Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:09:59.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - On Social Media

Studying Social Media from an Egocentric Perspective

from IV - New Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2021

By
Keith N. Hampton  and
Wenhong Chen
Edited by
Mario L. Small ,
Brea L. Perry ,
Bernice Pescosolido  and
Edward B. Smith
Mario L. Small
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Brea L. Perry
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Bernice Pescosolido
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Edward B. Smith
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Get access

Summary

An overview of empirical findings, emerging theories, and challenges to the ego-centric perspective in the study of social media and digital technologies broadly. The relationship between social media use and network size and diversity has been discussed in relation to topics that include social capital, social support, political engagement, and mental health. We explore the role these technologies play in shaping networks, and how the ego-centric perspective can advance the study of social media. Two trends – persistent contact and pervasive awareness – are explored for their potential to counter transitory, segmented personal networks. The ego-centric perspective can play an important role in the study of social media, which has primarily focused on understanding how media works as an agent of change, while overlooking opportunities for research related to social influence and network flows. However, ego-centric researchers face methodological challenges, including the risk of overgeneralizing from social media platforms to personal networks more broadly, and the role of algorithmic personalization. We end with a discussion of how ever shifting social media platforms remain a barrier to advancing one of the most promising opportunities for the ego-centric approach: combining relational data from social media platforms with data from other sources, such as surveys.

Keywords

core networknetwork sizenetwork diversitytrace databig datacommunication researchname generatormedia exposurealgorithmsinternet
Type
Chapter
Information
Personal Networks
Classic Readings and New Directions in Egocentric Analysis
 , pp. 718 - 733
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appel, Lora, Dadlani, Punit, Dwyer, Maria, Hampton, Keith N., Kitzie, Vanessa, Matni, Ziad A., Moore, Patricia, and Teodoro, Rannie. 2014. “Testing the Validity of Social Capital Measures in the Study of Information and Communication Technologies.” Information, Communication & Society 17: 398–416.Google Scholar
Barnidge, Matthew. 2017. “Exposure to Political Disagreement in Social Media versus Face-to-Face and Anonymous Online Settings.” Political Communication 34: 302–21.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. Russell, , Killworth, Peter, Johnsen, Eugene, Shelley, Gene Ann, McCarty, Christopher, and Robinson, Scott. 1990. “Comparing Four Different Methods for Measuring Personal Networks.” Social Networks 12: 179–216.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. Russell, and Christopher, McCarty. 2009. “The Network Scale-up Method: Background and Theory.” Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Boase, Jeffrey. 2016. “Augmenting Survey and Experimental Designs with Digital Trace Data.” Communication Methods and Measures 10: 165–6.Google Scholar
Boyd, Danah M., and Ellison, Nicole B. 2007. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13: 210–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, Matthew E. 2011. “Small Networks and High Isolation: A Reexamination of American Discussion Networks.” Social Networks 33: 331–41.Google Scholar
Brashears, Matthew E., and Brashears, Laura Aufderheide. 2020. “Compression Heuristics, Social Networks, and the Evolution of Human Intelligence,” pp. 97–116 in Network Science in Cognitive Psychology, edited by Vitevitch, M.. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burgess, Ernest. 1925. “The Growth of the City,” pp. 47–62 in The City: Suggestions for Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment, edited by Park, R. and Burgess, E.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Burke, Moira, and Kraut, Robert. 2014. “Growing Closer on Facebook: Changes in Tie Strength through Social Network Site Use,” pp. 4187–96 in CHI ‘14- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, edited by Jones, M. and Palanque., P. April 2014, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald. 1984. “Network Items and the General Social Survey.” Social Networks 6: 293–339.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel. 1976. “Theory and Ideology in Urban Sociology,” pp. 60–84 in Urban Sociology, edited by Pickvance, C.. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chang, Ming-Yi, and Fu, Yang-Chih. 2019. “Social Media and Network Boundaries among College Students: Reconstructing Companions, Conversations, and Contact Circles.” Taiwanese Sociology 37: 1–46.Google Scholar
Chen, Wenhong. 2013. “Growth or Decline: Changes in Americans’ Social Capital,” pp. 259–80 in Social Capital and Its Institutional Contingency: A Study of the United States, Taiwan and China, edited by Lin, N., Fu, Y. C., and Chen, C. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chen, Wenhong. 2015. “Mediatizing the Network Model of Cultural Capital: Network Diversity, Media Use, and Cultural Knowledge along and across Ethnic Boundaries.” Social Networks 40: 185–96.Google Scholar
Chen, Wenhong, and Quan-Haase., Anabel 2018. “Big Data Ethics and Politics: Toward New Understandings.” Social Science Computer Review 38(1): 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Wenhong, and Quan-Haase, Anabel. 2020. “Big Data Ethics and Politics: Toward New Understandings.” Social Science Computer Review 38: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Wenhong, Quan-Haase, Anabel, and Park, Yong Jin. In press. “Privacy and Data Management: The User and Producer Perspectives.” American Behavioral Scientist.Google Scholar
Chen, Wenhong, and Tan, Justin. 2009. “Understanding Transnational Entrepreneurship through a Network Lens: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33: 1079–91.Google Scholar
Choi, Sujin, Sung, Joshua, Yang, Woo, and Chen, Wenhong. 2018. “Longitudinal Change of an Online Political Discussion Forum: Antecedents of Discussion Network Size and Evolution.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23: 260–77.Google Scholar
Coleman, James, Katz, Elihu, and Manzel, H. 1957. “The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians.” Sociometry 20: 253–70.Google Scholar
Conover, Michael D., Ratkiewicz, Jacob, Francisco, Matthew, Gonçalves, Bruno, Menczer, Filippo, and Flammini, Alessandro. 2011. “Political Polarization on Twitter.” In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
Cotter, Kelley. 2019. “Playing the Visibility Game: How Digital Influencers and Algorithms Negotiate Influence on Instagram.” New Media & Society 21: 895–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotson, Taylor. 2017. Technically Together: Reconsidering Community in a Networked World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dubois, Elizabeth, and Blank, Grant. 2018. “The Echo Chamber Is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media.” Information, Communication & Society 21: 729–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Robin I. M. 1992. “Neocortex Size as a Constraint on Group Size in Primates.” Journal of Human Evolution 22: 469–93.Google Scholar
Dunbar, Robin I. M. 2016. “Do Online Social Media Cut through the Constraints that Limit the Size of Offline Social Networks?” Royal Society Open Science 3: 150292. Available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.150292 [last accessed February 15, 2021].Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile. 1893 [1993]. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eagle, David E., and Proeschold-Bell, Rae Jean. 2015. “Methodological Considerations in the Use of Name Generators and Interpreters.” Social Networks 40: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edison Research. 2014. “The Infinite Dial 2014.” Somerville, NJ: Edison Research and Triton Digital.Google Scholar
Erickson, Bonnie H. 1996. “Culture, Class, and Connections.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 217–51.Google Scholar
Filipek, Kamil. 2019. “The Impact of Social Capital on Political Participation of Social Media Users in Poland.” Studia Socjologiczne 233: 155–77.Google Scholar
Fischer, Claude. 1975. “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism.” American Journal of Sociology 80: 1319–41.Google Scholar
Fischer, Claude. 1975. 1982. To Dwell among Friends. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Claude. 1975. 2009. “The 2004 GSS Finding of Shrunken Social Networks: An Artifact?” American Sociological Review 74: 657–69.Google Scholar
Gitlin, Todd. 1978. “Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm.” Theory and Society 6: 205–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Kevin, Karahalios, Karrie, Sandvig, Christian, and Eslami, Motahhare. 2014. “A Path to Understanding the Effects of Algorithm Awareness,” pp. 631–42 in CHI ‘14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Toronto: ACM.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N. 2016. “Persistent and Pervasive Community: New Communication Technologies and the Future of Community.” American Behavioral Scientist 60: 101–24.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N. 2017. “Studying the Digital: Directions and Challenges for Digital Methods.” Annual Review of Sociology 43: 167–88.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N. 2019. “Social Media and Change in Psychological Distress over Time: The Role of Social Causation.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication V24(5): 205–22.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., and Wellman, Barry. 2018. “Lost and Saved … Again: The Moral Panic about the Loss of Community Takes Hold of Social Media.” Contemporary Sociology 47: 643–51.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith, and Wellman, Barry. 2021. “All the Lonely People? The Continuing Lament about the Loss of Community,” pp 281–96 in Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Communication, edited by Lievrouw, Leah and Loader, Brian. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Lee, Chul Joo, and Her, Eun Ja. 2011. “How New Media Afford Network Diversity: Direct and Mediated Access to Social Capital through Participation in Local Social Settings.” New Media & Society 13: 1031–49.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Shin, Inyoung, and Weixu, Lu. 2017. “Social Media and Political Discussion: When Online Presence Silences Offline Conversation.” Information, Communication & Society 20: 1090–107.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Sessions, Lauren, Her, Eun Ja, and Rainie, Lee. 2009. Social Isolation and New Technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Sessions, Lauren, and Her, Eun Ja. 2011. “Core Networks, Social Isolation, and New Media: Internet and Mobile Phone Use, Network Size, and Diversity.” Information, Communication & Society 14: 130–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Goulet, Lauren Sessions, Marlow, Cameron, and Rainie, Lee. 2012. “Why Most Facebook Users Get More Than They Give: The Effect of Facebook ‘Power Users’ on Everyone Else.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Goulet, Lauren Sessions, Rainie, Lee, and Purcell, Kristen. 2011. “Social Networking Sites and Our Lives: How People’s Trust, Personal Relationships, and Civic and Political Involvement Are Connected to Their Use of Social Networking Sites and Other Technologies.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., and Ling, Rich. 2013. “Explaining Communication Displacement and Large Scale Social Change in Core Networks: A Cross-National Comparison of Why Bigger Is Not Better and Less Can Mean More.” Information, Communication & Society 16: 561–89.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Weixu, Lu, and Shin, Inyoung. 2016. “Digital Media and Stress: Cost of Caring 2.0.” Information, Communication & Society 19: 1267–86.Google Scholar
Haythornthwaite, Caroline. 2005. “Social Networks and Internet Connectivity Effects.” Information, Communication & Society 8: 125–47.Google Scholar
Hofstra, Bas, Corten, Rense, and Frank, van Tubergen. 2020. “Beyond the Core: Who Has Larger Social Networks?” Social Forces 99(3): 1274–305.Google Scholar
Hofstra, Bas, Corten, Rense, van Tubergen, Frank, and Ellison, Nicole B.. 2017. “Sources of Segregation in Social Networks: A Novel Approach Using Facebook.” American Sociological Review 82: 625–56.Google Scholar
Hogan, Bernie. 2016. “Online Social Networks: Concepts for Data Collection and Analysis,” pp. 241–58 in The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods 2nd ed., edited by Fielding, N. G, Lee, R., and Blank, G.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hogan, Bernie. 2018. “Social Media Giveth, Social Media Taketh Away: Facebook, Friendships, and APIs.” International Journal of Communication 12: 592–611.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Mendez, Jeanette Morehouse, and Osborn, Tracy. 2004. “Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement.” Political Psychology 25: 65–95.Google Scholar
Humphrey, Nicholas K. 1976. “The Social Function of Intellect,” pp. 303–17 in Growing Points in Ethology, edited by Bateson, P. and Hinde, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ikeda, Ken’ichi, and Boase, Jeffrey. 2011. “Multiple Discussion Networks and Their Consequence for Political Participation.” Communication Research 38: 660–83.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Jacob. 1974. “The Construct Validity of Opinion Leadership.” Public Opinion Quarterly 38: 81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Elihu. 2009. “Why Sociology Abandoned Communication.” The American Sociologist 40: 167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Elihu, and Lazarsfeld, Paul F.. 1955. Personal Influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1944. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in Presidential Campaigns. New York: Duell, Sloan, Pearce.Google Scholar
Lewis, Kevin, Kaufman, Jason, Gonzalez, Marco, Wimmer, Andreas, and Christakis, Nicholas. 2008. “Tastes, Ties, and Time: A New Social Network Dataset Using Facebook.com.” Social Networks 30: 330–42.Google Scholar
Lin, Nan, and Dumin, Mary. 1986. “Access to Occupations through Social Ties.” Social Networks 8: 365–85.Google Scholar
Ling, Rich. 2017. “The Social Dynamics of Mobile Group Messaging.” Annals of the International Communication Association 41: 242–9.Google Scholar
Lu, Weixu, and Hampton, Keith N.. 2017. “Beyond the Power of Networks: Differentiating Network Structure from Social Media Affordances for Perceived Social Support.” New Media & Society 19: 861–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, Alexandra, and Hampton, Keith N.. 2007. “Simplifying the Personal Network Name Generator: Alternatives to the Traditional Multiple and Single Name Generators.” Field Methods 19: 163–93.Google Scholar
Marin, Alexandra, and Hampton, Keith N.. 2019. “Network Instability in Times of Stability.” Sociological Forum 34: 313–36.Google Scholar
Marsden, Peter. 1987. “Core Discussions Networks of Americans.” American Sociological Review 52: 122–31.Google Scholar
McCormick, Tyler H., Salganik, Matthew J., and Zheng, Tian. 2010. “How Many People Do You Know?: Efficiently Estimating Personal Network Size.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105:59–70.Google Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Brashears, Matthew E.. 2006. “Social Isolation in America.” American Sociological Review 71: 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, Jennifer Watling. 2020. “A Systematic Review of Social Network Methods in High Impact Developmental Psychology Journals.” Social Development 29(4): 923–44.Google Scholar
Orben, Amy, and Przybylski, Andrew K.. 2019. “The Association between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use.” Nature Human Behaviour 3: 173–82.Google Scholar
Paik, Anthony, and Sanchagrin, Kenneth. 2013. “Social Isolation in America: An Artifact.” American Sociological Review 78(3): 339–60.Google Scholar
Park, Kyung-Gook, and Han, Sehee. 2018. “How Use of Location-Based Social Network (LBSN) Services Contributes to Accumulation of Social Capital.” Social Indicators Research 136: 379–96.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Rader, Emilee, Cotter, Kelley, and Cho, Janghee. 2018. Explanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency. Montreal QC: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Rainie, Lee, and Wellman, Barry. 2012. Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reeves, Byron, Robinson, Thomas, and Ram, Nilam. 2020. “Time for the Human Screenome Project.” Nature 577: 314–17.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett M., and Cartano, David G.. 1962. “Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 435–41.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett M., and Chaffee, Steven H.. 1983. “Communication as an Academic Discipline: A Dialogue.” Journal of Communication 33: 18–30.Google Scholar
Seeley, John, Sim, Alexander, and Loosely, Elizabeth. 1956. Crestwood Heights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Shen, Cuihua, and Chen, Wenhong. 2015. “Gamers’ Confidants: Massively Multiplayer Online Game Participation and Core Networks in China.” Social Networks 40: 207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Cuihua, and Gong, He. 2019. “Personal Ties, Group Ties and Latent Ties: Connecting Network Size to Diversity and Trust in the Mobile Social Network WeChat.” Asian Journal of Communication 29: 18–34.Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg. 1903 [1950]. “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” pp. 409–24 in The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited and translated by K. H. Wolff. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Small, Mario Luis. 2013. “Weak Ties and the Core Discussion Network: Why People Regularly Discuss Important Matters with Unimportant Alters.” Social Networks 35: 470–83.Google Scholar
Small, Mario Luis. 2017. Someone to Talk To. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Aaron. 2014. “What People Like and Dislike About Facebook.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Straits, Bruce. 2000. “Ego’s Important Discussants or Significant People.” Social Networks 22: 123–40.Google Scholar
Stutzman, Frederic, and Hartzog, Woodrow. 2012. “Boundary Regulation in Social Media,” pp. 769–78 in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2009. Republic.Com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2018. “Is Social Media Good or Bad for Democracy.” SUR – International Journal on Human Rights 27: 83.Google Scholar
Thorson, Kjerstin, Cotter, Kelley, Medeiros, Mel, and Pak, Chankyung. 2019. “Algorithmic Inference, Political Interest, and Exposure to News and Politics on Facebook.” Information, Communication & Society 1:18.Google Scholar
Tindall, David B., Cormier, Jeffrey, and Diani, Mario. 2012. “Network Social Capital as an Outcome of Social Movement Mobilization: Using the Position Generator as an Indicator of Social Network Diversity.” Social Networks 34: 387–95.Google Scholar
Tönnies, Ferdinand. 1887 [1957]. Community and Society. Translated by C. P. Loomis. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Alone Together. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ugander, Johan, Karrer, Brian, Backstrom, Lars, and Marlow, Cameron. 2011. “The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph.” Arxiv preprint arXiv:1111.4503.Google Scholar
van der Gaag, Martin, and Tom, A. B. Snijders, . 2005. “The Resource Generator.” Social Networks 27: 1–29.Google Scholar
Vriens, Eva, and Erik, van Ingen. 2017. “Does the Rise of the Internet Bring Erosion of Strong Ties? Analyses of Social Media Use and Changes in Core Discussion Networks.” New Media & Society 2017: 1461444817724169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Duncan J., and Strogatz, Steven H.. 1998. “Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks.” Nature 393: 440–2.Google Scholar
Welles, Brooke Foucault and Contractor, Noshir. 2015. “Individual Motivations and Network Effects: A Multilevel Analysis of the Structure of Online Social Relationships.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659: 180–90.Google Scholar
Wellman, Barry. 1979. “The Community Question.” American Journal of Sociology 84: 1201–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, Barry. 2001. “Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing Portals and the Rise of Networked Individualism.” International Journal for Urban and Regional Research 25: 227–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, Barry, Quan-Haase, Anabel, Boase, Jeffrey, Chen, Wenhong, Hampton, Keith, Isabel Isla de Diaz, and Kakuko Miyata. 2003. “The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00216.x [last accessed February 15, 2021].Google Scholar
Wellman, Barry, and Wortley, Scot. 1990. “Different Strokes from Different Folks.” American Journal of Sociology 96: 558–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesler, Howard T., Smith, Marc, Fisher, Danyel, and Gleave, Eric. 2008. “Distilling Digital Traces: Computational Social Science Approaches to Studying the Internet,” pp. 116–40 in The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods, edited by Nigel Fielding, Raymond M. Lee, and Grant Blank. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Yousefi-Nooraie, Reza, Marin, Alexandra, Hanneman, Robert, Pullenayegum, Eleanor, Lohfeld, Lynne, and Dobbins, Maureen. 2019. “The Relationship between the Position of Name Generator Questions and Responsiveness in Multiple Name Generator Surveys.” Sociological Methods & Research 48: 243–62.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×