Lyn Simpson Director , Centre for Service Innovation, Queensland University of Technology Gardens Point, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001 le.simpson@qut.edu.au
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 16 October 2002
Access to information and communication technologies is increasingly being seen as critical for both economic and social well-being of communities in Australia (Barlow, 1997) and internationally (Talero and Gaudette, 1995). These systems have been viewed as a vehicle for maximising economic opportunities, ensuring international competitiveness and 'build[ing] a better, more prosperous and fairer Australia' (Innovate Australia, 1995). Implicit in this notion of a 'fairer Australia' is recognition that the technology promise must be inclusive of all Australians, regardless of geographic locality. The report of the Information Policy Advisory Council (1997), for example, is about 'deploying the true miracles of the communications and information revolution to … create new futures for all Australians'. In the recent past, there has been much encouragement from reports of the success of community informatics (CI) initiatives such as the introduction of community technology centres, telecottages and telecentres both in Australia and internationally (Albrechtsen, 1998; Horner and Reeve, 1991; Hunter, 1999).
Others have raised concerns about the impact of CI initiatives on communities, and the conditions that affect the implementation and success of such initiatives (Easdown, 1997; Dabinett, 2000). Some communities have discovered that 'government interventions that neglect or undermine [the] social infrastructure can go seriously awry', and that such well-intentioned projects can 'heedlessly ravage existing social networks' (Putnam, 1993, p. 4), both by creating new pressures on previously sound community networks, and by being a catalyst for 'cracks' that may already exist in the community's social infrastructure. Dabinet (2000), in specifically discussing failed initiatives in Britain, suggested that reasons for the projects' failure could include the tension between commercial and community aspects of the network, poor communications, unrealistic expectations, conflicting agendas, a continual need for capital and a degree of strategic and operational mismanagement.
This paper draws on a broad range of CI projects with varying management structures, different objectives and diverse target communities and audiences to identify some key questions to consider in relation to policy and the design and implementation of CI initiatives. These questions are equally of concern for federal, state and local government as well as community development workers and others with responsibility for the design and implementation of CI initiatives.
Examining a range of CI initiatives has clearly indicated the need for more holistic approaches to understanding and evaluating CI initiatives to fully appreciate the complexities that impact upon the uptake and outcomes of CI initiatives, and upon the communities in which the initiatives are located. A theoretical framework that incorporates a social capital perspective is useful in enabling a more holistic approach to understanding and evaluating such complexities.
A number of elements, both technological and human, provide crucial foundations for effective, sustainable CI implementation. Implementation needs to be facilitated by a prepared technical environment, but equally the target community needs to be ready to engage with the technology (Easdown, 1997; Gillard et al., 1996; The Rural Women and ICTs Research Team, 1999).
The extent to which social capital exists in a community is a critical factor in the take up of CI initiatives. A community must have sufficient capacity, in terms of its social capital, to accept the technology in order for innovative initiatives to succeed (Mannion, 1997). Thus effective planning for CI initiatives needs to assess the levels of social capital present in a community, and incorporate strategies directed towards building community capacity.Drawing on diffusion of innovation (Kautz and Larsen, 2000; Rogers, 1995; Valente, 1996; Valente and Davis, 1999) and community development literature (Lane and Dorfman, 1997; Wilkinson, 1989), and previous research, we argue that there are two key components to the process of building community capacity - soft technology and social infrastructure (defined below). These components interact with one another and with existing levels of social capital within the community, to further enhance social capital. Planning for the introduction of new CI initiatives, therefore, needs to address building community capacity through strategies relating to soft technology and social infrastructure.
An adequate framework, then, needs to incorporate the following key components:
These components contribute to the development of social capital and, in turn, to the community's ability to sustain development initiatives. Figure 1 depicts the interwoven nature of these elements, and the way in which social capital can both emerge from ICT initiatives and feed back into the community. While the hard telecommunications infrastructure provides a necessary base, the interlocking dimensions of soft technology and social infrastructure provide the foundation for the growth of social capital. Social capital is, in turn, an enabler that stimulates community development - in this instance, development through CI initiatives.
Figure 1. Elements of successful CI implementation and community capacity building from a social capital perspective [For further discussion of the framework see Simpson et al, 2001, p. 22]
Examining projects using this framework has identified a number of key issues and challenges for CI initiatives. A number of these issues will be discussed below, together with questions arising from those issues. Other key issues such as sustainability are being addressed by other speakers and will not be addressed here.
Many CI projects by necessity focus on provision of hard technology due to inadequate existing telecommunications infrastructure. Community conflict can be generated over the nature and timing of the hard technology choices because of uncertainties regarding future telecommunications plans for the community. The location of community technology centres and public access points can be problematic - in particular, between those who perceive such facilities primarily as social and cultural resources for the community, and those who focus on the economic benefits for the community. Policy and funding agencies are more often concerned with the latter, seeking outputs that focus on numbers of users, numbers of jobs and economic outcomes of CI initiatives as their success indicators, rather than a holistic understanding of the consequences for the community.
There is little evidence of impacts on community social capital that can be attributed solely to the installation of CI hardware. Many projects that have adopted a 'build it and they will come' approach have been doomed to early failure. Uptake of public access is often variable, depending on opening hours, appropriateness of location, and level and type of support offered to encourage participation from a broad range of community sectors. Placing stronger emphasis on building human capacity through soft technologies of awareness raising and training increases community receptiveness to CI and confidence to explore the technology.
Key questions in terms of infrastructure include:
A common limitation for CI initiatives is the shortage and, in some cases, total absence of suitably qualified and experienced technical support personnel to service and maintain equipment and infrastructure. Some projects appear successful initially but ultimately collapse because of lack of access to local technical competence. Increased costs, inconvenience and offline time as hardware has to be taken or sent to other centres for repair can seriously undermine the effectiveness of CI initiatives. Further, an inability to meet specific local technical needs such as a lack of knowledge of adaptive technologies and purpose-specific software solutions can limit opportunities for access for people with disabilities.
Ensuring the sustainability of community access to technical skills requires widespread community support. Such support is underpinned by community understanding of the potential contribution the project will make to the community - in both economic and social terms - to encourage community input and support. Community members are not always well informed about local CI project goals and their potential returns to the community, such as new business and employment opportunities that could contribute to the long-term sustainability of the CI initiative. Effective use of local media and marketing of CI initiatives within the community can avoid a range of problems for CI initiatives, and can engender cooperation and collaborative solutions to issues such as technical support.
Key questions in terms of technical support include:
Public access points are found in a range of locations including libraries, schools, cafes, and youth centres. Patterns of usage of these facilities vary, dependent upon the groups who chose to use them. Communities need to offer a range of public access points to ensure equitable access for all sectors of the community.
To maximise the potential of public access points, CI developers need to have a sound understanding of local social norms that may influence the way in which a community interacts with a project as it unfolds. The social norms that informally govern what is considered appropriate behaviour for using the internet in a library, for example, will be quite different from those governing use in a local youth centre or café, and can differ in each community. In some cases, norms may constrain individuals from using the resource at all - for instance, locating a public access point in an institutional setting such as the local school can inhibit use by members whose life experiences would make them feel uncomfortable in that environment.
Some CI developers adopt a short-term view of public access points simply as part of an awareness-raising strategy, to assist people to trial the technology at the public access site in order to make choices about future purchases of their own equipment. Others view the provision of public internet access more pragmatically for example as a service for tourists that could operate on a user-pays basis. However, ongoing free public access is important (in addition to user-pays sites) particularly for those people where free public access will provide their only opportunity to participate in the information society. For others, being able to access the internet from a public venue may be essential because of issues relating to personal privacy and safety, such as seeking information or support in relation to domestic violence or other sensitive health or legal matters, which may preclude use of home-based internet access.
Further, public access points have the potential to serve important social purposes in a community, to diversify and strengthen social networks and contribute to the growth of social capital. To fulfil their potential as a means of building community social capital, public access points need to be underpinned by deliberate strategies that encourage the formation of networks across disparate demographic groups, and take into account the way in which social norms can influence take-up - or lack of take-up - by different groups in the community. Older people, for example, can perceive computers and the internet as being 'something for young people' if no one in their peer group has been exposed to the possibilities of CI. Once introduced to the technology in a meaningful way, however, particularly with a supportive group of friends, older people are frequently among the most enthusiastic of users .
Key questions in terms of public access include:
Soft technology is a key element in the diffusion of CI initiatives through building user confidence and comfort with the technology. The extent to which users can understand the relative advantage, relevance and compatibility of the technology, demystify the complexity of the technology, observe others using the technology and trial the technology have long been acknowledged as key variables in the rate of diffusion (Rogers 1995). Individualised awareness raising, opportunities to trial the technology, training activities, and learner support are key elements in creating within the community the desire, motivation and enthusiasm to trial and take up the technology.
However, awareness raising and training activities are often provided through short-term limited project funding. Consequently, many users in the community do not access such user support because the funded activities have ceased before they become aware of the CI initiative in their community. Particular strategies are needed to ensure that awareness raising and training are ongoing and responsive to the varying and expanding needs of users - for example maintaining introductory courses, but at the same time providing more advanced training as early adopters become more proficient with the technology. Closing down awareness raising and training too early may exclude the late adopters in the community from benefiting from the initiative. Projects that rely on training early adopters only and for their knowledge to disseminate informally across the community are limiting widespread and timely uptake. Equally, CI initiatives that do not include an educative component to expose the community to other success stories and innovative uses of the technology are not providing the stimulus for local creativity and CI solutions to local needs.
Key questions in terms of soft technology include:
CI initiatives with a broad geographical focus can encounter difficulties in establishing and maintaining cooperative relationships across multiple communities in their regions. This may be due to the close ties that exist within the communities themselves. Small communities are often characterised by strong norms of cooperation and reciprocity, as well as high levels of local participation and cohesiveness that are indicators of substantial social capital within those communities. Equally however there can be fewer signs of cooperation or reciprocity with other communities in the region, suggesting that their social capital is largely restricted to their own community boundaries. The rivalries that can emerge between 'closed' small communities are an important influence on the ability of small communities to work together where misunderstanding, rumour and non-productive competitiveness can hinder CI initiatives to varying extents.
This can be a particularly critical issue for very small communities that need to aggregate demand and collaborate to adopt a regional community perspective to ensure the viability of their CI initiatives, particularly for more isolated communities where distance and limited resources are significant barriers. Bringing together a diverse population with disparate interests creates greater challenges in terms of identifying common goals and collaborative strategies for CI initiatives.
Key questions in terms of cross community collaboration include:
Introducing a new initiative, particularly a CI initiative, has the potential to change the balance of network ties in a community, both positively and negatively. The introduction of CI initiatives can have substantial unforeseen impacts on the existing social infrastructure. Some of these can be beneficial - for example, training conducted through the public access point can bring together groups who have previously had little contact, effectively strengthening inclusive cross-community networks, a critical element of social capital.
However, increasing demand on community members for voluntary involvement with a CI initiative is often achieved at the expense of involvement with previously existing social groups, such as supporting local sporting teams and social groups that play a critical role in the social networks of small communities. Depleting existing social networks can have a negative impact on the whole community, when longstanding social networks based on collaboration and reciprocity are undermined, and opportunities for diverse leadership diminished. These negative impacts are exacerbated in instances where the CI initiative ultimately fails. High expectations generated by CI initatives then are unmet, and new social networks formed through the CI initatives can be left without support or purpose.
Key questions in terms of social infrastructure include:
Community organisations are both born of, and creators of, community capacity and social capital (Warner, 1999). They are intrinsic to the way community is lived in a particular community, being a reflection of the needs, values and priorities of community members. Their involvement in CI generally, as well as specific initiatives, can have significant impact on the community's level of use and receptiveness to a new CI project. Many CI projects have demonstrated the potential of a community portal to bring together and stimulate local community groups and businesses to develop an online presence by providing free-of-charge websites and hosting to community groups lacking other access.
For many community organizations, access to hard infrastructure and appropriate software that meets governance and compliance requirements is beyond their reach financially. Lack of understanding of the potential of CI through lack of exposure to the technology remains a critical issue for community organizations dependent on the fickle nature of project funding for their viability, and volunteer labour for their survival. Consequently many community organizations are stretched by maintaining delivery of their services through traditional means and do not have the personnel, time or financial resources to consider the role that CI might play in their vision for the future.
Key questions in terms of community organizations include:
Successful CI projects are generally characterised by community ownership - where individuals within the community feel that the project is of benefit to them, and that its outcomes matters in their lives. Projects that are initiated and managed by a select group - no matter how well-intentioned - but that do not engage in meaningful and inclusive community consultation, or encourage widespread community participation, tend to limit their potential for broad community benefit and sustainability. From our research, effective community consultation, participation and local ownership contributes more to achieving widespread community benefits than quantity of funding or resources available, the amount of local influence held by the management committee, or the outside expertise purchased.
Engaging the community through effective consultation is a critical contributor to the success of a CI initiative because the CI project can be shaped to meet local needs rather than being imposed as an externally determined solution. While meaningful, inclusive community consultation and encouraging widespread participation are demanding, resource intensive, expensive and time-consuming for the CI developers and the broader community, failure to engage in these processes can result in CI projects foundering through lack of community support, or lack of understanding of the project goals.
Enabling effective community consultation requires a reassessment of priorities by both funding bodies and project planners. It means allocating funding in ways that build the capacity of the community during the course of the CI initiative, especially in terms of on-going community consultation and evaluation processes. Too often communities are left with the hard technology and basic introductory IT skills but little increase in community capacity at the end of a CI project. Where the CI initiative does not have a specific intent to transfer knowledge and foster community capacity, the expertise is often retained by external consultants, researchers or a select few in the community. Instead, this requires allocating resources to ensure widespread community involvement in capacity building activities, by specifically targeting and involving existing community groups and taking active steps to reach those who are typically marginalised in the community.
Providing resources to support the processes of meaningful and inclusive community consultation and ongoing project evaluation in this way has a number of benefits. They make the consultation and evaluation processes themselves capacity-building activities that increase the community's stock of human resources, such as knowledge and skills. They have the potential to increase the community's sense of ownership of, and involvement in the resulting project, and to build community understanding of the initiative's long-term contribution to community wellbeing and capacity. They can also assist community cliques to put their different agendas to one side and work together for a common goal that is valued by all sectors of the community.
Key questions in terms of local ownership include:
Ongoing community support for a project depends on whether the community perceives it to be doing 'a good job' and generating good outcomes. This outcome depends upon the community having a clear idea of the project's objectives and goals, so that unrealistic or inaccurate expectations are avoided. Similarly, community members need to be kept up-to-date with ongoing project activities. Insufficient information-sharing can generate a range of problems for projects, and even thriving projects can be undermined by the community perception that 'nothing is happening' or by misconceptions about whether the CI project was responsible for specific achievements or oversights.
Insufficient consultation, community involvement and information sharing thus may weaken community support for projects and increase criticism and rumour, undermining positive project activities. More importantly, such situations deplete the levels of trust in the community, and impact negatively on the 'stores' of social capital upon which the community can draw for future development initiatives.
Key questions in terms of information sharing include:
This paper has raised some key questions in relation to CI initiatives. Substantial amounts of funding have been directed toward resourcing CI initiatives in recent years. Given the trend towards declining services in communities, it is critical that such investment, in both monetary and human capital terms, is maximised by carefully considering these questions in terms of policy and project design and implementation.
The impacts of CI initiatives stretch well beyond the installation of the hard infrastructure. CI initiatives can have important outcomes - both intended and unintended - on community social infrastructure, and thus social capital. It is important that CI developers and funding agencies recognise the need for more careful analysis and understanding of communities before implementing CI initiatives - for example, how local community networks operate, what tangible and intangible resources the community can draw upon to sustain the initiative, what external networks or partnerships the community needs to access to complement local resources and, as an essential underpinning to these elements, the level of social capital that exists in the community.
Not considering these questions can have negative consequences, not only for the CI initiative, but also for future community engagement and proactivity if the CI initiative in any way depletes existing social capital. Asking such questions, and adopting a more holistic approach to CI implementation can make a difference not only to the sustainability of CI initiatives but also to a better understanding of the complexity and consequences for communities. Equally, adopting a more holistic approach through a social capital framework requires a reconsideration and more critical approach to policy development based on a more realistic understanding of the role of CI in the social and economic development of communities.
This presentation builds on a segment of a paper, 'The Design and Implementation of Rural Communication Technology initiatives: Guideliness for Project Planners' by L Simpson, L Wood, L Daws and A Seinen, presented at the IT for Regional Areas Conference, Rockhampton Queensland August 2002.
Albrechtsen, H. (1998). The tele-cottages in the Nordic countries. Telecommunications Journal, 55(5), 307-315.
Barlow, D. M. (1997). Electronic community networks in rural Australia: a model for social development in the information society. Australian Social Work, 50(1), 3-8.
Dabinett, G. (2000). Regenerating communities in the UK: getting plugged into the information society? Community Development Journal, 35(2), 157-166.
Daws, L., & Pini, B. (2001). Queensland Rural Women's Network BridgIT Project: Evaluation Report. Brisbane.
Daws, L., Seinen, A., Simpson, L., & Wood, L. (2001). Creating Rural Connections - Book 2: Education and Training. Brisbane: Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.
Easdown, W. (1997). The role of the Internet in rural communities (Occasional Paper ): University of Queensland - Gatton College.
Gillard, P., Wale, K., & Bow, A. (1996). Re-engineering telecommunications for the way people want to live: social research in the design of new technologies. Prometheus, 14(1), 80-89.
Horner, D., & Reeve, I. (1991). Telecottages: the potential for rural Australia. Armidale: The Rural Development Centre.
Hunter, A. (1999). Opportunity through CI for regional Australia. Paper presented at the Regional Australia Summit, Department of Transport and Regional Services, Canberra.
Information Policy Advisory Council. (1997). Rural®ional.au/for all: Report of Working Party Investigating the Development of Online Infrastructure and Services Development in Regional and Rural Australia. Department of Communications and the Arts. Available: http://www.ipac.gov.au/report.ipac.htm10 June 1997].
Innovate Australia. (1995). Innovate Australia - Information and Communication Services and Technologies. Available: http://www.dist.gov.au/events/innovate/.
Kautz, K., & Larsen, E. A. (2000). Diffusion theory and practice: disseminating quality management and software process improvement innovations. Information Technology and People, 13(1), 11-26.
Lane, B., & Dorfman, D. (1997). Strengthening Community Networks: The Basis for Sustainable Community Renewal.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Longo, J. (1999). Multiple meanings and a myriad of terms in the space between the market and the state (Working paper). Victoria: Centre for Public Studies.
Mannion, J. (1997). Partnership, participation and capacity building: rural development based on local bottom-up strategies. Available: http://www.rural-europe.aeidl.be/rural-en/biblio/defis/art02.htm [1999, 10 January].
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect Inc., 4(13).
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Seinen, A., Daws, L., Wood, L., & Simpson, L. (2001). Creating Rural Connections - Book 3: Online Service Delivery and Support. Brisbane: Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.
Simpson, L., Wood, L., Daws, L., & Seinen, A. (2001). Creating Rural Connections - Book 1: Project overview. Brisbane: Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.
Talero, E., & Gaudette, P. (1995). Harnessing information for development: A proposal for a World Bank Group vision and strategy. World Bank. Available: http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/harnessing/ [2002, 2 May].
The Rural Women and ICTs Research Team. (1999). The New Pioneers. Brisbane: The Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.
Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18, 69-89.
Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 55-67.
Warner, M. (1999). Social capital construction and the role of the local state. Rural Sociology, 64(3), 373-393.
Wilkinson, K. (1989). The future of community development. In J. Christenson & J. Robinson (Eds.), Community Development in Perspective (pp. 337-354). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Wood, L., Simpson, L., Seinen, A., & Daws, L. (2001). Creating Rural Connections - Book 4: Building Community Capacity. Brisbane: Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.