Community technology and community building: Early results from the creating community connections Project

Information Society

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 365-379

  Pinkett, Randal ^a  

^a BCT Partners   (United States)

Author keywords

Community building; Community content; Community network; Community technology; Community technology center (CTC); Digital divide; Housing; Low income; Underserved; Urban

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345448258     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: 10876537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/714044684     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Aspen Institute. 1997. Voices from the field: Learning from the early work of comprehensive community initiatives. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. (http://www.aspenroundtable.org/voices/ index.html)
2. Beamish, A. 1999. Approaches to community computing: Bringing technology to low-income groups. In High technology in low-income communities: Prospects for the positive use of information technology, eds. D. Schon, B. Sanyal, and W. J. Mitchell, pp. 349-368. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bishop, A. P., Tidline, T. J., Shoemaker, S., and Salela, P. 1999. Public libraries and networked information services in low-income communities. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
4. Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J. C. 1977. Reproduction in education, society and culture, trans. by Richard Nice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5. Brown, L. D. 1983. Participatory research and community planning. In Managing conflict at organizational interfaces, ed. L. D. Brown, chap. 8. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6. Cancian, F. M. 1993. Conflicts between activist research and academic success: Participatory research and alternative strategies. The American Sociologist 24(1):92-106.
7. Chow, C., Ellis, J., Mark, J., and Wise, B. 1998. Impact of CTCNet affiliates: Findings from a national survey of users of community technology centers. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. (http://www.ctcnetorg/impact98.html)
8. Cohill, A. M., and Kavanaugh, A. L. 1997. Community networks: Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia. Blacksburg, VA: Artech House Telecommunications Library.
9. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94:S95-S120.
10. Contractor, N., and Bishop, A. P. 1999. Reconfiguring community networks: The case of Prairie KNOW. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
11. Friedenberger, J. 1991. Participatory research and grassroots development: A case study from Harlem. City and Society 5(1):64-75.
12. Gaber, J., and Gaber, S. L. 1997. Utilizing mixed-method research designs in planning: The case of 14th Street, New York City. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17(2):95-103.
13. Hampton, K., and Wellman, B. 1999. Examining community in the digital neighborhood: Early results from Canada’s wired suburb. In Digital cities: Technologies, experiences, and future perspectives, eds. T. Ishida and K. Isbister, pp. 194-208. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
14. Hess, D. R. 1999. Community organizing, building and developing: Their relationship to comprehensive community initiatives. Working paper series for COMM-ORG: The On-Line Conference on Community Organizing and Development, June. (http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers99/hess.html)
15. Hooper, P. 1998. They have their own thoughts: Children’s learning of computational ideas from a cultural constructionist perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.
16. Kavanaugh, A. L., and Patterson, S. J. 1999. Blacksburg Electronic Village (BEV) communty survey. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute &State University.
17. Kingsley, G. T., McNeely, J. B., and Gibson, J. O. 1999. Community building coming of age. The Urban Institute. (http://www.urban.org/ comminity/combuild.htm)
18. Kirschenbaum, J., and Kunameni, R. 2001. Bridging the organizational divide: Toward a comprehensive approach to the digital divide. Oakland, CA: PolicyLink, September. (http://policylink. org/publications)
19. Kretzmann, J. P., and McKnight, J. L. 1993. Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago: ACTA.
20. Lamont, M., and Lareau, A. 1988. Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory 6(2):153-168.
21. Lazarus, W., and Mora, F. 2000. On-line content for low-income and underserved Americans: The digital divide’s new frontier. Santa Monica, CA: The Children’s Partnership. (http://www.childrenspartnership.org/pub/lowincome/index.html)
22. Mattessich, P., andMonsey, B. 1997. Community building: What makes it work: A review of factors influencing successful community building. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
23. Minicucci, S. 2000. Social capital community benchmark survey. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
24. Morino, M. 1994. Assessment and evolution of community networking. Paper presented at Ties That Bind, at Apple Computer, Cupertino, CA.
25. Mueller, E. J., Briggs, X. de Souza, and Sullivan, M. 1997. Neighborhood study questionnaire. Austin, TX: Urban Issues Program, University of Texas.
26. Naparstek, A. J., Dooley, D., and Smith, R. 1997. Community building in public housing: Ties that bind people and their communities. The Urban Institute/Aspen Systems Corporation. (http://www.cpn.org/ sections/tools/manuals/cb_in_public _housing.html)
27. O’Brien, R. 1998. An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Unpublished paper to Professor Joan Cherry, Course LIS3005Y, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto, April 17. (http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html)
28. O’Bryant, R. 2001. Establishing neighborhood technology centers in low-income communities: A crossroads for social science and computer information technology. Projections: The MIT Student Journal of Planning-Making Places through Information Technology 2(2):112-127.
29. Papert, S. A. 1993. Instructionism vs. constructionism. The children’s machine. New York: Basic Books.
30. Papert, S., and Resnick, M. 1995. Technological fluency and the representation of knowledge. Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
31. Peattie, L. 1994. An approach to urban research in the nineties. Planning Theory 12:1-28.
32. Pinkett, R. D. 2000. Bridging the digital divide: Sociocultural constructionism and an asset-based approach to community technology and community building. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, April. (http://www.media.mit.edu/~rpinkett/ papers/aera2000.pdf)
33. Pinkett, R. D. 2002. Creating community connections: Sociocultural constructionism and an asset-based approach to community technology and community building. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. (http://www.bctpartners.com/comm_tech.htm)
34. Putnam, R. 1993. The prosperous community-Social capital and public life. The American Prospect 26:18-21.
35. Putnam, R. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science &Politics December:664-683.
36. Resnick, M., Rusk, N., and Cooke, S. 1998. The computer clubhouse: Technological fluency in the inner city. In High technology in low-income communities: Prospects for the positive Use of information technology, eds. D. Schon, B. Sanyal, and W. J. Mitchell, pp. 263-286. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Resnick, P. 2000. Who’s that? Survey of neighbors in southeastern Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: School of Information, University of Michigan.
38. Rothenbuhler, E. 1991. The process of community involvement. Communications Monographs 58:63-78.
39. Saegart, S., and Thompson, P. J. 1994. Building social capital in public housing survey. New York: Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York.
40. Schon, D. A., Sanyal, B., and Mitchell, W. J., eds. 1999. High technology and low-income communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Schorr, Lisabeth. 1997. Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books.
42. Schuler, D. 1996. New community networks: Wired for change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
43. Shaw, Alan C. 1995. Social constructionism and the inner city: Designing environments for social development and urban renewal. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.
44. Stamm, K. R. 1985. Newspaper use and community ties: Toward a dynamic theory. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
45. Turner, N. E., and Pinkett, R. D. 2000. An asset-based approach to community technology and community building. Proceedings of Shaping the Network Society: The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace, Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing Symposium 2000 (DIAC-2000), Seattle, WA, May. (http://www.media.mit.edu/~rpinkett/papers/diac2000.pdf)
46. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995. Falling through the Net: A survey of the “have nots” in rural and urban America. Full Report, July. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/)
47. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. Falling through the Net II: New data on the digital divide. Full Report, July. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/)
48. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Falling through the Net III: Defining the digital divide. Full Report, July. (http://www. ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/)
49. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Falling through the Net IV: Toward digital inclusion. Full Report, October. (http://www. ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/)
50. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1999. Empowerment zone/enterprise community. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
51. Whyte, W. 1991. Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
52. Williams Consulting Services. 2000. Course syllabus: Introduction to Windows and Internet Explorer. Prepared and delivered by Williams Consulting Services (WCS) for the Camfield Estates Neighborhood Technology Center (NTC). Roxbury, MA: Williams Consulting Services.
53. Zweigenhaft, R. 1993. Prep school and public school graduates of Harvard: A longitudinal study of the accumulation of social and cultural capital. Journal of Higher Education 64(2):211-225.