skip to main content
10.1145/2145204.2145275acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Social transparency in networked information exchange: a theoretical framework

Published: 11 February 2012 Publication History

Abstract

An emerging Internet trend is greater social transparency, such as the use of real names in social networking sites, feeds of friends' activities, traces of others' re-use of content, and visualizations of team interactions. Researchers lack a systematic way to conceptualize and evaluate social transparency. The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for thinking about social transparency. This framework builds upon multiple streams of research, including prior work in CSCW on social translucence, awareness, and visual analytics, to describe three dimensions of online behavior that can be made transparent. Based on the framework, we consider the social inferences transparency supports and introduce a set of research questions about social transparency's implications for computer-supported collaborative work and information exchange.

References

[1]
Bardram, J.E. and Hansen, T.R. The AWARE architecture: Supporting context-mediated social awareness in mobile cooperation. CSCW 2004, (2004), 192--201.
[2]
Barley, S.R., Meyerson, D.E., and Grodal, S. E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science 22 (2010), 887--906.
[3]
Barnlund, D.C. and Harland, C. Propinquity and prestige as determinants of communication networks. Sociometry 26, 4 (1963), 467--479.
[4]
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. J. of Consumer Research 9, 2 (1982), 183--194.
[5]
Bernstein, M., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Harry, D., Andre, P., Panovich, K., and Vargas, G. 4chan and /b/: An analysis of anonymity and ephemerality in a large online community. ICWSM, AAAI (2011).
[6]
Boh, W. Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization 17, 1 (2007), 27--58.
[7]
Boh, W.F. Reuse of knowledge assets from repositories: A mixed methods study. Information & Management 45, (2008), 365--375.
[8]
Borgatti, S.P. and Halgin, D.S. On network theory. Organization Science, 1--14.
[9]
Bourdieu, P. Le capital social: Notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 31, (1980), 2--3.
[10]
Butler, D. Computing giants launch free science metrics. Nature (2011).
[11]
Cascio, W.F. Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive 14, 3 (2000), 81--90.
[12]
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M.P., and Sacchi, S. I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 2 (2002), 135--143.
[13]
Cialdini, R.B. and Goldstein, N.J. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Ann. Rev. Psych. 55, 1974 (2004), 591--621.
[14]
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., and Kallgren, C.A. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 6 (1990), 1015--1026.
[15]
Clark, H.H. and Brennan, S.E. Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine and S.D. Teasley, eds., Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association, 1991, 127--149.
[16]
Clifford, S. Will Google's Chrome help or hurt advertisers? The New York Times, 9/3. 2008.
[17]
Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M., and Valacich, J.S. Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science 36, 6 (1990), 689--703.
[18]
Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Kiesler, S., Terveen, L., and Riedl, J. How oversight improves member-maintained communities. CHI 2005 (2005), 11.
[19]
Cramton, C.D. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science 12, 3 (2001), 346--371.
[20]
Cranor, L. Internet privacy, a public concern. Networker June/July, (1998), 13--18.
[21]
Cummings, J. Geography is alive and well in virtual teams. Comm. of the ACM 54, (2011), 24--26.
[22]
Dahl, S. Turnitin(R): The student perspective on using plagiarism detection software. Active Learning in Higher Education 8, 2 (2007), 173--191.
[23]
Dourish, P. and Bellotti, V. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. CSCW 1992 (1992), 107--114.
[24]
Ellison, N., Heino, R., and Gibbs, J. Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. J. Comp.-Med. Comm. (2006).
[25]
Erickson, T. and Kellogg, W.A. Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. CHI 2000, (2000), 59--83.
[26]
Geambasu, R., Kohno, T., Levy, A.A., and Levy, H.M. Vanish: Increasing data privacy with self-destructing data. Usenix Security Symposium, USENIX (2009), 299--316.
[27]
Gentzkow, M. and Shapiro, J.M. Ideological segregation online and offline. NBER WP 15916, (2010).
[28]
Gilbertson, S. Google Hotpot smartens up local search, but it's no Yelp killer. Wired (2010).
[29]
Godefroid, P., Herbsleb, J., Jagadeesany, L., and Li, D. Ensuring privacy in presence awareness: An automated verification approach. CSCW 2000 (2000), 59--68.
[30]
Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., and Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research 35, 3 (2008), 472--482.
[31]
Granovetter, M.S. The strength of weak ties. American J. of Sociology 78, 6 (1973), 1360--1380.
[32]
Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S. A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. CSCW 2002 11, 3 (2002), 411--446.
[33]
Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S., and Roseman, M. Workspace awareness in real-time distributed groupware: Framework, widgets, and evaluation. CHI 1996, (1996), 281--298.
[34]
Guy, I., Jacovi, M., Perer, A., Ronen, I., and Uziel, E. Same places, same things, same people? Mining user similarity on social media. CSCW 2010, (2010), 41--50.
[35]
Hinds, P.J. and Mortensen, M. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science 16, (2005), 290--307.
[36]
Hintzman, D.L. Research strategy in the study of memory: Fads, fallacies, and the search for the coordinates of truth. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 3 (2011), 253--271.
[37]
Karau, S.J. and Williams, K.D. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. J. of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 4 (1993), 681.
[38]
Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 1 (1992), 96--123.
[39]
Kilduff, M. and Krackhardt, D. Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 37, 1 (1994), 87--108.
[40]
Kittur, A., Suh, B., Chi, E.H., and Alto, P. Can you ever trust a Wiki? Impacting perceived trustworthiness in Wikipedia. CSCW 2008, (2008), 7--10.
[41]
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3, 3 (1992), 383--397.
[42]
Kraut, R.E., Burke, M., Riedl, J., and Resnick, P. Dealing with newcomers. In R.E. Kraut and P. Resnick, eds. Evidence-based social design: Mining the social sciences to build online communities. MIT Press, 2012.
[43]
Krishnamurthy, B., Naryshkin, K., and Wills, C. Privacy leakage vs. protection measures: The growing disconnect. Web 2.0 Security and Privacy Wksp, (2011).
[44]
Lampe, C. and Resnick, P. Slash (dot) and burn: Distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. CHI 2004, (2004), 543--550.
[45]
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., and Steinfield, C. A familiar face(book): Profile elements as signals in an online social network. CHI 2007, (2007), 435--444.
[46]
Lerman, K. and Jones, L. Social browsing on Flickr. Proc.of Internatl. Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media, arxiv.org (2006).
[47]
Madrigal, A. Why Facebook and Google's concept of "real names" is revolutionary. The Atlantic, 2011. http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/why-facebook-and-googles-concept-of-real-names-is-revolutionary/243171.
[48]
Marwick, A.E. and boyd, D. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13, (2010), 114--133.
[49]
Mas, A. and Moretti, E. Peers at work. American Economic Review 99, 1 (2009), 112--145.
[50]
McFarlane, D. and Latorella, K. The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. HCI, 17, 1 (2002), 1--61.
[51]
McKenna, K.Y.A. and Bargh, J.A. Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity demarginalization through virtual group participation. J. of Personality and Social Psychology 75, 3 (1998), 681--694.
[52]
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Cook, J.M. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Ann. Rev. of Sociology 27, 1 (2001), 415--444.
[53]
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., and McCann, R.M. Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Communication Yearbook. L. Erlbaum, 2003, 293--335.
[54]
Nagarajan, M., Purohit, H., and Sheth, A. A qualitative examination of topical tweet and retweet practices. AAAI Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media, (2010), 295--298.
[55]
Nonnecke, B., East, K.S., and Preece, J. Why lurkers lurk. Americas Conf. on Information Systems, (2001), 1--10.
[56]
Nonnecke, B., Preece, J., and Andrews, D. What lurkers and posters think of each other. Proc. of the International Conference on System Sciences, (2004), 1--9.
[57]
Ogawa, M. and Ma, K.-L. Code Swarm: A design study in organic software visualization. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Comp.Graphics 15, 6 (2009), 1097--1104.
[58]
Ogawa, M. and Ma, K.-L. code_swarm: A design study in organic software visualization. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Comp. Graphics 15 (2009), 1097--1104.
[59]
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. Computational Linguistics, (2011), 309--319.
[60]
Ren, Y., Kraut, R., and Kiesler, S. Encouraging commitment in online communities. In R. Kraut and P. Resnick, eds. Evidence-based social design: Mining the social sciences to build online communities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 2012.
[61]
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., and Friedman, E. Reputation systems. Comm. of the ACM 43, 12 (2000), 45--48.
[62]
Rieh, S.Y. and Danielson, D.R. Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41, 1 (2007), 307--364.
[63]
Rogers, E. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.1995.
[64]
Salganik, M.J., Dodds, P.S., and Watts, D.J. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 5762 (2006), 854--856.
[65]
Sassenberg, K. and Postmes, T. Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. British J. of Social Psychology 41, (2002), 463--80.
[66]
Scupelli, P., Kiesler, S., and Fussell, S.R. Project view IM: A tool for juggling multiple projects and teams. CHI 2005, (2005), 1773.
[67]
Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27, 1928 (1948), 379--423.
[68]
Shklovski, I. and Kotamraju, N. Online contribution practices in countries that engage in Internet blocking and censorship. CHI 2011, (2011), 1109--1118.
[69]
Simmel, G. Individual and society. In K. Wolff, ed., The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Free Press, 1950, 145--169.
[70]
Solano, C.H. and Dunnam, M. Two's company: Self-disclosure in triads versus dyads. Social Psychology Quarterly 48, 2 (1985), 183--187.
[71]
Souza, C.R.B. De, Redmiles, D., and Dourish, P. "Breaking the code," moving between private and public work in collaborative software development. Proc. of ACM SIGGROUP (2003), 105--114.
[72]
Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. MIT Press, 1992.
[73]
Steel, E. and Fowler, G. Facebook in privacy breach. Wall Street Journal, 2010.
[74]
Suh, B., Chi, E.H., Kittur, A., and Pendleton, B.A. Lifting the veil: Improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard. CHI 2008, (2008), 1037--1040.
[75]
Thompson, L.F., Sebastianelli, J.D., and Murray, N.P. Monitoring online training behaviors: Awareness of electronic surveillance hinders e-learners. J. of Applied Social Psychology 39, (2009), 2191--2212.
[76]
Treude, C. and Storey, M.-A. Awareness 2.0: Staying aware of projects, developers and tasks using dashboards and feeds. Work, ACM (2010), 365--374.
[77]
Viégas, F.B., Wattenberg, M., and Dave, K. Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. CHI 2004 (2004), 575--582.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Human‐centered explainable artificial intelligenceJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2488976:1(98-120)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2024
  • (2023)The role of social media in news avoidance: A cognitive load and technology affordance perspectiveProceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management10.1145/3584871.3584912(280-285)Online publication date: 31-Jan-2023
  • (2023)The Value of Activity Traces in Peer Evaluations: An Experimental StudyProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35796277:CSCW1(1-39)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Social transparency in networked information exchange: a theoretical framework

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CSCW '12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
    February 2012
    1460 pages
    ISBN:9781450310864
    DOI:10.1145/2145204
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 11 February 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. awareness
    2. collaboration
    3. information exchange
    4. innovation
    5. social translucence
    6. social transparency
    7. theory
    8. visualizations

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CSCW '12
    Sponsor:
    CSCW '12: Computer Supported Cooperative Work
    February 11 - 15, 2012
    Washington, Seattle, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    CSCW '12 Paper Acceptance Rate 164 of 415 submissions, 40%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

    Upcoming Conference

    CSCW '25

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)127
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Human‐centered explainable artificial intelligenceJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2488976:1(98-120)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2024
    • (2023)The role of social media in news avoidance: A cognitive load and technology affordance perspectiveProceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management10.1145/3584871.3584912(280-285)Online publication date: 31-Jan-2023
    • (2023)The Value of Activity Traces in Peer Evaluations: An Experimental StudyProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35796277:CSCW1(1-39)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Farm to Table: Understanding Collaboration and Information Practices among Stakeholders in the Process of Produce Production, Sales, and ConsumptionProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35794867:CSCW1(1-29)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Transparency experience in remote teamwork – a sociomaterial approachBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2023.2260910(1-26)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Limited engagement of SMEs with social media: A structuration and sensemaking perspectiveInformation & Management10.1016/j.im.2023.10385360:7(103853)Online publication date: Nov-2023
    • (2023)A New Framework for Evaluating Social Transparency Factors and Personal Brands in Social NetworksSocial Indicators Research10.1007/s11205-023-03289-1171:2(701-728)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2023
    • (2022)Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based DesignProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces10.1145/3490099.3511119(212-228)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
    • (2022)An experimental study of tie transparency and individual perception in social networksProceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences10.1098/rspa.2021.0744478:2258Online publication date: 23-Feb-2022
    • (2022)Exploring How Workspace Awareness Cues Affect Distributed Meeting OutcomeInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2022.206406339:8(1606-1625)Online publication date: 24-Apr-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media