Assignment 9, Emily Wagner

Second Life has many benefits in terms of collaboration. While it is not as effective as face-to-face collaboration, it does still maintain a sense of self and space. Since users each have an avatar, there is a better feel for identity and this creates a more realistic environment than other text based online collaboration tools. Additionally, Second Life allows users to meet in some sort of “place”, which mimics a real-life meeting in a real space. This has an effect of the proximity of users and how distant they feel when talking to other group members, and feeling closer to one another has a positive effect on a groups collaborative.


Another benefit, as we learned also in 245, is that people are often more comfortable talking in online spaces rather than face-to-face. With gating features removed, it is possible for users to actually collaborate better using Second Life than FtF because they are more open and will bring up ideas that they would not necessarily want to say FtF.


However, Second Life is obviously not the idea way to collaborate. As we learned in class, it is extremely important for groups to put in real “face time.” Meeting on Second Life is definitely easier, but group members do not form the same bonds that they do FtF. Second Life would work well for very large groups that do not have the option to meet FtF very often, but would still like some social interaction between its members. This is a huge return on investment for large groups or companies since they can use Second Life instead of spending money on people traveling for meetings.

For small groups, the disadvantages likely out way the benefits. From my experience, Second Life is not the easiest tool to learn, and for a small group it would be easier to simply use something like AIM, or coordinate to meet in person. There is the chance that most of the group, or even all of the group, has never used Second Life before. Learning how to use it would likely not be worth the trouble. Other methods would be more effective for small groups. Other problems that would make it not worth it include the lag and the potential for technical issues such as connection problems. However, we learned that people can also claim there is a lag or that they didn’t receive messages, which makes it hard to determine who is really telling the truth. If trust issues such as these arise, groups will not collaborate efficiently or effectively.