skip to main content
10.1145/2998181.2998182acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

When Subjects Interpret the Data: Social Media Non-use as a Case for Adapting the Delphi Method to CSCW

Published:25 February 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the use of the Delphi method as a means of incorporating study participants into the processes of data analysis and interpretation. As a case study, it focuses on perceptions about use and non-use of the social media site Facebook. The work presented here involves three phases. First, a large survey included both a demographically representative sample and a convenience sample. Second, a smaller follow-up survey presented results from that survey back to survey respondents. Third, a series of qualitative member checking interviews with additional survey respondents served to validate the findings of the follow-up survey. This paper demonstrates the utility of Delphi by highlighting the ways that it enables us to synthesize across these three study phases, advancing understanding of perceptions about social media use and non-use. The paper concludes by discussing the broader applicability of the Delphi method across CSCW research.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Alessandro Acquisti and Ralph Gross. 2006. Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook. In Proc Privacy Enhancing Technologies Workshop, 36--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Morgan G Ames. 2013. Managing Mobile Multitasking: The Culture of iPhones on Stanford Campus. In Proc CSCW, 1487--1498. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Torbjørn Torsheim, Geir Scott Brunborg, and Ståle Pallesen. 2012. Development of a Facebook Addiction Scale. Psychological Reports 110, 2: 501--517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Maureen Jane Angen. 2000. Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research 10, 3: 378--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Eric P. S. Baumer, Phil Adams, Vera D. Khovanskaya, Tony C. Liao, Madeline E. Smith, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Kaiton Williams. 2013. Limiting, Leaving, and (re)Lapsing: An Exploration of Facebook Non-Use Practices and Experiences. In Proc CHI, 3257--3266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Eric P. S. Baumer, Jenna Burrell, Morgan G. Ames, Jed R. Brubaker, and Paul Dourish. 2015. On the Importance and Implications of Studying Technology Non-use. interactions 22, 2: 52--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Eric P. S. Baumer, Shion Guha, and Geri K. Gay. All Non-users are Not Created Equal: Predictors Vary for Different Forms of Facebook Non-use. under review.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eric P. S. Baumer, Shion Guha, Emily Quan, David Mimno, and G. K. Gay. 2015. Missing Photos, Suffering Withdrawal, or Finding Freedom? How Experiences of Social Media Non-Use Influence the Likelihood of Reversion. Social Media + Society 1, 2: 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Eric P. S. Baumer, David Mimno, Shion Guha, Emily Quan, and Geri Gay. Comparing Topic Modeling and Grounded Theory: Extreme Divergence or Unlikely Convergence? JASIST in press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Eric P. S. Baumer. 2015. Usees. In Proc CHI, 3295--3298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Wendell Bell. 2003. Foundations of Futures Studies: Human science for a new era: History, purposes and knowledge. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ulf Böckenholt and Peter G. M. van der Heijden. 2007. Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self-Protective Responses. Psychometrika 72, 2: 245--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Kirsten Boehner, Janet Vertesi, Phoebe Sengers, and Paul Dourish. 2007. How HCI interprets the probes. In Proc CHI, 1077--1086. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. John Brownlee. 2012. This Creepy App Isn't Just Stalking Women Without Their Knowledge, It's A Wake-Up Call About Facebook Privacy. Cult of Mac. Retrieved from http://www.cultofmac.com/157641/this-creepy-appisnt-just-stalking-women-without-their-knowledgeits-a-wake-up-call-about-facebook-privacy/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jed R. Brubaker, Mike Ananny, and Kate Crawford. 2014. Departing glances: A sociotechnical account of "leaving" Grindr. New Media & Society 18, 3: 373--390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Munmun De Choudhury and Michael Massimi. 2015. "She said yes!" -- Liminality and Engagement Announcements on Twitter. In Proc iConference. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/73658Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Holly M. Donohoe and Roger D. Needham. 2009. Moving Best Practice Forward: Delphi Characteristics, Advantages, Potential Problems, and Solutions. International Journal of Tourism Research 11, 5: 415--437.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Paul Dourish. 2006. Implications for design. In Proc CHI, 541--550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Maeve Duggan, Nicole B. Ellison, Cliff Lampe, Amanda Lenhart, and Mary Madden. 2015. Pew Social Meida Report 2015. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/socialmedia-update-2014/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R.I.M. Dunbar. 1993. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16, 4: 681--735.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 2007. The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 12, 4: 1143--1168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Selwyn Enzer. 1975. Plastics and Competing Materials by 1985: A Delphi Forecasting Study. In The Delphi Method, Harold A Linstone and Murray Turoff (eds.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 189--203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Motahhare Eslami, Aimee Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015. "I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to {her}": Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. In Proc CHI, 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. David Fetterman. 2010. Ethnography: Step-by-Step. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. H. Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. William W. Gaver, T. Dunne, and E. Pacenti. 1999. Cultural Probes. interactions 6, 1: 21--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ilana Gershon. 2011. Un-Friend My Heart: Facebook, Promiscuity, and Heartbreak in a Neoliberal Age. Anthropological Quarterly 84, 4: 865--894.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Peter G. Goldschmidt and Andrew W. Dahl. 1976. Demoflush: Estimating Population in Seasonal Resort Communities. Growth & Change 7, 2: 44--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Peter G. Goldschmidt. 1975. Scientific Inquiry or Political Critique - Remarks on Delphi Assessment, Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process by H. Sackman. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 7, 2: 195--213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Claire M. Goodman. 1987. The Delphi technique: a critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing 12: 729--734.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Jon E. Grant, Marc N. Potenza, Aviv Weinstein, and David A. Gorelick. 2010. Introduction to Behavioral Addictions. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 36, 5: 233--241. IntroductionGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jon E. Grant. 2008. Impulse Control Disorders. W. W. Norton & Company, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Shion Guha and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2013. Can you see me now?: location, visibility and the management of impressions on foursquare. In Proc MobileHCI, 183--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo. 1973. Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology 1: 69--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. E. Hargittai. 2015. Is Bigger Always Better? Potential Biases of Big Data Derived from Social Network Sites. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659, 1: 63--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Eszter Hargittai. 2008. Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13, 1: 276--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Gillian R. Hayes. 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 18, 3: 1--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. C. Heath and P. Luff. 1992. Collaboration and Control: Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1, 1--2: 24--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Brent Hecht, Lichan Hong, Bongwon Suh, and Ed H. Chi. 2011. Tweets from Justin Bieber's Heart: The Dynamics of the "Location" Field in User Profiles. In Proc CHI, 237--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Michael A. Hogg and Scott A. Reid. 2006. Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory 16, 1: 7--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Christine Horne. 2001. Sociological Explanations of the Emergence of Norms. In Social Norms, Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp (eds.). Russell Sage, NY, 3--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. William Jones, Anne Diekema, Jaime Teevan, Manuel Pérez-Quiñones, Jesse David Dinneen, and Bradley Hemminger. 2015. "For Telling" the Present: Using the Delphi Method to Understand Personal Information Management Practices. In Proc CHI, 3513--3522. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Ronald Kline. 2003. Resisting Consumer Technology in Rural America: The Telephone and Electrification. In How Users Matter: The Coconstruction of Users and Technology, Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch (eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 51--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Cliff Lampe, Jessica Vitak, and Nicole Ellison. 2013. Users and Nonusers: Interactions between Levels of Facebook Adoption and Social Capital. In Proc CSCW, 809--819. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Jon Landeta. 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73, 5: 467--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Maria Knight Lapinski and Rajiv N. Rimal. 2005. An explication of social norms. Communication Theory 15, 2: 127--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Bruno Latour. 1993. Ethnography of a High Tech Case: About Aramis. In P. Lemonnier (ed.). Routledge, London, 372--398.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. David Lazer, Alex Sandy Pentland, Lada Adamic, Sinan Aral, Albert Laszlo Barabasi, Devon Brewer, Nicholas Christakis, Noshir Contractor, James Fowler, Myron Gutmann, Tony Jebara, Gary King, Michael Macy, Deb Roy, and Marshall Var Alstyne. 2009. Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science. Science 323, 5915: 721--723.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Amanda B. Lenhart. 2005. Unstable Texts: An Ethnographic Look at How Bloggers and Their Audience Negotiate Self-Presentation, Authenticity, and Norm Formation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Karen Levy. 2015. The User as Network. First Monday 20, 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Kurt Lewin. 1946. Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 4: 34--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Harold A Linstone and Murray Turoff. 1975. The Delphi Method. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. J. Lofland and L. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Jennifer Mankoff, Jennifer A Rode, and Haakon Faste. 2013. Looking Past Yesterday's Tomorrow: Using Futures Studies Methods to Extend the Research Horizon. In Proc CHI, 1629--1638. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Joseph P. Martino. 1970. The consistency of Delphi forecast. Futurist 4, 2: 63--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd. 2010. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13, 1: 114--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Matt McKeon. 2010. The Evolution of Privacy on Facebook. Retrieved January 11, 2016 from http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. S.B. Merriam. 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. S Milgram. 1963. Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 67, 4: 371--378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Michael Muller, Shion Guha, Eric P. S. Baumer, David Mimno, and N. Sadat Shami. 2016. Machine Learning and Grounded Theory Method: Convergence, Divergence, and Combination. In Proc. GROUP. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Michael J Muller and Allison Druin. 2012. Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, Julie Jacko (ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Blair Nonnecke and Jenny Preece. 2001. Why lurkers lurk. In Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, Paper 294. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= 10.1.1.92.183&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Kurt Opsahl. 2010. Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved January 11, 2016 from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebooktimelineGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Wanda J. Orlikowski and Jack J. Baroudi. 1991. Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research 2, 1: 1--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Ethan R. Plaut. 2015. Technologies of avoidance: The swear jar and the cell phone. First Monday 20, 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Laura Portwood-Stacer. 2012. How We Talk About Media Refusal, Part 1: "Addiction." Flow 16, 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Laura Portwood-Stacer. 2012. How We Talk about Media Refusal, Part 2: "Asceticism." Flow 16, 6. Retrieved from http://flowtv.org/2012/09/mediarefusal-part-2-asceticism/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Laura Portwood-Stacer. 2013. Media Refusal and Conspicuous Non-Consumption: The Performative and Political Dimensions of Facebook Abstention. New Media & Society 15, 7: 1041--1057.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Tom Postmes, Russell Spears, and Martin Lea. 2000. The Formation of Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication. Human Communication Research 26, 3: 341--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Jenny Preece, Blair Nonnecke, and Dorine Andrews. 2004. The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior 20, 2: 201--223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Lee Rainie, Aaron Smith, and Maeve Duggan. 2013. Coming and Going on Facebook. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/ 2013/PIP_Coming_and_going_on_facebook.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P. John. 2007. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality 41, 1: 203--212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Rajiv N. Rimal and Kevin Real. 2003. Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory 13, 2: 184--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Mattias Rost, Louise Barkhuus, Henriette Cramer, and Barry Brown. 2013. Representation and communication. In Proc CSCW, 357--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. J.A. Roth and J.T. Scholtz (eds.). 1989. Taxpayer compliance: Social science perspectives. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Gene Rowe and George Wright. 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15: 353--375.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Tracii Ryan and Sophia Xenos. 2011. Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 5: 1658--1664. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Harold Sackman. 1975. Delphi Assessment, Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Processes. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Margarete Sandelowski. 1993. Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science 16, 2: 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Christine Satchell and Paul Dourish. 2009. Beyond the user: use and non-use in HCI. In Proc OZCHI, 9--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Sarita Yardi Schoenebeck. 2014. Giving up Twitter for Lent: How and Why We Take Breaks from Social Media. In Proc CHI, 773--782. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Neil Selwyn. 2003. Apart from technology: understanding people's non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society 25, 1: 99--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Shilad Sen, Margaret E. Giesel, Rebecca Gold, Benjamin Hillmann, Matt Lesicko, Samuel Naden, Jesse Russell, Zixiao "Ken" Wang, and Brent Hecht. 2015. Turkers, Scholars, "Arafat" and "Peace": Cultural Communities and Algorithmic Gold Standards. In Proc CSCW, 826--838. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Stefan Stieger, Christoph Burger, Manuel Bohn, and Martin Voracek. 2013. Who commits virtual identity suicide? Differences in privacy concerns, internet addiction, and personality between facebook users and quitters. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16, 9: 629--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. J. Stromer-Galley and R. M. Martey. 2009. Visual spaces, norm governed places: the influence of spatial context online. New Media & Society 11, 6: 1041--1060.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. L.A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Zeynep Tufekci. 2008. Grooming, Gossip, Facebook and MySpace. Information, Communication & Society 11, 4: 544--564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Johan Ugander, Lars Backstrom, Cameron Marlow, and Jon Kleinberg. 2012. Structural diversity in social contagion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 16: 5962--5966.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Ron Wakkary and Karen Tanenbaum. 2009. A sustainable identity: the creativity of an everyday designer. In Proc CHI, 365--374. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Yang Wang, Saranga Komanduri, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Gregory Norcie, Alessandro Acquisti, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2011. "I regretted the minute I pressed share": A Qualitative Study of Regrets on Facebook. In Proc SOUPS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Gordon Welty. 1971. A Critique of the Delphi Method. In The Joint Statistical Meeting of American Statistical Association, 377--382.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Andrea Wiggins and Kevin Crowston. 2015. Surveying the Citizen Science Landscape. First Monday 20, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. John W. Williamson and Mart G. van Nieuwenhuijzen. 1974. Health Benefit Analysis: An Application in Industrial Absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Medicine 16, 4: 229--233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Sally Wyatt. 2003. Non-Users Also Matter: The Construction of Users and Non-Users of the Internet. In How Users Matter: The Coconstruction of Users and Technology, Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch (eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 67--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. S. Wyche and E. P. S. Baumer. 2016. Imagined Facebook: An exploratory study of non-users perceptions of social media in Rural Zambia. New Media & Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Susan P. Wyche, Paul M. Aoki, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2008. Re-placing faith: reconsidering the secular-religious use divide in the United States and Kenya. In Proc CHI, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Susan P. Wyche, Sarita Yardi Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2013. "Facebook is a Luxury": An Exploratory Study of Social Media Use in Rural Kenya. In Proc CSCW, 33--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. Xuan Zhao, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Dan Cosley. 2012. It's Complicated: How Romantic Partners Use Facebook. In Proc CHI, 771--780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. When Subjects Interpret the Data: Social Media Non-use as a Case for Adapting the Delphi Method to CSCW

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
      February 2017
      2556 pages
      ISBN:9781450343350
      DOI:10.1145/2998181

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 February 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate183of530submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader