I'm wondering about the distinction between "Flame Wars" and the ongoing occurrence of conflict in online group interactions. Heck, conflict happens. Sometimes it escalates to what would be an argument F2F. Is that a flame war? Or is that a relic of previous time. What I find is the tolerance for conflict varies greatly by group, and the extent to which a group will let the ongoing conflict of two ore more members dominate the online interaction varies. Group norms, agreements, the purpose of the group, all play into the equation, just like offline. But yes, in my experience there are still frequent occurrences of online conflict. But I think there is less tolerance for these as sport in many of the places I interact, primarily because the interaction is not purely a social activity, but focused on work, information sharing, etc. That said, in my online social spaces, oh, YES, it still happens all the time and yes, I think for some it is sport. For others, it is the reason to stop interacting in these spaces or to remain silent. It is a potent social factor in online interaction. And I'm nodding to Eva's thoughtful post about the content/emotion associated with "flames." One more thought. I also believe that conflict (which is the source of some flames -- not all is baiting for fun!) plays an important role in groups. From a facilitative standpoint, it is important to distinguish between the flame (manifestation of hurt/misunderstanding/anger) and the conflict or misunderstanding of the ideas *behind* the flame. There is often real fruit in pursuing that conversation. So in a sense, flaming might add to the community if it is held in a way by the members that does not harm the individual. Does that make any sense? It must be Friday! Nancy Nancy White Full Circle Associates - http://www.fullcirc.com - 206-517-4754 Next Online Facilitation Course starts January 28th - http://www.fullcirc.com/ws/onfaccourse.htm
Wouldn't a flame war have to include direct and indirect ad-hominum attacks? Conflict doesn't necessarily get personal regardless of the intensity of disagreement. I'd think that it becomes a flame war only if and when it devolves into attacks on the person holding an opinion and even then I'd hesitate to call it a flame war unless more than one participant engaged in ad-hominum arguments. Speaking of flame wars -- I'm sure many of you are familiar with the e-mail program Eudora. It has a warning/filter function that it calls "Mood Watch" which can be set to warn you if you are about to send a message that may offend people. Of course some of the filters are set to catch sex-related language, (like the preceding phrase), but it will also flag a message if it uses phrases like "you need help." The 3-stages of offensiveness are flagged with 1 to 3 chili peppers. The 3 chili message appears if the "message is on fire." -- Karla-Tonella@uiowa.edu________________________________________________ "The opposite of talking isn't listening. The opposite of talking is waiting." --Fran Lebowitz
Nancy White wrote:
I'm wondering about the distinction between "Flame Wars" and the ongoing occurrence of conflict in online group interactions. Heck, conflict happens. Sometimes it escalates to what would be an argument F2F. Is that a flame war? Or is that a relic of previous time.
Nancy's reflections make me wonder why there is even such a term as "flame" and "flame war"--a question that might be answered in part by the history of this term. Anyone know how these terms initially arose in discourse re: CMC? Thanks, for any info. Christian Nelson
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy White" <nancyw@fullcirc.com> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:25 PM Subject: [Air-l] Re: Flame Wars
I'm wondering about the distinction between "Flame Wars" and the ongoing occurrence of conflict in online group interactions. Heck, conflict happens. Sometimes it escalates to what would be an argument F2F. Is that a flame war? Or is that a relic of previous time.
There are over 100 theories of group formation and interaction in f2f groups. Perhaps the most famous of the sequential stage theories of group development was proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965; he stated that groups evolve through 4 stages, which he labeled: Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing (Tuckman, 1965: 384-399). His research was based on studies of therapy groups, human relations training groups, laboratory-task groups and natural groups. A fifth and final stage - Adjourning - was added by him later (Tuckman, 1977). 1 Forming - Members become oriented to each other & the task at hand. Dependency on the leader & testing of behaviour appear. 2 Storming - Members find themselves in conflict & its management becomes the focus. Antagonism & turmoil appear. 3 Norming - Rules of behaviour appropriate to the group, & necessary for the task are spelled out. Period of cohesion & cooperation appear. 4 Performing - Group works as a unit to achieve goals & accomplish the task. Solutions appear. 5 Adjourning - Termination of tasks & disengagement from relationships. Group disbands. Many of the other theories agree that sooner or later in f2f groups, there is dissatisfaction and/or conflict. Some contend that this is a necessary stage before groups can accomplish their goals. Some of the writers on online learning have concurred and suggested that online groups go through similar stages of group development. Now, "storming" need not take the extreme form of flaming, but disagreement, and resolution of conflicting positions appears to be normal whenever groups attempt to work together, whether f2f or online. While in my experience, flaming is rare (except in newsgroups), it is not unheard of and one should not be surprised if it happens..................Alex Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M.A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419-427. Alex Alex.Kuskis@utoronto.ca
participants (4)
-
Alex Kuskis -
Christian Nelson -
Karla Tonella -
Nancy White