Expected and unexpected practices on
Tinder and Grindr
An ethnographic study of mobile dating applications
Author: Alin-Marius Vlad Supervisor: Martin Berg Examiner: Suzan Boztepe
Media Technology: Strategic Media Development Master’s program thesis, 15 credits, advanced level Spring 2020
Abstract
With the popularity of mobile dating applications, different uses of the applications emerged.This
ethnographic study focuses on the diversity of use of Tinder and Grindr by international homosexual male students who moved to Copenhagen, Denmark. This diversity of use shows how students influence also the apps and not only how students are affected and forced to use the apps as the designers intended to do. This target group has a diverse background and diverse experience. In addition, this target group has experienced users on these mobile dating apps and newcomers to the city. Moreover, the experiences can differ compared to the local users. By exploring the different uses of these two mobile dating applications three empirical concepts have emerged. The uses of different apps have opened practices that are not intended by the designers of the apps on Tinder and Grindr. These practices can be described into two main categories such as expected and unexpected practices by the designers of the apps. It starts with expected practices but gradually it moves towards the unexpected ones. The first empirical concept
Browsing silently describes that international students may have used Grindr in different ways than intended by the designers of the apps. The other empirical concept The loop that never ends describes how international students are so dependent on Tinder and Grindr to get in contact with other males. Moreover, international students used the mobile dating apps in unexpected ways than what the designers of the apps intended. This led into another empirical concept Adapt to a new life.The last empirical concept explores how Tinder is used as a social and logistical tool. The use of Tinder has opened different practices such as to learn the local language (Danish), to look for a local guide or even to get a job.
Keywords
Mobile dating applications, Tinder, Grindr, Diversity of use of mobile dating apps, Ethnography, Expected and Unexpected Practices
Acknowledgements
Before proceeding to the world of mobile dating applications, I would like to thank my supervisor Martin Berg who has always pushed me beyond my limits and supported me through the whole project. I would also like to thank my best friend, Alexandra Zidariu, who has always been supporting not only during this project but also when I needed to support the most. I would also like to thank Emma Larsson, for her good advice and help in receiving feedback on my paper but also for personal support. I would also want to thank one of my best friends, Silviu Agafitei who has been my support but also my ‘crying shoulder’ at the IT University of Copenhagen while I was writing my thesis. Nevertheless, I want to also thank my new boss, Dave Pearson who has supported me both with the thesis and my personal issues. Nonetheless, I would like to thank Suzan Boztepe for all the help and great feedback. Not the last, I want to thank all my colleagues and teachers for being the support I needed by always bringing good energy, vibes, and support to each other.
Keywords 2
Acknowledgements 3
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Purpose of the study 8
1.2 Research question 9
1.3 Overview of the study 10
2. Literature review 11
2.1 Mobile dating applications 11
2.2 Use of mobile dating applications 17
2.2.1 Uses of mobile dating applications as practices 19
2.2.2 Filtering on Tinder 20
2.2.3 Sexting on Grindr 21
2.2.4 Grindr and PlanetRomeo as a social and logistical tool 23
3. Theoretical framework 26
Socio-technical systems (STS) main principles 27
4. Methodology 31
4.1 Research Design 32
4.2 Ethnography 34
4.3 Digital ethnography 35
4.4 Walkthrough method 36
4.5 Sampling and interviewees 38
4.5.1 Sample size of the study 40
4.5.2 Data collection procedures 40
Interviews 41
Participant observation 42
4.5.3 Data analysis procedures 43
4.6 Co-design 44 4.6.1 Co-design workshops 46 4.7 Limitations 50 4.7.1 Research site 51 4.8 Ethical considerations 52 4
5. Results 54
5.1 Walkthrough Tinder and Grindr 55
5.1.1 The technical Walkthrough Tinder 55
5.1.2 Bots on Tinder 59
5.1.3 Unexpected practices associated with the app 60
5.1.4 The technical walkthrough Grindr 60
5.1.5 Bots on Grindr 63
5.1.6 Unexpected practices associated with the app 64
5.2 The interviews 65
5.2.1 Browsing silently on Grindr 66
5.2.2 The loop that never ends 72
5.2.3 Adapting to a new life 83
5.3 Co-design workshops 87
5.3.1 Workshop #1: CBS students 87
5.3.2 Workshop #2: ITU students 88
5.3.3 Workshop #3: Café in Copenhagen 89
5.4 The Prototype 90 5.4.1 First prototype 92 5.4.2 Second prototype 96 6. Discussion 101 The prototype 105 7. Conclusion 108 References 110 Appendix 115 5
1. Introduction
Online dating has become an important part of today's society, especially because finding love is as easy as the swipe of a finger. Online dating has gone through a lot of changes and now the rise of mobile devices accounts for 65% of digital media time. Moreover, online dating differs from traditional dating through the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and provides users with the
opportunity to interact with potential partners through the dating site before actually meeting face to face (Finkel et.al,p.6, 2012).
With the use of smartphones and GPS, online dating moved towards mobile dating apps. Mobile dating apps connect users to others in the closest geographic location and in real-time. Mobile dating applications allow users to create profiles in order to interact with other users and even try to find sex, dates or even a relationship (Wu & Ward, 2017). Mobile dating apps seem to reduce the time for getting a match compared to traditional dating websites and unlike Facebook, they bring strangers together.
In my personal experience, the interest in mobile dating apps all started when I was out with some of my homosexual friends where I noticed that they use a lot of different mobile dating applications. Out of curiosity, I engaged in the conversation to talk to them about these apps and I was curious to know and to understand what these different mobile dating applications have to offer. Therefore, I observed that Tinder and Grindr are the most popular applications used by my homosexual friends. It does make sense why they use Grindr since it is now the biggest mobile dating application for homosexual males, being used in 192 countries by around 7 million users (Grindr, 2009). However, what caught my interest was why did they use Tinder, because Tinder when it got out on the market it was targeting heterosexual people.This trend has been ongoing for some time by only targeting heterosexual people for quite a while. Although, this changed when they enlarged the target group to homosexual and bisexual as well.Tinder
stands out by having a unique architecture where users need to have a mutual interest in order to connect with each other. Grindr has a reputation as a short-term dating app being used mostly as a hook-up app. However, Tinder stated that this is an app to find romance. Even though Tinder did not focus on the homosexual counterparts, in the beginning, they are the ones who see Tinder as a place where nice guys go, while their heterosexual counterparts see Tinder as a hook-up application (Mackee,2016). Tinder is known as being mostly a hook-up application by their heterosexual counterparts (Mackee, 2016). In other words, Tinder is seen as Grindr for heterosexual people. Thus, I want to look at the division between these apps. The designers of these two mobile apps designed Tinder and Grindr for people to find sex, dates, or even a relationship. They assume that the apps would provide these needs and that users would use the apps to find one of the above. However, even some people use these apps for these reasons, there is much more beyond how they use these apps. This is also seen in a case study by Shield (2017), where he looks into the usage of mobile dating applications found among immigrants in Copenhagen, Denmark. His study group used Grindr as a social tool in order to create a network and get in contact with the local people. Grindr allowed them to get in touch easier with Scandinavians as it was quite hard for them to get in touch with the locals through face-to-face interaction. Moreover, immigrants have used Grindr as a logistical tool in order to find housing and employment. They used their profile on Grindr as a way to communicate their needs for a job and/or a room in the greater Copenhagen area (Shield, 2017).
This study describes the uses of these apps as practices. A practice is used to describe the everyday work of life activities such as norms, routines, and widely shared beliefs (Styhre, 2009). These practices can be viewed as being expected and unexpected. In other words, from the designers’ app perspectives an expected practice is people behaving in the way the app has been designed for such as dating, chatting, hooking-up. While an unexpected practice is a practice that people still use on the apps and it is not intended by the designers of the app. Furthermore, this is an ethnographic study targeting international homosexual students who are using Tinder and Grindr. This target group has a unique background. They
are all experienced users on these apps so they can provide a lot of insights about what these apps do and how they actually use them. Moreover, they are also newcomers to the city which means that they are seeking information when living in a new city.
By conducting an ethnographic study, it is possible to focus on their everyday life practices and experiences by using these two mobile dating apps.
Nonetheless, as dating apps have redefined the social realities of modern dating, this ethnographic study shows that these apps do not only shape society but also how the society shapes the apps as well. The designers of these apps did not take into consideration the social aspects such as how society affects these apps and how society actually uses these apps.
1.1 Purpose of the study
By using ethnography as practice, it is possible to investigate the different uses found of using these mobile dating applications, as ethnography focuses on everyday settings. Shield (2017) did a similar study case on two mobile dating apps Grindr and PlanetRomeo. However, these two dating apps are primarily used by homosexual men, compared to Tinder which was oriented at the beginning of the heterosexual market (MacKee, 2016).As seen in the study case conducted by MacKee (2016) Tinder was seen as the place where nice guys go compared to their heterosexual counterparts where they use Tinder much more as a hook-up app (MacKee, 2016). Most of the studies focus primarily on dating apps which were only built to be used by homosexuals. As seen in Shields’ (2017) study case he focuses on the different uses of mobile dating apps built for homosexuals, while in Mackees’ (2016) study case he argues that nice
homosexual guys go on Tinder and act differently than their heterosexual counterparts who use Tinder as a hook-up app. The homosexual students use Tinder for different kinds of intimate needs such as finding a
partner. Tinder being the first mobile dating app of its kind for their heterosexual counterparts is used more as a hook-up app. They already have had a mobile dating app for hook-up purposes such as Grindr. Thus, the homosexual students had already this need fulfilled by Grindr.
This ethnographic study shows that these apps do not only shape the students but also how the students shape the apps as well. The designers of these apps did not take into consideration the social aspects such as how people affect these apps and how the society uses these apps. Therefore, the students have started to use the apps differently than what the designers of the apps intended. Thus, through this ethnographic study, I intend to explore and understand the expected and unexpected practices than what the designers of the apps intended found with the use of mobile dating applications within the target group of
international homosexual male students seeking other males. By studying these practices, this study not only shows how the apps have shaped the students but also how the students' behaviour on these apps shaped the apps.
1.2 Research question
The main research question for this thesis focuses on the different practices that emerge in mobile dating applications, namely Tinder and Grindr. The study group is international homosexual male students who and have recently moved to Copenhagen, Denmark. Based on the above-described group, the research questions become the following:
Main RQ:
What are the expected and unexpected practices on Tinder and Grindr?SRQ 1: How do students use Grindr and Tinder?
SRQ 2: What are the main differences between Tinder’s architecture and Grindr’s? SRQ 3: Do these apps fulfil the students’ needs to find sex dates or even a relationship?
1.3 Overview of the study
With the above research question in mind, this study begins with background information, a literature review, and theoretical background. The literature review will be sectioned in relevant themes for this research paper such as mobile dating applicationsandthe use of mobile dating applications . The methodology chapter presents the methods used in the study, digital ethnography being the main research methodology used in the thesis. In this chapter, the limitations of the study are also presented as well as the ethical considerations. The findings discovered through my fieldwork is explained in the results chapter. The next step consists in creating a low-fidelity prototype that is based on the results from the interviews with the participants but also based on the co-design workshops. The discussion chapter reflects upon the results which were discovered in this study and tie it together with the theoretical background and the literature review. The thesis ends with a conclusion on the subject matter.
2. Literature review
The literature review starts with a section that contains a description of mobile dating applications and what are some of their features. Section 2.1 describes the architecture of the two mobile dating apps Tinder and Grindr. Section 2.2 describes different uses of the mobile dating apps and introduces the concept of practice and how it relates to the context of the present study. Moreover, this section describes two main practices such as filtering, and sexting found on these two mobile dating apps.
Nevertheless, it is vital to understand the concept of practices associated with the use of mobile dating apps before introducing different practices. This section has two sub-sections. These sections include expected and unexpected practices associated with the use of mobile dating apps. The first two subsections contain uses of the two mobile dating apps studied, Tinder and Grindr. The third section focuses on how a mobile dating app has been used even as a logistical tool. This section describes an unexpected practice than what the designers of the app intended on Grindr and PlanetRomeo.
2.1 Mobile dating applications
Tinder stands out by having a unique architecture where users need to have a mutual interest in order to connect with each other. Another relevant aspect of Tinder for users to the way they log in on Tinder is that it is also integrated with other platforms. Users can log into Facebook, and then Tinder uses pictures from their Facebook profile and personal details without posting anything on Facebook (Mackee, 2016). Moreover, Tinder automatically copies the users’ names and they cannot be altered or edited. Tinder also allows users to even see if other users have any common Facebook friends and as well as interests.
Tinder, unlike most mobile dating applications such as Grindr, does not allow users to exchange pictures through the chat function. On Grindr, users can exchange any photos at any time without any restrictions, while on Tinder they cannot do that at all. This can lead to sextingwhere users exchange naked pictures with each other. Sexting is a common practice used on Grindr and described more in detail in section 2.2.3. However, Tinder’s architecture does not allow this practice as users are not allowed to exchange pictures with each other on the mobile dating app.
In contrast, Tinder’s architecture depends on mutual attraction. This is the place where users allow other
users to see their pictures. So, users need to filter through the profiles in order to get a match. Filtering process happens when users look at someone’s pictures, where they can identify physical appearance features such as eye colour, hair colour, height. Filtering is a common practice used on Tinder. If users need to talk to another user, they need to filter through profiles and get a match.
However,filtering is optional on Grindr. Grindr’s architecture allows users to see the closest one hundred profiles on the interface. Users just need to download the application and set up their Grindr account by just providing an email address and password. There are some profile details such as age, height, and weight that users can fill out if they want to. However, they are not required to. There is also an option on the application where they can show on their profile what they are looking for. This option allows users to pick between chat, dates, friends, networking, relationship and right now. Users are allowed obviously to choose all of them (Fisher, 2015).
Below, there are some screenshots of both mobile dating applications, Grindr and Tinder in this specific order. These screenshots show the most important part of these applications. It shows the interfaces on both apps, how users can contact another user and how users chat with each other. Grindr’s screenshots refer to mainly the geolocation, the main feature of the app. This is the place where users can get the closest 100 profiles to their location. On the profile level, users can choose to add a profile picture, but
this is optional. It is not required to do so as on Tinder, where the users need to add a picture in order to proceed further on.
On Grindr, users can chat instantly after creating an account where unlike Tinder they need to have a
match to chat with each other. The whole user journey can be viewed in the Appendix.
The below six screenshots in fig.1 and fig.2 show Grindr’s personal profile, the interface with the 100 profiles in the middle and another user’s profile when clicking on a profile.
Figure 1. Grindr’s interface
After clicking on someone’s profile, users can go directly to the chat and start a conversation with the specific user as seen in the figure 2 below. The second screenshot shows the user’s profile where they can
modify their profile picture and their profile as well. The third screenshot is the chat page where users can find all their messages with other users.
Figure 2. A chat window with another user
The below 6 screenshots show the same as the above ones on Grindr. They include someone’s profile picture, the user’s own profile and the settings on how to edit preferences and the profile.
The first screenshot in figure 3 shows another user’s profile on Tinder. The second screenshot is the place where the users can view their own profile. The last screenshot is the settings page where users can
modify the gender they are interested in, the distance and the age they are interested in. Moreover, if they have Tinder Gold, they would be able to change the location as well.
Fig 3. Tinder’s interface
However, Tinder always displays the opposite gender. So, if the users are males, they would receive a female profile picture instantly. Users need to change it themselves from the settings page in what gender they are interested in as seen in figure 4 in the first screenshot below. The second screenshot shows the users that have swiped you so in other words, liked your profile. The third screenshot shows the chat function on Tinder. This is only possible when the users have a match with another user, unlike Grindr where they can freely chat with 100 users.
Fig 4. Tinder’s profile settings and chat function
2.2 Use of mobile dating applications
The previous section 2.1 presented two different mobile dating applications and their purposes. This section contains even more detailed information about the different uses and purposes. It starts with a general overview of how users usually interact with each other on these apps. Moreover, this section describes different practices found with the use of the apps. These practices have been classified in two main categories such as expected and unexpected.
Many gay dating app researchers are interested in how dating apps shape men’s mobile dating application uses. Researchers usually explore how men interested in men use different mobile dating applications and what technology allows (Wu & Ward, 2017, Birnholtz et al., 2014; Blackwell et al., 2015; Fitzpatrick & Birnholtz, 2017).
Besides the expectations and the interactions to seek sex, dates or even a relationship (Wu & Ward, 2017) within the mobile dating applications, users present their profiles and interact with each other through the chat to achieve other goals. However, there are a lot of things happening in how the users are
self-presenting themselves in their own profiles. In dating apps, identification cues are limited, so users find other ways to make themselves more socially attractive. Thus, there are routines of interactions between users which are intended by the application’s architecture. The first interaction contains the user’s profile where users present how they want to be seen by other users and as well to reveal their goals. The profile on a mobile dating app is seen as the place where the users construct their identity to present an ideal self (Fitzpatrick & Birnholtz, 2017).
However, the users can freely decide if they want to disclose their personal picture on Grindr. Besides the profile picture, users can also disclose information on their personal profiles. On the one hand, users want to disclose information about themselves but on the other hand, they do not want to disclose too much
information. Moreover, some users expose some identifying information on their profile. Mostly, users do not present themselves as looking for sex, and even for those who are, they use other terms or
abbreviations such as fun for sex and NSA for no strings attached (Wu & Ward, 2017). Even though users have some strict goals while using Grindr, the goals can vary in time. Therefore, users have the possibility to change it when it is suitable for them. The profile can be edited as much as they like and show how they want to be seen by other users. The second stage includes the chat on the dating apps where the communication and interaction between the users happen. However, there is a routine in the chat interaction between the users on Grindr. First, the users are making everything clear and brief with locations, pictures, and goals. Second, users are sending a lot of questions to each other, so other users would not be able to answer all the questions. In the last one, the users are sending location and pictures to encourage each other(Wu & Ward, 2017).Besides the communication and the routine on the chat function, users negotiate goals by using the chat but also change the flow of the chat depending on how responsive the other users are.If users match their goals with other users in these two stages, most of the users would want to proceed to the last stage.The last stage does not happen online at all, it is quite the opposite. This stage happens in the offline environment, where the users finally meet where they accept or decline their online impression about each other (Wu & Ward, 2017).
Grindr’s architecture allows the users to freely decide if they want to disclose their personal picture on Grindr. There are also some different uses in how users communicate to each other on mobile dating apps. A normal everyday use on Grindr is that users are making everything clear and brief with locations, pictures, and goals. Moreover, users are sending a lot of questions to each other, so other users would not be able to answer all the questions. This will forcethe users to typically answer the latest questions. In the last one, the users are sending location and pictures to encourage each other (Wu & Ward, 2017).
2.2.1 Uses of mobile dating applications as practices
Besides these uses, there are a lot of other different uses of mobile dating applications.The increased use of mobile dating applications in everyday life has determined to focus on what practices might mean in the use of media use (Pink et. al., 2016). The concept of practice is used to describe the everyday work life activities such as norms, routines, and widely shared beliefs (Styhre, 2009).
It is vital to define what practice means and what it involves. Thus, the term practice has been used in a
lot of confused and confusing ways such as another word for activity, culture, tradition, paradigm,
embodied action, knowing on (Schmidt, 2014).A practice is described as a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge (Reckwitz, 2002 p.249).A routine is a course of action to be followed regularly while the practice is a course of doing and what happens when someone does
something.
There is a big difference between what people say and people do, therefore, through practice, it is possible to understand the activities that appear through their everyday life (Pink et.al., 2016).
By understanding the concept of practice, this will allow exploring and understanding more about the practices associated with the use of these mobile dating applications, Tinder and Grindr.
Moreover, by using practice it helps to get a better understanding of what people actually do on these apps rather than just thinking. Through practice, it is possible to study how people and habits are shaped, maintained over time, even changed in time and the ways in which these impact the world. As Reckwitz (2002 p. 49) describes a practice as a routinized type of behaviour that contains things and their use , the use of these apps are by this definition practices. This study categorizes practices into two categories such
as expected and unexpected. An expected practice is a practice intended by the designers of the apps. Users use the apps in the way designers intended to do. An unexpected practice is a practice not intended by the designers of the apps. Users use the app differently than what the designers intended. Thus, users even create new practices on these apps.
Below there are described in detail some of the practices found with the use of mobile dating applications.
2.2.2 Filtering on Tinder
In order for users to interact with each other, they need to create a profile on a mobile dating app. However, Tinder is a specific app that ‘forces’ users due to its architecture to use it in a certain way. The architecture of the application makes users look at physical appearance because users need to look at other users’ pictures. As mentioned before, in section 2.2 the profile on a mobile dating app is seen as a place where the users construct their identity to present an ideal self (Fitzpatrick & Birnholtz, 2017).The profile is the place where users are looking at someone’s pictures, users can identify important details such as eye colour, hair colour, nationality/ethnicity, even height, and weight in some circumstances. This routine on mobile dating applications is called filteringand helps users to identify the other online daters before taking further actions. (Couch & Liamputtong, 2008).This ‘filtering’ process is done through an array of behavioral filters that users have developed mostly on physical appearance and filtering processes to determine when and how they might progress to face-to-face meetings with these other online daters, and if and how there might be sexual outcomes from these meetings (Couch & Liamputtong, 2008).By using ‘filtering’ as a common practice user show their potential interest in other users by swiping right. As mentioned before, if both users have swiped right it will result in a match . Even though the app makes users focus a lot on physical appearance, there are also other aspects such as personality, chemistry to be taken into consideration (Wu & Ward, 2017). However, it is difficult to know the reality beyond these
images. They need to proceed to the second stage where they can communicate with each other to see other aspects (Wu & Ward, 2017). However, in order to proceed to the second stage, they need to go through this first phase where they need to have a match.
However, this common practice even though is common on Tinder, it is also used on Grindr. The difference between these two apps is their architecture. While on Tinder, the common practice is to use ‘filtering’ to get a match, on Grindr it is designed as a feature. On Tinder, users are constrained by its architecture to use the app in this specific certain way, while on Grindr filtering can be optional and even by default. On Tinder, users need to manually filterthrough the profiles compared to Grindr where users can filter by age, body metrics, ethnicity, preference in sexual position (Jaque, 2017). However, this is still an optional use of the app. Users can freely filter based on these specific categories if they want to, or just do not have any filters at all.
However, by filtering and getting a match, this can be only seen as the first step for users in order to make them meet other users in real life. There are also other aspects to be taken into consideration such as common interests and hobbies. In addition, filtering is a common expected everyday practice on Tinder. Its architecture is built in this way that users need to filter other users in order to have a match. Moreover, it describes the everyday use of what users do on Tinder. Before having a match, they all need to use this practice. Otherwise, users will not get friends, a date or even a relationship using the app.
2.2.3 Sexting on Grindr
Filtering is also used on Grindr, but the architecture of the application allows users to decide later whom they want to interact with. Grindr does not have any matching algorithm. In addition, this section is about one of the uses of Grindr sexting that is not allowed on Tinder due to the architecture of the app. Sexting is part of the new communication on mobile dating apps to express sexual desires and interests (Kaur,
2012). Sexting requires that users can exchange pictures between them, a function that Tinder does not have.
As mentioned before, Grindr was the first mobile dating application for men interested in men. Sexting can be described as an exchange of naked and semi-naked images on smartphones. Moreover, it usually describes the everyday practices of picture-sharing between people who are using these mobile dating applications (Albury & Byron, 2014). Unlike Tinder, users on Grindr do not necessarily need to go through the filtering process and to get a match to proceed to the second stage. Some users do disclose some information such as a profile picture, a description on their personal profiles. Even though sexting is common and a known practice on Grindr, mostly users do not present themselves as looking for sex, and even for those who are, they use other terms or abbreviations such as fun for sex and NSA for no strings
attached. Users on Grindr do not necessarily need to present an ideal self by having pictures on their profiles. This is due to Grindr’s architecture that allows users to exchange pictures through the chat function. Users on Grindr can proceed to the second stage (Fitzpatrick & Birnholtz, 2017) where they can chat without necessarily going through the first one.
Grindr has changed the way users interact with each other on the application in their everyday lives, even with the way users share pictures and the actual content of these pictures. Thus, currently, there are a lot of profiles on Grindr without a profile picture, so it is common for users to exchange pictures with each other. Grindr. The picture profiles have an important significance in the way users engage with each other. If users have a real profile picture, they will most likely chat with the other person. However, there are a lot of Grindr profiles which have fake pictures with other people, or simply other pictures. There might be users without a profile picture contacting other users with pictures, but in this case, users will ask for pictures. Therefore, this can be also seen as another practice unfolded even simultaneously with
sexting. By asking for pictures even though users might refer to normal pictures showing their face, this may result in even naked pictures (Albury & Byron, 2014). Thus, users have used this not only to
exchange normal pictures but also to exchange pictures of a sexual nature. Grindr’s architecture supports this behaviour by allowing users to send instant pictures to each other through the chat. As Grindr is seen as a hook-up app, users do use sexting to express their sexual desires and interests. Therefore, sexting became a common practice in the way users interact on mobile dating apps. For this reason, users know this is a common practice that other users do, and they can do it as well.
2.2.4 Grindr and PlanetRomeo as a social and logistical tool
As seen above, there are some uses that might have been intended by the designers of the apps. However, there are uses of mobile dating applications that are not intended by designers, but they are invented by users (Wu & Ward, 2017). Some of these uses such as mobile dating apps being used as a logistical tool are described in detail in this section.
Mobile dating applications can be a social tool. Unlike Facebook, mobile dating apps bring strangers together (Wu & Ward, 2017). Grindr was initially used as a mobile dating application for immediate sex (Mowlabocus, 2012). It seems like the most common use before was for sex, while in time this changed into different uses as well. A similar transition of uses of Grindr can be seen in one exploratory study case called New in Town conducted by Shield (2017) where he focuses on how immigrants’ men who moved recently to the greater Copenhagen area use two mobile dating applications Grindr and PlanetRomeo. PlanetRomeo started as an online dating website, but now it is available as a mobile dating application for
homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexual people. It started as a hobby project in Berlin, now is a mobile dating application used by millions of users.
Moreover, Shield (2017) focused on the immigrants’ uses and experiences they had by using these two mobile different applications. Moreover, he also focused on how these mobile dating applications can be viewed as social media. These immigrants have used Grindr and PlanetRomeo as social and logistical tools. As a social tool, immigrants have used mobile dating applications in their everyday lives to adapt to local life in the city and to engage with the local men who were interested in men. By using one of the main reasons for using Grindr such to get friends, these immigrants have built a social network. As a result, some of them were even able to get a room and/or even a job through the social network they built from Grindr and PlanetRomeo. Moreover, one of the immigrants even managed to get a job using Grindr. By using Grindr as a social tool, he managed to build a network in Copenhagen, which helped him even to get recommended for a part-time job (Shield,2017). Thus, the social tool also had logistical outcomes. Immigrants have taken an expected practice such as getting friends on the app and moved gradually into an unexpected practice where they were using Grindr to get a job through the people on the app.
Moreover, besides mobile dating applications being used as social tools that also had logistical outcomes, immigrants have also used Grindr and PlanetRomeo specifically as a logistical tool. Some of the immigrants used their profile text in order to express their need for accommodation in Copenhagen. For example, one of the immigrants wrote on his profile on Grindr the following : Currently looking for a room. Hit me up if you can offer anything :) Expat… (Shield p.249, 2017). This shows clearly how one of the immigrants used Grindr as a logistical tool. Besides the need for accommodation, immigrants have
also used Grindr and PlanetRomeo to get a job. They used the profile text again to express their need for a job in Copenhagen (Shield, 2017).
By using their profile on Grindr to express their need for accommodation and a job, immigrants have clearly illustrated another unexpected practice by using Grindr.
However, even looking at these different practices by using these mobile apps, the immigrants' uses, and experiences differ from immigrant to immigrant. As seen, some managed to even find accommodation using Grindr, while others struggled on both Grindr and PlanetRomeo without any success.
The immigrants used mobile dating apps to make friends and to learn more about the city. Moreover, they have used these apps to find accommodation instead of mobile apps designed for this purpose. This is because the immigrants trusted that through the apps they could find someone with whom they
presumably share interest, including the sexual identity (Shield, p.8, 2017).Furthermore, immigrants
noticed that some locals were offering housing on these mobile dating applications. Thus, they took this opportunity to share their need for accommodation.
The main idea is though, that these immigrants have moved from expected practices such as getting friends and creating a user profile to unexpected practices where they use these apps differently.
3. Theoretical framework
Socio-Technical Systems(STS) Theory
This section will address a particular theory, that is the most relevant for this ethnographic study.In order to understand the social and technical aspects, I have chosen the STS (socio-technical system) theory.Ethnographic methods such as fieldwork and participant observation have been central in STS studies.This is mostly because by using ethnography, it is possible to observe people and how they produce scientific and technological knowledge normally in their own environments (Silvast & Virtanen, 2019).
Socio(society and people) and technical(technology and machines) are combined to give
socio-technical.STS has been defined in different ways such as purposeful interacting socio-technical
systems...(Wilson, 2000, p. 557) or complex Sociotechnical Systems ...(Woo & Vicente, 2003, p. 253) or
socio-technical work systems...(Waterson, Older Gray & Clegg, 2002, p. 376).
Sociotechnical theory refers to the interrelations between social and technical and is founded on two main principles. One of the principles is the interaction between the social and technical aspects that create the conditions for a successful or unsuccessful system. One of the consequences by merging these two is that the socio does not necessarily behave like the technical (Walker, Stanton, Salmon & Jenkins, 2008). Humans are not technologies or machines, so it is hard to predict the way they behave. Socio and technical occur when they are part of a socio-technical system. The second of the two main principles is that optimisation of the technical leads to unexpected relationships with the socio (Walker, Stanton,
Salmon & Jenkins, 2008).These relationships are harmful to the system’s performance. Therefore, the sociotechnical theory is about an inter mutual connection (Walker, Stanton, Salmon & Jenkins, 2008).
Socio-technical systems (STS) main principles
The basis of STSs is the general systems theory which describes what the disciplines have in common. They all refer to systems no matter if there are social systems, information systems, hardware systems or cognitive systems. Moreover, none of these disciplines have a monopoly on science, they are all valid and equal (Whitworth & Ahmad 2015). Broadly speaking, a system is a collection that cannot produce results alone. The value of a system is in the interrelationship of their elements (Reymondet, 2016).
In general, sociologists study society as independent from physicality, which is not and the same applies to technologists that study technology apart from the community. Thus, by looking at these two aspects together, it allows the social to link to the technical.
AN STS is defined by Whitworth & Ahmad (2015) as a social system operating on a technical basis. In other words,social systems are technical systems which involve people who affect the architecture and the design of those systems (Reymondet, 2016).
A social system can be described as a network of interrelationships between individuals. Moreover, a social system is an agreed form of social interaction that persists (Whitworth & de Moor, 2003). In other words, social interaction would last no matter what changes. A technical system is everything that performs a function. Moreover, simple technical designs give a socio-technical gap (figure 5), between what the technology does and what people actually want (Whitworth & Ahmad 2015).This can result in people leaving or not even using the technologies if the technologies do not take into consideration their needs. There are several causes for this such as human unpredictability and intellect. Humans can make
decisions based on past experiences and they may also shift preferences and behaviour (Reymondet, 2016).
Fig 5: The socio-technical gap
Therefore, a socio-technical system is a system that considers the hardware, software, personal and community aspects. Moreover it applies an understanding of the social structures when designing a system that involves people and technology (Whitworth & Ahmad, 2015). There are social requirements when designing socio-technology as people live in social environments every day, but struggle to specify them as Berners-Lee describes(2000):
Technologists cannot simply leave the social and ethical questions to other people, because the technology directly affects these matters(Lee,p.124, 2000).
In other words, a socio-technical system is a network of interconnected elements including groups of people and technology that function as one simple or complex system. The socio-technical systems are interconnected in ways that not even designers do fully understand such as the Internet of Things.
Mobile dating applications as socio-technical systems
A socio-technical is a system that considers the hardware, software, personal and community aspects, a mobile dating app. Thus, by this description, a mobile dating application can be considered as a
socio-technical system.A mobile dating app is a socio-technical system composed of services, libraries, codebase, user experience and interface and the end-users. A socio-technical system (STS) is a term used to describe the presence of two subsystems such as the social sub-system and the technical sub-system (Cartelli, 2007). Moreover, Grindr and Tinder have both the technical and the social systems. It does perform a function and it involves the participants of the study to use these apps.
The STS has been needed to answer the research question of this study. The research question in subsection 1.2 refers to expected and unexpected practices on the two mobile dating apps, Tinder and Grindr. Therefore, by using STS it would be possible to analyse the mobile dating apps as socio-technical systems.Moreover,it would also challenge Grindr and Tinder if they are indeed socio-technical systems. Furthermore, throughout the study, the technical system of the apps would be described and the social systems as well. Through STS the social expectations and the needs of the participants would unfold Moreover, by focusing also on the developer’s intended purposes it would unfold if these technologies do actually what the participants wanted (Whitworth & Ahmad 2015).If a specific technology such as a mobile dating app does not meet people’s needs, people may change their practices in how they use these apps or even leave them.This is as a result of the social needs not being met, otherwise, there is no
community, and without a community, the technology fails to perform as expected (Whitworth & Ahmad,
2015). Technology that mediates social interactions must also satisfy social needs. This aspect is described by Akerman(2000) through socio-technical design as the application of community
requirements to people, software and hardware. All in all, this theory is the most relevant to the current ethnographic study because ethnographic methods have been vital in understanding how students produce scientific and technological knowledge in their environments. Moreover, will allow me to explore the interlinked system between the students, mobile dating apps and the environment. By exploring the social-technical design, it allows me to analyse if these apps have indeed met the students’ needs and if they succeed or not.
4. Methodology
This is an ethnographic study which focuses on the practices associated with the use of mobile dating application Grindr and Tinder. The methodology chapter includes all the methods and techniques that have been used in order to provide an answer to the research question that has been asked. Moreover, the purpose of the methodologies is to answer the research question. This section includes the research design, ethnography, digital ethnography, walkthrough method, interviews, participants and sampling, co-design, limitations and ethical issues. Moreover, this section also focuses on qualitative data collection, more precisely interviews but also observation.
In order to obtain results from natural settings and practices around these mobile dating applications, I chose ethnography as my research approach. Ethnography is described, as mentioned in the book
Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality:
It (ethnography) is continuous with ordinary life. Much of what we seek to find out in ethnography is the knowledge that others already have. Our ability to learn ethnographically is an extension of what every human being must do, that is, learn the meanings, norms, patterns of a way of life (Hymes, 2003, p. 13).
Thus, I looked more in-depth at ethnography to examine their everyday life as it unfolds and what students do while using these apps (Reilly, 2012). Furthermore, I also choose digital ethnography because it also easily fits into people’s lives. In other words, a digital ethnography approach for this study is to
understand what students’ do and what are their everyday habits and routines on these dating apps (Pink, 2016).
In addition, the walkthrough method is used as a foundation to perform a critical analysis of Tinder and Grindr of the two app’s intended purpose and uses. The method contains the apps’ environments of expected use while identifying and describing its modes of governance. Then, through the technical walkthrough, it is possible to go systematically through all the steps of registration and entry, everyday use and discontinuation of use. This method shows a further detailed analysis of an app’s purpose, its cultural meanings but also uses of apps (Light, et.al, 2016). Designers intended purpose of an app architecture can be identified as expected practices by looking at what users normally do while they are ‘constrained’ by the apps’ architecture. Although, this method also contains unexpected practices not intended by the designers of the apps.
Additionally, I have used co-design to generate better ideas, user value as well as a better knowledge of students’ needs. Moreover, co-design has been also used as a method with the students from this study in order to be able to design a concept/low prototype of a mobile dating application that fits better participants' needs. A low fidelity prototype is a prototype that is sketchy and incomplete. Moreover, it has some of the most important characteristics but quite simple.
The participants should not be harmed in any way and their privacy should be taken into consideration. Therefore, I gave all the participants pseudonyms so I would not use their real names. Moreover, consent from the participants was obtained prior to the study.
4.1 Research Design
Figure 6 which can be found below shows an overview of the content in the research process.
Fig 6. Research design
The ethnographic study went through different phases. The first phase was to gain insights about the topic through the first set of interviews. This helped in understanding the topic better and to gain new information. Therefore, from the interviews, I researched for preliminary literature research. This was a way to understand if the set of interviews show any similarities or differences and helped in how to proceed further. Moreover, after gaining insights from the interviews and literature review, I needed to conduct a second set of interviews to understand better how the students use these mobile dating apps. From these interviews, I needed to collect the data through the different methods described in detail in this chapter. Then, I did the final literature review. Thus, I needed to review my interviews to compare them with the literature review in order to see if the results are bringing something new to the field. The study also needed a theoretical framework in order to understand the concepts and variables and to generate new knowledge. Therefore, the study proceeded in the results section. The results from the interviews have been divided into three empirical concepts and are described in detail in subsection 5.2.
The results from the interviews have also been used in order to design a low-fidelity prototype for this study. All of these have been included in the discussion section. Like any study, the last phase was the conclusion to show the importance of this study.
4.2 Ethnography
The main method of this study is ethnography, which traditionally is used in order to study a field by making observations. Ethnography is a genre of sociological and anthropological writing which has the power to communicate the credibility of the human experience (Rooke, 2009).
Ethnography focuses on everyday settings, thus, through ethnography is possible to understand the field and the encounters first-hand, as well as gathering information in the settings these activities occur (Blomberg & Karasti, 2012). In traditional ethnography, the ethnographer usually needs to go to a distant or a different culture to study people and cultures based on their habits and mutual differences. However, in order to collect data through ethnography, Hammersley & Atkison (2007) define what ethnographers do:
Ethnography usually involves the ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in people’s daily lives for an extended period, watching what happens, listening to what is said, and/or asking questions through informal and formal interviews, collecting documents and artefacts - in fact, gathering whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the emerging focus of inquiry
(Hammersley & Atkinson, p.3, 2007).
In other words, ethnography has always been used to understand and make sense of the world around us
in our daily lives. However, in ethnography, there has been a tendency that ethnographers focus on
people’s feelings and experiences while forgetting to look at the wider structure that frames their choices (Reilly, 2012). O’Reilly (2012) proposes that ethnography is best viewed using the concept of practice. Ethnographic methods focus on doing which is the central interest of practices. Reilly (2012) mentions
ethnography that pays attention to wider structures and to the thoughts and feelings of agents, within the context of daily life and individual action, is an ideal approach to research the practice of social life
(Reilly, p.22, 2012). Ethnography as a method is used to record the students’ practices and how they use mobile dating apps. By choosing ethnography as a practice it allowed me to understand students' everyday lives as it unfolds and to explore what students do while using these apps (Reilly, 2012). I used ethnography to understand what is happening in this natural setting of the students using these apps. Thus, through ethnography, I was able to collect data and interpret it to see what implications I could form from the data. Moreover, through ethnography, I could evaluate the apps to understand the goals and contexts of use behind these apps. Nonetheless, through ethnography, it was possible to observe unexpected uses from what the designers of the apps intended.
After exploring the different practices, through STS theory, it will allow me to establish the interrelated relationship between the socio-subsystem and the technical sub-system.
4.3 Digital ethnography
In section 4.1, ethnography was chosen as the main method for my study case. However, there are different ways of approaching ethnography. Compared to traditional ethnography, digital ethnography does not require an ethnographer to travel to another country to conduct ethnographic research. Digital ethnography can occur anywhere by just having access to an online space such as the Internet, an application or a digital platform. For this specific study case, the online space would be the two mobile dating applications Tinder and Grindr. An online space contains images, texts, videos, but also social
interactions between users. Moreover, digital ethnography also includes different ways of understanding the Internet as an object of study. Much of the empirical work on the Internet does not provide an adequate basis for understanding how it will be used and what are the effects. Most of the studies assume that users will try to ‘domesticate’ technologies in some unanticipated and unintended ways. This can lead to societal consequences by not taking into considerations (Haddon,2006).
Christine Hine (2000) argues that the Internet as an object of study has been theorized in two ways: either as a cultural form or as a cultural practice. For example, the cultural form can refer to the development of emoticons, online norms and values while the cultural practice implies practices which are not necessarily specific to the Internet (Ardevol & Cruz, 2014). Ardevol and Cruz (2014) use the term digital for Internet research approaches for being more semantically neutral and useful to the different practices mediated by digital technologies. By using digital ethnography, it was possible to capture the behaviour that occurs on these two mobile dating apps. Digital ethnography engages with online habits. Thus, it allowed me to study their everyday activities on these apps.
4.4 Walkthrough method
In the previous two subsections 4.1 and 4.2, ethnography and digital ethnography have been described in detail and how these methods fit this study case. This section describes the walkthrough method (Morris & Murray, 2018), a digital method used to perform a critical analysis of these two mobile dating apps, Tinder and Grindr. This method has been used to emphasise the major differences between Tinder and Grindr.
Walkthrough methods are used to describe a step-by-step narrative of use. Thus, by walking through the apps, it incorporates elements of ethnography through observation and field notes. Moreover, by being a genre of cultural practice, this method emphasises on material culture and every practice of the consumers (Light,et.al., 2016). Nonetheless, it is an empirical method focusing on interactivity, text, the human and non-human (Morris & Murray, 2018). A walkthrough is a review of a product or a system. The walkthrough method explores an app context, operating model, and a structure that forms a set of expectations for ideal use. Once the intended use of an app is established, it is possible to explore, to investigate the everyday use of an app. However, this may reveal unexpected practices which may not be taken into consideration by the designer of the apps. By walking through the app, it reveals cultural values in the app’s features and functions. It gives a better understanding of how the architecture of an app frame users to use its functions in order to interact with each other (Light et.al., 2016). By using the walkthrough method, I needed to show what the user needs to do, step by step. Therefore, in order to use this method, I needed to register as a regular user myself on these two mobile dating apps in order to be able to perform the analysis. This method involves the technical walkthrough of these apps, bots and some unexpected practices associated with these apps. By applying this framework, it highlights the major differences between Tinder and Grindr from different perspectives such as the architecture of the apps, expected use from the designers intended purpose and even unexpected practices associated with these apps.
Firstly, the bots offer an analysis of the apps in comparison with the architecture of the apps. Beyond users, content and technology (Dijck & Poell, 2013) I needed to consider socioeconomic and cultural aspects of these mobile dating apps. This part of the walkthrough is to examine the app, the vision of developers, designers and owners on practices associated with how users should use the application (Light et.al., 2016). Secondly, the technical walkthrough includes the exploration, registration, everyday use, functions, symbolic interpretations of an application. Lastly, unexpected practices with an app refer to hacking, resistance, and even third-party additions or manipulations of an app (Morris & Murray, 2018).
By exploring the app’s interface and environment of expected use this may uncover unexpected practices associated with this app. This goes into exploring beyond the designer’s original vision of the app. If the designers of the apps are aware of how actually the users are using the app, it can help them in improving the apps by providing the needs to the end users.
While I show the walkthrough of Tinder and Grindr in an order, it can be done in several different ways. There is no requirement in how a researcher should present how they used this method (Morris & Murray, 2018).
4.5 Sampling and interviewees
In order to conduct an ethnographic study, I needed to gather interviewees in order to build a rapport with them and to invest considerable time to observe the common practices used on mobile dating apps(Allen, 2017). Therefore, the initial plan was to recruit participants on both the offline and online environment. On the online environment, I have created a profile on both mobile dating apps revealing that the profile was made for research purposes. Moreover, this profile even had a research picture and a description explaining the purpose of the research briefly. However, recruitment through in-app was not successful because of users’ intentions and reasons for being on these apps. Thus, because I did not manage to get any participants through the online environment, I needed to search for interviewees in the offline environment. This has been done through my personal and professional network. Therefore, I chose convenience sampling. The participants were selected based on their convenient accessibility. Moreover, by using this sampling, only participants who were easily accessible were selected.
As a result, I managed to gather eleven interviewees who were actively involved in this ethnographic study. The interviewees were international homosexual male students from Danish universities who live in the Copenhagen metropolitan area. These eleven interviewees ranged in age between 21 and 29. This results in the average age for all the participants of 24 years old. All these eleven students were able to participate in the first set of interviews. However, only five out of eleven participated in the second set of interviews due to time limitation. Moreover, only six students who were interviewed in the first set of interviews were also part of the participant observation. The average age of these participants was 23 years old. All the participants were experienced users of these two apps and newcomers to the city. They all have an international background which makes this group diverse. They all have an international background which makes this group diverse. Table 1. below shows the age of the participants and their period on both apps.
Age Mobile dating app Period on this app Mobile dating app Period on this app
21 Grindr 3 years Tinder 1 year and 6
months
25 Grindr 6 years Tinder 3 years
25 Grindr 4 years Tinder 2 years
22 Grindr 3 years and 7
months
Tinder 3 years
28 Grindr 5 years Tinder 1 year
20 Grindr 2 years Tinder 1 year
23 Grindr 2 years Tinder 1 year
26 Grindr 3 years and 3 Tinder 2 years and 8
months months
21 Grindr 3 years Tinder 1 year and 8
months
21 Grindr 2 years and 6
months
Tinder 1 year and 6
months
26 Grindr 4 years and 8
months
Tinder 2 years and 4
months
Table 1. A table containing key characteristics of the participants
4.5.1 Sample size of the study
The last limitation has to do with the number of interviewees, exactly 11 who were part of this study. Although the study does have qualitative research and shows in the results, the students’ experiences, it is still hard to take into consideration all the international homosexual male students in Copenhagen. The interviewees would be in a huge number which cannot be covered in the size of this specific study. Factors such as economic status, different environments, different backgrounds would have an impact on the experiences, so furthermore on the results of the study.
4.5.2 Data collection procedures
An ethnographer typically collects more than one type of data. Some common types of data include field notes from participant observation, transcripts from interviews and even documents and artefacts (Allen, 2017). The semi-structured interviews were held at different locations such as schools and cafes
throughout Copenhagen. The interviews were recorded, and the participants needed to state their age but not their name.
Interviews
The semi-structured interviews were held at different locations such as schools and cafes throughout Copenhagen. The interviews were recorded, and the participants needed to state their age but not their name. The semi-structured interviews were conducted in two different sets and the participant observation was conducted along with the second set of interviews. Semi-structured interviews and participant observation are key elements of ethnography and are linked to each other (O’Reilly, 2004).
The first set of semi-structured interviews varied between 30 to 50 minutes and the reason I chose semi-structured interviews is that the participants would be allowed to contribute with new ideas and input which generates data, but it may even end up in a new direction. Moreover, these semi-structured interviews help me to discover the background of the part and to gain an understanding of how they interact with each other in this community. Furthermore, I explored how participants perceive these applications and what their perception is about these different mobile dating applications. This phase allowed me to understand what the different mobile dating applications are used by the participants. Moreover, it helped me to get better knowledge about these apps and their purposes.
The second phase of semi-structured interviews varied between 40 to 60 minutes. This set of interviews was focused on the different mobile dating applications, practices they had on different mobile dating applications and how these mobile dating applications changed the way they interact daily. Moreover, through participant observation, I could see how participants navigate through the different applications and what is their practice or “way through” and interaction with other users. This phase was way much
more structured compared to the first one. As a result of having a better knowledge and because I have used the walkthrough method to understand better these two mobile dating apps.
Besides these interviews, I have also conducted some informal interviews with these students. However, these interviews become part of the field notes. This is a common practice in ethnography to conduct informal interviews with formal interviews (Allen, 2017).
Participant observation
Participant observation by using digital ethnography has been used in order to collect data about these specific students.
In my case, I chose to be an observer as a participant. By doing so, the participants were aware of me and of my goals. There was also some interaction with the participants, but it was limited. By being an observer, I could physically observe what the participants were doing on those apps. I observed their behaviour online on what they are doing and if there are any patterns that they always follow. I could notice that the participants were using the apps the same. For example, the participants would always go and check for the newest messages. Moreover, in the case of Tinder, they would also check if there were new profiles they could swipe through.
In this sense, I took notes writing down all the steps and all the things they were usually doing. Thus, this allowed me to make some step-to-steps and to notice their normal routine around these apps. Moreover, by being an observer I could always have some interaction with them when I wanted to know some clarifications about their use on these apps.
4.5.3 Data analysis procedures
The data collected from the semi-structured interviews and participant observation through digital ethnography, were transcribed manually by the researcher. It involved observing the participants and making notes and writing down the most important experiences students had throughout the use of these mobile dating applications. By using STS, I have searched for the presence of social-subsystems and the technical ones through participants observation and interviews. Moreover, as STS focuses on understanding the social aspects from the interactions between people and technologies, I wanted to analyse this material by highlighting it in different categories. For this ethnographic study, through STS I focused on analysing the material by highlighting the interactions between the students and the two mobile dating applications, Tinder and Grindr.
There are a lot of different terms to describe the process of highlining the most important ideas (Allen, 2017). In order to make this process easier, a document with different categories such as people, technologies and use, has been created. This method is called open coding, but some ethnographers even call it a constant comparison method Open coding is used as a first approach to the data. Firstly, the data gathered through the interviews was broken up into smaller parts which are analysed. Then, these smaller parts are compared to see similarities and differences. The similar parts were marked with the same code such as use, practice (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Corbin and Strauss (1990) define the same codes with terms such as concept and category that describes this phenomenon of grouping similar parts into one code. Thus, these similar parts are related to each other. The whole point of this method is to gather and develop codes, however, in order to do so there needs to be some sensitive questions addressed to the people interviewed. The questions addressed to the students can be found in the appendix. Thus, the
