I would like to focus on the survey results; mainly, because Pew Internet surveyed 26 different kinds of groups with members being both diverse and participates in new technology. “68% of all Americans (internet users and non‐users alike) said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to communicate with members. Some 75% of internet users said that.”(Rainie, Purcell & Smith 2011) It is interesting because how were they communicating before the internet became more widespread? While reading the research I came to the realization that the internet is affecting how people participate and communicate within groups. Everyone uses the internet voluntarily but some peoples’ dependency makes it into an involuntarily addiction. The research gathered how internet groups achieve their objectives, “55% of active group members say they were in a group that provided emotional support to someone in need; 32% of active group members say that the internet played a role in accomplishing this goal.” (Rainie, Purcell & Smith 2011) I agree 100% because I belong to a weight loss group and we are always there to comfort someone and a lot of our group members have achieved their weight loss/lifestyle goals.

Civil engagement is linked closely with social capital, because people who communicating online might crossover into being sociable friends in reality. Being that people are really busy meeting people online is the most convenient way to meet people and build strong friendship bonds.

As students at an institution composed largely of traditional undergraduate students, it doesn’t come as a surprise to learn that the internet and social media are integral pieces of community involvement. Student organizations rely on social media for internal and external communication as much as, if not more than, civic organizations not affiliated with the University. So, most of us don’t need to be convinced that these tools are important for community engagement. However, it would be wise for us to pay attention to what our readings this week have to say about howpeople use social media within community organizations. To me, the most interesting static was the one which alluded to how we select leaders. In the Rainie, Purcell, and Smith study, the researchers found that only 35% of Americans feel the internet has a notable impact on this process. “”Finding people to take leadership roles” is the activity for which the internet is viewed as having the smallest impact,” they say. “…35% of Americans feel that the internet has a “major impact” on this aspect of group dynamics, a figure that is notably smaller than the other group impacts we evaluated.” This tells us a lot about how the internet is affecting group life and voluntary participation in the U.S. by showing where the internet falls short. Most of us still feel that the internet alone does not serve as a reliable resource for discerning who should lead. Perhaps as the worlds of television and internet media continue to converge, this sentiment will change. For now, perhaps this tells us that many feel the internet is still too impersonal and fluid to function alone in making these important decisions.

The internet allows people to connect and participate in many groups that are devoted to civic issues, such as social or religious groups. There are literally tons of different groups to become involved with, from religious organizations to volunteer groups to community awareness clubs. The great thing about using the internet as a tool is that it allows for a wide range of different people to participate. I didn’t find this study to be very surprising, because I do notice that more of my personal social group uses the internet to participate in various civic groups. A lot of my friends are runners, so they use different marathons’ facebook pages or twitter feeds (such as LuvMud or NashVegas) to sign up for the run or stay connected to other runners. Quite a few of my friends are involved in charitable organizations, and they use the social media pages for these groups to post information and organize different things in the city. The power of the internet is that it can deliver information to a large number of different people, very quickly, which is great for civic groups as well individuals in need!
Obviously, social capital is directly linked with civil engagement. When a person is actively involved in a civic organization’s social network site, they can form new bonds with the other members. Generally there is crossover from the online site to real life, so many members do have a real world connection to each other. Plus, there is a level of support and consideration for each other that exists within these groups. There are actual connections being made, and its more likely that real friendships will arise.

The readings for this weeks lesson described more about civic engagement and how people are becoming more and more involved in the technology standpoint. Interacting via internet gives us opportunities to become involvved with society as a whole and not just what goes on in our own communities. I really hate to bring up the topic about the bombing that happened in Boston, but think about how fast and viral the news went out to the public as soon as it happened. Becoming social on the internet helps us out a lot whether people realize the convenience of it or not. There are a lot of issues we face as well in internet communication such as cyber bullying and images or converstaions we would not want our children to see or participate in. As new technology always arises pretty much every year, we can see that there is going to be exponential growth in internet communication. All the things that we use on a daily basis such as cell phones, computers, and tablets are just the beginning. I really do believe there will be something new and amazing that hits us and social networking will probably be the only way people will communicate. Civic engagement helps us to understand and participate in group chats and learning about things we may have never known about. There will be a lot of opportunities that will come about for new and upcoming ways to socialize.

The internet makes it easier for groups to share information and also find other groups with similar interests (Rainie, Purcell and Smith). Another way the internet can benefit groups is that it allows attention to be drawn to a certain issue. The internet also allows groups to have a huge impact on a broader range of people. The internet also makes it easier for people to donate money to groups and also for the groups to keep their funding and events organized without having a filing cabinet full of different paper work. Another benefit the internet has had on groups is that it allows for groups to show their activities and also iniate them. The greatest benefit that I saw from the study was how group members can go online for news and information about their group. The internet is a fast way to let the members know what is going on and also when the next meeting is going to take place. From what I have read, the internet has had all positive effects on groups.

The internet provides an avenue of communication regardless where you are located. It allows information access to be at our finger tips. This week research showed that people who interact in groups over the internet are more civil.  Rainie, Purcell and Smith (2011) study provided a breakdown how different people based on gender, race and sex all fit into different groups. Jansen’s study focused on how people different who use technology fit into the religious groups. Both articles discuss the positive effects of coming together in a group to bring about a change and good within communities.

Civic engagement relates to social capital because the development and participation within group over the internet will bridge and bond people together. It allows people to connect with new people and come together for the great good.  The articles informed this week that people are more likely to be involved or at least have access to more than one group therefore they have the ability to engage in civic networking. Facebook, Twitter and other SNS sites are just the start of where positive things can be posted. For example different church groups or groups in general can post community service events and although someone may not be a part of the group because they have access it would give them the option to take part in making someone else happy or just being civil. There for if bridging and bonding where to occur as a domino effect over the internet we would hear about more good things happening in communities instead of all the negative.

We have repeatedly discussed in this class that people are always yearning to communicate and connect, and the internet aids this desire.  CMC has the power to promote engagement and participation.  It makes it easier to congregate online and enables us to be more effective in our groups.  The internet provides an accessible forum where groups can communicate, connect, draw attention to an issue, organize activities, and impact local communities and society (Rainie, et al, p. 31). It can also lead to connection offline, encouraging increased participation in the real world.

The formation of online groups is affecting our voluntary participation. It is easier to find groups and congregate in groups we are interested in following and joining. We can choose to participate from numerous options of our own interest, where we might be more likely to engage in relevant activities. This choice was made clear in involvement among the variety of age groups, genders, races, and socio-economic classes.  Different groups cater to different people.  The important factor is that people across the board are becoming more engaged, and they are able to watch the issues they care about and have the ability to converse in a positive environment that calls for more substantial dialogue.  Involvement can affect perceptions, such as an increased sense of trust and faith in the ability to make a difference (Rainie et al, 13).

Many of the same qualities of social capital we discussed were crucial for online communities:  emotional and social support, raising money or awareness (Rainie, et al, p 35).  Internet groups provide us with the option of becoming more engaged with our society. If we are so inclined, we can connect to groups of our liking that provide the possibility of making an impact on society.   The involvement with the group can foster a relationship with the community, bonding with those who have similar concerns. People often stay involved because they believe in the groups’ goals and can make a difference. (Rainie,et, 19) As more people stay involved, this leads to a greater potential for social capital, providing a wider the pool of resources.

Both readings from Pew Internet studies reinforce the idea that civil engagement follows other communication theory:  connected nodes attract more nodes. As a person involved in their church is more likely to be recruited by someone to volunteer or participate with another organization where they will meet more people who will recruit the, and so on and so on. Basically, the more connections you have, the easier it is to make other connections. Social capital then translates into civic engagement. People involved in church groups may be more willing to be involved in organizations in general, but they also have more exposure to outside activities through organizations their church partners with or individuals they meet at church. Think of it as a more benevolent pyramid scheme.

Internet enabled devices and social media add a layer of connectedness between the individuals and the organizations. I’ve been prompted many times to attend and event by a Facebook invite or tweet to attend an event. The studies also showed that young people are more likely to use social media and be involved in more than one group. While I do believe the internet plays a role in this, I think other factors in play as well. Church members are more likely to have families which explains their involvement with sports groups and young people have more free time (no families/kids yet) to be involved with organizations.

Lastly, the graduate reading on the topic of political discussions in online forums confirmed what I’ve already suspected. Political groups online are likely to have a homogeneous group, at least in their political views, so not much constructive or bridging discourse takes place in these environments. However, take a look at the comments sections of CNN or the Commercial Appeal and its like I’m paying 1000 political correspondents to give me their opinion. Political discussions take place in everyday lives, in almost every situation, so it correlates that these discussions would take place online outside of political forums.

People are becoming more and more involved in voluntary group participation and it is something that is growing. Civic engagement is related to social capital because people join groups for many different reasons. It allows them to accomplish their goals, organize activities, communicate with others, meet new people, etc. The people who join groups for religious purposes is one of the biggest, then following sports related groups, and consumers. Civic engagement and social capital relate when, for example, in support groups people give advice and help other people. At the same time they get something out of it, a personal satisfaction.

Engagement in groups was dominated by women, and what I found interesting was that it was dominated by older adults. This is probably because older adults are more likely the ones joining religious groups and consumer groups. Younger users are more likely to be part of gaming groups. There seems to be a group for everything and I do not see it slowing down any time soon.

             Online communities, SNSs, and other forms of group sites have become major aspects of life for numerous Americans. According to the findings of Rainie, Purcell, and Smith, it has become “deeply embedded in group and organizational life” in theU.S.A.These three individuals came to the conclusion that up to 80% of internet users participate in online groups. However, these blogging sites are not restricted to the internet, as Rainie, Purcell, and Smith found out that 56% of non-internet users also partake in SNSs and online communities. This much communication with each other allows for the site members to trust one another with their lives, even though they may never meet each other face-to-face. As a result, the online counts of voluntary participation and group life have climbed tremendously over the course of a few years.

            Civic engagement is very similar to social capital. This is because people who join civic sites have mixed reasons or purposes as to why they join, much like when people join online communities like Facebook or Twitter.  For example, as Jansen stated in his findings, Americans that participate in online religious groups are usually more involved with their online groups and in their communities. It’s almost like they’re trying to set an example for other site members to follow. With common morality at an all-time low, following examples that church groups have set would probably be a wise decision.