‘Sad, Lonely World Discovered inCyberspace’The HomeNet Project (Kraut et al, 1998) 93 families in Pittsburgh, USA Monitored Internet use during their first year online Questionnaires focussing on psychological well being Interviewed participants about their useGreater Internet use associated with significant Declines in social involvement (the size of their social networks) Increases in loneliness Increases in depression
PseudocommunityInauthentic forms of community involvement brought about by increasing industrialisation and urbanisation (Beninger, 1987)Members of developed societies are essentially ‘bowling alone’ (Putnam, 2000) – not participating in ways that support their local community.
Adolescent’s sense of community onMySpace and Facebook (Reich, 2010)A Psychological Sense of Community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986)2. Membership3. Influence4. Integration and fulfilment of needs5. Shared emotional connectionNetworked Individualism Allows people to remain connected, but as individuals rather than being rooted in the home bases of work unit and household, Individuals switch rapidly between social networks rather than remain in a group or community.Reich (2010)
Are online communities real?Classic social science definitions of community would suggest not.Arguments against online community Their members aren’t collocated They don’t interact face to face They can’t (and don’t) form the necessary emotional bonds
Rheingold’s study of the WELLcommunity (1993) Text –based bulletin- board system (BBS) known as the Whole Earth Lectronic Link Virtual ethnography - showed the meaningful emotional connections that could develop via online community
Multimodal Interactionalanalysis of YouTube Where is the community? What makes it a community? What part do multimodal interactions play in making it feel like a community?
Things to look out for? Reciprocity in communication coordination of turn taking in conversation Communication as ‘gift’ exchange Ritualised behaviour openings and closings Defining the ‘meaning’ of the communicative space What behaviours are allowed/expected/norms How are these norms enforced
Shared Sense of SpaceThe Great Good Place (Third Places) Oldenburg’s three essential places in peoples lives the place they live,i the place they work, ando the place they gather for conviviality
Shared Sense of SpacePhysical space remains an important metaphor even when interactions are happening online
Shared PracticeRoutinised activities/behaviours that are shared by the groupUpdating status regularly (lifeblogging)Responding to Facebook birthday remindersRecording significant nights out/eventsReciprocal comments (i.e. using them as a conversational medium)The regularity of posts
Shared Practice – CommonLanguageNetiquette in Text-based environmentsParalanguage and Twitter @ RT #Reciprocity in comments/tweets
A Shared Practice – CommonVisual LanguageNetiquette in multimodal environmentsPhotos in FacebookGestures and body language in YouTube vloggingProfile pictures and backgroundsVlogging practicesGlobal dance/lip sync
Shared Resources and SupportSocial capital Bridging – exchanges typical of weak ties Bonding – social and emotional supportCommon Ground Common interests or goals Shared experiences and stories
Shared Identities A group identity (e.g. YouTubers) Processes of affiliation: friending, following, subscribing A set of consistent roles or personalities that exist within the community: local experts; ‘answer people’; entertainers; conversationalists; fans; ‘lurkers’ (viewers of videos are not YouTubers); haters, flamers or trolls; storytellers
Shared Identities YouTube Example
Interpersonal relationships Friendships and romances are also a significant part of online communities Processes of connection: liking, favouriting, direct messaging (moving to other media), poking Internet and in-person contact extend and enhance each other (Wellman, 2004). Video
Multimodal ActivityExamine different media responses to the YouTubevideo provided and try to understand what makes thisan online ‘community’ activity.Lucielovesyou – Hipster videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I-uV9EJWl8One group for each of the following:c Text commentsc Video content (dialogue and sound)i Video content (body language)o Video content (production elements)Note times and content (e.g. quotes, events, etc.)
Media ModesSound Speech, music, laughter, background noiseVideo Lighting Ambient lighting in homes Physical presence Posture, facial and bodily gestures, eye contact, pointing Production elements On screen effects, framing of shots, cutting between scenes, etc. Physical objects Placing objects in field of view, gesturing with objects,Photos Similar to video but staticOn screen text Video titles, tags, captions, comments, usernames, messages
Multimodal Analysis Processs Watch the videosf Identify themes ◦ Observe and identify significant mulitmodal events in communication – note the time ◦ Refer to existing literature on conversation to check what you see and hear – for example Goffman (1959)3. Watch the videos3 Describe the multimodal aspects of the videost Roughly transcribe the video data to clarify significant moments in communication and identify commonalities across videosr Watch the videosr Final transcription in a suitable form to explain themes and subthemes ◦ Include standard annotation conventions
Feedback Session What different stories do they tell? What modes exist within each medium ? How is this different from the exercise yesterday? What might we be missing here? What do you think is important for online community considering this evidence?
Multimodal transcription of videodata (using my own coding scheme)
Multimodal Transcription www.sigridnorris.com
Multimodal transcription –standardised annotation of speech: (n) pause noted in seconds = joining of words : an extension of the preceding syllable; ; rising or falling intonation for subsequent utterance underlined text indicates spoken with particular vocal energy - a sudden cut off to an utterance; ? a rising tone . a falling tone , a shifting continuous tone bridging utterances.
ReferencesReich, (2010) Adolescent’s sense of community on MySpace and Facebook. Journal of Community Psychology 38(6) pp. 688-705Rheingold, H. (1993) Virtual Community. Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Available online:http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/intro.htmlTurkle, S. (2011) Alone Together. Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. (1997) “Virtual Communities as Communities.” In Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization, edited by Peter Kollock and Marc Smith. Los Angeles: University of California Press.