The document discusses how concepts of community have changed with technological developments. It explores how community was traditionally associated with place but now occurs online through shared interests. It also summarizes debates around whether online interactions weaken traditional community ties or enable new forms of community defined by users. The document examines arguments from critics and proponents and identifies issues like building strong ties without physical cues that online communities face.

1. Community and Ties
Social Media – Dr. Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)
Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore

2. Community
 Term traditionally associated with a particular place
and the people that live in it
 Conjuring images of harmonious living in small
villages or urban residential districts, with strong
networks of trust and mutual support that are
cultivated over generations
 Deriving strength from shared interest, culture,
religion, creed, race, national identity or social status
2 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

3. How has our sense of community changed?
 With every major socioeconomic and political shift our
understanding of community has been challenged
 Industrialization
 Urbanization
 Revolution
 Migration
 Poverty
 Marginalization
 In the era of computer-mediated communication we are
also forced to rethink ‘community’
3 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

4. Polarization of community discourse
Critics see an increase
ICT enthusiasts see
in individualization and
unlimited potential in
a weakening of
the ability of online
traditional community
users to define
ties; some even fear the
community in new and
destruction of local
meaningful ways
communities
4 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

5. Common arguments from both sides
Mark as true or false based on your understanding!
 Relationships on the Internet  The Internet helps create
are weak, short-lived and and manage many useful
interest-based only weak ties
 Low motivation to  People will help even those
reciprocate; lack of they barely know
commitment or solidarity  The maintenance of strong
 Difficult to create sense of ties is assisted by ICT
community online  Online communities do
 Strong, intimate ties not develop norms, identity,
possible attachment and reciprocity
 Online involvement  Online participation can
antagonizes offline increase diversity of ties
communities  Online communities can
 Online communities are not complement/support offline
like offline communities activities
5 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

6. 1. Narrowly specialized or broadly supportive?
Main findings
 The ideal broadly supportive ‘real life’ community is somewhat
of a myth in modern urban societies
 Some online communities do focus on a topic of interest and
information exchange – narrower; but information is not the
only thing that is exchanged online (example: support groups)
 Greater willingness to engage with strangers (forming weak
ties) in CMC due to lack of (offline) status and situational cues
 Recognition: any sign of support will be viewed by entire online
community; quicker and broader recognition
 Lower risk: easier to withdraw from problematic situations
online
6 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

7. 2. Reciprocity and attachment
Main findings
 Reciprocity is essential; yet many online interactions are indeed
based on weak ties which may reduce incentives to reciprocate
 Social dilemma: why reciprocate if it is unlikely that others will?
 However, online users do have reasons to take the first step
and to reciprocate: increase in self-esteem, respect from others
and status attainment in community
 Group/organizational attachment visible in some online
communities; directly related to generalized trust and
reciprocity which in turn become community norms (“the
person I may help may never be in a position to help me, but
someone else might be”, Rheingold 1993)
7 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

8. 3. Are strong, intimate ties possible?
Main findings
 CMC does encourage formation of weak ties which come with
few strings attached. Strong ties on the other hand must
exhibit certain characteristics: emotional investment, desire for
frequent interaction, long-term relationship, sense of mutuality
and knowing each other, often also shared social characteristics
 Yet there are many examples of forming – and even more for
maintaining – existing strong ties online
 The antagonism offline-online makes less sense here – Internet
just one of several channels people use to maintain strong ties
 Some issues with lack of physical and social cues online; easier
to misunderstand, unnecessary stress and polarization
 Ease of terminating relationship online also an issue
 But Internet generally does not preclude intimacy
8 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

9. 4. How does online community affect offline?
Main findings
 Time spent in front of the computer is often time spent
(physically) in isolation (mobile/portable devices changing that)
 However, community involvement is not a zero-sum game;
spending more time in an online community does not
necessarily mean that offline ties will suffer – can also lead to
increase in total time spent interacting with same people
 Strong ties are supported by CMC (see also previous slide)
 We must think in terms of relationships managed both offline
and online rather than online vs. offline ties
 Multiplex relationships: use of multiple media in interaction can
aid in strengthening existing ties or in maintaining relationship
when physically distant
9 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

10. 5. Diversity
Main findings
 Traditional communities constrained by space, social status,
roles and personal identity
 On the Internet we tend to participate in multiple
communities in parallel: greater diversity of ties (this also
relates again to the ‘weak ties’ argument)
 For a highly mobile population, allegiance to a diverse set of
online communities can be even greater than for (the usually
less diverse) offline communities we participate in
 Caveat: forming ties online based on shared interests may lead
to greater homogeneity of a different type (birds of a feather
flock together)
 Therefore, both offline/local and online communities can
contribute to diversity, in distinct ways
10 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

11. So, what is a ‘community’ online?
 It is generally a community that is based
more on shared interests and weak ties; less
on social characteristics or strong ties
 It is more ego-centric: individuals create
social networks based on their interests and
motivations; not tied to one community
 But these are not either-or distinctions;
communities come in many shapes and sizes
 The traditional ideal of community is
anyway little more than a “pastoralist myth”
(Wellman and Gulia, 2007)
 In this sense, asking “is community X really a
community ?” is not very productive
 It is more useful to ask: “what makes this a
community in the eyes of its members?”
11 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

12. The Strength of Weak Ties
 We tend to value strong ties more because
of the emotional investment and mutual
expectations that they entail
 Loss of a strong tie is likely to upset much
more than the loss of a weak tie
 So what if the Internet helps build more
weak ties?
 Weak ties provide unique benefits:
 More likely to act as bridges between different
social networks and communities
 Because weak ties are less likely to be connected
to one another than our close ties (transitivity)
 This is known as the SWT (Strength of Weak
Ties) hypothesis, which has been tested and
verified in many studies
12 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

13. What are the real benefits of bridges?
 They provide information that is likely to be different to that of one’s personal
network
 Useful in job hunting
 Widen the spectrum of influences and our own thinking, possibly improving our
understanding of other people
 But helping us also explore our individualism
 They are more frequently the sources or early adopters of original thinking and
innovation
 Multiple influences engender novel thought
 Less constrained by the vested interests of tightly-knit social groups
 Assist in socialization, organizational effectiveness and collective action
 Networks of strong ties tend to have access to the same resources and are closely
knit, which engenders one-sided thinking, conformity to group norms and inter-
group competition
Gemeinschaft bridging Gesellshaft
(community) (society)
13 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

14. Limitations of weak ties
 Not all weak ties are valuable bridges
 Disparity between the rich and poor; the former tend to have more bridges in
their networks (sometimes at the expense of less strong ties)
 Potentially evoking less sympathy in time of need
 Strong ties are more likely to go out of their way to help (e.g., with job loss
and consequent unemployment)
 Greater dependency of lower social strata on strong ties; but this is also a
direct result of stratification and homophily rather than choice
 Dependency on strong ties also leads to clustered communities with few if
any bridges between them, leading to disadvantages
 Slower and less credible/influential
 We place more trust and act quicker on information received from strong ties
14 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

15. A typology of online communities (1 of 2)
Social networks The networks that we selectively create as individuals online
Communities focused on the extension of one’s social circle, with little or no
Networking/
pre-determined context (e.g., LinkedIn as a community designed for the
Partnership purposes of professional networking, ex-pat networks, dating sites, etc.)
Based on a common topic of interest. Members exchange views and information
Communities of
on the topic (e.g., a community of space exploration enthusiasts, a community
Interest discussing environmental politics, fans of a certain artist, etc.)
Based on a common practice. Members share knowledge & advice that will aid
Communities of
in their practice (e.g., academics sharing advise on teaching, a community of
Practice athletes exchanging nutrition tips, bloggers sharing best practices, etc.)
Communities built around a common goal or set of mutually held convictions,
Collective Action usually with public agenda (e.g., online activists, evangelists of a religion, idea, or
social practice, etc.)
Providing emotional/psychological support to members, or other types of
Support groups
support (e.g., technical)
Teams working on common tasks (e.g., a team working on a new piece of
Workgroups
software, or on a new advertizing campaign)
Not mutually exclusive; these are different perspectives on community and more than one may be valid
15 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

16. A typology of online communities (2 of 2)
Local or regional online networks (e.g., a community focused on Singapore-only
Location
news and social commentary)
Vocation Limited to a certain vocation (.e.g., a community of doctors who promote stem
cell research, or of lawyers who specialize in intellectual property law)
As defined by gender or sexual preference (e.g., a community of women in
Gender academia, or a support group for homosexuals suffering from discrimination and
social exclusion)
Defined by language, culture, or other forms of social identity (e.g., a worldwide
Language/Culture community of Chinese speakers and learners, or a community of native
Americans in the US)
Communities defined primarily by social end economic status (e.g., a community
Social Status
of Ivy League graduates, or a support network for migrant workers)
Communities that are defined by organizational boundaries (intra-organizational,
Organization e.g., a community of engineers working for Microsoft, or inter-organizational,
e.g., an online network for employees of a group of partnering NGO’s)
Some communities are primarily defined by the tools or software platforms they
Platform
use (e.g., the community of Facebook users, a community of Apple users., etc.)
Communities can also be open/public or closed/private with respect to membership and/or content
16 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

17. Thoughts on Design
What type of community are you trying to build or
wish to otherwise participate in?
How do/will members of this community form ties
with one another?
How can you have greater attachment to the
community while avoiding homogenization’s
undesirable side-effects?
Can you ensure that this online community will Think about the online
complement/build on existing online and offline communities you know
relationships, or will it clash with them? and try to understand
their goals and scope,
How can you build on the strengths of both strong
how they function, and
and weak ties while mitigating their disadvantages?
how they could improve
17 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)

18. Credits and licensing
 Frontpage photo by h.kopdelaney (license: CC BY-ND)
 Polarization/opposite faces photo by Cayusa (license: CC BY-NC)
 OLPC/iPhone chat photo by curiouslee (license: CC BY-NC)
 Bond/tie photo by ChrisK4u (license: CC BY-ND)
Original content in this presentation is licensed under the Creative Commons
Singapore Attribution 3.0 license unless stated otherwise (see above)
18 CNM Social Media Module – Giorgos Cheliotis (gcheliotis@nus.edu.sg)