Leonie Ramondt20080906

Leonie Ramondt — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:30:34 +0100

design is so important. Second life remains a rich people's technology. it is certainly famous for it's processing requirements. You need fast computers and broadband. I was told recently that an avatar in Second Life uses the same amount of electicity as folks in Brazil. http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/12/avatars_consume.php Scarey. I was surprised therefore to discover how little of my download allowance World of Warcraft used on mobile broadband while i was on holidays. It takes up 8gig on the hard drive of course - due to all the pre-designed elements like scenery. I think virtual worlds will increasingly link us with communities of kindred spirits - via technologies in our pockets. think of the difference that could make! there are already technologies that can do that. Alan tells me for example that the last gen Xbox has a heap of capacity. So it was great yesterday to hear from Victoria about brocolab http://www.bricolabs.net/ and to find someone exploiting these "old" technologies creatively http://gieskes.nl/

Leonie Ramondt20080906

Leonie Ramondt — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:00:06 +0100

(good workshop- thanks all)
lovely idea to find ways of sharing physical presence virtually ;o). a new thread for my virtual worlds inquiry.

I've certainly noticed that kids who experience little physical play (eg rafts over local weirs, trecking through scrub and woodlands, surfing, dancing etc) also tend to lack confidence to "stand their ground". so i found Andy's reflection interesting - that it was the unions of those who do physical labour that remained strong the longest.

AndyDearden20080906

AndyDearden — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:07:46 +0100

I was also tasked to write up some notes from the discussion we had yesterday on 'Physicality and Solidarity'. The discussion was prompted by an exercise we did in the morning in which we stood together and simulated beating corn. Leonie was trying to get us away from being completely in our heads to being more concious of our bodies. Some people noted that doing this kind of physical activity together reminded us of our strength - our power as individuals. This may contrast with the way that when we feel isolated, we lose confidence, perhaps we think we are the only ones who want to change the system. Have changes in working culture, away from physical labour that requires people working (physically) together, towards more 'knowledge work' (and other isolated activities like cleaning) where we may be isolated from each other reduced our sense of solidarity. Marching together in demonstrations can help to motivate each of us in our individual efforts. What can we do to capture that? How might we behave in the digital age to help each other and feed our motivation and our strength? What is the role of technology.

A few things were discussed. Face to face meeting really helps to build trust. We discussed how Facebook has many groups each of which is trying to draw attention to itself, draw people in. But are we perhaps competing with each other for attention & funding rather than encouraging and supporting each other in our collective efforts. Finding out more about the whole person we are working with helps us build collective trust. Alan told us about the Matilda building in Sheffield - which was occupied by community activists, but eventually bulldozed by the University that I work in - there was a tradition in which each small collective took turns to feed everyone who was using the building. That physical, collective experience of problem solving helped to create the sense of shared purpose. Paula told us about a shared meal that was organised by (world wide) users of a gay chat room, where someone gave a recipe out, everyone then collected the ingredients for teh recipe (leading to interesting discussions about the very different cultural settings in which everyone was living), cooked the food, then sat down to join in the chat room whilst eating & drinking together. Again, the experience was a way to build connections, without meeting. If we are more involved together in these human, physical ways - not just in talking/writing/blogging/... does that help us to build a stronger sense of co-operation, participation and power?

AndyDearden20080906

AndyDearden — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:49:04 +0100

Empowering Technology?
Yesterday, we were discussing the question: “Can a technology be empowering?”.
I think my general position is that technology is always empowering for someone, so when new technologies arrive, they can be adopted in ways that modify power relationships – but this might involve power being distributed to more people or power being concentrated in fewer hands.
This morning I remembered that there is a classic paper in the sociology of technology that deals with this question – Do Artifacts have Politics?, by Langdon Winner (1980). In the paper Winner explains the case of the Long Island Bridges. Long Island is a very pleasant part of New York. To reach the main part of Long Island from the City, you have to travel underneath a set of freeway bridges. However, all these bridges are too low for a bus to get underneath. As a result, the freeway bridges ensure that the only people who can reach Long Island are people who can afford a car. What this case shows is that technology enables people to do things (the freeway allows some people to get from A to B quickly) but the way the technology is configured has different impacts on different people. In our terms, the freeway technology is explicitly disempowering for people who can only afford to travel by bus. In a similar way, the gradual moves over the past 20 years towards out of town supermarkets and shopping areas in the UK are empowering for some users (lower prices and easy parking) but disempowering for people who don’t have or don’t want to use a car.

So what about Information & Communication Technologies. An interesting paper that looks at this in information systems is ‘The Politics of Formalism’ by John Bowers (1992) – but I can’t remember enough of that, so you’ll have to find it and read it yourselves. What examples can we see of empowering & disempowering ICT. Where has new ICT supported the wider sharing of power? Where has new ICT resulted in concentration of power or abuse of power? One interesting thing about the mobile phone, in comparison to landlines – particularly in developing regions – is that a landline has to be built to reach one household or one business. This means there is a high capital cost for each person who wants to connect – they need both a telephone line and a handset, and when these are installed, only they can use the new power. The mobile phone network is different, because if the richer people in an area want to use mobiles, and a phone mast is built, then anyone else can also use that infrastructure – all they need to pay initially is the price of the handset. So mobiles & landlines result is slightly different power relations.

An interesting area to think about at present is the configuration of web 2.0 tools. A lot of really interesting and participatory things that can happen on wikis, blogs and other shared tools. But when we connect our browser to a web 2.0 site, there are different ways the services could be configured. One (server side) approach implies that each time we navigate within the site to a new piece of information, a very large amount of data needs to be downloaded (e.g. a complete page refresh), an alternative possibility is that when we enter the site, we download a bit more data (perhaps some dynamic HTML or some other client side scripts) so that each navigation within the site involves much smaller amounts of data transfer. These different designs have different impacts on power distribution. Designs that involve large amounts of data transfer with each navigation step mean that people with poor connections (e.g. people without broadband, people from developing regions) are effectively excluded from active participation. Once again by configuring the technology in particular ways it can be empowering for some but disempowering for others.

At the same time, technologies can be used to support activities that help people get power. The examples of Labournet using the internet to co-ordinate action with the Liverpool dock workers in the 1980s or of Tees Valley Community Media and the people of Skinningrove using Second Life to highlight the potential that might be realised by renovating their Jetty (URL) illustrate this possibility. I am sure that every member of this hotseat discussion can think of examples of projects where ICT can be used (configured?) to support the processes of sharing power and challenging the concentration of power.

Sorry about the length!, Andy

AndyDearden20080905

AndyDearden — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:38:28 +0100

Can a technology be empowering? - That's what we are talking about in Leeds at the moment.
My feeling is that all technology is empowering - but who is empowered, how is power distributed by a technology? Is it concentrated or shared? .... But that's just my view.

Hannah Beardon[yyyy][mm][dd]

Hannah Beardon — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:31:31 +0100

George, David... have a bolognese sauce burning downstairs, but yes, those questions and reflective questions in general are really useful. Have you seen the agenda? I think that there is plenty of chance there to be asking ourselves these kinds of questions and, as i said before, working out what we are as a group, as well as who we might be working with and how in our own activities.

David Wilcox20080903

David Wilcox — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:25:13 +0100

Hannah - following George's suggestion, my question to myself:

How can I best develop the capacity (power) to help others engage (participate) in social change, using a mix of interactive tools online and off.

I'm approaching that through the role of socialreporter
http://socialreporter.com
http://socialreporter.com/?p=40

Make sense? What roles do others see themselves as adopting?

David

George Por[yyyy][mm][dd]

George Por — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:18:02 +0100

hi Hannah,

We're definitely on the same wavelength!

> the workshop is intended to explore participation and power in a very reflexive way.

That confirmed the rightness of the intuition I had when I signed up in spite knowing very little about what will happen. The various social and electronic practices of collective self-reflexivity and collaborative meaning making are pivotal to collective self-actualization (not a sum of the individual ones!) To put it simply, for a group to reach its highest potential contribution social change and the effectiveness of its members as change agents it has to evolve from a community of learners to a community that learns. That includes learning about who we are together, what are group's strengths and weaknesses, and where we are heading.

> this group is more useful to support each other in our own social action and change processes.

If so, wouldn't it be useful if each of us asked a question like:

What would be the question that, if answered (or capability, if developed) would make the biggest positive difference in my effectiveness as an agent of a better world?

Sharing our individual reflection on a question like that cold generate an interesting "issues list" that we could rank together and get a sense of what seems to be the most important and urgent value adding issues to the group as whole, which we could tackle in small group work like world café, case clinic, or appreciative inquiry.

I wouldn't be surprised if you've already thought of all that, in which case I apologize for just voicing the obvious.

Looking forward to C U all 2+O.

Hannah Beardon[yyyy][mm][dd]

Hannah Beardon — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:50:21 +0100

Well it certainly seems that we are all on a wavelength... that participation is an easily misinterpreted word, but the value is valid and we are seeking ways of spreading a certain type of collaborative and respectful practice. In response to both Pam and George (hello George by the way, thanks for logging on with such valuable contributions and hope to see you at the workshop?)I would like to stress that the workshop is intended to explore participation and power in a very reflexive way. In my view participation is not about OTHERS, it is about OURSELVES. I hope that we will be able to facilitate a really good reflection on what it means for us and our own social action...

Now from a very personal perspective I would like to share some disquiet I have felt during my own participation in PRADSA and my hopes for this workshop (and the group). I have participated in various of the PRADSA workshops and online discussions, and have never been quite clear about who we are as a group - what brings us together - our shared values or motivations. While we all presumaby share a commitment to social change (I think that is what social action is about?!) and an interest in technology, I feel that a lack of any common action or process has led to a tendency for discussions to either be quite abstract, or to link to practice in the area of technology rather than the goals of our social action. ALthough technology is clearly part of the complex reality in which we all live and operate, we CAN talk about systems and products and their applications without going into too much detail about the who, how and why. This is why I have been pushing for a more explicit exploration of participation and power, which will allow us to ask what we mean by social action, and what kind of linkages can be made to strengthen existing processes. As the final workshop in the series, I hope that some of the reflections will help us to work out where we want to go as a group, and what we want to do together in the future, if anything. Change the world? I think we will all be doing what we can, in the group and out of it... my hunch is that this group is more useful to support each other in our own social action and change processes.

David Wilcox20080902

David Wilcox — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:15:12 +0100

Hannah - I think we are on the same wavelength

I agree power is fundamental to considering participation. I've found frameworks for thinking about this usually have four main elements
* How much control power-holding agencies are prepared to concede. Often expressed as a ladder or spectrum of participation based on Arnstein 1969 http://snurl.com/3m6p5
* Different participants/stakeholders, of whom some will have more power/control than others (who)
* Process over time (when)
* Methods (how)

Plus
* Context and culture (where)
* Purpose (why)

Fuller description (c 1994:-)
http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/frame.htm

I think social technology makes a difference because
* it introduces new methods which may produce shift in power/control because of their different reach, influence etc. But only, of course, if the methods are accessible, usable
* it potential shifts culture to more open, collaborative

In practice I have rather given up on "participation" as a useful framework for social change because it is based on the assumption that the power-holders invite others to participate, then listen, and then change policies or practice. Does this usually happen? Not in my experience.

I think it is more fruitful to look at
* campaigning - with new methods
* social innovation - directly using new methods to tackle old problems
* collaboration - where stakeholders in a system agree on some common goals, develop trusting relationships, and then learn (community of practice), and/or do things together.

Participation is, unfortunately, mostly a process of disempowerment for the "participants".

Thanks so much for bringing some fresh thinking to the issue. It reminds me why I got so disillusioned with being a participation consultant!

Recent posts

Leonie Ramondt20080906

Leonie Ramondt20080906

AndyDearden20080906

AndyDearden20080906

AndyDearden20080905

Hannah Beardon[yyyy][mm][dd]

David Wilcox20080903

George Por[yyyy][mm][dd]

Hannah Beardon[yyyy][mm][dd]

David Wilcox20080902