Wrap-up: Coverage of Pew Research Center’s “Neighbors Online”

Pew’s Neighbors Online report, published Wednesday, provides baseline data on neighborhood communications. Join the Q&A with author Aaron Smith, over at e-democracy.org’s Locals Online. Several media outlets reported on the report, and here are a few that did more than reprint the overview:

• Chicago Sun-Times: Folks use digital tools to take role in community – “Leonard’s experience mirrors the findings of a study released Wednesday. Contrary to assumptions that people who go online hole up in their basements, the study showed the opposite: Internet users are more likely than non-users to talk face to face with their neighbors about local and community issues.”
• CivSource: More going online to go local – “Steven Clift, director of E-Democracy.org – a nonprofit organization that works to develop civic engagement and online community building strategies – called the report an “excellent start,” in an interview yesterday. The report puts numbers to what we’ve instinctively thought about neighborhood activity online and I think it will certainly move the field of discussion along.”
• Christian Science Monitor: The Internet probably won’t turn you into a hermit, study finds – “Far from being more reclusive, Internet users are more likely to meet their neighbors face-to-face and engage in community issues, a new study reveals. The findings suggests that talking in person or over the telephone remain the top two ways that people living close to one another keep up on community developments, even in an increasingly digital world.”
• e-democracy: Neighbors Online – What have 27% of Internet Users Discovered? Women Lead the Way. Need More Inclusion – “So now we have numbers on the digital participation divide we must close: Only 2% of those with household incomes under $30,000 are on a neighborhood e-mail list; only 3% of Hispanics; only 2% of rural residents.”
• New York Times: Friends, Neighbors and Facebook – “There’s no need to pine for a return to the pre-Facebook, cardigan-swaddled idealism of Mister Rogers and his charming “neighbors” and “friends,” but it is important for us to remember that tangible, meaningful engagement with those around us builds better selves and stronger communities.”
• ReadWriteWeb: Neighbors Rely On Word of Mouth, But Online Gains – “The biggest effect that online tools have had on neighborhood interactions is in providing an avenue for learning about and interacting on local issues to individuals who might not engage in these issues through more traditional means.”

Although all of Pew’s survey respondents are from the United States, the report has global implications. See this analysis by UK-based Kevin Harris, author of the Neighbourhoods blog, reprinted here in its entirety with Kevin’s permission (thanks Kevin):

Online communication in neighbourhoods: not just people we know

The latest Pew Internet Project report has just been published, on the topic of ‘neighbors online’.

It’s based on telephone interviews with 2,258 Americans, and while I didn’t read anything that hit the wow-box it certainly helps us think about communication at neighbourhood level. The questions asked about face-to-face interaction with neighbours, telephone contact, and a range of local online resources.

Unsurprisingly (and as last year’s Pew Internet study demonstrated) internet users are just as likely as non-users to discuss local issues face-to-face. People in higher income households and with higher educational attainment are more likely to talk face-to-face with neighbours about local issues.

Between 4% and 11% of all those surveyed exchange email with their neighbours about local issues, read a blog dealing with local issues, or are signed up to a locally-focussed online forum or social network. This is baseline data, hopefully Pew will repeat the questions every now and then.

For me the most interesting finding was this:

15% of internet users who know none of their immediate neighbors by name read community blogs or join a community-focused group on an online social network.

This compares with 14% of those who know all of their neighbors. Maybe communicative folk will use f2f, telephone, email, twittever they can, to communicate. But there are obvious differences. For example, generally if you’re going to speak to a neighbour on the phone, you’re going to ‘know’ them first; if you connect with a neighbour through an online forum, you don’t need to know them. Non-communicative folk who realise they are disadvantaged by lack of connection and information now have local spaces where they can lurk comfortably and still become informed. Dat’s progress for yer.

As always with this kind of material, the meaning of the findings is subject to what we understand by ‘knowing’ our neighbours; and by the significance we attach to that. I maintain that it is not knowing neighbours by name that matters in terms of a supportive local social environment, but recognition. I can’t say whether or not the north American context is comparable, but I observe that Keith Hampton has found it necessary to stress the importance of weak ties against a tendency to privilege strong ties. If our understanding of the contribution of online to neighbouring is focused on strong ties, we could be missing, or misinterpreting, a lot.

Last year’s Pew Internet Survey asked a question designed to ascertain whether the internet had affected people’s understanding of the word ‘discuss’ in relation to ‘important matters’ and ‘significant ties’. (The researchers did not find that it has). If they can do that, maybe they can work on the question of whether the internet may be affecting our understanding of the word ‘know’ in relation to ‘neighbours’. And perhaps more importantly, we can start looking at how local online resources allow us to connect with people we don’t know.

Kevin Harris has worked in community development for 24 years, with a focus on designing and running events involving residents and professionals. He has authored numerous publications and has been an adviser to the UK government on social inclusion, access to and use of information technologies, and citizenship. His work has centered on social inclusion, participation and community cohesion. Kevin has undertaken several community development projects at a local level, and recently completed a study of participation in the English new town of Milton Keynes. Current work includes research into the social impacts of neighbourhood online networks in London, for London Councils. Kevin was previously a British Library Research Fellow. He is currently an Associate of Community Development Foundation and of the Centre for Intergenerational Practice.