Online Communities and Community Building

Author(s):  
Martin C. Kindsmuller ◽  
Sandro Leuchter ◽  
Leon Urbas

“Online community” is one of today’s buzzwords. Even though superficially it is not hard to understand, the term has become somewhat vague while being extensively used within the e-commerce business. Within this article, we refer to online community as being a voluntary group of users who partake actively in a certain computer-mediated service. The term “online community” is preferred over the term “virtual community,” as it denotes the character of the community more accurately: community members are interacting online as opposed to face to face. Furthermore, the term “virtual community” seems too unspecific, because it includes other communities that only exist virtually, whereas an online community in our definition is always a real community in the sense that community members know that they are part of the community.

Author(s):  
Martin C. Kindsmüller ◽  
Sandro Leuchter ◽  
Leon Urbas

“Online community” is one of today’s buzzwords. Even though superficially it is not hard to understand, the term has become somewhat vague while being extensively used within the e-commerce business. Within this article, we refer to online community as being a voluntary group of users who partake actively in a certain computer-mediated service. The term “online community” is preferred over the term “virtual community,” as it denotes the character of the community more accurately: community members are interacting online as opposed to face to face. Furthermore, the term “virtual community” seems too unspecific, because it includes other communities that only exist virtually, whereas an online community in our definition is always a real community in the sense that community members know that they are part of the community. Nevertheless, there are other reasonable definitions of online community. An early and most influencing characterization (which unfortunately utilizes the term “virtual community”) was coined by Howard Rheingold (1994), who wrote: “…virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace. A virtual community is a group of people […] who exchanges words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks” (p. 57). A more elaborated and technical definition of online community was given by Jenny Preece (2000), which since then, has been a benchmark for developers. She stated that an online community consists of four basic constituents (Preece, 2000, p. 3): 1. Socially interacting people striving to satisfy their own needs. 2. A shared purpose, such as interest or need that provides a reason to cooperate. 3. Policies in the form of tacit assumptions, rituals, or rules that guide the community members’ behavior. 4. A technical system that works as a carrier that mediates social interaction. Not explicitly mentioned in this characterization but nevertheless crucial for our aforementioned definition (and not in opposition to Preece’s position) is voluntary engagement.


Author(s):  
Martin C. Kindsmüller ◽  
André Melzer ◽  
Tilo Mentler

In this article, we define and describe the concept of online communities, outline the essential conditions under which they emerge and present some means that foster the building of online communities. “Online community” is one of the buzzwords in the age of Web 2.0. Within this article, we refer to online community as a voluntary group of users who partake actively in a certain computer-mediated service. The term “online community” is preferred over the term “virtual community,” as it denotes the character of the community more accurately: community members are interacting online as opposed to face-to-face. Furthermore, the term “virtual community” seems too unspecific, because it includes other communities that only exist virtually, whereas, an online community in our definition is always a real community in the sense that community members know that they are a part of their community. Nevertheless, there are other reasonable definitions of online community. An early and most influencing characterization (which unfortunately utilizes the term “virtual community”) was coined by Howard Rheingold (1994). He wrote: “…virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace. A virtual community is a group of people […] who exchanges words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks” (p. 57). A more elaborate and technical definition of online community is given by Jenny Preece (2000), which acts as a benchmark for developers since then. She states that an online community consists of four basic constituents (Preece, 2000, p. 3): • Socially interacting people striving to satisfy their own needs; • A shared purpose like an interest or need that provides a reason to cooperate; • Policies in the form of tacit assumptions, rituals, or rules that guide the community members’ behavior; and • A technical system that works as a carrier that mediates social interaction. Not explicitly mentioned in this characterization, but nevertheless crucial for our aforementioned definition (and not in opposition to Preece’s position), is voluntary engagement (see also Janneck, Finck, & Oberquelle, 2005). As Preece’s (2000) definition indicates, the basic constituents of online communities include individual issues, group-related issues, as well as technology-related issues. Online communities thus comprise the participants’ basic individual motivation, the social interaction processes entailed to “bundle” individual needs to increase efficiency, and the implemented technical functions that support these processes. In the light of the aforementioned role of social processes, it is not surprising that, with respect to online communities, findings from voluntary groups of active user communities outside computer-based systems are also a highly relevant source of information (see e.g., Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In the section devoted to online community building, we will present Kraut’s (2003) suggestion of a highly-sophisticated application of social psychology theory to address some well-known problems in online communities.


Author(s):  
Patrick Waterson

The subject of how to encourage people to share their knowledge has long been a theme within the domain of knowledge management. Early studies showed that company employees, for example, are often reluctant to share their knowledge (e.g., Ciborra & Patriota, 1998). A number of possible reasons exist for why this takes place, including: lack of personal incentives to share expertise; an organizational culture that does not reward or encourage sharing; and lack of trust that shared knowledge will be put to good use (e.g., fear of exploitation). Research identifying these types of barriers to effective knowledge management is well established (e.g., Brown & Duguid, 2000); however, within the context of online communities it is more recent. The term “online community” tends to be applied in a general sense to refer to large-scale groups that regularly exchange information through mechanisms such as e-mail, weblogs, discussion lists and Wikis. These types of communities can take a variety of forms, some of which mix face-to-face contact with computer-mediated interaction (e.g., some types of “communities of practice,” CoPs), while others are more likely to be wholly online and involve people who have never met (e.g., “networks of


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregor Petrič ◽  
Andraž Petrovčič

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how decisions of managers and administrators of online communities on norms and rules affect the sense of virtual community (SOVC), which is an important factor of the quality of online information. Design/methodology/approach – The study followed a two-level research design based on 970 online community members, nested within 36 online communities. Data collection consisted of two stages: first a web survey of a sample of online community members was conducted, followed by a web survey of administrators of the same online communities. A two-level hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. Findings – The empirical results suggest that prominence of rules under the condition of members’ participation in their creation, presence of reputation mechanisms, and content moderation contribute significantly to the SOVC , while presence of lighter sanctions and interactive moderation do not. Research limitations/implications – Since this study is based on web forums, the validity of the proposed hypotheses for other types of online communities cannot be firmly established. Additional elements of online community management could be considered for a stronger system-level explanation of the SOVC. Practical implications – The study demonstrates that online community administrators need to be considerate in creating and enforcing norms, as their decisions have an impact on the SOVC and consequently on the quality of online information. Originality/value – The literature considers many factors of the SOVC but none of the previous studies have considered how community management is associated with this phenomenon.


Author(s):  
Enrique Murillo

Social Network Analysis (SNA) provides a range of models particularly well suited for mapping bonds between participants in online communities and thus reveal prominent members or subgroups. This can yield valuable insights for selecting a theoretical sample of participants or participant interactions in qualitative studies of communities. This chapter describes a procedure for collecting data from Usenet newsgroups, deriving the social network created by participant interaction, and importing this relational data into SNA software, where various cohesion models can be applied. The technique is exemplified by performing a longitudinal core periphery analysis of a specific newsgroup, which identified core members and provided clear evidence of a stable online community. Discussions dominated by core members are identified next, to guide theoretical sampling of text-based interactions in an ongoing ethnography of the community.


Author(s):  
Glenn T. Tsunokai ◽  
Allison R. McGrath

Technological innovations in computer-mediated communication have helped hate groups to transform themselves into virtual communities. Likeminded individuals are now able to unite from all parts of the globe to promote hatred against visible minorities and other out-groups. Through their online interactions, a sense of place is often created. In this chapter, we explore the content and function of online hate communities. Since bigotry tends to be the cornerstone of virtual hate communities, we highlight the legal debate surrounding the regulation of Internet hate speech; in particular, we address the question: Does the First Amendment protect virtual community members who use the Internet to advocate hate? Next, using data collected from the largest hate website, Stormfront.org, we also investigate how Stormfront members utilize interactive media features to foster a sense of community. Finally, we direct our attention to the future of online hate communities by outlining the issues that need to be further investigated.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-112
Author(s):  
Sarah S. List ◽  
Jane Warland ◽  
Colleen Smith

Purpose – With less time spent on campus, students are increasingly forming peer friendship and study groups either face to face or online. Communities of practice (CoP) with academic support in the wings could benefit students, but little is known in the about their use in the undergraduate space, or how best they may be structured and facilitated (Andrew et al., 2008). The purpose of this paper is to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – An online CoP was created in partnership with undergraduate bachelor of midwifery students at the University of South Australia using an action research model. This provided an ongoing ability to continuously plan, act, observe and evaluate all aspects of the community created, so that adjustments could be made during the two cycles of the study. Findings – The time paucity of the cohort impacted on their ability to participate fully as partners in the project, and in the community itself. The Facebook community received more visitation than the Weebly community. The student panel reported that despite the online CoP fitting better with their schedules, they would prefer more opportunities to interact face to face with their peers. Research limitations/implications – Students who spend limited time on campus may prefer more real life social contact and support, despite the convenience of an online community. A larger cohort, drawing from a non-professional degree would have allowed greater membership and community participation for a prospective study such as this. Practical implications – Remote study is a growing phenomenon, and students need to feel socially connected and supported to remain enroled and engaged. Social implications – There has been much discussion around the amount of time individuals spend online, and whether support groups formed by students on social media support student learning, or encourage unprofessional behaviours without academic support present. Originality/value – This study reports that online communities are not always a logical solution to time poor students, and they may prefer face to face interactions to build their social and professional relationship.


Author(s):  
Jing Zheng ◽  
Mark J. Jakiela

The threaded online, also known as “forum,” collaboration method is widely used by open source software projects. As open source and Crowdsourcing [3] design approaches gain attention, there is a need to explore whether the threaded online method would compete with the more traditional method, face to face, in mechanical engineering design in terms of productivity. Our experiment shows that with a suitably sized challenge, the threaded online method does generate about equal productivity as the face-to-face method. However, the participation rates are lower in the threaded online method and the participants’ satisfaction with the experience was also less. This suggests that additional communication mechanisms are needed to facilitate the threaded online method, and management mechanisms should be imposed. We also identified two phenomena that warrant further investigation. The first is what we call “inertia loafing.” Enthusiasm among online community members is fragile. A small drop in satisfaction level can cause many to become unwilling to participate. The second is that an online community tends to have two kinds of members: “players” who are responsible for most content creation; and “cheer leaders” who provide feedback or provide an assisting function.


2011 ◽  
pp. 243-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Storck ◽  
Lauren E. Storck

The phrase “leading from behind” is borrowed from group analytic theory, an important branch of group psychology. For some, the phrase may be pejorative: an effective leader is normally in front of group members, not taking a position behind them. However, for large online Communities of Practice, leading from behind and trusting the group is an important strategy. This chapter focuses on how a leader develops the capacity to trust the group. Recognizing that groups of people are powerful and creative organisms that can be trusted is difficult for a leader. For Freud, who thought of groups as unthinking, primitive mobs and for modern managers, who are taught the value of using teams with specific objectives and limited life spans, the idea of unstructured, dispersed collections of people making decisions or taking action is an anathema. Learning to trust the knowledge of a large group takes training, practice and courage. We ground our conclusions in an empirical analysis of the leadership of one large online Community of Practice. Using archives of discussions among community members, we develop leadership principles that support the “leading from behind” approach. We use these data to suggest how managers can lead online communities to form the trusting relationships that are essential for effective knowledge sharing and innovation.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Kuei Huang ◽  
Wen I. Yang

Purpose – The aim of this paper was to investigate word-of-mouth communication behavior and other interactions between bloggers writing book testimonials and their community of readers in order to develop a method and strategy for enhancing word-of-mouth communication about books. Design/methodology/approach – This study conducted a netnographic investigation to explore word-of-mouth communication and interactions about new books between bloggers and their community of readers. Netnography is a qualitative approach for exploring the information exchange among online community members. Findings – It was found that personality traits, testimonials, and the responses of community readers to bloggers affected word-of-mouth related to books. Exposure to testimonials with commercial characteristics will not necessarily hinder the word-of-mouth about books. Practical implications – These results may provide a reference for publishers or related businesses that sell books or products via blogs during the planning of their marketing strategies. Originality/value – Businesses value the effects of online communities on marketing communication. This study provides insights into the communication between bloggers and their community of readers by demonstrating how word-of-mouth affects the promotion of books. This could facilitate the selection of relevant recommendations by management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document