electronic commons, community policing, and communication

383

Administrative Theory & Praxis / September 2011, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 383–410. © 2011 Public Administration Theory Network. 1084-1806/2011 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/ATP1084-1806330304

Electronic Commons, Community Policing, and Communication

Online Police-Citizen Discussion Groups in Washington, DC

Lori A. Brainard Teresa Derrick-Mills

George Washington University

ABSTRACT

In recent years, scholars and practitioners have bemoaned the decline in public life. The “commons,” as the worry goes, is shrinking. The article investigates the effort by the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department (DC MPD) to facilitate an electronic commons in which residents and police department personnel can work together, via online discussion groups, to address crime and safety issues. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the article analyzes the threads originating between July 2005 and December 2007 to answer two research questions. Do the online discussion groups fulfill the spirit of an electronic commons? What is the nature of the online relationship between the police and the community? The findings show that although DC MPD has created an avenue for online discussion, it has had mixed success in creating an electronic commons. Insights are provided for public administrators for fostering social media to create an electronic commons, and suggestions for future scholarship.

Scholars and practitioners often bemoan the decline in public life. The “commons” is shrinking, and, as a result, all that it both supports and circum-scribes—public life, government–citizen relationships, and deliberation—are diminishing, disintegrating, and thinning (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000, 2007; King & Stivers, 1998; Putnam, 2000). In response, scholars have begun to argue that public administration—as a field of study and of practice—bears

384 ADMInIsTrATIve Theory & PrAxIs v vol. 33, no. 3

The authors thank Professor Joseph Cordes, then-director of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, for summer funding in support of this project, and Mariglynn Collins, Ph.D. candidate at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, for her research assistance.

a responsibility for facilitating or attempting a cure for these ills. Thus, for example, Nabatchi argues that the field “should refocus its attention on the role of citizens in the work of government” (2010, p. 376).

We investigate one Internet-based effort by an urban police department to refocus its attention on residents. Although the department characterizes its efforts as wanting to create open dialogue and come together with residents to solve common problems (Brainard & McNutt, 2010; Smith, 2007), using the language of scholars we suggest that the department is attempting to build an electronic commons where residents and police personnel could work together, via online discussion groups, to address crime and safety issues. The Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department (DC MPD) began its electronic discussion groups in March 2004. By March 2005, all seven police districts had active discussion groups (Moisan, 2005). Empirical research on state government Web sites (Kumar & Vragov, 2009) and municipal govern-ment Web sites (Scott, 2006) suggests that the DC MPD was an early adopter of interactive, Web-based technology.

Although previous research of Internet-based government services indicates that a government agency providing the technology for an online discussion group signals a shift to a new government paradigm (Ho, 2002), facilitates direct democracy (Scott, 2006), or provides for deliberative democracy (Ku-mar & Vragov, 2009), we examine the interactions of the participants within the online discussion groups to investigate two research questions. Do the online discussion groups fulfill the spirit of an electronic commons? That is, in addition to being based on voluntary participation and a common purpose (as addressed in the following discussion), is communication in the online discussion groups characterized by fairness and mutuality? What is the nature of the electronic relationship between the police and the community? Using quantitative and qualitative methods at the city and district level, we find that although DC MPD has created an avenue for online discussion, it has had mixed success in creating an electronic commons. Despite these mixed conclusions, we look toward the future. Social media continue to represent enormous potential not only for using technology to do the same things more efficiently but also to do new things as well. We conclude with implications for future scholarship and theory building, based on the notion that we require an understanding of expectations about roles and relationships, the nature of interactions that can occur, and the skills required to manage these expecta-tions and facilitate interactions.

BrAInArD AnD DerrICk-MIlls 385

DC MPD

The DC MPD is run by the Washington, DC, government and provides the primary crime prevention and law enforcement services for Washington, DC (see http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1230,Q,537757,mpdcNav_GID,1529,mpdcNav,percent7C,.asp). A variety of other law enforcement agen-cies are also in Washington, DC, including national parks, federal government buildings, elected officials, and metro transit, but they execute services in very specific areas or for specific populations. The DC MPD is divided into seven districts. Each of those districts is further divided into four to eight police service areas (PSAs). These divisions demarcate assignments for particular police officers, and police stations exist in all of these districts/PSAs (see http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,Q,543336,mpdcNav_GID,1523,.asp). Police districts do not directly correspond to the eight electoral wards of the District of Columbia (see www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/council-organization/).

The District of Columbia is known by its landmarks and named neigh-borhoods. District 1 includes “tourist Washington” (i.e., the capital’s most recognizable monuments), Chinatown, Penn Quarter (with its art galleries) and Capitol Hill. District 2 consists of the family/residential neighborhoods of Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Foggy Bottom, Georgetown, Palisades, and Spring Valley and the major shopping and dining venues along Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues. District 3 is predominantly residential but encom-passes well-known businesses and nationally visible nonprofit organizations, as well as commercial corridors that attract nonresidents, including Dupont Circle and the U Street corridor, home to the historic Lincoln Theater and trendy restaurants. District 4 covers the upper Northwest and Northeast quadrants of the city, including the neighborhoods Fort Totten, Takoma, and Petworth. The community consists of primarily low-density single family homes and row houses, with some public housing developments. District 5 includes the diverse neighborhoods of Brookland, Ivy City, Trinidad, and Woodridge. (As discussed below, District 6 data were unavailable.) District 7 includes much of the Southeast quadrant of the capital, including Anacostia, Barry Farm, and Washington Highlands. This district includes the Frederick Douglass Home and Bolling Air Force Base, and, according to the DC MPD Web site, encompasses an active residential community.

As Table 1 demonstrates, Districts 2 and 7 represent the two extremes in percentages of nonwhite residents and numbers of homicides, with the second-smallest district (District 7) also having the most homicides. Dis-trict 3, with the second-largest population, dominates with the most violent crimes. District 1, with a medium-size population, has the most property crimes, and District 4, with a somewhat higher population, has the fewest property crimes.


ThE CoMMonS, CoMMUniTy PoLiCinG, AnD CoMMUniCATion

The commons, community policing, and communication have the same root, meaning shared by all. Indeed, community policing is a part of the commons, and both may be enhanced or undermined by particular ways of communicat-ing and particular means of communication. To the extent that these concepts are mutually reinforcing—or mutually destructive—it makes sense to explore them together.

The commons is the voluntary space that exists between formal public, private, and nonprofit actors, although formal organizations (e.g., government and nonprofit organizations) can and do help in and facilitate its development (Borkman, 1999; Hardin, 1968; Lohman, 1992). A commons may be offline, online, or both. Indeed, authors have begun writing about an “electronic com-mons” in recent years. Starr (2000), for example, notes:

Given the costs of earlier media, many people with shared interests have been too dispersed and unconnected to communicate and cooperate with

Table 1. Selected Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department District Comparison

District with the most District with the least

District Most District Least

Total population, 2005–9 (avg.) (n) 2 112,497 5 60,257

% Below Poverty, 2005–9 (highest/lowest PSA) (%) 7 47 7 1.4

Nonwhite, 2005–09 (highest/lowest PSA) (%) 7 99.5 2 15

Without a HS diploma, 2005–9 (highest/lowest PSA) (%) 3 32 2 0.1

Homicides, 2006 and 2007 (n) 7 44 and 60 2 4 and 0

Total violent crime, 2006 and 2007 (n) 3

1,619 and 1,554 2 525 and 556

Total property crime, 2006 and 2007 (n) 1

5,177 and 6,397 4

2,264 and 2,497

notes: Total population, % below poverty, % nonwhite, and % without a high school (HS) diploma were retrieved from Neighborhood Info DC (www.neighbor-hoodinfodc.org/comparisontables/comparisontables.html). These data are available by police service area (PSA), but not by district. Total population are created by adding together the population for each PSA; % nonwhite is created by subtract-ing % white non-Hispanic from 100%. Homicides, total violent crime, and total property crime were retrieved from the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police De-partment Web site crime statistics tab searching by police district and 01/01/2007–12/31/2007 (http://crimemap.dc.gov/presentation/query.asp).


one another. . . . The Internet does not just facilitate dialogue among them; it also provides the basis for combining many small contributions into large collaborative endeavors.

Starr, and the advances in electronic and social media that he noted, reminds us of why the concept of the commons is so important. Lohman notes:

Commons are fundamentally “universes of discourse.” They are com-posed of groups of people who understand one another, speak common languages, and evolve specialized terminology and language over time. Such discursive universes are a type of commons whose shared understanding have become known as cultures . . . communities . . . or paradigms. (1992, p. 63)

A commons—a universe of discourse—is the glue that binds people to each other and to public life.

Regardless of whether a commons is offline, online, or both, certain characteristics must apply to fulfill the spirit of a commons as a universe of discourse. In a commons, participation must be free and uncoerced, centered on a common purpose, consist of people with something in common, and be characterized by a sense of fairness and mutuality. As we discuss, in the DC MPD online discussion groups, participation is free and uncoerced, centers on a common purpose, and is composed of people with something in common. A question remains, however, about whether the online discussion groups are characterized by a sense of fairness and mutuality.

Borkman (1999), drawing on Lohman (1992), helps us flesh out the con-cepts of fairness and mutuality. Borkman noted that for a commons to be fair, it must be democratic; that is, all members must have a voice in governing the group. Therefore, according to Borkman, “a professionally owned group in which leaders . . . make decisions would not qualify” (p. 88). Also, Borkman insists that all must have an equal chance to participate rather than having to rely on professionals or leaders to invite or determine participation. In short, as Borkman notes, “Professional control is unlikely to be fair” (p. 88). At least as a matter of formal rule, all participants in the DC MPD online discussion groups may participate equally and fairly. At least as a matter of formal rule, the police do not determine who can speak online or initiate conversations or engage in discussion. Nevertheless, deviation from formal rules is common enough that we are especially interested in the extent to which the sort of fair-ness described by Borkman actually exists in the DC MPD online discussion groups. In other words, we want to know whether the police dominate the online discussion groups. However, a commons would seem to require their participation, so we would not want to see them absent either. We are looking for relative balance. In addition, Borkman defines mutuality as reciprocal as-sistance (p. 5). This reciprocity is a goal of DC MPD, which wants to use the online discussion forums to come together with residents to solve common


problems. We want to know the extent to which mutuality is present in the online discussion groups.

The possibility for and importance of fairness (absence of professional dominance) and mutuality (reciprocal assistance) exists not only because of the space created in the online discussion groups but also because of DC MPD’s use of the community-oriented policing model. Most scholars of community policing emphasize these concepts (see also Allender, 2004; Cheurprakobkit, 2002; Colvin & Goh, 2006; Cordner, 1997). Pino notes, “If COP [community policing] is to be considered successful, the trust, networks, and other forms of social capital between and among the police, the citizenry, and other public and private sector organizations must be strong enough to provide effective co-productive behavior” (2001, p. 200). Scholars of public administration who look specifically at community policing also explore “how community polic-ing might be used to create a greater convergence of purpose among citizens, neighborhoods, organizations, and the broader well-being of the community” (Glaser & Denhardt, 2010, p. 309).

In light of these complexities, it is appropriate to understand the differing roles of professionals (in our case, police professionals) and the differing relationship possibilities between professionals and stakeholders and ordinary people. Borkman (1999, p. 79) identifies four roles that professionals may adopt. The open-minded professional is both friendly and accessible and provides access to resources (knowledge, services, and the like) without wielding authority. In the context of the DC MPD discussion groups, an example of a professional adopting this role would entail friendliness and responsiveness to resident queries and questions in a way that facilitates the discussion, fosters the resident’s learning, or enhances the resident’s ability to make use of police service or contribute to its importance. The closed-minded professional is unfriendly and inaccessible and attempts to exert control over both those they serve and the resources to which they have access. This type is quite the opposite of the open-minded professional. In the context of the DC MPD online discussion groups, this professional might be sluggish or authoritative and provide directive responses to resident posts and queries to steer the resident in a particular direction or mode of thinking or acting. The inconsistent professional oscillates between the open-minded mode and the closed-minded mode. The indifferent professional appears uninterested in the problems faced by those they serve. In the DC MPD online discussion group context, this type includes nonresponse to resident posts, thoughts, ideas, and questions.

King and Stivers (1998) help explain the important connection and linkage between role and relationship, specifically with regard to public administration. How professionals comport themselves influences the ensuing relationship with citizens/residents/stakeholders. King and Stivers note:

When administrators think of themselves as professionals, their rela-tionships with citizens tend to be instrumental, if not inauthentic and conflictual . . . administrators become territorial and parochial, guard-


ing information closely and relying on their technical and professional expertise to see them through the challenges of their work. The power that citizens exert, in response, is aimed at blocking or redirecting administrative efforts rather than at working as partners to establish parameters, set agendas, develop methods of investigation, and select approaches and techniques. (p. 61)

In other words, the nature of the relationship is limited by the role adopted by the professional. Thus, for example, a professional who adopts what Borkman called an open-minded role or professional identity would have a much broader array of possible relationships with citizens, residents, and stakeholders—including instrumental, collaborative, and transformational relationships. A closed-minded, inconsistent, or indifferent professional would have a narrower range of relationship possibilities—most likely negative.

McKnight (1995) offers three visions of relationships between profession-als and stakeholders and ordinary people. Although McKnight frames these as visions of society, they do accurately reflect and express the narrower vi-sions of the professional-citizen/resident relationship we discuss here. The therapeutic vision understands professionals as experts seeking to meet the needs and demands of clients. In this kind of relationship, the person/resident is the asker or seeker and the professional is the giver, clearly privileging the role of the professional. In the context of the DC MPD online discus-sion groups, this relationship might entail, for example, a resident asking for help or information and the police providing the requested service. The advocacy perspective views professionals as a force for mediation between the client and the broader world; that is, the professional serves as the client’s advocate. This relationship would be characterized not by the giving of the professional in the therapeutic vision, but by the professional ushering or guiding the person in the environment beyond their immediate relationship. In the context of the DC MPD electronic discussion groups, this relationship type might include the police acting on consensus among online residents by taking their claims or desires to police leadership. The community approach views the professional as a facilitator of individual action. In this approach, the main relationship is between the person and others as well as with the environment outside the professional–person relationship. That relationship subsumes the professional who supports, eases, or smooths the relationship between the person and other persons and the environment. An example from the context studied here might be a police professional facilitating the online discussions rather than responding to them.

Lohman’s (1992) definition of a commons as a universe of discourse, coupled with the centrality of fairness and mutuality, directs our attention to conversation—the words we choose, the words we use, the meanings we intend, ascribe, and negotiate. Glaser (1976) and Rifkin and Martin (1997)


taught us that these understandings of the roles of professionals and relation-ships between professionals and residents are reflected and embedded in communication. Implicit, and often shared, understandings of a professional’s expert status might be evident in his or her conversational position—that is, such position is engendered by the professional’s conversational performance and by the listeners’ implied preconceptions. For example, in a face-to-face interaction, physical arrangements may reflect professional position. Thus, we often find professionals seated at heads of tables or on a dais. Similarly, in an online environment, these role positions may be reflected virtually. Brainard and Siplon (2004), for example, notes that, in an electronic environment, professionals/experts may seek to control which topics may be discussed and who may initiate conversations on organizational Web sites. Mehan found that “the language that people use structures role relationships. And, the structure of role relationships found embedded in the language used by the committee members, in turn, provides the grounds of the authority of the claims and recommendations made” (1986, p. 161). Mehan instructed us to look, for example, at who feels free to question whom, what goes unquestioned, how technical information is received by whom, and the like. Mehan instructed us to look for words denoting domination or power.

We thus turn our attention to the DC MPD online discussion groups, which combine these concepts of the commons, community policing, and communi-cation. Each of DC’s seven police districts has its own online discussion group. Anyone can join. The DC MPD launched the groups to bring district-level police officers, administrators, and leaders into closer contact with citizens/residents, businesses, grassroots associations, and other neighborhood-level stakeholders to collaboratively engage in the identification and solution of neighborhood crime problems together. In general, what we want to know is whether the online discussion groups fulfill the spirit of an electronic com-mons, living up to its component fairness and mutuality. Together, police and residents could use this form of online community policing to create an electronic commons, add richness to the civic encounter, and focus on the role of citizen.

ExPLoRinG DC MPD onLinE DiSCUSSion GRoUPS

This analysis is a case study of the online discussion groups of the DC MPD. We use a mixed-methods approach to understand the interactions between the police (DC MPD) and residents (non-DC MPD) who engage through the online discussion groups. Building on the quantitative thread analysis technique developed by Brainard and Brinkerhoff (2006), we provide descriptive statistics of the number of threads (i.e., discussion top-ics), number of posts per thread (contributions per topic), number of posts by non-DC MPD participants, number of posts by DC MPD participants,


number of posts by DC MPD participants that do not generate a non-DC MPD response, and number of posts by DC MPD participants that occur in conversation with non-DC MPD participants. We also use qualitative thread analysis to understand the roles and relationships as they are enacted in the online discussion group.

Our investigation covers the period July 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. We chose this period as it represents the start-up period and two full years of discussions. Our investigation covers all DC MPD districts except for District 6. For some reason unknown to the authors, District 6 was unavailable during the period (May 2008–October 2008) in which data were collected. Thus, we investigate the 8,168 threads and 18,023 posts in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

Two specific research questions guide this project. First, we want to know to what extent the DC MPD and residents have, in fact, used the online discussion groups to facilitate the development of an electronic commons. Participation in these discussions is free and uncoerced, centers on a common purpose, and is composed of people with something in common. These criteria do, indeed, meet the definition of a commons (as established in Borkman, 1999; Hardin, 1968; Lohman, 1992). The question remains, however: Is communi-cation in the discussion groups characterized by fairness and mutuality? We previously noted that Borkman described fairness as opportunity for free and equal participation by all. In short, a participant must not require permission to speak, discuss, or initiate conversation. Specifically, Borkman noted that a group controlled and dominated by professionals does not meet the condi-tions of fairness. This fairness must include a participatory, procedural sense of fairness in which the professional does not dominate. However, for the spirit of a commons to be fulfilled, professionals also should participate. We thus operationalize fairness—the absence of dominance—not at a perfect conversational balance but as some approximation of conversational balance (both quantitative and qualitative) in the communication between DC MPD and residents. In other words, participants must leave enough verbal space for others to participate. Quantitative indicators help us to understand whether and to what extent the police dominate the discussions and how participa-tory discussions are. In addition, Borkman defined mutuality as reciprocal assistance. We operationalize this concept as a spirit of cooperation and col-laboration as evidenced in the discussions between DC MPD and residents. A qualitative thread analysis sheds light on the extent to which this is present in the online discussion groups.

Second, we want to know what is the nature of the ensuing online relation-ship. We explore this question—and shed further light on the issues of fairness and mutuality previously defined and described—through qualitative thread analysis of the communications. We specifically focus on conversations about fireworks, and we do so for two reasons. First, of all topics of conversation, it


is one of the few that is common to all districts in almost all years. Also, due to the confusion surrounding the sound of fireworks (e.g., whether the noise is a firework, a car backfire, or a gunshot), it also leads to conversations about major crime issues and sparks some passionate citizen comments. Because the setting off of fireworks usually occurs around the July 4 Independence Day holiday, our investigation was neatly bounded to specific time periods within our larger period of study.

Our qualitative thread analysis took place in two stages. In the first stage, one author and a research assistant independently read through all the posts relating to fireworks district-by-district. The goal was for each to get a sense of the overall tone of the online discussion forums for each district. We ar-rived at our senses of each district separately and met to compare. There was agreement between both the author and the research assistant as to the overall tone of each district. That process allowed us to rather broadly describe the communication within each district as outlined in the following discussion. The second stage began by making a list of every thread about fireworks in each district during the period under study. The authors read through every thread. As the goal was to understand the nature of the online relationship between DC MPD and residents, all threads in which DC MPD did not participate were discarded. Additionally, we discarded threads of a routine nature. By this we mean, for example, threads in which DC MPD made an informational posting that was followed by “thanks” from residents. We did this in an effort to focus our attention on emergent conversation, if any. In the end we were left with a set of interactive, nonroutine threads about fireworks for each district. We immersed ourselves in these threads to view the conversation as it emerged and developed.

While viewing these conversations, we constantly hold in mind the question of whether the DC MPD professionals adopt the role, as defined by Bork-man (1999), of open-minded professionals, closed-minded professionals, inconsistent professionals, or indifferent professionals. Again, for an open-minded professional, we expect to see friendliness and accessibility and the provision of services, in the absence of the authoritative use of power. For the close-minded professional, we expect to see evidence of inaccessibility and attempts to exert control over both those they serve and the resources to which they have access. We expect to see the inconsistent professional oscillating between the open-minded mode and the closed-minded mode. The indifferent professional would appear uninterested in the problems faced by those they serve. Simultaneously, we seek to move beyond a focus on role to understand whether the online relationship is, as defined by McKnight (1995), therapeutic, based on advocacy, or facilitative. The qualitative thread analysis helps us to shed light on the online roles of DC MPD and online relationships developed by DC MPD and residents. Throughout the analysis we look for words that connote professional, legal, expert, authoritative language versus the “plain


language” of nonexperts. Through our immersion in conversation, we also try to develop an understanding of “tone” of voice in the online discussions (Mehan, 1986; Rifkin & Martin, 1997).

We would, of course, be remiss if we did not discuss the scope of this work and mention the several limitations of this analysis. Our research is limited to these DC MPD-sponsored online discussion groups and the overall topic of electronic commons. Other electronic forums do exist, especially at the DC neighborhood level.1 However, conversations about public safety in those forums are just one topic of discussion. These electronic forums also include discussions about schools, recreation, and other matters of interest to people at the neighborhood level. We exclude those here. Similarly, DC MPD has offline forums at which they engage with residents, including monthly meetings available to residents in each police service area. We also exclude those. Thus, one important limitation of this study is that we do not know how representative our findings are of DC MPD–resident interactions more generally. Finally, we limit our attention to the relationship between DC MPD and residents (non-DC MPD) in these online discussion groups. We do not investigate the online interactions among residents.

Other limitations relate not to the scope of this paper but to its method-ology. First, participants sometimes answer threads by starting new posts rather than continuing on the same post. Second, not all DC MPD staff are identifiable as being affiliated with the DC MPD. In the first case, we counted threads the same way that online groups count them—by official thread. We did not attempt to link threads that clearly were all one but had been separated by the actions of participants. Likewise, we did not attempt to delink posts that had been improperly attached to a thread. In dealing with the second issue, we tried our best to identify DC MPD staff who were not clearly identified by looking for places where they had been introduced. In some cases, they were possible to identify only because some e-mails from the same address were missing the DC MPD identifier or the content of the e-mail they were sending was clearly coming from DC MPD. Thus, it is possible that some DC MPD communications were not identified and that actual levels of conversation are underrepresented in this analysis.

Similarly, there are limitations associated with the qualitative analysis. For example, tone of voice is not always conveyed or interpreted in the way the writer intended. Although some techniques are available—emoticons, capitalization, special fonts, and so on—much is subjective. However, we try to address this by fully immersing ourselves in the conversations and their unfolding and, in addition to understanding our own interpretation of the postings, we pay special attention to how the other participants in the online discussion groups appear to interpret tone.


FAiRnESS, CoMMUniCATivE RoLES, AnD RELATionShiP in DC MPD onLinE DiSCUSSion GRoUPS

Fairness in DC MPD Online Discussion Groups?

In a commons, discussion should be characterized by fairness. To paraphrase Borkman (1999, p. 88), no one group or individual should dominate the discussions, and ideas should flow freely. There should be an absence of dominance—especially of dominance by professionals. Because DC MPD administers the discussion sites and is a recognized authority figure, there is always a danger that it could unintentionally dominate the discussion. Before we investigate this question, however, we must first establish that conversa-tions (as opposed to just simple individual postings) actually occur in the discussion groups.

Conversations may be initiated by any group member at any time by creat-ing a thread in the online discussion group. Other people may respond to the thread by posting an answer or comment to the thread—called a post. A series of posts on the same thread constitutes a conversation or discussion. Using the Brainard and Brinkerhoff (2006) thread analysis technique, we calculate the ratio of posts-to-threads to examine the extent to which there is conversation of any kind in the online discussion groups. Posts-to-threads ratios start at a floor of 1—the start of the thread is the first post; if no one responds to the original thread, then the posts-to-threads ratio equals 1. Posts-to-threads ratios that exceed 2 indicate that more conversation is taking place more often.

In each of the time periods investigated as shown in Table 2, there are more posts than threads, which indicates that some level of conversation is occurring. The range of posts-to-threads across districts, however, indicates that there is substantial variation, with the lowest district barely exhibiting any conversation (ratios of 1.05, 1.64, and 1.70) in any of the time periods. As Table 2 indicates, the level of participation in the DC MPD online discussion groups has con-tinued to increase over time. As the 2005 data are for a six-month period, we should expect the 2006 data to at least double. The number of threads is just short of doubling, but the number of posts more than doubles (from 2,311 to 4,857), meaning that more exchanges are taking place among participants. This increase in activity is reflected in the higher posts-to-threads ratios shown in 2006. In 2007, both posts and threads more than double over their numbers in 2006 but the posts-to-threads ratio shows a mixed result across districts. Although conversation increased at the lowest end, conversation decreased at the highest end as evidenced by the smaller range.

As the range in the posts-to-threads ratio in Table 2 indicates, there is wide variation among districts in the amount of conversation. Figure 1 provides a more explicit look at conversation levels in each district and changes over the three time periods of observation. We see that despite the fact that conversation


levels tend to increase for the city as a whole, conversation actually declines from 2005 to 2006 in District 4. In Districts 1, 2, and 7, conversation levels dramatically improve, whereas Districts 3 and 5 see modest gains. The change in conversation levels from 2006–7 shows similar diversity across districts. Whereas Districts 4 and 5 increase their conversation levels dramatically dur-ing that time period, Districts 2 and 3 experience modest gains, and Districts 1 and 7 experience a decrease in conversation levels. In sum, all districts have higher levels of conversation in 2007 than in 2005, but the variations experi-enced and the final results are dramatically different across districts.

The data thus far tell us that conversation does happen and give us a perspective about the overall level of conversation. They do not tell us who is talking or whether there is fairness—that is, an absence of dominance or approximate balance. We examine who is talking in the online discussion groups to determine fairness. We examine the relative level of participation by DC MPD and non-DC MPD through three different quantitative measures: a ratio of DC MPD to non-DC MPD posts, percentage of single DC MPD posts, and percentage of posts in conversation that include DC MPD. These three measures provide a vastly different picture of the dialog.

Table 2. Ratio of Posts to Threads, Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7

Time period Posts (n) Threads (n)Range of

posts–threads ratio

July 1–December 31, 2005 2,311 1,150 1.05–2.56

January 1–December 31, 2006 4,857 2,269 1.64–2.93

January 1–December 31, 2007 10,855 4,749 1.70–2.84

Figure 1. Ratio of Posts to Threads by year and District

0 2 4

First district

Second district

Third district

Fourth district

Fifth district

Seventh district

2007 ratio

2006 ratio

2005 ratio


First, the ratio of DC MPD to non-DC MPD posts provides a rough mea-sure of the relative level of participation by DC MPD and non-DC MPD in the conversation. A lower number indicates a lower level of participation by DC MPD, and a higher number reflects more participation by DC MPD. A measure of 0.5 indicates an even balance between posts made by DC MPD participants and posts made by non-DC MPD participants. By this measure, it would appear that the DC MPD participants dominated most conversations by 2007, while they were not dominating in 2005.

An examination of the content of the MPD posts, however, indicates a somewhat different understanding. In some districts, DC MPD takes on the role of reminding residents of various community meetings or sending out regular crime reports. These two functions comprise the bulk of the single DC MPD posts, similar to announcements that would be put on a bulletin board in a nonelectronic setting. Although these roles are legitimate and valu-able, in a discussion group with active participation we would expect to see these posts as a percentage of all posts to be relatively low. As the ranges in Table 3 indicate, however, low announcement levels is not the case in every district during every time period examined, and the ranges across districts are dramatic. For example, during the start-up period, 95% of DC MPD posts in one district are announcements.

Finally, as an indicator of absence of dominance or the more elusive con-cept of fairness, we examine conversations only (i.e., we exclude threads with single posts, announcements). This step is necessary because the significant number of threads that are single posts (announcements) masks the real level of participation in actual conversations that do occur. When we look only at conversations, we see a considerable variation across districts in the range of DC MPD participation and the number of posts that are information-only (comparable to posting on a bulletin board). As seen in Table 3, for example, DC MPD posts in conversation range from a low of 0% in the least partici-pative district in 2005 to 36% in the most participative district in 2006. The lowest participation rate increases to 15% in 2007.

A second indicator of the absence of dominance, or fairness, has to do with who is participating in the conversation and to what extent. Again, if the online groups are to represent a true electronic commons, it is important that DC MPD not dominate the conversation. However, they should not be notice-ably absent from the conversation either. Because there are far more residents than DC MPD personnel, and numerous residents may want to contribute to a particular discussion, we would expect more citizen participation than DC MPD participation.

These figures exclude from both the numerator and denominator all single DC MPD announcements that do not involve any kind of exchange with a citizen. Figure 2 illustrates these changes over time by district. Districts 2 and 7 appear to follow similar paths here. Both of them have 0% MPD participation


in conversations in 2005, they both spike above most other districts in 2006, and they then settle back to a rate of 18% in 2007. District 1 follows a similar pattern but the variation is not as extreme. Districts 4 and 5 have a different pattern with levels of DC MPD participation increasing over time. District 4 actually remains the same from 2005 to 2006, whereas District 5 sees a small increase from 2005 to 2006. Both see a large jump in 2007. District 3 does not follow either of these patterns. DC MPD participation levels decline from 2005 to 2006 but then increase in 2007 above original participation levels.

Comparing these data to the demographic data and crime statistics exam-ined earlier (see Table 1), we find no obvious patterns. Districts 2 and 7, which are the most different in size, percentage nonwhite, and homicide rates, are the most similar in the pattern of DC MPD participation in conversations. District 1, which is more middle-of-the-road on most demographic characteristics, has the most property crime. Despite its dissimilarity with both Districts 2 and 7, its pattern of DC MPD participation in conversations over the three time periods is similar.

Although these data may help us understand the extent to which conversa-

Table 3. Measures of Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department Discussion Group Participation in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7

Time period

DC MPD to Non-DC MPD

posts ratio (range)

Posts that are single DC MPD

(%, range)

Posts by DC MPD in conversations

(%, range)

July 1–Dec. 31, 2005 0.30–21 11–95 0–24

Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2006 0.42–1.01 17–36 4–36

Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2007 0.63–1.67 10–55 15–29

Figure 2. Percent Conversation Posts by MPD

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

First district

Second district

Third district

Fourth district

Fifth district

Seventh district

2007 %MPD

2006 %MPD

2005 %MPD


tion occurs and the extent to which dominance may be present or absent, they do not help us understand the professional role adopted online by DC MPD and the relationship developed online between DC MPD and residents, as evidenced in those discussions. Specifically, they do not help us to understand whether the police act as open-minded professionals, closed-minded profes-sionals, inconsistent professionals, or indifferent professionals (Borkman, 1999). Nor do they help us to understand the online relationship between DC MPD and residents—specifically whether the relationship is what McK-night (1995) called therapeutic, focused on advocacy, or a more facilitative, community-minded relationship. In short, they do not help us understand whether mutuality is present. For that, we now turn our attention to qualita-tive thread analysis.

Communicative Roles and Relationships in DC MPD Online Discussion Groups?

As previously described, we immersed ourselves in discussions about one topic—fireworks—district by district. In addition to reading all posts deal-ing with fireworks for the period under study (to get an overall sense of each district), we also focused on interactive, nonroutine threads (to get a sense of emergent conversation). We paid particular attention to the types of language used and by whom, the use of technical/legal expertise in the conversations, and the role of authority generally, as well as to tone. Our goal is to understand the kind of roles played by police professionals participating in the online discussion groups and the online relationships of the police professionals and residents. Quotations in the following discussion include the original language, including grammatical, spelling, and wording errors.

District 1 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-1D/) had 315 posts about fireworks during the period under study. In general, DC MPD participation in these threads involves clarifying the events that prompted the resident to write in the first place. For example, residents would hear a bang and post a query about whether the noise was fireworks, gunfire, or a car backfire. The police would answer the question. In addition, MPD would post purely informational announcements, such as notifications of upcoming events, crime reports, and the like. One theme that stands out in the district is the anger and frustration voiced by residents in the online forum over what they perceive as a lack of response and follow-through by DC MPD on the issue of fireworks.

Overall, there are 13 threads, 11 of which have some form of DC MPD partici-pation and 2 of which do not. Turning specifically to threads that are participatory and of a nonroutine nature, we note that there are two such threads in District 1. In one thread, “Ongoing fireworks display on 1200 block of E Street NE” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-1D/message/3447/), a resident writes to complain about fireworks in the neighborhood, and the commander responds


several times with updates on how the police were addressing the problem. After the resident thanks the commander, the commander responds, “Thanks. 1d has the best officers and they make the difference. We also have the best citizens who both support and challenge us to do our best and stay involved.”

Another thread demonstrates an interesting dynamic between residents and police that is remarkably different from the rather congenial one above. In this thread, titled “If it’s not a priority why not tell us it’s not a priority” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-1D/message/3528/), a resident complains that DC police officers drove by a home where fireworks were being set off—at the very least to the inconvenience to surrounding residents but, as the writer of a post alleged, illegally—and did not take action. Other residents join the conversation, also expressing frustration and anger with similar experiences of what they saw as police indifference to the problem. There seems to be some consensus among the posting residents that they would like some honest, straight talk from the police about how seriously the police are able to take the fireworks issue (as evidenced in the title of the thread). For example, the resident notes that he or she understood if the police needed to divert their attention from fireworks to, say, homicide or other more significant crimes, but he or she would at least like to know that so that he or she could refrain from calling and seeking police assistance in the first place only to be frustrated by a lack of responsiveness. The police respond to this thread with technical jargon, as current and former officers use the thread to inform residents about the specific kinds of fireworks and displays that the police could and could not legally respond to and why. For example, one response noted:

Police officers can just cite someone for having/using illegal fireworks with a 61D (criminal offense) citation and then just go on their way. In addition police officers can take illegal fireworks and put them on the property book at their district for destruction. There is no chain of custody issues as the property is destroyed and not held as evidence.

A follow-up post from another officer notes, “While he [an officer] may have reasonable suspicion that a crime may have occurred it is unlikely that he has probable cause based on those circumstances as to whom the fireworks belonged. Writing a 61-D in that instance would seem a bit drastic, and is probably not sustainable.” With that bit of technical talk, the thread fizzles and conversation stops.

District 2 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-2D/) has only three threads about fireworks during the period under study, and each is noninter-active in nature, although DC MPD did initiate each one with the provision of information.

District 3 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-3D/) has 60 posts about fireworks during the period under study. There is little conversation between residents and DC MPD. In general the residents seem annoyed, angry, and


frustrated, and DC MPD rarely responds to their frustrations. District 3 has a total of four threads about fireworks, two of which do not contain DC MPD participation. There is one interactive, nonroutine thread. “Fireworks Safety” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-3d/message/3225/) is particularly inter-esting given that it is originated by DC MPD and generated a significant conver-sation yet ultimately was abandoned by DC MPD. DC MPD begins the thread with information on what is allowed and prohibited under local ordinances. DC MPD references specific sections of the law and uses various legal and police jargon. Residents then chime in with complaints about lack of enforcement. One resident invokes the “broken windows” phenomenon noting,

Not enforcing fireworks safety is another step down the slippery slope. Please read Broken Windows. http://www.brokenwindows.com/win-dows_theory.html. When “harmless” behavior is allowed chaos eventu-ally takes over. All the laws need to be enforced and order maintained. We must not concentrate on just the most violent crimes.

Another resident responds, invoking class and race issues, “I’m usually not one to feed into zip code politics but if I were to set off prohibited fireworks in Georgetown or somewhere in Ward 3, rest assured that it would not be condoned as the norm . . . especially not 1am and well into the late night . . . part of me is tempted to test this theory.”

In District 4 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-4D/), there are 277 posts related to fireworks during the period under study. In general, residents convey frustration that more is not done to address the problem. In District 4, there are five threads about fireworks, and each of the five entailed DC MPD participation. Four are participatory, nonroutine threads. DC MPD initiates two of them. “Fireworks” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-4D/mes-sage/3404/) begins with DC MPD informing residents of which fireworks are legal and which are illegal. After a resident voices concern with perceived lax enforcement, DC MPD responds, “I agree with you cold [sic] heartily please continue to call 311 or 911 as the problem arises.”

In the other thread, “New CCTV Cameras” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-4D/message/3341/), DC MPD notes that the DC MPD has just deployed closed-circuit cameras, and a resident responds with request for more such cameras in his or her neighborhood. A third thread, “Re: [4D-Neighbors] Re: Fireworks in the District and badly needed action” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-4D/message/3361/), opens with a resident complaint:

If MPD has some kind of unwritten code not to make arrests for illegal resident firework activity, let us know that. If PSA 403 assigns all its officers to the mall on July 4th, let us know that. Please just come clean and give us all the information. I think we’re all tired (I know I am) of the games on this issue.


Other residents agree, and DC MPD is prompted to reply:

I have reviewed the calls for service for the 4th of July, in particular those calls dealing with fireworks complaints. I found that the volume of calls for that day was 60% greater than on a typical day. The Fourth District logged more than 330 calls for service between noon on the 4th and 6 am on the 5th. Of those calls almost half, 154, were for disorderly complaints. The numbers of disorderly calls were 5 times the number we have on a typical day. The vast majority of those complaints came between the hours of 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. During that time frame officers were responding to as many as 25 fireworks complaints an hour in ad-dition to a large number of priority calls for service.

Residents follow this with more complaints, particularly about the past, rather than the year for which DC MPD provided data.

An additional thread, “Been Sounding Like a War Zone” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-4D/message/3356/), is full of resident complaints, and one resident writes in to defend the police. The resident notes that his or her son is deployed at war and that she or he would give anything to have her or his son home listening to the annoying illegal fireworks. DC MPD re-sponds, “Well put and I hope God keeps your son safe.” In yet another thread in which residents complain, the district commander responds, “To say that I do not agree with the anonymous e-mail would be an understatement. The officers and officials in the Fourth District and throughout the Metropolitan Police Department do an outstanding job in responding to the needs of the community.” The commander responds with an invitation to residents to at-tend in-person resident meetings.

In District 5 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-5D/), there are 193 posts about fireworks. The residents discuss fireworks at length, often about legislation that might alleviate some of their concerns. They also use this forum as a place to request information. There are three threads about fire-works, and each of the three includes DC MPD participation. There is one participatory thread of a nonroutine nature. “Quick Response to Unit Block W” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-5D/message/895/) began with a commendation of DC MPD for high visibility and rapid response. This prompts complaints from other residents. DC MPD responds defensively:

The entire Fifth District along with the entire police department worked the entire New Year’s weekend. I would like to commend all my officers and officials for their dedication and the outstanding job that they did. 5D had additional staffing from Support Units not normally assigned to 5D. There were foot patrols in every neighborhood and safety compli-ance check points conducted throughout 5D, with a joint checkpoint conducted on North Capitol Street with the First District and the MPD


Traffic Safety Branch. We enforced gun violations and arrested 4 indi-viduals participating in the “listserv” described gun activity.

District 7 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-7D/) has 21 posts about fireworks. They are generally from residents requesting information from DC MPD. There are two threads about fireworks and both include DC MPD participation. There is one participatory, nonroutine thread, “Nuisance Prop-erty (500 Oakwood St) and Other Gripes” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-7D/message/1038/). It began with a resident complaint: “I am tired and fed up. If the police cannot or will not do anything I guess it is left up to us the residents.” DC MPD responds noting a desire not to address this in a public forum and asking the resident to call the MPD office.

FinDinGS AnD DiSCUSSion

We return to our original research questions. Has the DC MPD created an electronic commons with district residents? Again, to be a commons—a uni-verse of discourse, as Lohman (1992) called it—participation must be free and uncoerced, center on a common purpose, consist of people with something in common and be characterized by a sense of fairness and mutuality (Borkman, 1999; Hardin, 1968; Lohman, 1992). As noted previously, participation in the DC MPD online discussion groups is, indeed, free and uncoerced, centers on a common purpose, and consists of people with something in common. The question remains: Is the discussion characterized by a sense of fairness? Using Borkman’s (1999) understanding of fairness in a commons to be an absence of dominance by professionals (while also acknowledging a commons requires some participation by DC MPD), we operationalize this concept, for purposes of the quantitative analysis, as general, approximate balance. We answer with a qualified yes. Regarding conversational participation, we conclude that DC MPD is not dominating discussions from a quantitative perspective. This find-ing is a positive in that, by definition, a commons should have enough verbal space for all members to contribute.

Our second research question deals with the absence or presence of mu-tuality (which Borkman [1999] defined as reciprocal assistance) and the role of the DC MPD and the relationship between the DC MPD and residents participating in the online discussion groups. Our qualitative thread analysis provides much more nuance. Comparing some of the specific statements of the police officers to Borkman’s (1999) and McKnight’s (1995) typologies in Table 4, we find a mix of statements that characterize both the open-minded and close-minded professionals in Borkman’s typology and a mix of thera-peutic and community responses according to McKnight’s typologies. Thus, the level of mutuality varies by conversation.

The close-minded/therapeutic statements reflect the citation of regulations or simple facts. The officers provide information so they are not indifferent;


Tabl

e 4.

Evi

denc

e of

Pol

ice

Mut

ualit

y by

Typ

olog

y

Dis

tric

tPo

lice

offic

er s

tate

men

tR

oles

(B

orkm

an, 1

999)

Rel

atio

nshi

p

(McK

nigh

t, 19

95)

1“T

hank

s. 1

d ha

s th

e be

st o

ffice

rs a

nd th

ey m

ake

the

diff

eren

ce. W

e al

so h

ave

the

best

ci

tizen

s w

ho b

oth

supp

ort a

nd c

halle

nge

us to

do

our

best

and

sta

y in

volv

ed.”

(ht

tp://

grou

ps.y

ahoo

.com

/gro

up/M

PD-1

D/m

essa

ge/3

447/

)

Ope

n-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alC

omm

unity

Dis

cuss

ion

of 6

1D c

rim

inal

off

ense

(ht

tp://

grou

ps.y

ahoo

.com

/gro

up/M

PD-1

D/m

es-

sage

/352

8/)

Clo

se-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alT

hera

peut

ic

2N

o pa

rtic

ipat

ory,

non

rout

ine

thre

ads

nana

3Po

lice

offe

r in

form

atio

n on

loca

l ord

inan

ces

(http

://gr

oups

.yah

oo.c

om/g

roup

/MPD

-3d/

mes

sage

/322

5/)

Clo

se-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alT

hera

peut

ic

4“I

agr

ee w

ith y

ou c

old

[sic

] he

artil

y pl

ease

con

tinue

to c

all 3

11 o

r 91

1 as

the

prob

lem

ar

ises

.” (

http

://gr

oups

.yah

oo.c

om/g

roup

/MPD

-4D

/mes

sage

/340

4/)

Ope

n-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alC

omm

unity

“I h

ave

revi

ewed

the

calls

for

ser

vice

for

the

4th

of J

uly,

in p

artic

ular

thos

e ca

lls

deal

ing

with

fire

wor

ks c

ompl

aint

s. I

fou

nd th

at th

e vo

lum

e of

cal

ls f

or th

at d

ay w

as

60%

gre

ater

than

on

a ty

pica

l day

.” (

http

://gr

oups

.yah

oo.c

om/g

roup

/MPD

-4D

/mes

-sa

ge/3

361/

)

Ope

n-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alT

hera

peut

ic

“To

say

that

I d

o no

t agr

ee .

. . w

ould

be

an u

nder

stat

emen

t” b

ut th

en in

vite

s th

e re

si-

dent

s to

a m

eetin

g. (

http

://gr

oups

.yah

oo.c

om/g

roup

/MPD

-4D

/mes

sage

/335

6/)

Ope

n-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alC

omm

unity

“Wel

l put

and

I h

ope

God

kee

ps y

our

son

safe

.” (

http

://gr

oups

.yah

oo.c

om/g

roup

/MPD

-4D

/mes

sage

/335

6/)

Ope

n-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alC

omm

unity

5“T

he e

ntir

e Fi

fth

Dis

tric

t alo

ng w

ith th

e en

tire

polic

e de

part

men

t wor

ked

the

entir

e N

ew Y

ear’

s w

eeke

nd.”

(ht

tp://

grou

ps.y

ahoo

.com

/gro

up/M

PD-5

D/m

essa

ge/8

95/)

Clo

se-m

inde

d pr

ofes

sion

alT

hera

peut

ic

7A

sks

resi

dent

to c

all M

PD to

dis

cuss

on

the

phon

e. (

http

://gr

oups

.yah

oo.c

om/g

roup

/M

PD-7

D/m

essa

ge/1

038/

)O

pen-

min

ded

prof

essi

onal

The

rape

utic


similarly, the transaction itself conveys a therapeutic approach—at least the resident has not been ignored. Unfortunately, the information does not help solve the problem the resident is experiencing.

The open-minded/therapeutic statements reflect an engagement beyond a minimal transaction and make progress toward solving the problem in the future. For example, the provision of data in District 4 took extra work on the part of the commander to research the issue. That he or she was willing to research the issue demonstrates his or her open-mindedness. It also provides the residents with information that they could use in the future to help secure additional resources.

In contrast, the open-minded/community statements use facilitative lan-guage that suggests “we’re all in this together.” In District 1, the commander talks about having the best officers and the best citizens. In District 4, the commander agrees with the resident and asks the resident to help solve the problem by taking an action that the commander cannot. The commander also personally relates to a citizen. In all these instances, the commander uses language that connotes a sense of community and that goes beyond what is required in the transaction of the service.

Our qualitative analysis does not yield much evidence of police indiffer-ence. In District 1, DC MPD responded to 11 of 13 threads. In District 3, they responded to one of four threads. In all remaining districts studied here, police responded to every thread. We do not find a correlation between indifference (or nonresponse) and crime statistics. That is, Districts 2 and 7 represent the extremes in various crime statistics, with District 2 being generally lowest and District 7 being generally highest. Neither district includes any nonresponsive threads in the fireworks discussions.

District 4, which comes the closest to approximating an electronic com-mons in the fireworks discussion (see Table 4), has the third-largest popula-tion, is more than 75% nonwhite in each of its PSAs, and has less than 15% of its population below poverty in each PSA. It has the lowest property crime incidents and the second-lowest homicide and total violent crime incidents. Districts 3 and 5, both of which convey close-minded/therapeutic messages, are the second largest (District 3) and smallest (District 5) districts. District 3 has PSAs that are 30% to 84% nonwhite, while District 5 PSAs are each at least 82% nonwhite. Although District 3 has the most violent crime and has the second-most property crimes, its number of homicides (25 and 20) falls in the middle. District 5, on the other hand, falls in the middle on every crime statistic examined here. Districts 1 and 7, where the classifications are mixed, are the third- and second-smallest districts. District 1 PSAs are 22% to 71% nonwhite, and District 7 PSAs are 45% to over 99% nonwhite. Although District 1 has the most property crime and District 7 has the most homicides, they fall in the middle on their other crime statistics. Thus, within the discussions about fireworks, there is no clear pattern of mutuality by


population size, crime statistics, or demographic characteristics.Viewing DC MPD as a whole yields a mix of open-minded and close-

minded responses. Thus, while individual commanders may be character-ized as either open-minded or close-minded professionals engaging in either therapeutic or community-building relationships, the department as a whole is inconsistent. Some conversations reflect the mutuality associated with the commons, but others do not.

The substance and tone of the conversations on the electronic discussion groups do not reflect police dominance, and, in that sense, they support our quantitative finding of fairness. However, they are mixed in the level of coop-eration and collaboration associated with mutuality, the spirit of community policing, and, more generally, of a commons. Some conversations reflect and reinforce the professional–citizen/resident role relationship. In this relationship (close-minded/therapeutic), the police personnel—officers, commanders, and administrators—speak and interact in a way that causes them to appear to be distant, professional, implementers of the law and service providers, not as collaborators seeking to facilitate engagement of residents in the quality of life in their communities. However, these transactional interactions tend to begin with posts expressing resident hostility toward the police.

Residents often seem to begin with an assumption that the police are un-helpful, at best, and often shirking their responsibilities and even working at cross purposes to the needs of residents. They ridicule police performance, question competence, and attack the department. The residents ascribe to the police the responsibility for the identified problem rather than attempting to engage with them collaboratively. Many of the threads described here do not reveal residents in search of mutuality. The residents demand service (and they demand it now).

Fireworks are a mutual problem for police and residents. There are some signs that both sides want more than what they are creating. After all, DC MPD has made the space available, and personnel do participate without dominat-ing. And residents—in addition to wanting better service—also show evidence of a desire for talk; for process—for wanting to be told the truth even if it is something they do not want to hear, rather than simply service outcomes. Nevertheless, both DC MPD and residents fall short of consistent mutuality.

In light of this result, we find that the DC MPD’s online discussion groups, while not meeting their full potential, provide an opportunity for the kinds of interactions that could lead to the relationship-building necessary to support mutuality and the spirit of reciprocal cooperation—the police–citizen “co-productive behavior” (Pino, 2001, p. 200) that scholars of community policing hold to be the key to success (see also Allender, 2004; Cheurprakobkit, 2002; Colvin & Goh, 2006; Cordner, 1997) and that public administrators are seeking to improve the government–citizen relationship (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000, 2007; King & Stivers, 1998). Nevertheless, in the end, the online discussion


groups fall short of the “universe of discourse” to which Lohman (1992) refers as central to the commons.

ConCLUSion

DC MPD is at least attempting to create a space for engagement and discus-sion with residents as advocated by scholars in recent years (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007; King & Stivers, 1998; Nabatchi, 2010). Our quantitative analysis suggests that the DC MPD does not dominate the level of discus-sion and, therefore, fairness (as Borkman [1999] defined it) is present. But our qualitative analysis suggests that, while police do not dominate, they are inconsistent as the community-centered and open-minded professionals that McKnight (1995) and Borkman (1999), respectively, would want to see in a truly mutual relationship—that is, a relationship of reciprocal assistance. They, therefore, are only intermittently successful in using the discussion groups as a forum or site for building relationships supportive of community policing specifically or a commons more generally. On the other hand, residents also do not help the situation when they begin their posts with a tone of hostility and anger. This latter phenomenon relates, of course, to perceptions of authority, which then become reinforced by the police—and these narrow roles limit the possibilities for the relationship.

Despite these mixed conclusions, we look toward the future. Social media continue to represent enormous potential not only for using technology to do the same things more efficiently but also to do new things as well. Although a Pew study (Smith, 2010) noted that Americans interacting with government agencies in two-way communication report that they do not really experience government any differently, at this point very few Americans have the op-portunity to do so because governments and agencies have been hesitant and slow to adopt these ways of communicating (Ho, 2002; Kumar & Vragov, 2009; Scott, 2006). Thus, the DC MPD’s online discussion initiative represents an early attempt to use social media to engage with residents. Therefore, our study of the DC MPD case offers a rich opportunity to draw some lessons for the future—not only for the DC MPD but also for government agencies of all kinds and public administrators more generally.

With specific regard to the DC MPD online discussion groups—and to all police departments (indeed, government agencies generally) increas-ingly using social media—we find that to shift the dynamic, public admin-istrators must find ways to lessen their learned, intuitive reaction to respond to citizens from a basis of service provision alone and practice responding from a more facilitative basis. In particular, to approach Borkman’s (1999) understanding of the open-minded professional, and be able to relate in what McKnight (1995) would call a community-oriented relationship,


several prescriptions immediately come to mind and targeted at the kinds of training DC MPD receive. First, DC MPD (and public professionals generally) might learn to respond to residents with empathy (in addition to facts and service). That is, they might try to understand how and why residents act and react the way they do and demonstrate that understand-ing in the words they use. Second, DC MPD (and public professionals generally) might learn to become active listeners online. Specifically, they might learn to respond to questions not with seemingly definitive answers but with questions, drawing out the resident conversationally and thus taking a more facilitative approach.

Prescribing is much easier than implementing, of course, and further schol-arship may help to illuminate new and useful insights about how this might be accomplished. For example, we want to better understand what the police and the residents expect from the dialogues. After all, true expectations may differ from publicly announced expectations, and subsequent communication in online discussion groups may reflect initial expectations—or unfulfilled expectations. Or, it may well be that, regardless of the near uniformity of the emphases on cooperation and collaboration across district Web sites, the police and the residents have differing expectations for the discussion groups, which might account for the frustration of some of the residents. Similarly, we want to gain a better sense of whether the participants think the dialogues are productive and useful, and, perhaps more important, whether they expe-rience a sense of fairness and mutuality. Finally, although we may be in the rocky first stages of social media use by police department and government agencies, perhaps the continued and frequent discursive interactions between public administrators and residents (that no other venue can offer) will, over time, evolve into a universe of meaning that fulfills the spirit of a commons (Lohman, 1992).

In short, social media technology does not simply require new knowledge of the technology itself. As we seek to strengthen active citizenship, expand the commons, enhance public life, improve government–citizen relations, and thicken public deliberation (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000, 2007; King & Stivers, 1998; Nabatchi, 2010), we learn that communication tools create an avenue for new interactions between government and citizens, but the avenue is not sufficient to ensure that interactions occur differently. We require an understanding of how the technology creates expectations about roles and relationships that people bring to the technology, the nature of interactions that can occur, and the skills required to manage these expectations and facilitate interactions. We require that our focus remains on the substance and process of communicating—that is, on the ways in which our roles, and expectations about our roles, are embedded in communication—rather than be distracted by the technology.


noTE

1. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TakomaPark/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anc5adc/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nearnortheastcitizens/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TakomaDC/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chev-erly_Exchange/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ShawNeighborhood/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/takoma402/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shep-herdParkDC/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/neighborsindc/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4GNE/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nearnortheastcitizens/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bloomingdale/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anc1c06/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tenleytownCW/,http://groups.google.com/group/bloomingdaledc?lnk=srg, http://groups.google.com/group/cathedral-heights-dc-neighborhood-group?lnk=srg/.

REFEREnCES

Allender, D.M. (2004). Community policing: Exploring the philosophy. FBI law enforcement Bulletin, 73(3), 18–22. http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/mar2004/march2004.htm, accessed May 24, 2011.

Borkman, T. (1999). Understanding self-help/mutual aid: experiential learning and the commons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Brainard, L.A., & Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2006). Sovereignty under siege, or a cir-cuitous path for strengthening the state? Digital diasporas and human rights. International Journal of Public Administration, 29, 595–618.

Brainard, L., & McNutt, J. (2010). Government-citizen relations: Informational, transactional, or collaborative? Administration & society, 42, 836–858.

Brainard, L., & Siplon, P. (2004). Towards nonprofit organization reform in the voluntary spirit: Lessons from the Internet. nonprofit and voluntary sector Quarterly, 33, 435–457.

Cheurprakobkit, S. (2002). Community policing: Training, definitions and policy implications. Policing, 25, 709–725.

Colvin, C.A., & Goh, A. (2006). Elements underlying community policing: Validation of the construct. Police Practice and research, 7, 19–33.

Cordner, G.W. (1997). Community policing elements and effects. In R. Dunham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 45–68). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Denhardt, J.V., & Denhardt, R.B. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration review, 60, 549–559.

Denhardt, J.V., & Denhardt, R.B. (2007). The new public service: serving not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Glaser, B.G. (1976). experts versus laymen: A study of the patsy and the sub-contractor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Glaser, M., & Denhardt, J. (2010). Community policing and community building: A case study of officer perceptions. American review of Public Administration, 40, 309–325.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. science, 162, 1243–1248.Ho, A. T-K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government

initiative. Public Administration review, 62, 434–444.


King, C.S., & Stivers C. (Eds.) (1998). Government is us: Public administra-tion in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kumar, N., & Vragov, R. (2009). Active citizen participation using ICT tools. Communications of the ACM, 52, 118–121.

Lohman, R. (1992). The commons: new perspectives on nonprofit organiza-tions and voluntary action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits. New York: Basic Books.

Mehan, H. (1986). The role of language and the language of role in institutional decision making. In S. Fisher & A.D. Todd (Eds.), Discourse and institu-tional authority: Medicine, education, and law (pp. 140–163). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Moisan, A. (2005, May 16). Bringing down crime: Ward 4 residents’ intensive efforts produce results. Common Denominator. www.thecommondenomina-tor.com/051605_news1.html, accessed May 16, 2005.

Micciche, C. (2007, July 10). Re: If it’s not a priority, why not just tell us it’s not a priority. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-1D/message/3611/, ac-cessed May 2, 2011.

Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. American review of Public Administration, 40, 376–399.

Pino, NW. (2001). Community policing and social capital. Policing, 24(2), 200–215.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rifkin, W.D., & Martin, B. (1997). Negotiating expert status: Who gets taken seriously. Ieee Technology and society Magazine, 16, 30–39.

Santiago, M. (2007, June 30). Fireworks safety. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPD-3d/message/3225/, accessed May 24, 2011.

Scott, J.K. (2006). “E” the people: Do U.S. municipal government Web sites support public involvement? Public Administration review, 66, 341–353.

Smith, A. (2010). Government online: The Internet gives citizens new paths to government services and information. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx, accessed May 24, 2011.

Smith, Y. (2007, March). MPDC listserv subscribership continues to grow. http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,562082.asp, accessed September 13, 2007.

Starr, P. (2000, March 27–April 10). The electronic commons. American Prospect. www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_electronic_commons/, accessed February 17, 2011.

Lori A. Brainard, Ph.D., is an associate professor and director of the MPA program at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administra-tion, George Washington University, where she teaches public administration theory, the MPA capstone, and civic engagement. She also holds an affilia-


tion with the School of Media and Public Affairs. Her research focuses on the use of social media by citizens, grassroots organizations, and nonprofit organizations.

Teresa Derrick-Mills is a Ph.D. candidate in public policy and public adminis-tration at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, George Washington University. Her research focuses on program evaluation, performance management, the nexus of citizens, nonprofits, and government, administrative decision making, and child-care policy.

electronic commons, community policing, and communication

Documents