ISA2010 Professional communities online: the case of Legalit

XVII ISA World Congress of Sociology

Professional communities online: the case of Legalit– preliminary results –

Ivana Pais – University of Brescia ([email protected])Angela Palmieri – University of Calabria ([email protected])

Agenda• Theoretical background• Research questions• Empirical setting• Methodology• (Preliminary) results• Discussion• Next steps

Theoretical background

Sociologyof professions

Sociologyof new media

Online professionalcommunities

Theoretical backgroundSociology of professions: profession as communities?A profession, as a whole, cannot be defined as 'community',

unless you consider only the superior layer, for social origin and for position in the stratification.

Reasons: processes of inside stratification tied to different opportunities of career, forms of exercise of the profession, specializations, professionals associations, colleagues and -particularly for the lawyers - clienteles.

(Hughes 1958; Freidson 1983, 1984, 1986; Abbott 1986, 1988; Tousijn 1987; Speranza 1999)

Theoretical backgroundSociology of new media: online communities• They are a way of accessing an open and frequently

democratic group of peers dealing with similar knowledge issues, even if geographically distributed (Ahuja et al., 2003)

• They are ‘communities’, even if virtual: sharing of common interests (Lave, Wenger 1991); sharing of a space, even if not physical; pact of trust; sense of belonging; collective identity (Rheingold 1993; Stone, 1991).

• Imagined communities (Anderson, 1991)• Personalized communities embodied in me-centered

networks (Wellman, 2000); privatization of sociability (Castells, 2001)

Research questionsOnline communities of practice can be considered as

‘professional communities’?

RQ1. What are the distinctive characteristics of the professionals who participate?

RQ2. What is their functioning logic? RQ3. Do the members develop a sense of stronger affiliation

with their profession or with the community online (van Knippenberg, van Schie 2000; Levin 2005)?

Empirical setting• The first (and most active) Italian discussion group for jurists,

founded in 1993• In the last year, it has differentiated its online presence

through various platforms:▫ a Google Group (Legalit), opened in April 2007, 439

members;▫ a Facebook Group (Avvocati italiani), opened in February

2009, 724 members; ▫ a LinkedIn Group (Avvocati italiani), opened in March

2009, 128 members.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600A

pr 0

7M

ay 0

7Ju

n 07

Jul 0

7A

ug 0

7Se

pt 0

7O

ct 0

7N

ov 0

7D

ec 0

7G

en 0

8Fe

b 08

Mar

08

Apr

08

May

08

Jun

08ju

l 08

Aug

08

Sept

08

Oct

08

Nov

08

dec

08G

en 0

9Fe

b 09

Mar

09

Apr

09

May

09

Jun

09Ju

l 09

Aug

09

Sept

09

Oct

09

Nov

09

dec

09G

en 1

0Fe

b 10

Mar

10

Apr

10

May

10

Jun

10

Messages posted on Legalit – April 07 to June 2010

MethodologyCase study• Semi-structured interviews to key-informants• Online questionnaire (28 May – 10 June 2010): 93

respondents out of 427 (22%). The interviewees wrote 9,828 out of 14,955 messages (66%).

• Social Network Analysis (Ucinet and Netdraw)• Content Analysis (Automap and Ora)

(Preliminary) resultsRQ1. What are the distinctive characteristics of the

professionals who participate?• 69% male• 49% in their 30’s, 39% - 40’s, 8% - 50’s e 4% - 60’s• self-employed (89%) and, on average, sharing office space

with less than 4 colleagues• 67% deals with Civil Law; only 3% with all the other

aspects (civil, criminal, business)• clients: private (53%) or small businesses (31%); yearly

average 28 clients and 1.1 case per client• income: 68% less than 60K €

(Preliminary) results• Reason for studying Law: 29% genuine interest in the

science of law, 19% to be self-employed and independent, 12% to be of help to others

• 11% father already lawyer, 5% partner• Only 18% socializes with lawyers in their free-time• Only 14% is member of professional associations• 80% is victim of unethical practice• 80% professional referral system (Freidson 1960)• 48% registered with other online professional

communities, 63% is gamer

(Preliminary) resultsRQ2. What are their functioning logics? • E-mail address when registering: 40% private, 40%

business, 11% has only one e-mail, 9% dedicated address• How they knew about Legalit: 80% via internet , 20%

word of mouth, 10% introduced directly by the administrator

• 82% knew no other member when registering; 13% contacts members through e-mail; 6% has met other members

(Preliminary) results• Choosing a message▫ To read: 53% because of title, 24% read all, 21% when time

permits, 2% rarely▫ To reply to: 63% topic in which they feel skilled, 15% topic of

interest, 2% posted by a colleague, 20% never• Lurkers: 57% lack of time, 29% does not believe to be

competent, 14% fears of making mistakes• Prerequisites for building a reputation on Legalit:

technical competence (54%), accuracy of posting (39%), attention to editorial aspects (15%), charisma (13%), time on Legalit (11%), group role (6%), external crediting (5%)

(Preliminary) results

05

101520253035404550

exch

ange

of

info

rmat

ion

exch

ange

of

opin

ion

prob

lem

sol

ving

look

ing

for

colla

bora

tion

look

ing

for

frie

ndsh

ip

goalresult

(Preliminary) results

0102030405060

aspe

cts

wit

h w

hich

I'm

invo

lved

re

gula

rly

ques

tion

s w

hich

I

only

occ

asio

nally

m

eet

ques

tion

s I

don'

t de

al w

ith,

but

like

to

be

info

rmed

ques

tion

s re

gard

ing

prof

essi

on

goalresult

(Preliminary) resultsRQ3. Do the members develop a sense of stronger affiliation

with their profession or with the community online?• Comparing competence: on average 15% feels less

prepared than colleagues, 67% the same, and 18% more • Strong point: managing communication• Weak point: preparedness with regard to their

specialization

(Preliminary) results

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

com

peti

tion

conf

lict

help

fuln

ess

ease

of r

each

ing

an

agre

emen

t

quic

k at

get

ting

in

form

atio

n

wid

e ra

nge

of v

iew

s

cont

rol

fun

info

rmal

ity

fam

iliar

ity

moresameless

(Preliminary) resultsSense of belonging

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

legalit italian lawyers

layers legal professions

very muchsomewhatnot muchnot at all

DiscussionSameness + sense of belonging

In contrast to the profession as a whole, the online discussion group of Italian lawyers can be considered a community of professionals

Next steps• Social network analysis + content analysis

SNA: test March 2009

March 2009: network by message content

Exchange of advice

Requests for collaboration

Legalit Group

Lawyers

Next stepsComparing:• Other platforms (Legalit in Facebook ans LinkedIn)• Other online communities (lawyers in other countries, other

legal professions, other professions)

Professional communities online: the case of Legalit– preliminary results –

Ivana Pais – University of Brescia ([email protected])Angela Palmieri – University of Calabria ([email protected])