Network Analytic Techniques for Online Chat

  • Sean P. Goggins
  • Gregory Dyke
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 15)

Abstract

Multivocal analysis applies two or more research methods to the same data set and then applies reflexivity in a joint analysis to achieve greater insights than would be possible with a single method. In this pilot study, we demonstrate how the application of specific methods are influenced by the ordering of the methods, and present a guideline for future multivocal analysis of online chat data using network analytic techniques. We do this in two phases. First, we use Stahl’s ethnomethodological analysis of one session of biology chat discourse to inform decisions about how to identify and weight implicit connections between participants. Implicit connections are useful because they can be easily automated and presented in real time. We then contrast Stahl’s analysis with the networks we derive from those implicit connections, showing some similarities. Second, we use Tatiana to construct ethnomethodologically informed networks for the full corpora and perform network analysis on the resulting explicit connections. The results are not aligned with our first phase analysis of network position and roles for members. Further inquiry illustrates that the session chosen for ethnomethodological analysis by Stahl has different characteristics than the other six sessions, drawing our use of that analysis for building implicit connections in the corpora into question. We conclude with a clear vision for applying the Group Informatics methodological approach to corpora prior to the performance of time consuming qualitative methods like ethnomethodologically informed analysis. Weaving methods together in the right order, we argue, will lead to more rapid and deeper insight.

Keywords

Triad CSCL 

References

  1. Dyke, G., Lund, K., & Girardot, J.-J. (2009). Tatiana: An environment to support the CSCL analysis process. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 58–67)Google Scholar
  2. Erickson, T. (2009). “Social” systems: Designing digital systems that support social intelligence. AI & Society, 23(2), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fine, G. A., & Harrington, B. (2004). Tiny publics: Small groups and civil society. Sociological Theory, 22(3), 341–356. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00223.x/abstract
  4. Goggins, S., Galyen, K., & Laffey, J. (2010). Network analysis of trace data for the support of group work: Activity patterns in a completely online course. Proceedings from ACM Group 2010 (pp. 107–116) Sanibel Island, FLGoogle Scholar
  5. Goggins, S., Laffey, J., & Amelung, C. (2011). Context aware CSCL: Moving toward contextualized analysis. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2011) (Vol. II, pp. 591–596). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  6. Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J., & Gallagher, M. (2011). Completely online group formation and development: Small groups as socio-technical systems. Information Technology & People, 24(2), 104–133. doi: 10.1108/09593841111137322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goggins, S., Mascaro, C., & Mascaro, S. (2012). Relief after the 2010 Haiti Earthquake: Participation and leadership in an online resource coordination network. Proceedings from ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 57–66). Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  8. Goggins, S. P., Mascaro, C., & Valetto, G. (2013). Group informatics: A methodological approach and ontology for sociotechnical group research. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 64(3), 1532–2890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22802. doi: 10.1002/asi.22802. 516–5390Google Scholar
  9. Goggins, S., Valetto, P., Mascaro, C., & Blincoe, K. (2013). T Creating a model of the dynamics of socio-technical groups. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 23(4), 345–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11257-012-9122-3. Springer Netherlands.
  10. Howison, J., Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2012). Validity issues in the use of social network analysis with digital trace data. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 12(2)Google Scholar
  11. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. McCulloh, I. (2009). Detecting changes in a dynamic social network. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  13. McCulloh, I., & Carley, K. (2009). Longitudinal dynamic network analysis using the over time viewer feature in ORA. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.161.3492
  14. Mead, M. (1958). Cultural determinants of behavior. Behavior and evolution. (pp. 480–503)Google Scholar
  15. Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1(1), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Stahl, G. (this volume). Interaction analysis of a biology chat. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 28. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  18. Turner, W., Bowker, G. C., Gasser, L., & Zacklad, M. (2006). Information infrastructures for distributed collective practices. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean P. Goggins
    • 1
  • Gregory Dyke
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.University of LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations