RACE AND ONLINE CONTENT CREATION

Abstract

The user-generated Web provides new tools for participation by creating content. Drawing from uses and gratifications and social identity gratifications paradigms, the authors investigated quantitatively the differentiated uses of participatory technologies among diverse racial and ethnic groups of college students. Using qualitative techniques, we also explored the different discourses and meanings these social groups attach to these tools. A survey showed that among online users, minority groups – African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians – tend to create online content more frequently than white students. Four focus groups with different racial and ethnic groups revealed that the meanings attached to these participatory tools differ. Although three main principles emerged as organizing discourses – connecting, enacting the self, and struggling – these themes were framed differently. For instance, while social connection with friends and family was mentioned across all groups, connecting with niche communities emerged among minorities; they valued these tools as an opportunity to connect with communities to which they share identities and their voices are relevant. The authors also found that although these tools open the opportunity of representing the self for everyone, different groups framed this possibility differently. While African-Americans highlighted the idea of self-expression, that is, expressing their inner thoughts and culture to others, white students focused more prominently on instrumental reasons such as promoting their work. Finally, all groups, except African-Americans, expressed their struggles with the problems that emerge when nobody controls the creation of content such as hostile or ‘immature’ interactions.

Keywords:

• online content creation
• user-generated web
• race
• social identity

Notes

One of the universities was oversampled due to its greater socio-demographic diversity. While 35 percent (10,500) of the students from the university located in a metropolitan area were selected in the sample; 20 percent of the small town university's students were chosen (7,696).

The demographic profile of the sample of the small town university was 79 percent white, 11 percent Latino, 4 percent Asian, 3 percent African-American, 0.4 percent Native American or Alaskan Native, 3 percent other, and the actual university population is 76 percent white, 13 percent Latino, 5 percent Asian, 3 percent African-American, 0.5 percent Native American or Alaskan Native, and 2 percent other. In the case of the metropolitan-area university, the demographic profile of the sample was 38 percent white, 26 percent Asian, 20 percent Latino, 9 percent African-American, 0.3 percent Native American or Alaskan native, and 5 percent other, and the actual demographic breakdown is 36 percent white, 20 percent Asian, 20 percent Hispanic, 14 percent African-American, 0.3 percent Native American, and 11 percent others.