The use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) is rapidly proliferating. Seventeen million users of eight million computers distribute information by interactive TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol) [83] services, twenty-six million users of ten million computers access information by interactive TCP/IP services, and thirty-nine million people use email (electronic mail) [89]. Moreover, the Internet has grown at a rate of 100% per year since 1988 [89]. This growth supports the belief that much of our society's life will soon be conducted through the mediation of computing and networking [2].

Using these computer networks that span the globe, millions of people are communicating daily. These networks provide the medium for the formulation and cultivation of new relationships in computer-mediated groups (CMG). Networked groups coalesce as needed, based on common interests and demand. Some of these computer-mediated groups can be found among the more than six thousand Usenet (Unix Users Network) newsgroups [7]. Even though the CMG participants from Usenet often create distinctive cultures of practice [12], they "have been all but ignored in scholarly work on computer networks and computer-mediated communication" [13].

In his criticism of technocentric thinking, Seymour Papert urges researchers to center their attention on the culture and not on the computer if they want to understand the changes made to culture and people's ways of thinking when computers are present [103]. Therefore, to understand the fundamental implications of CMC technology, we have to understand the role of CMC in its culture of use. CMC is a technology, a communications medium, and a space within which people form communities [66]. New cultural meanings of these technologies are created as people use them in new ways [24]. These new communities and their emergent practices give new meanings to connectivity and community. These new forms of community rely on CMC for connectivity. Connectivity is then more than the medium providing the connection; it is the group cohesion among people separated by time and geography. Usenet newsgroups are examples of these new communities. In this dissertation I focus on one such CMG, a social group on Usenet called "alt.good.morning" (AGM).

Early research on CMC led to its being characterized as inherently impersonal, lacking in normative reinforcement, and with less socio-emotional content than other forms of communication [59, 115, 130]. This negative portrayal of CMC seems to contrast with the millions of people using email [89] and reading Usenet [110]. Although recent research has included work on multi-user domains [23, 25, 28, 111, 113], Internet relay chat [30, 112, 122, 146] and listservs [54, 55], little is known about Usenet newsgroups. This dissertation will help to fill that gap.

Usenet, the largest network of discussion forums, distributes at least 6,000 discussion groups [7], or newsgroups, to an estimated 30,000,000 users through more than 300,000 sites across the United States and most of the world [110]. Almost any topic of discussion is available on Usenet. To help readers find the topics that interest them, Usenet is divided hierarchically into newsgroups, which indicate the topic of conversation [100] by branching subcategories of major categories [114]. The contents of a newsgroup are electronic articles called posts, which are contributed by individuals from private computer accounts. Unless a newsgroup is moderated, there are no restrictions on article length or content. Usenet is an asynchronous medium, meaning that participants do not need to be on-line simultaneously to read or write to a group.

Alt.good.morning, a newsgroup distributed through Usenet, began in the winter of 1992--1993 as a small group of posters in Europe wishing each other "good morning" and has grown to over 80 messages a day from people all over the world. The conversation of AGM is routine and mundane; there is no special topic or purpose to bind its participants. Yet, it has created a vibrant culture, populated by people of all ages, from around the world, and from all walks of life. AGM is a group of distinct individuals with a shared history, with distinct behaviors and with expectations for a shared future. This is the definition of community as provided by Traweek [144]. Hence, AGM is a community. It provides an ideal site to study how CMG participants have melded connectivity with community and is an ideal forum in which to investigate my central question: how is CMC being used by AGM, a Usenet newsgroup, to build a community?

This question grew from my interest in computer-supported cooperative learning. There never seemed to be enough time for all the discussion the students wanted in a course I was team-teaching and a listserv seemed the perfect vehicle for the additional conversations. We set up a listserv for the class but it was never used (except when a grade was attached to its usage). Yet, because of my participation in AGM, I knew that computer-mediated discussions could be lively and engaging, even to the point of being addictive. What was different about the listserv when compared to AGM? I wanted to know more than just the mechanical differences in posting. I was convinced that AGM had formed a community. By studying an existing on-line community, I hoped to find clues to how and why the listserv had failed its purpose and perhaps what ingredients were necessary for a successful on-line discussion environment and therefore a learning environment.

Meyrowitz argues that the relationship between situations and behavior (the context) provides insights to the impact of new media of communication on social behavior [93]. CMC is a new media of communication. Yet, the previous research in CMC presupposes that CMC is a tool rather than a context that affects communication [92]. This dissertation views CMC as a context that affects communication. The seminal work in CMC [58, 60, 130] contrasts CMC with face to face (FtF) interaction, using FtF as the preferred standard of communication. A qualitative research methodology has allowed me to explore CMC as others could not. Without the bias that FtF interaction is somehow better than CMC and with the holistic approach to CMC as a context rather than just a tool, I have been able to research how spontaneous and heterogeneous electronic groups perform, how conflicts are resolved and what part the computer plays in this interaction.

CMC and the computer are not passive tools but active participants in the interaction, what Latour calls actants [74]. The computer is an essential component of the AGM community; it cannot be separated from the activities of the newsgroup. The computer is both transparent and visible [71] in these activities. When invisible, the computer no longer exists as a separate artifact in the activity or the delivery tool but becomes an extension of the person. After learning to use the various software, editor and quotation system, newsreader and email, participants are no longer aware of the existence of the computer. The computer becomes as invisible as a window pane. The computer becomes visible when problems arise. But the invisibility of the computer does not negate its participation in the interactions. It actively structures the interactions. This dissertation makes explicit the role of CMC in the AGM community.

In Chapter II, I describe practice and activity theories and the qualitative research methodology I used in my study. Both practice and activity theories emphasize that meaning resides in everyday activities. The differences between the two approaches lies in where the emphasis is placed. In practice theory, the emphasis is on the person acting; in activity theory, on the complex relationships within the activity. Context has a special place in activity theory; the activity itself is the context, not a container of the activity [98]. Neither practice nor activity theory is a methodology for studying everyday actions. Both rely on qualitative methods. Qualitative methods provide the flexibility for the identification, exploration and description of situations, unforeseen processes and social interactions of activities [88] such as those on Usenet. Lastly, I describe my approach to the study of AGM. The main source of data on which I based my analysis is a collection of almost 10,000 posts to AGM over a three month period. I have also used participant observation, electronic interviews, email interaction, traffic and readership statistics and an electronically distributed questionnaire.

Chapters III and IV give background on Usenet from a communications perspective. Chapter III situates the Internet, Usenet and the types of communication to be found there. Early CMC research [58, 60, 130] characterizes email and mailing lists as impersonal and lacking norms which could account for the behavior known as flaming. Yet AGM has no flaming, is very personal and has rules of conduct. The more recent research on multi-user domains (MUDs) and their cultures more closely matches the interaction on AGM, but the reports of fluid identities and gender-switching [21, 133, 145] in those contexts does not match with AGM. To provide insights into the reasons for the differences in behavior among those CMC systems, I provide an in-depth comparison of Internet interpersonal communication services in Chapter III. After a brief history of the Internet and of Usenet, I describe the services available on the Internet and compare their characteristics. In the last section, I concentrate on Usenet by providing a detailed description of the organization and distribution of messages, Usenet interaction and the social dilemmas of that interaction.

In Chapter IV, I look at previous research on CMC, the Internet and Usenet. Although the traditional CMC research in organizational sites led to its being characterized as inherently impersonal, the recent Internet-centered studies characterize CMC as a lively social space. CMC may encourage wide participation and candor with an emphasis on contribution merit, but these are not inherent characteristics of the medium, neither are anonymity, egalitarian social organizations nor flattened social hierarchies as earlier reported [59, 101, 115, 130]. Instead of an inadequate medium, CMC is a rich communicative context, combining aspects of oral and written discourse [42]. Whereas organizational CMC may be impersonal, Internet and Usenet provide interpersonal and even hyperpersonal [149] interactions.

The remaining four chapters contain a description of the community formed by AGM and an explanation of the forces which have contributed to the formation and continuation of that community. I describe the salient behaviors, beliefs, structures and processing that occur in AGM as well as explain the interaction of those forces which create and shape that community. In Chapter V, I focus attention on AGM describing it in detail, drawing on the survey, statistical, documentary and interview materials. These descriptions of AGM provide additional background which help orient the reader as well as situate the particular analyses of AGM activity. Chapters VI and VII are each micro-level analyses of the activities of AGM which explore the ways AGM creates coherence, identity and community by examination of the group's genres and ways of having fun. I look at what defines community in cyberspace and how AGM fulfills that definition. I describe the unique communicative forms AGM has developed and the role of the computer in the community and in those forms. Chapter VIII contains the summary and conclusion.

Taken together, the last four chapters of this dissertation answer the questions that guided this research. These were questions about community, behavior, power, discourse and computer usage in AGM. Together the answers describe and explain the use of CMC in the electronic group setting of AGM. In the remainder of this introduction, I discuss these questions and how they are addressed in this dissertation.

Of the questions about community, the first is, what evidence exists that AGM is a community? The answer to that question is based on the definition of community. The traditional definition of community includes a group of people, common interests and a common locality [142]. By extending the conception of locality to include the place provided by Usenet, AGM reflects all the characteristics of Oldenburg's third place [114]. It is a place of conviviality, a global conversation. It is open at all hours without any membership requirement other than access to a computer, basic computing skills, and some knowledge of English. Traweek defines community as a group of people with a shared history, with distinct behaviors and with expectations for a shared future [144]. Falk further refines the definition to include common ideals and commitment of personal resources and energy [41]. Thus the initial question is expanded to include questions of what sense AGM makes of itself, of its history, of continuity and of itself as a separate community. AGM is a community of practice [12] and a community in the more general sense provided by Traweek and Falk. AGM is made up of individuals from around the world who develop a shared history, distinct behaviors and expectations for a shared future through their interactions on AGM and through the affordances of CMC. The evidence that AGM is a community is found in its everyday discursive practice, in its creation of a unique place in Usenet and in its importance in the lives of the participants.

Included in the evidence that AGM is a community is a description of the cultural and community norms developed by this newsgroup. These rules of conduct are found in explicit postings and in the practices of the community. These norms affect the activities of the group as well as the completion of those activities; they are mediating forces as described in Chapter II. These norms are negotiated practices. Newbies (new participants) adapt their behaviors to align with these norms. Chapters V through VII examine the behaviors on AGM.

An important question in any community is the creation and maintenance of power structures. Closely related to power is the question of how identity is established and maintained in this text-only medium. In Chapter VI, I examine the technical structures of Usenet used to create identity and the practices used to maintain identity. Usenet is a public forum, yet the hierarchization into newsgroups promotes the development of single-interest cliques. Thus the notion of interloper (meddlesome intruder) needs clarification and the effects of interlopers deserves explanation. Social alignments occur; internal stresses and disagreements happen. The reaction of AGM to both the internal and external pressures is examined in Chapter VI.

Discourse is the basis of interaction on Usenet; therefore, discursive practices have special importance in the study of a newsgroup. Discourse and discourse recognition are used in distinguishing among individuals. Humor and other patterns of communicative play serve to create solidarity and affiliation within AGM. The special vocabulary of AGM is a distinguishing trait of this community and provides identifying markers for participants on AGM. Discursive practices convey the attitudes and assumptions which underlie the culture of AGM. Chapter VII examines AGM discourse in detail, but discourse cannot be separated from any discussion of AGM. Usenet defines the discourse and the discourse defines AGM. The participants in AGM define the discourse and they define their place in Usenet.

Finally, there are questions of computer usage. Addressing these questions last does not indicate any lack of importance nor does it indicate a separate topic. Computer usage and the mediating effect of the computer on the communication of AGM is of primary importance to this community. Without the computer, this community cannot exist. The computer both limits and liberates the interactions on AGM. Because of the computer, the interpersonal relationships on AGM achieve the hyperpersonal [149]. The impact of the computer, both hardware and software, is felt in every activity on AGM; it is a mediating tool of this activity and an active participant in the activity. The computer takes on aspects of both visibility and transparency. When visible, the computer is often an impediment to communication; when invisible, the computer no longer exists as a separate artifact in the activity but becomes an extension of the person, called a functional organ in activity theory [69]. The discussion of computer usage is integrated into all the chapters of this dissertation. It cannot and should not be separated from any discussion of newsgroup interactions.

I have used these questions to discover a grounded theory that explains how computers are used as tools for connectivity and community and how one newsgroup has formed a community. Instead of testing a theory or hypothesis, I apply a qualitative approach to make sense of CMC use in an electronic group setting, asking how and why things fit together. My descriptions and explanations are in terms of practice and activity theories based on qualitative research. In the last four chapters, I describe the salient behaviors, beliefs, structures and processing that occur in AGM, as well as the interaction of those forces which create and shape that community. Together these approaches provide insights into how and why AGM has built a community and what that community looks like.

AGM is a unique community. Although similar to a morning coffee group that meets at the corner shop, AGM is global in scope. The community is composed of people from around the world, the computer and the activities of the community in the context of CMC. This community goes beyond sharing a cup of coffee, a bit of gossip and a common meeting place. AGM incorporates the computer and CMC into the community. This dissertation provides an analysis of the impact of CMC on the social behavior of a newsgroup.