Closed offline communities open up in virtual world

CLOSED OFFLINE COMMUNITIES OPEN UP IN VIRTUAL WORLD

A study of participant’s interaction in the virtual science communities

Daivata Chavan-Patil
Assistant Professor
Department of Communication and Journalism,
University of Mumbai
daivata.c@gmail.com

Closed offline communities open up in virtual world 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Individuals use virtual communities to discuss shared interests (communities of interest), to
develop social relations (communities of relationships) and to explore new identities
(communities of fantasy) (see Hagel & Armstrong). These online community discussions can
serve as public space for the community and its participants and can indeed build social
capital.

The growth of the global computer network known as the Internet1 has facilitated the rapid
emergence of online interactions of dispersed groups of people with shared interests forming
various virtual communities2.3 Political sociologist Robert Bellah and his colleagues
conceived of a community as “a group of people who are socially interdependent, who
participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain practices that
both define the community and are nurtured by it” (1985, p. 333)4

According to writer Elizabeth Reid, Internet users constitute a social network who share a
common language, a shared web of virtual and textual significances that are substitutes for,
and yet distinct from, the shared networks of meaning in the wider community. These users
when participate in virtual communities link globally with kindred souls for companionship,
information, and social support. 5

Internet has provided relatively low-cost, easy-access, and far-reaching networks, dispersed
across the globe, that provide flows of vast amounts of information. Decentralized nodules
along communication networks are easily created, constructed, and rhizomatically spread to
deterritorialized "virtual public spheres"-cyber salons, cafes, and meeting places in

1
Internet is the infrastructure and uses of the global network of computers, or what is generally defined as the
"network of networks (Uimonen 2001).
2
A virtual community is defined herein as an aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact
around a shared interest, where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and
guided by some protocols or norms (Lee et al., 2003; Preece, 2000).
3
Peterson, S. M. (2002). The Anthropology of Online Communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 31 ,
449-467.
4
Sasha A. Barab, R. K. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge
University Press (p.7-16).
5
Barry Wellman, J. S. (1996). Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and
Virtual. Annual Review of Sociology , 213-238.

Science Meets Communication/ Bridging the gap: scientists and the masses/ISCC 2009/Dec20-24, 2009


cyberspace where people and information intersect in virtual communities or subcultures
(Wellman, Milena, and Hampton 2003; Wellman and Milena 1999). The communities that
are organized in cyberspace6 are just as real to the participants as face-to-face relationships.
Here, people can gain or provide information as well as debate and negotiate interpretations
of reality and/or critiques of the social. Such interactions foster and/or recognize new forms
of identity whose performative expressions include organizing actions and using the Internet
to coordinate with other groups. Cyberspace has been easily adapted and embraced as an
essential aspect of resistance struggles, beginning with news forums, interactive websites,
and/or personal weblogs (blogs).7

When computer networks link people as well as machines, they become social networks,
which we call computer-supported social networks (Henceforth CSSNs). Such CSSNs are
becoming important bases of virtual communities, computer-supported cooperative work, and
8
tele-work. Research in this approach links the technical characteristics of Computer
Mediated Communication (Henceforth CMC) to task group outcomes such as increased
participation, more egalitarian participation, and more ideas offered, and less centralized
leadership (Hiltz et al 1986, Kiesler et al 1984, Rice 1987, Adrianson & Hjelmquist 1991,
Weisband et al 1995). Limited social presence may also encourage people to communicate
more freely and creatively than they do in person, at times "flaming" others by using extreme,
aggressive language (Kiesler et al, 1984). Although groups supported by CMC often produce
higher quality ideas, reaching agreement can be a lengthy and more complex process as the
greater number of ideas and the lack of status cues hinder group coordination (Hiltz et al
1986, Kiesler & Sproull 1992, Valacich et al 1993). However, status cues are not completely
absent, as social information is conveyed through language use, e-mail address, and
signatures (Walther 1992). As messages are often visibly copied to others, they also indicate
social network connections. Some participants prefer in-person contact to CMC for
ambiguous, socially sensitive, and intellectually difficult interactions (Culnan & Markus

6
Cyberspace is a monolithic cyber reality which is everywhere yet nowhere, as free-floating as a cloud.
(Economist 2001, p. 9). Gibson famously defined cyberspace as a space apart from the corporeal world
7
Langman, L. (Mar., 2005). From Virtual Public Spheres to Global Justice: A Critical Theory of Internetworked
Social. Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1 , 42-74.
8
CSSNs began in the 1960s when the US Defense Department's Advanced Projects Research Agency developed
ARPANET to link large university computers and some of their users (Cerf 1993). The Electronic Information
Exchange System, modeled after a government emergency communications network, started supporting
computerized conferences of scientific researchers (including social network analysts) in the mid-1970s
(Freeman 1986, Hiltz & Turoff 1993).



1987, Daft & Lengel 1986, Rice 1987, Fish et al 1993, Jones 1995). However, CMC is also
used to maintain social distance, document contentious issues, or when the message involves
fear, dislike, awkwardness, or intimidation (Markus 1994a, Walther 1996). Much CMC
research has been individualistic and technologically deterministic, assuming a single person
rationally choosing among media (Lea 1991). To go beyond this, some CMC analysts now
consider how social relationships, organizational structures, and local norms affect the use of
communication media (Finholt & Sproull 1990, Orlikowsi et al 1995, Huber 1990, Markus
1990, 1994b, Sproull & Kiesler 1991, Lea et al 1995, Orlikowski et al 1996b, Zack &
McKenney 1995).

Much of the communication on CSSNs involves the exchange of information. The nature of
the medium supports a focus on information exchanges, as people can easily post a question
or comment and receive information in return. CSSNs increases the chances of finding
information quickly and alter the distribution patterns of information. It gives those working
in small or distant sites better access to experienced, skilled people (Constant et al 1996).
However, as anyone can contribute information to most newsgroups and distribution lists, the
Net can be a repository of misleading information and bad advice (Foderaro 1995). Such
worries discount the fact that people have always given each other advice about their bodies,
psyches, families, or computers (e.g. Wellman 1995, Kadushin 1987). The Net has just made
the process more accessible and more visible to others, including experts whose claims to
monopolies on advice are threatened (Abbott 1988). The flow of information through CSSNs
itself generates access to new information. On-line information flows spill over unexpectedly
through message forwarding, providing access to more people and new social circles, thus
increasing the probability of finding those who can solve problems (Kraut & Attewell 1993).
People often bump into new information or new sources of information unintentionally
through" leaky... quasi social networlds"(Brent 1994:on-line). Information obtained
serendipitously helps solve problems before they occur.9

CSSNs are especially suited to maintaining intermediate-strength ties between people who
cannot see each other frequently. On-line relationships are based more on shared interests and
less on shared social characteristics. Although many relationships function off-line as well as

9
Ibid 5



on-line, CSSNs are developing norms and structures of their own. They are not just pale
imitations of real life.10

Online interaction overwhelmingly takes place by means of discourse. That is, participants
interact by means of verbal language, usually typed on a keyboard and read as text on a
computer screen. It is possible to lose sight of this fundamental fact at times, given the
complex behaviors people engage in on the Internet, from forming interpersonal relationships
(Baker, 1998) to implementing systems of group governance (Dibbell, 1993; Kolko & Reid,
1998). Yet these behaviors are constituted through and by means of discourse: language is
doing, in the truest performative sense, on the Internet, where physical bodies (and their
actions) are technically lacking (Kolko, 1995). Of course, many online relationships also
have an offline component, and as computer-mediated communication becomes increasingly
multimodal, semiotic systems in addition to text are becoming available for conveying
meaning and “doing things” online (cf. Austin, 1962). Nonetheless, textual communication
remains an important online activity, one that seems destined to continue for the foreseeable
future. This research describes an approach to researching online interactive behavior known
as Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (Henceforth CMDA) in the virtual science
communities. CMDA applies methods adapted from language-focused disciplines such as
linguistics, communication, and rhetoric to the analysis of computer-mediated
communication (Herring, 2001). It may be supplemented by surveys, interviews,
ethnographic observation, or other methods; it may involve qualitative or quantitative
analysis; but what defines CMDA at its core is the analysis of logs of verbal interaction
(characters, words, utterances, messages, exchanges, threads, archives, etc.). In the broadest
sense, any analysis of online behavior that is grounded in empirical, textual observations is
computer-mediated discourse analysis.11

CMDA broadly takes into following four domains of language:
Phenomena Issues Methods
typography, orthography, genre characteristics, orality, Structural/Descripti
Structure morphology, syntax, discourse efficiency, expressivity, ve Linguistics, Text
schemata complexity Analysis

10
Ibid 5
11
‘Textual’ is intended here broadly, to include any form of language, spoken or written, that can be captured
and studied in textual form.



what the speaker intends, what
meaning of words, utterances Semantics,
Meaning is accomplished through
(speech acts), macrosegments Pragmatics
language
interactivity, timing, coherence, Conversation
turns, sequences, exchanges,
Interaction interaction as co-constructed, Analysis,
threads
topic development Ethnomethodology
linguistic expressions of status, Interactional
Social conflict, negotiation, face- social dynamics, power, Sociolinguistics,
behavior management, play; discourse influence, identity Critical Discourse
styles, etc. Analysis

Participation, while not a level of linguistic analysis per se, constitutes a fifth domain, in
which the phenomena of interest are number of messages and responses and message and
thread length. Such numbers can be interpreted to address social issues such as power,
influence, engagement, roles, and hierarchy. Participation is not associated with a particular
set of discourse analysis methods, but rather with descriptive statistics (i.e., the phenomena
are simply counted).12

How CMDA can be applied to investigate virtual community:
Online learning settings such as professional development environments where people
participate voluntarily and intermittently—i.e., for the purpose of acquiring information and
skills to advance professionally—rather than in formal courses with students, instructors, and
syllabi, as is the case for distance education, CMDA is applied. In successful cases,
participation in such environments is continuous and self-sustaining, unlike course-based
CMC which is task-focused and temporally bounded. An example of a genre of professional
development environment that dates back to the early days of computer networking is listserv
discussion groups for professionals in academic disciplines (Hert, 1997; Korenman & Wyatt,
1996). A more recent example is the growing genre of professional development websites
that combine discussion forums with access to documents and other online resources
(Renninger). In a CMDA study by Herring, she studied such two environments as
illustrations. The first, the Linguist List, was founded in November 1990 by a husband and

12
Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis: An approach to researching online behavior, In
Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. New York, Cambridge University Press



wife team of academic linguists as a means for disseminating information and engaging in
public discussion about issues of interest to professional (and aspiring professional) linguists;
it has been in continuous existence since 1990. Originally a text-only, by-subscription list that
made archived messages available only to subscribers, in 1994 it established a website and
posted the discussion archives there, making them widely publicly accessible.13 For further i

description and analysis of the Linguist List, see Herring (1992, 1996b). The second
environment, the Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF), was opened to registered members in March
2000. It was designed with National Science Foundation support by a team of faculty and
graduate students in the School of Education at Indiana University, with the explicit goal of
fostering online community among secondary math and science in-service and pre-service
teachers interested in the inquiry learning approach (National Research Council, 2000).
Members must go to the ILF website to post messages and access the other resources there
(which include videos of teachers using inquiry methods in their classrooms); past messages
remain on the site alongside current messages. For further description and analysis of the ILF,
see Barab, MaKinster, & Scheckler, Herring, Martinson & Scheckler (2002). Both these
environments bring together people who arguably already constitute real-world professional
communities: academic linguists and secondary math and science educators. Second, their
online participation is centered on a shared professional focus, as in Wenger’s (1998)
‘“communities of practice.’” Third, the Linguist List is active and long-lived, which some
might take as prima facie evidence that it has achieved online community status. In contrast,
the ILF has struggled to establish and maintain an active level of participation, but might be
considered to have a prima facie claim to community status on the grounds that it was
explicitly designed to support community (Barab, MaKinster, Moore, Cunningham, & The
ILF Design Team, in press). This research talks about the knowledge generation and sharing
amongst participants on these virtual science communities and therefore to investigate the
topic in detail the researcher will delve into following research questions:

13
The Linguist List has subsequently expanded its Web presence, coming to serve as an electronic clearing
house for language- and linguistics-related resources.



Aim:
To find out knowledge generation and sharing amongst participants on virtual science
community.

Research questions:
a) How are the tools of new media changing the contexts and frames of communicative
practices?
b) How does technology enhance or displace discourses and practices of tradition?
c) Whether members discuss science related issues or such CMC was completely out of
context?
d) Whether these online communities bridge the gap between scientists and
academicians and other people especially those who are inquisitive?

Assumptions:
a) Although, there is heterogeneity in the participants, these members are participating in
discussion with a common goal/objective.
b) Individuals within these communities are simultaneously part of other interacting
communities, societies, or cultures.
c) Inter-networked computers are cultural products that exist in the social and political
worlds within which they were developed, and they are not exempt from the rules and
norms of those worlds.

Limitations:

a) Due to time constraint the researcher could not finish the participant’s survey by
email questionnaire technique which she originally intended to.
b) The method used by nature is qualitative and includes researcher bias although much
care has been taken to avoid it.
c) The sampling technique used was purposive and therefore sampling error cannot be
calculated.
d) Non-probability sampling techniques do not ensure population representativeness
hence conclusions cannot be generalized to a larger set of population.



e) The identities of the members of the community mentioned on their respective
profiles are assumed to be true and the conclusions drawn are based on this
assumption.
f) The researcher is not a science student and therefore her knowledge of scientific terms
is limited. Although she has tried her level best to understand the scientific issues
discussed on these forums from the concerned sources.

Delimitations:
a) The multiple identities and negotiated roles individuals have within different
sociopolitical and cultural contexts are not studied.
b) The prime focus of the CMDA will be on second domain i.e. meaning, the other
domains will also be considered but not in very much detail.

Methodology: Qualitative

Method: Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis

Sampling design:
For the purpose of the study, www.orkut.com, a social networking site was chosen. The site
is very popular in India.14 Purposive sampling of non- probability sampling technique was
used. The population can be defined as the entire science and technology community. The
sampling frame was the community titled “Before the Big-Bang”. The researcher selected
‘successful’15 thread for the study. The sample studied consisted of 614 exchanges that took
place in the period starting from 27th Oct 2009 to 5th December 2009.
The texts studied in this study come from a corpus of these exchanges chosen from the thread
titled ‘Crushing all the hell about God and such others’
(http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#CommMsgs?cmm=537492&tid=5397076610731047825&na=
1&nst=1). These exchanges lasted from 50 words to 350 words barring three exceptions
which were of 500 words approximately. The specific exchanges studied here constitute only
a small portion of their daily communication through this medium. None of the data was
collected through deceptive means (e.g., by contacting a member and pretending to be
14
Source: Internet and Mobile Association of India reports. (see www.iamai.in)
15
The one that had maximum number of posts/comments by users and also the one which had latest comment
on it and showed active messaging until Dec 5th 2009



interested in meeting). In order to protect members' privacy, personal information such as
sexual orientation, photographs, and other personally identifiable data were not recorded or
copied. Socio-biographic information (i.e., gender, age, location) was simply noted for each
of the personal narratives, which were copied and pasted into a text file for further review.
Following data collection, the text files were reviewed, and each occurrence of textual
conversation was identified and coded. Three coders coded these data. Inter-coder reliability
was tested. A common code sheet was given to them to take note of cues in the
posts/comments. This code sheet was entered and analyzed using SPSS software.

ANALYSIS:
The Social and Linguistic Environment of Orkut
Orkut is a social networking site. Membership is freely available with the registration of a
valid email address. Members create a profile that includes a variety of personal information
(e.g., age, gender, location, zodiac sign, hair color, hobbies, profession, interests, etc.), as
well as a personal narrative. The socio-biographic information and physical descriptors are
chosen from a series of drop-down menus and/or by checking boxes. This information is
stored by the site, and it is searchable by other members. Additionally the site has allowed
users to make their own virtual communities according to their interests. These communities
may or may not be moderated. Any user wanting to interact/discuss/share or ask about
various issues can do so by joining these communities and meet like-minded people.
Basic features of the speakers' identity were gathered from their user profiles, it must be
noted that, many of them used nicknames and were not ready to reveal their actual identities
online. Certain patterns were observed, those who were relatively in the younger age group
i.e. between 16-25 used nicknames and the ones who were in the age group of 45 and above
revealed their identities. Additionally, there was no way one can check upon the truthfulness
of the information they give about themselves. The information gathered from the data itself
and user profiles suggests that 33% participants belong to a homogeneous 16-25 age group
(see Figure 1, Appendix I). In addition, most exchanges involve male to male interaction.
Only 9% females participated (see Figure 2, Appendix I). Although it must be pointed out
once more that CMC is well-known for the ability it offers to participants to construct virtual
identities, which may not bear any relation to their actual social characteristics (e.g., Jones,
1997; Rheingold 1993). As a result, sampling for age, sex and profession is not easy, unless
in experimental situations at the expense of naturalness. Furthermore, it is not always clear
whether these characteristics become relevant for the participants themselves or whether they


can be disentangled from generic characteristics, granted that most CMC genres are
exclusively employed by young people in their everyday interactions. Thus, a fuller
discussion of social parameters would require a more extensive research outlook.

Interactional behavior of the members:
Interactional behaviours show activities, such as thanking, recounting personal experiences,
and expressing admiration and encouragement. However, the language used is lacking in
politeness features and uses much jargon. If these communities are viewed through the lens
of theories of politeness, one possible implication of this study is that a major tenet of Brown
and Levinson's (1987) theory can be challenged with respect to its applicability to online
environments. There are contexts where people may not need to be concerned with face
management. Moreover, one's negative face, or desire for freedom from imposition, is less
likely to be threatened in anonymous open-access interactions, in that not being mindful of
other participants does not have as great a consequence these environments. Entering an
anonymous post can itself be an act of entry into a world of less imposition, where negative
face is not as likely to be damaged as in the post that reveals identity. At the same time,
posting messages can be an act of enhancing one's positive face, as one's messages can be
read by a large number of participants. These may be among the motivations for people to
engage in such activities. It was identified that possible determinants of linguistic variation
across these posts, including difference in discussion topics, and asserted that overall
language styles can explain different degrees of sense of community.

Language used:
The youngest age group disfavors the use of formal language, while the middle and older
groups favor more formal presentation. This difference may be explained by the fact that
many of the men and women in the 16-25 year age group were students, and they may have
been more inclined than their older counterparts to use informal or everyday language even in
a static, "written" environment. In addition, those participants in the 26-35 year age group
used a combination of formal and informal language because many of them have begun their
careers and may therefore feel the need to use a more careful style of discourse across
situations.

Tone of the communication:



The interaction style was mostly both positive and negative (see Figure 3, Appendix I). 56%
of the total posts led to conflict (see Figure 4, Appendix I). The language used to begin any
thread was mostly group out i.e. a third person account using words such as they, you, etc
(Figure 5, Appendix I) 57% used group out style. First or second person address personalizes
the text, which was observed in less number of posts. However, the language used was
mostly conversational style. Even though the communication took place in a virtual
community, participants tried to establish personal relationship and were interacting inter-
personally. This they did by directly addressing to the person concerned when the sender
wrote any text by writing receiver’s name. Females mostly used group out techniques and
males interacted in a more comfortable manner with each other.

More research is needed that addresses individual motivations for using selected linguistic
forms, as these analyses would almost certainly prove insightful in explaining the patterns of
sociolinguistic and pragmatic variation observed in CMC environments.

Discussion patterns:
A prominent feature of these exchanges noted is the frequent and abrupt introduction of new
topics and endings. Werry (1996) suggests that "successive, independent speech acts are
simply juxtaposed, and different topics interwoven" (p. 51), resulting in rapid shifts. Collot
and Belmore (1996) also consider that this "easy interaction of participants and alternation of
topics" (p. 14) characterize electronic interaction in general. However, this should not lead us
to conclude that virtual community interactions are totally haphazard or lack organization. In
contrast, participants seem to follow an implicit orientation to structure, which can be
summarized in Table 1:
PHASES PARTS NOTES

Opening Starts with greeting, self identification Uses conversational style
and self description

Main body Introduction/continuation/discussion Missing in some threads
/development of the topic

Closing Arrangements for future interaction Sometimes ends abrupt
Pre-closing greetings Missing in some threads


These messages show an orientation towards an opening, a main body and a closing phase, of
which only the first is found in all exchanges. These phases consist of parts with a fixed
position and free elements that may occur anywhere in the structure. The latter appear in all
exchanges and have two different functions: to engage in conversational play and check the
channel of communication. It must not be assumed from Table 1 that any exchange would
exhibit this generic structure in full. A full analysis of the structural schemas of all 614
exchanges shows that most interactions contain only a few of the parts indicated above. This
suggests an interesting parallel with other genres of CMC, such as, e.g., Herring's (1996)
finding about email messages that "participants are aiming at an ideal message schema" (p.
90). Table 1 reflects precisely such an "ideal message schema" in its fullest realization.
Although there are obvious and significant differences between asynchronous and
synchronous CMC, what this schema points to is the common pre-occupation of participants
in CMC genres with the organization of their contributions. The generic structure of a CMC
genre should thus be seen as the constellation of medium and other constraints as well as of
individual creative acts into a schema reflecting the participants' orientation towards
organization.
To further discuss generic structure, the only obligatory phase in the schema is the opening of
the interaction, which revolves around the only obligatory part of the structure, self-
identification. This part necessarily appears in conversations taking place for the first time,
that is, in cases where the participants did not have a previous discussion, and stems from the
requirements of the medium. It may also occur later, as in exchange number 415 in the data,
where real names are exchanged. In the opening phase, it is also common to have a greeting
part (cf. Cherny, 1999, p. 204 ff.) and, less commonly, a self-description part especially if
he/she thinks that he/she has more credibility and authority to talk about the topic in
discussion (language used was mainly like: as I am a science student, Being a teacher in this
field, I am working here from the past five year’s, etc).
The main body and closing phases are optional and can be significantly shortened or even left
out altogether. This is, no doubt, surprising, at least for the main body, but can be accounted
for by the informal character of online conversation, which allows interlocutors to withdraw
from the interaction whenever they want. As a result, only the initial, "investigative" phase
may occur before an aborted conversation. The main body phase opens with either a
comment on earlier post or starts a new topic altogether. 65 % of the messages were within
the context, meaning they were related to the central theme of the discussion (see Fig 6,
Appendix I). Even if the topic gets closed after five or six posts, any new member when joins


in opens up the old conversation with new ideas. Data in written form allows it to be saved
and hence is used in further interactions.
To move on, in the closing phase there is usually a pre-closing announcement by one of the
participants (cf. Scollon's 1998 'pre-emptive closure') and a closing greeting. Although there
is an attempt to establish a closing exchange even in exchanges with no main body (e.g.
exchange 386), these exchanges can break off at any point (e.g. exchange 392). In these
cases, the closing phase involves an abrupt ending, where sometimes the participant does not
signal the ending. This skeletal presentation of the generic schema points to the fact that
participants orient their contribution towards an ideal structure schema, in which these
members are primarily concerned with establishing contact with each other and sharing
information. The fact that the main body phase may be absent would seem unthinkable in
other genres such as telephone conversation, but can be easily understood in the context of
online discourse. The generic schema indicates that self-identification is a prerequisite for the
occurrence of the other parts; the latter may be omitted, if the interlocutors do not want to
continue with the interaction. Similarly, whereas the closing phase can be left out altogether,
any exchange that does not have a well-developed opening phase is problematic. In
conclusion, the arrangement of phases and parts reflects a primarily interpersonal concern for
engaging in or disengaging from CMC, whereas conversation 'itself' i.e., the (ideational)
exchange of thematic content seems to be a less pressing need.

Flow of the communication:
Of the total 614 posts: 14% posts asked queries, 6% offered solutions, 5% were abusive in
their style of writing, 7 % tried dominating the discussion, 8% debated over various issues
sometime in positive and sometimes in negative tones. 8% disagreed to other members
comments and the other 8% tried negotiating their ideas with fellow community members.
However, 20% of them shared their information with others and 8% compared various
threads and gave their inputs, only 3% of them tried to resolve the arguments and were
balancing the flow of the communication. 16% of the threads were not relevant to the topic
being discussed, 2% of the posts were marketing ones (where members are trying to market
some product or services) and the final 3% were totally out of context (see Fig 7, appendix I).

Participant’s role:
52% of the total posts appeared as thought leaders and the remaining and 48% facilitated the
conversation ((see Fig 8, appendix I).


INFERENCES:
The success or failure in online communication is related to the management of these frames,
in which interpersonal relations figure prominently. Informal linguistic forms are used as a
means of creating interpersonal relationship and extract information. The durability of the
textual word on the computer screen helps participants associate with each other more easily.
This claim is supported by the common practice of CMC-users to open several chat-windows
together, and follow all of them at the same time (Turkle, 1995). Turkle’s informants report
the ease with which this division of attention is accomplished, and clearly one important
reason for this ease is the simple fact that the different conversations (or textual narratives)
are located in different areas of the screen. Thus, the visual ability of the user to take in a
spatially complex picture at any given moment helps him note immediately which window is
active, and to sort out the different happenings in the different chatrooms in which he is
participating.16
With some practice, participants develop an ability to differentiate among the different
threads within this stream; they can follow and contribute to one or more of these threads
(Herring, 1999). Thus, these conversations resemble a stereotypical cocktail party (or a
dinner table), in which several conversations take place concomitantly, but in which skillful
participants can follow and take part in more than one of the conversations. In an auditory
situation, on the other hand, one can admittedly catch his name in a conversation going on in
another part of the room, but the rule is that we do not, and cannot, follow more than one
conversation line for a substantial period of time.
It is also observed that conflicts are not resolved in these communities. Members join and end
abruptly. Only 2% teachers and 1% scientists participated in the community (see Fig 9,
Appendix I). When it comes to discussing or debating, members get abusive. The ones who
get abusive often do not reveal their identity. They post anonymously. Information flow from
females is very less, most of the times they join just to introduce themselves and do not
contribute by sharing information.
Some posts also talked about existence of God. Users of these posts were trying to negotiate
scientific meanings and were trying to convince fellow participants about the existence of
God. If a profile picture depicted an aged person, greetings to that person were observed to be
in a respectful manner (The person was addressed as Sir in most of the cases).

16
Dresner, E. (2005). The Topology of Auditory and Visual Perception, Linguistic Communication, and
Interactive Written Discourse. Retrieved Dec 8, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:
http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2005/161



The study further reconfirms that young people are most tech savvy (Dresner, 1996). And
therefore, these virtual communities can act as a platform to reach to these audiences and
communicate with them. Knowledge is shared irrespective of geographical boundaries. The
study has not observed offline discourse and hence the researcher is not in position to
compare knowledge sharing between offline and online communities.
We see that the innovative medium—interactive written communication—leads to another
innovation, defined not in technological terms, but rather in terms of the communication
pattern: online communication enables a conversation situation where all participants are
continually perceptually aware of more than one conversation line. These two distinct
(although related) novelties of computer-mediated communication are usually not sufficiently
distinguished from one another. Once they are distinguished, however, we may inquire about
the relationship between the two: Why does interactive written discourse enable such ‘multi-
focal’ conversation?

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Journals:

Barab Sasha A, K. R. (2004). In Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 7-16).
Cambridge University Press.

Barry Wellman, J. S. (1996). Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and
Virtual. Annual Review of Sociology , 213-238.

Carroli, L. (1997). Virtual Encounters: Community or Collaboration on the Internet? Leonardo (pp. 359-363).
New York: The MIT Press.

Clarke, C. (2004, Jun). The Politics of Storytelling: Electronic Media in Archaeological Interpretation and
Education. World Archaeology, Vol. 36, No. 2, Archaeological Pedagogies , pp. 275-286.

Coyne, R. (1994). Heidegger and Virtual Reality: The Implications of Heidegger's Thinking for Computer.
Leonardo, Vol. 27, No. 1 , pp. 65-73.

Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis: An approach to researching online behavior, In
Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. New York, Cambridge University Press

Jacobson, D. (1996). Contexts and Cues in Cyberspace: The Pragmatics of Naming in Text-Based Virtual
Realities. Journal of Anthropological Research , 461-479.

Kawakami, O. F. (1991, Mar). Media Use as Predictors of Political Behavior: The Case of Japan. Political
Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 1 , pp. 65-80.



Kirby, D. A. (2003, Apr). Science Consultants, Fictional Films, and Scientific Practice. Social Studies
of Science, Vol. 33, No. 2 , pp. 231-268.

Langman, L. (Mar., 2005). From Virtual Public Spheres to Global Justice: A Critical Theory of Internetworked
Social. Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1 , 42-74.

McIlvenny, P. (1996, Mar). Heckling in Hyde Park: Verbal Audience Participation in Popular Public Discourse.
Language in Society, Vol. 25, No. 1 , pp. 27-60.

Metros, S. E. (1999). Making Connections: A Model for On-Line Interaction. Leonardo, Vol. 32, No. 4 , pp.
281-291.

Monge, G. D. (1999, Nov - Dec). Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual
Organizations. Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 6 , pp. 693-703.

Nambisan, S. (2002, July). Designing Virtual Customer Environments for New Product Development: Toward a
Theory. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 3 , pp. 392-413.

Peterson, S. M. (2002). The Anthropology of Online Communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 31 ,
449-467.

Porter, C. E. (2004). A Typology of Virtual Communities:A Multi-Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research
. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol 10, Issue 1 .

Ricœur, P. (1976). In Interpretation theory: discourse and the surplus of meaning (p. 12). Texas Christian
University Press.

Steven R. Thomsen, J. D. (1998, July). Ethnomethodology and the study of online communities: exploring the
cyber streets. Information Research, Vol. 4 No. 1 .

Websites:
Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and Limitations of Discourse-Centred Online Ethnography . Retrieved
Dec 6, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2008/1610

Bergs, A. (2006). Analyzing Online Communication from a Social Network Point of View:. Retrieved Dec 8,
2009, from www.languageatinternet.de: http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2006/371

Compernolle, R. A. (2008). Language Variation in Online Personal Ads from Quebec: The Case of ne.
Retrieved Dec 8, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de: http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2008/1520

Dresner, E. (2005). The Topology of Auditory and Visual Perception, Linguistic Communication, and
Interactive Written Discourse. Retrieved Dec 8, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:

Goutsos, D. (2005). The Interaction of Generic Structure and Interpersonal Relations in Two-Party e-Chat
Discourse. Retrieved Dec 7, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:



Herring, S. C. (2007). A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse. Retrieved Dec 9,
2009, from www.languageatinternet.de: http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761

Holmer, T. (2008). Discourse Structure Analysis of Chat Communication. Retrieved Dec 6, 2009, from
www.languageatinternet.de: http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2008/1633

Jannis Androutsopoulos, M. B. (2008). Introduction: Data and Methods in Computer-Mediated Discourse
Analysis. Retrieved Dec 7, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:

Nishimura, Y. (2008). Japanese BBS Websites as Online Communities: (Im)politeness Perspectives . Retrieved
Dec 7, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de: http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2008/1520

Siebenhaar, B. (2008). Quantitative Approaches to Linguistic Variation in IRC: Implications for Qualitative
Research. Retrieved Dec 7, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:

Stommel, W. (2008). Conversation Analysis and Community of Practice as Approaches to Studying Online
Community . Retrieved Dec 6, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:

Yang, C. (2007). Chinese Internet Language: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Adaptations of the Chinese Writing
System. Retrieved Dec 8, 2009, from www.languageatinternet.de:

APPENDIX I:

Figure 1



Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4



Figure 5

Figure 6



Figure 7

Figure 8



Figure 9


Closed offline communities open up in virtual world

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

Similaire à Closed offline communities open up in virtual world

Similaire à Closed offline communities open up in virtual world (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Closed offline communities open up in virtual world