Shared relationships, spaces and online information behaviours A social exchange and capital perspective

Presented by Dr Hazel Hall Reader in Social Informatics

Centre for Social InformaticsEdinburgh Napier University

Scotland, UK

h.hall@napier.ac.uk@hazelh (Twitter)

Research backgroundProject team

Dr Hazel Hall, Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland Professor Gunilla Widén-Wulff, Åbo Akademi

University, Finland Lorraine Paterson, User Vision, Edinburgh, Scotland Brian Davison, Edinburgh Napier University,

Scotland

External funding Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland

Research question

To what extent are online information interactions

socially motivated?

Research questions

To what extent are online information interactions

socially motivated?

How strong a role do hard/explicit rewards serve as

incentives for online information sharing?

To what extent does a desire to reciprocate prompt individuals to share information in online

environments?

May an online environment develop an ecology that

actively encourages online information sharing?

How do existing social linkages predict interactions in an online information sharing

environment?

Research questions

To what extent are online information interactions

socially motivated?

How strong a role do hard/explicit rewards serve as

incentives for online information sharing?

To what extent does a desire to reciprocate prompt individuals to share information in online

environments?

May an online environment develop an ecology that

actively encourages online information sharing?

How do existing social linkages predict interactions in an online information sharing

environment?

Hall, H., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2008). Social exchange, social capital and information sharing in online environments: lessons from three three case studiescase studies. Social exchange, social capital and information sharing in online environments: lessons from three case studies. Studia Humaniora Ouluensia, 8, 73-86. PDF of manuscript available from: http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~hazelh/esis/hall_widen_wulff_2008.pdf

Possible explanations for online information sharing behavioursFocus here is on one of the non-corporate environments

discussed by Hall and Widén-Wulff (2008)

Edinburgh Napier University Data from two cohorts (2007 and 2008) Full paper to position the findings with growing literature base that

ties online information sharing with social exchange theory, within a broader context of social capital

Exchange theoryFrom economics

Economic resources are bought and sold

Deals are subject to contractual obligations

Resources are exchanged for currency

Purchaser choices are made from a range of options

Best value for lowest cost

Social exchange theory“Flavour” of exchange theory

“Resources” “bought” and “sold”, but mutual obligations are ill-defined

“Deals” not necessarily subject to contractual obligations

“Resources” not necessarily exchanged for currency

“Resources” exchanged may be valued more highly than market cost

Social exchange theory“Flavour” of exchange theory

“Resources” “bought” and “sold”, but mutual obligations are ill-defined

“Deals” not necessarily subject to contractual obligations

“Resources” not necessarily exchanged for currency

“Resources” exchanged may be valued more highly than market cost

Actors share social bonds, and high levels of trust, in long-term dependent relationships

Applications of social exchange theoryDiscipline ThemesAnthropology Gift-givingSociology Power relationships

Behavioural psychology Processes of learningInformation systems Open source communities

Information science Scholarly communications as based on relationships built through research communities and invisible collegesProcesses of scholarship as productive exchangeCitation analysis – social connectivity of researchers and levels of trustAcknowledgements as a form of gift-giving

Level 3 Information Delivery moduleModule content focused on organisational information

delivery challenges Information overload Islands of automation Audience

Placement experience proxy for 3rd year undergraduatesMixed cohort

High proportion of international students: 46% non-native English speakers in 2008

Full range of Computing programmes represented (e.g. Information Systems, Internet Computing, Multimedia, Networking, Human Computer Systems, Software Engineering), plus Customised

Evolution of the learning environment

Cohort Site for reflection Research output2004 Closed learning logs

2005 Blog environment internal to module developed by one of the module tutors

Hall & Davison (2007)

2006

2007 “Blog” environment internal to Edinburgh Napier supported by WebCT Portfolio function

Hall & Widén-Wulff (2008); to be extended in Hall, Widén-Wulff, Paterson & Davison (2009)

2008

Move into the public space to widen opportunities for collective reflective learning through speaking out (blogging), listening (reading) and discussing (commenting).

70% course assessed mark allocated to blogs and commentsMain entries should

Be relevant to the week’s module content Make links between theory and practice Demonstrate understanding or highlight areas of difficulty Justify points made, e.g. through reasoned argument, by referring

to reading material, personal experience, etc.

Comments should Extend the line of argument of the original blog postings Offer alternative views

Comments on blog entries

Response to blog entry on course work mark

Reflection on blogger’s observation about the week’s lab activity

Discussion of football score

DataSource of data DataWebCT: main blog entries

Reflections on information sharing in this environmentStated motivations for participation

WebCT: comments on main blog entries

Comment in exchanges as relevantPatterns of interaction (e.g. reciprocation)

Students: survey of student ties

Student declarations of relationships with others in the class: friend, acquaintance, stranger (problems of designation)

University records: student “proximity” data

Details of student degree programme, tutorial group for the module, team membership for group course work for the module (only official “proximity” data)

(Interviews Limited, 2007 cohort only)

Possible influences on online information exchanges

Possible influences on online information exchanges

Which dominate(s)?Could social exchange theory explain information sharing practice in this online environment?

Relationships and reciprocation in “agreed” pairs

F(62) A(29) S(63)Key

Relationships and reciprocation in “agreed” pairs

F(62) A(29) S(63)Key

Little reciprocation overall.

Most reciprocation between “friend” pairs.

Least reciprocation between “stranger” pairs.

Comparison of “friend” and “stranger” pairs

None Little SomeKey Much

The best hope for “stranger” pairs in this environment is for a little reciprocation.

...it is so much easier to comment on my friends’ blogs since I understand their thinking better.

Strong evidence: influence of existing relationships on commenting practice

The majority of the time, my comments gravitated towards the logs of my friends if only because I was armed with the knowledge that they knew me and would not take anything I wrote the wrong way.

The only comments I have received are from people that I know and I think it is the same for other students. I do the same as well.

In the first week I posted comments only to [my friends’] blogs to get comments from them on my own blog.

Strong evidence: influence of proximity on commenting practice - 2008

Reciprocation Friend pairs2008(n=18)

None 17%

LittleNo pattern

33%

Some Pattern evident

6%

MuchString pattern

44%

Totals 100%

8 pairs demonstrated much reciprocation

5 pairs: students shared the same degree programme

2 pairs: students did not share the same degree programme, but did attend the same lab session

1 pair: no obvious class contact

Strong evidence: influence of proximity on commenting practice - 2007

Reciprocation Friend pairs2007(n=44)

None 48%

LittleNo pattern

27%

Some Pattern evident

2%

MuchString pattern

23%

Totals 100%

10 pairs demonstrated much reciprocation

All pair members shared the same degree programme

All pair members attended the same lab session

In some cases the pairs were also located in the same course work teams

Proximity: importance of shared degree programme

Programme membership of high reciprocation pair

2007 2008

Pair members on same degree programme

70% 62.5%

Pair members on different degree programmes

30% 37.5%

Totals 100% 100%

The majority of pairs that demonstrated high levels of reciprocation comprised members who shared the same degree programme.

Proximity

Friendship

Socially motivated exchange

Evidence: influence of “soft” social reward of fame/status

We were all aware that everyone was meant to comment on another two blog entries. Therefore you didn’t want to be seen as the one who had been left out , or less popular...

I don’t like not getting any comments – makes me feel like my blog wasn’t good enough to comment on.

...comments can be very useful to motivate the blog’s author. Without comments a blog’s author can have the impression that his work is useless because it interests nobody. Receiving a comment almost

acted as a seal of approval. It was rewarding to know that the blog had actually been read by someone [and] the time and effort to write the blog entries had been worthwhile.

Social rewards are in the gift of the blogging/commenting community?Main blog entries highlighted by tutor in 2008

Public acknowledgement by tutor in class appeared to have no pronounced effect on that week’s commenting practice

Social reward from peers more valuable?

However... The work of almost half the students was highlighted Mention for a variety of reasons, including humour and playfulness Mentions limited to weeks 2 and 3 Difficult to judge the potential impact of more explicit tutor intervention

Some evidence: influence of “hard” reward of marks

I definitely don’t think that I would have created the blogs and posted comments had it not been part of the course work specification.

Three levels of participation for the grade1. Students conscious of the mark, yet

still making an effort: information exchange in the online environment worth more than the mark alone - majority.

2. Reluctant participation: participation with an eye on the level of the mark to be achieved - some.

3. Minimal effort: sole purpose of participation is to gain a mark - few.

What motivated me... to be perfectly honest, the fact that I’d fail if I did not do the commenting.

Evidence: influence of gift economy, and its development

...as I went on, I started to comment on people who had commented on my posts...

One thing I do feel when someone comments on my blog I feel obliged... to comment on theirs.

[I am] a bit disappointed with the turn-out of comments on my blog site as I tried to harass people to post comments but I guess it didn’t work... If I posted more on other people’s blogs, perhaps I would have gotten more comments.

Evidence: influence of the ecology of the online environment as developing social space

I am not sure that [the requirement to debate] was made clear to us early on... that disagreeing with someone and having a healthy argument would be acceptable... [I thought] that causing friction would be looked on in a negative way with grades being cut off.

I had read a blog or two, started to comment then changed my mind as I was being rather mean... Now I wish I had continued writing the comments, maybe softening the blows slightly... It could have helped them.

Context: social space for learningBlogosphere as scaffold of

social infrastructure (Hall & Davison, 2007)

1. Support for discussion, feedback, learning

2. Safe environment to challenge and reflect on “realities” of the subjects studied

3. Community

After reading this blog I think I will get some extra help from someone with experience [of the library portal] to avoid any problems that may arise.

[Other students’] blogs about the topic help me understand the concepts. Your blog is a prime example of this. Thanks.

Influences on online information exchanges

Proximity

Friendship

Socially motivated exchange

Social rewards

(Hard rewards)

Desire to reciprocate

Desire to maintain safe environment

Gift economy

Social exchange theory as an explanatory factor of information sharing online: implications

Proximity To what extent can dialogues be engineered across broad range

of contacts where opportunities for physical co-location are minimal?

What kind of proxies can be provided for co-location where this is not possible?

Rewards Social rewards as strong motivators of participation in online

information sharing environments

Time Participant familiarity with the environment and degree of risk

ReferencesHall, H. (2001). Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets. Journal of Information Science 27(3) 139-146 (DOI 10.1177/016555150102700303). PDF of full text available from http://www.knowledgeboard.com/lib/3259

Hall, H. & Davison, B. (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: the value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library and Information Science Research, 29(2), 163-187. (DOI 10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.007.)

Hall, H., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2008). Social exchange, social capital and information sharing in online environments: lessons from three case studies. Social exchange, social capital and information sharing in online environments: lessons from three case studies. Studia Humaniora Ouluensia, 8, 73-86.

Shared relationships, spaces and online information behaviours A social exchange and capital perspective

Presented by Dr Hazel Hall Reader in Social Informatics

Centre for Social InformaticsEdinburgh Napier University

Scotland, UK

h.hall@napier.ac.uk@hazelh (Twitter)