PIK Week 12: Virtual Communities and Information Behaviour Online

I would like to begin this week’s journal with something that perked my interest in the Van-House reading; Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Developed by Latour and Woolgar, it is a theory that has wide ranging implications for virtual communities and how they function. It differs from sociological network theory because of its distinct focus on a material-semiotic approach. That is, an approach that maps relations that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic (between concepts). Interestingly, ANT does not seem to attempt to explain why or how a network takes the form it does. Rather, it is a way of exploring thoroughly, the relationships within a network – It is essential more of a method than it is an actual theory. 

One of its central features is that it problematises the term network. Latour claims that the term implies that an interaction assumes the shape of a network, which, he argues, isn’t necessarily true. Also, it implies transportation (of a contagion in the network) without its deformation. Here, Latour argues that every actor-network requires a multitude of translations and so deformation of the contagion is necessary. Further to this, ANT holds that relations need to be acted upon or the network will dissolve. At this point, I can draw a parallel to Barlow’s idea of information in his Taxonomy of Information article. When Barlow talks about information as a relationship, he refers to ‘receptors’ in the receiver of the information required to render information meaningful. I thought this receptor concept was similar to ANTs insistence on translation within the actor-network. Barlow also asserts (when talking about information as an activity) that information that isn’t interacted with ceases to exist – again, this idea is analogous to Latour’s argument that relations need to be acted on for the network to continue to exist.

Latour describes the Entelechy, which is an overarching web of relations that an actor engages with through an actor-network. Essentially, any actor is simply a sum of other, smaller actors – as are the molecules that form a network of relations that are the cell, and the cells that form a network of relations that are the person and the people that form a network of relations that is the Society.

I like this concept. Entelechy sheds light on the big picture. It identifies the infinitely complex nature of the relationship between things and people.  It doesn’t seem to recognise the role of power in influencing network dynamics however, as ACT restricts agency to the heterogeneous associations of humans and non-humans, of materials and the abstract. The question thus remains, does power simply manifest itself through a set of associations, or do associations (human or otherwise) come together under the direct influence of power? It seems such a question can’t be answered without delving into a lengthy ontological discussion; it is a tangent I’m not willing to explore for the time being.

The Irvine-Smith Reading for this week was a research paper focusing on the behaviour of online communities (the paper was produced under the Master of Arts in Information and Knowledge Management at UTS. As I’m currently doing the same course [and I don’t mean to over sentimentalise], it was rather inspiring to think that I could produce a research paper one day that could be included in this course for future students). Irvine-Smith’s paper is focused on the information behaviour of participants who subscribe to a subject based electronic discussion list.

Irvine-Smith also brings to attention an often invisible audiences of online spaces; that of the ‘Lurker’. These are essentially users who observe online discussion spaces, without actually contributing to them. Irvine-Smith refers to various researchers while stating that  ‘lurkers’ identify as participants of the online spaces they ‘lurk’ in, and can also be an important facilitator of the spread of information online, especially if they are active in another online space.

I thought her application of Burnett’s typology to her research was useful in this paper. Irvine-Smith states that Burnett’s summation of participants as situating themselves within an information neighbourhood (allowing them to keep track of general interests and concerns) is a particularly accurate one of the behaviour displayed by members of the electronic discussion list. 

Irvine-Smith goes on to talk about how Burnett identifies three categories to examine interactive on-line information behaviour:

•      Hostile - behaviours including behaviour like flaming, trolling, spamming
•      Non-informational Collaborative – behaviours that are neutral, humorous and emotional, and characterised by    pleasantry or politeness
•      Informational Collaborative – informational behaviour that provides information sources or links, personal updates, queries to the group or to individuals, and responses to queries 

Irvine-Smith concludes that members’ participation in the electronic discussion list was primarily informational (as opposed to being motivated by a collaborative or networking purpose as other research suggest). She describes the robust culture of adversarial debate as an impediment to active participation for some members, but at the same time, she argues, this robust exchange of ideas and opinions is what gives value to the discussion list. 

This is an interesting revelation with regards to the behaviour of online communities. Drawing from my own experiences (having spent time in various political and news forums), discussion seems to be centred on a small group of members who maintain a centrality within the network topology through a high level of activity. They are surrounded by a group of members who post less often and whose online behaviour can be characterised mostly as non-informational collaborative or as members who are ‘Lurkers’. What tends to characterise those who maintain a central position, is that they are generally polarised in relation to one another and engage in constant discourse. Thus, it seems to me that online discussion spaces centralise around power negotiations that occur through discourse. Again, referring to the ANT method, it would be useful to address the question of whether it is the power relations that affect the structure of the network and its subsequent associations, or if such discourses of power occur due to the associations that are already in place in the network.

I had intended to keep my thoughts about the reading I engaged with the most for last, but I’d like to address the Boyd reading separately as she raises some very important issues for privacy that I would like to explore in depth in relation to network theory and privacy.

References

Greif, Hajo (2005) Dawkins and Latour: A Tale of Two Unlikely Fellows. Yearbook 2005 of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology & Society.

Irvine-Smith, S. 2010 'A Series of Encounters: The Information Behaviour of Participants in a Subject-Based Electronic Discussion List', Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 183-201.

Nancy A. Van House ( 2003). 'Digital Libraries and Collaborative Knowledge Construction.' In Ann Bishop, Nancy Van House, and Barbara Buttenfield, eds. Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation. MIT Press; pp. 271-295.