Philosophy of the Wellesley College Project on Social Computing

Our project began with a problem—how to better understand the flame wars that so regularly disrupt campus life. Over time, we developed a more clearly articulated set of guidelines undergirding our approach. Our initial project questions reflected common conceptions of electronic discourse; the first grant proposal asked these questions:

What does it mean for this residential community that we have a new venue for communication that is regular, ongoing, and not face-to face? How do styles of communication change when personal, non-verbal cues are missing and feedback is asynchronous? Are people more likely to rely on stereotypes in such situations? How do issues of diversity play into this mix? Is the sense that there is anonymity behind the screen promoting more uncivil discourse? How is electronic communication affecting the way people think about, engage in, and resolve conflict?

We quickly came to see that not everyone views problems in the same way, and that not everyone considers the same phenomena to be problems. While there is no question that some electronic events are clearly disruptive to an entire community, different constituencies see different elements of the event as problematic. Some see an event as a learning experience; others see it as a threat; others see it as an opportunity to express dissatisfaction publicly that will otherwise fester underground. Some see the electronic world as cause of a discourse problem; others see the computer as a mirror of pre-existing problems (a magnifying mirror, perhaps, but a mirror nonetheless). In our early discussions, we had such fierce disagreements about what even counted as a problem that it was not clear we'd ever even arrive at a point where we could discuss causes and solutions to problems. We eventually came to understand that our disagreements stemmed, in part, from our differential positions on campus. While we all share the same electronic space, we bear different relationships to it, and some of those relationships depend on our social roles. This realization led to the core of our approach.

Our approach rests on two prongs. The first has to do with our belief about who should be at the table to address problems relating to social computing; the second asserts the means we have at our disposal.

Prong one: Bringing the right constituencies together.
Different constituencies within an institution have different windows into the phenomenon of electronic discourse. Student life personnel, information technology personnel, faculty, students, and higher administrators—each group approaches computer interactions in different (and somewhat predictable) ways. Different groups attach different values to the system, ask different questions about it, see different things as problems, propose different kinds of solutions, and use different kinds of language when they talk about electronic phenomena. It is extraordinarily difficult for members of such disparate groups to work on problems together—but it is also absolutely necessary. Sets of problems that were once viewed as technological have now become social; issues that were once referred to IT staff are now commonly referred to deans of students. The two parties must learn to talk—and listen—to each other.

Prong two: Means available to resolve problems.
We believe that administrators of higher education have three primary, necessary, and effective means available to address problems of social computing. We believe that the three means must be developed and employed together, in mutually reinforcing ways:

Policy
No campus can afford to be without a well-developed policy articulating the limits to the use of social computing (and other computing resources) within the boundaries of that campus, the consequences for misuse of computing resources, and the responsibilities of individual members of the community to fair use of those resources. Policies must be developed by representatives of all key constituencies on the campus, regularly revised, and made known to all.

Adjudication
Campuses must have procedures in place for adjudicating violations of computing policy; the procedures need to be flexible enough to accommodate other breaches and problems as well. Students need to know who to go to when a problem arises; administrators need to know who is responsible for handling which kinds of problems. Response needs to be quick, fair, and well informed not only by campus policy but by current Internet law.

Education
Most experts believe that the best means at our disposal reflects the purpose for which we exist: education. We need to think about how best to educate our students—not just some of our students, but all of our students and our faculty and employees as well—about effective means to communicate online.

The three means are reflected in the acronym we adopted for our E-SCAPE symposium and its associated research projects: E-SCAPE means "Examination of Social Computing: Adjudication, Policy, and Education."

While different constituencies on a campus may be more readily associated with one means—faculty are historically responsible for "education," higher administrators for "policy," and student life officials for judicial matters—we argue that all constituencies need to work together to develop sound policy, to develop sound educational approaches that reach across campuses in a rich variety of ways, and, when ultimately necessary, to decide what constitutes a true violation of campus policy that needs to be adjudicated.