Social Capital in a Virtual Environment?

I've got my head in the books these days finishing off a final project for a graduate degree. As part of this project I am consulting for an organization and in the process of our discussions, the leadership decided that they would like to implement forum software as a means of better linking their people and to create a greater sense of cohesion and community. There is however more to developing a healthy online community than simply installing forum software and announcing that it is available. I'll be meeting the leadership again soon to talk about some of the essential elements for creating and sustaining a healthy online community. I've put together a few of my initial thoughts on this and I'd greatly appreciate your input. I'm sure that I am only scratching the surface and am missing or have mis-represented some of the key components. This forum has generally been a good example of what is possible and I'd appreciate any input you can give, especially those of you who were here from the early days.


Some Keys to Developing a Healthy Online Community

1. Have a clear and unique focus around which to build the forum

2. Provide subject matter that interests people and will engage their involvement

3. Leadership is probably the key component. Develop a leadership team which sees its role as setting and maintaining a culture of respect and cooperation. They do this not by serving as gatekeepers, but rather as leaders who re-direct conversations into a more healthy direction, diffuse potential conflict before it erupts, and speak with people behind the scenes when their contributions do not contribute to a healthy community. They further see their role as facilitating healthy conversation and content creation, leading by example, welcoming new involvement and encouraging people to participate.

4. Almost as important as leadership is an initial group of participants, invited to join and to help create this new community. Those selected should be people with something to offer the community and who believe in the same idea of what the community should look like. This group, together with the leadership begin to flesh out and create the initial culture of the community, setting its tone and direction. As new people arrive, they find a developed culture of respect and friendship which they either need to adapt to or move on. Without the leadership and this initial group of participants to create the culture, the forum is not likely to become a healthy community.

Going Deeper
5. To truly build social capital amongst an online group requires more than a healthy culture, it requires the building of deeper bonds. The first step in seeing this happen is when someone opens up about who they really are or the real world challenges they are facing. How the community responds to this is the critical factor in creating social capital. If they are ignored or are treated lightly, then it communicates that such expressions are not welcome. If the community accepts, embraces and supports them in a meaningful way, then it communicates that this is a safe place where people are welcome to be real, setting the stage for real community.

6. The next level in developing real community is when the expressions of care extend beyond the virtual world and expressed in a physical way whether it be financial assistance, a gift, (i.e. Camera Gear, Thanks again guys! That's something I'll never forget!) or gathering to help someone with a physical need. At this point it moves from a virtual community to a real community which exists also in a virtual environment.

7. The final stage which can happen at any point but which can contribute to deeper relationships is the physical gathering of virtual community members. This can be an important element, but without 5 or 6 it can also be just as superficial as an initial meeting on the Internet. However, when combined with points 5 and 6 it can solidify relationships into very deep bonds.

I think you have a real good list of the essentials. My only comment is in regard to #7, and how it relates to 5 and 6. I think the physical gatherings of people can actually lead to 5 and 6. After you actually meet people you have been conversing with online you learn more about their personalities, and even during a short in-person meeting, you can learn far more about a person than you could in months of online dialogue. I think this is mostly due to the fact that it is very difficult for most people to adequately express themselves in writing, it can be difficult to read a person's post and get the emotion or nuances that you can in person.

I experienced this recently with another forum I participate in, it is just under 2 years old and they held a national meeting earlier this year that about 400 people, including myself, attended. After the get together, the dialogue on the forum changed dramatically, most notably was people who knew each other only by anonymous screen names before began referring to each other by their real names and the "intimacy" of the people increased.

I only participate on two forums but I think one reason this site is successful and that I enjoy participating in, is that people for the most part use their real names and are therefore more courteous to each other. On the other forum, people mostly use screen names and at times there can be a good deal of flaming and rude comments that you don't hear in "face-to-face" conversations.

I have only participated on online forums for less than a year, so I don't have a lot more to offer, but to me the bonds you refer to in 5,6 & 7 are the really important elements.

I think you've pretty much summed it up.

All collaborative software has the same basic hang-up: without leadership (sometimes manifested as management buy-in), it doesn't go anywhere. This is true for forums, e-mail, group calendars, document management, bug tracking systems - anything where multiple users can work together.

It is possible (in fact, formerly frequent) to generate leadership from the community of participants, but it is far more frequent that someone(s) with a strong vision for the forum create the environment around which the community develops. A few active posters carrying on real conversations early on in a forum's career can really drive community involvement. There are some forums where collaborative participation replaces the need for leadership (e.g. the USENet group alt.callahans).

I agree with Scott that face-to-face meetings can bring about deeper community bonds. It's easy to detach an online "person" from the meat and mind behind the keyboard.

You've got the "do's" down pat, but I'd include some "don'ts" as well. Sometimes people need to be reminded that what's said on the Web lives forever, and not always in a good way.

Erik, this is a fascinating topic. I got hooked on the topic a few years ago after I read Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" and "Making Democracy Work." By the end of your study, I would love to hear if you agree with Putnam's views on (the decline of) social capital or if you agree with his more hopeful (but perhaps less realistic??) critics. Personally, I think that Putnam is on to something, though I don't subscribe to all of his philosophies. Now to answer your question...

After a quick scan of the comments that have been posted, I agree with most of what has already been said. To avoid being entirely redundant, I'll just add a few thoughts:

Core Group: The core group of frequent forum users sets the culture. They determine (both consciously and subconsciously) the social norms that further determine the topics discussed and the mood of conversation. They also determine what type of language is used and what is acceptable/unacceptable to talk about. When times are slow, they keep the momentum going.

Accountability: In order to keep a forum running smoothly, there need's to be accountability among its members. Intentionally argumentative/offensive forum users (referred to as "trolls") need to be dealt with properly. Almost every forum that I've been on has several trolls that try to create conflict for the sake of entertainment (and at the cost of social capital). Good forum moderation helps keep trolls in check. However, I believe that face to face interaction is the most important thing for accountability. In general, people are much less likely to create conflict with a virtual embodiment of someone that they have met than with a faceless name.

Scott, I think we are on pretty much the same page. I think Putnam is correct about an overall decline in social capital and the partial expression of this through the extreme decay in the participation in volunteer organizations. What he didn't seem to address is that the influence of postmodernity is leading to an increased desire for initimacy and meaningful relationships which these older expressions of community are not meeting. This, coupled with an exceedingly busy lifestyle for most people, has in my opinion has led to the creation of new expressions of community which are more fluid and flexible but probably just as meaningful as others which have existed in the past, perhaps in someways they are even more meaningful. Social capital is not dying, but its expressions are certainly changing.

Very well said. I couldn't agree more. Your insight into postmodernity is the difference between hope and pessimism.

the extreme decay in the participation in volunteer organizations

Is this fact or assumption? I posit that participation in volunteer organizations is at an all-time high right now. Perhaps there are more organizations to volunteer for, thus spreading the wealth and leading to a misperception of a decline.

Todd, the book that Scott and I were mentioning is called "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam. It is probably one of the most comprehensive studies of changing trends in American community. In it he gives a fairly dire look at the drop in membership in everything from bowling clubs, Rotary, Red Cross, unions, church attendance, PTA, American Bar Association, etc. He seems to have some fairly convincing statistics and shows that this aspect of American civic involvement is in steep decline. I think you are right though that there are more organizations and perhaps that there is a greater spread in participation. Putnam actually notes, as you stated, that there has been an ongoing growth in volunteerism but it is now focused on a very narrow individual areas rather than on more general community projects. We are becoming very much of a specialist world and this to a degree reflects the splintering (individualization) of our society. Putnam also cites that even when we do participate or "belong" to various organization we now do it primarily through occasional donations rather than through hands on involvement. Things are changing, but as you note Todd it isn't as bleak as some might state.

Todd, there is alot of contradictory data presented by various research studies. Different statistical populations, research methodologies and definitions of community (ie: organized vs. informal) yield different results. I've read literature by some of Putnam's biggest critics and compared it against Putnam's work. I found the research methodologies that Putnam uses to be less biased than some of his critics who merely count published membership data. This data is subject to bias on several levels. To start, it is used for promotional/fundraising purposes and is often inflated. Next, it counts all "members" rather than truly active members. In many organizations, there are often more "bumper sticker members" than active members. When defining community, Putnam focuses more energy on the depth of involvement among members than sheer numbers. I hope that this helped explain some of the contradictory data out there. I would encourage you to read "Bowling Alone" and decide for yourself. At the very least it's an interesting read! As I said earlier, I don't agree with all of Putnam's conclusions. However, I do think that he has alot of important things to say.

You're both making entirely too much sense for my brain's limited capacity! Thanks for the follow-up.