hostility in virtual communities

Internet & Information Systems in the Digital Age: Challenges & Solutions

340

Exploring the Business Perspective of Hostility in Virtual Communities

Hanna-Kaisa Ellonen, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, [email protected]

Miia Kosonen, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, [email protected]

The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors that

attract people to virtual communities and how hostile

messages affect the community. The discussion is

based on a single case study of a large Finnish virtual

community we call BAP (Baby and Pregnancy

community). Based on triangulated data (narratives,

interviews and observation) we conclude that BAP

seems to meet four types of needs, namely needs of

interest, relationship, fantasy and transaction, and that

the success of BAP may well be linked to its ability to

meet several needs at the same time. We also suggest

that the success of a virtual community does not

automatically require a tranquil culture, and

occasional hostility among the members may be

natural and acceptable in emotionally oriented

interactions. From the organizers perspective, the

hostility may also add to the ‘street credibility’ of the

organizer and increase the experienced genuineness of

the community.

1. Introduction

Business-organized virtual communities are gaining

more interest and popularity. Business wise they seem

attractive since they appear to impact customer

loyalty, word-of-mouth promotion of the product [40],

[45]; and even the perceived value of the firm’s

offerings [18]. Virtual communities may also provide

input for product development [20], [15]. However, as

Porter [28] notes, organization-sponsored communities

have attracted less research attention compared to

member-initiated communities.

So far, many of virtual community research have

described peaceful communities, e.g. [7], [34], very

close to their physical counterparts. In these studies, an

assumption seems to be made that a successful

community would need a tranquil and harmonious

culture, or even a shared sense of virtual community

among the members. Indeed, strong attachment to the

community has been noted to lead to more active

participation and facilitate virtual collaboration,

enhance knowledge sharing, transfer off-line activities

into an online context (or vice versa), and increase

customer loyalty in e-commerce [24], [7], [44], [46].

However, a recent case study [14] has shown that the

success of a virtual community does not directly

follow a sense of virtual community or a harmonious

atmosphere. In fact, a virtual community may, at the

same time, experience hostility, lack a strong sense of

virtual community and attract a large number of

visitors. An unanswered question remains: what are

the factors that attract members to such communities?

In this paper we explore the relationship of a large

member base and hostility deeper in our case

community we call BAP (Baby and pregnancy

community). The baby and pregnancy discussion

forum (BAP) consists of a set of discussion forums for

mothers-to-be and mothers of young children. It is

organized by one of the largest baby magazines in

Finland (circulation 32,400). The purpose is to explore

what are the factors that attract members to a virtual

community and discuss how occasional hostility

affects it. From a practical perspective, our aim is to

ponder whether or not hostility is destructive for

business-organized virtual communities.

The rest of the paper unfolds as follows: We start by

reviewing virtual community research and discuss

factors that appear to affect participation in the

communities. We then present our research

methodology and describe our case background. We

present our findings and relate them with prior

research. We conclude by considering the implications

for researchers and managers.

2. Theoretical Background

Virtual communities first came in existence in the

1970’s and have been an issue in academic research

since the 1990’s. The key idea behind them is to bring

people together – virtually – to a common place,

where they can interact and exchange information

despite the limits of time and geographical distance.

[30], [29].

The term “community” is sometimes used to refer to

tightly knit social groups, and on other occasions to

signify aggregates of people who hardly know one

another; sometimes it is even used to describe mere

geographic places [16]. Lee et al. [25] reviewed


341

various definitions of the virtual community and

compiled a generic working definition according to

which it is a “cyberspace supported by computer-based

information technology, centered upon the

communication and interaction of participants to

generate member-driven contents, resulting in

relationships being built up.” Ridings et al. [33] see

virtual communities as being “groups of people who

have common interests or practices and who

communicate regularly and for some period over the

Internet through a common location or mechanism”.

By location or mechanism, the authors refer to the

application used by the members of the community, be

it a chat room, bulletin board, mailing list or

something else.

According to Preece [29] an online community

consists of people interacting socially, a shared

purpose that provides a reason for the community to

exist, policies such as tacit assumptions, rituals and

rules that guide people’s interaction and, finally,

computer systems to provide a platform for social

interaction and facilitate a sense of togetherness. These

communities also tend to develop a strong sense of

having clear boundaries and of being safe from outside

intruders [38]. Fernback & Thompson [17] see virtual

communities as a set of relationships, which emerge

through repeated interaction inside a specific

boundary.

In sum, there are a number of ways to define and

understand virtual communities. In this paper we

define virtual communities as groups of people using

information system(s) for repeated social interaction to

meet a certain need/needs. In the following

paragraphs we briefly address the needs that a virtual

community can meet, and discuss other elements that

influence its actions and nature.

Hagel & Armstrong [19] have proposed that a virtual

community can meet four types of needs, namely

needs for interest, see also [6], relationship, fantasy

and transaction. In their view, virtual communities will

differ significantly in terms of the relative focus they

place on each need, but they state that few will

succeed if they access one need to the exclusion of

others. The power of a virtual community, thus, lies in

its ability to address several needs at the same time:

• Interest: these communities are designed to

share information and opinions on a shared

interest. High personal relationships are

involved.

• Relationship: these communities are designed

to support interaction between members, who

share their life experiences.

• Fantasy: these communities are created for

establishing new identities and environments;

the real identity of the participant is not

relevant.

• Transaction: these communities are designed

to provide transaction-related information and

to enable transactions. Examples include e-

commerce and auction sites. Transaction

should be defined broadly, however: it could

also be understood as the fair exchange of

ideas and advice.

In our view, meeting members’ needs is the

cornerstone of any successful community, as without a

need there is no participation and no contribution. The

size of the community influences its activities [29],

[35], [10] and economic success [34]. According to

Morris & Ogan [27], an asynchronous discussion

forum needs both depth and variety to be viable: in

every discussion forum there are people just reading

the messages and not posting any, i.e. lurkers. An

estimated relation of posters/readers of 1/100 is often

quoted [29]. A virtual community therefore needs a

critical mass of posters to carry the free riders in the

system. Shapiro & Varian [37] argue that consumers

value information technologies that are widely used,

just as they value communications networks with a

broad reach. Therefore, at the beginning of their

involvement members are likely to prefer a virtual

community with a broad membership base.

As explained above, reaching a critical mass of visitors

is therefore important as advantages may accrue to the

first big mover (see, for example, [21], [26]).

However, when the community grows larger, it is

about to meet other challenges. According to the

literature, broadly based communities are likely to

experience more hostility as the participants have

different expectations and may become frustrated

when their expectations are not met [29], [35].

So far, hostility in virtual communities has not

received much research attention and therefore, we

lack rigorous theoretical frameworks to address this

issue. Burnett [8] and Burnett & Buerkle [9] have

categorized four different types of hostility, namely

flaming, trolling, spamming and cyber-rape. They all

emphasize overt aggression and conflict rather than

support information exchange in the virtual

community. We will now briefly review each of the

types in turn:


342

Flaming in online environment is generally

characterized by words of profanity, obscenity, and

insults. Alonzo & Aiken [1] suggest that flaming is,

for some, a way of entertaining themselves and

passing time, while others flame as a relaxation

technique to fight the frustration caused by the online

discussion system or to gain control and dominance

over others. As Baym [4] notes, when emotional issues

and attachment are present in the community, there is

always potential for conflict.

Trolling, on the other hand, refers to posting

provocative messages which induce angry responses.

According to Donath [12], a troll pretends to be a

legitimate participant but aims to cause a riot: he baits

a post and waits for the bite and then enjoys the fight.

Trolling thus represents one form of identity

deception. Trolls can be harmful to an online

community in several ways: in disrupting a

conversation, disseminating bad advice and damaging

the feeling of trust.

Finally, spamming refers to the abuse of electronic

messaging systems to send unsolicited, undesired bulk

messages. Burnett [8] also acknowledges that some

cases of “virtual rape” have been reported.

In the following, we will first present our methodology

and case background and then proceed to analyze the

communal actions and reasons for participating in our

case community.

3. Research Strategy and Methodology

In order to explore the questions of hostility and

factors that attract people to virtual communities

within in real-time context, we chose to conduct a

single-case study [41], [43]. In this regard, we agree

with Dyer and Wilkins [13] who see “good stories” as

the ultimate result of case studies; good stories can

lead us to see new theoretical relationships and

question old ones.

Our case study represents a triangulated [11] research

strategy, involving three types of methods and data.

Our main method for collecting the data was narratives

written by BAP members. In cooperation with the

magazine, we added a request for written narratives on

the BAP web site. In the short note we asked members

of the forums to write to us about their BAP

experiences. We received 11 narratives that total a

textual database of 24 pages.

Narratives are seen as a means of gaining access to

deeper organizational realities as they are closely

linked to members’ experiences [42]. Rhodes [31] sees

them particularly suitable for addressing issues of

resistance and disagreement. This aspect was felt

important since we wanted to hear about both positive

and negative experiences, and to minimize the

researchers’ influence in the data collection.

Secondly, in order to support our understanding

regarding the community development, semi-

structured interviews [5], [36] were conducted with

five current and former members of the baby

magazine’s staff. The interview transcripts added

another 25 pages of textual data.

Thirdly, interaction inside the community was also

observed for a period of 14 months (November 2003-

December 2004). Observation is a primary field-study

method that involves a very close relationship with the

phenomenon in question. As Snow and Thomas [39]

note, case studies rely heavily on direct observation.

According to Kendall [23], all social-research projects

involving the study of online interactive forums should

include observation. In this case, a field diary was kept

on the observations and posted messages were

collected and classified based on their tone and

motives.

The data was then analyzed using thematic analysis

[2]. Thematic analysis is useful for theorizing across a

number of cases or interviews [32] and was used in

this study for finding common thematic elements

among a number of interviews/narratives. The coding

technique was elaborative coding which begins with

theoretical constructs as the basis of the coding [2].

In order to increase the reliability of our study, the

authors first coded the data and contributed to the key

findings individually. The coding and findings were

double-checked and agreed upon jointly. Triangulation

was used as a strategy to increase the validity of the

results [43].

There are several reasons for choosing BAP as a

research object. It was one of the first communities in

Finland, and so it is well-established and mature. It is

also one of the most active online communities in the

country (more than 6.5 million messages are posted

annually). Most importantly, what makes it special is

its culture and atmosphere. The conversation is not

limited to baby talk, nor is it always happy in tone: the

community is somewhat ‘anarchist’ every now and

then, and even ‘wild’ in its nature. Emotions covering


343

the whole range of human experience are expressed –

as in real life. However, the blunt and outspoken

culture of BAP provides conditions that members

cannot achieve in physical communities. As one

member wrote in a letter to a member of the magazine

staff: “The BAP discussion forums are the only place

where I can be and say what I truly feel.”


344

4. The BAP Case

Case background

The BAP forums (a total of 38 different ones) cover all

areas related to pregnancy and motherhood, ranging

from expecting a baby to food and allergy questions

concerning older children. The forums were founded

in 1997 when the baby magazine first launched its web

site. Online conversations were then considered to be

both cost-efficient to maintain, and also to meet the

needs of young mothers to contact other women in the

same situation.

BAP is, by any standards, an extremely active virtual

community. In 2004, there were 117,500 unique

visitors per month and the average visitor spent more

than 17 minutes at the site.

The discussion cultures in BAP

BAP consists of 38 discussion forums. They operate

asynchronously, meaning that members can read what

others have written earlier and then reply to the

message. Most forums require registration before

posting, but anyone can write anonymously on three of

them. We have observed a clear distinction between

the cultures of anonymous discussion forums and

those that require registration.

In the forums that require registration, the

conversation is generally on topic and friendly in

nature. In these forums, people ask for advice on a

specific topic (e.g., can you give meat to a five-month

old baby?); people form their own “clubs” for

pregnant mothers expecting their babies in the same

month, and share their experiences almost daily;

surveys are conducted that are meant to have

entertainment value (e.g., how much weight have you

gained this week?); and emotional outbursts are posted

(e.g., my husband says I am fat), which usually attract

a lot of responses. Although the overall tone is no-

nonsense, several topics bring the conversation to a

simplistic, black-and-white level – breast or bottle

feeding being the number one topic.

It should be noted, however, that 90% of the messages

are posted to the three anonymous forums. In these

three forums, most posters choose to use the standard

account name (“visitor”) when posting. The members

address all topics imaginable, and the same questions

related to motherhood (i.e. breastfeeding, day care) are

dwelled upon over and over again. It appears,

however, that it is not the substance of the message but

rather the language that matters here: it is a question of

who can argue their point best, as the general tone is

very taunting.

5. Why Do Members Visit BAP Community?

As described earlier, Hagel & Armstrong [19]

suggested that a successful virtual community would

be able to meet the needs of its members. In order to

get an understanding of the factors that attract

members to BAP, we analyzed our data according to

the Hagel & Armstrong’s typology of virtual

community needs. For this part of the analysis, the

main level codes were the four types of needs, namely

interest, relationship, fantasy and transaction, and we

coded the narratives as well as our other data based on

the type of needs the BAP community appeared to

meet.

Interest

Based on our data, the main reason for joining BAP

community is a shared interest; all members are

interested in pregnancy and babies. In our

understanding, the shared interest also clearly

contributes to the high traffic level in the community.

“These forums are a kind of place where issues of

pregnancy and parenting are discussed at grass roots

level, without unnecessary timidity… we don’t have to

be friends but we keep contact because of a similar life

phase.” (N1)

“You always get answers to the questions you have…

many members share the same issues and problems.”

(N2)

Relationship

Many members also described experiencing peer

support and having formed new relationships with

other community members. They may exchange

emails with one another or meet face-to-face.

”I feel that some of the ’regulars’ in our community

are very close to me. I carry an image of them in my

mind, and… well, it may be distorted, but anyhow. “

(N6)

Fantasy


345

The members did not explicitly refer to the need of

fantasy in their narratives. However, when observing

the community, we noticed discussions where

members acknowledged having multiple nicknames or

changing their nicknames from time to time. Also, a

typical discussion in the anonymous forums included

speculation whether or not the author actually had

meant what he/she had written, thus implying to the

possibility of identity deception [12]. The identity

games imply that BAP community also provides

possibilities for establishing new identities and thus,

also fulfills the need for fantasy.

Transaction

There are also forums for selling and buying baby

related items in BAP. Opinions related to necessary

purchases are also exchanged in most forums.

Therefore, we claim, that BAP also meets the needs

for transaction.

“You get good advice on the purchases one has to

make” (N3)

To conclude the above discussion, BAP seems to meet

all the four types of needs of the Hagel & Armstrong

[19] typology. In our view, this is an important factor

that contributes to the success of the BAP community.

6. How Does Hostility Affect the BAP Community?

Even though the BAP community seems to meet

multiple needs of its members, some members do

express their concerns about the sharp-tongued culture

of the anonymous forums. One member wrote in the

anonymous forums: “This discussion forum is a battle-

field of frustrated women. I wrote to the editor-in-chief

and asked how the magazine could tolerate this kind of

behavior.” In this section, we will discuss the impact

of hostility in BAP community. For this part of the

analysis, we coded the data based on the hostility

typology of Burnett [8] and searched not only for the

hostile actions but also for members’ reactions to

hostility.

In our data, both flaming [1] and trolling [12] are

common in the anonymous BAP forums, while we

found no evidence of spamming or cyber-rapes.

Flaming, in BAP, appears as purposefully insulting

messages. For example, one member wrote in the

forums: “I think that poster number three is the

original fanatic bitch or at least her close relative.” In

their narratives, BAP members acknowledged using

the forums as entertainment and voluntarily

participating in the malicious discussions, thus

fulfilling their personal goals.

Also trolling is often suspected in the anonymous

forums; a common topic is breast-feeding vs. bottle

feeding, which invites a number of black-and-white

responses. In addition, members readily doubt whether

the posters truly mean what they are saying. For

instance, when one poster wrote about her twins, her

message was quickly and briefly answered: “I bet they

were premature babies, too!!!”. The distrust is

sometimes understandable, as when a poster

repeatedly introduces herself as a well-known and

controversial Finnish writer.

However, in their narratives most members did not

seem startled because of the hostility. One member

wrote us: “I used to get upset by all the malicious

comments and taunting one gets here, but now I

participate in it my self at full blast.” This leads us to

suggest that most members seem to accept this culture

and understand the rules of the game. In our view,

these “games” of flaming and trolling are used for

entertainment and fighting frustration. In fact, one

member admitted that she wanted to read the

“psychos’ messages” to foster her own confidence.

Therefore, we argue that the hostility seems not to

weaken BAP’s ablity to meet its members’ needs.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

In this section we discuss the limitations, research

contributions and practical implications of our study.

The main limitation of this study is that it is based on a

single case and the results can therefore be only

generalized with care. In order to increase the validity

of the results, methodological triangulation was

applied (e.g. [43]).

It seems that the BAP community has well reached its

critical mass and is striving with both the depth and

variability of its content. Also, BAP is targeted on a

well-defined audience. However, as we see it,

whatever the members have in common because of

their current life situation does not mean that they do

not differ in their experiences, emotions, problems and

joys. The heterogeneity is difficult to avoid in the

discussion forums when a large number of visitors are

attracted to them. The BAP culture could be described

as honest, blunt and self-serving, each member

primarily satisfying her own needs. Instead of “we-


346

intentions” [3] BAP seems to promote “me-

intentions”.

Based on our systematic analysis we concluded that

members become attached to the community because

it meets all four types of needs, namely interest,

relationship, fantasy and transaction, of the Hagel &

Armstrong [19] typology. In our view, and

consistently with Hagel & Armstrong, the success of

BAP may well be linked to its ability to meet several

needs at the same time. Therefore, despite the

sometimes blunt and hostile culture of BAP, the virtual

community seems to meet the needs of its members as

it is. Thus we conclude that the success of a virtual

community does not automatically require a tranquil

culture, and temporal hostility among the members

may be natural and acceptable in emotionally oriented

interactions (see also [4]). We suggest that future

studies should analyze the role of hostility in

information-oriented vs. socio-emotionally oriented

communities (cf. [7]). Moreover, “virtual motherhood”

(see also [22]) and its linkages with the fantasy

element of virtual communities be studied further, as

the vivid culture of BAP indicated.

The question still remains, whether hostility should be

avoided. BAP staff felt that the community should be

allowed to create its own rules. They also seemed to

trust that a clear majority of the community members

would understand that the messages posted in BAP

forums do not reflect the magazine’s official opinions,

but are views of single members. While the members

of staff acknowledged that there are occasions that

could pose a threat to the magazine brand, they mainly

wanted to keep some distance from the hostile

messages in the forums.

Therefore, one strength of the community from the

organizers point of view also is that it adds to the

‘street credibility’ of the magazine, and increases its

genuineness by giving a chance to admit that you are

not a perfect mother. In this regard, we would also like

to re-cite one community member: “The BAP

discussion forums are the only place where I can be

and say what I truly feel.” We conclude that in this

case, the genuineness seems to be one of the key

factors that also support the BAP magazine business

wise (see [15]).

References

[1] Alonzo, M. and Aiken, M. “Flaming in

electronic communication,” Decision Support Systems,

(36:3), 2004, pp. 205-213.

[2] Auerbach, C. F. and Silverstein, L. B.

Qualitative Data. An Introduction to Coding and

Analysis. New York University Press, New York,

2003.

[3] Bagozzi, R. and Dholakia, U. “Intentional social

action in virtual communities, “Journal of Interactive

Marketing (16:2), 2002, pp. 2-21.

[4] Baym, N. “Interpreting Soap Operas and

Creating Community: Inside a Electronic Fan

Culture.” In Culture of the Internet, S. Kiesler (Ed.),

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1997, pp.

103-120.

[5] Berg, B. L. Qualitative Research Methods for

Social Sciences, 5th edition. Pearson Education,

Boston, 2004.

[6] Blanchard, A. and Horan, T. “Virtual

communities and social capital,” Social Science

Computer Review (16:3), 1998, pp. 293-307.

[7] Blanchard, A. and Markus, M. “The

experienced “sense” of a virtual community:

characteristics and processes,” The DATA BASE for

Advances in Information Systems (35:1), 2004, pp. 65-

79.

[8] Burnett, G. “Information exchange in virtual

communities: a typology,” Information Research (5:4),

2000, retrieved 17.11.2006 online from

http://informationr.net/ir/5-4/paper82.html.

[9] Burnett, G. and Buerkle, H. “Information

exchange in virtual communities: a comparative

study,” Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication (9:2), 2004, retrieved 17.11.2006

online from

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue2/burnett.html.

[10] Butler, B. “Membership size, communication

activity, and sustainability: a resource-based model of

online social structures,” Information Systems

Research (12:4), 2001, pp. 346-362.

[11] Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. “Introduction:

The discipline and practice of qualitative research,” in

Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. K. Denzin and


347

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), 2nd edition. Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks, 2000, pp.1-29.

[12] Donath, J. “Identity and deception in the virtual

community,” in Communities in Cyberspace, M. Smith

and P. Kollock (Eds.), Routledge, London, 1999, pp.

29-59.

[13] Dyer, W. G. and Wilkins, A. L. “Better stories,

not better constructs, to generate better theory: A

rejoinder to Eisenhardt,” Academy of Management

Review (16:3), 1991, pp. 613-619.

[14] Ellonen, HK., Kosonen, M. and Henttonen, K.

“Rethinking the sense of virtual community,” in

Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual

Organizations, Idea Group Reference, forthcoming.

[15] Ellonen, HK. and Kuivalainen, O. ”The

development of an online success story. A case from

the magazine publishing industry, “ In, Managing

Information in the Digital Economy: Issues &

Solutions - Proceedings of the 6th International

Business Information Management Association

(IBIMA) Conference, Khalid S. Soliman (Ed.), 2006,

pp. 90-98.

[16] Etzioni, O. and Etzioni, A. “Face-to-face and

computer-mediated communities, a comparative

analysis,” Information Society (15:4), 1999, pp. 241-

249.

[17] Fernback, J. and Thompson, B. “Virtual

communities: abort, retry, failure? Computer mediated

communication and the American collectivity,”

retrieved 15.2.2004 from

http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.ht

ml

[18] Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T. and Czaplewski,

A. J. “eWOM: The impact of customer-to-customer

online know-how exchange on customer value and

loyalty,” Journal of Business Research (59), 2006, pp.

449-456.

[19] Hagel, J. and Armstrong, A. Net gain.

Expanding markets through virtual communities,

Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1997.

[20] Jeppesen, L. B. and Molin, M. J. “Consumers as

co-developers: Learning and innovation outside the

firm,” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

(15:3), 2003, pp. 363-383.

[21] Jones, Q. and Rafaeli, S. “User population and

user contributions to virtual publics: a systems model,”

GROUP 99, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

[22] Kakuko, M. “Social Support for Japanese

Mothers Online and Offline,” in The Internet in

Everyday Life, B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite

(Eds.), Blackwell Publishing,Cornwall, 2002, pp. 520-

548.

[23] Kendall, L. “Recontextualizing “cyberspace”:

methodological considerations for on-line research,” in

Doing Internet Research. Critical Issues and Methods

for Examining the Net, S. Jones (Ed.), Sage

Publications, California, 1999, pp. 57-74.

[24] Koh, J. and Kim, Y. “Sense of virtual

community: a conceptual framework and empirical

validation,” International Journal of Electronic

Commerce (8:2), 2003, pp. 75-93.

[25] Lee, F., Vogel, D. and Limayem, M. “Virtual

community informatics: a review and research

agenda,” Journal of Information Technology Theory

and Application (JITTA) (5:1), 2003, pp. 47-61.

[26] McWilliam, G. “Building stronger brands

through online communities,” Sloan Management

Review (41:3), 2000, pp. 43-54.

[27] Morris, M. and Ogan, C. “The Internet as Mass

Medium,” Journal of Communication (46:1), 1996, pp.

39-50.

[28] Porter, C. “A typology of virtual communities:

a multi-disciplinary foundation for future research,”

Journal of Computer Mediated Communication (10:1),

2004.

[29] Preece, J. Online communities. Designing

usability, supporting sociability, Wiley, Chichester,

2000.

[30] Rheingold, H. The virtual community.

Homesteading on the electronic frontier, MIT Press,

London, 2000.

[31] Rhodes, C. “Researching organizational change

and learning: A narrative approach,” The Qualitative

Report [On-line serial], (2:4), 1996, retrieved

20.4.2005 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-

4/rhodes.html

[32] Riessman, C. K. “Narrative analysis,” In

Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods,


348

Lewis-Beck et al. (Eds). Sage Publications, London,

2004.

[33] Ridings, C., Gefen, D., and Arinze, B. “Some

antecedents and effects of trust in virtual

communities,” Journal of Strategic Information

Systems (11), 2002, pp. 271-295.

[34] Rothaermel, F. and Sugiyama, S. “Virtual

internet communities and commercial success:

individual and community-level theory grounded in

the atypical case of TimeZone.com,” Journal of

Management (27:3), 2001, pp. 297-312.

[35] Schoberth, T., Preece, J. and Heinzl, A. “Online

communities: a longitudinal analysis of

communication activities,” Proceedings of the 36th

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,

Hawaii, USA, 2003.

[36] Shank, G. D. Qualitative Research. A Personal

Skills Approach, 2nd edition. Pearson Education,

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2006.

[37] Shapiro, C. & Varian, H. “Information rules: a

strategic guide to the network economy,” Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, 1999.

[38] Slevin, J. The Internet and Society, Polity Press,

Cornwall, Great Britain, 2000.

[39] Snow, C.C. & Thomas, J.B. “Field research

methods in strategic management: Contributions to

theory building and theory testing,” Journal of

Management Studies (31), 1994, pp. 457-480.

[40] Srinivasan, S. S., Anderson, R. and Ponnavolu,

K. “Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploration

of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of

Retailing (78), 2002, pp. 41-50.

[41] Stake, R., E. The art of case study research,

Sage Publications, USA, 1995.

[42] Yiannis, G. “The use of stories,” In Qualitative

Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research, G.

Symon and C. Cassell (Eds.), Sage Publications,

London, 1998.

[43] Yin, R. K. Case study research: Design and

methods, 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand

Oaks, 2003.

[44] Yoo, W., Lee, M. and Suh, K. “Exploring the

factors enhancing member participation in virtual

communities,” Journal of Global Information

Management (10:3), 2002, pp. 55-71.

[45] Wang, H.-C., Chia-Yi, M.-H., Pallister, J. G.

and Foxall, G. R. “Innovativeness and involvement as

determinants of website loyalty: II. Determinants of

consumer loyalty in B2C e-commerce,” Technovation,

in press.

[46] Wenger, E. “Communities of Practice: The Key

to Knowledge Strategy,” In Knowledge and

Communities, E. Lesser, M. Fontaine and J. Slusher

(Eds.), Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2000, pp.3-

20.