Data revolution or data divide? Can social movements bring the human back into civic tech?
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•795 views
This was presented by Kersti Ruth Wissenbach from the University of Amsterdam at the Impacts of Civic Technology Conference (TICTeC2016) in Barcelona on 27th April. You can find out more information about the conference here: https://www.mysociety.org/research/tictec-2016/
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (18)
Ähnlich wie Data revolution or data divide? Can social movements bring the human back into civic tech?
Ähnlich wie Data revolution or data divide? Can social movements bring the human back into civic tech? (20)
Mehr von mysociety
Mehr von mysociety (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Data revolution or data divide? Can social movements bring the human back into civic tech?
- 1. Data revolution or data divide? Can social movements bring the human back into civic tech? TICTeC 2016 Kersti Ruth Wissenbach @kerstiru
- 2. 1. How do citizens resist massive data collection by means of technical fixes (re-active data activism)? 2. How do social movements use big data to foster social change (pro- active data activism)? 3. How does data activism affect the dynamics of transnational civil society, and transnational advocacy networks in particular? PI Dr. Stefania Milan Department of Media Studies, University of Amsterdam Data Activism: The Politics of Big Data According to Civil Society
- 3. Expanding civic tech community or ‚selling out‘ tools? What happens to civic technologies and activism networks as they disperse into a ‚development context‘? And why do we need a new perspective?
- 4. Civic Tech for this research Civic Tech Activism • Coding, design, advocacy skills to a cause they are effected by or feel strongly about • Empower active citizenry from within the civic sphere Transparency and accountability Open data open government Own creation & utilization of - new / localizable communication means (data, ICTs) Trans-local / trans-national networksField of action Direct action Expansion into developing environments
- 5. ‚Starting points‘ • In development context civic tech and community ‘separated’ – focus on tech implementation [by development agencies] rather than community • NGOs acting ‘on behalf of’ local civil society may prevent growth of civic tech community towards more contextual action repertoires, diversity, inclusive growth – Disconnect between wider thematic expertise and related approaches (inclusion/ participation) and contemporary TA, open government work? • Civic tech field risking to replicate patterns of older tech- deterministic approaches? – Discourse (not action) around defining civic tech seems to replicate concerns around tech-domination and limited attention towards communication and community the ICT4D community has already processed. (McCann 2015)
- 6. It‘s about power, not tools Potential power shifts – civic driven (local, national, transnational) • ‘Genuine bottom-up expression of public will’ • Removing hierarchies and intermediaries > direct governance • Building and utilization technologies to open up civil society space • Strength through community building and mutual support across localities How does an active community expand, rather than their tools? • Who is represented in data? [‚data scientists are not social scientists‘ (Taylor 2015)] • Who is involved in utilization of data, tools, etc.? • Hierarchies within networks? • What form of participation is power? Counter-act prevailing power structures > focus on the definition and enactment of the civic
- 7. Change perspective, not the label MOVEMENTS AS NEW ‚FUNDING TARGET‘? > pressing social movements into conventional structures but what if the structure is rotten? ‘RE-LABELING’ = New terms old practises ISOLATING DIGITAL DIVIDE FROM BROADER PROBLEM OF THE DEVELOPMENT DIVIDE Meta discourse: UNESCO, ITU to WSIS [‘there has never been a power shift (Hamelink: 2016)] Academia: Development Communication, ICT4D, stagnation? Practise: Participatory tech hype? / cleavages btw activists, NGOs, donors; Limitation in organizational structures
- 9. Social Movement Lens = methodological provision, not [funding] target
- 10. Mapping the field Expose links to wider movements/ transnational engagements Grassroots activism individuals organisations events democracy/pow er ICT4D data tools participation/ag ency contexts information Development Communication Participatory approaches Citizen media platforms (users) Civic Tech Activism tools Dependency Modernization Theories Behaviour change Information Communication dialogue People vs. Media centred Mass media Paradigmatic challenge to development TA (open government / data) Technocratic/magic bullet vs integrative/particip. approach Civic collective action capacities open ICT4D democracy participation inclusion open development Social Movement Theory Process Action repertoires Collective identity Opportunity structures (Emancipatory Communication) Activism
- 11. Baack, S.( 2015) Network tool: Gephi Contributors (Github) Followers (Github) users strategists makers Civic Tech Activism > How does collectivity unfold, not technology? tools tactics dialogue
- 12. What is the nature of collective action in transnational Civic Tech Activism? 1. What are the action repertoires of civic tech activists? 2. How is collective identity in the field of civic tech activism created? 3. Is there a relation between the action repertoire of civic tech activists and the formation of a collective identity?
- 13. Collective Action Socially constructed field of shared action Civic organizing + Developing & utilizing tools and tactics for socio-political goal Civic Tech Activism Individuals, organisations, events Action Repertoires (tools, tactics, communication, etc.) Opportunity Structures (political, cultural, etc.) Identity formation (individual / collective) Emotions, values, etc.
- 14. Civic Tech Activism Individuals, organisations, events Internal: Action repertoires External: Opportunity structures Identity formation (individual / collective) Development agencies Action Repertoires > [Appropriation ?] organizational structures Inclusion in shared action Social construct of shared action
- 15. With the concepts and tools of SMR it will be analysed • How civic tech activists make sense of their involvement • How the individual interacts with the collective > to what extend technology is able to shape such interaction • How shared values and principles are translated into practice (action repertoires) • If they transcend [as tools travel]
- 16. Contribution to the field • Respond to lacking empirical evidence as to why increased ICT-accessibility on its own should drive democracy and civic participation • Contribute to fill research gap on civic tech activism (vs tools /users) • Provide new, civic-centred theoretical approach to the field > social movement lens (people and process focus (communication) – Not addressed in ICT4D research – Stagnation in Development Communication research – socio-political activities in developing countries don‘t need to be linked to development theory and repertoire of approaches
- 17. Methodology Required data Method Civic Tech Activists Opportunity structures, identity formation, action repertoire Concept use and interpretation of civic tech terminology Literature / document analysis Digital methods: Issue crawler Survey among civic tech networks Structure geographic, demographic Network mapping: data repositories, online groups Survey: mailing lists / google groups, CT organisations Group dynamics / engagement patterns creation, maintenance, expansion of networks; Challenges; Ways of organizing, patterns/levels of internal/external engagement Language, cultures of communicating, etc. Observation: online and offline gatherings Interviews: individual activists, community managers from civic tech organizations Contexts (motivational, personal) Reasons for engagement, triggers for involvement personal contexts Feeling of belonging (local, national, transnational) Surveys: mailing lists Semi-structured interviews: during events, online Observation: civic tech events
- 18. Methodology Required data Method Civic Tech Activists Action repertoires Toos and tactics Strategies Communication practices (outreach and engagement) Interviews: activists, community managers, potential project staff of tool utilization Civic Technologies (within action repertoire) Technologies built where, by whom, why Digital mapping: Githhub scraping Interviews: civic tech activists and organisations Utilization of civic tech where by whom, how, why Implementing parties, strategies, collaboration patterns Document analysis: Collection and analysis of project documentation / project strategies Interviews: implementing entities
Hinweis der Redaktion
- creation and utilization of data and informational and communication technologies (ICTs) by activists to serve the public good basically activism rooted practices are pressed into conventional tech-determinsistic development cooperation structures. Why not considering what would happen if the community, rather than its tools would expand on a transnational scale. What would make the difference in comparison to what is happening now? The potential for these platforms to invigorate citizen engagement, increase transparency, and broaden public debate has been recognised not only by those in civil society, but by governments, by development agencies, and by philanthropists. Focus on platforms Me: focus on processes citizen engagement from both sites > in creating tech and engaging with it (not for the tech but with the process the tech facilitates)
- ‘The rise of civic technology in this new millennium has been organic and profound. It has not been led by politicians or corporations, nor by powerful knowledge-rich institutions or NGOs, but by individuals and loosely constituted groups with specific digital expertise and an interest in getting things done. Such individuals are not normally considered to be on the cutting edge of political and practical behaviour change. ‘ (Rumbul 2015, mySociety)
- Social Movement Lens = Taking a radical different approach towards how to address civic dynamics and potentials in regards to opening up civil society space, local, translocal, transnational Shifting the narrative > opposing the practice of sticking new labels on existing structures (redirecting funding but within same old ways) >> so to be clear my intention is NOT to promote the shift within development cooperation to shift to another ‚target‘ (funding movements?) .. And talking about movements.. Movements are not ‚the new thing‘... They have always been there, they have always been funded and there is much contestation about how to define and categorize movements.. Not uncritizised.. So a social movement lens is not about movements as ‚the new target‘ but about looking into a methodological repertoire which may help to overcome decades of stagnation in moving from discourse to serious shifts in practise (and power)
- TO clarify > I am NOT promoting to support movements since this is sth easy to say but not as straight forward to do Contested field > what is a movement? Protest movements usually no agenda Bigger movements are a conglomerate of individuals, orgs etc.. So if going via the bigger orgs.. You might run into the same trouble than before and so we have to think beyond conventional structures and not whom to fund next in the same old way!
- TA, later open government and open data Buzzword Conceptual vagueness and methodological weaknesses
- For civic tech community that means Transcending community’s ‘collective identity’ not homogeneous groups technological outreach Stronger cross-disciplinary community structure (not only tech) Engaging with actors experienced in engaging marginalised communities
- Epistemology of action Move away from a tech-centric perspective on how people use new technologies or collect data towards how people construct collective identity in action and produce unity out of diverse elements of action. Shifts away from a subject-object separation within change processes, focusing on the direct relation of people’s integrity with certain contexts for political will formation and engagement. It served as the base for several conceptualisations of identity formation within new social movement studies (Huesca 2001). Approach recognizes the role of transforming identity prior to action and therefore deems both inseparable, seeing the participation in certain movements based on interests bound to own identities. Equally does it recognize the effect of increasing exposure to global challenges (in political contexts) on the (re)formation of identity and therefore transformation of the sense of belonging.
- Academia and practise continuously fall short on the recognition of context-relevance and opportunities in direct correlation with the role of identity formation and community building, especially towards the fringes of society, for socio-political engagement Utilization of data and ICTs within change processes > dominantly addressed within Communication for Change but falling short on recognition of contemporary transformations of human realities and the role of identity formations therein as well as the significant citizen-built and driven character of new ICTs A relevant concept with the greatest success in ‘defining the properties of the external environment, relevant to the development of social movements’ > political opportunity structures (Della Porta and Diani 2006). However, a broader approach towards opportunity structures, including net-politics, tech-infrastructural and cultural opportunities would be required and would respond to the major criticism towards the political process approach, namely the distinction between “objective” reality and its social construction (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Tech-centric approach dominating social movement studies and its scholarly fashion of quantitative data analysis has moved the question of collective identity below the radar of digital activism discourse (Gerbaudo and Treré 2015). Despite explorations of new media and collective identity (Milan 2015, Kavada 2015), attention to ICT-related exclusion of entire civil society sectors remains underserved.
- Network Analysis of entities involved in Tech4TA Semi-structured interviews (activists from sampled transnational civic tech communities, disconnected local civic-tech initiatives, organisational bodies of more structured civic tech networks, sample NGO practitioners and local partners) Ethnographic / E-ethnographic research of sample civic tech communities and their (virtual) interactions (events and hangouts) through participatory observation in order to explore community cultures and collective identities. Action research bringing together actors from civic tech and NGOs side in order to co-evaluate main obstacles for collaboration.