The ambivalence of information society policy makers to the needs of local communities creates a variety of problems for community ICT initiatives (Day & Harris, 1998). A result of this ambivalence is the ambiguous use of terms such as 'community network' or 'community telecottage' in the information society discourse. In terms of policy development this lack of clarity has created problems of identity for the community informatics movement. It should be noted, for example, that the participatory, collaborative and inclusive approaches of Seattle (Schuler, 1996) and Blacksburg (Cohill & Kavanaugh, 1997) community networks are a world apart from the much hyped techno-economically determinist and exclusive models of the public and private sector (Bristow et al, 1997; BT, 1997).

Lack of space prevents a full analysis of what constitutes a community ICT initiative. Nonetheless, the paper contributes to the emerging discipline of community informatics by examining three distinct but interrelated areas of import to the policy debate. These three aspects of micro-level information society discourse are described as the 3 P's: presence of community, partnership and participation - and are applied in the context of a community network.

This section examines the presence of community - an area often neglected in information society studies. Butcher develops three insights into community that relate to public policy issues and can be used in an information society context (1993).

The first, Descriptive Community draws on the word's etymological origins of having 'something in common' and tends to be used by social scientists. Butcher explains that this 'something in common' can refer to a neighbourhood, village, town, etc. but can also refer to some other social determinant such as ethnicity, religion sexual orientation, etc. Thus two forms of community - geographical communities and communities of interest - are identified. Virtual communities (Rheingold, 1994), which display many of the characteristics of geographic or interest communities but are based in Cyberspace, are a third. However, this falls outside the remit of this paper.

Of course, communities based on location or interests are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed geographic communities often comprise different cultures and it is not uncommon for groups and individuals to share knowledge and draw from each other's experiences, creating new forms of common interests as a consequence. The opposite is also true and conflict can and does arise (Sclove, 1995).

Frankenberg addresses this diversity of cultures by defining community as a coherent area of social existence identified by a sense of locality and community sentiment (1969). Butterworth and Weir (1970) suggest that the development of a community can be determined by the following factors: time and common residence, shared activities and the degree of involvement in them, the characteristics of members (especially where they come from), and the kinds of leadership present.

However, not all geographically based populations share such characteristics. This leads to the importance of Butcher's second insight into the term community - Community as Value.

In this context the existence of community is based on certain shared values, which are identified as the principles of solidarity, participation and coherence. Solidarity sustains community members at an emotional level, inspiring affection and loyalty towards the group through mutuality and co-operation in relationships. Participation benefits individuals through the recognition of their contribution to collective life and the aspirations of the group. Coherence connects the individual to the community and leads to an appreciation and comprehension of self and situation that gives meaning to and awareness of themselves and their social world (Butcher, 1993).

Recognising the contested nature of values that are open to interpretation, Butcher asserts that these principles provide the value base of community initiatives and policies. Although this analysis of community values is in the Communitarian tradition it should not be assumed that the communal is always subsumptive of the individual. Outlining the Communitarian agenda, Etzioni establishes a need for balance between community and self (1993), and research into the "sense of community" in suburban America presents some interesting insights into the thoughts of 'real people' (Wilson and Baldassare, 1996) in this respect.

Reinforcing Etzioni's call for balance between individual and community, Wilson and Baldassare conclude that the design of suburban neighbourhoods should provide adequate amounts of privacy and localism. Shared public spaces, community associations and activities providing people with the chance to engage in social activities should be tempered with homes that shield from unwanted interaction by offering privacy. A consideration that might just as easily be applied to the design of community networks.

Community values then, are the social product of individual people living in and identifying with a specific 'something', often but not always a geographical space. The collective community, in the context of this paper, comprises individual community members that have developed an inherent interest in each other. In addition to sharing the same geographical space and social experiences community members respect and celebrate a diversity of human interests (Galbraith, 1994). This diversity distinguishes the individual from the collective but at the same time contributes to that collective. This is the paradox of community.

Frankenberg reflects that it is this sense of identity, of belonging to the local community that encourages people to be actively involved in everyday community life (1969). Whilst society has undergone significant changes since the time of Frankenberg's studies, modern community commentators raise similar issues. For example, Scott Peck identifies eight salient characteristics of community (1987), whilst Schuler detects a web of six core community values (1996) all of which involve active involvement.

This recognition of the importance of active involvement in community life leads to Butcher's third insight into community - the Active Community. This refers to collective action by community members embracing one or more of the three communal values identified previously. Such activities are purposively undertaken through the vehicle of groups, networks and organisations, where the ability to communicate honestly is paramount (Scott Peck, 1987).

The Active Community is based on the participation of community members in shaping community life. In addition it requires a shared value base between community and policy makers. This shared value base is crucial to the formulation of policies that develop, maintain and build on the Active Community. A method for promoting such policies is community practice, which comprises three elements:

• Community development: promoting community self-help;
• Community action: campaigning for community interests and community policies;
• Community services approach: developing community-oriented organisations and services (Glenn, 1993).

The importance of community practice to community ICT initiatives is underlined by recent research which raises issues of community partnerships (Day & Harris, 1998).

Day & Harris observe that issues of organisation, funding and sustainability commonly present the most difficult challenges to community ICT initiatives (1998). The bureaucratic demands of funders and/or other agencies, infrastructure and general running costs frequently create significant problems that can threaten the very existence of initiatives.

The approach of statutory bodies attempting to address the needs of local communities has often been the development of partnerships, i.e. formal or informal arrangements to work together to some joint purpose. Wilcox suggests that where a task is complex and long term, such as a community ICT initiative, a formal partnership should be the required approach (1994). However, for partnerships to be successful they must be based on trust and encourage participation, so that joint purpose, common values, etc. can be established.

Unfortunately most current information society policies focus on partnerships between public and private sectors (Day, 1996). This model, through its concentration on economic and physical capital has an inherent tendency to overlook the potentiality of social capital (Putnam, 1993). It is an omission that stimulates social exclusion by failing to include representation from individual citizens and local communities (Harris, 1996).

A more holistic approach to the concept of partnership is required at the local level, one promoting cross-sectoral participation, or tripartite collaboration (Day, 1998). Tripartite collaboration consists of partnerships between private, public and not-for-profit sectors that recognise the significance of the contribution the social economy makes to the daily lives of society's citizens. It transcends the limitations of traditional information society partnership approaches (Shearman, 1999), which are based on power and are inherently exclusive.

The flexible and equalitarian nature of tripartite collaboration calls for a major directional shift of policy, one that celebrates the diversity of experiences, knowledge and skills of partnership members. Culturally, it is a vastly different approach to the dominant techno-economic model. It demands changes to traditional societal roles and perspectives, and calls for fresh and open minds to address the needs of local communities and the challenges of collaboration. Tripartite collaboration requires policy makers to extend their current focus on the community services approach to community practice (Day & Harris, 1998) to include community development and community action approaches (Butcher, 1993).

Enabling local communities to engage in the shaping and utilisation of technologies in the information society is a first step in the right direction. Partnerships developed through tripartite collaboration will promote a more democratic approach to technology in the information society that draws on the discipline of participatory design.

Ehn views participatory design in terms of the tradition and transcendence of systems design (1988). This means that the design of computer artifacts can only be accomplished by complementing traditional competences with new knowledge that both challenges and transcends what is already understood.

From this dialectical paradox it is not difficult to identify the relationship between participatory design and community networks. Both are concerned with establishing new, innovative and democratically diverse approaches to systems/network design. Both are compelled by the idea that quality can be improved through the strong and effective participation of those involved in the design and use of systems/network. Both are concerned with transcending the limitations of current approaches to scientific investigation through the production of new knowledge and yet both are firmly rooted in the dominant specialist or expert model of design in society.

In this dominant model, expertise, that is, the knowledge of experts, is used to find solutions to problems whilst those most affected by the outcomes have no input into the process whatsoever. Participatory design seeks to include those affected by outcomes in the design process. This should not be seen as proposing an argument against, or belittling the role of experts. Participatory design, at whatever societal level, seeks partnerships of responsibility between implementers and users. Where special expertise becomes a resource to be drawn on rather than a source of unchallenged power and authority (Schuler & Namioka, 1993).

The key element of participation therefore is democracy, or as Schuler and Namioka argue, the key element of democracy is participation (1993). This position is supported by Emery who, in a discussion of societal design models and education in terms of Western democracy, contests the need for a shift from representative to participatory democracy (Emery, 1993). However, it is not enough simply to articulate the relationship between participation and democracy. In order to avoid the dangers of determinism in the techno-economic model of the information society, a clearer perspective of community participation needs developing.

Community networks, or any form of community ICT initiative, are more than just technical systems/networks. In fact, ICTs should be seen as tools utilised by local communities to underpin and support the broader social networks - existent and emergent - in local communities. In this sense, whilst the participation of community members in the design of technical artifacts is important, so too is their participation in the design, implementation and development of the overall initiative as an organisational structure or social network.

By examining the significance of the 3 Ps - presence of community, partnerships and participation - to community ICT initiatives such as community networks, this paper points to the development of micro-level information society policies as a contribution to what J. K. Galbraith calls the 'good society' (1994).

Policies that promote social inclusion by enabling people to participate in the design, implementation and development of technologies and their social applications facilitate empowerment and encourage public support. Sclove promotes this concept as a democratic politics of technology (1995). In the context of this paper, community informatics is more than the development of a participatory approach to the design of community technologies. It is also about promoting policies that enable citizens to use ICTs as tools to determine and shape their conditions of existence. In this sense community informatics is about sustaining or creating the presence of community in the information society.

It has to be recognised however, that powerful techno-economic forces currently influence and shape information society policy. In the context of the techno-economic model community is viewed in terms of its market potential. If community informatics is to shape future policy development it faces significant challenges. Central to these challenges is the need to establish a framework of methodological tools that inform policy of more inclusive and collaborative pathways to the information society whilst promoting citizen participation in the life of Active Communities.

BRISTOW, H. et al, 1997. Information and Communication technologies: Implications for Sustainable Development. Cambridge: UK CEED

BT, 1997. Telecommunications technologies and sustainable development: A guide for local authorities. London: BT Environmental Issues Unit

BUTCHER, H., 1993. Introduction: Some Examples and Definitions, In BUTCHER, H. et al, Community and Public Policy. London: Pluto Press. pp.3-21

BUTTERWORTH, E. & WEIR, D., 1970. The Sociology of Modern Britain. London: Fontana

COHILL, A.M. & KAVANAUGH, A.L. (Eds.), 1997. Community Networks: Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia. London: Artech House

DAY, P., 1996. In GILL, K.S. (ed.), Information Society: New Media, Ethics and Postmodernism. London: Springer-Verlag. pp. 186-210

DAY, P. & HARRIS, K., 1998. Down-to-Earth Vision: Community Based IT Initiatives and Social Inclusion. The COMMIT Report. London: IBM/CDF

EHN, P., 1988. Work oriented design of computer artefacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum

EMERY, F., 1993. The Agenda for the Next wave. In EMERY, M., Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Canberra: Centre for Continuing Education, The Australian National University. pp. 30-39

ETZIONI, A., 1993. The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda, London: Fontana

FRANKENBERG, R., 1969. Communities in Britain: Social Life in Town and Country. Middlesex: Penguin

GALBRAITH, J.K., 1994. The Good Society Considered: the economic dimension. Journal of Law and Society. [Annual Lecture: St. David's Hall, Cardiff. 26/1/94] Cardiff: Cardiff Law School

GLEN, A., 1993. Methods and Themes in Community Practice, In BUTCHER, H. et al, Community and Public Policy. London: Pluto Press. pp.22-40

HARRIS, K., 1996. Social Inclusion in the Information Society, Inventing the future: Partnerships for tomorrow. http://panizzi.s hef.ac.uk/community/socinc.html

PUTNAM, R.D., 1993. The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life, The American Prospect. 13 (Spring). http://epn.org/prospect/1 3/13putn.html

SCHULER, D., and NAMIOKA, A., (eds.) 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA,

SCHULER, D., 1996. New Community Networks: Wired for Change. Harlow, UK: Addison-Wesley

SCLOVE, R.E., 1995. Democracy and Technology. London: Guilford Press

SCOTT PECK, M., 1987. The Different Drum: The Creation of True Community: the First Step to World Peace. London: Arrow

SHEARMAN, C., 1999. Local Connections: Making the Net Work for Neighbourhood Renewal. London: Communities Online.

WILCOX, D., 1994. The guide to Effective Participation. Brighton: Partnership Books

WILSON, G. & BALDASSARE, M., 1996. Overall "Sense of Community" in a Suburban region: The Effects of Localism, Privacy, and Urbanization. Environment and Behavior. 28 (1). pp.27-43

E-mail p.day@bton.ac.uk and p.day@btinternet.com