PHD Dissertation Murillo Searching For Virtual Communities of Practice Vol 2

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Part Three
Research Strategy: Execution
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
164
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CHAPTER SIX
Usenet Search and Community Selection
This chapter reports the execution and results of Stage III of the Funnel Strategy, i. e.
the search and selection of Usenet communities exhibiting high affinity to the VCoP
model. The contribution of the chapter is to locate and select the communities that will
take part in the study, and thereby address the Preliminary Research Questions.
Stage III comprises four distinct Sub-stages (see Figure 6.1), which begin at the top of the
Funnel, and move downwards through successive quantitative and qualitative filters,
each a particular operationalisation of the Exemplary Traits. The Funnel Strategy owes
its efficiency to the decision of locating the more time- and computationally-intensive
methods nearer the bottom.
The First Sub-stage uses Netscan to perform a comprehensive search through the
principal hierarchies of Usenet, and select a much-reduced set of newsgroups
exhibiting high affinity with the quantitative Exemplary Traits of the VCoP model. The
Second Sub-stage performs a qualitative analysis of topic, institutional documents and
interaction conflict to assess qualitative Exemplary Traits, and further narrow the
newsgroup sample. The Third Sub-stage applies Social Network Analysis (SNA) to
surviving newsgroups, and identifies those with core-periphery structures, and
participants with high coreness degrees, indicative of stable newsgroup membership.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
165
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Participating USENET Hierarchies
sci.* uk.*
misc.* can.*
comp.* alt.comp.*
soc.*
First Sub-stage: Netscan searches

Filter1: 10 ≤ Returnees ≤ 200
Filter2: Posts ≥ 300
Filter3: PPRatio + %CrossPost ≤ 0.40
Filter4: English Language
Filter5: Topic a profession (1st pass)
Netscan
Second Sub-stage : Qualitative assessment

Filter6: Quality institutional documents
Filter7: Non-conflictive
Filter5: Topic a profession (2nd pass)
Qualitative analysis
Third Sub-stage: SNA model

Filter8: good model fit
Fourth Sub-stage: core-periphery model

final selection
To Stage IV
Methods
Figure 6.1 – Overview of Stage III of the Research Strategy
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
166
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The Fourth Sub-stage combines these various indicators and selects twelve virtual
communities and specific members of each for inclusion into the study sample.
Chapter Six is organised in five sections, one for each of the the corresponding
Sub-stages, plus a concluding summary.
6.1 – First Sub-stage: Netscan Search
A worked example in Section 5.1 illustrated the use of Netscan for discarding
newsgroups incompatible with one or more Exemplary Traits of the VCoP model.
However, these Traits have not been formally operationalised; this is the first task of
the Sub-stage.
The Exemplary Trait of mid-sized online group can be operationalised using the value
Netscan provides for Returnees as a rough proxy. Wenger et al (2002) put the size of
conventional CoPs between 15 and 50. Previous research by this author showed the
value of Returnees overestimated by a factor of 3 or more the number of stable
members of a newsgroup (Murillo, 2002). Thus, to set relatively loose limits on both
ends, the top plausible value for Returnees was set at 200 and the lower bound was set
at 10. Hence, the first quantitative filter is defined as follows:
Filter1: Discard newsgroups where Returnees are less than 10 or greater than
200.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
167
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The Exemplary Trait of high-volume of participant interaction can be operationalised
using the Posts result of Netscan to discard newsgroups with little or no activity. The
lowest acceptable value was set to 300 messages per month, or 10 per day.
Filter2: Discard newsgroups where Posts ≤ 300 per month.
The Exemplary Traits of core-periphery structure and highly focused discussions can
be operationalised using the Netscan statistics of PPRatio, %Cross-Post and TPRatio.
The first two will be combined into a single criterion by simple addition, while a
specific proviso is made to avoid large TPRatios. Hence:
Filter3: Discard newsgroups where the sum of the PPRatio and %Cross-Post
exceeds 0.40 or where the TPRatio exceeds 0.80.
The combined quantitative filters will substantially narrow the initial newsgroup
population. Two more qualitative filters can be applied at this time, because they both
depend on the name of the newsgroup, of which Netscan provides a convenient listing.
The first will simply filter out newsgroups whose main discussion language is not
English. Although not required by the VCoP model, this criterion pragmatically
guarantees that respondents will be able to understand the questionnaire, and that the
Content Analysis of discussions will not present a language problem for the researcher.
Thus:
Filter4: Discard non-English language newsgroups.
The other qualitative filter aims to retain only newsgroups whose discussion topic is an
identifiable profession; as required by the corresponding Exemplary Trait. Decisions at
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
168
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
this point are based only on the name of the newsgroup, but since a large proportion of
all newsgroups have a recreational or socialising purpose, reflected in their name
(Hahn, 2000), many newsgroups can be safely discarded from the study at an early
stage. Other newsgroups will require more subtle distinctions. Thus the criterion will be
applied at this point as a “first pass”; but will be applied a second, more careful time in
the next Sub-stage. The “professional” criterion was defined thus:
Filter5: Discard newsgroups whose discussion topic is not an identifiable
profession.
The next issue is to decide the specific Usenet hierarchies that will be searched. The
aim of this study is to make the Usenet search as comprehensive as possible, but
Netscan can only search a specified hierarchy at a time, such as comp.* or sci.*. The
Groups Area of Google.com reveals Usenet currently comprises over 900 hierarchies.
Hence the need to focus on a theoretically-grounded sample (Silverman, 2000). The
study will therefore target the “Big-7” or mainstream hierarchies (displayed in Table
6.1), because they hold the longest-running and best-established subset of newsgroups
in Usenet (Hahn, 2000).
Table 6.1 – Mainstream Usenet hierarchies

Hierarchy Number of Discussion Topics
newsgroups
sci.* 243 Science and technology
misc.* 272 Miscellaneous
comp.* 1196 Computers
soc.* 310 Social and cultural issues
rec.* 1002 Recreation, hobbies, arts
news.* 318 Usenet itself
talk.* 83 Debate, controversial topics
Total 3424
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
169
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
At this point, though, three of these hierarchies can be safely discarded from the study,
because their focus is generally incompatible with the Exemplary Trait criterion of
having an identifiable profession for a topic. Hence, the rec.*, news.* and talk.*
hierarchies were not included in the Netscan searches.
The alt.* hierarchy deserves a mention. Without question it is the largest: Google
Groups report (in late 2005) it contains 13,833 newsgroups, and that’s without counting
the alt.binaries.* sub-hierarchy, which alone exceeds 2,500. However, alt.* is regarded
as rather more frivolous than the “Big-7” (Bradley, 1999). Anyone can launch an alt
newsgroup for the most trivial or humorous discussion topics (such as
alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork or alt.barney.die.die.die). For this reason, the alt.*
hierarchy was also excluded from Netscan searches, with the considered exception of
the alt.comp.* sub-hierarchy, as explained below.
To judiciously expand the search area, three additional hierarchies were included to the
four already mentioned: can.* includes 104 Canada-based newsgroups, and uk.*, 462
British-based newsgroups. They are the most important English-language hierarchies
after the USA newsgroups, hence interesting search areas. In addition, the alt.comp.*
sub-hierarchy, with 255 newsgroups, is known to contain many competent computer
groups, making for another viable search area.
The seven selected hierarchies are the most plausible Usenet areas for seeking
“professional” newsgroups, the “best neighbourhoods”, as it were. The fact they
include a mere 2842 newsgroups must be put in a broader context. Even though Usenet
is estimated to contain between 80,000 (Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 2002) and
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
170
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
100,000 newgroups (Smith, 2002), the large majority of these are inactive for lack of
participants (Smith, 1999). Hahn (2000) puts the number of active newsgroups
enjoying worldwide circulation at 7,500; not counting so-called organisational
hierarchies started by companies (e.g. microsoft.*, comprising 2732 newsgroups) or
universities (e.g. ucb.*, the 224 newsgroups of the University of California at
Berkeley). Therefore, it is not surprising that once popular hierarchies, such as alt.* and
rec.*, are discarded, the potential search area for “professional” newsgroups becomes
fairly small.
The base month for the Netscan analysis was set for March 2003. Each hierarchy-wide
search generated a large table of results which was first pasted into Excel and later
imported into Access, because it provided a convenient tool for applying quantitative
criteria using Access queries (both sets of results are provided in Appendix E). Table
6.2 displays statistics for the consecutive filters applied in the First Sub-stage.
Table 6.2: Original newsgroup population and progressive application of selection criteria
Hierarchy Number of Filter1 Filter2 Filter3 Filter4 Filter5
newsgroups 10 ≤ Returnees ≤ 200 Posts ≥ 300 Sum ≤ 0.40 English Profession
TPRatio ≤ 0.80
sci.* 243 110 59 12 10 8
misc.* 272 87 44 14 14 8
comp.* 1196 409 220 88 88 17
soc.* 310 152 115 36 32 4
uk.* 462 248 152 76 76 3
alt.comp.* 255 64 31 8 8 1
can.* 104 17 11 3 3 0
Total 2842 1087 632 237 231 41
Using the Access database to apply the three quantitative filters was a straightforward
task, yielding a 92% reduction of the original newsgroup population, from 2842 to 237.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
171
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The first qualitative filter, about newsgroup language, was also straightforward, and it
discarded six newsgroups.
By contrast, it was a longer, and at times subtle task, to identify and filter out
newsgroups whose topic was not a profession, mostly because of the huge variety of
topics that are discussed in Usenet. The systematic application of the professional
criterion led to discard the following classes of newsgroups:
• national cultures (such as soc.culture.*)
• religions (such as soc.religion.*)
• public announcements or job offers (such as can.jobs.gov)
• local news and issues (such as uk.local.*)
• people issues (such as uk.people.*)
• recreation, hobbies, games, sports, movies, TV-shows (such as alt.fan.*)
• sexual issues (such as soc.sexuality.general)
• personal health or family issues (such as misc.health.diabetes)
• information/support for medical conditions (such as sci.med.prostate.cancer)
• newsgroups focused on chat or debate (such as can.talk.guns)
• newsgroups focused on advocating a particular hardware or software
system (such as comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
In addition, a large number of newsgroups, though professional in their tone and level
of expertise, were discarded because their focus was deemed too narrow to constitute a
profession. Among these were newsgroups focused on technical support of hardware
and software systems, such as alt.comp.virus or comp.periphs.scanners. Also groups
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
172
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
focused on a single software or hardware product, such as comp.databases.paradox or
comp.sys.hp48. Again, the criterion was easier to apply to some groups that others, and
some discarded newsgroups could warrant further study at a latter stage.
Finally, a small number of newsgroups were discarded because their topics, though
professional in principle, were far too open to the participation of non-professionals or
laymen, both knowledgeable and not. This resulted in fairly heterogeneous newsgroups,
with participants hailing from diverse backgrounds, and where it is hard to distinguish
established discipline from vocally held opinion. In these conditions, it is difficult for a
community of true practitioners to cohere. Among newsgroups discarded on this
rationale were misc.education.home-school.misc, uk.environment.conservation and
uk.sci.weather.
In some cases, the name of the newsgroup did not provide sufficient information to
decide whether or not the professional criterion applied. So a small number of
newsgroups were given the benefit of doubt, and allowed to proceed to the Second Sub-
stage with its more discriminating qualitative analysis.
The output of the First Sub-stage selection process is displayed on Table 6.3. A total of
41 newsgroups cleared all filters, and thus exhibit high affinity to the quantitative
Exemplary Traits of the VCoP model.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
173
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 6.3 – First Sub-stage newsgroup sample

ID Newsgroups Posts Posters Returnees PPRatio %Cross Sum
1 alt.comp.shareware.authors 1403 206 92 0.15 0.02 0.17
2 comp.databases.theory 427 118 34 0.28 0.11 0.39
3 comp.dcom.cabling 378 102 38 0.27 0.04 0.31
4 comp.dsp 1640 401 128 0.24 0.07 0.31
5 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html 2037 365 93 0.18 0.11 0.29
6 comp.lang.ada 1112 206 95 0.19 0.03 0.22
7 comp.lang.basic.realbasic 493 125 42 0.25 0.00 0.25
8 comp.lang.c++.moderated 1718 421 172 0.25 0.05 0.30
9 comp.lang.clipper 710 220 79 0.31 0.05 0.36
10 comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects 2093 300 163 0.14 0.01 0.15
11 comp.lang.cobol 1913 175 77 0.09 0.01 0.10
12 comp.lang.fortran 1169 249 102 0.21 0.05 0.26
13 comp.object 1596 223 93 0.14 0.21 0.35
14 comp.programming 1636 460 113 0.28 0.11 0.39
15 comp.programming.threads 589 132 43 0.22 0.10 0.32
16 comp.software.extreme-programming 493 105 31 0.21 0.11 0.32
17 comp.std.c 925 186 72 0.2 0.07 0.27
18 comp.std.c++ 463 105 51 0.23 0.16 0.39
19 misc.invest.financial-plan 387 119 42 0.31 0.00 0.31
20 misc.invest.mutual-funds 1596 164 72 0.1 0.04 0.14
21 misc.legal.moderated 601 199 49 0.33 0.05 0.38
22 misc.taxes 2457 486 117 0.2 0.17 0.37
23 misc.taxes.moderated 2006 489 162 0.24 0.00 0.24
24 misc.transport.trucking 3054 337 127 0.11 0.03 0.14
25 misc.writing 8812 417 121 0.05 0.06 0.11
26 misc.writing.screenplays 6761 566 166 0.08 0.24 0.32
27 sci.agriculture.poultry 588 111 41 0.19 0.00 0.19
28 sci.bio.evolution 385 74 33 0.19 0.00 0.19
29 sci.crypt 1798 368 129 0.2 0.08 0.28
30 sci.engr.joining.welding 1167 273 106 0.23 0.11 0.34
31 sci.med.transcription 5054 173 87 0.03 0.00 0.03
32 sci.med.vision 1416 194 62 0.14 0.11 0.25
33 sci.military.moderated 578 202 63 0.36 0.04 0.40
34 sci.physics.research 963 251 107 0.26 0.13 0.39
35 soc.genealogy.medieval 827 156 97 0.19 0.06 0.25
36 soc.genealogy.methods 333 118 54 0.35 0.00 0.35
37 soc.history.war.us-civil-war 439 108 47 0.25 0.02 0.27
38 soc.history.war.world-war-ii 1104 273 111 0.25 0.01 0.26
39 uk.business.agriculture 2267 157 66 0.07 0.06 0.13
40 uk.education.staffroom 3088 175 42 0.06 0.07 0.13
41 uk.net.web.authoring 1091 198 75 0.18 0.12 0.30
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
174
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
6.2 – Second Sub-stage: Institutional document search and assessment
The Second Sub-stage aims to perform a more fine-grained qualitative analysis to
further narrow the First Sub-stage sample to about 16-20 newsgroups. This number was
the maximum that could practically be managed in the Third Sub-stage, which will
derive the social network of a one-year sample of interactions for each newsgroup, and
test the fit of the core-periphery model.
As previously shown in Figure 6.1, the Second Sub-stage includes three qualitative
filters. The first is the operationalisation of the Exemplary Trait of high-quality
institutional documents. To apply this criterion, it is necessary to search the Internet
for available institutional documents of each newsgroup, and assess these for
quality. An Internet-wide search is necessary because newsgroups do not always
post their institutional documents as Usenet messages, but as separate web-pages
which can be located using the Google search engine. Four distinct types of
institutional documents will be sought: newsgroup charter, FAQ, home page, and
posting guidelines. They will be assessed as very good, good or poor. In addition,
the moderated or unmoderated character of each newsgroup will be determined
(since not all moderated newsgroups reflect this on their name). The filter will be
operationalised thus:
Filter6: Discard newsgroups whose institutional documents are rated as poor.
A by-product of the institutional document assessment is a clearer identification of the
discussion topic of the newsgroups, allowing better application of the professional
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
175
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
criterion. The second qualitative criterion involves checking all newsgroups once again
for compliance with this criterion.
The last qualitative criterion operationalises the Exemplary Trait of non-conflictual
online interaction. The wide-open nature of the Usenet network makes newsgroups
vulnerable to interruptions and malicious harassment. Three well-known sources of
distraction in Usenet newsgroups are unsolicited advertisements (spam), obnoxious off-
topic posters (trolls) and personal attacks (flames) (Smith, 1999). Some participants deal
with such distractions by censoring messages by these posters using a killfile, which is a
blacklist in the newsreader that will refrain from downloading messages from posters that
have been added to the blacklist for past online misbehaviour. Other newsgroups choose
to become moderated, reviewing all submitted messages before they are uploaded to the
newsgroup. In any case, it is relatively easy to detect newsgroups that do not succeed in
preserving their topic focus, because tempers erupt and subject headings appear rife with
conflict, which endangers the success of the newsgroup (Kollock and Smith, 1996). This
symptom is fairly obvious when browsing a newsgroup, as posters capitalise their subject
headings to make them stand out from the others, the Internet equivalent of
“SHOUTING”. It is unlikely that a newsgroup whose discussion has degenerated into
open warfare will be able to achieve the online collaboration that characterises a CoP.
Hence:
Filter7: Discard newsgroups exhibiting severe episodes of “flames” “trolls” or
“spam”.
The Second Sub-stage thus began with a systematic Internet search for institutional
documents of the 41 newsgroups selected in the previous Sub-stage. The search was
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
176
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
conducted using Google, both on web pages and on Usenet newsgroups (Google can
search both). In addition, the search included downloaded messages from these
newsgroups, specifically mentions of the charter or the FAQ within their subject
headers. Detected institutional documents were recorded on Table 6.4, and are provided
in Appendix Q. To apply Filter6, existing institutional documents were rated as very
good, good or poor, using such criteria as level of detail and how recently they had
been updated. Newsgroups which only had one of the four types of documents were
automatically rated as poor, as well as newsgroups which had none. These ratings are
also recorded on Table 6.4.
Several newsgroups that survived the selection process in the First Sub-stage were
found, during the detailed institutional document of the Second Sub-stage, to fail on the
second pass of Filter5, because they had too narrow a focus to constitute a profession,
or despite a promising name did not actually focus on a profession. These finds are also
recorded on Table 6.4.
Finally, Filter7 was applied by browsing discussion threads from the First Sub-stage
newsgroups to search for episodes of flames, spam or trolls. Capitalised subject
headings were used as the initial indicator, but it was always followed by a quick check
of the message text itself for confirmation. Severe episodes of these disruptions are
recorded on Table 6.4.
Overall results of the Second Sub-stage is that of 41 initial newsgroups, 22 were
discarded by applying either Filter6, Filter7 or Filter5. This left 19 finalist newsgroups
to be more intensively analysed on the next sub-stage.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
177
Table 6.4 – Results of Second Sub-stage
N Newsgroups Moderated Charter FAQ Posting Home page Filter5 Filter6 Filter7 Discard
guidelines
1 alt.comp.shareware.authors a OK poor OK x
2 comp.databases.theory OK poor OK x
3 comp.dcom.cabling a too narrow poor OK x
4 comp.dsp a OK poor OK x
5 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html a a a too narrow good flames x
6 comp.lang.ada a a a OK very good OK
7 comp.lang.basic.realbasic too narrow poor OK x
8 comp.lang.c++.moderated a a a a a OK very good OK
9 comp.lang.clipper a a a OK good OK
10 comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects a a OK good OK
11 comp.lang.cobol a a a OK good OK
12 comp.lang.fortran a OK poor OK x
13 comp.object a OK poor OK x
14 comp.programming OK poor OK x
15 comp.programming.threads a a a OK very good OK
16 comp.software.extreme-programming a a OK good OK
17 comp.std.c a OK poor OK x
18 comp.std.c++ a a a a OK very good OK
19 misc.invest.financial-plan a a a a a OK good OK
20 misc.invest.mutual-funds a OK poor flames x
21 misc.legal.moderated a a a OK good OK
22 misc.taxes a OK poor flames x
23 misc.taxes.moderated a a a a OK very good OK
24 misc.transport.trucking OK poor flames x
Table 6.4 – Results of Second Sub-stage (continued)
N Newsgroups Moderated Charter FAQ Posting Home page Filter5 Filter6 Filter7 Discard
guidelines
25 misc.writing a a a a OK good flames, trolls x
26 misc.writing.screenplays a a a OK very good flames, trolls x
27 sci.agriculture.poultry OK poor OK x
28 sci.bio.evolution a a OK poor OK x
29 sci.crypt a a OK very good OK
30 sci.engr.joining.welding a OK poor OK x
31 sci.med.transcription a a a OK good OK
32 sci.med.vision a OK poor flames x
33 sci.military.moderated a OK poor OK x
34 sci.physics.research a a a a a OK very good OK
35 soc.genealogy.medieval a a OK good flames x
36 soc.genealogy.methods a a a a OK very good OK
37 soc.history.war.us-civil-war a a a a a OK very good OK
38 soc.history.war.world-war-ii a a a a a OK very good OK
39 uk.business.agriculture a a OK good OK
40 uk.education.staffroom a non-work poor OK x
41 uk.net.web.authoring a a OK good OK
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
6.3 – Third Sub-stage: Core-Periphery Analysis
The Third Sub-stage performs a Social Network Analysis of the 19 finalist newsgroups,
and identifies those exhibiting a core-periphery structure, as well as participants with
high-coreness scores. Unlike previous Sub-stages, this one will discard few, if any,
newsgroups; only those that seriously fail the model-fit criterion. Rather, the task of
final selection is left to the Fourth Sub-stage, which will draw on all available
information from previous Sub-stages to make an informed final choice.
A 52-week message sample was downloaded from each newsgroup; most samples
spanned the period 14 July 2002 to 12 July 2003. The message sample was was built up
gradually by periodic downloads from a large commercial Usenet provider
(www.supernews.com) to assure sample integrity. Downloaded messages were
exported as large plain-text files, and these were then read using a simple BASIC
routine (provided in Appendix F) which captured relevant header information and
rearranged it into a format suitable for import into Access. Thus the complete one-year
sample from each newsgroup could be easily manipulated within the database.
Specifically, header information was used to determine to whom were directed
messages addressed, thus deriving the social network implicit in non-random
participant interactions. This was then exported to UCINET, version 6.29 (Borgatti et
al, 2002) in order to fit a continuous core-periphery model. Results are displayed in
summary form in Table 6.5, and more fully in Appendix G. The Table also introduces
shorter labels for the newsgroups, that will be used henceforth to avoid the original,
more cumbersome names.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
180
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Using a one year sample provides reasonable assurance of the persistence of detected
core-periphery structures and the stability of newsgroup participants with high coreness
degrees. A quick burst of activity by an individual participant –not uncommon in
Usenet– is unlikely to significantly impact a coreness score estimated over an entire
year. As discussed in Chapter Five, persistent and stable cores will be considered
virtual communities, and by this stage of the selection process, they are also known to
be professionally-oriented communities.
Borgatti et al (2002) recommend using more than one of the quantitative results from
the UCINET runs to decide the extent to which a particular social network adopts a
core-periphery structure. The most typical result is the correlation of the observed data
with an ideal core-periphery structure; this is the result listed in Table 6.5.
In addition, UCINET provides four different estimates of concentration. Everett and
Borgatti (2001) proposed concentration as the logical generalization of centralization in
networks that exhibit a core-periphery structure. Schenkel, Teigland and Borgatti (2001)
have argued that real-world communities of practice have high concentration values
because they have shorter graph-theoretic distances between all pairs of members.
Therefore, concentration is a relevant indicator in this study. Of the four variants
estimated by UCINET, two are used in this study. First, the default concentration value
UCINET returns, which is also the value used to recommend a best-fit core size (Borgatti
et al, 2002). This is the correlation of the given coreness scores with the ideal score of
one for every core member and zero for actors in the periphery, estimated for all possible
core sizes (the maximum of this value indicates the best-fit core size). This value is
displayed in the third column of Table 6.5. Probably as a result of the demanding
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
181
Table 6.5 – Core-periphery analysis of finalist newsgroups
Newsgroup Newsgroup Correlation Concentration Suggested Total actors Actors with Actors with
Identifier core size in social coreness ≥ 0.005 coreness ≥ 0.10
network (Survey sample) (Cont. Anal. sample)
1 comp.lang.ada ADA 0.73 0.86 14 866 141 16
2 comp.std.c++ CSTD 0.73 0.85 7 717 149 15
3 comp.lang.c++.moderated CPLUS 0.75 0.80 8 2515 211 11
4 comp.lang.clipper CLIPPER 0.60 0.87 14 1128 240 14
5 comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects VISOBJ 0.89 0.91 4 1079 153 8
6 comp.lang.cobol COBOL 0.86 0.89 6 1036 96 7
7 comp.programming.threads PROGTH 0.80 0.92 5 962 94 5
8 comp.software.extreme-programming XTRPRG 0.76 0.89 6 527 122 12
9 sci.crypt CRYPT 0.81 0.86 4 2315 110 9
10 misc.invest.financial-plan FINPLAN 0.75 0.93 10 549 88 11
11 misc.taxes.moderated TAXES 0.71 0.84 2 1994 98 11
12 misc.legal.moderated LEGAL 0.60 0.87 16 1294 167 16
13 sci.med.transcription MEDTRAN 0.94 0.88 14 644 79 15
14 sci.physics.research PHYSRES 0.71 0.88 5 1141 164 10
15 soc.history.war.world-war-ii WWAR2 0.69 0.83 10 1161 146 12
16 soc.history.war.us-civil-war CIVWAR 0.66 0.86 14 549 108 17
17 soc.genealogy.methods GENMETH 0.44 0.87 6 461 69 8
18 uk.net.web.authoring UKWEB 0.71 0.89 12 681 134 16
19 uk.business.agriculture UKAGRI 0.92 0.86 7 724 94 11
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
selection process of Sub-stages One and Two, the concentration values for the 19
finalist newsgroups were all fairly high, the lowest being 0.80 for CPLUS.
In addition, the nDiff concentration statistic is used graphically to provide additional
information of model-fit. This particular measure of concentration is the one Everett
and Borgatti (2001) proposed. The UCINET manual points out that a clear maximum
of the nDiff value (shown by a single peak on the graph) indicates a distinct core-
periphery structure, whereas a number of maximums (multiple peaks) indicates a
number of actors are situated between the core and the periphery (Borgatti et al, 2002).
Thus, the graph of the nDiff value can be used in conjunction with the correlation result
to judge the extent to which a particular newsgroup adopts a core-periphery structure.
The nDiff values of the finalist newsgroups were graphed to make maximum values
clearly visible; they have been included in Appendix G.
Even though UCINET results provide a recommended core size, reported in the fourth
column of Table 6.5, it sometimes results in an overly strict definition of “core”. For
instance, in TAXES, recommended core size is just 2, but this would classify as non-
core participants with coreness scores as high as 0.25. Hence, this study defines the
core of the newsgroup as the subset of actors with coreness scores of 0.10 or better,
which is also the criterion for the Content Analysis thread sample.
For illustrative purposes, the best and the worst fit of the core-periphery model are
discussed next. These correspond to newsgroups MEDTRAN and GENMETH, with a
correlation of 0.94 and 0.44 respectively. The corresponding nDiff graphs and
interaction data plots are displayed side-by-side in Figures 6.2 and 6.3. The interaction
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
183
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
plots display only actors close to the core, specifically those with coreness of 0.005 or
better, with actors in the plot sorted by descending coreness.
The fit of the model for MEDTRAN is excellent, as reflected in the high correlation
value and the clear maximums of the nDiff graph, shown in Figure 6.2A. The plot of
interaction data, in Figure 6.2B, looks remarkably like an ideal core-periphery structure
(see Figure 5.2). The volume of interaction is very strong, with high-coreness actors
exchanging around 400 messages in the one-year sample. This characterises the core as
a cohesive sub-group, i.e. a high-density area within the social network. Furthermore,
because the whole newsgroup has a core-periphery structure, the core is the only high-
density area (Borgatti and Everett, 1999). Hence, there is no other cohesive sub-group,
and interaction plots need only display the subset of high-coreness actors.
By contrast, newsgroup GENMETH has a low correlation of 0.44. The nDiff graph, in
Figure 6.3A, displays multiple maximums, but even assuming the larger core size
indicated by the last maximum (i.e. 9), the interaction data plot, in Figure 6.3B, reveals
a very low volume of interaction for a 52-week period. Such infrequent interaction
between core members indicate weak social ties and little knowledge of each other,
suggesting GENMETH can be dropped from the study at this stage.
The results of Table 6.5 reveal most newsgroups exhibit a core-periphery structure. Only
three (CLIPPER, LEGAL and GENMETH) returned correlations of 0.60 or less which,
when viewed alongside their nDiff and interaction plots (in Appendix G), advise discarding
them from the study for failure to comply with the Exemplary Trait of core-periphery
pattern. The remaining 16 newsgroups exhibit model fit that ranges from fair to excellent.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
184
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Figure 6.2A – Graph of nDiff values for MEDTRAN
Figure 6.2B – Posting activity at the core of MEDTRAN for 52-week sample
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
185
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Figure 6.3A – Graph of nDiff values for GENMETH
Figure 6.3B – Posting activity at the core of GENMETH for 52-week sample
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
186
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The core-periphery routine of UCINET also calculates the coreness degree of every actor
in the social network. The research design specifies that only participants exhibiting high-
coreness degrees should be included in the survey sample because they are more likely to
be stable members of the hypothesised CoP. As with previous quantitative criteria, it was
felt that the cut-off value should not be too restrictive, since the forthcoming Survey is
better equipped to handle heterogeneous participants, and it is preferable to have some of
these than to run the risk of blindly discarding legitimate members of the potential virtual
CoP. Thus, the threshold for inclusion in the sample was set at a coreness degree of
0.005. Table 6.5 displays the number of participants in each newsgroup who achieved
this coreness score. Interestingly, this seemingly low coreness score is only achieved
–taking the average over the 19 newsgroups– by the top 12% of newsgroup
participants. This indicates that the majority of participants in these newsgroups are
ephemeral, one-time visitors, which is consistent with a core-periphery structure.
6.4 – Fourth Sub-stage: Final Selection of Survey Sample
The aim of the Fourth Sub-stage is to commit to a final selection of newsgroups that
will participate in the study. The previous Sub-stages performed a rigorous selection
process that narrowed down the original 2842 newsgroups to just 16 exhibiting the
highest detected affinity to the VCoP model. Specifically, all Exemplary Traits are
present in these newsgroups.
At this point, a trade-off of sample sizes comes into play. The forthcoming Survey
would benefit from as large a sample size as possible, suggesting all 16 newsgroups
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
187
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
should participate. However, the time-intensive nature of the Content Analysis implies
that more newsgroups will result in a smaller thread sample analysed in each
newsgroup. Moreover, the questionnaire must be piloted before deploying it in the
main Survey, and this requires “using up” a fully qualified newsgroup from the sample.
Therefore, the decision was to select the 12 “most appropriate” newsgroups among the
16 finalists.
To make this selection as objective as possible, the researcher used as selection criteria
the various ratings of newsgroups recorded in the qualitative data summarised in Table
6.4 and the quantitative data contained in Tables 6.3 and 6.5. In addition, to increase
the theoretical interest of the sample, the researcher consciously aimed for newsgroup
variety (hence the two C++ newsgroups should not both be selected), and equal
representation of IT and non-IT newsgroups.
Long acquaintance with some newsgroups may have influenced the researcher’s
selection of the “most appropriate” newsgroups for the study. However, this potential
bias is bounded by the low number of newsgroups to be discarded, four out of sixteen.
In addition, since some of the newsgroups shared participants, some combinations were
not feasible, because they risked the same participant receiving an invitation to the
Survey on two or more newsgroups. For instance, newsgroup PROGTH was dropped
from the sample, as it had a significant overlap with ADA and CPLUS which had
already been selected. It was replaced by COBOL, which did not have this problem.
After taking all these considerations into account, the final selection of newsgroups and
newsgroup participants for the study is displayed in Table 6.6. This reduced set of
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
188
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
newsgroups exhibiting high-affinity to the VCoP model constitutes the chief objective
of Stage III, which is thus successfully completed. Furthermore, the success of this
Stage provides affirmative answers to all but one of the Preliminary Research
Questions, which address the assumptions on which the viability of this study depends.
However, discussion of research questions is best deferred to Chapter Eleven, where
the Preliminary, Exemplary and Essential Questions will be addressed simultaneously.
Table 6.6 – Newsgroups selected to participate in the study

Newsgroup Actors in Actors in Content
Identifier Newsgroup name Survey sample Analysis sample
ADA comp.lang.ada 141 16
CPLUS comp.lang.c++.moderated 211 11
IT newsgroups
CRYPT sci.crypt 110 9

XTRPRG comp.software.extreme-programming 122 12
VISOBJ comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects 153 8
COBOL comp.lang.cobol 96 7
PHYSRES sci.physics.research 164 10
Non-IT newsgroups
UKAGRI uk.business.agriculture 94 11
TAXES misc.taxes.moderated 98 11
MEDTRAN sci.med.transcription 79 15
CIVWAR soc.history.war.us-civil-war 108 17
FINPLAN misc.invest.financial-plan 88 11
6.5 – Summary
This chapter described the execution of Stage III of the Funnel Research Strategy, which
involved a four Sub-stage procedure of search, assessment and selection of Usenet
newsgroups exhibiting high affinity to the Exemplary Traits of the VCoP model.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
189
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The chapter discussed the rationale for targeting certain Usenet hierarchies and
discarding others. Each of the four Sub-stages is described in detail and the logic and
trade-offs of the Funnel Strategy are highlighted throughout. At each Sub-stage,
discarded newsgroups are clearly identified as are the reasons for their exclusion from
the study. Possible sources of researcher bias are discussed and evaluated. Stage III
successfully located twelve newsgroups exhibiting all the Exemplary Traits of the
VCoP model.
Selected newsgroups will now proceed to Stage IV of the Funnel Strategy, the Survey
of participants, whose execution is described in Chapter Seven.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
190
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CHAPTER SEVEN
Survey of Community Members
This chapter describes the deployment and results of the web-based Survey applied to
selected communities during Stage IV of the Funnel Strategy. The Survey targets high-
coreness participants, and aims to measure the extent to which the Essential Traits are
present in each community. The instrument was explicitly designed, under the guidance
of the VCoP model, to obtain evidence about the Essential Traits; as explained in
Section 5.3. Hence, the Survey directly addresses the Essential Trait Research
Questions. However, Survey evidence, though valid in its own right, will be
complemented by the evidence of the forthcoming Content Analysis, before drawing
any conclusions about the Essential Traits. The Survey is located in the lower part of
the Funnel (see Figure 7.1), which it shares with the Content Analysis.
The chapter is organised in eight sections. The First describes the deployment of the
questionnaire on the targeted Usenet populations. Section Two makes an initial analysis
of Survey results using item descriptive statistics, and performs item reliability
analysis. Section Three extends the evaluation of the Survey instrument by performing
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the four item-blocks that comprise the Survey
instrument, in order to validate hypothesised scales or refine them. These results are
then used in Section Four to confirm the validity of most hypothesised scales and build
three slightly modified scales. The logical connection between these validated scales and
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
191
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Wenger’s constructs is discussed, and scale results are then used to assess the presence
of the Essential Traits in the communities. Section Five performs a content analysis of
responses to an open Survey question that addresses community. The results yield
evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE, the only construct not measured by any of the validated
scales. Survey problems and limitations are then discussed in Section Six, and the final
section is a chapter summary.
Newsgroups / Participants
selected in Stage III
Essential Traits
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
JOINT ENTERPRISE
SHARED REPERTOIRE Stage IV – Survey
COMMUNITY
LEARNING
IDENTITY Stage V – Content Analysis
To Stage VI
Figure 7.1 – Stages IV and V of the Funnel Research Strategy
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
192
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7.1 – Survey deployment
Section 5.1 described the development process of the Survey instrument and the two
separate pilots that were run before the launch of the Survey, on Tuesday September
23, 2003. The first batch of invitations went out to newsgroups CPLUS and CRYPT
late at night on Monday 22, so that participants would find them first thing in the
morning, as Tuesday was judged to be the best day of the week for inviting to take
part in the Survey (Babbie, 1990). An overview of the invitation and response
statistics for the entire exercise is provided in Table 7.1.
The pilots had previously exposed the difficulty of actually contacting the target population
because of the substantial percentage of invalid e-mail addresses used by newsgroup
participants. The figure was 18.4% for the entire Survey, estimated from Table 7.1 as 314
invalid addresses found in 1706 distinct names invited. At the time, the researcher judged
this entailed the risk of not achieving the sample size required by the large questionnaire
involved. In response, the sampling population of each newsgroup was inflated by about
25% by inviting some participants with coreness below the specified threshold of 0.005.
This resulted in some Surveys being completed by participants with a coreness score as
low as 0.001. Table 7.1 shows, under the column “Targeted population”, the original goals
for each newsgroup, and under “Actually invited”, the real number of invitations sent. The
extent to which the original target population was affected is shown in Table 7.2, which
displays descriptive statistics for the sample. A total of 241 participants replied to the
Survey, but two surveys were discarded because they were only half-answered.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
193
Table 7.1 – Response rates for the main Survey
Newsgroup Invitation Reminder Close Target Invitations Repeat Distinct Invalid Actually Actual Response
population sent names names addresses invited response rate
PHYSRES 9/09/03 9/16/03 9/20/03 164 281 46 235 29 206 40 19.4%
CPLUS 9/23/03 9/30/03 10/19/03 211 273 51 222 44 178 33 18.5%
CRYPT 9/23/03 not sent 10/19/03 110 201 31 170 37 133 17 12.8%
FINPLAN 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 88 110 10 100 27 73 11 15.1%
TAXES 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 98 233 54 179 43 136 30 22.1%
COBOL 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 96 149 16 133 26 107 24 22.4%
VISOBJ 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 153 261 54 207 26 181 19 10.5%
XTRPRG 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 122 121 13 108 25 83 16 19.3%
CIVWAR 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 108 183 30 153 19 134 21 15.7%
MEDTRAN 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 79 119 29 90 19 71 16 22.5%
UKAGRI 10/06/03 10/13/03 10/31/03 94 142 33 109 19 90 14 15.6%
Totals 1323 2073 367 1706 314 1392 241 17.3%
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.2 - Characteristics of the Survey sample (n =239)

n Percent
Male 209 87.4
Gender Female 30 12.6
Missing 0 0.0
< 36 75 31.4
Age ≥ 36 and < 50 87 36.4
≥ 50 71 29.7
Missing 6 2.5
Tenure in ≤ 24 64 26.9
newsgroup ≥ 25 and ≤ 48 79 33.1
(in months) ≥ 49 94 39.3
Missing 2 0.8
≥ 0.001 and < 0.005 50 20.9
≥ 0.005 and < 0.010 41 17.2
Coreness ≥ 0.010 and < 0.050 85 35.6
≥ 0.050 and < 0.100 22 9.2
≥ 0.10 30 12.5
Missing 11 4.6
A significant incident during Survey administration was that the researcher was
contacted by the staff of the University of Bradford’s Computer Centre and informed
that two complaints had been received regarding unsolicited e-mail sent by the
researcher. This resulted in an exchange of letters between the researcher and his
supervisor and the Computer Centre, with the former defending the practice of sending
invitations to newsgroup members to participate in an academic survey, and the latter
defending the principle that no unsolicited mail at all should be sent from University
computers. No agreement was reached on this issue, and the researcher decided to
continue with the already launched Survey. However, he adopted additional
precautions to reduce the chances of further complaints, and of the University being
held responsible for his actions, even if he believed them to be fully in accord to the
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
195
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ethical and professional guidelines of responsible research. Specifically, the following
measures were adopted:
• The researcher removed his and his supervisor’s University e-mail address
from the invitation and used instead his personal address. The potential loss
of credibility which this entailed was compensated with a more elaborate
invitation text.
• The wording of the invitation was changed slightly to further emphasise the
academic, non-commercial nature of the Survey (the modified invitation is
available in Appendix D). Also, personalised information about each
respondent was included in each invitation, specifically, the number of
posts made during the sample period and the estimated coreness score. This
was felt to increase the credibility of the researcher, as it showed careful
selection criteria had been applied to each invited participant.
• The researcher discontinued use of the Surveyworld.net e-mail engine (not
the web-based Survey), which only sent invitations in HTML format. Some
people had complained to the researcher that they couldn’t read HTML
mail and requested plain-text format. Therefore, invitations to the
remaining eight newsgroups were sent directly from the researcher’s PC,
using plain-text.
• The invitation promised to send just one short reminder, one week after the
main invitation, but also promised to omit the reminder if participants so
requested by replying “NO THANKS” to the main invitation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
196
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Another noteworthy incident during Survey administration was a formal inquiry by a
representative member of the CRYPT newsgroup to the researcher’s supervisor
regarding the researcher’s credentials and the legitimate purpose of the study. Some
members of that newsgroup had received invitations to the Survey at e-mail addresses
they never used when posting in the newsgroup, and they wanted to know how the
researcher had procured them. After his supervisor had vouchsafed for the validity and
strictly academic nature of the study, the researcher explained to this member of CRYPT
he had simply searched the Web, using the Google search engine, for some names of
high-coreness members of CRYPT (plainly displayed in message signatures), and had
found their professional credentials and e-mails at university departments or publisher
pages advertising their most recent book. The researcher added that none of these
addresses had been or would ever be divulged to third parties, that he had been unaware
his actions could inadvertently compromise a private professional identity, and offered an
apology to newsgroup members for any perceived inconvenience. Whereupon the
contacting member of CRYPT pronounced himself satisfied, and promised to convey
explanation, reassurances and apology to his colleagues. As a further measure to avoid
potential inconvenience to the newsgroup, the researcher canceled the automatic reminder,
and used only the 17 completed surveys that resulted from the original invitation.
In order to give a balanced account, it should be said that from the CRYPT newsgroup,
several days before the previous exchange, the researcher received a polite thank-you
note, displayed in Figure 7.2. Furthermore, the previously mentioned member of
CRYPT engaged the researcher in a friendly e-mail exchange suggesting the mailing
list UKCRYPTO, which he founded and hosts, might be a better example of virtual
community than the CRYPT newsgroup. As this invitation, coming from a community
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
197
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
insider, was deemed potentially very interesting, the researcher downloaded and
examined messages of the mailing list, but was defeated by the non-systematic e-mail
headers it uses, which make it difficult to import header information into a database to
derive the social network in the list.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:06:49 -0400 (EDT)

From: (name and address omitted)
To: Enrique Murillo-Othon - University of Bradford
Subject: Re: Survey of Usenet professional communities (sci.crypt)
Hi,
> dissertation is about learning and knowledge-sharing in Usenet-based

> professional communities, of which sci.crypt is a good example.
I just wanted to write and thank you for your considerate e-mail and for
carrying out this important research. I actually have friends who also
study online collaboration and communication; I'm always fascinated by how
access to online resources transforms our previous understanding of
community and profession.
Please do send me a copy of any resulting papers. I look forward to seeing

your work!
best,
(signature)
Figure 7.2 – A thank-you note from a Survey respondent
During the eight weeks the Survey was open, the researcher was contacted by 49
participants. Some wished to acknowledge the invitation, and confirm they had
submitted the completed questionnaire. Several asked about the meaning of the term
“coreness”, mentioned in the invitation. Others offered personal impressions about the
newsgroup. Some offered comments and suggestions about Survey layout, the
sampling criteria, or the validity of the whole exercise. A small number of participants
regarded the invitation as Internet spam and requested to be taken off the mailing list.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
198
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In addition, a small number of participants reported difficulties to access Surveyworld’s
page, usually because they were using older versions of the Netscape browser. This
problem was detected at the pilot stage, and the solution was to set up a backup survey
with an alternate provider, Surveykey.com, found during the earlier provider search.
Although lacking many features of the more professional-looking Surveyworld, it
offered a free and effective means of capturing responses of people who took the time
to report the problem to the researcher. The link to the alternate provider was provided
in the invitation; 19 out of 241 returned questionnares came from the alternate provider.
Throughout this period, the researcher tried to respond quickly and politely to all
questions, comments and complaints. It was encouraging that the overall reaction to the
Survey was positive, with 18 respondents (1.3% of all invited) taking the time to send
an e-mail thanking the researcher for the invitation to participate, commenting they had
found the Survey interesting, and/or wishing the researcher good luck with his project.
By contrast, five participants (0.36% of all invited) objected to the invitation.
Not all communication was through private e-mail. Some newsgroup participants
posted their opinions, comments or concerns in the newsgroup itself. This happened in
MEDTRAN, TAXES, UKAGRI and VISOBJ. A frequent concern was whether or not
the Survey was what it purported to be, an academic research project. To this, other
participants who had already participated replied that to them it appeared as such.
Another common question was as to the meaning of the term coreness. Having browsed
the various questions and replies, the researcher posted an explanatory message
addressing the various concerns. This was posted a few days after the automatic
reminder was sent, and effectively served as an additional reminder for newsgroup
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
199
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
participants who had not yet submitted. The explanatory posting was well received and
in addition to its primary objective of conveying reassurances, it probably resulted in a
few additional surveys submitted.
7.2 – Analysis of hypothesised structure questionnaire
7.2.1 – Item results
The Survey included scales for the 12 sub-constructs derived from the Essential Trait
Research Questions. An additional scale was developed to measure respondents’
Expertise, potentially an independent variable. The questionaire thus included 13
hypothesised scales. Results of individual items will be presented next. To avoid
multiplying the number of tables, scales will be grouped into four blocks named after
the Wenger construct they measure. Each table includes item frequencies (percentages
of the total response for each point on the five-point Likert scale used), mean scores,
standard deviations and number of valid responses.
Item summaries for the LEARNING block are displayed on Table 7.3, beginning with the
four items representing ‘Acquiring new knowledge’. All exhibit a strong positive
response with values for ‘Agree’ ranging from 44 to 53%, and values for ‘Strongly
agree’ ranging from 32 to 51%. Item means range from 4.12 to 4.42. This suggests
respondents across the sample strongly agree they acquire new knowledge as a result of
their newsgroup participation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
200
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.3 – Item summaries for LEARNING block

Percentage
Item
SD D N A SA mean s.d. n
1.3 Participation in this newsgroup has led me to 1 1 3 44 51 4.42 0.72 238

acquire new knowledge
acquire new insights
Acquiring new

knowledge
develop new understanding

1.1 Participation in this newsgroup has expanded my 2 3 7 44 44 4.25 0.87 238
stock of professional knowledge
1.8 Participation in this newsgroup has improved my 5 17 37 27 14 3.29 1.06 238
problem-solving skills
Acquiring new skills
1.14 Participation in this newsgroup has increased my 3 16 30 35 16 3.44 1.04 237

ability to collaborate with others through Internet
ability to quickly analyse a case or problem
ability to build effective solutions
1.11 Participation in this newsgroup has helped me to 3 7 19 52 19 3.76 0.94 237
improve my skills
1.5 Participation in this newsgroup has raised the level 5 11 38 30 16 3.42 1.04 238
Acquiring a professional identity
of professionalism I hold myself to

develop my own professional viewpoint
develop my own professional style
1.9 Part of my professional identity is continuing 17 27 26 21 10 2.79 1.22 238
membership in this newsgroup
1.13 On a professional level, I strongly identify with 9 16 31 33 12 3.24 1.13 238
members of this newsgroup
Key: SD = Strongly disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly agree
Results for the five items representing ‘Acquiring new skills’, also shown on Table 7.3,
are somewhat more mixed. Three items display a positive response, with combined
‘Agree/Strongly agree’ values ranging from 51 to 71% of the sample, and means
ranging from 3.44 to 3.76. The remaining two items (1.8 and 1.12) evince a more
neutral position. This indicates respondents would mostly agree that they acquire new
skills through their participation in online discussions. Finally, the Table displayes item
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
201
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
summaries for ‘Acquiring/enacting a professional identity’. Most of them exhibited
neutral responses, with means ranging from 2.79 to 3.42. Only Item 1.2 broke the trend,
with 75% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing, and a mean value of 3.95.
Item results for the MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT block are collected in Table 7.4, beginning
with the three item summaries for ‘Debating domain-related issues’. All exhibit strong
positive responses, with values for ‘Agree’ ranging from 42 to 49% and values for
‘Strongly agree’ ranging from 13 to 30%. The means ranged from 3.50 to 4.01,
indicating strong agreement. Item results for ‘Collective problem-solving’, shown next,
also exhibit a positive response, with combined values for ‘Agree/Strongly agree’ ranging
from 50 to 62% of the sample, and means ranging from 3.32 to 3.63. This suggests
respondents strongly agree about the presence of collective problem-solving. Item
summaries for ‘Sharing useful information’ are shown last. Four out of five items
exhibit a strongly positive response, with combined values of ‘Agree/Strongly agree’
ranging from 62 to 95% of the sample, and means ranging from 3.52 to 4.37. Only item
2.14 exhibits a more neutral response, with a mean of 3.14. This would seem to indicate
a strong propensity for providing and receiving useful information, along with a lesser
inclination to make an explicit request for information.
Table 7.5 displays results of the SHARED REPERTOIRE block. Responses for most of the
items representing ‘Shared criteria’, fall mostly in the Neutral range of the scale, with
means ranging from 2.98 to 3.17 and combined ‘Agree/Strongly agree’ responses falling
below 50% of the sample. Only item 3.14 breaks the trend with a mean of 3.33 and a
combined response for ‘Agree/Strongly agree’ of 58%. Items aimed at detecting the
existence of ‘Shared practices’ exhibit a mixed response. Three of them fall mostly in
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
202
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
the Neutral range of the scale, while the other two exhibit strongly positive responses.
The scale for ‘Shared artifacts’ also shows a mixed response. Three out of four items
exhibit positive responses, with combined ‘Agree/Strongly agree’ values ranging from
50 to 79% and means ranging from 3.37 to 3.99. Item 3.5 is closer to the Neutral centre
of the scale, and has a lower mean of 3.15.
Table 7.4 – Item summaries for MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT block

Percentage
Item
2.7 I enjoy following the debates of issues that relate to 2 3 16 49 30 4.01 0.88 238
Debating issues
the profession in the newsgroup

2.4 I have learned a lot about the profession by watching 3 8 20 47 22 3.78 0.96 238
members debate the issues
2.9 Debating issues with other members of the 3 13 28 42 13 3.50 0.99 238
newsgroup has helped me to build solid arguments
2.3 Members of this newsgroup collaborate online to 6 16 24 39 15 3.39 1.11 238
build solutions for real world problems or cases
2.6 Members of this newsgroup are adept at combining 5 20 26 39 11 3.32 1.06 238
Collective problem-solving
individual contributions to build a solution for a problem

or case
2.5 Messages posting difficult problems or cases will 3 16 21 41 18 3.55 1.07 238
usually produce a collaborative effort from members of
the newsgroup to build a solution
2.8 Developing solutions to difficult problems or cases 3 13 25 45 15 3.55 0.99 238
will usually involve the combined contributions of
several members of the newsgroup
2.10 The experience of this newsgroup illustrates how 3 11 24 43 19 3.63 1.01 237
collaborative online discussion can be an effective way
of tackling difficult problems or cases
2.13 I have received useful information from other 1 2 3 52 43 4.37 0.65 237
members of the newsgroup
Sharing useful information
2.1 I have provided useful information to other 1 4 11 62 22 4.00 0.76 237

2.11 Access to useful information is one of the major 3 7 8 49 33 4.02 0.98 237
benefits I receive from continuing membership in this
newsgroup
2.14 Whenever I need a specific piece of information, I 9 21 27 34 10 3.14 1.13 237
post my request in the newsgroup
2.2 Whenever I know the answer to a specific request 3 16 18 53 11 3.52 0.98 238
for information, I post it in the newsgroup
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
203
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.5 – Item summaries for SHARED REPERTOIRE block

Percentage
Item
3.6 Members of this newsgroup largely agree on criteria 9 21 39 27 5 2.98 1.01 239
for evaluating performance in the profession
3.13 Members of this newsgroup largely agree on 8 16 31 39 5 3.17 1.03 238
criteria for evaluating quality in the profession
3.3 Members of this newsgroup largely agree on criteria 8 21 27 36 8 3.15 1.10 239
Shared criteria
for evaluating ethical conduct in the profession

3.14 Members of this newsgroup largely agree on what 8 16 18 50 8 3.33 1.09 238
constitutes good and bad practice
3.9 Members of this newsgroup mostly follow the same 9 21 23 41 6 3.14 1.10 239
professional standards
3.10 This newsgroup has best practices members often 7 22 32 30 9 3.13 1.06 238
refer to
3.4 Many members joined the newsgroup mainly to 5 12 38 39 5 3.26 0.92 239
learn how other practitioners do things
Shared practices
3.1 This newsgroup is constantly debating the merits of 3 13 26 43 15 3.54 1.01 239
different ways of doing things
3.11 This newsgroup has developed some new practices 5 17 50 24 3 3.04 0.87 238
through discussion
3.8 The experience of this newsgroup illustrates how 2 3 13 48 36 4.14 0.82 239
Usenet can be an effective medium for sharing practices
3.12 This newsgroup has typical examples or anecdotes 4 13 32 42 8 3.37 0.96 238
members often refer to
Shared artifacts
3.2 This newsgroup has developed convenient ways of 4 20 21 40 14 3.40 1.08 238
storing its knowledge (e.g. a FAQ)
3.7 Members of the newsgroup use technical language to 1 8 13 49 30 3.99 0.90 239
discuss problems or cases
3.5 Members of the newsgroup frequently refer to 6 23 28 37 7 3.15 1.05 239
archived discussions to answer current questions
Item summaries for the COMMUNITY block are collected under Table 7.6. Results for
‘Members’ knowledge of each other’, were rather mixed. Two items scored positively,
two negatively, and one, neutral. Respondents thus seem ambivalent on the extent to
which members of newsgroups get to know each other through online interaction. By
contrast, the items measuring ‘Shared sense of community’ all exhibited strongly
positive responses. Values for ‘Agree’ ranged from 42 to 59% of the sample, and for
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
204
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
‘Strongly agree’ ranged from 10 to 25%. Mean scores ranged from 3.50 to 4.03. This
suggests respondents experience a strong sense of community in their newsgroups.
Results were again mixed for the five items that represent ‘Caring for some domain of
knowledge’. Three items were positive, with combined ‘Agree/Strongly agree’ values
ranging from 64 to 75% of the sample, and means ranging from 3.55 to 3.95. The other
two items scored as ‘Neutral’, with means of 2.93 and 3.04.
Table 7.6 – Item summaries for COMMUNITY block

Percentage
Item
4.12 I know the other members of the newsgroup very 16 41 26 15 3 2.47 1.01 238
well
Members’ knowledge of each
4.14 The other members of the newsgroup know me 18 36 31 13 2 2.45 0.99 238
very well
4.9 In my experience, you can get to know a person very 8 14 22 48 9 3.37 1.07 238
well just from reading her/his messages often enough
4.11 When I need specialized help or advice, I know 4 15 21 46 13 3.50 1.03 238
which members of the newsgroup I should ask
otehr
4.8 I have built strong ties with some members that I 13 24 27 24 12 2.99 1.22 238
have never met in person
4.4 Members of this newsgroup see each other as trusted 4 12 27 42 14 3.50 1.02 237
colleagues
4.6 Members of this newsgroup mostly think of it as a 3 8 30 49 10 3.55 0.88 238
Shared sense of
stable community
community
4.2 Members of this newsgroup are comfortable asking 0 5 11 59 25 4.03 0.77 238
each other for help
4.1 Members of this newsgroup have had online 2 3 13 58 24 4.03 0.76 238
interaction with each other for years
4.10 Members of this newsgroup are highly committed 3 3 19 47 28 3.95 0.91 237
to the profession
Caring for a domain of knowledge
4.7 Members of this newsgroup collaborate to keep 8 11 16 47 17 3.55 1.14 238

newsgroup discussions focused on approved topics
4.5 Members of this newsgroup collaborate to maintain 10 21 40 25 4 2.93 1.01 238
newsgroup documents (e.g. the FAQ) updated and
relevant
4.13 Members of this newsgroup collaborate to perform 11 12 46 24 7 3.04 1.05 237
the administrative tasks a well-functioning newsgroup
requires
4.3 Members of this newsgroup share a mutual 3 8 20 50 18 3.72 0.97 238
commitment to the aims of the newsgroup
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
205
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
A three-item scale was used to measure participant Expertise, with mixed results,
shown under Table 7.7. Item 9, aimed at self-rated expertise in the topic of each
newsgroup, exhibited a strong positive response with 20% of the sample rating
themselves at the maximum value of 5 and 41% at 4. The response was more cautious
in the other two items, which probed for more specific aspects of expertise. Item 2.12
has a mean of 2.93 and is somewhat skewed toward the disagreement end of the scale.
Item 2.15 scored as negative with a mean of 2.81 and a combined ‘Disagree/Strongly
disagree’ value of 50% of the sample. Respondents are thus not entirely confident
about their personal degree of Expertise in the topics addressed in the newsgroups.
Table 7.7 – Item summaries for Expertise scale

Item
9. How would you rate your expertise in the topic of this 5 8 27 41 20 3.64 1.03 237
newsgroup?
2.12 I understand all the real world problems or cases that are 8 35 22 26 9 2.93 1.13 237
posted to this newsgroup
2.15 I understand all the issues that are debated in this 11 39 16 27 7 2.81 1.16 236
newsgroup
The final tally reveals 36 items were answered positively, 19 neutrally and 3
negatively. With respect to hypothesised scales, results range from the neutral to the
positive. Six of the scales had positive responses, while the other seven had mixed
responses. In particular, the scales for Members’ knowledge of each other and for
Expertise have a mixed response, requiring a closer look at their internal consistency,
which is done next.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
206
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7.2.2 – Item Reliability Analysis
A reliability analysis of the 13 scales of the hypothesised structure instrument was
performed using SPSS version 8.0. For each of the hypothesised scales, this analysis
assesses whether the scale is unidimensional, i.e. whether all items are measuring the
same underlying concept, and whether they do so reliably (DeVaus, 2002). The
unidimensionality of the scale is assessed by calculating Item-total correlations for each
item, which should be high if they are indeed measuring the same concept. A common
threshold for dropping an item from the scale is 0.3 (ibid). The reliability of the scale is
assessed by calculating the Cronbach alpha, where the acceptable level is usually taken
to be 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, SPSS calculates the value of the Cronbach
alpha if a particular item is dropped from the scale. Both statistics are used to identify
problematic items which if omitted may actually improve the consistency and
reliability of the scale.
Table 7.8 shows descriptive statistics and Cronbach alpha of the hypothesised scales.
Five scales (marked with asterisks) have alphas below the level of 0.70; the lowest is
‘Shared artifacts’ with an alpha of 0.55. In addition, even in scales with an acceptable
alpha, problematic items might be found that when dropped would improve the scale
further, so examining these items also is good practice.
The complete results of the reliability analysis for individual items of each scale are
listed in Appendix H. Overall, there were just three problematic items detected in the
scales, and they coincided with the scales having lowest alphas. The reliability analyses
for these two scales are presented next.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
207
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.8 – Descriptive statistics of hypothesised scales

Wenger Sub-construct scales Items Mean s.d. alpha
construct
Acquiring new knowledge 4 4.26 0.67 0.86
LEARNING Acquiring new skills 5 3.42 0.78 0.84
Acquiring/enacting a professional identity 5 3.27 0.81 0.81
Debating domain-related issues 3 3.76 0.71 0.62*
MUTUAL
Collective problem-solving 5 3.50 0.87 0.88
ENGAGEMENT
Sharing useful information 5 3.81 0.56 0.57*
Shared criteria 5 3.15 0.89 0.89
SHARED
Shared practices 5 3.42 0.61 0.65*
REPERTOIRE
Shared artifacts 4 3.47 0.65 0.55*
Members’ knowledge of each other 5 2.95 0.80 0.81
COMMUNITY
Shared sense of community 4 3.77 0.65 0.74
JOINT
Caring for some domain of knowledge 5 3.44 0.66 0.66*
ENTERPRISE
Respondent
Expertise 3 3.12 0.90 0.75
characteristics
Table 7.9 shows the reliability analysis for items representing Sharing useful
information. Item 2.1 is clearly problematic because of its very low Item-Total
Correlation (ITC). In addition, Alpha-If-Item-Deleted (AIID) indicates scale alpha
would increase from the current 0.57 to 0.62 if item 2.1 is dropped from the scale.
Table 7.9 – Reliability analysis for ‘Sharing useful information’ (alpha = 0.57)
Item ITC AIID
2.13 I have received useful information from other members of the 0.45 0.47
newsgroup
2.1 I have provided useful information to other members of the 0.08 0.62
newsgroup
2.11 Access to useful information is one of the major benefits I receive 0.42 0.45
from continuing membership in this newsgroup
2.14 Whenever I need a specific piece of information, I post my request 0.42 0.45
in the newsgroup
2.2 Whenever I know the answer to a specific request for information, 0.31 0.52
I post it in the newsgroup
Key: ITC = Item-Total Correlation; AIID = Alpha If Item Deleted
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
208
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The reliability analysis of the scale for Shared artifacts, shown on Table 7.10, reveals
two potentially problematic items: both 3.12 and 3.7 have ITC marginally below the
acceptance level. However, AIID would not improve by dropping each individually,
nor does it improve by dropping both of them. Therefore, the scale cannot be improved
by discarding these items.
Table 7.10 – Reliability analysis for ‘Shared artifacts’ (alpha = 0.55)

Item ITC AIID
3.12 This newsgroup has typical examples or anecdotes members 0.27 0.53
often refer to
3.2 This newsgroup has developed convenient ways of storing its 0.32 0.49
knowledge (e.g. a FAQ)
3.7 Members of the newsgroup use technical language to discuss 0.28 0.52
problems or cases
3.5 Members of the newsgroup frequently refer to archived discussions 0.48 0.35
to answer current questions
The conclusion at this point is that discarding problematic items, would result only in
marginal improvements in scale alpha; and in no case would an unreliable scale
become reliable. Therefore problematic items are merely noted at this stage, pending
further evaluation of the scales using EFA in the next section.
7.3 – Using Exploratory Factor Analysis to evaluate and improve scales
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a multivariate statistical technique used for data
reduction and refining measures. It is strongly recommended as part of the process of
developing and evaluating behavioural scales and subscales (Ford, MacCallum and
Tait, 1986; Gorsuch, 1997; DeVellis, 2003). DeVellis (2003) identifies three purposes
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
209
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
of EFA in scale development: a) to determine how many latent variables underlie a set
of items; b) to explain the variation among a large number of original variables (the
items) using a small number of newly created variables (the factors); c) to define the
substantive content or meaning of the factors (i.e. latent variables) that account for the
variation among a larger set of items.
The specialised literature on EFA is abundant, requiring nearly a literature review of its
own, just for making informed technical decisions. One reason is that EFA is a generic
term encompassing a whole family of methods, many variants of which are commonly
used in scale development. This multiplicity of options, which can be confusing for the
non-specialist, has led to the publication of several reviews of scale development
practices in organisational and behavioural research (Ford et al, 1986; Hinkin, 1995;
Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum and Strahan, 1999; Conway and Huffcutt, 2003). Even
these reviews do not cover all the issues, but they do identify key authors whose advice
can greatly aid in making theoretically-sound decisions.
7.3.1 – Addressing critical EFA issues
Possibly the strongest warning found in the literature concerns the default EFA settings
of popular multivariate analysis programs (notably SPSS), which use Principal
Components for the extraction model, the eigenvalues greater than 1 extraction
criterion, and Varimax rotation. Despite computational simplicity and straightforward
interpretation of results, this “default” procedure is no longer recommended for scale
development (Gorsuch, 1997; Reise, Waller and Comrey, 2000; Preacher and
MacCallum, 2003). Current EFA literature advises making informed decisions in the
five critical issues reviewed next.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
210
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7.3.1.1 – Factor extraction model
When the researcher believes the observed variables are the result of a number of
unobservable latent constructs, which is usually the case in the development of
behavioural scales, the recommendation is to use a common factors model rather than a
components model, which should be reseved for strict data reduction (Floyd and
Widaman, 1995; Fabrigar et al, 1999; Conway and Huffcutt, 2003; Preacher and
MacCallum, 2003). Hence, this study will use common factors. As for the specific
model, Briggs and MacCallum (2003) recently compared two popular methods;
Ordinary Least Squares and Maximum Likelihood. They found the former performs
better, particularly in recovering weak common factors, and when sample size was
below 300, which is the case in this study. Thus, the informed choice will be Ordinary
Least Squares (labelled Unweighted Least Squares in SPSS).
7.3.1.2 – Number of factors to retain
The popular eigenvalues greater than 1 criterion has been found to overestimate the
number of factors to retain (Gorsuch, 1997). Zwick and Velicer (1986) compared five
methods and concluded the most accurate, and the choice of this study, is Horn’s
parallel analysis. It compares each eigenvalue of the original dataset with the
corresponding eigenvalue of a purely random dataset of the same size; factors are
retained as long as the former value is larger (Humphreys and Montanelli, 1975).
Though not included in SPSS, O’Connor (2000) wrote a simple SPSS routine that
performs this test (available at http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~boconno2/nfactors.html ).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
211
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7.3.1.3 – Sample size
Common rules of thumb advise using a multiple of the number of variables. For instance,
Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998) recommend a minimum of five times as many
observations as there are variables, and suggest ten is a more acceptable ratio.
MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang and Hong (1999) found no support for such rules; their
simulation study found the level of communalities to be the most determinant aspect in
pattern reproduction. When communalities are high (0.6-0.8), sample size becomes less
critical, but when they are low (0.2-0.4) or wide (ranging from 0.2 to 0.8) sample size
becomes more important. Using Maximum Likelihood estimation, they found that if
communalities were high, or wide, and the variable-to-factor ratio was 10:3, a sample size
as low as 60 is adequate; whereas under low communalities, adequate sample size
increases to 200. The moral for this study is that its achieved sample size of about 230
(after discarding missing data and outliers) can be judged adequate, given that the variable-
to-factor ratio will be 14:4 or 14:3, and assuming even a low level of communalities.
7.3.1.4 – Rotation technique
For any given solution with two or more factors, there is an infinite number of
alternative factor orientations that will fit the data equally well (Fabrigar et al, 1999).
Therefore, the aim of rotation is to select a particular orientation that produces more
easily interpretable results, usually referred to as simple structure. There are multiple
rotation techniques, of which the orthogonal Varimax is the most popular and the SPSS
default. However, assuming uncorrelated factors may run counter to theory in some
studies. In addition, an unrestricted oblique rotation may well achieve cleaner
separation of factors, with the added advantage that should the orthogonal solution be
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
212
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
appropriate, the oblique rotation will point it out through small correlations of the
factor correlation matrix. The best current advise, therefore, is to perform an oblique
rotation first, and check the factor correlations matrix; if correlations are small (e.g.
below 0.32), then use a simpler orthogonal rotation (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996;
Conway and Huffcutt, 2003; DeVellis, 2003). As for the rotation technique, this study
will use Promax with the k parameter set at 4 as recommended by Tataryn, Wood and
Gorsuch (1999) except where so noted.
7.3.1.5 – Criterion of salient loading
Many authors provide conventional rules of thumb; for instance, DeVaus (2002) suggests
using values of 0.3, Tabachnick and Fidell (1996: 677) put the value at 0.32, and Floyd
and Widaman (1995) suggest using 0.3 or 0.4. Merenda (1997) concedes 0.3 is common
practice in the social and behavioural sciences, but argues this level is certainly too low.
A more elaborate argument is given by Hair et al (1998: 112), who provide simple
guidelines of sample size required for various levels of factor loadings to be considered
significant. Their guidelines are based on a specific simulation (5% significance level,
80% power level, and standard errors of loadings assumed to be twice those of
correlations). For loadings of 0.40 to be identified as significant, a sample size of 200
would be required, while loadings of 0.35 would require a larger sample of 250. This study,
with a sample size of 230, will conservatively set the level of salient loading at 0.40.
7.3.2 – Applying EFA to Item-blocks
Having made informed choices regarding critical EFA issues, an additional decision, in
the context of this study, will be to take advantage of the modular design of the Survey,
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
213
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
and perform separate factor analysis on each of the four item-blocks, in effect treating
each as a separate 14-item, three-scale questionnaire. If items of each hypothesised
scale all load under the same factor, it will confirm the validity and reliability of the
hypothesised scales for measuring the theorised sub-constructs.
The results of the factor analyses performed on the four Item-blocks of the
questionnaire are reported next. Results of each block begin with a parallel analysis to
determine the number of factors to extract. Both the KMO statistic and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity are reported next. These are statistical indicators of the appropriateness of
using factor analysis on a particular dataset. For the KMO statistic, Hair et al (1998)
suggest values above 0.7 are adequate, and above 0.8, meritorious. In addition, the
Bartlett test should give a significant result. Each factor analysis is run under
Unweighted Least Squares, with the number of factors indicated by parallel analysis,
and with Promax rotation. Once simple structure is achieved, latent constructs are
identified, and a reliability analysis is performed on the resulting scales. In order to
avoid cluttering up the presentation, some less often used results will be collected in
Appendix I, specifically the communalities, the structure matrices, the factor
correlation matrices, and the reliability analyses of refined scales (except where they
prove problematic).
7.3.2.1 – LEARNING block
The results of the parallel analysis, displayed graphically on Figure 7.3, indicate three
factors should be retained. The KMO statistic was 0.901 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
was 1627, df = 91, Sig = 0.000. Both indicate factor analysis is well suited for this data.
In addition, none of the communalities of the 14 items were low enough to be cause for
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
214
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
concern. Estimated factor scores were used to check the data for outliers, since these have
a large effect on the factor solution. Three outliers were found, with values over four
standard deviations from the mean of factor scores, and much larger than all the other
observations. Discarding the outliers resulted in slightly improved solutions (the ones
actually reported) in this and in the other three blocks where the same outliers were found.
Original data
6
5
Eigenvalues
Random data
1
0
1 2 3 4 5
Factors
Figure 7.3 – Parallel Analysis for the LEARNING block
Applying Unweighted Least Squares, with three factors and Promax rotation yields the
results displayed in Table 7.11 (significant loadings highlighted in bold). Two items
(1.6 and 1.14) are discarded because their loadings fall below 0.4. The remaining 12
items separated cleanly, and grouped themselves under the three factors. Five items
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
215
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
loaded on Factor 1, and the new scale was labelled “Improving professional skill”. The
three items loading on Factor 2 came from the hypothesised scale for “Acquiring new
knowledge.” The four items loading on Factor 3 were labelled “Identifying with the
profession”. The reliability analysis of these scales revealed acceptable Cronbach
alphas of 0.87, 0.80 and 0.76, with no problematic items (see Appendix I).
Table 7.11 – LEARNING block: pattern matrix

Item Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Q1.12 Participation in this newsgroup has Acquiring new
.852 0.035 -0.194
increased my ability to quickly analyse a case or skills
problem
.795 0.053 -0.043
improved my problem-solving skills skills
Q1.10 Participation in this newsgroup has Acquiring/enacting
.784 -0.086 0.079
helped me to develop my own professional style a professional
identity
.572 0.241 0.025
helped me to improve my skills skills
Q1.5 Participation in this newsgroup has raised Acquiring/enacting
.561 0.002 0.231
the level of professionalism I hold myself to a professional
identity
.392 0.276 0.179
increased my ability to build effective solutions skills
.362 -0.011 0.227
increased my ability to collaborate with others skills
through Internet
Q1.3 Participation in this newsgroup has led me Acquiring new
-0.077 0.936 -0.114
to acquire new knowledge knowledge
0.053 0.732 0.054
to develop new understanding knowledge
0.263 0.551 -0.126
to acquire new insights knowledge
Q1.13 On a professional level, I strongly Acquiring/enacting
-0.121 -0.093 0.811
identify with members of this newsgroup a professional
identity
Q1.9 Part of my professional identity is Acquiring/enacting
0.325 -0.252 0.608
continuing membership in this newsgroup a professional
identity
-0.152 0.406 0.582
expanded my stock of professional knowledge knowledge
Q1.2 Participation in this newsgroup has helped Acquiring/enacting
0.121 0.217 0.496
me to develop my own professional viewpoint a professional
identity
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
216
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7.3.2.2 – MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT block
The parallel analysis, in Figure 7.4, indicates four factors should be used. However, a
first run revealed item 2.1 had a very low communality of 0.083 and this was confirmed
by the correlation matrix, which showed low and non-significant correlations between
this item and the others. The previous reliability analysis had already shown this item to
be problematic (see Table 7.9). It was therefore discarded, and the analysis reported
here (including the re-calculated parallel analysis) was performed with just 12 items.
4.5
Original data
4
3.5
3
Eigenvalues
2.5
1.5
1
Random data
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Factors
Figure 7.4 – Parallel Analysis for the MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT block
The KMO statistic was 0.857 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 1022.4, df = 66, Sig =
0.000. Both indicate factor analysis is well suited for this data. The first run with
Unweighted Least Squares and oblique Promax rotation with k = 4 resulted in a
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
217
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Heywood case, item 2.5 had a loading greater than 1, which indicates the factor
analysis solution is invalid. This is a problem of the extraction method and both
Unweighted Least Squares and Maximum Likelihood estimation are prone to it (Briggs
and MacCallum, 2003). However, adjusting the Promax k parameter to 2 yielded a
valid solution (Tataryn et al, 1999), which additionally exhibited fairly low factor
correlations, indicating orthogonal rotation was appropriate. Using Varimax rotation
yielded the results reported next. An advantage of orthogonal over oblique rotation is
that the sums of squared loadings can be meaningfully added to estimate the total
variance explained by the model, which is 53% here, as shown in Table 7.12.
Table 7.12 – MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT block: rotation sums of squared loadings

Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.428 20.231 20.231
2 1.444 12.030 32.261
3 1.250 10.418 42.679
4 1.205 10.045 52.724
The rotated factor matrix is displayed in Table 7.13, and simple structure is fairly
evident. The items loading under Factor 1 precisely match the scale for ‘Collaborative
problem solving’, and the same thing happens with Factor 4, which matches the
hypothesised scale for ‘Debating domain-related issues’. The scale for ‘Sharing useful
information’ split into two factors, and neither of the resulting scales has adequate
reliability. This hypothesised scale had already been identified as problematic in the
previous reliability analysis (see Table 7.8). Items 2.3 and 2.8 had significant loadings
on Factors 3 and 4 respectively, but were left under Factor 1 as that loading was larger
and the Items fit Factor 1 well. Because Factors 1 and 4 match hypothesised scales, the
previous reliability analysis stays current. The refined scale for ‘Collective problem-
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
218
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
solving’ has a robust alpha of 0.88. ‘Debating domain-related issues’ is weaker, with
alpha of 0.62 not reaching the 0.7 threshold (Nunnally, 1978). However, item-total
correlations are acceptable, the scale is conceptually meaningful, and has received the
additional validation of EFA, thus it will be retained.
Table 7.13 – MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT block: rotated factor matrix

Item Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Q2.5 Messages posting difficult problems
0.905 0.125 0.065 0.128
or cases will usually produce a Collective
collaborative effort from members of the problem solving
newsgroup to build a solution
Q2.6 Members of this newsgroup are
0.715 0.210 0.340 0.176
adept at combining individual Collective
contributions to build a solution for a problem solving
problem or case
Q2.8 Developing solutions to difficult
0.561 0.185 0.178 0.402
problems or cases will usually involve the Collective
combined contributions of several problem solving
Q2.10 The experience of this newsgroup
0.554 0.231 0.342 0.333
illustrates how collaborative online Collective
discussion can be an effective way of problem solving
tackling difficult problems or cases
Q2.3 Members of this newsgroup
Collective 0.533 0.120 0.457 0.169
collaborate online to build solutions for
problem solving
real world problems or cases
Q2.11 Access to useful information is
Sharing useful 0.132 0.758 0.128 0.125
one of the major benefits I receive from
information
continuing membership in this newsgroup
Q2.13 I have received useful information Sharing useful
0.136 0.616 0.129 0.104
from other members of the newsgroup information
Q2.14 Whenever I need a specific piece
Sharing useful 0.207 0.346 0.633 -0.055
of information, I post my request in the
information
newsgroup
Q2.2 Whenever I know the answer to a
Sharing useful 0.129 0.017 0.521 0.143
specific request for information, I post it
information
in the newsgroup
Q2.9 Debating issues with other
Debating domain- 0.122 0.025 0.035 0.619
members of the newsgroup has helped me
related issues
to build solid arguments
Q2.7 I enjoy following the debates of
Debating domain- 0.209 0.415 0.020 0.484
issues that relate to the profession in the
related issues
newsgroup
Q2.4 I have learned a lot about the
Debating domain- 0.190 0.185 0.255 0.435
profession by watching members debate
related issues
the issues
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
219
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7.3.2.3 – SHARED REPERTOIRE block
The parallel analysis, displayed in Figure 7.5, indicated using three factors. However,
the first run revealed item 3.1 had a low communality of 0.176, and furthermore it was
the only item to load under factor 3. Hence it was discarded and the analysis run on the
remaining 13 items; which results are reported here. The KMO statistic was 0.869 and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 1082.6, df = 78, Sig = 0.000 indicating factor analysis
is well suited for this data.
4.5
Original data
4
3.5
Eigenvalues
2.5
1.5
1
Random data
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Factors
Figure 7.5 – Parallel Analysis for the SHARED REPERTOIRE block
The pattern matrix, displayed in Table 7.14, shows clean separation of three factors.
Factor 1 matches the hypothesised scale for ‘Shared criteria’, which earlier exhibited
alpha of 0.89 and no problematic items (see Table 7.8). Factor 2 can be identified as
‘Shared practices’ and Factor 3 as ‘Shared artifacts’. The reliability analysis for Factor
2 items yielded a marginally acceptable Cronbach alpha of 0.66, and no problematic
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
220
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
items. By contrast, Factor 3 items return an unacceptable alpha of 0.49, and are thereby
discarded. This is not wholly unexpected as the hypothesised scale for ‘Shared
artifacts’ had already exhibited low reliability and problematic items.
Table 7.14 – SHARED REPERTOIRE block: pattern matrix

Q3.13 Members of this newsgroup largely Shared criteria
0.846 0.014 -0.003
agree on criteria for evaluating quality in the
profession
Q3.9 Members of this newsgroup mostly Shared criteria
0.846 -0.067 -0.012
follow the same professional standards
Q3.14 Members of this newsgroup largely Shared criteria
0.828 0.124 -0.114
agree on what constitutes good and bad practice
Q3.6 Members of this newsgroup largely agree Shared criteria
0.751 0.019 0.107
on criteria for evaluating performance in the
profession
Q3.3 Members of this newsgroup largely agree Shared criteria
0.673 -0.115 0.131
on criteria for evaluating ethical conduct in the
profession
Q3.8 The experience of this newsgroup Shared practices
0.346 0.129 0.049
illustrates how Usenet can be an effective
medium for sharing practices
Q3.10 This newsgroup has best practices Shared practices
0.066 0.793 -0.139
members often refer to
Q3.11 This newsgroup has developed some Shared practices
0.051 0.606 0.057
new practices through discussion
Q3.4 Many members joined this newsgroup Shared practices
0.040 0.425 -0.029
mainly to learn how other practitioners do
things
Q3.7 Members of the newsgroup use technical Shared artifacts
-0.035 0.413 0.111
language when discussing problems or cases
Q3.12 This newsgroup has typical examples or Shared artifacts
-0.077 0.396 0.152
anecdotes members often refer to
Q3.2 This newsgroup has developed convenient Shared artifacts
0.193 -0.037 0.540
ways of storing its knowledge (e.g. a FAQ)
Q3.5 Members of the newsgroup frequently Shared artifacts
-0.096 0.347 0.465
refer to archived discussions to answer current
questions
7.3.2.4 – COMMUNITY block
The parallel analysis, displayed in Figure 7.6, indicated three factors. The first run resulted
in a valid 3-factor solution, but with a low factor correlation matrix, suggesting oblique
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
221
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
4.5
4
Original data
3.5
3
Eigenvalues
2.5
1.5
Random data
1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Factors
Figure 7.6 – Parallel Analysis for the Community block
rotation was not necessary and a simpler orthogonal rotation could be used. Applying
Varimax yields the results reported next. The KMO statistic was 0.800 and Bartlett
1106.05, df = 91, sig. = 0.000, indicating factor analysis is appropriate. The sum of squared
loadings, displayed on Table 7.15, indicate the model explains 46% of total variance.
Table 7.15 – COMMUNITY block: rotation sums of squared loadings

Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.677 19.123 19.123
2 2.604 18.600 37.723
3 1.152 8.227 45.950
The rotated factor matrix is displayed in Table 7.16; simple structure is fairly evident.
Items loading under Factors 2 and 3 match the hypothesised scales for ‘Members’
knowledge of each other’ and ‘Caring for a domain of knowledge’. Factor 1 mixes
items from two hypothesised scales, but the new scale can be identified as ‘Shared
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
222
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
sense of professional community’. The reliability analysis for Factor 2 was previously
found to be acceptable, with alpha 0.81 and no problematic items (see Table 7.8).
Similarly, the analysis for Factor 1 found alpha of 0.83 and no problematic items (see
Appendix I). However, the analysis of Factor 3, shown in Table 7.17, returns an
unacceptably low alpha of 0.568 and will have to be discarded. This is not surprising as
even the five-item hypothesised scale only had an alpha of 0.66.
Table 7.16 – COMMUNITY block: rotated factor matrix

Q4.4 Members of this newsgroup see each Shared sense of
0.812 0.139 0.088
other as trusted colleagues community
Q4.3 Members of this newsgroup share a Caring for a domain
0.789 -0.010 0.228
mutual commitment to the aims of the of knowledge
newsgroup
Q4.2 Members of this newsgroup are Shared sense of
0.630 0.145 0.025
comfortable asking each other for help community
Q4.10 Members of this newsgroup are Caring for a domain
0.538 0.187 0.167
highly committed to the profession of knowledge
Q4.6 Members of this newsgroup think of it Shared sense of
0.535 0.207 0.292
as a stable community community
Q4.1 Members of this newsgroup have had Shared sense of
0.448 0.315 0.161
online interaction with each other for years community
Q4.12 I know the other members of the Members’ knowledge
0.123 0.847 0.041
newsgroup very well of each other
Q4.14 The other members of the newsgroup Members’ knowledge
0.042 0.747 -0.059
know me very well of each other
Q4.8 I have built strong ties with some Members’ knowledge
0.184 0.721 -0.060
members that I have never met in person of each other
Q4.11 When I need specialized help or Members’ knowledge
0.096 0.539 0.113
advice, I know which members of the of each other
newsgroup I should ask
Q4.9 In my experience, you can get to Members’ knowledge
0.237 0.511 -0.099
know a person very well just from reading of each other
her/his messages often enough
Q4.13 Members of this newsgroup Caring for a domain
0.054 0.015 0.722
collaborate to perform the administrative of knowledge
tasks a well-functioning newsgroup requires
0.180 0.043 0.466
collaborate to maintain newsgroup of knowledge
documents (e.g. the FAQ) updated and
relevant
0.266 -0.195 0.428
collaborate to keep newsgroup discussions of knowledge
focused on approved topics
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
223
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.17 – COMMUNITY block: reliability analysis for factor 3 item-set (alpha = 0.568)
Item ITC AIID
Q4.13 Members of this newsgroup collaborate to perform the
0.423 0.396
administrative tasks a well-functioning newsgroup requires
Q4.5 Members of this newsgroup collaborate to maintain
0.359 0.496
newsgroup documents (e.g. the FAQ) updated and relevant
Q4.7 Members of this newsgroup collaborate to keep newsgroup
0.355 0.507
discussions focused on approved topics
7.4 – Questionnaire validation and refined scale results
In general, scale evaluation through EFA, reported above, resulted in strong confirmation
of most of the original hypothesised scales. Four of the refined scales (Collective
problem-solving, Debating domain-related issues, Shared criteria and Members’
knowledge of each other) exactly matched the hypothesised scales. Two others
(Acquiring new knowledge and Shared practices) lost one item during the evaluation
process, but otherwise matched hypothesised scales, thus preserving the original concept
definition and scale naming (DeVellis, 2003). Therefore, these six refined scales are
validated instruments for measuring the corresponding sub-constructs, and can be used to
gather evidence about the presence or absence of Wenger’s constructs.
In addition, the EFA process yielded three new scales that have no direct counterpart
among the hypothesised sub-constructs. Examination of items loading under each led to
their being labelled as:
• Improving professional skill
• Identifying with the profession
• Shared sense of professional community
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
224
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
These scales are formed by items which loaded onto the same factor but originated in
scales for different sub-constructs. The refined scale identified as ‘Improving
professional skill’ includes three items from the ‘Acquiring new skills’ hypothesised
scale and two from ‘Acquiring/enacting a professional identity’. Similarly, the scale for
‘Identifying with the profession’ includes three items from the ‘Acquiring/enacting a
professional identity’ hypothesised scale, and one from ‘Acquiring new knowledge’.
Finally, the scale for ‘Shared sense of professional community’ includes four items
from the ‘Shared sense of community’ hypothesised scale and two from ‘Caring for a
domain of knowledge’.
Although these new scales do not match any of the sub-constructs originally defined,
each of them describes theoretically consistent manifestations of one and only one of
Wenger’s constructs. Hence, they can be integrated in the validated questionnaire as
new indicators or sub-constructs (DeVaus, 2002). Indeed, they are conceptually similar
to the meaning intended in the original sub-constructs. For instance, ‘Identifying with
the profession’ is similar to ‘Acquiring/enacting a professional identity’. Thus the nine
EFA-validated scales can be conceptually linked to Wenger’s constructs as displayed in
Figure 7.7.
The Survey was designed to gather evidence about the Essential Trait Research
Questions by polling participants of the various newsgroups about the presence or
absence of various visible indicators of Wenger’s constructs. This design aim has
mostly succeeded, since EFA-validated scales empirically measure nine sub-constructs
that can be conceptually linked to four of Wenger’s constructs. However, the fifth
construct, JOINT ENTERPRISE, remains unmeasured because none of the validated scales
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
225
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
could be connected to the sub-construct of ‘Caring for a domain of knowledge’. The
validated questionnaire does have this “blind spot”, as it were. The next section will
attempt to partially address this limitation by seeking evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE in
the responses to the open community question.
Acquiring new knowledge

Improving professional skill → LEARNING
Identifying with the profession
Collaborative problem-solving → MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT

Debating domain-related issues
Shared criteria → SHARED REPERTOIRE

Shared practices
Shared sense of professional community → COMMUNITY

Members’ knowledge of each other
Figure 7.7 – Link of validated scales to Wenger’s constructs
Descriptive statistics of the validated scales are displayed in Table 7.18; simple
summated scales were used to calculate scale scores (Gorsuch, 1983). The Table also
displays the labels that will henceforth be used to identify the validated scales.
The next step is to calculate scale results at the newsgroup level to see if any of them
exhibit evidence for the presence of most, or all sub-constructs. This evidence would
come in the form of high scores for each of the validated scales, which would indicate
that on average, a majority of respondents from that newsgroup agree that the sub-
construct associated with the scale is present in their virtual community.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
226
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.18 – Validated scales derived from Exploratory Factor Analysis

Cronbach
Item-block Validated scale Label Items n Range Mean s.d.
alpha
Improving
Skill 5 234 1.0 - 5.0 3.34 0.81 0.87
professional skill
Acquiring new
LEARNING Know 3 235 2.0 - 5.0 4.31 0.58 0.80
knowledge
Identifying with
Ident 4 235 1.0 - 5.0 3.59 0.77 0.76
the profession
Collective
ProbSolv 5 234 1.2 - 5.0 3.53 0.83 0.89
problem-solving
ENGAGEMENT Debating
3 235 1.0 - 5.0 3.78 0.69 0.62
domain-related Debate
issues
Shared criteria ShCrit 5 235 1.0 - 5.0 3.16 0.88 0.89
REPERTOIRE
Shared practices ShPrac 4 235 1.0 - 5.0 3.37 0.65 0.67
Shared sense of
6 233 1.7 - 5.0 3.81 0.64 0.83
professional ProfComm
community
COMMUNITY
Members’
5 235 1.0 - 4.8 2.96 0.80 0.81
knowledge of MemKnow
each other
Validated scale scores and descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 7.19. For every
newsgroup and scale it displays sample size, mean and standard deviation. Results are
mixed, with some newsgroups, such as CPLUS and TAXES, displaying what would
appear to be high scores on most variables, while others, such as CIVWAR and
FINPLAN, exhibit visibly lower scores.
To determine the statistical significance of scale scores, two-tailed t-tests were
performed comparing mean scores to the mid-point of the Likert scale (i.e. 3.0). For
each newsgroup, this involves performing nine tests, one for each variable, and care
must be taken to maintain, with repeated tests, an overall 5% significance level.
Therefore, a Bonferroni correction was performed (SPSS, 1997) using the following
formula to obtain the true significance:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
227
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
True significance = 1 – (1 – SPSS significance)9 .
Values for two-tailed t-scores and their Bonferroni-corrected significance level are
displayed in Table 7.19 for each newsgroup and scale. Significantly high scores, both
in the positive and negative direction have been highlighted in bold. Two-tailed tests
were used because there is no assurance that newsgroups are CoPs, and the possibility
of sub-construct rejection by respondents should be allowed for. For instance,
respondents of CPLUS agreed their newsgroup exhibits ‘Shared practices’ (mean of
3.83 is significantly greater than 3), but disagree that it exhibits ‘Member’s knowledge
of each other’ (mean of 2.62 is significantly below 3). Also, the higher critical value of
two-tailed tests gives greater assurance of the validity of rejected null hypotheses, both
for and against the presence of a sub-construct.
One statistical issue yet to be examined is whether measured respondent characteristics
have an influence on Survey scores. The questionnaire, and the previous Social
Network Analysis, obtained data for five such variables: Expertise (3-item scale),
Coreness, Tenure, Age and Gender.
A first analysis calculated bivariate correlations between Coreness, Expertise and
Tenure and the refined scale scores were calculated. Since this involved nine separate
tests, a Bonferroni correction was again used. Table 7.20 displays Pearson correlations,
2-tail significance levels and sample size for each of the refined scales, significant
effects are highlighted in bold.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
228
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.19 – Newsgroup-level statistics from validated scales

Know Skill Ident ProbSolv Debate ShCrit ShPrac ProfComm MemKnow
CPLUS n 33 33 33 32 33 33 33 33 33
Mean 4.38 3.60 3.84 3.60 3.93 3.44 3.83 3.90 2.62
s.d. 0.55 0.76 0.63 0.74 0.72 0.62 0.43 0.43 0.70
t-score 14.36 4.54 7.66 4.58 7.41 4.10 11.21 12.05 - 3.15
2-tail sig 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.032
COBOL n 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Mean 4.04 3.12 3.77 3.55 3.43 2.93 3.29 3.96 2.93
s.d. 0.70 0.71 0.58 0.89 0.61 1.00 0.56 0.57 0.72
t-score 7.25 0.81 6.51 3.02 3.46 - 0.33 2.57 8.31 - 0.51
2-tail sig 0.000 0.994 0.000 0.055 0.019 1.000 0.152 0.000 1.000
VISOBJ n 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 19
Mean 4.61 3.86 4.13 4.00 3.84 3.40 3.78 4.16 3.40
s.d. 0.42 0.64 0.57 0.49 0.60 0.61 0.58 0.51 0.66
t-score 16.77 5.85 8.60 8.98 6.10 2.84 5.81 9.58 2.64
2-tail sig 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.149
CRYPT n 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17
Mean 4.22 3.40 3.46 3.08 3.55 2.92 3.47 3.58 3.26
s.d. 0.53 0.68 0.53 0.81 0.84 1.10 0.65 0.72 0.90
t-score 9.52 2.43 3.53 0.42 2.69 - 0.31 2.99 3.25 1.18
2-tail sig 0.000 0.219 0.025 1.000 0.145 1.000 0.078 0.048 0.930
XTRPRG n 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 4.20 3.39 3.57 3.13 4.00 2.75 3.85 3.31 2.71
s.d. 0.73 1.05 0.95 0.96 0.49 0.99 0.60 0.68 0.77
t-score 3.75 1.24 1.45 0.00 5.70 - 1.05 4.59 1.75 - 1.22
2-tail sig 0.018 0.909 0.809 1.000 0.000 0.965 0.003 0.612 0.918
FINPLAN n 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Mean 3.91 2.47 2.68 3.05 3.45 2.62 2.66 3.26 2.45
s.d. 0.40 0.90 0.57 0.54 0.64 0.88 0.87 0.65 0.73
t-score 7.60 - 1.94 - 1.85 0.33 2.37 - 1.44 - 1.30 1.32 - 2.47
2-tail sig 0.000 0.531 0.590 1.000 0.305 0.832 0.895 0.888 0.262
TAXES n 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Mean 4.56 3.69 3.93 4.05 4.01 3.73 3.27 4.16 3.03
s.d. 0.43 0.58 0.63 0.58 0.48 0.70 0.47 0.43 0.64
t-score 19.73 6.44 8.04 9.95 11.65 5.72 3.12 14.69 0.23
2-tail sig 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.000 1.000
PHYSRES n 38 37 38 38 38 37 37 37 37
Mean 4.38 3.09 3.39 3.10 3.80 3.03 3.28 3.63 2.74
s.d. 0.56 0.70 0.55 0.78 0.67 0.88 0.56 0.67 0.72
t-score 10.43 0.25 3.06 0.43 5.97 0.40 3.18 5.65 - 2.37
2-tail sig 0.000 1.000 0.036 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.027 0.000 0.190
CIVWAR n 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19
Mean 4.26 2.83 2.71 2.92 3.44 2.71 2.74 3.39 2.55
s.d. 0.54 0.60 0.74 0.64 0.91 0.88 0.54 0.60 0.65
t-score 5.18 - 1.60 - 2.03 - 1.02 2.07 - 1.81 - 2.39 1.98 - 3.29
2-tail sig 0.000 0.707 0.414 0.970 0.390 0.554 0.223 0.441 0.035
MEDTRAN n 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Mean 4.40 3.73 3.95 4.05 4.04 3.39 3.39 4.10 3.70
s.d. 0.66 0.89 0.63 0.66 0.61 0.71 0.38 0.56 0.67
t-score 8.49 3.25 6.08 6.41 6.86 2.17 4.16 7.92 4.16
2-tail sig 0.000 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.414 0.008 0.000 0.008
UKAGRI n 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Mean 4.00 3.04 3.36 4.20 3.88 3.23 3.04 4.12 3.73
s.d. 0.39 0.70 1.00 0.52 0.75 0.87 0.75 0.51 0.71
t-score 9.54 0.23 1.33 8.63 4.42 0.99 0.18 8.17 3.82
2-tail sig 0.000 1.000 0.874 0.000 0.006 0.977 1.000 0.000 0.019
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
229
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.20 – Correlation between refined scales and Coreness, Expertise and Tenure
Coreness Expertise Tenure
correlation -0.048 -0.064 0.016
Know 2-tail sig 0.997 0.975 1.000
n 224 231 233
correlation -0.034 0.101 0.044
Skill 2-tail sig 1.000 0.702 0.998
n 223 230 232
correlation -0.014 0.266 0.055
Ident 2-tail sig 1.000 0.000 0.991
n 224 231 233
correlation -0.008 0.128 -0.067
ProbSolv 2-tail sig 1.000 0.377 0.963
n 223 231 232
correlation -0.028 0.051 -0.111
Debate 2-tail sig 1.000 0.995 0.576
n 224 231 233
correlation -0.146 0.132 -0.078
ShCrit 2-tail sig 0.233 0.340 0.910
n 224 230 233
correlation -0.069 0.171 0.026
ShPrac 2-tail sig 0.962 0.081 1.000
n 224 230 233
correlation -0.106 0.215 0.064
ProfComm 2-tail sig 0.672 0.010 0.975
n 222 228 231
correlation 0.180 0.332 0.266
MemKnow 2-tail sig 0.061 0.000 0.000
n 224 230 233
For the most part, respondent characteristics were not found to affect scale scores. Only
four significant effects were detected, three of them involving Expertise. Specifically,
Expertise was positively correlated with ‘Identifying with the profession’, ‘Members’
knowledge of each other’ and ‘Shared sense of Professional Community’. Thus it would
seem that experts experience a stronger feeling of community and professional identity.
The other significant effect was a positive association between Tenure in the newsgroup
and ‘Members’ knowledge of each other’, an effect which goes in the expected direction.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
230
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The second analysis performed a 5-way factorial ANOVA aimed at determining
whether scores in each of the nine refined scales were affected by respondent
characteristics, either singly or combined. Results are shown in Table 7.21. To increase
sample cell-size, the independent variables Coreness, Tenure and Expertise were
categorised into low, middle and high levels. This was still not enough to reach the
minimum size of 20 recommended by Hair et al (1998), but it was felt that for
exploratory purposes the analysis was worth performing. Because of the large size of the
output, Table 7.21 displays only significant values of the F statistic and the corresponding
significance level p. The complete SPSS output is provided in Appendix J. Significant
one-way and two-way effects are graphically displayed in Figures 7.7 through 7.15.
Table 7.21 – 5-Way ANOVA of Survey data (significant effects only)

Know ProbSolv ShCrit ProfComm MemKnow
Source of Variation df F p F p F p F p F p
Coreness 3 3.03 0.032

Main Tenure 3 3.80 0.012 3.80 0.012
Effects
Expertise 3 2.91 0.037
Gender 1 5.70 0.018 4.57 0.034
2-Way Tenure-by-Expertise 4 3.78 0.006
Interactions Coreness-by-Age 6 2.17 0.050 2.42 0.030
3-Way Coreness-by-Tenure– 5 3.36 0.007
Interactions by-Age
4-Way Coreness-by-Tenure– 5 2.66 0.026
Interactions by-Expertise-by-Age
The effect of Tenure on ‘Shared sense of professional community’ and ‘Members’
knowledge of each other’ is displayed on Figures 7.8 and 7.9 respectively. Scores for
both variables increase significantly as Tenure increases, which is the expected result.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
231
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Sense of professional community 4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
< 25 25-48 > 48
Tenure
Figure 7.8 – Effect of Tenure on Shared sense of professional community

Members' knowledge of each other
3.25
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
< 25 25-48 > 48
Tenure
Figure 7.9 – Effect of Tenure on Members’ knowledge of each other
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
232
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The effect of Gender on ‘Shared sense of professional community’ and ‘Members’
knowledge of each other’ is displayed on Figures 7.10 and 7.11 respectively. In both
cases, female respondents have significantly higher scores than males.

Sense of professional community
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
Male (n = 203) Female (n = 30)
Gender
Figure 7.10 – Effect of Gender on Shared sense of professional community
3.5
Members' knowledge of each
3.4
3.3
3.2
other
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
Male (n = 203) Female (n = 30)
Gender
Figure 7.11 – Effect of Gender on Members’ knowledge of each other
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
233
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The effect of Coreness on ‘Members’ knowledge of each other’ is depicted on Figure
7.12. It is a positive effect, with scores increasing with Coreness. Thus, high coreness
members are more likely to report knowing other members, thereby reporting the
existence of COMMUNITY in the newsgroup. Even though Coreness, as an indicator of
virtual community membership, plays an important role in the study, the data sample
found no other direct effects of Coreness on the Essential Traits. Hence this could
constitute an avenue for further research.
3.2
Members' knowledge of each other
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
< 0.005 0.005-0.039 > 0.039
Coreness
Figure 7.12 – Effect of Coreness on Members’ knowledge of each other
The effect of Expertise on ‘Acquiring new knowledge’ is shown on Figure 7.13. It is a
negative effect, with scores of ‘Acquiring new knowledge’ decreasing as Expertise
increases. Thus participants with low Expertise or novices are more likely to score high
on LEARNING than participants with high Expertise, a not unexpected result.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
234
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Acquiring new knowledge 4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
1.00-2.33 2.66-3.66 4.00-5.00
Expertise
Figure 7.13 – Effect of Expertise on Acquiring new knowledge
The combined effects of Tenure and Expertise on ‘Collective problem-solving’ are
displayed on Figure 7.14. The significant effect is that respondents with highest Tenure
display a different pattern of Collective problem-solving scores, constantly increasing
with Expertise, whereas the scores of respondents with low or mid-Tenure are little
affected by changes in Expertise.
The combined effects of Age and Coreness on ‘Shared Criteria’ are displayed on Figure
7.15. Low Coreness respondents exhibit little change in ‘Shared criteria’ scores as Age
changes. Mid-coreness respondents display a “U”-shaped pattern of scores as Age
increases, whereas high-coreness respondents exhibit an inverted “U”-shaped pattern.
Thus young and old participants with middle-coreness score higher on ‘Shared criteria’
than same-age participants with high-coreness.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
235
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Collective problem-solving 4
3.5
Tenure < 25
3 Tenure 25-48
Tenure > 48
2.5
2
1.00-2.33 2.66-3.66 4.00-5.00
Expertise
Figure 7.14 – Effect of Expertise-by-Tenure on Collective problem-solving
3.5
Shared criteria
Core < 0.005

3 0.005-0.039
Core > 0.039
2.5
2
Age < 36 Age 36-50 Age > 50
Age
Figure 7.15 – Effect of Age-by-Coreness on Shared criteria
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
236
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The combined effects of Age and Coreness on ‘Shared sense of professional community’
are displayed on Figure 7.16. Old and middle-aged respondents display practically the
same scores, with little variation as Coreness increases. Young respondents, on the
other hand, display a significant negative relation between scores of ‘Shared sense of
professional community’ and Coreness. Thus it seems that young respondents of low
coreness (i.e. young visitors) over-rated ‘Shared sense of professional community’ in
their responses to the Survey; a not unexpected result for newcomers to the newsgroup.
4.1
Sense of professional community
3.9
3.8
Age < 36
3.7 Age 36-50
Age > 50
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
< 0.005 0.005-0.039 > 0.039
Coreness
Figure 7.16 – Effect of Coreness-by-Age on Sense of professional community
Finally there is one three-way effect of Coreness-by-Tenure-by-Age on Acquiring
new knowledge, and a four-way effect of Coreness-by-Tenure-by-Age-by Expertise
on Collaborative problem solving but these effects are much more difficult to
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
237
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
interpret and seem to have little backing in theory beyond what has been noted for
one-way and two-way effects.
This completes the presentation of results obtained from Survey scales, but there is still
one question left to examine; the open question about community. The qualitative
analysis of this open question is performed next.
7.5 – Content analysis of the community question
As mentioned before, a limitation of the Survey is the fact that the refined scales did
not account for all sub-constructs, and in particular, they did not account for Caring for
a domain of knowledge, which would have afforded evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE.
However, there is an additional, as yet unexamined, source of evidence within the
Survey. The last item in the questionnaire was an open question: “Do you consider this
newsgroup a community and why?” Many participants wrote elaborate responses
which provide a wealth of additional information about the newsgroups. Since these
answers are open and textual, examining them requires using the methods of content
analysis developed and refined in Chapter Eight, particularly Section 8.3. Specifically,
the codes that will be used to categorise the open responses are qualitative codes that
match the sub-constructs defined during Survey developtment. In order to complete
Survey results within Chapter Seven, the codes are taken as valid, and their critical
discussion is deferred to Chapter Eight.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
238
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The first result from the community question was a clear yes/no opinion on whether each
newsgroup is a community; results are displayed in Table 7.22. A substantial number of
respondents were not clearly committed for or against. Many others considered only the
subset of core members or regular participants to be a community, while excluding
ephemeral posters. In nine out of eleven newsgroups, more than 50% of respondents
judged either the newsgroup or a subset of it to be a community. The two exceptions were
FINPLAN, with only 44% of respondents answering in that sense, and CIVWAR, with
only 38%. The two newsgroups scoring highest on the community question were
MEDTRAN and UKAGRI, with 86% and 82% respectively of respondents believing the
newsgroup or a subset of it to be a community.
Table 7.22 – Responses to the question Do you consider this newsgroup to be a community?
Newsgroup Number of “Only core
responses “Yes” or regulars” “No” Uncommitted
CPLUS 28 64% 11% 11% 14%
VISOBJ 17 71% 0% 0% 29%
COBOL 21 62% 5% 10% 24%
XTRPRG 16 38% 12% 25% 25%
FINPLAN 9 22% 22% 44% 11%
TAXES 27 56% 15% 7% 22%
CRYPT 15 73% 0% 20% 7%
MEDTRAN 15 73% 13% 0% 13%
PHYSRES 23 52% 9% 17% 22%
CIVWAR 16 25% 13% 31% 31%
UKAGRI 11 55% 27% 0% 18%
In addition to respondent opinion for or against community, detailed respondent
explanations provide valuable inside information about the newsgroups. These textual
responses were coded using qualitative codes representing the sub-constructs. Actual
responses to the open community question are fully reported in Appendix K, along with
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
239
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
the results of the coding exercise. Each response includes basic respondent
characteristics such as age, gender, profession and tenure in the newsgroup. The textual
unit of analysis was defined as the complete textual response provided by each
respondent, some of which extended to several paragraphs. Where a response cannot
logically be coded by any of the theoretical codes associated with CoPs, it was coded as
NONE. Table 7.23 displays detected code counts. Since relying on a response by a
single participant to indicate the presence of a construct would be risky, a minimum of
three separate respondents will be required to consider reported evidence about a
construct as relevant. This is recorded in Table 7.23 by highlighting in boldtype
construct code counts greater than or equal to three.
Since it was the direct focus of the open question, it came as no surprise that the coding
exercise found evidence for the COMMUNITY construct in all but three newsgroups:
FINPLAN, CIVWAR and CRYPT. The evidence consisted of participants reporting
members of the newsgroup knew each other, and/or participants reporting their
perception of a sense of community, thus matching the two sub-constructs that manifest
COMMUNITY. Note that these manifestations of community are distinct from the more
general yes/no opinion reported in Table 7.22.
The coding exercise also found evidence of ‘Caring for a domain of knowledge’, which
is a manifestation of Wenger’s construct of JOINT ENTERPRISE. The evidence consisted
mostly of participants reporting a strong topical focus in newsgroup discussions and/or
strong participant interest/expertise in the topic. Code counts for this sub-construct
were below three for five newsgroups (CRYPT, MEDTRAN, COBOL, FINPLAN and
UKAGRI), all the rest had four or more instances.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
240
Table 7.23 – Detected instances in textual responses to open community question
TAXES CPLUS CIVWAR FINPLAN MEDTRAN VISOBJ PHYSRES CRYPT UKAGRI COBOL XTRPRG
Number of textual responses 27 28 16 9 15 17 23 15 11 21 16
Number of responses coded NONE 11 10 8 6 8 9 12 10 6 10 6
LEARNING 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Acquiring new knowledge 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Acquiring new skills 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acquiring/enacting a professional identity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SHARED REPERTOIRE 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0
Shared artifacts
Usenet artifacts 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
symbolic language 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
specialised tools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
jargon 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Shared criteria 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Shared practices 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT 4 10 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 5 2
Collective problem-solving 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Debating issues 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sharing information 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0
Sharing knowledge 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Sharing personal experience 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
COMMUNITY 9 4 2 0 5 3 5 2 4 3 4
Members' knowledge of each other 4 4 1 0 4 3 5 2 3 2 4
Shared sense of community 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
JOINT ENTERPRISE 6 10 6 1 0 4 4 0 0 2 7
Caring for a domain of knowledge 6 10 6 1 0 4 4 0 0 2 7
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In addition, the content analysis found evidence of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT in four
newsgroups: TAXES, CPLUS, MEDTRAN and COBOL. However in no newsgroup
did it amount to more than one or two respondents reporting a particular sub-construct,
with the exception of ‘Collective problem solving’ in CPLUS, which was reported by
four respondents. Overall evidence for this construct appears too scanty to consider it
significant, and certainly much weaker than evidence for JOINT ENTERPRISE. In the case
of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, it would seem much safer to depend on the more reliable
and abundant evidence obtained from the validated scales.
The content analysis of the community question thus found evidence about
COMMUNITY, and also about JOINT ENTERPRISE which fell outside the scope of the
validated scales. Although this evidence is not statistical in the same way as the scales,
it seems fairly relevant. In addition to the conservative minimum of three respondents
attesting to the presence of a sub-construct, the majority of responses came from
participants with a tenure of two years or more, which would indicate a reasonably
good “feel” for the culture of the various virtual communities. Thus respondent
testimony about these two sub-constructs appears to be valid and useful complement
for scale results.
7.6 – Discussion of results
In each virtual community, the Survey targeted the subset of high-coreness participants,
because the VCoP model predicted that if a newsgroup hosted a CoP, then it would be
formed by the high-density subgroup of participants at or near the core. Furthermore,
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
242
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
high-coreness participants are those who have had the most interaction with each
community, and are therefore more likely to be reliable informants.
The Survey confirms a previous finding of the literature review, namely that CoP-like
traits do turn up in Internet-based communities. Specifically, the Survey detected nine
distinct CoP-like traits, or sub-constructs, across eleven participating communities (see
Table 7.19). ‘Shared criteria’ had the least appearances, with significant scores only in
CPLUS and TAXES; every other sub-construct had at least four significant scores. The
fact that each sub-construct was detected in several highly diverse communities
suggests Survey scales are robust and yet sufficiently nuanced to capture CoP-like
behaviours and artifacts. Furthermore, these concrete manifestations can be interpreted
as positive evidence of Wenger’s more abstract constructs.
The results of the validated scales reveal large differences between the communities.
Some, such as FINPLAN and CIVWAR, display evidence for only one sub-construct. By
contrast, MEDTRAN, TAXES and CPLUS display evidence for eight sub-constructs.
CPLUS had significant scores for all sub-constructs, but negatively so for ‘Members’
knowledge of each other’. The one sub-construct common to all is ‘Acquiring new
knowledge’, which returned significantly high scores in every community. Hence,
respondents in all communities report online participation results in knowledge
acquisition. This is something to keep in mind, because the absence of several sub-
constructs in some communities makes it unlikely, even at this early stage, that all will
be assessed as CoPs. Yet, they all seem to be self-described learning communities.
Thus learning appears to be quite common in virtual communities –another theme from
the literature review–, and would seem not to be reserved to CoPs alone.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
243
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
By deliberately seeking CoP-like traits, the Survey indirectly targeted and successfully
detected the more abstract Wenger constructs. Specifically, each of the nine EFA-
validated scales measured a specific indicator of a construct, some hypothesised a
priori, some obtained through EFA-validation. Statistical evidence of the presence of a
sub-construct in a particular community will be interpreted as evidence of the presence
of the corresponding construct, as previously mapped in Figure 7.6. Furthermore, the
conclusion is not changed by the detection of more than one sub-construct for the same
construct. The existence of multiple manifestations of a construct (e.g. multiple forms
of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT) may result in a more sophisticated CoP, but a CoP
nonetheless.
The large differences between communities with respect to detected sub-constructs
suggest building a comparative ranking. However, the interest ultimately lies with
Wenger’s constructs, which is to say, with the Essential Traits of the VCoP model.
Therefore, the ranking should focus on the constructs, rather than on the more
numerous sub-constructs. Moreover, the ranking should include, yet keep separate,
the evidence obtained from the scales (Table 7.19) and the evidence obtained from
the community question (Table 7.23). With this provisos, an initial ranking of
participating communities is suggested in Table 7.24. Communities where all
Essential Traits were detected are labelled Group A; communities missing one
Essential Trait are labelled Group B, and communities missing more than one
Essential Trait are labelled Group C. XTRPRG is consciously ranked B, because
evidence of COMMUNITY comes not from the validated scales, but from the less
reliable community question.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
244
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 7.24 – Evidence of Essential Traits detected by the Survey in each newsgroup
Content Analysis of
Validated Scales Community Question
SHARED MUTUAL JOINT
Newsgroup LEARNING REPERTOIRE ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE
TAXES a a a a a a
A CPLUS a a a a a a
VISOBJ a a a a a a
PHYSRES a a a a a a
MEDTRAN a a a a a
B
XTRPRG a a a a a
COBOL a a a a
CRYPT a a a
C UKAGRI a a a a
CIVWAR a a
FINPLAN a
Additional Survey results include the correlation analysis and the 5-way ANOVA of
respondent characteristics. Because of sample size limitations, the ANOVA was run
over the aggregated data from all newsgroups. Thus useful conclusions cannot be
drawn at the newsgroup level, which is where the presence or absence of the Essential
Traits is relevant. Rather, the ANOVA tries to explain why individual respondents
would score higher on a particular scale. The fact, for instance, that female respondents
score higher on the two scales related to COMMUNITY, would have an effect on the
presence of an Essential Trait only in newsgroups with a substantial female population,
such as MEDTRAN.
In general, the nine variables measured by the Survey were not much affected by
respondent characteristics with the notable exception of the two variables measuring
Wenger’s COMMUNITY construct, which was positively influenced by Tenure and
Coreness and by participants being female.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
245
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The research design specified that the Essential Trait Research Questions formulated in
Chapter Four must be viewed as a unity, and that only the demonstrated presence of all
of Wenger’s constructs in a virtual community would be taken as conclusive evidence
that the community can be characterised as a CoP. Thus far, only the four communities
classified in Group A would qualify. Group B communities are just missing one
construct, and are thus worthy of further investigation, while Group C communities
clearly fall short. Of course, these results, while having their own internal consistency
and validity, must await triangulating results of the Content Analysis of discussions
before a final CoP assessment can be made.
The literature review did not find a previous instance of a survey used to assess an
existing community as a CoP using Wenger’s constructs. Hence, though in need of
further development as discussed next, the validated instrument is a practical
contribution of this research. The final form of the questionnaire, after omitting items
discarded during the evaluation process, is provided in Appendix L.
7.7 – Survey problems and limitations
A number of problems and limitations of the Survey should be acknowledged and
discussed. With respect to Survey deployment, it is an unavoidable fact that despite
reasonable precautions on the part of the researcher, there were some participants who
felt inconvenienced by the mere invitation to take part on the Survey, although this
seems to happen in most Internet surveys (Roberts, 1998; Kaye and Johnson, 1999;
Jackson and DeCormier, 1999). Also, the researcher made, what in retrospect can be
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
246
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
judged a mistake, by searching out through the Web additional e-mail addresses about
participants who turned out to be highly sensitive to security issues. On the other hand,
this faux pas provided an opportunity to reaffirm his commitment to responsible and
ethical research by apologising and providing every reassurance to these respondents.
Another problem was the belated realisation that some newsgroups share a significant
number of participants. This was the case for comp.lang.ada, used in Pilot 1, and
comp.lang.c++.moderated, used in the main Survey. This finding prompted a careful
review of mail lists to avoid repeated invitations, and the decision to change PROGTH
for COBOL in the newsgroup sample, as it had less overlap. A later assessment found
that a total of three willing participants in CPLUS replied they had already responded
to the ADA survey, reducing the CPLUS response rate from a potential 20.2% to an
actual 18.5%. Thus the effect was not serious.
A further sample issue was that actors with coreness below 0.005 were allowed in,
some with coreness as low as 0.001. These actors amounted to 20.9% of the sample,
as shown earlier in Table 7.2. Excluding them, would have reduced sample size from
239 to 189, with important consequences for the EFA and other statistical procedures.
In addition, though these actors have coreness as low as 0.001, they are still closer to
the core than most actors in the newsgroup. For instance, in TAXES, actors with
coreness of 0.001 rank above the 85th percentile of coreness scores, while actors with
coreness of 0.005 rank above the 95th percentile. Thus, the presence in the Survey
sample of 21% of actors with coreness ranging from 0.001 to 0.004 does not
substantially alter the requirement that the sample be composed of high-coreness
participants of the communities.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
247
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The overall Survey response rate was 17.3% which is consistent with what other
studies have reported for Internet surveys (Witmer et al, 1999). For some newsgroups
in this study the response rate was as low as 10.5%. Fortunately, all but two of the
returned questionnaires were completely filled out, despite the length of the Survey.
This, plus commentaries on respondent e-mail and in the newsgroups themselves, gives
some indication that participants found the Survey interesting, examining as it did an
experience of online participation which is important and meaningful to them.
Finally, it is a shortcoming of the EFA-refined instrument that it did not account for all
defined sub-constructs. Specifically, ‘Sharing information’, ‘Shared artifacts’ and
‘Caring for a domain of knowledge’ are not captured by any of the refined scales. The
first two are not critical, as their corresponding constructs are detected by other sub-
constructs, but ‘Caring for a domain of knowledge’ was the only hypothesised
manifestation of JOINT ENTERPRISE, which resulted in this construct falling outside the
scope of the Survey. Hence, the clearest area of opportunity for future versions of the
questionnaire is to formulate better indicators of JOINT ENTERPRISE, so that all Wenger
constructs can be detected by validated scales.
7.8 – Summary
The chapter described Stage IV of the Research Strategy which succeeded in deploying
and validating the Survey instrument, as well as obtaining initial evidence of the
Essential Traits in selected communities.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
248
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The chapter begins by describing the deployment of the web Survey, and the attention
given to respondent questions and concerns. It then presents item results of the
hypothesised instrument, and a reliability analysis of hypothesised scales, which
revealed several items and scales as problematic. Next, the questionnaire was evaluated
by applying EFA to each of the four item blocks. Results gave strong overall
confirmation of the hypothesised scales. Specifically, nine validated scales came out of
the exercise: six of them matched the hypothesised scales, and three others were
accepted as modified indicators of the same constructs. The validated Survey detects
nine valid indicators accounting for four Wenger constructs. In addition, a content
analysis of the open community question yielded evidence of the unmeasured construct
of JOINT ENTERPRISE. By combining these results, a provisional ranking of communities
is suggested, and four are identified as exhibiting all Essential Traits. Problems and
limitations of the Survey are also discussed.
This concludes Stage IV of the Research Strategy. Stage V, the Content Analysis, is
reported in Chapter Eight.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
249
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CHAPTER EIGHT
Content Analysis of Community Discussions
This chapter describes Stage V of the Research Strategy: a Content Analysis of a
theoretical sample of threads from each of the eleven communities in the study. Like
the Survey, this method will target the Essential Traits, but will do so by direct
qualitative analysis of messages exchanged between core members of the communities.
The chapter is organised in seven sections. The First reviews the logic of the Content
Analysis and of the thread sampling procedure, previously outlined in Chapter Five.
Section Two describes the procedure for importing sample threads into the qualitative
analysis programme Nudist. This section also describes the coding scheme, derived
from the VCoP model, and the lessons learned from two pilot coding exercises. Section
Three describes the main coding procedure, with a first stage consisting of a
newsgroup-by-newsgroup reading and coding of the textual material, and a second
stage consisting of a code-by-code reading. Section Four presents results, and provides
illustrative examples of coded text. The Content Analysis was successful in detecting
Wenger’s constructs in the thread sample. Results are discussed in Section Five by
focusing in turn on each of the constructs, and describing the typical forms they assume
across the various communities. Section Six discusses limitations of sample and
method, and the last section is a chapter summary.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
250
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
8.1 – Theoretical selection of thread sample
Given the fact that eleven distinct communities are included in the study, with a full
year of online discussions available to choose from, a theoretically-grounded sampling
strategy is required (Silverman, 2000). This was outlined in Chapter Five, with a logic
similar to the Funnel Strategy, as targeting “exemplary” threads, defined by three
selection criteria:
• Criterion 1: An “exemplary” thread addresses a professional topic.
• Criterion 2: An “exemplary” thread is longer than average.
• Criterion 3: An “exemplary” thread will involve mostly core members.
These criteria identify a specific target within the thread universe, which can be
comprehensively searched because threads are already imported into a database.
Threads were first classified by size according to the following parameters:
• Short threads: 10 messages or less, including thread head.
• Middle threads: 11 – 40 messages
• Long theads: 41 messages or more
After careful consideration of the length distribution of elligible threads, the amount
of text that realistically could be managed in the coding process, and the desireable
variety of topics from each newsgroup, the decision was made to include one long
thread plus three middle threads from each newsgroup, for a total of 44 threads in the
sample.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
251
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Through the database, the subset of all threads with core-member interaction was
identified, including the length of each thread, and the number and proportion of
messages from core members to core members in the complete thread. From this subset,
all short threads were discarded, and remaining threads were sorted by descending order
on the proportion of messages by core-members. The effectiveness of the thread selection
criteria is displayed in Table 8.1, which bears a strong ressemblance to Table 6.1,
working as it does under the same principles. The large differences between the second
and third columns reflect the fact that threads containing communication between core
members constitute a significantly reduced subset from the full thread universe. Further
substracting short threads from this subset leaves a final sampling universe of only 3095
threads, which is less than 15% of the original population.
Table 8.1 – Original thread sample and progressive application of selection criteria
Newsgroup All core-core minus Sampling Long Middle
threads threads short universe
CPLUS 2526 323 69 254 105 149
MEDTRAN 2899 1691 782 909 320 589
VISOBJ 3861 587 232 355 108 247
TAXES 2648 304 183 121 15 106
UKAGRI 1871 1014 402 612 269 343
COBOL 1812 490 277 213 97 116
CRYPT 2768 399 167 232 113 119
PHYSRES 1301 271 162 109 30 79
XTRPRG 456 132 46 86 44 42
CIVWAR 661 199 82 117 62 55
FINPLAN 775 318 231 87 7 80
Totals 21578 5728 2633 3095 1170 1925
In fact, the sampling universe is much smaller than 3095 threads, because threads will
be sorted in descending order by the proportion of core-core messages, and the
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
252
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
selection rules favour threads at the top of the list. The sampling universe for each
newsgroup was copied into a separate spreadsheet and top threads were examined for
professional/non-professional discussion. As it turned out, in most newsgroups non-
professional topics were rare in exchanges among core-members. Two newsgroups in
particular have a pronounced liking for light chatter, UKAGRI and MEDTRAN.
Having narrowed the sampling universe with theory-grounded criteria, sample selection
rules were pre-established, to make the actual thread selection as objective as possible.
The rules were:
a) In each newsgroup, start at the top of the table;
b) Skip threads whose discussion is not a professional topic;
c) Select the first available long thread and first three available middle threads.
To provide an overview of the sample selection exercise, Appendix M lists elligible
threads from each community (by core-core dominance), and identifies threads that
were selected for the sample, and those that were discarded, and why.
8.2 – Nudist data import and pilot coding exercises
Having selected the threads included in the sample, the next step was to import them into
the qualitative analysis programme Nudist, Version 6.0, which was used for the coding of
text. At this point, decisions had to be made regarding the theoretical unit of analysis for
the Content Analysis, and the textual unit of analysis which Nudist requires and defines
as the smallest segment of text to be coded.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
253
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The unit of analysis for the Content Analysis was defined as the individual Usenet
message. In other words, each individual message will be analysed for the presence or
absence of the theory-derived codes, and code counts will refer to Usenet messages
which display examples of Wenger’s constructs (irrespective of whether those constructs
appear once or several times within a single message). This rather large unit of analysis
was recommended by the fact that Wenger’s constructs do not usually manifest
themselves as single words, or even complete ideas, but rather as complex interactions of
ideas between multiple participants, sometimes spanning several messages.
It was not possible, however, to set the Nudist textual unit to a complete Usenet
message, because the largest textual unit Nudist can accommodate is a paragraph, and
most messages extended beyond one paragraph. The textual unit was set to the largest
available option, which is paragraphs, but some adjustments were made to the original
Usenet text during the import procedure. Preserving all the paragraphs in the original
messages would hugely increase the number of Nudist text-units to code and result in
unnecesarily detailed coding, given the relatively broad scope of Wenger’s constructs.
Therefore, the original paragraphs were joined during the import procedure in order to
build larger blocks of text. At any rate, the original Usenet messages and threads were
retained as a useful point of reference (provided in Appendix O).
For the import procedure, threads selected for the sample were exported from Agent as
plain-text files, read into Word, and “cleaned-up” before importing them into Nudist.
The cleaning-up involved the following steps:
• Individual paragraphs were merged into larger blocks of text, taking care
not to mix them with quoted material.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
254
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
• Blocks containing computer code, math equations, citations, etc. were
also merged but kept distinct from other blocks.
• Excessively long quotes from previous messages were trimmed, leaving
just the part the quoting author is referring to.
• Redundant carriage-returns, spaces, line-art, signature-drawings, etc.
which perform a formating or aesthetic function within Usenet were
removed, since early trials showed they cluttered Nudist text-units.
All sample threads were imported into a single Nudist project (available in Appendix O), to
enable use of the same coding scheme across all newsgroups, as well as node-browsing
(node is the Nudist name for a code) across all text-units coded at that node. Within Nudist,
threads were identified by name and newsgroup, i.e. TAXES1, TAXES2, etc. Individual
messages were managed as sections to leverage Nudist’s section-oriented search tools.
Table 8.2 provides descriptive statistics of the 44 threads comprising the main sample.
In all, even after heavy trimming of quotes, these collected messages amounted to
320,000 words, representing a very considerable textual corpus. Thus, a sample size
larger than four threads per newsgroup would have resulted in an unmanageable
amount of text to code.
Initial theory-derived codes and working definitions were proposed in Section 5.4 (see
Table 5.6) using the same 12 sub-constructs derived from the item-generation process
of the Survey. Therefore, the coding scheme initially consisted of a Nudist node for
each sub-construct plus an “Other” category.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
255
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 8.2 - Descriptive statistics of selected threads

Posted by Number of
Number of Posted by non-core Nudist text Units coded Distinct text
Threads messages core members members units as Quotes units
CIVWAR1 69 56 13 232 73 159
CIVWAR2 18 12 6 75 16 59
CIVWAR3 31 25 6 211 83 128
CIVWAR4 11 7 4 77 24 53
COBOL1 12 12 0 58 22 36
COBOL2 13 13 0 84 33 51
COBOL3 40 38 2 193 75 118
COBOL4 68 64 4 427 176 251
CPLUS1 11 11 0 50 12 38
CPLUS2 18 15 3 92 27 65
CPLUS3 11 9 2 98 28 70
CPLUS4 51 33 18 421 158 263
CRYPT1 272 254 18 1213 450 763
CRYPT2 16 13 3 58 20 38
CRYPT3 26 20 6 86 28 58
CRYPT4 32 24 8 144 52 92
FINPLAN1 11 11 0 32 10 22
FINPLAN2 25 24 1 84 29 55
FINPLAN3 12 12 0 39 13 26
FINPLAN4 45 40 5 166 55 111
MEDTRAN1 12 12 0 34 9 25
MEDTRAN2 14 14 0 39 11 28
MEDTRAN3 19 18 1 64 20 44
MEDTRAN4 61 58 3 180 55 125
PHYSRES1 13 13 0 48 17 31
PHYSRES2 13 13 0 99 43 56
PHYSRES3 19 19 1 103 35 68
PHYSRES4 62 58 4 451 188 263
TAXES1 14 13 1 59 13 46
TAXES2 22 20 2 101 26 75
TAXES3 16 12 4 66 16 50
TAXES4 65 56 10 313 85 228
UKAGRI1 17 17 0 70 26 44
UKAGRI2 21 21 0 100 36 64
UKAGRI3 30 30 0 122 45 77
UKAGRI4 51 46 5 265 96 169
VISOBJ1 12 11 1 42 9 33
VISOBJ2 12 11 1 57 12 45
VISOBJ3 19 18 1 72 19 53
VISOBJ4 76 64 12 270 78 192
XTRPRG1 49 40 9 209 79 130
XTRPRG2 30 24 6 133 44 89
XTRPRG3 18 14 4 81 31 50
XTRPRG4 40 31 9 207 83 124
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
256
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Miles and Huberman (1994) advise piloting the coding scheme on an actual sample
of text before undertaking the main coding exercise. The researcher had already
performed one such paper-based exercise alongside his supervisor during an on-site
visit to the University of Bradford, using a particularly illustrative thread from the
TAXES newsgroup. Since this thread was already familiar territory for both the
researcher and his supervisor, it was used as Coding Pilot One. Pilot Two, on the
other hand, was selected among the IT-oriented newsgroups, specifically the
VISOBJ newsgroup, so as to provide a very different kind of discourse that
challenged the coding scheme. Both threads were middle-sized and were selected
from newsgroup archives that predated the beginning of the main sample, to avoid
disturbing it.
The actual coding of text passages from two very different threads, using the sub-
construct codes, and Nudist for the first time, led to a couple of methodological
insights. First, the text itself “forced” the researcher to define five new “auxiliary”
codes to complement the theory-derived codes. In effect, these auxiliary codes emerged
from the data. In addition to the already defined “Other” node, the following auxiliary
nodes emerged from the pilot stage:
• Sharing knowledge
• Sharing personal experience
• Asking a question
• Describing a problem
• Requesting additional information
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
257
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The first two codes were recognised as previously unforeseen but quite logical
manifestations of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT. The others were frequent and specific codes
that could be extracted from the generic “Other” category.
Second, the researcher realised that some theory-derived nodes by definition would
have to span several messages and could not logically appear in isolation. Specifically,
‘Collective problem-solving’ and ‘Debating issues’ were codes that by definition
required at least two participants and two messages, although in practice they spanned
several threaded messages and often extended to an entire thread.
The researcher went through the pilot coding exercises and sent the coded text to his
supervisor for comment. The supervisor agreed with the coding decisions, with the
emergent auxiliary codes, and with the logic behind multi-message codes. The overall
result of the two pilot coding exercises was a strengthening of the logic behind the coding
scheme and increased confidence to proceed with the coding of the main sample.
8.3 – The two-stage coding procedure: message-wise and code-wise
The first stage of the coding procedure involved concentrating on a single newsgroup at
a time and reading/coding each thread in its natural sequence, so as to become
familiarised with the discourse, issues and personalities of each community. The
researcher gradually came to a better (though necessarily partial) understanding of the
language and issues of each community. An invaluable aid were the complete
newsgroup archives, which could be easily browsed or searched within the Agent
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
258
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
newsreader, from where sampled threads were drawn. For instance, this proved a good
way to search for the meaning of domain-specific acronyms. When this was not
enough, Google was used to search the historical archive of the newsgroup. Another
useful aid was the multi-panel interface of Agent, because it provided a bird’s-eye view
of the original multi-message thread, making it easier to follow the sequence of a
threaded discussion that easily got lost in the somewhat confined message browser of
Nudist (a copy of Agent, with sampled threads, is supplied in Appendix O).
New auxiliary codes emerged during the main coding exercise, further narrowing the
scope of ‘Other’. As the first round of coding –newsgroup by newsgroup– neared its
conclusion, auxiliary codes reached a total of ten, specifically:
• Asking a question
• Describing a problem
• Describing an issue
• Requesting additional information
• Friendly off-topic comment
• Hostile off-topic comment
• Relevance of post for newsgroup
• Other
Reading messages in their natural sequence was not entirely a linear exercise, as often the
coding of a particular passage reminded the researcher of previously coded material which
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
259
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
merited a second look in order to confirm or revise previous coding decisions. A simple log
was kept to support this iterative process. Still, the day finally came when all 44 threads
had been read and coded in their natural sequence. Then began a more systematic code
revision process (Miles and Huberman, 1994), which relied on the capability of Nudist to
browse through codes themselves, i.e. through all textual passages similarly coded. Thus,
the second round of coding involved reading the entire textual sample again, this time
code-wise, with the deliberate aim of improving coding consistency. Reading each code
across the eleven different newsgroups resulted in additional revisions of previously coded
text-units. Notably, the ‘Shared artifacts’ code was broken down into narrower, mutually-
exclusive sub-codes that emerged from the text, specifically:
• Symbolic language (computer code, mathematical equations, tables,
spreadsheets, etc.)
• Usenet artifacts (posting guidelines, FAQs, moderator notes, newsgroup
archives, etc.)
• Cites (citations from accepted references, such as laws, historical sources,
etc.)
• Specialised tools (specialised hardware, software, trade magazines, etc.)
• Jargon (domain-specific technical language, acronyms, etc.)
Codes for ‘Sharing knowledge’ and ‘Sharing personal experience’ were re-classified
from auxiliary to theory-derived codes as manifestations of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT.
Although previously unforeseen, these two codes are clearly similar to ‘Sharing
information’, a previously defined manifestation of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT. ‘Sharing
knowledge’, in the sense of communicating it for the benefit of others, is clearly
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
260
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
distinct from the sub-construct of ‘Acquiring new knowledge’, and is clearly a
manifestation of ENGAGEMENT about a domain. ‘Sharing personal experience’, on the
other hand, can be seen as a particular mode of sharing knowledge, closer to story-
telling, and is thus also classified under MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT.
Another code revision involved discarding the previously introduced auxiliary codes
for ‘Describing a problem’ and ‘Describing an issue’. Most text units coded by these
were simply the first in a series of ‘Collective problem-solving’ messages, or ‘Debating
issues’ messages. Thus, the auxiliary code of the first message was simply changed to
the theory-derived code. There was a small remainder (less than ten) of text units coded
as ‘Describing a problem’ which were not part of a problem-solving thread; these were
re-classified into another auxiliary code, ‘Asking a question’ with a slightly increased
scope. Also changed to ‘Collective problem-solving’ were the few text-units originally
coded as ‘Requesting additional information’ as this was now seen as a normal activity
within a problem-solving set of messages.
An auxiliary code was introduced for ‘Off-topic digression’ since there were a number
of episodes. This allowed the original auxiliary codes ‘Friendly off-topic comment’ and
‘Hostile off-topic comment’ to be re-worded to a simpler ‘Friendly comment’ and
‘Hostile comment’.
Table 8.3 displays the refined wording of Nudist definitions of theoretical and auxiliary
codes at the end of the coding exercise. By comparing these to the initial definitions
(see Table 5.6), it is easy to see the improvement in precision and detail of the coding
scheme, while the conceptual meaning of Wenger’s constructs is preserved always. An
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
261
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
encouraging development was that the ‘Other’ category disappeared altogether. In
effect, it is parsimoniously represented by the four revised auxiliary codes.
Table 8.3 – Refined working definitions of theory-derived codes

Making reference to new knowledge acquired from online
Acquiring new
discussion. For instance, thanking someone for the knowledge,
knowledge
LEARNING
mentioning it during discussion, etc.
Acquiring new skills Reference to new skills acquired from discussion
Text units that make a reference to developing, nurturing or

Acquiring/enacting a
enacting a professional identity, career, etc. as a result of
professional identity
online discussion.
Invoking an accepted tool, real or virtual, such as jargon,

Shared artifacts knowledge repositories, newsgroup customs, etc. It breaks
down into five subcodes.
A reference to posting guidelines, FAQs, moderator remarks,

Usenet artifacts
newsgroup archives, advice for new posters, etc.
Passages containining computer code, mathematical equations,

symbolic language
datasheets, tables, etc.
References to specialised tools used by these professionals.

SHARED REPERTOIRE
These tools can be physical hardware (foot pedal for MT’s,

specialised tools chemicals for farmers), software (wordprocessors, debuggers,
IDEs), trade magazines, professional publications, web-based
tools, coding styles, etc.
Passages that are literal quotations from an accepted reference

cites (laws, books, trade magazines, previously unquoted Usenet
messages, etc)
Passages containing domain-specific technical language,

jargon
specialised terms, acronyms, etc.
References to accepted professional criteria, such as: ethical

Shared criteria criteria, official standards, computer language standards,
accounting standards, laws and regulations, etc.
References to an accepted procedure within the profession. For

instance: programming procedures such as debugging or
Shared practices
maintaining code; mathematical procedures such as gaussian
elimination, etc.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
262
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Table 8.3 – Refined working definitions of theory-derived codes (continued)

Collectively building a solution to a problem or case. By
definition, this code spans multiple messages. Signs of
Collective problem-solving are exploring different alternatives,
problem-solving requesting additional information, a back and forth of
messages, a clear intent to reach a diagnosis or a consensual
interpretation, etc.
Debating one or several issues related to the profession. By
definition, this code spans multiple messages. Signs of debate
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
Debating issues are describing an issue and/or a personal position, having it

challenged for weaknesses, alternative positions offered as
superior, arguments for and against, etc.
Providing spontaneously or by request, to the newsgroup or
to a poster, a specific piece of information related to the
Sharing information profession, such as a relevant piece of news about the
profession, a bibliographic reference that is relevant for the
problem at hand, etc.
Providing spontaneously or by request useful knowledge or
advise that is related to the profession and is more elaborate
than a specific piece of information. For instance: drawing
Sharing knowledge
conclusions or implications from a previous message,
performing an analysis or reading a situation with the
information provided, providing an illustrative example, etc.
Sharing personal Describing prior personal experience (or asking someone to
experience do it) that throws light on the problem or issue discussed.
Members' knowledge Evidence of newsgroup participant's knowing each other's

COMMUNITY
of each other opinions, competences, personal details, etc.
Shared sense of References to an online group that has a shared interest or

community stands for something and whose members support each other.
ENTERPRISE
References to the particular knowledge domain the newsgroup

JOINT
Caring for a domain

of knowledge cultivates or to the profession behind it.
Request for a specific piece of advice or information, or

Asking a question additional data about a problem, or further clarification of a
AUXILIARY CODES
proposed solution, etc.

A comment that clearly veers away from the current
Off-topic digression
discussion topic and/or the topic of the newsgroup.
Pleasantries, humour, wit, greetings, introductions, praise,
Friendly comment
well-wishing, apologies, etc.
Personal criticism, sarcasm, aggression, rebukes, accusations,
Unfriendly comment
insults, flames, etc.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
263
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
8.4 – General code counts and illustrative coded threads
At the end of the two-stage coding process, no message was left uncoded, and most
messages were coded by several categories. Nearly all 1497 messages in the sample
were meaningfully coded by theory-derived codes, only in 45 messages (3%) were
these codes not appropriate, and auxiliary codes (in essence, the “Other” category)
were used instead. Thus the explanatory power of the theoretical coding scheme
was excellent. Nudist-generated reports of the 44 coded threads are provided in
Appendix P.
Nudist’s powerful matrix node search was used to derive accurate code counts at the
level of the individual message (where each code was only counted once) and the
level of threads. Aggregate results were exported to a spreadsheet., available in
Appendix N, which is the source for the summary results presented in Table 8.4. The
term “instance” will be used to refer to a theoretical category that is evaluated as
present within a Usenet message. Because it just records the presence or absence of a
category in a message, an instance is only counted once per message, irrespective of
whether one or several textual passages within the message provide evidence for it.
For example, Table 8.4 shows the category ‘Symbolic language’ has a count of 24
instances in the CPLUS community. This means 24 distinct messages from the thread
sample of that newsgroup contained instances of symbolic language. Hence, the
purpose of Table 8.4 is to provide a summary view of the 1497 sampled messages,
and the number of instances of Wenger’s constructs detected by the Content Analysis
in each community.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
264
Table 8.4 – Instances of Wenger’s constructs detected in each newsgroup
CIVWAR COBOL CPLUS CRYPTFINPLAN MEDTRANPHYSRES TAXESUKAGRI VISOBJ XTRPRG
Number of messages 129 133 91 346 93 106 107 117 119 119 137
LEARNING 4 0 1 2 0 1 7 4 2 9 5
Acquiring new knowledge 4 0 1 2 0 1 7 4 2 9 5
Acquiring new skills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acquiring/enacting a professional identity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SHARED REPERTOIRE 162 211 274 444 101 109 142 321 132 182 177
Shared artifacts
Usenet artifacts 9 2 91 8 0 0 2 117 0 0 1

symbolic language 0 2 24 15 1 0 23 0 1 15 4
specialised tools 11 40 18 33 6 56 9 25 19 34 24
cites 29 7 2 3 3 0 2 10 1 5 4
jargon 74 86 79 266 79 27 94 70 54 62 60
Shared criteria 0 29 38 1 7 5 0 77 28 8 13
Shared practices 39 45 22 118 5 21 12 22 29 58 71
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT in Practice 216 174 101 399 160 63 171 198 101 205 232
Collective problem-solving 0 0 11 272 29 3 32 89 26 50 0
Debating issues 129 133 45 44 65 24 75 22 45 57 128
Sharing information 29 5 7 14 6 3 16 20 8 6 9
Sharing knowledge 56 16 31 65 46 5 47 51 16 58 47
Sharing personal experience 2 20 7 4 14 28 1 16 6 34 48
COMMUNITY 3 0 1 4 0 6 1 2 15 0 5
Members' knowledge of each other 1 0 0 4 0 5 1 2 14 0 3
Shared sense of community 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
JOINT ENTERPRISE 2 1 5 6 2 0 5 3 0 0 12
Caring for a domain of knowledge 2 1 5 6 2 0 5 3 0 0 12
AUXILIARY CODES
Asking a question 0 1 7 7 1 8 2 8 4 2 2
Off-topic digression 0 2 0 35 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
Friendly comment 0 3 5 13 4 27 2 9 49 16 20
Unfriendly comment 7 33 0 98 1 0 0 0 9 0 0
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The aim of the Content Analysis is to determine the presence or absence of the
Essential Traits in the sampled interactions of core members of the communities.
Using the same logic of the Survey, textual evidence of the presence of a sub-
construct will be interpreted as evidence for the presence of the associated construct.
Table 8.5 provides an overall view of the newsgroups and the number of instances of
Wenger’s constructs detected by the Content Analysis. A more detailed breakdown of
the numbers to the level of individual threads is provided in spreadsheet form in
Appendix N.
The results of Table 8.5 show all sub-constructs derived from Wenger’s theory were
found in the thread sample, with the exception of ‘Acquiring new skills’ and
‘Acquiring/enacting a professional identity’. In addition, two new meaningful sub-
constructs were detected: ‘Sharing knowledge’ and ‘Sharing personal experience’.
Consolidating sub-construct codes at the level of construct reveals a pervasive presence
of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and SHARED REPERTOIRE, and a marginal but sufficient
presence of the constructs of LEARNING, COMMUNITY and JOINT ENTERPRISE. Several
communities exhibit the full set of Essential Traits, while others are missing one or two
of them. These differences lead, in the next section, to a community ranking similar to
the one used for the Survey.
To illustrate actual coding decisions, two short extracts from Nudist-coded threads
are presented next. They are displayed in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 as they appear within
Nudist, with each paragraph representing a single textual unit. Researcher-asigned
codes of these textual passages are presented side-by-side in the middle column.
Working definitions for each code were shown previously in Table 8.4. The column
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
266
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
to the right of the codes will be used, in this illustrative example, to provide
explanatory comments of the coding decisions and rationale. These two examples
merely aim to illustrate the actual coding of textual passages, whereas a complete
profile of all communities is supplied in Chapter Nine, and an interpretation of text-
based ENGAGEMENT, in Chapter Ten.
The first extract is from the TAXES community which had a large count of construct
instances; only CRYPT had more, but with the advantage of a larger message sample
(see Table 8.5). Moreover, TAXES was one of the six communities where the
Content Analysis detected all Essential Traits. The thread chosen for the example is
TAXES1, specifically, the first three messages, displayed in Figure 8.1. Participants
in this online discussion are collectively trying to make sense of a recently published
tax regulation, in response to a request from the first poster. To do this, they apply
their previous experience and their knowledge of the tax code to build a mutually
acceptable and operational interpretation. In particular, this example shows how the
sub-construct of ‘Collective problem-solving’ only makes sense when it involves
several participants thus spanning multiple messages. If Steve’s call for discussion
had gone unanswered, the message could not have been logically coded as ‘Collective
problem-solving’.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
267
Nudist text-units Nudist codes Comments
*From: Steve core member Steve’s coreness score is 0.12

Someone pointed this out to me today. From Pub 17, Your Federal sharing information A specific and relevant piece of information
Income Tax (EMPHASIS added) specialised tools discovered in a professional tax publication.
[BEGIN QUOTE] Business Use or Rental of Home Depreciation for
sharing information
business use after May 6, 1997. If you were entitled to take The literal citation from the publication is identified
depreciation deductions because you used your home for business as such, quoted precisely, and the interesting bit
cites
purposes or as rental property, you cannot exclude the part of your highlighted.
gain equal to any depreciation allowed or allowable as a deduction for
periods after May 6, 1997. IF YOU CAN SHOW BY ADEQUATE
RECORDS OR OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPRECIATION
DEDUCTION ALLOWED WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
ALLOWABLE, THE AMOUNT YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE IS THE
SMALLER FIGURE. [END QUOTE]
The same passage appears in IRS Publication 523, Selling Your Home sharing information Identifies repeats of the relevant passage in other
and IRS Publication 587, Business Use of Your Home (Including Use specialised tools IRS publications.
by Day-Care Providers). Clearly, the IRS is saying in its publications
Analyses the regulation and proposes his
that if the taxpayer can show that no depreciation was taken, then no
sharing knowledge interpretation of the IRS position.
recapture of depreciation is required. This "exception" does not seem
to prevent reduction in basis required for allowable depreciation. Thus, ‘Recapture of depreciation’ and ‘reduction in basis’
shared practices,
the gain is larger, even if depreciation is not taken, but no taxable gain are shared accounting practices, and they are
jargon
is created if the depreciation is not taken. Gain would be taxable only if referred to with technical language.
the total excluded the exclusion amount available from Section 121.
shared criteria A Section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is an
Does anyone have any comment on this? In particular, I'd like a
specific citation that confirms or refutes what the IRS put in three accepted criterion.
collective
publications. Regards, Steve Explicit request for alternative interpretations and for
problem-solving
cites (of laws or Tax Court decisions) that confirm or
refute the problematic passage.
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this newsgroup are at
Moderator-inserted message pointing novices and
www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com >> Usenet artifact
visitors to institutional documents of TAXES.
Figure 8.1 – Coded fragment from thread TAXES1 (message headers in bold)
*From: Tom core member Tom’s coreness score is 0.592
> Does anyone have any comment on this? In particular, I'd > like a
specific citation that confirms or refutes what the > IRS put in three quote Tom quotes the previous message to provide
publications. context for his reply.
You have to follow the reference back to §1250(b)(3) that you'll find in
§121(d)(6) for computing the amount subject to this special tax. sharing information Seeking out the applicable law (a shared criterion)
§1250(b)(3)'s final sentence says: shared criteria which provides the basis for this ‘special tax’
"For purposes of the preceding sentence, if the taxpayer can establish

by adequate records or other sufficient evidence that the amount The passage identified and quoted literally to show it
allowed as a deduction for any period was less than the amount cites matches the passage quoted by Steve.
allowable, the amount taken into account for such period shall be the
amount allowed."
The above is essentially what the IRS has lifted, word for word, in the
instructions. §121 refers specifically to this provision in §1250 (which sharing knowledge, Analysis performed, specifically interpreting the
deals generally with "excess" depreciation for real property recapture shared criteria situations where this regulation applies.
rules) rather than talking about depreciation in general. It does not
refer to the general rule for basis adjustments under §1016(a)(2), jargon Accounting language used.
which is where the "general" allowed or allowable rule comes into
sharing knowledge Drawing implications, specifically where this
play. This creates some interesting problems <grin>. Remember, the
passage may be cause for confusion.
IRS position appears to be that if a space was used as a home office
for over three years of the five year period, then §121 does not apply
shared criteria The position the IRS has maintained recently (very
to that space. So that office would be subject to the more general
familiar to these professionals) becomes an
"allowed or allowable" rule--and gain would be recognized even
accepted criterion
though depreciation had not previously been claimed. However, if the
space was "disqualified" for two years (note I said disqualified--not just
no depreciation taken), then the jargon
(continued)
Figure 8.1 – Coded fragment from thread TAXES1 (continued)

ability to document that the "allowed" amount was less than the
amount "allowable" would come into play. Where that could be a shared criteria
problem would be if an adviser, reading the above from the The publications of the IRS are accepted
publications (and, to borrow from another thread, quick reference specialised tools
professional references
guides citing the same <grin>), counseled a client to go ahead and jargon
claim all other home office related expenses (utilities, insurance, etc.)
but not claim the depreciation, with the theory that now the home was
"safe" from being taxable in any amount on sale. By claiming those
expenses, the taxpayer is taking the position the space *did* qualify Analysis performed: the taxpayer’s position is open
sharing knowledge
for depreciation right up through the date of sale. In that case, to challenge by the IRS
§121(d)(6) would not apply (at least by the IRS's analysis) and the collective problem- Tom explicitly joined the problem-solving exercise
taxpayer would end up paying tax on a gain computed using the solving, caring for a convened by Steve. Furthermore, he enjoyed it
"allowable" depreciation amount. Ain't tax research fun... domain of knowledge, (thus showing his care for the domain) and makes
friendly comment a good-humoured comment to Steve.
Moderator-inserted message pointing novices and
www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com >> Usenet artifact
core member
*From: Steve
quote
> Ain't tax research fun...
caring for a domain of Steve also cares about taxation, has acquired the
Actually, yes. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Steve
knowledge knowledge he sought from the exchange and
appreciates Tom’s response.
acquiring new
knowledge
friendly comment
Usenet artifact Moderator-inserted message pointing novices and
www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com >>
Figure 8.1 – Coded fragment from thread TAXES1 (continued)

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
For a second illustrative example of the coding process, an intentionally different, IT-
oriented, unmoderated newsgroup was chosen, XTRPRG. To get a glimpse at the
discourse and REPERTOIRE of this technical community, the first three messages from
thread XTRPRG4 are displayed on Figure 8.2 along with their Nudist codes and a brief
running commentary that explains coding decisions.
As in the TAXES community, the Content Analysis found evidence for all Essential Traits.
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT had the most pervasive presence, with a total of 233 instances.
Somewhat unexpectedly for what is clearly a very technical newsgroup, there were no
detected instances of ‘Collective problem-solving’. Rather, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
manifested itself as ‘Debating issues’, most often the advantages or disadvantages of XP
and its realistic applicability in modern-day organisations. The debates provided many
opportunities for participants to share knowledge or personal experience; among all
newsgroups, XTRPRG was in fact the leader in ‘Sharing personal experience’, with 49
instances. Chapter Ten provides a much more detailed look at the ENGAGEMENT of this
community.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
271
Nudist text-units Nudist codes Comments
*From: Pete non-core member Pete coreness score is 0.018

Just been reading the ng again and come across another example of
someone being told that their company isn't doing XP - refering to
"Documenting after Implementation". The discussion around this is Documenting code is a necessary but laborious
somewhat correct - and in this instance there are easy and effective ways shared practices practice programmers tend to avoid.
to document as you go - Javadoc being what I usually prefer to document
interfaces. If you get the naming right on your classes and methods the specialised tools Javadoc is a software tool.
Javadoc should need minimal additional comments. However the real
jargon Technical language used.
ugly issue under this is an implied fragility of the XP process. Once again
we seem to hear that a company that is trying to do XP got it wrong - that debating issues Spells out an issue for debate: XP would only
its not that XP may not be best for this company, but the developers didn't work when done exactly by the rules.
follow the ten commandments and are therefore going to programmer hell
(paraphrasing). People are not perfect, they don't follow exactly the rules shared criteria Explicit mention of the XP rules.
laid out, either because they don't wish to, or unable to, or just don't fully
understand what the rule means - or god forbid - actually found a process
which works better for them. When I first looked at XP it seemed to be
about people who had looked rationally at the current processes and
applied intelligent thought to adapt and improve those processes, rather
than following the tradisional approach where projects were always
blamed but never the method (ie Waterfall). Now it seems that XP
methods have become dogma - and alternative approaches and
independent thinking discouraged. If 'doin XP' means throwing away your
own thinking and options to adapt then 'XP' is something I'd rather not be debating issues Pete spells out his position in this issue.
labelled with. Which is a pity - because the principles of XP are good... ---
Pete
Figure 8.2 – Coded fragment from thread XTRPRG4 (message headers in bold)
Dave’s coreness score is 0.012
*From: Dave non-core member
> Now it seems that XP methods have become dogma - and alternative
approaches > and independent thinking discouraged. If 'doin XP' means Dave quotes only enough from the
throwing away your > own thinking and options to adapt then 'XP' is quote previous message to provide
something I'd rather not be > labelled with. context, specifically Pete’s position
Not at all. As I understand it, 'doin XP' means adapting your practices to
work best with your project. What you shouldn't do, however, is adapt the
practices before you've even tried the practices. Use XP as it's debating issues Joins the debate by responding to
documented first. Learn what works well and where you have problems. Pete’s argument
Adapt based on experience instead of deciding ahead of time that "pair
programming isn't going to work here" or "we won't worry about
refactoring until later." Your own thinking comes in once you've tried XP shared practices ‘Pair programming’ and ‘refactoring’
as it is, analyzed where its strengths and weaknesses are for you, and are specific (and controversial)
made adjustments to make it work better. Dave practices used by XP
debating issues
*From: Pete non-core member

> Not at all. As I understand it, 'doin XP' means adapting your practices >
to work best with your project. What you shouldn't do, however, is > adapt Pete quotes the part from the
the practices before you've even tried the practices. Use XP as > it's quote previous message that implies he is
documented first. Learn what works well and where you have > problems. unexperienced with XP
Establishes his field experience with
I should be clear - I have introduced XP to three organisations to date. debating issues
XP as a basis for his critique
Figure 8.2 – Coded fragment from thread XTRPRG4 (continued)

> Adapt based on experience instead of deciding ahead of time > that "pair
programming isn't going to work here" or "we won't worry > about Pete quotes the implied suggestion
refactoring until later." quote that he dislikes ‘pair programming’
I'm sold on XP's methods - my issue is that the message appear to be
'stop thinking - just do what we say'. As a Karate instructor I taught shared practices A reference to the XP practices.
students in a very similar way. We taught them how to stand, punch, kick
etc - but didn't talk to them about the *why* part - why we do things the
way we do. Thats bad. XP works - at least in part - because it contains all
the important aspects of an evolving system. Mutation, Replication, sharing knowledge Proposes his own interpretation of
Selection - all are part of XP. Once you understand the *why* part you the critical success factors of XP.
can start to relax because you can evaluate a change to the 'standard'
approach by thinking about the effects. debating issues Not against XP methods but against
applying them unthinkingly.
> Your own thinking comes in once you've tried XP as it is, analyzed
where > its strengths and weaknesses are for you, and made adjustments
to make > it work better. quote
The principle here being that we don't know what works, and so we should
start at a known good point and adjust hoping we get lucky? This is why I debating issues Further explains his position on this
disagree - if you understand the mechanisms of why XP works you can issue
create alternate ideas and have a solid theoretical framework to evaluate
them without going through the pain of failed projects to test them. As it sharing knowledge Suggests the rationale behind XP
happens XP is quite good - and I'm not nessasarily suggesting it needs to rules and practices should be more
be changed. However IT managers should always be trying to understand widely known by IT managers
their processes better at a theoretical level in order to avoid the pain of
hard experience, and this is why the 'Do everything our way' message Suggests some of the controversy
bugs me. sharing knowledge surrounding XP is caused by its
being perceived as too-prescriptive
Figure 8.2 – Coded fragment from thread XTRPRG4 (continued)

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
8.5 – Discussion of results
The previous section was mostly concerned with counting and consolidating theoretical
codes detected in the sampled threads; the aim was establishing the presence or not of the
Essential Traits in the discussions of core-members of the communities. This section will
look at the same results but from the point of view of each Essential Trait. Specifically,
this section will describe typical manifestations of Wenger’s constructs detected in the 44
sampled Usenet discussions. Because Chapter Three emphasised that sustained MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT in Practice is the root cause of both COMMUNITY and SHARED REPERTOIRE,
and thus of the entire CoP, this section will begin with this founding construct.
8.5.1 – Detected manifestations of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
The Content Analysis detected five distinct manifestations of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
on messages authored by newsgroup participants. These were:
• Collective problem-solving
• Debating issues
• Sharing information
The first three are sub-constructs defined during the development of the virtual CoP
model; while the last two are emergent codes detected during the Content Analysis of
discussions and subsequently included under the scope of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
275
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Of the five sub-constructs listed above, the first two refer to collective online
behaviour, requiring two or more participants, and cannot logically occur on isolated
messages. The other three are actions that belong to individuals (i.e. reciprocity is not a
condition) and can thus occur in isolated messages. The five sub-constructs are not
mutually exclusive; for example, both ‘Collective problem-solving’ and ‘Debating
issues’ admit individual messages with instances of ‘Sharing information’, ‘Sharing
knowledge’ or ‘Sharing personal experience’.
Evidence of ‘Collective problem-solving’ turned up in eight of eleven communities. It
manifested itself in various forms, often determined by the domain of the newsgroup.
The most frequent forms were:
• critiquing/revising computer code
• building a solution with mathematical equations
• interpreting the meaning of specific provisions of tax law
• discussing how to build/repair a physical tool
All of these refer to a discussion by two or more posters, spanning several messages,
with the initial message stating a problem to be solved, followed by a number of
proposed alternatives and a discussion of each one’s merits, generally building up to a
complete solution with possibly one or two caveats. Three communities did not exhibit
instances of ‘Collective problem-solving’: COBOL, XTRPRG and CIVWAR. In the
case of COBOL, this is probably due to the small size of the sample, as even a casual
perusal of threads in the archives of the newsgroup shows code critique is common.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
276
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The sub-construct of ‘Debating issues’ was very frequent, appearing in all
newsgroups. Forms of debate were not varied as were forms of problem-solving. The
sub-construct manifested itself as a set of messages, with an initial position stated in
the first one, and a number of follow-ups evincing a steadfastly maintained
disagreement between two parties, with both providing usually intelligent arguments,
with ocasional contributions from other posters, but usually not resulting in either
party changing his/her initial position.
In some communities, an issue seemed to repeatedly discussed, usually at the behest of
a single vocal member, and resulting in very long threads with frequent episodes of
conflict. This was clearly visible in CRYPT, COBOL and CIVWAR. In other
newsgroups, there were repetitive issues too, but without generating conflict, they
appeared to be topics members liked to rehash. Such was the case of MEDTRAN,
UKAGRI and XTRPRG. The other newsgroups also displayed debates, but in each
case they appeared to be fresh issues, not repetitions.
‘Sharing information’ was defined narrowly to distinguish it from the emergent code of
‘Sharing knowledge’. This narrow definition possibly affected its frequency, for though
it appeared in all newsgroups, it had relatively few instances in each. Typical forms
detected in the newsgroups were:
• providing a bibliographic reference relevant to the issue at hand: book,
article, web-page, Usenet article, etc.
• providing upon request a specific piece of information
• providing a relevant piece of news about the profession
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
277
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
‘Sharing knowledge’ was an emergent code and far more frequent than ‘Sharing
information’. Its broader definition allowed a greater number of passages to fit under
this sub-construct. All communities had instances of ‘Sharing knowledge’; this is not
surprising, as a quality discussion was required of each newsgroup to gain admittance
into the study. The most commonly detected forms were:
• Performing an analysis of a problem or case
• Proposing a specific solution in a problem-solving thread
• Providing useful advise beyond a specific piece of information
• Providing an example (or counter-example) that throws light on the
issue under discussion
• Drawing implications, either from previous posts or from new
information provided in the same post
• Correcting a factually mistaken message
‘Sharing personal experience’ was another emergent code, less frequent than ‘Sharing
knowledge’, but appearing nevertheless in all newsgroups. It would seem to be a
different form of ‘Sharing knowledge’, less abstract and more similar to story-telling.
Most instances of ‘Sharing personal experience’ show a clear intent to communicate a
lesson learned, and thus share knowledge. There were two detected forms of ‘Sharing
personal experience’:
• A poster telling an anecdote from his/her experience (or from another
person’s experience) that throws light on the issue under discussion
• A request from one poster to another to share his/her experiences
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
278
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The five sub-constructs described above do not exhaust the rich and complex meaning
of Wenger’s MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT. Other real-world manifestations surely exist that
were not initially contemplated in the model, nor were detected as emergent codes.
However, the sub-constructs constitute valid manifestations of Wenger’s construct and
evidence of its varied presence in the communities.
8.5.2 – Detected manifestations of SHARED REPERTOIRE
Considerable evidence was detected of community tools and products, even before the
Content Analysis began. As useful knowledge repositories and community products,
the institutional documents of the newsgroups constitute evidence of SHARED
REPERTOIRE, and were used early in the study as an Exemplary criterion.
The Content Analysis turned up much more evidence of these tools and products, which
varied in form and content depending on the newsgroup. In fact, enough units were
coded under ‘Shared artifacts’, to merit breaking up the code into five more specific,
mutually-exclusive sub-codes: ‘Usenet artifacts’, ‘Symbolic language’, ‘Specialised
tools’, ‘Cites’ and ‘Jargon’. Typical detected forms are displayed in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5 – Typical forms of the Shared artifacts sub-codes

Sub-code Form Detected in newsgroups
Usenet Fixed messages providing directions to the CPLUS, TAXES, CIVWAR
artifacts institutional documents
symbolic computer code, mathematical equations All but TAXES, MEDTRAN and
language CIVWAR
specialised trade magazines or books, specialised All
tools software or hardware tools, etc.
cites literal quotations from accepted references All but MEDTRAN
jargon domain-specific technical language All
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
279
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
‘Shared criteria’ is another community tool participants frequently invoked, often
within problem-solving and debate threads, and within ‘Sharing information’ or
‘Sharing knowledge’ messages. It turned up in all newsgroups with the exception of
CIVWAR and PHYSRES (and the jargon in the latter was so dense the researcher
might simply have overlooked mentions to ‘Shared criteria’). The sub-construct
assumed various forms strongly determined by professional domain; most typical
were:
• Standards of professional conduct
• Official standard of a computer language defined by a committee
• The RTFM criterion of IT-professionals (Read The *** Manual!)
• Tax laws and other regulations, court decisions, etc.
• Quality standards
Finally, ‘Shared practices’ was another collective tool and product of the communities,
and several newsgroups viewed the exchange of best practices as an important part of
their charter. Most shared practices are domain-specific, but some, such as
documenting assertions, are universally accepted Usenet customs. Common forms of
domain-specific ‘Shared practices’ were:
• IT-procedures such as doing backups, maintaining code, etc.
• Mathematical procedures such as gaussian elimination
• Accounting procedures, such as depreciating an asset
• Agricultural procedures, such as spraying
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
280
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
8.5.3 – Detected manifestations of COMMUNITY
The text-based evidence for COMMUNITY was rather scanty, considering the strong
evidence obtained in the Survey. A few explicit textual instances were detected in all
newsgroups except COBOL, FINPLAN and VISOBJ. This is probably due to the small
size of the thread sample and the fact that the existence of an online community is more
or less taken for granted and rarely mentioned in an explicit form. In addition, the
thread selection procedure discarded threads that strayed from professional content.
Two sub-constructs were defined to indicate the presence COMMUNITY: ‘Members’
knowledge of each other’ and ‘Shared sense of community’. The former had fairly
specific forms:
• Explicit mention of another poster’s expertise, opinions, health, etc.
• Posting a message addressed by name to another poster
• Agreeing to meet someplace
The sub-construct of ‘Shared sense of community’ was harder to detect, turning up in
just five newsgroups, with the following forms:
• Explicit mentions of ‘our’ newsgroup or community
• Explicit mention of belonging to a community
8.5.4 – Detected manifestations of LEARNING
Of the three sub-constructs defined to indicate LEARNING, only ‘Acquiring new
knowledge’ was detected in the Content Analysis of threads. There were instances in
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
281
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
nearly all newsgroups, with the exception of FINPLAN and COBOL. Again, these two
exceptions were most likely due to the small sample size, as both COBOL and
FINPLAN had significant LEARNING results in the Survey. The most typical forms of
‘Acquiring new knowledge’ were:
• Thanking another poster(s) for learning something new
• Making an explicit mention of new understanding
• Self-questionning caused by reading the newsgroup
8.5.5 – Detected manifestations of JOINT ENTERPRISE
Only one sub-construct was defined to indicate JOINT ENTERPRISE, and it is ‘Caring for
a domain of knowledge’. Unlike the Survey, it was detected in most communities
except MEDTRAN, UKAGRI and VISOBJ. Its typical forms were:
• Proposing ways for novices to learn the domain
• Responding to criticism of the domain or its practices
• Commending a message that makes a contribution to the domain
8.5.6 – Additional comments
Looking back over the five constructs, the seemingly disproportionate code counts of
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and SHARED REPERTOIRE compared to those of LEARNING,
COMMUNITY and JOINT ENTERPRISE require some explanation. It should be remembered
that, unlike the Survey, the Content Analysis examined member interactions directly.
Interactions in a Usenet newsgroup take the form of messages exchanged by
participants in threaded discussions. Qualitative coding of these discussions is fairly
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
282
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
akin to ethnographic analysis. Thus, assuming some of these communities are CoPs,
such an analysis would find widespread evidence of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, because in
a CoP all interactions are ENGAGEMENT. Furthermore, since SHARED REPERTOIRE
includes all instrumental aids to ENGAGEMENT, it should be fully as pervasive.
By contrast, the other three constructs are intrinsecally more difficult to detect.
LEARNING takes place within the minds of participants. It only becomes observable
when participants spontaneously manifest it to the community, for example when a
participant thanks another for help in learning something. IDENTITY ACQUISITION,
which Wenger (1998) views as another manifestation of LEARNING, is just as difficult
to observe, and outwardly manifesting it would involve self-disclosure, presumably
requiring a sympathetic Usenet audience.
COMMUNITY is a quality that despite being important to its members can be left unsaid
or taken for granted most of the time. Thus explicit mentions of community are
sporadic, and it is not surprising that in a four-thread per newsgroup sample, evidence
of COMMUNITY is scanty. Increasing sample size might help, but would involve
considerable additional coding. Another possibility is a search of archived discussions
for such keywords as “community” “our group” “our newsgroup” but this falls outside
the scope of the current Research Strategy.
JOINT ENTERPRISE is another Essential Trait that mostly stays implicit, simply because it
is present in every on-topic message and discussion posted to the newsgroup. In fact,
the evidence for JOINT ENTERPRISE most often took the negative form of objections to
loss of topical focus, rather than deep discussions about the purpose of the newsgroup
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
283
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
or the future of the profession (although such discussions were found in newsgroups
CPLUS and COBOL). The fact that these are exemplary communities and threads
makes the occurrence of off-topic posts the exception, rather than the rule, and may
explain the dearth of instances of JOINT ENTERPRISE. As with COMMUNITY, a search of
newsgroup archives for appropriate keywords might yield results, but keywords would
necessarily have to be informed and domain-specific.
Recalling now the aim of the Content Analysis, it is the same as the Survey; to seek
evidence of the Essential Traits using the method’s own logic, which translates into
textual analysis of a sample of professionally-oriented discussions dominated by core
members. This evidence has been found, abundantly, as the general code counts of
Table 8.4 show. To establish a comparison with Survey results, a ranking of
communities by detected Essential Traits is provided in Table 8.6. As before, Group A
communities exhibit all Essential Traits; Group B are communities missing only one
Essential Trait, and Group C communities are missing more than one. A total of six
communities exhibited the full range of Wenger constructs.
Table 8.6 – Essential Traits detected in each community by the Content Analysis
SHARED MUTUAL JOINT
Newsgroup LEARNING REPERTOIRE ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE
CIVWAR a a a a a
CPLUS a a a a a
A CRYPT a a a a a
TAXES a a a a a
XTRPRG a a a a a
PHYSRES a a a a a
MEDTRAN a a a a
B
UKAGRI a a a a
FINPLAN a a a
C VISOBJ a a a
COBOL a a a
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
284
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The results of Table 8.6 suggest Stage V of the Funnel Strategy has succeeded in its
stated aims, despite working with a relative small textual sample from each newsgroup.
Thus, the theory-grounded criteria used for thread sample selection, and the guiding
principle of seeking those threads which showed the communities fully ENGAGED in
their online ‘work’, can be judged successful too. Still, though having their own
internal validity and consistency, Content Analysis results must be combined with
Survey results as specified by the research design. This is the task of Stage VI, which is
addressed in the next chapter.
8.6 – Limitations of the Content Analysis
The clearest limitation in the Content Analysis exercise is small sample size: analysing
only four threads per newsgroup provides just a glimpse of the ordinary life of these
online communities, and that glimpse limited mostly to core members. However, the
need to study a total of eleven newsgroups imposed a severe restriction on the number
of threads and the amount of text that could realistically be content analysed by a
researcher working alone. As previously mentioned, even with only four threads
selected per newsgroup, the analysed text corpus amounted to 320,000 words, or four
times the maximum allowed length of a doctoral thesis.
The small sample size was compensated, to a certain extent, by using theory-informed
criteria to select the threads to be analysed. Having literally all discussions in the
newsgroup to choose from, the decision was to focus on those held mostly among core
members and dealing with professional topics. The strong presence of MUTUAL
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
285
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ENGAGEMENT and SHARED REPERTOIRE is a good indicator of the soundness of the
sampling strategy, as is the detection of six newsgroups which exhibited all Essential
Traits of the VCoP model.
In addition, although the sample was purposive, the researcher was sensitive to the trap
of anecdotalism (Silverman, 2000), and tried to make thread selection as objective as
possible through the use of pre-established rules.
A potential limitation is the use of a relatively coarse or broad coding scheme. The type
of content or textual analysis used here is completely different from a line-by-line
discourse analysis. However, it was judged that the degree of detail used is adequate for
detecting Wenger’s constructs. In addition, current coding is relatively robust because
the focus of interest lies on the “consolidated” constructs, such as MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT, rather than the more detailed sub-constructs. In other words, potential
coding mistakes between highly similar sub-constructs, such as ‘Sharing knowledge’
and ‘Sharing information’ would not affect the consolidated construct.
Another shortcoming of the Content Analysis is that the evidence for ‘Shared sense of
community’, ‘Members’ knowledge of each other’ and ‘Caring for a domain of
knowledge’, was scanty, and entirely absent from most newsgroups. The most likely
explanation is the small sample size. In addition, the fact that non-professional
discussions were deliberately excluded from the sample may have negatively impacted
the presence of ‘Shared sense of community’ and ‘Members’ knowledge of each other’.
What the actual results show is that for many of these communities, the time spent by
core members online is mostly spent discussing the business of the newsgroup; in other
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
286
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
words, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT using a SHARED REPERTOIRE. Notable exceptions are
MEDTRAN and UKAGRI, which appear to use the newsgroup, at least partially, to
relieve the boredom of their isolated professional activity by chatting about all sort of
topics. It could be argued that this too is ENGAGEMENT, but without a deeper
ethnographic analysis it would be indistinguishable from the light chatter in many other
Usenet communities that are definitely not CoPs.
Assuming for a moment a different sampling logic, if evidence was sought for, say,
‘Acquiring/enacting a professional identity’, then a possible strategy would be to
conduct a search among all threads using search terms such as “training”, “education”,
“career”, “profession”, etc. It is likely that this would lead, at least in some newsgroups,
to threads that could be studied from the viewpoint of professional development, with a
greater likelihood of finding instances of ‘Acquiring/enacting a professional identity’.
However, this alternate sampling strategy goes beyond the scope of this thesis,
although it may constitute a fruitful avenue for further research.
8.7 – Summary
The chapter described the logic and results of a Content Analysis of a theoretical
sample of threads from participating communities. The aim of this exercise was to seek
evidence of the Essential Traits in selected community discussions.
The theory-informed criteria for drawing the sample required that selected threads
contained at least 11 messages, focused on professional topics, and contained a high
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
287
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
proportion of messages by core members. Within this theoretical sample, the results of
the Content Analysis found considerable evidence for two Wenger constructs, MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT and SHARED REPERTOIRE, both with a variety of manifestations. Evidence
for LEARNING, COMMUNITY, and JOINT ENTERPRISE was also found, although definitely
not as strong, and not in all communities. Nevertheless, six communities exhibited the
full range of Wenger’s constructs.
Sample and method limitations are discussed. Overall, the Content Analysis succeeds
in detecting relevant evidence for addressing the Essential Trait Research Questions.
The final CoP-assessment will be performed in forthcoming Stage VI by drawing on all
available evidence from Stages III, IV and V. This is reported in Chapter Nine.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
288
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Part Four
Study Findings
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
289
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CHAPTER NINE
Overall Assessment of Selected Communities
This chapter describes the execution of Stage VI of the Research Strategy which assesses
the overall affinity of selected communities to the VCoP model. To do this, a detailed
profile is built of each community using the quantitative and qualitative data obtained in
Stages III, IV and V of the Strategy. Most importantly, community results of the Survey
and the Content Analysis are triangulated to determine the presence or absence of each
Essential Trait. The research design requires that the presence of an Essential Trait in a
community be confirmed by concurring results from both methods. Communities that
display all Essential Traits will be assessed as Exemplary Usenet-based CoPs.
Stage VI finally brings the Research Strategy to its conclusion by collecting, organising
and assessing the evidence obtained by Stages III, IV and V. Hence its location at the
bottom of the Funnel (see Figure 4.3, p. 130). The contribution of the chapter is a complete
profile of all communities, and the formal assessment of four of them as Exemplary
Usenet-based CoPs.
The chapter is organised in fourteen sections. The First provides a summary of the
Exemplary and Essential Traits detected by the various methods used in this research.
Sections Two through Twelve present detailed profiles of the eleven virtual
communities that participated in the study. Section Thirteen highlights commonalities
between detected VCoPs. The last section is the usual chapter summary.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
290
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9.1 – Summary of detected Exemplary and Essential Traits
The key task of this chapter is to formally assess the affinity of each community to the
VCoP model. This model describes the theorised Internet-based CoP that the study
targeted and systematically searched for. Hence, the model is reproduced here for ready
reference as each community is assessed.
A Model of “Exemplary” Internet-based CoP
Exemplary traits Essential traits
Mid-sized stable group MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT

High-volume of participant interaction SHARED REPERTOIRE
Topic is identifiable profession JOINT ENTERPRISE
Core-periphery structure COMMUNITY
Highly focused discussions LEARNING / IDENTITY ACQUISITION
High-quality institutional documents
Non-conflictive
Figure 9.1 – The VCoP Model
In order to summarise the evidence about the Exempary Traits obtained in Stage III, it
should be recalled that they were operationalised as a set of empirical Filters, shown in
Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 – Stage III operationalisation of Exemplary Traits

Exemplary Traits Stage III Empirical Filters
Mid-sized stable group Filter1: 10 ≤ Returnees ≤ 200
High-volume of participant interaction Filter2: Posts ≥ 300
Highly focused discussions Filter3: PPRatio + %CrossPost ≤ 0.40
Topic is identifiable profession Filter5: Topic an identifiable profession
High-quality institutional documents Filter6: Good or very good institutional documents
Non-conflictive Filter7: No flames (capitalised subject headers)
Core-periphery structure Filter8: good fit of core-periphery model
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
291
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The actual empirical characteristics of participating communities are displayed in Table
9.2. Stage III evidence about the Exemplary Traits is a mixed collection of quantitative
and qualitative indicators obtained from the Netscan search, the institutional document
search and the core-periphery analysis. Although evidence of the Exemplary Traits is
present in all communities, and hence their selection, Stage III results are not uniformly
good, and this will be commented as part of the profile. In addition, given the importance
of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, the core-periphery results of Stage III have been expanded in
Table 9.2 with a numerical estimate of the core-to-core, core-to-periphery and periphery-
to-core messaging activity of each newsgroup. For this particular purpose, a standard
core of size eleven is defined for all communities as the eleven members with highest
coreness scores. Defining a standard core allows comparisons of activity levels which
would not be possible with cores of different sizes, and which result in a more complete
community profile. A size of 11 was chosen as the average of the core sizes defined by
the coreness greater than 0.10 criterion.
The evidence about the Essential Traits is summarised in Table 9.3 which identifies the
sub-constructs detected in each virtual community by the independent application of
the Survey (Sv) and the Content Analysis (CA). Concurring results by both instruments
are considered acceptable evidence for the presence of a sub-construct in a community,
which in turn is construed as evidence of the associated Essential Trait.
Together, Tables 9.2 and 9.3 summarise the evidence obtained by this research. They
will be a point of reference as the profile of each virtual community is built,
commencing in the next section. In addition, complete institutional documents for these
newsgroups are provided in Appendix Q.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
292
Table 9.2 – Empirical manifestations of the Exemplary Traits detected during Stage III
Netscan statistics Institutional documents core-periphery analysis
Newsgroup Identifiable Posting Home core-to- core*-to- periph-
Profession Returnees Posts PPRatio %Cross Charter FAQ guidelines Page Assessment Corr Conc core* periph to-core*
CPLUS programming 172 1718 0.25 0.05 a a a a very good 0.75 0.80 1402 4345 2780
TAXES tax preparation 162 2006 0.24 0.00 a a a very good 0.71 0.84 891 3046 838
PHYSRES theoretical physics 107 963 0.25 0.15 a a a a very good 0.71 0.88 1118 1649 1458
XTRPRG programming 31 493 0.21 0.11 a a good 0.76 0.89 1028 1323 939
MEDTRAN medical transcription 87 5054 0.03 0.00 a a a good 0.94 0.88 12191 10619 9671
COBOL programming 77 1913 0.09 0.01 a a a good 0.86 0.89 5094 2935 2451
VISOBJ programming 163 2093 0.14 0.01 a a good 0.89 0.91 3577 6126 4086
UKAGRI farming 66 2267 0.07 0.06 a a good 0.92 0.86 9853 7678 6643
CRYPT cryptography 129 1798 0.20 0.08 a a very good 0.81 0.86 3771 5309 4387
CIVWAR history 47 439 0.25 0.02 a a a a very good 0.66 0.86 1491 2154 2077
FINPLAN financial planning 42 387 0.31 0.00 a a a a good 0.75 0.93 1058 1036 616
* These values were calculated using a standard-sized core of size 11 for all newsgroups
Table 9.3 – Constructs and Sub-constructs detected by the Survey (Sv) and the Content analysis (CA) in each community
CPLUS TAXES PHYSRES XTRPRG MEDTR COBOL VISOBJ UKAGRI CRYPT CIVWAR FINPLAN
Sub-Constructs
Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA Sv CA
Acquiring new knowledge a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

LEARNING
Improving professional skill a a a a

Identifying with profession a a a a a a a
Collective problem-solving a a a a a a a a a a a a a
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
Debating issues a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Sharing information a a a a a a a a a a a
Sharing knowledge a a a a a a a a a a a
Sharing personal experience a a a a a a a a a a a
Shared criteria a a a a a a a a a a a
Shared practices a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
SHARED REPERTOIRE
Usenet artifacts a a a a a a a
Shared artifacts
Symbolic language a a a a a a a a
Specialised tools a a a a a a a a a a a
Cites a a a a a a a a a a
Jargon a a a a a a a a a a a
Members’ knowledge of each other a a a a a a a a
COMM
Shared sense of professional community a a a a a a a a a a a a a

J.E. Caring for a domain of knowledge
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9.2 – The CPLUS virtual community
Newsgroup comp.lang.c++.moderated, whose discussions focus on the C++
programming language, can be described as exceptionally institutional; it has a nine-
member moderation committee and a detailed moderation policy that brings to mind
the editorial policy of a journal. The newsgroup is run by a stable community of C++
practicioners ENGAGED in discussion of programming problems; most messages contain
fragments of computer code and highly technical language. For instance, requests for
constructive critiques of code are common. Hence, the newsgroup acts as a forum for
collective problem-solving, with moderators filtering out trivial or repetitive problems.
Despite the somewhat intimidating moderation procedure, the Home Page of the
newsgroup proclaims itself open to novices, and appreciative of some of the problems
they bring, as shown in Figure 9.2.
Novice questions welcome...
comp.lang.c++.moderated is a forum where beginning C++

programmers and "C++ veterans" not only co-exist, but also
co-operate. Many contributors have remarked that some of the best
threads started with inoffensive looking novice questions. The group
is however not meant as a tutorial. Posters are still expected to do
their "homework" and learn basic syntax and concepts using more
traditional means (books, magazines, classes, etc.; see also
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++).
(Source: Home Page of CPLUS,

http://www.gotw.com/resources/clcm.htm)
Figure 9.2 – Excerpt from the Home Page of comp.lang.c++.moderated
Discussions in the newsgroup are characterised by an intentionally narrow focus on the
topic of C++, and non-routine C++ at that. Thus, it is not unusual to read a member’s
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
295
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
objection to the moderators having accepted message X, or an unsolicited moderator
annotation explaining why message Y was accepted. Strict enforcement of the
moderation policy results in unusually focused discussions, to the point that several
respondents of the community question of the Survey complained that it felt “cold” and
“impersonal”. A telltale sign of this is that, unlike most virtual communities, a
browsing of messages around Christmas and New Year turns up no evidence of
season’s greetings. On the other hand, all this constitutes evidence of the community’s
focus on its JOINT ENTERPRISE. Nor is camaraderie completely lacking. A respondent of
the open community question with five year tenure in the newsgroup (see Appendix K),
offered a fairly balanced opinion on the community issue, displayed in Figure 9.3
(emphasis added):
Yes [it is a community]. It is a moderated newsgroup, and important

figures in the world of C++ are there (including most members of the
committees, book authors, even the creator of the C++ language
himself!). Humor and jokes/teasing each other is not an uncommon
practice, giving in effect a feeling of community. However, the fact that
topics deviated from the main focus are rejected by the moderators,
makes it lose a bit the sense of community (i.e., the "community" is
about C++, and not about the people that use C++).
Figure 9.3 – A response to the community question from the CPLUS newsgroup
Stage III results for this newsgroup, summarised in Table 9.2, reveal a full range of
institutional documents assessed as very good. The Home Page, with links to available
institutional documents, lists many community resources. For instance, the archive of
the “Guru of the Week” threads, a regular series of C++ problems written by one of the
moderators and posted on the newsgroup, along with solutions and in-depth collective
discussion. In addition, there is a good fit of the core-periphery model, with a
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
296
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
correlation of 0.75 and a concentration of 0.80. Members of the (standard-sized) core
sent a 52-week total of 1402 messages to core members, and 4345 to peripheral
members. Hence, they generated an average of 43.5 monthly messages per member,
24% of which were sent to core members. Core members can thus be characterised as
moderately active, with most of their messaging activity directed to the periphery.
The CPLUS community had strong results in Stages IV and V, as shown in Table 9.3.
Specifically, the Survey detected all five of Wenger’s theoretical constructs: LEARNING,
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, SHARED REPERTOIRE, COMMUNITY and JOINT ENTERPRISE. The
open question indicated the presence of COMMUNITY, with 75% of respondents
agreeing there is one, despite complaints that it seemed a cold and narrow-minded
community. In addition, respondent explanations to the community question yielded
evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE, with the highest number of instances (10) of any
newsgroup. The results of the Content Analysis were similarly good; with evidence
found for all five of Wenger’s constructs.
In sum, the CPLUS community displays complete affinity to the VCoP model, since the
presence of all Essential Traits is confirmed by the concurring results of the Survey and the
Content Analysis, and the presence of all Exemplary Traits was a condition for inclusion in
the study. Thus CPLUS can be classified as an Exemplary Usenet-based CoP. It must be
said that it is not a very active or cohesive community, as indicated by the low volume of
messages exchanged by core members. However, it is truly outstanding on the Essential
Traits of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT (through collective problem-solving), SHARED
REPERTOIRE (e.g. the “Guru of the Week” threads, or the formal moderation policy) and
JOINT ENTERPRISE (through very strong focus on their chosen domain).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
297
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9.3 – The TAXES virtual community
The charter of misc.taxes.moderated, or MTM as it is known by the regulars, is
periodically posted in the newsgroup, and clearly states its domain (Figure 9.4).
Misc.taxes.moderated is for the discussion of taxes, including, but not limited

to, proposed and existing tax laws, regulations and procedures, among
professional tax practitioners and other interested persons, and for answering
queries concerning taxes.
Figure 9.4 – Charter of misc.taxes.moderated
The newsgroup is the meeting place of a virtual community of USA-based tax
practitioners whose online discussions consistently maintain a professional and civil
tone quite different from the conflict that characterises many other Usenet newsgroups.
The posting guidelines, which the moderator sternly enforces, explicitly forbid
[…] submissions not consistent with a well-tempered, professional discussion,
e.g., personal attacks, sarcastic remarks, angry tone, or anything else with
which the Moderator takes exception (From the message How to Post to
misc.taxes.moderated, posted 06 Jun 2002 19:56:01 GMT).
Over the years, the newsgroup has successfully maintained a high-quality discussion of
real world issues and problems, thus remaining a valuable knowledge resource for its
members and for the large number of visitors it constantly receives. The post displayed
in Figure 9.5 illustrates this. The author is a tax expert himself, and a core member of
the newsgroup, so this would count as an informed judgement.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
298
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Steve
Newsgroups: misc.taxes.moderated
Subject: Kudos
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 08:28:30 -0000
This (Saturday) mornings posts to mtm included no fewer than

five examples of why I read this Usenet group all the time.
Posts by Stanley Evans and Michael Wilson providing

information sources on timber taxation, Bill Ferraro and
Michael Wilson with information about Rev Rul 2001-57 and
IRC Section 121, and James Dolan’s link to a Washington
Post news article are all directly relevant to material I
cover with my students in class.
Those four gentlemen and about 8 to 10 other regular posters

make this group a priceless resource for me in doing my job.
Thank you all.
Regards,
Steve
~~~~
Associate Professor of Accounting
Claremont College
Department of Accounting, Economics & Finance
Opinions expressed by me are mine, not my employer's. -- But I'll bet
they agree with this one. :)
Figure 9.5 – A thank-you note from a member of the TAXES VCoP
Members attribute the continued success of the newsgroup to the work of the Moderator,
who gets frequent mentions in posts. In addition, members seem to genuinely like each
other, with public thanks and pleasantries quite common. Members make (and the
moderator allows) occasional comments about their families. They also post season’s
greetings around Christmas and New Year. There are frequent mentions of private e-
mail exchanges, indicating not all communication takes place through the newsgroup.
The charter focuses on US-taxes, and all regular participants are based in the US. Still,
they are a geographically distributed group, with many members stating on their
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
299
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
signature the states where they are licensed to practice. For some, who live and work in
small towns, with little professional company, the newsgroup provides a powerful
support network of knowledgeable peers (Thomsen, 1996; Wasko and Teigland, 2002).
There are between 12-15 heavy posters who carry the weight of discussions in the
group, plus another 20-25 regular participants. In addition, there is a large and constant
inflow of visitors, which increases during the tax season, from January to April. Hence,
newsgroup activity is markedly seasonal.
Tax preparers must have a state license to file taxes for clients, and there are several
professional qualifications that permit this: Enrolled Agent (EA), Certified Public
Accountant (CPA), Attorneys, Enrolled Actuaries, etc. There are official examinations
organised every year by the IRS that preparers can take as professional qualifications.
Discussion in the newsgroup portrays them as fairly difficult exams, even for people
with tax experience. There are even commercial software packages to help candidates
prepare the exams. Most members of TAXES are either CPA’s or EA’s or both. There
are also a few attorneys, although they handle mostly inheritances and estates.
In addition to their license, tax preparers adhere to clear standards of professional
ethics, and ethical questions are frequently discussed in TAXES. For instance, though
members of the group will vigorously defend a client’s position in a tax dispute with
the IRS, they in no way condone tax evasion, and the moderator rejects questions with
this obvious intent.
Stage III results (see Table 9.2) revealed very good institutional documents, only
lacking a FAQ. There is a good fit of the core-periphery model, with correlation 0.71
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
300
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
and concentraion 0.84. Members of the core authored 3,937 messages in the one-year
sample, an average of 30 monthly messages per member, 23% of which were sent to
the core. Thus, the core can be characterised as moderately active, with most activity
directed outwards.
The results of Stages IV and V were strong, as shown in Table 9.3. The Survey found
evidence for all of Wenger’s constructs. The open question confirmed the presence of
COMMUNITY, with 71% of respondents agreeing there is one. In addition, respondent
comments provided evidence of both COMMUNITY and JOINT ENTERPRISE. The Content
Analysis of threads also detected all of Wenger’s constructs. The only observation is
that Table 9.3 shows Survey evidence for the COMMUNITY construct is from the
‘Shared sense of professional community’ sub-construct, while evidence from the
Content Analysis is from the ‘Members’ knowledge of each other construct’. In other
words, the presence of each of these sub-constructs is not confirmed by both methods.
Still, four distinct respondents of the open question provided evidence of ‘Member’s
knowledge of each other’, so that there is sufficient evidence of this sub-construct from
the Survey to consider the two-method rule has been satisfied.
The TAXES community is thus assessed as having full affinity with the VCoP model,
and is classified as an Exemplary Usenet-based CoP. It is not a very active community,
as indicated by the density of the inner core (although the tax season makes this
newsgroup very seasonal). However, it excels at JOINT ENTERPRISE, by maintaining a
focused and well-tempered professional discussion, and it is also outstanding in the
COMMUNITY trait, since regular members seem to genuinely like and respect each
other, and even when they disagree they take pains to be considerate in their messages.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
301
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9.4 – The PHYSRES virtual community
PHYSRES is a moderated newsgroup focused on discussion of theoretical physics. It
has moderate traffic and maintains a strong focus thanks to an active moderation
committee. The Home Page of the newsgroup offers the introduction displayed in
Figure 9.6.
Sci.physics.research is a newsgroup intended to facilitate relatively

noise-free discussions of issues in and about physics. It grew out of
the unmoderated group sci.physics in February 1993 as a response to
a perceived signal-to-noise-ratio problem in the unmoderated group,
which, it was claimed, had diminished the value of that group to the
working physicist (among others). Matt Austern of LBL recognized
the problem, argued that a moderated group would be an appropriate
outgrowth of sci.physics, and conducted the voting for the new group.
Figure 9.6 – Excerpt from the Home Page of sci.physics.research
The newsgroup exhibits certain regularly posted messages which convey the
impression of a specialised professional community. Among them, job offerings,
expressly sanctioned in the moderation policy, and a weekly review of mathematical
physics written by Moderator, and which, at the time of the Survey, was into Week
197. Also frequent are messages providing in-depth commentary of recent articles or
books. One respondent to the open community question (see Appendix K), who
reported over twelve years tenure in the newsgroup, and an earlier career as a physics
researcher, offered the description displayed in Figure 9.7.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
302
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
For regular contributors, yes it does seem to be a community: - The

members know each other, reflected in understanding personal
styles and unstated implications of questions, and in redirection of
questions to the most relevant expert or invitations to them to join
particular discussions - The amount of time and effort required for
regular participation can only be sustained by people who feel they
gain significant personal rewards from belonging. (Professional
standing in the larger physics research community is not very
strongly affected by newsgroup participation.)
Figure 9.7 – A response to the community question from the PHYSRES newsgroup
Discussions are conducted in very specialised technical language and mathematical
formulae, which probably act as an effective barrier to entry and contribute to maintain
newsgroup focus. The newsgroup seems to cater mainly to professional scientists
although it also gets posts from amateurs with an interest in theoretical physics. For
instance, a frequent poster here –actually a core member– happens to be the top poster
at newsgroup UKAGRI, yet is by profession a farmer, not a physicist.
The results of Stage III were somewhat mixed. The newsgroup has a full range of
institutional documents assessed as very good. In addition, the newsgroup has a page
where the historical archive can be searched, browsed or downloaded in its entirety.
Core-periphery model fit is good, with a correlation of 0.71 and a concentration of
0.88. The core generated 2767 messages during the sample period, for an average of 21
monthly messages per member, of which, 40% were addressed to core members. The
core’s activity is low, but more inwardly focused than the previous communities.
Stages IV and V yielded strong results, as summarised in Table 9.3. The Survey found
evidence for all five of Wenger’s constructs. The open question confirms the presence
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
303
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
of COMMUNITY, with 61% of respondents voting Yes. In addition, the content analysis
of explanations detected evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE. It is somewhat surprising that
‘Collective problem-solving’ was not statistically significant, given the fact that even a
casual browse through the newsgroup will turn up numerous exchanges of
mathematical equations and highly technical discussions. Possibly the physics
practitioner does not perceive these as “problems” as a layman certainly would.
However, ‘Debating domain-related issues’ was highly significant thus yielding
evidence of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT. For its part, the Content Analysis of threads also
found evidence of all five Wenger constructs. As in the TAXES community, Survey
evidence for the COMMUNITY construct is from the ‘Shared sense of professional
community’ sub-construct, while evidence from the Content Analysis is from the
‘Members’ knowledge of each other’ sub-construct. Still, five distinct respondents of
the open question considered the newsgroup was a community because its regular
members knew each other. Thus, there is sufficient evidence of this sub-construct from
the Survey to triangulate with the Content Analysis results and accept the presence of
the COMMUNITY construct.
In sum, PHYSRES displays complete affinity to the VCoP model, and is assessed an
Exemplary Usenet-based CoP. It is not a very active or cohesive community, as
indicated by the low volume of messages exchanged by inner core members. On the
other hand, the messages are highly complex, and certainly take a long time to craft (a
closer look is given in Chapter Eleven). PHYSRES particularly excels in SHARED
REPERTOIRE (e.g. the searchable archives, or the use of complex symbolic language)
and JOINT ENTERPRISE (through strong specialist focus on theoretical Physics).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
304
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9.5 – The XTRPRG virtual community
Newsgroup XTRPRG is an online community focused on discussion of a particular
programming technique called Extreme Programming. The FAQ provides the
explanation shown in Figure 9.8.
What is Extreme Programming? Does it involve bungee cords?
Extreme Programming (or XP) is a set of values, principles and practices

for rapidly developing high-quality software that provides the highest
value for the customer in the fastest way possible. XP is extreme in the
sense that it takes 12 well-known software development "best practices"
to their logical extremes – turning them all up to "10" (or "11" for Spinal
Tap fans). See Kent Beck's introduction to Extreme Programming
Explained for more details.
Figure 9.8 – Extract from the FAQ of the XTRPRG VCoP
Even a quick browse through discussions reveals XP is controversial among software
developers. Many threads are debates about the feasibility of the method or the
practices it comprises. The advocates are very knowledgeable and experienced, and
usually answer with convincing arguments. In fact, they don’t mind calling themselves
zealots or ‘extremos’. However, there are detractors too: three of the twelve core
members of the newsgroup are critics of XP. Thus it can be described as a divided
community, and some respondents to the community question of the Survey called it
that. One of them provided the opinion displayed in Figure 9.9. Still, despite the
controversy, newsgroup threads gave no visible signs of personal conflict or abuse. Nor
were there off-topic posts or spam in evidence, even though the newsgroup is not
moderated.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
305
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Yes and no. comp.software.extreme-programming is a group formed around

the ''extreme programming'' movement, but it contains both supporters and
detractors -- I'm mostly in the latter camp. So, there is a community there, but
I'm not exactly in it.
Figure 9.9 – A response to the community question from the XTRPRG newsgroup
Most members of this community are professional programmers. There are frequent
posts of links to professional articles which get in-depth commentary in the newsgroup,
and often spark fresh debates. Also frequent are real-world experiences and cases,
posted to ask for advice, or to discuss what went wrong in a particular situation.
The results of Stage III were somewhat weak. With respect to institutional documents,
there are two un-official Home Pages, and there is also a FAQ. Core-periphery model
fit is good, with correlation 0.76 and concentration 0.89. Core members sent 2,351
messages during the 52-week observation period, an average of 18 monthly messages
per member, of which 44% were sent to the core. Thus, the core’s activity level is low,
with a near balance of core and periphery-addressed messages.
Results of Stages IV and V were stronger. The Survey detected four Wenger constructs:
LEARNING, SHARED REPERTOIRE, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and JOINT ENTERPRISE. The open
question yielded some evidence of COMMUNITY, with 51% of respondents voting Yes. In
addition, the content analysis of respondent explanations found evidence of JOINT
ENTERPRISE. Tellingly, one respondent to the community question stated that though he
considers there is a community, the newsgroup is not its organising principle. With regard
to the Content Analysis of threads, evidence was found for all five of Wenger’s constructs.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
306
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The overall assessment is that XTRPRG is highly focused on its topic, more so than
other unmoderated newsgroups. Most members are strong advocates of XP and will
reply to criticism of the methodology, evincing ‘Caring for a domain of knowledge’,
which is shared, in their own way, by the critics. The fact that the community is an
explicit forum for sharing real-world experiences and best practices, argues in favour of
the CoP characterisation. The only thing lacking for complete affinity to the VCoP
model is Survey evidence of COMMUNITY. However, taking into account the fact that
the open community question did provide evidence about both COMMUNITY and JOINT
ENTERPRISE, and in light of the otherwise favourable profile exhibited by this
community, it will be assessed as an Exemplary Usenet-based CoP.
9.6 – The MEDTRAN virtual community
MEDTRAN is a very high-volume newsgroup with a majority of female posters.
Medical Transcriptionists (or MT’s) type up voice-recorded medical records using
word-processing software such as MS Word or WordPerfect. Recordings were formerly
made on tape, but nowadays have become computer sound files, which can be attached
to e-mail messages. MT’s usually work part-time from their home, and charge by line
of output. This flexibility explains why many MT’s in the US are mothers of young
children. It also explains current anxiety within the newsgroup about wage competition
from cheap off-shore transcriptionists, mostly from India.
The charter of the newsgroup is displayed in Figure 9.10.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
307
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Charter
This would be an unmoderated newsgroup providing a forum

for the discussion of all aspects of the profession of medical
transcription. These discussions would include, but are not be
limited to:
- The spelling and defining of medical terminology

- Introduction of new medical terminology to MT's
- Discussions about specialized equipment MT's use
- Discussions on continuing professional training
- Guidance for new MT's just entering the profession
- Discussions on software and hardware used by MT's
- Spreading the word about job opportunities
- General social interaction
Figure 9.10 – Charter of sci.med.transcription
The MEDTRAN community is a valuable resource for members as it is a quick way of
getting help on problems ranging from the spelling of a medical term to the
configuration of a voice-recognition software programme. However, most discussions
are light chat, rather than professional topics. The regulars clearly use the newsgroup
for companionship and as a relief from the boredom caused by their mostly isolated
work. One of the respondents to the open community question, with five years of
tenure in the newsgroup, offered the description displayed in Figure 9.11.
Sci.med.transcription is an online community. Whether for professional

help or personal problems, many members are available for advice, kind
words and prayers when needed or requested. As most members are
telecommuters, which can mean significant isolation from others, this
newsgroup provides for much-needed social interaction and professional
advice, to combat isolation and burn out.
Figure 9.11 – A response to the community question from the MEDTRAN VCoP
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
308
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The regulars help each other out, not just with information, but also covering for each
other when someone is sick or has had a problem with their hardware. Being
experienced and having known each other for some time, they can easily enter or leave
sub-contracting arrangements when work is plentiful.
A review of newsgroup threads reveals the regulars have met off-line; specifically, they
attended a meeting in Las Vegas that they spent much time preparing (as shown by
newsgroup threads). Afterwards, they spent several weeks commenting on the
conversations they had and the pictures they took. The regulars have also had vicious
online fights, one of them resulted in the highest-coreness member leaving the group
for nearly two months.
The results of Stage III were fairly good. The newsgroup has good institutional
documents, only lacking its own Home Page, although there are various Web pages
focused on medical transcription, and providing a variety of resources. The core-
periphery model had an excellent fit, with a correlation of 0.94 which was the best
observed among all finalist newsgroups. The core generated 22,810 messages, the most
active among participating communities. It translates to an average of 173 monthly
messages per member, 53% of which were addressed to core members. Hence, the
community core displays very high activity with a near-balance between core and
periphery-addressed messages.
Stage IV and V results were not as good. Survey scales detected four of Wenger’s
constructs: LEARNING, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, SHARED REPERTOIRE and COMMUNITY.
The open question strongly confirmed the presence of COMMUNITY, with 86% of
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
309
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
respondents voting Yes. However, no evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE was found in
respondent explanations, which is somewhat surprising given the specialised professional
orientation of the newsgroup. The Content Analysis of threads detected the same four
Essential Traits, and again failed to detect any evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE.
The overall assessment cannot overlook the lack of evidence, by both Survey and
Content Analysis, of the Essential Trait of JOINT ENTERPRISE. Therefore, the
community cannot be classified as a CoP, at least under the definition adopted by this
study. With all other indicators right, one possible explanation could be that the
ENTERPRISE of MEDTRAN has less to do with advancing the practice of medical
transcription, as with having a tolerable time at work by enjoying the conversation and
support of other online transcriptionists. This explanation is consistent with the many
off-topic messages casually posted by core-members, and the relative lack of focus on
the topic of medical transcription per se. It also brings to mind one aspect Wenger
documented in his ethnography of claims processors; the fact that because their
profession did not carry with it a high status, they maintained a certain detachment
from it; being too interested in the profession was not acceptable conduct in their
community (Wenger, 1998).
9.7 – The COBOL virtual community
Members of this community are mostly mature programmers who have been involved
with the COBOL language all their careers. This is a sensitive issue for some, since
COBOL is regarded by younger programmers as a hopelessly outdated computer
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
310
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
language. However, since many legacy systems built around mainframe machines are
still using it, there is a market for COBOL-related services, even if it doesn’t carry a
great deal of prestige. Younger programmers will often choose to rewrite a complex
system from scratch, using a modern structured language like C, rather than adjust an
operational COBOL programme, which they disdainfully refer to as “spaghetti code”.
Much time in the newsgroup is spent arguing with one particular member who seems to
irritate many others with his comments; several have repeatedly asked him to stop. A
substantial number of threads pick up on earlier threads, which means debates are
replayed endlessly. There is criticism bordering on personal abuse, although no
capitalised subject headers were detected. Many threads are about this person (his name
appears in the Subject), i.e. negative comments upon his knowledge, opinions, etc. On
the other hand, his insider status is undeniable; other members may dislike him but he
is the top poster, and has the highest coreness score.
The newsgroup is unmoderated but one core member has taken upon himself to
maintain the FAQ and act as a sort of unofficial moderator. Still, the newsgroup gets
considerable amounts of spam (e.g. Nigerian scams) and off-topic posts, usually
identified by the prefix OT at the beginning of the Subject line. This is easy to see by
browsing the group, and was confirmed by an e-mail from a Survey participant. The
amount of spam, off-topic messages, and personal arguments make COBOL a rather
unfocused group. The message shown in Figure 9.12 is telling in this respect. The
author is the same core member who acts as the unofficial moderator (his name has
been disguised).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
311
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Walther
Newsgroups: comp.lang.cobol
Subject: OT - CLC (primarily???) a chat room?
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:41:22 -0500
Just a personal observation/comment.
It seems to me that recently CLC (comp.lang.cobol) has turned into a "chat

room" where the MAJORITY of posts have little if anything to do with COBOL
or data processing. As someone who is "house-bound" and does NOT have a lot
of interaction with people on a "social level" - this seems (or seemed) fine
to me.
ON THE OTHER HAND, imagine that you are someone "new" to CLC (and/or
new to COBOL) and you look at our newsgroup for the first time. Does it seem
like a "serious" place for COBOL issues? How easy is it to "plod" thru all the
posts to see what information is available in this newsgroup.
I am WELL aware of the desire to respond "just one more time" when someone
seems to have missed your point - or misrepresented your views. However, I
would like to suggest that everyone think about how the newsgroup "as a whole"
looks to those interested in COBOL - whenever posting a reply to a
(lengthy?) OT thread.
--
Walther
Figure 9.12 – A message from a core member of comp.lang.cobol
Stage III found good institutional documents, only lacking a Home Page. Core-periphery
model fit was good, with correlation 0.86 and concentration 0.89. Messages by core
members comprise 8,029 messages in the one-year sample, for a monthly average of 61
messages per member. Of these, 63% were addressed to core members. Thus, the core
displays high activity characterised by being mostly inward-looking.
On the other hand, Stages IV and V had weaker results. The Survey found evidence of
three Wenger constructs: LEARNING, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and COMMUNITY. The
open question confirmed the presence of COMMUNITY, with 67% of respondents voting
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
312
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Yes, but no evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE from the content analysis of explanations.
The Content Analysis of threads detected just three constructs, SHARED REPERTOIRE,
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and JOINT ENTERPRISE.
Stage VI results are therefore quite poor: the only Essential Trait whose presence is
confirmed by both methods is MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT. Thus affinity to the VCoP model
is poor, and the community cannot be classified as a virtual CoP. Further discrepancy
from the VCoP model is given by the group’s lack of focus, and the unending and
acrimonious arguments among core members.
9.8 – The VISOBJ virtual community
VISOBJ is an online community of independent software developers who use a tool
known as Visual Objects (VO), initially developed by Computer Associates, and
currently commercialised by a company called GrafXSoft. Members of the
newsgroup refer to each other as a community, and frequently meet personally in
developer conferences. Most are longtime users of Visual Objects, having developed
their own commercial applications in this language, and eagerly follow the
development and launch of new versions by GrafXSoft. The company president
closely monitors the newsgroup; news about the product, progress reports about new
versions, etc. are frequently posted. One such (abridged) message is shown in Figure
9.13 (Brian –his true name– is the President of GrafXSoft, other names are
disguised).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
313
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Brian
Newsgroups: comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
Subject: VO 2.7 Progress Report
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:06:49 -0500
Hello Fellow VO'ers
A few weeks ago, Vlad Peters, and others suggested that I post a progress
report on how things are coming along on 2.7. At first, I resisted this
idea, because there is always a flurry of questions/concerns, and what was a
day, turns into a week of not working on VO 2.7. However, the more I
thought about it the more it makes sense. So please do not be offend if I do
not respond to your post. I do come out on the forum on a regular basis, and
read most of the messages.
In General,
Work is going very well. As many of you know, we have added Neil Gould and
Phil Jordan to the development team. Kurt Ullman has also come on
board as of this month. We're very pleased with the level of work that is
going on with VO 2.7 All of the SDK & New Repo has been completely updated
so that it compiles on the highest warnings level. This work is already
complete. Testing of this work is now beginning.
In my opinion, one of the problems with VO, has always been that the SDK
never matched the code that we were running in the "Write Protected
Repository". This is really something that is unlike other development
products, that allow you to easily edit support libs (Like in C++) We are
working to archive this goal in 2.7. as an optional Repo.
[…]
About the release of VO 2.7
No official release date has been set. However, at our present rate of
progression, we expect to target summer of 2003. In April, or May, we will
set up a pre-order page. One important note, is that we do not have a
contractual date, as we did with 2.6, so we have a little better control of
what goes out the door when. I really have no desire to release 2.7 before
it is ready.
I want you all to know how important the success of 2.7 is to GrafX. We have
pride of ownership at stake. We know how important this release is to you.
I want you all to know that I have not only a personal commitment, but a
good size financial commitment to VO as well. I'm committed to make the
Visual Objects Project work.
We look forward to meeting those of you who will be attending the London
Devfest Feb 27, to March 2 to show your our considerable progress on 2.7
Brian
GrafX Software Development Tools Inc.
http://www.grafxsoft.com
Figure 9.13 – A message from comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
314
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The newsgroup has a fairly obvious troll, who often posts innacurate advice and
negative comments about VO. Core members have repeatedly asked him to stop. One
of them offered to meet with him, but was rebuffed. They have even asked his Internet
Service Provider to suspend his service, but to no avail. In the end they have mostly
killfiled him and do not reply to his posts any more.
In addition, the newsgroup gets substantial amounts of spam and off-topic messages,
and both regular members and visitors have complained about it. However, the regulars
themselves sometimes participate in long off-topic political discussions, for instance
during the 2004 Iraq conflict. This comparative lack of focus is easy to perceive by
browsing newsgroup threads.
Stage III found a Charter and a FAQ which were assessed as good. The core-
periphery model had a very good fit, with correlation 0.89 and concentration 0.91.
The core generated 9,703 messages during the sample period, for an average of 74
monthly messages per member, 37% of which were sent to core members. The core’s
activity level is thus high, with a majority of messages addressed to periphery
members.
Results in Stages IV and V were mixed. The Survey indicated the presence of all
Wenger constructs. The open community question also indicated the presence of
COMMUNITY, with 71% of respondents agreeing there was one. In addition, the content
analysis of respondent explanations found evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE. Respondents
also noted regular members of the newsgroup have known each other for a long time,
and are in contact through private e-mail and through developer conferences. By
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
315
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
contrast, Content Analysis results are weaker; only LEARNING, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
and SHARED REPERTOIRE were detected.
The conclusion of Stage VI is therefore that only the three Essential Traits detected by
the Content Analysis are concurrently confirmed by the Survey. The community is
missing the COMMUNITY and JOINT ENTERPRISE constructs. Moreover, in terms of
affinity to the VCoP model, the community presents some problems. It appears to be
somewhat unfocused due to off-topic messages. In addition, the lack of better
institutional documents seems to signal a certain lack of commitment on the part of
core members (the FAQ, for instance, was compiled by a non-core participant and has
not been updated). The evidence suggests the regulars have a strong real-world
community, and they do not depend on the newsgroup to maintain contact. Affinity to
the VCoP model is thus insufficient to assess this community as a virtual CoP.
9.9 – The UKAGRI virtual community
Although the charter describes uk.business.agriculture as a newsgroup “for the
discussion of and exchange of information within the agricultural industry in the U.K.”,
the excerpt from the FAQ displayed in Figure 9.14 openly acknowledges discussions
are somewhat unfocused.
Most, but not all members of UKAGRI are farmers based in England. Many have met
over the years, and sometimes agree during discussions to see each other at a livestock
fair or other trade event. The group is similar to MEDTRAN in that members usually
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
316
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
It all seems a bit confusing - is it really?
Yes. Horrendously. Discussions rarely stay with the subject line for long, and,
as you'd expect with a group of friends talking in a pub, things often descend
into friendly banter between topics.
The purposes of the newsgroup can be neatly compressed to:
i) Somewhere to talk about agriculture in the uk

ii) Somewhere to talk
iii) Somewhere.
Don't worry if it seems confusing, you'll get the hang of it.
Figure 9.14 – An excerpt from the FAQ of uk.business.agriculture
work in isolation and use the Internet to stay in touch with knowledgeable peers
(Thomsen, 1996; Wasko and Teigland, 2002). As in MEDTRAN, all sorts of topics are
discussed in addition to the main newsgroup topic. It gets a considerable number of
controversial posts from environmental and animal rights activists, and some abusive
posts from trolls, which sometimes leads to vicious flame wars, although core members
seem to get along well. A respondent to the open community question (see Appendix
K) volunteered the rather lengthy profile displayed in Figure 9.15.
Stage III results were mixed. The newsgroup only has a FAQ and a Charter, which
were assessed good. The core-periphery model had an excellent fit, with a correlation
of 0.92 and concentration of 0.86. Members of the core authored 17,531 messages
during the one-year observation period, an average of 133 monthly messages per
member, 56% of which were addressed to core members. Hence, core members have a
very high activity level, dividing their messages about equally between core and
periphery core members.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
317
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Insofar as the regular members are concerned. Not all of them are employed in
agriculture, but most people have an interest in it, even those people who try to
disrupt the group (such as animal rights, and vegan folk) There is an amazing
breadth of interest and competence within the regular subscribers, from those
who fully understand Einstein's relativity theorems, through a retired police
officer, ornitholigists, a retired shipping agent, political history.... the list is
pretty-well all embracing. As such, the group has very much a village feel
about it, with comments appearing such as '' That's a question for Mark Klein !'',
and everyone knowing why he is competent to answer that question. Yes, it is
very much a community where most people go by their real names, and in many
cases are actually physically known to each other. I , for example know
personally four of the group members, and have standing invitations with
another ten or so who I have never set ey [ end of capture field ]
Figure 9.15 – A response to the community question from the UKAGRI newsgroup
Results were also mixed for Stages IV and V. Survey validated scales found evidence
of three Wenger constructs: LEARNING, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and COMMUNITY. The
open question provided strong confirmation of COMMUNITY, with 82% of respondents
answering there is one. However, respondent explanations did not yield evidence of
JOINT ENTERPRISE. The Content Analysis of threads detected four constructs,
LEARNING, SHARED REPERTOIRE, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and COMMUNITY.
In sum, the assessed affinity of UKAGRI to the VCoP model falls short, because only
LEARNING, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and COMMUNITY are confirmed by concurring
results from both methods. In addition, the community exhibits lack of focus because of
trolls, spam and flames. Like MEDTRAN, UKAGRI is more like a virtual community
of friends or a professional support group, but the evidence found by this study does
not support assessment as a CoP.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
318
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9.10 – The CRYPT virtual community
Cryptography is a popular topic in the privacy-conscious Internet, and newsgroup
CRYPT gets a considerable volume of traffic. It has a long history in Usenet and is one
of the most active newsgroups of all time. However, many messages are spam, hoaxes
and off-topic posts. One respondent to the open community question (see Appendix K)
gave the opinion shown in Figure 9.16.
There is a core of very good people in that read the newsgroup, they are seen at
most conferences and apear in the field via publications and at conferences.
There are also quite a few clueless people who help keep the noise quite high,
but the good people make the group worth reading. There is a comunity of good
people who recognise each others skills, but there are also quite a few on the
group who do not, they could be described as 'watabees'. I also participate in
another newsgroup, comp.arch, and it is far more of a community than sci.crypt.
There are some briliant people and there is a very high signal to noise ration,
while sci.crypt sometimes tends towards noise.
Figure 9.16 – A response to the community question from the CRYPT newsgroup
Like COBOL, this newsgroup has a member who is the top poster, has the highest
coreness score, but is widely regarded as a troll by the other regulars. They accuse him
of giving bad advice to newbies, which the regulars try to rectify. He often gets into
incredibly long threads with other regulars (one of them reaching 850 messages).
Stage III found a FAQ and Posting guidelines which were assessed as good. The core-
periphery model had good fit, with correlation 0.81 and concentration 0.86. The core
generated 9,080 messages during the sample period, for an average of 69 monthly
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
319
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
messages per member, of which 42% were addressed to core members. The core thus
displays high activity, with a majority of messages addressed to peripheral members.
Results of Stages IV and V were mixed. Survey results found evidence of three
constructs: LEARNING, SHARED REPERTOIRE and COMMUNITY. The open question
confirmed the presence of COMMUNITY, with 73% of respondents voting Yes.
However, the content analysis of respondent explanations did not find evidence of
JOINT ENTERPRISE. The Content Analysis of threads fared better, finding evidence for
all five Wenger constructs.
The Stage VI assessment is that only the Essential Traits of LEARNING, COMMUNITY
and SHARED REPERTOIRE are present. Moreover, the community displays a serious loss
of domain focus caused by continuous personal arguments and spam. Thus, the affinity
of CRYPT to the VCoP model is weak, and it must be rejected as a virtual CoP.
9.11 – The CIVWAR virtual community
The topic of the U.S. Civil War, focus of the CIVWAR community, constitutes the closest
thing to a hobby among the eleven domains selected in Stage III. It was not included in the
sample without some hesitation, but institutional documents were excellent, the newsgroup
was moderated, and discussions appeared so knowledgeable as to achieve the professional
standard required by the VCoP model. However, the characterisation of CIVWAR as a
professional community would later be challenged by two Survey respondents, who sent to
the researcher the comments displayed in Figure 9.17.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
320
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I've answered your poll; however, calling SHWUSC* a professional community

is a gross mislabelling. I myself am only a history hobbyist, not a
professional academic; likewise, most of the readers and posters are
amateurs in the field who merely enjoy learning about, and talking about,
the American Civil War.
Respondent A
------
You'll also have to define "professional." I'm a professional (Ph.D.)

historian. There are only one or maybe two others on the group. The
remainder are amateurs.
[…]
Some of the amateurs on shwucw* are more knowledgeable about the Civil
War than I ever will be. But, there is a great deal of passion in place
of knowledge as well.
Respondent B
* SHWUSC and shwucw are acronoyms for soc.history.war.us-civil-war
Figure 9.17 – Two e-mail comments to the Survey from the CIVWAR newsgroup
A casual browse through newsgroup threads confirms this is a controversial topic,
which knowledgeable people will debate endlessly without budging their position.
Despite the efforts of an active five-member moderation committee, arguments in the
group sometimes become heated and personal as evinced by the Moderators’ warning
displayed in Figure 9.18.
The results of Stage III were mixed. The newsgroup exhibited the full range of
institutional documents rated as very good. However, core-periphery model fit was
only fair, with correlation 0.66 and concentration 0.86. The core produced 3,645
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
321
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
messages during the sample period (18 months for this newsgroup), for an average of
18 monthly messages per member, of which, 41% were addressed to core members.
The core thus exhibits low activity, mostly directed outwards. As in the PHYSRES
community, messages tended to be rather long, and obviously took some time to
compose.
From: Dave
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.us-civil-war
Subject: From the Moderators: Southern Honor
Date: 11 Aug 2003 13:50:01 GMT
To all participants in this newsgroup:
The moderators have become quite concerned over the thread titled
"Southern Honor" for several reasons.
Much of the discussion has drifted off-topic, concerning the Founding

Fathers and their relationship to slavery, as well as reasons for
fighting the American Revolution. As long as this dicussion is tied back
to the Civil War directly in a post, further discussion will be allowed.
Personality conflicts are running rampant, and must cease. If a

poster's position on a subject aggravates you, prove that poster wrong
- don't insult them. In this thread, or any future splinter threads,
personal comments about a poster will not be tolerated - with or
without appropriate smiley faces ... :-)
Posts mimicking the original wording of a poster will not be tolerated.
Finally, all posts in this thread *must* contribute to the discussion,

or will be rejected.
Lest anyone be concerned that the moderators are rejecting posts

solely from one "side" or the other, rest assured we have been equal
opportunity rejectors of late.
Play nice, argue sensibly, and this thread can continue.
Thanks,
Dave (for the moderators)
Figure 9.18 – A warning from the moderators of soc.history.war.us-civil-war
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
322
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Results of Stages IV and V were similary mixed. Survey results were very weak; the
only sub-construct found by the validated scales was ‘Acquiring new knowledge’, thus
yielding evidence of LEARNING. Evidence of COMMUNITY from the open question was
also weak, with just 38% of respondents voting yes. Respondent explanations did
provide evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE. By contrast, the results of the Content Analysis
were strong, with all five Wenger constructs detected.
The Stage VI assessment is that CIVWAR affinity to the VCoP model is poor. The
only construct whose presence is confirmed by both methods is LEARNING. Thus the
community cannot be assessed as a CoP. Despite CIVWAR’s strong topical focus, it is
even more divided than the previously reviewed XTRPRG. Critics there had much in
common with advocates, whereas in CIVWAR, core members on either “side” of the
debate assume fundamentally opposite positions, and shift very little, if at all. Thus the
community is more akin to a political debate club.
9.12 – The FINPLAN virtual community
FINPLAN is a low-volume moderated newsgroup focused on the topic of personal
financial planning. Five major topics are covered: Taxes, Saving and Investing,
Insurance, Retirement, and Estates. The newsgroup is characterised mostly by short
threads, which would indicate most questions are relatively simple requests for
information or quick advice for managing average incomes. Visitors who pose more
complex problems, or have larger incomes, are usually advised to seek professional
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
323
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
counsel, with a specific kind of expertise recommended and even a range of acceptable
fees suggested.
Newsgroup focus is strong. There is little conflict as the moderators (a team of two) do
not accept posts with ad hominem arguments or abuse. The volume of messages is
relatively low, but the moderators work hard to keep the newsgroup going, as implied
by the message shown in Figure 9.19.
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:14:58 CST

From: Moderators
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Posting Guidelines
Occasionally we are asked why certain guidelines exist. Most recently

the subject involved our request that signature lines not exceed three
lines.
First, a "signature line" is the material that a news reader

automatically attaches to each post - usually it is simply a name.
Sometimes we see a location, web site, favorite saying, artwork, etc.
Remember that the moderator must review everything. Where there's a

web site, we must first check it for viruses, then check it for
appropriateness. And we do this every time as web sites change.
For favorite sayings, we must read them every time. While something
may be humorous at first blush, after 20 times it becomes drudge work.
(One-liners are fine; it's the lengthy material that slows the
newsgroup posting process.)
Hence our request: Please limit signature lines to 3 lines max.
Thank you for your cooperation. As usual, if you wish to comment on

any aspect of newsgroup operation, please do so via email to the
moderators.
-Bill Hogan
Schenectady, NY
Figure 9.19 – A message from the Moderators of misc.invest.financial-planning
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
324
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Stage III yielded mixed results. A full range of institutional documents was found, but
they were only rated good because they were rather dated. Core-periphery model fit
was good, with a correlation of 0.75 and concentration of 0.93. The core generated just
2,094 messages, the least active among participating communities. It translates to 16
monthly messages per member, 51% directed inwards. The core displays the lowest
activity level of participating communities, equally balanced between core and
periphery-addressed messages.
The results of Stages IV and V were poor. Survey results were among the weakest;
with just LEARNING and JOINT ENTERPRISE detected. The evidence of COMMUNITY
from the open question was also weak, with just 44% of respondents voting yes.
Respondent explanations did yield evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE. The Content
Analysis of threads found evidence for SHARED REPERTOIRE and MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT.
Stage VI results are therefore very poor. The community exhibits none of the Essential
Traits, because none were concurrently detected by both methods. Thus, FINPLAN
exhibits little affinity to the VCoP model, and cannot be assessed as a CoP.
9.13 – Commonalities between successul VCoPs
The previous sections profiled each of the virtual communities included in the study.
Four of them were assessed as having complete affinity to the VCoP model: CPLUS,
TAXES, XTRPRG and PHYSRES. It is interesting that the final selection of Exemplary
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
325
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Usenet-based CoPs is balanced, including two computer-oriented communities and two
non-computer oriented. While the research design intentionally selected both kinds of
communities, this did not influence the presence of Wenger’s constructs in them.
As regards the type of “virtual” CoP found by this study, it can be characterised using
the typology proposed in Chapter Three as based on a public forum, with low medium
richness (newsgroups), and –being extra-organisational– participation fully voluntary.
Detected VCoPs have in common that their members skilfully appropriate the Usenet
technology to achieve complex, geographically-distributed ENGAGEMENT around a
JOINT ENTERPRISE. To achieve this, they must keep their online discussions on-topic,
and ward off interruptions such as trolls, spam and off-topic messages which the wide-
open nature of Usenet allows. Most rely on a moderator to do this; the fact that the
unmoderated community XTRPRG also maintains domain focus must be judged a
major achievement. The review of communities noted that all other unmoderated
newsgroups, (MEDTRAN, UKAGRI, VISOBJ, COBOL and CRYPT) had trouble
preserving discussion focus.
Successful VCoPs not only stay on-topic, but move discussions forward and explore
fresh issues (unlike many stale discussions in COBOL or CRYPT). This is another
function of the moderator. The posts that actually get published in CPLUS, TAXES
and PHYSRES are a high-quality selection of all the posts submitted to the
moderators. It is by moderator intervention that a consistently high-quality discussion
is maintained, thus setting the stage for the sustained ENGAGEMENT a CoP needs to
cohere and grow by attracting interested practitioners. Therefore, an active and
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
326
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
competent moderator(s) who acts as gatekeeper to these communities, in the
somewhat chaotic milieu of Usenet, is an institutional feature that can contribute to a
VCoP’s focus and success.
Activity levels of core members of detected VCoPs, hovering around one message
daily average, and addressed mostly to the periphery, are not as “exemplary” as
originally intended. Paradoxically, the MEDTRAN and UKAGRI communities were
considerably more active, yet failed the CoP assessment. One possible explanation is
that off-topic interaction, such as the casual conversations so common in these two
newsgroups, is much easier to keep up than focused on-topic ENGAGEMENT. In
particular, the CPLUS and PHYSRES VCoPs are characterised by long, difficult-to-
craft, exacting messages (this will be illustrated in the next chapter). Hence, the
reduced number of messages exchanged by core members is not quite proportional to
actual time spent ENGAGING.
Moreover, as shown in Table 9.2, the large peripheries surrounding the four successful
VCoPs play an important role in the “ecology” of these online groups. Peripheral
members and one-time visitors, while not regular contributors to the community,
stimulate core-member activity through their questions. The results of Table 9.2 show
if core-periphery exchanges were lacking, core activity of detected VCoPs would fall
substantially, and arguably would not be self-sustaining. The VCoPs themselves seem
to understand this; there is the “Novices welcome” policy of CPLUS, shown earlier in
Figure 9.1, and a similar position is reflected in the message from the Moderator of
TAXES shown in Figure 9.20.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
327
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: (name omitted)

Newsgroups: misc.taxes.moderated
Subject: MODERATOR: Tone problems
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 03:18:01 -0000
It appears that some people in this group are being

excessively harsh on people coming in questions.
Simple resolution: Knock it off. We need the pedestrian

traffic otherwise we can discuss how many angels can sit
on a 1099.
[…]
Figure 9.20 – A moderator warning in misc.taxes.moderated
Finally, it should be recalled that the assessment of Exemplary Usenet-based CoP does
not extend to the entire newsgroup, but only to the stable and persistent virtual
community located in the vicinity of the core. It is this dense communications cluster
that was originally targeted in Stage III, that was then surveyed in Stage IV, and whose
discussions were content analysed in Stage V. Having said this, it is difficult to
establish a clear boundary for the VCoP. It certainly is larger than the standard cores
conventionally defined in this chapter, yet if direct ENGAGEMENT is the key
membership criterion, then it is certainly smaller than the Survey sample, which ranged
in size from 98 for TAXES to 211 for CPLUS. Precisely determining a list of CoP
members is beyond the scope of the methods used in this research, and a possible topic
for future research. However, the methods do provide sufficient evidence to establish
the existence of four stable persistent virtual communities exhibiting all the Essential
Traits of CoPs.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
328
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9.14 – Summary
This chapter describes the execution of Stage VI of the Research Strategy, which
involves combining the results of Survey and Content Analysis to assess the presence
of Wenger’s constructs in each community. To this end, the chapter builds a complete
profile of each community using the quantitative and qualitative data obtained by
Stages III, IV and V, and formally assesses the affinity of each to the VCoP model.
Four communities, CPLUS, TAXES, XTRPRG and PHYSRES were assessed as
Exemplary Usenet-based CoPs, exhibiting all the constructs Wenger has observed in
co-located CoPs. This conclusion is based on concurring results from both research
instruments, in order to achieve robust triangulation.
Although Stage VI provides the necessary evidence to address the Essential Trait
Research Questions, this discussion is deferred until Chapter Eleven in order to address
all Research Questions in an integrated fashion. First, though, a closer look at the day-
to-day activities of detected VCoPs is provided in Chapter Ten.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
329
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CHAPTER TEN
Examining Normal Activity in Detected VCoPs
Stage VI of the Research Strategy, reported in Chapter Nine, identifed four
communities that display all Essential Traits, and assessed them as Exemplary Usenet-
based CoPs, which fully achieves the stated objectives of this research.
The aim, and hence, the contribution of this chapter is different: it will revisit those
four VCoP and, using a typical episode of their day-to-day activities (which in a
newsgroup translates into a discussion thread), will illustrate how these are the
activities of a true CoP as described by Wenger (1998). The link to Wenger’s theory
is achieved by showing that online discussions of members are practice-focused
interactions, and thus constitute MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT. By using ethnographic
analysis, the chapter achieves a richer and more naturalistic characterisation of
identified VCoPs.
The chapter is organised in six sections. Section One provides a rationale for this
analysis and describes the method and sample to be used. Sections Two through Five
are each devoted to analysing one VCoP. The final section is a chapter summary.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
330
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
10.1 – Rationale and method used in this chapter
Wenger (1998) emphasises that sustained MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT –i.e. practice-focused
interactions between members– is the root cause for the CoP and all of its elements. In
a Usenet-based CoP, these interactions take the form of discussion threads between
CoP members, which this study has identified as high-coreness participants of the
newsgroup. Therefore, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT will be used as the main theoretical lens
for examining selected threads, as well as the key structuring concept for this chapter.
At one point during the research design, the aim of the thesis was described as a
search for successful instances of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT taking place over the plain-
text messages of Usenet. It is time to revisit this aim, and illustrate MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT as it normally takes place in a VCoP. The other constructs SHARED
REPERTOIRE, COMMUNITY, JOINT ENTERPRISE and LEARNING/IDENTITY ACQUISITION,
are all caused by MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, and they will be examined and discussed
from this premise.
Since the aim of this chapter is to illustrate, rather than demonstrate, it will not
attempt a full-length ethnography, or be particularly concerned about finding
evidence for every Essential Trait in the single episode it will examine in each
community. Evidence for all Essential Traits was systematically sought and detected
through extensive methods in Chapters Seven and Eight. Rather, what this chapter
will do is to illustrate and discuss all Essential Traits within the context of a single
episode in the life of each community, even if for some Traits explicit textual
evidence is lacking. Examining an episode in a Usenet-based community involves
reading and analysing the textual content of the messages comprising the episode, and
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
331
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
also examining the actions of participants that can be realistically inferred from
message content. Thus the method used in this chapter is akin to ethnographic
analysis, albeit using very small samples, and doing it just for illustrative purposes.
Still, the chapter makes a distinct contribution by examining Wenger’s constructs
(keystone of this study) as they normally manifest themselves in Usenet-based CoPs,
and doing so with greater depth, and with a more vivid and naturalistic approach, than
was possible for the previous Content Analysis. The reason for deferring such an
analysis to this late stage of the research, and with such limited scope, is that by
design the thesis focused on discovery and assessment of VCoPs. Thick description of
them is a highly time-intensive task that cannot really be done justice here, and is thus
left for future research.
With respect to thread selection criteria, it must be noted that this chapter, written after
the completion of Stage VI, takes as a given that TAXES, CPLUS, PHYSRES and
XTRPRG are Usenet-based CoPs. Therefore, since all interactions in a CoP are
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, any discussion thread could theoretically be analysed, taking
care only that they are core-dominated threads, where CoP behaviour and structural
characteristics have been clearly established. Nevertheless, it is clear that some threads
are more “illustrative” or “meaningful”. Furthermore, it should be said that among the
various possible manifestations of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, Collective problem-solving
appears to be the one that most clearly differentiates ENGAGEMENT from other types of
interaction characterising other types of Usenet-based collectives, such as fan, hobby or
socialising communities (Preece and Ghozati, 2001). Therefore, threads will be selected
according to their illustrative power among core-dominated collective problem-solving
episodes. This will necessarily involve examining dense technical discourses of four
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
332
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
heterogenous VCoPs. The running commentary is a useful aid, but the reader is given
fair warning that, as befits a practice, the discourses can be extremely opaque to
community outsiders.
10.2 – The TAXES VCoP
For the TAXES VCoP, the chosen episode includes the first six messages (in
chronological order) from the thread TAXES1. This thread is already familiar, as it was
used in Chapter Eight to illustrate the coding process. However, it is used somewhat
differently in this chapter. Rather than annotating each message with the relevant
codes, a broader commentary of each message is provided in order first to try to
understand the thread in its own context, i.e. what members of the newsgroup are
saying/doing, and second to highlight the links to CoP theory of their actions and
context.
The chosen illustrative example is displayed in Figure 10.1A through 10.1F. Because
line-by-line coding will not be used, the messages are copied direct from Usenet in
order to preserve the formatting that is lost within Nudist. This contributes to layout
clarity, and reveals what participants actually see, thus highlighting how formatting
itself can play an artifactual role, notably in the CPLUS and PHYSRES VCoPs. A few
changes are made to each message as it is imported from Usenet. As always, original
poster names and e-mails are omitted, and disguised names are used instead. In
addition, unnecessary headers, personalised signatures, and excessive quoting from
previous messages are edited.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
333
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The episode described by these messages began on a Tuesday and ended on Friday of
a week in December 2002. It begins with the message shown in Figure 10.1A, posted
by Steve. Reading this in context, and focusing on the actions of Steve and the
community he is addressing, leads to the following synopsis: Steve finds a piece of
information in an IRS Publication that is relevant to the tax practice. Steve is an
associate professor of accounting, a core member of TAXES, and a tax expert in his
own right. Realising the implications, he brings it to the newsgroup right away to
discuss it with his online peers. He starts a new thread and focuses attention with a
clear and concise Subject heading. He quotes the publication carefully and adds the
source reference, as well as other references that reproduce the same passage. He then
writes his interpretation of IRS procedure, and draws implications. He concludes by
asking other members of TAXES for their views and, more specifically, for
supporting or dissenting citations. In the TAXES community, this refers to tax laws
and regulations or Tax Court rulings.
Steve’s actions and his message match the typical behaviour of members of a CoP
(Wenger et al, 2002). He realises the information found in a specialised publication is
relevant to the virtual community of tax professionals he belongs to. Furthermore, he
senses the information is not routine and may raise a problem. The intent of his
message is clearly to call for a round of collective problem-solving with his TAXES
peers, in order to clarify the meaning of the problematic paragraph he cited. In other
words, he wants to MUTUALLY ENGAGE with the CoP so that all may LEARN something.
Moreover, this isn’t mere academic curiosity, but value-adding work, since tax
preparers (the professional occupation of most members of the newsgroup) may at any
time be faced with the particular problem Steve has outlined.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
334
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Steve
Subject: Section 121 and Depreciation Allowed or Allowable
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:05:24 –0000
Someone pointed this out to me today.
From Pub 17, Your Federal Income Tax (EMPHASIS added)
**BEGIN QUOTE**
Business Use or Rental of Home
Depreciation for business use after May 6, 1997. If you were
entitled to take depreciation deductions because you used
your home for business purposes or as rental property, you
cannot exclude the part of your gain equal to any
depreciation allowed or allowable as a deduction for periods
after May 6, 1997. IF YOU CAN SHOW BY ADEQUATE RECORDS OR
OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION ALLOWED WAS
LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE, THE AMOUNT YOU CANNOT
EXCLUDE IS THE SMALLER FIGURE.
**END QUOTE**
The same passage appears in IRS Publication 523, Selling

Your Home and IRS Publication 587, Business Use of Your Home
(Including Use by Day-Care Providers).
Clearly, the IRS is saying in its publications that if the

taxpayer can show that no depreciation was taken, then no
recapture of depreciation is required. This "exception" does
not seem to prevent reduction in basis required for
allowable depreciation. Thus, the gain is larger, even if
depreciation is not taken, but no taxable gain is created if
the depreciation is not taken. Gain would be taxable only if
the total excluded the exclusion amount available from
Section 121.
Does anyone have any comment on this? In particular, I'd

like a specific citation that confirms or refutes what the
IRS put in three publications.
Regards,
Steve
~~~~
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>

<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
Figure 10.1A – Extract from thread TAXES1, Message1
Steve’s message, was previously shown to yield explicit evidence of MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT and SHARED REPERTOIRE (see Figure 8.1). Steve’s actions though, are not
recorded in the message and thus escape the scope of the Content Analysis; they
provide implicit evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE (the indigenous tax-preparation practice

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
335
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
of TAXES), COMMUNITY (the TAXES VCoP), and LEARNING (his chief aim in posting
the question).
Steve’s message omits greetings or preambles, and quickly jumps to a concise setup of
the problem to be solved, almost as if this particular discussion was part of an on-going
interaction process or a permanent conversation. The immediate and effective response
of the community –almost like a music ensemble coming in on cue– conveys the same
impression; unlike real-life communities for whom meeting entails some costs, a
newsgroup is always in session. All of these behaviours are indicators that a CoP has
formed (Wenger, 1998).
Steve’s insider IDENTITY does not hinge on his high coreness score, which is merely an
indicator. Rather, it depends on the competence he displays, a competence that is
socially-defined by the VCoP, and that defines membership. For it is not just tax
expertise that makes Steve a trusted member of TAXES, but the fact that he knows how
to ENGAGE with this CoP, with whom he shares a history of social LEARNING (Wenger,
1998).
Specifically, Steve’s competence is displayed and exercised along the three dimensions
of practice that make a community cohere into a CoP: MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, SHARED
REPERTOIRE and JOINT ENTERPRISE (ibid). First, it is Steve’s understanding of the
ENTERPRISE that makes him perceive the significance to the community of tax preparers
of the issue of “allowed or allowable depreciation”. Second, Steve displays competence
in ENGAGING with this community, from the elementary fact that he must post a Usenet
message to misc.taxes.moderated, to the more subtle crafting of a concise, effective
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
336
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
message that states an issue, the relevant references, his interpretation, and a call for
confirming or dissenting documentary evidence. His well-crafted message is thus sure
to receive the attention of the core members, as indeed it does: out of six participants
involved in the thread, five are core members. Third, it is Steve’s access to and
competent use of the community’s REPERTOIRE (from the tangible IRS Publications to
the intangible accepted accounting procedures regarding depreciation) that supports and
enables his rather technical ENGAGEMENT with the community.
In sum, Steve is recognised as competent (or insider) by the TAXES VCoP because he
knows the ENTERPRISE well enough to contribute to it, he knows how to ENGAGE with
the community, and he knows how to use its REPERTOIRE (Wenger, 2000b).
Furthermore, for Steve, as for all members of TAXES, this social recognition of
competence is a valued source of IDENTITY: being a respected member of TAXES is
akin to a professional accomplishment, with a content that is both specific and difficult
to achieve.
The second message of the thread, posted by Tom and displayed in Figure 10.1B,
provides further contextual confirmation that a CoP is indeed what Steve is addressing.
Tom too is a core member of TAXES, a practising tax advisor and a Chartered Public
Accountant, or CPA. His response to Steve, which he makes extensive to the
community, is methodically documented (and this method is itself evidence of a Shared
practice). In his reply, Tom provides an explanation of the specific case Steve
described, as well as the more general applicable rule. He points out the potential for
conflicts between the two, and illustrates this with a couple of real-world examples.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
337
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Section 121 and Depreciation Allowed or Allowable
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:29:43 -0000
> Does anyone have any comment on this? In particular, I'd

> like a specific citation that confirms or refutes what the
> IRS put in three publications.
You have to follow the reference back to §1250(b)(3) that

you'll find in §121(d)(6) for computing the amount subject
to this special tax. §1250(b)(3)'s final sentence says:
"For purposes of the preceding sentence, if the taxpayer can

establish by adequate records or other sufficient evidence
that the amount allowed as a deduction for any period was
less than the amount allowable, the amount taken into
account for such period shall be the amount allowed."
The above is essentially what the IRS has lifted, word for
word, in the instructions.
§121 refers specifically to this provision in §1250 (which

deals generally with "excess" depreciation for real property
recapture rules) rather than talking about depreciation in
general. It does not refer to the general rule for basis
adjustments under §1016(a)(2), which is where the "general"
allowed or allowable rule comes into play.
This creates some interesting problems <grin>. Remember,

the IRS position appears to be that if a space was used as a
home office for over three years of the five year period,
then §121 does not apply to that space. So that office
would be subject to the more general "allowed or allowable"
rule--and gain would be recognized even though depreciation
had not previously been claimed.
However, if the space was "disqualified" for two years (note

I said disqualified--not just no depreciation taken), then
the ability to document that the "allowed" amount was less
than the amount "allowable" would come into play.
Where that could be a problem would be if an adviser,

reading the above from the publications (and, to borrow from
another thread, quick reference guides citing the same
<grin>), counseled a client to go ahead and claim all other
home office related expenses (utilities, insurance, etc.)
but not claim the depreciation, with the theory that now the
home was "safe" from being taxable in any amount on sale.
By claiming those expenses, the taxpayer is taking the
position the space *did* qualify for depreciation right up
through the date of sale. In that case, §121(d)(6) would
not apply (at least by the IRS's analysis) and the taxpayer
would end up paying tax on a gain computed using the
"allowable" depreciation amount.
Ain't tax research fun...
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
Figure 10.1B – Extract from thread TAXES1, Message 2
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
338
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Tom’s immediate in-depth involvement in the collective problem-solving exercise
shows him to be as competent, and thus as much an insider as Steve. He does not only
provide the citations Steve requested, but goes one step further by pointing out the
inconsistencies, and thus the potential for conflicting interpretations of the regulations
by taxpayers and the IRS. Tom’s grasp of the tax-preparation practice is quite evident.
Furthermore, Tom’s IDENTITY as a TAXES insider is enacted through competence
along the dimensions of practice that define a CoP: MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, SHARED
REPERTOIRE and JOINT ENTERPRISE (Wenger, 1998). Tom is judged competent, and thus
full member, because he understands the ENTERPRISE well enough to contribute to it.
Thus he volunteers a detailed explanation (later complemented with an addendum) of
the potential problems with the “allowed or allowable depreciation”. It is telling that
this explanation is addressed not to tax payers in general, but to his fellow tax advisors,
who like him are VCoP members. Tom is judged competent because he knows how to
ENGAGE with other members of the community, as evinced by the clarity and usefulness
of his message (he is in fact congratulated on it, see Figure 8.1). Finally, Tom is
competent because he has access to, and skilfully deploys, the SHARED REPERTOIRE of
the community, here manifested by applicable laws and shared tax/accounting criteria.
Thus, Tom’s message provides a vivid illustration of what it means and what it takes to
be recognised as a trusted member of the TAXES VCoP.
The third message in the episode is displayed in Figure 10.1C. It is by Jack, another
CPA and core-member of TAXES, who gladly joins the collective problem-solving
exercise convened by Steve. Jack’s message is not as extensive or informative as
Tom’s, but it is timely. In fact, Usenet records show Jack is answering Steve practically
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
339
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Jack
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:49:01 -0000
> Does anyone have any comment on this?
I think the IRS is simply saying that if the depreciation

deduction was *limited* by the fact that you didn't have
sufficient income to claim it all, you only need to
recapture the amount that was actually "allowed" after
application of the 280A rules. (This is very often the case
with "vacation homes".)
Quick example: Say your net business income before deduction

of the home office was $500 bucks, the allocable portion of
interest and taxes was $300, other expenses $100, and
depreciation $200. When you work through the formula, only
$100 of the depreciation will actually be "allowed". So,
that is the amount that will be used for gain calculation
purposes and subject to recapture.
Jack
Please reply to newsgroup - email address is unmonitored.
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
Figure 10.1C – Extract from thread TAXES1, Message 3
at the same time as Tom, and so has not previously read Tom’s reply. Jack’s message is
well-grounded in the tax practice, as shown by his real-life examples of vacation homes
and home offices. He contributes his own reading of the intriguing paragraph in the IRS
Publication, and enriches his participation in the collective problem-solving episode by
proposing a realistic numerical example involving a home office. It is a topic tax
advisors know well because many work from home, and take advantage of the
deductions a home office legally affords. Like Steve and Tom before him, Jack enacts his
insider IDENTITY through competence in ENGAGING with the community, understanding
of the JOINT ENTERPRISE (his example is worded so as to be useful to other tax preparers),
and using the REPERTOIRE to support his ENGAGEMENT (Wenger, 2000b).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
340
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Zach
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 02:08:14 -0000
> Does anyone have any comment on this?
How about this situation:
IRC 280A limits (e.g. form 8829), where depreciation is

first calculated as the maximum permitted, then limited to
net income (after other expenses). If one were to simply
compute depreciation without this limit, one would get a
higher number. However, it's improper to "recapture"
depreciation that has been forced into the carry-forward
amount and therefore never actually deducted.
I think that what they're saying is that the amount

allowable is strictly the amount that is computed via the
tables underlying Sections 167 and 168 plus Section 179,
without regard to limits imposed by other sections or the
"business income" limit of section 179 which forces a
carry-forward instead of a current year deduction. Don't
forget IRC 469 (passive losses).
To some of us, the "allowed or allowable" may be logically

AFTER consideration of these other limitation sections.
However, I don't believe that the IRS took that position
when writing those publication paragraphs.
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
Figure 10.1D – Extract from thread TAXES1, Message 4
The next message is by Zach, another core-member. He joins the problem-solving
exercise with a discussion of the rationale behind the limits to claimed depreciation.
His analysis, though lacking numerical examples, is slightly more detailed than Jack’s
and more similar to Tom’s. He cites several different sections and regulations of the
Internal Revenue Code (IRC), and based on the rationale he first proposed, he interprets
the position taken by the IRS on the Publications cited by Steve. The abundance of
references reveals the extent of his research, and therefore his deep involvement in the
problem-solving exercise. Like Tom, Zach is providing a detailed analysis of applicable
regulations, but he tries to build a rationale based on more general accounting
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
341
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
principles (“it's improper to ‘recapture’ depreciation that has been forced into the carry-
forward amount and therefore never actually deducted”). Also like Tom, he mentions
the potential for confusion among some tax preparers; again, the message seems
addressed to them, i.e. to community insiders. In sum, Zach’s IDENTITY as a TAXES
insider is enacted through his displayed competence in ENGAGING with the community,
understanding its ENTERPRISE and using its REPERTOIRE.
From: Tom
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:43:43 -0000
> Does anyone have any comment on this? In particular, I'd

> like a specific citation that confirms or refutes what the
> IRS put in three publications.
One additional issue I want to raise. I would note that the

*basis* would still bereduced for the depreciation allowable
but not actually taken. So if the gain was in excess of the
applicable limitation amount on the property sale, that
"untaken" depreciation could still end up being subjected to
tax.
So, as I said, that reference, while absolutely correct (and

lifted directly from the IRC) is likely going to mislead
more than a few preparers who don't trace the reference back
and consider the limited applicability of that break. We
just have to hope that the IRS agents those preparers'
clients draw are similarly confused by that reference <grin>.
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
Figure 10.1E – Extract from thread TAXES1, Message 5
The next message, shown in Figure 10.1E, is an addendum by Tom to his previous long
message. He points out an additional confusion that may come out of the problematic
paragraph in the IRS Publications. He notes that “allowed” but not “taken” depreciation
does have an effect on the amount of tax due, and he speculates this confusing fact will
probably mislead some tax preparers as well as some IRS agents. The message, once
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
342
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
again, is addressed to fellow insiders, rather than to the public at large. In fact, the
bemused tone he uses (with a <grin> inserted) seems to signal that of course he expects
core members of TAXES to be above making such mistakes.
A couple of days after Tom’s first message, Steve posts a short but appreciative thank-
you note, displayed in Figure 10.1F. This can be construed as an explicit indication of
LEARNING on the part of Steve. He is apparently so satisfied by Tom’s reading of the
case that he does not again participate in this thread, even though Usenet records show
him active in other threads at the time. Though brief, Steve’s note expresses
appreciation and gratitude to Tom for his research efforts, and confirms he shares his
interest in tax issues. This is an explicit indication of JOINT ENTERPRISE. Another
indication, though implicit, is the topical focus maintained throughout the thread
(thanks to the unseen but effective work of the Moderator), and the level of specialist
knowledge displayed by the participants.
From: Steve
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:43:46 –0000
> Ain't tax research fun...
Actually, yes.
Thanks for your comments.
Regards,
Steve
~~~~
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
Figure 10.1F – Extract from thread TAXES1, Message 6
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
343
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The six messages of this illustrative example provide a transient but substantial episode
of collective problem-solving, even had the thread ended at this point. In fact, the
complete thread included a total of 14 messages, and involved six different members of
the VCoP, five of them core-members. After Steve’s thank-you note, other core-
members engaged Tom in additional problem-solving by proposing possible counter-
examples to his argument. However, Tom’s position acquitted itself well, and by the
end of the thread seemed to be accepted by all as the correct solution to the original
problem. This suggests not just Steve but several CoP members can be credited with
LEARNING from the episode.
It is interesting that despite the intent of tax regulations to be perfectly clear and
unambiguous, these tax professionals have to wrestle with the meaning of the texts, not
only from the tax code but from other specialised publications and Tax Court decisions,
in order to collectively build a meaningful and operational solution they can apply in
their tax practice. The fact that such problem-solving episodes are not isolated but
normal occurrences in the TAXES community, usually involving several members in
each discussion, clearly manifests the CoP character of this group. Thus, this is not a
hobby or fan community, nor a group of friends who enjoy online socialisation, but a
group of independent professionals solving real-world problems, and getting real work
done, and in the process LEARNING from each other how to do it better.
It is easy to see that online discussion in the chosen illustrative example is MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT under the form of collective problem-solving. In addition, it is
ENGAGEMENT supported by skilful deployment of the community REPERTOIRE under the
guise of professional publications, applicable statutes and accounting language.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
344
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Multiple members participated in the problem-solving exercise, and, though not shown
in the example, they ENGAGED with each other, not just with Steve. Furthermore, they
joined the exercise because they understood the ENTERPRISE of the VCoP well enough
to contribute (Wenger, 2000b).
In sum, the examination of one episode chosen from core discussions of the TAXES
VCoP has highlighted members’ competence, readiness and enthusiasm in taking part
in practice-related problem-solving exercises. The discussion yields evidence for the
constructs Wenger (1998) identifies as present in all CoPs: MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT,
SHARED REPERTOIRE, JOINT ENTERPRISE, COMMUNITY and LEARNING/IDENTITY
ACQUISITION. The Content Analysis detected as much, at the level of individual
messages, but in this chapter, Wenger’s constructs have been examined in their proper
context, to convey a more vivid and naturalistic rendering, and to describe life in a CoP
as it must really seem to its members: as a living, exciting response to the real-world
problems these competent professionals identify with, and enjoy tackling together.
10.3 – The CPLUS VCoP
The example chosen to illustrate MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT in the CPLUS VCoP is an
episode of solicited code critique. Code critique is probably the most frequent instance
of collective problem-solving in the CPLUS newsgroup. This episode began on Friday
June 20 and ended on Sunday June 22, 2003, thus illustrating how a busy newsgroup is
always in session, even accounting for moderation lags. The episode comprises the first
five messages from the thread CPLUS2.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
345
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Patrick, a core-member of the CPLUS VCoP and also a member of the moderation
committee has been struggling for some time with a problem, and he posts a request for
help to the newsgroup. The fact that the request is made by a core member, a
moderator, and a C++ expert, suggests this episode will involve leading-edge
programming, and that the problem in question is non-routine and intrinsecally
interesting. In addition, posts by high-profile members like Patrick do not go by
unnoticed, and quickly grab the attention of other core members. Specifically, three out
of five participants involved in the complete thread are core members.
The first message, displayed in Figure 10.2A, is the thread head. It begins with an
opening statement in which a verbal description of the problem is offered with the
additional explanation that Patrick, has already reworked his code using suggestions
from another newsgroup. This is not an idle comment: Usenet participants like to be
reassured that the poster, even if he is a respected member, has put in reasonable effort
before asking for help. In addition, Patrick identifies the problem as a “real” problem,
not a puzzle or quirky issue, which would receive a different treatment from busy
experts. Finally, Patrick focuses the discussion by asking to leave questions of style or
relevance out of it, in effect asking other members for a vote of confidence or at least to
suspend judgement about the relevance of such a programme.
After this context-setting introduction, the code itself is presented. The author follows
the layout conventions of the CPLUS community by using formatting to maximise
code clarity. He inserts comments at several points (preceded by a double dash, “//”) to
make his thoughts explicit, and to justify his avoidance of a particular stylistic
convention. He also inserts a couple of smileys to soften statements some may find
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
346
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
patronising. Comments are also used to identify the three distinct situations or branches
the proposed code would have to deal with.
Patrick’s actions match the behaviour of a CoP member (Wenger et al, 2002). The
explicit intent of his message is to convene a problem-solving exercise with fellow C++
experts. Thus the message provides explicit textual evidence of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT,
under the form of collective problem-solving, as well as SHARED REPERTOIRE, under the
form of jargon and symbolic language. In addition, his actions provide implicit evidence of
LEARNING (his chief intention in posting the problem); COMMUNITY (addressing the
CPLUS VCoP), and JOINT ENTERPRISE (because his problem lies at the boundaries of what
can be done with the current C++ standard, and that is highly relevant to the experts).
From: Patrick
Subject: reading input
Date: 20 Jun 2003 17:15:59 -0400
I have been struggling for some time with problems related to code that
sometimes uses getline(istream, string) for input and sometimes uses
operator >> wrapped up to ensure checking for the stream state.
The general problem is that getline removes the delimiter ('\n' by

default) from the input stream whilst operator >> does not.
There is also a desirability in the problem domain to initialise const

variables from an input stream.
Ideally reading an end-of-file marker is not exceptional so I would like

to leave responsibility for checking that status flag to the programmer.
However persistent user keyed erroneous input needs handling, and
erroneous input from other types of stream can be detected but not dealt
with by the input function and so I would prefer to handle that
out-of-line, i.e. by throwing an exception.
As a result of a number of comments on an early draft of my code (in the

C bug of the day thread) I have reworked my code (and in the process
believe I have at last got a solution to the problem of getline v other
input)
Putting aside style issues and questions of whether this should be done
at all (we can argue all week about that, and probably never agree)
could you critique the following preferably offering suggestions for
improvement rather than just 'throw it away.' :-)
(continued)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
347
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(continued)
inline void eat_ws_to_cr(std::istream & in){

while(true){
int const c(in.peek());
if(c == '\n'){
in.get();
break;
}
if(c == ' ' or c == '\t') in.get();
else break;
}
return;
}
template<typename in_type>
in_type read(std::string const & prompt, int max_tries = 3){
in_type temp;
if(max_tries < 1) max_tries = 1;
int tries(0);
while(tries++ != max_tries ){
std::cout << prompt;
std::cin >> temp;
eat_ws_to_cr(std::cin);
if(not std::cin.fail()) return temp;
if(std::cin.eof()) return in_type();
std::cin.clear(); // if it has failed,
reset it to normal
cin.ignore(INT_MAX, '\n'); // flush cin
std::cout << "\n That input was incorrect, try
again: \n";
}
throw fgw::bad_input("Too many attempts to read data.");
}
// 2) version without prompt, defaults to colon space prompt

in_type read(int max_tries=3){
return read<in_type>(": ", max_tries);
}
// I know about using default arguments :-) I just do not like them.
// 3) version for general input stream, throws an exception if fails

in_type read(std::istream & in){
in_type temp;
in >> temp;
if(not in.fail()){
eat_ws_to_cr(in);
return temp;
}
if(in.eof()) return in_type();
throw bad_input("Currupted data in stream");
}
}
--
Patrick
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]

[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
Figure 10.2A – Extract from thread CPLUS2, Message 1
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
348
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Patrick’s request for code critique omits greetings or preambles, beginning instead with
a concise problem setup, almost as if this particular discussion is part of a permanently
running interaction. The same impression is given by the community’s immediate and
effective response. All of these behaviours are indicators that a CoP has formed
(Wenger, 1998).
Patrick is recognised as a CPLUS insider or full member by the competence he displays
along the previously mentioned dimensions that make a community cohere into a CoP:
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, SHARED REPERTOIRE and JOINT ENTERPRISE (Wenger, 1998).
First, it is Patrick’s understanding of the ENTERPRISE that makes him aware of the
relevance to the community of a problem which pushes at the boundary of the current
Standard, as pointed out in another message. Second, he displays competence in
ENGAGING with this community, from the posting of an appropriate message to the
heavily-moderated newsgroup comp.lang.c++.moderated, to the crafting of a concise,
effective message that provides background, the minimum requirements for the
proposed code, and the warrants under which the discussion should unfold. Third, it is
Patrick’s competent use of the community’s REPERTOIRE (from his command of the
C++ Language to his pain-staking use of code formatting) that supports his highly
technical ENGAGEMENT with the community.
In sum, Patrick is recognised as competent (or insider) by the CPLUS VCoP because he
knows the ENTERPRISE well enough to contribute to it, he knows how to ENGAGE with
the community, and he knows how to use its REPERTOIRE (Wenger, 2000b).
Furthermore, seeking and obtaining the social recognition of competence from this
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
349
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
particular CoP is for Patrick an important affirmation of IDENTITY, for the CPLUS
community includes many of the personalities who literally define the C++ Standard.
The first to join the problem-solving episode started by Patrick is Steve, who is not a
core member. His response is displayed in Figure 10.2B. He offers a relatively simple
solution by using a different input function, for which he provides an Internet address.
Steve’s response is quick, but Patrick points out in a different (undisplayed) thank-you
message that the "linebylinestream" function does not address his needs.
From: Steve
Subject: Re: reading input
Date: 20 Jun 2003 19:07:58 -0400
> std::cout << prompt;

> std::cin >> temp;
> eat_ws_to_cr(std::cin);
The problem I see here is that the user may hit "enter" many times,
trying either to accept a default value or just trying to force the
program to accept some "empty" representation, maybe to encourage the
program to emit a more verbose, helpful prompt. Your formatted read
from std::cin isn't going to return until it sees something besides
whitespace; newline won't kick out of that read.
If you're trying to do line-bounded reads, consider using something

like the "linebylinestream" described in one of my previous
postings¹. With that, you can tell when the user only offered
whitespace on a given line and respond accordingly, or safely move on
to the next line at any point with a checked function call similar to
your eat_ws_to_cr() above.
Footnotes:
¹ http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=q67ptm0l124.fsf%40raytheon.com
--
Steve

Figure 10.2B – Extract from thread CPLUS2, Message 2
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
350
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Though brief, Steve’s message shows true ENGAGEMENT with Patrick’s problem by
quoting exactly the lines of his code that he perceives will cause trouble and by
succinctly explaining what the trouble will be. Although his solution is not what Patrick
is looking for, it is obvious he gave the matter some thought, for which he is duly
thanked. Steve’s message also yields explicit evidence of SHARED REPERTOIRE in the
form of jargon.
The second person to ENGAGE with Patrick’s problem is Jack, who is not a core
member. His message is shown in Figure 10.2C. He tries to address Patrick’s problem
by working within his quoted code. Specifically, he makes three annotations,
although only the first two involve a functional change in the code, the last one being
cosmetic. The response is similar to Steve’s: the problem has been given some
thought, and a quick solution is offered. However, by possibly underestimating
Patrick’s expertise and previous efforts, the proposed solution turns out to be
something already tried.
With a keen sense of the conventions enforced by the newsgroup, Jack ends his
message with an apology for excessive quoting. This is answered by an anonimous
moderator with a note inserted in the message prior to posting, in which he assures Jack
the moderation procedure is not that rigorous. Both the apology and the moderator’s
reply are explicit indicators of the CPLUS community’s SHARED REPERTOIRE, under the
form of Usenet artifacts.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
351
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Jack
Date: 21 Jun 2003 06:25:51 -0400
> inline void eat_ws_to_cr(std::istream & in){

> while(true){
> int const c(in.peek());
> if(c == '\n'){
> in.get();
> break;
> }
> if(c == ' ' or c == '\t') in.get();
I would have written:

if( std::isspace( c, in.getloc() ) in.get();
I consider what is and isn't whitespace is dependant on the locale of

the istream in question.
> else break;

> }
> return;
> }
>
> template<typename in_type>
> in_type read(std::string const & prompt, int max_tries = 3){
> in_type temp;
> if(max_tries < 1) max_tries = 1;
> int tries(0);
> while(tries++ != max_tries ){
std::cout << prompt << std::flush;
I'd add add a flush, to ensure the prompt is "displayed"
> std::cin >> temp;

> if(not std::cin.fail()) return temp;
> if(std::cin.eof()) return in_type();
> std::cin.clear(); // if it has
failed,
> reset it to normal
> cin.ignore(INT_MAX, '\n'); // flush cin
> std::cout << "\n That input was incorrect,
try
> again: \n";
> }
> throw fgw::bad_input("Too many attempts to read
data.");
> }
>
> // 3) version for general input stream, throws an exception if fails
> in_type read(std::istream & in){
> in_type temp;
> in >> temp;
> if(not in.fail()){
> eat_ws_to_cr(in);
> return temp;
> }
> if(in.eof()) return in_type();
> throw bad_input("Currupted data in stream");
(continued)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
352
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(continued)
I'd probably write this as:

throw fgw::bad_input("Corrupted data in
stream");
i.e. add the namespace (for consistency with elsewhere, if nothing
else) and correct the spelling (for the same reason ;))
> }
>
> }
(forgive the amount of quoting - it's to give context within the code)
Regards,
Jack
{Well obviously it was not excessive as the automatic moderation

processes did not issue a warning to the moderator -mod}
--

Figure 10.2C – Extract from thread CPLUS2, Message 3
Both Jack’s and Steve’s replies must be commended for their quick reaction time
and their competent pinpointing of the problematic issues. Though not core
members of CPLUS, their displayed competence along the three dimensions of
practice reveals full membership in the VCoP. Specifically, they both understand
the ENTERPRISE well enough to contribute, even if neither of their contributions
were quite what Patrick was looking for. Second, they know how to ENGAGE with
the community, trivially by navigating the moderation process, more substantially
by competently ENGAGING with Patrick’s problem as shown by their respective
diagnoses of the problematic issues. Third, they display competence in their use of
the community REPERTOIRE.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
353
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Patrick
Date: 21 Jun 2003 20:33:26 -0400
>I would have written:

> if( std::isspace( c, in.getloc() ) in.get();
>
>I consider what is and isn't whitespace is dependant on the locale of
>the istream in question.
Anyone like to suggest why Jack's amended line throws an exception

unless it is further amended to:
if(std::isspace(char(c), in.getloc()) in.get;
IOWs calling that version of isspace with an int first parameter throws.
It doesn't if getloc() is not called.
--
Patrick

Figure 10.2D – Extract from thread CPLUS2, Message 4
Jack’s proposed solution elicits an implicit thank-you note from Patrick, displayed in
Figure 10.2D. In it, he points out, in a friendly manner, a mistake and the way to fix it.
The tone does not seem not patronising, rather it seems to catch the opportunity to turn
the exchange into a LEARNING experience for Jack and the newsgroup at large. Also it
gives the impression that Jack is still a relative newcomer to the C++ language, while
Patrick is an acknowledged master. The fact that Patrick takes time away from his own
problem to comment and improve on the post of another member is implicit evidence
of the way these programmers care about the C++ Language, thus evincing JOINT
ENTERPRISE. Still, Patrick’s own comments will be subject to review by Harry, on the
next message.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
354
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Harry
Date: 22 Jun 2003 17:53:03 -0400
> Anyone like to suggest why Jack's amended line throws an exception
> unless it is further amended to:
>
> if(std::isspace(char(c), in.getloc()) in.get;
Poorly designed interface in <locale>? :-)

Another case of template abuse? :-)
Seriously, the correct solution is to extract the ctype<char> from the

locale, and use it. After that, everything should work. The global
convenience functions in <locale> aren't very convenient. They are
also only designed for occasional use, and not for use in a loop.
> IOWs calling that version of isspace with an int first parameter
> throws.
It might. Or it might not. Depending on what facets have been

installed in the imbued locale. It almost certainly won't give the
right results, however (except by chance).
> It doesn't if getloc() is not called.
If getloc() isn't called, what do you pass as the second parameter?
It works IF you don't pass a second parameter. But that isn't cool,
because the function is calls isn't a template. More to the point,
the function it calls uses the global locale, and not the one embedded
in the stream. Which may or may not be acceptable. (In the case of
cin, it is probably acceptable.)
--
Harry

Figure 10.2E – Extract from thread CPLUS2, Message 5
Harry is the participant with highest coreness in the VCoP, and a member of the
moderation committee. Like Patrick, he grabs the LEARNING opportunity in his own
response, displayed in Figure 10.2E. After a couple of light jokes indicated by smileys
(insider jokes that are part of the REPERTOIRE), he points out what the underlying
problem is all about. This brief “lecture” within the broader problem-solving episode is
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
355
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
of course further evidence of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, under the form of knowledge
sharing, and evidence also of JOINT ENTERPRISE, under the form of caring for a domain
of knowledge, even if somewhat of a digression from the original problem which Harry
addresses in a separate message, displayed in Figure 10.2F. It comes two days after the
original problem was posted; thus the author probably read the previous attempts.
Harry’s approach to collective problem-solving is to try to read between the lines to
understand what Patrick is really after, something the previous two posters apparently
did not attempt. By deliberately trying to read Patrick’s intentions, Harry designs an
alternative routine and points out a couple of caveats for which he also provides a way
out. In addition, he proposes an altogether different routine which he believes will be
faster and “more in keeping with the C++ traditions”.
Harry makes a few stylistic comments in passing. For instance, he makes a joking
reference to SESE. This means “single entry, single exit” and is a stylistic convention
of C++ which some think outmoded, while others believe leads to cleaner code design.
Harry believes Patrick’s code would be much improved by adherence to SESE.
Thus far, Harry has only addressed the first part of Patrick’s routine. He quotes the
second part complete to provide context and comments on it. Once again trying to read
Patrick’s intentions, he challenges him with an extreme numerical example. Still, he
assumes a man of Patrick’s experience probably knows what he is doing. He therefore
takes him at his word, proposes a routine for the second part, and suggests eliminating
one unnecesary statement. Harry concludes his message by making the broader
suggestion of dividing the initial routine, which is too complex, into two more specialised
routines, with the second calling (i.e. momentarily transferring control to) the first.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
356
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Harry
Date: 22 Jun 2003 10:09:33 -0400
> inline void eat_ws_to_cr(std::istream & in){

> while(true){
> int const c(in.peek());
> if(c == '\n'){
> in.get();
> break;
> }
> if(c == ' ' or c == '\t') in.get();
> else break;
> }
> return;
> }
To begin with, it would be nice to know what the contract of the

function is. From the name, I would expect it to eat all white space
up to and including a carriage return (character '\r' !). That's not
what it does, and I don't think that that is what you want, either:-).
And of course, the code you present is a very strong argument in favor
of SESE:-). I had to read it through three or four times to figure
out what was going on.
I think that somethink like the following would do more or less what
you want (supposing I've guessed correctly what you want):
void
eat_ws_through_eoln(
std::istream& source )
{
while ( std:isspace( source.peek() ) && ! source.peek() == '\n' ) {
source.get() ;
}
if ( source.peek() == '\n' ) {
source.get() ;
}
}
Attention, however. This code uses the global locale to determine

white space, and NOT the imbued one. Using the new forms of isspace
(with an explicit locale) is somewhat more complex, because they don't
accept EOF as input. Replacing the while by:
while ( source.peek() != EOF

&& source.peek() != '\n'
&& std::isspace( static_cast< char >( source.peek() ),
source.getloc() ) ) {
should do the trick -- if performance is an issue, you would probably

want to cache std::ctype from the locale in a locale variable,
however. More in keeping with the C++ traditions -- and probably more
rapid, might be something like:
void
eat_ws_through_eoln(
std::istream& source )
{
std::ctype< char > ctype
= std::use_locale< std::ctype< char > >( source.getloc() ) ;
for ( int ch = source.get() ;
(continued)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
357
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(continued)
lookAhead != EOF
&& lookAhead != '\n'
&& ctype.is( std::ctype_base::space, ch ) ;
ch = source.get() ) {
}
if ( lookAhead != '\n' ) {
source.putback( lookAhead ) ;
}
}
Note that the semantics are subtly different, however; this version
will set the failbit in the stream if it encounters EOF without a
'\n'; the versions using peek should NEVER set failbit.

> in_type read(std::string const & prompt, int max_tries = 3){
> in_type temp;
> if(max_tries < 1) max_tries = 1;
> int tries(0);
> while(tries++ != max_tries ){
> std::cin >> temp;
> if(not std::cin.fail()) return temp;
> if(std::cin.eof()) return in_type();
> std::cin.clear(); // if it has failed,
> reset it to normal
> cin.ignore(INT_MAX, '\n'); // flush cin
> std::cout << "\n That input was incorrect, try
> again: \n";
> }
> throw fgw::bad_input("Too many attempts to read data.");
> }
Once again, I'm not too sure of the semantics. Given an input stream
containing "1.23e+" (no '\n'), do you really want read<double> to
return 0.0, with no error indication? If so, something like the
following should do the trick:
template< typename ValueType >

ValueType
read(
std::string const& prompt,
int maxTries = 3 )
{
ValueType result ;
bool isValid = false ;
for ( int i = 0 ; ! isValid && i < maxTries ; ++ i ) {
std::cout << prompt ;
std::cin >> result ;
if ( std::cin ) {
isValue = true ;
} else if ( std::cin.eof() ) {
result = ValueType() ;
isValid = true ;
} else {
cin.clear() ;
std::cout << "\nThat input was incorrect, try again:\n" ;
}
eat_ws_through_eoln( std::cin ) ;
}
if ( ! isValid ) {
throw fgw::bad_input( "Too many attempts to read data." ) ;
}
return result ;
} (continued)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
358
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(continued)
Personally, I'd eliminate the "else if" if I don't get a value, it's
an error.
Personally, I'd probaby divide the whole thing up into two functions,
one which handles a single input with prompt, and the second which
loops calling the first. It seems obvious to me that this function is
too complex. And the first is useful in its own right -- there's a
lot of times that just any value of the target type is not acceptable.
--
Harry

Figure 10.2F – Extract from thread CPLUS2, Message 6
There is one more (undisplayed) solution attempted by a different poster, which Harry
also takes time to comment on. At the end of that message, last one in the thread, Harry
offers the following conclusion on the issue which is causing Patrick’s problem:
There is a fundamental weakness in the error detection in istream [in the current
version of the Standard]. You can know whether a given operation succeeded or
failed, but you cannot reliably know why it failed. The requirements [of
Patrick's problem] are for different actions depending on the reason for failure.
The information is not available. That makes meeting the requirements more
than a little difficult. (Extract from a message posted by Harry to
comp.lang.c++.moderated on 25 Jun 2003)
Harry’s C++ expertise is obvious even to a layman. However, his IDENTITY as a
CPLUS insider hinges on competence more broadly defined by the community. Harry
is judged competent, and thus full member, because he understands the ENTERPRISE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
359
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
well enough to contribute to it. In this particular problem, he understands and points out
the limits of the the current C++ Standard. Furthermore, he is competent because he
knows how to ENGAGE with other members of the community. Thus he expertly, but
not heavy-handedly, unravels the problem hidden within Patrick’s code. Finally, Harry
is competent because he has access to and skilfully deploys the SHARED REPERTOIRE,
which is here comprised mostly by the C++ Language and its conventions. Thus
Harry’s message vividly displays what it means and what it takes to be a recognised,
even admired, member of the CPLUS VCoP.
The five messages selected to illustrate MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT in this community
comprise a substantial episode of collective problem-solving that includes the statement
of a problem, discussion of alternatives, final solution and concluding remarks. The
episode illustrates the prominent role of SHARED REPERTOIRE in this VCoP, notably the
use of symbolic language. The community has its own complex symbolic language
(C++) and a detailed committee-approved specification of how to use it (the Standard).
The existence of a constantly cited Standard is evidence of how much the C++
community in general and this VCoP in particular cares about their domain.
The messages examined in this episode do not provide explicit evidence of
COMMUNITY, although the tone of discussion is kept professional and helpful, focused
on the issues and not the personalities, and good Usenet manners are displayed
throughout, with smileys added to soften strong or mildly ironic assertions. The fact
that collective problem-solving is the dominant online behaviour of the CPLUS
community strongly underscores its CoP character. It is not a community brought
together by a shared hobby or by friendship, but a group of competent professionals
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
360
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
solving real-world problems, and getting real work done, and in the process LEARNING
from each other how to do it better.
In sum, the examination of this episode from core discussions of the CPLUS VCoP has
highlighted members’ competence, readiness and enthusiasm in taking part in practice-
related problem-solving exercises. The discussion yields evidence for the constructs
Wenger (1998) identifies as present in all CoPs: MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, SHARED
REPERTOIRE, JOINT ENTERPRISE, COMMUNITY and LEARNING/IDENTITY ACQUISITION.
The Content Analysis detected as much, at the level of individual messages, but in this
chapter Wenger’s constructs have been examined in their proper context, to attempt a
more vivid and naturalistic rendering, and to describe life in a CoP as it must really
seem to its members: as a living, exciting response to the real-world problems these
competent professionals care about, and enjoy tackling together.
10.4 – The XTRPRG VCoP
The example chosen for this VCoP was not taken from the four threads used in Chapter
Eight. The reason is that those threads are all debates, and did not provide a good
illustration of collective problem-solving. As noted in the community profile in Chapter
Nine, the XP approach is controversial, which results in the newsgroup exhibiting
frequent debates. While debating domain-related issues is also a manifestation of
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, collective problem-solving seems clearer, because it avoids the
trap of dogmatically defending a position, as was sometimes the case in communities
like CIVWAR.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
361
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hence the chosen problem-solving episode displayed on Figures 10.3A to 10.3I. The
original thread from which this extract was taken will be labelled XTRPRG5. It
contains 36 messages, but only nine are used for the illustrative example, involving five
members of the VCoP, four of them core-members. The episode took place in the short
span of two days, thus illustrating the quick and effective response of the VCoP.
The first message is the thread head and is displayed in Figure 10.3A. The author,
Gerard, is a core member of the newsgroup, yet sometimes also a critic of XP. Gerard’s
problem is one of design, probably at the early stage where broadly conceived
approaches are considered. The question is not “how do I use XP to design an SCM?”
Rather, he speculates that if during development, some XP practices are adopted (such
as short iterations and programmer’s discretion for making changes) then the resulting
SCM systems will probably inherit the same practices. Thus he asks the experts in the
VCoP for their opinions and for useful articles regarding this hypothesis. This is no
mere request for information, since the issue is rather subtle and will require some
ENGAGEMENT with the problem. On the other hand, the fact that the problem and the
need are real also make it attractive for experts to ENGAGE with. Gerard’s actions, as
manifested by his introduction, match the behaviour expected of a CoP member
(Wenger et al, 2002). The explicit intent of his message is to convene a problem-
solving exercise with fellow experts on an issue relevant to the XP approach. His main
intention is to think through with them the future consequences of certain design
decisions. Beyond the specific help that this represents for Gerard, it will have a
LEARNING value for all members of XTRPRG.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
362
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Gerard
Subject: SCM and XP
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:49:57 GMT
I am designing an SCM (Software Change/Configuration Management) system**,

and in thinking about the various approaches and reasons why, it occurred to
me that a methodology that emphasized short iterations and the idea that
programmers can change what they need to would also advocate a particular
style of SCM. E.g., file locking would be out, and code ownership would be
out (I realize this last is banned in XP).
Is this true? Have there been any articles written on this issue?
Gerard
**By SCM I'm not thinking of the heavy-handed administrative things that are
often associated with the term, I'm only thinking of the tool, e.g., VSS or
Perforce.
Figure 10.3A – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 1
Gerard’s message yields immediate and explicit textual evidence of MUTUAL
ENGAGEMENT, under the form of collective problem-solving, as well as SHARED
REPERTOIRE, under the form of jargon. In addition, his actions provide implicit
evidence of LEARNING (his chief intention in posting the problem); COMMUNITY
(addressing the XTRPRG VCoP), and JOINT ENTERPRISE (because his problem
illustrates that some of the practices of the XP approach have specific consequences for
the products designed under that approach).
Gerard’s message jumps straight to business, as if this discussion was just part of a
broader permanent interaction. The immediate and effective response of the community
gives the same impression. These behaviours are indicators that a CoP has formed
(Wenger, 1998).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
363
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Gerard’s high coreness score reflects his insider’s status, but does not cause it. It is the
XTRPRG community that recognises Gerard as a full member because of the competences
he displays in this message and, of course, in a prior history of shared social LEARNING
(Wenger, 1998). First, it is Gerard’s understanding of the ENTERPRISE that makes him
perceive the relevance to the community of a design issue with implications for the
products developed under XP. Second, he displays competence in ENGAGING with this
community, from the posting of an appropriate message to the newsgroup
comp.software.extreme-programming, to the crafting of a short question with big
implications, sure to catch the attention of the experts. Third, it is Gerard’s competent use
of the community’s REPERTOIRE (specifically the XP practices of short iterations and code
ownership) that supports the technical problem-solving he seeks from the community. In
sum, the VCoP recognises Gerard as one of its own because he knows the ENTERPRISE well
enough to contribute to it, he knows how to ENGAGE with the community, and he knows
how to use its REPERTOIRE (Wenger, 2000b). This social recognition of competence is, for
Gerard, a valued source of IDENTITY: being recognised as a full member of the XP VCoP is
part of his professional identity, as is his being known as a loyal critic. In fact, this is a
useful reminder that the JOINT ENTERPRISE of a CoP is collectively negotiated, and does not
entail, at any given time, homogeneity of views (Wenger, 1998).
The first participant to respond, Jake, is not a core member. In his reply, shown in Figure
10.3B, he makes no analysis. Rather he provides three references he thinks Gerard will
find useful; a previous thread from the newsgroup, a software tool and a published
article. Though brief, Jake’s reply is highly informative. The fact that he did some
research, by looking up the Internet addresses for each of the three references, reveals the
time he put into answering Gerard’s question, and thus the extent of his ENGAGEMENT.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
364
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Jake
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:05:19 +1100
Subject: Re: SCM and XP
Hi Gerard,
> ... advocate a particular style of SCM. E.g., file locking would be
> out, and code ownership would be out (I realize this last is banned
> in XP).
Perhaps banned is the wrong way of looking at code ownership in XP, my

understanding is that code ownership is equally shared, which changes
the nature of what you are asking in relation to SCM.
There was a thread last year about XP and config managment that
discusses particular SCM tools that you may find useful:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&threadm=m553oto7etp32u1unsu4sh1h1qt018r4fl%404ax.com&rnum=
1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
8%26selm%3Dm553oto7etp32u1unsu4sh1h1qt018r4fl%25404ax.com
Have you looked at Cruise Control as part of an SCM solution

(http://cruisecontrol.sourceforge.net/)?
You also might like to look at Martin Fowlers paper on Continuous

Integration that provides an overview of the benefits of (and how to
achieve) frequent software integrations:
http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html
Cheers,
Jake
--
Figure 10.3B – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 2
The next message is a thank-you note by Gerard, displayed in Figure 10.3C. He quotes
one of the three references cited by Jake to indicate it is precisely what he was after.
This quick exchange between Jake and Gerard illustrates one of the main advantages of
CoPs, real or virtual: the fact they provide a collective knowledge repository that spares
individual members from the need to know or recall everything (Wenger, 1998).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
365
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Gerard
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:14:50 GMT
...
> There was a thread last year about XP and config managment that
> discusses particular SCM tools that you may find useful:
...
Thanks!! Looks like just the kind of thing I was looking for.
Gerard
Figure 10.3C – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 3
The second response to Gerard, shown in Figure 10.3D comes from Matthew, a core
member of the newsgroup and one of its most respected figures. Like Jake, he provides
a useful reference, a book about XP published by another core member. In addition, he
ENGAGES with the problem by suggesting two ground rules Gerard should ask his team
of software developers to live by. The first rule may be labelled “No blocking” and
means a developer cannot block a module (i.e. keep it from other developers) while
working on it. The second rule can be labelled “Frequent check-ins”, and means a
developer can put back a module just as soon as he finishes modifying it.
Matthew also points out the rationale for the two rules. In effect they turn the module
check-out process into a race between developers, thus avoiding the common problem
of developers hijacking modules for unreasonable lenghts of time. Thus developers
either finish their changes quickly or they have to merge (i.e. adopt) the changes made
by their faster competitors.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
366
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Matthew
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:14:34 -0600
>I am designing an SCM (Software Change/Configuration Management) system**,

>and in thinking about the various approaches and reasons why, it occurred to
>me that a methodology that emphasized short iterations and the idea that
>programmers can change what they need to would also advocate a particular
>style of SCM. E.g., file locking would be out, and code ownership would be
>out (I realize this last is banned in XP).
>
>Is this true? Have there been any articles written on this issue?
I think Andrew's book "XP Installed" talks about this. The rules are simple:
1. No blocking. Anybody can check a module out, even if it's already checked
out by someone else. First one to check in wins. Everybody else merges.
2. Allow very frequent checkins. Nobody wants to keep the modules

checked out for long because then they'll have to do merges.
Matthew
Figure 10.3D – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 4
Matthew’s reply is fairly short, but it reflects the wisdom of his long experience. Gerard’s
thank-you note, displayed in Figure 10.3E, is also short but he seems to immediately
have caught Matthew’s idea, and his enthusiasm shows. He obviously likes the simplicity
and fairness of the approach, and realises it will be easy to sell to his team of developers.
Implicit in the exchange between Matthew and Gerard, both experienced core members
of the VCoP, is the fact they both have faced the challenge of leading a group of
talented but idiosyncratic software developers in the construction –on time and on
budget– of complex software projects, where seamless coordination is difficult but
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
367
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
essential. That this can remain tacit –because of their shared practice– makes their
communication more agile, and yet richer than their short messages would suggest.
From: Gerard
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:39:58 GMT
> I think Andrew's book "XP Installed" talks about this. The rules are simple:
Hmmm. Maybe I'll have to look into that one...
> 1. No blocking. Anybody can check a module out, even if it's already
> checked out by someone else. First one to check in wins. Everybody
> else merges.
Perfect.
> 2. Allow very frequent checkins. Nobody wants to keep the modules
> checked out for long because then they'll have to do merges.
Perfect.
Thanks!
Gerard
Figure 10.3E – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 5
The next participant in the discussion is Pete, another core member whose message is
displayed in Figure 10.3F. He thinks Matthew’s “no blocking” rule, and the pressure
it puts on developers, is too drastic. In addition, he thinks the adoption of this rule
will rule out an entire class of SCM systems, namely those that allow blocking. This
consideration of the implications reveals Pete has ENGAGED with the problem. On the
other hand, Pete fully agrees agrees with the “frequent checkin” rule, believing like
Matthew that developers tend to hang on far too long to the modules they are editing.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
368
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Pete
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:25:08 GMT
> 1. No blocking. Anybody can check a module out, even if it's already
> checked out by someone else. First one to check in wins. Everybody
> else merges.
Very handy, but not strictly necessary. If the team is small and the
members can remember (and the tools support) just checking out what
you're working on, blocking checkouts aren't necessarily that disruptive.
Non-blocking is best, but you don't have to make a radical shift in SCMs
as long as it doesn't disrupt the process.
> 2. Allow very frequent checkins. Nobody wants to keep the modules
> checked out for long because then they'll have to do merges.
Very true. Got to get away from the "I'll check it in after I just change 27
other things..." habit.
Figure 10.3F – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 6
In his response to Pete, shown in Figure 10.3G, Gerard promptly defends Matthew’s
“no blocking” rule, which he seems to have adopted whole-heartedly. He emphasises
that within the project he is considering, blocking a module while it is being modified
will cause disruption to other developers’ work. He adds that he has little regard for
SCM systems that allow blocking because they make parallel development impossible.
Perhaps to soften his strong statements, Gerard then quotes the “frequent checkin” rule
and Pete’s positive comment on it and adds his own concurrent view, a point, he adds,
where he agrees with XP. Thus Gerard lets on that his being a core member of the
XTRPRG doesn’t mean he agrees 100% with the XP approach.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
369
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Gerard
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:54:09 GMT
> Very handy, but not strictly necessary. If the team is

> small and the members can remember (and the tools
> support) just checking out what you're working on,
> blocking checkouts aren't necessarily that disruptive.
>
> Non-blocking is best, but you don't have to make
> a radical shift in SCMs as long as it doesn't disrupt
> the process.
Blocking *will* disrupt the process. It's just a matter of degree and time.
I'd definitely toss any SCM system that didn't allow parallel development.
> > 2. Allow very frequent checkins. Nobody wants to keep the modules
> > checked out for long because then they'll have to do merges.
>
> Very true. Got to get away from the "I'll check it
> in after I just change 27 other things..." habit.
This is a point where I agree with XP: add features in small increments.
After every feature, check in.
Of course, there are some changes that are not amenable to this (a sweeping
refactoring). Often it makes sense to involve the whole team with them
anyway, so there is often no merge problem in that case either.
Gerard
Figure 10.3G – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 7
The next message, displayed in Figure 10.3H is by the same Andrew whose book, XP
Installed, was mentioned earlier by Matthew. Andrew is responding to Gerard’s
original question which he quotes in full. Like Jake before him, he questions Gerard’s
assertion that in XP code ownership is banned, while admitting “team ownership” can
cause its own problems. He then agrees that it is better that the SCM follow the “no
locking” rule, even if it causes some conflicts between pairs of programmers. He feels
the agility gained by pairs of programmers that can act on code whenever they see the
need for it is well worth a few conflicts. He also adds that the best way to reduce these
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
370
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
conflicts is precisely the “frequent checkin” rule. Finally, he cites his own book as a
reference for this problem and speculates on what an SCM that incorporated all the XP
practices would be like.
From: Andrew
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:59:00 -0500
>I am designing an SCM (Software Change/Configuration Management) system**,

>and in thinking about the various approaches and reasons why, it occurred to
>me that a methodology that emphasized short iterations and the idea that
>programmers can change what they need to would also advocate a particular
>style of SCM. E.g., file locking would be out, and code ownership would be
>out (I realize this last is banned in XP).
>
>Is this true?
Well, I'd say that there is /team/ code ownership rather than individual, not that
there is /no/ code ownership. But that's a quibble and your point is a good one.
SCM seems to work best without locking, since pairs move quickly wherever they
need to go, when they need to do it. This does lead to conflicts from time to
time when two pairs edit the same class. Generally this decreases rapidly as the
system grows, though often there are a few classes that need editing a lot.
I suppose it's a sign that something is odd about the application if every time
we do anything, there's this one file that we always have to edit, but I don't
know a general rule for whether it's a problem or what to do about it. I suspect
there's always some refactoring that will make it better.
The solution to a "hot" file situation, interestingly enough, is to check it out, edit,
and check right back in. The more frequently you check in, the fewer conflicts.
> Have there been any articles written on this issue?
I can't remember any right this second, but there is a bit about it in XP Installed,
and I bet there are chapters in some of the other books that aren't popping into
my mind right now.
To design an SCM for XP, I'd think about what XPers want to do, then figure a
way to make it happen. My favorite fantasy is an SCM that pushes updates to all
online pairs, on any file they haven't edited yet. That is, one's private sandbox
is /always/ up to date with the repository, except for one's own ongoing edits.
What would happen if the SCM worked that way?
Andrew
Figure 10.3H – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 8
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
371
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Andrew’s expertise is fairly obvious, but his membership in the XTRPRG VCoP is based
on a broader competence, as judged by the community. Andrew is judged competent, and
thus a full member, because he understands the ENTERPRISE well enough to contribute to
it (writing a book is evidence of that). He is also judged competent in knowing how to
ENGAGE with other members of the community, as shown by the technical know-how and
(in this touchy newsgroup) politeness of his response. Finally, Andrew is judged
competent because he has access to and skilfully deploys the SHARED REPERTOIRE of the
community, here manifested by jargon and Shared practices.
In the last message of this illustrative example, shown in Figure 10.3I, Gerard replies
briefly to Andrew that he doesn’t think such a system would be a good idea, possibly
because of his known reservations about parts of XP, reservations which Andrew
obviously doesn’t share.
From: Gerard
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:42 GMT
> To design an SCM for XP, I'd think about what XPers want to do, then
> figure a way to make it happen. My favorite fantasy is an SCM that pushes
> updates to all online pairs, on any file they haven't edited yet. That is, one's
> private sandbox is /always/ up to date with the repository, except for one's
> own ongoing edits.
>
> What would happen if the SCM worked that way?
I don't think it's a good idea to change a developer's code base out from under
him. And a basic principle of debugging is to change only one thing at a time.
Gerard
Figure 10.3I – Extract from thread XTRPRG5, Message 9
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
372
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The nine messages of this illustrative example provide a transient but substantial
episode of collective problem-solving, even had the thread ended at this point. In fact,
the complete thread included a total of 36 messages, and involved 13 different
members of the VCoP, six of them core-members.
The examination of this episode chosen from core discussions of the XTRPRG VCoP
has highlighted members’ competence and readiness to participate in problem-solving
exercises. The complete episode, which was not included in the Content Analysis,
yields explicit textual evidence of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, in the form of collective
problem-solving; SHARED REPERTOIRE, in the form of jargon and shared practices;
LEARNING/IDENTITY ACQUISITION, in the form of acquiring new knowledge;
COMMUNITY, in the form of members’ knowledge of each other; and JOINT
ENTERPRISE in the form of caring for a domain of knowledge. Yet, in this carefully
chosen example, Wenger’s constructs have been illustrated in the original context of
the XP VCoP to build a more vivid and naturalistic description of day-to-day
activities inside the community.
10.5 – The PHYSRES VCoP
The example picked to illustrate ENGAGEMENT in the PHYSRES VCoP are the first
seven messages from thread PHYSRES3. They were chosen because they exhibit a
combination of mathematical and verbal argument which is representative of this
newsgroup and reveals highly-specialised collective problem-solving.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
373
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The jargon used by this community is nearly incomprehensible to non-members. Still,
the newsgroup is not hostile to novices. In addition to fairly comprehensive institutional
documents, including a FAQ and a searchable archive of previous discussions, one of
the core members has undertaken the task of posting brief (or not so brief) “tutorials”
about various topics, from Fourier transforms to Hilbert Space. These documents
constitute explicit evidence of the community’s SHARED REPERTOIRE, and implicitly
reveal the commitment of members to their ENTERPRISE.
The first message, the thread head, is displayed in Figure 10.4A. The author, Karl, is an
academic from a German university and a core member of the newsgroup. His question
omits greetings or preambles, and jumps right into a technical description of the
problem to be discussed, thus reflecting the continuity of interaction in the VCoP as
well as its highly specialised practice. The responses of Richard and Albert come
within a day, and are visibly grounded in the practice of mathematical physics. All of
these behaviours are indicators that a CoP has formed (Wenger, 1998).
Karl’s aim in posting the question is to point out a mathematical coincidence between
two separate fields of physics, and to ask for opinions and relevant references. He
ventures a tentative hypothesis (“Could there be a connection to the way that Connes
et al produce gravity coupled to fields from looking at traces over squares of
generalized Dirac operators?”), probably to spark a collective problem-solving
exercise and start putting together the mathematical arguments he needs to prove or
disprove his hypothesis.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
374
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Karl
Subject: Gravity from Weitzenboeck
Date: 15 Feb 2003 07:46:44 GMT
As everybody knows, the explicit expression of the Laplace-Beltrami operator

L={d,del}, as given by the Weitzenboeck formula, contains a term proportional
to the Riemann curvature tensor which is quadrilinear in the form creators
and annihilators. The condition that L be normal ordered is equivalent (when
ignoring contributions from the connection terms that may be gauged away) to
the vanishing of the Ricci tensor -- i.e. to the equations of motion of the
gravitational background field.
Is this a coincidence? To check, let's turn on further background fields. In

the presence of a Kalb-Ramond field B = B_mn/2 dx^m/\dx^n the operators d and
del deform as
d_B = exp(-B/\) d exp(B/\)
del_B = exp(-B->) del exp(B->) .
The associated deformed Laplace-Beltrami operator is
L_B = {d_B,del_B}
and the condition that it be equal to its normal ordered version can, with a
only few lines of algebra, be checked to be equivalent to the equations
R_mn - (1/4) H_mrs H_n^rs = 0
nabla_r H^r_mn = 0
H_mnr H^mnr = 0 .
This are indeed again the well known equations of motion of the background
fields G and B (for constant dilaton).
Why should the condition that the (deformed) Laplace-Beltrami operator is free
of contractions be equivalent to gravity coupled to background fields? Maybe
because of this: When the NSR superstring is formulated in Schroedinger
representation, the Hamiltonian constraint becomes essentially the
Laplace-Beltrami operator over loop space over spacetime, with the obvious
induced fields over it, and infinities (other than those known from flat space)
are only avoided when the divergent contractions vanish. In terms of the
Laplace-Beltrami operator over spacetime this is precisely the above condition.
I am looking for related discussions in the literature, but have not found
much so far. Could there be a connection to the way that Connes et al produce
gravity coupled to fields from looking at traces over squares of generalized
Dirac operators?
--
Karl
Figure 10.4A – Extract from thread PHYSRES3, Message 1
Karl’s IDENTITY as a PHYSRES insider is enacted through competence displayed along
the three dimensions of practice that make a community cohere into a CoP. First, it is
his understanding of the ENTERPRISE that makes him realise the implications of this
mathematical coincidence and bring it to the attention of the VCoP. Second, Karl
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
375
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
displays competence in ENGAGING with this community, from the specialised
knowledge required to get a message past the moderator, to the clarity and elegance of
his posted message. Third, it is Karl’s access to and competent use of the community’s
SHARED REPERTOIRE (in the form of jargon and symbolic language) that supports and
enables his highly technical ENGAGEMENT with the community. In sum, the VCoP
recognises Karl’s IDENTITY as that of a full member because he knows the ENTERPRISE
well enough to contribute, he knows how to ENGAGE with the community, and he
knows how to use its REPERTOIRE (Wenger, 2000b).
The first reply, displayed in Figure 10.4B, comes from Richard, also a core member of
PHYSRES. Before jumping into a laborious mathematical construction, he asks for a
clarification of the term “normal ordered”, which plays a pivotal role in Karl’s original
message, while offering his own technical understanding of the concept.
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Gravity from Weitzenboeck
Date: 16 Feb 2003 11:34:35 GMT
> As everybody knows, the explicit expression of the Laplace-Beltrami

> operator L={d,del}, as given by the Weitzenboeck formula, contains a
> term proportional to the Riemann curvature tensor which is
> quadrilinear in the form creators and annihilators. The condition
> that L be normal ordered is equivalent (when ignoring contributions
> from the connection terms that may be gauged away) to the vanishing
> of the Ricci tensor -- i.e. to the equations of motion of the
> gravitational background field.
The usage of the term "normal ordered" in the context is unclear to me.
Usually normal ordering is some procedure of transfroming classical
observables into the corresponding quantum ones. Any given operator can
usually be brought to normal ordered form. Then, what do you mean when you
say a given operator is "normal ordered"? Maybe that it's the normal ordered
quantization of some specific classic observable?
Best regards,
Richard
Figure 10.4B – Extract from thread PHYSRES3, Message 2
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
376
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The next message is Karl’s response to Richard, displayed in Figure 10.4C. It is a long
and carefully crafted message. It has a first part with context-setting partial quotes from
the two previous messages. The second part is a note from Albert, the newsgroup
moderator. Albert is a core member of the newsgroup, and in addition to moderating, he
maintains the FAQ, and provides a weekly report of news and discoveries in the world
of mathematical physics. Since he reviews messages before posting them to the
newsgroup, he judged the mathematical explanation given by Karl needs to be more
clearly grounded to physics. Thus he inserts a short paragraph in Karl’s message to
provide this context. In the third part, the message proper begins with a formal definition
of what is meant by “normal order”. Karl cites three published references for the
equations he copies in his message, and provides complete references at the end.
The involvement of three core members of the community, and the very complicated
mathematical arguments they exchange, clearly identify the episode as collective
problem-solving. But it is the use of symbolic and technical language that sets Karl’s
message appart, illustrating how, in skilled hands, the artifacts of the VCoP support
highly-complex Usenet-based ENGAGEMENT. The formatting, for instance, is remarkable,
as shown by the vertical alignment of “=” signs of equations. The clarity and layout of the
finished product makes reading and discussion of the mathematical argument relatively
easy, which is quite an achievement considering the symbols usually required by this
mathematical language call for specialised word processors. Indeed, the FAQ of the
newsgroup, which is partially available in Appendix Q, is a web-page rather than the
customary Usenet message because the mathematical symbols and images do not readily
translate into plain-text.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
377
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Karl
Date: 17 Feb 2003 12:00:34 GMT
>> As everybody knows, the explicit expression of the Laplace-Beltrami

>> operator L={d,del}, as given by the Weitzenboeck formula, contains a
>> term proportional to the Riemann curvature tensor which is
>> quadrilinear in the form creators and annihilators. The condition
>> that L be normal ordered is equivalent (when ignoring contributions
>> from the connection terms that may be gauged away) to the vanishing
>> of the Ricci tensor -- i.e. to the equations of motion of the
>> gravitational background field.
> The usage of the term "normal ordered" in the context is unclear to me.
[Moderator's note: before we dive into the details, it might help Richard to
hear that differential forms at a point are mathematically analogous to a
fermionic Fock space, and the usual Clifford algebra action on differential
forms can be thought of as generated by "creation and annihilation operators".
A "creation operator" is just the operation of "wedging with a basis 1-form",
while an "annihilation operator" is the adjoint thereof, defined using a metric
on spacetime. We are borrowing ideas from quantum field theory, but we're just
doing differential geometry. - Albert]
By normal order I am referring here to moving all form creators to the left of
all form annihilators:
The ordinary Laplace-Beltrami operator reads [1][2]
L = -Bochner - R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n ,
where "Bochner" is the Bochner Laplacian, R_... is the Riemann curvature

tensor and c^m, a^m are form creators and annihilators, respectively,
satisfying
{c^m,a^n} = g^mn,
where g is the metric. (Maybe this is more familiar when L is expressed [3] in
terms of Clifford generators Gamma^n_\pm = c^n \pm a^n.)
The normal ordering : : that I was referring to is with respect to the c^n and
a^n operators, for instance
:a^n a^m: = a^n a^m
:c^n c^m: = c^n c^m
:c^n a^m: = c^n a^m
:a^n c^m: = -c^m a^n
:a^n c^m c^l: = c^m c^l a^n.
I argue that normal ordering effects inside the Bochner Laplacian are in some
sense irrelevant. To make this precise, introduce Riemann normal coordinates
at one point p, so that the Bochner Laplacian at that point simply reads
Bochner(p) = g^nm(p) partial_n partial_m,
so that
:Bochner(p): = Bochner(p).
I wrote that
:L(p): = L(p)
is equivalent to the vanishing of the Riemann tensor. That's because
(continued)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
378
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(continued)
R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n
= - R_klmn c^k c^m a^l a^n + R_klmn c^k {a^l, c^m} a^n
= - R_klmn c^k c^m a^l a^n + g^lm R_klmn c^k a^n
= - R_klmn c^k c^m a^l a^n - R_kn c^k a^n
= :R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n: - R_kn c^k a^n
where R_kn is the Ricci tensor. Hence
:L(p): - L(p) = R_kn c^k a^n
and
:L(p): = L(p) <=> R_kn = 0 .
This is well known, maybe using somewhat different notation. But I am under
the impression that the analogous relation for the deformed case, that I
considered in my previous post, is not well known, even though it involves
only elementary steps.
> Usually normal ordering is some procedure of transforming classical

> observables into the corresponding quantum ones. Any given operator can
> usually be brought to normal ordered form. Then, what do you mean when you
> say a given operator is "normal ordered"? Maybe that it's the normal ordered
> quantization of some specific classic observable?
Yes. Classically the above creators and annihilators anticommute
{c^m,a^n} = 0 (classically)
and hence
R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n

= -R_klmn c^k c^m R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n a^n (classically).
The condition that this classical relation remains true upon quantization is
equivalent to the vanishing of the Ricci tensor. In this case I referred to
the quantum version of R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n as being equal to its normal
ordered version.
--
References:
[1]
author = {N. Berline and E. Getzler and M. Vergne},
title = {Heat Kernels and {D}irac Operators},
publisher = {Springer},
year = {1992}
[2]
For instance, see equation (4.45) of
author = {J. Fr{\"o}hlich and O. Grandjean and A. Recknagel},

title={Supersymmetric Quantum theory, non-commutative geometry, and
gravitation},
journal = {\tt hep-th/9706132},
year = {1997}
[3]
For instance equation (4.33) of the above reference.
Figure 10.4C – Extract from thread PHYSRES3, Message 3
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
379
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Thus, in the PHYSRES VCoP, formatting conventions are not an optional aesthetic feature
but rather a necessary aid of the highly complex discussions carried out by members. This
is a good illustration of the instrumental role of the REPERTOIRE to MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT.
From: Richard
Date: 19 Feb 2003 14:40:49 GMT
> [Moderator's note: before we dive into the details, it might help
> Richard to hear that differential forms at a point are mathematically
> analogous to a fermionic Fock space,
Yeah, this is quite obvious.
> and the usual Clifford algebra

> action on differential forms can be thought of as generated by
> "creation and annihilation operators". A "creation operator" is just
> the operation of "wedging with a basis 1-form", while an "annihilation
> operator" is the adjoint thereof, defined using a metric on spacetime.
And the generators of the Clifford algebra action are a_i + a*_i which
works because
(a_i + a*_i) ^ 2 = a_i ^ 2 + {a_i, a*_i} + a*_i ^ 2 = 0 + 1 + 0 = 1
I suppose.
> The ordinary Laplace-Beltrami operator reads [1][2]

>
> L = -Bochner - R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n ,
>
> where "Bochner" is the Bochner Laplacian, R_... is the Riemann curvature
> tensor and c^m, a^m are form creators and annihilators, respectively,
Hold on here. Who's the Bochner guy, and why is this whole thing true?
I'll keep reading the rest after some explanation :-)
Btw, the only definition of the Laplace operator I know is
d delta + delta d, where delta = *d* and * is the Hodge dual (correct me
if I'm mixing something up here).
Best regards,
Richard
Figure 10.4D – Extract from thread PHYSRES3, Message 4
The next message, in Figure 10.4D, comes from Richard, whom both Karl and Albert
addressed before. Richard understands and agrees with the note insterted by Albert,
and, just to show he knows the subject, adds an equation that provides the basis for that
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
380
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
result. However, Richard does not know the Bochner Laplacian which provides the
principal support to Karl’s argument, and asks for proper justification before
proceeding further. Remembering his netiquette, he inserts a smiley just to signal he’s
not annoyed or anything.
In response, Karl posts another long message, shown in Figure 10.4E. This message has
three distinct parts. In the first one he provides some clarification to Richard’s equation
from the previous post. He also adds an explanation about notation for any third parties
who are trying to follow the discussion, and makes a mention about the limitations of
ASCII characters. Thus Karl acknowledges the discussion does not involve just the
three posters who are active in the thread, but the broader PHYSRES community as
well. Also, since the discussion will leave a permanent record, future readers may find
this clarification useful.
In the second part of the message Karl explains the “Bochner Laplacian”, which
Richard asked about, and provides a link to a paper which adds more detail. Finally,
in the third part of the message, he once again mentions the mathematical coincidence
which started him on this line of inquiry. The fact that he writes down what are
tentative or “half-baked” ideas, and that he feels comfortable thus using the
community as a sounding-board is further evidence of his regarding it as a CoP
(Wenger, 2000b). Also, he seems to appreciate Richard’s previous skeptical comment,
possibly because it enables him to detect lines in his argument that others find
obscure.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
381
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Karl
Date: 20 Feb 2003 04:56:45 GMT
> And the generators of the Clifford algebra action are a_i + a*_i which
> works because
>
> (a_i + a*_i) ^ 2 = a_i ^ 2 + {a_i, a*_i} + a*_i ^ 2 = 0 + 1 + 0 = 1
>
> I suppose.
Yes. More precisely (a_i + a*_i)^2 = eta_ii, if the a_i, a*_i

are supposed to be defined with respect to an orthonormal
frame with eta_ij being the metric tensor in that frame. If we
drop the requirement of working in terms of an ONB we can
write more generally
{a_m, a*_n} = g_mn
and hence
{ (a*_m + a_m), (a*_n + a_n) } = 2 g_mn .
Note that there is a second copy of this Clifford algebra,

namely that generated by the elements
(a*_m - a_m)
which satisfy
{ (a*_m - a_m), (a*_n - a_n) } = -2 g_mn
and anticommute with the above generators:
{ (a*_m + a_m), (a*_n - a_n) } = 0 .
(Of course you may think of both algebras together as one

single Clifford algebra.)
In case anyone is following this and wondering about our

notation: Richard writes a* for the creators that I denoted by
c. Richard's notation is the standard one, but since a* is a
little less well adapted to ASCII, I had decided to use "c" in
my original post.
> > The ordinary Laplace-Beltrami operator reads [1][2]

> >
> > L = -Bochner - R_klmn c^k a^l c^m a^n ,
> >
> > where "Bochner" is the Bochner Laplacian, R_... is the Riemann curvature
> > tensor and c^m, a^m are form creators and annihilators, respectively,
[...]
> Btw, the only definition of the Laplace operator I know is

> d delta + delta d, where delta = *d* and * is the Hodge dual (correct me
> if I'm mixing something up here).
Yes, the Laplace-Beltrami operator is defined as L = {d,del}.

When writing this out explicitly it gives the expression that
I wrote down above. This is known as the Weitzenboeck formula,
see below.
> Hold on here. Who's the Bochner guy, and why is this whole thing true?
(continued)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
382
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(continued)
I don't know Bochner personally :-), but when you square any Dirac
operator you get one part consisting of covariant derivatives and
connection terms and one part consisting of curvature terms. In
the present case the first part is called the Bochner Laplacian.
To see how this works it is crucial to use the fact that
d = a*^n nabla_n
del = -a^n nabla_n ,
where
nabla_n = partial_n + omega_nab a*â a^b
is the "covariant derivative operator" on forms. Using this

one finds
{d,del} = - nabla_n nabla^n - Gamma_n^mn nabla_m

- a*^n a^m [nabla_n,nabla_m] .
The first two terms make up the Bochner Laplacian. The last
term
a*^n a^m [nabla_n, nabla_m] = R_nmpq a*^n a^m a*^p a^q
is the curvature term. (For more details see eq. (48) of

http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sb0264/p1.pdf .)
> I'll keep reading the rest after some explanation :-)
That's great, thank you! I am still pretty excited that in the

deformed case, which maybe we'll get to soon, the condition of
normal ordering the deformed Laplace-Beltrami operator
actually produces precisely all three background equations of
gravity coupled to the Kalb-Ramond field. Meanwhile, I have been
trying to incorporate the dilaton, but I have not yet managed to
find the deformation on d and del that corresponds to a dilaton
background. Also higher order corrections would be great. Maybe
they arise by normal ordering not L alone but exp(L), which
would make sense. (Of course, probably they do not arise this
way at all...) I was confused for a while since in GSW the
higher order stringy corrections to pure gravity is given as
R_mn + c R_mabc R_nâbc = 0, which does not seem to come from
normal ordering anything in sight. But now I seem to learn that
this must be true only for bosonic gravity and that supergravity
has quite different higher curvature corrections?
--
Karl
Figure 10.4E – Extract from thread PHYSRES3, Message 5
The next message, displayed in Figure 10.4F, is by Richard, who seems satisfied by
Karl’s explanation. His post opens with a remark about a better understanding of
“annihilators”, thus yielding explicit evidence of LEARNING. He comments –without
disagreeing– a specific section of Karl’s previous mathematical argument. Then, he

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
383
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
quotes another non-obvious section and asks where that result came from. Finally he
quotes the part in Karl’s message where a reference is given and agrees to read at least
that part of the paper before asking further questions.
From: Richard
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:27:13 +0000 (UTC)
Btw, it now appears to me the annihilators are really operators

that substitute vectors into forms. The correspondence between
the creators and the annihilators is due to the metric.
> To see how this works it is crucial to use the fact that
>
> d = a*^n nabla_n
>
> del = -a^n nabla_n ,
>
> where
>
> nabla_n = partial_n + omega_nab a*â a^b
>
> is the “covariant derivative operator” on forms.
In fact, the exterior derivative seems to be just a*^n partial_n,

because in general a*^n f_n seems to be the operator of wedging
with the form f. What you wrote here is the covariant exterior
derivative. The later however coincides with the former for
symmetric (torsion-free) connections. This is easy to see:
omega_nij a*^n a*Î a^j vanishes because omega_nij is symmetric
in n / I while a*^n a*Î is skew-symmetric. (I’m using I & j
rather than a & b to prevent confusion with a the annihilator).
> Using this

> one finds
>
> {d,del} = - nabla_n nabla^n – Gamma_n^mn nabla_m
> - a*^n a^m [nabla_n,nabla_m] .
How did you get this? You’d have to compute [nabla_n, a^m]
& [nabla_n, a*^m] for that.
> The first two terms make up the Bochner Laplacian. The last
> term
>
> a*^n a^m [nabla_n, nabla_m] = R_nmpq a*^n a^m a*^p a^q
>
> is the curvature term. (For more details see eq. (48) of
> http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sb0264/p1.pdf .)
Well, maybe I’ll just read this thingie.
Best regards,
Richard
Figure 10.4F – Extract from thread PHYSRES3, Message 6
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
384
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From: Albert
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:46:59 +0000 (UTC)
>Btw, it now appears to me the annihilators are really

>operators that substitute vectors into forms.
Right! But in differential geometry, "creation operators"

are usually called "exterior products" and "annihilation operators"
are called "interior products":
Given a p-form w and a vector v, there is a (p-1)-form called

the "interior product" of v and w, denoted i_v w, defined by
(i_v w)(v_1 , .... , v_{p-1}) = w(v, v_1 , .... , v_{p-1})
"Interior product" is a nice name, because as we'll see below,

when there's a metric around this operation is adjoint to the
more famous "exterior product". Grassman invented the exterior
product, interior product and all sorts of other products in his
book "Ausdehnunslehre" back in the 1800s, but this book was so
unreadable that people had to reinvent them all later.
>The correspondence betweeen the creators and the annihilators

>is due to the metric.
Right! A metric allows us to identify vectors and 1-forms,

and then "interior product with v" is the adjoint operator
to "exterior product with v" - that is, with the corresponding 1-form.
There's a famous identity attributed to Andre Weil relating the

Lie derivative of a p-form w, its exterior derivative, and the
interior product:
L_v w = (i_v d + d i_v)w
Cute, eh?
For short:
L_v = i_v d + d i_v
Or, for shorter:
L = [i,d]
where we are using the supercommutator.
Figure 10.4G – Extract from thread PHYSRES3, Message 7
The next message by Albert, displayed in Figure 10.4G, is a commentary on Richard’s
last message. He completes his idea on “annihilators” with a formal mathematical
argument. He then expands on Richard’s mention of a “metric” by introducing the
“Weil Identity” which will provide a useful shortcut for some of the mathematical
arguments in the rest of the thread. Using shortcuts, instead of long mathematical
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
385
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
arguments, is something members of PHYSRES seem to favour, as they frequently ask
for or provide short and elegant proofs for results. Thus, although mathematical prowess
is a must for ENGAGING with the PHYSRES VCoP, its collective problem-solving is
also characterised by brevity of mathematical expressions, and relying on previously
demonstrated or famous results.
The complete thread involved four participants, three of them core members, with a
total of 19 messages posted over a five-week period. Even this seven-message extract
provides considerable evidence of the VCoP’s complex ENGAGEMENT and REPERTOIRE.
There is also explicit evidence of LEARNING/IDENTITY ACQUISITION, in the form of
acquiring new knowledge. The evidence of COMMUNITY is implicit in this thread, but
can be construed from Karl’s clarification of notation, which neither he nor Richard
needed. Karl excitement about this technical issue provides the clearest evidence of
caring for a domain of knowledge, and hence JOINT ENTERPRISE. Thus, the selected
episode highlights the manifestation of Wenger’s constructs in the actual discussions of
the PHYSRES VCoP to provide a vivid contextual description of day-to-day activities.
10.6 – Summary
This chapter afforded an in-depth look at select interaction episodes of the four
Exemplary Usenet-based CoPs. The exercise aimed at conveying, within the space
limitations of a single chapter, a rich naturalistic description of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT
between core members. Although limited to one brief example from each VCoP, this
more vivid contextual rendering of the Wenger constructs provides a more complete
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
386
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
picture than was achievable by the methods used in Chapters Seven and Eight. By
performing this very brief ethnographic analysis, the power of Wenger’s CoP theory to
provide explanations for the day-to-day activities of these virtual communities can be
shown directly.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
387
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Conclusions
This concluding chapter will assess the extent to which Research Objectives have
been accomplished, and discuss the research’s contributions and implications; it is
organised in six sections. The First addresses the achievement of the aims and
objectives originally stated in Chapter One. The Second Section does likewise for the
Research Questions. Section Three presents the main conclusion and the
contributions of the study. Section Four discusses implications for theory,
individuals, organisations and management practice of the existence of Usenet-based
CoPs. The research’s limitations are critically discussed in Section Five. The final
section suggests directions for further research.
11.1 – Assessing achievement of research aims and objectives
The stated aim of this research was to extend Wenger’ theory of CoPs to the social
areas of the Internet by undertaking a systematic search for, and a rigorous
assessment of, working exemplars of “virtual” or Internet-based CoPs. This broad
aim was organised into six specific and cumulative Research Objectives, which will
be reviewed first.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
388
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.1.1 – Research Objective One: To build a model of Internet-based CoP that is
consistent with Wenger’s theory of CoPs, and includes theory-informed criteria that
enable selection of virtual communities with high “CoP-potential”
This objective was formally addressed in Section 4.1, although it built on previous
research reviewed in Chapters Two and Three. Using Wenger’s (1998) theory, a model
of Internet-based CoP was proposed. The model included a set of Essential Traits that
match the constructs Wenger identifies as attributes of CoPs (MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT,
SHARED REPERTOIRE, JOINT ENTERPRISE, COMMUNITY AND LEARNING/IDENTITY
ACQUISITION), and a set of Exemplary Traits, designed to make the hypothesised VCoPs
more focused and energetic, and therefore easier to detect empirically. In evaluating the
model, both theoretical consistency and practical utility should be considered. As regards
the former, the model is fully consistent with theory because it includes Wenger’s
constructs as Essential Traits. Furthermore, the model sets, through the Exemplary Traits,
high standards for hypothetical VCoPs. As discussed in Sub-Section 4.1.4, this makes
Internet detection easier at the price of substantially reducing the field of eligible virtual
communities. Although these high standards may cause some valid virtual CoPs to be
discarded, those that are retained will be, by the same token, clearer or “exemplary”
instances of virtual CoPs. Hence, the model can be evaluated as theoretically consistent.
In terms of practical utility, the effectiveness of the model was demonstrated by its
success in detecting, through the Funnel Strategy, eleven Usenet communities with high
CoP-potential, followed by Stage VI success in assessing four of them as working VCoPs
exhibiting all the attributes described by Wenger’s theory. Thus, the model proved highly
effective in guiding the dual tasks of search and assessment required by the thesis, and it
appears to be well suited for future studies of Internet-based CoPs.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
389
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.1.2 – Research Objective Two: To design, under the guidance of the model, a
Research Strategy that will, first, enable detection of Internet-based communities
exhibiting high CoP-potential, and second, enable theory-grounded analysis of
selected communities to rigorously assess whether or not they truly are CoPs.
The second objective was addressed in Section 4.6. Using the Exemplary and Essential
Traits of the VCoP model, a Research Strategy was devised, comprising six Stages,
each addressing a specific Research Objective. A necessary prior decision was to focus
the search on the Usenet network, to tailor the strategy accordingly. The Research
Strategy encompasses, and yet clearly distinguishes, an extensive search phase, guided
by the Exemplary Traits, and an intensive assessment phase, based on the Essential
Traits. The sequence of increasingly tighter filters deployed by the strategy to isolate
communities with high affinity to the VCoP model brings to mind a funnel, hence its
name. Thus the objective of building an operational Research Strategy from the
blueprint afforded by the VCoP model was successfully achieved.
11.1.3 – Research Objective Three: To conduct a highly comprehensive search of the
Internet, and to locate the virtual communities that display the strongest affinity to
the model of Internet-based CoP.
This objective was addressed by Stage III of the Strategy, reported in Chapter Six. This
Stage operationalised the Exemplary Traits into eight quantitative and qualitative
filters, and applied them, with the help of the Netscan analyser, to an initial population
of 2842 newsgroups, comprising all elligible mainstream hierarchies of Usenet. The
result was the reduced subset of twelve stable and persistent Usenet communities that
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
390
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
most strongly exhibited all Exemplary Traits of the VCoP model, hence highest
detected CoP-potential. This selection achieved Objective Three.
11.1.4 – Research Objective Four: To question regular participants of selected
communities about the presence or absence of visible manifestations of Wenger’s
constructs.
Stage IV addressed this objective through a Survey of high-coreness members of the
selected communities. Section 5.3 describes how Survey scales were iteratively developed
to measure the Essential Traits through a number of sub-constructs. Survey deployment
and results are reported in Chapter Seven. Validated survey scales succeeded in reliably
measuring nine of the twelve sub-constructs originally proposed (see Section 7.4). As each
sub-construct is an indicator of a Wenger construct, significantly high scores on the sub-
constructs were interpreted as evidence of the presence of the constructs they manifest.
Four Essential Traits were thus measured, MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, SHARED REPERTOIRE,
LEARNING/IDENTITY-ACQUISITION and COMMUNITY. In addition, some evidence for the
construct of JOINT ENTERPRISE was obtained from a content analysis of responses to the
open community question (Section 7.5). Hence the Survey achieved the Objective of
detecting the presence of Wenger’s constructs in selected communities.
11.1.5 – Research Objective Five: To directly examine online interactions of regular
participants in selected communities to determine the presence or absence of visible
manifestations of Wenger’s constructs.
This Objective was addressed by Stage V of the strategy: a Content Analysis of
discussions among core members of the communities, using coding categories derived
from Wenger’s constructs. Results are reported in Chapter Eight. Evidence was found
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
391
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
for ten out of twelve a priori sub-constructs, and two new sub-constructs were detected,
which were classified as unforeseen but theoretically-consistent manifestations of
MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT. The Content Analysis thus achieved the objective of detecting
the presence of Wenger’s constructs in participating communities.
11.1.6 – Research Objective Six: To assess the presence or absence of Wenger’s
constructs in each community, using concurring evidence from two independent
methods, and thereby establish whether any among selected virtual communities
display all theoretical properties of CoPs, and can therefore be characterised as such.
This final Objective is addressed in Chapter Nine by Stage VI, which uses the qualitative
and quantitative data obtained in Stages III, IV and V to build a composite profile of each
virtual community. In addition, a formal assessment is made regarding the presence or
absence of the Essential Traits in each community, with concurrent results from the
Survey and the Content Analysis required to confirm their presence. Four communities
were found to display the complete set of Essential Traits: CPLUS, TAXES, PHYSRES
and XTRPRG. In Stage III, they had been assessed as exhibiting all Exemplary Traits as
well, hence their inclusion in the study. In sum, these four virtual communities display
full affinity to the VCoP model, and can therefore be formally assessed as Exemplary
Usenet-based CoPs, thereby achieving Research Objective Six.
The previous assessment, though sufficient for the original aim of the research, does not
fully reflect the weight of detected evidence about Usenet-based CoPs. It merely singles
out the virtual communities where the evidence is strongest, making a deliberate trade-off
of validity versus extension. This is a pragmatic decision motivated by the exploratory
character of the study, and the fact that a few rigorously assessed instances of successful
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
392
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
virtual CoPs are sufficient to achieve the aim of the research. However, the study
identifies at least two additional communities, MEDTRAN and UKAGRI, which nearly
qualified as VCoPs, thus becoming natural candidates for further research. Moreover, the
forthcoming discussion of individual Essential Traits (in Sub-Section 11.2.2) will argue
that the fragmentary but valid evidence found across all virtual communities suggests
Usenet CoPs may be more common than implied by the numeric results of this study.
11.1.7 – General Aim of the Thesis
Each of the six Research Objectives structuring the overall aim of this study has been
successfully completed. The study proposed a theoretically-grounded model of Usenet-
based CoP and designed a multi-staged Research Strategy to locate and evaluate such
hypothesised communities. Field research began in Stage III with a Netscan
examination of the mainstream hierarchies of Usenet; 2842 newsgroups were scanned,
and 41 chosen for closer analysis by applying mostly quantitative criteria. These were
further reduced to 12 virtual communities by applying more intensive qualitative
criteria and a core-periphery analysis. Stage IV “used up” one community to pilot the
Survey instrument; then deployed the main Survey on 11 virtual communities, with 239
participants responding. Stage V performed Content Analysis on a theoretical sample
of 44 threads dominated by core members of the communities. Both the Survey and the
Content Analysis intentionally targeted the Essential Traits of the VCoP model. Stage
VI built a profile of every community and zeroed in on those exhibiting all Essential
Traits according to independent and concurring results by both research instruments.
Four communities were found to display complete affinity to the VCoP model, hence
formally assessed as Exemplary Usenet-based CoPs. The systematic completion of all
Research Objectives ensures that the general aim of the thesis is accomplished as well.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
393
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.2 – The Research Questions addressed
The empirical stages of the Research Strategy yielded the evidence to address all
Research Questions, but discussion was intentionally deferred until now in order to
simultaneously address the three sets of Preliminary, Essential and Exemplary Research
Questions, and to be able to draw on all collected evidence.
11.2.1 – Preliminary Research Questions
Confirmation to most questions of this set can be inferred from the success of Stage III
of the Funnel Strategy, reported in Chapter Six. These questions were framed as
statements that postulated the existence of Usenet-based groups exhibiting certain
attributes, which existence is confirmed by the results of the Usenet search.
11.2.1.1 – Preliminary1: There exist large numbers of stable Internet-based groups,
and efficient techniques can be devised to locate them.
The Netscan searches detected 237 dense communication clusters in Usenet, as a result
of applying quantitative Filters 1 through 3 to the original sample of 2,842 newsgroups
(see Table 6.2, p. 171). Empirically, these groups appeared as high-volume
newsgroups, exhibiting low poster-to-post ratio, thread-to-post ratio and percentage of
cross-posting. This number is 8.3% of the original newsgroup population; which
underscores the importance of leveraging Usenet’s large size. Preliminary1 is thus
weakly supported, yet stringent selection actually improves the CoP-potential of
retained communities.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
394
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.2.1.2 – Preliminary2: Internet-based groups exhibit considerable variation along
the following dimensions:
a) the size of the group
b) the volume of participant interaction
c) their success in maintaining a focused discussion
d) the topics they address
e) the support documents they develop
f) the level of conflict among participants
g) the social-network structure they adopt
Raw Netscan results (Appendix D) yielded evidence of considerable variation in size,
number of posts, topics, and percentage of cross-posting; results which were summarised in
Table 6.3 (p. 174). The variability in the percentage of cross-posting, is related to
discussion focus and to core-periphery structure. Additionally, large differences were found
regarding institutional document quality and participant conflict, results which were
summarised in Table 6.4 (p. 178). Lastly, core-periphery model fit ranged from poor to
excellent, as shown in Table 6.5 (p. 182). Thus, Preliminary2 is strongly confirmed.
11.2.1.3 – Preliminary3: Techniques can be devised to assess the relative affinity of
Internet-based groups to the VCoP model along each of the listed dimensions.
Stage III operationalised the Exemplary Traits into four quantitative and three
qualitative filters that were successively applied within the Funnel (see Figure 6.1, p.
166). These filters were successful in selecting newsgroups displaying the highest
affinity to the Exemplary Traits of the model. This success demonstrates the
effectiveness of the proposed techniques and strongly confirms Preliminary3.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
395
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
These Preliminary Questions contribute to a rigorous methodological discussion
because they make explicit the assumptions on which rested the Usenet search. The
large number of Usenet-based groups and their substantial diversity, improved the odds
of at least some groups strongly displaying the particular combination of empirical
attributes later designated Exemplary Traits. Equally important was being able to
measure individual Traits, and rank newsgroups with respect to each one. The success
achieved by Stage III confirmed all three methodological assumptions. That this
success improves the odds of actually finding Usenet-based CoPs is the explicit
postulate of Preliminary4.
11.2.1.4 – Preliminary4: Internet-based groups exhibiting all Exemplary Traits to a
high degree are more likely to be CoPs.
This question cannot be logically addressed before the Essential Trait Questions (i.e.
before actually indentifying a CoP). Therefore, discussion will be deferred until the
end of the section. The same reasoning applies to the Exemplary Trait Research
Questions.
11.2.2 – Essential Trait Research Questions
Eleven virtual communities, with high CoP-potential, entered Stages IV and V of the
Funnel Strategy, and were independently examined through the Survey and the Content
Analysis. Using concurring results from both instruments as the detection criteria, the
Essential Traits were found to be present, to some extent, across all eleven
communities. Detected constructs were reported in Table 9.3 (p. 294).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
396
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.2.2.1 – Essential1. There exist groups that sustain MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT through
Internet-based interaction
Stage VI found concurring results for MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT in eight out of eleven
selected communities (see Table 9.3, p. 294). Only CRYPT, CIVWAR and FINPLAN
failed to display ENGAGEMENT, because Survey results failed to corroborate positive
results from the Content Analysis. In fact, even with a small four-thread sample, the
Content Analysis of participant interactions found evidence of ENGAGEMENT across all
eleven communities under four manifestations: ‘Debating issues’, ‘Sharing
information’, ‘Sharing knowledge’ and ‘Sharing personal experience’. The last two
were not a priori coding categories, but unforeseen yet theoretically consistent
manifestations of ENGAGEMENT detected by the Content Analysis. Hence, Essential1 is
strongly confirmed.
Furthermore, since MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT is the root cause that makes an interacting
group of people cohere as a CoP (Wenger, 1998), the fact that the construct was
detected by concurring results in eight of eleven communities, and in all communities
if only Content Analysis results were considered, indicates there is a good probability
that Usenet CoPs are more common than the actual results of this study would
suggest. The method of Content Analysis used in this research has a narrower scope
than ethnography because it relied on an a priori coding scheme, and it only
examined a small, albeit theoretically-selected, thread sample. However, there is no
methodological reason to suppose the broader and more detailed analysis of
ethnography would reject the evidence of the Essential Traits already detected by the
Content Analysis. Rather, the expected result would be a confirmation, with enriched
detail, of the CoP character of detected VCoPs, for instance finding fresh evidence
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
397
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
about JOINT ENTERPRISE and IDENTITY ACQUISITION, or addressing such unanswered
questions as the boundaries between core and peripheral members. Moreover, the
discovery of fresh evidence that did not contradict the already detected Essential
Traits, would very likely result in the assessment of more communities as VCoPs. If
numerous and varied instances of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT were detected by the
Content Analysis in the eleven participating communities (see Table 8.4, p. 265), and,
as mentioned earlier, ENGAGEMENT is the root cause of a CoP, then it is reasonable to
suppose ethnography would add to the number of detected VCoPs. This, of course,
provides an interesting avenue for further research, which will be mentioned again in
Section 11.6.
11.2.2.2 – Essential2. There exist groups that negotiate a JOINT ENTERPRISE through
Internet-based ENGAGEMENT
This Essential Trait, whose concrete manifestation was defined as ‘Caring for a domain
of knowledge’ was concurrently detected in just five communities; the four detected
VCoPs plus CIVWAR (see Table 9.3, p. 294). Hence, the Research Question is
confirmed, but weakly. This is due to a limitation of the study that can be traced to the
difficulties of observing this particular sub-construct, which remains largely implicit in
the focused on-topic discussions of the communities. JOINT ENTERPRISE fell outside the
scope of the Survey, as discussed in Section 7.7, because none of the validated scales
measured the sub-construct of ‘Caring for a domain of knowledge’; hence non-
statistical evidence from the open community question was used instead. As regards the
Content Analysis, Section 8.6 noted evidence for the sub-construct was scanty,
probably due to the small number of threads examined in each community.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
398
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.2.2.3 – Essential3. There exist groups that develop a SHARED REPERTOIRE through
Stage VI found concurring results of SHARED REPERTOIRE in six communities, the four
VCoPs plus MEDTRAN and VISOBJ (see Table 9.3, p. 294). The Research Question
is therefore strongly confirmed. Furthermore, the Content Analysis detected
considerable evidence of REPERTOIRE in all communities. This is not surprising, given
the instrumental nature of REPERTOIRE with respect to ENGAGEMENT, and the fact that
the latter had already been detected in all communities. Of course, extensive evidence
of REPERTOIRE further increases the likelihood that ethnography can detect additional
Usenet CoPs, as previously noted.
11.2.2.4 – Essential4. There exist groups that cohere as a COMMUNITY through
Concurring results for COMMUNITY were found in just three communities: CPLUS,
MEDTRAN and UKAGRI (see Table 9.3, p. 294). In three other communities,
PHYSRES, TAXES and XTRPRG, evidence from the open community question was
evaluated as sufficient to satisfy the two-method triangulation rule. Specifically, both
PHYSRES and TAXES displayed positive Content Analysis results for ‘Members’
knowledge of each other’, and substantial evidence for the same sub-construct from the
community question. In the case of XTRPRG, Content Analysis indicated the presence
of both ‘Members’ knowledge of each other’ and ‘Shared sense of professional
community’, while 51% of respondents to the open community question gave the
opinion that XTRPRG was a community. Hence the Research Question is confirmed
but with the weakest results among all Essential Traits.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
399
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.2.2.5 – Essential5. There exist groups whose members achieve LEARNING through
The Essential Trait most frequently detected by Stage VI was LEARNING, with concurrent
results in nine communities (see Table 9.3, p. 294). Only in FINPLAN and COBOL
Content Analysis results could not corroborate positive Survey results. Hence, the Research
Question is strongly confirmed. In the case of LEARNING, it is the Survey, not the Content
Analysis, that provides the most evidence, specifically the scale of ‘Acquiring new
knowledge’ which had significantly high scores in every community (see Table 7.19, p.
229). The Content Analysis did find explicit instances, but not very numerous. Thus it
seems LEARNING is an Essential Trait that people will readily, even enthusiastically, report
if asked about, yet not so common to find in explicit form in online interactions.
11.2.2.6 – Essential6. There exist groups whose members ACQUIRE AN IDENTITY through
The construct of IDENTITY ACQUISITION is a special case because in Wenger’s theory it
is a manifestation of LEARNING, and therefore not an independent construct.
Nonetheless, it would have further strengthened study results if this construct too had
been independently detected. Unfortunately, the Content Analysis did not find
evidence of it, probably because of the small thread sample. Thus, even though the
Survey detected Identifying with the profession in seven communities (see Table 9.3, p.
294), there were no concurring results from the Content Analysis to reach a
triangulated conclusion. The issue could be further explored with an expansion of the
Content Analysis sample or with an unrestricted ethnography, but this is a task best left
for future research.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
400
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.2.3 – Principal Research Question
While the previous Essential Trait tallies are interesting enough, the research design
specifies Essential Trait Questions should be considered a unified interrelated set, in
order to preserve their logical link to the question that launched this research, namely:
There exist stable Internet-based groups that function as Communities of
Practice.
Indeed, as mentioned in Chapter Four, breaking down the Principal Question into the
six Essential Trait Questions is only valid if they are viewed as a unitary set, because
the definition of CoP chosen by the thesis specifically required the presence of all
Wenger constructs, in order that detected VCoPs could be described as not lacking any
of the attributes specified by Wenger’s (1998) theory. Therefore, the main and intended
result of the thesis is the fact that four Usenet-based communities were located,
exhibiting all the attributes of CoPs as defined by Wenger, and which can be said to
function as Usenet-based Communities of Practice.
In good logic, the Principal Research Question had to be addressed immediately after
the Essential Trait Questions, to which it is directly linked. The next section will
provide further discussion of the strong conclusion reported above.
11.2.4 – Exemplary Trait Research Questions
The successful detection of four Usenet-based CoPs makes it possible to address the
Exemplary Trait Research Questions. Prior to Stage VI of the Research Strategy, these
questions described a conjectural entity, the Exemplary Internet-based CoP. Having
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
401
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
verified this hypothesised entity actually exists, the Exemplary Trait Questions become
defining features, because they were included as such in the VCoP model (see Figure 4.1,
p. 98). Therefore, they are automatically confirmed, because displaying all Exemplary
Traits to a high degree was the Stage III criterion for selecting participating communities.
11.2.4.1 – Exemplary1: An Exemplary Internet-based CoP is mid-sized
The four detected VCoPs exhibit Netscan Returnees values ranging from 31 for XTRPRG
to 172 for CPLUS (see Table 9.2, p. 293). Since this value is roughly three times the
number of stable members of a newsgroup (Murillo, 2002), the VCoPs have 10 to 57 stable
members, a size that ensures sufficient critical mass for energetic interaction (Oliver and
Marwell, 1988), without becoming so large that direct ENGAGEMENT becomes impossible.
11.2.4.2 – Exemplary2: An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits a high volume of
participant interaction
Detected VCoPs are all embedded in newsgroups displaying high volume of participant
interaction, which indicates sustained ENGAGEMENT. Netscan values for monthly Posts
range from 493 for XTRPRG to 2006 for TAXES (see Table 9.2, p. 293).
11.2.4.3 – Exemplary3: An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits a core-periphery
structure
All VCoPs displayed good fit of the core-periphery model, as measured by the Correlation
and Concentration UCINET results (see Table 9.2), and the nDiff graphs (see Appendix
G). A core-periphery structure is common in mature CoPs (Wenger, 2000a), and indicates
more people are stable members of the CoP than just the few who belong to the core.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
402
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.2.4.4 – Exemplary4: An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits highly-focused discussions
Exemplary Usenet CoPs exhibited focused discussions, quantitatively manifested by a
low percentage of cross-posting, ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 (see Table 9.2, p. 293). In
addition, the community profile built by Stage VI found online discussions in these
communities to be consistently on-focus (three of them are moderated), and
successfully avoiding off-topic posts from trolls or spam.
11.2.4.5 – Exemplary5: The topic of an Exemplary Internet-based CoP is an
identifiable profession
Detected VCoPs were identified by Stage III to be centred on professional disciplines:
theoretical physics, tax-preparation, and computer programming. This ensured their
online discussions were more than a hobby or a shared interest, but rather, a fully
professional practice, thereby increasing their CoP-potential.
11.2.4.6 – Exemplary6: An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits high-quality
institutional documents
All detected VCoPs exhibits institutional documents (available in Appendix Q) that were
rated by Stage III as good (XTRPRG) or very good (CPLUS, TAXES and PHYSRES).
This is strong indication of a mature SHARED REPERTOIRE, an essential element of a CoP.
11.2.4.7 – Exemplary7: An Exemplary Internet-based CoP is non-conflictive
Selected communities were initially examined for conflictual behaviour in Stage III; using
capitalised subject lines of Usenet messages as the visible manifestation. Stage VI again
reviewed selected communities for conflict (see Chapter Nine), finding MEDTRAN has
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
403
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
displayed strong fights in the past. However, the four detected VCoPs successfully avoided
conflictual behaviour, and its disruptive effects on ENGAGEMENT and COMMUNITY.
Hence, all Exemplary Trait Questions are strongly supported. Which leads, in turn, to the
pending Preliminary Research Question Four. This methodological assumption stated that
virtual communities exhibiting to a high degree all Exemplary Traits were more likely to
function as true CoPs. Formulating this question was important, because it made explicit
the rationale for the VCoP model and the Funnel Strategy. The study found that of eleven
communities exhibiting all Exemplary Traits, four were assessed as VCoPs, and two more
came close enough to remain viable candidates, which is interpreted as moderate support
for the question. This, of course, does not provide a general answer to Preliminary4, which
would require at a minimum a probabilistic sample of newsgroups (and a large one at that)
followed by an Exemplary Trait-assessment and a CoP-assessment of all newsgroups in the
sample in order to determine estimated probabilities.
However, for the purpose of launching this research, the a priori plausibility of
Preliminary4, was deemed sufficient. This plausibility was explained in Chapter Four
as related to the Exemplary Traits that furnished focus, energy and productivity, with
the Exemplary Trait that centred the community in a profession, and hence a practice.
The success of the study now provides a posteriori confirmation of Preliminary4 that
can be deemed sufficient as well. Furthermore, the relevance of the visible attributes
defined as Exemplary Traits is also confirmed.
As a summary of this section, Table 11.1 displays the three sets of Research
Questions and the specific results where the relevant empirical evidence is available.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
404
Table 11.1 – The Research Questions and specific study results used to address them
RESEARCH QUESTIONS RELEVANT EVIDENCE SUPPORT
Preliminary1. There exist large numbers of stable Internet-based groups, and efficient techniques can be Table 6.2 (p. 171) weakly supported
devised to locate them
Preliminary2. Internet-based groups exhibit considerable variation along the following dimensions:
a) the size of the group size, volume, topic, focus: Table 6.3 (p.174) strongly supported
b) the volume of participant interaction
c) the extent to which they adopt a core-periphery structure core-periphery: Table 6.5 (p. 182) strongly supported
d) their success in maintaining a focused discussion
e) the topics they focus on documents, conflict: Table 6.4 (p. 178) strongly supported
f) the institutional documents they develop
g) the level of conflict in participant interactions
Preliminary3. Techniques can be devised to assess the affinity of Internet-based groups along each Chapter Five, Sections 1 & 2 address design; strongly supported
dimension to the corresponding Exemplary Trait of the VCoP model. Chapter Six reports execution.
Preliminary4. Internet-based groups exhibiting all Exemplary Traits to a high degree are more likely Chapter Nine profiles reveal detected VCoPs scored highly moderately supported
to be CoPs. on the Exemplary Traits.
Essential1. There exist groups that sustain MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT through Internet-based interaction Table 9.3 (p. 294): detected in 8 out of 11 communities strongly supported
Essential2. There exist groups that negotiate a JOINT ENTERPRISE through Internet-based ENGAGEMENT Table 9.3: detected in 5 out of 11 communities weakly supported
Essential3. There exist groups that develop a SHARED REPERTOIRE through Internet-based ENGAGEMENT Table 9.3: detected in 6 out of 11 communities strongly supported
Essential4. There exist groups that cohere as a COMMUNITY through Internet-based ENGAGEMENT Table 9.3: detected in 3 out of 11 communities weakly supported
Essential5. There exist groups whose members achieve LEARNING through Internet-based ENGAGEMENT Table 9.3: detected in 9 out of 11 communities strongly supported
Essential6. There exist groups whose members ACQUIRE AN IDENTITY through Internet-based ENGAGEMENT Table 9.3: not detected independently not supported
Exemplary1. An Exemplary Internet-based CoPs is mid-sized Table 9.2 (p. 293): VCoP Returnees range from 31 to 172 strongly supported
Exemplary2. An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits a high volume of participant interaction Table 9.2: VCoP Posts range from 493 to 2006 strongly supported
Exemplary3. An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits a core-periphery structure Table 9.2: VCoP topics are professions strongly supported
Exemplary4. An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits highly-focused discussions Table 9.2: VCoPs exhibit core-periphery structure strongly supported
Exemplary5. The topic of an Exemplary Internet-based CoP is an identifiable profession Chapter Nine: VCoPs exhibit strong focus strongly supported
Exemplary6. An Exemplary Internet-based CoP exhibits high-quality institutional documents Chapter Nine: VCoPs have good documents strongly supported
Exemplary7. An Exemplary Internet-based CoP is non-conflictive Chapter Nine: VCoPs are non-conflictual strongly supported
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.3 – General conclusion and thesis contributions
Thus, the elaborate sets of Research Questions that provided guidance and focus to this
study have been confirmed, supporting, as the general conclusion of the thesis, what
began as a testable statement:
There exist stable Internet-based groups that function as Communities of
Practice.
Hence, the thesis can be evaluated as having successfully achieved its declared aim:
Wenger’s theory of CoPs can be extended to the Internet because virtual communities
were found exhibiting all the attributes formerly described only for co-located CoPs
(Wenger, 1998).
The study constitutes an original contribution to CoP literature in two respects. First, it
confirms the existence of extra-organisational Internet-based CoPs through the
systematic search and rigorous assessment of four working examples. Second, the study
applies Wenger’s (1998) theory in full. Specifically, the Wenger constructs are used to
build the theoretical model, guide the Internet search, and rigorously assess detected
virtual CoPs.
In addition, the original Research Strategy devised by the study makes three
methodological contributions. First, the novel procedure deployed by Stage III, which
used quantitative and qualitative criteria from the VCoP model, with Smith’s (1999)
Netscan analyser and the Borgatti-Everett core-periphery model to empirically detect
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
406
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
stable and persistent Usenet-based communities. Judging from the results of Stage III,
reported in Chapter Six, the procedure can be rated as highly effective and a useful
contribution to the literature on Usenet-based communities.
Second, the procedures deployed by Stages IV, V and VI to rigorously assess the CoP
attributes of selected communities. These procedures combined a Survey of participants
with a Content Analysis of textual discussions, and specified concurrent results from both
instruments to increase validity. The results, reported in Chapter Nine, suggest the
procedures were effective, and can be deployed in other contexts to assess whether a
particular virtual community functions as a CoP.
Third, the validated Survey instrument (Appendix L), which is proposed as a useful tool
for future studies of virtual CoPs. As mentioned in Section 7.7, the current version of the
Survey lacks a validated scale for Wenger’s construct of JOINT ENTERPRISE, suggesting
an additional revision be made before another field attempt is tried. Item wording betrays
the Survey’s original targeting of newsgroups, but can be easily adapted for use in
different online forums, such as listservs or private discussion groups.
Several achieved milestones contribute to the overall success of the study:
• A model of Internet-based CoP was proposed that derives its theoretical
consistency from including all the attributes Wenger (1998) identifies for
CoPs.
• A strategy for comprehensive Usenet searches of virtual communities was
developed, capitalising on the power of Smith’s Netscan analyser.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
407
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
• A set of Exemplary Traits was proposed which, by being empirically
detectable, and imposing high standards on hypothesised CoPs, successfully
guided the Usenet search to the intended targets.
• Survey and Content Analysis results were meaningfully combined to
identify the hypothesised Essential Traits with greater confidence than either
method could have achieved on its own.
• Four Usenet-based communities were discovered lacking none of the
attributes Wenger reported on co-located CoPs.
• Detected Usenet CoPs were focused, energetic, exhibiting a core-periphery
structure, and a variety of domains, evenly divided between computer and
non-computer topics.
• Two more Usenet communities remain strong candidates to qualify as true
CoPs, thus providing ready-made avenues for further research.
• Fragmentary but valid evidence was obtained, mostly through the Content
Analysis, which points to Usenet CoPs being more common than the results
of this study would suggest.
The study also exhibited weak points, where achieved results did not match
expectations:
• Concurring results for COMMUNITY had to rely on the open community
question in three detected VCoPs, as mentioned in the discussion of
Essential4.
• Survey evidence of JOINT ENTERPRISE had to rely on the open community
question, because the validated scales failed to measure this construct.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
408
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
• No evidence of ACQUIRING AN IDENTITY was found by the Content
Analysis.
Additional limitations, mostly methodological, are discussed in Section 11.5.
11.4 – Study implications
11.4.1 - Implications for theory
The finding that extra-organisational CoPs spontaneously emerge in the social areas of
the Internet constitutes new support for Wenger’s (1998) position that CoPs are
naturally-occurring social structures. In addition, it provides a useful complement, and
in some aspects a contrast, to Brown and Duguid’s (2000b; 2001) theory of NoPs, and
Wasko and Teigland’s (2004) model of electronic NoPs or ENoPs. Specifically, the
findings of this study:
• Support Brown and Duguid’s (2001) suggestion that CoPs are high-density
areas of larger NoPs, because all detected VCoPs operated at or near the
relatively dense cores of newsgroups exhibiting an overall core-periphery
structure.
• Do not support Brown and Duguid’s (2000b) and Wasko and Teigland’s
(2004) position that all CoPs are face-to-face co-located structures and only
NoPs can be Internet-based, because detected VCoPs lacked none of the
attributes of co-located CoPs (Wenger, 1998).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
409
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
• Suggest MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT at the core of some newsgroups makes them
deviate over time from the ENoP model, because sustained ENGAGEMENT
results in members getting to know each other and a true community
gradually emerging, hence violating one assumption of a pure ENoP (Wasko
and Teigland, 2004).
However, as previously noted in Chapter Three, the fact that CoPs can be virtual does
not modify NoP theory per se because putting restrictions on CoPs is not really
necessary to its argument or its usefulness to explain knowledge leakiness and
stickiness (Brown and Duguid, 2001).
It will be recalled that one of the reasons for focusing this research on the Usenet
network was to examine the notion that low media-richness would pose an obstacle to
ENGAGEMENT. The discovery of successful Usenet-based CoPs –some with fairly
complex ENGAGEMENT– supports Wenger et al’s (2002) argument that it is the shared
practice and the sustained ENGAGEMENT of members, that makes possible a distributed
CoP, rather than the richness of the medium. Furthermore, because newsgroups are just
one of several online technologies allowing one-to-many communication, it is
reasonable to expect virtual CoPs to exist in other social areas of the Internet. The fact
that loss of domain focus disqualified some newsgroups as VCoPs (specifically VISOBJ
and CRYPT) suggests listservs may prove a better environment for online CoPs, because
their subscription requirement provides some defence against spam and trolls.
On first sight, virtual CoPs might seem an imperfect substitute for conventional or co-
located CoPs. After all, the argument goes, people will prefer to ENGAGE other people
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
410
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
in the real world, rather than just over a computer screen. In the abstract, the argument
is true, but there are increasingly common situations where virtual CoPs have a real
edge. To see this, it will be useful to compare real and virtual CoPs along each of the
dimensions defined by the Essential Traits.
With respect to MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT, it is true that most people will prefer to ENGAGE
in person rather than over a computer, particularly when working on complex problems
(Robertson et al, 2001). Thus, with respect to interaction richness, face-to-face CoPs are
superior. However, when interaction convenience is considered, virtual CoPs frequently
have the advantage, because they can be accessed from any place, and they are always in
session. Thus they are a constantly available source of help for members, as the episodes
described in Chapter Ten vividly illustrated. Considering the fact that an increasing
proportion of employees are highly mobile (Hindle, 2006), this ease-of-access is a huge
advantage of virtual CoPs.
As regards COMMUNITY, i.e. who belongs, virtual CoPs potentially have an advantage,
because they can include the kind of world-class talent that few face-to-face peer
groups can match. The study illustrated this most clearly by the select membership of
the CPLUS VCoP. Of course, virtuality per se does not guarantee the participation of
world-class talent, but locality is certainly an iron restriction.
With respect to JOINT ENTERPRISE, a virtual CoP, if it has access to a more qualified
membership, will probably set higher standards for its ENTERPRISE. The same argument
applies to the LEARNING, and IDENTITY ACQUISITION dimensions. Again, CPLUS
provides the best illustration.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
411
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Finally, there seems to be no clear winner in the dimension of SHARED REPERTOIRE. For
one thing, some REPERTOIRES and practices are just not amenable to virtualisation, for
instance, Cook and Yanow’s (1993) celebrated flute-making example. Yet, as this
study has shown, many REPERTOIRES can be virtual, at least to some extent, thus
enjoying instant around-the-clock access.
In sum, the generalisation that face-to-face CoPs are better than virtual CoPs does not
hold in every circumstance or along every CoP dimension, it is contingent. In fact, it is
likely that for individuals, it will not be the virtuality or the locality that matters the
most, but the fact that for different problems, different CoPs are better resources,
because of their area of expertise or because of the people that participate. Wenger
(2000b) points out multimembership in CoPs is normal and offers increased LEARNING
opportunities. Hence people will likely seek and join both co-located and Internet
CoPs, and dynamically adjust their time between them to fully exploit LEARNING and
IDENTITY-ACQUIRING possibilities. This suggests another direction for future research
(see Section 11.6).
11.4.2 - Implications for individuals
For individual practitioners and professionals extra-organisational Internet-based CoPs
can be a convenient and valuable resource for learning, enhancing personal practice and
developing professional identity in a wide variety of fields. In this era of fast-paced
change, regular ENGAGEMENT with a network of knowledgeable peers is a good way of
preventing one’s competence from becoming stale. Moreover, the possibility is not
limited only to computer and IT subjects, although in such subjects, the knowledge of
Internet-based CoPs is frequently world-class, as exemplified by the CPLUS VCoP. In
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
412
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
fact, it would be difficult for a conventional face-to-face peer group to replicate the
number and quality of experts who routinely ENGAGE and LEARN from each other in the
CPLUS VCoP.
The possibility of interacting with like-minded professionals over the Internet is
particularly valuable to people who through geographic or organisational isolation
lack a local peer group (Thomsen, 1996; Wasko and Teigland, 2002). For instance,
academics who do not find in their local departments a sufficient critical mass of
colleagues working on their particular research topics (Pickering and King, 1995),
can try to locate, or even launch, an Internet CoP focused on them. If they succeed, it
may well become the equivalent of a permanently running conference, and encourage
the development of more personal publication-oriented networks (Lowrie and
McKnight, 2004).
Virtual CoPs can provide a safe glimpse into a practice and a potential identity.
Hence, they may offer a venue for people undergoing a career change to perform low-
risk practice/identity experiments to bring into sharper focus the new professional
identity (Ibarra, 2003).
This research was launched under the hypothesis that passionate practitioners would
use the Internet to locate and ENGAGE with other practitioners, and the results of the
study confirm this. The same intuition can help practitioners in their search for suitable
virtual CoPs. Using the size of the Internet as a resource, a professional can start off
from the assumption that somewhere in the Internet there must be a successful virtual
CoP addressing his/her specialism, and then try to imagine where such a group would
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
413
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
choose to meet, how it would advertise its presence and its topical interest, and how it
would go about recruiting new members. The search field need not be limited to
Usenet, in the way this thesis chose to for methodological reasons. In fact, listservs or
private discussion forums set up by professional associations are probably a better
choice, because of their increased focus.
11.4.3 - Implications for organisations
The existence of extra-organisational Internet-based CoPs holds important lessons for
organisations as well. The fundamental premise for managers is that nowadays most
business organisations operate immersed in large, densely-connected knowledge
ecologies which provide both opportunities for knowledge acquisition and risks of
knowledge loss (Brown and Duguid, 1998). Achieving the former and preventing the
latter should be part of management’s agenda, and at a minimum, this requires
management’s awareness of the existence and pervasiveness of these ecologies, which
through the Internet can extend around the world. Moreover, managers should keep in
mind that access to these knowledge ecologies, for good or for evil, is provided by
active ENGAGEMENT in extra-organisational CoPs, real or virtual, by the organisation’s
employees. Therein lies importance of securing the goodwill and loyalty of knowledge
workers through well-designed HRM policies (Newell et al, 2002). Handy (1994)
argues professionals today are more loyal to their profession (hence their CoPs) than to
the organisation where they currently practice. The existence of world-class virtual
CoPs provides talented employees with a convenient benchmark for comparing the
projects and teams they are currently working on, with those of their peers at other
companies. For employing organisations, this translates into a constant world-class
competition for the hearts and minds of talented people (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2002).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
414
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In addition, it is frequently argued that employee participation in CoPs enables and
fosters innovation (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Stewart, 1997; Cook and Brown, 1999;
Swan, Newell and Robertson, 2000b). The existence of extra-organisational virtual
CoPs increases the range and scope of available possibilities. ENGAGEMENT with them
can be a source of “generative interactions” for companies pursuing a strategy of
exploiting increasing exogenous complexity in order to gain new knowledge and
insight (Morieux, Blaxill and Boutenko, 2005).
Finally, because world-class VCoPs attract high-quality professionals, who can be
unobstrusively observed as they ENGAGE with peers, they can be used by company
recruiters and headhunters as a vantage forum for detecting and assessing prospective
employees.
The potential advantages of interacting with extra-organisational VCoPs should not
blind organisations to their limitations. An important one is that extra-organisational
discipline-centred VCoPs do not have the specific intimate knowledge of the
organisation that conventional local CoPs have. Hence, they cannot develop and
implement tailor-made solutions to problems with the effectiveness of local CoPs, even
if they can be a good source of ideas.
11.4.4 - Implications for Management practice
As mentioned in the introduction, managers’ increased interest regarding Knowledge
Management is fairly recent, from the mid-nineties. Interest in CoPs is more recent still,
and understanding the true nature of CoPs, and the role they play in organisational
knowledge (Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001), is still work-in-progress. The demonstrated
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
415
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
existence of virtual CoPs adds another layer of complexity. Managers’ appreciation for
co-located CoPs rested on the assumption that the knowledge generated by these
informal groups was valuable and safely localised within organisational boundaries. This
assumption breaks down with the realisation that employees potentially are members of
both local and extra-organisational virtual CoPs, making inward and outward knowledge
flows much more difficult to predict or control.
Whether internal of external, real or virtual, CoPs should be viewed in the context of a
broader knowledge strategy (Stewart, 1997; Wenger, 2004b). Without such a strategy,
the potential contribution of extra-organisational CoPs cannot be fathomed, or properly
capitalised should it occur. Modern KM programmes already pay attention to intra-
organisational co-located CoPs (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). The next logical step is to
identify and encourage participation in extra-organisational Internet-based CoPs whose
knowledge can be critical for the organisation (Anand, Glick and Manz, 2002; Roberts,
2006). Effectively and continuously tapping external sources of knowledge entails a
serious management challenge. Yet, in the knowledge-based organisation, which most
are nowadays, it is a survival issue:
Ultimately, an organisation’s competitive edge, and hence survival, depends on
its unique ability to coordinate […] the knowledge arising from all of its different
communities –as they interact with their part of the firm’s environment, develop
local solutions to their problems, and draw in knowledge from their network
connections (Brown and Duguid, 2001: 207).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
416
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.5 – Limitations of this research
Each of the major methods-driven stages of the research evince some limitations either
with the method itself or with the specific choices made by this study.
11.5.1 – Limitations with the sample selection procedure
The newsgroup selection procedure was based on affinity to the Exemplary Traits, which
included both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The former provided fairly clear-cut
rules for accepting or rejecting a newsgroup. Although not ambiguous, they could be
overly restrictive, for instance by discarding potentially good newsgroups because they
were too large or too small. Yet, the success of the Usenet search hinged on targeting
“exemplary” communities. A potential avenue for further research is to selectively relax
the Essential Trait conditions and thus attempt to locate more Usenet-based CoPs.
As for the qualitative selection criteria, these can be critiqued for being too dependent
upon the researcher’s judgement. For instance, the Stage III decision to discard some
newsgroups, on the grounds that their discussion topic was not a profession, or that their
topic was too narrow to constitute a profession. As a check on researcher subjectivity, a
prior decision was reached to provide (as Appendix D) a full listing of newsgroups
originally searched by Netscan, with selected and discarded newsgroups clearly marked.
11.5.2 – Limitations of the Survey
Some Survey limitations were mentioned in Chapter Seven: the fact some Usenet
participants were members or two or more newsgroups in the sample, the low overall
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
417
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
response rate of 17.3%, the fact that 21% of Survey respondents had coreness scores
between 0.001 and 0.004, below the originally intended threshold of 0.005, and the
failure of Survey scales to measure the Essential Trait of JOINT ENTERPRISE.
In addition, the criteria for sample selection were relaxed for newsgroup CIVWAR. The
high quality of its institutional documents, and its focus on a humanistic discipline,
strongly argued for its inclusion in the study. Yet, it had a low volume of messages, and
core-periphery model fit, using a one-year sample, was marginal. When using an 18-
month sample, though, model fit was adequate, and on this basis the group was included
in the sample. Eventually, though, it did not qualify as a VCoP as the evidence from both
Survey and Content Analysis simply did not reveal sufficient CoP traits.
11.5.3 – Limitations of the Content Analysis
The chief limitation of the Content Analysis is the small sample of text studied in each
virtual community; four threads. This was to some extent compensated by the theory-
informed rules used to select those threads.
Another limitation is the scanty evidence found for some sub-constructs, such as ‘Shared
sense of community’, ‘Members’ knowledge of each other’, and ‘Caring for a domain of
knowledge’. Again, this is probably due to the small sample size and possibly also to the
theoretical filtering of non-professional topics from the thread sampling universe.
A solution to these limitations, and another area for further research is to undertake
an unrestricted ethnography on selected communities to seek additional evidence of
the Essential Traits that escaped detection by the sample-limited Content Analysis.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
418
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.5.4 – Overall methodological evaluation
The original research problem was to locate Internet-based communities exhibiting
CoP-like traits and to rigorously assess whether or not they could be characterised as
true CoPs. Given this premise, the Funnel Research Strategy can be evaluated as both
efficient and successful, because it performed a large and comprehensive search task,
and it succeeded in locating exemplars of hypothesised virtual CoPs.
As regards the deployed methods, it can be said that the Survey and the Content
Analysis were well matched. Each independently provided valid though distinct
evidence about the Research Questions. Yet, the evidence could be meaningfully
combined to build a richer analysis and profile of each community.
The multi-stage construction of the Funnel Strategy would have permitted different
methods to be used in Stages IV and V. In retrospect, though, the Survey and the
Content Analysis feel like the most appropriate for this research, for several reasons:
• They provide for a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods.
• They are well suited for the extensive analysis of data undertaken in this
study.
• They are mainstream methods, whose strenghts and limitations are well
established.
• They share ontological and epistemological assumptions.
• They allow for both direct analysis of interactions and polling of participant
opinions.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
419
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11.6 – Directions for further research
The literature review showed not many previous studies set out to critically establish the
existence of Internet-based CoPs, and those that try, either do not use Wenger’s (1998)
theory or retain just a heavily condensed version. Therefore, the research that this thesis
reports is just a first exploratory study; much work is still left to do, both with respect to
the theoretical target of virtual CoPs and with respect to the research methodology.
With respect to the theoretical target, the VCoP model provides a useful baseline for
further exploration. This thesis defined its target narrowly in order to make its
discovery task easier, but by selective relaxation of the assumptions of the VCoP
model, particularly in the Exemplary-Trait set, a broader view of virtual CoPs can
inform future research. Specific directions would include:
• The Usenet network must be searched more thoroughly, with less
restrictive quantitative parameters than used in this study, to find new, more
varied instances of Usenet CoPs, and thus explore the range of practical
possibilities.
• Similarly, it would be relevant to examine domains other than professions
strictly defined, in order to expand the scope of feasible online practices.
• Other areas of the Internet should be examined, such as listservs and name-
brand discussion groups. It is advisable to give preference to moderated
forums, which seem to provide a more favorable environment for CoPs.
With respect to the research methodologies, exploring Internet areas other than Usenet,
even if retaining the VCoP model, will require design of new search and detection
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
420
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
methods if any type of broad searches are attempted. Although beyond the programming
ability of this researcher, this does not pose a major technical challenge, as both listserv
and e-mail messages include header information about Author, Recipient and Subject.
SNA methods can use this data to detect dense communication clusters, thereby revealing
virtual communities. In fact, SNA can be deployed not just in the Internet, but within
large organisations using e-mail logs of local mail servers (Tyler, Wilkinson and
Huberman, 2005). In this way, normally invisible CoPs can be more easily discovered.
Furthermore, future research of Usenet CoPs should aim to produce much more
detailed descriptions of the workings of these communities using ethnography,
preferably non-intrusive (the historical archives can be examined at leisure without
inconveniencing CoP members). In this sense, Usenet CoPs provide a privileged
locus for the study of naturally-occurring CoPs, because their interactions can be
studied in unprecedented detail using SNA and ethnography. One issue that would
particularly benefit from this combination of methods is the identification of the
VCoP’s periphery and the assessment of its contribution.
Should overt methods be preferred, such as surveys or interviews, a relevant issue
would be to examine whether or not participants ENGAGE with a combination of real
and virtual CoPs for a given domain, and if so, what factors influence the time
allocated to one versus the other.
Another direction for future research involves not examining VCoPs for their own sake,
but using them as natural laboratories for the study of the individual/collective and
tacit/explicit dimensions of knowledge, and thus contribute to empirically ground
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
421
Conclusions
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
current epistemological frameworks (e.g. Spender, 1996b; Cook and Brown, 1999;
Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001; Thompson and Walsham, 2004) and debates (e.g.
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Tsoukas, 2003). For instance, King and Ranft (2001)
apply Cook and Brown’s framework to distinguish and coherently describe the
tacit/explicit and individual/collective dimensions of knowledge needed by a surgeon to
achieve certification in thoracic surgery; they then draw implications for managers.
More studies like this are needed.
Lastly, virtual communities that, with the data obtained by this study, did not quite reach
the standard of VCoPs are obvious targets for future research. The two strongest
candidates are MEDTRAN and UKAGRI, by far the most active communities. Both
achieved four out of five Wenger constructs, lacking only JOINT ENTERPRISE to qualify as
VCoPs. However, their distinctive professional profile suggests further analysis, possibly
with an expanded Content Analysis sample, could find evidence of this missing
construct, and cause a reassessment of their VCoP status. In addition, as mentioned
earlier, the Content Analysis detected substantial evidence of MUTUAL ENGAGEMENT and
SHARED REPERTOIRE across the seven communities not assessed as VCoPs. Thus, a
worthwhile direction for future research is to deploy intensive qualitative methods, such
as online interviews or ethnography, on the communities this study identified as
exhibiting high CoP-potential. Success in this endeavour would indicate people are more
willing and able to build CoPs in the Internet than is suggested by the modest results of
this thesis. At this stage, research about virtual CoPs is just beginning.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
422
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Afterword
I’ve been deeply interested in CoPs since I first read about them, nearly ten years ago.
The concept describes a familiar experience (Wenger, 1998), and thus acquires a
relevance that is personal, not just intellectual.
In this sense, the search for Internet-based CoPs was more than a PhD topic, it was a
personal goal. Knowing (intuitively) that somewhere in the Net there were people who
shared my professional interests opened up exciting possibilities, and strongly
motivated me to devise efficient mechanisms for locating them. Hence my personal
predilection for Stage III, which resulted in Chapter Six being the first written.
Furthermore, thinking about myself in terms of CoPs has been both an illuminating and
humbling experience. I first did it reflectively when I started the doctorate, following a
suggestion by my supervisor, David Spicer. Clearly, ours was a classic master-
apprentice relationship, and the PhD degree, a social recognition of competence. Now
that I’m finally nearing that goal, I find myself still following the logic of social
learning as I navigate a mid-life career change (Ibarra, 2003), a long-awaited return to
academia, and a thoughtful search for the CoPs, local and virtual, I want to become a
member of. For me, this reliance on CoPs for personal growth –for becoming– is the
key learning outcome of the PhD. Just as you cannot determine meaningfulness in
isolation (Wenger, 2004b), you cannot develop your identity –and help others to do so–
without finding and engaging with CoPs.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
423
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996) Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1):

254-285.
Alexander, A. (2000) Building communities online. Accounting Technology, 16(3): 26-

35.
Anand, V., Glick, W. H. and Manz, C. (2002) Thriving on the knowledge of outsiders:
tapping organizational social capital. Academy of Management Executive,
16(1): 87-101.
Ardichvili, A.; Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003) Motivation and barriers to

participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 7(1): 64-77.
Artigas, M. (1992) Three levels of interaction between science and philosophy. In

Dilworth, C. (Ed) Idealization IV: Intelligibility in Science. pp. 123-144.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Artigas, M. (1999) Filosofía de la ciencia experimental. 3a Ed. Pamplona: Ediciones

Universidad de Navarra.
Babbie, E. (1990) Survey research methods. 2nd Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baker, S. and Green, H. (2005) Blogs will change your business. Business Week, May
2, 2005: 43-51.
Barab, S. A.; MaKinster, J. G. and Scheckler, R. (2003) Designing system dualities:

characterizing a web-supported professional development community. The
Information Society, 19(3): 237-256.
Barrett, M., Cappleman, S., Shoib, G. and Walsham, G. (2004) Learning in knowledge
communities: managing technology and context. European Management
Journal, 22(1): 1-11.
Barrow, D. C. (2001) Sharing know-how at BP Amoco. Research Technology

Management, 44(3): 18-25.
Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. (2002) Building competitive advantage through people.

MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2): 34-41.
Baym, N. (1995) The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication.

In Jones, S. (Ed) Cybersociety: computer-mediated communication and
community. pp. 138-163. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
424
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Baym, N. (2000) Tune in, log on: soaps, fandom and online community. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bell, S. J.; Whitwell, G. J. and Lukas, B. A. (2002) Schools of thought in organizational

learning. Journal of the Acacemy of Marketing Science, 30(1): 70-86.
Benbunan-Fich, R. and Hiltz, S. R. (1999) Impacts of asynchronous learning networks

on individual and group problem solving: a field experiment. Group Decision
and Negotiation, 8(5): 409-426.
Binney, D. (2001) The knowledge management spectrum: understanding the KM

landscape. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1): 33-42.
Blackler, F. (2000) Collective wisdom. People Management, 6(13): 61.
Blaikie, N. (1993) Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blaikie, N. (2000) Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blanchard, A. L. and Markus, M. L. (2004) The experienced “sense” of a virtual

community: characteristics and processes. The DATA BASE for Advances in
Information Systems, 35(1): 65-79.
Boland, R. and Tenkasi, R. (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in

communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4): 350-372.
Borgatti, S. and Everett, M. (1999) Models of core/periphery structures. Social

Networks, 21(4): 375-395.
Borgatti, S., Everett, M. and Freeman, L. (2002) Ucinet 6 for windows: software for
Social Network Analysis. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Bowers, L. (1997) Constructing international professional identity: what psychiatric

nurses talk about on the Internet. International Journal of Nursing Studies,
34(3): 208-212.
Bradley, P. (1999) Internet power searching: the advanced manual. New York: Neal-
Schuman Publishers.
Briggs, N. E. and MacCallum, R. C. (2003) Recover of weak common factors by

maximum likelihood and ordinary least squares estimation. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 38(1): 25-56.
Brown, J.S. (1998) Internet technology in support of the concept of “communities-of-

practice”: the case of Xerox. Accounting, Management and Information
Technologies, 8(4): 227-236.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-

practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2(1): 40-57.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
425
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Management

Review, 40(3): 90-111.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000a) Mysteries of the region. Miller, W. F. et al (Eds)
The Silicon Valley Edge. pp. 16-39. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000b) The social life of information. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice

perspective. Organization Science, 12(2): 198-213
Brown, J.S. and Gray, E. S. (1995) The people are the company. Fast Company, 1(1):
78-82.
Büchel, B. and Raub, S. (2002) Building knowledge-creating value networks.

European Management Journal, 20(6): 587-596.
Burke, K.; Aytes, K. and Chidambaram, L. (2001) Media effects on the development of
cohesion and process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups: an
analysis of results from two longitudinal studies. Information Technology and
People, 14(2): 122-141.
Carlson, J. and Zmud, R. (1999) Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of
media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2): 153-170.
Chalk, P. D. (2001) Learning software engineering in a community of practice: a case

study. Second Annual LTSN-ICS Conference, London.
Chin, G., Myers, J. and Hoyt, D. (2002) Social networks in the virtual science
laboratory. Communications of the ACM, 45(8): 87-92.
Choi, J.H. and Danowski, J. (2002) Making a global community on the Net– global
village or global metropolis?: a network analysis of Usenet newsgroups. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(3). Available online at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue3/choi.html [Most recent access: Feb. 2006]
Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001) In good company: how social capital makes
organizations work. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Constant, D.; Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1996) The kindness of strangers: the
usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science,
7(2): 119-135.
Constant, E. W. (1980) The origins of the turbojet revolution. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University.
Contu, A. and Willmot, H. (2000) Comment on Wenger and Yanow. Knowing in

practice: a ‘delicate flower’ in the organizational learning field. Organization,
7(2): 269-276.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
426
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Contu, A. and Willmot, H. (2003) Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power

relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3): 283-296.
Conway, J.M. and Huffcutt, A.I. (2003) A review and evaluation of exploratory factor
analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,
6(2): 147-168.
Cook, R. A. and Lafferty, J. C. (1987) Organizational culture inventory. Plymouth: MI:

Human Synergistics.
Cook, S. and Brown, J. S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance

between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization
Science, 10(4): 381-400.
Cook, S. and Yanow, D. (1993) Culture and Organizational Learning. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 2(4): 373-390.
Cummings, J.; Butler, B. and Kraut, R. (2002) The quality of online social
relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7): 103-108.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) Organizational information requirements, media

richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5): 554-571.
Davenport, E. (2004) Double agents: visible and invisible work in an online community
of practice. In Hildreth, P. and Kimble, C. (Eds) Knowledge networks: innovation
through communities of practice. pp. 256-266. London: Idea Group Publishing.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) Working knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business

School.
Dennis, A. R. and Kinney, S. T. (1998) Testing media richness theory in the new
media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems
Research, 9(3): 256-274.
Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (2000) A thematic analysis of the thinking in knowledge

management. In Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (Eds) Knowledge Horizons: the
present and promise of knowledge management. pp. 55-86. Woburn, MA:
Butterworth-Heinneman.
DeSanctis, G., Fayard, A., Roach, M. and Jiang, L. (2003) Learning in online forums.
European Management Journal, 21(5): 565-577.
DeVaus, D. (2002) Surveys in social research. 5th Ed. London: Routledge.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003) Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd Ed.. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donath, J. (1999) Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Smith, M. A. and
Kollock, P. (Eds) Communities in Cyberspace. pp. 29–59. New York:
Routledge.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
427
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Donath, J., Karahalios, K. and Viégas, F. (1999) Visualizing conversation. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Available online at
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/donath.html [Most recent access: Feb.
2006]
Drucker, P. F. (1988) The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review,
66(1): 45-53.
Dubé, L., Bourhis, A. and Jacob, R. (2005) The impact of structuring characteristics on
the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 18(2): 145-166.
Earl, M. (2001) Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 18(1): 215-233.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997) Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and

critiques. Human Relations, 50(9): 1085-1113.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. A. (2003) Introduction: watersheds of organizational

learning and knowledge management. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. A.
(Eds) The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge
management. pp.1-15. Oxford: Blackwell.
Erickson, T. (1997) Social interaction on the net: virtual community as participatory

genre. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
6: 13-21.
Evans, P. and Wolf, B. (2005) Collaboration rules. Harvard Business Review, 83(7):
96-104.
Everett, M. and Borgatti, S. (1999) Peripheries of cohesive subsets. Social Networks,

21(4): 397-407.
Everett, M. and Borgatti, S. (2001) Extending centrality. Unpublished manuscript.

Available online at http://www.analytictech.com/borgatti/extending centrality
4.doc [Most recent access: Feb. 2006]
Eysenbach, G. and Till, J. E. (2001) Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet

communities. British Medical Journal, 323: 1103-1005.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C. and Strahan, E. J. (1999) Evaluating

the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4(3): 279-299.
Faust, K. and Romney, A. K. (1985) Does STRUCTURE find structure?: a critique of

Burt’s use of distance as a measure of structural equivalence. Social Networks,
7(1): 77-103.
Floyd, F.J. and Widaman, K.F. (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement
of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 286-299.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
428
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C. and Tait, M. (1986) The application of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 39(2): 291-314.
Fox, S. (2000) Communities of practice: Foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of

Management Studies, 37(6): 853-867.
Freeman, L. (1984) The impact of computer based communication on the social

structure of an emerging scientific specialty. Social Networks, 6(3): 201-221.
Fuller, J. (1999) Cyber tax practitioners find friends, clients online. Accounting Today,
April 26-May 9: 3.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., and Wellman, B. (1997). Studying on-line social
networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). Available
online at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html [Most recent access:
Feb. 2006]
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2000) The organizational learning of safety in

communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1): 7-18.
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002) Learning the trade: a culture of safety in practice.
Organization, 9(2): 191-223.
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998) Toward a social understanding of how
people learn in organizations. Management Learning, 29(3): 273-297.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983) Factor analysis. 2nd Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997) Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68(3): 532-560.
Grant, R. M. (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic

Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 109-122.
Gray, P. H. and Meister, D. B. (2003) Introduction: fragmentation and integration in

knowledge management research. Information Technology & People, 16(3):
259-265.
Grover, V. and Davenport, T. H. (2001) General perspectives on knowledge

management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1): 5-21.
Hahn, H. (2000) Harley Hahn teaches the Internet. Indianapolis, IN: Que.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate data
analysis. 5th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Handy, C. (1994) The age of paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
429
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hanley, S. (1998) Knowledge-based communities of practice at AMS. Knowledge

Management Review, 1(3): 8-9.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999) What’s your strategy for managing
knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2): 106-116.
Hara, N. and Kling, R. (2002) IT support for communities of practice: an empirically-

based framework. CSI Working Paper no. WP-02-02. Indiana University at
Bloomington.
Haythornthwaite, C., and Wellman, B. (2002). The Internet in everyday life: an

introduction. In Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds) The Internet in
everyday life. pp. 3-43. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hengen, P. (1997) Internet newsgroups. Trends in Cell Biology, 7(1): 34-35.
Herrmann, F. (1998) Building on-line communities of practice: an example and

implications. Educational Technology, 38(1): 16-23.
Hill, K. A. and Hughes, J. E. (1997) Computer-mediated political communication: the

Usenet and political communities. Political Communication, 14(1): 3-27.
Hindle, T. (2006) A survey of the company. The Economist, 378(8461): after page 52.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) A review of scale development practices in the study of

organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5): 967-988.
Hirsch, P. M. and Levin, D. Z. (1999) Umbrella advocates versus validity police: a life-
cycle model. Organization Science, 10(2): 199-212.
Holtshouse, D. (1998) Knowledge research issues. California Management Review,

40(3): 277-280.
Humphreys, L. G. and Montanelli, R. G. (1975) An investigation of the parallel

analysis criterion for determining the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 10(2): 301-322
Ibarra, H. (2003) Working identity: unconventional strategies for reinventing your

career. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Jackson, A. and DeCormier, R. (1999) E-mail survey response rates: targeting increases
response. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 17(3): 135-139.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Leidner, D. E. (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual

teams. Organization Science, 10(6): 791-815.
Johnson, C. (2001) A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The

Internet and Higher Education, 4(1): 45-60.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
430
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) Mixed methods research: a research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26.
Jones, Q. (1997) Virtual communities, virtual settlements, and cyber-archaeology: a

theoretical outline. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3).
Available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/jones.html [Most recent
access: Feb. 2006]
Kakabadse, N.; Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2003) Reviewing the knowledge
management literature: towards a taxonomy. Journal of Knowledge Management,
7(4): 75-91.
Kaye, B. K. and Johnson, T. J. (1999) Research methodology: taming the cyber

frontier. Social Science Computer Review, 17(3): 323-337.
Kimble, C., Hildreth, P. and Wright, P. (2001) Communities of practice: going virtual.
In Malhotra, Y. (Ed) Knowledge management and business model innovation.
pp. 216-230. London: Idea Group Publishing.
King, A. W. and Ranft, A. L. (2001) Capturing knowledge and knowing through

improvisation: what managers can learn from the thoracic surgery board
certification process. Journal of Management, 27(3): 255-277.
Kling, R. and Courtright, C. (2003) Group behavior and learning in electronic forums: a
sociotechnical approach. The Information Society, 19(3): 221-235.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Kock, N. (2001) Compensatory adaptation to a lean medium: an action research

investigation of electronic communication in process improvement groups.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(4): 267-285.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and
the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996) What firms do? coordination, identity and learning.
Kogut, B. and Metiu, A. (2001) Open-source software development and distributed

innovation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17(2): 248-264.
Kollock, P. and Smith, M. (1996) Managing the virtual commons: cooperation and
conflict in computer communities. In Herring, S. (Ed) Computer-mediated
communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. pp. 109-128.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakhani, K. and von Hippel, E. (2000) How open software works: “free” user-to-user
assistance. MIT School of Management Working Paper #4117. Boston: MIT.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
431
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Lee, G. K. and Cole, R. E. (2003) From a firm-based to a community-based model of

knowledge creation: the case of the Linux kernel development. Organization
Science, 14(6): 633-649.
Lee, H. (1994) Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication: an empirical

investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2): 143-157.
Lesser, E. and Everest, K. (2001) Using communities of practice to manage intellectual

capital. Ivey Business Journal, 65(4): 37-41.
Lesser, E. L. and Storck, J. (2001) Communities of practice and organizational

performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4): 831-841.
Lindkvist, L. (2005) Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a typology

of knowledge work in groups. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6): 1189-1210.
Lofflin, J. (2000) Tapping the Web’s potential. Veterinary Economics, 41(4): 4-9.
Lovelace, J. (1998) Craft in cyberspace. American Craft, 58(2):4-6.
Lowrie, A. and McKnight, P. J. (2004) Academic research networks: a key to

enhancing scholarly standing. European Management Journal, 22(4): 345-360.
Lueg, C. (2000) Where is the action in virtual communities of practice? In Proceedings

of the workshop Communication and Cooperation in Knowledge Communities at
the German Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, September
11-13, Munich.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. and Hong, S. (1999) Sample size in
factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1): 84-99.
Manville, B. and Foote, N. (1996) Harvest your workers’ knowledge. Datamation,

42(13): 78-81.
Markus, M. L., Manville, B. and Agres, C. E. (2000) What makes a virtual organization
work? MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(1): 13-26.
Marshall, N. and Rollinson, J. (2004) Maybe Bacon had a point: the politics of interpretation
in collective sensemaking. British Journal of Management, 15: S71-S86.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Available online at:
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.htm [Most
recent access: Feb. 2006].
McDermott, R. (1999a) Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver

knowledge management. California Management Review, 41(4): 103-117.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
432
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
McDermott, R. (1999b) Learning across teams: how to build communities of practice

in team organizations. Knowledge Management Review, 2(2): 32-36.
McDermott, R. (2000) Critical success factors in building communities of practice.

Knowledge Management Review, 3(2): 5.
McKenna, K. Y. A.; Green, A. S. and Gleason, M. J. (2002) Relationship formation on

the Internet: what’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1): 9-31.
McLaughlin, M., Osborne, K. and Smith, C. (1995) Standards of conduct on Usenet. In

Jones, S. (Ed) Cybersociety: computer-mediated communication and
community. pp. 90-111. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merenda, P. F. (1997) Methods, plainly speaking. A a guide to the proper use of factor
analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: pitfalls to avoid. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(3): 156-164.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded

sourcebook. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Millen, D and Dray, S. (2000) Information sharing in an online community of

journalists. Aslib Proceedings, 52(5): 166-173.
Millen, D. (2000) Community portals and collective goods: conversation archives as an

information resource. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, 3: 3030.
Morieux, Y., Blaxill, M., Boutenko, V. (2005) Generative interactions: the new source
of competitive advantage. In Cool, K., Henderson, J., Abate, R. (Eds)
Restructuring strategy: new networks and industry challenges. pp. 86-110.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Murray, P. (1996) Nurses’ computer-mediated communications on NURSENET: a case

study. Computers in Nursing, 14(4): 227-234.
Murillo, E. (2002) Using Social Network Analysis to detect cohesive subgroups in

Usenet newsgroups: an initial approximation to the study of “virtual”
Communities of Practice. Unpublished Master of Research Methods
dissertation. University of Bradford.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002) The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2002) Managing Knowledge
Work. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.
Nonaka, I. (1991) The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6):
96-104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company. New York:

Oxford University Press.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
433
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
North, T. (1994) The Internet and Usenet global computer networks: an investigation
of their culture and its effects on new users. Unpublished Master thesis. Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric theory. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of
components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research
Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32(3): 396-402.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C. J. (1998) If only we knew what we know. New York: Free Press.
Oliver, P. and Marwell, G. (1988) The paradox of group size in collective action: a
theory of the critical mass II. American Sociological Review, 53(1): 1-8.
Oliver, P., Marwell, G. and Teixeira, R. (1985) A theory of critical mass I: group
heterogeneity, interdependence and the production of collective goods.
American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 522-556.
Oppenheim, A.N. (1992) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude

measurement. London: Continuum.
Orr, J. E. (1990) Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: community memory in a

service culture. In Middleton, R. and Edwards, D. (Eds.), Collective
remembering: Memory in society. pp. 169-189. London: Sage.
Orr, J. E. (1996) Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University.
Pan, S. L. and Leidner, D. E. (2003) Bridging communities of practice with information

technology in pursuit of global knowledge sharing. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 12(1): 71-88.
Parks, M. and Floyd, K. (1996) Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of

Communications, 46(1): 80-97.
Patterson, H. (1996) Computer-mediated groups: a study of a culture in Usenet.

Unpublished PhD dissertation. Corpus Christi: Texas A&M University.
Phillips, D.C. (1990) Postpositivistic science: myths and realities. In Guba, E.G. (Ed)
The paradigm dialog. pp. 31-45. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pickering, J. M. and King, J. L. (1995) Hardwiring weak ties: inter-organizational

computer-mediated communication, occupational communities, and
organizational change. Organization Science, 6(4): 479-486.
Plaskoff, J. (2003) Intersubjectivity and community building: learning to learn

organizationally. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. A. (Eds) The Blackwell
handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. pp.161-
184. Oxford: Blackwell.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
434
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Polanyi, M. (1966) The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Porter, C. E. (2004) A typology of virtual communities: a multi-disciplinary foundation for

future research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). Available
at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/porter.html [Most recent access: Feb. 2006]
Preacher, K. J. and MacCallum, R. C. (2003) Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor

analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1): 13-43.
Preece, J. (1999) Empathic communities: balancing emotional and factual

communication. Interacting with Computers, 12(1): 63-77.
Preece, J. and Ghozati, K. (2001) Observations and Explorations of Empathy Online.

In. R. R. Rice and J. E. Katz (Eds) The Internet and Health Communication:
Experience and Expectations. pp. 237-260. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Prusak, L. (1997) Knowledge in organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Quinn, J. B. (1992) Intelligent enterprise: a knowledge and service based paradigm for
industry. New York: Free Press.
Raelin, J. (1997) A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8(6): 563-578.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G. and Comrey, A. L. (2000) Factor analysis and scale revision.
Psychological Assessment, 12(3): 287-297.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ricci, N. (2000) Tap members’ expertise online. Trial, 36(6): 102-103.
Roberts, J. (2006) Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies,

43(3): 623-639.
Roberts, T. (1998) Are newsgroups virtual communities? CHI 98 18-23, April 1998,
Los Angeles: 18-23.
Robertson, M., Sørensen, C. and Swan, J. (2001) Survival of the leanest: intensive
knowledge work and groupware adaptation. Information Technology & People,
14(4): 334-352.
Robey, D. Khoo, H.M. and Powers, C. (2000) Situated learning in cross-functional

virtual teams. Technical Communication, 47(1): 51-66.
Rocco, T. S.; Bliss, L. A.; Gallagher, S. and Pérez-Prado, A. (2003) Taking the next
step: mixed methods research in organizational systems. Information
Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1): 19-29.
Rogers, J. (2000) Communities of practice: a framework for fostering coherence in

virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3): 384-392.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
435
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Romano, G. (1998) Meet me in cyberspace. Association Management, 50(9): 24-32.
Rubin, R.B.; Palmgreen, P., and Sypher, H.E. (1994). Communication research
measures: a sourcebook. New York: Guilford.
Ryan, G. W. and Bernard, H. R. (2000) Data management and analysis methods. In
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sacile, R.; Ruggiero, C.; Lombardo, C.; Nicolò, G.; Wolf, G.; Rudolf, B.; Petersen, I.
(1999) Collaborative diagnosis over the Internet: a working experience. IEEE
Internet Computing, 3(6): 29-37.
Sack, W. (2001) Conversation map: an interface for very large-scale conversations.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3).
Saint-Onge, H. and Wallace, D. (2002) Leveraging communities of practice for

strategic advantage. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Samborn, H. V. (1999) Colleagues in space. ABA Journal, 85(12): 80-81.
Scarbrough, H. (2003) Knowledge management, HRM and the innovation process.

International Journal of Manpower, 24(5): 501-516.
Schenkel, A., Teigland, R. and Borgatti, S. (2003) Theorizing structural properties of

communities of practice: a social network approach. In Teigland, R. Knowledge
networking: structure and performance in Networks of Practice. PhD
Dissertation. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
Schlager, M.; Fusco, J. and Schank, P. (2002) Evolution of an on-line education

community of practice. In Renninger, K. A. and Shumar, W. (Eds) Building
virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace. pp. 129-158. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Schwen, T. M. and Hara, N. (2003) Community of practice: a metaphor for online

design? The Information Society, 19(3): 257-270.
Scott, J. (2000) Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd Ed. London: Sage.
Searle, J. R. (1993) Rationality and realism, what is at stake? Daedalus, 122(4): 55-83.
Seidel, J. and Kelle, U. (1995) Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual
data. In Kelle, U. (Ed) Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: theory,
methods and practice. pp. 52-61. London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2000) Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: Sage.
Sivadas, E.; Grewal, R. and Kellaris, J. (1998) The Internet as a micro marketing tool:
targeting consumers through preferences revealed in music newsgroup usage.
Journal of Business Research, 41(3): 179–186.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
436
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Smeds, R. and Alvesalo, J. (2003) Global business process development in a virtual

community of practice. Production Planning & Control, 14(4): 361-371.
Smith, M. A. (1999) Invisible crowds in cyberspace: mapping the social structure of the
Usenet. In Smith, M. A. and Kollock, P. (Eds) Communities in Cyberspace. pp.
195–219. New York: Routledge.
Smith, M. A. (2002) Tools for navigating large social cyberspaces. Communications of

the ACM, 45(4): 51-55.
Snyder, D. P. (2005) Extra-peneurship: reinventing enterprise for the information age.

The Futurist, 39(4): 47-53.
Spender, J.-C. (1996a) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 45-62.
Spender, J.-C. (1996b) Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in
search of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1): 63-78.
Spender, J.-C. and Grant, R. (1996) Knowledge and the firm: overview. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 5-9.
SPSS Inc. (1997) SPSS Base 7.5 Applications Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Stamps, D. (1997) Communities of practice: learning is social, training is irrelevant?

Training, 34(2): 34-42.
Starbuck, W. H. (1992) Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of

Stewart, T. A. (1994) Your company’s most valuable asset: Intellectual capital.

Fortune, 130(7): 68-73.
Stewart, T. A. (1996) The invisible key to success. Fortune, 134(3): 173-176.
Stewart, T. A. (1997) Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New

York: Doubleday/Currency.
Stewart, T. A. (2001) The wealth of knowledge. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Stork, J. and Hill, P. (2000) Knowledge diffusion through “strategic communities”.

MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(2): 63-74.
Strauss, A. (1978) A social world perspective. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1(1):

119-128.
Subramani, M.; Nerur, S. P. and Mahapatra, R. (2003) Examining the intellectual

structure of knowledge management, 1990-2002: an author co-citation analysis.
MISRC Working Paper no. 03-23. Carlson School of Management, University
of Minnesota.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
437
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Sudweeks, F. and Rafaeli, S. (1996) How do you get a hundred strangers to agree:
computer mediated communication and collaboration. In Harrison, T. and
Stephen, T. (Eds) Computer networking and scholarship in the 21st century
university. pp. 115–136. New York: SUNY Press.
Swan, J.; Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (2000a) Knowledge management: when will
people management enter the debate? Proceedings of the Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 3: 3026.
Swan, J.; Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (2000b) Limits of IT-driven knowledge

management initiatives for interactive innovation processes: toward a
community-based approach. Proceedings of the Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 1: 1013.
Swan, J. Scarbrough, H. and Robertson, M. (2002) The construction of ‘communities

of practice’ in the management of innovation. Management Learning, 33(4):
477-496.
Szulanski, G. (2003) Sticky knowledge: barriers to knowing in the firm. London: Sage.
Tabachnick, B. E. and Fidell, L. S. (1996) Using multivariate statistics. 3d Ed. New

York: Harper Collins.
Tataryn, D. J., Wood, J. M. and Gorsuch, R. L. (1999) Setting the value of k in promax: a
Monte Carlo study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(3): 384-391.
Teigland, R. (2000) Communities of practice in a high-growth Internet consultancy:

Netovation vs.on-time performance. In Lesser, E.L., Fontaine, M.A. and
Slusher, J. A. (Eds) Knowledge and communities: resources for the knowledge-
based economy. pp. 151-178. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Teigland, R. (2003) Knowledge networking: structure and performance in Networks of

Practice. PhD Dissertation. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
Teigland, R. and Wasko, M. (2004) Extending richness with reach: participation and
knowledge exchange in electronic networks of practice. In Hildreth, P. and
Kimble, C. (Eds) Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of
Practice. pp. 230-242. London: Idea Group Publishing.
Tepper, M. (1997) Usenet communities and the cultural politics of information. In

Porter, D. (Ed) Internet culture. pp. 39-54. London: Routledge.
Thompson, M. (2005) Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice.

Thompson, M. and Walsham, G. (2004) Placing knowledge management in context.

Journal of Management Studies, 41(5): 725-747.
Thomsen, S.R. (1996) At work in cyberspace: exploring practitioner use of the

PRForum. Public Relations Review, 22(2): 115-131.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
438
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Trice, H. M., (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Tsoukas, H. (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist

approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 11-25.
Tsoukas, H. (2003) Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In Easterby-Smith, M.

and Lyles, M. A. (Eds) The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and
knowledge management. pp.410-427. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tsoukas, H. and Vladimirou, E. (2001) What is organizational knowledge? Journal of

Tyler, J.; Wilkinson, D. and Huberman, B. (2005) E-mail as spectroscopy: automated

discovery of community structure within organizations. The Information
Society, 21(2): 133-141.
van Maanen, J. and Barley, S.R. (1984) Occupational communities: culture and control
in organizations. In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (Eds) Research in
organizational behavior, 6: 287-365. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
von Krogh, G.; Nonaka, I. and Aben, M. (2001) Making the most of your company’s
knowledge: a strategic framework. Long Range Planning, 34(4): 421-439.
Walther, J. B. (1992) A longitudinal experiment on relational tone in computer-

mediated and face to face interaction. Proceedings of the Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 4: 220-231.
Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2000) It is what one does: why people participate and help
others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 9(2-3): 155-173.
Wasko, M. and Teigland, R. (2002) The provision of online public goods: examining
social structure in a Network of Practice. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual
International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain.
Wasko, M. and Teigland, R. (2004) Public goods or virtual commons? Applying

theories of pubic goods, social dilemmas, and collective action to electronic
networks of practice. Journal of Information Technology Theory and
Applications, 6(1): 25-41.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social network analysis: methods and

applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Watson, N. (1997) Why we argue about virtual community: a case study of the
phish.net fan community. In In Jones, S. G. (Ed) Virtual culture: Identity and
communication in cybersociety. London: Sage.
Wellman, B. (1988) Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and
substance. In Wellman, B. and Berkowitz, S. (Eds) Social structures: a network
approach. pp. 19-61. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
439
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Wellman, B. (1999) Living networked in a wired world. IEEE Intelligent Systems,

14(1): 15-17.
Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. (1999) Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers

don’t ride alone. In Smith, M. A. and Kollock, P. (Eds) Communities in
Cyberspace. pp. 167-194. New York: Routledge.
Wenger, E. (1996) Communities of practice: the social fabric of a learning

organization. Healthcare Forum Journal, 39(4): 20-26.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of practice: the key to knowledge strategy. Knowledge

Directions, 1(2): 48-63.
Wenger, E. (2000a) Communities of practice: the structure of knowledge stewarding.

In Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (Eds) Knowledge Horizons: the present and
promise of knowledge management. pp. 205-225. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-
Heinneman.
Wenger, E. (2000b) Communities of practice and social learning systems.

Organization, 7(2): 225-246.
Wenger, E. (2004a) Learning for a small planet: a research agenda. Unpublished

research proposal. Available online at http://www.ewenger.com [Most recent
access: Dec. 2004]
Wenger, E. (2004b) Knowledge management as a doughnut: shaping your knowledge

strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, 68(3): 1-8.
Wenger, E. and Snyder, W. M. (2000) Communities of practice: the organizational

frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1): 139-145.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002) Cultivating communities of

practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Winzelberg, A. (1997) The analysis of an electronic support group for individuals with
eating disorders. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(3): 393-407.
Witmer, D.; Colman, R. and Katzman, S. L. (1999) From paper-and-pencil to screen-

and-keyboard: toward a methodology for survey research on the Internet. In
Jones, S. (Ed) Doing Internet research: critical issues and methods for
examining the Net. pp. 145-161. London: Sage.
Wright, K. B. (2005) Researching Internet-based populations: advantages and

disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software
packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
10(3). Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html [Most recent
access: Feb. 2006]
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
440
References
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Wright, P. (1999) Leveraging frontline knowledge for smarter service. Knowledge

Management Review, 1(6): 4-5.
Yauch, C. A. and Steudel, H. J. (2003) Complementary use of qualitative and

quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods,
6(4): 465-481.
Yanow, D. (2000) Seeing organizational learning: a ‘cultural’ view. Organization, 7(2):

247-268.
Zwick, W.R. and Velicer, W.F. (1986) Comparison of five rules for determining the
number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3): 432-442.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
441
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Glossary of Internet Terms
cross-posting The practice of posting a message to more than one newsgroup.
In general it is considered a breach of netiquette, although it can
be useful if the message is truly relevant to more than one
newsgroup.
FAQ Acronym for Frequently Asked Questions. It is a document many
newsgroups develop and post in a visible place in order to avoid
having to answer the same questions from newbies over and over.
flame A post containing a personal attack on another poster. The attack
can be deserved (i.e. flaming a troll) or not, and can go from mild
sarcasm to violent verbal abuse. Flames can easily escalate into a
“flame war”, involving several newsgroup members and usually
causing serious disruption to focused discussion.
headers The network control data fields at the top of a Usenet message.
They are similar to the headers of an e-mail message. They
contain such information as the author of the message, the date
when it was posted, the newsgroup to which it was posted,
whether it is a follow-up or a thread head, etc.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
442
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
hierarchy Usenet is organised into several large categories of related
newsgroups called hierarchies. Thus the comp.* hierarchy
comprises all newsgroups that address computer topics:
hardware, software, operating systems, languages, etc.
killfile An option within newsreaders instructing the programme not to
download messages from certain posters; this is a useful defense
against known trolls or spammers. To killfile someone means to
add his/her name to the killfile.
listserv A mailing list program designed to copy and distribute electronic
mail to everyone who has suscribed to that particular mailing list.
The term listserv is often used as a synonym of mailing list.
lurker A person who is content to read messages in a newsgroup but
does not post. The verb to lurk means to read without posting,
usually to get to know the newsgroup before actually posting a
message.
mailing list A mailing list is a list of people who subscribe to a periodic
mailing distribution on a particular topic. Their topical focus
make them similar to Usenet newsgroups, but there are
differences: you need to subscribe to begin receiving it, and you
get it through e-mail.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
443
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
MUD Acronym for Multi-User Dungeon, multi-player text-based
computer game that combines elements of role-playing games, hack
and slash style computer games, and social instant messaging chat
rooms. MUD’s can can also be used for education purposes.
netiquette Term for network etiquette, the do’s and don’ts of
communication over the Internet. Netiquette covers both
common courtesy online and the informal “rules of the game” of
cyberspace. For instance, it is a breach of netiquette to quote
excessively from previous messages; quotes should be kept to
the minimum necessary to provide context.
newbie Usenet-term for a novice to the topic of a newsgroup.
newsgroup A topical discussion forum in Usenet. The topic is usually stated
in the name of the newsgroup. Thus, soc.history.medieval is
devoted to discussion of medieval history.
newsreader A software programme, similar to an e-mail programme, that is
used to download and read messages from newsgroups, as well
as to post new messages, either thread heads or follow-ups.
signal-to-noise A Usenet term imported from the field of engineering and referring
ratio to the amount of worthwhile discussion and information present in a
newsgroup relative to the amount of spam and off-topic posts.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
444
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
smiley A smiley is a sequence of characters intended to represent a
human facial expression when looked at sideways. They are
commonly used in e-mail, newsgroups, chat, SMS and other
forms of computer-mediated communication to avoid
misunderstandings due to lack of contextual information.
Basically they convey the message “don't take what I just wrote
too seriously”. The most frequently used are : ) and :-)
spam An inappropriate message, often an advertisement, posted to one
or many newsgroups.
thread A thread is a set of messages focused on the single question or
discussion topic announced in the first message, which is called
the thread head. Participants who wish to answer the question or
voice an opinion post to the thread, that is, they send a message
making a deliberate reference to either the thread head or one of
the subsequent follow-ups.
thread head The opening message in a discussion thread.
troll A poster who tries to provoke participants in a newsgroup by
posting spam, factually incorrect messages, or actual abuse of the
topic or the newsgroup’s members.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
445

PHD Dissertation Murillo Searching For Virtual Communities of Practice Vol 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD Dissertation Murillo Searching For Virtual Communities of Practice Vol 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Research Strategy: Execution

Usenet Search and Community Selection

methods nearer the bottom.

principal hierarchies of Usenet, and select a much-reduced set of newsgroups

Second Sub-stage performs a qualitative analysis of topic, institutional documents and

surviving newsgroups, and identifies those with core-periphery structures, and

participants with high coreness degrees, indicative of stable newsgroup membership.

Participating USENET Hierarchies

First Sub-stage: Netscan searches

Second Sub-stage : Qualitative assessment

Third Sub-stage: SNA model

Fourth Sub-stage: core-periphery model

Figure 6.1 – Overview of Stage III of the Research Strategy

Sub-stages, plus a concluding summary.

6.1 – First Sub-stage: Netscan Search

value of Returnees overestimated by a factor of 3 or more the number of stable

at 10. Hence, the first quantitative filter is defined as follows:

The Exemplary Trait of high-volume of participant interaction can be operationalised

Filter2: Discard newsgroups where Posts ≤ 300 per month.

be operationalised using the Netscan statistics of PPRatio, %Cross-Post and TPRatio.

specific proviso is made to avoid large TPRatios. Hence:

exceeds 0.40 or where the TPRatio exceeds 0.80.

Filter4: Discard non-English language newsgroups.

identifiable profession; as required by the corresponding Exemplary Trait. Decisions at

all newsgroups have a recreational or socialising purpose, reflected in their name

the next Sub-stage. The “professional” criterion was defined thus:

Filter5: Discard newsgroups whose discussion topic is not an identifiable

Hence the need to focus on a theoretically-grounded sample (Silverman, 2000). The

in Usenet (Hahn, 2000).

Table 6.1 – Mainstream Usenet hierarchies

hierarchies were not included in the Netscan searches.

newsgroup for the most trivial or humorous discussion topics (such as

alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork or alt.barney.die.die.die). For this reason, the alt.*

the alt.comp.* sub-hierarchy, as explained below.

British-based newsgroups. They are the most important English-language hierarchies

sub-hierarchy, with 255 newsgroups, is known to contain many competent computer

groups, making for another viable search area.

“professional” newsgroups, the “best neighbourhoods”, as it were. The fact they

is estimated to contain between 80,000 (Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 2002) and

enjoying worldwide circulation at 7,500; not counting so-called organisational

hierarchies started by companies (e.g. microsoft.*, comprising 2732 newsgroups) or

universities (e.g. ucb.*, the 224 newsgroups of the University of California at

discarded six newsgroups.

criterion led to discard the following classes of newsgroups:

• national cultures (such as soc.culture.*)

• religions (such as soc.religion.*)

• public announcements or job offers (such as can.jobs.gov)

• local news and issues (such as uk.local.*)

• people issues (such as uk.people.*)

• recreation, hobbies, games, sports, movies, TV-shows (such as alt.fan.*)

• sexual issues (such as soc.sexuality.general)

• personal health or family issues (such as misc.health.diabetes)

• information/support for medical conditions (such as sci.med.prostate.cancer)

• newsgroups focused on chat or debate (such as can.talk.guns)

• newsgroups focused on advocating a particular hardware or software

system (such as comp.sys.mac.advocacy)

profession. Among these were newsgroups focused on technical support of hardware

and software systems, such as alt.comp.virus or comp.periphs.scanners. Also groups

focused on a single software or hardware product, such as comp.databases.paradox or

some discarded newsgroups could warrant further study at a latter stage.

professional in principle, were far too open to the participation of non-professionals or

community of true practitioners to cohere. Among newsgroups discarded on this