The Internet as a tool for community development Matthew Stevens (1) and Don Defenderfer (2) Matthew Stevens 1996 (mls@zeta.org.au) (Paper given at the 28th annual conference of the Community Development Society, Melbourne, Australia, 22 July 1996) 1. Doctoral student at the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury Freelance scientific editor Home address: 42 Dartford Road, Thornleigh, NSW Australia 2120 Telephone: +61 2 9484 5725, Fax: +61 2 9481 0074, e-mail: mls@zeta.org.au 2. Master's graduate of the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury Executive Officer, Tasmanian Landcare Association Home address: 304 York Street, Launceston, Tasmania Australia 7250 Telephone: +61 03 31 5369, Fax: +61 03 34 8055, e-mail: ddefende@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au Abstract This paper explores the potential of the Internet as a tool for community development. It looks at the nature of disembodied "virtual communities", gives an example of a community network in action, and lists pointers to community development resources on the Internet. Virtual communities are communities of people who come together through electronic means, by computer-mediated communication (CMC). Membership can parallel that of a physical community, but is not restricted by geography, distance or political border. The Internet consists of thousands of virtual communities, in which most members, though they might know each other well, have never physically met. Community networks are computer networks that allow members of a local physical community to interact with each other and with services in the locality. CMC can offer much to community development. It allows people to communicate as a group, regardless of time or place, and it gives people access to an enormous amount of information, entertainment and opportunities for personal development. The inspiration for this paper came from work we did for a Master's degree last year. We began exploring the nature of community in the absence of physical contact and came to the conclusion that the absence of physical contact is no impediment to healthy community participation and a sense of shared community. Revisiting old ground_What is community? To support our thesis that community exists in the absence of physical contact, it is necessary to establish what community is. Dictionary definitions use terms such as fellowship, social body, social group, body of people, shared heritage, unified, common characteristic, common interests. Kenny (1994) says that the people in a community "share some common identity, based on a common ethnic background, locality, issue or disadvantage, for example." Or the community "may be self-defined on the basis of similar political or other special interests." She reports that another researcher (Henny) found 94 definitions but that "all the definitions referred to people and most referred to social interaction, common bonds or goals, and common territory as important elements." To Wild (1981), community is "a social order developed on the basis of natural interdependence through traditional relationships." The term can be applied to "those who feel a sense of belonging together." Beamish (1995) offers three meanings of the word community: "The first is a physical place such as a town, city, or neighborhood. A group of people who live in that place are associated because they share physical proximity, and live under common rules and shared government. Often, but not always, they also share a common cultural and historical heritage. "The second meaning is a social group of any size that shares common interests, whether those be social, professional, occupational, or religious. These are the virtual communities' or on-line communities' that are often found on networks_they gather together electronically in newsgroups or mailing lists to discuss specific topics which range from academic research to hobbies. There are no geographic boundaries to on-line communities and participants can be located anywhere in the world. An individual can belong to a number of these communities' "In addition to these two common meanings of community, a third meaning is becoming more prominent. In this definition, community is a feeling' of belonging or attachment and sharing something in common. It is not just that you are part of a community, you must feel and be conscious that you are part of a community and be responsible for it." She traces this third meaning back to the Pilgrims in 1630. This meaning comes across strongly in Rheingold's (1994) discussion of community on the WELL (The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, a computer bulletin board in California) and in the members' own discussion on community (WELL 1992): "I think of the WELL as a community, partially because it is as cohesive a group as residents of a city_they may not share the same opinions of the place, but nevertheless, they do still live there and they all have a sense of how it differs from other cities." "The WELL is indeed a community: people know each other here, if only by the words they post; there is a certain set of loosely shared values here; and most important, there is a richness of reported experience and creativity in describing it that is certainly missing elsewhere." "If community indicates a group of people to which an individual feels loyalty and commitment, I think the Well does form a community, and does so without the [face-to-face] interaction." Webber (1964) says that spatial proximity is less important than interaction and that: "It is clearly no linguistic accident that community' and communication' share the Latin root communis, in common.' Communities comprise people with common interests who communicate with each other." So is there a difference between the physical and the virtual community? (Virtual here has the conventional meaning: as such for practical purposes though not in name or according to strict definition.) An important theme of all these definitions is that common geography is not essential to community. After all, physical communities exist in part outside the geographic boundary of the community (Wild 1981). Conversely, community networks exist in and for a geographical location, adding another layer of communication to a preexisting community. There is no difference in how people interact. In virtual communities many people are helpful, friendly and open (Rheingold 1994, Sproull and Kiesler 1991), yet others are much more likely to resort to flaming (vicious public verbal abuse) than in physical communities (Rheingold 1994, Reid 1991). In physical communities, "the relatively small distance between neighbors can often mask a lack of connectedness that can be far more consequential than the distance separating members of virtual communities. Many common concerns with devastating impact can plague the members of a proximal community, and yet it is often very difficult for local residents to pull together and address them" (Shaw, cited by Beamish 1995). Yet we have all had the experience in physical communities of a complete stranger offering us help, directions or even lodgings. People are the same in physical and virtual communities. This leaves us with only one apparent difference_hardware. People in virtual communities need computers, telephones and modems to participate, but community networks give access to hardware to people who don't have it. And on the other hand, some disabled people (Stephen Hawking is a notable example) use high technology as their only way of participating in their physical communities. We propose that there is no difference between physical and virtual communities. People interacting with each other are the one essential feature of all communities. Community is a state of mind; it exists wherever people believe it exists. To us a community is a group of people who share common ideas, backgrounds or activities and come together, physically or notionally, in a common place, physical or virtual, to do those things. This definition then includes the virtual community, "social aggregations that emerge from the [Internet] when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace" (Rheingold 1994). We believe that this definition of a virtual community encompasses all that is necessary to a definition of community: it acknowledges the fundamental characteristic of any human community_its people. Thus computer networks, notably the Internet, represent not only communities, but an area and a tool for community development. The forms of virtual communities Many virtual communities exist. The exact number cannot be calculated, but they include more than 14 000 Usenet topics (Alta Vista 1996), at least 1800 academic discussion groups alone (U. Melb 1995), many community networks, most in the USA (Beamish 1995), a very fluid number of Internet Relay Chat (IRC) "channels" in 20 countries (Reid 1991, Engst 1994), MUDs (multi-user dungeons) and MUSHes (multi-user shared hallucinations), and corporations whose employees communicate by e-mail (Sproull and Kiesler 1991). Taken as a whole, these virtual communities are huge: "The most important aspect of these growth rates [is] the obvious implication that this largely invisible subculture is likely to break the surface of the world's awareness, due to sheer size, soon: [By 1995] there will be more network users than citizens of any single country except India or China. What will happen when McLuhan's global village becomes one of the largest countries in the world?'" (Rheingold 1994, and citing Quarterman). Although this date estimate is probably wrong, as the electronic community is about 20 to 40 million at the moment and will reach about 200 to 300 million by 2000 (Arthur 1995), the implication is clear. Whether we like it or not, more and more people will be part of an electronic community. This suggests profound implications for the development of societies around the world. Our lives will continue to change rapidly in the very near future. The community network Most important for community development, we believe, is the community network. Beamish (1995) studied community-based computer networks, whose goals "are to strengthen the community, increase democratic participation, and ensure that all members of the community have access to the information highway'. Most community networks are rich in local information, ranging from job opportunities to minutes of the city council meetings." But she found that "if community networks are to fulfill [sic] their long-term goals, it is essential that more effort be placed on designing systems that encourage public discussion and debate." Unlike most virtual communities, "community networks are based in a physical place_what participants have in common are their cities and neighborhoods." The Rockefeller Foundation (1995) reports: "Typically, civic networks provide on-line information services (information on public health, education, arts, and recreation) and allow citizens to connect to each other through bulletin board, electronic mail and other networking. Most provide access to the Internet About two-thirds of the existing networks have some public access facilities (in public libraries, youth group facilities, government offices, mall kiosks, for example)." Community networks are distinguished by "their focus on local issues", being "frequently involved in placing computer equipment in publicly accessible places such as community centers and libraries" and, significantly, "the belief that the system with its communication and information can strengthen and vitalize existing communities." There are common goals among community networks: "Increased communication and information will increase the sense of community [and] increase involvement in the community" and "empower citizens to become more active and informed" (Rockefeller Foundation 1995). Critics of community networks fear that electronic communication will replace what little face-to-face contact there is between people and see CMC as a serious threat to society. But the WELL is evidence against this. And Beamish (1995) states that: "The goal of community networks is not to substitute physical communication but to reinforce it. Proponents believe that if residents have the opportunity to know their neighbors better, it will lead to increased face-to-face contact, increase their participation within the community and encourage them to take part in neighborhood activities. Community networks are seen by their organizers as tools for actively rebuilding community life, not destroying it." "If one wants to increase the attachment of residents to their community, one way is to provide ways to increase informal interaction between residents and participation in community organizations". An Australian example of the community network The Community Information Network (CIN) is a trial, public-access computer network running in selected areas of Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. It was established by the Department of Social Security (DSS) in 1995 with the primary aim of ensuring that low income earners and other disadvantaged groups would not lose out on access to the "Information Superhighway." CIN access points have been placed in locations enabling free and convenient access, such as in libraries, educational institutions and community organisations. Users have access to a wide variety of information on government and support services. They can participate in bulletin board discussions, where they can view or share information on matters of interest ranging from goods for sale to recreational pursuits. They can also send e-mail both within the CIN and globally, on the Internet. The largest individual CIN project in Australia was initiated by Dr Rowena Bell, who administers it through the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA). This project involved installing CIN terminals in twenty homes in rural Tasmania with families who already had an active involvement in the local community (through, for example, Tasmanian Women in Agriculture, Landcare groups and the TFGA). It was hoped that these site hosts could act as focal points for inter-network communication within the rural community. One of the main aims of the Tasmanian project is to evaluate how the CIN can improve the quality of life of rural families, with a particular focus on involving rural women in electronic communication. A part-time project officer, funded by the DSS for 12 months, provided initial training for the site hosts and initial participants in each of the local communities, helped in developing use of the network and collected research data to allow the usefulness of the CIN to rural women to be evaluated. The project will be completed in September 1996. To date, the Tasmanian CIN project has proved an extremely beneficial community learning experience for all involved. The participants have learned through hands-on participation in the project. As a pilot project it has provided useful data on a number of topics, especially the difficulties of establishing the Internet in rural and remote areas. The women participating in the project have gained important personal development from their participation. From backgrounds of little or no computer awareness and no experience with the Internet, the women now have the skills and interest to communicate regularly with each other, debate issues, participate in a weekly live discussion group with women in the US and Canada (through Internet Relay Chat), and find information from around the world on such subjects as agriculture, commodity prices, Landcare, weather forecasts, education and health. The women have gained skills and confidence in using the Internet as a modern tool for personal and community development. The Internet has opened up a world of information and communication to these farm women, who otherwise would be unable to participate because of their geographic isolation. The women have suggested that the Internet will join tools such as CB radio, the fax and the computer as necessary tools for modern farm management. The Tasmanian project has revealed the social and technical difficulties of establishing the Internet in rural communities. Social difficulties have include the need for individual and group training sessions to develop computer awareness skills and confidence in being able to use the Internet. The amount of individual training needed can be intensive in the initial stages. Regular follow-up visits are needed to iron out difficulties and encourage wider and experimental use of the Internet. The need for one-to-one training in rural areas is seen as necessary and thus a potential barrier to widespread adoption of the Internet in farming communities in the short term. A major barrier to adoption is the technical difficulties and frustrations in actually being able to connect rural phone lines to the Internet. Three of the 20 lines were of such low quality that the computers would not communicate at all with CIN. At most of the other sites, data transfer is very slow or is subject to frequent interruptions. Technical glitches, poor phone lines and the slowness of Telstra to install dedicated phones resulted in much frustration and, at times, loss of interest in the project by the women. Another major barrier, specific to the CIN project, was the lack of 24-hour-a-day access to the Internet. Use of the CIN was limited to daytime use_the very hours when farmers are most likely not to be available to use computers. The limited access was a major concern to the participants and the project facilitator. Dr Bell hopes that the project can be extended. After nine months of many technical delays, she and the participants feel the project has only just begun. All participants have seen the enormous potential of the Internet as a tool for community development and want to keep learning. Advantages and disadvantages of CMC for virtual communities CMC can allow communities: to share problems and solutions in asynchronous group discussion_they don't have to interrupt their schedules, travel long distances or be there at the same time to lobby governments more effectively as a group access to the latest information on anything to communicate and compare notes with other similar communities worldwide to rebuild a sense of community, both locally and beyond. CMC gives people access to government and services from home or at least locally. There are (albeit costly) technological solutions giving equal access to disabled people. And most importantly, CMC gives people access to each other so that they can share problems and solutions globally. CMC, as a one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many and even many-to-one communication medium, makes possible communication between two people, between groups at a local level (through community networks, for example), on a statewide or nationwide basis and internationally. One is as easy as any other. CMC is thus a communication leveller (notwithstanding that it can also divide). CMC uses little electricity and has no waste products. It has the potential to replace newspapers and therefore stop much of today's destruction of forests. CMC is ecologically sustainable. CMC will not help everyone, however, in the same way as universal availability of print cannot help the illiterate. Many people are scared of computers, and many more would need training to use them. Many more still can't afford them. Overcoming this takes money. The biggest problem is the set-up cost. This could be where community development dollars could be spent. Once people have access, though, the running costs are very small, and the opportunities the wealth of information and free communication can bring could quickly repay this small cost. Infrastructure is another problem. People in remote areas are not as well served by CMC as people in cities. In countries with a sparse rural population, like Australia, the costs of cabling are likely to remain prohibitive in the foreseeable future. Maintenance in remote areas is also going to be a problem. How the Internet is being used in community development The Appendix to this paper gives a starter list of resources on the Internet for community development. A brief search I (Stevens) conducted on the World Wide Web revealed more than 30 000 occurrences of the term "community development". One of the newest sites devoted to community development through community networks is that of Douglas Schuler, author of New Community Networks: Wired for Change (Addison-Wesley). His book explores how community networks have the potential to bring true democracy to the disadvantaged and disenfranchised, to educate, to improve health, to inform and to build and strengthen communities. His site, supported by the Morino Foundation, lists scores of organisations, electronic resources, community networks, references and projects that all deal with virtual communities. We can't possibly do justice here to the wealth of community development material now on the Internet. Start with our Appendix and go from there! Acknowledgments Our thanks to Dale Williams, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, for suggesting this paper and for his encouragement; and to Don's wife, Rowena Bell, for information about the Community Information Network. References Alta Vista (1996) Arthur, C. (1995) And the Net total is New Scientist 1977, 2931. Beamish, A. (1995) Communities On-Line: Community-Based Computer Networks. Master's thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engst, A. C. (1994) Internet Starter Kit for Macintosh (2nd ed.). Hayden Books, Indianapolis, Indiana. Kenny, S. (1994) Developing Communities for the Future_Community Development in Australia. Thomas Nelson, South Melbourne. Reid, E. M. (1991) Electropolis: Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat. Honours thesis, Department of History, University of Melbourne. Rheingold, H. (1994) The Virtual Community_ Surfing the Internet. Minerva, London. Rockefeller Foundation (1995) Millenium Project. . Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1991) Computers, networks and work. Scientific American 265(3), 84_91. Webber, M. M. (1964) The urban place and the nonplace urban realm. In Webber, M. M., Dyckman, J. W. and Foley, D. L. (eds) Explorations into Urban Structure. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. WELL (1992) The WELL as a community. On-line group discussion, Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Wild, R. A. (1981) Australian Community Studies and Beyond. George Allen & Unwin, North Sydney. University of Melbourne (1995) Appendix_Community development resources on the Internet Australian community networks The Australian Department of Social Security's Community Information Network (CIN) Landcare in Australia has a Landcarenet home page Norlink in northern New South Wales Global Info Link, Ipswich, Queensland Vicnet, Victoria The Australian Rural Telecentre Association_the national association of community-based telecentres The North East Telecentre, Wangaratta, Victoria The Byron Shire Telecottage Network in northern New South Wales Overseas community networks The Yampa Valley Telecommunications Coalition The Milwaukee Associates in Urban Development list non-profit communities on-line The WELL_Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link The Rural Information Network is a program of the National Public Telecomputing Network that helps rural communities establish electronic information networks The Southwest Colorado Access Network The Rural and Small Town Project is an independent research centre exploring and resolving issues facing small communities in Canada Canadian rural communities on-line (University of New Brunswick) A survey of rural information infrastructure technologies from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the USA Virtual communities The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Net Culture Archive Virtual communities in Japan by Kumiko Aoki Is there a there in Cyberspace? by John Perry Barlow /utne_community.html> The Virtual Community by Howard Rheingold. Essential reading The Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture Computer-mediated communication The future of democracy and the four fundamentals of computer mediated communication by Howard Rheingold The Internet and Computer-Mediated Communication by John December CMC bibliography Books, theses, papers and reports The Rural Assistance Section of the Australian Department of Primary Industry and Energy produces the Rural Book, which provides details of government services available to country people. The Department also provides seed money for the setting up of telecentres in rural Australia Communities On-Line: Community-Based Computer Networks by Anne Beamish. Master's thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Internet: Which future for organized knowledge, Frankenstein or Pygmalion? by Luciano Floridi, Oxford University Electropolis: Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat by Elizabeth Reid. Honours thesis, Department of History, University of Melbourne Doug Schuler, author of New Community Networks: Wired for Change, has a huge list of organisations, electronic resources and community networks The Infoworks Partnership has published two books: The First Desktop Reference Manual for the Design, Operation and Maintenance of Community Information Networks and Community Information Service Management Guidelines The Rockefeller Foundation's Millenium Project Social Implications of Information Technologies by Meng Wong Chu Using the Internet to communicate information by David White, Roger Bradbury and Kim Malafant, DPIE, Canberra The feasibility of universal e-mail access in the USA by Tora Bikson, RAND Policy documents The Role of Telecommunications in Rural Economic Development, Yampa Valley Telecommunications Coalition Government Policy and the Information Superhighway, National Library of Australia The Networked Nation, Australian Science and Technology Council (1.6 Mb postscript file) Internet sites and gurus The Australian Open Net home page AeRie_the Colorado Advanced Technology, Institute of Applied Rural Telecommunications Coalition's on-line clearing house The Electronic Frontier Foundation John Perry Barlow's home page and publications archive and LETS_the Local Exchange and Trading Systems Paul Baker, research fellow and adjunct faculty at the Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, USA, has a detailed page on Community Networks The Morino Institute, dedicated to improving peoples' lives in the communication age, has a directory of more than 300 public access networks in the USA, with overseas promised The University of Colorado's Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program The Center for Civic Networking is a non-profit organisation applying information infrastructure to the public good Matthew Stevens's humble site