Abstract
‘Social media’ has become a widely used term, and the subject of a growing body of academic research, but with little definitional consensus. The purpose of this article is to answer the question: what are social media? We 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 Lasswell’s 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
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 Google’s 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 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 Lasswell’s (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’.
Theoretical Framework: Lasswell’s Act of Communication
To understand the concept of communication, scholars rely on models that describe and explain the communication process (Steinberg 2007). One of the first attempts at defining communication dates back to Aristole who identified three components of rhetoric, that is, the speaker, the speech, and the listener, and who perceived its objective as the search for all possible means of persuasion (Dagron & Tufte 2006). Communication models and theories have evolved over the years to reflect the increasingly broad range of topics covered in communication studies (Steinberg 2007). Today, one of the most influential communication models is that of Lasswell (Shoemaker, Tankard & Lasorsa 2004), who advanced Aristole’s proposition by adding two elements to it, that is, ‘in which channel’ and ‘with what effect’ (Dagron & Tufte 2006).
A communication process is best explained by answering the questions ‘who’, ‘says what’, ‘in which channel’, ‘to whom’ and ‘with what effect’ (Lasswell 1948). ‘Who’ refers to the communicator who formulates the content of the message, that is, ‘what’; the ‘channel’ is the medium used to transmit the message to an individual recipient or the audience of mass communication, that is, ‘to whom’; and the ‘effect’ refers to the message’s outcome, such as persuading the recipient to adopt a particular point of view (Steinberg 2007). For example, the purpose of television is to provide entertainment, but its effects could vary from inhibiting conversation between family members, to stimulating interest in new topics (Steinberg 2007).
In addition to Lasswell’s model, Shannon and Weaver suggested a mathematical theory of communication, and conceived a general system composed of noise, an information source, a transmitter, a channel, a receiver and a destination (Dagron & Tufte 2006). This model is often referred to as a transmission or technical model, as it is primarily concerned by the efficiency and clarity of the information transmission from communicator to recipient (Steinberg 2007).
Communication scholars agree that the proliferation of new communication technologies has not changed today’s communication problems compared to hundreds of years ago (Steinberg 2007). Long-standing communication models thus preserve their relevance and accuracy in contemporary contexts. As a matter of fact, Lasswell’s science of communication can be applied in the twenty first century to the emerging technologies and powerful communication tools such as social media (Auer 2011). For example, Wu, Hofman, Mason & Watts (2011) examined the ‘who, says what, to whom’ components of Lasswell’s model in the context of Twitter. In particular, they distinguished between ordinary users on the one hand and elite users, that is, celebrities, bloggers, media and organizations, on the other hand. They found that roughly 50 per cent of URLs consumed on Twitter are generated by only 20 thousand elite users; that the media produce the most information; and that celebrities are the most followed (Wu et al. 2011).
In the present study, we use Lasswell’s (1948) communication act to conduct a directed content analysis of social media definitions. We do not focus on social media as mere channels of communication; instead, we use the Lasswellian model to examine the entire act of communication involving social media.
Content Analysis of Social Media Definitions
Content analysis is a research technique that may be used in an inductive or a deductive way (Elo & Kyngäs 2008), to make inferences by systematically and objectively identifying specified characteristics of messages (Holsti 1968). According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005), there are three distinct content analysis approaches: (i) conventional content analysis, in which coding categories are derived directly from the text data, and which is generally used to describe a phenomenon when existing theory or research literature on this topic is limited; (ii) directed content analysis, in which coding is guided by a theory or relevant research findings, and which aims to conceptually validate or extend a theoretical framework or theory and (iii) summative content analysis, in which coding relies on counting and comparing keywords or content, and which is primarily concerned with quantifying terms. In this article, we conduct a directed content analysis based on the theoretical framework of Lasswell’s (1948) communication model.
There is wide agreement on three main characteristics of content analysis: objectivity, system and generality (Holsti 1968). To be objective, the analysis must follow explicitly formulated rules; to be systematic, the analysis must include or exclude content according to consistently applied criteria of selection; and to satisfy the condition of generality, the findings of the analysis must be theoretically relevant (Holsti 1968). Accordingly, we describe further the sampling method, the systematic process of extracting the academic definitions for further analysis and the ensuing results.
Sampling and Coding
Sampling for content analysis is usually purposive in order to inform the research questions being investigated (Zhang & Wildemuth 2009). For the present study, we searched for the term ‘social media’ in the titles of academic publications in the Web of Knowledge database, with the filters of article as 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 paper’s 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 Lasswell’s (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 Lasswell’s (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.
The 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
The Coding of 23 Definitions Extracted from the Top 179 Cited Papers on Web of Knowledge, with the Term ‘Social Media’ in the Title
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 of millions of people contributing content to social media (See Finin et al. 2008). Textual units extracted under the code ‘who’ refer to users in general, and seem thus, to encompass both the communication initiator and the recipient, and to blur the line between the two. This finding explains why no definition particularly mentioned the recipients, that is, ‘to whom’ the communication act was directed on social media.
Second, in our sample, 16 definitions mentioned the content of the communication act, that is, ‘what’. Communication on social media consists mainly of information and digital user-generated content and material in several formats, such as words, static and moving images and audio (Dabner 2012). Under the ‘what’ code, the extracted textual units seem to shed light mainly on the format, rather than on the message itself.
Third, 19 definitions out of 23 mentioned the ‘channels’ used to transmit social media messages. On the one hand, some authors focus solely either on the mobile and web-based technologies underlying social media, or on the user-interface referred to as web services, online applications or online software platforms. On the other hand, several other authors make the distinction between the technologies and the platforms by saying that ‘social media employ mobile and web-based technologies to create highly interactive platforms’ (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre 2011, p. 241) or that social media are ‘a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0’ (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, p. 61). Furthermore, other definitions refer to social media channels as tools, networked digital media or new media.
Fourth, 19 definitions out of the extracted 23 mentioned the function of social media, that is, ‘why’ they are used. Social media aim primarily to create, cocreate, exchange, share, discuss, modify, consume, communicate and disseminate user-generated content. Social media are also designed to form communities that engage in social interactions. Some authors combine both standpoints and suggest that social media tools enable the exchange, transmission and discussion of information through conversation and interaction. Other social media functions include promoting collaboration and joint learning, playing and engaging in commerce.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, none of the examined 23 definitions mentioned the effect of the act of communication taking place on social media. Therefore, the coding phase led to (i) providing a general view of how previous academic definitions of social media identify the initiators, the content format and the channels of communication on social media; (ii) identifying the lack of reference to the recipients of communication on social media, explained by the blurry lines between initiators and recipients of communication on these technologies; (iii) discovering the omission of the effect of the communication act taking place on social media and (iv) adding a new component, that is, ‘why’ or the function of communication on social media.
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 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-López, Bulchand-Gidumal, Gutiérrez-Taño & Díaz-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 micro-levels, 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; Bonsón 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, Holsti’s (1968) ‘why’ code was added during the coding process.
Based on the earlier mentioned findings, we argue that a comprehensive social media definition ought to: (i) emphasize not only the wide accessibility of social media by the communication initiators, that is, ‘who’ but also the potential large-scale reach of social media communication to a receiving audience, ‘to whom’, in order to further highlight the interactional, two-way communication process on social media channels; (ii) put forward the multi-level usage of social media by micro-, macro- and meso-level users, who can both initiate and receive content and (iii) highlight the diversity of the format of social media content, that is, ‘what’, as previous research identified five types of content formats on social media, namely text (on blogs, micro-blogs, wikis, forums and social networks), images (for example, Flickr and Picasa), videos (for example, YouTube), audio (for example, Last.fm) and games (for example, World of Warcraft; [Cortizo, Carrero & Gómez 2011]). Finally, in line with former conceptualization efforts, it seems reasonable to put forward the purpose of communication acts on social media, and to omit their effects given the width of this aspect that goes beyond the conceptualization objective of the present article.
None of the 23 definitions extracted from the top 179 papers cover all four retained Lasswellian aspects (who, says what, in which channel, to whom) in addition to Holsti’s (1968) aspect, ‘why’. Therefore, there seems to be a need for an inclusive definition that fills this gap. Therefore, we suggest defining 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. In this definition, by specifying that the content is ‘user-generated’, we imply the process of creating and cocreating content that involves users; and by mentioning sharing, collaboration and networking, we imply functions such as content consumption and distribution, as well as exchanges, interactions and discussions.
Where to Go from Here? Towards a Typology of Social Media
In addition to the definitional issue surrounding social media, several authors also claim that there is no rigid or definitive typology for these platforms (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Jorgensen 2012). Nonetheless, many scholars acknowledge the existence of a common ecology that includes categories such as social networking sites (Bertot, Jaeger & Grimes 2010; Fischer & Reuber 2011; Jorgensen 2012); professional networking sites (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Kietzmann et al. 2011); blogs (Bertot et al. 2010; Finin et al. 2008; Fischer & Reuber 2011); micro-blogging services (Bertot et al. 2010; Fischer & Reuber 2011; Jorgensen 2012); wikis (Bertot et al. 2010; Finin et al. 2008); video–and picture–sharing sites, also called multimedia or media sharing sites (Bertot et al. 2010; Fischer & Reuber 2011; Finin et al. 2008); social news and bookmarking (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Kietzmann et al. 2011); and user–and message forums (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Finin et al. 2008; Kietzmann et al. 2011).
There are also social media classification efforts based on existing theories. For instance, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) categorize social media based on media theories (social presence and media richness) and social processes theories (self-presentation and self-disclosure). Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) argue that blogs are considered low on social presence/media richness but high on self-presentation/self-disclosure; whereas virtual game worlds, such as World of Warcraft, are considered high on social presence/media richness but low on self-presentation/self-disclosure. For their part, 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 channel’s 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).
Examples of Social Media Websites in a Lasswellian Taxonomy
Limitations and Future Research
The main limitation of the present content analysis is covering only the top 179 cited papers containing the keyword ‘social media’ in the title, and searching for them in only one database. We may thus have overlooked relevant papers because they are recent and have no citations yet, are indexed in other databases, or do not include the ‘social media’ keyword in the title. Moreover, it is possible that the screened sample is not large enough to conclude on the incompleteness of available social media definitions in scholarly publications. Furthermore, although highly cited papers indicate popularity and a possible level of academic influence among other researchers, these papers might not be a representative sample as citations do not always reflect the endorsement and agreement of the citers. Another limitation is the likelihood that some social media definitions might have been excluded because they were not clearly stated.
Social Media Cube to Help Classify Existing Social Media Platforms, and Identify Prospective Ones
Examples of Existing Platforms in the Social Media Cube
Although Lasswell’s communication formula provides a solid foundation to define social media, it is sometimes criticized for being linear. This shortcoming should be taken into account when considering the results of this content analysis.
While the present study aims to provide a theory-based definition of social media, it does not aim to address the lack of consistency that might exist in the social media terminology. It is possible that other definitions exist for ‘social media’ but with the name ‘new media’, ‘social web’ or ‘new web’. Although we are aware that there is no final universal definition for a constantly evolving concept such as ‘social media’, the present study still aims at providing a working definition.
Addressing these limitations can open new venues for research. Future research could, for instance, study other communication models and include components that are lacking in Lasswell’s formula. Additionally, future conceptualization efforts could examine a wider sample of social media definitions.
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 fast-paced 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.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ilke Inceoglu for her valuable comments on the final version of this manuscript.