Content uploaded by David Ellis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Ellis on Nov 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER
3
Community and
Virtual Community
David Ellis, University
of
Wales
Rachel Oldridge, University
of
Hertfordshire
Ana Vasconcelos, Sheffield Hallam University
Introduction
Although groups have been interacting online since the
1970s,
the
notion
of
virtual community is relatively recent and has particular con-
notations (Turkle,
1995).
Rheingold
(1994,
p.
5)
defines virtual commu-
nities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough
people
carry
on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient
human feeling, to form webs
of
personal relationships in cyberspace.” He
traces the social origins
of
virtual community back
to
the development
of
the Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link (WELL) (Rheingold,
1993,1994).
The
WELL is an electronic virtual community covering a wide variety
of
sub-
jects, including computers and communications; body, mind, and health;
arts and recreation; and the popular music group the Grateful Dead. The
WELL was created and maintained
by
an assortment of intellectuals,
artists, and engineers (Hafner,
1997).
Rheingold is part pioneer, part
homesteader in the world
of
virtual community, and his work on the
WELL documents many
of
the issues that arise repeatedly in discus-
sions and writing on virtual community. Although he was not involved
in setting up the WELL (it was created in
1985
by Larry Brilliant and
Stewart Brand), he was one
of
the very early users.
As
Rheingold points
out,
for
pioneers, the WELL was a cultural experiment; in that sense, its
145
146
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
intellectual roots were in the counter culture of the late
1960s
and early
1970s,
as well as in the technological revolution brought about ten years
later by the personal computer. The significance of this socio-technical
revolution cannot be ignored, as Brand (quoted in Rheingold,
1993,
p.
48)
has remarked: “The personal computer revolutionaries were the
counterculture.” The early developers or pioneers espoused a libertar-
ian, anti-authoritarian ethos reflecting
their
counter-cultural origins.
More recently, interest in virtual communities has become widespread
and has attracted the attention of scholars from a variety of disci-
plines-economics, sociology, communications, and ethnography-as
well as business and government. Virtual community research has
spawned relations with education, community networking, contempo-
rary corporate culture, and information studies.
The literature of virtual community begins with
the
attempt to justify
the appropriation of the term
community.
Rheingold
(1994)
seeks
to
demonstrate the community features of electronic communication,
to
convince
a
skeptical world that online networks can foster social ties. He
shows how people use electronic media to interact rather than
to
pas-
sively receive information. He
is
not primarily concerned with informa-
tion transfer, but sees information as the currency that keeps
community flowing. Although Rheingold does not downplay the impor-
tance of the
WELL
as a source of information, the most valuable element
for Rheingold is the sense of community
it
engenders. For Cutler
(19951,
as for Rheingold, information “buys” community, but Cutler complains
that information has assumed too much prominence in the discussion of
virtual community. Sociological studies of virtual community echo this
view of information
as
an element of virtual community, but focus more
on the constitutive elements of virtual community, the nature of identity
online, and the nature of “disembodied communication (Jones,
1997;
Smith
&
Kollock,
1999).
Debate focuses on how the act of communicat-
ing electronically enriches
or
diminishes real life, not on what
is
actually
being communicated. When information is discussed,
it
is
as currency in
the community economy. Central to this argument
is
the notion
of
a
gift
culture where information
is
the gift.
As
Rheingold stresses, members
of
a virtual community provide information freely to the community, not in
the expectation of immediate reward but in the expectation of diffuse
reciprocation. In other words, information may be provided in response
Community and Virtual Community
147
to a specific request
or
problem posted,
for
example on Experts on the
WELL, with no expectation that the person requesting
or
persons using
this
information
will
provide
a
quid pro quo. There is, however, the under-
standing that
if
the person providing the information were in
a
position
of
similar need, he
or
she could approach the community in
a
similar way
for
assistance. The drivers behind the
gift
economy are a mixture
of
self-
interest and altruism. Kollock
(1999)
examines how this economy works.
He argues that information posted constitutes a “public good and that
the economy
of
the virtual community can be characterized as “general-
ized exchange.” Critical
to
this economy
is
the fact that the Internet has
lowered the cost
of
entry
to
the extent that anyone who is online can par-
ticipate. However, a social dilemma is created in that the virtual com-
munity suffers from “lurkers” who benefit without contributing
(freeloading). Kollock suggests that potential responders mentally cal-
culate whether a question-asker merits a response based on the help he
or
she has given
to
others in the past. Kollock also raises questions about
the persistence
of
identity-particularly where members remain anony-
mous
or
pseudonymous-and
of
the importance
of
group stability: peo-
ple with no shared history
of
mutual help,
or
no memory
of
each other,
should be less likely
to
assist each other. Thus, one is satisfied by gain-
ing the trust and support
of
others, not simply by gaining information;
information
is
just a means toward that end. Lurkers tend
to
receive bad
press in the literature
of
virtual community; they are generally pre-
sented as parasites in the virtual economy, taking but not giving.
Indeed, the term lurker has negative connotations. Burke
(1998)
has
suggested the less value-laden term “listeners,” which suggests a con-
scious desire
to
listen and learn.
Considerable debate has taken place about the extent
to
which
vir-
tual communities constitute electronic versions
of
real communities;
that is, whether virtual communities enrich social relationships
or
detract from real social interaction and real community (Barlow,
1995;
Beniger,
1987;
Hampton
&
Wellman,
1999;
Rheingold,
1993;
Virnoche
&
Marx;
1997;
Wellman,
1997;
Wellman
&
Gulia,
1999).
The most compre-
hensive treatment
of
the subject is by Wellman and Gulia
(1999).
They
argue that much
of
the debate on virtual community as community, both
for
and against, is ahistorical, presentist, and naive in its ignorance
of
the extensive literature on the concept
of
community and
its
changing
148
Annual Review
of
Information Science and Technology
interpretations. They note the conceptual revolution in social studies
of
community “from defining community in terms
of
space-neighbor-
hoods-to defining it in terms
of
social networks” (Wellman
&
Gulia,
1999,
p.
169)
and pose a series
of
questions:
(1)
Are online relationships
narrowly specialized
or
broadly supportive?;
(2)
In what ways are the
many weak ties on the Net useful?;
(3)
Is
there reciprocity online and
attachment to virtual communities?;
(4)
Are strong intimate ties possi-
ble online?;
(5)
How does virtual community affect “real life” commu-
nity?;
(6)
Does the Net increase community diversity?; and
(7)
Are
virtual communities “real” communities?
Answers
to
these questions are difficult, as Wellman and Gulia
acknowledge, and in the absence
of
detailed empirical studies,
researchers have had
to
rely on anecdotal evidence. The answer
to
the
first question would seem
to
be that virtual communities are both nar-
row and specialized, in terms
of
the information posted, but at the same
time broadly social and supportive. Consistent evidence suggests that
many individuals go
to
virtual communities because of these social and
supportive characteristics: the many weak ties supported by virtual
community provide access
to
a much wider network of people than con-
ventional, social networks. The potential
for
invisibility regarding nor-
mal social cues such
as
gender, race, class, and age opens up the
potential
for
networking and interaction that may be inhibited else-
where. Wellman and Gulia liken the degree
of
trust exhibited between
strangers on the Internet to that exhibited in the
1960s
between drivers
and hitchhikers. The issue of reciprocity and attachment has
two
dimen-
sions. First, individuals are motivated to participate in order
to
express
their identity and to receive recognition from the group, particularly
because recognition
of
expertise can increase one’s self-esteem, respect,
and status (Wellman
&
Gulia,
1999,
p.
177).
The second element relates
to
the notion
of
generalized reciprocity and mutual assistance; Smith
and Kollock
(1999)
argue that virtual communities operate on the norms
of generalized exchange. The question
of
whether strong, intimate ties
exist in virtual communities may seem like the converse of the question
on the utility of many weak ties, but, in fact, it has additional complex-
ities. Connections in virtual communities are not necessarily exclusively
online. Furthermore, strong ties develop over time, although the absence
of longitudinal studies
of
virtual communities makes it dificult to
Community and Virtual Community
149
explore whether and how strong ties develop between members.
However, study
of
virtual communities supporting specialized interests
leads Wellman and Gulia (1999, p.
181)
to
characterize the interactions
as intimate, secondary relationships: ’’informal, frequent and supportive
community ties that nevertheless operate only in one specialized
domain.”
The extent
to
which virtual community affects real community
is
also complex. The idea that involvement in virtual community may pull
someone out
of
real community
is
seductive but misleading, resting on
the notion that some kind
of
direct tradeoff exists between the two; it
also assumes mutual exclusivity. Real and virtual may interact, sup-
porting different aspects
of
communication in
a
community that has
real as well as virtual characteristics. Certainly, the importance
of
both
weak and strong intimate, secondary relationships would seem
to
sup-
port
the notion that virtual interactions strengthen community-both
real and virtual. In modern industrial
or
post-industrial communities,
individuals are likely
to
have many different and multi-faceted ties;
this is in contrast
to
the image
of
pre-industrial life, in which people
connected
to
single, small, localized communities. In this respect, the
Net provides additional opportunity
for
interaction with increasingly
diverse networked communities, which includes the use
of
the virtual
in the course
of
everyday life, exemplified by the HomeNet project’s
research into residential use
of
the Internet. These studies have inves-
tigated the relative quality
of
online and offline relationships
(Cummings, Butler,
&
Kraut,
2002),
the relation between social involve-
ment and perceptions
of
psychological well being (Kraut et al., 1998,
2002),
and the effect
of
gender differences on electronic communication
(Boneva, Kraut,
&
Frohlich,
2001).
The question of whether virtual communities are real communities
has generated considerable heat, but as Wellman and Gulia (1999)
argue, much
of
this discussion may either be misguided
or
ill-informed.
Wellman and Gulia suggest that critics
of
virtual community often take
as their starting point a mythical pastoral idyll rather than the actual
characteristics
of
modern,
or
post-modern, community. In
fact,
the
notion
of
community linked
to
physical location
or
neighborhood
is
itself
increasingly illusory; it may be more appropriate
to
think
of
individuals
as having their own personal communities maintained in pre-computer
150
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
days by face-to-face interaction, telephone, and fax. Virtual communities
introduce additional means to maintain both strong and weak ties, and
the links and relationships supported by virtual communities are part
of
real life. Virtual communities do not exist in some strange, alternative
world. The interactions between people in virtual communities obviously
differ from other “real life” interactions in that they are computer medi-
ated; are based more on shared interests than shared
social
characteris-
tics; and are, in the main, more oriented
to
the provision
of
information.
In other respects, however, virtual communities share many features
with those that are not computer mediated. Thus, computer-mediated
interaction and virtual communities become part
of
the continuum
of
an
individual’s personal community.
Information and Virtual Community
Rheingold (1994) emphasized the notion
of
community in his defini-
tion
of
virtual communities, and Wellman and Gulia (1999, p. 172) have
also argued that “information
is
only one
of
many
social
resources that
is
exchanged on the Net,” asserting that information-orientated activi-
ties were less important than emotional and peer-group support.
Marchionini (1995) has also written that much online activity
is
more
like recreation than information seeking. However, Burnett
(2000,
p. 2)
contends that no clear distinction can be made between social interac-
tion and information sharing, because “information-sharing itself
is
fun-
damentally a social act.” He distinguishes between practical information
seeking (seeking
facts
to
answer specific queries) and orienting informa-
tion seeking (monitoring the world
for
interesting
or
useful information).
The latter has received less scholarly attention, yet “the primary way in
which users gather information is by ‘bumping into the environment’
. .
..
people may simply situate themselves within
a
promising ‘information
neighborhood,’because
it
is
a likely place within which to stumble across
information
of
interest” (Burnett, 2000, p.
3).
Recreation and informa-
tion are not strictly opposed; instead, users are described as placing
themselves somewhere rich in information and “berry-picking” the bits
they would like, keeping themselves up
to
date and ensuring they do not
miss anything important-not unlike reading newspapers, in fact.
Burnett (2000, p.
4)
explains that “virtual communities function as
Community and Virtual Community
151
forums
for
both types
of
information seeking,’’ having additional advan-
tages over other types
of
information neighborhoods. Erickson
(2001,
p.
3)
argues that: “on-line discourse may be useful and engaging
to
its
participants even if the participants form no lasting relationships, even
if they share few values, and even if they know at
a
pinch that they can’t
count on one another.
...
What
is
important, in many cases, is the com-
munication itself-the shared informational artifact that is created by
the participants.”
Preece
(1999)
also addresses the question
of
the balance between
social support and hard information, describing how in a medical sup-
port group, the same questions were answered repeatedly. She wondered
why no one had created
a
frequently asked questions
(FAQ)
list, and why
respondents did not seem
to
mind repeating the same information, real-
izing that “communication was about much more than just exchanging
factual information. It was about identifying and communicating with
others experiencing similar problems” (Preece,
1999,
p.
65).
Even when
what was going on was explicitly information sharing, a social aspect
was evident. Increasing the efficiency
of
information retrieval would
actually damage the quality of support given:
FAQ
lists give the infor-
mation contained within them
a
formal status, which may not be appro-
priate, and may also make people reluctant
to
ask questions in case they
be seen as an annoyance.
For
Preece, empathy and social support are
more important than accuracy
of
information; she opposes the idea
of
including medical staff
or
moderating the group, as this would change
the dynamics. She observes that much
of
the information shared was
“soft” information, such as accounts of patients‘ experiences, rather than
answers
to
factual medical questions. Preece views this as empathetic
rather than informational behavior, but
it
could be argued that such
background detail
is
just as much information as hard facts, more diffi-
cult
to
come by in traditional ways.
Burnett has summarized how the sociological focus
of
virtual com-
munity studies has marginalized the role
of
information: “while there
is
wide agreement that virtual communities
...
have the capability to pro-
vide both interpersonal and informational interactions, the degree to
which they can be seen as specifically information-oriented social spaces
has been open
to
some question” (Burnett,
2000,
p.
1).
He identifies
a
range
of
online information behaviors, categorizing them as:
152
Annual Review
of
Information Science and Technology
Non-interactive (lurking)
Interactive
Hostile
Flaming
Trolling
Spamming
Cyber-rape
Collaborative
Non-information specific
Neutral-pleasantries/gossip
Humorous-language gameslplay
Empathic-emotional support
Information specific
Announcements
Queries/specific requests
From members
Queries taken outside
community
Queries presented
to
community
Directed group projects
Burnett’s framework
for
measuring information behavior represents
a useful schema
for
coding responses in content analysis
of
messages,
although Burnett may not have included additional behaviors (such as
responses
to
requests
for
information) that are as worthy
of
study as
initial queries in such a highly interactive environment. Indeed,
responses can sometimes modify the original information request, in
much the same way as a librarian conducts a reference interview.
Burnett’s typology is, however,
a
useful starting point
for
analyzing
Community and Virtual Community
153
information behaviors in a virtual community and assessing how strong
a role information-specific behavior plays. In this respect, Burnett’s
typology can be used
to
understand the characteristics
of
interactions in
virtual communities in terms
of
information exchange,
as
well as how
such communities function as information environments.
The question
of
what motivates participation and, in particular,
knowledge sharing in
a
virtual community has been studied by Wasko
and Faraj
(2000).
They found that participation
is
motivated by percep-
tions
of
community interest, generalized reciprocity, and pro-social
behavior. Wasko and Faraj asked why people contribute time and effort
to the provision
of
knowledge as a public good, but from
a
knowledge
management rather than a sociological perspective. They pointed out
that much useful knowledge is embedded in individuals rather than
available in datasets, and may only be extracted in return
for
intangible
rewards, such as prestige. Examining Usenet groups, they concluded:
“Members are not simply interested in a forum
for
questions and
answers, but appreciate the online dialog, debate, and discussion around
topics
of
interest. People feel that the community provides access
to
knowledge rather than just information, and becomes a valuable forum
to
received feedback on ideas and solutions” (Wasko
&
Faraj,
2000,
p.
170).
The virtual community, then, provides hard information but
much more-knowledge, wisdom, experience, and a place
to
thrash
things out and come
to
new solutions. This outcome is more than just
information, but also more than just community spirit and chit chat.
Munro, Hook, and Benyon (1999) combine social and informational
elements in
a
different way, proposing the concept
of
social navigation
of
information space-navigating through information by interacting with
others and observing what they do. This is like choosing a restaurant
because it looks busy
or
has been recommended, rather than picking one
out
of
the
YeZZow
Pages
(Dieberger, 1999). Munro, Hook, and Benyon
(1999) claim that traditional computing and information science cannot
cope with the volume and ephemerality
of
information and that the
essential element
of
an information professional’s work is not finding
information, but assessing it in context. Virtual community can deliver
information with built-in human perspective and relevance assessments
(McGrath
&
Munro,
2003).
Shank (1999) analyzed a project site’s utility
as an information source. Her study measured aspects such as stress
154
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
and life satisfaction before and after the project, as well as asking par-
ticipants how useful they had found the site. However, the quantitative
data obtained were unhelpful: “despite the mostly positive qualitative
data, we were unable
to
show quantitative gains in empowerment, sup-
port, stress, life-satisfaction” (Shank,
1999,
p.
17).
They reported that
other researchers encountered the same problem;
so
far, no effective way
has been found
to
measure the usefulness
of
information other than by
asking recipients
to
assess it.
Buhle
(1997,
p.
68)
contrasts the interactive virtual community
with the Web as an information resource: “while the Web
is
a power-
ful resource
for
bringing information together
...
it
is
inherently a
‘read-only’ world
...
the equivalent
of
the medical library, where the
users read but do not discuss their reading with their peers.” He
describes how interactivity enhances
a
site, providing feedback
to
designers, and allowing users
to
tell their own stories. He found these
stories
to
have the most impact on users regardless
of
their level
of
education. He encourages medical experts
to
participate in order to
gain understanding
of
patients’ concerns, and offers examples
of
why
people choose to participate in online support groups rather than talk
to
their doctor, such as mistrust
of
their healthcare provider
or
a wish
to
take charge of their own quality
of
life. Significantly, information-
specific behavior is not related only to providing answers, but also
enhances the quality
of
life generally. Social interaction and support
are a part of this, but information
is
more than just a means
to
buy
support.
The Internet and World Wide Web are synonymous with the concept
of
virtual networks. However, it is important
to
distinguish between differ-
ent approaches to the creation
of
virtual networks because these lead
to
different forms
of
virtual community. Communities
of
practice, net-
worked virtual communities, and virtual community networks have dif-
fering rationales and agendas. It is clear when exploring these different
forms
of
virtual community that, although later settlers may have occu-
pied the same territory
as
the early electronic homesteaders, they have
not always shared the same vision,
or
espoused the same values. The
transformation of virtual communities from social experiments and
cata-
lysts
for
social change
to
extensions of government and corporate com-
mercial interests runs counter to the philosophy
of
many Internet
Community and
Virtual
Community
155
pioneers,
as
does the emphasis, in many applications, on information pro-
vision as an end rather than a means. In this respect, the
WELL
repre-
sents the archetype
for
virtual community, not the exemplar. The concept
of
virtual community is open textured. Open texture differs from vague-
ness: “Vagueness can be remedied by giving more accurate rules, open
texture cannot.
An
alternative way
of
stating this would be
to
say that
definitions
of
open terms are always corrigible
or
amendable. Open tex-
ture is a very fundamental characteristic
of
most, though not all, empir-
ical concepts” (Waismann, 1951, pp. 120-121). Benders and Van Veen
(2001) use the notion
of
“interpretative viability” (originally coined by
Ortmann, 1995) to illustrate how concepts that are open
to
multiple
interpretations are often widely disseminated, because “their users can
eclectically select those elements that appeal
to
them,
or
that they inter-
pret as the fashion’s core idea,
or
that they opportunistically select as
suitable
for
their purposes” (Benders
&
Van Veen, 2001, p. 37) and,
therefore, they often attract a wide user base because “different parties
can each ‘recognize’ their own version
of
the concept” (Benders
&
Van
Veen, 2001, p. 38). For this reason, it is impossible
to
provide one
all-
encompassing definition
of
virtual community.
In different ways, authors such as Rheingold (1993, 1994), Wenger
(19981, and Putnam (2000) capture
or
elucidate changes in the notion
of
community that lead
to
a redefinition
of
ideas underlying earlier con-
ceptions. In that sense, the critical question
is
not:
Is
virtual community
community? But, how is the concept
of
virtual community changing our
understanding
of
the notion
of
community (Jones, 1995)? This, in turn,
relates
to
the broader question
of
how changes in the notion
of
commu-
nity reflect broader changes in the nature
of
society (Beck, 1992). The
intention here is
to
explore the notion
of
community and virtual com-
munity in relation
to
four different themes:
(1)
virtual communities and
communities
of
practice; (2) virtual communities and virtual arenas;
(3)
virtual community networks; and
(4)
networked virtual communities.
The objective is to illuminate how the concept
of
virtual community, in
different
ways,
may be changing our understanding
of
community,
rather than
to
provide
a
definitive doctrine
of
virtual community.
156
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Virtual Communities and
Communities
of
Practice
Davenport and Hall (2002) have presented a comprehensive analysis
of
the role
of
communities
of
practice in the creation of organizational
knowledge, from both a performance and managerially oriented perspec-
tive and an interpretative, socially oriented perspective. They review the
contributing domains (situated learning, distributed cognition, and com-
munication studies), current organizational manifestations, motivations,
and infrastructures. Both literature and practice suggest that a few fun-
damental elements give rise to a community
of
practice: a voluntary and
emergent formation
of
a
group
of
individuals that
is
reflected in the self-
regulatory and somewhat loose way the community manages itself,
based on a largely tacit understanding
of
common interests and issues
of
concern. In such
a
community mutual sources
of
gain arise in learning
collectively through shared practices, and shared discourses and inter-
pretative repertoires form the basis
of
mutual trust. Many
of
the studies
of communities
of
practice have focused on communities that are either
co-located
or
in physical contact. The question of whether we can extend
this concept
to
a partially
or
completely virtual environment is debat-
able. For example, virtual communities may never meet face-to-face and
members have
to
share information via codified artifacts. In such a con-
text it may be difficult to demonstrate either tacitness in sharing under-
standings
or
developing learning through practice. Additionally, in
communities
of
practice, learning is situated in the context
of
work prac-
tices and
is
co-constructed during problem solving-aspects that may be
different,
or
absent, in virtual communities.
Most
studies
of
communities
of
practice emphasize the voluntary,
organic, and emergent nature of their formation (Davenport
&
Hall,
2002; Edmundson, 2001; Lave
&
Wenger, 1991; Stewart, 1997; Wenger,
1998; Wenger
&
Snyder, 2000). Even when these communities are gen-
erated within a particular set
of
practices in a specific organizational
context, what seems
to
bring them together and, more importantly, to
sustain them, is a voluntary commitment to pursuing common interests
and sharing learning activities that are embedded in professional
or
work practices. The focus
of
these communities is on the situated nature
of
learning in the context
of
work practices (Brown
&
Duguid, 1998;
Community
and
Virtual
Community
157
Wenger, 1998).
As
pointed out by Wenger and Snyder
(ZOOO),
communi-
ties
of
practice share a history and develop over time. Baumard (1999)
further stresses that communities
of
practice require not only a shared
practice, but also continuous and uninterrupted practice over
a
period
of
time. The scope and shape of these communities vary considerably.
Initial studies focused on the practices of apprenticeship in a variety
of
contexts, ranging from Goan tailors
to
Yucatan midwifes (Lave, 1988,
1991; Lave
&
Wenger, 1991), and on physical communities, as in the
series of studies conducted with engineers and office workers at Xerox
(Brown
&
Duguid, 1991;
Orr,
1987, 1990; Suchman, 1986), in bread-
making machine design at Matsushita Electrical Company (Nonaka
&
Takeuchi, 1995)
or
in the crafting
of
flutes (Cook
&
Brown, 1999; Cook
&
Yanow, 1993).
However, the concept, as noted by Kimble, Hildreth, and Wright
(2001) and Davenport and Hall (20021, can be extended much further.
Wenger (2000) has recently asserted that communities
of
practice are
ubiquitous and part
of
our everyday lives. Their existence goes beyond
the boundaries of organizations; they can be geographically dispersed
and, in some cases, take the shape
of
a virtual community (Davenport,
2001; Kimble et al., 2001). The wide dissemination
of
the concept
of
communities
of
practice and its extension beyond the original commu-
nities that constituted the early studies demonstrate
its
interpretative
viability. The concept appeals to both practitioners and academics and
is
addressed in different literatures. Brown and Duguid (1998, 2001)
stress that
it
is
often easier
to
transfer knowledge across firms than
intra-organizationally, especially where there are common practices
across organizations. They argue that knowledge tends
to
be “leaky”
when practice is shared, as happens in extended collaborative profes-
sional communities across organizations, and “sticky” when practice is
not shared, as happens among heterogeneous groups in organizations.
Macdonald (1995, 1998) goes further, contending that sharing what
may even be seen
as
proprietary knowledge across firms
is
often the
condition
for
innovation in high-tech environments. Many
of
these
knowledge-sharing practices occur in established networks of profes-
sionals, across organizations that have the shared history, interests,
and identity that characterize communities
of
practice.
158
Annual
Review
of
Information Science and Technology
Wenger (1998, ZOOO), while noting that communities
of
practice can
have very fluid boundaries, stresses the importance
of
exploring these
boundaries in the following ways: brokering between communities, devel-
oping boundary objects, promoting boundary interactions, and undertak-
ing cross-disciplinary projects. Brokering between communities can be
achieved via boundary spanning (working on
a
specific boundary over a
period
of
time), roaming (creating multiple connections and networks),
and out-posting (exploring new territories). Developing boundary objects
that can support the activities
of
different communities is a concept
developed by Star (Star, 1989; Star
&
Griesemer, 19891, where objects
that support coordination of work across communities may retain their
shape, but are likely
to
be interpreted differently.
An
interesting recent
example
of
this is presented by Kimble et al. (2001) in the context
of
a
community
of
practice in a distributed transnational environment.
Promoting boundary interactions is undertaken through organizing
encounters, developing boundary practices,
or
encouraging the existence
of
peripheries that have some interest in the activities
of
the community
or
in
its
practices but are not active members
of
the community under-
taking cross-disciplinary projects. This
is
often seen in the biotechnology
field, where articles can have more than a hundred authors, drawn from
a
variety
of
organizations (Brown
&
Duguid, 1998). Celltech, a British
pharmaceutical company, offers an interesting example
of
this practice.
It initiated
a
strategic change process based
on
knowledge exploration
rather than knowledge exploitation. This involved discarding routine
clinical analysis contract work and focusing instead on cross-disciplinary
research based on strategic alliances with major players in the pharma-
ceutical market (McNamara
&
Baden-Fuller, 1999). It appears, then,
that even though the concept
of
communities
of
practice originated with
relatively close communities in co-located environments, the suite
of
practices that defines
it
can be found in wider and different contexts.
Self-regulation is an important characteristic
of
communities
of
prac-
tice, unlike conventional approaches to management, which are based
on planning and control. “Communities
of
practice are responsible only
to themselves. Nobody owns them.
.
.
.
Organizational learning depends
on these often invisible groups, but they are virtually immune
to
man-
agement in a conventional sense-indeed, managing them can kill
them” (Stewart, 1997, pp. 96-97). This element
of
self-regulation is
Community
and
Virtual
Community
159
exemplified in the three dimensions that Wenger proposes as defining
the coherence
of
a community through practice:
(1)
a shared and negoti-
ated understanding
of
what constitutes a joint enterprise, one that
is
defined, “in the very process of pursuing it” (Wenger,
1998,
p.
77)
and
establishes, in turn, relationships
of
mutual accountability;
(2)
norms
of
mutual engagement that define modes
of
participation that can be both
diverse and complex; and
(3)
a shared repertoire
of
joint resources,
embodied in “language, routines, sensibilities, artefacts, tools, stories,
styles” (Wenger,
2000,
p.
229).
The important point about these three
dimensions is that they imply reciprocity and mutuality in the regula-
tion
of
community practices; common issues
of
concern and mutual
sources
of
gain (that may not be immediate
or
automatic) are present.
Wenger
(2000)
and Wenger and Snyder
(2000)
have proposed that,
although communities
of
practice are not amenable
to
conventional
forms
of
management, they benefit from nurturing. They recommend
identifylng the communities that can help enhance the strategic poten-
tial
of
the organization, providing an infrastructure
to
support these
communities, and using nontraditional methods to assess a community’s
value. The last
of
these presents difficulties due
to
the largely intangi-
ble nature
of
the benefits derived.
The importance
of
an infrastructure
to
support such relationships is
often emphasized (Davenport
&
Hall,
2002;
Newell, Scarborough, Swan,
&
Hislop,
2000;
Star
&
Ruhleder,
1994;
Wenger
&
Snyder,
2000).
Davenport and Hall
(2002)
present
a
comprehensive review
of
work in
this
area, organized around a taxonomy based upon earlier work by Star
and Ruhleder
(1994):
technologies
for
communication and representa-
tion; boundary infrastructure; social infrastructure, supporting relation-
ships
and mutual engagement; and discursive infrastructure, supporting
the development
of
shared repertoires. Brown and Duguid
(1998,
p.
105)
suggest, however, that some
of
the infrastructure that organizations put
in place to support these communities, such as new technologies, may be
at odds with the informal nature
of
these groups, and suggest that tech-
nologies should address the need for varying “degrees of formality and
trust.” They add, “increasingly, workplaces seek
to
control the
sorts
of
interactions and exchanges these [technologies1 are used
for.
Yet, these
systems in many ways replace the coffee pot and the water cooler as the
site
of
informal and highly important knowledge diffusion. Limiting their
160
Annual Review
of
Information Science and Technology
informality is likely
to
limit their importance” (Brown
&
Duguid,
1998,
p.
106).
Davenport and Hall (2002) also suggest that organizations can
create incentives
for
participation in communities
of
practice by making
knowledge sharing part
of
the job requirements
of
each individual and
allowing risk taking as part
of
its practices. Contu and Willmot (2000,
pp. 272-273) are critical
of
Wenger
for
moving from a view of “learning
as
praxis
.
,
.
within a discourse
of
critique
to
a formulation
of
learning as
technology conceived within a discourse
of
regulation and performance.”
In their view, Wenger’s recent work (2000) lacks reflexivity and a focus
on the more challenging aspects that are involved in social learning sys-
tems, such as the politics
of
participation and issues related
to
the repro-
duction
of
social learning systems that were present in the work
originally developed by Lave and Wenger
(1991).
As
noted, reciprocity and mutuality are fundamental principles that
define the ethos
of
communities
of
practice. It could be questioned,
therefore, whether managerial attempts
to
nurture these groups may
not, ironically, undermine their very nature. The voluntary and recipro-
cal nature
of
participation in these communities is not based on formal
incentives and reward schemes, but on
a
tacit understanding of common
interest and mutual gains: “what holds them together is a common sense
of
purpose and real need to know what each other knows” (Brown
&
Grey,
1995,
p. 78). They develop around a notion that value
is
added for
each member
of
the community in the collective development
of
activi-
ties, even though the gains may be different
for
each member, and may
not be immediate
or
direct.
Teigland (2000) observes that online communities possess some
of
the
characteristics
of
physical communities of practice, such
as
reciprocity
and identity, but lack face-to-face contact, working instead through the
exchange
of
codified information. However, Cook and Brown
(1999)
argue that both tacit and explicit knowledge will arise from social inter-
action, not just the transfer of
tacit
to
explicit knowledge
or
vice versa.
Kimble et al. (2001, p. 224) state that the major problem, when consid-
ering the notion
of
a virtual community of practice, is the facilitation
of
participation: “Participation
is
central to the evolution
of
a community.
It
is
essential for the creation
of
the relationships that help
to
build the
trust and identity that define a community.” Many online communities
are short lived and rather fluid (Wolf,
1997)
and, in many cases, their
Community and Virtual Community
161
members “inhabit alternative personae” (Davenport
&
Hall, 2002,
p. 206). Identity built through history and trust based on identity may
take different shapes in these cases. The body
of
literature in this area
is increasing, and,
for
example, the annual proceedings
of
the
International Conference on Virtual Communities (INFONORTICS,
1998,1999,2000,2001,2002) are replete with references
to
virtual com-
munities
of
practice. Teigland (2000) proposes that the original notion
of
community
of
practice may need revision.
As
with the notion
of
virtual
community, community
of
practice may be considered an open-textured
concept and changes in our social environment and practices may
require modifying the definition
of
communities
of
practice.
Virtual Communities and
Virtual Arenas
Darwin, Johnson, and McAuley (2002) have established the relation-
ship between the more recent work developed around the notion
of
com-
munities
of
practice, after Lave and Wenger (1991), and seminal
research on the concept
of
arenas, originally formulated by Strauss,
Schatzman, Bucher, Ehrlich, and Sabshin (1964, 1981). Strauss et al.
studied psychiatric institutions in the United States and concluded that
organizational theory based on bureaucracies and formal systems was
not appropriate for professional institutions because “the activity
of
interacting professionals is
. .
.
largely governed by continual reconstitu-
tion
of
bases
of
work through negotiation” (Strauss et
al.,
1981, p.
375).
This process
of
negotiation, with its implied socialization, brings
to
dif-
ferent organizational arenas
(or
learning locales in work by Nonaka
&
Takeuchi [19951 and Brown
&
Duguid [19981) different ideologies
(or
mindsets [Darwin et al., 20021,
or
shared meanings [Wenger, 19981) that
regulate the practices
of
the various professional groups. These ideolo-
gies are articulated through different professional rhetorics that form
the basis
for
the negotiation
of
power relationships: “In this situation,
power comes from the ability
of
one rhetoric (the expression
of
the mind-
set) to dominate another” (Darwin et al., 2002, p.
75).
Strauss et al.
(1964) suggest that the structure
of
professional organizations
is
deter-
mined
by
this mix
of
locales with their different ideologies and by the
162
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
relationships that exist among the organizations and with their external
boundaries.
The notions
of
arenas and communities
of
practice are not isomor-
phic, because the former may involve a more formal element
of
organi-
zational mandate and the latter may exist without explicit
organizational structure. Nonetheless, interesting parallels do exist; the
concept
of
arena provides a useful framework
for
analyzing the work
of
communities
of
practice, with respect
to
the relationships between ide-
ology, professional rhetorics, and the reproduction of social relations.
Discourse analysis has recently shown how power relations can be repro-
duced in different ways through discursive practices (Alvesson
&
Skoldberg, 2000; Foucault, 1971, 1972; Hackley, 2000; Potter, 1998;
Potter
&
Wetherell, 1987). Davenport and Hall (2002) provide examples
of
the application
of
discourse analysis, conversation analysis, and genre
analysis
to
study communities of practice. The focus on the development
of
a shared discourse (Strauss et al., 1981) and a shared interpretative
repertoire (Hackley, 2000) may be a vehicle
for
reproducing ways to con-
trol
events and situations, of establishing “the right way
to
do things.”
This theme
is
explored by Hackley (2000, p. 246) in the context
of
a
knowledge-intensive organization, the advertising agency: “Assimilate
the right discourses in the right way (such as the ‘corporate way’
or
the
‘strategic imperative’) and a credible professional identity could be con-
structed through momentary authoritative expressions of them.”
Kirk and Vasconcelos (2002) have explored some
of
these issues in the
professional practices
of
both management and technology consultants.
Management consultants referred
to
the explicit development
of
these
discourses
as
an integral part of the consultancy process, aiming at the
use
of
a common language as a vehicle
for
generating common under-
standings
of
the process and negotiating with the client system. In con-
trast, the technology consultants focused on problem definition and
problem boundaries, fostering
a
more tacitly oriented view
of
both the
process and
of
the client system, a view that was represented through a
simpler vocabulary. The consultants in this study appeared
to
have dif-
ferent approaches
to
developing and situating their discourses in “the
play between powers” (Alvesson
&
Skoldberg, 2000, p. 229) and
to
estab-
lishing arenas. Empirical work carried out with communities
of
practice,
some
of
them in a virtual context (Davenport, 2001; Davenport
&
Hall,
Community and Virtual Community
163
2001; Kimble et al., 20011, stress the importance of language as being
constitutive of the relations between members through, for example, the
development of private rhetorics in the shape of group-specific acronyms
and nicknames (Kimble et al., 2001), the design of a taxonomy to codify
problems usually encountered in the context of work (Davenport, 2001;
Davenport
&
Hall,
2001;
Deuten
&
Rip, 2000; O’Dell
&
Grayson, 1998),
and the development of “war stories” and narratives of processes and
sit-
uations (Brown
&
Duguid, 1991;
Orr,
1987, 1990). Important issues
about the role of language in this context deserve consideration. First,
language does not merely reflect relations
of
power, but also allows their
construction and reproduction. Furthermore, we should take into
account not only what language allows one
to
express, but, as impor-
tantly, what
it
does not allow one to express. This
is
evident in Hackley’s
(2000) study of an advertising group, where the discursive managerial
genre that was adopted served to regulate the tensions between the
groups
of
creatives and the corporate planning groups, by silencing the
language of dissention. Hackley proposes that discursive, tacitly
ori-
ented management can serve the purposes of control and power building
as effectively as explicit, sanction-backed management. Interesting par-
allels arise here with work that has been carried out in Communities of
practice. Brown and Duguid (1998, p. 97) point out that “communities of
practice, although powerful sources of knowledge, can easily be blink-
ered by the limitations of their
own
world view” and review several stud-
ies on this aspect. Certain mindsets or ideologies can be embodied in
communicative genres (Yates
&
Orlikowski, 1992) and genre repertoires
(Orlikowski
&
Yates, 1994; Yates, Orlikowski,
&
Rennecker, 19971, which
can be instantiated in a variety of media (documentary, narrative, or dig-
ital communications).
The development of communicative genres is supported by the idea of
reification, which Wenger (1998) considers especially important in shap-
ing meaning in communities of practice and in strengthening group
identity. Reification can take many forms: “a fleeting smoke signal or an
age old pyramid, an abstract formula or a concrete truck,
a
small logo or
a huge information processing system, a simple word jotted on a page or
a complex argument developed in a whole book, a telling glance or a long
silence” (Wenger, 1998, p.
60).
Many interesting kinds of artifacts legit-
imate the behavior and regulate the activities of communities of practice
164
Annual Review
of
Information Science and Technology
(Yates
&
Orlikowski,
1992).
Cook and Yanow
(1993)
describe the case
of
flute workshops, based in Boston, that produce world-class instruments
using traditional and prized craftsmanship. Each flute
is
produced by a
specific team; and each flute maker
is
responsible
for
only one part
of
the
flute. Each part
is
developed by
a
flute maker until
it
meets a given
quality standard, after which
it
is handed in
to
the next flute maker, who
assesses the work in terms
of
his
or
her
own
set
of
standards. If the part
does not “feel right,”
it
is returned
for
further work. Each component is
validated by the next stage, with
this
assessment often made by eye
or
by hand. The collective knowledge of the team, which
is
developed and
refined
as
the flutes are produced,
is
embodied in each flute. Part
of
this
know-how
is
developed through the negotiation
of
what “feels right.”
Cook and
Brown
(1999,
p.
397)
assert that although
it
exemplifies the
deployment
of
existing tacit knowledge
of
experienced flute makers and
the development
of
new
tacit
knowledge in novices, in the context
of
interacting together and with the artifact,
“it
is
not possible, under any
circumstances,
for
tacit knowledge
to
become explicit
(or
vice versa).” In
their view, interaction rather than knowledge transfer is taking place.
This
is
different from Nonaka and Takeuchi’s
(1995)
model
of
knowledge
creation through a spiral
of
conversion-from tacit to explicit, explicit
to
explicit, explicit
to
tacit, and tacit
to
tacit, from individual to group and
from group
to
individual-exemplified in the context
of
bread-making
machine design. Cook and Yanow’s interpretation is similar
to
Oakeshott’s
(1962,
p.
119)
analogy
of
cookery. He argues that, although
edible materials, cooking instruments, and a cookbook might be seen as
what suffice to make an ignorant man learn how
to
cook, “nothing is fur-
ther from the truth. The cookery book
is
not an independently generated
beginning from which cooking can spring; it is nothing more than an
abstract of somebody’s knowledge
of
how
to
cook: it is the stepchild, not
the parent.”
An
interesting example
of
knowledge generation through interaction,
via
the development
of
an artifact,
is
provided in a case study conducted
by Kimble et al.
(2001)
within
a
virtual community
of
practice. The con-
text is
a
large international company’s
IT
support management team. The
community
is
divided into two core groups, based in the United
States
and
in
the United Kingdom, with another member in Japan. In this case, the
joint development
of
a
planning document through interaction allowed
for
Community and Virtual Community
165
the creation
of
new knowledge and, in turn, the document served as a cat-
alyst
for
further interaction and collaboration. The authors assert that
“it
is not the artefact per se which
is
important but the process involved in
its creation” (Kimble et al.,
2001,
p.
231).
It could be argued that virtual
communities can demonstrate only the development
or
transfer
of
explicit knowledge. However, if we accept Cook and Brown’s (1999) argu-
ment, what may be taking place is not necessarily the transfer
of
knowl-
edge (or, more correctly, the transfer
of
information), but the
development
of
both tacit and explicit knowledge, in their own right, by
each participant, via interaction. Davenport and Hall
(2002,
p. 176)
also
note that “in many cases
...
domain documentation cumulates in an ad
hoc fashion, and finding one’s way becomes an important component
of
apprenticeship.” Jubert (1999) describes the interrelation
of
knowledge
management
(KM)
and virtual communities in the context of business
process innovation in Siemens Business Services
(SBS)
France. The
SBS
KM
strategy
is
based around the creation
of
a supra-culture
of
virtual
communities sustaining communities
of
practice. Jubert’s study
is
notable in linking the notions
of
virtual communities, communities
of
practice, and knowledge management.
A
good example
of
this coalescence is the Eureka system at Xerox.
Eureka is a database
of
tips on photocopy repair, created and used by
repair engineers. In that sense, it represents
an
expertise database
for
front-line service engineers. Although the virtual community that formed
around the development
of
Eureka is not, strictly speaking, a community
of
practice, Eureka is
a
forum for the sharing
of
expertise
similar
to
a
community
of
practice. It is described
as
“an example of
a
knowledge
management environment where sharing of best practices and solutions
is achieved
...
a
community-based knowledge-sharing solution
for
cus-
tomer service engineers” (Dutta, Biren,
&
Van Wassenhove,
2000,
pp.
7-8).
Before Eureka there existed
a
more localized information-sharing
culture. Eureka’s success
is
due, in large part, to the perceived quality
of
the system and
to
the pre-existing organizational culture and behavior
of
the engineers. Awareness of the organizational culture and the informa-
tion behavior
of
the engineers
is
key
to
understanding the success of
Eureka in knowledge management rather than IT terms. For collabora-
tion
to
take place, an appropriate organizational culture must exist
or
be
fostered.
This
may be described
as
an
information-sharing culture, and
166
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
the importance
of
this type
of
culture
to
knowledge management is
reflected in the interest the knowledge management literature takes in
organizational culture. Creating an information-sharing culture within
an organization can be difficult.
As
Fisher
(1998,
p.
192)
points out, “the
view that ‘knowledge is power’ is hard
to
eradicate, and any defence
organisation
will
have particular problems in changing a culture
of
secrecy to one
of
knowledge sharing.” Cropley
(1998,
p. 218) recommends
addressing the “knowledge is power” problem through direct manipula-
tion
of
an organization’s culture: “cultural solutions include rewarding
people
for
sharing and limiting their opportunities if they do not con-
tribute
to
the organization’s intellectual capital. Assigning accountabil-
ity
to
reinforce this, by,
for
example, holding people responsible for time
wasted
or
acknowledging their contribution to success through the effec-
tive transmission
of
expertise.”
Recognizing what “makes the engineers tick” in terms
of
motivation
was also key
to
the success of Eureka, which was set up to recognize and
reward contributions
to
the system. Its success put peer pressure on the
engineers
to
use the system in a “use breeds use”
or
“success breeds suc-
cess” cycle. Eureka was not without its problems; some had
to
do with
organizational culture and some with national culture.
For
example, the
middle management and sales cultures differ from the engineering cul-
ture, and national culture in the
U.S.
differs from that in Europe.
Linguistic problems can also arise. Eureka underscores the importance
of
trust in knowledge sharing and in the development
of
a cohesive
corn-
munity
of
practice:
it
provides an example
of
how individuals willingly
submitted information about their expertise to
a
group
of
peers. Kimble
et al.
(2001)
also discuss the issue
of
trust in the context
of
virtual
corn-
munities
of
practice. They offer a paradigmatic example, in the context
of
an international company. This study concluded that it was trust and
identity based on previous relations among the participants that allowed
them
to
go “the extra half mile” (Kimble et al.,
2001,
p.
229).
The trust
and identity had been established through previous face-to-face con-
tacts. Interestingly, “they also felt that during the periods
of
communi-
cation by e-media, the momentum gradually slowed, until a physical
meeting picked
it
up again” (Kimble et al.,
2001,
p.
230),
which suggests
that it might be difficult
to
establish and maintain this type
of
personal
link in
a
purely virtual medium over a long period
of
time. Buzan
(1999,
Community and Virtual Community
167
p.
107) emphasizes the importance
of
trust in promoting effective two-
way communication: “People consider trust and confidence the most
important factor in determining how they communicate and interact
with each other
....
Trust increases our willingness
to
listen
to
new ideas
and
to
take risks. Lack
of
trust causes
us
to
retreat
to
safe territory and
inhibits
our
ability
to
think freely and creatively.” Von Krogh (1998,
p.
141) also emphasizes the importance
of
trust in developing
or
foster-
ing an information-sharing culture. However, Bukowitz and Williams
(1999, p.
335)
point out that knowledge management itself may be
an
important factor in reinforcing undesirable communication practices:
“Knowledge management practices have created
a
tension between
organizations, which are seeking
to
get people
to
‘contribute what they
know,’ and workers, who know that ‘what they know’ keeps them
employed. Unless employees can trust that knowledge sharing actually
increases rather than decreases their value
to
the organization, the best
laid knowledge management plans
will
fail.”
Eureka is interesting not only because it offers a forum for sharing
expertise as in communities of practice, but also because it embodies the
idea of a virtual learning locale
or
arena (Strauss et al., 1964). Eureka
not only fitted, but also facilitated the reproduction
of
the mindsets and
ethos
of
repair engineers regarding their work practices. The profes-
sional jargon
of
this group, exhibited in the tips and shared stories,
encouraged the development
of
a
sense
of
identity in a group that, by
and large, could not place
a
face
to
each tip
or
story. Eureka also
reflected and reproduced their
social
relations by sharing “war stories“
as a way
of
displaying expertise, establishing a pecking order on the
basis of expertise, and creating a “hall of fame” based on the “signaling”
(Goffman, 1956) of “thumbs up” and “thumbs down.” The concept of
arena, originally developed in the study
of
professional institutions, can
be extended
to
other, broader contexts. Communities based around the
sharing
of
expertise in virtual environments can be considered
as
virtual
arenas, as learning locales that cohere around shared ideologies regard-
ing practices that are articulated through shared rhetoric and interpre-
tative repertoires. These rhetorics and repertoires not only reflect, but
also reproduce the social relations among members of the groups. In this
sense, notions
of
virtual communities
of
practice and virtual arenas
overlap; the gap between virtual community and virtual community of
168
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
practice can be bridged by the notion
of
virtual arena. The virtual arena
provides the locale
for
the virtual community
of
practice by virtue
of
def-
inition
of
focus, membership, and norms.
Virtual Community Networks
Virtual community networks are created on the basis
of
existing prox-
imate communities. In studies
of
virtual community networks, particu-
lar emphasis has been placed on the relationship between the creation
of
virtual community networks and the mobilization
of
social capital.
Social capital refers
to
all the
social
links
that people have, their social
networks, and the tendency within those networks
for
people
to
do
things
for
each other. Social capital operates through information trans-
fer, creation, and maintenance of bonding,
or
through inclusive networks
that connect people who share in-group membership organizations.
Social capital is also exercised through bridging,
or
exclusive, networks,
connecting people who are different, via,
for
example, collective action
and the creation
of
broader collective identity (Putnam, 1995).
A
central
assumption is that social networks have value proportional
to
the extent
to
which they encourage mutually beneficial behavior, information shar-
ing, and cooperation. Social capital can be activated through almost any
form
of
social network, including clubs, associations, churches, neigh-
borhood groups, and even such places as pubs and bars.
Putnam (1995) argues that there has been a reduction in social capi-
tal in the
U.S.,
from
a
period when social capital had been increasing
for
about
a
century
to
the mid-l950s,
to
a point where a sharp decline com-
menced in the 1960s and continues
to
the present. It is possible, how-
ever, that the decline may be reversed by online networks (Putnam,
1995). The key question is whether online interaction contributes
to
or
detracts from social capital formation. On one hand, virtual communi-
ties can facilitate both bonding and bridging relationships; but on the
other hand, online interaction may be
a
poor substitute
for
face-to-face
interaction. From this,
it
would follow that the creation of virtual com-
munity networks could either increase the stock
of
social capital by facil-
itating online interaction via bonding and bridging,
or
promote its
decline
as
online interaction replaces
or
reduces face-to-face interaction.
The connectedness
of
the online virtual community may contribute
to
the disconnectedness
of
the physical community. Some view the creation
Community and Virtual Community
169
of
virtual community networks
as
a threat
to
existing forms
of
commu-
nity, whereas others believe that the creation
of
virtual community net-
works provides new bases
for
social capita formation. Putnam’s position
in relation
to
the debate has shifted over time; in
1995
he had argued
thus: “What will be the impact,
of
electronic networks on social capital?
My
hunch is that meeting in an electronic forum
is
not the equivalent
of
meeting in a bowling alley-or even
a
saloon” (Putnam,
1995,
p.
76).
By
2000
he had come
to
believe that the Internet’s “net effect
will
be
to
enhance community, perhaps even drastically” (Putnam,
2000,
p.
172).
Komito
(2001)
considered whether virtual community threatens
or
enriches existing forms of community. He argues that much discussion
of
virtual community takes place without reference
to
the diversity
of
contemporary community: proximate communities based on geographic
or physical location, moral communities based on a shared commitment
or common goals, and normative communities forged on the basis
of
shared rules
or
norms as
to
what
is
appropriate behavior. In general, vir-
tual communities have more
of
the features
of
moral
or
normative com-
munities, although work to create virtual community networks may be
seen as developing simulacra of proximate communities. Komito notes
that unflattering comparisons
of
virtual with real communities tend
to
be founded on an idealized notion
of
proximate community, a vision
rooted in an illusory
or
mythical idyll
of
small, rural,
or
pre-industrial
settlements. Komito examines the perception that real communities and
neighborhoods are under threat from the accelerating social and eco-
nomic changes induced by the information society and also that the very
technologies threatening the existence
of
real communities may offer
solutions in the creation
of
virtual ones. He concludes that virtual com-
munities cannot replicate all the features
of
real ones and that the desire
to participate in virtual communities may be associated with disengage-
ment from real
social
and political participation:
a
symptom
of
anomie
rather than a cure
for
it.
In the
U.S.,
Riedel, Dresel, Wagoner, Sullivan, and Borgida
(1998)
studied the implementation
of
an electronic community network in the
rural
community of Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Using a combination
of
focus groups and survey research, they examined the relation between
existing socio-economic inequalities in the community and the take-up of
new technology. They found that a proactive approach was required
to
170
Annual
Review
of Information Science
and
Technology
encourage those lacking social
or
economic resources to use new tech-
nology to improve their position in society. Blanchard and Horan
(1998)
examined how virtual communities replicate face-to-face communities
and increase social capital; they concluded, following Putnam, that
social capital is renewed by community bonding on the Net. Tonn,
Zambrano, and Moore
(2001)
developed an evaluation protocol covering
the types of information provided and whether the network contributed
to the social capital of the community. They found that community net-
works were being created by a variety of providers, including nonprofit,
local government, and commercial organizations. However, these orga-
nizations were not perceived to be working together to improve the
social capital of their communities; and Tonn et al. recommended a more
integrated approach to the provision of resources and programs.
In Europe, Ferlander and Timms
(2001)
explored the relationship
between local networks and social capital in
a
marginalized community
in Sweden. They attempted
to
discover whether social capital
is
increased
or diminished by the creation of local community information networks.
They found that the existing level of social capital in the community was
low, but that there were high expectations for the potential of the local
network, notably as a way of involving marginalized groups in the com-
munity. Another, albeit unusual, European study of the role of a virtual
community
is
described by Antonijevic
(2002)
in relation to Sezampro, an
online community in Belgrade. The users of Sezampro were studied
before, during, and after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
bombing campaign. Significant changes occurred in the community: the
number of participants increased, users spent
a
great deal more time
online, and their reasons for using the network to communicate changed
as
well. During the war, the network was used for information gathering,
social interaction, and as a forum for expressing political opinion.
It
is
interesting to speculate whether threats to existing forms of social capi-
tal or social networks, brought about by breakdowns in communication
systems, limitations placed on normal face-to-face interaction, and all of
the effects of war, were being compensated for by an increase and a
change in the nature
of
online networking.
A notable feature of the creation of virtual community networks in
both the
U.S.
and
U.K.
has been the involvement of public libraries.
Examples in the
U.S.
include the Michigan Electronic Library-set up
to
Community and Virtual Community
171
provide a library of electronic information resources focusing on local,
state, and federal government information; to provide free access to as
many Michigan libraries and residents as possible; and
to
provide a
foundation for Michigan’s libraries to provide local electronic community
information (Davidsen, 1997). In Maryland, Sailor, a statewide elec-
tronic information system administered by the State Library of
Maryland, provides public information services for residents in all
Maryland counties (Smith, 1995). Durrance and Pettigrew (2001) have
studied how public libraries and partner organizations are set
to
deliver
community information using
a
two-stage national survey and case
studies of public library community networking partnerships. A
research project exploring the role that local authority public libraries
could play in the development of community networks has been carried
out in the U.K. Project Circe, funded by the British Library Research
and Innovation Centre, evaluated the feasibility of networking commu-
nity information between public library authorities in
the
U.K. The pro-
ject was run by Gloucestershire Libraries, Croydon Libraries, the U.K.
Office for Library and Information Networking (UKOLN), and
Electronic Access
to
Resources in Libraries (EARL). The implementa-
tion, development, and evaluation of project Circe have been reported in
a number of papers by Leech (1998, 1999a) 1999b, 1999~).
The
goal
underlying the project was
to
bring together information from distrib-
uted databases in user-friendly ways. Leech describes the technical and
practical issues involved in developing the network, including organiza-
tional difficulties and problems resulting from the absence
of
common
guidelines and standards.
Also
in the U.K.,
a
number of initiatives have been implemented
relating to the creation
or
provision of virtual community networks by
local authorities. Zielstra (1999) describes the building and testing of a
local community network in the Brent Resource and Information
Network (BRAIN), and Bagshaw (1999) reports on a similar application
in Handsworth, the setting up of the Handsworth Electronic Community
Network (HECNet). HECNet aims to represent
a
broad source of local,
national, and global information; a forum for local community organiza-
tions
to
market and advertise products; a means for fast, efficient, cost-
effective communication, and improved information; communication and
IT skills; as well
as
an environment
to
engender creativity. Talbot and
172
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Newman (1999) have evaluated two such community information net-
works at an early stage in their development. Community Information
Northern Ireland (CINN) and the North Antrim Community Network
(NACN) were compared with other evaluations of virtual community
networks in the U.K. and Ireland, in particular, with NewNet in
Newcastle, U.K., and with Dublin Inner City Community Net in
Ireland. Using a combination of focus groups, questionnaires, combined
training and evaluation events, and case study interviews, they identi-
fied a gap between user expectations and perceived benefits along with
low use of the community networks by many members. However, as
Steyaert (2000) notes, local government Web
sites
tend to be one-way,
putting the individual in the position of customer, rather than exploit-
ing the interactive possibilities of the Web, creating an electronic gov-
ernment shop rather than an electronic community (see Chapter 9 by
Robbin, Courtright, and Davis).
Examples of more interactive approaches are efforts to create digital
towns in Blacksburg, U.S.A. (Carroll, Rosson, Isenhour, Van Metre,
Schafer,
&
Ganoe, 2001; Casalegno, 2001) and in Parthenay in the
Poitou-Charentes region in France. The digital town in Parthenay con-
sists of
a
community-based interactive system covering local govern-
ment, citizen activities, education, local e-commerce, and a shared
information base. Kodama (2000) examined the creation of new forms of
virtual community and virtual communication in promoting the use
of
information technology in Japan. Video-based information networks
were effective platforms
for
creating new, regional-level virtual commu-
nities promoting regional invigoration. In Australia, governments are
attempting to re-create the country’s original community spirit through
the use of virtual communities in support
of
local history and cultural
heritage; but
it
remains questionable whether virtual communities can
capture this community spirit as they remain physically remote
(Partridge, 2000). The creation of virtual communities does not neces-
sarily lead to either democratization
or
development (Gomez, 1998).
N
e twor
ked
Vi
rt ua
I
Communities
Networked virtual communities, in contrast to virtual community net-
works, are based not on proximity, but on a common interest. The use
of
Community and
Virtual
Community
173
networked virtual communities in business was advocated by Armstrong
and Hagel, and applications have emerged in business, industry, the pro-
fessions, and governmental and nongovernmental agencies (Armstrong
&
Hagel,
1995;
Hagel
&
Armstrong,
1997).
Particularly good examples
of
networked virtual communities are found in scientific fields such as
chemistry, physics, molecular biology, and information systems. The
American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and
ChemWebCom host virtual community sites for chemists (Warr,
1998).
Perhaps the most interesting of these
is
ChemWeb, which constitutes
a
worldwide club for the chemical community. ChemWeb
is
examined in
detail by
Town
(1998),
who traces its development and identifies factors
critical to
its
success. Among ChemWeb's most notable features
is
a facil-
ity for delivering interactive lectures to virtual audiences of up to a
1,000
people worldwide (Drey,
1999).
Kling and McKim
(2000)
have studied a
number of electronic research fora in high-energy physics, molecular
biology, and information systems. Examples include arXiv.org (now at
Cornell University) and SPIRES-HEP at Stanford, which support elec-
tronic communication for a virtual community of physicists in partici-
pating laboratories and groups worldwide; FlyBase, a database
of
genetic and molecular information on the fruit fly genome, and the basis
for
a virtual network among the collaborating institutions; and
ISWORLD, which provides a similar forum for information systems
researchers.
A
similarly high level of interest exists in the development of virtual
communities for health and medicine. These include BioMedNet,
a
vir-
tual medical community providing Internet access
to
online journals,
bookshops, and job exchange lists (Osanai,
1999).
More specialist infor-
mation
is
provided by the Sapient Health Network
(SHN)
for those
suf-
fering from one
or
more of sixteen serious chronic diseases (Kelly,
1998;
Stevens,
1998).
For each disease,
SHN
provides
a
news facility for up-to-
date information, a searchable library, a bookshelf, a scrapbook, chat
rooms, and message boards that enable users to interact with each other
free of charge. In the U.K., the National Health Service, National elec-
tronic Library for Health (NeLH) project,
is
intended to provide evalu-
ated information for the general public,
as
well as create
a
number of
specialist subject-based virtual communities (Toth, Gray, Fraser,
&
Ward,
2000).
An
example
of
a
frontline virtual community for the support of
174
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
emergency and primary care is the Emergency Medicine Bulletin Board
System (EMBBS). EMBBS has several components-the Radiology
Library, PhotoRounds, Pediatric Emergency Medicine Topics, and
Clinical Reviews in Depth-and
is
intended
to
enhance communication
between practitioners in emergency and primary medical care
(Educational Resources, 1999). Henry (1997) has looked at electronic
support and self-help groups, comparing them
to
face-to-face groups in
terms
of
twenty-four-hour availability, anonymity, access
to
worldwide
resources, capacity
for
delayed
or
immediate responses, and permanent
recording
of
prior discussion. Other examples include
a
prototype of an
Internet-based healthcare virtual community system, the Northern New
York Health Information System (NNYHIS) (Massey, 1994), and the
Access Michigan Electronic Community Information Initiative
(AMECHI), which
will
link up with developing countries
to
provide them
with an electronic health infrastructure (Brenneise, 2001; Brenneise
&
Marks, 2001).
The use
of
networked virtual communities
to
support learning in
higher education has been reviewed by Wachter, Gupta, and Quaddus
(2000).
A
major application in the U.S. is the Community
of
Science
(COS), founded in 1998 by Johns Hopkins University. COS consists
of
a
collaborative university network
of
around 200,000 individual scientists
and
215
universities and research organizations, including research and
development divisions
of
business corporations and government agen-
cies. The Community
of
Science provides subscribers with researcher
profiles, information on sources
of
grant funding, and links
to
online
databases including Agricola, Ei Compendex, and MEDLINE;
to
U.S.
patents; and
also
to
alerting services, including Commerce Business
Daily, the Federal Register, and COS Funding Alert (Fitzpatrick, 1999).
In Europe, the Danish government has provided funding for virtual uni-
versity initiatives-Learning Lab Denmark, Denmark's Virtual
University, and the Research Ministry's idea
of
setting up a gateway to
Net-based education ('humpy, 2001). Less discussion
of
virtual commu-
nities in primary and secondary education
is
discernable, although some
initiatives have been implemented; the Baltimore Learning Community
project is intended
to
provide middle school teachers with high-quality
image, text, Web site, and full-motion-video resources
for
science and
social studies via a network
of
high-speed Internet connections
Community and
Virtual
Community
175
(Enomoto, Nolet,
&
Marchionini, 1999). Muhsin (1999) describes the
World Links initiative, which connects schools in Ghana and Senegal
with partner schools in Chicago, Toronto, and Quebec,
as
well as World
Bank initiatives in collaboration with the United Nations and the
African Virtual University project.
Other examples of networked virtual communities include distrib-
uted communities with a common heritage, origin,
or
interest in
a
par-
ticular country or diaspora (Karim, 1998, 2002). Examples include
networks relating to India (Mallapragada, 2000; Mitra, 1997; Rao,
1998), Chile (Tanner, 2001), Argentina (Boczkoswki, 19991, Assyria
(Gabrial, 20011, Nigeria (Bastian, 1999), Myanmar (Fink, 2001), China
(Yang, 20021, and the Pacific region (Howard, 1999). Finally, networked
fan and music-focused virtual communities such as I-love-Xena.com
(Pullen, 2000)
or
Napster (Poblocki ,2001) can be found, as well as some
cases where the Internet and World Wide Web constitute almost the sole
basis
or
rationale for interaction, such as The Systers (Camp, 1996) or
Free Pint (Hann, 1999).
Conclusions
Although the study of virtual communities is in
its
infancy,
it
has
already attracted the interest of researchers from many different disci-
plines and perspectives, including computer-mediated communication
(Herring, 2002), ethnography (Rice-Levy, 1994; Ward, 1999; William,
2000),
social network analysis (Wellman
&
Gulia, 1999), social econom-
ics (Kollock, 19991, sociology (Fox
&
Roberts, 19991, and information
science (Burnett, Besant,
&
Chatman, 2001; Romm, Pliskin,
&
Clarke,
1997). The problems involved in studying virtual communities are not
trivial; issues include the appropriateness of the methods used (Ward,
1999), ethical issues involved in such studies (Menon, 1998), and the
potentially negative effects on the virtual communities (Smith
&
Kollock, 1999). Nevertheless, virtual communities provide opportuni-
ties
for
researchers to study the behavior,
or
perceptions, of dispersed
communities in real time, as well as over time, something that was dif-
ficult, if not impossible, before the advent of the Internet and the World
Wide Web. Study of virtual communities may also offer insights into the
176
Annual Review of Information Science
and
Technology
perceptions and actions
of
physical communities through studies
of
their
virtual counterparts.
In her
ARIST
review
of
computer-mediated communication, Herring
(2002)
gave an indication
of
the increasing importance
of
virtual
communities
for
the information professions. Gray (1999) sees the
Internet becoming increasingly dominated by virtual communities, and
Schlicke (1999a; 1999b) has argued that “virtual communities represent
one
of
the most exciting recent developments in the information profes-
sion” (Schlicke, 1999b, p.
1).
Levy (1999), in a special issue
of
the jour-
nal
VINE
devoted to virtual communities and library and information
services, also argues that participation in virtual communities may
become more common
for
information professionals. Other topics
addressed in the same issue include: lis-link, an electronic discussion
forum
for
the library and information science
(LIS)
community in the
U.K.
(Williamson, 1999); approaches
to
the development
of
virtual com-
munities (Nichols
&
Wdale, 1999); the use
of
collaborative workspace
software (Gardner
&
Russell, 1999); electronic mail discussion lists
(Reid, 1999); videoconferencing (de Cicco, 1999); teleworking (Cano,
Hater,
&
Zapatero, 1999); and
MUDS
(Multi-User Dungeons) and
MOOS
(MUDS
Object Oriented) (Cook
&
Stanley, 1999).
The work by Nichols and “widale (1999) is
of
particular interest
because they integrate models from computer-supported cooperative
work (CSCW) with applications in libraries. They set out the CSCW
applications in spatial and temporal quadrants (synchronous versus
asynchronous and co-located versus remote) and map these against
LIS
applications.
As
they point out, traditional paper-based library applica-
tions were found mainly in the co-located and synchronous quadrant, but
the impact
of
digital libraries has had the effect of moving many library
applications
to
the remote and asynchronous quadrant; although, as they
rightly point out, the hybrid nature
of
libraries means that applications
will continue
to
operate in all
four
quadrants. This representation pro-
vides a useful analytical tool
for
charting the impact of CSCW on libraries
and in providing a guide
to
virtual library applications.
Library and information services are part
of
the society they serve.
They both reflect and respond
to
changes in society. From managing
locally held collections
of
books, journals, and abstracts, which once con-
stituted the sole information resource
of
many historic institutions,
to
Community and Virtual Community
177
managing
the
distributed information resources of contemporary orga-
nizations, the nature of library and information work
has
been
trans-
formed. The social and economic forces of postmodern society have
altered
the
organizations, institutions, and communities
that
once con-
stituted
the
foundations of society. Libraries
are
not immune from those
forces; the library
and
information profession, too, needs to change along
with the communities
it
serves.
The evolving distinctions among the different forms of virtual com-
munities
raise
a
variety of questions and suggest
a
number of research
agendas. With regard to virtual community networks,
a
common goal
is
to enhance access to information and other services for members of the
real community, in particular, those who might not otherwise have
access. This applies especially to networking projects where
an
objective
is
the
development of social capital. In this respect,
the
involvement of
libraries and other public agencies
is
essential to ensure that such pro-
jects do not increase social exclusion or differentiation by requiring
that
users possess
a
certain minimum level of technological competence to
gain access to the
virtual
community.
Acknowledgments
The authors
wish
to acknowledge the referees’ many helpful com-
ments on
the
draft version of
this
chapter.
References
Alvesson,
M.,
&
Skoldberg,
K.
(2000).
Reflexive methodology: New vistas for
qual-
itatiue research.
London: Sage.
Antonijevic,
S.
(2002). Sleepless in Belgrade:
A
virtual community during war.
FirstMonday,
7(
1). Retrieved January
10,
2003,
from http://www.firstmonday.
dWissueslissue7-llanton
Armstrong,
A.,
&
Hagel, J., 111. (1995). Real profits from virtual communities.
McKinsey Quarterly,
3,
126-141.
Bagshaw,
G.
(1999). Locality model: Handsworth Electronic Community
Network (HECNet). In
S.
Pantry (Ed.),
Building community information net-
works: Strategies and experiences
(pp.
117-124). London: Library Association
Publishing.
Barlow, J.
P.
(1995).
Is
there a there in cyberspace?
Utne Reader,
68.
Retrieved
January
10,
2003, from
http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/John_Perry-
Barlow/HTMUutne-community.
html
178
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Bastian, M.
L.
(1999).
Nationalism in
a
virtual space: Immigrant Nigerians on
the Internet.
West Africa Review,
l(1).
Retrieved January
10,
2003,
from
http://www.westafricareview.com/warIvoll.
1hastian.html
Baumard,
P.
(1999).
Tacit knowledge in organisations.
London: Sage.
Beck, U.
(1992).
Risk society: Towards
a
new modernity.
(M. Ritter, Trans.).
London: Sage.
Benders,
J.,
&
Van Veen,
K.
(2001).
What’s in
a
fashion? Interpretative viability
and management fashions.
Organization,
8(1), 33-53.
Beninger,
J.
(1987).
Personalization of the mass media and the growth of pseudo-
community.
Communication Research,
14(3), 25-34.
Blanchard,
A.,
&
Horan, T.
(1998).
Virtual communities and social capital.
Social
Science Computer Review,
16(3), 293-307.
Boczkoswki,
P.
J.
(1999).
Mutual shaping of users and technologies in a national
virtual community.
Journal of Communication,
49(2), 86-108.
Boneva, B., Kraut, R.,
&
Frohlich, D.
(2001).
Using e-mail for personal relation-
ships: The difference gender makes.
American Behavioral Scientist,
45,
530-549.
Brenneise, H. R.
(2001).
Creating a state-wide virtual health library: The
Michigan experience.
Impel,
35(3),
199-208.
Brenneise,
H.
R.,
&
Marks,
E.
B.
(2001).
Creating
a
state-wide virtual health
library: The Michigan experience.
Online Information Review,
25(2), 115-120.
Brown, J.,
&
Duguid,
P.
(1991).
Organizational learning and communities-of-
practice: Toward
a
unified view of working, learning and innovation.
Organization Science,
2(
l),
40-57.
Brown, J.,
&
Duguid,
P.
(1998).
Organizing knowledge.
California Management
Review,
40(3), 90-111.
Brown,
J.,
&
Duguid,
P.
(2001).
Knowledge and organization:
A
social practice
perspective.
Organization Science,
12(2), 198-213.
Brown,
J.,
&
Gray, E.
(1995).
People are the company.
Fast Company,
1,
78-81.
Retrieved January
10, 2003,
from
http://www.fastcornpany.com/online/Ol/
people.htm1
Bukowitz,
W.
R.,
&
Williams, R.
L.
(1999).
The knowledge management fieldbook.
Guildford, UK Pearson Education.
Buhle,
E.
L.
(1997).
Our
online community of individuals interested in cancer:
How and why.
Health Care on the Internet,
1(3),
67-82.
Burke, C.
(1998).
The academic discussion
list
as
,a
space for learning and
research.
ISCHE
XX
Conference.
Retrieved January
10, 2003,
from
http://~.jiscmail.ac.uWlists/HISTORY-CHILD-F~ILY/ische-paper.
html
Burnett,
G.
(2000).
Information exchange in virtual communities:
A
typology.
Information Research,
5(4).
Retrieved January
10,
2003,
from http://m.
shef.ac.uk/-is/publications/infres/paper82.
html
Burnett,
G.,
Besant, M.,
&
Chatman,
E.
A.
(2001).
Small worlds: Normative
behavior in virtual communities and feminist bookselling.
Journal of the
American Society for Information Science,
52,
536-547.
Buzan, T.
(1999).
The brainsmart leader.
Aldershot, UK Gower.
Community and Virtual Community
179
Camp, L.
J.
(1996).
We are geeks, and we are not guys: The System mailing list.
In
L.
Cherny
&
E.
R. Weise (Eds.),
Wired-women: Gender and new realities in
cyberspace
(pp.
114-125).
Seattle, WA Seal Press.
Cano, V., Hatar, C.,
&
Zapatero, A.
(1999).
Teleworking: Conceptual and imple-
mentation problems.
Vine,
109,
27-34.
Carroll,
J.
M., Rosson, M. B., Isenhour,
P.
L.,
Van Metre, C., Schafer, W. A.,
&
Ganoe,
C.
H.
(2001).
MOOsburg: Multi user domain support
for
a
community
network.
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications,
ll(1) 65-73.
Casalegno,
F.
(2001).
On cybersocialities: Networked communication and social
interaction in the wired city of Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Telematics and
Informatics,
18(1), 17-34.
Contu,
A.,
&
Willmott, H.
(2000).
Comment on Wenger and Yanow: Knowing in
practice: A “delicate flower” in the organizational learning field.
Organization,
Cook,
N.,
&
Stanley, T.
(1999).
MUDNO0 environments in the delivery of user
support and training.
Vine,
109,
53-58.
Cook,
S.,
&
Brown,
J.
(1999).
Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance
between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing.
Organization
Science,
2(4), 381-400.
Cook,
S.,
&
Yanow, D.
(1993).
Culture and organizational learning.
Journal of
Management Inquiry,
2(4), 373-390.
Cropley,
J.
(1998).
Sharing expertise in practice: The way forward for knowledge
management.
Serials,
11,
218.
Cummings,
J.,
Butler, B.,
&
Kraut, R.
(2002).
The quality of online social rela-
tionships.
Communications of the ACM,
45(7), 103-108.
Cutler, R. H.,
(1995).
Distributed presence and community in cyberspace.
Interpersonal computing and technology,
3(2), 12-32.
Retrieved January
10,
2003,
from
http://www.helsinki.fillsciencelopteW1995/n2/cutler.txt
Darwin,
J.,
Johnson,
P.,
&
McAuley,
J.
(2002).
Developing strategies for change.
Harlow, UK Prentice-Hall.
Davenport,
E.
(2001).
Knowledge management issues for online organisations:
“Communities of practice”
as
an exploratory framework.
Journal of
Documentation,
57(1), 61-75.
Davenport, E.,
&
Hall, H.
(2001,
CD-ROM). New knowledge and micro-level
organization: “Communities of practice” as a development framework.
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii Znternational Conference on System Sciences,
Los
Alamitos, CA
IEEE.
Davenport, E.,
&
Hall, H.
(2002).
Organizational knowledge and communities of
practice.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
36,
171-227.
Davidsen,
S.
L.
(1997).
The Michigan Electronic Library.
Library Hi Tech,
de Cicco, E.
(1999).
How videoconferencing can support teaching and learning.
Deuten, J.,
&
Rip, A.
(2000).
Narrative infrastructure in product creation
7(2), 269-276.
15(3-4), 101-106.
Vine,
10,
46-52.
processes.
Organization,
7, 69-93.
180
Annual Review
of
Information Science and Technology
Dieberger,
A.
(1999).
Social connotations
of
space in the design for virtual com-
munities and social navigation. In
A.
J.
Munro,
K.
Hook,
&
D.
Benyon (Eds.),
Social navigation of information space
(pp.
15-32).
London: Springer-Verlag.
Drey,
J.
(1999).
Virtual conferencing: The ChemWeb way.
Vine,
109, 59-61.
Durrance,
J.
C.,
&
Pettigrew,
K.
E.
(2001).
Toward context-centered methods for
evaluating public library networked community information initiatives.
FirstMonday,
6(4).
Retrieved January
10,2003,
from http://www.firstmonday.
Wissueslcurrent-issueldurrancelindex.
html
Dutta,
S.,
Biren, B.,
&
Van Wassenhove,
L.
(2000).
Xerox: Building a corporate
focus on knowledge.
Bedford, UK European Case Clearing House, Cranfield
University, Cranfield.
Edmundson,
H.
(2001).
Technical communities of practice at Schlumberger.
Knowledge Management Review,
4(2), 20-23.
Educational Resources.
(1999).
The EMBBS Emergency Medicine and Primary
Care Home Page.
Medicine on the Net,
5(11),
12-13.
Enomoto,
E.,
Nolet,
V.,
&
Marchionini, G.
(1999).
The Baltimore Learning
Community Project: Creating a networked community across middle schools.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
8(
l),
99-114.
Erickson, T.
(2001).
Social interaction on the Net: Virtual community as partici-
patory genre.
Retrieved January
10,2003,
from
httpi/www.pliant.org/persond
Tom-EricksoflC-as-Genre.
html
Ferlander,
S.,
&
Timms, D.
(2001).
Local nets and social capital.
Telematics and
Informatics,
18(1), 51-65.
Fink, C.
(2001).
Burma: Constructive engagement in cyberspace?
Cultural
Survival Quarterly,
21(4).
Retrieved January
10, 2003,
from http://www.cs.
org/publications/CSQ/csqinternet.
html
Fisher,
A.
(1998).
So
what
is
all the big
fuss
about?
Library Association Record,
100,
172.
Fitzpatrick, R. B.
(1999).
The Community
of
Science, Inc., Part
2.
MedicaE
Reference Services Quarterly,
18(4), 33-38.
Foucault, M.
(1971).
Orders of discourse.
Social Science Information,
10, 7-30.
Foucault, M.
(1972).
The archaeology of knowledge.
London: Tavistock.
Fox, N.,
&
Roberts,
C.
(1999).
GPs in cyberspace: The sociology
of
a
“virtual com-
munity.”
Sociological Review,
47,
643-671.
Gabrial,
A.
(2001).
Assyrians:
“3,000
years of history, yet the Internet
is
our only
home.”
Cultural Survival Quarterly,
21(4).
Retrieved January
10, 2003,
from
http://www.cs.orglpublications/CSQ/csqinternet.
html
Gardner, T.,
&
Russell, R.
(1999). A
collaborative workspace environment:
Experience
of
evaluation and selection in the Agora project.
Vine,
109,
6-26.
Gofban, E.
(1956).
The presentation of self in everyday life.
Harmondsworth,
UK. Penguin.
Gomez,
R.
(1998).
The nostalgia
of
virtual community:
A
study
of
computer-medi-
ated communications use in Colombian non-governmental organizations.
Information Technology and People,
11(3), 217-234.
Gray,
A.
(1999).
How virtual communities will come to dominate the online world.
Information World Review,
149,
22.
Community and Virtual Community
181
Hackley, C. (2000). Silent running: Tacit, discursive and psychological aspects of
management in
a
top
UK
advertising agency.
British Journal of Management,
11,
239-254.
Hafner,
K.
(1997). The epic saga of the
WELL.
Wired,
5(5),
95-142.
Hagel,
J.,
111,
&
Armstrong, A. (1997).
Net gain: Expanding markets through vir-
tual communities.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hampton,
K.
N.,
&
Wellman, B. (1999). Netville online and offline.
American
Behavioral Scientist,
43,
475492.
Hann, W. (1999). Free Pint: Unintentionally building
a
virtual community?
Electroizic Library;
17(1),
3-5.
Henry, N. L. (1997). Getting acquainted with support and self-help groups on the
Internet.
Health Care on the Internet,
1(2), 27-32.
Herring,
S.
C. (2002). Computer-mediated communication
on
the Internet.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
36,
109-168.
Howard, A. (1999). Pacific-based virtual communities: Rotuma on the World
Wide Web.
Contemporary Pacific,
11(1),
160-175.
INFONORTICS (1998).
First International Conference on Virtual Communities.
London: Infonortics.
INFONORTICS (1999).
Second International Conference on Virtual Communi-
ties.
London: Infonortics.
INFONORTICS (2000).
Third International Conference on Virtual Communities.
London: Infonortics.
INFONORTICS (2001).
Fourth International Conference on Virtual Communi-
ties.
London: Infonortics.
INFONORTICS (2002).
Fifth International Conference on Virtual Communities.
London: Infonortics.
Jones,
S.
(1995). Understanding community in the information age. In
S.
Jones
(Ed.),
Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community
(pp.
10-35). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
Jones,
S.
G. (Ed.). (1997).
Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cyber-
society.
London: Sage.
Jubert, A. (1999). Developing
an
infrastructure for communities of practice: The
Siemens experience.
Proceedings of the Third International Online Informa-
tion Meeting,
165-168.
Karim,
K.
H. (1998).
From ethnic media to global media: Dansnational commu-
nication networks among diasporic communities
(Working Paper WPTC-99-
02). Oxford, UK Transnational Communities Programme.
Karim,
K.
H.
(2002,
April).
Diasporas and their communication networks:
Exploring the broader context of transnational narrowcasting.
Paper pre-
sented at the workshop on Virtual Diasporas: Transnational Ethnic
Communities and Global Problem Solving in the Information Age. Retrieved
January 10, 2003, from the Nautilus Institute Web site: http://www.nautilus.
org/virtual-diasporas/paper/Karim.
html
Kelly,
W.
J.
(1998). Sapient Health Network.
Medicine on the Net,
4(
ll), 16-17.
Kimble, C., Hildreth, P.,
&
Wright,
P.
(2001). Communities of practice: Going
vir-
tual. In
Knowledge management and business model innovation
(pp.
220-234). Hershey, PA Idea Group Publishing.
182
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Kirk,
J.,
&
Vasconcelos,
A.
(2002).
Management consultancies and technology
consultancies in
a
convergent market:
A
knowledge management perspective.
Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Knowledge Management,
Kling, R.,
&
McKim,
G.
(2000).
Not just
a
matter of time: Field differences and
the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
51, 1306-1320.
Kodama, M.
(2000).
New regional community creation through video based infor-
mation networks:
A
case study of regional vitalization through the promotion
of information technology in Japan.
Information Management and Computer
Security,
8(2/3), 87-97.
Kollock,
P.
(1999).
The economics of online cooperation. In M.
A.
Smith
&
P.
Kollock (Eds.),
Communities in cyberspace
(pp.
222-239).
London: Routledge.
Komito, L.
(2001).
Electronic communities in an information society: Paradise,
mirage,
or
malaise?
Journal of Documentation,
57(1), 115-129.
Kraut, R., Kiesler,
S.,
Boneva, B., Cummings,
J.,
Helgeson,
V.,
&
Crawford,
A.
(2002).
Internet paradox revisited.
Journal of Social Issues,
58, 49-74.
Kraut,
R.,
Patterson
M.,
Lundmark, V., Kiesler,
S.,
Mukophadhyay,
T.,
&
Scherlis,
W.
(1998).
Internet paradox:
A
social technology that reduces social
involvement and psychological well being?
American Psychologist,
53(9),
Lave,
J.
(1988).
Cognition
in
practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in every-
day life.
New
York
Cambridge University Press.
Lave,
J.
(1991).
Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick,
J.
Levine,
&
S.
Teasley (Eds.),
Perspectives on socially shared cognition
(pp.
63-82).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lave, J.,
&
Wenger, E.
(1991).
Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral partici-
pation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leech,
H.
(1998).
CIRCE.
Impact, the Journal of the Career Development Group,
Leech,
H.
(1999a).
Better communities through better information: Project
CIRCE and community information.
Vine,
109, 68-72.
Leech,
H.
(1999b).
CIRCE: Better communities through better information.
(British Library. Library and Information Commission Research Report,
1).
London: British Library.
Leech, H.
(1999~).
Better communities through better information: Project
CIRCE and community information. In
S.
Pantry (Ed.),
Building community
information networks: Strategies and experiences
(pp.
39-48.).
London:
Library Association Publishing.
Levy,
P.
(1999).
Virtual communities and information services:
An
overview.
Vine,
109,3-9.
Macdonald,
S.
(1995).
Learning to change:
An
information perspective on learn-
ing in the organisation.
Organization Science,
6(5), 557-568.
Macdonald,
S.
(1998).
Information for innovation: Managing change from an
information perspective.
Oxford,
UK.
Oxford University Press.
346-357.
1017-1031.
1(6), 91-92.
Community
and
Virtual Community
183
Mallapragada, M. (2000). The Indian diaspora in the
USA
and around the Web.
In D. Gauntlett (Ed.),
Web.studies: Rewiring media studies for the digital age
(pp. 179-185). London: Arnold.
Marchionini, G. (1995).
Information seeking in electronic environments.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Massey,
A.
P. (1994). Creating
a
health care virtual community: Northern New
York Health Information System (NNYHIS).
Journal of Information
Technology Management,
5(2), 27-35.
McGrath,
A.,
&
Munro,
A.
(2003). Footsteps from the garden: Arcadian knowl-
edge spaces. In
K.
Hook, D. Benyon,
&
A.
J.
Munro (Eds.),
Designing infor-
mation spaces: The social navigation approach
(pp. 175-200). London:
S
pringer-Verlag.
McNamara P.,
&
Baden-Fuller, C.
(1999).
Lessons from the Celltech case.
British
Journal of Management, 10,
291-307.
Menon, G. M. (1998). Gender encounters in a virtual community: Identity for-
mation and acceptance.
Computers in Human Services,
15(1),
55-69.
Mitra,
A.
(1997). Virtual commonality: Looking for India on the Internet. In
S.
G.
Jones (Ed.),
Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety
(pp.
55-79). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications.
Muhsin,
M.
(1999). The expert’s opinion: Why we care.
Journal of Global
Znformation Management,
7(4), 45-47.
Munro,
A.
J.,
Hook,
K.,
&
Benyon,
D.
(1999).
Social navigation of information
space.
London: Springer-Verlag.
Newell,
S.,
Scarborough, H., Swan,
J.,
&
Hislop, D.
(2000).
Intranets and knowl-
edge management: De-centered technologies and the limits of technological
discourse. In C. Prichard,
R.
Hull, M. Chumer,
&
H.
Willmott (Eds.),
Managing knowledge: Critical investigations of work and learning
(pp.
88-106). Basingstoke,
UK
Macmillan.
Nichols, D.
M.,
&
Twidale, M. B. (1999). Computer supported cooperative work
and libraries.
Vine,
109,
10-15.
Nonaka,
I.,
&
Takeuchi,
H.
(1995).
The knowledge creating company.
New York:
Oxford University Press.
Oakeshott, M. (1962).
Rationalism in politics and other essays.
London:
Methuen.
ODell, C.,
&
Grayson,
J.
(1998). If only we knew what we know: Identification
and transfer of internal best practices.
California Management Review,
40(3),
154-174.
Orlikowski, W.,
&
Yates,
J.
(1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of commu-
nicative practices in organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly,
39,
On;
J.
(1987, June). Narratives
at
work: Story telling
as
cooperative diagnostic
activity.
Field Service Manager,
47-60.
On;
J.
(1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Community memory in
a
service culture. In
D.
Middleton
&
D. Edwards (Eds.),
Collective remembering
(pp. 169-189). London: Sage.
541-574.
184
Annual Review
of
Information Science and Technology
Ortmann, G.
(1995).
Formen der Produktion: Organisation und Rekursivitat
[Forms of production: Organization and recursiveness]. Oplanden, Germany:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Osanai, M.
(1999).
BioMedNet:
An
Internet community for biological and medical
researchers.
Pharmaceutical Library Bulletin (Yakugaku Toshokan),
44(2),
Partridge,
J.
(2000).
Local history in Australia: Supporting cultural heritage.
InspeZ,
34(1), 31-39.
Poblocki,
K.
(2001).
The Napster Network Community.
FirstMonday,
6(11).
Retrieved January
10, 2003,
from
http://www.firstmonday.dklissues/issue6~
ll/poblocki
Potter,
J.
(1998).
Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction.
London: Sage.
Potter, J.,
&
Wetherell, M.
(1987).
Discourse and social psychology.
London: Sage.
Preece,
J.
(1999).
Empathic communities: Balancing emotional and factual com-
munication.
Interacting with Computers,
12, 63-77.
Pullen,
K.
(2000).
I-love-Xenaxom: Creating on-line fan communities. In D.
Gauntlett (Ed.),
Web.studies: Rewiring media studies for the digital age
(pp.
52-61).
London: Arnold.
Putnam, R.
D.
(1995).
Bowling alone: America's declining social capital.
Journal
of Democracy,
6(
l),
65-78.
Putnam, R. D.
(2000).
Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American com-
munity.
New York: Simon
&
Schuster.
Rao,
K.
V. (1998).
India Network: The
first
case study of
a
virtual community.
Computer Communications,
20(16), 1527-1533.
Reid, B.
(1999).
Building an online community with Mailbase.
Vine,
109,
41-45.
Rheingold,
H.
(1993).
The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic
frontier.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Retrieved January
10, 2003,
from
http://m.rheingold.codv/vcmook
Rheingold,
H.
(1994).
The virtual community: Finding connection
in
a computer-
ized world.
London: Minerva.
Rice-Lively,
M.
L.
(1994).
Wired warp and woof:
An
ethnographic study
of
a
net-
working
class.
Internet Research,
4(4),
20.
Riedel, E., Dresel. L., Wagoner, M. J., Sullivan,
J.
L.,
&
Borgida,
E.
(1998).
Electronic communities: Accessing equality of access in a rural Minnesota
community.
Social Science Computer Review,
16(4), 370-390.
Romm, C., Pliskin, N.,
&
Clarke, R.
(1997).
Virtual communities and society:
Toward an integrative three phase model.
International Journal of Informa-
tion Management,
17(4),
261-270.
Schlicke,
P.
(1999a,
June). E-Communities.
Information Management Report,
Schlicke,
P.
(1999b,
September). The new communities.
Information Manage-
ment Report,
1-3.
Shank, N.
(1999).
Internet based information and support: Use by parents of chil-
dren with disabilities.
New Technology
in
the
Human Services,
12(1-2), 7-19.
Smith, B. G.
(1995).
Sailor: Maryland's emerging public information network.
Ohio Libraries,
8(3),
6-8.
131-136.
11-13.
Community and Virtual Community
185
Smith, M.
A.,
&
Kollock,
P.
(Eds.).
(1999).
Communities
in
cyberspace.
London:
Routledge.
Star,
S.
(1989).
The structure of ill-structured situations: Boundary objects and
heterogeneous distributed problem-solving.
Distributed Artificial Intelligence,
Star,
S.
L.,
&
Griesemer,
J.
R.
(1989).
Institutional ecology “translation” and
boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum
of
verte-
brate zoology,
1907-39.
Social Studies of Science,
19, 387-420.
Star,
S.
L.,
&
Ruhlehder,
K.
(1994).
Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure:
Complex problems in design and access
for
large-scale collaborative systems.
Proceedings
of
the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
CSCW
’94,253-264.
Stevens, L.
(1998).
Communities for people with a chronic disease: Sapient
Health Network.
Medicine on the Net,
4(11), 14-15.
Stewart, T.
(1997).
Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organisations.
London:
Nicholas Brealy.
Steyaert,
J.
(2000).
Local governments online and the role of the resident:
Government shop versus electronic community.
Social Science Computer
Review,
l8(l), 3-16.
Strauss,
A.,
Schatzman, L., Bucher,
R.,
Ehrlich,
D.,
&
Sabshin, M.
(1964).
Psychiatric ideologies and institutions.
Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Strauss,
A.,
Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich,
D.,
&
Sabshin, M.
(1981).
Psychiatric ideologies and institutions.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Suchman, L.
(1986).
Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine
communication.
Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.
Talbot,
C.,
&
Newman, D.
(1999).
Beyond access and awareness: Evaluating elec-
tronic community networks
(British Library. Research and Innovation Report,
14).
London: British Library.
Tanner, E.
(2001).
Chilean conversations: Internet forum participants debate
August0 Pinochet’s detention.
Journal of Communication,
51,383403.
Teigland,
R.
(2000).
Communities
of
practice
at
an Internet
firm:
Netovation vs.
on-time performance. In E. L. Lesser, M.
A.
Fontaine,
&
J.
A.
Slusher (Eds.),
Knowledge and communities
(pp.
151-178).
Oxford, UK Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Tonn, B. E., Zambrano, P.,
&
Moore,
S.
(2001).
Community networks or net-
worked communities?
Social Science Computer Review,
19(2), 201-212.
Toth, B., Gray,
J.
A.
M.,
Fraser,
V.,
&
Ward,
R.
(2000).
National electronic library
for health: Progress and prospects.
Health Libraries Review,
17(1),
46-50.
Town,
W. G.
(1998).
Creating virtual communities for chemists on the Web.
Proceedings of
the
Second International Online Information Meeting,
75-78.
Trumpy,
A.
C.
(2001).
Forskningsbibliotekerne og Det virtuelle Universitet
[Research libraries and the virtual university].
DF Revy,
24(3), 77-79.
Turkle,
S.
(1995).
Life on the screen: Identity
in
the age of the Internet.
New York:
Simon
&
Schuster.
2,
237-254.
186
Annual Review
of
information Science and Technology
Virnoche, M.,
&
Marx, G.
(1997).
“Only connect:” E.M. Forster in an age of elec-
tronic communication: Computer-mediated association and community net-
works.
Sociological Inquiry,
67, 85-100.
von Krogh, G.
(1998).
Knowing in firms: Understanding managers and measur-
ing knowledge.
London: Sage,
Wachter, R. M., Gupta,
J.
N.
D.,
&
Quaddus, M. A.
(2000).
IT takes
a
village:
Virtual communities in support of education.
International Journal of
Information Management,
20(6), 473-489.
Waismann,
F.
(1951).
Verifiability. In A. G.
N.
Flew (Ed.),
Logic and language
(pp.
117-144).
Oxford,
UK
Blackwell.
Ward, K.
J.
(1999).
Cyber-ethnography and the emergence of the virtually new
community.
Journal of Information Technology,
14(1),
95-105.
Warr, W.
A.
(1998).
Communication and communities of chemists.
Journal of
Chemical Information and Computer Sciences,
38(6), 966-975.
Wasko,
M.
M.,
&
Faraj,
S.
(2000).
“It
is
what one does:” Why people participate
and help others in electronic communities
of
practice.
Journal
of
Strategic
Information Systems,
9(2-3), 155-173.
Wellman, B.
(1997).
An
electronic group is virtually
a
social network. In
S.
Kiesler (Ed.),
Culture of the Internet
(pp.
179-204).
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Wellman, B.,
&
Gulia, M.
(1999).
Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communi-
ties as communities. In M. Smith
&
P.
Kollock (Eds.),
Communities in cyber-
space
(pp.
167-194).
London: Routledge.
Wenger, E.
(1998).
Communities
of
practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge,
UK
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E.
(2000).
Communities of practice and social learning systems.
Organization,
7(2), 225-246.
Wenger, E.,
&
Snyder,
W.
(2000).
Communities of practice: The organizational
frontier.
Harvard Business Review,
78(
l),
139-145.
William, M.
(2000).
Virtually criminal: Discourse, deviance and anxiety within
virtual communities.
International Review of Law, Computers and Techno-
logy,
14(1), 95-104.
Williamson, A.
(1999).
The history and value of lis-link.
Vine,
109, 3540.
Wolf,
C.
(1997).
Transient cooperating communities.
SIGGROUP Bulletin,
18(
l),
47-49.
Yang, G.
(2002,
April).
Informution technology, virtual Chinese diaspora, and
transnational public sphere.
Paper presented at the workshop on Virtual
Diasporas: Transnational Ethnic Communities and Global Problem Solving in
the Information Age. Retrieved January
10,2003,
from the Nautilus Institute
Web site:
http:/l~.nautilus.or~virtual-diasporas/paperNang.html
Yates, J.,
&
Orlikowski, W.
(1992).
Genres of organizational communication: A
structurational approach to studying communication and media.
Academy of
Management Review,
17(2), 299-326.
Yates, J., Orlikowski, W.,
&
Rennecker,
J.
(1997).
Collaborative genres for col-
laboration: Genre systems in digital media.
Proceedings of the 30th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Science,
3-12.
Zielstra,
J.
(1999).
Building and testing
a
Web-based community network.
Electronic Library,
17(4), 231.
