NEGOTIATING CONTENTIOUS KNOWLEDGE CO- PRODUCTION IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES

Noriko Hara, Ph.D.Department of Information & Library ScienceSchool of Informatics, Computing & Engineering

Prepared for the 2018 IST Conference

Special Thanks• Graduates in Instructional Systems Technology (GIST)• Manal Alsaif

Education Background

IST InformationScience

Social Informatics

Research Trajectory • How people collaborate and share knowledge:

• Communities of practice• Knowledge sharing in the classroom• Knowledge sharing with cross-cultural analysis• Knowledge sharing to facilitate public understanding of science

Research Trajectory • How people collaborate and share knowledge:

• Students in class (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Hara, 2002; Hara & Kling, 2000; Landrum, Hara, Liu, Gao, & Jiang, 2014)

• Teachers (Hew & Hara, 2007; Hur & Hara, 2007)• Nurses (Hara & Hew, 2007)• IT professionals (Hew & Hara, 2007)• Activists (Hara & Jo, 2007; Hara, 2008)• Wikipedians (Shachaf & Hara, 2010; Hara, Shachaf, & Hew, 2010;

Fichman & Hara, 2014)• Parents (Hara & Sanfilippo, 2016, 2017; Hara & Frieh, under

review)• Scientists (Hara, Solomon, Kim, & Sonnenwald, 2003; Hara, Chen,

& Ynalvez, 2017; Hara, Abbazio, & Perkins, under preparation)

Research Trajectory • How people collaborate and share knowledge:

• Students in class (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Hara, 2002; Hara & Kling, 2000; Landrum, Hara, Liu, Gao, & Jiang, 2014)

• Teachers (Hew & Hara, 2007; Hur & Hara, 2007)• Nurses (Hara & Hew, 2007)• IT professionals (Hew & Hara, 2007)• Activists (Hara & Jo, 2007; Hara, 2008)• Wikipedians (Shachaf & Hara, 2010; Hara, Shachaf, & Hew, 2010;

Fichman & Hara, 2014)• Parents (Hara & Sanfilippo, 2016, 2017; Hara & Frieh, under

review)• Scientists (Hara, Solomon, Kim, & Sonnenwald, 2003; Hara, Chen,

& Ynalvez, 2017; Hara, Abbazio, & Perkins, under preparation)

Research Trajectory • Methods:

• Ethnographic study• Interviews• Content analysis• Social network analysis• Formal concept analysis• Mixed methods

• Approach:• Empirical• Naturalistic• Holistic (understanding of offline and online interactions)• Inter-disciplinary• Cross-cultural

Research Trajectory • How people collaborate and share knowledge with ICTs

• Knowledge collaboration in Wikipedia

• How people share and understand scientific knowledge?

Research Motivation

Research Motivation

Co-Construction of Knowledge

• Web 2.0 provides platforms for knowledge co-construction

• Boundary work (Gieryn, 1983) between experts and non-experts has been challenged

• Need more research on the comprehension of scientific knowledge by laypeople (Jasanoff & Kim, 2009)

Knowledge Collaboration Online• Knowledge re-use (Markus, 2001)

• Types of content in knowledge collaboration (Hara et al., 2010; Seebach, 2012)

• Knowledge seeking behavior on Facebook (Lampe et al., 2012)

• Knowledge co-construction (Kane et al., 2014)• Contentious knowledge objects (Joyce et al., 2011)

• Participatory knowledge production 2.0 (Wyatt et al., 2013)

Collaborative Knowledge Production on Wikipedia• Used Actor Network Theory (Stewart, 2009) to analyze how users coordinated their efforts to construct knowledge on the “Clean coal technology” Wikipedia entry

• Investigated co-authorship structures related to Tohoku Earthquake in 2011 (Keegan et al., 2011)

• Examined 9-11 article on English and German Wikipedia and discussed the issue of democratization of knowledge (König, 2013)

Research Gaps• Research on contentious knowledge in online environments exists (e.g., Joyce et al., 2013; König, 2013; Stewart, 2009), but not on scientific knowledge that affects everyday decision-making

• Studies of social construction of knowledge remain descriptive

• These studies tend to focus on Wikipedia only

Research Questions1. How are independent communities similar or

different in terms of the content of knowledge collaboration?

2. How do the roles that participants play in knowledge collaboration differ across communities?• How do these roles differ in controversial versus non-

controversial threads?

Case of Child Vaccination in the U.S.• Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine

• Research by Andrew Wakefield identified links between the MMR vaccine and autism (1998)

• Media

• Vaccination rates declined

Measles Outbreak in Disneyland

Cases of Measles in Indiana University

Methods: Data• Selected three online communities:

Methods: Data• Selected three online communities:

Knowledge co-construction site

Knowledge reuse site Knowledge reuse site

Methods: DataBaby Center Berkeley

ParentsNetwork

Wikipedia

Criteria for inclusion

All references to MMR and/or MMR controversy

All references to MMR and/or MMR controversy

MMR talk page; MMR Vaccine Controversy talk page

Posts 541 98 705

Threads 33 18 119

Coverage 2007-2013 1999-2006 2004-2013

Methods: • Content analysis of Wikipedia Talk pages, BabyCenter threads, and Berkeley Parents Network threads

• The coding scheme for the content of knowledge co-construction was based on a previous study (Hara & Doney, 2013) and revised to incorporate the content of this specific study

• Codes were applied per post; multiple codes may be assigned to a post (intercoder reliability was: 87% for BC; 88% for BPN; and 86% for Wikipedia)

Methods: Analysis of Content

Context Code (14)

Editorial Editorial

Knowledge Components Background knowledge, definitions, facts about the topic, media reports about the topic, resources

Knowledge Scaffolding Citations, claimed expertise, confusion, credibility, experience, inquiry, opinion

Vandalism Vandalism

Methods: Analysis of RolesContext Role

Identifying and Sharing Knowledge

Help-giving; Help-seeking (Hara et al., 2009; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Kane et al., 2014); Mover (Swarts, 2009)

Modifying Knowledge Knowledge Shaper (Majchrzak et al., 2013),Organizer (Faraj et al., 2011), Reflective Reframing; Reflective Reinforcing (Hargadon& Bechky, 2006; Kane et al., 2014)

Facilitating Knowledge Collaboration

Cross-Thread Connectivity (Kuk, 2006; Kane et al., 2014); Facilitator (Kane et al., 2014); Governance-Oriented Approach (Schroeder & Wagner, 2012); Mediator; Supporter, Unmasker (Faraj et al., 2011)

Methods: Analysis of RolesContext Role

Identifying and Sharing Knowledge

Help-giving; Help-seeking (Hara et al., 2009; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Kane et al., 2014); Mover (Swarts, 2009); Distractor

Modifying Knowledge Knowledge Shaper (Majchrzak et al., 2013),Organizer (Faraj et al., 2011), Reflective Reframing; Reflective Reinforcing (Hargadon& Bechky, 2006; Kane et al., 2014); Judge

Facilitating Knowledge Collaboration

Cross-Thread Connectivity (Kuk, 2006; Kane et al., 2014); Facilitator (Kane et al., 2014); Governance-Oriented Approach (Schroeder & Wagner, 2012); Mediator; Supporter, Unmasker (Faraj et al., 2011)

Methods: Controversy vs. Non-Controversy Threads• Controversial thread criteria:

• Disagreements regarding subject matter devolve into personal attacks

• Resolution of problems slow to come and at times requires mediation

• Prolonged arguments over details, e.g., “splitting hairs”• Questions over validity, credibility,

and legitimacy(Intercoder reliability: 92.85%)

Results: Content of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Background knowledge 60.44 74.49 40.71

Citations 10.35 12.24 30.78

Claimed expertise 8.50 12.24 1.84

Credibility 22.55 8.16 31.91

Editorial 0 0 35.18

Experience 41.40 62.24 2.55

Inquiry 16.27 24.49 14.33

Interpretation / opinion 80.41 57.14 80.14

Media reports 2.96 9.18 5.82

Resources 21.63 24.49 13.33

Vandalism 1.29 0 4.68

Results: Content of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Background knowledge 60.44 74.49 40.71Citations 10.35 12.24 30.78

Claimed expertise 8.50 12.24 1.84

Credibility 22.55 8.16 31.91

Editorial 0 0 35.18

Experience 41.40 62.24 2.55

Inquiry 16.27 24.49 14.33

Interpretation / opinion 80.41 57.14 80.14Media reports 2.96 9.18 5.82

Resources 21.63 24.49 13.33

Vandalism 1.29 0 4.68

Results: Content of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Background Knowledge 60.44 74.49 40.71

Citations 10.35 12.24 30.78Claimed Expertise 8.50 12.24 1.84

Credibility 22.55 8.16 31.91Editorial 0 0 35.18

Experience 41.40 62.24 2.55

Inquiry 16.27 24.49 14.33

Interpretation/opinion 80.41 57.14 80.14

Media reports 2.96 9.18 5.82

Resources 21.63 24.49 13.33

Vandalism 1.29 0 4.68

Results: Content of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Background knowledge 60.44 74.49 40.71Citations 10.35 12.24 30.78

Claimed expertise 8.50 12.24 1.84

Credibility 22.55 8.16 31.91

Editorial 0 0 35.18Experience 41.40 62.24 2.55

Inquiry 16.27 24.49 14.33

Interpretation / opinion 80.41 57.14 80.14Media reports 2.96 9.18 5.82

Resources 21.63 24.49 13.33

Vandalism 1.29 0 4.68

Results: Content of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Background knowledge 60.44 74.49 40.71Citations 10.35 12.24 30.78

Claimed expertise 8.50 12.24 1.84

Credibility 22.55 8.16 31.91

Editorial 0 0 35.18

Experience 41.40 62.24 2.55Inquiry 16.27 24.49 14.33

Interpretation / opinion 80.41 57.14 80.14Media reports 2.96 9.18 5.82

Resources 21.63 24.49 13.33

Vandalism 1.29 0 4.68

Results: Cross-Tabulation with Aggregated Content and Types of Sites

Knowledge Reuse sites (BC

& BPN)

Knowledge Co-construction site

(WP)Editorial 0 11.94Knowledge Components 35.84 28.88

Knowledge Scaffolding 63.78 57.58

Vandalism 0.37 1.58(χ2 = 12.9982, df = 2, p<0.05)

Results: Roles of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Distractor 28.47 8.16 24.68Facilitator 1.85 0 1.28Giver 59.52 67.35 17.30Governor 0 0 8.09Judge 11.83 2.04 34.61Mediator 4.44 3.06 3.69Mover 1.48 7.14 10.92Reframer 5.73 18.37 7.66Reinforcer 2.96 9.18 5.96Seeker 9.98 22.45 7.66Supporter 12.94 18.37 14.61Unmasker 1.11 0 0.43

Results: Roles of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Distractor 28.47 8.16 24.68Facilitator 1.85 0 1.28Giver 59.52 67.35 17.30Governor 0 0 8.09Judge 11.83 2.04 34.61Mediator 4.44 3.06 3.69Mover 1.48 7.14 10.92Reframer 5.73 18.37 7.66Reinforcer 2.96 9.18 5.96Seeker 9.98 22.45 7.66Supporter 12.94 18.37 14.61Unmasker 1.11 0 0.43

Results: Roles of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Distractor 28.47 8.16 24.68Facilitator 1.85 0 1.28Giver 59.52 67.35 17.30Governor 0 0 8.09Judge 11.83 2.04 34.61Mediator 4.44 3.06 3.69Mover 1.48 7.14 10.92Reframer 5.73 18.37 7.66Reinforcer 2.96 9.18 5.96Seeker 9.98 22.45 7.66Supporter 12.94 18.37 14.61Unmasker 1.11 0 0.43

Results: Roles of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Distractor 28.47 8.16 24.68Facilitator 1.85 0 1.28Giver 59.52 67.35 17.30Governor 0 0 8.09Judge 11.83 2.04 34.61Mediator 4.44 3.06 3.69Mover 1.48 7.14 10.92Reframer 5.73 18.37 7.66Reinforcer 2.96 9.18 5.96Seeker 9.98 22.45 7.66Supporter 12.94 18.37 14.61Unmasker 1.11 0 0.43

Results: Roles of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Distractor 28.47 8.16 24.68Facilitator 1.85 0 1.28Giver 59.52 67.35 17.30Governor 0 0 8.09Judge 11.83 2.04 34.61Mediator 4.44 3.06 3.69Mover 1.48 7.14 10.92Reframer 5.73 18.37 7.66Reinforcer 2.96 9.18 5.96Seeker 9.98 22.45 7.66Supporter 12.94 18.37 14.61Unmasker 1.11 0 0.43

Results: Roles of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Distractor 28.47 8.16 24.68Facilitator 1.85 0 1.28Giver 59.52 67.35 17.30Governor 0 0 8.09Judge 11.83 2.04 34.61Mediator 4.44 3.06 3.69Mover 1.48 7.14 10.92Reframer 5.73 18.37 7.66Reinforcer 2.96 9.18 5.96Seeker 9.98 22.45 7.66Supporter 12.94 18.37 14.61Unmasker 1.11 0 0.43

Results: Roles of Knowledge CollaborationCodes Baby Center Berkeley Parents

Network Wikipedia

Distractor 28.47 8.16 24.68Facilitator 1.85 0 1.28Giver 59.52 67.35 17.30Governor 0 0 8.09Judge 11.83 2.04 34.61Mediator 4.44 3.06 3.69Mover 1.48 7.14 10.92Reframer 5.73 18.37 7.66Reinforcer 2.96 9.18 5.96Seeker 9.98 22.45 7.66Supporter 12.94 18.37 14.61Unmasker 1.11 0 0.43

Results: Cross-Tabulation with Aggregated Roles and Types of Sites

Knowledge Reuse sites (BC

& BPN)

Knowledge Co-construction site

(WP)

Identify and sharing 68.48 39.65

Shaping 8.97 15.51

Supporting 15.49 22.19

(χ2 = 9.2758, df = 2, p<0.05)

Distribution of Controversial Threads

Baby Center BerkleyParents Network

Wikipedia

Controversial 20 (60.61%) 6 (33.33%) 54 (45.38%)

Non-controversial

13 (39.39%) 12 (66.67%) 65 (54.62%)

Total Threads 34 19 120

Roles in Controversial vs. Non-Controversial Threads

• Formal Concept Analysis (FCA)• Based on a mathematical lattices theory (Wille, 1982)

• Offers visual maps (graphs) with conceptual hierarchies

• See Uta Priss’s Formal Concept Analysis Homepage(http://www.upriss.org.uk/fca/fca.html)

Formal Concept Analysis

• FCA is based on the premise that a concept consists of two elements:

• Extension—A set of objects (G)• Intension—A set of attributes (M)

• FCA originates from a formal context that is defined by 3 sets (G, M, I)

FCA: Example

R PG-13 PG G Action Drama Comedy Long Short

Star Wars: TFA X X X

Raiders of the Lost Ark X X X

Titanic X X X

Shrek X X X

The Terminator X X X

Mean Girls X X X

G: objects M: attributes

Software: Concept Explorer

FCA: Example Software: Concept Explorer

FCA: Example Software: Concept Explorer

BPN: Non-controversy

Non-controversy

Seeker

BPN: Controversy Controversy

Reframer

Mediator

Judge

Knowledge-shaper

Organizer

BC: Non-controversy

Non-controversy

Helper

BC: Controversy

HelperControversial

ConnectorMediator

Knowledge-shaper

Organizer

Unmasker

Judge

Reinforcer

Reframer

BC: Controversy Helper

Controversial

Connector

Mediator

Knowledge-shaperOrganizer

Unmasker

WP: Non-controversy

Non-controversy

WP: ControversyControversy

Unmasker

Mediator

Common Roles in Controversial Threads

Baby Center Berkeley Parents Network

Wikipedia

ConnectorJudge Judge

Knowledge-shaper Knowledge-shaperMediator Mediator MediatorOrganizer OrganizerReinforcerReframer ReframerUnmasker [no unmasker coded] Unmasker

Common Roles in Controversial Threads

Baby Center Berkeley Parents Network

Wikipedia

Connector

Judge Judge

Knowledge-shaper Knowledge-shaper

Mediator Mediator Mediator

Organizer Organizer

Reinforcer

Reframer Reframer

Unmasker [no unmasker coded] Unmasker

Knowledge re-use sitesKnowledge co-construction sites

Common Roles in Controversial Threads

Baby Center Berkeley Parents Network

Wikipedia

ConnectorJudge Judge

Knowledge-shaper Knowledge-shaperMediator Mediator MediatorOrganizer OrganizerReinforcerReframer ReframerUnmasker [no unmasker coded] Unmasker

Conclusions• Articulated the content and roles played in three different

online communities that engage in knowledge collaboration to interpret a controversial topic in science

• Expanded the previous studies on knowledge collaboration and investigated a variety of roles in online communities

• Expanded the data source to include online knowledge collaboration communities other than Wikipedia

Conclusions

Knowledge Collaborationin Online Communities

Content

Conclusions

Knowledge Collaborationin Online Communities

Content Roles

Future Studies• Examine the interplay between roles and content• Analyze co-occurrence of roles that individual contributors play

• Scale-up: Expand platforms (e.g., FB & Reddit) and topics

• Interview individuals regarding contested scientific knowledge

Interested in This Line of Research?• Courses that I teach:

• Z513: Organizational Informatics• Z514: Social Aspects of Information Technology• Z556: Systems Analysis

• Ph.D. minors:• Information Science• Social Informatics

THANK YOU!

Noriko Hara, Ph.D. nhara@indiana.edu

http://norikohara.org

• Hara, N., & Sanfilippo, M. R. (2016). Co-constructing controversy: Content analysis of collaborative knowledge negotiation in online communities. Information, Communication & Society, 19(11), 1587-1604.

• Hara, N., & Sanfilippo, M. R. (2017). Analysis of roles in engaging contentious online discussions in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 68(8), 1953-1966.