Expected and Unexpected Practices on Tinder and Grindr?

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

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

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

6 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

7 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

8 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 applications and the 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 sexting where 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

12 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

13 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

14 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

17 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 force the 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

19 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 filtering and 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

20 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 filter through 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

22 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

23 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

24 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

27 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

31 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

34 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

35 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 Tinder 3 years months

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 Tinder 1 year and 6 months months

26 Grindr 4 years and 8 Tinder 2 years and 4 months 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

40 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

41 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

43 transcription of these interviews was my own interpretation based on the codes. Therefore, my own interpretation and the students’ prepositions can be argued and investigated (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

4.6 Co-design

Participatory design (co-design) was established in Scandinavia in the 1970s (Brodersen & Pedersen,

2014) and it can be described as a process where everyone (designers and non-designers) can actively participate in a design process (Velden & Mörtberd, 2014). According to Simonsen and Robertson (2012) participatory design(co-design) is defined as follows: A process of investigating, understanding, reflecting upon, establishing, developing, and supporting mutual learning between multiple participants in collective reflection-in-action. The participants typically undertake the two principal roles of users and designers where the designers strive to learn the realities of the users’ situation while the users strive to articulate their desired aims and learn appropriate technological means to obtain them (Simonsen & Robertson, p. 2, 2012).

As the results of this study would show that the current mobile dating apps did not fulfill the students’ needs, co-design has been used as a method. By using co-design as a method, it would be possible to collect multiple layers of data that are used to employ design solutions. Moreover, it would be possible to create a design solution that meets the students’ needs and is usable. Blomberg and Karasti (2012) explore the relationship between participatory design and ethnography in-depth, highlighting the importance of ethnography in participatory design. Ethnography as a resource for design started as a debate within the participatory design (co-design) since the 1980s when a group of anthropologically social scientists wanted to collaborate with computer scientists who looked on how to incorporate design in the information technology systems (Blomberg & Karasti, 2012).

An understanding of user needs can be gained by using observations and ethnographic study that seeks to understand the meaning-based needs. Thus, understanding the user needs means that it would be possible not only to understand the fundamental use but also the usability needs of the students (Rønning, 2015).

Ethnography migrated into the field of design through human-computer interface design (HCI), studies on how humans interact with computer software. Ethnography is used as a part of co-design because it provides a way into how the students use mobile dating apps in their everyday lives. Moreover, it also reveals a deeper understanding of students, what the design means for them and how they perceive these apps (Rønning, 2015). Thus, this is the base of designing more compelling solutions. It has also been used to understand what matters to the students and how design can enhance their experiences and uses on these mobile dating applications.

The main principle is to involve the people who are taking part in any way using a product or a solution

(Brodersen & Pedersen, 2014). Therefore, after the sampling of the participants, some of the participants took part in a co-design method. I used co-design with the participants and myself to create an establishment where everyone who uses the application can participate in the process of “designing” it.

This is described by Muller & Druin (2003) as the in-between region where the designers and the end-users meet. Hence, a co-design method was used to collect data through observations and the involvement of participants in the co-design process. Observation and interview techniques are dedicated to understanding the people for whom I am creating a design object. Thus, this creates the assumption that by studying people’s lives, habits, norms it may even lead to a better product. Therefore, ethnography plays an important role in the digital context and user centered-design (Nova, N., Hirt, L.,L., Kilchor, F.

& Fasel S., 2016)

4.6.1 Co-design workshops

The co-design workshops are an intensive ideation and design session where a team designs and develops a product or a service (Collaborative design workshop, 2019). Moreover, I also used to debrief so users can freely discuss the features of the low-fidelity prototype. However, I could not gather all the participants whom I had in the interviews with the co-design workshops, so instead I held co-design workshops with the available ones. The participants in these co-design workshops are the same participants whom I interviewed. In other words, the participants in these co-design workshops are the international students.

I conducted three different co-design workshops with 2-4 participants at a time. However, this approach does not change the purpose of co-design, as Muller & Druin (2003) argues that this is still a region where experiences such as learning reciprocally, creating new ideas, discussing different perspectives. These aspects again highlight the importance of including users when designing any system or interface. The different co-design workshops were conducted in different environments such as various schools (CBS and ITU) but also one cafe in central Copenhagen.

The first co-design workshop was held at CBS (Copenhagen Business School) where there were 3 participants who took part in the workshop. The workshop had an introduction for the participants about co-design and what we are supposed to do together. Moreover, just one of the participants was aware of the method itself, but still needed an explanation. However, he had never used this method in practice, so he mentioned that it was a good experience. I instructed them to brainstorm over some of the features these participants would want to have in a mobile dating application designed for homosexuals. Then, I gave them a task where they needed to design some of these features that they want and/or design some of the features that are found on the market, but they would still prefer. The participants stated that the instructions were clear, and the tasks were easy to follow. Therefore, I chose to use the same tasks for the

46 other two co-design workshops. Below, figure 7 illustrates one of the participants drawing in the first co-design workshop.

Figure 7. Ideas during co-design workshop @ CBS

The second co-design workshop was held at ITU (IT University of Copenhagen) where 2 participants took part in the workshop. The workshop started by stating what co-design is and the whole purpose of the co-design workshop. After stating that the co-design workshop is meant to create the base of a prototype for an online dating application, participants were really engaged due to their IT background.

The participants were instructed to brainstorm about a new mobile dating app. They were instructed that they can freely write ideas, draw some sketches. Therefore, during the co-design workshop, the participants tried to design some of the features they would love to have while looking much more into the functionalities of the features. They focused a lot on the user experience these features should offer.

Moreover, participants looked more at the application’s interface and concluded that it should be intuitive and easy to use. Thus, I encouraged the participants to group similar notes and choose the best features and ideas. Below, figure 8 illustrates a sketch from one of the participants at ITU.

Figure 8. A sketch from a participant showing a log-in page @ITU

The last co-design workshop was held at a cafe in Copenhagen, Denmark, where I met the remaining 2 participants who took part in this workshop. Like the previous two workshops, I started by explaining what co-design is and the purpose of the co-design workshop and what they are supposed to do. They were also instructed to do some brainstorming about a new mobile dating app. Their background was neither in IT or design, so they had a bit more difficult time than the other groups. However, I instructed them that they do not necessarily need to draw a perfect sketch. For example, they were told that It could be everything from just writing down an idea to a box with a chat function. This helped them to move forward. This can be seen in figure 9 below.

Figure 9. Ideas during co-design workshop @ Cafe in Copenhagen

I mentioned that this is an iterative design process where everyone contributes to creating some of the features for a prototype which was going to be an online dating application. Participants started brainstorming about features they would like to have on a future mobile dating application. During the co-design workshops, I needed to introduce them to the concept of co-design and co-design workshops and what it entitles. Thus, the main purpose of the co-design workshops is to bring new ideas and features which will be developed into my prototype, as mentioned before. Therefore, a lot of ideas and discussions were broadened into the co-design sessions for the prototype. In the meantime, I took notes during these co-design workshops by observing what they were doing after they had the instructions. I could see mostly they were writing and sketching features from actual apps. However, there were some new ideas about having a more personalised dating app.

Based on their needs, I used synthesis and prioritization as participants were encouraged to group similar notes and choose between 3-5 features/ideas. As it is a low fidelity prototype, it would be hard to take all the participants' ideas. Moreover, I used to debrief to allow participants to discuss their most intriguing, exciting but also helpful features in-depth.

The results from the co-design workshops are the base of my prototype where I am going to design it based on their needs. Moreover, these results and the process of the three different co-design workshops are presented in the results section.

4.7 Limitations

The scope of this project is to seek and explore the practices of the international, homosexual male university students who use mobile dating applications, Grindr and Tinder.

Some of the participants also used some other mobile dating applications, but the most popular ones were still Tinder and Grindr. This could have had an impact on their daily practices as presented in the result section. However, the local students were not included in this study case. Thus, their experiences may be different or similar compared to the study group. However, international students could have any background. Another limitation is the exclusion of other sexual orientations such as bisexual, lesbian, people who are still struggling with their sexual orientations and those who did not define it yet nor want to define it.

One of the limitations is that I was not able to follow their online behaviour all the time they used these apps. Different results might have emerged, thus resulting in different practices as well. This applies also to the target group. If the participants were not only students, they might have used these apps differently.

Therefore, the results might have been different. Although there might have been some differences, there might have been similarities and known practices as well.

Some of the participants might have been a bit reserved since I studied a very intimate behaviour.

However, most of the participants freely told me a lot of their personal experiences on these two mobile dating apps. Some of the experiences had some sexual connotations, but they were mostly referred to as sexting.

4.7.1 Research site

One of the limitations has to do with the actual location where the ethnographic study took place. Even though the participants have different backgrounds, languages, nationalities, there were only participants living in Copenhagen. The results in their experiences could differ not even so far away from

Copenhagen. However, it is hard to know for the size of this study how the experiences would differ in

51 other cities in Denmark and the way they interact with each other due to most likely being smaller communities.

4.8 Ethical considerations

A couple of different methods have been used in this research such as ethnography, digital ethnography, walkthrough method, sampling and participants, semi-structured interviews and co-design. However, by using these methods on a specific target group, this may create a conflict with society’s moral principles.

By studying a homosexual target group can be morally intolerable in some countries.

Therefore, I needed to be sure that my interviewees in this study are not involved in any conflicts which can compromise any of the principles. Thus, I investigated some ethical issues such as anonymity and confidentiality for this study.

Anonymity and confidentiality of the interviewees are central to any social research project.

Nevertheless, it applies in my research study where I made sure that their identities were not revealed.

One important consideration was to ensure the participants from the beginning that they are not going to be harmed in any way whatsoever. In order to protect the interviewees' human rights to privacy, confidentiality, autonomy and informed consent, the interviewees need to be aware from the beginning of the research about all these details (Ess & AoIR, 2002).

In order to assure anonymity and confidentiality, the interviewees were offered some non-disclosure PDF forms which specified my agreement where I declared that I will not use any personal information such as real names, private location, the field of study, specific schools, profile names on

Grindr, nor profile pictures from the applications or from the co-design workshops. However, the form informed interviewees to give their consent to use data such as experiences with mobile dating applications, personal stories only around these technologies in my study. Nevertheless, there are some

52 risks to keep the participants' confidentiality and anonymity. One of the risks is that it is difficult to know how much information I can use from participants in my study to keep their low profile and not make them traceable. It is common in other social research projects that location is also a risk (Crow & Willes,

2008), but this was not a concern for my participants to specify about the research site being in

Copenhagen, Denmark.

Some of the interviewees gave their consent to be recorded when I had the interviews for me to have unlimited access to the interviews, with the clause that nothing will be shared about their personal life.

However, they agreed to let me use their experiences with different mobile dating applications in my study. A primary ethical obligation is to do no harm, which I wanted to minimize the risk of harm to the participants involved even from the beginning, by assuring that they understood all the information which is going to be revealed and which not, and that their identities are protected. This has been done by providing different pseudonyms in order to hide their real identity.

5. Results

This section shows my findings through the two sets of interviews and co-design workshops with the eleven international homosexual male students who agreed to be part of my study. The results are presented in three different subsections. Moreover, the results are divided into two big categories, expected practices found by using the apps and then it will gradually move into the unexpected practices.

The first section describes the results from conducting the walkthrough method on Tinder and Grindr. The first subsection describes the everyday use of Tinder as a user. The second subsection of the walkthrough shows the bots on Tinder. The third subsection moves into some of the unexpected practices on this app.

The same applies for Grindr in the same chronological way.

The second section describes the results presented from conducting the set of interviews with the participants of the study. The results are divided into three empirical concepts entitled Browsing silently on Grindr, The loop that never ends and Adapting to a new life. The first empirical concept, Browsing silently on Grindr’ describes how slowly the students did not use Grindr anymore. Moreover, the second empirical concept The loop that never ends describes how students use Tinder and Grindr and even though they stopped using the apps for a certain period, they will always end up back in the loop. Lastly, the third subsection shows unexpected practices such as looking for a job, learning the local language while using Tinder.

The third section shows the results from the co-design workshops conducted and is divided into three subsections. These subsections show the results from the three different workshops conducted in different locations. The last section shows the prototype made with some of the interviewees’ needs from the co-design workshops and it is divided into two subsections. The first subsection shows the sketches that

54 were made during the co-design workshops. The second subsection shows some of the sketches made digitally based on the first set of sketches.

5.1 Walkthrough Tinder and Grindr

This section describes a more detailed analysis of these two mobile dating apps intended purposes and the implied uses. This is done through my personal experience as being a user myself on these two mobile dating apps.

5.1.1 The technical Walkthrough Tinder

My initial walkthrough of Tinder, conducted in April 2019, was based on the mobile application Tinder.

However, recently, users have been able to use Tinder as a mobile application but also as a desktop version. Since I started to look at the mobile app, I needed to go to the App Store to the download page for the app, and install it on an iPhone X. The app is categorized as a Relationship app and its description contains things such as matches, chat and meets new people. Screenshots present the app with a profile picture of a user that has been liked and a chat started with this specific person. The app store page of

Tinder does not show how many downloads they had, just only how many reviews they had. Here is it also possible to see that this mobile dating application is free to download. However, in the preview section in the app store, there are also two paid versions of Tinder which are Plus and Gold. It also has a description of which are the benefits of getting a paid version of Tinder. When I scrolled down, I could also see a brief description of Tinder’s main function which is to swipe and how it functions. The screenshots presented in the app store reveal the white and pink which are the colours brands of the application. One interesting remark is the fact that all the images within the screenshots on the app store

55 are only women. This might be because it suggests that there are a lot of straight women available for straight men. The reason behind this might be that the screenshots are made from a male perspective, since the second screenshot shows a match between the first girl presented in the first image and a man who is most likely the user of the application. Since I chose the online mobile application, it required me to go to the App Store and download it. This application provides two types of authentication methods either by inserting the phone number or by using the Facebook account the user has. If the user decided to register by using his Facebook account, a pop-up screen with the message Tinder will not post anything to Facebook will show up. However, as I was not logged on Tinder before, a window with an error appeared stating that We couldn’t find a Tinder account connected to that Facebook account. Thus, it seems like the Facebook option is only available if I already have an account on Tinder. Furthermore, Tinder redirected me to a page to register by using my phone number. Nevertheless, the application sent a message on my phone that contains a code that needs to be inserted into the app for validation. After receiving the code, a new window appeared stating Tinder’s House rules. In order to complete the registration, the application asked to provide mandatory details such as name, birthday, gender, university and to upload a photo either by taking one or by choosing one from my own library. After this part of registration is done, a new window is asked to enable location on the application. Then, the registration process asked if I wanted to be notified when I have a new match or a message. As a last step of the registration, Tinder required me to verify my email by typing my email address. So, I needed to verify my email address in order to verify my account on Tinder. Moreover, Tinder shows the opposite sex, so as a man Tinder showed me by default only potential matches who were women. When I was popped up with the first potential match, Tinder showed a grid that contained two columns and a row. The left column suggested clicking left for the previous picture while the right column, for the next picture. The row suggested clicking under the profile pictures to see the user’s description.

After this step is done, I had to go to the settings in order to modify sexual preferences. This step needs to be done by those users that are interested in persons of the same gender or they are interested in both genders. On the same page, I could set the age limit between 18 and 55+ and choose the distance that can maximum be 160km. After I chose the preferred settings, a red circle appeared on the screen which indicated that the app was searching for nearby users based on the chosen preferences. When the searching phase is done, users are displayed on the main page. I could remark details on the first profile such as profile pictures, age, school, and even the location and the distance between the two of us.

Moreover, the application provided the functionality of sharing the user's profile via Airdrop, WhatsApp,

Facebook Messenger, Outlook, etc. and it also showed how many mutual friends or common interests the current user has with the other user.

Once in the app, I tried to explore in more detail about its main function which is the swiping method. In order to continue to view the other user's profile, I had to swipe left or to swipe right. By swiping left means that the current user I did not like the profile that he was seeing and by swiping right means the opposite. So far on the main screen, I only had two options: a red X which means dislike and a green heart which means like. Furthermore, under each profile, there are also two buttons, a red X which means dislike and a green heart which means like. However, while I was swiping through profiles a new option called Rewind and a yellow arrow appeared which basically allows you to go back to the previous profile no matter if I liked it or disliked it. Tinder allowed me to swipe directly on the picture left or right or I could also choose two options on the screen. Moreover, as I spent more time on the app, I could notice that I developed a mechanism only by swiping left, left, left, left. However, I swiped right to see what happened and what a surprise, I got a message: Congratulations! You have a new match. Another user has also swiped right, which means that he liked my profile. As a first instinct, I went to see what he looked like. Moreover, I could notice something new in my messages right before my match, a golden circle called likes, which had 32 likes at that moment. I clicked on it, to see what it does, and a pop-up

57 screen appeared with a message: 32 people already like you! Match with them instantly. 'From there I could buy different packages available for 1, 6 or 12 months.

I went back to his profile and it felt odd that a stranger knew how I look, my name, age, the school even the area where I am living in. Moving on to another feature called Super like represented as a "blue star" appeared which will allow the user to see that I liked him before he made his decision. The last feature is called Boost which can give me as a user a chance to be one of the top profiles in my area for 30 minutes. However, I did not explore the chat function of the app, due to the limitation of space and focus, but there are more things that someone can explore further on. In terms of leaving the application, the process was straightforward. I needed to go into the settings of the application where I needed to go below to find an option called Delete account. After clicking this option, I could choose between different reasons why I want to leave the app. I chose one of them, and the app asked me once again if I am sure about deleting my account. Leaving an application is an important part of a walkthrough because it describes things as user retention and loyalty, how easy it is to delete an app and if a delete means a permanent delete (Morris & Murray, 2018). So, I wanted to be sure if it is a permanent delete by trying to create an account again on Tinder with my Facebook account. As seen previously, the app redirected me again to create an account via a code sent as an SMS message on my phone.

The technical walkthrough allowed me to see how a user needs to configure their account at different stages, the data users are asked for when creating such an account and what are default, mandatory and optional settings (Morris & Murray, 2018).

5.1.2 Bots on Tinder

Tinder operates like most of the mobile dating applications: users create a profile, then they have a match in order to communicate through the Tinder channel. Users can create free accounts on Tinder, which will allow them to write to each other, search for new potential matches and even set up some different filters such as age, distance in order to fit their preferences.

Morris and Murray (2018) mentioned the use of bots for another mobile dating application which made me think about the bots that I also encountered on Tinder. Users are not going to see only real profiles but also bots on Tinder while they use the apps. Moreover, they stated that primarily the bots used on ‘Ashley madison’ app was not that clever. This seemed to be the case on Tinder, except that specific bot which was more advanced than most of the bots on Tinder.

Tinder does mention on their terms of use page that the use of bots is prohibited on their mobile dating app. These are the terms regarding the use of bots stated on their website which was updated in November

2019: use any robot, bot, spider, crawler, scraper, site search/retrieval application, a proxy or other manual or automatic device, method or process to access, retrieve, index, “data mine,” or in any way reproduce or circumvent the navigational structure or presentation of the Service or its contents (Tinder, 2019).

In the beginning, it was not quite visible the presence of the bots as it seemed after a while using the application. However, in time, while I was swiping through the profiles, I could remark on some profiles that seemed fake. These profiles usually had only one profile picture and they looked a bit unreal.

Moreover, another remark that I saw was the fact that they had the same Instagram page. These clearly seemed like different bots that wanted to redirect users to another platform where they could probably try to make a scam. It is very typical that bots send a link on different platforms to make users click on it or

59 redirect them to other platforms in order to do so. After I realised, I swiped right on one of the bots on purpose to see if I would receive any message. Furthermore, bots can be more advanced nowadays as I encountered a profile that seemed real. This profile had different profile pictures, even a description of the profile and age, location, and distance.

The communication was flawless for quite a while until a real user proposed to move to another platform to chat further. After a couple of minutes on the new platform, WhatsApp, this profile sent a link with erotic purpose.

5.1.3 Unexpected practices associated with the app

On Tinder, one of the unexpected practices is the fact that a range of businesses has created profiles to connect with potential customers (Morris & Murray, 2018). While trying to swipe on Tinder, I encountered quite a lot of profiles that contained descriptions about different services and businesses.

Mostly, these profiles had a brief description of their profile picture with the offered services and they were also targeted in the local language which is Danish.

These profiles can be also just some ad bots created by some ad agency as a way of marketing in order to attract customers. If ad bots were already on Tinder, why wouldn’t there be other bots as well?

5.1.4 The technical walkthrough Grindr

As presented above, I also used the technical walkthrough method for Grindr. This walkthrough was conducted in April 2019, for the mobile application, Grindr. Grindr currently runs only as a mobile application, unlike Tinder, it does not have a desktop version.

Since I started to look at the mobile app, I needed to go to the App Store to the download page to search after the application and to install it on an iPhone X. The app is categorised as a social network and chat application. Screenshots present the app with an abdominal picture of a guy touched by another guy’s hand. Like Tinder, the app store does not show how many times the app has been downloaded, but just only how many reviews the app got. Moreover, it is also possible to see that this mobile dating application is free to download. However, in the preview section in the app store, there is one-month period with a seven-day trial subscription. While scrolling down, I was able to see a description of the application and its paid apps, Grindr Xtra and Grindr Unlimited. The background of the screenshots reveals the black, yellow and white which are the colour brands of the application. As the application is targeting only men, the screenshots show only men. Since there is only a mobile dating application, I was required to download it on the App store. This application provides a lot more types of authentication methods such as email, phone number, through an Apple, Google or a Facebook account. However, in order to access

Grindr, I needed to sign up by providing an email, a password and my date of birth. After filling out this information, a new pop-up window called First Things First appeared with some details that I need to fill out. After I filled out this information, a portrait section appeared in the middle of the screen where I was able to add a picture if I wanted to. This option was optional, unlike Tinder where I needed to upload a picture. Grindr seemed like an application where a lot of personal information such as even display names is optional and it does not need to be displayed. There was another section called what I am looking for. I clicked on this section and another pop-up window appeared which contained six categories such as chat, dates, friends, networking, relationship and right now. This option will show users’ interests in the application to make their intentions more visible to other users. So, I was curious to see if I was able to choose all the categories, which I was able to. This made me wonder, ‘are people even looking for all these categories?’ This seemed a bit hard or maybe users expressed their openness towards everything.

However, I did not select any of these categories and clicked next. Furthermore, it sent me to the interface

61 where I could already see the closest users to me. Once in the app, I tried to explore more about the nearest users. The concept of Grindr as an application is quite simple. Grindr displays a list of one hundred users based on my geographical location and preferences. Users are displayed in rows which contain only three profiles in a row. My first interaction on the app was to see how close a user can be.

The nearest user I could see was only 163 m away from me, which made me think that he was clearly one of my neighbours. Then I wanted to check out his profile to see what I could find there. He had his age visible, a small description about himself and even details such as gender, ethnicity, looking for, HIV status. One of the interesting features of Grindr is that you do not need to decide right away about a user, it was up to myself if I wanted to interact with any of the users. There were two ways of interacting with other users through the communication channel or through the taps feature. There are three categories under the taps feature such as hi marked in a blue circle, a flame which means hot and a devil emoticon which means looking.

Moreover, while looking more on the interface I could see more features such as a star which means favourites, a mask which is Grindr’s logo but also the page where I can see all the users. Moreover, there was even a ' rocket’ feature which allowed me to explore users everywhere in the world, the chat feature and the last option called Xtra which is a paid subscription. Grindr Xtra allows users to see three hundred profiles, online-only view profiles, unlimited blocks, and no advertisements. As a user myself, I did enjoy

Grindr’s interface better than Tinder’s interface for a couple of reasons. The interface is straight forward, as a user you can chat directly with other users without the need to try to swipe and match with someone. The whole purpose of Tinder is to match with someone you like, but this is so hard to do based only on pictures and a profile, without engaging with the user. So, after I deleted my account on Grindr, I needed to sign up again with my email. I needed to click on delete account and to write the email associated with the account. This led to another window where Grindr stated that everything will be deleted permanently

62 and that I would lose all the messages. Therefore, my account was permanently deleted from the application.

5.1.5 Bots on Grindr

Grindr operates like most of the mobile dating applications: users create a profile in order to be able to communicate through the Grindr channel. Moreover, users can create free accounts on Grindr, which will allow users to interact and chat with each other and be able to see new users when changing location.

Morris & Murray (2018) mentioned the use of bots for another mobile dating application which made me think about the bots that I also encountered on Grindr. However, I could not find anything in Grindr’s term of use page. It is a bit harder to look after bots on Grindr, unlike Tinder, because a lot of users do not even have a profile picture. However, some of the bots would send some messages containing a link suggesting that I should click it. These links would refer to different websites, mostly with a sexual connotation. The fact that there are so many profiles on Grindr without a profile picture made me wonder which real profiles are. Moreover, it made me realise that maybe some of these users are not even on

Tinder since they want to be anonymous. Users are probably aware of the fact that they will not get swipes if they will not have any profile picture. Thus, the bots can hide in any of these profiles. However, I did not see smarter bots like on Tinder where I could have a conversation. The only interaction with the bots was only based on the message containing a link.

Bots are harder to be visible where some users have anonymous profiles, but they are not that intuitive like the ones I encountered on Tinder.

5.1.6 Unexpected practices associated with the app

An unexpected practice is a blog called Douchebags of Grindr which seeks to publicly shame and call users in a variety of ways (Morris & Murray, 2018). This is an unexpected practice because users are showing other users from the app on this blog while making them an online bad reputation.

Moreover, I accessed this website to see more details about the content. While I accessed it, the website had a Grindr profile. An interesting fact is that this profile was completely exposed. Thus, details like age, name, profile picture, even the reason why this profile ended up on this page. Going more into the details

I could see why this profile made this blog. It was in his description stating that he was not into black/Asian/old/fat. However, the blog has a short description above the profile where they state a small comment about the user, which makes it even easier to see why the user ended up here.

While I scrolled down, I could see the same structure for other profiles such as a short description, a profile picture with all the user details. While I scrolled back to the initial Grindr profile, I remarked some tags coloured in green. There were tags such as ageism, arrogant, racist, douchebag and so on. So, I clicked on one of these tags and I could see all the Grindr profiles which were categorised under this specific tag. While looking more at the Grindr profiles I could notice that most of the accounts were from the US. As a last remark, I could also see a tab called submit your douchebag. I clicked that tab and I was redirected to another page within the blog where I could see different types of content. I could just simply email a douchebag to the email on the website. This might be their way of administrating the content that is posted and check if the content is eligible to be on the website. When I scrolled down the page, I could see a comment section with users’ opinions about the website. New unexpected practices appear within the use of any application. Whoever thought that some users will ever be publicly exposed to everyone?

5.2 The interviews

The participants used Tinder and Grinder. All the participants are experienced users of these mobile dating apps. They have been using these apps for more than 2 years. The main reason for using Tinder is to chat and even meet a partner, but they have also used Grindr for hook-ups as well. In general, participants usually use Tinder at home when they have some spare time because they know that it requires more time. If they had a match some of them tried to chat with their match and see if there is anything in common to talk about. On Tinder, participants wanted to get to know more about the person and they were more serious. However, Grindr has been used in a lot of different places due to its architecture that allowed participants to view the closest 100 users to their current location. They used it mostly in different places because sometimes they could see someone new that they have not seen either on Tinder or on Grindr before. The participants’ perception is that there are currently more users on

Grindr than on Tinder, but most of them are looking only for hook-ups. On Tinder, participants have a usual profile containing different pictures, a description and even their Instagram. On Grindr, some did not even have a profile picture because they did not want to be bothered with hook-ups. Apparently, if they did not have a profile picture on Grindr, they would get less hook-up messages than having a profile picture. The interviews as being qualitative research helped to explore and to understand how international homosexual male students use mobile dating applications. Moreover, the interviews also

65 presented details into their practices, challenges but also advantages and disadvantages using these mobile dating applications.

The following examples are drawn from interviews with international students who have used mobile dating applications, Tinder and Grindr.

In addition, the interviews also brought useful thoughts and opinions about some of the participants' needs. Thus, along with the co-design workshops it contributed to the development of a low fidelity prototype.

The results from the interviews are presented in three different sub-chapters below. These sub-chapters include both expected and unexpected practices associated with these apps. The first sub-chapter is called

Browsing silently and shows the findings of how participants navigated silently on Grindr. Moreover, it includes details about how students use a common unspoken yet a known practice. The second sub-chapter called ‘The loop that never ends’ shows how participants are stuck in these two different online dating applications and their attempt to escape from time to time but ending up again in the loop. The last sub-chapter Adapting to a new life shows how the students have used Tinder as common practice for other purposes such as a logistical tool.

5.2.1 Browsing silently on Grindr

The use of Grindr is a practice that describes how participants use these mobile dating apps.

Based on my results from the interviews, the students interacted with other users on Grindr differently than what designers of the app intended. However, there are still patterns in the way they interacted on

Tinder and Grindr with other users. The way the students used Grindr can be even described as a practice. The students were aware of this browsing silently, while some of them even practised it. Moreover, this practice appeared when the students became more experienced on Grindr. However, not all the students were experienced users, and this reflects in Edward’s first experience in using Grindr, one of the mobile dating applications:

“When I started using Grindr, I was just looking at user-profiles and looking at their pictures. I even got excited when I got my first message, so I replied right away. I guessed that was what I needed to do. Then he already asked me for my location, and I did not even know what to do, like was I supposed to send him the location and for what. Then I sent him the location and he texted back that he is going to come to my place, so I panicked and wrote to him that I do not want him to do that. After some time, I started to realise that I need to be a bit more careful and try to interact with them a bit more and simply ignores some of the messages.”

The above experience is like Jack’s first experience where he mentioned that it was the first time where he could chat with other people who are also interested in other males. Jack also mentioned that this was his first time where he could freely chat with other users who are in the same situation as him. He described Grindr as a ‘place with no boundaries’ where he could be himself. Grindr is an app that provided him with the possibility to talk to other people. However, while he became more experienced with the app, things have changed slowly:

“I enjoyed chatting and exchanging photos and details about myself with others. I even met a lot of people through Grindr, but it was mostly for fun as we all know. But sometimes, I met some genuinely nice people who I could have a nice conversation with. It was a nice rare experience on Grindr than just talking about sex. People are too direct, and they do not like to waste time on Grindr. Either you are interested or not. Most of

the time is right away and if you are not able to then they might block you or go and try to talk to other users.”

Similarly, all students had the same experiences as communicating freely and as much as they want with everyone. These above experiences are learned in time by users as they are gaining more knowledge into using the apps. Moreover, these experiences can be identified as practices which I have mentioned before because it focuses on what these students do on these apps. One of the first practices called filtering allows users to navigate on Grindr without interacting with other users. They choose whom they would like to talk to by looking at physical appearance and their profile description. Students understood that by filtering they do not need to necessarily get in touch with all the users. It allows them to even reduce the number of potential users they would have any contact with. Filtering is the central point of Tinder, as this being one of the first things a user needs to do by swiping right or left. This happens due to Tinder’s architecture.

However, there are some experiences below described by John and Edward where they started to be more familiar users of Grindr. In addition, as mentioned before, these students started to navigate like professionals on Grindr as John described:

“You know, in time I managed to learn the tricks on Grindr and how to avoid someone if I wanted to. In the beginning, everyone was so crazy to meet someone and try to talk and see how the experience is for just being on Grindr. I remember I was so excited getting so many messages on Grindr. People wanted to talk to me, and I loved the attention. I really thought they were really interested in me. I can give you another example: If I was getting any message, I could just ignore it, but first, I would have checked his profile and see if I would be interested at all. So, if they did not interest me, I would just ignore the messages. However, in time, I just learned that I could even be on the application without necessarily engaging with other users. So, I would just check their profiles without doing anything at all and then close it”

This student started to change the way he uses Grindr compared to the beginning where he would engage more with other users. Now, he realised that he does not even need to engage at all with any users if he does not want to. However, he will still filter the users to see if it could be a potential chat. Suddenly, the practice he was used to, changed slightly by limiting some of the interaction with other users. However, the student started sometimes to completely ignore all the users without having any interaction. Then again, the practice changed slightly to the initial one where they used to interact with each other. These daily routines have been experienced by other students who also had similar experiences as John mentioned. By being more knowledgeable, in time, all students managed to learn the interface, as Edward wanted to share his experience as well:

“By being so much on Grindr, I started to know all its features but also how other users communicate and interact with each other. It was not like the first time, where you were happy by just talking to one user or a couple of users. It is the same over and over after you are getting used to the application. Nothing new. You know, after some time I just knew how the interface functions, so I was just engaging specifically if I wanted to and on my terms. Like, I would not even go on Grindr sometimes if I knew that I am not even looking for anything. “

The practices changed in order to adapt more to individual goals. However, in time, some of the participants shaped a new practice which I would like to call browse silently. This practice means that students could be on the application without the need to engage with other users and without leaving a trace. So, the students could just be on Grindr, check someone’s profile and that user will not notice anything at all. This conflicts with what the designers of the mobile app intended. The designers of the apps made Grindr for people to communicate with the closest profiles shown to users’ current location.

However, since participants started slowly to not have any kind of chat with other users, this conflicts with the whole purpose of Grindr.

One of these experiences is described below by Christopher:

“I was just looking at profiles on Grindr, but I was not doing anything. I was just checking people’s profiles such as pictures, personal details and their location. Yeah, you can say I was “stalking” people without them noticing. It is overall a nice experience. They will never notice or know someone even saw you.”

Furthermore, most of the participants described to browse silently as Christopher also mentioned that they were able to look through Grindr profiles and check their details a couple of times without the users even being aware of that. Moreover, George even described this experience as being someone undercover or a secret agent:

“It was such a nice experience. I felt like in a James Bond movie as a secret agent. I was just on the application without people knowing anything at all. I could check all their details and the best part is that they will not notice anything. In addition, I could check one profile for like 10 times and they cannot find out. It felt like I was undercover all the time. The only thing they could see was my presence on the application by being online, but they could not be aware of what I was doing on the application. I did not leave any “footsteps” where I was navigating through.”

In my current study case, students adapted and revealed new practices on Grindr. Thus, browsing silently is a common practice among my participants who took part in this study, especially after they started to learn the application and its functions. Students started to know how to navigate on the application without the need to engage with the users if they wanted to. They started to browse silently because the app did not fulfil their needs anymore. The students also wanted something more than just hook-ups.

Moreover, the user base was almost the same most of the time because users would mostly use the apps in the same locations. Therefore, the users would be the same when they used these apps. Therefore, the students’ interaction with other users became lower until they did not interact anymore.

This new practice goes against Grindr's purpose, which is for men interested in men to chat and meet.

Furthermore, this practice does the opposite which is users refusing to interact on request with other users as Francis mentioned:

“Everyone thinks if you are online that you need to necessarily talk to all of them. Some get offended so fast that they instantly block you on Grindr. Sometimes, I seriously forgot Grindr was open and I left my phone in the room while I was taking a shower. When I came back, I could see a lot of messages and normal pictures and pictures with some of the users naked requesting for something back. When I checked one of them, it suddenly disappeared which means that he blocked me. They expect you to be available right away if you are online and respond to their request. But whoever said that I need to?”

As mentioned above, practices are sharpened by the students by using these different mobile dating applications. In this case, browsing silently became noticeable when some of the users were more experienced in using the app’s functions but also when they were aware of the capabilities these functions offer. Filtering and browsing silently are two of these practices used on Grindr. The whole purpose of Grindr is that users should interact with each other, so it is controversial that some students are doing quite the opposite from time to time. Moreover, students have discovered different ways to navigate through Grindr such as filtering, in order to avoid some of the interactions with some of the users they did not want to chat to. Furthermore, students even used the practice to browse silently to even go to different online profiles and see if they want to have an interaction or not with someone. They have also learned that they could just be on the application without engaging with anyone at all and just simply navigate through the different profiles. They started to browse silently because the user base was the same and most of the users that chatted with them wanted mostly to hook-up. Most of the participants wanted even a date and even a partner not only to hook-up. Unfortunately, Grindr did not meet their needs. Therefore, they have started using Tinder as is seen as a more serious app for homosexual guys.

5.2.2 The loop that never ends

In the previous section, there were two practices described, filtering and browsing silently. These practices were shaped and used by students who learned how to use the mobile dating application better and its functions. This section presents how the students are part of the technological loop formed using these two mobile dating applications Grindr and Tinder and where students can not break it. Mobile dating applications are a way to allow people to get in touch with other potential partners. We should look at how students started their journey in how to use these mobile dating applications. George said:

“Well, I did not know where to even start. I went on Google and searched for how homosexual men meet other homosexual men. There were a lot of websites more than I imagined describing ways to meet other homosexual guys…. But most of them mentioned mobile dating applications so I started to look after applications for homosexual men and it seemed that there are a lot of apps facilitating this”.

George went on to describe the experience he had at home where he was curious to meet his first guy, but he wanted to be in a place where no one could see him. George’s experience can be described as an expected practice. In his first interaction, he did not want to be exposed as being into men if he went to an LGBT bar. George had a lot of experience with heterosexuals’ bars, so he had a perspective about an

LGBT bar being the same. Another interesting aspect was the fact that the searches on Google at that time were suggesting titles such as: tired of gay bars? which he made him even more eager to try the mobile dating apps.

According to the participants, a lot of websites mentioned mobile dating applications as the first option to meet homosexuals. Moreover, the students decided to look after different mobile dating applications.

When students searched on Google for mobile dating applications, they noticed that there were several applications to choose between. Moreover, students needed to decide upon which application to choose.

Furthermore, popularity played an important role as in many instances, participants decided to use Grindr as a starting point as Jack described:

“There were a couple of applications to choose between…. I did not know what to pick, so I started to look after a ranking to see the applications how they situate. Besides Google, a lot of websites mentioned Grindr as the most popular app, so I thought if it is so popular then, it must have a lot of users you can talk to.”

Similarly, Michael described Grindr as an application that has the highest number of users and this played an important role for him as well to have a variety of users he could choose between. Students who did not use Grindr but read about the application were skeptical about the proximity function, where you can see the closest users to you as Christopher described:

“I did not even believe that I have some men who are interested in other men even in my neighbourhood. The funny fact is, indeed, that the closest user was apparently one of my neighbours. That was a complete shock and as a reflex, I talked to him and asked what his name was, just because you know, I was curious who he could be. He was indeed my neighbour, but not in the same building, right to the next building.”

Grindr uses GPS to show the exact distance between you as a user and the other users who are around you. Therefore, location also plays an important role by offering queer visibility and adding queerness to

73 every location. Because of this function, most of the participants as Edward started to use the application more often: at school, work, park, bar:

"I was curious all the time if there is someone close to me, or even sitting right next to me, or even if one of my male classmates or male co-workers is homosexual. It made me obsessive, it is an addiction, you really want to know what is out there close to you. Sometimes, I could not even concentrate while I had some exams for school, because I was disturbed to see if I got any messages and if I did, I would reply…...especially if they were attractive. I would describe Grindr as being disruptive, but it was my own fault as the apps by checking my phone all the time.”

The offline environment, therefore, started to have an important role in their daily use while using mobile dating applications. Students started to be more aware of their offline environment and that it has an impact on their online environment. My students' experiences suggest that most of them started to use

Grindr rarely, especially in spaces where it could have a direct negative impact on their lives. Thus, some of the students did not mention that they were into males at that point, just as John and Allan. Moreover,

John and Allan were careful where they used Grindr in public. Compared to other students, they used

Grindr mostly at home or if they were travelling to other countries.

However, John and Allan started to delete their profile pictures and details about their profiles if they were using Grindr in a place where there could be someone else right next to them such as school just to be precautious that no one will discover anything. By moving around, students realised that every change in their location will result in new users, but also, the participants may see also known users as

Francis described:

“It was just a thought ...the first time I used Grindr was at home and then I used it there a couple of times, but after a while, I could recognise the users and at that point, I kind of talked to all of them and even met some of them. You know it felt like eating the same food repeatedly...at one point, you just stop. So, I knew that I needed to use Grindr in more places just to have the possibility to talk to someone else. As far as I

remember, I tried the city center especially because I thought a lot of people would pass by this area, even though they do not actually live there. There were a lot of users I had never seen before at that time, it was exciting.”

However, after having some interaction with other users, exchanging messages and even hook-ups, students started to realise how tied-up in Grindr they are. They stated that they do the same process repeatedly. They sometimes change locations, start to talk to someone, maybe even meet and then start over. It is not, however, necessary to change locations, the students could even interact in the same location a couple of times in a row, such as, for example at home. Dave even mentioned:

"It's a circle. You do the same repeatedly but with time I realised that I do not need to interact with everyone. I can just be on Grindr just to check out some profiles, but I always do the same. When I travel, I check out the profiles, even when I am in another city in your own country, then I do the same. Personally, I did this even when I was in a new neighbourhood just to see what is out there. But, most of the time, I would even check Grindr at home at least every day. After a while, I learned most of the users, because they are mostly the same, but from time to time someone new appears."

However, as students stated due to its features it made the app to be a bridge for instant hookups. Grindr was described by students as quick and dirty but anyhow convenient as even Michael said: ‘I do not even need to leave your home, they will just come to my place’. Therefore, some of the students started to see

Grindr as a sexual app, or the hook-up place as Jonathan mentioned:

"It feels like when you want to hook-up, this is the place to be. But apart from that, there is not much else. And you do it repeatedly even though you are aware of what is going to happen. Like, honestly, I do not have expectations at all being here. When you talk to someone for more than an hour without talking about physical appearance or the standard question ‘what are you into’ you start doubting the person about what they want. Even though sometimes a deeper chat happens where I could

have an actual conversation, there is still a big change. You even end up still at the same point, only to hook-up but you may feel less guilty, I guess. This is from my personal experience, I ended up a couple of times in these situations”.

As most of the students did not see Grindr as something else than sex, they tried to find alternatives such as other mobile dating applications. In the process, some of them deleted the application, in order to try to find better alternatives with other purposes than sex. However, some of them as Jonathan continued using

Grindr by saying:

“...everything will be the same on the other apps ...I don’t know...I can imagine the same people with different pictures and maybe other nicknames or even their real names. Probably they are even mentioning that they are looking for something else than on Grindr or even the same. If they are also on other applications, I can imagine that they want the same as on Grindr, to hook-up so why would I even have the stress and bother on two different applications with the same users?!”

Students started to look for other alternatives the same way they found Grindr. They used Google's search engine for information and searched for romantic dates for homosexuals and where to date someone. There were a lot of other dating apps such as Hornet, Romeo, Scruff, as Oscar said:

“So, I was kind of sick of Grindr and of course I started to google alternatives of Grindr or better apps than Grindr or where to find something else than sex. For me, it was fun. I can mention that to be on Grindr, but I reached a point where I want someone just for me...not to share one person with everyone else on Grindr. Romeo seemed tempting to start with because of the name… Because it made me think of Romeo and Juliet, you know romance. They loved each other without them carrying about anyone else. So, I hope there are also other people thinking the same. Hornet in no way, I mean even the name suggests its purpose, so actually the same as Grindr. I mean look at the name, Hornet, horny and net. Why would I have another hook-up app besides Grindr? It is useless. Scruff seemed too heavy for my taste, so I installed Romeo.”

Even though some of the students started looking for other alternatives while some of them reinstalled

Grindr anyway. They called Grindr as the homosexual loop because even though, they deleted the app, they came right back at it and reinstalled it. Edward described this loop further on as an addiction or a digital drug:

"It is like an addiction. You can never stop even though you know that it will be the same. This is my drug, I know it may sound a bit extreme...but it is horrible sometimes. As much as I am trying to get rid of it, I always end up back on Grindr. Sometimes, I even wonder why I am even struggling to get rid of it, because I am completely aware that I will be back. Maybe not the first day after I deleted it from my phone but in maybe one-two weeks I am back again. You know I even deleted my account completely a couple of times and ended up spending more time creating a new account every time, so I gave up completely on that idea. Now I am mostly on and off. If you ask me why I keep doing this, well I guess we still hope that there is someone on this app looking for the same thing as you are.”

However, while some students were still in the Grindr loop some were still searching for some alternatives while others were already using some other mobile dating applications such as George who was using Romeo:

“The app was not as interactive as Grindr...in the sense that it was a bit slower, but in general, some of the users were open to discussing a bit more than on Grindr. I mean I even dated two guys for some time, but it did not last. But for the first time, I had some actual dates. Other than that, of course, there were some users who wanted just to hook-up...typical in our world.”

Most students described similar experiences, such as they were able to have some dates while some users wanted just sex. However, some of the students deleted the new mobile dating applications as they called

Romeo or Hornet as Fake Grindr that requires more time to talk to someone as John described:

“There were mostly the same users...sometimes it was a bit different and they were trying to communicate a bit more than on Grindr. Some of the users even had on their profiles that they were looking for a date or a relationship while they had on Grindr: sex and right now. This is contradictory, isn't it? Or I don’t know, maybe they were using Grindr only for sex while they used Romeo for a date? I think it is quite hard to focus only on a date when you know you can just hook-up through Grindr.”

Along with John, most of the students described Grindr as having erotica attributes and is seen as the sex place and as the place where everyone can get a hook-up. In the meantime, Tinder has enlarged its user base sexual orientations to homosexuals and bisexuals as well. In comparison to Grindr, Tinder had also erotic attributes such as Grindr; Tinder was seen as a

‘hook-up’ for heterosexual people by the participants. They mentioned that most of their heterosexual friends used Tinder mostly for sex.

Moreover, my participants mentioned Tinder was called Grindr for heterosexual people as Christopher mentioned:

“You know, Tinder was so “revolutionary” in the heterosexual world, while we were already here kind getting tired of Grindr. So, I was surprised when they expanded their sexual orientations...I really thought, why would you do that when there is already on the market Grindr which is the largest app used by men. If it is only used for hookups by straight people, how is that different than using Grindr? Plus, we will also need to spend time on swiping and matching with other users while you can instantly chat with someone on Grindr for an instant hook-up.”

Most of the students had similar ideas about Tinder and they did not see the purpose of the application.

However, in time, as most of the participants mentioned, there was a movement for homosexual and bisexual people going on Tinder and surprisingly, looking for a real date and a relationship. A lot of the students started to use Tinder as well, also due to their personal network perceptions about Tinder as being the place where they meet nice guys as Jack described:

“It was so weird. Like even my friends were talking about Tinder as being the place where you could find a boyfriend if you want. There are a lot of single guys who are looking for something serious. It seems like this is the place if you want to be with someone and even try to date more. Some of my friends even mentioned that they had several dates without sex, which is a big shock in our community.”

After some time being on Tinder, some managed to have more serious dates while some of the students managed to be in a relationship. Most of the students such as George, Allan, Jack and Michael described their experiences on Tinder as being the hope they were looking for and if it does not happen here, it will never happen anywhere. Furthermore, these four students ended up in a relationship and Michael was more than happy to share some of his experiences with me:

“It did not start that great, though. Well, it started better than Grindr, that is true, but I ended up on a lot of dates where there was no chemistry. I thought that maybe this is still a bit useless, but I did not lose my hope. You know, I think after a couple of months, 2-3 months I guess, I started dating this amazing guy who I felt a connection to even from the first date. Like we had chemistry from the beginning, and we wanted to see each other more often. After some time seeing each other, we decided to be in a relationship, and currently, we still are.”

Nevertheless, as a result of these students getting in a relationship affected directly their use of the apps.

By being on an app, they send a clear message that they are not that serious if they are still on these apps.

They do not consider it as a reason to be on Grindr and Tinder if they wanted to have a serious partner.

Because, as they are aware it is easy to chat with someone on one of these apps and they see it as a bigger chance to cheat with someone else.

Michael wanted to share his experience:

“Well, after saying that we are officially in a relationship, we needed to delete everything that we have, in order to show that we are serious about our relationship. I think it’s just a thing you do. Like, if I find my boyfriend or he finds me on Grindr, for example, we will both think instantly, what are you doing?! Even though I would say nothing at all, and he would do the same, there will be doubts in the relationship, because of the cultural perception Grindr has between us. We know what Grindr is used for, so of course, we will both have doubts. To even be more serious, we even deleted the accounts on Tinder, not to raise any suspicions.”

These experiences are similar for the other students who also stopped to use the mobile dating applications, Grindr and Tinder not to raise any suspicion or doubt in their relationship. However, this has been only the case for some students:

“I had Tinder for quite some time, but I did not manage to get even a date. I mean some of the people are not even replying. Some do but the but the conversation dies slowly and quite fast. I did not have anything in common with the people besides physical attraction. I mean the physical attraction is important but that’s not the only thing. I did not have anything in common to talk about. It was quite boring.”

This experience was shared by other students as well. They also mentioned about the fact that they were missing mutual interests:

“You know you are happy when someone writes you, especially because some people do not answer, or if they do it takes so much time. People want to show that they do not need you by being busy all the time. I mean

fair, but not be on Tinder and waste people’s time. I mean yeah guys seem better than on Grindr for sure, but we literally have no interests whatsoever. It is quite boring, I mean if the conversation goes so bad online where they even have time to think what they can reply, and they are still boring, I can imagine in real life…”

However, things changed again when some of them broke up as George wanted to share his experience after his break-up:

“I went again on Grindr and started everything from the beginning. I did not want something serious right away, so Grindr is the best. I think Grindr is good in these situations because there are no strings attached and you can just enjoy yourself and then leave. However, when I felt ready again for a relationship, I remember that I went on Tinder again too in order to date someone and who knows, maybe something serious. But it feels like I am doing this repeatedly. I get into a relationship, then we break up and then I start using Grindr because I am sad and I want to forget things and when I am healed, I go back on Tinder.”

Similarly, the break-up made some of the students go back on these mobile dating applications. The students mentioned that they were in a circle as Joe mentioned:

“After my ex-boyfriend broke up with me, I just wanted to feel wanted again. So, I downloaded Grindr and Tinder and made a new account on both apps. In the beginning, it felt nice to talk to a lot of people and to even see that they wanted to talk to me. After a while, it did not feel so good, so I met someone, but it did not lead to anything. After a while, I did delete the apps but then again, I downloaded them again. I have done this for quite a while until I got a new boyfriend. Then, naturally, I deleted everything again.”

Almost the same situation happened to another student as well:

“You know I was thinking one day that I got all of my boyfriends through Tinder. And when we were breaking up, I would always install

the apps. You know, have a new account, try to talk to other people while you are trying to get over your ex. To be honest this happened every time, after every break-up. It is quite sad that this is the way I met them, but you know, it’s at the same time the easiest way. I literally do not know anyone who met their boyfriends in real life. It is possible to meet people in homosexual clubs, but they are mostly looking for just a hookup. They are not there to have a chat, they are just there to have fun. So, you can call it a physical Grindr. So, I would rather use Tinder and try to have a proper conversation with someone and try to get to know someone. Which is sad, but this is how things are. It feels that we are in a circle that never ends. We do the same things repeatedly.”

These results have described how these students have used these two mobile dating applications and what are some of the practices found by using these apps. Moreover, when they became experienced users on Grindr, they started to use the app less. This continued slowly until they were not chatting at all with other users on the app.

Therefore, they started to look for an alternative app, Tinder which also enlarged the sexual orientations from heterosexual to homosexual and bisexual. Tinder is seen by participants as a place where they could date someone more serious compared to Grindr where it is seen as a hook-up place. Some of the participants did manage to even get a partner, but after they broke up with their partners, they started using these apps again.

After the break-ups, participants started with Grindr, because their perception is that this is not a serious app. Slowly, when the participants were ready to meet someone again, they started to use Tinder again. Therefore, by using these apps repeatedly, the loop that never ends emerged.

5.2.3 Adapting to a new life

In the previous subsections, participants' experiences and expected practices on how they used the apps have been described. However, not all the students used mobile dating applications the same. This subchapter shows how some students used Tinder for purposes other than finding relationships.

Some of the students started to use Tinder to learn the local language (Danish) through the chat after they had a match with a local. Josh wanted to share his first use of Tinder in order to learn Danish:

“I remember when I moved to Copenhagen. After some time in this city, I could see that the dates were not going so well. So, I wanted to try and exercise some things that I learnt in Danish. I could see that the locals were interacting a bit more with me because I was showing interest in their local language. So that’s how I started learning words in Danish by using Tinder. Because I was spending quite a lot of time on the application, I wanted to get something out of it.”

Other participants shared the same experience as Tinder being a tool that helps to learn Danish.

Christopher shared his experience as well:

“Most of the profiles on Tinder were written in English, although some were in Danish. It was a bit frustrating, especially because I really like to read users descriptions and see if I find something in common or not. So, when I had a match with a Dane who had the description in Danish, I would politely ask them to translate what it says. In time, I could pick up words easily, because I could see these words have been used before and I remember some of them. Moreover, by doing so, I was forcing myself to try to translate it as well as I could, but Danes were more than happy to help me. After spending so much time on Tinder I could manage even to write some basic sentences in Danish. It seemed like the Danes appreciated it quite a lot”.

Besides Tinder’s main purpose to look for a relationship and even as a way of learning the local language, students have also used Tinder to build networking to search for a job. Some of the participants have used their Tinder’s profile to describe themselves but also to show their need for employment.

Edward used Tinder primarily for a relationship, but in the meantime he also started to use Tinder for other purposes.He needed a job in Copenhagen and he mentioned that he was using Tinder often.

Therefore, because he spent a lot of time on Tinder, he mentioned that he could also benefit out of it.

Furthermore, he stated that he could also try and express his need for a job on the application. After all, there are users who work here and have a network.

Edward shared his experience on how he used Tinder to search for a job:

“I was swiping on Tinder and then I noticed a profile description that said something completely random about those persons. Some had their work as a passion for their profile. Then, I thought besides having my normal description to write that I am looking for any kind of job and I would appreciate any tips and tricks on how to get one. Then when I had some matches and I even met some people I even asked them about their experiences in order to get a job. Then, all of them were more than welcome to share their experiences with me and even to give me tips on how to get a job in some specific places”.

Participants stated that they used Tinder but not Grindr in order to find a job. This is mainly because the participants could chat more seriously with the users on Tinder than on Grindr. Participants had longer chats on Tinder than on Grindr where the conversations are few and more sexual. Users on Grindr are usually not interested in long conversations while on Tinder they talk more. Therefore, participants have seen this as an opportunity to express their employment needs through this app.

However, Edward was not the only student with this unique experience. George has also a similar job while he used Tinder:

“I needed a student job to be able to stay in Copenhagen. All I could hear from everyone at school was to try and use my network. That was so hard though, I was new to the city. Most of the people I barely knew in this city were the guys from Tinder. Then I even started to chat with some people on Tinder and I even met other students or people who used to study here but now they got a job, so they are still here. They were helpful in giving me advice and tips. One guy even told me that they were hiring waiters at the restaurant he is working at and that I did not need Danish. Guess what, I actually got the job there.”

Some other students have had other experiences. They wanted to get to know the city better, to know the places where they could get cheap food and drinks. Tom wanted to tell a few words about this:

“I was of course on Google trying to find the cheapest but also the nicest places at the same time. But it was a bit harder than I thought. So, I started talking to some guys and some of them even asked me out even as a friend to show me the city better to tell me where to get cheap and good food and where to have a cheaper student life if I want to go out and drink. It was indeed a nice experience to go out with people who have been here for some time and know all the insights.”

Tom’s dates have been acting as local guides for Tom. Tom used Tinder not only to meet people but also to get to know more about the city through people from Tinder. Tinder was used to get to feel better about the city as a local and not as a newcomer through other people. Thus, as seen before Tinder has been used as a logistical tool by the students. Nevertheless, Tinder for different reasons such as learning the local language, a way to get a job or build up their professional network and even as a local guide.

By using the results from the interviews three empirical concepts have merged. These empirical concepts show expected and unexpected practices found on Tinder and Grindr and explore what students do and how they use these different mobile dating applications. The first practice entitled browsing silently on Grindr described how students used Grindr. The initial practice was to engage with other people on the app by communicating, exchanging photos and even meeting people in real life. However, in time this practice changed. Students slowly started to learn the daily routine. Some of them even wanted to do more than just the initial use to exchange photos and talk about sex. Thus, it changed how students used Grindr. They still used the app; however, they will just be on the app without writing to each other and just check out profiles. Hence, the name browsing silently because other users were not able to see if someone viewed their profiles. The initially expected practice such as chatting and exchanging photos became an unexpected practice where students did not want to involve with other people on Grindr anymore.

The second empirical concept of the loop that never ends shows how students use both Tinder and Grindr and their experiences on these apps. At the beginning, Grindr students used its GPS location to check if there are any users close to their location. An interesting fact is that most of the students started to use

Grindr as their first dating app when they wanted to find other homosexual guys. They even used Grindr for a certain period to chat with other people on the app, but it changed afterwards. Students view Grindr as a hook-up app. Therefore, some of them started to look at alternatives such as Tinder. An interesting aspect here is that students used Tinder for serious purposes such as looking for a date and even a boyfriend, while Grindr was used mostly for hooking up. However, some of the students stopped using these apps when they got into a relationship, but they started using the apps again once they broke up, hence the title, the loop that never ends. Students even though might stop using these apps for some time they all get to use them again. This led to the last practice called adapting to a new life. Here students used Tinder in different ways than what the designers intended. They started to use it for different reasons such as learning the local language. When they were chatting on the app with locals, they started to practise their Danish and even to learn new words with their help. Moreover, because they moved recently to the city, they even asked some of the people already living here to guide them around by showing some hidden gems. Nevertheless, they even started to use Tinder as a way of networking in order to find a job and even accommodation. These ways are completely different than what the designers of the app intended, therefore this has been categorised as an unexpected practice. Though, there are a lot of different practices expected and unexpected as seen above found with the use of Tinder and Grindr.

5.3 Co-design workshops

As mentioned before in the methodology, there have been three workshops at three different locations such as CBS, ITU and a cafe in Copenhagen, Denmark. Moreover, the participants for these workshops were some of the participants who were also interviewed.

5.3.1 Workshop #1: CBS students

The first co-design workshop was held at Copenhagen Business School (CBS) where I had 3 participants who took part in it. The three participants were Christopher, George and Michael, all students from CBS.

After they got introduced to the concept of co-design and co-design workshop, participants have already started to engage with each other in order to brainstorm ideas. During the brainstorm session, keywords like browsing and always on a hunt came out from the participants. After the brainstorm session, I had used prioritization to be able to group the most important ideas which came out from the brainstorming session.

After the brainstorming session, participants wanted freely to take into consideration the current features some of the online dating applications already have such as Tinder and Grindr. One of the most important features that came out of this process was the communication channel on mobile dating applications. Participants did enjoy the way they could interact with each other instantly on Grindr, and they disliked the time they use on Tinder for swiping while they could write to someone instantly.

Moreover, participants mentioned another feature that they would like to have. This feature would have different categories to filter between. This feature would show users an even more ‘personalised’ search based on their preferences. They stated that they would like to have a more ‘personalised’ feature because the current mobile dating apps are too general. Moreover, they also mentioned that these apps only fulfil

87 the needs of chatting with other users but it does not go beyond that. Participants used a lot of time to chat with other users only to find out that they did not have common interests.

As even the participants stated during the co-design workshop that they would like to have a more personalised search than what the default settings are now. Currently, in general users on mobile dating applications can filter through age, sex, and location.

An example can be one of the categories mentioned in this session. The participants mentioned an important category that a mobile dating application should have called Hobbies. This would allow the participants to fill out their hobbies in the app. Therefore, the app would only show them a list of the users who have the same hobbies. Participants stated that this would improve the chat function, by making the users chat easier than on the other apps.

Furthermore, participants stated that it will make the whole process easier if they will only match with people whom they have some things in common with.

5.3.2 Workshop #2: ITU students

The second workshop was held at ITU (IT University of Copenhagen) where I only had two participants who took part in this workshop. These two participants were Allan and Jack, both students at ITU. As mentioned in the co-design sub-section in the methodology chapter, they were introduced to the co-design as a method, and what the co-design workshop implies and what they actually need to do. Allan was really engaged with the user experience while Jack was much more concerned about the technicalities.

After they have been introduced to the method, they were a bit shocked by the name of the method being design and that everyone can participate, even without being a designer. Moreover, they wanted to try the method right away and see how it works in practice. Thus, the participants were given some of the questions such as What do we want from this app? and What can we produce new into this app that will

88 benefit us as users and does not exist already? These questions served as a starting point of the co-design workshop. During the co-design workshop, participants started to write down features the other mobile dating applications already have, and which features they already like and which features they do not like.

Moreover, they even wrote some improvements to these features. Along with the workshop, these participants agreed that a new mobile dating application should have a feature called Interests. This feature is also relatable with the first co-design workshop feature Hobbies. These participants as the ones from the first co-design workshop also wanted a more personalised list of users. Moreover, the possibility to get in contact instantly with other users played an important role for them too. Participants stated that they do like the feature Grindr offers as an application that allows users to chat with each other instantly.

In comparison with Tinder which requires a lot of time to match with someone. Therefore, participants wanted a chat feature that will show unlimited users based on their personalised categories.

5.3.3 Workshop #3: Café in Copenhagen

The last workshop was held with the remaining three participants who were students from other universities located in Copenhagen, Denmark. Jonathan studies journalism, Edward studies software development and Francis studies architecture. After the participants were introduced to the co-design workshop and what it implies, they wanted to just try it out. However, this co-design workshop did not run as smoothly as the other two co-design workshops. The participants did not even start to write questions down as the other two co-design workshops. They started directly into the process.Thus, during the co-design workshop, participants had some difficulties creating new features. This was caused by the fact that not all of them were designers. I needed to interfere to explain again that they do not need to be designers nor a technical understanding in order to design something or just simply bring a new idea.

After the second explanation, they have started to think about the current mobile dating applications that they are using. As a first thing, participants thought about the proximity feature. Participants really liked the proximity feature that they can see the closest users. However, they also wanted to view the name of the neighbourhood people are currently in. This was based only on Tinder since it shows at least 1 km away even though the user might be nearby. However, participants stated that they do not want to see the exact location such as on Grindr, where users can see how close a user is to you. By doing so, users would have a bit more of safety by not knowing exactly how far someone is than you. I did not get involved in helping them to develop a feature. On the contrary, I let participants debate and design freely features their needs which they think would fit more their needs on a mobile dating application.

It enabled the actual users to participate in the creation of my low fidelity prototype that fit their needs. Moreover, while involving users in designing the prototype, new ideas emerged and as well new features that would fit their needs. These results from the co-design workshops contributed to creating sketches and as well as developing the low fidelity prototype needed for this study.

5.4 The Prototype

Based on the results from the interviews, Tinder and Grindr did not fulfil the students' needs. Therefore, this report comes with a low-fidelity prototype. This low-fidelity prototype advances this study by providing a solution that fills the gaps found from the three empirical concepts described in subsection

5.2.This prototype would include features that do not make users engage in current practices.

This prototype was created through the co-design workshops mentioned before and held with the participants of the study. I primarily focused on a few of the features that were useful among participants,

90 namely the age toolbar, the interests and hobbies toolbar and as well a customisable profile. In terms of aesthetics, I decided to create a simple interface, creating a low fidelity prototype, with a new logo based entirely on the most popular needs. The low fidelity prototype of a mobile dating application would be called Bubbly and it is meant to be used by men who are interested in other men. There is an obvious risk with the current dating apps to create another low-fidelity prototype of another mobile dating app.

However, as mentioned before the current mobile dating apps did not fulfil the students’ needs. Therefore,

Bubbly emerged to fulfil the gap from the existing mobile dating apps. The simple name of the app came from The loop that never ends from the subsection 5.5.2 of where the students mentioned the sexual connotations of some of the mobile dating apps. Therefore, I did not want a name for this low-fidelity prototype to suggest any sexual connotation.

Bubbly is a personalised matching low fidelity prototype of a mobile dating application for men interested in other men who want to get in contact only with other users who have common hobbies and interests. Moreover, like the other mobile dating applications, it uses GPS in order to show the closest profiles according to the users’ location and preferences. However, it does not offer a limited number of profiles nor a limited distance. Thus, users would be able to explore other users all around the world, without paying for a premium version or either watching ads in order to get in touch with someone.

5.4.1 First prototype

Before sketching the first two frames, I started to create a storyboard with my vision of the low-fidelity prototype. Below, in figure 10 there are two drawings illustrating my overall experience before drawing the sketches.

Fig 10: Storyboard of the overall experience

The first prototype was designed based on the co-design workshops. Considering that there are some online dating applications on the market such as Tinder and Grindr, the participants and I also looked at the design of these applications. We worked on the main page, the user profile, header, communication channel, and the display page of the profiles. Figure 11 below shows the first sketch of the log-in and sign-up page.

Fig 11: Frame 1,2 for a sketch depicting the login and sign-up page

In the fourth frame, as seen in Figure 12 users need to choose their own hobbies and interests. When they will navigate to the hobbies toolbar more options will appear such as skiing, football, volleyball.

Moreover, they can also choose the interest toolbar which can show options such as books, travel, games, etc. After the user chooses the options, he/she will be redirected to the fourth frame. This iframe contains the profile’s user page. The profiles are displayed in two columns showing their profile pictures and profile names. It will not have a limited display of profiles and they will appear according to proximity and the selected hobbies and interests’ toolbars.

When the users get in contact with each other, then they will be redirected to the fifth frame, which shows some messages between two users. When users get in contact with more than one user, then

94 they will be redirected to the sixth frame. This frame contains all the profile names a user got in contact with, so it will be easier to send them a message again. Users will be able to even delete some of the chats if they will like too.

Fig 12: Frame 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 for the low-fidelity prototype showing profile of the users, potential users, a specific user’s profile, one chat between two users and the chat function Fig 2&3 Storyboard of the overall experience

Nonetheless, the prototype has not been tested. The results showed clearly that the current mobile dating apps do not meet the participants’ needs. The prototype has been used to advance the study and to validate the results described in section 5.2.

5.4.2 Second prototype

The initial prototype was revised and refined before proceeding to the second prototype. The purpose of refining was to improve the final low-fidelity prototype. The prototypes would include a feature such as looking for, so users would not need to specify it on their profile anymore. For example, if a user was interested in a date, he would only be able to see other users who are also interested in dates.

The second prototype contains the digital version of the low-fidelity prototype. These frameworks were designed using Photoshop. The digital version gives a more detailed and simplified visualisation of the interface and details about how users can navigate through the application. The first prototype was sketched based on the co-design workshops.

As seen in the results participants started to browse silently on Grindr and to use Tinder for other reasons such as jobs, accommodation and even a way to learn Danish. As participants stopped to use

Grindr in order to chat with other users and Tinder for other purposes resulted in these apps not providing what they were built for. Functions and features force the users to act in a certain way. However, this was not the case as seen before in how the participants started to use Tinder differently than what the designers of the app intended to do. Although, participants used the functions and features when they started using these apps. So, these apps did not help in finding sex, a date or even romance for all of the users. Therefore, a low-fidelity prototype by conducting co-design workshops with the participants has emerged.

I decided to work on the following pages, log-in, profile, sign up, age toolbar, other toolbars which include hobbies, interests, purpose. Below in figure 13, there is the interface of my low-fidelity prototype called Bubbly. This interface includes the sign-up page where users need to create their

96 account. They can create an account by providing a username and a password, or they can do it through

Facebook and Google.

Fig 13. The login of Bubbly application

The first display page indicates the traditional login. This is the first page that users will see when they start using the application. It includes two options where the users need to write their email and password. Moreover, this page also includes two options of login through Facebook and Google.

Furthermore, there is also an option where the users can sign up in order to create an account.

Nevertheless, this is like the login pages as Grindr and Tinder have. This page also contains the logo of the application.

After users log in, they will be redirected to the second frame, namely the profile page. Nevertheless, this page will show details about the profile containing the users’ age.

In the third display page in figure 14, the users can even choose the age toolbars and the categories and hobbies toolbars. This will allow users to get other users with common interests and hobbies. Therefore, the users would be able to see a more personal version compared to other apps where they only get the closest users.

The age toolbar allows users to choose the age they would like other users to be. In addition, all the users need to be at least 18 in order to use the application. So, the age toolbar contains users’ profiles between the age of 18 to 55+.Moreover, users can also use other toolbars where they can choose hobbies, interests, and purposes. The participants emphasised through the co-design workshops their need to have a more personalised profile. In this way, the potential users of the application would be able to match only when they have things in common. This feature came as an important feature based on the participants' needs since having hobbies and/or common interests engage easier into a conversation.

Moreover, figure 14 shows the toolbar where users can choose their purpose of being on the application. Based on results from the interviews and one of the co-design workshops, participants stated that Grindr already has this option. Moreover, participants even stated that there were a lot of users on

Grindr who was open to everything. However, they had experiences with some of these users that they were only looking for a hook-up even though they mentioned something else on the profile. This toolbar includes sex, friends, dates, relationship but the users will only be allowed to choose the maximum two options. By limiting the options users can choose between, it will force them to choose what they are looking for. The users will be able to change these options, in order to reflect their true purpose.

Fig 14. The users need to create his online dating profile by filling out the different categories

I envision that users would chat much more with other users when they already have mutual common interests and hobbies. Moreover, by letting the users communicate freely they would not need to go through the filtering process as Tinder forces them. The filtering process would be optional too like on

Grindr. The low-fidelity prototype would support this interaction due to the three features which are hobbies, interests and looking for. If users want to look only for a hook-up, then they can just simply select that and only the users who are looking for sex would appear. This is an expected behaviour on the

99 app because the interface of the app would provide this feature. Moreover, I do support the use of the app for logistic purposes because an app should always take into consideration the social aspect. Products should be improved based on how users actually are using these apps. Certainly, there needs to be an app that guides the users to do certain things but apps should always take into consideration the social aspects as well. Bots would not be available because users would need to login through a 2-factor authentication.

This can be done by sending a code to the users’ phone number when they login to confirm they are a real user.

The empirical concepts from this ethnographic study have been the base for this app. This has been done by learning how participants have used Tinder and Grindr and for how they showed that social aspects also influence the apps.Participants provided good insights about how apps even though they are designed for users, they do not necessarily fulfil the market.

During one of the co-design workshops, all participants did not want the swipe feature as Tinder has and because it requires a lot of time. But they still enjoyed the Grindr interface that they could chat with anyone immediately. The last frame shows the closest profiles based on the users personalised options and it does not have a limited number of profiles. This will allow users to get in contact with other users easily and faster than some of the current applications. Moreover, the profiles which will appear will only be based on the users’ personalised preferences.

100

6. Discussion

Participants used filtering to determine when and how they might progress to face-to-face meetings

(Couch & Liamputtong, 2008).

Tinder’s architecture is based on mutual attraction. In other words, it forces users to filter in order to get a match. Users need to ‘filter’ through the profiles in order to get a match. Otherwise, they will not be able to start a conversation. Grindr’s architecture is slightly different. Grindr allows its user to freely choose if they want to filter or not. They can chat with other users instantly without the need for filtering, which makes this much more optional (Jaque, 2017).

As a result, through STS I wanted to investigate how social systems affect technical ones. Thus, in this study case, students understood the concept of filtering after they became more experienced in using Grindr. They have noticed that they can filter and not be forced to chat with all the users. By using filtering, they started to decide whom they should chat with. Moreover, this made the students chat even less once they realised that it is up to them to decide if they want to chat or not. As a result, the practice called browsing silently emerged. This practice meant that students could be on Grindr without the need to engage with other users. Therefore, students started to not engage with other users which is contractionary as mobile dating apps are used mainly to seek sex, dates or even a relationship ( Ward,

2016). However, As seen in Shield’s (2017) study case immigrants besides the main reasons such as sex, dates or even a relationship, have used Grindr as a social and logistical tool.

101

Immigrants have used Grindr to find a job and accommodation. However, in the current study, students have started to avoid Grindr. All the students used Grindr as a first starting point, as Grindr is the most popular dating app meant for homosexuals.

The socio-technical systems are interconnected in ways that not even designers do fully understand them. Therefore, looking at Grindr as a socio-technical design, Grindr does not seem to fulfil the students’ needs. The unfulfilled students’ needs were that they could not accomplish more than just a hook-up on Grindr. Most of the participants also wanted a relationship or even a date. The technical system of Grindr provides an easy way of supporting hook-ups. Users do not need to even need to post a profile picture or to filter through profiles as on Tinder. They can just instantly write to the closest users and use sexting. The architecture of the app supports sexting even though there might be that the designers of the apps did not intend this. This happens because users can share pictures with other users through the chat. As the students’ needs were not fulfilled this led to browsing silently. From using Grindr as a way to chat with other users, participants have changed the way they used Grindr by browsing silently. Students have only browsed through the other profiles on Grindr without chatting with them. The whole purpose of Grindr is that users should chat with other users for sex, dates, relationship. Instead, they ended up not using Grindr at all. As merging the social with the technical can have consequences such as the socio not behaving like the technical (Waker, Stanton, Salmon & Jenkins,

2008). It is hard to predict how humans would behave, as they are not machines. Therefore, this harmed

Grindr's performance as a system which also led to students not using Grindr as the designers intended.

Technology that mediates social interactions must also satisfy social needs.

Because Grindr failed as a socio-technical system this caused the students to change mobile dating apps. This is quite the opposite as seen in Shield’s (2017)study that the immigrants did not stop using Grindr. Moreover, they have used not only for the main reasons such as sex, dating, chat or even in a relationship but also different than what the designers of the app intended. Immigrants have used Grindr

102 as a social tool in order to get in touch with the locals. Moreover, they have used Grindr even as a logistical tool in order to find a job and even accommodation. This became an unexpected practice since they used Grindr for normal purposes, but they moved gradually into something new. They express their needs for a job and accommodation through the profile’s text which is unexpected as these profiles are the place where the users construct their identity to present an ideal self (Fitzpatrick & Birnholtz, 2017).

Tinder as a socio-technical design had given insights about the designers’ intended use and students’ actual use of these apps. Using STS theory, it is vital to emphasise that the social aspects from the interactions between the students and mobile dating apps changed. Therefore, some of the students have even abandoned Grindr. Since Tinder as a socio-technical design did not fulfil their needs to find a relationship new practices merged. Some of the practices changed as seen different uses of Grindr as a social and logistical tool (Shield, 2017) to Tinder. Moreover, students even added new practices on Tinder such as local guide and even to learn the local language to the practices besides the need for accommodation and a job found by Shield on Grindr (2017). However, these practices have been found using Tinder, not on Grindr as Shield (2017) stated.

For Grindr to facilitate relationship-building they might remove the possibility for users to send pictures on the chat. Moreover, Grindr can also force users to upload a profile picture as on Tinder when creating the account. Currently, users on Grindr are not allowed to post any sexual pictures as moderators of the apps would remove them. This might lead to users leaving the app.

However, users would need to be more selective with their profile pictures. Thus, there would be users who would start using their profiles to present an ideal-self (Fitzpatrick & Birnholtz, 2017), like they already do on Tinder. Tinder has already the reputation for homosexual of being the app where the nice guys go (Mackee, 2016). Even though Tinder has this reputation it has also failed the students in meeting their social needs for a relationship and even more. Their way of matching did not take into consideration to include a more personal matching. Currently, Tinder’s users are matching based mostly on their

103 physical appearance. This leads to users getting matches based on mutual attraction only based on appearance. Some users are using their Tinder profile in order to express their hobbies and interests.

However, as participants in this study were asked mostly users would not even read their profiles, especially if the profiles are long. Instead, Tinder should find a feature where they can also provide a list where users can filter through different hobbies and interests. Thus, users would be able to use their profile page as a way to show other characteristics such as amusement. For example, users can post a joke on their profile text and users might think that the specific person is hilarious besides the common interests they already have with this user.

The loop that never ends

The loop that never ends describes how students are locked-in with these mobile dating apps. What determines this lock-in can vary from the design of the app to the social factors. Social factors such as the students’ network had even influenced them in choosing Tinder. Their friends already have a good overview of Grindr and Tinder. This can lead to making other users into choosing a specific mobile dating app without even trying the other apps.

There are currently no other dating apps that are as popular as Grindr and Tinder. That is why even the students in this study use these two apps the most. The user base on these apps is extensive. Therefore, the possibilities of finding someone for different reasons are bigger on these apps.

104

However, there are some ways students could break out of this loop. They can easily do it by completely deleting the profiles. A complete deletion of the profiles on these mobile dating apps means that all the data about their profile is gone. This implies their current chats and messages on both Tinder and Grindr.

This will also lead in losing all the matches one can get on Tinder. Moreover, they would also lose their profiles completely. Some users are afraid of losing some of the matches because they might not get them again and they would not want to miss a chance just because they deleted the app. This applies to Grindr as well, if some of the users managed to have longer conversations with some of the users but they never met. Thus, if they delete the profiles and want to use the apps, they need to create a new profile. it would take time to create the profiles again. Although, this would be time-consuming as users need to spend time to get matches and even try to chat with them. On Grindr, if other users would write to them about a previous event, they might not be able to remember it. This might lead to discouraging other users to chat with them anymore. By keeping the apps, it might also be easier for users to chat with other users, if they already did that before.

The prototype

As seen in the empirical concept the loop that never ends students’ experiences are different on Grindr from Tinder. The loop that never ends can be described as a technological loop. In other words, it describes how students are locked in with these mobile dating apps. Moreover, students used mobile dating apps for different reasons, and they even stopped for a certain period to use the apps. However, some of them started to use the apps again after a certain period as becoming part of the loop. The loop that never ends starts with students first experiences on the mobile dating app market. All the students started to use Grindr as it is the most popular dating app of its kind when they started to search for someone. In the beginning, the students’ basic needs such as chatting, and sex were fulfilled.

105

However, this changed gradually after a certain period. The students noticed that the user base was the same after a period. As a result, they started to use less and less mobile dating apps. Moreover, the perception towards Grindr as a hook-up app played an important role as well. Some of the students wanted also something more than just a simple hook-up. Therefore, since Grindr did not longer fulfil the students’ needs, some of the students have even abandoned Grindr. 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).

Furthermore, even though some of the students stopped using Grindr, others chose an alternative such as

Tinder. Tinder was viewed by the students as the place where ‘nice guys go’ as also seen in Mackee’s study case (2016). Some of them indeed managed to get a relationship, while some of them did not have any luck not even chatting with someone, they felt like they had any mutual interests at all. So, Tinder failed to fulfil some of the students’ needs as well. However, when students went through break-ups, they started to use these mobile dating apps. Therefore, even though both apps failed to fulfil their social needs they ended up using the apps again. This is mostly because there are no other options in terms of apps as Grindr being the most popular app for homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals (Grindr, 2009) and

Tinder is one of the biggest dating apps even though mostly for heterosexuals(Mackee, 2016).

Even though these mobile dating apps are used for sex, chat, dating or even a relationship these two apps did not manage to fulfil the students’ needs (Ward, 2017).

Based on the students’ experiences, these two apps did not take into consideration the students social needs. Therefore, I have made a low fidelity prototype of a new mobile dating app. Its purpose is to fulfil students’ needs based on the results from the interviews but also through the co-design workshops. This has been done by exploring the social aspects and the relationship between students and the mobile dating apps studied.

106

This low-fidelity prototype might fulfil the participants’ needs but it could also create new practices.

There can be similar practices to the existing ones. Users could start browsing silently. As mentioned before, users on Grindr can only see the closest 100 profiles if they do not have Grindr Xtra.

As seen in browsing silently the user base was the same since the participants used Grindr in almost the same locations. In order to prevent this practice to happen, users would be allowed with an unlimited number of profiles. Users might use the feature Looking for not what as I intended it to be. Users might choose the option that they are looking for a date, but they look only for sex or something else. Then, it would be like Tinder for heterosexuals where there is nothing visible that the app is used for hook-up, but they are all aware of this fact.

The loop that never ends might also happen in the low-fidelity prototype. What would be the other dating app users would use simultaneously with Bubbly? However, there is also a possibility that users would be in a loop only on this app. If users can find everything from sex to a date, why would they even use other dating apps? Users might be able to see similar users but showing different needs on their profile. For example, one day a user sees another user looking for a date, then the next day, the same user sees the other user looking for sex. There might be some social aspects to be taken into consideration. It depends on the users how they will view Bubbly. As seen also with Tinder which claimed that people can find romance on their app, but heterosexual people view it as a hook-up app.

The feature was built to give an option so everyone would be able to choose what they wanted. Certainly, users can modify their needs, so it fits them. As the application focuses on hobbies and common interests, a new practice could emerge. They might use Bubbly as a social and logistical tool. They might even use the app to gather more people to meet for a football game, a chess game, a board game, kayaking. The app might transform completely into a meet-up app.

107

7. Conclusion

The impetus for initiating this study started from my interactions with some of my international homosexual male friends, who were using mobile dating apps, mainly Tinder and Grindr. This was intriguing as Grindr started an app mainly for homosexuals, while Tinder started as an app for heterosexuals. Moreover, Grindr is seen as a hook-up app for homosexuals while Tinder is seen as a hook-up app for heterosexuals which makes the dynamics between these apps quite unique.

As such, this ethnographic study started to explore and understand how homosexual male students are using these dating apps. The eleven students who participated in this study shared a lot of experiences and reflections. As a result of these experiences and reflections, giving a better understanding of these mobile apps. Therefore, the key finding represents an important starting point for understanding how these students used these apps and what they did on these apps. As seen throughout the study, students have had similarities in the way they used these apps, but there have been major differences in how they used these apps. The architecture of the apps played also an important role here in how students used these apps. The architecture of Tinder constrained students to use the app in a unique way than

Grindr. Students needed ‘to swipe’ in order to be able to chat with other users, while Grindr’s architecture

108 allowed them to freely communicate with whoever they wanted. Even though students were constrained by the apps’ architectures, students have managed not only to avoid the main reasons for using these apps, but they have even challenged their architectures by using the apps differently than what the designers intended.

This ethnographic study described not only different uses of the apps but also challenged the expected use of the current mobile dating apps. Social aspects changed which as well caused changes in students’ needs in terms of using a mobile app.

The key findings represent an important starting point of understanding how students use these mobile dating apps and what they do on these apps. However, like any ethnographic study, this study case is far from complete. Areas such as how homosexual’s student local males use these mobile dating apps require additional exploration and participant observation, as they were beyond the limitations of this ethnographic study. Further exploration and observation of how students use mobile dating apps to unfold new practices are needed.

References

109

1. Ackerman, P. (2018). Intellectual Property Audit And Management. Intellectual Property, 352-371. doi:10.1002/9781119419235.ch23

2. Albury, K., & Byron, P. (2014). Queering Sexting and Sexualisation. Media International Australia, 153(1), 138-147. doi:10.1177/1329878x1415300116

3. Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods.

doi:10.4135/9781483381411

4. Ardévol, E., & Gómez-Cruz, E. (2014). Digital Ethnography and Media Practices. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, 498-518. doi:10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems193

5. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography. doi:10.4324/9780203944769

6. Birnholtz, J., Fitzpatrick, C., Handel, M., & Brubaker, J. R. (2014). Identity, identification and

identifiability. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-computer Interaction

with Mobile Devices & Services - MobileHCI '14. doi:10.1145/2628363.2628406

7. Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (2015). Seeing and being seen. Co situation and - impression formation using Grindr, a location aware gay dating app: New Media & Society, - 17(7), 1117–1136. doi:10.1177/1461444814521595

8. Blomberg, J., & Karasti, H. (n.d.). Ethnography. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. doi:10.4324/9780203108543.ch5

9. Collaborative design workshop. (2019, July 03). Retrieved June 30, 2020, from

https://www.boardofinnovation.com/business-design/co-design-workshop/

110

10. Burgess, J., Cassidy, E., Duguay, S., & Light, B. (2016). Making Digital Cultures of Gender and

Sexuality With Social Media. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 205630511667248. doi:10.1177/2056305116672487

11. Cartelli, A. (2007). Socio-Technical Theory and Knowledge Construction: Towards New

Pedagogical Paradigms? Proceedings of the 2007 InSITE Conference. doi:10.28945/3051

12. Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as Practical Coping: A Heideggerian Perspective.

Organization Studies, 27(5), 635-655. doi:10.1177/0170840606064102

13. Cooper, R., & Foster, M. (1971). Sociotechnical systems. American Psychologist, 26(5), 467-474. doi:10.1037/h0031539

14. Corbin, J.M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research. Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria: Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3 -21. doi:10.1007/bf0098888593

15. Couch, D., & Liamputtong, P. (2008). Online Dating and Mating: The Use of the Internet to Meet

Sexual Partners. Qualitative Health Research, 18(2), 268-279. doi:10.1177/1049732307312832

16. Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The Management of Confidentiality and

Anonymity in Social Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417-428. doi:10.1080/13645570701622231

17. Velden, M. V., & Mörtberg, C. (2014). Participatory Design and Design for Values. Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, 1-22. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_33-1

18. Dijck, J. V., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding Social Media Logic.

doi:10.12924/mac2013.01010002

111

19. Ess C. & Association of Internet Research (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet Research

20. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online Dating.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3-66. doi:10.1177/1529100612436522

21. Fisher, K.J (2015): An investigation into how remediation of gay ‘hook up’ culture is converging

homosexual digital spaces and heterosexual physical spaces

22. Fitzpatrick, C., & Birnholtz, J. (2017). “I Shut the Door”: Interactions, tensions, and negotiations

from a location-based social app. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2469-2488. doi:10.1177/1461444817725064

23. Grindr, P. (2009): FACT SHEET

24. Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., & Jenkins, D. P. (2008). A review of

sociotechnical systems theory: A classic concept for new command and control paradigms.

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(6), 479-499. doi:10.1080/14639220701635470

25. Haddon, L. (2006). The Contribution of Domestication Research to In-Home Computing and

Media Consumption. The Information Society, 22(4), 195-203. doi:10.1080/01972240600791325

26. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. doi:10.4135/9780857020277

27. Hymes, D. (2003). Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality. doi:10.4324/9780203211816

28. Jaque, A. (2017): Grindr Archiurbanism

29. Kaur, P. (2012): Sexting. Perceptions and Practices

112

30. Mackee, F. (2016). Social Media in Gay London: Tinder as an Alternative to Hook-Up Apps.

Social Media + Society,2(3), 205630511666218. doi:10.1177/2056305116662186

31. Morris, J. W., & Murray, S. (2018). Appified: Culture in the age of apps. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

32. Mowlabocus S. (2012). Gaydar Culture. Gay Men, Technology and Embodiment in the Digital Age. (2012). Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 41(6), 841-842. doi:10.1177/0094306112462562m

33. Muller, M. & Druin, A. (2002). Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI. Handbook of HCI.

34. Nova, N., Hirt, L.,L., Kilchor, F. & Fasel S. (2016): Beyond Design Ethnography. How Designers

Practice Ethnographic Research’

35. O'reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic Methods. doi:10.4324/9780203864722

36. O'reilly, K. (2004). Ethnographic Methods. doi:10.4324/9780203320068

37. Pedersen, S., & Brodersen, S. G. K. (2014). Design with People - Users as Co-Designers. i S.

Brodersen, J. Dorland, & M. Søgaard Jørgensen (red.), Abstract Book: 6th Living Knowledge

Conference (s. 136): Center for Design, Innovation and Sustainable Transition, Aalborg

University Copenhagen.

38. Pink, S., Horst, H. A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

113

39. Postill, J. (2012b): Media and social changing since 1979; Towards a diachronic ethnography of media and actual social changes’: Paper presented at the European Association of Social

Anthropologists (EASA) 12th Biennial Conference, Nanterre, France, 10–13 July.

40. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263. doi:10.1177/13684310222225432

41. Rooke, A. (2009). Queer in the Field: On Emotions, Temporality, and Performativity in

Ethnography. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 13(2), 149-160. doi:10.1080/10894160802695338

42. Rønning, F. (2015): Design meets Ethnography. Reflections on design, innovation, value creation

and ethnography

43. Schmidt, K. (2014). The Concept of ‘Practice’: What’s the Point? COOP 2014 - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 27-30 May 2014, Nice

(France), 427-444. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06498-7_26

44. Shield, A. D. J. (2017): New in town. Gay immigrants and geosocial media. (2019). In LGBTQS, MEDIA AND CULTURE IN EUROPE. Place of publication not identified: ROUTLEDGE.

45. Simonsen, J. & Toni Robertson, T.: Blomberg, J. & Karasti, H. (2012). Routledge International

Handbook of Participatory Design. (2012). doi:10.4324/9780203108543

46. Styhre, A. (2009). Tinkering with material resources. The Learning Organization, 16(5), 386-397. doi:10.1108/09696470910974171

47. Tinder. (n.d.). Terms of Use. Retrieved March 13, 2020, from https://www.gotinder.com/terms

114

48. Silvast, A., & Virtanen, M. J. (2019). An assemblage of framings and tamings: Multi-sited

analysis of infrastructures as a methodology. Journal of Cultural Economy, 12(6), 461-477. doi:10.1080/17530350.2019.1646156

49. Ward, J. (2016). What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking

mobile app. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1644-1659. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1252412

50. Waterson, P. E., Gray, M. T., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). A Sociotechnical Method for Designing

Work Systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44(3), 376-391. doi:10.1518/0018720024497628

51. Whitworth, B. (2009). A Brief Introduction to Sociotechnical Systems. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Second Edition, 394-400.

doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch066

52. Whitworth B., B. & Ahmad, A. (2015): The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd

Ed.

53. Wilson, J. R. (2000). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Applied Ergonomics, 31(6), 557-567. doi:10.1016/s0003-6870(00)00034-x

54. Woo, D. M., & Vicente, K. J. (2003). Sociotechnical systems, risk management, and public

health: Comparing the North Battleford and Walkerton outbreaks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 80(3), 253-269. doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(03)00052-8

55. Wu, S. & Ward, J. (2017). The mediation of gay men’s lives: A review on gay dating app studies

doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12560

115

Appendix

The initial interviews:

1. Interviews

116

Age

School

Nationality

2. Grindr and Tinder

How often did they use the app?

When did they use the app?

Why do they use this app simultaneously with Tinder?

3. Common reasons for using Grindr and Tinder

Relationship

Sex

Date

Friends

4. Different reasons for using Grindr and Tinder

Relationship

Sex

Date

Friends

5. Use of Grindr

What do they actually do on Grindr?

Are there any common patterns on how they use the app?

117

How much time do they spend on the application?

6. Use of Tinder

What do they actually do on Tinder?

Are there any common patterns on how they use the app?

How much time do they spend on the application?

7. Communication

Common words and explanations

Different words and explanations

In order to use the app, users need to download Grindr. Below, there are some screenshots illustrating what users should do in order to create an account on Grindr. After downloading the app, users will be prompted with the Grindr main sign up page. Users need to click on Sign up in order to create their profile on Grindr.

118

After clicking on the signing up page, the users would need to accept Grindr’s privacy and cookie policy.

After accepting their terms, another window would prompt. Here users can create their own account on

Grindr. They need to provide an email address, a password, date of birth. There are also other options to sign up through Apple, Google and even Facebook.

119

Grindr has a verification step, in order to stop the spam on the mobile dating app. Moreover, in order to use Grindr’s main feature, the geolocation users need to allow Grindr to use their location. Grindr’s architecture would show the users the closest 100 profiles based on their location.

120

After verifying that the users are real users and accepting that Grindr would use their location, they would be prompted with their Grindr profile page. They can choose to add a profile picture, but this is up to the users. The second screenshot shows the main page of Grindr where users have the 100 closest profiles based on their location. Users can freely view the other 100 profiles without any restrictions. The last screenshot is showing a profile on Grindr. This appears when users click on someone’s profile.

121

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 first screenshot 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.

122

123

The procedure to download Tinder is the same as Grindr. Users need to go to the App Store or Google play and search for Tinder. Then they can download the app. Once users download the app, Tinder will display the message that they need the users to allow location as seen in the second screenshot. Tinder as

Grindr uses location in order to display the closest users. However, unlike Grindr, Tinder only displays the minimum distance as seen as 1 km. While on Grindr, the user can even be 5 meters away and Grindr displays that information. In order to proceed users, need to allow that Tinder would use their location.

124

Then the users need to sign up and create an account. This can be done through a lot of different platforms such as Apple and Facebook but also through a phone number. I personally chose the phone number as seen in the second screenshot below. Then the users would receive a code that they need to write on their phone.

125

Tinder also requires its users to provide an email address as seen in the first screenshot below. Even though the sign up was done through the phone number, Tinder would still ask the users if they want to connect through other platforms as well. But users can skip this step. Then users would get an introduction message from Tinder.

126

Furthermore, Tinder requires a name. It is quite typical that users on Tinder use one of their first-names.

On Grindr, users usually choose a nickname not their real name. Tinder also requires the user's birthdays and genders.

127

An optional requirement when setting up an account on Tinder is the university. Users can add or skip if they want to share information about the university. One step that users can’t skip is the photo page, where users need to add at least one picture. If they would not upload any picture, they would not be able to proceed to the next step. Unlike Grindr, where they could freely choose if they wanted to upload a picture or not. Then the users can accept if they would allow notifications or not.

128

After choosing the gender as male, Tinder would display the female profiles. This is set by default as

Tinder used to be an app used only by heterosexual people. The second screenshot shows the profile that I created where I am able to edit, add or change the profile picture and even change the settings. The settings allow the users to change the distance, age, the gender they are interested in and many other things.

129

Users need to go to settings to change for the gender they are interested in as seen in the first screenshot below. The second screenshot shows the profiles that liked me. Although, it is only possible to see their profiles only if users have Tinder Gold. The last one is the chat function. Unlike on Grindr, users on

130

Tinder need to have a match in order to chat with each other. Other than that, the chat functions are pretty much the same on both apps.

131

132