Rethinking online community: Making sense of an ideal speech situation.

David J. Schaefer, (c) 1997

Doctoral Candidate
Department of Journalism and Communication
3016 Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210-1339
(614) 292-3400
Advisor: Dr. Brenda Dervin
dschaeff@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (no longer active)
 

Assistant Professor
Department of Communication Arts
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Steubenville, OH 43952
(614) 283-6460
(614) 283-6452 (fax)
Dschaefe@fusnotepc.franuniv.edu (no longer active)
(Updated July 2006 -- dschaefer@franciscan.edu)

Copyright notice: David J. Schaefer, 1997 (c). All rights reserved. This paper may not be distributed or sold without the express written permission of the author.

COPYRIGHT AND CITATION INFORMATION:
© Schaefer, David J., 1997. Cite as: Schaefer, D. J. (1997) . Rethinking online community: Making sense of an idealized speech situation. Paper prepared as part of doctoral studies program [On-line]. Available: http://clara.franciscan.edu/faculty/dschaefer/papers/rethink/artschaefer97.html  (URL updated Dec 2007)

Version 1.0

Introduction

In the final years of the twentieth century, the growth in popularity of computer networking has been widely reported. In the U.S., almost forty percent of households now own personal computers, while fifteen percent subscribe to an online service (Searcher, 1997). The number of Internet users worldwide has expanded to more than thirty million and shows no sign of leveling off until well into the twenty-first century (Attwood and Parker, 1997; Kantor and Neubarth, 1996). Meanwhile, by most accounts, corporate intranet (internal network) growth has skyrocketed: it has been reported that at least fifty percent of surveyed corporations will install internal networks by the end of 1997 (Cyberatlas, 1997). Telephone companies in metropolitan areas have rapidly activated new area codes to alleviate shortages caused in part by increased modem usage (Siskos, 1997). Further, Schuler (1996) points out that the growth of internetworking in other countries is occurring at almost twice the rate of that in the U.S.

Proponents assert that these technologies can be usefully employed to create online communities characterized by free and equal participation by all members. Hiltz and Turoff (1993) argue that through computerized conferencing

[w]e will become the Network Nation, exchanging vast amounts of both information and social-emotional communications with colleagues, friends, and "strangers" who share similar interests, who are spread out all over the nation . . . . It will offer major opportunities to disadvantaged groups in the society to acquire the skills and social ties they need to become full members of the society. (pp. XXIV-XXV).

However, despite reported successes of various projects, current research on computer-mediated communication (CMC), group decision support software (GDSS), and other computer conferencing technologies suggest that significant barriers to the creation of effective online communities still exist. In particular, little work has been done to develop theory for effective Internet-based conference design. Typically, current designs encourage the free exchange of information among users within a "marketplace of ideas" but do not assist users in negotiating contextual and interpretational differences in meaning. Such differences tend to be exacerbated in online environments that restrict the amount of contextual information that can be transmitted from user to user.

In this paper, I suggest that much work still needs to be done to create an online environment that approximates a Habermassian-style ideal speech situation. In such an environment, all participants would be able to freely and equally communicate the context as well as the content of their discourses. A useful framework for such a design is offered by Dervin's (1983, 1994) Sense-Making methodology, which prescribes procedural techniques that can be used to facilitate user communication of context and meaning. In the sections that follow, I explore the historical development of online communities, summarize key research trends in CMC, GDSS, interface design, and artificial intelligence, then propose a new model for Internet-based, international collaborative communities.

The growth of online communities

The concept of community has been a central focus of computer groupware developers since the early 1970s. Writing in 1978, Hiltz and Turoff (republished in 1993) pointed out that computer conferencing systems could be used to expand traditional communities:

Thus in place of thinking of a nation or a society as a collection of communities, we need to think of it as a complex set of overlapping networks of actual or potential communication and exchange . . . . Computerized conferencing systems offer the possibility of conveniently and cheaply communicating with large numbers of people. It is our view that these systems allow a person meaningful, frequent, and regular communications with five to ten times more people than is possible with current common communication options. (p. xxiv)

Williams (1976) points out that the term community has had at least five different meanings over the past few centuries: a) the common people, b) a society or state, c) members of a specific district, d) the "quality of holding something in common" (p. 65), and e) "common identity and characteristics" (p. 65). However, it was nineteenth century German sociologist Ferdinand Toennies who developed a classic distinction that remains in wide use today: gemeinschaft as a "community" of shared geography or interests among people, and gesellschaft as "society," constituted by impersonal, contractual relations between citizens and their nation-state (see Bell, 1993; Walls, 1993; Williams, 1976).

As discoveries in packet switching and other networking technologies emerged, researchers began to explore ways to create gemeinschaft-type communities connecting geographically dispersed scientists (Hiltz and Turoff, 1993; Walls, 1993). Originally, conferencing software was used to link military planners and scientists in the event of war or natural catastrophe (e.g., Turoff's Emergency Management Information System and Reference Index [EMISARI]). Eventually, additional programs became available to non-military researchers and the general public, spurring the growth of non-profit and commercial conferencing systems. The most prolific was the Usenet newsgroup hierarchy, originally a non-profit bulletin board (BBS) service formed by programmers at Duke and the University of North Carolina; Usenet now allows millions of Internet users worldwide to participate in virtual discussions on thousands of topics. Early commercial networks--the Source (later CompuServe), GEnie, the Whole Earth 'Lectric Link (WELL), and America OnLine (AOL)--also provided popular computer conferencing forums. In addition, several dedicated computer conferencing systems were marketed to corporations, including EIES, PLANET/FORUM, CONFER, ORACLE, CONCLAVE, and others (Hiltz and Turoff, 1993).

Once the general public began to participate in these forums, Rheingold (1993) argues that vibrant virtual communities sprang up, characterized by the lively exchange of information, issues, and idle chat:

People in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk. People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but [they] leave [their] bodies behind. . . . To the millions who have been drawn into it, the richness and vitality of computer-linked cultures is attractive, even addictive. (p. 3)

Likewise, international online conferences also emerged. Feenberg (1993) notes that large-scale crises -- particularly natural disasters, wars, epidemics, or human rights abuses -- spawned international communities of users who wished to shine global spotlights on these issues. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) launched several international forums within their online networks--GreenNet, NordNet, GlasNet, ComLink, and GhastiNet. Later, the APC formed the Institute for Global Communications (IGC), which sponsored several international forums on the EcoNet, PeaceNet, ConflictNet, LaborNet, and WomenNet networks (Frederick, 1993 and Schuler, 1996). By the early 1990s, "tens of thousands of messages a day [passed] back and forth within the 'APC village,' and the number [grew] every day. The partner networks of the [APC] . . . built a truly global network dedicated to the free and balanced flow of information" (Frederick, 1993, p. 294).

Concurrent with these developments was an increase in the use of online forums to enhance local development. Such work was spearheaded by the National Public Telecommunication Network (NPTN), which advocated the deployment of computer networks for citizen access to online city resources, officials, and discussion groups (Schuler, 1996). Popular systems included the Santa Monica PEN (public electronic network), the Cleveland and Columbus FreeNets, the Seattle Community Network, and the Blacksburg, Virginia Electronic Network (BEN) (see Dutton and Guthrie, 1991; Grossman, 1995; O'Sullivan, 1995; Rheingold, 1993; and Schuler, 1996). Beamish (1995) classified these networks according to four ideal types: a) free-nets--municipally owned systems that enhanced citizen access to local libraries, officials, and records; b) bulletin boards--private user networks designed for grassroots activism; c) wired cities--systems that linked together all local businesses and residences for online commerce and exchange; and d) government-initiated networks--federal systems that provided access to governmental records and question-and-answer forums. Some evidence suggested that these projects had been modestly successful: O'Sullivan (1995) reported that the Santa Monica PEN attracted 6,000 subscribers out of the city's 90,000 residents (7% of all possible users).

Computer conferencing research: themes and findings

Concurrent with these developments was an explosion of research activity exploring the communicative potential of online forums. Researchers typically examined issues related to CMC, GDSS, or interface design in order to identify and eliminate barriers to effective conferencing. In this next section, I briefly explore the key themes and findings for each of these areas.

Computer-mediated communication. Computer-mediated communication is broadly defined as the use of networked computers--in synchronous or asynchronous fashion--to send and receive text, audio, and/or video messages. Most of the early conferencing software packages utilized text interfaces; newer systems offer videoconferencing and/or whiteboarding capabilities (Haskin, 1997). The most popular uses of CMC include e-mail, chat rooms, and newsgroups.

Researchers typically focus on the differences between CMC and face-to-face (FtF) media. Walther, Anderson, and Park (1994) note that many early studies examined the social presence of CMC. Influenced by Short, Williams, and Christie's landmark study in 1976, researchers attempted to determine the degree to which online conference participants could sense the proximity of other participants even though they were communicating across great distances. The goal for many researchers was to create systems that approximated the level of social presence found in FtF environments. Brand (1988) reports that this quest resulted in fairly innovative applications of computing technology, including the "Talking Heads" project at MIT in the 1970s:

We came up with the idea of projecting onto video screens sculpted like people's faces and also having the screens swivel a bit--so they could nod, shake their head, turn to each other. At each site the order of sitting of the five people would be the same. At my site I'm real and you're plastic on my right, and at your site you're real and I'm plastic on your left. If we're talking and looking at each other, and one of the faces across the table interrupts, we would stop and turn toward him. (Negroponte, quoted in Brand, 1988, p. 92).

Others researchers sought to understand the impact of CMC on communicative behaviors. Dubbed the "cues filtered out" approach, these researchers tried to demonstrate how the lack of non-verbal cues resulted in various communicative effects, such as flaming or egalitarian discussion behavior (Walther, 1992). Rice and Love (1987) reported that users often compensated for the lack of non-verbal cues by developing alternative behaviors appropriate to the medium; an oft reported finding was that users adapted textual conventions (e.g., typing emotional cues on the screen) to convey non-verbal/emotional information (Davis and Brewer,1997; Rice and Love, 1987; Walther, 1992).

A third research approach explored the relationship between the "richness" of a particular communications medium and its appropriateness for conveying certain types of messages. Such work placed each medium on a continuum ranging from face-to-face (the "richest") to text-based CMC (the "leanest"). Researchers sought to develop a list of contingencies that could be used to guide media choice, as described by Walther (1992):

When messages are very simple or unequivocal, a lean medium such as CMC is sufficient for effective communication. Moreover, a lean medium is more efficient, because shadow functions and coordinated interaction efforts are unnecessary. For receivers to understand clearly more equivocal information, information that is ambiguous, emphatic, or emotional, however, a richer medium should be used . . . . From this perspective, one may either match or mismatch messages and media, and organizational actors are advised to optimize their channel selections accordingly. (p. 57).

A final research approach sought to identify the factors that predicted CMC diffusion throughout an organization. Dubbed the social influence approach, an oft reported finding was that the likelihood of diffusion increased if mangers or peers positively encouraged the use of CMC within their organizations (e.g., Komsky, 1991; Olaniran, 1993; Steinfield, 1992). Steinfield (1992) reported that the

choice to use a medium will be subject to social influences and may only be rational according to subjective criteria . . . . A primary expectation from social influence models is that information arising from the social environment frames individuals' perceptions of media and tasks and subsequently influences choices. (p. 356).

Likewise, Markus's (1987) critical mass model suggested that as networks gained members, the utility of the network for potential participants increased. As new members joined, diffusion moved toward a critical mass of participants that would sustain the network. Beyond this point, however, excessive traffic on the system encouraged users to leave and form independent/private networks; thus, a successful network carried within it the seed of its own destruction.

Group decision support systems. A highly focused subset of CMC research focuses on the use of conference software to facilitate and improve the decision-making capabilities of groups. Schrage (1990) points out that the goal of GDSS developers is to improve collaborative decision-making:

The fundamental question is the fundamental challenge: In what ways can organizational meetings generate productive and profitable collaborations? The challenge is to meld the best of the individual with the best of the group in ways that are efficient, effective, and empowering. That challenge never goes away. (p. 134).

Schrage (1990) argues that brainstorming, writing, voting/polling, budgeting, presenting, and other group processes can be improved through careful and considered design of GDSS. Hiltz and Turoff (1993) point out system developers seek to facilitate the four phases of group problem-solving: creativity/ exploration (when participants brainstorm to generate the maximum number of alternative proposals), evaluation/consensus (when members debate the merits and deficiencies of the most salient proposals), model formation (when participants determine key relationships between the proposals), and comprehension/decision (when members reach their final decision).

Findings regarding the effectiveness of CMC in facilitating group decision processes have been mixed. In a report by Chidambaram, Bostrom, and Wynne (1990), CMC groups demonstrated higher problem-solving skill levels than FtF group; also, GDSS participants made effective decisions once they adapted to the particularities of the system. However, Olaniran (1993) found that female users were less satisfied than males with the systems; they rushed to complete their tasks so that they could end their involvement with the project early. Also, Olaniran (1994) found that mixed GDSS/FtF groups -- rather than those utilizing only GDSS -- made the highest quality decisions; GDSS participants needed more time to complete decision tasks, though GDSS-only groups generated the greatest number of alternatives during brainstorming. In a report by Gallupe and McKeen (1990), the decision performance (quality, speed, and choice shift) and perceived reactions of GDSS and FtF groups were compared: neither group made higher quality decisions, GDSS groups took longer to reach consensus, and GDSS groups promoted individualized values, while FtF groups demonstrated a concern for group values. Poole, Holmes, Watson, and DeSanctis (1993) reported no difference in performance between GDSS, nominal (statistically aggregated), or baseline groups: GDSS groups took the longest to reach consensus, demonstrated an excessive focus on procedural (non-task) issues, and had the lowest levels of critical discussion. Further, they report little evidence of egalitarian participation in GDSS groups, a finding also reported in Poole and DeSanctis (1992). Broome and Chen (1992) reported that anonymity -- a condition often assumed to be necessary for non-biased group evaluation of ideas (particularly in DELPHI systems; see Hiltz and Turoff, 1993) -- could unleash tensions that would disrupt consensus-building and decision-making. They also faulted GDSS software for forcing participants to follow a linear, rationalized decision-making path.

Interface design. A broad area of research that has had an enormous impact on the development of CMC and GDSS systems is interface design. Originally dubbed "human factors" research (Shneiderman, 1992), interface design focuses on the ease of use of a computer based system. A vague and cumbersome interface impedes effective interaction; a user-friendly interface encourages and facilitates human involvement (Norman, 1988). A relatively new field, designers have drawn on an eclectic mix of science, theory, and philosophy in proposing and testing interfaces. The most common interface approaches have utilized command-line, menu, direct-manipulation (metaphoric or dramatic), or artificial intelligence features.

The command line approach provides the user with an on-screen prompt for typing a computer command. Users must learn sets of commands in order to complete tasks on the system. Perhaps the most ubiquitous examples are the DOS- and UNIX-based "system prompts" found on many home and office computers (see Figure 1). Although programmers extol the virtues of the command-line prompt -- arguing that those who master the set of available commands can initiate very powerful procedures on their computers -- Norman (1988) points out that less experienced users are often unsure how to proceed when confronted by the "tyranny of the blank screen" (p. 178). He identifies the three common traps associated with command line interfaces: a) the commands are invisible, arbitrary, or unintelligible; b) commands have hidden "modes" that allow one set of keystrokes to have multiple "meanings"; and c) the wrong command can allow users to accidentally and irreversibly delete entire projects.

Figure 1 -- The MS-DOS Command Prompt

Figure 2 -- A Typical Program Menu

The third approach to interface design emphasizes direct manipulation of onscreen icons via a spatial data management system (Negroponte, 1995; Shneiderman, 1992). A standard approach utilizes a desktop metaphor to organize objects on the screen (see Figure 3): Macintosh and Windows both use this system, associating various office objects (e.g., a trash can) with computer commands (e.g., file deletion; see Apple, 1987).

Users manipulate onscreen objects by moving a pointing device (e.g., a mouse or trackball) to an object, then "clicking" and "dragging" that object to initiate some procedure.

Shneiderman (1992) points out that direct manipulation offers significant improvements in user-friendliness over command-line environments:

In a study of 30 novices, MS-DOS commands . . . were contrasted with Macintosh direct-manipulation actions. After training and practice, average task times were 5.8 minutes versus 4.8 minutes, and average errors were 2.0 versus 0.8 . . . . Subjective preference also favored the direct-manipulation interface. (p. 198)

However, Laurel (1992) argues that the desktop metaphor can confuse users if misused:

What happens if we try to use interface [metaphors]? Alas, we must form mental models of what is going on inside the computer . . . The only way to comprehend what the trash can on the Macintosh desktop is doing, for instance, is to form an elaborate mental model of its several disparate functions [e.g., deleting files, formatting disks, or ejecting disks]. In this way interface metaphors can fail to simplify what is going on; rather they tend to complicate it. (p. 130)

Laurel (1992) advocates the use of narrative-based structuring techniques to provide users with sets of possible actions. She points out that computer game designers constrain possible user actions by placing choices within the context of a storyline, making it easier for users to understand what actions are possible in a sequence. She suggests that designers utilize a beginning-middle-end structure; writing a paper on a computer would become a form of mediated improvisation in which the author and computer collaborate to "script out" a task. One GDSS system that utilizes a narrative approach is Acker's (1992) "Storyteller's Toolkit," which allows conference participants to assume online personas as they negotiate a group decision.

Artificial intelligence. A highly experimental approach to interface design involves the use of intelligent agents to dynamically adapt computer processes and information displays to a user's proficiency level based on a profile generated in real-time. This approach evolved out of early work in computer-aided design (CAD; see Sleeman and Brown, 1982 for a brief history). Negroponte (1995) points out that the goal of artificial intelligence is to

build computer surrogates that possess a body of knowledge both about something (a process, a field of interest, a way of doing) and about you in relation to that something (your taste, your inclinations, your acquaintances). Namely, the computer should have dual expertise, like a cook, gardener, and chauffeur using their skills to fit your tastes and needs in food, planting, and driving. . . . Likewise with a computer. (p. 151).

Sleeman and Brown (1982) identify four types of intelligent tutor systems: consultants, laboratory instructors, coaches, and problem-solving monitors. Typically, such systems utilize natural language processing, model/concept formulation, or other sophisticated deduction techniques to diagnose and adjust for user difficulties. The authors acknowledge that artificial intelligence research is still in its infancy.

Rethinking online communities: Making sense in an ideal speech situation

Despite the best intentions of CMC researchers, Dervin and Clark (1993) point out that many information designers often conceptualize information as a thing (e.g., an "information brick"; Dervin, 1982) that can be non-problematically transmitted from one place/time to another irrespective of differences in individual human perception and interpretation. Such an approach privileges a "marketplace of ideas" conceptualization of system design. Dervin and Clark (1993) note that this metaphor -- which became the primary communication model in post-Enlightenment Western culture -- leaves the design of communicative/dialogic processes to chance:

the founding fathers specified the structures they considered essential for democracy . . . . few of these specifications pertained to communication per se. Their world view found no necessity [for this specification] because for them in an open marketplace of ideas [italics added], correct ideas would by some magical process win. (p. 107)

Many Internet-based online discussion groups utilize marketplace of ideas-based communication designs. In such groups, written information stored in online databases becomes disembodied and divorced from the context of its creation. Unaware of this context, users clash over the meaning and intention of information transmitted through disembodied newsgroups or conferencing systems. Hiltz and Turoff (1993) note that this is a particularly vexing problem for computer conference designers:

People employ different ways of assigning validity or of measuring the degree of truth in some conclusion, observation, or "fact." . . . What it amounts to is the belief by many that a great deal of the difficulty in getting a [CMC] group to come to grips with a complex problem in a collective manner is that members of the group will often take very different views on the nature of "truth" or validity for a given "fact." This is further complicated when these fundamental differences in perspective are not recognized at the conscious level. It is therefore necessary to evolve communication structures that will promote the exposure of differences that exist at fundamental levels. (pp. 283-284).

Phenomenologically informed communication theory acknowledges the intentional, interpretational work performed by humans who are continuously constructing information within a dialogic community bounded by space-time contexts. Since no two noetic (meaning-making) acts can be exactly the same (time and/or space has shifted between one observation and the next), humans must rely upon a transactional process -- dialogue -- in order to triangulate their observations and negotiate meaning with others.

A dialogic model that implicitly acknowledges this process is Habermas's (1984) theory of communicative action, which outlines the general parameters for the creation of what he calls an "ideal speech situation." Habermas argues that such an environment must satisfy "general symmetry conditions" that ensure each participant an equal opportunity to communicate. Alexy (quoted in Habermas, 1990) identifies three general symmetry rules:

3.1 Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take part in a discourse.

3.2 a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.

b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discourse.

c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires, and needs.

3.3 No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from exercising his rights as laid down in 3.1 and 3.2. (p. 89).

To create an ideal speech situation, all participants must first agree -- without coercion -- to the conditions of the discussion. The only criterion used to judge the quality of the ideas expressed is the "force of the better argument."

However, Habermas (1987) points that it would be impossible to create an ideal speech situation if all participants made entirely different or contradictory assumptions about the context of discussion. Thus, a necessary precondition for communicative action is a shared lifeworld , "a reservoir of taken-for-granteds, of unshaken convictions that participants in communication draw upon in cooperative processes of interpretation . . . . a culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of interpretive patterns" (p. 124). Knapp, Miller, and Fudge (1994) point out that there is wide agreement among scholars that the communication process is fundamentally dependent upon context "for the generation of meanings" (p. 12). Searle (1995) points out that even a simple sentence like "She gave him her key and he opened the door" spawns "an indefinite range of ridiculous but still literal interpretations" (p. 131) without recourse to a shared, interpretive context. By default, most current online communities have no mechanism for assisting users in explicating a common frame of reference; each user simply posts a message to a common database (sometimes organized in threads [themes], sometimes not). Unless users volunteer contextual information to help others "see where they're coming from" within their posts, others are forced to interpret their intention and meaning without the assistance of a common, shared lifeworld. Such a process may encourage misinterpretation and -- ultimately -- miscommunication.

An apt example is provided by Internet-based Usenet newsgroup designs (see Figure 4). Typically, newsgroups come in two stripes -- moderated or unmoderated. In the former, self-appointed gatekeepers read and approve each incoming message before it is posted to the group; they also edit or delete posts believed to be offensive. In the latter, users are granted unfettered access to the system to post any message they choose.

Figure 4 -- Minimal Context: A Typical Newsgroup Post

Further, since conferencing systems typically have no specific mechanism for facilitating development of common ground, communication proceeds along lines that inadvertently silence would-be participants. A female Usenet participant I interview report that she was fearful of having her opinions slammed in public. She called herself "flame paranoid" and noted that although she believed newsgroups were generally an open environment for debate, she was very cautious about posting to newsgroups for fear of receiving "five megs of e-mail."

These issues illustrate the difficulties facing designers who seek to create discussion groups to approximate an "ideal speech situation." However, Dervin's (1983; 1994) Sense-Making approach provides the methodological framework for designing contextual information into the heart of a conferencing system. Drawing on the work of Carter, Dewey, Buber, and others, Dervin (1983) argues that a fundamental condition of human existence is a universal mandate to bridge gaps. Gaps exist within individuals (e.g., between head and heart, heart and hand), between and among people, and between people and material objects. As humans move through time and space, they continually build conceptual bridges (knowledge, understanding, and sense) over the gaps they face. Humans are conceptualized as social theorists, self-reflexively enlarging their repertoire of practices, behaviors, and thoughts as they negotiate gaps.

Typically, Sense-Making studies employ an analytical triangle focusing on the situations, gaps, and uses (Dervin, 1983) encountered by people. To understand the situation in which an agent bridges gaps, the researcher asks the respondent to describe the factors that first led him/her to an episode. For example, a respondent might point out that after having lost a job and home, s/he was forced to live on the street. Then, the respondent is asked to describe the questions s/he had when confronted by this gap. Finally, the agent describes the uses (helps or hurts) s/he received via answers to these questions. A respondent might report finding a church-run mission, where s/he was given a meal, shower, and a place to spend the night (helps).

By conceptualizing the newsgroup posting process as gap-bridging behavior within a specified time-space context, Sense-Making provides a structural template (situations-gaps-uses) for designing a dialogic interface that might enhance the quality of online interactions for participants. A dialogic computer interface modeled on Sense-Making methodology, for example, could first query each participant on the situation, gap, and use surrounding his/her post. Other users could then read both the post and accompanying contextual information, allowing them to develop a better understanding of the author's meaning and situation. Such an interface would not necessarily eliminate all inflammatory online communication, although this could be a variable subjected to empirical testing: rather, a dialogic interface based on Sense-Making might represent an important improvement over current designs by explicitly structuring contextual information into the communication system.

Creating an international online community

A potentially useful environment for testing a Sense-Making-based dialogic interface would be an international discussion group composed of members from a broad range of perspectives and nationalities. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Ottawa, Canada has proposed such a project. For the past decade, the organization has been actively involved in international network development issues in the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, and Asia and has proposed the development of an egalitarian discussion group to facilitate this work. As Menou (1994) points out,

[t]he structure, governance and activities of the network would have to be defined by its members. The network could be decentralized and there is in principle no need for costly joint services and operations, as soon as effective communication mechanisms are available, on the one hand, and, more importantly, there exist a common will and commitment, on the other hand. (p. 17).

The benefit of utilizing a Sense-Making-based design for such a project would be four-fold:

1) It would, for the first time, explore the possibility of creating an international, Habermassian-style ideal speech situation based on explicit, contextually oriented communication principles;
2) It would provide an opportunity to adapt and test Dervin's Sense-Making methodology -- which has already proven to be successful as a structuring method for libraries and public relations campaigns -- within the context of computer conferencing;
3) It would create an international forum for the study of information-based issues as they relate to the deployment of computer networks within developing nations; the consensus formed within this forum would provide useful guidance for telecommunication policy-makers in both developing and developed nations; and
4) It would assist researchers in identifying the communication competencies utilized by a broad range of participants as they dialogue via international CMC.

Given these benefits, the contribution of this research to the areas of communication theory, CMC interface design, and international development could be substantial. Although other global communication networks have emerged (e.g., Usenet), most utilize designs implicitly based upon the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor that offers little guidance for the construction of an effective computer conference or online community. Not only would the network established by this proposal be the first of its kind, it would also provide an excellent opportunity to study the universal nature of gap bridging, providing support for theory that may contribute much to the development of effective online communities.

References

Acker, S. (1992). The storyteller's toolkit. In Lea, M., Contexts of computer-mediated
communication. NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf..

Apple. (1987). Apple human interface guidelines. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Attwood, R. and Parker, A. (1997). Consolidation on the Internet: Statistics and Surveys.
Financial Times Business Report, 9, 10-11.

Beamish, A. (1995). Communities on-line: Community based computer networks. MIT:
Unpublished master's thesis. [available online:
http://sap.mit.edu/arch/4.207/anneb/thesis/toc.html]

Brand, S. (1988). The media lab. NY: Penguin.

Broome, B. and Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem solving:
Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23, (2), 216-236.
Chidambaram, L, Bostrom, R., and Wynne, B. (1990). A longitudinal study of the impact
of group decision support systems on group development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7 (3), 7-25.

Cyberatlas. (1997). Intranets. [available online: http://www.cyberatlas.com/intranet.html].

Davis, B. and Brewer, J. (1997). Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Dervin, B. (1982). Citizen access as an information equity issue. In Schement, J., Gutierrez, F., and Sirbu, Jr., M. (Eds). Telecommunications policy handbook. New York: Praeger. Dervin, B. (1983). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods, and results to date, Presented at the International Communication Association annual
meeting, Dallas, May 1983.

Dervin, B. (1994). Information-Democracy: An examination of underlying assumptions.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (6), 369-385.

Dervin, B. and Clark, K. (1993). Communication and democracy: A mandate for procedural
invention. In Splichal, S. and Wasko, J. (Eds.), Communication and democracy.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex

Dutton, W. and Guthrie, K. (1991). An ecology of games: The political construction of Santa
Monica's public electronic network. Informatization and the Public Sector, 1, 279.

Feenberg, A. (1993). Building a global network: The WBSI experience. In Harasim, L.
(Ed), Global networks: Computers and international communication. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.

Frederick, H. (1993). Computer networks and the emergence of global civil society. In Harasim, L.
(Ed), Global networks: Computers and international communication. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.

Gallupe, R. and McKeen , J. (1990). Enhancing computer-mediated communication: An
experimental investigation into the use of a group decision support system for
face-to-face versus remote meetings. Information and Management, 18, 1-13.

Grossman, L. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age.
NY: Viking.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, vol. 1: Reason and the
rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A
critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Haskin, D. (1997). Meeting without walls. Internet World, 8 (10), 53-60.

Hiltz, R. and Turoff, M. (1993). The Network Nation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

ICG. (1997). Institute for global communications. [Available online: http://www.igc.org/igc/].

Kantor, A. and Neubarth, M. (1996). Off the charts: The Internet 1996. Internet World, 7 (12),
45-51.

Knapp, M., Miller, G., and Fudge, K. (1994). Background and current trends in the study of interpersonal communication. In Knapp, M. and Miller, G. (Eds.), Handbood of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Komsky, S. (1991). A profile of users of electronic mail in a university: Frequent versus
occasional users. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, (3), 310-340.

Laurel, B. (1993). Computers and theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Mabry, E. (1997). Framing flames: The structure of argumentative messages on the net.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2 (4), [available online:
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/mabry.html ].

MacKinnon, R. (1997). Virtual Rape. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2 (4).
[available online: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/mackinnon.html ].

Markus, M. (1987). Toward a "critical mass" theory of interactive media: Universal access,
interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research. 14, (5), 491-511.

Menou, M. (1994). From data to wisdom: Does I.T. contribute to the gross national
happiness? Keynote address, final plenary session, 10th International
Telecommunications Society Conference, Sidney, Australia, 3-6 July, 1994.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. NY: Alfred A. Knopft.

Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. NY: Doubleday.

Olaniran, B. (1993). Individual differences and computer mediated communication: The role of
perception. Electronic Journal of Communication. 3, (2).

Olaniran, B. (1994). Group performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication
media. Management Communication Quarterly. 7, (3), 256-281.

O'Sullivan, P. (1995). Computer networks and political participation: Santa Monica's
teledemocracy project. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 23 (2), 93-107.

Poole, M. and DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group
decision making. Human Communication Research, 19, (1), 5-49.

Poole, M., Holmes, M., Watson, R., and DeSanctis, G. (1993). Group decision support systems
and group communication: A comparison of decision making in computer-supported and
nonsupported groups. Communication Research, 20, (2), 176-213.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. NY:
HarperPerennial.

Rice, R.and Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-
mediated communication network. Communication Research. 14, (1), 85-108.

Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. NY: Random
House.

Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Searcher. (1997). Factoids: The Internet marches on . . . limping occasionally. Searcher, 6 (5), 8.

Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the user interface. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Siskos, C. (1997). Slicing up area codes. Kiplingner's Personal Finance Magazine, 51 (8), 1.

Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. (1982). Introduction: Intelligent tutoring systems. In Sleeman, D.
and Brown, J. (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems. London: Academic Press.

Steinfield, C. (1992). Computer-mediated communications in organizational settings: Emerging
conceptual frameworks and directions for research. Management Communication
Quarterly, 5 (3), 348-365.

Stewart, John. (1978). Foundations of dialogic communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
64, (2), 183-201.

Walls, J. (1993). Global networking for local development: Task focus and relationship focus in
cross-cultural communication. In Harasim, L. (Ed), Global networks: Computers and
international communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research. 19, (1), 52-90.

Walther, J, Anderson, J., and Park, D. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated
interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication
Research, 21 (4), 460-487.

Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine. NY: Basic.