Explaining Participation in Online Communities

The last few years have seen a substantial growth in online communities such as MySpace and Facebook. In order to survive and increase in size, online community systems must enhance social interaction and participation. This chapter analyzes participation in new online communities, using a combination of the socio-technical perspective and the human-computer interaction perspective. In 2007, both qualitative and quantitative data was collected from questionnaires from five sample groups in Norway—four popular online communities and one national sample of Internet users. The results show that online communities attract like-minded people, but vary in terms of different user types. Most visitors have a clear social purpose, but the level of participation differs with respect to user types and community characteristics. Participation in terms of user-generated content (UGC) differs greatly, depending on the medium used. Most users do not contribute audio-visual UGC, and text is still the main UGC. Possible future research and socio-technical design implications are discussed. Participation is everything —Involve (http://www.involve.org.uk/, 2005) Explaining Participation in Online Communities

[1]  Brian S. Butler,et al.  Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of Online Social Structures , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  Developing an Internet Attitude Scale for high school students , 2001, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Jerzy Kisielnicki.  Modern Organizations in Virtual Communities , 2002 .

[4]  Sharmila Pixy Ferris,et al.  Virtual and Collaborative Teams: Process, Technologies, and Practice , 2004 .

[5]  Olivier Caya,et al.  Virtual Teams: What We Know, What We Don't Know , 2005, Int. J. e Collab..

[6]  Alexei Sourin.  Virtual Campus of Nanyan Technological University , 2006 .

[7]  Jonathan Bishop,et al.  Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for human-computer interaction , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  Maria Manuela Cunha,et al.  Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organizations , 2007 .

[9]  Damon Guy,et al.  Encyclopedia of Virtual Communities and Technologies , 2007 .

[10]  Petter Bae Brandtzæg,et al.  In the borderland between family orientation and peer culture: the use of communication technologies among Norwegian tweens , 2007, New Media Soc..

[11]  Peggy M. Beranek,et al.  Training Techniques for Developing Trust in Virtual Teams , 2008 .

[12]  Jerzy Kisielnicki,et al.  Virtual Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications , 2008 .

[13]  T. Medeni,et al.  The NGO Forum , 2008 .

[14]  Tobias Höllerer,et al.  Augmented Reality and the Future of Virtual Workspaces , 2008 .

[15]  Mirjana D. Stojanovic,et al.  QoS Provisioning Framework in IP-Based VPN , 2008 .

[16]  Leonel Morgado,et al.  Virtual Worlds and Metaverse Platforms: New Communication and Identity Paradigms , 2011 .

[17]  Steven D’Agustino,et al.  Immersive Environments, Augmented Realities, and Virtual Worlds: Assessing Future Trends in Education , 2012 .

[18]  Vivek Venkatesh.  Educational, Psychological, and Behavioral Considerations in Niche Online Communities , 2013 .

[19]  Ramón López-Cózar,et al.  Conversational Metabots for Educational Applications in Virtual Worlds , 2013 .

[20]  Susan Watt,et al.  Lecture Capture as a Tool to Enhance Student Accessibility: A Canadian Case Study , 2013 .