I can't help myself. I'm bent on doing my utmost to come to some agreement on the meaning of terms under discussion. It's become top-of-mind for me recently because my group has been part of a general reorganization and the slow process of understanding between the new housemates has only just begun.

I took a stab at defining community a couple of years ago. The diagram that resulted is below. (And yes I admit I snagged ideas from a lot of places to put it together).

I suppose many of the terms used in the diagram above deserve some clarification, but for now I'm going to risk misunderstanding for the sake of brevity. I liked it, and continue to find it useful because it speaks to a range of associations, makes clear the overlap that exists between them, and points out that many community "types" can exist based upon a single fabric (forums, blogs). There are also several weaknesses. For instance, it does not make clear that strong-tie associations of the user group kind often employ many tools. That is, they may visit the same forum or forums, read each others blogs, or participate on the same DLs. There's a possible  apples and oranges problem with the examples -- though I think it's a minor one. And, it's not remotely complete in terms of the channels available to "community" -- email isn't listed at all (sell that to the burning-man communities).

Finally, my diagram doesn't call out the fact that both no-tie and strong-tie associations tend to be predominantly "site centric", while weak-tie associations are more likely to be "net-centric". It doesn't in part because I'm not sure I buy it just yet, though I'm aware of a lot of anecdotal evidence that supports that contention.

All pro's and cons aside, there are other ways of looking at the subject. It's just one way to get to some common ground.

Below is another. It's from Rawn Shah (a Community Program Manager at IBM's Developerworks).

What I like about this is that it starts from "General Population" and ends with "Organization". That's a perspective my version misses altogether and that I find interesting. Also, by avoiding the word "intimacy" and instead describing the more concrete forms increasing intimacy delivers or enables (levels of involvement, complexity, focus, shared identity) it is perhaps easier to understand.

The downside is that what he calls audience and "social network" is what lots of people in my world call community. Telling them they're not community managers, but are instead audience managers, or social network managers, is asking for trouble.

In both cases, however, the range of possibilities is clear. And that is the central message. People are almost always in more than one type of association based upon needs and disposition. I, for instance, have very few online (or offline) strong tie relationships. I am, however, very much into weak-tie associations for purely utilitarian reasons. Even where I do engage in strong-tie associations, in those same areas I fully employ every weak-tie association I can find.

One type of association is not better than another -- though there may be reasons to strive for one over another from a corporate perspective in that there appears to be a correlation between strong-tie associations and customer satisfaction. (Sadly, the research I have available does not make these critical distinctions and so have less value than they otherwise might.) And apart from simple discovery, it's not clear that one type necessarily leads to another. Though we shouldn't discount the discovery/awareness angle. Seen this report?

Once we agree on a rational definition of community -- one that in the very least draws distinctions between types -- we can talk.

 

Tags: