Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler. Connections : new ways of working in the networked organization, MIT, 1991. based at Carnegie Mellon, some support already from NIMH. for peoplewho argument In a democracy, people believe that everyone should be included on equal terms in communication; no one should be excluded from the free exchange of information. Independent decision makers expressing themselves lead to more minds contributing to problem solving and innovation. New communication technology is surprisingly consistent with Western images of democracy. p 13 reduces power of "who you know" to increase mastery p 17 "Those who control information derive power and influence over others from their position of control. New communications technology can change the balance of information control in organizations." p 104 "Computer-based communication technology (makes) it possible to bypass traditional information gatekeepers, thereby leading to a change in who (has) influence." p 104 "Computer-based communication technology ... has more potential to support upward influence and lateral influence, not just downward ... control..." p 104 (E)lectronic communications can change the balance of information control - - and people's power and influence over one another." p 104 But, (P)eople often resist changes in information control that diminish their position." p 105 "Our vision is supported by four principles: (1) a view of people as people not users; (2) open access to people and information; (3) diverse forums through which people can work together; and (4) policies and incentives that encourage information exchange. ...(S)eparation (of managers and technologists) leads to separation of responsibility; a vision should be shared by all. ... Our vision focuses attention on the relationship between a person and other people. ... Technology is a facilitator." p 161 ff for serial, NEC BBS three-part procedure that can increase the effectiveness of the broadcast query: 1) mark queries with and identifying symbol 2) create reply files of useful answers 3) make reply files accessible in public archives 104 < p? < 161 "While we advocate open access, we strongly distinguish between open access and invasion of privacy. Open access to people -- the ability to contact them via electronic mail, is different from open access to data about people -- the ability to access files containing information about them. p 163 for research project "(C)omputer-based communication can reduce the isolation of (the) physically and socially peripheral ... through increasing organizational participation and personal ties." p xii minimizes differences bet workers and users and encourages everyone to think about the good of the project, group, community. p 14 "(E)lectronic mail can increase commitment among those who otherwise might feel somewhat peripheral." p 85 "(G)iving peripheral people a voice is an important means of binding them ...(to their society), and it may yield information important for performance." p 87 Isn't this the goal of socialization and rehabilitation programs for people with psychiatric labels? Wouldn't it be interesting to see if electronic participation could accomplish what "clubhouses" try to accomplish? Imagine the cost and staffing reductions, the increased flexibility, the inclusive normalizing! "Electronic mail ... increase(s) the emotions people will show in comparison with their face-to-face behavior." p 65 Would this be equally true in a diagnosed population? Here, during our earthquake, labelled people I know handled the uproar well. Not overload compared to what is going on internally? "These results suggest that electronic mail reduces conformity and convergence as compared with face-to-face group discussion. If a decision requires consensus, an electronic group has to work harder to get to it than a comparable face-to-face group does." p 65 "(E)lectronic groups should not be rushed beyond their capacity to exchange all the verbal information they want to exchange." p 69 In c/s movement there is more divisiveness than consensus, and dissenters split off instead of working toward consent. Is it possible that electronic meetings, giving everyone a chance to be heard long and well enough, might produce a consensus that face-to-face currently cannot? Electronic groups, "(w)hen they disagree, ... engage in deeper conflict. Conventional behavior, such as politeness and acknowledgment of other views, decreases. Group decisions are unpredictable, unconventional, democratic, and less constrained by high-status members." p 66 This sounds like just what the c/s movement needs! "(P)eoples' mental health status is positively associated with the number of groups they belong to." p 91 "It is easier to join and be socialized to electronic groups than to face-to- face ones." p 99 For people with psychiatric labels, who belong to few face-to-face groups, and even fewer face-to-face groups of their own choosing, would joining electronic groups enhance well being, increase affiliation, give a voice to the voiceless? "People especially may need expert humans to help them administer electronic groups." p 167  This file came from anonymous ftp sjuvm.stjohns.edu cd MADNESS The MADNESS ftp site is a service of MADNESS, an online discussion on LISTSERV@sjuvm.stjohns.edu Please credit the list if you copy this file.