Journal:What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?

Full article title	What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?
Journal	Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies
Author(s)	Haugsbakken, Halvdan
Author affiliation(s)	Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Primary contact	Email: Halvdan dot Haugsbakken at ntnu dot no
Year published	2018
Volume and issue	6(1)
Page(s)	46–58
DOI	10.5324/njsts.v6i1.2546
ISSN	1894-4647
Distribution license	Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Website	https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/njsts/article/view/2546
Download	https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/njsts/article/view/2546/2796 (PDF)

Abstract

In recent years, several Norwegian public organizations have introduced enterprise social media platforms (ESMPs). The rationale for their implementation pertains to a goal of improving internal communications and work processes in organizational life. Such objectives can be attained on the condition that employees adopt the platform and embrace the practice of sharing. Although sharing work on ESMPs can bring benefits, making sense of the practice of sharing constitutes a challenge. In this regard, the paper performs an analysis on a case whereby an ESMP was introduced in a Norwegian public organization. The analytical focus is on the challenges and experiences of making sense of the practice of sharing. The research results show that users faced challenges in making sense of sharing. The paper indicates that sharing is interpreted and performed as an informing practice, which results in an information overload problem and causes users to become disengaged. The study suggests a continued need for the application of theoretical lenses that emphasize interpretation and practice in the implementation of new digital technologies in organizations.

Keywords: enterprise social media, sharing, public organizations, Norway

Introduction

In the last decade, many private and public organizations have started to take great interest in enterprise social media platforms (ESMPs). Implying an expansion of Enterprise 2.0, the term refers to a platform used for internal communication in organizations. ESMPs contain a range of features that are used to share and organize information, such as tagging systems, user profiles, search engines, follower features, discussion boards, and group features. Known examples of ESMPs are Yammer and Facebook@ work. The platforms are assumed to bring a range of benefits for organizations and for the organization of work processes. These benefits can include enhancement of the quality of internal communications and workflows. A central practice related to the successful use of ESMPs is active engagement by users or employees through the sharing or co-creation of content, although the workplace principle is not always easy to put into practice.

Since the end of the 2000s, several large Norwegian private and public organizations have introduced ESMPs to their employees. The incentive for their acquisition is motivated by various goals. For example, they can reduce internal organizational barriers, enhance organizational communications, and cut down on time spent sending e-mails. In this way, one can attain a greater overview of organizational activities and the competencies of employees. In this regard, ESMPs are presented as a solution that can contribute to solving traditional management challenges that are faced daily by public organizations. In the wake of this development, discourses focusing on the importance of sharing in organizations emerge. Top and middle managers stress the sharing of work and engagement via ESMPs as means of bringing about organizational change and unity and the use of digital technologies in work life. Surfing on the top of such management discourses is an emphasis that employees embrace a “sharing culture.” Such developments substantiate the importance of analyzing the meaning of "sharing" through social constructionist research perspectives regarding the use of technology in organizations.

In 2012, a Norwegian County Authority decided to upgrade its intranet to become an ESMP, an effort initiated by the top management. The goal was to simplify the workload because the employees previously worked across separate forms of information and communications technologies (ICTs). A further objective was to transfer work practices from e-mail and local storage to the newly acquired platform by sharing. Although the technical implementation of the ESMP was successful, top management found that employees were not sharing work as intended. By using a practice perspective on technology and the organization of work, as well as related research on enterprise social media, this paper questions how a group of employees working in the County Authority interpret the meaning of sharing and put it into practice through the ESMP. The use of a practice perspective indicates that employees face challenges in interpreting the meaning of sharing. Sharing is interpreted and performed as an informing practice, which results in an information overload problem and disengaged users.

In order to tackle the research question, the paper is divided into different parts. The following section addresses the scholarly discussion upon which the study is based. Thereafter, the research strategies used to complete this study are outlined. The research findings are subsequently presented, before the research results are discussed in relation to the relevant research horizon. The final part concludes the paper.

Theoretical perspective

Sharing has emerged as a significant social action performed by billions of social media users worldwide. In general, sharing brings with it a range of claimed unintended consequences, and it can be defined as a practice that originates in reconstituting dynamics and reciprocal relationships between the material properties of social media and social action. As such, it has affected the organization of social life. For example, what people share on social media draws media attention and is predicted by traditional media as having positive and negative effects on our well-being. The sharing of experiences can create community awareness on civic matters that are important to society, but also accusations of egocentric behavior. We also see that ongoing online socialization may lead to new mediated practices such as phubbing and digital detox. "Phubbing" is defined as the act of ignoring a person’s surroundings through the use of a cellphone, which is deemed an impolite action. "Digital detox" is understood as a period in which a person stops using electronic, web-connected devices such as smart phones and tablets. These indicate that the organization of communicative practices in the digital sphere can become unmanageable and chaotic. Although research on social media and sharing has proliferated, organization researchers have yet to fully frame the impact of sharing on organizational life.

In consequence, such dynamics call for the development of a research perspective that discusses the meaning of sharing in organizations by use of ESMPs, especially where sharing assumes a different role than that intended. This argument is valid for several reasons. Surprisingly, organizational scholars who study knowledge-sharing processes by use of knowledge management systems (for example) claim that what is actually shared by users on platforms for the sharing of work has yet to be adequately framed. In particular, a knowledge gap seems to exist regarding the formation of sharing processes and how this is related to emergent properties coming from the use of recursive technology in work processes. Instead, the knowledge management research stream has examined predefined assumptions of sharing and conditions that prevent the sharing of knowledge in virtual communities.

With the advent of ESMPs in organizations, there is an urgent need to formulate and facilitate a new and much broader research agenda. This has been seen in organizational research, which has introduced new definitions of platforms and has criticized existing definitions of social media for their shortcomings. An example of a new definition is enterprise social media, which is defined as: “web-based platforms that allow workers to (1) communicate messages with specific coworkers or broadcast messages to everyone in the organization; (2) explicitly indicate or implicitly reveal particular coworkers as communication partners; (3) post, edit, and sort text and files linked to themselves or others; and (4) view the messages, connections, text, and files communicated, posted, edited, and sorted by anyone else in the organization at any time of their choosing.” This definition is a modified version of Kaplan and Haenlein’s, who define social media as a “group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content.”

Current definitions of social media are criticized for failing to adequately explain organizational processes. To accommodate these limitations, we find an emerging body of research studying ESMPs that uses a social constructionist research lens on technology and the organization of work. This research stream has (among others) developed an "affordance" perspective to grasp the impact of ESMPs in organizations. Affordance stresses the advantages of technologies. It argues that technologies can be perceived as beneficial in performing activities without paying attention to what an object “is,” that is, to ask what it can afford. The focus on perception means to put emphasis on an object’s utility, and affordance provides the possibility of understanding action potential and the capabilities of a technology, and how it can be linked to processes in organizations. The affordance lens is used to place greater emphasis on the meaning of materiality, which is said to have diminished in value as other concepts dominate the research agenda, such as sociomateriality. Affordance is linked to critical theory, which is deemed as providing new innovative ways of addressing the relationships between materiality and immateriality. A critical theory approach assumes the existence of multiple realities that operate interchangeably and independently of one another, with the implication that actors and objects are self-contained entities that influence each other through impacts or social interaction.

In contrast, sociomateriality, which draws on influences from Actor-Network-Theory, has emerged as an alternative sub-research stream to understanding the impact of social media in organizational studies. Sociomateriality, which assumes that “materiality is intrinsic to everyday activities and relations,” provides an alternative approach to understanding the meaning of technology and therefore what the potential consequences of social media might entail. Orlikowski argues that previous understandings of materiality in management studies were framed around an ontology of separateness, in which one theorized that the material and the immaterial are separate entities and realities. Sociomateriality instead argues that they should be seen as linked, equal, and inseparable, which means addressing a relational ontology. Therefore, future organizational researchers with an interest in social media could study technological artifacts “symmetrically to the humans, and as equivalent participants in a network of humans and non-humans that (temporarily) align to achieve particular effects.” In this regard, Orlikowski and Scott apply a sociomaterial practice perspective in one of their latest research works on valuation regimes. They demonstrate that online evaluations of hotels performed by users on social media have a drastic impact on the domestic travel industry.

However, an important argument running through the above literature is the requirement for more theorizing. Current research focuses on a particular platform or features, leading to a claim that researchers are incapable of making inferences about the consequences of the material for organizing. Current definitions of ESMPs are too application-focused and overlook the social dynamics and reciprocal relationships between the material and the immaterial. Treem and Leonardi argue that this causes scholars to fail to possess sufficient terminology to explain the ways in which ESMPs can influence social behavior and to generalize matters to organizations across contexts. Here, the affordance lens offers researchers the possibility of making interesting analyses regarding the ways in which ESMPs influence organizational processes such as socialization and power aspects in organizations. Research has suggested various affordances that ESMPs can give for organizational processes. For example, Treem and Leonardi suggest that ESMPs can enable four affordances: visibility, edibility, persistence, and association. A case in point highlighting the meaning of a singular affordance is Treem and Leonardi’s argument that the affordance visibility is seen when employees use an ESMP to make their behavior, knowledge, preferences, and commutation network visible to others. They argue that actions like posting updates, showing a list of friends, and writing personal profiles are beneficial and enable the visualization of work to third parties. Leonardi illustrates this point by showing that work interaction on an ESMP platform is pivotal for knowledge work and for the transfer of knowledge in a large organization. Based on a study of a financial service in the United States of America, Leonardi shows that the use of a company’s ESMP assists third-users to enhance awareness of meta knowledge, as one learns about the competencies of co-workers and the matters on which they are working. ESMPs can be used to make accurate interferences of people’s meta knowledge and the sharing of co-workers’ communication activities, and communicating via messenger software can offer innovative products and avoid the duplication of work. In a related study, Leonardi and Meyer develop the above claim in a study of a communications business unit in a telecommunication unit. Leonardi and Meyer test out a set of hypotheses and instances of knowledge transfer to show that when knowledge workers are exposed to communication activities on an ESMP, internal communication can be enhanced.

Beyond these works, researchers have theorized affordance in two other principle directions. First, we can identify works that conceive of affordance at a conceptual level. Second, researchers develop the term empirically through case study designs. An example of the former is a study by Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, and Azad, who demonstrate how ESMPs have four affordances to inspire engagement of visible knowledge conversations in organizations. These include met voicing, triggered attending, network-informed associating, and generative role-taking. For example, met voicing would mean that an ESMP has the action capability to enable users to react to others’ presence, profiles, content, and activities. Ellison, Gibbs, and Weber develop a collective affordance and affordances for organizing, and explore the role of organizational affordances in light of the fact that organizations become distributed entities.

The affordance lens needs to be broadened beyond the context of individual uses, which has been seen in many analyses. Ellison et al. note that the affordances of ESMPs can include concepts such as social capital dynamics, identity formation, context collapse, and networked organizational structures. Fulk and Yuan argue that ESMPs have the affordance to solve organizational challenges and represent a preferable platform for organizing knowledge sharing in comparison to older knowledge management systems. Fulk and Yan argue that by combining transitive memory theory, public good theory, and social capital theory, ESMPs have the affordance to deal with three associated challenges in the sharing of organizational knowledge. These include knowledge of the location of expertise in the organization, motivation to share knowledge, and the development and maintenance of relationships with knowledge providers. In considering work that uses the affordance lens for cases from organizational life, however, Vaast and Kaganer explore how organizations react to employees’ adoption of ESMPs. Based on a sample of corporate policy documents, Vaast and Kaganer find that organizations view ESMPs as more of a risk than an asset. Oostervink, Agterberg, and Huysman have undertaken a study connecting enactment to the affordance lens, as affordances are enacted in practice and institutional forces in an organization can shape how ESMPs are used by employees. Oostervink et al. point out that the institutional logics of a corporation and employees’ professional expertise shape the knowledge that employees share on ESMPs. Although the affordance of visibility and associability are assumed to enhance knowledge sharing in organizations, Gibbs, Rozaidi and Eisenberg find the opposite effect. They performed a study among a group of engineers and noted that engaging EMPSs create contradictions in workplace interactions. For example, constantly remaining accessible and open to other suggestions is a hassle, thus causing employees to feel that they need to hide certain behaviors from others. Based on this finding, Gibbs et al. have suggested that scholars theorize affordance in terms of dichotomies, not singular affordance concepts. They establish three affordances with which users interact when they use an ESMP. These include visibility-invisibility tension, engagement-disengagement tension, and sharing-control tension.

Organizational researchers have also explored ESMPs from other angles. Research shows that employees are receptive to ESMPs in certain organizations: those that make and sell the technology, being IT companies and organizations with the resources to research the technology in large projects. In this regard, IBM’s Beehive project is groundbreaking. One can read in numerous research papers the ways in which Beehive has been implemented and tested on IBM employees, as researchers have documented basic user behaviors. Researchers have focused on an entire ESMP or on features such as tagging systems and user profiles Beehive research papers often use a social capital perspective to establish links between ESMP uses, and connecting strategies constitute a recurring theme. Researchers have identified that IBM employees use Beehive as a platform to expand their professional networks, using it to communicate with colleagues across organizational levels. IBM employees undertake a range of search and retrieving practices and use Beehive as a knowledge repository. Other case studies on ESMPs in organizations other than IBM exist, but have yielded limited insights. They show that employees use ESMPs to streamline their online behavior to work practices and organizational affiliation. Researchers have examined the challenges of adopting an organizational ESMPs. It is not uncommon to come across findings that highlight how employees continue to prefer to communicate via e-mail and chat software, and silently monitor news streams. Consequently, one finds a pattern that a core group adopts SNS and maintains network activities, while a larger group uses "older" forms of ICTs.

Therefore, the research horizon described appears limited and somewhat inchoate. Scholars have predominantly focused on the material properties of ESMPs and have contributed through experimental theorizing. Absent from the research literature is the specific role that interpretation and practice take in employees’ recursive use, with ESMPs a crucial aspect of work processes. Moreover, it appears that the research field has yet to adequately frame whether sharing can take on a different role than that intended, and what it means when technology is used differently in an organizational setting. This means that the research field can advance a research lens focusing on situations and enacting with emergent properties that come from the use of recursive technology, hence placing clearer emphasis on what people do with an ESMP. Thus, one can use a practice perspective on technology. A practice lens on ESMPs can also be used to fill a knowledge gap regarding the formation of knowledge-sharing processes in the use of ESMPs, facilitating our understanding of the unintended consequences of technology use in organizations. Here, Orlikowski and Gash’s technological frames can be of assistance. Technological frames are defined as: “that subset of members’ organizational frames that concern the assumptions, expectations, and knowledge they use to understand technology in organizations. This includes not only the nature and role of the technology itself, but the specific conditions, applications, and consequences of that technology in particular contexts.” The concept can enable us to frame how individuals and social groups in organizations alike make sense of a technology to determine their actions, allowing us to move beyond conceptualizing a technology’s mere value and perception among users. Technological frames problematize the "taken for granted" notions of a technology and can facilitate an understanding of how individuals and groups in organizations develop particular assumptions, expectations and knowledge of a new technology in an organizational setting. Orlikowski and Gash have illustrated technological frames in their study of the implementation of the groupware Notes in a consultant company. The researchers interviewed the implementers and adopters, grouping them into "technologists" and "users." "Technologists" was used to refer to technology staff, whereas "users" comprised the organization’s consultants. Orlikowski and Gash demonstrated a large set of differences in terms of expectations and actions, which they attributed to differences in technological frames. For example, the technologists viewed Notes as an enabler for information sharing, electronic communication, document management, and online discussion, which they believed could contribute to collaboration. The users’ interpretation was different, viewing Notes’ electronic e-mail features as a potential substitute for existing communication technologies such as fax and telephone. The technologists therefore framed Notes as a collaborative technology, whereas the users used it as a means for individual and personal communications.

About the case and methods

Norway is divided into nineteen large administrative units, called counties, and roughly 350 municipalities. Each county is governed by a County Authority (CA), rendering this form of governance the first form of subdivision in the country. The CA where the data for this case study were collected consists of a political structure, an administrative body, and welfare units. The political structure is an elected body consisting of the County Council, the County Executive Board, the County Principal Standing Committees, and the County Mayor. The County Council is supported by an administrative body, the County Administration, which implements and administers policies. The County Administration is organized into eight administrative units and an executive secretariat board. Other welfare units also exist, which play a role for citizens and produce services. Among others, these consist of high schools, libraries, dental services, and transportation. A large body of the CA workforce includes high school teachers, and in total the CA contains approximately 2,800 employees.

The study made use of an exploratory qualitative research strategy. This approach was used to facilitate an in-depth investigation of the ways in which public employees working predominantly in the County Administration used the ESMP and interpreted sharing in an organizational setting. The study is primarily based on qualitative research interviews. Written documentation was collected, but it is not used as part of this paper and is thus excluded from the data analysis. However, the research design started with an informal approach to employees in the CA who had been responsible for the public procurement and implementation of the ESMP. They agreed to be part of the exploratory qualitative study and recruited the informants. Eight informants were recruited, and they worked in different departments and holding positions, predominantly as advisors in the County Administration. The criterion for selection was that they were all users of or involved in the implementation of ESMP. In sum, eight semi-structured qualitative interviews with the use of a guide were completed. The interviews were undertaken one-to-one, meaning that only the researcher and the informant were present in the interview setting. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and focused on two main themes related to sharing: previous user sharing experience on social media, and how the individual used the ESMP to organize the sharing of work. Each interview was recorded using a digital audio recorder. The data were collected over two periods, from August to September 2013 and in February 2014. The study was based on informed consent and the informants were anonymized. The background of the informants is displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. The background of informants Gender Number Position Duration Date F I-1 Advisor 1 hour 27 Aug. 2013 F I-2 Middle Manager 1 hour 30 Aug. 2013 F I-3 Advisor 1 hour 5 Sep. 2013 F I-4 Exe. Director 1 hour 12 Feb. 2014 M I-5 Advisor 1 hour 10 Feb. 2014 M I-6 Advisor 1 hour 17 Feb. 2014 F I-7 Consultant 1 hour 18 Feb. 2014 M I-8 Advisor 1 hour 18 Feb. 2014

Once the interviews were completed, they were transcribed. The data analysis was inspired by an open coding strategy of the interview data. Here, the main focus was on finding emerging patterns, which consisted of grouping and comparing the informants’ perceptions, user patterns, and experiences of sharing. The informants’ answers were grouped into four broad themes. In order to offer the informants a voice, direct quotations are used in the data analysis.

Data analysis

This section presents the data analysis and seeks to answer the research question addressed earlier in the paper: how does a group of employees in the CA interpret the meaning of sharing? The emphasis here is on breaking down this notion by presenting four emergent themes from the open coding of the interview data. Each theme represents an adoption of the new workplace principle of sharing, showing how individuals develop particular assumptions, expectations, and knowledge about its definition. Performing such an analysis can facilitate a clearer understanding of the meaning of "sharing." The four themes are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. Emergent themes from the data analysis Theme no. Name of theme 1 Sharing as a facilitator of organizational change 2 Sharing as a trigger for self-censorship and risk-taking 3 Sharing in separate digital ecosystems 4 Sharing as an individual informing strategy

Theme 1: Sharing as a facilitator of organizational change

The first theme pertains to expectations of sharing as a facilitator of organizational change and represents an approach whereby top managers want their employees to work in a different way. This interpretation comes as little surprise, because the CA’s top management was the initiator behind the ESMP. Sharing represents a “problem-solver” and can produce organizational belonging in the face of internal forces that may contradict unity. Certain professions, such as teachers—a large profession—are assumed to identify with the high schools in which they work and with their professional identity, rather than with a feeling of belonging to the CA. However, the motivation for implementing the social ESMP was related to disentangling a common problem with which most organizations struggle to cope today: escaping the meeting culture, e-mail overload, and the use of too many forms of IT:

There was a need to create an ESMP that considered the fact that we worked with various work surfaces. You had to open each system one at a time, just to approve an invoice. Our challenge was also to escape the "hell of e-mail." (I-4)

The top management aimed to simplify employees’ workload. This was related to the fact that employees worked across several non-integrated ICTs and stored information in different places, making it challenging to create an overview. In response, the top management argued that a single site that could work as the central access point connecting all the employees was required. This would be realized by replacing the intranet with the ESMP. Therefore, a project group was created to work with various drafts of a new interface design, which would break an established work pattern in the CA. While the intranet was run as an internal website on which a group colleague wrote internal news stories, the new design suggested that the ESMP should be the main site opened by employees each day, with embedded sharing features and URL links to each internal IT system. In this way, the ESM would be the melting pot where everybody talked about work. Afterwards, an organizational discourse emphasizing the importance of a sharing culture emerged:

It was clear that we needed something that could enable us to work with the culture across [the organization], knowledge of each other’s work. My responsibility has been to legitimize sharing in the management structure. Parallel to that, we made attempts to raise discussion about organizational culture and work processes internally. Should we establish a sharing culture, in the sense that people can easily participate in and reinforce each other’s work, or take part in reports, or take part in other kinds of things, take part in the knowledge we have, this requires a culture where [people] actively participate. (I-4)

However, translating and making sense of sharing into a manageable practice proved challenging, as it surfaced as ambiguous:

It sounds very good. It has a great positivity to it when it’s presented, but not so great when you try it out in practice. At an early stage, there was a positive feel. You didn’t know exactly what it was. There was this belief that we should change the work culture. (I-5)

Later, this awareness amplified as the initiators realized that the employees rarely started a work process by beginning from scratch—by creating a document in which everyone can engage, for example—but instead viewed sharing as an informing practice of circulating ready-made documents. A recurring theme was how sharing was directly linked to previous publishing habits. The employees were accustomed to an article format, meaning that postings had an "internal story" label attached to them. Participation involved performing simple tasks, like writing status updates, following colleagues, and updating profiles. The ESMP was an information channel where information was pushed out, not a platform in which one engaged in two-way dialogue. Furthermore, the employees fulfilled activities that required little commitment, such as posting a profile picture, writing status updates, tagging competence, or uploading completed documents. Beyond these actions there was little evidence that the users aimed to participate in activities requiring the performance of reciprocal actions:

Ninety percent of the information posted on the ESMP is not something that we’ve published. It’s made by the organization. It has become a place where items are shared. It’s divided between heavy and light documents. People share when documents are finished. You don’t see many examples where people collaborate on a document, which is part of a work process. We haven’t gone any further in changing work culture and the ways we work. (I-5)

Theme 2: Sharing as a trigger for self-censorship and risk-taking

The second theme emerging from the data analysis is that sharing includes a high degree of self-censorship and is associated with risk-taking. This pattern was seen among employees who use the ESMP and who were not part of the actual implementation process, who work across different departments and who are affiliated further down in the management structure. However, an interesting pattern consists of the ways in which earlier and alternative private social media platforms shape perceptions of appropriate net behavior. For example, the informants registered on social media services that became mainstream in the 2000s (the informants’ use is displayed in Table 3). The data indicates that the informants had a strong passive and critical approach to participation. They saw the benefits of sharing, but demonstrated a "reading and textbook" approach consisting of monitoring others’ actions and only frugally sharing about themselves. This molded a view that sharing was seldom regarded as a two-way communicative process between two parties:

I don’t share information about what I’ve eaten for dinner, what I do during my evenings. I share if it is appropriate and relevant, not just one of those private things. Sometimes I post a picture of a mountain summit on Facebook. I have a pretty high threshold that the summit should be a little more interesting for others to see. (I-2)

Table 3. The informants’ use of social media platforms Gender Number Position Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram Google Drive F I-1 Advisor X - X - - F I-2 Middle Manager 1 hour X X X X - F I-3 Advisor X - - - - F I-4 Exe. Director X X X - - M I-5 Advisor X X X - X M I-6 Advisor X - - - - F I-7 Consultant - - - - - M I-8 Advisor X X X - X

Therefore, it is more accurate to maintain that communicative practices are based on being informed and to inform, which ignores how a goal is to engage with an equal to create knowledge. This is reflected in beliefs about socializing and the means of ascribing social media with personal labels. For example, Facebook belongs to the private sphere and is used for “scrolling after fun stuff and setting likes.” LinkedIn is a “CV database,” while Twitter is a medium where “one only sends URL links to news you have already read.” Such beliefs hint at what is acceptable to share on which platform:

There are people who write things that shouldn’t be shouted out loud. One gets the impression that, “I’m sad today”. If anyone had a nice trip, which is worth writing about, then you can do it, by all means. It’s easy to explain it, but when you see it, it gets difficult to say it with words. There are some things that are just a bit "intimate," very personal stuff. It doesn’t belong on social media, because it doesn’t concern everybody. (I-6)

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version—by design—lists them in order of appearance.