Coproducing Support Together:Sustainable and Reciprocal Civic Disaster Relief during COVID-19

This post summarizes the paper that will be presented in CSCW2023:
Jo, J., Knearem, T., & Carroll, J. M. (2023). Coproducing Support Together: Sustainable and Reciprocal Civic Disaster Relief during COVID-19. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579474

COVID-19, declared a global pandemic in March 2020, wasn’t just any disaster; its scale and longevity were unprecedented, and its wrath wasn’t confined to the virus itself. Social systems were in chaos, and the support from governments stretched thin, leaving many in the lurch. Communities rallied, creating unique support systems tailored to pandemic-specific challenges like self-quarantine and PPE shortages. Curious about these groundbreaking “civic initiatives”, we interviewed 17 U.S. civic initiative organizers and participants.

We noticed that the civic initiatives we observed exemplified the concept of coproduction, providing a different angle to interpret civic disaster relief and how it increases its sustainability, diversity, and extension, which have been core concerns of crisis informatics research. Before we delve into our findings, we first introduce how coproduction differs from classic service (in this context, disaster relief) delivery by regarding every actor as a contributor.

What is Coproduction?

“Coproduction”, a term introduced by Elinor Ostrom, refers to a collective process where various actors from different organizations collaboratively produce public goods or services [1]. Unlike traditional service delivery, where fixed roles limit the process to providers delivering to recipients, coproduction features fluid roles, blurring the line between providers and recipients. Actors are seen as “initiators” who start the service production, and “joiners” who contribute later and can also initiate other services [2]. This reciprocal collaboration enhances the quality and quantity of outcomes, ensuring all participants have an equal stake in the results and that all stakeholders are actively involved [3, 4].

Takeaway 1: From Passive Recipients to Active Partners

Instead of the traditional model where citizens are simply recipients of aid, coproduction encourages active participation. During the pandemic, coproducing disaster relief transcended the role of citizens, or affected people, who are frequently viewed as passive recipients of aid. They actively assisted frontline workers, who usually do not receive support under the traditional disaster relief delivery model. They weren’t waiting for aid — they were ensuring hospitals had adequate PPE and expressing gratitude to frontline workers. Such active engagement shifted the narrative from a one-way assistance model to a collaborative, two-way partnership.

“Providing the funds [to feed frontline workers gave volunteers] a sense of helping the healthcare workers in a way that they would not have been able to do so before.” (P15)

Citizens also benefited from coproducing disaster relief. Coproducing support for others resulted in self-care as they felt psychologically rewarded when they made social impacts, which increased their sense of hope amidst the pandemic.

Civic initiatives allowed people to “channel their energy and they saw an immediate impact” (P1)

A sense of partnership within the local community elicited solidarity, reinforcing the collective belief that the community will overcome adversity.

P2 felt confident that they could serve locals better next time when the situation got severe again and said: “It has been a growth experience for a lot of us.”

Takeaway 2: Chained Reciprocity Between Initiators and Joiners

The dynamism of coproduction lies in its chain reaction of support. Initiators kick-start a movement and joiners amplify it. The chain of initiators and joiners helped the local community holistically survive the long-haul crises. We observed that the exchange of gratitude was a unique factor that continued a cycle of prosocial behaviors, sustaining disaster relief.

When an initiator (a local grocery store) started acts of gratitude (purchasing meals for grocery workers), a joiner (a local restaurant) participated in practicing gratitude (writing a thank-you note), and another joiner (grocery workers) also engaged in the practice (purchasing meals at the local restaurant).

In coproduction, the roles of participants are fluid. A joiner today spearheaded a new initiative tomorrow, diversifying disaster relief efforts. Some replicated relief efforts carried out in other communities, which showed how initiators and joiners interchange across different local communities. Some initiators shared open-source resources to make it easy for joiners in other communities to launch a similar relief activity, resulting in enhanced relief efforts.

P1 got open-source 3D printed designs for a plastic face shield, made modifications to make the it sturdier and to reduce the printing time, and he shared the modified designs online;
“I saw articles on how people were 3D printing face shields and other PPE masks…I was also sharing those articles with friends…what then exploded and turned into [our initiative].”

Takeaway 3: Truly Understanding the ‘Recipients’ in the Classic Support Model

While having a device or internet connection is one thing, knowing how to use it is another. Beyond access, digital training was necessary. In other cases, some refused to accept donated laptops, and civic initiatives had to persuade them to accept them. Simply offering digital equipment is not a panacea for digital exclusion.

“I had to do so much pushing on the recipient-end…I almost had to beg [people] to say, ‘Yes, I would like a computer’…I repeated efforts to try to draw the recipients into our program.” (P4)

This is consistent with earlier research, which argued that coproduction is contingent on the reciprocal participation and desire of involved actors. Without proper comprehension, distributed support may be underutilized or rejected, preventing relief efforts from being accomplished. Disaster relief can be coproduced not merely via the exchange of artifacts but also once all the stakeholders’ viewpoints are holistically understood.

References

[1] Elinor Ostrom. 1996. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World development 24, 6 (1996), 1073–1087.
[2] John M Carroll, Jiawei Chen, Chien Wen Tina Yuan, and Benjamin V Hanrahan. 2016. In search of coproduction: Smart services as reciprocal activities. Computer 49, 7 (2016), 26–32.
[3] Edgar S Cahn. 2000. No more throw-away people: The co-production imperative. Edgar Cahn.
[4] Chien Wen Yuan, Benjamin V Hanrahan, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M Carroll. 2018. Coming of old age: understanding older adults’ engagement and needs in coproduction activities for healthy ageing. Behaviour & Information Technology 37, 3 (2018), 232–246.