University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

September 2019

A STUDY OF PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac

Angeline, Mercy, "A STUDY OF PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF USING SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES BY STUDENTS
AND RESEARCH SCHOLARS OF ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY" (2019). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 2954.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2954
 A STUDY OF PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF USING SOCIAL NETWORKING
SITES BY STUDENTS AND RESEARCH SCHOLARS OF ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY

Dr. X. Mercy Angeline, Teaching Assistant, Department of Library and Information Science, Alagappa
University, Karaikudi, Tamilnadu. [email protected]

Abstract
An exponential rise in usage of Social Networking Sites has been seen within the last few
years. Their ease of use and instant gratification effect on users has altered the way people in
general and students in particular spend their interval. Young grown-ups, particularly teens tend
to be unaware of just how much time they actually spent on SNS. Negative compares of SNS
practice include the shrinkage in real life social community participation and academic
achievement, as well as relationship problems, each of which may be indicative of potential
addiction. This study aims to get a deeper understanding of both problems and prospects of using
social networking sites among the students and research scholars of Alagappa University,
Karaikudi.
Keywords
Social medias, networking, internet based information’s, social networking sites,
problems and prospects, knowledge society
Introduction
In the beginning days, SNS was limited to fundamental outfits and websites used mainly
by Professionals of technology and computer geeks. Over a period of time, SNS transformed
into a behemoth that is changing the way how societies connect and converse with corporations,
governments, traditional media, and each other. Without using any interactive means, through
the traditional media, the individual used to share information or ideas about an organization.
Such a communication was established mainly through one-to-one communication – either in
person or on the phone; either through the mail or via e-mail.
For any media to be interactive, it needs to co-exist with some sort of communication
techniques, for which social media is not an exception. In order to twirl communication into an
interactive dialogue, the social media turns to be one of the most successful application of Sat
mass Media (Suman K Kasturi, 2013:183) (a word coined Suman K Kasturi to indicate the mass
media that work in conjunction with the satellite communication). As of now, there is no single
renowned definition of social media. However, of the many definitions that exits, it can be said
that social media is the set of web-based broadcast technologies that enable the democratization
of content, giving people the ability to emerge from consumers of content to publishers. With
the ability to achieve massive scalability in real time, the social media technologies allow people
to connect with each other to produce or re-produce value through online conversation and
collaboration (Peter R Scott & J. Mike Jacka, 2011:5).
Literature Search
Manzoor Hussain, Fayaz Ahmad Loan and Gousia Yaseen (2017) emphasis that, atudents
at large have started to widely make use of social networking sites; however, few students have
shown reservations due to lack of interest, lack of facility and priovacy concerns. Students who
use social networking sites spend 1.43 hours as an average on SNS per day and mostly use SNS
to gain knowledge and promote social, religious, and political and environment awareness; and
few from passing time. The social networking sites used by the student are Facebook, Google+,
You Tube and Twitter respectively.
According to American Marketing Association (2014), a brand is a name, term,
design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from
those of other sellers. Since a brand is one of the most valuable intangible assets of every
business, the success of companies largely depends on communicating brands with customers.
Thus, brand communication is the process of bringing brands into contact with current and
potential customers. And the objective of brand communication through social media, also
known as social brand communication, has been to gain the traffic on company websites or
attention toward a brand. Social brand communication instigates the Word-of-Mouth (WOM)
Marketing through blogging or user-generated content sharing. The beauty of social brand
communication is that people speaks for the brands. Therefore, global companies have
recognized social brand communication as a potential tool for branding their products.
Key characteristics of SNS
❖ Free web space
❖ Unique web address
❖ Possibility of building profiles
❖ Virtual connections with friends and relatives
 ❖ Real time content uploads facility
❖ Feedback
❖ Time stamp
Pros and Cons of Social Networking
Pros: The SNS are further like the virtual meeting spaces where people can just chill and
hang out with friends. They can discuss on diverse topics, share information, and exchange files
and images. There are certain people who these sites as a platform to meet long lost friend and
batch mates, whereas there are others for whom it becomes a connection to meet their future
love. The professional people use this as a medium to increase their visibility, get noted, tell
about their firm, service, and get more clients. By joining different communities, now people
can easily know about the latest news related to that community. You can easily get the experts’
advice on any task you may face related to their topic of interest. And the best portion of this is
that the advice is free. Professionals are always ready to give their advice and share information.
These are just some of the quite a few positive things that have contributed to make social
networking truly popular among people and spread smiles.
Cons: SNS obviously helps in a lot of ways but the users have rally careful to stay secure
and safe. Safety is one of the topmost concerns of SNS that you presently use. This is mainly
because the social networking sites permit you to display your private info such as name,
location, and email address. There are some people who always in search of a fake identify. If
they acquire all the information about you on internet, they may use your identify for different
kind of illegal undertakings, which may cause you problems in future. It is always advisable to
don’t provide your entire identify information online. You may get many requests for adding
anyone as friend or joining different communities. At all times try to know as much as possible
before adding anyone as friend or joining any community. Because they may use fake identify
or may involve in some illegal activities, which any spoil your image.
Objectives of the Study
This study is intended to get acquaintance on the following with the help of a field study
Problems and Prospects of Using Social Networking Sites by Students and Research Scholars of
Alagappa University.
i. To discuss the significance of social networking sites among the students and research
scholars of Alagappa University;
 ii. To discuss the key features of social media;
iii. To discuss the major roles played by social networking sites among Alagappa University
Students and Scholars;
iv. To assess the problems and prospects of social media;
Methodology
In this research study, survey method has been used to collect the data. The last two
decades have witness a rapid transformation of traditional media into new media that
encompasses digital, computerized, and networked information and communication
technologies. The researcher distributed 190 questionnaires to the respondents and received only
170 among them. The problem under the study is PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF USING
SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES BY STUDENTS AND RESEARCH SCHOLARS OF
ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY.
Analysis and Interpretation
Table – 1
Demographical details of the respondents
N = 170
S. No Variables Frequency %
1. Gender wise distribution
Male 36 21.2
Female 134 78.8
2. Course wise distribution
PG 91 53.5
M.Phil 41 24.1
PhD 38 22.4
3. Department wise distribution
English 39 22.94
Chemistry 22 12.94
Tamil 15 8.82
Library and Information Science 25 14.7
Social Work 8 4.71
 History 12 7.06
Commerce 31 18.24
Maths 18 10.59
4. Age wise distribution
Below 30 129 75.88
31-40 33 19.42
41 and above 8 4.7
5. Respondents Domicile
Rural 77 45.2
Urban 53 31.2
Semi-urban 40 23.6

Gender plays a major role in this study. It is found from the above table that majority of
the respondents (78.8%) were from female gender and rest (21%) of the respondents were male.
Statuses of the respondents are mentioned in the above table. It is noticed that 53.5% of
the respondents were doing PG courses; 24% followed by 22% of the respondents were pursuing
M.Phil and PhD research work.
There are many departments are functioning under the university. The researcher collects
data from few departments. It is observed from the above table that 22.94% of the respondents
were from the department of English, 18% are from commerce, 14.7% are in the department of
Library and Information Science, 12.94% of the respondents are from chemistry department,
8.82% of the students and research scholars are Tamil department, 7% were from History and
4.71% are from the department of Social Work.
Age is one of the basic variables used to find out any difference exists between the ages
and the problems and prospects of Social Networking Sites. It is observed from the above table
that 75.88% of the respondents were in the age group of Below 30, 19% were between 31-40
ages and only 4.7% are in the age group of 41 and above.
Nativity-wise of the respondents were listed in the table 1. It is evident that 45% were
from rural background, 31% were from urban areas and 23.6% were semi-urban.
Table – 2
Use of SNS per day
S.NO Name of >3 Hrs 3-6 Hrs <6 Hrs Once in Once in Rarely Never
the sites a week a
month
i. Facebook 54 39 30 20 3 4 20
(31.7%) (22.9%) (17.6%) (11.7%) (1.8%) (2.4%) (11.7%)
ii. Tweeter 16 15 3 90 6 36 4
(9.4%) (8.8%) (1.8%) (52.9%) (3.5%) (21.2%) (2.3%)
iii. WhatsApp 67 16 15 10 3 41 18
(39.4%) (9.4%) (8.8%) (5.9%) (1.8%) (24.1%) (10.6%)
iv. Blogs 10 3 13 6 100 26 12
(5.8%) (1.8%) (7.6%) (3.5%) (58.8%) (15.3%) (7.1%)
v. Google+ 30 21 3 62 8 35 11
(17.6%) (12.4%) (1.8%) (36.5%) (4.7%) (20.6%) (6.4%)
vi. LinkedIn 6 10 15 25 3 7 104
(3.5%) (5.8%) (8.8%) (14.7%) (1.8%) (4.1%) (61.2%)
vii. Myspace 6 6 13 23 20 7 95
(3.5%) (3.5%) (7.6%) (13.5%) (11.7%) (4.2%) (55.8%)
Viii. YouTube 60 27 17 22 7 26 11
(35.3%) (15.9%) (10%) (12.9%) (4.2%) (15.3%) (6.4%)

In order to find out that for how long respondents are using SNS and what are the sites
they are using, the researcher has collected data according to and analysed in the above table. It
is found from the above table that 31.7% of respondents are using face-book for less than 3
hours; 52.9% of using tweeter for once in a week; 39% are using whats-app for less than 3 hours;
58.8% of the respondents were using blogs for once in a month; 36.5% were using Google+ for
once in a week; 61% were never used Linked-In; 55.8% of the respondents were not using
MySpace; and 35% of the respondents are using you-tube for minimum of 3 hours per day.
Table – 3
Purpose of Using SNS
S.NO Variables Frequency %
I For communication with friends & relative 99 58.24
ii) For meeting with new friends 8 4.70
iii) For searching/meeting people one might know 14 8.24
iv) For Fun and entertainment 21 12.35
v) For playing games 28 16.47
Total 170 100%

It is noticed from the above table that 58% were stated that they are using SNS to
communication with friends and relatives, 16% were using to play games, 12% were using SNS
for fun and entertainment, 8% were using to search or to meet people one might know and 4.70%
were using to meeting with new friends. So it is clearly shown that, each and every-one has some
purpose to use of Social Networking Sites.
Table – 4
Prospects of SNS
N = 170
S. No Features SA A N D SD
i. Sharing of information and 41 91 21 14 3
other resources (24.1%) (53.5%) (12.4%) (8.2%) (1.8%)
ii. Mass communication 40 80 30 10 10
(23.5%) (47.1%) (17.6%) (5.9%) (5.9%)
iii. Improvement of learning 53 97 10 3 7
outcome (31.2%) (57.1%) (5.8%) (1.8%) (4.1%)
iv. Social learning 45 65 27 8 25
(26.5%) (38.2%) (15.9%) (4.7%) (14.7%)
v. Development of independence 31 69 36 26 8
(18.2%) (40.6%) (21.2%) (15.3%) (4.7%)
vi. Promotion of social message 14 66 51 31 8
(8.2%) (38.3%) (30%) (18.2%) (4.7%)
vii. Group building 16 75 29 25 25
(9.4%) (44.1%) (17.1%) (14.7%) (14.7%)
viii. Getting news about 58 76 25 8 3
Employment/placement (34.1%) (44.7%) (14.7%) (4.7%) (1.8%)
ix. Being updated 64 70 15 6 15
(37.6%) (41.1%) (8.8%) (3.5%) (8.8%)
x. Storing of educational & other 50 78 24 8 10
resources (29.4%) (45.9%) (14.1%) (4.7%) (5.9%)
xi. Improving communication 59 60 24 14 13
skills (34.7%) (35.3%) (14.1%) (8.2%) (7.6%)
xii. Improving computer skills 63 66 23 10 8
(37.1%) (38.8%) (13.5%) (5.9%) (4.7%)
xiii. Sharing of learning outcome 39 86 30 12 3
(22.9%) (50.5%) (17.6%) (7.1%) (1.8%)
xiv. Gaining confidence 46 71 33 14 6
(27.1%) (41.8%) (19.4%) (8.2%) (3.5%)

It is evident from the table – 4, 53.5% of the respondents were agreed with the statement
that are sharing of information and other information from SNS, 47% of the respondents were
agreed that its prospects is Mass Communication, 57% were agreed that it improvement of
learning outcomes, 38.2% were for social learning, 40.6% agreed for development of
independence, 38.3% of the respondents were agreed that SNS promotes Social messages, 44%
were agreed to the statement of group building, 44.7% were using to get news about employment
/ placement, 41% were agreed that its being update our knowledge, 45.9% of the respondents
were agreed that SNS is benefit to store educational and other resources, 35% and 34% were
agreed and strongly agreed for, its improving communication skills, 50.5% of the respondents
stated and agreed that it is benefit for sharing of learning outcomes and finally 41.8% were
agreed for gaining confidence among themselves is the major prospects of using SNS.
Table – 5
Harmful effects and problems of SNS
N = 170
S. No Effects/Problems SA A N D SD
i. Creation of false/fake profile 82 40 21 13 14
 (48.2%) (23.5%) (12.4%) (7.6%) (8.3%)
ii. Offensive, threatening or hate 53 68 35 3 11
content (31.2%) (40%) (20.6%) (1.8%) (6.4%)
iii. Indecent content (e.g. Sexually 53 55 29 3 30
explicit, nudity, adult content (31.2%) (32.3%) (17.1%) (1.8%) (17.6%)
etc.)
iv. Promotion of illegal or immoral 68 56 31 4 11
conduct, behaviour or material (40%) (32.9%) (18.2%) (2.4%) (6.5%)
v. Wastage of time 56 61 35 7 11
(32.9%) (35.9%) (20.5%) (4.1%) (6.5%)
vi. Programs to harvest email 53 71 31 4 11
address, solicit or collect (31.2%) (41.7%) (18.2%) (2.4%) (6.5%)
personal information

It is found from the table – 5, 48% of the respondents were strongly agreed that creation
of false and fake ID is the most harmful effects or problems in SNS, 40% of the respondents
were agreed that the Offensive, threatening or hate content is the problem, 32% agreed for
Indecent content (e.g. Sexually explicit, nudity, adult content etc.) is the major problem, 40% of
them were strongly agreed that Promotion of illegal or immoral conduct, behaviour or material,
35.9% were agreed that SNS is waste of time and finally 41.7% of the respondents were agreed
Programs to harvest email address, solicit or collect personal information.

Major Findings
i. 78.8% were from female gender;
ii. 53.5% of the respondents were doing PG courses;
iii. 22.94% of the respondents were from the department of English;
iv. 75.88% of respondents were in the age group of below 30;
v. 45% of respondents were from rural background;
vi. 31.7% of respondents are using face-book for less than 3 hours; 52.9% of them were
using Twitter for once in a week; 39% of the respondents were using Whatsapp for about
less than 3 hours; 58.8% of the Students and Research Scholars were using blogs for once
 in a month; 36.5% of respondents were using Google+ for once in a week; 61% of the
respondents were never used LinkedIn; 55.8% of them never used My Space; 35% of the
respondents were using You Tube for about less than 3 hours.
vii. 58% were stated that they are using SNS for communication;
viii. 53.5% of the respondents were agreed with the statement that are sharing of information
and other information from SNS;
ix. 48% of the respondents were strongly agreed that creation of false and fake ID is the
most harmful effects or problems in SNS;
Conclusion
SNS is a pleasant form of entertainment, great for meeting people with parallel interests,
and can be a very effective business technique for entrepreneurs, writers, actors, musicians or
artists. Most of us have hobbies, or things that we are deeply interested in such as books,
television, video games or movies. Social networks permit us to reach out to others that have the
same interests. Social media websites, such as Whatsapp, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, have
become nearly inescapable facets of modern life, particularly for kids. A new report proposes
they can have real benefits and risks for children. These sites and virtual gaming worlds, allow
users to interact with each other and they are where children and adolescents are spending a lot,
if not most, of their free time, according to a repost on the impact of social media just released by
the American Academy of Paediatrics. The report states that more than half of adolescents log on
to a social media website at least once a day, and nearly one-quarter of teens say they log on to
their desired social media sites 10 or more times each day. In the information society, in addition
to technical skills and access to information technologies, it is becoming increasingly important
for people to have diversified and supportive social contacts. Although resources and
opportunities may be available, one may one necessarily be aware of their existence, or even
have direct access to them. In those cases, knowing people from different contextual, grades of
expertise, and social levels turns out to be vital.
Reference
1. American Marketing Association (2014). Definition of Brand (AMA Dictionary), from
https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B&dLetter=B
2. Hussain, Manzoor, Ahmad Loan, Fayaz and Yaseen, Gousia (2017). The use of Social
Networking Sites by the post graduate students. International Journal of Digital Library
 Services, Vol 7(1), ISSN:2250-1142 (Online), ISSN 2349-302X (Print).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uac
t=8&ved=2ahUKEwjssuqp3rriAhUUaI8KHcOIDIUQFjAQegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2
F%2Fwww.ijodls.in%2Fuploads%2F3%2F6%2F0%2F3%2F3603729%2F7ijodls7117.pdf
&usg=AOvVaw36CGMiFlhRDSnNJAY79OcB
3. Kasturi, Suman K (2013). Satellite Television and the Internet: History, Development and
Impact, New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers.
4. Scott, Peter R J., Jacka, Mike (2011). Auditing Social Media: A Governance and Risk
guide, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5. Suman Kumar Kasturi (2014). “Social Media: Key Issues And New Challenges - A Study
Of Nalgonda District”. Global Media Journal-Indian Edition, ISSN 2249 – 5835 Summer
Issue/June 2014/Vol. 5/No. 1.