For my network analysis, I chose to analyze an on line forum I frequent called “ihatepple.net.” (Aside: the site is not a “hate” site, it started out as an Apple bashing website, but since has dropped the goal and has become a more general forum for people interested in technology to discuss politics and technology developments.)
An analysis of the forum using SNA yields mixed results as to whether the forum is actually a community. The first question SNA asks is “who do they talk to.” The members of the forum all talk to each other through the forum software. Communication takes place among all members of the board. This establishes that the boundary of the suspected community here is the site itself.
In terms of support, users will post supporting messages to those they agree with in a discussion, but usually support ends there. The one exception would be the hosting of the actual site. One member hosts the site and software from his personal internet connection at his own expense. This could be interpreted as a donation of goods towards the “community.” Users also will offer help to one another in solving problems that are brought up on the discussion board.
The last SNA criterion is difficult to analyze in a group like this. It asks “with whom do they attend social events.” The site exists entirely in the space of the Internet; there is no offline component that encompasses the majority of the group, thus there aren’t typical “social events” that can define the community. If each “thread” is considered to be a separate discussion, somewhat similar to an “event,” then it can be said that the majority of users attends each other’s threads and participate. Whether or not this would qualify for an SNA property is debatable.
In the Haythornwaite (2007) excerpt we examined for this course, she raised another definition of a group, that of Etzioni & Etzioni (1999). This definition outlines three basic criteria that a group must exhibit to be considered a community: a social network, common ground, and reciprocity. The social network of IHA consists of a mix of strong and weak ties, as well as ties that have elements of both. Most posters come from different social circles, and have access to very different information. Despite these two attributes, the majority of ties between members also include emotional support and varying levels of self-disclosure, usually of a reciprocal nature.
Every member of IHA shares at least some common ground due to the nature of the forum. Every user is connected to technology in some way, and it is usually the strongest way we all relate to one another. This common ground strengthens the ties in the network structure, and also gives the site a purpose: discussing technology, among other things. Members also find common ground in politics, although this is not usually forum wide.
Reciprocity is present on the forum. The IHA forum is unique in that almost all active members also serve as moderators for the board. The moderation system is done by voting, requiring a certain amount of mods to agree that a post in inappropriate in order to censor it. Members agree to shoulder this responsibility with no real “payback” expected besides greater stability and enforcement of the rules of the forum.
The community here exists entirely on the internet, thus it is greatly affected by CMC. There is no real interaction between online and offline relationships because of the basis in the net.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Chris,
You have made valid points regarding Haythornwaite’s theory on the basis of common ground and reciprocity by showing how this online community is structured in a manner that holds ties primarily for the space, but also amongst ideas – since people will have different opinions on different matters in which they will discuss and vote. As well as how people in this community will show respect and try to moderate it because of good nature. The social network was also discussed done well, and it was stated in class that Gemenischaft’s definition of a community included three components: 1) based on strong interpersonal ties; 2) shared focus, common purpose; 3) common language and identity. With this being said, a community can exist without physical co-location (ie. Online). Another area Haythornwaite pressed upon while looking at social networks was the richness of the communication. A good question to go along with this would be: “how can the leanness of CMC support the richness of a community?” (as discussed in class).
I spent some time reading over the site, and it is no doubt an interesting community. I noticed that there are a few people who keep showing up from thread to thread. What would be interesting to look at is how much the community depends on these hardcore users who seem to always be on the forum, responding throughout the day, to keep the community together. If a large chunk of regulars stopped posting would the community struggle through or die? I would imagine the strength of the community in general could be measured whether it lives (strong) or dies (weak, latches onto the regulars). Of the forums I read I know the regulars can have a big influence on what is read or not. On threads I've made, having a regular post in it, in general, promoted more discussion in contrast to when 'normal' users posted in my thread. Overall a good read and thanks for showing me the site, I'll lurk it for now.
Post a Comment