ICTlogy

ai-see-TEE-lo-gee

Next 23 and 24 October 2008, Net.es 5, accesibilidad y nuevas tecnologías en la sociedad. El papel de la Sociedad Civil [Accessiblity and new techonologies in the society. The role of the Civil Society] will deal about human rights, digital citizenry, accessibility and disabilities, usability, e-inclusion and digital literacy.

I will be sharing a round table with Rafael Casado Ortiz and David Cierco about accessibility, inclusion and digital literacy.

I will take a real from the real life to explain why and how digital literacy can enable or enhance inclusion — just inclusion, not digital inclusion —. The example, which I already used in my seminar at the Executive Master in e-Governance and made up with Mercè Guillén-Solà, is taking the crafting community as a paradigm of a network that existed off-line and used the Internet — and Web 2.0 applications specifically — to enable and enhance better and stronger links. Digital literacy comes, then, as help to leverage the existing network (and to avoid the danger of dropping out of it), but not as a substitute or a goal in itself.

Presentation

More information

• Net.es 5 official site
• Peña-López, I. & Guillén Solà, M. (2008). Accesibilidad e Inclusión Digital:el papel de la Alfabetización Digital. Conference imparted in Madrid, October 24th, 2008 at the Net.es 5, Ministerio de Educación, Política Social y Deporte. Madrid: ICTlogy.

HIVOS is currently undertaking a survey to get a better understanding on how existing or new technologies (ICT) can support citizens at scale to be an active, involved participant of society. I was invited by Marc Lepage to take part in it, which I appreciate as it is always good to be reminded to think once in a while. Here come the questions and the short answers I gave to the survey, in part because it was a requisite, in part because of lack of time to do it better.

In 5 years time, what do you think will be the technology most used by citizens in developing countries to get information and to interact with others (including government)? Please, elaborate on your answer.

Personally, I find it reasonable to think that mobile phones will still be the most used technology. On one hand, due to its actual and growing pervasiveness above other devices and platforms. On the other hand, because more effort is being put in improving the flexibility and applicability of such devices by developing more and more applications for them while, at the same time, reducing their cost and simplifying their use thus shortening the learning curve.

Notwithstanding, the late generation of ultraportable devices or 4P Computers (e.g. the Acer Aspire One) – cheaper than other laptops, containing the most usual features (Internet browsers, desktop office applications, etc.), low power consumption, etc. – make us think of the possibility of seeing these devices as substitutes of not nowadays laptops but also desktops, maybe not at the household level, but yes at the SME and the local administration levels. As said, their lower cost compared with other devices, the features, added to the possibility to gain from VoIP where affordable connectivity is available make of such devices a most likely next step from mobile telephony towards a higher Internet use.

Worldwide we can see many successful small scale ICT/NGO projects. In your opinion, what blocks implementation at scale? Please, where possible refer to examples from the field.

First of all, I’d would be more sceptic at the fact of being “many” successful projects at all. I agree there are some of them, but I would not count them as many, at least in the long run, where the project ended being a pilot and became part of the daily life of the community, and sustainability left to be an issue and became just part of a more comprehensive business plan / daily costs of life.

That said, I see the following points as possible barriers to a major implementation scale:

• the project, even being successful, was tailored without the active participation/knowledge of the government bodies, thus making it more difficult to be considered as a self-owned project
• the project has not returns of scale, or is not scalable at a reasonable cost/benefit ratio. So, it is affordable at small levels (maybe because of a defective design regarding sustainability that only shows at greater scales) but is prohibitive for bigger shares of the population
• the project requires skilled human capital that is available at small scales, but not at bigger ones
• political situation swings or instabilities
• loss of interest of the promoting institution (NGO, government, international aid agency, etc.) of going the long path of widespread implementation once the fancy and newish part of the pilot project has ended, proven successful and reported the major share of personal/institutional satisfaction and/or media timespan and/or published in peer reviewed journal.

What examples from the field do you know are strong in enabling citizens through new technologies to make their voices heard and/or influence the societies they are part of (e.g. monitoring election, accessing media, monitoring the quality of local service delivery)? And what do you expect to see in 5 years?

Some real examples: Global Voices, Mobile Monitors, Fix My Street, My Society…

I find many more examples can be found in personal and institutional blogs and websites, and social networking sites in general. Mobile (SMS) powered mobs should also be taken into account.

I would expect not many different things, but (hopefully) a higher degree of adoption I would not dub as pervasive. Web 2.0 and SMS based initiatives are still part of either the geek realm or absolute frontline early adopters.

Indeed, a chasm has been growing between those early adopters and the late comers, as it happened with the ones that have access to affordable and quality ICTs and those who have not. This chasm is being created by both the cost of being continually up-to-date and the message of geekery/elitism that these digerati (wanted or not) send to the non-initiated.

If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:

iCities is a Conference about Blogs, e-Government and Digital Participation.
Here come my notes for session V.

Round Table: Connected Citizens. Cyberactivism.
Chairs: Rosa Jiménez Cano

Alana Moceri, president Democrats Abroad Spain

First time that primary elections can be done on-line. This means increasing the number of countries where voting is possible from 34 up to 161.

Online, everyone can contribute: absolutely everyone can upload videos to YouTube, photos to Flickr or text to any blog. Pro: democratization. Con: loss of control over your campaing.

Fundrising is key and is a good proxy to test the health of a political campaign.

Obama’s discourse is really 2.0: you can, empowerment, engagement. MyBarackObama.com is a good example of it, where you can even earn points as a reward for your implication and helping recruit other people. This really builds up a formidable base of activists.

Marshall Ganz: It’s values, not only interests, what drives people to take part in civic movements.

Sebastián Lorenzo

Fundación Generación Libre: how voters connect to social networks in Argentina. Not centralized, not decentralized, not distributed, but complex networks. They best way to boost complex networks is to build software that enhances the connection between peripheral nodes to the central ones (leaders).

Cyberactivism: activities to help bridge the digital world with the off-line world, with impact in the “real” world.

Cybermilitant: someone commited in the long-run with “someting beyond” cyberactivism. We’ve yet to find out what this really means.

Noticias LA: a distributed network of volunteers, living in all coutries of Latin America and Spain, selecting local news and feeding them to the site, acting as a news agency 2.0.

César Calderón

Social mediators are no more the protagonists in the Administration-Citizenry interaction: it’s the citizen the one that has to lead the approach towards their Government.

We are used to long run political campaigns, this is why, how and what for political parties were created for. But now people gather around more ephemeral and ad hoc actions. And, indeed, the top-down way of designing engagement has given place to a more bottom-up way of participating. Horizontal replaces vertical.

Antoni Gutierrez-Rubi

Goals of activism: have to be possible to reach and well planned. Assessment is a must and often overridden because of the speed of times and lack of time to reflect.

Proposals: agitation is good, but also reflection. A choral voice (i.e. making the same proposal from different places and points of view, but the same one) might be desirable now and then. Continuity and orientation of the discourse would help in the long-run engagement of our target.

Arguments: less opinion, more arguments. Ideas are good as long as they are “well packed” and backed with arguments.

Leadership: hyperleadership is good to avoid fragmentation, but has to leave room for shared leadership. Of course, leadership to achieve changes and goals. The ROI on leadership has to be positive and as big as possible. What matters is not getting there alone and early, but with everyone and on time (León Felipe).

Activists: they have to feel comfortable working without parties and organizations. But linked to the causes by following some basic rules. ARTivists: someone to be taken into account to help in the “packaging” of our ideas and arguments.

Plurality: are we in a networked world without boundaries… or sheltered in our trenches? Open minds.

Influences: credible, proximate, creating opinion. We have to impact “reality 1.0″, not think from and for the minority.

iCities 2008, Blogs, e-Government and Digital Participation

If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:

e-STAS is a Symposium about the Technologies for the Social Action, with an international and multi-stakeholder nature, where all the agents implicated in the development and implementation of the ICT (NGO’s, Local authorities, Universities, Companies and Media) are appointed in an aim to promote, foster and adapt the use of the ICT for the social action.

Here come my notes for session VI.

Ángel de la Riva

Cibervoluntarios

CiberMix: Diffusion and advocacy program that shows the benefits of ICTs in institutions, firms and citizens in rural areas through educational, leisure, content and services activities.

Antonio Fumero

periodismociudadano.com: a gate for initiatives, experiences, people, etc. that deal with citizen journalism.

The goals of citizen journalism (and blogging): listen, link, impact, share.

Ismael Peña-López

• Peña-López, I. (2007). “Online Volunteers: Knowledge Managers in Nonprofits”. In The Journal of Information Technology in Social Change, Spring Edition - April 2007, (1), 136-152. Vashon: The Gilbert Center
• Peña-López, I. (2005). e-Learning for Development: a model. ICTlogy Working Paper Series #1. Barcelona: ICTlogy

Kafui Amenu Prebbie & Miguel Ángel Álvarez

Digital World Forum on Accessible and Inclusive ICT.

Low cost computing has revolutionized access to ICTs. Now the project wants to analyze where technology is heading.

The problem of low cost computers is data storage, but if Internet access is cheap too (i.e. thanks to cheap wireless networks), the data can be stored online.

infopreneur: the telecenter at the minimum expression, developed by the Meraka Foundation.

Francisco Pizarro

Emprendedores sociales, Ashoka’s branch in Spain to foster social entrepreneurship.

Carlos Flores

socialGNU, to foster the diffusion and use of free software in nonprofits.

Alejandro Simon

Zoowa, to create and share your agenda 2.0.

e-Stas 2008, Symposium on Technologies for Social Action

If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:

e-STAS is a Symposium about the Technologies for the Social Action, with an international and multi-stakeholder nature, where all the agents implicated in the development and implementation of the ICT (NGO’s, Local authorities, Universities, Companies and Media) are appointed in an aim to promote, foster and adapt the use of the ICT for the social action.

Here come my notes for session V.

Subjects

• Free software
• Accessibility and usability
• Linguistic diversity
• Educational programmes
• New content programmes

Debate

(random ideas, slightly sorted/grouped)

Muhammad Yunus proposes a new kind of enterprise where the focus is on stakeholders and not on shareholders, where no profit is seek, but only social benefit.

Low cost computers/devices are converging with mainstream infrastructures. Now the issue is content. There is no content for education, and this should be urgently addressed. And this content should be localized, as long as it’s happening with software (sometimes).

Nonprofits and firms could provide this content.

But can this content can be created in the same ways as free software?

People should bet on free software (not open source software), with a focus on the philosophy of free software: new ethics of work, money and network.

Knowledge should be free and is the Humanity’s patrimony. No one should own knowledge (and this includes software). Content is just the support (and can hence be owned), and each society will generate its own. Technology (= applied knowledge) should be free so it can be appropriated by individuals and communities.

If software is free, usability and accessibility come naturally, as long as linguistic diversity. Let aside costs.

Hardware, software, content, etc. should be measured by their social value, not their price, thus leading to a new ethics of value. The Digital Divide is created by the market, so the market should be taken into the spotlight when trying to bridge the Digital Divide.

The citizenry should be literate enough to be able to distinguish between different software and different content. To be aware of the implications, needs, threats, benefits of the Information Society.

Accessibility is not only being able to access ICTs/the Internet, but willing to and be aware of the costs and benefits of doing it.

Education is a very important issue, but who trains the trainers? Shouldn’t be the digital literacy trainers be more literate in e.g. technology neutrality and teach skills/competences and not specific applications?

Training should be appealing to the end user (e.g. stress in their short run needs), but also a door to further skills achieving. And these skills should include higher levels of thought where the individual can not only use some technologies, but be able to choose among several ones, reflect on their process of choice, etc.

e-Stas 2008, Symposium on Technologies for Social Action

e-STAS is a Symposium about the Technologies for the Social Action, with an international and multi-stakeholder nature, where all the agents implicated in the development and implementation of the ICT (NGO’s, Local authorities, Universities, Companies and Media) are appointed in an aim to promote, foster and adapt the use of the ICT for the social action.

Here come my notes for session III. (notes at random, grouped by speaker, but not necessarily in chronological order)

Left to right: Raoul Weiler, Jérôme Combaz, María del Mar Negreiro, Berta Maure Rubio

Raoul Weiler, Club of Rome

It will be possible for everyone to access the Internet trough/thanks to low cost devices.

But education will make the difference, not devices.

Jérôme Combaz, Charte pour l’Inclusion Numérique et Sociale

Technology has to be transparent and should address social problems in a social way.

María del Mar Negreiro, European Union Lisbon Strategy

i2010 focuses on uses, digital literacy and how the Internet can help people connect each other, access better jobs, etc. To do so, focus on skills.

Teachers are using — the ones that do — the Internet to prepare their classes, get some materials, but they are not using ICTs when teaching or into the classroom. There still is a reluctance to do so, even if students seem pleased and more motivated when such a thing happens. Lack of skills, lack of time, lack of technical support are among the main reasons adduced by teachers to justify not being more pro-active fostering the use of ICTs when teaching.

Berta Maure Rubio, Plan Avanza

Accessibility and usability as a goal to achieve more and better access to the Internet. And, thus, that people find Internet useful for their daily life.

e-Stas 2008, Symposium on Technologies for Social Action