Various academic studies of Santa Monica’s early Public Electronic Network
My friend Kevin McKeown delivered this address in 1991: “Social Norms and Implications of Santa Monica’s PEN (Public Electronic Network)”
***
Source: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW03/C_D.html
Collins-Jarvis, L. A. (1993). Gender representation in an electronic city hall: female adoption of Santa Monica’s PEN system. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37, 49 65.
Subject: CMC; Gender Issues.
A PEN is a “computer-based communication system” which can be used to “access a database of information concerning city government and a large number of local events, services, and facilities” to “exchange messages with a number of city government departments” or with other citizens and to participate in dialogue concerning a large number of topics (some related to city governance, and some not), many of which (are) initiated at the suggestion of citizen-users”. (Collins-Jarvis’ citation of Guthrie et al., 1990). As of 1990, PEN’s existed in Santa Monica, CA, Berkeley, CA, Pasadena, CA and Cleveland, OH. Santa Monica’s system raises interest because unlike other systems, whose adoption/usage by females averaged 5-16% of all users, 30% of Santa Monica’s users were female.
Collins-Jarvis cites several studies that seem to indicate that by and large “the socially constructed characteristics of computing technologies as well as the social practices which surround the implementation of these technologies act to limit their appeal to females”. Starting from previous research, Collins-Jarvis sets up three hypotheses:
1. “Male adopters of a public electronic networking system are more likely than female adopters to use private access devices”.
2. “Female adopters of a public electronic networking system maintain higher levels of political interest than do male adopters”.
3. “Female adopters of a public electronic networking system maintain higher levels of local political participation than do male adopters”.
Collins-Jarvis uses a quantitative analysis of the participants in the Santa Monica PEN system to determine the validity of these hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 was “mostly supported”. 40% of female users did not have private access as opposed to only 20% of the male users. Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Male and female interest in politics (judged on a five-point scale ranging from “very interested to not at all interested” were calculated to be at the same level. Hypothesis 3 was supported. Females had a higher frequency of attending city government meetings, contacting the city government, and listening to/watching city government meetings on radio/TV.
She also did a qualitative study (interviews) to find answers to the following questions:
1. “Will female adopters who encouter barriers in using a public electronic system reject or reinvent the system?” (or even conform to it?)
2. “What role do the system operators’ policies concerning user input play in female reinvention?”.
Collins-Jarvis’ discussion of the qualitative results are very interesting. For example, when the Santa Monica system was first set up “a few males discouraged female use of PEN’s interactive conferences” by using the conference to send out “an interactive sexual fantasy narrative with the theme of male ‘domination’ and hostile sexual acts against women. The potential offensiveness of this conference was compounded by the practice of incorporating female PEN users’ names into the narrative”. Other flaming included the use of offensive language when issues such as abortion/pro-choice were discussed.
Consequently a group of female users set up an interactive conference item specifically designed to address women’s issues. In addition a “social support group for female PEN users” (PENFEMME) was created. “The members decided to collectively fight misogynous flaming by not responding to PEN messages that were posted or sent by those male users known for offensive flaming. Shortly thereafter, the few male users who made offensive remarks curtailed their abusive language on PEN as a result of this tactic”.
Collins-Jarvis concludes that the high level of female participation in Santa Monica’s PEN is due to several factors. First, quantitatively, due to public access terminals (in libraries, community centers, etc.) more women physically had access to the system. Secondly, the qualitative research shows that female users “attempted to reinvent rather than simply reject the PEN system when faced with the following barriers to use: (1) no conferences specifically addressed “women’s” issues; and (2) a few male adopters interacted on the system in a manner that appeared to be hostile to female users”.
***
Schmitz, Joseph 1997: “Structural Relations, Electronic Media, and Social Change: The Public Electronic Network and the Homeless,” in Steven G. Jones (Ed.): Virtual Culture - Identity and Communication in Cyberspace, London: SAGE
***
Source: https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-BIGIDEAS/Message/30500.html
Sharon Mayell of Santa Monica Public Electronic Network
described their municipal system and the struggles they are
having from balancing first amendment rights with the
problems of obnoxious and long-winded users that hog the
system and seem to enjoy verbal fights more than true
discussions. She said the low point of her career was a
meeting with some of the users (all of whom live or work in
Santa Monica). One stood up and said to the group, “I’m sorry
if I have offended anyone, but it’s more a function of my
lithium level than anything else.” Another thorn in Susan’s
side stood and claimed, “If I offended anyone, I meant it!”
and then he sat down. Still, the city is trying some
moderated groups where you are limited to four postings a day
of no more than 30 lines. Some have welcomed this; others
worry about censorship. I thought her warnings and
experience were extremely valuable for many of us enamored of
the possibilities for using electronic communications to
build a sense of community.
