EDC Friends, I offer these talking points for possible discussion during next Google Hangout. Quotes refer to Kozinet’s reading – Understanding Online Culture (2010) – with some attributions to his sources.

1) “Technology does not determine culture, but rather they are co-determining, co-constructive forces.”(p.22)
2) Early stream of research posited a ‘status equalization effect,’ a flattening of hierarchies, equalized social status, less rule following, no apparent leadership.(p.23)
3) Walther (1997) suggested that we could understand online community behavior by referencing ‘anticipated future interaction. (p.23)
4) Wellman (2001) suggested that the ‘networked individualism’ in which “online communities’ lack of formal institutional structure means that communications will depend on the quality of the social ties that the individual forms with the group.” (p.24)
5) Forrester Research asserts that online communities ‘run the gamut’ from forums to web-pages to blogs to social networking sites that enable personal expression, active participation and the formation of relationships. (p.24)
6) “Netnography” – the ethnography of online groups. (p.25)
7) “Online gatherings follow many of the same basic rules as groups that gather in person” (p.25) (e.g. development of group norms, importance of group identity), however, “online communities’ unique characteristics – such as anonymity and accessibility – create unique opportunities for a distinctive style of interaction.
8) “Online tools are more likely to extend social contact than detract from it.” Howard, et al. (2000)(p.26)
9) “Online communities “can intensify exiting relationships” and “help to create and maintain new relationships.” (p.26)(Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2003)
10) “People who are interested in online communities became drawn into and acculturated by their contact with them.” (p.26) (Kozinets, 1999)
11) Research into Kozinets’ theory of development progression of participation in online communities demonstrated “that social and cultural information permeate every exchange, affecting a type of gravitational pull that causes every exchange to become coloured with emotional affiliative, and meaning-rich elements.” (p.28)
12) “The longer people are on the Internet, the more likely they are to use the Internet to engage in social-capital-building activities.”(p.29)(Kavanaugh and Patterson, 2001)
13) “If anything, Internet use appears to be bolstering real-world involvement.” (p.29)(McKenna & Seidman, 2005)
14) Four types of online membership: regulars, newbies, lurkers and bashers. (p.31)(Correll, 1995)
15) Kozinets’ four idealized member ‘types': newbies, minglers, devotees, insiders, and types of relationships: interactor, maker, lurker, networker.(p.33)
16) Kozinets’ types of online interactions: geeking, building, cruising, bonding.(p.35)
17) “Online communities even appear to be changing the nature of work and work relationships.”(p. 38)(Gossett & Kilker,2006)
18) “Online communities have a transformational effect on their participants.” (p.39)(Zelwietor, 1998)
19) “Online community participants can “serve as social agents for cultural transformation in their other various cultures and communities.”(p.39)(Olanrian, 2004)
20) “Ethnographic investigations teach us about the varieties of strategies and practices used to create a communal sense”…”and also teach about the varieties and substance of online community participation, members, participation styles and forms”.(p.40)