Online communities are becoming an increasing part of how we work, play, learn, conduct commerce, organize politically, and receive social support. This course is intended to provide students with the knowledge to understand what distinguishes effective from ineffective online communities and the skills to design effective ones. For the purpose of this course, an online community is defined loosely as a group of people who sustain interaction over time and who conduct a substantial portion of their communication online.
Because there is no practical instruction manual for designing online communities, this will be a research-oriented class. We will review relevant literature in social psychology and economics on commitment and contribution to groups and mine this science as the basis for design. Students will use this knowledge to redesign a portion of an online community to improve it and systematically examine the consequences of their redesign.
The goals are to bridge social science research about what gets people to develop commitment to groups and more engineering/applied questions of how to design online communities to make them successful. The course will cover such types of communities as open source development projects, health support groups, and massively multi-player games. It will deal with such conceptual issues as the basis of commitment to groups, free riding and other motivational problems, online conversation, recruitment, socialization and retention, and group work.
I. Each week there will be assigned readings and many weeks will include an assigned technology for you to familiarize yourself with. Our engagement with these assigned readings and technologies will begin on-line, before the class session for which they're assigned, and continue in class. You are expected to a single "blog-style entry" about at least two of the assigned readings and technologies before class. Each entry should consist of some combination of:
- Description: statements or questions about what the author claims.
- Critique: arguments about whether the author is correct or what the author has left out.
- Connection:how the claims or concepts relate to those in other readings
- Application: how the reading applies to the community or technology you have chosen to study for the semester, or the research project you are planning.
You should comment on each other's entries. You may also edit your own entry in response to comments that others have left or in response to other blog entries. The end-result of this process should be a page with a set of coherent blog entries, not a record of the entire set of interactions.
II. Present a technology platform or innovative feature related to some week's discussion topic (once during semester; sign up during week 1 or 2)
III. Major project: redesign and evaluate an online community (in groups of up to three students)
1-page individual proposal due Friday, September 15.
5-page group proposal due Friday, September 29
Final project presentation in class, Friday December 8 or during special session during exam week.
Final paper due Monday December 15.
Grading
There will be no exams. The term project and its components (proposal, final presentation, and paper) comprise 60% of the grade. The in-class technology/platform presentation represents 10% of the grade, and classroom participation (including online responses to other's postings) represents 30% of the grade.
Readings
The course uses no assigned texts. All required readings are available as links from the course syllabus. Most are password protected, either through CMU library's electronic reserve or, as a stopgap until the library posts the article, from a personal site. To access the library's electronic reserves, you either must be logged in to a machine with a CMU IP address or VPN.
The stopgap article repository is http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kraut/articles . Articles are listed by first author's name and date. The user ID and password will be distributed to registered students by email and are also available from the blackboard account associated with the course.
Blackboard
T.he blackboard site for this course is listed as F03-Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
1. Sept. 1: Metaphors for Online Community
- Preece, J., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2003). Online communities. In J. Jacko & A. A. Sears (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 596-620). Publishers. Mahwah: NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
- Thompson, L. L. (2003). Making the team: A guide for managers (2nd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Chapters 2 Performance and productivity. Chapter 4. Building the team: Tasks, People, and Relationships.
- Wellman, B. (2001). Computer networks as social networks. Science, 293(14 September), 2031-2034.
- Oldenberg, R. (1989). The great good place. Chapter 2, pages 20-42.
- Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press. (Chapter 1: Purpose)
Come to class prepared to give a brief (2-3 minute) tour of an interesting online community. Be prepared to justify why you think it is a community. Identity what you think one major hurdle the community needed or needs to overcome to be successful, and what this community has done to meet this challenge.
2. Sept. 8: Empirical introduction to online communities; Research eithics
Empirical introduction
- Lakhani., K. R., & Hippel, E. v. (2003). How open source software works "free" user-to-user assistance. Research Policy (Special Issue on Open Source Software Development), 32, 923.943.
- Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1), article 4.
- Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 201-223.
- The ethics of online research
- Read the federal regulations governing human subjects research at http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html. Read the following sections: 46.101, 102, 110, 111, 116, 117, 201 (Subpart D Additional projections for children involved as subjects in research).
- Kraut, R. E., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105–117.
- Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. (2004). 'go away': Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. The Information Society, 20(2), 127-139.
Technology exploration
Complete your human subjects training (if you have not done so already), which is needed before conducting any human-subjects research at CMU. Come to class with your training certificate and we will forward it to the IRB. Make sure you keep a digital copy for yourself. Training is at
http://cme.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/learning/humanparticipant-protections.asp
Come to class with the outline of a research project that you think poses interesting ethical questions. This can be your own research, research being done by students or faculty in your department or research from a published article. You will present your case (maximum of three slides and 5 minutes) to the rest of the class, who will role play members of the IRB. Your case should very briefly describe the goals of the research, how human participants will be used, and any eithical issues that you think are relevant to approving or disapproving the research. Information about CMUs IRB and procedures are at <http://www.cmu.edu/provost/spon-res/compliance/hs.htm>. We'll probably only get through a few of these cases during the class session.
Sept 15: Why do people contribute?
- Thorn, B., & Connolly, T. (1987). Discretionary data bases: A theory and some experimental findings. Communication Research, 14(5), 512-528.
- Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.
- Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P. J., Wang, X., Chang, K., Li, X., et al. (2005). Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(4), np.
- Wasko, M. M., & Far, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.
- Lakhani., K. R., & Hippel, E. v. (2003). How open source software works "free" user-to-user assistance. Research Policy (Special Issue on Open Source Software Development), 32, 923.943.
Sept. 22: Activities & roles
This week will explore the structure of activity in e-communities: the places where it occurs, its time structuring through events, and how repeated activities can be invested with meaning through rituals. We will also examine the roles that participants play in online communities. Who are the leaders and who are the followers? What function does a moderator serve? What are the different roles of old-timers and newcomers? What are the trajectories by which people move into different roles?
- Fisher, D., Smith, M., & Welser, H. T. (2006). You are who you talk to: Detecting roles in usenet newsgroups. Paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii.
Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (in press). Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why? In S. Weisband. & L. Atwater (Eds.), Leadership at a distance. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-
- KimChapter4 Chapter 4 in Kim2000
- KimChapter5 Chapter 5 in Kim2000
- KimChapter7 Chapter 7 in Kim2000
- KimChapter8 Chapter 8 in Kim2000
Sept. 29:Bringing newcomers on board
- Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. In W. Strocher & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- Krogh, G. v., Spaeth, S., Lakhani., K. R., & Hippel, E. v. (2003). Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Research Policy: Special Issue On Open Source Software Development
- Bryant, S.L., Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2005). Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation of a Participation in a Collaborative Onlnie Encyclopedia., in Proceedings, GROUP05, November 6–9, 2005, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA
- Ducheneaut, N. (200). Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14, 323-368.
- Hahn, J., Moon, J. Y., & Zhang, C. (2005). Impact of social ties on open source project team formation.
- Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004). De-lurking in virtual communities: A social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii.
Oct 6: Class cancelled. Will schedule make-up
Oct 13: Developing commitment to online communities
- Ren, Y. , Kraut, R., Kiesler, S. (In press). Bond and Identity Theories to understand Design Decisions for Online Communities
- Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. Hogg. & T. S. Tinsdale. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp 57-85). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- or
- Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational context. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140
- Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ''we''? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93
- Sassenberg, K. (2002). Common bond and common identity groups on the internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics., 6(1), 27-37.
- Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the Web. Berkeley, CA, Peachpit Press. Chapter 9, Subgroups: Clans, Club, and Committees
- Optional
- Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(2), 151-158.
- Michinov, N., Michinov, E., & Toczek-Capelle, M. C. (2004). Social identity, group processes, and performance in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice, 8(1), 27-39.
Oct 20: Developing commitment to online communities
- Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske & et al. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol 2 (4th ed., pp. 193-281). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill. Pages 192-210, 222-226, 230-248.
- Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In I. M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Parks, M., & Roberts, L. (1998). Making moosic: The development of personal relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(4), 517-537.
- Gottlieb, L. (2006). How do I love thee? A growing number of internet dating sites are relying on academic researchers to develop a new science of attraction. A firsthand report from the front lines of an unprecedented social experiment.(eharmony's compatibility matching system). The Atlantic Monthly, 297(2), 58-67.
- McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9-31.
- Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the Web. Berkeley, CA, Peachpit Press. Chapter3
Technology exploration
Social Networking Site If you haven't done so before, explore a social networking site such as FriendSter or FaceBook (or MySpace or CyWorld or Mixi). or an online dating site
Oct 27: Structuring Conversation
Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, R. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association..
Viegas, F. B., & Donath, J. S. (1999). Chat circles. Proceedings of CHI'92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York:: ACM Press.
Sack, W. (2000). Conversation map: An interface for very large-scale conversations. Journal of Management Information Systems 17(3): 73-92.
Smith, M. A. and A. T. Fiore (2001). Visual components for persistent conversations. CHI'01 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, ACM.
Smith, M.A., Cadiz, J.J., & Burkhalter, B. (2000). Conversation trees and threaded chats. CHI'00 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Philadelphia, PA, ACM
Wattenberg, M. and D. Millen (2001). Conversation thumbnails for large-scale discussions. CHI '03 extended abstracts on human factors in computer systems, Seattle, WA, ACM.
Nov 3 Production
- Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
- Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2002). Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11(3), 309-346.
- Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (Under review). Familiarity, complexity and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science.
- Cataldo, M., Wagstrom, P., Herbsleb, J. D., & Carley, K. (2006). Identification of coordination requirements: Implications for the design of collaboration and awareness tools. In Proceedings, acm conference on computer-supported cooperative work. New York: ACM Press.
Nov 10. Conflict Management, Public Goods, and Social Loafing
- Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, american political science association, 1997. The American political science review, 12(1), 1-22.
- Kollock1996 Kollock, Peter., & Smith, Marc. Managing the Virtual Commons. In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by Susan Herring. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 1996. pp. 109-128. [available online ]\
- SmithChapter9 Kollock, Peter., The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace, in Communities in Cyberspace.
- SmithChapter6 Smith, Anna Duval. Problems of Conflict Management in Virtual Communities. Chapter 6 in Smith and Kollock. [available here ]
- Herring, Susan, Job-Sluer, Kirk, Scheckler, Riebecca, and Barab, Sasha (2002). Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum. The Information Society. Volume 18, Number 5. 371-384. (http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html)
- SmithChapter5: Reid, Elizabeth. Hierarchy and Power: Social Control in Cyberspace. Chapter 5 in Smith and Kollock
- Honeycutt, C. (2005). Hazing as a process of boundary maintenance in an online community. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), np.
Nov 17. Enjoyment online
- Moriarty, Brian (1996). The point is. Or the audio verson at
- Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as "third places", Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (Vol. 11, pp. article 1).
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row. (Chapter 3: Enjoyment & the quality of life)
- Moore, R. J.; Ducheneaut, N. Providing for the accountability of social activities in massively multiplayer virtual worlds. Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
- Ducheneaut, N.; Yee, N.; Nickell, E.; Moore, R. J. 'Alone together?' exploring the social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006); 2006 April 22-27; Montreal; Canada. NY: ACM; 2006; 407-416.
- GOSLIN, M., SHOCHET, J., AND SCHELL, J. 2003. Toontown online building massively multiplayer games for the masses. In Massively Multiplayer Game Development (Game Development Series), Charles River Media, Hingham, MA.
Technology exploration: Buy a class subscription to WoW and have students create avatar & play.
Nov 24. Thanksgiving weekend
Dec 1: Online support groups
- Helgeson, V. S., & Cohen, S. (1996). Social support and adjustment to cancer: Reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention research. Health Psychology, 15, 135-148.
- Shaw, B., McTavish, F., Hawkins, R., Gustafson, D., and Pingree, S., (2001). Experiences of Women with Breast Cancer: Exchanging Social Support over the CHESS Computer Network, Journal of Health Communication, 5(2).
- Farnham, S., Cheng, L., Stone, L., Zaner-Godsey, L. Hibbeln, C., Syrjala, K., Clark, A., Abrams, J. (2002). HutchWorld: Clinical study of Computer-mediated Social Support for Cancer Patients and their Caregivers. Proceeding, CHI'2002: Conference on Human Factors in Computering Systems.
- Gustafson, DH, Hawkins, R, Pingree, S, McTavish, F, Arora, NK, Mendenhall, J, Cella, DF, Serlin, RC, Apantaku, FM, Stewart, J, & Salner, A:. (2001). Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer. Journal General Internal Medicine, 16(43), 435-445
- Rodgers, S., & Chen, Q. (2005). Internet community group participation: Psychosocial benefits for women with breast cancer. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(4), np.
Dec 8: 13. Social Capital
- Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in america. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664-683.
- Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455.
- Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Raine, L. (2006). The strength of internet ties. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
- Resnick, P. (2000) Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. Chapter 29 in HCI in the new millenium, edited by John M. Carroll. Addison-Wesley. 2001, pages 247-272
