Dilemmas in Mutual Aid: Lessons for Crisis Informatics from an Emergent Community Response to the Pandemic
Abstract
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, networks of community organizers and activists mobilized to support their neighbors as part of mutual aid groups across the United States. Emergent community response is a common phenomenon during crisis, but mutual aid in the pandemic took on a distinct character, drawing on traditions of political and community organizing. Our research into these activities suggests that mutual aid organizing in relation to disaster is growing practice but remains evolving and contested. Drawing on interviews with organizers of mutual aid groups in New York, we identify a series of four dilemmas that mutual aid organizers encountered in their work, with impacts on their organizational strategy and technology choices. We then raise three implications for crisis informatics to support community response to disaster: taking a long view of crises, centering questions of equity, and adopting a transformative vision of emergency response.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior HCI scholarship has largely examined mutual aid in contexts of crisis informatics, focusing on assembled networks that respond to disruptions.
“Prior HCI scholarship has largely examined mutual aid in contexts of crisis informatics, focusing on assembled networks that respond to disruptions [16, 26, 43, 46, 53, 67].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [53]
Cites
Crisis informatics—New data for extraordinary times
Palen, L., & Anderson, K. M. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aag2579 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Mapping the data shadows of Hurricane Sandy: Uncovering the sociospatial dimensions of ‘big data’
Shelton, T., Poorthuis, A., Graham, M., & Zook, M. (2014) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.01.006 · Cited by 256 · cited 1× · see citing works
“demonstrated that technologies intervene in these politics and can unwittingly reinforce existing inequalities [5][44].”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nguyen, T., Kaviani, D., & Salehi, N. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714192 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Kim Ly, C., Cross, T., Tasman, S., Mattka, J., Doggett, O., Marathe, M., & Chandra, P. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791638
“Prior HCI scholarship has largely examined mutual aid in contexts of crisis informatics, focusing on assembled networks that respond to disruptions [16, 26, 43, 46, 53, 67].”
- Authors
- Soden, R., & Owen, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Individual Researcher, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- ORCID
- Soden, Robert
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Published
- 2021-10-13
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- CSCW2
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3206705049
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 8.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Disaster Response and Management
- Keywords
- mutual aid, COVID-19 pandemic, crisis informatics, community response, community organizing, disaster response, emergency response, equity, organizational strategy, technology selection, New York City
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review