LEVERAGING SOCIAL MEDIA FOR LEARNING:
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE ON FLICKR

By
Andrew Smock

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILSOPHY
Media and Information Studies
2012

ABSTRACT
LEVERAGING SOCIAL MEDIA FOR LEARNING:
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE ON FLICKR
By
Andrew Smock
Research has begun to address the use of social media sites, such as Facebook and
Twitter, for supplementing and enhancing classroom-based learning. However, the use of social
media platforms for less formal learning has received little attention. Study One of this
dissertation presents the results from semi-structured interviews with twenty-one users of the
photo-sharing social media site Flickr about their Flickr use, focusing on how participants learn
more about photography through their use of the site. Utilizing the communities of practice lens,
findings illustrate how Flickr Groups function as communities of practice. Participants describe
solitary and interactive learning strategies they employed which allowed them to advance their
photographic knowledge and skills. The role of expertise emerged as an important factor in
sharing knowledge about photography.
Access to experts has been found to be a motivating factor for participation in online
CoPs and expertise has also been linked to contribution in online communities. Study Two
presents the results of an online survey of Flickr users (N=200), which measured three key forms
of participation in Flickr CoPs (photograph posting, commenting, and discussion board posts),
photographic expertise, and personality traits. Findings revealed that user expertise predicts
certain forms of Flickr CoP participation, including commenting and sharing knowledge.
Personality traits were also found to predict user activities, such as commenting and asking
questions. The combined findings of these studies demonstrate how social media can be used as
a powerful learning tool and shed light on how users leverage site affordances for learning.

Copyright by
ANDREW SMOCK
2012

For my family

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While the authorship of a dissertation is credited to a single individual, the final
manuscript is a testament to the support and effort of a multitude of people. If not for the
encouragement, input, and guidance of advisors, colleagues, classmates, friends and family, a
work like this would never be completed. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a few
individuals for their assistance and investment in this process.
I am deeply indebted to my advisor, Dr. Nicole Ellison, not only for her dedication and
guidance through the dissertation process, but also for mentoring me as both a teaching assistant
and a research assistant. Dr. Ellison has been an influential force in my development as a teacher
and a scholar. During the dissertation process, she provided thoughtful insights to guide me when
I encountered setbacks and offered encouragement when I doubted myself. Dr. Ellison invested a
great deal of her time and effort into this project. At every step, with every draft, she was willing
to provide feedback and made me think more critically about my work.
I would also like to extend my thanks to the other members of my dissertation committee.
It was Dr. Lucinda Davenport’s course in qualitative methods that first interested me in semistructured interviewing, and it became instrumental in the collection of data for the first study of
this dissertation. Dr. Davenport’s feedback and suggestions during the dissertation process
helped me to identify weaknesses in my work and what I could do to make it stronger. Dr.
Charles Steinfield’s suggestions helped me to think about new methods to apply to this research
and provided additional directions for future work. Dr. Gary Hsieh’s insights on expertise will
surely continue to influence my future work in this area.

v

I would also like to thank Dr. Cliff Lampe, whose input during the proposal process
pushed me to consider related research from other disciplines. His thoughtful questions led me to
consider additional perspectives, which strengthened my work.
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of the Flickr Groups
where I recruited participants. All of these Groups were welcoming of my research, enthusiastic
about helping me, and interested in learning about my findings. Additionally, I would like to
offer my thanks to the participants of both studies, especially those from Study One. Not only
were they generous with their time, but their interviews provided a source of inspiration each
time I combed through the transcripts. I cannot express how much their excitement about
photography and their Flickr experiences helped to reenergize and refocus me.
I also would like to express my appreciation for the friends and colleagues that I met
during my time in the Media and Information Studies program. T-A-M-M-Y, Tom, Paul, Caleb,
Han Ei, Robin, Bree, Jessica, Wyl, Tor, Yvette, Elif, and Jon – your camaraderie and friendship
is something I’ll always value. Without you, this work would not have been possible. You
inspired me and pushed me to do things beyond what I thought myself capable. In particular, I
would like to thank Jih-Hsuan (T-A-M-M-Y). As my officemate, she was captive to my
ramblings, but was always willing to listen, provide a sounding board for ideas, and talk through
problems I encountered, especially those related to statistics. I also owe special thanks to Elif,
who, as a Flickr member, participated in a dry run of my interview protocol and provided early
feedback, which helped me to refine my questions.
Finally, I would like to thank my family. While my parents, brother, grandmother, inlaws and other family members may not have completely understood my graduate work, they
always provided encouragement and support, which has meant a great deal to me. However, my

vi

biggest thanks go to my wife, Kami. We were married one month before I began my doctoral
program and while the process has been tough for me, I can only imagine how difficult it has
been for her. She has been supportive in so many different ways throughout this entire process.
Over the past 5 years, she has proofread countless papers, made sure I did not lose my mind, and
provided comfort when I thought that I had. Together, we have had two beautiful children,
celebrated life’s joys, and survived trying times. She has been a constant source of strength for
me. The completion of this process starts a new chapter for us: life without “Ph.D. School.”
Without her, this journey would have ended after my first semester. It is because of her
encouragement that I have been able to successfully complete this process. For her love and
support, I am eternally grateful.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
Flickr ....................................................................................................................................3
A very brief history of Flickr .........................................................................................4
Flickr accounts and profiles ...........................................................................................5
Uploading, organizing, and sharing ...............................................................................6
Groups ............................................................................................................................7
Interaction ......................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................................9
Social Network Sites ............................................................................................................9
Flickr ..................................................................................................................................10
Online Communities ..........................................................................................................17
Communities of Practice ....................................................................................................22
Fundamental structural elements of communities of practice .....................................28
Legitimate peripheral participation .............................................................................34
Research Questions ............................................................................................................36
CHAPTER 3
STUDY ONE METHOD .........................................................................................................37
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................37
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................39
CHAPTER 4
STUDY ONE RESULTS .........................................................................................................41
Flickr Groups as CoPs .......................................................................................................41
Solitary Learning Strategies ...............................................................................................54
Interactive Learning Strategies ..........................................................................................67
Questions and Answers ......................................................................................................74
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................81
Limitations .........................................................................................................................82
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................83
CHAPTER 5
STUDY TWO INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................85
CHAPTER 6
STUDY TWO SUPPLEMENTAL LITERATURE ................................................................87

viii

Expertise and Knowledge Sharing .....................................................................................87
Personality Traits ...............................................................................................................92
Sense of Online Community ..............................................................................................93
CHAPTER 7
METHODS ..............................................................................................................................95
Data Collection and Participants .......................................................................................95
Measures ............................................................................................................................96
Skill ..............................................................................................................................96
Commenting behavior ..................................................................................................97
Personality Traits .........................................................................................................98
Sense of Online Community ........................................................................................99
Knowledge Sharing....................................................................................................100
Flickr Self-efficacy ....................................................................................................101
Flickr Usage ...............................................................................................................102
CHAPTER 8
STUDY TWO RESULTS ......................................................................................................104
Knowledge Sharing..........................................................................................................104
Photograph Posting ..........................................................................................................106
Commenting Behaviors ...................................................................................................107
Learning Behaviors ..........................................................................................................110
Discussion ........................................................................................................................113
Explaining expertise and activity ...............................................................................114
Explaining personality traits ......................................................................................116
Other predictors .........................................................................................................118
Limitations .......................................................................................................................119
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................119
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................120
Affordances of Flickr: Building Social Networks Through Multiple CoP
Memberships ....................................................................................................................120
Learning Strategies ..........................................................................................................123
Knowledge Sharing and Expertise ...................................................................................126
Comments ........................................................................................................................129
Implications for Flickr .....................................................................................................131
Beyond Flickr: Implications for Learning and the Design of Systems to Support
Active CoPs .....................................................................................................................132
Closing Thoughts .............................................................................................................137
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................138
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................152

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Typology of virtual communities of practice: Structuring characteristics ................27
Table 2: Summary of digital photography inventory scale and individual items ....................97
Table 3: Summary of the single items measuring commenting behavior ................................98
Table 4: Summary of TIPI scales and individual items ...........................................................99
Table 5: Summary of Flickr sense of community scale and individual items .......................100
Table 6: Summary of Flickr knowledge sharing scale and individual items .........................101
Table 7: Summary of Flickr self-efficacy scale and individual items ...................................102
Table 8: Summary of Flickr intensity scale and individual items .........................................103
Table 9: Predictors of knowledge sharing .............................................................................105
Table 10: Correlation analysis of dependent variables from knowledge sharing
regressions..............................................................................................................................106
Table 11: Regression model of photograph posting behavior based on average number
of posts per week ...................................................................................................................107
Table 12: Predictors of comment types .................................................................................108
Table 13: Predictors of commenting behaviors .....................................................................109
Table 14:Correlation analysis of dependent variables from commenting regressions ..........110
Table 15: Predictors of solitary learning................................................................................111
Table 16: Predictors of interactive learning ...........................................................................112
Table 17: Correlation analysis of learning behavior dependent variables .............................113

x

Chapter 1
Introduction
The growing popularity of social media has led researchers to consider the role of these
technologies in learning, often focusing on how Facebook (Lampe, Wohn, Vitak, Ellison, &
Wash, 2011; Selwyn, 2009; Towner & Muñoz, 2011) and Twitter (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009;
Jensen, Caswell, Ball, Duffin, & Barton, 2010; Rinaldo, Tapp, & Laverie, 2011; Seo, 2012) can
be used to enhance or supplement traditional classroom experiences. Other work has addressed
the use of social media for informal learning by users who ask questions of their social network
through wall posts and tweets (Morris, Teevan, & Panovich, 2010; Teevan, Morris, & Panovich,
2011). The learning-based uses of these social network sites (SNSs), in particular those that take
place on Facebook, are rooted in the social interactions of users. Ploderer, Howard, and Thomas
(2008) differentiate between “socially organized” SNSs (e.g. Google+ and Facebook), which
focus on relationships based on offline ties (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), and “passioncentric” SNSs (e.g. Last.fm and Flickr) that connect individuals without previous offline ties who
share a passion for a specific topic. Given the common interests that bring people together on
passion-centric sites, they seem to be uniquely suited for use as learning tools.
In particular, Flickr, a social media site focused on photograph sharing, has a number of
features capable of supporting learning. Flickr users’ experiences are photo-centric, with
interactions revolving around shared photographs (Lerman & Jones, 2006). However, a quick
visit to the site reveals that much more is occurring beyond simple photo sharing. The site hosts
over 1.5 million active groups designed around a wide variety of themes. Members of these
groups upload photographs to shared pools of photographs and participate in group discussion
forums. Comments left on photographs range from the purely social to those involving

1

composition choices and the digital processing of images. Advice is sought and received.
Critiques are offered. Social relationships are formed. The evidence displayed in photograph
comments, discussion boards, and on profile pages suggest that some of these friendships move
offline. Indeed, a great deal appears to be going on within the virtual galleries of Flickr beyond
merely sharing photographs. People are learning.
The studies presented here use the communities of practice lens (Wenger, 1998; Wenger,
2000; Wenger, McDermontt, & Snyder 2002; Wenger, White, & Smith 2009) to understand how
the affordances of Flickr and the practices of its users influence learning experiences.
Communities of practice (CoPs) are groups formed by people who come together around a
shared interest and, through interactions with one another, further their expertise and knowledge
related to the interest (Wenger, McDermontt, & Snyder, 2002). The CoP approach has seen
limited use in the study of social media environments, with some exceptions (e.g., Bryant, Forte,
& Bruckman, 2005). However, the shared-interest focus of the CoP lens seems ideally suited for
studying how users leverage Flickr for learning more about photography.
While many of the features of Flickr appear capable of enabling learning, a number of
questions remain unanswered about how users leverage the site for learning more about
photography. For example, what types of learning strategies do users employ? How are these
strategies dependent on the affordances of Flickr? What role do Flickr groups play in the
learning opportunities on the site? What role do experts play in advancing the knowledge of
other Flickr users? These questions are addressed here through the CoP lens in two studies.
Based on semi-structured interviews with Flickr users, the first study explores how participants
learn more about photography through their use of Flickr. Using an online survey of Flickr users,

2

Study Two considers three key forms of participation in Flickr CoPs (photograph posting,
commenting, and discussion board posts), photographic expertise, and personality traits.
The remainder of this chapter will provide a brief overview of Flickr. Chapter Two
presents a review of the pertinent literature on social media, including Flickr, as well as that
focused on online communities. Additionally, the CoP lens and related research are reviewed.
The methods used for the first study are presented in Chapter Three, followed by the study
results in Chapter Four, which are based on twenty-one semi-structured interviews with Flickr
users. Chapter Five presents an overview of Study Two, as well as supplemental literature. The
method used for this study, an online survey of active Flickr users, is presented in Chapter Six,
and the results of Study Two are presented in Chapter Seven. A discussion that synthesizes
across the results of both studies, focusing on the affordances of Flickr, learning strategies, and
expertise, is presented in Chapter Eight.
Flickr
Flickr is a photo-sharing social media site owned by Yahoo! Incorporated. The site has
51 million registered users and attracts close to 80 million unique visitors a day (ComScore,
2011). Users upload photos and have the option of using a number of different features that
enable them to share these photos with others. Numerous site features and options for organizing
photos, as well as multiple methods for interaction, allow users to search, share, and
communicate with other users. Groups allow users to connect with others who have similar
interests, as well as to share and comment on each other’s work. As highlighted by Marlow and
colleagues (2006), Flickr’s success can, in part, be attributed to the variety of social interactions
made possible by the design of the site, such as friend networks, interest groups, photo
commenting, private messaging, and tagging. Marlow and colleagues argue that the wealth of

3

communication tools in combination with the various types of social organization make Flickr “a
highly interconnected media ecology that can lead users to distant people and places with only a
few clicks” (p. 36). As the use of Flickr tools and features are central to studies reported here, the
following paragraphs outline their capabilities.
A very brief history of Flickr.
In Vancouver, British Columbia in 2002, Caterina Fake and Stewart Butterfield founded
Ludicorp, a small computer game development company. With a total of six employees, the
company set out to develop Game Neverending, a browser-based massively multiplayer online
role playing game (MMORPG) (O’Steen, 2007). At the time, many popular MMORPGs, such as
Everquest, had fantasy and battle related themes. Game Neverending, as described by Fake, was
intended to be an excuse for socializing and was designed to be more “friendly” and not “a lot of
swords and sorcery or men in tights, it was for regular folks” (O’Steen, 2007). During the
development of the game, one of the software engineers created a tool that allowed players to
share photos (Graham, 2006). Ludicorp began developing the photo sharing tool as a separate
product in 2004, and it quickly evolved into Flickr. Work on Game Neverending ceased after
financial difficulties forced a vote by Ludicorp employees on which project should be continued
(O’Steen, 2007). In contrast to other photo sharing sites available at the time, Flickr provided the
ability for users to interact. As Fake explained in a 2007 interview, “photo sharing was a loss
leader for photo finishing services” (O’Steen, 2007). Essentially, photo sharing was used to
entice people to upload their photos to a site with the hope that once their images were on the site
they would order prints and other products. Flickr, in the words of Fake, became a “massively
multiplayer photo sharing site” (O’Steen, 2007). By the end of 2004, there were over 2 million
photos on Flickr (Terdiman, 2004). Flickr’s rapid growth caught the attention of Yahoo, who

4

purchased Ludicorp in March of 2005 to acquire Flickr (Graham, 2006). Yahoo shuttered their
own photo sharing application, Yahoo! Photos, in the fall of 2007 after determining that sharing
digital photos had become a social activity that the static design of Yahoo! Photos could not
accommodate (Graham, 2007).
Flickr accounts and profiles.
In order to upload photos to Flickr, users must create an account. Users may choose
between a “free” or “pro” account. As indicated by the name, free accounts can be created and
maintained at no cost. A pro account costs $24.95 per year. Both types of accounts allow users
access to the same content, but have different permissions related to uploading and accessing
certain tools. Most notably, a free account user is limited to uploading 300MB of photo content
per month, viewing only their 200 most recent images, posting a photo to ten groups, and only
having access to smaller versions of their photos. Pro account users have unlimited storage space
and the ability to archive high-resolution files, to share a photo with sixty groups, to browse the
site without advertisements, and to access view count and referrer statistics. Both free and pro
account holders have the option of creating a Flickr profile.
Similar to other social media platforms, profiles on Flickr are created by filling in fields
including first and last name, gender, singleness (relationship status), self-description, personal
Web site link, IM names for various services, occupation, hometown, current city, country, and
airport code. A profile photo may also be selected. Photographs taken by other users that the user
has marked as “favorites” are also displayed on their profile page. Additional profile components
may include a list of Flickr groups to which the user belongs, written testimonials from other
users, and a link to the user’s most recently uploaded photos, referred to as their “photostream.”

5

Other users can be listed as “contacts,” although, as discussed below, Flickr’s conceptualization
of “contacts” differs from other SNSs use of the term “friend.”
Uploading, organizing, and sharing.
Users have a variety of options for uploading photographs: directly through the Flickr
site; via email; by using a free-of-charge, standalone, downloadable Flickr application called
Uploadr; or through a number of third party photo applications, such as Aperture and iPhoto.
While settings exist for limiting who can view a photo uploaded to Flickr, by default, posted
photos may be viewed by anyone who visits the site. Once a photo has been uploaded, or as part
of the uploading process, depending on the uploading method being used, the user can add a title
and a description to the photo. Uploaded photos can be organized into sets, which can then be
grouped into collections. For example, a user could create numerous sets that document specific
events they participate in over the summer (e.g., Matt’s Barbeque, Camping at Burt Lake,
Fishing with Dad) and then group those sets into a collection (e.g. Summer 2011).
Another method for organizing content is “tagging.” Tags are keywords used to describe
the photograph and serve an organizational purpose for both the user and also at the site level.
These tags make images more searchable. Marlow and colleagues (2006) argue that tags serve as
a central navigation tool on Flickr, allowing users to locate not only specific types of related
content, but people as well. Users can add tags to their photos at any time and have the ability to
add tags to photographs taken by other users, provided the user has not restricted this feature.
Geo-tagging, an additional option, involves the use of tags that indicates where the photo was
taken using location names, placing the image on a map, or, in some cases, latitude and longitude
location data recorded by the camera. This allows users to view photos taken in a specific area by
clicking on markers on a map.

6

While tagging allows photos to be found through tag browsing and using the search
tool, a variety of other means exist for finding photos to view. For example, Flickr chooses a
number of photographs to feature each day on the Explore page. Flickr uses an algorithm to
choose photographs that have what they refer to as “interestingness.” A few of the photos
selected by this process are featured on the main Explore page, seen as a badge of honor by users
(Lerman & Jones, 2006). Those that are not placed on the main page are highlighted on a number
of other related pages accessible through the Explore portal.
Groups.
While sets and collections are useful solutions for organizing a user’s collection of
photos, sending a photo to a Flickr interest group, such as “Waterfalls of New York State,”
allows the user to place their photos in a group pool alongside similar photos, providing an
organizational context outside of the user’s photostream. Groups, however, serve not only as a
means for organizing content at the site level, but also to bring those with shared interests
together. All Flickr users have the ability to create new groups and join existing groups, although
some existing groups only accept new members by invitation. Groups not requiring an invitation
are called public groups. The content of both public groups and invitation-only groups is public.
A private group option is available for users who do not want to leave their group’s content open
to the public. All three types of groups feature a discussion board where members may interact.
Organizationally, groups have administrators, moderators, and members. Some groups choose to
use alternative names for these roles. For example, some choose to re-label moderators as team
leaders.

7

Interaction.
There are two forms of public interaction on Flickr. The first is the comment feature.
Unless disabled by the user, each photograph posted to Flickr has an area for comments directly
below the image. The second type of public interaction takes place within groups. Each group
has a discussion forum where users can contribute to existing threads or choose to create a new
thread. However, depending on the group, members may need to ask group administrators for
permission before starting a new thread. Discussion forum posts cover a wide range of topics and
themes, from the purely social to discussions about techniques to reviews of photographic
equipment. The group type often limits thread topics. For example, discussion within the Nikon
Digital Learning Center group focus on topics related to Nikon cameras. If a user were to post a
question about a Canon camera to this discussion forum, they would likely be referred to another
group. Private communication is also possible through the site. Each account has access to a
feature called Flickr Mail which functions as an internal email system. Users can forward
messages received through Flickr Mail to a regular email address.

8

Chapter 2
Literature Review
Social Network Sites
Scholarship on socially-centric SNSs has addressed a wide variety of topics, including
impression management (boyd, 2004; DiMicco, & Millen, 2007; Donath & boyd, 2004; Fono &
Raynes-Goldie, 2006; Papacharissi, 2009; Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell, & Walther, 2008;
Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008), social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, &
Lampe, 2007; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011; Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008; Valenzuela,
Park, & Kee, 2009), and privacy (Acquisti, & Gross, 2006; Dwyer, Hiltz, & Passerini, 2007;
Stutzman, & Kramer-Duffield, 2010). Interest specific SNSs have not received the same level of
research attention or variety in focus from scholars, although a number of such sites targeting
specific interests exist, such as Gurgle for first time parents, Dogster and Catster for pet lovers,
Vimeo for filmmakers and video creators, Bodyspace for bodybuilders, Last.fm for music fans,
and Flickr for photographers. Currently, the research addressing these types of SNSs is sparse in
comparison to those socially-organized, perhaps, as Thelwall and Wilkinson (2010) suggest,
because the sites are not as commercially successful. Moreover, the lack of research may be due
to the relatively small user-bases of these sites in comparison to larger SNSs like Facebook.
While the quantity of studies focusing on shared interest social media sites are far
outnumbered by those addressing socially-organized sites, scholars have begun to study user
behavior on a variety of these sites. Ploderer, Howard, and Thomas (2008), in a study of the
bodybuilding SNS Bodyspace, found that users relied on photographs and statistics to evaluate
the claims made by other users about the benefits of supplements and training programs.
BodySpace users also used photographs to promote themselves, track their progress, and to

9

evaluate their potential competition for upcoming bodybuilding events. In subsequent work,
scholars have addressed the relationship between online and offline comments, dubbed
appreciation as they often speak to physical attributes, such as the muscle definition of the body
builder (Ploderer, Howard, Thomas, & Reitberger, 2008).
Previous research has found that socially organized SNSs, such as Facebook, are
primarily utilized to maintain relationships with existing members of one’s social network, as
opposed to meeting and developing relationships with new people (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe,
2007). Some evidence indicates that passion-centric sites are also being used to maintain existing
relationships (Miller & Edwards, 2008); however, other research has shown that they also
perform the opposite function, as users meet and interact with strangers with similar interests
(Baym & Ledbetter, 2009; Golbeck, 2009a; 2009b; Ploderer, Howard, & Thomas, 2008).
The existence and use of SNSs designed around a shared interest provides anecdotal
evidence of similar interests leading to attraction. However, scholars have explored how
similarity influences relationship formation within interest-based SNSs. Baym and Ledbetter
(2009), in a study addressing relationship formation on the music-focused SNS Last.fm, found
friendship pairs were close in age and frequently shared taste in music. Geographic and gender
homophily were also found to exist, but to a lesser extent. From these findings, it is evident that
homophily may help to explain some dimensions of friendships on Last.fm, but not all.
Flickr
The studies presented here consider Flickr use through the CoP lens, focusing on the
learning behaviors of users. However, no claim is being made that all Flickr users utilize the site
for learning more about photography. Account types, discussed earlier, do little in terms of
differentiating between users beyond making assumptions that pro account users may need

10

greater storage space or desire to view statistics related to their photographs. There are numerous
ways in which users differ in their use of Flickr. For example, early in Flickr’s existence,
bloggers saw the site as a tool for free image hosting for their blogs (Terdiman, 2004). However,
even among users who upload images for sharing directly through the site, there are important
differences related to their sharing behaviors.
Miller and Edwards (2007) found two different types of Flickr users, which they
classified as Kodak Culture users and Snaprs. Kodak Culture, a term adapted from earlier work
by Chalfen (as cited in Miller & Edwards, 2007) is used to refer to Flickr users whose primary
audience is comprised of friends and family. These users are also much more concerned with
privacy and are more likely to use point-and-shoot cameras as opposed to a digital single lens
reflex camera (DSLR). Snaprs are users whose site activities are rooted in interactions with
strangers, such as sharing photographs, commenting on and tagging photographs taken by others,
and, in some cases, participating in group shoots with other Flickr members for the purpose of
sharing the resulting images with the group. These events, referred to by Miller and Edwards
(2007) as photo-strolls, provide opportunities for previously online-only relationships to move
1

offline. Through interviews with Snaprs, Miller and Edwards discovered that the Group to
which these individuals belonged coordinated multiple photo-strolls per month, with attendance
ranging from 10 to 40 people. Interviews also revealed that while a large number of the photostrolls were announced on the Group’s Flickr page, some private meetings were coordinated
through other means of communication. Snaprs shared with friends and family as well, but saw
their primary audience as Flickr friends from their Groups and strangers who might view their
photos on Flickr (Miller & Edwards, 2007). Miller and Edwards’ research also revealed that
1

Groups with a capital “G” is used here to differentiate between Flickr Groups and the more
common usage of the word to describe a collection of people.
11

Snaprs manage their relationships with fellow Group members by tagging photos, commenting
on photos, participating in offline Group activities, and using a number of different forms of
online messaging.
A study by Prieur, Cardon, Beuscart, Pissard, and Pons (2008) confirmed the coexistence of Kodak Culture users and Snapr users on Flickr, but also revealed that Snapr users
are very active and often the leaders within the larger Flickr community. For example, according
to the findings of their study, Snaprs are the users who generally form new Groups, provide
comments, and purposely tag photos with the intention of creating tag-based spaces for sharing
images. Specifically, in regards to Snaprs and comments, there is a high correlation between
receiving comments and posting comments, suggesting that commenting may often be a
reciprocal behavior (Prieur et al., 2008). The studies presented here focus on Snaprs rather than
Kodak Culture users.
The large majority of research on Flickr has addressed the three site features central to
accessing photographs: tags, contacts, and Groups. The tagging practices of Flickr users, while
somewhat peripheral to the studies reported here, have received a great deal of attention in prior
research on Flickr user behavior and warrant a brief overview. The majority of these
representative studies of tagging within the Flickr environment involved downloading data
directly from the site through software designed to interface with Flickr’s open application
2

programming interface (API) .
Understanding what motivates Flickr users to tag the way they do has been a popular
theme of this research (Angus, Thelwall, & Stuart, 2008; Marlow, Naaman, boyd, & Davies,
2006; Nov, Naaman, & Ye, 2008). Using a program designed to work with Flickr’s open API,
2

An API is a component of a software platform that enables third-party applications make use of
its content or part of its functionality. Open APIs can be accessed by anyone.
12

Marlow and colleagues (2006) extracted data from a random sample of Flickr users who were
known tag users. Analysis of user tagging behavior revealed a strong positive correlation
between the size of a user’s photo collection, the number of distinct tags, and their number of
contacts. Findings also indicated that social and organizational motivations led to photograph
tagging, a finding later supported by Angus, Thelwall, and Stuart (2008). However, Angus and
colleagues do note that tags classified as being for social benefit could also be used for personal
benefit and thus possibly only appear to be social, suggesting a need for additional research.
The above examples of tagging research focus on text-based tags. As discussed earlier,
Flickr also affords users the ability to engage in geo-tagging, an organizational method that has
also received the attention of researchers. Scholars studying landmarks and events have
investigated the placing of tagged photos onto Flickr maps in relation to where they were taken,
a form of geo-tagging (Rattenbury, Good, & Naaman, 2007; Crandall, Backstrom, Huttenlocher,
& Kleinberg 2009). Additionally, Serdyukov, Murdock, and van Zwol (2009) studied issues
related to the accuracy of geo-tagging on Flickr and suggested an alternative method that uses a
complex equation combining users’ text-based geo-tags, indicating place name or region, with
information from an extensive, externally-located geographic database. Results of their study
suggest that this alternative method may be much more accurate than users simply placing
images on a map.
The indexing that results from tagging makes searching for types of photographs a simple
task. As such, users seeking to learn about a certain type of photography, whether it be a
technique or a particular type of subject matter, may benefit from tags. However, Groups provide
another means of locating specific types of content. Groups allow for the development of niche
communities (Cox, et al., 2011; Malinen, 2010; Negoescu & Gatica-Perez, 2008). Within the

13

larger interest of photography, Groups provide an organizational structure in which users can
interact and learn from one another about a specific subset of photography, such as portrait or
macro photography.
Groups allow users to share images with other members by posting them to the Group
pool and participate in Group discussions. Content sharing is the primary activity in many
Groups (Cox et al., 2011; Malinen, 2010). In one study of Flickr Groups, analysis of the
utilization of the Group discussions feature found that 50% of the 1,000 randomly sampled
groups had never had a discussion and only 9 groups had over 100 discussion threads (Cox et al.,
2011). The researchers argue that this supports the idea that most interaction on Flickr takes
place around the photos themselves via the comments feature. Study One will address the role of
activity in Groups to determine the extent to which participants feel learning opportunities are
present, as well as how activity levels impact whether or not a Group can be considered a CoP.
There are several different types of Flickr Groups (Cox et al., 2011; Davies, 2006;
Malinen, 2010; Negoescu & Fatica-Perez, 2008). Broadly speaking, Groups can be placed into
three categories: topic/theme Groups; competition/award Groups; and geographic Groups (Cox
et al., 2011). While more specific classification is possible (Davies, 2006; Negoescu & FaticaPerez, 2008), these three categories define the essence of most Flickr Groups. In terms of
learning, these types of Groups could be utilized for learning in a number of different ways
because of site affordances. For example, reading comments that critique the composition of
photographs posted to the Group pool of a competition/award could result in learning about
techniques for improving composition. Study One will address strategies that users employ for
learning in these various types of Groups and how the affordances of Flickr facilitate these
strategies.

14

Groups differ along dimensions other than general type. For example, in a recent study of
the characteristics of Flickr Groups, scholars found that Groups vary greatly in size, with close to
50% having less than ten members, and only about 3% having over 1,000, although the largest
Group in their sample had 29,021 members (Cox et al., 2011). Size can be an influential factor in
CoPs (Wenger et al., 2002). Through interviews conducted for Study One, Group size will be
explored to determine if and how it may be a factor that influences member participation.
Outside of Groups, maintaining contacts provides another avenue for learning more about
photography. Contacts are at the heart of SNSs, helping to shape the experiences of users and
tailoring the content to which they are exposed. The conceptualization of contacts on Flickr
differs from other SNSs’ use of the term friend, and warrants further explanation.
What it means to be someone’s friend on SNSs is often unclear (boyd, 2006; Donath &
boyd, 2004). As discussed by boyd (2006), SNSs users add friends that are truly friends in the
more traditional sense of the word, but also family members, acquaintances and even strangers
they find interesting. The ability for an individual to manage who can list them as a friend or
contact varies somewhat from SNS to SNS. For example, on Facebook, users request to add a
person as a friend and that person must accept the request for a reciprocal link to be established
between the two. These types of relationships are symmetrical, as both individuals involved are
added to the other’s list of friends. However, Facebook also allows people to subscribe to users,
creating asymmetrical relationships. Other social media platforms take this approach as their
primary means of defining on site relationships. Twitter, for example, has opted to use the
concept of following. A user can choose whom to follow, independent of whether or not the
target wishes to reciprocate. Similarly, users of Google+ can add other users to their circles
without sending a formal request. This type of asymmetrical linkage is also possible on Flickr.

15

Utilizing the generic term contacts, Flickr allows users to link to other users without their
reciprocation. Research conducted by Lerman and Jones (2006) indicates that Flickr users take
advantage of this ability, with users in their sample having equal numbers of asymmetrical and
symmetrical contacts. Other research has found that users have a greater number of symmetrical
contacts (Prieur et al., 2008).
Lerman and Jones (2006) propose the term social browsing to refer to the way in which
Flickr users browse through their contacts’ photostreams, a feature that displays the most recent
photos uploaded by a user’s contacts. Their research indicates that the number of times a photo is
viewed was positively correlated with the number of reverse contacts. Additionally, Lerman and
Jones addressed the role of contacts in commenting. By comparing the names of people who had
3

commented on photos found in the Flickr Random set that were not added to any Group pools
to the names of their contacts, the researchers found that 55% of comments were left by
asymmetrical contacts, 51% by symmetrical contacts and 38% from strangers. By comparison,
when photos from the Random set were also in Group pools, the number of comments from
strangers increased, while comments from reverse contacts and mutual contacts decreased. For
example, when a photo in the Random set had been added to at least 20 Groups, mutual contacts
accounted for 41% of comments and strangers for 49%. These commenting trends existed to an
even greater extent for images posted to a popular Group. These results highlight the importance
of contacts in receiving comments, as well as the extent to which posting photos to Groups
increase comments by providing additional visibility, an important issue to Flickr users

3

The Random set was a group of close to 500 of the most recently uploaded images on Flickr on
July 10, 2006. The feature has since been renamed and only features the 20 most recently
uploaded images.
16

(Malinen, 2010, 2011). Study One will address the role that comments play in learning and in
Group activity. The role of contacts in the learning process will also be considered.
Online Communities
As mentioned above, scholars have noted that Flickr Groups allow for the development
of niche communities (Cox et al., 2011; Malinen, 2010; Negoescu & Gatica-Perez, 2008).
Communities of practice, the theoretical lens through which Flickr is studied in the research
presented here, are a specific type of community. Not all social structures labeled communities
can be considered CoPs – most notably because of their lack of practice, which will be discussed
further below – but there are aspects of both online communities in general and CoPs in
particular that are similar. Therefore, a brief discussion of the terms community and online
community, as well as research addressing online communities not using the CoP lens, is
important in order to place both CoPs and this work in context.
The terms community and online community have long suffered from vague definition
(Bruckman, 2006; Preece, 2001; Preece & Maloney-Krichman, 2006; Preece, Nonnecke, &
Andrews, 2004; Ridings & Gefen, 2004; Zhang & Jacob, 2012). Much of the debate over the use
of the term community is the result of researchers from multiple disciplines defining community
in different ways (Preece & Maloney-Krichman, 2006; Zhang & Jacob, 2012). Zhang and Jacob
argue that the varying and sometimes ambiguous attempts at defining the concepts of community
and online community can be viewed as a result of “an ambitious endeavor to exhaust all possible
variables of social phenomena so as to provide a comprehensive likeness of what community
might be” (2012, p. 5). Sociologists stress the social context; psychologists focus on individual
members; anthropologists address member interactions and how shared value and symbols
systems develop; economists concentrate on the organizational structure and how it relates to

17

how goods are produced, distributed and consumed; and, finally, political scientists are interested
in how common goals are achieved through collective practices (Zhang & Jacob, 2012).
In an effort to bring a resolution to the debate over the use of the term community,
Bruckman (2006) suggests that it be considered as a prototype-based category. This approach
relies on the use of prototypical members to define a category, rather than on precise definitions
of what is and is not. For example, Niagara Falls is a better example of a waterfall than northern
Michigan’s small Alder Falls. Yosemite Falls is a waterfall, although some years it stops flowing
in late summer. If Niagara Falls is a prototypical example of waterfall, then the others would be
better or worse examples, judged by how similar or different they are to Niagara Falls and other
prototypical members of the category “waterfalls.” Bruckman proposes that community be used
to denote a category of groups of people. She also posits that community is a category with fuzzy
boundaries, meaning that many types of social structures can be considered communities. This
approach would allow researchers to move away from questions concerning whether or not
something is a community and focus on how a group is similar to or different from a prototypical
community, as well as on pertinent features of those communities (Bruckman, 2006).
In regards to online community literature, the varied application of the term has led to a
canon of work that is quite diverse. Early work focusing on online communities provided
descriptions of life online, drew comparisons with offline communities, and explored issues
related to identity (Rheingold, 2000; Turkle, 1995). Rheingold’s (2000) use of the term
community was a reflection of the sense of camaraderie and social support he observed and
experienced on the WELL, an early Bulletin Board System (BBS). His work documenting those
experiences illustrated how meaningful social ties could be developed through the exchange of
information and shared online experiences. On the WELL discussion boards, information was

18

exchanged freely, often resulting in learning. As described by Rheingold (2000), a norm of
reciprocity emerged, further cultivating a culture of sharing. Subsequent work has found that
reciprocity fuels participation and that online communities are used to find encouragement,
emotional support, and sense of belonging (Preece, 2001; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Wellman &
Guila, 1999).
Other research has explored different community-level characteristics and types of
activity, including motivations to participate (Koh, Kim, Butler, & Block, 2007; Lampe et al.,
2010; Ren, Kraut, & Kiesler, 2007; Sangwan, 2005), factors influencing success (Butler, 2001;
Goodsell, & Williamson, 2008; Iriberri & Leroy, 2009; Leimeister, Sidiras, & Krcmar, 2006;
Lin, 2007; Preece, 2001), as well as leadership and other roles played by members (Butler,
Sproull, Kiesler, & Kraut, 2007; Koh et al., 2007; Luther & Bruckman, 2008). For example,
studying the online community Everything2, Lampe and colleagues (2010) found that users
initially came looking for information, but some continued to frequent the site for entertainment
purposes or to contribute information.
Koh and colleagues (2007) highlight the role of leadership for not only facilitating the
building of relationships within the community, but also to promote the creation of usergenerated content and to stimulate participation through promoting collaboration and trust.
Organizing offline meetings is significantly related to posting activity (Koh et al., 2007). Koh
and colleagues argue that this relationship suggests that solidarity and intimacy can be
strengthened through offline meetings, leading to increased posting behavior.
Iriberri and Leroy (2009) synthesized previous research pertaining to online community
success and developed a five-stage lifecycle model of online communities. Each stage outlines
factors that can increase the likelihood of success for online communities. For example, the

19

creation stage includes factors such as user-centered deign, security, and privacy. During the
growth stage, attracting and integrating new members as well as maintaining quality, up-to-date
content is advantageous. Many of the success factors can be traced back to strong leadership,
further accentuating the importance of governance in online communities.
Ren and friends (2007) highlight the importance of community design decisions that can
impact participation, such as the management of new community members, guidelines governing
off-topic discussion and community size. For example, new community members often ask
questions and leave comments about issues that have been addressed in the past, which can
frustrate established members and potentially drive them away. Additionally, new members
often spend a significant amount of time lurking, unsure how to begin actively participating.
Establishing practices for socializing new members into the community allows online
communities to more effectively retain those members who may otherwise leave out of
frustration with the newbies, as well as providing a means for new members to emerge from the
shadows and contribute in more meaningful ways (Ren et al., 2007).
The development of learning communities to support online education has been another
area that scholars have explored (Hiltz, 1998; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; McInnerney & Roberts,
2004; Palloff & Keith, 2005; Swan 2002). However, less formal learning in online communities,
more akin to that described by Rheingold (2000), has been found to be a key factor for
participating in interest-based online communities (Baym, 2000; 2007; Baym & Ledbetter, 2009;
Ridings & Gefen, 2006). Through interest-based online communities, people learn more about a
topic that interests them by interacting with other members. For example, Luther, Ziegler, Caine
and Bruckman (2009) studied online creative collaboration among Adobe Flash animators on
Newground.com. Social structures such as these are often classified as collaborative innovation

20

networks (COINS) and are most often studied in professional environments. Newground users
work together, motivated by learning, reputation, social support and self-efficacy, to produce
collabs, computer-animated collaborative movies. The animators are primarily amateurs and
vary in skill level and experience (Luther & Bruckman, 2010). Many collabs go unfinished for a
variety of reasons (Luther & Bruckman, 2008; Luther et al., 2009), but leadership, organizational
structure and activity patterns are all key factors that can predict success (Luther et al., 2009).
Luther and Bruckman (2010) suggest involving more amateurs in the collab process, but
supporting them through a scaffolding learning system in which they receive extensive support
initially, but as they gain more experience some support should be removed. They also suggest
proper acknowledgement of animators’ contributions and reducing the burden placed on leaders.
The literature addressing online communities certainly has many parallels with the
research presented here. However, the CoP focus used in this work differentiates it from this
other research and provides a unique perspective. CoPs differ from other social structures as
there are three essential elements of a CoP: the domain, the practice, and the community. In
brief, the domain refers to the common interest or topic that brings people together. Practice
involves the shared language, activities, and knowledge of the community, all of which are
related to the domain and affect member behaviors and abilities. The community is the social
structure and is built on mutual respect and trust (Wenger et al., 2002). Each of these elements is
discussed in greater detail in the CoP section below. Some combination of all three of these
elements must be present for a community to be a community of practice. Consequently, not all
communities with a shared interest are communities of practice (Wenger et al., 2002). As an
example, a person could have an interest in Detroit Tiger’s baseball and frequently read posts on
a fan forum, and, in doing so, learn more about baseball and the team. However, members of the

21

forum are not developing a practice related to the interest. No one becomes a better baseball
player by reading fan commentary. Based on Wenger and friends’ definition of a CoP, members
of the Detroit Tiger’s forum would likely constitute on online community, but not a CoP.
Flickr’s focus on media creation and sharing differentiates it from many of the types of
communities studied in the research cited above. The focus of Luther and Bruckman’s research
on Flash collabs, and others who have looked at COINs in other contexts, is less about learning
than it is on the process of online collaboration and the various factors influencing success. The
CoP lens offers a focus on the whole of the domain, the practice and the community – and how
these three elements intertwine – resulting not only in knowledge acquisition, but the application
of this acquired knowledge through practice and interaction with other members.
Communities of Practice
The theoretical concept of a “community of practice” (CoP) has suffered from ambiguous
definition, partially caused by shifts in the conceptualization of CoP by co-founding theorist
Wenger and his colleagues (Cox, 2005; Li, Grimshaw, Nielsen, Judd, Coyote, & Graham, 2009).
CoP was first introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991), although little attempt was made to
provide a concrete definition. Lave and Wenger used CoP to as a framework to describe informal
social contexts for learning, simultaneously acknowledging that refinement of the concept was
needed. The authors did, however, provide some insight on the use of the term “community,”
arguing that community, in this context, does not suggest a need for co-presence, or even a group
with definitively defined boundaries. They posit that what is required is a shared understanding
of a common interest that relates to people’s individual lives and the community as a whole, thus
providing a common bond. As will be discussed in more detail later, roles based on individual
knowledge are a central part of the CoP framework outlined by Lave and Wenger (1991),

22

explained by the concept of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). Essentially, people within
a CoP vary in expertise related to the common interest that forms the foundation for the
community. Those with little to no knowledge still participate, but peripherally, by listening to
the stories told by more expert members and performing simple tasks related to the practice.
Tasks like these allow the inexperienced members of a community to learn informally from the
experts (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Based on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) initial CoP work, Brown and Duguid (1991)
employed CoP to analyze Orr’s ethnographic studies of Xerox repairmen (see Orr, 1996, for a
compilation of this research). Through their analysis, Brown and Duguid show how an informal
CoP comprised of copy machine repairmen had formed within Xerox, allowing the repairmen to
share knowledge learned on the job and, consequently, to respond to problems their formal
training did not equip them handle. This early example of CoP research showed that CoPs within
organizations could promote learning and innovation above and beyond that fostered by
traditional training, a strategic application reflected in later conceptualizations of CoP (Wenger,
1998).
Wenger (1998) provides refinement to the concept, defining CoPs as communities
formed by individuals partaking in collective learning related to a shared interest, whose
resulting practices are a reflection of those interests and the social relationships of those
involved. In Wenger’s view, these CoPs are largely informal, and in many cases may not be
recognized by their members as being bounded entities. He also argues that while the
terminology may be new, CoPs have existed since the beginning of time, serving as a way for
sharing knowledge among those with interests in a common practice. For example, a group of
artists gathering to share experiences about a new technique would be a CoP (Wenger, 1998).

23

This 1998 work largely focused on issues of personal and professional growth and an
individual’s level of participation within a CoP. To help illustrate these foci, Wenger presents a
study of insurance claim processers in which he documents informal learning that takes place
between processers. In particular, he highlights the value of the knowledge acquired through
informal interactions, knowledge that was independent of that presented during formal training
sessions and aided in the performance of their jobs, demonstrating the effectiveness of CoPs in
the workplace.
Although Wenger’s (1998) basic definition continues to be used, with minor
modifications (e.g., Wenger et al., 2002; Wenger et al., 2009), the interpretation and application
of CoP, its related concepts, and focus has varied. Orr’s work, and subsequently that of Brown
and Duigid (1991) illustrated the positive impact CoPs could have on knowledge management
within an organization and, in the case of Xerox, caused company executives to respond by
encouraging the growth of organizational CoPs (Cox, 2005). Other companies followed Xerox’s
lead, creating their own internal CoPs for knowledge management purposes. Knowledge
management refers to the management of organizational knowledge for the purpose of gaining a
competitive advantage (Wenger et al., 2002). This approach is rooted in the idea that people are
the most valuable asset of an organization, largely because they are storehouses of information
about business practices. When a person leaves an organization, much of this information may be
lost. To increase organizational knowledge sharing, many companies have attempted to create
CoPs (Swan, Scarbrough, & Robertson, 2002). This is viewed as a means of not only insuring
against the loss of information when employees leave the organization, but also to aid in the
sharing of vital information that could be of strategic advantage to the company, such as more
efficient ways for completing day-to-day tasks (Wenger, 1998, Wenger et al., 2002).

24

Wenger and colleagues’ 2002 book Cultivating Communities of Practice, an apparent
response to the use of formalized CoPs for organizational knowledge management, promoted the
use of CoPs as a structured means for managing information within an organization for the
purpose of competitive advantage. This 2002 work is essentially a guide for managers to develop
CoPs for the purpose of knowledge management, a far cry from the informal nature of CoPs
discussed by Wenger and colleagues four years earlier (1998). Schwen and Hara (2003) argue
that CoPs with required memberships are not likely to succeed. However, it should be noted that
many CoPs within companies do not require employees to join, although in some cases
membership may be strongly encouraged (Dubé, Bourhis, & Jacob, 2006).
The development and use of CoPs in organizations has been a popular area of study in
areas ranging from the health sector (Honeyman, 2002; Lathlean, 2002; Paraboosingh, 2000;
2002) to large equipment manufactures (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003). Central to many of
these studies has been the incorporation of web-based tools, causing some to dub these groups
virtual or online CoPs (Ardichvili, et al., 2002; Dubé et al., 2006; Hara, Shachaf, & Stoerger,
2009; Johnson, 2001). Interest in online CoPs for professional development among education
professionals has also been popular and is reflected by a growing body of research (Byington,
2011; Hibbert, 2008; Hur & Hara, 2007; Koch & Fusco, 2008). For example, Byington details
the use of blogs as a medium for creating an online community of practice for educators (2011).
Blogs have been recognized elsewhere as an effective tool for maintaining online CoPs (Silva,
Goel, & Mousavidin, 2008; Xu, Kreijns, & Hu, 2006).
Studies addressing organizationally based CoPs are somewhat formulaic, employing
either a case study approach to understand the effectiveness of a particular CoP within an
organization, or meta analysis in an effort to bring clarity to the field. For example, in an effort to

25

better manage knowledge at the equipment manufacturing company Caterpillar, Ardichvili and
colleagues (2002) used a case study approach to understand what made CoPs in their
organization successful and also to identify barriers to CoP development. The authors studied
one extremely successful Caterpillar CoP and two failing ones, all three incorporating networkbased tools. Findings indicated that there were three key factors contributing to the success of
CoPs within Caterpillar: integrating knowledge sharing into the organizational culture;
individuals’ intrinsic motivations for sharing information; and support from voluntary leaders
within the CoP. Employee hesitations to share information and network security measures
affecting system access were found to be the two biggest barriers. This study is typical of the
case study approach employed in organizational management research.
Meta analysis efforts have provided mixed results. Interpreting the CoP concept very
broadly, Johnson (2001) sought to provide an overview of online CoP research. However,
Johnson’s definition of CoPs encompassed online courses. While some CoPs do have required
membership, as mentioned above, a true CoP lacks the type of structure and required
participation found in formal classes (Wenger, 1998), making much of Johnson’s review flawed.
Dubé and colleagues’ (2006) completed an extensive review of the CoP literature related
to knowledge management, providing a wealth of detail specific to online CoPs in organizational
settings. Through their analysis of the literature they created a typology of online CoPs with four
main dimensions: demographics; organizational context; membership characteristics; and
technological environment. Each dimension is comprised of sub-dimensions which the authors
propose can be used when analyzing organizational CoPs. (see Table 1.)

26

Table 1
Typology of virtual communities of practice: Structuring characteristics (Dubé et al., 2006)
Demographics
Orientation (operational
strategic)
Life span (temporary
permanent)
Age (old
young)
Level of maturity (transformation stage
potential stage)
Organizational context
Creation process (spontaneous
intentional)
Boundary crossing (low
medium)
Environment (facilitating
obstructive)
Organizational slack (high
low)
Degree of institutionalized formalism (unrecognized
institutionalized)
Leadership (clearly assigned
continuously negotiated)
Size (small
large)
Membership characteristics Geographic dispersion (low
high)
Members’ selection process (closed
open)
Members’ enrollment (voluntary
compulsory)
Members’ prior community experience (extensive
none)
Membership stability (stable
fluid)
Members’ ICT literacy (high
low)
Cultural diversity (same profession, language, vision)
(homogeneous
heterogeneous)
Topic’s relevance to members (high
low)
Technological environment Degree of reliance on ICT (low
high)
ICT availability (high variety
low variety)

Dubé and colleagues’ work provides insight on the use of online tools to aide in the
management and accessibility of information, while also highlighting numerous other factors that
may influence the success of an online CoP. However, Dubé and colleagues’ typology is limited
because it is based only on research on CoPs found in organizational settings.
Research addressing open, non-organizationally rooted CoPs that anyone may join is
much more rare than studies addressing organizational CoPs. While this research is sparse,
studies addressing open CoPs contribute to additional knowledge to the greater understanding of
CoPs (Hara et al., 2009). For example, Wasko and Faraj (2000) examined why people would

27

participate in three Usenet groups they deemed online CoPs. Findings indicated the primary
reasons for contributing to be community interest, a commitment to reciprocity, and a desire for
positive social behavior.
Building on the work of Dubé and colleagues, Hara, Shachaf, and Stoerger (2009) studied
three email lists that function as open CoPs: one for webmasters working at universities; one for
librarians interested in digital reference practices; and one for people interested in educational
technology in the K-12 and university setting. For each group, a content analysis of 50 messages
was performed to determine the extent to which Dubé and colleagues’ typology applied to open
CoPs. Additionally, Hara and colleagues examined other CoP literature in an effort to refine the
typology. The resulting updated typology incorporates sub-dimensions unique to open CoPs,
most notably active participants, founding members, and moderators.
Fundamental structural elements of communities of practice.
As stated above, communities of practice are groups of people who come together around
a shared interest and, through their interactions, learn more about a common topic of interest or,
as Wenger and colleagues (2002) put it, “deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by
interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). Wenger and colleagues (2002) argue that this definition
does not assume that learning is an intentional goal bringing members of a group together,
although that may be the case, but rather the definition is inclusive of intentional and incidental
learning. The dimensions of CoPs outline the elements necessary in order for learning to take
place in CoPs.
CoPs were originally conceived as having five necessary structural dimensions or
characteristics: mutual engagement; joint enterprise; shared repertoire; community; and learning
or identity acquisition (Wenger, 1998). These dimensions have since been collapsed into the

28

domain, the community, and the practice (Wenger et al., 2002; Wenger et al.; 2009). These
structural dimensions are shared by all communities of practice and differentiate them from other
socially organized groups that use the term “community.”
A domain is the common interest that brings people together (Wenger et al., 2002;
Wenger et al.; 2009). However, it needs to be something that sustains the interest of the
individuals involved in order for a community to develop around it. Domains can vary greatly.
According to Wenger and colleagues (2009), the definition of a domain within CoPs not only
defines the identity of the community, but also provides “a set of issues, challenges, and passions
through which members recognize each other as learning partners” (pg. 5). The domain can be
understood in two different ways: “the domain inside” (how the members define the domain) and
“the domain outside” (the significance of the CoP to those who are not members). The structure
of groups on Flickr can be used to illustrate the concept of a domain. As discussed above, groups
can be used to organize content related to a common topic. In CoP terms, this topic would be the
domain. For example, the Flickr group U.S. National Parks
(http://www.flickr.com/groups/usnationalparks/) uses the about description of the group page to
define their domain:
From Acadia to Zion, pictures of the 58 U.S. National Parks. Before you post, check this
list of National Parks to a) make sure your park is one of the 58 flagship National Parks
and b) find the correct form of the park name with which to tag your photo.
Other types of sites run by the National Park Service, such as National Historic Parks,
National Monuments, etc. are NOT eligible. However, they are welcome in the sister
group, US National Parks and Places.

29

This description clearly defines the domain of the group, even to the extent of indicating where
those with pictures of other locations administered by the National Parks Service can go to post
them. If there is confusion about the domain inside of a CoP, it may cause the community to split
into different CoPs (Wenger et al., 2009), making proper definition an important task. The
National Parks group’s “about” section defines the domain inside –the focus of the group.
However, the group may be of use to non-members. For example, authors of a book on the
National Parks may use the group to get ideas for the type of images they would like in their
book, or even to recruit photographers. This use of the group by non-members would be related
to the domain outside – how non-members could use the knowledge or content of the group.
Practice defines those stories, knowledge, language, documents, activities and techniques
shared by members of the CoP (Wenger et al., 2002; Wenger et al., 2009). On Flickr, practice
would include the language of photography, the skills and techniques for taking and editing
photographs, sharing photographs, commenting on the photographs of others, and other related
activities enabled by the design of the site. Depending on the group, there could be a specific
type of knowledge being shared. For example, in a group dedicated to Nikon cameras, the
knowledge being shared on the group discussion board would be specific to that brand of
camera. Wenger and colleagues (2009) conceptualize the learning of a CoP’s practices as
learning from and with others, learning through formal and informal activities, and learning from
internal community sources and external sources. There are many ways these types of learning
may occur.
Learning from others might include shared stories, personal experiences, and tips, while
learning with others might include making sense of new information or a problem, weighing pros
and cons of a technique, and discussing new tools. Formal learning in a CoP could result from a

30

community leader sharing a “how to” tutorial with the membership, or assigning learning tasks
to members. Informal learning could take place through observing how others compose
photographs, or through critiques left as comments. Sharing knowledge acquired from sources
outside of the community is also important (Wenger, 2009). On Flickr, this could come in the
form of sharing links to other online photography resources, such as online tutorials. By utilizing
and sharing outside resources, the knowledge within the community is able to grow beyond the
constraints of the individual members.
Wenger and colleagues (2009) argue that through learning the practices of a CoP,
individuals learn how to be a certain type of person through living knowledge rather than only
possessing a theoretical understanding. Practice, and consequently learning, within a CoP
depends on the tacit and explicit knowledge shared by the membership (Duguid, 2005). These
two types of knowledge are complementary and distinguished from one another by Ryle as
knowing how and knowing that (as cited in Duguid, 2005). According to this perspective,
knowing how helps to enable action based on knowing that. However, knowing that does not
necessarily lead to knowing how. Put another way, knowing what a free throw is and what it
entails to shoot one is one thing (knowing that), but actually shooting one is another (knowing
how). Ryle argues that people obtain know that through explicit, codified information and know
how from learning through practice.
Considering the structure of Flickr, there are multiple ways that tacit and explicit
knowledge may be shared. As Duguid (2005) states, an expert not only communicates through
words, but also through implicitly displaying knowledge about their area of expertise. In the
context of Flickr, an expert photographer could post detailed instructions to a discussion board
on the use of the rule of thirds, a composition technique. This would be explicit knowledge. The

31

same photographer could also post a photograph, implicitly displaying skill in composition, or
tacit knowledge of composition. In this example, knowing what the rule of thirds is may help a
new photographer to better understand composition, but actually applying the technique requires
tacit knowledge. Duguid argues that CoP membership “offers form and context as well as
content to aspiring practitioners, who need not just to acquire the explicit knowledge of the
community but also the identity of a community member” (p.113, 2005). New members may
access explicit knowledge through instruction from veteran members and reading documentation
related to practice, but it is through observing the practice of veteran members and the act of
practice itself that the tacit knowledge needed to become true practitioners is acquired. Study
One will explore the how explicit and tacit knowledge are exchanged in Flickr CoPs in order to
better understand learning practices of users.
Of concern to the dimension of practice is voluntary sharing of information among
members. Duguid (2005) refers to this as “the ethical entailments of practice” (p. 113). For
example, if an individual feels that the knowledge they have affords them competitive advantage,
they may be hesitant to share that information. However, that is not always the case and the
norms of the community may influence decisions about sharing (Duguid, 2005).
Community is not defined as clearly as the domain and the practice, perhaps because of
the multiple interpretations of the term. Essentially, “community” is viewed as a social structure
in which interactions are encouraged and mutual respect and trust provide the foundation for
relationships (Wenger et al., 2002; Wenger et al., 2009). Members of a CoP come together
around a shared interest, so some degree of homogeneity is to be expected. As found elsewhere,
interpersonal attraction is linked to similarities (Byrne, 1997; Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986;
McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). The similarities that attract people to one another can

32

be described by the homophily principle. Essentially, the social networks that people maintain
are often homogeneous along multiple dimensions, leading to attraction (McPherson, et al.,
2001). However, there is still room for diversity within communities of practice (Wenger et al.,
2002, Wenger et al., 2009).
Homogeneity may help to facilitate group membership, but roles within the CoP, varying
backgrounds, and skill sets all contribute diversity to the community (Wenger et al., 2002). For
example, a love of old barns may bring a group of photographers together on Flickr, but their
own unique composition styles, preferred equipment brands, and level of technical proficiency –
not to mention varying demographic characteristics – all introduce elements of diversity into the
group. Provided that there is enough similarity for mutual engagement, likely provided by the
topic/theme of the CoP, Wenger and colleges (2002) argue that diversity can increase creativity,
enrich the learning experience, and make relationships within the community more interesting.
Varying levels of skill or knowledge related to the topic of the CoP are not only an
example of diversity, but also a necessary element if significant learning is to occur within the
community. These different levels of knowledge can lead to different levels of participation
(Wenger et al., 2009). In online communities a small portion of the members are often
responsible for the majority of the posts. Those members who do not post, but remain a silent
consumers of the content of the community, have traditionally been referred to as “lurkers,” a
term that carries with it a pejorative connotation (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004). Through
the CoP lens, this type of behavior is called legitimate peripheral participation and is interpreted
as a method that allows novices to learn about both the community and the topic (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger et al., 2002; Wenger et al., 2009).

33

Legitimate peripheral participation.
Legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) is one of the key concepts of a CoP. LPP is an
analytical concept used to describe the process by which someone with little or no knowledge
about a subject learns from observing, interacting, and working with those who have greater
knowledge, eventually becoming a full member of the community (Brown & Duguid, 1991;
Lave & Wenger, 1991). In respect to tacit and explicit knowledge, LPP focuses more on the tacit
– learning to be a practitioner, not just simply learning about practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991;
Duguid, 2005). Novices first participate in peripheral tasks. In the apprenticeship model, these
are tasks assigned by the master that need completing but require little skill compared to others.
Lave and Wenger (1991) use the example of a novice tailor learning the trade to illustrate LPP.
Starting out, the novice works on undergarments and informal children’s clothes. In their earliest
work, novices are not fully responsible for the production of even the simplest children’s clothes.
Instead, they work on finishing touches and over time are given more responsibility, such as
additional sewing and, eventually, cutting fabric. This same process of beginning with finishing
touches and over time contributing more significant work to the garment takes place on
increasingly more difficult garments until the apprentice has become a master. At this point,
having become an expert, the tailor can make all of the clothes the shop produces and is a fully
participating member of a community of tailors. Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that LPP is an
essential process for novices learning a new practice. Once an individual becomes more
proficient in the practice, he or she will take a more active role in the community. Additionally,
those individuals in the community performing this lurking-type of role may also be more active
in other related groups/communities, and thus distributing knowledge from a group where they
observe on the periphery to one where they are more active.

34

The process of advancing from a newcomer/novice to an expert helps to ensure that the
membership of a CoP will be comprised of individuals with diverse knowledge and skill levels.
Bryant, Forte and Bruckman (2005) found that members of the Wikipedia community evolved
over time through a process beginning with legitimate peripheral participation. Participants in
their study described the transition from being consumers of content to creators of content, as
well as shifts in self-perceived identity that were linked to this evolution from use to creation.
Participants described initially making fairly minor edits to articles, eventually graduating to
more significant contributions. Methods for engaging in LPP in Flickr CoPs will be explored in
Study One. Study Two will address expertise in predicting Flickr activity to determine the extent
to which certain activities are associated with greater levels of expertise.
LPP focuses on how novices advance their knowledge related to the practice of interest
but pays little attention to other roles within the community, except to acknowledge that experts
exist. Researchers have addressed leadership in online CoPs, although in organizational settings.
Gray (2004) found that leadership was a crucial component of online CoPs’ success, not only in
promoting learning, but also in facilitating social interaction and dispensing technical support.
Bourhis and colleagues (2005) also found leadership to be a vital component of online CoPs’
success. In their study, the researchers found that strong leadership allowed CoPs to overcome
multiple types of challenge, such as low levels of interest among members and technological
barriers. Conversely, poor leadership, even when members were initially enthusiastic, led to
much lower levels of success. According to Brown and Duguid (1991), occupational CoPs are
egalitarian as the knowledge is generated cooperatively, making it impossible for one person to
maintain control over that knowledge. However, these studies, as well as those from the broader
online communities literature, indicate that strong leadership is still an important component of

35

success. Of course, “leadership” does not mean that someone has more knowledge than other
members, but rather is providing direction for the group.
Research Questions
Based on the literature reviewed above, the following research questions are proposed
in an effort to gain an understanding of the workings of CoPs on Flickr, learning among users,
and user behaviors contributing to CoP success:
RQ1a: What factors influence Group membership?
RQ1b: What factors influence activity in Groups?
RQ 2a: What learning strategies do Flickr users employ for on-site learning?
RQ 2b: Does legitimate peripheral participation take place in Flickr CoPs? If so, how?
RQ 3a: Do Flickr users share their expertise with other users? If so, how?
RQ 3b: Are explicit and tacit knowledge shared in Flickr CoPs? If so, how?

36

Chapter 3
Study One Method
To answer these questions, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Flickr users
(N=21) over a period of three weeks. Participants were asked a variety of questions about their
perceptions, experiences, and behaviors concerning Flickr.
Data Collection
As no prior research had addressed learning on Flickr, qualitative methods were used to
explore how participants utilize the site for learning. Research questions developed through a
review of the literature pertaining to CoPs, online communities, and Flickr helped to form a base
for an inductive approach. The interview protocol included open-ended questions about
participants’ general use of the site as well as questions specific to Group participation, giving
and receiving feedback, information sharing, and learning. Semi-structured interviewing
techniques were used to make certain that all participants were asked specific questions and also
to encourage discussion related to other issues relevant to the study. Questions in the interview
protocol included items such as the following: do you feel that you learn through Flickr?; to
which kind of Flickr Groups do you belong?; and what kind of comments do you typically
receive? The full protocol can be seen in Appendix A.
Prior research has found that while there are two main types of Flickr users – those who
are sharing snapshots with friends and family and those who are sharing photos with strangers
and friends made through the site – these groups are not necessarily exclusive (Miller &
Edwards, 2007). Users who share almost exclusively with social ties previously established
offline tend to post photos less frequently than those sharing with strangers and Flickr friends
(Miller & Edwards, 2007). Accordingly, as this research is concerned with active CoP members,

37

the researcher determined that random sampling techniques would not likely result in the
recruitment of the type of participants necessary to allow for the research questions to be
answered. To increase the likelihood of recruiting active hobbyists and serious photographers,
theoretical sampling techniques were employed. Theoretical sampling, a suggested procedure for
qualitative research, allows participants to be chosen based on relevant concepts (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). In addition to recruiting active photographers, it was also important that potential
participants use Flickr for learning.
To ensure that interview participants met these basic criteria, a short screener survey was
used. The survey included questions asking users to rate themselves as photographers, classify
their activity, and answer Likert-type questions about their use, including learning. The full
screener survey may be seen in Appendix B. Invitations to take a short online survey about
Flickr use were placed by the researcher in the discussion forums of four geographically-based
Flickr Groups. Rationale for selecting Groups was based on apparent Group activity levels,
informally evaluated through Group pool posts and discussion posts, as well as the ease with
which in-person interviews could be conducted with members. During the two weeks the
screener survey was open, 42 completed questionnaires were submitted. All but one participant
expressed an interest in being interviewed. Of those 41 respondents, all indicated being active
photographers and had some level of agreement with the statement I use Flickr to learn more
about photography, thus making them eligible to be interviewed. Out of these 41 people, the
researcher selected and contacted 30 people via email to schedule interviews. These 30 potential
interviewees were selected to provide a mix of gender and Group administrators/nonadministrators. Potential interviewees who did not respond within three days of the initial email
were sent a reminder. Twenty-four of the original 30 respondents scheduled interviews, although

38

3 were unable to participate due to scheduling conflicts. Each person was informed in the
original discussion board post for the screener survey, as well as the email invitation, that they
would receive a $20 Amazon.com gift card after completing the interview.
Seventy-one percent of study participants were from the Metro Detroit area, with the
remaining participants coming from various regions of the lower peninsula of Michigan. Fiftytwo percent of participants were male and 48% were female. Participants ranged in age from 30
to 61, although the greatest number were in their 40s. Eighteen participants had pro accounts and
three had free accounts. Participant experience on the site ranged from 4 months to 5 years.
Twenty-one interviews were conducted between February 21, 2011 and March 7, 2011.
Participants had the choice of an in-person or telephone interview. Three participants chose to be
interviewed in-person and the remaining participants chose telephone interviews. Interviews
ranged in length from 30 minutes to 87 minutes, with the average interview lasting 51 minutes.
Data Analysis
The researcher conducted all interviews, which were audio-recorded and then transcribed
by the researcher. Interview transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti, a qualitative content
analysis software program. Microanalysis of the text (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) was used to
identify common themes in the interviews. Based on the themes identified, the researcher coded
each transcript systematically line-by-line. Coding was performed in the tradition of grounded
theory (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Axial and open coding
strategies (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) were used to relate concepts and also separate concepts into
distinct categories. This process allows data to be separated into individual concepts while also
allowing it to be considered as part of larger concepts. Throughout the coding process, new
codes were created when necessitated by the data and transcripts previously coded were updated

39

when appropriate. A number of these codes were created when it became apparent that existing
codes were unable to capture important nuances in the data. Additionally, the researcher
collapsed codes with significant conceptual overlap. After these adjustments to the coding
scheme were completed, a total of 121 codes were utilized in the analysis of the interview
transcripts.

40

Chapter 4
Study One Results
As a social media platform, the design of Flickr allows for the natural development of
CoPs. The interview data presented here offer insight into learning strategies used by participants
to leverage Flickr CoPs for increasing their knowledge and skills related to photography. These
strategies can be grouped into two main categories: solitary and interactive learning. This chapter
reviews findings related to these learning strategies, considering Group membership, activity,
and knowledge sharing.
Flickr Groups as CoPs
Flickr Groups act as a gateway to learning for many participants. As will be discussed, it
is within the Groups that they encounter experts in specialized areas of photography, browse the
Group pool, and read discussion board posts. Groups provide a social structure in which
relationships are formed. Participants talked about how those relationships can lead to
encouragement, critique, and learning. However, not all Flickr Groups can be considered CoPs.
For any social structure to be considered a CoP, three requisite elements must be present: the
domain, practice, and community.
In a global sense, the domain of Flickr could be defined as photography. From this
perspective, each group on Flickr would have a sub-domain that is within photography, such as
macro photography, or photographs of old boats. Groups of related CoPs are referred to as
constellations (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). As such, Flickr could be called a
constellation of photography CoPs. Multiple participants talked about Flickr in this respect. One
summed it up well while discussing the structure of Flickr and Groups, stating:
Well, I guess it’s almost the same analogy of comparing all of Flickr to all of the world,

41

and then there are regions, or small cities which would be one Group. You might actually
interact with that one Group more than you would with the rest of the entire community
of Flickr. (Flickr 04)
This participant’s Flickr experiences, as were those of most interviewees, were closely tied to the
Groups to which she belonged and to the other photographers she had met in these Groups.
However, the types of Groups on Flickr vary. Holmes and Cox (2011) describe four basic types
of Flickr Groups: location based; award/contest; learning/critique (although, as will be discussed,
learning is certainly not limited to learning groups); and subject/theme. These categories were
reflected by many of the participants when discussing Groups to which they belonged. One
participant, in particular, organized his groups into three categories: gear/affinity; geography
groups; and scoring groups. Gear/affinity would most closely match up with subject/theme,
geography with location, and scoring somewhere between learning and award/contest. These
categories are a reflection of the domain of each Group.
Participants sought certain types of Groups for specific purposes. When asked about the
types of Groups to which they belonged, many of the individuals interviewed discussed
belonging to Groups related to their particular brand of camera, which they commonly referred
to as either gear or equipment groups:
I shoot with a D300, so I belong to the Nikon D300 Group and several different lens
Groups. I don’t participate a lot in them. I post a picture occasionally and look at pictures
posted by other people. What I really see them as is my basic support mechanism. One
day that camera is going to fail. Something is going to happen and I’m going to be
wondering, “What’s going on here? Is this just me?” Which is what we all wonder when
gear fails. “Is this just me or, is this everybody’s experience?” And one thing I know

42

from my own experiences online as a geek is every failure that can happen happens to
other people, and it usually happens to somebody else first and they’ve probably found a
solution. So it’s really just finding the guy that’s already solved my problem. By
participating in the Groups, I think that keeps me sort-of listening to what problems
people are having. (Flickr 10)
In this case, equipment Groups were seen as serving a pre-emptive support role. Although the
participant’s activity level in his D300 group was limited, he saw his membership as very
important. The use of equipment-centered Groups for some type of support was a common
theme among participants, but not necessarily for finding solutions to problems or troubleshooting equipment malfunctions. For example, as one participant said, “joining the Olympus
group taught me a lot more about how to use the camera and [how to choose] better settings.”
Other participants reported using equipment Groups for research prior to deciding on which
model of camera to purchase, which lens to buy, or how to set up a lighting kit. Additionally,
another use of equipment Groups was sharing photos taken with the equipment central to the
Group. As one participant said, “If it was taken with my 35-70 lens, I’ll post it to the Canon on a
budget 35-70 Group because people like to see the kind of photos that can come out of these
things.” Participants also discussed how the equipment-based Groups tended to be active, with
members frequently posting photographs to the Group pool and participating in discussion forum
threads.
Whether equipment-based or focusing on a different subject, a common theme among
participants Group membership choices was the desire to belong to active Groups. As one
participant said, “If I see a group and there's nothing going on on their discussion boards at all,
then I'm not as interested in it.” Activity is essential for a Group to be considered a CoP (Wenger

43

1998, Wenger et al., 2002). Without the mutual engagement that takes place through discussions
and comments, Groups can become, as one participant said, “just a collection of photos on a
common subject.” Participants referenced active discussion boards, Group pools, and comments
on photos posted to the Group pool as indicators of activity. Comments were discussed as an
important part of Group membership. For example, one participant talked about how comments
influence her Group membership, saying:
There are some Groups that I’ve joined that I’ve been disappointed with because you post
[to] them and no one comments and it’s kind of like what’s the point? That’s why I really
gravitate toward those more active Groups where people do comment. (Flickr 01)
In this respect, active Groups are attractive to participants because there is a greater chance of
receiving feedback from other members. Others, underscoring the importance of Group activity,
echoed this attitude about the importance of comments.
Group activity took on a different meaning in some of the Groups discussed by
participants. During some interviews, when the topic of community did not come up naturally,
the researcher asked if the participant saw any of their Groups as communities. Overwhelmingly
the answer was yes. In Groups that were themed around a geographic area, participants spoke of
member photowalks and other offline face-to-face events. In particular, location-based Groups
seemed to contribute to the sense of community felt by interviewees:
It’s not just a place [the Group] where it’s strictly online [activity]. I mean because they
[Group administrators] organize photowalks and educational seminars and social events.
They actually have exhibits. I mean obviously that’s going to add to the sense of
community when it’s not just something that you by yourself sitting on your computer in
your kitchen. (Flickr01)

44

In this case, the participant was a very active participant in the Group she was discussing. The
offline activities that she described had provided her with the opportunity to get to know other
members of the Group and helped to form a sense of community. As another participant put it,
“There's personal relationships there [in the Group] that you just don't always get in a Group
where you don't meet people in person.”
While varying activity levels were used as a metric by some participants to gauge
whether or not they might benefit from joining a Group, it also appeared to help participants
distinguish between Groups they saw as communities and those that were only photo collections.
In some cases, participants were very specific about the types of activity they felt made a Group
a community. When one participant began talking about her Groups as communities, the
researcher asked her if all Flickr Groups were communities:
It really revolves around having an active forum and/or pool. There are some of the
Groups that don't have the active forums, but are very active in their pool and you see a
lot of communication going on just [in] the comments under each of those photos. But
most of the communities that I'm actually getting involved with now, it's all happening in
the forums where it's feedback from multiple members (Flickr 18).
One participant described a local Group he belonged to as, “active and warm and welcoming,”
much of which he attributed to the leadership of the Group administrators. This participant
elaborated on his impression of openness of the Group:
Feel free to do this [particpate], but no pressure. Come on in and get your feet wet and
don't worry about stuff. If you don't want to say anything or don't want to comment, you
don't have to, but just join us. See what it's like and if you like it, stay awhile. (Flickr12)

45

Groups defined as communities by participants were typically discussed as being successful
Groups. Size also emerged as a determinant of not only Group success, but also whether or not
participants would become involved with a Group.
You know, the size affects it somewhat, but you still feel the community. It’s sort of like
listening to the radio. If you listen to the same radio station all the time, you sort of feel
like you know the guys. Or the same TV show where you get to where you feel like you
know the characters. In the really large groups there’s usually going to be a core group of
people that are always posting and always active and you know when one posts that this
other guy’s going to come along and argue with him, or not, depending what the thing is.
So there’s still a feeling of community, but it’s not as inclusive. Here’s how I look at it.
The big groups are sort of like communities and the small ones are sort of like family
reunions. There’s more of an intimate feel because you sort of know the people - who
you like, you dislike. There’s more of a personal feeling that goes along with the smaller
ones. Both have the community feeling, just a different type. (Flickr 12).
4

Another participant talked about Group size considerations when looking for a 365 Group :
There’s a gazillion of them out there and I picked one because it looked like it was going
to be a smaller number of people, which means you’ll get to know styles a little better
because you’ll see the same people taking photos more often than you will in the Project
365 Group, which has like 20,000 members. Good luck following any one person in
there. (Flickr 07)
This participant was concerned that he was going to have trouble keeping up with the same

4

365 Groups are a type of challenge Group where the members post a new photo to the Group
pool every day of the year. Depending on the Group, moderators may guide the theme for certain
days.
46

photographers in the larger 365 Groups, and he wanted an experience in which he could follow
what different people were posting. As suggested by Wenger and colleagues (2002) direct
interaction can become inhibited when a community gets too large. This was reflected by the
comments of another participant who talked about leaving a Group because of a substantial
increase in the membership:
It’s just grown to be so big that you can post a picture and it’s already off the first page
[of the Group pool] by the time you get there. I just feel like there’s so much being posted
that nobody can really see what’s being put up. So I feel like who even sees it because
it’s just flying by in this mass of hundreds of pictures. (Flickr 08)
Interestingly, even though this participant shied away large groups, she did remark, “That
doesn’t mean I don’t like looking at their pictures.” This illustrates that for some participants
Group size influenced how they viewed the utility of the Group. In this case, looking at pictures
in large groups was considered useful, but posting was not.
Conversely, other participants discussed the dangers of having too few members in a
Group. As one participant commented, “If you’ve got five people, it’s like, okay, what am I
going to say today?” Another participant commented that if a Group only has twenty or thirty
members it would “probably eventually die out.” Although this same participant went on to say
that the structure of the Group also plays an important role, remarking that small Groups can
survive when they have active discussion boards in addition to a Group pool. Wenger and
colleagues (2002) say that communities “need a critical mass of people to sustain regular
interaction and offer multiple perspectives” (p. 35). In this example, the participant indicated that
varied types of participation were important for the success of a smaller Group.

47

Strong leadership was frequently discussed as a key factor when participants were asked
about Group success. As one participant said, “One is not going to stick around, and the Group is
not going to make it, [if it] is not administered well.” Participants described Group administrators
as performing multiple roles, such as resolving disputes between members, starting discussion
threads, posting notices, and encouraging participation. In one case, a participant mentioned
being contacted by a moderator after he lost a vote to have his work featured in the Group’s
weekly spotlight:
One of the moderators just sent me a note one day and said, “Hey, I just really want to
thank you for participating in the group. You’re very regular about it and your comments
are really nice.” And she said, “I really want you to know that I really fought for you this
week.” (Flickr 10)
In this case, the moderator used Flickr mail to offer encouragement. Other participants discussed
seeing administrators and moderators offering encouragement through comments. The weekly
spotlight discussed above is in itself a method used by administrators to promote activity within
a Group. There are many variations on these types of Group contests, but essentially a Group
administrator chooses a topic or theme and members post their submissions. In some groups,
voting then takes place to determine a “best photo.” Voting may be conducted by the
membership or by administrators, as in the example above. Often there is no larger goal than
encouraging members to take and share a photograph that fits the challenge criteria. Participants
reported that there were not prizes for winning, other than being named the winner. However,
these challenges can push members to try new things. For example, one participant discussed an
instance where members of one of her Groups were challenged to, “try taking pictures from
ground level.” This participant went on to say that, “I’m learning something by doing that and

48

it’s not something that I would have gone out and done on my own.” In cases such as this, the
challenge is not only promoting Group activity, but also facilitating learning.
Challenges and contests are sometimes the sole purpose of a Group. Other times, they are
only one component of a Group. In discussing a Group focused on her particular model of
camera, one participant described activity challenges as being both educational and inspirational
in terms of seeing “what other people were doing with that same topic and that same camera, so
when you see somebody do it with the same camera, you know that it’s possible.” Furthermore,
because it was the same camera she used, she felt she could not write off the outstanding
photographs as being something she could not do because of equipment limitations. Through the
Group challenges, what she thought possible to achieve with her camera was being challenged
and she was being pushed to try new things; in the process, she was learning more about
photography.
Group administrators and other moderators also perform the role of maintaining the
domain. Some Groups have very specifically defined topics. One participant, while discussing a
Lake Michigan themed Group, discussed how the administrator ensures that the Group pool
reflects the theme and prevents it from becoming polluted with off-topic images:
If anything is ever put in [the Group pool] that doesn’t look like it should be there the
administrator usually knocks it down. Everything is of Lake Michigan. None of the
photos are stop signs at Lake Michigan. None of them are a picture of an outhouse.
(Flickr05)
While this illustrates how administrators maintain the domain of their Groups, other participants
talked about the consequences poor Group administration:

49

If you don’t moderate the group, it will be flooded with spam. It will be flooded with
porn and people will complain and then they will leave. And you see that all the time.
There are groups that just die because the moderating goes away. (Flickr 10)
Time after time, participants acknowledged the important roles that administrators and
moderators fulfill. Overall, participants saw Group leadership as integral to success. However,
other individual factors still influence Group membership. Some participants discussed leaving
Groups because of a rude behavior on the part of other members, although this was rare among
interviewees. Other times, users may leave a Group because they were merely using it to explore
a topic and learned that they did not like it. As one participant explained, “You might think
you're interested in [a Group] all about trees, and then you're like, “I really hate shooting trees, so
I don't want to post to that [Group] any more.”
While participants commonly discussed issues of size, leadership, and activity in regard
to Groups that were central to their Flickr experience, and those they considered communities,
many also discussed less active Groups to which they belonged. Reasons for belonging to these
less active Groups varied, as did participant behavior in these Groups. In some cases, a user may
join a group to post a specific photo, but not return. For instance, one participant discussed
finding a vintage barber shop group for a photo she had taken:
I had one barbershop photo and I thought it would be good if I could find something like
that [a barbershop themed Group]. I posted it to that Group, but it’s not like I ever did
anything with that group again. (Flickr01)
In this case, Group activity and the other characteristics discussed above were of little to no
importance. The photographer had a photo that she felt might be appreciated by a specific
audience, so she sought an audience interested in the subject matter. As illustrated by another

50

participant while discussing a Group to which she belonged themed on photos of old barns,
sometimes high levels of activity are not sought:
In some of my Groups, there’s never even been a conversation and they’re not really
active groups because nobody is taking thousands of pictures of barns. So they’re just
small, easygoing, fun place to collect pictures of a certain type. (Flickr08)
Above, other participants viewed these types of Groups in a rather negative light. Here, and as
described by additional interviewees, Groups like these are seen as enjoyable, almost lighter
groups, perhaps in part because of the limited activity and engagement required. This same
participant acknowledged that she receives comments from members of the old barns group, so
while there may not be Group level activity in the form of discussion forum posts, she is
interacting with other Group members.
Connecting with other users to learn often happens in Groups. All participants cited
examples of learning that had occurred in a Group. However, Groups are not the only social
structure in place providing users with the opportunity to learn. Flickr’s social networking
features allow users to maintain a list of contacts. All participants talked about maintaining
contacts, although the utility of maintaining contacts varied. Common among many participants
was adding users as contacts in order to follow their work. This was done for two primary
reasons: because participants found the work of the user compelling or informative and wanted
to see what they did next and/or because they had interacted with the user in some way, most
typically in a Group. Adding users as contacts makes following their work easier, as contacts’
photostreams can be accessed directly from a user’s homepage. This prevents the user from
having to sift through their Group pools to find the work of friends. Participants were not directly

51

asked to about the symmetry of their contacts; however, some participants did mention adding
users as contacts because the participant had been added as a contact by the user.
Adding contacts and developing relationships with other users met in Groups was a
common theme among participants. Several participants also mentioned that offline Group
activities helped these relationships to be formed. The ability for users to track specific members
of their CoPs through a site feature is something unique to Flickr as a constellation of related
CoPs, made possible by the built-in social networking features.
When asked about where their learning occurs on Flickr, all users spoke of their Groups,
however some felt that their learning was more of a reflection of their social network than
specific Groups, even if they had met those contacts in Groups. As one participant explained, “I
would say the majority of the photos that tend to influence me are [from] my closest contacts and
then also the Groups I’m in.” In this case, the particpant saw the photographs of their social
network as being more influential than those that were in the pools of the Groups she belonged
to, but the Groups were still important. For some particpants, this valuing of their social network
over Groups may be a reflection of use. As one participant explained:
I use it [Flickr] more for the contacts. The [Group name omitted] pool – I don’t even go
on it that frequently. I think because most of the people that are active on [Group name
omitted] are the people that are my contacts anyway (Flickr 01).
In this case, the participant had gotten to know several members of the Group in question and
had them listed as contacts. She felt that, because of this, she spent less time viewing
photographs in the Group pool. Later in the interview, she emphasized this, mentioning that she
felt she was “definitetly more active with my contacts than with the Groups.” Similiarly, another
highlighted the important role his contact played in his Flickr experience, saying, “The whole

52

thing I do on there is all related to that circle of friends.” Another commented, “The friendships
that I’ve made through [Group name omitted] would outwiegh the amount of Groups on Flickr
any day.”
These examples indicate that the social networks of Flickr users are also an important
aspect of user learning activities within the Flickr CoP constellation. Through the contacts
feature, users are constructing a sub-group populated by members of their Groups, a structure
made possible by the affordances of Flickr. Much like how a Group pool exposes a user to the
photographs of other Group members, the more recent posts from contacts appear on users’
Flickr homepages, creating the possibility for sustained mutual engagement through viewing and
commenting on each other’s new photographs. Additional interview data further reinforces the
importance of social networks for some users. As one participant put it:
You’ve got your own Group of friends. I’ve got 200 contacts. So everyday you’ve got 40
or 50 pictures from that Group…just your contacts’ posts and stuff you’re looking at and
commenting on. And then you’re checking the busier Groups for threads and upcoming
events, and what people are saying and you kind of look at those pictures [in the pool],
but not as much as your contacts (Flickr 14).
This participant went on to express a sentiment that others also shared: there is only so much
time in a day. In this respect, he talked about how he spent his Flickr sessions scanning the first
page of the Group pools, but not going further than that, saying, “You focus more on your
contacts.” The development of social networks should not be seen as a competing structure
enabling learning, but rather as a function of multiple Group memberships. Additionally, this
construction of active social networks may not be universal among Flickr members. For
example, new Flickr users are not likely to have many contacts initially.

53

As mentioned above, some Groups are dedicated specifically to learning. However,
interview data indicates that learning is occurring in many different types of Groups.
Interviewees often cited learning as a primary reason for being on Flickr and participating in
Groups. One participant attributed, “everything I’ve put together in the last year” as being a
result of what he had learned on Flickr. He elaborated, highlighting having learned the rule of
thirds (a composition technique) through his on-site interactions, as well as other techniques for
composition, such as using leading lines, “by having folks say, ‘well it looks like you should
have cropped it here…have these lines do this and you shouldn’t have this.’”
Participants frequently cited their experiences on Flickr as being instrumental in their
development as photographers. Experiences discussed by participants revealed that they were
utilizing multiple learning strategies in their efforts to become better photographers. Broadly,
these strategies can be categorized as solitary learning and interactive learning. Regardless of
whether or not Flickr users’ learning experiences are solitary or take place with others, interview
data indicates that Flickr is the home to thriving communities of practice through which these
learning experiences take place.
Solitary Learning Strategies
Solitary learning on Flickr is comprised of strategies employed by participants to increase
their photographic knowledge and skill through site use, but not through active engagement with
other users. These strategies are well aligned with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of
legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). According to LPP, full membership in a CoP is
attained, in part, by performing peripheral tasks that still contribute to the goals of the

54

5

community . When a novice is learning to be a contributing member of a community, observing
how an expert completes tasks provides an opportunity for acquiring tacit knowledge. Through
observation, the novice seeks to obtain a greater understanding of how to complete tasks that are
integral to the practice of the community. With a small amount of base knowledge, novices begin
to perform simple tasks, still interacting and learning from experts to further increase his or her
knowledge and skills, thus eventually becoming an expert practitioner. The structure of Flickr
allows users to engage in LPP before making their presence known in a Group. One participant,
when asked about what Group she felt she was most active in, explained that she “stalked the
Group…observing it for quite awhile.” During this period, she was viewing the photos posted to
the Group pool and only later began posting photos herself. As explained by Duguid (2004), both
observation and practice allow people to acquire tacit knowledge. The various features of Flickr
enable a number of observational learning behaviors that can be understood through LPP. The
most elementary of these behaviors is viewing the photos of other users. Participants described
viewing photos taken by others as an important learning activity. For example, as one participant
said, “When I first discovered it [Flickr], I just spent a long time just looking at photos and being
awed with what I saw. I don't do that so much anymore, but that's how it began.” This seemed to
be especially common when participants were novices, although viewing photos was a central
activity of many users, regardless of skill level.
Through viewing the photos posted by other members, a user can begin to learn about
how other photographers compose their photographs. As one participant commented, “I’ve
learned a lot from it [Flickr]… not specifically looking for things, but just how other people take
pictures.” According to one participant, one of the reasons to look at photographs posted by
5

In this context, the term “community” is used to denote a group of individuals who engage in
the same practice, such as photography.
55

others is “to see how different people choose to shoot [subjects]. That kind of helps you to
develop your eye as a photographer.” Similarly, another participant spoke in wonderment of
viewing photos and being shown “angles you’d never think you could get.”
Many participants discussed their early use of Flickr being comprised of viewing the
photos of others, reading comments, and browsing discussion forums. These types of solitary
learning provide exposure to a mix of tacit and explicit information about photography. LPP
among novices on Flickr incorporates these various forms of solitary, observational learning.
Interview data indicates that participants applied the knowledge gained through these processes
in the taking and posting of photos. In this respect, the knowledge gained during early stages of
Flickr use appears to have fueled activity. In the context of tacit and explicit information, the
knowledge gained through observation resulted in the further acquisition of tacit knowledge as
participants applied what they had learned and transferred, in Ryle’s (as cited in Duguid, 2005)
terms, know that into know how. However, advancing from being a novice is certainly not the
end of observational learning. Data indicates that these observational behaviors persist, although,
as illustrated above, the amount of time spent learning in this manner may wane as users’ skill
levels increase.
The LPP stage for users not only allows them to begin to learn how to take photographs,
but also to be a member of Flickr and various Flickr CoPs. A large component of use and
membership involves the viewing of work by others, a behavior that allows for continued
observational learning. However, comments made by participants indicate that the learning that
occurs through viewing the work of others is not necessarily intentional. The acquisition of tacit
knowledge, for many participants, seemed to be an un-intentional by-product of use. As one
participant put it, “I don’t really know what I’m going to learn until it’s thrown at me.”

56

Furthermore, through looking at what participants felt were good photos, they believed that they
were absorbing information that would help them to take better photographs in the future,
although what led them to the photos may not have been a desire to learn, but rather an
appreciation for the work of another user. A participant described this non-goal directed
approach:
I discovered this guy a couple days ago – this pro who does all of this really cool stuff –
and last night I spent probably at least an hour going through his photostream. I mean,
just looking at all his stuff – it’s almost like when you take an art history course and you
just look through all of these beautiful pieces of art. I mean, it helps you become a better
artist, too. (Flickr 01)
However, following the work of other photographers for the purpose of learning was also a tactic
employed by participants. For example, another participant spoke about adding photographers
she felt were talented as contacts because “I want to see what they’ve got coming down the pipe
because I think I might learn from them.”
In addition to providing many potential learning experiences, observational learning that
occurs through viewing the work of others may also serve a norming function. If the photograph
viewing is occurring in a Group that features a specific type of photography, viewing also works
as a means to teach newcomers what subjects are acceptable to post to the Group pool. One
participant, speaking about his early days on Flickr, explained that one of the reasons he looked
at other users’ photos was “to get ideas of what people are shooting, and just what’s really kind
of popular.” As he developed as a photographer, he felt he spent much less time doing this,
providing evidence of the LPP nature of this behavior for some. In addition to a possible

57

norming function, this quote also illustrates how the work of others can provide ideas or
inspiration for users who are unsure of what subjects to shoot.
It is important to note that these solitary learning experiences, although described here as
observational learning, do not necessarily exist separately from practice. Indeed, the pairing of
learning with practice is fundamental to learning within a CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991, Wenger,
1998, Wenger et al., 2002). Participants discussed the relationship between solitary learning and
practice frequently. As one said, “You see something nice, you want to be able to do it yourself.”
While discussing an oil drop photograph he had recently encountered in a lighting-focused
Group, another participant discussed his intent to attempt a similar shot:
I want to try those someday [taking oil drop photographs]. And when that day
arrives, when I’m going to set that up for my 365, I’m going to go look and see
how they do [it] and then I’m going to try to emulate that and then possibly take it
to the next level, but first you’ve got to get to where they are. (Flickr 07).
In this case, the participant had observed a photo that inspired him, but was not ready to try to act
on that inspiration. Others discussed specifically looking for photos for inspiration. One
participant commented, “I do a lot of research just looking at different photos people have taken
just to get kind of an idea what I might like to do on my own.” In many respects, viewing photos,
while certainly an important component of on-site learning, acts as a stimulus for inspiring
action. For example, one participant commented that many of the photos she viewed in her
Groups were of “normal stuff you see in town that you would never think to take a picture of, but
are done in a really interesting way.” This inspired her and changed the way she viewed
everyday things and she began to take her camera with her when she would go for walks in town.
Later, that same participant spoke of the relationship between observation and practice:

58

What I’ve learned photography-wise from looking at pictures is that, “Oh, I see they got
that part blurry and this part in focus and they kind of had their light coming – let me try
something like that.” (Flickr 08)
This participant, as well as many others, talked about trying to emulate photos they had seen on
Flickr. Another participant talked about how viewing photos opened his eyes and had given him
“shooting ideas” and shown him “different ways to do things.” He went on to say, “and if
something wows me, it makes me want to go out and chase that.” This same participant
elaborated, telling a story about being inspired to attempt taking lightning photographs by
viewing some on Flickr:
My wife and I went out in a lightning storm and I had just started to learn how to do long
exposure stuff. So I set my tripod up right in the back of our van and told her to drive and
basically we found a spot where lightning was coming in and out and I did it. I got one.
And now I don’t have to shoot lightning again! (Flickr05)
In addition to types of subjects, other participants talked about being inspired to go shoot
specific places because of photographs they encountered on Flickr. One participant commented
on how the geotagging feature assisted him in this endeavor. In the context of LPP, users getting
out and actually trying to take the types of photos they see on the site is an important part of
developing as a photographer. Essentially, in taking action based on photographs encountered on
the site, users are engaging in the acquisition of tacit knowledge. Admiring the technique a
photographer used to take a photo is one thing, but application of technique is an important
aspect of learning. As one participant put it:
You can’t watch someone else take a pretty picture and then expect to be able to do it
yourself. You actually have to have walked the walk and done it and seen what the results

59

are and made the mistakes and then corrected those mistakes and that’s how you learn. Or
at least that’s how I learn. (Flickr 07).
The work of others also provides inspiration when users run out of shooting ideas. For
example, one participant commented that when he did not have any ideas of what to shoot on a
particular day, he would, “just page through [favorited photos] and see which photos spark my
interest for that day.”
These examples of observational learning occurring through viewing photographs and
paired with attempts to take similar photographs were prevalent among participants, providing
opportunities to learn about subject matter, composition and various techniques. While
participants felt they learned a great deal through viewing photographs taken by others, they also
reported using other learning strategies. Participants described encountering other users who
provided a wealth of information in the description section under their photographs, explaining
how they achieved a certain effect, or the logic behind composition choices. In one case, photo
viewings lead a participant to such a user:
I saw this just incredible photograph that this person posted and you could just tell that
this person was a professional. So I looked back into his photostream and it’s almost like
he’s on there to teach. I mean he says in some of his comments [he's] gonna give as much
information as he can. In this one, it was a food shot, he actually showed his sketch – I
mean he actually sketched out the photograph before he took it. So someone like that you
can really learn a lot just by looking through his photographs and reading just exactly
…he sort of explains how he went about composing and executing the shot. (Flickr 01)

60

Another participant spoke about this type of information sharing, “almost as a tutorial – like this
is how I did this photo.” Other times, the text information revolved around very basic skills, such
as how to use a digital camera:
There was a pro user who had taken it upon himself to post some just basic, really basic,
photography lessons about what the different modes were for and some of the different
buttons and that was a wonderful start for me because I wasn’t getting anywhere with just
the manual. (Flickr 06)
In this case, the codified information provided in the participant's instruction manual was not
helpful. However, when this explicit knowledge was presented in a different way, it was more
accessible.
The clarity with which information is presented on Flickr was discussed by another
participant who had become frustrated with what he viewed as long, overly technical
explanations in forums on the official Nikon Web site. He explained how Flickr users were able
to provide information in a way that he was able to more easily understand, saying, “I don’t need
seven paragraphs of how to do something. I just want maybe one paragraph that’s something I
can read.” He contended that Flickr users “get right to the point,” making it easier to access the
information.
Other participants discussed coming across tutorial-like posts on digital processing. For
example, one participant discussed encountering a user in a Photoshop editing Group who had
left a number of comments on photos in the Group pool directing people to his photostream.
When the participant followed the link, she discovered that his photostream was filled with
images that were “almost like a PowerPoint snapshot, with all these before and after pictures and
then the text to tell what he did.”

61

Through providing this kind of information about their photographs, and basic functions
of digital cameras, photographers are informally teaching others. These tutorial-like
presentations of information provide evidence of the exchange of explicit knowledge. In some
Groups, this type of information exchange is highly encouraged. For example, a participant
explained that sharing information about how photographs are created is a rule in a well-known
lighting Group called Strobist:
Whenever you post something to the Strobist Group, you’re also supposed to discuss how
you did the lighting on it, and anything you do within Strobist is supposed to deal with
off-camera lighting. It’s not supposed to be “here’s my flash, it’s on the camera, I just
took the picture and here’s a nice pretty picture, isn’t it great.” It’s all supposed to be “I
took this, lit left, camera left...”. (Flickr07)
In this particular Group, providing specific information related to how the photo was created
allows for a great deal of information to be obtained by those reading the photo descriptions.
This type of explicit knowledge exchange seems ideally suited for solitary learning. Users can
easily read through the posted descriptions and, provided they have the equipment and technical
expertise, attempt to replicate the posted image. If the user does not have the technical expertise,
one can begin with less complicated photographs and work up to progressively more difficult
images. Learning within a CoP is about learning through practice, and this type of explicit
knowledge provides users with the necessary information to try a new technique.
These tutorial-like instances of information sharing are far from the only type of explicit
knowledge exchanged on Flickr. EXIF data provides another avenue for the acquisition of
explicit knowledge. EXIF data is meta-data encoded by digital cameras when photographs are
taken and provides information about the photograph such as aperture, shutter speed, mode, and

62

lens. Each time an image is uploaded to Flickr, the EXIF data is included by default, although
users can disable this feature. Participants talked about utilizing this information to learn more
about how photographs were created. For example, one participant stated, “I take a look at their
EXIF data to see it they're using any different settings that I might be able to use.” Similarly,
another participant commented that he looked at EXIF data to “start to get an idea of how you
can replicate [an] effect.” These uses of EXIF data were common among participants. One
participant saw utilizing EXIF data as a way to “piggy back off what other people have
experienced without having to go through the trial and error thing.” For users that shoot a
particular style or type of photograph, this information can be particularly useful:
It [the participant’s camera] has high ISO capabilities and I like to see how people have
stretched that function. I do a lot of low light photography. I do a lot of rock and roll club
photograpy, and I want to see what everybody else has stretched their limit to. What lens
they're using and what aperature they're using, so that I can try to make my work a little
bit better. (Flickr13)
Here, the participant was using EXIF data almost as a way to compare notes with people using
the same model of camera, as well as glean information that may allow her to improve her
photographs. Furthermore, this same participant talked about how EXIF data can be useful for
sorting out the original photograph from editing and processing techniques applied using image
editing software: “I want to see what the basic starting points are, because if I'm going to try to
emulate the effect, I like to see the data starting out, and what lens they've used, specifically.”
Related to editing, another participant commented that in addition to checking what lens
someone had used to take a photograph, he had, on multiple occasions, “examined EXIF data to
find out if a file had been Photoshopped...I wanted to see if the EXIF gave up any data.”

63

In this case, the user was curious about whether or not photographs he encountered were posted
without being processed or if editing had been done. Using EXIF data in this manner allowed
him to determine what could be accomplished with a camera alone and what effects required
additional editing and processing.
While participants frequently cited EXIF data as a helpful learning aide, there is one
limitation of using EXIF data: the user needs to have enough technical knowledge to be able to
interpret the information. In the case of novices, the type of information accessible through EXIF
data can be incredibly difficult to understand. For example, one participant commented that she
would look occasionally look at EXIF settings, “but I don't know enough about my own camera
to know what I'm looking at.” Another participant commented that she did not utilize EXIF data
because “I'm not technical.”
The final type of solitary learning described by participants was information seeking.
Solitary information seeking took two main forms: seeking information from Groups to which
participants already belonged and using the Flickr site search tool. It is important to note that the
type of information seeking described here is considered solitary learning because the
participants were not asking questions of other users, but rather mining the already existing
information present in Group discussion forums. Asking questions was often not necessary
because of the wealth of information already posted. As one user explained, “I've noticed that a
lot of the things, especially when the discussion is longer, anything that I want to ask has already
been asked and answered.” Another participant reinforced this, commenting, “You'll usually find
something. I mean it's a pretty big web site. Chances are that someone's written on it.” This
second example also highlights one of the most popular reasons for engaging in information
seeking: finding information about equipment. Participants often discussed being unsure of what

64

kind of camera to buy or, after the purchase of a camera, not knowing what type of lens they
should purchase to use with their new camera. In this respect, participants found Flickr to be a
valuable resource. For example, a participant commented that she had no idea what kind of
camera to buy, so she search Flickr and found information that “steered me to the type of camera
I wanted to purchase.” In this case, the information to which the participant was referring was
found in Group discussion forums. This was the most commonly sought type of information.
However, other users looking for information to guide equipment purchases took a different
route, instead choosing to look at photos in Group pools dedicated to the particular piece of
equipment they were considering. In one case, a participant discussed combining the Group pool
approach with searching tags:
You can search by tags and a lot of people will tag their photos with the EXIF data off
the lens, so if you want to see all the pictures taken with a 50mm 1.4, that’s pretty easy to
find. There’s actually a whole group of people who just post to the 50mm 1.4 [Group].
Because they take pictures with that lens, they post to that Group. I mean, talk about
crowd-sourcing your research (Flickr07).
In this case, the participant was going beyond what people had written about a lens and was
interested in actually looking at photographs taken using that lens. His reasoning behind doing
this was fairly straightforward:
I've found seeing what the different kinds of lenses could do from a visual perspective –
not Canon’s marketing literature 'here’s a picture that a pro took, printed on high gloss
paper and everything to make you want to buy the lens,' but here’s what Joe and Mary
Sixpack can take with those same lenses – was a really eye-opening experience
(Flickr07).

65

In addition to researching equipment-related information, participants also discussed
searching for information about techniques and particular types of photography. For example, a
participant spoke about researching what kind of lens to use for portrait photography, as well as
different ideas for actually taking this type of photograph:
I took my son’s high school senior pictures and so I was kind of doing a little research,
searching for portrait pictures and what people had said they’d done and looking at other
people’s portrait stuff. Maybe not asking questions, but searching through what other
people had already put up there and getting ideas (Flickr08).
Again, as with other types of solitary learning discussed here, this participant and others
interviewed were learning through viewing the work of others. If different types of photography
are considered separately as areas of expertise, then a photographer could engage in LPP as a
novice several times. For example, the participant quoted above was not a novice. During her
interview, it was quite apparent that she was very knowledgeable about photography in general,
yet she was unsure about portrait photography in particular. Through the CoP lens, if we
consider portrait photography as a specialty with a sub-community of experts, her LPP in regards
to portrait photography makes sense in the context of her overall skill.
Interview data indicates that information-seeking behaviors may evolve over time. When
discussing searching for information, one participant commented on how often she searched for
information, saying:
I mean, not recently, because now I have so many local people I can ask. But definitely
when I was a new person I would just type in different things, find a Group for it and
kind of look through and see what they were saying (Flickr19).

66

The local people the participant mentions are members of one of her location-based Groups. Her
transition from searching for information to asking members of her Group is particularly
interesting from a LPP perspective. When the participant was a newbie, she engaged in LPP,
searching for information instead of directly asking those who were more expert. This seems to
have changed after she gained some experience and began developing relationships through her
location-based Group. However, more research is needed to determine whether this is a common
trend for users as they become more skilled and their social networks on the site increase. For
example, her comfort in asking questions of other member may have less to do with her own
skill increasing than it does with finding a Group comprised of people of whom she is
comfortable asking for help. In particular, the local Group she speaks of was very active offline,
introducing another variable that may complicate understanding the shift in information
acquisition.
Searching for information related to a topic of interest, as shown in the above examples,
was primarily accomplished through utilizing Flickr's search capabilities and manually sifting
through discussion forum posts in pertinent Groups. However, discussion forums were utilized
through interactive learning strategies as well.
Interactive Learning Strategies
Interactive learning strategies are defined here as those behaviors that involve interacting
directly with other Flickr members for the purpose of advancing one's photographic knowledge
or skill. As noted above, in separating the discussion of solitary and interactive learning
strategies, no claim is being made that the two are mutually exclusive. In many cases,
participants discussed using the two strategies together. For example, one user spoke about how

67

he had recently begun freelancing for a local newspaper. He was viewing existing Flickr photos
and seeking tips from users to improve his photographs:
I thought, okay, if I'm going to [be] shooting a wrestling meet or a swim meet or a
gymnastics meet, which I've never done before, I may as well see what other people are
doing, or get some tips from other people that are doing that (Flickr16).
These activities were occurring in the context of sports photography Groups. He later discussed
how the feedback he received on the work he posted to those Groups was beneficial, further
illustrating that he was doing more than just viewing photographs.
Solo learning strategies allow users to acquire knowledge through a variety of different
activities. Participants described these activities as being valuable to their development as
photographers. However, participants also explained how the social nature of Flickr allowed
them access to a wealth of information through interactions with other users. As such, interactive
learning also emerged as an important strategy. The term interactive learning is used here to
describe learning behaviors that involve interaction with other users. This includes learning that
occurs through feedback posted about photographs as comments, asking questions, answering
questions, and sharing knowledge.
The comment feature allows users to leave feedback concerning specific photos. Each
photo posted to Flickr has a comments section below it, unless the user has purposively removed
it. Leaving comments is a way to provide critique and show appreciation for the work of another
user. As remarked by one participant, “One of the big reasons that people are on Flickr is for
recognition. When they get those comments, that’s a big thing for them.” In this case, the
participant was referring to positive feedback about photos from others, although, as indicated by
participants, alternative communication channels are occasionally used. Each type of feedback

68

plays a role in the learning process, from encouraging the receiver to continue taking
photographs, to specifying what has been done well and what could be improved. Multiple
participants also cited learning from a lack of comments on a particular photograph. As one
participant explained, “You can tell if you put up a photo and it doesn't get any comments or it
gets very few, particularly from people who usually comment on your photos, then you kind of
know that one didn't go over really well.”
Comments offering encouragement are often fairly basic and consist of remarks such as
“nice shot,” “beautiful,” “outstanding,” and “great capture.” These types of comments appear
quite frequently, but do little in terms of letting the photographer know what he or she did right
or wrong, other than reinforcing that the photo was worth posting. For example, one participant
who was looking for more specific critique remarked how little comments such as these help in
terms of learning:
Well, it’s mainly positive feedback. I’ve really only had a couple [users] that have given
negative feedback, but I wished I got more. I mean not necessarily negative, but more
constructive criticism. I wish more people would give suggestions, but it’s normally like,
‘Wow, great image,’ ‘Great composition.’ Things like that. (Flickr 01)
However, encouraging comments allow those who have less experience to participate and show
appreciation for the work others are posting. As one novice participant explains, “I guess I feel
like I’m coming at this from the hobbyist point of view and I don’t know that I can really
comment on somebody’s super excellent photo except say, ‘Wow, that looks great!’” Similarly,
another participant said, “I’ve left comments for other people, but…I feel like I’m more of a
novice photographer so I don’t feel like the comments I offer are critiques or give suggestions.
It’s more just commenting.” These uses of the encouraging comments can be viewed through the

69

CoP lens as form of LPP. As such, both photographers above see themselves as inexperienced,
but are making efforts to interact with others who are more expert. As illustrated by Forte and
Bruckman (2006) in their study of Wikipedia, as people become more skilled and more
comfortable within a CoP, the contributions they make become more sophisticated. Accordingly,
it may well be that as these users become more expert, the content of their comments will
become more substantial. One participant’s description of changes in his commenting behavior
based on what he had learned on Flickr shows this type of evolution. When asked if the content
of his comments had changed since he first started using Flickr, he responded:
I’ve learned a lot about composing a photo, and if I recognize all the right things about
composition in someone’s photograph, like lines drawing you in and holding your eye in
the photo, I comment and I recognize to them in words that that’s what I see… And
actually using the terminology the right way! (Flickr 07)
In this case, the participant’s comments had become more sophisticated, moving away from
leaving simply encouraging comments to comments that offered a greater degree of detail.
Additionally, his confidence in the use of the language of the domain shows advances in his
knowledge, an important step in becoming more expert (Wenger et al., 2002).
Encouraging comments do little to contribute to the learning process except letting the
photographer know that they are taking good photographs. For example, if a novice had been
posting photos on Flickr for several months without receiving comments, and then did begin to
receive encouraging comments, the photographer may interpret that as an indication that their
work was improving. Alternatively, it could also be in indication that they have made
connections to other users who are engaging in what they view as normative site behavior.
Almost all participants expressed that they leave comments so that they will get them in return,

70

and when they get them, they leave them, indicating a norm of reciprocity. As one participant
explained, “If there is someone who comments on mine, I’m more likely to leave a comment on
theirs.” Another stated, “That’s one of the rules of Flickr. The more that you comment, the more
comments you’ll get. And if you’re looking for recognition, that’s the way to get it.” These
participants highlighted a common theme related to seeking attention. In many cases, the manner
in which participants spoke of leaving comments indicated that they were fishing for comments
to bring attention to their work. When others left comments for them, they felt the need to
respond. However, according to some participants, encouraging comments serves a social
function. As one participant put it, “It’s just to be chatty.”
While encouraging comments may make the photographer feel good about their work,
provide a way to direct attention back to their photographs, and be social, comments that
highlight a specific part of the photograph or a technique used to take the photograph can be
considered “detail comments.” Examples of detail comments might be something such as
“interesting use of composition and lighting,” or “the angle of this shot is great.” In some
respects, these hypothetical detail comments are still quite simple, and as a participant above
said, are not always that helpful. However, the same participant who spoke above of encouraging
and detail comments in the same way shows in the remarks below that she differentiates between
the two types when leaving comments:
I usually try to pick out something, at least one thing about the photograph that I can say
that I like about it. Something specific – great depth of field or nice lighting – so it’s not
so generic. I think that when people write something like “excellent image” it means it’s
very nice, but [its] not really constructive. So I try to put a least one or two specifics in
there. (Flickr 01)

71

Participant comments indicated that there are differences between receiving an
encouraging comment and a detail comment. As evident in the following participant remark,
detail comments can make a significant impact.
You know, someone will comment on something - like I took this one picture of snow
and someone said, ‘Wow! Love the composition!’ And I was thinking, “really?” I mean, I
tried to compose it right, but I’m an engineer. I’m not a creative, visual person and I’m
trying to get my creative, visual side working a little better, so I thought, if someone else
said nice composition, maybe I am starting to make baby steps in that direction. (Flickr
07)
Critique comments are those that give a greater level of detail and may also include
positive or negative critique, sometimes even suggesting a way that the photographer could
improve the image, such as “great subject and lighting, but it would be a better image if you
cropped out the road” or “between your use of light and the way your filter brings out the red in
the barn, this image has an amazing sense of realism.” Participants acknowledged the importance
of critique comments, yet they appear to be more rare than the encouraging and detail comments.
More expert participants spoke about the importance of leaving critique comments and how to
best write them:
I’m big on positive comments, [but] you can learn a lot by critical comments. I’ve found
the best thing to do is when you’re talking to people about their photography [is] to sort
of give them helpful tips. Like instead of saying, “Wow! Your picture [has] cool
composition, but it’s ridiculously over processed and looks awful [laughs],” but [instead]
to say, “I really love the composition on this, have you thought about using more of the
natural quality of the scene?” (Flickr 04)

72

Similarly, another participant explained:
I might try to say, “I really like the way you’ve used, the bright at the upper right corner
and the dark at the lower left to lead us through the photo. That’s really nice. On the other
hand, it’s too bad that it goes all the way black at the left corner. Can you tweak that?
Can you recover some of the detail? I think it would be better if you had some detail
there.” (Flickr 10)
In both of these cases, the participants first mentioned something positive about the image, then
offered tips on how it could be improved. The latter participant discussed his approach to making
his critiques more palatable: “First of all, I try to say something positive. People are sensitive.
These are their little babies. I always try to remember that behind every Flickr account there’s an
actual person.” However, some participants expressed that these types of comments were not
appropriate unless the photographer had requested a critique. As one participant explained:
Though people do it, it’s sort of considered rude, especially when somebody’s new in the
Group and their picture’s not good, to say, ‘I wouldn’t have done this or this or that.” If
somebody does it regularly [makes the same mistake] – a couple times I’ve sent them
private email saying, “Hey, I’d try this.” But I think as a community, it’s sort of frowned
upon to give advice, unless it’s asked for. (Flickr 12)
In this case, the participant perceived a norm of politeness, which was violated when people left
unrequested critical comments. Interestingly, it appears to be the publicness of the critique the
participant above took issue with, as he had sent private messages suggesting a user try
something different. However, these more detailed, critique oriented comments are sought after
by some users. One very experienced participant lamented over the quality of comments he
receives:

73

I mean the whole purpose of me joining Flickr and [Group name omitted] and some of
these other active Groups was to get some critiques. I mean what’s the point of posting
this stuff unless you are told the fine points? Saying something like “cool” or “that’s
awesome” – that’s not a critique. (Flickr 09)
Another participant talked about getting critique comments “very rarely,” even when she had
asked for them, describing the aversion people have of posting critical comments as being an
unspoken rule summed up as “we really don't want to post anything bad on here!” This is further
reinforcement of the existence of a politeness norm that may conflict with learning. However,
additional research would be needed to determine if this is the case universally, or if Group
membership and social network influence the appropriateness of critique comments. Certainly
membership in critique focused Groups would influence these types of comments, but this type
of Group was used to a very limited extent by participants.
Questions and Answers
In addition to using the comment feature for feedback, participants also discussed its
utility for asking questions of other users. Participant discussed both receiving and posting
questions in the comments field, with topics ranging from where a photograph was taken to
technical questions about how it was created. One participant noted that she regularly checked
her Flickr homepage after signing in to keep up with any questions asked: “Sometimes people
will ask you a question in the comments, so I want to make sure that I answer their question.”
Other times, participants would post photos and ask for help in the description with the hope that
people would comment. Another participant explained his approach: “Hey, here’s a photo that I
took. Something didn’t work right. What am I doing wrong?”

74

However, participants did not use the comments feature for all of their question asking.
Flickr mail was also a popular method for asking direct questions of other users. For example,
one participant, when asked about asking questions on Flickr, shared an experience about using
Flick mail:
This guy had a very beautiful landscape… and the water looked foggy. Everything else
was nice, bright, sunny, and just a really nice look. So I emailed the guy and said,
“How’d you do this?” and he said, “Well I used a 10-stop filter and it was such a long
exposure that the waves just all sort of fade together…but everything else is nice and
bright and sunny.” (Flickr 12)
Some data indicates that Flickr mail was utilized for question asking because of technical
difficulties experienced with the comments feature:
A lot times it’s hard to ask a question on a particular picture. There’s no way to find out if
you’ve got feedback, if they’ve responded, other than going back to that picture. So it’s
kind of a pain to follow up and remember to follow up, so you’ll ask through Flickr mail
directly so you get a response back and you don't have to worry about waiting for it or
finding it. (Flick14)
In this case, the participant was working around a perceived technical issue. While a “recent
activity” section of users’ Flickr homepages provide alerts when others post comments on an
image on which they have already commented, there is no easy way to know if someone has
responded to their specific comment without revisiting the image. Additionally, if a user is
commenting on numerous images, the alert that another user has also commented may never be
seen due to the recent alerts section only have space for information about five of the last most

75

recent activities. A couple of participants also spoke about a similar issue with the discussion
board posts.
Group discussion boards were cited as another public avenue for seeking and sharing
information. Some participants discussed posting questions to discussion boards only after
unsuccessfully searching for it in existing threads. As discussed earlier in the Groups section,
participants frequently discussed joining Groups related to the kind of equipment they owned.
Often the information they sought had already been discussed, but in some cases participants had
posed questions to these Groups. For example, one participant would post questions when he
encountered problems with his camera, such as, “Is anyone else having this issue with the
camera? Has anyone ever experienced this?”
Participants viewed Group discussion boards as a viable means to get answers. As one
participant said, “You can start a topic, and people will chime in.” Question topics discussed by
participants varied in content, but were often related to equipment and gear. According to
participants, some Groups differ somewhat in terms of how useful the discussion boards are.
Generally, more active Groups have more active discussion boards. However, even among those
Groups, some participants differentiated between Groups in which they felt it was appropriate to
ask photography-related questions and those that were more social. Other participants’ stories
indicated that some Groups are more open to questions than others, even if the question has been
asked and answered before. As one participant explained:
One of the things that’s interesting to me is that people persistently come into the Strobist
group and they’ll say, “What do I need to get started? How do I get started?” And in
many groups they’d get slammed, but in that group, typically, someone will calmly
respond. Usually several people will calmly respond and say… “go here, buy this, then

76

go out to David’s independent blog [the Strobist Group founder] and there’s a thing on
there called Strobist lighting 101 and it’s a series of graduated lessons on learning to use
lights. So go do that.” And if somebody does that and comes back and says, “Oh my god
this is so great. My kit’s coming. I can’t wait, and I’ve already read the first three things
6

and I’ve made this snoot . Here’s a picture of my snoot.” Somebody will say, “That’s
really great, man. I remember when I was just learning, [when] I got my first kit. Good
luck and come back and post your pictures.” And some of these people who are posting
this stuff are pros. They don’t have to be doing this, but they’re sort of giving back. I
think there is that sense of we all need to give back (Flickr10).
In addition to providing an excellent example of dealing with often asked questions, this quote
also provides additional evidence of a sense of community felt by some participants. Earlier it
was discussed that when users leave comments, comments are left for them in return. These
examples of giving back out of a commitment to the Group help to shed light on how
passionately users care about Flickr and, more specifically, their Groups. In this particular case,
the Group had been in existence for quite some time and had developed a way to bring novices
in, first directing them to tutorials, but letting them know that when they had questions, the more
expert members were there to help. In a way, the Group had created a means of facilitating LPP.
Wenger and colleagues (2002) argue that developing systems to deal with new members helps to
keep existing members from getting bogged down with recurring questions. The Strobist
approach provides an excellent example of a way that Flickr CoPs can accomplish this. The
approach in and of itself is a further reflection of a commitment to the community. In order to
ensure that members do not become frustrated with questions from newbies, or the discussion
6

A snoot is a special type of tube that fits over a camera-mounted flash or studio light to allow
photographers to control the radius and direction of the light.
77

boards cluttered with already asked and answered questions, the leadership of the Group took the
time and effort to design an unobtrusive entry point.
Participants’ descriptions of answering questions show a consideration for their own skill
level. Interviews revealed that users did not need to be an expert to provide an answer. For
example, as one participant explained, if he can answer a question in his equipment group, he
does:
If somebody asks a question and I happen to know the answer to it, I’ll answer it. But
there’s people who’ve been using this stuff way longer than me that are way smarter than
me on the products and they’re there all the time. (Flickr 07)
In this case, the participant acknowledged that he was not an expert, but helped others when he
could. Other participants expressed similar sentiments. However, depending on the Group and
topics, expertise can be somewhat fluid. For example, one participant discussed how his role as a
knowledge sharer changes dependent on the Group:
In some groups I'm the newbie. Some groups I'm the moderate. And that's one of the
things I like, is being able to jump around and be[ing] able to give advice in some of the
Groups where I'm more experienced in and where I'm not so experienced, go in and get
some help.
These two examples show that the relationship between expertise and question answering is
largly dependant on whether or not the user feels they can adequately answer the question, not
whether or not they are a photography expert. The second example above also provides more
evidence that user behavior in Groups differs depending on the domain.

78

The diversity of skill level within Groups was discussed by most particpants as being
beneficial to the overall Group dynamic and learning of members. This was illustrated well by
one particpant, who explained:
There's always people you can learn with, people who are at your level, and you don't
mind asking them questions, or getting together – knowing you're on the same level
without feeling insecure or whatever. Then there's also the more advanced people that
you can approach and say, “Hey, now how did you do that?” or “How do you use your
flash?” And then you can look at some of these snapshot type [of] pictures and say, “Oh
my gosh, I can't believe I was there five years ago, thinking that was the greatest thing
ever.” And I always think, “Kudos for putting it out there!” (Flickr 20)
This participant mentioned learning with other users she felt were peers, and while this offered a
level of security, it was still easy to access more expert members when questions outside the
purview of her peer group arose.
One theme related to question asking that multiple participants discussed was the
openness of users and their willingness to share knowledge. As one participant put it, “As long as
you’re not trying to steal somebody’s effect, everybody’s really open and honest about, ‘here’s
how I did it.’” However, participants also discussed experiences in which other users have
withheld information when they had inquired about how something was done. Participants
expressed that some of the professional photographers they had encountered on Flickr were
guarded in sharing information. As explained by one participant:
Some people are kind of hesitant [and] hold back their information because they don’t
want to be sharing secrets. A very popular thing, I would have to say, in the photography

79

world is a lot of people don’t like sharing their trade or secrets because they don’t want
people duplicating them. (Flickr17).
This same participant later elaborated, explaining how he had sent a message through Flickr mail
to a wedding photographer whose work he had commented on in the past:
I liked his wedding pictures and I just said, “Could I please assist you with a wedding
shoot? I don’t want to be paid, I just want to see how you do it to kind of get a concept.”
And the only information he’d give me back was, “Make sure you do an engagement
shoot. Get to know the couple.” [He] didn’t say no, but just do that. Okay. That didn’t
really help me for beans…Did I ask something else and I just don’t know it? [laughs]
(Flickr17)
In this case, the participant was trying to learn how to shoot wedding photography in an effort to
launch a photography business. This participant, as well as others, attributed the lack of sharing
on the part of some professionals as a response to the popularity of digital photography and
increasing numbers of amateurs encroaching on territory previously held by photographers with
professional training.
Others cited blocking EXIF data as another method of being secretive. One participant
estimated that between 30%-40% of the images he viewed on Flickr did not have EXIF data.
However, even those participants who expressed frustrations over the lack of information sharing
on the part of some users they had encountered felt that most users were very open with
information. Those instances in which they had not had a question answered, or felt that another
user was intentionally holding back information, may have stuck out in their memories because
they were such rare occurrences.

80

In summary, findings suggest that all participants were actively engaged in learning in
multiple Flickr CoPs. Group membership was integral to CoP-based learning. Through multiple
solitary and interactive learning strategies, participants advanced their photographic knowledge
and skill. These strategies allowed participants to acquire both explicit and implicit knowledge.
By applying these strategies and practicing their craft, participants attributed their success and
improvement as photographers to their experiences on Flickr.
Discussion
Learning was central to the Flickr experiences of participants in this study. Through their
use of Flickr, participants felt that they had improved and were continuing to improve as
photographers. Participants leveraged Flickr as a constellation of CoPs to tailor their learning
experiences to their individual needs. Groups with high levels of activity were described as being
desirable by participants, as they would likely result in more people seeing and, hopefully,
providing feedback on their work. High levels of activity were largely attributed to strong Group
leadership. In these Groups, participants found learning partners and built their social networks.
The learning processes described by participants were strongly rooted in the affordances of
Flickr, relying most frequently on Groups, contact networks, comments, discussion boards and
EXIF data. These features were utilized for solitary learning by accessing information that
already existed on the site, as well as interactive learning that occurred through engaging with
other users. Using these strategies, participants met their needs for knowledge acquisition
through accessing explicit information about a wide array of topics, such as camera features,
composition techniques, and lighting, which they converted to tacit knowledge through practice.
In viewing photographs, participants witnessed the know how of other users, which inspired them
to attempt similar captures, resulting in the development of more tacit knowledge. The results of

81

their efforts were posted to share with other Flickr users, added to Group pools and appeared via
their photostream to those who listed them as a contact. These examples of the participants’ tacit
knowledge was then commented upon by other CoP members, providing encouragement,
reinforcement, and critique, further contributing to their learning process by alerting them to
what they did well, as well as what could have been done better. Data also indicate that
participants attribute their improvement as photographers to Flickr. As one participant who
described himself as a “baseline amateur” when he started using the site said of his development
to date, “I’m light-years better.”
Limitations
The interviews conducted for this study were done to gain insight into CoP-based
learning practices of photography enthusiasts who use the photosharing social media platform
Flickr. While the results reported illustrate a number of different ways participants utilized Flickr
CoPs in their efforts to further their knowledge and skills related to photography, there are a
number of limitations regarding sampling and method that should be discussed. To begin,
participants were recruited from geographic Groups tied to the Great Lakes region. Flickr is a
global social media platform and, as such, the results reported here cannot speak directly to
national and international learning practices in Flickr CoPs. Additionally, as participants
volunteered to take part in the study, self-selection bias is also a limitation. A screener survey
was used to ensure that potential participants used the site for learning. As a result of these
sampling methods, participants selected for interviews may have been positively biased in
regards to their opinions not only of Flickr, but learning through Flickr as well.
As in all research relying on self-reported data, the interview data may reflect a social
desirability bias. For example, participants may have been less likely to discuss their

82

shortcomings as photographers and the ways in which they have struggled to learn on Flickr as
they were to discuss how much their photography had improved through the learning that
occurred on Flickr. Lastly, the findings reported here specific to the CoP structure of Flickr do
not necessarily apply to other online CoPs, or even other photography-themed online CoPs
outside of Flickr. The unique structure of Flickr and its combination of available features,
including EXIF data, contacts, comments, Group discussion boards and photo pools, as well as
other site features that aide in learning are different from other content-creation online CoPs. For
example, Wikipedia uses a very different model for users participating in the creation of
encyclopedia content. As such, findings are limited in their application to other online CoPs.
Conclusion
Learning and information sharing are frequently the focus of research employing the CoP
lens. As discussed earlier, these studies often focus on how organizations can best leverage CoPs
for strategic advantage. Other studies have addressed how CoPs can be structured for more
formal learning, a use outside of the initial conceptualization of CoPs outlined by Wenger
(1998). The study of voluntary, open CoPs has been rare, with a few notable exceptions
discussed earlier. In regards to the study of Flickr, the vast majority of studies addressing this
unique social media site have relied on data mining techniques using the Flickr API. This study
illustrates the utility of the CoP lens for studying learning in naturally occurring CoPs. Through
interviews, this study has provided insight into the learning behaviors and related social practices
of a sample of Flickr users in an effort to provide a glimpse into the ability of social media to
facilitate CoP-based learning for people honing their skills as photographers, and to illustrate that
voluntary, naturally occurring online CoPs can serve an integral role in the learning process.

83

However, a number of issues related to activity in Flickr CoPs remain unresolved. More
specifically, participants described activity levels of a given Group in the various features of
Flickr to be important in determining the perceived utility of said Group. As activity within a
CoP is an important determinant of success, a second study was conducted to explore how user
characteristics are related to specific types of Flickr activities.

84

Chapter 5
Study Two Introduction
The ability of social media platforms to maintain connections to previously existing ties
has been well documented (Ellison et al., 2007; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; Steinfield,
Ellison, & Lampe, 2008). However, another category of social media sites, often categorized
synonymously as passion-centric, interest-specific, and content sharing, provide a different type
of user experience. Typically rooted in a shared interest, such as a hobby, these SNSs allow
previously unknown users to connect, using their shared interest as a means of facilitating
interaction. The photo-centric social media platform Flickr is such a site.
As discussed in Study One, the features of Flickr allow for the natural development of
communities of practice (CoPs), social structures comprised of individuals with a shared interest,
who, through ongoing engagement, learn from each other and advance their knowledge and
skills related to the interest. Results of Study One indicate that there are two main learning
strategies employed by Flickr users: solitary learning and interactive learning. Both of these
learning strategies are made possible by the structure of Flickr and the contributions of site
members. Analysis of interview data revealed several themes. First, participant descriptions of
their membership in Groups highlighted the utility of Flickr as a constellation of related CoPs.
Groups function much like other online CoPs, providing a way for members to interact and share
content, whether it be information or photographs. Additionally, users form social networks,
adding other users, often met through their Groups, as contacts.
Study One participants viewed activity levels within Flickr Groups to be an important
factor in selecting Groups to join, as well as their continued participation. According to cofounding CoP theorist Wenger (1998), continued interaction among members is necessary for

85

CoPs to be successful. Accordingly, active participation is a fundamental characteristic of
successful CoPs. This was well illustrated by Study One participants who explained that Groups
with little activity die, or simply become collections of related photos, which in turn severely
limits the ability of the CoP to provide a robust learning environment. Study One participants
considered posting photographs to Group pools, photograph commenting, and discussion board
posts as metrics of activity and Group usefulness when deciding to join or, if already a member,
if it was time to leave.
Social media tools, such as Flickr, have provided new options for communication and
interaction, as well as changed how content is created and shared online. However, regardless of
the format and the tools available to the users, maintaining an active membership remains a
prevailing challenge for online community leaders and, in the case of CoPs, is vital to the
learning experiences of members. The second study presented here seeks to quantitatively
explore member participation by determining what user characteristics and perceptions predict
the types of activities discussed by Study One participants as being vital to the sustained success
of Flickr Groups.
Focusing on individual learner characteristics is an approach not typically used in the
study of CoPs. This approach shifts the focus from specific CoPs, an approach common in CoP
research, to individuals who are active CoP members. As such, findings from Study Two will
provide researchers with new means for understanding CoP success: the characteristics of users
who actively contribute, which can be seen as a determinate of CoP success. Additionally, this
study contributes to the larger understanding of CoP success by providing quantitative means of
identifying user characteristics associated with maintaining an active CoP.

86

Chapter 6
Study Two Supplemental Literature
While prior research pertaining to the specific variables of interest will be briefly
discussed here, the reader is referred to Chapter Two for a more in-depth discussion of work
addressing Flickr and communities of practice.
Expertise and Knowledge Sharing
The process of advancing from a novice to an expert within a CoP necessitates that the
membership be comprised of individuals with diverse knowledge and skill levels (Wenger, 1998;
Wenger et al., 2002). Participants in Study One felt that the different skill levels benefited
learning experiences within their Groups as the variance in skill meant that there were expert
members that could answer questions, as well as novice members that those with more
experience could help. A variety of different factors contribute to CoP member participation
levels, including interest in the community, perceived outcomes of membership, and expertise
(Wenger el al., 2002).
Expertise within CoPs exists along a continuum, from novices engaging in legitimate
peripheral participation to experts. Similarly, participation in CoPs is something that occurs at
different levels: core; active; and peripheral. Members of the core group are typically leaders
within the community. These members may have a formalized role, such as coordinator, or may
emerge through high levels of activity. Members of core groups perform a variety of tasks that
provide direction for the CoP, including coordinating events, facilitating communication between
members, and contributing to discussions (Wenger et al., 2002). The importance of Group
leadership, as discussed by participants in Study One, reinforces the importance of this core
group. Participants saw Group moderators and administrators as being instrumental to

87

encouraging activity, and thus the success of the Group. Members of the active category
frequently attend meetings and occasionally participate in discussions, but not to the extent of
core members (Wenger et al., 2002). However, fluctuation even within a CoP should be expected
as engagement may vary as domain interest and other factors change (Wenger et al., 2002).
Wenger posits that core and active members comprise between 10 to 15 percent and 15 to 20
percent, respectively, of the entire community. This leaves the rest of the membership in the
peripheral category. Similar activity patterns have been found in research addressing Wikipedia
and Twitter use. On Twitter, 0.05% of the users are responsible for around half of the posted
content (Wu, Hofman, Mason, & Watts, 2011). Analyses of Wikipedia contributions indicate
that a fairly small group of editors are responsible for producing the bulk of the content
(Panciera, Halfaker, & Terveen, 2009; Priedhorsky, Chen, Lam, Panciera, Terveen, & Riedl,
2007).
Access to both knowledge and experts has been found to be a motivating factor for
participating in online CoPs (Coreeeia, Paulos, & Mesquita, 2009). Consequently, the success of
a CoP is largely dependent on the ability of members to communicate and share information
(Wenger, 1998; Wenger, et al., 2002). In the case of online CoPs, having technological systems
capable of supporting interaction is essential (Moule, 2006; Wenger et al., 2002; 2009). CoPs
should provide space for group discussion, one-on-one communication, as well as content to be
accessed (Wenger et al., 2002). Wenger uses the term aliveness to capture the excitement and
levels of participation in an active CoP. He argues that good CoP design can help to facilitate
this. Members’ subject knowledge influences how they choose to participate in CoPs. However,
having the infrastructure for the exchange of knowledge does not guarantee it will take place.
Ardichvili, Page, and Wenting (2003) found CoP members were reluctant to share knowledge

88

due to a fear of being criticized, as well as doubts about the accurateness or relevance of the
information. While the researchers concluded that trust played a role in this reluctance to share, it
seems evident that doubts about the knowledge itself also played a factor, indicating a possible
lack of expertise.
The role that expertise plays in knowledge sharing has been explored in other online
contexts. Ackerman (1998) found that experts answering questions in the Answer Garden system
were concerned that they answer questions completely and accurately as failure to do so might
negatively impact their status with people unfamiliar with them. Other work addressing question
and answer web sites has found that synthesists (question answerers who research their answers)
rather than specialists (experts in an area) provide better answers (Gazan, 2006; Harper, Raban,
Rafaeli, & Konstan, 2008). Similarly, in research on the use of crowdsourcing for the creation of
an accurate map of the world, scholars found that expertise was not associated with quality or
contributions (Mashhadi, Quattrone, Capra, & Mooney, 2012).
Studying an online community of Java programmers, Zhang, Ackerman, Adamic, and
Nam (2007) found that a select few advanced users answered most questions. However, users
with less expertise answered questions posed by others with little expertise. Zhang and
colleagues also found what they referred to as “the expertise gap.” This describes confusion
caused by an expert answering a novice’s question at too high of a level. Data indicated that
when less expert users answered these questions, they did so at a level that was easier for novices
to understand. To address this issue, the researchers developed a system to better match question
askers to question answerers. In other question and answer research, scholars found that
questions are very shallow, meaning a great deal of expertise is not needed to provide an answer

89

(Adamic, Zhang, Bakshy, & Ackerman, 2008). This research also illustrates that experts are not
the only members capable of providing good answers.
Social media platforms have also received attention from scholars addressing knowledge
sharing. Addressing Wikipedia, researchers discovered that substantive experts, those who work
on improving content quality, are more involved in discussions about articles and with other
users (Welser et al., 2011). Morris, Teevan, and Panovich (2010) found that Facebook and
Twitter users were motivated to answer questions posed by members of their social network
because they had the expertise to provide an answer.
These results of these studies indicate that experts often share their expertise, but in some
contexts less expert people are perfectly capable of providing good information. As a whole,
these studies indicate that the relationship between expertise and knowledge sharing are
somewhat complex, providing conflicted results. However, when measured, these studies show
that experts do provide more answers, regardless of quality. As such, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H1:

Expertise will positively predict knowledge sharing.

The features of Flickr allow users to share knowledge in multiple ways, such as through
comments and discussion boards. Comments are used to provide feedback to users about their
photographs. Study One found that there were three categories of comments: encouraging, detail,
and critique. Study One participants expressed that encouraging and detail comments were more
frequently given. Participants also expressed frustration that critique comments occurred so
rarely, even when requested. Some Study One participant accounts indicate that a norm of
politeness may guide commenting, however other participant comments suggest that the

90

expertise of the commenter may play a role. More specifically, that the more expert users may be
more likely to offer detail and critique comments than less expert users.
H2: Flickr users who are more expert will be more likely to leave detail and critique
comments than less expert users.
As Study One participants expressed mixed opinions concerning commenting, the following
research question is also asked to explore other commenting behaviors:
RQ1a: Does commenter skill level/expertise influence commenting behaviors of Flickr
users? If so, how?
Study One identified multiple solitary and interactive learning strategies. As discussed in the
initial literature review and Study Two results, LPP describes how novices advance their
knowledge in CoPs, first beginning by performing tasks peripheral to the central activities of the
community, then gradually completing increasingly advanced tasks. One such learning behavior
that emerged during study one was learning through viewing the photos of others. However, as
with other learning behaviors discussed by study one participants, expertise often did not seem to
play a role in who engaged in this activity. To determine the extent to which this is true, the
following research question is posed:
RQ1b: Does skill level/expertise predict the learning strategies of Flickr users? If so,
how?
A central activity in Flickr CoPs is posting photographs. Users come to the site because
of an interest in photography. According to scholarship on legitimate peripheral participation
(LPP), novices would not engage in an activity central to the practice of the community.
However, given the relative ease of uploading photographs to the site, this may not hold true for
Flickr CoPs. As such, the following research question is asked:

91

RQ1c: Does skill level/expertise predict the photo posting behavior of Flickr users? If so,
how?
Personality Traits
The Big-Five framework is a five-factor model of personality traits, which are believed to
classify most individual personality differences (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). The five
factors (extraversion/introversion, agreeableness/disagreeable, conscientiousness/impulsive,
emotional stability/neurotic, and openness to experience/resistance to change) are bipolar and
summarize specific traits. Research on knowledge management has found relationships between
personality characteristics and knowledge sharing (Matzler, Renzl, Muller, Herting, &
Mooradian, 2008; Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006). Specifically, agreeableness,
conscientious, and openness positively influence knowledge sharing behaviors.
Researchers addressing various forms of Internet use have found relationships between
use and personality traits, but in some cases have come to conflicting conclusions. Results from a
study conducted by Amichai-Hamburger, Wainapel and Fox (2002) indicate that introverted
people express themselves better in computer mediated communication. Studying Internet
support groups, Swickert, Hittner, Harris, and Herring (2002) found the opposite. Landers and
Lounsbury (2006) found that three of the Big Five traits – agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
extraversion – were negatively related to overall Internet use, while Engelberg and Sjöberg
(2004) found no relationship between any of the Big Five traits and Internet use.
More recently, personality traits have been the focus of research addressing social media
use. Facebook, in particular, has been the subject of some of these studies. Ross, Orr, Sisic,
Arseneault, Simmering, and Orr (2009) found that Facebook users who were extroverts belonged
to more groups, although extroversion was not related to the number of Facebook Friends, time

92

spent on the site, or any communicative features. Furthermore, those high in neuroticism were
more likely to use the Wall, while those low in this trait were more likely to use the photos
feature. Online sociability was related to openness to new experiences. Correa, Hinsley, and
Zuniga (2010) found these same three traits were associated with more frequent use of social
media. Ryan and Xenos (2011) found that Facebook users are more extraverted and narcissistic
than nonusers, but less conscientious. Extraverted users also were more likely to use
communicative features, while neurotic users were associated with Wall posts.
Although more recent findings regarding social media use and personality show some
consistency, overall findings regarding Internet use are mixed. However, if expertise is not able
to explain the Flickr activities discussed above, perhaps personality traits can provide some
insight. Given the somewhat conflicting research, the following are structured as research
questions instead of hypotheses:
RQ2a: Do personality characteristics predict the photo posting behavior of Flickr users?
If so, which ones?
RQ2b: Do personality characteristics predict commenting behaviors of Flickr users? If
so, which ones?
RQ2c: Do personality characteristics predict the learning strategies of Flickr users? If so,
which ones?
RQ2d: Do personality characteristics predict the knowledge sharing of Flickr users? If so,
how?
Sense of Online Community
Wenger and colleagues (2002) stress the importance of the community element, saying
that a community is more than a Web site or a collaboratively created database, “it is a group of

93

people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the process develop a sense of
belonging and mutual commitment” (pg. 34). This sense of belonging is commonly referred to as
a sense of community. Cothrel and Williams (1999) argue that one of the keys to high levels of
participation in online communities is the development of a sense of community. Sense of
community, reciprocity, and prosocial behavior have all been found to be motivators for
participation in online CoPs (Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Community members that lurk, or in CoP
terms, engage in peripheral participation, feel less of a sense of community than posting
members (Nonnecke et al., 2006; Preece et al., 2004).
The importance of community emerged in Study One as participants described their
attachment to their Groups. As sense of online community has been found in previous research to
be a motivator for participation, it is used as a control variable to more accurately determine
predictors of user behavior. Additionally, some Study One participants discussed their
attachment to their Groups and participation in a way that seemed to speak directly to a strong
sense of online community, further indicating that this is a characteristic that may be influential
in the behavior of Flickr users and should be considered when trying to determine the role of
expertise and personality traits.

94

Chapter 7
Study Two Methods
Data Collection and Participants
Participants were recruited through eight different active Flickr Groups. This method was
used to recruit users who were members of active CoPs. No attempts were made to ensure any
particular levels of activity among the sample. Through posts made on the discussion boards in
each group, users were invited to participate in an online survey about their Flickr use. Each
participant who completed the survey was given a $5 Amazon.com gift card. Additionally,
twelve $20 Amazon.com gift cards were raffled off to participants once the survey was
completed. Initial data collection lasted two weeks.
While verifying eligibility for the $5 Amazon.com gift cards, the researcher discovered
145 fraudulent surveys. Fraudulent surveys were identified initially by having come from the
same IP address (information collected by the online survey host). Additional fraudulent surveys
were identified by a combination of suspicious email address, a Flickr account that had been
created after the launch of the survey, and a Flickr account that did not match other data
collected in the survey. For example, some surveys flagged as being suspicious listed Flickr
accounts in which the profile information did not match the demographic information (e.g.,
gender, location) collected during the survey. In instances where there were still doubts about the
veracity of the survey, the researcher contacted the user associated with the Flickr account
through Flickr mail. In all such cases, the surveys turned out to be fraudulent. Cleaning of the
data for fraudulent surveys revealed that the issue was localized to one Flickr Group. The
researched tracked the issue back to a member of this Group having posted the link to the survey
on an online photography discussion board outside of Flickr. As a result of this fraud, the survey

95

was reopened for an additional three weeks, but not in the Group where the fraud had occurred.
Between the initial two-week period and the additional three weeks, the survey was open for a
total of five weeks.
Users with no contacts and no Group memberships were removed from the sample as
Study One indicated that these two structures play an important role in Flickr CoPs. This resulted
in the loss of 8 participants. The majority of the final sample (N=200) reported being U.S.
residents (76%) with the remainder being international. The average age of participants was 41
and 53% of the sample was female.
Measures
The survey instrument measured specific types of Flickr behaviors as well as user
characteristics. All of these measures are discussed in greater detail below. Additionally,
demographic information and other descriptive data were collected, including gender, age,
ethnicity, Flickr account type, and time as a Flickr member were included. A complete copy of
the survey instrument may be seen in Appendix C.
Skill.
Varying levels of expertise in CoPs help to facilitate learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Wenger, 1998, Wenger et al., 2002). It is by engaging with more expert members that those who
are less experienced increase their knowledge. Study One data clearly illustrated that there are
multiple levels of expertise within Flickr CoPs. Participants felt that a diversely skilled Group
was beneficial for learning and sharing knowledge. In some instances, participants’ descriptions
of site behavior reflected differences in activity based on skill level. For example, participants
who were less experienced did not access EXIF data, while more expert participants discussed a
variety of ways in which they utilized it. As such, photographic expertise within Flickr CoPs was

96

measured in Study Two to gain a better understanding of how expertise may influence CoP
participation. Expertise, or skill, was measured in two different ways. The first was a single selfreported item asking participants to rate their level of expertise an a 5-point scale ranging from
beginner to expert (M=3.31, SD=1.01). The second was an original digital photography
inventory scale (a = 0.961, M = 4.07, SD = 0.95) inspired by Hargittai’s (2005; 2009) measure of
Web-oriented digital literacy. This scale was created in order to obtain a measure of expertise
more closely tied to specific knowledge. Participants ranked how familiar they were with twelve
digital photography terms using 5-point Likert-type scale (see Table 2).
Table 2
Summary of digital photography inventory scale and individual items
Alpha
Mean
SD
Digital Photography Inventory
0.96
4.07
0.95
Megapixel
4.23
0.95
ISO speed
4.14
1.09
Aperture
4.20
1.07
Shutter speed
4.30
0.96
Rule of thirds
4.14
1.26
Histogram
3.52
1.34
Depth of field
4.19
1.16
EXIF
3.82
1.34
RAW
3.73
1.38
Saturation
4.19
0.97
Bracketing
3.59
1.41
JPEG
4.36
0.82
Note: All items shared a common prompt: “Please indicate how familiar you are with the
following digital photography items:” and were measured on a 5-point scale (no
understanding, little understanding, some understanding, good understanding, full
understanding)
Commenting Behavior.
Commenting behavior was measured using seven single items. Study One found that
leaving and receiving comments provide an important means of interaction among users. In
particular Study One participants discussed how leaving a comment in order to elicit a comment
is a common practice. Additionally, Study One participants identified three comment types that

97

seem to reflect varying levels of expertise on the part of the commenter. The commenting
behavior items were created to address these uses of the comments feature. See Table 3 for item
wording and descriptive statistics for the remaining seven commenting items.
Table 3
Summary of the single items measuring commenting behavior
Mean
SD
I often leave comments for others.
5.49
1.39
If someone leaves a comment for me, I will leave a comment for them.
4.90
1.34
I often leave comments similar to "nice shot" or "great capture."
4.09
1.70
I often leave comments that highlight a specific aspect of the
5.37
1.36
photograph, such as "good use of light" or "excellent use of
composition"
I often leave comments that offer constructive criticism, such as "great
3.49
1.62
subject and lighting, but it would be a better image if you cropped out
the road" or "next time you might want to consider a longer exposure."
My comments are intended to be social.
5.24
1.19
If I leave a comment for someone, I hope they will leave one for me.
4.46
1.47
Note: All items shared a common prompt: “Think about the types of comments you leave
for other Flickr users about their photographs. Please indicate the extent to which you agree
with each of the following statements:” and were measured with a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”
Personality Traits.
Personality traits were measured using Gosling, Rentfrow, Swann’s (2003) Ten Item
Personality Inventory (TIPI), which measures each of the Big Five personality traits. Items in
this inventory consist of two item scales for each personality trait based on pairs of words
describing the trait. Respondents rate each item based on how they feel the words describe them.
One word pair for each personality trait is reverse scored, allowing antonyms to be used to assess
the personality traits. According to Gosling and colleagues (2003) internal consistency scores as
measured by Chonbach’s alpha for TIPI scales are typically quite low, and instead place
emphasis on the content validity of the scales. As such, all five scales have been used, even
though some alpha scores are far below what is normally considered acceptable. The scales and
items (reflecting reverse scoring) are described in Table 4.

98

Table 4
Summary of TIPI scales and individual items
Alpha
0.81

Mean
4.09
4.62
3.54

SD
1.57
1.67
1.74

Agreeableness
Sympathetic, warm
Critical, quarrelsome (R)

0.50

5.50
5.68
5.32

1.17
1.14
1.67

Conscientiousness
Dependable, self-disciplined
Disorganized, careless (R)

0.56

5.46
5.69
5.21

1.09
1.05
1.55

Emotional Stability
Calm, emotionally stable
Anxious, easily upset (R)

0.72

5.19
5.38
4.99

1.31
1.27
1.65

Extraversion
Extraverted, enthusiastic
Reserved, quiet (R)

Openness to New Experiences
0.40
5.57
1.02
Open to new experiences, complex
5.68
0.98
Conventional, uncreative (R)
5.46
1.53
Note: All items shared a common prompt: “Here are a number of personality traits
that may or may not apply to you. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with
each statement. You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you,
even if one of the characteristics applies more strongly than the other” and were
measured with a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Disagree Strongly” to
“Agree Strongly.”
Sense of Online Community.
Numerous Study One participants discussed Flickr as an online community. The
literature discussed above indicates that sense of community can have an impact on CoP activity.
As the one of the goals of research has been to understand CoP participation, a scale measuring
sense of online community, adapted for Flickr from Chen, Boase, and Wellman (2002), was
included as a control variable. The sense of online community scale and items are described in
Table 5.

99

Table 5
Summary of Flickr sense of community scale and individual items
Alpha
Mean
SD
Sense of Community
0.86
5.63
1.03
I feel a sense of community with the people I've
5.56
1.32
met on Flickr.
I have made new friends by meeting people on
5.57
1.47
Flickr.
Using Flickr to communicate with people is as safe
5.48
1.09
as communicating with people in other ways.
Flickr has allowed me to communicate with all
5.90
1.20
kinds of interesting people I otherwise would never
have interacted with.
I feel I belong to an online community on Flickr.
5.53
1.36
I can find people who share my exact interests more
5.16
1.39
easily on Flickr than I can in my daily life.
Note: All items shared a common prompt: “Thinking about your experiences with
Flickr, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following
statements:” and were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”
Knowledge Sharing.
Two single item measures of knowledge sharing were created to measure the use of
discussion forums (M=4.05, SD= 1.57) and the comment feature (M=4.39, SD=1.50) (I share
knowledge in group discussion forums often; I use the comments feature to share knowledge
often). Additionally, a knowledge sharing scale (inspired by Faraj & Sproull, 2000) was created
to measure the propensity of users to share knowledge. This scale and items are described in
Table 6.

100

Table 6
Summary of Flickr knowledge sharing scale and individual items
Alpha
Mean
SD
Knowledge Sharing
0.81
5.21
1.16
I share my knowledge and expertise with other
4.92
1.42
Flickr users.
If I have some special knowledge about how to
5.46
1.44
perform a photographic task, I am NOT likely to
tell other Flickr users about it. (reverse coded)
I exchange virtually no information, knowledge or
5.27
1.66
share skills with other Flickr users. (reverse coded)
When I am more knowledgeable on a topic than
5.25
1.27
other Flickr users, I freely share hard-to-find
knowledge or specialized skills.
Note: All items shared a common prompt: “Think about your experiences sharing
information on Flickr. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the
following statements:” and were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”
Flickr Self-efficacy.
Gunawardena and collegues (2009) suggest that users’ technological self-efficacy should
be considered when building online CoPs. Their recommendation stems from concerns that users
unfamiliar with a system may have less successful interactions than proficient users. According
to Bandura (2006), “Scales of perceived self-efficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of
functioning that is the object of interest.” As such, a Flickr self-efficacy scale was created to use
as a control variable in the analyses. The scale and items are described in Table 7.

101

Table 7
Summary of Flickr self-efficacy scale and individual items
Alpha
Mean
SD
Flickr self-efficacy
0.92
6.14
0.69
Upload a photo to Flickr
6.76
0.60
Join a group on Flickr
6.73
0.68
Post a comment on Flickr
6.68
0.77
Tag a photo on Flickr
6.52
1.00
Add contacts on Flickr
6.67
0.77
Start a discussion topic on a group on Flickr
6.24
1.21
Make a post to a discussion topic in a group on
6.53
0.91
Flickr
Create sets on Flickr
6.64
0.87
Troubleshoot Flickr problems
5.87
1.32
Add a note on a photo on Flickr
6.45
0.96
Use Flickr to find information
6.27
1.08
Note: All items began with “I feel confident that I can” and shared a common
prompt: “Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following
statements:” and were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”

Flickr Usage.
Finally, a Flickr Intensity scale, based on Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe’s (2007) Facebook
Intensity Scale, was created and used as a more sophisticated measure of usage than a simple
frequency item. This scale measures a number of attitudinal variables related to Flickr use as
well as the amount of time spent on Flickr, the number of Groups to which a user belongs, and
their number of contacts. This scale was used to control for use when determining if expertise
and personality traits were significant predictors of site activity. The scale and items are
described in Table 8.

102

Table 8
Summary of Flickr intensity scale and individual items
Alpha
0.78

Mean
4.77
5.85
5.87
5.82
5.11

SD
0.93
1.35
1.22
1.33
1.62

Flickr Intensity
Flickr is part of my everyday activity.
I am proud to tell people I'm on Flickr.
Flickr has become part of my daily routine.
I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Flickr
for a while.
I feel I am part of the Flickr community.
5.55
1.23
I would be sorry if Flickr shut down.
6.38
1.03
During the past week approximately how many
4.47
3.26
minutes per day on average have you spent on Flickr?
1 = 0-14, 2 = 15-29, 3 = 30-44, 4 = 45-59, 5 = 60-74, 6
= 75-89, 7 = 90-104, 8 = 105-119, 9 = 120-134,
10=135-149, 11=150-164, 12=165-180, 13 = more
than 3 hours
About how many total Flickr groups do you belong to?
1.69
0.64
(open-ended)
About how many total Flickr contacts do you have?
1.96
0.68
(open-ended)
Note: Total Flickr contacts and Groups were transformed by taking the log before
averaging across items to create the scale due to differing item scale ranges. Unless
otherwise noted, response categories were based on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”

103

Chapter 8
Study Two Results
As stated by Wenger and colleagues (2002), studying CoP success quantitatively is a
difficult task. By looking to related literature, the approach used here measures success by
looking at activities vital to Flickr CoPs, predicting user behavior based on user characteristics
related to skill, and personality traits. The researcher ran multiple OLS regressions to test the
hypotheses and answer the research questions. Each had a different user behavior as the
dependent variable (photograph posting, comments, learning strategies, and knowledge sharing).
Independent variables consisted of two different measures of photography skill/expertise,
photographer classification, propensity for knowledge sharing, and personality traits. Internet
usage, Flickr account type, time as a Flickr member, Flickr intensity, Flickr self-efficacy, sense
of online community and the demographic items mentioned above were used as control
variables.
Knowledge Sharing
Hypothesis 1 and RQ2b were addressed with three regressions looking at propensity to
2

2

share knowledge (R = 0.380), sharing knowledge through comments (R = 0.271), and sharing
2

knowledge through discussion boards (R = 0.157). Results found support for Hypothesis 1.
Skill/expertise, as measured by the digital photograph inventory, was associated with propensity
7

to share knowledge (β = 0.379, p < 0.01), sharing using comments (β = 0.276, p < 0.05), and
sharing using discussion boards (β = 0.295, p < 0.05). Additionally, sense of online community
(β = 0.305, p < 0.05) was associated with propensity to share knowledge and conscientiousness

7

Betas presented for scales are standardized. All others are unstandardized.
104

(β = 0.218, p < 0.05) was associated with sharing using comments. Results of these regressions
may be seen in Table 9. Correlations of the dependent variables pertaining to knowledge sharing
may be seen in Table 10.
Table 9
Predictors of knowledge sharing
Propensity to
share knowledge
(Intercept)
-1.705
Gender (female)
-.095
Age
-.007
Internet use per day
-.003
Ethnicity (white/non-white)
.083
Residence (US/non-US)
.242
Flickr account type
.296
Time as member
-.000
Self assessment of skill
-.176
Classification as a
.074
photographer
Digital photography
.379**
inventory
Sense of online community
.305*
Flickr intensity
.148
Flickr self efficacy
.085
Extraversion
.096
Agreeableness
.119
Conscientiousness
.025
Emotional stability
-.001
Openness to experiences
.025
2
.380
R
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001

105

Sharing using
comments
-.921
-.500
-.020
.008
-.253
.372
-.288
-.000
-.300
.038
.276*
.279*
.161
.073
.044
-.023
.218*
-.163
.044
.271

Sharing using
discussion
-.218
-.229
-.008
-.080
-.332
.337
-.221
-.000
-.173
.080
.295*
-.081
.180
.139
.052
-.113
.093
.070
.037
.157

Table 10
Correlation analysis of dependent variables from knowledge sharing regressions
Propensity to share
Sharing using
Sharing using
knowledge
comments
discussions
Propensity to
1.000
.550**
.393**
share knowledge
Sharing using
1.000
.371**
comments
Sharing using
1.000
discussions
* *p < .01 (2-tailed)
Photograph Posting
Regarding RQ1c, which focused on skill/expertise as a predictor of photograph posting
2

behavior (R = 0.158), self-assessment of skill (β = -2.059, p < 0.05) was the only significant
variable in the model. It was negatively associated with photograph posting frequency, meaning
those who are more skilled are less likely to post photographs as often. Results of this regression
can be seen in Table 11.

106

Table 11
Regression model of photograph posting behavior based on average
number of posts per week
Average photos per week
(Intercept)
-7.650
Gender (female)
-2.438
Age
.131
Internet use per day
-.071
Ethnicity (white/non-white)
2.985
Residence (US/non-US)
-5.363
Flickr account type
2.852
Time as member
.000
Self assessment of skill
-2.059*
Classification as a photographer
4.256
Digital photography inventory
-.140
Sense of online community
.051
Flickr intensity
.098
Flickr self efficacy
-.010
Extraversion
-.073
Agreeableness
-.610
Conscientiousness
.187
Emotional stability
-.016
Openness to experiences
.007
2
.158
R
*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001

Commenting Behaviors
Using regression analyses, support for Hypothesis 2 was found. Three regressions were
run to address commenting behavior based on the types of comments discovered in Study One.
The model run for encouraging comments resulted in no significant predictors. However, the
2

2

regressions for detail comments (R = 0.238) and critique comments (R = 0.265) both found
significant relationships with skill/expertise as measured by the digital photography inventory
(β = 0.384, p < 0.01) (β = 0.359, p < 0.01). Critique comments were also associated with the

107

agreeableness trait, although negatively, providing additional information regarding RQ2b.
Results of these three regressions can be seen in Table 12.
Table 12
Predictors of comment types
(Intercept)
Gender (female)
Age
Internet use per day
Ethnicity (white/non-white)
Residence (US/non-US)
Flickr account type
Time as member
Self assessment of skill
Classification as a
photographer
Digital photography
inventory
Sense of online community
Flickr intensity
Flickr self efficacy
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Openness to experiences
R

2

Encouraging
4.924
-.442
.009
-.116
.494
-.015
.229
-.000
-.262
.184

Detail
3.363
.102
.008
.030
.143
-.166
-.187
-.000
-.219
.334

-.157

.384**

.007
.052
.065
-.031
-.032
.205
-.069
-.179
.145

.035
.020
-.123
-.048
.001
.060
.174
-.114
.238

Critique
4.103
-.386
.004
-.024
-.516
.094
.027
-.000
-.411
.185*
.359**
.084
-.110
.041
.049
-.284**
-.007
.071
-.033
.265

*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
Regression analysis was used to answer RQ1a and RQ2b, addressing predictors of
2

additional commenting behaviors. In the first model (R = 0.617), sense of online community
(β = 0.212, p < 0.05) and Flickr intensity (β = 0.606, p < 0.001) were found to be associated with
2

the frequency of commenting. The regression model for comment reciprocation (R = 0.351) had
only one significant predictor: Flickr intensity (β = 0.497, p < 0.001). The regression looking at
2

reciprocity expectations by leaving a comment (R = 0.120) found a negative association with

108

self-assessment of skill (β = -0.487, p < 0.05), such that those who are more skilled are less
likely to leave a comment to in an effort to have a comment left for them on one of their
2

photographs. The model addressing leaving comments to be social (R = 0.289) was predicted by
sense of online community (β = 0.381, p < 0.01). The results of these first four regressions used
to answer RQ1a and RQ2b can be seen in Table 13. Correlations of the dependent variables with
significant findings from the regressions for commenting behaviors may be seen in Table 14
analysis.
Table 13
Predictors of commenting behaviors
Frequency Reciprocation
(Intercept)
Gender (female)
Age
Internet use per day
Ethnicity (white/nonwhite)
Residence (US/non-US)
Flickr account type
Time as member
Self assessment of skill
Classification as a
photographer
Digital photography
inventory
Sense of online
community
Flickr intensity
Flickr self efficacy
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Openness to experiences
R

2

Eliciting
comments
3.738
-.297
.009
.054
.355

To be
social
1.797
-.202
.004
.014
.090

.218
-.176
.005
.004
-.257

2.855
-.412
-.002
.012
-.278

-.228
-.124
-.000
-.174
.175

.393
-.463
-.000
-.234
-.132

.105
-.389
-.000
-.487*
.119

.397
.148
-.000
-.023
-.128

-.030

-.036

.184

.063

-.025

.173

.381**

.212*
.606***
-.058
-.099
.019
.118
.141
-.041
.617

.497***
-.001
-.013
-.049
.036
.012
.123
.351

*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
109

.048
-.068
-.059
.013
.048
-.145
.016
.120

.061
-.165
.058
.170
.057
-.114
.130
.289

Table 14
Correlation analysis of dependent variables from commenting regressions
Comment Reciprocation Eliciting
To be
Detail
frequency
comments social
Comment
1.000
.376**
.089
.297**
.205**
frequency
Reciprocation
1.000
.489**
.159*
-.050
Eliciting
1.000
.181*
.160*
comments
To be social
1.000
-.035
Detail
1.000
Critique
*p < .05 (2-tailed)
* *p < .01 (2-tailed)

Critique
-.038
.048
.165*
-.214**
.337**
1.000

Learning Behaviors
RQ1b and RQ2c were addressed by running six regressions focused on learning
behaviors related to solitary and interactive learning strategies. The first four regressions
reported below are for behaviors related to solitary learning and the last two are related to
interactive learning.
2

The results of the learning through viewing photographs analysis (R = 0.219) revealed
two significant negative associations: extraversion (β = -0.227, p < 0.05) and age (β = -0.015, p
< 0.05). The model focusing on predictors of learning through reading discussion board posts
2

(R = 0.204) was associated with emotional stability (β = 0.264, p < 0.05). Addressing learning
2

through searching Flickr (R = 0.250), skill/expertise as measured by the digital photography
inventory (β = 0.341, p < 0.05) was related to this learning technique. The final regression for
2

solitary learning strategies looked at learning from EXIF data (R = 0.307) and found three
significant relationships: skill as measured by the digital photography inventory (β = 0.417, p <
0.01); agreeableness (β = -0.296, p < 0.01), although negative; and country (β = 0.923, p < 0.05),

110

such that users from the US were more likely to learn through viewing EXIF data than non-US
users. The results of the regression analyses for solitary learning behaviors can be seen in Table
15.
Table 15
Predictors of solitary learning

(Intercept)
Gender (female)
Age
Internet use per day
Ethnicity (white/non-white)
Residence (US/non-US)
Flickr account type
Time as member
Self assessment of skill
Classification as a photographer
Digital photography inventory
Sense of online community
Flickr intensity
Flickr self efficacy
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Openness to experiences
R

2

Viewing
photos
5.514
-.160
-.015*
-.015
-.214
-.229
-.005
-.000
-.040
-.014
.138
.172
.101
-.039
-.227*
.121
.052
-.091
.148
.219

Discussion
posts
2.328
.147
.005
-.105
-.312
-.184
-.637
-.000
-.217
-.219
.249
.124
.050
.124
-.097
-.062
-.029
.264*
-.120
.204

Searching
Flickr
2.861
.200
.006
-.072
-.737
.243
-.522
-.000
-.290
.316
.341*
.206
.018
.078
-.020
-.137
-.089
.142
-.218
.250

Viewing
EXIF data
-.768
.363
.015
.072
.081
.923*
-.417
-.000
-.400
.384
.417**
.128
.025
.063
-.031
-.271*
.108
.102
-.171
.307

*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
The first regression used to look at an interactive learning variable found an association
2

between learning though asking questions using the comments feature (R = 0.217) and sense of
online community (β = 0.399, p < 0.05), as well as country (β = 0.736, p < 0.05). The model for
2

learning through asking questions in discussion forums (R = 0.248) had one negative predictor:
agreeableness (β = -0.244, p < 0.05). Results of these two regressions can be seen in Table 16.

111

Correlations of the dependent variables from all of the regressions for learning behaviors may be
seen in Table 17.
Table 16
Predictors of interactive learning
Questions in
comments
2.481
.201
.009
.032
-.048
.736*
-.508
.000
-.271
.085
.189
.399*
-.068
-.061
.091
-.063
-.055
-.038
-.081
.217

(Intercept)
Gender (female)
Age
Internet use per day
Ethnicity (white/non-white)
Residence (US/non-US)
Flickr account type
Time as member
Self assessment of skill
Classification as a photographer
Digital photography inventory
Sense of online community
Flickr intensity
Flickr self efficacy
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Openness to experiences
R

2

*p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001

112

Questions in
discussions
1.537
.331
.013
-.116
-.757
.179
-.798
-.000
-.148
.155
.212
.254
.041
.132
-.034
-.244*
-.096
.175
-.164
.248

Table 17
Correlation analysis of learning behavior dependent variables
Viewing Discussion Searching EXIF
Questions in Questions in
photos
posts
Flickr
data
comments
discussions
Viewing
1.000
.226**
.232**
.107
.319**
.143
photos
Discussion
1.000
.495**
.321** .354**
.680**
posts
Searching
1.000
.312** .405**
.502**
Flickr
EXIF data
1.000
.199*
.360**
Questions in
1.000
.492**
comments
Questions in
1.000
discussions
*p < .05 (2-tailed)
* *p < .01 (2-tailed)
Discussion
This study extends the findings of Study One by predicting Flickr CoP behavior based on
user characteristics. Participation has previously been highlighted as a key component of online
community success and has prompted a great deal of research on how to maintain an active
membership. CoP research has typically struggled with quantitative interpretations of success,
instead relying heavily on qualitative approaches. Findings here suggest that addressing CoP
success by studying active members may provide new insights on participation and,
consequently, success related to online CoPs. While methodological refinement and adjustments
will certainly be needed in future studies applying this approach, this study offers a base from
which to build and provides evidence of the usefulness of quantitative data in supporting
qualitative studies of CoPs.

113

Explaining expertise and activity.
Results show that expertise predicts a number of specific forms of participation integral
to Flickr CoP success. However, the two measures of expertise do not predict the same
behaviors. Photograph posting behavior, measured with an open-ended question addressing the
average number of photographs posted in a week, was predicted, although negatively, by selfassessment of skill level. This suggests that users who view themselves as being more expert are
posting fewer photographs. Through the CoP lens, posting fewer photographs could be an
indicator that a certain level of expertise has been reached. For example, when a person is less
expert, they may be engaging in more practice in an effort to hone their skills. Practicing new
techniques can result in a large number of photographs that the user can then share on Flickr.
These photographs exhibit the tacit knowledge of the photographer, and express to those who
view them what the photographer is capable of producing. Perhaps as Flickr users become more
expert, they feel less of a need to exhibit what they are capable of creating or, in the case of
developing and practicing new techniques, have arrived at a level of competence that has led to a
reduced need to practice, or at least publicly share as many artifacts of practice. Related to this, it
may also be that photographers who are more expert are in need of less feedback, resulting in the
posting of fewer photographs. Alternatively, the posting of fewer photographs by more expert
users could be a function of self-presentation. Perhaps those who are more expert have higher
standards for what is considered acceptable to post; thus, they may be highly selective in
choosing photographs to share, resulting in fewer posts.
Attempting to elicit reciprocation, a behavior in which a user leaves a comment with the
hope that the receiver will reciprocate with a comment of their own, was also found to be

114

negatively associated with self-assessment of skill level. As such, those who see themselves as
more skilled are less likely to be engaging in this behavior.
While more expert members may not be seeking comments, expertise as measured by the
digital photography inventory was a significant predictor of leaving detail and critique
comments. More precisely, there is a greater likelihood that more expert users will leave these
types of comments. It should be noted that classification as a photographer also predicted leaving
critique comments. This means that those who are closer to being a professional photographer, as
opposed to a casual occasional weekend hobbyist, are more likely to leave critique comments.
While not a pure measure of skill or expertise, as a hobbyist could be an expert photographer,
this finding indicates that the role photography plays in the life of the user may influence their
commenting behavior.
Results show that expertise, as measured by the digital photography inventory,
significantly predicts learning through searching Flickr and viewing EXIF data. Searching for
information in this context may be interpreted as a sign that the user’s level of expertise has
reached a level where the expert members of his or her Flickr Groups are no longer able to either
provide new information, or perhaps not provide it quickly enough. The lack of findings
concerning learning through viewing photographs and discussion posts indicates that these
behaviors occur independently of skill/expertise. However, it may be that less skilled users find
these resources adequate for their learning needs, but as more expertise is accumulated, users
seek additional sources. This would also partially explain the use of EXIF data by more skilled
users. Additionally, it may be that less expert users are unsure of how to interpret EXIF data
because they have not yet learned the meaning of all of the terms that are contained in the data
or, as Wenger (1998) would say, the language specific to the domain. Since more expert users

115

have learned the language, they are able to tap into this source of information as they continue to
learn about settings and technical issues involved in photography.
Lastly, expertise was positively related to propensity to share knowledge, sharing
knowledge using the comments feature, and sharing knowledge through discussion boards. Quite
simply, the more expert Flickr users are, the greater their propensity to share knowledge, and to
do so through comments and discussion boards. It should also be noted here that sense of online
community also predicted propensity to share knowledge and sharing knowledge through
comments, supporting previous scholarship indicating that sense of community motivates people
to participate (Cothrel & Williams, 1999; Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Wenger et al., 2002). The
combination of these predictors reinforces a theme that emerged in Study One: when people can
help, they do.
Explaining personality traits.
Results show that personality traits have a very limited ability to predict user behavior on
Flickr. However, some relationships do exist. Those who are agreeable are less likely to leave
critique comments. As the agreeableness trait represents a tendency toward being good-natured
and cooperative, this finding is not surprising. As found in Study One, many Flickr users appear
reluctant to leave critique comments out of a concern of upsetting the photographer.
Agreeableness was also negatively related to learning through viewing EXIF data and learning
through asking questions in discussion forums. These findings are somewhat contradictory. This
means that a user who is more agreeable is less likely to view EXIF data and less likely to ask
questions in discussion forums. However, this could be a function of the medium itself.
Discussion boards are a very public form of communication. While those that are agreeable are
generally open to helping others and expect help when they need it, it may be that they prefer the

116

exchange of information to be less public. Further research should explore other possibilities,
such as asking a question of a fellow CoP member or contact directly instead of posing a
question to the entire Group.
A more seemingly logical finding is that of extraversion being negatively related to
learning by viewing photographs. Extraverts are typically very social, and although no
relationship was found to exist with interactive learning strategies, they do not seem as well
suited for learning through viewing photographs as an introvert might be.
Those high in conscientiousness were found to be more likely to share knowledge
through the comments feature. Cullen and Morse (2011) argue that when conscientious
individuals see online activities as beneficial they will participate. In this case, it may be that
conscientious users simply see sharing knowledge through comments as an effective way to help
others. Conscientious individuals are also generally seen as being reliable and self-disciplined.
While the measure used for sharing knowledge through comments does not specifically involve
doing so in response to a question, this would fit with the personality trait. Study One
participants spoke about checking to see if anyone had asked any questions about any of their
recent posts and being sure to respond. Conscientiousness could explain this behavior. In an
effort to be reliable, the user is responding and sharing what knowledge they can.
Finally, emotional stability positively predicted learning from viewing discussion board
posts. People high in emotional stability are generally patient and less easily upset. It may be that
patience is a useful trait when engaging in solitary learning strategies. This is consistent with
other findings that have linked emotional stability to self-directed learning (Kirwan, Lounsbury,
& Gison, 2010).

117

Other predictors.
A number of other predictors that were included as demographic and control items
emerged during analysis. First, those with a greater sense of online community were associated
with leaving comments more frequently and for social purposes. Leaving comments is an easy
way to be active, and commenting to be social allows users to maintain relationships with other
users. This supports previous research linking activity to sense of online community (Cothrel &
Williams, 1999; Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Additionally, a greater sense of online community was
also associated with learning by asking questions through comments. This type of learning
appears to be a reflection of the users. As they have a greater sense of online community, they
appear more interested in learning through interacting with other users as opposed to engaging in
solitary learning strategies.
Flickr Intensity positively predicted comment frequency and comment reciprocation. This
first finding is likely due to the fact that the item probed the frequency of use of a particular
Flickr feature and the Flickr Intensity scale includes general measures of Flickr use, including
time spent on the site. Thus, if you use Flickr frequently, you would be more likely to use a
particular feature of Flickr. This same logic regarding general usage can be applied to comment
reciprocation. Study One found that comment reciprocation is a common norm on the site. The
more time a person is using the site, the more likely they are to engage in normative site
behaviors.
Country of residence, coded as US and non-US due to low numbers of users from
common countries, predicted learning from asking questions in comments and learning through
viewing EXIF data, such that users from the US were more likely to engage in both behaviors.

118

Additionally, age was also a significant predictor of leaning through viewing photographs, such
that older users were less likely to engage in this behavior.
Limitations
This study was limited by a variety of factors. First, due to the use of a non-random
sample, results cannot be generalized to all Flickr users. Many of the R2 values are relatively
low, suggesting that there are a number of other factors influencing user behavior. Future work
should consider additional predictors of use, such as motives for use. Additionally, as this
research is cross-sectional, results are not able to speak to causality. Future studies should
consider the use of experiments so that causal claims about learning through Flickr CoPs can be
made.
Conclusions
The results of this study identify a number of factors that contribute to activity in online
CoPs. These findings help to shed light on Study One findings regarding behaviors related to
photograph posting, commenting, knowledge sharing, and expertise. As activity within the
community is seen as instrumental to CoP success, the findings here may be useful to CoP
leaders in understanding activity levels within their CoPs. Additionally, this research has
presented a new approach for scholars seeking to quantitatively understand user activity and,
consequently, CoP success.

119

Chapter 9
Discussion
These studies have explored activity and learning practices of users of the photographythemed social media site Flickr using the communities of practice lens. To gain an understanding
of how Flickr users utilize Groups for learning more about photography and to determine how
CoPs function on Flickr, the researcher conducted interviews with 21 Flickr users. Drawing from
the results of the first study, a second study was conducted to determine predictors of activities
found in Study One to be important to Flickr CoP success. This chapter will discuss findings of
these studies and present a discussion that synthesizes across the results of both studies, focusing
on the affordances of the medium, learning strategies, and knowledge and expertise.
Additionally, implications concerning research on Flickr and for the design of systems
supporting online CoP will be discussed, as well as suggestions for future research.
Affordances of Flickr: Building Social Networks Through Multiple CoP Memberships
Communities of practice provide a social structure in which people with varying levels of
expertise related to a common interest can come together and learn from one another (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). While initially conceptualized as naturally
occurring, voluntary groups (1998), much attention has been dedicated to the development of
CoPs within organizations for the purpose of managing knowledge for competitive advantage in
the marketplace (Wenger, et al., 2002), with membership ranging from voluntary to required
(Schwen & Hara, 2003). Related CoPs are referred to as constellations (Wenger, 1998, Wenger,
et al., 2002). Data from Study One suggests that participants view Flickr as a constellation of
photography-related CoPs structured around both Groups and social networks as articulated

120

through their contacts lists. While numerous studies have addressed online CoPs (see Dubé et al.
for a review), very few have studied voluntary membership in open CoPs.
The results of Study One indicate that CoPs form on Flickr using Groups as an
organizational tool through which members can share photographs and knowledge related to a
common theme. Through various forms of activity, mutual engagement is maintained by the
membership and learning occurs through a variety of different site features, consistent with
successful CoPs (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al, 2002; Wenger et al., 2009). Data from Study One
indicate that not all Flickr Groups are CoPs. Participant accounts point to activity levels related
to posting photographs, comments, and to discussion board threads as characteristics of Groups
that can be defined as CoPs. The Group’s topic provides a shared interest, or domain, that brings
members together to socialize and learn from each other, forming a community where they can
engage in the practice of photography. In active Groups, the three essential elements of CoPs, the
domain, community, and practice (Wenger et al., 2002), are all evident.
As discussed earlier, Flickr’s ability to support multiple CoPs makes it a constellation, a
group of related CoPs (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). Discussion of constellations in the
CoP literature is brief, defining what they are, but not explaining how an individual’s
membership in multiple CoPs within the constellation may impact his or her learning
experiences. Due to the structure of Flickr, Study One results are able to shed light on how
multiple voluntary memberships in naturally occurring CoPs can impact user experiences.
Study One participants described belonging to multiple Groups. Wenger and colleagues
(2002) describe participation within a single CoP as being comprised of a core group, an active
group, and a peripheral group of members. They argue that a CoP member might move from one
of these groups to another over the period of a few months as their interests change or the focus

121

of the group changes to something in which they are either more or less expert. The multi-CoP
structure of Flickr allows users to maintain these positions simultaneously in different CoPs
across the site. As described by Study One participants, activity within these Groups is related to
expertise. Depending on the theme of the Group, the participant may be either more or less
expert. This illustrates a more nuanced understanding of member roles within a constellation of
CoPs than previously considered in the CoP literature.
An additional finding related to the use of multiple CoPs, and perhaps a more significant
finding in terms of the CoP lens, is that participants were creating social networks through
building relationships with other members of their Groups. These social networks are enabled by
Flickr’s contacts feature. On their homepage, users can see their contacts most recent
photographs, as well as link directly to contacts’ photostreams. Participants described their social
networks as another avenue for learning. Indeed, some participants cited a greater reliance on
their social network than their Groups. This focus on contacts is in line with what Lerman and
Jones (2006) call social browsing, a process by which the photographs taken by contacts become
central to the experience of the user.
In many of the examples of research on organizational CoPs, the focus is on sharing
knowledge for the benefit of the organization. Knowledge sharing and learning in these contexts
benefits employees, allowing them to become better at their jobs, but in the end benefits the
company. Essentially, while individual improvement and professional development are part of
the equation, the greater goal is an organizational one. On Flickr, the focus is on the acquisition
of knowledge for personal benefit. This does not mean that users are taking without giving back.
If that were the case, Groups would fail. Both Study One and Study Two found that users not
only learn, but contribute back to their Groups. They care about their Groups, as reflected by

122

participant comments in Study One, and reinforced by Study Two findings that those who have a
greater sense of online community are more likely to share knowledge, comment more
frequently, and comment just to be social. These results indicate that people care about their
Groups as communities. However, the use of social networks within the Flickr constellation
provides new evidence that when similar CoPs are grouped together, in this case as part of the
same platform, that users can leverage their CoP memberships to build social networks to further
assist with their learning goals.
Learning Strategies
Results of Study One indicated that the affordances of Flickr allow users to leverage the
site for learning through two main strategies: solitary and interactive. Participants in Study One
provided a multitude of examples and stories about their learning experiences that illustrate the
utility of Flickr CoPs and these strategies. The CoP structure provided by Groups encompasses
multiple features that participants in Study One felt were beneficial. The Group pools provided
users with a means of engaging in legitimate peripheral participation, learning about how others
composed their photographs, inspiring them to try new things, and exposing them to new ways to
consider subject matter.
Users of all levels reported learning through viewing the photographs of others. Some
more experienced participants commented that it was something they now did less frequently
than they did when they were new to Flickr, but they still engaged in this behavior. This type of
learning is indicative of the CoP concept of LPP, whereby novices engage in activities that are
peripheral to the central activities of the community, but are still learning important lessons
about the practice of the community. Participant remarks indicate that, for many users, this is
how the introduction to Flickr in general, and Groups more specifically, occurs. This echoes the

123

findings of Bryant, Forte and Bruckman (2005), who found that new Wikipedia users engage in
LPP, beginning by cleaning up articles on topics with which they are familiar and later moving
on to more substantial contributions.
However, Study Two failed to find any predictors of learning through viewing photos
related to skill or other variables of interest. Descriptive statistics for the variable I learn more
about photography by viewing the photos posted by others show that 96% percent of participants
indicated some level of agreement with the statement. Considered with Study One findings, it
appears that this is a behavior in which almost all users engage, regardless of expertise, although
it has characteristics indicative of an LPP activity. Future work should consider the frequency of
this activity as it relates to expertise. It may be that in responding to the survey question, Study
Two participants were thinking more about the importance of the activity to their development
than they were the frequency of the activity. For example, a more expert member who learned a
great deal through viewing photographs when he was a novice may have been thinking about his
past experiences rather than his current behavior when answering the question.
Learning within a CoP depends on the open exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge
(Duguid, 2005). Due to the creative focus of Flickr, data from Study One are able to provide a
clear illustration of how participants transferred explicit knowledge into tacit. Through accessing
EXIF data and reading tutorial-like posts and discussion board threads, participants were
gathering explicit information. The photographs they took and subsequently shared on Flickr
exhibited their ability to apply this knowledge and, in Ryles’ terms, displayed know how. The
data in this study pertaining to explicit and tacit knowledge offer a unique contribution to the
understanding of knowledge sharing and acquisition within CoPs. Directly addressing explicit
and tacit knowledge and the conversion of one to the other is somewhat unique in research

124

addressing knowledge sharing in CoPs. More typically, the focus of CoP studies addressing
knowledge sharing is on ways to effectively promote the sharing of knowledge, including
barriers and motivations to sharing, as well as technological solutions to make shared knowledge
more accessible.
Additionally, the studies presented here provide insight into the exchange and use of a
type of explicit knowledge unique to digital photography: EXIF data. The design of Flickr makes
this information publically available by default when users upload their photographs. EXIF data
includes a wealth of codified information about how a photograph was created, including
aperture, shutter speed, use of flashes, and preset modes.
Data suggest that EXIF data is used for solitary learning. Study One participants of
different skill levels spoke of EXIF data in different ways. Some, but not all, novice users were
aware of EXIF data, but simply chose not to use it. One novice participant explained that she did
not understand it. Another said she did not use it because she was not technical. These comments
suggest an expertise barrier that prevents novice users from utilizing this information. EXIF data
can be very complex and knowledge about the technical aspects of photography, as well as the
related language, is essential in order to decode it. This supports the CoP position that learning
the language of a practice is part of becoming more expert (Wenger 1998; Wenger et al., 2002).
According to the results of Study Two, those users who are more expert are more likely
to access EXIF data for learning purposes, consistent with the fact that novice Study One
participants did not report using this feature. One explanation of this finding could be that more
expert users are more interested in technical settings than novice users who are still exploring
more basic composition techniques, although the terminology barrier is a more likely primary
deterrent to use. This finding provides insight into the learning behaviors of more expert users

125

and suggests a way in which their solitary learning practices differ from less skilled members.
Furthermore, Study One participants explained that there are multiple ways in which EXIF data
can be utilized.
More expert Study One participants described very specific learning goals associated
with accessing EXIF data, such as learning about settings or learning how to duplicate an effect.
One participant described his use as a way of learning from other people’s experiences and as a
shortcut to avoid some of the trial and error associated with learning new techniques purely
through practice. Another participant described using EXIF data to compare her settings to other
users who were shooting a similar type of photograph. EXIF data was also accessed by
participants as a way to determine if images had been digitally edited. Taken together, findings
of both Study One and Study Two show that expertise plays a role in the use of EXIF data, and
that it can be utilized for learning about a number of different aspects of photography.
Knowledge Sharing and Expertise
Experts are an essential component of CoPs. Without experts to impart knowledge to
novice members, novices would struggle to become experts themselves. The role of expertise in
CoPs is an important one to consider. Lave and Wenger (1991) clearly highlight the importance
of expertise in their account of LPP, focusing on the interactions between novices and experts
through an apprenticeship model. In later work (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, Wenger et al., 2002;
Wenger, 2010), overt statements about individual expertise have been replaced with somewhat
vague statements about maintaining and developing CoP expertise. This appears to be a response
to the use of CoPs in organizational settings, where, in some cases, having a certain degree of
expertise is a prerequisite for membership (Wenger & Snyder, 2000), a clear contrast to the

126

original conceptualization. However, the importance of sharing expertise remains evident, even
in organizational settings where new members are not truly novices.
The mixed method approach used here allows for a more complete understanding of
knowledge sharing in Flickr CoPs. Study One participants provided numerous examples of
experts providing knowledge, from answering questions to providing tutorials on various
techniques. Experts were valued by less expert participants. Indeed, participants felt that the
varied skill level of Group members was a benefit for the overall Group. Varied expertise, as
described by participants, allows for learning with peers while still having easy access to experts.
It also allows for less expert members to help those with even less experience. As one participant
put it, “If somebody asks a question and I happen to know the answer to it, I’ll answer it.”
Morris, Teevan, and Panovich (2010) found that Facebook and Twitter users were motivated to
answer questions posed by members of their social network because they had the expertise to
provide an answer. Similarly, Wasko and Faraj (2000) found that CoP members did not answer
questions because of doubts about accuracy of their knowledge.
These findings raise serious questions about the make up of CoPs. Wenger and Snyder
(2000) have argued a certain level of expertise is required for joining some organizational CoPs.
The findings here would indicate that this exclusionary approach to membership based on
expertise may limit the success of the Group. Results indicate that varying levels of expertise
within a Group allow for people to choose to learn with others of the same skill level, to learn
from those who are more expert, and to share knowledge with those less experienced. This
would seem to facilitate a greater number of interactions and opportunities for learning. While
the data here do not allow claims to be made about a direct relationship between the range of

127

expertise within a CoP and the overall activity and health of the CoP, there is evidence that
makes this possibility worth exploring in future research.
Study Two results provide additional insights into the value placed on having access to
experts in Flickr CoPs. Study Two found that those with greater levels of expertise had a greater
propensity to share knowledge with others. Additionally, regression analysis found that more
expert members were more likely to share their knowledge through comments and discussion
board posts than less expert members. These results indicate that more expert users are likely
responsible for contributing the majority of answers posed through comments and discussion
forums. These findings support the recent work of scholars studying the contributions of experts
in online communities (Zhang et al., 2007) and social media environments, such as Wikipedia
(Panciera, Halfaker, & Terveen, 2009; Priedhorsky, Chen, Lam, Panciera, Terveen, & Riedl,
2007; Welser et al., 2011), who have found that experts answer most questions and contribute the
majority of knowledge based content. However, Zhang and colleagues, studying a Java
programming community, also found that while experts might answer more questions, their
answers might be problematic for novice users. Essentially, experts had a tendency to use
language with which the novices were unfamiliar, as well as assuming that they had knowledge
when they did not. Consequently, novices ended up confused. However, Zhang and colleagues
found that less expert members were able to provide answers that were at a more satisfactory
level. More expert Flickr users might have a greater propensity for sharing knowledge, but, as
Study One shows, that does not mean that others remain silent.
As a constellation of naturally occurring CoPs, Flickr users belong to multiple CoPs,
causing expertise to be somewhat fluid depending on the Group. As one participant explained,
depending on the Group, he could be considered a novice, in which case he asked questions, or

128

moderately skilled, in which case he answered questions. This finding complicates framings of
expertise in the CoP literature. If one can be an expert in portrait photograph and a novice in
macro photography, how should expertise be assessed? Results here indicate that this area is
worthy of future research focusing on the individual levels of expertise in constellations of CoPs.
Comments
The comment feature allows Flickr users to have interactions around their photographs
and provides a way to leave feedback about the photograph. Data from Study One indicates that
there are three primary types of comments: encouraging, detail and critique. Participants in Study
One described leaving encouraging comments most frequently, although Study Two found that
participants perceived that they left detail comments most frequently. Study One participants
highlighted the reciprocal nature of comments, explaining that one way to get attention for your
photographs was to comment on those of others. A regression analysis predicting commenting
for the purposes of eliciting a comment was negatively related to expertise, indicating that trying
to elicit comments by leaving comments is a behavior associated with less expert members. It
may be that once a certain level of expertise is attained, users no longer feel they need as much
feedback from others, resulting in less frequent commenting as a means of encouraging others to
comment on their work. Alternatively, it could also be that as skill level increases, users are
getting higher levels of feedback naturally as more people are drawn to their work. Taken in
combination with the findings from Study Two that many comments do not provide substantive
and actionable critique, it may also be that more expert users no longer need as much
encouragement, having become more confident in their own abilities. This could also be a
function of the photographer’s social network. Perhaps more expert members have larger, more
expert networks and the members of their networks provide enough comments without having to

129

leave comments with the hope of having the favor returned. Lerman and Jones (2006) found that
contacts accounted for a significant number of photograph comments, but their analysis does not
consider reciprocation, hope of reciprocation, or expertise of the network. Future research should
explore the effect of users’ social networks on commenting behaviors to determine if and how
these factors result in different commenting behavior.
Study Two found that user expertise is also related to commenting behaviors. Regression
analyses revealed that those who scored highly on the digital photography inventory were more
likely to leave detail and critique comments. These findings support the CoP precept that experts
take a central role in learning activities. However, they also point to a possible issue in the user
make-up of Flickr CoPs. Study One participants expressed frustration about how infrequently
they received critique comments, even when they were requested. Many perceived that this was
the result of a politeness norm. The finding here provides an alternative explanation: there are
too few experts in some Flickr CoPs. As such, this finding has implications for CoP leaders
focused on maintaining an active membership.
The findings concerning commenting have the potential to extend CoP theory by
providing a way to understand user feedback behaviors. Specifically, establishing the range of
expertise in a CoP could allow CoP leaders to determine whether or not there are enough expert
members to provide feedback to less expert members about their work. The author could not find
any references to the informal evaluation of work within CoPs in the literature. However,
research on new groups has found that when established members provide a response to the post
of a new member, the new member is more likely to make future posts (Joyce & Kraut, 2006).
As such, ensuring that there are an adequate number of experts in relation to less expert members

130

may help to ensure new members not only have feedback, but are encouraged to continue
participating.
Implications for Flickr
In addition to contributions related to the CoP lens, this research also contributes to the
body of literature studying interest-specific social network sites and, more specifically, research
on Flickr. First, in regards to interest-specific social network site research, this study exemplifies
how a social media site within this genre can be leveraged for learning. While no argument is
being made here that Flickr is only about learning, or that other types of SNS are not capable of
supporting CoPs, interview data make it quite clear that learning is integral to the experiences of
participants and great advances in skill are possible through engaging in CoPs on the site. This
work also supports other studies conducted on interest-specific social network sites that show
that users are often connecting with others who were previously unknown (Baym & Ledbetter,
2009), unlike on Facebook where users typically have some kind of preexisting offline
connection to those they list as Friends (Ellison et al., 2007).
Regarding Flickr research specifically, this study contributes new knowledge to the
understanding of user practices. As discussed earlier, much of the prior research on Flickr has
often involved data mining, relying heavily on Flickr’s open API. This study, by providing firsthand accounts of use, is able to shed light on user behavior in a way that these previous studies
have not. Accordingly, this study complements and extends previous research by providing rich
accounts of user behaviors related to features previously the focus data mining studies.
In addition to these contributions, this study also has implications for the design of online
CoPs supporting creative work. Regarding Flickr specifically, there are technical limitations
regarding comment and discussion board post notifications that may be limiting or slowing

131

learning. As explained by participants in Study One, the comment notification system makes it
difficult to track if someone has responded to a specific comment, only indicating that another
comment has been left on the photograph. Discussion board posts also have a similar notification
issue. Once a user posts to a board, they must return to see if there has been a response.
Participants discussed workarounds they had employed to overcome these issues, but the
addition of a more refined notification system could solve this issue.
Additionally, there was evidence that participants believed that a norm of politeness was
limiting the amount of critiques they were receiving, even when this type of feedback was
specifically requested. While there are Groups that exist solely for the purpose of critique and
rating, participant comments indicate that users do not want to have to join additional Groups
just for critique. As a solution, Flickr could add an option for users to select “critique requested”
when uploading a photo. Initial text could fill the comment box, disappearing when the box is
clicked on, that reads, “I’d like you to critique this photo.” Additional options could also be
added, allowing for specific elements to be critiqued, customized critique requests written by the
posting photographer, or even the ability to anonymously critique. If no initial text were present
in the box, then that would indicate that no critique is desired. Perhaps the emphasis that this
type of signaling would place on the desire for critique would help users to overcome the
described politeness limits voluntarily being imposed by users, thereby increasing the utility of
Flickr CoPs for learning.
Beyond Flickr: Implications for Learning and the Design of Systems to Support Active
CoPs
The studies presented here show how the naturally occurring CoPs supported by Flickr
provide a wealth of opportunities for users to learn more about photography. However, the

132

findings also have implications stretching beyond Flickr. Perhaps most broadly, these findings
have implications for people wanting to advance their knowledge and skills related to an interest.
More specifically, the findings of these studies show that formalized classes, workshops, and
seminars are far from the only options for those seeking to advance their expertise in a topic of
interest. By joining an online CoP focused on the interest and engaging with others of varied
levels of expertise, people can learn a great deal without the expenses generally associated with
more formalized methods of instruction. While the idea of social learning is far from new, the
findings of these studies show how social media is reshaping the manner in which these
processes occur and making these opportunities more accessible to the Internet-using public.
In addition to implications for those who may want to learn more about an interest, the
findings of these studies can also be used for guiding the design of systems capable of supporting
online CoPs. Indeed, many of the features of Flickr that facilitate CoP-based learning
experiences could be incorporated into the design of new CoP systems. The following
paragraphs will briefly outline best practices for designing a system to support online CoPs based
on the findings of these studies.
Principle 1: Design a system to support a constellation. Findings of Study One show that
one of the reasons Flickr users are able to learn about a wide variety of photography-related
skills is that Flickr is a system that supports a constellation of related photography CoPs. In this
respect, designers of systems to support online CoPs should create an infrastructure that supports
a constellation of CoPs. Study One participants valued being able to move from Group to Group
in order to meet specific learning needs. Similar to Flickr, designers should allow users to create
Groups so that CoPs are able to develop naturally. Additionally, by creating a structure capable
of supporting a constellation, designers may be able to more easily retain users on the site. While

133

interest in one CoP may wane, there are always others to explore. In the case of Flickr, some of
the CoPs that have developed are for specific types of photography, such as macro photography
and the use of off-camera lighting. Allowing for the development of specialty CoPs related to the
common interest of the constellation will keep users engaged and provide them not only with
varied CoPs in which to learn, but CoPs in which to gain knowledge and develop skills related to
varied specialties imbedded in the common interest.
Principle 2: Design a system with social networking features. All Study One participants
spoke of learning through their Groups. However, they also described learning through their
social networks. The extent to which users’ social networks are a reflection of their membership
in multiple CoPs within the Flickr constellation is unknown. However, Study One participants
placed great value on adding other users as contacts and felt that their social networks were
influential in their learning.
Principle 3: Design a system that allows for sharing of the results of practice. As a
photography-themed social media site, Flickr is designed around the sharing of photographs.
Photographs are a result of the practice of Flickr CoP members. When new knowledge is
acquired, users apply it to the photographs they take and then post. Those posted photographs
exhibit the tacit knowledge of the photographer. Through viewing photographs, Study One
participants felt they learned more about photography. Designers should create systems that
allow users to share their work so that others may learn from it. For example, in a woodworking
CoP, a novice woodworker may learn a great deal from seeing images or video of a cabinet as it
is being built. Essentially, building a system that allows for this is ensuring that there will be a
way in which novice users can take part in legitimate peripheral participation. Additionally,

134

when possible, including meta-data with the result of the practice should also be included. On
Flickr, EXIF data performs this function and was identified as a valuable learning tool.
Principle 4: Design a system that allows for multiple types of interaction. If Principle 2
has been followed, one of the primary means of interaction should relate to the results of the
practice. On Flickr, this occurs through the comments feature. Study One found that comments
can be used as a means of encouragement, acknowledging what the photographer has done well,
and critiquing their work. Additionally, asking and answering questions was reported to occur
through the comments feature. Study One participants also reported using discussion boards to
ask and answer questions. These public forms of interaction provide ways for users to engage in
interactive learning. In addition, they also facilitate learning for those who are not a part of the
exchange because these text-based communications can be read by all users, thus providing
another form of LPP. In the case of discussion boards, these posts can be found using the site
search tool, another important feature to include. In some cases, as discussed by Study One
participants, private channels of communication are perceived as being more appropriate for
certain types of messages. For example, one participant explained that he used Flickr mail to
send critiques, apparently in an effort to avoid embarrassing the targets of the messages by
posting them publicly. Access to a means of private communication allows users to exchange
messages that may result in learning, but could be potentially embarrassing if they were to occur
in public spaces.
Principle 5: Design a system inclusive of participants ranging from novices to experts.
Participants in Study One felt Groups with wide ranges of expertise were well suited for
learning. They described that this mix of expertise allows less experienced users to learn from
those who are more expert and those who are more expert to teach those who are less

135

experienced. In the case of Flickr, the steps outlined above seem to have helped to create this
type of environment, along with leaders of Groups not restricting membership based on
expertise. While restricting membership is a decision for CoP leadership, the design of the
system can encourage open CoP membership through the use of default settings.
Principle 6: Provide tools for CoP leaders to access member expertise. Study Two found
that experts are more likely to give substantive feedback and share knowledge. Both substantive
feedback and knowledge sharing were highly valued by Study One participants as important to
their on-site learning. System designers should consider including tools for CoP leaders to
measure the expertise of members in order to ensure that there are enough experts to meet the
learning needs of the membership. This may also help in planning activities for members as
leaders can design activities that are inclusive of members of all levels .
Principle 6: Design a system that allows leadership roles to be articulated. Study One
participants described CoP leadership as being an important component of encouraging activity.
As such, system designers should allow leadership roles to be assigned to users. By doing this,
leadership of the CoP is legitimized, allowing users in leadership positions to guide the CoP with
the confidence that they are recognized by the membership.
Learning strategies that emerged from Study One data are a reflection of the types of
design choices discussed above. Enabling users to share the results of their practice as well as the
support of public interaction provide content through which novices can engage in legitimate
peripheral participation and more expert users can choose varied avenues for learning. These
design recommendations do not guarantee CoP success, but, based on the findings of the studies
presented here, will make success more likely.

136

Closing Thoughts
Social media tools, such as Flickr, are changing the way people interact and spend their
leisure time. The communities of practice lens allows digital environments that support social
learning to be analyzed so that a deeper understanding of user behavior may be attained. The
findings of these studies reflect the potential of social media to provide rich social learning
experiences for users.

137

APPENDICES

138

APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol

Thank you for agreeing to speak with me about your Flickr use. This interview will take about 30
minutes to complete. The questions I’m going to be asking today are open ended. I’m interested
in hearing about your opinions and your experiences using Flickr. At the end of the interview
you’ll have the opportunity to add any additional thoughts you might have about Flickr.
•

What do you typically do when you use Flickr?

•

What is your primary goal when you share a photo?

•

How often do you share photographs?

•

How often do you log in to Flickr?

•

Why do you choose to upload certain photos, but not others?

•

Is there a reason you use Flickr as opposed to a service such as PhotoBucket, or
SnapFish?
- Or if you do use one of those services, do you use Flickr for a different purpose?

•

Do you feel that you learn through Flickr?
o Additional prompt – Where does this learning occur?
If needed – Does it happen through comments? In Groups? Discussion
boards?
• For example, has anyone ever critiqued a photo of yours in such a
way that you felt you learned something about composition,
subject treatment, or about the use of your camera?

•

Have you ever shared this kind of knowledge, or tried to teach another user how about
one of these kinds of topics?

•

Do you ever learn about new equipment through your interactions on Flickr?

•

Do you ever learn about other photography resources through Flickr?

•

Do you feel that you learn about photography by viewing other people’s photos?

•

Have you ever found out about a paying photography job through Flickr?

•

Do you interact with other Flickr users, such as through comments and group discussion
boards?

139

•

What is your primary goal when you leave a comment?

•

What kind of comments do you typically receive?

•

What is your primary goal when you participate in a discussion board discussion?

•

Do you have Flickr friends/contacts?
o If so, how do you communicate with them? Do you use any forms of
communication outside of Flickr, such as email, Facebook, or by phone?

•

What kind of Flickr groups do you belong to?

•

Are you more active in some groups than others? If so, which ones?

•

Would you describe any of these groups as communities? Why or why not?

•

Some people have described a type of Flickr group that they call a “dumping ground.”
Have you been exposed to groups like that? What do you think their purpose is?

•

Pick one of the groups that you feel you are most active in. How would you define this
group? What is the theme?

•

What do you think the purpose of this group is?

•

Are there activities that are specific to this group (or other groups you are a member of)?

•

Have you participated in any offline activities with this group, such as photowalks?

•

Do you think there are specific reasons some groups fail and other succeed?

•

Do you think this group would be useful for people who aren’t members? How would a
non-member view the group?

•

Some have said that Flickr is a community. Would you agree with that? How would you
define your Flickr community?

•

Is there a central location within Flickr that serves as a hub of communication with your
contacts?

•

What is the most important feature of Flickr to you?

140

APPENDIX B
Study One Screener Survey

Note: This survey was administered online using Surveygizmo.com.
About Me
1. What is your sex?
Female
Male
2. Are you (CLICK AS MANY AS APPLY)
Black or African American
White
Asian (including Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Southeast Asians)
Pacific Islander
Native American or Alaskan native
Something else_______________
I choose not to reply to this question
3. Are you of Spanish, Hispanic or Latino origin, including Mexican-American, Chicano,
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Hispanic?
Yes
No
4. What is your age ______ (open-ended)
5. What is you level of education?
Some high school
GED
High school diploma
Some college
Associates Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Graduate Degree
6. What is your relationship status?
Single
In a dating or casual relationship
In a serious relationship
Married
7. Approximately how many hours do you typically spend actively using the Internet EACH

141

DAY during a typical "weekend" day (Saturday or Sunday)?
0 – 30 minutes
31-59 minutes
1 hour
2 hours
3 hours
4 hours
5 hours
6 hours
7 hours
8 hours or more
8. Approximately how many hours do you typically spend actively using the Internet EACH
DAY during a typical "week day" (Monday to Friday)?
0 – 30 minutes
31-59 minutes
1 hour
2 hours
3 hours
4 hours
5 hours
6 hours
7 hours
8 hours or more
9. What type of Flickr account do you have?
Free (default)
Pro Account ($24.95 per year)
10. When did you join Flickr (listed on profile page)?
(Drop down menu with months and years, beginning with 2004)
11. How would you rate yourself as a photographer?
I am a ______________.
Beginner
Novice
Intermediate
Advanced Intermediate
Expert
Other (open ended)
12. How would you classify yourself as a photographer?
Casual Hobbyist (I take pictures on trips and occasionally on weekends)
Active Hobbyist (I go out and take pictures frequently)
Aspiring Part-time Professional (It isn’t my full-time job, but I’m actively seeking paying
jobs/have been paid in the past)

142

Professional (Photography is my main source of income)
Other (open ended)
13. Which of the following best describes the camera you use to take the majority of your Flickr
photos?
Point and shoot film camera
Point and shoot digital camera
Film SLR
Digital SLR
Other (open-ended)
Your Flickr Use
Think about why you use Flickr. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements
(7-point Likert-types scale – Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
14. I use Flickr to share photos with strangers & friends I’ve made on Flickr.
15. I use Flickr to share photos with friends (not including friends you’ve made on Flickr) and
family.
16. I use Flickr to host photos for my blog.
17. I use Flickr to backup my photo collection.
18. I use Flickr as a professional portfolio to sell my work.
19. I use Flickr to learn more about photography.
20. I use Flickr to teach others about photography.
21. I use Flickr to meet other photographers.
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the survey. Your response is very important to me.

143

APPENDIX C
Study Two Flickr Survey

Note: This survey was administered online using Surveygizmo.com.
A Little Bit About You
To begin, we’d like to know a little bit about you.
1. What is your sex?
Male Female
2. What is your age? ______
3. During the past week approximately how many minutes per day on average have you spent on
Flickr?
0-14 minutes per day
15-29 minutes per day
30-44 minutes per day
45-59 minutes per day
60-74 minutes per day
75-89 minutes per day
90-104 minutes per day
105-119 minutes per day
120-134 minutes per day
135-149 minutes per day
150-164 minutes per day
165-180 minutes per day
More than 3 hours per day
4. On average, how many times per day do you log on to Flickr?
More than once a day
Once a day
A few times per week
A few times per month
5. Approximately how many hours do you typically spend actively using the Internet EACH
DAY during a typical "weekend" day (Saturday or Sunday)?
0 – 30 minutes
31-59 minutes
1 hour
2 hours
3 hours
4 hours
5 hours

144

6 hours
7 hours
8 hours or more
6. Approximately how many hours do you typically spend actively using the Internet EACH
DAY during a typical "week day" (Monday to Friday)?
0 – 30 minutes
31-59 minutes
1 hour
2 hours
3 hours
4 hours
5 hours
6 hours
7 hours
8 hours or more
Flickr & You
7. What type of Flickr account do you have?
Free (default)
Pro Account ($24.95 per year)
8. When did you join Flickr (If you don’t remember, this date is listed on the right-hand side of
your profile page)? Drop down menu with months and years, beginning with 2004
9. How would you rate yourself as a photographer?
I am a ______________.
Beginner
Novice
Intermediate
Advanced Intermediate
Expert
Other (open-ended)
10. How would you classify yourself as a photographer?
Family/casual photographer (my photos are of family and special occasions)
Part-time Hobbyist (I take pictures on trips and occasionally on weekends)
Active Hobbyist (I go out and take pictures frequently)
Aspiring Part-time Professional (It isn’t my full-time job, but I’m actively seeking paying
jobs/have been paid in the past)
Professional (Photography is my main source of income)
Other (open-ended)
11. How many photos do you post in an average week? (open-ended)
12. How many discussion board posts do you make in an average week? (open -nded)

145

13. Are you a member of any Flickr Groups? (Skip logic – go to Why You Joined Flickr if no, if
yes, next question)
Yes No
14. About how many TOTAL Flickr groups do you belong to? (open ended)
15. Approximately how many of those groups do you regularly (at least once a week) contribute
to (posting photos, comments, or discussion board posts)? (open ended)
Why You Joined Flickr
Think about why you started using Flickr. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with
each of the following statements. (7-point Likert-types scale – Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
16. I started using Flickr to share photos with people I didn’t know.
17. I started using Flickr to share photos with friends and family.
18. I started using Flickr to get recognition for my photography.
19. I started using Flickr to share information with others about photography.
20. I started using Flickr to meet other photographers.
21. I started using Flickr to learn more about photography.
22. If there are any other reasons you started using Flickr, please describe them here: (openended)
Why I Use Flickr Now
Think about why you use Flickr now. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of
the following statements. (7-point Likert-types scale – Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat
Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
23. I use Flickr to share photos with people I don’t know.
24. I use Flickr to share photos with contacts I’ve made on through Flickr.
25. I use Flickr to share photos with friends and family.
26. I use Flickr to get recognition for my photography.
27. I use Flickr to share information with others about photography.
28. I use Flickr to meet other photographers.
29. I use Flickr to learn more about photography. (Skip logic – if no agreement, skip to Digital
Photography Inventory)
30. If there are any other reasons you use Flickr, please describe them here: (open-ended)
Different Ways I Learn on Flickr
Think about how you use Flickr to learn. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each
of the following statements. (7-point Likert-types scale – Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
31. I learn about photography by viewing the photos posted by others.
32. I learn about photography by reading discussion forum posts.
33. I learn about photography by searching Flickr for information (e.g. about equipment,
composition, etc.)
34. I learn about photography by asking questions using the comments feature.
35. I learn about photography by asking questions in the group discussion forums.

146

36. I learn about photography by looking at EXIF data.
37. I learn about photography through face-to-face gatherings announced on Flickr.
38. I learn about photography when other users critique my photographs.
39. If there are any other ways you learn about photography by using Flickr, please describe
them here: (open-ended)
Digital Photography Inventory
How familiar are you with the following digital photography related items? (5-point scale – No
Understanding, Little Understanding, Some Understanding, Good Understanding, Full
Understanding)
40. Megapixel
41. ISO speed
42. Aperture
43. Shutter speed
44. Rule of thirds
45. Histogram
46. Depth of field
47. EXIF
48. RAW
49. Saturation
50. Bracketing
51. JPEG
Sense of Online Community
Thinking about your experiences with Flickr, please indicate the extent to which you agree with
each of the following statements. (7-point Likert-types scale – Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
52. I feel a sense of community with the people I’ve met on Flickr.
53. I have made new friends by meeting people on Flickr.
54. Using Flickr to communicate with people is as safe as communicating with people in other
ways.
55. Flickr has allowed me to communicate with all kinds of interesting people I otherwise would
never have interacted with.
56. I feel I belong to an online community on Flickr.
57. I can find people who share my exact interests more easily on Flickr than I can in my daily
life.
58. On average, how often do you leave comments?
More than once a day
Once a day
A few times per week
A few times per month
Never
Photo Commenting

147

Think about the types of comments you leave for other Flickr users about their photographs.
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. (7-point
Likert-types scale – Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
59. I often leave comments for others.
60. If someone leaves a comment for me, I will leave a comment for them.
61. I often leave comments similar to “nice shot” or “great capture.”
62. I often leave comments that highlight a specific aspect of the photograph, such as “good use
of light” or “excellent use of composition.”
63. I often leave comments that offer constructive criticism, such as “great subject and lighting,
but it would be a better image if you cropped out the road” or “next time you might want to
consider a longer exposure.”
64. My comments are intended to be social.
65. If I leave a comment for someone, I hope they will leave one for me.
66. Approximately how many comments do you post in an average week? (open ended)
67. Which of the following comments pairs is best example of the kind of comments you are
most likely to
leave?
“nice shot,” “great capture.”
“good use of light,” “excellent use of composition”
“great subject and lighting, but it would be a better image if you cropped out the road,”
“next time you might want to consider a longer exposure.”
68. If you wanted to offer constructive criticism that might hurt someone’s feelings, which of the
following methods would you be most likely to use?
Comment
Flickr Mail
I would not offer this type of constructive criticism
Other (open-ended)
Knowledge Sharing
Think about your experiences sharing information on Flickr. Please indicate the extent to which
you agree with each of the following statements. (7-point Likert-types scale – Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly
Agree)
69. I share my knowledge and expertise with other Flickr users.
70. If I have some special knowledge about how to perform a photographic task, I am NOT
likely to tell other Flickr users about it. (R)
71. I exchange virtually no information, knowledge or share skills with other Flickr users. (R)
72. When I am more knowledgeable on a topic than other Flickr users, I freely share hard-to-find
knowledge or specialized skills.
73. I share knowledge in group discussion forums often.
74. I use the comments feature to share knowledge often.
75. I share my EXIF data when I upload photos.

148

Yes
No
For some, but not all
I’m not sure
Your Personality Traits (Ten Item Personality Inventory)
Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please indicate the extent
to which you agree with each statement. You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits
applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other. (7-point Likert-types
scale – Disagree Strongly, Disagree Moderately, Disagree a Little, Neither Agree nor Disagree,
Agree a Little, Agree Moderately, Agree Strongly)
I see myself as…
76. Extraverted, enthusiastic
77. Critical, quarrelsome
78. Dependable, self-disciplined
79. Anxious, easily upset
80. Open to new experiences, complex
81. Reserved, quiet
82. Sympathetic, warm
83. Disorganized, careless
84. Calm, emotionally stable
85. Conventional, uncreative
What I Can Do on Flickr (Flickr Self-Efficacy)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. (7-point
Likert-types scale – Disagree Strongly, Disagree Moderately, Disagree a Little, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Agree a Little, Agree Moderately, Agree Strongly)
86. I feel confident that I can upload a photo to Flickr.
87. I feel confident that I can join a group on Flickr.
88. I feel confident that I can post a comment on Flickr.
89. I feel confident that I can tag a photo on Flickr.
90. I feel confident that I can add contacts on Flickr.
91. I feel confident that I can start a discussion topic in a group on Flickr.
92. I feel confident that I can make a post to a discussion topic in a group on Flickr.
93. I feel confident that I can create sets on Flickr.
94. I feel confident troubleshooting Flickr problems.
95. I feel confident adding a note on a photo on Flickr.
96. I feel confident using Flickr to find information.
My Flickr Use
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. (7-point
Likert-types scale – Disagree Strongly, Disagree Moderately, Disagree a Little, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Agree a Little, Agree Moderately, Agree Strongly)
97. Flickr is part of my everyday activity.
98. I am proud to tell people I’m on Flickr.
99. Flickr has become part of my daily routine.

149

100. I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Flickr for a while.
101. I feel I am part of the Flickr community.
102. I would be sorry if Flickr shut down.
103. I tag my photos because… (please check all that apply)
I want others to find them
To help organize my collection
I think it will get me on Explore
I don’t tag my photos
Other (open ended)
104. About how many TOTAL Flickr contacts do you have? (open ended)
105. Approximately how many of your TOTAL Flickr contacts do you consider actual
friends? (open ended)
106. How much has your participation on Flickr improved your photography?
None
A little
A moderate amount
A great deal
A Little Bit More About You
107. Are you (CLICK AS MANY AS APPLY)
Black or African American
White
Asian (including Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Southeast Asians)
Pacific Islander
Native American or Alaskan native
Something else_______________
I choose not to reply to this question
108. Are you of Spanish, Hispanic or Latino origin, including Mexican-American, Chicano,
Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Hispanic?
Yes
No
109. Country of residence (dropdown list)
(Skip logic – if US, go to next question, else skip next)
110. What state do you live in? (dropdown list)
Final Page
111. Is there anything else you would like to share about your Flickr use? (open ended)

150

112.Please enter your email address below. We will use this email address to send you $5
Amazon gift card and to contact winners of the drawing for the $20 Amazon gift cards.
Email Address (textbox)
113. Please enter your Flickr username below. This will be used to confirm your eligibility for
the $5 Amazon gift card (1 per person).
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the survey. Your response is very important to me.

151

REFERENCES

152

REFERENCES

Ackerman, M. S. (1998). Augmenting organizational memory: a field study of answer garden.
ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 16, 203-224. doi:10.1145/290159.290160
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and
privacy on the Facebook. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing
Technologies, Cambridge, UK.
Adamic, L. A., Zhang, J., Bakshy, E., & Ackerman, M. S. (2008). Knowledge sharing and Yahoo
answers: everyone knows something. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th
international conference on World Wide Web, Beijing, China.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). "On the Internet no one knows I'm an
introvert": Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 5, 125-128. doi:10.1089/109493102753770507.
Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice:
Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 541554. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in
virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management,
7, 64-77. doi:10.1108/13673270310463626
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Information Age.
Baym, N. (2000). Tune in, log on: Soaps, fandom, and online community. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Baym, N. K. (2007). The new shape of online community: The example of Swedish independent
music fandom. First Monday, 12(8). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1978/1853
Baym, N. K., & Ledbetter, A. (2009). Tunes that bind? Predicting friendship strength in a musicbased social network. Information, Communication & Society, 12, 408-427.
doi:10.1080/13691180802635430
Bourhis, A., Dubé, L., & Jacob, R. (2005). The success of virtual communities of practice: The
leadership factor. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 23-34.
doi:10.1108/13673270310463626

153

boyd, d. (2004). Friendster and publicly articulated social networks. Paper presented at the
Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria.
boyd, d. (2006a). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on
social network sites. First Monday, 11(12). Retrieved from
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.10836101.2007.00393.x
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice:
Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science, 2,
40-57. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.40
Bruckman, A. (2006). Learning in online communities. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 461-472): Cambridge University Press.
Bryant, S. L., Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2005). Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of
participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. Paper presented at the Proceedings
of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work,
Sanibel Island, Florida, USA. doi:10.1145/1099203.1099205
Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., and Kraut, R. (2007). Community effort in online
communities: Who does the work and why? In S. P. Weisband (Ed.), Leadership at a
distance (pp. 171-194). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: A resourcebased model of online social structures. Information systems research, 12(4), 346-362.
doi: 10.1287/isre.12.4.346.9703
Byington, T. A. (2011). Communities of practice: Using blogs to increase collaboration.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 280-291. doi: 10.1177/1053451210395384
Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction
paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.
doi:10.1177/0265407597143008
Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167-1170. doi:10.1037/00223514.51.6.1167
Cha, M., Mislove, A., Adams, B., & Gummadi, K. P. (2008). Characterizing social cascades in
Flickr. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first workshop on online social
networks, Seattle, WA, USA. 13-18, doi:10.1145/1397735.1397739

154

Charmez, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, W., Boase, J., & Wellman, B. (2002). The global villagers: Comparing Internet users and
uses around the world. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in
everyday life (pp. 74-113). Oxford: Blackwell.
ComScore (2011, August). Flickr. Retrieved from
http://advertising.yahoo.com/article/flickr.html
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The
intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,
26, 247-253. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
Cothrel, J., & Williams, R. L. (1999). On-line communities: helping them form and grow.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 54-60. doi:10.1108/13673279910259394
Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works.
Journal of Information Science, 31, 527-540. doi:10.1177/0165551505057016
Cox, A., Clough, P., & Siersdorfer, S. (2011). Developing metrics to characterize Flickr groups.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 493-506.
doi:10.1002/asi.21483
Crandall, D. J., Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2009). Mapping the world's
photos. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th international conference on world
wide web, Madrid, Spain, 761-770. doi:10.1145/1526709.1526812
Davies, J. (2006). Affinities and beyond! Developing ways of S\seeing in online spaces. ELearning and Digital Media, 3, 217-234. doi:10.2304/elea.2006.3.2.217
DiMicco, J. M., & Millen, D. R. (2007). Identity management: multiple presentations of self in
facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference
on Supporting group work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 383-386.
doi:10.1145/1316624.1316682
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22, 71-82.
doi: 10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.cc
Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2006). Towards a typology of virtual communities of
practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 1,
doi:Hec-gresi-03-13

155

Duguid, P. (2005). “The art of knowing”: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the
limits of the community of practice. The Information Society, 21, 109-118.
doi:10.1080/01972240590925311
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Horton hears a Tweet. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32(4).
Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/horton-hears-tweet
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking
sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social
capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13,
873-892. doi:10.1177/1461444810385389
Emma Angus, M. T., David Stuart. (2008). General patterns of tag usage among university
groups in Flickr. Online Information Review, 32, 89-101.
doi:10.1108/14684520810866001
Engelberg, E., & Sjöberg, L. (2004). Internet use, social skills, and adjustment. CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 7, 41-47. doi:10.1089/109493104322820101.
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams.
Management Science, 46,1554-1568. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072
Fono, D., & Raynes-Goldie, K. (2006). Hyperfriends and beyond: Friendship and social norms
on LiveJournal. In M. Consalvo & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Internet research annual
volume 4: Selected papers from the association of Internet sesearchers conference. New
York: Peter Lang.
Gazan, R. (2006). Specialists and synthesists in a question answering community. Proceedings of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-10.
doi:10.1002/meet.1450430171
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Golbeck, J. (2009a). The More People I Meet, The More I Like My Dog: A Study of PetOriented Social Networks on the Web. Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2859/2765

156

Golbeck, J. (2009b). On the internet, everybody knows you're a dog: the human-pet relationship
in online social networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th international
conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA,
USA, 251-271. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2008.00260.x
Goodsell, T. L., & Williamson, O. (2008). The case of the brick huggers: The practice of an
online oommunity. City & Community, 7, 251-271. doi:10.1111/j.15406040.2008.00260.x
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1
Grahm, J. (2006, February 28). Flickr of idea on a gaming project led to photo website, USA
Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-02-27-flickr_x.htm
Gray, B. (2004). Informal Learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance
Education, 19, 20-35.
Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R.
(2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social
networking tools. Educational Media International, 46, 3-16.
doi:10.1080/09523980802588626
Hara, N., Shachaf, P., & Stoerger, S. (2009). Online communities of practice typology revisited.
Journal of Information Science, 35, 740-757. doi:10.1177/0165551509342361
Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of Web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer
Review, 23, 371-379. doi:10.1177/0894439305275911
Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of Web-oriented digital literacy Social
Science Computer Review, 27, 130-137. doi:10.1177/0894439308318213
Harper, F. M., Raban, D., Rafaeli, S., & Konstan, J. A. (2008). Predictors of answer quality in
online q & a sites. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy, 865-874.
doi:10.1145/1357054.1357191
Hibbert, K. (2008). Virtual communities of practice: A vehicle for meaningful professional
development. In C. Kimble, P. Hildreth & I. Bourdon (Eds.), Communities of practice:
Creating learning environments for educators (Vol. 2, pp. 127-144): Information Age
Publishing.
Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: Building
learning communiites. Paper presented at the WebNet 98 World Conference of the
WWW, Internet, and Intranet, Orlando, FL.

157

Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom.
Communications of the ACM, 40, 44-49. doi:10.1145/260750.260764
Holmes, P., & Cox, A. M. (2011). Every group carries the flavour of the admins: Leadership on
Flickr. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 7, 376-391.
doi:10.1504/ijwbc.2011.041205
Honeyman, A. (2002). Communities of practice. British Journal of General Practice, 52, 621622.
Iriberri, A., & Leroy, G. (2009). A life-cycle perspective on online community success. ACM
Computing Surveys (CSUR), 41, 1-29. doi:10.1145/1459352.1459356
Jensen, M., Caswell, T., Ball, J., Duffin, J., & Barton, R. (2010). TwHistory: Sharing history
using Twitter. Paper presented at the Open ED 2010, Barcelona. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10609/4942
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online
communities of practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45-60. doi:10.1016/S10967516(01)00047-1
Joon, K., Young-Gul, K., Butler, B., & Gee-Woo, B. (2007). Encouraging participation in virtual
communities. Communications of the ACM, 50(2), 69-73. doi:10.1145/1216016.1216023
Joyce, E., & Kraut, R. (2006). Predicting Continued Participation in Newsgroups. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3). Retrieved from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/joyce.html
Jung Won HurHara, N. (2007). Factors cultivating sustainable online communities for K-12
teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 245268. doi:10.2190/37H8-7GU7-5704-K470
Koch, M., & Fusco, J. (2008). Designing for growth: Enabling communities of practice to
develop and extend their work online. In C. Kimble, P. Hildreth & I. Bourdon (Eds.),
Communities of practice: Creating learning environments for educators (Vol. 2, pp. 123) Information Age Publishing.
Lampe, C., Wohn, D., Vitak, J., Ellison, N., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for
organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 6, 329-347. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9115-y
Lampe, C., Wash, R., Velasquez, A., & Ozkaya, E. (2010). Motivations to participate in online
communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th international conference on
Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1927-1936.
doi:10.1145/1753326.1753616

158

Landers, R. N., & Lounsbury, J. W. (2006). An investigation of Big Five and narrow personality
traits in relation to Internet usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 283-293.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.06.001
Lathlean, J., & Le May, A. (2002). Communities of practice: an opportunity for interagency
working. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11, 394-398. doi:10.1046/j.13652702.2002.00630.x
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Leimeister, J. M., Sidiras, P., & Krcmar, H. (2006). Exploring success factors of virtual
communities: the perspectives of members and operators. Journal of organizational
computing and electronic commerce, 16, 279-300. doi:10.1080/10919392.2006.9681204
Lerman, K., & Jones, L. A. (2007). Social browsing on Flickr. Proceedings of International
Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Boulder, Co. doi:arXiv:cs/0612047v1
Li, L., Grimshaw, J., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P., & Graham, I. (2009). Evolution of
Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science, 4, 1-8.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-11
Lin, H. (2007). The role of online and offline features in sustaining virtual communities: An
empirical study. Internet Research, 17, 119-138. doi:10.1108/10662240710736997
Luther, K., & Bruckman, A. (2008). Leadership in online creative collaboration. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, San Diego, CA, USA, 343-352. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460619
Luther, K., & Bruckman, A. (2010). Flash Collabs: Collaborative Innovation Networks in Online
Communities of Animators. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(4), 6571-6581.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.067
Luther, K., Ziegler, K., Caine, K. E., & Bruckman, A. (2009). Predicting successful completion
of online collaborative animation projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition, Berkeley, California, USA, 391392. doi:10.1145/1640233.1640316
Malinen, S. (2010). Photo Exhibition or Online Community? The Role of Social Interaction in
Flickr. Paper presented at the Fifthe International Conference on Internet and Web
Applications and Services, Barcelona, Spain, 380-385. doi:10.1109/iciw.2010.63
Malinen, S. (2011). Strategies for Gaining Visibility on Flickr. Paper presented at 44th Hawaii
International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA, 1-9,
doi:10.1109/hicss.2011.389

159

Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D., & Davis, M. (2006). HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy,
Flickr, academic article, to read. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the seventeenth
conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, Odense, Denmark, 31-40.
doi:10.1145/1149941.1149949
Mashhadi, A., Quattrone, G., Capra, L., & Mooney, P. (2012). On the accuracy of urban crowdsourcing for maintaining large-scale geospatial databases. Paper presented at the
WikiSym '12, Linz, Austria. doi:978-1-4503-1605-7/12/08
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Müller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and
knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 301-313.
doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.06.004
Mcinnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation
of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7, 73-81.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Miller, A. D., & Edwards, W. K. (2007). Give and take: a study of consumer photo-sharing
culture and practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Human factors in computing systems, San Jose, California, USA, 347-356.
doi:10.1145/1240624.1240682
Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge
sharing. Management Learning, 37, 523–540. doi:10.1177/1350507606073424
Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010). What do people ask their social networks, and
why?: A survey study of status message q & a behavior. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing
systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1739-1748. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753587
Moule, P. (2006). E-learning for healthcare students: developing the communities of practice
framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 370-380. doi:10.1111/j.13652648.2006.03813.x
Negoescu, R. A., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2008). Analyzing Flickr groups. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Content-based image and video
retrieval, Niagara Falls, Canada, 417-426. doi:10.1145/1386352.1386406
Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., & Preece, J. (2006). Non-public and public online community
participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior. Electronic Commerce Research 6(1), 7-20.
doi: 10.1007/s10660-006-5985-x
O'Steen, S. (Producer). (2007, February 12). Adaptive path: The history of Flickr [Audio
podcast]. Retrieved from http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail1755.html

160

Orr, E. J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithica, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Palloff, R. M., and Pratt, Keith. (2005). Collaborating online: Leanring together in community.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Panciera, K., Halfaker, A., & Terveen, L. (2009). Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of
power editors on Wikipedia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2009
International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 5160. Doi:10.1145/1531674.1531682
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of
Facebook, LinkedIn and A SmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11, 199-220.
doi:10.1177/1461444808099577
Papacharissi, Z., Mendelson, A. (2011). Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications and
social capital on Facebook. Media perspectives for the 21st sentury. In S.
Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Directions for media studies in the 21st century: Routledge.
Parboosingh, J. (2000). Credentialing physicians: Challenges for continuing medical education.
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 20, 188-190.
doi:10.1002/chp.1340200309
Parboosingh, J. T. (2002). Physician communities of practice: Where learning and practice are
inseparable. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22, 230-236.
doi:10.1002/chp.1340220407
Ploderer, B., Howard, S., & Thomas, P. (2008). Being online, living offline: the influence of
social ties over the appropriation of social network sites. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, San
Diego, CA, USA, 333-342. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460618
Ploderer, B., Howard, S., Thomas, P., & Reitberger, W. (2008). “Hey World, Take a Look at
Me!”: Appreciating the Human Body on Social Network Sites. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P.
Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), Persuasive Technology: Vol.
5033, (pp. 245-248): Berlin, Germany: Springer/Heidelberg.
Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring
success. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20, 347-356.
doi:10.1080/01449290110084683
Preece, J., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2006). Online communities: Design, theory, and practice.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00264.x/full

161

Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving
community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 201-223.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015
Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, S. K., Panciera, K., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2007). Creating,
destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida,
USA, 259-268. doi:10.1145/1316624.1316663
Prieur, C., Cardon, D., Beuscart, J.-S., & Pissard, N. (2008). The stength of weak cooperation: A
case study on Flickr. CoRR Technical Report. Retrieved from
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2317
Rattenbury, T., Good, N., & Naaman, M. (2007). Towards automatic extraction of event and
place semantics from flickr tags. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 30th annual
international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information
retrieval, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 103-110. doi:10.1145/1277741.1277762
Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Commnunity: Homesteading in the Electronic Frontier.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out
Online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x/full
Rinaldo, S. B., Tapp, S., & Laverie, D. A. (2011). Learning by Tweeting. Journal of Marketing
Education, 33, 193-203. doi: 10.1177/0273475311410852
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25, 578-586. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship
between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
Sangwan, S. (2005). Virtual community success: A uses and gratifications perspective.
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences,
Hawaii, USA. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2005.673
Schwen, T. M., Hara, N. (2003). Community of Practice: A Metaphor for Online Design?
Information Society, 19, 257. doi: 10.1080/01972240390210073
Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students' education related use of Facebook.
Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157-174. doi:10.1080/17439880902923622

162

Seo, D. (2012). Using of Twitter for effective teaching and learning. Paper presented at the
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012,
Austin, Texas, USA. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/39686
Serdyukov, P., Murdock, V., & Zwol, R. v. (2009). Placing Flickr photos on a map. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Boston, MA, USA, 484-491. doi:
10.1145/1571941.1572025
Silva, L., Goel, L., & Mousavidin, E. (2009). Exploring the dynamics of blog communities: the
case of MetaFilter. Information Systems Journal, 19, 55-81. doi: 10.1111/j.13652575.2008.00304.x
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online
social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29, 434-445. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002
Stutzman, F., & Kramer-Duffield, J. (2010). Friends only: examining a privacy-enhancing
behavior in facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th International
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 15531562. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753559
Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Robertson, M. (2002). The construction of `communities of practice'
in the management of innovation. Management Learning, 33, 477-496. doi:
10.1177/1350507602334005
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of
interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2, 23-49. doi:
10.1080/1463631022000005016
Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., Harris, J. L., & Herring, J. A. (2002). Relationships among Internet
use, personality, and social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 437-451.
doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00054-1
Teevan, J., Morris, M. R., & Panovich, K. (2011). Factors affecting response quantity, quality,
and speed for questions asked via social network status messages. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media,
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Terdiman, D. (2004, December). Photo site a hit with bloggers. Wired. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/12/65958
Thelwall, M., & Wilkinson, D. (2010). Public dialogs in social network sites: What is their
purpose? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61,
392-404. doi: 10.1002/asi.21241

163

Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too much of a good
thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on
Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 531-549. doi:
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00409.x
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?:
Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875-901. doi:10.1111/j.10836101.2009.01474.x
Walther, J. B., Heide, B. V. D., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of
friends' appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we
known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28-49. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00312.x
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others
in electronic communities of practice. Journal of strategic information systems, 9, 155173. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00045-7
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual community as
community. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., Kossinets, G., Lin, A., Dokshin, F., Gay, G., & Smith, M. (2011).
Finding social roles in Wikipedia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2011
iConference, Seattle, Washington, 122-129. doi:10.1145/1940761.1940778
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide
to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for
communities. Portland: CPsquare.
Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Who says what to whom on twitter.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide
web, Hyderabad, India, 705-414. doi:10.1145/1963405.1963504

164

Xu, W., Kreijns, K., & Hu, J. (2006). Designing social navigation for a virtual community of
practice. In Z. Pan, R. Aylett, H. Diener, X. Jin, S. Göbel & L. Li (Eds.), Lecture Notes in
Computer Science: Vol. 3942. Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment
(pp. 27-38). Berlin, Germany Springer/Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/11736639_7
Yuqing Ren, Kraut, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Applying common identity and bond theory to
design of online communities. Organization Studies, 28, 377-408.
doi:10.1177/0170840607076007
Zhang, G., & Jacob, E. K. (2012). Community: issues, definitions, and operationalization on the
web. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion
on World Wide Web, Lyon, France, 1121-1130. doi:10.1145/2187980.2188250
Zhang, J., Ackerman, M. S., Adamic, L., & Nam, K. K. (2007). QuME: a mechanism to support
expertise finding in online help-seeking communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings
of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology,
Newport, Rhode Island, USA, 111-114. doi: 10.1145/1294211.1294230

165