ICTlogy

Second of my three seminars imparted at the he Rich-Media Webcasting Technologies for Science Dissemination Workshop, organized by the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics Science Dissemination Unit.

Main aspects

Seminar fundamentally based on my notes on the Web2forDev Conference and split in two parts:

• Part I: showcase of different Web 2.0 — and related ICT4D — projects in developing countries
• Part II: open debate with the attendants based on random thoughts extracted from the said notes

Live recording of the session

• Part I (begins at aprox past the 2/3 of total running time): view, download ( 94.86 Mb)
• Part II: view, download ( 119.38 Mb)
• See, also, the rest of the workshop presentations

Slides

Click here to download, or watch them on Slideshare:

First of my three seminars imparted at the he Rich-Media Webcasting Technologies for Science Dissemination Workshop, organized by the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics Science Dissemination Unit.

Main aspects

• Introduction to the Web 2.0, stressing the fact that the web is the platform, that putting up content to the web has been made quite easy — caveat: provided you have access to a computer and good bandwidth —, the power of RSS, the challenge of filtering and content quality.
• Conferences are one dimensional: content delivered at one time and one place
• Conferences should shift from information exchange to knowledge exchange
• Before conferences: data and information sharing through websites, blogs, social networks
• During conferences: knowledge sharing through instant messaging, browsing, blogging and nanoblogging, social bookmarking, shared list of resources/bibliographies, multimedia files, presentations, paper repositories, etc.
• During conferences: interaction fostered by wikis, blogging (comments)
• After conferences: strengthening the network using social software, blogrolls, keeping the track of conference “official” tags, feedreading, etc.
• Opennes, a must
• Going digital, or how to create huge (infinite?) economies of scale
• The web is the platform, the way to overcome space (and time) barriers
• Link, link, link, or how to contribute to reputation and filtering

Live recording of the session

Using the EyA System — thanks to Carlo Fonda for making it possible!

• Part I: view, download ( 165.78 Mb)
• Part II: view, download ( 60.03 Mb)
• See, also, the rest of the workshop presentations

Slides

Click here to download, or watch them on Slideshare:

Next December 3, 4 and 5 I’ll be in Trieste at the Rich-Media Webcasting Technologies for Science Dissemination Workshop, organized by the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics Science Dissemination Unit.

The whole set of names is quite eerie — for a social scientist like me — but once read you realize this is a very interesting workshop on scientific diffusion in developing countries, being ICT4D a deepest commitment of the organizers.

As you can see in the programme, I’ll be teaching three seminars, namely:

• Conferences 2.0: Scientists and Web 2.0, where I’ll speak about the change of paradigm in scholarly communication, mainly inspired by my Conferences 2.0 article in July
• Web 2.0 and the Digital Divide, where I will try to summarize everything I learned and thought about while in the Web2forDev Conference in Rome last September
• The Personal Research Portal, where we’ll try to put into practice — even if just slightly — my reflections published in my article The personal research portal: web 2.0 driven individual commitment with open access for development

I have to sincerely thank Marco Zennaro for insisting that the Conferences 2.0: Scientists and Web 2.0 speech became the keynote/opening session speech, which really, really, really honors me so much. As I’ve been asked to provide a summary to publicize the speech, I wonder whether this session will be open to anyone. Hence, here comes the outline:

Conferences 2.0: Scientists and Web 2.0

Information and Communication Technologies, the Internet, and most especially, the so called Web 2.0 have radically changed – at least potentially – the way scholarly diffusion is or can be made.

On one hand, the traditional constrains of space, time, publishing costs, etc. have almost completely disappeared or have entered huge economies of scale. Diffusion is – or, again, could be considered – easier and cheaper than ever.

On the other hand, and partly due to the former aspects, we are beginning to see an increasing demand for more accountability and transparency of research and researchers, resulting in both a claim for a deeper and wider popularization of science and a call for better and denser research networks.

The seminar “Conferences 2.0: Scientists and Web 2.0” will be split into three parts.

First part, Web 2.0, will point out the main characteristics of the Web 2.0 – a part that can be overridden depending on the knowledge on the issue by the attendees.

Second part, What’s a Conference 2.0, will to summarize how things have changed in the field of scholarly diffusion in the last years or, more specifically, since the advent of the Internet, the web browser and Web 2.0 applications.

Las part, the bulk of the seminar, will draw the “perfect” conference – and/or scientific diffusion strategy – by revisiting some good practices and some interesting applications existing around.

Anyhow, the focus and the stress will be put in both the change of paradigm in scholarly communication and the creation of a showcase of real practices and tools that are setting up this new path.

Christian Kreutz writes about the first day at the Web4Dev conference taking place in Nairobi. Some subjects he highlights — and I just list:

• Connectivity a main issue for development
• Broadband the second derivative of the connectivity issue
• RSS feeds and e-mail working great with low/poor connectivity
• Other Web 2.0 applications worsening the connectivity/broadband problem
• ironically, wireless technologies might provide better connectivity to rural areas than urban suburbs have, where wiring or even “wifiing” is way difficult because of lack of formal settlements
• The (positive or negative) role of leadership
• Need for local content
• No charity, but development: solutions must work in the market, so they are sustainable

Notes on the workshop Usos i Reptes de les TIC a les Organitzacions No Lucratives [Uses and Challenges of ICTs in Nonprofits], organized by the Observatori del Tercer Sector [Observatori for the Third Sector] and the CETEI, and chaired by Jaume Albaigès.

The uses — a diagnosis

Two (really) different organization profiles regarding Information and Communication Technologies:

• lite: have a website, are concerned with the digital divide and fight it e.g. with training on digital literacy, etc.
• premium: not only have installed the basic infrastructures, but have gone beyond and adopted management digital applications, use websites for campaining and fundraising, etc. but, in general terms, they act in the short run and lack an IT strategy

Only 5-6% of the demand for personnel to work or be a volunteer in nonprofits is related to ICTs. Inside this group, half of it is for training purposes (e.g. impart courses on digital literacy; 22% is for websites and design and 23% for systems maintenance and programming.

80% of 100 nonprofits surveyed have a website, +90% have their own domain, +90% have information on their projects and +80% have interaction/feedback spaces; but +90% don’t have any interaction space, +85% no data on their social basis, +60% no economic/financial/funding data.

Experience 1: Formació Espiral [Espiral Training]

A need — actually, a claim — for training. Different types of training, all of them focusing on ICTs and ICTs for Nonprofits:

• Open classrooms: horizontal training, between peers, short training sessions (2-3h)
• Annual workshop
• Summer, Fall, Winter courses: wide range of courses

New training/research interests: Web 2.0, blogs, wikis, educational uses of Second Life, conceptual maps…

Experience 2: Database for the management of the Punts Òmnia [telecentres]

To check the performance, number and type of users, type of use, workload and activity, etc.

Solution: a database fed by the user himself (selfregister), filling in a form (best option for the user) with fields asking for user profile and kind of use of the computer at the telecentre, including a user register, thus creating a user database that can fit several purposes.

Two approaches to ICTs:

• No money for computers; we’re trying to get second hand computers; can anybody help for free?
• We have databases… on spreadsheets; the computer is a substitute for paper, that’s all; we’ve got tools… but don’t know how to use them / benefit from using them

Main barriers

• Resources for investment (not expenditures!)
• Knowledge to take decissions
• Training to use ICTs efficiently and in an efficient way

Experience 3: Animations for Peace contest

Experience 4: Exchange Platform for Knowledge Diffusion

Based on Moodle. Being tested in the Master for International Development, an onsite course — not online — that benefits from a virtual platform to enhance the diffusion of knowledge. Moodle can hold documents, bibliography, assessments and automatic evaluation of these assessments, and all kind devices and spaces for collaboration, information, interaction and feedback, etc.

Very interesting asset of Moodle for nonprofits: a whole team — not just a single person —
can manage the platform, including the courses’ teachers… and remotely, not compulsory to be on site, at the nonprofit headquarters (e.g. online volunteers).

Key aspect: the tool can provide spaces and devices to improve the tool itself.

The challenges — a strategy

How to integrate ICTs in the institutions’ strategic planning: opportunity and responsibility. More impact, more diffusion, more resources (avoid costs, raise funds): better reach to beneficiaries, more impact of advocacy campaigns, better communication, transparency, better internal management.

The necessary change of mindset.

Diagnose:

• internal audit: listen and look
• talk with other organizations: the network and the Network
• benchmark with specialists

Design and execution

• Action plan: as ambitious as possible (we’ll adapt it to the reality later on…)
• Priorities, schedule
• Strong focus on training

Follow-up

• Evaluation, moving onto the spotlight the benefits, costs, difficulties, etc. of the project
• Maintenance and supervision

Experience 5: Database to manage the social base

The design performed by an analyst, so all relevant questions are put on the table beforehand, but use of MS Access — not a custom but complex application —, easing the use of the database by a wide range of non-techie people, especially volunteers.

The new database allows a lot of outputs: people management, mail management, financial management, strategic planning (e.g. budgeting), volunteer and tasks management and planning, etc.

Experience 6: Dedications to projects

Shift from a desktop application (MS Excel) to an online database hosted on the intranet. Next step: not only feeding the application but strategic exploitation of data.

Richness of data brings the possibility to plan and better allocate (human) resources, easier follow-up of data evolution (better reports, less data exportation to other applications: centralization of databanks), improvement of the management of the organization as a whole, more efficiency, ability to prioritize needs according to resources, etc.

Training is the key. And is the organization, not just individuals, the one that has to learn.

Important to notice that this is no expenditure, but investment. This really needs a change of mindset.

The importance of volunteering.

Technical resources:

• Web development paradigm: a good resource that needs be kept in mind. The web is the platform, the permanent beta as a means to install applications that can evolve, grow, be enhanced.
• Free and Open source software applications… free as in free beer.
• Share tools between different organizations… and the knowledge that goes with it.

What’s next?

• Towards the nonprofit 2.0: more participation, bidirectional communication, accountability (increase confidence on the sector), networking with all stakeholders (especially the beneficiaries), etc.
• Impact on the environment: use of material resources, energy

Experience 7: A website in 20 minutes, a website with Joomla

1998: a website takes 30 minutes to upload just one piece of news and mastering technological tools (HTML, FTP, etc.)

2004: need for flexibility, being up-to-date, avoid technological skills requirements, low budgets

Now: 5 minutes (maximum) a new piece of news, no skills required, no budget required to implement, update and maintain, ubiquitous management and updating, etc.

Result: not just quicker websites but more websites: campaigns, projects, etc.

Other experiences: WordPress.com, even easier than Joomla.

Best result: increase in presence on the Web, hence, presence in the World, way the target of an advocacy nonprofit.

Experience 8: Health in the Millennium campaign

Need to widen the diffusion of the campaign, upload materials, news, links, videos, events; have a deliverable to handout documents and reports in a friendly way.

Impact: increase in the amount of visits and file downloads, less paper (less costs).

More info

• TecnolONGia, Jaume Albaigès’s blog about technology for nonprofits
• Usos i reptes de les TIC al tercer sector [Uses and Challenges of ICTs in Nonprofits] (854 Kb)
• Files for the experiences presented (282 Kb)

The problem of writing in several places and doing it in different languages is that, after all, it is quite difficult to establish or draw a consistent thread of your own thinking. If you, indeed, do need this verbalized/explicitly-written summary of your ideas for other purposes, tracking it down is, more than interesting, a must. Here comes, hence, some things I’ve said somewhere else in the past days, just slightly elaborated:

The myth of the digital natives (source)

When talking about the digital natives, it is common to listen to people talk from radical, opposed approaches: the digital native is an axiom vs. the digital native is an absurd nonsense. Just few try and stay in a middle point.

I believe — I really mean it — that it makes no sense talking about digital natives in a generational sense. I’d rather call it a “syndrome”, a syndrome that younger generations (due to their capacity of aprenticeship, because of their major contact with new technologies, etc.) could be more prone to show (and this should be tested, of course) in comparison with older ones but, indeed, not exclusively.

In my opinion, “native” and “immigrant” are just ways of naming things, situations, nor theorems neither faithful descriptions of the reality. It’s just for us to quickly understand each other. Maybe Expert 2.0 does not carry so much determinism in the concept. But again: to me, the concept — ambiguous, equivocal, informal — is useful to describe the symptomatic chart, characterized by the different features drawn by Prensky, Palfrey/Gasser and others.

The “digital native/immigrant” construct should help us as a “proxy” of that difficult to measure variable that is “how much have we changed?”, by bringing a series of explicit characteristics to test.

Thus, we could analyze the way digital capacities and competences are acquired but also what is the final result, how these digital competences have transformed the individual, his habits… In this train of thought, the “how” would be the independent variable and the final result the dependent. For instance: using a mobile phone 24h a day, does it change my life? or, going further, using a mobile phone 24h a day does it give me some (digital) aptitudes that evolve into a (psychological, social, economical) change?

Then, the most interesting part in Prensky’s concept is the debate that it generates, the question thrown to the arena, more than the details — probably most of them arguable.

Should we all be digital natives/settlers?

Maybe not, maybe digital tools are neither the only ones nor the best ones, for all or for everyone. But, on the other hand, we are in a society that more and more gets demonstrated that:

• productivity will depend on the management of information and knowledge
• to keep one’s job will depend on the digital competences in a very broad sense
• business, production and cultural models are changing drastically and very quick
• law, rights, duties, values, identity, socialization… are being subverted from head to toes
• etc.

In front of this, it is in no way trivial or marginal to analyze the technologies that are provoking all these changes — and the adoption that specific social sectors make of them.

As the Industry changed the world since the XVIII^th century, there is pretty much evidence — and growing — that Information and Communication Technologies are reshaping the world, and to the point that we might be living a Third Industrial Revolution. Some even talk about a Digital Revolution, at the same level of the Agricultural Revolution or the Industrial Revolution.

So, digitize yourself or disappear. All society should enter this digital revolution — and the start is skills — to transform itself: not doing it might involve walking the same path developing countries took when the Industrial Revolution took place (for several and very different reasons, of course). Because the digital revolution, as the industrial revolution did, will affect both the ones that can access it and the ones that cannot. You just cannot switch the computer off and forget about the Information Revolution.

Web 2.0 and the role of the user (source)

So, is the Web 2.0 the solution to empowerment, to digital literacy, to democracy and so? Criticism states that surveys show that the concept of the prosumer is a fallacy and that almost everyone is a lurker, a voyeur 2.0.

My opinon is that, besides comparing horizontally (i.e. how many contribute to Web 2.0 sites and how many don’t), we should also compare vertically: how many now and how many before, just when there was no Web 2.0 or, even more, when there was no Internet at all.

The simile of democracy is perfect: better a dictatorship, a non-universal suffrage, or a democracy, even if statistics show that just half of the population actually votes while the rest does not even care standing out of the couch?

I guess that, being the subject so recent, it is no frivolity to speak of the potential and not only facts. Yes, facts are great, and facts — not suppositions — is what gives bread to our tables and pays our mortgages, so we cannot go on talking about the potential benefits of the Web 2.0 eternally and nothing else changes. But, that this potential exists — and let’s hope it sooner or later materializes — is a way good interesting change.