This article summarized a variety of research on common identity and common bond; notably, how they are created, the purposes they serve in different communities (ie: why we want to create/sustain them), and how design can support or hinder them. The main thrust of this paper is that "social science theory can point to how a design decision is likely to satisfy and encourage people with different reasons for community participation" and that different structures for communication meet different types of needs (3).

The authors start with the following definitions of member/group needs:

 Summary and Critique

Burkhalter’s article “Reading race online” was very surprising to me because I thought using pseudonyms were beneficial in that it would eliminate preconceptions and prejudices from the offline regarding races, genders, and ethnicities, but his study revealed it is not the case.  As I studied “real names” as identifiers, I felt that using real names might abolish “blinding” effect that could lead to nourishing environments for bridging (especially if members have chance to see other members offline later as Brian mentioned in class) – in Burkhalter’s term, “ambiguous social spaces” (p 62).

However, Burkhalter argued that racial identification does not lack online even though participants cannot see each other’s physical appearances. Furthermore, the experiences online rarely weakens one’s preconceptions toward races; on the contrary, participants often reinforce their points of views mainly because the lack of the physical appearances.  More specifically, an author’s racial identity is negotiated by readers’ interpretation of the author’s posts and the claim about his or her racial identity.  In other words, an author’s claim about his or her racial identification is not taken literally especially when the author acts differently from the racial stereotype readers have.  

When a reader faces the discrepancy between an author’s racial identification and the reader’s expectation toward the race, the reader tries to resolve the discrepancy by the followings:
1) The reader thinks that the author is dishonest about the racial identification or
2) The reader considers the author the anomaly of the race or
3) The reader gathers additional information (additional variable) that fills the gap without altering his or her preconception.

 In sum, Burkhalter’s study shows that online environments are not free from racial prejudices and preconceptions.  

Application

I’ve become to wonder whether using real names makes the differences in terms of changing preconceptions. One’s name often reveals his or her nationality and gender (even sometimes ethnicity). If you know that they are real names, and if you observe many “anomalies” of a particular group then you might accept that they are not anomalies after all.  You might alter your stereotypes towards those identifications for good.

Summary

Burkhalter describes the way in which racial identity plays a role in Usenet discussions on culture and race. In most cases race is used:

• To ground a person's arguments or beliefs
• To defend against casual dismissal
• To augment, attack or alter another person's claims without refuting the claims themselves.

Burkhalter also describes the way that racial identities can be inferred, implied and even falsely attributed, and how this impacts discussions.

Application

Burkhalter's analysis of race were at first difficult to attribute to a community in which race is not a central issue. In MUDs like DragonRealms, every player assumes a pseudonym, and the identity of the player is actively and purposefully masked. How can this discussion of race apply?

“The questions worth attention, I suggest, do not concern fixing or selecting the right identities for us in politics and law but instead ask how to strike a productive stance toward the paradoxes of individual and social meaning.”

I feel like stereotypes and racism happen because of a lack of or poor transmission of information. When people don’t know, they have to assume. When they assume, they bring in social mirrors and media influences.

It seems the eCommunity developer has to focus on EITHER "common identity" (strong mission statement for the entire community, i.e. wikipedia) OR "common bond" (relationships amongst members, i.e. facebook). As time goes on, the incompatibilities slowly start to melt away and both “common identity” and “common bond” develops.

The author argues that both contribute to the cohesion of a community but they contribute in different ways. It seems like developing towards a “common identity” in the beginning is more beneficial in developing a booming eCommunity since it encourages new member participation, discourage social loafing (which encourages content), and sets a common tone for all the members coming in (which will result in higher quality content in the future).

Chapter Summary

Burkhalter makes the case that, despite the seeming 'color blindness' of the computer monitor, race is no less relevent onlilne than it is offline, and that in fact racial stereotypes can be even more influential and resilient in online venues such as the Usenet.

In establishing this, Burkhalter makes a number of interesting comparisons between online (Usenet) and offline interactions. Here are some highlights:

In offline interaction, individuals may use another's racial identity to make assumptions about their perspectives, beliefs and attitudes. Online interaction uses an individual's perspectives, beliefs and attitudes to make assumptions about the individual's racial identity. (62)

+s (pluses)

By exposing a person's racial identity and forming a stereotype, a member
could establish their presence faster and instantly attach an identity. This could
invoke more response / interactions amongst other members (especially in
race-oriented communities). "Since I know this person is Asian, I wonder
what he thinks of this issue..."

Byron concluded that racial self-identification is used to establish a social
position. A racial identity could also lead to quicker clustering and
agreements amongst members. "He must know how I feel too..."

Ren et al. list a series of hypotheses derived from social science research to make predictions about ways to strengthen communities. The major theoretical point underlying much of this paper is that people can want to belong to a group for two reasons, because they have bonds with many other individuals who are members of the group (common bond) or because they identify with what the group stands for or its objective (common identity).

In general the distinction between common identity and common bond is understudied in the social sciences, although the offers do list a few studies here. Researchers know a lot about common identity, and they know a lot about how dyadic bonds work in romantic relationships, but in comparison they know virtually nothing about common friend-bonds. This is not fatal to the article. Instead it made this paper an exciting read for me. Ren et al. make a number of predictions about how common bond and common identity groups would behave differently. These findings would be important to social psychology as a whole.

I saw many parallels between the difficulties of establishing group membership articulated in this chapter and Walther's discussion of how individual identity is warranted. In a manner similar to warranting, Burkhalter points out that racial identity is typically established by physical characteristics and people use these characteristics to make inferences about other's likely behavior. Online, the opposite happens, people have to make inferences about the racial identity of other's based on their online behavior. 

This may result in the mechanism of self-fulfilling prohecy working differenty or breaking down. Typically seeing someone's race
leads viewers to make inferences about expected behavior. These
expectations are usually confirmed for two reasons, because behavior is
ambiguous and because people conform to subtle expectations conveyed by
others. Online, identity is affirmed on the basis of how good a fit
someone's behavior is to a stereotype. Although race is malleable I
don't think that it is so malleable that these interactions can change
someone's racial identification. Instead, the incongruity between
behavior and identity would have to be resolved in some other way.
Either other members of the group have to accept the member's own
identification, or the member leaves the community.

I am not going to try summarizing the article, due to the density and length of the material. I am focusing on two concepts I found interesting:

• self-disclosure
• adult friendship stability 

Three specific links between self-disclosure and attraction have clear empirical support:

1. people who engage in more intimate disclosures tend to be liked better than people who disclose less
2. people disclose more to those whom they initially like
3. people like others as a result of having disclosed to them

Certain types of disclosures generate discomfort in listeners and lead to avoidance.