How do we make sense of creative practice “in the wild”? What theories are appropriate and useful, and what limits do they have? What are the meaningful differences that we should attend to in creative communities, both as researchers and as tool designers? These are the types of questions that I have been attempting to address in a mixed methods case study of an online creative community of practice, the Native Instruments Reaktor user community (http://nativeinstruments.com/index.php?id=reaktor5_us). Reaktor, and similar software such as MAX/MSP and PD, draw on visual and functional metaphors taken from circuit diagrams, programming flowcharts and physical modular analog audio synthesis. Users in these environments can create virtual musical instruments, performance interfaces and audio composition tools by drawing connections between small functional units, such as oscillators, filters, audio samplers, etc. These systems allow a high degree of creative tool customization, expandability and flexibility. They also support tool-sharing and reuse, as completed instruments may be distributed to other artists using the same program.

My intention in this symposium to explore an analytical framework derived from sociologist R. Stebbins’ studies (1992) of “serious leisure,” to investigate its usefulness for analyses of creative communities. Stebbins’ work tacitly suggests that in many creative communities, a key form of heterogeneity may occur in the division being between social roles: “serious amateurs” and professionals. In this model, amateurs are in fact defined primarily in relation or reference to their professional counterparts, and both of those roles are in turn shaped by their relationship to a perceived audience or public. Stebbins’ work suggests that the difference between amateur and professional social roles finds expression along five attitudinal dimensions: confidence, perseverance, continuance commitment, preparedness and self-conception. These dimensions vary both quantitatively and qualitatively between these two roles; professionals and amateurs are different both in the amount and character of their continuance commitment, for instance. Both of these roles constitute a different form of identity and corresponding set of motivations. Each role has a different notion of what constitutes authentic practice and legitimate contribution to a community. Each also has a different relationship to (and expectations of) the “public,” their perceived audience for their work.

Through a consideration of professional and amateur social roles, we can begin to disentangle social roles, motivations, attitudinal stances, and skill levels. In doing so, we can begin to better conceptualize the “trajectories” (Strauss, 1993) of individuals engaged in given creative communities, and change in the nature of their engagement over time. We are also able to better conceptualize the complex mix of motivations and behaviors that will undoubtedly shape creative communities. In the graduate student symposium, I will discuss the strengths and challenges (both conceptual and pragmatic) of a consideration of social roles in the context of the Reaktor case study, setting the stage for a broader discussion of these issues in relation to creativity study and support.