TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

This post is my submission for the Weeks 2-3 assignment for the Facilitating Online Communities course, which asks students to:

Write a post to your blog with your thoughts about the meaning of an online community and its uses. Include a list of identifying features that YOU would look for when assessing an online group or network for features which make it a community.

What is a community?
According to Wikipedia’s article on “Community“:

“The word community is derived from the Latin communitas (meaning the same), which is in turn derived from communis, which means “common, public, shared by all or many”….Communis comes from a combination of the Latin prefix com- (which means “together”) and the word munis (which has to do with the exchange of services), probably originally derived from the Etruscan word munis- (meaning “to endow”, or “to have the charge of”).”

The notion and nature of a community revolves around the holistic or aggregated elements and activities that make it up.  This includes how individuals interact with one another as well as the motives that drive them to do so.  Individuals arrive with their own objectives and interests, but the resulting community is characterised by something much larger than that, and arguably greater than the sum of its parts.

I see online communities in the same light.  As the Wikipedia entry describes, communities are common, public, shared, and characterised by an exchange of some sort - be it knowledge, expertise, services, or support.  The space in which community members congregate and interact is certainly different than communities in the more traditional sense; but the motives that drive the coalescence and resulting dynamic are much the same.

Additionally, of particular significance is the “sense of community” that McMillan and Chavis (1986) argue is characterised by four key elements:  1) membership, 2) influence, 3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and 4) shared emotional connection.

As quoted by Wikipedia, the study describes the development of a dormitory basketball team:

“Someone puts an announcement on the dormitory bulletin board about the formation of an intramural dormitory basketball team.  People attend the organizational meeting as strangers out of their individual needs (integration and fulfillment of needs). The team is bound by place of residence (membership boundaries are set) and spends time together in practice (the contact hypothesis). They play a game and win (successful shared valent event). While playing, members exert energy on behalf of the team (personal investment in the group). As the team continues to win, team members become recognized and congratulated (gaining honor and status for being members).  Someone suggests that they all buy matching shirts and shoes (common symbols) and they do so (influence).”

A critical aspect of this example is the individuals’ transitions from a focus on their own interests (”me/I”) to a sense of community cohesion (”us”).  This, I think, is one of the core differences between collections of individuals that could be classified as a “community” and those that cannot and reflects the notion of a shared identity.  Particularly in the online realm - especially in distributed networks - technical environments can include both communities and non-communities all in the same space - making it potentially difficult to draw hard lines to separate the two.

Online Communities

Unlike traditional communities in which geography is frequently seen as a common denominator, in the online realm communities frequently develop independent of geographical boundaries and can be found in a variety of different technical landscapes.  Most commonly they fall into either centralised and distributed models, which refers to the space in which community members interact with one another.

In the case of the edublogging community this distribution is quite pronounced, with communication and collaboration occurring across countless sites including Twitter, Diigo, Ning, Delicious, blogs, wikis, discussion forums, mailing lists, email, instant messaging, and SecondLife.

In both the centralised and distributed models, the technical framework is a facilitating mechanism for group interaction.  In the case of edubloggers, the common denominator is a shared vested interested in learning and teaching, as well as exploring the educational potential of emerging technology.

Familiarity and Shared Emotional Connection

The distributed model raises another important characteristic that distinguishes communities from non-communities: familiarity.  This relates quite closely to the fourth element of McMillan and Chavis’s study concerning a “shared emotional connection” in that it incorporates emotional and psychological notions of identity and trust.  Two individuals can share common belief systems and professional circumstances, but without a familiarity with one another it’s unlikely that they would develop a shared emotional connection.

Here it becomes clear that the existence of a network does not necessarily imply a community; nor are the two mutually exclusive. In the case of the population of edubloggers, the wider network contains a community within it - in fact it is more than likely that there are a series of communities.  Edubloggers may possess a shared value system, a willingness to work towards a common goal, and occupy a shared space and, but won’t necessarily share the familiarity with one another that is critical for a true community.

Types of Communities

One possible reason for the existence of multiple communities within a shared network may be the in the differing objectives or focus of the members - and as such the overall purpose or use of the community.  The Wikipedia article includes three examples of this:

• Geographic Communities
• Communities of Culture
• Community Organisations

Etienne Wenger introduces the notion of Communities of Practice (CoP) in “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System” arguing that “a community of practice is…different from a community of interest or a geographical community, neither of which implies a shared practice.”

Communities of Practice, Wenger indicates, are defined by three key dimensions:

• What it is about - its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members
• How it functions - mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity
• What capability it has produced - the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.

Each example above highlights the significance of context and agreed purpose in the development and lifespan of a community, and the reason why a single population of individuals can result in numerous niches and subcommunities - each of which caters to a different value system, need, demographic, geographc, or purpose.

A statement was made in the Google Group for my Faciltating Online Communities course which I think is worth discussing here. In the context of “what is an online community”, Olubodun Olufemi writes:

“I am not comfortable with describing [online communities] as virtual like some do, I rather think they are real but different in the medium that connects them.”

This statement is significant for several reasons, and relates to how online communities are viewed, their assumed function and role, the value (or lack thereof) they are afforded, and the degree of consideration given to them.

First and foremost there is the notion of the place and role of the technology relative to the community. Whether consciously or not, many people view online interaction and discussion as somehow different - or worse still, superior or inferior - to that which occurs offline.  In reality, as Olufemi points out, it is just the medium that’s different.

Significantly this misperception leads to a false distinction in which online activities are treated differently from offline ones, and the two are seen to have different core objectives.  Emphasis becomes placed on “eLearning” or “Blended Learning” as opposed to just learning.  This serves only to distract from the core learning processes by placing the medium ahead of the mission, and in some ways assigning it more significance than it actually has. In the context of education, the ultimate focal point should be on the learning process itself; not where or how the learning takes place.

In the same way that a classroom, library lawn or coffee shop provides a physical space within which student interaction can take place, so too does an online application do the same.  Both carry with them their own opportunities and challenges and must ultimately be selected based on their ability to facilitate the core objectives and activities of the community.

While the demographics of a community - including geographic, social-political, or policy constraints or those of technical expertise - will dictate the approach taken in facilitating interaction, it is critical to realise the distinction between a logistical consideration, and a core community objectives.  The objectives and mission should be adhered to regardless of location, be it online or offline.

It’s the shared values, goals and/or mission that makes a community, not the space within which they congregate.

This is yet another brainstorm, and I must admit I’m not sure I completely agree with myself in certain areas.  I wanted to get my thoughts down on paper and then reflect once I had something to read.  If you have thoughts I’m all ears.

Following on the topic of Planning Online Communities that I explored the other day I’d like to brainstorm on another thought, and that is the crucial premise that “technology doesn’t drive communities, people do.”

It might seem paradoxical, but it does seem to be true; in order to best nurture and inspire online communities, you must first start by focusing on the offline elements.

To provide a bit of perspective here, I come from the stand point of a central academic unit seeking to draw together disparate communities of practice from across the institution to increase interaction with one another and facilitate discussion. The end goal being the enhancement of learning and teaching through a mutually beneficial, community-driven approach.

In this example it’s important to bear in mind that nowhere in the above paragraph did I specifically mention technology. Of course a technical component is likely to be involved; but the key objectives surround the activities of community, and the ultimate aim of enhancing learning and teaching. For many people - with the exception of early technological adopters - one does not naturally turn to technology first, nor is it something that is considered of inherent value in and of itself. Therefore to adequately realise the value systems of a prospective community you have to look towards the unique circumstances and motivators that characterise each group or individual.

Ultimately the online presence is a facilitating mechanism; it a means to an end rather than the end itself.

This aspect is really important in the scheme of things I think, because if an application takes centre stage over the activities and community that surround it - both online and offline - the wider mission is undermined and a project/network starts to lose sight of its primary purpose. So we must always focus on the human element, not the technology.

In deciding this there are immediately several questions that need to be explored. The first set concern the target audience:

• What communities exist?
• What is their nature? Formal, informal; organic, structured; heirarchical, equalising; fragile, robust; seeking anonymity or publicity; self-aware or otherwise?
• What are their needs?
• And above, what are their value systems; what do they consider relevant and important?

Here I would recommend referring to Etienne Wenger’s “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System“, because it provides some invaluable insight into the nature of communities of practice, how they’re formed, how they grow and evolve, and how best to interact with them.

On thing is clear in Wenger’s article, each community of practice carries with it its own unique circumstances - including value system, heirarchy (or lackthereof), opinions, and other considerations. When dealing with large groups of people it’s critical to understand the subtle relationships and subcommunities that exist.

Bearing the fragile nature of these communities in mind, once you’ve tackled the fundamental questions you can start to narrow the focus to something more project-oriented:

• Which of the communities need to be consulted during the initial the planning processes?
• Which would benefit from being brought in later once the project was farther along?
• What activities can be organised to draw the communities together?
• How do you gain internal legitimacy within the communities?
• Where is there a need, but no community (e.g. a gap)?

All of these point to the importance of knowing the user community before even starting on the tech framework. As important as the questions covered previously are in resolving (a) The role of the individual, and b) Centralised versus Decentralised), the nature of the potential user community is as significant - if not more so. It can also be a major influence on the most appropriate course of action to take when planning the technical elements.

It would seem that, so far as the wider community is concerned, preservation and access to the community itself is of the utmost importance.  In fact as some applications have shown, the technical framework can have no affect on the longevity or vibrancy of the surrounding community.

The first example that comes to mind here is Twitter.  It’s of course not relevant for educational discussions, but the fact is the platform itself is crap - it’s unreliable, it has outages constantly, tools break and are left broken for ages - and yet there is still an exceptionally loyal user community that refuses to leave the application.  This is despite the fact there are several other alternatives that offer far better functionality and features, and are basically technically superior.

When I’ve asked people why don’t they leave Twitter, the answer is almost always the same.  “This is where my network is.  If I leave Twitter I’ll loose my community contacts.”  I’ve done some research into this and have found this to be the case too.  The alternatives just lack the community presence that Twitter has, which makes them more unusable that Twitter is. Effectively they’re just social software applications without the social part.

The implications seem to be, users are tolerant of a sub-standard technical environment so long as there is a community surrounding it.  They’re not nearly as tolerant of a superior technical environment with no community.  You can always improve the technical aspects; the community part is much more difficult.

[NOTE: I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this; I just need to work something through mentally and this is as good a place as any to do it.]

Plan to throw one away. You will anyhow.

There’s a saying in the FOSS world that is something to the effect of “plan to throw one away. you will anyhow”. I believe this concept was originally proposed in Eric Raymond’s “The Cathedral and The Bazaar”, which discussed the devolved nature of open source development and has since became a hallmark piece of work within the movement. (Someone please correct my source if I’m wrong)

The idea suggests that the first version of a project won’t hit the target square on, because you don’t know what the real target is. Indeed, subsequent versions may be entirely different from the original objective in both form and function.

So effectively you don’t know what you’re trying to resolve or what need you’re trying to address until after you make the first attempt. Having done that you can evaluate, discover, uncover, discard and then refocus on the true need.

If this notion is true it requires a great deal of flexibility and an exploratory willingness to experiment with trial and error to get a software environment right.

However…

This is a relatively straight forward concept for standalone software development, but what are the implications when the software is slated to support a wider project, such as an online/offline community that is being developed in tandem?

I would argue there are a couple of fundamental choices that have to be made and hardwired into the planning and developmental processes, but after that the development process is relatively similar to the exploratory model outlined above.

The role of the individual

The first choice relates to the role of the individual in the usage landscape, particularly with regards to networks – and even more so with groups. Different models view the individual in different lights – and distinguishing them from the whole to varying degrees - and this affects all subsequent downstream activities in the online space.

Perhaps the best contrasting examples of this in the contemporary snapshot of the Internet are the notions of connectivism and collectivism. Very loosely stated, the differences in these ideas can be characterised by the difference between blogs and wikis respectively.

Blogs are highly individual spaces that clearly delineate the blogger/individual from those who visit the space. Commenting and discussion certainly take place in these spaces, however the place of the individual is ultimately at the top of the heirarchy, and their persona is clearly represented.

Wikis by contrast, are by nature a multi-user space in which content is aggregated together to form a unified, cohesive whole. Here the user is a means to an end; where the end is the gathering and sharing of a body of knowledge created by a group-mind. Many wiki engines support user profiles, however in the scheme of things they are a secondary or tertiary consideration.

This notion was highlighted in a different way by Stephen Downes in his video “Groups and Networks”. Downes argues that groups are inherently heirarchical, closed and rigid; networks are more equalised, open, and flexible. In terms of this discussion, groups place more consideration and emphasis on the priorities of the whole; networks on the those of the individual.

I would argue that Downes’ network model is more beneficial to the individual, as it provides them with space to come to their own conclusions, and to voice their own opinions and thoughts. It is also arguably more representative of the diversity in the community.

In the network model you hear a cacophony or chorus of different voices; in the group it’s more of a single voice characterising the overall consensus.

In terms of this discussion, the significance during planning is to establish who or what is at the centre of the model. A user-focused community will place the individual at the centre, and relate all activities in the environment back to the individual, via a unique user space such as a profile in a social network in the case of a centralised model; or perhaps a personal blog in a decentralised one. Alternatively, a group-focused community will place the group at the centre and relate all activities back to the group.

Centralised versus Distributed

The next key consideration is the nature of the community space. The idea of a “community space” can take many forms, not all of which involve a single online location - such as a wiki, social networking tool, or discussion forum. Increasingly a single community can span multiple environments and include several activity-specific sites such as those for image sharing (e.g. Flickr), rapid asynchronous discussion (e.g. Twitter, Jaiku, Identi.ca), blogs, discussion forums or all of the above.

The ultimate decision here can impact on several different topics, not the least of which include centralised versus devolved control, administrative considerations, activities, the nature of community interaction, and indeed what opportunities exist for the community members themselves.

[More to come as I continue to think this through...]