Zhang d lis510_social ib gym e

Social and Information Exchange of Gym E Hoopers

Di Zhang

University of Washington

SOCIAL AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF GYM E HOOPERS

Abstract

This paper explores three theoretical frameworks for studying information behavior and

applies their perspectives to a social setting. The theoretical frameworks that will be

covered are Chatman’s small worlds, Pettigrew’s information grounds, and

Haythornthwaite’s Network Theory, respectively. Chatman’s (2000) work focuses on

physically bound “small worlds” in which “legitimized others” control the flow of

information. Pettigrew (1999) introduces the concept of “information grounds”, settings

characterized by spontaneous and serendipitous information exchange. Haythornthwaite

(1996) describes information behavior in terms of networks and clusters of networks

formed by relationships between “actors”. In this paper, I suggest that each of these three

perspectives lends important concepts and tools for studying information behavior in a

social setting. I also describe ways in which these perspectives fall short of describing the

entire information environment and argue for viewing information behavior from a

combination of perspectives. Finally, I suggest avenues and topics for possible further

research.

2


The social aspect of information behavior is too often under-explored. Researchers

such as Chatman, Pettigrew, and Haythornthwaite have succeeded in illuminating some

important concepts of information behavior in social settings and contexts. In this paper, I

will explore the social setting of Gym E through the theoretical frameworks of these

researchers. Specifically, I will describe the dynamics of information exchanged between

“Gym E Hoopers”, a sub-group that plays basketball in Gym E, and other sub-groups. I

then evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each aforementioned perspective in

describing the information behavior in Gym E. I also explain considerations of the Gym E

environment that are not addressed by these three perspectives, and how further research

might shed some light on these considerations.

A Note on Gym E Hoopers:

Gym E Hoopers (GEH) is a group that was formed through Facebook invitation in the

summer of 2010. The creator of the group, BJ, describes the purpose of the GEH page as:

“organizing dates to ball [i.e. play basketball, or ‘hoop’]”. The group is comprised of

students and former students who play basketball at least occasionally in Gym E at the

IMA, the primary exercise facility at the University of Washington. GEH was originally

comprised of twelve members and has since expanded to seventeen members. Membership

is exclusive and is limited to those who receive an invitation from BJ.1 In this paper, GEH

will be distinguished from hoopers in Gym E. The former is a small, exclusive group

1 Members of the group have varying degrees of closeness (in terms of Granovetter’s ‘ties’) to other members; some members were close friends with other members before the formation of the group while some had no close ties with any other members before joining the group. No member, including BJ, has close ties with all of the other members. Some ties between members have strengthened over the last several months while others have remained the same. Several group members communicate on a regular basis, usually for purpose of sharing basketball related information or coordinating times to meet to play basketball in Gym E.

3


whose characteristics I have just described, whereas the latter encompasses all the

individuals who play basketball in Gym E.

Small Worlds:

Elfreda Chatman’s “small world” concept applies to a “world in which everyday

happenings occur with some predictability” (Chatman, 2000, p. 1). In other words, a small

world is a world in which most events are seen as normal, reasonable, and fit “within the

natural order of things” (Chatman, 1999, p. 213). This aspect of small worlds is applicable

to Gym E. The gym is a space in which sequences of events occur with a high amount of

predictability. For example, one can expect to see the following sequence on, say, any

given Friday in Gym E: before 2 pm, a few individuals practicing their shot around the

court and perhaps 1-2 games being played between small groups of friends; in the mid to

late afternoon, large waves of people coming into Gym E in groups to play pickup games

on both courts; the court beginning to empty at approximately 7-8 pm. Moreover, norms of

social and physical interaction, both within and outside of court games, are also accepted

as part of the “natural order of things.”

The most important feature of small worlds may be the presence of “legitimized

others”, that is, “people who share physical and/or conceptual space within a common

landscape of cultural meaning” (Chatman, 2000, p. 1). Legitimized others are “insiders”

who get to define what is normal or acceptable behavior (Chatman, 1999, p. 214). This

includes information behavior, i.e. the seeking of information as well as accepted sources

and types of information. Chatman (1999) also found that information about the outer

world is usually not allowed in unless it is relevant to the concerns of what is going on in

the gym; relevancy is decided upon by legitimized others. Legitimized others can be found

4


in Gym E. For example, those who are new to the gym are often intimidated to join in the

pick-up games. This appears to have more to do with the fact that they have not yet been

legitimized than with their skill level in basketball. In fact, there are many inexperienced

players who are picked to play games again and again because they have been legitimized.

These players share not only a physical but also a conceptual space in the sense that they

are part of the “us” rather than the “them”.

Finally, in small worlds, the fear of the negative consequences associated with

sharing “private” information leads to behaviors of information hiding and deception

(Chatman, 1996, p. 1).2 However, in Chatman’s small worlds, barriers to information exist

between individuals and everyone else, whereas in Gym E the barriers to information exist

between sub-groups and everyone else. For example, individuals belonging to sub-groups

will hide information about their sub-group from others because they fear that releasing

such information would put them at a disadvantage (in playing the game, in getting their

group-mates playing time, etc.). In a team sport such as basketball, a loss of a game can

lead to a loss of face and social capital. No individual wants to be responsible for

embarrassing his sub-group or putting it at any type of disadvantage.3 In the small world

studied by Chatman (2000), “insiders” were observed to also be “outsiders”, i.e.

individuals within the small worlds did not exhibit an “us” vs. “them” mentality, but rather

an “me” vs. “them” mentality. However, these small worlds represent only a small number

of social settings of information behavior and exchange. Gym E does not quite fit the “me”

2 What is considered “private” differs in different contexts. Due to the “me” vs. “them” mentality that is widespread in Chatman’s small worlds, “private” information refers to person information about an individual. In the case of Gym E, “private” information refers information about the characteristics of sub-groups, since individuals exhibit the “us” vs “them” mentality observed (see subsequent paragraph). 3 This to some extent results in some behaviors associated with information poverty, including a certain amount of secrecy and deception, although not to the extent exhibited by Chatman’s small worlds (Chatman, 1996). After all, the livelihood of the hoopers does not depend on the small world of Gym E, so there is not as much at stake compared to Chatman’s small world examples of retirement communities, women’s prisons, and janitors (Chatman, 1996 & 1999).

5


vs. “them” mentality, but rather does show an allegiance to one’s own subgroup.

Information is shared between sub-group members, not hoarded.4

Lone players who do not belong to a sub-group are especially informationally poor

because they face barriers in accessing information about other teams or sub-groups,

information that would help fulfill their need to play a game. For example, often a lone

player will inquire about who is next to play a pickup game. When they find the team on

the end of the line5, they will ask if the team is filled, in hopes of joining it. Often, the

information seeker will be met with the response “Yes, the team is filled” even when it is

not. This display of deception often happens because the team’s players are waiting to see

if a sub-group mate will arrive. The team will resort to picking the lone player only if they

do not have enough insiders. Sometimes the lone player may wait well over an hour just to

get in a game, depending on their persistence. During the process of trying to get in on a

game, the lone player may reach a level of frustration that may cause them togive up trying

to play pickup game altogether. In Chatman’s words, “the information seeker is motivated

by a sense that in the end, why bother?” (Chatman, 2000, p. 5).

One important feature of Gym E that does not fit within Chatman’s theory is the

existence of even smaller worlds within small worlds. There are numerous sub-groups that

play basketball in Gym E. These subgroups share key characteristics of small worlds. The

GEH, for example, is a sub-group of players whose members have a stronger allegiance to

their group mates than to Gym E’s legitimized others in general. The possibility of

expanding, contracting, or creating offspring may be inherent characteristics of at least

some types of small worlds.

4 At times GEH will be referred to as a “group” while at other times it will be referred to as a sub-group. To avoid confusion, GEH is described as a sub-group when the larger environment of Gym E is also being discussed, since the hoopers of Gym E can also be classified as a “group”. 5 Often the gym is so crowded that teams will have to call “double next” or “triple next”.

6


Information Grounds:

According to Fisher and Naumer (2006), investigations of information behavior in

everyday life and the constructionist paradigm led to the identification of information

grounds. This approach places more importance on place and setting compared to previous

studies of information behavior. Pettigrew’s research with nurses and the elderly at a foot

clinic is the classic example of an “information ground”, which is defined as a synergistic

“environment[s] temporarily created when people come together for a singular purpose but

from whose behaviour emerges a social atmosphere that fosters the spontaneous and

serendipitous sharing of information” (Pettigrew, 1999, p. 811).

Gym E fits the description of an information ground. While the primary concern of

its visitors is to play the game of basketball, Gym E also allows for a social atmosphere

that fosters the sharing of information. This information is usually related to basketball, but

the people in Gym E also exchange information about other sports, sporting events, jobs,

hangouts, food, and more. In this way, information flow can be seen as a byproduct of

social interaction (Fisher & Naumer, 2006).

GEH is also an information ground but is separate from Gym E in key ways.

Although GEH is connected to the setting of Gym E in terms of where it meets, its

members also interact through Facebook, which is a different information ground

altogether. Moreover, even when GEHs meet together in Gym E, they socially interact

with other GEHs more readily and more often than with others. People are more likely to

share information with those with whom they have stronger ties than with strangers or

those with whom they have weaker ties (I discuss the concept of ‘ties’ in subsequent

paragraphs). However, once two people have built up a relationship over multiple meetings

7


and bonded through shared activities or interests, information exchange can begin to be

socially rewarding. The building of relationships to the point of comfortable and trusting

exchange is a topic that is worthy of further investigation.

Particularly relevant to GEH is the presence of Granovetter’s “weak ties”.

Pettigrew et. al (2001) introduce the new term “strong-weak ties” to describe nurse-senior

relationship because they exhibit aspects of “dual tie strength”. The strength of weak ties is

certainly an attribute found in the information ground of Gym E. For example, a weak tie

that I had through GEH became a helpful connection for doing my fieldwork for my IB

Group presentation.6

Information grounds are also characterized by the lack of any formal system of

information exchange. This is a key reason for their capacity to foster information

exchange in everyday lives. For example, members of immigrant communities will often

avoid “official information functions” provided by institutions outside their communities

because they feel intimidated by unfamiliar sources and systems of information. They

would rather share information with people in their own groups (Hill, Module 5- lecture 2,

slide 8). Likewise, I would not feel comfortable visiting an engineering conference or a

company to look for potential interviewees. Tapping a weak tie to an engineer I know

through GEH would be much less intimidating (see footnote 6).

Information grounds allow people to make connections beyond their typical social

circles and groups (Fisher et. al, 2007), thereby establishing weak ties that they can use to

access new information. At the same time, information grounds give people the 6 My team is studying the information group of engineers. For the fieldwork, I created an online survey on Facebook and sent it to all my Facebook friends. One of the “Gym E Hoopers” who I know through a mutual friend (also a GEH) approached me about the survey to make sure that he would be a good candidate to take it. I assured him that he would indeed be a good candidate for the survey. I then asked him if he would mind doing an interview as a follow-up to the survey. He agreed. This shows that Gym E has does fit the mold of an information ground, because it allows people of weak ties to share information that would not be otherwise available through merely strong ties (I do not have any close friends that are engineers).

8


opportunity to expand their typical circles and groups, that is, their social network.

For example, GEHs have formed connections beyond the setting of gym E. Some share a

fantasy sports leagues, play recreational football together, and have dinner at Applebees

after basketball sessions on Fridays. This illustrates the potential for forming stronger ties

as a result of being in the same group. Here, social network theory may lend a useful

perspective in describing bonding between individuals and bridging social capital.

Social Network Theory:

According to social network theory (Haythornthwaite, 1996), because “actors’”

roles are rapidly evolving, it would be less useful to take the traditional approach of

studying information behavior through a priori (theoretical) categories. Instead, social

network theorists want to look at how networks are formed, relationships between actors

within networks, and how information is actually exchanged in these networks.

A key concept in social network theory is “prominence”. Measures of prominence

indicate which actor(s) has influence or power in a network, and “who is more or less in

demand” (Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 334). Certain GEHs are more prominent because of

their centrality (the number of ties they have to other members) within the sub-group as

well as to other sub-groups in Gym E7. For example, BJ, the creator of GEH, is a

prominent actor in GEH as well as in the larger social space of Gym E. Within GEH, he is

the mediator between the other members; he posts information on the Facebook message

board about when to meet, who will be present at the meeting, etc. In other words, BJ is the

most prominent actor in GEH because he is the collector and disseminator of information

7 Haythornthwaite uses the term “clusters” to describe groups of individuals that are related by social ties. I will use “clusters” and “sub-groups” interchangeably. The term “clique” is also used by Haythornthwaite to mean the same thing.

9


for the group. BJ has also been active in gym E for several years and has built relationships

with prominent actors from various sub-groups. Because of this, he often acts as the carrier

of information between GEH and other individuals or subgroups in gym E.

According to Haythornthwaite, “[c]liques form composed of people similar to each

other who then establish norms that promote inclusion of others similar to themselves”

(Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 336). Actors are likely to encounter the same information

within their cliques. Thus, in order for new information to come in, a “network of

networks” has to happen; this requires ties between cliques. Haythornthwaite also

hypothesizes that certain people that are situated outside of individual clusters may act as

“brokers” between the clusters. In the case of Gym E, however, the most direct and

effective information sharing between clusters happens when prominent actors from one

cluster tap into their ties with prominent actors from another cluster. For example, BJ does

not quite fit the role of “broker” that Haythornthwaite assigns to such a carrier of

information; it is not the case that BJ “sits between the peripheral groups and thus occupies

a more central position in the whole network and maintains an intermediary role between B

[GEH] and C [another cluster]” (Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 335). Rather, it is more

accurate to view BJ as a representative of B that can reach out to representatives of cluster

C. Therefore, in order to facilitate information exchange between clusters, additional

research could focus on how ties between prominent actors within different clusters can be

formed or strengthened, rather than just how intermediaries (i.e. “brokers”) can be situated

between unconnected clusters.

Conclusions:

One common thread between all the theories discussed is that of legitimization.

Both Haythornthwaite and Fisher rely upon Granovetter’s notion of “strength of weakness

10


ties” (SWT). According to SWT, “close ties carry legitimacy” while weak ties tend to carry

new information but no legitimacy (Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 336). While individuals

have strategies to seek out useful information from sources outside of their group, they

tend to consult their group members in validating that information. Thus, strong ties act as

“information validators” even when weak ties are consulted first. (Pettigrew, 2000, p. 50).

This helps to shed light on the information behavior of GEH, i.e. why GEHs have stronger

allegiance to and cohesion with each other than outsiders and why GEHs rely on prominent

member(s) as gatekeepers to new information. Chatman also recognizes the concept of

legitimization in her research, although she finds that network theory “failed to shed light”

on the small worlds she studied (Chatman, 2000, p. 4). As noted earlier, Chatman observes

legitimization as a process that is controlled by “legitimized others”, which potentially

includes all inhabitants of the small world, rather than prominent individuals within the

small world. Although this may be the case within the isolated groups that Chatman

studies, less isolated groups appear to have different processes of legitimization. The role

of prominent network members as gatekeepers should be further studied. As gatekeepers,

prominent members are in a unique position to affect the process of legitimization.

Because of their centrality, prominent members can control what kinds of information are

passed on and whom that information reaches.

Moreover, there also needs to be recognition of the flexible dynamics of small

worlds. This includes testing the hypothesis that there may be smaller worlds within small

worlds. For instance, GEH can be considered a small world within the small world of Gym

E. However, GEH is not limited to the confines of the small world of Gym E; the group

can easily change its meeting location to another gym. Because of the Internet, GEH

enjoys a conceptual existence even outside of any physical space. In such situations,

11


Chatman’s small worlds concepts begin to break down. The idea of small worlds as a

physically (not just conceptually) enclosed space needs to be reexamined.

Another aspect found in GEH and Gym E that is not mentioned in the theories

discussed is the effect that intentional group creation has on how information is exchange

between individuals. GEH was specifically created by BJ as a means to share information

about basketball related activities. This automatically placed BJ in a position of

prominence in the network (GEH) that he formed. The question of how Internet based

networking tools such as Facebook can empower everyday people into positions of

prominence, positions that enable to them to control information flow, with respect to the

networks they form needs to be explored. In particular, the creation of events, groups,

information grounds, and small worlds by individuals is prime for further research.

All three theories discussed provide valuable tools for investigating settings of

information behavior and interaction such as GEH and Gym E. However, each also has its

own setbacks. The small worlds perspective should be open to investigating the flexibility

and dynamism of small worlds. The information grounds perspective may be enriched by a

consideration of online information grounds interact with and transform physical enclosed

information grounds. Finally, social network theory may be improved by the consideration

of how prominent actors can and do bridge the information barriers between clusters. That

said, no single theory can tell it all. We must consider what combination of perspectives

and their corresponding methods of investigation can shed the greatest light on a given

situation, process, or environment.

References

Chatman, E.A. (1996). The Impoverished Life-World of Outsiders. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science, 47, 193-206.

12


Chatman, E.A. (1999) A Theory of Life in the Round. Journal of the American Society of

Information Science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science,

50(3):207–217.

Chatman, E.A. (2000). Framing social life in theory and research. The New Review of

information behaviour research, 1, 3-17.

Fisher, K. E., & Naumer, C. M. (2006). Information grounds: Theoretical basis and

empirical findings on information flow in social settings. In A. Spink & C. Cole

(Eds.), New Directions in Human Information Behavior (pp. 93-111).

Haythornthwaite, C. (1996) Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the

study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18,

323-342.

Pettigrew, K.E. (1999). Waiting for chiropody: contextual results from an ethnographic

study of the information behavior among attendees at community clinics.

Information Processing & Management, 3(6), 801-817.

Pettigrew, K.E. (2000). Lay information provision in community settings: How community

health nurses disseminate human services information to the elderly. Library

Quarterly, 70(1), 47–85.

Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information

behavior. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, Vol., 35 (pp. 43-

78). M. E. Williams (Ed). Medford, NJ: ASIST and Information Today.

13

Zhang d lis510_social ib gym e

Technology

Transcript of Zhang d lis510_social ib gym e