RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The study investigates patterns of engagement with online discussionboards and other forms of knowledge exchange forum on a variety of web2.0 sites. It examines affordances that support core and peripheralparticipation in the community-of-interest and also affordances that permitvarious types of inscription, to understand the mechanisms by whichknowledge and expertise become immutable in such exchanges.

The study employs qualitative methods, participant observation, andGrounded Theory to investigate four online communities: (1) Theuser/developer community for the Joomla open-source contentmanagement system; (2) The user/developer community for the OpenSIMvirtual world platform; (3) The PhilaPhans.com fan-community forPhiladelphia-area sports teams; and (4) Veggieboards.com, an onlinecommunity for vegetarians.

1. Thought leaders from each of the communities consolidated theirknowledge-sharing practices within a core information space.There are variations and similarities in technology platforms used as a basisof those spaces , including “non-Web 2.0” technologies and real-time ICT –both OpenSIM and Joomla users relied heavily on Internet Relay Chat (IRC)– which leave ephemeral knowledge inscriptions in the information space.

2. Community-formed spaces across “Web 2.0” social network sites arecommon. However, these peripheral information spaces contain far lessknowledge inscriptions and have little activity compared to coreinformation spaces .

3. Communities prescribe what information space(s) are acceptable forcore and peripheral activities. However, core and peripheral activitiesoccur across core and peripheral spaces.

BACKGROUND

Social networks are the basis of web 2.0 forums, where individuals interact to share knowledge and to build communities-of-interest. It is assumed that accepted knowledge in such communities is constructed through the interchange of insights by domain-experts. But what we consider “knowledge” or “expertise” on web 2.0 sites are the inscriptions left by heterogeneous processes and interactions between participants.

Internet social networks are mediated by specific affordances: the “action possibilities” latent in the socio-technical environment and dependent on an individual’s capabilities (Gibson, 1977). In addition, as Latour (1987) reminds us in his work on Actor-Network Theory, knowledge and facts are constructed through the alignment of interests and their contingent inscription in immutable mobiles, rather than objectively-perceived criteria for acceptance. So web 2.0 social networks inscribe knowledge in a form that is difficult to challenge – simply because it becomes accepted as fact by the community-of-interest.

Increasingly, the online identity established in web 2.0 alliances affords the potential for domain experts to act as thought-leaders across multiple social networking websites. We can no longer simply examine how members of a single social network interact, to reveal how specific views of the world become accepted by a community. We must examine interactions across multiple online social networks. To understand communities-of-interest, we need to follow their proponents around in order to understand the processes by which “knowledge” and “expertise” is generated.

UPDATED THEORY AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Little empirical research exists on social network technology in formalknowledge-sharing organizations despite industry’s embracing of “Web 2.0”and social network sites becoming a hyped topic in “Enterprise 2.0.” Theoverarching logic of “Enterprise 2.0” is based in part on the assumption thataffordances of “Web 2.0” technologies will be effective in “Enterprise 2.0” butthis is based largely on the popularity of the former, not the benefits .

By updating this model of knowledge construction across onlinecommunities-of-interest, further findings will reveal the interactive effect ofsocio-technical systems design and thought-leader behaviors across forms ofparticipation in various types of community-of-interest. These findings willprovide an empirically-based and grounded understanding of the affordancesof those technologies adopted by virtual organizations as well as traditionalfirms embracing “Enterprise 2.0.”

1. Patterns of engagement for knowledge-sharing across “Web 2.0” are notuniform. Understanding the interactions of thought leaders across “Web 2.0”spaces requires a model that is flexible enough to accommodate the varietyof technology and practices.

2. Not all “mobiles” are equally “immutable.” The use of real-time ICT (e.g.,IRC and for knowledge-sharing result in ephemeral knowledge inscriptions.The result is a problematic imbalance of quasi-permanent and ephemeralknowledge inscriptions.

3. Social network sites are rarely used for knowledge-sharing yet the role oftraditional social networks in knowledge-sharing is clear (e.g., Brown &Duguid, 2002). The role of Internet-mediated social networks and the effecton knowledge-sharing in organizational settings is an underdeveloped area ofresearch.

User Forums Blogs Microblogs SNS

Thought leaders inscribe knowledgeacross multiple “Web 2.0” spaces

Social life of a community-of-interest

Knowledge-sharing in a community-of-interest

Thought leaders engage in the social lifeand the knowledge-sharing of community

across diverse “Web 2.0” platforms

The Construction of Knowledge Across Online Communities of InterestWarren Allen and Dr. Susan Gasson, College of Information Science and Technology