Group privacy management strategies and challenges in Facebook: A focus group study among Flemish youth organizations

Ralf De Wolf

doi:10.5817/CP2016-1-5

Group privacy management strategies and challenges in Facebook: A focus group study among Flemish youth organizations

Vol.10,No.1(2016)
Special issue: Online Self-disclosure and Privacy

Ralf De Wolf

https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-1-5

How to Cite:

De Wolf, R. (2016). Group privacy management strategies and challenges in Facebook: A focus group study among Flemish youth organizations. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-1-5

PDF

Abstract

A large body of research has studied young people’s privacy practices and needs in Facebook. Less is known about group privacy. In this study 12 focus groups were organized with a total of 78 adolescents and young adults of local Flemish youth organizations to discuss their privacy practices. Findings describe how different strategies are used to coordinate the group information flow. The study also shows how online group privacy management can be challenging because ‘implicit’ privacy rules need to be made ‘explicit’, personal boundaries may conflict with those of the group one belongs to and privacy turbulence is difficult to define.

Keywords:
Privacy; boundary coordination; group; focus groups; communication privacy management; qualitative; Facebook

Author biography

Ralf De Wolf

Ralf De Wolf is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Ghent and project coordinator of the AdLit project (www.AdLit.be). Ralf holds a master in Sociology (UGent) and a PhD in Media and Communication Studies (VUB). He started his career at iMinds-SMIT, where he studied the social aspects of online privacy and security in the context of social network services. His current work focuses on advertising literacy and privacy management.

References

Bernstein, M. S., Bakshy, E., Burke, M., & Karrer, B. (2013). Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 21–30). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470658

boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). New York: Routledge.

boyd, d., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i8.3086

boyd, d., & Marwick, A. E. (2011). Social privacy in networked publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1925128). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1925128

Coussée, F. (2006). De Pedagogiek Van Het Jeugdwerk [The pedagogy of youth work]. Gent: Academia Press.

De Wolf, R., Willaert, K., & Pierson, J. (2014). Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring individual and group privacy management strategies in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.010

Gibson, J. (2012). Interviews and focus groups with children: Methods that match children’s developing competencies. Journal of Family theory and Review, 4, 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00119.x

Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893

Kramer-Duffield, J. (2010). Beliefs and uses of tagging among undergraduates. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Lampinen, A., Lehtinen, V., Lehmuskallio, A., & Tamminen, S. (2011). We’re in it together: Interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3217–3226). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979420

Litt, E. (2012). Knock, Knock. who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56, 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705195

Litt, E. (2013). Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1649–1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.049

Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2014). A bumpy ride on the information superhighway: Exploring turbulence online. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.027

Litt, E., Spottswood, E., Birnholtz, J., Hancock, J. T., Smith, M. E., & Reynolds, L. (2014). Awkward Encounters of an “other” kind: Collective self-presentation and face threat on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 449–460). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531646

Madden, M. (2012). Privacy management on social media sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://pewinternet. org/Reports/2012/Privacy-management-on-social-media.aspx

Markham, A. (2013). Remix cultures, remix methods: reframing qualitative inquiry for social media contexts. In N. Denzin & M. Giardina (Eds.), Global dimensions of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 63–81.

Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16, 1051-1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543995

Nissenbaum, H. F. (2010.). Privacy in context : Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Page, X., Kobsa, A., & Knijnenburg, B. P. (2012). Don’t Disturb my circles! Boundary preservation is at the center of location-sharing concerns. In Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM12/paper/view/4679

Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Stutzman, F. & Hartzog, W. (2012). Boundary regulation in social media. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 769-778). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145320

Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732140

Vitak, J., & Kim, J. (2014). “You can’t block people offline”: Examining how Facebook’s affordances shape the disclosure process. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 461–474). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531672

Wang, Y., Norcie, G., Komanduri, S., Acquisti, A., Leon, P. G., & Cranor, L. F. (2011). “I regretted the minute i pressed share”: A qualitative study of regrets on Facebook. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp. 10:1–10:16). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2078827.2078841

Wisniewski, P., Lipford, H., & Wilson, D. (2012). Fighting for my space: Coping mechanisms for sns boundary regulation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 609–618). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207761

Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The internet privacy paradox revisited. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.777757

Metrics