Back in high school I was a member of a small group of individuals who prided ourselves on writing and creating artwork for fun. The group was full of people prone to sharing creations of almost any artistic origin. We created an online forum to discuss/critique different projects, as well as an IRC channel for real-time messenging. FTF interactions were also a common factor since we all went to the same high school. The Input -> Process -> Output model described in the Kraut article fit this group quite well.
The personnel inputs are quite obviously the knowledge, experience, skills, and constructive criticism that the members brought to the community, looking for critique and discussion on their own pieces. Since the group was small there was not much factioning or relationship dynamics among sub-groups. The task inputs would merely be to create unique and interesting pieces of art and writing for others to enjoy through a thriving online/offline community. The tools available for this are whatever the members needed to create their own contributions to the community. From here it is easy to see what the outputs of the group were, mainly everyone getting criticism and complement on their personal hobbies/pieces and working together to help other members feel satisfied with their work. Given the nature of this environment there was not much social loafing or free riding since all of the members of the group voluntarily chose to participate and share their work.
Most of the group work was done separately and individually from a proximity not that close to one another. However, the interaction process did not quite conform to the arguments presented in the Cummings paper since all of the members were participating so that they could contribute to the site regardless of their proximity to the other members of the community. Since most of us attended the same high school as well there were many times when we would interact and discuss in an FTF setting. The distance and lack of visual cues that we did experience while interacting online however merely resulted in us forming even more hyperpersonal relationships and striving to complete new creations to submit to the critique of the rest of the group.
The personnel inputs are quite obviously the knowledge, experience, skills, and constructive criticism that the members brought to the community, looking for critique and discussion on their own pieces. Since the group was small there was not much factioning or relationship dynamics among sub-groups. The task inputs would merely be to create unique and interesting pieces of art and writing for others to enjoy through a thriving online/offline community. The tools available for this are whatever the members needed to create their own contributions to the community. From here it is easy to see what the outputs of the group were, mainly everyone getting criticism and complement on their personal hobbies/pieces and working together to help other members feel satisfied with their work. Given the nature of this environment there was not much social loafing or free riding since all of the members of the group voluntarily chose to participate and share their work.
Most of the group work was done separately and individually from a proximity not that close to one another. However, the interaction process did not quite conform to the arguments presented in the Cummings paper since all of the members were participating so that they could contribute to the site regardless of their proximity to the other members of the community. Since most of us attended the same high school as well there were many times when we would interact and discuss in an FTF setting. The distance and lack of visual cues that we did experience while interacting online however merely resulted in us forming even more hyperpersonal relationships and striving to complete new creations to submit to the critique of the rest of the group.
Posts
I wonder...during the CMC interaction, did you see much competition among members of the group? Were there "draw-offs" or "write-offs" of any kind? IPO might predict these types of things if you and your other group members spent a decent percentage of your interactional time physically apart.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's a good thing that factions didn't form among your group members, heh. I was once part of an online art sharing group where people began to join together in groups that would exclude others. The online environment got a bit tense and a few members who once gave constructive criticism instead began to give more bitter and judgmental critiques.
It's good that in your case, you saw each other in person enough (at school). In general, that helps to avoid problematic online interaction. Although my next statement is pretty obvious, I'll say it anyway: Associating a real face with an online identity truly does help to humanize people.
While online, people generally treat others with much more respect when they think about the fact that they're interacting with REAL people.
I agree with Eric in his last statement. I think this group had a good balance of interacting through CMC and FTF. Problems could have formed between group members if they only interacted online. However, since you guys saw each other at school all the time you were able to associate names with faces. It also allows you guys to give better feedback to other members because sometimes things are better explained by word of mouth than by typing it. Another thing is that this group is a voluntary one and it is based on something that everyone is passionate about and enjoys doing. Therefore, because the setting is less stern, such as a group that needs to get certain tasks done in a limited amount of time, it allows everyone to focus more and take their time to really evaluate each other's work. This may help ease any competition issues.
ReplyDelete