FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W789168345> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W789168345 abstract "This paper follows Wellman’s (2002) typology and aims at identifying new module of virtual communities. How does sense of community that used to mark virtual community differ from the concept of networked individualism? Who are those with high sense of community and/or networked individualism? Does the type of networked individualism supplant or supplement sense of community in community identity building? This case study indicated networked individualism did not supplant sense of community. In the contrary, they coexist in virtual community. Web 2.0 related social community has gradually gained its popularity in nowadays, this study implies that accessibility of these kinds of community resources is no more depends on sense of belonging and community consensus, in alternative, building instrumental networks, maintaining autonomous relationship with certain community members and shifting roles across networks become the key to mobilize network resources. Early Development of Virtual Community The influential book by Howard Rheingold, the Virtual Community (1993) set the tone for the birth of a new form of community, bring people together on-line around shared values and interests, and creating ties of support and friendship that could also extend into face-to-face interaction. Through its interactivity and relatively speed of internet offers users a freedom of expression and personal contact, allowing sharing of ideas and thoughts regardless of geographical and time limitation. It is argued that development of internet group wares, such as newsgroup, BBS, IRC, Mud etc. facilitate glocalized connectivity that affords fluid systems for using ramified networks to access material, cognitive and influential resources, and thus enhance social identity and a sense of belonging of the community. Early studies, such as Hagel and Armstrong's (1997) classification of types of virtual communities, pointed interactions in virtual community are based on people's desire to meet four basic needs: interest, relationship, fantasy, and transaction. Kollock and Smith (1996) explored how might a group of people in computer communities ever manage to establish or maintain cooperative relations and suggested there are three motivations for providing public goods: anticipated reciprocity, reputation, and a sense of efficacy. They latter added attachment as the fourth possible motivation for contributing public good in the virtual community. Scholars who are interested in virtual communities further employed ideas from community psychology, in particular from McMillan and Chavis (1986) most influential research of sense of community to study online groups and communities (Rovai, 2002; Blanchard and Markus, 2004). McMillan & Chavis (1986) defined of Community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through their commitment to be together. The conceptual and operationalized definition of sense of community has been generally used to examine virtual communities and online societies. In this stage, researchers distinguished personal identities and lives online and offline, and examined mechanisms of maintaining online communities. On-line Communities as Real Communities Recent studies have shown that the uses of the internet are instrumental, and closely connected to the work, family, and everyday life of internet users. For example, in the US, email represents over 85% of internet usage, and most of email volume is related to work purposes, to specific tasks, and to keep in touch with family and friends in real life (Anderson and Tracey, 2001). While chat rooms, news groups, and multi-purpose internet conferences were meaningful for early internet users, their quantitative and qualitative importance has dwindled with the spread of the internet. Even in role-playing and informal chat rooms, real lives seem to shape the interaction on-line. Thus, the pioneer of the studies of identity-building on the internet, Turkle concluded her study by observing that “ the notion of the real fights back. People who live parallel lives on the screen are nevertheless bound by the desires, pain, and mortality of their physical selves (Turkle, 1995). Similarly, Baym studying the behavior of news group stated “reality seems to be that many, probably most social users of computer mediated communication, create on-line selves consistent with their off-line identities” (Baym, 1998). Katz, Rice, and Aspden (2001) analyzed the relationship between use of the internet, civic involvement, and social interaction in the US and found higher or equal level of community and political involvement among internet users compared to nonusers. They also found a positive association between internet use and frequency of telephone calls and a great level of social interaction. Internet users were more likely than non-users to meet with friends, and to have a social life away from home, although their networks of social interaction were more spatially dispersed than those of nonusers, one-line activity did not have much impact on time spent with family and friends. One-tenth of internet users met new friends on-line and were active in on-line communities. Similar findings are reported: use of email enhance social life with family and friends, and extends overall social contacts. Wellman and Hampton conducted the “Netville” study in 1998-9 in Canada and found not only the users have much more informal contact with neighbors, maintained more long distance contact with friends and relatives, wired residents have become “glocalized”, they are involved in both local and long-distance relationship. Overall, the Netville experiment show there was a positive feedback effect between on-line and off-line sociability, with internet usage enhancing and maintaining social ties and social involvement for most users. The Turn towards Networked Individualism The recent and worldwide studies suggest rather than operating at the expense of the real face to face world, the internet is a part of it, with people using all means of communication to connect with friends and relatives. Communities and societies have been changing towards “individualized networks”. In networked communities and societies, boundaries are more permeable, interactions are with diverse others, linkage switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies are flatter and more recursive. Hence, many people and organizations communicate with others in ways that ramify across group boundaries. Rather than relating to one group, they cycle through interactions with a variety of others, at work or in the community. Their work and community networks are diffuse, sparsely knit, with vague, overlapping, social and spatial boundaries. Wellman (2002) suggested the characteristics of individualized network in online community facilitate personal communities that supply the essentials of community separately to each individual: support, sociability, information, social identities, and a sense of belonging. Each person is a switchboard, between ties and networks. People remain connected, but as individuals, rather than being rooted in the home bases of work unit and household. Each person operates a separate personal community network, and switches rapidly among multiple sub-networks. He argued the rapid development of computer-supported social networks nourishes societal transitions from traditional homogeneous, broadly-embracing groups to fragmented, variegate and personalized social networks. With the development of high speed person-to-person communication supports the dispersal and role-fragmentation of workgroups and household, we are experiencing a shift to a personalized, wireless world affords networked individualism with each person switching between ties and networks. Wellman developed a tripartite typology of “Group”, “Glocalization” and “Networked Individualism” to elaborate the transition of computer-communication networks. He argued as networked individualism develops, computer systems are being increasingly used to support person-to-person and role-to-role relationships at work, in the community and at home. While former groupware assumes that all participants are known and largely trusted, the networkware is shifting sets of interactors and the search for information and the selective disclosure of one’s own information (Wellman, 2002). Research Questions and Method This paper follows Wellman’s typology and aims at identifying new module of virtual communities. How does sense of community that used to mark virtual community differ from the concept of networked individualism? Who are those with high sense of community and/or networked individualism? Does the type of networked individualism supplant or supplement sense of community in community identity building? What implication does this transition address in terms of social relationship and online community? A recent developed virtual community, Chinese wikipedia was selected as the research site and a web survey of total 381 respondents were conducted. Factors and descriptive analyses were employed to clarify the measurement of network individualism, and explore social and network characteristics of those who have networked individualism. Results The result of factor analysis has demonstrated the construct of sense of community differs from that of networked individualism. While attachment, belonging and identity variables are loaded toward sense of community, instrumental networks, autonomous relations and blurred boundary characterize the concept of networked individualism. Table 1: Factor Analysis of Sense of Community & Networked Individualism" @default.
• W789168345 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W789168345 creator A5041075704 @default.
• W789168345 creator A5066398844 @default.
• W789168345 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W789168345 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W789168345 title "A Sense of Community or Networked Individualism" @default.
• W789168345 cites W1495038747 @default.
• W789168345 cites W1525792211 @default.
• W789168345 cites W1881839772 @default.
• W789168345 cites W1994373531 @default.
• W789168345 cites W2021273726 @default.
• W789168345 cites W2058509744 @default.
• W789168345 cites W2065286888 @default.
• W789168345 cites W2154273558 @default.
• W789168345 cites W2167602294 @default.
• W789168345 cites W2495687709 @default.
• W789168345 cites W2564226227 @default.
• W789168345 cites W190890065 @default.
• W789168345 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W789168345 type Work @default.
• W789168345 sameAs 789168345 @default.
• W789168345 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W789168345 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W789168345 hasAuthorship W789168345A5041075704 @default.
• W789168345 hasAuthorship W789168345A5066398844 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C143141573 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C17022365 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C2779942219 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W789168345 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C108827166 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C111472728 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C119599485 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C127413603 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C138885662 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C143141573 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C144024400 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C15744967 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C17022365 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C17744445 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C199539241 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C2779942219 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C36289849 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C41008148 @default.
• W789168345 hasConceptScore W789168345C77805123 @default.
• W789168345 hasLocation W7891683451 @default.
• W789168345 hasOpenAccess W789168345 @default.
• W789168345 hasPrimaryLocation W7891683451 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W1535022272 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W1572050237 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W1606854295 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W1686876902 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W1726855603 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W200629272 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2041584401 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2219760481 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2251559853 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2297733554 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2349909258 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2522428097 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2726939929 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2770458765 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2794842289 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2896764138 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2983632160 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W3166521483 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W87498433 @default.
• W789168345 hasRelatedWork W2556935488 @default.
• W789168345 isParatext "false" @default.
• W789168345 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W789168345 magId "789168345" @default.
• W789168345 workType "article" @default.