标签归档:communication

生活即田野:面试的传播与社会视角(二)

导师的微信签名是“生活即田野”,一直以来没有太多切身体会,直到今天。

过去的一个月里,我跌跌撞撞地参加了许多实习/秋招面试,今天和同学聊起来才发现原来处处都是传播学和社会学的痕迹。

需要注意的是,面试题目后是今天的一些小想法,并非我的回答。

人为制造的隔阂

几乎所有单面:你还有什么问题想要问我吗?

人与人的交流难免存在着障碍或隔阂,但有的时候这种不顺畅是人为制造出来的。在面试官没有说“本次面试到此结束”之前,面试者和面试官的对话都在考核的进程当中,但这个问题的考核属性却常常被面试者忽视,或者说在面试官的蓄意引导之下被忽视。

作为一个考核,或许面试官想要得到的是:不太低的情商、对组织和工作的了解、强烈的好奇心与学习能力。这样的考核当然合理——任何人处在任何位置,都一定需要面对和克服蓄意制造的沟通障碍,以及处理未知。当然,如果面试者有充足的资源、地位和能力,大可将此当作“筛选老板 ”的主场,可惜这并不适合大多数人。

学习与工作

某知名出海电商:能不能讲一下你的一篇论文?

某知名手机厂商:你在学习上遇到了什么困难、是怎么解决的?

学校教授技能。学术论文的八股格式可能无趣,但它教会了学生如何用简练的文字和清晰的逻辑分析问题;学习和工作的困难可能各不相同,但解决的路径其实没有本质区别:search (寻找现有的), research(发现新的)。某老师曾说:“研究生阶段学习的东西,你们可能看起来很虚,但研究生培养的问题意识、对未来的判断,说不定会在你人生的某一刻带来巨大帮助。”

学校传递文化,不仅包括正式文化,还包括非正式文化。在与同学的学习生活中,我们学会了如何与同辈群体相处、如何解决冲突;在与老师和校领导的沟通中,我们学会了如何与不同地位的人打交道;在不断的排名和考试中,我们也学会了如何面对压力。

英语

某知名电商 HR 面:如果让你立刻上台用英语演讲三分钟,你感觉自己能胜任吗?

我相信自己可以胜任,更多地恐怕不能归功于自己的努力,而应归功于并不能算穷困潦倒的家庭、相对较好的教育,以及英语国家的文化霸权。

教育通过社会控制、分轨和不平等的资源分配维护现有社会的不平等。我们在学校没有学习上一辈的俄文而是学了英文,这是教育对课程和基础设施的控制;我的高中在清北班度过,全班最低分也超过了重本线数十分,这种分轨的做法对因经济政治地位、父母教育背景很难接受良好的早期教育的人极为不公平,它反映了那些“人上人”的利益;同时,城乡、发达欠发达地区教育资源的巨大差异,重点高中、重点大学的存在都意味着在制度的不同位置的人享用着天差地别的教育资源。

英语作为一种世界语言也不是“生而有之”,它的流行也远不能用语言设计来解释,无需多言。

关于外卖的想象力

去年参加了导师的国家社科基金项目,该项目就是在探讨网约劳动平台和社会的互动。

在这个项目中,我们针对深圳市的某外卖平台的骑手做了一次较大规模的问卷调查(国内首次),历时数月,第一篇文章已经见稿于今年《浙江学刊》。但以下均为个人想法,不代表导师意见。

研究说了什么:以秒计数的监控体系、骑手与公共空间的冲突、算法的影响

  1. 时间上,骑手面临着平台、商家和顾客的三重压力空间上,骑手的工作对公共空间产生了占用也引发了冲突

具体的论述和论据因为篇幅较长请大家参考原文

研究没说什么:一种新矛盾的产生

  1. 平台通过创造一种工作形式和构筑一种监控、分配机制,在转嫁矛盾中攫取利润。“送外卖”是一种被进一步去技术性的工作,外卖劳工也被进一步去组织化

因诸多原因,这部分不再展开。

关于外卖的想象力

ICT 技术(information and communication technology,信息和通讯技术)的发展为新的劳动形式和组织形式产生了可能,也为新的时空控制形式提供了工具。资本主义对劳动的控制往往可以分为对时间和空间的控制,或许在某些情况下会有心理上的控制但也往往由工作效率(时间)体现。而技术的创新往往是资产阶级出于提高劳动生产率、降低劳动成本的诉求(马克思的观点)而不是真正以提高高社会福祉为目的。急速发展的移动互联网、算法、GPS、前端 (front-end)等技术都为外卖平台的出现和快速发展提供客观条件。我们的研究表明,这种时间和空间的监控体系在外卖平台的运作中发挥着极强的功能。

过去,在作为技术创新代表的工业革命中,生产变得机械化和去技术化(deskilling, 工作的简单化),工厂和资本家不再需要为技能培训支付费用,而仅仅需要为工人的基本生活和再生产支付费用(马克思)。这种去技术性维持了资本主义的运转,但也让工人与社区分离、与工作伙伴分离、与制造的产品分离,更重要的是与生产的创造性、独特性和独特的人类潜能的分离——异化(alienation)。

现在,食物的配送从业者在上岗之前不再需要对路途的高度熟识(但仍然有一定要求)、不再需要能够博得稳定的食物生产和销售网络(由平台和算法承担),毫无疑问,这种工作也被去技术化了。于是,外卖员成为了在城市中穿梭的电动车,甚至不再被写字楼和高档社区所接纳;外卖员也互相分离,在工作中被城市道路与工作任务隔开;外卖员的创造性也被限制在“互相换单送”“帮忙接个单”等零碎而无需太多潜能的范围内,毫无疑问,这种去技术化促进了劳动者的异化

更为重要的是,这种由时间和空间都由平台分配和监控的劳动形式、这种特殊的去技术化和异化,也阻断了工会和反抗形成的可能,或许这是真正的、我们所不能承受的代价。

如果它提供了(较)高收入、(较)多自由的的工作,那它还“是它自身的掘墓人”吗?

参考文献

叶韦明,欧阳荣鑫.重塑时空:算法中介的网约劳动研究[J].浙江学刊,2020(02):167-176.

生活即田野:面试的传播与社会视角(一)

导师的微信签名是“生活即田野”,一直以来没有太多切身体会,直到今天。

过去的一个月里,我跌跌撞撞地参加了许多实习/秋招面试,今天和同学聊起来才发现原来处处都是传播学和社会学的痕迹。

需要注意的是,面试题目后是今天的一些小想法,并非我的回答。

面试

面试是一个社会互动的过程,也是人际之间的一种单向说服传播活动。

  1. 社会互动上,面试是面试者与某个组织的交流,但实际上代表组织完成交流的是一个又一个不同的社会角色。这些社会角色有着不同的定位和诉求,面试也是一个辨别这些角色定位、满足这些角色的诉求的过程。例如,当 HR 问起你是否还有什么问题要问时,他的角色是作为一个考察面试者是否了解和契合岗位、公司的出题人,他的诉求是:通过这一两个问题,判断出面试者是否了解岗位、是否了解和契合公司、是否有着足够的情商、是否拥有较强的好奇心和学习能力。
  2. 说服活动,面试也是一个面试者说服面试官的过程。对于高教育水平的面试官,强调优点+承认缺点的“两面说服”往往比“单面说服”更有用;利用权威来强调自己的能力也会有着极为积极的效果。例如,当专业面试官问起你的优缺点,他的诉求是:判断面试者能力是否与岗位匹配、是否对自我有着清晰认知、是否有着较强的学习能力。所以,任何一个优缺点的表述都要成为这三个问题的坚实论据。

游戏化 (Gamification)

某知名电商群面:如何设计一款游戏,让空闲时间充裕但对价格敏感的用户积极参与,并提升活跃度和购买转化?

游戏根植于人类的文化之中(赫伊津哈),这是下沉市场(暂时认为这个名词有特定指向)用户能够并且愿意参与到这样的人类活动中。但是,游戏设计其实是一门艺术。如何运用目标、规则和反馈引导用户的行为,如何用约束、情感、叙事、进展和关系动力(凯文·韦巴赫等)刺激用户参与,需要对游戏和产品都有着较为深入的理解。

某知名出海电商:是拼多多的游戏化设计提升了用户活跃和参与吗?

不是的,是对用户需求的满足提升了用户活跃和参与。这听起来是一种”使用和满足“的无聊论述,但正是因为拼多多的用户时间充裕、对价格敏感,才让作为一种手段的游戏化设计在”满足“的过程中能够发挥功用。

两个现象之间有时候存在极强的相关性,但是这种相关性很有可能是假的或者有着更复杂的机制。探明真正的关系,很可能需要一种社会科学的洞察(insight),或者需要量化的技术来验证对 causality 的假设——这也符合逻辑实证主义,详析模式(标明、复证、辨明、阐明,拉扎斯菲尔德)和调解、中介、路径分析(Hayes)的思想。

家庭

某知名电商 HR 面:是否有女朋友?有没有想过什么时候结婚?

家庭曾经是社会化的主要场所,但现在已经日益私人化(Laslett, 1973),家庭对于生产的价值也就仅仅剩下了劳动力的再生产。劳动力在降低成本驱动的技术创新过程中,发生了异化,但这种异化其实会加剧资产阶级和无产阶级的冲突,也会对再生产产生影响(马克思)。

你看到/听到这个问题感到愤慨的原因是:生活和工作的平衡、家庭的意义都面临着巨大挑战,以及隐藏着的不平等。然而你无可奈何,因为面试官被阶级和地位赋予了权力(韦伯)。这时我们还意识到,与农业时代的重要劳动资源不同,当代社会的孩子已经成为了家庭财政和家庭流动的拖累。

这种文化,对家庭的态度,可能不是你,但是我们自己建构的并且它一旦成为了文化,我们就深陷其中,无法自拔(彼得·伯格、托马斯·勒克曼)。

另外,在美国的文化里,这种问题是不被允许的,社会文化的差异在这里体现。

(未完待续)

翻译 | 连接策略:脸书交际实践的社会资本意涵 / 文献综述部分

翻译 | 连接策略:脸书交际实践的社会资本意涵 / 文献综述部分

Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices.New media & society, 13(6), 873-892.


The concept of social capital describes the benefits individuals derive from their social relationships and interactions: resources such as emotional support, exposure to diverse ideas, and access to non-redundant information. Social capital is embedded in the structure of social networks and the location of individuals within these structures (Burt, 2005). Because social network sites (SNSs) have the potential to reshape social networks and lower the costs of communicating with (and thus contributing to and extracting benefits from) this social network, SNS use may have social capital implications. This study is among the first to explore the relationship between social capital and specific communication practices on the most popular SNS among US undergraduates, Facebook.

社会资本的概念描述了个人从他们的社会关系和互动中获得的利益:诸如情感支持、接触不同想法和获得非冗余信息等资源。社会资本蕴含于社会网络的结构和个人所处结构位置(Burt,2005)。由于社交网站 (SNS) 有重塑社会网络和降低与这个社会网络沟通的成本 (从而促成和从中获得利益) 的潜能,因此社交网站使用可能具有社会资本的意涵。本研究是探索社会资本与美国大学生中最流行的 社交网站 —— Facebook 上的具体通信行为之间关系的先行者。

Previous scholarship has addressed issues such as the demographic characteristics of SNS users (Hargittai, 2007) and the personal information they reveal on these sites (Acquisti and Gross, 2006), but there is currently little empirical research that describes the specific communication-based relational activities that occur on these sites (who does what and with whom) and how these behaviors affect outcomes of interest. Similarly, while the literature provides a basic understanding of whether Friendships1 on SNSs represent pre-existing offline connections or new relationships forged online (Ellison et al., 2007), measurement difficulties hamper our ability to provide a clear picture of how online and offline modes of communication replace, complement, and facilitate one another. In the research presented here, we test the proposition that Facebook users will have different ‘connection strategies,’ a term which describes a suite of Facebook-related relational communication activities, and explore the relationship between these connec-tion strategies and social capital outcomes.

先前研究已经涉及社交网站户的人口统计学特征(Hargittai,2007)和他们在这些网站上透露的个人信息(Acquisti 和 Gross,2006)等问题,但目前很少有实证研究来描述这些网站上发生的特定的基于交流的关系活动(谁做了什么、与谁做),以及这些行为如何影响感兴趣的结果。同样,虽然文献提供了一个基本的理解,即社交网站上的朋友关系代表的是已有的线下联系还是在线上形成的新关系(Ellison 等,2007),但测量上的困难阻碍了我们描摹一个清晰的图景,即说明线上和线下的沟通模式如何相互替代、补充和促进。在本研究中,我们检验了 Facebook 用户会有不同的 “连接策略 “这一命题,该术语描述了一套与 Facebook 相关的交际活动,并探索了这些连接策略和社会资本结果之间的关系。

Previous work has established a relationship between Facebook use and social capital levels among undergraduate students (Ellison et al., 2007; Steinfield et al., 2008; Valenzuela et al., 2009). It is not clear, however, whether there are particular uses of Facebook that are more likely to result in positive social capital outcomes. In other contexts, scholars have argued that while the internet makes vast amounts of informa-tion available, only those who have the skills necessary to locate and evaluate this content can take full advantage of it (Hargittai, 2008). Examining SNS use more specifically, Papacharissi and Mendelson (2008) explored the relationship between moti-vations for using Facebook and social capital outcomes and Burke et al. (2010) found that while Facebook use overall was associated with social capital, there was a stronger association between social capital and active contributions to the site (versus passive consumption of others’ information). These studies suggest that users who have the ability and inclination to engage in certain SNS activities may be more likely to reap social capital benefits.

既往工作已建立 Facebook 使用和本科生的社会资本水平之间的关系(Ellison 等,2007;Steinfield 等,2008;Valenzuela 等,2009)。然尚未明晰,是否存在某些 Facebook 特定使用更有能带来社会资本的积极结果。在其它语境中学者认为,尽管互联网提供了大量信息,但只有那些拥有必要的技能来定位和评估这些内容的人才能充分利用它(Hargittai,2008)。Papacharissi 和 Mendelson(2008)对社交网站使用进行了更深入的研究,探讨了使用 Facebook 的动机与社会资本结果之间的关系;Burke 等人(2010)发现,尽管 Facebook 的使用总体上与社会资本相关,但社会资本与对网站的主动贡献(相对于被动消费他人信息)之间的关联更强。这些研究表明,有能力和倾向参与某些 社交网站活动的用户可能更容易获得社会资本的好处。

In addition to explicating this relationship between SNS communication behaviors and social capital, this study advances our ability to measure internet-related social behaviors. Currently, SNS researchers use a variety of measures to assess SNS use, such as number of Friends (Joinson, 2008), time on site (Tong et al., 2008), or the number of completed profile fields (Lampe et al., 2007; Stecher and Counts, 2008). The Facebook Intensity (FBI) scale, developed by Ellison et al. (2007) and used in other Facebook research (e.g., Tomai et al., 2010; Valenzuela et al., 2009), uses time on site, number of Friends, and a series of Likert-scale attitudinal items such as, ‘I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Facebook for a while.’ Similar to the way in which scholarship on the digital divide has evolved from simple measures of internet access to nuanced assessments of internet activities, SNS researchers need to develop measures of specific SNS-based communication practices, not just generic usage, in order to better discern usage patterns and their effects.

除了解释社交网站交际行为和社会资本之间的这种关系外,这项研究还增强了我们测量互联网相关社会行为的能力。目前,社交网站研究者使用各种测量方法来评估社交网站的使用情况,如朋友数量(Joinson,2008),在网站上的时间(Tong 等,2008),或完成的个人资料字段数量(Lampe 等,2007;Stecher 和 Counts,2008)。Facebook Intensity(FBI)量表由 Ellison 等人(2007)开发,并在其他 Facebook 研究中使用(如 Tomai 等,2010;Valenzuela 等,2009),使用了在网站上的时间、 朋友数量和一系列李克特量表的态度项目,如 “当我有一段时间没有登录 Facebook 时,我感觉失去了联系”。与关于数字鸿沟的研究从简单的互联网访问量发展到对互联网活动进行细微评估的方式类似,社交网站研究者需要开发基于社交网站的具体交流实践的测量方法,而不仅仅是一般使用,以便更好地辨别使用模式及其效果。

An important component of measuring SNS communication practices entails accurately characterizing the kinds of social relationships that are being formed and main-tained via SNSs. One question is whether SNSs are primarily used to form mixed-mode relationships (which form online and then migrate offline; see Walther and Parks, 2002) or to support existing relationships. In general terms, there is evidence that SNSs are more often used to articulate previously established relationships (see boyd & Ellison, 2007, for a review). However, measurement difficulties, especially surrounding the con-cepts of ‘offline’ and ‘online’ interaction, point to a need to confirm and unpack this general trend.2 An investigation into the ways SNS users manage their online and offline interactions and the outcomes of these practices is important because it has the potential to shed light on a recurring debate within the internet effects literature: whether the inter-net augments or displaces social relationships. For instance, Bessiere et al. (2008) found that using the internet to ‘meet new people’ was associated with higher depression scores seven months later; they speculated that these new connections constituted weak ties, and that interactions with people met online replaced time spent with strong ties. However, they noted that they were unable to determine ‘what “meeting new people” online … really meant to [their] respondents’ (p. 64). Assessing the role of SNS use in offline and online interactions will contribute to our understanding of how these tools reshape social networks and the outcomes of these practices.

衡量社交网站交际实践的一个重要组成部分是准确地描述通过社交网站形成和维持的社会关系的种类。其中一个问题是,社交网站是主要用于形成混合关系(在线形成,然后迁移到离线;见 Walther 和 Parks, 2002)还是支持现有关系。总的来说,有证据表明,社交网站更多的是用来表达之前建立的关系(参见 Boyd & Ellison, 2007, 一篇评论)。然而测量的困难,特别是围绕 “离线 “和 “在线 “互动的概念(的困难,译注),表明有必要确认和解读这一总体趋势。对社交网站用户管理其在线和离线互动的方式以及这些实践的结果进行调查是很重要的,因为它有可能阐明互联网效应文献中反复出现的辩论:网络间是增强还是取代社会关系。例如,Bessiere 等人(2008)发现,使用互联网 “认识新朋友 “与七个月后较高的抑郁评分有关;他们推测这些新的联系构成了弱关系,与网上认识的人的互动取代了花在强关系上的时间。然而他们指出,他们无法确定 “在网上认识新朋友……对[ 他们的] 受访者意味着什么”(第 64 页)。评估社交网站使用在线下和线上互动中的作用,将有助于我们理解这些工具如何重塑社会网络以及这些实践的结果。

Social capital and relationship development online and offline

社会资本和线上和线下的关系发展

The concept of social capital traces its roots to the work of Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), with subsequent extension by Burt (1992), Putnam (1995), and Lin (2001). Social capital can be considered as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu, 1986: 248). Social capital can be understood as a form of capital, like financial or human capital, that is embedded in the relationships between individuals, and can be measured at the individ-ual or group level.

社会资本的概念可以追溯到 Bourdieu(1986) 和 Coleman(1988) 的工作,随后 Burt(1992)、Putnam(1995) 和 Lin(2001) 对其进行了扩展。社会资本可以被认为是 “与拥有或多或少制度化的相互认识和认可的持久关系网络有关的实际或潜在资源的总和”(Bourdieu, 1986: 248)。社会资本可以理解为像金融资本或人力资本一样蕴含在个体关系中的一种资本形式,它可以在个人或群体层面进行衡量。

Putnam (2000) delineated two basic forms of social capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding social capital describes benefits from close personal relationships, which might include emotional support, physical succor, or other ‘large’ benefits (such as willingness to loan a substantial sum of money). Bridging social capital, the benefits derived from casual acquaintances and connections, can also lead to tangible outcomes such as novel information from distant connections and broader worldviews. Empirical research confirms the practical importance of bridging social capital. In Granovetter’s (1973) work on ‘the strength of weak ties’, weak ties in a social network were more likely to have information not possessed by the individual or by the individual’s strong ties. Similarly, Boase et al. (2006) found that those with a wider range of occupations represented in their social circle were more likely to get help doing things like changing jobs or finding health information.

Putnam (2000) 划分了社会资本的两种基本形式:结合型和桥接型。结合型社会资本描述的是来自于密切的个人关系的利益,可能包括情感支持、物质帮助,或其它 “大” 的利益(如愿意借出一大笔钱)。桥接型社会资本,即从偶然的相识和联系中获得的利益,也可以带来有形的结果,如从远距离的联系中获得新的信息和更广阔的世界观。实证研究证实了桥接型社会资本的实际重要性。在Granovetter(1973)关于 “弱联系的力量 “的研究中,社会网络中的弱联系更有可能拥有个人或个人的强联系所不具备的信息。同样,Boase 等人 (2006) 发现那些在社交圈中拥有较多职业代表的人在做换工作或寻找健康信息等事情时更容易得到帮助。

Social interactions on SNSs

SNS上的社交互动

SNSs are bundles of technological tools that incorporate features of earlier technologies (such as personal websites) but recombine them into a new context that supports users’ ability to form and maintain a wide network of social connections. Although precise data regarding usage are not available, survey data suggest that upwards of 90 percent of undergraduates use Facebook (Lampe et al., 2008). After creating a profile on a SNS such as Facebook, users typically invite others into their network, thus giving one another increased access to profile information and more communication options. In Facebook, this is called ‘Friending’ (a verb used to describe adding someone to one’s ‘Friends’ list), and there is a wide range of conceptions of what Friendship on an SNS signals (boyd, 2006).

社交网站是技术工具的集合 (bundles,意译,译注),它结合了早期技术(如个人网站)的特点,但将它们重新组合成一个新的支撑用户形成和维持广泛社会联系网络的能力的环境。尽管没有关于使用情况的精确数据,但调查数据显示,90% 以上的大学生使用 Facebook(Lampe 等,2008)。在像 Facebook 这样的社交网站上创建了个人档案后,用户通常会邀请其他人进入他们的网络,从而给彼此增加了获取个人档案信息的机会和更多的交际选项。在 Facebook 中,这被称为 “交友”(一个动词,用于描述将某人添加到自己的“朋友”列表中),这里,对社交网站上的“友情”标识有诸多概念(Boyd,2006)。

Boyd and Ellison (2007) argue that the term ‘social network sites’ reflects actual usage patterns, in that individuals are typically using the sites to articulate and reflect offline social relationships, and are generally not trying to meet strangers on the site (as might be suggested by the term ‘social networking sites’). The extant literature on this topic suggests that Facebook is used more for communication among acquaintances and offline contacts than it is for connecting with strangers (Ellison et al., 2007; Lampe et al., 2006) and that most Facebook ‘Friend’ connections represent ‘in person’ relation-ships (Mayer and Puller, 2008; Subrahmanyam et al., 2008). This represents a funda-mental difference between SNSs and earlier ‘online communities,’ which utilized the internet as a way to bring together people based on shared interests as opposed to shared geography (Rheingold, 1993). Traditional survey measures that attempt to probe communication patterns may not be transferable to SNS contexts because they do not adequately capture the overlapping nature of online and offline interactions. For instance, consider two students who have never spoken but learn from Facebook that they share the same hometown – information that prompts a face-to-face interaction in class the following day. Although this interaction occurs face-to-face, it is predicated on online information – a nuance that would not be captured by traditional questionnaire items that ask whether they first ‘met’ online or offline. Conceptualizing ‘online to offline’ and ‘offline to online’ as dichotomous and mutually exclusive constructs prevents these important distinctions from emerging, stymieing our ability to describe and understand these communication processes.

Boyd 和 Ellison (2007) 认为,”社交网站 “一词反映了实际的使用模式,因为个人通常使用这些网站来表达和反映线下的社会关系,而不是试图在网站上结识陌生人(如 “社交网站 “一词所暗示的那样)。关于这一主题的现有文献表明,Facebook 更多的是用于熟人和线下联系人之间的交流,而不是用于与陌生人的联系(Ellison 等,2007 年;Lampe 等,2006 年),而且大多数 Facebook 的 “朋友 “连接代表了 “个人 “关系(Mayer 和 Puller,2008 年;Subrahmanyam 等人,2008 年)。这代表了社交网站和早期的 “在线社区 “之间的一个基础性差异,后者利用互联网将人们聚集在一起的方式是基于共同的兴趣而不是共同的地理(Rheingold,1993)。试图探究网络交流模式的传统调查措施可能无法转移到社交网站环境中,因为它们无法充分捕捉到在线和离线互动的社交网站重叠性。例如,考虑两个从未交谈过的学生,但从 Facebook 上了解到他们有着相同的家乡——这些信息促使他们在第二天的课堂上进行面对面的互动。虽然这种互动是面对面发生的,但它是以线上信息为前提的——传统的问卷调查项目不会捕捉到这种细微的差别,因为传统的问卷调查项目会问他们是在线上还是线下第一次 “见面”。将 “线上到线下 “和 “线下到线上 “概念化为二元对立和相互排斥的建构,阻碍了这些重要区别的出现,阻碍了我们描述和理解这些交流过程的能力。

In addition to supporting existing social relationships, Facebook contains many fea-tures that could be used to create new connections, although this seems to be a less com-mon use. At the time of data collection, users could randomly browse the profiles of those in their Facebook ‘network’ (potentially thousands of individuals) whose privacy settings permitted access and then poke, message, or try to Friend them. They could also encounter other users through shared SNS contexts, such as playing ‘Farmville’ or other application-based games, and Friend them in order to receive in-game benefits associated with a larger Friend network. However, these forms of indiscriminate Friending should be distinguished from the practice of ‘social browsing’ (Lampe et al., 2006), which refers to investigating people with whom one shares an offline connection, such as a shared class or mutual friend. In short, Facebook supports a wide spectrum of possible connections, ranging from those who share an offline connection to complete strangers who find one another through a variety of features such as Groups, networks, fan pages, social games and applications, photographs, interest-based profile fields, status updates, and Friend networks.

除了支持现有的社会关系,Facebook 还包含了许多可以用来建立新的联系的方法,尽管这似乎是一个不太常见的用途。在收集数据时,用户可以随机浏览 Facebook “网络 “中那些隐私设置允许访问的用户(可能有数千人)的资料,然后戳、私信或尝试 “交友”。他们也可能在共享的社交网站环境中遇到其他用户(例如玩 “Farmville” 或其他基于应用的游戏)并与他们 “交友”以获得游戏中的好处,这与一个更大的朋友网络有关。然而,这些形式的泛滥 ”交友“ 应当与 ”社交浏览“(Lampe 等,2006)区分开来,后者指的是调查(investigating )与自己有共同线下联系的人,如共同的班级或共同的朋友。简而言之,Facebook 支持广泛的、从那些共享线下联系的人到完全陌生的人的可能联系,他们通过各种功能找到彼此,如群组、网络、粉丝页面、社交游戏和应用、照片、基于兴趣的个人资料字段、状态更新和朋友网络。

The concept of latent ties can help distinguish between these different Friending practices on Facebook. Haythornthwaite (2005) described the ways in which information and communication technologies open up new pathways of communication between individuals who would not otherwise connect. These ‘latent ties,’ defined as connections that are ‘technically possible but not yet activated socially’ (p. 137), arise whenever a new medium is introduced that enables individuals to connect with each other (e.g., a telephone system and a telephone directory). As Ellison et al. (2007) speculated, Facebook’s inclusion of a wide range of identifying information, including mutual friends and shared interests, may encourage users to activate latent ties, transforming them into the weak and bridging ties associated with positive bridging social capital outcomes. Based on this review, it is important to distinguish between uses of the site that involve initiating a relationship with a complete stranger, with no previous offline connection, and uses that essentially activate online ties among those who share an offline connection. Our use of the term ‘latent tie’ thus describes a relationship between two individuals which has not been socially activated. These individuals may have a passing awareness of one another (or may have even met briefly), but the affordances of the SNS serve to enhance and accelerate the relationship development process.

潜在联系的概念可以帮助区分 Facebook 上这些不同的 “交友” 实践。Haythornthwaite (2005) 描述了信息和通信技术,在没有这种方式就不会联系的个人之间,开辟新的沟通方式。这些 “潜在的联系”,被定义为 “技术上可能但社会上尚未激活 “的联系(第 137 页),每当引入一种新的媒介,使个人能够相互联系(例如,电话系统和电话簿)时,就会产生这种联系。正如 Ellison 等人 (2007) 所推测的那样,Facebook 包含了广泛的身份信息,包括共同的朋友和共同的兴趣,可能会鼓励用户激活潜在的联系,将其转化为与积极的桥接社会资本结果相关的弱联系和桥接联系。基于这篇评论,重要的是要区分网站的使用,即涉及与一个完全陌生的、之前没有线下联系的人发起关系,以及本质上激活那些共享线下联系的人之间的在线联系的使用。因此,我们使用 “潜在联系 “这个术语来描述两个人之间尚未被社会激活的关系。这些人可能对彼此有粗浅了解(甚至可能有过短暂的见面),但社交网站的功能有助于加强和加速这种关系的发展过程。

SNSs are also used by close friends, although little published research focuses on these uses. Close friends who connect through Facebook are likely to find it an efficient and easy way to keep in touch, and the lightweight interactions enabled by the site are likely to benefit these more developed relationships as well. In fact, 20 percent of the SNS users in research by Subrahmanyam et al. (2008) reported that their SNS use brought them closer to friends, and Ellison et al. (2007) found that intensity of Facebook use predicted bonding social capital, which is often associated with strong ties such as close friends. Facebook is unlikely to be a critical communication channel for close friends because these stronger ties typically use multiple, redundant channels to communicate, as suggested by media multiplexity (Haythornthwaite, 2005).

社交网站也被亲密朋友使用,哪怕很少有成文研究关注这类用途。通过 Facebook 建立联系的密友很可能会发现它是保持联系的一种有效而简单的方式,而该网站所实现的轻量级互动也很可能有利于这些更深入的(developed,意译,译注)关系。事实上,在 Subrahmanyam 等人(2008)的研究中,20% 的社交网站用户报告说他们的社交网站使用使他们与朋友的关系更加密切;Ellison 等人(2007)发现 Facebook 的使用强度可以预测结合型社会资本,而社会资本通常与密友等强关系相关。但(译注)Facebook 不太可能成为密友的关键沟通渠道,因为这些强关系通常使用多种冗余渠道进行沟通,正如媒体多义性 (media multiplexity) 所指出的那样(Haythornthwaite,2005)。

论文推荐 | 平台经济的依赖性和不稳定性

论文推荐 | 平台经济的依赖性和不稳定性

Dependence and precarity in the platform economy

Schor, J. B., Attwood-Charles, W., Cansoy, M., Ladegaard, I., & Wengronowitz, R. (2020). Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society, 1-29.

摘要

Uber和类似平台公司的快速发展引领了学者对平台劳动的极大兴趣。学者们主要采用了两种方法解释平台工作的结果——不稳定性,即关注雇佣分类和无保障的劳动;以及通过算法进行的技术控制。两者都预测劳动者会有相对共同的经历。在对七个平台(Airbnb、TaskRabbit、Turo、Uber、Lyft、Postmates和Favor)的工人进行 112 次深度访谈的基础上,我们发现在不同平台之间和平台内部的经验的异质性。我们认为,由于平台劳动的制度化程度较弱,工人满意度、自主性和收入在不同平台之间和平台内部都有显著差异,这说明主流的解释是不充分的。我们发现,劳动者依靠平台收入支付基本开支而不是为补充收入而工作的程度解释了结果的差异,补充收入者更满意,收入更高。这说明平台对传统雇主是搭便车的(free-riding)。我们还发现,平台在提供者能赚取的收入、工作条件以及其培养满意工人的能力方面是有等级之分的。我们的研究结果表明,需要对平台采取新的分析方法,强调劳动力多样性、与传统劳动力市场的联系以及工人的依赖性。

Abstract

The rapid growth of Uber and analogous platform companies has led to considerable scholarly interest in the phenomenon of platform labor. Scholars have taken two main approaches to explaining outcomes for platform work—precarity, which focuses on employment classification and insecure labor, and technological control via algorithms. Both predict that workers will have relatively common experiences. On the basis of 112 in-depth interviews with workers on seven platforms (Airbnb, TaskRabbit, Turo, Uber, Lyft, Postmates, and Favor) we find heterogeneity of experiences across and within platforms. We argue that because platform labor is weakly institutionalized, worker satisfaction, autonomy, and earnings vary significantly across and within platforms, suggesting dominant interpretations are insufficient. We find that the extent to which workers are dependent on platform income to pay basic expenses rather than working for supplemental income explains the variation in outcomes, with supplemental earners being more satisfied and higher-earning. This suggests platforms are free-riding on conventional employers. We also find that platforms are hierarchically ordered, in terms of what providers can earn, conditions of work, and their ability to produce satisfied workers. Our findings suggest the need for a new analytic approach to platforms, which emphasizes labor force diversity, connections to conventional labor markets, and worker dependence.

点击下载 PDF (Sci-hub)