ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net Metadecidim (II). Silvia Luque: The participatory experience of the Municipality Action Plan through the decidim.barcelona platform http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18850 Notes from the Metadecidim workshop, within the decidim.barcelona participatory programme, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 25-26 November 2016. More notes on this event: metadecidim. Silvia Luque, Fundació Ferrer i GuardiaThe participatory experience of the Municipality Action Plan through the decidim.barcelona platform One of the biggest challenges in a hybrid online-offline participatory process is, precisely, how to balance participation in both spaces, virtual and face-to-face. The oneline platform has been the amplifier of what was going on in the offline arena. It also gathered all the information and contributed to trace the participation footprint. Of course, the digital platform itself held lots of debates and collected proposals directly online. Mobile points — ad-hoc kiosks on the streets — provided offline feedback from what was happening online. The online platform was both a participatory platform and a work platform: everyone worked within the platform. Both citizens and managers used the platform for all the tasks and procedures related to the participatory process. There was a good balance between online and offline participation, though in the online platform there was slightly more participation. The platform, though, affected the topic: in wellbeing, there were more proposals offline, while in the topic of environment more proposals came online. This sure has to do with the profile of people that participate online or offline. On the other hand, face-to-face events were mostly organized by the city council, who did not organize the same amount of events for each and every topic of the Municipality Action Plan. Participation and proposals, also, not necessarily go hand in hand: one can find topics highly participated that produced relatively few proposals, and lowly participated topics that notwithstanding produced lots of proposals. The topic and the nature of the participation sure explain the differences. The nature of participation was also diverse: make proposals, comment on the proposals, support others’ proposals, vote proposals, attend events, interact with a mobile point, comments on online debates. New tools require new literacies and new working logics. And also taking into account the possibility that there is a digital divide. As online and offline behaved differently, the most promising approach is a hybrid one that enables both logics of participation. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Metadecidim (II). Silvia Luque: The participatory experience of the Municipality Action Plan through the decidim.barcelona platform

]]>
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 02:31:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20161125-metadecidim-ii-silvia-luque-the-participatory-experience-of-the-municipality-action-plan-through-the-decidim-barcelona-platform/
Metadecidim (I). Robert Bjarnason: Digital tools for the democratic revolution in Iceland and beyond http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18849 Notes from the Metadecidim workshop, within the decidim.barcelona participatory programme, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 25-26 November 2016. More notes on this event: metadecidim. Robert Bjarnason, citizens.isDigital tools for the democratic revolution in Iceland and beyond Citizens must have a strong voice in policymaking with formal and persistent participation in the political process. The Citizens Foundation created three open source tools:

Your Priorities, an idea and debate platform, on crowdsourcing. Your Priorities is about building trust between citizens and government. Open Active Voting, on budget voting, but very pedagogical on how budgets work. Participatory budgets are not only about having a direct influence on expenditure, but also on knowing how much things cost and what it means to have a budget. After that, trust is built and better decisions are made in collaboration with citizens. Active Citizen: improved participation with artificial intelligence and virtual reality. Artificial intelligence helps in participation with little time spent, helping to overcome bubbles and biases; virtual reality for data visualization and online meetings.

Participation must be fun, informative and educational. Yes, it has to be democratic, and rigorous. But also engaging, something you enjoy doing. Gamifying participation is a good approach for a successful participatory initiative. Participation tools have to meet people where they are. Tools have to have a “mobile first” design in mind. But the key for participation to succeed is that it has an impact. Decision-makers do have to listen and take into account what citizens say. If citizens feel they are participating for nothing, they will quickly move away from all other participatory processes. Participation is also about communication and marketing: people do have to know to be able to participate. It’s not propaganda, but informing the citizen. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Metadecidim (I). Robert Bjarnason: Digital tools for the democratic revolution in Iceland and beyond

]]>
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 01:38:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20161125-metadecidim-i-robert-bjarnason-digital-tools-for-the-democratic-revolution-in-iceland-and-beyond/
Working paper. Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.Barcelona http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18848 This research is part of the Voice or Chatter? Using Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT Mediated Citizen Engagement research project led by IT for Change and carried on under the Making All Voices Count programme. The research began in May 2016 and is about to end by January 2017. The project consists in analysing several cases of ICT mediated citizen engagement in the world, led by governments with the aim to increase participation in policy affairs. This subproject deals with the case of decidim.Barcelona, an ambitious project by the City Council of Barcelona (Spain) to increase engagement in the design, monitoring and assessment of its strategic plan for 2016-2019. These specific pages focus on the socio-political environment where this subproject takes place, specifically speaking Barcelona, Catalonia and Spain, for the geographical coordinates, and for the temporal coordinates the beginnings of the XXIst century and most especially the aftermath of the May 15, 2011 Spanish Indignados Movement or 15M – with some needed flashbacks to the restauration of Democracy in 1975-1978. The working paper Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.Barcelona, thus, aims at explaining how and why such an ICT-based participation project like decidim.Barcelona could take place in Barcelona in the first months 2016, although it will, of course, relate to the project itself every now and then. Dowloads

Full text of working paper:: Peña-López, I. (2016). Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.Barcelona. ICTlogy Working Paper Series #3. Barcelona: ICTlogy.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Working paper. Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.Barcelona

]]>
Sat, 29 Oct 2016 02:41:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20161029-working-paper-technopolitics-ict-based-participation-in-municipalities-and-the-makings-of-a-network-of-open-cities-drafting-the-state-of-the-art-and-the-case-of-decidim-barcelona/
La devolución de soberanía al ciudadano: ¿gobierno abierto? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18847 Permitámonos una simplificación casi aberrante de la historia de la gestión de los asuntos colectivos. En Grecia, las decisiones las tomaban directamente a los ciudadanos (libres, valga la redundancia) y las ejecutaban ellos mismos. Esto era posible, entre otras cosas, porque estos ciudadanos tenían mujeres y esclavos que se encargaban de los asuntos domésticos y porque el mundo era relativamente sencillo y los acontecimientos se sucedían relativamente despacio. A esta época y sus instituciones solemos llamarla democracia griega o, a veces, democracia directa, para desligar el ejercicio personal de la participación pública del entorno geográfico e histórico del momento. La siguiente reencarnación de la democracia, siglos después, topa con tener que tomar decisiones en un mundo mucho más complejo y con muchos más ciudadanos “libres” que, además, han de tomar decisiones sobre territorios mucho más extensos y, por tanto, deben de llegar a acuerdos con un elevado número de individuos. Ante la ineficacia y la ineficiencia de hacerlo todo directamente, nos inventamos la democracia representativa: unas personas y unas instituciones tomarían decisiones y las ejecutarían en nombre del resto. Entre muchos otros nombres, generalmente nos referimos a este modelo como democracia liberal. Uno de los grandes debates que estamos teniendo hoy —y que seguramente deberíamos tener todavía con mucha más intensidad— es si las instituciones de la política representativa deberían repensarse. Si Internet ha hecho el espacio pequeño y el tiempo prácticamente un suspiro, si ahora podemos deliberar y coordinarnos a un coste varios órdenes de magnitud inferior que hace unos años, si ahora podemos decidir y evaluar prácticamente sin salir de casa… ¿podemos empezar a “desintermediar” la política? Todas estas preguntas son relevantes, pero a menudo los silencios son más elocuentes que las palabras. ¿Por qué, cuando hablamos de repensar la política, siempre pensamos en el poder legislativo, pero sólo accidentalmente en el poder ejecutivo? ¿Por qué cuando pensamos en el poder ejecutivo nos viene a la cabeza la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas, pero no la toma de decisiones? ¿Por qué cuando, por fin, hablamos de toma de decisiones sólo en casos extraordinarios hablamos de devolver soberanía y de incidir directamente en la gestión de lo público? No deja de ser sintomático cómo somos incapaces, ahora sí ahora también, de cuestionar prácticamente todo menos la Administración, que vemos a medio camino entre un monstruo que tiene vida propia y un castillo de murallas inexpugnables. Mientras los colectivos de enfermos, cuidadores y profesionales de la sanidad se reúnen en comunidades de práctica para compartir conocimientos y recomendaciones, o simplemente para acompañarse, no sucede así (en general), con la Administración. Ni con ella misma ni, por supuesto, entre ella y los ciudadanos. Mientras presenciamos una importante recuperación del cooperativismo (de diferentes naturalezas y modalidades) aprovechando las nuevas herramientas del trabajo colaborativo, la gestión del conocimiento, la creación de red, lo que es absolutamente común por definición, lo público, no se gestiona ni colaborativamente, ni aprovechando el acceso al talento que hay en todo, ni rompiendo las paredes ni tabiques que permitirían la creación de redes de diferentes tipos y configuraciones. Flexibles. Líquidas. Superpuestas. Es decir, todo lo que no es una jerarquía. El concepto de Gobierno abierto nos da muchas pistas de hacia dónde podría evolucionar, en materia de gestión colectiva y colegiada, la relación entre la Administración y los ciudadanos. El Gobierno abierto puede ser a la Administración el que la democracia líquida puede ser a la política. En primer lugar, está la materia prima con la que tenemos que trabajar. En el Gobierno abierto se habla de transparencia, pero en realidad el concepto es mucho más ambicioso de lo que la palabra transparencia evoca. Porque en realidad hablamos de datos abiertas, de acceso a la información primaria que tiene la Administración entre manos —y muy especialmente la que genera ella misma. Hablamos también de la huella legislativa: ¿qué camino ha seguido la idea de una ley o un reglamento hasta que se ha publicado en el boletín oficial? ¿Quién lo ha decidido y con quién lo ha hablado? ¿Qué documentos se han leído y quienes son sus respectivos autores? Presupuestos abiertos, agendas abiertas, repositorios documentales forman parte de estos “datos abiertos” sin los cuales es imposible ya no rediseñar sino ni siquiera repensar la Administración. Y mucho menos “desde fuera”. En segundo lugar, está la participación. Participar en el diagnóstico, en la deliberación, en la negociación. Participar, sobre todo, en la toma de decisiones. Sí, porque cuando decimos participar en realidad queremos decir influir cuando no directamente decidir —al menos, co-decidir. Esta parte, si se me permite la frivolidad, es la menos importante. Al final, si las instituciones están bien diseñadas, quién y cómo se toman las decisiones acaba siendo una consecuencia directa del buen o mal diseño de la institución. Y el diseño, tanto de instituciones como de políticas públicas, recordémoslo, pertenece sobre todo al ámbito de la transparencia, de la apertura. Por último, el Gobierno abierto nos habla de colaboración. Pero colaboración no en el sentido de participación o de co-decisión, que era el segundo punto, sino colaboración en el sentido de co-gestión. La Administración —y aquí sí que podríamos incluir todas las otras instituciones de la democracia representativa, empezando por los partidos— han sido históricamente refractarios a esta co-gestión. Hay muchos motivos. Entre los legítimos, que el coste de co-gestionar es mucho más elevado, en tiempo y frecuencia en recursos, que una dirección más jerárquica, centralizada y de arriba abajo. Y que hay conocimiento. Pues bien, ya no es así. O, mejor dicho, sí es así: requiere tiempo, recursos y conocimiento. Lo que ya no es así es que el coste de hacer confluir estos factores sea tan alto como antes de la revolución digital. No es cero, ciertamente, pero empezamos a tener suficiente información como para poder afirmar que, a largo plazo, y en entornos intensivos en conocimiento, las arquitecturas de red son mejores que las jerarquías altamente centralizadas. Mejores en el sentido de más eficaces y más eficientes. La secuencia es, pues, la siguiente: abrir los datos, informaciones y protocolos para que, quien esté interesado, conozca las necesidades, demandas, alternativas y preferencias que tiene a su alcance. Posibilitar que, con este conocimiento, se puedan rediseñar instituciones y procesos, ahora sí, con la participación de tantos ojos, orejas y manos como sea posible. Y, por último, que estos nuevos diseños tengan en cuenta la concurrencia de nuevos actores, que puedan asumir parte de la responsabilidad de gestionar lo que, en definitiva, es de todos. No es fácil. En absoluto. Pero muchas de las barreras que nos vienen a la cabeza tienen poco que ver con la naturaleza técnica de tomar decisiones, hacerlas operativas y gestionarlas. Haríamos bien en desenmascararlas para poder concentrar los esfuerzos en lo que sí es un obstáculo para la construcción de una Administración más eficaz y más eficiente. Más nuestra. Además de todos. Entrada originalmente publicada el 11 de octubre de 2016, bajo el título La devolució de sobirania al ciutadà: govern obert? en el EAPC blog (Escola d’Administració Pública de Catalunya). Todos los artículos publicados en esa revista pueden consultarse aquí bajo la etiqueta eapc_blog. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como La devolución de soberanía al ciudadano: ¿gobierno abierto?

]]>
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:51:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20161026-la-devolucion-de-soberania-al-ciudadano-gobierno-abierto/
ICTlogy.net: 13th anniversary http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18846 Today is October 21st, and thus it’s ICTlogy.net anniversary. Its 13th anniversary, to be more precise. Happy anniversary, ICTlogy. First things first, the quantitative data:

1,281 blog posts at the ICT4D Blog, (), 1,397 comments () and 196 pages. 318 blog posts at the SociedadRed Blog, (), 1,372 comments () and 3 pages. A bibliography with 3,103 works and 2,489 authors (). 633 wiki entries (, ). 27 learning materials. 5631 articles from 126 events from my liveblogging sessions. All the usual stuff: Twitter, delicious, Google Calendar, Slideshare, Prezi, YouTube, Lifestream/aggregator, FriendFeed, Linkedin, ResearchGate and Academia.edu.

Which deserves the yearly comment. The most evident thing is the low level of activity in both blogs. Only the bibliographic manager has maintained the usual level. There are two reasons for that. The first one is lack of time. Lack of time to share not only finished work (i.e. in my works section or readings (i.e. in the bibliography section, but ideas, ramblings thoughts, projects. The last three years have been hectic and somewhat erratic both in the direction and ways of my research. I was appointed director of open innovation at Fundació Jaume Bofill three years ago and until last February (when I became fellow director, meaning that I still collaborate with the foundation, but with a much lower dedication). These same two years I was senior researcher at Open Evidence, which I definitely quite also in February 2016. This last year (since half of 2016 until now) I assumed the direction of three masters programmes:

Direction and management of NGOs (to be true I directed this one one year before) Master in conflictology UOC-UNITAR (international and armed conflict, with UNITAR) Master in conflictology (domestic and civil conflict)

This has been keeping me really busy. Really. And here comes the second reason for this scarce updates: I moved quite a bit of my time from research to academic management. This is being quite rich and interesting, but one loses the edge on one’s own research plans. Indeed, I am thankful to Ricard, Maria and Can who somewhat forced me to write. So, I did read and kept updated in the field, but had no time to do things as I used to, putting out there everything from the first idea to the final paper. I do have to solve this. There is another thing worth being commented. In recent years we have been witnessing Twitter being a somewhat substitute to blogging. It is happening in academia a lot. Between a quick tweet or two to share an opinion and taking the time to write a blog post, it is a temptation to go for the former. It is my believe that Twitter withdrew many from having their own website — not to speak about a blog, or a full repository of their work — as it took too much time, and their online presence was already completed by having an active account on Twitter. It is glad to see how many scholars are entering the realms of ResearchGate and Academia.edu and using them not only to share their work, but to follow others’. Indeed, it is just great to see quite a good bunch of non-scholars entering these academic social networking sites to follow the work of some scientists. This is a dream come true. And, I would like to think, yet another nail in the coffin of the dated system of academic publishing. Academic publishing is more than over. It does not provide a satisfactory answer to the needs it used to cover back when it was created: it is a narrow communication channel, it is expensive, it is slow, it limits peer review to only a couple of people or it mixes up the impact of the journal with the utility of a given paper. And, mind you, the current trend of altmetrics still has to acknowledge that there is no evolution in academic publishing, but a transformation. But this is another debate. Happy thirteenth anniversary, ICTlogy! This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as ICTlogy.net: 13th anniversary

]]>
Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:54:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20161021-ictlogy-net-13th-anniversary/
Open Cities Summit (VI). Ideathon workshops takeaways http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18845 Notes from the Open Cities Summit, part of the International Open Data Conference 2016, and held in Madrid, Spain, on 5 October 2016. More notes on this event: opencitiessummit and iodc16. Ideathon workshops takeaways Open data portals and engagement mechanisms Who is a user of the open data portal? After identifying the user, a user list sorted by priority should be drawn. Scholars should explain what open data is and promote it’s use. Free open data management tools. Keep data updated and update it and make it known. Adopting the Open Data Charter How do tell the quality of open data? How do we know about its usage? We have a lot of data, but we lack the storytelling, the visuals. What makes sense for a government, what can work for them, what makes sense for technicians. We need open data champions. The charter seems simple but its application is complex. It is a good idea to ‘deconstruct’ it principle by principle, recommendation by recommendation, and go step by step while aiming for the whole. Create networks of cities that have adopted the charter and see how they did it. Competitiveness and economic development We have to identify what is the problem. But not like “unemployment is the problem” but more focused on people. And then, try to come up with an idea that most people will quickly understand because it relies with some other familiar initiative (e.g. “Facebook for dogs”). We can create the “Tinder for data”, a meta-data portal for open data. It would identify data that could be open and thus create opportunities. Smart and resilient cities Bring the users in the design of the projects. Identify the key role players and establish communication strategies among them. How do we enable the measurement of vulnerability and how to address it. What defines a resilient city. Interdisciplinary collaboration and organizational change Better name: culture change for common understanding. Start with the challenge. Creating common context. Actively create and maintain feedback. Go across disciplines and across sectors. Interaction between civil society organizations and between civil society organizations and governments. Fiscal transparency Entrepreneurs, SMEs, etc.: they might find hard to find the kind of information that is relevant to them. What are they needs? What are the usual tasks that require data? Awareness on their needs and awareness of the possibilities of open data. Try and draw a chronological story of data for firms: When starting a business, what is the information that you need? What is the government spending (procurement) in the field? What is the budget and what is the execution of that budget. Do I have benefits for operating in this field? What are the trends in my area? Making city services accessible It is very difficult for people to see the safety net, to know what public services can one citizen access. To build a healthy ecosystem, accessible, interoperable, sustainable, that relates referral providers and social service services. Standards and interoperability A good way to understand standards and interoperability is by looking at the path that goes from raw data to indicators, in an aggregation process. The big issue is that standards apply to very small portions of reality, while reality is much more complex. Open data, smart cities, open government, etc. begin to create their own specific (ad hoc) standards that often overlap. Who provides the data and how? Who will reuse the data and how? This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Open Cities Summit (VI). Ideathon workshops takeaways

]]>
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:48:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20161005-open-cities-summit-vi-ideathon-workshops-takeaways/
Open Cities Summit (IV). Public presentation of the eight projects developed along Visualizar’16 international workshop at Medialab-Prado http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18844 Notes from the Open Cities Summit, part of the International Open Data Conference 2016, and held in Madrid, Spain, on 5 October 2016. More notes on this event: opencitiessummit and iodc16. Petcha Kucha presentations of the eight projects developed along Visualizar’16 international workshop at Medialab-Prado (26 September – 5 October Presented by José Luis de Vicente staDAtus: a way to escape the Desert of Knowledge Most of research results are not transparent. On the other hand, most citizens neither realize the importance of transparency nor where to get the data in case they would like to. staDatus aims at showing the state of transparency/open data portals. staDatus is a community-based/crowdsourced project. It creates templates so that citizens can track and assess portals, especially according to what the law says. These tools will be designed with gamification methodologies in able to help citizens. urBside-art The project is made up by artists and architects and focuses on the solid waste that cities produce, with the aim to raise awareness on this issue. Another goal is to democratize art. An app has been developed to help citizens and urban artists to share their works and to enable interaction between citizens and urban art. My museum The project aims at monitoring the behaviour of visitors in cultural institutions. Museums need to know what visitors do, what do they do, how do they move in order to be able to give them the best experience. Re-thinking the museum has to take into consideration storytelling, interaction, etc. The project has developed an app that mixes tracking with augmented reality. As the visitor moves inside the museum, the application will give the visitor (augmented reality) information, enable interaction, etc. On the other hand, this will also produce tracking data that the museum can use to reflect on the exposition or the cultural activity. Gala Goal: show/visualize the concerts happening all over the world as a galaxy/constellation according to the musical gender. Data comes from last.fm The visualization can help to identify music styles geographic clusters, or how e.g. minority styles spread and evolve. Fab City Dashboard What is the resilience of a city regarding its manufacturing, distribution and consumption of goods? What is the role of citizens in shaping a Fab City with open, distributed and collaborative initiatives? A dashboard has been created to monitor eleven measurements for the resilience of a city. The dashboard can also be used to measure the impact of a given project on resilience on the city. liQen Goal: Mapping micro-conflicts through people experiences. (Please follow the link above. See also http://commonactionforum.net/projects/) Open Referral Information about health, people and social services. From long documents in PDF format to structured open data. An application makes it easy to scrap, store and publish data. And it can be done in a crowdsourced way.

apps4citizens is a collection of apps for citizen action. An app has been deployed to map these apps in the territory using Quadrigram. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Open Cities Summit (IV). Public presentation of the eight projects developed along Visualizar’16 international workshop at Medialab-Prado

]]>
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 05:04:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20161005-open-cities-summit-iv-public-presentation-of-the-eight-projects-developed-along-visualizar16-international-workshop-at-medialab-prado/
Open Cities Summit (III). Expert panel on what is an open city: emerging trends, scaling opportunities, strengthening networks http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18843 Notes from the Open Cities Summit, part of the International Open Data Conference 2016, and held in Madrid, Spain, on 5 October 2016. More notes on this event: opencitiessummit and iodc16. Expert panel on what is an open city: emerging trends, scaling opportunities, strengthening networks.Moderator: Antonio Moneo-Laín (IADB) Barbara Ubaldi, OECD Open data needs cities because cities know who the local actors are. Because open data is about action. Networks of cities — within the country or at the international level — are very important. Jean-Noé Landry, Open North How do we reconcile the opportunity of open data with the resilience of cities. Most of the global open data movement has been led by citizens, nonprofits, etc. How can local governments empower these actors? It is important what happens before data is released, what are the ethics behind making data available. Where does the demand come from? Who has the means to ask for data? We have to look into that carefully. Stephen Larrick, Sunlight How do we scale local open data programmes and make them global (and sustainable)? Risk-aversion can be “medicated” by showing that your programme works in another place. Open formats also help to connect with other actors, to scale up. If open data is not only about data but about decentralization of democracy, about engagement of the citizen, then this ethos has to be included in the very design of any open data initiative. We have to link engagement to specific needs. Start with the needs of citizens, not with open data. Dinand Tinholt, European Data How do we make open data a priority? Build upon what others are doing. It is important that there also is an economic insight in open data. It may not be very “sexy” but it is important to bring in companies that will use open data for profit, as they contribute to make the system sustainable, to foster demand and to maintain it live. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Open Cities Summit (III). Expert panel on what is an open city: emerging trends, scaling opportunities, strengthening networks

]]>
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 03:08:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20161005-open-cities-summit-iii-expert-panel-on-what-is-an-open-city-emerging-trends-scaling-opportunities-strengthening-networks/
Open Cities Summit (II). City leaders panel: local issues and open data solutions, lessons learned, and setting short and long terms priorities http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18842 Notes from the Open Cities Summit, part of the International Open Data Conference 2016, and held in Madrid, Spain, on 5 October 2016. More notes on this event: opencitiessummit and iodc16. City leaders panel: local issues and open data solutions, lessons learned, and setting short and long terms prioritiesModerator: Alex Howard, Sunlight Foundation, What Works Cities initiative Juan Prada, City of Montevideo (Uruguay) The main reason to open data is the belief that data belongs to the citizen, not to agencies. Why should the citizen be charged for the use of their own data? In 2008 the government began its open data strategy. After an initial publication of data, the government focused on enabling the creation of open data based services developed by the citizens, such as the adaptation of Fix My Street for Montevideo. The service behind the open data initiative acts as thus, as a service, and so has a help-desk and an analysis unit to monitor usage and make proposals of new data sets to be published, etc. Víctor Morlán, City of Zaragoza (Spain) Same belief as Uruguay: access to data and public information is a basic right for citizens. Now, all services that the City Council website creates use open data as a main source. Thus, there is no need to maintain different databases and services: open data becomes useful for the City Council itself. Privacy is dealt with in the open data initiative, and everything that is published has gone through a thorough process of compliance with the law. Stephane Contre, City of Edmonton (Canada) After a first deployment, the big effort now has been publishing a “data analytics website” so that people that are neither tech-savvy or data-savvy can query the data themselves. One of the big impact has been the internal use of open data. Using specific algorithms you can use open data to improve municipal services. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Open Cities Summit (II). City leaders panel: local issues and open data solutions, lessons learned, and setting short and long terms priorities

]]>
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 02:24:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20161005-open-cities-summit-ii-city-leaders-panel-local-issues-and-open-data-solutions-lessons-learned-and-setting-short-and-long-terms-priorities/
Open Cities Summit (I). Keynote: Amen Ra Mashariki, Chief Analytics Officer, New York City http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18841 Notes from the Open Cities Summit, part of the International Open Data Conference 2016, and held in Madrid, Spain, on 5 October 2016. More notes on this event: opencitiessummit and iodc16. Keynote: Amen Ra Mashariki, Chief Analytics Officer, New York City After several milestones on open data and open governmetn, in 2015 New York City released its Open Data For All programme. Its aim, to actually increase the use and reuse of open data by all citizens, not just a bunch of them. Open data has to be available for all, meaning that data should be able to be used by anyone, anywhere and anytime. Start with users. NYC made some research on who the users were and how did they use data. Human-centered design was applied to improve the portal, and think on the portal not as a repository, but as a service. In partnership with New York University, the portal made that you —as an individual, as a community— you could find yourself in the data, you have to feel that you are represented there. If a policy is implemented and you are not there, the policy will not affect you. So, main issues/problems/needs were identified and the date was put into motion to illustrate or lay the foundations of these issues and the policies to address them. For instance, an Open Data Powerty model was designed using data on community concerns, infrastructures, representation, demographics, etc. Encourage purposeful engagement e.g. Organise hackathons and other ways of constructive engagement that has a meaning not for the city, but for the individual citizen too. Empower agencies Agencies have many missions and goals, and opening data usually is not one of them. Thus, they will not dedicate a part of the budget to it, no matter how insistent you are on that. So, how do we bring agencies to open up data? And make it meaningful to them? First thing is to address standards. Try and have agencies applying standards in their data management, so that they can be reused elsewhere, or that they can “talk” to other data sets. This will sooner or later create synergies and help agencies not to open data but to achieve their own goals, which is what they really care about. Treat publishing as the middle of opening data When you get data from an agency, most of it does not make sense to you, out of the agency’s context. So you partner with them and try to understand their data so that you can bring them to light. For the agency, publishing data is the end; for you, publishing data is just the middle, as there is a lot of work to be done still. Integrate Open Data into citywide processes Case: The NYPD Was Systematically Ticketing Legally Parked Cars for Millions of Dollars a Year — Open Data Just Put an End to It. If citizens can have access to open data, they can help improve the city in many ways. So, it is not only about “data journalism” and publishing news, etc. but also about engaging in citizen processes. You have to work to change the complexion of the community. You have to work to empower people to believe that they can make a change, that they can participate, that they can help to improve the city. Learn, test, standardize — and learn again Reflect about the whole process and improve it. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Open Cities Summit (I). Keynote: Amen Ra Mashariki, Chief Analytics Officer, New York City

]]>
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 01:50:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20161005-open-cities-summit-i-keynote-amen-ra-mashariki-chief-analytics-officer-new-york-city/
Conflict in the network age: why is social media conflictive? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18840 Conflict, courtesy by Raul Lieberwirth There is a growing sensation in some circles that social media generates heated debates, that it fosters conflict. The usual answer to this is that we need more and better education. Education in tolerance, education in difference. This is correct, but it still is too generic. It would be interesting to question ourselves what is new in social media and why these new characteristics are more prone to lead to conflict. That is, what social foundations is social media transforming? Why social media seems to foster conflict and what kind of specific education can we bring to avoid it? Extimacy One of the most famous quotes by Andy Warhol is the one that states that in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes. It was about new media and the power of television. In the Internet age, social media has put in the hands of (almost) everyone the equivalent of a television channel, a radio station, a journal… or many of them… at the same time. The possibility to easily and cheaply broadcast content has led to some to broadcast their own lives. Extimacy is just that: making public one’s intimacy. This is a game changer at many levels, to begin with at the individual or psychological level. Indeed, the Internet has enabled the possibility to be part of several different communities, or to establish flexible, liquid networks made up of a constantly changing set of nodes and relationships between these nodes. This is necessarily challenging both the sense of belonging and the very same concept of identity, which is shaped by one’s socialization activities. Thus, social networking sites are challenging how do we understand ourselves and, at the same time, offering new powerful tools to manage this understanding of one’s self and our own social liaisons. This is unprecedented and there is no way back. The new public-private sphere In this new scenario of constant evolution of both the self and the collective — which, by the way, we are just beginning to copse, not to speak about managing or even understanding — the new communication practices have a strong role. A new role which will enhance, boost, multiply what the outcomes of previous communication practices. First of all, the blurring of the division between the public sphere and the private one is playing tricks on the actors taking part on communication actions. Although we are beginning to master the new tools — and thus there are some cynical practices emerging — most of the times outcomes are unexpected and, some times, out of the borders of the charted territories of society (or Law). On of these changes is the reach of some actions. Where before one would reach but a bunch of people, now the target is literally thousands, when not the whole (connected) humankind. Another one is the impact, the depth, of some of these actions. The communicative intensity now enhanced by ICTs or social media cannot only affect more people, but more intensively. Last, these actions can easily feedback and scale, thus multiplying their effects. This is, again, a game changer: as it happened with the Industrial Revolution, now ICTs multiply our actions in unprecedented ways. Mind the difference between adding and multipliying: the sign of the initial action (positive or negative) does matter. Disintermediation Changes in identity and sense of belonging. Changes in the reach, impact and multiplication factor. This would only be serious if it were not for the fact that people now are on their own, which makes things very serious. Yes, it is true that people have always been able to act on their own, or be on their own. But the question is that now most of this very powerful acts can be done without any kind of intermediary. That is, besides or despite institutions. Or, in other words, without the contribution of the most important socio-politic actors, including family, associations, political institutions of all kinds, traditional media, etc. There are at least three aspects where institutions contributed to healthy behaviours — including communications, interactions, debates. Firstly, they contributed to “filter“, in the sense of getting the best information at hand, from the most legitimate actors, and in the most convenient tempos (there are failures in doing this, of course, but this is another matter). Secondly, they contributed to establish neat codes and channels. That is, they reduced noise and enhanced signal, including diplomacy, manners, an agreed language and tone. Thirdly, and probably most important, they added context as they benefited from a advantageous situation which provided a panoramic vision of things, of people, of relationships, of interactions. New literacies for new conflicts Summing up: we are learning or new self, our new sense of belonging; whatever we do potentially has more impact both in reach and depth, and it will potentially replicate; and we are getting rid of the institutions that helped us to have an acceptable social behaviour, to make the best of the tools we had at hand. So, when we say that education is the best tool to prevent conflict, we are not only talking about education as usual, but about brand new skills to master and control the new powerful tools that ICTs and social media put in our hands. And it is not only digital literacy in the sense of knowing how to use a computer, or an Internet browser. Not even digital literacy in the sense of knowing where to get good information and how to manage it. It is about new strategic literacies to live in a brand new world that is just disclosing itself. This post was based on my notes that I prepared for the round table Conflict resolution at sports, part of the 1st Conference on Sport, conflict management and mediation, organized by the Bar Association of Barcelona and taking place in Barcelona in September 29th, 2016. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conflict in the network age: why is social media conflictive?

]]>
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:46:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160929-conflict-in-the-network-age-why-is-social-media-conflictive/
Movimientos sociales y tecnopolítica: ¿anarquía o sincronía? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18839 Bakunin and Marx from Russia with love, cortesía de fabiotmb El 28 de septiembre de 1864 se constituía en el Saint Martin’s Hall de Londres la Primera Internacional de los Trabajadores. Ocho años después, las distintas aproximaciones que sobre el poder y la organización tenían Karl Marx y Mijaíl Bakunin dieron al traste con la unidad y la Primera Internacional se partió en dos. La Primera Internacional fue uno de los primeros intentos de organizar a una gran masa de ciudadanos a nivel planetario, y lo hizo abriendo la caja de Pandora que todavía está por cerrar: jerarquía y representación o asamblea y participación. Se impuso la primera opción y, en términos generales, así sigue hasta hoy en la inmensa mayoría de organizaciones en todo el mundo. En el invierno de 2010-2011, el mundo se vio sacudido por la ola de revueltas que convinimos en llamar la “Primavera árabe” y que se extendió, ya con otros nombres, por medio globo. La principal característica de lo sucedido en Túnez, Yemen, Egipto, España, México, Brasil, Estados Unidos, Turquía o Hong Kong —por citar solamente los movimientos más mediáticos internacionalmente— es que todo estaba conectado. Salvando las enormes particularidades de cada caso, en dichos movimientos sociales se compartieron objetivos, protocolos y herramientas, pero —y esto es destacable—, sin ningún organismo coordinador, y sin ninguna asamblea mediante. La tecnopolítica —en el sentido que le dio Jon Lebkowsky en TechnoPolitics en 1997— aparece como el motor común de los movimientos sociales nacidos tras la emergencia de la Web 2.0 y las redes sociales. Y se erige como alternativa a la jerarquía con una cúpula electa que toma decisiones y las ejecuta, así como alternativa a la asamblea que toma decisiones y nombra una cúpula para ejecutarlas. Al contrario que éstas, lo que caracteriza la tecnopolítica es primero la acción y después la coordinación, la hacercracia: a partir de una toma de decisiones altamente distribuida, así como la posibilidad para iniciar procesos de forma individual. Tomadas las decisiones y puestas en práctica a modo de proceso piloto, a medida que la iniciativa tecnopolítica gana interés suma participantes y afina sus protocolos. Se enriquece, además, de participaciones puntuales que, lejos de ser un incomprendido clictivismo (todo parece ejecutarse clicando opciones predefinidas e inevitables), se constituyen en aportaciones que marcan la tendencia, el patrón de comportamiento y construyen puentes para su réplica en iniciativas similares. Es aquí, en hacer la participación distribuida, fácil, gradual y replicable, que es posible constituir redes reconfigurables que se adaptan fácilmente a las singularidades de cada caso particular. Pero que a su vez permiten elevar la mirada y sincronizarse para constituir, por construcción, movimientos emergentes de mucho mayor calado. Es la sincronización, y no la planificación, lo que hace nuestros actuales radares inservibles para identificar, analizar y evaluar los actuales movimientos sociales, tan diferentes de nuestro institucionalismo. Este modus operandi de trabajar sobre lo que une y sin detenerse en lo que separa ha dado dos grandes frutos: diagnósticos afinadísimos de cada situación, gracias a su fuerte enraizamiento en las bases ciudadanas y la multiplicidad de ojos que contribuyen al proyecto de proyectos; y procesos organizativos dinámicos y flexibles que facilitan la respuesta rápida y la concentración de masas críticas alrededor de ejes simples y claros. Su punto débil, probablemente, la reflexión propositiva y puesta en práctica de proyectos a largo plazo. Para ello, es necesaria la visión de contexto, el ágora sosegada y la facilitación de la deliberación. Estas cuestiones han sido habitualmente feudo reservado a las instituciones, con lo que los movimientos sociales han optado por tomarlas. Y es de esperar que el paso de la tecnopolítica por las instituciones las cambie para siempre. Entrada originalmente publicada en junio de 2016 como un capítulo del Anuario Internacional CIDOB 2015 del Barcelona Centre for International Affairs. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Movimientos sociales y tecnopolítica: ¿anarquía o sincronía?

]]>
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:53:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20160922-movimientos-sociales-y-tecnopolitica-anarquia-o-sincronia/
La necesidad de la inmersión lingüística en Catalunya http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18834 La niña habla dos idiomas, cortesía de Blázquez De todos es sabido que no hay que hacer categoría de un caso particular: yo voy a hacer oídos sordos a este principio básico del método científico. Primero, porque esto no es un artículo científico, sino una opinión personal que me viene en gusto compartir; segundo, porque sospecho que muchos otros se sentirán identificados con esta reflexión; y tercero, porque a lo mejor algunos quieren comprender algunos posicionamientos personales, aunque no vengan avalados por un test de significatividad y representatividad muestral. Mi hija cumple cinco años mañana, de los cuales lleva dos escolarizada (educación infantil) y otros dos en guardería. En casa solamente se habla catalán. Aunque madre y padre somos completamente bilingües, nos conocimos en un entorno catalanoparlante y así nos dio por hablar a nuestros hijos. En algún momento nos planteamos cada uno hablarle en una de nuestras dos lenguas maternas — uno en catalán, otro en castellano — pero, simplemente, no nos salía. Absolutamente siempre se habla en catalán en casa. Con el resto de la familia sucede parecido y, a efectos prácticos — en el sentido de la frecuencia de las relaciones personales —, la única persona con quien mi hija habla en castellano es con mi padre. Sucede lo mismo en la escuela: la lengua vehicular de los centros educativos en Catalunya es el catalán y, al menos en la escuela de mi hija (por supuesto no en todos, pero este es otro tema) esta cuestión se respeta. Dentro de clase, maestros y alumnos hablan en catalán. A las puertas de sus cinco años, mi hija es enteramente bilingüe. No confunde los idiomas ni las palabras — o no mucho más que los adultos, sabe que hay dos idiomas y con cuál debe dirigirse a cada persona. Y mi hijo de dos años y medio va por el mismo camino. A pesar de que prácticamente su único contacto personal con el castellano es su abuelo paterno, ambos son entera y completamente bilingües. Como sus padres. Y sus tíos y sus primos y la totalidad de personas que tienen el catalán como primera lengua — si es que eso existe: es muy excepcional quien aprende catalán sin aprender castellano, aunque no lo es lo contrario. A las puertas de sus cinco años, mi hija es enteramente bilingüe. Pero juega en castellano. Es decir, cuando juega ella sola, y habla en voz alta, habla en castellano. Sus fantasías, sus diálogos consigo misma o con sus muñecos, su propia relatoría de sus propios juegos… es en castellano. A mí esto no me parece bien ni mal. Los políglotas, los políglotas que lo somos de verdad, pensamos en el idioma en el que hablamos o en el que hacemos las cosas. Yo pienso en catalán cuando hablo con mis hijos, pienso en castellano cuando echo unas cervezas con amigos en la Alameda de Sevilla, o me toca pensar en inglés cuando asisto a un congreso académico de carácter internacional. Y mi hija hace lo mismo. No obstante, si bien tengo claros los motivos por los que yo cambio de idioma, he tenido que aprender por qué lo hace mi hija, especialmente cuando está sola. He sido capaz de identificar dos motivos especialmente poderosos:

El primero es la influencia de sus compañeros. Reza el dicho que en clase se habla catalán, pero que en el recreo se habla castellano. Muchos de los amigos de mi hija son castellanoparlantes, y los que no lo son acaban cediendo a la lengua franca de la escuela que, fuera del ámbito académico, es muy claramente el castellano. El segundo es la influencia de los medios. A pesar de la insistencia de sus padres de suministrar lecturas y material audiovisual en su lengua original (habitualmente catalán, castellano e inglés, pero YouTube trae de todo), la oferta cultural infantil es apabullantemente en castellano: cuentos, juegos, libros, dibujos animados…

Cuando uno oye o lee declaraciones públicas sobre la persecución del castellano en Catalunya, o la dificultad de usarlo en el día a día, no puede menos que quedarse estupefacto. Mientras mis hijos son completamente bilingües a pesar de vivir en una casa donde solamente se habla catalán, ni jueces ni abogados en Cataluya tienen obligación de comprender el catalán, por poner solamente un ejemplo entre cientos. Es absolutamente cierto que el castellano está discriminado en Catalunya, y lo está por tres motivos que apunto de menos importante a más.

El primero es por los más que demostrados beneficios del bilingüismo: es bueno para aprender más y mejor, es bueno porque nos hace más empáticos, es bueno porque nos protege (relativamente) de enfermedades degenerativas de origen neurocerebral. Por tanto es bueno aprender castellano y catalán, catalán y castellano. Si una de las lenguas — creo que queda claro por lo escrito hasta ahora que es el catalán y por qué motivos — está en una situación de desventaja, parece lógico auparla hasta la igualdad para promover el bilingüismo (muy distinto de la diglosia, dicho sea de paso). El segundo motivo es para fomentar la inclusión social. O la inter-inclusión social, si se prefiere: no se trata de que un grupo “incluya” al otro, sino de que se “incluyan” mútuamente, que se interrelacionen, que no haya guetos (ni de catalanoparlantes ni de castellanoparlantes). La experiencia de la inmersión lingüística en las escuelas catalanas ha demostrado ser excelente en esta cuestión. No suficiente, por supuesto, pero sí fantástica dentro de sus posibilidades. Algunas personas opinan — no sin razón — que educar a alguien en una lengua que le es ajena (es decir, a un castellanoparlante en catalán) puede perjudicar su nivel de comprensión. Si bien esto es cierto (la ciencia también se ha pronunciado al respecto) hay dos objeciones a hacer. Una, que es posible que la exclusión social por no saber ambas lenguas sea peor que la motivada por no haber “comprendido toda la lección”. La segunda, y mucho más importante, es que cuando organismos como la UNESCO defiende la escolarización en la lengua propia lo que realmente están defendiendo son aproximaciones educativas bilingües o multilingües basadas en la lengua materna como un factor importante de inclusión y calidad en la enseñanza. Es lo que pretenden algunos al querer añadir el inglés como lengua vehicular. Si sirve para el inglés, sirve para el catalán. Por último, porque se trata de un derecho constitucional. Mi hija, mis hijos, tienen derecho a conocer y poder desarrollarse plenamente en su(s) lengua(s) materna(s). Dada la apabullante presencia del castellano en relación al catalán, desarrollarse en catalán jamás será posible sin una enseñanza, sí, que discrimine (negativamente) el castellano a cambio de una discriminación (positiva) del catalán. Si ello fuese en detrimento del desarrollo del castellano en mis hijos, yo sería el primero que se opondría. Vehementemente. Pero la experiencia nos ha demostrado, repetidas y contundentes veces, que el castellano no retrocede nunca, mientras que el catalán sí se mantiene (tampoco avanza, porque harían falta más políticas para ello).

Acabo como he empezado: esto es una opinión personal fruto de la observación atenta de un único caso, el de mi hija (y el de mi hijo, que va por la misma senda). No pretende ni convencer ni confirmar en sus convicciones a nadie. Es un único caso y tiene la relevancia que tiene. Que para mí es toda. Suficiente como para, si se diese el caso, desobedecer una ley que no permitiese a mi hija aprender los dos idiomas en los que hablan sus padres y abuelos: el castellano y el catalán. Hay quien defiende la “utilidad” de una lengua por el número de hablantes. Para mí, el catalán no es útil porque tenga más hablantes nativos que el Checho, el Búlgaro, el Sueco, el Danés, el Finlandés o el Noruego, entre otros. Para mí, el catalán es útil porque lo hablan mi madre, mi mujer y mi hija. Y no hay nada más importante que eso, aunque fuésemos los únicos que todavía lo hablásemos en todo el mundo. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como La necesidad de la inmersión lingüística en Catalunya

]]>
Sat, 03 Sep 2016 08:24:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20160903-la-necesidad-de-la-inmersion-linguistica-en-catalunya/
La política como lucha, la política como construcción http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18833 From fisticuffs to Fibonacci, cortesía de Aja Romano. Guerra de clases.La contienda electoral.Ganar las elecciones.Derrota política.El adversario.La oposición. Debo ser un ingenuo. Pero atrás, muy atrás queda aquello de la política como gestión de lo común, como la creación de un proyecto compartido. No soy tan ingenuo como para creer que todo el mundo persigue los mismos objetivos. Y que esos objetivos pueden ser, incluso, mutuamente excluyentes y, por tanto, difícilmente compatibles o reconciliables. No obstante. En el mundo anglosajón se habla, en el ámbito de la política y la gestión comunitaria, del naming and framing (nombrar y contextualizar) como paso previo a la correcta resolución de un problema o una cuestión pública. Más allá de lo obvio, se entiende que nombrar un problema es necesario para delimitarlo bien. Si hablamos de la “lucha contra las drogas”, automáticamente evocamos a las fuerzas de élite tiroteando a los narcotraficantes, probablemente olvidando a los consumidores. Si hablamos de “tratamientos contra las drogas”, puede ocurrir lo contrario: ponemos el énfasis en que el consumo debe tratarse como una enfermedad, dejando al margen el crimen que suele acompañarla. Sucede lo mismo con el contexto. Siguiendo con el ejemplo de las drogas, el consumo de estupefacientes es muy distinto dependiendo del quién, el cómo, el cuándo, el dónde y, sobre todo, el porqué. El consumo lúdico de cannabis suele tener poco que ver con el consumo patológico de heroína: podemos separar perfectamente al fumador de clase media ocasional, con el que empezó a pincharse en un entorno de exclusión social, marginalidad o criminalidad. En muchos casos, ese nombrar y contextualizar nos lleva a un estadio superior en la comprensión de los problemas y, en consecuencia, en el diseño de sus soluciones y las políticas públicas (o acciones comunitarias) que intentarán llevarlas a cabo. Así, si bien que una persona se quede sin hogar es seguramente el componente más serio (por grave) de un desahucio, el problema es mucho más complejo que una persona quedándose sin techo: hay un banco que ve sus activos perder valor, unos accionistas perdiendo dividendos, una comunidad de vecinos probablemente perdiendo la contribución de ese vecino (ahora desahuciado), un piso probablemente siendo ocupado (posiblemente generando problemas a vecinos y nuevos propietarios), un mercado del alquiler arrugándose ante los problemas de impagos y desahucios, etc. Algunas de estas cuestiones son más importantes que otras, aunque (1) la importancia dependerá del sistema de valores de cada uno y (2) lo importante es que todos forman parte de un gran puzzle que es necesario desentrañar para dar con la mejor aproximación al problema. En mi opinión, los problemas o necesidades que afectan a un colectivo generalmente no son sencillos — añadiría que por construcción, al afectar a un colectivo y no a un individuo. En consecuencia, hacen falta muchos ojos sobre ellos para desenmarañarlos, que hay que identificar a todos los actores afectados por la cuestión (no solamente a los más preeminentes), conviene hacer inventario de las posibles aproximaciones y soluciones con sus respectivos pros y contras, hay que tener en cuenta las distintas escalas de valores que determinan las diferentes prioridades de cada actor, dirimir el posible impacto de la propuesta a llevar a cabo y sus costes (materiales o personales) asociados. Entre otras muchas cosas. Parecería que, si estamos de acuerdo en la complejidad de los problemas, es más fácil abordarlos sumando que restando. Si bien construir es más complejo que dejar las cosas correr, se me antoja que considerar la política algo parecido a una guerra no es una buena aproximación a la cuestión. O, al menos, no es la que yo querría para mí. En concreto, hay tres motivos por los cuales no comparto que haya que enfocar el debate político como una guerra, como una cuestión de bandos.

El primero es que la gestión de lo común no tiene porqué ser un juego de suma cero. Es decir, niego que, necesariamente, toda solución pase por que haya siempre quienes salen ganando y quienes salen perdiendo, que conseguir algo tenga que ser siempre a cosa de que otro pierda algo. A veces es así. Pero no siempre. Y, me atrevo a decir, no en la mayoría de los casos. Tampoco tiene que ganar todo el mundo: basta con que los que no ganan tampoco pierdan para que una opción sea deseable (o Pareto superior). El segundo es que los partidos y otras instituciones de la democracia no representan fidedignamente las preferencias de sus miembros, simpatizantes y mucho menos sus votantes. Tienen más en común los asalariados que votan a un partido o a otro, que (seguramente) esos mismos asalariados con los respectivos dirigentes de los respectivos partidos — por poner un ejemplo bastante manido. Quien prefiere enfrontar partidos — en lugar de sentarlos a la misma mesa o hemiciclo — pone en la misma bolsa a la miríada de individualidades que han venido a darse cita bajo unas mismas siglas por sus múltiples motivos. Se me antoja una generalización difícil de digerir. Por último, y más importante, la política como guerra pone la ideología como fin, no como instrumento. La ideología, para mí, es una metáfora, una forma de ver el mundo y una forma de pensar en cómo mejorarlo. Y como toda metáfora y como todo punto de vista tiene sus puntos fuertes y sus limitaciones. No hay que confundir ideología con principios: mis principios, p.ej., son la igualdad de las personas; mi ideología que hay que velar por esa igualdad desde las oportunidades, no solamente desde los recursos disponibles. Cuando uno se atrinchera en la ideología, acaba amoldando sus principios a ella (justificando unas dictaduras condenando a otras, por ejemplo). Y, entonces, lo que importa ya no es resolver problemas, sino ganar. Para imponer la ideología.

Quiero cerrar esta reflexión con tres breves apuntes. El primero es que yo, por supuesto, me alegro cuando la opción que yo he votado saca más votos que el resto. Por supuesto. Considero con ello que hay más gente con la que compartimos puntos de vista y posibles instrumentos y posibles soluciones. Y como considero que éstas son las mejores, hay más probabilidad de que se lleven a cabo. Por supuesto. Pero mantengo la (aunque a veces cueste) opinión que puede que esté equivocado y que vale la pena estar atento a las opiniones de otros. El segundo es que, incluso desde las antípodas ideológicas, siempre hay algo que nos une al resto de la comunidad: será el contexto, será el diagnóstico de la situación, serán las dudas sobre una misma cuestión, será el compartir recursos. Mientras la política como lucha se empecina en poner de relieve y por inventariar la lista de todo lo que nos separa, la política como construcción, el consenso, se centra en poner de relieve y ponerse a trabajar en aquello que nos une, dejando para más adelante las decisiones que crearán división. La ventaja del consenso es que cuando llega la disensión y, con ella, el bloqueo, ya se ha andado una parte grande o pequeña del camino, que es más que no haber andado nada. Es más, con la andadura suele aparecer nueva información, actores, propuestas que van a enriquecer la deliberación. La tercera y última es que, en realidad, sí hay un enemigo a batir en política, en democracia: el que quiere destruir el sistema o lo usa de forma intencionada para manipularlo a su favor. No es éste el que persigue su beneficio o sus aspiraciones dentro del juego democrático, sino el que abusa de dicho juego desvirtuándolo completamente como herramienta de gestión de lo público, de lo colectivo. Desgraciadamente, a estas alturas, hemos conseguido darle la vuelta al tablero: somos condescendientes y conniventes (cuando no cómplices) con quien dice compartir nuestras ideas, mientras tratamos de destruir a quien identificamos (con certeza o erróneamente) como nuestro oponente, aunque pueda, en realidad, tener mucho en común con nosotros. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como La política como lucha, la política como construcción

]]>
Sun, 28 Aug 2016 04:49:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20160828-la-politica-como-lucha-la-politica-como-construccion/
Technopolitics, networks and citizenship: a syllabus http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18835 Singing in the rain, courtesy streetwork.com My colleague Mirela Fiori is redesigning the Master in City and Urbanism which she is directing. In the updated version that she is planning she wants to include a subject on how technology and civic action have a role in the shaping of the city. In my opinion this is a most important acknowledgement. Adolfo Estalella and Alberto Corsín have systematically proved how the city can be used both “hardware”, much in the line of Gidden’s Structuration Theory where the “system” is both an instrument and a target for change. Manuel Castells also speaks about cities and their (different) role in the Network Society, a role that oftentimes is emergent in the sense of Steve Johnson. In newest “open source” cities, action turns into activism and activism cannot be without action. Thus, it does look very relevant to me that there is a little time or space to think about the city not as a mere receptacle of people doing things, but as an actor that is both affected and affecting the uptake of technology and its use for citizen action and, thus, being part of the (new) definition of citizenship. The goal of the master’s new subject Technopolitics, networks and citizenship is to provide this vision of the city as an institution, a player that requires a renewed strategy and a renewed vision on its role in a complex ecosystem. My preliminary syllabus (it does not even deserve that name yet) would include the following topics — comments welcome:

Digital revolution and globalization How dire are the changes we are witnessing in the global economy? How are connected the new trends in the business and financial spheres with the democratic and governance spheres? Are Information and Communication Technologies instruments for improvement or for transformation? Is this a revolution? Why are some things happening? Why would they last — if they do? Limits of the institutions of the industrial age Is there a crisis in industrial age institutions (schools & universities, political parties and parliaments, firms and work, media and journalism, etc.)? What is their role in society? Is their role still needed? Can we separate the continent (institutions) from their content (role, tasks)? If yes, who will take up with these roles? How? Why? Why not? Hacker ethics, commons and gift economy Is there a new way to design collective initiatives? Is decision-making over as we knew it? Are hierarchies a thing of the past? Is information still power? Can we shift power balances? How different is information from knowledge? How different is controlling information from controlling knowledge? How will the control of knowledge transform our daily practices? And our institutions? Social innovation, open innovation and open social innovation What used to be innovation? What is innovation today? What is the relationship between innovation, knowledge and power? Can innovation be distributed? Can innovation be socialized? Can power be socialized? Can innovation lead to better governance? Can better governance lead to innovation? Should we act in either or another way to affect the final result? Can we? Technopolitics, cooperation platforms and network-organizations How is technology (ICTs) changing human behaviour? How is technology (ICTs) changing human collective behaviour? What are the main trends? How will they evolve? Why? What new organizations will come enabled (and fostered) by technology? How will this change the map of actors and institutions in society? How will they interact? How will this change the city landscape?

Yes, these are questions and not answers. Because there are not many answers — yet. And the ones being are constantly changing and evolving. But the questions will remain for much longer. These are days for good questions and for flexible answers. Dogmatic answers for feeble questions will rarely help us to map the new territories that need being explored. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Technopolitics, networks and citizenship: a syllabus

]]>
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 03:06:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160821-technopolitics-networks-and-citizenship-a-syllabus/
Structural Conditions for Citizen Deliberation: A Conceptual Scheme for the Assessment of “New” Parties http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18832 Communication at Building a European digital space, 12th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, 7-8 July, 2016.

More information: http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=3056

]]>
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:27:00 -0700 http://www.slideshare.net/ictlogist/structural-conditions-for-citizen-deliberation-a-conceptual-scheme-for-the-assessment-of-new-parties-65051535
IDP2016 (X). Céline Deswarte: Towards a future proof legal framework for digital privacy in Europe http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18831 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Keynote speech. Chairs: Pere Fabra Céline Deswarte. Policy Officer, European Commission. Directorate General for Communication, Networks, Content and Technology.Towards a future proof legal framework for digital privacy in Europe EU legal framework for Digital Privacy: General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679/EU + ePrivacy Directive 2002/57/EC. When you are surfing online you produce key information on time of connection, browsing history, location, etc. which can be retrieved. Telecom providers must anonymize or delete traffic and location data of their users and subscribers. When it is stored in hour own computer (e.g. cookies) the user must have given their prior consent after having been duly informed. But is it consent strong enough? It is difficult to understand that consent is given “freely” if data subject has no genuine or free choice or unable to withdraw consent without detriment. Protecting your personal data, when e.g. buying online. Companies must rely on a legal basis to process personal data, and respect principles of data processing. On the specific issue of profiling, sharing personal data with a third party implies the right to be informed about it. Profiling is lawful unless it is equivalent to a decision with legal effects that is significantly harmful to the individual (e.g. one can lose one’s own job). Besides, there has to be a respect for the individual’s rights, e.g. the right to object at any time including profiling, and then data processing must stop. Member states shall ensure the confidentiality of one’s electronic communications and related traffic data. So, it is not only about privacy in the sense of what you do, but also in the sense of what you say and to whom. The big problem here is to whom applies all this regulation, as actors are many and different. So far, these principles only apply to telecom providers, while new market players like Voice IP or instant messaging, etc. do not need to respect this. In other words, social networking sites provide communication services but do not fall into the category of telecommunications providers. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (X). Céline Deswarte: Towards a future proof legal framework for digital privacy in Europe

]]>
Fri, 08 Jul 2016 05:02:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160708-idp2016-x-celine-deswarte-towards-a-future-proof-legal-framework-for-digital-privacy-in-europe/
IDP2016 (IX). New Media, Citizens & Public Opinion http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18836 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on New Media, Citizens & Public OpinionChairs: Joan Balcells Fragmented audiences, fragmented voters?Carolina Galais González, Postdoctoral researcher, UOC; Ana Sofia Cardenal Izquierdo, Full professor, UOC. Does digital media exposure benefit small parties?

]]>
Fri, 08 Jul 2016 03:58:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160708-idp2016-ix-new-media-citizens-public-opinion/
IDP2016 (VIII). Lance Bennett: The Democratic Interface: Communication and Organizational Change in Movements and Parties http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18829 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Keynote speech. Chairs: Rosa Borge. Prof. Lance Bennett. Professor of Political Science and Ruddick C. Lawrence Professor of Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.The Democratic Interface: Communication and Organizational Change in Movements and Parties (Keynote co-authored with Alexandra Segerberg and Curd Knüpfer). The democratic interface: the capacity of electoral communication and organization processes to engage citizens and produce equal democratic representation. Does the interface work equally well for everyone? Is it working better for the right? Why? Has a change in participation logic disrupted the traditional party interface with voter on the left? 40 years of neoliberal globalization, resulting in a breaking up of common social institutions (unions, schools, media, health care, etc.) and more political polarization. Power has moved from states to businesses and markets. Most parties are embracing neoliberal policies and parties have hollowed themselves as spaces for citizen engagement (Mair). There is a legitimacy crissi of liberal representative democracy (Della Porta), a relocation of politics in the everyday (Band) and a personalization of politics (Bennett). Does the reactionary right have increasing electoral advantage? Those who identify on the right are more likely to follow rules, respect traditions and customs and, in general, to follow what constitutes the model of a political party in neoliberal democracies: hierarchy, leadership, command, etc. So the right may have more electoral success because their voters have preferences for authority, strong leadership, rules, common traditions, etc. Why the deficits on the left? There are fewer angry citizens on the radical left than on the radical right? there is more trust or confidence in politicians and parties on the left? Both hypothesis are not validated. Same happens with satisfaction with democracy, the economy, etc. And same with participation: the left participates as much or even higher than the right. So it has to be a different logic of participation on the left. The connective party: communication and organization for participatory democracy. There is a discontent with neoliberal globalization since 90s, leading to flexible identities and multiple issues, “meta ideologies” of diversity and inclusiveness, mistrust of parties and leaders and the representative process, and a preference for direct or participatory or deliberative democracy. There is a shift in participation logic at the left interface. And this may be the reason why left parties are having issues to connect with their partisans and sympathisers. Can parties on the left mobilize more voters with connective action? Requirement for a connective party:

Central party open to feedback from peripheral networks. Peripheral networks deliberate and share positions across networks and with central organization. Scale requires digital platforms.

Podemos was initially more decentralized, but went under a process of centralization and strong leadership, quite abandoning the círculos. This left aside many people that were in for the participation. Barcelona en Comú created a whole participatory network with different spaces, times, tools. It is by far the least centralized in Barcelona municipality. Alternativet (Denmark). Founded in 2013, entered parliament in 2015 with 5% vote. Called itself both a party and a political movement, socially open, networked online platform, living everyday democracy, organized through communication between citizen “labs” and party leadership. Can socially mediated participation be coordinated? Can it scale? Can such organization be sustained? Can party leadership share power? Can technology developers design participatory and deliberative platforms in collaboration with core leaders and local activists who may undervalue technology? Discussion Modern democracies are over. They were done when neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism as a way to manage society and public issues. Can Kurban: does right and left still explain the state of politics? Bennett: it is true that it is increasingly difficult to explain things using these axes, but they still somewhat work, especially for the right that still cluster well. Juan Roch: what is the role of technology, of digital platforms? Bennett: they are only instrumental, but they are definitely very important. But it is worth noting that there still is a lot of doubts about intensive use of technology, and even refusal to see technology replacing face-to-face meetings. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (VIII). Lance Bennett: The Democratic Interface: Communication and Organizational Change in Movements and Parties

]]>
Fri, 08 Jul 2016 02:34:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160708-idp2016-viii-lance-bennett-the-democratic-interface-communication-and-organizational-change-in-movements-and-parties/
IDP2016 (VII). New Political Parties & Cyber-activism http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18837 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on New Political Parties & Cyber-activismChairs: Joan Balcells Structural Conditions for Citizen Deliberation: A Conceptual Scheme for the Assessment of “New” Parties.Maria Haberer, Doctoral Student, IN3, UOC; Ismael Peña-Lopez, Lecturer at the School of Law and Political Science, UOC. Is there something like “new politics”? There are certainly recent social movements (15M, Occupy Wall Street) that look like what people like Lebkowsk (1997) called technopolitics. It seems that citizen deliberation is what lies at the core of these movements and the political parties that came after them. Deliberative democracy is a form of communication to come to consensus-based decision that serve the public good. Barcelona En Comú (BComú) is analysed to see whether it fits in this definition of new politics or deliberative democracy. What opportunities have the citizens to participate? What are the challenges these spaces are facing? Four aspects or dimensions:

Structure and functionality. Accessibility and transparency. Hybridity and coordination. Outcome and accountability.

What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age.Can Kurban, Doctoral Student, New School for Social Research, New York; Ismael Peña-Lopez, Lecturer at the School of Law and Political Science, UOC; Maria Haberer, Doctoral Student, IN3, UOC. What is the relationship between ICTs and democracy? Is it about online vs. offline? About Politics 2.0? The literature is not clear about what we understand by technopolitics:

“constitutional integrity” (Lebkowski, 1997) “hybridity” (Hecht, 2001) contingency and multiplicity of actors (Kellner, 2001) contesting conceptions of citizenship, rights, and the polity (Hughes, 2006) the closed vs. the open (Rasmussen, 2007) power and strategy (Toret et al. 2015)

Two main origins of antagonism: the organizing role of communication (and Internet governance) and the value of information (big/pubic data). So, in the latest years we either see ICTs strengthening the status quo, making it more efficient, or as an antagonism of the status quo, empowering citizens with new tools and protocols. And since 2008, the acceleration of the antagonist approach has been quite evident. Dimensions:

Context: we are in contentious politics, in a new digital media environment, living an organizational change. Actors: new and plural actors. Scale: we go from individuals, to organizations, to contentious networks. Directions: contentious politics moving from outside to inside the institutional politics. Synchronization: new spaces for activism, spaces that are not isolated but overlapping layers, and that synchronize through several practices. Purpose: taking back politics in the short term, hacking the political system in the long term.

Are we witnessing a new constitutional process? Online primaries and intra-party democracy: candidate selection processes in Podemos and the Five Star movement. Bálint Mikola, PhD Candidate, Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations, Central European University (CEU), Budapest. To what extent do online primaries empower party members and supporters vis-a-vis the other faces of party organization? Four dimensions:

Who can be selected: from all citizens to only some specific party members. Who selects: from all the electorate to only the party leader. Is the process decentralized: functional and territorial. Voting/appointment systems.

Comparison between Movimento 5 Stelle (Italy) and Podemos (Spain). Primaries are much more regulated in Podemos, but on the contrary they are more inclusive and open to the outside of the party. In Podemos, block voting was possible and the result was a certain skewness towards the party leader’s preferences. Indeed, party leadership can control candidate selection through block voting and licensing of candidates. On the other hand, coalition agreements dilute members’ influence. Europeanization and left-wing populism in southern Europe: the case of Podemos.Juan Roch González, Phd Candidate in Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin. What are the discursive formation represented by Podemos around EU issues? What is the role of the EU, in relation to Spanish politics, facilitating or constraining framing opportunities to the Spanish political agents? The issue of Europe has been crucial for Spanish politics, especially since Spain became part of the EU but most especially in the latest years when European politics have been quite hard on budget issues for the member states, even more for southern states like Greece, Portugal or Spain. This has put the European issue in the very centre of Spanish Politics, affecting budget policies, employment policies and, all in all, leading to a Europeanization of the economic policy area in Spain. During this period of Europeanization (2010-2012) the Spanish government generated framing opportunities mediated by national (the context of crisis in Spain), the lack of political culture about European issues, etcl.), and agential factors (the new social movements, etc.). It seems that Podemos has not entirely grasped these opportunities, they are perceived as risky opportunities. Discussion Rosa Borge: are participation rates of 15% really low? Mikola: it is true that they are not “that low” in relationship with other parties, but it is also true that, in general, Internet-based parties are usually much more mobilized and one would expect much higher degrees of participation, circa 50%, as it happens in other tasks. Rosa Borge: is Podemos becoming more hierarchical? Mikola: maybe not hierarchical, but certainly more oligarchical in order to become more electoral. Q: how does participation changes participants? how does participation changes their own views? Haberer: it is true that participation usually precedes deliberation, but our analysis is more about what makes possible deliberation, and not what happens with it or with the citizen. The crucial thing here is, beyond normative approaches about deliberation, what makes it possible and how is it deployed within the party. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (VII). New Political Parties & Cyber-activism

]]>
Fri, 08 Jul 2016 01:38:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160708-idp2016-vii-new-political-parties-cyber-activism/