Content uploaded by Azi Lev-On
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Azi Lev-On on Jun 26, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
M.A. Wimmer, E. Tambouris, and A. Macintosh (Eds.): ePart 2013, LNCS 8075, pp. 80–94, 2013.
© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013
"Let Us Talk to People, Not to Computers":
Obstacles for Establishing Relationships and Trust
in Social Workers’ Online Communities of Practice
Azi Lev-On1 and Odelia Adler2
1 School of Communication, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
azilevon@gmail.com
2 Department of Communication, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel
odeliadler@gmail.com
Abstract. The paper studies social workers’ online communities of practice and
presents the perceptions of their members about such online communities’
potential for establishing relationships and trust. The interviewees expressed
three main clusters of reasons for why relationships and trust cannot be
properly established and sustained through online communities of practice.
These reasons involve general hostility to computer-mediated communication
as an arena for relationship development, the non-computerized professional
environment of social workers, and particular features of the communities that
were studied.
Keywords: communication, online communities, communities of practice,
trust, relationships.
1 Theoretical Background
This paper investigates the following questions: how do social workers use online
communities of practice, and do they perceive of these communities as venues for
establishing relationships with peers, mutual accord and trust?
A number of theories have addressed the potential to establish relationships and
trust through computer-mediated environments. The ‘first wave’ of such theories
found that Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) could not sustain elaborate
forms of relational development and support as Face to Face (FtF) communication
does. For example, the Reduced Cues (or ‘cues-filtered-out’) theory implies that
communication media possess sets of characteristics that correspond to distinct levels
of richness. Richer communication media support more cues and help yield higher
levels of social presence. Arguably, higher levels of social presence result in greater
attention to the presence of others and greater awareness of, and conformity to, social
norms [1-3]. The relative absence of cues in CMC leads to reduced awareness of the
social environment, reduced opportunities for social control and regulation, reduced
concerns for social approbation and decreased adherence to social norms.
"Let Us Talk to People, Not to Computers": Obstacles for Establishing Relationships 81
Later theories, such as Social Information Processing (SIP) theory [4,5] recognize
that continuing communication enables the development of the normative conditions
for cooperation in CMC, even if cooperation is established slower than in face-to-face
communicative environments. Repeated interaction involves continuous and mutual
reception and verification of cues, and people find ways to adapt to the limitations of
the medium and reduce uncertainty [5,6]. Consequently, cooperation increases over
time, and converges to rates observed in FtF communication [5,7]. Indeed, it may take
longer for accord and trust to be established and sustained in computer mediated
environments, but time and richness of the environment can assist in achieving accord
and trust in a smoother fashion.
The SIDE theory (Social Identity Model of Depersonalization Effects; see [8-10])
manifests a third theoretical sphere. Along with SIP theory, SIDE theory emphasizes
the social context of CMC. However, SIDE theory shows, perhaps counter-intuitively,
that the social context of communication may be especially salient, and the influence
of social norms particularly effective, with the relative absence of information about
people. When a CMC environment is characterized by a salient sense of group
membership, the lack of other cues leads to a stronger influence of social norms on
behavior and to compliance with situational norms. While CMC indeed blocks a
range of interpersonal cues, it often leaves some group-level social cues intact.
Research demonstrates that in such circumstances, group membership becomes
situationally relevant and people are more likely to adapt to the situational norms.
While the earlier literature surveyed above suggests a uniform effect of technology
over behavior, later literature demonstrates a differential effect of online interactions
on trust and relationships, according to different personality types. For example, the
work of Amichai-Hamburger [11,12] demonstrates that introverted character types
may benefit more from using the Internet than extroverted types. The Internet also
yields great potential in assisting those who suffer from social anxieties and are afraid
of exposing themselves to others. Such people can encounter protected environment
online, in which they have better control over the communication processes and are
more comfortable to expose their “true selves" [13,14]. Thus, in addition to
environmental variables that affect the ability to establish accord and trust online,
personal characteristics matter as well.
Arguably, the uses and effects of online communities of practice may also vary
across practices. For example, it is likely that workers in the hi-tech industry will be
more open towards developing relationships and trust online than members of other
professions who do not use computers regularly; similarly, older professionals who
worked most of their lives in non-digital environments may find it harder to navigate
through online relationships than younger, “digitally native” professionals. In
reference to social workers’ communities in particular, in the only published case
study that we could locate, Leung et al. describe one social workers’ online
community of practice as a source of empowerment and solidarity for its members,
which enables them not only to acquire information and knowledge but also to frame
a collective identity [15]. Still, Eaglestein et al., in writing about the informational
needs of social workers, argue that many potential obstacles exist for social workers
to enjoy the benefits of online communities of practice, due to concerns such as
82 A. Lev-On and O. Adler
breaching patients’ confidentiality online, damage to the therapeutic connection, and
even lack of technological knowledge and misuse fears that may hinder social
workers’ optimal utilization of such online environments [16].
Lastly, in addition to the variables concerning personality and profession, the
design of the forum can also make a difference in terms of its success in developing
trust. For example, anonymity may promote a more open discussion and thus yield a
greater quantity of contributions. At the same time, anonymity is also the primary
factor that undermines the deliberative potential of the platform. Other key design
factors involve synchronisity or lack thereof, rules, and moderation style [17,18].
1.1 Research Setting: Social Workers’ Online Communities of Practice
The current study takes a fresh look at the potential that online communities of
practice yield to establish relationships and trust, by analyzing the case of social
workers’ online communities of practice that were established by the Israeli Ministry
of Social Affairs and Social Services.
The communities of practice studied represent a unique case in Israel, whereby a
governmental ministry established online forums to enable interaction between its
workers and the broader community of practitioners. Such communities may have
many advantages in terms of exposing local knowledge, improving knowledge
circulation and even supporting professional acquaintance and solidarity between
workers [19]. At the same time, they can disseminate employees’ open criticism of
their supervisors and damage working relations within the office, as well as generate
criticism of the employing agency’s work and routines, among other risks. As a result,
governmental ministries tend to avoid providing platforms for such interaction among
workers [20]. Nonetheless, with the rise of social networking platforms, an increasing
number of Israeli governmental bodies are offering more opportunities for direct
online interactions amongst workers, as well as between employees and citizens. The
communities of practice that are studied here, which were established already in 2006,
can be seen as pioneers of this phenomenon.
In establishing these professional networking communities, the Ministry intended
to provide a new platform for knowledge exchange and circulation, mainly for social
workers who did not have similar arenas. Unlike many other professions whose work
is computer-based, many of the social workers who take part in the communities
spend their days in the field, dealing with people from low socioeconomic strata who
often live under harsh circumstances. In this sense, many of the social workers,
including the people who were interviewed for this study, refer to themselves as
"people persons" – as opposed to those who spend much of their work-day in front of
a computer screen. Hence, the provision of Internet-based communities of practice for
such "people persons" yields some interesting research questions.
The Ministry employees who initiated and supervised these online communities of
practice were aware of the importance of face-to-face meetings, in addition to the
virtual encounters between community members. When the communities were
"Let Us Talk to People, Not
t
established, a dilemma su
r
carried out. Such meetin
g
between community mem
b
and strengthen trust. On t
h
community members who
disabilities or other barrier
s
to the online realm, withou
t
Since 2006 when the co
m
into one or more of the 31
c
Adoption, Juvenile Delinq
u
in which regulation and e
t
identified, using member
s
platform (see Fig. 1 below
)
first, pushing down earli
e
legalizing the use of Marij
u
Fig. 1. A s
c
In the current study, we
the communities as place
hypothesize that communi
t
sphere in which relations
h
professional communities
s
and even SIDE model wor
k
same issues and are famili
a
and even offline.
t
o Computers": Obstacles for Establishing Relationships
r
faced regarding whether face-to-face meetings shoul
d
g
s would clearly facilitate social and professional l
i
b
ers and provide opportunities to form new relations
h
h
e other hand, physical meetings may not be accessibl
e
are unable to participate for reasons of distance, c
s
. Hence, it was ultimately decided to limit the interac
t
t
a face-to-face component [21].
m
munities were established, 9,000 members have enro
l
c
ommunities concerning topics such as Domestic Viole
n
u
ency, Mental Disabilities, and other ad
m
inistrative for
u
t
hics are discussed. All communication in the forum
s
s
’ real names. The forum is based on a standard
w
)
, where discussion is threaded and latest comments ap
p
e
r comments. The discussion in Figure 1 focuses
u
ana for patients with post-traumatic stress disorders.
c
reenshot of the Addictions community portal
investigate whether online community members perc
e
s where they can establish relationships and trust.
t
y members perceive their computerized interactions
a
h
ips and trust can be created and sustained. The on
l
s
tudied conform well to the environments in which the
k
s best, in that they are composed of people who handle
a
r with one another over time to a certain degree – on
l
83
d
be
i
nks
h
ips
e
to
ost,
t
ion
l
led
n
ce,
u
ms
s
is
w
eb
p
ear
on
e
ive
We
a
s a
l
ine
SIP
the
l
ine
84 A. Lev-On and O. Adler
2 Methodology
The paper is a part of a larger project that analyzes the content of the online
communities of practice of the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services,
as well as their perceived effects on their members.
For this purpose, a twofold research methodology was applied. First, we undertook
a content analysis of all the available materials – 7,248 posts altogether from the
establishment of the communities through mid 2012. Second, 71 semi-structured
interviews were conducted with community members. Based on data received from
the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services, members were sampled according
to their levels of engagement – number of logins to the community, as well as number
of times that they contributed content. Interviews were conducted by five interviewers
across Israel, and the average length of an Interview was some 45 minutes. Interviews
were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic-interpretive method [22]. The
findings in the paper below are largely based on these interviews.
3 Findings
Our findings demonstrate that 76% of community members enrolled were lurkers,
who never initiated a discussion or contributed to an existing discussion thread. An
additional 21% initiated or responded to a discussion thread between once and ten
times. These findings correspond to what we know from past research about the high
percentage of lurkers that characterize many online communities [23,24].
According to the content analysis, the majority of posts comprised either requests
for assistance (22.1%), provision of assistance (42.1%), or both (2.6%). 3.4%
included messages of support. 39.3% of the posts had references to professional
assistance, 25.7% included references to organizational assistance, and 6.4% to
academic assistance. Note that when an answer is made public in the community, not
only the person who asked the question but also the entire community benefits from
the answer, including lurkers who read the comments but do not post themselves
[24,25]. These data suggest that communities function as a platform for collaboration
and mutual assistance, at least for the people who actively participate in them, and
possibly for a large chunk of lurkers as well.
Hence, it seems that while not many members actively participate in creating
content for the communities, those who do provide a high degree of mutual assistance
and support that both benefits the contributors and may also spill over to benefit the
lurkers as well. So do community members indeed perceive their online communities
as a realm for establishing relationships and trust, and more generally, do they
perceive of the Internet – the technical platform of their communities – as hospitable
for creating relationships and trust?
3.1 Hostility to CMC Arenas as Relationship-Supporting Environments
Contrary to our hypothesis, most the people interviewed expressed the view that
Internet forums and the Internet in general are not useful for and actually hinder the
"Let Us Talk to People, Not to Computers": Obstacles for Establishing Relationships 85
establishment of relationships and trust, for a variety of reasons. Social workers
interviewed very frequently stated that it was difficult for them to "connect" to the
virtual community platforms because face-to-face meetings were irreplaceable and
computer-mediation generates a “cold” and "alienated" environment.
Interviewee 1 is a passive participant in the community Juvenile Delinquency, does
not read the posts and does post herself. She states that
[g]enerally, I am not a technological person, I don't do chats or post comments. I
am a person who needs to speak [with the others party]. Being in front of a computer
is very difficult for me…I keep saying I am a social worker! Let me talk to people,
not to computers.
Interviewee 2, a member of the Addictions community, says,
maybe this is because of my advanced age, but I really don’t understand how one
can have a sense of belonging to something on the Internet…let’s talk about work
issues, why do we need the forum for that? Why do we need the Internet to get
closer to one another as human beings…why those emails? Pick up the phone –
let’s talk as humans.
Interviewee 3, a member of a community concerning Mental Disabilities, notes the
need for an unmediated human connection: "I am interested in some response, some
verbal interaction. I am not able to fully connect to the electronic world…”
Interviewee 4 argues that "[online interaction does] not replace friendship. It's not
instead of acquaintance. It cannot replace a peer discourse that we sometimes
generate amongst ourselves."
This latter interviewee expresses the dichotomy between the perceived functioning
of a typical social worker and the computerized world. She implies that technology
can harm the connection created throughout a long process of relating to her patients.
In reference to this issue, Interviewee 5, a member of the Domestic Violence
community, notes that while she occasionally posts a comment concerning a dilemma
she might have, but she always prefers to ask people face-to-face, as "even a phone
call is better than a forum…I like [a] personal touch with people much more." Yet,
even the phone is not an ideal communication device for a social worker, in this
interviewee’s opinion.
Interviewee 6, from the Family Courts community, states that, "I handle myself
much better in a human, not text-based environment… [online contact is] not like
sitting with people and carrying out a dialogue, getting support and feeling the
'softness.'" Interviewees complained that the online connection hinders their ability to
express emotions, grant and receive support – essential elements in this profession.
For example, Interviewee 3 notes: "I think that in our world, most people don't get
support through this media…we are people persons, and I don't think that the Internet
can do the job…" The online forum seems to provide an inferior arena in particular
for expressing emotions than face-to-face conversations do. One of the highlights of
the community is the support that it provides to its members, but according to
members’ perceptions, it seems that an emotional message is difficult to convey in
text when the physical dimension is absent.
Interviewee 7, a member of the Juvenile Delinquency and Addictions communities
who posts frequently, expresses similar concerns. “Generally, I would not go to
86 A. Lev-On and O. Adler
some Internet forum to ask a question even if I get an immediate online
response…this is not my medium." Interviewee 8, from the Addictions community,
says that
This medium has many features that are inferior to face-to-face conversation. A
little more of the personal contact, the intonation that allows you to fully
understand what was said and reduce misunderstandings […] I prefer to get my
support from someone I am personally acquainted with. It's much better to talk to
people that I know than [to those that] I don't know.
Interviewee 9, from the Addictions community: "I feel uneasy to address a crowd
that I don't see. I need to look at people in the eyes.” Interviewee 10, from the
Developmental Cognitive Disabilities community, echoes a similar concern, "I am not
of the Facebook era, I don’t like it, it’s not the same. I mean I don’t like all this
publicity…I personally like…arenas in which people sit and talk, and meet.”
Cues that are manifest in gestures, body language and tone in face-to-face
communication are generally missing from computer-mediated communication and
jeopardize the process of asking for and receiving support, according to the
interviewees. These cues reflect what is being said "between the lines," the subtext of
the conversation that is necessary to understand the wider context of the written
words.
Interviewee 11, a member of Juvenile Delinquency and Social Resilience, was
asked about the forum as a source of support. She answered:
Recently, we had very complex issues here, and needed to support some workers…
only when we sat together in a closed room, just us talking, only then could we
truly ventilate. We can ventilate in writing, but it's not for real. Because [the
situation that we need to address] is very emotional. I think it gets lost when it’s on
the computer, including what you can express and what others can give you. The
emotional support you can get one-on-one, or even in a group, is much greater than
in a text-based forum… addressing the cases we run into is very difficult, and our
emotional needs cannot be fully fulfilled, in my opinion, in the forum. In any
forum. It's not that this particular forum does not fit, no forum would.
3.2 The Professional Environment of Social Workers and the Use of Online
Forums
Many of the interviewees noted not only a general preference for FtF over CMC, but also
stressed that additional factors related to the social work profession lead to a perception
of the Internet as an arena ill-suited for social workers. Factors mentioned involve the
way in which the profession is taught in universities and practiced in workplaces (this
factor was expressed by a small number of interviewees but was in the subtext of quite a
few other interviews), as well as the types of relationships formed with clients. Some
interviewees said that they initially chose to become social workers despite the low
wages that are typical of this profession because they felt that they needed a “human
touch" and the opportunity to develop interpersonal relations through their work. They
felt more comfortable interacting with a person facing them, whereby his or her gestures
can be seen and tone of voice can be heard. Many perceive computer-mediated
environments to produce obstacles in the professional discourse.
"Let Us Talk to People, Not to Computers": Obstacles for Establishing Relationships 87
Interviewee 12, from the Community Work community, argues that social workers
usually do not use the Internet while at work. She notes:
We are still a bit technophobic…we are social workers…we don’t do
communication, computer science… although I am a forum member for five years,
I still feel like I am in the dark. I don’t always know how to use it, and where to
look for what I need to find.
She also says that “the connection to the Internet is very new to social workers,
first of all because in many municipalities, there even isn’t an Internet connection in
the department of social services."
Another practical concern involves the fears of breaches of patients’ privacy and
confidentiality. Interviewee 13, who belongs to the Youth at Risk and Addictions
communities, argues that “I consult many groups, but not this group. This group is too
large for me and there are too many holes through which things can ‘leak.’”
Interviewee 14, of the Community Work community, says, "it sounds a bit strange
to me to write such things on the Internet…this is awkward, because its open and
everyone can see [the posts]."A, a member of the Youth Law community states that,
"I don’t feel the need, and I also don’t feel comfortable in terms of privacy and
secrecy. …it seems to me too much…I prefer consulting someone face-to-
face…although these are colleagues, it is open on the Internet." Interviewee 3, a
member of the community concerning the Mental Disabilities, argues, “I don't think
that people can really bring up real hardships and dilemmas in such a large-scale
forum with many people. This contradicts everything we studied in the university."
Critically, she notes that it is not only how the profession is practiced, but also how it
is studied in the universities, that increases the tension with technology.
Interviewee 15, a director of a mental institution, describes her concerns regarding
technology and hints at the fact that the Internet does not forget: "it’s all there until
eternity, just stays there. I think people who don’t understand that [they are] are
irresponsible…there is no delete [button]…you wrote it, it stays there…that’s why I
don’t like this thing…this Internet."
Seemingly, one dominant factor in determining access to and use of communities
was age. Most of the interviewees who associated their age with suspicions from and
dislike towards technology, were classified as lurkers. According to a survey from
2009 [26], the average age of community members is 43, and ages range between 21
and 77. The largest age group is 30-39 (33%), a quarter of members are between ages
40-49, and another full quarter at the ages 50-59. Among the interviewees in the
current study, the average age was 44.
Most likely, the older social workers found it more difficult to think of the
communities of practice as a site for bonding. But even a 45-years old interviewee,
who has been a member since the communities were established but writes very little,
describes herself as highly suspicious of the online realm, and thinks of the Internet as
"dangerous". Throughout the interview, she emphasized that her online behavior is
cautious and driven by concerns. She herself associates this behavior with her age.
Interviewee 16, from the Families in Judicial Disputes community, who is 62 years
old, only replied to messages she read in the communities twice in her three years of
membership, although she entered the forum during this time period 170 times. She
describes the linkage between her age and level of involvement as follows:
88 A. Lev-On and O. Adler
I am not one of the people who open their eyes in the morning and go straight to
the computer, I don’t have, for example, Internet on my cell phone, I am not
subscribed to Facebook…I think this is due to my age and…I just did not grow up
with this tool, and with all the need and the joy and the progress…if I have
alternatives, I'll use them.
Interviewee 17, a 57-year-old member of the Domestic Violence community,
argues that people in her age group do not use the computer frequently, and use other
tools to get updates. "I forgot the password…I am not a computer junkie," she says.
3.3 Features of the Particular Forums
So far, we addressed obstacles for establishing relationships and trust that are either
related to general hostility towards the Internet and preference for FtF as a medium
for forming relationships and trust, or else involve social workers’ professional
environment, which is perceived as “inhospitable” to new technology. The third
cluster of reasons for perceiving the online communities as unreceptive for forming
relationships and trust has to do with the specific character of the online forums that
host these communities.
One complaint by a relatively small number of interviewees, addressed the
asynchronous character of the forums. Interviewee 3, from the community concerning
the Mental Disabilities, noted: "I don't have the patience to wait for people's replies. If
I am interested in something, I will call someone and ask [her]." Interviewee 18, from
the Juvenile Delinquency and Domestic Violence communities, concurs: “I don't like
the fact that I need to wait until I get a reply. I prefer to chat.”
Other complaints involved the forums’ text-based nature and the need for a more
graphical and interactive user interface. Interviewee 19 argues that “we are not all
'Shakespeares' in writing… When one is not eloquent and may have spelling
mistakes, this may deter her from participating.”
A number of interviewees raised the need for a more graphical and interactive user
interface. Interestingly, the number of interviewees who complained about the lack a
more “Facebook-like” interface, and the number of people who expressed fears from
technology, was similar.
When asked what was missing in the forums, Interviewee 4 replied: “mostly, the
ability to see each others’ faces.” Interviewee 20 describes the communities as “very
schematic, dark, not vivid… something must be done with the graphical interface!”
Interviewee 21 agrees: “I think that other forums are conducted in a friendlier, clearer,
novel fashion…This seems like something that was created ten years ago and not
upgraded since.” Interviewee 22 argues that
A ‘Facebook-like’ interface would have made the forums much nicer… even at the
level of professional attachment… suppose that each [member] had his name,
profession, where he works, and additional details… like in Facebook, when you
suddenly see a picture in some chat.
Another interviewee says:
If a technology like Skype were used, it may have been different because you
could see faces, or consult like an online supervision – I know such things exist.
"Let Us Talk to People, Not to Computers": Obstacles for Establishing Relationships 89
But right now, it’s pure textual discussion, you write 5, 6, 10 sentences, it’s not
like… it’s not enough.
3.4 Trust and Mistrust
We have discussed above the clusters of factors that explain why community
members feel that online forums fail to enable them to develop relationships and trust.
Nearly all social workers interviewed argued that for a variety of reasons – general
mistrust and recoil from technology, factors associated with social workers’
professional environment and training, and even the particular designs of the online
communities’ interfaces – they felt that the forums were not a good tool for
developing relationships and contributing information. How do these circumstances
affect the creation of trust?
In online communities, trust is a crucial factor. Each participant must believe that
the information in the community is reliable and that he or she can trust the person
who provided this information. Mistrust can result in abstaining from participation.
Also, community members must believe that other members act for the interests of
the entire community and that they have the knowledge and capability to do so [27-
29]. Yet despite the theoretical significance of such trust, in line with the issues
described above, users argue that it is very difficult to establish such trust in a system
that is built on virtual connections.
Interviewee 23, from the Youth Law community, notes that
[Even when] I appreciate people based on their reactions in the forum, when I
don’t know them in person, I can still never fully trust them. In spite of everything,
you don’t know them…there are people I know personally in the forum, in which
cases I'll take what they say.
According to this interviewee and others, face-to-face familiarity increases the
level of trust even as the discussion moves online. The interviewees expressed their
concerns regarding “not knowing who the writer really is.” In the Ministry of Social
Affairs and Social Services’ online communities, anonymity is not an option, and any
post is accompanied by the first and last name of the writer; yet according to
members’ perceptions, such identification does not equate actual acquaintance and
generates insecurity. Interviewee 24, from Community Work, explains why she
makes little use of the communities: "it's more difficult for me, this whole Internet
'thing', talking to people that I know who they are but don't really know them…I
prefer direct contact." She also notes that a stronger social presence is needed to
generate trust.
One possible way to overcome the obstacle of lack of physical contact is to
organize face-to-face meetings and conventions [30]. Indeed, interviewees expressed
a need to "at least know who is sitting on the other end". Interviewee 25, in the Youth
Law and Community Work communities, says that “it may be a good idea to organize
once in a while a conference about the communities of practice, to expose me to the
personalities who use the communities…so I can see them in person, and not only
through the computer.”
90 A. Lev-On and O. Adler
Interviewee 24 says that "it seems very important to me to implement common
study groups or peer groups so we know who the partners are [for the online
discussions] … Because the messages includes the name [of the person who posted
them], but we don't know who this person is." Interviewee 25 gives an example of
how face-to-face familiarity can contribute to future communication:
One of my positive memories is of a course that was for all the social workers who
work with people under arrest…we work a lot with each other over the phone, and
this interpersonal contact made a lot [of impact after the course ended]. It also
made our contacts better and generated more trust.
Only a few interviewees expressed the opposite notion, i.e. that the interactions in
the online communities support and enable trust more easily than other forms of
communication do. Yet all interviewees viewe the key building blocks of trust as
relationships that continue from the online communities to the professional realm
outside them. For example, Interviewee 26, from the Youth Law community, says,
When we need to [transfer files] from town to town, we pick up the phone and you
hear, it's X, and it's someone name you already saw in the community and maybe
you've even corresponded with…it breaks obstacles and make conducting a
dialogue much easier. Because…it’s like we know each other.
Interviewee 27, from the Autism, Developmental Cognitive Disabilities and
Toddlers with Special Needs communities, explains that
There is a mother of an autistic child who regularly posts a diary like a personal
column. I read it all the time…we met in real life when she came to consult with
me…it was very funny to learn that I know her and learn from her.
But just as building trust can be prolonged and difficult, breaking it online can be
immediate and disastrous for community members. Two examples demonstrate this.
A veteran social worker and member of the Children at Risk community, relates an
incident in which a divorced social worker was allowed to join the community:
Once there was a discussion in which a father who did not have custody of his
children started to intervene and cursed the professionals…if there is a client in
there, than it's not a professional community anymore, and then even in this place
where I can feely express myself in front of my colleagues, I cannot do it
anymore…it's always going to be like that. I can never know who really watches
the discussions, there is no way for me to know…for me it was a sort of
intrusion…they'll have to rebuild the trust that was compromised.
Hence, it seems that the communities’ designation as closed membership by
invitation only does not contribute adequately to the sense of intimacy, and although
entrance is granted to professionals only, the concern that transgressors might enter
always exists. Monitoring for such cases is much more difficult online than offline.
Thinking of these communities as arenas of assistance and support can demonstrate
why a breach of trust can be devastating. Interviewee 28, of the Youth Law
community, notes:, writes:
We had a crisis in the forum, one of the social workers was arrested… on
misdemeanor charges regarding a boy that he acted as the caregiver for… This guy
was very, very active in the forum and everyone was shocked.
"Let Us Talk to People, Not to Computers": Obstacles for Establishing Relationships 91
The manager of the community to which this social worker belonged describes the
same case from her perspective:
We experienced a betrayal…the guy was very, very active in the discussions, and
also uploaded a lot of materials to the community… it’s like, you know, we are in
a closed community, the closed discussion of professionals, we act like protectors
and suddenly the offender comes from among us; he came from inside our house.
In referring to this incident as no less than a betrayal, the interviewees demonstrate
the high expectations they had regarding mutual sincerity and the ability to trust one
another. When the bonds are so strong, the damage may be severe, and the restoration
of broken trust may be very difficult. Of course, such cases occur in offline-based
communities as well. But in absence of contextual cues, with a better control of the
communication and an enhanced ability to expose only very particular sides of one’s
personality that the Internet offers, such betrayals of trust can be, arguably, more
difficult to trace.
4 Discussion and Conclusions
Online communities of practice utilized by government ministries are a rare species.
The communities of the Ministry of Welfare Services have been established to
improve information disclosure and dissemination, as well as to enhance the
familiarity of professionals with one another and the sense of solidarity between
them. Based on existing theories such as SIP and SIDE, we had initially hypothesized
that community members would perceive their computerized interactions as a place
where relationships and trust are generated and sustained. The embeddedness in a
common professional background and the acquaintance over time, might arguably
have made these communities of practice a hotbed for developing relationships and
trust.
Yet, contrary to our hypothesis, the predictions of the “Reduced Cues” theory seem
to provide a much better fit to the picture portrayed by this study’s interviews. With
few exceptions, interviewees argued that the communities do not serve as a fertile
ground for cooperation, but rather fail to produce accord and trust. Indeed, in their
perspective, the physical dimension is necessary to support the trust that forms online,
and in absence of the physical dimension there would be very little chance of
developing relationships online.
Subjects provided three clusters of explanations regarding why online communities
do not generate relationships and trust. One cluster involved general mistrust and
dislike of technology and the Internet in particular. It seems that the character of
people who use those communities, some of whom declare themselves to be “people
persons” who feel much more comfortable in face-to-face settings than in computer-
mediated environments, may provide context for the prevalence of such negative
attitudes towards technology. Moreover, age may be a factor as well, as such attitudes
seem to be more prevalent among older social workers.
Another cluster of reasons involves the professional environment of the social
workers. Aside from the seeing predisposition people who choose to be social
92 A. Lev-On and O. Adler
workers have against technology (especially among older social workers), their
education, socialization to the profession and daily dealing with patients and
workplaces all hinder the sense that online forums are a hospitable environment for
developing relationships and trust.
The third cluster involves characteristics of the particular forums that were studied
– for example, the absence of options for a synchronous and more immediate
communication, and the graphical environment that seems too basic to some who
dislike technology in general, but prefer environments such as Skype and Facebook,
which offer richer and more immediate interactions.
Note that these findings are surprising, given the vast literature that argues that
online environments similar to the one found in our study can gradually become no
inferior to FtF environments in terms of forming relationships and trust; notably, see
Rheingold’s early study [31] of the rich relationships formed online through the
WELL community, which was purely text-based. This is also surprising in light of the
rich discussions that do take place in the communities, as well as the significant layers
of assistance and support that were located using content analysis.
It seems that a lot of the difference between our findings and earlier findings may
be a result of the character traits of social workers, many of whom declare themselves
eager to have “human touch” and perceive computer-mediated discussion to disable
the development of emotions, support, sense of belonging and trust. At present, the
environment in which social workers are trained and work also does not seem to
support familiarity with the Internet and Internet-based forums as professional tools.
Still, younger “digitally native” social workers seem better able to adapt to the
online communities of practice. Future studies should look at the transformation of
the profession to a more technological realm, which seem to many to be unavoidable.
Moving online communities to richer environments such as Facebook may assist this
process, and Facebook groups of social workers may be an interesting arena for
additional future studies. It would also be interesting to compare the social media
usage patterns of social workers and other therapeutic professions with those found in
online communities generated for other professions.
At minimum, it seems that the conclusion derived from our study is that research
about relationship formation and maintenance, participation, collaboration and trust in
online communities of practice should be sensitive to the practice of the professionals
who use them. Scholars should be hesitant to generalize their findings from one
particular online community of practice to all such communities. Researchers should
keep in mind that people who practice different professions can behave very
differently in the communities of practice that they use and have very different
expectations from these professional forums.
References
1. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T.W.: Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-
Mediated Communication. American Psychologist 39, 1123–1134 (1984)
2. Sproull, L., Kiesler, S.: Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational
Communication. Management Science 32, 1492–1512 (1986)
"Let Us Talk to People, Not to Computers": Obstacles for Establishing Relationships 93
3. Kiesler, S., Sproull, L.: Group Decision Making and Communication Technology.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 96–123 (1992)
4. Walther, J.B., Anderson, J.F., Park, D.W.: Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated
Interaction: A Meta-Analysis of Social and Antisocial Communication. Communication
Research 21, 460–487 (1994)
5. Walther, J.B.: Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and
Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research 23, 3–43 (1996)
6. Chidambaram, L.: Relational Development in Computer Supported Groups. MIS Quarterly
20, 142–165 (1996)
7. Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G., McEvily, B.: All in Due Time: The Development of Trust in
Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 99, 16–33 (2006)
8. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M.: Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? SIDE-Effects
of Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research 25, 689–715 (1998)
9. Spears, R., Lea, M.: Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power in Computer-Mediated
Communication. Communication Research 21, 427–459 (1994)
10. Watt, S.E., Lea, M., Spears, R.: How Social is Internet Communication? A Reappraisal of
Bandwidth and Anonymity Effects. In: Woolgar, S. (ed.) Virtual Society?, pp. 61–77.
Oxford University Press, New York (2002)
11. Amichai-Hamburger, Y.: Personality and the Internet. In: Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (ed.)
The Social Net: Human Behavior in Cyberspace, pp. 27–55. Oxford University Press, New
York (2005)
12. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Kaplan, H., Dorpatcheon, N.: Click to the Past: The Impact of
Extroversion by Users of Nostalgic Website on the Use of Internet Social Services.
Computers in Human Behavior 24, 1907–1912 (2008)
13. Bargh, J.A., McKenna, K.Y.A., Fitzsimons, G.M.: Can you See the Real me? Activation
and Expression of the ‘True Self’ on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues 58, 33–48
(2002)
14. McKenna, K.Y.A., Bargh, J.A.: Coming Out in the Age of the Internet: Identity
Demarginalization through Virtual Group Participation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 75(3), 681–694 (1998)
15. Leung, Z., Lam, C.W., Yau, T.Y., Chu, W.: Re-empowering Social Workers through the
Online Community: The Experience of SWForum in Hong Kong. Critical Social
Policy 30(1), 48–73 (2010)
16. Eaglestein, A., Teitelbaum, R., Shor, D.: Informational Needs of Social Workers in
Jerusalem. Ministry of Social Services and Sold Institute, Jerusalem (2007)
17. Wright, S., Street, J.: Democracy, Deliberation and Design: The Case of Online Discussion
Forums. New Media and Society 9(5), 849–869 (2007)
18. Christopherson, K.M.: The Positive and Negative Implications of Anonymity in Internet
Social Interactions: “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog”. Computers in
Human Behavior 23(6), 3038–3056 (2007)
19. Cook-Craig, P.G., Sabah, Y.: The Role of Virtual Communities of Practice in Supporting
Collaborative Learning among Social Workers. British Journal of Social Work 39(4), 725–
739 (2009)
20. Haber, K.: Organizational Culture Obstacles for Implementing Open Governance Policy.
Israel Democracy Institute, Jerusalem (2013)
21. Sabah, Y., Sharif, I., Fein, T.: Dilemmas of Establishing and Maintaining Online
Communities of Practice in the Social Services: The Case of the Israeli Ministry of Social
Services. In: Lev-On, A. (ed.) Online Communities. Pardess, Haifa (forthcoming)
94 A. Lev-On and O. Adler
22. Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)
23. Osimo, D.: Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies (2008), http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC45269.pdf
(retrieved July 23, 2012)
24. Nonnecke, B., Preece, J.: Lurker Demographics: Counting the Silent. In: Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, The
Netherlands, pp. 73–80. ACM Press, New York (2000)
25. Amin, A., Roberts, J.: Knowing in Action: Beyond Communities of Practice. Research
Policy 37(2), 353–369 (2008)
26. Fein, T.: Online Communities of Practice in the Social Services: A Tool for Sharing and
Knowledge Circulation between Employees. MA Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
(2011)
27. Ardichvili, A., Page, V., Wentling, T.: Motivation and Barriers to Participation on Virtual
Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice. Journal of Knowledge Management 7(1),
64–77 (2003)
28. Ridings, C., Gefen, D., Arinze, B.: Psychological Barriers: Lurker and Poster Motivation
and Behavior in Online Communities. Communications of AIS 18(16) (2006)
29. Sharratt, M., Usoro, A.: Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Online Communities of
Practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 1(2), 187–196 (2003)
30. Haythornthwaite, C.: Social Networks and Internet Connectivity Effects. Information,
Communication & Society 8(2), 125–147 (2005)
31. Rheingold, H.: A Slice of Life in My Virtual Community. In: Harasim, L.M. (ed.) Global
Networks: Computers and International Communication, pp. 37–80. MIT Press,
Cambridge (1993)