Discussion Leader/Summarizer: BenjaminChiao

Main Points:

This paper considers the role of size and communication activity in sustainable online social structures.

A resource-based theory of sustainable social structures:

• Based on prior studies of traditional social structures and empirical analyses of longitudinal data from a sample of Internet-based groups

• Analyses of data from a random sample of e-mail-based Internet social structures(listservs) indicate that communication activity and size have both positive and negative effects on a structure’s sustainability.
  Positive effects of size: members themselves are resources of knowledge
  Negative effects of size: logistic problems, harder to form personal relationships, harder to find the right person for problems, more severe free-riding problem

[PaulResnick: I don't agree here. In table 3 he presents empirical results supporting the claim the communication activity affects member attraction retention.]

• While the use of networked communication technologies may alter the form of communication, balancing the opposing impacts of membership size and communication activity in order to maintain resource availability and provide benefits (e.g. information, influence, and social support) to attract and retain members is vital for the development of sustainable online social structures.

• the balance can be achieved by:
  internal structure: formal roles, procedures to reduce communication cost
  use of alternative communication technology: group support system, virtual work teams, etc.

Critique:

While the author provides some empirical support but the theory part is really weak. Given the way in which the positive and negative effects are presented, the author can always say which of the negative or positive effects dominate whatever the empirical tests turn out to be. To me, this is ad hoc theorizing, which offers little generalizability.
[PaulResnick: Let's talk about this in 884 discussion time.]

JudeYew: I think that one of the points made in this paper is the fact that this study attempts to study online structure sustainability in terms of "sets of opposing forces that serve to simultaneiously promote and hinder the processes of change." (p. 357) As such, the resource based model that is being forward here doesn't come to easy conclusions about positive and negative effects of size and communication activity. Rather, the resource based model attempts to illustrate the fact that the interaction between the size of the community and the communication activity that takes place around it is a somewhat complex affair. For instance, Butler identified the fact that communication activity is a double-edged sword whereby the level of communications can be both a boon or a gain to the members.

I have to admit that the author did not do his research work much justice as he was not very clear in his conclusions about the generalizability of his resource-based model (in fact, i think it would be wise of him not to out forward his findings as a model). Particularly confusing is the following line: "The resource-based model of sustainable social structures is not a theory of technological impacts, but rather a theory of social structure that allows us to consider the consequences of technology." (p. 359) I am not too clear on the differences between "technological impacts" and the "consequences of technology" which he does not elaborate on.

However, what he is clear in saying is that we cannot consider either group size or communication activity in isolation, especially when it comes to online social communities where the main modes of interaction takes place primarily through communications. I am also convinced that Butler provides us with a particularly useful framework for considering online social structures: that our online activities primarily revolve around resource accumulation and benefit generation.

Connection:

I see it as an improvement if the author is able to refine more of the key variables in the theory such that they are observable and thus can be tested. See Karl Popper 1935, The logic of Scientific Discovery for related discussion on the method of science and the use of observables for theorizing.
PaulResnick: sorry, but this isn't a very useful kind of critique to make. It's too sweeping and dismissive. You have to be more specific about which variables you think are not observable. Certainly member gain, member loss, communication volume and communication variation he has measures for. Perhaps you're referring to the theoretical justification for why these variables should be related in the way that he hypothesizes and measures?


YongKim: In discussion of the sustainability of communities, Butler emphasizes that “social structures must support the social processes that convert resources into valued benefits” (p. 348). This reminds me of Jarvenpaa and Tanriverdi’s study on the leadership in virtual knowledge networks (2002). They argue that the balance between knowledge creation and reward distribution is critical to the survival and growth of the knowledge network, which is indeed another form of online communities, yet leaders face various dilemmas in maintaining the balance. Different groups of stakeholders (participants) have different motivation for knowledge creation and different expectation for reward. The art of balancing such heterogeneity seems quite pertinent to developing social processes “that convert resources into valued benefits.”

Discussion:

LaurieBuis: One thing that I liked about this reading was the fact that credit was given to the fact that an increase in membership has drawbacks as well as advantages. Anyway who has belonged to an online community knows that there are positives and negatives associated with large and small communities. I understand that some of the readings for today were focused on an economic perspective, but from a communitications standpoint, more members isn't necessarily better. I think that this is particularly identified in the Schoberth and natural lifecycle of mailing lists readings.