Community Support

A Tale of Two Networks: Possibilities and Perils for Mental Health Internet Discussion Groups

Methods

Subjects

The subjects in this study were the subscribers to the Outcome and Legal Topical Evaluation Networks for 1995. OUTCMTEN had an average of 418 members. LEGALTEN had an average daily membership of 298. Although there was some overlap in the membership of the two groups, the majority of list members belonged to only one of the two networks.

Data Sources

Two types of data were collected for this investigation: (1) extensive archived textual data, and (2) retrospective interview data. It is important to understand the limits of the textual data as one tries to make sense of the group dynamics that evolved in LEGALTEN and OUTCMTEN The archives only provide a limited view into the relationships among the subscribers since list members may have communicated with each other by means other than the list. It is as if we studied the relationships among the participants of a large convention from the inside of a single conference room. We would be missing the conversations that take place for example, in other conference rooms, in the halls, during the food breaks, and in other conventions. The same dynamics occur on the Internet. Many of the members of LEGALTEN and OUTCMTEN subscribe to other electronic discussion lists and sometimes discussed similar issues in different lists. It is also common for subscribers of the lists to mail messages to each other privately. One subscriber from OUTCMTEN, for example, described continuing conversations started on the list at conferences or over the phone. In addition, the archives do not say much with regards to the history shared by the subscribers. In order to make up for some of these limitations, interviews of a number of participants from both lists were conducted.

Textual Data

Each message transmitted via LEGALTEN and OUTCMTEN in the period from June 1994 to December 1995 was put into a Lotus Notes database. Four groups of messages were available after cleaning the data: OUTCMTEN 1994 consisting of 326 messages; OUTCMTEN 1995 consisting of 1277 messages; LEGALTEN 1994 consisting of 195 messages; and LEGALTEN 1995 consisting of 1475 messages. This analysis focuses on 1995, when the messages were automatically archived at St. John's University.

For each message, variables were created reflecting the date in the header of each message, the sender of the message, and the subject of the message.

Interview Data

Data from face-to-face, telephone, and electronic mail interviews were used together with the text data from the St. John's University archives to begin to characterize group dynamics on OUTCMTEN and LEGALTEN, and to assess these lists' potential to foster discussion of evaluation issues from diverse perspectives.

The list "owner" (the Director of the sponsoring organization) and Technical Administrator of the lists were interviewed face to face. The Chair of LEGALTEN and a disability rights activist who participated in both LEGALTEN and OUTCMTEN were interviewed by phone. All four interviews were taped and transcribed. Follow-up questions were conducted via electronic mail.

List subscribers were also interviewed. First, possible interview candidates were selected from the archives, then sent an electronic mail asking them if they would be willing to answer, via electronic mail, a few questions regarding their experiences on the lists. Those who agreed were sent a set of short, open-ended questions on topics of list expectations and outcomes. To identify possible interview candidates for OUTCMTEN, all of the messages that were posted between February 6 and April 7, 1995 were examined and the e-mail addresses of those who posted were collected. Requests were sent out to 42 people. Seven responded and agreed to be interviewed via electronic mail; of these seven, four responded to the questions. Likewise for LEGALTEN, all the messages posted during the months of June and July 1995 were examined and the e-mail addresses of those who posted were collected. Requests were sent out to 54 people. Ten subscribers responded, with nine agreeing to be interviewed via e-mail; of these, seven responded to the questions.

The data from the face-to-face, telephone, and electronic mail interviews were used together with the text data from the St. John's University archives to characterize group dynamics on OUTCMTEN and LEGALTEN.

Methods of Analysis

The discussions on the two lists were analyzed according to the following variables and methods summarized in Table 1 below. The bulk of the analysis focused on the content and patterns of participation on the lists.

Table 1: Dimensions and Methods Used in Analysis
Dimension	Method
Original goal of list	Review of goal statement posted by the Evaluation Center@HSRI, list owner, and Evaluation Center Director
Membership	Review of introductions made by list members
Reasons for subscribing	Review of introductions made by list members, interviews with members
Content	Content analysis of messages for periods indicated below
Patterns of participation and tone	Analysis of number of messages posted in 1995, average number of messages posted per day, number of persons posting more than one message per day, number of times word "you" used, analysis of interpersonal interactions on list.
Modes of expressing and managing conflict	Content analysis of messages for periods indicated
The role of the chair	Content analysis of messages for periods indicated and interviews with chairs

Time periods for content analysis

Based on a review of the message archives, it was decided that the greatest amount of information for the purposes of this paper would be gained from the content analysis of messages sent during periods when there was both an especially high daily message frequency and a high daily participation frequency. On OUTCMTEN, 385 messages posted during February 6 and April 7, 1995 were read and analyzed. On LEGALTEN, we focused on the months of June and July, 1995 during which 798 messages were posted. Other periods of activity were also read in order to understand the context of and history of conversations.

Table of Contents | Previous | Next