Abstract
The understanding of the word ‘community’ takes many different forms. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of community is “a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common” and “the condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common”. However, since the insertion of the internet into the everyday lives of billions of people across the globe (Union, as cited in Collins, 2016, p. 183), some of the ways that we view community have changed. While ‘community’ easily continues to describe groups that share characteristics, common interests or certain attitudes, communities no longer need to ‘live’ in the same place, space or time. Web 2.0 provides opportunities to participate in communities of interest and develop relationships and bonds across time and space, which has led to a corresponding enhancement of our perceptions of community and place.
In addition to our changing perceptions of community and place, new ideas have emerged over the past fifty years that have altered our perceptions of time and space. Walker and Patton (as cited in Wellman & Gulia, 1997, p. 1) put forward the view that the internet, and Web 2.0 in particular, was going to be the new frontier that connected the world. At the same time, critics espoused that relationships formed in virtual reality would not be meaningful, real or lasting (Fox, as cited in Wellman & Gulia, 1997, p.2; Jacobs, as cited in Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 319). Though contradictory, both views could be said to be right and wrong: communities are able to come together through different circumstances and in a myriad of forms and they can crumble due to those same or different circumstances. Communities can be real, meaningful and lasting and they can just as easily be transient and ephemeral. The validity of a community is not determined by whether communities are formed and located in the same physical space or online and across time. The validity of any community will be determined by the participants that form the community.
The debate surrounding the perceptions and meaning of community has continued for centuries. Philosophers such as Kant, Rousseau and Locke viewed community as a moral dynamic of reciprocity and collective will, underpinned by humanity (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p.318; Kant, I., & Meiklejohn, J. M. D. (n.d.), p. 144; Thomas, 2013, p. 26; Waldron, 1989, p. 5). In today’s terms, most people tend to think of community in terms of society or sociality. For example, we have communities of interest such as midwives, the LGBTQI+ community, and the scouting movement. These are all collectives of people with common interests and goals, working and socializing together for the common good of their members. Web 2.0 has enhanced the opportunities for community interaction by allowing for the creation of “thousands of spaces” (Pollock & Smith, 1999, pg. 3) that can be utilised to facilitate online interactions that necessarily replace face-to-face interaction when face-to-face interactions are not practical due to the location and/or circumstances of the participants. From this, the notion of the virtual community has developed. According to Averweg and Leaning (2012, p. 4), the use of ‘virtual’ in this context would be defined as ‘effective but not ‘real’’. When this concept is linked to ‘community’ it gives us the idea of an assembly of society ‘without physical space’. Web 2.0 technologies have enabled the formation of communities that can co-operate and collaborate without the being co-located. The essence of the word ‘community’ is enhanced in a multimedia space through the expansion of ideas and possibilities. The convergence of Web 2.0 technologies provides opportunities for collaboration, communication, exchange of information and other interaction in real-time and across place, space and time, enriching online experiences which
may then produce a flow on effect to offline experiences. The next question may then be ‘why do people feel drawn to virtual communities?
There are many reasons why people choose to participate in virtual (or online) communities. A 2004 study (Ridings & Gefen) concluded that exchange of information was the most prevalent driver in making the decision to participate, regardless of the type of community. Depending on the broad category of the community, the second most popular reasons for participating in virtual communities was either social support (for health and wellness communities as well as professional and occupational matters) or friendship (for communities focused on interest and hobbies, pets and recreation). Reciprocity, altruism and personal fulfilment were motivating factors in participation in an online community set up after the shooting death of an African-American youth in 2014 (Freeland & Atiso, 2015, p. 4). This view of reciprocity as an important factor in determining likelihood to participate in online communities mirror the understanding of community described by Kant, Rousseau and Locke. Uploading images at any time and from wherever participants were physically located connoted that the contributors to the Documenting Ferguson web archive incidentally became part of an online community of interest that developed over time and space.
The desire or need for online support groups as communities of interest, regardless of the cause, generally exist because participants are looking for support, socialisation, information, validation, a sense of control, or any combination of these (Turner, 2017 pp. 14-15). Although these are similar to what you would expect to be offered as part of a face-to-face group, online support groups also offer the additional benefits of anonymity, convenience and asynchronous participation if required (Richard, Badillo-Amberg & Zelkowitz, 2017, p. 671; Turner, 2017 pp. 16-17; Cãrtãrescu, 2010). Johnson (2015) has defined another form of support that exists online: surreptitious support. Johnson describes surreptitious support as “exoteric advice, information and reassurance, which visitors/users can discreetly access”. Online interactions also have a democratising aspect, as online anonymity allows each participant to enter the group on a level playing field (Johnson, 2015, p. 241). In contrast to face-to-face support groups, place is unimportant and, again, space and time become important factors. Access to the group is not dependent on participants being in a certain geographical location, at a particular time (Turner, 2017, p. 16).
A study of online discussion
boards used by men who were affected by infertility issues (Richard et al., 2017,
p. 671) determined that social support is a key factor in the ability to manage
after a diagnosis has been received and decisions around treatment need to be
considered (Agostini et al. as cited in Richard et al., 2017, p. 664). In this context, social support encompasses the
sharing of information, services, or emotional support which provides benefits
to the person seeking social support (Shumaker & Brownell, as cited in
Richard et al., 2017, p. 664). The same study also noted there was a higher
probability of women engaging in social support activities than men, a fact
partly attributed to the social stigmas that men many feel subject to, due to
perceived threats to masculinity and sexual effectiveness when dealing with
male infertility (Gannon, Glover & Abel, as cited in Richard et al., 2017,
p. 664). Under these circumstances, the
option to participate in asynchronous, anonymous online communities becomes
very attractive, and it was determined that men would utilise this option more
readily than face-to-face support community options as a means to receiving and
giving social support (Dwyer, Quinton, Morin & Pitteloud, as cited in
Richard et al., 2017 p. 664). Despite the very personal, and often emotional,
sharing that potentially occurs within this form of virtual community, the
provision of social support is able to be offered and accepted at the same time
as the receiver is able to maintain a sense of safety and privacy.
Collins (2016, p. 191) raised the concern of how the internet is changing the essence of the way we view our privacy (Harris, 2004; Livingstone, 20016 as cited in Collins, 2016, p.191). With the perceived veil of anonymity afforded within the virtual community space, participant’s private lives take on a public aspect. Frazer (1990, p. 71) suggested that groups that may be viewed as subordinate by other more dominant groups in society developed ‘counterpublics’ where normally private conversations entered the public arena. Of course Frazer was speaking about women and other under-represented groups and their particular issues which were seen as less important by the dominant group of the time. However, extrapolating this into the sphere of the internet, throws light onto the willingness of community participants to engage in discussion with virtual strangers about the intimate details of their lives. Johnson (2014) refers to this as ‘intimate publics’ (p. 238), a notion that solidifies the idea that participants are willing to talk about the most intimate details of their lives when they are at their most vulnerable and looking for social support.
The willingness to participate in intimate publics is not ubiquitous. Prevailing social structures that exist outside the online world will have an effect on the willingness and ability of participants to engage in online communities (Collins, p. 193; Boase, 2008, p. 20). Factors such as nationality, age, gender and disability have implications for the manner in which participants are willing to utilise online spaces and their ability to form any kind of relationship in communities of interest that exist in other spaces, places and times. Reciprocity remains one of the motivating factors that determine the effectiveness of communities both off and online. It has been suggested though, that reciprocity is not guaranteed where there is societal and literal distance between members of a community (Wellman & Gulia, 1997 p. 8). The ties that bind the online relationship are assumed to be weak and therefore it is less likely that support will be reciprocal. However, despite the assumption that weak ties as defined by Wellman & Gulia are detrimental to a reciprocal relationship, other studies have found that relationships with social and physical distance can still flourish (Hiltz, Johnson & Turoff, 1986; Walther, 1994; Constant, Sproull & Kesler, 1996, as cited in Wellman & Gulia, p. 9). It was determined that the opportunities for self-expression, gaining respect and an increase in self-esteem were strong motivating factors for continued participation regardless of the strength of the ties. Participating in communities of interest that exist over distance have the same benefits as that those that operate in close proximity.
The current
context of ‘community’ is understood in many different ways. Community has taken on new meanings as
society comes to terms with the insertion of Web 2.0 in our everyday
lives. Communities comes together in the
same place, space and time, but this does not negate the legitimacy of communities
that exist in the online world.
Communities can come together through the utilisation of Web 2.0,
especially with the convergence of technologies that support participation over
distance and asynchronously. These
affordances enhance our opportunities to participate in communities of interest
and develop relationships and bonds across time and space, which has led to a
corresponding enhancement of our perceptions of community and place.
References
Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., David, K., Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E., (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 314-370). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Averweg, U.R., & Leaning, M., (2012). Social media and the re-evaluation of the terms ‘community’, ‘virtual community’ and ‘virtual identity’ as concepts of analysis. I-managers Journal on Information Technology, 1(4), 1-12. doi: 10.26637/jit.1.4.2012
Boase, J., (2008). Personal networks and the personal communication system. Information, Communication and Society, 11(4), 490-508. doi: 10.1080/13691180801999001
Cãrtãrescu, I., (2010). Utility of online communities – ways one can benefit from one’s online life. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology. 1(2), 79-91. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1040724156?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=10382
Collins, P. (2016). Digital media. In K. Huppatz, M. Hawkins & A. Matthews (Eds.), Identity and belonging (pp. 181-193). London: Palgrave.
Community. In Oxford Living Dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/community
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public Sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80. doi: 10.1086/499788
Freeland, C.,
& Atiso, K. (2015). Determining users’ motivations to participate in online
community archives: A preliminary study of Documenting Ferguson. Proceedings
of
the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1002/pra2.2015.1450520100106
Johnson, S.A., (2015). ‘Intimate mothering publics’: Comparing face-to-face support groups and Internet use for women seeking information and advice in the transition to first-time motherhood. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 237–251. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2014.968807
Kant, I., & Meiklejohn, J. M. D. (n.d.). The Critique of Pure Reason. Raleigh, N.C.: Generic NL Freebook Publisher. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1085932&site=ehost-live
Kollock, P. & Smith, M. A. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. In P. Kollock & M. A. Smith (Eds), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 3-24). London: Routledge
Richard, J., Badillo-Amberg, I., & Zelkowitz. P. (2017). “So much of this story could be me”: Men’s use of support in online fertility discussion bards. American Journal of Men’s Health. 11(3), 663-773. doi: 10.1177/1557988316671460
Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D., (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 10(1), 0-0
Thomas, D. L. (2013). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Locke on government. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Turner, J. (2017). Online support groups: The good, the bad and the motivated. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet. 21(1), 11-25. doi: 10.1080/1538285.2017.1279930
Waldron, J. (1989). John
Locke: Social contract versus political anthropology. The Review of Politics, 51(1), 3-28. doi: 10.1017/S0034670500015837
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M., (1997). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace (pp. 1-26). New York: Routledge.
Perceptions of Communities and Web 2.0 Across Time and Space, Community and Place by Vivian Fry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
> The ties that bind the online relationship are assumed to be weak and therefore it is less likely that support will be reciprocal. However, despite the assumption that weak ties as defined by Wellman & Gulia (1997).
I also found papers from around this time and it made me think that it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the state of online communities in the current time. In your example Wellman & Gulia were writing about a web that was still young, not only did only a small amount of people have regular access to it to form and participate in communities but the ‘rules’ of participation were still being formed, so to speak. These days the web is so common and used so frequently that most people know what is acceptable behaviour and what isn’t. Access to the web began when I was in my early teens however there’s a whole generation or two that have grown up with it always being there for them to use and the ‘rules’ are normal to them.
Hi Jason,
Thank you for posting your thoughts in relation to Wellman & Gulia.
I understand your perspective that the use of the web is so common that people SHOULD be able to manage to participate online in an acceptable manner.
I do think though that the anonymity afforded by web technologies can lead to a lowering of inhibitions when people are interacting online, and the rules that would normally apply in “polite” society are often forgotten.
As an example, our tutors are moderating our responses prior to them being released into the comment streams. Deepti’s response to your query in relation to replies as follows:
“..We are manually approving comments because we have learned from past experience that this is the best way to avoid potentially nasty situations developing in the conference….Deepti”
could be indicative of a a number of things. One may be heading off the potential of open disgreements and ‘fighting’, and another could be to ensure that the language used in repsonding to a post is non-offensive and appropriate.
I also believe that without the nuances afforded by face-to-face interactions, such as body language and tone of voice, it can be easy to misinterpret what is being ‘said’. For example, sarcasm can be very hard to ‘read’, but more easily ‘heard’, keeping in mind that not everyone gets sarcasm.
I think the rules of online interaction are being written and re-written constantly and that often there is not a clear and agreed set of rules for participation.
> I understand your perspective that the use of the web is so common that people SHOULD be able to manage to participate online in an acceptable manner.
Hmmm… I agree with what you say about good behaviour however I was actually referring to how each community communicates together. What I meant was that in the very early days everyone was a ‘newbie’ but as the years went by some people had been around their chosen communities for quite a while and get frustrated when newbies join and don’t conform to the communities rules, so to speak (unwritten or otherwise). For example, searching for an answer before asking a question, or using the right terminology, posting formatted code, etc.
It reminds me of a phenomenon called Eternal September where a sudden influx of new users joined Usenet and weren’t familiar with how the community acted which in turn frustrated many long term users.
(After re-reading that short article I just realised I’d forgotten the term ‘netiquette’ existed, lol)
>I also believe that without the nuances afforded by face-to-face interactions, such as body language and tone of voice, it can be easy to misinterpret what is being ‘said’.
Definitely, and as much as I don’t like them that much, emojis and smilies are sometimes needed to convey that tone that is sometimes missing from text only communications.
I have found myself editing responses many times over the years before submitting them because I realise that what I’m about to say may be misinterpreted if you don’t personally know me.
If I ever have to send on email or communication that may be contenious, I always put it in draft and leave it for a least a few hours or a day before I look at it again to check that I have made measured response. If it’s urgent I get someone else to look at it to see if reads the way I intend.
Much safer.
This is an interesting topic as we spend more and more time online. However, I believe the Internet is still a very dark place in terms of meeting and trusting people. I agree that “real” online communities can be formed but it would have to be moderated and at some point members of the community would have to engage in some form of video conferencing in order to build that extra connection that can only be achieved by looking at each other.
Hi Vivian,
I really enjoyed reading your paper! It was very well-written and interesting to read.
First of all, I just want to say that your formatting is excellent! Made it much easier to read 2,000+ words 🙂
Regarding your point: “Exchange of information was the most prevalent driver in making the decision to participate” in online communities, with social support and friendship being secondary motivators. I think this is part of what differentiates online communities from face-to-face communities – with face-to-face communities, the main driver for participation tends to be the formation of friendships/social support networks, with information-sharing being more of a consequence/secondary motivator. This might be part of the reason online relationships are seen as weak ties – i.e. people are mainly in it for their own benefit, rather than to build mutual and meaningful friendships/connections.
Regardless, you raise an excellent point about online support groups offering the safety and security of anonymity for those who might otherwise not seek help. Your example of men with infertility issues was a great example to highlight, especially given that men in general tend to discuss emotional/mental health issues and seek support for these issues far less than women. I think this is definitely one of the great benefits that sets online communities apart from face-to-face communities – it provides a safe and secure environment for anyone, anywhere to discuss their emotional/mental health issues and seek support without having to worry about social stigmas or suffer in silence.
As you point out in your conclusion, Web 2.0 technologies have enhanced our perceptions of community, and I think face-to-face and online communities can both have positive impacts in our everyday lives. Rather than being at odds with one another, I think they complement each other to create a myriad of thriving communities around the world.
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Lana,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
I agree that face-to-face and online communities both have important roles to play in our communities. The reduction in emotional and psychological isolation through the utilisation of Web 2.0 technologies is of remarkable importance. I believe that it is a wonderful and powerful enhancement and addition to a raft of social tools including face-to-face contact as you say.
Hi Federick,
Thank you for taking the time to read my paper and post your comments.
The internet CAN still be a very dark place, you’re right. The irony is of course that we are currently participating in an online community which, while moderated, encourages the participants to trust each other; to be supportive, honest and candid.
I know that I need to feel a huge measure of trust before I will participate in online activities (even classrooms and message boards) and it doesn’t take a lot for that trust to feel betrayed when people become bullying, arrogant, intolerant, or pushy. Being able to form a level of trust where you feel comfortable to share emotional and personal pieces of yourself is very different though from protecting your data and bank details (which you should never do, by the way).
There is a level of anonynity on the internet that can make it possible for people to open themselves up – to possibilities of support and understanding, but also to friendship and knowledge. Being able to put express yourself without fear of repercussions can be very powerful, and for some, quite life changing. Think Lifeline, Alcoholics Anonymous, 1800respect.org. These organisations have options of face-to-face and online and other mediated technologies that are able to offer services and support over time, space and place.
Reciprocity is the key: by sharing you are able to provide the reciprocity required to form a relationship within the boundaries of the circumstances you are engaged in. The participants decide the parameters, and in this brave new mediated world, perhaps reimagine relationships.
Hi Vivian
Thank you for your well presented and interesting paper. One of the main things that stands out for me and you have highlighted in this answer is reciprocity. Without this the community is really more like a network of connected nodes. If there was no reciprocity what element of community would exist at all, if we consider some of the description; “a ‘community’ easily continues to describe groups that share characteristics, common interests or certain attitudes,” as you stated above.
In ‘Why Do They Return Help? Examining the Motives of Reciprocity in Online Communities’ the authors examine some of the motivations around returning help and interestingly their analysis shows that a ‘during the knowledge exchange in online communities, members who perceive people as anonymous tend to be active in reciprocating the community to maintain their self perception.’
They also go on to discuss that high anonymity can result in feelings of higher indebtedness when they received help because they are more self-aware.
Indebtedness has been linked to a high level of reciprocation in online communities. The more that they feel an imbalance in their input versus others the more desire to rebalance the debt and therefore reciprocate.
Community norm and the effect that this has on how and why we reciprocate is also part of the analysis.
Their final conclusions might be something that we could examine further as ways to analyse how online communities can help to ensure involvement and reciprocity. Firstly they imply that “we find significant relationship between the intrinsic factor, i.e., feeling of indebtedness, and reciprocity intention in online context. This finding suggests that in the online communities, receivers are likely to believe that they are receiving help from the community as a whole rather than from a specific individual. Thereby they tend to reciprocate to the community to repay the favors to the community. In addition, they believe that their reciprocity will benefit the whole community rather than a specific initial benefactor who offered the help.”
and that “online communities can raise the community norm of reciprocity among members by rewarding the reciprocity behaviour and announcing this to the whole community. This can be done by highlighting reciprocal postings or adding reputation scores for those who reciprocate. Enhancing communication channels between community members can also strengthen the community reciprocity norms.” and secondly that contrary to common sense, anonymity helped ensure higher reciprocity in this particular study. And they advocate for online community creators to enable and establish the option for anonymity. They believed this to be the reason “Anonymous identity of community members keeps their focus on themselves and hence enhances their own behaviors and conforming to community norms.”
I would suggest that given this was a paper researched in 2010 and in only one type of culture, could this have now changed somewhat. Discussed in your paper is anonymity and this seems to be something that can really help people with feeling comfortable with reciprocating, on the other hand there are also many open communities that I see now and am part of that are not anonymous and yet have a very high level of interaction and reciprocity. To the point where people are very comfortable with sharing and communicating as themselves. I guess the nature of the community, who are the members and what it is for play a big part in all of this too.
Ye, Hua & Kankanhalli, Atreyi & Feng, Yuanyue. (2010). Why Do They Return Help? Examining the Motives of Reciprocity in Online Communities. PACIS 2010 – 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems. 50.
Hi Stephanie,
Thank you for very interesting discussion on reciprocity.
Although the paper you referenced is nearly a decade old, I think that the information is still relevant. Online communities have expanded, and indeed, continue to thrive with the expansion and acceptance of converging technologies. The factors that drive people to participate in these communities remain the same as in the past. Reciprocity is still an important element for continued participation and anonymity, where it is required or desired, can be provided either directly or through sometimes deceptive means.
Regardless of its form, community is a very important and integral part of our world and the ability to choose to participate where ever you are and whenever you are is as an affordance of Web 2.0 technologies that is probably taken for granted by those who have no memory of pre-Web2.0.
Hi Vivian
I was impressed with your paper and agree that different circumstances bring communities together for many different reasons through Web 2.0, prior to the web becoming available for public participation we relied on face-to-face meetings. The bonus of Web2.0 is as you indicate no longer do we need to be in close proximity to other people to be included in communities. Although “virtual reality” I disagree it is “not meaningful, real or lasting.” As my research paper pointed to both virtual reality is a real community with similar attributes to face-to-face communities.; There is very little changes between the two, the Scout movements started in early 20 century and know have moved into the virtual reality of online communication enhancing their progress with the world wide scouting groups. I do agree with you on the safety aspect of Web 2.0 provides for people who are isolated from family and friends, or have mental health issues a safe environment to discuss problems and gain support through the many online support systems. This allows for people to have more control on what information they are prepared to share with family, friends and strangers online. A well written and information paper, I enjoyed reading.
Hi Robyn,
Thank you for your comments about my paper, although I think you may have misunderstood one aspect in the piece. I actually do believe that virtual communities are very meaningful, real and can be quite long lasting; I simply referenced that CRITICS of online communities may not view them in this manner, so I think we actually agree on this point.
For some people, being connected to family and friends does not help them and they need to seek support form external sources. For many reasons, including shame, embarrassment, and fear, it can be difficult to share some things with your close personal network. This is another area where online communities can be well placed to provide support outside the familial circle. Seeking support from strangers who are experiencing the same or similar issues to yourself can be very affirming in that, they will write honestly – they do not you and so their responses are not framed to ensure that your feelings will not be hurt; they are not catering to your personality. Their responses are based purely on the information that you have provided and not nuanced anything else.
Hello Vivian,
A well written and supported paper. I fully agree with Johnson (2015) having defined another form of support that exists online: surreptitious support. Johnson describes surreptitious support as “exoteric advice, information and reassurance, which visitors/users can discreetly access”. The evolution of community will inevitably alter to adapt to it’s participant’s requirements. Congratulations on a great paper.
Hi Wendy,
Thank you for taking the time to read my paper and leave a comment.
I think that surreptitious support is greatly underestimated as a valuable resource in the community. Even when participating in online communities, not everyone wants to be given explicit advice. Sometimes all that is needed is acknowledgement and I think that this form of support is greatly undervalued,
Hi Vivian. Well done on your observations of Web 2.0 and its impact on the development of online communities. I am not sure whether you have watched the movie, Real Player One? The story is about a future where everyone is pretty much connected to an online adventure game. Where everyone has an avatar and can live and be anyone they want to be online. Do you think personally that we are far away from this type of reality? In the movie, the community at large banded together to get a result and had a positive outcome. I wonder if this is the path we are already on? What are your thoughts?
Cheers,
Luki
Hi Luki,
I had not heard of the movie Ready Player One, but I had a quick look on YouTube to get an idea of what your were referring to.
The movie seems to have a dystopian/uptopian theme, with the masses living in dystopian squalour and without hope and the ‘others’, those who have control, living a more utopian life. Depending on your point of view, it would be easy to think that we are already living like that now, although without the augmented reality.
I think that in many ways we are already exisitng in a place where communities can be formed through technology to work towards common goals with the hope of positive outcomes for everyone. The recent spate of rallies around the world for the Campaign against Climate Change, and more locally the School Strike campaign are good examples of communities mobilising through the power of Web 2.0.
Hi Luki and Vivian,
The movie is based on the book by Ernest Cline (if you prefer the print version, Vivian). Interestingly, this came up in a discussion of dystopian young adult novels in another unit I teach – Writing for Children – in the Creative Writing program. There is quite a bit of fiction that explores the question of whether digital technologies and online platforms should be seen as dystopian or utopian spaces.
Hi Vivian,
I think you are correct. We are living in a world where online communities are a part of our daily lives. I think also we are on the verge of augmented reality being part of it also. The Pokemon Go game is an example of this already. What is evident in online communities is that it is becoming more a prominent part of our connected lives also. After all, this is how we are studying through Open Learning the way we do.
Hi Vivian
Great paper – very well written and easy to follow!
I also wonder when reading papers comments that allude to virtual communities not being real or meaningful due a number of factors like false accounts and not understanding who it is you are sharing and communicating with. I’d have to agree with the comments made by Robin earlier that virtual communities are real and can offer much of the same benefits as face-to-face communities, perhaps even more if people feel more comfortable sharing online. When it comes to support groups, do you think that perhaps false accounts are created to hide identity for privacy reasons, rather than dishonest sharing or communication? You couldn’t blame individuals for wanting to protect their privacy if sharing something extremely intimate or private – especially in an era when the internet is used heavily for background checks by job recruiters and so on. Does this make the online community any less real or meaningful? Would be interested in hearing any thoughts you have in this regard.
Cheers, Krystal
Hi Krystal,
I do believe that online (virtual) communities are real and can offer the same, and sometimes better, benefits as FTF communities. As an example, I have a dear friend whose child was diagnosed with a condition called Smith Magenis Syndrome more than 30 years ago. In 2016 it was estimated that there were as few as 100 children in Australia who were properly diagnosed with this genetic condition, which is often misdiagnosed as a raft of other conditions. 30 years ago there were only seven recognised diagnosies in the country, and they were spread across the country. There was no way for my friend to participate in a ‘group’ with other affected families.
Around 2016 an organisation was formed to support the families and children with this rare condition and, using the affordances of WEB 2.0, they are able to provide information to anyone who has access to technology, from wherever they may be. This is not just an online community, but it is able to do so much more because they can be online as well as FTF, and have a far greater reach because of it.
I like to think that people are inherently good and while I do not like to think that people are disingenuous online, it is no less true online than it is offline that people may manipulate and behave dishonestly. Genuine people may have reasons for creating ‘false’ accounts to hide their identity, but if they are sharing genuine information and participating honestly, then I don’t think there is any real harm done. It is when people behave destructively and cruelly that there is an issue. I would tend to think that these people would be the same online and offline though, and would soon be found out or excluded.
I don’t think the possibility of participant hiding their real identities makes an online community any less real or meaningful – it is the quality of the interactions that are the measure.
To illustrate this I would like to share a quick story. It is ‘offline’, but I think illustrates my point.
I live in a suburb of Geelong in Victoria and I work in a community organisation. I have a lot of professional ties across Geelong, and a level of ‘visibility’ that I am a little uncomfortable with. Although I have been in my role for 20 years, I am a pretty private person and have a very small group of people I thoroughly trust professionally.
While driving one morning, listening to the ABC, there was a caller on saying that children were badly behaved because women worked instead of staying home with their kids. As a full-time working mother of six, socially acceptable children I was quite incensed and wanted to call the station. But at the same time I did not want to put EXPOSE myself.
I called the station and spoke with the producer. I told them my real name and where I was from, but asked if they could please use a pseudonem and use the general area of Geelong as my location, which they agreed to do, once I had explained my reasons.
Those who knew me well, my colleagues, friends and family, who heard the broadcast knew it was my voice, and certainly my opinions, and sent messages addressed to my pseudonem and had a great laugh at my expense. And I still felt safe.
I believe that as long as your reasons are not neferious, it doesn’t hurt to give yourself a layer of protection, whether offline or online.
Hi Vivian
Thanks for the response and the providing some personal experiences.
I think you are right – it is the quality of the interactions.
Side note – way to go you being a mother of 6 and working full time. I am sure that has been both challenging and rewarding!
Hi Vivian
I echo the sentiments of the other commenters: a well-researched and written paper with a thought-provoking viewpoint.
These are my thoughts from research on offline and online communities.
Averweg and Leaning (2012) acknowledge and mirror the argument by Consalvo (2011) that the internet and Web 2.0 technologies have certainly blurred the distinction between physical and online communities, and private and public spheres. With the adoption of the internet into the everyday lives of people living in predominantly affluent societies, the online world becomes a ‘part’ of their offline world—their “real life” (Reed, 2014, p. 77). Thus, making the offline/online distinction “problematic, or impossible to draw” (Consalvo, 2011, p. 112). Camerini, Diviani, and Tandini (2010) contend that identity and community bleed into each other and the virtual community consequently functions as a “reinforcement” of this offline identity (p. 99).
Various studies conclude that online support groups, such as Online Health Communities (OHCs), not only augment offline groups but can also supersede them (Heaton, 2011; Zigron & Bronstein, 2019).
Averweg, U. R., & Leaning, M. (2012). Social media and the re-evaluation of the terms ‘community’, ‘virtual community’ and ‘virtual identity’ as concepts of analysis. I-Managers Journal on Information Technology, 1(4), 1-12. https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1473904381?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=10382
Camerini, L., Diviani, N., & Tardini, S. (2010). Health virtual communities: is the self lost in the net? Social Semiotics, 20(1), 87-102. https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/10350330903507230
Consalvo, M. (2011). Introduction to part ll. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The handbook of internet studies. (pp. 111-115). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/book/10.1002/9781444314861
Reed, T. V. (2014). Digitized lives: Culture, power, and social change in the internet era. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/reader.action?docID=1707408&ppg=74&tm=1499935824817
Zigron, S., & Bronstein, J. (2019). “Help is where you find it”: The role of weak ties networks as sources of information and support in virtual health communities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(2), 130-139. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/epdf/10.1002/asi.24106
Hi Kogie,
Thank you for commenting on my paper. I appreciate your feedback.
I agree that the lines between online and offline communities are very blurry in 2019.
I am unsure that this a phenomenon that exists in “predominately affluent societies” as stated and I feel that less affluent societies are less concerned with first world issues than perhaps how they can provide meaningful education for their children and how they will feed themselves.
The World Bank reported that the promise of technology as a solution to the challenges of providing education in remote areas of Asia, Africa,Latin America and the Pacific was not just about ensuring that the technologies were capable of meeting the needs of the learners but dealing with issues such as power supply to make the technology work. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that forming communities that are concerned with things other than education and improving the situation of impoverished people are not at the forefront of people’s minds.
Trucano, M. (2014, July 22) Promising uses of technology in education in poor, rural and isolated communities around the world. [Blog post] from http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/education-technology-poor-rural
A well written essay. Congratulations.
I have been quite interested in the use of online communities by rural communities, particularly in getting healthcare support, ranging from doctor consultation through to professional mental health support, but also to reduce isolation experienced by those living away from the hustle and bustle of the city.
I also find the idea of reciprocity quite interesting – what if the response that someone receives to content they have shared to a community is negative or unwarranted? I have never really thought about harassment or bullying, whether it be online or not, as being in response to an individual’s contribution to a community. Similarly, what does it mean if an individual receives no response from the online community at all? What does that do for self-esteem and the reduction of isolation? Has the digital age really assisted in creating a stronger sense of community, or has it exacerbated some existing issues?
My comment is probably more of a self reflection, but I thank you for presenting your ideas so I can refine some of my thinking about social media being a “silver bullet” to reducing isolation.
Emily, your suggestions on reciprocity are very thought provoking, and in answer to your question on the individual receiving no response, you can only imagine how that can be quite soul-destroying for some people.
I suspect much of this is entirely down to the type of individual you are and that your reaction would be similar on and offline. Someone may react with a shrug of the shoulders and walk away, or leave the group entirely or others would feel snubbed and worried they had said the wrong thing.
Certainly in an online community it is so easy to not respond, many of us are not always interacting and responding and just watching and reading. Its the same for when we create content, do we always seek response? do we mind when we don’t get anything?
There is so much more that can be discussed on this, I found the article I read interesting in that they found people did tend to feel an element of debt to the community if they were helped to help back but if that was not your experience and you were calling for help and received none, as you say would this make someone feel more isolated?
I am in agreement with you on the no ‘silver bullet’ dealing with all this needs more than one strategy.
This discussion also takes me back to the readings I did in a previous unit for an essay I wrote about blogging and that some people are just speaking and writing into the ether, you have no idea if anyone is reading or listening unless you have a response.
Thanks Stephanie. I guess another exacerbating factor is that we can be whoever we want to be online. So while someone may be shy or unliked/bullied “in the real world” then can change how they portray themselves online to a completely different audience. I agree when you say that it comes down to the person, but what happens when you are managing 2 seperate lives, so to speak. A few things here come to mind here – what impact does the online persona have on the “real world” health and wellbeing issues? And what happens if someone (e.g. a bully) comes across the persons online profile? Not sure. Just me having a brain-dump again but I am not sure that we understand these things fully yet which is concerning from a community perspective going forward.
Hi Emily,
I agree that participating in online communities holds some risk – but I feel that this is the same as it would be for a face-to-face community. It is no less damaging for someone to seek support and acceptance in a group and be misunderstood or feel ignored. Like everything else in life, there are no guarantees and participating in any group, either FTF or online. This is where the role of moderators is extremely important, although not all groups have moderators or moderators who may have the skills to ensure that participants are not bullied or harassed.
Online communities are not the panacea that some may claim, but they offer a method of allowing people to participate regardless of location, social status, time, nationality, age, gender or disability. Online communities can offer support, socialisation, information, validation, a sense of control, or any combination of these (Turner, 2017 pp. 14-15) and the possibilities around reducing isolation, or the sense of isolation are real.
I do have hope that online communities offer a solution to assist in reducing isolation, remembering that you be isolated in a room full of people, so this is not necessarily a matter of location.
Turner, J. (2017). Online support groups: The good, the bad and the motivated. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet. 21(1), 11-25. doi: 10.1080/1538285.2017.1279930
Hi Vivian, thanks for such a thought provoking paper.
Kant, Rousseau and Locke’s definition of community as “a moral dynamic of reciprocity and collective will, underpinned by humanity”, is just beautiful, beautiful words and beautiful ideology . The examples of Facebook Groups I studied in my paper which were altruistic in motivation did mirror Kant, Rousseau and Locke’s definition.
I drew from your words in the first part of the paper that, the validity of a community can not be based on how the community formed. Pre-Web 2.0 the validity of a community would not be based on how it was formed, ie: a soccer club community was no less valid than a church or model airplane community. Therefore, how our online communities come together or are formed should have just as little bearing on the validity of said community.
Thank you for the new terms surreptitious support and exoteric advice which I will be peppering through my everyday conversations now. No community is complete without such things, invited or otherwise.
Hi Meryl,
Thank you for you very kind words – thank you for contributing to my portion of this community.
Vivian
Hi Vivian,
Very good paper I like the layout and the content which made it an interesting read. Until your paper I have always suggested that there should not be anonymity on the net my view is based on a persons identity should be protected but a person character is one that should be consistent. Anonymity I believe leads to a persons character to be masked in that a person will say things on the net that they would not say in the real world and that is a problem that seems to be growing across the board. Having said that your paper has lead me to think that anonymity may be a way to break down barriers at first and allow people to be more open than in real life, but I would hope it leads them to not stay anonymous once they feel they are getting the support from the community they have joined.
Thanks again for opening my eyes to this point of view.
Graeme
Hi Graeme,
I agree with you that there can be a severe lack of filter when it comes to online interactions. Anonymity can be used in nefarious ways, however, I do believe that it can also offer a layer of protection for those who feel that they are at risk in some way, be it risk of exposure, risk of ridicule, not being understood etc.
I am glad that you have been able to take something from my paper.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.