Patrick R. Lowenthal and Chareen Snelson
Social presence is a popular construct used to understand how people socially interact in online learning environments (Whiteside, Dikkers, & Swan, 2017). However, despite the prevalence with which it is discussed in research, educational researchers continue to define social presence differently (Kawachi, 2013; Kehrwald, 2008; Kreijns, Van Acker, Vermeulen, & Van Buuren, 2014; Lim & Richardson, 2016; Sung & Mayer, 2012). For example, some researchers define social presence in terms of being a ‘real’ person, whereas others define it in terms of feeling a connection or sense of belonging with others. Differences like these are problematic because researchers end up investigating related but different constructs (see Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, & van Buuren, 2011). To investigate this problem further and to better understand differences among commonly used definitions of social presence, we analyzed how researchers of highly cited research defined social presence. In this article, we describe the problem in more detail and then report on the results of our inquiry, discuss the findings, and conclude with implications for future research and practice.
Background
Social presence theory was developed by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) in the 1970s to explain how media affect communication. They were specifically interested in how telecommunications influenced how people communicate. Short et al. (1976) described social presence theory, along with research conducted on media effects that informed the theory, and other related theories and research in their book, The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. In their book, Short et al. (1976) defined social presence as the ‘degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships’ (p. 65); in other words, they conceptualized social presence as the degree to which a person perceives another person (or persons) as being salient when communicating. They conceptualized social presence primarily as a quality of a communication medium. They argued that communication media differ in their degree of social presence and that these differences influence how people communicate. Short et al. thought that people perceive some media as having a higher degree of social presence (e.g., video) than other media (e.g., audio); they also believed that media with a high degree of social presence are perceived as sociable, warm, and personal, whereas media with a low degree of social presence are perceived as less personal. Short et al. also found that social presence was influenced by such things as one’s apparent distance (i.e., sense of being ‘there’) and realness (p. 74).
In the 1980s, researchers began studying the effects that text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC), like email, had on communication in the workplace. Most researchers at this time came to the conclusion that CMC was an inherently antisocial and impersonal communication medium (Walther, 1996; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994). Many of these researchers used social presence theory, or other cues-filtered out theories, to situate and inform their findings. They argued that CMC was a lean medium, lacking the nonverbal and relational cues common in face-to-face communication. Due to the absence of nonverbal and relational cues, researchers concluded that CMC was better suited for task-oriented communication than interpersonal-oriented communication (Walther & Parks, 2002).
During the 1990s, as people gained more experience using text-based asynchronous CMC, many began to question the technologically deterministic perspective that CMC was inherently an antisocial and impersonal medium. Walther (1992) even argued that people are social by nature and that given enough time, people would find ways to socially interact, even with text-based asynchronous CMC. Further, as educators gained more experience using CMC (e.g., web-based bulletin boards and email) in educational settings – settings that rely heavily on social interaction – they found that even without nonverbal cues, people were able to establish themselves as ‘real’ people and therefore use the communication medium socially (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). In fact, Gunawardena (1995) argued that:
research on social presence and CMC has indicated that despite the low social bandwidth of the medium, users of computer networks are able to project their identities whether ‘real’ or ‘pseudo,’ feel the presence of others online, and create communities with commonly agreed on conventions and norms that bind them together to explore issues of common interest. (p. 156)
Building upon the belief that CMC can support social interaction and that education is inherently a social activity, during the late 1990s Garrison and his colleagues popularized the concept of social presence by including it as one of three key types of presence in their Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) posited that a meaningful educational experience occurs in a community comprised of teachers and students through the interaction of social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence. Garrison et al. (2000), having moved past the technologically deterministic perspective of CMC, were interested in both how to use computer conferences for educational purposes and how to identify each of the three presences in the CoI framework within computer conferences. As such, their definition of social presence as ‘the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry’ (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999, p. 50) was likely influenced by their research goals.
The CoI framework remains one of the most popular frameworks for online learning. As of March 2017, Garrison et al.’s (2000) original CoI article had been cited over 3,900 times according to Google Scholar (see goo.gl/raxVbv). Despite its popularity, it is important to remember that the CoI framework still has its critics – most of whom, question whether social presence is essential for a meaningful educational experience (see Annand, 2011; Rourke & Kanuka, 2009; Xin, 2012) – and that research continues to be conducted on social presence and online learning that is not grounded in the CoI framework.
How people think about, talk about, and research social presence has changed a bit over the years. For instance, in a general sense, social presence began as a quality of a communication medium but was reconceptualized as being more dependent on the behaviors one uses (e.g., immediacy behaviors) and/or the degree to which one perceives another person(s) as being ‘real’ and ‘there’ when using a communication medium (e.g., CMC). Whether conceptualized as a part of a CoI or not, social presence remains a central construct in online learning (Whiteside et al., 2017). We posit, though, that once one takes a closer look at how people write about social presence, they will see less consensus among the definitions they use.
Over the past few years, the first author has argued that definitions of social presence tend to fall on a continuum (see Lowenthal, 2009, 2012). On one side, there are definitions that take a less emotional understanding of being ‘real’ and ‘there.’ These definitions tend to interpret being ‘real’ simply in terms of whether one senses that he or she is talking to a human being and not a machine; they also tend to interpret being ‘there’ in terms of whether one senses that the other person(s) he or she is talking to is present and actively engaged. On the other end of the continuum are definitions that tend to interpret being ‘real’ and ‘there’ in more emotional terms. These definitions tend to interpret being ‘real’ in terms of understanding what makes a person unique or authentic (e.g., in terms of identity, personality, persona etc. …); they also tend to interpret being ‘there’ in terms of whether another person(s) is present in a supportive and caring sense.
While useful in a broad sense, this explanation oversimplifi...
