ICTlogy

Juan Freire
Building a culture for social innovation

What is culture? What is social innovation?

We are heading times of destruction, and, hopefully, a creative one.

What is social innovation? Is it R+D+i? Social innovation was born in opposition to technological innovation or commercial innovation, as a marginal thing. It looks now the framework is that everything is social innovation and technological or commercial innovation are a part of this whole.

Three tiers of social innovation:

• People – education.
• Organizations – projects, infrastructures.
• Institutions – public policies.

What infrastructures?

• Social technologies: there are technologies that are developed collectively and also generate the possibility to collaborate. There are technologies that empower people so that they can create. E.g. Ushahidi.
• Citizen labs: spaces where people organize as communities not to consume culture, not to discuss about something, but to create and build things. E.g. Medialab Prado.
• Open data: needed for the technology to be able to work. Open data is the more powerful tool at this moment.

Reactive projects: like political activism, that begin reacting to a specific problem, it replicates, ends up building a network and then stabilizes as a platform that brings more topics, makes proposals, etc.

Some other projects try to improve a (usually failed) public policy or a public space, by proposing new uses or meanings, by hacking its original design.

Social tissue: in The Unplanned City it is stated that cities are not built by the aggregation of services provided from the outside, but built as people living in it build things and use them. There are infrastructures that are born from the demand side, from needs of the citizen that ask for a solution that becomes in the form of a new infrastructure/service. Thus the importance of generating a culture of entrepreneurship in the cities.

All these initiatives have to feedback education. That is, these initiatives have happened “outside of education” and now we find there is a need to re-educate ourselves, to change the way education happens, to think that education can happen outside of formal education institutions. We have to rethink education as a system and as a concept itself. Informal education is increasingly becoming more important. Learning more and more happens amongst peers.

We need a new educational layer where we can learn by doing. A layer of spaces/communities of innovation/entrepreneurship. And a third layer of startups/businesses. We have to foster the creation of these three layers and that they can interact one with each other.

Defence of the thesis: Social networking sites and exchange of knowledge. Analysis of the adoption and usage of members of tourism professional virtual communities.

The thesis aims at analyzing how knowledge is exchanged in social networking sites, with a focus on professional virtual networks in the field of tourism.

Main topics of the thesis or theoretical framework:

• Social virtual networks: Barry Wellman makes the difference between open and diffuse networks, and dense and limited groups. The former ones usually imply freedom of participation, while the later are more centralized and hierarchic, with stronger and fixer relationships.
• Knowledge transfer: that happens in virtual communities and communities of practice. In the later, the existence of a leader is important, as is the inclusion of the “periphery” of the network. Knowledge transfer is also related with informal learning and personal learning environments. Downes and Siemens base connective knowledge networks in openness, autonomy, diversity and interaction.
• Social networking sites. O’reilly defines the web 2.0 as a way to leverage the collective wisdom and where the user takes control of their own information. Social networking sites enable the exchange of knowledge, managing one’s relationships (interactivity), creating a public profile by articulating a list of contacts (autonomy), or sharing lists of contacts with other users (openness, diversity).
• Exchange of knowledge in virtual communities: confidence, loyalty, emotional identification, reciprocity and commitment are fundamental for the exchange of knowledge in virtual communities.
• Usage and adoption of social networking sites: there are several aspects (cognitive, contextual, etc.) that explain how people adopt technology. Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw developed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which is what based this research.

A model was designed to see what was the utility of social networking sites for knowledge exchange, based on the TAM model.

Social networking sites help in solving some barriers usually found in the field of tourism: high competition and lack of collaboration, atomization of the sector, lack of knowledge, etc.

More than 80,000 virtual communities ^[1] members out of 28 communities in several social networking sites (Linkedin, Facebook, Ning) were identified and a sample of users was selected to be surveyed about usage and perceived utility. The main characteristics of the sample is higher education, a majority of people in the 30-44 y.o. range, professionals of the tourism or knowledge sector, not very high earnings, proficiency in the use of ICTs. Facebook is the SNS more used, followed by Twitter and Linkedin, though Linkedin was much more used in relationship with the average SNS user, that is, tourism professionals use linkedin more than the average population. More than half of the users had friends as their contacts, but besides this, the level of trust in the network is very high. It is believed that SNS are adequate for sharing knowledge but not as good for creating new knowledge.

We can state that autonomy, diversity and openness favours interactivity among members and thus increase the usage of SNS. SNS are perceived more as places to get in through with people and share knowledge, rather than spaces for collaborative learning. There is a low perception of generation of new knowledge. Thus, features of SNS should be improved in terms of generation of knowledge (if that was their purpose). Notwithstanding, there is a positive perception of SNS often times based in high rates of trust in these platforms. Hence, SNS could be used for collaborative work between members of the tourist sector.

Discussion

Some questions from the committee:

• Agustí Canals: was there any validation of the questionnaire?
• Agustí Canals: what is the relationship of the model and demographic data?
• Agustí Canals: is this research representative of other fields or, at least, other knowledge-intensive fields?
• José Luis Molina: how does the model relate to personal knowledge management?
• José Luis Molina: how does the model would vary taking into account only specific regions of the globe?
• Esther Pérez: what are the reasons behind the choice of the model of acceptance of technology?
• Q: does the model fit better in some specific geographic areas rather and other ones? what about different ages?
• Q: how should the model evolve to fit the pace of change in reality?

The questionnaire was validated: there was a pre-survey with a very small sample, the questionnaire was corrected and then the new questionnaire was used in the final survey.

The direct interaction of the researcher with many of the surveyed networks leads him to believe that there are not many differences in the usage and perception of utility of SNS for tourism professionals in different regions of the world… but language. Indeed, problems are shared, attitudes are similar and practices do not differ much from different SNS and/or social networks.

It is worth noting that the personal relationships factor is crucial in the usage of SNS. Knowledge is defined very different and is thus difficult to measure, but personal relationships have common structures and this is what usually shapes social networks.

TAM was adopted because of its wider use in many other researches.

People of different ages may end up using SNS in different ways, but the core of professional virtual communities, which is knowledge and relationships would still be the same. That is, forms may vary, but content would still be the same.

Generation of knowledge not only happens when it is actively pursued, but also serendipitously, in sharing ideas, information or other knowledge.

Round table on Citizen participation and presence of the Parliament in the Net. Chairs the Vicepresidente 1º del Senado D. Juan José Lucas.

D. José Antonio Manchado Lozano. Senador del Grupo Parlamentario Socialista.

Citizens have to participate, to engage in the management of public things.

Institutions can ignore them, listen to them or even sit and talk with them. Given the fact that politics is hugely discredited, it is maybe time to sit and speak with people in order to regain legitimacy and trust in institutions.

There is a big difference between transparency, which is a responsibility of institutions, and participation, which comes from an engaged citizen. Transparency is the duty of institutions, participation is a right of the citizen. And participation has to be fostered. Participation is not only be informed, or accountability, or tell one’s opinion, but being also able to have an influence in decision-making. So, the Senate — and Parliaments in general — should enable the participation of citizens in their daily work, so that nothing that happens within the Parliament’s walls has not been co-participated by the citizens.

It is important noting that the world wide web does not begin and end in the Senate’s web page: this is only the institutional headquarters of the Senate, but people are everywhere in the Net, especially social networking sites.

D. Narvay Quintero Castañeda. Senador del Grupo Parlamentario Mixto.

The website of the Senate could turn into another chamber, to be added to the existing parliamentary groups, commissions, etc. Websites or social networking sites can be used to bridge the chasm between the citizenry and politicians as they are open gates for information sharing and conversation.

D. Ismael Peña-López. Profesor de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas de la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.

D. David Álvarez. Analista Político en Redes Sociales.

Who are the actors of online politics?

• Citizens as individuals: they are not waiting to participate, they are already participating in political initiatives. E.g. Qué hacen los diputados, Proyecto Avizor, Graba tu pleno, Tu Derecho a Saber, Stop Desahucios, Democracia 4.0.
• Politicians as individuals.
• Political organizations.
• Institutions.
• Media.

Citizen activism in the Net:

• Intensive use of social networking sites.
• Collective intelligence: collaboration, participation, co-creation.
• Financing practices: crowdfunding.
• Data journalism-based practices.
• Elimination of intermediaries.
• No one has the exclusivity of knowledge.
• Shared political experiences.

Political institutions are not usually very active in social networking sites. Indeed, there are more people not directly related with political institutions talking about them on social networking sites than people directly related with these institutions.

Survey on “Social intelligence” by Territorio Creativo:

• Does the institution measure the impact of its communication on the Net?
• Does the institution have spaces for interaction and collaboration?
• Does the institution have a protocol for interacting with the citizen in social networking sites?
• Does the institution listens to what is being said in social networking sites?
• Does the institution measure its online reputation?
• Does the institution use the Internet for pattern recognition, to identify behaviour trends?
• Does the institution share information within the institution?
• Does the institution foster open innovation?

Keynotes on Accessibility and Reuse of public sector information.

Accessibility.
Fundación Sidar. Loic Martínez Normand. Presidente de la fundación

Accessibility: guaranteeing that the web is available for everyone independently of their capabilities. This definition has been broadened when more people are disabled in different ways (e.g. temporarily because of broken arm) and because of the proliferation of different displays with which one can access the world wide web. Functional diversity: sensory (sight, hearing, touch), motor (mobility, skills), cognitive (comprehension, language, learning).

Principles in accessible design: a website has to be perceptible, comprehensible, operable, robust. The new website scores average, but is much better than the previous one.

Reuse of public sector information.
Fundación Civio. Mar Cabra. Directora de la fundación.

Some experiences in transparency and reuse of public sector information: tuderechoasaber.es, dondevanmisimpuestos.es, espanaenllamas.es.

There is a lot of information that already exists, that has been paid by the taxpayers, and that is not used because it has not been made publicly available. There even is the possibility to make business/profit by reusing public sector information.

Make available:

• Legally, by making it freely (no copyright) available by law.
• Technically, so that computers can “read” the information (e.g. no scanned images, but text documents).
• Humanly, presenting information in visual ways that humans can better understand than long lists of rows in tables.

Availability is also about being able to provide feedback, and providing feedback in a transparent way (e.g. no through forms).

Round table on transparency and communication. Chairs the Vicepresidenta 2ª del Senado Dª. Yolanda Vicente González.

Dª Mónica Almiñana Riqué. Senadora del Grupo Parlamentario Entesa pel Progrés de Catalunya.

How can we analyse the state of transparency in Spanish olitics?

The first law on the right to information is the US Freedom Act (1966)… when Spain did not have even a Democracy. That is, access to information still is a young matter in Spain. In the meanwhile, there’s been a technological revolution that has radically transformed itself the definition of access to information.

In Spain, the third problem is political parties and the political class, only below the economic crisis and unemployment. Notwithstanding, people still believe that democracy is the best of systems. People feel that they are not informed about what is happening in politics and people are occupying streets and plazas to demand for a better democracy.

There is the threat that this political disaffection becomes structural, yielding to unrest, radicalization of the political discourse, etc.

Dª Carmen Azuara Navarro. Senadora del Grupo Parlamentario Popular.

In the new website of the Senate the focus has been put on transparency, on letting know the citizen what is being dealt with in the Senate.

Besides transparency, the digitization of most information will mean more efficiency in terms of costs of communications.

D. Rafael Rubio. Profesor de Derecho Constitucional de la Universidad Complutense.

The Senate has a new website: what now? what comes next?

It is no use that the website aims at transparency if the attitudes of the Senate are not towards transparency. How will citizens use the information at their reach?

Some threats:

• Representatives are digitally illiterate.
• Citizens do not know about the processes in the Parliament.
• Citizens are also digitally illiterate.
• Too much effort to use.
• Lack of dialogue.
• Too much information and too complex.
• Divides: digital, political, cultural, social.
• Lack of answers or ability to provide answers.
• Self-criticism: knowing what works and what does not.

So, what for a new website? To reinforce the (traditional) characteristics of the Senate: representativeness, transparency, accessibility, responsibility, efficacy, openness, confidence, better communication, rationalizing the legislative process, new ways of participation.

The Senate has to have its own voice, without intermediation, enabling communication.

We have to be aware of (1) whom are we talking to and (2) what are their languages so we can adapt our message to them.

And there is an urgent need for inter-institutional collaboration.

D. Luis Izquierdo. Presidente de la Asociación de Periodistas Parlamentarios.

Spain does not have a long tradition in matters of culture of transparency.

Transparency International España has several indices that measure the quality of transparency in Spanish municipalities, provinces and autonomous communities.

Transparency is not only about publishing information, but about getting it to the citizen.

And transparency is not only about the public sector, but also about the private sector, especially big corporations that concentrate big amounts of power.

Media have alto to be transparent. And citizens should be demanding it. There is no accountability in media.

Citizen protests have demanded more transparency to governments and media and these protests have spurred many initiatives related to transparency.

Round table: From movements to constitutions. How to think in a networked and open source constitutional process
Chairs: Tomás Herreros

Is it true that citizens (Spaniards, Greeks, etc.) are lab rats upon which we can play socio-economic experiments?

What has been the role of the European Union before the economic and financial crisis?

There is only an exit to the crisis with a commons-based economy, a new way to understand politics and participation, etc.

These movements are based on self-communication and higher rates of participation. And the difference between activists and non-activists are blurring, as participation comes naturally with being informed, providing and opinion and getting in touch with one’s peers.

With this changing times, what is the role of traditional politics?

Rubén Martínez Dalmau (Professor in Constitutional LAw, Universidad de Valencia)

There are concepts like “separation of powers” or “administration of sovereignty” that should be addressed carefully. So, before asking how to do things, we should above all ask ourselves why some things should — or should not — be done.

Why a constituent process?

Because, historically, constitutive democracy is an emancipatory process: it has provided more rights to the citizens than never before. Modern constitutions introduce the concept of the sovereignty of the people, which becomes very important in order to control power and its management.

Although modern constitutions have improved empowerment and have evolved (positively) along the years, there still are some glitches that need being fixed: many times, constitutions are nominal (state principles) but are not normative (and thus require a deployment of further regulation). A good example of that is health, housing, etc. though they are mentioned as rights in many constitutions, they do not count as such if they are not reflected in positive laws (as it often happens). Consequence? Parts of the constitution are not applied.

Another glitch is the difference between constituent power and constituted power. Constitutions are the manifestation of regenerative powers. But if representatives do not change their behaviours according to (new) constitutions, the constituent and regenerative power becomes but reproductive power. The glitch of the glitch is when representatives (the constituted power) are the ones that change or write the constitutions (the constituent power). This is a total contradiction in the very core of the concept of a constitution.

Thus, there is a need to break (1) the nominal parts of the constitutions and (2) the hope or mirage that constitutions can be changed by the people but actually only constituted powers can do it. We need not fight for a reform of the constitution, but for a rupture.

The qualitative leap between the 15M and the 25S is putting the stakes on the constituent power as the basis of a rupture against the constituted power — very much like many Latin American constitutions that were reformed or rewritten in the nineties.

The constituent process is not the only exit, but it might be the best one. On the other hand, the constituent power is a power that many times needs fighting the constituted power; thus, many times the legitimacy of the constituent process begins with a clash of powers. There is a need for a transitional process that will not be “the” transition, but a real transition time that links the preceding constitution with the following one, where consensus have to be reached, and based on a deep democratic maturity.

Emmanuel Rodríguez (Observatorio Metropolitano de Madrid)

There are many political institutions that instead of disclosing democracy, they actually close it: only some specific actors are acknowledged as such and the rest of actors is set aside of the democratic process. Besides representative institutions closing democracy, mainstream media have lately proven unable to channel the public opinion. Same with labour union, that have shifted towards representing only a specific part of the workers. Last, but not least, the economic power, whose jurisdiction has escaped the area of influence of all other powers.

[here comes a thorough explanation of the growing power of international finance, getting much bigger than any country’s GDP] The defence of economic and finance powers has become a political priority, with the Maastricht Treaty as the most significant “constituent” example.

Summing up, while the economy is fully integrated at the European level, politics (or civil rights) are not so. Until a total parallelism is achieved, full democracy within Europe will be an illusion.