Weaving the Social Fabric of Community Online Sara C. Wedeman, Ph.D.

April 2001

Consider: A large manufacturing association is losing members to a commercial "vertical market that allows customers to compare experiences, rate suppliers and costs, and purchase products online. Association leaders wonder how they will compete, and decide to launch a review of the organization's Web presence. The program director at a small philanthropic association develops an easily accessed Web site offering detailed conference summaries, a discussion forum, and a list of helpful links. Increasingly, she receives e-mail from association leaders in other countries who are eager to join the dialogue. Attendance at association events soars. A professional association finds its membership skewed to those nearing retirement. Meanwhile, young people interested in exploring the profession can find little relevant information on the Web. As these examples demonstrate, newer forms of communications technology are having a profound effect on the playing field in which associations operate. Across the range of associations, the questions are different. Yet, most association leaders do have questions. These questions range from the straightforward ("With all the new services on the market, how will I keep track of them, and how will I know what we need?") to the complex ("What is the right mix of online and faceto-face interaction with members, and can we achieve this, given our current organizational structure?"). Some leaders worry about competition from the for-profit sector. Setting up a Web site is certainly easier and less time-consuming than is building an organization with a physical presence. Given the relatively low barriers to entry, will "virtual" organizations seize the imagination of current or potential members, luring them away from more traditional associations? Will peer-to-peer (P2P) computing technology enable our constituents to self-organize, completely bypassing traditional associations (and, by the way, what is P2P computing technology?) In some cases, leaders simply wonder how they can possibly enter the technology gam" when they can't figure out how to program their VCRs. Then, there is the question of community. Over the past five years, we have heard a great deal of talk about "virtual communities." These are groups of people who interact online around a particular topic of common interest and, in so doing, form emotional bonds with one another. Many believe that virtual communities can become the basis of thriving for-profit businesses, although the recent travails of such businesses may suggest some alternative hypotheses. These questions, as well as that of the role of community in association life, are at the heart of the ASAE Foundation's multi-year "Community as Strategy" study. In this brief update we offer an early report on data from the field, with the caveat that this is a work in progress and that we will have much more to say as it develops. 1
2001 SARA C. W E DE M A N

Definitions First, what do we mean when we refer to technology? In a way, this term is a bit like community . We all know what we mean when we use it; it's just that we don't all mean the same thing. Strictly speaking, a transistor radio is a form of technology as is a pedometer; but that's not the focus of our study. The first thing we need to do, then, is to state clearly that our focus is any form of communication that is facilitated by the Internet . The Internet is a network of hardware, software, and telecommunications equipment that enables us to use computers or peripheral devices to exchange information quickly and cheaply, regardless of geographic distance. Vehicles for communication that use the Internet as a platform include: e-mail, the World Wide Web and its millions of pages, any form of wireless Internet communication, search engines, and the many forms of instant or asynchronous information that exist or are emergent. (Pedometers are not included.) At the end of this update we provide a brief history of the Internet, which describes how it developed from an experimental defense project launched during the Eisenhower administration to the platform upon which e-mail, the World Wide Web, and the "browser wars" were launched, to the remarkable tool it is today. A Bit of Context Interestingly enough, the Internet was created through the efforts of a community of scientists, collaborating in the service of a shared goal. As the following excerpt illustrates, each scientist had something different to contribute but all knew that only through collaboration would they reach their destination. Consider, if you will, the parallels with associations. The Internet is as much a collection of communities as a collection of technologies, and its success is largely attributable to both satisfying basic community needs as well as utilizing the community in an effective way to push the infrastructure forward. This community spirit has a long history beginning with the early ARPANET. The early ARPANET researchers worked as a close-knit community to accomplish the initial demonstrations of packet switching technology described earlier. Likewise, the Packet Satellite, Packet Radio and several other DARPA computer science research programs were multi-contractor collaborative activities that heavily used whatever available mechanisms there were to coordinate their efforts, starting with electronic mail and adding file sharing, remote access, and eventually World Wide Web capabilities. Each of these programs formed a working group, starting with the ARPANET Network Working Group. Because of the unique role that ARPANET played as an infrastructure supporting the various research programs, as the Internet started to evolve, the Network Working Group evolved into Internet Working Group. Source: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.html#Community The basis for a successful online community is. The enduring reality is that the need to form communities seems to be hard-wired into the human psyche. Archaeologists tell us that although the earliest evidence 2
SCW 0401

of physically modern humans dates back about 100,000 years, even our immediate simian ancestors lived in small social groups. In The Tipping Point , Malcolm Gladwell argues that even today, our "social channel capacity," or our ability to have meaningful social relationships with others, is limited to 150 people--about what it was when humans first emerged as a distinct branch on the tree of life. To quote the evolutionary biologist, S.L. Washburn, Most of human evolution took place before the advent of agriculture when men lived in small groups, on a face-to-face basis. As a result human biology has evolved as an adaptive mechanism to conditions that have largely ceased to exist.and these are still the dimensions of life that are important The Internet is already having a profound effect on every aspect of our society, so it behooves us to remember that the need to form communities is as much a part of us as is the urge to develop tools. Tools may help us meet our needs, but the needs themselves are not replaceable. Fundamentally, this is not an either/or proposition, because the drive for tools and the drive for relatedness are both woven into the fabric of our beings. The real question is, How can these powerful tools for communication support the vitality of association communities, and what are the limits of their capacity? The experience of e-commerce companies provides some clues. Mark Walsh, CEO of VerticalNet, recently discussed one of the company's core vertical communities, composed of major players in the solid waste-disposal industry. Members of this group had a long history of dealing with one another, predating the creation of the online community by many years. Member participation was built upon real world experience, where the parties were known to one another. Commented Walsh, "a technology vendor is crazy if he or she feels that these [technology] firms will overthrow these relationships simply by putting new technologies in place. The technologies may make existing relationships more efficient, but they will not transform them." Others note, however, that technology enables us to exchange vastly increased amounts of information with vastly increased speed. In turn, this makes it possible for people who are not sharing a physical or "face to face" (F2F) space to share much more information with one another than has ever been possible. This could be information about professional concerns, but it could equally well be information about one's medical concerns or emotions. It is now possible for a relationship, either with an organization or an individual, to begin online. Whether it moves from "virtual" space to F2F, or not, is a separate issue. Of course, both arguments are correct. As author Paul Duguid noted at the 2001 ASAE Foundation Think Tank, some of the predictions about vast changes to be wrought by the Internet were on target ("a mixture of hype and hope with some quite reasonable forecasting") and they were also made by a small group of people living within several miles of one another in the San Francisco Bay area. Yes, they were deeply involved in online communities. But they were also reasonably likely to run into one another at the grocery store. 3
SCW 0401

Linux, Napster, and P2P Nonetheless, several recent developments are noteworthy--whether or not the more extravagant predictions come to fruition. Over the past several years, the "open source" movement has gained momentum among software developers. Established software companies have typically developed proprietary source code that are their intellectual property and form the basis for licensing and pricing commercial software applications. However, the newer Linux or open source (non-proprietary) software was developed not by a single company but by a broad community of developers for their own use, without the expectation that the source code would become a "price carrier" for economic gain. Because this code is not proprietary, no single entity can steer the development process. At least in theory, this can lead to a great democratization of application development and to a decentralization of power in an industry that has been dominated by a few major players. The Napster controversy, in which recording companies and artists have been litigating to prevent the free downloading and sharing of music files by individuals, is another important development. Music and royalties are only part of the story, according to industry experts. The real issue is peer-to-peer (P2P) computing, which uses distributed networks (human and computer-based) and allows individuals to bypass traditional "content aggregators" such as publishers--or associations. For example, the Weblog Plastic (www.plastic.com) employs no professional editors, but allows users to select what they read based on peer ratings. Note that Linux and P2P are quite different technologies. However, they present an interesting case of the transmission of culture between communities because Steven Johnson, the founder of Plastic , built the publication on the model of Slashdot, a Weblog for Linux programmers. Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) began as a "self-organizing system" of Linux programmers, but grew until there were so many participants that self-organization was no longer feasible. Slashdot's founder, Rob Malda, then developed a rating system, in which raters would "grade" the postings, but also be "graded" by others based on the perceived quality of their ratings. Call it a governance structure for a self-organizing system, if you will. Commented Johnson, "We did it [Plastic ] because we were so blown away by Slashdot. If it was so good for the Linux community, why not try it on a different community?" (Release 1.0, 26 March 2001, p.30 ). To the extent that P2P networks provide a mechanism for direct exchange between members, any organization whose viability depends on mediating this exchange is threatened. This is as true for associations as it is for recording companies. However, there is an alternative. If associations can foster direct exchange --by providing forums, tools, and light facilitation--they can do an even better job of reaping that elusive "energy of the edge" highlighted in our first report. Finally, some argue that to foster lively exchange, traditional organizations will need to become comfortable with a much more direct, authentic, less sanitized style of communication. Asserting that most marketers "don't have a clue," 4
SCW 0401

technology industry veterans Levine, Locke, Searls, and Weinberger posted The Cluetrain Manifesto (www.cluetrain.com) on the Web in spring, 1999. This list of 95 theses, which ultimately became a best-selling book, argued that "Markets are conversations," and that Web marketers, in particular, must "speak with a human voice" to gain others' trust. To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities. But first, they must belong to a community. Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end. If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no market. Communities are based on discourse--on human speech about human concerns. The community of discourse is the market. Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die. Associations are not companies and typically enjoy a higher degree of member trust, but if we substitute the word "associations" for "companies," we may find the message still holds. Commerce alone cannot sustain any community Healthy communities are built upon more than just the notion of transactions -be they financial or informational. Brian Uzzi of Northwestern University, in his study of two fragmented industries, demonstrated the paramount importance of internal social structures and connections. Based on his study of the middlemarket banking and New York garment industries, Uzzi concluded that "organizations gain access to special opportunities when connected to their exchange partners through embedded ties." "Embedded ties" are formed through long-term participation in the social and cultural arenas Cohen and Prusak, authors of In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work, build on this point: People do not always look for the optimal economic exchange, the best knowledge, or the greatest skill when they seek colleagues, partners, or suppliers. Their own past experience and the experience and norms of their organization or group powerfully shape their choices. The reliability and comfort of established ties -- experience-based confidence that the connection will 'work'-- influence their decisions, along with the intrinsic pleasures of contact with acquaintances and friends--the pleasures of loyalty, reciprocity, and even affection. Associations and the Internet: the Good News For associations, much of this is good news. First, these institutions already have the most important asset, in the form of established social networks and solid reputations. Their success is built on enduring relationships, where members have "voted with their feet" by paying dues. Associations' missions are essentially non-commercial: they exist to serve, represent, and foster the goals of their members. Most are 501c3 and/or 501c6 non-profits, which means that their online activities are not burdened by the need 5
SCW 0401

to make a profit. Instead, they can use the Internet to do what it was originally designed to do: serve the needs of constituents and, in so doing, foster community. As it turns out, associations are quite active on the Web. For example, research conducted during the past year by the Urban Institute suggests that the vast majority of nonprofit umbrella associations have a Web site, use e-mail for internal and external communications, and provide Internet access to staff. In one survey of more than 500 such organizations, 98% had access to the Internet. (www.urban.org) Finally, whereas high-tech communication can in some circumstances strengthen or deepen connection, and even offer a place to "meet," it will never be a substitute for face-to-face interaction. Wireless, asynchronous, and "remote access" communication notwithstanding, we still want to connect a name with a face, talk with a person if we have a problem, and share a meal with our friends. Assuming good, relevant content, competent management, and fair pricing, association meetings are unlikely to go the way of the dinosaur. Associations and the Internet: the Challenge Certainly, there are challenges. Although association leaders do not need to educate themselves on arcane topics like packet switching and TCP/IP, they do need to develop a feel for the environment. There is no better way to do this than to spend some time on the Web (preferably using a fast computer and a high speed or cable modem). Just as a group of technophobes is unlikely to see the possibilities unleashed by the computer, a person who is unfamiliar with the Internet is unlikely to be effective in designing Web strategy. Our additional suggestions follow: Be prepared to experiment and look beyond the familiar in learning about what others are doing. Look at commercial offerings, interest group listserves, U.S. Census resources, and the Web sites of other associations. Spend some time using different search engines. Find out who else is vying for the attention of your members. Explore links at random. Pay attention not merely to the information, but to what drew your interest and what dampened it. At the end of this abstract, we have listed a small number of high-quality sites that offer powerful tools and information for those who have the interest and can take the time. Invest in learning about technology usage on the part of your members and potential future members. According to researchers at the Pew Internet and American Life Project (www.pewinternet.org ), there are vast differences in Internet usage that coincide with differences in age, ethnicity, and education. For instance a Pew survey conducted in September 2000 found that aging Baby Boomers and senior citizens are the most reluctant to use the Internet. 87% of those 65 and over did not have Internet access, and 69% of those between the ages of 50 and 64 did not go online.

6
SCW 0401

It is not just a question of whether constituents use the Web, but also one of how they use it. For example, a recent online survey conducted by Access Worldwide Communications, Inc. and Survey.com found (among other things) that African Americans are more apt than the general population to use the Internet for career advancement and professional development. Hispanics, on the other hand were more likely to use it as a source for news, particularly international news. Resource requirements for an association with a Web-savvy clientele would obviously differ from those for an association of self-described Luddites. Usability matters. If members typically access the Internet using older, slower equipment, it is unwise to build a site that is beautiful but causes their computers to crash when they try to download the association home page. In fact, complexity of any kind is to be avoided. For more information on this subject, consult www.useit.com, which presents the views of usability expert Jakob Nielsen. Incidentally, Nielsen has noted that perhaps the only good outcome of the November 2000 Palm Beach "butterfly ballot" fiasco is that people now grasp the value of usability. One should always ask, "Who am I missing?" Are there members of your constituency who do not attend meetings because of the expense or the travel requirements? Are there interest groups not large enough to form a division, but who would benefit from the association's support? Are there new members you haven't heard from? Because Internet-based communication is relatively inexpensive, increasingly common, and in some cases lower in interpersonal risk, this technology enables associations to invite broader participation and engagement. Prepare for a more open dialogue with and between members. Of course, there are wide variations among associations in terms of hierarchical vs. horizontal organization structure and distributed vs. centralized control. Nonetheless, if predictions about the democratizing effect of Internet-based communication turn out to be even partially true, organizations that foster open and authentic dialogue will thrive. Organizations that fail to do so may lose their vitality as younger or more challenging voices are silenced.

Where does the user end and the tool begin: A non-trivial question Yes, the Internet offers us powerful tools, but we must never forget that they had their inception in community. Community and communication depend on one another for their very existence, and both capacities are hard-wired into the human psyche. In this case, it is simply impossible to separate the tools and the user. Fortunately, although there is much to learn about the tools, we already know a lot about the user. In this ASAE Foundation study, we will continue to explore how association user(s) experience their presence and how they can use Internet communication to strengthen the fabric of community life. And, we will continue to share our results with the ASAE community.

7
SCW 0401

Selected Resources Publications

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. The Social Life of Information Harvard Business School Press, 2000. Cohen, D., Prusak, L. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work Harvard Business School Press, 2001. Dyson, E. and Werbach, K. Release 1.0 , Edventure Holdings, N.Y. Gladwell, M. The Tipping Point Little, Brown and Co., 2000 Johnson, S. Emergence Scribner, Forthcoming in September 2001. Levine, R., C. Locke, D. Searls and D. Weinberger. The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual . Perseus Books, 2001. www.cluetrain.com Segaller, S. Nerds 2.0.1: A Brief History of the Internet , Oregon Public Broadcasting, 1998 Rheingold, H. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Revised Edition Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000. Tzeng, R. and B. Uzzi, eds. Embeddedness and Corporate Change in a Global Economy Northwestern University, 2000.

Web Sites
www. abuzz.com Online community focused on members sharing knowledge with one another. www.asaenet.org/newsletters/display/0,1 901,425,00.html Good basic information for associations going online. www.benton.org/Practice/Toolkit/ Wonderful source of best practices for non-profits building Web communities. www.google.com A quick, high quality, easy-to-use search engine--helps you find the information you need, fast. www.independentsector.org Portal to vast array of Web resources and data, geared to the concerns of the "independent sector." www.pewinternet.org Web site for the Pew Internet and American Society Project. A treasure trove of information. www.plastic.com Self-organizing online literary community. www.useit.com Offered by Jakob Nielsen, the "usability guru" of the Web. Substantially demystifies Web design. www.4npo.org Offers interesting perspective and links re: non-profits and the internet. nccs.urban.org National Center for Charitable Statistics, a terrific source of data and useful links www.webopedia.com Provides definitions for the everexpanding list of technology terms.

Note: any Web resource listed in this report is accessible at no charge, although some do offer products, services, or enhanced access for a fee.

8
SCW 0401