Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jonathon Hutchinson
1. Introduction 4
1.1 The Nature of the Research‟s Participation in the CCI 5
1.2 The Objective of the Program of Research 5
2. Research Questions 6
RQ1) How do the different interests of the stakeholders within an
institutional online community intersect and how are those interests
negotiated? 6
RQ1a) What are the actors in the relationship? 6
RQ1b) What are the conventions at work? 6
RQ1c) How do the actors negotiate these conventions? 7
RQ2) What are the larger implications of institutional online communities? 7
2.1 Understanding the Actors in ABC Pool 8
2.2 Identifying Conventions within Community 9
2.3 The Dynamics of Relationships Within Pool 11
2.4 What are the Potential Implications? 12
3. Literature Review 13
3.1 Why Research ABC Pool? 13
3.2 The Emergence of the Online Community 16
3.2.1 Identifiers within Community 17
3.2.2 Definition of Online Community 18
3.2.3 Online Communities in Practice 19
3.2.4 A Shift in Online Communities 22
3.2.5 Community 2.0 24
3.2.6 Online Becoming Institutional Communities 28
3.3 The ABC Develops Pool 31
3.3.1 What is ABC Pool? 31
3.4 Mechanisms of Negotiations 35
3.4.1 Technology as Negotiator 36
3.4.2 Institution as Negotiator 38
3.4.3 Human Negotiation 39
3.4.4 Community Manager as Mediator 40
2
3.4.5 Beyond Management 44
3.5 Potential Implications – Summary 45
4. Research Design 46
4.1 Ethnographic Action Research 46
4.2 Data Collection Methods 49
4.2.1 Participant Observation 49
4.2.2 Field Notes 49
4.2.3 Participants 50
4.2.4 Focus Groups 51
4.2.5 In-Depth Interviews 51
4.2.6 Feedback Forms 52
4.2.7 Data Analysis 52
4.2.8 Social Mapping and Contextualising 53
6. Timeline 64
7. Ethics 64
8. Coursework 65
9. Sources Cited 65
3
1. Introduction
4
have documented the dynamics of Pool from my perspective as the
community manager.
5
media and cultural studies disciplines, and incorporates research of online
community management. This research will contribute to literature on public
service broadcasters.
2. Research Questions
6
ideal community member. However, it is already obvious from my preliminary
observations that there are many definitions of what a Poolian actually is.
I will observe and describe what it means to be a Poolian, and how different
members of the community contest its definition: additionally, I will also
examine the shared understandings of other groups of actors working on Pool
(such as ABC staff, designers, system administrators, and others). The fact
that these different shared understandings of Pool and its community exist
within different groups of actors means that negotiation between these
understandings becomes necessary.
I will observe how the different actors present their conventions and describe
how consensus is negotiated. Through my research I have already observed
the importance of the role of the community manager in context of the
negotiation process.
7
what contribution Pool is able to make to the ABC. The research findings may
provide insights for other institutions engaging with online communities.
Latour (2005) suggests “anything that does modify a state of affairs by making
a difference is an actor” (Latour 2005: 71). The term actor refers to all
elements engaging within the online community. I will use the term
stakeholder to refer only to the human actors within the online community.
(The definition of actors and is based on the literature in section 3.2.)
8
The actors I understand to be involved in Pool include:
This list of stakeholders and actors has emerged through data analysis of my
participant observation (explained in section 4.2.7, Data Analysis). I am
developing this list to observe how they identify themselves, Pool and other
groups and to understand their interest in Pool. I am also identifying their
shared understandings to better address RQ1b.
9
themselves from people they consider to be non-members? Does the Pool
community, or specific groups of stakeholders within it, have a particular
insider language which they use to communicate with each other? Are
boundaries in place to define where the community or its internal groups
begins or ends?
10
2.3 The Dynamics of Relationships Within Pool
Throughout this research, I use the term negotiation to describe the dynamics
of the relationships within the online community. Latour (2005) refers to these
dynamics as translation, enlistment, and enrolment to mean “a relation that
does not transport causality but induces two mediators into coexisting” (Latour
2005: 108). As Latour suggests, these terms are placeholders for how the
actors themselves define the process of negotiation. For the purposes of this
document I will simply use the term negotiation to cover them all (the
definition of negotiation and is based on the literature in section 3.4).
11
structure of Pool itself. Are the community members involved in management,
and if so to what extent? How might the institutional structure of Pool be
imagined? The operation guidelines of the institution, and the community,
impact on negotiation processes of the stakeholders.
12
as a mainstream media player and the government‟s plans for high-speed
broadband roll out by helping to drive user take up” (Debrett 2010: 201). My
preliminary observations of the ABC indicate an institutional shift to include
participatory online communities within particular divisions of the corporation.
By understanding the interests of the stakeholders and how they are
negotiated, a model might be formulated and applied to these divisions. What
can we learn from institutional online communities that can be included into
future ABC projects? How does the ABC need to shift and moderate its
policies? If the frameworks were different, what could user-generated content
potentially do for the ABC? By collecting richly textured data from an insider
perspective, I will show how the ABC is reacting to online communities. The
research also works towards understanding the role of the PSB in an online
media environment. Recent scholarly research asks and at times answers this
question, but often still lacks the depth of first-hand insight which this
ethnographic research project will provide. What are the implications beyond
the ABC? Can the ABC Pool model be applied to other PSBs?
3. Literature Review
13
described as “highly volatile and altered” due to “the explosion of Web 2.0
services and associated user-generated content” (Cunningham & Turner
2010: 2), the role of the public service broadcaster is under examination. Mark
Scott, the Managing Director of the ABC, asked the same question during his
2009 Commonwealth Broadcaster Association lecture. His line of enquiry was
“In a digital age of plenty, what role can the public broadcaster play?” (Scott
2009).
The interrogation of the ABC‟s role in the future of media broadcasting was
also addressed by the Department of Broadband, Communication and Digital
Economy‟s report ABC and SBS: Towards a Digital Future stating “new digital
technologies are radically changing the fundamentals of broadcasting and
media” (DBCDE 2008). This enquiry prompted scholarly research to define
how the Australian national broadcaster might position itself to work with
digital communication technology. Terry Flew (et al) (2008) cite this as an
opportunity for PSBs “to enhance and renew their Charter obligation as and
social innovation remit through public service media through user-created
content strategies, particularly in their provision of online service” (Flew et al.
2008: 2). This response brings into scope the significance of ABC platforms
encouraging user created content.
The ABC responded with the Strategic Plan 2009 – 2012 which offers two
solutions to re-position the institution within the evolving digital sphere (ABC
2009b). The reaction also reflects recent scholarly work on the role of the PSB
from a global perspective (Debrett 2010). Firstly, the ABC is drawing on the
deployment of new media platforms to provide additional avenues to distribute
media. Secondly, the institution is ensuring the national broadcaster
strengthens it use of technologies to engage audiences in new ways (Debrett
2010). One example of this strategy has been the introduction of tools such as
iView developed by ABC Innovation. The continuously fragmenting audience
has the option to consume its media on numerous platforms in an „on
demand‟ model – a model consistent with media trends (Deuze, Bruns &
Neuberger 2007).
14
Within the creative sector, an increase in user activity in ABC spaces such as
Artspost, Reface, and Pool establishes traction with their communities of
interest (ABC 2010). Users begin to contribute content to the public
broadcaster for numerous reasons, further outlined in section 5 - Preliminary
Analysis. Generally, users participate to publically display their work and to be
associated with the ABC brand. The increase in these grass roots, UGC
activities demonstrate greater interaction between online communities and the
ABC institution. Policy development and production techniques have evolved
to incorporate new models of user created content. Models such as these
have been termed co-creation activities (Banks 2002; Bruns 2008; Burgess &
Green 2009).
More broadly than the ABC, the community manager has developed from
early moderator roles, to community relations manager, to the community
manager. The following sections address RQ1a and RQ1b and outline how
15
the community manger position emerged at a similar pace that models of
institutional online communities sophisticated.
Cummings, Heeks, and Huysman (2006) suggest people are brought together
as being either „communities of circumstance‟ or „communities of interest‟.
Some online communities are communities of interest where participants are
brought together because of a bond, a common interest, or through the
sharing of knowledge. Cummings (et al) (2006) state communities of interest
“are critical because:
16
two actors interact. “Emphasis on weak ties lends itself to discussion of
relations between groups and to analysis of segments of social structure not
easily defined in terms of primary groups” (Granovetter 1973: 1380). The
strength of weak ties relates to online community to measure disparate actors
converging in one space. This research is not overly concerned with
examining established strong ties, but more with the dynamics of smaller,
weaker connections. Through analysis of smaller, fruitful interactions between
actors, larger-scale patterns form, and feed back into the actors (Granovetter
1973). The strength of weak ties is a concept I shall return to when describing
the community manager. In that description, the concept is used to describe
how the community manager endeavours to strengthen weak ties as part of
their role.
17
Hebdige refers to the „gay‟ meaning given to a jar of Vaseline by the „straight‟
world within Jean Genet‟s (1966) The Thief‟s Journal. His quote demonstrates
how individuals, both community members and non-community members, use
inherent understandings of “mundane objects” to construct a style. A symbol
exposes one meaning but also expresses a secondary connotation for those
attuned to its significance. A combination of symbols constitutes a style
defining boundaries for individuals who belong to a community. Alternatively,
boundaries are constructed by „others‟ as a means of understanding what
they are not – “signs of forbidden identity.” The style of a subculture, made up
of shared conventions of the actors is what enables me as a researcher to
identify the markers of community.
Bonniface (et al) (2006), who borrow the work of Maria Papadakis (2003),
define any community as a combination of three categories; “1) social capital,
2) social support and 3) a common culture” (Bonniface, Green & Swanson
2006: 93). Papadakis constructs community from “social interactions;
common ties; reciprocity in relationships; shared beliefs, values and cultural
habits among members; a sense of solidarity or community identity, among
members; standards of conduct for members; and members‟ ability to take
action” (Papadakis 2003). Papadakis‟ work contextualises this research by
identifying the conventions that constitute a community and shore up its
claims there are common characteristics between offline and online
communities.
18
develops Rheingold‟s research to investigate informal networks, or support
within groups of individuals. Wellman‟s research highlights intangible
elements within online communities can be as significant as the champion
nodes within any network (Wellman 1998).
19
Rheingold recalls of the WELL, “[n]orms were established, challenged,
changed, re-established, rechallenged, in a kind of speeded-up social
evolution” (Rheingold 1994: 2). The conventions an online community
establishes, as Rheingold suggests, are similar to Hebdige‟s argument of
subcultures in the 1970s. The online community imitates the elements of style
as a subculture, expressed through a universal understanding of conventions.
Membership within online communities also reflects „in‟ or „out‟ relationships
amongst the members and the non-members. Moreover, the WELL
establishing member‟s negotiation indicates the volatile nature of online
community management. In retrospect, the members of the WELL were
negotiating and establishing management protocol organically.
20
rarely have ventured into the spontaneous interpersonal communication in
which people perform their identities as audience members and, hence, have
given us too little insight into how the mass media are appropriated for
interpersonal services” (Baym 2000: 3). The common interest of the users
within r.a.t.s are soap television series. The newsgroups of r.a.t.s. become a
place where members can hang out, meet with each other, have idle chat,
swap opinions about the shows, and engage on a deeper level.
Baym‟s observations are situated within this research to outline the difference
of conventions within online communities (RQ1b). She outlines traits amongst
the members of the r.a.t.s. community through two key characteristics,
interpreting and comparing perspectives. The interpretive, comparative
analysis approach indicates how the knowledge of the stakeholders makes
the online community experience more valuable. As Baym points out,
individual community members not only view the text interpretively, they also
bring their „real life‟ knowledge and experience to the space. She notes the
depth and breadth of the knowledge in r.a.t.s. is vast and has the potential to
be immense.
21
3.2.4 A Shift in Online Communities
22
communities which engage in the collaborative creation and extension of
information and knowledge … the role of „consumer‟ and even that of „end
user‟ have long disappeared, and the distinctions between producers and
users of content have faded into comparative insignificance” (Bruns 2008: 2).
Bruns highlights four key produsage principals through Wikipedia‟s embrace
of an enthusiast community to succeed the failed approach of Nupedia –
Wikipedia‟s predecessor. Distributing the workload by declaring, “anyone can
edit” as Wikipedia‟s slogan substantially reduces the labour efforts of a
centralised body of experts. The absence of gatekeepers over the editorial
stronghold during the creation of content ensures the project‟s sustainability.
The granularity of the editorial process includes the affordances of the
stakeholders having a useful input into the creation of knowledge, or what
Pierre Lévy (1998) refers to as collective intelligence. Wikipedia incorporates
technological functionality that allows users to not only view content, but to
also edit and discuss edits, providing Wikipedians an opportunity to legitimise
the way accurate information is developed. This functionality, embraced
through the wiki technology, allows users more time to contribute more
articles and not merely concentrate on cosmetic edits of existing content.
Finally, an increased sense of ownership over the creation of the material
boosts the potential for further knowledge creation through contribution (Bruns
2008).
23
any group of stakeholders within the online community may receive “greater
visibility” and become community leaders (Jenkins 2006).
Increased interest of “the buzzword status of Web 2.0 and similar terms also
indicates the significant commercial and industrial attention now paid to the
new models of community and content development now emerging from the
realm of social software” (Bruns 2008: 16). Crowdsourcing, as Margaret
Simons describes it, “is the idea that a crowd of people, geographically
dispersed but sharing common purpose, can achieve things better or
differently to small groups of professionals and gatekeepers” (Simons 2007:
87). Crowdsourcing is established as a form of sourcing UGC from the “pro-
am” (Leadbeater & Miller 2004) sector, prompting institutions to organize their
business models around online social networks. Within the media industry, we
begin to see the „casual collapse‟ of those that do not embrace the power of
content creation and alternatively the rise of new media providers harnessing
the collective input of the participatory culture (Bruns 2008). Burgess and
24
Green (2009) observe participatory culture becoming a central focus for pillar
social media corporations – those that rely solely on the contributions of the
participants. “For YouTube, participatory culture is not a gimmick or a
sideshow; it is absolute core business” (Burgess & Green 2009: 6).
A hybrid version of commercial and social economy now appears. Banks and
Humphries (2008) argue, the convergence of the two economies are
“at its most challenging and provocative not when it positions peer
production networks and motivations in outright opposition to the
commercial, but when it considers hybrid configurations and the
entities that emerge, which are an uneasy and at times a messy mix of
the commercial and non-commercial, markets and non-markets, the
proprietary and the non-proprietary” (Banks & Humphreys 2008: 406).
Benkler, Banks, and Humphries all suggest there are benefits of institutions
adapting these new forms of economic models. “Harnessing the economic
benefits and opportunities of peer production relies on firms adapting to and
25
coexisting with social networks” (Benkler 2006: 287). Adapting peer
production suggests combining the gift economy into the existing production
models of institutions.
26
Participation
Community Gift
of Notability Contribution
Social Status
Increased
Increase of
Social Value
Member
27
tension between ad hoc meritocracies consisting of heterarchical models is
negotiated with a hierarchical gift economy.
The following literature and case studies are precursors in defining the
conventions of ABC Pool. The case studies address RQ1b by outlining the
tensions between conventions of online communities and institutions.
28
accurateness of shared information. To challenge the level of professionalism
of shared information, Bonniface and Green suggest:
The scholars refer to medical advice, yet the sentiment is true for most
communities of interest. The quote highlights a challenge of accurate peer-
reviewed advice from other community members that is questioned by
medical experts. Should a community member change their medication
without proper medical advice, potentially catastrophic results could occur.
This situation requires „managed openness‟ (defined further in section 3.4.5)
to allow accurate, relevant information to emerge from the community, but in
consultation with professional clinicians.
29
extensively on the work and leadership of a professional core team” (Wilson,
Saunders & Bruns 2008: 248).
The scholars discuss four central concepts to the hybrid nature within “media
work” (Deuze 2007) predicated on the “preditor” (Miller 2007), a neologism of
“producer” and “editor”. The preditor is a new media employee that normally
works in a production and editorial role, but also in an institutional role within a
community of participants. The role of the preditor, as described by Wilson (et
al), encompasses four main principals.
i) Networking
ii) Community Work
iii) Content Work
iv) Tech Work
The individuals occupying these roles take on much more than merely
producing content for a website. Website usability, time frames, budget, and
journalistic principals of ethics and legalities are conventions citizen journalists
may not be informed on. Could, or indeed should, a political enthusiast
socially commentating understand the budgetary constraints of a website?
Similarly, is it understood that a citizen journalist incorporates journalism
ethics and legal knowledge into their practice? The differences in these
shared understandings outline the deficiency of this community contributing to
a project housed by multiple institutions where potential conflicts may arise.
The institutional online community does not simply emerge; they are a
coordinated effort set up by the community themselves and other times by
institutions. Some institutional communities are established for the benefit of
the community with a particular purpose. Support and access to resources
provide a substantial incentive for members to participate. As companies
increase in size in online spaces, the thinking shifts to suggest dedicated
positions are required. Institutions are no longer merely providing the system
and the administrators; they also need people to coordinate these efforts for
the benefit of the institution and the community. Shifts such as this indicate
how the role of the community manager becomes important.
30
3.3 The ABC Develops Pool
“... a social media space that brings together ABC professionals and
audiences in an open-ended process of participation, co-creation and
collaboration.” (ABC 2011)
31
resources, providing a secure online space, and access to professional
mentoring. The notion of Pool as a product diminishes and gives rise to Pool
as a process through its continual iterative evolution.
Pool is seen to support and indeed develop new approaches towards the
creative industries within Australia through complex and richly textured
involvement of community, industry, and policy. By publicly stating, “here
comes everybody” (Shirky 2008), Pool is strategically positioned between “the
people formerly known as the audience” (Rosen 2006) and the public service
broadcaster. This unique position highlights multiple challenges and
opportunities, managed internally by the ABC.
32
collaborative efforts between members. These mechanics within the Pool
management are significant instruments becoming explicit in the operation of
the site, purposefully built into the infrastructure.
The agency of the user is not ignored in the dynamic of managing the site,
where self-management is a significant mechanism employed within the Pool
infrastructure. A unique Pool username and login provides a secure space for
community members to publish their work, and enables Pool users to manage
their own space. The ability to „self-manage‟ allows users to determine where
their content is and is not visible within the site, and more broadly visibility
within the ABC. Further, this functionality provides members the opportunity to
produce content for specific purposes, including producing works for the sake
of producing works, gathering works, belonging to a media community, and
being a part of the ABC (Foley et al. 2009).
33
Expanding on the preditor philosophy, Poolcast was an idea internally
generated from the Pool members, yet did not transcend entirely until the Pool
team became involved in the production process. The Pool team provided the
tools for the members to create the Poolcasts through platform, media assets,
software, and education. The Pool team aimed to develop a model for
creative processes. The model was one not of a rigid basis but one that is
used as a trigger for creative participation which is a pragmatic tool to be built
upon and changed through the dynamic of the Pool members. Additionally,
the Pool team also included links to external Open Source software, providing
users the opportunity to remix the media assets via third party applications. By
providing tools, software, and examples, the Pool team not only facilitated
remix and production of a podcast, they also engaged the creative agency of
participants through nurturing and capacity building.
Pool also promotes innovation by opening channels for dialogue with ABC
experts. Pool is housed within the ABC and has three professional,
experienced radio producers steering it. They provide expert knowledge on
media production and cultural expertise for the Pool participants. Additionally,
34
the Pool team has access to other ABC professionals and cultural experts.
The Pool members therefore have indirect access to expert input from a
broad array of ABC professionals. Past examples include the City Nights
project where content was gathered from Pool participants. Pool members
were offered expert feedback from in-house ABC producers on their work they
contributed to the ABC Radio National program, 360documentaries. Upon re-
submitting this content, several pieces of creative contributions were selected
for broadcast on the City Nights episode.
Within this new framework, ABC experts and participants enter to create
media products through co-creation. John Banks and Jean Burgess (2009)
describe co-creation as a way that users “collectively contribute to the social,
cultural and economic value of... media products... and likewise, it indicates
the ways in which platform providers (however imperfectly) integrate user-
participation into their own models of production.” (Burgess & Banks 2009:
298) The notion of co-creation outlines the interaction or collaboration on
production between community members and PSB professionals.
Additionally, it suggests Pool is concerned with incorporating this practice into
the platform as a production model outlined through the recent redesign
documents (Foley et al. 2009). Co-creation was documented as a substantial
incentive for „prosumers‟ to contribute content. The attraction of addressing a
seemingly unreachable audience made possible through broadcast, and by
attaching the ABC brand, emerged as one of the top reasons for people to
participate in Pool (Foley et al. 2009). The value of Pool with the ABC brand
reiterates the significance of the PSB being involved in cultural production of
artifacts.
35
the mechanics are, how they work, and what happens during this negotiation
process. This literature addresses RQ1c.
36
these technologies is interesting in understanding the relationship of
technology with the online community.
“People say „television has altered the world‟, or „radio has altered the
world‟, or, reaching further back, „printing altered the world‟. And we
usually, at first, know what these statements mean. Evident and
widespread social effects have undoubtedly followed the uses of all
these inventions. But then, in expanding the statements in this way, we
have already – and sometimes without noticing it – introduced a further
category: that of uses.” (Williams 1989: 175).
The technology surrounding UGC and social media has improved social
networking, but it is the uses that have mass social significance. “The Web
2.0 concept captured features that have long been seen as central to the Web
as a communication infrastructure, such as the scope for mass participation,
real-time interactivity, collaborative learning, and social networking.” (Flew &
Wilson 2008: 25) It is these “uses” that provide opportunities for the
stakeholders of online communities.
Zittrain also suggests the innovative edge of the Internet is under threat. If we
are locked into platforms, or proprietary systems, how can new ideas emerge
from within our existing practices? Zittrain outlines four specific areas of
generativity, additional to the description above, that engage the openness of
technology design. The technology design must have strong leverage against
possible tasks; it must adapt to the range of tasks; it must be easy to master;
37
and it must be accessible. (Zittrain 2008) These categories of generativity
present low barriers of entry for stakeholders yielding high negotiation
possibilities.
The central idea of RQ1b addresses Pool operating under the ABC auspices:
the structure of the community intersecting with the institutional structure. As
an institutional online community, Pool cannot freely exist without challenging
and complying with the overarching management protocol that also governs
other ABC online spaces, and broadcasting in general. This governance
protocol challenges any fluid heterarchical formation of the Pool community in
relation to the institution.
38
3.4.3 Human Negotiation
The concept of the „invisible gap‟ was introduced by Star (1995) to describe
institutional management. Star‟s argument highlights the differing nature of
expertise required by managers and the effect of their actions. Collins and
Sanders‟ (2007) suggest the scale of expertise lay between directly applied
expertise and referred expertise. Directly applied expertise suggests the
process is more significant than the applied skill. Referred expertise can be
defined as “a grasp of some elements of the tacit knowledge pertaining to the
particular [task] in question” (Collins & Sanders 2007: 640). An individual
possessing directly applied expertise can be relatively competent within any
industry because of the common language shared between multiple contexts.
Referred expertise however requires the individual to posses a level of directly
related skills to be competent in performing any task. The more appropriate
framework to employ within institutional online communities might be
39
interactional expertise. “Although expressed as language alone, it cannot be
too heavily stressed, interactional expertise is tacit knowledge-laden and
context specific” (Collins, Evans & Gorman 2007: 661). An online community
facilitator with interactional expertise can perform a “translation role that
facilitates and supports communication, dialogue and exchange across
expertise domains” (Banks 2009: 85).
40
community manager is the most suitable stakeholder to perform the task.
Normative questions arise on the community manager‟s ability to perform this
task and indeed under what circumstances. The activities a community
manager undertakes are partly human, partly institutional, and partly
technological.
Essentially the community manager, in various forms, has existed since the
conception of the online community. Rheingold (1994) makes reference to a
moderator keeping the online community focused whilst providing a safe
space. He suggests the inclusion of a moderator assists in fostering a
cooperative, supportive environment as demonstrated through “computer
supported cooperative play” (Rheingold 1994: 188). Banks (2002) referred to
the community manager position as the community relations manager placed
between community and institution. “In my position as online community
relations manager, I am often positioned within the company as an advocate
for and representative of the fans” (Banks 2002: 194). Banks is describing first
hand the managed tension through translating the interests of the fan base
41
users to the commercial developers. As the community relations manager,
Banks sourced development material from the developers for release to the
fan base community who would collaboratively co-create features of the
game. The developers were concerned that releasing plans too early into the
community could cause a disruption to the “stability, quality and deliverability
of a software development project” (Banks 2002: 194). Banks was also in
direct contact with the community of hard-core gamer fans who “expect game
companies to release editing tools and support the fan community‟s efforts to
create additional content for the game” (Banks 2002: 195). These hard-core
gamers expected high levels of interaction during the development process,
as they are the group who regularly engage the final product. The developers
and the community have similar goals yet construct different approaches in
achieving them.
As the online community has been gradually sophisticating, so too has the
person to manage the space. The online community increasingly requires the
engagement of a dedicated person as the mediator between all of the actors
within the space. The community manager represents any “project must install
one go-to guy (or girl) who will thanklessly toil day and night to keep the
project on the rails” (Howe 2006). This person shifted from a „slash employee‟
to a dedicated community manager. They are not the “System
Administrator/Community Manger” or “Product Development/Community
42
Manager” anymore, but a dedicated community manager. However, confusion
still surrounds who this person is and what they do.
The following two quotes are from community managers who post in a global
online discussion forum for community managers, eMint. The comments are
ethically re-published (permission has been given) and discuss the definition
of the community manager:
“I have come to accept [the definition] because it‟s not worth getting
worked up over and it‟s just a reflection of the growth of the space,
which is good for everyone. At this point, there are a few definitions of
community manager. So many different responsibilities are being
thrown under that title: social media monitoring (and responding to
mentions), public face of the brand, corporate blogger, customer
service representative, social media marketer, online marketer and, of
course, someone who manages actual structured communities that the
company has started and/or engages in.” Patrick O‟Keefe, eMint forum
7/1/11
43
a crucial driver of uptake, as the champion‟s enthusiasm can be
enough to convince other members of the organisation to incorporate
the project into the group‟s communication ecology” (Bruns &
Humphreys 2010: 54).
Taylor (2006), Banks (2009), Collins et al. (2007) and Star (1995) highlight
particular elements not utilised to represent the specific particularities of
practices constituting the modes of management and how we describe them
(Taylor 2006). This is the starting point for describing the type of management
used within online communities. The literature does not propose the
implications on creative communities within a public broadcaster.
44
understand that the communities need to feel like they own the space, even if
they don‟t perceptually (Bruns 2008). A concept such as this leads to the
notion I describe as „managed openness‟.
ABC Online has been the latest division to be shored up by the national
broadcaster to deliver content over multiple digital platforms and to engage
audiences in new and challenging ways (ABC 2010; Debrett 2010). Fulfilling
these requirements sees the departments of ABC Online distribute content
that fails to fit into the market but is compliant with the ABC‟s social and
political remit. For the ABC to continue to pursue its remit, it needs to be
working within online communities such as ABC Pool. This shift is the result of
scholarly research, internal and external interrogation, and a shift of a
fragmenting audience.
45
receiving UGC, or being „in‟ valve as well as an „out‟ valve. As outlined earlier,
the corporation has a significant interest in engaging with online communities.
The challenge the corporation now faces is how exactly to do this and how to
build policy for the implementation of user contributions.
ABC Pool is a significant example for research that represents the growth of
online communities within institutions (Banks 2009, Burgess & Green 2009,
Wilson & Saunders & Bruns 2008). This is demonstrated through other online
communities like ABC Open, Heywire, or JJJ Unearthed. If the model of ABC
Pool is executed well, the model may be retrofitted to other institutional online
communities within public service broadcasters. If the model is successful
within the public broadcasting section, the question of the significance of the
public broadcaster within the research emerges. Can the model be adapted to
institutional online communities outside of the PSB? This research project
provides me with an opportunity to collect rich, deeply textured ethnographic
data of the ABC Pool community. My contribution to knowledge is describing
how an online community of creative practitioners operates within a public
broadcasting institution by observing, documenting, and understanding this
incredibly complex relationship.
4. Research Design
By being embedded within the Pool community and situated within the ABC
this research adopts an ethnographic methodology. Ethnography provides a
way to approach social research through participant observation. Hammersley
and Atkinson (1995) define ethnography as a methodology that:
46
listening to what is said, asking questions – in fact, collecting whatever
data are available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the
research.” (Hammersley & Atkinson 1995: 11)
Georgina Born‟s seminal work Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the
Reinvention of the BBC (Born 2005) was a ten-year ethnographic research
project on the BBC. During this time she was able to gain a thorough
understanding of the cultures within the BBC, whilst observing the change of
two of its historically significant leaders. This ethnographic work provides an
important study of the world‟s largest public broadcaster. Nancy Baym‟s
ethnographic research of online fan communities provides another example of
applying ethnographic methodology within the media field. Within this
research Baym was able to gain an understanding of who participates in
these online forums, how they actually do this and what their incentives are.
An experienced ethnographer, Baym outlines at the offset of her study her
role as an active participant in the communities she studies, and the
subjective nature of her involvement within the space. These works provide
helpful models for undertaking ethnographic research that I draw on.
47
The specific nature of my engagement with the ABC and the Pool project has
the implication that it is not simply broadly ethnographic research but more
specifically ethnographic action research. “Action research means integrating
your research into the development of your project.” (Tacchi, Slater & Hearn
2003: 12) Unlike the work of Born, for example, my project sees me actively
involved in the community as the community manager. This position sees me
working with the ABC team and offering advice. I am placed between the ABC
management team and the Pool community in a mediating role that seeks to
improve Pool‟s operations and the ABC‟s engagement with Pool‟s community
of users. The research constitutes ethnographic action research as my direct
interventions within the site and relationships seek to inform and potentially
improve the research participants‟ practices (Herr & Anderson 2004).
48
4.2 Data Collection Methods
The following elements, participant observation, field notes, focus groups, in-
depth interviews, and data analysis are the key components in my research
methodology:
49
that I am using. This process allows me to create graphic representations of
data for further analysis.
Field notes constitute a key research method of the first twelve months of
research. The resulted themes have helped outline relationships that surround
Pool and its community and address RQ1a and RQ1b. I have clearly identified
how the site is managed, why people are creating content, and where the
future of Pool may lie. I have also identified the key participants within Pool,
relevant ABC staff, and beneficial external individuals. This not only benefits
my research process by providing a starting point for focus group research,
but also addresses the outlined development to online community practices
within the ABC in RQ2.
4.2.3 Participants
The participants involved are Pool community members, key ABC staff, and
other external individuals who serve as Community Managers within their
online communities. Participants from Pool will include a mixture of the
Community Editors and creative contributors who are active members. The
key ABC staff will be Pool team members, management in the Radio
Multiplatform and Content Development Division, other people involved in
ABC online communities (for example Hungry Beast moderators, Online
News moderators), and senior levels of management, ideally including ABC
Managing Director Mark Scott. External industry contacts Alison Michalk at
Quiip, and Venessa Paech at Lonely Planet will provide additional insights
into the role of the Community Manager. I am already connected to these
external contacts through the Australian Community Managers Roundtable
50
that meet regularly to exchange information from their respective
communities.
I will conduct focus groups as part of the research process. A focus group is a
small group of participants, usually eight to ten from the same community that
are gathered to talk about emerging areas of the research project (Tacchi,
Slater & Hearn 2003). The purpose of conducting focus groups is to gain
insights into the benefits of group dynamics - conversation that might not
emerge in one-on-one interviews, where conversation is directed (Breen
2006). I will play a significant role in this process, as it is my job as a
Community Manager to stimulate and facilitate the discussion and maintain
focus, while not inhibiting any interesting developments. I will use a set of
open-ended questions to prompt the discussion. The questions may include
the preliminary themes and relationships emerging from my field notes.
The selection criteria for the focus group‟s participants will be constructed and
finalised as the fieldwork research concludes. For example, the more vocal
and constructive members are obvious, along with the more engaged users,
suggesting these users for peopled ethnography (Brown-Saracino, Thurk &
Fine 2008). Similarly, I am talking with ABC staff to gain insight on who has
informed opinions on these emerging research topics.
51
own words and in their own way” (Tacchi, Slater & Hearn 2003: 61). This
method of research works on a more refined set of themes to discuss in a
one-on-one basis with people directly involved with Pool, and involved with
online communities. In-depth interviews will occur during 2011. The interview
schedule will build on the outcomes of focus groups. It will also incorporate
the foundational research, and the data from participant-observer fieldwork.
The techniques and research tools described above outline how I will collect
raw field data, enabling me to understand and address the core research
questions and topics. In ethnography, time is spent daily to understand what
issues are emerging, develop ideas and interpretations to pursue through
further investigation, and explore the ideas through all of the different types of
material I am gathering (Tacchi, Slater & Hearn 2003). I will be able to identify
and analyse relevant themes and issues from the gathered data. The data
analysis is important because it establishes developmental answers central to
the unknown issues in the research problem. The established findings will
52
assist in understanding what the community wants and where the shift in
agency to a read/write culture may occur.
During the methods of participant observation, field notes, focus groups, and
in-depth interviews, I will adopt an approach that Hammersley and Atkinson
suggest as organizing themes. These organizing themes are “based on folk
models: the terms, images, and ideas that are current in the culture itself,”
(Hammersley & Atkinson 1995: 125) suggesting a structure of categories and
frameworks the participants use to understand current practices and
relationships. Early indications suggest conventions surrounding Pool‟s
development and incorporating enabling technology are emerging from the
community participants. Additionally models addressing community
interactions that highlight new ways of managing the community, or possibly
self-regulation, are appearing. These areas suggest how to group themes
together from a participant‟s perspective (Lammes 2007).
The data analysis will highlight where research gaps appear and where
further work is needed, allowing additional research to take place. This is an
iterative cycle, where the research is informing the practice as detailed
information is extracted from the gathered data (Blessing & Chakrabarti
2009).
This research method asks the participants to plot out where they see the
boundaries of their space. Within this project, I am asking the participants to
refine their conventions of community within the online space of Pool. For
example, how do they understand the interactions with each other to define
their community? Through social analysis, I will begin to understand how the
community socially interacts with each other. “Categories of production,
exchange, organization, communication and inquiry will be used in order to
organize and give shape to the information” (Atkinson et al. 2005: 48). I will
then visually represent these key thematic concepts to provide an
understanding of how they interact with and co-depend upon each other. It
also assists in answering the research problem visually, which becomes
53
critical within my second and third year of research as I begin to merge my
field data with existing field literature.
54
5. Research Outcomes – Preliminary Analysis
The Pool team consists of three ABC staff, two university media students
undertaking internships, and one PhD researcher. The ABC staff includes one
Executive Producer (EP) and two Community Managers (CM). The EP is full
time over five days per week and the CMs interweave their Pool duties with
their other role as radio producers. Table 1.1 describes how the Pool team
distributes their weekly hours between Pool and their respective Radio
National programs with 88 dedicated hours to Pool per week. The time
allocation determines what can be accomplished through the practical
application of their skills. The Pool team has a collective wealth of knowledge,
demonstrated by their past experience of media production and project
management at the ABC.
The Executive Producer, Sherre DeLys has a history in program making in the
Radio National Music Unit. She has created radio features and documentaries
for the Science Unit and the Social History Unit. DeLys has been with the
ABC for over 12 years and is one of the founding members of the Pool
project.
DeLys‟ skills are in being able to balance the requirements of the Pool
project and community against the operational policies of the ABC. At
times, she is one level abstracted from the day-to-day operations and
concentrates on the bureaucratic procedures of keeping the project
operating within the institution. Field notes 14th May 2010
55
Andrew Davies is one of the community managers allocating two days to Pool
and three days as the co-producer of the Radio National program Future
Tense. Davies has been employed at the ABC for seven years and is the
newest member to the Pool team, having joined Pool in March 2009. Davies
has
John Jacobs is the other community manager who works on Pool for 1.5 days
per week and produces The Night Air program for the other 2.5 days. He is
the other founding member of Pool, and has been employed at the ABC for 25
years. During that time, Jacobs has worked in different ABC departments
including Radio National, the News Department, and the Youth Radio
Network, JJJ. Jacobs
“joined the ABC in 1985. Since then he has engineered, produced and
created many radio programs, winning international awards and
establishing leading ABC innovations such as The Night Air and
pool.org.au.” John Jacobs
Although the team is resourced for 131.5 hours per week, there have often
been times where I have witnessed all members working beyond their
allocated Pool hours. There is a “labour of love” attitude amongst the team
members demonstrated through their commitment to provide a successful and
dynamic space for the community members. The commitment level is
reflected internally towards the Pool project as many of the ABC staff
members I have had direct interaction with comment on the dedicated nature
of the Pool team. The level of interaction of the Pool team with the project is
beyond the day-to-day operations and is an example of multiple management
negotiation mechanisms.
56
The Pool team collectively understands the complexity of the public service
broadcaster‟s social, economic, and political constitution enabling them to
strategically position Pool within the institution. I often hear the comment from
the Pool team members “That‟s a good strategic decision” referring to a
decision that will favour Pool in a positive light within the ABC. This type of
decision-making is only possible by a person who understands the institution
in which the online community operates. The team understands how to retrofit
Pool for other units and departments of the ABC, increasing the appeal of the
community. The strategic positioning may involve „buy in‟ from ABC
departments resulting in additional, and sometimes conflicting, interests.
Discussions on the website are practices that reveal how Pool operates as an
online creative community. Comments of the members display day-to-day
encounters through the interpersonal relationships of the Pool online
community. Within these discussions conventions emerge amongst the
members, defining how the users participate within the space. The following
case study describes one piece of content contributed by a member, and the
subsequent discussion amongst other members. Additional excerpts from an
interview with the contributor highlight her reactions to the online conversation
and her reasons for participating in Pool. Finally, the interactions are
contextualized to outline how the Pool management team contributes to the
discussions and convention construction.
The Content
57
A Sense of Self
(http://www.pool.org.au/image/susandirgham/a_sense_of_self) is Susan
Dirgham‟s photographic Pool contribution questioning the “equality of women
regardless of their race, religion, or social status” (Dirgham on Pool, 2010).
She explores this convention through an image of a young Muslim girl
casually dressed in a scarf, easily mistaken as a hijab, leaning against a
painted black and white canvas backdrop. Susan has titled the image “Lubna
in Brunswick St Gallery, Fitzroy,” and has added a small “SusanD” watermark
on the bottom right hand corner. The lighting for the image is one single,
harsh light focused on who is presumably Lubna, positioned to the right of the
frame.
The photograph is accompanied by a short text piece outlining the artist‟s goal
in publishing this work. Susan says:
“I hope that the images I take help reinforce my conviction that the
majority of women across the globe have a strong sense of self and
are not easily shut-up or put down, Muslim or non-Muslim, Christian or
non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu etc.” (9th August 2010)
Susan further explains that religion is not the only influencing factor on the
equality of all women; it is also significant to education, work opportunities,
family and community attitudes.
“My blood pressure was rising and I could take it no more. In my most
polite and sweetest manner I turned around and in a voice that was
58
firm pointed out that what she was talking about was complete and
utter crap…” (Mountaingirl, 27th July 2010)
Susan and Mountaingirl are arguably evaluating the position of women within
society through their online, hypertextual conversation. Susan is using her
skill as a photographer to express her opinion, while Mountaingirl uses text to
express hers. Susan contextualises her photograph by acknowledging
Mountaingirl‟s blog entry, “…it helps to explain my distractions and concerns.”
After some initial suggestions from the Pool team to include text with her
images, Susan began to explore how writing could “give story” to her
photography. “Thanks for the encouragement! I‟ve started to work on words to
go with the images” (12th January 2009) was Susan‟s first comment on Pool.
The third image Susan contributed to Pool, Mt Kassioun and Date Palms, was
accompanied with the following text:
Susan has since expanded her skills to include audio and video recordings of
her subjects and has published these on Pool. The comments that followed
59
from ABC producers suggest Susan has interesting subject choices and can
tell a story well, however her lack of technical ability inhibits her productions
from being broadcast on the ABC. Susan herself admits the learning curve
she is experiencing is challenging, however she is enjoying developing her
skills.
d.‟s first comment begins the discussion by questioning why Susan has
attached a political agenda to her creative contribution.
60
with the photos – and I am particularly worried that this may be
counterproductive on a number of different fronts.” (14th August 2010)
The “fronts” that d. refers to is Susan not representing all Muslim women
equally as she has only sampled a select group of young Muslim women. d.
questions Susan‟s “statement” to suggest her representation of young Muslim
women may not be true of all Muslim women. She suggests viewers of
Susan‟s work might interpret her representation as a discourse of Muslim
women to be a “counterproductive” practice. d. argues her point further by
making the analogy of people knowing what all women think and want – a
group that “I am clearly not part of.” Finally d. refers to a similar argument of
misrepresentation by mundial, that she says supports her argument.
61
“I just want to think, and this is an organic, ongoing process for me
which does rely on discussion and interaction with the world, people
and ideas etc” (14th August 2010).
A comment from mundial refers to a story of his mother, who wears a full
hijab. Mundial recalls the first year he could vote, he chose not to and his
mother reminded him of what the right to vote means. Mundial argues a fresh
opinion in the existing conversation:
62
and to discuss her own personal reflexivity of the piece. Lastly Susan
suggests she is on her own path of enlightenment and welcomes critical
reflection on “anything I may present which is not respectful of people, of
„humanity‟ etc” (20th August 2010). Susan concludes her reflection on
criticism by saying “All of the above makes me pretty fearless and determined;
it means I tend not to take critical comments personally” (ibid).
Discussion
The example of one conversation within a group of people who rarely meet
constitutes one definition of community within Pool. Conversation
demonstrates how this online community operates. These interactions are
fundamental in establishing how the users define what Pool is and how they
use the space. The Pool team is aware of the significance of commentary and
acknowledges this interaction to be a significant practice as noted during an
editorial meeting on the 23rd August 2010. In some cases, they suggest that
commentary can be “the main game” where “the content is the trigger” to a
much “deeper type of interaction.” Commentary is also a way of instigating
participation from members not creatively inclined to produce work – “most
people can type but not all can take a photograph.”
63
6. Timeline
7. Ethics
I have ethical clearance for this research however I have recently commenced
employment at the ABC as the Community Manager of Pool. I am in the
process of seeking an ethical variation document. I am aware of the
implications of my position as a researcher and as an ABC employee and
64
clearly state my employment basis before any engagement with research
subjects.
8. Coursework
I have completed all the coursework requirements for this doctoral research
program. It includes Advanced Information Retrieval Skills (AIRS – IFN001)
and Approaches to Enquiry in the Creative Industries (KKP601).
9. Sources Cited
65
Barber, W & Badre, A 1998, 'Culturability: The Merging of Culture and
Usability', paper presented to 4th Conference on Human Factors and
the Web, Baskin, Ridge, New Jersey.
Baym, NK 2000, Tune In Log On: Soaps Fandom and Online Community,
New Media Cultures, Sage Publications Inc., London.
Benkler, Y 2006, The Wealth of Networks, 1st edn, Yale University Press,
New Haven.
Berger, A 2000, Media And Communication Research Methods : An
Introduction Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage
Publications, USA.
Bergquist, M & Ljungberg, J 2001, 'The Power of Gifts: Organizing Social
Relationships in Open Source Communities', Information Systems
Journal, no. 11, pp. 305 - 20.
Bledsoe, E 2010, What is CC?, Creative Commons, viewed 19th August
29010 2010, <http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc>.
Blessing, LTM & Chakrabarti, A 2009, DRM, a Design Research
Methodology, Springer London, London.
Bonniface, L & Green, L 2007, 'Finding a new kind of knowledge on the
HeartNET website', Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 24,
no. 1, pp. 67 -76.
Bonniface, L, Green, L & McMahon, T 2007, 'Adapting a New Identity', M/C
Journal, vol. 10, no. 2.
Bonniface, L, Green, L & Swanson, M 2005, 'Affect and an Effective Online
Therapeutic Community', M/C Journal, vol. 8, no. 6.
---- 2006, 'Communication on a Health-Related Website Offering Therapeutic
Support - Phase 1 of the HeartNET Website', Australian Journal of
Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 89 - 107.
Born, G 2005, Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC,
Random House, London.
Breen, R 2006, 'A practical Guide to Focus Group Research', Journal of
Geogrpaphy in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 463 - 75.
Brown-Saracino, J, Thurk, J & Fine, GA 2008, 'Beyond groups: seven pillars
of peopled ethnography in organizations and communities ', Sage
Publications, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 547 - 67.
66
Bruns, A 2008, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production
to Produsage, Peter Lang, New York.
Bruns, A & Humphreys, S 2010, 'Research Adventures in Web 2.0:
Encouraging Collaborative Local Content Creation through edgeX',
Media International Australia, no. 136, pp. 42 - 59.
Burgess, J & Banks, J 2009, 'User-created Content and Online Social
Networks', in S Cunningham & G Turner (eds), The Media and
Communications in Australia, 3 edn, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, pp.
295 - 306.
Burgess, J & Green, J 2009, YouTube: online video and participatory culture,
Polity Press, Cambridge.
Collins, H, Evans, R & Gorman, M 2007, 'Trading Zones and Interactional
Expertise', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, no. 4,
pp. 657 - 66.
Collins, H & Sanders, G 2007, 'They Give you the Keys and Say 'Drive It!'
Managers, referred expertise, and other expertise', Studies in History
and Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, pp. 621 - 41.
Cummings, S, Heeks, R & Huysman, M 2006, 'Knowledge and Learning in
Online Communities in Development: A Social Capital Perspective',
Development in Practice, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 570 - 86.
Cunningham, S & Turner, G 2010, Media and Communication in Australia, 3
edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Cutler, T 2008, Venturous Australia, Cutler and Company Pty Ltd, Melbourne.
C Department of Broadband, and the Digital Economy 2008, ABC and SBS:
Towards a digital future., DBCDE.
Debrett, M 2010, Reinventing Public Service Television for the Digital Future,
Intellect, Bristol.
Deuze, M 2007, Media Work (Digital Media and Society), Polity Press,
London.
Deuze, M, Bruns, A & Neuberger, C 2007, 'Preparing for an Age of
Participatory News ', Journalism Practice, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 322-40.
Fine, GA 2003, 'Towards a peopled ethnography : Developing theory from
group life', Ethnography, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 41 - 60.
67
Flew, T, Cunningham, S, Bruns, A & Wilson, J 2008, 'Social Innovation, User
Generated Content and the Future of the ABC and SBS as Public
Service Media', p. 26.
Flew, T & Wilson, J 2008, 'Citizen Journalism and Political Participation - The
Youdecide 2007 project and the 2007 Australian Federal Election',
Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 35, no. 2, p. 22.
Foley, M, Yuille, J, Marmo, C & Stanton, R 2009, Pool User Research,
Australasian Cooperative Research Centre for Interactive Design,
Melbourne.
Granovetter, M 1973, 'The Strength of Weak Ties', American Journal of
Sociology, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 1360 - 80.
Green, J & Jenkins, H 2009, 'The Moral Economy of Web 2.0', in J Holt & A
Perren (eds), Media Industries: history theory and method, Wiley-
Blackwell, Maiden MA, pp. 213 - 25 & 31 - 44.
Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P 1995, Ethnography Principles in Practice,
Routledge, London.
Hebdige, D 1979, Subculture, The Meaning of Style, 1st edn, Routledge,
London.
Herr, K & Anderson, G 2004, The Action Research Dissertation: A guide for
students and faculty, SAGE Publishing, London.
Howe, J 2006, The Rise of Crowdsourcing, Wired Magazine, viewed 12th
March 2010 2010,
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds_pr.html>.
James, P, Phipps, P & Mulligan, M 2004, Community Sustainability.info, RMIT
University, viewed 3rd April 2010 2010,
<http://www.communitysustainability.info/index.html>.
Jenkins, H 2006, Convergence Culture - Where Old and New Media Collide,
1st edn, New York University Press.
Kondratova, I & Goldfarb, I 2005, 'Cultural Visual Interface Design', paper
presented to World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Lammes, S 2007, 'Approaching game-studies: Towards a reflexive
methodology of games as situated cultures. Situated Play', paper
presented to 3rd International Conference of DIGRA., Tokyo, Japan.
68
Latour, B 2005, Reassembling the Social, Oxford University Press, New York.
Lave, J & Wenger, E 1991, Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral
Participation, 1st edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Leadbeater, C 2008, We-Think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production,
Profile, London.
Leadbeater, C & Miller, P 2004, The Pro-Am Revolution: How Enthusiasts are
Changing Our Economy and Society, Demos, London.
Nightingale, V 1996, Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real, Routledge,
London & New York.
O'Reilly, T 2005, What is Web 2.0, viewed 25th January 2011,
<http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>.
Oudshoorn, N, Rommes, E & Steinstra, M 2004, 'Configuring the User as
Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and
Communication Technologies', Science, Technology, & Human Values,
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 30 - 64.
Papadakis, M 2003, Computer-mediated Communities: The Implications of
information, communication, and computational technologies for
creating communities online, Final Report, SRI International, Arlington,
Virginia.
Rheingold, H 1994, The Virtual Community - Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier, 1st edn, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.
---- 2006, 'Social Networks and the Nature of Communities', in P Purcell (ed.),
Networked Neighbourhoods - The Connected Community in Context,
Spinger-Verlag, London, pp. 47 - 76.
Rosen, J 2006, The People Formerly Known as the Audience, 10 October
2009, New York University, New York,
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/25/bbc.broadcasting>.
Scott, M 2009, ABC Values to AL Conference, 17th March 2009.
Shirky, C 2008, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organising without
Organisations, Allen Lane, New York.
Simons, M 2007, The Content Makers: understanding the media in Australia,
Penguin Books, Camberwell.
Star, SL 1995, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and
Organizational Complexity', in SL Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge:
69
Work and Politics in Science and Technology SUNY Press, Albany
N.Y.
Stivale, CJ 1997, 'Spam: Heteroglossia and Harassment in Cyberspace', in D
Porter (ed.), Internet Culture, Routledge, New York, pp. 133 - 44.
Suchman, L 2003, Located Accountabilities in Technology Production, Centre
for Science Studies Lancaster University, viewed 7th February 2011
2011, <http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc039ls.htm>.
Sun, H 2001, 'Building a culturally-competent corporate web site: an
exploratory study of cultural markers in multilingual web design', paper
presented to Proceedings of the 19th annual international conference
on Computer documentation, New York.
Tacchi, J, Slater, D & Hearn, G 2003, Ethnographic Action Research - A
User's Handbook Developed to Innovate and Research ICT
Applications for Poverty Eradication, 1st edn, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO, New Delhi.
Taylor, TL 2006, 'Beyond Management: Considering Participatory Design and
Goverance in Player Culture', First Monday [Online], vol. 0, no. 0.
Toffler, A 1980, The Third Wave, Bantam, New York.
Tönnies, F 1963, 'Relations Between Human Wills - Germeinschaft
(Community) and Gesellschaft (Society) from a Linguistic Point of
View', in Community and Society (Germeinschaft und Gesellshaft),
Harper & Row, New York, pp. 33 - 102.
Wellman, B 1998, Loose Connections: Joining together in America's
Fragmented Communities, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Williams, R 1965, The Long Revolution, Penguin, London.
---- 1989, 'Communications, Technologies and Social Institutions', in What I
came to say, Hutchinson Radius, London, pp. 172-92.
Wilson, J, Saunders, B & Bruns, A 2008, '“Preditors”: Making citizen
journalism work.', in J Gordon (ed.), Notions of Community: a collection
of community media debates and dilemmas, Peter Lang Publishing
Group, New York, p. 245.
Zittrain, J 2007, 'Saving the Internet', Harvard Business Review, no. June
2007, p. 49.
70
---- 2008, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it., 1st edn, Yale
University Press, London.
71