Facebook and Social Media as Online Conflict Resolution Platforms

Introduction: Community, Social Capital, and Social Networks

Humans are social animals who typically dwell together in communities based on their beliefs, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions that may be present and common, affecting the identity of participants and their degree of cohesiveness.

In sociology, the word community is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and is attributed with social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the national community or global community. Since the advent of the Internet, however, the concept of community no longer has geographical limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location.

In other words, community indicates a group of people with a common identity other than location, whose members often interact regularly. This is the case in a virtual community. A virtual community is a group of people primarily communicating or interacting with each other by means of information technologies, typically over the Internet, rather than in person. These may be communities of interest, practice, or communion. Membership usually involves users signing up to join a community page or network on the internet. Examples include:

A business community is often an administrative community with possibilities to add CVs and other business-related information. An interest community is based on specialized areas such as art, golf, or bird watching. A general community is wider in its range, allowing users to create areas, pages, and groups.

Where community exists, it is desirable for freedom, trust, and security to exist as well. The result is that the community takes on a life of its own, as people become free enough to share and secure enough to get along. The sense of connectedness and the formation of social networks comprise what has become known as social capital.

Social capital is defined by Robert D. Putnam (2000) as "the collective value of all social networks (who people know) and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other (norms of reciprocity)." Social capital in action can be seen in all sorts of groups, including neighbors keeping an eye on each other's homes.

Social Capital Theory gained importance through the integration of classical sociological theory with the description of an intangible form of capital. In this way the classical definition of capital was expanded, allowing researchers to tackle issues in a new manner (Ferragina, 2010). Table 1 below summarizes the key theoretical traditions:

Table 1. Theories of Capital

The classical tradition (Marx) analyzed social relations in terms of exploitation by the capitalist bourgeoisie of the proletariat and the accumulation of surplus value by laborers. Neo-capital theories extended this framework: Human Capital (Schulz, Becker) focused on investment in technical skills and knowledge; Cultural Capital (Bourdieu) addressed the reproduction of dominant symbols and meanings; and Social Capital (Lin, Burt, Marsden, Flap, Coleman, Bourdieu, Putnam) emphasized access to and use of resources embedded in social networks, as well as solidarity and the reproduction of group identity. These theories differ in their level of analysis — from structural class-level analysis to individual- and group-level perspectives.

Through the social capital concept, researchers have tried to propose a synthesis between the value contained in communitarian approaches and the individualism professed by rational choice theory. Social capital can only be generated collectively through the presence of communities and social networks, yet individuals and groups can use it simultaneously (Ferragina, 2010).

Social media are media for social interaction, using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media uses web-based technologies to turn communication into interactive dialogues. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein (2010) define social media as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, which allows the creation and exchange of user-generated content." Social media can take many different forms, including internet forums, weblogs, social blogs, microblogs, wikis, podcasts, pictures, video, rating systems, and social bookmarking. According to Kaplan and Haenlein, there are six different types of social media: collaborative projects, blogs and microblogs, content communities, social networking sites, virtual game worlds, and virtual communities.

The rapid growth of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace suggests that individuals are creating a virtual network consisting of both bonding and bridging social capital. Unlike face-to-face interaction, people can instantly connect with others in a targeted fashion by applying specific parameters to their internet use. This means that individuals can selectively connect with others based on shared interests and backgrounds. Facebook is currently the most popular social networking site and offers many advantages to its users, including serving as a "social lubricant" for individuals who otherwise have difficulties forming and maintaining both strong and weak ties with others. The consensus of research shows that the more time people spend online, the more in-person contact they tend to have, thus positively enhancing social capital.

Facebook, Conflict, and the Need for Online Dispute Resolution

Facebook is an online social networking website that lets users interact with each other by sharing information about themselves via personal profiles. Users share their information by "friending" others and granting them access to their profile. As of October 2010, Facebook was considered the largest online social network with over 500 million active users, surpassing other online social networks such as MySpace, Friendster, and Bebo. Originally created by several university students in February 2004, Facebook was modeled after printed directories that universities circulated profiling staff, faculty, and students. Facebook originally began as a service offered only to universities but continually expanded its availability until it allowed global registration in September 2006. Since then, Facebook has grown rapidly, becoming especially popular among younger generations and college students.

Although the premise of Facebook rests on sharing information via an online profile containing basic information about the user, there have been important additions to the site that have fundamentally changed how users interact. Facebook introduced the "groups" application in September 2004 as one of its basic features. Groups allows users to share common interests by providing a common space where users can meet others interested in a specific topic, disseminate information about that topic, and hold public discussions relevant to it. The group application was one of the earliest and remains one of the most pivotal features contributing to the interactive nature of Facebook. Facebook has also introduced the wall (where users can post messages on other people's profiles), notes (where users can share their views with blog-like posts), share (where users can post links to external websites on their profile), and fan pages (where users can show support for a public figure).

Facebook can be described as a fully established global human community located in the virtual world of the internet. No matter the location, one characteristic of every human community is that tensions may arise when there are disagreements among members. These tensions can sometimes escalate into conflicts.

Conflict is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a serious disagreement or argument; a prolonged armed struggle; and incompatibility between opinions, principles, etc." Conflict permeates every aspect of human life. We experience disagreements with loved ones, friends, relatives, and co-workers. We see conflict in movies, television, and theatre. We read about conflict in books, newspapers, magazines, and on the Internet. In government, industry, and politics, we see a mix of cooperation, honesty, trust, and reciprocity, as well as arrogance, corruption, greed, and retaliation. In short, we live in a world where conflict exists at all times. Nevertheless, there is always an inherent desire in every human being for peace and agreement. Consequently, as much as conflict may permeate human existence, several methods have been adopted over time to resolve conflicts as and when they occur.

Conflict resolution is a range of methods for eliminating sources of conflict. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "dispute resolution." Processes of conflict resolution generally include negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy. Conflict resolution can be highly sensitive to culture. For instance, in Western cultural contexts such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding the "win-win" solution, or a mutually satisfying scenario, for everyone involved (Fisher and Ury, 1981). In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, China, and Africa, finding "win-win" solutions is equally important; however, getting there can be very different. Direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. It may instead make sense to involve religious, tribal, or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party, and make suggestions through stories (Augsberger, 1992). Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to resolve because the expectations of disputants can be very different and there is much occasion for misunderstanding.

This is where the global and multicultural nature of social media is seen as common ground for arbitration and conflict resolution. The use of social media or social networks for resolving conflicts has yet to be empirically researched and evaluated from this context, however. The proposed research will be the first empirically derived study of how to use social networks for resolving conflicts online through virtual platforms including Facebook.

As users' perception of the trustworthiness and veracity of social networks as a collaborative platform increases, so will their reliance on them for conflict resolution. The research problem is one of measuring how effective social network platforms can be in their current technological state for conflict arbitration. The research problem also needs to take into account what features and functionality can be added to social networks to increase their value for conflict mediation and resolution. The attitudes of social networking users regarding how they would use Facebook, Twitter, and other popular platforms also need to be researched.

The study's goal is to determine how effective social media in general, and Facebook specifically, can be as a conflict mediation platform. Its objectives are: (a) to measure how effective Facebook is for resolving conflicts and arbitrating disputes; (b) to define the highest-priority feature and platform enhancements to Facebook to ensure greater levels of conflict resolution and arbitration; and (c) to measure the attitudes of Facebook users as they relate to their relative levels of trust in this social networking platform when used for conflict mediation and resolution.

The research questions are as follows: (a) Is the current Facebook platform, including the Groups feature launched on October 6, 2010, suitable for conflict arbitration and resolution? (b) If so, what types of conflict arbitration and resolution is the existing Facebook platform best used for? (c) What is the current level of trust users have in Facebook as a collaboration platform? (d) Do users trust Facebook in its current configuration as a conflict arbitration and resolution platform, and what features need to be added to make it more adept at conflict resolution?

The study's null hypothesis states that Facebook, in its current form, is not effective as a collaboration platform for mediating and resolving conflicts in both distance-based and in-person relationships. The alternative hypothesis states that Facebook is effective as such a platform. To date, no study has attempted to assess the value of Facebook or social networks as a platform for enabling conflict mitigation and resolution, making this research the first of its kind to address these issues. Studies of the effectiveness of web-based collaboration platforms for virtual team management abound (Topi, 2004; Grantham and Nichols, 1995), and there is research suggesting that online collaborative platforms can be very effective at mitigating and resolving conflicts within virtual teams (Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007). Yet a significant gap remains in the research on using social networking — and Facebook specifically — for conflict resolution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the paper focused on the use of social media as a potential tool for conflict resolution. This particular paper chose a specific format of social media — namely, the social networking website Facebook. The paper discussed how the phenomenon of dispute resolution has evolved over the last few years and incorporates much more innovative and creative outlets for businesses to resolve conflicts. This has also led to disagreements and differences of opinion on what the best structure for conflict resolution should be.