The Importance Of Etiquette In Online Virtual Environments

The Importance of Etiquette in Online Virtual Environments Kimberley Hobbs Graduate Student Educational Communications and Technology University of Saskatchewan February, 2009

Introduction Online virtual communities provide us with the means to build connections with others who share our interests globally. We must become effective communicators in order to collaborate, work proficiently and to help develop and maintain trust among participants in online environments. Preece (2004) states that, “norms that lead to good online etiquette, empathy and trust between community members provide stepping-stones for social capital development” (p.294). In this paper, I will identify some of the communication challenges that exist in online environments. Then I will identify some general netiquette rules which we may apply to all of our online interactions as well as highlight some more specific netiquette rules for communicating using email, instant messaging, text messaging and micro blogging. Finally I will identify technology advancements that may help us to overcome online communication challenges and may lead to redefining the rules of engagement we currently follow online. Netiquette and Social Capital “Etiquette is a code that influences the expectations and behaviour of social behaviour, according to contemporary conventional norms within a society, social class or group” (Etiquette, 2009). Social behaviour refers to the interactions among individuals while conventional norms are the rules of acceptable behaviour that have been defined by the group. The term netiquette is formed by combining the words network and etiquette. In this case network refers to a computer network in which many computers are connected to one another as in the World Wide Web. Netiquette therefore becomes a social protocol which helps to facilitate meaningful online communication and the development of social capital. “Social capital is the glue which holds a community together…” (Preece, 2004, p.297). Community is defined as a group of people coming together based on common interests. Communities that exhibit strong social capital have developed a sense of trust and understanding that allow its members to communicate well with one another exchanging ideas effectively in order to build understanding or solve problems (Daniel,

1

Schwier & McCalla, 2003; Preece, 2004). “Shared goals, norms and shared values facilitate … social capital development” (Preece, 2004, p.297). Adhering to certain netiquette beliefs can influence our participation, trust and learning online. Schwier & Daniel (2007) define social protocols as the “rules of engagement” or the “ways of behaving in a community” (p.6). They identify social protocols as one of the fourteen characteristics of virtual learning communities. Their Bayesian network model reveals that social protocols have an influence on participation, trust and learning in virtual learning communities. Trust is identified as the most important factor in virtual learning communities. Trust is important to the communication process and “when one views a community as upholding trustworthy values such as mutual reciprocity, honesty, reliability and commitment, there is likely to be a greater degree of motivation to participate and share one’s knowledge (Usoro & Sharratt, 2003). Explicitly sharing netiquette instructions for specific online environments becomes significant in maintaining the trust of participants and encouraging participation among members so that everyone may benefit from the interactive learning that is possible online. “Lack of etiquette weakens sociability and even destroys communities of practice” (Preece, 2004, p, 299). Communication Challenges in Online Communities Barriers exist that may prevent online participants from identifying and applying the etiquette rules of the community. These barriers to communication include: Apprehension Online learning communities are a relatively new forum for communication. People may be apprehensive to participate if they are unsure of their technological abilities or their knowledge of the discussion topic. Postings or messages may be visible to a large and public audience for an indefinite period of time. This may cause hesitation as participants want to post comments and questions that are relevant and demonstrate understanding (Usoro & Sharratt, 2003). This apprehension can reduce participant confidence and prevent participants from becoming involved to the extent required to identify the netiquette rules of the community. Cultural Differences Access to virtual environments extends our participation into worldwide communities. Etiquette and netiquette rules may differ significantly from one community to the next based on cultural norms. Schwier (2007a) states that “this introduces potential for conflict in communities when different cultural traditions (e.g., age-related traditions of communication) are brought into a single learning environment” (p.32). As we increase our participation in cultures with different norms even the most subtle differences may cause significant challenges (Preece, 2004).

2

Communication via Written Text The majority of online communication is comprised of the transfer of ideas and experiences via written text. “We cannot see the facial expressions or body languages of colleagues as we conduct discussions; we cannot hear voices or tones of voice to convey emotion” (Cartelli, 2008, p. 244). Online communication has therefore become challenging without the presence of social cues (i.e., facial expressions, body language and tone of voice). These cues assist us in interpreting the emotion and intent of a message. The general lack of these cues in online communication may lead to misunderstandings or mistrust (Shea, V, 2005). The text written in words in online communities also becomes more permanent than the spoken word. Conversations can be archived, messages may be forwarded or posted for many viewers to access. Participants may be fearful of sharing as they start to question the value and relevance of their ideas and the fact that their words could remain visible even after they have changed their mind (Sharratt & Usoro, 2003). Variance of Online Communities It is important to consider the type of technology you are using in online conversations. Is the conversation occurring synchronously as in online chat or instant messaging, or asynchronously as in email or discussion board postings? These different types of technology require the use of different rules of etiquette (Preece, 2004; Marx, 1994). This becomes challenging for participants as they need to adjust their etiquette if they are emailing, instant chatting or blogging. I have learned that it is appropriate to send and receive email that is succinct and to the point, and that we need to be cautious so as not to misinterpret this as a negative tone in the message. Email may be sent to one person or a group of people and we need to be aware that our messages may be forwarded on to others as well. Micro-blogging requires an even more concise method of communication in which you post short messages for a group of followers to view. Your writing style differs significantly and it is not always directly evident what is appropriate and what is not appropriate from one environment to the next. Our communication experiences guide us in our understanding of the etiquette rules. Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002) indicate the importance of providing both public and private spaces for the development of communication within communities. Truitt Zelenka (2008) refers to several social software types or online environments that may be utilized for online collaboration. Some of these are described in Table 1 (Truitt Zelenka, 2008):

3

Table 1. Types and Characteristics of Online Communication Tools Type Email Instant Messaging Text Messaging Social Networking Sites Blogging Photo Sharing Microblogging Wikis

Characteristics Electronic mail. Has become common form of communication for many people. It is asynchronous and therefore not time dependent. Frequent informal interactions. Good for quick questions. On your mobile phone. Short and to the point. Often used for personal expression but may be used for professional networking. Personal publishing platforms that allow you to create a very dynamic website with little work. Usually supports comments by readers and cross blog links to allow for discussions and other social interaction. Share your photos and digital images. Browse, comment on and use photos posted by others. Twitter is an example of micoblogging. It allows you to post short updates for others to read. Wikis are collections of web pages that can be collaboratively developed and maintained.

It is also important to distinguish between virtual learning communities and other virtual communities (Conrad, 2002b). “A learning community emerges when people are drawn together to learn…virtual learning communities happen when the process of learning takes place outside the boundaries of face to face contact, typically electronically” Schwier (in press). Virtual learning communities and other virtual communities may both take advantage of the benefits of the variety of social software listed in the previous table. Overcoming Challenges Online learning environments can be unfamiliar or new to many users. Apprehension, cultural differences, focus on written text and the variety of online environments accessible, may make initiating communication a challenge or may lead to misunderstandings and to the ultimate break down of trust for participants in online communities. In order to offset these challenges and allow participants the confidence they need to become successful learners in online communities, it may be valuable to explicitly define social protocols for the online communities they are participating in. This is evident in virtual learning communities that typically take place in educational settings where an instructor is in place to outline conversation etiquette and moderate discussions. This structured environment can enhance trust and increase social capital. (Schwier, 2007b). Preece (2004) believes that online etiquette rules are learned through experience in a community. Truitt Zelenka (2008) also suggests that it may be valuable for new participants to observe for a while without participating “to see how people behave in

4

different contexts online. Take your time and learn the etiquette before you start” (p.14). To a certain extent this is true and certainly over time we may gradually learn some of the social protocols of any community we are involved in. I would argue that explicitly sharing netiquette rules in online learning communities will encourage involvement, maintain group values and provide the guidance necessary for participants to build understanding and trust, therefore reinforcing social capital. The predominately textual environment of online communities allows for ease in sharing the netiquette rules. The explicit outlining of expectations can relieve apprehension and give clear directions for the use of written text in the targeted learning environment. As participants continue to interact and build trust they build social capital which can help overcome cultural differences (Daniel, Schwier & McCalla, 2003). “In practice virtual learning communities should encourage freedom of expression, mutual respect and they should value diversity (Schwier & Daniel, 2007). What are the guidelines that we believe constitute socially acceptable online behaviour that would lead to this mutual respect and freedom of expression? Conrad (2002a) identified the following five behaviours that help learners contribute to building online community: presence, prepared and relevant postings, awareness, respectful behaviour and compassion and tolerance. These five behaviours are relevant for all the social software environments described in the previous table. Shea (1994) outlines ten core rules of netiquette that are still applicable today and that support the behaviours outlined by Conrad (2002a). These netiquette rules are (Shea, 1994, p. 35-45): 1. Remember the human. Remember there is a real person communicating with you and only say things online that you would say to them in person. 2. Adhere to the same standards of behaviour online that you follow in real life. Be ethical. Breaking the law is bad netiquette. 3. Know where you are in cyberspace Netiquette varies from domain to domain. What is acceptable in one area may not be in another. 4. Respect other people’s time and bandwidth Ensure the time people will spend reading your postings is not wasted. Do not send repetitive information that would use up bandwidth. 5. Make yourself look good online. Know what you are talking about and make sense. Make sure your notes are clear and logical. Spelling and grammar are important for clarity of messages. Only use appropriate vocabulary and avoid profanity. 6. Share expert knowledge. Don’t be afraid to share what you know. If you have posed questions that you received excellent answers for, compile the responses and share them with the group. 7. Help keep flame wars under control. Flaming is expressing an opinion with (typically negative) emotion. Flaming is acceptable provided it does not turn into a flame

5

war where two or three people direct angry messages at one another and control the content of the discussion. 8. Respect other people’s privacy. Do not read other people’s email. 9. Don’t abuse your power. Knowing more than others or having more user rights than others does not give you the right to take advantage of others. 10. Be forgiving of other people’s mistakes. If it is a minor error you may choose to ignore it. If you decide to inform someone of their mistake, point it out politely and privately. These rules of behaviour generally apply to all forms of online communication. There are additional rules that have evolved and which apply to specific social software. The following lists identify rules specific to email, instant messaging, text messaging and micro-blogging. Email The following rules generally apply to email: 1. Messages should be concise and to the point. 2. Messages should include correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. 3. Use humour and sarcasm with caution as they may be easily misunderstood. 4. Avoid the use of ALL CAPS as this is considered shouting. Truitt Zelenka (2008) acknowledges that email is impersonal. It is helpful for those using email to know that email can be blunt and to the point. This knowledge may help prevent misunderstandings or encourage users to ask questions for further clarification. In my experience email was initially used in a formal manner. Email has become a common form of communication on both professional and personal levels. The increase in the volume of messages we are processing has made it necessary to shorten messages and make them less informal so that we may respond to messages in a timely manner. “People can learn to handle short emails and assume that as the default way of communicating by email rather than expecting some sort of mailed letter like sensibility. In many work cultures, short and quick emails without social grooming are the norm” (Truitt Zelenka, 2003, p. 105) Instant Messaging, Text Messaging and Micro Blogging (i.e., Twitter) 1. Messages should be concise and to the point. 2. Using invented spelling and lack of punctuation is acceptable 3. Use emoticons (symbols) to represent emotions. 4. Use acronyms to condense messages. 5. Humour and sarcasm should still be used with caution but are more prominent than in email. 6. Use your presence indicator to indicate your availability for instant messaging (Truitt Zelenka, 2008)

6

Emoticons and acronyms can be very helpful to provide clarification of emotion and feelings which are not always immediately evident in the written word. It is beneficial when lists of common emoticons and acronyms are shared for online users. The University of Saskatchewan’s Centre for Continuing & Distance Education links to a list of common emoticons and acronyms on their Learn Online website (Emoticons and Acronyms, 2009). Using instant messaging as a backchannel is becoming socially acceptable in some environments. I would compare this to having a sidebar conversation with someone while a presenter is speaking. Instant messaging allows you to carry on a conversation with one or more people or ask questions of the presenter while you are listening to a conference call, webinar or presentation. This can be a way for you to get clarification on the discussion or ask a question without interrupting (Truitt Zelenka, 2008). The practice of back channeling is not socially acceptable in face-to-face environments and therefore is in opposition to our traditional etiquette beliefs. Social Networking Sites According to Wikipedia there are over one hundred major active social networking sites worldwide including: Facebook, MySpace, Windows Live Spaces and Friendster to name just a few (List of social networking websites, 2009). These websites are building communities for individuals to interact in a variety of ways including email, online chat and instant messages. These social environments may have their own set of netiquette rules or may require participants to apply a variety of netiquette rules. The ability to be flexible and intuitive in applying the netiquette rules appropriately is becoming a critical skill as new ways of communicating and sharing information emerge and grow in importance. Virtual Reality Environments Collaborative virtual environments are emerging that are attempting to increase social presence online (Cartelli, 2006). “Collaborative virtual environments (CVE’s) are computer-enabled distributed virtual spaces or places in which people can meet and interact with others, with agents and with virtual objects” (Cartelli, 2006, p.245). Characters in virtual environments have increasingly become more human like with 3-D representations. These 3-D characters or avatars can display unique appearances and human like behaviours. Avatars are enabling non-verbal communication in online environments (Cartelli, 2006). The ability to convey non-verbal cues online may be an answer to overcoming the communication challenges that we experience in many online environments where these non-verbal cues are not present. “Avatars can run, jump, fly, dance, and enable you to express a whole host of emotions. So say goodbye to your old one-dimensional emoticons ” (Activeworlds, 2009). As images become sharper and actions of avatars become more precise our experiences in virtual environments will become increasingly more realistic. This may impose the need for a new set of netiquette rules or the netiquette rules of these collaborative virtual environments may start to reflect the etiquette rules which we are already guided by in our face to face communities.

7

Conclusion Netiquette is important in online virtual environments. Adhering to the netiquette rules of the online environments in which you participate will help you to build trust and therefore develop relationships that will lead to valuable online interactions. The online environments in which we are increasingly finding ourselves are not always familiar to us; therefore, it would be beneficial to have rules of netiquette explicitly stated. Since this is not a standardized practice in virtual communities it may be the responsibility of participants to ask for the netiquette expectations of the group to be defined. There are netiquette rules that are generally cited as being socially acceptable in online communities and practices have evolved that have become socially acceptable to specific modes of online communication. There are new technologies emerging that may alter these standards and will require us to redefine our online communication behaviours. Through these new technologies our world is becoming increasingly connected. It is important for us to learn how to build and sustain these online networks (Richardson, 2008). Our ability to be netiquette savvy is a critical component of becoming understanding participants in order to develop meaningful relationships to sustain these online networks. It is worthwhile to understand the etiquette rules of online virtual environments. “With the web, you can reach out laterally and informally and globally…you can tap into a seemingly limitless network of people and creations online, finding possibilities you never dreamed existed” (Truitt Zelenka, 2008, p.1). References Activeworlds (2009). Avatars. Retrieved February, 17, 2009 from http://www.activeworlds.com/tour.asp#avatars. Cartelli, A. (2006). Teaching in the knowledge society: New skills and instruments for teachers. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing Common emoticons and acronyms. (2009). Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.pb.org/emoticon.html. Conrad, D. (2002a). A brief learners’ guide to online community. Retrieved February 15, 2009 from http://www.ohprs.ca/PDFs/conrad.pdf. Conrad, D. (2002b). Inhibition, integrity and etiquette among online learners: The art of niceness. Distance Education. 23(2), 197-212. Daniel, B.K., & Schwier, R.A. (2007). A bayesian belief network model of a virtual learning community. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 3(2), 151-169.

8

Daniel, B., Schwier, R., & McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning communities and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3), 113-139. Etiquette (2009). Retrieved February, 15, 2009 from Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette. List of social networking websites (2009). Retrieved February, 16, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites. Marx, G. T. (1994). New telecommunications technologies require new manners. Telecommunications Policy, 18(7), 538-551. Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette, empathy and trust in communities of practice: steppingstones to social capital. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 10(3), 294-302. Richardson, W. (2008). Footprints in the digital age. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 1618. Schwier, R.A. (in press). Virtual learning communities. In G. Anglin (Ed.) Instructional technology: Past, present, future (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Schwier, R.A. (2007a). A Typlogoy of catalysts, emphases, and elements of virtual learning communities. In R. Luppicini (Ed., Trends in distance education: A focus on communities of learning (pp. 17-40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Schwier, R. (2007b). Shaping the metaphor of community in online learning environments. In G. Calverley, M. Childs, & L. Schneiders (Eds.) Video for education (pp. 68-76). London, UK: DIVERSE and the Association for Learning Technologies. Sharratt, M., & Usoro, A. (2003) Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187-196. Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. San Francisco: Albion Books. Available from http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html. Truitt Zelenka, A., & Sohn, J. (2008). Connect: A guide to a new way of working from gigaom’s web worker daily. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing Inc. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M., (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

9

10