[Air-l] RE: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #242 - 8 msgs

Sandeep Krishnamurthy sandeep at u.washington.edu
Mon Dec 17 09:15:38 PST 2001


In response to D. Silver's comments, Chris Werry's paper is also available
at-

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_9/werry/index.html

This may make it more accessible.

Best,
Sandeep

---
Do visit my Thought
Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html

-----Original Message-----
From: air-l-admin at aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin at aoir.org]On Behalf Of
air-l-request at aoir.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:01 AM
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #242 - 8 msgs







Today's Topics:

   1. December 2001 executive committee report (Steve Jones)
   2. Re: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #240 - 2 msgs (dca4 at georgetown.edu)
   3. CFP2: Computer Games and Digital Cultures, gamesconference.org
(=?Windows-1252?B?RnJhbnMgTeR5cuQ=?=)
   4. Re: Company vs. Community (Andrew Perrin)
   5. Re: Company vs. Community (craig stroupe)
   6. Social vs Internet (R.A.Hope-Hume at open.ac.uk)
   7. Re: Re: Company vs. Community (D. Silver)
   8. Re: Re: Company vs. Community (john.white)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:48:55 -0600
To: air-l <air-l at aoir.org>
From: Steve Jones <sjones at uic.edu>
Subject: [Air-l] December 2001 executive committee report
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

December 15, 2001
Report of the a(o).i.r. executive committee
Prepared by Steve Jones



AoIR Executive Committee
President: Steve Jones
Vice-President: Nancy Baym
Secretary: Ulla Bunz
Treasurer: Benjamin Bates
Open Seats: David Silver and Barry Wellman
Appointed Seats: Matthew Allen and Leslie Shade
Student Seat: Lisbeth Klastrup
Publications Officers: Jeremy Hunsinger and Charlie Breindahl
2002 Conference Coordinator: Monica Murero
2002 Conference Program Chair: Klaus Bruhn Jensen
Ethics Working Group Chair: Charles Ess


1.  Introduction & General (Jones)

Below is the monthly report from AoIR executive committee members.


2.  Executive Officers' Reports

2.1 President (Jones)

2.1.1 I had planned on using this bit of space to talk about some of
the challenges facing AoIR in the near future (none of them
bad...just challenging), but let's save that for the new year's first
report. Instead, I urge you to take a look at the AoIR 2001
conference report at http://www.infotoday.com/it/dec01/conhaim.htm.
It's terrific, independent affirmation, and another tip of the hat to
John Logie and Leslie Shade, and all who contributed in some way to
the conference. And it's a very favorable note on which to close out
the 2001 reports of the executive committee, along with my thanks to
all those who have helped, and are helping, AoIR to serve as a
meeting place (virtual or otherwise) for those interested in Internet
research. May we all have a peaceful, healthy and happy new year.


2.2 Vice President (Baym)

2.2.1 I have been helping the flow of conference organization. There
was very little response to my database suggestion posted to air-l,
so I am not quite sure where, if anywhere, to go with that. There
seemed to be the most expressed interest in at least indexing online
archives. If anyone else has thoughts on this or is interested in
helping to develop online resources for aoir members, please share
your thoughts with me.


2.3 Secretary (Bunz)

2.3.1 I have completed the (non-electronic) AoIR folder that now contains
all
items required by bylaws, including a membership list, conference programs
from previous conferences, all CfP, etc.

2.3.2 Matthew Allen, David Silver, and I are putting the final touches on a
project tentatively called Internet Research List of Lists. For more
information, please check David's posting.

2.3.3 In addition, I've been using some of my European connections,
trying to help
Monica Murero and Klaus Bruhn-Jensen to recruit Liikanen as one of our
keynote speakers. I have made a few suggestions regarding conference
planning and volunteered as a reviewer.



2.4 Treasurer (Bates)

2.4.1 Since the last report, we've had about 10 renewals and 10 new
memberships, roughly
equally split between US and non-US email addresses.  We've also had
one chargeback
(a payment that did not go through, which we still have to pay a
transaction fee on).
I'll be sending out the December renewal reminders before I leave for
break.  Will be
mostly out of touch between 18 Dec and 28 Dec.


2.5 Open Seats (Silver, Wellman)

2.5.1 Silver: I've been helping out with the conference committee,
working on the (now
ready for prime time) CFP.  It's been exciting working with Monica Murero
and the rest of the committee and this conference promises to raise the
bar in Internet research. Matthew Allen, Ulla Bunz, and I are putting
the final touches on a project
tentatively called Internet Research List of Lists.  The purpose of the
project is to provide a comprehensive index of mailing lists and online
forums. Contributions from all academic or non-academic origins and from
all over the world are welcome, as long as the content of the list is
devoted to the study of the Internet and new media.  We are hoping that
this project will be member-generated and plan to release the project in
early January.


2.5.2 Wellman: Gave whatever advice I could, volunteered to be on an
awards committee, represented AoIR at Kyto Digital Cities conf in
October, represented AoIR at Canadian Policy Research Initiatives
conference (with Fed. govt) in Ottawa -- so did Leslie!


2.6 Appointed Seats (Allen, Shade)

2.6.1 Allen: In the past few weeks, the main activity was to attend
the inaugural
::fibreculture:: conference, including a public debate 'Digital Publics', in
Melbourne.  At the conference we handed out AoIR information and I wore my
interconnections t-shirt *grin*. There was a great buzz of excitement about
fibreculture, which will develop I believe into a great network of projects,
information, and creative/intellectual production within Australia and
beyond.

2.6.2 Shade: Nothing to report.


2.7 Student Seat (Klastrup)

2.7.1 Nothing to report.


2.8 Publications Officers (Hunsinger, Breindahl)

2.8.1 Hunsinger: the usual for this time of year
did a little bit of everything
and a whole lot of some things
mainly conference stuff
secondarily exec stuff
some list stuff
and finally some members support stuff.

2.8.2 Breindahl: Not nada, but then not mucho, either. If that's a
double negative, it's a
double negative. If that's redundant, so what - it's my research subject.


2.9 2002 Conference (Monica Murero, Coordinator; Klaus Bruhn Jensen,
Program Chair)

2.9.1 Murero: During this period many activities have been done to
organize 2002 AoIR
conference. I have prepared the Action Plan for the months ahead: the
activities are proceeding very successfully. The Call for paper was approved
and issued. The list of the invited speakers (amazing!)was prepared and
approved by the planning committee, and the process of invitation is on its
way. People from all over the world have _already_ started to register for
next year's conference, form Japan to Finland! 1 year before!!! I am
looking forward to meeting you all next year!

2.9.2 Jensen: I have been working with Monica Murero, Jeremy
Hunsinger, and other contributors to air-meet in preparing the 2002
call for papers as well as the structures facilitating submission and
review. The CFP is out, the submission system and its categories are
in place, and a good number of volunteer reviewers are awaiting
submissions. Next up is aiding in the review process and stimulating
submissions.


2.10  AoIR Ethics Working Group (Charles Ess, Chair)

2.10.1 No report.


--__--__--

Message: 2
From: dca4 at georgetown.edu
To: air-l at aoir.org
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:08:01 -0500
Subject: [Air-l] Re: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #240 - 2 msgs
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

----494d4ae214472185
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sandeep:
I think it is better to speak of community is terms of social networks
as opposed to organizational structures (see Barry Wellman's work).  An
organization may contain many communities within it that exist for
formal and informal reasons.
Dorine Andrews
Georgetown University

----- Original Message -----
From: air-l-request at aoir.org
Date: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:01 pm
Subject: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #240 - 2 msgs

>
>
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Company vs. Community (Sandeep Krishnamurthy)
>   2. RE: Statistics on Email Messages Sent in US and
> Internationally in 2000 (Cem Timurkan)
>
> -- __--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Sandeep Krishnamurthy" <sandeep at u.washington.edu>
> To: <air-l at aoir.org>
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:17:59 -0800
> Subject: [Air-l] Company vs. Community
> Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I teach an MBA E-Commerce class.  In the customary class on online
> communities, we started off with a simple question- "What is the
> differencebetween a (for-profit)company and a community?"
>
> This seemingly simple question tied us up into knots as we tried
> to identify
> attributes that distinguished the two.  The ones we did come up with
> included contractual vs. voluntary membership, rigid vs. loose
> organizational structure, paid vs. unpaid participants etc.  I
> think you see
> where I am going.
>
> At the end of the discussion, one student(who has a Ph.D in
> biology) said-
> "Isn't community an all-encompassing construct? Can it not be
> argued that a
> company is really a type of community?"  While I respected his
> comments, it
> really underscored the need to understand this better.
>
> I know community is a construct that is backed by decades of
> research.  I
> have seen some of the seminal works- but perhaps, not all.
>
> How would you answer the basic question I started out with?
>
>
>
> Best,
> Sandeep
>
> ---
> Visit my Thought
> Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html
>
>
>
> -- __--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "Cem Timurkan" <timurkan at olisys.com>
> To: <air-l at aoir.org>
> Subject: RE: [Air-l] Statistics on Email Messages Sent in US and
> Internationally in 2000
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:08:32 -0500
> Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
>
> I think I might answer to this question. First of, log on to
> www.emarketer.com. Scroll down, and type 'e-mail messages sent' in the
> search box. After that, you'll receive 9 documents at the
> resulting page. I
> think the first two might help. However, those two would likely
> focus on the
> U.S. Have a nice day.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Cem Timurkan
> Information Department
> MeZUN.COM, Inc.
> 3500 Boston St. Suite 322
> Baltimore, MD 21224
> Phone (USA): +1-410-327-9100
> Fax (USA)  : +1-410-327-0909
> ctimurkan at mezun.com
> The First Turkish-American Portal
> www.MeZUN.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-admin at aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin at aoir.org]On Behalf Of
> nbaron at american.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:26 PM
> To: air-l at aoir.org
> Subject: [Air-l] Statistics on Email Messages Sent in US and
> Internationally in 2000
>
>
>
> Would anyone have handy statistics (and credible references) on the
> approximate number of email messages sent in the US as well as
> globally in
> 2000? Thanks.
>
> Naomi Baron
> Professor of Linguistics
> American University
> Washington, DC 20016
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Air-l mailing list
> Air-l at aoir.org
> http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinf
>
>
>
>
> -- __--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Air-l mailing list
> Air-l at aoir.org
> http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinf
>
>
> End of Air-l Digest
>

----494d4ae214472185
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="dca4.vcf"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dca4.vcf"
Content-Description: Card for <dca4 at georgetown.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

begin=3Avcard
n=3AAndrews=3BDorine
fn=3ADorine C=2E Andrews
tel=3Bhome=3A703-412-3113
tel=3Bwork=3A202-784-4338
org=3AGeorgetown University=3BCommunications=2C Culture =26 Technology Pr=
ogram
adr=3A=3B=3B=3BWashington=3BD=2EC=2E=3B=3B
version=3A2=2E1
email=3Binternet=3Adca4=40georgetown=2Eedu
title=3AResearch Professor
end=3Avcard


----494d4ae214472185--



--__--__--

Message: 3
From: "=?Windows-1252?B?RnJhbnMgTeR5cuQ=?=" <tlilma at uta.fi>
To: <Air-l at aoir.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:49:12 +0200
Subject: [Air-l] CFP2: Computer Games and Digital Cultures,
gamesconference.org
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

** Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference **
   Call for Papers (2)

June 6-8, 2002
Tampere, Finland

Note: the new website is now open, see
http://www.gamesconference.org

Computer Games and Digital Cultures (CGDC) conference is organised by the
Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere. It is arranged in co-operation
with the University of Turku and the IT University of Copenhagen, the UIAH
Medialab, Helsinki, and partners in the digital content industry. The
conference continues the series of international game studies conferences
opened by Computer Games and Digital Textualities (Copenhagen, March 1-2,
2001).

Deadline for proposals
January 30, 2002

--- :: ---

Overview

Computer games have rapidly become a significant and expanding field of
entertainment industry and modern culture. The research and development of
games has reached an important phase. Various conceptual and theoretical
models to understand games and their working are being created, while the
games themselves are growing into new dimensions with their online and
multiplayer capabilities. The transition into the world of mobile gaming is
creating even more challenges and further possibilities.

The Computer Games and Digital Cultures conference offers a comprehensive
view into the current state of digital games, and their research, as well as
forums for interdisciplinary discussion. Conference includes presentations
from leading experts, both from the academic research institutions and game
industry, including the opening words by Espen Aarseth (University of
Bergen), keynote presentations by Greg Costikyan (Unplugged Games, USA),
Steven Poole (author of the "Trigger Happy", UK) and designer of games like
Ultima Underworld, System Shock, Thief and Deus Ex, Warren Spector
(Ionstorm, USA).

Agenda

Computer games have grown into an increasingly important cultural form, that
has a profound impact on the way interactivity, digital aesthetics and
online environments are currently understood. The conference will explore
the aesthetic as well as narrative and structural issues of computer games,
while also functioning as a bridge and intermediary between the academic
research and professional gaming community. The approach of conference is
interdisciplinary and comprehensive; the analysis of games and the gaming
communities will advance the study of interactive media, create fruitful
exchange of perspectives with the professional game developers, and further
the development of digital culture.


Workshops

The CGDC has two parts, the first day consisting of workshops that explore
the pragmatic and creative issues of games as a form of culture and
industry. The participants can register for this day separately, or for the
whole three-day conference. The participants may submit proposals for
workshops, focusing on creative design processes, dynamics of gameplay in
particular game types, or, e.g., issues related to technical implementation
or economics of contemporary game projects. Workshops with an academic focus
are also invited. The conference venues will have facilities suitable for
most digital media production tasks. The first day will also include keynote
workshops, to be announced later. In addition, participants are encouraged
to offer suggestions for topics for the panel discussions.

Research Papers

The second and third days are dedicated to the research papers dealing with
games. Both specific analyses of games as a form of art and entertainment
are welcome, as well as more general approaches dealing with the cultural
practices related with games and social activities in online environments.
Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:
  - design and analysis of games,
  - communication and community in relation to games,
  - online and mobile gaming.

Since the aim of the CGDC is to foster dialogue between the game developer
and researcher communities, organisers wish that even the more theoretical
papers would include concrete examples or references to games or
game-related practices.

The paper and workshop proposals should be submitted in the form of
abstracts by the end of January 2002. The deadline for full papers is April
8, 2002, and papers will be included in the printed conference publication.
There is a half an hour time reserved for presenting each paper in the
programme.

The Conference Publication

The publication including the conference proceedings will be delivered to
the participants at the conference.

Submission Format

The proposal for a research paper should consist of an abstract of at least
1000 words. A short biography of the author should be included.

The proposal for a workshop has no fixed format. Rather, innovative topics
and creative working practices are encouraged. The workshop proposals should
include a description of the topic, goals and methods applied in the
workshop. The time available for a workshop process is either three hours (a
half-day workshop), or seven hours (a full day workshop). A proposal should
state which alternative it is describing.

All proposals should be submitted through the online form at the CGDC web
site.

Further Inquiries:

For further information and updates on the conference programme, please
consult the conference website: www.gamesconference.org (the old address
http://www.uta.fi/cgdc is no longer available).

The organising committee can be reached through professor Frans Mäyrä
(frans.mayra at uta.fi; the conference programme) or conference producer
Carolina Pajula (hyperactive at uta.fi; the conference arrangements).

--- :: ---



--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:47:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Perrin <andrew_perrin at unc.edu>
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: [Air-l] Re: Company vs. Community
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org


Hmmm - well, the concept of 'community' certainly is a very hot one, and
one for which no widely-accepted definition
exists. "Communitarians" (e.g., Amitai Etzioni and others, probably
including Robert Putnam) would probably exclude companies from their idea
of "community," but it's never clear exactly why; they seem to see
community as being a sort of nostalgic, small-town thing. There are of
course lots of other uses of the word: "community" as physical social
space (as in "Welcome to the community of Chapel Hill"), "community" as
social-but-not-physical space (online communities), "community" as
identity-based interaction (the Catholic community, the African-American
community), and "community" as an opt-in, opt-out sort of group (as in
administrators' references to "the college community" or "utopian
communities").

All of these do seem to belong to the "third sector" (non-market,
non-state), and that does suggest that there's something about community
that separates it from companies. But then you have to wonder whether
company towns (e.g., Levittown) can't really be "communities."

All of this, I suppose, is just to suggest that your student probably
won't find many pat answers in the research on "community".

ap



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin at unc.edu - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
 Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
      269 Hamilton Hall, CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA




--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:49:28 -0600
To: air-l at aoir.org
From: craig stroupe <cstroupe at d.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Company vs. Community
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

--=====================_4415839==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Whether a company is a community depends on how people use it, not just its
objective characteristics.  You could also ask about the difference between
a company and a religion.

Best, - Craig

At 09:17 AM 12/13/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Colleagues,
>
>I teach an MBA E-Commerce class.  In the customary class on online
>communities, we started off with a simple question- "What is the difference
>between a (for-profit)company and a community?"
>
>This seemingly simple question tied us up into knots as we tried to
identify
>attributes that distinguished the two.  The ones we did come up with
>included contractual vs. voluntary membership, rigid vs. loose
>organizational structure, paid vs. unpaid participants etc.  I think you
see
>where I am going.
>
>At the end of the discussion, one student(who has a Ph.D in biology) said-
>"Isn't community an all-encompassing construct? Can it not be argued that a
>company is really a type of community?"  While I respected his comments, it
>really underscored the need to understand this better.
>
>I know community is a construct that is backed by decades of research.  I
>have seen some of the seminal works- but perhaps, not all.
>
>How would you answer the basic question I started out with?
>
>
>
>Best,
>Sandeep
>
>---
>Visit my Thought
>Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Air-l mailing list
>Air-l at aoir.org
>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l



* * * * Craig Stroupe / Assistant Professor / University of Minnesota
Duluth / Department of Composition / 1201 Ordean Court # 420/ Duluth, MN
55812 / 218-726-6249 / fax 218-726-8228 /
<http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe>  * * * *
--=====================_4415839==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3>Whether a company is a community depends on how people use
it, not just its objective characteristics.&nbsp; You could also ask
about the difference between a company and a religion.&nbsp; <br><br>
Best, - Craig<br><br>
At 09:17 AM 12/13/2001 -0800, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Colleagues,<br><br>
I teach an MBA E-Commerce class.&nbsp; In the customary class on
online<br>
communities, we started off with a simple question- &quot;What is the
difference<br>
between a (for-profit)company and a community?&quot;<br><br>
This seemingly simple question tied us up into knots as we tried to
identify<br>
attributes that distinguished the two.&nbsp; The ones we did come up
with<br>
included contractual vs. voluntary membership, rigid vs. loose<br>
organizational structure, paid vs. unpaid participants etc.&nbsp; I think
you see<br>
where I am going.<br><br>
At the end of the discussion, one student(who has a Ph.D in biology)
said-<br>
&quot;Isn't community an all-encompassing construct? Can it not be argued
that a<br>
company is really a type of community?&quot;&nbsp; While I respected his
comments, it<br>
really underscored the need to understand this better.<br><br>
I know community is a construct that is backed by decades of
research.&nbsp; I<br>
have seen some of the seminal works- but perhaps, not all.<br><br>
How would you answer the basic question I started out with?<br><br>
<br><br>
Best,<br>
Sandeep<br><br>
---<br>
Visit my Thought<br>
Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Air-l mailing list<br>
Air-l at aoir.org<br>
<a href="http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l"
eudora="autourl">http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l</a>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<br><br>
* * * * Craig Stroupe / Assistant Professor / University of Minnesota Duluth
/ Department of Composition / 1201 Ordean Court # 420/ Duluth, MN 55812 /
218-726-6249 / fax 218-726-8228 / &lt;<a
href="http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe"
eudora="autourl">http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe</a>&gt;&nbsp; * * * *
</font></html>

--=====================_4415839==_.ALT--



--__--__--

Message: 6
From: R.A.Hope-Hume at open.ac.uk
To: air-l at aoir.org
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:23:43 -0000
Subject: [Air-l] Social vs Internet
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

Robert Putnam (2001) laments the passing of community in contemporary
society and, with it, the loss of "social capital".  Putnam sees the lack of
participation in voluntary organisations, like ten-pin bowling leagues,
because of that loss. Contemporary culture, he claims is typified more by
solitary pursuits, such as watching television, than with community
activities. However, Putnam does wonder if the internet will generate
increased social capital.

However I've been told there is recent research that shows that internet
users are more likely to be involved in social activities. Is anyone aware
of this resarch?

Bob Hope-Hume


--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:48:48 -0800 (PST)
From: "D. Silver" <dsilver at u.washington.edu>
To: <air-l at aoir.org>
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: Company vs. Community
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Andrew Perrin wrote:

> All of these do seem to belong to the "third sector" (non-market,
> non-state), and that does suggest that there's something about community
> that separates it from companies. But then you have to wonder whether
> company towns (e.g., Levittown) can't really be "communities."

Intellectually and politically speaking, I agree wholeheartedly with
Andrew's comment above.  But it seems to me that one of the most common
(and nefarious depending where you stand on the issue) developments in
mainstream cyberculture during, say, 1997 - 2000 has been the
commercialization of online communities.  Is it just me or does it appear
to the rest of you that the folks at Amazon, Yahoo, and
fill-in-the-blank.com have been reading Howard Rheingold?  For a number of
dot.coms (and former dot.coms ... rip), there's a thin line between
commerce and community:  Online communities are set up and nurtured as
portals to e-commerce.

I've seen very little critical work on this angle but a good start is
Chris Werry's "Imagined Electronic Community: Representations of Online
Community in Business Texts" and Janelle Brown's "Three Case Studies,"
both in Online Communities: Commerce, Community Action, and the Virtual
University, edited by Chris Werry and Miranda Mowbray (Hewlett-Packard
Professional Books, 2001).

david silver
http://faculty.washington.edu/dsilver



--__--__--

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:49:33 -0600
From: "john.white" <john.white at wku.edu>
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: Company vs. Community
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

This may be a silly question, but I've been wondering what the difference
between community and culture might be.  Culture, particularly
organizational
culture, can be defined as a shared pattern of beliefs (see Schein 1985 and
others).  It seems to me that community, at least from what I've seen here,
is
similarly defined?

--JW

Andrew Perrin wrote:

> Hmmm - well, the concept of 'community' certainly is a very hot one, and
> one for which no widely-accepted definition
> exists. "Communitarians" (e.g., Amitai Etzioni and others, probably
> including Robert Putnam) would probably exclude companies from their idea
> of "community," but it's never clear exactly why; they seem to see
> community as being a sort of nostalgic, small-town thing. There are of
> course lots of other uses of the word: "community" as physical social
> space (as in "Welcome to the community of Chapel Hill"), "community" as
> social-but-not-physical space (online communities), "community" as
> identity-based interaction (the Catholic community, the African-American
> community), and "community" as an opt-in, opt-out sort of group (as in
> administrators' references to "the college community" or "utopian
> communities").
>
> All of these do seem to belong to the "third sector" (non-market,
> non-state), and that does suggest that there's something about community
> that separates it from companies. But then you have to wonder whether
> company towns (e.g., Levittown) can't really be "communities."
>
> All of this, I suppose, is just to suggest that your student probably
> won't find many pat answers in the research on "community".
>
> ap
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin at unc.edu - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
>  Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
>       269 Hamilton Hall, CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Air-l mailing list
> Air-l at aoir.org
> http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
>





--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Air-l mailing list
Air-l at aoir.org
http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l


End of Air-l Digest





More information about the Air-l mailing list