[Air-l] we need a better word than lurking

[Lane DeNicola]

This very same point might well be made in the references mentioned,
but to add to the interesting discussion here, I've always thought
"auditor" a more appropriate substitute for "lurker," in the same
sense as one who "audits" classes.

The slipperiness in "lurker" (at least for listservs) seems to be the
conflation of two things: "participation" (as in speaking/posting) and
"invisibility" (as in anonymity).  IMHO the term "lurker" implies not
just silence but anonymity or the option of some degree of
concealment.  A student who "audits" a class can't be very anonymous,
but (in some strict sense) is expected to be more of a listener than a
speaker (compared to the norm).

"Speaking" or the more active sorts of participation are usually
primarily the decision of individual members, but the level of
"anonymity" afforded them is the product of decisions by both members
AND list moderators/owners.  AIR-L, for example, is configured so that
the subscriber list is only accessible to list moderators and owners;
members cannot know who other members are (or more precisely what
their email addresses are) unless they post that information or
otherwise provide their consent.

Listservs where that information is also accessible to members lean
more in the direction of enabling "auditing" (though even there,
members can retain anonymity via email aliases and the like).  The
"negative" connotations of "lurker" have both to do with passivity or
a perceived lack of community commitment (via "participation") AND
with anonymity or concealment.

Both models (communities that enable "lurking" or "auditing") offer
distinct advantages, obviously.

--Lane DeNicola

Message: 16
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:11:57 +0200
From: Ulf-Dietrich Reips <ureips at genpsy.unizh.ch>
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org, aoir list <air-l at aoir.org>
Message-ID: <p06230931c26633dfa757@[10.0.1.3]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Hi Barry, all,
you might be interested in the following two works:

Stegbauer, C. & Rausch, A. (2002). Lurkers in mailing lists. In B.
Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online Social Sciences
(pp. 263-274). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

Bosnjak, M. (2001). Participation in non-restricted web surveys: A
typology and explanatory model for item non- response. In U.-D. Reips
& M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet Science (pp. 193-208).
Lengerich: Pabst.

While the first one is from the area of social network theory, the
second one proposes a highly useful typology of non-responders in
online research. In Bosnjak's view, lurkers are just one of seven
types. While created for online research, the typology seems useful
for other purposes as well.

Best --u

-- 
Lane DeNicola
Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
http://www.nacresky.com/lad
Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse>