Online social networks in informal learning for tourism profession­als by Oriol Miralbell Izard | Papers by Oriol

Online social networks in informal learning for tourism professionals Oriol Miralbell Izard UOC ± Universitat Oberta de Catalunya jmiralbell@uoc.edu In this paper I intend to present the research project that took place in my doctoral thesis by which I want to learn more about online social networks as informal learning environments, through the study of virtual communities of tourism professionals on the Internet. This project is part of the academic and social debate about the use made of online social networks for the exchange and generation of knowledge, both from the aspect of informal collaborative learning and its use particularly for improving competitiveness in enterprises. The network society in which we live significantly leverages the advantages provided by new information and communication technologies (ICT) for the new knowledge economy, and has impact on many sectors such as tourism that have not traditionally based their growth in knowledge. To analyze the factors that members of online social networks perceive as critical in the exchange and knowledge generation within the networks, I have decided to focus this work on the case study of virtual communities of tourism professionals, with a large number of professionals from different areas related to the sector, from the entrepreneurial side, but also scholars and consultants, technicians, managers and professionals in the tourism policy. The characteristics of tourism as an economic activity, which will be explained in this paper, have been the reason why it was thought appropriate to study these virtual communities, moreover, they are quite numerous and with a considerable number of members, to allow sufficient representative information of these professionals, and which can be, in its turn, extrapolated to other sectors. The main goal of this study is to contribute to the theoretical and social debate about the impact of online social networks to improve competitiveness of companies and to exchange knowledge among professionals and to afford some conclusions about a more effective use of online social networks. 1. Introduction Since the beginning of the Internet as information and communication tool, both for scientific reasons and for commercial use, there have been several functional and operational changes and users have learned their potential as a tool to gain a competitive advantage for the company and the professional development as well. (Torrent et al., 2008; Wellman, 1999; Wenger, 2009). The number of social networking services within the so-called Web 2.0, has increased the potential of the Internet for communicating and knowledge exchange. The overall goal of this research project is to further study the power of online social networks as learning tools by looking at some of the factors involved in these processes of knowledge sharing and informal learning via the Internet. When choosing a social group to study the use of online social networks for knowledge exchange, we have selected a specific group of professionals who are experiencing major changes in their practices in knowledge sharing and informal learning. Tourism professionals and tourism organizations often have been working in isolation without sharing knowledge (Hjalager, 1997). This affects the competitiveness and a loss of opportunities for innovation. Only big companies or business groups have launched strategies to manage knowledge within their companies: in their work processes, and in generating knowledge for innovation (Buhalis, 2008). However, the fragmented structure of traditional tourism destinations in all, consisting mainly of SMEs, does not help companies in developing strategies for sharing knowledge. Consequently, this means lost opportunities to compete and to force companies to rely often on competitive strategies based mainly on price. One of the main issues that explain this communicative isolation of tourism business is the lack of trust between firms (Walder et al., 2006). Also in the case of tourist destinations with strong seasonality, the high mobility of labour in hotels and restaurants makes it difficult to keep knowledge within organizations (Scott & Laws, 2006). Based on the growing trend that Manuel Castells mentions in his book the Network Society (2000), that the dominant functions and processes in our society are increasingly organized around social networks and taking into account the use that makes the social media (a term that refers to the use of media for social interaction) in the environment of knowledge sharing and informal learning, it seems important to analyze the factors that users consider as most critical to the success of communities virtual operating within social networks online, and what relations of dependence between these factors. 2. Background and state of the art We know the first studies of virtual communities since the 80s when there were BBS or similar services that enabled the creation of the first virtual communities. Previously, as with Arpanet, the forerunner of what would be the Internet, American universities were using the network to exchange knowledge, although with very rudimentary tools, based mainly on the exchange of messages via email. Later on the first discussion forums and mailing lists became tools that facilitated discussions in a more orderly way. With the advent of the web 2.0 solutions, a concept created by Tim O'Reilly in 2004 caused a qualitative change important for users to exchange information and knowledge on the network. According to Wikipedia, O'Reilly was referring to the second generation of Web based communities and hosting services and web sites for networking, wikis, and folksonomies that facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing between users. The Web 2.0 means a decisive step towards the changing role of the majority of Internet users, which moved from mere observers and readers to actors and creators of information and knowledge through their contributions to blogs, social networks, etc. In the educational environment, the new Web 2.0 poses new challenges for learning, and also new initiatives arise to incorporate in virtual classroom blogs, wikis, or even to use online social networks as learning and training platforms. Although there have been experts that have questioned the desirability of incorporating 2.0 solutions in training (Selwyn, 2007). The number of existing Web 2.0 services for sharing information and knowledge in any format (text, images, video, etc..) has grown exponentially and continues to grow, making possible also the interconnection between different technological gadgets, computers, mobile phones, tablets, etc.. It is precisely this new setting for the exchange of knowledge that represents a new paradigm of study. So far the studies on the Web 2.0 have focused primarily on general online social networks, ie the most extended: Facebook (Valenzuela, Park i Kee, 2009) or Twitter (Lenhart i Fox, 2009; Huberman, Romero i Wu, 2008) for example. Some of them have been focused on the quality of the information in these new online social networks (Agichtein, Castillo, Donato, and Mishneh Gion, 2008). In contrast, there is a lack of studies relating the perception of users with the features and operation of virtual communities for learning and knowledge exchange, from a functional approach. It is therefore in this area insuffici ently explored, where I want to focus this research project. 3. An interdisciplinary research The study of knowledge exchange and collaborative learning in online social networks covers different disciplines and fields of knowledge, which, however, in a way have a connection with the subject of study: the need to analyze the performance and features, of both social structures, ie virtual communities, social networks, and the communication systems they are using. As a consequence of the literature review the concepts related to my research were grouped into five areas of knowledge items. The following figure shows the five areas of knowledge to provide theories and principles that are closely related to the different factors that we study and to be taken into account in conducting the analysis model. Figure 1 In all the different areas of knowledge I have detected concidences between experts: the interest from their field with collaborative learning. Communities of practice Starting with the field of communities of practice (CoP ), Wenger, among others, explains that one of the main activities that can perform a community of practice is learning (Wenger, 2002; Elboj, Spain , Arrow, Imbernon, Puigdellívol and Valls, 1998). Wenger, even describes the CoP as a social learning system. Communities of practice have been studied through the observation of both the non-professional environments such as learning management in organizations (Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Figallo & Rhine, 2002; Probst, Rauber & Romhardt, 2000) or apprenticeship (Bourhis & Time passes, 2010, Eraut, 2004), and has always proven to be effective for the exchange of knowledge. Also in the field of corporate governance there exist interesting research done on the processes of knowledge management in organizations where collaboration among their members is essential to the virtuous cycle of knowledge generation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Social Capital In the field of social networks, emerged some decades ago social capital theory, which is relevant to our subject of study and that Coleman (1988) referred from a functional point of view as "a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of the social structure, and facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure ... " ie, social capital is any factor that facilitates individual or collective action, generated by the networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust and social norms . In this sense, it is interesting to mention the power of social capital in establishing external connections called by Burt (Lin, 2001) as 'structural holes'. These are the elements within the cohesive structure of social networks, involving linkages of open connections to external information and knowledge so necessary in collaborative learning. There is in here also a strong relation to the concept of the weak ties from of Granovetter (1973), which have similar functions and serve as a bridge to communicate with other external networks. Referring to the Internet domain, also Wellman (1999, 2002) has made important contributions on how the Internet is affected from social capital, focusing on two important assets for virtual communities: one is civic engagement and the other social contact. B. Wellman wrote an article in response to another one by Putnam (1995) where the last was denouncing the alleged isolation that Internet was causing to the users are reducing public participation, among other effects. Wellman responds, however, that far from isolating users, Internet fosters communication and intensive exchange of information and knowledge, while the natural social relationships between people are given with the same intensity as outside of the Internet in the physical world. After an Internet search we observed that many tourism professionals are organized in communities of practice hosted in different social network sites and using different langugaes. These are the communities of practice that I have decided to study. Due to their presence in the virtual environment, in the Internet, they are also seen as virtual communities. Virtual Communities When Howard Rheingold (1993) was referring to the virtual communities as: "People who use communities to communicate, from friendship that sometimes form the basis of communities, but you have to be careful to not mistake the tool for the task and think that just writing words on screen is the same thing as real community ", he was pointing on critical issues to reflect when thinking about virtual communities and their difference with the traditional communities of practice. According Figallo (1998), a virtual community is successful when it provides substantial benefits through targeted content to members and opportunities for improvement, as well as through the expansion of the community gained from participation and socialization. One of the characteristics of traditional communities is their physical location, as it facilitates the contact. This is, however, an insignificant feature in virtual communities as contact is made virtually. This is precisely why; Jones (1997) maintains that the concepts of virtual space and the sense of community are essential in virtual communities. Wellman (1996) differentiates between virtual communities that seek a profit or gain, and those who do not (profit oriented and non-profit oriented). While the VC fro the second group help to strengthen relationships (family, school, etc.), those that belong to the first group are based on common interests or common practices of participants who enter in to the community in search of a profit. The communities that I wish to study, belong to the group of communities who do not seek profit (non-profit oriented). From his side, Figallo (1998) classifies virtual communities, according to their interactivity, the focus and the cohesion. These features are important to be integrated in our analysis of the factors that users perceive as critical in informal learning in online social networks as it will be explained later in this paper. Informal learning When analyzing learning in virtual communities appears the concept of informal learning that is first used by John Dewey (1938) and later by Malcolm Knowles (1950), especially in the context of development policy. At first, informal learning was only studied inside the school, referring to non-formal learning in classrooms where learning takes place traditionally standardized or formalized (Coombs / Achmed 1974). However, Marsick and Watkins (1990) went a step further in its definition by rethinking the organizational form of learning and taking it out of the classroom, thus opening it to any possible learning environment. They called these processes of learning as "informal" precisely because they were not formal or not formally organized. Finally, a broader approach was done by Livingstone (1999), oriented towards self-learning and self-directed learning, with particular emphasis on selfdefinition of the learning process for students. In 2005, Downes was working on the idea of the Personal Learning Environment (PLE), which has also been raised by Wilson (2006) referring to the use of network tools for learning as it can be seen in the figure below. Figure 2 Scott, 2005 Designated as Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), this environment is based on the idea of informal and collaborative learning, while self-directed. Connective Learning (Connective Learning) Though its Siemens (2005) and Downes (2005) that, however, seek a new vision of personal learning environment and develop the concept of connective learning. They implement it in the year 2008 with courses organized by the University of Manitoba (Canada) and dedicated to professionals and scholars in the world of education. In these courses, Siemens and Downes invited students (many of them school teachers) to learn through reading and sharing knowledge in their blogs, by writing and reading Twitter messages or over the discussion forums on Moodle virtual campus. I followed this course in the autumn of 2008, and it helped me to observe both the functionalities of connective learning and to study its characteristics and theoretical framework. Because I will use both terms in my study I would like to clarify that although it might seem that collaborative learning and knowledge exchange are two different and not related issues, they are, in fact strongly related, as it has been shown in recent works of pedagogy. Therefore, in our research model, we focus on knowledge sharing (considered also as collaborative learning practice) as the final consequence of the factors that we wish to analyze. Several studies have considered knowledge sharing as a very effective way for collaborative learning (Downes, 2005; Siemens, 2005; Mutsuhani & White, 2005; Haythornthwaite, 2006). 4. Approach to the analysis model To prepare the analysis model of this research project I have taken into account various studies seeking to identify the success factors of virtual communities from different aspects. In this sense, we have sought to integrate the different research areas identified in prior literature review that have helped to identify the theoretical frameworks of the problem. This would explain the interest in studying virtual communities and virtual space at the same time. We refer to the virtual space as the one based on the technology and usability, while the virtual community concept referred by Jones (1997), which we mentioned in section 2, is the one based on the social aspects. Thirdly, it remains to discuss the scope of learning which we want to focus on informal and collaborative learning. IS Success Among the studies that we identified as relevant for our study we would outline the research done by HF Lin (2008), analyzing the determinants of success in virtual communities. Lin used the success factors of information systems based on the DeLone and McLean (2003) model and integrated also determinant social factors for the success of virtual communities gathered from the theory of different authors such as Preece (2001). Lin organized these factors in two groups (see Figure 3.): determinants of sociability (i. number of participants, ii. degree of reciprocity and iii. trust) and determinants of usability (i. number of errors, ii. productivity and iii. user satisfaction). Through combining factors of IS satisfaction and social factors, Lin explains the success of a virtual community, pursuing to prove that these factors have a significantly positive impact on the loyalty of the members of this Virtual Community. Such loyalty, according to Lin, ensures the success of VC. Figure 3. Lin, 2008 On the other hand, since we wanted to know the perception that members have of the importance of virtual community participation through the exchange of knowledge it seemed significant to note the work of SH Kim, KH Yang and JK Kim ( 2009) aiming to study the critical success factors of virtual communities for marketing. Success of virtual communities for the transaction The interest of this study (Kim et al. 2009) is to determine the success of virtual communities for marketing. Kim et al. assessed the factors related to virtual communities and the intention to purchase within the community. In this respect, Kim et al. integrate two different types of elements. On the one hand, those that take into account (1) the relation between operational factors of virtual communities and the intention to purchase, and secondly, (2) those that relate the characteristics of virtual community and the intention to purchase. Purchase intention in a community of transaction (as defined by Armstrong (1997)) implies the intention to interact and exchange knowledge, as would also do a member of a virtual community of professionals such as that being studied. Moreover, it is accepted that knowledge can be considered a commodity (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998) and even a good of exchange and transaction between companies and between professionals (A. Sharma, 1997). Therefore, and since the exchange of knowledge is also a transaction, it seems appropriate to consider the models proposed in these studies as transportable in the case of a virtual community of knowledge sharing, similar to the communities of tourism professionals that we want to study. We can say that this is a fundamental argument of this project, on which we plan to broaden in our thesis. Figure 4. Kim et al., 2009 Integrating models The strategy of Kim et al. (See the model in Figure 4.) is to integrate in a single model factors from information technology and sociology fields. Comparing the two models (that of Lin and that of Kim et al.) it appears that the critical factors of the system to achieve member satisfaction (based on the model of DeLone and McLean) provide information on the online social networks, which in the second model, Kim et al. would falter. In contrast, the model of Kim et al. affords a better identification of the determinants that constitute the social and operational factors of virtual communities by incorporating broadly analytical elements of virtual communities (utility and trust) and the characteristics of their members (trust and commitment). Perceived usefulness We believe it is important to give special consideration to a group of critical factors about the perception of usefulness. In this regard, Davis (1989) defines perceived usefulness as "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system will achieve its objective, which in the case of the community studied by Kim et al. would be a career goal, as is in ours too. In the case of the virtual communities that we intend to study, this goal would be vocational learning through the exchange of knowledge, and therefore, their perception of value would correspond to the perception that they do learn in a collaborative way within the virtual community of tourism professionals. In this sense, according to McAllister (1995) the operational elements of the VC positively affect the perception of usefulness of the members. Kim et al. take into account, however, the three operational elements described by Figallo (1998) to assess the perceived utility of the members, which are: Focus: referred to correspondence that may exist between the main activity of the community and the purpose officially declared. Interactivity: linked to the degree of exchange of information and knowledge within the virtual community. Cohesion: referring to the degree of closeness among members. In our attempt to refine the model of collaborative learning, we find it convenient to conpare these three factors with the four critical factors of collaborative learning environment (the CV in our case) proposed by Downes and Siemens, which are: autonomy: the ability to allow the system to self-manage their participation and learning within the community. diversity: the variety of interests and profile among members, despite belonging to a virtual community with common interests and formed by professionals of the same sector. It is worth noting that the diversity of business and professional profiles in virtual communities of tourism professionals is widely represented. level of openness: it refers to the freedom of movement of the members, to enter and live, freedom to choose different levels of intensity of participation and ease of internal and external communication to the virtual community. interconnectivity: referred to the level of cooperative exchange of knowledge and the involvement of members in collaborative learning. Our intention is to compare the perception of the members of virtual communities of tourism professionals, between the elements of Figallo and the ones of Downes and Siemens. However it may seem that in some cases it might exist a contradiction between them, although they could also live in a single model. In this sense we want to make a comparative analysis from the theoretical and empirical adequacy of both by putting these factors into the analysis model, relative to those of Kim et al. Individual characteristics of the members With respect to the elements that affect the characteristics of the members of virtual communities, Kim et al. take into account the commitment as a factor. Hoffman and Novak (1997) define, in part, as the frequency with which members are involved in the activities of the virtual community. I this regard, Kim et al. (2009) referred to (i) the desire for a challenge, (ii) the level of skills to participate in online social networks, (iii) the perception of the reality of the community, interactivity, and (iv) the desire for leadership as the variables that contribute to commitment. We felt it was desirable to review in our case these variables, since, as the empirical analysis conducted by Kim et al. proved, there is a direct relationship between operational factors (usefulness and trust) and those of the individual characteristics (commitment and trust) of the virtual community members. For our part, we believe there is some correspondence between the factors of learning collaborative and the features that explain (a) usefulness, (b) trust and (c) the commitment mentioned earlier. 4. Principles for the new analysis model In choosing the two studies mentioned above (Lin and Kim et al.) as models upon which we want to base the analysis model of this study, we have done so because of their transversely relation with the social and technological mainstreams, while we wanted to use the knowledge of user behaviour when using information systems. From both analysis of studies of Lin and Kim et al. we should conclude a final new analysis model that combines the previous two kinds of elements and integrates the following relevant success factors: System features The success factors of Virtual Communities The operational elements of virtual communities The individual characteristics As already mentioned, one of the contributions we want to do with this research (probably the most significant from the aspect of the theory of virtual communities) is the incorporation into our analysis model of the third group of factors , by integrating the critical success factors for collaborative learning and connective proposed by Downes and Siemens. New analysis model 6. Online social networks and social network theory Virtual communities are the body s structure, where there occur interactions and are driven by shared interests and founded and operated by people. A different thing are online social networks are those these services or 2.0 solutions that allow people organized or not, in virtual communities, to interact. It should be clarified, however, there has been much confusion among the public unaware of the existence of a field of study such as social networks, who thought that the two social networks referred to the same idea. In contrast a social network is a social structure made up of people (or organizations); that are linked (connected) and have one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, mutual interest, financial exchange, the tastes, beliefs and relationships, etc. A VC would be a form of a social network. Social networks are represented by graphs showing the nodes as spots linked with other nodes, represented by lines. Social network analysis studies the relationships between the nodes, the underlying structure, the power relations, the roles the clusters, etc. Social network analysis has emerged as a key technique in modern sociology, but also has shown interest in other disciplines such as anthropology, biology, communication studies, economics, geography the information science, organizational studies, social psychology and sociolinguistics, etc. 7. Professional virtual communities To carry out this project and to learn more about the use of online social networks for informal learning between professionals, we decided to make a case study, trying to afford some insights of reflection about virtual communities of learning, which are an emerging trend in our society as it refers to informal learning and training (lifelong learning). Also organizations and companies are thinking in virtual communities, like the ones we want to study, for a better exchange of knowledge inside their companies and use it to gain competitiveness. Below there is a table of virtual communities that are our subject to study. The table shows also the online social network where these VCs are housed and the number of members of each VC on March 31, 2010. These communities were obtained using different search engines and within the social network services used by tourism professionals on the Internet. Virtual communities of the case study Virtual community Web site LINKEDIN Tourism 2.0 Believers in Sustainable Tourism Business Tourism Education ELearing 2.0 Hospitality Superstars Hotel Industry Professionals WorldWide Online Travel Market Tourism Society Tourism professionals Tourism Revolution People Tourism Synergy System Serchers Travel & Tourism E-commerce Travel & Tourism Industry Prof. . World Wide Travel 2.0 Incentive Travel industry Professionals Web 2.0 FACEBOOK Ecotourism & Sustainable Tourism Conference IdTour Travel 2.0 475 355 962 #. membres 2.014 104 92 4.968 9.044 26.752 906 570 1.115 317 28 266 14.940 8.852 17.141 Total 87.109 Ecotourism Society European Journal of Tourism research Sustainable Destinations Tourism Social network Discussion Group Ecotourism Forum & Sustainable Tourism Ning Travel 2.0 China Contact Tourism Network Connectivism Technologies Web 2.0 Learning Trends Travel 2.0 The Travel & Hospitality Soc. Network Travel Blog exchange Tourism 2.0 Turismo 2.0 Comunidad HOSTELTUR 355 142 273 182 1.410 389 4.543 1.582 755 173 3.554 83 2.192 1.586 7.938 3.343 17.863 3.343 112.858 One of the conclusions reached after observing the communities of the list is that members of virtual communities can be active and function in several online social networks at once. Given that these members are enrolled in more than one online social network, they also often interact with each other through various online networks. In fact, as mentioned above, globalization is one of the fundamental features of virtual communities. What has enabled Web 2.0 is that users can choose the environment that best suits them to communicate and exchange knowledge, creating, if necessary, their own PLE. Therefore we did not delimit the space of interaction to online social networks, but to virtual communities of tourism professionals, assuming that they all belong to the great network that is Internet. We have observed that even the language is not a dividing line between virtual communities, as there are communities that are hosted by different online social networks and use different languages. As we explained earlier, there are several studies that have been independently dedicated to virtual communities in the marketing environment, focusing on two areas of study: (1) success factors of information systems, and (2) determinants of participation in virtual communities. One of the contributions of this research is the incorporation of a third group of factors: the success factors for collaborative learning and connective. Conclusions The paradigm of the Network Society presents new challenges in taking the advantage of ICT for knowledge sharing and informal learning, particularly in virtual communities such as the communities of practice in digital environments. On the other hand, tourism professionals have created new virtual communities with great success, which function as an alternative to the lack of knowledge sharing in the tourism industry and representing an opportunity for improvement due to its potential as a platform for informal learning. In our research project we intend to make a contribution to the study of success factors for knowledge sharing and learning in online social networks, and create a new analysis model which can be contrasted with data collection in fieldwork and subsequent analysis with structural equation modelling (SEM). The object of study is the numerous virtual communities of tourism professionals existing on the Internet and that operate within social networks. As a result of the literature review we identified the cross-cutting interests in five areas of knowledge that helped us to identify the key elements for the new analysis model. According to existing studies on success factors in the use of information systems, it has been noted that the new model should integrate into one, the knowledge acquired in other models of existing studies. This model should consider the knowledge gained from studying the success of information systems, of virtual communities and environments for marketing, and add, in turn, a group of factors obtained from the theory of collaborative learning, to verify how it is related to previous models. Therefore, it is intended that the new model should include: (1) the analysis of success factors on the usability of information systems, as online social networks are functionally information systems, (2) the analysis of factors that enhance fairness and willingness to participate in virtual communities, and (3) critical success factors of collaborative learning and connective. The final outcome of this work should provide information on the factors that tourism professionals see as critical for learning through virtual communities that operate in the social networks and, simultaneously will propose a new analysis model. References Armstrong, A.G. Hagel, J. (1997). Netgain. Expanding markets through virtual communities . Harvard Business Schol Press. van Baalen, P.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. & van Heck, E. (2005/6), 'Knowledge Sharing in an Emerging Network of Practice:: The Role of a Knowledge Portal', European Management Journal 23(3), 300-314. Barabasi, A. L. (2003), Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means , Penguin Group New York. Barabasi, A. L.; Jeong, H.; Neda, Z.; Ravasz, E.; Schubert, A. & Vicsek, T. (2002), 'Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations', Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 311(3-4), 590-614. Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N. B. (2008), 'Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1), 210-230. Buhalis, D. & Egger, R. (2008), ETourism Case Studies:: Management and Marketing Issues in ETourism , Butterworth-Heinemann. Buhalis, D. & Schertler, W. (1999), Information and communication technologies in tourism, in 'Proceedings of the international conference in Innsbruck, Austria'. Springer Burt, R. S. (1973/8), 'The differential impact of social integration on participation in the diffusion of innovations', Social Science Research 2(2), 125-144. Burt, R. S. (2004), 'Structural Holes and Good Ideas 1', American Journal of Sociology 110(2), 349-399. Burt, R. S. (2001), 'Structural holes versus network closure as social capital', Social capital: Theory and research , 31-56. Burt, R. S. (2000), 'The network structure of social capital', Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews 22, 345-423. Burt, R. S. (1997), 'The Contingent Value of Social Capital.', Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2). Burt, R. S. (1995), Structural holes: The social structure of competition , Belknap Pr. Burt, R. S. (1980), 'Innovation as a structural interest: rethinking the impact of network position on innovation adoption', Social Networks 2(4), 327-355. Castells, M. (1996) La Era de la información. Economía Sociedad y Cultura. Vol1. La Sociedad Red. Alianza Editorial. Coleman, J. S. (1990), Foundations of social theory , Harvard University Press. Coleman, J. S. (1988), 'Social capital in the creation of human capital', American journal of sociology 94(S1), 95. Collis, B. (2001), Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations . Conceiçao, P. & Heitor, M. V. (2002/9), 'Knowledge interaction towards inclusive learning: Promoting systems of innovation and competence building', Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69(7), 641-651. Cowan, R. & Jonard, N. (2004/6), 'Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge', Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 28(8), 1557-1575. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (1992), 'Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable', Information systems research 3(1), 60. DeLone, W. & McLean, E. (2002), Information systems success revisited, in 'System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on', pp. 2966 -2976. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2003), 'The DeLone and McLean model of informati on systems success: a ten-year update', Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9-30. DeLone & McLean information systems success model', International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9(1), 31-47. Dijkema, G. P. J.; Ferrao, P.; Herder, P. M. & Heitor, M. (2006/3), 'Trends and opportunities framing innovation for sustainability in the learning society', Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73(3), 215-227. Dika, S. L. (2002), 'Applications of social capital in educational literature: A cr itical synthesis', Review of Educational Research 72(1), 31. Downes, S. (2001), 'Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide', International review of research in open and distance learning 2(1), 2001. Downes, S., (2005) E-Learning, 2.0. ELearn Magazine. http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/blogview?entry=20050125170206 Downes, S. (2007), 'Models for sustainable open educational resources', Interdisciplinary journal of knowledge and learning objects 3, 29-44. Drotner, K.; Jensen, H. S. & Schroder, K. (2008), Informal learning and digital media , Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle, UK. Dubé, L.; Bourhis, A. & Jacob, R. (2006), 'Towards a typology of virtual communities of practice', Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 1(1), 69-93. Elboj, C.; Espanya, M.; Flecha, MR; Inbermon, F.; Puigdellivol, I.; Valls. R. (1998). Comunidades de aprendizaje: Sociedad de la Información para todos. Contextos Educativos, (1), 53-75 Ellison, N. B.; Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007), 'The benefits of Facebook" friends:" social capital and college students' use of online social network sites', JOURNAL OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION -ELECTRONIC EDITION- 12(4), 1143. Eraut, M. (2004), 'Informal learning in the workp lace', Studies in Continuing Education 26(2), 247. Figallo C (1998) Internet world: hosting web communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York Figallo, C.; Rhine, N. (2002). Building the Knowledge Management Network. Wiley. Timely Practical. Reliable Foguet, J. M. B. & Gallart, G. C. (2000), Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales :modelos para el análisis de relaciones causales , La Muralla, Madrid. Garrity, E. J. & Sanders, G. L. (1998), Information systems success measurement , Idea Group Pub. Granovetter, M. (2005), 'The impact of social structure on economic outcomes', Journal of Economic Perspectives , 33-50. Granovetter, M. S. (1973), 'The strength of weak ties', American journal of sociology 78(6), 1360. Hampton, K. & Wellman, B. (2001), 'Long Dist ance Community in the Network Society: Contact and Support beyond Netville', American Behavioral Scientist 45, 476-495. Hargadon, A. B. (2002), Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation , JAI, pp. 41-85. Hargittai, E. (2007), 'Whose space? Diff erences among users and non-users of social network sites', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1), 14. Haythornthwaite, C. & Wellman, B. (1998), 'Work, Friendship, and Media use for information Exchange in a Networked Organization', Journal of The American Society for Information Science 49(12), 1101-1114. Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Learning and Knowledge Networks in Interdisciplinary Collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology . 57(8): 1079-1092 Hjalager, A. -M. (1996/3), 'Agricultural diversification into tourism : Evidence of a European Community development programme', Tourism Management 17(2), 103-111. Hjalager, A. -M. (1997/2), 'Innovation patterns in sustainable tourism : An analytical typolo gy', Tourism Management 18(1), 35-41. Hjalager, A. -M. (2002/10), 'Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism', Tourism Management 23(5), 465-474. Hogeboom, D. L.; McDermott, R. J.; Perrin, K. M.; Osman, H. & Bell-Ellison, B. A. (2010), 'Internet Use and Social Networking Among Middle Aged and Older Adults', Educational Gerontology 36(2), 93-111. Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Mo nday 14, (1²5) Huysman, M. & Wulf, V. (2004), Social capital and information technology , MIT Press, Cambridge. Johnson, J. C. (1986/12), 'Social networks and innovation adoption: A look at burt's use of structural equivalence', Social Networks 8(4), 343-364. Jones, Q. (1997), 'Virtual -communities, virtual settlements & cyber -archaeology: A theoretical outline', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(3), 24. Katz, J. E.; Rice, E. & Aspden, P. (2001), 'The Internet, 1995 -2000: Access, Civic Involvement and Social Interaction', American Behavioral Scientist 45, 405-418. Katz, J. E. & Rice, R. E. (2002), Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction , The MIT Press. Kavanaugh, A. L. & Patterson, S. J. (2001), 'The Impact of Community Computer Networks on Social Capital and Community Involvement', American Behavioral Scientist 45, 496-509. Kim, S. H.; Yang, K. H. & Kim, J. K. (2009), 'Finding critical success factors for virtual community marketing', Service Business 3(2), 149-171. Lampe, C. A. C.; Ellison, N. & Steinfield, C. (2007), A familiar face (book): profile elements as signals in an online social network, in 'Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems ', ACM New York, NY, USA, , pp. 435-444. Landrum, H. T.; Prybutok, V. R.; Strutton, D. & Zhang, X. (2008), 'Examining the merits of usefulness versus use in an inform ation service quality and information system success web -based model', Information Resources Management Journal 21(2), 1-17. Landry, R.; Amara, N. & Lamari, M. (2002/9), 'Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent?', Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69(7), 681-701. Lenhart, A.; Fox, S. (2009). Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Twitter -and -status updating.aspx Li, E. Y. (1997), 'Perceived importance of information system success factors: A meta analysis of group differences', Information & Management 32(1), 15-28. Lin, H.-F. (2008), 'Determinants of successful virtual communities: Contributions from system characteristics and social factors', Information & Management 45(8), 522-527. Lin, N. (2001), Social capital :a theory of social structure and action , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York. Lin, N. (2001), 'Building a network theory of social capital', Social capital: Theory and research , 3-29. Livingstone, D. W. (2009). Adults· Informal Learning: Definitions, Findings, Gaps and Future Research. NALL Working Paper # 21 http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/21adultsifnormallearning.htm McAllister DJ (1995) Affect -based and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J 38(1):24²59 Miralbell, O. (2001), «Visión estratégica de las organizaciones virtuales en el turismo: aprovechamiento de las tecnologías de la comunicación y la información en la competitividad de las empresas turísticas», 'Actas III Congreso «Turismo y Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones' . Mutsuhami, S.K.; White, M.A. (2005) Learning and Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances: A Social Exchange View, Organization Studies, 26( 3): 415-441 Nonaka, I. A. & Takeuchi, H. A. (1995), The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation , Oxford university press. Porter, M. E. (1998), The competitive advantage of nations: with a new introduction , Free Press. Portes, A. (1998), 'Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology', Annual review of sociology 24(1), 1-24. Putnam, R. D. (1995), 'Bowling alone: America's declining social capital', Journal of democracy 6, 65-65. Putnam, R. D.; Leonardi, R. & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994), Making democracy work, Princeton Univ. Press. Quan-Haase, A.; Wellman, B. (2004) How does the Internet Affect Social Capital? In Social Capital and Information Technology . MIT. Renninger, K. A. & Shumar, W. (2002), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace , Cambridge University Press. Rheingold, H. (2010), '38. Building Virtual Communities', Sociology: Introductory Readings , 225. Rheingold, H. (2003), Smart mobs: The next social revolution , Basic Books. Rheingold, H. (2000), The virtual community, MIT Press Cambridge, MA. Rheingold, H. (1899), Virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier , Mit Press. Richardson, L. D. (2001), Principles and Practice of Informal Education : Learning Through Life , RoutledgeFalmer, Hoboken. Rodriguez-Achach, M.; Casillas, L. & Espinosa, F. J. (2004/4/15), 'Diffusion of innovations in a social network under mixed Pareto Nash strategies', Physica A: Statistical and Theoretical Physics 335(3-4), 671-676. Rosenblat, T. S. & Mobius, M. M. (2004), 'Getting closer or drifting apart?', Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(3), 971-1009. Saarinen, T. (1996), 'An expanded instrument for evaluating information system success', Information & Management 31(2), 103-118. Scott, J. (2000), Social network analysis: A handbook , Sage. Scott, N. Laws, E. (2006). Knowledge Sharing in Tourism and Hospitality . Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 7(1&2): 1 Seddon, P. B. (1997), 'A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success', Information Systems Research 8(3), 240. Seddon, P. B.; Staples, S.; Patnayakuni, R. & Bowtell, M. (1999), 'Dimensions of information systems success', Communications of the AIS 2(3es). Sedera, D.; St, G.; Brisbane, Q.; Tan, T. C. F. & St, M. (2007), Reconceptualizing Usage for Contemporary Information Systems Success, in 'Proceedings of European Conference of Information Systems'. Selwym, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspec tive. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1): 83 - 94 Siemens, G. (2006), 'Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime of the self -amused', Retrieved February 2, 2008. Siemens, G. (2005), 'Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age', International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2(1), 3-10. Siemens, G. (2005), 'Connectivism: Learning as network -creation', ASTD Learning News 10(1). Siemens, G. (2004), 'Connectivism', A Learning Theory for the Digital Age: htt p://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm . Stegbauer, C. & Rausch, A. (1999), 'Inequality in virtual communities', Soziale Welt-Zeitschrift Fur Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung Und Praxis 50(1), 93-+. Swan, J. & Scarbrough, H. (2005), 'The polit ics of networked innovation', Human relations 58(7), 913. Tremblay, D. G. (2005), 'Virtual Communities of Practice: explaining different effects in two organizational contexts', Canadian journal of communication 30(3). Torrent, J. (2008) ed. La empresa red: tecnologías de la información y la comunicación, productividad y competitividad , Ariel Valenzuela, S.;Park, N.; Kee, K.F. (2009) Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(4): 875 - 901 Valente, T. W. (1996/1), 'Social network thresholds in the diff usion of innovations', Social Networks 18(1), 69-89. Walder, B.; Weiermair, K.; Perez, A. S. & Belda, P. R. (2006), Innovation and product development in tourism: creating sustainable competitive advantage, Erich Schmidt. Walsh, M. E. (1992/3), 'Some recent innovations in tourism education in Ireland', Tourism Management 13(1), 130-133. Wang, T.-Y. & Chien, S.-C. (2006/0), 'Forecasting innovation performance via neural networksâ½µa case of Taiwanese manufacturing industry', Technovation 26(5-6), 635-643. Wang, Y.; Yu, Q. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002), 'Defining the virtual tourist community: implications for tourism marketing', Tourism Management 23(4), 407-417. Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994), Social network analysis: Meth ods and applications , Cambridge Univ Pr. Watkins, K., Marsick, V. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace . London. Weck, M. (2006), 'Knowledge Creation and Exploitation in Collaborative R&D Projects: Lesons Learned on Success Factors', Knowledge and Process Management 13(4), 252-263. Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999), 'Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don't rifide alone', Communities in cyberspace , 167194. Wellman, B. & Hampton, K. (1999), 'Living Networked on and Offline' , Contemporary Sociology 28(6), 648-654. Wellman, B. (2001). Computer Networks As Social Networks, Science, 293: 2031-2034 Wellman, B.; Boase, J.; Chen, W. (2002). The Networked Nature of Community. Onlne and Offline. IT & Society, 1(1), 151-165 Wellman, B.; Hogan, B. et al. (2005) Connected Lives: The Prolect. Chapter 8 in Networked Neighbourhoods, edited by Patrick Purcell. Berlin: Springer Wenger, E. (1999), Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity , Cambridge Univ Pr. Wenger, E.; Snyders, W., (2000). Communities of Practice. The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review. January ² February. Wenger, E. (2007), Cultivating Communities of Practice : A Guide to Managing Knowledge , Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E. (2007), Cultivating Communities of Practice : A Guide to Managing Knowledge , Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E.; McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2007), Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge , Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E. (2009), Digital Habitats Stewarding Technology for Communities . Wennberg, K. & Berglund, H.Michael M. Beyerlein, S. T. & A.Kennedy, F., ed., (2006), Social Networking and the Development of New Ventures, JAI, pp. 203-225. Whyte, G. & Bytheway, A. (1996), 'Factors affecting information systems' success', International journal of service industry management 7(1), 74-93. Wilson S. (2005) Future VLE - The Visual Version http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/blogview?entry=20050125170206 Wilson, S.; Liber, O.; Beauvoir, P.; Milligan, C.; Johnson, M.; Sharples, P. (2006). Personal Learning Environments: Challeng ing the dominant design of educational systems, TENCompetence Project, September 19, 2006, http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/727. Yli-Renko, H.; Autio, E. & Sapienza, H. J. (2001), 'Social Capital, knowledge acquisitioin and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms', Strategic Management Journal 22, 587-613. Zaheer, A. & Bell, G. G. (2005), 'Benefitting from Network position: firm capabilities, sctructural holes, and performance', Strategic Management Journal 26, 809-825.