Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

What Do Virtual “Tells” Tell? Placing Cybersociety Research

Into a Hierarchy of Social Explanation
Quentin Jones* & Sheizaf Rafaeli
Graduate School of Business University of Haifa Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract issues such as the relationship between communication
technologies and society [41].
Like archaeological Tells, large mounds resulting from Because it is important to match theory to the scale of
the accumulation of human settlement debris, the remains the phenomena being addressed, this paper develops a
of virtual communities can inform researchers about hierarchy of social explanation for cybersociety. The term
phenomena operating at many levels. However, for cybersociety refers collectively to the new forms of social
excavations to be effective they need to be conducted interactions and the complex social systems, such as
within the framework of a scientific research program. virtual communities, that have emerged from the wide-
The theory of interactive communication in cyber scale use of computer mediated communication (CMC)
places developed here distinguishes between the social technologies [21]. We equate the study of the relationship
relationships that emerge from interactive group between collaborative technology used to create
computer-mediated communication, and the cyber places cyberspace and cybersociety, with the study of
where such communication occurs. It also links the conventional societies by their cultural artifacts through
density and form of cyber material to communication archaeology. This is done, because it is argued that it is
technology types. In so doing, it identifies four distinct important to explore collaborative technologies at the level
levels of analysis. These are: i) individual behavior or where material aspects of computer-mediated
social theory; ii) spatial and temporal patterning of communication, such as text length, and text density,
artifacts in cyberspace; iii) technology and the relate to online behavior. By focusing on the material
parameters of human interaction; and iv) cyber-ecology aspects, analysis can occur where social meaning has only
or online behavior and resource supply. The recognition indirect relevance. This in turn makes it possible to
of four distinct levels of analysis allows for the production provide explanations that go beyond the specifics of
of a hierarchy of social explanation for cybersociety. current responses to new communication technologies.
To date the majority of research into online behavior
has focused on the level of social theory. However, a 2.0 Archaeology and Theorizing about
balanced understanding of all levels of the hierarchy is Technology and Cybersociety
preferable. The theory outlined is also linked to a
research program into the material aspects of computer- Scientists frequently seek to understand new
mediated communication. Research into this under phenomena by using analogies [15,48], thereby mobilizing
represented level should inform e-commerce strategists as an existing body of knowledge to help explain new
well as those interested in usability as a group level phenomena and new situations. A relevant example of the
concept. application of analogy is Shannon’s mathematical theory
of communication [44] in which laws of physics were
* This paper forms part of Q. Jones’s Ph.D. research. The
equated with the statistical properties of information. The
editorial comments of Melinda Jones are greatly appreciated.
Internet ignites many metaphors [36], many of which are
suggestive of a connection between material aspects and
1.0 Introduction social change. For example, the growth of the Internet has
In this paper, we offer a structured approach to been compared to the growth of the United States
understanding the use of collaborative technologies. To interstate highway system [21,49], hence the notion of the
date, theories of collaborative technology use have “information super-highway.” However, metaphors that
generally operated at the level of social theory where are unrelated to a discipline and a methodology do not
meaning or intent is of the utmost importance. immediately suggest how to proceed with systematic
Explanations have ranged from those focused on the research.
small-scale and short time spans of personal psychology, Archaeology is the study of humanity's past by the
(e.g. email flaming [24]), to those focused on larger-scale analysis of the material remains of cultures. The last two

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 1

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

hundred years has seen archaeology mature into science places and one’s sense of belonging. The problem is that
[9]. The result of this change has been a radical shift in anthropology has been narrowly construed in terms of a
Western culture's understanding of both human history and standard defined by the content and treatment of
humanity's relationship with the environment [40]. ethnographic experience. Archaeologists do not research
Archaeologists have developed sophisticated classification communities and cultures directly. Instead, they examine
methods to describe artifacts and other finds. Such the remains of human habitation. As a result, despite the
methods combined with the time scale provided by an fact that archaeology is dominated by theories that focus
archaeological perspective allow for the study of the on active social aspects, other approaches and levels of
process of cultural change. The archaeological record is in analysis flourish. Other levels include those based on the
fact an essential context for understanding humanity. This recognition of the long-term, large-scale role of material as
is because no other cultural milieu provides the time a regulator, and restrictive influence on the management of
perspective and the range of comparative cases necessary community life [11].
for the recognition of the immense, slow consequences of Others, too, take an historical and cross-cultural
community behavior [11]. approach to communication technologies by calling
We chose archaeology as an analogous field for a attention to the potential effects of media, as distinct from
number of reasons. First, archaeologists focus on cultural the content they convey. The best known and most
artifacts, and we are interested in focusing on the artifacts controversial of these medium theorists are Harold Adams
of computer-mediated communication. Examples of such Innis and his student Herbert Marshall McLuhan, although
artifacts are listserv postings, web site structures, number many others have followed in their footsteps [32]. These
of spams, Usenet content, user logs etc. Second, because theorists first suggested that media help mold social
of the vast difference between duration of social action environments, thus linking media to social structures. This
and material remains, archeology has had to deal directly led McLuhan [31] to coin the term “the global village” and
with the problem of explanatory scale when examining the Meyrowitz [32] to write about the “hunters and gatherers
relationship between artifacts and society. An of the information age.” Not surprisingly, the field of
understanding of how to deal with this issue is of crucial anthropology also influenced them. Their work suggests
importance to the construction of valid theories of online that comparative analysis will yield valuable information
behavior. By examining explanatory scale, archaeological about media from a longer-term larger-scale perspective.
theory has been able to produce explanations of the However, as Meyrowitz [32] notes, medium theorists have
connection between technology and society without failed to provide a theory to guide research into the
recourse to simple determinism. Finally, although social relationship between communication mediums and social
theory dominates archaeology, a significant body of structures that is not dependent on social context. Further,
relevant theory exists regarding phenomena that operate their work was often obscure or, like most anthropologists,
across a range of levels. focused on issues that operate at the level of social theory.
A number of researchers hold that archaeology is a In other words, medium theorists have a problem with
branch of anthropology [1]. Many authors suggest that we explanatory scale, again suggesting that there is value in
use anthropological methods to guide the study of online examining archaeological theorizing.
behavior [51]. Paccagnella [34] for example, examines Just as the use of metaphors does not immediately
how to proceed with ethnographic cyber-anthropology. suggest how to proceed with systematic research, the
Howard Rheingold states the case most eloquently [39]: potential value of the use of archaeology as an analogous
“Watching a particular virtual community change discipline is limited if a connection is not made directly to
over a period of time has something of the an applicable theory and methodology. The archaeologist
intellectual thrill of do-it-yourself anthropology Roland Fletcher [11] provides a theory and a model of the
and some of the garden-variety voyeurism of impact of material on human settlements. The theory
eavesdropping on an endless amateur soap opera replaces technological determinism with the notion of
where there is no boundary separating the bounded hierarchies and an analysis of material behavior.
audience from the cast” His model shows how the material components of
For our purposes, what is important here is that a strong settlements play a substantial and essential role in many
case can be made for the cross-fertilization from large-scale transformations of human community life.
anthropology to the study of CMC. Anthropologists deal Material becomes recognizable as an actor without intent,
with issues of direct relevance to cybersociety researchers. whose operations occur at a scale beyond the limited
For example, when addressing the issue of impact of the perceptions of daily community life. Using Fletcher’s
move to virtual “places” it is only natural for Turkle [51] methodology, cybersociety can also be examined one step
to refer to the anthropologist Ray Oldenberg’s book “The removed from social theory, where human intent is not of
Great Good Place” which deals with community gathering

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 2

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

particular importance and larger-scale cultural changes are 3.2 Explanatory Hierarchies and the Rejection of
assessable. Technological Determinism

3.0 Meaning, Artifacts, and a Hierarchy of Deterministic and teleological theories conceive of a
Social Explanation for Cybersociety certain set of long-term outcomes as inevitable. They
propose that a particular technology will automatically
In this section, we show how the bounded hierarchies lead to a particular set of social outcomes. The adoption of
approach leads to the replacement of technological a hierarchical approach with indeterminacy between levels
determinism with notions of pre-requisites and constraints. leads to the rejection of technological determinism and
This in turn allows us to examine how to produce a theory teleology. This is because the scale at which technology
of cybersociety operating at the level of cyber-material operates is different to that of social outcomes. Instead, the
using Fletcher’s [11] approach. emphasis is on technologies as constrainers or enablers of
a range of behaviors. The hierarchical approach is
3.1 Explanatory Hierarchies prescriptive, but not necessarily predictive. For example,
the creation and use of the telephone may well be a
We understand evolution by a hierarchical theory of prerequisite for high-rise living, but does not prescribe the
selection. What happens at each level is not predetermined creation of such structures. The idea of technology as
by a larger-scale context. Therefore, we need a proposition enablers is not new to media research. As early as the
about indeterminacy to organize the relationship between 1950s, Innis [16] argued that cultures with portable
successive levels. information storage (e.g. writing on papyrus or clay) could
Indeterminacy was proposed to replace the mechanistic produce empires although they do not necessarily do so.
and reductionist ‘laws’ that typified 19th century physics We can also reject technological determinism and
as a result of the rise of quantum mechanics [3]. Later, the teleological explanations for empirical and theoretical
advent of chaos theory reinforced the notion that the study reasons that do not relate to the bounded hierarchy
of complex phenomena is possible without detailed approach. Empirical reasons for rejecting simple
knowledge of all the particular small-scale events [13]. technological determinism come from many quarters
Indeterminacy may or may not be the ‘true’ characteristic including archaeology and history [43]. Theoretical
of the universe, life, or human behavior, but it is now the grounds for rejecting teleology included the fact that such
way in which physics, cosmology and biology attempt to theories are self-referential (rely on circular reasoning)
comprehend reality [2]. Indeterminacy provides us with and are therefore not scientific explanations. Further, their
the freedom to explore the impact of factors that occur at self-referential nature means that they are likely to result in
one level of an explanatory scale without focusing on the non-progressive research programs [23]. Another reason
complexity and details of factors that occur at a lower for rejecting technological determinism is the fact that a
level. This is possible via the construction of hierarchies complete correspondence does not exist between the
of explanation about operations that are of different material and social aspects of community life. Therefore,
magnitudes and produce observable effects and outcomes the relationship cannot be deterministic.
over different spans of time. The links between the levels The notion that technological advances automatically
result from the boundaries imposed by higher-scale lead to positive social change is common in the fields of
phenomena on the range of actions that can occur at a Information Systems and CMC in particular. Ein-Dor and
lower level. Segev [8] noted that “virtually all developmental IS
External boundary conditions or parameters, such as explanations” were teleological and Markus [29] that a
the net balance between energy input and output in similar situation existed in relation to theories of
resource supply, limit the degree to which the collaborative technology use. For example, the media
characteristics of the next step down in a hierarchy can richness theory of Daft et al. [5] can be considered
persist. Within the boundaries that form a particular teleological, as the theory holds that humans as rational
hierarchy of explanation, forms taken by the system under actors inevitably use the most efficient medium for a
study can vary enormously because they are not particular level of task ambiguity. Despite the problems
determined at that level. Therefore, it will not be possible with technological determinism, determinist theories are
to determine from a higher level in the hierarchy the forms often proposed because of the desire to explain the
that will occur at a lower level of analysis. From the relationship between technology and social structures.
vantage point of a particular level in the hierarchy, lower Researchers exploring virtual-communities, for quite
level events are indeterminate. understandable reasons, want to suggest straightforward
relationships between CMC-technologies and human
behavior. However, a simple deterministic relationship

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 3

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

between technology and social outcomes does not exist. technology on social structures is to recognize the degree
This is because social outcomes are determined at the to which material entities can effectively control or aid
level of social context [47], not at the level of technology. social life, which in turn is defined by the finite capacity of
Examples include: group norms and social learning [42]; humans to process information. Humans can effectively
social identity [25]; the make up of the community of undertake only a limited number of cognitive tasks during
users [22]; and work group cohesiveness [12]. Therefore, a given period [37]. Therefore, the amount of physical
the particular way in which a technology is used, is not interaction and group communication that we can manage
determined by the technology itself, but rather is is finite. Such constraints are inherent to any biological
dependent on its social context. Consequently, it will not mechanism for processing information [7].
be possible to accurately predict the form that online The existence of human cognitive processing limits
behavior will take without a detailed understanding of its leads Fletcher to a number of further propositions. First,
social context. Therefore, without a hierarchy of social he argues that cognitive processing limits will restrict the
explanation, we cannot effectively relate technology to range of situations in which a community can interact and
social structures. communicate adequately. Secondly, he postulates that the
range of sustainable communication situations will relate
4.0 Modeling the Impact of Material on to the society’s cultural assemblages. Thirdly, Fletcher
Cybersociety suggests that it is possible to identify a set of cultural
assemblages that are roughly related to the boundaries to
While researchers into cybersociety have examined a settlement size and density. Finally, by examining the
wide variety of questions operating at various scales, few impact that technology has on community life, Fletcher
have successfully explored the link between technology offers a strategy by which we can come to a better
and online behavior. Instead, theories of collaborative understanding of the processes involved in settlement
technology use have generally operated at the level of growth.
social theory where meaning or intent is of the utmost Based on the above logic, Fletcher [11] mapped
importance. In this section, we outline a model of virtual- various settlement types over the last fifteen thousand
public or virtual-settlement growth that links technology to years by geographic size and population. What he
online behavior using an analogist approach to Fletcher discovered was a relationship between the upper
[11]. The model of virtual-public growth produced allows boundaries of a ratio of community size to density, and a
us to place much of the work to-date on cybersociety society’s available technology.
within a hierarchy of social explanation. Diagram 1 below provides a simplified graphical
illustration of the results of mapping this relationship. It
summarizes the proposed behavioral constraints on the
4.1 Fletcher’s interaction-communication stress
growth of various types of human settlements. The
model of settlement growth (1995) boundaries represent zones rather than rigid, deterministic,
instantaneous halt lines. They are indicators of an
The impact of the relationship between material and uncertain range of likelihood within which the behavioral
interpersonal behavior is termed material behavior by limitations become severe. The I-Limit in the diagram
Fletcher [11]. The effects of material behavior on the refers to the interaction limits which individuals can cope
viability and growth of a community may be both with and which place a limit on the maximum density of a
advantageous and disadvantageous. This is because settlement. For example, hunter-gatherer communities are
material acts as a non-verbal message-system, which able to support a higher level of average residential
manages human interaction, by providing rules that offer density than industrial urban communities, although their
some degree of predictability. Clay tablets with script populations are much smaller. The recognition of this
written on them assist signal transmissions: they carry relationship has a significant and important impact on our
information and help reduce the amount of required understanding of the growth of human settlement size and
interpersonal interaction. Effective transfer of information population. The C-Limits represent the constraints
is linked to the underlying rule structure of the interaction imposed on population expansion by the maximum extent
in question. At the same time, a society dependent on clay to which a given assemblage of communication
tablets for communication may be constrained by a technologies can function adequately. Thus, for example,
technology that is not easily reproduced and requires city populations were able to dramatically increase
physical presence for message transfer. In Fletcher uses because of the industrial revolution. Fletcher’s approach
the term ‘interaction’ in its broadest sense to cover all provides a modeling technique to explore the boundaries
media and channels of interaction. The actors need not of what we label elsewhere as virtual-settlements or virtual
intend to interact and affect each other. Fletcher argues publics [17,18,19].
that the starting point for modeling the impact of

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 4

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

public space and virtual community. Fernback and

Diagram 1. Thompson [10] define virtual communities as “social
relationships forged in cyberspace through repeated
Settlement Interaction-Communication Stress Model
contact within a specified boundary or place (e.g. a chat
Simplified from Fletcher 1995
channel) that is symbolically delineated by topic of
interest”. Therefore, according to Fernback and
Density - Persons per hectare

Thompson, a virtual community needs a virtual-space. At

I-Limit
the same time, they note that a virtual community is not
equivalent to its cyberspace. The aim here is not to join
the debate about the extent to which they are “real”
communities, but rather, to note the existence of socially
constructed spaces where interaction occurs at various
levels.
The social interactions, which form the basis of
Population cybersociety, occur via a variety of public settings and
Settlement Types private communication channels. These public cyber-
C-Limits
Hunter-gather camps places we have termed ‘virtual publics’ [18,19]. More
Small-scale agricultural communities formally, virtual publics are symbolically delineated
Industrial Urban communities
computer mediated spaces, whose existence is relatively
transparent and open, that allow groups of individuals to
attend and contribute to a similar set of computer-
To understand the relationship between the material mediated interpersonal interactions. This definition
and active components of behavior in the non-virtual distinguishes virtual publics from private computer-
world requires attention to at least three different scales of mediated spaces. For example, a password protected
analysis. First, attention must be paid to the small-scale corporate employees-only discussion board is not a virtual
spatial and temporal patterning of social life, that is, who public. The public probably would not know about its
uses what technologies and when. Secondly, it is important existence nor would they be able to use it. This distinction
to take account of the range of behaviors within which a is important when we construct a model of the impact on
community with a particular cultural assemblage can online discourse of various technologies. People and
operate. Thirdly, the large-scale constraints to resource organizations build a variety of open and closed virtual
supply are of significance. A similar hierarchy can also be spaces. Not all virtual publics will have associated virtual
constructed for understanding the relationship between communities, therefore the term virtual settlement has
cyber-material and online behavior, where limitations and been adopted as a label for those virtual publics whose
possible forms of group interaction are mediated by users constitute the population of a virtual community
technology. [17].
Many parallels exist between the concept of
4.2 Modeling the Impact of Cyber-Material interactivity and the broader term ‘interaction’ used by
Fletcher to discuss constraints to conventional settlements.
Two things are required to construct a model of the While it may be true that the channels of interaction in
impact of cyber-material using the methodology described cyberspace are generally narrow in scope, they are still the
above. First, significant parallels must exist between the ties that bind users together [52]. Like conventional
virtual places that support cybersociety and conventional communities, actors in cyberspace need not intend to
human settlements. Secondly, cognitive processing limits interact and affect each other. Their intentions do not
must affect the social structures formed using cyber- concern this inquiry. Visual and auditory signals have an
places, just as they do in “real” places. impact whether or not we want to notice them. However,
unlike conventional communities in cyberspace, we can
4.2.1 Parallels between Virtual Places and track a larger proportion of public interactions and
Conventional Settlements. Papers that deal with virtual categorize their nature. The messages that form the basis
community often discuss their “inhabitants” [34], what of online interaction via virtual publics can be classified as
“takes place” within them, and “where” we can “find” the broadcast, two-way, reactive, or interactive. Fully
virtual community under study [45]. This is because, interactive communication requires that later messages in
“computer-mediated communication is, in essence, any sequence take into account not just the messages that
socially produced space” [21,p.17]. A number of authors preceded them, but also the manner in which previous
have also noted the connection between common-virtual messages were reactive [35]. Interactivity is not a

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 5

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

characteristic of the medium per se. It is the extent to 4.2.2 Cognitive Processing Limits, Computer-
which messages in a sequence relate to each other, and Mediated Discourse and Technology. Fletcher’s model
especially the extent to which later messages recount the of conventional settlements outlined above links
relatedness of earlier messages. The literature regarding individual cognitive processing limits to the boundaries of
virtual communities is insistent that interactive group structures supported by particular classes of
communication is a necessary part of virtual community technology. Similarly, a link exists between cognitive
life. This is because true conversations require interactive- processing limits and virtual publics discourse boundaries.
communication [35,54,14]. Nearly all users of the Internet have at times experienced
Like conventional settlements that have residents, an “information overload”. The question, then, is what is the
active virtual public will have a user-population. The term aggregate expression of individual discomfort or
‘virtual public user-population’ refers to the individuals overload? Is the message processing power of a group
who engage in a virtual public’s symbolically delineated increased with the addition of extra individuals?
space [17]. Lurkers are members of a virtual public’s user- The inability of members of a virtual public to
population who do not engage in public discourse. effectively process certain message patterns will result in
Contributors are members of a user-population who over a limitations to the possible forms of sustainable group-
period engage in public discourse. CMC. That is, beyond a particular communication
Another parallel that should be noted is related to the processing-load, the behavioral stress zones encountered
action of material in both virtual and conventional human will make group communication unsustainable.
interactions. In both situations, material acts as a non- Communication load is the processing effort required to
verbal message-system that manages human interaction by deal-with a set of communications. Users of virtual publics
rules that provide some degree of predictability. The have two options regarding information overload. The first
notion of rule structures being linked to information option is simply to end participation (possibly unavailable
transfer is well known to CMC researchers. Since the early in closed corporate systems). The second option is to
seventies, it has been known that it is possible to find an change communicative behavior so that it becomes
empirical relationship between linguistic measures, such manageable. It is argued here that, from a systemic
as the number of words per message per sentence etc., and exploration of the communication patterns of many large-
performance in a CMC context [4]. Rules of course can scale virtual publics, it should be possible to identify the
breakdown. For example, while messages posted to an stress zones caused by cognitive processing limits.
email list form the basis of group dialogue, a significant Communication-processing load relates to a number of
number of spams could lead to discourse disintegration. message system characteristics. Users generally have to
Therefore, the degree to which users can effectively make more of an effort to reply coherently to a thread [26]
process virtual public messages has consequences for the than to a single message. Higher message interactivity
size, viability and duration of discourse. correlates with higher communication-processing load.
The application of information theory to interpersonal Similarly, a dense pattern of messages (high frequency of
communication supports the view that for discourse to be postings) will require quicker and more sustained
sustained by a virtual public it must contain non-verbal processing by group members. Therefore, message density
rules that provide some degree of predictability to its will also covary with communication-processing load. It is
CMC [50]. This is because the transfer of information is also likely that an increase in ‘interactional coherence’, not
linked to the underlying rule structure of the interaction. A compensated for by a useable persistent record, will also
number of studies into virtual settlements suggest that increase communication-processing load [14]. For
virtual-communities often follow rules that provide some example, disrupted turn adjacency (reversed sequencing or
degree of predictability to their CMC messages. For lags) may require increased user effort to track sequential
example, McLaughlin et al. [30] noted the commonplace exchanges. Of course, it is possible to alleviate some of
phenomena of Usenet standards of conduct. Two the problems of information overload by the use of
conclusions can be drawn from this. First, we can surmise software.
that the variability that can be sustained within a virtual Diagram 2 illustrates how individual cognitive
community will relate to the message code system used by processing limits are linked to group communication.
that community. Therefore, the impact of a message can Three cognitive processing loads for group-CMC, A, B
be considered independently of its maker's intent. and C are displayed. At different cognitive loads, different
Secondly, that technology can also constrain the shape of individuals are willing or able to process group messages.
virtual public discourse because of the way in which it can The cognitive processing abilities of groups are not simply
affect information transfer. the sum of its individual’s cognitive processing capacities.
Consequently, certain patterns of interactive group-CMC
cannot be sustained if the required processing effort

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 6

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

(communication load) is higher than the maximum amount technology such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC) may be able
individuals can or are prepared to invest. to reach a higher communication load than an email list
because of the speed at which users in a channel window
Diagram 2. Individual & Group Processing Limits can reply to the comments of other users. However, IRC
Variable Levels of channels may not be able to reach the same user-
Cognitive Effort
Individuals are Willing t population as a function of message density as an email
Invest in Processing
Interactive CMC
list. This is because email list subscribers can store
messages and take time to structure responses.
Cognitive Processing
Load for Group-CMC

C
Diagram 3 also suggests that the stress zones caused by
overloaded interactive communication can be identified
B empirically by mapping active participation in different
virtual places. This in turn will enable a model of the
A relationship between CMC-technologies and
communication load. Like Fletcher’s model of
Members of a Virtual Public
conventional settlements, it is likely that I-limits and C-
limits exist. The I-limits or zones, here representing the
maximum sustainable communication load of a class of
Only a handful of authors have noted the impact of virtual publics. The C-limits representing the durability
information overload on group communication (see [18] and storability of messages used to communicate via a
for a review), and no attempt has been made to virtual public.
systematically identify group-CMC patterns that produce The model outlined is a type of coordination theory
information overload. This is probably due to the lack of a [27] as it examines the inter-linked dependencies between
theoretical approach or methodology for exploring the activities. Further, it is possible to consider discourse via
problem. It is also probably because the focus of research virtual publics to be the output of a complex social system
in the area has been on the behavior of individuals in [18,19], with the notion of indeterminate hierarchies of
closed systems (e.g. laboratory experiments or corporate explanation used here to understand the coordination of
groupware) rather than on the behavior of open systems, dependencies between levels.
i.e. virtual publics.

4.2.3 A Model of the Relationship between

Technology and Online Behavior. We can now extract
building blocks for modeling the relationship between
communication technology and online behavior. We know
that there is a limit to the physical density of conventional
settlements, due to human interaction limits. Similarly,
there are also limits to the processing by user populations
of the interactive messages posted to virtual publics.
Further, we also know that increasing the population of a
settlement will relate to increases in settlement density or
size. Similarly, an increase in the number of active users of
a virtual public will relate to its communication load and
or message posting density. Finally, we know that different
technologies structure communication and interaction
differently, resulting in a link between technology type and
social structures. From these points, it is possible to
construct a hypothetical model of virtual public
technology and message processing capacity based on
Fletcher’s approach.
In Diagram 3, a number of hypothetical virtual publics
are plotted. The plots show that the user-population’s size
and communication-processing load of virtual public’s
CMC can vary widely. It also shows how different
technologies have different boundaries for sustainable
group-CMC. For example, a relatively synchronous CMC-

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 7

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

Diagram 3. technology use. Remember that technology does not

Virtual Public Technology determine online behavior; it merely enables or constrains
it. Therefore, theorizing at this level cannot result in
and Message Processing Capacity
models that accurately predict technology use without
significant linkage to the specific social context under
question.
I-Limit
4.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterning of Artifacts in
Communication Load

Cyberspace. Archaeologists map stone-tool dispersal in

order to understand the range of cultural formations with
which a particular technology is associated. Similarly to
understand the relationship between CMC-tools and online
behavior, we need knowledge of the range of ways in
which the technology in question is used.
Virtual Public Interactive User-Population Only a small number of researchers have examined
C-Limits
Virtual Public Technologies cyber-artifacts at this level of analysis. ProjectH was one
such effort [37]. ProjectH was a collaborative content
Hypothetical Synchronous CMC-Tool
analysis of a wide sample of communicative activity taken
Hypothetical Asynchronous CMC-Tool
from the Usenet, Bitnet and Compuserve discussion
groups. At the time of the study, 1992-1994, these
4.3 Placing Cyber-Material Research in a discussion groups represented the vast majority of publicly
Hierarchy of Social Explanation. accessible cyberspaces. Whittaker, et al. [53] examined
what they called the “dynamics of mass interaction” by
In this subsection, we use the model described above to examining millions of Usenet messages. Smith [45] in a
build a hierarchy of social explanation linking similar vein measured what he referred to as the social
cybersociety to cyberspace. The model in Diagram 3 structure of the Usenet, by mapping the overall activity of
suggests attention to at least four different scales of users of the Usenet. Research examining the spatial
analysis. First, the small-scale spatial and temporal patterning of cyber-artifacts does not necessarily have to
patterning of cybersociety is represented by the positions be conducted on the large-scale of the studies discussed
on the model of the various hypothetical virtual publics. above. Herring [14] in her examination of interactional
Second, the longer-term behavioral parameters of human coherence, by focusing on mapping the flow and structure
interaction, or the range of behaviors within which of CMC, is also working at this level of analysis.
discourse using a particular technology can operate, is
represented on the diagram by the positioning of the I- 4.3.3 Technology and the Parameters of Human
Limits and C-Limits. Third, the large-scale constraints to Interaction. Little work has been conducted into the
resource supply, or cyber-ecology, is represented by the longer-term behavioral parameters of online human
existence of the diagram itself, and by the types, and interaction, or the range of behaviors within which
numbers of virtual publics that can potentially be discourse using a particular technology can operate [18].
displayed. The model does not preclude different virtual Further, most of the relevant work is theoretical [18]. To
publics using equivalent technologies, from having help rectify this imbalance, the authors are currently
different communication loads. Nor does it say anything undertaking empirical research into the communication
about the content of virtual public discourse within the boundaries of email lists and Usenet newsgroups [20]. It
boundaries imposed by technology, or who will use one should also be noted that effective production of
virtual public or another. This constitutes a fourth lower empirically based models at this level requires the
level of analysis (social theory). The recognition of four production and analysis of a significant amount of data
distinct levels of analysis allows us to produce a hierarchy regarding the patterning of cyber-artifacts (as described in
of social explanation for cybersociety. section 4.3.2 above).

4.3.1 Individual Behavior - Social Theory. As we noted 4.3.4 Online Behavior and Resource Supply (Cyber-
in the discussion of analogies from anthropology, online Ecology). Theories operating at this level examine the
behavior is well suited to analysis at the level of social ecology of cybersociety rather than the direct impact of the
theory. Reasons, meaning and intent operate at this level technology on online behavior. For example, the
of the hierarchy. The theories do not hinge on the expansion of any online social interaction by the inclusion
technology per se, rather on the social context of of new actors relates to resource-supply (the potential

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 8

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

supply of new users). An example of a theory that links to researchers with data for examining usability as a group
the ecology of cybersociety is Markus’ [28] critical mass level concept [20].
theory. It focuses on explaining the percentage of a real- Finally, the theory and research program is of
community that has adopted a particular significance to communication theory in general. This is
telecommunication innovation. Markus’ emphasis is not because it links communicative behavior and social
on the structure or uses of interactive media, but who will structure to technology without resorting to technological
adopt such media. Many other theories exist that examine determinism.
phenomena operating at this scale.
6. References
5. Conclusions and Implications.
[1.] Binford, L. R., Archeology as anthropology. American
The theory presented in this paper for the study of the Antiquity. 28, 2, 1962, 17-25.
interrelationship between cybersociety and cyberspace can [2.] Bronowski, J. and Mazlich, B., The Western intellectual
tradition. Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1963.
be considered a scientific research program in the full
[3.] Brush, S. G., Irreversibility and indeterminism: Fourier to
Lakatosian sense [23]. The research program’s hard-core, Heisenberg. Journal of the History of Ideas. 38, 4, 1976, 603-
is the outlined relationship between technology and 630.
cybersociety. The positive heuristic, or rough guidelines as [4.] Chapanis, A., Studies in interactive communication: The
to how research should proceed, is to increase the focus on effects of four communication modes on the behaviour of teams
large-scale field-research into communication via virtual during cooperative problem solving. Human Factors, 14, 1972,
publics. This should better balance the amount of 487-509.
empirical and theoretical research conducted at the four [5.] Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H., Information richness: A new
levels of the hierarchy of social explanation outlined. approach to managerial behavior and organization design,
Research in Organizational Behavior. 6, 1984, 191-233
The theory outlined has a number of significant
[6.] Dennis, A. R., et al., A comparison of laboratory and field
implications. First, the approach suggests that in relation research in the study of electronic meeting systems. Journal of
to technology use, inconsistencies between laboratory and Management Information Systems. 7, 3, 1991, 107-135.
field studies are to be expected. This is because in regards [7.] Dunbar, R., Grooming, gossip and the evolution of
to individual technology use, context is king. Social language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 1996.
context in the field is extremely difficult to measure or [8.] Ein-Dor, P. and Segev, E., A classification of information
adequately comprehend, making it difficult to validate systems: Analysis and interpretation. Information Systems
laboratory findings in the field. Recognition of this fact by Research. 4, 2, 1993, 166-204.
Group Support Systems theorist [5,38] could resolve a [9.] Fagen, B., People of the earth: an introduction to world
prehistory. Little, Brown & Company Ltd., Toronto, 1985.
number of philosophical dilemmas.
[10.] Fernback, J. and Thompson, B., Virtual communities:
Second, focusing on the construction of deterministic Abort, retry, failure? http://www.well.com/
models of technology outcomes will not necessarily help user/hlr/texts/VCcivil.html, 1995
us understand what features of collaborative technologies [11.] Fletcher, R. J., The limits of settlement growth: A
are useful as has been argued elsewhere [38]. Instead, the theoretical outline, Cambridge University Press, Sydney, 1995.
hierarchical approach suggests that researchers should aim [12.] Fulk, J., et al., The dynamics of context-behavior
to construct models based on prerequisites or critical interactions in computer-mediated communication, in Contexts
success factors. of computer-mediated communication. M. Lea (ed.),. Harvester
Third, researchers need to match their research Wheatsheaf , NY, 1992, 7-29
[13.] Gleick, J., Chaos. Sphere Books, Great Britain, 1987.
question to an appropriate level of analysis. Failure to do
[14.] Herring, S. C., Interactional coherence in CMC, in
so will result in effectual theorizing. This is the case with Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on
much of the current work linking virtual communities to e- System Sciences, (Hawaii 1999), IEEE Press.
commerce [19]. [15.] Hesse, M., Models and analogies in science. University of
Fourth, as the active population of any individual Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, 1970
virtual public is limited by cognitive processing [16.] Innis, H. A., The bias of communication. Toronto,
constraints, those wishing to build virtual metropolises for University of Toronto Press, 1964.
e-commerce will have to devise methods to segment and [17.] Jones, Q., Virtual-communities, virtual-settlements &
relate discourse spaces [19]. In turn, measures of virtual cyber-archaeology: A theoretical outline. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 3, 3, 1997.
public ‘crowding’ [19] based on empirical field-research
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue3/jones.html
will help refine such segmentation strategies. [18.] Jones, Q. and Rafaeli, S., User population and user
Fifth, the field-research promoted by the research contributions to virtual publics: A systems model, in
program should provide human computer interaction Proceedings of Group99, (Phoenix AZ, 1999), ACM Press.

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 9

 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

[19.] Jones, Q., Time to split, virtually, in Proceedings of the [39.] Rheingold, H., The virtual community: Homesteading on
33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, the electronic frontier. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 1993.
(Hawaii 2000), IEEE Press. [40.] Rindos, D., The origins of agriculture: An evolutionary
[20.] Jones Q., An empirical investigation of boundaries to perspective. Academic Press, Orland FL, 1984.
virtual public discourse. Submitted to CHI 2000, (The Hague, [41.] Schmitz, J., Structural relations, electronic media and
Netherlands, 2000) ACM Press. social change: The public electronic network and the homeless,
[21.] Jones, S., Cybersociety: Computer-mediated in Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety.
communication and community. Understanding Community in S. G. Jones. (ed.) Sage, London, 1997.
the Information Age. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995, 10-35. [42.] Schmitz, J. and Fulk. J., Organizational colleagues, media
[22.] Kling, R. and Gerson, E.M., The social dynamics of richness, and electronic mail: A test of the social influence
technological innovation in the computing world. Symbolic model. Communication Research. 18, 1991, 487-523.
Interaction. 1, 11, 1977, 132-46. [43.] Scranton, P. Determinism and indeterminism in the history
[23.] Lakatos, I., Falsification and the methodology of scientific of technology. Does technology drive history?, in The dilemma
research programmes, in Criticism and the Growth of of technological determinism. M. R. Smith and L. Marx (eds.),
Knowledge. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Cambridge 1992, 143-168.
University Press, Cambridge, 1974, 91-196. [44.] Shannon, C. and Weaver, W., The mathematical theory of
[24.] Lea, M., et al., 'Flaming' in computer-mediated communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1949.
communication: Observations, explanations, implication, in [45.] Smith, M., Voices from the Well: The logic of the virtual
Contexts of computer-mediated communication. M. Lea. (ed.), commons. Sociology. UCLA, 1992.
Harvester-Wheatsheaf, London, 1992, 89-112. [46.] Smith, M., Invisible Crowds in Cyberspace: Measuring
[25.] Lea, M. and Spears, R., Computer-mediated and Mapping the USENET, in Communities in Cyberspace, M.
communication, de-individuation, and group decision-making. Smith and P. Kollock. (eds.) Routledge, London, 1999.
International Journal of Man-machine Studies. 34, 1991, 283- [47.] Spears, R. and Lea. M., Social influence and the influence
301 of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication, in Contexts
[26.] Lewis, D., and Knowles, K. A., Threading electronic mail: of computer-mediated communication. M. Lea. (ed.) Harvester
A preliminary study. Information Processing and Management Wheatsheaf, New York, 30-65. 1992.
33,2, 1997, 209-217. [48.] Steinfield, C. and Fulk. J., On the role of theory in
[27.] Malone, T.W. and Crowston, K., The interdisciplinary research on information technologies in organizations.
study of coordination. ACM Comp. Surveys 26, 1994, 87-119. Communication Research. 14, 5, 1987, 479-490.
[28.] Markus, M.L., Toward a critical mass theory of interactive [49.] Stoll, C. The cuckoo's egg. Pan Books Ltd, London, 1991.
media. Communication Research. 14, 1987, 491-511. [50.] Thomas, G. and Soldow. G., Information theory and
[29.] Markus, M.L., Electronic mail as the medium of interpersonal communication, in Information and behavior. B.
managerial choice. Organization Science. 5, 4, 1994, 502-527. Ruben and L. Lievrouw (eds.), Transaction Publishers. 3, 308-
[30.] McLaughlin, M., et al., Standards of conduct on Usenet. 326, 1990.
Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and [51.] Turkle, S. Virtuality and its discontents: Searching for
community, in S. G. Jones (ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, community in cyberspace. The American Prospect. 24, 1996, 50-
1995, 90-111. 57. http://epn.org/prospect/24/24turk.html
[31.] McLuhan, M. H., Understanding media: The extensions of [52.] Wellman, B. and Gulia. M., Virtual communities as virtual
man. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964. communities, in Communities in Cyberspace. P. Kollock. & M.
[32.] Meyrowitz, J., No sense of place. Oxford University Press Smith. (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999.
Inc., New York, 1985. [53.] Whittaker, S., Terveen. L, et al., The dynamics of mass
[33.] Miller, G. A., The magical number seven, plus or minus interaction. Proceedings of CSCW 98, (Seattle 1998), ACM
two: Some limits on our capacity to process information. Press.
Psychological Review 63, 1956, 81-97. [54.] Zack, M., H., Interactivity and Communication Mode
[34.] Paccagnella, L., Getting the seat of your pants dirty: Choice in Ongoing Management Groups. Information Systems
Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities. Research, 4, 3, 1993, 207-239.
Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication. 3, 1, 1997.
[35.] Rafaeli, S., Interactivity: From new media to
communication. Sage Annual Review of Communication
Research: Advancing Communication Science, 16, 1988, 110-
134.
[36.] Rafaeli, S., McLaughlin, M., et al. Introduction, in
Network and netplay. F. Sudweeks, M. McLaughlin and S.
Rafaeli. (eds.) MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998, xv-xx.
[37.] Rafaeli, S., Sudweeks, F. et al., Appendix: ProjectH
overview, in Network and netplay. F. Sudweeks, M. McLaughlin
& S. Rafaeli. (eds.) MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[38.] Rao, V. S. and Jarvenpaa, S. L., Computer support of
groups: Theory-based models for GDSS research. Management
Science. 37, 10, 1991, 1347-1362.

0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 10