COM632: Jenny Preece, Online Communities

Preece, Jenny. Online Communities. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons, 2000.

Preece's text is a merger of four perspectives (sociology, technology, virtual worlds, E-commerce) that examines what makes a good online community--how it ticks. The mixed perspective allows her to move easily across disciplinary lines and address the multiple problems online interaction brings us. At times, it can feel like a how-to book (techne), at other times, an intro to online community theory, and still at other times, a discussion space for the discipline (particularly in methodology). Still, it is not a schizophrenic read--in fact, it is an easy read, and I'm afraid I'll miss something subtle. So, the pulled out quotes below will hopefully highlight what I think is important--that which is not already on Dr. Matei's lecture notes.

In many ways, this feels somewhat like a self-help book to me--many good, but abstract ideas, with little concrete information. Yes, good design is essential. Yes, we must find user-oriented design. But what does that mean? And how can she fill a whole book with lists and bullet points of what seems to be fairly obvious? Or am I just so embedded in design culture, in internet culture, in online communities in general, that these only seem obvious to me? Who, exactly is her audience, and what level of expertise do they have?

---

"The collective purpose of a community, the goals and roles of the individuals in a community, and the policies generated to shape social interaction all influence social interaction in the community. Sociability is concerned with these issues" (Intro, p. 7)

"Each community is unique, and there is no guaranteed recipe for a successful community. However, developers can influence the way a community develops by carefully communicating its purpose and policies" (7)

Her definition of "online community" is interesting. Four parts: "People" interacting "socially"; a "shared purpose"; policies; and Computer systems. I think hers is the first to include the technology as part of the definition, rather than comparing online community to social scientific definitions of "real" community. This shows, a the outset, a different way of thinking. However, on p 11, she notes that there is still the problem of absent physical presence, and that good "sociable" design is what helps smooth it over.

See the list on p. 13 and the additional list on p. 14

A note against Utopianist thinking in online community theory discussions: "Yet physical communities do not always function well and to the advantage of all, or even the majority, of their members. So why assume that online communities will do any better? It's easy, but dangerous, to assume that all communities are good" (20).

Preece addresses the "threat" the nonphysical space of cyberspace poses to "real" relationships, to "social capital and society" (22). The "Carnegie Mellon study" seems to raise questions about antisocialism and the internet, about isolation. Preece simply says that we developers must be 'aware' (THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN) of this potential, and should "raise awareness" (EURGH!) among participants of this tendency. Of course, awareness won't do any good, if you're sitting at home, on your computer 6 days a week, highly aware that you aren't doing any good in the "real" world, but quite happy about it.

Oooh, some PoMo!
"Most definitions treat community only as an entity; in fact, community is a process (Fernback, 1999). Communities develop and continuously evolve. Only the software that supports them is desgined. Thus, the role of a community developer is analogous to that of the mayor of a new town, who works with town planners to set up suitable housing, roads, public buildings, and parks, and with governors and lawyers to determine local policies" (26).

On Health Communities: Yep, I recognize the genre. And I HATE reading the fibro ones.

---

Chapter 5: Research Speaks to Practice: Interpersonal Communication

Oh, it's social science.
"Social Presence Theory"--"addresses how successfully media convey a sense of the participants being physically present, using face-to-face communication as the standard for assessment [yeah, cause that always works]. Social presence depends not only on the words people speak but also on verbal and non verbal cues, body language, and context" (150). See readings from Oct 15 for more. See also: Media Richness Theory.

She assumes that "social presence fundamentally affects how participants sense emotion, intimacy, and immediacy" (151). I'm most interested in immediacy--to be without medium, without barriers between the I and Thou. How platonic these assumptions are! How we fill in social cues online is interesting--they assume we don't, but I'm fairly sure we do. See her notes on "self-disclosure" and self-disclosure reciprocity (154). "Psychologically, the more people discover that they are similar to each other, thus, the more they tend to like each other, thus the more they will disclose about themselves" (154).

"Filtering out social cues impedes normal impression development." NORMAL????? (153).

Oh, gender! And gender bending! She's only scratching the surface of Queering potential online, but I guess that has to do with her audience and purpose. Damn.

Common Ground (156-164).
This section interests me most, as a Burkeian and as a fangirl. The phrase we're going with is "Common Ground Theory" (oh, come on! Get creative!) and it "determines how two people or a small group validate that they understand each other. There must be common referents ("my" or "that" or "now")--synchronicity. Different media allow different ways to ground (invite consubstantiality)

1. Co-presence (physical)


2. Visibility (physical and video)


3. Audibility (physical and audio)


4. Cotemporality (immediacy)


5. Simulatneity (messages can be sent and received instantaneously--experiencing the same thing at the same time--like watching MTV together while chatting).
   Sequentiality (people take turns, establishing time)


6. Reviewability (go back and see what happened, dude! Or edit?)


7. Revisability (wikiality)

Grounding and Empathy
Empathy is most visible between people with similar experiences. "The more similar people are, the less they have to 'go outside themselves' to gather cues; hence the more readily the can respond naturally to their circumstances" (164). Oh? Naturally???????

"There is, however, no research on the relationship between common ground and empathy, though it seems likely that when socioemotional (HUH?) content is involved, establishing common ground is aided by empathy, or vice versa." 164. I go with the "vice versa".