by Karlo Marcelo
January 27, 2011
Technology is defining modern citizenship in a way that may surprise you. Rather than loosening the ties that bind citizens and encourage them to lead solitary, digital lives, there may be another narrative. A recent report released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project finds that “Internet users are more active participants in their groups than other adults, and are more likely to feel pride and a sense of accomplishment”. In categories such as donating money, volunteering and attending meetings, it seems that online engagement does translate to offline engagement for the groups in which these users participate. Some of this might be explained by the fact that information is easier to come by – cheaper to disseminate, and to a targeted audience. It may also come from the rise in volunteering and civic participation seen since 2001 (although today’s engagement levels don’t rival the time period immediately following 9/11). It could also be the case that individuals who use the Internet and cell phones are the easiest to contact and engage, and are therefore the only ones targeted (or are the only ones able to access the information). Consider this finding from the Pew report: “Fully 80% of Internet users are active in one kind of group or another, compared with 56% of non-internet users; and 86% of cell owners are active in a group, compared with 62% of non-cell owners.” In light of the facts that “[t]hose in higher-income households are more likely to use the internet on any given day, [and] own multiple internet-ready devices” and that those with more education are likely to be civic engaged (from the NCoC Civic Health Index), it’s possible that the population of Internet-users does not represent most Americans. This reinforces NCoC’s research which shows Millennials who use the Internet for civic purposes are more likely to be engaged in their communities (2009 Civic Health Index) and the 2010 Assessment which shows the Internet appears to build civic health. So where does that leave us? Anthony Downs, an economist from The University of Chicago and currently at the Brookings Institution, wrote “The Economic Theory of Democracy”, in which he argued that information (asymmetry) was the cause of imbalance between elected officials and voters. Those with more (accurate) information have more influence to win votes (the goal of politicians) and pass public policy (the goal of voters). With this in mind, it makes sense that American adults with access to the Internet are more engaged with their organizations, because they have the information. In addition to benefitting from “pride and a sense of accomplishment”, they may also feel a sense of influence and input into civic life that the disengaged do not. Yet, it’s a cycle in which information is the key and is not freely available to all citizens at all times, creating not only a digital underclass, but disengaged one, too. What technology does well is decrease the information friction, allowing for a realignment in citizen influence of public policy. On the Case Foundation blog, Allie Burns, mentions a Twitter conversation she had with @BrianReich, who cautions that the commitment of Internet users involved in organizations is surface-level when it comes to online engagement. Yet, one of the important first steps in engaging an audience to be active, committed members is to increase your visibility and pool of potential active members. Digital communication techniques do this very well and since Internet-users are more likely to have high household incomes and college degrees, they are already more likely to be engaged. In another discussion about the Pew Report, social media maven Allison Fine throws down the proverbial gauntlet to nonprofit staff members to convince their leaders to put more resources behind social media and online engagement, but we do not know the precise demand of citizens for such communications. Since not all nonprofits have used technology to the full extent, combined with the fact that not all Americans are regular Internet users, there may be unintended consequences on the digital underclass the prevent them from participating in a major realignment of power and influence in the technology age. Nonprofits should be less concerned about how to reach the people who are current users (the educated, the well-off), and focus on narrowing the digital divide. We want to hear from you about this important report and its consequences for civic engagement. How should civic organizations prioritize their staff time – more or less on digital communications (especially social networks)? Or should nonprofits increase the total pool of potential members by narrowing the digital divide? ______ Piece contributed by NCoC.net commentator Karlo Barrios Marcelo, CEO of Karlo Marcelo Consulting, LLC.