“Virtual Community” as a Sociological Construct, or How to Use Digital Traces in Research

Introduction. The purpose of this article is to develop a methodology for the operationalization of the concept of a “virtual community”, enabling an empirical distinction between online groups that exhibit signs of communality and other digital formations. The paper discusses the semantic content of the term “virtual community” and proposes digital indicators for a formalized analysis of the three levels of virtual community development.

Methodology and sources. The methodological framework is based on the works of classical and digital sociology scholars – F. Tönnies, R. Park, B. Wellman, C. Fuchs, A. Caliandro, H. Rheingold, J. Katz, and others. The study employs methods of comparative analysis, generalization, and systematization of theoretical approaches, as well as non-reactive analysis of digital behavioral data – digital footprints.

Results and discussion. The study proposes measurable indicators for each level of virtual community development: technological infrastructure and user engagement; communication density, reciprocity, and regularity; as well as signs of cooperation, shared identity, and symbolic core. It is demonstrated that the use of digital footprints makes it possible to reliably differentiate communities from other social formations on the Internet.

Conclusion. The study of the Internet as an autonomous social space requires clarification of sociological terminology and the development of methods for capturing digital forms of social activity. Virtual communities are characterized by shared interests, stable interactions, internal norms, and a sense of belonging. However, their distinctive feature is the mediation of communication through technological environments that shape specific practices of participation and connection maintenance. The operationalization of the concept of a “virtual community” through the identification of communicative features and analysis of digital footprints enables precise determination of the community’s level of development and its empirical typologization. The proposed metrics form a foundation for quantitative and comparative studies of networked forms of sociality, expanding the methodological tools of digital sociology and deepening the understanding of how social solidarity is reproduced in digital environments.

1. Tal'nishnikh, N.K. (2004), “Culture of ‘Network Communities’”, Can. Sci. (Philosophy) Thesis, Rostov State Univ., Rostov-on-Don, RUS.

2. Hillery, G.A., Jr. (1982), A research odyssey: Developing and testing a community theory, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, RUS.

3. Katz, J.E., Rice, R.E., Acord, S. et al. (2004), “Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice”, Communication Yearbook, Kalbfleisch, P. (ed.), vol. 28, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp. 315–371.

4. Tönnies, F. (2002), Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie, Transl. by Sklyadnev, D.V., Vladimir Dal’, SPb., RUS.

5. Ivanov, D.V. (2002), Virtualization of Society. Version 2.0, Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, SPb., RUS.

6. Hiltz, S.R. and Turoff, M. (1978), The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

7. Rheingold, H. (2000), The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier, Cambridge, MIT Press, USA.

8. Driskell, R.B. and Lyon, L. (2002), “Are virtual communities true communities? Examining the environments and elements of community”, City & Community, viol. 1, no. 4, pp. 373–390. DOI: 10.1111/1540-6040.00031

9. Wellman, B. (1996), “Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian reconsideration”, Social Networks, vol. 18, iss. 4, pp. 347–354.

10. Wellman, B. and Leighton, B. (1979), “Networks, neighborhoods, and communities: Approaches to the study of the community question”, Urban Affairs Review, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 363–390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874790140030

11. Watson, N. (2002), “Why we argue about virtual community: A case study of the Phish.net fan community”, Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety, Jones, S. (ed.), SAGE, London, UK, pp. 102–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250303.n6

12. Aakhus, M.A. (2003), “Understanding information and communication technology and infrastructure in everyday life”, Machines That Become Us: The Social Context of Personal Communication, Katz, J.E. (ed.), London, NY: Routledge, USA, pp. 27–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203786826

13. Terkenli, T.S. (1995), “Home as a region”, Geographical Review, vol. 85, iss. 3, pp. 324–334. DOI: 10.2307/215276

14. McMillan, D.W. and Chavis, D.M. (1986), “Sense of community: A definition and theory”, J. of Community Psychology, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 6–22. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:13.0.CO;2-I

15. Baym, N.K. (1997), “Interpreting soap operas and creating community: Inside a Electronic Fan Culture”, Culture of the Internet, Kiesler, S. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp. 103–120.

16. Fabietti, U., Malighetti, R. and Matera, V. (2002), “Il traffico delle culture”, Dal tribale al globale: introduzione all’antropologia, Bruno Mondadori, Milano, ITA, pp. 91–136.

17. Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2006), The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media, 2nd ed., SAGE, London, UK.

18. Calhoun, C.J. (2002), “Virtual community”, Dictionary of the Social Sciences, Oxford Univ. Press. Oxford, UK, p. 505.

19. Jones, Q. and Rafaeli, S. (2000), “Time to split, virtually: “Discourse architecture” and “community building” as means to creating vibrant virtual metropolises”, Electronic Markets, vol. 10, iss. 4, pp. 214–223. DOI: 10.1080/101967800750050326

20. Baym, N.K. (2015), Personal connections in the digital age, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

21. Meyrowitz, J. (1997) “Shifting worlds of strangers: Medium theory and changes in “them” vs. “us”, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 67, iss. 1, pp. 59–71. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00429.x

22. Poster, M. (2001), What’s the matter with the Internet?, Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.

23. Caliandro, A. (2017), “Digital methods for ethnography: Analytical concepts for ethnographers exploring social media environments”, J. of Contemporary Ethnography, vol. 47, iss. 2, pp. 1–28. DOI: 10.1177/0891241617702960

24. Stage, C. (2013), “The online crowd: a contradiction in terms? On the potentials of Gustave Le Bon’s crowd psychology in an analysis of affective blogging”, Distinktion: Scandinavian J. of Social Theory, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 211–226. DOI: 10.1080/1600910X.2013.773261

25. Butsch, R. (2008), The citizen audience: Crowds, publics, and individuals, Routledge, NY, USA.

26. Arvidsson, A. (2013), “The potential of consumer publics”, Ephemera, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 367–391.

27. Fuchs, C. (2008), Internet and society: Social theory in the information age, Routledge, NY, USA.

28. Matveev, M.S. (2025), “Trace as a sign: epistemology and methodology of digital data in sociology”, Sociodynamics, no. 4, pp. 71–80. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2025.4.74248