Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
Social media has become a widely used term, and the subject of a growing body of academic research,
but with little definitional consensus. T
he purpose of this article is to answer the question: what
are social media? W
e examined existing scholarly definitions of the term social media through a
Lasswellian lens, by applying directed content analysis to a sample of 23 academic definitions retrieved
from the top 179 cited papers on social media in the Web of Knowledge database. The present study
makes two main contributions to the theorization of social media. First, we build on previous academic
efforts to suggest an inclusive definition of social media based on Lasswells act of communication.
Second, using the suggested definition, we categorize social media channels based on three dimensions,
that is, user, content format and function. This taxonomy is illustrated by presenting a social media cube
that aims to help practitioners, managers, researchers and developers to both classify existing social
media platforms, and identify prospective ones.
Keywords
Social media definition, Lasswells act of communication, Web 2.0, social media taxonomy, social media
conceptualization, social media cube
Introduction
The term social media is widely used both by academics and practitioners. As of 12 September 2013,
a filter-free search for social media returned 5219 papers on the Web of Knowledge research platform,
and 353 million results on Googles search engine. Previous research on social media spans across
a variety of fields, including advertising, communication, marketing, and public relations (Khang,
Ki & Ye 2012), risk and crisis communication (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar 2011), the pharmaceutical
field (Grindrod, Forgione, Tsuyuki, Gavura & Giustini 2014), healthcare (Hamm et al. 2013) and higher
education (Tess 2013) among others.
Given the broad and elusive scope of social media, this term is often defined by providing examples
of its applications or websites (Tess 2013). Moreover, the novelty of social media and the constant
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
108
advances in the field have made it a challenging task to provide a universal definition for the term
(Hamm et al. 2013; Tess 2013). As a result, the growing body of research on social media uses diverse
definitions. This definitional inconsistency threatens the validity of the construct (Cronbach & Meehl
1955), hinders our collective understanding of social media, and makes providing directions for
future research and applications problematic. Therefore, there is need for a robust, theorized conceptualization of social media, in order to help scholars evaluate the validity of their research (Engel
& Schutt 2009).
Concepts are indispensable to scientific study (Steinberg 2007), and conceptualization is crucial as
a first step towards measurement (Engel & Schutt 2009). To address the definitional issue related to
social media, while building on existing conceptualization efforts, we conducted a directed content
analysis informed by the communication model of Harold Lasswell (1948), on a sample of definitions
extracted from top cited publications on social media.
The purpose of this study is to address the research question what are social media through the
application of the Lasswellian framework on communication theory in the context of social media.
The main contributions of this study are: (i) an inclusive definition of social media based on the assessment of existing definitions and the application of Lasswells (1948) model; and (ii) a three-dimensional
cube to classify social media channels, with the goal of helping practitioners, managers, researchers,
and developers to both classify existing social media platforms and identify prospective ones. To the
best of our knowledge, this article is the first attempt focusing exclusively on the conceptualization of
social media.
110
a document type and English as the publication language. This search inquiry yielded 904 results on
6 September 2013. Sorted by number of citations, the results showed 179 papers cited at least twice,
304 papers cited once, and the rest of papers beyond the 305th publication with no citations. This
paper focuses on the 179 top cited papers given that the citation number of a publication is an indicator
of popularity and a possible measure of its influence among other researchers.
In qualitative content analysis, units of analysis are usually individual themes expressed as a sentence
or a paragraph (Zhang & Wildemuth 2009). The unit of analysis in the present study is the academic
definition of social media. After listing the top cited papers, two of the authors examined their full texts
independently in order to select all textual units that contribute to answering the main research question
(Krippendorff 2004), that is, what are social media. Some disagreements resulted from the fact that
certain definitions were either partially quoted from other authors or were general, vague statements
about social media uses without a proper conceptual definition of the term. Therefore, to be included in
the analysis, a definition had to be an original contribution by the papers authors, and not a citation of
other sources. After settling all disagreements, a final set of 23 definitions were admitted for inclusion in
the content analysis, as illustrated in Table 1. The included definitions were extracted from 23 papers
published between 2008 and 2012, from research fields varying from business and management, to
health and politics.
The process of coding systematically transforms and aggregates raw data into units that permit precise
description of relevant content characteristics (Holsti 1968). Based on the principles of directed content
analysis, a three-step process was followed. First, an initial coding scheme was developed. Coding
schemes can be derived from the data, previous related studies and theories (Zhang & Wildemuth 2009).
For this article, the coding scheme was derived from Lasswells (1948) work on communication acts,
and contained five codes: (i) who, that is, the communicator or the initiator of the act of communication;
(ii) says what, that is, the content of the communication; (iii) in which channel, that is, the media in
which the communication takes place; (iv) to whom, that is, the audience or persons reached by the
media and (v) with what effect, that is, the impact of the message on the audience. Second, the extracted
definitions were analyzed and coded based on the established coding scheme. During the process of
coding, the coders had two critical insights: (i) none of the definitions mentioned the audience or the
effect of social media communication; (ii) the content of the communication focused on the format
instead of the message itself. Third, after completing the first round of coding, the definitions were
examined in an iterative fashion to note any other emerging aspects of social media communication to
be included in the coding scheme. Consequently, one major theme emerged from the units of analysis,
namely the function or purpose of social media. When we referred to the literature, we found that
this category was in line with the why dimension added by Holsti (1968) to Lasswells (1948) model,
to investigate the mechanisms that cause a source to send a certain message. Therefore, we added a
new code labelled why, denoting the purpose of the communication act taking place on social media.
Table 2 shows the coding of the 23 definitions included in the directed content analysis.
Findings
First, out of the 23 extracted definitions, the initiators of communication, that is, who, were mentioned
in 14 papers, and included individual users, communities of people, organizations and industries.
The wide accessibility of social media was particularly emphasized in one definition pointing to tens
Journal of Creative Communications, 9, 2 (2014): 107126
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
32
31
17
10
10
16
31
33
61
67
75
79
39
206
Number of
Citations* Article Title
2012
2011
Kaye D. Sweetser
2010
2011
2012
2008
2011
2011
Andreas M. Kaplan,
Michael Haenlein
John C. Bertot, Paul T. Jaeger,
Justin M. Grimes
Authors
2010
2010
2010
Year of
Publication
Information and
communication
technologies
Politics
Business and
management
Politics
Information and
communication
technologies
Business and
Management
Health
Business and
management
politics
Field
(Table 1 continued)
Journal of
communication
Other
International
journal of
geographical
information science
Journal of public
Public relations
relations research
AI Magazine
International
journal of
information
management
Government
information
quarterly
Journal of business
venturing
Journal of general
internal medicine
Business Horizons
Government
information
quarterly
Business horizons
Journal
Table 1. T
he Thematic Field and Publication Year of the 23 Papers Containing Social Media Definitions, and Extracted from the Top 179 Cited Papers with
Social Media in the Title, in Web of Knowledge
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
104
106
111
123
126
129
141
157
175
Note:
92
99
Number of
Citations* Article Title
81
(Table 1 continued)
2010
2011
2012
2009
2010
2010
2011
Health
Journal of medical
internet research
Data mining
and knowledge
discovery
Educause review
Multimedia tools
and applications
Government
information
quarterly
International
journal of online
marketing
PM&R
Health
Business and
management
Politics
Other
Other
Information and
communication
technologies
Information and
communication
technologies
Education
Field
Journal
Howard Rheingold
Mor Naaman
2012
2012
Authors
2012
2010
2012
Year of
Publication
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
Fischer and
Reuber
(2011, p. 2)
Bertot et al.
(2012, p. 30)
Yates and
Paquette,
(2011, p. 6)
Kietzmann et al.
(2011, p. 241)
Greysen, Kind
and Chretien
(2010, p. 1227)
Kaplan and
Haenlein
(2010, p. 61)
Bertot et al.
(2010, p. 266)
Definition
Authors
Content
Internet
users
N/A
Usergenerated
material
N/A
N/A
To
Whom
Highly
interactive
platforms
N/A
N/A
Web-based N/A
technologies
Internetbased
applications
In Which
Channel
Information Tools
N/A
N/A
Individuals
Userand
generated
communities content
Content
User
generated
content
N/A
Users
Says What
Who
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(Table 2 continued)
Sharing user-generated
material
N/A
N/A
With What
Effect
Why
Table 2. The Coding of 23 Definitions Extracted from the Top 179 Cited Papers on Web of Knowledge, with the Term Social Media in the Title
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
Definition
Web-based social media systems such
as blogs, wikis, media-sharing sites and
message forums have become an important
new way to transmit information, engage
in discussions and form communities on
the Internet. T
heir reach and impact is
significant, with tens of millions of people
providing content on a regular basis around
the world.
Howard
Social media may be defined in three
and Parks
parts, consisting of (a) the information
(2012, p. 362)
infrastructure and tools used to produce
and distribute content; (b) the content that
takes the digital form of personal messages,
news, ideas and cultural products; and
(c) the people, organizations, and industries
that produce and consume digital content.
Sui and Goodchild Social media can be defined as social
(2011, p. 1738)
interaction via the use of Web-based
and mobile technologies, to turn scalable
communication into interactive dialog.
Sweetser
Social media are an increasingly popular
(2010, p. 289)
means through which companies can
communicate in online communities
McGowan et al. Social media websites and applications
(2012)
are online environments where users
contribute, retrieve, and explore content
primarily generated by fellow users.
Zeng, Chen,
Social media refers to a conversational,
Lusch and Li
distributed mode of content generation,
(2010, p. 13)
dissemination and communication among
communities.
Authors
Finin et al.
(2008, p. 77)
(Table 2 continued)
Communities Content
Content
Users
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Companies
N/A
Web-based N/A
and mobile
technologies
N/A
N/A
To
Whom
N/A
Information N/A
infrastructure
and tools
In Which
Says What Channel
Information Web-based
and content systems
Digital
People,
organizations content
and
industries
Who
Tens of
millions of
people
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Content generation,
dissemination, and
communication
Communicate in online
communities
Turn scalable
communication into
interactive dialog
With What
Effect
Why
N/A
Transmit information,
engage in discussions,
and form communities
on the Internet
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
Ahlqvist Bck,
Heinonen
and Halonen
(2010, p. 4)
Rheingold
(2010, p. 14)
Naaman
(2010, p. 10)
Authors
Berthon, Pitt,
Plangger and
Shapiro
(2012, p. 263)
Dabner
(2012, p. 69)
Multimedia N/A
content
N/A
N/A
User
created
content
N/A
People
People
Users
To
Whom
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Networked N/A
digital media
N/A
N/A
Words,
images
(static and
moving)
and audio
N/A
In Which
Channel
Internetbased
applications
Says What
N/A
Who
N/A
Definition
Social media is the product of Internetbased applications that build on the
technological foundations of Web 2.0.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(Table 2 continued)
Social interaction
Socialize, organize,
learn, play, and engage in
commerce
Foster significant
individual participation
and promote community
curation, discussion and
re-use of content
Express thoughts, voice
opinions, and connect to
each other anytime and
anywhere
With What
Effect
Why
N/A
N/A
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
Definition
Social media are internet applications [that]
enable greater interaction between user and
application through user generated content.
Social media are applications that offer
services to communities of on-line users:
blogs, social bookmarking, wikis, media
sharing, and social networks that promote
collaboration, joint learning and the speedy
exchange of information between users.
Fotis, Buhalis
Social media are a group of online software
and Rossides
platforms that enable and facilitate sharing
(2011, p. 4)
of user generated content.
Eckler, Worsowicz Social media are forms of new media that
and Rayburn
eclipse the traditional static Web site and
(2010, p. 1046)
allow online users to interact with one
another.
Authors
Komito and
Bates, (2009,
p. 233)
Bonsn et al.
(2012, p. 123)
(Table 2 continued)
User
generated
content
Online users N/A
N/A
Says What
User
generated
content
Communities Information
of on-line
users
Who
User
N/A
N/A
N/A
With What
Effect
Why
N/A
Enable greater
interaction between
user and application
N/A
Promote collaboration,
joint learning and the
speedy exchange of
information
N/A
N/A
Applications
Online
software
platforms
New media
To
Whom
N/A
In Which
Channel
Internet
applications
Discussion
Researchers report that the main strength of directed content analysis is that it brings support to existing
theory and can even extend it (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). The findings of the present content analysis
support the application of the Lasswellian formula in the context of social media, and support previous
efforts to extend it with the why component.
First, regarding users, a primary finding in this analysis is that existing social media definitions blur
the line between the communication initiator, who, and the communication recipient, to whom. In
Journal of Creative Communications, 9, 2 (2014): 107126
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
118
retrospect, in Web 1.0 or the early World Wide Web (Boulos & Wheeler 2007), only website owners
controlled the information or text displayed (Handsfield, Dean & Cielocha 2009). Information publication
and distribution were largely performed in a one-way fashion, and there were limited opportunities
for user engagement and interaction (Scott & Orlikowski 2012), as content creators were few and the
vast majority of users merely consumed content (Cormode & Krishnamurthy 2008) in a unidirectional
framework (Williams, Crittenden, Keo & Mccarty 2012). Today, however, in the user-centred
Web 2.0 (Hjorth 2010), or the social Web, content has become more easily generated and published by
users (Boulos & Wheeler 2007), and there is more focus on the active participation of users in websites
(Scott & Orlikowski 2012), both as contributors to, as well as consumers of, information (Dabner 2012),
thus emphasizing the new social aspect of the web in general and of social media in particular. This
may explain why none of the examined definitions explicitly distinguish between the initiators and the
recipients of communication on social media.
It should also be noted that the extracted definitions focus primarily on the use of social media at the
micro-level, with only one definition highlighting the use of social media by organizations and industries
(See Howard & Parks 2012). Previous research on social media, however, includes all three levels of
analysis. The level of analysis refers to the scope of a social theory, causal explanation, proposition,
hypothesis or theoretical statement, and ranges from the micro level, that is, social psychological, to the
meso-level, that is, organizational, to the macro-level, that is, large-scale social structure (Neuman 2007).
The micro-level deals with the concrete, small-scale, and narrow level of reality, and generally refers to
features of individuals or interactions among individuals (Neuman 2007). At this level, social media are
used by individuals to, for example, organize trip (Parra-Lpez, Bulchand-Gidumal, Gutirrez-Tao &
Daz-Armas 2011), and engage in online brand-related activities such as consuming and contributing to
brand-related content (Muntinga, Moorman & Smit 2011). The meso-level links macro- and microlevels, operates at an intermediate level, and deals with organizations, social movements, and communities
(Neuman 2007). At this level, social media are used by many actors including schools and colleges to
support face-to-face learning and collaboration (George & Dellasega 2011; Thomas & Thomas 2012)
among other uses. The macro-level deals with more abstract, large-scale, and broad-scope aspects of
social reality, and refers to larger aggregates such as social institutions, entire cultural systems and whole
societies (Neuman 2007). At this level, social media are used by governments and governmental agencies
to connect with the people, enhance transparency and disseminate information (Bertot, Jaeger, Munson
& Glaisyer 2010; Bertot, Jaeger & Hansen 2012; Bonsn et al. 2012; Kuzma 2010).
Second, while there seems to be a comprehensive discussion in the extracted definitions on social
media channels as internet- or mobile-based tools, and on the technologies behind them, there is a lack
of focus on the content of social media communication, that is, what. Moreover, when content was
mentioned, attention was given to its format; two definitions specified that the format of the content
could be multimedia (Naaman 2010), or more precisely that it can consist of words, static and moving
images, or audio (Dabner 2012).
Third, the examined definitions omitted the effect of communication acts involving social media.
This can be explained by the fact that effect analysis is a significant aspect that cannot be captured briefly
and included in a concise definition. Effect analysis can rather be the topic of separate studies investigating
the impact of social media on their audiences.
Finally, people communicate with the purpose of satisfying a personal or social need (Steinberg
2007). The extracted definitions provide a wide range of purposes explaining why users communicate
on social media. Consequently, Holstis (1968) why code was added during the coding process.
Journal of Creative Communications, 9, 2 (2014): 107126
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
120
Kietzmann et al. (2011) presented a honeycomb framework of seven social media building blocks,
that is, identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation and groups, for a better
understanding of the functionalities of social media sites. For example, the identity block represents
the extent to which users reveal their identities on social media settings; the sharing block represents the
extent to which users exchange, distribute, and receive content; and the groups block represents the
extent to which users can form communities and sub-communities (Kietzmann et al. 2011).
While the classifications of Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) and Kietzmann et al. (2011) are useful, there
is still need for further work on social media taxonomy. Inspired by the Lasswellian coding categories
used in the present content analysis, and using the ensuing definition, we elaborate a taxonomy of social
media from the channels perspective based on three dimensions:
Users (who/to whom), who can be from the micro-, meso- or macro-levels.
Content (what), which may take several formats, such as text, images, videos, audio, or games.
Function (why), namely sharing, collaborating, networking, or geo-locating.
Many social media sites can be classified with this taxonomy, as illustrated in Table 3. It should be
noted, however, that the subcategories of each dimension are not mutually exclusive. If we take the
example of Facebook, it can be used at the micro-level by individuals, at the meso-level by companies
and at the macro-level by governments such as the US federal government. Facebook essentially
promotes written content in the form of status updates, but it can also be an all-purpose website used to
share pictures, embed videos and play games; with the functional objectives of networking and sharing.
Another example is Twitter, which can also be used on all three levels, and which disseminates textual
content with the possibility of displaying pictures and videos. Twitter can be used for both sharing
and networking.
The classification of social media platforms based on users, content format and function can be
visually summarized in a social media cube illustrated in Figure 1.
According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), a classification scheme for social media ought to take into
account applications which may be forthcoming. The social media cube provides a novel but parsimonious
framework for classifying existing social media outlets, and for identifying more possible combinations
of the three dimensions (users, content format and function) to potentially create new social media
platforms (see Figure 2).
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
Source: Authors.
Facebook
YouTube
Wikipedia
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Foursquare
Last.fm
Second life
Micro-level
Users
Macro-level
Users
Meso-level
Users
User
Content Format
Games
Networking
Sharing
Collaboration Geo-location
Function
122
Figure 1. Social Media Cube to Help Classify Existing Social Media Platforms, and Identify Prospective Ones
Conclusion
Social media is a widely used term both in academia and practice. There are, however, discrepancies in
the way academics define social media in scholarly publications, hence the objective of this paper to
contribute to the conceptualization efforts of these emerging technologies. To answer the research question what are social media, we conducted a directed content analysis informed by the communication
formula of Lasswell (1948). In this analysis, we examined 23 academic definitions of social media,
extracted from the 179 top cited papers containing the term social media in the title, in the Web of
Knowledge database. During the analysis of these scholarly definitions, we decided to exclude the coding category to what effect, and to add the why component advanced by Holsti (1968). Since none
of the existing definitions cover the four retained Lasswellian dimensions in addition to why, we suggested an inclusive working definition for the ever-evolving concept of social media as a set of mobile
and web-based platforms built on Web 2.0 technologies, and allowing users at the micro-, meso- and
macro- levels to share and geo-tag user-generated content (images, text, audio, video and games), to collaborate, and to build networks and communities, with the possibility of reaching and involving large
audiences. We also presented a social media cube that builds on the content analysis findings, with the
objective of contributing to existing literature on social media taxonomies, and helping both practitioners
and academics categorize existing and prospective social media outlets.
New social media platforms are constantly emerging, making it a challenge to keep up with the fastpaced evolution in the field. The provided definition and taxonomy of social media will hopefully help
managers have a clearer visualization of existing social media platforms, and assist researchers in
indentifying new venues for research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ilke Inceoglu for her valuable comments on the final version of this manuscript.
References
Ahlqvist, T., Bck, A., Heinonen, S., & Halonen, M. (2010). Road-mapping the societal transformation potential of
social media. Foresight, 12(5), 326.
124
Auer, M.R. (2011). The policy sciences of social media. Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), 709736.
Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Marketing meets web 2.0, social media, and creative
consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy. Business Horizons, 55(3), 261271.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., & Grimes, J.M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and
social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3),
264271.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues,
challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 3040.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Social media technology and government transparency.
IEEE Computer Society, 43(11), 5359.
Bonsn, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate
transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123132.
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between web1.0 and web2.0. First Monday, 13(6),
130.
Cortizo, J.C., Carrero, F.M., & Gmez, J.M. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Mining social media.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(3), 58.
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests, 281302.
Dabner, N. (2012). Breaking Ground in the use of social media: A case study of a university earthquake response
to inform educational design with Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 6978.
Dagron, A.G., & Tufte, T. (2006). Communication for Social Change: Anthology: Historical and Contemporary
Readings. CFSC Consortium, Inc.
Eckler, P., Worsowicz, G., & Rayburn, J.W. (2010). Social media and health care: An overview. PM & R: The
journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2(11), 10461050.
Elo, S., & Kyngs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1),
107115.
Engel, R.J., & Schutt, R.K. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement. In Fundamentals of Social Work Research,
5080. SAGE:
Finin, T., Joshi, A., Kolari, P., Java, A., Kale, A., & Karandikar, A. (2008). The Information ecology of social
media and online communities. AI Magazine, 29(3), 7792.
Fischer, E., & Reuber, A.R. (2011). Social interaction via new social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter
affect effectual thinking and behavior? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 118.
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D., & Rossides, N. (2011). Social media impact on holiday travel planning: The case of the
Russian and the FSU markets. International Journal of Online Marketing, 1(4), 119.
George, D.R., & Dellasega, C. (2011). Use of social media in graduate-level medical humanities education: Two
pilot studies from Penn State College of Medicine. Medical Teacher, 33(8), e429434.
Greysen, S.R., Kind, T., & Chretien, K.C. (2010). Online Professionalism and the Mirror of Social Media. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 12271229.
Grindrod, K., Forgione, A., Tsuyuki, R.T., Gavura, S., & Giustini, D. (2014). Pharmacy 2.0: A scoping review of
social media use in pharmacy. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy: RSAP, 10(1), 256270.
Hamm, M.P., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Scott, S.D., Klassen, T.P., & Hartling, L. (2013). Social media
use by health care professionals and trainees: A scoping review. Academic Medicine, 88(9), 13761383.
Handsfield, L.J., Dean, T.R., & Cielocha, K.M. (2009). Becoming critical consumers and producers of text:
Teaching literacy with web 1.0 and web 2.0. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4050.
Hjorth, L. (2010). The game of being social: web 2.0, social media, and online games. Iowa Journal of Communication, 42(1), 7392.
Holsti, O.R. (1968). Content analysis. In Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (Eds), The handbook of social psychology
(pp. 596692).
126
Williams, D.L., Crittenden, V.L., Keo, T., & Mccarty, P. (2012). The use of social media: An exploratory study of
usage among digital natives. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 127136.
Wu, S., Hofman, J.M., Mason, W.A., & Watts, D.J. (2011). Who says what to whom on Twitter. In Proceedings of
the 20th international conference on World wide webWWW 11 (pp. 705714).
Yates, D., & Paquette, S. (2011). Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case
study of the 2010 haitian earthquake. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 613.
Zeng, D., Chen, H., Lusch, R., & Li, S. (2010). Social media analytics and intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems,
25(6), 1316.
Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B.M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of social research methods to
questions in information and library science, 308319.