The topic for Monday November 14th’s class was Hyperlocal civic media. This post is a summary of that discussion, which was facilitated by Ania.
Raw notes can be found here: http://etherpad.brownbag.me/p/hyperlocalcivicmedia
We read two pieces that focused on geoethicnic and hyperlocal media. We also discussed community websites in the Boston area.
Here are the two readings we did for this session:
• Kim, Y.-C., Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006). Civic Engagement from a Communication Infrastructure Perspective. Communication Theory, 16, 173-197: https://doc.indymedia.org/pub/Global/VozMobClass/Kim_Ball-Rokeach_2006.pdf
• Online Neighborhood Networks study (read at least the Introduction, Background, and extended summary: http://networkedneighbourhoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Online-Nho… ): Full report: http://networkedneighbourhoods.com/?page_id=409
We began discussion with the Civic Engagement from a Communication Infrastructure Perspective piece.
This study outlines a theoretical framework that shows how differential access to resources, among other factors can affect civic outcomes. Three main points the study focused on were gaining voice, collective efficacy, and neighborhood belonging. The study discusses how there are currently two mainstream theories of CIT, or communication infrastructure theory. The first is that civil society in America is deteriorating. The second is that civil society in America is not deteriorating. Rather than focus on those two theories, this study focuses on the “Communication Opportunity Structures” of neighborhoods. The framework this study operates within is NSNs (Neighborhood Storytelling Networks) as well as CACs (Communication Action Context).
The authors argue storytelling within communities fosters identity formation, democracy and civil society, and teamwork. They describe three levels of storytelling: micro, meso, and macro storytelling. They state that the more these levels are connected, the increased efficacy of storytelling itself. A criticism brought up in discussion was the claim that reading newspapers and consuming media makes a person more politically and civically engaged. We decided that this claim was not strong because of correlation rather than causation. Another criticism was that the study itself could be skewed through an upper middle class lens. A counter argument the class discussed in relation to differential resources is that resource paucity can also strengthen community solidarity, if people must pool resources.
Q: Is this study a useful framework for looking at communication infrastructures?
Yes, but some improvements could be made, especially in the evidence provided. It provides a system of measurement for storytelling networks, both quantitative and qualitative. However, the main researcher began developing her framework before the invention of the Internet. If we re-worked framework of study now, maybe terms would be used differently. For example, storytelling is broad enough not to be limited by the previous conceptions of “media” which had previously meant broadcast TV. Now includes micromedia and digital media production.
Q: What are the research methods used in this study?
Look at micro-interactions of different people with vehicles for stories
Neighborhood observation: ride the bus around
o Make little notes about people telling stories to each other on the bus
o Map meet and greet places
o Who talks to whom (demographics)
o Supermarkets & particular street corners
• Quantitative and qualitative:
o Number of people per hour who look at the community bulletin board
o Gather all the newsletters in a neighborhood
o Not much automation
Q: How important do you think storytelling is for individuals or communities? Is storytelling as important to humans as bread? What would the alternative be? Silence?
Storytelling is very important to both individuals and communities. “Storytelling” is used like “communication” in this study. It was noted by the class that storytelling isn’t always good for everyone. Ania added that in former Soviet states, national identity and mythmaking had to be created where none previously existed. Nathan said when friends visit, he tells them stories about places he’s been, and that storytelling produces belonging. It was also mentioned that a major branch of sociological study looks at trust networks, and who people rely on for storytelling. Another branch of sociological study discusses “what does it mean to be engaged?” Most major literature in this field ignores media, because of the attention towards micro-relationships. Another reason storytelling is important is because it can facilitate efficacy, by allowing access to community information.
Discussion in relation to this article:
Sasha brought up an interesting study from the same researchers at USC called Mapping the Ecology of Fear in Los Angeles . The study gathered people from all around the city from different neighborhoods, class backrounds, races, etc. and asked them to color maps of LA based on where they felt safe. Green was for safe, yellow was neutral, and red was for scared. Everyone felt most comfortable in the neighborhood they lived in, but some areas almost everyone was “afraid” of. Why?
• People were most afraid of the “Corridor of Ash” from the 1992 riots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
• Didn’t matter that crime in that area had declined, or that demographics had changed over 20 years. Still remained the same level of fear.
Local TV news is most powerful proponent of fear, but there was no micro-story telling in LA happening to diffuse that fear.
Another study brought up discussed civic participation and democracy. “Participating in the 2010 UK E-campaign: Who Engaged, How, and with what Effect? ” Cantijoch, Cutts, Gibson (2011) is a study of varieties of social media activity and voting.
• “Our results show that lower intensity news and information gathering activities are significantly linked to voting, while more active formal and informal types of e-campaign participation are not, controlling for levels of political interest and efficacy.”
• http://www.aecpa.es/uploads/files/modules/congress/10/papers/511.pdf
Media has and continues to play a large role in former Soviet Space. Ania added that when media was banned, it was still distributed through Samizdat: self published works. Blogs and social media are like the Samizdat of the new era. There are many examples from Ukraine of how people have been able to organize in ways they never would have previously. An example of this would be a garbage incinerator that was built near a school in Kiev. An online petition was circulated and hundreds of people participated. People also use twitter, etc. Probably f2f organizing as well.
The second piece we read was the Online Neighborhood Networks study.
Storytelling can be created by using the Internet, and online storytelling communities are thriving. In these communities, there are some belligerent users leaving negative comments, but these comments are most often quickly removed. People can engage in rational discourse using storytelling communities. A negative example of online storytelling communities involves a small town in the Midwest. Before the Internet, people had physical space like diners to meet. People described these face to face interactions as happy and cordial interactions. Some find that online forums create hostility, and that social media can be a double edged sword. The more close-knit a community becomes, the more vulnerable it can become with these new technologies.
Q: What are the concrete claims made by this study?
• It is important to have responsible site administration
• Local interest and diversity is key to these websites
• Websites need improvements so that different groups are bridged (socio-economic, ethnic, etc)
• People are more likely to meet each other based on online forums
• Don’t assume that online forums equal more democracy
• It is important to be self critical about what happens online
• People can find useful information from what happens online
Q: What is the context of this study?
The websites discussed are for “councils” which do a lot more locally than US local government does. They take care of trash, schools, property taxes, etc. These councils fit into a larger discussion of “big society” in the UK and whether or not it’s possible to hand over large parts of community organizations to private organizations such as cooperatives, social enterprises, and charities. Privatization of public services is the larger political project. The goal is that the government won’t have to fund as many projects if people have access to community information, and will take some of these projects on themselves. Traditionally, there’s a top down process by which people can approach Councils for funding. There’s also a genuine interest in getting local communities involved and making Councils more accountable to the people. People (companies that would get contracts) also want to have councils let go of various public services, including schools (so they can get those contracts). People shape their discourse along the lines that will be popular among those in power.
More info from Nathan about context of this study:
Talk about Local: http://talkaboutlocal.org.uk/the-team/
Big Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Society
• Give communities more powers (localism and devolution)
• Encourage people to take an active role in their communities (volunteerism)
• Transfer power from central to local government
• Support co-ops, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
• Publish government data (open/transparent government)
(Nathan: Broadly, I’m extremely positive about the work of Talk about Local, and I love the Big Society ideas. I have been less pleased with how quickly the cuts have come, and how slow the government has been to cultivate big society organisations)
See also: Simpl.co, a social Innovation Marketplace: http://simpl.co
Q: What is some general critique of the ICT development discourse?
ICTS allow services to be provided much more easily, which makes it much easier to cut funding for certain areas. It is easier to get creative work for free, examples being cultural production firms. Futures of Entertainment and Crowdsourcing. http://convergenceculture.org/futuresofentertainment/2011/
Q: What do websites like Patch relate to this study?
Patch has created a big debate. Patch has hired hundreds of former journalists fired during the economic crisis to be Patch editors. Their terms of employment are poor and benefits weak. Patch was being promoted as a way to get local advertising next to local content. However, the ads have not been universally local.
After we discussed these two pieces, we did a class activity using three Boston area community websites. Each website was looked at by teams of two or three people.
These are the websites:
Jamaica Plain Patch: http://jamaicaplain.patch.com/
Somerville Voices: http://www.somervillevoices.org/
Your Arlington: http://www.yourarlington.com/
Here are the questions we asked about each website:
1. What kinds of information does the website provide?
2. How much reader participation do you notice? How “participation-friendly” is the site in general?
3. Does the site promote integration with other local communication infrastructures/resources? (i.e. traditional media, neighborhood associations, etc.)
4. What are the website’s strengths and weaknesses? How could it be improved?
Things to think about: inclusivity, quality of information and discourse, diversity of voices, etc.
Jamaica Plain Patch http://jamaicaplain.patch.com/
1. News, events, places
2. There is a Q&A works as a forum “Where You Come In: We hope that our sites will strengthen communities and improve the lives of their residents, but we can’t do it without you. We’ve built Patch so that you have plenty of opportunities to comment on stories, share your opinions, post photos and announcements, and add events to the community calendar. So get to it! And if you’re a business owner who wants to be listed, just let us know.”
They have a section: Local voices: around 20-40 post-conversations per month. From 1-100 real comments.
3. No.
4. Strengths: a lot of information about the neighborhood. Weaknesses: not too open participation.
Patch is a net of websites with professional editors. Neighboors are asket to volunteer and contribute in a small section of the site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch.com
Your Arlington: http://www.yourarlington.com/
1. What kinds of information does the website provide?
• Emphasizes community events, emergency, police, safety, police, senior citizens, public transport, weather, sports, business
• Not emphasize? Very few comments. Good visuals. Lets e-mail and comment stories, but not direct to Facebook or Twitter. Can follow Twitter. Poll topics posted by site moderator aren’t really local. The only local story (overnight parking) has by far the most hits though)
2. How much reader participation do you notice?
• Not a lot. How “participation-friendly” is the site in general? Must use real full name for comments according to site administrator.
3. Does the site promote integration with other local communication infrastructures/resources? (i.e. traditional media, neighborhood associations, etc.)
• Connects to local services like the city gov website, theaters, schools. Not mainstream media connected. No neighborhood associations
4. What are the website’s strengths and weaknesses? Does provide useful information vital to the community? How could it be improved?
• Easier commenting system
• Better website design
• Only 189 Twitter followers. Way more people live in Arlington and have Twitters.
• Remove “Download as PDF” and replace with “share on social networks”
• Improve polling station
• No forum for asking random questions or starting discussions
Somerville: http://www.somervillevoices.org/
1. What kinds of information does the website provide?
• Civic information, public hearings, public projects, planning, activities of political candidates, surveys of somervillians, community meetings.
• Links to other local media sites, somerville student bloggers.
• There is information about arts and culture, but a bit buried.
2. How much reader participation do you notice? How “participation-friendly” is the site in general?
• Fair amount of reader comments
• People are rating and voting on comments and stories
• People use full names
3. Does the site promote integration with other local communication infrastructures/resources? (i.e. traditional media, neighborhood associations, etc.)
• Does provide links
• Not integrated / doesn’t pull feeds.
4. What are the website’s strengths and weaknesses? How could it be improved?
• Has good civic information
• Fair amount of activity for a site focusing on that kind of info
• Lots of content, although sometimes difficult to find
• Good list of community links
• Translate button is thoughtful
• Provides minimal links to social media, but doesn’t pull feeds in.
• No share links to post back across the social web.
• Needs more rich media content on front page (show us pics!)
• Don’t use warning pop ups to provide content submission instructions