Results & Outcomes
Introduction

These findings could be further compared with a time line of specific events which took place during the period of study (Dec 2007-09), in relation to key authors’ 留學生dissertation網(wǎng)involvement.

4-1 Findings of Communication Activity Statistics
In this section, Internet forum users’ communication activities have been initially explored based on Findings of their recorded communication statistics in each forum. These statistics include numbers of their postings (i.e. articles and replies), lengths of these postings by words, their access time and frequency, numbers of replies they obtained from other users, etc. These statistics forms the basic understanding of how people initiate, conduct, and respond to communication activities in fora. Findings from the descriptive statistics of these communication activities in Fora will be discussed as follows.

4-1-1 Statistics of posted contents in Internet fora

This study pays keen attention to the message / opinion exchanges online; and it regards active interactions in Internet fora, including posting, forwarding, and replying articles, as indicators of communication activities. Though the mechanisms of these four fora accept multimedia and other types of rich-texts in the forum, the major medium of information exchange on these fora during the research period is still text. Table 4-1 shows the overall statistics of posting contents by each sampling forum. A major proportion of these contents are text-based posting articles and replies, indicating interactions that emerged in these fora are mainly through text-based posting articles and replies / comments. The rich-content of multimedia only appear in no more than 4% of contents, while images of figures (as content in postings) also appear in only 8% numbers of postings.
Table 4-1. Medium of Communication
Postings
by
Content Format Total num of Postings (Dec.2007~Nov.2009) ClimateConcern OurPlanet Transition Town SCA
localsustuk
Text
based Posting Articles 2626 66.38% 402 17.75% 633 28.55% 2055 52.72%
Replies 1228 31.04% 1863 82.25% 1582 71.36% 1678 43.05%
Percentage of Articles gained replies
Others
(i.e. fwd from other sites) 102 2.58% N/A* N/A* 2 0.09% 162 4.16%
Total 3956 2265 2217 3898
Image: Figures 320 8.09% 6 0.18% 18 0.81% 160 4.10%
Image: Graphs 158 3.99% 15 0.44% 1 0.05% 212 5.44%
Multimedia / Video 142 3.59% 3 0.09% 62 2.80% 92 2.36%
*OurPlanet (Earth Day) Forum does not allow users to post forward articles from other Internet / forum sites.

Despite different attributions of these four fora as revealed in Analysis Sector 1, the four fora show some similar attributions in the descriptive statistics. The total posting (including articles or replies) scale of numbers during the data collection period is relevantly similar while they have quite different member scale as shown above. The following sections present several collected statistics calculating Internet for a users’ communication activities. These descriptive statistics present the results of observing these Internet fora based on existing record.#p#分頁標題#e#

1. Numbers of Posted Articles and Replies Recorded in Fora
Table 4-1 have also shown the numbers of posted articles and replies in each forum, which are varied between them. The Climate Concern and SCA LocalSustUK account for more than 2000 articles during the tracking period, while OurPlanet (Earth Day) and Transition Town have much less (402 and 633 respectively) posting articles. Nevertheless, the tracked record of articles that have been marked as “replies” tells a different story. Climate Concern recorded 1228 replies, OurPlanet recorded 1863, Transition Town recorded 1582, and LocalSustUK recorded 1678, which are similar amount in these four fora. If further comparing the percentage of posting articles that have obtained replies (as a “thread” for certain topic, or “topic-thread”) from forum users, only XXX% of posted articles in Climate Concern Forum ever obtained replies, XXXX% in OurPlanet (Earth Day), XXXX% in Transition Town, and XXXX% in LocalSustUK. Based on these tracked records, authors who post articles in the OurPlanet (Earth Day) Forum, which stand on the online social network service (the “MySpace”), clearly will earn more responses from users.
These text-based postings further revealed different proportions of interactions on different fora. Table 4-1

also presents that relatively few replies have been triggered by posted articles on the ClimateConcern forum: posting articles account for over 60% numbers of posts while replies only account for 31.04% in total. Quite on the contrary, over 80% numbers of posts on the OurPlanet Forum are replies that triggered by original posting articles, which only occupied 17.75% numbers of posts. The Transition Town forum also show a similar distribution of number of postings, which have over 70% numbers of posts are replies and 28.55% numbers of posts are posting articles. The SCA Localsustuk show a more equivalent distribution of interaction if compare with ClimateConcern forum and OurPlanet forum, with 52.72% posting articles and 43.05% replies in total.

2. Length of Posted Articles and Replies
The length of the text-based postings in these four fora is further calculated by numbers of words, and the results have been sorted as following Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Length of Postings (Articles and Replies)
Research Questions for Analysis Steps of Analysis
Result Forum Title ClimateConcern OurPlanet Transition Town SCA
localsustuk

Text Length of All Articles (by words) Average 549.26 208.42 441.00 479.19#p#分頁標題#e#
Median 317 110 362 284.50
Max 5752 4505 3365 6957
Min 11 5 23 9
Text Length of Initial Posts that triggering Topic-Thread (by words) Average 434.74 221.09 406.28 442.64
Median 273.00 122 149.00 229.00
Max 5359 2468 3692 5427
Min 12 5 10 12
Text Length of Responses(by words) Average 629.57 201.41 378.6 488.83
Median 479 107 289 312.00
Max 5668 4505 4366 6957
Min 21 5 16 9

In Table 4-2, outstanding differences between authors’ postings have been clearly shown in all four fora. Some authors maximize their usage of Internet forum by posting long articles, while some others prefer share their ideas or attitudes by short texts/contributions. The level of discrepancy of each forum is significantly larger than normal distribution as ~~~~~.
Although on average the length of postings does not differ among these four forums, the Group OurPlanet (Earth Day) shows shorter texts if comparing with other three fora. Considering its complex communication tools including social network profiles, pictures, video clips, etc. the variation of text contribution could result from its multi-channels of inter-communications and could be the trend of future development of online social fora.

4-1-2 Statistics of recorded authors in Internet fora

Authors of posted articles have been recorded in the archives of these Internet fora as well as their posting behaviours and attributions. These authors thus can be 英國dissertation網(wǎng)initially classified in the study of their communication process. Though authors in Internet fora could frequently change their roles in the process of communication as XXXXX observed, their roles still can be attributed and depicted for clarifying communication. Table 4-3 shows the statistics of initial roles’ (“Initial Posters” and “Repliers”) activities based on different attribution of posting behaviour (post articles and reply):

Table 4-3. Medium of Communication
Forum Title ClimateConcern OurPlanet Transition Town SCA
localsustuk
Users ever become authors in these forums 389
(11.7%) 442
(0.23%) 213
N/A** 357
(32.31%)
Initial
Posters’ Performance
(People triggering topic-threads) Total Initial
Authors (percentage in total authors) 110
(28.28%) 129
(29.19%) 147
(69.01%) 116
(32.50%)
Average ATP 3.95 2.06 3.56 3.70
Mode
(count authors) 1
(69) 1
(105) 1#p#分頁標題#e#
(81) 1
(73)
Max 80 35 85 73
Replier’s
Performance
(Responses generated by per responders) Total Repliers 163 306 259 190
Average ATR 6.88 6.09 8.27 9.17
Mode
(count authors) 1
(87) 1
(198) 2
(64) 2
(88)
Max 149 358 272 246

The results sorted in Table 4-3 indicate that a relatively small proportion of forums’ members become “authors” (i.e. participants) who share and exchange their comments and information via the forum.
Authors attributed as “initial posters”, who post their articles in fora and tend to raise attentions by other users, most of them in the tracked period posted quite few articles in four fora (average ATP is 3.32, Mode of ATP is only 1), but some authors contribute more than 80 articles in forum. This indicates that members of forums seldom voice out if comparing with some key authors. Authors attributed as “repliers”, who respond to some “initial posters’” articles and thus open discussions with the author or other communicators, did correspond to these discussions more actively (average ATR is7.60, Mode of ATR is 2), but most of them are not as active as some key authors do, who join discussions with hundreds of replies. Considerable posted articles by initial posters, however, had never been answered by other users.
In these fora 30% of authors in average (except Transition Town) had ever become initial posters, and over XXXX% of authors in average ever become repliers. While relatively few authors become initial authors, their initiated topic-threads significantly attract members, encouraging a higher proportion of repliers to share their views about these topics (by contributing to the online discussions on the forum) especially when compared with the number of unique posts (posted by a single author). The considerable amount of topic-threads indicates that members tend to join debates or discussions, and these topic-threads thus occupied considerable portion of forum contents, leading the all four fora turn to topic-oriented discussions despite various backgrounds of online group formation. Less percentage of authors as repliers, however, has been observed in the “Transition Town” forum, which could be needed exploring the possible reasons in advance.
The Distribution of Authors by Contribution
Authors are further sorted by their contribution of articles / replies for examining the distribution of postings by authors. The distribution in four fora presents as the following figures.

In the forum of ClimateConcern group, the centralised distribution of postings by authors is significant. Authors who counted as top 5 % posters contribute more than 50% posted articles and replies. Authors who counted as top 25% article posters contribute even more than 90% articles and replies. Though the counting is sorted by total postings (including articles and replies), the trend is consistent in the calculation of total postings (AT), total posted articles (ATP), and total replies (ATR). On the other hand, more than XX% of authors contributed less than 1% articles, indicating a big difference between active authors and other communicators.#p#分頁標題#e#

Figure 4-1-2 shows similar trend in the Forum of OurPlanet (Earth Day) Group. Top 5% authors contribute to more than 50% articles and replies. Nevertheless, less authors contribute to more replies if comparing with authors who posted articles in the same group. Those active authors tend to use the format of reply to express their ideas or comments and less willing to directly post articles. Despite the difference, the tendency of significant contribution from active authors still can be observed, and most authors however contribute to less than 1% contents, including articles and replies.

Figure 4-1-3 still present the tendency of significant centralised distribution of authors’ contribution. In the graph it shows top 10% authors contribute to more than 50% total postings and replies, while top 15% authors contribute 50% total articles. The figure also shows that more active authors tend to express their comments or advices by replying others’ postings in the Group of Transition Town, and these replies could form long discussions while posting articles are relatively few as presented in Table XXXX (Section X.X). Overall the tendency of distribution in Transition Town Group’s discussion (in online forum) is similar with the previous fora, and more studies will be needed as replies are main body of discussion in Transition Town’s postings.

In the case of LocalSustUK Group, their forum also presents a significant centralised distribution of authors’ postings. More than 50% of total author postings are from top 5% authors, and more than 75% of total postings are from top 10% ranked authors. The difference between authors’ “initial posting” and “reply” activities nevertheless are not as significant as other fora.
The highly centralised distribution of these four fora implies a cluster of key authors exist in the users. Despite relatively low percentage of active authors who play roles as “initial posters” or “repliers”, it is significant that these active authors share their information, express their comments, and discuss their ideas in a large volume in these fora by directly post articles or reply others’ comments or questions. Thus further exploring the meaning of the centralised distribution by authors’ activities and its influence will be required while researching the communication process in these online fora which aim to provide more climate change or environmental issues- related information and discussions. As discussed in Chapter 3XXXX , whether the centralised distribution can be related to opinion leadership should be detected in advance by other factors (XXXXXX) as following sections.
4-1-3 Statistics of Interactions and Topic-Threads
Based on information of recorded topic-threads collected from four fora, statistics of these topic-threads are sorted by their numbers, length of replies (by numbers and texts), and numbers of repliers. Following Table presents the statistics calculated:#p#分頁標題#e#

(Climate Concern) (Our Planet) (Transition Town) (LocalSustuk)
Numbers of Topic-Threads 434 266 237 430
numbers of Obtained Replies (per topic-thread) Total 1122 2024 624 1563
Average 2.33 6.73 4.17 3.26
Mode
(Count) 1
(263) 1
(108) 2
(93) 2
(85)
Median 1.0 2 2.0 1.0
Max 36 352 57 39
Min 1 1 1 1
“Repliers” in Topic-Threads Average 6.88 6.09 7.69 9.17
Mode
(Count) 1
(87) 1
(198) 2
(64) 2
(88)
Median 1.00 1.00 1.0 2.00
Max 149 358 272 246
Min 1 1 1 1
Number Ratio of Total Topics / Responses 481/1123
(0.43) 277/1863
(0.15) 243/624
(0.39) 480/1563
(0.31)

1228 31.04% 1863 82.25% 1582 71.36% 1678 43.05%

The results show that a relatively small proportion of forums’ members share and exchange their comments and information via these topic-threads. Despite sharing content of communication through considerable amount of replies in these topic-threads, and some of them have XXX lengths and XXX (numbers of ) replies, limited numbers of repliers in average really voice out after identifying unique repliers in these topic-threads. This phenomenon in topic-thread discussion corresponds previous observation that some “key authors” contribute significant more contents in total postings. Opinion leadership in these topic-threads, at least in the volume of activity, can be initially detected on the basis of its definition in the thesis.
Topic-threads significantly attract members, encouraging a high proportion of them to share their views about these topics (by contributing to online discussions on the forum) especially when compared with the number of unique posts (posted by a single author): members tend to join or respond to debates and discussions (replying more than posting unique articles) after “initial posters” post articles and thus initiate discussions. This implies opinion leadership / discussion leadership could exist in these forums via triggering or shaping topic-threads, and some topics, if chosen by “opinion leaders”, could generate considerable amount of topic-threads, leading to similar effects of agenda setting that have been widely observed in traditional media.
More research will be needed to further examine the tendency of opinion leadership in the context of topic-settings. In the thesis, the statistics of content recorded in fora archives has been analyzed in advance. Through ranking authors’ total posting, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. The result has been recorded in the following sections.

4-1-4 The Performance List of Authors in Four Fora

The Alpha (α) List of Authors’ Activities
For advanced analysis, authors’ posting and replying activities in fora have been ranked and recorded as the Alpha (α) List. The statistics ofαList stated below present the comparison of authors who are selected by the ranking of average AP, ATO, ATR, ATW and weighted based on the scale of total authors , and general authors evaluated by their average performance in four fora. #p#分頁標題#e#
Table XXX Comparison Statistics of Alpha List & General
Climate Concern OurPlanet Transition Town LocalsustUK
α List General α List General α List General α List General
Total Author 33 389 44 442 32 213 33 357
Average AP 86.03 10.17 36.66 5.12 35.75 10.41 83.73 10.92
Average ATP 57.03 3.95 5.45 2.06 7.66 3.56 47.09 3.70
Average ATR 29.00 6.88 31.20 6.09 28.09 8.27 36.64 9.17
AverageATW 5181.52 549.26 842.30 208.42 4772.47 441.00 4236.09 479.19
While authors are ranked by these statistics, criteria of setting top 20% in all factors (including AP, ATP, ATR, and ATW) as “active” authors has been deployed based on the XXXX’s suggestions. Table XXX shows the performance of some authors indeed are more active than the average authors. They could actively post articles, reply to other users, and contribute to more contents in fora. Nevertheless, the relationship of these selected authors and communication process, the main idea of the thesis, yet cannot be clarified based on the identification of their performance in activeness in these fora. The following section in advance will identify the frequency of authors’ involvement in communication for the clarification.

The Beta (β) List of Frequency

The frequency of authors’ postings has been ranked on the basis of authors XXXX (APD) and their “lifetime” in their forum (ALD, Unit: Day). Authors’ average record and qualified authors’ (based on the XXX criteria) records in four fora’s archives have been both listed for comparison.
Table XXXX
Climate Concern OurPlanet Transition Town Localsustuk
β List General β List General β List General β List General
Total Author 33 389 32 442 N/A* 213 35 357
Average APD 32.64 6.20 10.32 0.60 N/A* N/A* 35.09 7.67
Average ALD 143.79 88.78 68.00 2.88 N/A* N/A* 189.91 136.21

As presented above, some authors perform a more frequent participation in the postings and discussions, and the tendency is highly related to the distribution of Alpha List ranked by authors’ activity performance. In other words, for more frequent participating authors, they are more frequently participating users’ activities.

The Gamma (γ) List of Networking Ability

The ability of networking is considered the key of authors’ opinion leadership in communication studies (XXXXXX), and it can be presented by initiating discussions among people. In the table shown below, authors’ networking ability has been revealed by the calculation of ATT (XXXXXXX) and AR (XXXX):

Climate Concern OurPlanet Transition Town Localsustuk
Γ List General Γ List t General Γ List General Γ List General
Total Author 33 389 32 442 34 213 29 357
Average ATT 11.72 1.12 3.38 0.60 5.00 0.72 9.38 1.32
Average AR 10.38 1.17 11.21 1.46 14.21 2.22 10.62 1.92#p#分頁標題#e#

As revealed in the Table XX, those ranked as top 20% authors have significant more ATT and AR, and they are also highly related to the groups of top 20% in Alpha (Activeness) and Beta (Frequency) List. These authors thus, at least in the aspect of activeness, frequency, and networking ability, are qualified as key authors who are supposed as ideal candidates of opinion leaders. The study further ranked these key authors’ performance for identifying their positions in the communication process.

4-1-7 The KA List: Ranking Key Author’s Performance
In the section of ranking KA’s performance, authors’ ranked score in Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Lists respectively have been further cumulated and listed as top 20% qualified authors. The result shows that Group of ClimateConcern has 12 KAs, OurPlanet has 12 KAs, Transition Town has 7 KAs, and LocalSustUK has 5 KAs.

Climate Concern OurPlanet Transition Town Localsustuk
Total KA Authors 12 12 7 5
Average α(ACT) (full score=300) 277.31 277.33 290.41 288.63
Averageβ(FREQ) (full score=300) 189.68 132.29 N/A 193.35
Averageγ(Network) (full score=200) 182.68 179.28 188.46 135.71
Averageαβγ(Total)
(full score=300) 281.99 271.91 192.76** 282.93

After weighting their opinion leadership by their ranked scores, these authors are found that they have communication processes in each forum with similar attributions. As following table also shows, they have significant contribution to forum contents, and reply to users more actively, with more opportunities to trigger discussions.
Contribution of KA
Climate Concern OurPlanet Transition Town Localsustuk
Numbers (%) of KA posted articles (ATP) 1675(61.40%) 95 (23.63%) 201(32.21%) 985(47.70%)
Numbers (%) of KA replies (ATR) 469(38.19%) 869(46.65%) 627(38.56%) 232(13.41%)
Numbers (%) of KA Text Length (ATW) 1311964(58.68%) 141549(29.98%) 102246(32.20%) 91114(30.75%)
Average ATP 139.58 7.92 12.56 197.00
Average ATR 39.08 72.42 39.19 46.40
Average ATW 109330.33 18130.08 6390.38 18222.8
Average R(αp)(100) 95.12 14.14 96.15 98.02
Average R(αr)(100) 86.75 58.61 96.70 91.88
Average R(αw)(100) 95.43 46.05 97.55 98.73

Participation Frequency of KA

Climate Concern OurPlanet Transition Town Localsustuk
Average APD (Day) 71.08 29.92 N/A 147.80
Average ALD (Day) 337.5 221.17 N/A 693.40
Average R(βp)(100) 84.47 50.62 N/A 67.89
Average R(βt)(100) 34.09 14.41 N/A 41.64
Average R(βld)(100) 71.12 67.26 N/A 83.81

Networking Ability of KA

Climate Concern OurPlanet Transition Town Localsustuk
Numbers (%) of KA initiated topic-threads
(ATT) 272(62.67%) 82(30.83%) 126(35.69%) 194(40.50%)
Numbers (%) of KA obtained responses (AR) 203(44.52%) 208(32.15%) 318(29.28%) 207(29.74%)
Average ATT 22.67 6.83 7.88 38.80
Average AR 16.92 17.33 19.88 41.40#p#分頁標題#e#
Average R(γrt)(100) 91.97 89.21 96.15 37.54
Average R(γrr)(100) 90.71 90.07 96.71 98.17

Though the numbers of “key authors” in the four forums are relatively few, their contributions based on the number and length of original postings and responses are very high compared to other posting authors. The discrete level of these postings highly centres the postings of KA and their following responses.
Key authors are set to have significant influences on initiating topic-threads, triggering responses (both in numbers and in length), and communicating with others (posting in topic threads) in statistics.
How forum members and their communication are affected by KA’s contributions cannot be clarified simply by these statistics. To further clarify the influences of KA in the communication process, it is needed to explore the interactive process in the communication and further evaluate the context and the dynamics through a qualitative research approach. More research will be needed to further examine the context of topic-settings in discussion threads online. For instance, will people support / deny initial posters’ urged attitude or comments toward specific topics since beginning? What are “consensus” in discussion and collective responses while more users remain silence in XXXXXXX?
These should be further explored by two approaches: through qualitative approach to explore people’s beliefs and evaluations through those responses of specific topics (initiated by key authors), and through an “off-topic” self-report approach (i.e questionnaire) to understand the attitude of people who keep silence in topic discussions (at online forums) while they are still willing to share their ideas (fill questionnaires)
Contrary to key authors who made the largest scale of ripples by posting articles and raising responses in the forum, a further question about authors’ influence lies on who responds these articles most and what are their influences. A further study by qualitative approach thus is needed and will be conducted in the following.

4-2 Qualitative Analysis of “KA” Initiated Topic-threads

Key Authors selected by the statistics of activeness & frequency analysis provide the first cue of identifying existing candidates of opinion leader in each Internet fora. After identifying major contributors in Internet fora, or KAs in this research, candidates of opinion leaders are further selected by examining those KA’s triggered hottest "topic-threads" – calculated by numbers of replies and numbers of unique repliers -- will be explored to extract features from the texts.
KA’s initial postings that trigger topic-threads are divided into several categories: 1) those postings which express authors’ comments and ideas; 2) those postings which stimulate public interest to join discussions (i.e. raising questions or posting events); 3) those postings which provide more information to others.#p#分頁標題#e#
Key author’s initial posts can be regarded as KA’s explicit communication activities and be categorized as shown. The evaluation of these activities corresponds to scholars’ observations of opinion leadership in past researches. On the other hand, other communicators in these triggered discussions also present communication activities.

In the selected topic-threads, it has been clarified that the supporting attitude from other communicators are not easily found, for in most cases responders express their own opinions with cautious attitude that implicitly support or decline key author’s postings / arguments. Nevertheless, communication activities have been significantly triggered by KA’s postings among following responders, and those replies frequently in sampling cases turn to debates among responders. Sometimes the subjects of their debates are even changed and distracted from the main concern of original postings (KA’s postings). From the aspect, these sampling KAs have successfully triggered discussions and communication among forum users, and most of them thus are regarded as active participators or even opinion leaders in the cases. Detailed research results have been further sorted and will be presented in the Chapter of Research Findings in this thesis.

Criteria of Selection

1. Numbers of repliers (unique individuals) in selected “Topic-Thread” are ranked in top 20% of all recorded topic-threads.
2. Numbers of reply postings in selected “Topic-Thread” are ranked in top 20% of all recorded topic-threads.
3. Selected Topic-Threads have to be relevant to the discussion of climate change or broader environmental issues which could have more opportunities to review authors' attitudes and comments.
4. Only the hottest discussion thread raised by each Initial topic author will be selected

4-2-1. Sampled Topic-Threads of ClimateConcern

一些說明 sample 應用到四個Fora 的情形
The original key author (OKA) posted the initial post and triggered the discussion

In the Climate Concern Forum, four topics have been selected for profiling the development of discussions, debates, and social contexts in topic-threads – as show below:

Sampling Topic-Thread (initiated by KA)(Forum of “Climate Concern”)
SN Topic-Thread Unique
Replier All Articles Initial Topic Author
1 Global Warming - a century of warming or not? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/message/14428 7 26 J***
2 tropical tropospheric warming...today's IPCC scientist reporthttp://groups.fyahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/message/15678 6 35 A***

Sample A: Topic-Thread (SN1)
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~

1. Type of Content in Topic-Thread (SN1)

OKA’s Content
OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues#p#分頁標題#e#
KP-A D1
KP-B D2

Repliers’ Content

Content Count Percentage
CP-A 4 11.76%
CP-B 24 70.59%
CP-C 1 2.94%
CP-D 5 14.71%
Total 34 100.00%

In providing content types, most repliers provided their comments (70.59%). They also provide some networking (14.71%) contents and information (11.76%), but the percentage of comments is significantly overwhelming. Only one replier’s posting in the topic-thread shared his / her own experiences.

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
C2 11 24.44%
N3 8 17.78%
C4 7 15.56%
C6 4 8.89%
D1 4 8.89%
C1 3 6.67%
S 3 6.67%
C3 2 4.44%
N1 2 4.44%
D2 1 2.22%
Total 45 100%

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread
Based on various content and attitude presented in the texts of postings, the repliers’ roles have been further identified in the communication process. It firstly identified absolute numbers of repliers, who respond to the topic with at least one replying post. As shown in Table XXX, though 26 replies have been received in the topic-thread, these replies have been identified that they came from only 8 unique repliers, including a key author who originally initiated the first post of the topic-thread. These authors were listed as following table.

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 A?? 7 (26.92%) C4-N3;C6-D1;D1;C6-C1;C2-N1-N3;N1-N3;C2 Challenger
(15.38%)
Communicator
(84.62%)
2 r?? 6 (23.08%) D2-C3-N3; C4; C2; C2; C4-N3; C2 Communicator
(88.89%)
Challenger
(11.11%)
3 J??(OKA*) 5 (19.23%) S-C2; S-C2; C2; C2-C4; C6-C4-C2 OKA
(20%)
Communicator
(80%)
4 e?? 3 (11.54%) D1; D1-C2; C4 Challenger
(50%)
Communicator
(50%)
5 R?? 2 (7.69%) C1-N3
C3-S Communicator
(75%)
Supporter(25%)
6 L?? 1 (3.85%) C4-N3 Communicator
(100%)

7 r??2 1 (3.85%) C1 Communicator
(100%)

8 w?? 1 (3.85%) C6-N3 Communicator
(100%)

Total Count 26 *OKA: Original Key Author
 

Among 8 of these repliers, Replier1 (ID: “A??“) posted most replies (7 posts, account for 26.92% of total) in the topic-thread, and presented his refuse of the original postings in general (XXX%). However, it also revealed that Replier1 have significant more postings (84.62%) for answering others’ articles in the topic-thread, and their discussions have led the thread shifting to other topics. Similarly, Replier2 (ID: “r??“) and Replier4 (ID: “e??“) also presented their decline (to the original postings) in an article, but spent significant time in communicating with others rather than discussing the original postings. The original key author (OKA) did not actively respond other repliers’ declines and challenges, but posted more replies (80%) for communicating with others. In the topic-thread, only one replier (Replier5) presented supporting attitude to OKA, but in most of postings (75%) the replier communicate with others in discussion rather than express his / her attitude (25%) to the OKA’s postings. Replier6, Replier7, and Replier8 only posted one reply in the topic-thread respectively, and all their postings are not directly reveal their attitude to OKA’s initial posting, but communicate with others in the topic-thread. As a result, all repliers in the topic-thread are more like communicators who actively communicate with each other, and some of them could act as “challengers” who decline OKA’s comments in the initial posting. Only one replier played a limited “supporter” role and recognized OKA’s initial posting.#p#分頁標題#e#

3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN1):
The first topic-thread is initiated in Sep.20, 2007, and the main topic is about XXXX. In the initial post, strong opinions with information have been expressed, holding sceptical attitude in the controversial discussions of relationship between CO2 and global temperature. The post immediately attracted various responses from other communicators. Some directly decline the original post’s (initiated by KA) argument by pointing out the mis-interpretation of the information forwarded by the KA (See Replier1, Replier5, and Replier9’s responses in Appendix A). The following activities turned to postings and replies that are with the formation of “dialogue”.
KA and his ~~~~

4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions

Sample B: Topic-Thread (SN2)
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~
Title: Tropical tropospheric warming...today's IPCC scientist report
OKA: Alex Harvey

1. Type of Content in Communication Process

OKA’s Content
OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues
KP-A D

Repliers’ Content

Content Count Percentage
CP-A 15 30.77%
CP-B 23 44.23%
CP-C 6 11.54%
CP-D 7 13.46%
Total 52 100.00%

In providing content types, most repliers provided their comments (70.59%). They also provide some networking (14.71%) contents and information (11.76%), but the percentage of comments is significantly overwhelming. Only one replier’s posting in the topic-thread shared his / her own experiences.

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
C2 10 25.00%
C4 7 17.50%
C3 5 12.50%
C6 3 7.50%
D1 3 7.50%
S 3 7.50%
C1 2 5.00%
C5 2 5.00%
D2 2 5.00%
N3 2 5.00%
N1 1 2.50%
Total 40 100%

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 Alex Harvey
(OKA) 9 S;C2-C4;C2-C3;C2;C5;C6;C3;
C4-C5-N3;C2-C4 Supporter
(7.14%)
Communicator
(85.71%)
C2:28.57%
C3:14.29%
C4:21.43%
C5:14.29%
C6:7.14%
2 Phil Henshaw 9 C2-C3;C2-C3-D2;D-C2;C1; C6;C2;C1-D;C4;C2 Communicator
(78.57%)
C1:14.29%
C2:35.71%
C3:14.29%
C4:7.14%
C6:7.14%
Challenger
(21.43%)
D1:14.29%
D2:7.14%
3 Richard Hanson 4 C6;C4-S;C4;C4 Supporter
(20%)
Communicator
(80%)
C4:60%
C6:20%
4 Hugh Bartlett 2 S;C3-N1 Communicator
(C3:33.33%)
Supporter(33.33%)#p#分頁標題#e#
5 Redmeatliberal 2 D2;C2-D-N3 Challenger
(50%)
D:25%
D2:25%
Communicator
(C2:25%)
Total Count 26 *OKA: Original Key Author

3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN2):
4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions

4-2-2. Sampled Topic-Threads of OurPlanet

Sampling Topic-Thread (SN3):
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~

Title: What are you doing to be green?
OKA: Chris
OKA trigger discussion about personal behaviour to be “green”

1. Type of Content in Communication Process

OKA’s Content

OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues
KP-D N1

Repliers’ Content

Content Count Percentage
CP-A 8 11.43%
CP-B 38 54.29%
CP-C 19 27.14%
CP-D 5 7.14%
Total 70 100.00%

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
C2 24 30.38%
N2 19 24.05%
N3 13 16.46%
D1 11 13.92%
C4 3 3.80%
C6 3 3.80%
S 3 3.80%
C1 1 1.27%
C3 1 1.27%
D2 1 1.27%
Total 79 100%

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 Jeffrey and the Kingfisher in Silent Running II(s) 9 C2;C2;C2-C6;C2-C6;C2-C4;
C2-N3;C2-N3;C2-N3;C2-N3 Communicator
(100%)
C2: 100.00%
C4: 11.11%
C6: 22.22%
N3: 44.44%
2 Allie 8 D1;C2-D1;C2-C6;C3-D2;
D1;D1;D1;D1 Challenger
(87.5%)
D1: 75%
D2: 12.5%
Communicator
(37.5%)
C2: 25.00%
C3: 12.50%
C6: 12.50%
3 a2zresource 7 N2;N2;C4-C2;S-C2;
C2-N3;C2;C2 Communicator
(71.43%)
C2: 71.43%
C4: 14.29%
Supporter
(14.29%)
4 Farmer John 4 N2;S-C2;S-C2;C2 Communicator
(75%)
C2: 75%
Supporter (50%)
5 Dan 3 C2-N3;C2-N3;C1 Communicator
(100%)
C2:66.67%
C1:33.33%
6 Gregor 3 N3;C2-C4-N3;D1 Challenger
(33.33%)
D1: 33.33%
Communicator
(33.33%)
C2: 33.33%
C4: 33.33%
7 Scott Saturday 3 D1;N2-N3;C2-D1 Challenger
(66.67%)
D1:66.67%
Communicator
(33.33%)
C2:33.33%
8 Weirdcrazy von die Nocht 2 D1;C2-N3 Challenger
(50%)
D1: 50%
Communicator
(50%)
C2: 50%
9 A. "H.K." G. 1 N2
10 Abby 1 N2
11 Airam 1 N2
12 Amanda 1 N2
13 Ambrosia {Hunted} 1 N2
14 American Honey 1 N3
15 Armando 1 N2 #p#分頁標題#e#
16 dylan 1 N2
17 I am no human.......i am nothing＃ 1 N2
18 K.Dawn 1 N2
19 Mark O 1 N2
20 Stan 1 N2
21 Stephanie 1 N2
22 sweetness 1 N2
23 Ty-Dye 1 N2
24 uber flyy 1 N2
25 Verminator 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
26 Viva! 1 N3
Total Count 57 *OKA: Original Key Author
3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN2):
4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions

Sampling Topic-Thread (SN4):
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~

Title: Go NUCLEAR!!!!!!
OKA: Hans
OKA Urge users to write to their Rep or Senator about the supporting of reapplying nuclear energy.

1. Type of Content in Communication Process

OKA’s Content

OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues
KP-D S

Repliers’ Content

Content Count Percentage
CP-A 25 27.17%
CP-B 56 60.87%
CP-C 2 2.17%
CP-D 9 9.78%
Total 92 100.00%

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
D1 21 20.79%
C2 21 20.79%
C4 11 10.89%
S 11 10.89%
C5 10 9.90%
C1 9 8.91%
C6 7 6.93%
N3 4 3.96%
C3 3 2.97%
D2 3 2.97%
N 1 0.99%
Total 101 100%

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 Hans 33 S;S;C4;C2;C4-C6;C2;C1;
C2;C1-C2;C2;C2;C6;C4;C6;
C4-C3;C6-C5;C4;C1-C2;
C2;C6-C1;C2-C5;C1;C4;C2;C1-C2;S;S;C5;C2-C6;C1;C3;C1;C2-N3 Supporter
(12.12%)
Communicator
(87.88%)
C1: 24.24%
C2: 39.39%
C3: 6.06%
C4: 18.18%
C5: 9.09%
C6: 18.18%
2 a2zresource 11 S-C5;S;C2;C4-C5;N3-C6;
C2;D1-C5;C4-C5;C4-C5;
C4-C5;C5 Supporter
(18.18%)
Challenger
(9.09%)
Communicator
(100%)
C2: 18.18%
C4: 36.36%
C5: 63.64%
C6: 9.09%
3 Dhiiga Qabsoo 9 D1;C2-D1;D1;D1;D2;C2-D;
D1-N3;D1-C2;C2-D1 Challenger
(88.89%)
D1: 88.89%
Communicator
(44.44%)
C2: 44.44%
4 The Hippie Love Gods ~?~ 2 C2;S Communicator
(50%)
C2: 50%
Supporter (50%)
5 Thomas Daniel Valls 2 D1;C1 Challenger
(50%)
D1: 50%
Communicator
(50%)
C1: 50%
6 A. "H.K." G. 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
7 Christian(tm) 1 D1-C2 Challenger
(100%)
D1:100%
Communicator
(100%)
C2:100%
8 ECOVISION 1 D1 Challenger#p#分頁標題#e#
(100%)
D1: 100%
9 Evo (E.O.A) 1 C3 Communicator
(100%)
C3: 100%
10 J.Darby 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
11 JAKE 1 D2-D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
D2: 100%
12 JB 1 S Supporter
(100%)
13 LiL I$IAH 1 C4 Communicator
(100%)
C4: 100%
14 Margaret (NYDM/WADM) 1 S Supporter
(100%)
15 Patrick White! 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
16 Randy 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
17 Robb 1 S-N3 Supporter
(100%)
18 Sara 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
19 shawn 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
20 Sinkisschic 1 N
21 Tagle 1 D1-D2 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
D2: 100%
22 Vicky 1 D1 Challenger
(100%)
D1: 100%
23 Will "The Thrill" 1 S Supporter
(100%)
Total Count 75 *OKA: Original Key Author

3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN2):
4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions

4-2-3. Sampled Topic-Threads of Transition Town

Sampling Topic-Thread (SN5):
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~

英國dissertation網(wǎng)Title: Hopenhagen to Brokenhagen at Copenhagen - "Where do we go from here?"
OKA: SteveAtkins

1. Type of Content in Communication Process

OKA’s Content

OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues
KP-B S
N1

Repliers’ Content

Content Count Percentage
CP-A 0 0%
CP-B 9 90%
CP-C 0 0%
CP-D 1 10%
Total 10 100.00%

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
S 8 44.44%
C2 7 38.89%
C3 1 5.56%
C5 1 5.56%
C6 1 5.56%
Total 18 100%

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 DaveDann 3 S-C2;S-C2;S-C2 Supporter
(100%)
Communicator
(100%)
C2: 100%
2 JohnMason 2 S-C2;S-C2 Supporter
(100%)
Communicator
(100%)
C2: 100%
3 Nchadborn 2 S-C3;S-C2 Supporter
(100%)
Communicator
(100%)
C2: 50%
C3: 50%
4 SteveAtkins 2 C6;C2-C5 Communicator
(100%)
C2: 50%
C5: 50%
C6: 50%
5 Trip 1 S Supporter
(100%)
Total Count 10 *OKA: Original Key Author#p#分頁標題#e#

3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN2):
4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions

Sampling Topic-Thread (SN6):
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~

Title: Collaborative approach: comments invited.
OKA: Benbrangwyn
Invite comments of Transition Software Platform, the collaborative approach based on IT. Encouraging more opinion leaders to speak out.

1. Type of Content in Communication Process

OKA’s Content

OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues
KP-C
KP-D S
N1

Repliers’ Content
Content Count Percentage
CP-A 8 16.67%
CP-B 16 33.33%
CP-C 11 22.92%
CP-D 13 27.08%
Total 48 100.00%

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
S 8 22.86%
C1 6 17.14%
C6 6 17.14%
C5 5 14.29%
N1 4 11.43%
C4 3 8.57%
C2 2 5.71%
D 1 2.86%
Total 18 100%

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 Jdaviescoate(s) 5 C6
C6
S-C6
C2
C4 Supporter
(20%)
Communicator
(100%)
C2: 20%
C4: 20%
C6: 60%
2 benbrangwyn 4 C5
C5
C1
C1-C4-C5 Communicator
(100%)
C1: 50%
C4: 25%
C5: 75%
3 garyalex 4 C5
C1
C5
C6 Communicator
(100%)
C1: 25%
C5: 50%
C6: 25%
4 Tomma100 4 S
S
N1
S Supporter
(75%)
5 dahacouk 2 C2;C4 Communicator
(100%)
C2: 50%
C4: 50%
6 MakeHayJez 2 S; C1-C6 Supporter
(50%)
Communicator
(50%)
C1: 50%
C6: 50%
7 CathyKing 1 D Challenger
(100%)
8 jimwolff 1 C1 Communicator
(C1: 100%)
9 josiah 1 C1-N1 Communicator
(C1: 100%)
10 Lowcarbondiary 1 C6 Communicator
(C6: 100%)
11 pamelagray 1 S Supporter
(100%)
12 Peter 1 N1
13 rimu 1 N1
14 spiritquest 1 S Supporter
(100%)
15 stevecreedon 1 S Supporter
(100%)
Total Count 30 *OKA: Original Key Author

3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN2):
4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions
4-2-4. Sampled Topic-Threads of Localsustuk

Sampling Topic-Thread (SN7): #p#分頁標題#e#
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~

Title: Home owners Are Not Ready For ZeroCarbon Homes, Research Shows
OKA: John Bone

1. Type of Content in Communication Process

OKA’s Content

OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues
KP-A S

Repliers’ Content

Content Count Percentage
CP-A 5 29.41%
CP-B 12 70.59%
Total 17 100.00%

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
C4 8 30.77%
S 6 23.08%
C3 5 19.23%
C1 3 11.54%
C2 1 3.85%
C5 1 3.85%
D1 1 3.85%
N1 1 3.85%
Total 26 100%

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 Christine Collins 4 S-N1;C3;C1-C3;C3 Supporter
(25%)
Communicator
(75%)
C1: 25%
C3: 75%
2 paul johannsen 4 S-C4;S-C4;C1;S-C5 Supporter
(75%)
Communicator
(100%)
C1: 25%
C4: 50%
C5: 25%
3 chrismccoy3 2 C3;C2-C4 Communicator
(100%)
C2: 50%
C3: 50%
C4: 50%
4 Andrew Jeffrey 1 C1 Communicator
(C1: 100%)
5 Bob Irving 1 S-C4 Supporter
(100%)
Communicator
(C4: 100%)
6 Chris Goodall 1 S-C4 Supporter
(100%)
Communicator
(C4: 100%)
7 Frank Holland 1 C4-C3 Communicator
(100%)
C3: 100%
C4: 100%
8 John Bone 1 C4 Communicator
(C4: 100%)
9 Liz Mutch 1 C4 Communicator
(C4: 100%)
10 Richard Watson 1 D1 Challenger
(D1: 100%)
Total Count 17 *OKA: Original Key Author
3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN2):
4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions
Sampling Topic-Thread (SN8):
The topic-thread is initiated by one of Climate Concern Forum’s key authors, J***, who posted an article regarding to ~~~~~~

Title: EU forms algae group, plans first conference
OKA: ferrand

1. Type of Content in Communication Process

OKA’s Content

OKA’s Content Type Attitude to Climate Change & Energy Issues
KP-A S

Repliers’ Content

Content Count Percentage
CP-A 8 33.33%
CP-B 11 45.83%
CP-C 1 4.17%
CP-D 4 16.67%
Total 24 100.00%

Attitude to OKA’s Posting Count Percentage
C2 10 35.71%
C1 5 17.86%
D1 4 14.29%
C6 2 7.14%
N3 2 7.14%
S 2 7.14%
C3 1 3.57%
C4 1 3.57%
C5 1 3.57%
Total 28 100%

#p#分頁標題#e#

2. The Depiction of Repliers’ Roles in Topic-Thread

Replier SN Author ID Count (by numbers of replies) (%) Presented Attitude in Replies Role (in Thread)
1 ferrand 5 C2-C4; C2; C2; C1; S Supporter
(20%)
Communicator
(80%)
C1: 20%
C2: 60%
C4: 20%
2 chrismccoy3 4 C2-N3; C1-C6; D1-C2; C2-N3-D1 Challenger
(D1: 50%)
Communicator
(100%)
C1: 25%
C2: 75%
C6: 25%
3 Dave Hampton 2 C1-C6; C1 Communicator
(100%)
C1: 100%
C6: 50%
4 paul johannsen 2 S; C2-C5 Supporter
(50%)
Communicator
(50%)
C2:50%
C5:50%
5 Terry de Winne 2 C2-D1; C2 Challenger
(50%)
Communicator
(C2:100%)
6 Bob Irving 1 C3 Communicator
(C3: 100%)
7 David Murray 1 C2 Communicator
(C2:100%)
8 Frank Holland 1 D1 Challenger
(D1: 100%)
9 simontgoldsmith 1 C1 Communicator
(C1: 100%)
Total Count 17 *OKA: Original Key Author
3. The Process Development of Topic-Thread (SN8):
4. The Identification of sources / development of opinion leadership

5. The Observation of the recognition and supporting level of KA’s opinions

4-3 Result of Questionnaire Survey in Internet Fora
Background:
From 20th September 2010 to 19th October 2010, a web survey was conducted amongst the participants of four fora. This questionnaire-based web survey aims to assess people’s activeness and participation level in these fora, their perceptions of their online communication process and potential opinion leadership, and effects of the process through users’ self-reporting approach. It is used to determine the need for communication in Internet fora to do more to support or trigger more communication.

Scope of Survey
During the 30 days of web survey, an online questionnaire has been deployed via E-Mail’s news letter (LocalSustUK & ClimateConcern) and online fora (Transition Town & Our Planet / Earth Day), and there are 148 responses received in this period. Nevertheless, after reviewing and cleaning those uncompleted responses, only 119 completed responses of the survey were received from respondents, distributed in four fora as 35 responses from ClimateConcern, 53 responses from LocalSustUK, 20 responses from Transition Town, and 11 responses from Our Planet. These fora are focused on climate change issues, and environmental issues. The questionnaire has been designed and deployed in the following address:
For LocalSustUK Forum: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/UEA-Hsu-localsustuk/
For ClimateConcern Forum: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/UEA-Hsu-climateconcern/
For Transition Town Forum: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/UEA-Hsu-Transitiontown/
For OurPlanet (the Earth Day) Forum: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/UEA-Hsu-ourplanet/

Section 1: The Communication Process#p#分頁標題#e#
The result of survey reveals that most responders claim they are registered members of the selected forum (94.3% in total) whereas the questionnaire is not only accessible by group members (See Figure P1. in Appendix). This implies that the survey would tend to present those registered members’ communication activities.

Frequency & History of Participation:

Most respondents do not visit fora on a frequent basis (1~2 times a day), but there is a significant population claiming that they access forum every time while they log onto Internet (As Figure 2 presented below). Analysis of four fora responses comes out similar distribution as seen in Figure F1.
A Considerable portion of responders became members only 1 years ago (38.5%), and most respondents (72.1% in total) are members in 2 years time. In particular, 20% of responders say they attend this forum only recently (in 2010). Comparing with the establishment of ClimateConcern (can be dated back to 2000), LocalSustUK (can be dated back to 2001), some pilot Transition Town Groups (can be dated back to the 2007), and the OurPlanet Group on MySpace (can be dated back to 2006), the relatively young age of participation implies the usage of this forum has a pattern of lifecycle, and the activeness of membership is not sustainable.

Level of Activeness

For measuring the level of activeness, the questionnaire of web survey asked responders the situation of posting message (either articles or replies) in their fora, and the general results have shown in the figure below (Figure A1-1):

*Messages include articles and replies

As presented in Figure A1-1, more than 44% of responders claim that they have both posted and replied to articles on their forum. The significant proportion of interactive communicators (members who post and reply messages) have been found in all these four fora (See Appendix R3), while another considerable amount of responders also ever replied or posted articles. Nevertheless, the proportion of replying others’ messages (85.3%) is significant higher than posting articles (51.47%), indicating some members do trigger more discussions by posting articles.
In the Cross Tab / Chi-Square Testing of Q5-1 & Q5-2, it is found that people’s activities of postings are highly relevant to the obtained responses (p=0.012 < 0.05). Most responders suggest that their postings (including articles and replies) have ever been replied by some other members in the forum. This indicates a highly interactive communication flow among communicators within their online groups.
The necessity of access is also probed through the Q4 of the questionnaire. In Q4 (See Appendix R3), no specific enthusiasm of accessing these fora has been reported, and most responses tend to describe their necessity of access among “occasionally (every 2 or 3 times I access Internet)” (40.63 %) and “if they have some time to surf Internet for leisure purposes” (24.22%). The reported low necessity of access indicates that people tend to separate their needs of accessing Internet and accessing their fora, and having discussions in these fora are not their main reason to surf Internet. However, the tendency has a slightly difference among these four fora: most responders from ClimateConcern (8%), Transition Town (8%), and Our Planet / Earth Day Groups (6%) say they access this forum occasionally (every 2 or 3 times when they access Internet), while significant proportion (26%) of LocalSustUK’s members claim that they “quite often access this forum while I log onto Internet”. The difference implied that the LocalSustUK Group has more active members who have higher necessity of access their forum.#p#分頁標題#e#

Self-Evaluation of Activeness and Networking
In Q5-3-3 & Q5-3-4, responders report a strong tendency of actively participation by preferring “instantly check and read the latest article” in their fora. The descriptive statistics and Chi-Square ( χ² ) distribution testing both reveal that Q5-3-3 & Q5-3-4’s result of detecting responders’ attitude is not normal distribution (df= 5), but tending to agree the statement of actively access and instant responses (SEE Table 1). Responders also confirmed that they can obtain direct responses from other users if they post messages in group – corresponding to the findings from cross-tab analysis of Q5-1 & Q5-2 (See Appendix R3), which suggests that people post messages and obtain direct message have highly significant relationship: The more people send their messages in fora, the more direct messages from other users could he obtain.

Table 1. Tendency of Actively Access (Q5-3-3)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 12 10.1 12.9 97.8
Agree 30 25.2 32.3 32.3
Somewhat Agree 35 29.4 37.6 77.4
Somewhat Disagree 7 5.9 7.5 84.9
Disagree 7 5.9 7.5 39.8
Strongly Disagree 2 1.7 2.2 100.0
Total 93 78.2 100.0
Missing 99 26 21.8
Total 119 100.0

Table 2. Tendency of Instant Response (Q5-3-4)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 10 8.4 10.5 93.7
Agree 38 31.9 40.0 40.0
Somewhat Agree 19 16.0 20.0 71.6
Disagree 11 9.2 11.6 51.6
Strongly Disagree 6 5.0 6.3 100.0
Somewhat Disagree 11 9.2 11.6 83.2
Total 95 79.8 100.0
Missing 99 24 20.2
Total 119 100.0

While exploring responders’ efforts of sharing ideas / comments and interacting with each other, the result of Q5-3-5 reveals that people also tend to agree that they respond to other’s messages actively. More than 62.2% of responders incline to agree the description of their instant responses to other’s messages; 5.9% indicate that they “strongly agree” the statement while no responder (0%) strongly disagree the statement. The tendency of instantly responding messages in their discussion process implies an intensive information / opinion exchange which could happen in debating certain topics, communicating ideas or comments, or simply networking with others. This should be further examined with the results of qualitative content analysis.

Assessment of other communicators’ performance (Level of Activeness)
When asked about their own assessment of the activeness of other communicators’ responses, a considerable proportion of responders present a sense of acknowledgement by recognizing (agree or strongly agree) their posts usually obtain many (58% in Q5-3-1) and instant (40.4% in Q5-3-2) responses from other members and they receive a large volume of responses. In particular, despite small percentage (6.5% in Q5-3-1 and 8.4% in Q5-3-2) of slightly disagreeing responders, no responders strongly deny the statement of instant and large volume of interactions in these fora. The acknowledgement of other members’ performance in communication covered some different aspects of perception in online forum communication process, and revealed an inclined attitude of recognizing others’ performance. #p#分頁標題#e#
In further study of the distribution of the results of Q5-3-1 and Q5-3-2, most responders agree that they receive a large volume of responses from other users, while people tend to “agree or slightly agree” they receive instant responses from other members. The distribution models are similar in four fora, and the difference of the distribution model are significant (p=0.02 <0.05). Thus responders could have various perceptions about whether they can receive instant responses in their fora or not. This will require more understandings about how people are satisfied with the interaction in new media (in the case it is Internet forum).

6. Motivation of Communication
Aiming to collect responders’ motivations of access their Internet fora, Q6 and Q7 in the web survey directly asked responders nominating their main reasons of visiting / joining their belonging fora. In the multiple choice questions, responders present an attitude that they are not only look for information and networking, but also for examining different viewpoints. In Q6, the distribution of these answers are similar in four fora; the result reveals that most responders visit their forum for seeking information about environmental issues (not just for climate change issues) (79.84% in total), establish dialogues (47.29%), and look for / discuss different viewpoints (44.96%). Similarly, responders claim they post / reply messages for (Q7) sharing information and comments (75.21%), support others’ views (in dialogue) (57.26%), but with less willingness to challenge other users’ viewpoints (18.8%). The contradiction presented a gap between the motivation and real posting activities. In exploring the distribution of four fora’s responses, four fora present different interests of posting contents; in particular, Our Planet / Earth Day presented the extraordinary willingness of learning (90.91%), sharing (81.82%), and networking (63.64%), which can re-generate their motivations for communication.

7. Content Types of Communication
The result of web survey also reveals how responders define the communication content provided by them. In Q5-3-6 ~ Q5-3-9, people are asked to evaluate their own posts / replies and viewpoints of responses from other communicators. As a result, responders generally agree that they provide additional information or comments in communication – 44.5% and 42% of responders respectively agree or strongly agree the statement in Q5-3-6 (provide additional information) and Q5-3-7 (provide additional comments) while only 2.2% and 4.4% respectively disagree or strongly disagree the above statements. Nevertheless, when asked about the attribution of these information / comments in Q5-3-8, considerable amount of responders disagree the statement of providing “challenging” information or comments on these fora – 26.9% disagree or strongly disagree, and 21% at least slightly disagree the statement. This is equivalent to people who tend to agree (31.9% agree or strongly agree and 19.3% slightly agree) the same statement, suggesting the disunited viewpoints could be provided and perceived on these fora. The divided viewpoints could also contribute to forming supporters’ or challengers’ camps: in Q5-3-9, 40.4% responders agree or strongly agree the statement that they usually get responses from #p#分頁標題#e#people with similar views to theirs, while only 2.5% responders disagree or strongly disagree the same statement. Thus the interactive communication in these fora could have its limitations: people tend to express / share information and comments for supporting or challenging others’ viewpoints, but only communicate with people who hold similar views.

8. Networking

Though responders have demonstrated an attitude of looking for opportunity for networking in Q6 and Q7, they also assess and tend to agree that most responses they obtained are from people with similar views to theirs. The result could contribute to and result from the internal networking / communication in these fora. As the attitude presented in Q15-1, Q15-2, and Q15-3, most respondents highly recognize that they feel “much closer” (more than 70% strongly agree or agree the statement in total) to people who share same interests and attitudes on their forum, but only 37% agree that they feel much closer with the existing social network, indicating a new type of networking could happen in the process of online communication and share the importance of existing networks. The development needs to be further explored if it could further affect people’s opinion leadership.

9. Access of CC&E Issues
The questionnaire survey was conducted in both climate change & energy topic-based fora (ClimateConcern Group and Transition Town Group) and broader environmental topic-based fora (LocalSustUK Group & OurPlanet / Earth Day Group). Thus how people access climate change & energy issues in these fora has been explored in Q13 and Q14. In Q13 people are asked whether they have accessed information or discussions regarding climate change and energy issues in their forum, and in total more than 65.5% responders report they ever involved into the discussions of climate change and energy issues in their fora. Another 32.8% responders report that they ever accessed climate change and energy relevant information in these fora, while only 1.7% responders say they didn’t access the topic in their forum. This trend is particularly significant in the group of ClimateConcern, where 85.71% of responders report they ever involved into climate change and energy discussions. Other groups also present more than half percentage of interests regarding to discussing climate change and energy issues as shown below.
Section 2: Perceiving Opinion Leadership in Communication

The result of web survey shows a wide perception of “prevalent viewpoint” shared in each forum. Overall most responders (82.8%) acknowledge that they sense some prevalent perspective among members could exist in their fora. The dominant confirmation widely appears in all four different types of fora (79.41% of ClimateConcern, 83.3% of LocalSustUK, 70% of Transition Town, and 90.91% of OurPlanet / Earth Day responders). To further explore how they perceive the “forum’s main views”, Q10-2 identifies several candidates of content type including postings presenting information, collective actions / campaigns, personal attitudes or behaviours, or internal communication and interaction on the forum, and the result primarily recognizes that postings regarding collective actions / campaigns most often display the prevalent views (76.53% in total responses) while relatively smaller proportions of responders (38.78%) suggest that the perceived prevalent views come from their internal communication and interaction in the forum. Such trend are similar in all sampled fora except Transition Town Group, whose responders attribute more the prevalent view to individual’s expressed attitudes or behaviours (by 71.43% compare with 58.16% of total responders). Nevertheless, though relatively few people suggest the prevalent views come from internal communication or interaction in fora, the strongest perceptions (37.28% strongly agree that they feel prevalent viewpoints in internal communication) appear in this category, and relatively weak perceptions come from those postings regarding collective actions / campaigns. The opposite results imply that people easily feel wide and prevalent views in collective campaigns, but sensed more pressures of such views in the context of internal communications / interactions. #p#分頁標題#e#

Perceiving the Opinion Leadership (Q5-3-1~5)
The questionnaire further asked responders to self-evaluate the importance of their own opinions within their forum, and it found that considerable portions of responders (37.27%) thought their opinions are not specifically sought or noticed by other users in forum, while more than half (62.73%) suggest that their opinions at least in some degree contribute to the discussion in forum and are sought by other members. The divergence of responders’ self-assessment highlights different confidence levels among forum users, which could lead to different behaviour patterns in the online communication process. A significant difference of distribution between these four fora has also been noticed: responses from Our Planet / Earth Day Group (81%) and Transition Town Group (70%) report significant higher proportion of acknowledging importance of responders own postings, but the significance could come from their smaller sampling scales and thus cannot be located at 95% confidence level in statistics.
The evidence of the relationship of divided confidence level and different behaviour patterns in advance emerged from the cross-tab analysis and Chi-Square testing of Q11 and Q12 series. By probing the tendency of agreeing / disagreeing statement of responder’s information behaviour pattern in Internet fora, Q12 series questions (Q12-1 ~ Q12-10) collect users’ report of their own behaviour pattern, and these information have been further arranged to be analyzed with people’s self-assessment of their own opinion tendency in Q11. The categories of Q12 in the cross-tab analysis have been re-arranged as “Agree”, “Neutral”, or “Disagree” whether they tend to persuade others in forum (Q12-8), to urge others considering specific aspects(Q12-9), and whether they share information with other non-members (people outside their fora) (Q12-10). The three questions aim to clarify the willingness of actively communicating with others. As a result, though it is clear most responders report they tend to agree that they seek information and others’ opinions in the result of Q12-1~Q12-7 as expected in Q6’s (motivations of joining forum) distribution, the Chi-Square testing further confirmed that people who recognize more the importance of their own postings prefer agreeing more about persuading others to accept their viewpoints and urging other users to consider some specific aspects (Q12-8 & Q12-9). The significance of relationship in the Chi-Square testing is examined on the basis of Pearson’s R while putting responders’ self-assessment of the importance of their postings and the measurement of people’s willingness of actively communicating with others. Nevertheless, it is not significant in the test that if responders’ assessment of their own postings could have relationship with their behaviour of sharing information with other members outside fora (Q12-10) (See Table 12 in Appendix R3). #p#分頁標題#e#
To further examine the effectiveness of opinion leader’s operational definition in this research, the relationship between opinion leadership (Q11, Q12-8 ~Q12-10) and members’ frequency (Q3 &Q4), activeness (Q5-3-3, Q5-3-4), and networking ability (Q5-3-9, Q15-1 & Q15-2), which were analyzed in above sections based on the 留學生dissertationsurvey data, is examined by revealing the level of significance. In Chi-Square testing of multi-crosstab, Q3 (Frequency) and Q4 (Frequency) are found significant relevant to the distribution of Q12-8 and Q12-9, which suggest that the influence of frequency indeed needs to be considered as indicator of opinion leadership. The testing also found Q5-3-3 (Activity) relates to Q11 while Q5-3-4 (Activity) relates to Q12-8, and Q15-1 (Networking) relates to Q12-8, Q12-9, and Q12-10; Q15-1 (Networking) also relates to the share of information / opinions (Q12-10). The significant relevance implies multi factors could exist and can be performed as a function; thus an advanced study conducted by liner-regression analysis or factor analysis is suggested.
Overall, a trend of opinion leadership can be observed through responders’ self-reports and their own assessments: the more they confirm the importance of their postings to others, the more they tend to be persuasive while others seeking information / advices from them. People who are actively participate, frequently access, and involve with more networking have been further confirmed their influence on opinion leadership in the survey.
4-3-1 Statistics of users’ motivation, usage, and experience of access

4-3-2 Statistics of users’ perceptions of topic-thread development and leading opinions.

4-3-3 Statistics of users’ comments and participation in forum communication

4-3-4 Statistics of users’ perceived self-behaviours and reactions of forum communication activities

4-4 Comparison of Four fora

Summary of Research Result