Complementing, Not Competing An Ethnographic Study of the Internet and American Go Communities Drew Harry Sean Munson May 2005 Culture, Knowledge, and Creativity 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Background and Context ............................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction to Go ......................................................................................................................................... 7 The Massachusetts Go Association.............................................................................................................. 9 Internet Go.................................................................................................................................................... 10 Research Methods........................................................................................................................................13 Interview Profiles......................................................................................................................................... 14 Interview Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 15 Why Do People Play Go?............................................................................................................................16 The Relationship Between Online Go and Offline Go .....................................................................18 Etiquette, Norms and Values of the Go Community ........................................................................23 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................................27 Differences in Online and Offline Users................................................................................................... 27 Youth Adoption of Go.................................................................................................................................. 28 The Role of Popular Media .................................................................................................................... 29 Youth Engagement................................................................................................................................. 30 Communities of Practice............................................................................................................................. 33 Complementing Not Competing................................................................................................................. 35 Participant Confidentiality In the course of this research, we strove to protect the identities of our interviewees. All names used in this document are pseudonyms. Some personal details have also been changed, though never those that we felt were important for understanding the context of an interviewee’s stories. 3 4 Introduction Civic engagement in this country is falling, and has been falling for a generation or more.1 Putnam finds found this to be true around the country, across demographic groups, and getting worse with each new generation. Involvement in clubs and other community organizations plays a crucial role in the generation and maintenance of social capital – the networks of relationships that bind communities together, and grease the wheels of human interaction. We agree with both his thesis that civic engagement is in a free-fall, and that this is a trend that needs to be reversed. Since Tocqueville’s nineteenth century survey of American democracy civic engagement through clubs and organizations has been identified as crucial wells of social capital.2 They provide spaces independent of work and home for people to meet around a common interest. Often, these organizations have helped build social capital across social boundaries, bringing together people who might not otherwise know each other. Since Tocqueville’s work, technology has fundamentally changed how people communicate and organize and so the question of how these clubs and organizations use their new technological tools is an important one. In Bowling Alone, Putnam sees the Internet as something of a wildcard; there is both promise and peril in its rapid adoption. To the extent that the Internet is like television (a major factor in civic decline, according to Putnam), he believed it could be part of the problem. Yet in his latest book, Better Together, Putnam points out that “as of 2002, 62.5 percent of all Americans send e-mail or instant messages.”3 It is promising that the most popular uses of the Internet are features that connect people, not those that are solitary. The Internet has the potential help old acquaintances maintain longer-distance ties and, hopefully, to build new relationships. While the conversation about whether purely online communities, the Internet’s analogs to PTAs, Bowling Leagues, or VFW, exist is valuable4, we investigate the Internet’s 1 Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Society. New York: Simon and Schuster. 2 Putnam, Robert D. January 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy. pgs 65-78. 3 Putnam, Robert D., Lewis Feldstein, and Donald J Cohen. September 2003. Better Together: Restoring American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, page 226. 4 Rheingold, Howard. 2000. The Virtual Community. Cambridge: MIT Press. Also, Putnam, 2003. 5 role from another perspective. Pre-existing community organizations, many of which were created between 1900 and 1940,5 have been slowly adopting Internet technologies. Groups like Alcoholics Anonymous now have websites, mailing lists, and forums. How do capabilities offered by the Internet affect these organizations? Do Internet offerings compete with the physical meetings of the group or complement the groups’ missions? To attempt to answer these questions, we studied Go players, both online and offline, in the United States. To better understand the offline context of Go, we focused our efforts on one particular club, the Massachusetts Go Association. Using a range of ethnographic methods, we describe the ways in which the growth of online play has been a major boon to the Go community in general, helping regular players sustain interest in the game, bringing new players, and making the game accessible for players who are geographically separated. We feel that there are some specific reasons why Go players are important to study. Unlike many organizations, whose memberships are in decline, the American Go Association, Go’s US national governing body, has over 2100 members, more than at any previous point in its history. More than three times their membership subscribes to their weekly email journal. Membership has more than doubled since 1985, the first year for which the AGA reports membership statistics. While these numbers are low compared to those of most national organizations, their rise in the face of the trends discussed by Putnam is significant. No small part of this success has been with young players, a demographic that Putnam identifies as being particularly unengaged. As occasional Go players ourselves we knew enough about the community, and the role technology plays in it, to pique our interest. We were specifically curious as to whether the Internet had helped or hindered the AGA in maintaining its membership growth. Go is just one of many communities that have embraced Internet tools, and we were hopeful that our work would reveal some themes about how this can affect the number and engagement of members of such organizations. To understand the ways in which the Internet might interact with the Go Community, we looked to previous work by Wellman, Boase, and Chen. They propose three ways in which the Internet can affect communities. 5 Putnam 2000, page 388. 6 • “The Internet weakens community: The immersive nature of the Internet may be so compelling that Internet users neglect their family, friends, relatives and neighbors • “The Internet enhances community: People mostly use the Internet to maintain contact with existing community members, either by adding Internet contact on to telephone and face-to-face contact or by shifting their means of communication to the Internet. • “The Internet transforms community: The Internet’s connectivity better enables people to develop far-flung communities of shared interest, possibly at the expense of local contact.”6 In the communities Wellman and colleagues studied, transformation was the most typical result. Based on the evidence that the AGA continued to enjoy membership growth, and on the Internet’s ability to connect dispersed Go players and Go organizations, we hypothesized that the Internet plays a transforming role in the Go community and that understanding this role would contribute to the discussion of the Internet’s role in generating social capital. We found that the Internet actually enhances the Go community than it transforms it. Players use online Go to supplement their offline Go experience; the Internet made it easier for them to keep playing the