Virtual Communities - Conditions for Participation

Shenton and McNeeley (in Flew, 2002: 82) have found that people participate in online discussion groups for:

• the opportunity to form friendships and relationships that may be perceived as being more difficult to develop in the ‘off-line’ community
• the ability to play with personas
• the capacity to circulate new ideas among a group of like-minded people
• the chance to find people who share the same interests, however obscure or odd they may appear to others
• the search for romantic and sexual relations
• the ability for those who feel marginalised or persecuted by society to express views and disseminate opinions, in ways that are not possible through more mainstream media outlets.

A common reason to participate in an online community is a general dissatisfaction with the limitations of ‘real’ communities.

Jones (1997) believes that the feelings and social relationships that develop within the virtual settlement help distinguish a virtual community from a virtual group. Although Jones regards these feelings as important, he does not provide much insight into their nature. Blanchard and Markus (2003), however, do focus on these feelings, defining them as a psychological sense of community. They go further than Jones and argue that sense of community is an essential characteristic of virtual communities. Essentially, virtual settlements are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for a virtual community. It is the sense of community that distinguishes virtual communities from mere virtual groups.

Sense of community (SOC) has been the focus for face-to-face (FtF) community researchers for some time. McMillan and Chavis (1986) have the most well-regarded and well-researched conceptualization of SOC. They define SOC as consisting of the following four characteristics:

• Feelings of membership: Feelings of belonging to, and identifying with, the community;
• Feelings of influence: Feelings of having influence on, and being influenced by, the community;
• Integration and fulfillment of needs: Feelings of being supported by others in the community while also supporting them; and
• Shared emotional connection: Feelings of relationships, shared history, and a “spiritâ€? of community.

Many researchers have adopted this conceptualization of SOC.Other researchers have modified the SOC measure with varying degrees of success. Still others have created their own measure of SOC Even McMillan (1996) later reconceptualized SOC to include more of the “spirit� and “art� of communities. Nonetheless, McMillan and Chavis’s definition is considered the strongest. Chipuer and Pretty have even criticized these and other researchers’ continual redefinitions of the SOC concept, arguing that such efforts do not build on the theoretical strengths of McMillan and Chavis’s model of SOC.

Research on SOC in virtual communities has not been as prolific. However, some researchers have reported findings similar to what has been reported in FtF SOC. They report the existence of:

• Membership, boundaries, belonging, and group symbols
• Influence, in terms of enforcing and challenging norms );
• Exchange of support among members
• Shared emotional connections among members

So there is evidence that SOC exists in virtual communities. And there are arguments that SOC is essential to distinguish virtual communities from mere virtual groups.

REFERENCES

Blanchard, S. and Markus. (2003) "Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction", Communication Research, vol.19, p.52-90.

Flew, T. (2002) New Media:an introduction,South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195508599

Jones, M. (1997) Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McMillan, R. and Chavis, D. (1986) "Social aspects of computer environments", Social Science, vol.72, p.23-28.

McMillan, R. (1996) "Computer-mediated communication and the question of culture", New Jersey Journal of Communication, vol.3, p.1-25.

Annabel Johnson 19:55, 28 Oct 2004 (EST)