Contents |
Howard Rheingold (quoted in Flew, 2005, p. 62) defines virtual communities as "social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions [using the Internet] long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace."
Traditionally, ‘community’ was bound by geographic locality where relationships were generally mediated through the face-to-face communication of its members (Grossberg et. al, 1998, pp.38). However, these boundaries have been abolished with the development of information communication technologies. Locality alone is no longer a distinguishing factor in the formation of a community; it is the sense of belonging and shared interests that binds its members together. This sense of belonging can be found in the virtual spaces that have facilitated the formation of online communities without the limitations of physical locality.
Virtual communities have progressed into sophisticated and dynamic systems in comparison to their beginnings as [Bulletin Boards] (BBS)(Rheingold, 2002, p.289). Users are now able to utilise virtual communities not only as discussion fora but as a means to exchange media files such as music, videos and images to one another as well as participating in online gaming and e-commerce. Such interaction is no longer limited to personal computers with new personal communication devices such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDA) and mobile messenger devices such as i-mode being able to access these networks.
Virtual Communities are formed using a variety of different technologies such as email, instant messaging, discussion boards, wikis, groupware, blogs and video games (Fitchter, 2005). There are virtual communities representing everything from intense one-on-one encounters, people interested in gardening, political and environmental lobbyists to political prisoners (Rosenberg, 2004, p.612). The uses are diverse but all virtual communities on some level provide an interactive forum for communication between its users. The level of communication is often directly related to 1: the needs of the users and 2: the specific purpose of the particular virtual community. Most virtual communities have at least one of three main purposes: either to network and collaborate, provide emotional support or to improve quality of life (Joinson, 2003, p.169). Virtual communities vary in size and work on both social and business levels. Examples of these online communities include chat rooms such as Yahoo! Chat, as well as larger networking websites such as Friendster and mySpace.
Other uses of virtual communities include customer support, shared knowledge sites and swapping, as well as buying and selling goods in an online marketplace such as eBay.
The history of the Internet and that of virtual communities dates from 1969, when the United States Department of Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) established a computer network designed to sanction the existence of information beyond a susceptible, central location as a means of defense against the possibility of nuclear war (Hartley, 2002, p. 122). Through this network, known as ARPANET, came the development of a system which would act as a channel for “democratic information and distribution�? (Hartley, 2002, p. 122). This system advanced during the 1970s, with hosts being connected to the ARPANET as well as the subsequent appearance of state-funded computer networks, which later became known as the Internet.
The term ‘virtual community’ was first cited as commonplace by Howard Rheingold, to define the online cultures of those engaging in computer-mediated communication (CMC), establishing “alternative planetary information networks�? (Rheingold quoted in Flew, 2005, p. 62). This was made possible due to the three interrelated components of CMC: the construction of social networks and social capital, the sharing of knowledge and information, and the facilitation of new forms of democratic participation in society (Flew, 2005, p. 62).
Initial interest in virtual communities was based around activist groups in the USA, with the first community network system emerging in the early 1970s, created by anti-Vietnam War activists in Berkeley, California. This enthusiasm was also shared by researchers and scholars in private industries and universities who were connected via their institutions’ computer centres, and expanded to include those who participated in USENET, Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and Multi-User Dungeons (MUD).
Continued research and development in technology witnessed the development of interactive personal computers and enabled CMC to “mature, proliferate, and converge into the increasingly citizen-accessible Net of the 1990s�? (Rheingold, 2000).
Throughout the 1990s the Internet has experienced a significant increase in users throughout the world, particularly within well-developed nations (www.cyberatlas.com quoted in Flew, 2005, p.71). As a result, CMC and virtual communities have become driving factors in the dissemination of information, whilst providing a voice for marginalised groups and allowing a sense of community to be experienced by users (Paul, 2003, p. 471). This has been achieved through the use of ‘social software’, where instant messaging (IM) systems such as MSN Instant Messenger and AOL Instant Messaging, as well as personal weblogs, have been embraced, integrating the everyday or ‘reality’ with the virtual world (Flew, 2005, p. 75-9).
The integration and development of the Internet within society via educational institutions such as universities, libraries and cyber cafés, along with personal communication devices or PDAs, have also played a key role in the progression of these online communities (Flew, 2005, p. 66). Users can today log-in from any location, provided they have access to a wireless connection (Rheingold, 2002, p. 294). By communicating in these online environments (either asynchronously or synchronously), users can now truly collaborate and network successfully within 'real-time' political, business and social environments (Hawkins et. al, 1999, p. 383).
Virtual communities are highly valued in a world of ‘cyber-isolation’. There are several positive aspects to this phenomenon that promote freedom of speech, individuality and interaction, on what is seen to be a level playing field. Community-building, similar-interest social groups, fluidity of identity and collaborative learning and business projects are creating a foundation of benefits of virtual communities (Rheingold, 2000).
Virtual communities are important because they provide the possibility for a reinforced sense of community-building and citizen participation in public life. This is linked to three interrelated characteristics of CMC: firstly, the building of social networks and social capital; secondly, the sharing of knowledge and information; and thirdly, the enabling of new modes of democratic participation in public life (Flew, 2005, p. 62). These similar-interest social groups allow for like-minded individuals to form communities online, crossing geographic constraints and 'connecting' with each other on a global scale (Garber, 2004). In turn, this prevents social isolation for many users and supports a healthy interaction, allowing niche virtual communities to be established (Hagel and Armstrong quoted in Munir, 2000, pp. 303-4). However, virtual communities do not replace the real communities (Florida, 2002, p. 166). Virtual communities rather seem to encourage real interaction, bringing people together for real-life gatherings in order to celebrate a virtual community (Powazek, 2002, p. 284).
One of the attractive features of online interaction is the fluidity of identity; one can adopt a new persona with each and every interaction. However, research on social conflicts argues that identity persistence is a necessary feature for cooperative relations based on trust (Rheingold, 2000).
Collaborative projects are also becoming increasingly accessible within educational, business and science organisations, allowing tasks to be completed by a large number of users utilising the instantaneous or synchronous benefits of online interaction (Andrews, 2002; Uslaner, 2004). In particular, the scientific world has implemented virtual communities to manage projects where world scrutiny and contribution is a necessary for its success. An example of this is the Human Genome Project.
Just as virtual communities can help form positive social bonds between users, they can also foster several negative habits. Online forums allow users to explore different aspects of their personality and expand their social networks. For others however, it provides their only form of social contact with other people. This can be due to a variety of factors including geographic isolation and poor face-to-face social skills. In any case, an over reliance on this social outlet can lead to psychological problems including addiction, seclusion and the neglect of real life responsibilities (Mitchell, 2000).
Virtual Communities can also provide reinforcement and validation for deviant subcultures. Individuals seek to find their place within society, but their views may be opposed to the dominant norms held by a society that is arguably becoming more homogenised and tolerant of different cultures (Newman and Newman, 2001). These individuals that deviate from societal norms may seem isolated and invisible to one another in the physical realm but virtual communities have allowed these cultures to develop an electronic meeting point. They can form their own community where deviant views are validated and positively reinforced through communication with other members who share the same beliefs (Rimal and Real, 2003). Problems arise when these groups come into conflict with other groups who hold opposing beliefs.
Blogs are an important part of the latest development within virtual communities and they point to the future of virtual communities. It is likely to believe that individuals will be more directly involved with virtual communities and more and more people will have a private space in the virtual community sphere. (Powazek, 2002, p. 269) This might also have an impact on the larger, multi-user community sites, in the way that the personification of the site might increase (Powazek, 2002, p.270). Diversification, in the sense that virtual communities will provide their members with not only blogs, but e-mail opportunities, instant messaging, polls, birthday features and so on, might also be a key word for the further development of virtual communities. The same can be said about more visual sophisticated sites and a strong increase in virtual gaming rooms of different kinds. (Powazek, 2002, p. 274).
Rheingold explains that the future will depend on a couple of issues. People have to learn how to use online communication media and netiquette in order to maintain effective use of the internet. This is particularly important for virtual communities which can easily die as a result of misuse. (Rheingold, 2002, p. 292) Another trend would be that virtual communities are no longer limited to the PC, since access to the internet through the mobile phone will be more common (Rheingold, 2002, p. 294).
More fundamental issues are related to the ability for society to overcome the ‘digital divide’ and enable a true democratic opinion to be voiced online (Rheingold, 2000). Despite this challenge, the Internet will continue to serve as a dynamic information and communication tool for users where traditional forms of media have failed; by uniting participants via common beliefs, regardless of their geographic location. It is here, within these virtual communities, that the role of Government will ultimately be restructured, and business practices will be realigned based upon these telecommunication developments.
Andrews, D.C. (2002) "Audience-specific Online Community Design", Association for Computing Machinery: Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 64-8.
Fichter, D. (2005) “The Many Forms of E-collaboration: Blogs, Wikis, Portals, Groupware, Discussion Boards and Instant Messaging,�? vol.29, no.4, pp. 48-50.
Flew, T. (2005) New Media: An Introduction, 2nd Ed., South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195550412.
Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0465024777
Garber, D. (2004) “Growing Virtual Communities�?, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, pp. 1-2.
Hartley, J. (2002) Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts, London: Routledge. ISBN 0415268893.
Hawkins, R., Mansell, R. and Steinmueller, W.E. (1999) "Toward Digital Intermediation in the Information Society", Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 33, no.2, pp. 383-391.
Grossberg, L., Wartella, E. and Whitney, D. (1998) Mediamaking: Mass Media in a Popular Culture, Thousand Oaks: Sage. ISBN 0761911774.
Joinson, A.N. (2003) "Sharing and Surfing: The Benefits of On-line Communities and Web Browsing", in Understanding the Psychology of Internet Behaviour: Virtual Worlds, Real Lives, New York: MacMillan, pp. 143-162. ISBN 0333984684.
Mitchell, P. (2000) "Internet Addiciton: Genuine Diagnosis or Not?", The Lancet, vol. 355 (9204), no. 632.
Munir, K. (2000) "Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities", Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 303-305.
Newman, B.M. and Newman, P.R. (2001) "Group Identity and Alienation: Giving the We its Due", Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 30(5), no. 515, 24 pgs.
Paul, N. (2003)"Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity and Culture/Building Virtual Communities," Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, vol 80, no. 2, pg. 471.
Powazek, D.M. (2002) Design for Community: the Art of Connecting Real People in Virtual Places Indianapolis: New Riders. ISBN 0735710759
Rheingold, H. (2002) "A Conversation with Howard Rheingold" in D.M. Powazek Design for Community: the Art of Connecting Real People in Virtual Places, Indianapolis: New Riders, pp. 286-296. ISBN 0735710759
Rheingold, H. (2000) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/
Rimal, R.N and Real, K. (2003) "Understanding the Influence of Perceived Norms on Behaviour," Communication Theory, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 184-203.
Rosenberg, R.S. (2004) The Social Impact of Computers 3rd ed., London: Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN 0125971214
Uslaner, E.M. (2004) "Trust Online, Trust Offline", Communications of the ACM, vol. 47, no. 28.
Aaron Ellul, Lisa Hitchcock, Dominic Jarvis, Kirsty Knox, Jenny Le, Annabel Johnson, Kristine Bjoernstad.
