The way that technology and culture interact is a complex dance, an interweaving and intertwining. Technology constantly shapes and reshapes our bodies, our places, and our identities, and is shaped to our needs as well. [22]

Early research

• the online social environment was viewed with suspicion and cynicism, as a context that created task-oriented, 'impersonal', 'inflammatory', 'cold', and 'unsociable' interactions [Kozinets, 2010:23]
• participants in online communities would be subject to a 'status equalisation effect', a flattening of hierarchies where social status is equalised, social differences minimised, less rule-following occurs and no leadership is possible
• overall belief that the technology was undermining the social structure that was required for appropriate and hospitable social relations. similar to Bell's ideas

Newer research

• emotions could be expressed by means of electronic paralanguage, which helped online communities construct detailed and personally enriching social worlds [23] 

• Walther (1997 in Kozinets 2010:23-4) suggests that we can understand much of online community behaviour by referencing the 'anticipated future interaction' of participants.
• Participants believe their interaction is going to be limited and will not result in future interactions > the relations tend to be more task-oriented
• Participants believe there will be future interaction > they act in a friendlier way, they're more cooperative, self-disclose, they engage in socially positive communications probably valid for #ELTchat
• LONGER-TERM ONLINE GATHERINGS, PARTICULALRY THOSE WHERE INDIVIDUAL IDENTITIES ARE REVEALED, WOULD HAVE TIGHTER AND MORE POSITIVE SOCIAL RELATIONS THAN GROUPS THAT ARE SHORTER-TERM AND MORE ANONYMOUS [2010:24] #ELTchat

• Olaniran (2004) in order to manage online groups with diverse members, there was greater need to focus on shared relations of trust and unity of common interests

• Wellman (2001) because of lack of formal institutional structure, communications will depend on the quality of the social ties that the individual forms with the groups [24]
• Positions of dominance in an online group are achieved through manipulation of various social cues, such as verbal floor-managing (twitter - organisational tweets, time keeping, trying to introduce some coherence into the chat by suggesting the order, highlighting what seems an important tweet, e.g. Including a link to a useful resource by retweeting)

• Online communities enable personal expression, active participation and the formation of relationships (Li and Bernoff 2008, 2010: 24)
• Over longer time people weave webs of affiliation (2010:25) When information and communications technology is cast into the world, and moist life breathed into its brittle, dry circuitry, it turns out that it is used to manifest culture and build community [2010: 25]
• Netnography, the ethnography of online groups, studies complex cultural practices in action, drawing our attention to a multitude of grounded and abstract ideas, meanings, social practices, relationships, languages and symbol systems [2010:25]

So in summary, online interactions can be and are as rich and as varied as traditional interactions (McKenna and Seidman, 2005 in 2010:26)

Initial concerns that Internet use might be corrosive to the existing patterns of group, family and community life have been contradicted by later and more thorough investigation [2010:26]

[online communities] can intensify existing relationships as well as help to create and then maintain new relationships [2010:26] probably valid for #ELTchat

Meta-analyses of CMC studies indicate that Internet users progress from initially asocial information gathering to increasingly affiliative social actitivities (Walther, 1995) probably valid for #ELTchat

Online groups patterns

Online gatherings follow many of the same basic rules as groups that gather in person:

• group norms
• importance of group identity
• reciprocity would be interesting to know how it works in #ELTchat

and also develop some unique characteristics:

• anonymity
• accessibility

Community development

Kozinetz (1999) theorised that there was a pattern of relational development as people who are interested in online communities became drawn into and acculturated by their contact with them. [in 2010:26] they start with lurking

Task-oriented/goal-oriented informational knowledge develops in concert with social and cultural knowledge and social relationships, the community's specialised language, sensitised concepts, norms, values, rituals, practices, preferences, others' identities

Sometimes the exploration and building of a network might become/be a goal in itself, esp when it comes to a social networking site #ELTchat?

Developmental progression of participation in online communities

1. Initial curiosity about activity, object, group
2. topical info exchange
3. identity info exchange
4. cultural norm exchange
5. clarification of power/status
6. cultural norm enforcement
7. relational exchanges
8. cultural norm adoption
9. escalating commitment
10. cultural cohesion (over time and with a number of communications increasing)

Regardless of the medium or exact pathway to participation, the theory suggests that, over time and with increasingly frequent communications, the sharing of personal identity information and clarification of power relations and new social norms transpires in the online community - that social and cultural information permeates every exchange, effecting a type of gravitational pull that causes every exchange to become coloured with emotional, affiliative and meaning-rich elemets. [2010:26]

Nancy Baym (1999) suggests that online communities be viewed and studied as 'communities of practice' because 'a community's structures are instantiated and recreated in habitual and recurrent ways of acting or practices (p.22 in 2010:29) such as interpretive, informative and social practices of evaluation, commiseration, criticism and other strategies for the creating of a group identity. interesting perspective to consider when analysing #ELTchat

She details a number of ways that sociability and dissent are managed in the community, verbal strategies and rituals for accomplishing friendliness and managing the inevitable disagreements.

For Markham the online experience of the community is at the same time a tool, a place, and way of being [2010:30]

Cherny's study of a close knit synchronous chat-based community details necessary innovations and adaptations made by community members to address the limitations of the textual medium: speech routines, vocabulary and abbreviations, syntax and semantics, and turn-taking strategies distinguish the online community register . [2010:30] the way info get retweeted - is it random or is it an effect of evaluation, i.e. seemingly more important/useful info is more likely to get retweeted to increase the qualitative value of the discussion

Patterns of participation

Correll (1995) distinguishes between regulars, newbies, lurkers and bashers. Apparently there is a progressive development from a lurker to newbie and to a regular.

Two main elements that bring online community members together are:

• Relationship bn the person and the central consumption activity (interrelated and correlated CIC and CP)
• CONSUMPTION INTEREST CENTRALITY (CIC) The relationship bn the person and the central consumption (in a very broad meaning of the word, including consuming new friends) activity they are engaging in, with and through the online community. The more central is this activity to a person's sense of identity and the more that they believe the pursuit and development of the skill or activity is central to their self-image and core self-concept, then the more likely this person is to pursue and value membership in a community. Because the activity is so important to them, any connection to it, to others who share it, or to pathways to knowledge about it and social discourse surrounding it, is going to be held in great esteem, coveted and cherished. [2010:32] possibly very high in case of #ELTchat
• CONSUMPTION PROFICIENCY (CP)The greater the centrality of the consumption interest to the person, the higher the interest level and concomitant level of activity knowledge and skill. This is a measure not only of self-identification but of identity and interest combined with expertise. not necessarily for every participant but it could be argued that the attendance is often initiated by the wish to increase the proficiency
• The actual relationships of a particular community itself - how deep, long lasting, meaningful and intense? Social networking sites operate under the assumption that affiliations are already pre-existing, and use technological connection to intensify them [2010:32]

Virtual worlds - social intercourse is the primary pursuit and objective - blogs are slightly more impersonal but there is not an online communal form where deep and meaningful personal relationships cannot be built [32] Social networking sites already have social dimensions 'baked in' to their formats which means the central consumption activity is already social and the question of actually knowing and having relationships with the members of this online community is almost repetitive. [32] although many of the participants are each others' followers on Twitter, it's the hashtag they follow, so it's the relationship with the community signified by # that is established (not pre-existing); does Twitter feed certain tweets into my stream upon the analysis of my profile, followed and followers and tweets?

TYPES OF ONLINE PARTICIPATION lurkers vs contributors is far too simplistic

• Newbies - lack strong social ties to the group, maintain only a superficial or passing interest in the consumption activity itself and have relatively weak abilities and skills
• Minglers - fraternizers, socialisers maintaining strong personal ties with many members of the community but superficially interested and drawn to the central consumption activity
• Devotees - have relatively shallow social ties with the rest of the members but maintain a focal interest in and enthusiasm for the consumption activity plus refined skill and knowledge set
• Insiders - strong social ties plus deep identification with, aptitude in and understanding of the core consumption activity moderators plus some of the participants from the graph Top Users

Four additional types

• Lurker - active observer who learns about the site through initially watching and reading; they might transform into a newbie who uses the community to learn about the core consumption activity or to build social ties two people at the end of the chat thanked for a fruitful discussion, it was their only contribution
• Maker - has developed their social and consumption focused skills and connections to such an extent that they become central to the community, active builder of online communities and their related social spaces
• Interactor - reaches into the community from other communities that are highly engaged with the consumption activity, weak social ties though
• Networker - reaches into a particular online community to build social ties and interact with the members of that other community, this person might be from another community that is not related in terms of the content or from a related community that seeks to link up and exchange ideas; the role of a networker is to build ties between different online communities participants often follow other hashtags eg edchat

Another model: general trending and movement : participation moves from a factual and informational type of exchange to one that effortlessly mixes factual information and social or relational, information (2010:35)

Types of online communities

• Cruising communities - known for their weaker social relationships and low centrality of any particular kind of consumption
• Bonding communities - known to have and create very strong social ties between members, resulting in deep and long-lasting relationships but whose members are not particularly focused on a shared or unifying consumption behaviour, relational needs are the focus
• Geeking communities - sharing of info, news, stories and techniques about a particular activity is the community raison d'etre, it could be consumption or production or even prosumption - offering their members and readers deeply detailed info but not deeply engaging most of them in meaningful social relationships; mostly informational modes of interaction
• Building communities: both a strong sense of community and detailed info about the central interest; interaction is both relational and informational [36]
• #ELTchat appears to be a geeking community but with a great degree of bonding and sociality, I wouldn't say interaction is both relational and informational, the latter takes the priority

Olaniaran (2004) asserts that online community participants can and will serve as social agents for cultural transformation in their other various cultures and communities. He suggests that in online communities 'group interests [can] inspire devotees to demand and seek positive change inside and outside the group (2008) [2010:39] probably many of the participants will take the links and ideas further and put them into practice in their context and probably share with their colleagues face-to-face