Table 2 Navigating the paradox of... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Navigating the paradox of belonging vs boundary

Example issues arising in ORCs	Approach to paradox navigation	How moderators/members can implement it	Practical illustration	Potential outcomes
Affective dominance: Nostalgic “home stories” generate strong engagement and overshadow other contributions	Temporal separation (both/and)	Recurring newcomer posts	Every Monday, moderators post “meet a new neighbor” where newcomers introduce themselves and long-time members are invited to respond	Newcomers gain visibility and recognition, while long-timers keep their familiar storytelling practices
Resonance gap: Practical requests (e.g. groceries) receive no responses because they lack the group’s emotional tone	Integrative reframing (both/and)	Blended questions	Posts combine emotional and practical tones, e.g. “what’s your favorite local tip, and what do you wish you knew when you first moved here?”	Everyday advice becomes legitimate within the group’s symbolic repertoire, keeping emotional continuity while broadening participation
Member monopoly: Storytelling is concentrated among long-time members, limiting newcomers’ symbolic participation	Oscillating emphasis (both/and)	Rotating storytelling roles	Each week, different members (newcomers and long-timers) post personal stories (rotation)	Storytelling power is distributed more evenly, expanding symbolic participation beyond the core group
Legitimacy barrier: Newcomers’ contributions risk being perceived as off-topic or marginal	Bridging (both/and)	Moderator linkages	Moderators reframe posts (e.g., Emma’s grocery request) by linking them to local traditions	Contributions that would otherwise seem peripheral are legitimized, encouraging broader participation
Algorithmic bias: Posts with little engagement are downgraded, reinforcing invisibility	Structural enabling (both/and)	Algorithmic nudges	Moderators temporarily pin newcomers’ posts to counter platform bias (invisibility)	Newcomer posts remain visible long enough to attract engagement, reducing algorithm-driven exclusion

Example issues arising in ORCs	Approach to paradox navigation	How moderators/members can implement it	Practical illustration	Potential outcomes
Affective dominance: Nostalgic “home stories” generate strong engagement and overshadow other contributions	Temporal separation (both/and)	Recurring newcomer posts	Every Monday, moderators post “meet a new neighbor” where newcomers introduce themselves and long-time members are invited to respond	Newcomers gain visibility and recognition, while long-timers keep their familiar storytelling practices
Resonance gap: Practical requests (e.g. groceries) receive no responses because they lack the group’s emotional tone	Integrative reframing (both/and)	Blended questions	Posts combine emotional and practical tones, e.g. “what’s your favorite local tip, and what do you wish you knew when you first moved here?”	Everyday advice becomes legitimate within the group’s symbolic repertoire, keeping emotional continuity while broadening participation
Member monopoly: Storytelling is concentrated among long-time members, limiting newcomers’ symbolic participation	Oscillating emphasis (both/and)	Rotating storytelling roles	Each week, different members (newcomers and long-timers) post personal stories (rotation)	Storytelling power is distributed more evenly, expanding symbolic participation beyond the core group
Legitimacy barrier: Newcomers’ contributions risk being perceived as off-topic or marginal	Bridging (both/and)	Moderator linkages	Moderators reframe posts (e.g., Emma’s grocery request) by linking them to local traditions	Contributions that would otherwise seem peripheral are legitimized, encouraging broader participation
Algorithmic bias: Posts with little engagement are downgraded, reinforcing invisibility	Structural enabling (both/and)	Algorithmic nudges	Moderators temporarily pin newcomers’ posts to counter platform bias (invisibility)	Newcomer posts remain visible long enough to attract engagement, reducing algorithm-driven exclusion

Source(s): Authors’ own work