Listmembers of Propertalk have a name for these. They call them "prayer" and "the communion of saints." Given this background, it's no surprise that we have taken to cyberspace like silicon to chips. Michael Hudson invited Propertalk into being in November 1995 as an e-mail discussion for people preparing to preach on the Scripture lessons appointed for the coming Sunday. Begun as an Episcopal/Anglican group, when members of other denominations proved to be valuable members, we broadened our focus a little; begun as a forum for those preparing sermons, when lay people interested simply in engaging with the weekly readings also proved to be valuable members, we broadened it a bit more. At the same time, these choices helped refine and reinforce our primary purpose:

"Our mission is still to focus on the propers (lectionary readings, collects, and other parts of worship appointed for the particular day), engaging with the Word of God with open hearts and minds in preparation for preaching.

PT is a forum in which all of us can ask questions, try on ideas, and have our rhetorical irons sharpened against each other.

We welcome all serious interaction with the text and all points of view.

We respect each others' convictions, even when they clash with ours, trusting that God's Spirit will speak to us in the challenge of accepting our differences."

(from the Propertalk Welcome Letter)

And perhaps we can be excused for looking askance at statements describing the fragmentation of self in cyberspace (as in Stone, quoted in Wynn and Katz, p. 298), or analyses of what some seem to view as a peculiar disembodied virtual life to be found within the computer (Wynn and Katz's quotes and comments on Turkle). We Propertalkers tend to think of ourselves as a vital community of material human beings, but researchers are divided over whether real relationships, real community, can exist in a "virtual space." And if it can, does it simply draw people away from more positive interaction in the real world?

In this paper, "e-mail communities" refers to those groups which have a particular topic which members may join to discuss, and in which members may send a post to the list server mechanism which then replicates it for all others "subscribed" to the list. Members may respond to each other as well as generating new threads. Although many groups' posting can now be accessed via the Web, they are primarily set up to interact via e-mail. They become communities interacting in ways which, over time, comfort, stretch and change the participants.

Community can have different meanings. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for instance, refers to its municipalities as "commonwealth communities." No matter that we may not have met, let alone encouraged or supported, most of the people in our town, or even on our street, we live within the same geographic boundaries, therefore we are a community.

While some email communities may be formed based on such geographic lines, most require other elements to give them their identity. Steven G. Jones writes, "But the important element in cyberspatial social relations is the sharing of information. It is not sharing in the sense of transmission of information that binds communities in cyberspace. It is the ritual sharing of information (Carey, 1989) that pulls it together." (p. 19 - 20) Perhaps. Or perhaps it has more to do with our willingness to let the information we share reveal us, change us, shape us, bind us to each other. The ritual of how we do it simply provides structure, boundaries, preparation, to allow that to happen.

According to Louie Crew, teacher and innovator in integrating email into work, faith and community life, "Cyberspace literalizes community". (p. 53, 1996) He expands,

"It doesn't enflesh, so I suppose that 'incarnation' is not the best choice, though what we 'Christians' are emphasizing by 'incarnation' (viz., made real in a living human person) is precisely what I mean by 'literalizing community.' "...

"Many cyber discourse gatherings, such as the bishops-deputies discussion list, bring people closer together than they often would be even in their own parish, in that they share more of themselves in cyber discourse than they would in coffee hour discussion. When about 20 of his friends through cyberspace showed up at the consecration of Pierre Whalon in Rome last month, it was not accident that he felt intensely bonded to us, as he is yet to be with his new friends and colleagues who elected him. Though he had never met us 'in person' before we arrived, in a more fundamental sense he had 'met Us,' encountered us. We had been vulnerable in arguments, in prayer requests, in personal descriptions of intimate spiritual moments..... some of us together for at least 10 years.

"I think cyberspace is tapping something quite primal about the human character, yet something that the privatization of modern life has tended to suppress, namely the habits of talking aloud with a community.

"In [Reconciliation : The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu], Dr. Michael Battle notes that Tutu depends heavily on the African insight, "You are; therefore I am." This contrasts with Cartesian emphasis of European and American culture ("I think; therefore I am"). In Tutu's world identity is integral to community, not apart from it as some kind of private creation." (2001)

While this could suggest that egroup participation will not achieve a high penetration, it is interesting to note that the group of NASPA who now have the highest percentage of mailing list use (mid-level professionals), are the same group who were most likely to be using e-mail in the 1994 survey. That intergroup difference has now been nearly obliterated. In the Pew study, the longer an individual had been online, the more likely they were to have sought out an online group (p. 13). This suggests that while there may be a lag in the use of online group discussions, use may continue to grow as more people become comfortable finding their way around online.

While information professionals will undoubtedly be interested in cybercommunity for their own personal involvement, they are also in a position to provide leadership in teaching and mentoring others who hope to create online communities for professionals. One group which stands to benefit from creating trade and professional communities, as well as other types, is the Episcopal Church in the United States. At the moment, they are losing ground, membership-wise, among men of all ages, and among all 18-to-30-year olds. (From a post by Ted Mollegen to the HoB/D list, summarizing the results of a "very large scale telephone survey by the CUNY Graduate Center.") Men are especially likely to join professional/trade groups online, and are more likely than not, if they are online, to join some sort of group. 41% of what the "Online Community" study calls "Cyber Groupies" (those who have contacted an online group) are in the 18 - 34 age group. While many Cyber Groupies join groups that aren't available to them locally, others discover groups close to home and become members. Among 18 - 24 year olds, 29% say it has helped them connect to groups in their local community;" among "those who email their groups [...] 44% say" this. (p. 19) The local groups most attractive to people finding them this way? "Internet users who have joined a local group after encountering it online are most likely to be involved with a religious group (a local church, synagogue, or mosque) or a local youth group. " (p. 16) In other words, if the church wants to reach out to folks it doesn't see coming in the doors, creative use of online community (and other Internet options) could open up new possibilities for service.

Is creating cyber-community a realistic and pro-social goal? There is a sense that many don't believe that true community is possible in a "virtual world," and that others seem to fear that involvement with the virtual world will draw people away from the reality of the physical world into some world of fantasy and bizarre distortion. For instance, Slevin writes, "The internet, more than other medium, is seen by some as eroding 'community' and 'emptying' day-to-day life by allowing individuals and organizations to enter into a virtual time space which is seen as competing with reality and which clouds whatever they do with a sense of inauthenticity. Accompanying this are worries that individuals and organizations using the internet are in danger of becoming dispersed and rendered powerless by the fragmenting of experience, resulting in conditions which preclude, rather than facilitate, collaborative action." (p. 49-50) And there is the oft-cited study, "Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?"

Anecdotal evidence from participants, such as Louie Crew's accounts in "Back to the Future," and the results of several studies suggest that, for the most part, the opposite is true. Wynn and Katz, in "Hyperbole over Cyberspace: Self-Presentation and Social Boundaries in Internet Home Pages and Discourse," conclude that "the conception that escape from the physical person is a desirable and rewarding activity that will set a cultural trend toward the decentralized self" is flawed (p. 324), that "the use of electronic media as just another tool toward general social purposes" allows us "to situate Internet use in a broader and more continuous social context" (p. 324), and that, as any new context does, the Internet raises new ambiguities to be resolved around boundaries. Barry Wellman, a sociologist, uses the term globalization, meaning "the capacity of the Internet to expand users' social worlds to faraway people and simultaneously to bind them more deeply to the place where they live." (Pew, p. 2) "Online Community" documents this capacity as it moves towards being a reality. The BBC recently reported a study which found "internet users are better citizens and more likely to be members of community groups and voluntary organisations. It appears the web is helping to strengthen the quality of British society." (Andrew Oswald, quoted in article on BBC web page as sent to St. Bede's list by John NZ, 11/26/01.) Although they used newsgroups rather than electronic mailing lists, the study done by Parks and Floyd and published as "Making Friends in Cyberspace," may be applicable to mailing lists as well. Using random selection to find their subjects, Parks and Floyd found that 60.7% of those studied reported developing new relationships with people they met in their newsgroups. Those relationships developed closeness as indicated by depth and breadth scores, with one-third of them choosing to communicate face-to-face.

Propertalk's history reveals not only deep friendships made among members, but support in time of need. There is the special support which can be provided equally as well by a cyber-community as a copresent one, prayer. As a result, prayer requests, although off-topic, are welcomed. Last year, a request for prayers for a list-member whose brother and sister-in-law had been killed in a helicopter crash, literally on the other side of the world, prompted a reply from a New Zealand member. He was the local pastor asked to do the pilot's funeral service. At the request of the pilot's mother, and with the consent of our bereaved list member, he was able to put the grieving families in touch.

We have found other ways to help each other, as well. A few years ago, a social worker in western Canada came to her parish priest in tears: a client and her children were being forced to go to the eastern United States in a custody battle. The father, who was trying to get custody of the children, had been abusive and was part of a right-wing militia group. The social worker, fearing for their safety, was concerned that the mother and children knew no one, and had no resources, in the area to which they had to go. As a member of Propertalk, her priest remembered some of our discussions of scripture passages on husbands and wives and that I was particularly concerned about domestic violence. He e-mailed me. Did I know anyone in the state to which they were being summoned who could help? I checked directories and online information and emailed him back with information about the diocese and possible contacts. I also e-mailed the cathedral staff with information about the situation. Contact was made, plans progressed quickly.

A few days later, after the father, appearing unexpectedly at the airport, had coerced the family to his house, the mother managed to sneak a phone call to her brother in Canada. In his words, he then "called in the Anglicans." The connections and plans they had made worked well: police, who were all too well acquainted with the father, showed up at his house and took the mother and children to a pre-arranged safe haven. The lawyer who had been found for them was able to have the case cleared up in relatively short order, and mother and children returned back to their home on the other side of the continent.

Does this means that in email communities, "our lives," as the hymnist wrote, "will be all sunshine"? No more so than our lives and communities offline are. From its beginnings as a group following the teacher Yeshua, the Christian church has been filled with conflict. Even those who followed the peaceful Buddha soon began to pull away from each other. Healthy people rarely spend long amounts of time in close physical or emotional contact without significant conflict. But good planning and skillful moderation can help the online community to prevent some of the more destructive and unproductive conflicts, and even to learn from the disruptions how to be better members of face-to-face communities. Howard Rheingold writes, "Not all conflict is to be avoided. If a conflict is important enough to have its hooks into the attention of a large number of members of the population: use it as an occasion to remind people that civility is essential if discussions are to cohere into communities. Conflict tests the boun daries of the community."

In addition to expressed conflicts, there are the "impressed" conflicts, such as group members who simply unsubscribe or stay silent because of the dynamics of the list. As Hert points out in "Social Dynamics of an On-Line Scholarly Debate," "the electronic medium is not as open to new influences and opinions as it seems." The apparent equality -- as in, "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog" -- may quickly be lost as certain individuals dominate the discussion with their prolific posting, others exert authority through their writing skills or their offline connections and credibility, some get lost in the shuffle as they try to figure out how to make the technology obey or deal with obsolete machines and intermittent access.

One thing that can be very exciting about the 'Net is that it breaks down the boundaries that divide people, bringing together those who would not ordinarily share time together. For instance, "Online Communities" notes that, in their survey of those who take part in online groups, 50% "say that the Internet has helped them to get to know people they would not otherwise have met;" 37% that it "has helped them meet others from different generations than their own;" and 27% that it "has helped them connect with people from different racial, ethnic, or economic backgrounds than their own." The actual figure for the last could be higher, as it's possible to be involved in online conversation for sometime without noticing such "demographic descriptors" of list mates. When we break down the geographic, national, religious, ethnic, racial, economic boundaries we take for granted (whether we approve of or decry them), we are left floundering because we have lost our usual relational landmarks, our common culture and mores. As a result, we look for new boundaries to give structure to our communities, to provide the sense of shelter and safe harbor that a group needs to become a community.

Although Wallace seems to view group "signs on the door" (frequent Netiquette lists and group guidelines) as indicative of the deficiency of e-mail communication (p. 64-66), looking at physical places where people gather who haven't grown up there or together -- swimming pools, subway cars, monastery chapels -- shows that we do find a need for them even offline. As many members of our society become more mobile, they often are frustrated when arriving in towns filled with folks who've lived there all their lives and who seem to assume that if you're on a road you must know which one it is: no signs needed. When a friend visited a local library for the first time and found that there was no signage to indicate the existence of a parking lot or(once the lot was found) where to enter the library -- the most obvious door being locked, and the person in the room beyond ignoring her -- she remarked, "They seem to expect only people who've already been here and know their way around to come here." In that light, Netiquette reminders and list guidelines signify an openness to the newcomer and a desire to welcome a variety of folks.

Before establishing such guides for a group you wish to start, however, you need to state your purpose. Why? First, simply so that you are clear yourself about what you are hoping for. And then, so people know whether or not they want to join. If your purpose isn't clear, you'll have lots of unhappy discussions when people who want something different complain they aren't getting it and when people who aren't sure about the purpose make off-target postings and get jumped on. Your purpose will influence other choices you make, including the technical undergirdings, leadership style, and members sought. You will also need it to publicize the list.

E-mail groups for professionals may be for academic exchange, support, education, or socializing. In his chapter "The Many Uses of Email Discussion Lists," Connolly spends several pages suggesting what uses indexers might have for email discussions.(see p. 124-127) Most of these apply to other professional groups as well. Stuart Urwin includes a shorter list of uses for email discussions in "Networking the Modern Way," then goes on to say, "If I was a small publisher or information supplier, I would spend a lot of time reading, analysing and participating in as many discussion groups in my target market place as possible. It's instant market research." Clearly, there are many approaches to the use and purpose of an online discussion.

How do we bring people from different time zones, cultures, points of view into something we call a "community"? Don't we need to be in one place at one time to interact? Interestingly, those who write for or about email communities tend to use space and group gatherings as a metaphor for virtual connections. Horrigan likens them "to what sociologist Ray Oldenburg calls the 'third place' -- the corner bar, cafe, or bookstore where people hang out to talk about things that are going on in their lives and neighborhood." (p. 10) Where do you see your group hanging out? And who will be there? Answering these questions will help to clarify your purpose, and thus what kind of conversation your group will have.

Describing NPPA-L (the National Press Photographers Association list), columnist Bryan Grigsby calls it "this unique Town Hall for photojournalism." He goes on to say, "NPAA-L often is like a crowded room with several conversations going on at the same time."

David Danneberger, one-time "vestry member" (moderator/advisory board member) of Propertalk and now list owner of Unitas, an email community for Moravians, tells new members:

The Elders may occasionally, offer counsel on the appropriateness of particular posts and threads. Ultimately the decision about what to write on Unitas must be made by the individual members of the list, using their judgment and discretion.

Please remember that Unitas is read by a sizeable number of people in different places around the world. Subscribers include Moravians and non-Moravians, laity and clergy, those whose interest in Moravianism is primarily historical & theological and those who want to participate in a cyber-community of Moravian brothers & sisters, native speakers of English and those for whom English is a second language. Perhaps the simplest standard is found in the analogy of the church. Some things can be appropriately shared with the whole congregation, gathered for worship. Discussion of other things of a particularly personal nature may be important to share with Christian brothers and sisters, but such sharing should be done in an individual or small- group setting. Unitas is the whole congregation.

When a large number of people on Anglican, the venerable international list for discussing anything remotely related to life in the Anglican Communion, got tired of political arguments, they started St. Bede's. They chose to describe it as a "coffee hour," a place/gathering where conversation could be expected to be consistently civil. In describing email lists, Connolly uses "'water cooler' chats" to describe "relaxed, informal conversation with professionals who share your interests." (p. 127) Jube, moderator of a number of leadership and support groups, says, "We call it a kitchen table atmosphere, where we *can talk.*" (personal post) These demonstrate a range of what we mean by community and thus, along with the specific needs of those who will gather "there," suggest appropriate conduct.

At its best, cyberspace reveals community, provides us with epiphanies. The Internet amplifies who we are, as individuals and as a society. The 'Net reveals us as crass, greedy, selfish, fascinated with violence, intrigued by all aspects of our human sexuality, yearning for spirituality and overflowing with religious righteousness, caring, giving, generous, funny, provocative, eager to learn, wise, gullible, private, exhibitionist, vengeful, forgiving, overreactive, pedestrian, gloriously creative and more. We are human, full of contradictions. We seek connections, whether to make money, discover ourselves, know others, or find the presence of God. As we gather online, a question remains: do online communities provide a place where people -- individually and as a group -- grow beyond who they were?

Part 2 focuses on some of the steps we can take to provide an environment where healthy connection and growth might be the norm. The following paragraphs are snippets from sections to be developed.

Issues in moderating lists for professionals

Guidelines for confidentiality might include "not mentioning client names or companies," suggests Jube. And possibly that "nothing discussed on the list will be forwarded or mentioned outside the list." (private post) While this wouldn't work on Propertalk, where we are preparing sermons and all we share is considered grist for the mill, it may be useful for other lists. Mention might be made as well of "pillow-talk" -- are spouses/partners included? Roommates? What happens when a computer is shared, say at a library or at work? Should people be allowed to access a list which has confidentiality requirements from a work computer? While the individual would have to solve the question of ethical use of company time and equipment (possibly by agreement with the employer), might it be the group's business if confidential information is being read on a system in which the employer legally owns the mail that comes to that terminal or hard drive?

In "A study of Use of the Internet Among Library Professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa," Chisenga reports that he contacted 72 library professionals in the region who were believed to have email or Internet access. Of the 60 who originally agreed to take part, 47 responded. 66% of those responding to a questionnaire use email for mailing lists, and those lists were usually based outside the area. Blocks to greater 'Net use included cost, slow connections, lack of time (no mention of computers in the home; even some of these library professionals had to queue up in order to have a little online time), telecommunication issues, failure to understand Internet usage as an acceptable part of work, and "lack of training in the use of information technology." (p. 48) According to Chisenga, "This is the major reason why most installed computer systems on the continent are underused." (p. 48)

Who will be able to get through the cyber door to the room where your group meets? What responsibility do you as list owner have to make your list accessible? What will the folks in it be missing if it isn't? Do your inclusive statements and visions online need to be backed up by action offline to make them come true?

Why would a layperson with respect to a profession want to join the professional's discussion? And why would the professionals welcome them? Undoubtedly, the first question has an many answers as laypeople. Perhaps a college student wants to know what a veterinarian's life is like, or an accountant feels a call to ordination. Perhaps a patient with a rare neurological disease seeks the very latest in medical research, or a home-schooled student has taken up a scholarly study of astronomy. Perhaps a sociologist lurks, taking notes for a study of professionals' use of mailing lists. Or maybe some people are just curious.

Should these lay people be allowed to join your list? First, consider the purpose of the group. Will it be helped or hindered by having them participate? On Propertalk, for instance, we have found that it can be helpful.

Life cycles of lists, their members, and their posts.

In the beginning was Anglican. And Anglican begat Propertalk. And Propertalk begat Gospeltalk and Women Discerning and Unitas, and undoubtedly others. Some of the lists have flourished, others, like Women Discerning, did well for a while and then died a fiery death. Online communities seem to be fertile. They give birth to new community activities, to new writing projects, and of course, to new lists. List owners proudly send out "birth announcements" by posting to the new-list list and even to journals. When DIGITALDIVIDE was announced in Teacher Librarian in October '01, it was already a very large baby: 1600 members. (As it turns out, the announcement was a bit late; the list actually gave its first cry on Dec. 15, 1999; on Dec. 12, 2001 it reached 2500 members, according to a post to the list from moderator Andy Carvin) . "Talk, talk, talk on NPPA-L," Grigsby's article mentioned above, was the first edition of a column about the list. The Membership Committee of the Association of Operating Room Nurses decided that first-time attendees at the annual Congress could benefit from the opportunity to have an experienced "mentor" to help them learn about "expectations, appropriate dress, activities and business functions" ahead of time. Where did they get the idea? From AORN's e-mail forum, MemberTalk.

1. Association of Operating Room Nurses. "Membership committee launches new services for members." AORN Journal. Mar 1999, p. 641. Acc. via ProQuest.

2. Bar-Ilan, Judith and Betty Assouline. "A content analysis of PUBYAC -- a preliminary study." Information Technology and Libraries, Dec. 1997, v 16, n 4, p. 165 ff. [ Acc. Via Infotrac Expanded Academic ASAP]

3. Brown, Stuart J. and Gary D. Malaney. "How NASPA members use the Internet." NASPA Journal; Columbus; Spring 2001. V. 38, Iss. 3, p. 302 ff. [Accessed via ProQuest]

4. Chisenga, Justin. "A study of Use of the Internet Among Library Professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa." Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 4(1) 1999, p. 37 - 50.

5. Connolly, Daniel A. "The Many Uses of Email Discussion Lists." Chapter 12 in p. 121-132. in Beyond book indexing. edited by Diane Brenner and Marilyn Rowland. Medford, NJ : Information Today, Inc. ; Phoenix, AZ : American Society of Indexers, 2000 p. 121-132.

6. Crew, Louie. "Back to the future." p. 44 - 61 in English as a Discipline; or, Is There a Plot in This Play?" ed. by James C. Raymond. Tuscaloosa, AL : U Alabama. 1996.

7. ---. Personal post, 12/08/01.

8. Crew, Louie and The E-Directory of GLBT Scholars Staff. "A Brief History of the E-Directory of Lesbigay Scholars." http://www.glbstudies.umn.edu/edirglbt/history.htm Acc. 11/24/01.

9. Danneberger, David D. "Unitas FAQ."

10. "Discussing the digital divide." Teacher Librarian. Oct 2001, v.29, p. 60. Acc. via Expanded Academic ASAP.

11. "E-mail discussions through listserver solutions." Association Management. Nov 2001. p. 102. Acc. via ProQuest.

12. Faigin, Daniel P. "Mail.Liberal-Judaism (Liberal Judaism Mailing List)" http://www.mljewish.org
13. ---. http://www.shamash.org/listarchives/mail.liberal-judaism/digests/Volume6/v6n1.archive

14. Grigsby, Bryan. "Talk, talk, talk on NPPA-L." News Photographer. August 1995, v. 50, n. 8, p. 49. [Acc. via InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP]

15. Horrigan, John B., principal author. "Online Communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties." Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=47 Released online 10/31/2000. Acc. 11/12/01.

16. Jones, Steven G., ed. Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Comminication and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1995.

17. ---. "Understanding Community in the Information Age." in Cybersociety. p. 10 - 35.

18. Parks, Malcolm R. and Kory Floyd. "Making Friends in Cyberspace." Journal of Communication. Winter, 1996. V. 46, 1, p. 80 ff.

19. Rheingold, Howard. "The Art of Hosting Good Conversations Online." http://www.rheingold.com/texts/artonlinehost.html Acc. 11/22/01.

20. Shapiro, Norman Z. and Robert H. Anderson. "Toward an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic Mail." R-3283-NSF/RC. July 1985. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/R3283 Acc. 12/05/01.

21. Slevin, James. The Internet and Society. Malden, MA : Polity Press. 2000. texas critter. "About Email Lists..." Created October 2000. http://www.populli.net/tools/faqsml.shtml

22. Urwin, Stuart. "Networking the modern way." Information World Review. Sep 2000. p. 19f. Acc. via ProQuest.

23. "The death of TRDEV-L." Training. Minneapolis, Dec. 2000. [Accessed via ProQuest]

24. Wallace, Patricia. The Psychology of the Internet. New York : Cambridge. 1999 (preface, 2000).

25. Wellman, Barry and Anabel Quan Haase, James Witte, Keith Hampton. "Does the Internet Increase, Decrease or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment." American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 45 No. 3, November 2001 436 - 455. [Acc. via http://www.ingenta.com]

26. Wynn, Eleanor and James E. Katz. "Hyberbole over Cyberspace: Self-Presentation and Social Boundaries in Internet Home Pages and Discourse." The Information Society. 13:297-327, 1997.

• Louie Crew's Anglican pages: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/rel.html
• Louie Crew's home page: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew
• Send mail to: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.