Community Building Using the ‘Net:
Perceptions of Internet Users, Information
Providers and Organizers
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
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