This column is reprinted from the Technology department of the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy (JAAL). It contains the following sections:

• Editor's Message (from department editor Bertram Bruce)
• Issue of the Month
• Literacy Webpage of the Month
• Other Views
• Data View
• References

New technologies present challenges to our relations with one another and to the communities in which we live, work, and learn. These technologies simultaneously offer new ways to stay connected with others through travel or communications and threaten those very connections by presenting new barriers to communication or by making it too easy to leave one's established community behind. As we look ahead in this new century, crucial questions arise. How will communities change? Will new technologies lead to greater access and connections, or to more fragmentation? Will they enable more social equity by connecting people to information and organizations?

Many people have written on these topics. For example, building on his experiences with an online community called the WELL at http://www.well.com/, Howard Rheingold has examined the social and political implications of computer networking for ordinary people. In The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (HarperCollins, 1994), he argued that computer-mediated communication restructures democratic discourse. Moreover, it has created a new form of human social life called “the virtual community” -- a group of people who use computers to communicate with one another in lieu of face-to-face contact. Such a community redefines the constraints of time and place, and potentially the relations among those people and the institutions that frame their lives.

Until recently, most examples of virtual communities have come from privileged arenas. Participants tend to be computer enthusiasts and innovators, such as those in the WELL. New online communities have also arisen within university settings and in high-tech companies. Not surprisingly, most of those participants as well have been relatively prosperous and possess an advanced level of formal education. Although the virtual communities appear open and egalitarian, one could argue that rather than democratizing, they have become one more way to maintain privilege, to widen the digital divide.

But there are some notable exceptions to this pattern. One of the leaders in the U.S. effort to ensure that new communication technologies become a resource for all people, especially those who have had limited educational and employment opportunities, is Ann Peterson Bishop. She studies the use and impact of computer-based information systems, including digital libraries and the World Wide Web. A striking characteristic of her work is a continuing concern for social equity in access to information. She recognizes that one cannot understand the meaning of a new technology through its technical features alone, but must consider seriously how users make sense of it and employ it in their daily practices. Moreover, users with different bases of knowledge, time, or access to other resources may experience the same technology very differently. In this month's column, Ann talks about work to make community networking a reality for all citizens.

-- Bertram Bruce

Back to top
Back to listing of all JAAL Technology columns available in Reading Online

As digital services and resources continue to expand in quality and scope, more people are firing up their computers and turning to the Internet as a routine part of their work, learning, leisure, and healthcare activities. But studies published over the past few years have demonstrated that the online migration is characterized by a digital divide that segments computer use along socioeconomic lines (Kraut, Scherlis, Mukhopadhyay, Manning, & Kiesler, 1998; Novak & Hoffman, 1998, online document; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999, online document). The danger is that disenfranchised members of society will become increasingly isolated from information, resources, and opportunities that are critical to their well-being and prosperity, yet available only to those with technology access and skills. As pointed out by James Katz in the Benton Foundation (1998, online document) report on low-income communities in the information age, “The information poor will become more impoverished because government bodies, community organizations, and corporations are displacing resources from their ordinary channels of communication onto the Internet” (p. 5).

Community networking is a movement whose basic aim is to foster the advantageous and affordable use of computers by people and organizations within a particular local region (Schuler, 1996; see also the website for the Association for Community Networking at http://www.afcn.net). Community networking services are provided by and for local residents and typically include (a) the creation, consolidation, and management of local digital content (e.g., community calendars, personal and organizational websites, social service directories); (b) the provision of Internet access and e-mail accounts; (c) the establishment of public access computing sites; and (d) computer training and technical support. While some community networking services may be offered in a piecemeal and ad hoc fashion in most towns in the U.S. today, a community network is a local organization exclusively devoted to providing such services, at little or no cost, in support of community development. Currently, hundreds of community networks are in operation around the world (see the Community Connector directory of community networks and community information systems at http://databases.si.umich.edu/cfdocs/community/DirSearch.cfm ).

Community-based access and training programs have, in fact, been heralded by the Clinton administration as a promising step in reducing the digital divide (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999, online document):

Community access centers (CACs) -- such as schools, libraries, and other public access points -- will play an important role. The 1998 data demonstrate that community access centers are particularly well used by those groups who lack access at home or at work. These same groups (such as those with lower incomes and education levels, certain minorities, and the unemployed) are also using the Internet at higher rates to search for jobs or take courses. Providing public access to the Internet will help these groups advance economically, as well as provide them the technical skills to compete professionally in today's digital economy. (Executive Summary)

Prairienet, begun in 1993 at the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science, is the community network serving Champaign-Urbana and the surrounding region. With support from the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program in the U.S. Department of Commerce and from the Kellogg Foundation, Prairienet and the Urban League of Champaign County have embarked on an integrated research and service program to expand technology access and literacy in low-income, predominantly African American neighborhoods. Our Community Networking Initiative (CNI -- see the project website at http://www.prairienet.org/cni) is analyzing information exchange and computing practices, donating recycled computers to teens and adults who have completed basic technology training, providing technical assistance to small community organizations who wish to expand their use of computers and Prairienet, and revamping Prairienet's content and retrieval features to improve their usefulness and usability to low-income residents. Like the exciting program described by Allan Luke in Standpoints & Voices [in the February 2000 issue of the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, pp. 482-484], our aim is to build community locally by helping individuals and groups “get virtual.”

Through household interviews, surveys, focus groups, training observations, evaluation questionnaires, and logs of user support interactions, we are studying the context and culture of community computing and knowledge exchange in low-income neighborhoods (Bishop, Tidline, Shoemaker, & Salela, in press). We feel our research has led to a number of insights -- four are listed below -- that may help in the design and implementation of community services devoted to computer access and training, regardless of whether they are offered by a community network or by other types of community-based organizations, such as schools, libraries, or social service agencies.

1. Building participation of low-income residents in networked information services demands a community-wide approach. Our CNI participants described a splintered ecology of access to technology and technical expertise. Equipment available for various uses is scattered across different locales, training is often superficial and not driven by individual needs and interests, and computers available at home may be only partially usable or temporarily available. Community information exchange and computing constitute a fabric of activity -- no matter how fragile -- that encompasses a wide range of local organizations. Outreach, access, training, and use must be woven into the fabric, not addressed piecemeal and not restricted to formal institutions. No single organization is likely to be completely effective in recruiting and supporting low-income residents, creating online information repositories that represent low-income needs and views, and providing public access and training centers that are convenient and hospitable to disenfranchised local residents. Networked information services should cross institutional boundaries, including all three “tiers” of community organizations (Venkatesh, 1997), from small, loosely organized, grass-roots groups (e.g., neighborhood watch) to large, wealthy, formal institutions (e.g., United Way).

2. Community-based technology literacy efforts should recruit and support “local tailors” (Star & Ruhleder, 1996) to mediate the technology for their peers. Moll's (1994) work to integrate indigenous household knowledge into the K-12 classroom was also suggestive for technology literacy programs. In the CNI project, we are striving to incorporate and capitalize on the enthusiasm, interest, insights, knowledge, and skills of low-income community members who want to contribute to promotional, training and support, or content development activities. People who have received training have volunteered as workshop facilitators at subsequent training sessions. This makes them more “homey,” a word used by several community members. Many are eager to create their own webpages to spread information about upcoming events in their neighborhood parks and churches, share recipes, help parents select schools for their kids, or simply “encourage other single moms.”

Around the U.S., other projects are similarly fueled by the energy, talent, and knowledge of low-income teens and adults. For example, mentored teen groups have created webpages for local nonprofit organizations (see the Weblinks website at http://www.flint.lib.mi.us/weblinks/) and community announcements (see the Access Newark website at http://www.lff.org/demo/access/huh.html). A number of community technology centers serving low-income neighborhoods are also run with substantial help from local residents (Chapman & Rhodes, 1997; online document).

3. Technology literacy flourishes through existing social connections and interactions. Family and peer networks are key to community involvement and to the exchange of information and support (Agada, 1999; Chaskin, 1997; Uehara, 1990). It has also been recognized that informal collaboration and social exchange with peers help in learning how to use information technology (Agre, 1997; Twidale, Nichols, & Paice, 1997, online document). In CNI, participants repeatedly stressed the importance of word-of-mouth communication with people in their close social circles for exchanging information about local resources and activities. As one local resident noted with a grin, “I talk with my neighbors out on the porch in the summer. That's what I call voice mail!” About half of our community trainees heard about the CNI project through family and friends; about a third heard of it through the Urban League; and only about 10 percent learned of the program through mass media, such as radio, television, or newspapers.

Preliminary results from our follow-up telephone survey indicated that project participants have been active in informally extending or getting help with CNI resources through their social networks. The majority of respondents said that someone besides themselves had used their CNI computer and that they had used their CNI computer to show someone else how to do something. About half of the survey respondents also said that someone other than a project staff member -- primarily a family member or friend, with social proximity apparently more of a factor than physical proximity -- had helped them in some way with their computer. Other indications we've seen of the importance of social bonds in technology training are requests from individuals to attend training sessions in family groups and an impromptu user support group set up by cohorts in one training session.

4. Technology literacy flourishes with an open, “discovery” approach to training that permits people to develop their own meanings and uses for computers. In order to understand how to make technology “disappear” (Bruce & Hogan, 1998, online document) into the everyday life of low-income community members, we need to attend to the prevailing social context and practices in which computer use is embedded. In the CNI project, we have increasingly moved to develop a training curriculum and support services that are driven by low-income residents and fit with well-grounded community development programs. For example, in the most recent rounds of CNI training, teens have acquired computing skills through projects that involve creating their own digital music performances and planning a computer fair for their parents.

CNI program “graduates” host in-home, dish-to-pass social evenings attended by CNI trainers where people gather to explore new things on the computer or refresh their knowledge from training classes. CNI staff have also started incorporating training within community development programs offered by others (e.g., supplying relevant computer instruction -- such as how to use spreadsheets for budgeting purposes and how to find information on the Web about nutritional requirements for lunches -- for participants in a local program that prepares women to become home daycare providers).

Back to top
Back to listing of all JAAL Technology columns available in Reading Online

The Community Connector at http://www.si.umich.edu/Community/ is the most comprehensive online repository of information related to community networking. Managed by faculty and students at the University of Michigan School of Information (Ann Arbor), under the direction of Joan Durrance, it is an up-to-date and well-organized collection of a wide variety of resources. Included are directories, conference listings, papers and articles, news groups, and links to material that represents best practices in the field (e.g., exemplary online community information collections, evaluation instruments, training material). The Community Connector site also includes an online journal, Connections, devoted to community networking and created by people at the School of Information.

Back to top
Back to listing of all JAAL Technology columns available in Reading Online

Recent literature exhibits some thoughtful analyses of how people adopt and adapt computers, raising questions about the meaning of community and network in today's society.

Agre, P. (1999); online document

The central tension between the concepts of community and network, perhaps, is that communities are supposed to define us, where networks are not. Communities are supposed to have boundaries and meanings; they are supposed to correlate with languages and identities, and to be the sites of collective cognition and solitary action. The antirationalist traditions of left and right both celebrate them for this reason, and view the boundlessness of networks as disruptive, or at best as a tool for recovering communitarian values. But none of these conceptual associations is quite true. Communities have always been more complicated than that, and it is precisely those intrinsic complexities that networks greatly amplify. The design of community networks can support positive values in this complicated world, but only so long as the designers understand what they are getting into. (Reprinted with permission)

Resnick, M., Rusk, N., & Cooke, S. (1999)

For young people to become technologically fluent...they need to live in a “digital community,” interacting not only with technological equipment but with people who know how to explore, experiment, and express themselves with the technology. (p. 277)

Tardieu, B. (1999)

Framing the issue as one of access is the ultimate success for people who have created a technology and are trying to sell it. If the poor and excluded need access, they mostly need reinvention for different aims. (p. 309)

Benton Foundation (1998); online document

[T]echnology activists stress the importance of nurturing individuals and indigenous community organizations that already provide help and support in the community, rather than trying to impose technology from the outside. If an effort is aimed at providing new Internet access points in a certain community, they say, residents should have a say in where the stations are set up. Low-income people should decide for themselves how these tools can best serve their interests. (p. 21)

Back to top
Back to listing of all JAAL Technology columns available in Reading Online

As noted above, recent studies have documented the digital divide that segments computer use along socioeconomic dimensions. U.S. census data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999; online document) demonstrated that such factors as race, income, and educational attainment affect computer access and use:

• Households with incomes of $75,000 and higher are more than twenty times more likely to have access to the Internet than those at the lowest income levels, and more than nine times as likely to have a computer at home.
• Black and Hispanic households are approximately one-third as likely to have home Internet access as households of Asian/Pacific Islander descent, and roughly two-fifths as likely as White households.
• The gaps between White and Hispanic households, and between White and Black households, are now more than six percentage points larger than they were in 1994.
• The digital divides based on education and income level have also increased in the last year alone. Between 1997 and 1998, the divide between those at the highest and lowest education levels increased 25 percent, and the divide between those at the highest and lowest income levels grew 29 percent. (Executive Summary)

A few years ago, the National Science Foundation in the U.S. supported a study of users of community technology centers nationwide (Chow, Ellis, Mark, & Wise, 1998; online document). Survey results -- with three-quarters of the respondents reporting annual household incomes less than US$30,000 -- demonstrated that centers set up to provide public access and training are helping local residents in a variety of ways:

• Eighty-seven percent of the 774 people who responded to the last survey question, “Has coming to this center made any difference in your life?” answered yes. Of these, 18% (139) reported the impact as a general improvement in their life, their confidence, their outlook on life, and their future prospects. Other major impacts described by survey respondents included work-related benefits such as improved job skills, improved computer skills, and educational benefits. Other common responses referred to improved perceptions of technology; social and community benefits; appreciation for access to hardware, software, and video; and general enjoyment and appreciation of the center.
• 65% of 707 survey respondents said they took computer classes at their technology center to improve their job skills.... Of the 586 respondents who held improving job skills as a goal, 39% said they were “a lot closer” and 8% said they had “reached” their goal.
• Of the 608 individuals who came to the center to pursue an educational goal, 6% said they had “reached” their goal and another 38% said they were “a lot closer” to it.
• A substantial 51% (of 799 respondents) said they felt “much more positive” about themselves as learners as a result of coming to the center.
• Most users said they were “a lot closer” [37%] to reaching or had “reached” [21%] their goals of increased self-confidence and overcoming computer fears or anxieties. (Reprinted with permission)

Back to top
Back to listing of all JAAL Technology columns available in Reading Online

Agada, J. (1999). Inner-city gatekeepers: An exploratory survey of their information use environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 74-85.
Back

Agre, P.E. (1997). Computing as social practice. In P.E. Agre & D. Schuler (Eds.), Reinventing technology, rediscovering community (pp. 1-17). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Back

Agre, P. (1999, June 8). Rethinking networks and communities in a wired society. Paper presented at the midyear meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pasadena, CA. Available: http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/asis.html
Back

Benton Foundation. (1998). Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.benton.org/Library/Low-Income/
Back to Issue of the Month
Back to Other Views

Bishop, A.P., Tidline, T.J., Shoemaker, S., & Salela, P. (in press). Public libraries and networked information services in low-income communities. Library & Information Science Research.
Back

Bruce, B.C., & Hogan, M.P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Available: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/facstaff/chip/Publications/Disappearance.html
Back

Chapman, G., & Rhodes, L. (1997). Nurturing neighborhood nets. Technology Review. Available: http://web.mit.edu/techreview/www/articles/oct97/chapman.html
Back

Chaskin, R.J. (1997). Perspectives on neighborhood and community: A review of the literature. Social Services Review, 71, 522-547.
Back

Chow, C., Ellis, J., Mark, J., & Wise, B. (1998, July). Impact of CTCNet affiliates: Findings from a national survey of users of community technology centers. Newton, MA: Community Technology Centers Network. Available: http://www.ctcnet.org/impact98.htm
Back

Kraut, R., Scherlis, W., Mukhopadhyay, T., Manning, J., & Kiesler, S. (1996). HomeNet: A field trial of residential Internet services. Communications of the ACM, 39(12), 55-63.
Back

Moll, L.C. (1994). Mediating knowledge between homes and classrooms. In D. Keller-Cohen (Ed.), Literacy: Interdisciplinary conversations (pp. 385-410). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Back

Novak, T.P., & Hoffman, D.L. (1998). Bridging the digital divide: The impact of race on computer access and Internet use. Available: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/papers/race/science.html
Back

Resnick, M., Rusk, N., & Cooke, S. (1999). The Computer Clubhouse: Technological fluency in the inner city. In D.A. Schön, B. Sanyal, & W.J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology (pp. 264-285). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Back

Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. New York: ACM Press.
Back

Star, S.L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111-134.
Back

Tardieu, B. (1999). Computer as community memory: How people in very poor neighborhoods made a computer their own. In D.A. Schön, B. Sanyal, & W.J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology (pp. 287-313). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Back

Twidale, M.B., Nichols, D.M., & Paice, C.D. (1997). Browsing is a collaborative process. Information Processing & Management, 33(6), 761-783. Available: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/research/cseg/projects/ariadne/docs/bcp.html
Back

Uehara, E. (1990). Dual exchange theory, social networks, and informal social support. American Journal of Sociology, 9, 521-527.
Back

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/
Back to Issue of the Month
Back to Data View

Venkatesh, S.A. (1997). The three-tier model: How helping occurs in urban, poor communities. Social Service Review, 71, 574-606.
Back

Back to top
Back to listing of all JAAL Technology columns available in Reading Online