why do online discussions of orgs fail? asq listserv, bps forum, etc
It surprises me that efforts to develop orgs-related online communities and discussion have failed. For example, I recently ran into the effort by ASQ to run an online discussion listserv, here’s the first posting (volume 1, number 1) from August, 1995. However, within a year, in August 1996, the effort was suspended, see here. While the number of subscribers reached 488, apparently comments were sparse and there was little real discussion (see the reasoning discussed in the previous link). There was also a very recent ASQ online forum, Brayden references it here, but I could not find it online anymore.
A few years ago I eagerly began to follow the BPS division’s (of the Academy of Management) new online forum. The total number of comments, however, over the past two years is less than a dozen — despite creative efforts such as this (an online interaction between Dan Levinthal and Jay Barney).
I suppose public, online discussions are perhaps antithetical to academic work: contribution in science is measured by publications, teaching, reviewing, etc, and contributing to public, online discussions doesn’t really, cleanly anyway, match the model (in fact, it might be seen as a complete waste of time). I don’t know that other fields necessarily have vibrant, cutting-edge online communities either (though, let me know if you know of some) — perhaps the online medium just doesn’t lend itself to helpful, academic interaction.
I’m not sure where orgtheory as a blog fits into all of this. I suppose it survives because we are happy to continue posting and discussing things amongst ourselves (often matters quite tangential to our own field), with occasional, welcomed incursions and comments by those who read. I certainly don’t have any illusions about pithy blog posts somehow serving as a contribution to the field. Rather, for me the medium is valuable just for informally trying out (nascent) ideas, interacting with colleagues, writing, and a way to occasionally blow off steam — and, thankfully, the medium allows for immediate ‘publication.’ The time frames for academic papers (from start to finish) are numbered in years and thus some intermediate and shorter term interaction with the invisible college is also meaningful.
It’s not limited to the orgs. community. The ASA set up a forum a couple of years ago and it hasn’t generated much interaction.
I think the problem is due to a couple of things. 1) People are busy and most don’t have a special incentive to contribute and 2) people are nervous about writing/saying something that will damage their reputation. The public-ness of forums scares people away.
There are some prominent exceptions to the forum problem. The social networks section of ASA has had a thriving listserv. Also, the sociology job market rumor forum tends to generate good discussion, in part because the PhD students have an intense need for information and, as long as anonymity is guaranteed, people don’t mind sharing that information.
brayden
October 31, 2008 at 12:14 am
Yes, I have noted that some email listservs are quite active.
tf
October 31, 2008 at 1:02 am
It’s strange – other fields seem to have oodles of online forums. There are econ listservs and blogs, the sciences have a fair amount and there are tons of law blogs. The factors Brayden mentions are only part of the story, there seems to be discipline variation as well.
As far orgtheory, I would chalk it up to fun. The common element of good blogs is that they combine real information with some sort of personality. Scatter is like that, we’re like that.
fabiorojas
October 31, 2008 at 1:02 am
Fabio: Right — ferrets are “fun” (more disturbing, really).
tf
October 31, 2008 at 1:04 am
I think Brayden’s point #2 is the ticket here. Especially when the posts are very discipline-relevant and not pithy, people are afraid to go on the record one way or the other.
trey1
October 31, 2008 at 1:05 am
Trey1: Yes, that probably explains some of the commenting-related issues for online communities. Though, it surprises me that folks are willing to read pithy posts (I guess for years I read pithy posts at marginalrevolution, CT and other engaging econ/soc blogs) — of course, it could be that orgtheory is just a curiosity, a side show — or, like we talked about in a previous post: its a car wreck that one can’t help but look at (I believe that was Omar’s characterization).
tf
October 31, 2008 at 1:13 am
TF: (a) You brought up ferrets, and ye shall suffer for it.
(b) Well, I think that non-pithy non-trivial posts do carry risk, but my view is that it can be minimized if you are professional about it. And, all of us on the blog have done pretty well for ourselves, even though we blog, and so have the scatter people. So blogging can’t be that bad these days.
fabiorojas
October 31, 2008 at 1:39 am
Maybe it’s one of those ironies of disciplinary self-organization that are so common: the political scientists do not allow direct elections to APSA offices; the economists organize their junior job market as a cartel; and the sociologists cannot organize a group activity to save their lives.
Kieran
October 31, 2008 at 1:50 am
Three words: Dunder Mifflin Infinity
Mrs. Smith
October 31, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I think that successful forums need to be actively launched. When I got an email from the ASA about their forum about a year ago, I thought “That could be fun!” and clicked right over. But there were no posts there. So I never went again.
If they wanted to really set it up, someone at ASA should’ve taken responsibility for setting up some interesting posts — recruit sociologists to write something fun/controversial that will generate discussion, on a variety of topics meant to show the breadth of what the forum could be useful for. *Then* email out to everyone and watch them join the discussion. A good forum will continue to generate discussion of its own momentum, but someone needs to take the lead on making it a good forum in the first place.
gradstudentbyday
October 31, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I love Kieran’s comment! (I feel like adding something about how all psychiatrists are crazy…)
ezrazuckerman
October 31, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I came across this posting after setting an RSS feed for orgtheory.net. Last year I didn’t even know I was interested in org theory but I would have to say gradstudentbyday has the edge in this discussion. I have also participated in trying to launch technical forums in the past and have seen them fail miserably in spite of being exactly what the community originally asked for.
In our exponential society, attention is key and to grab attention, the site should look good to start.
chris
November 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm