www.alligator.org

Berkeley Survey (2006). Preliminary findings of a survey of students’ online
interactions. University of California, Berkeley. Presented at NASPA Drive-
In, Spring 2006.
233

Berson, M. J., & Berson, I. R. (2004). Developing thoughtful "cybercitizens". Social
Studies and the Young Learner, 16(4), 5-8. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from
ERIC Web Site: http://www.eric.ed.gov

Bollier, D. (1994). The future of community and personal identity in the coming
electronic culture. In C. M. Firestone (Ed.), Annual Aspen Institute: Vol. 3.
Roundtable on Information Technology (pp. 1-56). Washington, DC: The
Aspen Institute.

Bourne, C. (2004, November 23). Web sites click on campus. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from http://www.usatoday.com

Brazzel, K. (2005, January 18). College tradtion of facebooks goes online with a
virtual twist. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Arkansas Democrat Gazette Web
Site: http://www.nwanews.com

Brooks, K. (2004, September 1). Friend networking a hit online. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from Red and Black Newspaper, the student newspaper at the
University of Georgia, Web Site: http://www.redandblack.com

Brown, S. C. (2004). Learning across the campus: how college facilitates the
development of wisdom. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 134-
148.

Buch, J. (2006, April 27). Facebook allows old friends to meet up jpeg-to-jpeg.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The University Star, the student newspaper at
Texas State University, San Marcos, Web Site: http://star.txstate.edu

Buckman, R. (2005, December 8). Too much information? Retrieved May 8, 2006,
from Wall Street Journal Web Site: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com

Bugeja, M. J. (2006, January 23). Facing the Facebook. Retrieved March 23, 2006,
from http://chronicle.com

Business Week online. (2004, July 21). A hot new twist on the old college try.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.businessweek.com

Calleros, C. R. (1997). Preparing for the worst--and striving for the best: Training
university employees to respond clearly, constructively, and Constitutionally
to hateful speech on campus. Journal of Law and Education, 26(4), 41-68.

234

Carducci, R., & Rhoads, R. A. (2005). Of minds and media: Teaching critical
citizenship to the plugged-in generation. About Campus, 10(5), 2-9.

CDW-G, Ascione, L., Murray, C., & Pierce, D. (2005, January 1). School safety &
security. Retrieved Laura Ascione, Assistant Editor Corey Murray, and
Managing Editor Dennis Pierce compiled this report., from
http://www.eschoolnews.com

Center for Democracy and Technology. (1995, March 9). An analysis of S. 314 by
the Center for Democracy and Technology. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from
http://www.cdt.org

Center for Democracy and Technology. (2005). Citizens Internet Empowerment
Coalition. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from http://www.cdt.org

Center for Democracy and Technology. (2006). Communications Decency Act
(CDA). Retrieved May 28, 2006, from http://www.cdt.org

Chapman, R. J. (2005, December 21). Sacing "face" in the virtual collegiate
community. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.naspa.org

Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students' sense of campus: What it means and what to do about
it. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 216-234.

Chickering, A. W. (2000). Creating community within individual courses. New
Directions for Higher Education, 109, 23-32.

Clark, M. R. (2005). Negotiating the freshman year: challenges and strategies among
first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 296-
316.

Clark, R. K., Walker, M., & Keith, S. (2002). Student impacts of out-of-class
communication: office visits and the student experience. Journal of College
Student Development, 43(??6??), 824-837.

Clavier, J. (2005, October 27). It's the software, stupid. Retrieved March 23, 2006,
from http://blog.softtechvc.com

Clemmons, N. (2004, August 27). Cadenza: media matches found on Facebook.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from Student Life, the student newspaper at
Washington University in St. Louis, Web Site: http://www.studlife.com

235

Communications Decency Act of 1995. Senate Bill 314, 104
th
Congress, 1
st
Session.

Cooke, M. (2004, April 27). Facebook expands to BC campus. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from The Heights, the student newspaper of Boston College, Web Site:
http://www.bcheights.com

Coomes, M. (2005, December 2). A quick guide to facebook.com. Retrieved March
14, 2006, from The Courier-Journal Web Site: http://www.courier-
journal.com

Copeland, L. (2004, December 28). Click clique: Facebook's online college
community. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Current Magazine, & Nagowski, M. (2004, November 30). Exclusive interview with
Mark Zuckerberg. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from MSNBC.com Web Site:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com

Datskovsky, M. (2006, April 10). Facebook official. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from
Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper at Columbia University, Web
Site: http://www.columbiaspectator.com

Davies, S., & Hammack, F. M. (2005). The channeling of student competition in
higher education: comparing Canada and the U.S. Journal of Higher
Education, 76, 89-106.

Davis, L. (2005, October 17). Journalists should look beyond Facebook for news.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Daily Trojan, the student newspaper at the
University of Southern California, Web Site: http://www.dailytrojan.com

Detwiler, S., & Getraer, A. (2006, March 27). Facebook me! Retrieved March 29,
2006, from Hillel Intranet hosted by Kintera Web Site: http://www.hillel.net

The Digital Future Report (2005). Surveying the digital future: Year five. Center for
the Digital Future. USC Annenberg School. Figueroa Press, University of
Southern California.

The Digital Future Report (2007). Surveying the digital future: Year six. Center for
the Digital Future. USC Annenberg School. Figueroa Press, University of
Southern California.

236

Duffy, E. (2004, September 2). Facebook.com comes to ND. Retrieved May 9, 2006,
from The Observer, the student newspaper at Notre Dame and St. Mary's,
Web Site: http://www.ndsmcobserver.com

Duffy, M. (2006, March 27). A dad's encounter with the vortex of Facebook.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.time.com

Electronic Privacy Information Center. (2002, April 8). Free Speech. Retrieved May
28, 2006, from http://www.epic.org

Electronic Privacy Information Center. (n.d.). U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down
Communications Decency Act. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from
http://www.epic.org

Ellis, S. (2004). Review of "Enhancing student engagement on campus" by A.
Sandeen. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 261-262.

Encyclopaedia Brittanica. (2006). Freedom of Speech. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from
http://brittanica.com

Encyclopaedia Brittanica. (2006). Negligence and Liability. Retrieved June 24, 2006,
from http://www.brittanica.com

Esposito, T. & Lang, J. Presentation to the Association of Student Judicial Affairs at
the 18
th
Annual Conference. Overexposure? Discovering and responding to
conduct code violations from online sources. (2006).

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. E., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Facebook.com. (2006). Facebook Website. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from
http://www.facebook.com

Facebook.com (2006). Website terms of use policy. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from
http://www.facebook.com

Facebook.com (2007). Website statistics. Retrieved June 2, 2007, from
http://www.facebook.com

Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2004). What do college students
have to lose? Exploring the outcomes of differences in person-environment
fits. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 528-555.
237

Felter, M. (2005, November 1). MU examining Facebook use. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from Columbia Missourian Web Site: http://columbiamissourian.com

Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004, February). Content delivery in the
'Blogosphere'. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.thejournal.com

Fosbenner, A. (2005, February 8). Facebook me. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The
Appalachian, the student newspaper of Appalachian State University, Web
Site: http://www.theapp.appstate.edu

Foubert, J. D., Nixon, M. L., Sisson, V. S., & Barnes, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal
study of Chickering and Reisser's vectors: exploring gender differences and
implications for refining the theory. Journal of College Student Development,
46, 461-471.

Frankel, C. (1970). Education and telecommunications. Journal of Higher
Education, 41, 1-15.

Free Press. (n.d.). A world without net neutrality. Retrieved May 28, 2006a, from
http://www.freepress.net

Free Press. (n.d.). The struggle for net freedom. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from
http://www.freepress.net

Free Press. (n.d.). What is net neutrality. Retrieved May 28, 2006b, from
http://www.freepress.net

Freeman, A. (2005, November 29). Moody could face trouble for picture. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from The Maneater, student newspaper at the University of
Missouri, Columbia, Web Site: http://www.themaneater.com

French, D. A., Lukianoff, G., & Silverglate, H. A. (2005). FIRE's guide to free
speech on campus. Philadelphia, PA: Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education

Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical
thinking: a meta-analysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 746-762.

238

Georgetown Voice Editorial Board. (2004, April 22). Facing the book. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Georgetown Voice, an independent newspaper at
Georgetown University, Web Site: http://www.georgetownvoice.com

Gilbert, D. (2004, April 30). U of C connects to new social website. Retrieved May
8, 2006, from The Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper at the University
of Chicago, Web Site: http://maroon.uchicago.edu

Gilbert, D. (2004, May 7). Social website draws heavy traffic. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from The Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper at the University of
Chicago, Web Site: http://maroon.uchicago.edu

Glickel, J. (2005, February 15). Frat boys have a new reason to use The Facebook.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper at
the University of Chicago, Web Site: http://maroon.uchicago.edu

Graham, J. (2004, March 10). Thefacebook.com for dummies. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University,
Web Site: http://www.stanforddaily.com

Greenberg, A. (2005). OMG! How generation Y is redefining faith in the iPod era.
New York: Reboot. Retrieved May 14, 2006, from http://www.rebooters.net

Gruenewald, D. (2005). Review of "Sustaining and improving learning
communities" by J. L. Laufgraben and N. S. Shapiro. Journal of College
Student Development, 46, 331-332.

Grynbaum, M. M. (2004). Online Facebook solicits new ads. The Harvard Daily
Crimson Online. Retrieved May 14, 2006 from http://www.thecrimson.com

Hackett, J. (2004, November 23). New campus craze goes beyond the dating game.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The New Hampshire, the student newspaper at
the University of New Hampshire, Web Site: http://www.tnhonline.com

Han, W. (2004, September 6). Campus connection. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from
Time Magazine Web Site: http://time-proxy.yaga.com

Hathiramani, R. (2004, April 16). The quest for friends -- thefacebook.com.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at
Princeton University, Web Site: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com

239

Hempel, J., & Lehman, P. (2005, December 12). The MySpace Generation.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.businessweek.com

Henderson, M. (2006, February 24). Scientists: internet, chat rooms good for
teenagers. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://www.foxnews.com

Herrmann, L. R. A. (2005, March 18). Web site's 'like a yellow pages for dating'.
Retrieved March 14, 2006, from Chicago Sun-Times Web Site:
http://nl.newsbank.com
Hillinger, M. (2004, October 26). Facebook me, babe! Retrieved May 8, 2006, from
The Dog Street Journal, the student newspaper at William and Mary College,
Web Site: http://www.dogstreetjournal.com

Hinlicky, E. (2005, February 15). Facialized: thefacebook's first year anniversary.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Daily Targum, the student newspaper at
Rutgers University, Web Site: http://www.dailytargum.com

Hirschland, J. (2006, April 27). Technically speaking; sex, sleaze, politics: this year
in tech. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from Columbia Spectator, the student
newspaper at Columbia University, Web Site:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com

Hirschland, J. (2006, January 20). Students busted on Facebook. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from Daily Colonial, an independent newspaper at George Washington
University Web Site: http://www.dailycolonial.com

Holt, C. (2004, March 10). Thefacebook.com's darker side. Retrieved May 9, 2006,
from Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University, Web Site:
http://www.stanforddaily.com

Howard, J. R. (2002). Do college students participate more in discussion in
traditional delivery courses or in interactive telecourses? Journal of Higher
Education, 73, 764-780.

Hsu, K. (2004, October 8). Find new friends at the facebook and get connected!
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Daily Texan, the student newspaper at the
University of Texas, Web Site: http://www.dailytexanonline.com

Jarzemsky, M. (2006, April 28). Police warn of online sex predators. Retrieved May
14, 2006, from Columbia Missourian Web Site:
http://columbiamissourian.com

240

Jensen, J. J. (2005, January 9). Connecting is just a click away. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com

Johnson, N. (1995, June). Save free speech in cyberspace. Retrieved May 28, 2006,
from Wired E-magazine Web Site: http://proquest.umi.com

Josephson Institute for Ethics. (2006). Character Counts. Retrieved June 23, 2006,
from http://www.charactercounts.org

Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (1995). The law of higher education: a comprehensive
guide to legal implications of administrative decision making (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kelly, M. (2004, July 20). Freshmen connect with friends on thefacebook. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Dartmouth, the student newspaper at Dartmouth
College, Web Site: http://www.thedartmouth.com

Kennedy, J. (2004, July 28). New internet addiction unnecessary. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from Red and Black Newspaper, the student newspaper at the
University of Georgia, Web Site: http://www.redandblack.com

Kezar, A., & Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student
engagement: the role of mission. Journal of College Student Development,
47, 149-172.

Kirkpatrick, K. (2004, August 18). Site puts a new face on social networking.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Daily Trojan, the student newspaper at the
University of Southern California, Web Site: http://www.dailytrojan.com

Kleinbaum, J. (2006, April 10). MySpace a sex predator magnet. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from Inside Bay Area Web Site: http://www.insidebayarea.com

Kleinsasser, A. M. (2004). Review of "Creating campus community: in search of
Ernest Boyer's legacy" by W. M. McDonald and Associates. Journal of
Higher Education, 75, 239.

Koch, G. (2004, December 20). Students social via Facebook. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from The Star Press, the online news source for East Central Indiana
Web Site: http://nl.newsbank.com

241

Koch, G. (2006, March 30). Bloggers beware! Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Star
Press, the online news source for East Central Indiana, Web Site:
http://nl.newsbank.com

Komives, S. R., & Woodard, D. B, Jr. (2003). Student services: A handbook for the
profession (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kosloski, L. (2004, November 14). Students frolic with facebook, fresh friends.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Brown and White, the student newspaper
from Lehigh University, Web Site: http://bw.lehigh.edu
Krupnick, M. (2006, March 27). College officials ponder effects of FaceBook,
MySpace. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Contra Costa Times Web Site:
http://www.mercurynews.com

Kruse, R., Sparks, K., & Taich, A. (2005, January 27). Facebook: the new
procrastination. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Daily Vidette, the student
newspaper at Illinois State University, Web Site:
http://www.dailyvidette.com

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student
success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Kuk, L. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered. Washington, DC: NASPA & ACPA.

Kushner, D. (2006, April 7). The web's hottest site: Facebook.com. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from http://www.rollingstone.com

Larabee, H. (2005 December 6). In Loco Parentis and campus life: Then and now.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Foundations of Higher Education Term
Paper. University of Southern California.

Lawley, L. (2006, April 25). Many 2 many: a group weblog on social software.
Retrieved May 7, 2006, from Corante blog host Web Site:
http://many.corante.com

'Lectric Law Library. (n.d.). Negligence. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from The Electric
('Lectric) Law Library Lexicon Web Site: http://www.lectlaw.com

Lee, I. (2004, March 24). BU newest addition to thefacebok.com. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from Daily Free Press, the student newspaper at Boston University,
Web Site: http://www.dailyfreepress.com
242

Lee, M. (2004, August 25). 'Thefacebook' gets in the way of living. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from The Daily Trojan, the student newspaper at the University of
Southern California, Web Site: http://www.dailytrojan.com

Lester, A. E. (2004, February 17). Show your best face. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from
The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard University, Web
Site: http://www.thecrimson.com

Levin-Epstein, M., & PaperClip Communications (2006). Cyber communities and
online social networks: what campus administrators need to know. Little
Falls, NJ: PaperClip Communications.

Levy, P. A. (). Legal perils and legal rights of Internet speakers. Paper presented at
the meeting of the Public Citizen Litigation Group. Washington, DC.

Levy, S., & Stone, B. (2006, April 3). The new wisdom of the web. Newsweek,
CXLVII, 14, 46-54.

Lin, P. (2004, June 1). Bruin's benefit from web's social networks. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from The Daily Bruin, the student newspaper at UCLA Web Site:
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu

Lyon, K. (2004, May 13). Online Facebook sees no end in sigh for growth. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Dartmouth, the student newspaper at Dartmouth
College, Web Site: http://www.thedartmouth.com

Ma, O. (2006, August 2). Education: need help? Check down the hall. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from Newsweek Web Site: http://www.msnbc.mcn.com

Males, M. A. (1999). Framing youth: 10 myths about the Next Generation. Monroe,
ME: Common Courage Press.

Malloy, M. (2005, January 24). The face of things to come arrives. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from Daily Iowan, the student newspaper at the University of Iowa,
Web Site: http://www.dailyiowan.com

Mawdsley, R. D. (2004). The community college's responsibility to educate and
protect students. Education Law Reporter, 189, 1-13.

Mitrano, T. (2006, April). Thoughts on the Facebook. Retrieved June 24, 2006, from
Cornell University IT department Web Site: http://www.cit.cornell.edu
243

Milov, S. E. F. (2004, March 18). Sociology of thefacebook.com. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard
University, Web Site: http://www.thecrimson.com

Moran, D. (2004, September 10). Online network community adds SU to growing list
of participating universities. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from The Daily Orange,
the student newspaper at Syracuse University, Web Site:
http://www.dailyorange.com
Murray, C. (2005, January 19). New tool connects chums and alums. Retrieved May
8, 2006, from http://www.eschoolnews.com

Myers, J. P. (2002). Review of "Civic responsibility and higher education" edited by
T. Ehrlich. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 423-427.

NASPA and ACPA (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the
student experience. Washington, DC.

NASPA and ACPA (2006). Learning reconsidered 2L A practical guide to
implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington,
DC.

NASPA Conference (2006, June). Anecdotal evidence from discussions between the
researcher and colleagues.

National Broadcasting Company (NBC) (2006, May 13). Saturday Night Live.

National Broadcasting Company (NBC) (2006). To Catch a Predator.

Neuman, S. (2006, April 5). ASUO executive candidates find the Facebook network
is not the most effective tool. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Oregon Daily
Emerald, the student newspaper at the University of Oregon, Web Site:
http://www.dailyemerald.com

Neville, A. (2005, January 23). An open book. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The
Buffalo News Web Site: http://nl.newsbank.com

Neyfakh, L. (2004, March 9). Columbia rebukes thefacebook.com. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard
University, Web Site: http://www.thecrimson.com

244

Nguyen, T. (2004, October 14). Party taps Facebook users. Retrieved May 8, 2006,
from The Daily Californian, the student newspaper at the University of
California, Berkeley, Web Site: http://www.dailycal.org

Nnabuife, E. (2005, November 11). Add me, Facebook. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from
The Johns Hopkins News-letter, the student newspaper at Johns Hopkins
University, Web Site: http://www.jhunewsletter.com

Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of Student Affairs. In S. R. Komives & D. B.
Woodard (Eds.), Student Services: a handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp.
65-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oklahoma Daily Editorial Board. (2006, April 25). Safety first when using Facebook.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Oklahoma Daily, the student newspaper at
Oklahoma University, Web Site: http://www.oudaily.com

O'Toole, J. (2006, March 15). Athletes log off Facebook. Retrieved May 9, 2006,
from The Diamondback, the student newspaper at the University of
Maryland, Web Site: http://www.diamondbackonline.com

Owen, C., Pollard, J., Kilpatrick, S., & Rumley, D. (1998). Electronic learning
communities? Factors that enhance and inhibit student learning within email
discussion groups. In (Ed.), Learning Communities, Regional Sustainability
and the Learning Society: Vol. . June 13-20, 1998 (pp. 372-379). Tasmania,
Australia: .

PaperClip Communications. (2005). Quick clicks: you, your safety & cyber
communities [Brochure]. Little Falls, NJ: Author. Retrieved March 5, 2006,
from http://paper-clip.com

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pasque, P. A., & Murphy, R. (2005). The intersections of living-learning programs
and social identity as factors of academic and intellectual engagement.
Journal of College Student Development, 46, 429-441.

Peterson, A. (2005, January 21). Online craze nears first anniversary. Retrieved May
8, 2006, from The Triangle, the student newspaper at Drexel University, Web
Site: http://www.thetriangle.org

245

Phruksachart, M. (2004, September 2). Thefacebook: a sleeker, sexier Cygnet.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from The Phoenix Online, the student newspaper at
Swarthmore College, Web Site: http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu

Porter, H. (2006, March 9). Student starts note-swapping site. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from The Auburn Plainsman, the student newspaper of Auburn
University Web Site: http://www.theplainsman.com

Powell, R. (2006, February 14). Facebook task force invites students to discussion.
Retrieved May 14, 2006, from Columbia Missourian Web Site:
http://columbiamissourian.com

Powell, R. (2006, February 17). Despite lack of student participants, MU's Facebook
task force forges on. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Columbia Missourian Web
Site: http://columbiamissourian.com

Powell, R. (2006, January 24). Facebook task force asks for discussion. Retrieved
May 14, 2006, from Columbia Missourian Web Site:
http://columbiamissourian.com

Privateer, P. M. (1999). Academic technology and the future of higher education:
strategic paths taken and not taken. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 60-79.

Purse, J. (2005, February 3). Sports column: paint the Facebook orange. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from The Daily Illini, the student newspaper at the University
of Illinois Web Site: http://www.dailyillini.com

Reishus, K. (2006, March 9). Facebook users told to be savvy about postings.
Retrieved May 14, 2006, from Columbia Missourian Web Site:
http://columbiamissourian.com

Renn, K. A., & Zeligman, D. M. (2005). Learning about technology and student
affairs: outcomes of an online immersion. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 547-555.

Rhea, S. (2006, April 27). Internet stalking unusual. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from
Oklahoma Daily, the student newspaper at Oklahoma University, Web Site:
http://www.oudaily.com

Riley, A. (2004, September 10). Online Facebook newest web obsession. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Bowdoin Orient, the student newspaper at Bowdoin
College, Web Site: http://orient.bowdoin.edu
246

Rinaldi, K. (2006, March 16). Students on student technology -- the good the bad
and the ugly about mtvU. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from
http://www.xplanazine.com

Robinson, J. (2006, March 31). Full disclosure. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from The
Johns Hopkins News-letter, the student newspaper at Johns Hopkins
University, Web Site: http://www.jhunewsletter.com

Roddy, J. (2004, October 15). New online social connection started. Retrieved May
8, 2006, from The Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper at the University
of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Web Site: http://www.mndaily.com

Romero, R. (2005, January 14). Thefacebook frenzy: friends you can count on.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Daily Trojan, the student newspaper at the
University of Southern California, Web Site: http://www.dailytrojan.com

Sales, L. (2004, May 4). Facebook is the greatest thing since Marx. Retrieved May
8, 2006, from The Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper at the University
of Chicago, Web Site: http://maroon.uchicago.edu

Salmon, R., & Bustamante, C. (2006, April 14). Intruding on Myspace. Retrieved
April 14, 2006, from The Press-Enterprise Web Site through the University
of California, Riverside, Web Site: http://www.inthenews.ucr.edu

Salvo, H. (04, December 9). Might as well face it, you're addicted. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from MU Student News, the student newspaper at the University of
Missouri, Columbia, Web Site: http://www.mustudentnews.com

Saunders, S. A. (2003). Review of "Creating campus community: in search of Ernest
Boyer's legacy” by W. M. McDonald and Associates. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 267-269.

Schackner, B. (2004, November 28). How to win 'friends' with a click. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Web Site: http://www.post-
gazette.com

Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with
theory. New York: Springer.

247

Schneider, A. P. (2004, March 1). Facebook expands beyond Harvard. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard
University, Web Site: http://www.thecrimson.com

Schuster, D. (2004, September 10). Want to be my friend? Accept, reject, ignore?
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from Yale Daily News, the student newspaper at
Yale University, Web Site: http://www.yaledailynews.com

Schweitzer, S. (2005, September 26). When students open up -- a little too much.
Colleges cite risk of frank online talk. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Boston
Globe Web Site: http://www.boston.com

Scribner, Z. (2006, April 28). MySpace enables networking, but poses risks for
young users. Retrieved May 14, 2006, from Columbia Missourian Web Site:
http://columbiamissourian.com

Shapiro, N. S. (2006). Review of "Learning communities: reforming undergraduate
education" by B. L. Smith, J. MacGregor, R. S. Matthews & F. Gabelnick.
Journal of Higher Education, 77, 550-553.

Sharif, S. (2004, March 5). All the cool kids are doing it. Retrieved May 9, 2006,
from Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University, Web Site:
http://www.stanforddaily.com

Sharif, S. (2005, January 26). Sink the red cups to win $10,000 in NYC. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford
University, Web Site: http://daily.stanford.edu

Shotick, J., & Stephens, P. (2005, December 21). Do students use technology wisely?
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://naspa.org

Shuey, L. (2005, January 24). Thefacebook sweeps EMU. Retrieved May 8, 2006,
from Eastern Echo, the student newspaper at Eastern Michigan University
Web Site: http://www.easternecho.com

Siblo, M. (2004, November 5). Facebook takes over. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from
The Villanovan, the student newspaper at Villanova University, Web Site:
http://www.villanovan.com

Silverman, S. (2006). Legal implications of online social networks. Paper presented
at USC, EDUC-679.

248

Smith, J. (2005, February 13). Web site connects friends, provides entertainment.
Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Morning News, Fayetteville Web Site:
http://www.nwaonline.net

Snow, L. (2004, December 9). Faculty enter Facebook frenzy. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from Indiana Daily Student, the student newspaper at Indiana
University, Web Site: http://www.idsnews,com

Snow, L. (2004, September 16). Networking website expands to IU. Retrieved May
8, 2006, from Indiana Daily Student, the student newspaper at Indiana
University, Web Site: http://www.idsnews.com

Spangler, S., Garcia, J., & Brammeier, L. (2006, April 25). Cyber safety: posting
information on Facebook may lead to stalking. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from
Oklahoma Daily, the student newspaper at Oklahoma University, Web Site:
http://www.oudaily.com

Springer, S. (2006, March 1). DPS officers utilize Facebook. Daily Trojan, pp. 1, 11.

Steele, S. (1995, December 9). Congress vs. the Internet. Retrieved May 28, 2006,
from The New York Times Web Site: http://proquest.umi.com

Stein, S. (2004, April 9). The fashion statement: 'face it'. Retrieved May 9, 2006,
from The Dartmouth, the student newspaper at Dartmouth College, Web Site:
http://www.thedartmouth.com

Steiner, M. (2006, April 4). Admissions office to use Facebook. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper at the University of
Pennsylvania, Web Site: http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com

Steiner, M. (2006, March 31). Facebook reportedly searching for a buyer. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper at the
University of Pennsylvania, Web Site: http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com

Stephens, R. (04/04/2006). Online communities. Paper presented at the meeting of
the WACUHO Annual Conference. Berkeley, California.

Stone, B., & Levy, S. (2006, April 3). Who's building the next web? Newsweek,
CXLVII, 14 , 56-58.

Stutzman, F. (05/12/2005). Social network analytic approaches to the world wide
web. Paper presented at the meeting of the Term Paper. UNC Chapel Hill.
249

Stutzman, F. (12/07/2004). Link structure analysis: a review in brief. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Term Paper. UNC CHapel Hill.

Stutzman, F. (2004). The small world web. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Presentation to INLS 301. UNC Chapel Hill.

Stutzman, F. (2005). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network
communities. Paper presented at the meeting of the School of Information
and Library Science. UNC, Chapel Hill.

Stutzman, F. (2005). Weblogs: an introduction. Paper presented at the meeting of the
UNC Information Technology Services Conference. UNC Chapel Hill.

Stutzman, F. (2006). Our lives, our Facebooks. Paper presented at the meeting of the
International Sunbelt Social Network Conference. Vancouver, BC.

Stutzman, F. (2006, April 25). Transience in social networks, or how to bear
MySpace and Facebook. Retrieved May 14, 2006, from Stutzman's Blog
Web Site: http://chimprawk.blogspot.com

Stutzman, F. (2006, January 23). How university administrators should approach the
Facebook: ten rules. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from Stutzman's Blog Web Site:
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com

Stutzman, F. (2006, January 8). Student life on the Facebook. Retrieved May 14,
2006, from Stutzman's Blog Web Site: http://chimprawk.blogspot.com

Stutzman, F. (2006, May 6). Google tech talk. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from
Stutzman's blog Web Site: http://chimprawk.blogspot.com

Stutzman, F., Lazorchak, B., & Wilbur, J. (). Metric aggregation for social network
analysis in Blogspheres: introducing Lyceum. Paper presented at the meeting
of the School of Information and Library Science. University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Swedberg, S. (2005, October 12). Facebook group stages protest. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from The Tartan, the student newspaper at Radford University, Web
Site: http://www.thetartan.com

250

Ta, L. (2006, March 31). District Attorney warns students of risk of identity theft.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper at
the University of Pennsylvanian, Web Site:
http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com

Tabak, A. J. (2004, February 18). Harvard bonds on Facebok website. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard
University, Web Site: http://www.thecrimson.com

Tabak, A. J. (2004, February 9). Hundreds register for new Facebook website.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at
Harvard University, Web Site: http://www.thecrimson.com

Taffel, J. (2004, April 22). BU nets 6,300 on Facebook. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from
Daily Free Press, the student newspaper at Boston University, Web Site:
http://www.dailyfreepress.com

The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2006, May 25). 'Network neutrality' bill moves
forward. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus

Testa, A. (2004, Fall). Students look for familiar FACES: latest web site is becoming
an online addiction. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Setonian, the student
newspaper at Seton Hall University, Web Site: http://domapp01.shu.edu

The Boston Globe. (2006, April 26). Judge: web-surfing worker can't be fired.
Retrieved April 26, 2006, from The New York Times Company Web Site:
http://www.boston.com

The Crimson Staff. (2004, March 11). Manifest destiny, Facebook style. Retrieved
May 9, 2006, from The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard
University, Web Site: http://www.thecrimson.com

Thompson, N. P. (2003). Review of "Promoting student learning and student
development at a distance: student affairs concepts and practices for televised
instruction and other forms of distance education" by A. M. Schwitzerm J. R.
Ancis & N. Brown. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 571-573.

Thompson, S. (2004, September 22). Facebook's strong appeal is puzzling.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from Old Gold & Black, the student newspaper at
Wake Forest University, Web Site: http://ogb.wfu.edu

251

Toomey, S. (2005, November 14). Facebook is new who's who for students: 6
million members use online networking service nationwide. Retrieved March
14, 2006, from Chicago Sun-Times Web Site: http://nl.newsbank.com

Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2003). Identity development
of diverse populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher
education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Totten, K. (2006, October 25). Employers looking at Facebook profiles. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from The Maneater, the student newspaper at the University of
Missouri, Columbia, Web Site: http://www.themaneater.com

Trier, M. (2005, January 12). We're all connected. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The
State News, the student newspaper at Michigan State University, Web Site:
http://www.statenews.com

Trotter, A. (2006, February 15). Social-networking web sites pose growing challenge
for educators. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.edweek.org

UCR LGBTRC Establishment Petition (1991). A petition for the establishment of a
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center on the University of
California, Riverside campus.

University of California (2004). 2004 University of California Undergraduate
Experience Survey. Oakland, CA: Office of the President.

Varland, L. (2005, February 8). UI students log on to Facebook craze. Retrieved
May 8, 2006, from The Daily Illini, the student newspaper at the University
of Illinois, Web Site: http://www.dailyillini.com

Wallis, C. (2006, March 27). The multitasking generation. Retrieved May 8, 2006,
from http://www.time.com

Wawrzynski, M. R. (2004). Review of "Creating significant learning experiences" by
L. D. Fink. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 105-106.

Welkener, M. M. (2003). Review of "Using simulations to promote learning in
higher education: an introduction" by J. P. Hertel and B. J. Millis. Journal of
College Student Development, 44, 443-445.

252

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1997, August). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual
communities as communities. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Department of Sociology and Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
University of Toronto.

Wellman, B. & K. Hampton (1999). Living networked on and off line. In
Contemporary Sociology. V. 28, I 6, p. 648-654.

White, C. (2004, October 21). A digital facelift: students use online yearbook to
connect with friends. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from The Ithacan, the student
newspaper at Ithaca College, Web Site: http://www.ithaca.edu

Wikipedia - user-created definition of terms. (2006, May 26). Freedom of speech.
Retrieved May 28, 2006, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia created by
users Web Site: http://en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia. (2006, April 1). Network neutrality. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from
http://en.wikipedia.org

Willard, N. (2006, April 26). Expert sees need for school staff to access social-
networking sites. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.edweek.org

Williams, P. (2006, February 3). MySpace, Facebook attract online predators.
Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com

Winston, R. B., Jr., & Massaro, A. V. (1987). Extracurricular involvement inventory:
An instrument for assessing intensity of student involvement. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 28, 169-175.

Wise, L. (2004, March 9). Students flock to web-based Facebook. Retrieved May 9,
2006, from The Dartmouth, the student newspaper at Dartmouth College,
Web Site: http://www.thedartmouth.com

Wissner, J. (2005, September 30). 18 violations delay results. Retrieved May 8,
2006, from Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper from the University
of Pennsylvania, Web Site: http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com

Withall, R. (2005, November 18). Facing the facts about Facebook. Retrieved
March 14, 2006, from The Villanovan, the student newspaper at Indiana
University Web Site: http://www.villanovan.com

253

Wolinsky, H. (2006, January 15). Breaking down our wired world. Retrieved March
14, 2006, from Chicago Sun-Times Web Site: http://nl.newsbank.com

Xplanazine. (2006, March 19). March 19, 2006 Weekly Update. Retrieved March 23,
2006, from http://www.xplanazine.com

Young, L. (2004, March 26). Harvard facebook website now includes Yale.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from Yale Herald, an independent newspaper at Yale
University, Web Site: http://www.yaleherald.com
254

Appendix A: Focus Group Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

*****************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Creating Community Online

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Scott C. Silverman,
Ed.D. candidate, from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California because you indicated your desire to participate through an advertisement
on Facebook.com. The results of this study will be used in the completion of a
doctoral dissertation for the degree of Doctorate of Education. You were selected as
a possible participant in this study because you use Facebook.com and responded to
the inquiry posted there. A total of 120 subjects will be selected from all USC
undergraduates to participate in these focus groups. All subjects must be of at least
18 years of age. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to understand students’ perceptions
about the importance of online social networking and their views on the role that
colleges and universities should play in managing student usage of these phenomena.
This study will employ the use of the student voice to examine the effect of student
use of online phenomena (e.g. Myspace, Facebook) on their educational and
developmental experiences, campus communities and the practice of student affairs.
In doing so, student affairs professionals can determine the best ways to interact with
online communities like they do with in-person communities. By gaining a better
understanding of the effects that online communities and online social networks
(OSN) have on college students’ experiences, student affairs professionals will have
a stronger sense of how to work with students in this new type of community. This
study will help student affairs professionals understand: 1) what online communities
and online social networks (OSN) are and how they function; 2) the role they play in
the student experience; and 3) how student affairs professionals should think about
how to interact with students using online communities.

255

Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the
following things:

Answer questions to the best of your ability. The focus group will be tape-
recorded. There are alternate arrangements that can be made should you choose not
to be recorded. Specifically, you will be excluded from the focus group, but will
have the opportunity to offer your input and responses directly to the researcher at a
separate time without being recorded. The questions to be asked will largely focus on
your experiences on Facebook.com, your perceptions of the benefits and risks of
using online social networks, and what role, if any, you think universities should
play in that phenomena.

Your focus group will take approximately 60-90 minutes. The investigator
may ask if you are willing to engage in a follow-up interview. That is entirely your
choice as well.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseen risks associated with participating in this study. You
may experience some discomfort at responding to the interview questions or you
may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to participate in the focus
group.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Apart from a more comprehensive understanding of some of the questions
associated with the usage of online social networking, you may not benefit from this
research study.

Universities, and society-at-large will gain greater understanding of what
students are doing online and why, as well as the student perception of the role
universities should play.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

256

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study that can
be identified with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify
you will not be collected during this research study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. As a participant in this
study, you may elect to review the audiotape or transcript of the focus group. Your
identity will be protected during the focus group as you will not be referred to by
name during the proceedings.
If you elect not to participate in the taped focus group session, you will be
excluded from the focus group. You will still have the opportunity to answer the
focus group questions in a separate session with the researcher. After the study is
completed, transcripts of the focus groups will be archived.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in
the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Scott Silverman, at his office, 951-827-3469, 145 Costo Hall, Riverside, CA.
92521.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of
your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights
as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

257

Appendix B: Individual Questionnaire for Focus Group Participants

Subject _____________ (to be filled out by researcher) Date _________

1. Class year? __________________

2. Major? _____________________________

3. Age? _______________

4. Do you regularly use e-mail? Yes No (circle one)

5. Do you regularly use instant messaging (AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, MSN)?

6. Please list the specific online communities/online social networks that you
participate in: (Facebook, Myspace, Xanga, Youtube, Blogger.com, others?)

7. Do you know anyone who has friends on one of the online social networks
(online communities) that are not friends in real life? If so, why do you think
people foster these types of friendships?

8. Are you aware of what you agreed to in the terms of use policies/user
agreements for Facebook and Myspace?
Here are a few samples:
• These sites claim ownership of any content you post, with the rights to
reproduce it at their discretion, until such time as you take the content down.
• If you post something that is libelous against another student, and that
student sues Facebook, you are 100% liable for any damages.
• Facebook and Myspace can change the user agreements at any time, for any
reason, without any notice. Continued usage of these communities indicates
ongoing agreement with whatever policy is in effect at the time of that usage.

What reactions do you have to these excerpted terms you’ve just read?
258

Appendix C: Student Focus Group Protocol
Good afternoon. I would like to thank you for participating in this focus group for
my research on the effects of online social networks (i.e. Facebook and Myspace) on
college student experiences. My name is Scott Silverman and I am a graduate
student in the Rossier School of Education pursuing a doctorate in Higher Education
Administration.
This study, which aims to understand the student perspective on online communities
included a survey that you did not need to complete in order to participate in this
focus group. My study’s purpose is to answer three important research questions:
1) How do students utilize Online Social Networks, and in what ways do
they engage with each other?
2) What do students feel are the benefits and drawbacks associated with
their usage of online communities and online social networks?
3) What are students’ attitudes and perceptions about staff and
administrator involvement in online social networks?

Questions for focus groups:

1. What do you use online social networks for? (RQ 1 and 2)
2. What role do online social networks play in your life and college
experience? Specifically, if you had to rate the use of Facebook on a scale of
1 to 10, with 10 being most important, how would you rate it? Is it “an
integral part of your socialization on campus”? If so, why? (RQ 1)
3. Do you see any drawbacks to this form of communication? What are those
drawbacks? (RQ 2)
4. Have you ever noticed content on Facebook, Myspace or other online social
networks that you or someone else may feel was inappropriate, illegal or a
violation of the student code of conduct? Please give examples. (RQ 2)
a. Why do you think you and your peers would be willing to post
content of questionable appropriateness so freely online? (RQ 2)
b. In light of that potentially inappropriate content, what is the
appropriate response to that content? (RQ 2)
c. What liability or level of responsibility does a university have for
content that students post? (RQ 3)
d. How should the University be involved, if at all? (RQ 3)
5. What is the difference between in-person communities (i.e. your school, your
neighborhood, your city, and other actual communities you identify with) and
online communities? (RQ 1)
6. Do you know if USC ever advertises on Facebook, Myspace or Youtube and
other online social networks? (RQ 3)
259

7. What is the difference in advertisements (i.e. Facebook flyers) from the
university and advertisements from businesses and companies, if any? (RQ3)
8. In what other ways is the university present within your online communities?
RQ3)
9. What level of advertising, marketing and event promotion/staff recruitment
from the university are you likely to be comfortable with within online social
networks? (RQ 3)
10. Is your university checking Facebook, Myspace or other profiles for potential
policy violations? Should the university be checking? Why or why not?
(RQ 3)
11. Many students completing the online survey have indicated that they believe
Facebook or Myspace to be private sites and that the university has no right
to look at what is posted there. Do you consider the Internet and anything
posted on it to be a public domain? (RQ 2 and 3)
a. Why might online content be seen as completely public domain? (RQ
2 and 3)
b. Why do you perceive it to be private content? (RQ 2 and 3)
c. Given that anything posted online is considered completely public
domain, what recommendations do you have to raise awareness of
this amongst your peers? (RQ 3)
12. What do you think the university could do to help educate students? What is
important to cover in any such education project? (RQ 3)
a. What might the university do to help students mitigate negative
aspects of their participation in online communities? (RQ 3)
b. What about to help students take responsibility for their own actions?
RQ 3)

Other questions
1. What other questions do you think that I should have asked in this research
study?
2. What questions do you have for me about this research so far?

260

Appendix D: Online Survey Protocol and Informed Consent

Thank you for clicking the survey link posted on Facebook. Your input on the
following survey will be invaluable for the research study I am conducting on the
effects of online communities on college student experiences. Your voice, and those
of your peers, will be my data. I encourage you to share this survey link with friends
of yours that use Facebook or other online communities/communication.

Please take the time to complete every question. I sincerely appreciate the time you
are taking to do this, and it will yield more productive results. There are less than 30
questions, and many of them are drop-down menus or short answer. Every answer
you give in detail will be important for my analysis. Thanks again, for completing
my survey.

Sincerely,

Scott C. Silverman, Ed.D Candidate

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Creating Community Online
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Scott C. Silverman,
Ed.D. Candidate, from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California because you indicated your desire to participate by clicking a link posted
on Facebook.com. The results of this study will be used in the completion of a
dissertation for the degree of Doctorate of Education. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because you use Facebook.com and responded to
the inquiry posted there.
You must be of at least 18 years of age. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this research study is to understand students’ perceptions about the
importance of online social networking, the benefits, drawbacks and uses of online
social networks, and their views on what role that colleges and universities should
play in these phenomena. This study will employ the use of the student voice to
examine the effect of student use of online phenomena (e.g. Facebook, Myspace, IM,
etc) on their educational and developmental experiences, campus communities and
the practice of student affairs. In doing so, student affairs professionals can
determine the best ways to interact with online communities like they do with in-
person communities. By gaining a better understanding of the effects that online
communities have on college students’ experiences, student affairs professionals will
have a stronger sense of how to work with students in this new type of community.
261

This study may help student affairs professionals understand: 1) what online
communities and online social networks are and how they function; 2) the role they
play in the student experience; and 3) how student affairs professionals should think
about how to interact with students using online communities.
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to complete the
following survey. The survey should take less than half an hour to complete. The
questions on the survey relate to your experiences with online communities,
including online social networking such as Facebook, Myspace, etc.
Additionally, if you indicate a willingness to do so by including your contact
information on the last question, you may also be asked to participate in a focus
group which will be tape-recorded. There are alternate arrangements that can be
made should you choose not to be recorded. Specifically, you will be excluded from
the focus group, but will have the opportunity to offer your input and responses
directly to the researcher at a separate time without being recorded. The questions to
be asked will largely focus on your experiences on Facebook.com, your perceptions
of the benefits and risks of using online social networks, and what role, if any, you
think universities should play in that phenomena.
The focus group will take approximately 60-90 minutes. The investigator may ask if
you are willing to engage in a follow-up interview. That is entirely your choice as
well.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Universities, and society-at-large will gain greater understanding of what students
are doing online and why, as well as the student perception of the role universities
should play.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study that can be
identified with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you
will not be collected during this research study.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. As a participant in this
study, you may elect to review the audiotape or transcript of the focus group. Your
identity will be protected during the focus group as you will not be referred to by
name during the proceedings.
If you elect not to participate in the taped focus group session, you will be excluded
from the focus group. You will still have the opportunity to answer the focus group
262

questions in a separate session with the researcher. After the study is completed,
transcripts of the focus groups will be archived.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Scott Silverman, at his office, 951-827-3469, scotts@ucr.edu, 145 Costo Hall,
Riverside, CA. 92521.

BY CLICKING "NEXT" BELOW, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO PARTICIPATE
IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY

Survey Questions
1. Do you use Facebook, Myspace or any other online social networks? [An online
social network is any web-based venue for social networking between individuals,
including instant messenger programs, blogs (web logs), Facebook, Myspace,
Friendster, Youtube, etc.]

2. If you have used any particular site or program in the past and are no longer doing
so, please tell me why you stopped using that site/program. If not, please write N/A

3. In a few sentences or less, please tell me more about your usage of Facebook,
Myspace or other online communities.

• How will your participation in/usage of online communities change over time?
• Is this just a college phenomenon?
• What is the benefit you receive from using online communities?
• How do online student-to-student interactions differ from in-person?
• How do online student-to-staff interactions differ from in-person interactions?

4. Which of the following statements best describes how you use Facebook,
Myspace and other online social networks? (you may select more than one)

• I use them to keep in touch with old and current friends, as well as make new ones.
• I only use these online social networks to keep in touch with old friends.
263

• I like using Facebook, Myspace and others as online directories of my peers, but I
have not sought out old friends on it.
• I registered because my friends kept pressing me to do so, but I do not use it that
much.
• I post pictures, videos, and journals/blogs as a way to express myself and share my
life and experiences with friends/others.
• Other (please specify)

5. How does your participation in online social networks such as Facebook or
Myspace differ from your participation in online academic portals such as
Blackboard or WebCT? (You may select more than one)

• Online social networks and online academic portals have nothing to do with each
other. My schoolwork and my social life are unrelated.
• I see them as equally important to my college experiences and lifelong success.
• Facebook (and others) help me connect to classmates that I may not otherwise
have contact with, and that has helped my academic performance.
• Please include your own response here

6. Please indicate which online social networks you participate in and add any that
are missing (Select all that apply):

• Facebook, Myspace, Xanga, Friendster, Classmates.com
• eJournal, LiveJournal, Blogger.com
• Flickr, Youtube, Photobucket
• AOL, Yahoo, MSN and other Instant Messenger programs
• Online Dating Sites (match.com, eharmony.com, etc)
• If there are any others I missed from within the above clusters or other online
communities/social networks in general, please include them here:

7. For each of the features of online social networks, or how they are used, below,
please indicate the first statement that pops into your head. Please note that while the
features I highlight are specific to Facebook, other online social networks often have
similar features.

• Facebook Friends
• "Pokes"
• Messages
• Wall-to-Wall
• Facebook Notes
• Status Updates
264

• News-Feed and Mini-Feed
• "Share's"
• Photo Tagging
• Merging High School, College and beyond networks
• Facebook Flyers
• Events
• Facebook Groups
• AIM message forwarding
• Commercial Advertisements
• Inappropriate Content
• Universities following up on complaints, conduct code violations found on
Facebook
• Potential Employers Reviewing Facebook before making hiring decisions
• Privacy concerns, Facebook is public information
• Messages, Pokes and Friend Requests from people you don't know

8. How do you think that participating in online social networks affects your college
experiences?

9. What are the positive and negative effects that online social networks have on
college student experiences? Please indicate which effects are positive, which are
negative and explain why you think that is so.
10. How do online social networks differ from in-person social networks? In what
ways are your in-person and online social networks comparable? Do you interact the
same way online or off-line?

11. Which of the following statements best describes your opinion on the benefits
and drawbacks of participating in online communities? (Select all that apply)

• I have never thought about it that way.
• I am very glad that these online social networks exist. I could not imagine my life
without them.
• I know there are some concerns about Facebook and Myspace, but that does not
affect me at all.
• I know there are both benefits and drawbacks, but the benefits outweigh the
drawbacks.
• I am very concerned about what happens within online social networks. I am very
careful about my own participation.
• Other (please specify)

265

12. Please answer this question for each of the following acts, behaviors or
observations on online social networks like Facebook or Myspace. How often have
you either experienced, or heard of the following acts occurring, within the online
social networks you participate in? You may select more than one answer per row.

o Myself
o My friends
o I've heard about this happening at my school.
o I've heard about this happening at other schools.
o I have never heard of this happening.

• The mini-feed feature causing problems between people, or displaying too much
information for everyone to see.
• Offensive images/pictures (discriminatory or hatred).
• Pictures of underage drinking or illegal drug use cause problems with the
University.
• Pictures of nudity/lewd conduct cause problems with others or the University.
• Someone gets in trouble with others or from the University due to inappropriate or
offensive messages that were posted.
• Experienced identity theft or stalking.
• Someone is denied a job application, internship or scholarship based on their
online content/page.
• Spam and junk email or messages; fake people/profiles.
• Unwanted contact from people within or outside their network.

13. Please discuss any specific examples of content you came across in one of your
online social networks (Facebook, Myspace or others). What are the most concerning
issues you see with regards to online social networks?

14. Please answer this question for each of the following acts, behaviors or
observations on online social networks like Facebook or Myspace. How often have
you either experienced, or heard of the following acts occurring, within the online
social networks you participate in? You may select more than one answer per row.

o Myself
o My friends
o I've heard about this happening at my school.
o I've heard about this happening at other schools.
o I have never heard of this happening.

• Getting help in a class from someone else in the class.
• Reminders of friends’ birthdays.
266

• Keeping in Touch with friends.
• Status updates on your friends.
• Meeting new people, Finding new friends.
• Joining new student organizations.
• Getting involved in campus activities.
• Creating "events" and tracking RSVPs.
• Sharing personal experiences through blogs/notes.
• Find out common interests between you and someone you just met.
• Seeing pictures of your friends and self.

15. Can you identify any other specific benefits associated with student-to-student
interactions within online social networks? If not, please write N/A.

16. If there is anything else that you want university administrators to know about
student participation in online communities and online social networks, please
include that here. If not, please write N/A.

17. Assuming there are significant concerns related to what happens within online
social networks, do you think the university should (Select all that apply):

• Educate students about how to minimize negative consequences of their online
activities.
• Participate in and monitor online social networks being trafficked frequently by
students.
• Work with the staff and managers of Facebook and Myspace, for example, to
suggest changes to reduce the risks.
• Do nothing, as I believe the university has no place and no interest within my
online social networks.
• Do nothing, as I feel we are mature enough to make our own decisions about what
we choose to do or say online.

18. What interventions has your university implemented to educate students about
the benefits and drawbacks of online social networking?

19. What are some possible approaches the university might take to educate students
about the issues of concern? What are additional steps the university might take to
educate students about the benefits and drawbacks of online social networking?

20. Do you know whether or not your university has any policy of when to review
students' online content and what to do about it? What information can you provide
about that formal or informal policy?
267

21. The following are types and descriptions of student organizations typically found
on college campuses. Please use these categories to answer the questions below. 1)
Academic/Professional, 2) Arts, Entertainment & Publications, 3)
Fraternity/Sorority, 4) Governance/Advisory Boards, 5) Honorary/Honor Society, 6)
International Cultural, 7) National Cultural, 8) Political, 9) Recreational, 10) Service,
11) Social Issue, 12) Special Interest, 13) Spiritual/Religious -------courtesy of
Student Life at the University of California, Riverside, www.studentlife.ucr.edu

• What types of "in-person" organizations are you a part of?
• What types of "online" groups are you a part of?
• Are these online groups just "for fun", or do they have a purpose or cause? If some
of your groups are just online versions of in-person groups, mention that here too.
• How do the functions and operations of the online groups differ from in-person
counterparts? What is their purpose online?
• For the groups you are in that are only online, what do you get out of participating
in them?

22. Your university likely supports a number of "in-person" communities, including,
but not limited to: student organizations, residence halls, classes, athletics, learning
communities, peer mentors, etc. The support the university provides is often in the
form of financial and programming resources, space to conduct activities, advice,
counsel, and more. Usually, one of the university's aims is to promote the personal
growth and development of its students, and sees these various communities of
students as helping to achieve that. Within online communities, there are often
subgroups that reflect the in-person on-campus groups. There are also separate and
distinct groups that exist only online. In what ways might your university be able to
support online social networking communities in comparable fashion to the support
of the in-person communities that exist on campus? In what ways may these online
communities help achieve the student personal growth and development goals?
23. What is the name of your institution? Please do not use acronyms, spell out the
full name.

24. Please answer the following set of questions about your university.
Number of Students (include Undergraduates and Graduates)
Less than 2,500 students
2,500-4,999 students
5,000-9,999 students
10,000-19,999 students
20,000-30,000 students
More than 30,000 students
Public/Private?
268

Public Institution
Private Institution
Does any university official (staff person) interact using online
communities or Instant Messaging?
Yes
No
I'm not sure
Do you think the university should interact using online communities
or Instant Messaging?
Yes, it's an effective means to communicate with students
Maybe, but I don't see why they would want to
No, I don't want the university to have an online presence

25. Have you ever been advised to edit/review your profile to remove content or
adjust privacy settings to minimize your exposure? If so, who advised you to do so
(select all that apply)? If you then revised/edited your profile, please indicate that
accordingly.
What material was the advice about?

a. Remove Questionable Content
b. Adjust Privacy Settings
c. Reduce personal information
All three of the above
Only a and b
Only a and c
Only b and c
No, this has not happened

General seminar or program
Staff-in response to seeing content
Family
Friends
Potential employer
Your organization's headquarters
You reviewing your own profile

Was the change or modification a directive or suggestion?

"You must do this or get in trouble" "You're in trouble, now fix this"
"Be careful about what you post" "This violates our code of conduct"
Not applicable Response
269

General seminar or program
Staff-in response to seeing content
Family
Friends
Potential employer
Your organization's headquarters
You reviewing your own profile

Did you make the recommended adjustments?

Yes No Not applicable Response

General seminar or program
Staff-in response to seeing content
Family
Friends
Potential employer
Your organization's headquarters
You reviewing your own profile

Did you change your settings?
Yes No Not applicable Response

General seminar or program
Staff-in response to seeing content
Family
Friends
Potential employer
Your organization's headquarters
You reviewing your own profile

26. If there is anything else about your use of online communities, such as Facebook
or Myspace, or Instant Messaging programs, or the phenomena in general, that you
would like to share, please do so in the field below. This may include: why you
changed/edited content in your profile if someone suggested you to do so, and if you
might do so now that you've completed this survey.
All of your opinions, comments and input about online communities and online
social networks that you feel are not yet covered in the questions already asked,
should be included here.
270

27. How many hours per week do you spend on the following activities:
0-4 hours 5-10 hours 11-15 hours 16-20 hours +20 hours
Using the Internet
Online Communities (i.e. Facebook, IM, etc.)
Interacting with friends in-person
Class
Work
Other Recreational Activities

28. The next few questions will be about your particular student experience. Please
indicate your responses below. Please indicate which of the following descriptions
best apply to your student experience. Please select ALL that apply for Last
academic year and for this academic year.
Class Year: First Year (Freshman), Sophomore, Junior, Senior, 5th year Senior,
Graduate Student, (not enrolled in college)
Grade Point Average: 0-1.99, 2.00-2.49, 2.50-2.99, 3.00-3.49, 3.50-4.00
Residence: I live on campus (Res. Halls), Off-campus (within 3 miles), Commuter
(over 3 miles), (not enrolled in college)
How involved/engaged are you in campus life?
I do not participate in any activities/events.
I participate in a few activities and attend some events.
I participate moderately in a number of activities and events.
I am an active participant in many areas of campus life.

29. For each category below, please indicate the response that best categorizes your
identity.
Ethnicity: Chicano/Latino, African-American, Native American/Alaska Native,
Asian Pacific Islander, Asian Indian, Caucasian, Mixed Race, Other, Prefer not to
answer
Gender: Female, Male, Prefer not to answer
Age: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25+

30. Please include your email address and/or phone number if you are interested in
potential follow-up questions (that will not be linked to your previously submitted
answers) or a Focus group on your campus.

271

Appendix E. Other Interesting Findings
There were a number of interesting findings that do not directly address any
of the three research questions but still seemed important to mention, albeit briefly.
Do you know anyone who has friends on one of the online social networks (online
communities) that are not friends in real life? If so, why do you think people foster these types
of friendships?
Yes I know someone (or myself) who has online friends that
are not real-life friends
43 (100%)
Are you aware of what you agreed to in the terms of use policies/user agreements for Facebook
and Myspace?
These sites claim ownership of any content you post, with the rights to reproduce it at their
discretion, until such time as you take the content down.
If you post something that is libelous against another student, and that student sues Facebook, you
are 100% liable for any damages.
Facebook and Myspace can change the user agreements at any time, for any reason, without any
notice. Continued usage of these communities indicates ongoing agreement with whatever policy is
in effect at the time of that usage.
I am aware of these
terms 4 (9.3%)
I think I may have heard about
this 6 (14%)
I am unaware of these terms
33 (76.7%)
Is this just a college phenomenon?
Not just a college
phenomenon
224 (61.4%)
This is just a college
phenomenon
93 (25.5%)
Probably a college
phenomenon
40 (11%)
Unclear or
Unknown
8 (2.2%)
Table X. Other Interesting Findings from Focus Group and Survey Data

Focus group participants all stated that they know someone who has friends
on any of the online social networks that are not friends in real life. When asked why
people might foster these types of friendships, typical responses included: “logging
additional friends” to be seen as more popular, or because “there are things they have
in common”. Others cited the lesser risk involved in communicating and reaching
out online versus in-person. A few respondents said that they add casual contacts so
that they can “find out information about people before meeting them” and “network
with people you think are interesting”. One respondent, a female junior majoring in
political science, said that the reason why people have friends on Facebook that are
272

not friends in real life is because “people somehow feel the need to have as many
friends as possible. I think people also do it in order to have class contacts or to be
associated with people who are in the same social group but who do not know each
other.” Interestingly, most focus group participants used terms like “online-only
connections” or “acquaintances” in place of “friendships” to symbolize a perceived
or actual distinction.
Participants were also asked to read a sample from the Terms of Use and
User Agreements of Facebook, Myspace and some other online social networks. Not
surprisingly, only four respondents claimed to have been aware of these selected
policies prior to reading them on the questionnaire. The overwhelming majority were
not really aware of these policies and issues. Perhaps it is because users tend to
“click ‘accept’ to the terms of use / user agreement without reading the contract,”
because they want to use the site regardless of the costs involved (Focus Group VI
participant). This theme was echoed throughout other focus groups as well, the
respondents implying that from the student perspective, the benefits of using these
online social networks outweigh the drawbacks. Some students at least, think that the
OSNs do not care about the users of their online communities as long as they get the
revenue from advertising that they need to operate.
Most responded that they were not happy with those terms but they
acknowledge why the online social networks themselves would implement such
policies. One respondent, a female senior from focus group VI majoring in business
273

administration, said “Horrid, horrid people…but it’s logical, people should be held
accountable for their own actions. Facebook is its own world. You cannot sue God or
Allah for giving someone vocal ability.”
Survey participants were posed with a series of features or functions of online
social networks, some specifically themed to Facebook for clarity, and asked to
indicate the first statement that they thought of when looking at each feature. In
many respects, this can functionally be compared to the psychologist Rorschach’s
“Ink Blot” test where a subject will see an image and comment on what it makes her
or him think of. This was an interesting technique, and garnered hundreds of
responses for each of 20 different components, to lay a foundation and base of
knowledge for these functions. These findings do not directly answer the three
research questions of this study, but the responses were intriguing. Most notably, on
the prompt for “Facebook Friends” a lot of responses were the actual number of
friends in the respondents’ friend’s list, speaking to the ego effect.
Although most students surveyed acknowledge that OSNs are not just a
college phenomenon, many expressed a desire for at least Facebook to revert back to
exclusively college students. Facebook recently opened its systems up for users not
currently affiliated with a college (i.e. High Schools, Corporations and opening up its
systems for the public-at-large), and most college users of Facebook were opposed to
that decision. A number of these respondents also said that some of the features that
make it popular (group affiliation, communicating with others, sharing information
274

and pictures about events and keeping in touch with people) make them beneficial
resources for all, not just for students.
Generally, students participating in these focus groups perceive that their
peers do not believe their current actions within online social networks will have any
long-term effects or implications on their lives or futures. This is identified as a
primary reason why students would be willing to post content of questionable
appropriateness. Occasionally, participants felt that this is because at least Facebook
used to be a much smaller potential network, and thus students were not concerned
“since it started off in such a safe environment, students continue to feel that it’s a
safe environment,” (Focus Group I). Survey respondents repeatedly echoed this
sentiment. Effectively, students are not concerned about other students interacting
with them and their content as much as they are concerned with non-students
viewing their online content and profile.
A second, and largely related, reason why students are willing to post
potentially questionable content is that by doing so they can boost their status and
ego. One respondent from Focus Group VI generally thought that people are naïve
about the content that they post, failing “to acknowledge the amount of people who
have access to their information. You think, oh, only USC people can see my profile.
It’s also the age we’re at, where people don’t realize the risks or drawbacks.”
Perhaps the most poignant response came from Focus Group III, the first one at the
JEP House, when a female junior said, “You don’t (sic) think of the negatives, you
275

just think of the positives.” This line of thought was echoed by many survey
respondents and focus group participants, who expressed that apart from occasional
stories in the news media, and this focus group, they had not heard of any concerns
related to the use of online social networks, nor of any means to adjust privacy or
other settings. During the second and third focus group at the JEP House, many of
the participants from earlier focus groups stopped by to mention how they had
logged into Facebook and Myspace to adjust their settings as a result of the focus
group discussion they had participated in.
Focus group participants expressed some level of difference in their
responses to what the appropriate response to inappropriate content might be, and
who should be making that response. Some participants felt that there does not need
to be an external response. This is consistent with the beliefs espoused by Facebook
creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who believes that students will monitor their
own and each other’s content and will self-regulate the online social networks. A
majority of students participating in this study agreed with this sentiment that
students should themselves be responsible and held accountable for what they post.
This does not necessarily preclude responses by others, as the survey and focus
group data both show that students are somewhat receptive to hearing from their
friends or family that they may want to edit the content they have posted.
There was limited discussion as to the role that the websites themselves
should play in reviewing or monitoring content and removing content when it is
276

reported or discovered. A number of responses were similar to this one from Focus
Group VI, “if you look at [online social networks] as a public space, the rules that
apply are based on appropriateness,” and each website is responsible for keeping out
inappropriate content. Some thought that OSNs should add more disclaimers to their
user agreements or as participant VIC said that “Facebook needs to take more
responsibility to mitigate negative effects of these online social networks. I feel that
one day they’ll face a huge lawsuit and be forced to educate their users.” This would
likely necessitate a revamp of their user account creation system to educate new
users more (Focus Group Participant VIB). However, a majority of survey
respondents expressed concerns that any additional education conducted by
Facebook or Myspace or other OSN developers may not be trustworthy, indicating
that they would prefer education provided by a non-biased third party.
In addition, some focus group participants brought up the idea of university
involvement in responding to potentially inappropriate content. While this possibility
was a contentious point that echoed through additional discussion in the focus groups
and as part of the online survey, the more that these students discussed when and
how it might be appropriate or necessary for the university to be involved, the
warmer that possibility was received.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How college students use online social networks to gather information

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

Understanding the effects of the Clery Act on college students' behaviors: how can student affairs professionals change the current practices of college students with regard to safety

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

Discovering the sources of impact of college on LGBTQ students' identity development and mapping those experiences

PDF

Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students

PDF

Benefits of social networking in online social support groups

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

Student perspectives on identity development: describing the experiences sorority members perceive influenced their identity

PDF

Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college

PDF

The patterns, effects and evolution of player social networks in online gaming communities

PDF

The sources of impact in college on gay male student identity: the current student perspective

PDF

Perspectives of Native American community college students

PDF

Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework

PDF

Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

“Ask a lot of questions and hope you meet the right people”: a case study analyzing the transition experience of community college transfer students involved in the transfer program at a selectiv...

PDF

Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

The sources of impact on first-generation Latino college students' identity development: from the students' perspective

Asset Metadata

Creator Silverman, Scott Charles (author)

Core Title Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 10/12/2007

Defense Date 09/06/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag campus culture,Communication,facebook,involvement,millenials,myspace,OAI-PMH Harvest,online,online community,online social network,social network,student affairs,student development,Technology,transitions

Language English

Advisor Jackson, Michael L. (committee chair), Cole, Jeffrey (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member), Tuitt, Donahue (committee member)

Creator Email ssilverm@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m848

Unique identifier UC1200035

Identifier etd-Silverman-20071012 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-587948 (legacy record id),usctheses-m848 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Silverman-20071012.pdf

Dmrecord 587948

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Silverman, Scott Charles

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu