SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yeni Medya / 2025 / Sayı: 19

New Media and Digital Heritage

Yeni Medya ve Dijital Miras

Erhan Hancığaz(ERZİNCAN BİNALİ YILDIRIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4539-0394
Journal
Yeni Medya
Pages
50–69
Publication Date
2025-12-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this context, it contributes to the discipline of communication on the topics of digital heritage, digital identity, privacy, and digital mortality; and highlights the need to address the phenomenon of digital heritage in the context of social awareness in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study raises awareness about people's social media habits, sharing purposes, digital identity, and post-mortem digital legacy management concepts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, digital legacy awareness in new media was analyzed using a qualitative method through in-depth interviews with participants who use new media and live in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, it contributes to the discipline of communication on the topics of digital heritage, digital identity, privacy, and digital mortality; and highlights the need to address the phenomenon of digital heritage in the context of social awareness in Turkey.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Digital Heritage · New Media · Social Media

Abstract

This study raises awareness about people's social media habits, sharing purposes, digital identity, and post-mortem digital legacy management concepts. In this context, digital legacy awareness in new media was analyzed using a qualitative method through in-depth interviews with participants who use new media and live in Turkey. Data obtained from semi-structured interviews with thirty-five participants were evaluated using descriptive analysis methods. The findings show that participants use social media primarily for information gathering, archiving, and communication purposes, and prefer sharing temporary content (story) over permanent posts. It is emphasized that social media does not reflect reality, affects individual psychology, and that privacy boundaries are determined by personal values. The majority of participants are not aware of the concept of digital heritage and prefer to have their accounts closed after death. This study is one of the pioneering qualitative research studies examining the relationship between digital heritage and social media use in the field of communication in Turkey. In this context, it contributes to the discipline of communication on the topics of digital heritage, digital identity, privacy, and digital mortality; and highlights the need to address the phenomenon of digital heritage in the context of social awareness in Turkey.

Özet

This study raises awareness about people's social media habits, sharing purposes, digital identity, and post-mortem digital legacy management concepts. In this context, digital legacy awareness in new media was analyzed using a qualitative method through in-depth interviews with participants who use new media and live in Turkey. Data obtained from semi-structured interviews with thirty-five participants were evaluated using descriptive analysis methods. The findings show that participants use social media primarily for information gathering, archiving, and communication purposes, and prefer sharing temporary content (story) over permanent posts. It is emphasized that social media does not reflect reality, affects individual psychology, and that privacy boundaries are determined by personal values. The majority of participants are not aware of the concept of digital heritage and prefer to have their accounts closed after death. This study is one of the pioneering qualitative research studies examining the relationship between digital heritage and social media use in the field of communication in Turkey. In this context, it contributes to the discipline of communication on the topics of digital heritage, digital identity, privacy, and digital mortality; and highlights the need to address the phenomenon of digital heritage in the context of social awareness in Turkey.

🔖

Cite This Article

Hancığaz, E. (2025). New Media and Digital Heritage. Yeni Medya, Sayı: 19, 50–69. https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1762832

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (49)

  1. Agarwal, S., & Nath, A. (2021). A comprehensive study on scope and challenges in digital inheritance. International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 7(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT217225
  2. Baudrillard, J. (2011). Simülakrlar ve simülasyon (O. Adanır, Trans.). Doğu Batı Yayınları.
  3. Bauman, Z. (2017). Akışkan modernite (S. O. Çavuş, Trans.). Can Yayınları. (Original work published 2000)
  4. Bellamy, C., Arnold, M., Gibbs, M., Bjørn, N., & Kohn, T. (2014). Death and the internet: Consumer issues for planning and managing digital legacies. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 33(3), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2014.2353751
  5. Brubaker, J. R., Hayes, G. R., & Dourish, P. (2013). Beyond the grave: Facebook as a site for the expansion of death and mourning. The Information Society, 29(3), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2013.777300
  6. Brubaker, J. R., & Callison-Burch, V. (2016). Legacy contact: Designing and implementing postmortem stewardship at Facebook. In CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2908–2919). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858254
  7. Brubaker, J. R., Morris, M. R., Doyle, D. T., Fiesler, C., Gibbs, M., & McGrenere, J. (2024). AI and the afterlife. In Extended abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24) (Article 458, 1–5 pages). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3636321
  8. Castells, M. (2008). Ağ toplumunun yükselişi (E. Kılıç, Trans.). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  9. Chen, J. X., Vitale, F., & McGrenere, J. (2021). What happens after death? Using a design work-book to understand user expectations for preparing their data. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.344535
  10. Cherry, A. L. (2000). A research primer for the helping professions: Methods, statistics, and writing. Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.
  11. Cook, D. M., Dissanayake, D. N., & Kaur, K. (2019). The usability factors of lost digital legacy data from regulatory misconduct: Older values and the issue of ownership. In 2019 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICoICT.2019.8835303
  12. Cushing, A. L. (2013). “It’s stuff that speaks to me”: Exploring the characteristics of digital possessions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1723–1734. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22864
  13. Debord, G. (2014). The society of the spectacle (Annotated ed.). Bureau of Public Secrets.
  14. Donkoh, S., & Mensah, J. (2023). Application of triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Applied Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 10(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.15406/jabb.2023.10.00319
  15. Doyle, D. T., & Brubaker, J. R. (2023). Digital legacy: A systematic literature review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), Article 268, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610059
  16. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.
  17. Fuchs, C. (2022). Digital democracy and the digital public sphere: Media, communication and society (Vol. 6). Routledge.
  18. Griffiths, M. D. (1996). Internet “addiction”: An issue for clinical psychology? Clinical Psychology Forum, 97, 32–36.
  19. Griffiths, M. (2000). Internet addiction – Time to be taken seriously? Addiction Research, 8(5), 413–418.
  20. Golsteijn, C., van den Hoven, E., Frohlich, D., & Sellen, A. (2012). Towards a more cherishable digital object. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference on (DIS ’12) (p. 655). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318054
  21. Gulotta, R., Kelliher, A., & Forlizzi, J. (2017). Digital systems and the experience of legacy. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 663–674). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.306473
  22. Habermas, J. (2022). Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221112341
  23. Hsieh Yee, I. (2021). Can we trust social media? Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 25(1–2), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2021.1947433
  24. Hunter, E. G., & Rowles, G. D. (2005). Leaving a legacy: Toward a typology. Journal of Aging Studies, 19(3), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2004.08.002
  25. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts, and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0038038501000219
  26. Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage Publications.
  27. Kwon, S., Choi, E., Kim, M., Hwang, S., Kim, D., & Kang, Y. (2021). What happens to my Instagram account after I die? Re-imagining social media as a commemorative space for remembrance and recovery. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 449–467). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85616-8_26
  28. Kwon, S., Jo, H., Ryu, S., Do, J. R., Lee, H., Lee, J., Lee, K., & Kang, Y. (2025). Digital legacy systems for young adults: Emphasizing relationship-oriented perspectives and physical artifacts in death preparation. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '25) (Article 323, pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713764
  29. Lim, W. M. (2024). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
  30. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080335
  31. Marshall, C. C., Bly, S. A., & Brun-Cottan, F. (2007). The long term fate of our digital belongings: Toward a service model for personal archives. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3653
  32. Massimi, M., & Baecker, R. M. (2010). A death in the family: Opportunities for designing technologies for the bereaved. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 1821). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753600
  33. Morse, T., & Birnhack, M. (2020). The posthumous privacy paradox: Privacy preferences and behavior regarding digital remains. New Media & Society, 24(6), 1343–1362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820974955
  34. Mostafa, M., & Hussain, F. (2021). Transcending old boundaries: Digital afterlife in the age of COVID 19. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.09939
  35. O’Connor, E. F. (2024). [Review of the book A new structural transformation of the public sphere and deliberative politics, by J. Habermas]. International Journal of Communication, 18, 1309–1312.
  36. Odom, W., Banks, R., Harper, R., Kirk, D., Lindley, S., & Sellen, A. (2012). Technology heirlooms? Considerations for passing down and inheriting digital materials. In Proceedings of CHI 2012 (pp. 337–346). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207723
  37. Peoples, C., & Hetherington, M. (2015). The cloud afterlife: Managing your digital legacy. In 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2015.7439412
  38. Prates, R. O., Rosson, M. B., & de Souza, C. S. (2015). Making decisions about digital legacy with Google’s Inactive Account Manager. In INTERACT 2015 (pp. 201–209). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22701-6_14
  39. Reeves, A., Shaghaghi, A., Krebs, S., & Ashenden, D. (2024). Data after death: Australian user preferences and future solutions to protect posthumous user data. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.01282
  40. Rossetto, K. R., Lannutti, P. J., & Strauman, E. C. (2015). Death on Facebook: Examining the roles of social media communication for the bereaved. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(7), 974–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514555272
  41. Shane-Simpson, C., Manago, A., Gaggi, N., & Gillespie-Lynch, K. (2018). Why do college students prefer Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram? Site affordances, tensions between privacy and self-expression, and implications for social capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.041
  42. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
  43. Waagstein, A. (2014). An exploratory study of digital legacy among death aware people. Thanatos, 3(1), 46–67.
  44. Wagner, A. J. M. (2018). Do not click “like” when somebody has died: The role of norms for mourning practices in social media. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117744392
  45. Watkins, R. D., Sellen, A., & Lindley, S. E. (2015). Digital collections and digital collecting practices. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3423–3432). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702380
  46. Van Dijck, J. (2007). Mediated memories in the digital age. Stanford University Press.
  47. Vitale, F., Janzen, I., & McGrenere, J. (2018). Hoarding and minimalism: Tendencies in digital data preservation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174161
  48. Young, J., Pekane, A., & Kautondokwa, P. (2025). Behavioural predictors that influence digital legacy management intentions among individuals in South Africa. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.18542
  49. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.