Community Building Using the ‘Net:

Perceptions of Internet Users, Information Providers and Organizers

 

Karen E. Pettigrew

Assistant Professor, The Information School, University of Washington

Box 352930, Seattle, Washington, 98195-2930, USA

Voice: 206-543-6238; Fax: 206-616-3152; Email: kpettigr@u.washington.edu

 

Joan C. Durrance

Professor, School of Information, University of Michigan

304 West Hall, 550 East University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092

Voice: 734-763‑1569; Fax 734-764‑2475; Email: durrance@umich.edu

 

Abstract

Since the early 1990s online community networks have been lauded for their potential to strengthen physical communities through increasing information flow about local services and events, and through facilitating civic interaction.  Yet, findings from recent studies suggest that Internet use has the reverse effect by isolating individuals and decreasing interpersonal interaction.  The purpose of this paper is to present findings about how online networks benefit physical communities based on extensive case studies in three locales: Pittsburgh, PA., Chicago, IL., and Multnomah County, OR.  This federally-funded, investigation focuses on citizens’ online information and communication behavior when seeking help for everyday situations, as well as on how online networks build community and affect different players such as service providers who post information about their services on the Internet and public library staff who organize and maintain these networks.  At each site, data were collected using an online survey, along with field observation, in-depth interviews and focus groups with Internet users, human service providers and library staff.  Both the online survey and the follow-up interviews with its respondents were based on Dervin’s sense-making theory.  In our paper we will discuss three aspects of our study: (1) methodological challenges with using online surveys, (2) our preliminary findings regarding parallels and mismatches among users’ and service providers’ perceptions of how networked community information is used by and helps citizens with daily problem solving; and (3) how online community networks strengthen physical communities, especially with regard to best practices.

Background

 

            Everyday, citizens require equitable and easy access to local resources that can help them deal with the myriad of situations that arise through daily living, such as finding daycare services for children, meal delivery or visiting nursing for an aging parent, or state regulations for solving tenant disputes with landlords.  But as numerous studies show, all citizens--despite their occupation, education, financial status, or social ties--encounter situations where they experience great difficulties in recognizing, expressing and meeting their needs for such community information (Bishop et al, 1999, Chatman, 1996, 1999, in press; Chen & Hernon, 1982; Childers, 1975; Dervin, et al., 1976; Durrance, 1984a; Harris & Dewdney, 1994; Palmour, et al., 1979; Pettigrew, 1999, 2000; Warner, et al., 1973).  Financial, physical, geographic and cultural barriers also prohibit individuals from successfully seeking information.  As a result, many people cannot obtain important information, access needed services, or participate fully in their community’s daily life.  While information technologies hold significant promise for linking individuals with information and one another, they are foreshadowed by the potential for a deeper digital divide between the information rich and the information poor.

 

            Public libraries have long recognized the importance of community information (CI) for creating and sustaining healthy communities.  Comprising three elements: survival or human services information, local information and citizen action information (Durrance, 1984b), CI can be broadly defined as:

 

any information that helps citizens with their day-to-day problems and enables them to fully participate as members of their democratic community.  It is all information pertaining to the availability of human services, such as healthcare, financial assistance, housing, transportation, education, and childcare services; as well as information on recreation programs, clubs, community events, and information about all levels of government (Pettigrew, 1996, p. 351).

 

Since the early 1970s public libraries have facilitated citizens’ access to CI by providing information and referral (I&R) services, and through organizing and supporting community-wide information initiatives with local service providers (Baker & Ruey, 1988; Childers, 1984).  The Internet along with high-speed personal computers, modems, and graphical interfaces have suggested new ways for public libraries to facilitate citizens’ information needs, and recent initiatives--such as the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2000) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2000)--are helping to ensure full connectivity in all U.S. public libraries.  The aim of these initiatives is to promote viable communities by providing equitable computer and Internet access to all citizens.  As a result, these initiatives also facilitate greater collaboration among public libraries, service providers and other groups for improving public access to local resources through information.  One such collaboration in which libraries have taken a leading role and is flourishing throughout North America (and the world) is community networking.

 

            Since the late 1980s libraries have played pivotal roles in developing community networks (or, community-wide electronic consortia) that provide citizens with equitable access to the Internet for obtaining CI and communicating with others (Cisler, 1996; Durrance, 1993, 1994; Durrance & Schneider 1996).  Often organized and designed by librarians, community networks provide citizens with “one-stop shopping using community-oriented discussions, question-and-answer forums,” access to governmental, social services, and local information, email, and Internet access (Schuler, 1994; 1996).  While individuals may interact with other users by posting queries, monitoring discussions, etc., CI is often a central community network feature that appears in many forms: information and referral (I&R) agencies and libraries, for example, may mount their databases on the Internet, while individual service providers may post information about their programs and services.  Thus, the architecture of the Internet makes networked CI possible by linking information files created not only by single organizations such as libraries, but by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the community (and, of course, the world).  This is a major departure from traditional I&R services where librarians and other CI agency staff work with files about the community that are created on an internal library system.

 

            The roles played by libraries and librarians in community networking vary considerably.  Library directors, for example, help community networks create a physical community presence that negates an otherwise virtual existence.  Libraries, as community network partners, sometimes serve as physical headquarters, training centers or places for housing equipment, and may provide public access terminals (thus providing access to those who lack it) along with meeting space.  Librarians and library administrators also use their skills to (1) train people on understanding and using the Internet, (2) answer people’s questions regarding how to participate in a community network, (3) help people gain email access, and (4) develop and provide brochures and other materials.  They also provide leadership through writing funding proposals, providing staff for community networking activities, and fostering collaboration among community partners (Durrance & Schneider, 1996).  As a result of community networking, people can access CI through public library terminals while seeking help with related search problems from librarians.  In short, networked information means that citizens can access CI anytime in any place.  American public library participation in the community networking movement is a particularly important collaboration because of its potential for improving citizens’ access to CI, and hence, needed resources. 

 

            However, despite the lauding of community networks’ potential for strengthening physical communities through increased CI flow and civic interaction, findings from recent studies (e.g., Kraut et. al., 1999; Nie & Erbring, 2000) suggest that Internet use has the reverse effect by isolating individuals and decreasing interpersonal interaction, which gain greater importance given Putnam’s (1995, 2000) observation regarding the decline of social capital in physical communities.  Thus, life in an electronic world poses several fundamental problems for research.  Two such questions that have yet to be addressed include:

 

(1)       How do individuals use the Internet when seeking help for daily situations? and

(2)       How do public library-community network initiatives strengthen communities?

 

To date, little is known about how networked CI helps (or does not help) citizens with daily living, how it affects their help-seeking or information behavior, and how it may or may not benefit communities.  In a recent literature review (Pettigrew, et al., 1999), we observed ­that research interest in citizens’ use of networked CI is increasing--which confirms Savolainen (1998)--along with the use of multiple, qualitative methods (e.g., in-depth interviewing, structured observation, participant diary-keeping, focus groups, etc.) in conjunction with quantitative approaches.   However, the majority of papers that we reviewed were applied and descriptive in nature and were based on questionnaires or analyzed transaction log data that revealed user socio-demographics and system or page use frequency (e.g., Harsh, 1995; Harvey & Horne, 1995; Patrick, 1996, 1997; Patrick & Black, 1996a&b; Patrick et al., 1995; Schalken & Tops, 1994).  Most studies were from the professional literature and reported conflicting user and use statistics, especially regarding user socio-demographics.  In this sense, the early networked CI literature is akin to the general public library literature that Zweizig and Dervin (1977) criticized as providing little insight into the uses that people make of information and information systems.  In short, few insights have been gained into the uses people make of information and information systems, and little theoretically-based research exists regarding citizens’ information behavior when interacting with networked CI, specifically on the situations that prompt users to seek networked CI, their perceptions while seeking and interacting with networked CI providers and systems, and the uses that individuals make of the information, i.e., how the CI helps (c.f., Dervin & Nilan, 1986).  While respondents, such as those in Geffert’s (1993) survey, indicate that they value public access to networked CI and that they use community networks for obtaining information, we do not know what prompts this behavior.

 

            One study of particular note, however, is Bishop, et al., (1999), who used multiple methods to investigate the types of information that citizens seek online and its uses.  Household interviews and focus groups in low income neighborhoods with users and potential users of the Prairienet community network yielded rich findings.  The most frequently cited CI needs concerned “health, parenting, education, leisure activities, and employment opportunities.”  As Bishop et al., further reported:

 

Interview respondents also wanted more easily accessible information about available and affordable services of all kinds ... services provided by organizations like the Urban League or Salvation Army, and those relating to rent subsidy and food banks were frequently mentioned.  In addition to subsistence information, participants ... sought inform