Community Assessment: Online Group of Writers
This article documents applying community assessment to an online group of writers, including identifying a community issues and processing strategies to overcome these issues through community involvement and investment.
Part One: Introduction to Community
I am a member of an online social networking group for “Entry Level Content Writers,” which is part of a larger community of new and seasoned freelance writers who identify as female or nonbinary. This group works together to help each other find work, offer advice, and generally support and lift each other up.
One social issue my group, as with many other writing groups, deals with is something called “rate shaming.” The issue is two-fold. Essentially, rate shaming is when fellow writers shame and ridicule another member for taking jobs that are “below their pay grade.” There is a small fraction of writers who talk down to others for accepting work that pays less than ideal. The stigma of taking low-wage work has developed, in part, from the issue of writing scams in which people offer jobs but never pay for the work completed.
Women and non-cis gender people tend to be the targets of ridicule, as well as the recipients of low paying job offers and victims of scams. While I have not personally been rate shamed by other writers, there have been people who offered me low paying jobs that were likely scams (e.g. I would not have been paid anything for my work).
If this issue transformed, we would see less scams and more support for fellow writers taking on jobs regardless of pay. A change for the better might also result in a more supportive community and better paying job offers for female and nonbinary writers.
Based on other research about community needs and social issues, I would need to gather useful, usable information from my community (Weigel & Martin, 2006). I would ask my fellow community members to discuss the most pressing issues within our Binder, rate the importance of dealing with rate shaming, and ask what interventions they feel would be best for dealing with rate shaming (Davis, Saltzburg, & Locke, 2010).
Part Two: Identifying the Social Problem
Netting and co-authors (2017) identified six data sources to utilize for information gathering on community issues, (1) Gather opinions and judgments from key informants, (2) Collect service statistics, (3) Use data from epidemiological studies, (4) Find studies on incidence and prevalence of issues, (5) Access social indicators, (6) Conduct/locate surveys.
Of the six data sources, I would tap into opinions from informants, access studies on the prevalence of rate shaming, determine social indicators, and conduct surveys within my Binder to gather information about issues in our community. Regarding strengths, I would say that collecting opinions and conducting surveys could be relatively easy because everyone is accessible through Facebook and can be messaged with ease.
As for weaknesses, it is important to note that existing research on rate shaming may enlighten us on the general issue, but the data would not be specific to my unique community. Additionally, social indicators are limited in that they offer very little detailed insight into the community beyond statistics on gender, age, etc. It is also vital to note that while surveys and interviews can provide great insights into community issues, they tend to be time consuming and may be costly.
The data sources that are missing but may be relevant for my community would be service statistics and epidemiological studies. Pinning down particular agencies that service female/nonbinary writers would be difficult, but also enlightening. What resources do people in my Binder community access? What benefits do female and nonbinary writers seek out? How can these help against rate shaming? How did rate shaming come about? Such questions and more could be answered if there were clear service providers for my community and epidemiological studies on rate shaming.
Part Three: Dynamics of Power, Privilege, and Oppression
While our Writing Binder community is largely homogenous in regard to gender and occupation (female and nonbinary writers only), each member of the community likely differs on determining assets and non-assets based on their length of time in the community, experience as a writer, age, and other varying identifiers. As discussed in the asynchronous lecture, what might be an asset to one person may not be considered an asset by another. An invaluable insight (asset) for a new writer may be old news or hindering (non-asset) to a seasoned writer.
At first glance, our community could be what Netting and co-authors (2017) discuss as an amorphous structure, meaning there is not a power relationship pattern. While everyone is theoretically equal in our Writing Binder, we do have someone in charge who oversees the page and acts as a mediator when community members get into arguments. It is also up to the person who runs the page to remove members from the community who do not coexist well or go against community values.
Power dynamics in any community can influence what assets are present, missing, or considered non-assets because those in charge determine what the community needs, but leaders may not always evaluate an asset or non-asset in the same way as other “less powerful” members of the community. On the other hand, if those in power take into consideration the needs of all in the community, there can be a positive influence on existing assets and they can address the issue of missing assets.
Part Four: Strategy to Address the Problem
My online group for “Entry Level Content Writers” deals with the issue of rate shaming, which is when fellow writers shame and ridicule another member for taking jobs that are “below their pay grade.”
Given the issue in my community, the Midwest Academy Strategy Chart (MASC) strategy chart would likely best help me determine a solid strategy, given the information I currently have. The MASC chart has a clear, logical layout that allows room for adjustments depending on the issue at hand, the intervention needed, and the information currently available. Netting and co-authors (2017) offer a specific example for a community issue intervention in Box11.4 that is not as readily flexible or adjustable as the template provided by MASC.
Based on the needs comprising my online community issue, the macro-level social work roles that might be necessary to help facilitate a strategy for dealing with rate shaming would include mediator, facilitator, advocate, and spokesperson. A mediator may be helpful in case discussions or arguments about “rate shaming” become heated and someone will be needed to help keep the peace. A facilitator for change will be needed to get a movement going about ending rate shaming, seeing as the current solution is simply to remove rate-shamers from the group, thus removing the possibility for discussion and change. We also need each member to be an advocate and spokesperson on behalf of themselves and other writers in order to effect change.
References
Binders Full of Entry Level Content Writers & Jobs. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/EntryLevelBinder/
Davis, T. S., Saltzburg, S., & Locke, C. R. (2010). Assessing community needs of sexual minority youths: Modeling concept mapping for service planning. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 22(3), 226249.
Netting, F. E., Kettner, P. M., McMurtry, S. L., & Thomas, M. L. (2017). Social work macro practice (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Weigel, D. J., & Martin, S. S. (2006). Identifying Key Early Literacy and School Readiness Issues: Exploring a Strategy for Assessing Community Needs. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 8(2), n2.
