ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net Article. What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18865 A year ago, Can Kurban, Maria Haberer and I presented a communication at the conference IDP2016 – Internet, Law and Politics. Building a European digital space, and it was published in its proceedings as What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age. Now, an improved version of that paper has been published at the IDP. Journal of Internet, Law and Politics, in its issue #24. Abstract In this article we seek to revisit what the term ‘technopolitical’ means for democratic politics in our age. We begin by tracing how the term was used and then transformed through various and conflicting adaptations of ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) in governmental and civil organizations and grassroots movements. Two main streams can be distinguished in academic literature: studies about internet-enhanced politics (labelled as e- government) and politics 2.0 that imply the facilitation of existing practices such as e-voting, e-campaigning and e-petitioning. The second stream of the internet-enabled perspective builds on the idea that ICTs are essential for the organization of transformative, contentious politics, citizen participation and deliberative processes. Under a range of labels, studies have often used ideas of the technopolitical in an undefined or underspecified manner for describing the influence of digital technologies on their scope of investigation. After critically reviewing and categorizing the main concepts used in the literature to describe ICT-based political performances, we construct a conceptual model of technopolitics oriented at two contra-rotating developments: Centralization vs. Decentralization. Within a schema consisting of the five dimensions of context, scale and direction, purpose, synchronization and actors we will clarify these developments and structure informal and formal ways of political practices. We explain the dimensions using real-world examples to illustrate the unique characteristics of each technopolitical action field and the power dynamics that influence them. Downloads

Full article: Kurban, C., Peña-López, I. & Haberer, M. (2017). “What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age”. In IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Ciencia Política, 24. Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Article. What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age

]]>
Mon, 22 May 2017 00:42:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170522-article-what-is-technopolitics-a-conceptual-scheme-for-understanding-politics-in-the-digital-age/
Article. ICT-based participation in municipalities: from citizen empowerment to the open cities network http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18864 For the last year I have been taking part of the research project Voice or Chatter?, part of Making All Voices Count, a programme working towards a world in which open, effective and participatory governance is the norm and not the exception, and focusing global attention on creative and cutting-edge solutions to transform the relationship between citizens and their governments. I had already released three outputs resulting of the work on this project:

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, a working paper. State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement, a research report with the political and regulatory context of e-participation in Spain. Participation in Spanish Municipalities: The Makings of a Network of Open cities, a blog post (actually the seed of a forthcoming policy paper)

A new article has been published from the same project. It is a shorter version of the political and regulatory context, now in Spanish. It has appeared in Revista Internacional de Pensamiento Político (issue #11), within a monograph on the digital revolution, technopolitics and digital democracy edited by Ramón Soriano and Francisco Jurado — to whom I owe much gratitude, not only for the invitation to submit a paper, but for their idea to curate such an interesting monograph. Below appear the abstract of the article in English and Spanish and the download of the full text in Spanish. Abstract in English The Spanish local elections in 2015 brought to many Spanish cities what has been labeled as “city councils of change”: city councils whose mayors and governing representatives come from parties emerging from the 15M Spanish Indignados Movement. This research focuses on the socio-political environment where this phenomenon takes place, specifically in Madrid and Barcelona, the two major cities of the state and featuring “city councils of change”. Our research revisits e-participation since the beginnings of the XXIst century onwards and most especially in the aftermath of the 15M Movement, proposing that recent ICT-based participation initiatives in such in municipalities could be far from just polling the citizens and be, instead, the spearhead of a technopolitics-aimed network of cities. Abstract in English Las elecciones municipales de España en 2015 trajeron a muchas ciudades españolas lo que se ha calificado como “ayuntamientos de cambio”: ayuntamientos cuyos alcaldes y representantes en el gobierno provienen de partidos emergentes del Movimiento del 15M. Esta investigación se centra en el entorno sociopolítico en el que se desarrolla este fenómeno, concretamente en Madrid y Barcelona, las dos mayores ciudades del estado y con “ayuntamientos de cambio”. Nuestra investigación revisita la e-Participación desde los inicios del siglo XXI y, sobre todo, tras las secuelas del 15M, proponiendo que las recientes iniciativas de participación basadas en las TIC en los municipios podrían estar lejos de ser meras encuestas para los ciudadanos para ser, en cambio, la punta de lanza de una red de ciudades tejida con prácticas tecnopolíticas. Downloads

Article: Peña-López, I. (2017). “Participación electrónica en los municipios. De la emancipación ciudadana a la red de ciudades abiertas”. In Revista Internacional de Pensamiento Político, 11, 63-88. Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Article. ICT-based participation in municipalities: from citizen empowerment to the open cities network

]]>
Sat, 20 May 2017 09:23:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170520-article-ict-based-participation-in-municipalities-from-citizen-empowerment-to-the-open-cities-network/
Centralization vs. decentralization tensions in the Digital Economy http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18863 When we speak about Information and Communication Technologies, it is an almost unavoidable mantra to say that this is an era of democratization of technology, of democratization of (access to) information. Meanwhile, we witness how the major technological firms grow, acquire or bury their competitors, keep on growing and concentrate the market in a decreasing number of hands. Which is quite the opposite of the democratization of technology. Let us simplify things a little bit for the sake of the explanation. Two of the main reasons for the centralization of production in the Industrial Age were the cost of capital and the economies of scale. That is, the need to gather huge amounts of money to build up factories and infrastructures in general meant that only organizations with lots of money (e.g. governments) or large coalitions of people (e.g. big firms and their stakeholders) could afford huge enterprises and, thus, property of the productive tissue was concentrated in few hands. This concentration had, in its turn, a side-effect: the bigger the investment, the bigger the returns, as economies of scale are significant in mass production. In a digital economy it does not exactly work this way. Investment costs usually are much lower than in the Industrial Age. Let us take creating a newspaper. Lots of in-house journalists have to be allocated inside a building (it is cheaper this way), and an expensive printing press and tons of paper are strictly necessary before a single issue sees the light. On the contrary, a free software installation on a cheap web server is enough for a decentralized team of freelancers to create content and automatically and very cheaply put that content online (remember this is a simplification of reality). On the other hand, though, big returns come not with doing more with less (returns of scale), basically because we are already operating with lesser costs, both fix and per unit. Returns will come with people: the more people join your (publishing in this case) platform, the bigger the returns. These are the network economies or network effect: something is more valuable the more people use it.

Pre-industrial

Industrial

Digital

Capital cost Low High Low

Economies None Scale Network

Appropriation Distributed Concentrated Distributed

Exploitation Distributed Concentrated Concentrated

Table 1. Centralization vs. decentralization tensions in the Digital Economy And here is where the tension appears: as investment costs decrease, appropriation of capital — or technology — can be decentralized. That, is individual people or smaller groups have it easier to have state-of-the-art technology in their hands. When there is no copyright (an non-technical added barrier to the cost of technology), such as in openly licensed information, free software or open hardware, then costs are even lower and technology distribution can spread further and broader. This is where “democratization of technology” does apply. But it is different with the exploitation of digital capital and digital infrastructures. Unlike appropriation, it still needs a critical mass to make the best of it, to benefit from its returns. Its nature is different — from production costs and economies of scale to network effects and network economies — but the result is similar: concentration of production of goods or delivery of services to have a deep impact. This tension can be solved in two different ways.

The first one is that people can still use technology for their own particular purposes, but main corporations will still dominate production — including media and agenda setting. You can have a blog, but media rule the communication market. You can have a 3D printer, but big factories produce everything. You can sell online your used stuff, but the big digital retailers distribute everything that there is to be sold. And so on. The second one is that there is a way where individual appropriation can be combined with collective exploitation. Or, better said, communal exploitation. Just like in cooperatives.

The latter is an idea with a highly transforming potential, because it may — it may — change the economy (and society) as we know it. It represents taking the best of XIXth century cooperatives with the best of the digital revolution. On of the most interesting ideas behind this model is described in Platform Cooperativism. Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy by Trebor Scholz. Here come other references for reflection: Acevedo, M., Moreno Romero, A. & Mataix, C. (2015). “ICT4D as the driver of Network Cooperation actors, connections and collaboration in the post-2015 international development landscape”. In Steyn, J. & Van Belle, J. (Eds.), Beyond development. Time for a new ICT4D paradigm?, 18-39. Proceedings of the 9th IDIA conference, IDIA2015, Nungwi, Zanzibar. Nungwi: IDIA. Espelt, R., Peña-López, I. & Rodríguez, E. (2016). “Activismo desde el consumo cooperativo de productos agroalimentarios: ¿Economía alternativa o tecnopolítica?”. In Balcells et al. (Coords.), Building a European digital space, 560-581. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, 7-8 July, 2016. Barcelona: UOC-Huygens Editorial. Saveri, A., Rheingold, H. & Vian, K. (2005). Technologies of Cooperation. Palo Alto: Institute for the Future. Scholz, T. (2016). Platform Cooperativism. Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy. New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Shirky, C. (2005). Coordination Costs, Institutional Loss, and Cooperative Infrastructure. TED Talk. Oxford: TED. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Centralization vs. decentralization tensions in the Digital Economy

]]>
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:53:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170413-centralization-vs-decentralization-tensions-in-the-digital-economy/
Book chapter. Environmental education in a world of networks http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18861 In 2009-2010, some colleagues and I did a small research for the Diputació de Barcelona (Barcelona County Council) on new ways of political participation enabled by ICTs. The following year, my colleague Albert Padró-Solanet and I adapted some of that research and turned into a set of training sessions for city council officers in the field of communication, participation and environment, the latter being a field in which collaboration between institutions and organizations at the city level is crucial. The Technical office of education and environmental promotion of the Barcelona County Council has just issued a book, Environmental education. Where have we come from? Where are we going?, in which we were invited to write a book chapter on how environmental education and awareness raising on environmental issues has changed due to the adoption of ICTs. Our chapter —Environmental education in a world of networks— begins with an introduction to the digital revolution and the kinds of tools and applications that are more deeply changing information and communication between citizens and between citizens and public administrations. Of course, the list of specific applications will quickly be outdated, but the reflections around them and their categorization we believe will still be useful in the following years. After the digital revolution and some tools, we talk about the communication plan, how to identify our targets, how to campaign or how to think of communication as a way of building up a project-centered personal learning environment (PLE — in this case, the P would stand for project instead of personal). The chapter ends with some practical cases and some conclusions or things to keep in mind. The book — and the book chapters — is published in Catalan, Spanish and English, and our chapter can be downloaded below. Downloads

Book chapter: Peña-López, I. & Padró-Solanet, A. (2017). “Environmental education in a world of networks”. In Diputació de Barcelona, Environmental education. Where have we come from? Where are we going?, Chapter 11, 544-559. Col·lecció Estudis. Sèrie Medi Ambient, 4. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.

Capítulo del libro: Peña-López, I. & Padró-Solanet, A. (2017). “Educación ambiental en un mundo de redes”. En Diputació de Barcelona, Educación ambiental. ¿De dónde venimos? ¿Hacia dónde vamos?, Capítol 11, 397-414. Col·lecció Estudis. Sèrie Medi Ambient, 4. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.

Capítol del llibre: Peña-López, I. & Padró-Solanet, A. (2017). “Educación ambiental en un mundo de redes”. A Diputació de Barcelona, Educació ambiental. D’on venim? Cap a on anem?, Capítol 11, 231-257. Col·lecció Estudis. Sèrie Medi Ambient, 4. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Book chapter. Environmental education in a world of networks

]]>
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170408-book-chapter-environmental-education-in-a-world-of-networks/
¿Existe la privacidad? ¿Nos importa? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18860 La privacidad no existe, cortesía de El Independiente Hace unas semanas, David Page Polo y Marta G. Aller me entrevistaron para un artículo para el Independiente que titularon La privacidad no existe. Como suele suceder, al periodista le queda la ardua tarea de comprimir en poco espacio unas ideas que se expanden fácilmente al preguntar. Me tomo ahora la libertad de reproducir aquí mis reflexiones, por su pudieran completar lo que allí se publicó. ¿Puede la privacidad dejar de ser una preocupación para el ciudadano el siglo XXI? Si la pregunta se refiere a que la privacidad (o su ausencia) se resolverán a corto plazo y podremos despreocuparnos de la cuestión, en absoluto. Al contrario, el tema de la privacidad justo acaba de empezar y cobrará rápidamente más importancia por dos motivos: (1) la penetración total y absoluta de los receptores de datos en todos y cada uno de los aspectos de nuestra vida cotidiana y (2) la automatización en el procesado y desencadenamiento de acciones fruto de la recogida sistemática de información. Sin embargo, creo que relativamente pronto la palabra no será “preocupar” sino “concernir”, “interesar” o “gestionar”. Es decir, nos preocupamos por aquello que desconocemos o aquello que no sabemos cómo nos va a afectar o qué resultados puede acarrear. En mi opinión, en menos de una generación tomaremos consciencia de muchas de estas cuestiones y pasaremos a gestionarlas con cierta naturalidad – aunque probablemente con un elevado coste en tiempo o dinero. ¿Sabe la gente los datos que comparte con las apps de su móvil? ¿Le importa? Los datos nos dicen que ya hay un buen grueso de la población bastante consciente de, al menos, el hecho de que los datos se recogen, se manipulan y se utilizan para tomar decisiones. Seguramente se desconoce todavía la magnitud y el alcance de dicha recolección y manipulado, así como el potencial impacto en nuestras vidas futuras. Pero la proliferación de normativa, agencias de protección de datos, avisos en las mismas aplicaciones o la existencia misma de organizaciones y campañas de sensibilización hacen que el conocimiento sobre lo que cedemos está situándose rápidamente en la agenda pública. Por supuesto hay muchos que viven de espaldas a dicha agenda pública, pero entonces el problema no es ya de ser consciente de las amenazas a la privacidad, sino de un calado mucho mayor y que pasa por la exclusión social a muchos niveles, empezando por el educativo y el informativo. ¿Van los usuarios a dejar de preocuparse de la privacidad en el futuro a cambio de mejores servicios más personalizados del big data? Como comentaba anteriormente, el concepto “preocuparse” dará paso al “interesarse” o al “interesarse por gestionar”. Sí creo que habrá una cierta reivindicación no por la privacidad en sí, sino por la soberanía digital: poder decidir de forma consciente y libre qué hacer con los propios datos o privacidad, ya sea conservarla, cederla completamente o negociar qué cedemos a cambio de qué servicios. No es del todo nuevo: la revolución obrera de los siglos XIX y XX trata, en el fondo, de tener soberanía sobre la propia persona y sobre la propia capacidad para trabajar, y negociar con el empresario cuánta de esa soberanía (o libertad) se cede a cambio de una cierta seguridad, salario o cobertura social. En este sentido, podemos pensar en la privacidad, o en la capacidad de generar datos, como una nueva fuerza de trabajo que podemos intercambiar con quien quiera ofrecer algo a cambio por ella. Y, como ocurre con el trabajo, la formación y la inteligencia nos acercarán más o menos a la esclavitud o a la libertad. ¿Es la privacidad un concepto cada vez más obsoleto? Hay quienes consideran que, de hecho, la privacidad es una excepción y que vivimos en un paréntesis de la privacidad. Esta privacidad se habría ganado con la imprenta, industrialización y la urbanización, cuando abandonamos entornos sociales pequeños y cerrados (“la aldea”) para pasar al anonimato de la fábrica o de la ciudad. Así, este paréntesis habría durado, siendo optimistas, lo que la revolución científica e industrial: unos 400 años. Con la digitalización, volvemos a nuestro estado natural que es la ausencia de privacidad. No obstante, hay diferencias entre la etapa que ahora abordamos y la etapa pre-industrial en la aldea. A grandes rasgos, pasamos de la ausencia de privacidad a la privacidad total, para entrar ahora en una era de la privacidad gestionada, donde habrá un cierto margen para negociar cuánta privacidad deseamos conservar. ¿O habrá un repunte de la preocupación a medida que seamos más conscientes de los datos que compartimos sin darnos cuenta? Si estamos de acuerdo en que pasamos de una “preocupación” a una “gestión”, lo que necesariamente presenciaremos es que la toma de conciencia será, también, consciente: necesitaremos y querremos formarnos en gestionar nuestros datos y, con ello, nuestra privacidad. Necesitaremos y querremos también recuperar la soberanía (que no necesariamente propiedad) sobre dichos datos. La llamada competencia informacional – comprender y gestionar la información – así como la conformación de la propia persona, presencia o identidad digital serán competencias básicas que correremos a adquirir, igual que adquirimos conocimientos sobre finanzas (la hipoteca, por ejemplo) o sobre derecho (qué puedo decir en la Red). Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como ¿Existe la privacidad? ¿Nos importa?

]]>
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:11:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20170331-existe-la-privacidad-nos-importa/
Tampones que matan http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18859 Noticia de la BBC sobre niñas y adolescentes que no van a la escula por el coste de compresas y tampones La BBC publicaba ayer un artículo con un titular más que directo: Girls ‘too poor’ to buy sanitary protection missing school. El titular no es tendencioso ni exagerado. En el artículo se explica cómo algunas adolescentes de la zona de Leeds dejan de ir a la escuela cuanto les viene la regla por la sencilla razón que no pueden permitirse comprar tampones o compresas. Sabemos, pues, por la BBC, que el acceso a bienes de primera necesidad — como tampones y compresas — puede determinar la asistencia a la escuela. Sabemos, porque llevamos años estudiándolo, que un entorno socioeconómico y familiar favorable al estudio tiene un fuerte impacto en el desempeño en el aprendizaje. Sabemos, porque llevamos años estudiándolo, que el desempeño en el aprendizaje tiene un fuerte impacto en la probabilidad de encontrar trabajo o en la remuneración de dicho trabajo (cuando se consigue). Sabemos, porque llevamos años estudiándolo, que los ingresos en la unidad familiar, así como el nivel educativo de los padres (especialmente la madre), tienen un gran impacto en el desempeño familiar de los hijos. Sabemos, porque nos lo cuenta ahora la BBC, que un número significativo de adolescentes van a reproducir el círculo vicioso de no tener recursos, no ir a la escuela, tener peor educación, tener peores empleos, no tener recursos, empeorar la educación de sus hijas, que a su vez tendrán peores empleos, lo que les comportará menores recursos, con un impacto negativo en las nietas de las primeras, que a su vez…. y así, hasta el infinito. Cuando se debate sobre el IVA de tampones y compresas, éste es el debate. No es un lujo. No es algo menor. No es ni siquiera algo medianamente importante pero no prioritario. El debate es éste: ¿reforzamos el círculo vicioso de pobreza-baja educación-exclusión social, o intentamos romperlo? Aparecerán entonces las voces que se rasgarán las vestiduras al grito de ¡demagogia! Pero ahí están los datos. Ahí están los casos reales. Niñas y adolescentes que no van a la escuela porque no pueden permitirse algo que necesitan cada cuatro semanas. Hacer política es a menudo difícil. Los problemas son complejos y las soluciones nada claras. A veces, no obstante, tenemos la “suerte” de que los problemas están perfectamente identificados y las soluciones son claras y diáfanas. Y el acceso a compresas y tampones es uno de ellos. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Tampones que matan

]]>
Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:18:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20170315-tampones-que-matan/
Participation in Spanish Municipalities: The Makings of a Network of Open cities http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18858 A visualization of the network of decidim.barcelona, courtesy of decidim.barcelona In September 2015, Madrid — the capital of Spain — initiated a participatory democracy project, Decide Madrid (Madrid decides), to enable participatory strategic planning for the municipality. Less than half a year after, in February 2016, Barcelona — the second largest city in Spain and capital of Catalonia — issued their own participatory democracy project: decidim.barcelona (Barcelona we decide). Both cities use the same free software platform as a base, and are guided by the same political vision. The success of the initiatives and the strong political vision behind them have caused an outburst of other initiatives around the whole state – and most especially in Catalonia – that are working to emulate the two big cities. They are sharing their free-software-based technology, their procedures and protocols, their reflections both on open events as in formal official meetings. What began as seemingly a one-time project, has spread both in length and width. In length, because it will not only stay but grow over time. In width, because there are serious plans to expand its adoption both at the regional level, led by the Barcelona County Council, and at the Spanish State level, being replicated by other municipalities. Of course, the big question is whether this has had any positive impact in the quality of democracy, the very intention behind the participatory initiative in Barcelona. Available open documentation suggests that decidim.barcelona has increased the information access of the citizens, has gathered more citizens around key issues. There has been an increase of participation, with citizen created proposals that have been widely supported and legitimated and finally accepted to be part of the municipality strategic plan. As pluralism has been enhanced without damaging the existing social capital, we can only think that the increase of participation has led to an improvement of democratic processes, especially in bolstering legitimacy around decision making. This can be summarized in four key points:

Deliberation becomes the new democracy standard. Openness as the pre-requisite for deliberation. Accountability and legislative footprint as an important by-product to achieve legitimacy. Participation leads to more pluralism and stronger social capital, which fosters deliberation, thus closing the (virtuous) circle of deliberative democracy.

Although the scheme may be simple, we believe that it already features most of the components of a new democratic participation in the digital age. What remains to be measured and analyzed is the strength and stability of the new relationships of power and how exactly these will challenge the preceding systemic structures and lead to newer ones. Although some aspects have been identified in what relates to new relationships between citizens and organizations and institutions, and in what relates to the creation of new tacit communities, para-organizations relational spaces, the real trend and hypothetical final scenario will only become clear after several iterations of the same project evolve in a continuum of participation, radically different from existing, discrete participatory structures. What has already been measured is the impact both at the quantitative level and on the culture of the organization of the City Council. The culture of participation was scarce and mainly dealt with managing the support of the citizen in top-down type initiatives. Changing the mindset implied turning upside-down, many of the departments and processes of the City Council: new coordination structures, new balances between the central administration and the districts’, need to speed up the slow tempos of the Administration, manage public-private partnerships (that had to be coordinated too), enable private-private coordination and, in general, increase the workload. Although the platform and the project in general changed the way of working, and changed it for good by contributing to visualize the work of the public servants, one of the main conclusions reinforces the old saying — democracy is not cheap. Originally published on March 3, 2017, as Participation in Spanish Municipalities: The Makings of a Network of Open cities at the blog of the research project Voice or Chatter? led by IT for Change. More information on this project:

Report: Peña-López, I. (2017). State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement. Bengaluru: IT for Change.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Participation in Spanish Municipalities: The Makings of a Network of Open cities

]]>
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:23:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20170309-participation-in-spanish-municipalities-the-makings-of-a-network-of-open-cities/
España en el Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2017 http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18857 La Comisión Europea ha publicado el cálculo para 2017 de su Índice de Economía y Sociedad Digital (DESI), el índice de referencia para ver dónde se sitúan y cómo evolucionan las economías digitales de la UE. El índice utiliza diversos indicadores recogidos por el INE con los que Eurostat crea cinco subíndices:

Conectividad. Capital humano. Uso de Internet. Integración de la tecnología digital. Servicios públicos digitales.

En términos generales, y en una cara de la moneda, España evoluciona de forma positiva y, lo que es más importante, la tendencia es también buena y se sostiene en el tiempo. En la otra cara de la moneda, los puntos negros de la economía digital española son también estables y no se corrigen con el paso de los años. El gráfico resumen para las componentes del DESI lo deja bastante claro: España en el DESI 2017 Por encima de la media, los servicios públicos digitales (donde España lleva años destacando) y la integración de la tecnología en el tejido económico y empresarial. Justo en la media, la adopción particular de Internet. Por debajo de la media, la conectividad (fruto, entre otras cosas, de la pésima liberalización del mercado de las telecomunicaciones) y el capital humano (fruto del bajo nivel educativo en general de los españoles y del desprecio por la alfabetización digital y la tecnología en las escuelas en particular). Conectividad Efectivamente, como muestran los datos, el gran drama de la conectividad en España no es tanto el despliegue de las infraestructuras — donde estamos alrededor de la media europea o incluso mejor — sino el precio: el coste de la banda ancha en España en términos relativos a la renta es más del doble que la media europea — y ha empeorado el último año. La conectividad en España según el DESI 2017 Las consecuencias de la forma como se privatizó el antiguo monopolio público de telecomunicaciones, Telefónica, se extienden todavía hoy, donde el mercado de las telecomunicaciones tiene todavía graves deficiencias en la competencia, lo que lastra la innovación, la puesta en marcha de nuevas iniciativas, la entrada de competidores y, por supuesto, el ajuste a unos precios de mercado verdadero. Urge, por tanto, seguir trabajando en la liberalización del sector, eliminando poderes fácticos y prácticas contra el libre mercado. Capital Humano El capital humano en España según el DESI 2017 Si el problema de la falta de competencia tiene una solución relativamente poco complicada, el del capital humano es mucho más complejo. España — y la Unión Europea en general también — pincha profundamente en alfabetización digital. Apenas la mitad de los españoles tienen las competencias digitales básicas, que como puede verse en su definición, son realmente básicas. En un mundo donde tener un estilo de vida saludable, aprender o participar activamente en cuestiones cívicas va a depender en gran medida de la competencia digital, carecer de competencias básicas es un problema muy grave. Y lo que es peor: la política — tanto pública como privada — de adquisición y mejora de competencias digitales, en la escuela, en centros de formación, en la empresa, etc. es, salvo excepciones, muy indefinida, poco comprometida y decididamente nada estratégica. Se impone un cambio radical que ponga la tecnología al servicio de los usos, y así incentivar la adquisición de competencias digitales con un fin práctico. Se imponen también cambios en metodologías y procesos que contribuyan a mejorar la eficiencia y eficacia de cualquier tarea intensiva en conocimiento, y con ello motivar a la adquisición de las competencias digitales. Esta baja competencia digital tiene una derivada muy negativa: el bajo — y bajando — número de especialistas en tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Es decir, no solamente no podremos gestionar nuestra vida digital, sino que tampoco podremos encargarle a alguien (a un “informático”) que lo haga por nosotros. Los usos de Internet son altos y las vocaciones de ciencias (o vocaciones STEM) están ahí: pero hay que activarlas y alinearlas estratégicamente. Uso e integración de la tecnología digital La nota buena — muy buena — que nos trae el DESI 2017 para España es el uso y, sobre todo, la integración de la tecnología digital. Sobre el uso hay poco que decir que no sea lo que ya sabíamos hace tiempo: el español medio utiliza intensivamente Internet y para prácticamente todo. Uso de Internet en España según el DESI 2017 Si el español utiliza en su vida privada Internet, en el ámbito del trabajo o el ámbito empresarial siempre ha costado más. Los datos nos dicen ahora que la economía española ha dado un buen salto adelante en materia de adopción de las TIC, liderado por la incorporación de la factura electrónica y, muy importante, el crecimiento de la venta online por parte de las PYMES, tanto en número de empresas como en resultados. Estas cifras, acompañadas por un también importante crecimiento de adopción de tecnologías en la nube son cruciales como indicador que la tecnología va dejando de ser una cosa de las grandes empresas para ser de uso más generalizado. Integración de la tecnología en España según el DESI 2017 Por supuesto, no hay que abandonarse a la euforia: los porcentajes en algunos indicadores son todavía bajos (gestión del conocimiento vía electrónica, uso de medios sociales, uso de soluciones en la nube o el mismo uso del e-commerce por parte de las PYMES), así que hay que insistir en esta línea. Servicios públicos digitales Como también es habitual en España, la política de utilizar el sector público como locomotora de la digitalización se ha hecho notar en los últimos años, situando a la Administración española entre las primeras del mundo en desarrollo digital — y muy por encima de la media europea. Servicios públicos digitales en España según el DESI 2017 De estos datos cabe destacar el primer puesto en datos abiertos de toda la UE, que además mejora también en términos absolutos. No es casualidad que España hospedara la International Open Data Conference 2016 en Madrid el pasado mes de octubre. En resumen, da la impresión que en España el desarrollo digital va a dos velocidades o que mientras la cabeza avanza rápidamente, los pies van arrastrándose detrás porque son de barro. El sector público — sobre todo — y las empresas y los ciudadanos avanzan cada vez más rápido, pero lo hacen con una muy deficiente competencia digital y una peor regulación del mercado. Parecería como si se estuviese primando la cantidad por encima de la calidad. Hay momentos en los que esto es una buena estrategia: hay que arrancar y adelantarse a toda costa para tirar del resto del tren. Pero también es verdad que, alcanzado un cierto impulso, una cadena es tan fuerte como frágil es su eslabón más débil. Nuestro eslabón débil es la alfabetización digital, el utilizar Internet de forma eficaz. Y ahí hay que poner, ahora, si no todos sí muchos de los recursos disponibles. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como España en el Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2017

]]>
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 02:32:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20170309-espana-en-el-digital-economy-and-society-index-desi-2017/
Open Knowledge International http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18856 Ictlogist: Created page with "http://okfn.org/ <blockquote>Open Knowledge International is a global non-profit organisation focused on realising open data’s value to society by helping civil society gro..."

http://okfn.org/

<blockquote>Open Knowledge International is a global non-profit organisation focused on realising open data’s value to society by helping civil society groups access and use data to take action on social problems. Open Knowledge International does this in three ways:

1.) We show the value of open data for the work of civil society organizations; 2.) We provide organisations with the tools and skills to effectively use open data; 3.) We make government information systems responsive to civil society.

Open Knowledge International is a worldwide network of people passionate about openness, using advocacy, technology and training to unlock information and enable people to work with it to create and share knowledge.</blockquote>

  • They develop the [[Global Open Data Index]]

(formerly known as '''Open Knowledge Foundation''')

[[Category:Institutions]] [[Category:Open_Data]] [[Category:Open_Data_Institutions]]

]]>
Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:32:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/wiki/index.php?title=Open_Knowledge_International
Report. State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18855 This report aims at providing an overview of the normative and institutional state of art of ICT-mediated citizen participation in Spain. The first section provides an overview of the political and civic liberties framework in Spain. In the second section the landscape of ICT mediated citizen engagement is mapped. In the third section, the report engages with implications of technology mediations for deliberative democracy and transformative citizenship. This report is the outcome of a collaboration between IT for Change and Ismael Peña-López, School of Law and Political Science, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya under a research project titled Voice or Chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICTmediated Citizen Engagement. The State of the Art reports provide an overview of the normative and institutional state of art of ICT-mediated citizen participation in various countries. They provide an overview of the political and civic liberties framework, the landscape of ICT-mediated citizen engagement; and delve into the implications of technology mediations for deliberative democracy and transformative citizenship.

Report: Peña-López, I. (2017). State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement. Bengaluru: IT for Change.

A former version of this report was released as a working paper as 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. About the Project This research has been produced with the financial support of Making All Voices Count. Making All Voices Count is a programme working towards a world in which open, effective and participatory governance is the norm and not the exception. This Grand Challenge focuses global attention on creative and cutting-edge solutions to transform the relationship between citizens and their governments. Making All Voices Count is supported by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and Omidyar Network (ON), and is implemented by a consortium consisting of Hivos, the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Ushahidi. The programme is inspired by and supports the goals of the Open Government Partnership. Acknowledgements The author wants to thank the guidance, thorough review and suggestions made by Deepti Bharthur, Nandini Chami and Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change. The author also wants to thank the indispensable help from Arnau Monterde from UOC/IN3. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Report. State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement

]]>
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 04:21:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20170302-report-state-of-the-art-spain-voice-or-chatter-using-a-structuration-framework-towards-a-theory-of-ict-mediated-citizen-engagement/
Report. State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18862 This report aims at providing an overview of the normative and institutional state of art of ICT-mediated citizen participation in Spain. The first section provides an overview of the political and civic liberties framework in Spain. In the second section the landscape of ICT mediated citizen engagement is mapped. In the third section, the report engages with implications of technology mediations for deliberative democracy and transformative citizenship. This report is the outcome of a collaboration between IT for Change and Ismael Peña-López, School of Law and Political Science, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya under a research project titled Voice or Chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICTmediated Citizen Engagement. The State of the Art reports provide an overview of the normative and institutional state of art of ICT-mediated citizen participation in various countries. They provide an overview of the political and civic liberties framework, the landscape of ICT-mediated citizen engagement; and delve into the implications of technology mediations for deliberative democracy and transformative citizenship.

Report: Peña-López, I. (2017). State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement. Bengaluru: IT for Change.

A former version of this report was released as a working paper as 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. About the Project This research has been produced with the financial support of Making All Voices Count. Making All Voices Count is a programme working towards a world in which open, effective and participatory governance is the norm and not the exception. This Grand Challenge focuses global attention on creative and cutting-edge solutions to transform the relationship between citizens and their governments. Making All Voices Count is supported by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and Omidyar Network (ON), and is implemented by a consortium consisting of Hivos, the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Ushahidi. The programme is inspired by and supports the goals of the Open Government Partnership. Acknowledgements The author wants to thank the guidance, thorough review and suggestions made by Deepti Bharthur, Nandini Chami and Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change. The author also wants to thank the indispensable help from Arnau Monterde from UOC/IN3. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Report. State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement

]]>
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 04:21:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20170228-report-state-of-the-art-spain-voice-or-chatter-using-a-structuration-framework-towards-a-theory-of-ict-mediated-citizen-engagement/
Report. Inclusion in the age of post-democracy http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18854 Inés Bebea (from Ondula), Gabriel González (from Fundación Esplai) and I (with the help of Juan Sánchez, also from Fundación Esplai) have just issued our report Inclusión en la era de la Postdemocracia (Inclusion in the age of post-democracy). The origins of the proposal “Inclusion in the age of postdemocracy” come from the debate held during the day of the plenary meeting of the Advisory Council of Fundación Esplai on Committed Citizenship, held on January 20, 2015. In this debate took part the Advisory Board, the Board of Trustees and the technical team of the organization, and during the event the participants identified the challenges that technology is creating at the social level at the present time, and to which the Fundación Esplai Foundation should respond in order to collaborate in the the construction of a technologically empowered citizenry that makes a critical, responsible and useful use in the pursue of their own personal development and that of one’s community. The project takes as its starting point a basic document, which sets out the concrete objectives to advance in this line:

Present the state of the situation on the practices of active citizenship in the areas of health, education and democracy. Propose consensuses that group different actors and sensitivities towards a common strategy and action lines. Design action lines for the promotion of active citizenship based on an intensive, open and community-based use of ICTs.

Between July and October 2016 Fundación Esplai launched a proposal to study and debate the role that Information and Communication Technologies play in social inclusion and in the active exercise of citizenship, as essential tools for access to education, health and democratic participation. The work proposal, which emphasizes the analysis of the call third-level digital divide, included a participation process to which a broad sector of the citizenry was invited, especially those more linked to Fundación Esplai initiatives: members of the Advisory Board, Board of Trustees and professional staff of the Fundación Esplai, organizations of the of the Red Conecta and associated networks, professionals in the ICT sector, Education and Social Inclusion as well as private individuals interested in the topic. Download:

Final report: Peña-López, I., Bebea, I. & González, G. (2017). Inclusión en la era de la Postdemocracia. Informe del estudio. Octubre 2016. El Prat de Llobregat: Fundación Esplai.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Report. Inclusion in the age of post-democracy

]]>
Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:50:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20170131-report-inclusion-in-the-age-of-post-democracy/
The Internet Health Report http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18852 Ictlogist: Created page with "<blockquote>Mozilla’s open source initiative to document and explain what’s happening to the health of the Internet combining research from multiple..."

<blockquote>[[Mozilla Foundation|Mozilla]]’s open source initiative to document and explain what’s happening to the health of the Internet combining research from multiple sources.</blockquote>

[[Category:Internet Governance]] [[Category:Regulation]]

]]>
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:39:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/wiki/index.php?title=The_Internet_Health_Report
What is social inclusion today? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18853 Amartya Sen revolutionized the concept of human development by presenting his capability approach. From his point of view, it is not enough to have physical access to resources, but, in addition, one must be able to put them to the benefit of oneself. This step from objective choice to subjective choice has been completed in recent years with a third stage of development: effective choice. According to that, it is not enough to have resources, or to want or know how to use them, but, moreover, it is necessary that one is allowed to do so. Indeed, it is the strengthening of democratic institutions what has recently been at the center of debates around human development and, by extension, social inclusion. In a digital world, in the Information and Knowledge Society, it is easy to establish comparisons between these three stages of development with the three digital divides that have been identified since the term made its fortune in the mid-1990s.

The first digital divide is one that refers to access (or lack thereof) to technological infrastructures. A gap that, although persisting, will soon be residual as economies achieve certain income thresholds. The second digital divide refers to skills, the so-called digital literacy. A gap that schools, libraries and telecentres have been tackling as a priority for some years. The third digital divide, which adds up to (and does not replace) the former two, refers to the strategic use of ICTs to improve one’s life. We speak of online education, e-health or technopolitics, to mention only three cases where this gap is already more than patent.

This third gap, opened relatively recently, is quickly widening with the increasing presence in our lives of teleassistance, online training or political participation through social networks and spaces of deliberation, etc. Therefore, social inclusion, and by extension the active exercise of citizenship, will increasingly depend on that third level e-inclusion, which enables a development based on full objective, subjective and effective choices. It is likely that there will be no democracy, health or education without the active participation of citizens in these aspects. Available data tell us that while the first digital divide is getting smaller and smaller, the second (skills) is increasingly important (especially in relative and qualitative terms: there are no more people, but they do see themselves as more digital illiterates) and, consequently, it contributes to enlarge the third one, that in many cases ends up with a flat rejection to everything that has to do with digital technology. The so-called digital refuseniks are a group generally neglected when it comes to addressing social inclusion policies, with the probable outcome that they will be the great excluded of a society that, today, is building heavily on digital participation. In an age of participation, engagement, co-building, it is to expect that there will be no greater active exercise of citizenship without greater and better use of the Internet; and there will be no greater and better use of the Internet if the problem of effective use of the Net is not addressed beyond physical access to infrastructures and beyond digital literacy. As it has been stated above, there are three areas — health, learning and democracy — that are today the three most important areas (besides economic, often determined by the three previous ones) where social inclusion will be determined especially by the respective degree of e-inclusion of a given person… or an institution. The recent achievements that have come from social innovation, open innovation and open social innovation are virtually inexplicable without that desire for an emancipated citizenship enabled by ICTs. Selected readings Digital divide Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J. (2013). “The digital divide shifts to differences in usage”. In New Media & Society, 16 (3), 507-526. London: SAGE Publications. Political participation Cantijoch, M. (2014). La desigualdad digital, ¿una nueva fuente de desigualdad política?. ZOOM Político/2014/23. Madrid: Fundación Alternativas. Peña-López, I. (2015b). “Política, tecnopolítica y desarrollo digital”. In Cristianisme i Justícia (Ed.), ¿Qué nos jugamos? Reflexiones para un año electoral, 12-14. Colección Virtual nº10. Barcelona: Cristianisme i Justícia. Robles Morales, J.M., Molina Molina, Ó. & De Marco, S. (2012). “Participación política digital y brecha digital política en España. Un estudio de las desigualdades digitales”. In Arbor. Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 188 (756), 795-810. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press. Health Tarbal, A. (2015). “TIC y salud, un binomio saludable para todos”. In Roca, G. (Coord.), Las nuevas tecnologías en niños y adolescentes. Guía para educar saludablemente en una sociedad digital, Capítulo 1, 21-37. Barcelona: Hospital Sant Joan de Déu. Education Peña-López, I. (2010). “From laptops to competences: bridging the digital divide in higher education”. In Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), Monograph: Framing the Digital Divide in Higher Education, 7 (1). Barcelona: UOC. Peña-López, I. (2015a). “El doble filo de la tecnología: una oportunidad de inclusión y un peligro de exclusión”. In Roca, G. (Coord.), Las nuevas tecnologías en niños y adolescentes. Guía para educar saludablemente en una sociedad digital, Capítulo 9, 123-133. Barcelona: Hospital Sant Joan de Déu. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as What is social inclusion today?

]]>
Sat, 31 Dec 2016 01:12:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20161231-what-is-social-inclusion-today/
Book chapter. Networked learning: strategies and tools to open and disrupt educational institutions http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18851 Professors Begoña Gros and Cristóbal Suárez have edited a new book that has just been released, Pedagogía red. Una educación para tiempos de internet (Networked pedagogy. An education for the Internet age). I have been invited to write a chapter for the book on how can we learn in networks or as networks. The easiest way to answer the question would have been to come up with a list of tools… which would have been outdated the day after the book saw the light. Instead, I focused on how “educational institutions” (understood in a very broad way: the textbook, the teacher, the classroom, the library, evaluation, etc.) could be opened, unfolded so that their momentum gathered along the years could be disrupted and actors and tasks profoundly changed. Besides thanking both Begoña Gros and Cristóbal Suárez for their invitation, I also very heartily have to thank Toni Aguilar, as he was the first one to force me to think in this terms when he invited me to do the talk ICT and education:: evolution of education, revolution in learning, which I have repeatedly given after that — and finally became a book chapter, as now can be seen. Gràcies Toni! The book is in Spanish, the chapter is called ¿Con qué aprender en red? Estrategias y herramientas para la abertura y disrupción de las instituciones educativas (Networked learning: strategies and tools to open and disrupt educational institutions) and here goes the abstract and the bibliography I used. Abstract Cuando se habla de qué herramientas utilizar para aprender en red, es fácil acabar utilizando la herramienta por la herramienta. A pesar de que nos repetimos a nosotros mismos cual mantra que las herramientas son solamente instrumentos para conseguir unos fines – en este caso de aprendizaje – nos ocurre una y otra vez que ponemos las herramientas en el lugar de los fines. Ello ocurre incluso en los casos donde nos dotamos de categorizaciones o de verdaderas ontologías para asignar cada herramienta al cajón del que solamente saldrá cuando tengamos claro su papel instrumental. En este capítulo vamos a evitar caer en la tentación prescindiendo, por completo, de una caja de herramientas. O de una lista. O de una categorización. Todo un reto para lo que, a primera vista, debería ser un despliegue de estrategias y herramientas para el aprendizaje en red. En su lugar, nos centraremos en tejer la red de aprendizaje. Y lo haremos desmontando, desplegando, abriendo las instituciones que, hasta hoy, siguen protagonizado (y con mucho éxito, no querríamos perder esto de vista) la enseñanza. Y el aprendizaje, a menudo confinado a esas instituciones. Más que en las herramientas, pues, queremos poner bajo el foco la disrupción que las instituciones educativas están sufriendo y que, en parte, viene de la mano de determinadas estrategias y herramientas. Y es analizando las disrupciones que se están dando en el papel de 10 instituciones educativas que hemos seleccionando que veremos cómo actúan determinadas estrategias y herramientas. Bibliography Baumgartner, P. (2004). “The Zen Art of teaching – Communication and Interactions in eEducation”. In Auer, M.E. & Auer, U. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop ICL2004. Villach / Austria 29 September- 1 October 2004. Villach: Kassel University Press. Baumgartner, P. (2005). “How to choose a Content Management Tool according to a Learning Model”. In elearningeuropa.info, 17 May 2005. Brussels: European Commission. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Blaschke, L.M. (2012). “Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A Review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-Determined Learning”. In International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13 (1). Edmonton: Athabasca University. Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (2013). “La anatomía de los PLEs”. In Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (Eds.), Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje: claves para el ecosistema educativo en red, Capítulo 1, 11-27. Alcoy: Marfil. Castells, M. (2000). “Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society”. In British Journal of Sociology, Jan-Mar 2000, 51 (1), 5-24. London: Routledge. Castells, M. (2004). “Informationalism, Networks, And The Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint”. In Castells, M. (Ed.), The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Chen, L. & Chen, T. (2012). “Use of Twitter for formative evaluation: Reflections on trainer and trainees’ experiences”. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (2). London: Wiley-Blackwell. D’Antoni, S. (Ed.) (2008). Open Educational Resources: the Way Forward. Paris: UNESCO. D’Antoni, S. & Savage, C. (Eds.) (2009). Open Educational Resources: Conversations in Cyberspace. Paris: UNESCO. de Haro, J.J. (2011). “Mapas conceptuales sobre microblogging educativo”. In de Haro, J.J., Educativa. Blog sobre calidad e innovación en educación secundaria, Domingo 3 de abril de 2011. [online]: Juan José de haro. Domínguez Figaredo, D. & Gil Jaurena, I. (2011). Acreditación de aprendizajes en escenarios formativos abiertos: Aproximación conceptual al modelo de los ‘badges’. XII Congreso Internacional de Teoría de la Educación, 20-22 octubre 2011. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M. & Meyer, I. (2010). “Microblogs in Higher Education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?”. In Computers & Education, 55 (1), 92–100. London: Elsevier. Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000). “From Andragogy to Heutagogy”. In ultiBASE In-Site, December 2000. Melbourne: RMIT. Hollands, F.M. & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. New York: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education Teachers College, Columbia University. Huang, W.D. & Nakazawa, K. (2010). “An empirical analysis on how learners interact in wiki in a graduate level online course”. In Interactive Learning Environments, 18 (3), 233-244. London: Routledge. Junco, R., Heiberger, G. & Loken, E. (2010). “The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades”. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27 (2), 119–132. Boston: Blackwell. Junco, R., Elavsky, C.M. & Heiberger, G. (2012). “Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success”. In British Journal of Educational Technology, Articles in Press. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Levine, A., Lamb, B., Groom, J. & Minguillón, J. (2012). Analyzing and supporting interaction in complex scenarios: the case of DS106. Open Education Conference, October 16th, 2012. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Meishar-Tal, H., Kurtz, G. & Pieterse, E. (2012). “Facebook Groups as LMS: A Case Study”. In International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13 (4). Edmonton: Athabasca University. Peña-López, I., Córcoles Briongos, C. & Casado Martínez, C. (2006). “El Profesor 2.0: docencia e investigación desde la Red”. In UOC Papers, (3). Barcelona: UOC. Peña-López, I. (2007). “The personal research portal: web 2.0 driven individual commitment with open access for development”. In Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 3 (1), 35-48. Amsterdam: KM4Dev Community. Peña-López, I. & Cerrillo i Martínez, A. (2011). “Herramientas 2.0 para el desarrollo de competencias profesionalizadoras”. In Cerrillo i Martínez, A. & Delgado García, A.M. (Coords.), Las TIC al servicio de la docencia del Derecho en el marco del EEES, 89-102. Actas de la II Jornada sobre Docencia del Derecho y Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, 6 de junio de 2011. Barcelona: Huygens. Peña-López, I. & Cerrillo i Martínez, A. (2012). “Microblogging en el aula. De la información a la participación”. In Cerrillo i Martínez, A. & Delgado García, A.M. (Coords.), La innovación en la docencia del Derecho a través del uso de las TIC, 143-157. Actas de la III Jornada sobre Docencia del Derecho y Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, 8 de junio de 2012. Barcelona: Huygens. Peña-López, I. (2013a). “El PLE de investigación-docencia: el aprendizaje como enseñanza”. In Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (Eds.), Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje: claves para el ecosistema educativo en red, Capítulo 6, 93-110. Alcoy: Marfil. Peña-López, I. (2013b). “Heavy switchers in translearning: From formal teaching to ubiquitous learning”. In On the Horizon, 21 (2), 127-137. Lincoln: NCB University Press. Peña-López, I. (2014). “Innovació social oberta: l’organització política com a plataforma”. In Costa i Fernández, L. & Puntí Brun, M. (Eds.), Comunicació pel canvi social. Reflexions i experiències per una comunicació participativa, emancipadora i transparent, 59-75. Girona: Documenta Universitaria. Pifarré Turmo, M., Argelagós Castañ, E. & Guijosa, À. (2010). “Using the Affordances of Wiki to Support Collaborative Argumentation in Secondary Science Education”. In Beckett, D.S. (Ed.), Secondary Education in the 21st Century, Chapter 1, 1-56. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.. Stacey, P. (2014). “Pedagogy of MOOCs”. In International Journal for Innovation and Quality and in Learning, (3), 112-115. Brussels: EFQUEL. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. London: Abacus. Tur, G. & Urbina Ramírez, S. (2012). “PLE-based ePortfolios: Towards Empowering Student Teachers’ PLEs through ePortfolio Processes”. In Pedro, L., The PLE Conference 2012 proceedings. 11st-13th July 2012, Aveiro | Melbourne. Aveiro, Melbourne: PLE Conference. Vivancos Martí, J. (2008). La Competència digital i les TAC. Conferència al Cicle de Conferències. Vilafranca del Penedès: CRP Alt Penedès. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M. & Jakobs, H. (2014). “MOOCs – A Review of the State-of-the-Art”. In Zvacek, S., Restivo, M.T., Uhomoibni, J.O. & Helfert, M., CSEDU 2014 – Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Volume 3, 9-20. Barcelona: SciTePress. Zook, M.A., Graham, M., Shelton, T. & Gorman, S. (2010). “Volunteered Geographic Information and Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief: A Case Study of the Haitian Earthquake4”. In World Medical & Health Policy, 2 (2), 7-33. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Book chapter. Networked learning: strategies and tools to open and disrupt educational institutions

]]>
Fri, 30 Dec 2016 02:43:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20161230-book-chapter-networked-learning-strategies-and-tools-to-open-and-disrupt-educational-institutions/
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/