{"id":458,"date":"2019-05-01T21:47:01","date_gmt":"2019-05-01T13:47:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/?p=458"},"modified":"2019-05-13T20:24:26","modified_gmt":"2019-05-13T12:24:26","slug":"perceptions-of-communities-and-web-2-0-across-time-and-space-community-and-place","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/2019\/05\/01\/perceptions-of-communities-and-web-2-0-across-time-and-space-community-and-place\/","title":{"rendered":"Perceptions of Communities and Web 2.0 Across Time and Space, Community and Place"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Perceptions_of_Community_and_Web_2.0<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

This paper\nlooks at the ways in which we view community within the context of Web\n2.0.  The internet and, in particular,\nconvergent technologies enable us to participate in virtual (online)\ncommunities of interest asynchronously without geographical constraints,\naltering our perceptions of time, space, community and place.  While it has been debated that technology has\nhad the potential to erode inter-personal connections by isolating individuals,\nthis paper argues that the internet and in particular Web 2.0 has the capacity\nto enhance and build connections in new forms of community that would not be\npossible without this technology.  The\nexamination of online support groups will be used to illustrate the manner in\nwhich Web 2.0 provides opportunities to participate in communities of interest\nand develop relationships and bonds across time and space, which has led to a\ncorresponding enhancement of our perceptions of community and place. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The\nunderstanding of the word \u2018community\u2019 takes many different forms. According to\nthe Oxford Dictionary, the definition of community is \u201ca group of\npeople living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in\ncommon\u201d and \u201cthe condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests\nin common\u201d.  However, since the\ninsertion of the internet into the everyday lives of billions of people across\nthe globe (Union, as cited in Collins, 2016, p. 183), some of the ways that we\nview community have changed.  While \u2018community\u2019\neasily continues to describe groups that share characteristics, common\ninterests or certain attitudes, communities no longer need to \u2018live\u2019 in the\nsame place, space or time.  Web 2.0\nprovides opportunities to participate in communities of interest and develop\nrelationships and bonds across time and space, which has led to a corresponding\nenhancement of our perceptions of community and place.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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 \u201cthousands of spaces\u201d (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 \u2018virtual\u2019 in this context would be defined as \u2018effective but not \u2018real\u2019\u2019.  When this concept is linked to \u2018community\u2019 it gives us the idea of an assembly of society \u2018without physical space\u2019.  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 \u2018community\u2019 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 \u2018why do people feel drawn to virtual communities?
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are many reasons why\npeople choose to participate in virtual (or online) communities.  A 2004 study (Ridings & Gefen) concluded\nthat exchange of information was the most prevalent driver in making the\ndecision to participate, regardless of the type of community.  Depending on the broad category of the\ncommunity, the second most popular reasons for participating in virtual\ncommunities was either social support (for health and wellness communities as\nwell as professional and occupational matters) or friendship (for communities\nfocused on interest and hobbies, pets and recreation).  Reciprocity, altruism and personal fulfilment\nwere motivating factors in participation in an online community set up after\nthe shooting death of an African-American youth in 2014 (Freeland & Atiso,\n2015, p. 4).  This view of reciprocity as\nan important factor in determining likelihood to participate in online communities\nmirror the understanding of community described by Kant, Rousseau and Locke.  Uploading images at any time and from\nwherever participants were physically located connoted that the contributors to\nthe Documenting Ferguson web archive incidentally became part of an online\ncommunity of interest that developed over time and space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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; C\u00e3rt\u00e3rescu, 2010).  Johnson (2015) has defined another form of support that exists online: surreptitious support.  Johnson describes surreptitious support as \u201cexoteric advice, information and reassurance, which visitors\/users can discreetly access\u201d.  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). 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A study of online discussion\nboards used by men who were affected by infertility issues (Richard et al., 2017,\np. 671) determined that social support is a key factor in the ability to manage\nafter a diagnosis has been received and decisions around treatment need to be\nconsidered (Agostini et al. as cited in Richard et al., 2017, p. 664).  In this context, social support encompasses the\nsharing of information, services, or emotional support which provides benefits\nto the person seeking social support (Shumaker & Brownell, as cited in\nRichard et al., 2017, p. 664). The same study also noted there was a higher\nprobability of women engaging in social support activities than men, a fact\npartly attributed to the social stigmas that men many feel subject to, due to\nperceived threats to masculinity and sexual effectiveness when dealing with\nmale infertility (Gannon, Glover & Abel, as cited in Richard et al., 2017,\np. 664).  Under these circumstances, the\noption to participate in asynchronous, anonymous online communities becomes\nvery attractive, and it was determined that men would utilise this option more\nreadily than face-to-face support community options as a means to receiving and\ngiving social support (Dwyer, Quinton, Morin & Pitteloud, as cited in\nRichard et al., 2017 p. 664). Despite the very personal, and often emotional,\nsharing that potentially occurs within this form of virtual community, the\nprovision of social support is able to be offered and accepted at the same time\nas the receiver is able to maintain a sense of safety and privacy.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collins (2016, p. 191) raised\nthe concern of how the internet is changing the essence of the way we view our\nprivacy (Harris, 2004; Livingstone, 20016 as cited in Collins, 2016,\np.191).  With the perceived veil of\nanonymity afforded within the virtual community space, participant\u2019s private\nlives take on a public aspect.  Frazer\n(1990, p. 71) suggested that groups that may be viewed as subordinate by other\nmore dominant groups in society developed \u2018counterpublics\u2019 where normally\nprivate conversations entered the public arena. \nOf course Frazer was speaking about women and other under-represented\ngroups and their particular issues which were seen as less important by the\ndominant group of the time. However, extrapolating this into the sphere of the\ninternet, throws light onto the willingness of community participants to engage\nin discussion with virtual strangers about the intimate details of their\nlives.  Johnson (2014) refers to this as\n\u2018intimate publics\u2019 (p. 238), a notion that solidifies the idea that\nparticipants are willing to talk about the most intimate details of their lives\nwhen they are at their most vulnerable and looking for social support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current\ncontext of \u2018community\u2019 is understood in many different ways.  Community has taken on new meanings as\nsociety comes to terms with the insertion of Web 2.0 in our everyday\nlives.  Communities comes together in the\nsame place, space and time, but this does not negate the legitimacy of communities\nthat exist in the online world. \nCommunities can come together through the utilisation of Web 2.0,\nespecially with the convergence of technologies that support participation over\ndistance and asynchronously.  These\naffordances enhance our opportunities to participate in communities of interest\nand develop relationships and bonds across time and space, which has led to a\ncorresponding enhancement of our perceptions of community and place. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., David, K., Katz, J.\nE., & Rice, R. E., (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept\nof community in theory and practice. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 28<\/em> (pp. 314-370).\nNew York: Taylor and Francis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Averweg, U.R., & Leaning, M., (2012).\nSocial media and the re-evaluation of the terms \u2018community\u2019, \u2018virtual\ncommunity\u2019 and \u2018virtual identity\u2019 as concepts of analysis.  I-managers\nJournal on Information Technology, 1<\/em>(4), 1-12. doi: 10.26637\/jit.1.4.2012<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boase, J., (2008).  Personal networks and the personal\ncommunication system.  Information, Communication and Society, 11<\/em>(4),\n490-508. doi: 10.1080\/13691180801999001 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

C\u00e3rt\u00e3rescu, I.,\n(2010). Utility of online communities \u2013 ways one can benefit from one\u2019s online\nlife. Journal of Comparative Research in\nAnthropology and Sociology. 1<\/em>(2), 79-91. Retrieved from https:\/\/search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/docview\/1040724156?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri\/sid:primo&accountid=10382<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collins, P. (2016). Digital media. In K.\nHuppatz, M. Hawkins & A. Matthews (Eds.), Identity and belonging <\/em>(pp. 181-193). London: Palgrave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Community. In Oxford Living Dictionary.  Retrieved from https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/community<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fraser, N.\n(1990). Rethinking the public Sphere: A contribution to the critique of\nactually existing democracy. Social Text,\n25\/26<\/em>, 56-80. doi: 10.1086\/499788<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freeland, C.,\n& Atiso, K. (2015). Determining users’ motivations to participate in online\ncommunity archives: A preliminary study of Documenting Ferguson.  Proceedings\nof <\/em>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

the Association for Information Science and\nTechnology<\/em>, 52<\/em>(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1002\/pra2.2015.1450520100106<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Johnson, S.A., (2015). \u2018Intimate mothering publics\u2019: Comparing\nface-to-face support groups and Internet use for women seeking information and\nadvice in the transition to first-time motherhood.  Culture,\nHealth & Sexuality, 17<\/em>(2), 237\u2013251. doi: 10.1080\/13691058.2014.968807<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kant,\nI., & Meiklejohn, J. M. D. (n.d.). The\nCritique of Pure Reason<\/em>. Raleigh, N.C.: Generic NL Freebook Publisher.\nRetrieved from http:\/\/search.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1085932&site=ehost-live<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kollock,\nP. & Smith, M. A. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. In P. Kollock & M.\nA. Smith (Eds), Communities in cyberspace\n<\/em>(pp. 3-24). London: Routledge<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Richard,\nJ., Badillo-Amberg, I., & Zelkowitz. P. (2017). \u201cSo much of this story\ncould be me\u201d: Men\u2019s use of support in online fertility discussion bards. American Journal of Men\u2019s Health. <\/em>11(3),\n663-773. doi: 10.1177\/1557988316671460<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D., (2004).\nVirtual community attraction: Why people hang out online.  Journal\nof Computer-Mediated Communication. 10<\/em>(1), 0-0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas,\nD. L. (2013). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Locke on government. Retrieved\nfrom https:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turner, J. (2017). Online\nsupport groups: The good, the bad and the motivated. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet. 21<\/em>(1), 11-25. doi:\n10.1080\/1538285.2017.1279930 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waldron, J. (1989). John\nLocke: Social contract versus political anthropology. The Review of Politics, 51<\/em>(1), 3-28. doi: 10.1017\/S0034670500015837
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wellman, B., & Gulia,\nM., (1997). Net surfers don\u2019t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities.\nIn P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities\nand Cyberspace<\/em> (pp. 1-26). New York: Routledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Creative<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Perceptions of Communities and Web 2.0 Across Time and Space, Community and Place<\/span> by Vivian Fry<\/a> is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How do we view community in the context of Web 2.0?
\nThis paper looks at the ways in which we view community within the context of Web 2.0. The internet and, in particular, convergent technologies enable us to participate in virtual (online) communities of interest asynchronously without geographical constraints, altering our perceptions of time, space, community and place. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":543,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[28,201,202,58,60,203,200,130],"class_list":["post-458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-communities","tag-community","tag-communityandplace","tag-itcouldbeme","tag-networks","tag-onlinecommunities","tag-perceptionsofcommunity","tag-timeandspace","tag-web2-0"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/458","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=458"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/458\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":557,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/458\/revisions\/557"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/543"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}