IPCT-L: A Discussion List of Scholars on the Internet

       Presentation made at the 1993 annual meeting of the
    Association for Educational Communications and Technology
              January 14, 1993, New Orleans LA, USA


                      Zane L. Berge, Ph.D.
                      Georgetown University

                        Mauri Collins, MA
                  Pennsylvania State University



     While there are many reasons for starting a scholarly

discussion group, today we are going to focus, from a listowner's

perspective, on the reasons for founding the Interpersonal

Computing and Technology List, (IPCT-L@GUVM).  We will also share

some of the decisions that needed to be made before going online,

how this list was marketed, the role of the moderators and some

of the benefits obtained through the creation of the IPCT-L

Editorial Policy.  First, let's see how this activity fits the

overall goals at the host institution.

     In January 1992, Dr. Zane Berge was hired by Georgetown

University to direct the Center for Teaching and Technology (CTT)

at the Academic Computer Center.  Simply stated, the mission of

the Center is to promote the integration of computers and other

instructional technology into the higher education classroom.

Part of that vision includes tapping the expertise available from

scholars around the United States and the world, to discuss their

common interests, to learn from one another, to share their

expertise and to pool their experience toward the solution of

common problems.

     One idea that was discussed was that a scholarly, peer-

reviewed journal could be a valuable part of promoting the

mission of the CTT.  Further discussion determined that an

electronic journal distribution might be the most immediate and

practical way of implementing this goal, provided some market

research was done to gain confidence that such a journal would

find a readership.  It made some sense that a scholarly

discussion group (SDG) would help in finding an editorial board,

potential contributors, and subscribers.

     Berge's vision for the list is reflected in its name:

Interpersonal Computing and Technology List. The decade of the

80s brought the proliferation of the personal computer and an

emphasis on individual productivity.  Computer assisted

instruction (CAI) was delivered to one person at a time sitting

at one machine.  He saw a need and a value in students and

teachers working collaboratively, and the possibilities inherent

in computers, educational technology and networks in tying

persons together throughout the world, sharing ideas and solving

problems.

     There are many reasons to start a LISTSERV discussion group.

Two important ones are to provide a forum for scholarly

discussion regarding issues of mutual concern, and to bring

intellects together regardless of time constraints or distances.

LISTSERV discussion groups have been characterized in many

different ways.  They have been likened to having a newspaper

subscription or listening to talk radio, in that many people read

or listen and only a very few chose to write to the editor or to

call in.  Those who choose to participate often do so frequently.

     Discussion groups appear to be like a cocktail party, with

many different conversations proceeding at the same time.  A

newcomer can wander around and listen, perhaps find something

that interests them and join in, introduce a new topic if nothing

sounds interesting, or leave if bored or offended.  Any of these

options can be exercised from the privacy of their own computer.

     The goals and purposes of IPCT-L at its founding in February

1992 were (taken from the NEWLIST announcement):

A special effort will be made to promote an international forum
for pedagogical issues important to higher education involving
teaching with technology, and especially with connectivity and
networking.

A goal is to create a forum for the discussion of computing and
other technology that can be used to promote learning. Topics for
discussion may involve teaching and training; collaboration;
partnerships among learners, faculty or teachers, and other
interested persons in the educational community; and research
that reflect these interests.

Besides creating a forum for the topics of interest noted above,
another interest of the CTT is to publish a scholarly, refereed
international journal. To that end, the IPCT-L will develop a
subscription list and act as a resource to develop the community
necessary to review articles and recommend editorial policies as
these publishing goals move forward.


     Once the decision was made to implement the list, Berge took

the efficient way to finding out how to set one up. Instead of

consulting the reams of online documentation provided by

LISTSERV, he read Diane Kovac's excellent article "How to Start

and Manage a BITnet LISTSERV Discussion Group: A Beginner's

Guide," and he also found someone at his site who was already

running a list and he asked.

     Eric Thomas' LISTSERV software is written for IBM

mainframes, so Berge needed to find such a system close by,

because he'd been told that frequent consultations with the

system's operators were often necessary while setting up and

testing a list.  GUVM, Georgetown's own IBM, had the right

software, space to install the list and space for archiving

messages and files.  Berge was told by the Postmaster that an

account could be set up, and that he would be sent the list

header.

     The actual discussion list file on the mainframe consists of

a header and a list of subscribers.  When a message is received

by LISTSERV, the program checks the header to determine what

should be done with the incoming message.  Following is the

current header (with most of the names deleted):


                          IPCT-L HEADER
                         January 4, 1993


*
*   Interpersonal Computing and Technology
*
*   Review= Public     Subscription= Open       Send= Editor
*   Notify= Yes        Reply-to= List,Respect   Files= No
*   Confidential= No   Validate= Store only     X-Tags= Yes
*   Stats= Normal,Public
*   Notebook=Yes,A,Weekly,Public
*   Mail-via= Distribute
*   Ack= No            Formcheck= No
*   Owner= IPCT@GUVAX (IPCT-L Georgetown University)
*   Owner= IPCT@WILBUR.PSU.EDU (mauri collins)
*   Editor=IPCT@GUVAX (IPCT-L Georgetown University)
*   Editor=IPCT@WILBUR.PSU.EDU (mauri collins)
*   Language= English
*   Errors-To= IPCT@GUVAX
*
com072@ABERDEEN.AC.UK                    john maccoll
opt018@ABERDEEN.AC.UK                    Ying-Feng D. CHENG
...
...
...

COOL@ZODIAC.RUTGERS.EDU                  colleen cool
ZYDNEY@ZODIAC.RUTGERS.EDU                Sharon Zydney
*
* Total number of "concealed" subscribers:         6
* Total number of users subscribed to the list:  971  (non-
"concealed" only)
* Total number of local node users on the list:    1  (non-
"concealed" only)
*



     Receipt of the header invoked a set of decisions.

Subscription and cancellation were to be open, so subscribers

could come and go from the list themselves.  Messages were to be

archived monthly, (but since volume is relatively high, that has

been change to weekly).  "Public" means anyone can post to the

list, review the subscription list, and retrieve files from

LISTSERV.  Berge listed himself as listowner, a technical term

that gave him the permission necessary to perform certain

functions, like retrieving the list header and making changes.

He also wrote himself in as editor to receive all incoming mail

except adding and deleting subscribers that Listserv could deal

with by itself. The "REPLY TO" was set to send responses back to

the list, rather than to the original poster.  This tended to

make for lot of notes going to the list, some of which were

rescued and returned by the moderator as obviously intended

private correspondence.

     One of the most critical decisions to be made is whether or

not to moderate the list.  Moderation takes time--sometimes a lot

of time.  Additionally, moderators often have to take a lot of

static from listmembers who don't like the moderator's decisions.

However, Berge saw part of the moderator's role as keeping the

discussion within the boundaries of the list's purpose, and to

keep the discussion scholarly and civil.  Ideas, logic, and

statements are fair game, but personal attacks on other

subscribers or any other persons are returned to sender to be

redistributed privately (or preferably not at all).

     Following the accepted procedure for setting up new lists,

Berge posted an announcement to NEWLISTS@ndsuvm1.  This action is

designed for input on the formation of new groups and to help

determination if the proposed group is a duplication of another

list.  When the discussion period was over, Berge distributed his

announcement to a number of different lists and invited

subscriptions.  (For example, Collins received hers from a

librarian friend at Dartmouth College and subscribed on February

27, 1992.)

     The list started out as a high volume list (approximately

16-20 posts per day), and rapidly took on a life of its own.  The

list initially consumed 12-14 hours a day of Berge's time.  Much

of this time was taken up with administrative matters , (e.g.,

handling mail that had been returned because the addresses were

incorrect or because machines were down somewhere).  He developed

a format style, after some initial difficulties, where the

listname appears in the From: line that shows in most people's

mail readers, and with the sender's e-mail address in the first

line of the body of the text.  This makes IPCT-L messages highly

visible.  More of his time was spent writing and replying to

people who did not appreciate being 'moderated' and who

complained of censorship.

     Berge also spent hours agonizing over what should and should

not be posted to keep the list within the guidelines of his

original ideas about topics.  It became apparent that not

everyone was reading the list announcement as for an educational

technology discussion group, and the boundaries of the list topic

was the subject of one of the earliest discussions.  Collins, and

apparently many others, were drawn to the list through their

interest in Computer Mediated Communication, and the list has

always featured a strong contingent of communications scholars,

despite Berge's vision of a list mainly for instructional

designers and educational technologists.

     Collins became co-owner and co-moderator of the list when

Berge had to go to Oxford for a 10 day conference.  Berge and

Collins had chatted briefly and he had mentioned that he needed a

graduate student to handle things while he was away.  By the time

Collins took over, the list had "settled" considerable, and she

worked on it an average of perhaps 5 hours a day.  Here again,

this was mostly agonizing over what was to go the list.

     At the behest of one of our subscribers, when Berge came

back from Oxford the two moderators started discussing the

development of a written editorial policy.  Their primary

motivation was to write something as guide lines for themselves

to ensure some consistency and to have a document to refer to

when their decisions were questioned.  A search turned up very

few lists with formal written policies and the moderators decided

to try to write one that would serve as model for others, as well

as giving themselves a reference to help keep their moderating

consistent.  The present document incorporates the best features

of the editorial policies that were found and much that was

written specifically for IPCT-L.

     The editorial policy is sent to all new subscribers, is

archived on LISTSERV@GUVM.GEORGETOWN.EDU, and is posted to the

list occasionally as a reminder (and especially if there is a

significant change in one or more of the editorial policies).

The policy is subject to constant review, by both moderators and

list members.  There are sections that have proved to be very

stable, and there are those that have been subject to several

revisions (e.g., the policies on copyright and cross-postings).

     Messages sent to the IPCT-L mailbox for posting are either

posted "as is" if they meet the editorial guidelines, or returned

to the original author.  When the moderators return postings they

generally cite the relevant portion of the editorial policy.

While that does not cure every problem, it does go a

long way to reassure list members that the moderators are

following an established policy and not just being capricious or

arbitrary.

     Some people believe that the networks are the last bastion

of unrestricted freedom of speech, and that they can say anything

they like to anyone, anywhere, anytime.  That just is not so,

especially where there is a possibility of the administration at

the host site being embroiled in lawsuits, (and list moderator's

losing their jobs!)

                ---------------------------------


     Scholarly discussion groups, and particularly moderated

SDGs, have advantages/benefits for the subscribers, and

potentially a few disadvantages, too.  The benefits include: 1)

nominal cost to participants, 2) the opportunity to find like-

minded individuals or groups of people (i.e., kindred spirits),

3) opportunities for (sometime never-imagined) professional

growth and development, 4) convenience of time and space

independence, 5) opportunity to participate in a group process

only on topics that the individual feels qualified to discuss

(i.e., "lurking" is permitted/encouraged), and 6) the fact that

CMC is often the "great equalizer" concerning such issues as

gender, physical impairments, and ethnicity.  Two potential

disadvantages to users of moderated SDGs are: 1) the possibility

of censorship and 2) no standardized etiquette or ethics.

     As with scholars in general, there have been expected and

unexpected benefits deriving directly from IPCT-L for the list

owners.  As an example of each, let us mention a book that the

IPCT-L moderators are editing, "Computer-Mediated Communications

and the Online Classroom," and the "Interpersonal Computing and

Technology Journal."  Both had their genesis on IPCT-L--one

planned and one very serendipitously.

     During a list discussion of the difficulty of documenting to

university administrators the values of electronic mail and list

discussion groups, a subscriber suggested that a book be written

to document the positive uses to which computer mediated

communication was being put in the classroom.  The contributor

also suggested that Berge and Collins edit the book.  A call for

chapters, broadcast over a variety of LISTSERV lists, brought

over 90 submissions of abstracts, which were winnowed down to 35.

A table of contents was drawn up and a contract received from the

publisher.

     The editors decided to set up a private LISTSERV group for

the book, so that they could distribute information and reminders

to the authors and so that authors could talk with each other and

with the editors.  The only way to join this list is for the

listowner to add the request for subscription, (thus allowing for

ONLY authors and editors to be included).  It has proved very

helpful and a very fast way of disseminating announcements and

copies of chapters that everyone needs for reference.   Authors

have been able to ask questions and other authors have responded,

(and once in a while the editors have been able to post a

definitive answer!).

     Lists like CMCBOOK have a very restricted membership and are

task-oriented, unlike many of the lists which are there for

general discussion revolving around a (sometimes) specific topic,

or subset of topics.  Moderating a task-oriented group more

closely resembles the roles taken on by a moderator in a face-to-

face group where process toward consensus and completion is

facilitated.

     One of the goals in originally founding IPCT-L was to

develop the human resources necessary to create a peer-reviewed,

electronic journal.  This has been accomplished, with an

editorial board, subscribers and contributions all solicited via

the network.  The first issue will be published later this month,

(almost one year from the original notion).  Each issue will be

announced by a posting to IPCT-L of a table of contents, which

will also give the instructions for retrieving the articles that

comprise the IPCT-J@GUVM.GEORGETOWN.EDU.  This announcement will

be sent to all subscribers.  Mainly for libraries, the

Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal will have its own

LISTSERV subscription group--and it will be for the dissemination

of the journal only, not for discussion.



SUMMARY

     Scholarly discussion groups (SDG) in general can be likened

to at least four types of group gatherings: 1) a library where

one gathers information, listens, and thinks, 2) a seminar,

meeting, conference, or salon where ideas and findings are

discussed informally with colleagues and where "new" thinking

might be found, 3) a room full of people in which dinner

conversation is appropriate, and 4) as a newspaper subscription

where "lurking" is allowed or even encouraged--where one is

allowed "the pleasure of watching minds at work. . . sitting at

the feet of others," as Carol Love stated in a post to ITED-

L@DEAKIN recently.

     If a SDG is moderated, the role of the moderator can take on

any or all of the following functions:

     1) a facilitator who keeps the group focused and serves as a

          group leader, promoter of useful discussion, helper and

          "firefighter" (squelching "flames"),

     2) an administrator who helps with such things as technical

          problems and archiving files, and may market the list,

     3) a filter that selects appropriate posts to the list and

          helps to keep the signal to noise level high,

     4) an expert who evaluates the accuracy of contributions and

          answers frequently asked questions (FAQ),

     5) an editor who edits text, may digest and otherwise format

          the posts, or who requests the author to modify a

          contribution before posting, and

     6) a participant who acts just like everyone else who

          subscribes.

     The moderators of IPCT-L describe their major functions as

facilitators, administrators and filters--and not (in almost all

cases) as experts, editors or participants.

     If you are thinking of starting a listserv list, the hope is

that these documents are helpful in your process.  Even if you

have no need to start a discussion group at the present time,

this may move your thinking along concerning the benefits and

some obstacles that list owners, moderators and coordinators face

daily.