Social Network research and no mention of Facebook, Twitter et al?
January 5th, 2009
We were surprised by the research in the BMJ about the benefits of social networks…We were expecting to read a fun run through of Facebook, MySpace, Technorati, twitter and the like but they seemed to be talking about the Framingham Heart Study, which I must say I found somewhat confusing!
Surely this is worth some correspondence to the editor about getting an up to date perspective on what these terms mean to their readership?
Or maybe its just us with our winter hangover…
It is a bit misleading. While the study focuses on a traditional ‘Social Network’ of real, live, people and their relationships over time, ‘Social Network’ in today’s world has a very different meaning.
Or maybe we have been using Social Network improperly, I think the digital inclined have shortened ‘Online Social Networks’ or ‘Virtual Social Networks’ to just ‘Social Network’ which has a much broader scope.
I couldn’t agree more, and I think that its now a pretty general use of the term…
So what term do you think the authors should have used? Journal articles are and should be written using established terminology and this is the correct use of soical network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network
Absolutely Anne, I couldn’t agree more. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek jest fro the benefit of the online community! Hijacked by the web community.
But…
I don’t know if you saw the BMJ cover. Very trendy. Its essentially a plain yellow page with a smiley face on it. As first I thought they were reporting on LSD….