Document Type : Original Research Paper


Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Education and Psychology,Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran


Background and Objectives: Users’ change approach from traditional methods to the use of social network sites, capacities for searching information and reaching ii including the educational content, have attracted the attention of numerous of studies in Human and Information Interaction. Also, availability, usability, audience attraction ability, and capacity of creating useful, customized and variable content have provided new opportunities in creating and distributing educational content on Instagram, one of the social media platforms that has the majority of the users in Iran. This study completed with mission of discovery and knowing the success components in creating and sharing educational content. The objectives of the study are analyzing successful experiences in producing and sharing information, drawing themes network of shared information, using of metadata for improving findability, and realizing factors affected in user acceptance in these pages
Methods: This research was carried out following qualitative research design with exploratory approach and thematic analysis. Thirty educational pages on Instagram have been selected based on competitive benchmarking, one of the research approaches in Information Architecture area. For research validity and reliability, the researchers used triangulation method. Data analyzed by Maxqda Pro 12.3 software. The research has done in the framework of Rosenfeld and Morville Information Architecture and in three dimensions: context, user and content. In the context dimension, the theory of use and gratification was used for examining the goals and motivations of information sharing. In the content dimension, the social tagging behavior was examined for investigating information findability behavior; also, the image characteristics have been examined the most liked posts, using theories of user engagement and optimal experience. In user dimension, the study investigated success components in content creating and successful content creators’ attributes. For this, the study analyzed user’s feedback in comments section and content creators and experts’ opinions.
Findings: The results showed that various components have contributed search optimization and findability. In context dimension, it showed that users had followed the goals of informing and awareness along with achieving economic goals, personal interest, interpersonal benefits, status, social status, and social interaction. In the content dimension and findability and examining the social tagging behavior, it was found that content creators had a definite constant policy on the use of hashtag. They had assigned subject and related hashtags, also they had used exclusive hashtags for the personalization and branding. They had utilized more subject, common and exclusive hashtags to content and less emphasizing and critical hashtags. The type of tags assigned to content was depended on the context of the pages. Also, the findings showed that 76 percent of the hashtags were consistent with the main subject of the shared content. Additionally, it was showed that image characteristics on the most liked posts were the human image, outstanding artistic, scientific and literary characters and nature and the themes of family, love, and religion on these posts. 80 percent of the most liked posts were dedicated to the main theme of the pages.  The components of the success of content acceptance by users included quality, awareness, credibility, value-added, specialized, motivational, entertaining, unique, relevant, realistic, up-to-date, and creative, executable, sharable, and personalized. Being committed, creativity, credibility, expertise, distinct identity, generosity and avoidance of copying, criticality, having intelligent behavior, patience and tolerate, a strong spirit of cooperation and communication, familiarity with analytical tools of information platform, and alignment with developments and updates were also components of the successful content creators.
Conclusion: The results of the research showed that successful experiments in three dimensions of context, content, and user, used specific features and components that could be a good model for content creators on this network. These components were using suitable inclusion of subject and exclusive hashtags; recommendation technique; information about author identity and expertise, contact information, valued followers, followers’ number, presence on other platforms, consistent themes in profile information; aesthetic, positive affect, quality, relevance, using of image characteristics, inspiring, Informing, realistic, relevance, unique, entertaining content and some others.


Main Subjects

©2021 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers. 

[1] Marchionini, G. Human–information interaction research and development. Library & Information Science Research. 2008; 30(3): 165-174.
[2] Allen, B. Information needs: A person-in-situation approach. Proceedings of an international conference on Information seeking in context; 1997. England.
[3] Kautz H, Selman B, Shah M. Referral Web: combining social networks and collaborative filtering. Communications of the ACM. 1997; 40(3): 63-65.‏
[4] Savolainen R. Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “way of life”. Library & information science research. 1997; 17(3): 259-294.
[5] Krikelas, J. Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel library quarterly. 1983; 19(2): 5-20.‏
[6] Constant D, Kiesler S, Sproull L. What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information systems research. 1994; 5(4): 400-421.
[7] Lee H L, So, K C, Tang C S. The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Management science. 2000; 46(5): 626-643.
[8] Chen L, Yan Z, Tang W, Yang F, Xie X, He J. Mobile phone addiction levels and negative emotions among Chinese young adults: the mediating role of interpersonal problems. Computers in Human behavior. 2016; 55: 856-866.
[9] Chen A, Lu Y, Wang B, Zhao L, Li M.  What drives content creation behavior on SNSs? A commitment perspective. Journal of Business Research. 2013; 66(12): 2529-2535.
[10] Choliz, M. Mobile phone addiction: a point of issue. Addiction. 2010; 105(2): 373-374.‏
[11] Cabral, J. Is generation Y addicted to social media. Future of children. 2008; 18: 125-130.
[12] Kuss, D J, Griffiths M D. Online social networking and addiction—a review of the psychological literature. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2011; 8(9): 3528-3552.
[13] Acquisti A, Gross R. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In International Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies; 2006. Berlin, Germany.
[14] Navidi, F. [The role of social networks in user’s daily information behavior]. Human information interaction. 2014; 2(1): 49-59. Persian.
[15] Syn S Y, Oh S.  Why do social network site users share information on Facebook and Twitter?  Journal of Information Science. 2015; 41(5): 553-569.
[17] Adnan W A W, Hassan W N H, Abdullah N, Taslim J. Eye tracking analysis of user behavior in online social networks. In: International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 113-119.
[19] Chung N, Nam K, Koo C. Examining information sharing in social networking communities: Applying theories of social capital and attachment. Telematics and Informatics. 2016; 33(1): 77-91.
[20] Lee E, Lee J A, Moon J H, Sung Y.  Pictures speak louder than words: Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2015; 18(9): 552-556.
[21] Sheldon P, Bryant K.  Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 58: 89-97.
[22] Blumler J G, McQuail D. Television in politics: Its uses and influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1969.
[23] Rogers E M. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press; 2010.
[24] Rogers E. M, Shoemaker F. Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Collier MacMillan; 1971.
[25] Laurel, B. Computers as theatre. Indiana: Pearson Education; 1993.
[26] Chapman P, Selvarajah S, Webster J. Engagement in multimedia training systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Washington DC, IEEE; 1999. p. 1-9.
[27] Beardsley M. C. Intentions and interpretations: a fallacy revived. In: Lamarque P, Olsen S H. (eds).  The Aesthetic and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition. New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell; 1982. p. 187-196.
[28] Stephenson W. The Play theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1967.
[29] Toms E G. Information interaction: Providing a framework for information architecture. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2002; 53(10): 855-862.
[30] O'Brien H L, & Toms E. G. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2008; 59(6): 938-955.‏
[32] Lee C, Bakar N A B A, Dahri R B M, Sin S C J. Instagram This! Sharing Photos on Instagram. In International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2005. p. 132-141.
[33] Giannoulakis S, Tsapatsoulis N. (2015). Instagram Hashtags as Image Annotation Metadata. In IFIP International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations. Berlin: Springe: 2015. p. 206-220.
[36] Morville P, Rosenfeld L. Information architecture for the World Wide Web. (3nd ed.). Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly; 2006.
[37] Patton M Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. In Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. California: Thousand Oaks; 1980.
[38] Glaser B G, Strauss A L., Strutzel E. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research. 1968; 17(4): 364.
[39] Tabatabaei A. Hassani P. Mortazavi, H. TabatabaeiChehr, M. Strategies to promote scientific accuracy in qualitative research. Journal of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences.2013; 5(3): 663-670. Persian.
[40] Gyarmati L, Trinh T A.  Measuring user behavior in online social networks. IEEE Network. 2010; 24(5): 26-31.
[41] O'Donovan F T, Fournelle C, Gaffigan S, Brdiczka O, Shen J, Liu J, et al. Characterizing user behavior and information propagation on a social multimedia network. In Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW). California: IEEE International Conference; 2013. p. 1-6.
[42] Haxby J V, Hoffman E A, Gobbini M I. The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2000; 4(6): 223-233.‏
[43] Watts D J, Strogatz S H. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature. 1998; 393:  440-442.‏
[44] Rahim K, Clemens B. Organizational goals and performance measurement criteria for content marketing. Journal of Communication and Computer. 2012; 9(8): 896-904.‏