Community Support

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

Introduction

Recent years have seen a vast increase in the number of people connecting to the Internet and participating in electronic discussion groups. The Internet is the largest and fastest growing communication medium and consumer electronic technology ever - more so than the fax machine or personal computer (The Economist, 1995). Along with the increase in people connecting to the Internet, there has been a boom in the number of electronic discussion groups. It is impossible to know the exact number of electronic discussion groups on the Internet, however, estimates agree that the number is, at least, in the tens of thousands. Just in Usenet, a sub-family of electronic newsgroups, 14,000 different electronic groups exist, covering such areas of interest as environmental politics, goldfish, and Turkish culture (Furr, 1995).

In a society where people with common interests but different schedules are located in different parts of the world and in different time zones, electronic discussion groups (or lists) are convenient mediums and tools for communicating with others with similar interests. Anyone with access to a computer and the Internet can participate in a list and, if sufficiently motivated, start one.

Moreover, electronic discussion groups can be used to solve certain well-structured, technical problems (Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura & Fujimoto, 1995). And, while they do not eliminate the need for face-to-face and telephone discussion, they can be used to prepare participants for such discussions. Finally, electronic discussion groups provide forums for discussion where none had existed, connecting participants who might never have had opportunities to interact.

This paper explores the dynamics of two electronic discussion lists. The two lists, were part of a group of four lists, labeled Topical Evaluation Networks, created to provide a forum where interested parties could explore issues related to evaluation in the field of mental health. The Outcomes Topical Evaluation Network (OUTCMTEN) was intended to be a forum for discussing "problems of assessing and analyzing outcomes of interventions aimed at improving mental health systems." The Topical Evaluation Network for discussing evaluation, mental health and the law (LEGALTEN), was intended to be a forum to "facilitate the implementation and use of rigorous evaluations at the interface of the mental health system, the criminal justice system, and the courts" (HSRI, 1995a). Both lists were open to any interested party. Neither was edited, or "moderated" in the language of the Internet. However, both were monitored by experts in the field, designated as "chairs," who were given the task of promoting and facilitating electronic discussions.

Both lists started out with a large number of subscribers and with a similar percentage of active participants (subscribers that posted messages). Yet after eighteen months, there were very few subscribers posting messages to LEGALTEN and about a fifth of the subscribers that had been there three months before had left. In contrast, total subscribership to OUTCMTEN grew by about 14 percent during the same time period, and by the end of 1995, the list was still relatively active.

Ultimately, this paper explores how one electronic group, whose members adhered to a spectrum of values, grappled with the issues surrounding individual preferences and styles vs. the stated purposes, topics, and guidelines for participation of the list and evolving norms for personal conduct. On LEGALTEN, at the core of most of the discussions was the debate around controversial forms of treatment particularly involuntary treatment. An interesting parallel discussion on the tone of the list took place during the discussions on involuntary treatment. Participants advocated different criteria for what was considered appropriate or inappropriate behavior on the list. Both discussions debated similar issues, including: Who had the right to determine what was appropriate behavior? At what point were the group's goals jeopardized by an individual's actions and who's responsibility was it to ensure the balance between individual and group goals? At the close of this paper, based on our analysis, we make recommendations for managing such conflicts and maintaining the usefulness of volatile electronic discussion groups like LEGALTEN.

Table of Contents | Previous | Next