Content uploaded by Lori Brainard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lori Brainard on May 12, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
10.1177/0275074003257430 ARTICLEARPA/ December 2003Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE
CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE
Illustrations From Health Care and
Implications for Public Administration
LORI A. BRAINARD
The George Washington University
This article investigates two examples of citizen cyber-organizing in the context of the literatures on
social capital and organizing. It asks, What can cyber-organizations teach us about the current state of
social capital? What are the implications of cyber-organizing for the context of public administration?
Whatimplicationsdocyber-organizationsholdfortherole of the public administrator?Theauthorcon
-
cludesthatthecontinuouscommunicationof participantsincyber-organizations,aswell as theirtransi
-
toryandinformal rolesandrules,theirsocial and emotional support, and their developmentofashared
understandingoftheissuestheyfacefunctionasforms of social capitalthatfacilitatecivic engagement.
Furthermore,cyber-organizationsaddtothefragmentedandfluidsocialandpoliticalenvironmentcon
-
fronting publicadministration.Finally, to realizethepotentialpowerandsignificance of cyber-organiz-
ing,publicadministratorsshouldbegintoseesuchorganizationsthroughalensthatisdifferent fromthe
professional orientation to interest groups that has pervaded the field. Public administrators must
reimagine themselves as agents of the social bond.
Keywords: organizing; Internet; civic engagement; social capital; health care; e-government
Social capital matters to public administration. The term, introduced by Loury
(1977, 1987;see alsoBourdieu, 1986),denotes resources (such asinformation and
norms) stemming from social relationships that are useful for people’s develop
-
ment, promote cooperation, andallowpeople totakeaction.
1
In thecontextof pub
-
lic administration,social capital is the combination of resources that contributes to
thedevelopment ofastrong citizenable to engagewith othercitizens and withgov
-
ernment.Socialcapitalisthefoundation upon whichourabilitytogovernourselves
together depends.
2
Changes in the sources of social capital and, by extension, the nature of civic
engagement (participation in public life), thus are important to consider as we
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author thanks Jennifer Brinkerhoff, Terry Cooper, the anonymous reviewers,
and especially Cynthia McSwain for advice, assistance, and feedback. The author also thanks Patricia
Siplon, with whom the author performed the research on which this article is based.
Initial Submission: October 31, 2002
Accepted: June 9, 2003
AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 33 No. 4, December 2003 384-406
DOI: 10.1177/0275074003257430
© 2003 Sage Publications
384
“revision”publicadministration(Adams&Catron,1994) andreimaginetheroleof
the public administrator (see, e.g., Box, 1998; King & Stivers, 1998; McSwite,
2002; Vigoda &Golembiewski, 2001). Itis precisely for thisreason that reports of
the erosion of social capital and civic engagement have captured so much of our
attention.Thus,forexample,Putnam(1995a, 1995b, 2000)reportsthatsocialcapi
-
tal and civic engagement in the United States have been measurably declining for
the past 25 years. He therefore concludes that government must do a better job of
increasing citizen participation.
Two critiquesof Putnam’swork are especiallypertinentto the presentanalysis.
3
First, Edwards and Foley (1998) argue that Putnam unduly narrows the concept of
social capital by vesting itin individuals and in structures ratherthan insocial rela
-
tions.In fact,EdwardsandFoleyrecommendareturntotheunderstanding ofsocial
capital generated by Coleman (1990) building on Loury’s (1977, 1987) work.
Though Coleman notes that social capital is a resource that accrues to individuals,
he argues that it does not reside in individuals. Rather, social capital inheres in
social relations and organization and is important because it facilitates individual
and collective action. Social relations and organization matter.
4
A second criticismof Putnam’s work is that when he does look at organizations
and social relations, rather than at individuals, he emphasizes official membership
in formal organizations (Fischer, 2001; Skocpol, 1996; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999;
Wills, 2000). Thus, Putnam underappreciates the social capital generated by new
kinds of social relations. Wellman (2002, p. 10), for example, agrees with Putnam
thatwearemovingfromagroup- andorganization-basedsocietybutarguesthatwe
are moving toward networks (including computer networks) and that networks
augment social capital (see also Castells,2000; Quan-Haase et al., 2002; Wellman
et al., 1996). Similarly, Norris (2002) argues thatsocial movements are a burgeon-
ing form of association that facilitates unconventional forms of civic engagement
such as participation in protests. As Norris states,
The most active and demanding forms of mobilization today, exemplified by the
anti-globalizationprotestmovement...arecharacterizedbyloose-knitand
decentralized communications, minimal formal structures of leadership, and ad
hoc coalitions of disparate, autonomous and inchoate activists, all committed to
achievingpolitical change andyet none ofwhich canbe captured byconventional
membership rolls. (p. 5)
ThisarticleassumesColeman’s(1990)pointsthatsocialcapitalmattersbecause
it facilitates individual and collective action and that it inheres in social relations
and organizations—rather than in individuals. It also answers Norris’s (2002) and
Wellman’s(2002) implicitcalls toinvestigate alternative sites for and sources of
social capitaland civic engagement. Itthus returns tothe logically prior issue
of whether organizational life is eroding, as Putnam (2000) claims, or simply
changing. Indeed, perhaps it is our concept of “organization” that is the problem.
Maybe,becausewearelockedinatraditionalviewoforganizationthatemphasizes
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 385
formal structures, we are missing rich alternative sites and organizations that offer
genuinely new opportunities for building social capital and facilitating civic
engagement.
Thisarticleinvestigatestwoexamplesof citizen cyber-organizingaround health
issues. Though these cyber-organizations are not formal organizations in any con
-
ventionalsense,asocialconstructivistapproach enables ustoseethemasmeaning
-
fulinstancesof organizinginwhichpeoplegenuinelyengagewitheach other.They
develop transitory norms and informal roles, share experiential information, and
provide mutual support. In addition, and perhaps more important, these cyber-
organizationsaffordapotential venue forthekind ofengagement necessary forthe
generation of socialcapital. Through these processes of cyber contact and connec
-
tion, the participants constitute themselves in relation to each other, in their com
-
monality, and in their singularity. In effect, they create, maintain, and alter them
-
selvesand theirfellowparticipantsthrough theirinteractions. Thisis theessence of
the idea of a social bond, the existence and sustaining of which is critical to social
capital formation.
Although the cyber-organizing phenomenon may provide exciting new possi-
bilities for reinvigorating democracy, it also poses important challenges, opportu-
nities,andquestionsforpublic administration. First, what can we learn from cyber-
organizations about the current state of social capital? Second, what are the impli-
cations of cyber-organizing for the environment in which public administration
takes place? Third, what implications do cyber-organizations hold for the role of
thepublicadministrator inanincreasinglyfragmentedandfluidsocialandpolitical
context characterized by the dominance of technology?
The nature of citizen cyber-organizing runs contrary to the dominant “techni-
cist”(McSwite,2002) paradigmof public administrationpractice. Ifweare to ben-
efit from the collective lived experience of these cyber-organizations, therefore,
public administrators must learn the central lesson such organizing has to offer—
that the delicate web of social capital is formed through the careful, mutual con
-
struction of a shared reality. The implication for public administrators seems to be
thatweneedtoturnawayfromourtraditional,hierarchicallybasedidentityofcom
-
mand, control, and regulation to an identity orientated to mutual engagement and
facilitation.
ORGANIZATION AND ORGANIZING
Putnam’s (2000) research largely focuses on formal membership in established
organizations, whereas the work of Weick (1979, 1995) helps us to see organiza
-
tions differently. It helps us see the significance of the cyber-organization as a site
and source of social capitalthat facilitates civic engagement.
5
Weick,a preeminent
exemplar of social constructivism (Berger & Luckmann, 1967), suggests that to
adoptpositivemethodologiesandfocusonorganizationalstructuresistomisswhat
is most important about organizing. Arguing that scholars should seek to under
-
386 ARPA / December 2003
stand not the organization asan entity but, rather, the process of organizing, Weick
focuses on people and how, through interaction and communication, they make
sense of the world while creating it.
In this view of organizing, predetermined goals are viewed as symbolic, if they
existatall(Silverman,1971). Indeed, Weick (1979) arguesthatpeople do notorga
-
nize to pursue predetermined goals. Instead, he argues that agreement on goals is
not even necessary for collective action. Rather, people “can pursue quite different
ends for quite differentreasons. All they ask of one another at these initialstages is
thecontributionoftheiraction”(p.91;seealsoAllport,1962,p.17). Theessenceof
organizing, in Weick’s (1995) view, lies in the ongoing social process of “sense
-
making”;thatis,ofcomingtoanunderstandingofevents,ofcomplexity,ofsitu
-
ations. The problem that leads to organizing, writes Weick (1995, p. 27), “is
confusion, not ignorance.” Thus, for example, people engage in sensemaking to
“structure the unknown” (Waterman, 1990, p. 41) and interpret discrepancies and
attribute meaning (Louis, 1980, p. 241). Thomas, Clark, and Gioia (1993) explain
sensemakingasthe“reciprocalinteractionofinformationseeking,meaningascrip
-
tion,andaction”(p. 240). Organizingthusoccurstomakecollectivesenseofthings
and to takeactionon thebasisof thatunderstanding. Butthis occurs through acon-
tinuous processual loop so that,as people and organizations attempt to make sense
oftheir circumstances and takeaction, they“enact” (Weick,1995, p.30) theirenvi-
ronment; that is, they “produce part of the environment they face” (p. 30) and with
which they subsequently and continuously interact.
Weick’s argument, that people organize not to address ignorance but to amelio-
rate confusion, implies a distinction between information (an appropriate antidote
for the problem of ignorance) and communication. Thus, organizing occurs
through interaction and communication. Such interaction can take place symboli-
cally(Blumer, 1969),inwhich case itinvolvesan individualinteractingor commu-
nicating with an imaginary or absent other. More to the point of social capital and
organizing,communicationmayalsotakeplacebetweenandamongindividuals,or
intersubjectively. In this case, individuals create understandings of situations,
events, circumstances, complexity, and ambiguity through their interactions and
their “encounters,” as Harmon (1981, p. 4) puts it, with others.
These understandings can be “picked up, perpetuated, and enlarged by people
who did not participate in the original intersubjective construction” (Weick, 1995,
p. 72), synthesizing and crystallizing into what Norbert Wiley (1988) callsa “level
of social reality” (p. 254) or what Smircich (1983) refers to as “networks of mean
-
ing” (p. 160). As Maryan Schall (1983) writes, organizations are “developed and
maintained onlythrough continuous communication activity-exchanges andinter
-
pretations among itsparticipants ....Asinteracting participantsorganize by com
-
municating, they evolve shared understandings around issues of common interest,
and so develop a sense of the collective ‘we’ ” (p. 560; see also VrMeer, 1970). In
the process, theyalso createnorms androles that,together withtheir shared under
-
standings, serve as “common premises for action” (Weick, 1995, p. 170) or forms
of social capital (Coleman, 1990).
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 387
The value of this perspective on organizations is that it directs our attention to
organizing processes rather than to formal structures. Furthermore, it directs our
attention to social interaction and communication. Organization, and the social
capital that inheres in it, thus becomes an emergent process concept rather than a
reifiedconstruct. Nevertheless,in a studyoriginally publishedin 1979, Burrell and
Morgan (2001, p. 263) leveled two criticisms at empirical studies of such organiz
-
ing.BurrellandMorganargued,first,thatwhenscholarshavestudiedempiricalsit
-
uations from this view of organizing, the “notion of . . . structure appears on the
stage” implicitly and, second, that to circumvent ideas about structure, investiga
-
tors often chose highly unusual situations. Studying cyber-organizing meets both
oftheseobjections. What distinguishescyber-organizationsfrom establishedorga
-
nizations is, in part, their lack of formal goals and roles, a lack of formal structure
rather entirely. Also, the Internet has become a vibrant, “everyday venue.” Indeed,
the Internet has become so commonplace (at least among elites in the United
States) that we tend to take it for granted as a tool for information dissemination,
advertising, and networking and we often overlook it as a venue of pure process in
which social relationships are constantly becoming, that is,as a venuefor organiz-
ing and producing social capital. Finally, cyber-organizing comprises the central
processinvolvedin this view oforganizations, communication. If,asWeick(1995)
writes, “communication activity is the organization” (p. 75), then taking our
investigationstocyberspaceallowsustostudyapurerformofsuchorganization.
The cyber-organizing phenomenon also raises several important issues. Schol-
ars suggest that organizational creativity, vitality, and activity are hindered in the
absence of face-to-face interaction (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Peters, 1992, pp. 432-
435) and in the absence of the formal roles that act as conveyer belts for organiza-
tionalculture, shared understanding, andthatsense of “we”towhich Schall(1983)
refers(see also Berscheid,Snyder,& Omoto, 1989). That cyber-organizationstend
to have no formal structure or formal functional or hierarchical roles, and that they
depend solely on computer-mediated communication, thus raises the issue of
whethertheycanachievethe“genericsubjectivity,”organizationalorientation,cul
-
ture, and shared sense of “we” that leads to the “interlocking routines” that, Weick
(1995) notes, serve as premises for organizational action. If they can, then they
open the possibility that there are new sites for organizing, new sources of social
capital and, therefore, resources for citizen engagement to which our traditional
waysofthinkingaboutorganizingblindus.Assuch,theyofferlessonsandimplica
-
tions for the contemporary environment facing public administration and for the
evolving role of the public administrator.
IDENTIFYING CYBER-ORGANIZATIONS
Thisstudy examinestwocasesof cyber-organizingaroundhealth issues. Health
issues are enlightening as a focus because, according to the U.S. Department of
Commerce (2002), 35% of Internet users log on in search of health care informa
-
388 ARPA / December 2003
tion. Among Internetusers aged 55 and older,42.7% seek out health-relatedinfor
-
mation.
6
The two health issues investigated here include DES (diethylstilbestrol)
exposure and HIV infection among people withhemophilia. These examples were
chosen for a variety of reasons. First, the author has done previous work on these
cases (Brainard & Siplon, 2002a, 2002b) and therefore has extensive material on
which to draw. Second, each of these examples includes cyber-organizations that
exist entirely online and have no offline resources. Third, in each case, a formal
organization exists that serves and advocates for people with the disease or disor
-
der. Thus members of the cyber-organizations have chosen to either opt out of, or
augment their participation in, the formal nonprofit organizations with participa
-
tion in the cyber-organization. Furthermore, these two health issues span the con
-
tinuum from a widely known health issue (hemophilia/HIV) to a very low-profile
concern (DES). Thus, the DESexampleprovides insight intothe importance ofthe
Internet in facilitating contact by those who otherwise might not find each other
easily.Finally,thesecaseswere selected because theyexemplifythe understanding
oforganizinggeneratedbyWeickand thosewhobuiltonhiswork.Thoughthiscre
-
atesaselection bias, asexemplarycyber-organizationswehavemuch tolearn from
them. The author hasobserved (listened in on) the relevant Web sites and listservs,
withpermissionfrom the Websiteorlistservhost/moderator,since1998, receiving
listserv postings daily and monitoring Web sites weekly. As the author’s observa-
tion was conditional upon agreement not to publish direct quotes, names, or dates,
what follows consists of paraphrasing and relating the nature of activity in these
venues.
DES is a synthetic estrogen given to many pregnant women between 1938 and
1971. Though not initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
for miscarriage prevention,drug salespeoplefreely suggested DES to medicalpro-
fessionals, who believed that low estrogen levels were a crucial factor in miscar-
riages. Responding to such usage, in 1947 the FDA approved DES use to assist
healthy pregnancies for women at high risk of miscarriage. The drug later was
linked to anatomical abnormalities,infertility, and cancers among the daughters of
the women who were prescribed the drug (known as DES daughters).
Hemophilia is a blood protein deficiency that leads to uncontrolled bleeding,
which requires blood transfusions. The central threat to people with hemophilia
comes from internal hemorrhages. HIV infection among people with hemophilia
occurred in the early 1980s as a result of viral contamination of the clotting factor
used to control bleeds, coupled with an inadequate response to the contamination
by the blood products industry, various government agencies (such as the FDA),
and nonprofit organizations (such as the American Red Cross).
In each of these cases, traditional, formally established nonprofit organizations
advocate for patients. The National Hemophilia Foundation and DES Action both
hold 501(c)3 status. They have national headquarters and office space, along with
local chaptersand affiliates. They alsohaveformal members who typically join by
donating money. Finally, both organizations retain paid employees.
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 389
Despite the presence of these formal organizations, cyber-organizations began
developing with the adventof the Internet. The cyber-organizations examined here
include one formed around DES exposure and one formed around the hemophilia/
HIV issue. The DES-related cyber-organization consists of a listserv (www.
surrogacy.com/online_support/des) formed by DES daughter Sally Keely. The
hemophilia/HIV cyber-organization (www.web-depot.com/hemophilia) formed
around a set of electronic chat rooms, electronic bulletin boards, and listservs cre
-
ated by HIV-positive hemophiliac Michael Davon.
7
Thecyber-organizations differinseveralrespectsfrom their traditional counter
-
parts. Asthey are not formalorganizations, they have nooffline physical or human
resources such as officebuildings, employees, or donors, and they rely completely
on the Internet for their internal communication. They also do not have formal
names. Therefore, when discussing themhere, thisarticlerefers totheDES daugh
-
ters’listservasDES-L. When discussingDavon’selectronicservicesforthosewith
hemophilia/HIV,this article uses thename HemophiliaHome Page(HHP) because
all the services (including bulletin boards, chat rooms, and listservs) were accessi
-
ble from Davon’s central Web page by that name.
Second, unlike their traditional counterparts, the cyber-organizations have no
formal membership requirements and do not require dues. One only subscribes to
be considered a member. This means that subscribers may enact their membership
inmyriadways.Onemayactivelypost,postoccasionally,listenwithout posting, or
ignore the messages altogether. Thus, despite this important difference, cyber-
organizations, and scholars studying them, confront the usual problem of how to
regardparticipation. Clearly, postingmessages isanobvious formof participation.
Listening to the listservs without posting is certainly participation, especially for
the poster and especially when someone posts for the first time andannounces that
heorshehas been listeningforsomeperiodoftime.Beyondtheseobviousformsof
participation, however, there is no way of discerning whether someone who listens
without posting is disgruntled or free-riding. Similarly, it does not necessarily
meanthattheperson is not engagingin theorganization’sactivitiesdirectedtoward
the external world or otherwise communicating by private e-mail with posters and
other members of the organization (Patterson, 2000a, 2000b; see also Hirschman,
1970). Nevertheless, those who post seem to be cognizant of the fact that non
-
posters may be listening, as one often witnesses posters cautioning others against,
forexample,spreading misinformation or being tooaggressiveintheirdebatingfor
fear of alienating listeners.
Members of these cyber-organizations hail from all walks of life; diseases and
disabilitiesdonot discriminate.Members thusbring with themvariedpersonal and
professionalbackgrounds. Ineachofthesecyber-organizations,onecanfindsecre
-
taries, nurses, doctors, professors, and laborers as well as people with different
socioeconomic status (though all of them, of course, can afford a computer and
Internetaccess).Thus,though eachcyber-organizationconsistsofnonprofessional
organizers, each also contains within it a great deal of collective human capital.
390 ARPA / December 2003
Third, the cyber-organizations and their formal counterparts differ in thenature
of the claims they make on society and in their focus on issue ownership.
8
Formal
health nonprofits tend to make claims on society and government in the form of
appeals for charity on behalf of a “deserving” segment of the population, often
stressingthe“victimization”oftheirmembers. Withregardtoissueownership,tra
-
ditional nonprofits look to health professionals and technical experts to define and
solvehealthproblems.Withthetypicaldefinitionofhealthproblemsbeing“lackof
a cure” (rather than, e.g., lack of societal accommodation of people with diseases
and disorders), their primary role is to raise money (through appeals to charity) to
work with both scientific and medical experts, as well as government agencies, in
discovering and implementing a cure.
By contrast, both the DES-L and the HHP manifest the idea that individuals
should empower themselves, rather than defer to experts in the private and public
sectors,thepowertodefine issuesand suggestsolutions.Theyareorientedtothe
idea that individuals should be full and active participants in their care rather
than passive recipients of expert advice and treatment. In fact, they view them
-
selvesasexpertsin thattheylivewith their disorders.The participantsin the cyber-
organizations want to be able to live their lives in a meaningful way despite their
health problems. Related to this, they are oriented more toward making claims
basedon rights ratherthancharity.Afterall,participants in the cyber-organizations
(or,inthecaseofDESdaughters,theirmothers)havebeenilltreatedbythemedical
community and by its relations with both government and the private sector.
9
The illustrations below describe these cyber-organizations as organizations
along the lines of the characteristics suggested by Weick and those who built upon
his work. The next section therefore details their absence of foundational goals,
their transitory norms and informal rules and roles, and their emergent activities
internalto theirorganization.Italsodemonstrateshowtheseorganizationalcharac-
teristics serve as forms of social capital (Coleman, 1990) that facilitate both indi
-
vidual and collective citizen action.
10
Following this, the implications for public
administration and the role of the public administrator are discussed.
ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE
Absence of Foundational Goals
Both cyber-organizations have similar origins that are reminiscent of several of
Weick’s points reviewed above. When Sally Keely and Michael Davon launched
their Web sites, they had no particular goals in mind. They did not intend to form
organizations, foster social capital, or facilitate civic engagement. They were sim
-
ply attempting to share information through the use of static(noninteractive) sites.
Nevertheless,inlaunchingtheirsites,theyproduced,or“enacted,”theenvironment
thattheysubsequently faced.Specifically,subsequent tolaunching their sites,both
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 391
Keely and Davon were contacted by others who praised the information distribu
-
tionbutvoicedadesirefor further communicationwithothers with thesame health
issues, thus revealing their confusion as opposed to ignorance.
In 1996, Keely receivedwhat shebelieved to be erroneous advicefrom her doc
-
tor about a treatment plan for her DES-related condition. To learn more, Keely
startedher ownresearch and foundarticlesabout DESand itseffects.She soon dis
-
covered the Web site of DES Action, the formal organization that advocates on
behalfofDESdaughters. Despitepreviousknowledgeofher DES-exposure, Keely
had never been aware of DES Action. Keely’s independent research, supported by
informationfrom DESAction, confirmedher suspicions aboutherdoctor’s recom
-
mendation. Keely decided to launch a Web site to create a single accessible place
withinformation aboutDES exposure. Everything on hersite was equivalentto the
information that one might receive by calling DES Action but far more accessible,
especially to those who might hesitate to contact DES Action for fear that it is a
large impersonal organization.
Michael Davon’s experience creating the Hemophilia Home Page (HHP) was
similar to Sally Keely’s. Before the HHP was posted, at least two online support
groups had established themselves, one on America OnLine, the other on Prodigy.
But the information available on each was only accessible to paying subscribers.
After researching hemophilia/HIV, the services available to people with hemo-
philia/HIV, and the organizations that offer services and support, Michael Davon
developed and launched his site to create one centralized location where people
with hemophilia/HIV could gatherinformation, regardlessof whichonline service
they subscribed to.
Keely and Davon were both trying to cope with and make sense of the medical
and life uncertaintiesthat they were facingwhen they performed theirresearch and
launched theirsites.This isparticularly notablein Keely’s case, asshe faceda doc-
tor’s diagnosis and treatment plan that she did not trust. She launched her Web site
in an effort to share her learnings and understandings with an asyet imaginary and
symbolic audience, as did Davon. Yet their individual efforts quickly launched
Davon and Keely into unintended activities and directions.
After Keely and Davon posted their respective Web sites, DES daughters and
people with hemophilia/HIV simply might have gotten whatever information they
needed from perusing those sites. Nevertheless, visitors to the sites expressed a
strongdesirenotsimplyforinformationbutforcommunication.Theywantedmore
than the site; they wanted to communicate with others who shared similar condi
-
tions. Thus, near the end of 1996, a DES daughter contacted Keely, and together
theydecidedtobeginane-mailcircle,acollectionofe-mailaddressesofthepeople
who visited Keely’s site and subsequently contacted her. Keely discovered that the
e-mail circle had significant advantages for facilitating communication among
DES daughters (one of which is the relative privacy of e-mail versus public elec
-
tronic chat boards). Nevertheless, it was completely private and, therefore, only
useful for those who actually knew about it. Keely wanted an advertisable venue.
392 ARPA / December 2003
With thatin mind,shebeganthe search fora listserv sponsor.The American Surro
-
gacyCenter,anonlineministrythatseekstoraiseawarenessofsurrogateparenting,
agreed to host the listserv. The DES listserv began in February 1997.
Davon too launched his electronic forums to facilitate communication among
people with hemophilia/HIV, regardless of which online service they belonged to,
andincorporatedlistservsinanefforttoachieve acertainlevelof privacyfor partic
-
ipants.AnInternetuser who logged ontothesitecould alsojoine-maillistsserving
people with hemophilia,HIV-positivegroups and subgroups, andtheirdoctors and
lawyers. Some of the lists, such as the hemophilia listserv, were open to anyone
interested, whereas others were closed to all but people who met certain criteria
(such as HIV-positive status). Although the hemophilia list was open to all appli
-
cants, the subscriber list was confidential.
Keely and Davon had no particular organizational goals in mind when they
launched their sites, and the various DES daughters and people with Hemophilia/
HIV had no specific goals when they suggested and sought out communication
withthem and otherswiththe diseasesand disorders.Confusion, ambivalence,and
uncertainty thus were the raw materials for this unintentional organizing. These
cyber-organizations have no mission statements. They consist solely of communi-
cation. It is through this communication that cyber-organizations have developed
and continue todevelop. The Internetfacilitatesthiskind ofunintentional, goalless
organizinginseveral ways.Havingdone theresearchthattheydid, it was relatively
easy forKeelyand Davon tolaunch their initial Web sites.This wasespecially true
for Davon as he owned a Web services company. The costs associated with these
organizations are low and typically can be absorbed by one person (in these cases,
Keely and Davon), and so there are no financial costs associated with being active
in these organizations (beyond Internet access, of course). There are no member-
ship fees;indeed, thereis noformal membership at all(though subscribers tothese
forums may reach into the thousands). Because the Internet obliterates time and
space constraints, meetings do not need to be scheduled.
Transitory Norms and Informal Roles and Rules
The only authority figures that exist in these cyber-organizations do so more as
potentialitiesthaninpractice.Intheory,thelistservmoderatorscontrolthepostings
thatappearonthelistserv.Apostermaysendsomethingtothelistserv,butthemod
-
erator has the technological capability to choose whether to post the message for
viewing by the entire membership. In practice, however, the moderators do not
exercise thisauthority and regularly poste-mails thatare not germane orthat break
the relatively few rules. The rules that do exist are primarily etiquette-based and
typically emerge from the posters as norms and guidelines rather than as formal
constraints. The subscribers to the DES-L, for instance, have devised a process
according towhich e-mail postings are labeledaccording to subject area (F for fer
-
tilityissues, Cfor cancerissues, andso on).This systemwasdevelopedas a wayto
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 393
help the members distinguish the posts they found relevant at any given moment
from those they found irrelevant. Nevertheless, this process often is disregarded,
resulting in a debate over whether members should recommit to this norm.
Frequently a debate will ensue over the appropriateness of the rules. For exam
-
ple, when subscribing to the DES-L, the subscriber is obligated not toshare any of
thelistserve-mailswithanyoneoutside of thelistserv(noteven tofamilymembers,
spouses, or partners). Onone occasion, aparticular subscriber posted a message to
the listserv about a conversation she had with her husband the previous evening
about another member’s posting. Other subscribers immediatelyresponded, not to
the substance of the posting but to the fact that the poster had shared the content of
thee-mail.A livelydebateensued overthe appropriateness andpurpose oftherule.
Several days laterthe disputewas finally settled when the original poster acknowl
-
edged that she had been persuaded that confidentiality (even from spouses) was
absolutely necessary. One of the listserv moderators participated in the debate but
did so from the perspective of a member with her own views on the matter rather
than ofan authority figure. These organizations donot have formal rulesand roles.
Theyrely, instead, on shared norms—one of which is tocontinuously debate those
norms.
Emergent Activities
Despite the absence of predefined goals, certain internal core activities have
emerged in these cyber-organizations. These core activities,including serving as a
forum for the pursuit of understanding, experiential information sharing, and the
provision of social support, have emerged, of course, through constant and recur-
rentinteraction andcommunication because, asWeick(1995) notes, “communica-
tion activity is the organization” (p. 75).
Onekey function of these cyber-organizationsis to serve as a venue for self-
declaration. These expressions typically include a strong sense of reflection and
retrospection. For many DES daughters, it isthrough their interactionin the cyber-
organizationthattheyhavecommunicated, forthe first time,with otherswith simi
-
lar experiences. For those with hemophilia/HIV, an often-stigmatizing disease,
these forums provide a sense of anonymity with which they can communicate
freely with others about sensitive issues (sexual, interpersonal, and familial) that
they confront in living with the disease. Thus, having finally found these venues,
one’s initialintroductory posting, orself-declaration, isusually quitea long stream
of retrospectiveconsciousness. Thesepostings typically includesome sortof iden
-
tification of the poster, along with a detailed medical history and an outpouring of
emotion. It is not uncommon, for example, for a DES daughter to wonder, online,
whether some peculiar unexplained medical ailment that she had many years ago
was relatedto her DES exposure or for a person with hemophilia/HIV to speculate
about why and how the medical and governmental establishment failed to ensure
the safety of the blood supply. Similarly, posters (especially first-time posters and
394 ARPA / December 2003
those new to the lists) may end their message with a request to other members to
respond with questions.
In addition to declaring themselves, members use these forums to provide each
other with emotional support. Members seem to feel perfectly free to ask the most
personal ofquestions anddiscuss themost personal of topics related tothe delicate
sexual issues of conceiving children, infertility, problems with sexual intercourse,
andrelationshipswithfamilymembersinthecontextof livingwitha diseaseordis
-
order. One DES daughter, using her laptop computer, even sent a message to the
other members after having just suffered a miscarriage. The listserv moderators
assume that one of their primary tasks is to protect the list from those who do not
sharethediseaseordisorder.Forexample,before admissiontotheDES-L,theDES
daughter must complete an online questionnaire. She must include identifying
information (one’s name and age) aswell as answer specific DES-related personal
questions. These questions are not intended to serve as any kind of ideological lit
-
mus test for participation and, in fact, none of the questions deal in any way with
politics or ideology. Rather, the questions include those relating to what kinds of
medical problems the DES daughter has experienced, whether she has ever had
cancer, and the like. The moderators use these questions only to try to make sure
thatthose whoarenot DESdaughters are notsubscribing tothelist.The moderator
peruses the responses to the questionnaire and, if the would-be subscriber’s
answers to the questions correspond to the medical and emotional concerns com-
monly experienced by DES daughters, the subscriber is admitted to the list. The
hemophilia/HIV listserv followed similar procedures and inquired, for example,
about the person’s HIV status.
Membersalso seekandshare information.Theyare notlooking for information
in the form of data, however, which they easily could find on various Web sites.
Rather, they are looking for the kinds of information that can only come from the
personal experiences of others as those others interact with their own medical
issues. Thus, a DES daughter will pose a series of questions about health-related
issues, requests for physician referrals, and advice on a doctor’s diagnosis andrec
-
ommended treatment plan. She will ask whether she is the only one to experience
painful sexual intercourse or if anyone can recommend a doctor who takes DES
exposure seriously, or what others’ experiences with cryo-surgery were like. A
member of HHP will ask about medications recommended by a physician and
whether other members have experienced any side effects. In short, discussion on
the listranges from themost personal health-and sex-relatedproblems to searches
for general information.
In theHHP cyber-organization,the mailing listswere especiallycrucial, at least
inpartbecause of activitysurrounding variousclass-actionlawsuitsandthenpend
-
ing legislation to compensate people who contracted HIV through the blood sup
-
ply. During class-action suit settlementnegotiations, for example, thelistservs and
bulletin boards displayed a range of opinion over the pros and cons of various set
-
tlementproposals. People confusedaboutwhether to optoutofthe settlement were
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 395
ableto discuss theissue through postings. The Internetfacilitatesthis kindof expe
-
riential information sharing. Prior to the Internet, individuals had to rely on
hardcopy newsletters that may or may not have contained the specific information
needed in themoment.People withDESor hemophilia/HIVnowno longer have to
hunt up old copies of newsletters. They can simply post their question, engage in
conversation, and probe.
Orientation of Cyber-Organizations
Scholars suggest that organizing is hampered by a lack of face-to-face commu
-
nication (Daft & Lengle, 1986; Peters, 1992, pp. 432-435) or by a lack of formal
roles (Berscheid et al., 1989). As these concerns go, in the absence of face-to-face
interaction, certain nuances of communication, such as body language, for exam
-
ple, get lost. Furthermore, without formal functional and hierarchical roles, there
are nostructural conveyancesof the “generic subjectivity”or shared sense of “we”
that are important as premises for action. Nevertheless, despite the complete reli
-
ance on computer-mediated communication, and despite the absence of formal
roles, the cyber-organizations have produced general orientations, or organizational
cultures, thatserve aspremises for action. Inaddition to developing and encourag-
ing an atmosphere of open andprobing debate,and ofletting conflict emergewith-
outtherequirement for harmony(oreven for theillusionofit),and beyondcontinu-
ously negotiating operating norms (i.e., of continuously negotiating how they will
communicate withand engage each other), the cyber-organizationshaveproduced
and crystallized the individual empowerment and rights orientation discussed
above. Their orientation to the medical issues they face consists of a desire to help
each other own their health problems, define their own diseases, and devise solu-
tions to the problems thus defined.
The medical conditions that they encounter, their need to understand those
issues and to confront the future in terms of their medical status, are what initially
bring subscribers to the sites. Nevertheless, as evidenced by the fact that they join
the lists (and in the case of the DES-L, requested the list), it is not simply informa
-
tion that they are seeking. Rather, they want communication, and they view the
opportunitytocommunicatewithotherswho havesimilarexperiencesas an oppor
-
tunity to come to an understanding of their predicament. Given that they first
decided to look for information on their own, they are inclined to think in terms of
self-empowerment and rights. This orientation becomes hashed out through the
ongoing communication involved in participating on the listservs.
The listening process serves an important function and is often the first step in
thisregard.
11
Individualsin theseforums typicallylistenforsome time before mak
-
inganinitialposting. This is often evidenced in one’sinitialposting inwhich asub
-
scriber will state that he or she has been listening on the list for some period and
then recalls some of the previous conversations that he or she found so helpful.
Prior tothe initialposting, therefore, the poster oftenhas had the benefitof thepre
-
vious debates, questions, and decisions despite not having participated in them.
396 ARPA / December 2003
Similarly,the introduction process is often thefirst step in theprocess of achieving
and perpetuating the orientation.
For example, a DES daughter once made a posting to the list in which she
acknowledged various medical problems but also praised DES for saving her life.
Thelistwasswampedwithresponsesfromotherposters.Theensuing conversation
took two tracks. Some posters responded calmly and specifically to her thoughts
and questions. Others corrected her initial assumptionthat DES saved herlife. Still
others expressed anger thatshe wouldbe so ignorant as toassume thatthe pharma
-
ceuticalindustryandmembersofthemedicalprofessionhadhadherbestinterestin
mind. Many expressed frustrations at the perpetuation of the myth that DES saved
lives.The secondtrack ofthe conversationconsisted ofresponses to the responses,
with some chastising those who expressed anger at the original poster and remind
-
ing other posters that the original poster was a newcomer and inexperienced with
dealing with DES and hence deserved empathy, camaraderie, and engagement
rather than anger. The conversation thus served simultaneously as a vehicle for the
transmission of the substantive orientation of the cyber-organization as well as a
vehiclefor a discussion oflistnorms. Hence,newsubscribersenterintoan ongoing
discussion. With the rather continual entry of new subscribers, the discussion on
the listservs can be repetitious, but the repetition serves as a means of establishing
and renewing a collective voice and understanding, which is then picked up and
enlarged on by newcomers.
Civic Engagement Activities
The norms, experiential information sharing, and emotional support, as well as
their collective orientation, function as forms of social capital that facilitate civic
engagement. The civic engagement activities range from discussion of public pol-
icy issues to purposive activities targeted at the public and private sectors.
Discussionof publicpolicyissues takesplace in severalways.First, posters will
occasionally make a passing, often disparaging, remark about government or the
present presidential administration in the course of posting comments and ques
-
tions about other, private and personal matters. Second, discussion threads often
will movefrom being about personal mattersor medicalissues tobeing aboutpub
-
lic issues. Thus, for example, in the course of a discussion about finding a doctor
who isaccepted by one’s medicalinsurance, members may also begin a discussion
about the benefits and disadvantages of various health or prescription benefit
reform proposals. Finally, members may intentionally launch explicit threads
about public policy issues. For example, members of the HHP actively discussed
legislationproposing to compensatethose who becameinfected with HIV through
the blood supply or proposals to fund HIV/AIDS relief in Africa.
In addition to discussing public and public policy issues, participants in these
cyber-organizations also undertake expressly purposive activities directed at the
public and privatesectors. Thus, for example, besides organizing participation in a
class-actionlawsuit,HHPmemberswereveryactiveinpushing Congressto autho
-
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 397
rize a plan that would compensate each person infected through the blood supply
with $100,000. Members wrote letters to Congress, engaged in demonstrations,
and even pooled money to help fund an advertising campaign.
DES daughters also have engaged in letter-writing campaigns to Congress as
well as campaigns to educate journalists, the development of a DES public aware
-
ness day (which resulted in several news stories), and campaigns to challenge the
findings of various medical and research professionals. For example, one DES
daughter read an article in a popular magazine that included an interview with a
doctor who claimed that there are no harmful side effects associated with DES
exposure. The DES daughter posted a message about the article and the doctor’s
ignorance, and over the next several days, she and others developed a campaign to
educate the doctor as well as the journalist who wrote the article.
The Internet fosters the continuous renewal of the cyber-organizations’ func
-
tionsand activities.Whenaparticularthought, question,orideacomestosomeone,
she or he can simply log on and post the idea without self-censorship and without
necessarily first mulling itover. Thus, uninhibitedspontaneity is akeycharacteris
-
tic of these organizations, especially when it comesto activities directedat theout-
side world. This spontaneity, coupled with feedback from others, often snowballs
into full-blown advocacy projects. Because cyber-organizations do not have staffs
orbudgets,andbecausetheydonothavetoworryabouttheperceptionsoffinancial
donorsandbackers,theyarefreetodevotetheirenergiestoissuesandcivicengage-
ment projects that emerge and are important to them in the moment.
Though the cyber-organizations do not have any formal functional distinctions
(beyond that of moderator, which is not deployed powerfully anyway), such dis-
tinctionsdo evolveastemporarymeansforcarryingouttheparticularactivitiesthat
emerge. Even then, however, distinctions are adopted, rather than given, and they
are temporary. For example, a poster to the HHP may decide to propose a letter-
writing campaignto members of Congress. That personwill adopt the role ofwrit
-
ing a sample letter to be used by others, or propose language for such letters, and
will assist others infinding theproper address of their representativeor senator. Or
aDESdaughter mayread anerroneousnewspaperarticleon the effectsof DES and
decide to launch a campaign to educate the reporter. Debate will ensue about the
appropriatenessandpotentialefficacyofthisactivity.TheDESdaughterwillposta
message to the listserv describing the nature of the error and request that others
send her information on that particular topic. Posters will offer to perform specific
tasks (based on their own professional backgrounds, areas of expertise, or inter
-
ests), and the person who generated the idea in the first place will coordinate the
activity. She will compile that information and request a meeting with the reporter
and/or send the reporter the information and then make follow-up contact. In this
caseshe iscoordinating the project,buther status vanishes assoon astheactivityis
completed.
Because of the lack of formal roles, because activities are so emergent, and
becausetheauthoroftheideacoordinates the activity, those participatinginDES-L
398 ARPA / December 2003
and HHP haveasense ofownershipof their own contributionsandactions andalso
of the cyber-organization. They see the immediate consequences in the form of
feedback, of generating ideas. The reward of having one’s ideas or questions
answered, acknowledged, debated, empathizedwith, and understood increasesthe
sense of ownership.
CONCLUSION: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
The cases presentedhere containlessons aboutthe current stateof socialcapital
aswellasimplicationsforthesocialandpoliticalenvironmentconfrontingthepub
-
licadministrator.Theyalso suggest implicationsfor thechanging role ofthepublic
administrator. Putnam (2000) argues that our organizational ties are eroding and
that government should assumepartial responsibility for revitalizing them. Never
-
theless, the two examples presented here demonstrate that to gain a full apprecia
-
tionof organizing, socialcapital,and civicengagement, we mustlookin sites other
than town halls, civic clubs, and the headquarters of major established organiza-
tions. We must look beyond the official membership rosters of formal organiza-
tions and beyondthe IRS listsof registered nonprofitorganizations. Thecaseshere
demonstrate that citizens are forming new organizations on the Internet, lowering
operation and participation costs, streamlining the maintenance functions com-
monly associated with formal organizations, obliterating time and space con-
straints, and, most important, providing immediate and continuous opportunities
for the almost endless constitution and reconstitution of self in relation to others.
Ordinary citizens are doing this without assistance from government.
These cyber-organizations do not have mission statements or predetermined
goals,formalfunctional roles, formalrules,oreven formalmembers.Nevertheless,
because the Internet is pure communication—pure process
12
—the social con
-
structivist approach to organizing (Weick,1979, 1995) helpsus to see thesecyber-
organizations as real organizations. In these organizations, people continuously
communicate;makesenseoftheissues,conditions,andcomplexitiesthattheycon
-
front;constantlydeveloptransitory roles andnorms; debateeach other; andengage
in emotional support and experiential information sharing. Furthermore, contrary
to suggestions in the literature (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Peters, 1992; see also
Berscheid et al., 1989) that electronic communication and an absence of formal
rolesandruleshindersthevitalityoforganizationsandhampersthedevelopmentof
a sense of “we,” the cyber-organizations studied here constantly develop their ori
-
entation to the issues they confront. They do this as their members draw on their
ownpersonal, social, and professional skills, knowledge, experience, and relation
-
ships. This orientation primarily manifests in a drive for mutual- and self-empow
-
erment(asopposedtodeferencetoexpertsand expertise)andanemphasisonrights
(as opposed to an emphasis on charity).
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 399
Their continuous communication, their norms, their shared experiences, their
socialandemotional support, andtheirorientation function asforms ofsocialcapi
-
tal (Coleman, 1990). These forms of social capital not only arise from social rela
-
tions but also allow these cyber-organizations to adopt emergent functions and
activities that include such traditional forms of individual and collective citizen
participation as discussing public policy issues (such as universal health care,
health policy and prescription benefit reforms, and victim compensation), letter-
writingcampaignstopoliticians,usingthecourtsforlawsuits,andpubliceducation
campaigns. Their emergent functions and activities directed at the outside world
also include individual and collective consciousness-raising campaigns targeted at
private sector actors, such as doctors and journalists.
The examples discussed here also have implications for the social and political
environmentinwhichpublicadministration takesplace. As anotherformof inter
-
est organization, stressing rights and self-empowerment, cyber-organizations
further fragment the highly fluid social and political context in which public
administration takes place. The traditional health nonprofit organizations (such as
DES Action and the National Hemophilia Foundation) typically collaborate with
government, especially when seeking funding and engaging in and facilitating
research.Thecyber-organizations,placing much more emphasis on rightsandself-
and mutual-empowerment, tend to have a more adversarial relationship with the
public sector (and with the private sector as well). This is evidenced by their
attempts to bring third parties to justice via lawsuits and by their education cam-
paigns targeted at journalists, physicians, and members of Congress.
Citizen cyber-organizing, however, is not simply about using the Internet to
advance an agenda by writing letters (or e-mail) to members of Congress. Beyond
their narrow and immediate role as interest organizations, these cyber-organizations
are also involved in the foundations of governance broadly understood. First, they
are the venues for the very constitution of the identities of the subjects who consti
-
tute the organizing. They make themselves as they do their cyber-organizing. Sec
-
ond, they help sustain and manage social relations through ongoing interpersonal
interaction. Third, they enact solutions based on the social capital they generate as
they vigorously debate, and construct, the problems they face in living their lives
together every day.
13
It is in this sense that the cyber-organizing phenomenon—and the new kinds of
engagement and relationships among citizens that it represents—forces us to con
-
frontthemoreindirectand broader implicationsfor public administrationand, spe
-
cifically, the role of the public administrator. Government does not necessarily
need to revitalize social capital and civic engagement. Rather, government might
do better torecognize and appreciate the new sitesfor and sources of social capital
and civic engagementthat are emerging.Torealize thepotential power andsignifi
-
cance of cyber-organizing, public administrators must begin to see such organiza
-
tions through a lens that is different from the professional orientation to interest
groups that has pervaded the field. Certainly the specialized expertise that comes
from living with a diseaseor disorder and making sense of itwith others is equally
400 ARPA / December 2003
as valuable as the professionalized expertise of the traditional nonprofit organiza
-
tions. These cyber-organizations, however, are not simply reacting to a reality
external to them; the social constructivist paradigm, and work such as Weick’s
(1979, 1995) thatgrounds thisanalysis,revealthis. Rather,theyareenactingareal
-
itytheyhaveconstructedasitinteractswith and responds to,and against,thereality
constructed and enactedbypoliticiansand publicadministrators(often inconjunc
-
tionwith traditionalprofessional nonprofit organizations). This classicalparadigm
of public administration practice, which is dominated by a “technicist” (McSwite,
2002) emphasison thepursuit of predeterminedgoals andtheefficient andrational
production and delivery of outputs targeted at citizens as consumers, flies directly
in the face of the social constructivist paradigm that offers such a rich understand
-
ing of cyber-organizing.
14
Unlesswe in publicadministration canreimagine ourselvesand shift ourunder
-
standing of the nature of organizing as an activity that creates human meaning, the
prospect of public administrator engagement with citizen cyber-organizations
raisesonlythe specter ofgovernmentalcontroland regulationof thesefragile orga
-
nizations. The danger of this prospect is exacerbated by the post–September 11,
2001, environment in whichgovernmentsurveillance of Internettraffic has increased.
This,ofcourse,runsentirelycontraryto thenatureandessenceofcyber-organizations.
Under these circumstances, no one involved with these cyber-organizationswould
welcome such governmental intervention. To these cyber-organizations, govern-
ment is, most often, “them.”This not only produces alost opportunity for realizing
thevalueofsocialcapital;italsoproducestheveryrealpossibilityoftheincreasing
marginalization of public administration to overall governance. In a new era,
marked by the dominance of Internet technologies (and especially in a global con-
text), misunderstanding the nascent power of cyber-organizing may be missing a
crucial bet.
To avoidthispossibilityand torevitalizetheirrole in governance,publicadmin
-
istratorsmustreimaginethemselvesfromagentsofregulationand controltoagents
of the socialbond (King & Stivers,1998;McSwite,2002;Vigoda & Golembiewski,
2001). Public administrators must learn to be cofacilitators of social capital,
participating in the coconstruction of a shared reality with citizens through cyber-
organizing is an unparalleled (thus far) chance to learn about this.
The rub—and the larger opportunity for public administrators—consists of
the fact that the online and offline worlds are not distinct realms (Wellman &
Haythornthwaite, 2002).People and organizations,andpublic administrators, do
not simply use the Internet as a tool, as if they are preformed, intact entities.
Rather, engagement with the Internet changes the very terms of the engagement
itself, as the online and offline interact. If public administrators can approach
cyber-organizations on their own terms, as cofacilitators of social capital, the door
is opened for the role of the public administrator to change entirely. The door is
opened for thepublic administratortoconstructa shared realitywith citizens.Then
we can get on with the business of governing ourselves, together.
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 401
NOTES
1.Forahistoryoftheconceptofsocialcapital,seetheintroductiontoBaron,Field,andSchuller
(2000).
2. On the role of social capital and civic engagement in civil society, see Fukuyama (1991),
Gellner (1994), andEdwards andFoley(1998). Themost famous commentaryon the topic was pro
-
vided by Tocqueville (1835-1840/2000).
3. For a range of both implicit and explicit critiques, see Florida (2002); McLean, Schultz, and
Steger (2002); and Skocpol and Fiorina (1999). Some scholars (Ladd, 1996; Norris, 2002; Rotolo,
1999; Samuelson, 1996; Skocpol, 1996; Wills,2000) have challenged Putnam’smethodology, data,
orboth,arguingthathisworkexaggeratesthedeclineinsocialcapitalandcivicengagementeitherby
overstating organizational membership in previous eras or by understating it in the present period.
Others argue that Putnam’s conclusions verge on elitism, romanticism, or both (Edwards & Foley,
1998; Skocpol, 1996). Still others argue that Putnam’s conceptualization of social capital is fuzzy
and difficult to measure (Arrow, 2000; Fine, 2001).
4. Coleman (1990, chap. 12) identifies particular forms of social capital that flow from social
relations and organizations. Thus, for example, obligations and expectations, norms and sanctions,
and the information potential that inheres in social relations and authority relations all are forms of
social capital. Other forms of social capital include intentional organizing,that is, designing organi
-
zationsforspecificpurposes,aswell as what he callsappropriableorganization,bywhichanorgani
-
zation designed for one purpose takes on additional, sometimes different, goals and purposes.
According to Coleman, therefore, to the extent that organizations produce information, norms,
obligations and the like, they facilitate action.
5. The work of Wellman (2002) on computer networks and social networks also demonstrates
that cyber-networks constitute interpersonal relationships (see also Wellman et al., 1996; Wellman
& Gulia, 1999; Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002). Nevertheless,whereas Wellman focuses on the
potential of the Internet to constitute relationships in networks, this article emphasizes how the
Internet facilitates organizations and organizing.
6.Interestingly, peoplewith medicaldisabilities are less likelyto usethe Internet than people
withoutdisabilities. This is suggestive.TotheextentthattheInternetisafertilevenuefororganiz-
ingaround issues related to health,disability,anddisorders,onewould expecttofind similarcyber-
organizingactivities related to other issues, such as the environment, civil rights, fiscal responsibil
-
ity, and the like.
7. Michael Davon’s hemophilia/HIV Web site and associated electronic forums currently are
unavailable. The WebDepot,aWebserviceownedbyDavon,hostedhispage.WhenDavon died,the
company fell into a legal dispute centered on the disposition of his estate. Although the legal suit is
pending, the company, along with the Web page and associated electronic forums, is offline.
8. For elaboration on this distinction, see Brainard and Siplon (2002a) in which the authors
extensivelydiscussanddescribethisdifference in orientation and its implication for the relationship
between the cyber-organizations and their traditional counterparts. The present analysis is con
-
cerned, in part, with the development of the orientation of these cyber-organizations.
9.Thisorientationdoesnotnecessarilyflow directlyfromuseoftheInternet.Rather,thisorien
-
tation stems out of the historical playing out of health advocacy in the United States. See, for exam
-
ple, Starr (1982) and Epstein (1996).
10.Coleman(1990)andWeick(1979,1995)appear to be getting at similar ideas,andthecharac
-
teristics of organizing generated by Weick (and others) appear similar to the forms of social capital
described by Coleman. Nevertheless, given the more fundamental differences between the work of
Weick and Coleman, I use Weick’s characteristics of organizing to analyze these cyber-organizations.
Coleman’s work on social capital was a corrective to rational choice theory to the extent that it used
social capital to recognizethe interdependence of individuals. Nevertheless, Coleman’s work is not
incompatiblewith rational choicetheory (see Edwards& Foley,1998)in that Colemanstill assumes
402 ARPA / December 2003
goal-seeking individuals (and organizations)entering instrumentally into relationships that are ulti
-
matelybasedonexchange.Thus,forexample,hewritesthatsocialcapitalinheresin“socialrelation
-
ships which come into existence when individuals attempt to make best use [italics added] of their
individual resources” (p.300) and, furthermore, that “social organization constitutes social capital,
facilitating the achievement of goals [italics added] that could not be achieved in its absence or
would be achieved only at a higher cost” (p. 304).
11.I use the termlistening instead of themorepopular lurking to connotethatsimply reading the
listservmessageswhilenotactivelyengagingthediscussionsthroughverbalexpressisnotominous.
12. It is ironic, of course, that the members of these organizations discuss embodied illnesses in
suchadisembodiedenvironment. This, of course, opens upawholeotherlineofinquirysurrounding
therelevanceofthehumanbodyincivilsocietyandpublicadministration.Thoughthisisnotdirectly
relevant to the issues under consideration here, the interested reader is directed to Farmer (2001),
McSwite (2001), Patterson (2001), and Scott (2001).
13. King and Stivers (1998, p. 73) suggest that governance includes the full range of activities
involvedin “weighing what particular governmentagencies ought to do and how,”which, by defini
-
tion, includes the construction and definition of problems.
14.Take,for example,theissueofe-government.InarecentissueofthePA Times, severalpracti
-
tioners and academics reviewed e-government initiatives to date. It is clear from these articles that
“e-government” in practice has been narrowly construed to denote applying technology to adminis
-
trative processes, such as to human resource management and procurement, or to customer services
practices such as the placement of drivers license applications on the Internet. Fountain (2002), for
example,wonders,“Isthere moretoe-government thane-commercetranslatedtothe publicsector?”
(See also Combs, 2002; Holden & Ha, 2002; Lee, 2002; Margoliese, 2002) Similarly, in a study of
270municipalWeb sitesinCalifornia,Musso,Weare,andHale(2000)develop a“goodmanagement
model”ofmunicipal Websites(inwhichlocalgovernmentswouldusetheInternetprimarilytorepli-
cate their structure and to serve as a “telephone book” for city services) and a “good democracy
model”(inwhichlocalgovernmentswoulduse the Internet tofacilitatecommunicationbetweenand
among citizens andpublic officials). They findthat the vast majority use the Internet along the lines
of the “good management” model. Similarly, Stanley, Weare, and Musso (2002), reporting on an
effortbythe FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration to employ the Internet as a forum for pub-
lic deliberation about commercial vehicle safety, found that agency administrators placed a higher
value on the views of their colleagues, rather than on the expressions in the online forum. Further
-
more,theyfound thatthelackofengagementinthe onlinedialoguebyagencyofficialsweakenedthe
potential for online deliberative democracy.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. B., & Catron, B. (1994, September/October). Communitarianism, Vickers, and revisioning
American public administration. American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 44-63.
Allport, F. H. (1962). A structuronomic conception of behavior: Individual and collective. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 3-30.
Arrow, K. (2000).Observationsonsocialcapital.InP.Dasgupta&I.Serageldin(Eds.),Socialcapital:A
multifaceted perspective. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T. (Eds.). (2000). Social capital: Critical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989).The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the
closenessofinterpersonalrelationships.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,57,792-807.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of Califor
-
nia Press.
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 403
Bourdieu,P.(1986).Formsof social capital.InJ.G.Richardson(Ed.),Handbookof theory and research
for the sociology of education (pp. 241-260). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Box, R. (1998). Citizen governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brainard, L., & Siplon, P. (2002a). Cyberspace challenges to mainstream non-profit health organiza
-
tions. Administration & Society, 34(2), 141-175.
Brainard, L., & Siplon, P. (2002b). The Internet and NGO-government relations: Injecting chaos into
order. Public Administration and Development, 22(1), 63-72.
Burrell,G.,&Morgan,G.(2001).Sociologicalparadigmsandorganizationalanalysis.Burlington,VT:
Ashgate.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Combs, R. (2002). Automation increases HRM productivity. PA Times, 25(1), 1-2.
Daft,R.L.,&Lengel,R. H.(1986).Organizationalinformationrequirements,mediarichness,andstruc
-
tural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.
Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (1998). Social capital and civil society beyond Putnam. American Behav
-
ioral Scientist, 42(1), 124-139.
Epstein, S. (1996).Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge.Berkeley:University
of California Press.
Farmer, D. (2001). Somatic writing: Attending to our bodies. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 23(2),
187-204.
Fine, B. (2001).Social capital versus social theory: Political economy and social science at the turn of
the millennium. New York: Routledge.
Fischer,C.(2001,August).Bowlingalone:What’sthescore?PaperpresentedattheAmericanSociolog-
ical Association conference, Anaheim, CA.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it is transforming work, life, community, and
everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Fountain, J. (2002). Building a deeper understanding of E-governance. PA Times, 25, 10.
Fukuyama, F. (1991, October). Social capital and civil society. Paper prepared for delivery at the IMF
Conference on Second Generations Reforms. Washington DC.
Gellner, E. (1994). Conditions of liberty: Civil society and its rivals. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Harmon, M. (1981). Action theory for public administration. New York: Longman.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Holden, S., & Ha, L. (2002).Dothe facts match the hype?Public demand for, andgovernment attitudes
about, E-government. PA Times, 25(1), 3.
King, C., & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladd,E.C.(1996).The data just don’tshowerosionofAmerica’ssocialcapital.ThePublicPerspective,
7(4), 5-6.
Lee, M. (2002). The neglected potential of E-government. PA Times, 25(1), 5.
Louis, M. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomersexperience in enteringunfamiliar orga
-
nizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.
Loury,G.(1977).Adynamictheoryofracialincomedifferences.InP.A.Wallace& A. Le Mund(Eds.),
Women, minorities and employment discrimination. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Loury,G.(1987).Whyshouldwecareaboutgroupinequality?SocialPhilosophyandPolicy,5,249-271.
Margoliese,R.(2002).Onecity’sleadershipstruggleforsuccessfulE-government.PATimes,25(1),4.
McLean, S. L.,Schultz, D. A., & Steger, M. B. (2002).Social capital: Critical perspectiveson commu
-
nity and social capital. New York: New York University Press.
McSwite, O. C. (2001). Reflection on the role of embodiment in discourse. Administrative Theory &
Praxis, 23(2), 243-250.
McSwite, O. C. (2002). Invitation to public administration. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
404 ARPA / December 2003
Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing Web technologies for local governance reform:
Good management or good democracy? Political Communication, 17, 1-19.
Norris,P. (2002, January). Making democracieswork: Social capital and civic engagementin 47 societ
-
ies.Paperpresentedatthe conferenceonCivic EngagementThrough NeighborhoodEmpowerment:
The LA Experiment and Beyond by the NeighborhoodParticipation Project. School of Policy, Plan
-
ning and Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Patterson, P. (2000a). Nonvirtue is not apathy: Warrants for discourse and citizen dissent. American
Review of Public Administration, 30(3), 225-251.
Patterson,P.(2000b).Thesoundsofsilence:Neitherexit,norloyalty,norvoice.JournalofPublicAffairs
Education, 6(1), 19-34.
Patterson,P.(2001).Viscera, emotionandadministration:The lessonsofembodieddisgust.Administra
-
tive Theory & Praxis, 23(2), 205-230.
Peters, T. (1992). Liberation management. New York: Knopf.
Putnam,R.(1995a).Bowlingalone:America’sdecliningsocialcapital.JournalofDemocracy,6(1),65-
78.
Putnam, R. (1995b). Tuning in, tuningout: The strangedisappearance of social capital in America. PS,
28(4), 664-683.
Putnam,R. (2000). Bowling alone: Thecollapse and revivalofAmerican community. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Quan-Haase,A.,Wellman,B.,Witte J.C.,&HamptonK.N.(2002).Capitalizingonthenet:Socialcon
-
tact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The
Internet in everyday life. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rotolo, T. (1999).Trends in voluntary association participation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-
terly, 28(2), 199-212.
Samuelson, R. J. (1996, April 10). “Bowling alone” is bunk. The Washington Post, p. A19.
Schall,M.S.(1983).Acommunication-rulesapproachtoorganizationalculture.AdministrativeScience
Quarterly, 28, 557-581.
Scott, F. (2001). Reconsidering a therapeutic role forthe state: Anti-modernistgovernanceandthereifi-
cation of self. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 23(2), 231-242.
Silverman, D. (1971). The theory of organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Skocpol, T. (1996). Unsolved mysteries: The Tocqueville files: Unraveling from above. The American
Prospect, 7(25), 20-25.
Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Smircich, L. (1983).Studying organizations as cultures. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Stanley,J. W.,Weare, C., &Musso, J. (2002,September20-21).Participation,deliberative democracy,
andthe Internet:Lessons froma National Forum onCommercialVehicle Safety. Paper Submitted to
the“ProspectsforElectronicDemocracy”Conference,CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh,PA.
Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.
Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational perfor
-
mance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 239-270.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. (2000). Democracy in America (J. P. Mayer, Ed., and G. C. Lawrence, Trans.).
New York: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1835-1840)
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002).A nation online:How Americans areexpandingtheir use of the
Internet. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Vigoda, E., & Golembiewski, R. (2001). Citizenship behavior and the spirit of new managerialism.
American Review of Public Administration, 31, 273-295.
VrMeer, R. (1970). Phenomenology in the radical reconstruction of the study of public administration.
Paper prepared for the Southwest Political Science Association Conference.
Brainard / CITIZEN ORGANIZING IN CYBERSPACE 405
Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1990). Adhocracy: The power to change. Memphis, TN: Whittle Direct Books.
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wellman, B. (2002). Computer networks as social networks. Science, 293(5537), 2031-2034.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual communities as communities:Net surfers don’t ride alone. In
M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
Wellman,B.,&Haythornthwaite,C.(Eds.).(2002).TheInternetineverydaylife. New York: Blackwell.
Wellman,B., Salaff,J., Dimitrova, D.,Garton, L., Gulia,M., & Haythornthwaite,C. (1996).Computer
networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework,and virtualcommunity. Annual Review
of Sociology, 22, 213-238.
Wiley, N. (1988). The micro-macro problem in social theory. Sociological Theory, 6, 254-261.
Wills, G. (2000). Putnam’s America. The American Prospect, 11(16), 34-37
Lori A. Brainard is an assistant professor in the School of Public Policy and Public Administra
-
tion at George Washington University. Her research and teaching interests centeron communi
-
cations issues, including regulation of communications industries and technologies as well as
how citizens use communications technologies to organize and participate in public life. Her
book, Television: The Limits of Deregulation, is forthcoming.
406 ARPA / December 2003
Request Permissions / Order Reprints
Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly
Interested in copying, sharing, or the repurposing of this article? U.S. copyright law, in
most cases, directs you to first get permission from the article’s rightsholder before using
their content.
To lawfully obtain permission to reuse, or to order reprints of this article quickly and
efficiently, click on the “Request Permission/ Order Reprints” link below and follow the
instructions. For information on Fair Use limitations of U.S. copyright law, please visit
Stamford University Libraries
, or for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom, please
refer to
The Association of American Publishers’ (AAP)
.
All information and materials related to SAGE Publications are protected by the
copyright laws of the United States and other countries. SAGE Publications and the
SAGE logo are registered trademarks of SAGE Publications. Copyright © 2003, Sage
Publications, all rights reserved. Mention of other publishers, titles or services may be
registered trademarks of their respective companies. Please refer to our user help pages
for more details:
http://www.sagepub.com/cc/faq/SageFAQ.htm
