Breakout session: Tech per se
What are we learning about how to design tech for accountable governance?
Can we focus on the whole system and not just individual initiatives? How will the system be affected by our actions? How can we change the system so that it is responsive to the needs of citizens — instead of trying to patch the system where it does not work.
There is a need to correctly identify the problems so that technology can be applied as a specific solution, not a generic solution in the search for problems to be solved.
We have to begin with the weakest link — the citizen — and then build the whole project after that. We have to avoid abstract concepts e.g. improve efficiency of the government, and try instead to identify smaller problems that can be addressed more or less directly and assessed for their improvement.
Where do you see innovation and creativity — including the use of existing technologies — in this field?
Government intentions or will should be embedded in the participatory projects: citizens have to trust their governments and their governments’ intentions so that commitment and engagement happens.
How can we ensure that technologies are adapted to fit the context?
When governments don’t want to listen, and the biggest problem is coordination of citizens, technology can play a very important part. Assembling people is crucial and technology usually is very effective in this field.
Importance of partnerships between citizens and governments.
Making All Voics Count: Appropriating Technology for Accountability (2017)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2017) “Appropriating Technology for Accountability (III). Tech per se (II)” In ICTlogy,
#169, October 2017. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from https://ictlogy.net/review/?p=4556