Summary of "A Study Of Chat and Online Communities"

aka Blab #53 by Gnug215

Intro

As some of the residents in #gnug might recall, I passed out some questionnaires for everyone in #gnug to fill out about chat back in March and April 2005. The questionnaire was to be the core data of the paper mentioned in the title.

The paper was for an exam, in Media Sociology, for Movie & Media Science, so I and the other four members of the group took it quite seriously. Two of the members of the group, myself included, had prior knowledge to chatting and online communities. The three remaining members of the group had little experience on the subject, but were enthusiastic about it.

The point of the study was to see if the generally negative and prejudiced impression of online-chatting perceived by the news media and the general public was in any way accurate or fair. We wanted to see the picture from the other side of the fence, or screen, so we wanted to go to the source, the chatters themselves, and ask them what they thought. To this end, we produced an extensive questionnaire for them to fill out.

Even though the questionnaire for the #gnug channel users was rather long and comprehensive, the responses were many and extensive, which was both a pleasant surprise and a big help for the group, but also a testament to the quality and helpfulness of people in the #gnug channel. 87 of the 106 questionnaires that I sent out were returned.

In this summary of that 94-page paper, I will spare people from the hard-core, boring, basic sociology theory in the paper, and sum up the more interesting bits in it.

The Two Communities

The group decided early on to look at two distinct chatting communities, and through questionnaires learn something about people that partake in these activities, their uses and gratification, to use a technical term.

The first chat place we looked at was a website for a volunteer organization helping out lonely people in a Danish metropolitan area. The chat associated to the site only had specifically appointed opening hours, and those were fairly limited. The users of that chat were for the most part not particularly computer savvy, but some had tried chatting fairly often. The point of the chat was for lonely people to socialize and build a sense of community. The organization held frequent real life social events for its users.

The other chat was our very own #gnug channel, which is open 24/7, and filled with computer experts, computer gaming enthusiasts and chatting veterans from around the world. The purpose of the #gnug channel was originally one where members of the Gnug "clan" could meet and chat, primarily in connection with the computer game, "Total Annihilation". This purpose has long since changed. Now all kinds of people, Gnugs or not, frequent the place, and the aforementioned game is not the main reason for most people to come to #gnug anymore.

An important detail is the fact that the questionnaires for the two different communities were different in many ways, for a number of reasons: The two communities are very different in terms of purpose, technical and visual design, and in other ways.

The questionnaire for the #gnug was significantly longer and more extensive, mainly because we felt the users of #gnug would be much better equipped for and more willing to fill out something as comprehensive as our questionnaire was.

This summary is primarily written for the users in #gnug who partook in the study by filling out the questionnaire, and thus it primarily focuses on the results and findings of the study regarding the #gnug channel.

The Findings

My personal experience with describing the #gnug chat to my fellow group members, who mostly knew absolutely nothing about chat and online communities, was a clear indication to me that #gnug is a unique place. The purpose of #gnug, and the context in which it exists, is a complex and fluid one. I feel that this only becomes really clear if you look at it with fresh, objective eyes. The #gnug channel is in fact a highly complex social "room", with many implicit and unexpressed social rules and a code of conduct that is just as advanced, if not more in some respects, than in real life social contexts.

But let's look at some of the facts from our questionnaire:

Demographics

It may not come as a surprise to people, but most of the chatters in #gnug are male. We only had three female respondents, and they are rare guests, at best.

The average age at the time was 20.92 years. I suspect this has increased slightly since then, as there are many regulars in the channel, and they're not getting any younger, and the influx of new, young people is not very high.

The vast majority of the chatters in #gnug are from the USA. There are a number of reasons for this, many of which are obvious, but we didn't look into this any further.

One of the typical assumptions about chatters, and particularly computer game playing chatters, is that they are all single. A majority of the chatters in #gnug are in fact single, but definitely not all of them. Some of them are young, and have not yet quite begun dating, and some have had relationship, but are currently single. But a fair share of them are in relationship, and even married with children.

About the Channel

Most of the people in #gnug know the place through TA somehow, mainly through the TAUniverse website, and they learned about TA in various different ways. Some of them have been there since the start, some for several years, and some for a few days. Some still play TA, others don't, but most have played it at some point, or have been involved with it in some way or other. Only a minority still plays TA frequently.

For the most part, it seems to function as a sort of online home to many. It is just a place where they log on and idle, talk sporadically, or all the time (like TimmyFred)

The concept of idling - just staying online without activity - even while being away from the computer, has become more and more common with the expansion of broadband connections.

Effects of #gnug on Personalities

The questions regarding online personality were difficult ones. Difficult for the group to construct, and difficult for the respondents to answer. To answer the question about whether one feels that ones personality has changed often requires an external observer. However, most people felt that chatting and hanging in #gnug for so long had had a positive effect on them, either in the way they behaved or expressed themselves, or by having learned something about computers or other cultures.

TA

Although TA didn't get much space in our study, or the replies, I feel it is in its place to mention what we found out about it, even though most of it seems obvious. In general, TA is not a main subject in #gnug, although conversations about TA aren't rare. It would also be hard to define the main subject in #gnug, or any few main subjects, and thus it would be hard to define what #gnug is about, even though it started out being about TA.

Social Status

The section about social status was an interesting one, and had mixed results. Unfortunately, the questions were directed mainly at TA, and whether skill at TA affected social status in the channel.

Some felt that it had no significance, but there we must remember again that many of the #gnug users do not play TA anymore. Others felt that it had a positive effect, but so did other skills, like skill with computers and programming.

Some mentioned that skilled players in the community were often arrogant, rude and unsympathetic, and that this often overshadowed their talents, in terms of status in the community. This was mainly a reference to players outside the #gnug channel.

Clan membership was another issue, and most felt that this could have an effect, either good or bad. The bad could be that players that joined a clan could often adapt the less positive personal qualities of the other members in the clan, while the good could be that clans usually improved the skills at TA for players, and that being in a clan could be a sort of social currency in the community.

The group concluded that this "system" of social status is similar to, if not completely like, "real life".

Real Life Social Life

The group could easily conclude that all prejudices of chatters being anti-social, having no friends or no life, are generally false - at least when it comes to the users in #gnug. To some, #gnug was a supplement to their social life, while for others it was their primary source. Some had busy jobs and/or families to take care of, and could not maintain a highly active "real life" social life, and instead used #gnug for some of their social needs. A minority listed #gnug as their primary source of social contact.

Online Friends

One of the more quantifiable questions we had was about whether or not people felt it was possible to have online friends. 83 of 87 answered positively, two answered negatively, while the remaining two were in doubt.

However, many of these 83 felt there to be a difference between online and offline friends.

Some felt that online friendships could easily be too impersonal and superficial, while others felt that the medium made the interaction less inhibiting, which made it easier to talk about things they would normally have a hard time talking about in "real life".

It was also clear from this section that people have different ways of defining friendships and friends.

Online Personalities

This section probably also required a fair bit of objective observation, preferably external, but in spite of the absence of this, people answered with tremendous insight and honesty, with the result that many could not give a concrete answer as to whether or not they were the same online as offline. Most of them concluded that they were probably slightly different, whether they were aware of this or not. A few felt they were exactly the same, and a couple had deliberately tried to be different, either trying out different things or just playing around with roles or identities.

We also got some interesting observations regarding online personalities, that is, whether or not people felt they were the same online as offline. Some of the respondents felt that even though you take on a different role online, it is no different from the various roles you take on in the various social contexts and situations you take part in offline.

Other Media

The users in #gnug are surely modern, computer savvy people, and the group found there to be a tendency of falling usage of traditional media, like Radio, TV and Newspapers. Many #gnug users got most or their news and entertainments needs covered by the computer and Internet.

Advantages and Disadvantages from Chatting

The group placed most emphasis on this section, questions 29 and 30. Here are the results:

The listing shows that there seems to be a general positive tendency towards chat as a means of social interaction, which is hardly surprising as the respondents are chatters, but the group realized that even though one could claim that the results are "biased" or "polluted" it does not seem like a particularly fair claim. After all, who else would you ask about this? Also, the users show a great amount of self-reflection and insight in most cases, and realize both the restrictions and possibilities of the media they are using.

The advantages that received the most positive replies, "Meeting people with similar interests" and "Meeting people over geographical distance" are somewhat related, and to the group it was a clear indication that Internet chat and communities are not a means of escaping reality and avoiding people, but actively seeking out people with similar interests in an easy and convenient forum. Thus the Internet may be seen as effectively function as the modern days clubs, associations, organizations and societies - granted, not the ones that require physical presence.

Internet communities can give a wider range of options and specifically target the unique interests of the users, fit for the modern world, where modern people demand and want to be able to choose exactly what they are looking for, and to have multiple choices.

The "danger of chat becoming a surrogate for physical interaction" is obviously something the chatters are aware of, and respect. The group discussed this question at length because, among other reasons, they felt the question to be somewhat leading. Also, it was possible that many of the respondents had someone else in mind other than themselves when answering this question. The media has a tendency to distort the whole picture by focusing on freak occurrences and one time incidents.

The last few questions about chat as an alternative way of social interaction, and otherwise just comments that people might want to add, yielded some interesting results and quotes, which I will give a sample of here:

• "unsatisfactory as a replacement to face-face interaction - 93% of communication is non verbal, and physical contact is impossible"
• "It is great as an alternative form of social interaction, but should not replace conventional social interaction with real people (you know what I mean)."
• "I don't think it's a good replacement for 'real-life' social interaction. It's an excellent supplement to 'real-life' social interaction, especially useful in the IT industry and collaborating on projects with people."
• "Its cool - you can chat to people which otherwise you wouldnt be able to. Also you can do it when its convenient to you."
• "Its a great way to meet others, it makes it easier in a way. It is almost completely risk free as well."
• "It is a good way to talk to people cheaply that are geographical, culturally and even linguistically different, though it is a poor replacement for human interaction"
• "I think that it can work, but it's not necessarily a healthy method of being social. But it works miracles for people with auditory disorders and lets them contact one another"
• "It is in many ways more convenient than meeting someone (requiring a double coincidence of both of you having the same time period free and both of you wanting to meet in that time period), and travelling the distance to do so. It also allows for sporadic conversation - firing off quick questions easily, or long discussions at other points. The disadvantages listed above are serious, however, and internet chat is in my view best as a supplement to real life working relationships, friendships etc."
• "It's ok to chat a considerable amount so long as you also spend a considerable amount of time in the "real world" (for lack of better terms)."
• "There is a danger on the last question for chat becoming a surragete for physical and social interaction in some peoples cases. For me personally chat rooms offered me more interaction with people than I was getting in the place I lived at the time, a quite remote place."
• "It's fine, but you need to interact in real life as well. Nothing substitutes for the real thing."
• "it`s easier sometimes. you can think about your actions and responses but somwtimes it can get confusing."

Some Conclusive Remarks About #gnug

The group concluded that there is a great deal of variety and difference among the users in #gnug, despite the common foundation that this particular online community shares.

Using some of the theoretical expressions used for this assignment, where an online community is compared to a bar, #gnug has "tourists", "regulars" and "insiders", plenty from each group.

Personally, I think such a generalization and the bar analogy has some problems. First of all, #gnug is not as publicly known place, as I presume most bars are. Second, #gnug could be said to be an old theme-bar, where the theme is not really in focus anymore.

Third, with all the idling going on, #gnug is obviously a bar where you can stay and sleep, or just do nothing for a long period of time.

Also, it is a bar where you're not allowed to swear and use sexually explicit language, which seems to be against the general point of bars. But like with real bars, people come and go. Some are regulars or even insiders for a time, and then disappear again, due to moving, increased workload or something else. Various technical issues are relevant, too, as Internet connections are not equal. Perhaps sometime in the future we will be able to make a more accurate sociological assessment of the online communities, where everyone is connected to the Internet.

The group concluded that the chatters in #gnug are not a homogenous group, and they the users are in no way ignorant about the media they are using.

Some Conclusions Regarding Identity

One of the theories regarding online communities splits users into three groups: 1: Those who have the same identity online and offline. 2: Those that feel they are the same, but experience easier communication and social interaction online. 3: Those that take on a wholly different identity.

The group had some problems fitting the users in #gnug into these categories judging from their responses, but attempts were made nonetheless. Some quotes were picked to demonstrate the point of each of those three categories, although we did not find anyone that fit the profile for group three, so there are no quotes from that group.

If a quote has been categorized under one group, it does not necessarily mean that the owner of the quote unanimously belongs in that group.

From Group 1:

"Personally, I think the personalities are the same. I mean, I pay attention to how I act, and I'm not really any different in chat than out of chat"

" I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be themselves or try to be something they're not on the internet. I think that people all too often forget (or simply don't care) that they're interacting with other real people"

"I think it has, but it's hard to say exactly how. I think it has changed me in the way I would have wanted to be changed. So basically, #gnug has given me the opportunity to develop in a desired direction. That direction includes: being more eloquent, better at writing and expressing myself in English, being more calm and thoughtful, being more responsible and more self-confident, being much more open to other people's opinions, and also realizing that there are many different opinions and answers to various subjects, plus more"

From Group 2:

" when I first started chatting, I was completely different online and off. Online I was much more talkative (in fact, offline, I'd hardly ever talk) Now...I'm pretty much the same online and off...so...maybe it did help me to become more outgoing, but some people might also blame the weight loss and the drinking"

" This is an interesting question.When I started chatting, my web-personality was much more extroverted than my real one, as time passed, my normal one became more extrovert as well, ending up with me becoming pretty much the same both online and offline. A "merging of minds", so to say"

" I am completely different in real life. I am much quieter, I do not talk much, and I am usually much more modest. I think the reason is because it is easier to loosen up online since there aren't many real consequences to acting differently"

" It may be that in some ways I have tested out certain aspects of personality in #gnug or other online environments, because the social risks of it failing are less than with real people one knows and works with in everyday life"

In conclusion, many users do have a different online personality, although it is not an actively induced personality. The chat medium changes social interaction, in many ways and for many people advantageously.

Overall Conclusions

Some of the theoretical material, along with the media and general public, dubs online communities as a negative social zone. There are more than enough social tendencies in #gnug to argue against this claim.

The users in #gnug are not mindless drones that use chat as a surrogate for a social life, and they generally do not seem to have become more anti-social from using it.

The community itself is a relatively varied one, considering the similar demographical data. The differences are shown in the amount of time spent in the chat and the community, and to what degree chatting was a supplement to offline social interaction, or if it was the only social interaction.

The negative sides of chatting could include, among others, the danger of addiction, to some degree or other. An addiction to chat could lead to one's offline problems not being solved, and one's offline social situation not improving, encouraging more withdrawal into an online community.

There seemed to be more positive sides to chatting, such as communicating across large geographical distances, with people other cultures, and generally the possibility to find kindred spirits that one cannot find in ones immediate social circle in the "real world".

The group finally concluded that chat as a medium is neither inherently good nor bad, but a neutral medium with a lot of potential, both for negative and positive things.

Comments on Further Studies

The study made by the group was essentially a highly limited one, despite its size. We concluded that many further and more extensive studies of this subject would be necessary in order to get a clearer picture of the map of online communities. They would also have to be more specific. What kind of place is it? What is the theme/topic/point of the place? How easily accessible is it? What group of people does it appeal to?

The fact that there are so many factors playing into this makes it difficult to make a general profile of "a chatter". There would have to be many different types and categories, with sub-categories and many different characteristics.

Seeing as the uninitiated, that is to say, the general public at large, are showing an alarming amount of ignorance about the Internet and online communities - granted, the Internet is a large place, so it can be difficult to understand everything about it - the group imagined some actual basic academic studying done on the Internet and online communities, mainly in the shape of a characterization of the "main" areas and uses, such as message boards, newsgroups, net-dating sites and etc. In addition to this, a more thorough psychological and sociological profiling would be useful, even though this would be a tremendous task.

Finally, the group felt that it had contributed to the public debate with a more unbiased view of chat and online communities, proving many of the general prejudices wrong.