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 information about
church, sports and recreational activities, local government, creative
pursuits, legal services, and volunteer opportunities.
Responses regarding needs for
networked CI were similar. Bishop
et al., identified the following areas (in order of frequency): community
services and activities, resources for children, healthcare, education,
employment, crime and safety, and general reference tools. When seeking CI respondents identified
personal contacts at community organizations and close members of their social
networks as the most important sources, which were valued for their
“advice” and “recommendations.” For obtaining networked CI, respondents
“consistently recommended public libraries, community and public housing
recreation centers, and social service organizations as public access computing
sites. In discussing the
advantages and drawbacks of both home and public community network access, Bishop et al., remarked that
“computer use will not readily take hold among low-income community
residents until they are able to find a way around the splintered ecology of
access within which they currently live.” Their recommendations for how libraries might provide more
effective networked information services were aimed at complementing citizens’
lifestyles, constraints and information seeking patterns.
In
sum, systematic research is needed on how individuals are using the Internet
for everyday problem solving and on how physical communities benefit from
locally-organized Internet initiatives.
But conducting research on Internet use and benefits is particularly
challenging for investigators owing to the nature of the medium itself. In this paper, we share our findings
to-date from a study that addresses citizens’ use of the Internet for
daily problem solving, and the role of public library-community network
initiatives in increasing social capital within communities and for
individuals. Specifically, we (1)
discuss methodological issues with conducting web-based online surveys, and (2)
present preliminary findings from three case studies about how online networks
benefit physical communities and highlight best practices noted from a
nation-wide survey of public libraries.
Current Study
“Help-seeking
in an Electronic World” (URL: www.si.umich.edu/helpseek/) (Durrance &
Pettigrew, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 1999) is a two-year study supported by the
U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Through conducting a nation-wide survey regarding public library
involvement in community networking, followed by case studies in three U.S.
communities, we are addressing key issues regarding how public library
initiatives at providing Internet access to CI are affecting all players in the
community. Within the social
context of anytime and multiple place use, this broad, holistic framework
includes the perceptions and expectations of:
· People who access CI on the Internet;
· Service providers and other groups who post information about their services on the Internet;
·
Librarians who assist
users with Internet searches for CI;
·
Library administrators
and staff who are involved in networked CI initiatives (community networking,
specifically) on behalf of the library; and,
·
Citizens who use the
services on which CI is posted but who do not access that information through
the Internet (i.e., non-Internet or potential users who may lack access to
infrastructure, skills, knowledge).
The
following ten research questions guided our study. We distinguished questions five through seven on information
use, tangible assistance, and overall helpfulness, respectively, because
findings reported by Pettigrew (1998) suggest that they are unique phenomena:
1.
What factors prompt
citizens to use/not use the Internet for obtaining CI?
2.
What specific types of
help are citizens seeking?
3.
What are users’
perceptions of CI as they seek it online?
4.
How do users deal with
barriers that they encounter?
5.
What do users do with
networked CI? (i.e., uses)
6.
What assistance do users
receive from services on which they sought networked CI?
7.
How does networked CI
actually help users with their situations?
8.
How do service providers
perceive posting CI on the Internet using particular techniques will help (a)
clients, (b) their organizations, and (c) the community?
9.
How do librarians expect
participation in networked CI delivery will help (a) clients, (b) the library,
and (c) the community?
10.
How do the
public’s perceptions of networked CI relate to those of service providers
and librarians?
Data
were collected using multiple methods over several stages. The first stage comprised a national
survey with 500 medium and large-sized public libraries regarding the types and
degree of their participation in networked CI provision. For the second stage, we used a standard
design or template along with triangulated methods to conduct intensive case
studies in three communities (Table 1) that received national recognition for
their respective community network and in which the local public library system
plays a leading role. Data
collection methods at each site included (a) an online survey and follow-up
telephone interviews with adult community network users who access
“tagged” CI web pages, along with (b) in-depth interviews, field
observation and focus groups with public library-community network staff, local
human service providers, and members of the public. Qualitative data are being examined for such themes such as
indicators of social capital and which situations prompt information-seeking on
the Internet, while quantitative data are being analyzed for such patterns as
the relationship between users’ perceptions of how they were helped by
the electronic CI and their willingness to access it again for help in similar
situations.
Site |
Counties/ Areas Served |
Public Library System |
Community Network |
|
|
|
|
|
Name (URL) |
Est. |
|
Northeastern Illinois |
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
McHenry & Will |
Suburban Library System |
NorthStarNet (nsn.nslsilus.org) |
1995 |
|
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |
Southwestern Pennsylvania |
Carnegie Library of
Pittsburgh |
Three Rivers Free‑Net (trfn.pgh.pa) |
1995 |
|
Portland, Oregon |
Multnomah County |
Multnomah County Library |
CascadeLink (www.cascadelink.org) |
1996 |
Table 1
Overview of Data Collection Sites
Both
the online survey (appended) and follow-up interviews with Internet users were
based on sense-making theory, a social constructionist framework developed by
communications, and library and information science researcher Brenda Dervin
(c.f., Dervin, 1992; Harris & Dewdney, 1994; Savolainen, 1993). Her framework has been used
successfully in numerous studies, but rarely in an electronic environment. In essence, sense-making is a set of user-centered
assumptions and methods for studying the uses individuals make of information
and information systems. The
theory is often described using the situation-gap-uses triangle. In brief, as people move through life
they encounter gaps in their current knowledge, which can only be bridged by
making new sense of their situations.
To this end, people use varied strategies to seek and construct
information from different resources or ideas. In Dervin’s terms sense-making rests on the
“discontinuity assumption” and views communication and information
use (i) as a construction (ii) from the actor’s or user’s
perspective, and as a (iii) process condition (1992, pp. 61-67). Sense-making facilitates the study of
different aspects of human information behavior. Our research includes two aspects: (1) users’
assessments of the helpfulness of networked CI, and (2) users’ and
service providers’ constructions or images of these systems. Both were investigated using the
micro-moment time-line technique where respondents were asked “to
reconstruct a situation in terms of what happened (time-line steps) [and then]
to describe each step in detail” (p. 70), which enabled us to gather and
comparing the perceptions of different players regarding how CI is constructed
and used through electronic communication. The social constructionist orientation of the sense-making
approach suggested it would be a viable framework for studying citizens’
information behavior electronically.
As a novel application, we anticipate its use in our project will
contribute to general knowledge of information behavior while providing
insights into the usefulness of sense-making as a research methodology and
framework for conducting research in online environments.
In
the remainder of this paper we (1) discuss methodological issues with using the
Internet as a tool for data collection, and (2) share preliminary findings
regarding how individuals and communities are participating, using and
benefiting from public library-community network initiatives.
Methodological Issues
with Collecting Data Online
For
researchers, the Internet represents a powerful mechanism for gathering data
about the public and the use of different digital systems (Witte, 2000). But, as Zhang (2000) points out, little
research has been conducted on the validity and reliability of Internet
methodologies, especially online surveys.
She raises questions regarding: the conditions under which Internet
surveys can be effective, what factors affect validity, how the implementation
of some techniques may improve response rate and data quality, and how respondents
react to Internet-based surveys during a survey session (p. 57). Summarizing a multidisciplinary
literature, Zhang lists the following advantages of Internet-based surveys over
conventional mail surveys: (a) research costs for sending questionnaires and
coding data are lower, (b) turnaround times are shorter, (c) potential
respondents are readily reached in geographically remote areas, (d) for
research involving sensitive topics, particular populations such as drug
dealers, gay and lesbian students, etc., may be reached more easily, (e) larger
numbers of individuals may be surveyed more efficiently, (f) respondents’
may be more motivated to participate by the dynamic-interactive nature of
web-based surveys, and (g) errors may be reduced in data transcription and
coding (p. 58).
For
our study, we chose to conduct online surveys because community network users
were our population of interest, and hence posting our survey on the
networks’ community information pages seemed the best and most logical
means of identifying and reaching potential respondents. Moreover, asking respondents to
participate while they were in the process of actively seeking information
online was consistent with the critical incident/timeline approach of our
study’s theoretical framework.
In other words, we anticipated high reliability of users’
responses if they completed the survey during an actual, real-time search since
memory recall would not be problematic.
However, we faced many challenges with using the web to conduct our
survey. The main difficulties
included:
·
Estimating the sample
size from a population that was also unknown in size;
·
Knowing that the sample
would not be random nor representative socio-demographically due to the
self-selection of respondents;
·
The inability (and hence
affect on validity) to clarify any questions of the respondents’
regarding the survey instrument;
·
How to pretest the
instrument given that we did not know how, sequentially, the respondents would
participate in the survey (i.e., at the beginning or their search, midway, upon
completion, etc.), which was complicated by the nature of hyperlinks;
·
Creating an instrument
that would be sufficiently short to encourage completion and yet in-depth
enough to capture the data of theoretical interest;
·
Creating an attractive
layout, based on good design principles, that would encourage completion and
yet followed the standards of the community network (some networks had
restrictions regarding flashing banners, etc.);
·
Determining where to
post the survey (i.e., which pages - homepage only, community information main
page only; specific community information pages, etc);
·
Selecting a database
program for storing and managing responses that worked well with the community
network software, and resolving technical bugs; and,
·
Estimating the
completion timeframe of the survey stage for project management purposes (had
no basis for estimating response rate over time)
These factors build on those
noted by Zhang (2000), whose list of potential concerns when conducting
Internet-based surveys included: (a) the exclusion of some population segments
due to lack of Internet access, (b) the discomfort that some individuals feel
toward Internet formats and their perceptions of it being questionable or
untrustworthy, (c) the high degree of respondent self-selection and its
potential to introduce bias within a sample, (d) the validity of respondents
(i.e., surveys can reach unintended individuals who cannot be screened), (e)
multiple responses from the same respondent, (f) variation and difficulty in
determining response rate, (g) the impersonalized nature of survey requests,
and (h) the high level of expertise required of survey researchers, especially since respondents tend to
“drop-out” before completing the survey or do not provide answers
to some questions. Except for (a)
(because we specifically targeted Internet users), all of these concerns
factored in our study. Additionally,
we were concerned about a possible Hawthorn effect where users might give
responses because they felt positively towards the community network and wished
to indicate their support.
After
several design iterations and extensive pretesting, we posted (during different
time periods) the survey on the main community information page of each the
three community networks. The
number of days each survey ran and the total number of responses for each
network are summarized in Table 2.
Overall, we were satisfied with the response rates and concluded, from
the clarity and richness of respondents’ answers and comments, that
respondents largely understood and were able to answer the survey’s
questions. Interestingly, the
respondents’ age groups followed a normal distribution with most
respondents (71.4%) falling between the ages of 25 and 55. Moreover, the majority of respondents
were female (54.6%), which is higher than that typically reported in past
studies of Internet users where most respondents are male.
|
Community Network / Area Served |
# Days Survey Posted |
# Responses |
Gender |
Age Range |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
M |
F |
NA |
18- 25 |
25-35 |
36-45 |
46-55 |
56-65 |
66+ |
NA |
|
NorthStarNet Northeastern Illinois |
60 days |
34 |
10 |
20 |
4 |
6 |
9 |
9 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
Three Rivers Free‑Net Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |
90 days |
123 |
57 |
61 |
5 |
10 |
30 |
22 |
30 |
15 |
9 |
7 |
|
CascadeLink Multnomah County, Portland |
70 days |
40 |
17 |
20 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
9 |
11 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Total: |
220 days |
197 |
84 |
101 |
12 |
21 |
46 |
40 |
46 |
20 |
12 |
12 |
Table 2
Overview of Online Survey Responses
Preliminary Findings
regarding Internet Use and Community Building
Preliminary
findings from the online surveys and follow-up interviews with selected
respondents suggest that a typical user is non-existent, socio-demographically
speaking. Instead, we found that
users represent a range of age groups and that they use community networks for
different types of situations, including those of a personal nature and those
relating to the workplace. This
confirms a tenet of information behavior, namely that all individuals require
community information at one point or another and that it is the
individual’s situation that reveals most insight into information seeking
and use. Moreover, our respondents
comprised both first-time or novice users as well as very experienced
searchers. While it was not unusual
for respondents to indicate that they had tried other information sources (such
as friends, newspapers, telephone directories, etc.,) for help with their
questions, they often indicated a high degree of confidence that they would
find what they needed through the community network. Despite the many difficulties with using the Internet noted
by past information science research such as lack of content, low retrieval
rates with search engines, inaccurate information, etc., our respondents tended
to perceive their community network as an ubiquitous source and gateway to all
knowledge. In this sense we
identified a mismatch between what users think they can obtain via the Internet
and the likelihood that that information exists and can be easily located. Interestingly, some respondents
revealed that they were searching for information on behalf of another person
(such as a relative or friend) but not always at that person’s
behest. This notion of gathering
requested and unrequested information for others supports recent findings
reported by Erdelez and Rioux (in press) about information encountering on the
Internet and by Gross (in press) regarding reference requests in public
libraries. The theme of
information “gatherers” or “monitors” (c.f., Baker
& Pettigrew, 1999) also emerged where some respondents indicated that they
spend considerable time just browsing the community network and the Internet in
general for information that might prove useful at a later time. Lastly, we found support for
Wellman’s (in press; Hampton and Wellman, 2000) notion from his series of
Netville studies that the Internet has created “glocalization”
where the Internet is being used by individuals for both local and long‑distance
interaction. In our study, we
found that respondents used the community network as a personal gateway to
websites located throughout the world, and that people from countries far
removed from the community network’s physical home were using it to
obtain local information. A woman
in Florida, for example, used the Three Rivers Free-Net to locate information
about seniors’ housing for her elderly father who was moving to the
Pittsburgh area
Users
overwhelming emphasized the helpfulness of their local community networks. Preliminary analysis of data from the
online surveys suggest that users seek the following types of community
information via community networks: education and parenting, employment,
financial, health, housing, local history, local events, governmental,
recreation and hobbies, services and travel, and computer and technical. These categories broaden findings
reported by Bishop, et al. (1999).
Specific examples of situations for which our users sought networked CI
included:
·
A mother who encouraged
her three teenage daughters to use the community network to find summer
employment. She said that the network was the best resource because it has all
the local job information in one place and that she trusts it as a reliable,
current source of information for her children;
·
A citizen who used the
network to find out about an important upcoming town council meeting;
·
A gay man was looking
for a local directory of gay and lesbian organizations. He conducted a general
search of the World Wide Web, but only came across national resources. The
community network directed him to exactly the type of local organization he
needed.
·
A job seeker said she
uses the network to make sure she has covered all the bases in her employment
search. She believes that her local community network is the most comprehensive
job source on the Web. She considers the community network’s employment resource
to be a great time saver compared to more conventional job searching methods;
·
A college student
visited the community network to find local volunteer opportunities;
·
A resident of a large
city relies on the community network to find out about local events. In
particular, the resident likes to find out about free concerts happening at
public parks during the summertime;
·
A homebound person told
us that he spends up to eight hours a day using the community network to
conduct genealogy research about his family. He relies on the community network
because he feels its organization of local genealogy resources, which include
public library, county agency and local historical association materials, is
comprehensive;
·
A former resident
organized a family reunion from across the country using the community network
to track down all the details. She found the community network helpful in
finding everything from activities for the family to the locations of nearby
hotels;
·
Many citizens use the
community network to find out about local government information, such as
current ordinances pertaining to matters ranging from trash pick up to flood
damage prevention.
·
People considering
moving to a community turn to the local community network to get a better sense
of the region; and,
·
A resident used the
community network’s organization listings to identify sources of funding
for a community service project intended to help a nearby low-income community.
Beyond
the individual uses that people make of community networks, preliminary
analysis of our data from the interviews, observation and focus groups with
service providers and library-community network staff revealed that communities
benefit physical communities in the following ways:
.
1.
Increased Access
to Technology and Bridging the Digital Divide: Electronic community information can play an
important role in filling in the gaps between information “haves”
and “have nots.” Low
income persons, people of color, and people with disabilities are among groups
who often encounter barriers in accessing computers and the Internet. Examples of this theme from our data
include:
·
a municipal health
department official who, due to the wide‑ranging information that the
community network provides at no cost via public libraries, asserted that it
“is the single greatest opportunity of access for minorities;”
·
an employee at a
nonprofit who noted that “many of the people we serve are the least
likely to have their own computers and Internet access. The community network allows access to
everyone through dial‑up services and public library access;”
·
An agency that serves a
disabled community offers an online access guide to its city, which appears on
their community network‑sponsored page. The Guide offers information on
access to parking, buildings, restrooms, telephones, water fountains, etc.
provided by local businesses to persons with disabilities.
Under
this same theme, organizations also indicated that technology enables them to
better serve their clientele.
Examples include:
·
A radio station for the
visually impaired that started to make its programs available on demand via
Real Audio streaming on their community network web page. The station’s
director views technology as a way to give “blind drivers a lane on the information
superhighway,” and noted that reading services in other locations do not
have web pages, e‑mail boxes and streaming audio;
2.
Increased Access
to Information Resources: When
technology is well utilized, it results in easier access to information,
decreased transaction costs for organizations and clients, and fosters
information sharing. From our case
studies, supporting examples include:
·
A government official
for a large county, who noted that keeping track of who’s who in
government is a tricky proposition, but that the community network offers well
organized links to government information;
·
According to a local
fireman, the community network is a tool for making government more responsive
and approachable. He receives a variety of information requests via email and
makes fire safety information available online so citizens can locate answers
to their questions more easily;
·
A local historical
society volunteer remarked on the decreased costs of making their
organization’s information available via the community network: “by
having the Internet available, you don’t necessarily reduce the mailing
costs, but you have so much more information. You can create a whole page about
an event at no additional cost.” While the historical society continues
to disseminate information in traditional ways, such as with newsletters, they
can now also provide more detailed information over the Internet at no
additional cost;
·
An employee at a
nonprofit that serves AIDS patients indicated that the community network works
as a catalyst that links them with like‑minded organizations: “AIDS
services are often fragmented, leaving people who are living with HIV infection
wondering where to turn. Having our web site hosted on the network allows us to
pool our resources and create links to other agencies, thus broadening the
availability of resources.”
3.
Increasing Access
to and Connections among Organizations and People: Community information connects people, thus
overcoming the limits of physical geography, while lending legitimacy to
organizations, and creating linkages, connections and partnership
opportunities. Illustrations from
our case studies include:
·
An arts agency that sold
tickets for a concert to people who came from Germany and California thanks to
the web site;
·
A youth symphony
representative alluded to the legitimacy enhancing powers of the community
network web site in saying: “apparently they think you’re real if
you have a billboard and a website…The public tends to think you must be
good” as a result;
·
A local chapter that
serves the disabled said it is essential that they have a web page because they
are a member of a national group and the organization's national site refers
people to local chapters through Internet links;
·
A police department has
partnered with the local library to offer an Internet Safety program. The
officers say that since they developed a community network website, the use of
the Internet as an interactive communication tool has greatly enhanced their
community policing efforts.
·
One school district
representative spoke of the benefit the community network has had in
strengthening the linkages among local organizations, both virtually and
physically. She said that by having a website on the network “we are part
of that community, not just some name off the Web with nothing surrounding or
relating to us. We are embedded in the community.”
4.
Personal
Empowerment: Some community
network benefits, such as technology skill building and respect for privacy,
are felt on an individual level.
Examples of such benefits as confidence building through gaining
technological skills, and anonymous inquiries, which open new avenues for
people seeking sensitive information include:
·
A local police chief
hopes that citizens will be more likely to turn to the police for help if given
the opportunity to interact with his department anonymously online;
·
Staff at an AIDS
organization noted that discrimination still occurs to people with HIV disease.
The community network allows people to get information about HIV and related
services anonymously. By opening a channel for email inquiries, they also hope
to save their clientele time and postage costs;
·
According to the
director of a local nonprofit, going to the community network for help in
building a web page has several empowering benefits: “working with the
network, rather than a design firm, has a number of benefits. I wanted to learn
the mechanics of building and maintaining a site. The hands on experience I got from working with the network
gives me more control over the content of our web site. When you go through a design firm you
have to try to explain to them how to represent you, but when you do it
yourself you can get it right faster.”
5.
Increasing
Organizational Effectiveness:
Service providers benefit from collaborating with community networks in several
ways, including enhanced visibility, increased financial support, and a wider
base of well-trained volunteers.
Supporting examples from our research include:
·
A local foundation that
decided to use a website to promote broader awareness about its mission and
activities. It found that its community network‑hosted web site created
enhanced credibility and legitimacy with an increasingly networked public.
Moreover, foundation staff note a rise in public inquiries due to their
community network email account;
·
A non‑profit
checks how many hits they get every month because it indicates increased public
awareness and is far greater than the number of phone calls. They said, “email has really been
an addition to our services as a nonprofit.”
·
A radio station for the
visually impaired finds that its website helps recruit new listeners, while
keeping their current audience better informed of its offerings. The web site
has also served as a effective recruitment tool for the radio station, which
now boasts close to 300 volunteers;
·
An agency that supports
single, low‑income parents said: “we have been asked about opening
a new center, people are offering to volunteer, and sponsor a fundraising event
for us” due to increased public awareness created by the website;
·
According to a one
non-profit: “a woman looking for travel information about our city ended
up on our community network site.
She looked at the nonprofit wish list, read ours, which requested things
like games, art supplies, or magazine subscriptions for middle school youth,
and three days later, we received a large box full of board games, cards,
puzzle, book, and an 8‑bit Nintendo System and about 50 games!”
·
For a municipal health
department, the community network strengthens its grant-making activities.
Since funders often require that you show how you will share information on
your activities with the community, the health department lists the community
network in its grant applications, citing the network as an important means of
disseminating its message;
·
Of the technical
assistance it has received, a local nonprofit described how the network staff
have been very helpful in getting them started by providing great technical
assistance and a volunteer, who created their first page. Additionally, the
network staff and volunteers created a network of social service providers that
greatly improves communication possibilities;
Best Practices
In
addition to identifying community benefits, we also documented best practices
in community networking across the country. These best practices, which are listed on our project
website (www.si.umich.edu) were grouped under the following headings:
1.
Community Information
Databases: Searchable and browsable collections of local resources, such as
clubs, agencies, and businesses;
2.
Agency/Local Government
Content: Online features that inform citizens and encourage civic
participation;
3.
Specialized Content:
Locally‑created materials regarding economic development, social services,
education, etc;
4.
Interactive CI or
Community Network Features: includes e‑government and online reference;
5.
Geographic Information
Systems (GIS): Electronic community mapping;
6.
Training: Computer and
Internet skills building;
7.
Digitized Collections:
Electronic exhibits of community photographs, local maps, and historic documents; and,
8.
Partnerships:
Collaborative efforts to enhance community among non‑profit
organizations, library consortia, library‑community networks, government
agencies, and the public‑private sector.
Conclusion
Although
conducting Internet-based surveys pose unique research challenges, they also
provide several advantages over mail and telephone-based surveys and can yield
rich data. As shown through our
study, the online survey revealed that the availability of community
information over the Internet is valued and used by all segments of the adult
population. Community networks
enable individuals, from near and far, to find information about local services
and events, and facilitate different types of information seeking. However, our results also indicated
that users’ mental models of what information exists, is retrievable, and
is accurate on the Internet are overly optimistic. At the community level, our preliminary analysis suggests
that community networks benefit organizations and government in several ways,
most notably by creating new linkages and strengthening existing ones, and by
fostering technical skills and knowledge.
Moreover, individuals and groups express pride over the community
networks and see them as vehicles for promoting regional identities. More detailed findings, especially with
regard to our study’s research questions, will be published in the coming
months.
References
Baker, L. M., &
Pettigrew, K. E. (1999). Theories for practitioners: Two frameworks for
studying consumer health information-seeking behavior. Bulletin of the
Medical Library Association, 87.4,
444‑50.
Baker, S. L., & Ruey, E.
D. (1988). Information and referral services — attitudes and barriers: A
survey of North Carolina public libraries. Reference Quarterly, 28.3, 243-52.
Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. (2000). http://www.glf.org
Bishop, A. P., Tidline, T.,
Shoemaker, S., & Salela, P. (1999). Public libraries and networked information
services in low-income communities. Libraries & Information Science
Research 21.3, 361-90.
Chatman, E. A. (1996). The
impoverished life‑world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 47, 193-206.
Chatman, E. A. (1999). A
theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 50, 207-17.
Chatman, E. A. (in press).
Framing social life in theory and research. In L. Höglund (Ed.), ISIC
2000: The Third International Conference on Information Seeking in Context. Gothenburg, Sweden, 16-18 August 2000. London,
England: Taylor Graham
Chen, C., & Hernon, P.
(1982). Information seeking: Assessing and anticipating user needs. NY: Neal‑Schuman.
Childers, T. (1975). The
information‑poor in America.
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Childers, T. (1984). Information
and referral: Public libraries.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cisler, S. (1996).
Weatherproofing a great, good place. American Libraries, 27.9, 42-46.
Dervin, B. (1992). From the
mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative
methodology. In J. D. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative
research in information management
(pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Dervin, B., et al. (1976). The
development of strategies for dealing with the information needs of urban
residents: Phase I: The citizen study.
Final report of Project L0035J to the U.S. Office of Education. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington, School of Communications. ERIC: ED 125640.
Dervin, B., & Nilan, M.
(1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 21, 3-33.
Durrance, J. C. (1984a). Armed
for action: Library response to citizen information needs. NY: Neal-Schuman.
Durrance, J. C. (1984b).
Community information services — An innovation at the beginning of its
second decade. Advances in Librarianship 13, 99-128.
Durrance, J. C., et al.
(1993). Serving job seekers and career changers: A planning manual for
public libraries. Chicago, IL:
American Library Association.
Durrance, J. C. (1994). Meeting
community needs through job and career centers. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Durrance, J. C., &
Pettigrew, K. E. (2000). Community information: The technological touch. Library
Journal, 125.2, 44-46.
Durrance, J. C., & Schneider,
K. G. (1996). Public library community information activities: Precursors of
community networking partnerships.
Ann Arbor, MI: School of Information, University of Michigan. http://www.si.umich.edu/Community/taospaper.html.
Erdelez, S., & Rioux, K.
(in press). Sharing information encountered for others on the web. In L.
Höglund (Ed.), ISIC 2000: The Third International Conference on
Information Seeking in Context.
Gothenburg, Sweden, 16-18 August 2000. London, England: Taylor Graham.
Geffert, B. (1993). Community
networks in libraries: A case study of the Freenet P.A.T.H. Public Libraries, 32, 91-99.
Gross, M. (in press). Imposed
information seeking in school library media centers and public libraries: A
common behavior? In Höglund, L., (Ed.), ISIC 2000: The Third
International Conference on Information Seeking in Context. Gothenburg, Sweden, 16-18 August 2000. London,
England: Taylor Graham.
Hampton, K., & Wellman,
B. (2000). Examining community in the digital neighbourhood: Early results from
Canada's wired suburb. In T. Ishida & K. Isbister (Eds.), Digital
cities: Technologies, experiences, and future perspectives (pp. 475‑492). Berlin: Springer‑Verlag.
Harris, R. M., & Dewdney,
P. (1994). Barriers to information: How formal help systems fail battered
women. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
Harsh, S. (1995). An
analysis of Boulder Community Network usage. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/community/resources/harsh/harshproject.html.
Harvey, K., & Horne, T.
(1995). Surfing in Seattle: What cyber-patrons want. American Libraries, 26,
1028-1030.
Kraut, R., Lundmark, V.,
Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1999).
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and
psychological well‑being? American Psychologist, 53.9, 1017–1031.
National Telecommunications
and Information Administration. (2000). http://ntia.doc.gov
Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L.
(2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative
Study of Society.
Palmour, V., et al. (1979). Information
needs of Californians. Rockville, MD:
King Research, Inc.
Patrick, A. (1996). Services
on the information highway: Subjective measures of use and importance from the
National Capital FreeNet. http://debra.dgbt.doc.ca/services‑research/survey/services/.
Patrick, A. S. (1997). Media
lessons from the National Capital FreeNet. Communications of the ACM, 40.7 74-80.
Patrick, A. S., & Black,
A. (1996a). Implications of access methods and frequency of use for the National
Capital Freenet. http://debra.dgbt.doc.ca/services‑research/survey/connections/.
Patrick, A. S., & Black,
A. (1996b). Losing sleep and watching less TV but socializing more: Personal
and social impacts of using the NCF. http://debra.dgbt.doc.ca/services-research.
Patrick, A. S., Black, A.,
& Whalen, T. E. (1995). Rich, young, male, dissatisfied computer geeks?
Demographics and satisfaction with the NCF. In D. Godfrey & M. Levy (Eds.),
Proceedings of Telecommunities 95: The international community networking
conference (pp. 83-107). Victoria,
British Columbia: Telecommunities Canada. http://debra.dgbt.doc.ca/services‑research/survey/demographics/vic.html.
Pettigrew, K.E. (1996).
Nurses’ perceptions of their needs for community information: Results of
an exploratory study in southwestern Ontario. Journal of Education for
Library & Information Science,
37, 351-60.
Pettigrew, Karen. E. (1998). The
role of community health nurses in providing information and referral to the
elderly: A study based on social network theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Faculty of Graduate
Studies, The University of Western Ontario.
Pettigrew, K. E. (1999).
Waiting for chiropody: Contextual results from an ethnographic study of the
information behavior among attendees at community clinics. Information
Processing & Management, 35.6,
801-17.
Pettigrew, K. E. (2000). Lay information provision in
community settings: How community health nurses disseminate human services
information to the elderly. The Library Quarterly, 70.1, 47-85.
Pettigrew, K. E., Durrance,
J. C., & Vakkari, P. (1999). Approaches to studying public library Internet
initiatives: A review of the literature and overview of a current study. Library
& Information Science Research,
21.3, 327-60.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling
alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6,
65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling
alone: The collapse and revival of American community. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Savolainen, R. (1993). The
sense-making theory: Reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to
information seeking and use. Information Processing & Management, 29, 13-28.
Savolainen, R. (1998). Use
studies of electronic networks: A review of the literature of empirical
research approaches and challenges for their development. Journal of
Documentation, 54, 332-351.
Schalken, K., & Tops, P.
(1994). The digital city: A study into the backgrounds and opinions of its
residents. Paper presented at the Canadian Community Networks Conference, August 15-17, 1994. Carleton University, Ottawa.
http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/schalken/schalken.htm.
Schuler, D. (1994). Community
networks: Building a new participatory medium. Communications of the ACM, 37, 39-51.
Schuler, D. (1996). New
community networks: Wired for change.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
Warner, E.S., et al. (1973). Information
needs of urban residents. Baltimore,
MD: Regional Planning Council.
Wellman, B. (In press, Dec.,
2000). Physical place and CyberPlace: The rise of networked individualism. Journal
of Urban and Regional Research.
Witte, J.C., Amoroso, L.M.,
& Pen, H. (2000). Research methodology ‑ Method and representation in
Internet‑based survey tools ‑ Mobility, community, and cultural
identity in Survey 2000. Social Science Computer Review, 18.2, 179‑195.
Zhang, Y. (2000). Using the
Internet for survey research: A case study. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 51.1, 57‑68.
Zweizig, D., & Dervin, B.
(1977). Public library use, users, uses: Advances in knowledge of the characteristics
and needs of the adult clientele of American public libraries. Advances in
Librarianship, 7, 231-55.
TRFN User Survey
Dear Three Rivers Free-Net User,
We are a research team from the University of Michigan and the University
of Washington. We are studying how people use the Three Rivers Free-Net
and the Internet. If you are over age 18, we ask that you take 5-10 minutes
to complete the following questions. Please note that you do not have to
answer every question, and that your identity will be confidential. Your
answers will help us gain a better understanding of how people use the
Internet to obtain information. You will find more information about our
project at the end of the survey.