In our own experiment, we coded our own responses to several support groups found on Google. The support groups ranged from dealing with illnesses, to emotional problems, and we as a group had a relatively high inter-rater reliability (71%). Our statistics in this assignment are shown in the table below:
Overall, we agreed almost every time on support categories such as ‘information,’ as well as ‘support.’ Tangible assistance and network support were the items in which we disagreed on the most. Overall, the information that we gathered, and the high inter-rater reliability percentage describes how the three members in our group view support information similarly. This information differs from what Braithwaite discovered. We had much higher correlation percentages in the ‘information’ category as the groups we viewed, were informative (giving information as to what a disease/condition is, how to deal with it etc…). Moreover, our information disagrees with Braithwaite’s in two another major categories, emotional support and network support. Our numbers double her findings and are eight times greater, respectively. It is apparent from these findings, that our simulation was significantly different that Braithwaite’s.
Our group found that Walther’s (1993) Social Information Processing theory was not at work in many of the support groups which we looked at. Complete strangers delve right into their problems and questions while other users are quick to respond with equally personally anecdotes and advice. There were know chilly impressions at first and it did not take time for a transition of information between users, as Walther’s theory claims. Additionally, Wallace claims that the more people present, the less likely someone will reach out and give support. This claim is also contradicted based on our findings. When our group went into these support groups we were shocked to see how many responses people got to seemingly obscure questions and personal predicaments. Finally, our findings are supported by the SIDE theory (Spears and Lea, 1990). As the theory states, people completely relate to and feel comfortable discussing issues with other people within the same online social group, in this case a support group.
Other group members: Rachel Ullman (rsu5) and Scott Gorski (sag53)
A few Threads: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic.moderated/browse_thread/thread/ffbe578f5be7b624/ab09be56cefbbc66?lnk=st&q=anxiety#ab09be56cefbbc66
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.ocd/browse_thread/thread/0c0240b68fd44247/51b1bb44555af352#51b1bb44555af352
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.ocd/browse_thread/thread/83cee1abafbe6064/dd9e420721daab91?lnk=st&q=ocd+support#dd9e420721daab91
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-8_29.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-8our.html
4 comments:
Dave,
Great post! As you pointed out in your comment to my post, it is interesting to see that we arrived at similar conclusions, even though you analyzed various support groups while I only analyzed one. I think it would be interesting to study how the frequencies of support types vary depending on the type of support group. For instance, is informational support more prominent in groups pertaining to illnesses, while emotional support is more common in relationship support groups? Additionally, I really enjoyed your paragraph comparing your results to the theories we have discussed. I find it really interesting that an analysis of online support groups completely contradicts Walther’s SIP Theory. I would assume that features of online support groups, such as identifiability and the removal of gating features contributes to the openness displayed in these groups. What is most interesting to me about studying information technologies is that they are always changing, and therefore theories, such as Walther’s, are often outdated.
Great job!
Great job! There were 2 things that I found to be very interesting in your post. First, I think it's remarkable how the tangible assistance offered in messages in some forums differ greatly from the amount offered in others. It seems from your findings as well as other groups' findings that if the person has a physical problem (disabilities, injuries, etc), others are more willing to put out their hand and actually offer real assistance instead of just advice. In our groups findings, we didn't look at any forums about physical problems, and found no tangible assistance at all! The second thing that I found very interesting was the lack of humor in the messages you read. This, also, seems to be greatly affected by what the forum topic is. For example, people seemed perfectly comfortable making jokes in the messages about polygamy, pet's digestive track problems, etc. However, it seems that for those topics that people deem to be more serious, such as physical disabilities, humor in posts is greatly looked down upon. The extent to which the topic and audience influences content and tone is significant! Again, great job with the post and anlyzing your findings - they bring up many interesting questions!
Nice post! I like how you found evidence that goes against Walther and Wallace's theories. I think the common ground principle has a lot to do with the ease with which people gave each other support. SIP doesn't appear to apply to all situations. There are a wide range of factors that allow complete strangers to interact quite close on a familiar level. I was surprised by how low the percentages were for Braithwaite's original experiment. When I was coding posts I found that because of the nature of the support group there weren't many posts that had no information whatsoever. I find it hard to believe that only 31% of messages contained information. That seems drastically different than my group's 85% and your group's 100%. I think that these coding results depend a lot on the coders themselves and how they define each category. The coding also depends on the online discussion group being observed, because a group that is very dedicated and on topic all the time will yield much different results than a group that doesn't take their discussion seriously. It appears to me that many theories in this field will be proven wrong or at least need revision as people become as proficient in CMC communication as they are in FtF.
Eric
Hi,
As you mentioned your results are different than the ones gathered in Braithwaite's experiment. My question is how much do you think the chat room category can affect the amount of coded messages for each factor. I also liked how you justified your findings with the SIDE theory which I find works in this case very well. One thing to consider is how the difference in sources affects your findings. My group also chose 2 sources that where the same and one that was completely different. Great post!
Post a Comment