Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Summary
Many databases analyze the demographic composition, earning potential and psychological effects of social media sites. Few are interested in the semiotics of online curation. The 2017 study Dressing for the Internet falls into the latter category and proposes to explain how dress cues are used in social media (Shumaker et al., 2017). The study aims to study clothing as a method of nonverbal online communication but falls short due to its flawed sample and methodology.
Purpose(s)
The purpose of this article is clearly stated at the end of the introduction. Numerous studies have addressed the primacy of dress in identity construction, and self-presentation is a proven motivation for engaging in social media (Roach-Higgins & Eicher, 1992; Lee et al., 2015). However, no studies have specifically focused on the component of dress in social media curation. This article aims to assess what messages social media users want to send with their clothing and their desired outcomes. The significance or need for this research is not clearly stated.
Type
The authors state that a qualitative, grounded theory approach was chosen in order to develop a theoretical framework for the purpose of dress cues (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Interviews and photo-elicitation techniques, with personally significant content for the participants, were used to discover their values, beliefs, attitudes and meaning (Shumaker et al., 2017; Prosser & Schwartz, 1998). We can infer that it was chosen because the research aims to construct a theory on social processes without an initial hypothesis, but it was not clearly explained in the paper other than mentioning that grounded theory minimizes researcher bias.
Sampling
The sampling comprised completely of undergraduate students at a small East Coast university. Eighty-six percent of students were female, and 90% were aged 18-23. This imbalance was deemed acceptable since young women also represent the majority of Instagram users (Duggan et al., 2015). Forty-one percent consisted of Textiles and Fashion Studies Majors.
This sampling is clearly explained but not representative of the general population since it only targeted people currently enrolled in undergraduate study in one geographic area. In total, only 44% of Instagram users report some college education (Pew Research Center, 2021). The study also favored women aged 18-23, when in fact, 25-34-year-olds are the largest advertising audience on Instagram, and only 51% identify as female (Sehl, 2021). The sample also included a disproportionate amount of students who had already chosen to dedicate their studies to fashion and would therefore place an inordinate amount of importance on clothes as methods of self-expression.
Data collection
For stage one, a nine-question survey regarding age, gender, major, and use of dress on social media was distributed to all undergraduate students at a small East Coast college (Shumaker et al., 2017). Two hundred eight responses were deemed complete and useable. For stage two, a subsample of respondents who used Instagram and reported using clothing to send a message on social media was created. Out of this subsample, fifteen were randomly selected and interviewed for thirty minutes with a photo-elicitation approach (Prosser & Schwartz, 2015). They were presented with five of their own Instagram posts and questioned about the meanings they perceived in their clothes.
The data collection method was clearly presented. However, specifically asking about self-expression via clothes makes the participants more likely to exaggerate the importance of dress. Furthermore, their method of questioning focused solely on the interviewees intentions upon posting a photo but not how viewers perceived their meaning. It would have been relevant to present the same picture to other interviewees and assess whether they interpreted the posters dress cues the same way the poster did. Finally, the paper did not clarify how big the original subsample of Instagram users who use dress cues was or specify what questions were asked during the interviews.
Data Analysis
All the interview data was transcribed and underwent open, axial, and selective coding to avoid the possibility of preconceived notions influencing the results (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). An audit coder repeated the primary investigators method, the results were compared, and the reliability was above 80 percent (Creswell, 2013). The excerpts were constantly compared until saturation as per the GT approach (Creswell, 2007). Participants themselves chose the photos to be analyzed to reduce researcher bias.
The data analysis method was adequately described and appropriate. However, if participants chose their photos themselves, they were more liable to pick photos relevant to the study question.
Results and conclusions
Forty-six percent reported using clothing to send a message on their social media. Stage two interviews revealed the most frequent reasons were to showcase experiences, express feelings, embody a lifestyle and promote beliefs (Shumaker et al., 2017, p. 8). Students chose specific brands, prints, or styles to bolster their self-esteem, presented their desired self-image online, and then assessed their success by the number of likes (Shumaker et al., 2017). Limitations of the study and possibilities for further research are discussed.
Whether Instagram posters use dress cues was not addressed beyond mentioning that 46% reported affirmatively in the survey (Shumaker et al., 2017). All the study managed to do was identify the most common intentions behind choosing particular clothes for an Instagram post. It used appropriate participant quotations to present its results. However, this does not fully answer the initial question of how dress cues convey messages because it was not assessed whether the audience actually understood the underlying message of the poster. Moreover, the study did not find what the posters expectations are beyond getting likes.
Overall critical analysis of the article
Firstly, the study suffered from sampling that focused on young women currently enrolled in college in one geographic location, far from representative of the general Instagram user base. Thus, the transferability of these results is ambiguous and undiscussed by the authors.
Secondly, the methodology focused only on one aspect of the initial question: the posters intentions. If clothing is to be studied as a system of online nonverbal communication, it is necessary to assess whether the posters intended message is being communicated to the audience at all. The participants depend on likes, but that is not a valid measure for the success of dress cues. Many other variables influence likes, such as level of attractiveness, time of posting, and photograph quality.
Finally, the results of the study may have also been warped by the method of questioning. Firstly, the researchers specifically interviewed people who had already reported using dress cues. Secondly, instead of broadly asking them about how they express their identity on an image-based platform and waiting for clothing to come up organically, the researchers started their questioning with clothing. Thirdly, the participants themselves chose photos for examination. All of this could have led to either subconscious or conscious exaggeration of the value of clothes in self-expression by the participants. There was no attempt to control self-reporting bias, which is why the trustworthiness of this data is doubtful.
In conclusion, the study claimed to be a general look into using dress cues on social media, but its methodology and results are quite narrow and do not adequately address the issue. A more accurate research question for this study would have been: What are the intentions of young female college students on the East Coast when they report using dress cues to convey their desired self-image on Instagram? .
References
Duggan, M., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A. & Madden, M. (2015). Social Media Update 2014, Pew Research Center.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery grounded theory: Strategies for Qualitative Inquiry. Aldin.
Lee, E., Lee, J.A., Moon, J.H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words: Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18(9), 552-556.
Pew Research Center. (2021). 2021 Social Media Fact Sheet [Data file and code book].
Prosser, J. & Schwartz, D. (1998). Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers. Routledge.
Roach-Higgins, M.E. & Eicher, J.B. (1992). Dress and identity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(4), 1-8.
Sehl, K. (2021). Instagram demographics in 2021: Important user stats for marketers. Hootsuite.
Shumaker, C., Loranger, D., & Dorie, A. (2017). Dressing for the Internet: A study of female self-presentation via dress on Instagram. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 4(3), 365-382.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.