By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 06 May 2009
Main categories: Participation, Engagement, Use, Activism, Writings
Other tags: e-stas2009
No Comments »
During the e-STAS: Symposium on Technologies for Social Action, Fundación Cibervoluntarios edited a book which gathered small articles by several people around the subject of empowerment.
The book is called Innovación para el empoderamiento de la ciudadanía a través de las TIC (Innovation for the empowerment of the citizenry through ICTs) and features an article of mine entitled La red de las personas: cómo Internet puede empoderar a la ciudadanía (The Network of people: how can the Internet empower the citizenry).
The paper is a slightly evolved — a generalized — version of a former reflection, Cooperation for Development 2.0, that then became a position paper for the first edition of Development Cooperation 2.0: Reticulando la Cooperación — hacia la Cooperación Red: Materiales para un debate (Networking Cooperation — towards a networked cooperation: materials for a debate), and that also served as a kick off point for the second edition of Development Cooperation 2.0.
The abstract reads:
La acción ciudadana depende, en gran medida, de la concurrencia de dos factores. Por una parte, la identificación y difusión de una necesidad de amplio interés y, en la medida de lo posible, en poder reclutar apoyo para dar respuesta a dicha necesidad. Por otra parte, por la capacidad para acceder a los recursos necesarios para cubrir, de forma efectiva, dicha necesidad. En la medida que la información y la comunicación juegan un papel cada vez más importante en ambas cuestiones, las nuevas tecnologías se posicionan como la herramienta por excelencia para el empoderamiento de la ciudadanía.
More information and downloads
By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 19 February 2009
Main categories: Knowledge Management, Open Access, Writings
Other tags: personal research portal, pim, pkm
3 Comments »
On February 2nd, 2009, a book chapter of mine — The personal research portal: web 2.0 driven individual commitment with open access — was published in the book Handbook of Research on Social Software and Developing Community Ontologies, edited by Stylianos Hatzipanagos and Steven Warburton.
This book chapter is the last one of a series of writings and speeches around the concept of the Personal Research Portal that began its journey in 2006. As the (so far) last from the series, I think it is the most accurate one, benefiting from the reviewers observations (thank you). I am grateful to the editors for having given me the opportunity to think over some concepts and polish them up. On the other hand, the book is full of very interesting chapters by authors that are actually paving the path of digital skills, online communities, etc.
Abstract and editors’ notes
We here propose the concept of the Personal Research Portal (PRP) – a mesh of social software applications to manage knowledge acquisition and diffusion – as a means to create a digital identity for the researcher – tied to their digital public notebook and personal repository – and a virtual network of colleagues working in the same field. Complementary to formal publishing or taking part in congresses, and based on the concept of the e-portfolio, the PRP is a knowledge management system that enhances reading, storing and creating at both the private and public levels. Relying heavily on Web 2.0 applications – easy to use, freely available – the PRP automatically implies a public exposure and a digital presence that enables conversations and network weaving without time and space boundaries.
[…]
Peña-López proposes the concept of the Personal Research Portal (PRP) – a mesh of social software applications to manage knowledge acquisition and diffusion. This is premised on the belief that there is a place for individual initiatives to try and bridge the biases and unbalances in the weight that researchers and research topics have in the international arena. The chapter highlights the main perceived benefits of a PRP that include building a digital identity, information sharing, the creation of an effective e-portfolio, and the sharing of personal and professional networks. He concludes that the main challenges that need to be addressed include access to technology and developing appropriate skills, problems that are recognised as stemming from the digital divide.
Citation and preprint download
Related information
By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 11 February 2009
Main categories: e-Government, e-Administration, Politics, ICT4D, Nonprofits, Open Access, Writings
Other tags: andres_martinez, caroline_figueres, cooperacion20, cooperacion20_2009, florencio_ceballos, kentaro_toyama, merryl_ford
No Comments »
Notes from the II Encuentro Internacional TIC para la Cooperación al Desarrollo (Development Cooperation 2.0: II International Meeting on ICT for Development Cooperation) held in Gijón, Spain, on February 10-12th, 2009. More notes on this event: cooperacion2.0_2009. More notes on this series of events: cooperacion2.0.
How do we go forward in the field of ICT4D R+D+i?
Florencio Ceballos, telecentre.org
- ICT4D are a clear niche that can grow outside the circuit of development issues
- Capacity building happens locally, and this means building confidence, trust.
- Institutional independence has to be promoted to enable real capacity building.
- Focus on networking: promoting open networks for capacity exchange
It’s not as much as how you design agendas, but how you make them evolve, how to shift the paradigm. And this shift of paradigm is towards openness.
Caroline Figueres, International Institute for Communication and Development
There is a need for a research to ground some “evidences”, and showcase successes in the field of ICT4D under the rigour of scientific analysis.
People in the South should be put in the agenda
of ICT4D research, as most of the output is targetted to developing countries.
Co-creation (e.g. in the sense of Don Tapscott’s Wikinomics) is a very powerful concept. Capacity building can be enabled this way by means of knowledge workers co-creating together.
Kentaro Toyama, Microsoft Research India (MSR India)
How to do formal research in ICT4D? Several steps:
- Immersion. Ethnography
- Design, involving people, where technology is just one component and a cost-effective one
- Evaluation, including finding statistical significance on the impact of a specific project or action
It’s a good idea to break the link between funding and the research agenda. The researcher should be able to pursue their own interests and not be tied (or upset) to the need for funding.
Experience in research might be as important as (or even more) than experience in development. Accuracy of the scientific process is crucial.
Evidence has to be demonstrated to convince policy-makers and funding institutions that some actions are to be taken and deserve being supported (politically or economically).
- Research is needed in the impact of ICTs in welfare, health, education
- But also, research is needed on how to provide appropriate and cost-effective infrastructures, as most communities just do not have access to either hardware or connectivity
- Sometimes the context is unknown. Thus, research should focus not only on the impact of a specific project, but on what the context (sociocultural, health, education, economic) is.
- Research on services.
- How to measure empowerment and mainstreaming of technologies in specific communities and sectors (e.g. the Health sector)
The only way to promote research in the field of Development and ICT4D is to foster publication of research results in indexed publications. Despite the interest of the topic, if the work is “well done”, then it can be published. It is highly relevant to find the problem you want to deal with your research, more important than finding “the” solution.
And diffussion is absolutely worth doing it. On the one hand, results of the projects and the research undertaken. On the other hand, not only information about the results, but knowledge transfer through assistance, direct training, formal education, especially to achieve multiplier effects.
Merryl Ford, Emerging Innovations Group of the Meraka Institute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
There’s sometimes resilience to empowerment. Capacity building is not only about specific (digital) skills, but also about changing mindsets.
- Slogan on disabilities in SouthAfrica:
Nothing about us, without us
. We need to make sure that we don’t do things “for” people but “with” people. Africa should take ownership of its development agenda.
- Interventions should be simple
- The cellphone is the PC of Africa
- Sustainability, replication, massification.
A pilot needs to be scaled at any stage
.
Q & A
Q: research on impact… is a real need or an imposed “need” of the inner structure of development cooperation, projects, agencies and so? Ceballos: The need to measure impact is real. Many policies are put into practice based on intuition, on vision. So we do need to evaluate these policies to support or reject such intuitions. Martínez: short-run projects are difficult to analyze accurately, as there’s no time to do it properly. A solution would be that everyone involved in the projects collected data and helped to analyze it.
Q: How do we cope about the cost of maintenance of cellphones in rural areas? A: There are alternatives (e.g. via radio) that do not charge per call… but the maintenance of the whole network does have a cost. Certainly, it’s not a matter of absolute costs, but a matter of cost-benefit analysis, seeing whether the project is worth running it and find out how to support the overall costs.
Q: How do we put social research together with tecnology research in development related research? A: The problems that research has to face have to be far ahead enough. And they require plenty of time. In this sense, everyone involved in ICT4D should be in a same conversation, to gather all sensibilities and be able to look far in the horizon.
Development Cooperation 2.0 (2009)
By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 10 February 2009
Main categories: Digital Divide, e-Government, e-Administration, Politics, Education & e-Learning, ICT4D, Knowledge Management, Meetings, Nonprofits, Open Access, Writings
Other tags: cooperacion20, cooperacion20_2009, john_dryden, oecd
No Comments »
Notes from the the II Encuentro Internacional TIC para la Cooperación al Desarrollo (Development Cooperation 2.0: II International Meeting on ICT for Development Cooperation) held in Gijón, Spain, on February 10-12th, 2009. More notes on this event: cooperacion2.0_2009. More notes on this series of events: cooperacion2.0.
Innovating in ICT for Human Development
John Dryden, Ex-Deputy Director Science, Technology and Industry. OECD
Main learnings from the OECD in the field of ICT4D:
ICT in Development Cooperation institutions vs. ICT4D
ICTs in development cooperation
- ICT aids management and delivery of development assistance
- ICT “mainstreamed” as part of development assistance: ICTs integrated on what institutions “deliver”
ICT4D
- All of the above, plus ICT productgion and use to achieve economic growth, development and social welfare.
The Seoul Declaration, 2008
- Facilitate the convergence of digital networks, devices and services
- Foster creativity in development, use and application of the Internet
- Strengthen confidence and security
- Ensure the Internet Economy is truly global
For developing countries, this means
- more access to Internet and related ICTs
- competition
- use by all communities: local content and language, inclusion
- energy efficiency
Against the Solow Paradox: there is now evidence on the economic impacts of ICTs:
- macro-economic evidence on the role of ICT investment in capital deepening
- sectoral analysis showing the contribution of (a) ICT-producing sectors and (b) ICT-using sectors to productivity growth
- detailed firm-level analysis demonstrating the wide-ranging impacts of ICTs in productivity
Problems to implant ICTs in developing countries:
- Barriers of entry and different people needs
- The relationship between ICT investments and economic growth in OECD countries is complex and uncertain,highly dependent on complementary factors, many of which less apparent in developing countries: power supply, maintenance, skills and literacy, the degree to which society is networked, the extent to which its economy is reliant on services, etc.
The Genoa Plan of Action
- development of national e-strategies
- improve connectivity, increase access, lower costs
- enhance human capacity development, knowledge creation and sharing
- Foster enterprise, jobs and entrepreneurship
Mainstreaming ICTs
UN ICT Task Force Mainstreaming ICTs for the achievement of the MDGs: ICTs as an “enabler” of development, not a production sector
ICTs should be able to enable donnor coordination: need analysis, non-duplication of efforts and projects, etc.
Debate
Caroline Figueres: is effectiveness only top-down? aren’t we seeing bottom-up effectiveness? A: Yes, of course.
Development Cooperation 2.0 (2009)
By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 11 November 2008
Main categories: e-Government, e-Administration, Politics, ICT4D, Open Access, Writings
Other tags: openedtech2008
No Comments »
Third session — and second teamwork session — at the Open EdTech Summit. This second teamwork session focuses in converging the ideas of the brainstorming session and try and come up with 5 “plus” ideas and 5 “idealistic” ideas.
(reprise and gather up from the previous session)
Focus on mentoring as the added value in the learning process
Microcredit structures, besides personalization, allow the evaluator and the evaluate to be different entities. Right now the system is self-referential, as the output is evaluated by the same one that facilitated the inputs.
Education institutions could split in three different institutions: the ones that provide content, the ones that provide guidance and the ones that provide certification.
The added value is in mentoring, not in content. So we should concentrate in mentoring. And open content and open technology to support it play a crucial role in this part.
And quality also has to do in this scheme of things: we have to go open to reach high quality standards.
From teaching to learning
The “bolonization” (convergence) of educational systems, shifting responsibility to the student, and putting more stress on learning rather than on teaching. Focus also in capacity and competences. If just e.g. 25% was standarized or compulsory, that will leave plenty of room for personalization within assessment.
Capacity building
On the competences side: empower people to do things.
On the choice side: allow people to do their choices.
Learner motivation
How to engage the student: personalization would actually be a good way to keep students engaged.
Quality
Quality assurance systems that foster innovation, or testing innovation in quality assessments, act as a bottle neck as normally do not include technology in their evaluation system. Their assessment map is closed. How much space for subversion, for innovation, can we find.
Empowering teachers
Make lower design statements to that the learning materials can be acted upon, that feedback from experience can be adapted and sent back to the material or the lecture.
(for “plus” ideas and “idealistic” ideas, please see next session)
Open Ed Tech (2008)
By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 22 October 2008
Main categories: e-Government, e-Administration, Politics, Meetings, Participation, Engagement, Use, Activism, Writings
Other tags: idp2008
No Comments »
IDP, Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política has published a paper of mine entitled Towards e-Government 2.0: Review of the IV Internet, Law and Politics Congress – Political Track. The paper — original in English, despite the title of the review — is an overview and personal insights of what took place at the 4th Internet, Law and Politics Congress in June 2008.
Abstract
Review of the Political Track of the IV Internet, Law and Politics Congress, held in June 2008, organized by the Department of Law and Political Science, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. An overview of the latest work by researchers and professionals in the field of political dialogue between institutions and citizens on the Internet was presented, specifically that involving the new participation-rich environment of Web 2.0.
More info and Downloads