Nonprofits are increasingly significant to public administration. The field also is confronting the Internet. In examining health-based nonprofits, the authors ask: How are traditional nonprofits and newer radical groups using the Internet? What is the relationship between these two types of groups? Traditional groups use the Internet for organizational maintenance whereas newer groups use it for the more “radical” pursuits of empowerment, advocacy, and the provision of solidary benefits. The authors identify three relationships between traditional groups and their newer, more radical counterparts: cooperation, competition, and specialization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Associated Press . (2001, January 2). Leader pulls the plug on TV quality group. Washington Post, p.C7.
2.
Ayres, J. (1999). From the streets to the Internet: The cyber-diffusion of contention. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 132-143.
3.
Berry, J. (1999). The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4.
Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(1), 133-160.
5.
Bimber, B. (1999). The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter?Political Communication, 16, 409-428.
6.
Bimber, B. (in press). The gender gap on the Internet: An explanation of five causes. Social Science Quarterly.
7.
Brainard, L. , & Siplon, P. (1998, September). Activism for the future: Using the Internet to reshape grassroots victims organizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
8.
Brainard, L. , & Siplon, P. (1999, September). The Internet, gender, and health care activism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
9.
Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Oxford, UK: Polity.
10.
Burstein, P. (1998). Interest organizations, political parties, and the study of democratic politics. In A. Costain & A. McFarland (Eds.), Social movements and political institutions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
11.
Chambre, S. (1999). Redundancy, third-party government, and consumer choice: HIV/AIDS nonprofit organizations in New York City. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 840-854.
12.
Congress Online Project . (2001). E-mail overload in Congress: Managing a communications crisis. Available from www.congressonlineproject.org
13.
Davis, R. , and Owen, D. (1998). New media and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Dertouzos, M. (1997). What will be: How the new information marketplace will change our lives. San Francisco: Harper.
15.
DES Action . (2000, July). Our independence is our most cherished principle [Fund-raising letter]. Oakland, CA: Author.
16.
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community. New York: Crown.
18.
Evard, M. (1996). So please stop, thank you: Girls online. In L. Cheney & E. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. Seattle, WA: Seal.
19.
Gibson, R. , & Ward, S. (1998). UK political parties and the Internet: “Politics as usual” in the new media?Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 3(3), 14-38.
20.
Grossman, L. (1995). The electronic commonwealth. New York: Penguin.
21.
Gurak, L. (1997). Persuasion and privacy in cyberspace. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
Healy, D. (1997). Cyberspace and the place: The Internet as middle landscape on the electronic frontier. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture. New York: Routledge.
23.
Hershey, L. (1995). Crip commentary: Selected op-ed columns from the DenverPost. Boulder, CO: Dragonfly.
24.
Hill, K. A. , & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
Ivory, P. (1997). MDA remembers Dr. S. Mouchly Small. Quest, 4(4), 1-3. Available from www.mdausa.org/publications/Quest/q41msmall.html
26.
Jones, S. (1998). Information, Internet, and community: Notes toward an understanding of community in the information age. In S. Jones (Ed.), Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Kraut, R. , Lundmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mopudhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.
28.
Lockard, J. (1997). Progressive politics, electronic individualism, and the myth of the virtual community. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture. New York: Routledge.
29.
Margolis, M. , & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The cyberspace “revolution.”Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Margolis, M. , Resnick D., & Tu, C. (1997). Campaigning on the Internet: Parties and candidates on the World Wide Web in the 1996 primary season. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2(1), 59-78.
31.
McAdam, D. , Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (1996). To map contentious politics. Mobilization: An International Journal, 1(1), 17-34.
32.
Murdock, G. , & Golding, P. (1989). Information poverty and political inequality: Citizenship in the age of privatized communication. Journal of Communication, 39, 180-195.
33.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration . (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Available from www.ntia.doc.gov
34.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
35.
Norris, P. (1999a, September). Who surfs Café Europa? Virtual democracy in the U.S. and Western Europe. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
36.
Norris, P. (1999b). Who surfs? New technology, old voters, and virtual democracy in the 1996 and 1998 U.S. elections. In E. Karmarck (Ed.), Democracy.com?Cambridge, MA: Hollis.
37.
Norris, P. (2000, April). The worldwide digital divide: Information poverty, the Internet, and development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Studies Association of the UK, London, England.
38.
Piven, F. , & Cloward, R. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed and how they fail. New York: Vintage.
39.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
40.
Rash, W. (1997). Politics on the nets: Wiring the political process. New York: Freeman.
41.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
42.
Russell, M. (1998). Beyond ramps: Disability at the end of the social contract. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.
43.
Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
44.
Shenk, D. (1997). Data smog: Surviving the information glut. New York: HarperCollins.
45.
Sowell, C. (1997). Good-bye to a pioneer. Quest, 4(4), 1-4. Available from www.mdausa.org/publications/Quest/q44milhorat.html
46.
Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.
47.
Stratton, J. (1997). Cyberspace and the globalization of culture. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture. New York: Routledge.
48.
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action, and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Tarrow, S. (1996). Social movements in contentious politics: A review article. American Political Science Review, 90(4), 874-883.
50.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Fishnets, internets, and catnets: Globalization and transnational collective action. In M. Hanagan, L. P. Moch, & W. Brake (Eds.), Challenging authority: The historical study of contentious politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
51.
Tyson, L. (2000, July 24). A startling medical breakthrough: The Internet. Business Week, p. 24.
52.
Wilson, J. Q. (1995). Political organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1974)
