1) The study examines the collaborative aspirations and barriers to collaboration among sustainable development civil society organizations in Costa Rica through interviews and surveys with 36 participants. 2) Key results found the main collaborative aspirations were sharing resources, making a broader impact, and addressing sustainable development through information sharing. 3) The largest reported barriers to collaboration were lack of infrastructure and financial resources to maintain relationships. 4) Limitations to the study include only examining one country with a small number of participants.

1. Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

2. National Communication Association
Panel: Explorations of Culture and Identity in Online COMMunities
“We are small, but united we can go far”
Online Collaboration among Costa Rican Sustainable
Development Civil Society Organizations
Presented by: Ari Sahagún
sahagun2@illinois.edu
Coauthor: Michelle Shumate
shumate@northwestern.edu

3. What explains the differences among civil
society organizations’ reported levels of
collaboration among organizations in the global
north and global south?
(Shumate & Dewitt, 2008; Shumate, Fulk, Monge, 2005; Smith, 2005)
Can online tools foster collective impact?
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

4. Theoretical Framework
Drawing on digital divide research (see Norris, 2001
for a review), adaptive structuration theory
(DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), and collective action
theory (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2005; Lupia & Sin, 2003;
Olson, 1965), the current study examines the
collaborative aspirations of sustainable
development civil society organizations in Costa
Rica as a case.
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

5. Collaborative Aspirations
RQ1: What are the collaborative aspirations of
civil society leaders in Costa Rica?
RQ2: What barriers prevent collaboration
among civil society organizations in Costa Rica?
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

6. Digital Divides
RQ2a: How do differences in access to Internet
technology influence the use of technology for
collaboration?
RQ2b: How do differences in knowledge and skill levels
influence use of technology for collaboration among
sustainable development civil society leaders?
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

7. Technology Appropriation
RQ3: What interpretations of technology inhibit
civil society organizations’ use of technology for
collaboration?
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

8. Methods
• Case Background: Costa Rica
• Participants: N = 36
• Procedures: interviews and surveys
• Analysis: integrated blending design with
mixed methods (Greene, 2007)
o Translated, transcribed
o Open then axial coded (Saldaña, 2009)
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

9. Results (RQ1)
Collaborative Aspirations
a) sharing resources
b) making a broader impact, and
c) addressing sustainable development by
sharing information among expert
organizations that specialize
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

10. Results (RQ2)
Barriers to Collaboration
N M SD
Lack of adequate infrastructure to maintain collaborative 34 3.53 1.398
relationships
Financial resources to create and maintain collaborations 35 3.51 1.245
Significant differences between the operating systems of 34 3.06 1.179
potential partners
Lack of system to connect to potential partners 34 2.94 1.369
Lack of having good models of collaborative endeavors 35 2.94 0.968
Obstacles to collaboration, ranked from largest to smallest mean value of reported score. N is number of
organizations that answered the question, numbers lower than 36 represent missing data.
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

11. Results (RQ2a)
First-level digital divide
• Several organizations reported that they
struggled with access to the Internet (n = 3),
Internet with satisfactory speed (n = 3), or up-to-
date equipment (n = 6).
• One third of organizations (12 of 36)
“The vast majority of [Indians] have too many
limitations to access information for their education
and life, and I think this is a very important tool.”
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

12. Results (RQ2b)
Second-level digital divide
• Urban/rural divide
“I'm not up to date on Internet, like I mentioned
we only know the basics enough to get us
around”
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

13. Results (RQ3)
Technology interpretations
• Costs of including technology in organizational
activities.
– Relatedly, technology was seen as creating “a sea
of information” (n = 4).
“It’s hard to discriminate which information is good,
well one has to read enough to know what’s useful and
what’s not. So, it has become a warehouse of
information, almost uncontrollable, sometimes
regardless of quality…There's no time to read much,
much of anything.”
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

14. Results (RQ3)
Technology interpretations
• A smaller number of participants suggested
that technology was a threat to their person
or group (n = 4).
“I want to be able to click on a link without being
invaded with all of these things during the day..., it's
very annoying. There really are some networks that
invade at all times. They invade your web space, your
space.”
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion

15. Discussion
• Limitations
– Case: one country, small number
– Next steps
• Bigger picture: part of an ongoing
participatory action research project
• Conclusions
Introduction Lit Review Methods Results Discussion