Uses and gratifications of members of communities of practice

Abstract

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a large-scale study which examined the uses and gratifications of communities of practice of the Israeli Ministry of Social Services.

Design/methodology/approach
– A twofold research methodology was applied: content analysis of 7,248 posts, as well as 71 semi-structured interviews with community members.

Findings
– Cognitive uses were perceived by community members as the key uses and gratifications from the communities of practice. The implications of these uses and gratifications, such as the de-isolation of isolated workers and personal empowerment, are studied.

Originality/value
– Contrary to much recent literature, the study presents the communities not mainly as platforms for social relations or emotional support, but rather as exchange platforms where information is transmitted between providers and consumers to the benefit of all community members.

Full text

Online Information Review
Uses and gratifications of members of communities of practice
Azi Lev-On
Article information:
To cite this document:
Azi Lev-On , (2015),"Uses and gratifications of members of communities of practice", Online
Information Review, Vol. 39 Iss 2 pp. 163 - 178
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2014-0170
Downloaded on: 26 August 2015, At: 16:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 48 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 147 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Noelia Sánchez-Casado, Juan Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Eva Tomaseti-Solano, (2015),"Linking social
networks to utilitarian benefits through counter-knowledge", Online Information Review, Vol. 39 Iss 2
pp. 179-196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-12-2014-0307
Tal Samuel-Azran, Moran Yarchi, Gadi Wolfsfeld, (2015),"Aristotelian rhetoric and Facebook success
in Israel’s 2013 election campaign", Online Information Review, Vol. 39 Iss 2 pp. 149-162 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2014-0279
Ahmet Uyar, Farouk Musa Aliyu, (2015),"Evaluating search features of Google Knowledge Graph and
Bing Satori: Entity types, list searches and query interfaces", Online Information Review, Vol. 39 Iss 2
pp. 197-213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2014-0257
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:498886 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Uses and gratifications
of members of communities
of practice
Azi Lev-On
School of Communication, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a large-scale study which examined
the uses and gratifications of communities of practice of the Israeli Ministry of Social Services.
Design/methodology/approach –A twofold research methodology was applied: content analysis
of 7,248 posts, as well as 71 semi-structured interviews with community members.
Findings –Cognitive uses were perceived by community members as the key uses and gratifications
from the communities of practice. The implications of these uses and gratifications, such as the
de-isolation of isolated workers and personal empowerment, are studied.
Originality/value –Contrary to much recent literature, the study presents the communities not
mainly as platforms for social relations or emotional support, but rather as exchange platforms where
information is transmitted between providers and consumers to the benefit of all community members.
Keywords Communities of practice, Cognitive uses, Social uses, Uses and gratifications
Paper type Research paper
Theoretical background
This paper is based on the uses and gratifications theory. The theory, which is central
in communication studies, presumes that media consumers and producers, i.e. viewers,
listeners, readers and internet users, are aware of their needs and the ways to fulfil
them, and select the means perceived as most appropriate to fulfil these needs.
Instead of assuming the various media have uniform impacts on audiences,
the theory is based on the proposition that people use media to address their specific
needs, and that their expectations lead to deliberate usage of the media and selective
exposure to the content they transmit (Katz et al., 1974). Typically studies based on the
uses and gratifications theory use self-reporting methods, i.e. interviews and
questionnaires, which include a list of statements representing different needs.
The wide penetration of the internet has led to renewed interest in uses and
gratifications theory. Internet users actively choose which sites to visit, what items
to read, which communities to join, which information to post, what applications to use
and so on. Such actions involve deliberate decisions and open a vast new field of study
of people’s uses and gratifications (Ruggiero, 2000; Newhagen and Rafaeli, 1996).
Katz et al. (1974) categorised media uses and gratifications as cognitive
(consumption and processing of information), affective (emotional and aesthetic
experiences), escapist (disconnecting from reality) and integrative (strengthening
a sense of belonging, relationships with family, friends, community and state, as well as
providing a sense of security, trust, stability and status). Several early studies applied
Online Information Review
Vol. 39 No. 2, 2015
pp. 163-178
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/OIR-07-2014-0170
Received 26 July 2014
Second revision approved
22 December 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
The study was supported by the Center for the Study of New Media, Society and Politics at the
Ariel University. The author thanks Odelia Adler and Nili Steinfeld for their assistance in
analysing the data and finalising the manuscript.
163
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

the theory to various online environments, and found a diversity of uses and
gratifications. Earlier studies looked at uses of “the internet”as a whole; for example
Tewksbury and Althaus (2000) identified entertainment, monitoring and surveillance,
and “passing time”as the three key gratifications obtained from use of the internet.
Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) identified five motives for using the internet:
interpersonal utility, passing time, information seeking, convenience (e.g. to
communicate with friends and family) and entertainment. Parker and Plank (2000)
identified three main gratifications: companionship and social relationships;
surveillance and excitement; and relaxation and escape. Song et al. (2004) found
seven such motivation clusters: establishing “virtual community”(finding
companionship, meeting new friends), information seeking, aesthetic experiences,
monetary compensation (i.e. finding bargains online), diversion (i.e. fun and
entertainment), personal status and relationship maintenance.
Recent studies focus on uses and gratifications from online social media; for
example Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) found that social networking sites Facebook
and MySpace address the social needs of users such as keeping in touch with old
friends and making new ones. Leung (2009) identified four key gratifications from
content generated online: satisfying recognition needs, cognitive needs, social needs
and entertainment needs. Dunne et al. (2010) identified communication, entertainment,
escapism and relationship maintenance as perceived gratifications from social
networking sites. Quan-Haase and Young (2010) compared the uses of Facebook and
instant messaging, and identified six key gratifications being obtained: pastime,
affection (e.g. thanking people and helping others), fashion (i.e. to appear stylish),
sharing problems, sociability and obtaining social information.
Additional recent studies focus on uses of and gratifications from additional social
media platforms, such as Wikipedia (Cho et al., 2010), mobile sharing and gaming
applications (Lee et al., 2010), Yelp.com, a review and recommendation site (Hicks et al.,
2012), citizen journalism sites (Lin, 2014), Pinterest (Mull and Lee, 2014) and more.
Lev-On (2012) found that cognitive needs (relating to employment and rights) and
social needs are the key gratifications obtained from an online community of evacuees
in Israel. Additional studies found supplementary gratifications such as venting,
and socialisation –passing stories and norms between generations (Stamatopoulou-
Robbins, 2005).
Note that uses and gratifications may vary according to the characteristics of the
audience. For example motivations for internet usage may vary based on users’age
and socioeconomic status (Cho et al., 2003). For example young people from a high
socioeconomic stratum tended to use the internet for getting the information they need
for specific tasks, as well as for relationship development and learning, while lower
socioeconomic stratum users tended to use the internet mainly for social goals and
entertainment. Different usage patterns may produce different gratifications; for
example Ridings et al. (2006) found that the relatively passive users extract from the
community mainly cognitive benefits, while the “heavier”more active users extract
social benefits that “lighter”users typically do not.
A possible result of the accumulation of knowledge through online communities is
an increased sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). This concept describes
a phenomenon in which a person finds that s/he can do something s/he previously
thought s/he was unable to. Personal self-efficacy is established through a gradual
process of learning that takes place in the background of the interaction between
environment, motivational mechanism and the actual achievements of the individual.
164
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Self-efficacy is a subjective perception, and if it is high it tends to enable successful
performance. Accumulation of knowledge via the internet, primarily by interaction
as it takes place in communities of practice, may lead to higher self-efficacy and
professional empowerment (Leung, 2009).
Cognitive and social uses of social media
The review of literature demonstrates that internet use in general, and use of social
media in particular, generates many different kinds of uses and gratifications.
However, based on the review it can be concluded that the two primary uses of social
media are social and cognitive. This section discusses these two uses in more detail.
One gratification that online social spaces usually supply is emotional and social
support (Haythornthwaite, 2005; Rheingold, 2000). Moreover, in some communities the
social aspect of communication is particularly important, and fills social needs that are
impossible to actualise to the same extent in offline communities. For example people
with very specific interests or those who are socially awkward may experience
difficulty in creating appropriate groups for their interests in their daily social
environment. Also, people belonging to marginalised groups typically seek connections
with people like them that cannot typically be found in their immediate vicinity. In such
cases the internet generates novel opportunities to form social connections and
socialise (McKenna and Green, 2002; Walther, 1996; Petričand Petrovčič, 2014).
In contrast, most literature regarding uses and gratifications from online communities
of practice is not focused on the social but rather the cognitive aspects, such as the amount
and quality of information shared, ways to filter information and address information
overload, the impact of the information uploaded to the communities and more (Kraut
et al., 2010; Johnson, 2001). This focus on cognitive aspects is not surprising when it comes
to online communities of practice –groups of professionals who are interested in a joint
examination of professional issues related to their work. To this end they share
information, resources and experiences. The amount of shared knowledge in these
communities, its flow and its uses, are therefore important aspects of the community
experience of users. Research about the cognitive aspects of the online community
experience mainly examines the motivations for contributing information (Lev-On and
Hardin, 2007; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Ma and Agarwal, 2007; Wasko and Faraj, 2005).
However, although motivations have been investigated in depth, there are no studies
examining whether cognitive gratifications are indeed the key gratifications from
the community as perceived by their members, as opposed to social or other
gratifications. This is the unique contribution of this study.
Research environment and methodology
The current study examines uses of and gratifications from online communities of
social workers established by the Israeli Ministry of Social Services.
The communities of practice studied represent a unique case whereby
a governmental ministry established online forums to enable interaction between its
employees and the broader community of practitioners. Such communities may have
many advantages in terms of exposing local and tacit knowledge, improving
knowledge circulation and even supporting professional acquaintance and solidarity
between workers (Cook-Craig and Sabah, 2009). At the same time they can widely
and openly disseminate criticism, and damage working relations. Consequently
governmental ministries tend to avoid platforms for such interactions among
165
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

employees (Haber, 2013). Nonetheless, with the rise of social networking platforms
an increasing number of governmental bodies are offering more opportunities for direct
online interactions amongst employees, as well as between employees, clients and
citizens. The communities of practice studied here were established in 2006 and can
be seen as pioneers of this phenomenon.
Since their establishment in 2006 more than 7,700 members have enrolled in one or
more of the 31 online communities with topics ranging from domestic violence, adoption,
juvenile delinquency and mental disabilities, to regulations and ethics. Communication
in the communities is identified using real names. While the communities are hosted on
governmental platforms, o30 per cent of their members are government employees; the
rest are employed in NGOs, municipalities and elsewhere.
The forums are based on a standard web platform, where discussion is threaded
and latest comments appear first, pushing down earlier comments. Due to
government regulations and reasons involving information security and control, the
communities are using government-based web platforms and cannot use popular
social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. This distinguishes the
communities from many contemporary communities of practice that migrated to
such commercial environments.
This paper is a part of a larger project analysing the content of the online communities
of practice as well as the perceived effects of community on their members. A twofold
research methodology was applied for this purpose. First, 71 semi-structured interviews
were conducted with community members. Based on data obtained from the Ministry
of Social Services, members were sampled according to their levels of engagement, which
were in turn measured by the number of logins to the community and the number of times
members contributed content. Interviews were conducted by five interviewers across
Israel with the average length of an interview around 45 minutes. The interviewees had
diverse characteristics in terms of age, area of residence and the number or type
of communities of which they were members. Only 13 of the respondents were men,
reflecting the fact that their profession is predominantly female.
The interview contained 66 semi-structured questions, focusing on usage patterns,
perceptions of community managers, uses and gratifications, impact on work routines
and satisfaction, the strengths and weaknesses of the communities, trust and personal
relationships in the communities and more. The interviews were transcribed and
analysed using a thematic-interpretive method. The findings are largely based on these
interviews (Figure 1).
Second, we undertook a content analysis of all the available materials –7,248 posts
from 11 communities of practice through mid-2012. The communities were chosen
to constitute a representative sample of the various communities in the project in
terms of the date of establishment (older communities vs newer ones), the scope of
activity within the community (measured by the percentage of active members out
of all members of the community), the size of the community (measured by the
number of members in the community) and theareasofpracticeofthecommunity
(therapeutic communities compared to communities engaged in formal issues and
procedures).
The posts were coded by 13 coders after intensive training and a reliability test,
which was repeated until an agreement rate of 90 per cent between the coder and the
lead researcher was obtained in each of the categories of the coding book. In addition
the first set of posts each coder had coded (usually 50-120 posts) was examined by the
lead researcher, who went over the coding to make sure that reliability was maintained.
166
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Unclear High no. of
discussions and
high no. of
entries
Medium no.
of
discussions and
medium no.
of entries
Medium no.
of
discussions and
high no. of
entries
Medium no.
of
discussions and
high no. of
entries
Low no. of
discussions and
high no. of
entries
Low no. of
discussions and
medium no.
of entries
Low no. of
discussions and
low no. of
entries
12
6
9
5
1
14
8
15
Figure 1.
Interviewees’
participation patterns
167
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

The coding sheet comprised 24 quantitative categories, out of which the following
ten categories were used to code the content of messages:
(1) practical advice, which is directly related to daily work with clients,
for example: what is the impact of certain kinds of interventions?;
(2) organisational advice, related to employees’daily work unrelated to working
with clients, for example concerning forms, procedures, programmes and
courses;
(3) statements about the community’s theme, which are statements that relate not
to employees’daily work, but to more general issues related to the community’s
main theme, for example: how to improve services for patients, and how to
improve the status of blind people in Israeli society;
(4) emotional support, addressing community members’manifestations of
charged emotions (anger, frustration, fear, sadness, etc.) that are related to
their work;
(5) academic advice (references to academic literature, relevant research, etc.);
(6) informing on an event or conference;
(7) greetings and gratitude;
(8) publication of a project or organisation;
(9) submitting contact details; and
(10) other topics.
Findings
The interviews brought up a variety of uses and gratifications which vary among
users. Still, most of the uses that respondents indicated as the main uses of the
communities, in their view, were cognitive.
Cognitive uses
Online communication enables people to overcome restrictions of time and
geographic location that characterise physical communities. Online communities
are also unlimited in terms of the number of participants, and can engage many
members simultaneously (Wellman and Gulia, 1999; Rheingold, 2000; Butler et al.,
2007; Lev-On, 2013). The interviewees see in these straightforward properties the
main advantage of the online community:
D: There’s a pool of people of your world, and with a press of a button I can reach a lot of
people. It has a great value […] I think it is very convenient that today you can ask something
in a relatively simple technological manner, and get so many replies.
RB: Sometimes I’m dealing alone with a very significant issue, then after a month I see
someone has asked a question about the same issue –and there is so much existing
knowledge, and I’m like, “Ugh! Why didn’t I write this question a month ago?”
The “click of a button”expression was repeated in many interviews as a significant
advantage. The accessibility of the knowledge increases its values to the members:
AB: It allows to send information at the most basic level, simply at the touch of a button,
and then it reaches many professionals.
168
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Another advantage which was mentioned is that the communities function as
hubs of information, which was in fact one of the key goals of the project
(Cook-Craig and Sabah, 2009). L described a search for a particular topic in the
community:
Once I choose a topic, I then have access to the history of all the things that have been asked
before about this issue […].
Beyond access, interviewees also highlighted the ability to build lasting reservoirs
of local knowledge, and their ability to preserve the organisational knowledge in the
face of constant circulation of professionals:
The biggest problem of our profession is that huge of amount of knowledge and recollection
of experiences get lost. They are lost when a person is gone […] the community of practice
gives expression to everything that was done, every meeting that took place, every plan,
every project –that way it’s not going to disappear (A).
Professional empowerment
Beyond the importance of information in itself, the interviewees also described two
useful consequences of their cognitive gratification: professional empowerment,
and reducing workers’isolation by embedding them in a professional community.
The following paragraphs expand on these two aspects.
In the age of the “information society”, information production, dissemination and
integration form the basis to economic, vocational, cultural and political empowerment
(Castells, 1996; Webster, 1995). The assumption is that by streamlining the processes of
transmitting information and knowledge within the professional community, the social
services provided to customers would be improved and the social workers themselves
would be empowered (Cook-Craig and Sabah, 2009).
Indeed the interviewees emphasised that “knowledge is power”. A claim that was
frequently repeated was that knowledge is an essential tool in the profession, and the
more that knowledge grows, so does professionalism. NH, who works with young
people, elaborates on how the knowledge gained from the communities contributed to
his professional abilities:
I’m“relying on giants”. Based on [things I get from the communities] I consolidate my
recommendations about those children […]. This causes me to be more professional, and my
reports to be much more proficient. It helps me reconcile fieldwork and theory. It makes me
a better social worker.
Besides the fact that the knowledge affected the quality of NH’s work, it helped him on
a personal level in establishing status:
The fact that my reports contain articles –that result from the communities […] Due to the
improved reports I wrote, my supervisor, the director of the welfare department and even
the judge said: “this is what I call a report!”They were very excited […].
Finally, R reports that the community assists her in making decisions in cases that are
ethically complicated which, again, empowers her and enables her, in her view, to make
improved choices in other cases as:
Especially on the issue of domestic violence there are lots and lots of ethical questions, even
questions of risk. You find yourself standing sometimes at a crossroad […] The community
assists in making these choices […] it strengthens me!
169
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Reducing employees’isolation
A second indirect consequence of the extended ability to share and circulate knowledge
through the communities is the assistance provided particularly for some isolated
workers to alleviate their isolation. Note that this does not place them into a social
environment where people gain social support, but into a professional environment
where social service workers get their cognitive needs fulfilled, despite the continued
absence of peers and supervisors at their location.
These isolated employees, typically located in the periphery or in small communities
where social services are held on a smaller scale or hardly present, are much more in
need of other professionals to consult. The online forum is a solution for these
employees because of the opportunity to simultaneously consult with many peers
located all over the country. N, who works in a small town, participates in a lot of online
communities because:
It helps. It is good to know that such a group exists, because I come from a very isolated place
[…] right now there are no colleagues at my workplace who know anything about
rehabilitation of people with mental challenges [the area that I focus on] […] I feel like I am
inside a community, within a group. I’m not alone.
N’s statement demonstrates how online communities enable connections that can make
up for the absence of offline interaction (Morahan-Martin and Schumacher, 2003).
TS is also active in the forum and comments quite often because:
We are a small department so we don’t have regular supervision visits, and the supervisors
are not always available for us […] and here answers are always accessible, there is always
a reaction to every question.
A also says:
I work here by myself, I am the only welfare worker of the area, there is no professional team
and no face to face forum for consultations. Here I am connected to the community.
It should be noted that initially, the interviews made no references to “isolation”or
“professional solitude”, but many interviewees raised these topics themselves during
the interview. Our impression is that the interviewees who referred to isolation in
general are those who use the communities frequently and make comments frequently
and intensively. This affirms that these isolated workers need to feel they are part of
a supportive community more than others, whose professional needs are already
provided by their environment.
In conclusion the community provides a kind of substitute for offline professional
connections and seems to be particularly important for employees who have no peers
in their geographical area, or for those with especially challenging jobs who may feel
the need to talk and share with people who go through similar experiences even if they
are not physically near.
Creativity and cognitive stimulation
Another gratification that came out in interviews was cognitive stimulation. Beyond
the accumulation of knowledge the interviewees stated that they developed, due to
the use of communities, other and different perspectives concerning issues.
The discussions contributed to their creativity while designing treatments, and
exposed them to new techniques.
170
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Interviewees said that the knowledge shared in the communities stimulated them to
think outside their usual narrow framework. To most respondents, stimulating creative
thinking is the communities’main contribution:
This contribution is felt on a daily basis. It is measured not quantitatively, rather by
its very existence, its significance. It’s like living with a mother and father without a mother
and father (AL).
Cognitive stimulation assists members not only by providing different perspectives
concerning the cases treated, but also by creating a venting opportunity and expanding
horizons, as was noted by a number of respondents, veterans in the profession,
who apparently feel more worn out than others and need to vent more than those who
are newer in the field:
The forum is a good stimulus; it takes us away from our Sisyphean daily routine. I’m all for
renewal. Becoming aware of new materials (AF).
I think that in unique and hard domains like violence one can very quickly feel worn out.
And I think it has always been nice to finish the day in the community and see what people
have to say (A).
The interviewees identified with cases and dilemmas that their peers presented to the
community. They described how in the forum they stumble across cases that remind
them of cases they have dealt with themselves. Therefore it interests and enriches them
to know how someone else handled the same problem:
It raises questions. You read about someone’s dilemma in a certain way, and let’s say that
you’ve are experienced this issue in the past […] It triggers the brain to think. Even if I do not
need at that particular moment to know the answer to any specific question. You straight
away think what similar cases have I dealt with, what more can be done? What other actions
are brought up? (G).
H presents the contribution of knowledge in the communities from additional angles:
For example in a home for women at risk. Let’s say I feel like I’m missing knowledge about the
men in this topic, because we always only learn the women’s side and hardly at all about
the men’s[…] it certainly revealed a picture about a side which a lot are not familiar with.
Information publishing: the community as a marketing arena
Another significant use of the communities which was described by the interviewees is
as a marketing arena, which appears in two aspects: for members of the community
who want to advertise their work or the activities of their institution; and for external
advertisers.
Use of the communities as platforms for advertising commercial products came up
in a small number of interviews. Most of the discussions in the interviews about
advertising were in reference to institutional activities. Also, most of the interviewees
who noted publication as a key role of the communities were those holding key
positions in their institutions, who conceived the promotion of their institution as an
important and even a personal goal.
The quantitative analysis of the posts in the forums demonstrates that on average,
8.5 per cent of the posts in the communities included advertising an event, organisation or
initiative. However, large differences were found between the communities ranging from
the community “social policy and measurement”in which 62.1 per cent of the posts included
advertising, to communities such as “juvenile delinquency”in which only 2.6 per cent of the
171
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

posts included advertisements. The percentages of posts that include advertisements of
events or initiatives are indeed important functions for the communities.
D, a manager of hostels for children with mental disabilities, says:
While using the excuse of information and knowledge sharing, this is a very good platform
to distribute information of what you do. I think, in some unconscious level, there is a certain
competition about who uploads more “cool things”than someone else […] it is an opportunity
for people who are usually in the shadows to reach the spotlight.
R, who works in a boarding school, says that the main initiative of this platform is
“visibility”. R considers the forum as a “billboard”that can assist her in reaching
relevant people that take interest in a relevant topic. She says:
We have professional materials that were kept for many years and we didn’t know how
to expose them to others, this has been an opportunity for us […] first to be on the map,
because for us the Ministry of Social Services’recognition and recognition from other
boarding schools, is very important […].
In the same vein, AA says:
We had a very interesting [therapeutic] group this year and we wanted to upload information
about it, and now we’ve updated it in order to publicise it.
These quotes suggest that the dynamics in these communities encourage competition
between the varying institutions, where everyone strives to demonstrate and praise
their projects and activities. This provides a benchmark allowing community members
to compare the institutions.
In addition to institutional public relations, the community functions at times as an
advertising platform for commercial products which may assist clients. Very often
social workers function as intermediaries and give advice about services and products,
and the information they encounter in the communities can be useful for them as well
as for their clients. For example AB, who works with the blind and other people with
vision impairments, says:
If there is a company that produces GPS-assisted technology that helps blind individuals with
navigation and it publishes something in the community of practice about the new product
that just came out, and I am working with a 15 year old boy that really needs this technology,
then I will forward him the information.
RT, from the community of mental disabilities, provides another example:
I wanted to distribute a book written by a patient of mine about dealing with children with mental
challenges and I didn’t know exactly how I could assist her […] she considers this book to be a
kind of a mission and I really wanted to help her. I therefore turned to the community of practice,
it was distributed and we received a lot of feedback. She was even invited to give a lecture.
Studies have highlighted the effectiveness of advertising in networks characterised by
interpersonal interaction. It has been found that the higher the social engagement,
the bigger and more positive the effect on consumer attitudes (e.g. Dahlen and
Colliander, 2011; Kozinets et al., 2010; Sashi, 2012). In the case of communities of
practice, marketers benefit from the interpersonal interactions that characterise the
forum, while reaching a very precisely segmented audience.
In conclusion it seems that one of the more important uses of the community is as
a platform through which it is possible to reach a precise desired target audience.
The community makes it easier and more efficient for commercial companies to reach
172
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

their clients, mostly through the intermediation of professionals who can recommend
certain products to their clients. The communities also function as a platform for
institutions looking for visibility and exposure of their projects and initiatives.
Support and solidarity
Due to their intensive work, both physically and mentally, social workers often have
need for support and sympathy (Meier, 2002). Do the communities of practice function
as a place for expression of support and solidarity in the eyes of their members?
Quantitative analysis finds that only 3.4 per cent of the posts analysed contained
emotional support, while communities differed in the percentage of messages that
contained support.
The opinions of interviewees concerning the desired extent of support in the communities
also differed, almost always in accordance with the character of the community to which
they belonged. Some interviewees believe it to be desirable that the communities function as
sources of support, and others believe that there is no room for that in a professional
community. For example M, from the juvenile delinquency community, states:
Not by any means! Support should be expressed directly, through personal conversations,
and not by virtual means. The support is lost through the computer.
Similarly, R, a boarding school director who is a member of three communities, says:
Communities need to be professional, and if they become merely a source of support,
this is sign that things have gotten really tough.
Conversely, in some communities support is a central dimension. According to
A ( juvenile law):
It is a venting of emotions […] Someone brings up something that happened to him, that he
saw, that he was exposed to, or something that infuriated him […] This triggers reactions and
sharing that revolves around emotions. Or when someone was assaulted, not necessarily
physically, by one of the clients […] Everyone provides a lot of support.
Like A, SH, also a member of the juvenile law community, thinks unambiguously that
communities are places of support:
Absolutely yes!!! […] There was a very serious incident of violence targeted at me and at
another social worker, and I remember writing in the community both on an emotional level
and a cognitive level. I shared it […] and got very strong and very comforting [reactions,
which strengthened me] […] Learning is not only a cognitive process, or just an intellectual
process, certainly for people like us.
SH’s remarks indicate that support does not contradict learning, rather the opposite,
she sees the support as an integral part of the learning process. She sees the use of
the communities as a place for venting of emotion:
I know that to return home and to share with my family, my boyfriend, my friends, [does not
always feel the same] […]It’s a whole different thing to talk to someone who understands and
knows what you’re talking about, someone who’s been there.
To illustrate how the community is an effective and powerful tool in the processing
of emotions, she gives the following example:
Recently there was a pretty serious violent incident in Haifa, and exactly when it happened
they closed the server of the Ministry of Social Services for maintenance and for a few days
173
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

there was no community. When the server was reopened someone wrote: “I’ve been waiting
for this moment when the community would be back, so I can write to you”. She got really
comforting responses.
AA tells of a discussion opened by the domestic violence community’s manager:
After a case of murder in the family […] She wrote a nice response, something that discussed
all of our greatest fears, something reassuring in a way […] about our responsibility and
our ability to predict such cases […] it was very, very encouraging, very comforting.
The interviews indicated that the communities function for some of their members
as a source of support and as a platform to share with people who understand them on
a professional level, people who experience similar emotions. Especially in communities
that focus on sensitive areas, the social workers look for a place where they can share
with others who are able to understand the feelings and situation they are going
through. The community is sometimes a kind of support group, a place where sharing
leads to a feeling of relief.
Discussion and conclusions
Communities of practice are groups of people who share a common interest and
knowledge in a professional subject (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Thus it is reasonable to
expect that they will mainly serve cognitive purposes. Indeed the interviews indicated that
these needs are the most relevant for most community members –access to many relevant
professionals, while overcoming obstacles of time and space, access to the databases “at
the click of a button”and organisational knowledge retention in spite of human turnover –
and are perceived by the interviewees as the prime benefits of the communities.
Thus as the literature review demonstrates, online information sharing creates
a basis for knowledge and professional empowerment (Henri and Pudelko, 2003).
The process occurs in phases: first, sharing generates infrastructure of knowledge, and
second, knowledge creates empowerment and professional development.
Another result of the increase in information sharing is the assistance granted to
isolated workers to overcome their professional solitude. Many social workers are in
a state of professional isolation geographically and cognitively. In such a situation the
community’s importance lies in creating a virtual framework that fills that offline void
(Georgiou, 2006; Lev-On, 2013; Shklovski et al., 2010).
Isolated workers are usually found in the periphery or in small communities where the
welfare staff is limited, and feel the need for partners to consult with. The online
community provides a solution for those employees, because although they do not have
physical workplace colleagues, within the community they can consult simultaneously
with many colleagues from various geographical places. Indeed it appears that the
interviewees that raised the issue of relief from professional solitude through the use of
online communities are characterised by fairly intensive use of the communities,
both in terms of the amount of visits within the communities and the amount of comments
posted by them. It should be noted again that the interviews did not include direct
reference to professional solitude in the first place, but the topic was raised by respondents.
Apart from physical solitude, feelings of emotional solitude were also expressed.
As many of the interviewees argued, social work is a psychologically difficult
profession, and the information that is posted in the communities is used by employees
not only to combat loneliness but also as emotional support. Employees claimed that to
them, the community is a source of solidarity and serves as an emotional shelter.
174
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

However, the importance of emotional support varies among communities. A thorough
examination of this issue in additional research is required.
Another cognitive use that was mentioned in the interviews was creativity and
cognitive stimulation. Respondents indicated that they benefited from the use of the
communities through the different perspectives presented there in addition to the
simple accumulation of knowledge. The discussion helps members to think of new
creative methods to use in treatments, and exposes new techniques. Stimulation of
thought seems to be especially important to those interviewees who were veterans in
the profession, who probably felt more worn out than others.
While the cognitive uses specified above were based primarily on the consumption
of information, providers of the information also benefit from the online communities.
Another usage of the communities that came up in the interviews was as a marketing
platform –for both employees who want to advertise the activities of their institutions,
as well as external advertisers. Interviewees indicated that they encountered
publishing of projects, practices, products and professional successes, which
sometimes were posted to “show off”in the eyes of peers, and created a feeling
of competitiveness. Thus the communities sometimes function as platforms for
introducing consumers to providers of information –employees, organisations and
stakeholders –while the immediate benefits of these professional exchanges spill over
to the entire community.
In conclusion contrary to much literature on social media, the study presents the
communities not mainly as platforms for social relations or emotional support, but
rather as exchange platforms where information is transmitted between providers
and consumers. But the implications of this study are of course limited by the
character of the communities which were studied –communities of government
employees and other stakeholders, hosted and moderated by a government
ministry on a government server. Future work should compare such communities
of practice to other professional communities on Facebook and other proprietary
social media platforms in terms of the uses of and gratifications from them,
their cognitive benefits and their ability to provide social and emotional support
for their members.
References
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”,Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S. and Kraut, R. (2007), “Community effort in online groups:
who does the work and why?”, in Weisband, S. (Ed.), Leadership at a Distance, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY, pp. 171-194.
Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and
Culture, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Cho, H., Chen, M.H. and Chung, S. (2010), “Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge
sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia”,Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 1198-1212.
Cho, J., Gil de Zuniga, H., Rojas, H. and Shah, D.V. (2003), “Beyond access: the digital divide and
internet uses and gratifications”,IT & Society, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 46-72.
Cook-Craig, P.G. and Sabah, Y. (2009), “The role of virtual communities of practice in supporting
collaborative learning among social workers”,British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 725-739.
175
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Dahlen, M. and Colliander, J. (2011), “Following the fashionable friend: the power of social media”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 313-320.
Dunne, A., Lawlor, M. and Rowley, J. (2010), “Young people’s use of online social networking sites
–a uses and gratifications perspective”,Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 46-58.
Georgiou, M. (2006), “Diasporic communities on line: a bottom up experience
of transnationalism”, in Sarikakis, K. and Thussu, D.K. (Eds), Ideologies of the Internet,
Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 131-145.
Haber, K. (2013), Organizational Culture Obstacles for Implementing Open Governance Policy,
Israel Democracy Institute, Jerusalem.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005), “Social networks and internet connectivity effects”,Information,
Communication & Society, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 125-147.
Henri, F. and Pudelko, B. (2003), “Understanding and analysing activity and learning in
virtual communities”,Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 474-487.
Hicks, A., Comp, S., Horovitz, J., Hovarter, M., Miki, M. and Bevan, J.L. (2012), “Why people
use Yelp.com: an exploration of uses and gratifications”,Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 2274-2279.
Johnson, C.M. (2001), “A survey of current research on online communities of practice”,
The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C. and Wei, K.K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 113-143.
Katz, E., Blumler, J.G. and Gurevitch, M. (1974), “Utilization of mass communication by the
individual”,The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications
Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 19-32.
Kozinets, R.V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J. (2010), “Networked narratives:
understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-89.
Kraut, R., Wang, X., Butler, B., Joyce, E. and Burke, M. (2010), “Beyond information: developing
the relationship between the individual and the group in online communities”, available at:
http://kraut.hciresearch.org/sites/kraut.hciresearch.org/files/articles/wang08-isr-
relationship-rev2-submitted.pdf (accessed 25 December 2014).
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lee, C.S., Goh, D.H., Chua, A.Y.K. and Ang, R.P. (2010), “Indagator: investigating
perceived gratifications of an application that blends mobile content sharing with
gameplay”,Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 1244-1257.
Leung, L. (2009), “User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications,
civic engagement and psychological empowerment”,New Media & Society, Vol. 11 No. 8,
pp. 1327-1347.
Lev-On, A. (2012), “Communication, community, crisis: mapping uses and gratifications
in the contemporary media environment”,New Media and Society, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 98-116.
Lev-On, A. (2013), “Communities, crowds and focal sites: fine-tuning the theoretical grounding of
cooperation online”,Journal of Community Informatics, Vol. 9 No. 3, available at: ci-journal.
net/index.php/ciej/article/view/712/1020 (accessed 25 December 2014).
176
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Lev-On, A. and Hardin, R. (2007), “Internet-based collaborations and their political significance”,
Journal of Information Technology and Politics, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 5-27.
Lin, J. (2014), “The effects of gratifications on intention to read citizen journalism news:
the mediating effect of attitude”,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 129-137.
McKenna, K.Y. and Green, A.S. (2002), “Virtual group dynamics”,Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 116-127.
Ma, M. and Agarwal, R. (2007), “Through a glass darkly: information technology design, identity
verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities”,Information Systems
Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 42-67.
Meier, A. (2002), “An online stress management support group for social workers”,Journal of
Technology in Human Services, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 107-132.
Morahan-Martin, J. and Schumacher, P. (2003), “Loneliness and social uses of the internet”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 659-671.
Mull, I.R. and Lee, S.E. (2014), “‘PIN’pointing the motivational dimensions behind Pinterest”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 192-200.
Newhagen, J.E. and Rafaeli, S. (1996), “Why communication researchers should study the
internet: a dialogue”,Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, Vol. 1 No. 4,
available at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00172.x/full (accessed
25 December 2014).
Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A.M. (2000), “Predictors of internet use”,Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-196.
Parker, B.J. and Plank, R.E. (2000), “A uses and gratifications perspective on the internet as a new
information source”,American Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 43-49.
Petrič, G. and Petrovčič, A. (2014), “Individual and collective empowerment in online
communities: the mediating role of communicative interaction in web forums”,
The Information Society, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-199.
Quan-Haase, A. and Young, A.L. (2010), “Uses and gratifications of social media: a comparison
of Facebook and instant messaging”,Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 350-361.
Raacke, J. and Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008), “MySpace and Facebook: applying the uses and
gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites”,Cyberpsychology and Behavior,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 169-174.
Rheingold, H. (2000), The Virtual Community, Rev. ed., The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ridings, C., Gefen, D. and Arinze, B. (2006), “Psychological barriers: lurker and poster motivation
and behavior in online communities”,Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 329-354.
Ruggiero, T. (2000), “Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century”,Mass Communication &
Society, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-37.
Sashi, C.M. (2012), “Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media”,
Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 253-272.
Shklovski, I., Burke, M., Kiesler, S. and Kraut, R. (2010), “Technology adoption and use in
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans”,American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53
No. 8, pp. 1228-1246.
Song, I., Larose, R., Eastin, M.S. and Lin, C.A. (2004), “Internet gratifications and internet
addiction: on the uses and abuses of new media”,CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 384-394.
177
Uses and
gratifications
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)

Stamatopoulou-Robbins, S.C. (2005), “‘Palestine Online’: an emerging virtual homeland?”,
Working Paper No. 28, Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford.
Tewksbury, D. and Althaus, S.L. (2000), “An examination of motivations for using the world
wide web”,Communication Research Reports, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 127-138.
Walther, J.B. (1996), “Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction”,Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-43.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining knowledge contribution in
electronic networks of practice”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Webster, F. (1995), Theories of the Information Society, Routledge, London.
Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. (1999), “Net-surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as
communities”, in Wellman, B. (Ed.), Networks in the Global Village, Westview Press,
Boulder, CO, pp. 331-366.
About the author
Dr Azi Lev-On is the Chair of the School of Communication at the Ariel University in Israel.
His studies explore behaviours and collective action in computer-mediated environments,
employing a variety of methods such as content and link analysis, surveys and laboratory
experiments. His recent research analyses interactions in communities of practice of the Israeli
Ministry of Social Services, in municipal forums and by ultra-orthodox women who participate in
closed forums online. Dr Azi Lev-On can be contacted at: azilevon@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
178
OIR
39,2
Downloaded by CITY UNIVERSITY OF MACAU At 16:07 26 August 2015 (PT)