[NIFL-ESL:6830] Democracy in Action on NIFL-ESL

maryann@cal.org

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:34:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <B24038C0D3E160419E320030D92C22DE543B55@hobbes.cal.org>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "MaryAnn Florez" <maryann@cal.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:6830] Democracy in Action on NIFL-ESL
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 7561
Lines: 151

A new year often signals a time to look back, so that we can do a better
job of looking forward.  Often, we focus on the things that need
improving.  However, it's also a great opportunity to acknowledge the
things that have been working.

For those of you who do not subscribe to the NLA discussion list, I want
to share this posting from Dr. Tom Sticht.  In it, Dr. Sticht discusses
his recent look at the NIFL discussion lists, including NIFL-ESL, and
participation patterns on them. I hope you'll take a moment to read it.

I know we all get a little frustrated from time to time with the
day-to-day of NIFL-ESL.  "Of the people, for the people, by the people"
takes on a whole new meaning in cyberspace and challenges all of us.
But the bottom line is that it's a wonderful opportunity to exchange
ideas and grow as a community of professionals, and members make it
work.

Thanks for making NIFL-ESL lively, diverse, collegial, and
thought-provoking--and a great example of "democracy in action"!

All the best,
MaryAnn

MaryAnn Florez
NIFL-ESL Moderator
Tel:  202/362-0700, ext. 226
Email:  maryann@cal.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Sticht [mailto:tsticht@aznet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 12:00 PM
To: nla@lists.literacytent.org
Cc: tsticht@aznet.net
Subject: [NLA] Democracy on Internet Literacy Lists

Research Note 				January 1, 2002
Tom Sticht

Democracy at work on internet lists archived 
by the National Institute for Literacy

Internet lists like the National Literacy Advocacy (NLA) list provide a
communication medium offering a forum for list members to participate in
the democratic activity of expressing their views and engaging with
others in discussions and debates about important issues confronting the
field of adult education and literacy development. To learn more about
the extent to which several different lists that deal with adult
literacy education actually stimulate wide participation in this
democratic process, I have examined eleven of the electronic lists that
are archived by the National Institute for Literacy ( NIFL) to find out
which lists post the most or the least messages and how much diversity
of message posting there is. 

Following are my findings that include (1) the list name, (2) total
messages posted from January 1to Dec 26, 2001, (3) the percentages of
messages posted by the list moderator (LM), (4) by the top 3 posters,
including the LM, and (5) the top six posters , including the LM. As a
frame of reference, consider that a list that posts one message a day
will post 365 messages in a year. 

1		2		3		4		5
ESL         1418 messages      LM-05%,   Top 3-15%,    Top 6-22%
NLA        1230 messages      LM-11%,   Top 3-22%,    Top 6-36%
Family       901 messages      LM-23%,   Top-3-31%,    Top 6-39%
Women      733 messages     LM-35%,    Top 3-52%,    Top 6-65%
Tech.         687 messages     LM-12%,   Top 3-27%,     Top 6-33% 
EFF           520 messages      LM-26%,   Top 3-31%,    Top 6-39%  
LD            503 messages      LM-04%,   Top 3-17%,    Top 6-31%
Work         366 messages    LM-41%,    Top 3-49%,    Top 6-60%
Povrace     358 messages     LM-43%,   Top 3-53%,    Top 6-59%
FOB          147 messages     LM 29%,    Top 3-47%,   Top 6-61%
Homeless    62 messages     LM 60%,    Top 3-66%,   Top 6-75%
Total messages-6925

 In 2001, the top three lists in terms of number of messages posted were
the ESL, NLA and Family literacy lists, which together accounted for
over half (51%) of the total messages in these 11 lists.  The Women and
Technology lists accounted for about 21% of the total messages, 
Equipped for the Future (EFF) and Learning Disabilities (LD) lists seem
to group together and make up about 15% of the total messages. Workplace
literacy and Poverty -Race literacy, appear to group together and
account for about 10% of messages, while the combined Focus on Basics
(FOB) and Homeless literacy lists are clearly the weakest lincs  in
terms of total messages, accounting for only 1% of messages. 
(rounding makes the total less than 100%). 

Though in some cases it was not too clear just who the list moderator
(LM) was, based on what I could determine,  there are major differences
among the lists in the percentage of messages posted by the LM. The
Learning Disabilities, ESL, NLA and Technology lists had the lowest
percentages of messages posted by the LM, while the Women, Workplace, 
Povrace, and Homeless lists had the largest percentages of LM messages.
The Family, EFF, and FOB lists were in the middle range of messages
posted by the LM. In general, the greater the percentage of messages
posted by the LM, the less the democratic process is being stimulated by
the list. 

Illustrating how a few list members can influence the number of messages
posted on a given list, when the LM and next two highest posters of
messages are grouped into the top 3 message posters, we see that some
two-thirds of the Homeless list messages are accounted for by three
people. This means that only one-third of messages are being posted by
others who are members of the list. The FOB, Povrace, Workplace, and
Women's lists have about half their messages posted by three people. The
Technology, Family and EFF lists have about 30% of their messages posted
by three people, while the ESL, LD, and NLA lists have fewer than
one-fifth of the list messages posted by three people.

When three more top message posters are added to the first three, we
find that the top 6 message posters accounted for only 22% of messages
posted to the ESL list, meaning that 78 % of postings were by others
than the top 6. I take this as an indicator of a higher degree of
democratic participation by members of the ESL list.  The NLA, Family,
Technology, EFF, and LD lists show that the top 6 posters account for 31
to 39% of postings, while the Workplace, Povrace, Women, and FOB lists
show the top 6 posters accounting for about 60% of postings, and the
Homeless list with the least diversity, and hence the lowest democratic
participation,  with the top 6 posters accounting for 75% of postings on
the list (there were only 16 different authors for the Homeless list
altogether). 

As a general trend, using the methodology given above, there appears to
be a positive relationship between the number of postings and the
diversity of postings, with the lists with the most postings having
greater diversity than those with the least postings (setting aside the
Women's list which goes against this trend). 

Using the lack of diversity of message posters as indicated by the
percentage of messages posted by the top 6 posters as the indicator of
the linc's strength in stimulating the democratic process, the Women,
Workplace, Povrace, FOB and Homeless lists are the weakest lincs in the
democratic process for 2001. 

NOTE: Don't hold me too closely for absolute accuracy of counts given
above... looking at electronic lists fatigues my eyes rather
quickly...but
the numbers are probably pretty close. Also, I am aware of limitations
in the methodology for indicating diversity/democracy used. But to a
first approximation, I think the method used provides some interesting
information. The lists are all archived at www.nifl.gov so others can
make up their own methodology for diversity/ democracy  if they so
choose.
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA@lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org