Use this table to move to any section of the proposal:

Introduction	Background	Need for research	Benefits of this study	Methodology
Deliverables	Qualifications of the researchers	Proposed budget	Timeline	Bibliography

I. Introduction

This proposal outlines a research project designed to assess the current state of state-funded community networking and telecomputing in Indiana.

The main objective of this research is to understand the current state of state-funded community networks (CNs) to aid the Indiana Community Network Association's (ICNA) planning process for the future. This research will support ICNAÍs mission, which is to "facilitate the establishment, enhancement and cooperation of community telecomputing networks across Indiana" (ICNA, 1997a). It will explore the range of uses of resources and support provided by ICNA to state-funded CNs, assess the cooperative strategies currently used by existing community networks, critically examine the means by which potential users and content providers can be made aware of the value of community networking, and focus on the public education and public library components of community networking. The findings of this research will encourage an efficiency of effort so that network developers will not have to reinvent the wheel.

This research will explore the core design principles and services that are most useful in the development of a CN. It will examine how the time is spent developing a CN, and determine where it could be most expeditiously spent for the benefit of the net.

Return to top

II. Background

What is a community network ?

According to ICNA (1997b), a CN is "a website which the ICNA Board determines to be:

1. A common gateway to information about the community served.

2. Representative of the entire community served.

3. Supported and administered by a board, panel, or committee of recognized community leaders (e.g.officials of local public schools, public libraries, government, higher education, business and/or service organizations).

4. Economically self-supporting, with good prospects for its long-term maintenance and upkeep.

5. Accessible via local dial-in to all residents of the community served.

6. Compliance with ICNA standards."

A community network has four main foci - a local geographic connection, an emphasis on intra-community communication, a goal of providing access and voice to previously underserved members of the community, and a goal of becoming a catalyst for positive social change in the physical community. A CN is based in a physical community and is owned, operated, staffed, and used by members of the geographic community -- a city, a neighborhood, a town. CNs emphasize providing tools and fora for the members of the community to communicate with each other (Beamish, 1995; Schuler, 1996; Jones, 1995, Odasz, 1996, Graham, ND).

CNs provide access and voice to previously underserved members of the community. According to Beamish (1995) if, "by definition, a community networks is a reflection of the community, then all members of the community must be able to participate in the technology and the system." This concern with equitable access distinguishes the CN from commercial internet service providers, which do not have as their main concern providing free space for public communication and interaction. Access to the CN may be limited by the cost of access, language barriers, physical handicaps among community members, a lack of training in the basic use of computers and a lack of understanding about how networked computers can be used effectively to motivate community action. These networks can be the agents for positive social change in the community, as is evident in the mission statements of many CNs, which set goals such as positive social change, an improved sense of community, increased political participation, enhanced local economic development, improved educational achievement, increased computer knowledge, and equitable access for underserved portions of the community. (Schuler, 1996a)

Return to top

III. Need for research

In a recent press release, Indiana Rural Development Council (IRDC) Director John Reimke announced that the IRCD, through its Telecommunications Task Force had additional funding available for the establishment of CNs in Indiana and stated that "this funding support is one of Indiana's best kept secrets and we need to wake up rural Indiana to the possibilities...We are talking about a whole new level of infrastructure that is going to be essential for future community growth and development..." (IRDC, 1997a). This announcement marks the latest stage in the State's involvement in community networking, which began several years ago.

The Access Indiana program has as one of its goals the development of "electronic community networks that build and enrich community life" (Access Indiana, 1997a). In 1995, Access Indiana put out an RFP for "Community Network Start Up Grantsî (Access Indiana, 1995). Almost $1 million was made available, to be distributed in awards of $45-50,000. In 1996, the State had, through this program, granted $900,000 to assist in the development of CNs. In February 4, 1997, $30,000 in CN grants was awarded to local community leaders, bringing the total to 25 community networks that Access Indiana has helped to fund over the past 18 months (IRDC, 1997b). To compete for these grants, CNs had to be members of the ICNA, which held its first meeting in February, 1996, taking as its main charge the task of assisting in the development of CNs. One strong emphasis of this program is for CNs to become self-sustaining over time.

Now that most of these CNs have had time to establish themselves in their regions, there is a need to gather data about their operation. These data are important for at least two reasons. First, there is a need to set benchmarks for performance, so that CNs and the ICNA can have a common understanding of how the networks are progressing; second, these data can provide the basis for the development of a model that can be used by new networks.

The major research questions which guide this study include

1. How have the Access Indiana CN grants been used in the development of CNs?

2. How are these networks organized and managed?

2a. What types of challenges have network organizers faced and how have they been resolved?

2b. What are these networks doing to move toward economic self-sufficiency?

3. What is the range of content they provide?

3a. Who is creating and maintaining this content?

4. In what ways are these networks integrated into their communities?

4a. What types of interactions and relationships have developed between CNs and K-12 schools and public libraries

4b. How are these relationships affecting public education and public libraries ?

4c. Who is using these networks? How often and for what purposes?

This research project is designed to provide empirical data which can answer these questions.

Return to top

IV. Benefits of this study

The study will provide:

• A "snapshot" of the current state of state-funded CNs in Indiana, focusing on the evaluation of the utility of the existing content;

• A standard model for the design, organization, management, and marketing of community networks that new CNs can use;

• A clear understanding of the public education and public library components of communitynetworking;

• A set of ñbest practicesî that could be used by community networks to improve their abilities to achieve their goals and objectives and provide better service to their publics; and

• A portable methodology for the evaluation of CNs that can be used in other settings.

Return to top

V. Methodology

The study will examine the 28 state-funded CNs to determine:

• The range of content (information resources and services) that CNs provide to their publics and the organizational schemes (usability, navigation, structure) used in these networks;

• The types of management structures and processes that are in place;

• The range of challenges that have been faced by these networks and the resolutions that have been used;

• The ways in which the networks are being used by the communities, focusing on the public education and public library components of community networking; and

• The strategies that CNs are developing to achieve economic self-sufficiency

This study will use four methods to gather data :

1. Content Analysis There are two objectives for this phase of the project, the evaluation of each site against a standard and the evaluation of the structure, depth, quality, design (text, graphics, CGI/Javascript/Java) and utility of each site's existing content. Content analysis will be used because it is an effective method for discerning patterns and themes in textual and graphic data. This will involve developing a list of features and content based on their web pages and supporting documents to develop a standard model that new CNs can use. In addition, site maps will be drawn for each network.

2. Interviews A representative sample of CNs board members, technical staff, public librarians, school media specialists, and users will be interviewed to determine the range of information resources and services which are currently being offered to the public, how they are being used and how they could be improved. Questions will be asked about the management and daily operation of these networks.These data will be used to create survey instruments.

3. Surveys The survey will be administered to every CN board and technical staff member and a sample of public librarians and school media specialists. Its purpose is to gather data about the demographics of CNs, including the types of hardware and software used to develop content and maintain the network. It will also be used to develop an inventory of the resources and services made available through the networks and to collect management information, including statements of local goals, planning, and methods of evaluation. Finally, the surveys will be used to collect information about the successes, failures and challenges faced by these networks.

   The interview and survey instruments will be used to conduct an assessment of CNs and providea snapshot of what they have done with their grants.

4. Case studies In order to gather more detailed information about CNs, a stratified sample of twelve sites will be selected for case study analyses and will be visited by the researchers. These case study sites will reflect geographic distribution, and population size, and the range of size of services offered. During these site visits, more extensive data will be collected through interviews, observation, and document collection (budget documents, operations and training manuals, policy and mission statements).

There are additional data collection strategies which could be used, such as setting up focus group interviews, where the Boards of several CNs could be invited to nearby regional meeting places, perhaps for dinner meetings [Note that the proposed budget described below does not include the costs of setting up and running these focus group interviews]. With a small number of such meetings, group interviews could be conducted with many of the people involved in CNs.

In addition, the researchers will host an unmoderated CN listserv with membership restricted to board members and technical staff to provide a "private forum" for them to discuss issues raised during the research. This will provide additional longitudinal data. If such a list proved to be useful to the members, it could be maintained beyond the life of the research project.

Return to top

VI. Deliverables

There will be several deliverables at the end of this project; these include:

1. A report providing answers to the questions raised above (in Section III) which will be supported with empirical data; these data will be a snapshot of the current state of community networking in Indiana;

2. A model for successful networking that can be used to benchmark existing networks and to help new networks to smoothly come online;

3. A set of "best practices" that can
   1. be used by CNs to improve their operations and service to their publics and

   2. help CNs develop the public education and public library components of community networking

4. A methodology that can be used to critically evaluate CNs in the future.

Return to top

VII. Qualifications of the researchers

Howard Rosenbaum joined the faculty of the School of Library and Information Science in 1993. His research interests include the history and development of electronic networking, with a focus on the emerging National Information Infrastructure and its implications for the information professions, the "public digital library," electronic commerce, electronic publishing and copyright, community networking, computer mediated communication, the studyof managers and information, and organizations, and the intersection of theoretical approaches in library and information science and sociology. Rosenbaum has been a co-author on two national research studies, Managing Information Technologies: Transforming County Governments in the 1990s (1992), and The National Research and Education Network: Research and Policy and Perspectives (1991). He has presented his work at American Society for Information Science midyear and national meetings, the International Communications Association, the Canadian Association for Information Science, and the American Sociological Association.

He has had extensive experience using qualitative methods in a variety of settings to investigate a range of research problems in library and information science. Rosenbaum teaches in the areas of information networking, electronic commerce, intellectual freedom, information organizations, and social science information and offers continuing education worksh web page design, and the use of the Internet.

Kim Gregson is a doctoral student in School of Library and Information Science. She has an extensive background in computers and information networking and has worked as a web programmer and programmer. Her research interests include community networking and political participation, and she will be presenting work on this topic at the National Meetings of the American Society for Information Science in fall 1997. She has compiled an online bibliography on the topic of community networking and teledemocracy and will be co-teaching a course on community networks this fall.

Return to top

VIII.. Proposed Budget

Return to top

IX. Timeline

Return to top

X.Bibliography

Access Indiana. (1997). Access Indiana Online Brochure.

URL: http://www.ai.org/intel/aibrochure/ind_text/page1.htm

Access Indiana. (1995). Community Network RFP.

URL: http://www.ind.net/ACCESS/CNRFP/cnetrfp-1.html

Beamish, A. (1995). Communities On-Line: Community Based Computer Networks. Masters Thesis

URL: http://alberti.mit.edu/arch/4.207/anneb/thesis/background.html

Graham, G. (1995). A Domain Where Thought is Free to Roam: The Social Purpose of Community Networks. Prepared for Telecommunities Canada, 3/29/95

URL: http://panizzi.shef.ac.uk/community/canada.html

Indiana Community Network Association. (1997a). Board Policy Handbook: ICNA Mission and Goals.

URL: http://www.icna.ai.org/hand.html

Indiana Community Network Association. (1997b). Board Policy Handbook: Section 8.01 Community Network Definition.

URL: http://www.icna.ai.org/hand8.html

Indiana Rural Development Council. (1997a). IRDC urges rural communities to apply for community network grants. Press Release.

URL: http://www.ai.org/irdc/press.html

Indiana Rural Development Council. (1997b). Governor O'Bannon, Lt. Governor Kernan and Superintendent Dr. Suellen Reed Award $30,000 In Community Network Grants To Seven Local Community Leaders. Press Release

URL: http://www.ai.org/intel/pr020497-2.html

Kretzmann, J. and McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out : a path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Morino, M. (1994). Assessment and Evolution of Community Networking. Presented at the Apple Conference on Building Community Computing Networks, Cupertino, CA.

URL: http://www.mornio.org/ties94sp.html

Odasz, F. (1996). Community Networking: Leveraging the Public Good Electronically! (Or, Networking in the Public Interest).

URL: http://macsky.bigsky.dillon.mt.us/

Schuler, D. (1996a). New Community Networks: Wired For Change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schuler, D. (1996b). How to Kill Community Networks - Hint: We May Have Already Started. The Network Observer, 1/96a.

URL: http://www.scn.org/ip/commnet/kill-commnets.html

Van Tassel, J. (1996). Yakety-Yak, Do Talk Back!: PEN, the NationÍs First Publicly Funded Electronic Network, Makes a Difference in Santa Monica. In Kling, R. (Ed.) Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. p. 547-551.