Collaboration, Connections, and Consequences – A

study on the effects of Pool and its community

within the ABC

Thesis by Publication

Jonathon Hutchinson

PhD Student Queensland University of Technology

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4

1.1 The Nature of the Research‟s Participation in the CCI 5

1.2 The Objective of the Program of Research 5

2. Research Questions 6

RQ1) How do the different interests of the stakeholders within an

institutional online community intersect and how are those interests

negotiated? 6

RQ1a) What are the actors in the relationship? 6

RQ1b) What are the conventions at work? 6

RQ1c) How do the actors negotiate these conventions? 7

RQ2) What are the larger implications of institutional online communities? 7

2.1 Understanding the Actors in ABC Pool 8

2.2 Identifying Conventions within Community 9

2.3 The Dynamics of Relationships Within Pool 11

2.4 What are the Potential Implications? 12

3. Literature Review 13

3.1 Why Research ABC Pool? 13

3.2 The Emergence of the Online Community 16

3.2.1 Identifiers within Community 17

3.2.2 Definition of Online Community 18

3.2.3 Online Communities in Practice 19

3.2.4 A Shift in Online Communities 22

3.2.5 Community 2.0 24

3.2.6 Online Becoming Institutional Communities 28

3.3 The ABC Develops Pool 31

3.3.1 What is ABC Pool? 31

3.4 Mechanisms of Negotiations 35

3.4.1 Technology as Negotiator 36

3.4.2 Institution as Negotiator 38

3.4.3 Human Negotiation 39

3.4.4 Community Manager as Mediator 40

3

3.4.5 Beyond Management 44

3.5 Potential Implications – Summary 45

4. Research Design 46

4.1 Ethnographic Action Research 46

4.2 Data Collection Methods 49

4.2.1 Participant Observation 49

4.2.2 Field Notes 49

4.2.3 Participants 50

4.2.4 Focus Groups 51

4.2.5 In-Depth Interviews 51

4.2.6 Feedback Forms 52

4.2.7 Data Analysis 52

4.2.8 Social Mapping and Contextualising 53

5. Research Outcomes – Preliminary Analysis 55

5.1 The Pool Team 55

5.2 User Case: Susan Dirgham 57

6. Timeline 64

7. Ethics 64

8. Coursework 65

9. Sources Cited 65

4

1. Introduction

This research investigates how the different interests of the stakeholders

within an institutional online community intersect and how those interests are

negotiated within a public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting

Corporation (ABC). In the context of a rapidly changing media landscape in

which audiences no longer watch and consume content but now also actively

participate in the making and sharing of media content, what does it mean to

be a public broadcaster? I consider these issues by undertaking a three-year

ethnographic study of ABC Pool, the user-generated content space in the

Radio Multiplatform and Content Development division, working as the

Community Manager. This project will also consider and describe the

Community Manager role within a public broadcaster institution as it

negotiates the challenges and opportunities of a shift towards a more

participatory and co-creative media landscape.

I have recently commenced paid employment at the ABC as the Community

Manager of Pool. I have ethical clearance for this research, however I am in

the process of seeking an ethical variation document. I am aware of the

implications of my position as researcher and community manager. I clearly

state my dual role before any engagement with research subjects.

The rationale supporting this research is based on the growing increase of

user-generated content within media institutions. The research investigates

convergent media cultures that are increasingly characterized by media

consumers and audiences that participate in media creation with professional

media institutions (Banks & Potts 2010; Bruns 2008; Burgess & Green 2009;

Jenkins 2006). My research project specifically examines these topics in the

context of the production of creative content in the ABC‟s Pool community.

Pool is the space providing an opportunity to incorporate online communities

into the ABC. The inclusion of user-generated content into broadcast

production presents both challenges and opportunities for the community

members, traditional media producers, and the public broadcaster. I have

been observing, participating in and mapping the changes that occur over the

past twelve months and will continue for the next two years within this space. I

5

have documented the dynamics of Pool from my perspective as the

community manager.

The community manager role fundamentally involves mediating the

relationship between the ABC Pool production team, ABC management, and

the online community of Pool users. The role also entails enabling,

encouraging, and assisting a community of volunteers to perform tasks within

their online community (Bacon 2009). As the community manager at ABC

Pool, I contribute to editorial meetings, collaborate with producers utilizing

UGC for radio productions, and engage with Pool producers on strategies to

govern the space and practice. Additionally the role includes overseeing the

daily operations of the site, moderating submitted content, conversing and

interacting with the community members, stimulating member discussion, and

situating the Pool community within a wider audience. The community

manager position at Pool also becomes one of realisation as I work with other

ABC divisions, external industry partners, and external cultural institutions on

collaborative projects.

1.1 The Nature of the Research’s Participation in the CCI

The Queensland University of Technology‟s Centre of Excellence in Creative

Industries and Innovation has a long history in researching the future of public

broadcasting and the impact of user-generated content practices. This

research project is situated within the larger CCI project led by Associate

Professor Axel Bruns, Media Ecologies and Methodological Innovation. Pool

exemplifies the changing media ecology by bringing together previously

separate practices of user-generated communities and public broadcasting.

My supervisors, Associate Professor Axel Bruns and Dr John Banks are

especially prolific in these areas of research. Additionally, this research

project is the impetus for strengthening future CCI relationships with the ABC.

1.2 The Objective of the Program of Research

The objective of this research is to observe and describe the stakeholders

within an institutional online community, and understand how their different

interests are negotiated. The research builds on published work within the

6

media and cultural studies disciplines, and incorporates research of online

community management. This research will contribute to literature on public

service broadcasters.

2. Research Questions

The fundamental research question of this thesis is:

RQ1) How do the different interests of the stakeholders within an

institutional online community intersect and how are those interests

negotiated?

An institutional online community is defined as an online community operating

within a public, commercial or non-commercial institution and not an open,

independently facilitated online community.

My approach to this overall question breaks down into three constituent

elements, which become secondary research questions:

RQ1a) What are the actors in the relationship?

An „actor‟ refers to any human or non-human elements that are engaging in

the online community. Some community members in Pool, for example,

describe themselves as “Poolians”. The categorization indicates a sense of

shared identity: an understanding of what Pool is that is shared with other

community members.

Through my participant observation of the Pool community (section 4.1), and

of its interactions with other human and non-human actors, I will identify the

actors involved in Pool.

(I will discuss my research approach to RQ1a further in section 2.1.)

RQ1b) What are the conventions at work?

Conventions are the shared understandings held by the members of the

online community. In Pool, this centres on the definition of the “Poolian” as the

7

ideal community member. However, it is already obvious from my preliminary

observations that there are many definitions of what a Poolian actually is.

I will observe and describe what it means to be a Poolian, and how different

members of the community contest its definition: additionally, I will also

examine the shared understandings of other groups of actors working on Pool

(such as ABC staff, designers, system administrators, and others). The fact

that these different shared understandings of Pool and its community exist

within different groups of actors means that negotiation between these

understandings becomes necessary.

(I will further outline my research approach to RQ1b in section 2.2.)

RQ1c) How do the actors negotiate these conventions?

Negotiation is a process to achieve consensus between parts of the

community that have different shared understandings of what Pool is and

what it should be used for. The process of negotiation is supported by

technological, institutional, and human frameworks.

I will observe how the different actors present their conventions and describe

how consensus is negotiated. Through my research I have already observed

the importance of the role of the community manager in context of the

negotiation process.

(I will further outline my approach to RQ1c in section 2.3.)

RQ2) What are the larger implications of institutional online

communities?

Institutional online communities refer to online communities within public

service broadcasters (PSB) and other commercial and non-commercial

institutions. An example of another institutional online community within a

public service broadcaster is ABC Open, whose approach is based in part on

the Pool experience.

I will examine how the specific frameworks, requirements, and constraints of

the institutional environment of the ABC impact on the operation of Pool, and

8

what contribution Pool is able to make to the ABC. The research findings may

provide insights for other institutions engaging with online communities.

(I will discuss my research approach to RQ2 further in section 2.4.)

2.1 Understanding the Actors in ABC Pool

Latour (2005) suggests “anything that does modify a state of affairs by making

a difference is an actor” (Latour 2005: 71). The term actor refers to all

elements engaging within the online community. I will use the term

stakeholder to refer only to the human actors within the online community.

(The definition of actors and is based on the literature in section 3.2.)

The online community of ABC Pool consists of multiple stakeholders

interacting through complex relationships. From the ethnographic research I

have done over the past twelve months as a participant observer, the range of

groups (where individuals may belong to two or more groups) I understand to

be stakeholders include:

Community members – Students, co-creators, media practitioners,

artists, collaborators

Poolians – A group of Pool community members with a shared

understanding of who they are and what Pool is

Community managers – ABC Pool team who manage the space

The executive producer – ABC Pool team member that has executive

decision

Administrators

Myself – Researcher, community manager, creative practitioner,

community member

Interns – Pool team members, community members, students

Project Producers – Non-ABC staff in charge of creative projects in

Pool

Mark Scott (ABC Managing Director) and others within the ABC – ABC

staff interacting with Pool

Designers – People who design Pool

Developers – People who build and maintain Pool

9

The actors I understand to be involved in Pool include:

The Pool website

The design of the website – The enabling technical aspects of the site

Communication tools – instant messaging and notifications

Pool‟s Terms and Conditions – how Pool operates

Institutional practices – how Pool operates within the ABC

ABC Editorial Policies – the rules of operation

This list of stakeholders and actors has emerged through data analysis of my

participant observation (explained in section 4.2.7, Data Analysis). I am

developing this list to observe how they identify themselves, Pool and other

groups and to understand their interest in Pool. I am also identifying their

shared understandings to better address RQ1b.

2.2 Identifying Conventions within Community

Hebdige suggests understandings are a “normally hidden set of rules, codes

and conventions through which meanings particular to specific social

groups… are rendered universal and „given‟ for the whole of society” (Hebdige

1979: 9). This definition is my starting point for the term convention and is

based on the literature in section 3.2. For the purposes of this research, the

conventions of each group of stakeholders are defined as their shared

understandings of what Pool is, does, and should aim to do.

Different stakeholders within an online community may have different shared

understandings because they are there for different purposes. Within the ABC

institutional online community, in addition to the community members

themselves, there are also the shared understandings of the other

stakeholders I have identified in 2.1.

Their self-definition as Poolians is an example of a convention amongst some

of the Pool community members. The Poolian convention represents a group

of people who agree on who they are and what the online community is.

However, how do these members distinguish themselves from other

members? How do other members within the community distinguish

10

themselves from people they consider to be non-members? Does the Pool

community, or specific groups of stakeholders within it, have a particular

insider language which they use to communicate with each other? Are

boundaries in place to define where the community or its internal groups

begins or ends?

What motivates users to participate in ABC Pool, and how do they

participate? Early indications suggest some are participating to submit

content, post commentary and/or participate in discussions. Other reasons

may include the opportunity to collaborate, remix other contributions, or have

their work remixed by others. Pool is associated with the ABC brand, which

may also suggest users are participating to gain recognition from the ABC and

to have their work used by the ABC.

As an institutional community, Pool is different from a community that may

form on a non-institutional platform like YouTube or Flickr. How do institutional

online communities define themselves and distinguish themselves from other

online communities? What defines an online community within a specific

online space? User surveys of the Pool community (Foley et al 2009) indicate

that a reason for joining is the affiliation with the ABC brand. This interest in

supporting the ABC brand may be one understanding that is shared by those

community members describing themselves as Poolians, but other community

members may not share the same views.

Through my participant observation of stakeholders within the Pool

community (explained in section 4.2.1, Participant Observation), I will identify

the specific interests, motivations, and ambitions of the different stakeholder

groups, and outline the shared understandings they have of what Pool is and

does. However, what happens when there is a clash of shared

understandings between different groups within the online community? There

is a need to negotiate the clash between these different shared

understandings to keep the community workable. The next step of the

research is to identify how these divergent shared understandings are

negotiated.

11

2.3 The Dynamics of Relationships Within Pool

Throughout this research, I use the term negotiation to describe the dynamics

of the relationships within the online community. Latour (2005) refers to these

dynamics as translation, enlistment, and enrolment to mean “a relation that

does not transport causality but induces two mediators into coexisting” (Latour

2005: 108). As Latour suggests, these terms are placeholders for how the

actors themselves define the process of negotiation. For the purposes of this

document I will simply use the term negotiation to cover them all (the

definition of negotiation and is based on the literature in section 3.4).

While specific groups in the community have their own shared

understandings, those understandings may still differ from other groups in the

community. For example, different members of the community may have

different views of what a „Poolian‟ is. To resolve such differences there is a

need for negotiation. This process of negotiation is supported by:

1. Technological means – the systems of Pool that support particular

forms of communication

2. Institutional means – the organisational structure of the Pool

community, as well as of the ABC

3. Human means – people communicating with one another

Technology provides a mechanism that enables a particular set of

affordances to the community of actors. The Pool platform as a technology

allows specific forms of communication. In addition, some people in the

community will also have access to a range of other communication tools

(email, Facebook, phone, face-to-face). Which of them they do have access

to will influence which of them they can use for negotiation purposes.

Institutional mechanisms define how the Pool online community is structured.

The structure of Pool makes certain negotiations possible and not others. At

the ABC, institutional mechanisms such as the Charter and Editorial Policies

determine how the Pool online community operates under the ABC auspices.

What do these conventions mean to the Pool community? Do these policies

need to change and if so, how? Institutional mechanisms also refer to the

12

structure of Pool itself. Are the community members involved in management,

and if so to what extent? How might the institutional structure of Pool be

imagined? The operation guidelines of the institution, and the community,

impact on negotiation processes of the stakeholders.

Human mechanisms also define how negotiations take place. Beyond

technological and institutional structures, Pool members communicate with

each other to address their different points of view and develop a consensus.

How do the Pool community members communicate their point of view to

other stakeholders or groups of stakeholders? How is consensus achieved?

The communication process may be considerate between the community

members, yet at times may be confrontational.

The community manager is positioned at the intersection point of the

negotiation process. The community manager becomes the core facilitator of

negotiation processes between the different stakeholders: the stakeholders

within the Pool community, within the ABC, and elsewhere. They are

positioned at this nexus point because of their understanding of the

technological, institutional, and human frameworks. How does the community

manager coordinate these negotiations? What are the outcomes of the

community manager‟s interventions, considering the community manager is a

stakeholder also?

As part of my participant observation method (section 4.2.1,) I will identify the

technological, institutional and human negotiation mechanisms. Being

embedded as the community manager (section 4.2) will enable me to clearly

understanding each mechanism. Through data analysis (section 4.2.7), I will

understand the impacts each mechanism has on the negotiation process

within the Pool community and the ABC. I will describe the significance of the

community manager being positioned between the intersecting negotiation

mechanisms.

2.4 What are the Potential Implications?

The implications of studying institutional online communities are based on the

literature in section 3.5. “The ABC strategy is intended to serve both its status

13

as a mainstream media player and the government‟s plans for high-speed

broadband roll out by helping to drive user take up” (Debrett 2010: 201). My

preliminary observations of the ABC indicate an institutional shift to include

participatory online communities within particular divisions of the corporation.

By understanding the interests of the stakeholders and how they are

negotiated, a model might be formulated and applied to these divisions. What

can we learn from institutional online communities that can be included into

future ABC projects? How does the ABC need to shift and moderate its

policies? If the frameworks were different, what could user-generated content

potentially do for the ABC? By collecting richly textured data from an insider

perspective, I will show how the ABC is reacting to online communities. The

research also works towards understanding the role of the PSB in an online

media environment. Recent scholarly research asks and at times answers this

question, but often still lacks the depth of first-hand insight which this

ethnographic research project will provide. What are the implications beyond

the ABC? Can the ABC Pool model be applied to other PSBs?

To address the further implications of ABC Pool, I will utilise my embedded

position as the community manager (defined further in section 4.1) to interact

with other online communities within the ABC Multi Platform and Content

Development division – ABC Open, JJJ Heywire and Unearthed. I have

access to key ABC staff members within these spaces, for example senior

executives, project managers, site administrators, and technical staff. We

meet regularly to talk about and compare the communities we work on. I will

identify and observe common conventions and negotiation processes

between the communities. I will then observe and describe the impact of the

online communities on any ABC policy developments.

3. Literature Review

3.1 Why Research ABC Pool?

The changing media landscape suggests participants are increasingly

engaging in media content production within institutions (Banks 2009; Benkler

2006; Burgess & Green 2009; Jenkins 2006). In the current media landscape

14

described as “highly volatile and altered” due to “the explosion of Web 2.0

services and associated user-generated content” (Cunningham & Turner

2010: 2), the role of the public service broadcaster is under examination. Mark

Scott, the Managing Director of the ABC, asked the same question during his

2009 Commonwealth Broadcaster Association lecture. His line of enquiry was

“In a digital age of plenty, what role can the public broadcaster play?” (Scott

2009).

The interrogation of the ABC‟s role in the future of media broadcasting was

also addressed by the Department of Broadband, Communication and Digital

Economy‟s report ABC and SBS: Towards a Digital Future stating “new digital

technologies are radically changing the fundamentals of broadcasting and

media” (DBCDE 2008). This enquiry prompted scholarly research to define

how the Australian national broadcaster might position itself to work with

digital communication technology. Terry Flew (et al) (2008) cite this as an

opportunity for PSBs “to enhance and renew their Charter obligation as and

social innovation remit through public service media through user-created

content strategies, particularly in their provision of online service” (Flew et al.

2008: 2). This response brings into scope the significance of ABC platforms

encouraging user created content.

The ABC responded with the Strategic Plan 2009 – 2012 which offers two

solutions to re-position the institution within the evolving digital sphere (ABC

2009b). The reaction also reflects recent scholarly work on the role of the PSB

from a global perspective (Debrett 2010). Firstly, the ABC is drawing on the

deployment of new media platforms to provide additional avenues to distribute

media. Secondly, the institution is ensuring the national broadcaster

strengthens it use of technologies to engage audiences in new ways (Debrett

2010). One example of this strategy has been the introduction of tools such as

iView developed by ABC Innovation. The continuously fragmenting audience

has the option to consume its media on numerous platforms in an „on

demand‟ model – a model consistent with media trends (Deuze, Bruns &

Neuberger 2007).

15

Within the creative sector, an increase in user activity in ABC spaces such as

Artspost, Reface, and Pool establishes traction with their communities of

interest (ABC 2010). Users begin to contribute content to the public

broadcaster for numerous reasons, further outlined in section 5 - Preliminary

Analysis. Generally, users participate to publically display their work and to be

associated with the ABC brand. The increase in these grass roots, UGC

activities demonstrate greater interaction between online communities and the

ABC institution. Policy development and production techniques have evolved

to incorporate new models of user created content. Models such as these

have been termed co-creation activities (Banks 2002; Bruns 2008; Burgess &

Green 2009).

Online community negotiation can be examined in fine detail through Pool‟s

core base of creative practitioners contributing media to the ABC. Some

media is used for professionally produced broadcast programs, some for

training and education purposes, whilst some media is refined to exhibit in

public urban spaces. Opportunities of co-creative collaborations between ABC

experts and “prosumers” (Toffler 1980) are countered by tensions within the

management of institutional online community practices. The platform, and

therefore the content, is governed by Pool‟s Terms and Conditions developed

in conjunction with the ABC‟s Editorial Policies (ABC 2009a) and the ABC Act

(1983) (ABC 1983). Often, as indicated through discussions with ABC legal

representatives, users are not aware of the implications of ABC Editorial

Policies. Content is generally uploaded from the user‟s perspective and is not

always compliant with management guidelines and policy documents of the

ABC. Pool is challenging the management of institutional communities

through creative production. These challenges present as case-by-case

scenarios involving considerable ABC legal discussion; a task monitored by

the community manager. Fundamentally the community manager at ABC Pool

is situated at, and at times facilitates, the negotiation between actors.

More broadly than the ABC, the community manager has developed from

early moderator roles, to community relations manager, to the community

manager. The following sections address RQ1a and RQ1b and outline how

16

the community manger position emerged at a similar pace that models of

institutional online communities sophisticated.

3.2 The Emergence of the Online Community

Cummings, Heeks, and Huysman (2006) suggest people are brought together

as being either „communities of circumstance‟ or „communities of interest‟.

Some online communities are communities of interest where participants are

brought together because of a bond, a common interest, or through the

sharing of knowledge. Cummings (et al) (2006) state communities of interest

“are critical because:

…[they] serve as [an] ongoing learning venue for … practitioners who

share similar goals, interests, problems, and approaches.

They respond rapidly and give specific answers to individual

enquiries…

They develop, capture, and transfer best practices on specific topics,

by stimulating the active sharing of knowledge.

They influence development outcomes by promoting greater and

better-informed dialogue

They link diverse groups of practitioners from different disciplines.

They promote innovative approaches to address specific development

challenges.” (Cummings, Heeks & Huysman 2006)

Lave and Wenger (1991) also define particular communities as communities

of practice. A community of practice relates to skill and knowledge sharing to

benefit all participants within the community (Lave & Wenger 1991). The

specific knowledge of the users and how they transfer this knowledge makes

the ABC Pool online community a community of interest and practice.

The notion of community is difficult to measure and value. Anthropology,

economics and politics for example, have disparate disciplinary approaches to

analysing and describing community. Within this investigation I borrow

elements from the social sciences, primarily social network analysis, to

provide a lens to view community through. Mark Granovetter‟s (1973) work on

the strength of weak ties provides a method in measuring a community when

17

two actors interact. “Emphasis on weak ties lends itself to discussion of

relations between groups and to analysis of segments of social structure not

easily defined in terms of primary groups” (Granovetter 1973: 1380). The

strength of weak ties relates to online community to measure disparate actors

converging in one space. This research is not overly concerned with

examining established strong ties, but more with the dynamics of smaller,

weaker connections. Through analysis of smaller, fruitful interactions between

actors, larger-scale patterns form, and feed back into the actors (Granovetter

1973). The strength of weak ties is a concept I shall return to when describing

the community manager. In that description, the concept is used to describe

how the community manager endeavours to strengthen weak ties as part of

their role.

3.2.1 Identifiers within Community

Texts indicate a sense of belonging, or adversely a sense of difference within

a community, and are usually objects or symbols of a conversation defining

„us‟ and „them‟. The common language of „we‟ manifests itself as a style to

highlight the inclusion of some and the marginalisation of others. Style can be

incorporated into the notion of subculture, defined as “secrecy, masonic

oaths, [and] an Underworld” (Hebdige 1979: 4) within a “particular way of life

which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and learning, but

also in institutions” (Williams 1965: 65). Community is identified through its

style described as exclusivity through sub-cultural symbolic objects.

Hebdige (1979) describes style and subculture:

“… the styles made up of mundane objects … have a double meaning.

On the one hand, they warn the „straight‟ world in advance of a sinister

presence – the presence of difference – and draw down upon

themselves vague suspicions, uneasy laughter, „white and dumb

rages‟. On the other hand, for those that erect them into icons, who use

them as words or as curses, these objects become signs of forbidden

identity, sources of value.” (Hebdige 1979: 2)

18

Hebdige refers to the „gay‟ meaning given to a jar of Vaseline by the „straight‟

world within Jean Genet‟s (1966) The Thief‟s Journal. His quote demonstrates

how individuals, both community members and non-community members, use

inherent understandings of “mundane objects” to construct a style. A symbol

exposes one meaning but also expresses a secondary connotation for those

attuned to its significance. A combination of symbols constitutes a style

defining boundaries for individuals who belong to a community. Alternatively,

boundaries are constructed by „others‟ as a means of understanding what

they are not – “signs of forbidden identity.” The style of a subculture, made up

of shared conventions of the actors is what enables me as a researcher to

identify the markers of community.

Bonniface (et al) (2006), who borrow the work of Maria Papadakis (2003),

define any community as a combination of three categories; “1) social capital,

2) social support and 3) a common culture” (Bonniface, Green & Swanson

2006: 93). Papadakis constructs community from “social interactions;

common ties; reciprocity in relationships; shared beliefs, values and cultural

habits among members; a sense of solidarity or community identity, among

members; standards of conduct for members; and members‟ ability to take

action” (Papadakis 2003). Papadakis‟ work contextualises this research by

identifying the conventions that constitute a community and shore up its

claims there are common characteristics between offline and online

communities.

3.2.2 Definition of Online Community

Historically, online communities developed from early versions of DIY „straw

shacks‟ to sophisticated networks, modeled on offline communities. The

emergent models „sprung up‟ through makeshift Computer Mediated

Communication (CMC) technology, brought together by individuals interested

in similar topics. The baseline literature for online communities is Howard

Rheingold‟s (1994) The Virtual Community based on the Whole Earth

„Lectronic Link (WELL). Rheingold‟s definition of online community outlines

the sense of belonging with other participants who share a similar interest – a

“personal relationship in cyberspace” (Rheingold 1994: 5). Wellman (1998)

19

develops Rheingold‟s research to investigate informal networks, or support

within groups of individuals. Wellman‟s research highlights intangible

elements within online communities can be as significant as the champion

nodes within any network (Wellman 1998).

Bonniface (et al) (2007) incorporate Papadakis‟ (2003) observations to refine

the online community definition to consist of more than a collective connection

of individual interest or circumstance, but an experience of increased affect.

“Community … evolves over time and does not simply exist by virtue of

logging on” (Bonniface & Green 2007: 67). Users participating within online

communities contribute and receive shared beneficial experience, sometimes

described as a warm and friendly feeling. Tönnies (1963) describes this

phenomenon as Germeinschaft - small scale, cottage like groups of residents

experiencing high levels of social capital (Tönnies 1963). The term social

capital refers to “the networks of strong personal relationships, developed

over time, that provide the basis for trust, co-operation, and collective action”

(Cummings, Heeks & Huysman 2006: 574). The definition of community, on

or offline, remains iterative. However, scholars agree there is something on a

deeper level connecting individual participants within any community

(Bonniface & Green 2007; Bonniface, Green & Swanson 2005; Hebdige 1979;

Papadakis 2003; Rheingold 1994).

3.2.3 Online Communities in Practice

Rheingold (2006) admits his early definition of “virtual community” is flawed in

his article Social Networks and the Nature of Communities. In this article he

reflects on his 1994 work on Virtual Communities and The WELL, and

introduces the social science‟s ideology of social networks. “Social networks

predated the Internet, writing and speech” (Rheingold 2006: 49) challenging

the label “virtual community” (Rheingold 1994). If virtual communities are

„new‟ online social spaces, are they not real communities existing online? The

concepts Rheingold founded in his early online community writing are still

useful in examining online communities today, however the term “virtual

communities” has been debunked.

20

Rheingold recalls of the WELL, “[n]orms were established, challenged,

changed, re-established, rechallenged, in a kind of speeded-up social

evolution” (Rheingold 1994: 2). The conventions an online community

establishes, as Rheingold suggests, are similar to Hebdige‟s argument of

subcultures in the 1970s. The online community imitates the elements of style

as a subculture, expressed through a universal understanding of conventions.

Membership within online communities also reflects „in‟ or „out‟ relationships

amongst the members and the non-members. Moreover, the WELL

establishing member‟s negotiation indicates the volatile nature of online

community management. In retrospect, the members of the WELL were

negotiating and establishing management protocol organically.

“People in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange

pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct

commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make

plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them,

play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk. People in

virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but

we leave our bodies behind. You can‟t kiss anybody and nobody can

punch you in the nose, but a lot can happen within those boundaries.”

(Rheingold 1994: 3)

The WELL is a group of stakeholders, albeit slightly moderated, who self-

organise the structure of the site and operating principals. The WELL provides

an opportunity for stakeholders to experience shared social interactions and

solidarity through the use of information communication technologies (ICTs). It

is an ad hoc online community, self-managed and self funded.

Understanding the communicative patterns of participation, and not just the

media, is the key to the community paradigm (Baym 2000). This underpinning

observation is one result of Nancy Baym‟s (2000) research on the

rec.arts.television.soaps (r.a.t.s.) news group fan site. The significance of this

research shifts from an observational analysis of audience fan sites previously

conducted by Virginia Nightingale (Nightingale 1996) to Baym‟s deeply

embedded participant observational methodology. “…audience researchers

21

rarely have ventured into the spontaneous interpersonal communication in

which people perform their identities as audience members and, hence, have

given us too little insight into how the mass media are appropriated for

interpersonal services” (Baym 2000: 3). The common interest of the users

within r.a.t.s are soap television series. The newsgroups of r.a.t.s. become a

place where members can hang out, meet with each other, have idle chat,

swap opinions about the shows, and engage on a deeper level.

Baym‟s observations are situated within this research to outline the difference

of conventions within online communities (RQ1b). She outlines traits amongst

the members of the r.a.t.s. community through two key characteristics,

interpreting and comparing perspectives. The interpretive, comparative

analysis approach indicates how the knowledge of the stakeholders makes

the online community experience more valuable. As Baym points out,

individual community members not only view the text interpretively, they also

bring their „real life‟ knowledge and experience to the space. She notes the

depth and breadth of the knowledge in r.a.t.s. is vast and has the potential to

be immense.

“Soap operas encourage viewers to draw on different types of

knowledge to interpret, including knowledge of the show‟s histories,

knowledge of genre‟s conventions, and personal knowledge of the

social and emotional world. The lack of authorship …encourages

people to refer to their own experiences for meaning… access to [a]

range of perspectives greatly enhances the pleasures of interpretation

that the soap text offers” (Baym 2000: 70).

The online community member-base knowledge Baym refers to begins to

outline how conventions might be challenged. The stakeholders of the online

community bring their own knowledge and experience to the site as a voice in

the negotiation process of convention construction. The interpretive and

comparative process performed by the stakeholders, whilst greatly enhancing

the online experience, also highlights the difference of understanding any

convention within an online community.

22

3.2.4 A Shift in Online Communities

The following literature responds to RQ1b by contextualising a shift in

motivation and process within online community stakeholders. The

emergence of new online tools in 2001 stimulated new online activity. The

notion of community develops into something else as online communities

embrace what becomes known as Web 2.0. Tim O‟Reilly (2005) provides the

definition of Web 2.0 technology to be “a way of signifying a change in the

computing environment after the bursting of the dot-com bubble” (O'Reilly

2005: 43). Granovetter‟s (1973) strength of weak ties philosophy can be

included to describe Web 2.0 technologies as a movement to enhance

previously established weak connections. Improved social capital is displayed

through the use of “email, chat, blogs, wikis, online games, and other

participatory environments that are now combined under the umbrella term

„social media‟” (Bruns & Humphreys 2010: 4).

Wikipedia incorporates Web 2.0 technology affordances to develop online

communities of interest and practice into participatory cultures. Henry Jenkins

(2006) defines participatory cultures as “[r]ather than talking about media

producers and consumers as occupying separate roles, we might now see

them as participants who interact with each other according to a new set of

rules that none of us fully understands” (Jenkins 2006: 3). Participatory

cultures introduce a new motivation for stakeholders to belong to online

communities where Wikipedia is a champion example of this shift in online

communities.

The Wikipedia community is significant within this research by challenging

these four characteristics:

1. Existing production models

2. Existing management models

3. The structure of online communities

4. The structure of online communities within institutions

The shift in participation of online community members is a phenomenon Axel

Bruns (2008) describes as Produsage. Produsage: “highlights that within the

23

communities which engage in the collaborative creation and extension of

information and knowledge … the role of „consumer‟ and even that of „end

user‟ have long disappeared, and the distinctions between producers and

users of content have faded into comparative insignificance” (Bruns 2008: 2).

Bruns highlights four key produsage principals through Wikipedia‟s embrace

of an enthusiast community to succeed the failed approach of Nupedia –

Wikipedia‟s predecessor. Distributing the workload by declaring, “anyone can

edit” as Wikipedia‟s slogan substantially reduces the labour efforts of a

centralised body of experts. The absence of gatekeepers over the editorial

stronghold during the creation of content ensures the project‟s sustainability.

The granularity of the editorial process includes the affordances of the

stakeholders having a useful input into the creation of knowledge, or what

Pierre Lévy (1998) refers to as collective intelligence. Wikipedia incorporates

technological functionality that allows users to not only view content, but to

also edit and discuss edits, providing Wikipedians an opportunity to legitimise

the way accurate information is developed. This functionality, embraced

through the wiki technology, allows users more time to contribute more

articles and not merely concentrate on cosmetic edits of existing content.

Finally, an increased sense of ownership over the creation of the material

boosts the potential for further knowledge creation through contribution (Bruns

2008).

In addition to challenging the knowledge and content production model,

Wikipedia embraces a heterarchy governance model. Hebdige classifies

community as self-style or alignment to a subculture. Rheingold furthers

Hebdige by highlighting conventions are challenged, established and re-

challenged within online communities. Bruns develops these observations,

suggesting Wikipedia is made up of “fluid heterarchies organized through ad

hoc meritocratic governance” (Bruns 2008: 108). By including specialised

interest groups and subcultures within the production of knowledge, Wikipedia

can present fringe information where the experts are not working. In this

situation, the enthusiast becomes the expert. “The Wikipedia project

represents the application of … open-source principles to the production and

management of knowledge” (Bruns 2008: 254). Passionate contributors of

24

any group of stakeholders within the online community may receive “greater

visibility” and become community leaders (Jenkins 2006).

Heterarchical governance challenges the structure of online communities. By

retaining a largely decentralised membership, members have an increased

input, ownership, and pride in their online communities. Heterarchy and

participatory cultures provide opportunities to investigate the interaction

between the online community and the institution. The convergent

characteristic of online participatory communities is the basis for the next

iteration of online community nested within the institution. Participatory

cultures begin to shift from the edge of economic models to the core (Burgess

& Banks 2009), bringing with them complex relationships between the

institution and the communities involved (Jenkins 2006).

3.2.5 Community 2.0

The following literature illuminates and contextualises how Web 2.0

technologies have changed online community conventions (RQ1b) and

challenged economic models. The literature also situates ABC Pool as a

process for participatory culture by establishing motivations and incentives for

contribution from the community members.

Increased interest of “the buzzword status of Web 2.0 and similar terms also

indicates the significant commercial and industrial attention now paid to the

new models of community and content development now emerging from the

realm of social software” (Bruns 2008: 16). Crowdsourcing, as Margaret

Simons describes it, “is the idea that a crowd of people, geographically

dispersed but sharing common purpose, can achieve things better or

differently to small groups of professionals and gatekeepers” (Simons 2007:

87). Crowdsourcing is established as a form of sourcing UGC from the “pro-

am” (Leadbeater & Miller 2004) sector, prompting institutions to organize their

business models around online social networks. Within the media industry, we

begin to see the „casual collapse‟ of those that do not embrace the power of

content creation and alternatively the rise of new media providers harnessing

the collective input of the participatory culture (Bruns 2008). Burgess and

25

Green (2009) observe participatory culture becoming a central focus for pillar

social media corporations – those that rely solely on the contributions of the

participants. “For YouTube, participatory culture is not a gimmick or a

sideshow; it is absolute core business” (Burgess & Green 2009: 6).

The contemporary manifestation of the institutional online community

suggests we are what we share (Leadbeater 2008) which introduces the

debate of the gift economy within community 2.0. The gift economy also

highlights shifting motivations into new conventions (RQ1b). To contextualize

the debate, some underpinning ideologies need to be established through

Yochai Benkler‟s (2006) work on the economies surrounding online networks.

Benkler outlines the potential economic benefits within economies outside the

market are displayed through information communication technologies. He

suggests consumers are exhibiting levels of control over production of

knowledge and culture. The inception of user-created platforms like Wikipedia

and open source artifacts tend to be more stable, more efficient, and more

effective than those produced within firms due to human labour and creativity

of a participatory cultures (Benkler 2006). Harnessing the motivation of human

creativity and labour normally rewarded through implicit value of creative

participation and social status within an online community may then be

problematic if merely monetized. The role of the social economy, then, can be

challenging when interacting with a market based commercial economy.

A hybrid version of commercial and social economy now appears. Banks and

Humphries (2008) argue, the convergence of the two economies are

“at its most challenging and provocative not when it positions peer

production networks and motivations in outright opposition to the

commercial, but when it considers hybrid configurations and the

entities that emerge, which are an uneasy and at times a messy mix of

the commercial and non-commercial, markets and non-markets, the

proprietary and the non-proprietary” (Banks & Humphreys 2008: 406).

Benkler, Banks, and Humphries all suggest there are benefits of institutions

adapting these new forms of economic models. “Harnessing the economic

benefits and opportunities of peer production relies on firms adapting to and

26

coexisting with social networks” (Benkler 2006: 287). Adapting peer

production suggests combining the gift economy into the existing production

models of institutions.

The gift economy can be described as “motivations and rewards of reciprocal

engagement in a social exchange” (Bonniface & Green 2007: 69). Bonniface

and Green refer to the increased affect experienced by participants within

online communities participating within a balanced gift economy. However not

only the emotional economy of individuals inflates through gifting, it is also

social economies that increase. Increased affect can be attached to the

definition given to social value by Flew et al (2008) through the relationship to

social innovation:

“Social innovation is understood as the application of a new idea, or a

new application of an existing idea, that delivers lasting social value.

Social value refers to the benefits over and above those received by

the direct consumer of the product or service, but to the benefits to

society as a whole arising from the development, application and use

of this new product or service” (Flew et al. 2008: 10).

By increasing the social value, community and institution participation

becomes enticing. The social status to be recognized within a community of

higher prominence is attractive, instigating further input. Further input equates

to a higher level of social value, increasing the level of notability of the

community. Figure 1.1 demonstrates the cyclic benefits of online social value

through the gift economy where “givers are also receivers and that those who

give most benefit from increased self esteem, social regard and status”

(Bonniface & Green 2007: 74).

27

Figure 1.1 The cycle of online social value

Gifting, however, establishes hierarchical relationships within communities

through quality reputation of the author (Bergquist & Ljungberg 2001). The

author is more than the “average” fan or consumer (Green & Jenkins 2009)

contributing knowledge or culture, and is usually a „super user‟ of the website.

The super users are, most times, the community members that are vocal

within „their‟ space, sharing tips and tricks with other online users. Sharing

their specific skill set adds social capital yet also sees individuals within the

community elevated to seniority amongst the members. This would be a

typical understanding of the meaning of a “Poolian”. The introduced hierarchy

through gifters challenges the heterarchy model of Web 2.0 online

communities. However the ad hoc, self-organized meritocracy allows the

whole community to assemble a collective intelligence and achieve quite

complex tasks.

This literature highlights motivations, economies, and management structures

within sophisticated online communities. However it fails to address how the

Participation

Gift Contribution

Social Status Increase of

Member

Increased Social Value

Community of Notability

28

tension between ad hoc meritocracies consisting of heterarchical models is

negotiated with a hierarchical gift economy.

3.2.6 Online Becoming Institutional Communities

The following literature and case studies are precursors in defining the

conventions of ABC Pool. The case studies address RQ1b by outlining the

tensions between conventions of online communities and institutions.

Online communities within institutions enable niche or specific types of

communities to establish and operate. Niche online communities can include

specific art style interests, sporting activities, musical expression groups,

health, or politics. Larger institutions may provide technical provisions such as

server space, or partial financial and human resources. Two case studies

similar to ABC Pool highlight the manifestation of niche institutional online

communities: the online medical support project HeartNET, and the Australian

election online community participatory project YouDecide 2007.

HeartNET is a “website … set up to support people recovering from heart-

related incidents through a combination of the following: surgery, drugs, and

lifestyle change” (Bonniface, Green & Swanson 2006: 89). The project was

established for the National Heart Foundation of Australia and was modestly

funded by an ARC linkage grant. The core of this investigative project was to

understand if the idea of community could be mirrored in the online

community model. The researchers were also interested in assessing

“whether the reciprocal support shown by members of this online community

for people with heart conditions may help instil a sense of sharing a journey

with others, and to assess the impact of this shared experience” (Bonniface &

Green 2007: 68).

After successfully establishing an ad hoc online community for a specific

health support community, Bonniface and Green (2007) were able to assess

the effectiveness of group support in an online community. Apart from the

obvious benefit of interacting with patients in hard to reach areas for face-to-

face contact, the key finding indicated the improved relevance and

29

accurateness of shared information. To challenge the level of professionalism

of shared information, Bonniface and Green suggest:

“Active engagement by members minimizes the risks of false or

misleading information being circulated, while appropriate disclaimers

at the point of information provision can help ensure that an online

community is used for support and information alongside medical and

professional knowledge” (Bonniface & Green 2007: 74)

The scholars refer to medical advice, yet the sentiment is true for most

communities of interest. The quote highlights a challenge of accurate peer-

reviewed advice from other community members that is questioned by

medical experts. Should a community member change their medication

without proper medical advice, potentially catastrophic results could occur.

This situation requires „managed openness‟ (defined further in section 3.4.5)

to allow accurate, relevant information to emerge from the community, but in

consultation with professional clinicians.

YouDecide 2007 was an online community established specifically to

investigate “the dynamics and potential of online citizen journalism” (Flew &

Wilson 2008: 22), resulting in a similar finding to HeartNET. The community‟s

inception coincided with and was focused on the 2007 federal Australian

election. The project encouraged users to contribute content on the upcoming

election. YouDecide 2007 was positioned in the middle of a political

community of interest and a host of institutions including “Queensland

University of Technology‟s Creative Industries Faculty (QUT CIF), On Line

Opinion (OLO), Australia‟s Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), Cisco

Systems, and the Brisbane Institute” (Wilson, Saunders & Bruns 2008: 246).

YouDecide 2007 provides a substantial example of communities working

within multiple institutional structures requiring different outcomes from the

community. However, Wilson (et al) establish through their research that

citizen journalism cannot be successful at this level without the coordinated

efforts of a core group of experts. “It is increasingly clear that to succeed, or

even just to persist, crowdsourced citizen journalism projects must rely

30

extensively on the work and leadership of a professional core team” (Wilson,

Saunders & Bruns 2008: 248).

The scholars discuss four central concepts to the hybrid nature within “media

work” (Deuze 2007) predicated on the “preditor” (Miller 2007), a neologism of

“producer” and “editor”. The preditor is a new media employee that normally

works in a production and editorial role, but also in an institutional role within a

community of participants. The role of the preditor, as described by Wilson (et

al), encompasses four main principals.

i) Networking

ii) Community Work

iii) Content Work

iv) Tech Work

The individuals occupying these roles take on much more than merely

producing content for a website. Website usability, time frames, budget, and

journalistic principals of ethics and legalities are conventions citizen journalists

may not be informed on. Could, or indeed should, a political enthusiast

socially commentating understand the budgetary constraints of a website?

Similarly, is it understood that a citizen journalist incorporates journalism

ethics and legal knowledge into their practice? The differences in these

shared understandings outline the deficiency of this community contributing to

a project housed by multiple institutions where potential conflicts may arise.

The institutional online community does not simply emerge; they are a

coordinated effort set up by the community themselves and other times by

institutions. Some institutional communities are established for the benefit of

the community with a particular purpose. Support and access to resources

provide a substantial incentive for members to participate. As companies

increase in size in online spaces, the thinking shifts to suggest dedicated

positions are required. Institutions are no longer merely providing the system

and the administrators; they also need people to coordinate these efforts for

the benefit of the institution and the community. Shifts such as this indicate

how the role of the community manager becomes important.

31

3.3 The ABC Develops Pool

I will return to the community manager in section 3.4 in the context of

negotiation mechanisms. However it is necessary at this point to describe the

ABC Pool online community as the focus of this research. The following

section addresses the assemblage of the elements of Pool, its actors and

conventions, and negotiation mechanisms are revealed to address RQ1a,

RQ1b and RQ1c.

3.3.1 What is ABC Pool?

ABC Pool is an online community of stakeholders who share, reuse, and

remix media. The Pool website defines itself as:

“... a social media space that brings together ABC professionals and

audiences in an open-ended process of participation, co-creation and

collaboration.” (ABC 2011)

The ABC defines Pool as a platform facilitating a conversation between what

is traditionally termed “the audience” and ABC professionals engaging in

creative practices. The website invites participants to “Create a profile,

upload/download, remix and reuse the ABC archive, collaborate with Radio

National producers, and select a licensing agreement” (ABC 2011). Its

purpose is to engage a networked environment that provides the mechanisms

to assist in cultural production. Historically, Pool has been used to store and

publish content from its users, source material for ABC broadcast productions,

and encourage remix of material through the open framework of Creative

Commons.

Affordances in the structure of Pool give rise to particular kinds of interaction

and creativity between the Pool community and the public broadcaster, where

the primary focus is on productivity. Emerging research on Pool suggests it is

not entirely concerned with broadcast outcomes, but also with the cultural

infrastructure practices that are managed and, to some degree, funded

internally by the ABC. The current research is revealing Pool is concerned

with enabling content production by engaging its users, providing access to

32

resources, providing a secure online space, and access to professional

mentoring. The notion of Pool as a product diminishes and gives rise to Pool

as a process through its continual iterative evolution.

Pool is seen to support and indeed develop new approaches towards the

creative industries within Australia through complex and richly textured

involvement of community, industry, and policy. By publicly stating, “here

comes everybody” (Shirky 2008), Pool is strategically positioned between “the

people formerly known as the audience” (Rosen 2006) and the public service

broadcaster. This unique position highlights multiple challenges and

opportunities, managed internally by the ABC.

ABC Pool can be defined as a leading example of mediation process through

the provisions of:

1. A managed online space

2. Tools and capacity building

3. An open licensing regime

4. Providing ABC archival material for reuse and remix

5. Access to expert creative practitioners

6. Access to brand value and aggregated audiences.

The outcomes of the creative process are indeterminable therefore the

structure surrounding this practice needs to remain open. Pool is one such

space providing these affordances. Openness suggests a diminishing level of

control that allows creative practice to develop. There are forms of control that

can either enable the process of collaboration and creative participation or

can be seen as regulatory and used in a way that restricts creative practice.

These tools are very rigid and set the boundaries to determine the

functionality of the online space. It is worth pointing out the involvement of the

Pool team and the participants should not be viewed as negative or restrictive.

Rather, all concerned with Pool are seen to enable, encourage, and foster

(Bacon 2009) the community. The community management strategy to

enhance the creative practice includes providing a secure space for the

community members to interact with each other, to generate conversation and

elicit feedback from other users on existing work, and to assist in generating

33

collaborative efforts between members. These mechanics within the Pool

management are significant instruments becoming explicit in the operation of

the site, purposefully built into the infrastructure.

The agency of the user is not ignored in the dynamic of managing the site,

where self-management is a significant mechanism employed within the Pool

infrastructure. A unique Pool username and login provides a secure space for

community members to publish their work, and enables Pool users to manage

their own space. The ability to „self-manage‟ allows users to determine where

their content is and is not visible within the site, and more broadly visibility

within the ABC. Further, this functionality provides members the opportunity to

produce content for specific purposes, including producing works for the sake

of producing works, gathering works, belonging to a media community, and

being a part of the ABC (Foley et al. 2009).

The Pool team also adapts more „hands-on‟ community management

strategies, where these strategies have been proven successful within other

online communities. Pool has incorporated a grass roots approach into its

community management by providing tools that enables users to develop and

produce their content. Additionally, the Pool team encourages professional

feedback through comments and general conversation and fosters the

developing of the community by including the participants in the design of

„their‟ space.

Beyond the day-to-day management, a typical community management

strategy is to focus on tools that enable the community to develop their

productive practices. An example of enabling within Pool is evident within the

Poolcast project. The Poolcast project requires the members to produce a

remix podcast, made entirely from content by other Pool members within the

site. The Poolcast is then distributed to a wider audience through an RSS

feed, including Radio National. The benefits demonstrated so far include one

Poolcast production gaining exposure through the Radio National program

Sound Quality. The value of this project to the community is the provision to

provide tools by the Pool team to enable this production.

34

Expanding on the preditor philosophy, Poolcast was an idea internally

generated from the Pool members, yet did not transcend entirely until the Pool

team became involved in the production process. The Pool team provided the

tools for the members to create the Poolcasts through platform, media assets,

software, and education. The Pool team aimed to develop a model for

creative processes. The model was one not of a rigid basis but one that is

used as a trigger for creative participation which is a pragmatic tool to be built

upon and changed through the dynamic of the Pool members. Additionally,

the Pool team also included links to external Open Source software, providing

users the opportunity to remix the media assets via third party applications. By

providing tools, software, and examples, the Pool team not only facilitated

remix and production of a podcast, they also engaged the creative agency of

participants through nurturing and capacity building.

Creative initiatives such as the Poolcast suggest a diminished level of control,

or openness, encourages creative practice. Creative Commons is an open

framework approach used to enable material to be published, downloaded,

and remixed legally. For the first time in the ABC‟s history, the content

published on Pool is done so under a Creative Commons license, where

Creative Commons provides a “tool (to) give everyone from individual creators

to large companies and institutions a simple, standardised way to grant

copyright permissions to their creative work” (Bledsoe 2010). Under this

system, users are given the option to allocate the level of copyright they wish

to attach to their published content. This scale of copyright slides from All

Right Reserved to Public Domain, with the most common license being used

in Pool is 3.0 Unported Attribution (BY), Non-Commercial (NC). The

significance of Creative Commons licensing allows the distribution of creative

works to flow more freely amongst outwardly facing publishing avenues.

Additionally, specifically using CC licensing indicates Pool users are prepared

to share the creative control over the material published on Pool.

Pool also promotes innovation by opening channels for dialogue with ABC

experts. Pool is housed within the ABC and has three professional,

experienced radio producers steering it. They provide expert knowledge on

media production and cultural expertise for the Pool participants. Additionally,

35

the Pool team has access to other ABC professionals and cultural experts.

The Pool members therefore have indirect access to expert input from a

broad array of ABC professionals. Past examples include the City Nights

project where content was gathered from Pool participants. Pool members

were offered expert feedback from in-house ABC producers on their work they

contributed to the ABC Radio National program, 360documentaries. Upon re-

submitting this content, several pieces of creative contributions were selected

for broadcast on the City Nights episode.

Within this new framework, ABC experts and participants enter to create

media products through co-creation. John Banks and Jean Burgess (2009)

describe co-creation as a way that users “collectively contribute to the social,

cultural and economic value of... media products... and likewise, it indicates

the ways in which platform providers (however imperfectly) integrate user-

participation into their own models of production.” (Burgess & Banks 2009:

298) The notion of co-creation outlines the interaction or collaboration on

production between community members and PSB professionals.

Additionally, it suggests Pool is concerned with incorporating this practice into

the platform as a production model outlined through the recent redesign

documents (Foley et al. 2009). Co-creation was documented as a substantial

incentive for „prosumers‟ to contribute content. The attraction of addressing a

seemingly unreachable audience made possible through broadcast, and by

attaching the ABC brand, emerged as one of the top reasons for people to

participate in Pool (Foley et al. 2009). The value of Pool with the ABC brand

reiterates the significance of the PSB being involved in cultural production of

artifacts.

3.4 Mechanisms of Negotiations

Negotiation is a communication process of consensus between stakeholders

of the online community. In ABC Pool, this is how Pool stakeholders

understand each other. This communication process is supported through

technological systems, institutional frameworks and human interaction. As an

ethnographer I am interested in observing, understanding and describing what

36

the mechanics are, how they work, and what happens during this negotiation

process. This literature addresses RQ1c.

A useful concept in understanding how these mechanisms translate into the

social form is the notion of the interface. “The notion of interface … provide

people with a conceptual scheme that would guard against such

misunderstandings by deploying familiar objects and environments as stakes

in the common ground” (Laurel 1998: 5). An interface is an enabler in the

digital environment and impacts on how the stakeholders participate. For the

purposes of this research, the term interface refers to a mediator between two

actors engaging in negotiation, where the mediator relies on existing media

aesthetics and cultural principles (Bolter & Grusin 2000).

“The importance of culturally appropriate interface design” (Kondratova &

Goldfarb 2005: 3) is crucial in keeping an online community workable. Design

in this context only refers to technical design of the website. The technology

mechanisms are iterative, institutional mechanisms are a way of formalizing

the process, and human interaction contributes to how the interface looks.

This perspective on interface design is useful to shore up Barber and Badre‟s

(1998) suggestion, “cultural markers are interface design elements and

features that are prevalent, and possibly preferred, within a particular cultural

group” (Barber & Badre 1998: 2). Firstly identifying the cultural markers and

then understanding them informs interface design for the online community.

3.4.1 Technology as Negotiator

Technology refers to the communication systems within the online community.

The technological means underpin how the stakeholders of the space

communicate with each other, impacting on the negotiation process. The

more accessible the technology, the better the negotiation process. The

stakeholders of the community are not entirely separate from the technology

designers of the space and enter into an iterative participatory process.

“Actual users then engage in an ongoing act of negotiation with devices and

systems, often reinscribing and remaking them” (Taylor 2006: 2). The use of

37

these technologies is interesting in understanding the relationship of

technology with the online community.

“People say „television has altered the world‟, or „radio has altered the

world‟, or, reaching further back, „printing altered the world‟. And we

usually, at first, know what these statements mean. Evident and

widespread social effects have undoubtedly followed the uses of all

these inventions. But then, in expanding the statements in this way, we

have already – and sometimes without noticing it – introduced a further

category: that of uses.” (Williams 1989: 175).

The technology surrounding UGC and social media has improved social

networking, but it is the uses that have mass social significance. “The Web

2.0 concept captured features that have long been seen as central to the Web

as a communication infrastructure, such as the scope for mass participation,

real-time interactivity, collaborative learning, and social networking.” (Flew &

Wilson 2008: 25) It is these “uses” that provide opportunities for the

stakeholders of online communities.

Technology development does not determine the social and communicative

opportunities within Pool, however technology does shape the way in how the

space is used. Jonathan Zittrain explains this phenomenon as generativity.

Generativity provides

“accessibility to people all over the world – people without particular

credentials or wealth or connections – who can share the technologies‟

power for various ends many of which were unanticipated or, if

anticipated, would never have been thought to be valuable”. (Zittrain

2007: 51)

Zittrain also suggests the innovative edge of the Internet is under threat. If we

are locked into platforms, or proprietary systems, how can new ideas emerge

from within our existing practices? Zittrain outlines four specific areas of

generativity, additional to the description above, that engage the openness of

technology design. The technology design must have strong leverage against

possible tasks; it must adapt to the range of tasks; it must be easy to master;

38

and it must be accessible. (Zittrain 2008) These categories of generativity

present low barriers of entry for stakeholders yielding high negotiation

possibilities.

3.4.2 Institution as Negotiator

The central idea of RQ1b addresses Pool operating under the ABC auspices:

the structure of the community intersecting with the institutional structure. As

an institutional online community, Pool cannot freely exist without challenging

and complying with the overarching management protocol that also governs

other ABC online spaces, and broadcasting in general. This governance

protocol challenges any fluid heterarchical formation of the Pool community in

relation to the institution.

A formal approach implicitly encodes bias through inclusion of institutional

mechanisms not necessarily inclusive of conventions of an online community.

Star (1995) suggests the characteristics of formal systems “are typically

unable to capture the tacit, local, situated, sometimes hidden, and ever–

changing meanings and practices actual users generate and participate in”

(Star 1995: 98).The formal frameworks established by the ABC institution of

categorizing, creating hierarchies, standardizing, and simplifying are counter-

intuitive to those of a self-mobilising community (Star 1995). As the fluid

operational processes of the community become inflexible, the “invisible gap”

(Star 1995) between the community and the institution increases, challenging

the “contingency of ad hoc solutions” (Taylor 2006: 11).

Pool shifts from a product to a process by challenging institutional frameworks

as the negotiator between the community and the institution. The model is

loosely based on participatory design – the participants are involved in

shaping and developing the model to accommodate both community and

institution, are speaking a similar language, and are sharing and learning from

each other (Taylor 2006). Gradually, the dynamic, disruptive model transpires

to an agreed process enveloping a greater experience for both community

and institution.

39

3.4.3 Human Negotiation

All human interaction can be understood as the process of negotiation. In the

preceding two sections I argue that technology, along with institutional

frameworks can impact on negotiation. In the context of an online community,

a member‟s capacity to negotiate is often dependent on their level of technical

competency or expertise within the online environment. Banks introduces the

notion of “distributed expertise network” (Banks 2009: 83) which I draw on to

represent the dynamics of interaction negotiated within Pool. The

decentralised expertise of the online community demonstrates how a flat

governance model can achieve consensus through negotiation. I specifically

draw on this framework when considering how Pool member‟s background

knowledge and experience contribute to the formation of complex inter-

personal collaborations. I have noted these collaborations taking place in Pool

to date and to further help in conceptualizing my role as the community

manager in relation to this process.

The negotiation on the „correct‟ meaning of the author-less piece of content

can reflect how „the pecking order‟ can be arranged within the online

community (Baym 2000). The more experienced, dominant members have

greater authority on such matters compared to newer, less vocal participants.

The concept of the „invisible gap‟ was introduced by Star (1995) to describe

institutional management. Star‟s argument highlights the differing nature of

expertise required by managers and the effect of their actions. Collins and

Sanders‟ (2007) suggest the scale of expertise lay between directly applied

expertise and referred expertise. Directly applied expertise suggests the

process is more significant than the applied skill. Referred expertise can be

defined as “a grasp of some elements of the tacit knowledge pertaining to the

particular [task] in question” (Collins & Sanders 2007: 640). An individual

possessing directly applied expertise can be relatively competent within any

industry because of the common language shared between multiple contexts.

Referred expertise however requires the individual to posses a level of directly

related skills to be competent in performing any task. The more appropriate

framework to employ within institutional online communities might be

40

interactional expertise. “Although expressed as language alone, it cannot be

too heavily stressed, interactional expertise is tacit knowledge-laden and

context specific” (Collins, Evans & Gorman 2007: 661). An online community

facilitator with interactional expertise can perform a “translation role that

facilitates and supports communication, dialogue and exchange across

expertise domains” (Banks 2009: 85).

The approach of interactional expertise by Taylor (2006), Collins et al (2007),

and Star (1995) within the institution online community raises the question of

preferred facilitation models. Who is best situated to facilitate an online

community? Banks provides an insight through co-creative expertise within

institutions engaging online expert gamers by asking where is the line

between “extend[ing] expertise beyond the boundaries of the firm to include

the knowledge, skills and competencies of players?” (Banks 2009: 78). Banks

also signifies “a co-evolutionary dynamic of both economic and cultural

change” (Banks 2009: 78) highlighting the importance of co-creation and

interactional expertise structure within production.

An environment where human mechanisms are being negotiated in an

emergent process requires a negotiator with interactional expertise. This

stakeholder requires an understanding of the technology and institutional

mechanisms, but also needs to be aware of the human elements with varying

degrees of knowledge and expertise engaging in negotiation. As Wilson (et al)

(2008) suggests, it must be a local champion from within the community and

institution as the central negotiator. At the nexus of these different

mechanisms of negotiation is the community manager as a person, an

institutional role, and someone with certain technological control. Further

research is required to understand how the community manager operates,

both within Pool and in other institutional online communities.

3.4.4 Community Manager as Mediator

All negotiation mechanisms intersect at some point requiring some direction.

Because of their situated nature, the community manager is the person who is

generally facilitating the negotiation process. It is inconclusive if the

41

community manager is the most suitable stakeholder to perform the task.

Normative questions arise on the community manager‟s ability to perform this

task and indeed under what circumstances. The activities a community

manager undertakes are partly human, partly institutional, and partly

technological.

On one part, the community manager‟s understanding of the negotiation

mechanisms determines the equilibrium of the community. Alternatively, the

other part of their role is mechanical. The community manager undertakes

these seven core activities:

1. Personally communicates with stakeholders of the community

2. Encourages contribution from the stakeholders and understands

their motivations

3. Develops informal networks between community stakeholders

4. Extends networks beyond the barriers of the community

5. Translates mechanisms of operation between all actors

6. Is an advocate for all actors

7. Manages discussion within the peer-to-peer informative community

Fulfilling these criteria is a day-to-day process and is carried out through

management activities. The following literature demonstrates how and why

these core activities have emerged as the role of the community manager as

mediator.

Essentially the community manager, in various forms, has existed since the

conception of the online community. Rheingold (1994) makes reference to a

moderator keeping the online community focused whilst providing a safe

space. He suggests the inclusion of a moderator assists in fostering a

cooperative, supportive environment as demonstrated through “computer

supported cooperative play” (Rheingold 1994: 188). Banks (2002) referred to

the community manager position as the community relations manager placed

between community and institution. “In my position as online community

relations manager, I am often positioned within the company as an advocate

for and representative of the fans” (Banks 2002: 194). Banks is describing first

hand the managed tension through translating the interests of the fan base

42

users to the commercial developers. As the community relations manager,

Banks sourced development material from the developers for release to the

fan base community who would collaboratively co-create features of the

game. The developers were concerned that releasing plans too early into the

community could cause a disruption to the “stability, quality and deliverability

of a software development project” (Banks 2002: 194). Banks was also in

direct contact with the community of hard-core gamer fans who “expect game

companies to release editing tools and support the fan community‟s efforts to

create additional content for the game” (Banks 2002: 195). These hard-core

gamers expected high levels of interaction during the development process,

as they are the group who regularly engage the final product. The developers

and the community have similar goals yet construct different approaches in

achieving them.

The community manager is acting as a mediator for the institution and

community to operate in a cooperative manner to realize the goals of both

actor and stakeholder (Bacon 2009). Jono Bacon (2009) says of the

community manager:

“Our function as community leaders is to enable people to be the best

they can in the community that they have chosen to be a part of. Our

job is to help our community members achieve their greatest ambitions,

and to help them work with other community members to realize not

only their own personal goals, but the goals of the community itself”

(Bacon 2009: 6).

As the online community has been gradually sophisticating, so too has the

person to manage the space. The online community increasingly requires the

engagement of a dedicated person as the mediator between all of the actors

within the space. The community manager represents any “project must install

one go-to guy (or girl) who will thanklessly toil day and night to keep the

project on the rails” (Howe 2006). This person shifted from a „slash employee‟

to a dedicated community manager. They are not the “System

Administrator/Community Manger” or “Product Development/Community

43

Manager” anymore, but a dedicated community manager. However, confusion

still surrounds who this person is and what they do.

The following two quotes are from community managers who post in a global

online discussion forum for community managers, eMint. The comments are

ethically re-published (permission has been given) and discuss the definition

of the community manager:

“I have come to accept [the definition] because it‟s not worth getting

worked up over and it‟s just a reflection of the growth of the space,

which is good for everyone. At this point, there are a few definitions of

community manager. So many different responsibilities are being

thrown under that title: social media monitoring (and responding to

mentions), public face of the brand, corporate blogger, customer

service representative, social media marketer, online marketer and, of

course, someone who manages actual structured communities that the

company has started and/or engages in.” Patrick O‟Keefe, eMint forum

7/1/11

"A community manager is someone who is responsible for

communicating directly with the user base of a product or service.

He/she is responsible for encouraging use of the product and retention

of existing users by broadcasting content, promoting the product

online/in-person and processing feedback, both positive and negative

and relaying it to the product team. It's a loose role that varies greatly

by company, but generally keeps the herd together." Anonymous,

eMint forum 19/1/11

The quotes express frustrations and even confusion of the community

manager role. While community managers negotiate their role, institutions

also demonstrate uncertainty on the responsibilities of this person. Scholars

suggest a key person to manage the interaction between the actor and

stakeholders:

“We believe … this points to the importance of projects having a

champion from within the organisation; such internal advocacy can be

44

a crucial driver of uptake, as the champion‟s enthusiasm can be

enough to convince other members of the organisation to incorporate

the project into the group‟s communication ecology” (Bruns &

Humphreys 2010: 54).

I return to Granovetter‟s (1973) strength of weak ties to assist in defining the

role of the community manager as an enabler. Their key criteria is to foster,

engage, and develop (Bacon 2009) relationships amongst the community‟s

members and networks. The community manager will identify any inclination

of ties within the community, internal and external to assist in fostering

relationships of the online community. The style of individual stakeholders

allows the community manager to direct them to other like-minded

stakeholders within the group. Collaborations may occur between members,

developing social capital for the community, implicitly creating cultural artifacts

or knowledge. As defined earlier in figure 1.1 fostering collective creation

assists generative social value, made possible by the community manager‟s

strengthening of weak ties. In ABC Pool, the community manager‟s role is to

translate expertise from one actor to actor, stakeholder to stakeholder.

3.4.5 Beyond Management

Taylor (2006), Banks (2009), Collins et al. (2007) and Star (1995) highlight

particular elements not utilised to represent the specific particularities of

practices constituting the modes of management and how we describe them

(Taylor 2006). This is the starting point for describing the type of management

used within online communities. The literature does not propose the

implications on creative communities within a public broadcaster.

The management dilemma has flowed through multiple iterations of online

community and is present in most online community spaces now. There is an

increasing awareness amongst institutions to be present in online

communities. It has been outlined how the institution needs to be an advocate

for both the community and the institution to maximise on the benefits of

online community. Additionally, the emergence of the community manager as

mediator has been positioned as a facilitator of the space. Institutions

45

understand that the communities need to feel like they own the space, even if

they don‟t perceptually (Bruns 2008). A concept such as this leads to the

notion I describe as „managed openness‟.

The community manager provides enough space for their community to

innovate and participate within the online space. This openness provides the

feeling that the community is freely participating under the auspices of the

institution. The community manager will also softly enforce boundaries on the

community to satisfy the requirements of the institution. If the balance is not

equal, the online community will not be workable. Some mechanisms have

greater power and can marginalise actors (Suchman 2003). This model may

limit certain knowledge and shared understandings, triggering a rethinking of

management. New models of management are required to include imagined

participants within the design process. This process requires to not only look

at the mechanics of management, but to also include the complex social

systems. The inclusion of the community manager as mediator with managed

openness on negotiation processes may impact on the inclusion of imagined

participants.

3.5 Potential Implications – Summary

ABC Online has been the latest division to be shored up by the national

broadcaster to deliver content over multiple digital platforms and to engage

audiences in new and challenging ways (ABC 2010; Debrett 2010). Fulfilling

these requirements sees the departments of ABC Online distribute content

that fails to fit into the market but is compliant with the ABC‟s social and

political remit. For the ABC to continue to pursue its remit, it needs to be

working within online communities such as ABC Pool. This shift is the result of

scholarly research, internal and external interrogation, and a shift of a

fragmenting audience.

As part of that commitment to distribute content in new and challenging ways

(ABC 2009b), the incorporation of the umbrella term social media (Bruns &

Humphreys 2010) is given considerable attention. The ABC is supplying

content over multiple devices in various formats, and experimenting with

46

receiving UGC, or being „in‟ valve as well as an „out‟ valve. As outlined earlier,

the corporation has a significant interest in engaging with online communities.

The challenge the corporation now faces is how exactly to do this and how to

build policy for the implementation of user contributions.

ABC Pool is a significant example for research that represents the growth of

online communities within institutions (Banks 2009, Burgess & Green 2009,

Wilson & Saunders & Bruns 2008). This is demonstrated through other online

communities like ABC Open, Heywire, or JJJ Unearthed. If the model of ABC

Pool is executed well, the model may be retrofitted to other institutional online

communities within public service broadcasters. If the model is successful

within the public broadcasting section, the question of the significance of the

public broadcaster within the research emerges. Can the model be adapted to

institutional online communities outside of the PSB? This research project

provides me with an opportunity to collect rich, deeply textured ethnographic

data of the ABC Pool community. My contribution to knowledge is describing

how an online community of creative practitioners operates within a public

broadcasting institution by observing, documenting, and understanding this

incredibly complex relationship.

4. Research Design

This research draws on principles of qualitative research. More specifically I

am using an ethnographic methodology that incorporates aspects of action

research. Other qualitative research instruments such as focus groups will

supplement this ethnographic approach.

4.1 Ethnographic Action Research

By being embedded within the Pool community and situated within the ABC

this research adopts an ethnographic methodology. Ethnography provides a

way to approach social research through participant observation. Hammersley

and Atkinson (1995) define ethnography as a methodology that:

“involves the ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in people‟s

daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens,

47

listening to what is said, asking questions – in fact, collecting whatever

data are available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the

research.” (Hammersley & Atkinson 1995: 11)

The ethnographic participant observation approach enables me to collect rich

qualitative data about both this community and the professional ABC staff and

managers working on the Pool project. Ethnographic participant observation

however, is not objective, (Fine 2003) and does not claim to be (Hammersley

& Atkinson 1995). I am aware of my subjective position within this work as a

participant observer and indeed as a community manager working on the Pool

project, and will carefully manage the reflexivity implications of this

intervention. My distinct position as community manager provides first hand

access to the community and thereby allows me to undertake fine-grained

and richly textured descriptive research. This approach allows me to gain

access to everyday practices and the participants‟ understandings of their

community (Hammersley & Atkinson 1995; Tacchi, Slater & Hearn 2003). My

project draws on similarities with past research projects within the media and

cultural disciplines that adopt ethnographic methodology to investigate both

online communities and media institutions.

Georgina Born‟s seminal work Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the

Reinvention of the BBC (Born 2005) was a ten-year ethnographic research

project on the BBC. During this time she was able to gain a thorough

understanding of the cultures within the BBC, whilst observing the change of

two of its historically significant leaders. This ethnographic work provides an

important study of the world‟s largest public broadcaster. Nancy Baym‟s

ethnographic research of online fan communities provides another example of

applying ethnographic methodology within the media field. Within this

research Baym was able to gain an understanding of who participates in

these online forums, how they actually do this and what their incentives are.

An experienced ethnographer, Baym outlines at the offset of her study her

role as an active participant in the communities she studies, and the

subjective nature of her involvement within the space. These works provide

helpful models for undertaking ethnographic research that I draw on.

48

The specific nature of my engagement with the ABC and the Pool project has

the implication that it is not simply broadly ethnographic research but more

specifically ethnographic action research. “Action research means integrating

your research into the development of your project.” (Tacchi, Slater & Hearn

2003: 12) Unlike the work of Born, for example, my project sees me actively

involved in the community as the community manager. This position sees me

working with the ABC team and offering advice. I am placed between the ABC

management team and the Pool community in a mediating role that seeks to

improve Pool‟s operations and the ABC‟s engagement with Pool‟s community

of users. The research constitutes ethnographic action research as my direct

interventions within the site and relationships seek to inform and potentially

improve the research participants‟ practices (Herr & Anderson 2004).

John Banks‟s research of the online gamer communities in the context of a

computer games development company (2002) provides an example that

demonstrates ethnographic long-term placement in the workplace

environment. His research also sought to guide and improve the company‟s

online community management strategies. My project also has similarities to

the HeartNET project undertaken by Leesa Bonniface (et al) (2007). To gain a

better understanding of the patients involved with this community, Costello

became the community manager of HeartNET, responsible for building and

engaging with this particular group of participants. Through her active

participation within the community, Costello was able to advise and improve

the lives of participants within the HeartNET community.

The position of the researcher within these projects has to be carefully

managed. “The possibility of doing harm, however, was carefully weighed

against the likelihood of „doing good‟, as members valued and seemed to

benefit from these discussions” (Bonniface & Green 2007). Costello is

outlining the methodological and ethical implications of such active

participation within the community need to be carefully and sensitively

managed. Ethnographic research has the potential to intervene with the

relationships studied, causing a blurring of the boundaries of the research

(Hammersley & Atkinson 1995).

49

4.2 Data Collection Methods

The following elements, participant observation, field notes, focus groups, in-

depth interviews, and data analysis are the key components in my research

methodology:

4.2.1 Participant Observation

Participant observation is a broad research method designed to help

researchers to comparatively analyse what participants say they do within the

community. “Participant Observation means engaging with people in as many

different situations as possible” (Hammersley & Atkinson 1995: 65). This

method remains the characteristic feature of the ethnographic approach and

is crucial for understanding the people and the culture surrounding this

research topic. I will undertake this method from a “first-hand experience”

(Tacchi, Slater & Hearn 2003) to address RQ1a.

The participant observational approach is crucial to my research. As the

researcher, I place myself within a position to understand what the community

actually does and how they do it – not just what they say they do. Undertaking

the role of the Community Manager of Pool allows me to do this in the most

suitable way as I interact both with the whole community and with individual

community members. Interaction is performed in many ways including

designing “call outs” with broadcast outcomes, and commenting on a user‟s

latest contribution. This engagement provides me with greater interaction and

feedback from the community. The Pool members are willing to share their

motivations to produce content and are motivated to develop broader online

networks with other Pool members.

4.2.2 Field Notes

Starting on my first day at the ABC as a participant observer, I have been

keeping detailed field notes on day-to-day events. These contain my thoughts,

interpretations, and insights of these events (Berger 2000). They also include

emerging themes and relationships for correlation in the mapping software

50

that I am using. This process allows me to create graphic representations of

data for further analysis.

Each day I spend an hour documenting community interactions. Examples of

daily occurrences include – a phone call, a conversation, or an action that

helps one of the community members. I also collect screenshots of comment

threads, and have been saving entire web pages as HTML files to retain a

permanent record of member interaction within forums and comment threads.

These notes can be basic or descriptive, or can be more analytical or

conceptual (Atkinson et al. 2005).

Field notes constitute a key research method of the first twelve months of

research. The resulted themes have helped outline relationships that surround

Pool and its community and address RQ1a and RQ1b. I have clearly identified

how the site is managed, why people are creating content, and where the

future of Pool may lie. I have also identified the key participants within Pool,

relevant ABC staff, and beneficial external individuals. This not only benefits

my research process by providing a starting point for focus group research,

but also addresses the outlined development to online community practices

within the ABC in RQ2.

4.2.3 Participants

The participants involved are Pool community members, key ABC staff, and

other external individuals who serve as Community Managers within their

online communities. Participants from Pool will include a mixture of the

Community Editors and creative contributors who are active members. The

key ABC staff will be Pool team members, management in the Radio

Multiplatform and Content Development Division, other people involved in

ABC online communities (for example Hungry Beast moderators, Online

News moderators), and senior levels of management, ideally including ABC

Managing Director Mark Scott. External industry contacts Alison Michalk at

Quiip, and Venessa Paech at Lonely Planet will provide additional insights

into the role of the Community Manager. I am already connected to these

external contacts through the Australian Community Managers Roundtable

51

that meet regularly to exchange information from their respective

communities.

4.2.4 Focus Groups

I will conduct focus groups as part of the research process. A focus group is a

small group of participants, usually eight to ten from the same community that

are gathered to talk about emerging areas of the research project (Tacchi,

Slater & Hearn 2003). The purpose of conducting focus groups is to gain

insights into the benefits of group dynamics - conversation that might not

emerge in one-on-one interviews, where conversation is directed (Breen

2006). I will play a significant role in this process, as it is my job as a

Community Manager to stimulate and facilitate the discussion and maintain

focus, while not inhibiting any interesting developments. I will use a set of

open-ended questions to prompt the discussion. The questions may include

the preliminary themes and relationships emerging from my field notes.

The selection criteria for the focus group‟s participants will be constructed and

finalised as the fieldwork research concludes. For example, the more vocal

and constructive members are obvious, along with the more engaged users,

suggesting these users for peopled ethnography (Brown-Saracino, Thurk &

Fine 2008). Similarly, I am talking with ABC staff to gain insight on who has

informed opinions on these emerging research topics.

I acknowledge that I am based in Sydney and this will provide a geographical

location for most cases of participants taking part in focus groups. I have

included field trips to Melbourne and Brisbane to incorporate a wider

Australian voice into this process. Quantitative data indicates that the majority

of users are located in Sydney and Melbourne. It is likely these focus groups

will address the open structure of Pool, the approach to Pool management,

and the wider impacts of the Pool community.

4.2.5 In-Depth Interviews

I will undertake in-depth and semi-structured interviews. Interviews are a

research tool that “…aim to get the other person to tell their own story in their

52

own words and in their own way” (Tacchi, Slater & Hearn 2003: 61). This

method of research works on a more refined set of themes to discuss in a

one-on-one basis with people directly involved with Pool, and involved with

online communities. In-depth interviews will occur during 2011. The interview

schedule will build on the outcomes of focus groups. It will also incorporate

the foundational research, and the data from participant-observer fieldwork.

4.2.6 Feedback Forms

My research design is based upon an iterative process, making feedback

essential to its development and refinement. I will endeavour to encourage

feedback from the Pool community through my role as the Community

Manager. Upon ethical approval my email address became available for

personal communication.

As I deploy the community management strategies, I will monitor their impact

upon the community. From previous research, I know the community

members are considerate with information, and if the feedback will improve

their site, they contribute their views openly. I will instigate a call for feedback

as each action project is rolled out. This call will be performed through a site

wide email, and then by individually emailing the more vocal Pool

respondents. This information will also be entered into a log journal, where

colour coding will highlight common responses from the community.

4.2.7 Data Analysis

The techniques and research tools described above outline how I will collect

raw field data, enabling me to understand and address the core research

questions and topics. In ethnography, time is spent daily to understand what

issues are emerging, develop ideas and interpretations to pursue through

further investigation, and explore the ideas through all of the different types of

material I am gathering (Tacchi, Slater & Hearn 2003). I will be able to identify

and analyse relevant themes and issues from the gathered data. The data

analysis is important because it establishes developmental answers central to

the unknown issues in the research problem. The established findings will

53

assist in understanding what the community wants and where the shift in

agency to a read/write culture may occur.

During the methods of participant observation, field notes, focus groups, and

in-depth interviews, I will adopt an approach that Hammersley and Atkinson

suggest as organizing themes. These organizing themes are “based on folk

models: the terms, images, and ideas that are current in the culture itself,”

(Hammersley & Atkinson 1995: 125) suggesting a structure of categories and

frameworks the participants use to understand current practices and

relationships. Early indications suggest conventions surrounding Pool‟s

development and incorporating enabling technology are emerging from the

community participants. Additionally models addressing community

interactions that highlight new ways of managing the community, or possibly

self-regulation, are appearing. These areas suggest how to group themes

together from a participant‟s perspective (Lammes 2007).

The data analysis will highlight where research gaps appear and where

further work is needed, allowing additional research to take place. This is an

iterative cycle, where the research is informing the practice as detailed

information is extracted from the gathered data (Blessing & Chakrabarti

2009).

4.2.8 Social Mapping and Contextualising

This research method asks the participants to plot out where they see the

boundaries of their space. Within this project, I am asking the participants to

refine their conventions of community within the online space of Pool. For

example, how do they understand the interactions with each other to define

their community? Through social analysis, I will begin to understand how the

community socially interacts with each other. “Categories of production,

exchange, organization, communication and inquiry will be used in order to

organize and give shape to the information” (Atkinson et al. 2005: 48). I will

then visually represent these key thematic concepts to provide an

understanding of how they interact with and co-depend upon each other. It

also assists in answering the research problem visually, which becomes

54

critical within my second and third year of research as I begin to merge my

field data with existing field literature.

I am modelling the project‟s methodology on an approach utilised in the 2007

project for the Australian Federal Election that relied on citizen journalism and

user-created content. Youdecide 2007 draws on connecting the significance

of co-created media within an online community and professional media

institutions. This project incorporated participating communities and achieved

“a cycle of developing and promoting online resources, evaluating their impact

in the Australian mediasphere and public sphere,” and provided “insights for

further initiatives in citizen journalism and online political communication”

(Flew & Wilson 2008; James, Phipps & Mulligan 2004). The cycle of

development and evaluation aligns with my methodology by incorporating the

field research data from the Pool community into the research process.

I am also incorporating techniques used by HeartNET. The project included

two stages; stage one analysed the online community to understand how it

functions, while stage two followed up with interviews of the community

members to further understand these behaviours (Bonniface, Green &

Swanson 2006). The HeartNET methodology provides an example on which I

am modelling my research to explain how Pool functions, and why it functions

this way.

My research process will unfold chronologically in the following order:

participant observation with field notes, focus groups, in-depth interviews,

data analysis, and social mapping and contextualising. At the completion of

my second year, I will have collected a considerable amount of data. This

includes understanding the characteristics of the community, the position of

the community within the ABC, and the role of the Community Manager

amongst the tension of participatory media within a public broadcaster. The

findings will inform RQ1a, b, and c. The research findings will not only inform

the ABC but also outline the significance of online community projects within

other online spaces addressing RQ2. I will analyse and interpret the data

during the final year.

55

5. Research Outcomes – Preliminary Analysis

5.1 The Pool Team

The Pool team consists of three ABC staff, two university media students

undertaking internships, and one PhD researcher. The ABC staff includes one

Executive Producer (EP) and two Community Managers (CM). The EP is full

time over five days per week and the CMs interweave their Pool duties with

their other role as radio producers. Table 1.1 describes how the Pool team

distributes their weekly hours between Pool and their respective Radio

National programs with 88 dedicated hours to Pool per week. The time

allocation determines what can be accomplished through the practical

application of their skills. The Pool team has a collective wealth of knowledge,

demonstrated by their past experience of media production and project

management at the ABC.

Pool Future Tense The Night Air Total

EP 38 0 0 38

CM 1 15 23 0 38

CM 2 11 0 20.5 31.5

Total 88 23 20.5 131.5

Table 1.1 The Hourly Breakdown of the Pool Team‟s Week

The Executive Producer, Sherre DeLys has a history in program making in the

Radio National Music Unit. She has created radio features and documentaries

for the Science Unit and the Social History Unit. DeLys has been with the

ABC for over 12 years and is one of the founding members of the Pool

project.

DeLys‟ skills are in being able to balance the requirements of the Pool

project and community against the operational policies of the ABC. At

times, she is one level abstracted from the day-to-day operations and

concentrates on the bureaucratic procedures of keeping the project

operating within the institution. Field notes 14th May 2010

56

Andrew Davies is one of the community managers allocating two days to Pool

and three days as the co-producer of the Radio National program Future

Tense. Davies has been employed at the ABC for seven years and is the

newest member to the Pool team, having joined Pool in March 2009. Davies

has

“helped to produce such diverse Radio National programs as the Media

Report, the Sports Factor and Australia Talks Back. Together with

Antony Funnell he won the best radio prize – for a program about

media in Zimbabwe - at the 2007 United Nations Association of

Australia Media Peace Awards.” (ABC, 2011)

John Jacobs is the other community manager who works on Pool for 1.5 days

per week and produces The Night Air program for the other 2.5 days. He is

the other founding member of Pool, and has been employed at the ABC for 25

years. During that time, Jacobs has worked in different ABC departments

including Radio National, the News Department, and the Youth Radio

Network, JJJ. Jacobs

“joined the ABC in 1985. Since then he has engineered, produced and

created many radio programs, winning international awards and

establishing leading ABC innovations such as The Night Air and

pool.org.au.” John Jacobs

Although the team is resourced for 131.5 hours per week, there have often

been times where I have witnessed all members working beyond their

allocated Pool hours. There is a “labour of love” attitude amongst the team

members demonstrated through their commitment to provide a successful and

dynamic space for the community members. The commitment level is

reflected internally towards the Pool project as many of the ABC staff

members I have had direct interaction with comment on the dedicated nature

of the Pool team. The level of interaction of the Pool team with the project is

beyond the day-to-day operations and is an example of multiple management

negotiation mechanisms.

57

The Pool team collectively understands the complexity of the public service

broadcaster‟s social, economic, and political constitution enabling them to

strategically position Pool within the institution. I often hear the comment from

the Pool team members “That‟s a good strategic decision” referring to a

decision that will favour Pool in a positive light within the ABC. This type of

decision-making is only possible by a person who understands the institution

in which the online community operates. The team understands how to retrofit

Pool for other units and departments of the ABC, increasing the appeal of the

community. The strategic positioning may involve „buy in‟ from ABC

departments resulting in additional, and sometimes conflicting, interests.

The institution is, as highlighted earlier, only one of the significant

stakeholders involved in the institutional online community where the other is

the community itself. The interaction of the Pool team with the community

constitutes a reasonable level of involvement in the project. The user case of

Susan Dirgham highlights how the Pool team interacts with individual

stakeholders within the community, and the case highlights how community

members interact with other community members.

5.2 User Case: Susan Dirgham

Discussions on the website are practices that reveal how Pool operates as an

online creative community. Comments of the members display day-to-day

encounters through the interpersonal relationships of the Pool online

community. Within these discussions conventions emerge amongst the

members, defining how the users participate within the space. The following

case study describes one piece of content contributed by a member, and the

subsequent discussion amongst other members. Additional excerpts from an

interview with the contributor highlight her reactions to the online conversation

and her reasons for participating in Pool. Finally, the interactions are

contextualized to outline how the Pool management team contributes to the

discussions and convention construction.

The Content

58

A Sense of Self

(http://www.pool.org.au/image/susandirgham/a_sense_of_self) is Susan

Dirgham‟s photographic Pool contribution questioning the “equality of women

regardless of their race, religion, or social status” (Dirgham on Pool, 2010).

She explores this convention through an image of a young Muslim girl

casually dressed in a scarf, easily mistaken as a hijab, leaning against a

painted black and white canvas backdrop. Susan has titled the image “Lubna

in Brunswick St Gallery, Fitzroy,” and has added a small “SusanD” watermark

on the bottom right hand corner. The lighting for the image is one single,

harsh light focused on who is presumably Lubna, positioned to the right of the

frame.

The photograph is accompanied by a short text piece outlining the artist‟s goal

in publishing this work. Susan says:

“I hope that the images I take help reinforce my conviction that the

majority of women across the globe have a strong sense of self and

are not easily shut-up or put down, Muslim or non-Muslim, Christian or

non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu etc.” (9th August 2010)

Susan further explains that religion is not the only influencing factor on the

equality of all women; it is also significant to education, work opportunities,

family and community attitudes.

The written text is carefully contextualized to inhibit an “online propaganda

war” by discussing broader issues not directly related to religion. In doing so,

Susan introduces Pool member Mountaingirl‟s external blog entry that

influenced the production of A Sense of Self. Mountaingirl has composed a

blog entry titled “Some People are Idiots” (27th July 2010) referencing a

conversation she heard whilst in a waiting room. Mountaingirl recalls hearing

“Muslims were out to take over Australia” was the impetus for writing her blog

entry:

“My blood pressure was rising and I could take it no more. In my most

polite and sweetest manner I turned around and in a voice that was

59

firm pointed out that what she was talking about was complete and

utter crap…” (Mountaingirl, 27th July 2010)

Susan and Mountaingirl are arguably evaluating the position of women within

society through their online, hypertextual conversation. Susan is using her

skill as a photographer to express her opinion, while Mountaingirl uses text to

express hers. Susan contextualises her photograph by acknowledging

Mountaingirl‟s blog entry, “…it helps to explain my distractions and concerns.”

Who is Susan Dirgham?

Susan is a long-term Pool member who joined in December of 2008. She

joined as a photographer, using Pool as a place to publish the photographs

she took while working as an English teacher at the British Council in

Damascus. Upon a return visit to Australia, she discovered Pool and began

publishing her images.

“When I returned to Melbourne, I discovered Pool and posted some of

my favourite images, trying to give story or text to most of them.”

After some initial suggestions from the Pool team to include text with her

images, Susan began to explore how writing could “give story” to her

photography. “Thanks for the encouragement! I‟ve started to work on words to

go with the images” (12th January 2009) was Susan‟s first comment on Pool.

The third image Susan contributed to Pool, Mt Kassioun and Date Palms, was

accompanied with the following text:

“Date Palms, Mt Kassioun, yellow taxis, jasmine, restaurants with

courtyards and fountains, apartments with shutters and balconies,

women in white hijabs or tight jeans, muezzins and the call to prayer,

the warm welcome of shopkeepers, and pigeons circling, all denote

Damascus for me. And my ideal (second) retirement home is an

apartment which has a BBQ on a tiled terrace looking over rooftops

towards Mt Kassioun.” (31st December 2008)

Susan has since expanded her skills to include audio and video recordings of

her subjects and has published these on Pool. The comments that followed

60

from ABC producers suggest Susan has interesting subject choices and can

tell a story well, however her lack of technical ability inhibits her productions

from being broadcast on the ABC. Susan herself admits the learning curve

she is experiencing is challenging, however she is enjoying developing her

skills.

Susan also involves herself in conversations with other Pool members by

commenting on their contributions, and participates in discussion within the

forums. Her level of engagement provided the catalyst to including Susan as

one of the first Community Editors of Pool. Consequently, Susan is known

throughout the community and interacts with many of the Pool stakeholders

regularly.

The Reactions to A Sense of Self

Susan‟s contribution began a conversation amongst the Pool community

members. This comment thread could be described as a call and response

conversation - a „call‟ by a Pool member occurs, and a „response‟ by either

Susan or another Pool member follows. Currently a total of 13 comments

appear, comprised of 3 from Susan, 5 from the Pool member d., two from “H”,

one from each Pool member WWW and mundial, and one anonymous

comment. The Pool team described most of the participants in this comment

thread as “the usual suspects,” suggesting they are regular participants in

topical discussions. Two particular contributors, d. and WWW, are known as

vocal participants and are often cited questioning each other‟s opinions within

Pool. They are also the core members who defined what a Poolian is. Mundial

is a recent member to Pool, however has made himself known to the

community with his active participation and engagement in discussions. The

last members of this conversation are unknown to the Pool community.

d.‟s first comment begins the discussion by questioning why Susan has

attached a political agenda to her creative contribution.

“Don‟t get me wrong, I LOVE YOUR PHOTOS – and I love the

interviews and stories that go with them. – but [sic] I am concerned by

this statement of yours that you are trying to make a certain „statement‟

61

with the photos – and I am particularly worried that this may be

counterproductive on a number of different fronts.” (14th August 2010)

The “fronts” that d. refers to is Susan not representing all Muslim women

equally as she has only sampled a select group of young Muslim women. d.

questions Susan‟s “statement” to suggest her representation of young Muslim

women may not be true of all Muslim women. She suggests viewers of

Susan‟s work might interpret her representation as a discourse of Muslim

women to be a “counterproductive” practice. d. argues her point further by

making the analogy of people knowing what all women think and want – a

group that “I am clearly not part of.” Finally d. refers to a similar argument of

misrepresentation by mundial, that she says supports her argument.

At this point, convention negotiation is occurring between two stakeholders of

ABC Pool, whilst developing relationships emerge through the comment

conversations. The other comments in the thread are initiated through d.‟s

final statement “Humans are just NOT rational like that. Pool-readers

excepted,” inviting another contributor, H, to argue further. H questions d.‟s

statement of Pool members being a group outside of the others like “Muslims,

indigenous, women,” and asks are Pool members “different from Humans in

that they are rational?” d. concedes, indicating she has “holes in her

argument” and the argument may have been “irrational.” H confirms d‟s

argument was not “irrational” but considered to suggest a better

representation of Susan‟s content. WWW interrupts by suggesting Susan not

only creates good work but also invokes substantial discussion around the

work. “Good discussion of our work is the goal and Susan seems to be hitting

the mark regularly” (14th August 2010).

The conversation continues as Susan outlines why she contributes her

content in an open discussion forum such as Pool. She responds to this

comment thread by acknowledging all of the comments before her. She

apologizes for “spoon feeding” her audience, and claims that this is not her

intention. She says she does not intend to preach however

62

“I just want to think, and this is an organic, ongoing process for me

which does rely on discussion and interaction with the world, people

and ideas etc” (14th August 2010).

A comment from mundial refers to a story of his mother, who wears a full

hijab. Mundial recalls the first year he could vote, he chose not to and his

mother reminded him of what the right to vote means. Mundial argues a fresh

opinion in the existing conversation:

“This is not the view of a woman that is oppressed and doesn‟t

understand her rights but a strong independent woman that

understands democracy and relations of power that is exercising her

freedom to dress the way she chooses” (22nd August 2010).

Reactions from Susan

Susan‟s contribution stimulated several responses from existing Pool

members, in addition to some anonymous contributors, indicating mixed

reactions to her work. I approached Susan via email to discuss what the

diversity of perspectives mean to her. Her initial statement relates to the

dichotomy of positive and negative comments. A positive comment

encourages Susan to keep posting work on Pool, whereas a negative

response tends to motivate her to improve her own creative practice.

“… positive comments certainly must encourage me to keep posting

work and perhaps impact on me more than I pretend. I certainly value

them. As for what could be viewed as criticisms, the fact that more

negative or critical comments come with positive ones must dilute their

impact; up to now they haven‟t discouraged me at all. And I suspect

there are a variety of reasons for my even welcoming them.”

Critical commentary in this example is not a negative experience, and in fact

acts as an impetus for further participation. It displays that Susan almost likes

the negative commentary as much as the positive interaction. Susan explains

that having a critical comment is better than no comment as it proves that

people are engaging with her work. Secondly, it opens a channel of

discussion with others to explain why she has created this piece of content,

63

and to discuss her own personal reflexivity of the piece. Lastly Susan

suggests she is on her own path of enlightenment and welcomes critical

reflection on “anything I may present which is not respectful of people, of

„humanity‟ etc” (20th August 2010). Susan concludes her reflection on

criticism by saying “All of the above makes me pretty fearless and determined;

it means I tend not to take critical comments personally” (ibid).

Discussion

The example of one conversation within a group of people who rarely meet

constitutes one definition of community within Pool. Conversation

demonstrates how this online community operates. These interactions are

fundamental in establishing how the users define what Pool is and how they

use the space. The Pool team is aware of the significance of commentary and

acknowledges this interaction to be a significant practice as noted during an

editorial meeting on the 23rd August 2010. In some cases, they suggest that

commentary can be “the main game” where “the content is the trigger” to a

much “deeper type of interaction.” Commentary is also a way of instigating

participation from members not creatively inclined to produce work – “most

people can type but not all can take a photograph.”

64

6. Timeline

7. Ethics

I have ethical clearance for this research however I have recently commenced

employment at the ABC as the Community Manager of Pool. I am in the

process of seeking an ethical variation document. I am aware of the

implications of my position as a researcher and as an ABC employee and

65

clearly state my employment basis before any engagement with research

subjects.

8. Coursework

I have completed all the coursework requirements for this doctoral research

program. It includes Advanced Information Retrieval Skills (AIRS – IFN001)

and Approaches to Enquiry in the Creative Industries (KKP601).

9. Sources Cited

ABC 1983, The ABC Act.

---- 2009a, ABC Documents - Editorial Policies, viewed 10th September 2009

2009, <http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm>.

Pa Learning 2009b, Strategic plan 2009 - 12, ----, ABC.

2010, Annual Report, ----, ABC.

---- 2011, Pool, viewed 10th August 2010 2011.

Atkinson, P, Coffey, A, Delamont, S, Lofland, J & Lofland, L 2005, Handbook

of Ethnography, 3rd edn, Sage, London.

Bacon, J 2009, The Art of Community, O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol.

Banks, J 2002, 'Chapter 8: Gamers as Co-creators : Enlisting the Virtual

Audience - A Report from the Net Face', in M Balnaves, T O'Regan & J

Sternberg (eds), Mobilising the Audience, University of Queensland

press, Brisbane, p. 188.

---- 2007, 'Opening the Production Pipeline: Unruly Creators', in SD Castell &

J Jenson (eds), Words in Play: International Perspectives on Digital

Games Research, Peter Lang Publishing Inc., New York, pp. 143 - 52.

---- 2009, 'Co-Creative Expertise: Auran Games and Fury - A Case Study',

Media International Australia, vol. 130, p. 13.

Banks, J & Humphreys, S 2008, 'The Labour of User Co-Creators: Emergent

Social Network Markets', Convergence: The International Journal of

Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 401 - 18.

Banks, J & Potts, J 2010, 'Co-creating Games: a co-evolutionary analysis',

New Media and Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 253 - 70.

66

Barber, W & Badre, A 1998, 'Culturability: The Merging of Culture and

Usability', paper presented to 4th Conference on Human Factors and

the Web, Baskin, Ridge, New Jersey.

Baym, NK 2000, Tune In Log On: Soaps Fandom and Online Community,

New Media Cultures, Sage Publications Inc., London.

Benkler, Y 2006, The Wealth of Networks, 1st edn, Yale University Press,

New Haven.

Berger, A 2000, Media And Communication Research Methods : An

Introduction Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage

Publications, USA.

Bergquist, M & Ljungberg, J 2001, 'The Power of Gifts: Organizing Social

Relationships in Open Source Communities', Information Systems

Journal, no. 11, pp. 305 - 20.

Bledsoe, E 2010, What is CC?, Creative Commons, viewed 19th August

29010 2010, <http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc>.

Blessing, LTM & Chakrabarti, A 2009, DRM, a Design Research

Methodology, Springer London, London.

Bonniface, L & Green, L 2007, 'Finding a new kind of knowledge on the

HeartNET website', Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 24,

no. 1, pp. 67 -76.

Bonniface, L, Green, L & McMahon, T 2007, 'Adapting a New Identity', M/C

Journal, vol. 10, no. 2.

Bonniface, L, Green, L & Swanson, M 2005, 'Affect and an Effective Online

Therapeutic Community', M/C Journal, vol. 8, no. 6.

---- 2006, 'Communication on a Health-Related Website Offering Therapeutic

Support - Phase 1 of the HeartNET Website', Australian Journal of

Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 89 - 107.

Born, G 2005, Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC,

Random House, London.

Breen, R 2006, 'A practical Guide to Focus Group Research', Journal of

Geogrpaphy in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 463 - 75.

Brown-Saracino, J, Thurk, J & Fine, GA 2008, 'Beyond groups: seven pillars

of peopled ethnography in organizations and communities ', Sage

Publications, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 547 - 67.

67

Bruns, A 2008, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production

to Produsage, Peter Lang, New York.

Bruns, A & Humphreys, S 2010, 'Research Adventures in Web 2.0:

Encouraging Collaborative Local Content Creation through edgeX',

Media International Australia, no. 136, pp. 42 - 59.

Burgess, J & Banks, J 2009, 'User-created Content and Online Social

Networks', in S Cunningham & G Turner (eds), The Media and

Communications in Australia, 3 edn, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, pp.

295 - 306.

Burgess, J & Green, J 2009, YouTube: online video and participatory culture,

Polity Press, Cambridge.

Collins, H, Evans, R & Gorman, M 2007, 'Trading Zones and Interactional

Expertise', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, no. 4,

pp. 657 - 66.

Collins, H & Sanders, G 2007, 'They Give you the Keys and Say 'Drive It!'

Managers, referred expertise, and other expertise', Studies in History

and Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, pp. 621 - 41.

Cummings, S, Heeks, R & Huysman, M 2006, 'Knowledge and Learning in

Online Communities in Development: A Social Capital Perspective',

Development in Practice, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 570 - 86.

Cunningham, S & Turner, G 2010, Media and Communication in Australia, 3

edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Cutler, T 2008, Venturous Australia, Cutler and Company Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

C Department of Broadband, and the Digital Economy 2008, ABC and SBS:

Towards a digital future., DBCDE.

Debrett, M 2010, Reinventing Public Service Television for the Digital Future,

Intellect, Bristol.

Deuze, M 2007, Media Work (Digital Media and Society), Polity Press,

London.

Deuze, M, Bruns, A & Neuberger, C 2007, 'Preparing for an Age of

Participatory News ', Journalism Practice, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 322-40.

Fine, GA 2003, 'Towards a peopled ethnography : Developing theory from

group life', Ethnography, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 41 - 60.

68

Flew, T, Cunningham, S, Bruns, A & Wilson, J 2008, 'Social Innovation, User

Generated Content and the Future of the ABC and SBS as Public

Service Media', p. 26.

Flew, T & Wilson, J 2008, 'Citizen Journalism and Political Participation - The

Youdecide 2007 project and the 2007 Australian Federal Election',

Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 35, no. 2, p. 22.

Foley, M, Yuille, J, Marmo, C & Stanton, R 2009, Pool User Research,

Australasian Cooperative Research Centre for Interactive Design,

Melbourne.

Granovetter, M 1973, 'The Strength of Weak Ties', American Journal of

Sociology, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 1360 - 80.

Green, J & Jenkins, H 2009, 'The Moral Economy of Web 2.0', in J Holt & A

Perren (eds), Media Industries: history theory and method, Wiley-

Blackwell, Maiden MA, pp. 213 - 25 & 31 - 44.

Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P 1995, Ethnography Principles in Practice,

Routledge, London.

Hebdige, D 1979, Subculture, The Meaning of Style, 1st edn, Routledge,

London.

Herr, K & Anderson, G 2004, The Action Research Dissertation: A guide for

students and faculty, SAGE Publishing, London.

Howe, J 2006, The Rise of Crowdsourcing, Wired Magazine, viewed 12th

March 2010 2010,

<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds_pr.html>.

James, P, Phipps, P & Mulligan, M 2004, Community Sustainability.info, RMIT

University, viewed 3rd April 2010 2010,

<http://www.communitysustainability.info/index.html>.

Jenkins, H 2006, Convergence Culture - Where Old and New Media Collide,

1st edn, New York University Press.

Kondratova, I & Goldfarb, I 2005, 'Cultural Visual Interface Design', paper

presented to World Conference on Educational Multimedia,

Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Lammes, S 2007, 'Approaching game-studies: Towards a reflexive

methodology of games as situated cultures. Situated Play', paper

presented to 3rd International Conference of DIGRA., Tokyo, Japan.

69

Latour, B 2005, Reassembling the Social, Oxford University Press, New York.

Lave, J & Wenger, E 1991, Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral

Participation, 1st edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Leadbeater, C 2008, We-Think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production,

Profile, London.

Leadbeater, C & Miller, P 2004, The Pro-Am Revolution: How Enthusiasts are

Changing Our Economy and Society, Demos, London.

Nightingale, V 1996, Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real, Routledge,

London & New York.

O'Reilly, T 2005, What is Web 2.0, viewed 25th January 2011,

<http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>.

Oudshoorn, N, Rommes, E & Steinstra, M 2004, 'Configuring the User as

Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and

Communication Technologies', Science, Technology, & Human Values,

vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 30 - 64.

Papadakis, M 2003, Computer-mediated Communities: The Implications of

information, communication, and computational technologies for

creating communities online, Final Report, SRI International, Arlington,

Virginia.

Rheingold, H 1994, The Virtual Community - Homesteading on the Electronic

Frontier, 1st edn, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.

---- 2006, 'Social Networks and the Nature of Communities', in P Purcell (ed.),

Networked Neighbourhoods - The Connected Community in Context,

Spinger-Verlag, London, pp. 47 - 76.

Rosen, J 2006, The People Formerly Known as the Audience, 10 October

2009, New York University, New York,

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/25/bbc.broadcasting>.

Scott, M 2009, ABC Values to AL Conference, 17th March 2009.

Shirky, C 2008, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organising without

Organisations, Allen Lane, New York.

Simons, M 2007, The Content Makers: understanding the media in Australia,

Penguin Books, Camberwell.

Star, SL 1995, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and

Organizational Complexity', in SL Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge:

70

Work and Politics in Science and Technology SUNY Press, Albany

N.Y.

Stivale, CJ 1997, 'Spam: Heteroglossia and Harassment in Cyberspace', in D

Porter (ed.), Internet Culture, Routledge, New York, pp. 133 - 44.

Suchman, L 2003, Located Accountabilities in Technology Production, Centre

for Science Studies Lancaster University, viewed 7th February 2011

2011, <http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc039ls.htm>.

Sun, H 2001, 'Building a culturally-competent corporate web site: an

exploratory study of cultural markers in multilingual web design', paper

presented to Proceedings of the 19th annual international conference

on Computer documentation, New York.

Tacchi, J, Slater, D & Hearn, G 2003, Ethnographic Action Research - A

User's Handbook Developed to Innovate and Research ICT

Applications for Poverty Eradication, 1st edn, United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO, New Delhi.

Taylor, TL 2006, 'Beyond Management: Considering Participatory Design and

Goverance in Player Culture', First Monday [Online], vol. 0, no. 0.

Toffler, A 1980, The Third Wave, Bantam, New York.

Tönnies, F 1963, 'Relations Between Human Wills - Germeinschaft

(Community) and Gesellschaft (Society) from a Linguistic Point of

View', in Community and Society (Germeinschaft und Gesellshaft),

Harper & Row, New York, pp. 33 - 102.

Wellman, B 1998, Loose Connections: Joining together in America's

Fragmented Communities, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

Williams, R 1965, The Long Revolution, Penguin, London.

---- 1989, 'Communications, Technologies and Social Institutions', in What I

came to say, Hutchinson Radius, London, pp. 172-92.

Wilson, J, Saunders, B & Bruns, A 2008, '“Preditors”: Making citizen

journalism work.', in J Gordon (ed.), Notions of Community: a collection

of community media debates and dilemmas, Peter Lang Publishing

Group, New York, p. 245.

Zittrain, J 2007, 'Saving the Internet', Harvard Business Review, no. June

2007, p. 49.

71

---- 2008, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it., 1st edn, Yale

University Press, London.