Rosanna, Perhaps the key variable is not "governance," but the idea of an "agenda': some sort of organizing center that is more specific than the concern that is at the center of many online groups. In the "Fielding model," to the extent that I understand it, the agenda that brings an online group into being is a "KA," a "Knowledge Area." Is that right? That "KA," although open to many variations, is defined in advance by the institution; all members of the group are required to complete the "KA"; and although the faculty member is nominally a democratic leader , he or she has some authority. And, of course, the members are all highly motivated: they all need to complete the KA as part of their search for a graduate degree. Most online groups do not have that clarity of structure, do not have an "agenda' in that sense, although they have a zone of interest, members have different motivations for joining and differing levels of interest. Hypothesis: Tuckman only applies when a "group"--online or face-to-face--has a clear "agenda," a clear set of obligations for participants, and an authority structure in place and visible and respected. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: Rosanna Tarsiero [mailto:rosanna@gionnethics.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:49 PM To: drseskow@cox.net; air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: RE: [Air-l] Listserv research Steve, You wrote: "How would a "governance" that is "problematic" relate to the Tuckman model?" It has much to do with what you wrote here, IMHO: "One hunch: this kind of loose federation, with members joining at different times, dropping in and out, isn't really a "group" at all in the sense that Tuckman thinks of groups. If that is so, the group is always "forming" for some--you mention that you are new, so you're "forming"-- and "storming" and "norming" and "performing" go on together and endlessly, rather than in clearly marked stages." There is a lot of fuss, and a lot of studies, about "community", online as well as offline. The bottom line of what makes a community is participation in shared governance forms (any form). When groups form and especially *norm*, they create rules as well as procedures to create new rules and change old ones, ie governance. That's why I said that whenever there is a governance problem Tuckman can't be applied, in my opinion. If governance is problematic, there can be no norming. "In which case Tuckman doesn't apply." In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Rosanna