Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 409–415

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /gov inf

Review

Collaborative knowledge construction in digital environments: Politics, policy,and communities

Jeanine Finn ⁎School of Information, University of Texas at Austin, 1616 Guadalupe Suite #5.202 Austin, TX 78701-1213, USA

⁎ Fax: +1 512 471 3971.E-mail address: jefinn@ischool.utexas.edu.

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.10.004

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 20 May 2011

Keywords:Knowledge-sharingNetworksPolicy

How individuals share information with respect to politics and policy in networked research environments isan area ripe for interdisciplinary study. In this analysis, I explore some of themore current and salient researchfindings from several disciplinary literatures (communications, computer science, organizational behavior,information science, and public policy) to examine how current research perceives the influence oftechnology-aided communications on policy-making conversations. I suggest that a community-centric view,which takes into account online and offline group affiliations and their related power dynamics, is just asimportant as an individual-based unit of analysis. This understanding points to directions for the thoughtfulcreation of digital resources that appropriately reflect and support inter- and intra-group knowledge-sharingbehavior.

l rights reserved.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4092. Democracy and information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410

2.1. The relationship between democratic functions and information flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4102.2. Communitarianism and critical communitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

3. Polarization, isolation, confusion in online communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4113.1. Birds of a feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4113.2. The importance of context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412

4. Lowered barriers, the public sphere, and information markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4135. Understanding community participation: subactivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4136. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414

1. Introduction

Without the hum of everyday information sharing, it is unlikelythat a community's members will be on the same page when apolitical issue emerges. The dividing line between “political” and“nonpolitical” communication is, for this reason, nonexistent.(Agre, 2002, p. 321)

The area of intersection between computer-mediated-communi-cation and theoretical models of democratic processes is a rich fieldfor inter-disciplinary study. Scholars from fields such as law, politicalscience, human–computer interaction, and gender studies havecontributed to a growing body of research, and there is no shortageof theories and models that suggest networked communications havethe power to reshape the interpersonal and intra-group relationshipsthat make up political and civic communications (Bers, 2006; Bimber,2003; Dahlberg, 2001; Ess, 1996). Research and theoretical modelsemerging from this cross-disciplinary space have not yet diffused inany great measure through information studies, however. I wouldsuggest that in the 21st century digital space, information oftentravels less visibly anchored to traditional concepts of authority or

410 J. Finn / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 409–415

context. Information distribution systems are flattened, and data,theories, news, and stories often travel at an inter-personal level,rather than being mediated by any agency or authority. If informationscholars don't incorporate a broader, more critical view of concepts ofsocial capital and community participation, particularly when theyturn their attentions to creating and supporting digital informationenvironments, traditional information studies theories of informationbehavior will fall short in explaining the networked knowledge workof humans in deliberative spaces.

The purpose of this paper is to unpack some of the complex ideasabout democracy, its conversations, and consensus-building activitiesthat are embedded in literature on Internet-mediated communica-tions. This paper also summarizes some of the most relevant currentresearch and applies a community-focused perspective to the mostsalient findings. While there are many discussions of the influence ofICTs on group knowledge sharing, a unit of analysis that suggestsmore than the atomistic level of the individual (a traditional liberaldemocratic approach), a community-focused analysis, informed bysome communitarian thinkers (Etzioni, Putnam) and their critics(Arneil, Barzali) seems most appropriate when looking at issues ofpublic policy and politics. This examination of a variety of perspectiveson digitally-aided knowledge sharing in political/policy environmentsprovides

(1) An overview of the influence of information and communica-tion technologies (ICTs), which are often perceived as eitherpositive or negative, in terms of supporting inter- and intra-group information sharing;

(2) A rationale for a shift from a liberal democratic perspective to acritical communitarian perspective that may color theseperceptions within the context of a more nuanced definitionof political participation and group behaviors; and

(3) An explication of the implications from research and theoryfrom 1 and 2 that suggest approaches for the thoughtful andappropriate creation of digital resources.

While these issues are substantial and could certainly support amore lengthy analysis with an even broader examination of multi-disciplinary literature, the hope is that by building on suchretrospective works from diverse fields such as those representedby Bimber, 2003), Dervin, 1994) and Robbin, Courtright and Davis(2004), this work will provide a launching point for future efforts.

In industrialized republics that increasingly live online, the viewthat “information sharing is the essence of persuasion” (Breton &Dalmazzone, 2002, p. 53) allows a perspective that lets us considerinformation behaviors in an embedded context and as more thanvalue-neutral transactions. Digital environments, with their im-mense flexibility and connectivity, offer many avenues to engage inpersuasive communications. In any group knowledge-sharingenvironment (which could be, arguably, any group) there arepressures to disclose what one knows and pressures to stay silent —these pressures vary within the affordances of an ICT environment.Between “the same as it ever was” view and technologicaldeterminism (i.e., the tools of a dialog determine the content) liesthe model of amplification of existing forces and pressures of theoffline world. This amplification model describes how existingpressures and motivations of individuals and groups will “have thevolume turned up” in a digital environment, as the quantity andfrequency of communications increase exponentially, but thatdigital environments will not fundamentally alter the relationshipsand processes already at work in the offline world (Agre, 2002).Lateral communications increase within groups, but inter-groupboundaries persist.

While the amplification model may encourage analysis of theprocesses of identity creation and recreation (Shin & Kim, 2010) at anindividual level, it suggests an even greater need for attention to the

group- or community-level unit of analysis, and resources like socialcapital, as defined by scholars like Pierre Bourdieu:

Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resourceswhich are linked to possession of a durable network of more orless institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance andrecognition — or in other words, to membership in a group(Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 248–249)

Citizens in a technologically networked environment are con-stantly engaging in group behaviors that both shape and are shapedby the role of others in that environment. The “networks” of socialcapital traffic in “exchanges” according to the model of Bourdieu. Inthe amplified environment of digital networks, these exchanges arebroader and more dispersed.

It remains unclear if all online deliberative environments (Webforums, email lists, virtual environments) with their varying affor-dances for identity creation and disclosure are robust enough tosupport the creation of social capital, at least in the traditional sense.But clearly, something is happening, and the rise of social computingensures that a great deal more of it will continue to happen.

Networked information spaces in a digital environment have beenenvisioned both as utopian and dystopian and as a cure for flaggingpolitical participation and civic disconnection (Bers, 2006; Crossley &Roberts, 2004, p. 131), but also as a serious threat that could negate anyefforts toward rational political discussions by encouraging like mindsto gather in their respective corners and eschew intra-group contact(Sunstein, 2007; Van Alstyne & Brynjolfsson, 2005). While mostresearch has concluded with a more neutral or nuanced evaluation, itis worthwhile to examine some of these more normative conclusionscritically, as the elements that go into normative assumptions about therole of information in a democracy offer the tools to establish a finer-grained analysis that supports both a useful criticism and a theoreticalbasis for building a new generation of digital environments.

2. Democracy and information

Free flows of information are often assumed to be a necessary andimplicit part of a functioning democracy.Widely available informationof high quality can support the kind of rational deliberative dialog thatis essential to the idea of theHabermasian public sphere. Shared publicknowledge is implicit in the creation and use of social capital within acivic society. But who gets to speak about what topics in a communalconversation? A critical communitarian perspective on the notion of a“public sphere” may allow for both a reflective examination of thedemocratic assumptions about widely-available information, and anunderstanding of the multiple epistemologies inherent in any societywith varying degrees of power and engagement.

2.1. The relationship between democratic functions and informationflows

If we are to critically examinemore polarized judgments of ICTs (aseither being supportive of or destructive to democratic ideals), anexamination of some of the implications of the presumed democracy–information relationship is useful. Many of the foundational assump-tions about information and democracy are articulated in theHabermasian ideal of the public sphere as a place for rational humandiscourse and rational claims-making activity (Habermas, 1991, p. 4).Much of the behavior in networked information spaces related topolitics andpolicy is characterized by attempts at knowledge-building,mobilization, and validity claims (Dahlberg, 2001; Kim, 2006) — whosaid what when, whose data is themost reliable, what are the relevanthistorical facts, what is the best course of action, and so on.While theseactivities evoke the rational–critical behavior understood as part of thefunction of a public sphere broad accessibility and “low-enough”

411J. Finn / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 409–415

barriers of entry provoke instant and emotional response (short-circuiting reflexivity) (Sunstein, 2007, p. 207), normatively valued inthe deliberative space. Also “high-enough” barriers of entry (cost,technological skill) keep certain members of the polity fromparticipating fully (A. L. Kavanaugh et al., 2005,, p. 24).

Assumptions about the symbiotic relationship between the freeflow of information and a functioning democracy are interwoven intomany of the narratives and normative theories of communication innetworked information spaces (particularly when discussing notionssuch as the “Digital Divide” (Fisher, 2004)); if left unexamined, theseassumptions cannot be sustained when tested by time, efficacy,finances, and other constraints in real-world applications (Dervin,1994). Vague notions about the value of access to good informationmay need to be more clearly articulated in any kind of constructedonline environment. Real-world constraints could quickly overpowerunclear and poorly articulated priorities.

There are several levels of epistemological and ontologicalassumptions that underlie the information/democracy relationship(Dervin, 1994). The earliest (historically) are dogmatic and author-itarian structures that assume one true truth; all information shouldbe orderly representations of that truth and there is therefore littleneed to explicitly value multiple perspectives or dialogic processes.This assumption is related to positivist epistemologies from theEnlightenment and is still common in representations of theinformation–democracy relationship. This model is presently mani-fested, among other places, by groups and activities that purport tofact-check in real-time (or close to it) the statements of public officialsand media outlets. They assert that the realm of facts can used to keepa deliberative policy conversation on-track, and not dominated byissues of mere opinion. Groups such as the Annenberg Center'sfactcheck.org state their mission as “to reduce the level of deceptionand confusion in U.S. politics” by “increas[ing] public knowledge andunderstanding.” (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2010).

2.2. Communitarianism and critical communitarianism

If exchanges in the realm of “facts” keep a democracy functioning,by what means do we ensure that we are sharing the same facts andevaluating them according to the same standards? It's been arguedrecently that that isn't happening at all and factsmay simply be opted-out of (Manjoo, 2008). The role of civil society in supportingdemocratic functions has been broadly examined from an informationperspective (Robbin et al., 2004) and has emerged most visibly incommunitarian perspectives such as Putnam (2001), and CassSunstein's Republic.com 2.0 (2007). These authors assert that thelack of a communal truth, or shared understanding of relevant facts ofpublic concern, is harmful to democratic civil society. Putnamspecifically identifies the lack of participation in community groups(bowling alone vs. the league bowling popular in the U.S. in the mid20th-century) as limiting our stores of social capital. Without thissocial capital “our economy, our democracy, and even our health andhappiness” are threatened (Putnam, 2001, p. 28).

However, critical communitarian perspectives, which embrace thenotion of multiple perspectives and multiple epistemologies (Arneil,2006; Barzilai, 2003), have been used to establish a middle groundbetween a positivistic communitarian perspective and the complete“chaos” of postmodernity (which assumes no truth, no means ofknowing). A critical stance can benefit from a community perspectivewithout embracing the necessity of a “shared truth” (Dervin, 1994)which authors see as implicit in the modern communitarian BowlingAlone in its notion of an “idyllic and unified ‘American community’”(Arneil, 2006, p. 2). Within the critical communitarian framework, thehegemonic power of the dominant group in terms of establishingpolitical and legal culture (which helps determine informationprocesses and practices) must be considered, in contrast to moretraditional liberal democratic analyses that view individuals through

an atomistic lens at the expense of social and group powerrelationship examination. Group associations and the power differ-entials between the groups are important determinants of who gets tospeak about shared problems.

Embracing a community-oriented framework seems the mostappropriate in the multi-modal, distributed world of technologically-supported democratic dialog, especially as blogs and social computingtools become dominant forms of digital expression. Without anexplicit recognition of the importance of dialog and critical commu-nitarian knowledge-building, we are unable to make thoughtful on-the-ground decisions about specific features of our technologicalcreations — will our networks support collaboration and ground-upinformation-sharing, or will content creation be allowed for onlycertain “authorities,” for example. This recognition of the importanceof process is a useful foundation when examining the social practicesthat emerge within and around digital information spaces. Asinformation studies practitioners, we are increasingly likely to beinvolved in the creation of information spaces, the selection ofappropriate resources within them, and in an iterative developmentprocess, rather than in the somewhat more straightforward act offinding enough appropriate information resources for a particularcollection. (Bawden & Robinson, 2009, p. 182).

In practice, studies have found a correlation between frequentinternet use and civic engagement, as defined in traditional ways;clearly there is evidence to suggest that humans are engaging witheach other politically in networked environments (Horrigan et al.,2004; A. Kavanaugh et al., 2007; Weber et al., 2003). The benefits andrisks of this type of engagement are beginning to be described in amore nuanced way. The following table is an effort to present asummary of the major effects of the ICT environment on sharedknowledge (Table 1) and consensus-building activities, as they areunderstood by researchers and theorists. They are broadly grouped atopposite ends of a polarization/integration continuum, though itshould be understood that most studies included elements from bothends of the continuum and generally offer a mixed assessment.

3. Polarization, isolation, confusion in online communications

“Information” is a negotiated exchange in any environment,whether analog or digital, and always presents potential opportuni-ties for misinterpretation and uncivil application. However, there aresome affordances in the digital environment that have been cause forparticular concern among scholars of digital communication. Many ofthe purported “virtues” of networked digital information (forexample, the infinite customization and flattened or non-existentauthority networks) are also what lead to some people's perceptionthat networked digital information is a potential weakness and even athreat to civil society. There are a number of critiques that suggest thatthese features threaten a citizen's ability to accrue meaningful socialcapital and engage in any kind of rational-critical debate.

3.1. Birds of a feather

One of the purported dangers of the digital information environ-ment is that the high degree of personalization and filtering possible,coupled with the limits of bounded rationality, or informationsatisficing (Bawden & Robinson, 2009, p. 185), in the face of hugequantities of information, pushes people into their own informationpods, interacting with only those who share certain interests(Putnam, 2001, p. 178). In digital spaces, choosing to avoid newsand information that conflicts with our closely-held beliefs (or that ispersonally threatening) is relatively easy (Barbour et al., 2009;Sunstein, 2007). Without relying on shared sources of information,some theorists suggest that we will harm civic society and our abilityto sustain democracy. This view argues that without a shared nationalnarrative, extreme views can persist, reinforce themselves, and

Table 1Generalized effects of networked communications on democratic knowledge-sharing per recent literature.

Theory Manifestation Caveats

Polarization/isolation/confusionDigital divide More men than women, fewer low-income people, more white

than black online, etc.Scope and extent of digital divide remains questionable

Extremism feeds on information control Extremist groups' presence online, links to similar groups only This happened before the internet — extremists have alwayshad their own information outlets

Customization of info RSS feeds, newsgroups and news outlets The “portal” trend pretty plainly fizzled outBalkanization More in-group than out-group links; only choosing news sources

we likeSome evidence in studies to indicate the opposite is true

Lack of context Misuse of stats by politically motivated; misunderstanding ofscientific research

Individual critical thinking skills remain important, unclearlyunderstood in this context

Lack of shared reality/no general-interestintermediaries

Major media outlets suffering financially; polls revealing lackof consensus over responsibility for 9/11, moon landing“hoaxers,” etc.

Many issues at play– Internet has affected old-school media inways we don't clearly understand; “shared reality” issue wasalways questionable, perhaps more an issue of more voicesbeing heard now (women, minorities, other disenfranchisedwith “marginal” views)

IntegrationEasier for socially awkward/isolated than

f2fStudies show more “chatting” online than in person Limited depth of personal connection

Lack of physical and geographicboundaries

Global penetration of the Internet Political boundaries and law still matter — for example,in China

Open government/transparency Volume of government information online; governmentinitiatives to improve accessibility of governmentinformation

Online information can be less accessible – for example,it can be pulled down from government servers (unlikepaper copies distributed to depositories)

More nuanced levels of participation Subactivism — participation in non-political groups maytrend toward political as issues emerge

We don't really understand how “political” this is yet

Potential for rational discourse free ofeconomic power-holders

Freenets Development of Web technology is driven by corporateinterests generally

Free marketplaceof ideas

Success of Wikipedia w/out explicit authority Wikipedia contributions have trailed off; the model hasn'tworked elsewhere

412 J. Finn / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 409–415

become completely detached from counterbalancing narratives in acustomizable world of digital information.

There is some empirical support for this view in examining thenetworked information behavior of political/policy actors over time. Arecent study of the behavior of Korean National Assembly members(Park & Kluver, 2009) examined their blog creations, and how thenetworked linkages evolved over the course of approximately twoyears. While overall blog usage increased, over time the networksbecome more centralized and less broadly-linked. Members weremeasurably more likely to link to other members and groups alreadypart of their affiliated (off-line) circle and less likely to link toindividuals and groups further afield. Park and Kluver suggest that thecultural embeddedness of digital networks is an important consider-ation. Group relationships and affiliations, arguably even moreimportant in Korean culture than in most Western societies, wereseen as profound predictors of online behavior.

In the U.S., a study of political blogging following the 2004 electionsdemonstrated a profoundly “divided blogosphere” (Adamic & Glance,2005). Liberal bloggers following the presidential elections primarilylinked to other liberal sources, while conservatives linked to conserva-tives. This phenomenon does not stay confined to just blogs, asarguments and rhetorical framing of issues initiated there oftenpercolate into other media settings (Drezner & Farrell, 2004).

Social network theory also provides some evidence of thosebehavioral trends. Personal and group contact can be looked at viathese types of models that purport to understand the behavior ofdifferent communities along an “index of balkanization,” which takesindividual preferences into account (Van Alstyne & Brynjolfsson, 2005).With the increase of informationchoices and thedecrease in theeffect ofgeography as a limiting factor, specialization and individual preferences(what incentives make individuals willing to act as informationconduits) will naturally have a more significant role. While this kindof clustering around shared interests can be useful within academicdisciplines, overspecialization could be harmful to the “overall welfareof society” (Van Alstyne & Brynjolfsson, 2005, p. 865) some suggest.Cross-disciplinary academic and scientific scholarship is a particular

concern. As specialized experts come to know more about theirparticular discipline, anything more than a passing familiarity withother areas may slip away, and inter-disciplinary work suffers.

A similar theme that is re-iterated in the work of Cass Sunstein(currently the Administrator of the White House Office of Informationand Regulatory Affairs) is the importance of general interest intermedi-aries. “Intermediate people in a chainmust bewilling to serve as conduitsfor data that need not necessarily pertain to them,” (Van Alstyne &Brynjolfsson, 2005, p. 853). Agents are unlikely to pass along informationthat they find useless, irrelevant, or even particularly offensive andobnoxious. In Sunstein's interpretation (2007), mass media have mostrecently served this function— passing along information from a varietyof sources was their role and to their economic benefit (appealing to thebroadest audience possible). His thinking continues a long history oftheories on the importance of shared general-interest intermediaries(particularly newspapers) in fostering associations in democraticnations, perhaps first articulated by Alexis de Tocqueville:

… a newspaper, which is the only way of being able to place thesame thought at the same moment into a thousand minds(Tocqueville, 2003, p. 600).

When general-interestmedia outlets increasingly lose viewers andreaders to specialized providers with more explicit and targetedpolitical agendas, general-interest intermediaries lose their marketspace and it is thought that the shared space of communalknowledge-building is diminished. However, this perspective impliesone (or at least a limited number) of relevant narratives in a society,and ignores relationships between its subgroups and the influence ofa dominant group on shaping that narrative.

3.2. The importance of context

While contexts and relationships clearly matter in consensus-building dialogs, many of the affordances of digital networks work toactively remove context and make relationships more ambiguous.

413J. Finn / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 409–415

Obviously this is apparent in email lists and online discussion forums,but even institutionally-created digital libraries, generally perceived asmore authoritative than loose online networks, can push data and ideasout into the world, untethered from original context and intentions(Van House, 2003, p. 279). In this setting, expert authors may fear themisuse and misinterpretation of their information and be reluctant toshare it in a digital environment that has that potential (p. 276). Just asnotable as this reaction, are the users' reactions to data stripped awayfrom its context — negative judgments of authority and reliability tendto be much more frequent. Discussions that are politically potent canquickly seize on an apparent lack of authority in the structure of a digitallibrary that collects data from many different sources (p. 279).

4. Lowered barriers, the public sphere, and information markets

While the majority of analyses describe some positive andnegative elements of the role of online communication in democraticdeliberation, there is a consistent thread that runs through theliterature on digital information spaces that suggests the affordancesof these new technologies offer a forum for much broader participa-tion and are the ideal means to minimize costs of participation in an“idea market.” Marginalized members of a group may not be able toattend meetings in a public way, or serve on representative boards,but through tools like email (and free access in public spaces likepublic libraries) even highly disadvantaged individuals can contributeto a deliberative conversation.

Wikipedia is frequently invoked as anexample of aHayek-style “ideamarket.” As a collaborative networked resource, with relatively lowbarriers for entry encouraging individual information sharing, theintentionality behindWikipedia cannot be fully understood without anunderstanding of Hayek, according toWikipedia's founder JimmyWales(Sunstein, 2006, p. 157). Accepting Hayek's notion that information isimperfectly distributed in a group, a system such as Wikipedia thatstreamlines the process of contributing to shared “more perfect”knowledge, and properly incentivizes sharing, should articulate theidealistic position wherein the social and economic functions of adispersed knowledge economy are facilitated by technological tools tocreate the rational-deliberative space of a public sphere a la Habermas.However, the incentives behind Wikipedia and other related sites areunclear andmaybeunsustainable (“Volunteers log off asWikipedia ages2009”). It seems that the multi-level incentives for contributing in suchan environment (being perceived as an authority, the chance to createidentity, a spirit of community, a chance to participate in somethingnovel) complicate the clear rational principles of Hayek's model.

Even if knowledge is imperfectly shared, the possibility ofconnecting with differently-minded individuals can be a beneficialeffect of the lowered thresholds provided by ICTs and digital libraries.While other theorists have seen the personalization and filteringaspects of networked technologies as a threat to social interaction,other researchers looking at communicative activities see this as anaid to helping participants, who may suffer from social anxieties ininterpersonal contact situations (Amichai-Hamburger & McKenna,2006). Online contact situations offer more opportunities to becustomized in ways that suit the needs (and concerns) of theinteracting groups. In many cases, this electronic contact may besuperior to traditional face-to-face encounters.

Importantly, in an online environment one can hit two birds withone stone; one can heighten the perception of the individualmembers as representative of their disparate groups whilesimultaneously fostering feelings of kinship and attachment tothe “new group” composed of all members taking part in theexercise. (Amichai-Hamburger & McKenna, 2006)

At the very least, ICTs can serve the purpose of lightening theburden of participation in civic forums (A. Kavanaugh et al., 2007) and

provide more support for a variety of bridging relationships betweengroups.

Other views are somewhat less optimistic, but present evidencethat the “cyberbalkanization” threat may be overstated. A studypublished in 2007 (Williams, 2007) examined how internet tools mayhelp or hinder the formation of social capital. In a study ofapproximately 900 internet users, the authors found no evidence tosupport the “cyberbalkanization” hypothesis (more out-group antag-onism and less bridging) and, in fact, some evidence to support moreout-group contact (p. 401). It should be noted, though, that 87% of theparticipants in the Williams study were male; it is an open questionhow seriously these findings could relate to more heterogeneousgroups, or groups that consist of primarily minority and/or femalemembers.While the quality of affective connectionswas found neitherto be very deep nor lasting, there were significant interactions amonggroups. Personality typesmay play a significant role, asmay the type ofinteraction (discussion forums, email lists, etc.). Other studies havesupported a cautiously optimistic view of online discussion groups assupportive of public sphere development, not only pointing outfrequent robust civil exchanges, but also acknowledging the tendencyof certain individuals to dominate discussions and for females to oftenbe “conspicuously absent” (Papacharissi, 2004).

5. Understanding community participation: subactivism

The diversity of the participants in a civic exchanged may beimproved, however, when one begins to define political engagement abit more broadly to include different categories of participation, suchas participating in local or specialized online forums (fan forums,neighborhood email lists) that are not overtly political butmay take onpolitical characteristics as contributors allude to political topics, thepicture of political information-sharing becomes a bit more nuancedand traditional measures of political engagement may need to beredefined. Many Americans do not often describe their civic engage-ment as political, andmay feel actively discouraged, an account of theirgender, for example, from doing so (Eliasoph, 1998). Maria Bakard-jieva, writing in The Information Society, posits a category of politicalengagement she describes as “subactivism” that may provide a tool tounderstand previously “invisible” participants in civic exchanges.

Members of a local group of native plant enthusiasts for example,may not be part of an overtly “political group”, but their engagementin purposeful information sharing and community-building activitieson interactive message boards around their area of interest couldbegin to broach political or policy issues if an issue of public water orland use emerges into the political space. They may not have existedas stakeholders in a debate on water use without the issue beingembedded into their daily community practices of information-sharing. They are invested in their local community through their“sub-political” interest and thereby poised to respond to politicalquestions.

In a classical republican framework, individuals, who, at least onsome level, set aside their personal priorities on behalf of the greatergood of the society of which they are a member, are expected toposses and use skills for reason and deliberation in the public sphere.For Bakardjieva, this is a particular shortcoming in the republicanmodel of citizenship as it cannot properly express more flexibleboundaries between personal and public concerns and priorities,supported by the overlapping and flexible affordances of digitalcommunication environments. I would suggest that a criticalcommunitarian view, which allows for membership in subgroupsand acknowledges overlapping group identities and power differen-tials, is more supportive of the subactivist analysis.

This idea is fully articulated in the proposal of a theory of “radical-democratic citizenship” (Bakardjieva, 2009) that embraces the notionof the “the personal as political” and has the potential to recognize thewidely-varying levels of access to resources, different social norms,

414 J. Finn / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 409–415

and hegemonic power of certain groups over others. Without beingcritical of the power differentials between certain groups, we cannotproperly understand how they interact in a public deliberative space—

and recognize that their interactions may look quite different, but stillbe substantively “political.”

An understanding of this type allows for a more subtle and multi-leveled analysis of the places between personal identity and public/political personae, and suggests how the variety of interactionssupported by the technology of the internet can help reify andreiterate these levels of participation, while not necessarily creatingthem.

Varying levels of engagement in democratic processes areconfirmed by broad-based analyses of internet-based politicalparticipation (Horrigan et al., 2004; A. Kavanaugh et al., 2007;Weber et al., 2003). While these analyses find a correlation betweenpolitical participation and Internet usage, the persistence of specificsocioeconomic differences between the participation of certaingroups was notable, as were differences in participation based onoffline social roles and associations (Lento et al., 2006; Park & Kluver,2009;Weber et al., 2003, pp. 38–39). This research suggests that whilethe digital information technology can reduce the cost of participationin public life and “turn up the volume” on interactions, as Agre (2002)suggests in his “amplification” model, barriers still exist for partici-pation for many underrepresented groups and/or typically morereticent individuals.

6. Conclusion

Civil association is a system of interlocking institutions, not ashapeless meeting of unformed minds, and the internet allows therelational order of those institutions to be inscribed into the finestdetails of daily life. (Agre, 2002, p. 323)

The relationship of an individual with his/her technological toolspresentsmany unique variables that emerge and evolve as technologymatures and as humans adapt and personalize their technologybehaviors. When the unit of analysis of these variables shifts from theindividual to a group, it would seem useful to make use of existingunderstandings of how groups conceive of themselves, organize theiractivities, and communicate, and apply these understandings to anetworked information environment. Making full use of the tools atour disposal to understand human behavior (both alone and ingroups) will help information scholars avoid an easy slide intotechnological determinism.

While studies from a variety of disciplinesmay continue to identifyinconsistencies and even pathologies related to human informationuse in the public sphere, it is worthwhile to keep in mind the hugenumber of “successful” information negotiations humans manageeach day in the digital environment. We do a lot of things remarkablywell. While the modes and affordances of digital communicationchange daily, humans have learned to use off-line and onlinecommunities and social understandings as a source of support innegotiating difficult issues such as credibility and civility. Being able toaccurately assess this context in its totality, without an undulypessimistic or deterministic view, will serve future research well.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Dr. William Aspray and Dr. Lynn Westbrook andfor their helpful comments.

References

Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election:Divided they blog. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 3rd internationalworkshop on link discovery.

Agre, P. E. (2002). Real-time politics: The Internet and the political process. TheInformation Society, 18, 311–331.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesisreconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu-nication, 11(3) Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/amichai-hamburger.html

Annenberg Public Policy, Center (2010). FactCheck.org: About us. Retrieved 13 April2010. http://www.factcheck.org/about/ from

Arneil, B. (2006). Diverse communities: The problem with social capital. Cambridge, UK;New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bakardjieva, M. (2009). Subactivism: Lifeworld and politics in the age of the Internet.Information Society, 25(2), 91–104.

Barbour, J. B., Rintamaki, L. S., & Brashers, D. E. (2009). Health information avoidance asuncertainty management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the internationalcommunication association, 2009 Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/3/2/9/p13292_index.html

Barzilai, G. (2003). Communities and law: Politics and cultures of legal identities. AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety andother paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180–191.

Bers, M. U. (2006). Fostering civic engagement by building a virtual city. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 11(3).

Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution ofpolitical power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theoryand research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: GreenwoodPress.

Breton, A., & Dalmazzone, S. (2002). Information control, loss of autonomy, and theemergence of political extremism. In A. Breton, G. Galeotti, P. Salmon, & R.Wintrobe (Eds.), Political extremism and rationality (pp. 44–68). CambridgeUniversity Press.

Crossley, N., & Roberts, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). After Habermas: new perspectives on thepublic sphere. Sociological Review. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: Acritical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1) Retrieved fromhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html

Dervin, B. (1994). Information b−−N Democracy: An examination of underlyingassumptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6), 369–385.

Drezner, D., & Farrell, H. (2004). The power of politics and blogs. Paper presented at theconference of the American political science association Retrieved 7 April 2010, fromhttp://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf

Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ess, C. (1996). The political computer: Democracy, CMC, and Habermas. In C. Ess (Ed.),Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 197–232).Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Fisher, E. (2004). Digital Divide. In W. Aspray (Ed.), Chasing Moore's Law: Informationtechnology policy in the U.S. SciTech.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into acategory of bourgeois society (1st MIT Press pbk (ed. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Horrigan, J., Garrett, K., & Resnick, P. (2004). The Internet and democratic debate.Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/The-Internet-and-Democratic-Debate.aspx

Kavanaugh, A. L., Isenhour, P. L., Cooper, M., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., & Schmitz, J.(2005). Information technology in support of public deliberation. Communities andTechnologies. (pp. 19–40).

Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T., Rosson, M., Carroll, J., Schmitz, J., & Kim, B. (2007). Local groupsonline: Political learning and participation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work(CSCW), 16(4), 375–395.

Kim, J. -Y. (2006). The impact of Internet use patterns on political engagement: A focuson online deliberation and virtual social capital. Information Polity: The InternationalJournal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 11(1), 35–49.

Lento, T., Welser, H. T., Gui, L., & Smith, M. (2006). The ties that blog: Examining therelationship between social ties and continued participation in the Wallopweblogging system. Paper presented at the weblogging ecosystem: Aggregation,analysis and dynamics workshop Retrieved from http://www.blogpulse.com/www2006-workshop/papers/Lento-Welser-Gu-Smith-TiesThatBlog.pdf

Manjoo, F. (2008). True enough : Learning to live in a post-fact society. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democraticpotential of online political discussion groups. NewMedia & Society, 6(2), 259–283.

Park, H. W., & Kluver, R. (2009). Trends in online networking among South Koreanpoliticians — A mixed-method approach. [Feature]. Government InformationQuarterly, 26(3), 505–515.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community (1stTouchstone (ed. ed.). New York: Touchstone.

Robbin, A., Courtright, C., & Davis, L. (2004). ICTs and political life. Annual Review ofInformation Science and Technology, 38, 411–482.

Shin, H. K., & Kim, K. K. (2010). Examining identity and organizational citizenshipbehaviour in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Information Science,36(1), 114–126.

415J. Finn / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 409–415

Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: Howmany minds produce knowledge. Oxford UniversityPress: Oxford, UK; New York.

Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Tocqueville, A. d. (2003). Democracy in America (Penquin classics): Penguin classics.Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2005). Global Village or Cyber-Balkans? Modeling

andmeasuring the integration of electronic communities.Management Science, 51(6),851–868.

Van House, N. A. (2003). Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. InA. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House, & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Socialpractice in design and evaluation (pp. 271–293). Cambridge, Massachusetts: TheMIT Press.

Volunteers log off as Wikipedia ages (2009). Wall Street Journal November 27, 2009.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html (online article).

Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why?: Ananalysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science ComputerReview, 21(1), 26–42.

Williams, D. (2007). The impact of time online: Social capital and cyberbalkanization.Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 398–406.

Jeanine Finn is a second-year doctoral student at the School of Information at theUniversity of Texas at Austin. She received her M.S. in library and information sciencefrom the University of Illinois in 1996 and has been employed as a librarian andinformation specialist at universities, private companies, and state government. Herresearch interests center on the intersections of public policy and information sharingwithin digital spaces.