 |
 |
 |
|
Volume 14 Numbers 3 and 4, 2004 ONLINE
STRUCTURE FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE SEPTEMBER 11 Kirsten A. Foot Steven M. Schneider SUNY Institute of Technology Abstract. This study is grounded in mobilization
theory and focuses on the online structure for social and political action
created on the Web in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Our analysis of online structure and the actions it enables is guided by four
questions. First, which types of site producers responded to the attacks via
their sites? Second, what kinds of social and political actions did Web sites
facilitate? Third, what kinds of site producers were most likely to facilitate
which kinds of actions? And fourth, what forms of civic engagement were reported
by Internet users in the weeks after September 11? To investigate these issues
we employ feature analysis of 247 archived Web sites and data from a national
telephone survey of Internet users. We suggest factors associated with the
emergence of these online structures, and compare the kinds of social and
political action enabled by the Web with the survey data on what Web users
reported doing in response to the attacks. Findings are accompanied by exemplars
of the online structures that facilitated each type of online action. Introduction The
terrorist attacks in the The
increased use of the Web for a range of purposes in the weeks following the
attacks was noticed and commented upon by many, including the U.S. President
and other federal officials. Guglielmo (2001) in an Interactive Week editorial published Fisher
and Porter (2001), writing a week after the attacks,
catalogue some of the ways that Web producers responded to the events. Their
list of producer actions includes the creation by hackers of mirrors of news
sites to help Web users gain quicker access to breaking news, the posting by
the producers of professional psychology associations of guidance on handling
emotional distress and talking with children about the attacks, and the
blacking out of Web sites around the world by many kinds of producers,
temporarily replacing their sites’ regular content with “a picture,
a message, or a list of other sites doing the same.” Some site producers
– especially news organizations such as CNN.com and MSNBC.com –
turned to content delivery networks such as Akamai to handle the dramatically
increased demand for content (Mears, 2001). Major search
engines and portals reworked their approaches to serving Web users. Google, for
example, transformed itself from a pure search tool to something closer to a
destination or portal site, a significant departure from its carefully
cultivated strategic positioning (Wiggins, 2001). The
reports cited above can be read as fieldnotes from those who were observing
activity on the Web in near real-time. They suggest that the days and weeks
that followed September 11 featured unusually high levels of civic engagement,
worldwide and especially in the United States. For some engaged citizens, the
World Wide Web provided structure facilitating the social, spiritual, personal
and political action that emerged in response to the terrorist attacks. This
study focuses on the online structure for civic engagement created on the Web
in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. We identify the types
of social and political actions facilitated on the Web, and the kinds of site
producers most likely to facilitate various kinds of actions. Through this
analysis we seek to understand the behavior of the Web producers and users in
times of crisis, with a particular emphasis on the ability to rapidly develop
and provide Web-based opportunities facilitating civic engagement. Our analysis of online
structure and the actions it enables was guided by four questions: (1) What
types of site producers responded to the attacks via their sites? (2) What
kinds of social and political actions did Web sites facilitate? (3) What kinds
of site producers were most likely to facilitate which kinds of actions? (4) What
forms of civic engagement were reported by Internet users in the weeks after
September 11? To
answer the first three questions we studied archival impressions of 247 Web
sites in the September 11 Web Archive. [1] We examined Web
sites produced and modified in response to the attacks, ascertaining the type
of organization responsible for the sites’ production, and analyzed the
online structure provided by Web producers to determine the kinds of user
actions the Web sites enabled. Answers to the fourth question were based on
survey data generated by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, on Web
usage patterns and civic engagement in the month following the attacks. We demonstrate
how Web producers potentiated and enabled social and political actions on the
part of Web users, and conclude with an assessment of the Web’s potential
to foster civic engagement during a time of crisis. The Web as Online Structure This
article extends earlier work in which the notion of “online
structure” was introduced (Schneider
& Foot 2002). Our conceptualization of
online structure is derived from the literature on social movements, and
attempts to build on the distinction between “structure” and
“action” (Klandermans, Kriesi et al., 1998).
Much theoretical work in the social movements literature focuses on the
relationship between political mobilization, and formal organizations, external
political processes, and internal organizational features (Mueller,
1992; Johnston & Klandermans, 1995). The
so-called “new” social movement theorists have tended to emphasize
what they have called “micromobilization” features related to the
structures or contexts within which individuals enact political behaviors.
Toward this end, McAdam (1996) provides a comparative
analysis of different theoretical approaches to using the structure of
mobilization processes as an analytic tool. This literature suggests the
utility of distinguishing between the structure for action and the action
itself, and draws attention to the characteristics of
the “micromobilization contexts” (McAdam, 1988),
“free spaces” (Evans & Boyte, 1986) and
other associational forms (Oldenburg, 1989; Cohen & Rogers, 1995; Oldenburg,
2001) that facilitate political action. Thus, we conceptualize an
“online structure” as a (co)produced electronic space, comprised of
various html pages, features, links and texts, providing users opportunities to
associate and act. On the Web, relations between Web producers, as well as
between producers and users, are enacted and mediated through online
structures. Furthermore, each online structure enables and constrains the
potential for various kinds of political action, both online and offline. In
this study we analyze the online structure produced on the Web after September
11 within sites and between sites through hyperlinks, the kinds of actions
enabled by this online structure in the post-September 11 Web sphere, and the
actions reported by Web users as taken in response to the attacks. We use the
term Web sphere to designate a dynamically defined set of Web materials,
characterized and bounded by a shared object orientation or reference point, in
this case, the September 11 attacks (Foot &
Schneider, 2002; Schneider & Foot, 2005). We identify two modes of producing online structures:
“on-site” and “co-produced.” An on-site structure is
one in which the site producer provides the content or feature directly and/or
independently, while a co-produced structure is created when a site producer
links to a site produced by someone else in order to facilitate a particular
user action. [2] In the September 11 Web sphere, many site
producers combined these modes of online structure, providing some of the
content or features themselves and linking to another site for additional content
or functionality. Linking is a form of co-production in that both site
producers - the producer providing the link, and the producer to whose site the
user is sent by the link - jointly (if not voluntarily) enable the action under
consideration (Foot &
Schneider, 2002). Methods This
article is based on two data streams, collected independently by different
research groups. Our analysis of the kinds of Web site producers who responded
to the terrorist attacks by adapting and/or creating Web materials, and of the
online structures they produced to enable social and political action, is
gleaned from a feature analysis of Web sites archived between September 11,
2001 and December 1, 2001. During this time, we worked with the U.S. Library of
Congress, the Internet Archive, the Pew Internet and American Life Project, and
volunteer Web users from around the world to identify and archive URLs that
were likely to be relevant to the question of how Web site producers were reacting
to the events of September 11. Based on previous studies of political and
social action on the Web, and a pilot study of post-September 11 Web sites, we
identified nine categories of site producers that we expected might respond to
the attacks on the Web. The analysis presented here is based on an examination
of Web sites produced by these types of entities: (1) news organizations such
as CNN, the New York Times and Salon.com; (2) federal, state and local
government entities; (3) corporations and other commercial organizations; advocacy
groups; religious groups, including denominations and congregations; individuals
acting on their own behalf; educational institutions; portals; and charity and
relief organizations. At
the time this study was conducted, cataloging of the materials in the September
11 Web Archive was not complete, but the preliminary index of the archive
available then indicated that the archive contained impressions of Web pages
from at least four thousand Web sites, and provided a rough grouping of sites
by genre or producer type. For this study, a sample of 247 sites was generated
for analysis from the preliminary index. The sampling strategy, designed to
include a broad representation of site producers, and to focus on those sites
that were captured closest to September 11, yielded a sample of three
“impressions” or site captures of about 400 Web sites. A
preliminary analysis of the archival pages eliminated those without content
relevant to the September 11 events, as well as those not captured in a
readable format by the archiving tools. The refined sample of 247 Web sites was
then closely examined by trained observers to determine the site producer type
and measure the range of civic actions enabled by each site. Estimates
of the Web behavior and attitudes of post-September 11 Internet users are based
on analysis of daily surveys taken by the Pew Internet and American Life
project. Our findings are based on data from telephone interviews conducted
between September 12, 2001 and November 19, 2001 among a sample of 7,731
adults, 18 and older. The survey takers employed random digit dialing to reach
adults across the continental United States. The data were then weighted
according to a special analysis of the March 2002 Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey to account for non-response bias in telephone surveys.
Surveys of Internet users provide an estimate of the types of sites individuals
recall viewing, and the kinds of activities in which they recall engaging.
These data, when matched with data about the types of online structure created
by site producers, allow us to estimate the congruence of structure provided
and action taken on the Web in the days and weeks following the terrorist
attacks. Online Structure for Civic Action Within
minutes of the initial attacks, Web sites enabled users to get information
about the events; within hours, structures enabling individuals to obtain
assistance were available. Soon thereafter, a wide range of features and
content facilitating social, personal, spiritual and political engagement were
apparent in the rapidly emerging Web sphere. An analysis of the online
structure created by Web producers that facilitated civic action in the days
and weeks following September 11 is the focus of this section. Through a pilot
study of sites produced by each of the types listed above, we identified the
following set of user actions as having been facilitated through online
structure within the Web sphere produced between September 11 and December 1, 2001:
(1) getting information; (2) providing information; (3) getting
assistance/support; (4) providing assistance/support; (5) accessing
others’ expression; (6) providing personal expression; and (7) engaging
in political advocacy. Research assistants were trained in coding Web sites for
online structure and features that enable these seven kinds of social and
political action, and conducted a systematic analysis of the 247 sites in the
refined sample. In this section we describe each type of action and elements of
the Web sphere that facilitated each action, and provide links to exemplar
pages from the September 11 Web Archive for the purpose of illustration. We
then present findings regarding the frequency of each action by site producer
type, and the prevalence of on-site versus co-produced online structure. Getting information This
user action was most immediately and most frequently enabled by all types of
Web sites. Examples of getting information as a user action include obtaining
news and information about the terrorist attacks, and the subsequent rescue and
recovery operations, civic response, criminal investigations, military
response, terrorism in historic and political context, etc. Web content
associated with this action includes news, information, photographs and the
like produced by professional (for profit) organizations, nonprofit organizations,
and individuals (amateurs). To illustrate, a religious site producer that
enabled users to get information on the site was Crosswalk.com. [3] The front page carries a list of links to news articles. For Web users seeking information from a distinctly
Christian perspective, this Christian portal site featured news items, mostly
from the AP wire, with a focus on the economic and political ramifications of
the attacks. A great variety of information and commentary on the ramifications
of the attacks for Christians is offered in the news and culture section.
An example of an
individually produced site that facilitated information gathering was the World
Trade Center Memorial Website. [4] This site emerged as a direct response to the public's
desire for detailed information about the attacks. The site contained a
comprehensive photo archive of the attacks gleaned from newscasts and
newspapers, or sent to the site producer by professional and amateur
photographers. The photo archive presented a type of information that words
alone could not describe. It also contained some photos later deemed
inappropriate to publish, such as those of people jumping from the upper levels
of the towers. Providing information Many
Web sites facilitated contributions of newsworthy information by site visitors.
For example, several sites encouraged and enabled users to provide
“tips” on the attacks by linking to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Tips site. [5] Another example of
online structure for civic engagement was produced by the Rewards for Justice
program of the Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. Department of State, which
added a page to its site labeled Most Wanted Terrorists. [6]
The page displayed facial photographs of 22 men wanted “for numerous acts of terrorism worldwide from
1985 to the most recent Attack on Getting assistance Web users were facilitated in
getting assistance through structures which emerged soon after the attacks to
serve victims, and the families and friends of victims. We distinguished
assistance-related Web content from general information on the basis of whether
the information enabled the seekers to meet a personal need – on behalf
of themselves or someone else. Some of the Web-based services provided
assistance information for those in the immediate vicinity of the attacks,
others provided aided people at a distance. The such as NYC.gov, [8] a site produced by the Office of the Mayor for New York
City featured several on-site services, including a “hospital patient
locator system” developed in conjunction with the hospitals in the
metropolitan area. This feature offered visitors the ability to search through
multiple hospitals at once in order to locate relatives or friends who may have
been injured at or near the WTC. Other Web services that facilitated getting
assistance included registries of victims, lists of those missing in the
attacks, lists of survivors, and resource and referral directories. One example
was safe.millennium.berkeley.edu, [9] posted by a student
at the Providing assistance The
emerging Web sphere also enabled Web users to engage in a variety of online and
offline actions in support of various public and private assistance activities,
such as rescue and recovery efforts, counseling, education, criminal
investigations, community organizing, and solidarity-building efforts. Some
examples of the assisting actions supported by the online structure include
contributing money to relief efforts; obtaining the information, direction and
support needed by community organizers, service providers and educators; and
obtaining symbolic merchandise (flags, shirts, etc.) and content (images,
songs, texts) facilitating participation in solidarity-building efforts. For
instance, on WorldTradeAftermath.com, the
links in a vertical menu column on the left side of the site resolved to
separate pages on which there was an overview description of a particular need,
and then a list of ways that assistance could be provided, including a variety
of Web resources to enable those who wanted to provide support. Site visitors could learn
how to cheer on rescue workers at Ground Zero in New York, donate blood,
clothing and food, and volunteer their time. [11] One
unusual way that Web users were encouraged to show love and support to the
families of victims was through quilting. The Quilt4America project provided site
visitors with step-by-step instructions for making a quilt for a victim’s
family, including emailing a photo of the quilt to the project. [12] As a final example of another way that the Web
facilitated the provision of assistance, the family of one of the passengers on
a downed flight, Neilie Casey, produced a site to help channel and direct the
support that was being offered to them. [13] This one-page site provided the time, date and location of
Casey's memorial service, and contact information for a memorial fund
established for Casey's infant daughter, for those wishing to demonstrate
support for the family in either of those ways. Although less “high
tech” than sites offering links or secure on-line donation forms, this
site still illustrated how the Web enabled a victim's family to both convey a
tribute to their daughter and provide online structure for those who were
mourning her death. Providing personal
expression A
surprising range of site producer types provided structure that enabled Web
users to express their personal experiences, views and perspectives about the
terrorist attacks, and the subsequent rescue and recovery operations and
governmental and civic response. MyStory was
one of many sites produced specifically to archive the stories of individual
experiences on 9/11 and during the ensuing days. The site developers’
stated purpose was to "show the world the impact of hatred." Stories
and photos could be submitted by site visitors, and were then edited and posted
by the site producers. [14] Expressive action also
included joining in communal expressions of grief and mourning on the Web. One
example of this was an individually produced site titled 911 that invited submissions from other Web users and created a
long listing of more 'polished' stories, poems, commentary, artwork, etc. [15] The site producer is explicit about his/her intention
that this should be a memorial and specifies that hate speech and foul language
will be excluded.
Another kind of online structure that enabled Web users to provide personal
expression was the electronic condolence book, such as that produced by the Governor General of Canada. [16]
A Web form was created that allowed site
visitors to enter their names, locations, and messages to the Accessing others’
expression Most
site producers that facilitated visitors in providing expression also displayed
at least some of the submitted comments for others to access. On some sites,
however, the online structure enabled visitors only to access the expression of
others, enabling Web users to enter into the experience and response of others
to the September 11 attacks. Any site that allowed visitors to access the
expression of others was coded positively for this action, whether or not the
provision of personal expression was enable on the site. Sites that offered
access to others’ expression included some memorial [20]
and tribute [21] sites, as well as sites consisting
just of photo collections. [22] Many individually
produced blog sites displayed postings in which the blogger reported his/her
reactions to the attacks. One particularly moving illustration of this was a
blog titled jish.nu. [23] Jish, a self-described Canadian of Indian origin,
posts a diary of his own experiences with the changing social climate and life
after the attacks. He chronicled a range of emotions in the wake of the
attacks, including those that accompanied an interaction in which he was
mistaken for an Afghani. The jish.nu site provided visitors with opportunities to examine the
expressions contributed by other Web users. Political advocacy Finally,
Web producers developed forms of online structure that allowed individuals to
engage in political advocacy, which we defined as conveying a policy preference
to an elected official. In response to the attacks, site producers created or
adapted features that enabled visitors to sign online petitions, send email to
government representatives, read or post views in online discussion groups, or
contribute money to interest and advocacy groups. For example, one of the new links created on an
individual's site [24] after September 11 was to the
Worldwide Petition Against Terrorism, addressed to the UN Secretary General.
This petition along with many others was hosted on a site called
PetitionOnline.com. [25] By including a link to the
petition from his/her personal site, the individual site producer created a
structure that facilitated political action by other Web users. As another
example, the author Michael Moore enabled advocacy via his site by providing
the email addresses of elected officials, (some directly and some through links
to other sites that index them), and urging site visitors to express their
opposition to war in Afghanistan. [26] Analysis ==============================================================================================================
============================================================================================================== Not
surprisingly, site producer type was strongly related to the types of user
actions for which online structure was provided, as indicated in Table 1.
Getting information was the most common action facilitated, enabled on 63
percent of the sites examined. Press and government sites were considerably
more likely than the overall group of sites to facilitate this action; charity
and religious sites were much less likely to do so. The second most common
action – accessing others’ expression – was possible on
55 percent of the sites examined; most commonly on individual and educational
sites, and least often on government and portal sites. In general, individual
sites were much more likely than the overall group of sites to facilitate
providing expression, providing assistance, providing information, and engaging
in advocacy. Press, business, advocacy, and portal sites were considerably
less likely to provide structure for many of the kinds of actions examined
than the sample of sites in general. In addition to analyzing which types of site producers enabled which types of civic engagement, we also took note of the mode by which online structure was produced on the Web, whether independently on-site or co-produced between sites. Table 2 illustrates the mode of production for each of the actions enabled. Structure for providing assistance was most likely to be co-produced; features that enabled getting expression and providing expression were most likely to be provided on-site. Seventy percent of the sites that facilitated providing assistance did so using co-production; 80 percent of the sites that allowed visitors to access expression, and 75 percent of the sites that allowed visitors to provide expression, did so on-site. ==============================================================================================================
============================================================================================================== The
tendency of different types of site producers to enable actions on-site versus
co-producing structure through links is presented in Table 3. Personal sites
were much more likely to co-produce online structure than any other type of
site producer. Business and advocacy producers were much less likely to do
so. Advocacy, religious, educational and business producers were most likely
to produce on-site structure to facilitate social and political action by
their site visitors. ==============================================================================================================
Civic Engagement by Web Users Before
examining the social and political actions engaged in by Web users in the wake of
September 11, it is useful to first set the context of reaction to the events
of September 11 by reviewing patterns of behavior in the offline world during
that time. As reported by Rainie and Kalsnes (2001), the
online response among the American people to the September 11 attacks was part
of a larger collective experience. The Pew Internet & American Life survey
asked respondents if they had engaged in any of five different offline
activities related to September 11: attended a religious service, tried to
donate blood, attended a meeting to discuss the attacks, flown an American flag
outside their home, or given money to relief efforts. By September 19 –
the first day for which a representative sample is available – the mean
participation rate in offline September 11-related activities had climbed to
1.36; by September 25, the mean had reached 1.99 activities. Among those
respondents surveyed between September 12 and October 7, nearly 30 percent had
participated in three or more offline activities, 56 percent in one or two
activities, and 15 percent in no activities. In the discussion below, the
online behaviors among respondents are contrasted with their level of
participation in offline activities. The
social and political actions engaged in by those using the Web in the days and
weeks following September 11 were analyzed using survey data collected by the
Pew Internet & American Life Project. More specifically, the level of Web
usage reported, the types of sites Web users reported visiting, and the types
of action in which Web users report engaging are discussed below. Differences
among users based on the level of Web usage are reported, as well as the amount
of reported offline activity related to September 11. Rainie
and Kalsnes (2001) report that the overall number of
people using the Internet in the two weeks following the attacks declined by
about 5-8 percent, before returning to established levels by the beginning of
October. This decline in overall usage was noted among all types of Web users,
including the most frequent and most experienced groups. However, while overall
Internet usage declined, those reporting using the Web for news increased
considerably, as the percentage of Internet users reporting getting news from
the Web on a typical rose more than 25 to 28 percent after the attacks from 22
percent in the four weeks prior to the attacks. Survey respondents were asked about their visits to
different types of Web sites, seven of which correspond with the producer
types examined in the site analysis discussed in the previous section. [27] As shown in Table 4, all but 11 percent of the respondents
report visiting at least one of the seven types of Web sites prior to September
11, and 26 percent report visiting four or more of the site types. In the
6-week period following September 11, 46 percent of the respondents report
visiting at least one of the types of sites. However, it is clear that most
Web users focused their efforts on relatively few types of sites: fully
one-third of those who visited any of the types examined reported visiting
only one or two or three of them. At the same time, it is clear the more
frequent users of the Internet visited a somewhat wider variety of sites
as a result of September 11.
============================================================================================================== Most Web users visited press sites. Nearly
one-quarter of all users reported visiting a press site as a result of
September 11. None of the other types of site producers were visited by more than
ten percent of the users as a result of the terrorist attacks. This suggests
that although the Web enables virtually anyone to be an information provider,
in times of crisis, press organizations still dominate. More frequent Web users
were more likely to visit every type of site than less frequent Web users.
However, there was little relationship between participation in offline
activities related to September 11 and visiting sites produced by most types of
site producers. These findings are presented in Table 5.
* Indicates statistically significant
relationship (p. 5). ============================================================================================================== With
an understanding of the types of sites visited by Web users following September
11, we now turn to an assessment, presented in Table 6, of the specific actions
in which users engaged. [28] Nearly half of all users report using the Web to
find news about the terrorist attacks. More than one-third of the users report
using the Web to find information about the reaction of the financial markets
to the attacks. About a quarter of the users sought out information about Osama
bin Laden or Afghanistan. More than a quarter of users used the Web to post or
read the opinions of other individuals. About one fifth of the users downloaded
a picture of the American flag, or sought information about victims or
survivors. Not surprisingly, more frequent users were more likely to engage in
every single action examined than less frequent users. However, engagement in
offline activities related to September 11 was related only to online actions
associated with expression; online actions related to information, advocacy or
assistance were not associated with offline activities. ==============================================================================================================
============================================================================================================== Conclusion In
summary, the social and political actions engaged in by Web users are, in part,
a function of online structures provided by producers. This study illustrates
some of the synergies afforded researchers by using both data generated from
systematic analysis of Web sites and surveys of Internet users. While the data
presented in this analysis do not account for the frequency with which users
visited sites offering different online structures – which would allow a
full analysis of the relationship between online action and online structure
– some preliminary estimates can be made. For example, the percent of
users who report getting information from the Web in the days and weeks
following September 11 may have been a function of the number of sites that
facilitated this action. Similarly, the relative paucity of sites facilitating
advocacy or enabling the provision of information would have accurately
predicted the relatively few users who reported engaging in this action. While
the provision of structure does not guarantee action, it is clear that absent
online structure, online action is not possible. Although
a sample comprised of 247 Web sites is substantial for this kind of study, the
number of sites per each type of site producer included in this analysis is
relatively small, thus these findings should not be presumed to be fully
representative of any one category of producer type. Further research should be
conducted using a larger sample stratified by producer type, to verify and
extend the findings presented here. Even so, the findings presented above are
significant for the following reasons. First,
these findings provide additional evidence of the emergence and development of
online structure for action. Conceptually, this study extends previous work on
online structure and online action in two ways: (1) by distinguishing between
structure produced on a single site, and structure produced through links; and
(2) by identifying a set of actions that were manifested on
the Web in response to a crisis. Both of these may be useful for future
analyses of other Web spheres. The differences among site producer types with
regard to the co-production of online structure are intriguing, and invite
further investigation and analysis. Second,
the findings from this study illustrate the importance of the Internet, and
particularly the Web, as a significant component of the public sphere, enabling
coordination, information-sharing, assistance, expression and advocacy –
all forms of citizen engagement in a crisis situation. In addition, they
demonstrate the value of the latent capacity of the Web production community as
a resource to be deployed in a time of crisis. Hundt (2002)
observes that one lesson to be drawn from the events of September 11 is that in
order to maintain an effective communications system in the face of any
calamity, the Internet should be protected and promoted as a primary network,
encouraging the private sector and using the resources of the public sector to
make it faster, more robust, ubiquitous, and better integrated with other
media. This policy would be consistent with the Internet's original development
as an aspect of national security. Finally,
the methodological, technological and legal challenges entailed in this study
are worth noting. Conceptualizing the Web in terms of online structures that
enable and/or constrain social and political action required innovative
operationalizations. Retrospective analysis of online structure and action
required a high quality and accessible Web archive, consisting of retrievable
page and site-level records that preserved hyperlink structures between sites,
with which human-generated metadata could be associated electronically. In
addition, the processes of creating such an archive and securing scholarly
access to it had to be managed with respect to evolving interpretations of
intellectual property law. Scholars must identify and meet these challenges in
order to complete the robust analyses necessary to fully examine the role of
the Web as a venue for civic engagement. Acknowledgments: This article is a revised
version of a paper presented at the Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks and
Democracy, Nijmegen, 9-12 October 2002. The authors wish to thank the Pew
Internet and American Life Project.for supporting this study, and Yu-Hua Chang,
Meghan Dougherty, Grethe Graversen, Adrienne Massanari, and Erica Siegl for
their research assistance. Endnotes [1]
http://september11.archive.org/, accessed February 27, 2004. [2]
Although we consider techniques such as the appropriation of text from one site
to another and collaboration on the production of a feature to also be
co-production, in this study we focused solely on the co-production of online
structure through links between sites. For broader analyses of co-production
see Foot & Schneider (2002), Forte (2003
and 2005), Schneider & Dougherty (2003) and Schneider & Foot (2005). [3]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010921064943/http://news.crosswalk.com/, archived
September 21, 2001. [4] http://web.archive.org/web/20010920004919/www.thewtcmemorial.com/news/,
archived September 20, 2001. [5]
https://tips.fbi.gov, accessed December 19, 2002. [6]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011101020229/www.dssrewards.net/, archived
November, 1, 2001. [7] http://web.archive.org/web/20011101023023/www.usdoj.gov/,
archived November, 1, 2001. [8]http://web.archive.org/web/20010914220536/http://home.nyc.gov/portal/index.jsp?pageID=nyc_home,
archived September 14, 2001. [9]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010919065820/safe.millennium.berkeley.edu/,
archived September 19, 2001. [10]http://web.archive.org/web/20010923235507/http://my.webmd.com/medcast_channel_toc/4058,
archived September 23, 2001. [11]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010925192004/worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/help_out/,
archived September 25, 2001. [12]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011101021140/www.quilt4america.com/, archived
November 1, 2001. [13]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010921064918/http://www.neiliecasey.net/, archived
September 21, 2001. [14]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010921220119/mystory.inter.net/index.php, archived
September 21, 2001. [15]http://web.archive.org/web/20010918214841/www.crosswinds.net/~starnine/911/911.htm,
archived September 18, 2001. [16]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010920074344/www.gg.ca/books/us-attack/index-1000689515_e.html,
archived September 20, 2001. [17]http://web.archive.org/web/20010913041746/boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=terror010911,
archived September 13, 2001. [18]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010915045154/www.fema.gov/nwz01/nwz01_98.htm,
archived September 15, 2001. [19]
Quoted on
http://web.archive.org/web/20010915045246/www.fema.gov/nwz01/nwz01_106.htm,
archived September 15, 2001. [20]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011004215734/lightacandle.sol.dk/, archived
October 4, 2001. [21]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011101020006/america911.mybravenet.com/, archived
November 1, 2001. [22]http://web.archive.org/web/20011103190026/remember.worldatwar.org/main.mhtml/images,
archived September 3, 2001. [23]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010917011257/http://jish.nu/2001_09_01_archive.php,
archived September 17, 2001. [24]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010925195347/iwant.on.ca/USTribute.html, archived
September 25, 2001. [25]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011007074108/www.petitiononline.com/wwpat/,
archived on October 7, 2001. [26]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010921064926/http://www.michaelmoore.com/,
archived on September 21. [27]
Although we worked with researchers in the Pew Internet and American Life Project
to help create questions for their post-September 11 survey, it was not
possible for them to employ exactly the same categories of producer types and
kinds of social and political action as response options in the survey that we
employed in analyzing archival Web materials. Seven of the nine producer types
we used in analyzing the Web materials were included as response options in
their survey. [28]
Five of the seven types of action we used to analyze the Web materials were
included as response options in the survey conducted by the Pew Internet and
American Life Project. References Arms, W., Adkins, R. et al. (2001). Collecting and preserving the web: The MINERVA prototype.
Retrieved February 25, 2004, from RLG
DigiNews. 5. http://www.rlg.org/preserv/diginews/diginews5-2.html Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1995). Associations and democracy. New York, Verso. Constance, P. (1996). Disaster relief is on the
way-in the form of web communications. Government
Computer News 15(28): 47-48. Evans, S. M., & Boyte, H. C. (1986). Free spaces: The sources of democratic
change in America. New York: Harper & Row. Fisher, L., & Porter, H.
(2001). The online community stands together. Time Atlantic. 158: 22. Fishman, D. A. (1999). Valujet
flight 592: Crisis communication theory blended and extended. Communication Quarterly. 47(4): 345-375. Foot, K. A., & Schneider,
S. M. (2002). Online action in campaign 2000: An exploratory analysis of the
U.S. political web sphere. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 46(2): 222-244. Forte, M. C.
(2003). Co-construction and field creation: Website development as both an
instrument and relationship in action research. In E. Buchanan (Ed.), Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and
Controversies (pp. 222-248). Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing Group. Forte, M. C. (2005). Centring the links: understanding
cybernetic patterns of co-production, circulation and consumption. In C. Hine
(Ed.), Virtual Methods: Issues in Social
Research on the Internet. Goldsborough, R. (2001). In a crisis,
old media trump new media. Community
College Week. 14(7): 19. Guglielmo, C. (2001). Net helps
spread information, solace. Interactive
Week. 8 (37): 24. Hu, J., & Sandoval, G. (2001). Web acts as hub for
info on attacks, CNET Networks, Inc. 2002. Retrieved February 25, 2004, from
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-272873.html Hundt, R. (2002). The agenda-telecommunications: Keeping
the net secure-September 11 demonstrated the great strength of the Internet.
Now it's time to address the Internet's weaknesses. The Atlantic Monthly. 289(1):
26-27. Johnston, H., & Klandermans, B.
(1995). Social movements and culture.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Klandermans, B., Kriesi, H. et al.,
(Eds.) (1998). International social movement
research, Vol 1: From structure to action: Comparing social movement across
cultures. London: JAI Press. McAdam, D. (1988).
Micromobilization contexts and recruitment to activism. In B. Klandermans, H.
Kriesi & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure
to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures (pp.
125-154). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D. et al. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social
movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural
framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCormick, J. (2001). Extending a
hand. Interactive Week. 8(36): 8. Mears, J. (2001). Content delivery networks carry the
heavy load. Network World Fusion.
Retrieved February 25, 2004, from http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0924carrier.html Mueller, C. M. (1992). Building
social movement theory. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory
(pp. 3-25). New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops,
community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they
get you through the day. New York: Paragon House. Oldenburg, R. (2001). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring
stories about the "great good places" at the heart of our communities.
New York: Marlowe & Co. Olsen, S. (2001). Net offers lifeline amid tragedy. CNET
Networks Inc. Retrieved February 25, 2004, from
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-272893.html?legacy=cnet Piotrowski, C., & Armstrong, T. R.
(1998). Mass media preferences in disaster: A study of Hurricane Danny. Social Behavior and Personality. 26(4):
341-345. Rainie, L., &. Kalsnes, B.
(2001). The commons of the tragedy. How
the internet was used by millions after the terror attacks to grieve, console,
share news, and debate the country's response. Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Washington, DC. Retrieved Schneider, S. M., & Dougherty, M. (2003). Strategic
coproduction and content appropriation: Press materials on candidate Web sites
in the 2002 U.S. election. Presented at International Communication
Association, San Diego, May 27-30. Schneider,
S. M., & Foot, K. A. (2002). Online structure for political action:
Exploring presidential Web sites from the 2000 American election. Javnost / The Public 9(2): 43-60. Schneider, S.M. & Foot, K.A. (2005). Web sphere analysis: An approach to studying online
action. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual
Methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. PP. 157-170. Sood, R., Stockdale, G. et al. (1987). How the news media operate in natural disasters. Journal of Communication. 37(3): 27-41. Wiggins, R. W. (2001). The effects
of September 11 on the leading search engine. First Monday. 7(10). Retrieved Copyright 2004 Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc. This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced without written permission of the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY 12150 USA (phone: 518-887-2443). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
