The article “Moving community informatics research forward”, by Aldo de Moor, was written as reflexion after last year Community Informatic meeting in Prato. It brings some important points that, according to him and what he saw in the Conference, should be addressed by practioners and researchers in the area.
Aldo makes a note on the difference between community informatics and development informatics: “The difference between community informatics and development informatics in this respect is only one of degree. Whereas development informatics in general could be said to be dealing more with the practicalities of technology implementation and adoption, community informatics seems to focus more on the social interaction aspects of the technologies-in-use. Still, as with any of these complex but related socio-technical fields, it seems not very fruitful to overly demarcate their boundaries. ”
He makes the case to highlight four aspects which are essential to understand CI projects and research, namely: context/value, cases, process/methodology and systems.
Aldo notes that both projects and research in the field are very sensitive to local context and needs and that there is a wide variety of case studies available which offer a strong reference base for the development of the field. In the other hand, Aldo also points out that the field in general lacks proposes for a robust theoretical framework that could facilitate to transpose the case experiences to other contexts. This would be true both regarding methodologies and the relationship between the communities and the information systems, like Aldo describes: “The paradox is that, in contrast with general IS development approaches, community informatics research seems to have much more of a systems way of thinking in practice, while being weaker in the more theoretical, systematic approach to systems analysis, design, implementation and evaluation.”
Aldo then gives some ideas of how it would be possible to move research in the field forward, listing some points which, according to him, to be better developed and serve as reference to futere research: definitions, systematic approach towards best practices and a new approach towards information systems, which could be described as testbeds and collaboratories, such as living labs.
In relation to Aldo's post, Michael Gurnstein made some interesting comments in the CI mailing list, which were complemented by Larry Stillmann regarding what they consider a crucial point in terms of CI practice and research, as it “has as a central concern engaging with and influencing policy”.
Gurnstein seems to defend a stronger positioning among the CI field towards influencing policy makers, as they are key points for the sustainability of CI innitiatives. “This of course, isn't easy -- policy makers are in many (even most) cases quite indifferent to research and researchers but as other more top down approaches to using ICT for economic and social betterment fail as they inevitably seem to do, then the role that can be played by research and practice in demonstrating the usefulness (and long term sustainability) of community based strategies becomes ever more compelling.”
I wonder if this statement also implies that research in the field of CI should also become more politically and action engaged, in the sense of moving out from the observation case study to a more action-research strategy which would include a deeper involvement with policy-makers.
Posted in
- dani matielo's blog
- Login to post comments