Blurred reputations: Managing professional and private information online

Abstract

Results are reported from a study that investigated patterns of information behaviour and use as related to personal reputation building and management in online environments. An everyday life information seeking (ELIS) perspective was adopted. Data were collected by diary and interview from forty-five social media users who hold professional and managerial work roles, and who are users of Twitter, Facebook, and/or LinkedIn. These data were first transcribed, then coded with NVivo10 according to themes identified from a preliminary literature review, with further codes added as they emerged from the content of the participant diaries and interviews. The main findings reveal that the portrayal of different personas online contribute to the presentation (but not the creation) of identity, that information sharing practices for reputation building and management vary according to social media platform, and that the management of online connections and censorship are important to the protection of reputation. The maintenance of professional reputation is more important than private reputation to these users. They are aware of the 'blur' between professional and private lives in online contexts, and the influence that it bears on efforts to manage an environment where LinkedIn is most the useful of the three sites considered, and Facebook the most risky. With its novel focus on the 'whole self', this work extends understandings of the impact of information on the building and management of reputation from an Information Science perspective. Keywords everyday life information seeking, information behaviour and use, identity, information sharing, personas, reputation building, reputation management, social media

What is known about personal reputation? A systematic literature review

“… Method/Design References No. Of articles in this systematic review % Qualitative [ 9 , 51 , 55 , 68 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 80 , 98 , 102 , 105 , 113 , 116 , 129 ] 14 15.4 Quantitative [ [13] , [14] , [15] , 22 , 49 , [52] , [53] , [54] , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] , [66] , [67] , 73 , 76 , 78 , [81] , [82] , [83] , 85 , 87 , 88 , [90] , [91] , [92] , [94] , [95] , [96] , [97] , 99 , …”

“…The literature gaps are related to digital personal reputation, online audiences, information processes, language analysis, message contents, communication among users via the platforms, and the role of sharing economy platforms (see, e.g., Refs. [ 9 , 51 , 54 ] [ [68] , [69] , [70] , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] , [84] , [85] ]). For example, the research by Wang et al [ 85 ] sets out to examine other contexts and platforms and includes patient-level data collection, and it concludes that online communication strategies should be considered since doctors' reputation has a positive effect on the number of reviews posted, while it also impacts the hospital's reputation.…”

“…Refs. [ 9 , 70 , 85 ]). The social media influence people's perceptions and consequently the trust they may have in other individuals.…”

“…Although the definition of reputation has varied, the concept of personal reputation has evolved through the enrichment of this theoretical construct. Personal reputation refers to inferences based on an individual's information [ 6 , 9 ]. Moreover, through others' (i.e., audiences') perceptions, a perceptive identity is formed which reveals the individual's characteristics, outstanding personal achievements, behaviors, and projection of intentional images [ 10 ] that they can be observed directly or by secondary sources [ 11 ].…”

First impressions matter: evaluating the importance of online reputation in social networking sites for initial trust in virtual work partners

“…Nowadays, a specific technology artifact seems to be capable of acting as a rich source of social information: the social networking sites. The social networking sites correspond to specific types of social media platforms and Internet sites with common attributes, such as user profile, user access to digital content, a user list of relational ties and user ability to view and traverse relational ties (Ryan et al, 2020;Wakefield and Wakefield, 2016). Popular examples of social networking sites are Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter (Jahng and Littau, 2016;Wakefield and Wakefield, 2016).…”