eModerators.com - The Founding of IPCT-L

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ####### ######## ######## ########### ### ### ## ### ## # ### # Interpersonal Computing and ### ### ## ### ## ### Technology: ### ### ## ### ### An Electronic Journal for ### ######## ### ### the 21st Century ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ## ### ISSN: 1064-4326 ### ### ### ## ### April, 1993 ####### ### ######## ### Volume 1, Number 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC Additional support provided by the Center for Academic Computing, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 This article is archived as BERGE IPCTV1N2 on LISTSERV@GUVM (LISTSERV@GUVM.GEORGETOWN.EDU) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Founding and Managing of IPCT-L: A Listowners' Perspective (Note 1) Zane L. Berge, Ph.D. Georgetown University Mauri Collins, MA Pennsylvania State University While there are many reasons for starting a scholarly discussion group, we will 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 of 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. Berge 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 can appear to be like a cocktail party, with many different conversations proceeding at the same time. Newcomers 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 set about the task of finding out how to set one up. Instead of consulting the reams of online documentation provided with the LISTSERV software, he read Diane Kovac's excellent article "How to Start and Manage a BITnet LISTSERV Discussion Group: A Beginner's Guide," (Note 2), and he also found someone at his site who was already running a list and he asked. The LISTSERV software, written by Eric Thomas, runs only on IBM mainframes. Because Berge had been told that frequent consultations with the system's operators were often necessary while setting up and testing (i.e., debugging) a list, he needed to find such a system close by his site. 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 the list of over 950 subscribers 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@CAC.PSU.EDU (mauri collins) * Editor=IPCT@GUVAX (IPCT-L Georgetown University) * Editor=IPCT@CAC.PSU.EDU (mauri collins) * Language= English * Errors-To= IPCT@GUVAX * . . (subscriber's list deleted) * * 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 changed to weekly archiving). "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. In general, this action is designed for input on the formation of new groups and to help determine if the proposed group is a duplication of another list. Subscribers to NEWLISTS often send comments about the proposed new list to the listowner. These comments sometimes include lists that, in the readers mind, duplicate or are similar to the proposed list. Given that type feedback, it is useful for the newlist listowner to explore the "conflicting" list(s), and consider the focus of the newlist. When this discussion period was over, (usually lasting a week or two), 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 interpreting the announcement as introducing a list for the discussion of the reasons and purposes for using educational technology. The topic area of the list 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, (Note 3) 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. The number of postings per day varies greatly. It averages about 10 per day, but that can be one or two some days, and 20 on others. Much of this depends upon whether a topic "thread" that is started is controversial and generates a lot of discussion; or the time of year, (e.g., volume decreases when many universities are on holiday); or communications links are temporarily down; and other factors. 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 is just not so, especially where there is a possibility for the administration at the host site to be embroiled in lawsuits, (and for list moderators to lose 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. Some potential disadvantages to users of moderated SDGs are: 1) the possibility of censorship; 2) no standardized etiquette or ethics and 3) a time lag between initiation and posting of messages. As with participating in scholarship generally, there have been expected and unexpected benefits deriving directly from IPCT-L for the list owners. As an example of each, let us mention book series 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 serendipitous. 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 was published in January 1993, (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 Journal. This announcement will be sent to all subscribers, currently numbering about one thousand and fifty. Additionally, there is a much smaller list (approximately one hundred), mainly for libraries, that disseminates the journal only, and does not support 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 roomful 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, 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, we would recommend you follow a similar process as described here. The moderators of IPCT-L have written a how-to (Note 4) that focuses on many of the issues an prospective list-owner/moderator faces and must deal with. This is archived on LISTSERV@GUVM, along with the most recent copy of the list's editorial policy. Retrieval instructions appear after the notes at the end of this paper, as does instructions on how to subscribe to IPCT-L. Our hope is that these documents will be 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. ---------------- Note 1: A version of this paper was first presented at the 1993 annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology January 14, 1993, New Orleans LA, USA Note 2: Kovacs, Diane, Willard McCarty, and Michael Kovacs. "How to Start and Manage a BITNET LISTSERV Discussion Group: A Beginner's Guide." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991): 128-143. Archived at LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 as KOVACS PRV2N1 (Internet address Listserv@uhupvm1 uh.edu) Note 3: The IPCT-L Editorial Policy is archived at LISTSERV@GUVM as EDPOLICY ASC (Internet address listserv@guvm.georgetown.edu) Note 4: Collins Mauri (1993) "So You Want To Start a LISTSERV Group". Handout prepared for presentation at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, January 14, 1993, New Orleans, LA, USA. Archived at LISTSERV@GUVM as HOWTODG ASC To retrieve any of the above: To retrieve an archived article, send an interactive message to LISTSERV@ saying GET

. Adding F=MAIL will bring it to you as a mail message. From internet addresses send a message in the following form: To: listserv@uhupvm1.uh.edu ---------------- get kovacs prv2n1 (LISTSERV is not case-sensitive) TO SUBSCRIBE TO IPCT-L Send an interactive message to LISTSERV@GUVM saying SUB IPCT-L YOUR NAME or, from internet addresses send a message in the following form, substituting your own name for yourfirstname yourlastname : To: listserv@guvm.georgetown.edu --------------- subscribe ipct-l yourfirstname yourlastname --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Zane Berge received his Ph.D in Instructional Systems Development from Michigan State University and is currently Assistant Director for Training, and Director for the Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC BERGE@guvax.georgetown.edu Mauri Collins earned a BA and MA in Sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where she managed the Faculty Development Center. She is currently a doctoral student in instructional systems at the Pennsylvania State University. mauri@cac.psu.edu Berge and Collins are currently editing three books on Computer Mediated Communications and have made several conference presentations. Their research interests include online group communication (e.g., computer conferencing) in higher education and the role of moderators in scholarly discussion groups. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century Copyright 1993 Georgetown University. Copyright of individual articles in this publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by Georgetown University. It is asked that any republication of this article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J.

Berge Collins Associates
zberge@emoderators.com		mauri@emoderators.com
September 9, 2006