zhang d lis510_social ib gym e
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Social and Information Exchange of Gym E Hoopers
Di Zhang
University of Washington
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
Abstract
This paper explores three theoretical frameworks for studying information behavior and
applies their perspectives to a social setting. The theoretical frameworks that will be
covered are Chatman’s small worlds, Pettigrew’s information grounds, and
Haythornthwaite’s Network Theory, respectively. Chatman’s (2000) work focuses on
physically bound “small worlds” in which “legitimized others” control the flow of
information. Pettigrew (1999) introduces the concept of “information grounds”, settings
characterized by spontaneous and serendipitous information exchange. Haythornthwaite
(1996) describes information behavior in terms of networks and clusters of networks
formed by relationships between “actors”. In this paper, I suggest that each of these three
perspectives lends important concepts and tools for studying information behavior in a
social setting. I also describe ways in which these perspectives fall short of describing the
entire information environment and argue for viewing information behavior from a
combination of perspectives. Finally, I suggest avenues and topics for possible further
research.
2
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
The social aspect of information behavior is too often under-explored. Researchers
such as Chatman, Pettigrew, and Haythornthwaite have succeeded in illuminating some
important concepts of information behavior in social settings and contexts. In this paper, I
will explore the social setting of Gym E through the theoretical frameworks of these
researchers. Specifically, I will describe the dynamics of information exchanged between
“Gym E Hoopers”, a sub-group that plays basketball in Gym E, and other sub-groups. I
then evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each aforementioned perspective in
describing the information behavior in Gym E. I also explain considerations of the Gym E
environment that are not addressed by these three perspectives, and how further research
might shed some light on these considerations.
A Note on Gym E Hoopers:
Gym E Hoopers (GEH) is a group that was formed through Facebook invitation in the
summer of 2010. The creator of the group, BJ, describes the purpose of the GEH page as:
“organizing dates to ball [i.e. play basketball, or ‘hoop’]”. The group is comprised of
students and former students who play basketball at least occasionally in Gym E at the
IMA, the primary exercise facility at the University of Washington. GEH was originally
comprised of twelve members and has since expanded to seventeen members. Membership
is exclusive and is limited to those who receive an invitation from BJ.1 In this paper, GEH
will be distinguished from hoopers in Gym E. The former is a small, exclusive group
1 Members of the group have varying degrees of closeness (in terms of Granovetter’s ‘ties’) to other members; some members were close friends with other members before the formation of the group while some had no close ties with any other members before joining the group. No member, including BJ, has close ties with all of the other members. Some ties between members have strengthened over the last several months while others have remained the same. Several group members communicate on a regular basis, usually for purpose of sharing basketball related information or coordinating times to meet to play basketball in Gym E.
3
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
whose characteristics I have just described, whereas the latter encompasses all the
individuals who play basketball in Gym E.
Small Worlds:
Elfreda Chatman’s “small world” concept applies to a “world in which everyday
happenings occur with some predictability” (Chatman, 2000, p. 1). In other words, a small
world is a world in which most events are seen as normal, reasonable, and fit “within the
natural order of things” (Chatman, 1999, p. 213). This aspect of small worlds is applicable
to Gym E. The gym is a space in which sequences of events occur with a high amount of
predictability. For example, one can expect to see the following sequence on, say, any
given Friday in Gym E: before 2 pm, a few individuals practicing their shot around the
court and perhaps 1-2 games being played between small groups of friends; in the mid to
late afternoon, large waves of people coming into Gym E in groups to play pickup games
on both courts; the court beginning to empty at approximately 7-8 pm. Moreover, norms of
social and physical interaction, both within and outside of court games, are also accepted
as part of the “natural order of things.”
The most important feature of small worlds may be the presence of “legitimized
others”, that is, “people who share physical and/or conceptual space within a common
landscape of cultural meaning” (Chatman, 2000, p. 1). Legitimized others are “insiders”
who get to define what is normal or acceptable behavior (Chatman, 1999, p. 214). This
includes information behavior, i.e. the seeking of information as well as accepted sources
and types of information. Chatman (1999) also found that information about the outer
world is usually not allowed in unless it is relevant to the concerns of what is going on in
the gym; relevancy is decided upon by legitimized others. Legitimized others can be found
4
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
in Gym E. For example, those who are new to the gym are often intimidated to join in the
pick-up games. This appears to have more to do with the fact that they have not yet been
legitimized than with their skill level in basketball. In fact, there are many inexperienced
players who are picked to play games again and again because they have been legitimized.
These players share not only a physical but also a conceptual space in the sense that they
are part of the “us” rather than the “them”.
Finally, in small worlds, the fear of the negative consequences associated with
sharing “private” information leads to behaviors of information hiding and deception
(Chatman, 1996, p. 1).2 However, in Chatman’s small worlds, barriers to information exist
between individuals and everyone else, whereas in Gym E the barriers to information exist
between sub-groups and everyone else. For example, individuals belonging to sub-groups
will hide information about their sub-group from others because they fear that releasing
such information would put them at a disadvantage (in playing the game, in getting their
group-mates playing time, etc.). In a team sport such as basketball, a loss of a game can
lead to a loss of face and social capital. No individual wants to be responsible for
embarrassing his sub-group or putting it at any type of disadvantage.3 In the small world
studied by Chatman (2000), “insiders” were observed to also be “outsiders”, i.e.
individuals within the small worlds did not exhibit an “us” vs. “them” mentality, but rather
an “me” vs. “them” mentality. However, these small worlds represent only a small number
of social settings of information behavior and exchange. Gym E does not quite fit the “me”
2 What is considered “private” differs in different contexts. Due to the “me” vs. “them” mentality that is widespread in Chatman’s small worlds, “private” information refers to person information about an individual. In the case of Gym E, “private” information refers information about the characteristics of sub-groups, since individuals exhibit the “us” vs “them” mentality observed (see subsequent paragraph). 3 This to some extent results in some behaviors associated with information poverty, including a certain amount of secrecy and deception, although not to the extent exhibited by Chatman’s small worlds (Chatman, 1996). After all, the livelihood of the hoopers does not depend on the small world of Gym E, so there is not as much at stake compared to Chatman’s small world examples of retirement communities, women’s prisons, and janitors (Chatman, 1996 & 1999).
5
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
vs. “them” mentality, but rather does show an allegiance to one’s own subgroup.
Information is shared between sub-group members, not hoarded.4
Lone players who do not belong to a sub-group are especially informationally poor
because they face barriers in accessing information about other teams or sub-groups,
information that would help fulfill their need to play a game. For example, often a lone
player will inquire about who is next to play a pickup game. When they find the team on
the end of the line5, they will ask if the team is filled, in hopes of joining it. Often, the
information seeker will be met with the response “Yes, the team is filled” even when it is
not. This display of deception often happens because the team’s players are waiting to see
if a sub-group mate will arrive. The team will resort to picking the lone player only if they
do not have enough insiders. Sometimes the lone player may wait well over an hour just to
get in a game, depending on their persistence. During the process of trying to get in on a
game, the lone player may reach a level of frustration that may cause them togive up trying
to play pickup game altogether. In Chatman’s words, “the information seeker is motivated
by a sense that in the end, why bother?” (Chatman, 2000, p. 5).
One important feature of Gym E that does not fit within Chatman’s theory is the
existence of even smaller worlds within small worlds. There are numerous sub-groups that
play basketball in Gym E. These subgroups share key characteristics of small worlds. The
GEH, for example, is a sub-group of players whose members have a stronger allegiance to
their group mates than to Gym E’s legitimized others in general. The possibility of
expanding, contracting, or creating offspring may be inherent characteristics of at least
some types of small worlds.
4 At times GEH will be referred to as a “group” while at other times it will be referred to as a sub-group. To avoid confusion, GEH is described as a sub-group when the larger environment of Gym E is also being discussed, since the hoopers of Gym E can also be classified as a “group”. 5 Often the gym is so crowded that teams will have to call “double next” or “triple next”.
6
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
Information Grounds:
According to Fisher and Naumer (2006), investigations of information behavior in
everyday life and the constructionist paradigm led to the identification of information
grounds. This approach places more importance on place and setting compared to previous
studies of information behavior. Pettigrew’s research with nurses and the elderly at a foot
clinic is the classic example of an “information ground”, which is defined as a synergistic
“environment[s] temporarily created when people come together for a singular purpose but
from whose behaviour emerges a social atmosphere that fosters the spontaneous and
serendipitous sharing of information” (Pettigrew, 1999, p. 811).
Gym E fits the description of an information ground. While the primary concern of
its visitors is to play the game of basketball, Gym E also allows for a social atmosphere
that fosters the sharing of information. This information is usually related to basketball, but
the people in Gym E also exchange information about other sports, sporting events, jobs,
hangouts, food, and more. In this way, information flow can be seen as a byproduct of
social interaction (Fisher & Naumer, 2006).
GEH is also an information ground but is separate from Gym E in key ways.
Although GEH is connected to the setting of Gym E in terms of where it meets, its
members also interact through Facebook, which is a different information ground
altogether. Moreover, even when GEHs meet together in Gym E, they socially interact
with other GEHs more readily and more often than with others. People are more likely to
share information with those with whom they have stronger ties than with strangers or
those with whom they have weaker ties (I discuss the concept of ‘ties’ in subsequent
paragraphs). However, once two people have built up a relationship over multiple meetings
7
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
and bonded through shared activities or interests, information exchange can begin to be
socially rewarding. The building of relationships to the point of comfortable and trusting
exchange is a topic that is worthy of further investigation.
Particularly relevant to GEH is the presence of Granovetter’s “weak ties”.
Pettigrew et. al (2001) introduce the new term “strong-weak ties” to describe nurse-senior
relationship because they exhibit aspects of “dual tie strength”. The strength of weak ties is
certainly an attribute found in the information ground of Gym E. For example, a weak tie
that I had through GEH became a helpful connection for doing my fieldwork for my IB
Group presentation.6
Information grounds are also characterized by the lack of any formal system of
information exchange. This is a key reason for their capacity to foster information
exchange in everyday lives. For example, members of immigrant communities will often
avoid “official information functions” provided by institutions outside their communities
because they feel intimidated by unfamiliar sources and systems of information. They
would rather share information with people in their own groups (Hill, Module 5- lecture 2,
slide 8). Likewise, I would not feel comfortable visiting an engineering conference or a
company to look for potential interviewees. Tapping a weak tie to an engineer I know
through GEH would be much less intimidating (see footnote 6).
Information grounds allow people to make connections beyond their typical social
circles and groups (Fisher et. al, 2007), thereby establishing weak ties that they can use to
access new information. At the same time, information grounds give people the 6 My team is studying the information group of engineers. For the fieldwork, I created an online survey on Facebook and sent it to all my Facebook friends. One of the “Gym E Hoopers” who I know through a mutual friend (also a GEH) approached me about the survey to make sure that he would be a good candidate to take it. I assured him that he would indeed be a good candidate for the survey. I then asked him if he would mind doing an interview as a follow-up to the survey. He agreed. This shows that Gym E has does fit the mold of an information ground, because it allows people of weak ties to share information that would not be otherwise available through merely strong ties (I do not have any close friends that are engineers).
8
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
opportunity to expand their typical circles and groups, that is, their social network.
For example, GEHs have formed connections beyond the setting of gym E. Some share a
fantasy sports leagues, play recreational football together, and have dinner at Applebees
after basketball sessions on Fridays. This illustrates the potential for forming stronger ties
as a result of being in the same group. Here, social network theory may lend a useful
perspective in describing bonding between individuals and bridging social capital.
Social Network Theory:
According to social network theory (Haythornthwaite, 1996), because “actors’”
roles are rapidly evolving, it would be less useful to take the traditional approach of
studying information behavior through a priori (theoretical) categories. Instead, social
network theorists want to look at how networks are formed, relationships between actors
within networks, and how information is actually exchanged in these networks.
A key concept in social network theory is “prominence”. Measures of prominence
indicate which actor(s) has influence or power in a network, and “who is more or less in
demand” (Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 334). Certain GEHs are more prominent because of
their centrality (the number of ties they have to other members) within the sub-group as
well as to other sub-groups in Gym E7. For example, BJ, the creator of GEH, is a
prominent actor in GEH as well as in the larger social space of Gym E. Within GEH, he is
the mediator between the other members; he posts information on the Facebook message
board about when to meet, who will be present at the meeting, etc. In other words, BJ is the
most prominent actor in GEH because he is the collector and disseminator of information
7 Haythornthwaite uses the term “clusters” to describe groups of individuals that are related by social ties. I will use “clusters” and “sub-groups” interchangeably. The term “clique” is also used by Haythornthwaite to mean the same thing.
9
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
for the group. BJ has also been active in gym E for several years and has built relationships
with prominent actors from various sub-groups. Because of this, he often acts as the carrier
of information between GEH and other individuals or subgroups in gym E.
According to Haythornthwaite, “[c]liques form composed of people similar to each
other who then establish norms that promote inclusion of others similar to themselves”
(Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 336). Actors are likely to encounter the same information
within their cliques. Thus, in order for new information to come in, a “network of
networks” has to happen; this requires ties between cliques. Haythornthwaite also
hypothesizes that certain people that are situated outside of individual clusters may act as
“brokers” between the clusters. In the case of Gym E, however, the most direct and
effective information sharing between clusters happens when prominent actors from one
cluster tap into their ties with prominent actors from another cluster. For example, BJ does
not quite fit the role of “broker” that Haythornthwaite assigns to such a carrier of
information; it is not the case that BJ “sits between the peripheral groups and thus occupies
a more central position in the whole network and maintains an intermediary role between B
[GEH] and C [another cluster]” (Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 335). Rather, it is more
accurate to view BJ as a representative of B that can reach out to representatives of cluster
C. Therefore, in order to facilitate information exchange between clusters, additional
research could focus on how ties between prominent actors within different clusters can be
formed or strengthened, rather than just how intermediaries (i.e. “brokers”) can be situated
between unconnected clusters.
Conclusions:
One common thread between all the theories discussed is that of legitimization.
Both Haythornthwaite and Fisher rely upon Granovetter’s notion of “strength of weakness
10
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
ties” (SWT). According to SWT, “close ties carry legitimacy” while weak ties tend to carry
new information but no legitimacy (Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 336). While individuals
have strategies to seek out useful information from sources outside of their group, they
tend to consult their group members in validating that information. Thus, strong ties act as
“information validators” even when weak ties are consulted first. (Pettigrew, 2000, p. 50).
This helps to shed light on the information behavior of GEH, i.e. why GEHs have stronger
allegiance to and cohesion with each other than outsiders and why GEHs rely on prominent
member(s) as gatekeepers to new information. Chatman also recognizes the concept of
legitimization in her research, although she finds that network theory “failed to shed light”
on the small worlds she studied (Chatman, 2000, p. 4). As noted earlier, Chatman observes
legitimization as a process that is controlled by “legitimized others”, which potentially
includes all inhabitants of the small world, rather than prominent individuals within the
small world. Although this may be the case within the isolated groups that Chatman
studies, less isolated groups appear to have different processes of legitimization. The role
of prominent network members as gatekeepers should be further studied. As gatekeepers,
prominent members are in a unique position to affect the process of legitimization.
Because of their centrality, prominent members can control what kinds of information are
passed on and whom that information reaches.
Moreover, there also needs to be recognition of the flexible dynamics of small
worlds. This includes testing the hypothesis that there may be smaller worlds within small
worlds. For instance, GEH can be considered a small world within the small world of Gym
E. However, GEH is not limited to the confines of the small world of Gym E; the group
can easily change its meeting location to another gym. Because of the Internet, GEH
enjoys a conceptual existence even outside of any physical space. In such situations,
11
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
Chatman’s small worlds concepts begin to break down. The idea of small worlds as a
physically (not just conceptually) enclosed space needs to be reexamined.
Another aspect found in GEH and Gym E that is not mentioned in the theories
discussed is the effect that intentional group creation has on how information is exchange
between individuals. GEH was specifically created by BJ as a means to share information
about basketball related activities. This automatically placed BJ in a position of
prominence in the network (GEH) that he formed. The question of how Internet based
networking tools such as Facebook can empower everyday people into positions of
prominence, positions that enable to them to control information flow, with respect to the
networks they form needs to be explored. In particular, the creation of events, groups,
information grounds, and small worlds by individuals is prime for further research.
All three theories discussed provide valuable tools for investigating settings of
information behavior and interaction such as GEH and Gym E. However, each also has its
own setbacks. The small worlds perspective should be open to investigating the flexibility
and dynamism of small worlds. The information grounds perspective may be enriched by a
consideration of online information grounds interact with and transform physical enclosed
information grounds. Finally, social network theory may be improved by the consideration
of how prominent actors can and do bridge the information barriers between clusters. That
said, no single theory can tell it all. We must consider what combination of perspectives
and their corresponding methods of investigation can shed the greatest light on a given
situation, process, or environment.
References
Chatman, E.A. (1996). The Impoverished Life-World of Outsiders. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 47, 193-206.
12
SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS
Chatman, E.A. (1999) A Theory of Life in the Round. Journal of the American Society of
Information Science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
50(3):207–217.
Chatman, E.A. (2000). Framing social life in theory and research. The New Review of
information behaviour research, 1, 3-17.
Fisher, K. E., & Naumer, C. M. (2006). Information grounds: Theoretical basis and
empirical findings on information flow in social settings. In A. Spink & C. Cole
(Eds.), New Directions in Human Information Behavior (pp. 93-111).
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996) Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the
study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18,
323-342.
Pettigrew, K.E. (1999). Waiting for chiropody: contextual results from an ethnographic
study of the information behavior among attendees at community clinics.
Information Processing & Management, 3(6), 801-817.
Pettigrew, K.E. (2000). Lay information provision in community settings: How community
health nurses disseminate human services information to the elderly. Library
Quarterly, 70(1), 47–85.
Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, Vol., 35 (pp. 43-
78). M. E. Williams (Ed). Medford, NJ: ASIST and Information Today.
13