Twitter in the context of Oldenburg’s Third Place Theory

Year 2019, October 2019 Special Issue, 79 - 89, 30.10.2019

İlkim Markoç

https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.610335

Abstract

Third Places are spaces where people can participate in a social network by
discussing everyday events with the community, apart from home or work, as
Oldenburg (1989) defined. Coffee shops, libraries, parks, and open spaces are
the third classically defined places by Ray Oldenburg. According to the
definition of Oldenburg; It is neutral, inclusive, communicative, and
accessible, has regular goers, prominent with social ties, and gives the
feeling of fun and comfort of the house. Along with developing internet
technologies, virtual environments have emerged that match Oldenburg's
definition. By creating profiles on social networking sites, people can follow
or share topics of interest to them. Twitter, a social networking site (SNS),
provides users with a virtual environment that allows them to talk and discuss
with other users. This study aims to consider Twitter in the context of
Oldenburg's Third Place Theory. In
this context, firstly, the concept of third place is defined in the literature.
Then, the usage areas of virtual media and social networking sites and the
opportunities they offer to the people are revealed. As a case study, the
extent to which the virtual environment provided by Twitter provides the
opportunity for the Third Place concept, and it conforms to the parameters
defined by Oldenburg, was discussed. Twitter meets the eight features of
Oldenburg’s third place. In the context of long distances, economic crises,
limited time and the opportunities offered by technology; it has been
demonstrated that interest in the virtual environments for the third place and
socialization needs of the people will increase gradually.

Keywords

Third Place, Cyberspace, Social Network Sites, Twitter

Oldenburg’un Üçüncü Yer Teorisi Bağlamında Twitter

Abstract

Oldenburg’a (1989) göre üçüncü yer olarak tanımlanan mekanlar; ev ya da iş haricinde,
kişilerin gündelik olayları toplum ile tartışarak bir sosyal ağa dahil
olabilecekleri mekanlardır. Kahve dükkanları, kütüphaneler, parklar ve açık
alanlar Ray Oldenburg’un tanımladığı klasik anlamdaki üçüncü yerlerdir.
Oldenburg’un tanımına göre üçüncü yerler; tarafsız, kapsayıcı, iletişime
müsait, erişilebilir, müdavimleri olan, sosyal bağlarla öne çıkan, eğlenceli, psikolojik
rahatlık ve duygusal destek sağlaması özelliklerini taşımaktadır. Gelişen
internet teknolojileri ile birlikte Oldenburg’un tanımına uyan sanal ortamlar
ortaya çıkmıştır. Kişiler, sosyal ağ sitelerinde profiller oluşturarak,
ilgilerini çeken konuları takip edebilir ya da bu konular hakkında paylaşımda
bulunabilirler. Sosyal ağ sitelerinden Twitter, kullanıcılarına diğer
kullanıcılarla konuşma ve tartışma fırsatı sunan sanal bir ortam sağlamaktadır.
Bu çalışmanın amacı Twitter’ın Oldenburg’un Üçüncü Yer Teorisi bağlamında ele
alınmasıdır. Bu bağlamda öncelikle üçüncü yer teorik olarak tanımlanmıştır.
Daha sonra sanal ortam ve sosyal ağ sitelerinin günümüzde kullanım alanları ve
kişilere sundukları fırsatlar ortaya konulmuştur. Vaka çalışması olarak
Twitter’ın sağladığı sanal ortamın, üçüncü yer kavramına ne ölçüde fırsat
sunduğu ve Oldenburg’un tanımladığı parametrelere ne ölçüde uygunluk
gösterdiğinin tartışması yapılmıştır. Twitter’ın Oldenburg’un tanımladığı
üçüncü yerlerin sekiz özelliğini fazlasıyla karşıladığı; uzak mesafeler,
ekonomik krizler, sınırlı zaman ve teknolojinin sunduğu olanaklar bağlamında
kişilerin üçüncü yer ve sosyalleşme ihtiyaçları için sanal ortama duyulan
ilginin giderek artacağı bu çalışmanın sonuçlarıdır.

 

Keywords

Üçüncü Yer, Sanal Ortam, Sosyal Ağ Siteleri, Twitter

References

• Anacleto J.C., Clua E.W.G., da Silva F.S.C., Fels S., Yang H.S. (2013). (eds) Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2013. ICEC 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8215. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergAusserhofer, J., Maireder, A., 2013. National politics on Twitter: structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16 (3), 291–314. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050. Batty, M. (1993). The geography of cyberspace. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 615-661. Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Zeng, X. (2011). Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science, 2(1), 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2010.12.007. Borja, R.R., 2005. ‘Blogs’ catching on as tool for instruction. Educ. Week 25 (15), 1–17.
Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. Çakı, F , Kızıltepe, B . (2017). Üçüncü Yerler Olarak Kafeler ve Gençlik: Balıkesir Örnek Olay İncelemesi. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi (AID), 12 (1), 173-202. DOI: 10.17550/akademikincelemeler.308922Cappello, G. (2019). Active Audiences. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy (eds R. Hobbs and P. Mihailidis). Chan, M. (2014), Facebook and social identity. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 229-235. Cheang, M. (2002). Older adults’ frequent visits to a fast-food restaurant: Nonobligatory social interaction and the significance of play in a third place. Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 303-321. Cox, D., & McLeod, S. (2014). Social media strategies for school principals. NASSP Bulletin, 98(1), 5e25. Crick, A. P. (2011). Rethinking Oldenburg: Third Places and Genera- tion Y in a Developing Country Context. International CHRIE Conference, 1-22. DeCava, M. (2006) Working out of a ‘third place’, USA Today [Online], Available from: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/2006-10-04-third-space_x.htm [Accessed: 18.01.14]. Dessler, G. (2008). Human resource management (11th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Edu- cation Ltd. Elhai, J. D., Hall, B. J., Levine, J. C., & Dvorak, R. D. (2017). Types of smartphone usage and relations with problematic smartphone behaviors: The role of content consumption vs. social smartphone use. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(2), article 3. Fournier, S. and Lee, L. (2009) Getting Brand Communities Right. Harvard Business Review, 87, 105-111.Frederick, E. L., Choong, H. L., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012). Why we follow: An examination of parasocial interaction and fan motivations for following athlete archetypes on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5, 481-502.Gallego, M. D., Bueno, S., & Noyes, J. (2016). Second Life adoption in education: A motivational model based on Uses and Gratifications theory. Computers and Education, 100, 81-93. Gastelum, Z. N., & Whattam, K. M. (2013). State-of-the-art of social media analytics research Goffman, E. (1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books Golub, A. (2010). Being in the World (of Warcraft): Raiding, realism and knowledge production in a massively multiplayer online game. Anthropological Quarterly, 83, 17-46. Guttentag, D.A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31, 637-651.
Hawkins CJ and Ryan LJ (2013). Festival Spaces as Third Places, Journal of Place Management and Development 6(3) pp. 192-202. ISSN 1753-8335.Hull, K., & Lewis, N. P. (2014). Why twitter displaces broadcast sports media: a model. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(1), 16e33. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2013-0093. Jin, S. A., & Phua, J. (2014). Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact of Twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on con- sumers’ source credibility perception, buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 181–195. Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horizons 53 (1), 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
Karababa, E., & Ger, G. (2011). Early Modern Ottoman Coffeehouse Culture and the Formation of the Consumer Subject. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 737– 760. https://doi.org/10.1086/656422 Kleinman, S. (2007). Displacing place: Mobile communication in the twenty-first cen- tury. New York: Peter Lang. Lau, W. W. F., Lui, V., & Chu, S. K. W. (2016). The use of wikis in a science inquiry- based project in a primary school. Educational Technology Research and Development. Lee, A., C. Danis, T. Miller and Y. Jung (2001): Fostering Social Interaction in Online Spaces. In Proceedings of INTERACT’01. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 59–66.
Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: the effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331e339. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002. Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2005). Control, emancipation, and status: The mobile telephone in teens’ parental and peer relationships. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 219–234). Oxford University Press. Markoc, I. & Sari Haksever, T. (2019). An Investigation of the Sense of PlaceAttachment According to the Age Groups, KIE Congress Proceedings, Gaziantep.McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: 
Identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 75(3), 681- 694Mehta, V., & Bosson, J. K. (2009). Third places and the social life of streets. Environment and Behavior, 42, 779–805.
Mikunda, C., and A. Blomen. (2006). Brand lands, hot spots, and cool spaces: Welcome to the third place and the total marketing experience. London: Kogan Page Publishing. O’Leary, M. B., Wilson, J. M., & Metiu, A. (2014). Information systems for symbolic action: Social media and beyond: Beyond being there: The symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219–1244. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Paragon House. Oldenburg, R. (1991). The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe and Company. Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Marlowe Papic, M., & Noonan, S. (2001). Social media as a tool for protest. Stratfor. Phua, J.J., Jin, S.A. & Kim, J.H. (2017). Gratifications of Using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat to Follow Brands. Telematics & Informatics, 34(1), 412-424.Pittman, M., Reich, B., 2016. Social media and loneliness: why an Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62, 155–167. Plunkett, S.W., Henry, C.S., Robinson, L.C., Behnke, A., Falcon, P.C., 2007. Adolescent perceptions of parental behaviors, adolescent self-esteem, and adolescent depressed mood. J. Child Fam. Stud. 16 (6), 760–772. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8), 1073–1083. 
Putnam, R. (2000): Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rathnayake, C. and Winter, J. S. (2017). Examining the Link Between Social Media Uses and Gratifications, and Political Tolerance and Dogmatism. Policy & Internet, 9: 444-466. Rosenbaum, M.S. (2006). Exploring the social supportive role of third places in consumers’ lives. Journal of Service Research, 9, 59-72. Rosenbaum, M.S., Ward, J., Walker, B.A. & Ostrom, A.L. (2007). A cup of coffee and a dash of love: An investigation of commercial social support and third-place attachment. Journal of Service Research, 10, 257-267. Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real- time event detection by social sensors. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. Schlosser, A. E. (2009), The Effect of Computer-Mediated Communication on Conformity versus Nonconformity: An Impression Management Perspective, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (July), 374-388. 
Simmel, Georg 1949 “The Sociology Of Sociability.” American Journal of Sociology LV:254–261 (translated by E. Hughes).Slater A and Koo HJ (2010). A New Type of “Third Place”? Journal of Place Management and Development 3 99-112.Sponcil, M., & Gitimu, P. (2013). Use of social media by college students: Relationship to communication and self-concept. Journal of Technology Research, 4, 1e13. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/121214.pdf.
Steinkuehler, C. A. and D. Williams (2006): Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as ‘‘Third Places’’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 11, no. 4. Tuan, N., Tu, N., 2013. The impact of online social networking on students’ study. VNU J. Educ. Res. 29 (1), 1–13. Tumasian, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G., Welpe, I. M., (2010). Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. in: International Conference on Web and Social Media. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/viewFile/1441/ 1852Predicting.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books. Watson, B.R., 2016. Is Twitter an alternative medium? Comparing gulf coast Twitter and newspaper coverage of the 2010 BP Oil spill. Community Res. 43 (5), 647–671. Wechsberg, J. (1966). “The Viennese Coffee House: A Romantic Institution.” Gourmet 12:16.Whyte, J. (2002). Virtual reality and the built environment. Oxford: Architectural Press. Windahl, S., Signitzer, B., & Olson, J. T. (2008). Using communication theory: An introduction to planned communication. Sage.Witmer, B.G., Bailey, J.H., Knerr, B.W., & Parsons, K.C. (1996). Virtual spaces and real world places: Transfer of route knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 413-428. Wood, C., Kemp, N., Waldron, S., Hart, L., 2014. Grammatical understanding, literacy and text messaging in school children and undergraduate students: A concurrent analysis. Comput. Educ. 70, 281–290.
www.similarweb.com