community technology and comm building

8/2/2019 Community Technology and Comm Building

1/16

The Information Society, 19: 365379, 2003

Copyright c Taylor & Francis Inc.

ISSN: 0197-2243 print / 1087-6537 online

DOI: 10.1080/01972240390241493

Community Technology and Community Building:Early Results from the Creating Community

Connections Project

Randal Pinkett

BCT Partners, LLC, Plainfield, New Jersey, USA

As community technology and community-building initiatives

move toward greater synergy, there is a great deal to be learned re-

garding how theycan be mutually supportive, rather than mutually

Received 1 February 2002; accepted 2 November 2002.The Camfield EstatesMIT Creating Community Connections

project has been a true team effort. Leadershipat Camfield Estatescon-

sists of Paulette Ford, CTA President,and Nakia Keizer, Project Leader

and MIT Reflective Community Practitioner, along with the following

board members and advisors: Constance Terrell, Malissa Evans, Luon

Williams, Edward Harding, Susan Terrell, Marzella Hightower-Hunt,

Cora Scott, Alberta Willis, Minnie Clark, and Daniel Violi. At MIT,

Randal Pinkett, PhD candidate, MIT Media Laboratory, and Richard

OBryant, PhD candidate, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Plan-

ning (DUSP), are the co-principal investigators, under the supervision

of Professor MitchelResnick, MIT Media Laboratory, Professor Joseph

Ferreira, Jr., DUSP, ProfessorCeasar McDowell,DUSP and Director of

the Center for Reflective Community Practice (CRCP),Professor Brian

Smith, MIT Media Laboratory, and Professor David Gifford, MIT Lab-

oratory for Computer Science (LCS), with assistance from undergrad-

uate students Megan Henry and Wei-An Yu. Without support from the

following individuals and organizations, as well as countless others, the

project would not have been possible: Dr. Gail McClure and Caroline

Carpenter, Kellogg Foundation, Thaddeus Miles, Massachusetts Hous-

ing Finance Agency (MHFA), Wayne Williams, Jackie Williams,

Garfield Williams, and Luis Herrera, Williams Consulting Services,

Donna Fisher, Cornu Management, Bess Stephens, Catherine Gowen,

Camilla Nelson, and Robert Bouzon, Hewlett-Packard Company, Dave

Mitchell, Microsoft Corporation, John McGeough and Ken Rahaman,

RCN Telecom Services, and Philip Greenspun, ArsDigita Corporation.

I particularly thank Mitchel Resnick, Richard OBryant, and Ceasar

McDowell for their guidance and support. Above all, I thank all of the

residents at Camfield Estates for the wonderful opportunity to work

together with them. For more information about the Camfield Estates

MIT project, visit http://www.camfieldestates.net.

Address correspondence to Randal Pinkett, PhD, BCT Partners,

LLC, Carriage Office Building, 900 Park Avenue, Plainfield, NJ

07060, USA. E-mail: [email protected]; web site: http://www.

bctpartners.com

exclusive. This article sheds light on the possibilities inhered at this

nexus. The project that constitutes the basis for this paper is the

Camfield EstatesMIT Creating Community Connections Project,

an ongoing effort at Camfield Estates, a predominantly African-

American, low- to moderate-income housing development. As partof this project, we worked with residents to establish a technolog-

ical infrastructure by offering every family a new computer, soft-

ware, high-speed Internet connection, comprehensive courses, and

a web-basedcommunity-building system, the CreatingCommunity

Connections (C3) System, that I codesigned with residents. This

article presents an overview of the Camfield EstatesMIT project,

theoretical framework developed in relation to this work, research

design and methodology, project methodology and timeline, and

early results. It concludes with a set of recommendations for the

community technology and community-building movements.

Keywords community building, community content, community

network, community technology, community technologycenter (CTC), digital divide, housing, low-income,

underserved, urban

The digital divide (U.S. Department of Commerce,1995, 1998, 1999, 2000) is a modern-day reflection of his-torical social and economic divides that have plagued oursociety for years. Over the past decade, the communitytechnology movement (Beamish, 1999; Morino, 1994)using the technology to support and meet the goals of acommunity (Beamish, 1999, p. 366)has gathered mo-mentum toward closing the gap with programs targeted at

access, training, content, technological fluency, and more.Over the past century, the community-building movement(Aspen Institute, 1997; Kingsley et al., 1999; Kretzmann&McKnight, 1993; Naparstek et al., 1997; Schorr, 1997)an approach to community revitalization that is focusedon strengthening the capacity of residents, associations,and organizations to work, individually and collectively, tofoster and sustain positive neighborhood change (AspenInstitute, 1997, p. 2)has wrestled with complementary

365


2/16

366 R. PINKETT

issues in its efforts to alleviate poverty by instituting pro-grams aimed at education, health care, employment, eco-nomic development, and the like.

The intersection between these domains holds tremen-dous possibilities, as both efforts seek to empower indi-viduals and families and to improve their overall com-munity. Ironically, approaches that combine these areashave received very little attention in theory and practice.From among the three models of community engagementwith technologycommunity technology centers (CTCs),community networks, and community content (Beamish,1999)there is a limited number of projects that have en-gaged community residents as active participants in usingtechnology to define processes for neighborhood revital-ization. Conversely, from among the multitude of modelsfor community engagement with revitalizationsuch ascommunityorganizing, community development, commu-nity building, and comprehensive community initiatives(CCIs) (Hess, 1999)we are only beginning to witness

the benefits that are afforded by incorporating new tech-nologies into these approaches in a waythat truly leveragestheir potential.

The best practices of community technology see com-munity members as active producers of community infor-mation and content. Similarly, the best practices of com-munity building see community members as active agentsof change. As community technology and community-building initiatives move toward greater synergy, there is agreat deal to be learned regardinghow community technol-ogy and community building can be mutually supportive,rather than mutually exclusive. This purpose of this articleis to shed light on the possibilities inhered at this nexus.

RESEARCH PROJECT: THE CAMFIELDESTATESMIT CREATING COMMUNITYCONNECTIONS PROJECT

The project that constitutes the basis for this article is theCamfield EstatesMIT Creating Community ConnectionsProject (Pinkett, 2002), a partnership between the Cam-field Tenants Association (CTA) and the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT), started in January 2000.Camfield Estates is a 102-unit, predominantly African-American, low- to moderate-income housing developmentin the South End/Roxburysection of Boston. TheCamfield

EstatesMIT project has as one of its goals to establishCamfield Estates as a model for other housing develop-ments across the country as to how individuals, families,anda communitycan make useof information andcommu-nications technology to support their interests and needs.

To achieve this goal, a community technological infras-tructure hasbeen established at Camfieldthat combines thethree primary models for community technology (Morino,1994; Beamish, 1999)a community network (Schuler,

1996) where state-of-the-art desktop computers, software,and high-speed Internet connectivity have been offeredto every family; a community technology center (CTC)(Chow et al., 1998; Mark et al., 1997), the NeighborhoodTechnology Center (NTC), located on the premises in thecommunity center; and community content (Lazarus &Mora, 2000) delivered through a community-based websystem, the Creating Community Connections (C3) Sys-tem, that I have codesigned with Camfield residents specif-ically to create connections in the community between res-idents, local associations and institutions (e.g., libraries,schools, etc.), and neighborhood businessesalong witha community-building agenda. The project combined theseelements in an effort to achieve a social and cultural res-onance that integrated both community technology andcommunity building by leveraging indigenous assets in-stead of perceived needs.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: SOCIOCULTURAL

CONSTRUCTIONISM AND AN ASSET-BASEDAPPROACH TO COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGYAND COMMUNITY BUILDING

In relation to this work, I have developed the theoreti-cal framework of sociocultural constructionism and anasset-based approach to community technology and com-munity building, an integration of the theories ofsociocul-tural constructionism (Hooper, 1998; Pinkett, 2000; Shaw,1995), which is rooted in constructionism (Papert, 1993)and asset-based community development (Kretzmann &McKnight, 1993).

Sociocultural constructionism argues that individual

and community development are reciprocally enhanced byindependent and shared constructive activity that is reso-nant with both the social environment of a communityof learners, as well as the culture of the learners them-selves (Pinkett, 2000). A sociocultural construction is aphysical, virtual, or cognitive artifact that is resonant withthe social and cultural milieu. This includes a communitynewsletter (paper-based and/or electronic) with valuablelocal content, a personal web site that highlights infor-mation of interest to other members of the community, aposting to a discussion forum that shares useful knowledgeor wisdom, a message to a neighborhood e-mail list thatengages in relevant issues, or even a paradigm shift that

reflects a renewed confidence in oneself or greater appre-ciation of ones community. Sociocultural constructionismregards community members as active producers of infor-mation and content, as opposed to passive consumers orrecipients.

Asset-based community development (ABCD) isamodelfor community building that assumes that social and eco-nomic revitalization begins with what is already present inthe communitynot only the capacities of residents as


3/16

COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNITY BUILDING 367

individuals, but also the existing associational, institu-tional, and commercial foundations (Kretzmann &McKnight, 1993). This is done by focusing on indigenouscommunity assets (e.g., residents, local organizations andinstitutions, neighborhood businesses, etc.) instead of per-ceived needs. Asset-based community development seeksto leverage the resources within a community by map-ping these assets and then mobilizing them to facilitateproductive and meaningful connections, toward address-ing community-defined issues and solving community-defined problems. Asset-based community developmentregards community members as active agents of change,rather than passive beneficiaries or clients.

Sociocultural constructionism and an asset-based ap-proach to community technology and community build-ing suggest that the way to build physical, geographic,collocated communities both online and offline is by cre-ating community connections amongst community mem-bers and community resources as mediated by technolog-

ical fluency, asset mapping, sociocultural constructions,and asset mobilization. It is an approach that strives toachieve a social and cultural resonance within a commu-nity, by focusing on indigenous assets instead of perceivedneeds.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Question and Hypothesis

The research question for this study is: In what ways cancommunity social capital be increased and community cul-tural capital activated through the integration of a com-

munity technology and community building initiative in alow- to moderate-income housing development and its sur-rounding environs. A closely related subtheme is to under-stand the challenges and opportunities of operationalizinga sociocultural constructionist and asset-based approachto community technology and community building.

My hypothesis is that the sociocultural construction-ist framework, coupled with an asset-based approach tocommunity technology and community building, can pos-itively contribute to increasing community social capitaland activating community cultural capital, as a result ofresidents involvement as active, rather than passive, par-ticipants in the process. I define community social capital,

which is based on the concept ofsocial capital (Coleman,1988; Mattesich & Monsey, 1997; Putnam, 1993, 1995),as the extent to which members of a community can workand learn together effectively. I define community culturalcapital, which is related to the concept of cultural capi-tal (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Lamont & Lareau, 1988;Zweigenhaft, 1993), as variousforms of knowledge, skills,abilities, and interests that have particular relevance orvalue within a community.

An important distinction to note at the onset of this ar-ticle is that community social capital and community cul-tural capital are both process-oriented outcomes, andrefer to a communitys capacity, or ability to improvethe conditions of its neighborhood. This can also be un-derstood as a focus on building relationships and creat-ing community connections between various constituen-cies including residents, localassociationsand institutions,and neighborhood businesses. It is the essence of commu-nity building. Often, these connections can be leveragedto achieve product-related outcomes, or concrete andtangible changes in the community such as a stronger ed-ucational system, better delivery of health care, reducedunemployment, or enhanced economic and business de-velopment. This can also be understood as a focus onrehabilitating physical infrastructures, improving neigh-borhood conditions, and enhancing the overall quality oflife for individuals, families, and the community. It is theessence of community development.

Unlike process-oriented outcomes, which can be uni-versally applied, generally speaking, product-related out-comes are often community specific and therefore bestdefined by the members of the community. What consti-tutes a desired outcome in one neighborhood may not ap-ply in others and will therefore differ from initiative toinitiative. Regardless, increased community social capi-tal and activated community cultural capital are means tothese ends. Also note that while community social capitaland community cultural capital are community outcomes,they also fully acknowledge individual outcomes becausethey often fuel and directly contribute to community out-comes. Community social capital and community cultural

capital encapsulate the communitys capacity or ability tomarshal its resources toward achieving individually andcollectively defined goals.

My investigation of the research question sets out tobetter understand the processes that can lead to increasedcommunity social capital and activated community cul-tural capital in the context of a community technologyand community-building initiative, such that said capitalcan be translated into so-called products, or communitydevelopment. However, my investigation does not set outto understand the processes that facilitate this translation.This is done neither to elevate process nor to devalue prod-uct, but rather to focus this work on the first of two equally

important outcomes.

Research Methods

In order to obtaina holistic picture of thechangingenviron-ment atCamfieldEstates, I employeda mixed-methodsap-proach thatcombinedquantitative withqualitative researchmethods. A mixed-methods approach allows various com-peting methods to be triangulated, thus increasing the


4/16

368 R. PINKETT

validity and credibility of results (Gaber & Gaber, 1997).It is a research strategy that captured the nuances of theaforementioned phenomenon I sought to understand, ina way that would not have been possible using any sin-gle method. In the context of this article, the quantitativeand qualitative research methods included the following:(a) a survey instrument administered via face-to-face inter-views in a pre/post manner spanning from August 2000 toAugust 2001, and (b) regular, ongoing, direct observationat the research site.

Survey Instruments. The preliminary and postassess-ment survey instruments were administered via face-to-face interviews with thehead of household from each of thefamilies participating in Round I of the Camfield EstatesMIT project. The preliminary assessment was conductedin August 2000 with 32 heads of household, just prior tothe beginning of the courses. The postassessment was con-ducted in August 2001 with 26 heads of household, all of

whom completed the courses. Note that preliminary in-

TABLE 1

Preliminary assessment and postassessment survey areas

Survey area Description Pre? Post?

Demographics Gathered information related to gender, ethnicity, marital status, age, education,

employment status, income, etc.

X X

Community interests and

satisfaction

Measured community interests, identification, and overall satisfaction. X X

Social networks Gathered detailed information of strong ties (e.g., degree of face-to-face, phone,

postal mail, e-mail, and other Internet communication, including

demographic measures for each tie), as well as general information of weak

ties at Camfield Estates (e.g., name recognition, and frequency and extent of

socialization/communication with each tie).

X X

Neighboring Measured obligations and expectations of trustworthiness, as well as frequency

and extent of socialization, communication, and reliance on neighbors.

X X

Community impressions General impressions of the property, the buildings, the people, and

the community at Camfield.

X X

Awareness of community

resources

Measured awareness of skills and abilities of other residents,

local organizations, neighborhood businesses, and more.

X X

Community involvement and

attachment

Measured community involvement (cognitive ties), community attachment

(affective ties), political involvement, and volunteerism; also assessed

membership, level of involvement and leadership role (if any) in various

civic, religious, and professional groups.

X X

Computer experience andtraining interests Assessed prior computer experience, training availability and interests,and intended uses. X

Hobbies, interests, and

information needs

Identified hobbies, interests, and information needs (online and offline). X

Camfield estatesMIT project Obtained general information about the impact of the Camfield EstatesMIT

Creating Community Connections Project.

X

Training experience Assessed participants experience in the introductory courses. X

Computer and internet use Assessed general patterns of use including locally focused and creative uses of

technology.

X

terviews with the 27 families participating in Round II ofthe project were conducted in January 2001, with postin-terviews scheduled to take place in 2002, and preliminaryinterviews for Round III are tentatively scheduled for thewinter 2002, with postinterviews tentatively scheduled totake place in 2003.

The preliminary and postassessment surveys werebased on the following instruments: Community Network-ing Initiative (CNI) Survey (Bishop et al., 1999), NetvilleWired Suburb Survey (Hampton & Wellman, 1998),Build-ing Social Capital in Public Housing Survey (Saegart &Thompson, 1994), Social Capital Community BenchmarkSurvey (Minicucci, 2000), Whos That? Survey of Neigh-bors in Southeastern Michigan (Resnick, 2000),Rothenbuhler (1991) and Stamms (1985) measures ofcommunity involvement, Blacksburg Electronic Village(BEV) Community Survey (Kavanaugh & Patterson, 1999)andtheNeighborhood Study Questionnaire (Mueller et al.,1997). The respective areas coveredby the preliminary and

postassessment are shown in Table 1 (note that the areas


5/16


of empowerment and self-sufficiency were also coveredas part of a study being conducted by Richard OBryant,PhD candidate in the MIT Department of Urban Studiesand Planning, pertaining to these issues).

The preliminary assessment survey instrument waspiloted with eight members of the tenants associationat Roxse Homes, a neighboring housing development toCamfield Estates. The final preliminary survey instrumentwas administered by three members of the project team,including myself. The final postsurvey instrument was ad-ministered by the same three members of the project team,two members of the staff at NTC, one member of the staffat Camfield, and one volunteer. Each interview took placeeither in the respondents residence or in the meeting roomat the Camfield community center, and lasted between ap-proximately 1 and 5 hours.

Direct Observation. Direct observation of the envi-ronment at Camfield Estates was conducted on an ongoing

basis. I attended various meetings, activities, and eventstaking place on the property, including CTA board meet-ings, CTA general meetings, CTA committee meetings,NTC structured time (when courses are offered), NTC un-structured time (open hours), social events and activitiesfor youth, adults, and seniors, and more.

These visits were augmented by information obtaineddirectly from CTA, the staff at NTC, and the propertymanagement company, such as attendance records at CTAmeetings, CTA calendar of activities and events, NTCcourse schedules, NTC attendance records, NTC courseprogress reports, Roxbury-area safety and crime reports,and more. Lastly, NTC staff and employees of the prop-

erty management company were also interviewed on anongoing, informal basis to obtain their perspective on theproject and its impact.

Data Collection and Analysis

Quantitative data from the interviews were entered dur-ing the interviews into a preformated Excel spreadsheet,while qualitative responses were entered during the inter-views into a preformated Word document. A suite of Vi-sual Basic scripts were then developed by undergraduateresearchers and myself to electronically process, tabulate,and summarize the quantitative data, as well as collate

the qualitative responses into a single Word document forsubsequent coding. The quantitative data was analyzed inSPSS including descriptive statistics and paired-samplet-tests. Qualitative data resulting from face-to-face visits,telephone follow-up with families, or general visits to theproperty were recorded via field notes. Reports generatedby CTA or NTC were obtained directly from these organi-zations. Based on the results from these various sources, anoverall analysis was conducted to synthesize the findings.

PROJECT METHODOLOGY AND TIMELINE

Under CTAs leadership, in spring 2000 a committee wasestablished to oversee the project, which consisted of fourCamfield residents, Richard OBryant, and me. My roleand Richard OBryants role are accurately described asparticipatory researchers (Brown, 1983; Friedenberger,

1991), action researchers (OBrien, 1998), or partici-patory action researchers (Cancian, 1993; Peattie, 1994;Whyte, 1991), defined by Friedenberger as an ethno-graphic method for the collection of data in the field . . .that contributes to planned social change (1991, p. 1).In this decidedly active role, Richard and I worked veryclosely with Camfield residents to conceptualize and im-plement the project in ways that reflected our collectiveways of thinking. The project also involved the integralparticipation of representatives from Massachusetts Hous-ing Finance Agency (MHFA), the financier of the property;Williams Consulting Services, the company that staffs theNeighborhood Technology Center (NTC) at Camfield; and

the full-time Director of Community Outreach atCamfield, who was formerly the resident social servicescoordinator for the development.

The projects implementation team consisted of fourCamfield residents (college age), with direct support fromRichard and me. Throughout the summer 2000 we met ona biweekly basis to discuss and identify strategies for con-ducting the initiative, and on a monthly basis with the en-tire CTA board and CTA project committee. We officiallystarted in June 2000, by outlining the following goals andobjectives:

r To promote a stronger, healthier community atCamfield Estates.

r To establish greater levels of empowerment andself-sufficiency among residents at CamfieldEstates.

r To create connections between residents atCamfield Estates, local organizations, neighbor-hood businesses, and other community members.

r To enable residents at Camfield Estates to be thecreators and producers of their own informationand content on the Internet.

r To establish Camfield Estates as a model for otherhousing developments across the country as to

how individuals, families, and a community canmake productive use of information and commu-nications technology.

Based on these goals and objectives, we subsequentlyoutlined a methodology and timeline to integrate commu-nity technology and community building, consisting offive interrelated, cyclical, and at times parallel phases, asshown in Figures 1 and 2. An overview of each phase ispresented next.


6/16

370 R. PINKETT

FIG. 1. Project methodology.

Phase I: Preassessment and Awareness

During summer 2000, the project team developed a pre-liminary assessment survey instrument for two related yetdistinctly different purposes. First was to obtain forma-tive data that would guide the projects implementation.With community building identified as an agreed-on goalat the projects inception, both Camfieldresidents andMIT

researchers were able to provide specific input to the sur-veys design in this regard. This ensured the results notonlybenchmarked certain outcomes, but also advanced the ini-tiative toward achieving these outcomes. Second was toobtain baseline data for the research study. Along theselines, a community needs assessment with a broad scopeand survey area in rural India is described in the Blattmanet al. paper in this journal.

During that same period, an awareness campaign wasconducted to inform residents about the initiative. A se-ries of mailings were distributed describing the projectsgoals and objectives, and offering a new computer, soft-ware, high-speed Internet connection (prepaid for 2 years),

FIG. 2. Project timeline.

and comprehensive courses at NTC for adults 18 years andolder who completed the courses, completed the prelim-inary and postinterviews, and signed an informed con-sent form granting permission to track the web traffic atCamfield through a proxy server (aggregate patterns ofuse only, and not individually attributable). An open fo-rum was also held in the community center for questionsand answers. While families were encouraged to attendthe training, at least one adult from each household had tofulfill these requirements in order to receive the computer,software, and Internet access. Given the fact that NTC wasprimarily used by youth at this time (OBryant, 2001),the committee decided to restrict participation to adultsonly, as we believed it would motivate parents to attendthe training for the benefit of their children. August 2000marked the deadline to sign up for the project, and 32of the 66 families at Camfield elected to participate inRound I.

Phase II: Community TechnologyIntroductory/Specialized Courses and the Creating CommunityConnections (C3) System

The Creating Community Connections (C3) System is aweb-based, community-building system designed to es-tablish and strengthen relationships between communityresidents, local businesses, and neighborhood institutions(e.g., libraries, schools, etc.) and organizations. C3 is builtusing the ArsDigita Community System (ACS), an open-source software platform.

From June through August 2000, the project team heldweekly meetings to discuss design considerations for the

Camfield web site including the site map, graphics, lay-out, and user interface. An important component of thesediscussions was also determining which of the C3 mod-ules would be incorporated into the first release of theCamfield site, given the community building objectivesfor the project. Eventually, the following modules wereselected: resident profiles, business and organization data-base,geographicinformation system(GIS)maps, calendarof events, discussion forums, news and announcements,e-mail lists, chat rooms, file storage, and site-wide search.Scheduled for possible later introduction were the job andvolunteer opportunity postings, and possibly the person-alized web portals and web-based e-mail, pending use of


7/16


the system. Note that Hampton details the use of e-mailand listservs to connect the residents of a Canadian suburbelsewhere in this journal.

From September through October 2000, introductorycourses were offered at NTC to Round I participants. Forthe introductory courses, we employed an activity-basedcurriculum as a way to combine a variety of learning ob-

jectives, rather than focusing on narrow skill developmentsuch as how to use a mouse or a keyboard. For example,to teach participants how to use a browser and the printer,they were instructed to use a search engine to locate infor-mation on a topic of interest to them, print out each of theirresults, and summarize which search terms and associatedresults they found to be useful.

Designed by Williams Consulting Services (2000), thecurriculum lasted 10 weeks (2 sessions per week, 2 hoursper session), and covered a variety of areas related tocomputer and Internet use. In November 2000, two ad-ditional specialized courses were offered on how to use

the Creating Community Connections (C3) System, madeavailable through the Camfield Estates web site (http://www.camfieldestates.net). The C3 curriculum was codesi-gned by Williams Consulting and MIT.

In November 2000, 26 families completed the coursesand received a computer, software, and subsequent high-speed Internet access, having fulfilled the aforementionedrequirements (6 heads of household were unable to com-plete thecourses dueto health-related concerns or schedul-ing conflicts and were deferred to the next cohort of par-ticipants). In January 2001, a second awareness campaignwas aimed at the 48 families still eligible for the project(the number of occupied units had increased from 66 to

80), including another round of mailings and meetings.In preparation for this campaign, residents from Round Iwere asked to speak with neighbors about their experienceduring the courses. During the holiday season, there werea number of events such as a seniors holiday dinner whereelderly participants were asked to give testimonials as away of encouraging their peers to sign up for Round II.Furthermore, with close to one-third of the developmentup and running with a new computer, software, and high-speed Internet access in their homes, we expected generalword-of-mouth to spawn significant interest in Round IIfrom residents who decided to pass on the program duringthe first awareness campaign.

To our complete surprise, after the second deadlinepassed for Round II, only 8 out of a possible 48 fami-lies elected to participate in the project, the majority ofwhom were Spanish-speaking, as we were late distribut-ing the flyers in their native language during Round I. Inother words, even the families that elected to participatein Round II were likely to have been Round I participantsif the marketing materials had been distributed in Spanishon time.

Unwilling to accept these numbers as being representa-tive of residents interest, we embarked on a grass-roots,door-to-door outreach campaign to make sure people werefully aware of this special opportunity. As a result, we wereable to increase Round II numbers from 8 to 27 families,raising the total number of families participating in theproject to 59 out of 80 eligible families.

To clearly demonstrate the relevance of technology topotential participants lives, we emphasized outcomes in-stead of access. For example, an elderly, sick and shut-inwoman at Camfield was one of the projects staunchestopponents. Upon initial contact, she flatly refused beinginvolved. Rather than focusing on the computer and Inter-net service (access) as a selling point, one of the instructorshelped her discover the information she could obtain on-line in areas such as health care and wellness as well asthe people with whom she could communicate to improveher quality of life (outcomes). A few weeks later, she com-mented, This computer is better than all of my medication

combined! Other initiatives have made similar observa-tions (Cohill & Kavanaugh, 1997).For the 19 families that did not participate in Round I

and initially did not sign-up for Round II, but decided toparticipate after subsequent outreach, the most commonlycited reasons were:

r Miscommunication/misunderstanding (I never re-ceived any of the flyers).

r Skepticism (It sounded too good to be true)r They already owned a computer and werent as

quick as others to move on the opportunity.

For the 21 families that did not participate in either

Round I or Round II, the most commonly cited reasonswere:

r Lack of relevance (I just dont want to be in-volved).

r Too many responsibilities, including a few singlemothers juggling multiple jobs.

r Health-related condition preventing involvementsuch as pregnancy.

See Stanleys paper in this journal for similar findingsrelated to relevance, comfort zone, and self-concept. Fig-ure 3 shows the breakdown for resident participation andnon-participation in Round I and Round II.

In January 2001, Round II courses began. These courseslasted approximately 16 weeks (one session per week,

1 12

hours per session), and covered roughly the same ma-terial as the Round I courses. One of the areas we im-proved upon between the Round I and the Round II courseswas linking the curriculum to our desired outcomes. TheRound I curriculum was more generic when compared tothe Round II curriculum, which achieved greater depthwith respect to how technology can support community


8/16

372 R. PINKETT

FIG. 3. Resident participation and nonparticipation break-

down.

building. First, we dedicated more time to learning the C3modules. For example, after participants learned how touse a browser, they were required to post subsequent tech-nical questions to the C3 Help discussion forum as away of establishing this habit and acclimating them to the

system. We believed the Help forum was a natural entrypoint due to the inevitability of technical problems. Thisfacilitated a natural transition from a familiar context intoother contexts such as the News and Announcementsor calendar-of-events modules. Second, we explored howthe various modules could improve communication at thedevelopment inside the actual class sessions, as opposedto solely relying on residents to do so outside the class-room. For example, as part of the introductory courses,each class created an e-mail list so they could stay in touch,and each participant added their e-mail address to theirclass e-mail list and the residents e-mail list. Third, weencouraged more resident interaction during classes. For

example, in classes where we observed a marked skill dif-ferential among participants, we facilitated peer mentoringto build relationships.

In fall 2001, the 27 families from Round II will receivetheir computers, software, and high-speed Internet access.

Phase III: Community BuildingGeneraland Specific Asset Mapping

Per the asset-based community development approach,a resident-led, general asset mapping took place duringsummer 2000 with technical assistance from Richard andme. Our efforts were heavily informed by the work being

conducted at the Asset-Based Community Development(ABCD) Institute at Northwestern University pertainingto asset mapping and asset mobilization.

We conducted our asset mapping in two steps: generaland specific. General asset mapping begin in June 2000,and consisted of identifying all the associations, institu-tions (e.g., libraries, schools, etc.), and businesses withina specified radius of Camfield, and gathering basic infor-mation about these entities. We gathered the following in-

formation for associations and institutions: name, address,contact, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address,web-site address, mission, and up to four program/servicedescriptions according to a predefined typology (e.g., re-ligious, social service, etc.). For businesses, we gatheredthe following information: name, address, district, hoursof operation, telephone number, fax number, e-mail ad-dress, web-site address, and primary and secondary prod-uct/service descriptions according to a predefined typol-ogy (e.g., market/grocery, restaurant, etc.).

Thisbroad attempt to identifycommunity resources wasdone to obtain local information of potential benefit to res-idents that would eventually be made available throughC3, and as a preparatory step for asset mobilization to beconducted after analyzing the results of the preliminaryassessment. Not surprisingly, the process of gathering thisinformation served to heighten residents awareness of as-sets in their own neighborhood. For example, the first-pass general asset map was conducted within a few square

blocks of the property. Residents soon discovered therewere very few organizations and institutions and only asmall cluster of businesses in this catchment area. The de-cision was then made to expand the radius of the assetmap to 1.5 miles, which captured approximately 757 busi-nesses, 178 organizations, 67 churches, and 29 schools, asshown in Figure 4.

Recognizing that much of the information we neededto gather was likely to exist already, we made every effortto avoid reinventing the wheel. Consequently, we con-ducted our general asset mapping by gathering as manyrelevant and up-to-date publications, directories, listings,and databases as possible, with a particular focus on gath-

ering these items in electronic format to avoid unnecessarydata entry. Despite these efforts, the process did involvea limited amount of data entry, as well as occasional out-reach via telephone to verify certain pieces of information.

Once gathered, this information was formatted andentered into an Excel spreadsheet that could be easily

FIG. 4. Camfield Estates catchment area.


9/16


uploaded to C3. This was not necessarily the best approachto gathering community information in terms of keepingit up to date, especially since it is likely to be subject tochange and rendered obsolete.Nonetheless, we have foundboth the process of residents exploring the assets in theircommunity and the product of the resulting database to bevery useful. Alternatively, many municipalities and citiesare known to maintain and offer similar databases to thepublic. This is an option we have yet to explore.

Specific asset mapping began in November 2000, andconsisted of mapping the formal and informal skills ofresidents as well as a more detailed mapping of a targetedsample of the organizations, institutions, and businessespreviously identified during general asset mapping, to beconducted after compiling the results of the preliminaryassessment. As mentioned earlier, the former activity tookplace during the final 2 weeks of the introductory and spe-cialized courses. Using an early release of C3, residentsentered their formal and informal skills and interests on-

line, by selectingfroman inventory of more than 150 items,including plumbing, babysitting, web design, etc., accord-ing to those skills they can perform and those skills theywant to learn. Given this information, as well as the datagathered during the general asset mapping, residents couldnow use the C3 sitewide search module to perform a singlequery and identify all of the individual gifts and talents, aswell as local businesses and neighborhood institutions andorganizations, relevant to a particular search term such asphotography, sewing, or computer repair.

We also recognized that while many of the publicationsfurnished by the Asset-Based Community DevelopmentInstitute were excellent guides for understanding how to

conduct an asset-mapping initiative and identify relevanttools, they made little reference to the role of technology insupporting these efforts. Because technology can dramati-cally improve the efficiency with which asset-orienteddatais gathered and disseminated (Turner & Pinkett, 2000), onemust take into consideration the means by which this infor-mationis obtained. Stated differently, there is a tension thatoften arises between process, or capacity-building activ-ities thatbuild relationships, and product, or tangibleout-comes such as a completed database of resources (AspenInstitute, 1997). For example, residents skills and interestswere entered directly into C3 as part of the introductorycourses at NTC. We found this method to be extremely

efficient as it bypassed the need for paper-based recordsand data entry. The disadvantage to this approach is thelost opportunity and effectiveness of residents interview-ing other residents to obtain this information, which canheighten their awareness and appreciation of their neigh-bors abilities. In a previous research project conducted atNorthwest Tower in Chicago, Illinois (Turner & Pinkett,2000), in collaboration with Nicol Turner from the Asset-Based Community Development Institute, we found the

process of resident-to-resident interviewing with subse-quent data entry to be slightly less efficient with respect totime, but much more effective in fostering relationships.As a general rule, one should attempt to find as much bal-ance as possible between process and product given theavailable human resources, money, and time.

Phase IV: Sociocultural Constructions and AssetMobilization Online and Offline

Sociocultural constructions are physical, virtual, and cog-nitive artifacts that are resonant with a given social en-vironment and its culture as mediated by technologicalfluency. Asset mobilization involves the establishment ofproductive and meaningful connections between residents,organizations, institutions, and businesses, which previ-ously did not exist, toward achieving specific outcomes,as facilitated by asset mapping. The nature of sociocul-tural constructions and strategies for asset mobilization

are heavily informed by the preliminary assessment andinvolve outreach and the formation of new communitypartnerships.

In April, the results of the preliminary assessment werecompiled, and suggested the following strategies: (a) offermore activities for youth, (b) improve community commu-nication and social interaction at the development, (c) aug-ment current safety and security measures, and (d) expandemployment opportunities for residents. Althoughseniorsconcerns were not visibly represented in the results of theassessment, another recommended strategy was to offermore activities for seniors in addition to youth. With thisinformation, a series of meetings took place among mem-

bers of the project committee to discuss these findingsand address the issues raised by residents. Because so-ciocultural constructions and asset mobilization manifestthemselves online and offlinein thecontext of an integratedcommunity technology and community building initiative,these discussions focused on ways to effect change in bothphysical and virtual settings. A number of strategies wereundertaken in response to these findings including use ofthe C3 system to improve communication and informationflow at the development, activities during Black FamilyTechnology Week that paired youth with seniors to createPowerPoint presentations, the establishment of a newslet-ter in both paper-based and electronic formats, thematic

workshops for adults on the topics ofOnline EducationalServices, Online Banking Services, Online ShoppingServices, Online Government Services, and OnlineHousing Services, and the establishment of a Cisco Net-working Academy at NTC, a program that teaches studentshow to design, build, and maintain computer networks to-ward becoming certified as a Cisco Certified Network As-sociate (CCNA). Note that an in-depth discussion of thesestrategies is beyond the scope of this article.


10/16

374 R. PINKETT

FIG. 5. Race of participants.

Phase V: Postassessment and Evaluation

During summer 2000, we developed a postassessment sur-vey instrument that included many of the same questionsfrom the preassessment survey as well as additional ques-tions pertaining to computer use. The postassessment sur-vey instrument was designed to obtain comparative datarelative to the preliminary assessment and summative data

to evaluate the overall initiative to-date. For compara-tive purposes, it included the following areas (that werealso included on the preliminary assessment): demograph-ics, community interests and satisfaction, social networks,neighboring, awareness of community resources, commu-nity impressions, and community involvement and attach-ment. For summative purposes, the following areas werealso included: Camfield EstatesMIT project, training ex-perience, and computer and Internet use.

In August 2001, the postassessment was conducted andconsistedof face-to-face interviews withthe headof house-hold from the 26 out of 32 families that completed Round Iof the project (only the data for 19 of these 26 families wasavailable at the time of this publication). The early resultsfrom the postassessment and evaluation are presentednext.

EARLY RESULTS

Demographic information for the participants in thepostassessment is presented first. This is followed by adiscussion of the early results in relation to communitysocial capital and community cultural capital.

FIG. 6. Gender of participants.

FIG. 7. Age of participants.

Demographics

The 26 participants who completed the program repre-sent a subset of the 32 participants who initially agreedto participate in Round I. Consequently, the demographicsfor these 26 participants are almost identical to the demo-graphics of the larger superset that was represented in the

preliminary assessment sample (note that complete datawere only available for 19 of these 26 participants at thetime of this publication). Again, the average participantcould be described as a single, Black/African-Americanfemale, head-of-household. Figure 5 shows the race ofparticipants, Figure 6 shows the gender of participants,Figure 7 shows the age of participants, Figure 8 showsthe marital status of participants, Figure 9 shows the ed-ucation of participants, Figure 10 shows the family sizeof participants, and Figure 11 shows the annual incomeof participants. Here, 14 participants (74%) were parentswith an average of 1.5 children, while 5 participants (24%)were either single, married, or divorced without children.

Community Social Capital

I define community social capital as the extent to whichmembers of a community can work and learn togethereffectively. Increased community social capital includes:(a) reconfigured (Contractor & Bishop, 1999) social net-works (e.g., broader extent, proximity and valued inheredin strong and weak social ties) as opposed to reinforcingexisting ties), (b) increased obligations and expectations

FIG. 8. Marital status of participants.


11/16


FIG. 9. Education of participants.

of trustworthiness (e.g., increased reliance on neighborsfor advice or help and other social support measures), (c)expanded access to information channels (e.g., heightenedawareness of community resources), and (d) strengthenednorms and effective sanctions (e.g., increased interactionamong residents that inhibits negative behaviors). The fol-lowing is a summary of the early results from the post-

assessment in the context of community social capital:r Social networks: Participantshave expanded their

local ties. The number of residents that were rec-ognizable by name increased from 30 to 40 outof a possible 137 adults; the number of residentscontacted via telephone and e-mail doubled (t =1.978; p = .063); 53% of participants reportedthat they were more connected to family andfriends in the local area, as shown in Table 2.

r Access to information channels: Participants havea heightened awareness of community resources.The number of City of Boston services, programs,

and/or departments that participants had heard ofor used increased from 34 to 43; a paired-samplest-test of residents awareness and utilization ofcommunity resources in nine categories resultedin a statistically significant increase in four ofthose categories (a fifth was nearly significant), in-cluding residents skills and abilities (t = 3.284;p = .004), volunteer opportunities in the neigh-borhood (t = 3.684; p = .002), social servicesand programs provided for the community (t =3.240; p = .005), community projects, activities,and events (t = 4.371; p = .000), and employ-

FIG. 10. Family size of participants.

FIG. 11. Annual income of participants.

ment opportunities in the community (t = 1.924;p = .070), as shown in Table 3; the CamfieldEstates web site and the C3 system received highmarks from participants when asked to rate itsuse-fulness in this regard.

Community Cultural Capital

I define community cultural capital as various forms ofknowledge, skills, abilities, and interests, which have par-ticular relevance or value within a community. Activatedcommunity cultural capital constitutes: (a) exchangingknowledge and resources (e.g., formal or informal shar-ing of information, products, services, etc.), (b) improvingtechnological fluency (Papert & Resnick, 1995; Resnicket al., 1998) and the ability of community members to ex-press themselves via technology (e.g., the ability to createa personal web site that portrays a particular interest suchas books), (c) coalescing around shared interests (e.g., agroup of mothers discussing effective childrearing prac-tices), and (d) shifting individuals attitudes and percep-tions of themselves and the world (e.g., renewed confi-dence in their abilities, their capacity to learn, and theirappreciation of assets in their community). The followingis a summary of the early results from the postassessmentin the context of community cultural capital:

r Knowledge and resources: Participants are betterinformed about local issues and there is an im-proved communication and informationflowatthedevelopment. Almost half of participants (47%)reported that they are more aware of what is go-ing on at Camfield when compared to before theproject was started. This was partly due to the fact

that a core group of residents and staff have takenthe lead in actively contributing to the CamfieldEstates web site and the C3 system. The most pop-ular C3 modules were the resident profiles (31%of traffic), calendar of events (18% of traffic), anddiscussion forums (13% of traffic) on the Cam-field Estates web site, and while these modulesexperienced moderate use,their traffic hassteadilyincreased since the site went live.


12/16

376 R. PINKETT

TABLE 2

Residents social networks at Camfield Estates

Mean Paired-samples

t-testAugust August

Question 2000 2001 t p

Please identify those residents whom you recognize

by name?

29.7 39.5 1.108 0.283

Please identify those residents whom you talk to on what

you would consider to be a regular basis?

10.2 9.2 0.604 0.553

Please identify those residents whom you have invited

into your home in the last six months?

4.4 4.5 0.043 0.966

Please identify those residents whom have invited you

into their home in the last six months?

3.4 4.2 0.790 0.440

Please identify those residents whom you have called

on the phone in the last six months?

2.4 4.6 1.542 0.141

Please identify those residents whom you have contacted

using e-mail in the last six months?

1.3 3.0 1.978a 0.063

a Statistical significance (|t| > 1.96; p < .05).

r Technological fluency: Participants desired to usetechnology in a variety of creative ways but wereoften too busy to do so or their schedule was notamenable to attending follow-up courses. Fromamong the top-ranked uses of their computer andInternet access, participants ranked several cre-ative activities low, such as contributing contentto the Camfield Estates web site (#18), design-ing a flyer, poster, or newsletter (#19) and con-

tributing content to another web site (#19), de-signing a web page (#26), and creating an on-line photo album (#27). One possible explanation

TABLE 3

Residents awareness and utilization of community resources

Very well/well informedPaired-samples t-test

August August

Resource 2000 2001 t p

Skills and abilities of other residents at Camfield Estates 11% 32% 3.284a 0.004a

Associations and organizations that serve the community 26% 58% 1.278 0.217

Volunteer opportunities in the community 0% 42% 3.684a 0.002a

Institutions located in the community (e.g., schools) 74% 84% 0.809 0.429

Social services and programs provided for the community 26% 63% 3.240a 0.005a

Community projects, activities, and events 11% 58% 4.371a 0.000a

Businesses located in the community 53% 63% 0.224 0.826

Products and services sold by local businesses 32% 32% 0.357 0.725

Employment opportunities in the community 5% 37% 1.924 0.070

a Statistical significance (|t| > 1.96; p < .05).

why some residents have not chosen to make timefor such activities is that creative uses of technol-ogy were sometimes relegated to the category ofleisure activities and often subordinated to moreimmediate, pressing concerns in their midst. Inother words, for adults at Camfield, with multiple,competing demands on their time, such as their

jobs and their children, time, is a scarce resource.Similarly, a lack of time was one of the most

commonly cited reasons for residents nonpartici-pation during assessment and awareness(Phase I).


13/16


r Technological Fluency: Participants making thegreatest strides toward technologicalfluency werethose receiving some form of ongoing support forcontinuous learning. This was not surprising;however, the interviews clearly demonstrated thedifference between users who had structures to

support their learning andthose who didnot.Thosewho did not have readily accessible or convenientmeans of support made only moderate progress to-ward becoming more technologically fluent sincecompleting the introductory course, despite theirdesire to do so. For those that had support it camein various forms. In some cases, a family member,typically a son or a daughter, or a close friend pro-vided technicalassistance afterthey completed theintroductory course. In other cases, participantsrelied on the staff at NTC, to the extent that theywere home during the centers hours of operation.

r Attitude and perception: Participants have cul-

tivated the meta-competence of a renewed con-fidence in themselves and their ability to learn.Qualitative responses from the one-on-one inter-views revealed a shift in participants attitudesand perceptions of themselves as learners. Severalparticipants described their personal transition ofmoving from a reticence toward technology to en-visioning themselves as (or taking actual stepsto becoming) web designers, network administra-tors, and programmers. In particular, their partic-ipation in the training has given them a greaterappreciation of their strengths, and it has giventhe community a greater appreciation of its most

basic assets, the skills and abilities of its residents.

CONCLUSION

Since its inception, the Camfield EstatesMIT CreatingCommunity Connections Project has sought to integratecommunity technology and community building by draw-ing upon the theories of sociocultural constructionismand asset-based community development. However, thecommunity technology movement, primarily in the formof community technology centers (CTCs), and thecommunity-building movement, primarily in the form ofcommunity-based organizations (CBOs), have historically

existed in separate, rather than holistic, spheres of practice.InBridging the Organizational Divide: Toward a Compre-hensiveApproachto theDigital Divide, KirschenbaumandKunamneni (2001) coin this disconnect as the organiza-tional divide. They write, As we develop policies andprograms to bridge the Digital Divide we must insure thatthese are linked to broader strategies for social changein two ways. First, we must allow the wisdom and ex-perience of existing community infrastructure to inform

our work. Second, we must focus our efforts on emergingtechnologies as a tool to strengthen and support the com-munity infrastructure (p. 3). Leaders in both fields mustdevise strategies to connect these two movements towardunleashing their collective transformative power. For thisto occur, the following things must happen:

r Theories must be developed. This article offers thetheoretical framework of sociocultural construc-tionism and an asset-based approach to commu-nity technology and community building, whichrepresents just one of a growing number of the-ories dealing with these issues. There is both aneed to further develop this perspective by apply-ing it in different contexts toward different out-comes, and a need to establish new perspectivesthat suggest alternate approaches that can alsobe explored. Such a strategy can simultaneouslyserve to broaden and deepen our understanding of

these issues.r Research must be advanced. The CamfieldEstatesMIT project is one of a growing num-ber of initiatives seeking to demonstrate the roleof technology for community revitalization(Kirschenbaum & Kunamneni, 2001; Schonet al.,1999). These other examples fall into the cate-gories of advocacy and online organizing, commu-nity information clearinghouses, networking andonline communities, innovations in service deliv-ery, interactive database development, and com-munity mapping (Kirschenbaum & Kunamneni,2001), and are beginning to grow in number, size,

and scope. We must to continue to study and high-light examples of community technology andcommunity-building projects as a means to dis-seminate lessons learned and advance ourunderstanding.

r Practices must be changed. Community technol-ogy practitioners must connect their activities tomore traditional, outcome-driven program areassuch as youth, workforce development, and healthcare, as these areas also represent more estab-lished and stable sources of funding. Community-building practitioners must closely examine therole of technology in improving their organiza-

tional effectiveness and supporting their efforts toreach out to the community; such an examinationalso holdsthe greatest promise for identifying newinnovations in the work they perform.

r Funding must be shifted. There are a number ofgrant programs that will provide money for hard-ware or software only, without associated fundsfor the necessary courses and training required tomake productive use of these tools. Conversely,


14/16

378 R. PINKETT

there are a number of grant programs that willprovide money for specific programs, such asyouth development or improved delivery of healthcare, without simultaneous support for technol-ogy development and infrastructure. Communitytechnology and community-building initiativesrequire funding that allows them to pursue an inte-grated and comprehensive agenda. Although bothmovements combined would benefit from addi-tional resources, an easier win could be achievedby simply leveraging existing resources moresynergistically.

r Policies must be altered. For example, the federalE-rate program that provides subsidized telecom-munications services to schools and librariesshould be extended to nonprofit organizations. Inshort, government must acknowledge the inher-ent synergy between programs aimed at bridgingthe digital divide and those aimed at alleviating

poverty.

At Camfield, we have been fortunate that through thecombined support of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, MIT,Hewlett-Packard Company, Microsoft Corporation, RCNTelecom Services, U.S. Department of Housing and Ur-ban Development(HUD), MassachusettsHousing FinanceAgency (MHFA), Williams Consulting Services (WCS),andothers,we havebeen able to pursue a combined agenda.Accordingly, for the existing pool of community technol-ogy and community-building practitioners to unite theirefforts will require the coordinated activities of presentlydisjoint foundations, policymakers, government agencies,

and nonprofit organizations, as well as technical assistanceproviders, researchers, industry representatives, and cir-cuit riders, in order to be successful.

Our goal to establishCamfield as a model for other com-munities manifests itself in two ways: first, as a method-ology that can inform the work being done in other com-munities to strengthen the capacity of residents, organiza-tions, and businesses in their neighborhood and second,as an example that demonstrates the limitless possibilitieswhen community members are engaged as active agents ofchange and active producers of information and content.Years from now, I expect to see new realities at CamfieldEstates, and new areas within cyberspace by Camfield res-idents, that continue to inspire other communities acrossthe globe.

REFERENCES

Aspen Institute. 1997. Voices from the field: Learning from the

early work of comprehensive community initiatives. Washington,

DC: The Aspen Institute. http://www.aspenroundtable.org/voices/

index.htm)

Beamish, A. 1999. Approaches to community computing: Bringing

technology to low-income groups. InHigh technology in low-income

communities: Prospects for the positive use of information technol-

ogy, eds. D. Schon, B. Sanyal, and W. J. Mitchell, pp. 349 368.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bishop, A. P., Tidline, T. J., Shoemaker, S., and Salela, P. 1999. Public

libraries and networked information services in low-income com-

munities. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Graduate School of Library andInformation Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J. C. 1977. Reproduction in education,

society and culture, trans. by RichardNice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brown, L. D. 1983. Participatory research and community planning.

In Managing conflict at organizational interfaces, ed. L. D. Brown,

chap. 8. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cancian, F. M. 1993. Conflicts between activist research and academic

success: Participatory research and alternative strategies. The Amer-

ican Sociologist 24(1):92106.

Chow, C., Ellis, J., Mark, J., and Wise, B. 1998. Impact of CTCNet

affiliates: Findings from a national survey of users of community

technology centers. Newton, MA: Education Development Center,

Inc. http://www.ctcnetorg/impact98.html

Cohill, A. M., and Kavanaugh, A. L. 1997. Community networks:Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia. Blacksburg, VA: Artech House

Telecommunications Library.

Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital.

American Journal of Sociology 94:S95S120.

Contractor, N., and Bishop, A. P. 1999. Reconfiguring community net-

works: The case of PrairieKNOW. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Depart-

ment of Speech Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign.

Friedenberger, J. 1991. Participatory research and grassroots develop-

ment: A case study from Harlem. City and Society 5(1):6475.

Gaber, J., and Gaber, S. L. 1997. Utilizing mixed-method research

designs in planning: The case of 14th Street, New York City.Journal

of Planning Education and Research 17(2):95103.

Hampton, K., and Wellman, B. 1999. Examining community in thedigital neighborhood: Early results from Canadas wired suburb. In

Digital cities: Technologies, experiences, and future perspectives,

eds. T. Ishida and K. Isbister, pp. 194208. Heidelberg, Germany:

Springer-Verlag.

Hess, D. R. 1999. Community organizing, building and develop-

ing: Their relationship to comprehensive community initiatives.

Working paper series for COMM-ORG: The On-Line Conference

on Community Organizing and Development, June. http://comm-

org.utoledo.edu/papers99/hess.html

Hooper, P. 1998. They have their own thoughts: Childrens learning

of computational ideas from a cultural constructionist perspective.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge,

MA.

Kavanaugh, A. L., and Patterson, S. J. 1999. Blacksburg Electronic Vil-lage (BEV) communty survey. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic

Institute & State University.

Kingsley, G. T., McNeely, J. B., and Gibson, J. O. 1999. Community

building coming of age. The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/

comminity/combuild.htm

Kirschenbaum, J., and Kunameni, R. 2001. Bridging the organi-

zational divide: Toward a comprehensive approach to the digi-

tal divide. Oakland, CA: PolicyLink, September. http://policylink.

org/publications


15/16


Kretzmann,J. P., and McKnight, J. L. 1993.Building communities from

the inside out: A path towardfinding and mobilizing a communitys

assets. Chicago: ACTA.

Lamont,M., and Lareau, A. 1988. Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and

glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory

6(2):153168.

Lazarus, W., and Mora, F. 2000. On-line content for low-income

and underserved Americans: The digital divides new frontier.Santa Monica, CA: The Childrens Partnership. http://www.

childrenspartnership.org/pub/low income/index.html

Mattessich,P., and Monsey, B. 1997. Community building: What makes

it work: A review of factors influencing successful community build-

ing. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Minicucci, S. 2000. Social capital community benchmark survey.

Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard

University.

Morino, M. 1994. Assessment and evolution of community networking.

Paper presented at Ties That Bind, at Apple Computer, Cupertino,

CA.

Mueller, E. J., Briggs, X. de Souza, and Sullivan, M. 1997. Neigh-

borhood study questionnaire. Austin, TX: Urban Issues Program,

University of Texas.Naparstek, A. J., Dooley, D., and Smith, R. 1997. Community building

in public housing: Ties that bind people and their communities. The

Urban Institute/Aspen Systems Corporation. http://www.cpn.org/

sections/tools/manuals/cb in public housing.html

OBrien, R. 1998. An overview of the methodological approach of ac-

tion research. Unpublished paper to Professor Joan Cherry, Course

LIS3005Y, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto,

April 17. http://www.web.net/robrien/papers/arfinal.html

OBryant, R. 2001. Establishing neighborhood technology centers in

low-income communities: A crossroads for social science and com-

puter information technology. Projections: The MIT Student Jour-

nal of PlanningMaking Places through Information Technology

2(2):112127.

Papert, S. A. 1993. Instructionism vs. constructionism. The childrensmachine. New York: Basic Books.

Papert, S., and Resnick, M. 1995. Technological fluency and the repre-

sentation of knowledge. Proposal to the National ScienceFoundation.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.

Peattie,L. 1994.An approach to urban research in thenineties.Planning

Theory 12:128.

Pinkett, R. D. 2000. Bridging the digital divide: Sociocultural con-

structionism and an asset-based approach to community technology

and community building. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meet-

ing of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),

New Orleans, LA, April. http://www.media.mit.edu/rpinkett/

papers/aera2000.pdf

Pinkett, R. D. 2002. Creating community connections: Sociocul-

tural constructionism and an asset-based approach to communitytechnology and community building. Unpublished PhD disser-

tation, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. http://www.

bctpartners.com/comm tech.htm

Putnam, R. 1993. The prosperous communitySocial capital and pub-

lic life. The American Prospect 26:1821.

Putnam, R. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappear-

ance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics

December:664683.

Resnick, M., Rusk, N., and Cooke, S. 1998. The computer clubhouse:

Technological fluency in the inner city. In High technology in low-

income communities: Prospects for the positive Use of information

technology, eds. D. Schon, B. Sanyal, and W. J. Mitchell, pp. 263

286. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Resnick, P. 2000. Whos that? Survey of neighbors in southeastern

Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: School of Information, University of

Michigan.Rothenbuhler, E. 1991. The process of community involvement. Com-

munications Monographs 58:6378.

Saegart, S., and Thompson, P. J. 1994. Building social capital in public

housing survey. New York: Graduate School and University Center,

City University of New York.

Schon, D. A., Sanyal, B., and Mitchell, W. J., eds. 1999. High tech-

nology and low-income communities: Prospects for the positive

use of advanced information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Schorr, Lisabeth. 1997. Common purpose: Strengthening families and

neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books.

Schuler, D. 1996. New community networks: Wired for change. Read-

ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shaw, Alan C. 1995. Social constructionism and the inner city: De-signing environments for social development and urban renewal.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge,

MA.

Stamm, K. R. 1985. Newspaper use and community ties: Toward a

dynamic theory. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Turner, N. E., and Pinkett, R. D. 2000. An asset-based approach

to community technology and community building. Proceedings of

Shaping the Network Society: The Future of the Public Sphere in

Cyberspace, Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing

Symposium 2000 (DIAC-2000), Seattle, WA, May. http://www.

media.mit.edu/rpinkett/papers/diac2000.pdf)

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995. Falling through the Net:A survey

of the have nots in rural and urban America. Full Report, July.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. Falling through the Net II:

New data on the digital divide. Full Report, July. http://www.ntia.

doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Falling through the Net

III: Defining the digital divide. Full Report, July. http://www.

ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Falling through the Net

IV: Toward digital inclusion. Full Report, October. http://www.

ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1999.Empower-

ment zone/enterprise community. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development.

Whyte, W. 1991. Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Williams Consulting Services. 2000. Course syllabus: Introduction to

Windows and Internet Explorer. Prepared and delivered by Williams

Consulting Services (WCS) for the Camfield Estates Neighbor-

hood Technology Center (NTC).Roxbury, MA: Williams Consulting

Services.

Zweigenhaft, R. 1993. Prep school and public school graduates of Har-

vard: A longitudinal study of the accumulation of social and cultural

capital. Journal of Higher Education 64(2):211225.


16/16

community technology and comm building

Documents