| Sense-Making Home Page | Articles, Papers, Commentaries |
COPYRIGHT AND CITATION INFORMATION:
© Schaefer, David J., 1997. 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
.
(Note -- URL updated Dec 2007 --
http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artschaefer97.html
is no longer active).
PAPER:
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. Many of these difficulties stem
from that fact that little work has been done to develop theory
for online 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 an online environment that approximates
a Habermassian-style ideal speech situation can alleviate some
of these difficulties. In such an environment, all participants
would be able to freely and equally negotiate the context as
well as the content of their discourses. A useful approach for
this endeavor is Dervin's (1983, 1994) Sense-Making methodology,
which prescribes procedural techniques that can be used in the
design of information systems to facilitate user negotiation of
context and meaning. In the sections that follow, I explore the
historical development of online communities, summarize key research
trends in CMC, GDSS, and interface design, and propose a new model
for local, national, or 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 which remains
in wide use today: gemeinschaft is a community of shared
geography or interests among people, while gesellschaft is
a 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]; Engelbart's
oNLineSystem [NLS]). 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 most 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 and democratized 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 often-reported finding was that
users utilized emoticons (emotional cues typed on the screen)
to convey non-verbal/emotional information (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:
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. (Walther, 1992, p. 57).
A final research approach sought to identify the factors that predicted CMC diffusion throughout an organization. Dubbed the social influence approach, an often-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 explained diffusion
according to social influence factors. 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 a 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). 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.
More common, however, are findings suggesting difficulties in
the use of GDSS software or, at best, non-significant differences
between GDSS and FtF decision quality. In a study of two GDSS
systems, 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 made the
highest quality decisions, GDSS participants needed more time
to complete decision tasks, and 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, manual (statistically
aggregated groups), 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, there was little evidence of more democratized participation
in GDSS groups, a finding also reported in Poole and DeSanctis
(1992). Broome and Chen (1992) reported that anonymity -- an often-touted
precondition for groups to make non-biased evaluations of ideas
(see Hiltz and Turoff, 1993) -- could unleash tensions that would
disrupt consensus-building and decision-making. They faulted GDSS
software for forcing participants to follow a rationalized decision-making
model (as in the Delphi decision-making process; see Hiltz and
Turoff, 1993) rather than assisting participants in exploring
patterns and linkages in the ideas they have developed.
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 called "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 inputting a command. Users must learn these 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
designers 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 faced with the "tyranny of the blank screen" (p.
178). He identifies problems that often plague users of 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 allows users to accidentally and irreversibly
delete entire projects.
Figure 1 -- The MS-DOS Command Prompt
However, Shneiderman (1992) reports that the use of grammatical
and positional consistency can improve the effectiveness of a
command line environment: undergraduates who were given twelve
minutes to study a list of commands were better able to recall
them if the commands were structured in a logical manner.
Menu-based interfaces provide users with similar command options,
but organize them into a readily available list of choices (see
Figure 2). Shneiderman (1992) points out that menu selection "is
especially effective when users have little training, use the
system only intermittently, are unfamiliar with the terminology,
and need help in structuring their decision-making process"
(p. 99). He reports that research has demonstrated that broad
and shallow menus (those featuring many options in a few, high-level
menus) are more effective than narrow and deep structures. In
particular, performance deteriorates dramatically when users face
more than three levels of menu options. Further, he advocates
providing keyboard shortcuts for advanced users.
The third approach to interface design emphasizes direct manipulation of onscreen images and 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).
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 dramatic structuring techniques
to provide users with sets of 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 advocates
the use of a beginning, middle, and ending structure for all software
design; 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 adopted this
approach is Acker's (1992) "Storyteller's Toolkit,"
which allows conference participants to utilize online personas
and narratives to negotiate a group decision.
Artificial intelligence. An innovative 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. Still highly
experimental, this approach evolved out of 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, modeling/concept formulation, or other sophisticated
deduction techniques to diagnose 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 researchers to design effective
conference environments using CMC, Dervin and Clark (1993) point
out that many 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 individual human perception/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 dialogic model in post-Enlightenment
culture -- ignores communicative/dialogic processes:
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, correct ideas would by some magical process win. (p. 107)
In an online discussion group, written information stored in online databases becomes disembodied, reified, 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 theory offers a possible solution.
Stewart (1978) points out that phenomenology positions the origin
of knowledge in the relationship between noesis (perception) and
noema (that which is perceived). It 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 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. Stewart (1978) notes that "meaning emerges
in the encounter that is consciousness. It is not to say that
all perception -- and hence all communication -- is purely subjective,
because noesis is always accompanied by noema" (p. 189).
A dialogic model that implicitly acknowledges this process is
Habermas's (1984) theory of communicative action, which identifies
the parameters of an ideal speech situation. Habermas argues that
an ideal dialogic environment must satisfy "general symmetry
conditions" that ensure every participant has 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
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."
Thus, groupware designers must create systems that satisfy the
preconditions of general symmetry if they hope to facilitate online
dialogue rather than interactive monologues. This assertion is
based on the premise that the discourse generated in an ideal
speech situation would be meaningless if all participants made
entirely different or contradictory assumptions about the context
of the discussion, since these assumptions are of primary importance
in assisting the human interpretive process. Habermas (1987) calls
this shared context the 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). This lifeworld
(or context) is a necessary precondition for communicative
action: 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. Dialogue
is the means by which participants negotiate this shared understanding;
a common context must first be made explicit before further dialogue
can ensue. Current online communities have no built-in mechanism
for assisting users in negotiating a common frame of reference;
each user simply posts a message to a common database -- sometimes
organized in threads, sometimes not. Unless users volunteer contextual
information within their posts, others are forced to attribute
intention and meaning without the benefit of a shared lifeworld/context.
Such a situation encourages misinterpretation and, ultimately,
miscommunication.
An apt example is provided by Usenet Newsgroup design (see Figure
4). Typically, newsgroups come in two stripes -- moderated or
unmoderated. In the former, self-appointed moderators 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 free access to the system to post any
message they choose.
In both cases, the development of common ground is left to chance. Without any mechanism for allowing users to negotiate the context of their communicative environments, users are left to guess at the intention/purpose of another's post, often leading to misunderstanding and inflammatory rhetoric. A male Internet user I had interviewed for a research project on Internet literacy reported one such incident to me:
DS--And in what other ways have you communicated with other
people on-line over the past week. . . .
M1--. . . . Um, newsgroups, just when I bashed that guy on the
Welsh longbow. Don't even know who he was. Don't really care.
He was an ignoramus, so I just sort of put him in his place.
Um. . . .
DS--And how did that help?
M1--Um, that didn't really help, [though]. Probably helped him
more than me. Yeah, just show 'em where to look, you know, look
up these sources, you know.
As this short interview excerpt shows, this newsgroup participant
attributed intentionality to the other participant unaided by
contextual information that might have facilitated mutual understanding.
Such information may have helped this user understand what led
to the publication of a message which, to him, seemed "ignorant."
Reports of inflammatory online behavior in newsgroups and chat
rooms have been common since the development of computer conferencing.
Such behavior includes excessive swearing, name calling, insults,
threats, or even "virtual rapes" (see MacKinnon, 1997;
Rheingold, 1993; Rice and Love, 1987; Walther, Anderson, and Park,
1994; Zuboff, 1988). Mabry (1997) notes that
[a]rgumentative exchanges among net group members are quite prevalent. The intensity and deviancy of such disembodied exchanges can become so heated and destructive. . . that norms of network usage (referred to as netiquette), inculcated and reinforced among net users, specifically address the diligence users should display in how they write argumentative messages (p. 1).
Since conferencing systems typically have no specific mechanism for facilitating user negotiation of common ground, online communication can proceed along lines that inadvertently silences would-be participants. This effect was reported in another research interview I conducted with a female Usenet participant. As someone who was already fearful of having her opinions slammed in public, she reported that newsgroups exacerbated this concern:
DS--Think about your time spent online. Can you think of a specific situation . . . in which you felt like you were free to voice your opinion about something? . . .
FI--Um, I think in the newsgroups. I mean, depending on which newsgroups you are, um. You can pretty much . . . be able to debate, you know, the good and bad of things, though I am, I'm a very flame paranoid person, so I try not put anything that's going to get anyone mad 'cause I really don't want, eh, five megs of e-mail [emphasis added].
DS-- [P]lease describe your experience, if you've had the specific experience you remember, like posting to the newsgroup or something like that.
FI--Um, I don't, I don't believe there's a specific experience, but I think there's a general openness in some of the newsgroups. Obviously, if you go onto a Star Trek newsgroup and you say Star Trek sucks, you're gonna get flamed, and you're gonna get flamed really, really bad. But . . . if you're, like, open minded, because I think there are a lot of incredibly close-minded people who refuse to let anyone stand in their way of or, or disagree at all . . . . I think that you have to enter into the, this forum and as long as you're not looking for a flame, and you defend yourself well, most people will just, you know, read you or, or discuss it with you.
DS--Okay, but you can't think of a . . . you don't remember a specific situation where you felt very free to express your opinion?
FI--No, but I'm, I'm not, I'm not one who's very prone to expressing opinions [emphasis added].
These factors illustrate the difficulties designers face in
implementing discussion groups to approximate an ideal speech
situation. However, Dervin's (1983; 1994) Sense-Making approach
provides a methodology for introducing contextual information
into the design of conferencing systems. 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 confront gaps, building conceptual bridges (knowledge,
understanding, sense) over them. Humans are social theorists,
self-reflexively enlarging their repertoire of practices, behaviors,
and thoughts as they negotiate gaps, moving from one experience
to the next.
Sense-Making theory helps researchers focus on the procedures
by which humans negotiate meaning rather than on the "sense"
(information) that they create. Typically, studies utilizing Sense-Making
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 led them 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. The respondent might report
questions like "Where can I go so that no one will try to
hurt me?," "How can I stay warm without a coat?"
or "What is a comfortable way to sleep on the street?"
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).
A computer interface modeled on Sense-Making methodology would
query each participant on the situation-gap-usage surrounding
each post (see the Appendix for an example). Other users would
then read both the post and its accompanying contextual information,
allowing them to develop a better understanding of the meaning
of the original post. By conceptualizing conference posts as gap-bridging
activities within a specified context, Sense-Making provides
a methodological template (situations-gaps-uses) for designing
an interface that could enhance the quality of online interactions.
I do not mean to suggest that such a design would eliminate all
inflammatory rhetoric or allow all users to freely and equally
participate (although this would be a design goal): rather, a
Sense-Making-based interface would represent an important improvement
over current designs by acknowledging contextual information within
the messaging structure.
Creating an international online community
A potentially useful environment for testing a Sense-Making-based
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. The organization has been
actively involved in international network development issues
for the past ten years in the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa,
and Asia. The IDRC has proposed the creation of an online discussion
group to facilitate this work. It would allow project participants
throughout the world the opportunity to debate telecommunications
issues. As Menou (1994) suggests,
[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).
Menou (1994) notes that the proposed research network "would thus not need to restrict itself to developing countries but may possibly be far more extensive in its geographic and subject coverage" (p. 18). The benefit of such research would be four-fold:
1) It would, for the first time, explore the possibility of creating an international, Habermassian-style ideal speech situation using CMC;
2) It would utilize Dervin's Sense-Making methodology -- which has already proven to be a successful approach for designing various information systems like libraries and public relations campaigns -- in the development of a computer conference interface;
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 help researchers identify the communication competencies utilized by a broad range of participants as they forge common ground and consensus 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 networks
have been established (e.g., PeaceNet, EcoNet), most have implicitly
based their design 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 phenomenologically informed
theory that promises to assist in the creation of effective online
communities.
Acker, S. (1992). The storyteller's toolkit. In Lea, M., Contexts
of computer-mediated
communication. NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf..
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].
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.
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.
Appendix
| Return to top | Page last updated 12/24/07 |