This position paper outlines a number of theoretical and policy related aspects of my PhD research which is currently in its writing-up phase. The study is presented in three distinct but inter-connected stages. Stage one focuses on existing European Commission (EC) information society policies and their relationship community development. Stage two highlights both historical and current uses of community teleservice centres (CTSC) in Scandinavia and the UK as tools for community development. The final stage compares and contrasts the experiences of the telecottage movement in the context of the potential role of community networks for social and economic sustainability within the UK.

Through the exemplars of community-based ICT initiatives the project contributes to the emerging information society debate by highlighting the symbiosis of social, cultural, political, technological and economic aspects of life. The investigation begins with an 'analysis of policy' and progresses to an 'analysis for policy' and is designed to both inform information society policy makers at inter- and intra-national levels, and to develop a framework for participative community action using the infostructure to support and build social networks at community level.

The investigation suggests that uses of the infostructure reinforce existing social relationships and power structures rather than offering an alternative to society's existent stratification, as information society theorists often claim (Bell, 1974). Paradoxically, the potential exists, but is often ignored, to utilise the infostructure through the creation of a 'third' space (Shapiro, 1995) in which individuals and communities develop a supplementary communications medium where they can meet, converse, organise, access information, share experiences and knowledge, and generally participate in societal activities electronically.

The significance of this a democratic contribution to a more inclusive way of life in the information society has not been lost on the community network movement. However, it appears to have completely by-passed EC policy makers who continue to focus on top-down, techno-economic Tele- or Digital City initiatives, where the ordinary citizen is viewed as little more than a passive consumer of the vast array of services and products currently bombarding the global market-place.

Harnessing information communication technologies (ICT) for economic development and sustainability in the information society is currently the= focus of much academic and policy debate within the European Union. My research contributes to this paradigmatic discourse by critically analysing current policies at both macro and micro levels and offering an alternative, more inclusive approach to policy development and implementation. This socially oriented framework, which puts ordinary people and their communities at the centre of the debate is in contrast to the existing ideologies of market forces and techno-centrism which appear to permeate the thinking of high-level policy makers. The techno-economic policies resulting from such mind-sets, and which currently dominate the European information society paradigm will exacerbate rather than address social exclusi= on.

Elsewhere, I have described the existing EC model of an information society as being driven by 'experts' (Day,1998). One of my main criticisms of this approach is that it overlooks the important contribution that= local communities can make to society as a whole. This section develops the foundations for an alternative, more inclusive approach to the information society, one based on participative democracy at the micro level (i.e. local communities). Grounded in the traditions of the European Human-centred School, my research also draws on Illich's theory of convivial tools (Illich, 1990), Sclove's theory of democratic technology (Sclove, 1995), and Schuler's theory of community networks (Schuler, 1994).

The existing EC model adopts a techno-economic approach to the development of the information society. The framework presented here adopts a more participative and bottom-up approach. One which facilitates the development of inclusive pathways to an information society by examining how a more democratic approach might aid community development. What Illich terms a convivial society, based on autonomous and creative intercourse between citizens, recognizing their personal interdependence (Illich, 1990).

If a more participative vision of the information society is to possess more than simple rhetorical value, ways of turning the vision into reality must be identified.

The EC model of private/public sector partnerships, through its concentration on economic and physical capital, overlooks the potentiality of social capital (Putnam, 1996). Such an approach 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. Harris suggests such partnerships might comprise of local authorities, the private sector, academic and voluntary sector agencies. Building on this comprehensive approach to partnerships I have developed the concept of 'tripartite collaboration', where the not-for-profit sector is actively included in the development of policy (Day, 1996).

Tripartite collaboration consists of partnerships between private, public and not-for-profit sectors. It is important to classify the third partner as not-for-profit rather than academic and voluntary agencies because the latter is too restrictive. Without doubt, both academic and voluntary agencies have a significant role to play in aiding the development of a socially inclusive information society (Gill, 1997). However, the danger is that once incorporated into the policy making modus operandi, such suggestions would unwittingly exclude organisations such as trades unions,= who have a meaningful role to play in developing the information society or overlook the significant and crucial role that many community groups and organisations play in the day to day life of local communities.

Tripartite collaboration recognizes the existence, and importance of the social economy (ARIES, 1995), where the not-for-profit sector operates= with people in a dynamic and flexible manner, making a significant contribution to the daily lives of ordinary citizens. Tripartite collaboration= is an attempt to link both formal and social economies holistically, recognizing that society comprises more than economic activity alone. It marks a major directional shift from the limitations of existing partnership= policies in development initiatives between public and private sectors.

However, for tripartite partnerships to be sustainable they must be based on equity. This requires the recognition and acceptance of both the strengths, and the weaknesses, that each member brings to the partnership. Traditional public/private sector approaches to partnership are based on power. The private sector has economic power, whilst the public sector has regulatory, administrative and legislative power. The policy analysis referred to earlier indicates how this generally leads to the omission of the not-for-profit sector, and the development of exclusionary policies as a consequence (Day, 1998). A different approach is needed, one which demands a change to traditional roles and perspectives. Fresh and open minds are required to address the needs of local communities and the challenges of collaboration.

Collaborating in tripartite partnerships enables each sector to bring their own skills, expertise, experience and knowledge to the partnership. The private sector is usually good at getting things done efficiently; the not-for-profit sector is good at articulating local views, communicating with users, and developing a sense of citizen ownership and identity; the public sector's key strengths are its enabling ability together with its role of ensuring that the broader public objectives are achieved by maintaining a strategic overview (Landry & Bianchini, 1995).

Tripartite collaboration can facilitate flexible and fluid partnerships to meet the challenges of a changing socio-economic landscape. The participatory and collaborative nature of tripartite partnerships is both reflective of, and complimentary to, the networking potentiality of the infostructure. By applying the tripartite partnership approach to the development of both infostructure and information society policies, a more accurate representation of the needs of local citizens can be achieved. As the= PACE94 report argues,

It is not often recognised that a rich and diverse source of social cr= eativity exists in local communities. By providing the expertise, resources and support for the creative social processes of local communities through the tripartite approach, a bridge can be built between the formal institutions and the informal networks that characterise the everyday life= of local communities.

Harnessing the knowledge and creativity of local communities with the professional skills and expertise of public agencies and, where appropriate, the private sector, can facilitate and increase social innovation. Social innovation is defined in this context as social initiatives which are designed and driven by local people to meet the needs of the local community through the solution of local problems.

The processes and activities resulting from social partnership and social innovation are quite distinct from the more structured approach found= in the formal economy, and are best described as components of the social economy. In a social economy, community life is best viewed as being based on the principles of participation and self-empowerment. That is to say that individuals have the right to self-actualization (Maslow, 1943) whilst at the same time having social responsibilities to the rest of the= community (Etzioni, 1993).

The scenario where an empowered citizenship harnesses ICTs to address hither to unmet social needs and obviate social exclusion, enriching the local community has as yet received very little attention at European policy level. However, it is precisely the potential of individuals to participate in a full, active and democratic manner in the information society; designing and developing social applications that democratically meet local community needs, that transcends the passive participation of the current techno-economic paradigm.

Tripartite collaboration and social inclusion are fundamentally issues of participation and democracy. It is clear from the ISPO group of experts report, that the danger of a 'haves' and "have nots' information society is very real(CEC, 1995). A crucial element in avoiding such forms of social exclusion is to develop policies that facilitate universal access to the infostructure.

However, if the infostructure develops on a purely commercial basis, and the only services available are those regulated and priced by the service providers themselves, then access as the sole social issue is meaningless. If inclusion in the information society is to be both achievable and sustainable, everyone who wishes to, must have, as a fundamental democratic right, the ability to participate in the evolution of that information society. Universal participation should now be included as part of the information society universality debate, alongside universal service and universal access. In this way, citizens of an information society can not only empower themselves and enrich the quality of life of their local communities, but through aggregation, contribute to improving the quality of life at a societal level.

Contrary to the technological and economic determinism of EC information society policy, ICTs are contingent social products (Sclove, 1995). That is to say that rather than being the logical result of a natural order of development they are the product of social choices. Analysis of appropriate policy documents has shown that these choices represent, in the main, the vested interests of commercial organisations. In other words, the product of such policies shows a tendency towards commercial exclusivity. Of course, current EC policies represent only one specific route, from a variety of available pathways, to information society policy development.

In a seminal text on the information society, Lyon shows how the concept of an information society raises important questions about social circumstances.

(Lyon, 1988, p157).

Illich perhaps summarises the position best by identifying two ranges in the growth of tools which present two opposing and starkly contradicting alternatives (1990). Either technologies are used to extend human capability, or they are used to contract, eliminate, or replace human functions. In a democratic society, if information society policies are to enhance both opportunities for, and the capabilities of all citizens then a wider ranging, more holistic consideration is required. The development of social policy that relies exclusively on the evidence of 'experts' and the vested interests of the commercial world will continue to fail to meet the needs, ideals and aspirations of citizens and communities in a democratic society.

Of course, defining what is meant by the term community is a complex sociological task. For the purposes of this paper, community is defined as a coherent area of social existence identified by a sense of locality and community sentiment (Frankenberg, 1969). That is to say that communities are the manifestation of perceptions of people who live in, and identify with a specific geographical space. It is this sense of identity, of belonging to the local community that encourages people to be actively involved in everyday community life.

However, it can been contested that the rapid process of recent social change has led to ambiguities in the way that community is perceived. In much the same way as rural life has been giving way to urban influences; small-scale personal society has been replaced by the large-scale and impersonal; and relatively simple traditional societies have often succumbed to the complexities of a modern technologically sophisticated society. As a result, it can be argued community has given way to 'non-community'(Worsley, et al, 1977). Using Tönnies concepts of Gemeinschaft [community] and Gesellschaft [association] (1955) to highlight their point, Worsley et al argue that, despite its transitory and superficial nature, Gesellschaft has become a more pronounced aspect of social relationships than Gemeinschaft.

It would be wrong however, to suggest that community as a social structure had disappeared completely. In fact, the complexity of social relationships and technological development in modern life have resulted in the ability of individuals to be members of a variety of communities and associations at the same time. Geographical communities, communities of interest, and virtual communities; along with myriad clubs, societies, associations, etc. all form part of the human condition in contemporary society. However, the emphasis that modern policies place on depersonalised and individualistic association over community has led to calls in recent years for the creation of a new community (Etzioni, 1993)

Such calls do not represent a desire to return to some romantic notion of the past. Instead they should be seen as an attempt to foster a more mutual and communicative social order. For new communities to meet the needs of the modern world they need to be intelligent and creatively consciousness of their environments(Schuler, 1996). If they are to be both inclusive and empowering new communities must be based on an ethos of justice and compassion. They must have both principles and purpose, and be oriented around action born out of democratic problem sharing.

It is not by accident that Schuler represents the six sustaining core values of communities as a network. Communities comprise social networks of groups and individual citizens, each influencing the other. By highlighting how each core value influences the others and is interrelated, Schuler shows how, a weakness in one is a weakness in the whole. He argues that by strengthening a community's core values more coherent communities will result.

The term community network, which describes the pattern of communications and relationships in a community (Schuler, 1996), has existed as a sociological concept for a considerable time. It is the social network or web which allows people to communicate with one another in order to address social problems. Today the term has been expanded to cover the utilisation of ICTs as an information and communications tool which underpins social activity within a local community. The important issue here is not the technology itself but what the technology enables people to do. How community problems are addressed and the role of ICTs in that process are issues pivotal to community development in an information society. The ability of communities to participate in the design, development and implementation of policies and applications that impinge on community development is, in my opinion, a matter of the utmost urgency.

ARIES, 1995. The Social Economy. http://www.poptel.org.uk/aries/socecon.html

BELL, D., 1974. The coming of post-industrial society : a venture in social forecasting, London : Heinemann Educational.

CEC, 1994. Perspectives for economic and social impacts of advanced communications in Europe, (PACE 1994): Socio-economic and technology impact assesment and forecast RACE project R-2086 - Synthesis Report, . Brussels: DGXIII. p10.

CEC, 1995. Statement: Towards the Information Society, http://w= ww.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/backg/statement.html

DAY, P., 1996. Information Communication Technology and Society: A community-based approach. In GILL, K.S. (ed) Inormation Society: New Media, Ethics and Postmodernism, London: Springer-Verlag, pp 186-210.

DAY, P. & HARRIS, K., 1997.Down-to-Earth Vision: Community Based IT Initiatives and Social Inclusion, London: IBM/CDF.

DAY, P., 1998. Unpublished PhD Thesis, [nearing completion].

ETZIONI, ., 1993. The Spirit of Community, London: Fontana Press.

FRANKENBERG, ., 1969. Communities in Britain, Middlesex, England: Penguin.

GILL, K., 1997. Knowledge Networking and Social Cohesion in the Information Society: A Study for the European Commission, Brighton: University of Brighton.

HARRIS, K., 1996. Social Inclusion in the Information Society, Available URL http://panizzi.shef.ac.uk/community/socinc.html

ILLICH, I., 1990. Tools for Conviviality, London: Marion BOYARS.

LANDRY, C. & BIANCHINI, F., 1995. The Creative City, London: DEMOS.

LYON, D., 1988. The Information Society: Issues and Illusions, Cambridge: Polity Press.

MASLOW, A.H., 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review. 50. pp370-396.

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

SCHULER, D. 1994. New Community Networks: Wired for Change, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

SCLOVE, R. E., 1995. Democracy and Technology, London: Guilford Press, p. 5.

SHAPIRO, A.L., 1995. Street Corners in Cyberspace, The Nation, July 3rd, pp. 10-14.

TÖNNIES, F., 1955. Community and Association, London: Routledge.

WORSLEY, P. (ed) 1977. Introducing Sociology, 2nd ed. Middlesex, England: Penguin. pp332-391.

I am employed as a lecturer in the School of Information Management in the University of Brighton's, Faculty of Information Technology. The major focus of my research activity is my PhD project which is nearing completion. In addition to my formal duties at the University, I am also the Chairperson of the Sussex Community Internet Project (SCIP). SCIP is a community-based project with three main objectives:

- to raise the awareness of local community groups and the not-for-profit about the potential of ICTs.

- provide hands-on ICT related training for this audience.

- inform local policy in the planning and implementation of its digital city developments.

I am involved in Communities Online UK, and am co-author of the IBM/CDF sponsored report into community based ICT applications (Day & Harris, 1997).