Int. J. , Vol. x, No. x, xxxx
1
Learning Relations and Networks in Web-Based
Communities
Citation: Haythornthwaite, Caroline (2008). Learning relations and networks in webbased communities, International Journal of Web-based Communities, 4(2), 140-158.
Copyright of this paper is held by Inderscience, publishers of the International Journal of
Web-based Communities. Posted with permission of publishers in 2012 to IDEALS, the
institutional repository at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Caroline Haythornthwaite
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign, IL,
USA.
Abstract: Learning entails exchange of information, resources, methods and
practices; it entails conversation, and the co-creation of joint practice; it
requires getting to know colleagues, their talents and their work practices, and
joining a community of scholars, co-workers and co-learners. In short, learning
is predicated on interaction between individuals, interactions that build into
communities that share common knowledge and practice. But what kinds of
interactions are important for learning, and how do these help build and form a
learning community? And how is this different or the same when accomplished
in a web-based environment? Drawing on literature on learning, community
and computer-mediated communication, and on results of a number of studies
of learning networks conducted by the author, this paper addresses learning
communities from a social network perspective, including what relations are
evident in learning and learning communities, how media affect online tie
formation, and what benefits can result from successfully maintained learning
networks.
Keywords: learning community, social networks, online community,
computer-mediated communication, latent ties, learning networks
Biographical note: Caroline Haythornthwaite is Associate Professor at the
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Her research examines how the Internet and computer
media support and affect work, learning, and social interaction. Major
publications include The Internet in Everyday Life (2002, edited with Barry
Wellman); Learning, Culture and Community in Online Education: Research
and Practice (2004, edited with Michelle M. Kazmer), and The Handbook of ELearning Research (2007, edited with Richard Andrews).
1
Introduction
Learning is a social network relation: it is a transaction, an exchange between people as
one teaches and another learns; it is a shared experience as colleagues explore a new area,
define terms, and create common ground; and it is a joint experience as students attend
classes and lectures together, gaining a similar view of the subject and profession.
Learning involves the transfer of information from one person to another, but also
feedback, questioning, and dialogue as meaning is clarified and negotiated. In
communities, members receive information, advice and support; they learn academic and
Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Author
professional norms, and disciplinary and local norms for appropriate use of language,
writing styles, equipment, and procedures. They acquire practices for carrying out the
job, becoming a member of a profession, a work team, or a community; they learn how to
learn; and they learn how to do this online and offline, through old and new technology.
These activities demonstrate how learning depends on interaction between
individuals. Examining what interactions occur provides the basis for understanding how
a network of learners engage with each other and create a communal whole. Articulating
what underpins such learning communities is a necessary step before designing and
providing social and technical mechanisms for fully web-based communities, and for the
online component of any contemporary community.
This paper explores the social network basis of learning communities. Throughout,
discussion is focused on the application and relevance of network concepts and effects
for learning and learning communities. The paper builds on work by the author, as well
as an extensive, interdisciplinary literature on social networks (e.g., Wasserman and
Faust, 1994; Wellman & Berkowitz, 1997), social networks and community (e.g.,
Wellman, 1999), learning in groups and communities (e.g., Argote, Gruenfeld and
Naquin, 2001; Brown and Duguid, 1991; Koschmann, 1996; Wenger, 1998), and online
community (Gackenbach, 2006; Jones, 1995; Kiesler, 1997; Preece, 2000; Wellman,
1997).
The paper is organized as follows. The first section introduces social network
concepts, focusing on actors and relations, the two foundational elements of networks.
To illustrate how social network relations play out in learning contexts, the second
section describes results from the author’s social network studies of learning in webbased and web-supported learning communities. These results highlight how tie strength
plays an important role in learning network formations, and thus the third section
discusses support of strong, weak and latent ties in learning settings. But there is debate
about whether an online tie is ‘as good as’ or ‘as real as’ an offline tie; thus, the fourth
section turns to the discussion of what distinguishes on- versus off-line ties, and whether
we can approach online ties in the same way as offline ties (arguing that we can). The
final section discusses the network level, addressing why we should care about
supporting learning networks, and considering the benefits that emerge from network
level interactions.
2
Social Networks, Learning Networks
The characteristics of community learning described in the opening paragraph
demonstrate the underpinnings of social networks: actors who interact and maintain
relationships with each other and with the network as a whole; relations, the specific
kinds of exchanges that form the base of connections between actors; ties that are formed
between actors based on the relations they maintain; and networks that derive from the
combined set of ties among a set of actors. In such networks, learning may stand as the
only connector between two people, or it may be combined with friendship, social
support, and more general advice. In any network, some pairs of actors will only maintain
weak ties, based on few relations, infrequent contact, non-personal exchanges, and the
use of few means of communication. Others will maintain strong ties, typically involving
multiple relations, aspects of intimacy and self-disclosure, and frequent contact through a
number of means and media. When mapped across all actors in the whole network,
patterns of strong and weak ties show who interacts with whom and about what, what
Title
positions actors hold in a network, and how resources flow among network members.
Learning jointly around a common interest can foster community, with benefits to
individuals in personal well-being, and to the community in advancing joint knowledge,
sustaining participation, and continuing its existence.
With this approach, community is identified from an analysis of its social
components, rather than from external criteria such as geographical location, membership
lists, or demographics. The major contribution of this perspective to the study of learning
communities is that it provides a way to examine what kinds of interactions are important
for and actually engaged in by learning community members. The major contribution to
web-based communities is the way relations can be uncoupled from physical co-location,
thereby making it possible to accept community as possible online (Garton,
Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 1997; Wellman, Salaff, Dimitrova, Garton, Gulia and
Haythornthwaite, 1996).
To begin the discussion of networks and learning, the following introduces the two
fundamental building blocks of networks: actors and relations.
2.1 Actors and Relations in Learning Networks
Actors are the nodes in a network. Most commonly this refers to the people who
belong to the network of interest. In an educational setting actors can be teachers,
students or administrators; in a knowledge-building community they can be colleagues,
researchers or think-tank members; and in a community of practice, they can be coworkers or collaborators. Actors can also be institutions, as in inter-institutional
cooperations. In a formal learning setting, we might be interested in what kinds of
relations teachers maintain with their personal network of students. In this case, we
consider the teacher as the focal actor, and ask questions about their exchanges and
interactions with each student. In an online learning environment, we can also ask how
media and technologies are used to engage in these interactions. From such an analysis
we can build a picture of how teachers are communicating with their students: examining
both what kinds of relations are maintained, and by which media.
We might also be interested in how students interact with one another. But now we do
not know who is a key informant. Unlike the role of teacher, we cannot know who to ask
to get a picture of overall communication. Thus, we may choose to ask all students,
getting a complete set of relations maintained within a class, and perhaps also the media
used, resulting in a view of the whole network of in-class relations.
In examining the network this way we can find roles and positions important to the
learning network, such as a gatekeeper who acts to select and transfer information from
outside the network to members inside the network, or a broker who transfers resources
from one part of the network to another. Social network analysis lets us discover roles
that we may not know exist, and hence give us a better view of what kinds of roles are
important in a learning community (e.g., the expert, or the sociological star), or just what
kinds of roles turn up over and over again (e.g., the talker, joker, social supporter). At this
stage in the research, we do not know much about roles that are important for online
learning communities, although many online communities demonstrate the presence of a
small number of actors who contribute a large amount to online discussion and a much
larger number who contribute minimal or no content (for example, Beenan et al (2004)
cite figures that show only 4% of members provide 50% of answers in open source
communities; and 4% of open source developers provide 88% of new code and 66% of
fixes).
Author
Relations bind a pair together, and through connections between multiple actors, bind
the network together. A relation is a type of interaction that takes place between people.
While there is no particular difference intended with the use relation and interaction,
relation is the term typically used when referring to a category of interaction to be
examined across a whole network, e.g., examining the exchange of information as a
relation in a learning community (for more on social network terminology, see
Wasserman and Faust, 1994).
Relations are differentiated by content, i.e., what kind of resource is exchanged or
shared, direction, whether resources flow to and/or from an actor, and strength, the
frequency, quantity and/or intensity of the exchange. A relation can be instrumental, such
as working on an assignment or exchanging information; social, such as chatting or going
to parties; or emotional, such as giving social support. Many ties contain both
instrumental and social or emotional relations, particularly as the tie increases in
importance to actors (i.e., as ties become stronger; see below). Although much early work
assumed actors would strive to fit the medium to the message (Daft and Lengel, 1986),
early meta-analyses of computer-mediated communication (CMC) showed that
individuals always preferred to use a rich medium over a lean one (Rice, 1987). Social
network studies have further shown that media are not used according to the relation to
be supported, but instead according to the strength of the tie maintained with others; pairs
of actors in stronger ties use more media to communicate than those in weaker ties, and
include more use of private means of communication (Haythornthwaite and Wellman,
1998; Haythornthwaite, 2000, 2001, 2002a; Koku, Nazer and Wellman, 2001).
Learning entails interaction in various ways: in the dissemination of information from
one person to another; the discussion and testing of ideas and understandings; the receipt
of feedback; and the co-construction of new knowledge bases. Each of these exchanges –
of information, advice, knowledge – is a social network relation. As well, along with such
relations, there are a host of support relations that make it possible to interact with others,
such as getting to know them, building trust, and understanding their expertise. The
research reveals that relations that sustain learning ties and learning communities entail a
complex set of interrelationships around knowledge, practice, and group functioning.
For example, a typical expectation about learning is that it entails the transmission of
information about subject matter from expert to novice, e.g., the subject matter of biology
or chemistry communicated from a teacher to students. Differences exist, however, in
how experts versus novices learn, with the experts more likely to address principles and
patterns of knowledge rather than surface attributes (Bransford, Brown and Cocking,
1999). This changes what to look for in the exchange of subject matter. Another part of
community learning involves practice, which many scholars view as an equally important
part of what is learned, including such things as what methods are used, how experiments
are conducted, how papers are written, and how knowledge is exchanged (Knorr-Cetina,
1999; Stahl, 2004).
Relations to be maintained for learning communities also go beyond the basics of
delivery and receipt of instruction. To many, what makes learning communities important
as a construct beyond individual or classroom learning is the way these communities
create common understandings, shared vocabulary, and new knowledge (Cook and
Brown, 1999; Haythornthwaite, Lunsford, Kazmer, Robins and Nazarova, 2003; KnorrCetina, 1999; Latour, 1987; Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1996; Resnick, Levine and
Teasdale, 1991). Thus, other aspects of learning relations include the pooling of
knowledge, construction of common meanings, and generation of new ideas and
Title
practices. New practices are often taken on in response to advances in the discipline and
technologies, e.g., publishing practices have changed with the introduction of Internet
technology as preprints, drafts, and final journal copy can now be circulated online, and
communication practices have changed as groups learn to communicate through new
technologies and become more able to communicate and collaborate at a distance
(Haythornthwaite, Lunsford, Bowker and Bruce, 2006). These kinds of changes are
continuous. Technologies and social practices, including learning practices, emerge in a
co-evolutionary development process, each phase providing the starting place for the next
evolutionary phase (Andrews and Haythornthwaite, 2007; Hickman, 1992).
Finally, another often overlooked consideration about groups and communities is the
amount of learning about others that goes on – about their knowledge, skills, willingness
to help, etc. All communities build transactive memory about the capabilities of
community members (Brandon and Hollingshead, 1999; Monge and Contractor, 2003;
Wegner, 1987). A community can expect to need to know who does what around the
goals of the group. Such roles include who brings information into the group, and who is
good at explaining new topics, stimulating discussion, filing a grant application, running
a project, writing a paper, etc. This kind of memory may also include relations that seem
quite unrelated to content or project-oriented knowledge or practice. Individuals may
learn who to go to for emotional, social, or material support. Such relations may only be
rarely engaged in, yet knowing someone is there in times of need forms a safety net that
supports group cohesion and community maintenance.
3
Discovering Learning Relations
What do we know beyond informed conjecture about what social network relations
support learning communities? To discover what learning relations are important to a
group, we can ask about what members of the community do with each other, building up
a picture of the relational networks of the community. Several studies I have done
followed this procedure (see Table 1): social network questionnaires about
communication and media use were conducted with members of an academic computer
science (CS) department (Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 1998), and with students in
online learning classes (Haythornthwaite, 2000, 2001, 2002a); in-depth interviews were
conducted with students in an online learning community (Haythornthwaite, Kazmer,
Robins and Shoemaker, 2000); and an in-depth examination of learning relations was
done from network data about collaboration in three research teams (Haythornthwaite,
2006a).
Table 1: Studies of learning relations
References
Setting
Haythornthwaite
and Wellman,
1998
Co-located
members of
university
computer
science
department
Distributed,
off-campus
Haythornthwaite,
2000, 2001,
Primary
Media
Face-toface
meetings,
email
Webbased
Method
Sample size
Questionnaire
administered
on paper;
ego-centric
network data
analysis
Questionnaire
administered
25 participants
Four classes: for class 1
(13 of 14 class
Author
2002a
online
graduate
students
bulletin
boards,
chat,
email
Haythornthwaite,
Kazmer, Robins
and Shoemaker,
2000
Distributed,
off-campus
online
graduate
students
Haythornthwaite,
2006a
Partially and
fully
distributed
collaborative
research
teams
Webbased
bulletin
boards,
chat,
email
Email,
face-toface
meetings
by
interviewer;
whole and
ego-centric
networks
analyzed,
including data
collected at
three times
during the
term
Qualitative
interviews
conducted at
four times
during one
year
Questionnaire
administered
by
interviewer;
discourse
analysis and
whole
network
analysis
members participated)
and class 2 (15 of 19
participated) data were
collected at three times
during the semester; for
class 3 (12 of 17
participated) and class 4
(12 of 23 participated)
data were collected
only at the end of term
17 participants
Three teams: 12, 16 and
13 participants.
Team 1: 9 of 11 core
team members
interviewed + 3 noncore members;
Team 2: 16 of 19 team
members interviewed;
Team 3: 6 of 10 core
team members
interviewed + 7 noncore members
The studies provide an opportunity to look across settings at the kinds of relations that
support learning activities, synthesizing findings for what they reveal about learning
relations, learning community ties, and media use. Three aspects are discussed: the range
and types of relations that have been found, the role of non-instrumental, social and
emotional support relations, and tie strength and media use.
3.1 What kinds of relations constitute learning ties and networks?
The study of students and faculty in the CS department, and the later study of three
interdisciplinary research teams, were both undertaken to explore the range and types of
relations maintained in learning communities. In both settings, members worked
cooperatively on research projects, as well as maintaining faculty-student and/or seniorjunior relationships in classes and research settings.
The CS respondents answered 24 questions about their interactions with up to 20
others in the department (Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 1998). Factor analysis revealed
six dimensions of work and social interaction that defined relations among members of
this learning community. Two were about the management of work processes (receiving
work, and giving work), two about the major work products of the group (collaborative
Title
writing, and computer programming), and two about socio-emotional interaction and
support (sociability, and major emotional support).
Research team respondents were asked what they learned from their five to eight
closest co-workers, and what they believed those co-workers learned from them
(Haythornthwaite, 2006a). A discourse analysis of their answers led to the identification
of nine learning relations. The ones engaged in by most pairs were: exchange of field or
factual knowledge; exchange of process or ‘how-to’ knowledge; learning about
methodologies; and joint work on research projects (e.g., writing together, data
collection, analysis). Those maintained by fewer pairs included: learning about
technology (e.g., technical aspects of a computer system); professional socialization (e.g.,
how to behave in and navigate work and academic worlds, the politics of science, and
how to get grants); generation of new ideas (e.g., brainstorming, idea sharing, common
language and identity building); networking (e.g., providing contacts to talk to, passing
on students); and administration (engaged in by very few pairs; e.g., working on project
related administrative tasks).
These studies show the range and content of interactions that were important for these
close colleagues. The status quo in much traditional education approaches, and writing on
interdisciplinary knowledge work, emphasizes the need to share knowledge about fields
(Klein, 1990, 1996; Laurillard, 2002), yet, in the CS department, six kinds of interaction
sustained the community, none of which is clearly identifiable as a knowledge exchange
relation (although much of that may occur in the exchange of work and creation of work
products). Domain knowledge does come through as important for the interdisciplinary
teams, but as only one of four major types of interaction. Learning subject content
knowledge is only one facet of their interdisciplinary work. Network patterns of
interaction among members of the researcher teams showed that pairs within the whole
network tended to exchange the same kind of knowledge (e.g., fact with fact, method
with method), rather than across types. This suggests that knowledge is being pooled
more frequently between those who work on similar aspects of projects, e.g.,
methodologists sharing with methodologists, rather than across specialties. While this
still needs to be researched further, these results suggest that knowledge transfers along
lines of practice, thereby marking the need to combine consideration of what is
exchanged with what roles people hold in the network.
Interdisciplinary groups are an interesting contemporary case of knowledge-building
communities, and examination of such groups show the way practice is entwined with
knowledge. A key challenge for interdisciplinary teams is how to put knowledge bases
together, in particular because practices around each knowledge base are relatively
invisible to their practitioners (Haythornthwaite et al, 2006; Haythornthwaite, 2006b).
What research method to use, how research practice unfolds, how and whether data can
be shared, and publication practices and needs for students, new faculty and senior
faculty, all represent surprisingly wide gulfs to cross. A conclusion to draw from this is
that the relation that needs work for such teams is not so much knowledge sharing, or
personal social interaction, but instead a joint articulation of difference (Haythornthwaite,
2006b). In keeping with work by Stahl (2004) and Orlikowski (2002), what such
knowledge-building groups learn is practice, and what is enacted by groups and
communities through these kinds of experiences is collective knowledge about how to
practice in such diverse groups (see also Haythornthwaite et al, 2003).
Author
3.2 Relations based on social and/or emotional content
Across the studies, differences were apparent in the presence of socio-emotional
relations and their importance to the group. Among the computer scientists, some ties
were found that entailed a strong work relationship (as reported by respondents), but did
not involve the kind of personal interaction associated with friendship ties. Although
good friends in the same department also worked together, there were a number of pairs
maintaining a strictly work-oriented relationship. This is an important finding as it
suggests not only a variety of kinds of relations underpinning work ties, but also variety
in kinds of ties that make up a these communities. For this group, social bonds were not
always necessary for work relationships.
Another study also showed a separation of work and emotional relations. An in-depth
study of the social networks of a class of online learners showed that work relations were
supported across a different set of actors than the emotional support relation
(Haythornthwaite, 2001). Accomplishing work did not require pairs to gain emotional
support from each other since network members were receiving that support from others.
However work pairs did socialize. Hrastinski (in press), repeating this study in Sweden,
found little socializing or emotional support in the two classes he studied. He describes
these students as quite independent-minded, keen to work on their own rather than with
others. Like the CS department, work relationships can unfold without socio-emotional
content.
By contrast, studies of learners across the entire online program found social bonds to
be highly important to the community. A series of longitudinal interviews revealed how
internal, community-oriented, social and emotional communications helped students
come to terms with their anxiety and confusion as new online learners (Haythornthwaite
et al, 2000). Because these students felt they were engaged in an activity that no one in
their local setting understood, sharing common experiences with other students became
the most important means of keeping them going in the online learning community.
Unlike the computer scientists who could achieve work in a more instrumental manner,
the online students could only achieve their work by being closely bound to others.
While further study of this connection between instrumental and social relations is
needed, results from these studies suggest that in collectives organized around learning
activities, work and learning ties can exist either without, or separate from, social ties. An
open question, however, is whether a collective without social interaction at some level
will support the needs or experience of community. The online learners who report social
bonds to be important are also those who report their online setting to be a community,
but even in that community there are some who prefer a more peripheral and instrumental
relationship with the community (Haythornthwaite et al, 2000). As noted above, the
ability to call on others for social support should it be needed can be an important, yet
rarely used infrastructure for community maintenance. Also, as noted, within any
network, there will be various kinds of ties, from weak to strong, each of which are
important resources and components of communities.
3.3 Ties based on multiple relations and use of multiple media
Using what was learned in the CS study, a series of studies of online learners asked
about interaction with classmates on four relations: collaboration on class work, exchange
of information or advice about class work, socializing, and exchange of emotional
support (Haythornthwaite 2000, 2001, 2002a). Four online learning classes were
examined in all. Both the CS study and these studies of online learners gathered data on
Title
strength of interpersonal tie, and how media were used for each relation, asking who
talked to whom, about what, and via which media.
These studies provided evidence that online ties follow the same ‘rules’ about tie
strength as offline ties: the closer the tie (as reported by individuals in the group), the
more relations maintained (relational multiplexity) and the more likely relations were to
include self-disclosure. Thus, these studies legitimate researching and accepting online
relations as comparable to – as real as – offline relations.
These studies also revealed a new aspect of tie strength: that those with stronger ties
used more media to communicate than weak ties, a finding I have termed media
multiplexity. Analyses of the data showed that media use did not differ by relation, but
instead by the strength of the tie between communicating pairs. Moreover, media use
conformed to a uni-dimensional scale, with only one medium used by the weakest ties.
That one medium was the one used for group communication and meetings: face-to-face
scheduled meetings for the co-located CS department, and synchronous class chat
sessions for the online students. This has important structural outcomes for groups since
media use follows a uni-dimensional scale associated with tie strength, the primary
medium for interaction becomes the major and, often only, means for weak ties to
connect to each other. The impact of this is discussed below in reference to what I have
called latent ties, as discussed in the following section.
4
Supporting Strong, Weak and Latent Ties in Learning Networks
This section discusses the important concept of strength of ties and how this affects
learning networks and learning communities, particularly online communities. In general,
most work on groups and communities has focused on how to maintain strong ties,
particularly online, for example, in the areas of computer-supported cooperative work
(CSCW), and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Online learning
systems are also designed to support strong work and learning tasks, e.g., the delivery of
class lectures, asynchronous discussion of class topics, assignment submission and grade
management, designs that largely ignore the creation of environments in which learning
communities can begin and grow (for design for learning communities, see Barab, Kling
and Gray, 2004; Stuckey and Barab, 2007), and learning communities that need support
for both receipt of new information and close working ties (Haythornthwaite, 2002b)
Strong ties and weak ties provide complementary resources for individuals actors, and
both are important for learning and community (Haythornthwaite, 2002b). Actors in
strong ties tend to be similar in attitudes, socioeconomic characteristics, etc. (known as
homophily), making it easier for them to have common ground and common
understanding as they embark on work together. Those in strong ties are interested and
concerned about each other, and are motivated to share information, whether for mutual
understanding and benefit to the tie or altruistic reasons that support the recipient. In
times of crisis, actors in strong ties are the ones to call on because they are motivated to
help and share wherever they can. However, those to whom we are strongly tied tend to
travel in the same social circles as we do, with access to the same resources and
information, and thus the help and information they can give tends to be constrained to
the same resources to which we already have access.
By contrast, weak ties are held with people who are usually different from us
(heterophily), and who know a set of people different from our own close social circle.
This different social circle is the root of the strength of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973).
Author
Their different-ness from us means they have access to information and resources
different from our own, and contacts different from those in our social circle. Studies
show that individuals are more likely to become aware of new ideas, information, jobs
and career opportunities through their weak ties (Granovetter, 1973; Lin and Bian, 1991;
Rogers, 1995). However, because they do not know us well, and have little invested in
our future or the future of the tie, they are less motivated to share, and less aware that
sharing particular kinds of information would be important to us.
In learning communities, weak ties are important for gaining exposure to new
information, opinions, and ideas different from our own, and new approaches to problemsolving, elements that go hand in hand with notions of collaborative learning, and CSCL
(Bruffee, 1993; Koschmann, 1996). Strong ties are important for social support,
friendship, and work partnerships. When initiatives for online learning are directed solely
at creating the support for instrumental aspects of the learning environment or for
information or instructional delivery, they fall short in addressing the need to support
weak tie contact and non-learning exchanges important for strong ties. Members of
learning communities need to hear new ideas and opinions from weak ties, as well as to
get work done toward group outcomes with strong ties. Overall, it is important to
recognize that, in supporting learning communities, it is necessary to be mindful of both
strong and weak ties, including opportunities for individuals to get to know each other
well enough to create a strong tie (for a longer discussion of this point, see
Haythornthwaite, 2002b).
There is one more type of tie to discuss. As noted above, in my research I have
identified and been describing the role of what I have termed latent ties, defined as ties
that are technically possible but not yet activated into weak ties (Haythornthwaite, 2002a,
2002b, 2005a). Initial membership in a class, residence in a new neighborhood, and
enrollment in a listserv all lay a latent tie foundation. These structures provide a
framework in which actors can more easily activate ties – e.g., by seeing and talking to
others in class, meeting people walking in the neighborhood, and engaging in discussion
on the listserv. In this way, latent ties can be activated into weak ties, with the further
opportunity to grow into strong ties. Again, as noted above, not all pairs connected by a
latent tie foundation will initiate either a weak or strong interpersonal tie. Indeed, many
may remain lurkers, connected to the network by receiving information, but not
themselves engaging actively or initiating contact with others in the network. However,
the foundation will make it easier to keep up with the network as a whole, and to develop
a common understanding of network activity, and perhaps, some day, for individuals to
make the transition from lurker to active participant.
The kinds of available media, and what they are defined to be used for in online and
e-learning groups, turn out to be an important aspect of latent ties. In the studies
described above, those who do not actively engage with each other – e.g., class members
not actively working on projects with each other – are still members of the group and
keep up with group activities through communications managed through the group-wide
means of contact. Online this can be one-to-many bulletin board postings; face-to-face
this can be scheduled group meetings. Email and other private means of communication
(chat whispering, phone) sustain stronger ties for both distant and co-located participants.
Strongly-tied pairs add the use of these private media onto their base use of group-wide
media. As I have argued elsewhere (see Haythornthwaite, 2002a, 2002b, 2005a), the
important point for any learning setting is that the technical (e.g., chat technology) and
social implementation (e.g., required synchronous chat times) of the group-wide contact
Title
medium are organizational decisions that cannot be initiated by pairs who are only just
beginning to know each other – e.g., members of new class or newly formed knowledge
community. It is instead the actions of authorities beyond the group members that lay the
foundation for such tie formation, authorities such as educational administrators,
instructors, online community creators and facilitators.
5
Maintaining Ties, Networks and Communities Online
It is perhaps the seemingly simple ability to use a latent tie structure to initiate online
contact that underpins some of the anxiety about online ties. Can we trust an overture
from an online contact, initiated only on the basis of common membership in a listserv or
common presence in a chat room? If we engage with another person online,
communicating frequently, exchanging of information, and disclosing personal histories,
enacting in all aspects the traits of a strong tie, is it a ‘real’ tie, a real interpersonal
relationship? If the individuals engaged in these interactions perceive their ties to be ‘as
real as’ any offline relationships they are in, is their word sufficient for others to see this
tie as ‘real’?
Many have debated how ‘real’ fully online relationships are, and about the true
location of community. One side questions how the ‘leanness’ of online interaction –
characterized by text-based communication, lack of non-verbal cues, asynchronicity, and
reduced visibility of others – could ever measure up to the ‘richness’ of face-to-face
interaction and local geographically-based relations and community. The other side
revels in the enhanced connectivity and ability to express themselves found in the online
environment, sometimes precisely because of its leanness. While this is not the place to
revisit this debate, which is well documented and discussed elsewhere, it is important to
understand the unbundling of attributes that makes maintaining a tie online different from
maintaining one face-to-face, and the opportunities and constraints this offers for online
learning relations and communities. (For papers and reviews on the debate about CMC,
online ties and community, see Haythornthwaite, 2007; Haythornthwaite and Nielsen,
2006; Katz and Rice, 2002; Kraut, Patterson, Kiesler, Mukhopadhyay and Scherilis,
1998; Nie, 2001; Wellman and Haythornthwaite, 2002).
One long discussed difference between face-to-face and mediated communication is
the relative anonymity afforded by the reduced cues of CMC. The selective presentation
of personal attributes provides a measure of anonymity that not only provides a shield
against others, but also a mask to wear when playing on the online stage (Ellison, Heino
and Gibbs, 2006; Turkle, 1995). The reduction of communication cues has both positive
and negative consequences for community: it can create the safe environment for trying
out ideas that is important for learning environments (Bruffee, 1993), but it can also
provide an environment for trickery and deception (e.g., Dibbell, 1993). Some may find it
easier to present ideas when they feel personally insulated from others, but at the same
time this may prevent building trust.
Also different is the primary use of text-based, asynchronous interaction. Individuals
can also feel less social presence (Short, Williams and Christie, 1976; Garrison and
Anderson, 2003) in these environments because of the lean, non-immediate interaction
and the few cues to the identity of others. Because of this, CMC has been cited as a
difficult venue for communicating complicated ideas; combined with the lack of social
presence, CMC has also been cited as a difficult venue for creating consensus (Kiesler
and Sproull, 1992). Although many communication conventions have arisen to
Author
compensate for the lack of cues (e.g., emoticons, as well as more careful crafting of
messages), many still feel that the asynchronous, text-based reduced cues environment is
less than optimal for deep discussion. However, for online learning communities, the
need to articulate knowledge and clarify intent via text may be particularly useful. The
forced articulation not only provides a record of knowledge development (perhaps of use
to newbies entering the community), but, more importantly, enacts a continuous process
of making tacit knowledge explicit. On the downside, the pressure of posting can act as a
barrier to participation. New online learners describe just that kind of worry, a fear that
their postings would not be as good as others, and general worry about the norms of
posting (Bregman and Haythornthwaite, 2003).
Despite differences, studies of online communities show that those in the
communities perceive ties to be as real online as off, with individuals giving and gaining
trust online. Rheingold’s (2000) detailed account of the online community known as the
Well gives an evocative account of how impersonal, online textual interchange created
real commitment, emotion, and communal feelings for members of the Well. Similar
detailed accounts of the community can be found in other in-depth examinations (e.g.,
Baym, 2000; Kendall, 2002; Cherny, 1999). In these and other studies, participants in
stable online settings show engagement at the interpersonal and network level. They
make close interpersonal ties with others online (friendships, working relationships), and
as the tie grows in strength, they add the use of more means of communication. For
online ties, this means adding offline interaction, reversing the expected primacy of faceto-face over mediated communication (Rheingold, 2000; Haythornthwaite et al, 2000).
Our contemporary mediated experience leads us to accept that a tie may start offline or
online and, in either case, as the sense of commitment increases, add more media and
more venues for communication and interaction.
Similar outcomes are happening at the network level. Through the online setting
participants come to know others, understand community norms, and become committed
to a community. They exhibit behaviors similar to those in offline communities, such as
common use of language; creation, monitoring, and sanctioning of transgressions of
norms and rules; and development of community roles (McLaughlin, Osborne and Smith,
1995). Online members describe these environments as communities, their communities,
their “different kind of world” (Haythornthwaite et al, 2000). This is not to say that the
presentation of community has not changed. As a result of the many trends that have
challenged community, it is less bound to a specific geographic location. But is it not
‘lost’ in the same way as many report, i.e., it has not disappeared altogether. Instead it is
being transformed onto a new platform which mixes online and offline communication
with local and distant members, as well as individuals juggling multiple social worlds
(Kazmer and Haythornthwaite, 2001).
We might ask why use of mediated communication is so revolutionary in terms of
affecting personal ties and networks. After all, haven’t people been corresponding by
letter for centuries, maintaining ties at a distance over long periods of separation? The
answer comes in part from the enhanced salience of cues. The rapid feedback possible in
these communities, anytime/anywhere access, and the wide range of others involved
makes a qualitative difference between online forums and older forms of mediated
communication. This is not one-to-one correspondence, but many-to-many observable
interaction, available any time of day or night, providing immediate communication
gratification and long-lasting, ever-available relationships. Moreover, the whole of this
correspondence network – just like the whole of an observable village – provides an
Title
opportunity to observe, interact, and choose friends and colleagues, all from the (relative)
safety of one’s home. In a sense, these online worlds are even more like the (imagined)
villages of old than many examples of contemporary urban life.
6
Network Benefits for Learning Networks and Learning Communities
Why does the network – the community – level of interaction matter? What does the
network, and a learning network, offer of benefit over learning on one’s own or with one
or two others? As the group literature tells us, one of the reasons for group work is that it
lets people accomplish more than they could as individuals. This is equally true for
learning environments as many minds can provide clarification of different types in
information transfer settings, and add more to joint development in knowledge-building
communities. But these ideas don’t go far enough. A stable network itself provides
benefits that persist beyond individual membership and which can be accessed by
individuals who either belong to the network or make use of the network as a resource.
Network benefits can be considered in two ways: from the perspective of an
individual, creating their own array of network connections to support their work, social,
and learning needs; and from the perspective of the network that supports one of those
needs. Discussions of totally or primarily online community take the latter, whole
network perspective to online ties and relations. Studies of individuals take an ego-centric
or personal network approach. These two perspectives help make sense of some of the
pros and cons often debated regarding online activity and commitment to community.
From a whole network perspective, we might find a learning community that is
maintained online via listserv communications, while at the personal level individuals
may maintain their own learning on the same topic by belonging to that listserv, lurking
in other mailing lists, emailing colleagues, and posting to limited access bulletin boards.
At the whole network level, individuals may act as a full network member, perhaps
taking on a role of a gatekeeper, bringing knowledge into the learning community; at the
personal network level, individuals will take what they need from each environment they
operate in, choosing the knowledge they need and choosing to which communities to
contribute. Participation at the whole network level may be seen as altruistic and socially
progressive; picking and choosing across networks may be seen as selfish and socially
irresponsible, taking without giving back.
Popular presentations of the web and online learning tend to exaggerate the benefits
for individuals in being able to pick and choose what they learn and from whom, and
their engagement with others. The ‘networked individualism’ that Wellman (2001)
argues current technologies and societies promote, liberates individuals by supporting
self-direction and self-selection of ties. It exaggerates weak ties at the expense of strong
ties, and focal individuals in ego-centric networks over whole networks. It also
challenges collectives to vie for the attention of this networked individual. As Goldhaber
(1997) has noted, time and attention are the new scarce resources, particularly as
technologies increase networking potential. People have always maintained such personal
networks, making use of local contact, cars, planes, letters and phone to sustain
connection with people who mattered to them (Wellman, 1979, 1999), but the extension
into online communication has allowed easier reach to more specialised relationships.
Educational institutions are already feeling the impact of such networked
individualism as individuals begin to choose new e-learning options, and as informal
learning is created and sustained in online venues. The question is where this will
Author
progress: Will individuals pick and choose their learning to fit their perceived needs
rather than joining knowledge communities? Will education be driven by the need to
catch the attention of the new generation of learners? On the other hand, will learners
take a greater responsibility for self-direction in learning activities? As with previous
debates, both positive or negative outcomes can be expected, but perhaps the important
point to keep in mind at this point is that technologies are driving considerable change in
where and with whom individuals are learning, and these are important impacts to
prepare for in creating and sustaining online learning communities.
What can be lost in an unbalanced move to individual learning are the benefits of
community interaction for learning and knowledge creation. It is at the network level that
benefits of social capital emerge. Although there are various definitions of social capital,
it is easiest to conceive of it as benefits that exist only because a network of interacting
actors exists, and as a resource embedded in and constituted by the social network (Burt,
2000; Daniel, Schwier and McCalla, 2003; Lin, 2001; Putnam, 2000). Such benefits arise
in stable networks with known patterns of interaction, and include the ability to trust
network members, to have a common language, and to depend on network-based
mechanisms for managing behaviors.
This concept may be particularly important in learning and knowledge building
communities. The network holds a common definition of words, actions, practices, and
technologies that no individual can enact. Consider the lone actor in a new field of
research – with no colleagues, no journal for publication, no established methods of
research, and no history of studies to build on. This is often the case for interdisciplinary
work, and the lone actor needs to seek out and build relationships with others to convince
them to join the new endeavor and jointly co-construct the definition and knowledge base
of the field. Exciting work, but difficult precisely because the individual has no social
capital to draw on for this new work. Collaborative learning and knowledge building
requires a process of entry into a community, an enculturation, a “mutual engagement of
participants in a coordinated effort to solve [a] problem together” (Koschmann, 1996, p.
13), in which what is learned are practices and ‘collaborative knowing’ (Orlikowski,
2002; Stahl, 2004; Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1996). It is not just facts these communities
create, but common ways of collecting, verifying, and interpreting facts. Practice again
becomes entwined with the acquisition of knowledge.
The benefit of the network is that it holds this knowledge, even when individual
actors come and go. But without contribution to the network, introduction of newbies to
current practices, debates about practice, and rejuvenation of old knowledge, there is no
community. Hence, as in the tragedy of the commons, unbalanced individual use drawing
only from the network and not providing input to the network can wither a learning
community, decreasing the benefits that any can take from the learning community as a
learning commons.
At this point we might venture a definition that a learning network is a network that
holds learning beyond the individual, a network endowed with ‘learning capital,’ whether
that is knowledge held across the network or the practices of knowledge generation that
the network sustains. An individual may come to such a network and retrieve information
or learn practices; they may also come to build knowledge and practices, adding to the
network by rejuvenating and/or reinforcing practices. We can speculate that where there
is no addition, reinforcement or rejuvenation of knowledge and practices, the network
will lose its coherence. As a community, it will no longer maintain itself; as an entity it
will become obsolete. Thus, we add one last aspect of learning networks: that they are
Title
living entities, nurtured and perpetuated by involvement and continual generation of
learning capital through the mechanisms of relational interaction among community
members.
7
Conclusion
This paper has provided an introduction to relational mechanisms that sustain learning
networks, with attention to factors affecting online interaction and contexts. Work in this
area is relatively new, and thus the paper is also a call for more research on learning
relations, networks and communities. To recapitulate, while some communities have the
particular purpose and goal of promoting learning and knowledge construction, learning
pertains to all communities and online communities. Learning relations support entry into
community membership and sustain the growth and rejuvenation of communities; they
are the lifeblood of living networks. Examining relations provides a way of finding out
what matters to a particular group, providing understanding of the learning and
community processes, enabling social and technical support for such processes.
Participation in a network can benefit individuals who may dip into a network for
their learning needs – an approach much touted for the Internet. However, where
individuals surf without contribution, communities suffer if the critical mass of
contributors fails to keep the network alive. Online environments can support
communities of members who interact and learn together as a group and they can support
individuals as they choose what to learn to support their personal goals, but only if the
former is vital enough to sustain a living network. Only from a community can
individuals gain social capital that resides in the network of members, and only in a stable
community can social capital be created that can support individuals who are dipping in
to support individual goals. This tension between individual use and community benefit
is not new, but is clearly seen when communities are thought of as networks, with social
capital to be built and sustained at the network level.
8
References
Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. (2007) 'Introduction to e-learning research', in R. Andrews
and C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.): Handbook of E-Learning Research, Sage, London, pp.1-52.
Argote, L. Gruenfeld, D. and Naquin, C. (2001) 'Group learning in organizations', in M. E. Turner
(Ed.): Groups at Work: Theory and Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp.369-411.
Barab, S. A., Kling, R. and Gray, J. H. (Eds.) (2004) Designing for Virtual Communities in the
Service of Learning. Cambridge University Press, NY.
Baym, N. K. (2000) Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom and Online Community. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Beenan, G., Ling, K., Wang, X., Chang, K., Frankowski, D., Resnick, P. and Kraut, R.E. (2004)
'Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities', Proceedings of the
CSCW Conference, Chicago, IL.
Brandon, D. and Hollingshead, A. (1999) 'Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups',
Communication Education, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.109-126.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999) How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School, National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
Bregman, A. and Haythornthwaite, C. (2003) 'Radicals of presentation: Visibility, relation, and copresence in persistent conversation', New Media and Society, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.117-140.
Author
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991) 'Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward
a unified view of working, learning, and innovation', Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.40-57.
Bruffee, K. A. (1993) Collaborative learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the
Authority of Knowledge, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Burt, R. S. (2000) 'The network structure of social capital', Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 22, pp.345-423.
Cherny, L. (1999) Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World, CSLI Publications,
Stanford, CA.
Cook, S. D. N, and Brown, J. S. (1999) 'Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between
organizational knowledge and organizational knowing', Organization Science, Vol 10, No. 4,
pp.381-400.
Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1986) ’Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design’, Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 554-571.
Daniel, B., Schwier, R.A., and McCalla, G. (2003) 'Social capital in virtual learning communities
and distributed communities of practice', Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol
29, No. 3, http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol29.3/cjlt29-3_art7.html
Dibbell, J. (1993) 'A rape in cyberspace: Or, how an evil clown, a haitain trickster spirit, two
wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society', The Village Voice, December
21, pp.36-42.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., and Gibbs, J. (2006) 'Managing impressions online: Self-presentation
processes in the online dating environment', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
11(2), article 2, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html.
Gackenbach, J. (Ed.)(2006) Psychology and the Internet, 2nd edition, Academic Press, San Diego,
CA.
Garrison, D. R. and Anderson, T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century, RoutledgeFalmer,
London.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman, B. (1997) 'Studying online social networks', Journal
of
Computer-Mediated
Communication,
Vol.
3,
No.
1,
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/garton.html.
Goldhaber, M. H. (1997) 'The attention economy and the net', First Monday, Vol 2, No. 4,
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_4/goldhaber/
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) 'The strength of weak ties', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78,
pp.1360-1380.
Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman, B. (1998) 'Work, friendship and media use for information
exchange in a networked organization', Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, Vol. 49, No. 12, pp.1101-1114.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2000) 'Online personal networks: Size, composition and media use among
distance learners', New Media and Society, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.195-226.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2001) 'Exploring multiplexity: Social network structures in a computersupported distance learning class', The Information Society, Vol. 17(3), 211-226.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002a) 'Strong, weak and latent ties and the impact of new media', The
Information Society, Vol. 18(5), 385-401.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002b) 'Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and
sustaining distributed learning communities', in K.A. Renninger and W. Shumar (Eds.):
Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.159-190.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005a) 'Social networks and Internet connectivity effects', Information,
Communication & Society, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.125-147.
Title
Haythornthwaite, C. (2006a) 'Learning and knowledge exchanges in interdisciplinary
collaborations', Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol.
57, No. 8, pp.1079-1092.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2006b) 'Articulating divides in distributed knowledge practice', Information,
Communication & Society, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp.761-780.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2007) 'Social networks and online community', in A. Joinson, K. McKenna,
U. Reips and T. Postmes (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, Oxford University
Press, pp. 121-136.
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M.M., Robins, J. and Shoemaker, S. (2000) 'Community
development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions', Journal of
Computer-Mediated
Communication,
Vol.
6,
No.
(1),
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html
Haythornthwaite, C., Lunsford, K. J., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, J. and Nazarova, M. (2003) 'The
generative dance in pursuit of generative knowledge', Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.
Haythornthwaite, C., Lunsford, K.J., Bowker, G. C., and Bruce, B. (2006) 'Challenges for research
and practice in distributed, interdisciplinary, collaboration', in C. Hine (Ed.): New
Infrastructures for Science Knowledge Production, Idea Group, Hershey, PA, pp. 143-166.
Haythornthwaite, C., and Nielsen, A. (2006) 'CMC: revisiting conflicting results', in J. Gackenbach
(Ed.): Psychology and the Internet, second edition, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp.161180.
Hickman, L. A. (1992) John Dewey’s Pragmatic Technology, Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, IA.
Hrastinski, S. (in press) 'Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance learning
course: How is participation affected?' Internet and Higher Education.
Jones, S. G. (Ed.) (1995) CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Katz, J. E. and Rice, R. E. (2002) Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement and
Expression, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kazmer, M. M. and Haythornthwaite, C. (2001) 'Juggling multiple social worlds: Distance students
on and offline', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.510-529.
Kendall, L. (2002) Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online,
University of California Press.
Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1992) 'Group decision making and communication technology',
Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 52, pp.96-123.
Kiesler, S. (Ed.) (1997) Culture of the Internet, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Klein, J. T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice, Wayne State University
Press, Detroit.
Klein, J. T. (1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities,
University Press of Virginia, Virginia.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard Univ.
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Koku, E., Nazer, N. and Wellman, B (2001) 'Netting scholars: Online and offline', American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 10, pp.1752-1774.
Koschmann, T. (1996) 'Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction', in T.
Koschmann, (Ed.): CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp.1-23
Kraut, R., Patterson, V. L., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T. and Scherilis, W. (1998) 'Internet
paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?'
American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 1017-1031.
Author
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society,
Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Laurillard, D, (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the
Effective Use of Learning Technologies, second edition, RoutledgeFalmer, London.
Lin, N. and Bian, Y. (1991) 'Getting ahead in urban China', American Journal of Sociology,Vol. 97,
No. 3, pp.657-688.
Lin, N. (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K. and Smith, C. B. (1995) 'Standards of conduct on Usenet', in S.
G. Jones (Ed.): CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 90-111.
Monge, P. R. and Contractor, N. S. (2003) Theories of Communication Networks, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK.
Nie, N. H. (2001) 'Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting
findings', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.420-435.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) 'Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed
organizing', Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.249-273.
Preece, J. (2000) Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability. John Wiley
and Sons, NY.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon &
Schuster, NY,
Resnick, L. B. Levine, J. M. and Teasdale, S. D. (Eds.) (1991) Perspectives on Socially Shared
Cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, D C.
Rheingold, H. (2000) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, revised
edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rice, R.E. (1987) Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation. Journal of
Communication, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.65-94.
Rogers, E. M, (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition, The Free Press, NY.
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1996) 'Computer support for knowledge-building communities',
in T. Koschmann, (Ed.) CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. pp. 249-268
Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B. (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications, John
Wiley and Sons, London.
Stahl, G. (2004) 'Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL', in J-W
Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner and R.L. Martens (Eds.): What We Know About CSCL and
Implementing it in Higher Education, Kluwer, Norwell, MA, pp. 53-85.
Stuckey, B. and Barab, S. (2007) 'New conceptions for community design'. in R. Andrews and C.
Haythornthwaite (Eds.): Handbook of E-Learning Research, Sage, London, pp.439-465.
Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, Simon & Schuster, NY.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Wegner, D. (1987) 'Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind', in B. Mullen
and G. Goethals (Eds.): Theories of Group Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.185-208.
Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.) (2002) The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Wellman, B. (1979) 'The community question', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, 12011231.
Wellman, B. (1997) 'An electronic group is a social network', in S. Kiesler (Ed.): Cultures of the
Internet, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp.179-205.
Title
Wellman, B. (1999) 'The network community: An introduction to networks in the global village', in
Wellman, B. (Ed.): Networks in the Global Village, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 1-48
Wellman, B. (2001) 'Physical place and cyber place: The rise of personal networking', International
Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.227-252.
Wellman, B., and Berkowitz, S. D. (Eds.) (1997) Social Structures: A Network Approach, updated
edition, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., and Haythornthwaite, C. (1996)
'Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community',
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22, pp. 213-238.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.