Today I have read Visitor and Residents_ an new typology for online engagement by White and Le Cornu from 2011 where they present a framework on who people act on an online milieu. They fins to ideal types Vistors and Residents. They sum it put beautifully:
“We propose that Visitors understand the Web as akin to an untidy garden tool shed. They have defined a goal or task and go into the shed to select an appropriate tool which they use to attain their goal. Task over, the tool is returned to the shed. It may not have been perfect for the task, but they are happy to make do so long as some progress is made. This is important, since Visitors need to see some concrete benefit resulting from their use of the platform. Significantly, Visitors are unlikely to have any form of persistent profile online which projects their identity into the digital space. They are anonymous, their activity invisible to all but the databases running the Web sites they use. Individuals who most closely fit the Visitor approach give a number of reasons for not wanting a ‘digital identity’ which would persist in some form even when they were not online. Issues of privacy and fear of identity theft are paramount [9] but there is also a sense that social networking activities are banal and egotistical. Implicit in this is the idea that if you have a ‘real’ social life and network of friends then you wouldn’t choose to socialize online in a visible manner. It is this visibility, or the ‘broadcast’ nature of the visibility, which is key; Visitors are not averse to using e–mail or Skype to maintain relationships but they are wary of creating a Facebook profile.
Visitors then see the Web as primarily a set of tools which deliver or manipulate content (this can include the content of a conversation because, as mentioned, they are happy to accept the Web as a useful conduit for interpersonal communication). This content is often distanced as far as possible from personal opinion (unless a competent authority is in evidence or a pre–existing off–line relationship). In effect, the ‘non–referenced’ or non–expert opinion and notions such as the wisdom of the crowd are avoided. Ultimately to Visitors the Web is simply one of many tools they can use to achieve certain goals; it is categorized alongside the telephone, books, pen and paper and off–line software. It is not a ‘place’ to think or to develop ideas and to put it crudely, and at its most extreme, Visitors do their thinking off–line. So Visitors are users, not members, of the Web and place little value in belonging online.
Residents, on the other hand, see the Web as a place, perhaps like a park or a building in which there are clusters of friends and colleagues whom they can approach and with whom they can share information about their life and work. A proportion of their lives is actually lived out online where the distinction between online and off–line is increasingly blurred. Residents are happy to go online simply to spend time with others and they are likely to consider that they ‘belong’ to a community which is located in the virtual. They have a profile in social networking platforms such as Facebook or Twitter and are comfortable expressing their persona in these online spaces. To Residents, the Web is a place to express opinions, a place in which relationships can be formed and extended. While they use ‘tools’ such as online banking and shopping systems they also use the Web to maintain and develop a digital identity. Since they also undertake many of the activities that Visitors do, their residency is an additional layer of interaction and activity. When Residents log off, an aspect of their persona remains. This could be in many forms ranging from status updates to social networking platforms, to artifacts in media sharing sites or opinions expressed in blog posts or blog comments.
Residents see the Web primarily as a network of individuals or clusters of individuals who in turn generate content. Value online is assessed in terms of relationships as well as knowledge. Residents do not make a clear distinction between concepts of content and of persona. A blog post is as much an expression of identity as it is a discussion of particular ideas. The fact that Wikipedia has been authored collectively is not a concern, what is important is how relevant the information they find is to their particular needs.” (White & Le Cornu 2011, Section 4)
When reading it my thoughts was drawn to a sociology classic book but Norbert Elias from 1965 about two other ideal types “Established” and “Outsiders”. I see many parallels between Elias and White / Le Cornu because they are both focused on a space. Elias is focusing on a residential area while white and Le Cornu are focusing on digital platforms and milieus and as I see it the distinction between physical space and digital space as well as physical actions and digital action are becoming much more blurred which also makes Elisas idea about established an outsiders applicable to the digital spaces. I also agree with Lars B Ohlsson’s (2003) critique towards all these terms that are used to describe the positions of different groups and individuals, eg. deviation, marginalization, segregation, integration, inclusion and exclusion. He argue that “Even if the the terminology aids us in giving everyday life a manageable structure and meaning, it also work as a tool of stigma and to keep large groups outside society, not least in research agendas. By using the terminology as structuring devices and analytical categories to describe and understand processes of exclusion do we add, although not purposely, to the formulation of the boundaries of exclusion. To understand these processes it is necessary to begin within us. By viewing our own position and behavior it will soon be obvious that it is about Us and Them.” ( Ohlsson 2023. p.30).
My pedagogical reflection it as follows: How do we go about analyzing different actions online without excluding Visitors/outsider or whatever we cant to call them?
Reference:
Ohlsson, L. B. (2003). The established and the outsiders : aspects of inclusion and exclusion. In L. Harrysson
(Ed.),
Social concequences of changing labour market conditions and undeserved personal virtues : lectures on
age, class, ethnicity and gender (Meddelanden från Socialhögskolan, 2003:4) (Meddelanden från
Socialhögskolan; Vol. 2003, No. 4), (Research Reports in Social Work; Vol. 2003, No. 4). Socialhögskolan,
Lunds universitet. http://www.soch.lu.se/Mserien/Fulltext/2003-4.pdf
White, D. & Le Cornu, A. (2011) Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9).
